The issue isn't the airframe, it's the systems. Take the Cirrus SR22. A fast, modern, relatively efficient aircraft with a full avionics suite capable of instru

The issue isn't the airframe, it's the systems. Take the Cirrus SR22. A fast, modern, relatively efficient aircraft with a full avionics suite capable of instrument flying. It's even got a ballistic parachute so that if anything goes wrong you can simply float to the ground. It's really, really dangerous.[1] Cirrus SR22's crash something like 4 times more often than Diamond DA40s (a similar aircraft). [1]: http://sr22.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/general-aviation-safety-and-the-cirrus-sr22/ http://sr22.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/general-aviation-safety... Why? Pilot error. A combination of Cirrus marketing their aircraft as a transport solution (which attracts relatively inexperienced pilots) and the comparatively unforgiving airframe leads to high accident rates. What does this proposal do to solve that problem? It's a novel airframe, sure, but it's not that novel. I can't imagine that it will offer huge efficiency boosts over something like a Velocity XP (which has similar construction techniques and can probably be used with the same Diesel engines). This is solving the wrong problem. The issues are regulatory and electronic.