-4
$\begingroup$

Is it possible to design an aircraft with blade-less (same concept as Dyson) design to generate thrust?

What are some of the key benefits, drawbacks and examples of attempts (if any) at this kind of design?

Envision the engine/s:

  • Are mounted inside the fuselage. E.G. in the cargo area (ofc this means reduced space for cargo)
  • Have an intake which allows for air to enter the engine for compression
  • Thrust-points are located throughout different point/s of the fuselage/wing

Here are some (faux) examples of what this concept could sort of look like: Blade-less engine front view Blade-less engine rear view Blade-less engine mounted elsewhere

It seems like this type of design could reduce drag and therefore improve efficiency. Plus the added benefit of reduced noise and impact of bird strikes.

Here’s an article which explains how Dyson fans work for reference: https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/home/dyson-bladeless-fan.htm

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thing is, the "bladeless" bit is a bunch of marketing BS. There are oodles of blades; they are just hidden inside a housing and are used to create a high velocity stream to pull along a low velocity stream. In other words, an ejector pump. A useful mechanism if you want to move air using a handy motive source that would otherwise be wasted. An extremely inefficient way to accelerate a mass of air for thrust purposes. $\endgroup$
    – John K
    Jan 2 at 16:17
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The photos showing a superficial resemblance between an empty nacelle and an allegedly bladeless fan, (that actually isn’t) severely hamper the credibility of this question in my opinion. (I.e. it looks like it’s asking “can we just remove the engine and still produce thrust?”) $\endgroup$ Jan 2 at 18:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, kinda funny the preceding dyson fan question has 53 fans (atm). Pun inteded. $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    Jan 3 at 11:43
5
$\begingroup$

No that has no benefits for aviation at all, except for the marketing department. A large amount of losses funnelling the airflow from motor to a small strip, from which it is propelled at high velocity.

As stated in many places on this site, thrust T = $\dot m \cdot \Delta V$, while the energy expelled E$_{kin}$ = $½ \cdot \dot m \Delta V^2$. So thrust efficiency is highest when the largest amount of air flow is accelerated least. And this is exactly opposite of what the Dyson fan does.

So a propeller with large blades, accelerating air directly backwards, is the best.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1, but this arrangement would be less vulnerable for FOD, so there is some merit here. The engine providing the compressed air would of course still be more or less susceptible to FOD. As for efficiency, this arrangement would be catastrophic. $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    Jan 2 at 14:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Would it really be less vulnerable to FOD? Where would the air inlet be, on top of the aeroplane? $\endgroup$
    – Koyovis
    Jan 2 at 21:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm going by the guess that the actual engine would have a single intake, compared to multiple intakes of engines on wings or fuselage, so just by area it might be a tad bit "safer". Then again, because of the losses, the main engine would be huge, so... $\endgroup$
    – Jpe61
    Jan 3 at 11:41

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.