[caconym_]

So you think that no matter how much better technology gets, we're stuck with tube-with-wings _forever_ because that design was the first to be made practical? Nobody's saying we have to make an "overnight" switch, but you seem to be suggesting that nothing will ever change, and I think that's silly. It probably won't be this design, because change is definitely hard, but ultimately if some novel design can make the economics of commercial aviation (or some subset thereof) work then all the inertia of the current paradigms won't be able to stop progress over time.

[ARandomerDude]

I think you missed the parent's points in several places.

> So you think that no matter how much better technology gets, we're stuck with tube-with-wings _forever_ because that design was the first to be made practical?

Parent listed specific technological advantages of current designs over the flying wing configuration in question (maintenance, efficiency, etc.). The use of the word "overnight" twice suggests he wasn't making a "forever" claim.

And there is a real point regarding current infrastructure. For example, the entire 737 Max debacle exists because airlines want to avoid the expense of retraining pilots, and Boeing rushed to make that happen in the face of competition from Airbus.

[caconym_]

Actually, I don't think I missed anything.

I'm aware that their argument is very rooted in the status quo, and I agree that current infrastructure is a big roadblock to adoption of new technologies (in fact, you may have missed that part of my comment), but if they wanted to allow for eventual adoption of new technologies then they should have said so. Instead, their comment dismissed this new technology as impractical today without addressing the future at all, which I think is an incomplete analysis and potentially harmful if it were to be applied by the people actually making decisions about which developing technologies to invest in. That's why I replied.