"John Roncallo" wrote in message
om...
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

Hallo John,

You are right, the most impractical on the diskrotor concept is to get the
funding for it. I have made the first drawing of the diskrotor helicopter in
June 1993 and from that time I have contacted nearly all helicopter makers
(Agusta, Eurocopter, Piasecki, Sikorsky, Westland.........) without any
succes. But I am still optimistic, because the time is ripe for a fast
flying helicopter: There is a certain number of rich people , who are able
to pay 30 millions of US $ for a machine which brings them from New York to
Acapulco without waiting for a slot before take off and without waiting in a
holding pattern before landing. You know, the time is money. If there is a
demand, the suppliers will discover it soon.

George