Shameless update from Dale Kramer

Sorry Tom - it was devolving into points that were narrower and narrower and mostly not relevant to the fundamental issues, seemingly so you can avoid conceding any points made by others.

There are some legitimate technical issues to figure out. I just don't see anything inherent in this that says the thing can't fly, and believe me helicopters of any type are full of issues. Might the thing benefit from more horsepower? Maybe. Might it kick up dust if you fly it off dry dirt and a bed of twigs? Probably. Will it hover at 10,000 MSL on a hot day? I'd bet a number of helicopters have trouble with that. Will it autorotate? Nope, but it has extra motors. Enough? Maybe, maybe not. Might it be a bit tippy with the motor up front? I think it might, but thinking that doesn't make it an insurmountable problem or Dale a charlatan.

When I worked on helicopters as an engineer at NASA Ames I saw all kinds of crazy crap that clever people made work, some with PhDs in Aero, some who were mechanics. It is the trying that drives progress. I give Dale credit for trying.

Major snip...

My apologies: I thought you were actually interested in discussion the
technical details of the design. I guess by your non-response my
calculations are correct...


They may be or they may not be, and if you're designing such a craft as Dale
Kramer is attempting, I've no doubt you can find qualified people to look over
your shoulder. This is America, have at it!

Given the original topic of this thread (which I took as a "Hey guys! Lookit
this...and oh by the way, here's how you can kick in some money if you're
sufficiently interested in funding further experimentation." sort of post),
"your calculations" seem to have become something of a
terribly-important-to-you sub-focus...probably more important to you than to
many/most of the original intended audience.

I offer this opinion as a degreed aerospace engineer having little
personal/user interest in hybrid VTOL flight, "hybrid" in this context meaning
capable of (some) verticality but of primarily "fixed-wings-based" horizontal
capability. Given today's materials, I simply don't see "serious practicality"
on any near horizon for it...similar in that sense to (say) man-powered
flight. Nevertheless, both are technically interesting (to many, including
me); both have been successfully performed; both will (probably) continue to
be investigated and perhaps even advanced (maybe even in my lifetime). And if
you somehow or other engage my interest sufficiently, I might even be
motivated into "calculation checking" beyond merely noting something I've
missed seeing anyone else note, i.e. that the "main prop atop" configuration
is arguably inherently stable in descending, vertically-oriented, flight
simply by the expedient of momentarily lessening "lower down" thrust. That's
not to suggest the physics of such flight are simple, but to rather suggest
the "balancing a pencil upon one's fingertip" analogy previously noted herein
is more appropriate for a rear-exhaust rocket than a "top-biased descender."

Respectfully,
Bob W.

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 7:07:15 AM UTC-7, DaleKramer wrote:
Eric,

Thanks for the support!

Dale

This thing crashed this week - pilot walked away, but it was a total writeoff.

http://elytron.aero/#page-home

9B

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 11:26:24 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 7:07:15 AM UTC-7, DaleKramer wrote:
Eric,

Thanks for the support!

Dale

This thing crashed this week - pilot walked away, but it was a total writeoff.

http://elytron.aero/#page-home

9B

Glad no one was hurt. Their odds for success don't look good.