Tangentially related Good news: You can avoid about half the greenhouse effects of flight by slightly changing the flight plan to avoid cloud forming regions<p>Bad news: this generally wasn't counted before and when counted roughly doubles the impact so in some senses you're back to where you started.<p>But it's a much lower hanging fruit than anything else and as yet we're not doing it.
A lot of us is avoiding more by choosing not to fly.
wandering is human nature, we can not avoid it. with tech, almost 99% reason to travel can be avoided, we human as a nature, we will not skip it.
I don't think that not travelling is the solution. A lot of people cannot avoid flying.
In many instances there are alternatives. Amsterdam to Berlin is served by good rail (except when DB are crappy) and flight options. NYC to DC or Boston. Maybe, someday, SF to LA, and others.
But even more people can
Just stop subsidizing flying, maybe even tax the fuel a fraction of the value it’s destroying and I bet most of flying will suddenly turn out to actually be completely avoidable.
We should be careful not to confound a call to reduce with a call to eliminate. I don't think most people want to completely abolish modern air travel.
how do know if a route would go through cloud forming regions
because doing this will increase costs instead of performative actions.
Haven't heard of this company before. A good synopsis I dug up in their fundraising announcement:<p>> JetZero, co-founded in 2020 by start-up veteran Tom O’Leary and aerospace legend Mark Page, is developing the world’s first commercial all-wing airplane. With up to 50% better fuel efficiency and lower carbon emissions compared to existing commercial airliners, JetZero's Z4 will offer the aviation industry a clear path to achieving its 2050 net-zero goals while also elevating the passenger experience. Working alongside the US Air Force, NASA, and the FAA, and backed by decades of investment and research into blended wing technology. JetZero looks to enter commercial service in the early 2030s.<p>Where an "all-wing" airplane is, kudos to Gemini,<p>> one that merges the main body and wings into a single lifting surface. This can reduce drag, lower fuel burn, and expand interior space.
What I really want, is a plane that can load passengers like containers--or like a rollercoaster car. Of course, it should be comfortable. I just mean that the passenger compartment should be modular. So you can put your luggage in and get settled while sitting in the airport, and then when the plane comes in, it just side-loads everyone all at once. Once landed, it just slides everyone off, and you can just<p>I know that the crew uses the typical seating time to refuel and load luggage in the underbelly, but one can dream of not having to wait to get off the airplane.
So, essentially that's how it works in the game Elite: Dangerous where you load and unload the passengers in cabins which are measured in tons. They can even be stolen mid-flight by anyone with a hatch breaker drone. Unfortunately, you cannot jettison them in the void of space.<p>Then there are the Imperial slaves which are considered cargo and not passengers, but it's a different story...
that sounds like an absolute nightmare haha
Big screens are an OK workaround for no passenger windows, but they still have to contend with severe structural pressurization challenges, strict emergency evacuation rules, and incompatibility with current airport gates.
In a conventional aircraft you sit on the roll axis. In a blended wing body design you can have off-axis motion that can increase motion sickness. Rather than rolling with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, you move up and down when the aircraft banks. Not necessarily a deal breaker, but an additional difference to deal with.
> <i>In a blended wing body design you can have off-axis motion that can increase motion sickness</i><p>This sounds fixable in avionics and training. (Shallow, gradual banks.)<p>Note, too, that a larger lifting body needs to bank less to execute the same turn as a craft with more loading.
I learnt on mentour pilot (or maybe captains speaking?) that the airbus most of the time optimizes for comfort by having a constant g force as you ascend or descend or something like that. Unless you are high aoa. So there are systems that so this sort of passenger comfort thing for sure.
> Note, too, that a larger lifting body needs to bank less to execute the same turn as a craft with more loading.<p>This is not really helpful for passenger comfort. For a turn to be comfortable, you want the turn to be such that the effective force the passengers feel has no sideways (relative to the passengers) component, and the required roll angle is only a function of the velocity and turning radius. The aircraft design is irrelevant.<p>The Wikipedia article is mediocre: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_flight" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_flight</a>
Sounds fixable by making the outer seats cheaper.
I don't understand your point. Does the wider passenger compartment leads to more extreme transitions at the edges? Is there something else at play I'm not thinking of?
Picture being on the end of the wing and how much you move up or down when the plane rolls.<p>An airliner entering a 30 degree roll over 3 seconds would have passengers pop up or down 25 feet, with <i>at least</i> +0.3 and -0.3G of acceleration. It would come with a "going over the top of the roller coaster" feeling. This is in <i>addition</i> to the roll / rotation.<p>Yaw is interesting for similar reasons.
sin(bank_angle) x cabin_width/2 = max_vertical_displacement_at_angle
Just gimbal the seats.
No way. Looking out the window is one of the joys of flying.<p>Picking out my house, seeing tiny cars on a remote highway, etc. Even 100+ MP cameras and high resolution screens won't come close to that level of detail.
Only a small fraction of current flyers get window seats. And the view from the isle seat or middle row is non-existent.<p>And that's before we talk about night flights when there's nothing to see, flights over water when there's nothing to see and so on.<p>So yes, I'm sure some people like windows. But the majority have demonstrated that they're just fine flying without them.
Not to mention the cretins who put their windows down for the whole flight.
I love looking out plane windows at night. Distant lightning storms, cities, fishing boats, highways, country borders lit up and stretching as far as you can see.
But are you willing to pay 10-20% more for that joy? I personally would rather pay less money to fly, not get to see out the window, and spend those dollars on, say, a fancier meal at the destination. Or to have an extra day at the destination if my trip length is money-bound rather than time-bound. Or put those dollars towards an extra hour of childcare. Or … I have so many uses for dollars that give me more utility than “see out the window while flying”.<p>Where that number comes from: they claim 50% reduction in fuel consumption, which sounds doubtful to me, and fuel is about a third of flight costs, and I’m making some generous assumptions around perfect competition.
My primary destination is Europe <> NZ which is about 24 hours in air so personally I'd give up everything for flat seat. Doesn't have to be business class seat - just something barest of the bare, basically bunk beds.<p>Thing is with current structure airlines would dilute business class too much and airplane manufacturers would increase density all while decreasing fuel use per passenger - none of which is desirable.
You would change the experience of the glory of flying for food instead? Live while you're alive!
it’s cute you think that’s going to show up in lower ticket costs instead of the company’s profit margin.
Make the entire hull 'transparent' by wall covering screens. Think The Sphere in Vegas. Some fans to blow the wind through your hair, and now you are gladly paying extra for the bird-like experience ;)
Skylights, Or floor windows for the freaky
Bullshit. Last time I flew internationally, only two of the eight seats had window access.<p>Interior isle seats cost as much as window seats in airlines that charge for position. People just want space.
Also the screen sizes they are showing have got to be exceedingly heavy.
I'd wager a bunch of OLEDs will be lighter than built-in windows with all the structural reinforcing necessary to make them safe.
I know every gram is accounted for in aerospace but OLEDs weighs so little, especially if you can just heatsink into existing metal structures nearby.
Make the floor transparent.
I'm fine with not looking out of the window if the seat is comfortable and I can get to the bathroom more easily. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. Window enjoyers such as yourself will still be able to get the window seats.
I don’t know how many people are claustrophobic, but for me this would be a non-starter.<p>Edit: apparently 12.5% of the population has claustrophobia. If 5% of flyers choose a different airline due to simulated windows that would wipe out any cost benefit from fuel savings.
IIRC, minimum one window for each rows is a safety requirement, so that firefighters can see inside a burning plane or something. I think that is believed to be how that fence appeared.
The gates thing was my first thought when I saw the design although a staircase on the tarmac could be a cheap workaround.
I give absolutely less than zero f's about no windows for 2" more legroom.
Be nice to not have to deal with that one guy who didn’t close their window when it’s dark cabin time on long multi-Timezone flights; leaving the sun to blare in when you’re really trying to get some shut eye.
What do economy seats look like? I can't imagine they all have wrap-around video...
Would dropping airplane windows lower radiation exposure somewhat, especially on those polar routes?
the biggest challenge would likely be training pilots to a new cockpit and flight profile
No passenger windows is the correct way to go. The screens can actually show anything, not just replace a window.
Jeez way to ruin of the few remaining joys of flying. Lock everyone in a tin can. You will experience reality through screens only and you will enjoy it
Infinite ads in econom
Hell why even travel when you can just see Venice on a screen.
True - unlike a car, it’s not like one could open a window in a plane.<p>Just hope they don’t make an “ad-free” window a premium upgrade…
Not this again. They’ve clearly hired a new PR firm<p>Suffice it to say, from stable aeronautics at-edge, jet way footprint efficiency, ground support efficiency, airframe pressurization, cargo & passenger logistics, lifespan, and certification, there are <i>many, many</i> reasons “tube + wings” is the dominant airframe architecture for <i>all</i> non-military aircraft.
There are many reasons for a lot of things, until you overcome those reasons. That's the point of innovation. There are many reasons not to make a reusable rocket too.
Yes, but this "innovation" (as sold) must exist as a viable commercial airplane.<p>So far, I see <i>zero</i> evidence that this company has addressed <i>any</i> of the aforementioned challenges beyond theoretical fuel consumption and theoretical passenger logistics.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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".<p>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.
theres just some serious serious challenges here i dont think any of them are impossible to overcome but it would span so many more years and so much more funding to get thru. fuselage pressurization which they claim to have worked around (sus) is one of the spookiest imo.<p>traditional looking commercial jets, their designs, their manufacturing processes, their <i>innovations</i> (yes boeing/airbus do innovate and have for a long time even though it doesnt seem that way) have all been shaped heavily by human blood. to some degree a radical new design almost guarantees more deaths at a commercial level there's really no shortcutting this without it.<p>dont get me wrong im super open to the possibility that something like this is possible itd be better for the whole world, but there's no way we get there without re-experiencing some hard lessons if we want to push it pash some sort of proverbial finish line
> have all been shaped heavily by human blood<p>This assumes the lessons were specific to the body type and aren’t generalizable?
Even small changes to time tested designs provide significant risk. A completely new body style will inevitably provide completely new failure modes.<p>Pressurizing a tube vs pressurizing a pancake (or flattened sphere, or some other easy approximation) will have very different mechanical loading characteristics. Turbulence (differences in air speed/pressure) across a large flat-ish surface that also has a signifiant pressure differential will also prove challenging to design for and scale up.<p>Aerospace is a very high dimensional design process. Doing anything different puts you into unknown territory real fast.
If some letters were capitalized it would be easier to read but without this gets downvoted as wordsalad. Almost illegible. Punctuation exists for a reason.
Halving the fuel consumption may be worth the trouble with all above.<p>Novel things always look unviable. First cars, first planes, first EVs all looked like dubious gimmicks sorely lacking the required infrastructure.
Agreed. There are always large amounts of money being poured into aviation and most of what comes out is knowledge.<p>It's always exciting to see futuristic designs and bleeding edge tech but there are a lot of footnotes in aviation history filled with these.<p>I think electric aviation (in general aviation) is probably the best/real frontier to watch for innovation currently. Many advances in aviation come from much smaller operations doing something successfully.
An experimental/homebuilt of similar but not exactly the same design, the Dyke Delta <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_Delta" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_Delta</a> of which about 50 have been built, has its pilots reporting a comfortable ride.
It’s also much smaller. The main problem will be that the people sitting outside experience a lot of vertical motion when the aircraft rolls. That’s only a problem with the full scale design.
Please lookup the flight envelope, cruise fuel utilization, and stall characteristics of the Dyke Delta along with its cargo capacity.<p>Then you'll understand why so many Cessna 172s were built.
Another one I'm familiar with: <a href="https://www.verheesengineering.com/d2-twoseater/" rel="nofollow">https://www.verheesengineering.com/d2-twoseater/</a>
Interesting choice to build in Greensboro. That's also where Boom chose to build a factory and it looks massive as you leave the airport. The plan for this company's factory looks like it will be significantly larger.
Maybe start with freight aircraft which are less subject to the standard airport gate configuration restrictions?<p>Avoids the issues about people sitting in the wing area and "enjoying" the roller coaster effect when the plane rolls or yaws?
I always liked TU Delft’s similar Flying V concept which had KLM and Airbus backing, but I’ve no idea if they have a route to production. <a href="https://www.tudelft.nl/en/ae/flying-v" rel="nofollow">https://www.tudelft.nl/en/ae/flying-v</a>
Why has one of the images in the header carrousel got it featuring what looks like a refueling probe for refueling other aircraft sticking out the back? The other two don't.<p>It looks like they've taken this mostly from an older Boeing BWB design for future air-to-air refueling aircraft (although the wing shape is a bit different).
<i>JetZero’s Demonstrator is on track for first-flight in 2027. The Demonstrator is being built in partnership with Scaled Composites, a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman.</i><p>Scaled Composites? Now that’s a name I’ve not heard in a long time…
Wow, I blinked and it's been 20+ years since Spaceship One? Yikes, time really does fly.<p>Presumably we haven't heard as much after Northrop bought them?<p>I think it's awesome that Scaled Composites is involved... they really have such specialized knowledge of all kinds of aeronautical engineering.
Fluid dynamics is my jam (most of my masters was studying it)! Even in the intro to fluid mechanics book, they spent a good half+ chapter why a flying wing is superior and how you can have it designed similar to movie theater seating. But my professor spent a class explaining why regulation will kill it even though the design is great.
Aside from regulation, the edge-envelope characteristics of a flying wing mandate fly-by-wire and, essentially, full-time autopilot.<p>Even then, good luck recovering when you, even marginally, exceed the energy*altitude parameters during take-off/landing during high wind shear.<p>Even B2s, with all of their on-board systems, have highly restrictive TOGA envelopes.
So you think JetZero's blended-wing body (BWB) aircraft design will be killed by regulators? Why?<p>Btw, it will take hydrogen propulsion for their planes to be zero CO2 emission.
Can you share more on why regulations will kill it please?
What is their engine? An airframe without an engine is, best case, a drone programme.
This reeks of Vern Raburn and Eclipse Aviation all over again, haha. That failed terribly. SV’s ego is pretty funny sometimes. Eclipse even tried to develop their own avionics.
Hard to imagine it as a passenger aircraft any time soon, but if they manage to get the demonstrator built it looks like it could make a useful aerial refueling tanker.
More like JetHalfAtBest than JetZero.
An airplane is not something I would personally want to beta test
The people they do that have a lot of experience and make a lot of money. Fortunately, most of the world doesn’t have the software business’ cavalier attitude about safety-related things being perfectly safe.
A few of my Mom's uncles were test pilots. They're… an odd bunch.
Move fast and break things.
If they offer free flights to places people want to go they will not have any shortage of testers.
Could these flights prove to people that with their own eyes they can see the earth is not flat ?
Will this fit the dimensions of a typically airport gate and spacing?
I wish them all the luck in the world. Aviation is in a massive rut and needs bold new designs and innovation. That being said, what makes this company different from the others that have come before? What makes their path to success more likely? The problem is likely less the technology and more the decade(s?) of burning money with no ability to sell anything because you have to certify everything. That cliff is so bad we got the 737 max instead of a real new design. In an industry where new tech should be bringing us new commercial designs yearly we are instead getting very minor iterations because even the massive players out there can't afford to bring a 'new' design to the table. I -really- want to see this succeed. Good luck.
> Aviation is in a massive rut and needs bold new designs and innovation.<p>Why does it need bold new design and innovation? More people (can afford to) fly every year, more safely, and with broadly more consistency than they ever have. The success of the commercial aviation industry as a whole is breathtaking.
Looks a bit like Thunderbird 2. I approve.
isn't this just the boeing flying wing
The Shape is really cool.
While Boeing is too lazy to clean-sheet anything new
I wish them well but a startup building an airliner seems like an utterly impossible task.
On the plus side, the competition seems a bit lousy lately
If the numbers are what they claim. They’re going to make it.
From an engineering perspective, it's a solved task. Designing an airplane is on par with designing a suspension bridge.<p>From a regulatory perspective, the layers of bureaucracy needed to get approval to build a bridge has nothing on starting up an airline manufacturing company. Once you have a company with a history of approval, you can practically do what you want, but getting to that point is nearly impossible.
Eh, if SpaceX did rockets… I wouldn’t be surprised if they could be very nimble compared to the big ones.
The difference is that there establishment space launch companies were basically monopolies using ancient technology and processes. That’s not true for commercial aviation, which is subject to pretty relentless cost pressures.
Bullshit i cant hear you. Commcercial airliners are sold at a loss and are basically giant jobs programs. Modern jetliners are enormously efficient already; there has been a continuous race over the last century to this end.
the cybertrucks of airplanes
Another pointless "up to x% better" specification.
I love it
looks expensive
[dead]
[flagged]
Feels like no windows is almost a deal-breaker? No? Do humans handle small enclosed spaces with no way to look outside well? The mock-up image looks like a small two-or-three seat compartment, which seems like it would be awful. Maybe an open space would be less claustrophobic, but still. Imagining just a normal jetliner today with no windows feels... not great. And I'm not sure having a giant flat screen wrapped around me would solve the problem.
I don't mind no windows at all if they have "digital windows" as substitutes. You're already 40,000ft in the air I think windows aren't really gonna help your claustrophobia. Not like you can open the door and walk out for a bit.
I get motion sickness when sitting sideways or backwards on a car. People tend to become nauseous when they sense motion but don't see it, or what they see doesn't align with their other senses. Even the small amount of lag that a "digital window" would likely have, will make things much worse.
Maybe. I think people could survive it, sure. But I also wonder if there's a part of our lizard brain that just for safety's sake prefers to be able to see out of any small enclosed space we might find ourselves in. And that lizard brain is smart enough to know that a flat screen is fake. Again, I just think of flying in a plane today but with no windows and I, at least, am immediately squigged out.<p>I also feel like a lot of modern air travel is designed around making something that's highly unnatural and inherently terrifying into something palatable for most people. I'm not talking about actual safety, but the perception of safety. Which isn't exactly a logic thing. More about keeping that lizard brain from freaking out too hard.
Actually no windows doesn't even pass Passenger Flight rules and regulations. In Asia, its mandatory that windows should be opened, visible during takeoff and landing.