JetZero

(jetzero.aero)

74 points | by lisper 1 hour ago

17 comments

  • wxw 28 minutes ago
    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.

  • calmbonsai 40 minutes ago
    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.

    • nine_k 20 minutes ago
      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.

  • xnx 55 minutes ago
    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 48 minutes ago
      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 7 minutes ago
        > 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.)

      • deadbabe 25 minutes ago
        Just gimbal the seats.
        • fugaziboutit 3 minutes ago
          New commercial seating design: Oops, All Pinch Points!
        • NegativeLatency 4 minutes ago
          Doesn’t fix translation?
    • azza2110 42 minutes ago
      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 30 minutes ago
        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 16 minutes ago
          it’s cute you think that’s going to show up in lower ticket costs instead of the company’s profit margin.
          • jrk 5 minutes ago
            Commercial air travel is extremely competitive and has very low margins.
      • bruce511 15 minutes ago
        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.

      • carodgers 37 minutes ago
        Also the screen sizes they are showing have got to be exceedingly heavy.
        • hankbond 19 minutes ago
          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 32 minutes ago
        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.
    • thadk 24 minutes ago
      Would dropping airplane windows lower radiation exposure somewhat, especially on those polar routes?
      • jandrewrogers 0 minutes ago
        No, virtually all the radiation with the exception of UV is passing straight through the airframe. The protection an aircraft body offers is negligible.
    • evolve2k 50 minutes ago
      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.
      • Carrok 48 minutes ago
        Just bring a sleep mask.
    • TEHERET 38 minutes ago
      the biggest challenge would likely be training pilots to a new cockpit and flight profile
    • EGreg 53 minutes ago
      No passenger windows is the correct way to go. The screens can actually show anything, not just replace a window.
      • Bolwin 19 minutes ago
        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
      • rezokun 51 minutes ago
        Infinite ads in econom
        • blowsand 46 minutes ago
          Scott Kirby has joined the chat
      • BobbyTables2 47 minutes ago
        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…

  • csmoak 36 minutes ago
    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.
  • JumpCrisscross 10 minutes ago
    What is their engine? An airframe without an engine is, best case, a drone programme.
  • Stevvo 13 minutes ago
    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.
  • giantfrog 54 minutes ago
    An airplane is not something I would personally want to beta test
    • DrewADesign 50 minutes ago
      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 52 minutes ago
      A few of my Mom's uncles were test pilots. They're… an odd bunch.
    • deadbabe 24 minutes ago
      If they offer free flights to places people want to go they will not have any shortage of testers.
  • scottmcdot 3 minutes ago
    Another pointless "up to x% better" specification.
  • jmward01 29 minutes ago
    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 15 minutes ago
      > 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 29 minutes ago
    Looks a bit like Thunderbird 2. I approve.
  • TEHERET 48 minutes ago
    isn't this just the boeing flying wing
  • sergiotapia 23 minutes ago
    It would be wonderful if the future looks more like the future. The world today materially looks a lot like 2006. Go watch some music videos or recordings of people out and about.

    Very exciting promises and design here!

  • freecook 27 minutes ago
    I love it
  • johnwheeler 36 minutes ago
    looks expensive
  • rgmerk 1 hour ago
    I wish them well but a startup building an airliner seems like an utterly impossible task.
    • dlcarrier 46 minutes ago
      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.

    • usef- 58 minutes ago
      On the plus side, the competition seems a bit lousy lately
    • divyekapoor 57 minutes ago
      If the numbers are what they claim. They’re going to make it.
    • DrewADesign 53 minutes ago
      Eh, if SpaceX did rockets… I wouldn’t be surprised if they could be very nimble compared to the big ones.
      • rgmerk 50 minutes ago
        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 49 minutes ago
          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 4 minutes ago
        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.
  • chasing 43 minutes ago
    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.
    • nitinreddy88 24 minutes ago
      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.
    • SilverSlash 41 minutes ago
      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 7 minutes ago
        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 34 minutes ago
        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.

  • freecook 19 minutes ago
    [flagged]