Yes.Why wouldn't this be simpler, cheaper, and more efficient than the shown oval ring testbed?
And, how might such an aircraft compare with an otherwise identical aircraft of identical energy input driving a conventional propeller? In otherwords, for a given amount of energy input, which gets better miles per gallon?
And it is air under relatively elevated pressure, which is relatively "lossy" to produce. It may be unwise to pay that price if the desired end goal is to move a lot more air under very low pressure anyway, provided there is a more efficient way to do that.I do admit, the Dyson Fan tech like thrusters are elegant. The only moving parts are the ones that rotate or retract thrusters. No need for power shafts, slip rings for electric motors, or controls just a hollow tube to tube joint. Oh, and air. Tons of air.
The Rockwell was trying to be a supersonic VTOL. A regular plane trying to be a regular plane that used wing slots for propulsion and improved lift would likely do fine.Ah, but the full scale plane doesn't run on compressed air. Any more than a Lycoming. It uses a turbo jet as a "gas generator ", so it's In some ways like the Rockwell project. Which feeds back to the earlier question, "why not just blow through slots on the wing?" & the answer is the rectangular exterior gizmos are more efficient at moving air than the open/ one sided wing slots would be. It was duct losses that killed the Rockwell XFV-12, plus the thrust augmentation wasn't as good as planned for.
The slots would be closable during level flight so you would also keep them shut when parked.I'm imagining the consternation on the ramp as you start up your "ducted thrust/slot/thing" craft, either the OP fantasy plane or Sockmonkey's, after a month parked on the grass, and the hornets start ejecting from the system at just subsonic speed. Angry, tumbling, hornets.