JetZero

Join the discussion

• Hacker News
• > The Pathfinder team has built and flown five generations of scaled aircraft over 30 flights.

  https://www.jetzero.aero/progress

  Why so few? I'd expect them to be flying daily or as often as possible, to gather as much data as possible. The next step is a full-scale demonstrator. No doubt they have their reasons, but I wonder what they are?

  by mmooss
• An airplane is not something I would personally want to beta test
  by giantfrog
• If they offer free flights to places people want to go they will not have any shortage of testers.
  by deadbabe
• Good job they have test pilots then.
  by hahahaa
• Move fast and break things.
  by blitzar
• A few of my Mom's uncles were test pilots. They're… an odd bunch.
  by dlcarrier
• 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.
  by DrewADesign
• When looking at potentially revolutionary technology companies, I tend to evaluate more harshly than I would with normal companies.

  Three things on the JetZero website trip my BS detector. First, it appears they’re developing their own avionics displays/interface? That’s a terrible idea, they need to be laser focused on one core task.

  Second is this quote: “The Pathfinder team has built and flown five generations of scaled aircraft over 30 flights. The most recent flights validate both the configuration and control laws of our full-size Jet1 Demonstrator.“

  Over 30 flights seems really low. They should be testing way more than that, no?

  Third, I spy a full-scale interior mock-up. There isn’t even a working prototype, but they’re paying people to pick out carpet colors?

  I really want this to succeed, but it doesn’t look like these are serious people.

  by ungreased0675
• 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.
  by Robdel12
• tell me more? I used to live in Albuquerque and always wondered what happened.
  by wnc3141
• 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…

  by twoodfin
• 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.

  by sixdimensional
• 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.
  by shrubble
• Please lookup the flight envelope, cruise fuel utilization, and stall characteristics of the Dyke Delta along with its cargo capacity.

  Then you'll understand why so many Cessna 172s were built.

  by calmbonsai
• Another one I'm familiar with: https://www.verheesengineering.com/d2-twoseater/
  by incognito124
• It’s also much smaller. The main problem will be that the people sitting outside experience a lot of vertical motion when the aircraft rolls. That’s only a problem with the full scale design.
  by echoangle
• 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.
  by csmoak
• The reason that these companies are choosing Greensboro as a base is due to the fact that the GSO airport has a relatively-long 10,001-foot runway but comparatively little commercial air traffic. Additionally, the airport property is quite large compared to some "urban" airports, and is under a lot of active land development to make room for more manufacturing facilities.

  The HondaJet HQ is here (and has been for some time), as well as a number of aircraft repair facilities inside the airport fence, and there are ~5mil people within a 90 minute drive of GSO, so it's becoming easier to source talent for aerospace as well.

  Our long runways and the fact that we only have around ~7 flights arriving/departing per hour, and the proximity to Washington DC, is why GSO is used quite often for training operations for "Air Force One" - we see 28000 and 29000 do very low passes over our house around once a month as they do touch-and-go and go-around drills, so it's always funny to see the flurry of "did you guys see that?" posts on Nextdoor.

  by jasongill
• 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.

  by calmbonsai
• Agreed. There are always large amounts of money being poured into aviation and most of what comes out is knowledge.

  It's always exciting to see futuristic designs and bleeding edge tech but there are a lot of footnotes in aviation history filled with these.

  I think electric aviation (in general aviation) is probably the best/real frontier to watch for innovation currently. Many advances in aviation come from much smaller operations doing something successfully.

  by imoverclocked
• If not this again, what would be your ideas of the path forward for aviation?

  All of the constraints you mentioned are the results of decades of optimization around the tube-shape aircraft design. Meaning the design has to be proven first. Infrastructure will adapt.

  Also, I suspect the first application will be military, such as Next Generation Air-refueling System (NGAS):

  https://www.twz.com/air-force-says-it-needs-more-survivable-...

  by jryle70
• A recent video that addresses some of my concerns: https://youtu.be/zA9dGNEIOEY
  by calmbonsai
• 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.

  by nine_k
• 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.
  by Petersipoi
• 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.
  by xnx
• Would dropping airplane windows lower radiation exposure somewhat, especially on those polar routes?
  by thadk
• The gates thing was my first thought when I saw the design although a staircase on the tarmac could be a cheap workaround.
  by enahs-sf
• IIRC, minimum one window for each rows is a safety requirement, so that firefighters can see inside a burning plane or something. I think that is believed to be how that fence appeared.
  by numpad0
• 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.
  by evolve2k
• I give absolutely less than zero f's about no windows for 2" more legroom.
  by VectorLock