Hi Paul,
Thanks, I didn’t expect an answer so quickly. Aren’t you wrapping it
up at SUN & FUN today?..
I am interested in building an up-dated 1/2 scale flying model, or a
proof of concept single place engineering test vehicle.
Possibly an ultralight or another aircraft that could prove out some
concepts and configurations.
I expect that you have a lot of thoughts on which configurations are
really efficient. Can we advance the design or designs ?.
In 2001 Roy Lopresti (my former partner) in LOGO, introduced me to
one of the Navy test pilots that test flew the VTOL’s
In the 50’s. Roy was the Air Force Test engineer at Wright field at
the time those tests took place. He really shared some
wonderful and interesting insights into flying a VTOL.
After 12 yrs. off the project. I’m ready to dust it back off and
revalidate the concepts and designs
What would you like to see done. And where are you located.
The video’s and patent references are 10 yrs. old but they demo
principals that did work.
Larry
That is all well and good for hover but ducts are bad for high speed
forward motion. The drag of the duct far outweighs the advantages.
Perry Mick tried for years and finally gave up and put a gear box
and prop on it and went 30 or 40 MPH faster on the same fuel burn.
Paul Lamar
Yes, There is a speed penalty to pay. I should have better defined
the prime considerations of the design concept. It must be a VSOL or
a ESTOL as defined by NASA. My other design goals were and still are,
as follows.
Produce a SIMPLE, SAFE, AFFORDABLE, LSA 1320 lbs. gross vehicle
that preforms most of the functions of a HELICOPTER and a FIXED WING
2 place aircraft, trying as hard as possible to use only the primary
elements of a Piper Cub. A single direct drive prop rotor, (might
require a planetary reduction). No cyclic blades, No complex
transmissions, No major rotating structures, No tail rotor, No
exposed blades ,(duct is required) to allow harmlessly bumping into
trees, structures, and to protect people, as well as descending into
and thru urban areas. as well as an increase in static thrust of up
to 30%. About the same % of speed loss on the top end. Since we need
more HP to hover (or near hover), some of that excess HP helps
overcome the extra drag. All controls are push-rod or cable.
The above requirements would produce the all elusive Jetsons flying
car, or NASA PAV (personal air vehicle).
Since, the 1/4 scale flights adhered to all of the above. Without
having to use contra rotating props.(less complex and weight) I
wanted to further improve the design and increase the size of the
test vehicles, using as many in- expensive off the shelf components
as possible. The model had both duct and standard flight controls and
flew well with either, it also flew well with out the rudder. A
V-wing Delta shape might also work but at a lower AOA.
I am quite familiar with Dr. Paul Moller's efforts to have the
perfect vehicle with the perfect Rotron engines. After 40 yrs. and
$400 million dollars, I wish him every success in his efforts. I
don't have the time or the money.
NOTE: Roy LoPresti did design a military version of this concept for
us that used the same P&W Canada engine out of the V-22 with a
smaller 7f.t dia. ducted prop-rotor, flat rated to around 1550 hp.
that had a top speed of 500 mph.. Costs would have exceeded $5 to
$10 mil. plus engine and prop. which is a bargain for the military.
That’s the short version of the civilian concept of the design. I may
be too simplistic in trying to keep it simple.
Your comments please,
Larry
What HP do you need? What engine weight FWF?
Paul Lamar
Larry,
Dr. Moeller also doesn't have something else. something you could
choose to have.
Really look forward to talking to you further.
Meanwhile, do you, or do you, Paul, know if this company (see image)
still works on pav?
-Jes
What Dr Moller was missing was integrity :)
http://www.xcor.com/
"XCOR Aerospace is a small, privately-held California C Corporation
founded in 1999. The company has evolved from its original four
founders, working out of our chief engineer’s tiny hangar, to a team
of 50 plus highly-skilled, experienced and talented employees housed
in a 10,375 square foot hangar on the Mojave Air & Space Port in
Mojave, California. The company is the path to the dream of
spaceflight for its founders who recognize that the only way for them
to get to space is to make it affordable for private citizens. "
Or to take your money :)
Getting into orbit is not cheap :)
Paul Lamar
I guess you'll like this YouTube video, showing part
of the NASA lifting body research, another one states they
solved the problem of lack of stability around the longitudinal
axis by adding a third vertical fin.
It seems that if you wait long enough, you'll get the results
of top technology research for free, in the meanwhile, you can
update your production means to take advantage of this research
conducted by others.
Have a good season. Best regards.
Salut †
Jose Gros-Aymerich
Madrid, Spain
http://youtu.be/fcCCNxRduh4
The Rotary Engine News Letter. Powered by Linux. ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net. You Tube
http://tinyurl.com/beqqxas.
Copyright 1998-2014 All world wide rights reserved.