ORIGINAL: MajorTomski
ORIGINAL: Jet_Plane
So basically your argument is based on the 'evidence' that 'MajorTomski right and the recognised experts in the field of propeller propulsion are all wrong'....... Sorry if i don't find that a convincing argument[img][/img]. It's the case that the burden of evidence must lay with the person trying to overturn accepted wisdom, so you need to come up with proof that the experts are all wrong, not just rhetoric.
On the contrary sir, I did not say they are wrong. I repeat again, spiraling slipstream is the ONLY aerodynamic phenomina that has not been quantified. There are no mathematical models to prove or deny that it exists. Yet it persists as hard, unarguable fact. I'm offering another point of view with another possible explanation that accounts for the same behavior. I intend to someday in my retirement look into generating the "proof" you so desire.
Lots of the pattern guys are adding what they call " Cantalizers ". This is nothing more then a stub wing placed right behind the canopy. It is intended to straiten out the spiral slipstream before it reaches the tail. I would have to think that if it didn't work then it would not be so commonly used. Then again this is R/C and I have seen lots of fads come and go.