Tell me what's wrong with my Stupid Concept Gyro™

Could not the rotor be designed to specifically accommodate slow speed flight? A high torque motor pushing against the drag of a high-lift rotor?

I read (somewhere) that broader blades allowed for greater lift out of a smaller rotor disc, but that the result was reduced maximum speed for the same engine power. It was considered an inefficient way to fly versus lighter, thinner blades, so it was never really pursued commercially.

I'm not saying I'm right or that such a craft is possible--hence why I'm posting this here.
 
15cof2v.jpg

I think you'll have to loose the pusher prop. Every spent shell from the machine guns will be going through the prop.

Maybe place the jet engines under the fuselage with the air intakes ahead of the deck for the same reason.
 
I think you'll have to loose the pusher prop. Every spent shell from the machine guns will be going through the prop.

Maybe place the jet engines under the fuselage with the air intakes ahead of the deck for the same reason.

I figured the shells would be contained within the craft, rather than ejecting them. This is what the A-10 Warthog does, at any rate. If not, then they would be funneled down a chute to keep them clear of the prop. (probably one of the landing gear I didn't spend time to model).

As for the pulse jets, they're basically a hollow metal tube with tappet valves up front, so they wouldn't suffer much from stray shells bouncing off the intake. But if it was really an issue, I could always switch to valveless pulse jets (the intake faces rearward, because it also produces thrust in between pulses).

Valved pulse jets (like the V-1 "buzz bomb" had)
 
Top