>>3301097Let me put it to you like this: If mechanical simplicity is king, then why doesn't Delta Airlines use a fleet of upscaled Wright Flyers? The Wright Flyer was the Wright brothers' airplane and it was based on an extremely simple design. It's perhaps the most mechanically simple self-powered airplane you could use -- to build one, you basically just strap some wings on a lawnmower engine and you're good to go. That makes it the most reliable type of airplane and therefore the best, right? Hopefully it's obvious to you that this conclusion, derived from the same type of fallacious reasoning as yours, is absurd.
Let's take it a step further, though. By comparison, the Boeing 747 has, according to Google, about six million parts involved in its construction. I don't know how many parts are in the Wright Flyer, but I'd be surprised if it was over 500 - let's assume it had 500 parts. According to your fallacious reasoning, that should make the 747 about as reliable as a wet cardboard box, right? Problem with that theory is that the average 747 has an expected service life of 30 years, or around 35,000 trips, and crashes or mechanical failures are extremely rare. So the 747 is a pretty damn reliable design, despite being more than 10,000 times more complex than the Wright Flyer.
