Silent Super Efficient Propeller!

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Of course you would. Since you're an idiot, you couldn't understand
any of it. Since you're an idiot, you can't differenatiate between
someone who has a pretty good idea of what he's talking about and a
not-even- wannabe.


it's just who you are.


Be proud, k00k.





Bertie

Nonsense Kaptain Klueless, I know exactly that you are nothing but a
wanna be troll.



Nonsense. I'm an excellent troll.


Bertie

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in :


"Leviterande" wrote in
message ...

I am into vtol craft and thats why i am into the most efficient
not so huge propellers, i pilot rc models and am currently testing
several designs

the propellers is the most important part of a vtol


engine ofcourse has to be light but todays engines are superb in that
aspect


Have you reviewed the propeller and rotor types currently flying on
state of the art VTOL aircraft?

Real helpful google boi.


Bertie

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Bull****. You tripped on your ****** on your first post (probably drunk
again) and have been stumbling to rationalize it ever since.


Nope.

Don;t you think you're being a bit hard on yourself calling yourself a
******, though?

Oh wait, you don't know what one is because you're a fjukktard.


Sounds just like Anthony.

Yeh, right.


Bertie

----clip----
Leviterande wrote
it is new and simple propeller claimed to produce 200 pounds of
static thrust at a 85cm diamter with a 30hp!

Thrust has nothing to do with efficiency. If the engine weighed 200
pounds it develops 200 pounds of thrust downward just sitting there.

Horsepower measures work, in common units that would be about moving
33000 pounds a foot every minute (I may be wrong about that number).
You told us the work going in -- that's 30 hp. What is the work coming
out?

Maybe you should define your problem or issue differently. It now
seems to be you're trying to do something with an RC model. What
exactly is your objective? Tell us that, and you'll have a better
chance at getting a useful answer.

My understanding is that RC models have power to burn -- way more than
scale -- but my knowledge of that world is very limited.

************************************************** *******************

Your 100% correct.

I have built a number of model aircraft with unlimited vertical
performance.

One I sat on it's tail in a cardboard box and took off vertically out
of box to the impress my straight and level flying friends.

Big John

On Sep 8, 3:01 am, Leviterande Leviterande.
wrote:
yes, I have been looking into todays vtols, they either have a
complicated large merry go arround rotor system or a very very
highly concentrated plumes of air as in the harrier/F35 jet

both are very expensive to maintain, complicated and yet not so
practical unless in military.

so some kind of a propeller/ fan/ rotor with no moving part must do
the job somehow to get rid with the complexiity and cost and SPACE!

I was just thinking of testing a thick-chord fan with 4 blades and
a medium AOA. it should be geard to the motor unless the motor has a
very high torque. My idea is that efficiency should go up when one use
a geared system

the propeller is a standard slowfly 10x4,7
rpm is around 7000-8000
if we instead took a 7 inch impeller with larger blades moving more
air at one revoltuion , i tmeans it makes more drag and resistance
to the motor shaft.. now if one calculate the required data and put
reduction gear to the motor. the thrust out put should be equal at less
rpm and smaller propeller and with the same efficiency!

Helicopters and other VTOLs are complicated because they have to
be. One of the things that bugged the early experimenters was
gyroscopic force; any time we change the plane of rotation of a prop
or rotor we get precession, which results in a loss of control unless
the system is designed to deal with it. A fixed-pitch rotor can't do
that, and the larger it is and faster it turns the worse the effects
of precession. Current helicopter designs all take advantage of
precession to tilt the rotor disc, applying blade lift at 90 degrees
ahead of the desired blade rise.
The other factor is the necessity of being able to glide. No
fixed-pitch rotor is going to do that (unless it's an autogyro, with
an undriven rotor and very low pitch angles) and even some sink could
cause blade stall and loss of control.
Do the research. Find out, the easy way, whcy others couldn't
make work. Google "Moller," for instance.

Dan

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Nonsense. I'm an excellent troll.


Bertie

BULL****!!!!!

You're lamer than a ruptured duck.

On Sep 8, 8:37*pm, wrote:
On Sep 8, 3:01 am, Leviterande Leviterande.



wrote:
yes, I have been looking into *todays vtols, they either have *a
complicated *large merry go arround rotor system * or a *very very
highly concentrated plumes of air *as in *the harrier/F35 jet

both are very expensive to maintain, complicated and yet not so
practical unless in military.

so some kind of a *propeller/ fan/ rotor with no moving part *must do
the job somehow to get rid with the complexiity and cost and SPACE!

I was just thinking of *testing a *thick-chord fan with 4 blades and
a medium AOA. it should be geard to the motor * *unless the motor has a
very high torque. My idea is that efficiency should go up when one use
a geared system
the propeller is a standard slowfly 10x4,7
rpm is around 7000-8000
if we instead took a 7 inch impeller *with larger blades moving more
air *at one revoltuion *, i tmeans it makes *more drag and resistance
to the motor shaft.. now if one calculate the required data and put
reduction gear to the motor. the thrust out put should be equal at less
rpm and *smaller propeller and with the same efficiency!

* * Helicopters and other VTOLs are complicated because they have to
be. One of the things that bugged the early experimenters was
gyroscopic force; any time we change the plane of rotation of a prop
or rotor we get precession, which results in a loss of control unless
the system is designed to deal with it. A fixed-pitch rotor can't do
that, and the larger it is and faster it turns the worse the effects
of precession. Current helicopter designs all take advantage of
precession to tilt the rotor disc, applying blade lift at 90 degrees
ahead of the desired blade rise.
* * *The other factor is the necessity of being able to glide. No
fixed-pitch rotor is going to do that (unless it's an autogyro, with
an undriven rotor and very low pitch angles) and even some sink could
cause blade stall and loss of control.
* * *Do the research. Find out, the easy way, whcy others couldn't
make work. Google "Moller," for instance.

* * * * *Dan

Because models are so overpowered compared with full size, could some
of those problems be solved with air blowing over controllable fins? A
smaller diameter prop would get a lot of velocity across the fins, and
that could be used to offset rotation and could tilt the axis for
translation. It might take a little computer power, or maybe just a
skilled pilot, for easy control.

It would have to be a labor of love, I doubt there's a DOD or
commercial use for such a device.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Oh i don't see any change. Toothpicks have, by far, been the most common
props on lightplanes for years and not without good reason. I'm not
arguing that. But it depends on a lot of things. A lot of turboprops
have relatively wide chord scimitar props, for instance. My point was
really more directed towards the sentiment that efficiency shoud be
described in such narrow terms. Most people want an airplane to go from
A-B real fast and burn as little fuel as possible, but that doesn't mean
that it's nore efficient than an airplane that excelles in some other
way..



Bertie

And all your input has had zip **** to do with "Silent Super Efficient
Propellers".

Quit rattling your empty head. You're starting to sound like Anthony again.

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Oh i don't see any change. Toothpicks have, by far, been the most
common props on lightplanes for years and not without good reason.
I'm not arguing that. But it depends on a lot of things. A lot of
turboprops have relatively wide chord scimitar props, for instance.
My point was really more directed towards the sentiment that
efficiency shoud be described in such narrow terms. Most people want
an airplane to go from A-B real fast and burn as little fuel as
possible, but that doesn't mean that it's nore efficient than an
airplane that excelles in some other way..



Bertie

And all your input has had zip **** to do with "Silent Super Efficient
Propellers".

Actually, it does.


Quit rattling your empty head. You're starting to sound like Anthony
again.


Yeh, right wannabe boi..

Bertie

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Nonsense. I'm an excellent troll.


Bertie

BULL****!!!!!

You're lamer than a ruptured duck.




Yeh, sure wannabe boi.

Bertie