I actually know someone at radia and asked them this exact question last year. Apparently the blades are also extremely fragile and couldn't withstand the forces of being mounted on an aircraft. The problem with lighter than air is that the wind farms tend to be in places with, well, a lot of wind. Not ideal places for lighter than air vehicles.
Helicopters just aren't efficient enough, would have the same issues with wind (especially when carrying a giant airfoil), and would damage the blade if they came out even a bit out of formation.
You're right it doesn't make intuitive sense, but the people doing this are pretty damn smart and actually did think of these things!
I really don't think they did, the problems that need to be solved to retrofit existing airframes to carry a lightweight 300' load pale in comparison to what's needed to design a whole new jumbo sized airframe. Especially since once they've designed an airframe that's only good for carrying large low density loads to rough fields, then that will be the only thing it's good for.
A large wide body airliner with a big-ass shell and gravel kit retrofitted is still a large widebody airliner. Just one that happens to have a decent amount of headroom.
> The problem with lighter than air is that the wind farms tend to be in places with, well, a lot of wind.
On the other hand, an airship doubles as a crane, so there would be no need to truck it from the airfield and then crane it into place. You can deliver it directly to the rotor hub.
Countering the wind with computer-controlled thrusters would seem to be the way to go. Also, there is a large tower already there that you could use as a stabilising mast.
Helicopters just aren't efficient enough, would have the same issues with wind (especially when carrying a giant airfoil), and would damage the blade if they came out even a bit out of formation.
You're right it doesn't make intuitive sense, but the people doing this are pretty damn smart and actually did think of these things!