The Osprey has about the same installed power as a CH53E. It has payload slightly in excess of a Blackhawk. That would be about 12,300 hp and a 14,360lb useful load. This was from Nick's old presentation. On another 174 hp, the CH53E ekes out 36,515 lbs of useful load. The Blackhawk is listed as 10,484 lbs useful for its 3780 hp. Clearly, the Osprey is in the Very Large Engine camp.
Maybe at speed, tilt rotor technology can be more efficient than X2 technology. We will have to see what the numbers are when the X2 boys are done. Partly you have to look at the mission to determine efficiency. If you are just going to use the VTOL capability to takeoff, then go boring a long distance with little payload, then land VTOL, it is a lot of effort to build/pay for/maintain a tilt rotor compared to going a few extra miles to a runway with a real turboprop. If you are flying somewhere for a rescue, with a bunch of hovering, I bet the X2 technology comes ahead in efficiency pretty quickly.
If they achieve 250 kt cruise can you really say that cruise is a shortcoming?
Regarding the propeller torque effect in high speed cruise, I recon it would be about the same as any large turboprop - nothing. There is ample control power in both airplanes and helicopters to deal with things like that. You are getting blade area confused with control power.
Perhaps Sikorsky should spend more time under the hood (Engineering) and less time polishing the paint job (Marketing).
You crack me up! Spend a little less time polishing that website and build something! Or keep polishing the website but why slag off the folks who are actually doing something?
-- IFMU