Nice, one of my all-time favourite paper designs.

Quote from: Devilfish on December 05, 2022, 10:24:14 PMNeedless to say it never made it off the drawing board, let alone off the ground.  I'm not sure what they'd even want it for tbh

I remember seeing some digital images online of it doing various tasks, it was a long while ago but the three images that have stayed in my memory are where the artist had it winching supplies down to some troops in a forest, doing S.A.R for a downed Fw-190 pilot on a mountain and (probably totally impossible for it to do, as along with the mechanical complexities I doubt it would have much load carrying capability even if they did get it to fly) flying in a slung artillery piece to a position with waiting troops.

The weight of the DB 600 engine alone, (640 kg/1,411 lb wet, equipped) makes it a non-starter.

There's a very good reason that the only exception to the use of turbine engines for tilt-rotor
and tilt-wing aircraft was the Bell XV-3 of the 1950s. It worked OK with its 450hp R985-AN-1
engine, but it didn't have much in the way of reserve power. All of the tilt-wings were turbine
powered.

Quote from: jcf on December 08, 2022, 12:35:24 PMThe weight of the DB 600 engine alone, (640 kg/1,411 lb wet, equipped) makes it a non-starter.

There's a very good reason that the only exception to the use of turbine engines for tilt-rotor
and tilt-wing aircraft was the Bell XV-3 of the 1950s. It worked OK with its 450hp R985-AN-1
engine, but it didn't have much in the way of reserve power. All of the tilt-wings were turbine
powered.

I was thinking along similar lines Jon and your dead on ..and of course to make up for the weight you'd need more power and when your done you'll still be in the same place..yep it bigger but the power to weight ratio would still be screwed.
One idea would be to fit it with the Jumo 004B1 turbo jets from the ME262 but those weren't even invented yet .
It was just to early for its time .

The large geared down props may provide more lift than they appear... How about using a radial engine like most early large helicopters did...

Those props are quite narrow ..if it had more of them then you'd get more lift ..it's the same problem the Hughes 500 series had..the early brids at 4 blades and that was fine but when the army wanted it to do more it couldn't.. not enough power or lift hence why now it's 5 blades and a heap more power and still a small package..hell the US Army is upgrading it again ..can't wait to see this version.
A radial is quite a large package for the power they put out ..the small ones have bugger all power ..the big ones ..well so on and so forth ..
It's like the Continental R975-C1 or -C4 9 cylinder radial engine which was used in the Sherman tank..considered a light weight engine it weighted 955 lbs (433 kgs) and produced only 400 hp ..no where near enough or the B-17s engine .. 1200 hp and 1315lbs (596 kgs ) .
The problem in those days was they didn't have a light weight engine which put out alot of HP and that continued for a long while until the turbine was mounted in choppers and airplanes.

Pulse jets on the rotor tip's then

Hahaha love it matey..love it   

Quote from: Flyer on December 09, 2022, 02:01:47 AMPulse jets on the rotor tip's then

Way to go, think 'Rotodyne'. 

QuotePulse jets on the rotor tip's then 

That's how it was done on the Doblhoff WNF 342, one Siemens-Halske (Bramo)
Sh 14 7-cylinder radial for propulsion and tip-jets. It was the first successful tip-jet
helicopter, after the war Fairey filed for, and received, a patent on one of Doblhoff's
concepts on his behalf. 

Doblhoff WNF 342

You cannot view this attachment.

Ok i want one ...thats  a very cool little bird and yupp.... i want one ,,screw it ..two ...i know im gonna crash at least one