That’s still not aircraft-like, because the nacelles can’t be rotated fully horizontally. Actually, it’s not really helicopter-like either.
Apparently there are some situations where the two rotors don’t receive the same power. If I recall, one of the engines may have been surging, though I don’t recall the specific report or the details. In any case, it’s more than just a simple driveshaft connecting the two engines/rotors, and it especially can’t fail while in helicopter mode.
I should have been more specific that I was referring to dynamic stability, where once that mass starts to roll in one direction, it wants to continue rolling in that direction rather than returning back to wings-level. As you stated, that inertia has a resistance to change, so it will take more effort to roll back to wings level.
Gee, all those Lycomings and Continentals keep having these problems with their cylinders being blown to bits due to materiel failures within them. Plus all those Cessnas and Pipers keep having all of these materiel failures in wing spars and seat rails and such, requiring multiple AD’s and 100s of thousands of dollars across the fleets to remedy.
GA should just get it over with and permanently ground these things.
Wasn’t the Japan crash due to a failure to land at a nearby airport per SOP when they received indication of an imminent failure in the gear train? They kept on flying towards a base much further away, until the imminent failure materialized and the gear train disintegrated while in flight.
“For inspiration” should be “in desperation.” They were having trouble with inadequate roll control effectiveness in even mildly turbulent air using weight shifting and were nervous that a competitor would make first flight before they did. Then they happened to notice seagulls flexing their wingtips when landing in wind gusts and grasped at the concept, implementing wing warping on their airplane and making first flight. They patented wing warping and charged exorbitant licensing fees from anyone who used the patent, even though they discovered that the technology was ill-suited due to a paradox: the larger the airplane the greater the lift, the stiffer the wing structure, the more difficult to warp it for roll control. And stiff-arming it cracked the structure, tore the fabric and allowed water ingress. Yet their aggressive lawsuits for patent infringement clogged the courts and stifled aviation in the U.S. for years.
Fortunately someone discovered that Matthew Boulton, a British inventor, had patented the concept of the trailing-edge hinged “rudder” in 1868 for roll control of airplanes. So the aileron as we know it today was invented some 35 years before the Wright’s first flight, by a guy who wasn’t even a pilot or terribly interested in airplanes, but due to a clerical error the U.K. patent office failed to find it when the Wrights filed their patent application.