Hi John,
> So, given we have helicopters and the Osprey, what is your USP?
Unique selling point (USP) is a the combination of range AND speed AND vertical agility, ALL on the same mission. Design studies have concluded this aircraft is 1/2 the size, 1/3 the weight, 1/3 the fuel of conventional helicopters for long range missions. The structure is basically a helicopter with the added weight of a wing. This added weight more than pays for itself in increased range. The basic total gross weight metrics are 1/2 structure, 1/6 fuel, and 1/3 payload for a long range (750nm to 1000nm, 200 knots to 260 knots cruise at 20,000 ft) mission.
> The mono design is fantastic engineering, but can your design offer something not covered by either helicopters or conventional tilt rotors?
This project started in 2004 with a conceptual study that concluded the design would have fantastic performance if technically feasible, see
http://www.baldwintechnology.com/FY0...ign_Report.pdf
This was followed by a conceptual/preliminary point design reaching the same conclusions, see
http://www.baldwintechnology.com/MTR_AHS_Jan07.pdf and
http://www.baldwintechnology.com/MTR_AHS_08.pdf .
> I can see potential disadvantages compared to the osprey - central location of the tilt mechanism makes locating the pilot interesting, the twin rotor is more complex engineering than the osprey - but not clear to me the advantages. Do you think it will be cheaper, or have more lift capacity, or less maintenance?
Pilot location becomes easier at larger scales. My preference is out front in helo mode for excellent field of view, which places the pilot below the gearbox in airplane mode and requires sensors for topside situational awareness. This also requires a swivel seat which is doable, but I'm very concerned about proximity to turbine burst. That's why larger scale makes this more practical.
Let's try to avoid a riot, as comparisons of helicopters can become an emotional topic. I think a fair assessment would conclude that the Osprey's a pair of cross coupled, wingtip mounted tiltrotors are significantly more complex than a coaxial helicopter. When you add-in the wing structure and actuators to support the wingtip gyroscopic forces and the cross coupled gearboxes for one engine inoperative, you have a rather complex and weighty subsystem. By comparison, coaxial helicopters cancel the gyroscopic forces within the rotor shaft and have just one gearbox with no added weight for one engine inoperative.
In answer to your question, cheaper and more lift capacity for long range missions is a direct result of the conceptual and preliminary design study conclusions referenced above. Of course, if the mission is predominantly vertical lift with limited range and speed, then nothing will ever beat a pure helicopter. Note that this mono tiltrotor design could self deploy and then the wings could be removed for overweight maximum vertical lift capability.
Regarding maintenance costs, industry leaders have speculated that maintenance costs are correlated with vibration which of course is reduced in airplane mode. I've seen no evidence to support this, and the Osprey does not bear this out likely due to the rotor drive complexity discussed above and the harsh desert environment.
Maintenance cost is also correlated with component access. This design exposes most all subsystems to a single level deep maintenance repair action.
Hope I've addressed your questions in the way you had intended.
Doug