Two fans are mounted in each wing with vanes (like an extractor fan in a kitchen) covering the upper and lower surfaces. The vanes are adjustable for manouverability when hovering.

There is a fan either side of the tail, which provide lift and manouverability when hovering, then rotate to provide thrust in horizontal flight.

The wings will need to be thicker than normal, so to overcome the additional drag and perhaps provide a little extra (albeit inefficient) thrust, there are slots in the leading and trailing edges of the wings which allow air to go through the fan when the vanes are closed.
-- marklar, Jun 22 2011

Ryan XV-5 http://www.youtube....watch?v=1XkJXSoTTb4
baked. [FlyingToaster, Jun 22 2011]

You can't actually use the tailfans to lift unless you've got another lifting wing back there.

Other than that you're in good company <link>.
-- FlyingToaster, Jun 22 2011


Somewhat similar, like the new stupid F-35 that is not as good as the Harrier, but I was thinking of something larger, between the Osprey and the Hercules, powered by multiple turbines.

// You can't actually use the tailfans to lift unless you've got another lifting wing back there. //

Damn, you spotted that. I thought about that myself and was even worried that they'd have to push down, due to the different centres of lift for a wing and a fan, but I decided that the main fans would need to be towards the front edge of the wing as it would still need to taper gradually towards the trailing edge.
-- marklar, Jun 22 2011


Designing the mainspar with a big gap for a fan is going to be ... challenging.

VTOL is a very attractive concept but requires huge amounts of power over conventional STOL. The kit adds weight, complexity and maintainance demands.

It's only ever going to be economically justifiable for a very limited range of applications.
-- 8th of 7, Jun 22 2011


//Designing the mainspar with a big gap for a fan is going to be ... challenging.// Do most aircraft have only 1 spar? For a normal wing I would still imagine a spars fore and aft, with triangles in between. The extra thickness of the wing may help.

//It's only ever going to be economically justifiable for a very limited range of applications.// Yeah, like when you want to take off and land vertically.

It's really your only choice if you insist on making all your vehicles cubes or spheres.
-- marklar, Jun 22 2011


This thing would have horrible response dynamics; the radius of gyration would be simply too large, requiring big control surfaces and generally banking like a 1973 Fleetwood.
-- RayfordSteele, Jun 22 2011


//This thing would have horrible response dynamics// During conventional flight, the wing turbines would not be at full throttle and they could easily be idled when more manoeuvrability is needed, like coming in for a conventional landing.
-- marklar, Jun 22 2011



random, halfbakery