[calmbonsai]

Not this again. They’ve clearly hired a new PR firm

Suffice it to say, from stable aeronautics at-edge, jet way footprint efficiency, ground support efficiency, airframe pressurization, cargo & passenger logistics, lifespan, and certification, there are many, many reasons “tube + wings” is the dominant airframe architecture for all non-military aircraft.

[Petersipoi]

There are many reasons for a lot of things, until you overcome those reasons. That's the point of innovation. There are many reasons not to make a reusable rocket too.

[calmbonsai]

Yes, but this "innovation" (as sold) must exist as a viable commercial airplane.

So far, I see zero evidence that this company has addressed any of the aforementioned challenges beyond theoretical fuel consumption and theoretical passenger logistics.

As someone who has 31 hours towards their single-engine ppl cert, I absolutely abhor the stagnation of general and commercial aviation due, largely, to certification barriers, BUT even having a viable flight-worthy blended-wing concept does not make for a viable mass market product.

Not related, see the near half-century of "alternative" wing and airframe designs that are absolutely better at a few pieces of the puzzle, but also absolutely failed to be viable when integrated into a fully functional and safe airplane.

This company needs to focus on success in a niche product role before addressing the safety, integration, and manufacturing needs of the mass commercial aviation market. They are not (atm) backed by this sort of "patient capital".

Not related, see all of the VC and failures required by Whittle (in wartime no less) to develop the jet engine or Tesla's corporate journey from Roadster -> S -> Y.

[jtrip]

Once they have enough airframes flying with the military, the logistics side of the equation should solve itself in quick time.

[stickfigure]

> As someone who has 31 hours towards their single-engine ppl cert,

FFS, have some self-awareness! This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in practice.

[hahahaa]

No because they used that point to say they have sympathy for the idea of innovating aircraft.

They are not saying "hold my beer while I put the industry to rights!"

[calmbonsai]

I don't see how having a marginal amount of single-engine aviation flight experience is relevant to Dunning-Kruger.

If anything, it's taught me how little I know about "real flying" compared to CFD and systems engineering.

Commercial aviation is conservative because aviation is "hard" and mistakes in aviation are "extremely costly".

[carabiner]

It's a lot like saying, "as someone 5 hours into driver's ed in my mom's honda civic, I believe that future stability control algorithms in self-driving cars..."

Or the difference between a (noob) software user and a software engineer.

[calmbonsai]

No. I'm, in essence, saying the opposite. To use your analogy "as someone with 5 hours into driver's ed in my mom's civic I now realize how hard driving actually is and why ALL cars still have 4 wheels, still use a steering wheel, and still have seat-belts".

[kelnos]

No, it's not. They're saying "as someone with a small amount of insider experience, even I can see how everything is super conservative and no one wants to innovate".

[trueno]

theres just some serious serious challenges here i dont think any of them are impossible to overcome but it would span so many more years and so much more funding to get thru. fuselage pressurization which they claim to have worked around (sus) is one of the spookiest imo.

traditional looking commercial jets, their designs, their manufacturing processes, their innovations (yes boeing/airbus do innovate and have for a long time even though it doesnt seem that way) have all been shaped heavily by human blood. to some degree a radical new design almost guarantees more deaths at a commercial level there's really no shortcutting this without it.

dont get me wrong im super open to the possibility that something like this is possible itd be better for the whole world, but there's no way we get there without re-experiencing some hard lessons if we want to push it pash some sort of proverbial finish line

[ryanjshaw]

> have all been shaped heavily by human blood

This assumes the lessons were specific to the body type and aren’t generalizable?

[imoverclocked]

Even small changes to time tested designs provide significant risk. A completely new body style will inevitably provide completely new failure modes.

Pressurizing a tube vs pressurizing a pancake (or flattened sphere, or some other easy approximation) will have very different mechanical loading characteristics. Turbulence (differences in air speed/pressure) across a large flat-ish surface that also has a signifiant pressure differential will also prove challenging to design for and scale up.

Aerospace is a very high dimensional design process. Doing anything different puts you into unknown territory real fast.

[margalabargala]

If some letters were capitalized it would be easier to read but without this gets downvoted as wordsalad. Almost illegible. Punctuation exists for a reason.

[trueno]

the misery it takes to make these types of comments lmao. behold lifes hidden fruits of simply scrolling past something that makes you irritable

[margalabargala]

Consider dropping spaces too. It'll make your comments even more Unique and Quirky! And it won't impact readability in a way you care about!

[trueno]

you ok man

[nine_k]

Halving the fuel consumption may be worth the trouble with all above.

Novel things always look unviable. First cars, first planes, first EVs all looked like dubious gimmicks sorely lacking the required infrastructure.

[jryle70]

If not this again, what would be your ideas of the path forward for aviation?

All of the constraints you mentioned are the results of decades of optimization around the tube-shape aircraft design. Meaning the design has to be proven first. Infrastructure will adapt.

Also, I suspect the first application will be military, such as Next Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS):

https://www.twz.com/air-force-says-it-needs-more-survivable-...

[imoverclocked]

Agreed. There are always large amounts of money being poured into aviation and most of what comes out is knowledge.

It's always exciting to see futuristic designs and bleeding edge tech but there are a lot of footnotes in aviation history filled with these.

I think electric aviation (in general aviation) is probably the best/real frontier to watch for innovation currently. Many advances in aviation come from much smaller operations doing something successfully.