[rdtwo]

No they aren’t. Airplanes like boats are certified in such a way that the regulations assume that all future airplanes will look like past airplanes.

As such any deviation from that standard form is super expensive because you need to have the regular create an updated set of rules. That takes years and years and tons of money/risk

It may make sense from a physics point of view but not from a business view.

[medion]

Same thing happens with construction planning - very hard to get anything “unusual” through planning departments if it doesn’t just conform to existing methodologies, design, and often even size. Hence why movements like the tiny house movement have such a hard time - the rules were designed when building was affordable - now it’s not.

[rdtwo]

Yeah but one of the reasons why stuff isn’t affordable is because regulations are designed around edge cases without factoring the cost sufficiently.

[scarier]

Take a look at 14 CFR Part 23. The standards are performance-based. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any kind of proposed aircraft design that doesn’t fall into existing categorization.

[rdtwo]

It’s the details that get you. Things like door designs visibility, control expectations.