I can tell from early views that the big hangup everyone's going to have is over the cost I state for the 747. I got it from here: www.aircraftcostcalculator.com/AircraftOperatingCosts/380/Boeing+747-400 which actually lists the used price. I also spoke to a couple of pilots that verified it. What I failed to say in the video - since I was unscripted for this one - was that I was quoting a used price. But for the sake of argument, if you were comparing 61 Celeras to a new 747 priced closer to $250 million, that's still $50 million less for the 747.
Pilots don't "play" flight simulator. Flight simulators are a very useful tool. The physics fidelity of flight simulator is excellent. Note you need to turn off *all* assistance if you want an actual flight sim experience.
Your an absolute idiot on the 747. The 747 is a non existent aircraft. An actual aircraft would be a 777 which costs about $300M. You seem to assume that the current airlines would need to adopt this. That is not the case, it will be new businesses. Also the Celera would be fully autonomous. No pilot required.
Not at all, this design was already done as a private plane more than 50 years ago. It has a MASSIVE issue with turbulence that shakes and rattles the people inside. Just look up the "Starship" (Not to mention there was a end of WW2 era plane that used this design, the XP-55)
“... just replaces executive and private jets.” First, an executive jet is private, even when it’s an airliner owned by a non-airline entity, such as Hugh Hefner’s big black bunny. Even Air Force One is considered private given it isn’t available to the public - who supposedly owns it. ... -> Second, this hardly represents original thinking or implementation, as SilvaDreams has cited this experimental design concept dates back 50 years - and proved to be highly unstable, which is a well-known result of any specialized design whose stability and performance is optimized for a narrow band of velocity.
Well, there are still a huge number of private jets about, and if the rich or private airline companies could be encouraged to replace their wasteful 2-3mpg jets with an 18-25mpg Celera (or similarly efficient planes) that's still a step in the right direction.
The average cost of a used flight ready 747 is closer to around $75 million. You can get one that needs a few million in work and to be recertified for flight for $20million maybe but the inside would be junk so it would need a few more million to be ready to use.
It makes sense that they started with a smaller plane, time will tell if this model can be scaled to hold hundreds of people and really disrupt the industry.
I'd rely on the aerospace experts, but you could get "apples to apples" by looking at the coefficient of drag (for comparative fuel efficiency) and extrapolating "predicted cost" from comparing a 6-passenger Cessna to a 747, and then using the same multiplier for a 6-passenger Otto to a .
It's not even a new design. There was the XP-55 which is from WW2 and the again failed Beechcraft Starship. The design has serious issues with turbulence
I'm a corporate pilot, this type of aircraft is for owners who fly their own plane. Corporations are not going to be the first to try a new design, and 95% of charter companies don't buy new aircraft, the big exception is some the fractional ownership companies, but they aren't gonna to try a new design either.
@@jacksmoke3731 So what 10 years at the outside before they are being picked up used all over the place? That's not that long. Also at 28mpg that's 168 people miles per gallon. The 747 gets closer to around 70 people miles per gallon. If your goal is lower cost and you fly a lot of miles this might be huge. Fuel is most of the operating costs of these things and this uses like 1/4th what the others do. A 70% or more saving is fuel would be a game changer for a lot of small services even if the airframe was expensive compared to ones they could get a few million dollars can be made up in fuel really fast. $6 a gallon for gas at 7 people miles per gallon like a private jet vs 168 people miles per gallon is around 100,000 flight miles to break even and frankly, they are not that expensive compared to other things in their catagory.
This aircraft's odd look is because it's actually an old airship hull (blimp) design with sailplane wings stuck on it. The rear mounted propeller works in conjunction with the unusual shape of the hull to optimize efficiency. As I understand it, the propeller affects the flow field around the hull and helps keep the boundary layer attached to maintain the laminar flow you explain so well. A rear mounted propeller can be more efficient as well, although things like the engine intakes and stabilizers just ahead of the prop adversely affect this and will cause more prop noise. The most interesting aspect for me is the funky, big upper vertical stab to keep it stable in yaw. Also weird is the fact that it is operating at a considerably different Reynold's number than an airship. At cruise speeds it would be interesting to know how much lift is created by the wings vs. the fuselage acting as a lifting body. As we all know, with adequate power, a blimp filled with air instead of helium can fly by the lift from the hull given a sufficient angle of attack.
They probably exist but that number should be taken with a grain of salt because you aren't flying one away for that price, you are buying one that will need massive amounts of money to get back to airworthy.
Love your show, Joe. A small point about the standard "Private Jet". It is actually a DA-42 twin-engine prop plane. The plane you showed has diesel engines and runs on jet fuel. The DA-42 at cruise burns 8.1 us gals/hr flying at 154 mph, which is 19 miles / us gal.
The format was great for this topic, a follow-up with reasonable detail to justify your position. I would like to see this format again if you feel like a future follow-up is needed. Great work.
Not even close to true. Those days have long sense past. The list of failed airlines is long and wide, including super majors like Pan Am, and TWA. The trend now is to merge. No one is getting bailed out in the US.. Unless your talking about Euro liners.
@@davidx.1504 I'm talking about regular bail outs to save a carrier from bankruptcy. Naturally COVID is a special case, of which allot of business have received, not just the airlines. We probably agree that is also money down the drain.
The other thing I noticed, is that the “6 passenger” configuration is in an all-first class layout. They can seat more, and Otto has plans to scale up the airplane 20% as well. For intercity flights it’s a great idea
They actually may not be able to seat more than 6. Due to it being a smaller plane, too much weight in certain areas could cause the CG to shift enough for the plane to be unstable. This isn't as much of a concern with larger aircraft as they can more easily shift their weight/balance by moving fuel to their different fuel tanks around the plane. You may be able to fit an extra person or maybe two into it, but it will likely come at the cost of luggage carry ability or range.
My day was already going pretty bad and now here you're with yet another video without the drum roll, chair spin and that typical Joe Scott smile! 😤 * still likes the video before it even begins * ❤
Well... Look like the price of th 747-400 is around 200 millions usd. The dreamliner is sold on catalogue price around 158 millions usd. Love your video Joe
4 ปีที่แล้ว
The 61 smaller planes are still more expensive tho
@4one14 Yes.. but it would be able to land in airfields very close to the destination. I would say this is for very small airports as a feeder, plus if they make one that carries 20 ppl, then YES that would really cut it.
Never thought that one of my favorite avionic channels - mentour pilot - is going to be mentioned at my favorite YT channel! Now i feel absolutely fantastic 😄
He adjusted the 500l's passengers miles per gallon economy. He did it backwards by scaling up the number of 500l's but the effect on the math is the same. And the 500L's actually did better then 747's in passenger MPG. By a lot. I'm pretty shocked. (Except he made one mistake. the 500l's would actually be carrying about 50 more people with the pilots he forgot to tally them. Making it even better in those regards. I think it will be a design Revolution. But nowhere near replacing 747's way to small lol)
@@allhumansarejusthuman.5776 “...A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person!..”
Passenger-miles per gallon is only a thing for airliners and large corporate jets that shuttle employees between facilities like the jets that ferry people between the Fiat and Chrysler headquarters. Private aircraft under 15 seats spend most time at partial payload, often because full fuel eats into passenger/cargo capacity. Or vice versa. This won't be flying many Part 135 flights, it's too small and expensive to fly as an unscheduled charter aircraft. It could do some scheduled air taxi stuff, though. Its direct competition will indeed be the Pilatus PC-12 which carries 2 more in a smaller diameter fuselage and also can use unimproved airstrips. Aircraft with pusher propellers usually can't qualify for rough-field operation because the nose wheel kicks up debris that can damage the propeller. Plus they have restrictions on pitch up at rotation. The turboprop of the PC-12 is going to have a lower operating cost (ignoring fuel) due to higher overhaul hour limits and a more accessible engine with modular construction. 20 mpg is Mooney territory, but without the cramped passenger compartment of the low frontal area design of the Mooney. The problem with laminar flow designs is that the laminar flow gets disturbed by things like bugs and dirt, ice, and even heavy rain. This can turn a slick, efficient design into one that can barely generate enough lift to maintain altitude. If you are going to want to cross the US in this, you'll want things like deicing gear that tends to disturb the airflow.
@@allhumansarejusthuman.5776 Pilots are not paying passengers, they are on the minimum equipment list along with enough flight attendants to safely manage a 90 second evacuation. A 1000 mile trip in a 747 is something you only saw in Japan on domestic routes due to air traffic congestion limiting the number of takeoff slots. Much of the fuel burn in a jet is down low where the engines are less efficient and they operate with drag-inducing stuff hanging out in the air. On longer flights the per-mile fuel burn drops quite a bit.
I'm a long time fan and subscriber, the video analysis is exactly what I like to see but if you buy a 747 for $20 mill, get it serviced before you fly it
I just wanted to thank you for the great job you do with your videos. I am just a big science nerd, an RN by profession. Binging on your videos has kept me sane. I am at home right now, recovering from cancer issues and was really getting caught up in self pity. Your interesting, educational and humorous approach to sharing science news and education has been a lifesaver for me. Thanks again! 👌
The fact that Joe greatly limits his usage of "clickbait" is one of the many reasons I watch this and similar channels
4 ปีที่แล้ว +5
Comparative costs: also take-off and landing density at airports AND cost of leasing airport gate leases, plus a sundry of associated fees. Only a niche market for Celera 500L.
I was about to say the same thing. There's no way in hell a 747 goes for $20M. One engine on the 747 is more than $20M. I know it's not his specialty, but Joe's usually better than that.
Using standard airline seating, the Celera could probably handle up to 9 passengers, rather than the 6 it has in business charter config. Just on this video, alone, it would be more accurate to compare 1 x 747 to 40 Celeras, rather than 61. In hauling 9 PAX instead of 6, it becomes a viable competitor to Cessna 208s and Quest Kodiaks (small commuter and light cargo segments) in addition to being a viable competitor to about 1/3 of the business aviation planes out there.
@@KazCanning it's kind of like a social truth. do gamers want the most efficient computer? or do they want the one with the wasteful interior lights, and power hungry heat generating processors? do all of the Fast & the Furious wannabes drool over the most efficient car? No, one trip up the highway will tell you that they don't.
Except that the 747 is an end of life plane and is being retired by many fleets. That price on the second hand market with faults is probably not that far off
I personally share the opinion that we just need to figure out how to fly less. We need to invest in high speed rail. Flying should become something we do for longer trips.
@@ThaEnglishPwner hyper loop is a novel idea but it has a lot of real world issues. High speed rail is a proven technology that can be rolled out rather quickly.
Hyperloop can compete with long-haul airliners, while neither form of high speed rail can. Conventional tracked high speed rail has operational speed limits due to vibrations from the wheels on the tracks creating an unpleasant sensation for passengers, and very few will go by train if a plane is quicker and cheaper. For current forms of maglev, the extremely high cost of installing and operating the tracks means they're only economically viable in extremely high density areas, and will never be a viable option for long-distance travel. That doesn't necessarily mean hyperloop will become a major mode of transport - at least, not on this planet. Electric planes will be okay for short-haul, but can only become an option for long-haul if we find a way of making batteries with well over ten times the energy density of current options. This leaves two main options for long-haul travel: hyperloop, or high-efficiency planes running on sustainable fuels, and I think the latter has major advantages over the form. First, most intercontinental routes will have to use planes due to the difficulty of building a hyperloop tube under the ocean, especially if there is a tectonic plate boundary involved. Second, airliners already have a lot of ground-based infrastructure, so the amount of investment needed to get them flying is low. And third, fusion power looks set to become a viable energy source about a decade too late to become a major one, and will instead play second fiddle to renewables like solar. This is important because solar's major disadvantage - the huge summer surplus - is an advantage for anything requiring sustainable fuels, because it can be used to produce them. If fusion power were already widespread, hyperloop would be competing on a level playing field. Because solar is already a major energy source, and is set to continue growing in the future, sustainable-fuel airliners have a significant advantage. There is one place where hyperloop does make sense though, we're just not there yet: Mars. The thin atmosphere means winged aircraft don't function well, if at all, while hyperloop tubes don't need to be as robustly engineered - and therefore expensive - as on Earth. Likewise the lack of oceans means hyperloop has few restrictions on where it can go.
Love your videos Joe! Between you and Thoughty2 I have learned so much. Ya'll have so much insight into the topics you discuss and nothing feels half-assed. Let's get this man to 1 million subscribers!
Joe, I agree with your analysis, and your final thoughts on the real value of the Celera. Here is a sample use that I envision: I live an hours drive from Sea Tac Airport in Washington State and 20 minutes from an airport bus service. Near this bus service is a small airport that serves business jets. Let's say that I want to take my family of 4 on a trip to visit relatives in Wisconsin Rapids -- a small town that probably also has a small airport for general aviation. Right now I have to drive to the bus service, getting there 30 minutes early, then take the bus to Sea Tac, taking an hour, then spend 2 hours going through security and waiting for boarding. Then waiting on the plane for departure, and finally take off. Similar procedure in reverse on arrival in Milwaukee. But few flights go directly to Milwaukee. Last time we did this, our flight went to Kansas City which must be a few hundred miles south of a direct line from Seattle to Milwaukee. Double that for going back North. Then add in the landing in KS, layover, and plane change. That is a full day. A long day. And we still have to drive or bus a couple of hours to Wisconsin Rapids. Now consider a Celera charter service. We take our family of four and invite a couple of friends. Or, let the charter service find a couple of people to fill the other two seats -- someone who wants to go to any small airport Between our little town and Wisconsin Rapids. We simply drive 20 minutes to the airport, arriving 10 minutes before departure. The plane lifts off about 10 minutes after boarding. They fly us directly to Wisconsin Rapids -- with possibly an hour or two spent delivering the other two people someplace else. They could fly at half speed, saving even more gas, and we would still get to Wisconsin Rapids faster than on a big jet. And fly in first class seats!
I would have listened intently and maybe been more engaged. Then I would have gone back to not studying and doing all of my homework at the last minute.
@@tomservo5007 The 'if only' first sentence of my comment followed by an immediate admittance of my own flaws in the very next sentence. Just paraphrasing the comment because I can't tell if you actually read it.
I am an old private pilot & the most important feature for the Celera is "Proof of Concept." I think this is exciting and I look forward to the 500L to be progressively scaled upward. I would give an eye-tooth to fly one.
Great video as always!...i think it's just great that they're pushing the boundaries and looking for solutions rather than just keep pumping out the same old design that just makes them money......good luck on the side project!
Unfortunately the design can only be scaled up so far before the laminar flow breaks down. The larger model they’re talking about making is the upper size limit for this design. Unless someone comes up with an entirely new design, that’s as large as an aircraft with laminar flow can get.
I was going to note that the fuselage looks very much like that of the Bell X-1 that Chuck Yeager flew through the sound barrier in 1947. The wings are superficially similar, but the big difference is the powerplant and propulsion: rocket engines versus a piston engine driving a prop. So you've got a choice: go slower and get a longer ride, or take a short ride and burn a lot of propellant very quickly. The Celera would be great for that long haul trip, plus it's a lot more flexible than an airline. But that X-1 must have been one hell of a ride!
Joe: "I did the math and the fuel cost is slightly lower" Me: "But what about the pilots you need for all those planes?" Joe: "however, all those planes need pilots" Me: "But what about autonomous flight?!" Joe: "Things like autonomous flight might help in the future" Me: "But!" Joe: "But maybe this is an apples to donkey's comparison." Me: Just listens for a minute... Good job Joe, love to listen to you dissemble a topic!
The plane's take time to manufacture and roll out. We trained tons of Pilots very quickly for each of the major Wars. They also trained tons of doctor that lasted until the mid-seventies. It would be trivial to train 10000 Pilots if we really need to.
@@macmcleod1188 Sure. But that takes time and money - and you can't just say "hey, you, come be a pilot" - you have to give incentive. And you can't just train to become a commercial airline pilot in six months - it takes *YEARS* to build up the experience needed to qualify as an airline pilot (note: "airline pilot" doesn't just mean 747s, it means 6-passenger puddle jumpers, too.) Becoming an airline pilot is *EXPENSIVE*, the pilot has to pay for flight lessons all along the way. Most airline pilots I know had over $100,000 in student loans by the time they made it to "the big carriers" and finally started earning enough to pay them off. Which means we would have to give financial incentive to draw in more pilots. Which means higher pay. Which reduces the profitability of "many small planes" over fewer large planes.
@@AnonymousFreakYT only under the current constraints. Just like developing vaccines took 3 years yet here we are 8 months later with a covid-19 vaccine rolling out. If we need Pilots, we'll have Pilots. Sure, there's a minimum time. But with smarter planes and sufficient demand we could probably have pilots in under 2 years. B-52 and B-17 bomber Pilots flew into combat less than a year after they signed up. Their planes were put under a lot more stress and had a lot less technology. www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/march/pilot/pilots 200 hours. Less than a year.
@@jimlinn True, I was referring to before COVID. That is a fair point - although I imagine in the next couple years, the industry will return to pre-COVID employment levels.
I know this is a couple years old by now. Something that may have been covered in the 2,700 comments is maintenance. Your example assumes all 61 Celeras would be taken out of service for maintenance at once, just like the only 747 in your comparison. The loss of revenue during downtime would be much less than the 747. Of course, paying for 61 maintenance activities may cost more than the one session that takes out the 747 (knowing full well they aren't subjected to just one maintenance session per year). Still, that's a lot of missed revenue while that 747 isn't flying. Living in the northeast, I would love to see 1 flight heading for Newark Liberty reduced to just 1 with 60 more heading to the hundreds of smaller airports between Richmond, VA, and Bangor, ME. Reduce layovers, put the people closer to their actual destination, and make way for smaller, far more efficient aircraft to take them there. Great video, as always. I would have liked to have seen more about maintenance. I mean, it is powered by one diesel V12. Oh, and 2 months ago they raised the range to 5,000 nm from 4,000.
Hello Joe! First of all, thank you for sharing this, and other videos. I appreciate them. This one especially caught my attention. I am not a pilot. However, I do hold my ABMZ along with my boating license and with forklift etc. Needless to say, I have a great interest in vehicles of all sorts. I would like to challenge your conclusion that the Celera 500L won’t save the world. I think the potential is there, all we need to do is show interest. In 1980, when road transport became deregulated, there was an eruption of small trucking companies forcing contract costs to drop an astounding amount. Suddenly everyone could afford to transport. Businesses bloomed, and individuals that otherwise could not afford to launch their own transport company and find a new success, independently. And with the new, larger number of trucks on the road, new trucking lanes were created. Similarly, also in 1980, rail also met deregulation. Practically overnight old, abandoned rail lines were bought and revitalized. Smaller rail shipping companies popped up and drove the price of rail transport down. Now, yes, it was a deregulation that led to this change, but deregulation could almost be used as a synonym for affordability in this scenario. With the advent of a plane that is affordable to fly and maintain, it instantly opens up opportunity! Most new trucking companies are built by drivers. This could absolutely translate to pilots. Having been a professional driver for quite some time, I can say that in my experience most professional drivers (with a ‘few’ years under their belt) choose to do short haul and aim for local, home every night, routes. Becoming an Owner Operator provides that opportunity. I feel the Celera 500L could provide an owner operator option for pilots. As I mentioned before I don’t know much about air, despite my interests, but I do think this bar has been set, and potential is in the air.
I'm interested to see what this will do to regional airports, many of which are closing down because it's too expensive to fly private jets out of them.
@@Badpoison1 Regionals that I'm aware of closing are not because it's too expensive for the carrier... it's because that particular township is closing them to make room for housing, or because of of Karen's who complain about the noise. Teterboro, Van Nuys, Telluride, Aspen, Eagle Vail, WYS, Sedona, etc are not closing.. and they are high cost over nights. So, you Google.
I feel like when you were doing your cost calculations you could have mentioned that if we do ever get serious about climate change jet fuel will become very expensive. I mean any serious attempt to do anything will involve a massive tax on fossil fuels. So depending on how serious we get the cost of fuel could dominate all the math.
I used to work in the airline industry (flight operations, cockpit & cabin crew scheduling) for ten years after college. I still enjoy following the airline industry, and wanted to comment that Mentour Pilot is a great website. the pilot is a captain with a European airline and flies Airbus jets. Great videos, very interesting. His wife is a former flight attendant and he includes her on some of the videos where she speaks from a cabin crew viewpoint. I highly recommend the site if you enjoy flying.
Just wanted to say thank you for fixing the mix between your intro music and voice. No longer do I have to wake up the neighbors with the intro riff just to be able to hear what you're saying.
There are a couple of important concepts to know here. One is that is that air travel is, at its heart, is the lowest form of operational entropy for transportation on Earth. For example, there are aircraft that are faster that 100 m.p.h. that have no motors. Gliders .And think about it...how do humans perform maintenance or construction on their Mom Earth's air girdle. There is no such thing as trying to change the weather. Except that hersons here on Mom's Earth are dong exactly that. Climate crisis. If Mom Earth were the size of a cue ball, her atmosphere would be the thickness of a coat of varnish. Her atmosphere in not a garbage dump. And it ain't that big. And so, back to entropy and earth travel. This Otto airplane builder crew has been around the block a few times, and they hit a home run in all aspects of knowing how to construct a travel vessel with fabulous performance. By applying genius to first principles. That will put most jet aircraft out of business, and change the design of all the rest. And battery aircraft are already in the future of Tesla.
As someone who as been into aviaition and studied it since I was little, I'll have to say that using a 747 as an example for the majority of airliners is unrealistic in itself. Jumbo's such as the 747 make up a pretty small portion of the aviaition industry. Most air travel in the industry takes place on smaller aircraft such as the 737s and a320 series of aircraft (just to make the more popular ones) that being said, your point still stands even compared to those aircraft. I will certainly agree that if anything, this is simply a stepping stone in design concept that has potential to be picked up and scaled into larger, more comparable size to the commercial jet liners we see now. And I can certainly see it becoming popular among the private/corporate sector of the industry to replace private jets. It's fuel savings combined with only needing one pilot would definitely be a point of interest for most private operators. Anyway, thats just my amateur input. I love your videos and learn tons from them every time I watch. Keep up the good work!
Haha lmao. Then dive a little deeper!!! It all depends on what type of Boeing it is, commercial or transport. It depends on how much fuel to weight ratio and how much capacity of the plane is filled. It also depends on how fast the plane is flying, the wind direction and humidity. A Boeing 747 what exactly ? Because there are many versions of it. Also you say 420 miles ? But we don't calculate miles in aviation. A typical Boeing 747-8 intercontinental average range is around 7730 Nautical Miles (14310 KM). Average because as said before it heavily depends on the conditions. The max range of the Boeing 747-8 intercontinental is 9500 Nautical Miles (NM) (15000 KM) if its flying at around 900 kilometers per hour, witch it can stay in the air for 16 hours. This on great conditions the plane can fly at max 988 km/h with a cruise speed of 933 km/h. Above are the newer version of the 747-8 as the early versions where flying 900 NM less then what they can do now due to efficiency, but also due to the capabilities of the plane flying higher then ever before with a max of 43000 ft or 13000 km above sea lvl. Far most important is the flight level. Be to low and you fly thru a very dense atmosphere and you need more horsepower in order to maintain flight. Fly to high and you lose efficiency all together as the engines do not get enough oxygen making the efficiency drop enormously as a lot of fuel will not combust as it should. So the flight level and speed of the aircraft heavily depends on weather, how much the plane weights, the atmosphere and what the plane is moving around. Also keep in mind that traveling around the world the atmosphere chances constantly as you enter in now biomes. So saying that the range is simply 320-350M to 400-420M is not only (NOT) true, it is completely false!! First of because the range is not in miles but nautical miles, so NM not M. And second it also depends on what type of aircraft, its payload, its fuel to weight ratio, the atmosphere, the humidity, the wind direction, the wind speed, time of the day (day or night makes a huge difference), the aircrafts age, the altitude for cruising and sooooo many many more conditions. And you are saying that Joe Scott did not do his research right, while you yourself are to ignorant to actually weigh up all conditions of flight. I think you are the one that needs have a consult with Mr Google, not Joe Scott XD
Autonomous airplanes are more likely than autonomous cars. People behind autonomous cars are so full of it. Autonomous cars can’t even follow a turn smoothly much less react to all the random hazzards. AI in cars gets me so triggered, sorry
@@nathanchildress5596 And even with aircraft, there are times turbulence both clear air and actual storm caused turbulence shuts off autopilot as the computer can't keep up corrections caused by the jostling of the airplane. Navigation, emergency, and other issues make autonomous aircraft holding passengers holding more than 50 people somewhat unlikely until Chris's 2250 timeline. But there are drones... and they crash somewhat frequently. And I'm talking the big military drones.
People like a guy with a touch of grey in his hair as the captain of any plane. jmitterii2 is right.. even the most advanced avionics of today ask for help from the pilots sometimes. It's a long, long way off before we let computers haul us around with no one watching. Trying to do so now is a lawyers wet dream.
@@hawkdsl Right now we got things like "A Recipe for Seduction" A KFC Tale... doubtfully we can recover enough self respect to do anything valuable for the next hundred years...
I think he was making the comparison based on the questions asked in his electric plane video, and how many people commented that the Celera should have been included despite not being electric, because they believed it would reduce the number of Jumbo Jets used, and reduce carbon emissions. This video was less a "The Celera is not a replacement for large airliners", and more a "This is why I didn't include it in my other video". The comparison to the large airliners was to show how unlikely it would be for them to get replaced, and the reason for not including the Celera in his electric flight video, not as a way to condemn the Celera. That was my takeaway, at least.
@@MVargic incorrect. regional airlines use planes of this size and a bit larger. Plenty of major airlines have regional jets in the 20 seat size too. Also with dramatic reduction in the cost of chartering such executive aircraft, this will naturally open it up for less wealthy rich people to fly in such planes. So instead of my frequently flown trips from SEA to TUS for $7,000 as a one way jet charter, it could be done for more like $1500. The estimated operating cost is estimated for be $330 an hour vs $2100 a hour for the jet, though the flight would be more like 4 hours instead of 3.
2 things. 1) Its 6 business class seats which can be swapped out for normal coach seats. 2) The Celera 1000L is likely the one the airlines would be interested in to replace their jumper fleet of jets. The 500L is more aimed at small private jet replacement.
@@nitehawk86 yes, but the Brits have been using the "Mark" system since at least 1906. US Navy has been using "Mark" since at least the 1920s, it was formalized in 1944. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_(designation)
Watch the Mentour video; it looks like they can't be scaled. Something about the aerodynamics won't work at much larger scale (which is why the 1000 series Celara is only 20% larger)
The reason why the Celera is so slick and efficient is because it has laminar flow on ALL surfaces, not just the wings, not just the tail, but the fuselage and everything else touching the air. To maintain that laminar flow over the entire aircraft, the size itself has to remain small for it to work. You would need an impossibly smooth surface beyond the sizes that Otto is attempting and that's not even including the other parts of the plane on its surface, like where the wing and tail and air scoops meet the fuselage, the little instrument ports that are necessary on all aircraft, all the door and window seals, etc., that would more or less destroy that impossibly smooth surface you made. Turbulent flow is sort of like a cascade effect, one tiny burble in laminar flow and it multiplies on its own until it makes all of the flow turbulent. If a tiny gap in the door seal creates a tiny little burble, that will multiply on it's own and kill the laminar flow, but luckily that tiny burble doesn't have a chance to disrupt the laminar flow since the tail of the airplane has already left the area...in a 747 that burble might turn into fully non-laminar flow by the time its halfway to the wings, leaving the rest of the aircraft in draggy turbulent air. Continuing this example, you'd have to make that 747's door gap fit so ridiculously flush that you wouldn't be able to feel the seam with your fingernail. And that's only considering the obvious, as even the smooth sections of an aircraft need to be geometrically accurate, there can't be even the slightest imperfection, meaning any flat sections would have to be truly flat, any curved sections would have to follow that exact curve, with a margin of error lower than a coating of paint. So keeping the aircraft small is really the only practical way you can achieve laminar flow, since even the tiniest amount of imperfection will eventually end up causing non-laminar flow. By stopping a specific size, you're basically making a cutoff point at which laminar flow is too hard to practically maintain. To put that into perspective, so far this is the only aircraft I know of that has incorporated laminar flow on all surfaces, not even NASA has made a fully laminar airframe for testing purposes, so for them to manage it on their own is an engineering accomplishment. Laminar flow is, to put it mildly, the holy grail of aerodynamics.
@@albertbokor6643 Ehhhh, not off hand. This is stuff I learned when I was in college. Laminar flow is difficult to maintain when you force it to move around a body, and it gets harder to do the longer it's is in contact with said body. Basically, if you want something like a 747 length fuselage, you're going to need a surface so precise that a laser scanner couldn't detect surface imperfections, and any seams like window to body or door to body seals would have to be so exact that you wouldn't be able to feel it with your fingernail. It is theoretically possible to make a jumbo jet sized aircraft with laminar flow on all surfaces, but we're way too far off to even consider it experimentally, much less with any feasibility. Now, with smaller aircraft, you don't have to be quite as precise. Those little imperfections that set off a chain reaction of swirling eddies that multiply themselves as time goes on don't have a chance to manifest as drag inducing disturbances if your fuselage or body is small enough. The aircraft is long gone by the time those near microscopic eddies in laminar flow produced by surface imperfections become turbulent. So, while those imperfection do eventually turn laminar flow into non-laminar, the body itself doesn't see any of that drag inducing turbulence because it happens after said body is out of contact. A longer body would still be there and see that resulting non-laminar flow, all other things being the same except length. A body designed for laminar flow will exhibit higher drag coefficients through various processes than a more conventional body designed to thrive in non-laminar flow. Without going into too much detail, laminar surfaces are designed to make the air stick to the wing, and when the boundary layers begin separating and interacting with each other in non-laminar flow, it blankets everything behind it...control surfaces lose effectiveness, the body itself becomes less efficient, air stagnates in areas, etc. so unless you can get it totally right, it's better to not attempt it and use surfaces designed to work efficiently with non-laminar flow instead. This much is evident by the fact that engineers have known about laminar flow since the late 1800's and the first laminar airfoil was made for the P-51 in WWII, the advantages of laminar flow for low drag were well understood and it remains the holy grail of aerodynamics...yet laminar flow airfoils (the most advantageous body to utilize it) are still a rarity. Furthermore, the Celera is the first aircraft designed to have laminar flow not only on the wings but also on the tail, fuselage, and all the other little bits of the aircraft. Not even NASA has experimented with a fully laminar aircraft for testing purposes, which is really saying something about how ambitious Otto is with this aircraft. If one were to pursue an aircraft that's equivalent to the 737 in terms of payload, one would have to totally deviate from conventional aircraft layouts in order to make it feasible. About the only way to have an aircraft that size without going nuts making everything perfectly smooth is to limit the length that air has to travel past as mentioned above. Since you can't make it longer, you have to make up for it in width. A layout such as the Flying V would be about the only practical shape that would scale up, since the air is more or less only traveling over the chord of the wing rather than a long fuselage. It would differ from the current Flying V prototype in that the wings would need less sweep to maintain that short distance required of laminar flow. This, in addition to the already efficient design of the Flying V layout, would give it a real leg up over conventional aircraft. The Flying V is estimated to be about 30% more efficient than conventional aircraft, then the additional efficiency of total laminar flow, and you might have a real winner. The only downside is ground logistics, as it would be much wider than current aircraft and infrastructure would need a complete redesign to accommodate it.
@@waqarghulam3548 There have been significant advances in aerodynamics that use intentionally turbulent airflow to good effect, on par with laminar flow bodies. However, they are still in the theoretical/lab stages, no physical demonstrators at this point. It could be the future for large aircraft, as opposed to laminar which is primarily good for smaller bodies.
I’m an airline pilot with 25 years in the industry. I think you explanation is very good. $50 an hour for pilot wages is probably a little on the low side, however that’s speaking pre COVID. Who knows what the tutu holds.
I’m an engineer and about 7 to 8 years ago I was thinking about how I’d design my own personal aircraft (a real stretch lol) But yeah, the shape of the fuselage I figured would be a NACA 0025 profile revolved around its axis. What that does is create the largest volume to surface area ratio, in a profile (like a teardrop) that would result in a very low amount of subsonic drag. You could fill the volume up with fuel tanks, engines, cargo, whatever. I wanted to put the propeller on the back because the profile just doesn’t lend itself well to a front prop, but rear props have problems with ground strikes, so usually any benefit you get from the rear prop is omitted by weight added in landing gear. Last, yeah, if you look at subsonic lift long enough, you come to the conclusion that high aspect ratio is more efficient. So you wind up with wings like a glider, that you see here. The problem with that is structural again. So hopefully you don’t lose performance due to weight, which is why most planes don’t have glider wings. Last, high altitude flight is more efficient if you can get the propellor sorted. Air is thinner, less drag. Less lift too, but if you have enough lift, the drag will be less the higher you go. You can run a turbo to keep the engine producing power at high altitudes. Anyways, def cool to see this guy implementing those ideas. Not often you get to see industry implementing what logically makes sense on the surface. Otto is the people’s champ!
@@josorr could it be possible he is not a native speaker? Note sure if you know these but NASA believes there might bee enteligent life outside the English speaking country.
14:07 Totally agree. I highly doubt there is a silver bullet solution to climate change. We have to combine all of them. And we could introduce a CO₂-Dividend for the market to superchanrge climate-change solutions.
You can't solve a problem until you admit there is a problem. Then you need some kind of consensus that the problem is worth what it would take to solve it. Then you have to muzzle those people who say that there was no air pollution when the dinosaurs died out.
@@marccolten9801 Agree, convincing people who don't see CO₂ as a problem about a CO₂ Dividend is everything but easy. But on the other hand, many might oppose accepting climate change as a serious issue because they see the counter measures as dangerous. In this case, win-win-win solutions like a CO₂-Dividend or solutions collected by the Project Drawdown team might have a chance to win those people over?
Humbled and comprehensive as always sir joe. Bit off subject. Why aren't TH-cam viewers paid for the time it takes to load and watch ads? That's data I have to pay for and time I could have done something else with.
it might be a great option for long distance college students, unless you're going to college in a major city and live in another major city you pretty much only have three options, arrange to be transported on ground for 4-8 hours to fly a couple of hours, take greyhound (if there's one local), or drive a personal vehicle (if you have one). I'd have loved to boarded a plane at my local airport in Mississippi and fly into a local airport at my college in Kentucky. I hated arraigning all the logistics to get to college when I didn't have a personal vehicle, it usually involved finding someone traveling to the college near-ish me and getting a family member to drive a couple of hours for the rendezvous.
Uh... no, flight can be quite inexpensive. A flight from London, great Britain to Moscow, Russia is only about £277 for one person (two stops). Flight is way faster than driving or a train and it can carry way more people. If you had that many people driving a car from London to Moscow I would think that would be MORE pollution.
I totally agree with you Joe. The Celera 500L would be great choice for private\corporate planes. The design advantages of the Celera 500L should be adopted by the larger carriers.
$20M is a glaring error. $20M buys a ratted out, high-time, soon to be scrapped, 747-400, that needs $20M of maintenance followed by millions $ to keep in the air on a regular basis.
@@larryscott3982 Are those reasons: 1. Prefer safe, efficient, eco-friendly high speed rail? 2. More fun to see America up close driving your electric car? 3. Easier to stay home and experience your destination through immersive virtual reality? 4. More comfortable flying alone or with a few "friends" in your private jet? If so, sounds great.
I believe you should consider few points: 1) 747 and A340 (or whatever) cost around 2/300M $ 2) An eventual 1000L with autonomous driving will be even more convenient 2a) It may carry around 20 passengers 2b) A lot of current airplanes fly with empty seats 3) It will open a new kind of transportation (shorter and more frequent connections)
I didn't read all the comments yet, but I wanted to comment that this airplane is a stellar example of the really good gas mileage a really good designed airplane can get. To wit, really goodly other airplanes get stellar mileage like..no motor at all! Gliders. Google 'Bodies Of Rotation' s to see how they get the smoke back into the bottle. And this concept is scalable.
This channel is one of those where the presenter sounds authoritative but even a casual check of his statements shows he knows very little about airplanes, business, economics or technology. Beware.
Everyone is *dramatically* underthinking the value of this combo for the aircraft: - Autonomous flying (pilots have been redundant for tech for years; also land-based drone controllers run by airLyft / Uber Air) - VTOL - Vending machine (seriously, who'd want a flight attendant in that tiny space with you?) Then we're talking game-changer.
Interesting video. The comments caught most of the issues. I don’t know about other airlines, but the airline I fly for has 777 pilots (we don’t have 747’s) that make over $300 per hour for captains and almost $200 per hour for first officers. I would assume a747 crew would be even higher than that. Just an FYI for what it’s worth. Which isn’t much. Lol. Great video tho Joe. Love your stuff.
one big issue with the Celera design is that it can't reasonably scale that much larger than it is. there is sort of a limit to how wide and tall the aircraft body can be, and the design doesn't seem to have room to get much longer and narrower and maintain it's carefully calculated laminar flow surface. it also doesn't look like it would support multiple engines very well, which is required for larger planes. the other issue I see with it is that laminar flow is really hard to maintain because any surface roughness will trip the boundary layer into turbulent flow. that includes everything from rivets and door seams, to bugs that smash on the wing leading edge, to normal wear and tear on the aircraft, making maintenance a bit difficult. the suction from the pusher propeller does help over the body, but only so much. the aircraft feels to me like the dream of a genius aerospace engineer, which was so awesome that he wanted to apply it to everything and forgot about some practicality and scalability aspects of the design. I personally think that the Piaggio Avanti, which is in a similar size and cost class, is a much better aircraft, and at least more practical. it is also even cheaper to fly than the Celera because it is a turboprop instead of a piston engine. I think it might also be almost as aerodynamically efficient through a slightly different set of aerodynamic tricks and is nearly as fast. this is speaking as an aerospace engineering sophomore at Purdue.
- Excellent analysis I was an acrobatic pilot grounded by stroke. I'm fatigued by airplanes of amazing efficiency. The future is blended body. Also. The way to make small fortune in aviation is to begin with a large fortune.
I can tell from early views that the big hangup everyone's going to have is over the cost I state for the 747. I got it from here: www.aircraftcostcalculator.com/AircraftOperatingCosts/380/Boeing+747-400 which actually lists the used price. I also spoke to a couple of pilots that verified it. What I failed to say in the video - since I was unscripted for this one - was that I was quoting a used price.
But for the sake of argument, if you were comparing 61 Celeras to a new 747 priced closer to $250 million, that's still $50 million less for the 747.
thanks
It seems like Joe hastily made this video
Economy of scale would bring the Celera cost down for sure. Mass manufacture it
I don't like change.
747 costs more than 300 million dollars !
Disclaimer I'm not a pilot nor am I an expert on flying but I have played Microsoft flight simulator .
Same, I am literally piloting a A320 with a Xbox controller, easy stuff. /s
That's nothing Apple has a 💳 card rape simulator. Only its not a simulation they really do rape you where it counts...your wallet.
blog it sauce boss
groundpound69 reference
Pilots don't "play" flight simulator. Flight simulators are a very useful tool. The physics fidelity of flight simulator is excellent. Note you need to turn off *all* assistance if you want an actual flight sim experience.
Your an absolute idiot on the 747. The 747 is a non existent aircraft. An actual aircraft would be a 777 which costs about $300M.
You seem to assume that the current airlines would need to adopt this. That is not the case, it will be new businesses. Also the Celera would be fully autonomous. No pilot required.
He's soooo.... close to 1 million subscribers. Hopefully he reaches it before Christmas or on the day like a Christmas present
7,000 subscribers doesn’t sound close, in my opinion.
@@kevinlane1219 yea kinda true but if some video goes viral it's possible
i have 1. make my xmas by giving me 2. lol
It was 984k last Monday. I think he'll blow past a million by next week.
check out my spider video. gnarly. lol
I feel like if anything, this just replaces executive and private jets.
If anything this plane is analogous to a scaled-down prototype. Thinking of it this way, every point he made is now irrelevant.
Not at all, this design was already done as a private plane more than 50 years ago. It has a MASSIVE issue with turbulence that shakes and rattles the people inside.
Just look up the "Starship" (Not to mention there was a end of WW2 era plane that used this design, the XP-55)
That’s literally what it is
“... just replaces executive and private jets.”
First, an executive jet is private, even when it’s an airliner owned by a non-airline entity, such as Hugh Hefner’s big black bunny. Even Air Force One is considered private given it isn’t available to the public - who supposedly owns it.
... ->
Second, this hardly represents original thinking or implementation, as SilvaDreams has cited this experimental design concept dates back 50 years - and proved to be highly unstable, which is a well-known result of any specialized design whose stability and performance is optimized for a narrow band of velocity.
Well, there are still a huge number of private jets about, and if the rich or private airline companies could be encouraged to replace their wasteful 2-3mpg jets with an 18-25mpg Celera (or similarly efficient planes) that's still a step in the right direction.
A new 747 does not cost $20 million, obviously - that's the average price for a pretty old second-hand 747. A new one costs around $300 million...
The average cost of a used flight ready 747 is closer to around $75 million. You can get one that needs a few million in work and to be recertified for flight for $20million maybe but the inside would be junk so it would need a few more million to be ready to use.
How depressing. He really got my hopes up.
$20M is the price for one that's been sitting in the bone yard for over 15 years.
Yeah, I picked that up too. That is an extremely significant error and changes his calcs alot.
When you say "private jet uses 5-6 mpg" you are showing the Diamond DA42, a twin piston diesel, which is actually more like 30mpg+
opposed piston diesel plane engines, thats a new one to me
It makes sense that they started with a smaller plane, time will tell if this model can be scaled to hold hundreds of people and really disrupt the industry.
Aurora D8 is a commercial jet concept with the same design principles applied
One can't just scale up a plane without considering the SqUaRe CuBe LaW
It really cant very much, its a single engine pusher prop design.
Yes I agree, the technology is scalable
I could see corporations buying these because of the fuel, and crew savings.
Could you do a video about The green wall and desertification and projects to green the planet?
The design concept is what is exciting about this, not the first model.
That's what I thought he was going to talk about. The design of laminar flow planes not this model!
Hear hear!! 🍻💧
I'd rely on the aerospace experts, but you could get "apples to apples" by looking at the coefficient of drag (for comparative fuel efficiency) and extrapolating "predicted cost" from comparing a 6-passenger Cessna to a 747, and then using the same multiplier for a 6-passenger Otto to a .
laminar flow designs have been known about and used for decades, at least since WW2.
It's not even a new design. There was the XP-55 which is from WW2 and the again failed Beechcraft Starship.
The design has serious issues with turbulence
The Celera, if it lives up to promises, will be popular with charter, corporate and private operators.
I'm a corporate pilot, this type of aircraft is for owners who fly their own plane. Corporations are not going to be the first to try a new design, and 95% of charter companies don't buy new aircraft, the big exception is some the fractional ownership companies, but they aren't gonna to try a new design either.
@@jacksmoke3731 Good thoughts. I suppose if it gets a good rep over time then it may eventually find its way into those fleets like the PC-12...maybe.
@@jacksmoke3731 So what 10 years at the outside before they are being picked up used all over the place? That's not that long.
Also at 28mpg that's 168 people miles per gallon. The 747 gets closer to around 70 people miles per gallon.
If your goal is lower cost and you fly a lot of miles this might be huge. Fuel is most of the operating costs of these things and this uses like 1/4th what the others do. A 70% or more saving is fuel would be a game changer for a lot of small services even if the airframe was expensive compared to ones they could get a few million dollars can be made up in fuel really fast. $6 a gallon for gas at 7 people miles per gallon like a private jet vs 168 people miles per gallon is around 100,000 flight miles to break even and frankly, they are not that expensive compared to other things in their catagory.
I've been told that Celera is good in a glass of V8 cocktail.
Key issue: "if it lives up to promises." It's performance is amazing.....if true.
This aircraft's odd look is because it's actually an old airship hull (blimp) design with sailplane wings stuck on it. The rear mounted propeller works in conjunction with the unusual shape of the hull to optimize efficiency. As I understand it, the propeller affects the flow field around the hull and helps keep the boundary layer attached to maintain the laminar flow you explain so well. A rear mounted propeller can be more efficient as well, although things like the engine intakes and stabilizers just ahead of the prop adversely affect this and will cause more prop noise. The most interesting aspect for me is the funky, big upper vertical stab to keep it stable in yaw. Also weird is the fact that it is operating at a considerably different Reynold's number than an airship. At cruise speeds it would be interesting to know how much lift is created by the wings vs. the fuselage acting as a lifting body. As we all know, with adequate power, a blimp filled with air instead of helium can fly by the lift from the hull given a sufficient angle of attack.
I wanna know where Joe's getting these uber cheap $20 Million 747s
At a junkyard probably
The used market. 747s are no longer available for order new.
They probably exist but that number should be taken with a grain of salt because you aren't flying one away for that price, you are buying one that will need massive amounts of money to get back to airworthy.
Yeah.... in a few years from now youtubers will buy them as a " project". Hell I bet B for Build will have one and Ls swap it.
From John Travolta!
A 747 is more towards 200 - 250 million dollars, depending on the specs.
COST. Today, the newest model of the 747, the 747-8, is on sale from Boeing for $386.8 million US.
Heck as per a few sources they sold for 24+ million when first launched in the early 70s.
I’m very surprised That 20m number didn’t make him scratch his head? I mean a 100’ boat can cost that much..... 🤔
And by boat of course I mean yacht
@@jginda1
There are many boats more expensive than said Yacht:
th-cam.com/video/BfMJqjoOIug/w-d-xo.html
A 747 for $20M. There should be an error.
Perhaps a 747 cost 20 millions 40 years ago
from what I can find the price lands around 400M$ today
747-400 is probably closer to 200M. I think he meant to say 200 and said 20
One thing to note is that British Airways (among others) have just gotten rid of theirs, so leaving many bucks-for-bang to go with that theory...
It’s the used price, and there’s an enormous number of used 747s hitting the market right now so nobody would buy one new.
You are correct, the listing price is 400 million US dollars.
Love your show, Joe. A small point about the standard "Private Jet". It is actually a DA-42 twin-engine prop plane. The plane you showed has diesel engines and runs on jet fuel. The DA-42 at cruise burns 8.1 us gals/hr flying at 154 mph, which is 19 miles / us gal.
"It looks weird"
Function has a beauty all its own. It looks the business.
I've seen weirder planes.
Thumbs up for Brit speak
The format was great for this topic, a follow-up with reasonable detail to justify your position.
I would like to see this format again if you feel like a future follow-up is needed. Great work.
His TMI does this on the regular.
5:34 I found an error in your argument - airlines make money by getting bailed out. OK, continue.
;-)
Not even close to true. Those days have long sense past. The list of failed airlines is long and wide, including super majors like Pan Am, and TWA. The trend now is to merge. No one is getting bailed out in the US.. Unless your talking about Euro liners.
@@hawkdsl airlines literally got bailed out during the pandemic's first wave
@@davidx.1504 I'm talking about regular bail outs to save a carrier from bankruptcy. Naturally COVID is a special case, of which allot of business have received, not just the airlines. We probably agree that is also money down the drain.
@@hawkdsl didn't they also get bailed out during the great recession?
@@davidx.1504 Every industry got a pandemic bail-out package. It isn't a normal state of business
The other thing I noticed, is that the “6 passenger” configuration is in an all-first class layout. They can seat more, and Otto has plans to scale up the airplane 20% as well. For intercity flights it’s a great idea
They actually may not be able to seat more than 6. Due to it being a smaller plane, too much weight in certain areas could cause the CG to shift enough for the plane to be unstable. This isn't as much of a concern with larger aircraft as they can more easily shift their weight/balance by moving fuel to their different fuel tanks around the plane. You may be able to fit an extra person or maybe two into it, but it will likely come at the cost of luggage carry ability or range.
This is like, the only channel I consistently watch all the way through the end plate, just so I can hear Joe say "Love you guys. Take care."
Joe... I am tired and can't spin in my chair.
Viewers... Yeah okay. !
:)
He's too busy and saved time by skipping the chair spin! (Then used more to apologize for not having done it)
@@jefferstangier Only if you dont count the editing time that goes in to making the chair spin work in a video.
@@jefferstangier That's our Joe. Lol
Well, I'm not ok with that! Shame on you, Joe! ;)
@@wiedzma_nie_niewiasta I know huh.... No spin geesh... Lol That he appologizes for no spin is what makes Joe Joe....lol
My day was already going pretty bad and now here you're with yet another video without the drum roll, chair spin and that typical Joe Scott smile! 😤
* still likes the video before it even begins * ❤
Spin in your own chair guy
Well... Look like the price of th 747-400 is around 200 millions usd. The dreamliner is sold on catalogue price around 158 millions usd.
Love your video Joe
The 61 smaller planes are still more expensive tho
@4one14 Yes.. but it would be able to land in airfields very close to the destination.
I would say this is for very small airports as a feeder, plus if they make one that carries 20 ppl, then YES that would really cut it.
Never thought that one of my favorite avionic channels - mentour pilot - is going to be mentioned at my favorite YT channel! Now i feel absolutely fantastic 😄
"He worked on torpedos".
Yeah, looking at the plane, I can see it.
You think THOSE are torpedoes? You should see his wife!
Bah-dah-DUM!
well air and water are both fluids, water is just the denser of the two.
I know that when Joe says "love you guys" at end of a video he's talking to about a million people, but it somehow sounds personal.
I feel the same way about Selena Gomez but she won't respond to my letters.
It comes down to not MPG, but passenger miles per gallon. Economy of of scale.
But for charter, yeah it’s potential is big time.
He adjusted the 500l's passengers miles per gallon economy. He did it backwards by scaling up the number of 500l's but the effect on the math is the same.
And the 500L's actually did better then 747's in passenger MPG. By a lot. I'm pretty shocked.
(Except he made one mistake. the 500l's would actually be carrying about 50 more people with the pilots he forgot to tally them. Making it even better in those regards. I think it will be a design Revolution. But nowhere near replacing 747's way to small lol)
@@allhumansarejusthuman.5776
“...A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person!..”
Passenger-miles per gallon is only a thing for airliners and large corporate jets that shuttle employees between facilities like the jets that ferry people between the Fiat and Chrysler headquarters.
Private aircraft under 15 seats spend most time at partial payload, often because full fuel eats into passenger/cargo capacity. Or vice versa. This won't be flying many Part 135 flights, it's too small and expensive to fly as an unscheduled charter aircraft. It could do some scheduled air taxi stuff, though.
Its direct competition will indeed be the Pilatus PC-12 which carries 2 more in a smaller diameter fuselage and also can use unimproved airstrips. Aircraft with pusher propellers usually can't qualify for rough-field operation because the nose wheel kicks up debris that can damage the propeller. Plus they have restrictions on pitch up at rotation. The turboprop of the PC-12 is going to have a lower operating cost (ignoring fuel) due to higher overhaul hour limits and a more accessible engine with modular construction.
20 mpg is Mooney territory, but without the cramped passenger compartment of the low frontal area design of the Mooney.
The problem with laminar flow designs is that the laminar flow gets disturbed by things like bugs and dirt, ice, and even heavy rain. This can turn a slick, efficient design into one that can barely generate enough lift to maintain altitude. If you are going to want to cross the US in this, you'll want things like deicing gear that tends to disturb the airflow.
@@allhumansarejusthuman.5776 Pilots are not paying passengers, they are on the minimum equipment list along with enough flight attendants to safely manage a 90 second evacuation. A 1000 mile trip in a 747 is something you only saw in Japan on domestic routes due to air traffic congestion limiting the number of takeoff slots. Much of the fuel burn in a jet is down low where the engines are less efficient and they operate with drag-inducing stuff hanging out in the air. On longer flights the per-mile fuel burn drops quite a bit.
I'm a long time fan and subscriber, the video analysis is exactly what I like to see but if you buy a 747 for $20 mill, get it serviced before you fly it
I just wanted to thank you for the great job you do with your videos. I am just a big science nerd, an RN by profession. Binging on your videos has kept me sane. I am at home right now, recovering from cancer issues and was really getting caught up in self pity. Your interesting, educational and humorous approach to sharing science news and education has been a lifesaver for me. Thanks again! 👌
The "Hint: No" in the title got me to watch.
The fact that Joe greatly limits his usage of "clickbait" is one of the many reasons I watch this and similar channels
Comparative costs: also take-off and landing density at airports AND cost of leasing airport gate leases, plus a sundry of associated fees. Only a niche market for Celera 500L.
How about a video explaining all of your figures and decorations behind you that we've been staring at for years?
"Current Cost $ 228 million - $ 260 million U.S." according to wiki
Are you sure thats not just to develop it
@@Phlyinhigh a few billion to just to make a big change to the existing airplane.
the 787 took at least 30 billion to develop (for comparison)
I was about to say the same thing. There's no way in hell a 747 goes for $20M. One engine on the 747 is more than $20M. I know it's not his specialty, but Joe's usually better than that.
Yea but how much of that is improved electronics and how much is devaluation of our currency?
It's a number you can find by googling for prices, but it#s not a NEW plane but a preowned and probably a 20 or 25-year-old one at that.
Using standard airline seating, the Celera could probably handle up to 9 passengers, rather than the 6 it has in business charter config. Just on this video, alone, it would be more accurate to compare 1 x 747 to 40 Celeras, rather than 61.
In hauling 9 PAX instead of 6, it becomes a viable competitor to Cessna 208s and Quest Kodiaks (small commuter and light cargo segments) in addition to being a viable competitor to about 1/3 of the business aviation planes out there.
Two other comparison calculations to consider: cost of raw materials; cost to maintain;
The maintenance cost of a 747 is astronomical these days. They also get updates on a floppy disk so...
My experience is that companies can't "efficiency" their way to success...
Depends on the company/industry. There's many that work on razor thin margins.
"Efficiencying" the way to success has gone out of style in the 30s ...
What experience do you have that an inefficient company was highly successful?
Especially in the aviation industry.
@@KazCanning it's kind of like a social truth. do gamers want the most efficient computer? or do they want the one with the wasteful interior lights, and power hungry heat generating processors? do all of the Fast & the Furious wannabes drool over the most efficient car? No, one trip up the highway will tell you that they don't.
Cost of a 747 is in range 228 to 260 million, not 20 million, you are off by factor of 10 for 747 price, otherwise good video
747-8 seems to land on around 400M$
According to this site www.statista.com/statistics/273941/prices-of-boeing-aircraft-by-type/
That's a large discrepancy. Very large.
@@MrExeetor note that he didn't use a currency symbol. If he was speaking in £, it'd be roughly the same amount of money
Except that the 747 is an end of life plane and is being retired by many fleets. That price on the second hand market with faults is probably not that far off
Hjoe mentioned this in his pinned comment. He said he forgot to mention it was about used places, but a new one was still $50 million cheaper.
I personally share the opinion that we just need to figure out how to fly less. We need to invest in high speed rail. Flying should become something we do for longer trips.
well you could just invest in hyperloop high speed trains and never really have to use planes at all
@@ThaEnglishPwner hyper loop is a novel idea but it has a lot of real world issues. High speed rail is a proven technology that can be rolled out rather quickly.
Hyperloop can compete with long-haul airliners, while neither form of high speed rail can. Conventional tracked high speed rail has operational speed limits due to vibrations from the wheels on the tracks creating an unpleasant sensation for passengers, and very few will go by train if a plane is quicker and cheaper. For current forms of maglev, the extremely high cost of installing and operating the tracks means they're only economically viable in extremely high density areas, and will never be a viable option for long-distance travel.
That doesn't necessarily mean hyperloop will become a major mode of transport - at least, not on this planet.
Electric planes will be okay for short-haul, but can only become an option for long-haul if we find a way of making batteries with well over ten times the energy density of current options. This leaves two main options for long-haul travel: hyperloop, or high-efficiency planes running on sustainable fuels, and I think the latter has major advantages over the form. First, most intercontinental routes will have to use planes due to the difficulty of building a hyperloop tube under the ocean, especially if there is a tectonic plate boundary involved. Second, airliners already have a lot of ground-based infrastructure, so the amount of investment needed to get them flying is low. And third, fusion power looks set to become a viable energy source about a decade too late to become a major one, and will instead play second fiddle to renewables like solar. This is important because solar's major disadvantage - the huge summer surplus - is an advantage for anything requiring sustainable fuels, because it can be used to produce them. If fusion power were already widespread, hyperloop would be competing on a level playing field. Because solar is already a major energy source, and is set to continue growing in the future, sustainable-fuel airliners have a significant advantage.
There is one place where hyperloop does make sense though, we're just not there yet: Mars. The thin atmosphere means winged aircraft don't function well, if at all, while hyperloop tubes don't need to be as robustly engineered - and therefore expensive - as on Earth. Likewise the lack of oceans means hyperloop has few restrictions on where it can go.
Love your videos Joe! Between you and Thoughty2 I have learned so much. Ya'll have so much insight into the topics you discuss and nothing feels half-assed. Let's get this man to 1 million subscribers!
"Joe! Between you and Thoughty2"
Both are tops !! A must to Subscribe
Joe, I agree with your analysis, and your final thoughts on the real value of the Celera. Here is a sample use that I envision: I live an hours drive from Sea Tac Airport in Washington State and 20 minutes from an airport bus service. Near this bus service is a small airport that serves business jets. Let's say that I want to take my family of 4 on a trip to visit relatives in Wisconsin Rapids -- a small town that probably also has a small airport for general aviation. Right now I have to drive to the bus service, getting there 30 minutes early, then take the bus to Sea Tac, taking an hour, then spend 2 hours going through security and waiting for boarding. Then waiting on the plane for departure, and finally take off. Similar procedure in reverse on arrival in Milwaukee. But few flights go directly to Milwaukee. Last time we did this, our flight went to Kansas City which must be a few hundred miles south of a direct line from Seattle to Milwaukee. Double that for going back North. Then add in the landing in KS, layover, and plane change. That is a full day. A long day. And we still have to drive or bus a couple of hours to Wisconsin Rapids.
Now consider a Celera charter service. We take our family of four and invite a couple of friends. Or, let the charter service find a couple of people to fill the other two seats -- someone who wants to go to any small airport Between our little town and Wisconsin Rapids. We simply drive 20 minutes to the airport, arriving 10 minutes before departure. The plane lifts off about 10 minutes after boarding. They fly us directly to Wisconsin Rapids -- with possibly an hour or two spent delivering the other two people someplace else. They could fly at half speed, saving even more gas, and we would still get to Wisconsin Rapids faster than on a big jet. And fly in first class seats!
Been here since before the chopped head video.
Now almost a million subs!!
Deserved Joe!
Same here 😀
If I had this guy as a teacher, my grades would have been so much better...
Blame the teacher
@@tomservo5007 Ye but they get paid jack shit for their services, meanwhile police get like 1.5x more for "reasons"
I would have listened intently and maybe been more engaged. Then I would have gone back to not studying and doing all of my homework at the last minute.
@@firstandlastname6194 you don't see a problem with your reasoning ?
@@tomservo5007 The 'if only' first sentence of my comment followed by an immediate admittance of my own flaws in the very next sentence.
Just paraphrasing the comment because I can't tell if you actually read it.
That big project is definitely a 1mil sub special..
imagine thinking we are that important. he also said it's outside youtube
I am an old private pilot & the most important feature for the Celera is "Proof of Concept." I think this is exciting and I look forward to the 500L to be progressively scaled upward. I would give an eye-tooth to fly one.
Great video as always!...i think it's just great that they're pushing the boundaries and looking for solutions rather than just keep pumping out the same old design that just makes them money......good luck on the side project!
“Red AO3 engine” Fanfiction powers this thing? /j
Not gonn lie, I have my fingers crossed for a book.
Did you consider "factor of scale" in your comparisons?? Just curious, as Otto has already suggested they will scale-up the design.
that also scales up the fuel consumption, cost of the plane...then youl get the limits of the engine that could run off biofuels...
Perhaps but at this point it’s like replacing a semi with a fleet of compact hatchbacks - not practical.
Check out the Aurora D8, it’s a commercial jet with all the design efficiencies of the celera. Real Engineering did a great video on it
Unfortunately the design can only be scaled up so far before the laminar flow breaks down. The larger model they’re talking about making is the upper size limit for this design. Unless someone comes up with an entirely new design, that’s as large as an aircraft with laminar flow can get.
@@sunspot42 : If they can get the larger model to work financially, then someone probably will get such a design done at some point.
The fuselage and wings look like the Piaggio P.180 Avanti .
Yes
I was going to note that the fuselage looks very much like that of the Bell X-1 that Chuck Yeager flew through the sound barrier in 1947. The wings are superficially similar, but the big difference is the powerplant and propulsion: rocket engines versus a piston engine driving a prop. So you've got a choice: go slower and get a longer ride, or take a short ride and burn a lot of propellant very quickly.
The Celera would be great for that long haul trip, plus it's a lot more flexible than an airline. But that X-1 must have been one hell of a ride!
This is the best and most accessible channel of edifying videos on all of TH-cam ever. Bravo! Can;t wait to see you hit 1 million.
Joe: "I did the math and the fuel cost is slightly lower"
Me: "But what about the pilots you need for all those planes?"
Joe: "however, all those planes need pilots"
Me: "But what about autonomous flight?!"
Joe: "Things like autonomous flight might help in the future"
Me: "But!"
Joe: "But maybe this is an apples to donkey's comparison."
Me: Just listens for a minute...
Good job Joe, love to listen to you dissemble a topic!
“Open a lot of jobs for pilots” - we currently have a pilot *shortage*. Even replacing 10-to-1 for regional jets is unrealistic.
The plane's take time to manufacture and roll out. We trained tons of Pilots very quickly for each of the major Wars. They also trained tons of doctor that lasted until the mid-seventies.
It would be trivial to train 10000 Pilots if we really need to.
@@macmcleod1188 Sure. But that takes time and money - and you can't just say "hey, you, come be a pilot" - you have to give incentive.
And you can't just train to become a commercial airline pilot in six months - it takes *YEARS* to build up the experience needed to qualify as an airline pilot (note: "airline pilot" doesn't just mean 747s, it means 6-passenger puddle jumpers, too.)
Becoming an airline pilot is *EXPENSIVE*, the pilot has to pay for flight lessons all along the way. Most airline pilots I know had over $100,000 in student loans by the time they made it to "the big carriers" and finally started earning enough to pay them off.
Which means we would have to give financial incentive to draw in more pilots. Which means higher pay. Which reduces the profitability of "many small planes" over fewer large planes.
@@AnonymousFreakYT only under the current constraints. Just like developing vaccines took 3 years yet here we are 8 months later with a covid-19 vaccine rolling out. If we need Pilots, we'll have Pilots. Sure, there's a minimum time. But with smarter planes and sufficient demand we could probably have pilots in under 2 years.
B-52 and B-17 bomber Pilots flew into combat less than a year after they signed up. Their planes were put under a lot more stress and had a lot less technology.
www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/march/pilot/pilots
200 hours. Less than a year.
Pilot shortage? There’s 20,000 unemployed pilots in Europe right now. Including me. Pesky airline went bust.
@@jimlinn True, I was referring to before COVID. That is a fair point - although I imagine in the next couple years, the industry will return to pre-COVID employment levels.
Their slogan is a hype - "if we get this 6-seater done, it'll (for sure!) pave the way to similar tech in airbuses!"
FYI Sandy Munro did aviation too. Even designed his own plane, the Paradigm.
Yep, they did a lot of stuff on the Boeing 787.
I know this is a couple years old by now. Something that may have been covered in the 2,700 comments is maintenance. Your example assumes all 61 Celeras would be taken out of service for maintenance at once, just like the only 747 in your comparison. The loss of revenue during downtime would be much less than the 747. Of course, paying for 61 maintenance activities may cost more than the one session that takes out the 747 (knowing full well they aren't subjected to just one maintenance session per year). Still, that's a lot of missed revenue while that 747 isn't flying.
Living in the northeast, I would love to see 1 flight heading for Newark Liberty reduced to just 1 with 60 more heading to the hundreds of smaller airports between Richmond, VA, and Bangor, ME. Reduce layovers, put the people closer to their actual destination, and make way for smaller, far more efficient aircraft to take them there.
Great video, as always. I would have liked to have seen more about maintenance. I mean, it is powered by one diesel V12. Oh, and 2 months ago they raised the range to 5,000 nm from 4,000.
Hello Joe!
First of all, thank you for sharing this, and other videos. I appreciate them. This one especially caught my attention. I am not a pilot. However, I do hold my ABMZ along with my boating license and with forklift etc. Needless to say, I have a great interest in vehicles of all sorts.
I would like to challenge your conclusion that the Celera 500L won’t save the world. I think the potential is there, all we need to do is show interest.
In 1980, when road transport became deregulated, there was an eruption of small trucking companies forcing contract costs to drop an astounding amount. Suddenly everyone could afford to transport. Businesses bloomed, and individuals that otherwise could not afford to launch their own transport company and find a new success, independently. And with the new, larger number of trucks on the road, new trucking lanes were created.
Similarly, also in 1980, rail also met deregulation. Practically overnight old, abandoned rail lines were bought and revitalized. Smaller rail shipping companies popped up and drove the price of rail transport down.
Now, yes, it was a deregulation that led to this change, but deregulation could almost be used as a synonym for affordability in this scenario. With the advent of a plane that is affordable to fly and maintain, it instantly opens up opportunity!
Most new trucking companies are built by drivers. This could absolutely translate to pilots. Having been a professional driver for quite some time, I can say that in my experience most professional drivers (with a ‘few’ years under their belt) choose to do short haul and aim for local, home every night, routes. Becoming an Owner Operator provides that opportunity. I feel the Celera 500L could provide an owner operator option for pilots.
As I mentioned before I don’t know much about air, despite my interests, but I do think this bar has been set, and potential is in the air.
If this could be scaled up to a larger plane with similar fuel efficiency cool.
Absolutely. There's nothing very scale specific in the design.
I'm interested to see what this will do to regional airports, many of which are closing down because it's too expensive to fly private jets out of them.
Name them
@@hawkdsl Google
@@Badpoison1 Regionals that I'm aware of closing are not because it's too expensive for the carrier... it's because that particular township is closing them to make room for housing, or because of of Karen's who complain about the noise. Teterboro, Van Nuys, Telluride, Aspen, Eagle Vail, WYS, Sedona, etc are not closing.. and they are high cost over nights. So, you Google.
@@hawkdsl okay buddy
I feel like when you were doing your cost calculations you could have mentioned that if we do ever get serious about climate change jet fuel will become very expensive. I mean any serious attempt to do anything will involve a massive tax on fossil fuels. So depending on how serious we get the cost of fuel could dominate all the math.
I used to work in the airline industry (flight operations, cockpit & cabin crew scheduling) for ten years after college. I still enjoy following the airline industry, and wanted to comment that Mentour Pilot is a great website. the pilot is a captain with a European airline and flies Airbus jets. Great videos, very interesting. His wife is a former flight attendant and he includes her on some of the videos where she speaks from a cabin crew viewpoint. I highly recommend the site if you enjoy flying.
Just wanted to say thank you for fixing the mix between your intro music and voice. No longer do I have to wake up the neighbors with the intro riff just to be able to hear what you're saying.
Squadron of maintainers looking at one 747:
"Meh"
Squadron of maintainers looking at 60+ Celeras:
*Rage quits life*
did anyone catch the one fact in 3:11 about the Celera, that it can run on "Biodiesel", So, what you're saying is, it can run on Algae or soybean oil.
It's a diesel engine. Jet A is kerosene based diesel fuel. Jets could probably run on biodiesel too.
And... what do we use to farm soybeans? Internal combustion engines fueled with what?
@@Chrishelmuth1978 Diesel based farming equipment can run on biodiesel aka Soybean or algae.
Are you becoming Santa, is that your secret project? Finally after years of watching this, something worthwhile!! 🎅🎅
nah, he is become death, destroyer of worlds.
There are a couple of important concepts to know here. One is that is that air travel is, at its heart, is the lowest form of operational entropy for transportation on Earth. For example, there are aircraft that are faster that 100 m.p.h. that have no motors. Gliders .And think about it...how do humans perform maintenance or construction on their Mom Earth's air girdle. There is no such thing as trying to change the weather. Except that hersons here on Mom's Earth are dong exactly that. Climate crisis. If Mom Earth were the size of a cue ball, her atmosphere would be the thickness of a coat of varnish. Her atmosphere in not a garbage dump. And it ain't that big. And so, back to entropy and earth travel. This Otto airplane builder crew has been around the block a few times, and they hit a home run in all aspects of knowing how to construct a travel vessel with fabulous performance. By applying genius to first principles. That will put most jet aircraft out of business, and change the design of all the rest. And battery aircraft are already in the future of Tesla.
As someone who as been into aviaition and studied it since I was little, I'll have to say that using a 747 as an example for the majority of airliners is unrealistic in itself. Jumbo's such as the 747 make up a pretty small portion of the aviaition industry. Most air travel in the industry takes place on smaller aircraft such as the 737s and a320 series of aircraft (just to make the more popular ones) that being said, your point still stands even compared to those aircraft. I will certainly agree that if anything, this is simply a stepping stone in design concept that has potential to be picked up and scaled into larger, more comparable size to the commercial jet liners we see now. And I can certainly see it becoming popular among the private/corporate sector of the industry to replace private jets. It's fuel savings combined with only needing one pilot would definitely be a point of interest for most private operators.
Anyway, thats just my amateur input. I love your videos and learn tons from them every time I watch. Keep up the good work!
Ya a 747 today runs around 320-350M for an older version and the newest version is around 400-420M. Your googling has failed you this day lol
Haha lmao. Then dive a little deeper!!!
It all depends on what type of Boeing it is, commercial or transport.
It depends on how much fuel to weight ratio and how much capacity of the plane is filled.
It also depends on how fast the plane is flying, the wind direction and humidity.
A Boeing 747 what exactly ? Because there are many versions of it.
Also you say 420 miles ? But we don't calculate miles in aviation.
A typical Boeing 747-8 intercontinental average range is around 7730 Nautical Miles (14310 KM).
Average because as said before it heavily depends on the conditions. The max range of the Boeing 747-8 intercontinental is 9500 Nautical Miles (NM) (15000 KM) if its flying at around 900 kilometers per hour, witch it can stay in the air for 16 hours. This on great conditions the plane can fly at max 988 km/h with a cruise speed of 933 km/h.
Above are the newer version of the 747-8 as the early versions where flying 900 NM less then what they can do now due to efficiency, but also due to the capabilities of the plane flying higher then ever before with a max of 43000 ft or 13000 km above sea lvl.
Far most important is the flight level. Be to low and you fly thru a very dense atmosphere and you need more horsepower in order to maintain flight. Fly to high and you lose efficiency all together as the engines do not get enough oxygen making the efficiency drop enormously as a lot of fuel will not combust as it should.
So the flight level and speed of the aircraft heavily depends on weather, how much the plane weights, the atmosphere and what the plane is moving around. Also keep in mind that traveling around the world the atmosphere chances constantly as you enter in now biomes.
So saying that the range is simply 320-350M to 400-420M is not only (NOT) true, it is completely false!! First of because the range is not in miles but nautical miles, so NM not M.
And second it also depends on what type of aircraft, its payload, its fuel to weight ratio, the atmosphere, the humidity, the wind direction, the wind speed, time of the day (day or night makes a huge difference), the aircrafts age, the altitude for cruising and sooooo many many more conditions.
And you are saying that Joe Scott did not do his research right, while you yourself are to ignorant to actually weigh up all conditions of flight. I think you are the one that needs have a consult with Mr Google, not Joe Scott XD
@@TheGremlinsParadise That was a lot of words to NOT acknowledge the dude was right...and Joe utterly blew the costing of ANY 747 passenger airliner.
Boeing intends to shut down production of the 747 after the final 14 orders are filled.
"Somewhere down the line..." The year is 2250. "Self driving" rumbas are now deemed safe to infants.
Autonomous airplanes are more likely than autonomous cars. People behind autonomous cars are so full of it. Autonomous cars can’t even follow a turn smoothly much less react to all the random hazzards. AI in cars gets me so triggered, sorry
@@nathanchildress5596 Woo-Sah... breath, breath...
@@nathanchildress5596 And even with aircraft, there are times turbulence both clear air and actual storm caused turbulence shuts off autopilot as the computer can't keep up corrections caused by the jostling of the airplane.
Navigation, emergency, and other issues make autonomous aircraft holding passengers holding more than 50 people somewhat unlikely until Chris's 2250 timeline.
But there are drones... and they crash somewhat frequently. And I'm talking the big military drones.
People like a guy with a touch of grey in his hair as the captain of any plane. jmitterii2 is right.. even the most advanced avionics of today ask for help from the pilots sometimes. It's a long, long way off before we let computers haul us around with no one watching. Trying to do so now is a lawyers wet dream.
@@hawkdsl Right now we got things like "A Recipe for Seduction" A KFC Tale... doubtfully we can recover enough self respect to do anything valuable for the next hundred years...
This is a competitor to executive jets, to spend so much time comparing it to jumbo jets is odd.
I think he was making the comparison based on the questions asked in his electric plane video, and how many people commented that the Celera should have been included despite not being electric, because they believed it would reduce the number of Jumbo Jets used, and reduce carbon emissions.
This video was less a "The Celera is not a replacement for large airliners", and more a "This is why I didn't include it in my other video". The comparison to the large airliners was to show how unlikely it would be for them to get replaced, and the reason for not including the Celera in his electric flight video, not as a way to condemn the Celera. That was my takeaway, at least.
@@MVargic incorrect. regional airlines use planes of this size and a bit larger. Plenty of major airlines have regional jets in the 20 seat size too. Also with dramatic reduction in the cost of chartering such executive aircraft, this will naturally open it up for less wealthy rich people to fly in such planes. So instead of my frequently flown trips from SEA to TUS for $7,000 as a one way jet charter, it could be done for more like $1500. The estimated operating cost is estimated for be $330 an hour vs $2100 a hour for the jet, though the flight would be more like 4 hours instead of 3.
I have been following this channel for the last 3 years. Congratulations on reaching 1 million subscribers.
2 things. 1) Its 6 business class seats which can be swapped out for normal coach seats. 2) The Celera 1000L is likely the one the airlines would be interested in to replace their jumper fleet of jets. The 500L is more aimed at small private jet replacement.
btw, MK in this case is "Mark" so, a Mark 46 torpedo. "Mark" is like version number. Its a British thing, as far as I've seen.
Thank-you for flagging that - it bugged me too.
US Navy uses "Mark" a lot too. The Mark 46 has been the current anti-submarine torpedo for a lot of navys for about 40 years.
@@nitehawk86 yes, but the Brits have been using the "Mark" system since at least 1906. US Navy has been using "Mark" since at least the 1920s, it was formalized in 1944.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_(designation)
but what if the tech used to make this plane so fuel efficient can be scaled up to 747 sizes making it able to carry as many passengers?
Watch the Mentour video; it looks like they can't be scaled. Something about the aerodynamics won't work at much larger scale (which is why the 1000 series Celara is only 20% larger)
The reason why the Celera is so slick and efficient is because it has laminar flow on ALL surfaces, not just the wings, not just the tail, but the fuselage and everything else touching the air. To maintain that laminar flow over the entire aircraft, the size itself has to remain small for it to work. You would need an impossibly smooth surface beyond the sizes that Otto is attempting and that's not even including the other parts of the plane on its surface, like where the wing and tail and air scoops meet the fuselage, the little instrument ports that are necessary on all aircraft, all the door and window seals, etc., that would more or less destroy that impossibly smooth surface you made. Turbulent flow is sort of like a cascade effect, one tiny burble in laminar flow and it multiplies on its own until it makes all of the flow turbulent. If a tiny gap in the door seal creates a tiny little burble, that will multiply on it's own and kill the laminar flow, but luckily that tiny burble doesn't have a chance to disrupt the laminar flow since the tail of the airplane has already left the area...in a 747 that burble might turn into fully non-laminar flow by the time its halfway to the wings, leaving the rest of the aircraft in draggy turbulent air. Continuing this example, you'd have to make that 747's door gap fit so ridiculously flush that you wouldn't be able to feel the seam with your fingernail. And that's only considering the obvious, as even the smooth sections of an aircraft need to be geometrically accurate, there can't be even the slightest imperfection, meaning any flat sections would have to be truly flat, any curved sections would have to follow that exact curve, with a margin of error lower than a coating of paint. So keeping the aircraft small is really the only practical way you can achieve laminar flow, since even the tiniest amount of imperfection will eventually end up causing non-laminar flow. By stopping a specific size, you're basically making a cutoff point at which laminar flow is too hard to practically maintain. To put that into perspective, so far this is the only aircraft I know of that has incorporated laminar flow on all surfaces, not even NASA has made a fully laminar airframe for testing purposes, so for them to manage it on their own is an engineering accomplishment. Laminar flow is, to put it mildly, the holy grail of aerodynamics.
I see it more as a proof of concept and I’m curious that can it be scaled up?
Nope, not by much.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper Cool, you have any further sources on this?
@@albertbokor6643 Ehhhh, not off hand. This is stuff I learned when I was in college. Laminar flow is difficult to maintain when you force it to move around a body, and it gets harder to do the longer it's is in contact with said body. Basically, if you want something like a 747 length fuselage, you're going to need a surface so precise that a laser scanner couldn't detect surface imperfections, and any seams like window to body or door to body seals would have to be so exact that you wouldn't be able to feel it with your fingernail. It is theoretically possible to make a jumbo jet sized aircraft with laminar flow on all surfaces, but we're way too far off to even consider it experimentally, much less with any feasibility. Now, with smaller aircraft, you don't have to be quite as precise. Those little imperfections that set off a chain reaction of swirling eddies that multiply themselves as time goes on don't have a chance to manifest as drag inducing disturbances if your fuselage or body is small enough. The aircraft is long gone by the time those near microscopic eddies in laminar flow produced by surface imperfections become turbulent. So, while those imperfection do eventually turn laminar flow into non-laminar, the body itself doesn't see any of that drag inducing turbulence because it happens after said body is out of contact. A longer body would still be there and see that resulting non-laminar flow, all other things being the same except length. A body designed for laminar flow will exhibit higher drag coefficients through various processes than a more conventional body designed to thrive in non-laminar flow. Without going into too much detail, laminar surfaces are designed to make the air stick to the wing, and when the boundary layers begin separating and interacting with each other in non-laminar flow, it blankets everything behind it...control surfaces lose effectiveness, the body itself becomes less efficient, air stagnates in areas, etc. so unless you can get it totally right, it's better to not attempt it and use surfaces designed to work efficiently with non-laminar flow instead. This much is evident by the fact that engineers have known about laminar flow since the late 1800's and the first laminar airfoil was made for the P-51 in WWII, the advantages of laminar flow for low drag were well understood and it remains the holy grail of aerodynamics...yet laminar flow airfoils (the most advantageous body to utilize it) are still a rarity. Furthermore, the Celera is the first aircraft designed to have laminar flow not only on the wings but also on the tail, fuselage, and all the other little bits of the aircraft. Not even NASA has experimented with a fully laminar aircraft for testing purposes, which is really saying something about how ambitious Otto is with this aircraft. If one were to pursue an aircraft that's equivalent to the 737 in terms of payload, one would have to totally deviate from conventional aircraft layouts in order to make it feasible. About the only way to have an aircraft that size without going nuts making everything perfectly smooth is to limit the length that air has to travel past as mentioned above. Since you can't make it longer, you have to make up for it in width. A layout such as the Flying V would be about the only practical shape that would scale up, since the air is more or less only traveling over the chord of the wing rather than a long fuselage. It would differ from the current Flying V prototype in that the wings would need less sweep to maintain that short distance required of laminar flow. This, in addition to the already efficient design of the Flying V layout, would give it a real leg up over conventional aircraft. The Flying V is estimated to be about 30% more efficient than conventional aircraft, then the additional efficiency of total laminar flow, and you might have a real winner. The only downside is ground logistics, as it would be much wider than current aircraft and infrastructure would need a complete redesign to accommodate it.
May be, by using AI , but it does seem so.it will still need windows.
@@waqarghulam3548 There have been significant advances in aerodynamics that use intentionally turbulent airflow to good effect, on par with laminar flow bodies. However, they are still in the theoretical/lab stages, no physical demonstrators at this point. It could be the future for large aircraft, as opposed to laminar which is primarily good for smaller bodies.
I’m an airline pilot with 25 years in the industry. I think you explanation is very good. $50 an hour for pilot wages is probably a little on the low side, however that’s speaking pre COVID. Who knows what the tutu holds.
I’m an engineer and about 7 to 8 years ago I was thinking about how I’d design my own personal aircraft (a real stretch lol)
But yeah, the shape of the fuselage I figured would be a NACA 0025 profile revolved around its axis. What that does is create the largest volume to surface area ratio, in a profile (like a teardrop) that would result in a very low amount of subsonic drag. You could fill the volume up with fuel tanks, engines, cargo, whatever.
I wanted to put the propeller on the back because the profile just doesn’t lend itself well to a front prop, but rear props have problems with ground strikes, so usually any benefit you get from the rear prop is omitted by weight added in landing gear.
Last, yeah, if you look at subsonic lift long enough, you come to the conclusion that high aspect ratio is more efficient. So you wind up with wings like a glider, that you see here. The problem with that is structural again. So hopefully you don’t lose performance due to weight, which is why most planes don’t have glider wings.
Last, high altitude flight is more efficient if you can get the propellor sorted. Air is thinner, less drag. Less lift too, but if you have enough lift, the drag will be less the higher you go. You can run a turbo to keep the engine producing power at high altitudes.
Anyways, def cool to see this guy implementing those ideas. Not often you get to see industry implementing what logically makes sense on the surface. Otto is the people’s champ!
I love how clickbaity the title is and then you just destroy all of the clickbaityness. Man that‘s some messed up english. 😂
Someone that makes up words like "clickbaityness" and doesn't capitalize "English" has no business being critical of someone else's usage.
@@josorr He failed English? That's unpossible!
@@marccolten9801 No, it isn't. But it is unprobable.
@@josorr could it be possible he is not a native speaker? Note sure if you know these but NASA believes there might bee enteligent life outside the English speaking country.
@@josorr Never start a sentence with but .
14:07 Totally agree. I highly doubt there is a silver bullet solution to climate change. We have to combine all of them.
And we could introduce a CO₂-Dividend for the market to superchanrge climate-change solutions.
You can't solve a problem until you admit there is a problem. Then you need some kind of consensus that the problem is worth what it would take to solve it.
Then you have to muzzle those people who say that there was no air pollution when the dinosaurs died out.
@@marccolten9801 Agree, convincing people who don't see CO₂ as a problem about a CO₂ Dividend is everything but easy.
But on the other hand, many might oppose accepting climate change as a serious issue because they see the counter measures as dangerous. In this case, win-win-win solutions like a CO₂-Dividend or solutions collected by the Project Drawdown team might have a chance to win those people over?
Stop dying your hair, let it gray naturally.
He can do what he wants.
@@jerry3790 And I can suggest what I want.
@@Rattus-Norvegicus That is correct
Humbled and comprehensive as always sir joe.
Bit off subject.
Why aren't TH-cam viewers paid for the time it takes to load and watch ads? That's data I have to pay for and time I could have done something else with.
it might be a great option for long distance college students, unless you're going to college in a major city and live in another major city you pretty much only have three options, arrange to be transported on ground for 4-8 hours to fly a couple of hours, take greyhound (if there's one local), or drive a personal vehicle (if you have one).
I'd have loved to boarded a plane at my local airport in Mississippi and fly into a local airport at my college in Kentucky. I hated arraigning all the logistics to get to college when I didn't have a personal vehicle, it usually involved finding someone traveling to the college near-ish me and getting a family member to drive a couple of hours for the rendezvous.
First with 1000 others
first with 6,128 others
The best way to reduce the costs and pollution of flying is simple: don't fly. Most flight is luxury, not necessity.
Uh... no, flight can be quite inexpensive. A flight from London, great Britain to Moscow, Russia is only about £277 for one person (two stops). Flight is way faster than driving or a train and it can carry way more people. If you had that many people driving a car from London to Moscow I would think that would be MORE pollution.
@@Mynameaintcraig1323 Who really needs to fly from London to Moscow? It's a luxury at the expense of life on Earth.
Maybe
WHY SO MANY COMMENTS ALREADY? :D
Because he is popular :D
Patreon. Maybe a DisCord?
I totally agree with you Joe. The Celera 500L would be great choice for private\corporate planes. The design advantages of the Celera 500L should be adopted by the larger carriers.
the real question we should be asking is, could the Celera be scaled up to the size of a 747 or bigger...
We need to face the sad reality of that airplane. Everyone inside the plane is definitely going to smell each others farts
And this is a bad this how exactly?
I want my spinning chair intro!!! Unsubscr.... Oh nevermind this is still pretty good.
$20M is a glaring error.
$20M buys a ratted out, high-time, soon to be scrapped, 747-400, that needs $20M of maintenance followed by millions $ to keep in the air on a regular basis.
tought the same thing
Why I don't fly.
@@marccolten9801
There’s a lot more reasons to not fly commercial.
@@larryscott3982 Are those reasons:
1. Prefer safe, efficient, eco-friendly high speed rail?
2. More fun to see America up close driving your electric car?
3. Easier to stay home and experience your destination through immersive virtual reality?
4. More comfortable flying alone or with a few "friends" in your private jet?
If so, sounds great.
I believe you should consider few points:
1) 747 and A340 (or whatever) cost around 2/300M $
2) An eventual 1000L with autonomous driving will be even more convenient
2a) It may carry around 20 passengers
2b) A lot of current airplanes fly with empty seats
3) It will open a new kind of transportation (shorter and more frequent connections)
I didn't read all the comments yet, but I wanted to comment that this airplane is a stellar example of the really good gas mileage a really good designed airplane can get. To wit, really goodly other airplanes get stellar mileage like..no motor at all! Gliders. Google 'Bodies Of Rotation' s to see how they get the smoke back into the bottle. And this concept is scalable.
This channel is one of those where the presenter sounds authoritative but even a casual check of his statements shows he knows very little about airplanes, business, economics or technology. Beware.
3 min on info and it shows
Or engineering. There are little airplanes, big airplanes. Little drones that run 24 hrs, big drones...24 hrs. Scale it...more economy.
21 Pilots Joke: 61 Pilots Huh? Sounds like they finally got off their asses at got a real job.
Please start a channel on Rumble.com, I’m done with TH-cam. I’d really prefer to not stop watching what you publish....
Really big project?!? ANOTHER MOVIE?!?! That would be too good though... But yeah... ANOTHER MOVIE?!?!
Everyone is *dramatically* underthinking the value of this combo for the aircraft:
- Autonomous flying (pilots have been redundant for tech for years; also land-based drone controllers run by airLyft / Uber Air)
- VTOL
- Vending machine (seriously, who'd want a flight attendant in that tiny space with you?)
Then we're talking game-changer.
Soooo nice to watch youtube videos and not experience a pain in your cranium that feels like imploding brain cells. Thanks Joe.
Interesting video. The comments caught most of the issues.
I don’t know about other airlines, but the airline I fly for has 777 pilots (we don’t have 747’s) that make over $300 per hour for captains and almost $200 per hour for first officers. I would assume a747 crew would be even higher than that.
Just an FYI for what it’s worth. Which isn’t much. Lol.
Great video tho Joe. Love your stuff.
Airline industry only takes up 2.5% of carbon emissions so maybe we should focus on bigger contributors.
Doesn't stop people from going after AR15s
one big issue with the Celera design is that it can't reasonably scale that much larger than it is. there is sort of a limit to how wide and tall the aircraft body can be, and the design doesn't seem to have room to get much longer and narrower and maintain it's carefully calculated laminar flow surface. it also doesn't look like it would support multiple engines very well, which is required for larger planes.
the other issue I see with it is that laminar flow is really hard to maintain because any surface roughness will trip the boundary layer into turbulent flow. that includes everything from rivets and door seams, to bugs that smash on the wing leading edge, to normal wear and tear on the aircraft, making maintenance a bit difficult. the suction from the pusher propeller does help over the body, but only so much. the aircraft feels to me like the dream of a genius aerospace engineer, which was so awesome that he wanted to apply it to everything and forgot about some practicality and scalability aspects of the design.
I personally think that the Piaggio Avanti, which is in a similar size and cost class, is a much better aircraft, and at least more practical. it is also even cheaper to fly than the Celera because it is a turboprop instead of a piston engine. I think it might also be almost as aerodynamically efficient through a slightly different set of aerodynamic tricks and is nearly as fast.
this is speaking as an aerospace engineering sophomore at Purdue.
- Excellent analysis
I was an acrobatic pilot grounded by stroke. I'm fatigued by airplanes of amazing efficiency. The future is blended body. Also. The way to make small fortune in aviation is to begin with a large fortune.