Aviation Reinvented: Natilus and Aleksey Matyushev’s Aircraft Revolution

In this episode, Adam chats with Aleksey Matyushev about his journey from growing up near a military base to studying at Embry Riddle and entering aviation design. Aleksey discusses aerodynamics, transitioning to unmanned systems, and his military projects. As the founder of Natilus, he highlights their innovative blended wing body aircraft and its impact on cargo and passenger aviation. They explore automation's role in pilot fundamentals, military potential for blended wing technology, and aviation industry competition. Aleksey reflects on aviation innovations, offering insights for professional pilots. Check out Natilus at www.natilus.co!

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Alexei, so awesome to have you on the pilotnetwork podcast.
I think the way we wanna start off here isyou're not a professional aviator, but you are
a professional in the aviation industry with aa quite a background.
When I was reading your background, I was blownaway that, you know, you think as a pilot, I I

(00:21):
know everything about aviation, then yourealize, nope.
I don't know anything.
There's people like you out there who basicallymake what we do work.
So how did you first get interested inaerospace and aviation and get the bug for,
like, I'm gonna make a new airplane.
So how did how did that all start?
Where was the first iteration of Alexei'sdream?

(00:43):
Oh, man.
Takes me back quite a while.
So, I actually grew up next to a military base.
And so we we always had jets around us, flyingoverhead and things like that.
And, my, grandfather was career military.
And so, you know, he still had rank.
And so, when we were kids, my brother and I, hewould actually, go up to the military gates,

(01:04):
and then they would open it up for him.
And I never thought anything about it, but hewould, take us walking around, you know, all
the jets and the helicopters.
And, of course, the only thing that we werereally interested was, like, the broken down
bus somewhere in the field because we couldnext
to that.
But yeah.
So kind of caught the aviation bug.
Always wanted to be a fighter pilot.
You know, every young kid's dream, I would say.

(01:26):
And then reality sunk in, through grade schooland then going to high school.
I'm too tall, so I'm 6 foot 4.
No way I'm gonna fit into something like that.
And then, also had a little bit of a troublewith authority.
And so definitely not a, I would say, careermove that I was willing to make.
So somehow convinced my dad that, you know,aviation was a passion of mine, and so he sent

(01:47):
me to Embry Riddle.
So that's actually where I met my cofoundertoo.
I graduated from Embry Riddle, degree inaerospace engineering.
And, at that point, it's kind of a funny story.
We were, the Piper Jib program was, like, goingfull swing.
Right?
And so they were taking kids like ours, us,like, engineers, from Embry Riddle down the
street to Vero Beach to build this Piper Jip.

(02:09):
And, so, they they were interviewing everybody,and, a long story short is they were looking
for an air dead atom assist.
And there's very few of us in the industry,believe it or not.
And, somehow, they saw that I was working on aa school airplane project for actually a
company out of Norway.
I convinced them that I would design the wingwhen I was 19 years old, and, they somehow

(02:29):
bought into it.
Little did I know that, you know, I was, youknow, ambitious and things like that, but,
Piper saw that that project that I did andsaid, why don't you interview for an
aerodynamics position?
And, ended up getting it.
And so that kind of launched my career inaviation and specifically, you know, know,
aerodynamics is usually the beginning and theend of every single airplane program.
So I got a very unique view of the industry andkind of, you know, solidified, I guess, the

(02:52):
next 10 years in aviation for me as well.
So I wanted to jump on something you said rightthere because you said aerodynamics is the
beginning and end.
And as a pilot, we get a very entry levelknowledge of aerodynamics, which is way more
than the average person.
Right?
The on the basic how how an airplane flies.
So when you you get into a program like thatand decide you're going to redesign basically

(03:17):
how an airplane flies.
And I guess this is my mind thinking of, like,how you would be thinking about it.
So what was that first experience like in thedesign process of going, I'm gonna change at at
19, by the way.
You know what I was doing at 19?
Wasn't that.
So what what were you how did you like, thatfirst experience in that aircraft design
program program for Piper?

(03:38):
So, I mean, I was 21 when I well, 20 when Ientered Piper, but, the the Norwegian airplane
was the first one I designed in 19.
Okay.
Yeah.
And then, it actually flew 6 years later, andbelieve it or not, it's 20 and 4th.
So I guess I did something right.
But, you know, I was really interested inreading a lot of books, and I know, you know,
amateur builders and stuff like that, they'rereally into Raymer.

(03:58):
But those fundamental texts about aerodynamicsand it's it's aerodynamics is one piece of it,
of course, but I would say it's the mostimportant, coming in from my idea because you
gotta make sure that the thing flies pointy andforward.
But I think, you know, for me doing theairplanes, that early on, it kinda sunk into
what the the, you know, what the failure modewould actually look like, which is you could
actually kill people here.

(04:19):
So it's not, you know, you're building a gokarts, you know, in in high school or something
like that or a motorcycle.
I mean, this thing will fall out of the sky,kill the person who's flying it, and then it's
somebody underneath here as well.
So I think there was a really deep, I wouldsay, sense of responsibility of, you know,
designing good airplanes, you know, to makesure that safety is, of course, always
important, but then how do you also bridge thatwith pushing the envelope in a lot of ways?

(04:44):
And so you always find this really interestingbalance of, you know, how you how you balance
the 2 to make sure that it's and also on top ofthat marketing and performance and make sure
that it's a successful product.
Right?
So when you're when you're in that well, Iguess, when you're in the process of kind of
getting that first experience in that job, youget into it and you start off as, my guess, is

(05:04):
just engineer.
You're not a project manager.
You're you're actually, this shows I'm not thatold, but I I heard about slide rules and, like,
you're doing you're make you're designingyou're designing how this thing is gonna work
correctly.
How did that then propel you forward and kindatake us a little bit on a tour of the rest of
your career?
What led you to where you're at now as the,founder of Nautilus and and how that inspired

(05:31):
you in a way to say, you know what?
I'm gonna I'm gonna turn this thing on itshead.
Yeah.
So what a ride.
I guess, working at Piper, I mean, learned alot about humility.
I think what's really interesting aboutairplanes is, you have to be a history buff in
aviation to kind of understand where you wannago.
You have to know where we came from.
A lot of the things that it seems like we mademistakes on, like fifties sixties seventies,

(05:55):
like, keep creeping back into designs.
And it's really you know, and especially a lotof the older engineers too are retiring.
And so, you know, all that knowledge and tribalknowledge is lost.
So, I think Piper taught me humility and, youknow, that was also one of the first times I
really took a lot of risk on flight tests.
And, you know, some there were some bad momentsfor there for sure.
And, you know, it was really a risky test, but,you know, everything came out okay.

(06:17):
But at the same time, you know, seeing kindawhat the feathered edge looks like, not only
from the pilot's perspective, but also from thedata as well as an engineer, what could happen,
I think is is really important for me.
But then I also was kind of, you know, a littlebit, frustrated with with aviation because here
I was designing these really, you know,phenomenal airplanes and business jets and

(06:38):
turboprops for really rich people.
And so, I mean, I got to fly them during flighttests, but, you know, who like, I will never
get to have a product like that.
And so I kinda scratched my head, and at thesame time, looking at, you know, where general
aviation was as an industry, it feltfrustrating that there was not a lot of
innovation, and we were really risk averse justto to the amount of capital it takes and then

(06:59):
the marketing and then just what the companycould do.
And so I was kind of in a position where, youknow, I was really interested in unvailing
technology and and rapid prototyping.
And so I got an opportunity to go work, blackmilitary programs on the West Coast,
specifically doing cutting edge unmanned stuff.
And that was really exciting for me.
They brought in the old Skunk Course guards, soI got to, work with, like, Bob Lash, who did

(07:22):
the flight controls on the f one 17, LouisMiranda, which did all the stuff on the SR 70
1, the aerodynamics.
And so it was just what a great place to learn.
And on top of that, I was coupled with reallythe the engineers and the staff that could
actually build the ideas.
And so no longer, you know, are we tied to thecurvature bending of a sheet metal or aluminum

(07:43):
or titanium.
Now with, you know, composites, you could doanything, and you could do it really quickly.
And so, really understood, like, the differencebetween East Coast mentality in building
airplanes, which is really still relied heavilyon aluminum old school, and then, the West
Coast, which is why don't we build things outof carbon, and everything has to be plastic.
And so very interesting perspective, military,on that side too.

(08:05):
We ended up working, on some of these projectsare now declassified.
I'm not gonna take credit for all of them, butit's been a really while to watch them actually
become the tip of the spear for the UnitedStates Air Force in a lot of ways.
And I also got to see what, you know, what isthe limits of the pilot.
Right?
When you make those things unmanned, the pilotmoves away.
And so what are the advantages anddisadvantages of something like that?

(08:26):
So Let's, yeah, let's let's let's, pause onthat one for a second.
I'd love to get into the advantages,disadvantage.
I mean, I I I know some of them just from thefact that I'm a professional aviator, flew
military and on the civil side now.
And I I can kinda guess, but what did you seefrom an engineering analytics perspective where

(08:48):
you saw, okay, in this case, especially in thein the combat environment, I can see a, a kind
of even a a a wider chasm of advantage versusdisadvantage.
What did you what did you and the team see werethe some of the pros and cons of having, an
unmanned system versus a traditional pilot inin on the flight deck or on the cockpit?

(09:11):
Right.
I mean, the unmanned system never secondguesses.
Right?
So you you say go left, you know, fly Mach0.82.
It'll do exactly as you say.
Right?
There's no second guessing perfect executionevery single time.
I mean, if you were to look at the plots, youknow, like somebody were to hand fly a maneuver
versus a, you know, an unmanned system, I'lltell you what, like these these things are
amazing.

(09:32):
But at the same time, of course, it doesn'tthink.
Obviously, with AI, there's new capabilitiesand opportunities there.
But, it's also you can push the g forces wayhigh.
So right now, you know, you're really limitedby the human in the cockpit.
Of course, we have g suits and everything elselike that.
But, you know, gosh, if I can pull 10 g's andthe structure can do 10 g's, wouldn't that be
cool?
And so, I mean, there's limitations ofmaneuverability.

(09:53):
You know, there's really, like, a a lot of, Iwould say, fine maneuvers, like, doing, like,
mach 2, 15 feet above the water.
You know, it seems, like, convince a pilot todo that.
Of course, you're gonna have somebody, acowboy, willing to go try it, but, you know,
one mistake and he's out where you can see theunmanned side of it really executed perfectly.
Now what happens during that maneuver andputting all that strategy together, of course,

(10:15):
there's still weaknesses in the intelligenceside of it.
But as far as execution wise, it's perfect.
I think from a program perspective, it's reallyinteresting because if you look at the asset as
a whole, I mean, the airplane is only one partof it.
But if you, like, weigh in the amount oftrading a military pilot has to go through to
actually reach that point to be able to operatea machine at that high level, and that cost is

(10:37):
actually pretty large.
And so you think about pilots as being, almost,I would say, like a bottleneck for scalability
and, of course, capability for the UnitedStates Air Force with the Navy, and also see
that as a a scalability challenge of, you know,what if there is risk that we need to take that
is a little bit more, you know, difference, Iwould say?

(10:58):
Obviously, especially with new conflicts andnew arenas arising, I think that's more top of
the line right now for the United States AirForce.
I mean, in commercial aviation, which is kindof interesting, you know, taking that step back
is, nobody wants to fly small airplanes.
Right?
So, I mean, you know, everybody goes up to bewants to be a career pilot.
They wanna go fly the 737s for United, DeltaAmerica, and UPS, FedEx.

(11:19):
Nobody wants to go fly for, you know, a smallerBeech 1900 doing, you know, puddle jump runs
and loading up the airplane.
So as I think automation, there's there's prosand cons for it, and I think, technologically,
it's getting way better.
And I think it creates, not a replacementsometimes, but a kind of extended capability,
not only from a cost, but also operationalefficiency perspective.

(11:42):
You're spot on when when you talk aboutextended capability.
Right?
I I mean, I I see it day to day in my in mylife just how much automation does support a
lot of that.
I I see that I see the downside too, especiallywith airplanes that are older that have
automation that's at sometimes was anafterthought, sometimes it was built around
that capability.

(12:02):
But still, the the flawed older systems ofcomputers that just they don't work as well.
They're not as autonomous as they people thinkthat they are in a lot of cases.
So I can totally see that blending.
And I think most of us have, as professionalaviators, have realized that the blending of
man and machine, that that human interface istruly it's imperative to a safe operation of of

(12:28):
airlines worldwide.
And I think that, my I mean, obviously, mypersonal opinion is the I always want 2 people
up front just because, that's what I grew up onand what I know internally.
I do see a future where that's going to change.
I'm not I'm not a Luddite.
I I don't believe that that that's not going tohappen.

(12:49):
I don't want to see that happen in my careerfield, but I also wanna explore those
opportunities.
So I'm more knowledgeable, and so we're allmore knowledgeable about that kind of stuff.
And especially when you say when you talk aboutpros and cons and the capability environment of
combat air systems, That is a much differentworld.
And one of the things I always thought wasinteresting is being able to take a singular
pilot and basically able to multiply the forceand use that scalability by having more options

(13:13):
with still having the human being as the finaldecision maker on, on on how the execution the
flawless execution that you spoke of is ismaintained.
I think that's really a fascinating topic.
1, we could probably delve way deeper down andand start to drill down on some really small
key pieces.
Unfortunately, this podcast isn't 5 hours long,unlike Lex Friedman, who I love to listen to.

(13:36):
We're not gonna go that deep into it.
Let's skip, get back to kind of what were someof the challenges that you face both
professionally and personally in theenvironment that you're in?
Because it is very different than the averageline pilot.
But as an engineer and somebody who had the atsome point wanted to start doing their own
thing that wasn't tethered to a program thathad already existed or a company that already

(14:00):
had a mandate on how they were gonna produceaircraft.
What were some of the challenges you facedleading up to this, founding of of Nautilus and
creating your own airplane manufacturingcompany, which, by the way, I can't wait to
talk more about that because to me, that is aleap of faith that I don't know I could ever
have.
So, let's talk about some of those challengesthat you faced since you grew in into your

(14:22):
career field.
Yeah.
I think, you know, challenges were I mean, theidea is that I think there is a lot of stigma
within the industry about what an aircraftmanufacturing company really is.
And then it's really interesting to see how itkind of pummels in into the marketing side of
it and market positioning.
I think that's very important.
Like, as an example, when we're working, youknow, small general aviation airplanes, right,

(14:46):
you know, it was from a marketing perspective.
We would be designing the next, you know,iteration of a turboprop or a 6 seater or a 7
seater or something like that.
And, yeah, we could expand the capabilities by15 to 20%, but then we look at the markets and,
believe it or not, believe we were sofrustrated with our marketing department
because we'd be like, well, what airplaneshould we be designing?

(15:07):
And they're like, well, why don't you make theone that we have just a little bit better?
And we're like, okay.
Well, you know, what about a clean sheet?
Let's talk about that.
And so we started to really do analysis fromour perspective in understanding how, the value
that most of our customers see, what theairplane is, whether it be the speed, the
amount of people that they carry, and thingslike that, actually, trades off as far as
market positioning and price of airplane.

(15:29):
We was we started to understand was a lot ofthe airplanes that specifically in general
aviation, they're kind of bunched together allin one little category.
And so those would be your Pipers, yourCessnas, your Cirruses.
Right?
Because they're all 4 seater.
They fly about the same time I mean, speed andthings like that, and they're all about the
same price point.
And then there was, like, the the businessjets, like, a little bit higher up, but then

(15:49):
the competition starts to thin.
And then you get into, like, the 90 to a 100 ccategory airplanes, and holy smokes.
Well, it's just like Embraer, Boeing, andAirbus.
And then the value that they're able to createis a stepping stone compared to what we could
do in general aviation and commercial aviation.
And so from a marketing perspective, theairplane is that we always knew that we needed
to be building where as large as possible.
And so you can get into that untethered I'msorry, unfeeling category of Boeing and Airbus.

(16:14):
That that's who actually makes all the money inthe world.
And so that's why, like, we're all eating eachother alive in general aviation.
The military just charges, you know, everything10 x, and then the people that actually are
making any money were the Boeing and the Airbusand the AirBuses and the prayers.
So that was like a huge insight, I think,stepping stone from my, I guess, career was
with, you know, as an engineer, you alwaysthink of, like, what what can we do better?

(16:35):
How can we do this role better?
How can we, you know, change, 20% drag?
But the answer ended up being is, like, whatdoes the market want, and how quickly can you
scale up the company and the products to get tothis no competition or little to no competition
arena where you can actually play.
So I think Go ahead.
No.
No.
No.
Please continue.
So I think, you know, from an engineeringperspective, we're always taught to focus so

(16:58):
much, especially when you do military projects,on these unique types of, opportunities and
performance.
But, like, as an example, we were doing abusiness jet, that could fly 1300 nautical
miles.
Right?
And then you look at the market, it was, owneroperator.
So somebody owned a real estate business wherehe was a surgeon or something like that.
And so he would be flying the airplane.
And, the question was, do these folks actuallyfly 1300 nautical miles?

(17:22):
And believe it or not, I've been, like, 2 and ahalf hours in a very light jet, and you wanna
get out.
Like, you wanna go stretch your legs.
You wanna go to the restroom.
Nobody flies 1300 nautical miles.
But for some reason, all the marketingrequirements were 1300 nautical miles.
We were shoving fuel in places we didn't evenneed to shove fuel.
I mean, it was kinda like, what are we doinghere?
So, you know, I guess the what I learned frommy career is how do you, balance, you know, the

(17:46):
marketing, what the customer actually needs andwants, with an airplane, and how do you say no
to features?
On top of that, there's this huge duopolybetween, West Coast and East Coast.
Like, East Coast, and then there's, of course,the middle, which I've you know, it's kind of a
blend, but really doesn't count.
But, you know, East Coast only does cheapmetal.
Very, you know, traditional, very, hard not Iwanna say archaic, but very primitive approach.

(18:10):
And you walk into these factories and theseengineering houses, and it's it's still like it
was 80 years ago.
And you go West Coast, and they were puttingglue.
There's, you know, copper meshes.
There's autoclaves.
We're cooking with plastics.
We're able to do these fantastic composites.
There's no sheet metal at all.
And so, of course, there's advantages anddisadvantages with that type of approach, but
is there's just 2 different schools of thoughtas well.

(18:31):
And actually blending them together andcreating certain technological capability, I
think, actually strengthens the product in manyways as well.
But, anyway, those are kinda like the two mainreasons or two main lessons that I learned as
far as, you know, blending East Coast, WestCoast, as well as what does the actual customer
really want.
Yeah.
It's interesting when you get into business,figuring out what the market actually wants and

(18:52):
then what you what you wanna produce andrealizing that you have to meld those together
to create the product that will go to marketand be successful.
I've learned that just by default and neverthought I would have to ever know that kind of
thing in my life.
And, but here I am that.
So let's move into, that that revolutionarymindset that you that you had in this field.

(19:14):
You you decide that, it sounds like you youkind of came to a decision, a point, an
inflection point where you were going to dosomething different.
And and this is what Nautilus is.
This is this is how you've changed.
You're revolutionizing the industry.
Let's talk about that.
Let's talk about the initial onset of youcreating your own airplane manufacturing

(19:34):
company and how you moved into the features ofthe aircraft that you are going to be producing
the horizon in the Kona and the blended wingbody of the aircraft, which, by the way, for
those who haven't seen it, it's pretty coollooking.
And I mean, we we as pilots know if you if youstudy history, our blend wing body is not it's

(19:55):
not brand new.
It's not like something that they we justcreated yesterday.
But the idea of it being actual functional andand out there, I think the public will look and
go, wait.
What is this?
They'll they won't believe what they seebecause it kinda has the UFO look to it, you
know, or you whatever they're calling it now.
But let's talk about the that creation of thecompany and your kind of first steps there and

(20:19):
how you how you decided to go about that route.
Right.
So, we so I think, it's worth mentioning thatthe enabling thing that allows or you know,
investors always ask, what now?
Like, why now is the right answer?
Why why do you need to go after it?
It's kinda like an interesting trifecta.
Three things happened.
The first one, Elon Musk started Tesla andSpaceX.
And so for the first time ever, you could seeventure capitalists finally funneling into

(20:43):
these large infrastructure projects andactually making money.
And so it felt like the capital is now ready tolisten to somebody like me to take on a big
project.
The second thing was sustainability.
That was a really big part of the airlines andcould still will continue for the next 30
years.
And the third thing is, you know, there's justbeen a challenge within, I would say, the
industry from a duopoly.

(21:04):
And so a lot of the airline customers arestarting to get frustrated, you know, only
having 2 engine airframe choices and only 3engine options.
Right?
And so it's kinda like the perfect storm whichallowed Nautilus to exist and be actually
resonating with a lot of our airline customers.
And so we always knew that we couldn't go toMars right away, as Elon would say.
So we kinda had to create a stair step approachto get there.

(21:27):
And so the first product was, destined for theis destined for the freight market.
It's a 19,000 pound airplane.
We're calling it the Kona.
It's, you know, single pilot operations,strictly freights, meant for feeder airlines
with FedEx, UPS, and other customers all acrossthe world.
It's 1 and a half hour to 2 hour flightstypically standing carrying standard air
freight containers.

(21:47):
And so that normalizes the configuration.
It's also unpressurized, a very simple airplaneto design and certify.
And that gets essentially puts our well well,it allows us to prove the capability from the
company perspective, you know, that we canmanufacture, we can also design, and we can
also sell these airplanes.
And so that was the initial thought behindthat.
And then we had really big ambitions to gointo, the larger airplanes, so narrow bodies

(22:10):
and wide bodies.
The question is was when?
And so when we designed the horizon, it wasstrictly a a cargo only airplane to start out
with.
And then knowing at some point, we would startthinking about a passenger version.
Well, what happened over the last few years waskind of a perfect storm.
So a lot of our airline customers who werepurchasing the cargo variants were starting to
come to us and start thinking about what woulda passenger variant would look like.

(22:32):
And so, of course, the answer was now.
And so we've now started to essentially marketthis this airplane called the Horizon, which is
a 737 or an a 320 narrow body replacement forthe market.
And what's really cool about Boeno Wing Bodiesis, they have about a 30% drag reduction, which
scratches the itch from the airline perspectiveof lower operational cost.
But, also, they're very volume centric.

(22:54):
And so, you can actually fit more cargo intothem, or you can fit more passengers inside of
them.
So airplanes actually end up being 25% lighterthan their competition, which means more
efficient engines.
And so when you start thinking, you know,dollars per pound of transport or dollars or
I'm sorry, dollars per seat mile, they're abouta 50% reduction compared to traditional tube
and wing.

(23:16):
See, that is just mind blowing to me becauseI've so my whole career has never been anything
like that.
You know, you see nominal increases in,inefficient gains.
I mean, we can talk about the 787 and the 350being 2 great examples of that.
Like, oh, you know, they tout these gains, andthey're like, well, you're talking single digit

(23:37):
percentages.
And when they add up over time, yeah, that's alot of percentage points gained over a a a ton
of flights.
But the reality is is it's not revolutionary intechnology.
It's it's it's a it's a oh, that's marginallybetter than it was.
This is this is next level.
This is that that that sea change that that Ithink a lot of us have been thinking that's

(23:59):
gonna be coming down the road forever and everand ever.
And finally, here it is.
What what's the timeline looking for stuff, tofor us to actually see these these aircraft out
there flying the line?
Yeah.
So we're actually building the 1st demonstratorof the Kona, the regional freighter in our
facility here in San Diego.
As we already have flight hardware built.
So that should fly in about 24 months, andthat'll be full scale.

(24:21):
So that'll be the world's 1st, 1st full scaleboat wing body, and, it'll be really exciting
for me to even just watch that.
I think it'll be I think the entire aviationindustry would be really excited to have
something like that finally flying.
And then, the horizon platform, we're lookingfor early entry in the early 20 thirties right
now.
Okay.
Yeah.
And I just knowing from the side of theairlines, I mean, the the deliveries are not

(24:46):
coming on time.
And we can talk about supply chain issues,this, that, the other thing.
We can talk about the issues that have beenhappening that are very public to everybody out
there, especially with the the big b, havingtheir issues here in the US.
Airbus isn't far behind.
They don't have the same kind of issues, butthey both have very challenging delivery
schedules to make.

(25:07):
And it does seem like the perfect opportunityfor a new entrant to come in, and especially
one that's, like we've talked aboutrevolutionary in design.
What what does this mean for the professionalpilot out there who I mean, we're just used to
the old the old tube of pain is something thatwe've been with our whole life.

(25:28):
And with a new sense of a new design comes newautomation, new software, new new everything,
basically.
What does that mean for us?
We're going all in on the trade table, man.
That's that's it.
That's the big innovation for the pilots.
So, I mean, it's kind of a running joke, butit's, you know, I when I was designing this
airplane, a lot of my friends from college are,of course, airline pilots, and I was like, what

(25:51):
what would you like in the cockpit?
What is the big thing that, you know, wouldcompletely revolutionize this for you?
And they're like, the tray table.
The tray table.
And I'm like, fine.
I'll be able to put a tray table in there.
But, you know, it's funny.
I was with a major airline customer, and, theyhad a flight of SIMs.
We flew with, you know, the 7 the Boeingproducts, the Airbus Airbus products, and, I
mean, 2 different systems, I would say, in theway you handle it, how you manage the flight,

(26:13):
how you manage the airplane.
And, you know, we were asked towards the end ofit, like, which direction are you gonna go by
the pilots?
And, you know, the way we're seeing, automationreally and and play and how I would imagine the
next generation of pilots really learning howto fly, which is more automated, I feel, you
know, a cockpit more attuned to the Airbussidestick, I would say, is more kind of, in my

(26:36):
opinion, what the future should look like,where the pilot is flying the computer, the
computer is flying the airplane, but then thepilot can manipulate the computer to get it to
do what it wants.
Obviously, Boeing is more mechanical.
They're moving into automation, but it justfeels that in the in the next 20 to 30 years
because these these airplanes will live for 30to 40 years after production.
It's just that's that's kinda where we see thefuture is.

(26:58):
It's more management of the the cockpitthrough, turning knobs, touch screens, and
things like that, and, of course, the traytable and then the side stick.
Let and I think, when you bring that stuff up,you know, we're there's a great video in 1999
by an American instructor who talked about thechildren of the magenta and how we're all
becoming that as automation started to takeroot.

(27:18):
It's it's a very I've I've mentioned, thatvideo that's on YouTube too many times in this
podcast because I think it's a great t shirt.
Because as a pilot, you have to you have toknow the fundamentals before you get to the
level of understanding the automation.
Because if you don't know the fundamentals, Andthis is my little, my little diatribe for all
the pilots out there.
You don't know the fundamentals when theautomation does something that you don't expect

(27:42):
or you don't want it to do.
You cannot take you cannot input the correctinputs to make the airplane then do what you
needed to do or tell the computer override thecomputer to go, hey.
You're doing something wrong.
Let's take it back and and do it correctly.
So for all of those of you out there still inthe learning phase, learn your fundamentals.
You you still need to know the basics beforeyou, the whole crawl, walk, run methodology

(28:07):
applies no matter how automated the aircraftis.
Because I really don't believe no matter howawesome the technology gets, they're gonna be
able to put giant parachutes on the back to go,you know what?
Let's pop them.
And this ain't your serious.
This ain't your mom and dad's little, little,light sport out there.
That is every I can see all that on the, on thecivilian side.

(28:31):
I I can I can envision that?
The harder aspect is I have is on the militaryside.
I don't know if if you have plans to interactand then, work with the military on projects.
But what do you see blend of wing technologyand the blend of wing body being in the
military?
Because I see enormous advantages, especiallyon the freight side of things.

(28:52):
Just be and being a former k c 135 tanker guy,I can see a huge advantage as a tanker to be
able to carry way more gas at a more efficient,and more efficient numbers because, well, all
the tankers even the even the newest tanker onthe line is still a very old airplane when you
look at the this, original design of it.
So what what's your interaction with themilitary, and where do you see that going in

(29:15):
the future?
Right.
So, I mean, we you can't talk about airplanesand not talk about the military in the United
States.
And I think, Airbus is a little bit different,but when you kind of go on this journey of
starting an airplane manufacturer, you you haveto know that the military is, you know,
definitely a source of funding.
It's a it's a future customer.
It's one of the biggest customers you'll everhave.
And so that relationship is very key.

(29:38):
You know, it it's really interesting to seethat I mean, the blended wing bodies have a lot
of application.
I think, as you mentioned, the tanker is areally good application.
I think there is application strategic airlift,of course.
What's really interesting about the BlenderWing body is it offers more volume.
Right?
And so when you think about cargo in themilitary, unless you're carrying a very

(29:58):
specific, like, humanitarian aid, it's veryweight centric.
And so although you have this shape to carryall these goods, unless you're carrying a
medevac where you're carrying a lot ofpassengers, I would say, the Blender Wing body
performs favorably, and it extends your range.
It doesn't really do much for, you know, thepayload because usually it's so heavy either
carrying armored vehicles or you're carryingfuel.

(30:20):
Fuel is very, you know, I would say very notvolume centric.
It's very weight centric.
And so it's not that the airplane can't carrymore fuel.
It's usually that the the payload and therange, you know, just doesn't work out for the
mission requirement.
So I think that's there's definitely positpositives and negatives to the Blender Wing
body.
But it's usually range and survivability andthings like that if you're able to package it

(30:43):
correctly.
I think where the military is heading is theydon't wanna create purpose built assets.
They wanna leverage everything that's done onthe commercial side to be able to leverage on
the military side.
And that's just from a cost perspective.
It's just it's really hard to to build a brandnew airplane program and then only order 200
airplanes, which is what happened with the f22.
Right?
And then each airplane costs 300,000 or evenmore, you know, per unit, which is just

(31:06):
insurmountable.
So you have to have the law of scales andmanufacturer will play for you.
But, yeah, I mean, blown away body is one ofthose very interesting, I would say,
technologies for range and capability, that ifused properly, will really create an advantage.
I can see it just by what you said, knowing oneof the big issues that the military is having

(31:26):
right now and at its parent with, with the,extent to which the civilian tanker side has
grown over the last few years and then going tocontract, refueling.
So this is, you know, kind of down a little bitof a rabbit hole here.
But when you have not enough KC 1 30 fives or,well, formally KC Tens or 767s out there

(31:50):
refueling airplanes, you're limited to what youcan do and what your capabilities are.
And since the US military, basically, when youbreak it all down, it's based on where where a
logistic, force project projection all over theworld.
If you don't have to have as many tankers oryou could use the current amount of fuel air
fueling capability for combat systems, and youdon't have to do to increase the C seventeen's

(32:13):
range, have 3 air refuelings to get them fromthe United States directly to Southwest Asia.
Asia without a fuel stop somewhere along theway where they actually have to sit ground
time.
That's a huge benefit because now you'reprojecting that logistic logistical range and
logistical capability much better than youcould if they've got a stop.
So it's funny, those little things that whichmay not sound like much to somebody outside of

(32:37):
our world, when you start to break it down,those are huge issues.
Because if you're if you're reducing a c 17stop every single time they fly all the way
downrange to Southwest Asia or wherever the thenext hot spot in the world might be for them,
and they can just go direct, that's a huge,huge capability increase.
And they can then they can plan things out alot better because once they take off, their

(33:00):
chances of version go way down.
People don't seem to understand this outside ofaviation.
It's once you get the airplane airborne, yourchances of success go way, way, way up as
opposed to just getting off the ground can besometimes a huge hassle in the especially in
the military.
I wanted to talk, and now now that we'regetting, I wanted to kinda drill down a little
bit to the the differentiators between, like,the the horizon and the Kona.

(33:25):
And let's talk about the Kona because that'scoming out first.
So you said you you talked about some veryspecific stuff there.
And we look at the feeder aircraft that theycurrently use, like, you know, little caravans
and stuff like that that carry, I don't evenknow how much, but not a lot of weight.
You're you're talking about a pretty grossreduction in the amount of of of airplanes
flying, which is it could be a good thing forin in these cases.

(33:48):
What kind of runway?
Because I mean, we're talking about a caravanthat might be taken off from, like, Missoula,
Montana and flying out outstations.
Would the would the Kona have those same kindof capabilities that we currently see today?
Yeah.
So, an improved field is an example.
Our takeoff is 35100 balance fields.
And what's really interesting too is, you know,a caravan well, not a caravan, but because

(34:11):
assess the SkyCore, which is one of our closestcompetitors, has only got cubic volume for
about 500 cubic feet, and we have 1200.
So they can carry 3 l d three containers, and Ican carry 12.
So it's just that whole volume versus weightthing, especially when you think about what is
the biggest growth in air cargo.
It's really ecommerce.
Right?
And so, that driving force has really changedthe way that we look at airplanes, and I think,

(34:33):
especially on the freight sector, airplanesshould be designed too.
The the cone actually does so well that itcompetes really well against the ATR 72
freighters because that's a 50,000 poundairplane, but it only has cubic volume of a
1000 cubic feet.
So that one cubes out on on volume before itactually even hits maximum payload.
And so the Kona is able to capture the marketnot only from the feeder Cessna Caravan
SkyCouriers, but also reaching to the ATRterritory as well.

(34:56):
Wow.
That's gonna be a huge change.
There's I mean, I can already see numbercrunchers at some of these places salivating,
which is it's a good thing.
Sometimes we as pilots don't understand that acompany that remains in business is better than
one that, that doesn't.
And to have the capability, grow exponentially,and be able to keep not only keep a job, but

(35:20):
hold down a job that used to be just consideredentry level that might turn into a career a
career path that you can stay with for the restof your life because they can afford to pay
more, and they wanna keep you around in in thatkind of setting, especially when you have that
experience level.
That could be a good thing for a lot of folksout there who who currently don't see it that
way, and and so is a race to get to the legacycarriers.
Right.

(35:41):
It it gives you an aperture opening that youcan start to look at all sorts of different,
career paths that you can just stick with forthe rest of your life for those out there who
are kind of younger and still looking intowhat's next in my career.
When we get to the horizon, which is the bigthe replacement and and being a former, a 3 20
guy, which I like I like the airplane a lot.
Not as much as I like the 3 30.

(36:02):
I love the 3 30.
But the to replace that and I I guess this isnow this is just kind of a weird question for
me.
So walking in, like, I, you know, I board onthe gate and, you know, I'm used to the single
aisle and walk up and all that stuff.
What would it look like different from me as apassenger perspective?
So you would, go through the door.
You'll have the cockpit to the left.

(36:23):
Obviously, you still see the the, the the foodstands and, you know, the the pedestals there.
You can take a look to the right, and you startto see the cabin expanding in in the width as
you're going down.
And so all of a sudden, you're walking down thefirst or another, there's a second and a third
row that pop up, and then you go through, like,the to the back end where there's premium
economy and economy, and, also, there's 4aisles.
And it looks like almost like a stadium seatingtype of arrangement.

(36:46):
So it's very, I would say, cavernous is the wayyou would look at it.
And then all of a sudden, it's just the widthand the height of it is just so much more.
And, it's kind of a really unique opportunityfor, I think, a lot of our airline customers.
They're really viewing it as a as anopportunity to do something different.
And so, you know, the the airplane is limitedto a certain amount of weight, which does

(37:08):
equate to about 200 passengers, but it stillhas more room, than what you know what to do
with.
And so you kind of can do things like open upmore leg room.
You could have more premium offerings such as alounge maybe finally is gonna come back as
well.
The other thing too is the first class willget, windows.
And as you go down towards, you know, premiumand premium economy I'm sorry, premium economy

(37:29):
and economy is the windows go away.
And so now you see video screens on the leftand the right hand side.
And so it's a it's a very different experience,I would say.
But, talking to a lot of the airline, customerexperience folks, they don't really believe
that you're losing anything.
You're in fact gaining something, anopportunity to to do something different with
that large floor space.
Yeah.
I just when you said that, when you first saidno windows, I was like, oh, boy.

(37:51):
That you know, for the first time, flyer thatdetracts from, like, being able to see outside.
But if you have a screen and you can then I youcould pick my guess is they would start going,
okay.
You could pick what side of the airplane youwanna look out.
You put, you know, there look out the front,look out the back, sees things that you've
never seen out of an airplane before.
And I I bring that up only because my, mycousin once flew with us on the k c 135, and he

(38:13):
said something that I'd never thought aboutbefore.
He said, I've been on tons of flights,commercial flights, never military flight.
He goes, I never thought in my wildest dreams,I would look out the side of the airplane, the
front of the airplane, and the back of theairplane in flight all in one day.
And I go, yeah.
And he goes, coolest, coolest thing I've everseen in my life.
And I said, in aviation terms anyways.

(38:35):
And I go, you know, when you start to thinkthat way as just a as a passenger, wow, I took
that for granted for, you know, 22 years offlying it.
It it it changed the way I started to thinkabout aviation in general and how people
perceive Asian.
And and talking about aviation writ at large,what is something we'll we'll kind of look at

(38:59):
this in a 3 part something you could change inaviation's past, maybe what's going on right
now that you'd like to see, kind of shift alittle.
And then obviously, the future, I think, ispretty cut and dried on on, changing over to a
blended wing body and seeing actuallyrevolutionary changes in aviation.
So give me your take on the past, present, andfuture changes that you wish you would have

(39:23):
seen, see now, and then things that you wannasee in the future.
I think, you know, in in the past, I reallywish that, there was more risk taking, that
happened between, you know, the the big 2 orthe big 3.
And then, kinda tied with that too isconsolidation.
I think if you look at the last 20 to 30 yearsin aviation where we had, you know, Douglas, we

(39:43):
had, you know, of course, a couple other, youknow, big OEMs, be around.
And that competition internally created bettertechnology and, better products for the
airlines as well and created differentiationwithin our ecosystem and push engineering
forward.
And right now, what we saw in the 19 ninetieswith, you know, McDowell Douglas buying Boeing
or which vice versa, whichever you wannabelieve, is just it feels like the competition

(40:06):
has really moved away, and I think it made notonly the engineering, but the industry worse as
a whole, I think.
And we've gone like, kinda going back intowhat's what's really, you know, wrong today is
it feels like we've gotten so much bigger andfatter, and not for the right reasons, it feels
like.
And so that's why, you know, the the airplanescontinue to look the way they are.

(40:28):
That's why we're continuing to look towardsengine manufacturers, which are being way more,
I would say, innovative than the airframerstoday.
It's I think it's really frustrating, not onlythe engineers, but also the airlines and kind
of the industry as a whole.
And then cut you know, when these things becomeso big too, then you start tying in politics
because, you know, if you look at the nationalGDP of the United States, well, Boeing is a

(40:49):
huge part of it.
Right?
And so it feels like we're you know, there'sthere's certain political also repercussions as
far as that goes.
But just to give you a perspective between thepast and the present, I mean, in 1967, the 737
program was done in 3 years.
That was essentially from pencil startsthrough, first flight.
Right?
And that was done in, $1,000,000,000 of today'sdollars.

(41:10):
$1,000,000,000.
Those engineers did not have any calculators,no computer data drafting, and no virtual wind
tunnels.
Right?
And so this was, like, literally the machine ofintellect in Boeing, and that was beautiful.
And all of a sudden here, you know, coming intothe 20 twenties here, and we see, you know,
Boeing CEO say that the next program is gonnabe $50,000,000,000.
And so the atoms are the same.

(41:32):
The size of the airplane is the same.
It should be going lower instead of goinghigher.
And so the question is why is there a 50 xincrease?
Well, that's the way it costs.
And that's because that's who else is gonnabuild it?
It's $50,000,000,000 Well, the moment you sayit's gonna cost $50,000,000,000 Well, God damn
it, we're gonna build it for $50,000,000,000 Ifyou say it's $10,000,000,000, it's gonna be
$10,000,000,000.

(41:52):
But just the fact that that statement actuallyhappened, I think, is a really big challenge to
the industry.
And I think going that segues into the future.
I feel like there should be more competitorsout there to folks like the big 2 or the
Embraers of the world.
And I think I I know going back to Elon, youknow, good or bad, whatever you think about
him, is he really put the fear into a lot ofthese big, aerospace companies that were really

(42:14):
writing it comfy as well as automotive.
I mean, nobody told them that you I mean, theywere gonna say $10,000,000,000 to build an, a
car company, and here it is, one of the mostvaluable in the world.
Or, you know, SpaceX.
I mean, there's still, I would say, Boeing's,you know, management thinks that Elon never
went to space.
But I said, look at a telescope.
There's a car in up there.
So I think something went right.
And so I think it's just, that kind ofcompetition is gonna be very, healthy, I think,

(42:37):
for the industry as a whole and will createbetter products for us as we maneuver into the
next, I would say, 20 or 50 years of aviation.
Well said.
Those are I I couldn't agree more on all ofthose points.
And I've had to see it up hand as a as a finalend user and and watch what happens when people
rest on their laurels.

(42:57):
K c 135, outstand 7 perfectly made airplaneright off the bat.
And there's so many chances they had it same.
And I'll even go to another one, the t 37,initial chance here for perfectly made
perfectly made.
And when the competition for the t 6 came out,I heard rumors about this.
I don't know how much accuracy is in there, butCessna basically came out and said, hey, we can

(43:20):
remake the t 37 and just slap everything, newin there, new ejection seats and new engines
and boom, you got a new trainer.
But no politics got involved.
Bureaucracy got involved.
The Navy wants this.
We need this.
We need one airplane to service everybody.
And they made an okay trainer.
I've heard good things about it, but nothingcould ever come close to having a twin engine

(43:42):
jet trainer right out of the gate for aninitial student in pilot training, and one that
would have been updated to modern technology.
They didn't do it.
There was no competition.
And this is what you got.
This is what you're gonna get, and that's whatyou're gonna deal with for the rest of the time
that it's out there flying flying the line.
And I do truly believe when you when you reducethat competitive nature, and engineers are

(44:05):
competitive just by nature.
Right?
We wanna be better than the person sitting nextto us.
And
the way you do that is you create betterproduct and you manufacture it better and
release it to the customer at the end.
So, to kinda wrap this up, let's let's kindadrill it down to if if folks who are listening
to this podcast are gonna take away one thingfrom what you're saying, Alexei, and and the

(44:29):
blended weight body design, what Nautilus'mission is.
I know this is kind of a big ask, but what'sthe one thing we should take away from the
podcast?
I think, the future is changing, and I think alot of it's changing faster than what we
expect.
And I think, you know, if it's not gonna be us,which I think it will be, of course, being kind
of at the driver's seat here, but there's gonnabe a lot more novelists out there, I think,

(44:50):
over the next 20 to 30 years, and I couldn't behappier.
And I think there's always a way to say no,especially in aviation and aerospace, but it's
and it's really hard to say yes.
But I think taking chances on those yeses andsaying, yes, we should be going after this new
technology, or wouldn't this be cool if thisactually succeeds?
And then it would change the world.
I think that's the right mentality, both fromthe pilot's perspective, you know, from the

(45:11):
engineer's perspective, from the capital, andas well as into the bureaucracy up top.
I couldn't agree more.
I I've always been a firm believer of let's,instead of finding a way to say no, which is
easy or or saying no, which is easy, let's tryto find a way to say yes.
Right.
I learned that from one of my mentors, and Itake it with me on everything that I do.
Even with my kids, I gotta remember, hey, let'stry to find a way to say yes instead of always

(45:34):
saying no.
Alexi, thank you so much for joining me today.
If people wanna reach out to you, find moreinformation about Nautilus, what you're doing,
keep up with, the times as things change inthis rapidly changing environment that we're
in.
How do how should they do that?
Our website is a great example.
So www.nautilus.c0.
That's without a u.
And then on LinkedIn, we're pretty active overthere with our updates.

(45:57):
Yeah.
It's cool.
I've I've been to the website many times, sincewe started, planning this podcast, and I was
pretty awesome stuff.
I really like what you're doing.
Folks out there, if you need to get a hold ofme or Matt, hey, guys, the pilot network dot
com.
Send us your complaints, critiques, questions,comments, whatever you wanna do.
And as always, keep the shiny side up and thegrease side down.

(46:18):
Fly safe everybody.