🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec13.224145.17989@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> gpayne@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
(Gregory A. Payne) writes:
>Has anyone heard any recent news on Paul Moller (sp?) and his vtol
>aircraft.  They were 'small' 4-place vtol craft that had eight engines
>and could fit in a garage.  They were also designed to be flown with
>little or none piloting experience if I remember correctly. Last I
>has heard was an article in Aviation Week and the cover article in Popular
>Mechanics, but these were about a year or two ago.

Not to be a pessimist (I love the idea), but I think he gets a cover
article in PM about every 5-10 years and nothing seems to change.

> Not to be a pessimist (I love the idea), but I think he gets a cover
> article in PM about every 5-10 years and nothing seems to change.

Well, at least he's got a prototype now.  Doesn't look nearly as cool at the
pictures, though.

Something I've been churning in my mind--what about blowing air OVER the
tops of large, stationary wings?  Some sort of huge blower on the inside--its
output ducted over wings sticking out of the sides.  Wouldn't a good deal of
lift be produced if the air below the wing was still, while the air over top
would be be flowing quickly?

Just curry us.

CM

-- 
       Craig Meyer                 01CRMEYER@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU
       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433

       Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily
       shared by the Indiana Academy.

>Something I've been churning in my mind--what about blowing air OVER the
>tops of large, stationary wings?  Some sort of huge blower on the inside--its
>output ducted over wings sticking out of the sides.  Wouldn't a good deal of
>lift be produced if the air below the wing was still, while the air over top
>would be be flowing quickly?


It's already invented, called circulation control (if I read your description
of your idea correctly).  The problem is you need moving air (the wing must be moving
through the air) for this concept to work well.  Just the jet alone probably
would not gain appreciable lift.
T.A. Ghee

In article <1992Dec15.161648.13052@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig
Meyer) writes:
>
>> Not to be a pessimist (I love the idea), but I think he gets a cover
>> article in PM about every 5-10 years and nothing seems to change.
>
>Well, at least he's got a prototype now.  Doesn't look nearly as cool at the
>pictures, though.
>

Has this protoype flown--in any realistic scenario.  I think its primary
use is to give jouralists and potential investors something to look at
and sit in.


>Something I've been churning in my mind--what about blowing air OVER the
>tops of large, stationary wings?  Some sort of huge blower on the inside--its
>output ducted over wings sticking out of the sides.  Wouldn't a good deal of
>lift be produced if the air below the wing was still, while the air over top
>would be be flowing quickly?

Many twin engine, prop aircraft have a signifcantly lower stall speed
with power on versus power off, demonstrating your concept.  The
problem is that you hate to depend on this kind of lift because
engines will fail and you'll have no way out.

K_G

In article <1992Dec15.161648.13052@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>
>> Not to be a pessimist (I love the idea), but I think he gets a cover
>> article in PM about every 5-10 years and nothing seems to change.
>
>Well, at least he's got a prototype now.  Doesn't look nearly as cool at the
>pictures, though.
>
>Something I've been churning in my mind--what about blowing air OVER the
>tops of large, stationary wings?  Some sort of huge blower on the inside--its
>output ducted over wings sticking out of the sides.  Wouldn't a good deal of
>lift be produced if the air below the wing was still, while the air over top
>would be be flowing quickly?

The Custer Channel Wing did exactly that.

Picture a normal light twin (piston). Instead of the normal wing extending in
a straight (ignore the dihedral) line, the section immediately behind the
propellor arc is the bottom half of a ducted fan, but behind the prop.

Early tests showed that the outboard (normal-appearing) section of the wings
was not necessary to produce sufficient lift for flight, but it was left on
as being more useful for something to hang the ailerons from.

>Just curry us.

Ouch.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|