Yes. There are too many companies studying it not to be the next generation of transport... Airbus, Bombardier and JetZero are just the three I can think of working the hardest on the concept... And even if it doesn't take over all categories within the industry it certainly has its place...

@jamesdellaneve9005

Ай бұрын

And Boeing. The JetZero guys are from the old McDonnell Douglas Advanced design in LB. I wish them well since Boeing is being run by VCs. They’ll never do it.

First, this is related to previous discussions directed at the U.S. Air Force; to which I feel some allegiance. The new general spherical yet broad and potentially large team carrying front and main of these airplanes is excellent and headed in a great direction. We have in these engineering illustrations made the important jump from large, obtrusive wings that unnaturally defy gravity to drawn-back, reductionist war wings necessary for fast and agile air battle tactics but also happens to be environmentally efficient(not the top consideration.) Yet here's the important error that has to be corrected. Utilize this company; Build this plane. Good. But do this; the proper warplane does not have a flat bottom or hull. Instead, it is gently arched in a natural orderly spherical arch which could be approximated, approximated not precisely described as a 'V' for lack of better symbology. I am speaking of an Oceanic Manta Ray; although the Manta Ray is flexible unto fluidity and our planes are of fixed metal, it's relevant as the reference is to a geometric shape. Unlike with a flat bottomed or flat hulled air-ship, the powerful wind will not merely bounce off our metal hull causing slight drag and wind resistance but rather(and god-damn it this is not a metaphor any of it!;) enter into the curvaceous hollow of our metal aeronautics cave like sea wind billowing a trade sail propelling nautical progress; but in this case propelling our flight to some degree; but that's not the main reason necessarily in a war context, though it deserves aeronautic attention and study by engineers and practical physicists. No; no by just alternating our wings up or down, right or left, or manipulating the surging, digi-sensored air rush in the extended flight structure(or call it 'belly' if you want; that is a metaphor;) we can now maneuver with speed and agility advantages we did not have before; provided the rest of the flight and computer science systems are well adapted and in order. There will also be slight disadvantages to this design; and 100 details and complexities direct and related to test and consider; this will not change everything overnight; it's not all-important; But it is significant and intended for use by the U.S. Air Force. It's like an advancement in chess opening theory, it's relevant and worth studying; it does not guarantee victory or success in the sophisticated and ferociously contested game of tournament rules play Chess.

If they put in bigger seats….Not those designed in 1965, it would accommodate all of the fat people. And put in a section for tall people. Fight the airlines to not squeeze them down again. Imagine business class seats on a particular airline. Which one would you fly with?

How would you like to see a LTA-ICC (Lighter-Than -Air Inter-Continental-Cruise" with a top surface of 1km2, 9 Million m2 of area (at 3 levels) for 15,000 Passengers/Baggage, Equipment, Cabins/ Showers, Lounges/Restaurants, Gym etc.. ferrying passengers across the globe at USD 500-700 One Way... in "luxury" in 30 hours. This longer travel time eliminates the "Jet Lag Recovery Time" EXISTINGin Inter Continental Travel today... Let us get this $14 Billion LTA-ICC funded by... CROWD FUNDING.. 👏👏👏