[wiz21c]

"A clear path to zero": what a joke. It will be 25% less fuel, 75% SAF which are nowhere close (how will one grow enough without fertilizers ?), or worse, hydrogen which is even more nowhere close (how much energy you need to produce H2 ?).

just ditch the plane. That will be so much money you can invest in net-positive technologies.

[conorcleary]

If the design is more efficient, then eventually the fuel you put into it can be replaced by your magic solution.

[cassepipe]

Except there is another issue, how many people do you fit in this shape ? If you can only fly 30 people that's not very efficient as it would mean more flights.

Also I believe the further away you are from the rotation axis of the plane where it turns left or right, the more unpleasant your flight may be

[phoghed]

The very comment thread we’re in has a quote stating you get more interior space because of the incorporation of wings into the body.

They appear to make more sense for large passenger jets because the interior volume scales better. There’s a ton of practical concerns though.

They won’t fit into existing airport setups. Seats near the wing will move waaay more than near the center during banking turns (maybe they’ll be cheaper lol)

I don’t think it’s a given they’ll replace what we’ve got, but who knows.

[gertrunde]

Regarding capacity, iirc, one of the advantages of this style of body is greater internal volume.

And another company working in the same space, Natilus, is planning to fit 150-250 passengers on theirs, somewhat comparable capacity-wise to a 757, but about 30% smaller length/width.

[kelnos]

The website says it can seat 250.