I guess some of the ads did push the "advanced design" aspect as well as the weight/price point aspect. I think the take on using an "aerospace" material does set it apart, maybe in material, or maybe just in how it was presented to the public. It could be debated if the lugless brazed frame was advanced for it's day, or just a not-as-often seen method, again, presented to the public as if was ground breaking. I like to think that the frame was ahead of it's time because of it's construction method using that material, but I also understand that that point is debatable. Today, we have super light, lugless, steel bicycle frames that compete with aluminum and composite frames. The pressed in sealed bearings for the bottom bracket seems, to me, closer to what new bicycles use now, when compared to the convention of the day (aka the cups and ball bearings setup). One can see the origins of the "threadless" bottom bracket units, if one squints pretty hard at the Viscount setup.
One groups attempt to advance designs, and falling short, then having some other group, at a later date, use some aspects of the prior design, blended with better technology, design methods, materials, tolerances, or whatever... can in retrospect make it appear that the original effort was somehow "ahead of it's time". Maybe the Viscount Aerospace was advanced, or maybe it wasn't. It's just enjoyable debating such things.