2 Corrected spelling of "aicraft". Properly identified VTOL-capable F-35.
source | link

The V-22 Osprey is quite close to what you describe. The connections from the rotors to the fuselage are in fact wings. During takeoff, it's a rotorcraft, and during flight, it's a fixed wing aicraftaircraft. Rather than a gearbox, they opted for rotating engines.

The project was plagued by cost overruns,

Its [The V-22's] production costs are considerably greater than for helicopters with equivalent capability—specifically, about twice as great as for the CH-53E, which has a greater payload and an ability to carry heavy equipment the V-22 cannot... an Osprey unit would cost around \$60 million to produce, and \$35 million for the helicopter equivalent.

— Michael E. O'Hanlon, 2002.

Another aicraftaircraft similar to your idea is the F-3535B. Rather than foldable rotors, it has a lift fan which connects to the main engine when needed. This aicraftaircraft was also plagued by cost overruns.

The harsh reality in engineering is not that things are impossible, but that they are extremely expensive, and by combining multiple functions in a single airframe, you will always have to find a compromise between either function. Both the F-3535B and V-22 are very heavy aicraftaircraft due to the engineering complexity, and as such can carry less payload than more dedicated concepts. However, this is deemed acceptable because the U.S. Navy likes their aircraft extremely versatile.

There is also the question of demand. For decades, there has been the idea that aircraft need to be as versatile as possible, but whether this will be the case in the future, remains to be seen. Your concept may be capable of faster travelling and higher payloads than the V-22 (which rotors are too small for heavy lifting and too big for fast flying), but the real question is whether the added weight due to the complexity of this concept will offset the theoretical performance gain.

Finally a technical remark. The most difficult part is transitioning from forward flight to hovering. Rotor blades are very flappy, so how you will manage to deploy them during forward flight (when centrifugal forces do not yet straighten them out, and when the lift vector may be in any direction unless you can carefully control their orientation) remains a large engineering challenge, especially if you want to keep the weight of the aircraft low.

The V-22 Osprey is quite close to what you describe. The connections from the rotors to the fuselage are in fact wings. During takeoff, it's a rotorcraft, and during flight, it's a fixed wing aicraft. Rather than a gearbox, they opted for rotating engines.

The project was plagued by cost overruns,

Its [The V-22's] production costs are considerably greater than for helicopters with equivalent capability—specifically, about twice as great as for the CH-53E, which has a greater payload and an ability to carry heavy equipment the V-22 cannot... an Osprey unit would cost around \$60 million to produce, and \$35 million for the helicopter equivalent.

— Michael E. O'Hanlon, 2002.

Another aicraft similar to your idea is the F-35. Rather than foldable rotors, it has a lift fan which connects to the main engine when needed. This aicraft was also plagued by cost overruns.

The harsh reality in engineering is not that things are impossible, but that they are extremely expensive, and by combining multiple functions in a single airframe, you will always have to find a compromise between either function. Both the F-35 and V-22 are very heavy aicraft due to the engineering complexity, and as such can carry less payload than more dedicated concepts. However, this is deemed acceptable because the U.S. Navy likes their aircraft extremely versatile.

There is also the question of demand. For decades, there has been the idea that aircraft need to be as versatile as possible, but whether this will be the case in the future, remains to be seen. Your concept may be capable of faster travelling and higher payloads than the V-22 (which rotors are too small for heavy lifting and too big for fast flying), but the real question is whether the added weight due to the complexity of this concept will offset the theoretical performance gain.

Finally a technical remark. The most difficult part is transitioning from forward flight to hovering. Rotor blades are very flappy, so how you will manage to deploy them during forward flight (when centrifugal forces do not yet straighten them out, and when the lift vector may be in any direction unless you can carefully control their orientation) remains a large engineering challenge, especially if you want to keep the weight of the aircraft low.

The V-22 Osprey is quite close to what you describe. The connections from the rotors to the fuselage are in fact wings. During takeoff, it's a rotorcraft, and during flight, it's a fixed wing aircraft. Rather than a gearbox, they opted for rotating engines.

The project was plagued by cost overruns,

Its [The V-22's] production costs are considerably greater than for helicopters with equivalent capability—specifically, about twice as great as for the CH-53E, which has a greater payload and an ability to carry heavy equipment the V-22 cannot... an Osprey unit would cost around \$60 million to produce, and \$35 million for the helicopter equivalent.

— Michael E. O'Hanlon, 2002.

Another aircraft similar to your idea is the F-35B. Rather than foldable rotors, it has a lift fan which connects to the main engine when needed. This aircraft was also plagued by cost overruns.

The harsh reality in engineering is not that things are impossible, but that they are extremely expensive, and by combining multiple functions in a single airframe, you will always have to find a compromise between either function. Both the F-35B and V-22 are very heavy aircraft due to the engineering complexity, and as such can carry less payload than more dedicated concepts. However, this is deemed acceptable because the U.S. Navy likes their aircraft extremely versatile.

There is also the question of demand. For decades, there has been the idea that aircraft need to be as versatile as possible, but whether this will be the case in the future, remains to be seen. Your concept may be capable of faster travelling and higher payloads than the V-22 (which rotors are too small for heavy lifting and too big for fast flying), but the real question is whether the added weight due to the complexity of this concept will offset the theoretical performance gain.

Finally a technical remark. The most difficult part is transitioning from forward flight to hovering. Rotor blades are very flappy, so how you will manage to deploy them during forward flight (when centrifugal forces do not yet straighten them out, and when the lift vector may be in any direction unless you can carefully control their orientation) remains a large engineering challenge, especially if you want to keep the weight of the aircraft low.

1
source | link

The V-22 Osprey is quite close to what you describe. The connections from the rotors to the fuselage are in fact wings. During takeoff, it's a rotorcraft, and during flight, it's a fixed wing aicraft. Rather than a gearbox, they opted for rotating engines.

The project was plagued by cost overruns,

Its [The V-22's] production costs are considerably greater than for helicopters with equivalent capability—specifically, about twice as great as for the CH-53E, which has a greater payload and an ability to carry heavy equipment the V-22 cannot... an Osprey unit would cost around \$60 million to produce, and \$35 million for the helicopter equivalent.

— Michael E. O'Hanlon, 2002.

Another aicraft similar to your idea is the F-35. Rather than foldable rotors, it has a lift fan which connects to the main engine when needed. This aicraft was also plagued by cost overruns.

The harsh reality in engineering is not that things are impossible, but that they are extremely expensive, and by combining multiple functions in a single airframe, you will always have to find a compromise between either function. Both the F-35 and V-22 are very heavy aicraft due to the engineering complexity, and as such can carry less payload than more dedicated concepts. However, this is deemed acceptable because the U.S. Navy likes their aircraft extremely versatile.

There is also the question of demand. For decades, there has been the idea that aircraft need to be as versatile as possible, but whether this will be the case in the future, remains to be seen. Your concept may be capable of faster travelling and higher payloads than the V-22 (which rotors are too small for heavy lifting and too big for fast flying), but the real question is whether the added weight due to the complexity of this concept will offset the theoretical performance gain.

Finally a technical remark. The most difficult part is transitioning from forward flight to hovering. Rotor blades are very flappy, so how you will manage to deploy them during forward flight (when centrifugal forces do not yet straighten them out, and when the lift vector may be in any direction unless you can carefully control their orientation) remains a large engineering challenge, especially if you want to keep the weight of the aircraft low.