logoalt Hacker News

calmbonsaitoday at 7:36 AM1 replyview on HN

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.


Replies

stickfiguretoday at 7:42 AM

> 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.

show 2 replies