Directorly Downwind Faster than the Wind

[Cloxxki]

As we're into aerodynamics here, I'll take liberty to vent an off-topic idea on aircrafts. I've been cooking on this for all my life, searching for a zero frontal area vehicle. I think I once sketched pretty much this, before the internet days.

So here goes.
A fuselage is open on the front, like a general jet engine.
Air is sped up inside, and channeled through a substabially thinner diameter tube.
This tube could be split into one to the top, one to the bottom of the inner fuselage.
The rest of the fuselage would be fre for payload volume, such as a cabin.
The rear of the fuselage is basically the invers of the front. Tube(s) funnel out, air exists.

Fuselage sits 100% out of the wind, has zero front surface area. This should reduce drag substantially. Reduced drag allow for an more drag-efficient lift aerodynamics package. Less jet liner, more rocket.

A similar design I already proposed for a DDWFTTW vehicle to reduce overhead frontal surface, of course. Increasing x windspeed performance will be greatly about optimizing prop rotor surface vs. overhead frontal surface.

How cool will it be if a few years from now there will be DDW races? Slight winds, but highway speeds reached.

[Cloxxki]

Another wind powered transportation idea.

Wind ducts.

Rail way systems adding an under-grip for a second axis system to prevent tilt in side-stresses. Angled against the rails at 45 degrees will suffice for now.

Along the railtrack, imagine huge fences like sideways (vertically mounted) luxaflex style vanes. Designed to, when closed, to contain windstreams for the advantage of a passing craft.
Or, when there is side wind, to convert this into tailwind.
The positioning system of the vanes (a scaled up window sun screen cord system) would be powered by simple wind/solar collectors near the track.

These side vanes should be beneficial to any vehicle passing through the created air duct, as the conditions will in any case offer greater positive downwind than ambient, while drawing in more wind mass and power as a logical result.

Counter-vanes on the chassis of the railcar would similarly trimmed for optimal speed.
I came up with the track side vanes as I was bugged with the wind friction the chassic would be dealing with due to lower near-ground air speeds. Yes, it could all be on an elevated monorail system for safety and performance, but you're looking at further building costs.
The side vanes could be limited to say 2m tall, to accommodate mostly the support of the vehicle and to limit costs. With sufficient with speeds though, a light near-passive vehicle with simples vains, foils, and DDWFTTW props, could already be propelled to significant speeds. We're bringing the wind to the track here. It becomes a wind highway. Even in actual headwinds, there could be a sustained environment of tailwind for the vehicle.
For lower wind speeds, rail car roofs could be outfitted with a very tall airfoil. Unlimited stability from the under gripping chassis allows for great force to be coverted into forward motion without tipping over such as a water, road or ice yacht deals with. The under gripping rail system is the ULTIMATE KEEL.

When no car is approaching, the wind duct would be exploited by efficient turbines emerging from rail-side encasements, to send power to the grid. The use of this redudant power (a train only) every 3 minutes is standard) might actually be of the magitude of being capable to opterate an adjecent old fashioned heavy electrical rail system from it. Far fetched? Imagine a wind turbine the size of a train, the length between 2 cities, say a regulation 5 miles apart. That's a lot of wind.
The passing DDWFTTW race carts would barely start tapping into its total capacity.

With super tail airfoils fitted, speeds might be so high that for satefy reasons they're limited to say 100mph, all the energy left over to be sent to the grid as well.

Of course, we're limited to open fields and relatively level ground here. Of which we happen to have A LOT in country. It's what we get to see from the train.

[sm0ky2]

Whats next ?flying without a motor?
"Apparent A "
WOW!!
A ,Its good to see someone think this far out of the box
And get seemingly impossible results!

Chet

if you geared the prop, instead of to wheels,. to a second propeller on top, like a helicoptor..... and geared down to a smaller one, for a controllable gyro. it may be possible.

think about this, a dandilion seeds weighs much more than the air it displaces. yet it uses the wind to fly for miles.....

[infringer]

A funnel compresses wind it appears there have been a lot of wind inventions using this concept the wind tube and so on you gather wind from a large area and it compresses with losses due to friction but the volume of air I would assume is increased within the base of the funnel thus giving you more torque it makes since to me logically untested yet due to a major setback I was never able to construct my replication of a wind tube cause no funnel maker was willing to make me a funnel to the specifications I needed but the generation portion for power generation may be way off base of what the original inventor is using I have not disclosed that portion yet myself due to reasons that may incriminate me I may however disclose it on my own website www.mopowah.com once I get it fully up and running.

[Cloxxki]

If you get a cart like this airborne, you'll need a replacement for the wheel to drive the thrusting props at a fixed or even controlled relationship to the apparent wind speed. You can "just" use a turbine for this. It will bring hugely increased drag vs. the wheels. I have some far-fetched ideas to solve this problem, and at least make a low-altitude "ground effect" flyer possible, but the engineering required would be super hi tech. I estimate it would take Formula One level engineering, just in a fields they usually don't explore, to make it work, and then just downwind and possibly upwind.

@infringer:
The trick with the Blackbird seems to be that the reduced apparent headwind (thanks to the tailwind blowing, despite being overtaking by the cart) allows the prop to work at peak efficiency, creating lots of torque for the amount of drag it puts on the wheels that drive it.
While a funnel might scoop up lots of air, it also acts like a garage door on your bicycle, when you're tring to pedal upwind. Air would be sped up inside, which if I understand the Blackbird team's explanations correctly, might not help the thrust game. A small prop turning fast is not as efficient as a large one turning slowly, for drag vs thrust. They offered the example of a helicopter, taking off with a small engine, large "prop", low rpm, while a Cessna with the same engine power just mills the air a bit and gets thrust from wings, and only past 80mph or so.
In the DDWFTTW example, it's all about thrust in the desired direction, so that example makes some good sence to me.

Personally, I totally like the idea of prop that are enclosed, placed in series, and what not, to boost thrust efficiency. I just cannot believe that a spinning blade through mostly empty air, can generate optimal thurst vs drag. And, alternative wind turbine being promoted point in the direction that indeed there is more to be had.