Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Like a magnifying lens, only with rocks.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                   

Frisbee Gyrocopter

Frisbee replaces upper propellor, foward thrust lifts
 
(+3, -3)
  [vote for,
against]

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).

pashute, Mar 28 2006

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]

[link]






       Why do you need the frisbee shape to rotate?
Ling, Mar 28 2006
  

       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?
Jinbish, Mar 28 2006
  

       right, forgot to mention a counter turning gyro. (not rotor)
pashute, Mar 28 2006
  

       Can we have a jet engine for thrust, rather than a prop?
Jinbish, Mar 28 2006
  

       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.
baconbrain, Mar 28 2006
  

       [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!
pashute, Mar 28 2006
  

       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.
croissantz, Sep 09 2007
  

       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).
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 09 2007
  

       //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)
gtoal, Sep 09 2007
  

       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.
wagster, Sep 09 2007
  

       How does it go?   

       "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.
normzone, Sep 09 2007
  

       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.
MaxwellBuchanan, Sep 09 2007
  

       A frisbee is an inefficient wing. It rotates only for stability. You are in effect suggesting a plane with crap wings.
marklar, Sep 10 2007
  

       I totally agree, [Maxwell] - I just had this one pegged as a bit of a giggle.
wagster, Sep 10 2007
  

       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?)
pashute, Apr 09 2008
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle