Ask Lemmy

Without going into the aerodynamics, which plenty of others have gone into, the main problems I see are:

• The structural integrity of the wings is effectively kneecapped by those 2 rotors. There's almost no material remaining where the wings meet the body and there's a lot of force that needs to transfer through that area.
• Unless the center of gravity is within the triangle defined by the rotors, you're going to have a really bad time trying to control that thing during vertical flight.
• Where would all the fuel and drivetrain for 4 props (which all take up significant space) live? There is almost certainly minimal room for any sort of cargo or payload.
• Why would you want a "thick unitary" frame (I'm assuming you mean unibody here)? We put thin skin with a supporting skeleton on aircraft to reduce the weight of the craft itself without sacrificing too much rigidity, which makes more weight available for fuel and/or cargo.

Is this a generated image? In addition to the font being the one that generated images tend to use, there's some callouts here that also just don't make sense: the double "pure one-piece static frame" and "thick, unitary body frame" callouts are, I think, saying the same thing in two unintuitive ways, and along with the "long clean wings" callout, none of them really have anything to do with the design concept here. Additionally, you've repeated the "maximum efficiency winged vtol configuration" and "cheapest minimalist one-piece construction" notes on the side, neither of which are necessarily true or provable from first principles based on the design- quite the opposite, if anything.