Louder...
On 11/6/17 5:49 AM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
Sometimes you have to give up so e things in order to make the
transportation more compact. I would suspect that is why they decided to
go with a 2 blade as it would fit in a tighter package when it is
disassembled.
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 11:56 PM Bill Prince <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
They could get a few more miles and better lift if they went to a
3-blade prop. Same diameter.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 11/5/2017 3:53 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
> I'm sure they were looking at the efficiency. Slow blades, lower
fuel consumption rate.
>
> Rory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
> Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2017 1:30 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Drone
>
> That is one bodacious propeller relative to the wing length. I
think that would prevent any kind of flying in ground effect.
>
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 11/5/2017 12:25 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>> My nephew stopped by on his way to the Dugway Proving Grounds today.
>> He popped the container on the device he is taking out to demo
for the
>> Navy.
>> The company he works for manufactures these things in Bingen
Washington.
>>
>> It takes off and lands as a helicopter.� On the wing tips are some
>> tiny one bladed rotators that are counter torque during take off and
>> landing operations.� Flies something like 36 hours on 2
gallons of fuel.
>>
>> One of my sons and my granddaughter in photo.
