| ▲ | JetZero(jetzero.aero) |
| 109 points by lisper 2 hours ago | 77 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | wxw 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Haven't heard of this company before. A good synopsis I dug up in their fundraising announcement: > 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. Where an "all-wing" airplane is, kudos to Gemini, > one that merges the main body and wings into a single lifting surface. This can reduce drag, lower fuel burn, and expand interior space. |
|
| ▲ | shrubble 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| An experimental/homebuilt of similar but not exactly the same design, the Dyke Delta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_Delta of which about 50 have been built, has its pilots reporting a comfortable ride. |
|
| ▲ | xnx 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | briandw 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > In a blended wing body design you can have off-axis motion that can increase motion sickness This sounds fixable in avionics and training. (Shallow, gradual banks.) Note, too, that a larger lifting body needs to bank less to execute the same turn as a craft with more loading. | | |
| ▲ | amluto a minute ago | parent [-] | | > Note, too, that a larger lifting body needs to bank less to execute the same turn as a craft with more loading. 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. The Wikipedia article is mediocre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_flight |
| |
| ▲ | deadbabe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just gimbal the seats. | | |
| |
| ▲ | azza2110 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No way. Looking out the window is one of the joys of flying. 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. | | |
| ▲ | articulatepang 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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”. 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. | | |
| ▲ | karmajunkie an hour ago | parent [-] | | it’s cute you think that’s going to show up in lower ticket costs instead of the company’s profit margin. | | |
| ▲ | jrk an hour ago | parent [-] | | Commercial air travel is extremely competitive and has very low margins. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bruce511 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Only a small fraction of current flyers get window seats. And the view from the isle seat or middle row is non-existent. 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. So yes, I'm sure some people like windows. But the majority have demonstrated that they're just fine flying without them. | |
| ▲ | seydor an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Skylights, Or floor windows for the freaky | |
| ▲ | carodgers 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also the screen sizes they are showing have got to be exceedingly heavy. | | |
| ▲ | hankbond 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | colordrops 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | evolve2k 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | thadk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Would dropping airplane windows lower radiation exposure somewhat, especially on those polar routes? | | |
| ▲ | jandrewrogers an hour ago | parent [-] | | No, virtually all the radiation with the exception of UV is passing straight through the airframe. The protection an aircraft body offers is negligible. |
| |
| ▲ | TEHERET 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | the biggest challenge would likely be training pilots to a new cockpit and flight profile | | |
| ▲ | zdc1 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I wonder if it makes more sense to just get the latest batch of people doing the military -> civilian transition and starting them off on these |
| |
| ▲ | EGreg 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No passenger windows is the correct way to go. The screens can actually show anything, not just replace a window. | | |
| ▲ | rezokun 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Infinite ads in econom | | | |
| ▲ | Bolwin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 | |
| ▲ | BobbyTables2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | True - unlike a car, it’s not like one could open a window in a plane. Just hope they don’t make an “ad-free” window a premium upgrade… |
|
|
|
| ▲ | calmbonsai 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not this again. They’ve clearly hired a new PR firm 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 many, many reasons “tube + wings” is the dominant airframe architecture for all non-military aircraft. |
| |
| ▲ | Petersipoi 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | trueno 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. traditional looking commercial jets, their designs, their manufacturing processes, their innovations (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. 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 |
| |
| ▲ | nine_k 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Halving the fuel consumption may be worth the trouble with all above. Novel things always look unviable. First cars, first planes, first EVs all looked like dubious gimmicks sorely lacking the required infrastructure. |
|
|
| ▲ | csmoak 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | twoodfin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. Scaled Composites? Now that’s a name I’ve not heard in a long time… |
| |
| ▲ | sixdimensional 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Wow, I blinked and it's been 20+ years since Spaceship One? Yikes, time really does fly. Presumably we haven't heard as much after Northrop bought them? I think it's awesome that Scaled Composites is involved... they really have such specialized knowledge of all kinds of aeronautical engineering. |
|
|
| ▲ | syntaxing an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | devy an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | So you think JetZero's blended-wing body (BWB) aircraft design will be killed by regulators? Why? Btw, it will take hydrogen propulsion for their planes to be zero CO2 emission. | |
| ▲ | SubMachineGhost an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you share more on why regulations will kill it please? |
|
|
| ▲ | alberth 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Will this fit the dimensions of a typically airport gate and spacing? |
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What is their engine? An airframe without an engine is, best case, a drone programme. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Robdel12 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | wnc3141 an hour ago | parent [-] | | tell me more? I used to live in Albuquerque and always wondered what happened. |
|
|
| ▲ | fnord77 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| While Boeing is too lazy to clean-sheet anything new |
|
| ▲ | Stevvo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | shinycode an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Could these flights prove to people that with their own eyes they can see the earth is not flat ? |
|
| ▲ | giantfrog 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| An airplane is not something I would personally want to beta test |
| |
| ▲ | DrewADesign 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | dlcarrier 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A few of my Mom's uncles were test pilots. They're… an odd bunch. | |
| ▲ | blitzar an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Move fast and break things. | |
| ▲ | deadbabe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If they offer free flights to places people want to go they will not have any shortage of testers. |
|
|
| ▲ | jmward01 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | eightysixfour an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Aviation is in a massive rut and needs bold new designs and innovation. 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | mrandish 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Looks a bit like Thunderbird 2. I approve. |
|
| ▲ | TEHERET 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| isn't this just the boeing flying wing |
|
| ▲ | ares623 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| the cybertrucks of airplanes |
| |
|
| ▲ | scottmcdot an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Another pointless "up to x% better" specification. |
|
| ▲ | freecook 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I love it |
|
| ▲ | rgmerk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wish them well but a startup building an airliner seems like an utterly impossible task. |
| |
| ▲ | usef- 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On the plus side, the competition seems a bit lousy lately | |
| ▲ | dlcarrier 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | From an engineering perspective, it's a solved task. Designing an airplane is on par with designing a suspension bridge. 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. | |
| ▲ | divyekapoor 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If the numbers are what they claim. They’re going to make it. | |
| ▲ | DrewADesign 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Eh, if SpaceX did rockets… I wouldn’t be surprised if they could be very nimble compared to the big ones. | | |
| ▲ | rgmerk 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | DrewADesign 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Seems like that’s what a lot of people say about a lot of legacy businesses though when facing pressure from a startup. Obviously doesn’t always work, but sometimes! |
| |
| ▲ | a34729t an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | johnwheeler 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| looks expensive |
|
| ▲ | chasing 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | SilverSlash 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | userbinator an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | chasing 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | nitinreddy88 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|