The problem is that software is very cheap to develop, really only costing labor. Any sort of hardware will cost more and the wild variations would compound that cost, ie analog circuitry vs autonomous helicopters requirements.

It would be neat to see happen but I personally think you would need more time and money to get any good demo.

I think most hardware would require about double the money and maybe the time as well... Basically it would be the same as many college senior project classes. Just with more money and less slackers.

I think you're right about the cost & time increases for building hardware, but I'm not sure many fundamental changes would be required for hardware startups.

If the hardware mod. can be approximated fairly well by computer simulations then the same model should work fairly well, IMHO. The goal would still be 'build what people want' and 'excite the Angels' right?

For any machine that is currently being built, someone, somewhere is an expert in whatever part the startup is seeking to improve. If the machine is being sold, buyers know what they are looking for and can give meaningful feedback. So the startup simply needs to convince the experts / investors of the value of their new technology, market size & demand, their ability to execute, etc.

For Tony Wright's “car that runs on lemonade” example, the startup would have 3 months at YC HQ to convince enough experts in the field of internal combustion engines that lemonade is a sufficiently better fuel than gasoline to justify further R&D work. Then, Angel investors can make a relatively informed decision about project risk vs potential rewards.

Increased risk would need to be balanced by increased upside, but I'm thinking that with computer-based tools, hardware hacking is not that different than software hacking.

What do you think?

I wish I knew what powered aerodynamics was. ...What is it?

One thing I would say is that prototype cycles for hardware might be longer than with software, but admittedly this isn't my field.

Todays airplanes might as well be powered gliders... one company builds the engines and another builds the airframe.

Nature measures the efficiency of the combination of the two, so why not set that combination as the design goal (instead of current sub-goals of low fuel consumption for the engine and low drag for the airframe)?

Clear like mud?

Indeed. However, you have piqued my interest. I'd be very interested in hearing your approach for this problem and the type of hardware you are working on.

My background is in aerospace engineering, specifically aircraft design and some knowledge in engine design. If you are open to discussing your ideas, shoot me an email at designtofly {at} gmail [dotcom].