Wow, wow, wow. What a development. I owned and operated a Cessna 310 in Europe. At about the same running cost per hour the Celera 500L flies twice as fast with more than 5 times the range in what appears to be jet like comfort fo 6 passengers.If all the numbers work out it will become a raging success. Kudo's guys.
The 1000L seems more promising. You could fit 4 rows of 3 seats with good comfort. The first officer would need to fill the role of flight attendant though XD, which I guess most young pilots wouldn-t mind. Do you think that 100 dollars per 1000km per person would be a competitive fare?
@@NoobNoobNews I wouldn't know about small ones like these, but a giant 700+ executive seat, 6 turboprop, 800 km/h beast could be interesting. A trade of comfort and safety for speed at the same overall fuel consumption.
@@NoobNoobNews Sure, interesting cargo plane and comfortable passenger plane. No matter how high you go with bypass ratios, you can't be more efficient than a modern turboprop. But I guess most airlines don't want their planes to look "old".
@@Eisenbison Depends on the engine VTOL or Celera alike. Technically, each engine would have to get recertified under a whole shit string of variables. Which, I hope Otto sticks with, and hopefully, we see it not be just a fair weather aircraft.
Unfortunately, you left out the most important factor along with its laminar flow fuselage: It has a high-aspect ratio wing. This means it has a long wingspan with a short chord line (it’s long and skinny). This type of wing provides maximum lift and minimum drag, which is why you see it on gliders. Except, the trick here is making it strong enough for what appears to be a >10,000lb, 400kt aircraft. That’s where the use of advanced composites that were not formerly available comes in. Cheers!
how do you measure the fatigue on these advanced composites? and propagation of stress fractures? with aluminum we have consistently informative NDE techniques
Disruptive technologies are fascinating. This one seems like the triumph of engineering elegance instead of the usual brute force approach. Kudos to Otto and RED for clear thinking and innovation!
@Peter Evans Lol what? Maybe more like airplane manufacturers are known to exaggerate their figures. The same way that Tesla exaggerates the performance of their vehicles and the same way that rollercoaster manufacturers exaggerate their hourly capacity numbers. It’s just the way business work. They do whatever they can to sell their product and bring in profit. You’d me stupid to not be skeptical about their claims
@Peter Evans Just because you said it doesn’t mean it’s true. My point is that skyships eng being skeptical about Otto’s claims is perfectly reasonable when you think about how so many companies exaggerate their products’ performance numbers. If you believe everything these companies tell you without second thought then you are an idiot, plain and simple
I used to do a lot of flying between small communities. A lot of beechcraft 99s and Fokker F27s - both loud and not very comfortable. This would be a great update for those sorts of routes.
It will be a major disruption. With the per hour economy, these aircraft could transform a lot of county and municipal airports into commercial air routes and charter hubs. When that 1000 model is released with coach seating, things will get interesting.
@@HeatherSpoonheim Nothing earth shattering. I imagine that COVID is making a revolutionary aircraft launch difficult. I have every confidence that this company will succeed.
the shape of a tuna was fluid-dynamically shaped over millions of years by trial and error, and we can now replicate the same result with a CFD, this is amazing.
But you gotta throw in the rear propeller, which causes the slistream to suck itself in really close to the skin past the fattest point of the teardrop. Now, because of the prop location you get really good drag reduction. Performance figures follow suit, and you get a really well suited champion. I don't think there is a scale problem either. See... 'a body of rotation'.
If you have never flown privately, imagine no check-in line, no security delays, just drive up to the hangar and get in. That kind of ease of use, plus economic costs, makes this idea a winner. The future can't come fast enough, in this case.
try taking a dog .... catch 22s that cost a buck everytime you pass go, we need this to get that, once we get that you can confirm this , oh this is no longer viable , start over , we need this to get that , got that great oh , this is no longer viable , oh u got this and that now you need ok , sorry ok not availible for this , start over.
We are already there; merely qualify for a Sport Plane license with a pass medical exam, and a few hours in ground and flight school, purchase a Kit Fox for under 45K USD, and keep it in good tune and yourself in good shape, you can go anywhere in the states as any civil aviation could go.
Diesel engines have had a long and subdued history in aviation. Good to see that they are getting the attention they were denied for so many years. I've been following this project for a while, it looks very promising. A V12 engine is also inherently balanced for smooth operation, hence their widespread use in aircraft of the 1930s and 1940s.
You can get perfect balance from inline-6, inline-8, inline-10, inline-12 or many flat engines (assuming the pistons are perfectly opposed to the other pistons at the other bank) as well as a V12 They most likely used a V12 for packaging, reliability, sturdiness, power delivery, as well as smoothness
It's interesting that thecnology drops some ideas in some fields because of inefficiency or something better. Than it improves in another sector like cars than it comes back again into aviation. Just see zeppelin or diesel engine here. Both were dropped and re taken now due to advancement in technology in connection with them.
This is really cool, a few challenges I see are: 1. Pressurization - Piston aircraft often have issues with pressurization. A good comparison is the Cessna P210 where the weight of the pressure hull and low engine air output limits maximum flight altitude. I wonder how much the figures they give assume high altitude operations. While the wing design is good, the engine can only put out so much power to get it to the needed altitude while maintaining pressurization, anti-icing (in poor weather), electrical, hydraulic, and air conditioning systems. 2. Single engine - This will find a market but for commercial service the aircraft will not be permitted over water and will have a limited scope of operation due to that one engine. A number of executive jet customers are not permitted to even fly on single engine aircraft due to their life insurance policies. Additionally overwater and remote operations will be heavily restricted due to regulatory requirements of a single engine aircraft. 3. Payload - Again, with one engine the aircraft will be limited on its payload with one piston engine, no matter how good that engine is. The An-2 is the largest single engine piston in the world, it needs a 1010 HP engine to move a 3000 lb payload at sluggish speeds and low altitudes. Will the 500 HP engine be enough for this aircraft to be able to move a payload of 2000 lbs with the 200+ gallons of Jet-A weighing about 1350 lbs while cruising in the flight levels? There is more to flying than cruise performance, the aircraft will need to meet minimum climb gradients for various IFR approaches and departure procedures in order to be considered practical for commercial use. 4. Known icing - Again we look at anti-icing and de-icing solutions, both of which will take air from the engine and hinder power output. The main issue is how the wings, control surfaces, and engine inlets will be protected from ice accumulation in flight. The propeller is in an advantageous position for this, as pusher engines are their own prop anti-ice. However for the aircraft to be commercially viable it will need all weather capabilities. Super-critical wings such as the one this aircraft sports are extremely susceptible to negative effects of airframe ice accumulation. There are a lot of regulatory hurdles a new concept aircraft has to overcome, I wish Otto the best in navigating that bureaucratic nightmare and I hope to see their plane in production in the future. The items I listed here are the first thoughts that came to mind as hurdles an aircraft design such as theirs will have to address during its development phase. While many people say "develop and improve" in aviation this is not an option, the aircraft must meet their commercial quotas in order for further development and each of the items listed here will be things serious aviation businesses (anything beyond personal transportation aircraft for a wealthy individual) will be looking at. Cost of acquisition and maintenance will also be a factor, of course - but that number will generate itself as development comes to an end. I would like ideas like this to flourish and seeing another revolutionary concept flounder into obscurity only hampers future innovation. That said, it's awesome they've already got a prototype and pulls them firmly out of the realm of "investment scam" or "pipe dream" that so many concept aircraft die in.
Although technically a piston single, this is an animal entirely different from a Malibu, more comparable to a TBM750. I don't see it going toe to toe with twin jets. Otto's Celera is poised to take the turboprops' lunch. Also not an easy task, as the challenges you mentioned equally apply to that segment. The diesel is turbocharged and the fuselage designed for pressurisation from the start, the P210 thus not a good comparison. Although it has its following. Speaking of which, I'd like to see a smaller sibling with 4 to 6 seats in total.
Crosswind landings will be a nightmare due to the awkward and relatively large cross section of the fuselage. Also, high density altitude performance will be pretty terrible with that tiny propeller and small wing. Basically, this will not be an aircraft that can safely operate in anywhere near the diversity of weather of existing airplanes.
Agreed.. this thing is a turd.there’s no way it is going to perform half or even a quarter of its proposed performance.. it’s a scam at best to take investors money.
Dividing the cost per hour by six, it could cost as little as $88.8 per person to operate to go from Dallas to Chicago. I know there are other costs, but yeah, they can charge $300 a person and possibly make a profit. That's about double the prices I just looked up, still, I'd pay that. They could charter. Or they could also just fly random regional airports. As I can bet I can find six people that need a round trip from say, Des Moines to Birmingham. A flight that would be cheaper and faster than I can find online at the moment. An entire new commercial airline sector could be opened up by this. Low demand routes between feeder cities. Or even smaller markets becoming feeder cities for a few extra dollars, round trip. This is a neat concept! I'm more than a little excited at the idea.
What a great video. The details of the economics, licensing, production, and marketing is what it's all about at management offices. We really do get used to a status quo and then the continuum is altered by some new consideration, moving forward.
I think the submarine is the most apt comparison. Really interesting design and makes a lot of sense. I wonder what the noise factor would be like compared to a traditional single engine piston prop considering the rear engine, pusher prop, and unique aero design. I bet it's pretty quiet comparatively. Might even beat a business jet.
It's a revolutionary aircraft and those numbers are incredible one third to one fourth the operating costs 450mph 4000mile range and seats meant for an adult, I really hope Otto is successful.
Yep, looks like a promising design. NOW let's find a sustainable market for it so the a/c can be manufactured, certified and placed into service. It's all a bit of "pie in the sky" at the moment.
Update, I met with the Otto team and I am massively impressed. I think they will make it. At the very least, its potential benefits will not be lost to the general aviation world.
Being able to hop on a commercial flight without having to drive to a major airport would be great! It seems like the only options we have for air travel right now is either get into GA and use your own local small airport (no commercial services) or driving down to a huge airport and spending several hours, security, parking, traffic, etc. to hop on a large commercial flight
You can say you have been drawing one since you were 6 but I BUILT that fuselage in a competition winning aerobatic glider in 1986. The laminar flow form has been around for millions of years in nature and used in wingsections since the 1940s and naca laminar flow sections . Fuselages with that design have been proposed for jet airliners in books since the 1960s. My 1986 aerobatic design has 66 series wingsections as well as fuselage: th-cam.com/video/CbqcmA1coKk/w-d-xo.html
Production and fuel cost down, capable of flight with multiple passenger, a low maintenance engine... This is the perfect plane for post-CoViD America: relatively environmentally friendly, while able to connect the major cities but also smaller air ports, now that many left the big cities due to their lockdowns, it´s just... PERFECT.
The high MPG is worth striving for alone. Peak Oil (too costly to burn) is a matter of when, not if, but people keep denying it. The belly looks vulnerable to flexing of the landing gear, though.
At first, I was thinking "Oh boy, yet another bla bla bla of a "vapor plane" by someone who knows nothing about aviation". I'm pleasantly surprised at the excellent presentation and in-depth critique bringing to light both good and bad points. You've just earned another subscriber. Bruce Williams - Spruce Creek Fly In
Magnificent, remarkable, historical design resembling a beautiful engine powered, fixed wing, rear propped, tricycle landing geared Zeppelin that must be a dream to fly ! I know that Ferdinand Zeppelin would agree. Bravo, Otto Aviation !
Putting the prop at the back of the plane is a big part of why they are able to achieve such smooth laminar flow. The wake, or prop wash, from having it up front completely screws up the airflow over the body of the plane, but it's the way we've done it for so long that's the standard. The center of gravity moves to the rear of the plane when you put the engine in that back, hence the unusual wing placement.
If they can scale this up to 12 to 18 passengers, then it gets interesting. I have flown on a 25 passenger turboprop from Pittsburg, PA to St. Louis, MO. There were only about 18 passengers on board. It flew low and fairly slow. Engine noise and turbulence made the flight less than enjoyable. A plane like this could fly higher, faster and make the flight more enjoyable.
I have a former colleague that has been working on this project and the economy numbers are close to real life. A lot comes from the design and the rest comes from the efficiency of the diesel.
I have a lot of questions about this plane, and maybe these things have been addressed by Otto, but they can't give you all the information in a video or on they website. We will just have to wait. I think that what has been shown makes sense and the performance numbers do too.
@@zorayanuthar9289 They're in the B round of financing now, beginning the FAA certification. C Round is 2023-2025 when production begins and certification is achieved. A while to go yet...
Assuming those capabilities are real (which I read is a big assumption), it could be used to take families on holidays over medium distances pretty cheaply, and in comfort. Replacing the "air bus" with the "air taxi"!
Very true, I learnt about Boutique air today. Please look at Simple Aviation Trip Report video of a commerical 40$ flight round trip on a Pilatus PC 12.
Why would fuel prices explode? Unless Biden Kills Trumps fracking revolution the marginal viability of fracking acts as a buffer on oil and gas prices. For years, we have believed we were just a decade or two from oil shortages the truth appears to be just the opposite. Unless that is we turn our backs on oil in a religious belief in global warming or climate change as it became when there wasn't any warming. That buffer applies before we explore offshore oil reserves we know about and presuming Canada continues to impoverish itself by not developing the Alberta reserves. i can still see lots of possibilities for this aircraft though.
@@laracroft938 A) Less than 1% of the oil used in the world is used for the production of electricity. B) Renewables aren't displacing fossil fuels in any meaningful way anywhere.
aviation has a large carbon footprint, so we'll tax it (hopefully) to force change.. Smaller planes (propeller) can be made electric, so yes jet fuel will get much more expensive.
This feels like a more radical version of the Piaggio Avanti, which also put focus on maximizing laminar flow over fuselage and wing, and was designed to have performance comparable to jets. But I gotta say the Avanti seems like a better compromise (better field performance, better cockpit visibility, uses a widely available engine, etc) and it looks much better (important).
Something that I thought: it can travel thousands of miles on a single trip, but it doesn't have to. What benefits are there to being able to make 10x 400mi trips off of one tank? 20x 200mi? Decreased times due to fueling. Or, reduced fuel load per trip (assuming you're gassed up to the minimum needed to get to the next destination). Fascinating machine.
It would be interesting to see what that amazing airframe efficiency combined with an electric powertrain could do. Even if it only had 1/10 the range, the economics of electrics and the need for short range air travel is compelling.
I was just about to comment the same thing. With a pure ev power train the engine cooling ducts could be removed and the thing could fly at a much higher altitude. Stronger landing gear and longer wings should give it very usable range.
No such thing as a viable electric airplane. First, weight is important. Unlike a car. A plane becomes more efficient, the longer it travels. A battery weighs a lb at the start and at the end of its journey. The only way an electric plane will ever happen, is a completely revolutionary development in battery power. A development in planes, is maybe a 10% increase in the viability of electric, while the equivalent in battery development, would double or triple the viability in electric. You’re looking at the wrong end of this horse.
@@kentonian and it would still here heads and tails less viable than liquid fuel power trains. You people really don’t get how far away we are from such things do you? Some improvements in airplanes aren’t going to make electric planes magically viable. A battery still weights a shit ton, and that is the MAIN problem with airplanes. Weight. There is a reason you pay extra for luggage, and we’d pay extra for the tire around your gut, if we weren’t so scared. A plane gets lighter as it travels. It’s literally cheaper to fly a plane, the longer the plane is in the air. You can NEVER say such a thing for electric, which is why it’s only viable on the ground, where distance isn’t a concern, and you can have smaller batteries and dumping 50-100lbs of weight will not effect things much. And even then, it pales in comparison to the bang for your buck from liquid fuels.
I’d be interested in a hybrid power plant not quite Formula one but capable of lifting the Aircraft with the Fuel engine then cruise on the electric drive when needed or glide to save both forms of energy. I think that the aircraft could also charge in flight and and if the upper surfaces used solar technologies now in development to top up and extend the possible range of electric driven flight.
@@jamesbizs solar panelled aircraft could have extended flight especially since they could fly above the clouds . We are currently developing many flexible and more efficient cells to fit to odd surfaces like cars and houses and lightweight cells on an electric or hybrid Aircraft makes a lot of sense to me … daytime flights would be Most advantaged of course …
So lets say I live in a town of 30 thousand people with a modest regional airfield just outside of town that can handle a few private propeller aircraft for the rich. In the now someone wanting to take an affordable flight must first travel to a much larger city and pay for parking at the airport which can add a few hundred bucks and a few hours to the trip or the cost of an uber each way unless you got someone to drive you and pick you up. Now this thing offers basically door to door connection to a major airport for international hop or direct to more local destinations at about twice the cost of the comercial airlines. In this case there is a bit of competition to the big airbusses but it's more about opening up mostly regional air travel for those who don't live in a megacity in the usa. As we are getting jobs that are less location dependent and an aging population who want to retire away from the crime and traffic of a big town, having the option to open up world to low density areas, travel at this price range becomes worth it. I for one would love to be able to take a direct flight from Houston Tx to Alamagordo/Cloudcroft even if it costs more than having to go to El Paso then drive for a few hours north. Not only that, but you get to avoid all the walking garbage that comes with any oversize city in the US. Or hell why not a direct flight from say Point Roberts population 1000 to Las Vegas provided you book all 6 seats for round trip and covered the cost to get the passenger empty craft back to say Seattle for more bookings. Expensive for sure, but not nearly as expensive as having to charter or owning your own craft.
I like this design. I was surprised to learn it had a piston engine, although a very sophisticated one. I had assumed it would have a turboprop! Nice video! Good work.
The case does have merit. It will fragment the market, however more research is needed into the cost and safety aspect of the aircraft. If it can be proven to have mass market appeal. It is a winner.
I dunno I keep looking at those thin wings. I don't mind the rear mounted engine, but rotational stability is benefited by nice wide wings. The large tail looks like it is trying to compensate. But I remain concerned.
@@glenmcgillivray4707 Have you looked at a Short Skyvan ... high aspect ratio wings work best ... They just work better drag less and can lift more but you cannot hide UC Or fuel tanks in such a wing ..
@@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 and narrow undercarriage is also a worry. And I note that many aircraft try to use lifting bodies to overcome some of the drag and storage limitations, and have been passion projects for almost literally 100 years. But then we get these glider type craft that try to fly with such slim wings. There is always a tradeoff. Isn't it stall speeds at altitude?
@@glenmcgillivray4707 Im figuring the UC spread it is on a par with quite a few aircraft with fuselage mounted gear ...especially as its actually quite a wide body and the lateral Cof G is going to be lower as it sits between its main wheels rather than on top like some designs. Id like to check the wingspan in proportion to its length and compare but it doesnt seem overlong. High aspect ratio electric gliders and drones regularly fly at very high altitudes. They have done quite a bit of testing since this and its still looking positive.
To quote a Smithsonian webpage: at extremely high altitudes, the difference between stall speed and never-exceed speed narrows into what pilots call the “coffin corner.” Perlan 2’s wing design allows a luxurious 17-knot (20-mph) difference (The U-2, routinely flying over 70,000 feet, has only a five-knot difference). And though computer simulations show a tendency to enter a tail-wagging oscillation known as Dutch Roll, a yaw damper on the tail should counteract the phenomenon. There are always compromises. The important ones are to ensure control is as easy as possible. I remember watching a video here on TH-cam where some off schedule pilots decided to try to see how high and fast they could get their aircraft to go, and ultimately damaged the aircraft. I can't remember if it was total engine failure with an emergency landing or they actually crashed... I vaugely think I've seen one of each.
this new aircraft fits into a unique place, as explained by the narrator, and the selling points and benefits are very attractive. Flying from a smaller regional airport is way more convenient, and it will put the "fun" back into flying instead of a dreadful experience as it is now.
Your narrative writing is better than the video! This is one of the best video sites on TH-cam for both content and video style values. Totally surprised, we find even your delivery is much clearer and easily understood You appear to come from a professional writing background related to aviation. Where can we learn more about your amazing achievement with Skyships Eng?
400 knots is 460mph, and in WWII a single seat fighter took 1750 to 2200 HP to reach around 430mph. Advanced Aerodynamics are are all well and good, but it is hard to believe this six seat aircraft can make 460mph on 550hp. The Scaled Composites single seat Pond Racer of 1991 only achieved 400mph with two 600hp engines. I suspect the makers of this aircraft are being VERY optimistic with their performance figures.
I saw a paper where they reported that if aviation was a nation, it would rank sixth in the world in carbon emissions. There are a lot of planes burning a lot of fuel, even though they are getting more efficient all the time, a plane that goes fast on low fuel burns is a great idea. There are no 6 place aircraft currently that get that kind of efficiency. Corporate uses will probably balk at the single engine, if that quits and the plane crashes the corporation would be sued by the families of the employees they made ride in it. Private users will welcome the economy. Gas tank in the fuselage is worrying in a crash. I want one!
Immediately put me in mind of the lifting-body experimental craft that NASA used to mess about with - like the HL-10. Either way, does look like a definite advance in aero design. Really hope they get it certified and into production.
A good example of what a difference in conceptual design can lead to. The concept for Celera 500L appears to be based on providing a lamellar flow around the fuselage, which is also considered in anything that is intended for a flight but is generally superseded by the impacts of engine power, lightweight structures and even aesthetics. An interesting video indeed. Thanks
This is a fascinating airplane. The specs sound almost too good to be true, but man if they can pull this off it will be revolutionary. If I was Beech/Cessna/etc. I'd be paying close attention. Thank your for this comprehensive video/analysis!
Not only does a rear prop encounter damage from rocks, etc. being kicked up on landings, the noise could be louder than standard forward-mounted props. The right design might negate that. But my own R/C rear-mounted props are always louder than my front-mounted prop R/C models. Here's an example: th-cam.com/video/6onRX7thN0U/w-d-xo.html
What a f*** fabulous idea. Laminar flow with an internal combustion engine . This is a winner . The narrator is great as he to is so amazed at the metrics he wonders if its true . Great video. Australia should order dozens of these things to service our remote towns.
It looks cool! Almost like a throwback. A small, streamlined, piston-engined airliner would not be out of place in the 1930s. Throw some 30s style Delta livery on it and deck the interior out with tiger maple, sage green berber carpet, and red leather and you'd have the kind of airliner people in 1933 thought we'd be flying by 2020.
It is a wonderful throw back to a 1947 British prototype design that appeared at Farnborough 🇬🇧 airshow The Planet Satelite. it used Magnesium but had chronic overheating problems and low power at the time but materials and aerodynamics have come a long way since.
As mentioned in another post, the prop gets nicked easily b/c it is placed in the rear where rocks, debris, etc. get kicked up by the wheels on landing. Either tougher props are needed, or they will have to be mounted higher, forward, or on the wings in order to minimize damage. This of course may negate its efficiency, or NOT! More experimentation is needed.
Very interesting presentation. Thank you for being clear, organized, a little humorous, and completely interesting. I hope you present updates whenever you can.
Piaggio Aviation had a great quote about their Avanti plane, which has a pusher propellor design: "When was the last time you saw a ship with its propellors at the front?"
It's a strange time for the development of a new aircraft. The big push is full electric, which I think is still years away, but electric/piston hybrids will probably be here sooner than we think. This looks like a perfect platform for that technology. Maybe the 1000L will utilize that, keeping the JetA piston as a generator for an electric drivetrain. Very interesting plane though, I hope they succeed, but in the aviation development world I certainly wouldn't be holding my breath!
If, by the time they manage to include some windows, furnish the cabin and include stuff like de-icing, weather radar and pressurization, this actually goes into production as an honest six-seat 250 mph aircraft, It could be very competitive with other options for the same mission. Assuming it isn't too noisy, a problem that has plagued other pusher aircraft, and TBOH on the highly stressed turbocharged engine doesn't spike maintenance costs. We still know nothing about MSRP, and carbon fiber hasn't proven to be cheap in other applications.
They should dispense with windows. Just have feeds from cameras. Then you could switch your seat screen between forward, left and right hand views. Much better than a window.
A repeat of so many articles that merely repeat the factory's claims. Impossible to meet the altitude / speed / range claims made. See Peter Garrison - FLYING magazine - Dec 2020 QUOTE: " The Celera 500L is not so revolutionary as it claims to be. ... What sets the Celera apart is its huge passenger cabin and efficient diesel engine. I doubt it will achieve the announced performance-I’m happy to be proved wrong-but if it cruises at 260 ktas at 30,000 feet burning 90 pph and has a toilet inside, that will be good enough. "
They did get thrust increases just by adding shielding exhausts on night fighters. Principally to remove the exhaust flames but then they found the thrust additions.
@@COIcultist exactly, so adding that exhaust into all the other hot air generated is quite smart. Some people think the p51 mustang produced a net thrust from its cooling system housing, but really the laws of physics wouldn't allow for that. You gotta burn fuel to get net thrust lol
@@thecrazyfarmboy it was burning fuel already. in engine. and with engine only 30% efficiency (even less in ww2 engines) there is lots of power still in exhaust gas. if you imagine cooling system as sort of ram jet than you understand it is possible to get thrust from cooling system too.
@@jebise1126 yes, of course there is power in the exhaust, I never said there isn't. What I said is that simply using the heat from the cooling system would not generate enough thrust to overcome the drag of the assembly. Most of the wasted heat is in the exhaust, and it is well known that the exhaust itself generates some thrust
@@jebise1126 I understand the concept of the "Meredith effect" but I don't believe they actually got usable thrust from it in the cooling system of any ww2 airplane
I was hoping you would have delved into the “challenges” with operation in icing conditions with a laminar flow airframe , the manufacturer may have something innovative to deal with this but if not then this is a weather limited aircraft !
@@10101110101011001 An airplane that makes its living from paying passengers has to be able to fly in bad weather, including icing conditions. Anti-icing systems tend to spoil laminar flow. I think this would apply only to the wings, and not the fuselage.
You would have to either redirect the heat from the engine like a jet, or use a TKS gel de-ice system. And if flying over 30,000’, you might have to heat the fuel...it can start to gel in severe cold. Or descend to warmer air.
This is indeed a problem. I guess they could run coolant lines inside the leading edge, or when this thing exits prototype stage, new technologies like ultrasonic deicing could be coming into shape.
The funny thing to me is my house is on the map you showed and OTTO is the name of my German Shepherd. The low cost of operation for this aircraft is amazing
Just about every pusher with the prop at the tip of the tail flies nice but has shown odd stall characteristics at low speeds, the Lear Fan being the one I remember best. Something to do with prop torque + the dirty air coming off the airframe that the prop encounters + from being pushed from behind rather than pulled from in front. The combo of the 3 can be troublesome. Good luck with that.
looks like an even more efficient take on an Avanti, here in St Catharines we see one frequently , it's fast and loud , and is usually at twice the height of ga aircraft on climb out once it passes the 408 adf by our place, elegant bird, same high aspect ratio wing and sleek fuselage , though this thing seems to be even more efficient and just as fast.. wonder what all up weight and cargo she can haul at max range, and fuel.. Avanti has the advantage of twin pt6's , lots of power there, but fuel burn too, but she can make 40,000 feet at mtow.. and climb fast, important in you have to avoid weather, and performance as well. seems as though with the log range the Celera's envelope will be very much the same, sort of poor mans business jet, as she will do essentially what a gulf does for a much lower operating cost, and a bit slower.. the power plant is the real heart of this beast.. finally someone has done the right thing with a diesel, fire it up, keep it revving at it's optimum torque range, and keep it there till you shut it down.. this is how diesels like to operate, rather that constant rpm and heat range adjustments.. pitch the prop and keep that thing in it's narrow power band, up in the cool air at high boost, she'll run nice n cool, and return impressive numbers, without all the fuel guzzling issues of a turbine.. plus she won't kill you on runway delays and taxiing to the runway.. though that issue is beginning to be resolved by powered landing gear.. this will be a very interesting aircraft, and very attractive to customers that want to go far and fast but don't want to invest in jet tech (high purchase and operating cost).. in conclusion, perhaps as small ultra efficient turbine from Williams or something currently in the pipeline that would reduce weight and increase thrust, but the current power plant seems to going in the right direction.. will the tech scale up, to maybe a 25 , or 50 passenger bird ? would be interesting, especially if it can be run reliably at low cost.. personally I would love to fly on one , and see the old aluminum tube and wing config finally be replaced after so long...it's high time commercial aviation moved ahead instead of seeking profit in tiny increments, boring ..the skys should be full of Celera's moving people around, skipping giant hubs, direct to destinations, sipping fuel along the way..
Wow, wow, wow. What a development. I owned and operated a Cessna 310 in Europe. At about the same running cost per hour the Celera 500L flies twice as fast with more than 5 times the range in what appears to be jet like comfort fo 6 passengers.If all the numbers work out it will become a raging success. Kudo's guys.
The 1000L seems more promising. You could fit 4 rows of 3 seats with good comfort. The first officer would need to fill the role of flight attendant though XD, which I guess most young pilots wouldn-t mind. Do you think that 100 dollars per 1000km per person would be a competitive fare?
@@SalveMonesvol i wonder if there is a market for transatlantic propeller aircraft again.
@@NoobNoobNews I wouldn't know about small ones like these, but a giant 700+ executive seat, 6 turboprop, 800 km/h beast could be interesting. A trade of comfort and safety for speed at the same overall fuel consumption.
@@SalveMonesvol I was thinking perhaps a 747 size thing with an emphasis on fuel efficiency and range. Would make an interesting cargo plane.
@@NoobNoobNews Sure, interesting cargo plane and comfortable passenger plane.
No matter how high you go with bypass ratios, you can't be more efficient than a modern turboprop. But I guess most airlines don't want their planes to look "old".
I really wish guys at Otto all the luck. It's a wonderful project and it seems to be trying to answer all the right questions
Please consider VTOL
@@KGopidas But how does VTOL do in terms of fuel efficiency?
@@Eisenbison Poorly.
@@Eisenbison Depends on the engine VTOL or Celera alike. Technically, each engine would have to get recertified under a whole shit string of variables. Which, I hope Otto sticks with, and hopefully, we see it not be just a fair weather aircraft.
@@KGopidas what a dumb idea lmaoooo
It won't hit it's design targets, but aviation won't advance unless people push the envelope. It's out-of-the-box thinking, which is much-appreciated.
Unfortunately, you left out the most important factor along with its laminar flow fuselage:
It has a high-aspect ratio wing. This means it has a long wingspan with a short chord line (it’s long and skinny). This type of wing provides maximum lift and minimum drag, which is why you see it on gliders. Except, the trick here is making it strong enough for what appears to be a >10,000lb, 400kt aircraft. That’s where the use of advanced composites that were not formerly available comes in.
Cheers!
He did mention gliders in the video.
😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
how do you measure the fatigue on these advanced composites? and propagation of stress fractures? with aluminum we have consistently informative NDE techniques
This was a cool comment to read. I was wondering what the stall speed was and the glide ratio
Disruptive technologies are fascinating. This one seems like the triumph of engineering elegance instead of the usual brute force approach. Kudos to Otto and RED for clear thinking and innovation!
@Peter Evans Lol what? Maybe more like airplane manufacturers are known to exaggerate their figures. The same way that Tesla exaggerates the performance of their vehicles and the same way that rollercoaster manufacturers exaggerate their hourly capacity numbers. It’s just the way business work. They do whatever they can to sell their product and bring in profit. You’d me stupid to not be skeptical about their claims
@Peter Evans Just because you said it doesn’t mean it’s true. My point is that skyships eng being skeptical about Otto’s claims is perfectly reasonable when you think about how so many companies exaggerate their products’ performance numbers. If you believe everything these companies tell you without second thought then you are an idiot, plain and simple
@Peter Evans l
Theranos, FTX, Nikola, Otto.
I used to do a lot of flying between small communities. A lot of beechcraft 99s and Fokker F27s - both loud and not very comfortable. This would be a great update for those sorts of routes.
It will be a major disruption. With the per hour economy, these aircraft could transform a lot of county and municipal airports into commercial air routes and charter hubs. When that 1000 model is released with coach seating, things will get interesting.
@@goodday126 2 years since I saw this video - is there any major news on this aircraft?
@@HeatherSpoonheim Nothing earth shattering. I imagine that COVID is making a revolutionary aircraft launch difficult. I have every confidence that this company will succeed.
It looks a lot like a Tuna with wings. Eggcellent shape for low resistance
that's actually a really good description
Tanks
A tuna with wings? That's nightmare fuel. Tuna is bitey bastards!
the shape of a tuna was fluid-dynamically shaped over millions of years by trial and error, and we can now replicate the same result with a CFD, this is amazing.
But you gotta throw in the rear propeller, which causes the slistream to suck itself in really close to the skin past the fattest point of the teardrop. Now, because of the prop location you get really good drag reduction. Performance figures follow suit, and you get a really well suited champion. I don't think there is a scale problem either. See... 'a body of rotation'.
As long as it lands sunny side up I'm good with it.
xD
🥚 🍳 🤣 🤣🤣
Celera1000L, Dick with wings or an evolution in aviation...
Scrambled would be bad I think?
@Max Private. . +1. .Too funny. . Bada, bing! . We're here all week. . Tip your bartender . . .
Any landing you walk away from is a good one...
I've seen some other videos of this bird, bit not as complete and informative as this one!
Many thanks from Brazil for doing this!
Valeu
@@TheFalseShepphard Not being stupid...
That is enough to keep you safe on many situations...
@@TheFalseShepphard No, better not. I'm not leaving my house for the last 10 months, unless strictly necessary. That's what I meant...
If you have never flown privately, imagine no check-in line, no security delays, just drive up to the hangar and get in. That kind of ease of use, plus economic costs, makes this idea a winner. The future can't come fast enough, in this case.
Congratulations 🎉👏 of being the top comment 👍😁 (as of now 😈)
try taking a dog .... catch 22s that cost a buck everytime you pass go, we need this to get that, once we get that you can confirm this , oh this is no longer viable , start over , we need this to get that , got that great oh , this is no longer viable , oh u got this and that now you need ok , sorry ok not availible for this , start over.
We are already there; merely qualify for a Sport Plane license with a pass medical exam, and a few hours in ground and flight school, purchase a Kit Fox for under 45K USD, and keep it in good tune and yourself in good shape, you can go anywhere in the states as any civil aviation could go.
Nighthawke70 But not coast to coast at 400 knots in the flight levels...
@@Nighthawke70 I don't want to own a plane or fly it, I just want a ride in it.
Are we starting a new "golden age of aviation"? I really hope so. We need new dreamers that won't accept the status quo. Love it!!
Diesel engines have had a long and subdued history in aviation. Good to see that they are getting the attention they were denied for so many years. I've been following this project for a while, it looks very promising. A V12 engine is also inherently balanced for smooth operation, hence their widespread use in aircraft of the 1930s and 1940s.
All one has to do, is look up the Junkers Jumo 205. That was an awesome aviation diesel engine.
You can get perfect balance from inline-6, inline-8, inline-10, inline-12 or many flat engines (assuming the pistons are perfectly opposed to the other pistons at the other bank) as well as a V12
They most likely used a V12 for packaging, reliability, sturdiness, power delivery, as well as smoothness
Or, you know, it was a way to get the most HP from the smallest package?
It's interesting that thecnology drops some ideas in some fields because of inefficiency or something better. Than it improves in another sector like cars than it comes back again into aviation. Just see zeppelin or diesel engine here. Both were dropped and re taken now due to advancement in technology in connection with them.
This is really cool, a few challenges I see are:
1. Pressurization - Piston aircraft often have issues with pressurization. A good comparison is the Cessna P210 where the weight of the pressure hull and low engine air output limits maximum flight altitude. I wonder how much the figures they give assume high altitude operations. While the wing design is good, the engine can only put out so much power to get it to the needed altitude while maintaining pressurization, anti-icing (in poor weather), electrical, hydraulic, and air conditioning systems.
2. Single engine - This will find a market but for commercial service the aircraft will not be permitted over water and will have a limited scope of operation due to that one engine. A number of executive jet customers are not permitted to even fly on single engine aircraft due to their life insurance policies. Additionally overwater and remote operations will be heavily restricted due to regulatory requirements of a single engine aircraft.
3. Payload - Again, with one engine the aircraft will be limited on its payload with one piston engine, no matter how good that engine is. The An-2 is the largest single engine piston in the world, it needs a 1010 HP engine to move a 3000 lb payload at sluggish speeds and low altitudes. Will the 500 HP engine be enough for this aircraft to be able to move a payload of 2000 lbs with the 200+ gallons of Jet-A weighing about 1350 lbs while cruising in the flight levels? There is more to flying than cruise performance, the aircraft will need to meet minimum climb gradients for various IFR approaches and departure procedures in order to be considered practical for commercial use.
4. Known icing - Again we look at anti-icing and de-icing solutions, both of which will take air from the engine and hinder power output. The main issue is how the wings, control surfaces, and engine inlets will be protected from ice accumulation in flight. The propeller is in an advantageous position for this, as pusher engines are their own prop anti-ice. However for the aircraft to be commercially viable it will need all weather capabilities. Super-critical wings such as the one this aircraft sports are extremely susceptible to negative effects of airframe ice accumulation.
There are a lot of regulatory hurdles a new concept aircraft has to overcome, I wish Otto the best in navigating that bureaucratic nightmare and I hope to see their plane in production in the future. The items I listed here are the first thoughts that came to mind as hurdles an aircraft design such as theirs will have to address during its development phase. While many people say "develop and improve" in aviation this is not an option, the aircraft must meet their commercial quotas in order for further development and each of the items listed here will be things serious aviation businesses (anything beyond personal transportation aircraft for a wealthy individual) will be looking at. Cost of acquisition and maintenance will also be a factor, of course - but that number will generate itself as development comes to an end. I would like ideas like this to flourish and seeing another revolutionary concept flounder into obscurity only hampers future innovation. That said, it's awesome they've already got a prototype and pulls them firmly out of the realm of "investment scam" or "pipe dream" that so many concept aircraft die in.
Although technically a piston single, this is an animal entirely different from a Malibu, more comparable to a TBM750.
I don't see it going toe to toe with twin jets. Otto's Celera is poised to take the turboprops' lunch. Also not an easy task, as the challenges you mentioned equally apply to that segment.
The diesel is turbocharged and the fuselage designed for pressurisation from the start, the P210 thus not a good comparison. Although it has its following. Speaking of which, I'd like to see a smaller sibling with 4 to 6 seats in total.
Crosswind landings will be a nightmare due to the awkward and relatively large cross section of the fuselage. Also, high density altitude performance will be pretty terrible with that tiny propeller and small wing. Basically, this will not be an aircraft that can safely operate in anywhere near the diversity of weather of existing airplanes.
Agreed.. this thing is a turd.there’s no way it is going to perform half or even a quarter of its proposed performance.. it’s a scam at best to take investors money.
@@daszieher Well, Extra hasn't managed with EA-400, and Piaggio's P-180 Avanti barely made it in the world where fuel was cheap again.
@@thomasaltruda I like giving people the benefit of doubt, but the thought did cross my mind. Let's call is a parent's overabundance of optimism. :-)
I bet it will be quiet too, with that smooth airflow and the engine positioned right at the back.
At 400kts, it's still going to be roaring loud.
Maybe laminar flow will reduce the vibrations transferred to the hull compared with normal turbulent flow, thus quieter
Did you notice that it appears to have windows on the inside, but none on the outside.. . Clever bit of aerodynamics that...
@@Peasmouldia video screens?
A piston engine inside the fuselage is never quiet.
I can not wait to see this plane flying over our heads. Damn, it is so cool.
Dividing the cost per hour by six, it could cost as little as $88.8 per person to operate to go from Dallas to Chicago. I know there are other costs, but yeah, they can charge $300 a person and possibly make a profit. That's about double the prices I just looked up, still, I'd pay that. They could charter. Or they could also just fly random regional airports. As I can bet I can find six people that need a round trip from say, Des Moines to Birmingham. A flight that would be cheaper and faster than I can find online at the moment. An entire new commercial airline sector could be opened up by this. Low demand routes between feeder cities. Or even smaller markets becoming feeder cities for a few extra dollars, round trip. This is a neat concept! I'm more than a little excited at the idea.
What a great video. The details of the economics, licensing, production, and marketing is what it's all about at management offices. We really do get used to a status quo and then the continuum is altered by some new consideration, moving forward.
I think the submarine is the most apt comparison. Really interesting design and makes a lot of sense. I wonder what the noise factor would be like compared to a traditional single engine piston prop considering the rear engine, pusher prop, and unique aero design. I bet it's pretty quiet comparatively. Might even beat a business jet.
It's a revolutionary aircraft and those numbers are incredible one third to one fourth the operating costs 450mph 4000mile range and seats meant for an adult, I really hope Otto is successful.
Yep, looks like a promising design. NOW let's find a sustainable market for it so the a/c can be manufactured, certified and placed into service. It's all a bit of "pie in the sky" at the moment.
"Filling up the runways like locusts!" Fell off my chair with that!
I haven’t been this excited about a CA aircraft for a long time
This seems like a really and I mean REALLY interesting thing and I wish them (otto aviation) luck in their project
Update, I met with the Otto team and I am massively impressed. I think they will make it. At the very least, its potential benefits will not be lost to the general aviation world.
Being able to hop on a commercial flight without having to drive to a major airport would be great! It seems like the only options we have for air travel right now is either get into GA and use your own local small airport (no commercial services) or driving down to a huge airport and spending several hours, security, parking, traffic, etc. to hop on a large commercial flight
I've been drawing this plane since i was 6 years old
@Shyam Parmar He's been spamming TH-cam with that exact post for a while.
😂
@@drewscheller4956 what kinda crap is this ???
You can say you have been drawing one since you were 6 but I BUILT that fuselage in a competition winning aerobatic glider in 1986. The laminar flow form has been around for millions of years in nature and used in wingsections since the 1940s and naca laminar flow sections . Fuselages with that design have been proposed for jet airliners in books since the 1960s.
My 1986 aerobatic design has 66 series wingsections as well as fuselage: th-cam.com/video/CbqcmA1coKk/w-d-xo.html
@Shyam Parmar He just turned 6 :)
First video I've seen from you. The level of detail is impressive, and conveyed in a very smooth and cohesive manner. Well done.
Typical Sky excellence! Articulate, fascinating, informative. 💛🙏🏼
Not for my money bag though...
Production and fuel cost down, capable of flight with multiple passenger, a low maintenance engine...
This is the perfect plane for post-CoViD America: relatively environmentally friendly, while able to connect the major cities but also smaller air ports, now that many left the big cities due to their lockdowns, it´s just... PERFECT.
Exciting - fast and effecient with a great range.
I would love to fly in this craft
The high MPG is worth striving for alone. Peak Oil (too costly to burn) is a matter of when, not if, but people keep denying it. The belly looks vulnerable to flexing of the landing gear, though.
I am excited to see more of this plane as it expands its test envelope.
At first, I was thinking "Oh boy, yet another bla bla bla of a "vapor plane" by someone who knows nothing about aviation".
I'm pleasantly surprised at the excellent presentation and in-depth critique bringing to light both good and bad points.
You've just earned another subscriber.
Bruce Williams - Spruce Creek Fly In
Magnificent, remarkable, historical design resembling a beautiful engine powered, fixed wing, rear propped, tricycle landing geared Zeppelin that must be a dream to fly ! I know that Ferdinand Zeppelin would agree. Bravo, Otto Aviation !
Cost and flexibility.............opens up air travel to routes and customers outside of the major hubs. Interesting idea.
Your videos are so great that I almost watch it in russian just to get a little glimpse ahead!
Thank you for the great content =)
Putting the prop at the back of the plane is a big part of why they are able to achieve such smooth laminar flow. The wake, or prop wash, from having it up front completely screws up the airflow over the body of the plane, but it's the way we've done it for so long that's the standard. The center of gravity moves to the rear of the plane when you put the engine in that back, hence the unusual wing placement.
No shit.
Yes. . We both watched the same video. Thanks
Thank you Sky!
I've been hopeing you would do a review of the Celera!
I appreciate your work Sir.
And very interesting plane!!
If they can scale this up to 12 to 18 passengers, then it gets interesting. I have flown on a 25 passenger turboprop from Pittsburg, PA to St. Louis, MO. There were only about 18 passengers on board. It flew low and fairly slow. Engine noise and turbulence made the flight less than enjoyable. A plane like this could fly higher, faster and make the flight more enjoyable.
I have a former colleague that has been working on this project and the economy numbers are close to real life. A lot comes from the design and the rest comes from the efficiency of the diesel.
The low drag is obvious, just as the compression ignition engine, but the poor visibility suggests that cameras or additional windows are needed...
I have a lot of questions about this plane, and maybe these things have been addressed by Otto, but they can't give you all the information in a video or on they website. We will just have to wait. I think that what has been shown makes sense and the performance numbers do too.
How far are they to reach production? Is it available now?
@@zorayanuthar9289 They're in the B round of financing now, beginning the FAA certification. C Round is 2023-2025 when production begins and certification is achieved. A while to go yet...
Assuming those capabilities are real (which I read is a big assumption), it could be used to take families on holidays over medium distances pretty cheaply, and in comfort. Replacing the "air bus" with the "air taxi"!
The point is when fuel prices explode and travelers numbers sink, smaller aircraft get more intresting.
Very true, I learnt about Boutique air today. Please look at Simple Aviation Trip Report video of a commerical 40$ flight round trip on a Pilatus PC 12.
Why would fuel prices explode? Unless Biden Kills Trumps fracking revolution the marginal viability of fracking acts as a buffer on oil and gas prices. For years, we have believed we were just a decade or two from oil shortages the truth appears to be just the opposite. Unless that is we turn our backs on oil in a religious belief in global warming or climate change as it became when there wasn't any warming.
That buffer applies before we explore offshore oil reserves we know about and presuming Canada continues to impoverish itself by not developing the Alberta reserves.
i can still see lots of possibilities for this aircraft though.
I don’t think global fuel prices are ever gonna explode. Biggest use of petroleum is electricity production and they getting taken over by renewables.
@@laracroft938 A) Less than 1% of the oil used in the world is used for the production of electricity. B) Renewables aren't displacing fossil fuels in any meaningful way anywhere.
aviation has a large carbon footprint, so we'll tax it (hopefully) to force change.. Smaller planes (propeller) can be made electric, so yes jet fuel will get much more expensive.
thanks for this video! this plane recently came across my radar and to see someone put so much effort into a video showing it off has been great.
This feels like a more radical version of the Piaggio Avanti, which also put focus on maximizing laminar flow over fuselage and wing, and was designed to have performance comparable to jets. But I gotta say the Avanti seems like a better compromise (better field performance, better cockpit visibility, uses a widely available engine, etc) and it looks much better (important).
Something that I thought: it can travel thousands of miles on a single trip, but it doesn't have to. What benefits are there to being able to make 10x 400mi trips off of one tank? 20x 200mi? Decreased times due to fueling. Or, reduced fuel load per trip (assuming you're gassed up to the minimum needed to get to the next destination). Fascinating machine.
It would be interesting to see what that amazing airframe efficiency combined with an electric powertrain could do. Even if it only had 1/10 the range, the economics of electrics and the need for short range air travel is compelling.
I was just about to comment the same thing. With a pure ev power train the engine cooling ducts could be removed and the thing could fly at a much higher altitude. Stronger landing gear and longer wings should give it very usable range.
No such thing as a viable electric airplane. First, weight is important. Unlike a car. A plane becomes more efficient, the longer it travels. A battery weighs a lb at the start and at the end of its journey. The only way an electric plane will ever happen, is a completely revolutionary development in battery power. A development in planes, is maybe a 10% increase in the viability of electric, while the equivalent in battery development, would double or triple the viability in electric. You’re looking at the wrong end of this horse.
@@kentonian and it would still here heads and tails less viable than liquid fuel power trains. You people really don’t get how far away we are from such things do you? Some improvements in airplanes aren’t going to make electric planes magically viable. A battery still weights a shit ton, and that is the MAIN problem with airplanes. Weight. There is a reason you pay extra for luggage, and we’d pay extra for the tire around your gut, if we weren’t so scared. A plane gets lighter as it travels. It’s literally cheaper to fly a plane, the longer the plane is in the air. You can NEVER say such a thing for electric, which is why it’s only viable on the ground, where distance isn’t a concern, and you can have smaller batteries and dumping 50-100lbs of weight will not effect things much. And even then, it pales in comparison to the bang for your buck from liquid fuels.
I’d be interested in a hybrid power plant not quite Formula one but capable of lifting the Aircraft with the Fuel engine then cruise on the electric drive when needed or glide to save both forms of energy. I think that the aircraft could also charge in flight and and if the upper surfaces used solar technologies now in development to top up and extend the possible range of electric driven flight.
@@jamesbizs solar panelled aircraft could have extended flight especially since they could fly above the clouds . We are currently developing many flexible and more efficient cells to fit to odd surfaces like cars and houses and lightweight cells on an electric or hybrid Aircraft makes a lot of sense to me … daytime flights would be Most advantaged of course …
So lets say I live in a town of 30 thousand people with a modest regional airfield just outside of town that can handle a few private propeller aircraft for the rich. In the now someone wanting to take an affordable flight must first travel to a much larger city and pay for parking at the airport which can add a few hundred bucks and a few hours to the trip or the cost of an uber each way unless you got someone to drive you and pick you up. Now this thing offers basically door to door connection to a major airport for international hop or direct to more local destinations at about twice the cost of the comercial airlines. In this case there is a bit of competition to the big airbusses but it's more about opening up mostly regional air travel for those who don't live in a megacity in the usa. As we are getting jobs that are less location dependent and an aging population who want to retire away from the crime and traffic of a big town, having the option to open up world to low density areas, travel at this price range becomes worth it. I for one would love to be able to take a direct flight from Houston Tx to Alamagordo/Cloudcroft even if it costs more than having to go to El Paso then drive for a few hours north. Not only that, but you get to avoid all the walking garbage that comes with any oversize city in the US. Or hell why not a direct flight from say Point Roberts population 1000 to Las Vegas provided you book all 6 seats for round trip and covered the cost to get the passenger empty craft back to say Seattle for more bookings. Expensive for sure, but not nearly as expensive as having to charter or owning your own craft.
Modern version of the Bell X-1. At least the general shape.
Nice video. Had not heard of this plane before. Thanks!
Mentour pilot mentioned it a while ago, seems promising.
Well done again, SE!! Excellent narration delivery and copy - with lots of info and insight on an aircraft I didn't know about! Thank you.
current pandemic + low operating costs = more incentive for people to trade air carriers for charters
I like this design. I was surprised to learn it had a piston engine, although a very sophisticated one. I had assumed it would have a turboprop!
Nice video! Good work.
There's no need for it to convert to a Turbo prop because as the video said it uses Jet-A for fuel
@@Jopanaguiton Yes, I get it. It's a great design. I am impressed that each side of the block is independent.
Looks like it would be wonderfully efficient at lower speeds, like 400 km/h cruise. The design also looks promising for large volume/weight freight.
The case does have merit. It will fragment the market, however more research is needed into the cost and safety aspect of the aircraft. If it can be proven to have mass market appeal. It is a winner.
Wow, very interesting. A significant achievement.
Sky always does thorough analysis based on data. Gotta' respect that. He is a credible source because this data checks out. Outstanding Sky.
A very unique aircraft that is fast, fuel efficient with a very positive future ahead . I would love to pilot one these aircraft.
I dunno
I keep looking at those thin wings. I don't mind the rear mounted engine, but rotational stability is benefited by nice wide wings.
The large tail looks like it is trying to compensate. But I remain concerned.
@@glenmcgillivray4707
Have you looked at a Short Skyvan ... high aspect ratio wings work best ... They just work better drag less and can lift more but you cannot hide UC
Or fuel tanks in such a wing ..
@@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 and narrow undercarriage is also a worry.
And I note that many aircraft try to use lifting bodies to overcome some of the drag and storage limitations, and have been passion projects for almost literally 100 years.
But then we get these glider type craft that try to fly with such slim wings. There is always a tradeoff.
Isn't it stall speeds at altitude?
@@glenmcgillivray4707
Im figuring the UC spread it is on a par with quite a few aircraft with fuselage mounted gear ...especially as its actually quite a wide body and the lateral Cof G is going to be lower as it sits between its main wheels rather than on top like some designs.
Id like to check the wingspan in proportion to its length and compare but it doesnt seem overlong.
High aspect ratio electric gliders and drones regularly fly at very high altitudes.
They have done quite a bit of testing since this and its still looking positive.
To quote a Smithsonian webpage:
at extremely high altitudes, the difference between stall speed and never-exceed speed narrows into what pilots call the “coffin corner.” Perlan 2’s wing design allows a luxurious 17-knot (20-mph) difference (The U-2, routinely flying over 70,000 feet, has only a five-knot difference). And though computer simulations show a tendency to enter a tail-wagging oscillation known as Dutch Roll, a yaw damper on the tail should counteract the phenomenon.
There are always compromises.
The important ones are to ensure control is as easy as possible.
I remember watching a video here on TH-cam where some off schedule pilots decided to try to see how high and fast they could get their aircraft to go, and ultimately damaged the aircraft.
I can't remember if it was total engine failure with an emergency landing or they actually crashed... I vaugely think I've seen one of each.
this new aircraft fits into a unique place, as explained by the narrator, and the selling points and benefits are very attractive. Flying from a smaller regional airport is way more convenient, and it will put the "fun" back into flying instead of a dreadful experience as it is now.
You put a lot of work into this video. Great job.
Your narrative writing is better than the video! This is one of the best video sites on TH-cam for both content and video style values. Totally surprised, we find even your delivery is much clearer and easily understood You appear to come from a professional writing background related to aviation. Where can we learn more about your amazing achievement with Skyships Eng?
400 knots is 460mph, and in WWII a single seat fighter took 1750 to 2200 HP to reach around 430mph. Advanced Aerodynamics are are all well and good, but it is hard to believe this six seat aircraft can make 460mph on 550hp. The Scaled Composites single seat Pond Racer of 1991 only achieved 400mph with two 600hp engines. I suspect the makers of this aircraft are being VERY optimistic with their performance figures.
I saw a paper where they reported that if aviation was a nation, it would rank sixth in the world in carbon emissions. There are a lot of planes burning a lot of fuel, even though they are getting more efficient all the time, a plane that goes fast on low fuel burns is a great idea. There are no 6 place aircraft currently that get that kind of efficiency. Corporate uses will probably balk at the single engine, if that quits and the plane crashes the corporation would be sued by the families of the employees they made ride in it. Private users will welcome the economy. Gas tank in the fuselage is worrying in a crash. I want one!
You're the man Sky! I love your channel - your knowledge and presentation always impresses me. Greetings from the UK!
Very like the 1947 planet Satelite 🇬🇧 just with more advanced materials and design.
Immediately put me in mind of the lifting-body experimental craft that NASA used to mess about with - like the HL-10. Either way, does look like a definite advance in aero design. Really hope they get it certified and into production.
Very intriguing prototype, I like it and it's nice to see new innovation in design. I hope Otto succeeds.
This is essentially a disruptor product, and I'm excited about the prospect!
5:11 "a simple explanation of what a laminar flow is..."
SmarterEveryday has entered the chat.
Smartereveryday is a moron
I thought of smarter everyday immediately he mentioned laminar flow.
@@DumbledoreMcCracken Tell us how you really feel.
A good example of what a difference in conceptual design can lead to. The concept for Celera 500L appears to be based on providing a lamellar flow around the fuselage, which is also considered in anything that is intended for a flight but is generally superseded by the impacts of engine power, lightweight structures and even aesthetics. An interesting video indeed.
Thanks
This is a fascinating airplane. The specs sound almost too good to be true, but man if they can pull this off it will be revolutionary. If I was Beech/Cessna/etc. I'd be paying close attention.
Thank your for this comprehensive video/analysis!
Not only does a rear prop encounter damage from rocks, etc. being kicked up on landings, the noise could be louder than standard forward-mounted props. The right design might negate that. But my own R/C rear-mounted props are always louder than my front-mounted prop R/C models. Here's an example:
th-cam.com/video/6onRX7thN0U/w-d-xo.html
What a f*** fabulous idea. Laminar flow with an internal combustion engine . This is a winner . The narrator is great as he to is so amazed at the metrics he wonders if its true . Great video. Australia should order dozens of these things to service our remote towns.
Until you pointed it out, I didn’t appreciate how really thin and minimal those wings are
Because they aren’t used as tanks. High aspect ratio wings have other beneficial aspects. Apparently they aid in the laminar flow.
Brings the P-51 Mustang of yore to mind. I think it had the original laminar flow wings.
It looks cool! Almost like a throwback. A small, streamlined, piston-engined airliner would not be out of place in the 1930s. Throw some 30s style Delta livery on it and deck the interior out with tiger maple, sage green berber carpet, and red leather and you'd have the kind of airliner people in 1933 thought we'd be flying by 2020.
It is a wonderful throw back to a 1947 British prototype design that appeared at Farnborough 🇬🇧 airshow The Planet Satelite. it used Magnesium but had chronic overheating problems and low power at the time but materials and aerodynamics have come a long way since.
I have had the Celera 500L on my "'sites" (misspelled "sights") for about 3 years now. Thanks for the excellent video.
"in my sights", like you're taking aim at something...
@@christophertstone Wow! Thanks for the correction. I misspeled like a 7-year old.
Brilliant ! Thanks for the video. I hope it all works out for OTTO so we all can benefit.
This project is a real good idea and hope it is successful.
As mentioned in another post, the prop gets nicked easily b/c it is placed in the rear where rocks, debris, etc. get kicked up by the wheels on landing. Either tougher props are needed, or they will have to be mounted higher, forward, or on the wings in order to minimize damage. This of course may negate its efficiency, or NOT! More experimentation is needed.
You do good work that was done well and worth watching. Although I have seen other analysis of this project this was the best by far. Thank you
A pretty remarkable engine I think. I wish you guys well.
Thanks, Sky. That was really interesting.
Very interesting presentation. Thank you for being clear, organized, a little humorous, and completely interesting. I hope you present updates whenever you can.
Piaggio Aviation had a great quote about their Avanti plane, which has a pusher propellor design: "When was the last time you saw a ship with its propellors at the front?"
thats not good quote because sea and air travel is completely different.
@@jebise1126 Know a lot about fluid dynamics, do you?
*This design is fascinating. Feels good to me... and the ground effects... Yes!*
Thank u for the informative video! Greetings from America....we love you!
It's a strange time for the development of a new aircraft. The big push is full electric, which I think is still years away, but electric/piston hybrids will probably be here sooner than we think. This looks like a perfect platform for that technology. Maybe the 1000L will utilize that, keeping the JetA piston as a generator for an electric drivetrain. Very interesting plane though, I hope they succeed, but in the aviation development world I certainly wouldn't be holding my breath!
If, by the time they manage to include some windows, furnish the cabin and include stuff like de-icing, weather radar and pressurization, this actually goes into production as an honest six-seat 250 mph aircraft, It could be very competitive with other options for the same mission. Assuming it isn't too noisy, a problem that has plagued other pusher aircraft, and TBOH on the highly stressed turbocharged engine doesn't spike maintenance costs. We still know nothing about MSRP, and carbon fiber hasn't proven to be cheap in other applications.
They should dispense with windows. Just have feeds from cameras. Then you could switch your seat screen between forward, left and right hand views. Much better than a window.
So, basically, COFFIN from Ace Combat?
I vote for "egg with wings" although I'm open to persuasion.
A repeat of so many articles that merely repeat the factory's claims. Impossible to meet the altitude / speed / range claims made. See Peter Garrison - FLYING magazine - Dec 2020 QUOTE: " The Celera 500L is not so revolutionary as it claims to be. ... What sets the Celera apart is its huge passenger cabin and efficient diesel engine. I doubt it will achieve the announced performance-I’m happy to be proved wrong-but if it cruises at 260 ktas at 30,000 feet burning 90 pph and has a toilet inside, that will be good enough. "
I love it. Not only is it weird looking because form
They did get thrust increases just by adding shielding exhausts on night fighters. Principally to remove the exhaust flames but then they found the thrust additions.
@@COIcultist exactly, so adding that exhaust into all the other hot air generated is quite smart. Some people think the p51 mustang produced a net thrust from its cooling system housing, but really the laws of physics wouldn't allow for that. You gotta burn fuel to get net thrust lol
@@thecrazyfarmboy it was burning fuel already. in engine. and with engine only 30% efficiency (even less in ww2 engines) there is lots of power still in exhaust gas.
if you imagine cooling system as sort of ram jet than you understand it is possible to get thrust from cooling system too.
@@jebise1126 yes, of course there is power in the exhaust, I never said there isn't. What I said is that simply using the heat from the cooling system would not generate enough thrust to overcome the drag of the assembly. Most of the wasted heat is in the exhaust, and it is well known that the exhaust itself generates some thrust
@@jebise1126 I understand the concept of the "Meredith effect" but I don't believe they actually got usable thrust from it in the cooling system of any ww2 airplane
I like what you have presented thus far, I wish the builders success.
I was hoping you would have delved into the “challenges” with operation in icing conditions with a laminar flow airframe , the manufacturer may have something innovative to deal with this but if not then this is a weather limited aircraft !
Interesting! Can you tell me a bit more about that?
@@10101110101011001 An airplane that makes its living from paying passengers has to be able to fly in bad weather, including icing conditions. Anti-icing systems tend to spoil laminar flow. I think this would apply only to the wings, and not the fuselage.
Deicing is heavy and disrupts laminar flow. It’s only a nice weather airplane 🤣
You would have to either redirect the heat from the engine like a jet, or use a TKS gel de-ice system. And if flying over 30,000’, you might have to heat the fuel...it can start to gel in severe cold. Or descend to warmer air.
This is indeed a problem. I guess they could run coolant lines inside the leading edge, or when this thing exits prototype stage, new technologies like ultrasonic deicing could be coming into shape.
FYI upward winglets without matching smaller downward winglets to reduce the drag created by the upward winglet are now considered out of date.
Gorgeous plane! Terrific video, too. Thanks!!
Perfect aerodynamics with maximum laminar flow and an efficient Diesel with thrust generating cooling exhaust is the secret with the 500L
First the egg, than the bird, than the airplane, now coming full circle, back to the egg.
Learn the difference between 'than' and 'then'.
What an amazing aircraft!! I hope it's successful!!
Excellent presentation as always sky, thank you
The funny thing to me is my house is on the map you showed
and OTTO is the name of my German Shepherd.
The low cost of operation for this aircraft is amazing
Awesome! So glad you’re covering this fascinating plane.
And in closing...
Enjoying how you wind down your videos!
Superb work
Just about every pusher with the prop at the tip of the tail flies nice but has shown odd stall characteristics at low speeds, the Lear Fan being the one I remember best. Something to do with prop torque + the dirty air coming off the airframe that the prop encounters + from being pushed from behind rather than pulled from in front. The combo of the 3 can be troublesome. Good luck with that.
The biggest downside is the FOD being kicked up on landings and damaging the prop.
looks like an even more efficient take on an Avanti, here in St Catharines we see one frequently , it's fast and loud , and is usually at twice the height of ga aircraft on climb out once it passes the 408 adf by our place, elegant bird, same high aspect ratio wing and sleek fuselage , though this thing seems to be even more efficient and just as fast.. wonder what all up weight and cargo she can haul at max range, and fuel..
Avanti has the advantage of twin pt6's , lots of power there, but fuel burn too, but she can make 40,000 feet at mtow.. and climb fast, important in you have to avoid weather, and performance as well. seems as though with the log range the Celera's envelope will be very much the same, sort of poor mans business jet, as she will do essentially what a gulf does for a much lower operating cost, and a bit slower.. the power plant is the real heart of this beast.. finally someone has done the right thing with a diesel, fire it up, keep it revving at it's optimum torque range, and keep it there till you shut it down.. this is how diesels like to operate, rather that constant rpm and heat range adjustments.. pitch the prop and keep that thing in it's narrow power band, up in the cool air at high boost, she'll run nice n cool, and return impressive numbers, without all the fuel guzzling issues of a turbine.. plus she won't kill you on runway delays and taxiing to the runway.. though that issue is beginning to be resolved by powered landing gear.. this will be a very interesting aircraft, and very attractive to customers that want to go far and fast but don't want to invest in jet tech (high purchase and operating cost)..
in conclusion, perhaps as small ultra efficient turbine from Williams or something currently in the pipeline that would reduce weight and increase thrust, but the current power plant seems to going in the right direction.. will the tech scale up, to maybe a 25 , or 50 passenger bird ? would be interesting, especially if it can be run reliably at low cost.. personally I would love to fly on one , and see the old aluminum tube and wing config finally be replaced after so long...it's high time commercial aviation moved ahead instead of seeking profit in tiny increments, boring ..the skys should be full of Celera's moving people around, skipping giant hubs, direct to destinations, sipping fuel along the way..