Flying Disc Aircraft

Wow, they are all there :)

As a science fiction fan, i can only say great thanks to you Hesham ;)
 
For something to be a patent does hte person have to prove the technology works?
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
For something to be a patent does hte person have to prove the technology works?
Click to expand...

It has been a while since I looked into the world of patent applications (Some time between the dinosaurs becoming extinct and the Deluge), but as I recall, yes, if you apply for a patent, you have to "prove" that it works. The problem, as I understand it, is that the people who review and grant (or not) the patents are not experts in every field, no-one is, so it is often difficult for them to tell the genuine from the plain nuts. Which is why we have patents for free-energy and anti-gravity devices :p

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark
 
anti-gravity can be recreated without great problems ( during scientific experiments) , but i don't know for these types of projects !
 
August is flying saucers time !
 

Attachments

  • Escanear0001.jpg
    Escanear0001.jpg
    105.5 KB · Views: 120
  • Escanear0002.jpg
    Escanear0002.jpg
    78.4 KB · Views: 107
  • Escanear0003.jpg
    Escanear0003.jpg
    96.1 KB · Views: 106
  • Escanear0004.jpg
    Escanear0004.jpg
    72.3 KB · Views: 97
  • Escanear0005.jpg
    Escanear0005.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 89
  • Escanear0006.jpg
    Escanear0006.jpg
    83.7 KB · Views: 50
  • Escanear0007.jpg
    Escanear0007.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 68
  • Escanear0008.jpg
    Escanear0008.jpg
    75.7 KB · Views: 85
airman said:
anti-gravity can be recreated without great problems ( during scientific experiments) , but i don't know for these types of projects !
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is the right time to clarify some concepts. 'Anti-gravity' and 'electromagnetic levitation' are two different things.
- The first consists of anulling the gravitational field generated by the mass of a celestial body by technical means. That requires a deep study on something known as 'gravitational waves' and on an hypothetical particle known as graviton, that current state of science is still far for controlling.
-The second is a laboratory trick to suspend an object in the air using magnets. Last year I bought a small scaled earthglobe for just three dollars that 'floats' in the air.
 
Hi folks,
Not quite anti-gravity, but at a similar level of techno-optimism was the laser-induced fusion-powered flying saucer proposed by Charles Osmond Frederick on behalf of British Rail. See Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_flying_saucer
The patent was (I think) lodged on December 11th, 1970 , with the number GB1310990. See also http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB1310990
Cheers,

‘Wingknut’
 
Hi,

anther flying saucer or flying disc.

http://inventors.about.com/od/wackypatents/ss/flying_saucer_3.htm
 

Attachments

  • flying saucer.jpg
    flying saucer.jpg
    23.2 KB · Views: 55
Justo Miranda said:
airman said:
anti-gravity can be recreated without great problems ( during scientific experiments) , but i don't know for these types of projects !
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is the right time to clarify some concepts. 'Anti-gravity' and 'electromagnetic levitation' are two different things.
- The first consists of anulling the gravitational field generated by the mass of a celestial body by technical means. That requires a deep study on something known as 'gravitational waves' and on an hypothetical particle known as graviton, that current state of science is still far for controlling.
-The second is a laboratory trick to suspend an object in the air using magnets. Last year I bought a small scaled earthglobe for just three dollars that 'floats' in the air.
Click to expand...
Anti-gravity and Quantum levitation are awesome things ? ???
( in one of numbers of Nature Magazine of 2002 they speak about Quantum Levitation)
 
Just curious, with all the experiments in flying discs, what is the motivation? What are the perceived advantages of a disc-shaped aircraft, since so many have pursued this type of design?
 
hagaricus said:
Just curious, with all the experiments in flying discs, what is the motivation? What are the perceived advantages of a disc-shaped aircraft, since so many have pursued this type of design?
Click to expand...
For a long-winded discussion, go read the low aspect-ratio threads over on www.homebuiltairplanes.com.
Most are merely trying to build a single-seater at minimal cost. Small flying wings have 3 advantages.

First, smaller parts-count.

Secondly, small flying wings benefit from larger Reynolds numbers along their long center chords. See Barnaby Wainfain’s Facetmobile.

The third thing that Wainfain discovered is that at very low aspect-ratios (say 1.4) wing tip vortices collide in the middle to cancel each other out, to reduce drag.
 
Last edited:
hagaricus said:
Just curious, with all the experiments in flying discs, what is the motivation? What are the perceived advantages of a disc-shaped aircraft, since so many have pursued this type of design?
Click to expand...

It was supposedly first discovered in the 1950s that a circular aircraft has a zero radar return. A huge advantage that falls under the stealth category.
 
edwest4 said:
It was supposedly first discovered in the 1950s that a circular aircraft has a zero radar return. A huge advantage that falls under the stealth category.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. It does not have “zero” return and is not especially stealthy when compared to an F-117, etc.
 
edwest4 said:
Get a copy of From Rainbow to Gusto.

Amazon.com: From Rainbow to Gusto: Stealth and the Design of the Lockheed Blackbird (Library of Flight): 9781600867125: Paul A. Suhler: Books

Amazon.com: From Rainbow to Gusto: Stealth and the Design of the Lockheed Blackbird (Library of Flight): 9781600867125: Paul A. Suhler: Books
www.amazon.com
Click to expand...

I have one, and I have seen some of the SEI and Lockheed source documents.

Do some disc shapes have a lower RCS than a straight winged U-2? Sure. Lower RCS than a faceted aircraft, much less a modern one? No, absolutely not.
 
Indeed. While a disc shape can have reasonably low average RCS in all azimuth directions, in fact it isn't low enough for stealth.

Stealth means trying to send back almost no radar energy in tactically important directions and dumping it out in spikes in less important directions. So a overhead RCS plot of a Stealth airfraft should look like a cross, spider, or bowtie, not a circle.
 
Last edited:
hagaricus said:
Just curious, with all the experiments in flying discs, what is the motivation? What are the perceived advantages of a disc-shaped aircraft, since so many have pursued this type of design?
Click to expand...
Between the bronze discs launched by the Classical Greek athletes and the plastic Frisbees with which young people plays today on the beaches, there has been two thousand and five hundred years of aesthetic fascination.

Whenever we see a flying disc, a link is established somewhere in a hidden little corner of our mind that make us feel that there is ‘something more’ in it that what we can really see. Afterwards, the feeling disappears, and we are again mortals under 1G standard gravity.

There is a school of thought in favor of the prenatal impression which defends the theory of a floating disc taking us back to our first sensorial perceptions within the womb. This disposition to the goodness of the disc shape strengthens the popular belief in that is the most suitable shape for atmospheric flight. Unfortunately, this is only true when the object becomes stable by rotation.

In conventional planes fitted with low aspect ratio circular wings, the turbulent boundary airflow rendered the trailing edge control surfaces useless at high angles of attack.

Despite the evidence obtained from scale models and manned prototypes since Leonardo da Vinci, many aircraft builders have tried the circular wing profile, without success, demonstrating the correctness of the Latin sentence Errare humanum est, sed perseverare, diabolicum. (To err is human, but to persist is diabolical).
 
Justo Miranda said:
There is a school of thought in favor of the prenatal impression which defends the theory of a floating disc taking us back to our first sensorial perceptions within the womb.
Click to expand...
Now I'm no OBGYN by any stretch of the imagination (or even just a simple country lawyer, for that matter), nor do I have at this point in my career have any aspirations whatsoever to become one (or even play one on TV), but from the admittedly fairly rudimentary theoretical 20th Century German public school education on the female anatomy and the general human reproductive process I recall from my younger days I am completely stumped as to what prenatal floating disc impression you might possibly be referring to, except perhaps with respect to an embryo encountering a dislodged size mismatched diaphragm that enabled its existence in the first place? An inquiring mind REALLY wants to know...
 
Last edited:
Justo Miranda said:
Whenever we see a flying disc, a link is established somewhere in a hidden little corner of our mind that make us feel that there is ‘something more’ in it that what we can really see. Afterwards, the feeling disappears, and we are again mortals under 1G standard gravity.
Click to expand...
I can see that.

Lenticular craft can accelerate off axis a bit better. Heat Shields are saucers of a type.

The what-could-have-beens and what-ifs are what keep us going.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom