2
$\begingroup$

In my story I pictured an aircraft that possess ducted wings that achieve lift by having air blown directly at them, originally by fans, then "bladeless" dyson thrusters that would have been the ducts themselves, as I believed it would be more silent (it wouldn't) and have now settled for some sort of Ionic wind propulsion, but the method of propulsion is irrelevant I think, the thing is that having fixed position ducted wings would reduce the number of moving parts and consequently the wear and tear.

Does this concept make sense physically speaking? I got inspired by videos of airplanes tryng to land on high winds and appearing to be suspended in the air.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Uh, I'm sorry to break a dream, but Dyson-like bladeless fans are... Well, often far from silent ^^' (+some other French consumer magasine for reference) . Since it blows air through slits with a much smaller fan (because there is still a fan, just hidden in the base, and no coriolis effect), it tends to get noiser than other, non-bladeless fans for the same wind output. But you can still use them if you wish, they're indeed cool looking and that's what matters to most :)! $\endgroup$ Aug 25, 2022 at 23:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not a complete answer, but there's no way you'd produce more lift from airflow directly mostly over the wings (most of the force directed horizontally) than you would from directing force in opposition to the direction you wish to move (normal thrusters). So you're better off aiming your Dyson thrusters directly at the ground than faffing around with trying to generate lift with an airfoil. $\endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    Aug 25, 2022 at 23:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ VTC: (a) You don't need our permission to use an idea. (b) We don't answer questions about the Real World unless it's in a worldbuilding context (whether or not something could work in the Real World isn't a worldbuilding question, it's an engineering question). In your world, the idea works by definition and in fiction the idea is suitable for suspension-of-disbelief. (c) If you're asking an internal-consistency question, you need to explain your world rules to test for consistency. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 25, 2022 at 23:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JBH I have to disagree on the off-topic here : People ask a lot about things heavily related to real-world, like planet physics, vehicles or crossing ravines using real-world physics only means. There's enough of genuine worldbuilding context (I mean, a sand submarine/flying ship/hydrofoil boat hybrid would never exist in real-world). Others close reasons still have to be checked (looking at clarity from my side), but it's not off-topic. $\endgroup$ Aug 26, 2022 at 1:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suspect you are better off just shooting the air straight downwards to push your craft upwards. $\endgroup$
    – Daron
    Aug 26, 2022 at 15:59

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Actually, there is a vehicle in existence that blows air out from the edge to lift itself up--the Avro Aerocar. It doesn't use coriolis effect though, it used the Coandă effect instead.

Avro Aerocar

The Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar 58-7055 on its rollout. Developed in the late 1950s, the aircraft exploited the Coandă effect to provide lift and thrust from a single 124-blade turborotor blowing exhaust out of the rim of the 18 ft (5.5 meters) disk. Picture from Wikimedia, said to be in the public domain.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .