It really don't look like a detailed proposal. Especially it isn't recognisable, how
the fuselage would have been divided, so I would agree with hole in the ground.
The concept of the fuselage mounted prop seems to have inspired many designers
The expected advantages, except a clear field of fire, probably were better aerodynamics.
And AFAIK all constructors trying such a design encountered problems with engine
cooling ! :
New guy here. After closely examining the illo., it appears to me that the proposal wasn't an in-the-fuselage prop, but an external prop mounted alongside the fuselage (presumably with another counter-rotating prop on the fart side).
you may be quite right, it can well be something like here in this cutout from
a photo of the Morane Saulnier TRK (from "90 ans de succès, de MS à EADS
Unfortunately I couldn't find the patent in the web still yet. Any clue, where to
look, richard ? ???
" Pat.33023 from 27th April 1918, published on 7th December 1920,
Karl Tapernon, Düsseldorf :
Aircraft with two propellers, positioned for and aft of the wing,
which can be set to rotate in the same or in opposite directions.
Counterrotating, the air pressed under the wing will hold the aircraft
steadily in the air and allows taking off and landing vertically "
BTW, the short description contains several errors in language, that, to my
opinion wouldn't have been there in an official document. Maybe, it's just
a later description of the drawing, but someone who tried to figure out,
what it shows ?
Simply as an aircraft with two props it would work and maybe it
even can be useful in certain cases. This could have been
one of those inventions, which turned out to be totally different
in the end , than intended by the inventor .
The first porcelain was made in euopr by soemone, who tried to
produce gold !
Why do you say there is a nonsense in this invention? It seems (to me) just too optimistic: reversing the pitch of a propeller or the thrust of a jet has becomen very common, it simply brakes and reduces landing distance, not providing vertical landing... No?
As I understand it, they wanted to blow air under the wing from both sides,
probably to form a kind of air cussion. But there wouldn't have been a steady
airflow, so I don't think, that it is a practical solution.