The whole "retractable forward lift motors" thing seems to be a feature of this "flight test model" only. The other concept picture show a large and blown foreplane, so I'm confused. Are they saying that this sample is ONLY for jet-borne flight, and the one that does wing-borne flight will have a foreplane? Why build two that are different?
The CG issue perplexes me. It is claimed that the final product is a 4-seater, with all the seats forward of the mainplane. That's a load which could be anything from (say) 100kg to 400kg. Now if there is a large foreplane it's conceivable that the CG lies somewhere in the cabin area and this variable load could be accommodated.
But if it is flown with no foreplane then the CG will need to be somewhere around 15% MAC (typical stability point for an unswept "plank" tail-less with a reflexed wing section to give the favourable pitching moments). That means that the occupants will all be ahead of the CG. Now if we assume there is a vast battery weighing more than a brace NFL quarterbacks which is mounted right at the "back end" (please stop me if this techie jargon is getting too complicated) that would balance the occupants. But how would it cope with the massive variations in occupant weight? This doesn't stack up.
The website talks about the final vehicle will charge overnight form a normal mains outlet, and then defines a mission profile of just over an hour's duration. So let's be generous and say a 12:1 charge/use ratio. In the UK/Europe the most you can take out of a mains socket is 13A, which gives you a smidge under 3kW. So if we ignore charging losses that tells us the average power consumption across the mission would be no more than 36kW - 47bhp.
Does it sound reasonable that a vehicle could carry 4 people and luggage at 180mph for 200 miles with vertical take off and landing on an AVERAGE of 47bhp - less than a typical VW conversion in a Turbulent?
There are other techie howlers on the website as well, but the man's down so I'm stopping the kicking.
PDR