Ken King
Nice concept.
I can't establish if it has hover capabilities (doesn't appear to) or if it a STOL (Short Take OFF / Landing) aircraft with a low stall speed.
Mel Tisdale
@ Ken King
I had the same questions (and the same opinion; "Nice concept").
I think the fact that the rotating wing goes through 100 degrees means that it does actually hover, though how it moves sideways or rotates in the horizontal plane is not obvious. I assume that it is possible to adjust the attack angle of the prop blades on one side relative to that of those on the other side in order to achieve these manouvres. I take "so the linkages are simpler" as a clue - what else would the linkages be for if not to adjust the angle of the prop blades?
Their site claims vertical takeoff and landing.
This is pretty much a continuation of the V-22 Osprey. And twin rotor helicopter controls were solved as far back as the CH-47 Chinook.
Adding the box wing adds unnecessary weight to lift in vertical flight mode.
Tim Jonson
Doesn't matter, as long as it can easily hover. Hover time is like 1% of the flight time.
SlowKlue: LANDING GEAR is also just dead weight most of the time but still pretty handy to have when LANDING & TAKING OFF.
Overall I think this is a great idea, but check back with me when they build in one of those aircraft parachutes. This also is dead weight until you need it. Given the frequency with which the bright ideas of small aircraft innovators wind up plowing a field I would not get in one of these unless it had a built in aircraft parachute. Screw whining about the extra weight.
This vehicle needs to have its wings redesigned. so for the company is trying to fly something ugly and aesthetics are just as important as functionality.
@tilsdale There is no feathering (angle adjustment) on the prop blades according to the article. My guess is that fore/aft leveling is accomplished with rotation of the proprotor and side to side leveling is accomplished by differing the prop speeds. Rotating the plane (pivoting in place) could be done with asymmetrical rotation of the proprotor - one prop pointed forward, the other backward. How well that works compared to a tail rotor remains to be seen...
Don Duncan
G-moth: aesthetics is subjective. If this design accomplishes their goal, and I believe it will, the improved functionality will quickly turn this ugly duckling into a beauty. See: Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer.
I am a big fan of the tilt-wing, i.e., control wing, i.e., pivot wing, i.e., Spratt wing built but not tested before the Wrights flew. If the Wrights had not been so convinced of their assumption that the pilot should control stability, and tested the inherently stable control-wing given to them for that purpose, they would have flown earlier, and the history of aircraft design would have changed.
From the control-wing came the freewing, which does everything the 2S hopes to do and more. Unfortunately, the inventor, Hugh Schmittle will only build military drones because it is lucrative and risk free.
Having seen how the Osprey has been fielded finally and the expense of it I'm not a big fan of a multi-task aircraft.
The Osprey has a life only because the USMC was so convinced it was what they needed that they spent a large proportion of their meagre budget to keep funding it.
Once fielded, the powers that be, with no practical experience tried to ram it down our throats insisting it would do our particular mission even after demonstrations showed it woefully inadequate. It has an extremely high blade loading for very rugged terrain. Forget small rocks and branches, that sucker could blow really large and heavy objects around at unimproved landing sites!
Being a long time rotary wing pilot perhaps biases my opinion but on the other hand perhaps it adds some insight to the issue?
All my best wishes to those who continue to want and try to achieve an aircraft that can do the jobs of both fixed wing and rotary wing. I will continue to prefer one or the other depending on the tasks required.