Shameless update from Dale Kramer

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 6:03:54 PM UTC-7, DaleKramer wrote:
1. Nowhere have I indicated that there was an auto-rotate capability.
2. I said that I traditionally think of CAD as drawing programs, I believe that is backed up by the current Wikipedia definition of CAD.
3. The answer to your folding props question is clearly stated on the link I provided. I choose let you go read it there.
4. I have also disclosed an extensive biography on the link provided and encouraged people to read it, as should you.
What is your agenda?

I have no agenda, what is yours?

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 11:27:49 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
I have no agenda, what is yours?

My agenda has been clearly stated, yours has not.
Your comments definitely indicate that you did not read the information at the link I provided and if you did, you did not evaluate any of in that manner that I would expect and engineer to evaluate the information.

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:11:30 AM UTC-4, DaleKramer wrote:
Your comments definitely indicate that you did not read the information at the link I provided and if you did, you did not evaluate any of in that manner that I would expect and engineer to evaluate the information.

Sorry, sometimes fingers don't type what my brain thinks

Should be:
Your comments definitely indicate that you did not read the information at the link I provided and if you did, you did not evaluate any of it in a manner that I would expect an engineer to evaluate the information.

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 10:04:29 PM UTC-7, DaleKramer wrote:
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:11:30 AM UTC-4, DaleKramer wrote:
Your comments definitely indicate that you did not read the information at the link I provided and if you did, you did not evaluate any of in that manner that I would expect and engineer to evaluate the information.

Sorry, sometimes fingers don't type what my brain thinks

Should be:
Your comments definitely indicate that you did not read the information at the link I provided and if you did, you did not evaluate any of it in a manner that I would expect an engineer to evaluate the information.

You seem awfully defensive at answering questions for someone seeking public investment in your project. You should EXPECT critical questions such as mine. Investors DO NOT like being belittled for asking reasonable questions.. Your disk loading is SEVEN times higher than an R22; that is a HIGH disk loading.

Your material provides nothing about how this aircraft will be controlled during hover flight and transition from hovering to forward flight. I assume this will be done by thrust vectoring, but I do not know. This means that power must be reduced in some of the electric motors, exacerbating the effects of a motor failure.

I believe I have answered every question.

There is NO reason to compare my design to a helicopter in terms of disc loading since it does not operate like one.

I suggest to you that you read up on multirotor design and control.

I believe that this revolution of flight, over the last decade, has resulted in more multirotor controlled air vehicles flying than all other air vehicles combined.

Yes, perhaps I should mention a little more about that in the link.

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:21:45 AM UTC-7, DaleKramer wrote:
I believe I have answered every question.

There is NO reason to compare my design to a helicopter in terms of disc loading since it does not operate like one.

I suggest to you that you read up on multirotor design and control.

I believe that this revolution of flight, over the last decade, has resulted in more multirotor controlled air vehicles flying than all other air vehicles combined.

Yes, perhaps I should mention a little more about that in the link.

I didn't say that you didn't answer the questions; it was your attitude towards me that I called you on.

Your "design" is not a revolution, just a variation on a concept that has been tried in the past and rejected by every aviation company since.

Further review caused me pause; the pilot, along with all controls and instruments, must rotate in two dimensions AND open the cockpit to the full prop down wash during the most critical phases of flight: takeoff and landing. Is this so?

On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 6:04:23 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:21:45 AM UTC-7, DaleKramer wrote:
I believe I have answered every question.

There is NO reason to compare my design to a helicopter in terms of disc loading since it does not operate like one.

I suggest to you that you read up on multirotor design and control.

I believe that this revolution of flight, over the last decade, has resulted in more multirotor controlled air vehicles flying than all other air vehicles combined.

Yes, perhaps I should mention a little more about that in the link.

I didn't say that you didn't answer the questions; it was your attitude towards me that I called you on.

Your "design" is not a revolution, just a variation on a concept that has been tried in the past and rejected by every aviation company since.

Further review caused me pause; the pilot, along with all controls and instruments, must rotate in two dimensions AND open the cockpit to the full prop down wash during the most critical phases of flight: takeoff and landing. Is this so?

Attitude goes both ways.

I has also been said that no designs are revolutions, just variations.

In hover flight the pilots seat only ever opens a maximum of 90 degrees, the final 20 degrees is when engines are shut down. At 90 degrees, the pilots upper torso is still in the fuselage, the pilots legs from the waist down are enclosed in a secondary shell (with airbags). Airflow should be no worse than an open cockpit aircraft or a motorcycle. This is a 'sport' design and I don't expect it to appeal to the non-sporting. The pilots seat could be fully enclosed and still rotate, but I choose not to do that initially.

The controls are fly by wire so there is very little complexity in that 110 degree travel joint.