**** me there is some whinging going on here. When you have tried the prop make a comment. until such time that you have got off your ass and tried one, shut the **** up.

Very well said!

I love the idea and would consider purchasing one of these props when they become available.
However, now I am not a patent expert but, I don’t see how you can patent something that has prior art as far back as 2001. Just as the other individual pointed out, there is plenty of prior art of this idea out there and once something is made public, without a patent, anyone can use it. Don’t get me wrong, I applaud you for being way ahead of the curve in the RC industry and I hope I’m wrong, but just don’t see how you can patent this.

Scott

Originally Posted by rpdesigns

I am the "partner" with the new prop. I kind of handle the business end of things... So just to address a couple of the questions
1. video - yes it is coming, we don't want to post some poor cell phone quality video, but rest assured we will provide video shortly
2. How soon available to buy- 1st shipment should hit around early may, but that is not 100% solid
3. How soon will their be other sizes- hopefully pretty quickly, since this is "self-funded" and for personal reasons we are not pursuing the VC route or investors, so obviously we don't have unlimited captial
4. What about full size aircraft - well before we even came close to releasing this information we hired a very thorough patent lawyer (he wasn't cheap!!) and we have already secured a patent pending (almost a year ago) and we are in the process of being awarded the full patent and it covers every size, material, etc.... so we do plan to take that route at some point
5. I don't believe you prop does what it claims - Fair enough nothing wrong with being skeptical, the thing we are so excited about is the fact that the more time people spend with it the more impressed they are. We are going to encourage users to submit pics and videos to the website so you can see other peoples impressions. We are so confident that if you meet us at a trade show (or something similar) we will let you do a test flight for free!

hope this helps and feel free to ask any other questions

Originally Posted by rusty55125

I love the idea and would consider purchasing one of these props when they become available.
However, now I am not a patent expert but, I don’t see how you can patent something that has prior art as far back as 2001. Just as the other individual pointed out, there is plenty of prior art of this idea out there and once something is made public, without a patent, anyone can use it. Don’t get me wrong, I applaud you for being way ahead of the curve in the RC industry and I hope I’m wrong, but just don’t see how you can patent this.

Scott

If there is not a current patent on something, you can patent it.

Originally Posted by jaihunt

**** me there is some whinging going on here. When you have tried the prop make a comment. until such time that you have got off your ass and tried one, shut the **** up.

Why such animosity?

Are you financially vested in this new design?

Originally Posted by rusty55125

I love the idea and would consider purchasing one of these props when they become available.
However, now I am not a patent expert but, I don’t see how you can patent something that has prior art as far back as 2001. Just as the other individual pointed out, there is plenty of prior art of this idea out there and once something is made public, without a patent, anyone can use it. Don’t get me wrong, I applaud you for being way ahead of the curve in the RC industry and I hope I’m wrong, but just don’t see how you can patent this.

Scott

, as of now (once again this is not my just my research but a patent lawyer's also) there is no patent on the design. we already have the patent pending done (which means we can sue after being awarded the patent to anyone that trys to use the design). Trust me we fully understand that we didn't "originate" the idea, but NO ONE has patented the idea and ran with it (until us) so once again just because someone has "done it" doesn't mean there is a patent on it... we would not be moving forward unless we weren't confident we could get the patent and didn't already have a patent pending on the design........ make sense??

sometimes it is just the people that actually move forward on something and take the necessary steps opposed to the person that "came up with the concept".. and in this case no one has even moved forward at all since there are NO forward sweep props..

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

Why such animosity?

Are you financially vested in this new design?

no he is not "vested", i think like me he is probably just frustrated when people spend a TON of time and money into something and people (without actually even trying it) decide to rip on people that are at least trying to do something.... trust me if you want to test the prop and then rip on it i have no problem with that....

Originally Posted by rpdesigns

no he is not "vested", i think like me he is probably just frustrated when people spend a TON of time and money into something and people (without actually even trying it) decide to rip on people that are at least trying to do something.... trust me if you want to test the prop and then rip on it i have no problem with that....

And speaking of ripping, I'm guessing that the leading edge being behind the prop tip may actually eliminate most prop ripping?
Pardon my non engineer take of the design. Super Cool stuff. Congrats and good luck on getting this one to market for us to fly.

Originally Posted by Karmann34

And speaking of ripping, I'm guessing that the leading edge being behind the prop tip may actually eliminate most prop ripping?
Pardon my non engineer take of the design. Super Cool stuff. Congrats and good luck on getting this one to market for us to fly.

Sweep increases the "Drag Divergent Mach Number".... I dunno if it actually decreases the sound... maybe.... selecting a transonic section might help....

When they sell the 32" props... we will learn more 'cuz it always seems to be the 150CC and 170+cc planes that rip bad......

IMHO, it is OK for people to have skepticism..... outright Bagging on it without understanding the physics is not gentlemanly for sure....

I have not read anything from the creator really 'splaining the reasons for the improvement.... Did I miss those posts???

Not trying to be negative mith or start a fight, but he really does not need to share all his hard reseached work with you or me. What matters is that it does or does not work as well as claimed. this will be done when more people start flying these props upon release.

It is clear that you have some knowledge by your post about aerodymnamics etc, but it always pays to keep in mind that we can never know it all and that there is always room for improvement, regardless of how much time and experience you may have on a given topic. to think other wise is ignorant and means that you have stopped learning.

Did I miss the video of this thing in action with sound?
if I didn't miss the video...why is there no video?

Hahaha, I just love forums... punch it out boys!!!

Originally Posted by Cryhavoc38

Did I miss the video of this thing in action with sound?
if I didn't miss the video...why is there no video?

OK, OK, i should have video up by this weekend.... working fulltime and doing this is tough!!! i will post it here when i have it edited....

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

Sweep increases the "Drag Divergent Mach Number".... I dunno if it actually decreases the sound... maybe.... selecting a transonic section might help....

When they sell the 32" props... we will learn more 'cuz it always seems to be the 150CC and 170+cc planes that rip bad......

IMHO, it is OK for people to have skepticism..... outright Bagging on it without understanding the physics is not gentlemanly for sure....

I have not read anything from the creator really 'splaining the reasons for the improvement.... Did I miss those posts???

Yup, I was really looking at the numbers and wondering if an additional 600rpm would probably cause my current 22x10 to start ripping.
Having some background in composites, it is a little pricey to have the tooling milled even with current CNC technology. Making the first few props to test out is probably as exciting for these guys as it is for us to see.
I like the suspense.... Waiting to see how it all works out will be intersting.

Please don’t take this as me trying to be argumentative, I love the idea and will probably purchase one of your props when they become available. I am just trying to save you some money on lawyers. The way our lawyers claim it works, once an idea is made public, without the patent process started, it can’t be patented! Actually, one of my previous employers would publish an idea they didn’t want to patent in a small obscure publication, where no one would look rather than spend the money on a patent. This way, no one could prevent them from continuing to use the technology and they didn’t just give the idea away by making it widely known.
For the most part you can always get a patent pending, but the actual patent is a different matter. You might be able to get a Design (look) patent or very, very specific Utility one, but those types of patents are easy to get around. If your lawyer is telling you, if a pre-existing idea isn’t patented, then you can. He’s wrong! I would love to patent the wheel, think of the money I could make!
Good luck with your idea!
FYI, I have 10 patents of my own so I have gone through the process a few times.
Scott

Originally Posted by rpdesigns

, as of now (once again this is not my just my research but a patent lawyer's also) there is no patent on the design. we already have the patent pending done (which means we can sue after being awarded the patent to anyone that trys to use the design). Trust me we fully understand that we didn't "originate" the idea, but NO ONE has patented the idea and ran with it (until us) so once again just because someone has "done it" doesn't mean there is a patent on it... we would not be moving forward unless we weren't confident we could get the patent and didn't already have a patent pending on the design........ make sense??

sometimes it is just the people that actually move forward on something and take the necessary steps opposed to the person that "came up with the concept".. and in this case no one has even moved forward at all since there are NO forward sweep props..