This would be a lot cheaper to build.
--
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

>> -- ----------------------------------------------
>>
>> This is even cheaper and easier.
>> Nothing new here. This was done back in the 60's.
>> The pilots had problems with landing because they
>> did not rotate the pilot and he was ahead of the wing
>> so visibility on landing was poor.
>> Modern fly by wire will make it easier to rotate
>> the pilot for helicopter mode.
>>
>> Tie down might be a problem but if all three
>> tie downs are used it would be OK in moderate winds.
>> Strong winds and it would have to go in a high hanger.
>> --  Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
>
>
> And since the whole airframe is operating in disturbed air, you
> wouldn't have to spend so much time on laminar flow.
>
> Chris C.
>
> It would still be twice as fast as any gyro or helicopter and
> have three times the range. Much easier to build than any
> VTOL aircraft I have seen so far.
> --  Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
>

Do you remember Wayne Handley's Raven?  It would seem that this idea
is not that far away.  Us a really big prop a 4 or 5:1 redrive, and
ailerons that go all the way to the root. Like you see in all the RC
competition models, where they hang the plane on the prop.

The beauty about being able to use turbulent sections for the wing,
is you can use 18% or better airfoils (airfoil thickness is 18% of
chord)  This gives you the ability to make a really strong wing with
minimal structure, because of spar depth.  Cirrus just cut 55 pounds
out of their wing.

Weight is the name of the game.

Chris C.

You need coaxial to nuetrilize the torque.
A canard version is more stable when parked.