Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JetZero

jetzero.aero

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 277 posts

Re: JetZero

#31

Post by colordrops »

azza2110 wrote: post #22
xnx wrote: post #5

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.

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.

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.

Re: JetZero

#32

Post by articulatepang »

azza2110 wrote: post #22
xnx wrote: post #5

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.

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.

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.

Re: JetZero

#33

Post by jmward01 »

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.

Re: JetZero

#35

Post by wxw »

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.

Re: JetZero

#37

Post by deadbabe »

briandw wrote: post #17
xnx wrote: post #5

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.

Just gimbal the seats.

Re: JetZero

#38

Post by thadk »

xnx wrote: post #5

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.

Would dropping airplane windows lower radiation exposure somewhat, especially on those polar routes?

Re: JetZero

#40

Post by nitinreddy88 »

chasing wrote: post #21

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 aro…

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.
Post reply on HN