George Vranek wrote:

Hallo John, hallo Brien,

thanks for your comparison of the diskrotor with the tiltrotor. But despite
of nearly 50 years long development, the tiltrotor has two faults: It has
not optimal rotors for hovering and not optimal props for cruising. It
means, that a tiltrotor lifts less load in hovering than a conventional
helicopter and cruise slower than a conventional turboprop airplane with
equal installed power.
The diskrotor is optimal for hovering because the big disk brings law and
order in the aerodynamic of a helicopter rotor and the disk with retracted
rotor blades is well suitable for a really fast cruising. Even supersonic
speeds are feasible!!!

George

"brien" wrote in message
...



I said the concept has at least as much merit as a tilt rotor. I did not
say better or worse. I fully understand the tilt rotors limitations and
some of the disk rotors.

You are still yet to discover the how practical or impractical your
concept is, and who knows maybe it will just be the most practical
concept since the tail rotor. Maybe you will only need 30 years instead
of 50. If you got the funding go for it. Also if you get the funding let
me know.

John Roncallo