[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".

[stickfigure]

People with a handful of hours towards a private pilot's license have no (zero, zip, nada) expertise or insight when it comes to the design and manufacture of commercial airliners. You might feel like you do, but it has no basis in fact, because the constraints that really matter are things that engineers have spent a hundred years working out by trial and error (and crashing a lot of aircraft).

We wouldn't take airliner design advice today from the Wright brothers, either.

[carabiner]

When I worked in flight test you realize how much pilots don't know anything. It's exactly like a car driver vs. automotive engineer.

[carabiner]

That's not what your original comment says at all. You're pontificating on future aircraft configurations while you're just learning the ABC's of being an enduser of said products. Being a learning pilot confers zero expertise on conceptual design. It probably gives you less expertise than being a longtime aviation journalist like Bill Sweetman.

[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".