Comments on: Gates a big investor in aircraft start-up

Microsoft chairman is second-biggest backer of Eclipse Aviation, which hopes to bring an energy-efficient plane to market in a year.

[Marcus Westrup]

Now Aircraft?

I'm sure there's a joke in this somewhere . . .

[System Tyrant]

A Picture

I remember seeing a cartoon about a plane that had something like Activation Required on the screen when the plane was landing.

I didn't read the article, but the head line was enough to make me laugh and cry. I don't want Microsoft in a plane or a car or a toaster for that matter.

[Andrew J Glina]

Give it a break

Just because Bill is investing in a company it does not mean that Microsoft is involved. He donates to charity too, does that mean that they need to be restarted 10 times a day?

Why Try Re-Invent The Wheel... Re-Introduce The Concorde

While I think that the participation of Microsoft and other companies in the aviation industry is a very good direction to go I feel that given the limited conveniences (Bath-Rooms, Luggage Compartments, Medical Facilities) that will not be incorporated into the design of such aircrafts, without the appropriate business analyses... how can one be convinced that this experiments will not go the way of the Enrons. Instead, I would suggest that another look be taken at the once operated BA/Air France Concorde; and, with the appropriate re-designs for better economic and reduced noise levels during operations... this will be for the greater good of communities and individuals around the world. Some of the benefits - faster travel time over long distances all over the world, less air traffic in the already congested airspaces in some US Cities, less chances of would-be terrorists highjacking aircrafts (Lest we forget 9/11). I will follow-up in terms of a perceived limitation with regards the software industry - a matter in which companies like Microsoft should address leaving aviation and space travel matters to the folks at NASA and the SpaceShip One complexes.

[Andrew J Glina]

Concorde

That would be great. However most companies are too scared to do it. The is a biz jet project (S-21) between Sukhoi and (now) Boeing but it has been going on since the late 80s.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/aviaru041.htm

[David Arbogast]

Not a bad idea

The idea of more efficient planes that can land at any airport is not new. In fact, it is one of the largest pushes behind the new 787 that Boeing is developing. Only, if efficiency is the ultimate goal, one must wonder why the organization is still constructing the airplane body with metal and welds.... the 787 is constructed of carbon fiber instead of aluminum. As I recall, it also uses a hydrogen fuel cell for power on the ground....

The comment made about the Concorde is quite off base. The concorde is a completely different approach to travel. It is large, expensive, and can land at only a couple of airports worldwide. It is also extremely expensive, and it was shut down because of increasing costs. The Concorde is likely comparable to the new government-subsidized Airbus A380 jumbo plane... Efficiency through capacity... Unfortunately for Airbus, I think Boeing has taken the right approach. And a focus on efficient planes seems like a good strategy for any new aircraft company. At roughly $1.2Million, a 6-8 seat aircraft will be very competitive in the market, and if it has an efficiency bonus over the competition, it should sell well.... just remember to use the restroom before you board the plane!

I love when people get confused about aviation...

Airplanes are airplanes, right? Sure, and a bus is a car. There are a number of major catagories in aviation, across which you really can't draw parallels, or make sweeping statements. Airliners are a class in and of themselves, they serve very specific purposes for a small number of clients. Business aircraft server other specific requirements but for a much larger market. Private aviation can be anything to anyone. Since this story relates to a business aircraft, comments about the Concorde are quite irrelevant.

However, I'll join in the fray with this: the Concorde is the airliner equivalent of the Space Shuttle, in almost every way. It's a supposed "high-tech" machine created from extremely low-tech components. It's well past it's anticipated age. It serves a very limited niche market that is quickly being phased out. It's a waste of money, and always operates at a loss. It had an extremely long, very safe career, which unfortunatly culminated in a tragic accident. It only differs from the Space Shuttle in one way: whereas the Concorde was grounded, using the crash as an excuse (although it was really because there was no market for such an aircraft anymore), the Shuttle has been "returned to flight"... twice, because politicians are more concerned about appearances than finances.

Good luck to all innovative new aviation companies, I look forward to the next Space Ship One.