I remember the rendering of your tail Brian, and it a was very complex 3d sculpting compared to the utilitarian stuff I do. I want to try some simple D tube bends to begin with. I want a "tall" tail but I don't want a top support so I'll have to do some thinking on how to make that work, if it is possible. A fairly center mounted semi cruciform tail can be done if the tail boom is lifted.
You're kind of describing what I'm doing. The tail you may be referring to was an old design from ages ago (wow, has it been that long?) Like the one you're contemplating, mine will also be a tall-ish design with no Yard Arm, to borrow Ernie's vernacular. That was part of the reasoning behind doing the outrigger cones and tension struts midway down the tailboom; To minimize twisting of the tube under load from the empennage. It was the simpler, lighter solution to the tail support problem that tied right into the diagonal bracing, which was itself done to reinforce the tailboom per some practical observations by Doug Riley. My hope is that these 2 systems working together in opposition (tension and compression) create enough rigidity in the tailboom to allow a larger tail than would be allowed on an un-braced tube. Knowing those limits is a gray area though.
Design-wise, complex but not overly. Similar internal cross-sparring to a tall-tail but in a 2/3 height format. Apogee of airfoil curve lands on spar in all 4 directions from spar intersection, but scaled longitudinally to form independent LE/TE sweeps. Separate vertical stab and hinged rudders by the way. I wouldn't attempt an all-flying tall(ish)-tail with only a single pivot point, cantilevered support. Fortunately the GyroBee configuration capitalizes on the added leverage of a longer tailboom, requiring less empennage volume than a close-coupled tall-tail. This provides a good bit of distance along the tailboom to anchor a vertical fin rigidly all the way up to a safe distance behind the prop. HS height is approx. 2/3 the prop radius (1/3 lower than prop thrust line) where it can take advantage of maximum high-speed airflow... I imagine the area behind the prop hub isn't doing much for thrust, so centering the HS there is essentially removing some of it's mid-span width from being effective as a down-force element. The HS and VS have opposite sweep directions, with the VS sweeping forward which I'll explain.
The only real deviation into complexity is the rudders. I pluralize them because the hinge angles change at the HS. The hinge below the HS leans forward about 20 degrees while the one above leans back about 30 degrees. They are connected with a U-joint to operate synchronously. The reasoning here is, in a vertical descent, the rudder under the HS has more authority than a vertically hinged one. (The rudder above is blocked by the HS in a vertical descent.) But if both rudders were forward tilted on the same axis you'd have an airframe pitching moment introduced in normal flight because of the downward vectored deflection. So I chose an equal-and-opposite approach that isn't as efficient in normal flight, but more effective in an emergency situation. And I do hope someone on the Forum will chime in if there is a glaring error in my understanding.
Perhaps the two of us will go down this road together. As I was writing this rather long-winded reply, the rest of the order from Aircraft Spruce just arrived. I hope that through some trial-and-error documentation you might get the bug too. Comparing notes and sharing tips would be all too welcome.
Brian