seems silly to embrace the design of a plane that is made to move 2 static length blades when even longer blades have been shown to continue the trend of cheaper MW.

the article mentions that 3d printing is a no-go due to the facility needed to print the blade in -- seems like it'd be better to pursue an unfolding container factory with a printer in it and how to transport that thing with conventional craft than to go all-in on a new unproven airframe made for very specific parts.

plus that way the length of the product isn't set in stone, either.

I say this as a total layman -- i'm just taking the articles stated reason for no 3d printing and running with it.

Maybe the idea is: gain expertise in making, loading, flying, and landing 100m planes this year, and try 150m planes next year.