😂

Why don't you apply for the team? I'm sure they will pay well for a person of your vast knowledge.

Thanks for your question; please see the response from the DelfiPQ team: Delfi-PQ does not include a propulsion system but our group is working on a micropropulsion prototype based on MEMS microthrusters which we hope to fly in a future pocketqube.

@@AETUDelft so it’s tumbling uncontrolled at tge moment?

Seriously though. It needs someone with a pair of tentacles (you know what I meant) to just do it and force the rest of aerospace to do it also. As Musk forced auto makers to build EVs and he is forcing aerospace to reduce the cost. Note that SpaceX was underselling all launch services competitors before they'd landed a booster. Aside from little test hoppers, all their advances and "testing" has been done with paying customer launches. Nothing of what Tesla or SpaceX does is patented. Radically new engineering or engines or materials or advanced stabilization & control systems are _NOT_ necessary, it you put a tail on it. See the X-48-C or the Tu-404 if you like pretty, swept "flying wings". See the '70s Boeing model 754, similar to the very much earlier Burnelli designs. No new materials, no issues about control, and 150% the range and payload of a normal plane. Ignored by aerospace for decades. We've just got to get aerospace past the intransigence by Boeing who has stated that they will never build a civil or large transport plane to lifting fuselage or any sort of "all-wing" planform. Everybody else including apparently Airbus and TU Delft and the Russians and the Chinese just slavishly follows Boeing, so we're going on decade after decade flying inferior, vastly inefficient planes because some exec at Boeing says "if it looks right, it'll fly right".

@@JFrazer4303 Aerospace doesn't work like that. For example, it needs different designs of the airfield and certain safety features wich you cannot provide without many many years of experiences

@@johannesgoetzen None of which applies to the Boeing 754 or Burnelli designs. Standard materials and processes and avionics, same airport infrastructure. Yes, it takes a few years to get it past safety protocols. It's taken a few years since the 1940s.

its not a joke there full passenger plane is gonna be tested soon

@@KyleTheDuck Soon? these are prototypes, will probably take years before that step is done, if they even get that far

My thoughts exactly. The Flight Test crew could have knocked this out in 2 days out of sheet foam.....for 50 bucks..

Lol this is children stuff Bruh that cringe voice over

I guess you produce a design study with physical modeling every second week right. What a jerk.

@@koborkutya7338 - " _I guess you produce a design study with physical modeling every second week right. What a jerk._ ". I stand by what I said. Rocket science isn't particularly difficult and this doesn't come close. It's obvious propaganda masquerading as an excuse for their financial waste and tardiness for what someone could produce in a week.

@@revolution3395 They did not produce a flyable model. They use a model to validate calculations and computer modeling. How it takes off or lands is secondary to the data they measure and compare to calculations. It does not matter how it looks because the scaled model is not the end product here. What matters is how much they can or cannot improve the calculation models they use to design an aircraft. Further, in case of an university, it is of minor importance if the aircraft they practice on gets to be a commercial product. What matters is that they are practicing design and development of aircraft, studying aerodynamic phenomena. Making flyable models is just step n in studying a possible configurations, still a bunch of smartasses act like they can perform all that development in a weekend. Of course Airbus wants propaganda, of course! That's one reason they are dumping money into a University instead of an ad campaign! I much rather have them dumping money into educational institutes than marketing agencies. In aeronautical development it takes a hell of a lot of work to find out if a configuration in current technical environment and materials, technology etc can become a feasible product or not. I absolutely like the idea that a university team explores different solutions than current mainstream, that takes them far closer to understand their craft than repeating the solutions that were worked out 60 years ago. If you think about it, the entire human aviation was realized against the prevailing opinion of commenters way back then.

With all the drama and budget to make CEO's gasp in awe so their expensive time-wasting would seem worth it. Homer Simpson's concept car springs to mind.

It turns into a boomerang

@@rockman49er 😅 Well that’s not good.

Indeed, it is a design from 70 years ago, nothing new.

" _The only leap in aviation that this plane will make, is a leap straight into the trash can._ ". That's probably why they spent 1.5 years and 90% of the budget on their overly dramatic video with music and head-shaking acting script. Designed for KLM CEO's to watch and drool in awe methinks.

Going by the yellow bulletproof vests I'm surprised they weren't wearing full-face helmets and seatbelts.