Shameless update from Dale Kramer

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 9:29:07 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
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.

I give Dale credit for trying too. But trying isn't enough; you also want to have a good chance at succeeding. Design reviews, by there very nature, can be brutal - but they are essential. I am sure you encountered that at Ames.

BTW, the 10k density altitude issue is encountered at airports at 6,000 MSL in the summertime.

wrote on 3/30/2016 10:02 PM:
anyone who is interested in donating to this project.

"Donating" is an important distinction in this situation: "donators" -
that's people like me, who send Dale money - are not investing in his
project, and all he guarantees us is reports on his effort, and a poster
or small-medium-large model of the design. "Investors" hope to make
money by owning part of the company, or an entitlement to a portion of
the profit; Dale promises none of that.

If Dale builds that scale model and flies it, successfully or not, I
will think my donation was well-used.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

"VTOL is an heroic act, pretty much no matter how you go about it." 12-year
olds with drones do it every day, thanks to cheap flight controllers
containing super-cheap gyros and accelerometers. I can teach a caveman to
fly one of those in 10 min. Herb


Perhaps at the risk of offending troglodytes, maybe I need to spend more time
in caves? Or maybe especially so with VTOL craft, the devil really *is* in the
details.

The quad-copter drone In-law Santa gifted this past Christmas has escaped four
or five times, enjoyed several nights out following two of the escapes, and -
despite having only a five-minute-to-props-stopped "fuel load" - has so far
been successfully piloted-by-me to a single-flight-to-fuel-exhaustion
touchdown exactly once. Every other flight has been terminated because escape
or disaster was imminent, or, (following escapes) desperation-inspired
throttle chopping. By comparison, controlling RC sailplanes is considerably
easier to both predict and accomplish, in my experience.

Bob - VTOL-challenged? - W.

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 10:20:59 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
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.

I never viewed stability in hover as an issue. After all, there are 6 thrusters at a decent distance from the CG that can be used to balance the a/c (quad copters do it routinely). The susceptibility of the a/c to toppling in ground winds is a different issue (imagine a 30 kt gust just as the a/c was touching down). Another issue is the pilot/seat pan will become a huge airbrake as the a/c is transitioning from horizontal to vertical flight. This will produce a pitching down moment while the a/c is trying to pitch up. The seat pan, be automatically driven, could be part of an unintentional positive feedback loop (the a/c pitches down due to drag, followed by pitch up when the seat pan retracts, then repeat the last two actions).

The power calculation is very simple and can be found in numerous references. Here is one very good one (pg. 9-5):
http://web.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/AERO...ents/p-401.pdf

I have already explained my motivation: providing a fact-based critic for potential investors. I have had CEOs flat-out lie to me about their company's situation (Country Wide Financial, Massey Energy); if someone had exposed those lies to me it could have saved me thousands of dollars (this is not to say Dale is lying about anything!).

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

Tom