Be sure to read "Helicopter Theory" by Wayne Johnson. There you will get great insights on refining your concept and dynamic scaling for any modeling work you intend to do.

Additionally, you can also validate the aerodynamic modeling of your rotor in QBlade (open source).

I'm not a aerodynamics guy, I'm a machinist (well, these days I'm a programmer, but I did have 4 years of it). So I'll just take the blade off of a ground adjustable prop and clamp them in. Then all I need to care about is balance, soundness, and making sure my joints don't max out their travel.

Alright Cliff, here's my pitch, tell me what you think:
* You're making an SLSA and you've decided it's time to go proprietary engine route (lets imagine)
* I have a hub that will clamp existing ground-adjustable prop blades and all you need to adjust them is to wire up a brush to get power down the prop shaft to a servo motor in the spinner.
* You can get this thing made at PCBWay, it's just CNC lathe and milling work, every shop knows how to do this.
* It uses ball joints so basically all of the load is centrifugal. My invention is the way to pitch the blades while they're being held in ball joints.
* EAB and non-commercial gets CNC codes for free, anyone selling the hub to the public can license it for 20% of their sale price, if you're selling it as part of your plane, you pay $100 per unit. With the license you get all of the test results that I have, so you have a head start to your MOSAIC documentation.

Does this sound attractive?

@cjd @Zeb @CliffSecord You want to extort me by that amount?

Get drone striked.

Every commie eventually does the meme.

@cjd @Zeb @CliffSecord If you want commies, you'll need to go and find proprietary software developers.

Patents are pretty communist - some freak is always looking to extort someone else with a patent.

Why do you need to articulate an LSA-class propeller? There is no need to. With as low an MMOI they have, articulating them will introduce way more problems than something like this will solve.

But if you have the data to make a solid case for this, we'd be open to at least looking into the concept

there are plenty of LSA props that are electrically articulating, and when MOSAIC hits most small GA aircraft will fit into the LSA category anyways.

Yea, that was basically the thought.

But I wouldn't try to pitch it to anybody who wasn't already casually dreaming about being able to include variable pitch in their offering...

I flew a Grumman with one of these electrically variable pitch props from MT once. The owner STC'd an O360 with a fixed pitch 2 blade to a electrically variable 3 blade. You toggle pitch with a 3 position switch. I thought it was pretty neat https://www.mt-propeller.com/mt/en/products/propeller-systems/electric-propellers-1086/

That's pretty neat. Hopefully MOSAIC will make this stuff become a cheap lump of metal, because there's really no reason that it wouldn't be. Neither the oil pressure system nor the gigantic bearings are really necessary AFAICT.

We'll be doing a Rotax 916 iS A driving a Sensenich 3B0 prop on an FP CS hub on our bird.

Full FADEC control from the powertrain... set & forget. Prop set at the push of a button.

It'll make me yearn for the days of constantly screwing around with throttle, pitch, mixture and manifold pressure! Fuck it...who am I kidding?😆

I fly PC-12 NG's now. No FADEC, but one PCL to control everything. Managing three levers is for the birds.

A great, great airplane.

One of our accounts has us doing aero analysis work on the U-28 variants for AFSOC.

I may or may not be incredibly familiar with those lol.

The program ends next year with no real replacement.

Ever try out a Piaggio P.180?

Cheesy-looking but man, she is a dream to fly!

there's one that flies in and out of OKC all the time. I'd rather have a King Air. Less to stress about when something breaks lol

For sure. Having parts & maintenance handy across the nation are always a good thing.

As far as I can see, constant speed is just variable pitch plus a control box. So in my initial idea, I didn't really make a distinction whether it's you setting pitch, or the computer.

@cjd @Zeb > anyone selling the hub to the public can license it for 20% of their sale price

That makes it impossible to sell it at-cost/non-profit, that's not okay.

How do you imagine people deal with VAT or sales tax?

@cjd @Zeb By including it in the price. That becomes at-cost + VAT.

You're implying that's an acceptable outcome. It isn't.

Sales tax is harmful and shouldn't be encouraged.

@lispi314 @cjd
Interestingly, sales tax is the only fair tax. Ideally it's the ONLY tax any society should have, as it's a tax on consumption.

All other taxes distort the economy negatively and hurt everyone involved in the transaction by providing the wrong incentives.

Sales tax also distorts, it reduces division of labor. Hard to get away from distortion...

@cjd @lispi314
You're right, but IMO sales tax is acceptable because you gotta have one tax to fund the essential functions of the government (military, courts, police).

Europe has divised a solution to the distortion of reducing division of labor by having incremental VAT, where each step of the production only pays the difference between output tax (received) and input tax (paid).

It adds quite a bit of red tape but it doesn't let the whole burden fall on the seller. Tax is always shit.

Ahh but you didn't say that it's "harmful" or that it "shouldn't be encouraged".

You said that a 20%-of-sale-price fee makes it IMPOSSIBLE to sell without profit - until I pointed out that basically every government in the world does this already.

That's not a typo, that's something that people who have experience with money and budgeting would never say.

So now I know that you've never sold anything before, and most likely you live at home - and budgeting is mostly something your parents manage.

And you would like me to take your opinions about sales tax and intellectual property seriously.

Interesting.

@cjd @Zeb

You said that a 20%-of-sale-price fee makes it IMPOSSIBLE to sell without profit - until I pointed out that basically every government in the world does this already.

It is what people do, but logically it makes no sense.

Apply on sale price -> new sale price, need to re-apply -> apply infinitely. There is no condition given for stop. It's improperly defined.

So now I know that you've never sold anything before, and most likely you live at home - and budgeting is mostly something your parents manage.

If you're going to resort to ad hominem bullshit that isn't even accurate to start with, you could just block me instead.

Crying "ad hominem" is such a terrible retort.

It's like saying "You just called me a loser, and I'm not gonna deny it, but I claim it has no bearing on the value of my opinion".

Uhm, yes it fucking does.

IF, it's a purely theoretical field like logic or mathematics, then yes, you can write a proof and even if you're a bumbling idiot, that proof is either correct or incorrect and that's it.

But on every single topic that people actually disagree about, you can't "prove" an argument correct. Unless there are obvious logical inconsistencies, you can only tell if it "sounds good" which is totally unreliable.

This is why real world decision makers who have serious consequences if they're wrong always pay attention to WHO they are listening to. Financial advice from poor people, and health advice from sick people rarely gets a hearing.

And people who respond "ad hominem" to a challenge of their credibility are kinda forfeiting the debate.

@cjd @lispi314
True. I've never used the word "ad hominem" in my life. It's such a gay tactic that makes no sense.

Who gives a shit about credibility or appeal to authority? You either have a good argument or you don't. You can always reason it logically and one should always be flexible to question even the most adamant of premises in search of the truth.

I personally love this video where joe explain how debates work (or don't work).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st2S71m60fY

there's a lot to be gained from throwing around ideas with someone who doesn't necessarily agree with you but trying to "win" an argument is impossible and you should avoid debate bros like the plague

Debating a person who is approaching you in good faith can be productive, but that was rare before social media and near extinct now.

You debate people mostly to make impressions on onlookers at this point.

Anyone trying to ad rules to debate is probably not approaching you in good faith. If something is objectionable you'll object to it in the debate and be able to demonstrate why it was a bad argument. Slippery slope is probably the worse example, it is actually valid more often than it is a fallacy.

Why do you think that ? Are not logic and reason enough ?

On which part?

Any part

Case in point.

... waiting on your argument ?

You're going to have a long wait.