a wrote in
:

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...linkgrinder.co
m/P
atents/Divided_blade_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.


to do what? Travel a distance? Make a top speed? Rate of climb?


That's the point I was making. I was alos using the smae yardstick, just
not for one particualr mission, and high aspect ratio wings do not
deliver in every case.


Bertie