
That's a pretty plane -- looks like a shrunken Concorde, although not quite as fast (Mach 1.7 vs. just over Mach 2). Of course, they'll have to find a way to mitigate the sonic boom or it'll never be allowed to fly over populated areas.
Another flying freak: the somewhat misnamed 1952 Horton "Wingless" (not to be confused with Germany's Horten flying wings). An early attempt at a blended-wing-body design, this ungainly-looking aircraft, modified from a Cessna UC-78 Bobcat, actually flew several times but was never put into production.
![]()
What a nice looking aircraft, and yes, I like oddballs like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnelli_UB-14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnelli_CBY-3
Another pair of oddballs.![]()
Not too keen on the idea of only one person in the cockpit either. Sure, the tech is mostly there, but if it fails (or one pilot is ill etc)![]()
For me it is not an automation thing. Such commercial planes already use and depend on a great deal of automation. But as long as mental heath is a thing and lone pilots purposely direct planes into mountains or out over trackless oceans, I am going to want two pilots in the cockpit.
No situation like could EVER happen in real life...right?
Agreed. I doubt a computer could reach the conclusion that landing TACA 110 on a levee was the thing to do...Not so much that but situations like the DC-10 at Sioux City or the QANTAS A380, and the A320 in the Hudson are examples of no matter what the computers can do, there are soemthing that only only a human pilot can handle.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.