FanWing - experimental aircraft content

[Solarmist]

I thought this was an interesting aircraft design with its "distributed-propulsion vortex-lift technology"

http://www.fanwing.com/

[bigblondeafro87]

wow very creative! Another one of those "Why didn't I think of that?" ideas...

You don't see too many aircraft designed for slow speed, so there is definitely a space for this in the market. I'd like to see the large scale design, could have some interesting uses.

[Jimmy Bones]

I see it being used for police and firefighting or SAR purposes.

[bassrique]

I'm confused at the most basic of levels:



The wingshape doesn't add up to me at this time. Perhaps I'm tired and unimaginative, but let's have a look at a traditional wing shape [cross-section]:



We learned how this works in grammar school, so perhaps I need to put this [low pressure at-top-of-wing to produce lift] paradigm aside?


EDIT: Nevermind. I'm just tired.

[bassrique]

How can this fly in heavy rain?

EDIT: If you watch the vid, the top of the "fan" isn't covered - it can't be, or the thing wouldn't likely produce the lift needed.

[ThatGermanDude]

Interesting. It definitely has some things that need to be improved but the prototype is obviously capable of flight.

[RWP]

Originally Posted by bassrique

I'm confused at the most basic of levels:



The wingshape doesn't add up to me at this time. Perhaps I'm tired and unimaginative, but let's have a look at a traditional wing shape [cross-section]:



We learned how this works in grammar school, so perhaps I need to put this [low pressure at-top-of-wing to produce lift] paradigm aside?


EDIT: Nevermind. I'm just tired.

This is a common misconception taught by schools. Only 20% of the overall lift produced by the wing is generated by the lowered pressure on the top of the wing. The other 80% is the result of down wash. Not even pictured in this drawing. Air being redirected downward is the action, lift is the reaction. Imagine standing under a helicopter hovering above you. The down wash from the rotary 'wing' is massive and that is the major reason the helicopter is flying, not lowered pressure on top of the wing.

The air being produced by the fans on this wing are directing the air down, causing lift. However, I suspect this is a very inefficient design. Not to mention this design would not glide if the fans in the wing failed. The only place this design will probably make any money is on the cover of Popular Mechanics.

[Relic]

That things ugly... it looks like a giant flying fluorescent light fixture

[ThatGermanDude]

Their website claims it is a highly efficient system and the take off in the video was almost instantaneously. However, they have to come up with a solution to the torque problem that the horizontal fans create. As mentioned, rain might be a problem as well, depending on how fast the fans spin and how dense the airflow is.

[bassrique]

Originally Posted by RWP

This is a common misconception taught by schools. Only 20% of the overall lift produced by the wing is generated by the lowered pressure on the top of the wing. The other 80% is the result of down wash. Not even pictured in this drawing. Air being redirected downward is the action, lift is the reaction. Imagine standing under a helicopter hovering above you. The down wash from the rotary 'wing' is massive and that is the major reason the helicopter is flying, not lowered pressure on top of the wing.

The air being produced by the fans on this wing are directing the air down, causing lift. However, I suspect this is a very inefficient design. Not to mention this design would not glide if the fans in the wing failed. The only place this design will probably make any money is on the cover of Popular Mechanics.

Just looking at the aircraft, i don't see how it creates down wash. It looks like it's creating low pressure on top of the wing with some air directed backwards propeling the vehicle forwards. I guess it;s hard to tell just by looking at it with an amateur eye.

[RWP]

Originally Posted by bassrique

Just looking at the aircraft, i don't see how it creates down wash. It looks like it's creating low pressure on top of the wing with some air directed backwards propeling the vehicle forwards. I guess it;s hard to tell just by looking at it with an amateur eye.

They call it 'vectored thrust'. If you look at the back of the wing you see a trailing edge that is tilted back about 45 degrees. This is the rearward and downward thrust angle. I am sure Bernoulli's principal is also involved as with any wing.

Here is the real test. Challenge this design to a 'standard' configuration aircraft of the same size and power consumption. i.e. the same power used to run the wing fans driving a propeller.
I have the feeling the standard aircraft would stay in the air much longer. I bet those fans are heavy!

[DudeistMonk]

I didn't know that 50's push mowers could fly.


Pretty awesome.

[ThatGermanDude]

Originally Posted by RWP

...
Here is the real test. Challenge this design to a 'standard' configuration aircraft of the same size and power consumption. i.e. the same power used to run the wing fans driving a propeller.
I have the feeling the standard aircraft would stay in the air much longer. I bet those fans are heavy!

A slight problem I see with this that the fans are an integral part of the wing design/aerodynamics. You would need to come up with and aerodynamically equivalent replacement for them first.

[RWP]

Originally Posted by ThatGermanDude

A slight problem I see with this that the fans are an integral part of the wing design/aerodynamics. You would need to come up with and aerodynamically equivalent replacement for them first.

The equivalent would be a standard wing. It is my assertion that the fan wing is less efficient than a aircraft with a standard wing configuration and a propeller in the front of the aircraft. It is my belief that the fans in the wing add more weight and require more power than any additional theoretical advantage it could provide. Therefor in an fair test with two otherwise comparable aircraft with equal power allocated for thrust, whether it be fan wing or propeller, I think the fan wing would lose.

[bassrique]

Originally Posted by RWP

The equivalent would be a standard wing. It is my assertion that the fan wing is less efficient than a aircraft with a standard wing configuration and a propeller in the front of the aircraft. It is my belief that the fans in the wing add more weight and require more power than any additional theoretical advantage it could provide. Therefor in an fair test with two otherwise comparable aircraft with equal power allocated for thrust, whether it be fan wing or propeller, I think the fan wing would lose.

But....I think the whole idea for the purpose of this aircraft would be to loiter at speeds where most traditional aircraft would stall out. Can a typical prop plane fly for extended periods at 30 mph?

Hmmmm...... better question....could a model/drone prop aircraft the same size as the lawnmower fly at 30 mph? Likely so, no?

[RWP]

Originally Posted by bassrique

But....I think the whole idea for the purpose of this aircraft would be to loiter at speeds where most traditional aircraft would stall out. Can a typical prop plane fly for extended periods at 30 mph?

Hmmmm...... better question....could a model/drone prop aircraft the same size as the lawnmower fly at 30 mph? Likely so, no?

I see your point but what advantage would slow flight have? Camera platforms work well orbiting at higher speeds. Seems like efficiency would be a higher priority. Don't get me wrong, I think this is cool but impractical.

[bassrique]

Originally Posted by RWP

I see your point but what advantage would slow flight have? Camera platforms work well orbiting at higher speeds. Seems like efficiency would be a higher priority. Don't get me wrong, I think this is cool but impractical.

I think the guy in the vid mentioned Manhattan. If you orbit, you'll lose your line-of-sight because of all the skyscrapers, no?

[RWP]

Originally Posted by bassrique

I think the guy in the vid mentioned Manhattan. If you orbit, you'll lose your line-of-sight because of all the skyscrapers, no?

I guess if we start seeing them whipping around NY we'll know it was a good idea.
The best thing about this is it shows people are thinking and trying new ideas. I am sure the Wright Brothers were told their idea stunk.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by RWP

I am sure the Wright Brothers were told their idea stunk.

Man? Capable of flight, you say? Now sirs, please refrain from such precarious ideas! If man were meant to fly he'd have been born of wings!

[MIJ-VI]

Originally Posted by Relic

That things ugly... it looks like a giant flying fluorescent light fixture

Oh, the irony...