On Sep 6, 11:15*am, Leviterande Leviterande.
wrote:
Actually in teh begining of the * last century many designers started
building circular aircraft, and all teh reports indicated that the
flying *saucer had advantages as :

easy and slow to fly

almost impossible to stall

highly crash proof

cheap easy to manufacter

if you dont think that is efficieny then I dont know what it is

i read also in leonard G cramps books that during early wing tunnel
tests
the standard wing were *""retricted to be tested with * very limited
AOA"" unlike the circular wings taht have been tested in extreme angles
of attack without stall!!

well, it is been a little offtopic but lets take a look at this
propeller I found and it is patented 2008

it is easy to *contruct too

what do you think?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/739...r_7396208.html

'Lonnie[_3_ Wrote:



;659369']"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .-

They do actually, and they can be very efficient indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxz1UF67EQI

There's also been the Dyke Delta, and the facetmobile, of course.

Bertie
-

Why would the Buttlipps be promoting the flying HEEL?

Professional courtesy?
Kindred spirit?
Name association?

--
Leviterande

"Efficiency" in the sense I am using it is in the conventional
engineering terms -- power out divided by power in. For every
horsepower you deliver to the prop shaft under given conditions there
some work -- force times distance -- returned. It's perfectly fine to
use different definitions, but let the reader know what the definition
is.

I've the sense one can get even higher than the 75 to 80 percent good
ones deliver these days, but the 'overhead' in ducts and the like make
those systems not quite realizable: that is, practical, for general
aviation. Be interesting to see what happens..