@Rigga: Nosey is fine by me. Let's see if I can answer.
>I'd guess your model to be about 4ft wing span.
Pretty good guess. Wing span is 5ft and rotor blades are 550mm diameter.
>Do the wings rise/lower under "lift" or are they powered up/down? (I >believe that would cause a major power drain when you most need it)
You are correct, they lift themselves so no power drain.
>How do you (can you) balance the wings when transiting?
CG is correctly positioned at the mast in hover and at the wing quarter chord in airplane mode. You'll notice that the gearbox/motor move aft and under the wing during conversion. When fully deployed, the wing actually behaves like a large horizontal stabilizer in helo mode.
>What do you recon the wing lift/weight ratio to be? I think that would be
>the main ratio to make this cost effective.
In helo mode, has basically the same weight fraction as a helicopter, less the added weight of the wings which is slightly under 10% of gross weight. In airplane mode, a cleaned-up fuselage and appropriate wing together have an aerodynamic L/D of about 10, and with the proprotor propulsive efficiency in the neighborhood of 75-85% yields an Lift/Drag effective of better than 7. Studies show breakthrough range and speed while still having helo agility, for design scales up to heavy lift.
>I assume you controls are based on Kamov designs?
The small functional demonstrator has upper and lower swashplates linked, and a differential collective rod up the hollow shaft for the upper head only. Our target performance demonstrator design has independent upper and lower shashplates, with control rods for the upper swashplate inside a standpipe and controlling from above the upper head. Kamov is different from both these designs, with upper and lower swash plates linked together like our small model, but a more complex arrangement for differential collective that affects both upper and lower rotors equally.
Doug