cool design, of course good for reduced drag with less vortex at the wing tips. BUT unlikely to have sufficient single engine performance, in consequence if one engine/prop/gearbox etc. delivers reduced power/quits, the PIC must reduce equally the other side as well... Not so cool!

Five seats isn't a lot of commuters. And still with all the safety issues that make siting airports a difficult thing. Perhaps it's time to bring back (or expand) the water-landing sector. Many, many cities have rivers, lakes and reservoirs.

I think those are way cool looking.

Cross wind landings won't end well with the wing tip props scraping the ground. Any engine failure should end in a quick flip and spin.

IF the vortex is streaming air from beneath the wing to the fast lowpressure above the wing going from outside the wingtip upwards, the last prop should correct by going downwards on the outside. But which direction is thee first prop going? the osprey was higher, but did it better.

It looks like a cat with its arms and claws out, ready to pounce and catch the feather-on-a-string, and also like Leonardo's war chariot that chops up soldiers who might be running at it from the sides. I wonder about extra stresses on the wings, though, during the chopping. And anyone who might be out in the airplane yard carrying skis or a briefcase full of gold to or from the plane, or wobbling on high heels.

I thought the same thing as dan, but then I realized that was the main reason for twin props- each is driven by its own electric motor, reducing the asymmetric thrust in an (single) engine out situation.

Nobody's concern is a bit more valid. I, myself, was in a Cessna 172 landing at Pioneer Airport in Oshkosh when we were caught in a sudden wind gust that rolled the plane up on one wingtip only a few feet off the ground. My buddy was extremely quick to recover and safely land the plane, but a prop on the end of the wing would have probably been made recovery impossible that close to the ground.

In my own flying lessons, I encountered the same thing upon landing- fortunately I was about ten feet higher off the ground, and had little problem recovering in time.

Another dangerous silly plane that is going nowhere. Between engine out and ground strikes of the props only show how bad some engineers are they would build this.

Insightful observations by readers!

1) What happens in a strong cross-wind landing - when the pilot tilts the upwind wing earthward (to prevent flipping the plane) and those wingtip props hit the runway? Tilt-rotor aircraft with wingtip props rotate those props skyward when landing, and/or have more than 3-4 feet of clearance to the ground.

2) When an engine fails on a normal twin engine aircraft, the aircraft will yaw (aircraft wants to spin on its axis) and dive in the direction of the failed engine. When those props are located inward, closer to the fuselage, proper training allows the pilot two correct. However, with the props at the wingtips, this failure condition is more serious, creating more dramatic yaw leverage.

Electric engines *are reliable, mostly, but variable props not quite so. (I flew L-188s, their props have 7 safety stops). A failure of an engine on a wing tip is not to be thought about. The *only defence would be to instantly reduce power on the opposite engine. However, given those prop diameters to absorb the available power, why on earth are they not installing them along wing? Nearly the entire wing would be blanketed with prop-wash when under power. In that configuration, a worst-case engine/prop failure could be dealt with by a partial reduction of opposite power, or even perhaps none, and an inner power unit failure would be harmless. With the advertised high-lift devices installed, and with such added effective airflow (except as the throttles were closed!), it would almost levitate off the strip! What a magic aircraft it would be. Unlike the above silliness.