Aviation Claims—Truth, Spin and Deception (And How to Tell The Difference)

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

This is a great article from the world of Aviation.  It's about innovation, marketing vs realities, and The Laws of Physics, which provide the reality of what "breakthrough" technology can or cannot do.  Anyway, it touched on electric powered aircraft briefly and provides great example of the wins in Aviation, and the losses in both capital and human life that result of reaching to nothing more than marketing scams.

Aviation Claims—Truth, Spin and Deception (And How to Tell The Difference)

Going Direct: Aviation Claims—Truth, Spin and Deception (And How to Tell The Difference)

Anyone can make a claim about anything, but when it's about airplanes, lives and livelihoods are at risk. So here are some of the filters we use to separate the truth from the spin.

By Isabel Goyer UPDATED NOVEMBER 2, 2020  SAVE ARTICLE

Wikipedia Commons

 

Advertisement

 

Here’s a fact. Companies working on new aircraft will make claims about their planes that defy common sense, at least aviation common sense. Sadly, even aviation types are taken in by those claims. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

As an occasional pilot, that article hit a lot of buttons. I've got friends who bit on some of those, such as the BD-10 and the Lancair. I've also got a friend who bought the Icon, not a bad little plane if over priced and under powered. I call it the flying wave runner. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

As an occasional pilot, that article hit a lot of buttons. I've got friends who bit on some of those, such as the BD-10 and the Lancair. I've also got a friend who bought the Icon, not a bad little plane if over priced and under powered. I call it the flying wave runner. 

What I found really interesting was how many of the same things occur in other fields.  Snake oil salesmen, when it comes to industries and large companies, sometimes are going through what appear to be expensive skin-in-the-game processes which are very convincing, when the effort and the headlines are all that are really important to the "salesmen" whoever they may be and for whatever claimed outcome they are supposedly working towards.  Others are just shots for riches that ultimately fail, but not before they relieve investors of large sums of money which also results in the "salesmen" walking away unscathed with enough cash in their pockets to try their next pie in the sky run.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

14 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

What I found really interesting was how many of the same things occur in other fields.  Snake oil salesmen, when it comes to industries and large companies, sometimes are going through what appear to be expensive skin-in-the-game processes which are very convincing, when the effort and the headlines are all that are really important to the "salesmen" whoever they may be and for whatever claimed outcome they are supposedly working towards.  Others are just shots for riches that ultimately fail, but not before they relieve investors of large sums of money which also results in the "salesmen" walking away unscathed with enough cash in their pockets to try their next pie in the sky run.

I think if Elon Musk weren't a billionaire already, we'd be saying the same things about Space X. He had the funds to proceed to create a reality the rest of us scoffed at. Admit it, right up until that rocket landed on that platform, you didn't believe it could be done didn't you? A lot of these airplane dreams simply need a lot more money than the founders can cobble together. Boeing spends about $10-15 billion on every new plane design. My friend was the chief test engineer there, he showed me a PowerPoint for RFD FAA that was over 500 slides long. I asked him if it was a joke. He said, "No, and the presentation goes for days". I think creating a new drug is easier and ultimately more profitable. That's why we can't have nice new planes and everything is a rehash of what's been done before. Hell, I'd be happy to fly a quadrotor just like my drone. Stable as can be and lands anywhere. Think the FAA will approve that in our lifetime? I'm not holding my breath. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

9 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I think if Elon Musk weren't a billionaire already, we'd be saying the same things about Space X. He had the funds to proceed to create a reality the rest of us scoffed at. Admit it, right up until that rocket landed on that platform, you didn't believe it could be done didn't you?

Not all of us scoff at reality, nor create alternative realities.

Funny how you think Musk can change space flight forever but his battery and e-car vision is garbage...

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I think if Elon Musk weren't a billionaire already, we'd be saying the same things about Space X. He had the funds to proceed to create a reality the rest of us scoffed at. Admit it, right up until that rocket landed on that platform, you didn't believe it could be done didn't you? A lot of these airplane dreams simply need a lot more money than the founders can cobble together. Boeing spends about $10-15 billion on every new plane design. My friend was the chief test engineer there, he showed me a PowerPoint for RFD FAA that was over 500 slides long. I asked him if it was a joke. He said, "No, and the presentation goes for days". I think creating a new drug is easier and ultimately more profitable. That's why we can't have nice new planes and everything is a rehash of what's been done before. Hell, I'd be happy to fly a quadrotor just like my drone. Stable as can be and lands anywhere. Think the FAA will approve that in our lifetime? I'm not holding my breath. 

Musk does not fall into the category I'm talking about, except that his brain knows how to create something viable, prove it and get the customers to line, and seriously line his pockets in the process.  Nothing wrong with that, if you ask me.  His accomplishments have been hugely inspiring.  Landing back on a little pad like they do is excellent work, by a great many people: that is awe inspiring work!

The fact that it takes billions of $$ to create "new" aircraft and jet engine designs that are really just incremental advances is nothing more than the reality, and they push physics and technology to the absolute edge each time the develop a "new" aircraft or engine.  That doesn't mean niche markets can't be developed and filled by entrepreneurs, but the Bigs need returns that are 10-20 fold the investments, and millions of large investors/stock holders to support them even then.

I think we'll see drone-style personal craft becoming popular in the relatively near future.  The thing to remember is that the FAA doesn't develop anything, really. they just evaluate and provide stamps of approval to the safest and the best (or that's what they used to do, and had better get back to doing).  So, you need a consortium that will develop a proposal for drone operations that can convince the FAA they are safe and can be well managed.  Then the FAA can evaluate for approval.  Waiting for them to come up with the system is a losing game.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

Musk does not fall into the category I'm talking about, except that his brain knows how to create something viable, prove it and get the customers to line, and seriously line his pockets in the process.  Nothing wrong with that, if you ask me.  His accomplishments have been hugely inspiring.  Landing back on a little pad like they do is excellent work, by a great many people: that is awe inspiring work!

The fact that it takes billions of $$ to create "new" aircraft and jet engine designs that are really just incremental advances is nothing more than the reality, and they push physics and technology to the absolute edge each time the develop a "new" aircraft or engine.  That doesn't mean niche markets can't be developed and filled by entrepreneurs, but the Bigs need returns that are 10-20 fold the investments, and millions of large investors/stock holders to support them even then.

I think we'll see drone-style personal craft becoming popular in the relatively near future.  The thing to remember is that the FAA doesn't develop anything, really. they just evaluate and provide stamps of approval to the safest and the best (or that's what they used to do, and had better get back to doing).  So, you need a consortium that will develop a proposal for drone operations that can convince the FAA they are safe and can be well managed.  Then the FAA can evaluate for approval.  Waiting for them to come up with the system is a losing game.

You're right, government bunglecrats create nothing. They don't have an accelerator, just a brake. We'd have self driving cars, but then dept of transportation would lose some power, so they'll never approve it. Likewise the FAA can't stand the idea of new pilots getting into the air. They've had the country locked into 1940's technology for IFR and ILS instead of embracing new tech and free flight. The air traffic control software and hardware is literally from the 60's. I personally know tech titans who have broken their teeth trying to upgrade that system.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

You're right, government bunglecrats create nothing. They don't have an accelerator, just a brake. We'd have self driving cars, but then dept of transportation would lose some power, so they'll never approve it. Likewise the FAA can't stand the idea of new pilots getting into the air. They've had the country locked into 1940's technology for IFR and ILS instead of embracing new tech and free flight. The air traffic control software and hardware is literally from the 60's. I personally know tech titans who have broken their teeth trying to upgrade that system.

Air Traffic Control (ATC) in the U.S. is on Trump's agenda:

White House Announces Overhaul of Air Traffic Control System

That is how you use technology and big data.  That is how you apply technology and big data for the common good.  Not all the political manipulations that have been allowed to go on until now.  The President knows first hand from his airline foray and his own B757 private jet operations that that system is crap and an embarrassment.  An absolute embarrassment.  Having said that, our ATC workers have held a standard that is a tribute to them.  A system that was made to handle traffic as it was in the 60s!  In normal times today (pre-Covid) 20,000 airplanes are crisscrossing the United States at any given time of day.  Just the U.S.!  Incredible that the men and women have been able to cope, but cope is all it has been.  I wish the President well in upgrading the system nationwide.

Once that upgrade is in place, we can consider how to manage all kinds of air traffic.  Grand things may be allowed to happen then.  I look forward to it.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/3/2020 at 6:19 PM, Ward Smith said:

I think if Elon Musk weren't a billionaire already, we'd be saying the same things about Space X. He had the funds to proceed to create a reality the rest of us scoffed at. Admit it, right up until that rocket landed on that platform, you didn't believe it could be done didn't you? A lot of these airplane dreams simply need a lot more money than the founders can cobble together. Boeing spends about $10-15 billion on every new plane design. My friend was the chief test engineer there, he showed me a PowerPoint for RFD FAA that was over 500 slides long. I asked him if it was a joke. He said, "No, and the presentation goes for days". I think creating a new drug is easier and ultimately more profitable. That's why we can't have nice new planes and everything is a rehash of what's been done before. Hell, I'd be happy to fly a quadrotor just like my drone. Stable as can be and lands anywhere. Think the FAA will approve that in our lifetime? I'm not holding my breath. 

Possibly the large aircraft companies don't want anyone cluttering up "their sky".  Especially near any of their routes and airports. I decided to wait for a flying saucer, it would go so fast they couldn't see it. A quadracopter sounds the most safe for local trips especially in rural areas.