3 ms·

70% fuel consumption reduction would be revolutionary. At 0.9 mach? Even more so. Highly unlikely to be real. If this concept had legs I would expect it to ha

70% fuel consumption reduction would be revolutionary. At 0.9 mach? Even more so. Highly unlikely to be real. If this concept had legs I would expect it to have been already gobbled up by one of the major aircraft manufacturers even while the company was in 'stealth mode'. Not only it's supposed to be 70% more efficient, but it is supposed to be easier to construct. On another article(https://paxex.aero/se-aeronautics-fever-dream/ https://paxex.aero/se-aeronautics-fever-dream/) they are saying they have a "new construction technique" that can build a whole airframe in a week. New, unproven construction technique could be revolutionary in itself - and an uphill certification battle. Oh and also the engines will be swappable in 30 minutes. And it's so efficient that even though it has two engines, only one will be in use at a time in cruise. So this means they will be close together. This is a safety concern. Its economy class will be more comfortable than today's economy class too (how can you claim that, that's entirely up to the airlines, unless they won't offer other seating arrangements) Lots of outlandish claims. Sure, the airline industry has only made very incremental developments over the past few decades and is overly conservative. Probably ripe for disruption. But to claim that you can suddenly leapfrog them on cost, efficiency, construction time and other verticals AT THE SAME TIME... sounds like snake oil to me.

qeternity 5y ago
Tesla Air
SaltyBackendGuy 5y ago
> and an uphill certification battle. This really makes me wonder how much of the lack of innovation in recent years is regulatory capture. > If this concept had legs I would expect it to have been already gobbled up by one of the major aircraft manufacturers even while the company was in 'stealth mode'. The Fermi paradox[0] of innovation. Surly it's possible this is feasible but the incumbent powers are not incentivized to adopt for other reasons. > But to claim that you can suddenly leapfrog them on cost, efficiency, construction time and other verticals AT THE SAME TIME... sounds like snake oil to me. Totally. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. All that said I really hope we can innovate on this front. 70% fuel savings is an insane amount of pollution we can prevent, among other benefits. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
- outworlder 5y ago
  > This really makes me wonder how much of the lack of innovation in recent years is regulatory capture. A relatively large amount. For instance, general aviation use of lead-based fuels. The lead content has been reduced, but building new engines (and certifying them) is not economical. Very few people actually _like_ 100LL fuel. Regardless, such engines have been built. But then you need to certify aircraft equipped with such engines too. However, there are plenty of aircraft in the "experimental" category that will gladly take "MoGAS" (aka automotive gasoline). Pilots also like it because it's cheaper and there's no spark plug fouling. Some may be concerned with the environment too. Avionics on the experimental category are arguably better. I'm torn on this issue, because regulation saves countless lives and we don't even notice. We do notice when they don't regulate enough (for instance, let companies like Boeing self-regulate) and we get crashes as a result.
stevehawk 5y ago
Engines close together as a safety concern? I'm not an aerospace engineer but I can't recall that ever being a real concern. It's a safety feature in most cases (less roll in the event of engine failure). The only thing they'd really need is a barrier that is guaranteed to stop a free flying fan blade and a piping design that ensures a fan blade doesn't cut lines to the other engine.
- outworlder 5y ago
  > The only thing they'd really need is a barrier that is guaranteed to stop a free flying fan blade and a piping design that ensures a fan blade doesn't cut lines to the other engine. That's exactly it. Not only you have to ensure that any catastrophic failures will be contained, but also that they will not impact either the remaining engine and any fuel, hydraulic or control lines that are feeding that engine. This is easier to prove and certify when the engines are on opposite sides of the fuselage.
bradknowles 5y ago
When I was nine, I designed a race car that could go 1000 miles an hour, used only one gallon of gas, and could be piloted by anyone who could sit in the seat and tell the computer where they wanted to go. I don’t see much in the way of material differences here.

qeternity 5y ago

Tesla Air

SaltyBackendGuy 5y ago

> and an uphill certification battle. This really makes me wonder how much of the lack of innovation in recent years is regulatory capture. > If this concept had legs I would expect it to have been already gobbled up by one of the major aircraft manufacturers even while the company was in 'stealth mode'. The Fermi paradox[0] of innovation. Surly it's possible this is feasible but the incumbent powers are not incentivized to adopt for other reasons. > But to claim that you can suddenly leapfrog them on cost, efficiency, construction time and other verticals AT THE SAME TIME... sounds like snake oil to me. Totally. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. All that said I really hope we can innovate on this front. 70% fuel savings is an insane amount of pollution we can prevent, among other benefits. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

outworlder 5y ago
> This really makes me wonder how much of the lack of innovation in recent years is regulatory capture. A relatively large amount. For instance, general aviation use of lead-based fuels. The lead content has been reduced, but building new engines (and certifying them) is not economical. Very few people actually _like_ 100LL fuel. Regardless, such engines have been built. But then you need to certify aircraft equipped with such engines too. However, there are plenty of aircraft in the "experimental" category that will gladly take "MoGAS" (aka automotive gasoline). Pilots also like it because it's cheaper and there's no spark plug fouling. Some may be concerned with the environment too. Avionics on the experimental category are arguably better. I'm torn on this issue, because regulation saves countless lives and we don't even notice. We do notice when they don't regulate enough (for instance, let companies like Boeing self-regulate) and we get crashes as a result.

stevehawk 5y ago

Engines close together as a safety concern? I'm not an aerospace engineer but I can't recall that ever being a real concern. It's a safety feature in most cases (less roll in the event of engine failure). The only thing they'd really need is a barrier that is guaranteed to stop a free flying fan blade and a piping design that ensures a fan blade doesn't cut lines to the other engine.

outworlder 5y ago
> The only thing they'd really need is a barrier that is guaranteed to stop a free flying fan blade and a piping design that ensures a fan blade doesn't cut lines to the other engine. That's exactly it. Not only you have to ensure that any catastrophic failures will be contained, but also that they will not impact either the remaining engine and any fuel, hydraulic or control lines that are feeding that engine. This is easier to prove and certify when the engines are on opposite sides of the fuselage.

bradknowles 5y ago

When I was nine, I designed a race car that could go 1000 miles an hour, used only one gallon of gas, and could be piloted by anyone who could sit in the seat and tell the computer where they wanted to go. I don’t see much in the way of material differences here.