There is one interesting point - if your innovation goes off, Boeing will buy you up and down faster than you could say "interesting offer."

I think first of all you should be linked with one of the major aerospace industry and then take step further. Because as Mr. Murari said there is high risk of set back for your activities due to high investment requirements.

Mr. Mark, Mr. Mohsen is quite correct. No company will simply buy a company without viability. Entrepreneurs work with dare to handle risk to my knowledge as I found during interview of some entrepreneurs. Spin off entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs with education in respective field are important in aerospace industry are dominating in the startups in Aerospace industry. I am basically interested to learn about motivation in entrepreneurs in Aerospace industry. Overtaking, buying, merger, JV , etc. are next and not in my area of interest .

I think Aerospace industry is at a beginning of a complete transformation. A lot of tech startups are trying to capitalise on the premise that what is happened in the small consumer drones in the past years will continue on a bigger scale on manned aircraft, with the development of "urban air mobility" and "advanced air mobility". Startups like Joby, Lilium, raising USD 720M, and respectively USD 376M demonstrate plenty investor interest in the subject. Stunts like Zapata's Flyboard Air and Daedalus Mark 1 are capturing people's imagination, as well as plethora of manned multi-copter project that is bombarding media lately. A lot of pertinent people and organisations are thinking the technology is at the point where it permits creation of personal air vehicles to transition from everyday driving to flying. Everybody wants to be the first, but I think this is much more complicated than sticking a bunch of electric rotors to an air-frame.

A VTOL aircraft has conflicting requirements for the parameters that drives cruise and hovering performance: L/D drives the performance in cruise and that means large aspect ratio wings, low wetted area, careful design to minimise drag, and a small propeller size. Disk loading and no flow interference drives the hovering performance and that means large rotors and no wings. Actually, only 2 basic VTOL designs have evolved to 'life' over the last 50 years of experimenting and testing, and those are military aircraft. These are the V22- osprey - tilt-rotor, and harrier/F-35 - jet VTOL, the military specification aspect to perform the mission are the reason of their success, the economic cost is secondary.

The civilian marked is driven by economics, and as long that the aircraft design compromises too much, it will never be a viable option. Some people believe that the electric propulsion solves the problem, because of the high inherent efficiency, distributed propulsion and other effects, but a hidden aspect that kills the efficiency is the aerodynamics of VTOL. If the aerodynamics is not right, you end up with an inefficient aircraft, that only exacerbates the unwanted characteristics of electric propulsion - the weight and low specific energy of current batteries. I don't think the hybrid power generation, as hydrogen fuel cells, are the right solution either, it just increases the weight and complexity with marginal gains. It's much better to concentrate on the weakest link in the whole chain and that is the aerodynamics of VTOL flight. Current battery technology are good enough to develop today aircraft with ranges to cover average commuting distances.

I'm not a fan of UBER's proposals either. They want 6-8 passenger "air-taxi" style VTOL aircraft, flying between city vertiport hubs, so they can capitalise on the whole route, from driving to the vertiport, flight to next vertiport, drive to final destination. My opinion is that from the passenger perspective is much better to fly directly "door to door" with smaller personal aircraft, you eliminate driving, hub transition, boarding and waiting times. Not to mention you eliminate huge vertiport hub infrastructure that needs to be developed and maintained. Small sized aircraft can land in small spaces, why not develop standards for small vertipads that can be installed everywhere, from personal driveways to supermarkets and local grocery stores.

I'm agree with mr. Stan about conditions of aerospace industry - there will be a lot of changes in global scense. Technologies are getting more avaliable, from CAD systems to innovative production methods.

The largest part of innovation startups lays in the field of design breakthroughs, which can be possible in nowadays because CAD systems, additive technologies, etc.

Deat Mr. Dusan Stan

I appreciate your deep knowledge in the design and development field of aeronautics specifically fixed wing, Drone and VTOL.

My view is that startups can be in the areas of a sub-system design in avionics, hydraulics. flight control system or environment control system or even in fuel control system. They can venture in high tech manufacturing like CFRP parts, machining of CFRP thick structure to the thickness of 50 mm and plus which has high value and even in sub-assembly as well in major assembly with high value. Rejection of two to three parts of sub-assembly may lead to high debt.

I want to study the motivation of startups in high tech areas as mentioned by me in above para. Despite of high risks, they take part in such activities. i want to know more about motivational factors for them to venture in these areas.

I request you please give your view on the above aspects.

I concur with Krishna that there are many areas for entrepreneurship in the development of sub-system components within the industry...hence existing systems fixes, adaptations, and new directions for future development. I'm sure we all remember Boeing's two horrible crashes of its newly developed airliner.