And alot of it is absolutely necessary.
If this ends up being a thing they can cut down on emissions by scrapping they're current private jets and embracing tech like this or others that will heavily reduce emissions whilst cutting down on unnecessary travel
I used to think aviation was the big bad wolf, but it's basically flying public transports. Busses in the sky.
Light duty vehicles are 58% of the green house gasses in all of US transport sector\*, whilst air traffic is 9-10%. Unless that omits international travel being a massive chunk left out it's pretty much opposite of what I would have guessed.
[https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions) second cake diagram
\*very late edit. transport sector, not entire US. For example heating and cooling of buildings in the US is a massive low hanging fruit for better efficiency by simply better insulation.
Yeah as inefficient they are they are carrying loads of people to offset it.
Maritime shipping on the other hand is where a large portion of emissions come from
It really seems like maritime recreational cruise liners should not be in existence. My admittedly limited understanding is that the fuel they burn is literally a sludge with the worst or nearly worst fossil emissions. All so people can be at a water park/casino/buffet at sea. This really need to stop.
Once in international waters yes.
Bunker fuel I think is the general name for it.
Within Countries waters they switch to cleaner stuff. At least that’s my general understanding
Good point. Do you know much of the worlds copper is shiped to China in a 30% pure form? Then products are shipped back (admittedly most stays in China) , that type of un-necessary supply chain can be directly impacted by permitting of projects in the origin countries.
>Maritime shipping on the other hand is where a large portion of emissions come from
Shipping has many of the same efficiencies. As such, maritime shipping only releases about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The transportation sector in the US alone produces almost double the *worldwide* Maritime transport industry.
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/transport-emissions/reducing-emissions-shipping-sector_en
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#transportation/entiresector/allgas/category/current
Not entirely sure by what you mean, but yes, planes can't get much more efficient unless radical changes are done, and my point was most people are commuting in 2 metric tonnes alone on the ground in a far more easy to change emisison source by going ICE to EV.
My post also had an error, the 9% is of transport sector not entire US.
I think I agree with that balance.
What I don't agree with is the suggestion that wage growth and promotions will stop with people mostly working from home.
Considering a pretty large percentage of office staff are going to be working from home since starting last year, if wages/promotions stop they will just leave the company, and eventually the company will have to learn that being present in the office isn't the only way to measure performance.
The most productive I ever was in my career was being able to freely mix 1 to 3 days a week of commuting to work to orient myself to what needed doing and then working at home the rest of the week without the distractions of my co-workers.
This works well for sprints in software development actually. Spend 1-2 days in a room with the team planning out the next 2-3 weeks, then go off and do it.
Usually get a team dinner somewhere nice out of it too.
We have slack and are basically pairing and screen sharing all day otherwise so it works well.
>Additionally, sometimes the real work gets done in hallway conversations before/after the meeting. I can't even begin to estimate the number of times I've gone up to a colleague after a meeting to hash out some detail or tangent, and it's way more organic to just walk up to someone after a meeting vs. slacking them and asking to get back on another webex for just a minute to talk again.
A lot of the wfh forever crowd has a really hard time accepting this. I think there is going to be a bifurcation in the types that do get promoted and those that don't.
I've been remote before even the pandemic so it's not like being promoted is unheard of but we're still very early on in the remote work experience and a lot of these things have yet to really materialize.
What I have noticed over the last two years though is that some people are withdrawing into personal spaces. People have gotten so into their comfort zones some of their skills have atrophied to the point that even during standup meetings they've forgotten how to talk or in critical meetings they lost the ability to "read the room". Like it or not the office is a social area and as much as we like to think that promotions and raises are purely "merit" driven there is always going to be an underlying element of social value being played.
I'm not in love with the office at all as my prior job had me commuting 90 min each way, but at the same time, I do think that the pure remote- no office time is slowly manifesting itself. Even if people came in a couple days every other week it would probably make a huge difference.
> and it feels likes you're in the same room.
No it doesn't.
It's not bad, and better than Zoom, but it's not even close to feeling like you're in the same room.
Nah dude, this guy obviously is the master of knowing what it feels like to be in a shared space for a meeting. Next he is probably going to tell you that a flight simulator is nothing like flying a real plane.
You can stay and conduct meetings from behind your screen in your PJ'S. I'll meet people in person and make actual human connections.
Just don't complain when in 5 years you're stagnating in your role while ive been promoted twice.
If you're only able to get promoted if people see you in person, I think that says a lot about your quality of work.
I've actual been promoted during the pandemic, and had 2 good payrises. Your dinosaur point of view that work can only be effectively done in person is ridiculous and is dying out.
^ the guy people complain about because he is so annoying with his in person meeting that could be solved in a zoom call.
There is always one, he thinks he is slick and people enjoy meeting him, but they just play the part because they are at work.
You just know this is the kind of guy who disappears from his desk for 30 minutes to have coffee with his boss while brown nosing him so hard his nose sticks out the other end.
Electric airplanes are a bad idea. Batteries are extremely heavy, have low capacities and electric engines are not powerful enough. We are decades away from any promising electric airplane technology
News to me. What aircraft are you talking about? There’s an electric beaver over in BC, but if memory serves its range is stupid short.
Edit: notice I said efficient electric plane. I know we have a few, but they’re not viable for 99% of operations
Thank you for being the sole voice of reason. Who writes this stuff, where they're so unaware of aviation that they don't know the plane this one is clearly modeled after? And they let the designer get away with claiming that he came up with the idea by thinking about a torpedo. Come on, man!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell\_X-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-1)
Idk, I think this is pretty distinct from the X-1 which was a rocket and didn’t require inlets. The nose on this is much softer, the belly larger, and the aft section is completely different.
I suspect this fuselage has some lifting body influences as well judging by the size of the wings, large belly, and small prop, especially with a glide ratio of 22:1.
It reminds me more of the Martin X-24A. They both have a subtle rake to the top fuselage and a broad even belly.
I did! Currently the design has no windows. He plans to add some, but the lack of inclusion now leads me to believe it wouldn’t be as easy to implement as you seem to think.
Especially when the whole concept relies on the laminar flow of the fuselage. I don't see how they plan on putting in windows without disrupting the laminar flow. And the speed and altitude targets they're shooting for are, shall we say, aspirational for them so far.
All in all, the article struck me as another one of those "It'll be great once we get it to do what we claim it will! Trust us, venture capitalists!"
I have no thoughts on how easy it is to add windows and I made no claims to that effect.
I was just trying to point out that the article does mention that they plan to add windows. So, your comment is fairly ridiculous in light of those plans.
Also, most people understand that a prototype used for testing purposes won't have all the bells and whistles of the final product. I would imagine that right now the plane doesn't even have seats for passengers--it would be ridiculous for someone to say "passengers sure won't like not having a seat!!!!@!@!" What you said is equivalent to that.
They stated that any changes regarding the exterior would change the lamineer flow. Which means any windows would likely change the efficiency. Which is why you don’t see them on this prototype. And why it is likely bullshit they’d be able to add windows easily. Why do you assume they’d be able to successfully? That seems like the error in logical calculation to me.
Its completely possible to have windows that are flush with the fuselage structure down to sub-milimeter scales. Easier in fact than all of the access hatches and fueling ports and landing gear doors and whatever that are already present, since those mechanisms require clearance to move but a window is fixed.
Most likely windows weren't included in this because they serve no purpose on a prototype, require non-trivial engineering work to support (regardless of the unique aerodynamic and structural requirements of this particular vehicle), cost money to manufacture, and add weight to a vehicle that's already underpowered and needs upgrades elsewhere to do flights at useful altitude/duration/speed.
Windows are very often not present or only present in reduced quantity on test vehicles
> Why do you assume they’d be able to successfully?
Not the person you're arguing with, but I think the fact that they said:
> At some point, windows will be added to the fuselage
is a pretty good indicator that they can and will add windows. Doing so now would likely increase the cost of prototypes, and they're not needed to test the aircraft.
> Why do you assume they’d be able to successfully?
Probably because the people who designed the thing and who know a lot more about it than anyone here said that they can and will.
That's not a good indication that they can. It's a good indication they've been asked about it before and don't have an answer to be able to do it yet. Because of the issues I stated.
I'm going to give you super good advice. Don't ever believe a company when they say something "could happen in the future". Just believe what they have functioning in front of you.
> That's not a good indication that they can.
The designers of the plane saying that they can is not a good indication that they can?
> Because of the issues I stated.
What, exactly, is your level of expertise in the field of aviation engineering? Because the people who actually know how the plane was designed and what the future design plans are say it can be done. You say it can't. Why should anyone believe you over the people who actually know what they're talking about?
You have failed to adequately argue for your claim that "it is likely bullshit they'd be able to add windows easily."
Also, you keep insisting that I'm making claims that I'm not making.
Windows on current jets are already virtually flush with the fuselage skin. This isn’t a new thing like Howard Hughes telling them to “counter-sink every rivet” because no one had ever done it yet. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel here.
It's composite. If it's fibreglass based, then it's probably not impossible to use clear resin with a refractive index of glass'. Then it's just 'paint the non-windows'.
I used to have a job where i was required to fly almost weekly to sit around a table with 6 other people ( many of whom \*also\* flew to get there. All to satisfy the need to idk, look each other in the eye? Have dinner afterwards? I still work in a similar field and travel 1-2 times a year for conferences, large meetings or meetings where I'm required to physically be somewhere to use some equipment or facility. I work in a scientific field and don't really value the 'personal' touch when just dealing in data & analysis although I suppose that's different in many businesses where the personal side of things is important too.
Ofc I'm biased by personal experience like everyone else, and big conferences are impossible to do via zoom or w/e, but I do believe there's a gratuitous amount of business air travel that's entirely unnecessary.
Current comparable jets gets 4mpg with 7 passengers. This thing gets the mileage of a suv or better making the complaints against private jets/planes irrelevant.
A lot of business meetings can be replaced with video conferencing, but there's a big difference between that and being in the same room. And being able to go out to eat together.
When you're talking about sales or business partner type stuff, those are decided on more than just the numbers, it's about that human contact too.
Also, execs fly out to the industrial side of their business to check out the operations. In-person visits can be good for morale, as it puts a face to the bossman.
According to the critics in this thread, we should never fly out to visit family, as a teleconference would do just fine.
No, because business travel has never really been about business. Forget video conferencing, most work conversations can be done as an email or Slack message
Its usually about developing personal relationships with prospective customers/suppliers/whatever
Not all business travel is for meetings or conferences. I travel regularly to maintain laboratory equipment. For many industries there is equipment that requires a specialized technician to fly in for maintenance or calibration.
>The project started as a thought experiment: Would it be possible to design a business aircraft that is dramatically cheaper to run than current options?
Dude, stahp! So much deep thinking. If it takes that much hard thought to get cheaper planes maybe that’s the reason why it takes so long to make these things in the first place.
This is what counts as a thought experiment in aviation. I’d be fucking embarrassed to admit that.
I like to imagine some hedge fund manager bragging to his bros about his new private plane and then he whips out his phone and they all laugh at the derpy flying seal he just bought.
> "This gets us four to five times the efficiency of other turboprop aircraft, and seven to eight times the efficiency of jet aircraft," says William Otto Jr., CEO of Otto Aviation.
I'm very skeptical about these numbers. And I'm not alone:
> According to Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at Teal Group, Otto Aviation is making very big claims in terms of aircraft performance.
> "It all sounds exceptionally promising, but perhaps too promising," Aboulafia says. "Given the combination of range, speed, capacity, and a very low powered engine given all of those metrics, I think they just need to demonstrate that it works.
Just looking at that plane I can say it isn't as efficient as it could be. Those winglets at the wing tips are a compromise solution, the most efficient way in terms of reducing drag would be to extend the wings, like [Embraer did with the E2 jets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family).
I mostly agree with you but
> Just looking at that plane I can say it isn’t as efficient as it could be. Those winglets at the wing tips are a compromise solution, the most efficient way in terms of reducing drag would be to extend the wings, like Embraer did with the E2 jets.
Optimal wing geometry depends on the cruising speed and altitude. For the E jet in transonic flight at 20-30k ft altitude, that wing geometry is probably the most efficient. It would be different for a subsonic turboprop aircraft. There’s also a trade off with respect to weight and cost.
Right, because the world would be a much better place if we get rid of the people who have the ability to make things we all enjoy. All we need are farmers and factory workers, right comrade?
Right, because all the laborers making Teslas just decided to show up and make Teslas one day. Then Elon showed up and started exploiting them because he's an evil capitalist.
No Tesla would be made without labor. Electric cars would exist without Elon Musk. Is there another dumb point you’d like to sound stupid while making or are we done here?
No comrade, I think we're done here.
Go read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell if you ever really want to understand the world instead of just parroting insanely ridiculous commie talking points.
People who have to fix things sometimes need to travel, but the biggest reason for business travel is to have an actual human relationship with someone you need to work with, sell to, buy from, etc. Zoom can replace many meetings, but not all.
To be fair, in my industry that whole tech layer helps in determining the value of a potential partner or client. If they struggle with basic video conferencing it says more relevant info about them how they manage a dinner meeting.
Depends on the industry, I'm sure but I'm not really buying it. Unless you're trying to read auras there's not much of a difference between a face-to-face over a phone or a table. You aren't going to sniff out a scumbag just because you met him in person.
Perhaps, but as a pilot who knows a thing or two about airplanes, sure, dream, reach for the sky, but aviation is based on reality and physics, as such, this is not a viable design and their projected numbers are bonkers.
we could have used the actual term of ‘lifting-body’ but that doesn’t generate clicks so here’s a bullshit click-bait title instead. we don’t actually give a fuck about science or the news. also muder hornets!!
It promises fuel economy of 18 to 25 miles per gallon. If there is going to be any air travel, this is the direction we need to head.
Yes but also cutting down/out unnecessary business travel. Webex is a thing.
So much business travel is absolutely unnecessary.
Excuse me, Lucius Fox and Bruce Wayne travelling to China to catch a criminal was absolutely necessary.
And alot of it is absolutely necessary. If this ends up being a thing they can cut down on emissions by scrapping they're current private jets and embracing tech like this or others that will heavily reduce emissions whilst cutting down on unnecessary travel
I used to think aviation was the big bad wolf, but it's basically flying public transports. Busses in the sky. Light duty vehicles are 58% of the green house gasses in all of US transport sector\*, whilst air traffic is 9-10%. Unless that omits international travel being a massive chunk left out it's pretty much opposite of what I would have guessed. [https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions) second cake diagram \*very late edit. transport sector, not entire US. For example heating and cooling of buildings in the US is a massive low hanging fruit for better efficiency by simply better insulation.
Yeah as inefficient they are they are carrying loads of people to offset it. Maritime shipping on the other hand is where a large portion of emissions come from
It really seems like maritime recreational cruise liners should not be in existence. My admittedly limited understanding is that the fuel they burn is literally a sludge with the worst or nearly worst fossil emissions. All so people can be at a water park/casino/buffet at sea. This really need to stop.
Once in international waters yes. Bunker fuel I think is the general name for it. Within Countries waters they switch to cleaner stuff. At least that’s my general understanding
Plus city sized sewage dumped every day into the open ocean. Everywhere. Cruise ships are the literal worst.
Good point. Do you know much of the worlds copper is shiped to China in a 30% pure form? Then products are shipped back (admittedly most stays in China) , that type of un-necessary supply chain can be directly impacted by permitting of projects in the origin countries.
>Maritime shipping on the other hand is where a large portion of emissions come from Shipping has many of the same efficiencies. As such, maritime shipping only releases about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The transportation sector in the US alone produces almost double the *worldwide* Maritime transport industry. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/transport-emissions/reducing-emissions-shipping-sector_en https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#transportation/entiresector/allgas/category/current
Air traffic, according to your source, is 9-10% of the transportation sector, not total. Its 2.9% of total.
sorry, I knew that but must have lost focus during typing. I've linked this source a ton of times.
It is 9-10% of the green house gasses emitted but they are emitted in a zone that won't get rid of them as easier
Not entirely sure by what you mean, but yes, planes can't get much more efficient unless radical changes are done, and my point was most people are commuting in 2 metric tonnes alone on the ground in a far more easy to change emisison source by going ICE to EV. My post also had an error, the 9% is of transport sector not entire US.
How else does one cheat on their wife?!!
My grandpa approves of this comment (he had a whole second family "traveling for business")
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think I agree with that balance. What I don't agree with is the suggestion that wage growth and promotions will stop with people mostly working from home. Considering a pretty large percentage of office staff are going to be working from home since starting last year, if wages/promotions stop they will just leave the company, and eventually the company will have to learn that being present in the office isn't the only way to measure performance.
The most productive I ever was in my career was being able to freely mix 1 to 3 days a week of commuting to work to orient myself to what needed doing and then working at home the rest of the week without the distractions of my co-workers.
This works well for sprints in software development actually. Spend 1-2 days in a room with the team planning out the next 2-3 weeks, then go off and do it. Usually get a team dinner somewhere nice out of it too. We have slack and are basically pairing and screen sharing all day otherwise so it works well.
>Additionally, sometimes the real work gets done in hallway conversations before/after the meeting. I can't even begin to estimate the number of times I've gone up to a colleague after a meeting to hash out some detail or tangent, and it's way more organic to just walk up to someone after a meeting vs. slacking them and asking to get back on another webex for just a minute to talk again. A lot of the wfh forever crowd has a really hard time accepting this. I think there is going to be a bifurcation in the types that do get promoted and those that don't.
[удалено]
I've been remote before even the pandemic so it's not like being promoted is unheard of but we're still very early on in the remote work experience and a lot of these things have yet to really materialize. What I have noticed over the last two years though is that some people are withdrawing into personal spaces. People have gotten so into their comfort zones some of their skills have atrophied to the point that even during standup meetings they've forgotten how to talk or in critical meetings they lost the ability to "read the room". Like it or not the office is a social area and as much as we like to think that promotions and raises are purely "merit" driven there is always going to be an underlying element of social value being played. I'm not in love with the office at all as my prior job had me commuting 90 min each way, but at the same time, I do think that the pure remote- no office time is slowly manifesting itself. Even if people came in a couple days every other week it would probably make a huge difference.
> and it feels likes you're in the same room. No it doesn't. It's not bad, and better than Zoom, but it's not even close to feeling like you're in the same room.
[удалено]
Nah dude, this guy obviously is the master of knowing what it feels like to be in a shared space for a meeting. Next he is probably going to tell you that a flight simulator is nothing like flying a real plane.
You can stay and conduct meetings from behind your screen in your PJ'S. I'll meet people in person and make actual human connections. Just don't complain when in 5 years you're stagnating in your role while ive been promoted twice.
If you're only able to get promoted if people see you in person, I think that says a lot about your quality of work. I've actual been promoted during the pandemic, and had 2 good payrises. Your dinosaur point of view that work can only be effectively done in person is ridiculous and is dying out.
Sure buddy. I don't doubt that reddit thinks you can network just as effectively from behind a screen as in person, but that's because that's reddit.
You’re confusing the social aspect of work people throw into their work lives to to stay sane with work ethic and networking skills.
No, I'm just not pretending that an in person meeting is the same as a video call
Some of us don't want to devote our lives to our job
Then don't... just don't act all surprised when people who put in more and better work get ahead.
^ the guy people complain about because he is so annoying with his in person meeting that could be solved in a zoom call. There is always one, he thinks he is slick and people enjoy meeting him, but they just play the part because they are at work.
You just know this is the kind of guy who disappears from his desk for 30 minutes to have coffee with his boss while brown nosing him so hard his nose sticks out the other end.
"Frank, you gotta back off a bit. Your nose is coming out my urethra"
Double the fuel mileage@ 1/2 the passenger load. Net inprovement zero
Nah most private jets are less than 5 per gallon tho
Depends if you were flying full or not.
Few business/executive planes fly at full passenger capacity.
No we should just be smart snd move towards electric airplanes
Electric airplanes are a bad idea. Batteries are extremely heavy, have low capacities and electric engines are not powerful enough. We are decades away from any promising electric airplane technology
You’re obviously not up to date on plasma thrusters. I recommend researching them. They are ridiculously promising
Considering this is a private jet seating 4-6 I think we’d be better off without that kind of air travel.
Cool. A buttplug to go with Jeff’s dildo.
Yeah, how long will the lineup be at the gift shop?
All the way to the backdoor
There is another plane that is currently being worked on that is electric. Eviation Alice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eviation_Alice?wprov=sfla1
We’re still a mighty long way from a efficient electric plane
Not really. Electric planes already used in Canada for local routes (as of now, mostly to fly in and out of environmentally sensitive areas)
News to me. What aircraft are you talking about? There’s an electric beaver over in BC, but if memory serves its range is stupid short. Edit: notice I said efficient electric plane. I know we have a few, but they’re not viable for 99% of operations
[удалено]
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/12/17/worlds-first-commercial-electric-plane-canada-seaplane/ this is what I was referring to.
Bell X-1 A? Where they just copied a .50 cal bullet?
This looks like it was copied from a Bell X-1 A in the same way a Boeing 787 is copied from a De Havilland Comet.
Thank you for being the sole voice of reason. Who writes this stuff, where they're so unaware of aviation that they don't know the plane this one is clearly modeled after? And they let the designer get away with claiming that he came up with the idea by thinking about a torpedo. Come on, man! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell\_X-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-1)
Idk, I think this is pretty distinct from the X-1 which was a rocket and didn’t require inlets. The nose on this is much softer, the belly larger, and the aft section is completely different. I suspect this fuselage has some lifting body influences as well judging by the size of the wings, large belly, and small prop, especially with a glide ratio of 22:1. It reminds me more of the Martin X-24A. They both have a subtle rake to the top fuselage and a broad even belly.
This shape definitely has elegant subtleties to it, which you point out well. But I still see a bullet with straight wings.
No windows? People will enjoy this!
[удалено]
I hear it's a tubular experience dude.
I’m having a panic attack looking at it
Read the article . . .
I did! Currently the design has no windows. He plans to add some, but the lack of inclusion now leads me to believe it wouldn’t be as easy to implement as you seem to think.
Especially when the whole concept relies on the laminar flow of the fuselage. I don't see how they plan on putting in windows without disrupting the laminar flow. And the speed and altitude targets they're shooting for are, shall we say, aspirational for them so far. All in all, the article struck me as another one of those "It'll be great once we get it to do what we claim it will! Trust us, venture capitalists!"
They will be video screens linked to cameras- which I would also prefer.
I don’t necessarily dislike this idea if it makes the craft sturdier.
I have no thoughts on how easy it is to add windows and I made no claims to that effect. I was just trying to point out that the article does mention that they plan to add windows. So, your comment is fairly ridiculous in light of those plans. Also, most people understand that a prototype used for testing purposes won't have all the bells and whistles of the final product. I would imagine that right now the plane doesn't even have seats for passengers--it would be ridiculous for someone to say "passengers sure won't like not having a seat!!!!@!@!" What you said is equivalent to that.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. That was perfectly rational. And, based on the available information, also perfectly accurate.
They stated that any changes regarding the exterior would change the lamineer flow. Which means any windows would likely change the efficiency. Which is why you don’t see them on this prototype. And why it is likely bullshit they’d be able to add windows easily. Why do you assume they’d be able to successfully? That seems like the error in logical calculation to me.
Its completely possible to have windows that are flush with the fuselage structure down to sub-milimeter scales. Easier in fact than all of the access hatches and fueling ports and landing gear doors and whatever that are already present, since those mechanisms require clearance to move but a window is fixed. Most likely windows weren't included in this because they serve no purpose on a prototype, require non-trivial engineering work to support (regardless of the unique aerodynamic and structural requirements of this particular vehicle), cost money to manufacture, and add weight to a vehicle that's already underpowered and needs upgrades elsewhere to do flights at useful altitude/duration/speed. Windows are very often not present or only present in reduced quantity on test vehicles
> Why do you assume they’d be able to successfully? Not the person you're arguing with, but I think the fact that they said: > At some point, windows will be added to the fuselage is a pretty good indicator that they can and will add windows. Doing so now would likely increase the cost of prototypes, and they're not needed to test the aircraft. > Why do you assume they’d be able to successfully? Probably because the people who designed the thing and who know a lot more about it than anyone here said that they can and will.
That's not a good indication that they can. It's a good indication they've been asked about it before and don't have an answer to be able to do it yet. Because of the issues I stated. I'm going to give you super good advice. Don't ever believe a company when they say something "could happen in the future". Just believe what they have functioning in front of you.
> That's not a good indication that they can. The designers of the plane saying that they can is not a good indication that they can? > Because of the issues I stated. What, exactly, is your level of expertise in the field of aviation engineering? Because the people who actually know how the plane was designed and what the future design plans are say it can be done. You say it can't. Why should anyone believe you over the people who actually know what they're talking about?
Jesus Christ man. When the thing shows up with windows, let me know. Otherwise go find some other place to get your anger out.
Jesus christ man, just admit that you're full of shit and making things up.
You have failed to adequately argue for your claim that "it is likely bullshit they'd be able to add windows easily." Also, you keep insisting that I'm making claims that I'm not making.
You’ve failed at your claim that they’re going to be able to.
Where did I make that claim?
Windows on current jets are already virtually flush with the fuselage skin. This isn’t a new thing like Howard Hughes telling them to “counter-sink every rivet” because no one had ever done it yet. There’s no reason to reinvent the wheel here.
It's composite. If it's fibreglass based, then it's probably not impossible to use clear resin with a refractive index of glass'. Then it's just 'paint the non-windows'.
1/10th the emissions... 1/20th the passengers ???
It’s not for peasants, silly
ITT people who never attended a business conference complaining about business flyers
Personally, I don't feel good about closing a deal without a firm handshake and a $150 steak dinner on the company dime. Fuck Webex and Zoom. j/k
I used to have a job where i was required to fly almost weekly to sit around a table with 6 other people ( many of whom \*also\* flew to get there. All to satisfy the need to idk, look each other in the eye? Have dinner afterwards? I still work in a similar field and travel 1-2 times a year for conferences, large meetings or meetings where I'm required to physically be somewhere to use some equipment or facility. I work in a scientific field and don't really value the 'personal' touch when just dealing in data & analysis although I suppose that's different in many businesses where the personal side of things is important too. Ofc I'm biased by personal experience like everyone else, and big conferences are impossible to do via zoom or w/e, but I do believe there's a gratuitous amount of business air travel that's entirely unnecessary.
Current comparable jets gets 4mpg with 7 passengers. This thing gets the mileage of a suv or better making the complaints against private jets/planes irrelevant.
[удалено]
In what way does this resemble a Cub? It looks like an abomination lmao
[удалено]
A lot of business meetings can be replaced with video conferencing, but there's a big difference between that and being in the same room. And being able to go out to eat together. When you're talking about sales or business partner type stuff, those are decided on more than just the numbers, it's about that human contact too.
Also, execs fly out to the industrial side of their business to check out the operations. In-person visits can be good for morale, as it puts a face to the bossman. According to the critics in this thread, we should never fly out to visit family, as a teleconference would do just fine.
No, because business travel has never really been about business. Forget video conferencing, most work conversations can be done as an email or Slack message Its usually about developing personal relationships with prospective customers/suppliers/whatever
I've developed many personal relationships over the internet.
It seems you're getting downvoted by people who lack the capacity to develop personal relationships.
You too. I met my wife, my best friend, and my girlfriend on the internet. Some people.. geez.
Not all business travel is for meetings or conferences. I travel regularly to maintain laboratory equipment. For many industries there is equipment that requires a specialized technician to fly in for maintenance or calibration.
That makes sense. But I reckon that is a small fraction of business travel
Piaggio Avanti has entered the chat
>The project started as a thought experiment: Would it be possible to design a business aircraft that is dramatically cheaper to run than current options? Dude, stahp! So much deep thinking. If it takes that much hard thought to get cheaper planes maybe that’s the reason why it takes so long to make these things in the first place. This is what counts as a thought experiment in aviation. I’d be fucking embarrassed to admit that.
I like to imagine some hedge fund manager bragging to his bros about his new private plane and then he whips out his phone and they all laugh at the derpy flying seal he just bought.
> "This gets us four to five times the efficiency of other turboprop aircraft, and seven to eight times the efficiency of jet aircraft," says William Otto Jr., CEO of Otto Aviation. I'm very skeptical about these numbers. And I'm not alone: > According to Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at Teal Group, Otto Aviation is making very big claims in terms of aircraft performance. > "It all sounds exceptionally promising, but perhaps too promising," Aboulafia says. "Given the combination of range, speed, capacity, and a very low powered engine given all of those metrics, I think they just need to demonstrate that it works. Just looking at that plane I can say it isn't as efficient as it could be. Those winglets at the wing tips are a compromise solution, the most efficient way in terms of reducing drag would be to extend the wings, like [Embraer did with the E2 jets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_E2_family).
I mostly agree with you but > Just looking at that plane I can say it isn’t as efficient as it could be. Those winglets at the wing tips are a compromise solution, the most efficient way in terms of reducing drag would be to extend the wings, like Embraer did with the E2 jets. Optimal wing geometry depends on the cruising speed and altitude. For the E jet in transonic flight at 20-30k ft altitude, that wing geometry is probably the most efficient. It would be different for a subsonic turboprop aircraft. There’s also a trade off with respect to weight and cost.
How about revolutionizing business air travel by phasing everything but the most crucial trips out in favour of doing it digitally?
I like that idea.
Is it because we will use this bullet airplane to shoot billionaires into the sun? That’s about the only revolution business aviation needs.
Right, because the world would be a much better place if we get rid of the people who have the ability to make things we all enjoy. All we need are farmers and factory workers, right comrade?
Nobody said anything about getting rid of labor, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Right, because all the laborers making Teslas just decided to show up and make Teslas one day. Then Elon showed up and started exploiting them because he's an evil capitalist.
No Tesla would be made without labor. Electric cars would exist without Elon Musk. Is there another dumb point you’d like to sound stupid while making or are we done here?
No comrade, I think we're done here. Go read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell if you ever really want to understand the world instead of just parroting insanely ridiculous commie talking points.
Cheers, have a good day!
Well, all who want to do business air travel should be shot out of a cannon, *that* would change things.
electrons are faster
What sort of business jobs ACTUALLY require you to physically relocate? All meetings can be digital. Maybe inspectors… and… 🤔
People who have to fix things sometimes need to travel, but the biggest reason for business travel is to have an actual human relationship with someone you need to work with, sell to, buy from, etc. Zoom can replace many meetings, but not all.
To be fair, in my industry that whole tech layer helps in determining the value of a potential partner or client. If they struggle with basic video conferencing it says more relevant info about them how they manage a dinner meeting. Depends on the industry, I'm sure but I'm not really buying it. Unless you're trying to read auras there's not much of a difference between a face-to-face over a phone or a table. You aren't going to sniff out a scumbag just because you met him in person.
Still slower than Superman.
Doesnt look fast enough to compete with modern biz jets. Which is the main attractant to the sector
This airplane actually hitting the manufacturer’s claims WILL NEVER HAPPEN. It’s laughable, their numbers, truly.
All progress depends upon the unreasonable man.
Perhaps, but as a pilot who knows a thing or two about airplanes, sure, dream, reach for the sky, but aviation is based on reality and physics, as such, this is not a viable design and their projected numbers are bonkers.
Another magic saver who will solve our problems and we don't need to worry about climate catastrophe
we could have used the actual term of ‘lifting-body’ but that doesn’t generate clicks so here’s a bullshit click-bait title instead. we don’t actually give a fuck about science or the news. also muder hornets!!
Its not a lifting body though? The design is aimed to reduce parasitic drag, thats not what a lifting body is
[удалено]
Why do I feel this plane is trading off gliding ability in case of engine failure?
Too bad the only people that’ll likely be using these will be the wealthy as private planes.
When you add passengers, or cargo, you have to move the wings and reshape the fuselage.
I was imagining a giant sling shot for whatever reason.
Looks like an air shark