I can't think of any benefits of this layout other than reducing the size of the landing field you'll need. And I guess less complexity on the part of the roto

I can't think of any benefits of this layout other than reducing the size of the landing field you'll need. And I guess less complexity on the part of the rotors, no tail rotor with associated dangers etc. I can think of some significant downsides though. 1. This is fixed pitch, not collective pitch. That means any change in the attitude of the aircraft requires one or more sets of rotors to change their speed of rotation. This means that you need top notch electronic control systems, gyros etc. to mediate between pilot input and what the aircraft does. These electronic systems are sensitive and fragile and degrade with time. And when they let go, it's spectacular. 2. A loss of any one of the 8 motors is a Jesus Christ, yank the ballistic parachute moment. This is likely a hull-loss event as there will be all sorts of load-bearing parts with the job of absorbing the opening shock of the parachute. These will at minimum require inspection prior to the aircraft being certified airworthy again. 3. related to 2 above, this aircraft has no capacity for autorotation whatsoever. A traditional rotary-wing helicopter with collective pitch can autorotate safely in to a controlled landing in the event of an engine failure. If you lose an engine in this, and your ballistic chute tangles or doesn't deploy properly, you are proper fucked. It's cool, and quad-copters are fantastic cargo and gp platforms. But I would never fly in one.