>>     This will knock your socks off.  Must reading.
>>
>>     Vertical take off, 200mph, and fifteen patents, extremely creative.>>     This is
>>     to be a kit and they talk about alternative engines but have not
>>     included a
>>     Wankel 13b in their commentary at this point.  Will have to get to >> them.
>>     This sounds like a new Burt Rutan.
>>
>>     Are there Wankels in helicopters with vertical orientation?
>>
>>     Here are the links
>>
>>     http://www.cartercopters.com/deposit_agreement.html
>>
>>     http://www.cartercopters.com/patents_granted.html
>>
>>     http://www.cartercopters.com/videos/pav_11g_fly_by_with_stats.html>>
>>     http://www.cartercopters.com/pav_11g_performance_2400_max_speed.html>>
>>     http://www.cartercopters.com/faq-placing_order.html
>>
>>     Norm
>>
>>
>>     I don't think so :) Been around for ten years. Got a lot of
>>     tax and investment money. NOTHING worked as predicted. Crashed
>>     several times. Just a plain old gyrocopter.
>>
>>     Paul Lamar
>>
>>
>>
>> You are correct about the crash(es)- but it is not a normal gyrocopter.>> It has a powered rotor that has revolutionized tip speed limitations and
>> increased travel speeds far beyond normal gyro limits.  They have
>> developed an interesting scimitar propeller that is very efficient.
>> They've also developed a very promising energy absorbing landing gear
>> for the plane.
>>
>>  They did screw up the powerplant choice- a big block turbocharged Chevy
>> that had overheating problems from the get-go.  I had the opportunity to
>> meet the designers and pilot, Larry Neal, at the S&F a few years ago-
>> all interesting folks.
>>
>> MICHAEL D PARKER
> > >> The prop is nothing new. The Horton brothers built
>> a similar prop in the late 1930's. If it truly was more
>> efficient I would think it would be universal by know
>> 67 years later. Klaus Savier tried it again a few years
>> ago and he is not running it now.
>>
>> Paul Lamar
> > It's just a gyroplane.  Forward thrust is from a pusher prop, lift is
> provided by an autorotating main rotor.
> > Powered-rotor gyros are nothing new either -- the Autogyro had a drive> from the engine -- they are, however, an evolutionary dead end.
> > Keith
> > Still I, wish them all the luck.  They made more progress than
> moller on by far less money.
> > Clifton

You can't compare the two.  These guys have taken an existing technologyand put it in a pretty box -- that's not "progress," that's adjustment.
 The Autogiro also looked like an airplane of its day, 75 years ago.
This is just one more gyroplane out of thousands.

Moller took an idea and made it fly, first of the kind.  BIG difference.
Keith

Almost fly. In theory it will. It has the required power
to weight ratio. I don't know why it has not flown yet.

Paul Lamar

Last time I checked he had a vid of a tethered hover
[and it did look like the tether was loose ie; not helping
to lift].. so it has 'sorta' flown but you'd not catch me
in one.. It's got the engine out characteristic's of a stream
lined crowbar..  The Osprey has less motors and more systems
for cross transfer of power and it was still a bear to get
through development..  If Mollar ever gets this thing to
production I'LL EAT MY HAT.. and you can quote me on that..  :-D

Jarrett


The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.