h a l f b a k e r yWhat was the question again?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Forward thrust achieved as in Gyrocopter by forward facing propellor. Levitation achieved by tilted powered rotating frisby attached to center pole, and acting as wing of airplane, or as upper rotor on gyrocopter.
Note: as opposed to a gyrocopter, here some power is needed to make the frisby turn,
more like a helicopter, except that much less power is needed, since the rotation has only a minor effect on the levitation. (Logical proof: Otherwise a regular frisbee would loose its turning action, when giving off power).
This has been tried.
http://images.googl...26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN
Even additional "stabilizer" wings didn't seem to be enough. [MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 09 2007]
Frisbee "GyroDynamics" - research
http://www.lpl.ariz...sbee/MSTfrisbee.pdf
Conclusion: Yet to be studied. Study possible with off the shelf equipment. [pashute, Apr 09 2008]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Why do you need the frisbee shape to rotate? |
|
| |
So - the frisbee is a shallow dome shape, therefore forcing air to travel across the different faces and generate lift. That right? |
|
| |
Added to that we have the frisbee is rotating - for stability? Presumably you need a counter rotor? |
|
| |
right, forgot to mention a counter turning gyro. (not rotor) |
|
| |
Can we have a jet engine for thrust, rather than a prop? |
|
| |
Compared to a gyro rotor, a giant frisbee would be heavier, less efficient, harder to control, and it wouldn't store in a box (or a used chocolate filter). Oh, and you couldn't see through it. |
|
| |
All you'd have is a trike with a round wing. |
|
| |
[jin] Jet engine rather than thrust. Of course yes. |
|
| |
[bb] Would be heavier? Not necessarily: The rotor must take the weight of the lift all along, whereas the frisbe takes it devided through tension on the whole thing. Skeleton will be the outer part, which is recieving torque, so no need for enforcements there either. So I envision a lightweight frisby on top. |
|
| |
[bb] Less efficient? Why so? How do you know before you check? That was exactly what lead De Cavier to make the Gyrocopter defying all the skeptics. |
|
| |
[bb] Harder to control? I dont think so. The frisbeecopter should be fairly stable. Needs to be tried with an RC unit, and then you can talk about how stable it is. IMHO it seems this will be the stablest of all! (When a frisbee lands parallel it always touches gently down. This frisby wont tilt because its being controled from below. |
|
| |
[bb] Wouldn't store in a box? Ever seen the folding sunscreen. That's what I envision. So will fold SMALLER than any known Gyrocopter. |
|
| |
[bb] And you couldn't see through it? I dont see why not. I remember seeing clear plastic even before year 2004! |
|
| |
I have a hard time believing that a frisbee-shaped lift surface is more efficient than a standard rotor blade. In terms of drag, maybe. In terms of lift, no way. |
|
| |
I'm with the majority here. What you have
is basically an odd-shaped fixed-wing
airplane with a round wing. |
|
| |
In fact, a round-winged aircraft has been
tried. Even with additional lateral wings
for added lift, it was not very successful
(see link). |
|
| |
//In fact, a round-winged aircraft has been tried. Even with additional lateral wings for added lift, it was not very successful (see link).// |
|
| |
Very funny. Some of us can read Dutch, you know. (and/or recognise an AWACS radar dome when we see one) |
|
| |
Not sure why this has got so many bones. It's a bit far out but worth a go. This is the hb, not an aeronautical design company, our job is to think of new and outlandish solutions. |
|
| |
"Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing, and any landing they can use the airplane again is a great landing" |
|
| |
Well, the landing in the link may have required a brief swim, but I think it was a good landing. |
|
| |
I disagree, Wags (though none of the
bones is mine). For me, the HB is a
place where, if a "serious" idea is
posted, it can be picked over by people
with a range of skills and insights, and
criticized intelligently. |
|
| |
If the idea were a custard-powered
autogyro, that would be one thing. But
the idea was written seriously, and is
therefore subject to the laws of
aerodynamics. I don't see any
advantage to the wing being circular,
and to be honest I don't think it was
well thought through. So, I think the
fish bones are not unreasonable. |
|
| |
A frisbee is an inefficient wing. It rotates only for stability. You are in effect suggesting a plane with crap wings. |
|
| |
I totally agree, [Maxwell] - I just had this one pegged as a bit of a giggle. |
|
| |
The "round wing" on the pic is the radar of an AWACS! Come on people! I'm talking about a rotating frisbee shaped wing. |
|
| |
Off to search the web for scientific explanations of why frisbees fly. (Magnus efect?) |
|
| |