patrick mitchel wrote:
http://users.skynet.be/nestofdragons/tam.htm Fortunately i can say i have
nothing to gain in mentioning this thing but am curious what others think...
Pat



I looked at the site. The FAQ says that the engineering firm didn't
understand why the traditional propeller used less power when the AC
motor was cranked to full power. I would be VERY careful of trusting any
statement from an aerodynamics company that can't understand a stalled prop.

If they really wanted to look legitimate, they'd publish some figures
like "X pounds of thrust at Y rpm with a Z diameter prop", not stick it
on an ultralight and hope it flies. They already have the prop on a
motor. Stick it on a dolly and attach a fish scale. What are they
scared of?

Any flat blade will more air when given a little angle and spun fast
enough, but I don't think I'll be pulling the blades out of my house fan
to put on the front of my project.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber