If it won't withstand multiple dry fires with an acceptably low risk of unintentional internal disassembly, it's not a marketable proposition.
I kind of share Alistair's pessimism. It's why I started the thread. Apart from scope-oriented stock design, I see very little performance difference between a 70s FWB124/7 or 1980 (FAC preferred) HW80 and what you can get now from a factory as a b/b springer. Arguably the earlier 77s are superior to new ones. Ditto the TX - no real improvement over nearly 30 years.
I do though wonder about a mid-weight, very well-made (but suited to mass production) 22-24mm tube springer. Optimised for the highest possible efficiency in transferring stored spring energy to the pellet. Maybe with a reliable, lightweight, recoil-suppression system (perhaps a hydraulic buffer like the LG250?). They could do (Tomahawk/Longbow) a long powerful one for the Americans, and a short one for 12 ft-lbs/16J. In a well-designed scope-optimised, adjustable stock (in Glock-quality engineering plastic?) with an M1913 rail on top.
I'd get one of those. Well, I say I would, but I already have a fair few great springers. I'd definitely get it if they told everyone that this post on the BBS persuaded them to make it. And gave me serial number 00001, free, with my name engraved on it.
Air Arms - go for it!