It's a big difference in implementation, but I'm not seeing where they state whether it achieves any significant improvement in performance over existing cyclorotor designs like Voith Schneider. I think when they compare against "conventional shaftline configurations" they are talking about ordinary screw props.
I'm not seeing where they state whether it achieves any significant improvement in performance over existing cyclorotor designs like Voith Schneider
Traditional V-S loses a tonne of efficiency in the gearbox. It's less efficient than conventional shaftline. So if this is more efficient than the latter, it stands that it's moreso than the former. (Agree that I'd like more technical details.)
I can see the potential for dramatic improvements in efficiency and control using individual blade tuning, particularly during maneuvering, to increase or decrease turbulence depending on the desired effect. It sounds like a really fun control system problem.
Comments
individual blade control seems like a pretty big difference
It's a big difference in implementation, but I'm not seeing where they state whether it achieves any significant improvement in performance over existing cyclorotor designs like Voith Schneider. I think when they compare against "conventional shaftline configurations" they are talking about ordinary screw props.
Traditional V-S loses a tonne of efficiency in the gearbox. It's less efficient than conventional shaftline. So if this is more efficient than the latter, it stands that it's moreso than the former. (Agree that I'd like more technical details.)
I can see the potential for dramatic improvements in efficiency and control using individual blade tuning, particularly during maneuvering, to increase or decrease turbulence depending on the desired effect. It sounds like a really fun control system problem.