2 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.