Everyman's flying saucer

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/...for-everybody/
Note the cunning design; also note how the airflow over the saucer is
going to generate lift as it's deflected down by the top hatches in the
final illustration: http://tinyurl.com/6po26w
This is a fascinating concept, as the air isn't going to move like that
at all in real life, and even if it did, the lift generated would
probably be measured in ounces.
This is what happens when new aircraft are designed by officers in the
merchant marine. :-D

Pat

On 17 Dec, 07:38, Pat Flannery wrote:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/...for-everybody/
Note the cunning design; also note how the airflow over the saucer is
going to generate lift as it's deflected down by the top hatches in the
final illustration:http://tinyurl.com/6po26w
This is a fascinating concept, as the air isn't going to move like that
at all in real life, and even if it did, the lift generated would
probably be measured in ounces.
This is what happens when new aircraft are designed by officers in the
merchant marine. :-D

Aerodynamic theory tells us two things.

1) Lifting bodies in STILL air using a disc aircraft is in fact not
that difficult. What you need is a vortex giving reduced pressure on
the upper surface.

2) If you are travelling in full flight (800km/hr say) a disc gives
poor performance in terms of L/D compared with other types of wing
configuration. That is not to say it will not fly, merely that it will
not be green. 20:1 is what we should be aiming for with new aircraft.

3) Although the two régimes of static lift and stall+ flying are
simple, aerodynamics between these two points is immensely complex.

This is not to say that such a comcept is not worth investigating.
Indeed a delta (like stealth) could well represent a good compromise
solution.

I also loked at some of the comments. ATC using voice is indeed
completely out of the question. ATC will have to be based on Internet
type solutions. Flying will also have to be completely automated. In
cities we are envisaging widespread Internet mobile plane use so ATC
(completely data based) is not such an impossibility.

Successful VTOL based on vortices is going to depend critically on
methods of vortex contol. Drag reduction + lift enhancement is being
worked on by the major aircraft manufaturers. There is no deep mystery
about the technology required.

Disc aircraft were central to the Nazi Vril concepts and for this
reason they have had a bad press. There is one thought I have and that
is that such concepts are being worked on in secret. Antigravity could
be a part of a "bodyguard of lies".

If anyone wishes to investigate the concept seriously could I suggest
they invest in an NVIDIA card rated at 700 Gigaflops. It will set then
back some $6,000 or so and run some hydrocodes. They could first
investigate simple disc configurations with 3 or 4 orifices placed
symmetrically about the disc. They should start with still air and
then investigate what happens as air speed rises. Such a machine is as
powerful as the machines of major manufacturers not so long ago.

I feel I should end by saying that ridicle, smear and innuendo is part
of the Pentagon's stock in trade. Witness the correspondence about
Anthrax.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:
Disc aircraft were central to the Nazi Vril concepts and for this
reason they have had a bad press.


Remember this thing?:
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/BMW%20Flugelrad.htm
Would you like to see where that really came from?:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gtk...e s_r&cad=0_1
It's an American design from 1950, backdated to become a Nazi secret weapon.
That's one of the few things I found before the Google virus thing set in.
It was in the May 1950 Popular Science, that had this article about
Destination Moon in it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gtk...es _r&cad=0_1

Pat

On 17 Dec, 18:05, Pat Flannery wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:
Disc aircraft were central to the Nazi Vril concepts and for this
reason they have had a bad press.

Remember this thing?:http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/BMW%20Flugelrad.htm
Would you like to see where that really came from?:http://books.google.com/books?id=gtk...source=gbs_toc...
It's an American design from 1950, backdated to become a Nazi secret weapon.
That's one of the few things I found before the Google virus thing set in.
It was in the May 1950 Popular Science, that had this article about
Destination Moon in it:http://books.google.com/books?id=gtk...ource=gbs_toc_...

Pat

The acid test is CFD. If a flying saucer has good CFD it should be
built. If not ...... I think the main point is this. There will always
be conspiracy and counter conspiracy claims but the acid test is CFD.

My references tell you that supercomputer CFD facilities are available
at modest cost. A modest cost coupled with a little ingenuity could
put the matter to rest one way or the other.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...3f0157a7?hl=en

Hey what about it? If you do this as a research project you will in
fact get your degree even if you fail. What I mean is this.

1) In academic terms disproof is valid and publishable.

2) You will have shown an understanding of CFD. This is perhaps the
most important thing from your point of view.


- Ian Parker

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_tesla_d870_us.html

Sorry this is the reference to the "poor man's supercomputer". The
board is also used as part of Japan's supercomputer.

http://www.opencfd.co.uk/openfoam/

Here is some open source software. Is anyone interested in doing
research? Building metal (or plastic) flying saucers is not a cost
effective way to proceed in this day and age. You build a flying
saucer when your SW indicates you have a good design.


- Ian Parker

It's an odd coincidence that you mention this, as I recently came
across

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/...-saucer-works/

on that site - by Willy Ley, no less.

John Savard

On 20 Dec, 17:07, Quadibloc wrote:
It's an odd coincidence that you mention this, as I recently came
across

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/...-saucer-works/

on that site - by Willy Ley, no less.

John Savard

I have read through the article with the following comments.

1) Stability is not a big issue with modern aircraft that are flown by
computers. The Airbus is unstable and the lowest level of control an
Airbus pilot has is to fly the thing like a car directly imputting
accelerations. If you bank lift is automatically adjusted to Sec
(theta).

2) The article mentions 32 degrees vertically. In fact lift is best
obtained by a vortex on the UPPER surface. As I have consistently
maintained only a proper CFD investigation can finally resolve this
issue.

3) Efficiency at 650km/h is still problematic CFD again required.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

I have read through the article with the following comments.

1) Stability is not a big issue with modern aircraft that are flown by
computers. The Airbus is unstable and the lowest level of control an
Airbus pilot has is to fly the thing like a car directly imputting
accelerations. If you bank lift is automatically adjusted to Sec
(theta).

2) The article mentions 32 degrees vertically. In fact lift is best
obtained by a vortex on the UPPER surface. As I have consistently
maintained only a proper CFD investigation can finally resolve this
issue.

3) Efficiency at 650km/h is still problematic CFD again required.


The article didn't get the interior of the Avro disc correct; the name
of the program was "SILVERBUG", and it relied on turning the entire
innards of the saucer into a gigantic flat turbojet:
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/silverbg.htm

Pat

- Ian Parker

On 21 Dec, 13:19, Pat Flannery wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

I have read through the article with the following comments.

1) Stability is not a big issue with modern aircraft that are flown by
computers. The Airbus is unstable and the lowest level of control an
Airbus pilot has is to fly the thing like a car directly imputting
accelerations. If you bank lift is automatically adjusted to Sec
(theta).

2) The article mentions 32 degrees vertically. In fact lift is best
obtained by a vortex on the UPPER surface. As I have consistently
maintained only a proper CFD investigation can finally resolve this
issue.

3) Efficiency at 650km/h is still problematic CFD again required.

The article didn't get the interior of the Avro disc correct; the name
of the program was "SILVERBUG", and it relied on turning the entire
innards of the saucer into a gigantic flat turbojet:http://www.cufon.org/cufon/silverbg.htm

I think we are looking at a different aircraft. Clearly a giant
turbofan will fly. How useful is another matter. A vortex on the upper
surface is as I understand it provided by nozzles.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:
I think we are looking at a different aircraft. Clearly a giant
turbofan will fly.

Well, that one didn't - they never were able to develop the engine for
it, so followed it up with one using six separate turbojets, then just
dropped the whole VTOL fighter concept.
It finally ended up as the Army's Avrocar, which had real stability
problems and never got more than a few feet off of the ground while
wobbling all over the place.

How useful is another matter. A vortex on the upper
surface is as I understand it provided by nozzles.


This sounds like a great idea, but it's sort of like asking a canister
vacuum cleaner to move itself itself forward due to the suction of its
hose. The only time that concept got used was in the A-12/SR-71 where
the low pressure generated ahead of the air intakes at Mach 3 added
significantly to its forward speed.
But that was at Mach 3, not in VTOL flight.

Pat