from the make-sure-to-wipe-off-the-bugs dept.
As reported by https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36016/the-potentially-revolutionary-celera-500l-officially-breaks-cover a possible competitor for the private business jet is now being test flown. It's a pusher-prop plane, but it looks strange due to laminar flow fuselage and very high-aspect-ratio (long, skinny) wings. A high efficiency turbo-diesel engine gives claimed cruise speed of 450 miles/hour (700+kph) at 18-25 miles per US gallon, compare to 2-3 mpg for typical business jets. With this high fuel efficiency, range is 4500 miles and operating costs are projected to be less than 20% of typical small jet. The prototype seats six, similar to other small business aircraft.
Company site at https://www.ottoaviation.com/ says:
Otto Aviation's goal is to create a private aircraft that allows for direct flights between any city pair in the U.S. at speeds and cost comparable to commercial air travel. This takes a complete reinvention of how we fly and an unprecedented look at what private aviation can be.
Think about this, if they succeed, it will undercut the large commercial aircraft companies (which make the equivalent of buses) with the option for a small group to fly privately for about the same cost (like a minivan).
Your AC submitter had the chance to fly private a few times in the past, it is a completely different experience than commercial flight. Starting with free parking at the general aviation terminal we then had a short chat with the receptionist and the pilots. Within 10 minutes we were on the plane and taxiing out for take-off. Not a hint of security and no lines in sight. When we landed at a small airport near our final destination, the rental car was waiting about 50 feet away.
On the flip side, Otto are developing a new airframe and a new engine at the same time--something that, historically, has gone wrong many times in the past.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @05:33PM (1 child)
Without security, how do you know ecoterrorists didn't fill the cabin air with Coronaids to kill you off for being rich?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @07:17PM
Um, you watch the pilots air out the cabin before you get in? No jetway, you can walk around the plane before you climb up a few steps to get in.
Better still, if you are a frequent flyer, there's a good chance you will get to know the pilots.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @06:04PM (14 children)
It's been done before, with the Rutan-influenced Piaggio Avanti. If you haven't heard of it, that tells you how successful it was. But the Avanti ended up with a bloated, awkward design that lost most of the benefits it wanted to achieve except for low noise. It's almost certainly possible to do better.
That doesn't mean that the concept is bad. Pusher props aren't quite as quiet as a modern turbofan, but they're much quieter than traditional propellers, and far more efficient than jets. Combined with an efficient piston engine, they might be extremely cost effective. Still, pusher props are the knuckleballers of aviation. There's always one or two around, and they have their advantages, but they aren't really better, just different. And different for the sake of different will never take over. They seem like they ought to be more efficient, but they aren't, and the noise advantage is matched by a corresponding disadvantage in takeoff and landing performance (higher speeds required, meaning longer runways needed).
450 mph is at the upper end of what can be done with propellers, and far in excess of what is normally done with piston engines outside of racing and World War 2. On top of that, they're trying to do it with diesel, which makes sense because diesels can run on jet fuel instead of gasoline (this is a huge advantage), but aviation diesels have never really worked well. This is why turboprops are a thing.
A few light aircraft can exceed 20 mpg, but at half the speed. And those are two or four seaters. Unless they meant per seat-mile, but in that case they're not really doing better than regular jets. The claim of fuel economy just doesn't make sense - it's too high to be plausible for the whole aircraft, and too low to be a selling point per seat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @06:13PM
Addendum, pusher props are quiet in the cabin - not outside the plane, where they tend to be noisy. This is a mixed benefit, because ground noise is a concern.
(Score: 5, Informative) by RS3 on Sunday September 06 2020, @07:07PM (8 children)
You're quite the negative Nelly, considering how awesome this plane is.
The Piaggio Avanti is a different plane, 2 wing-mounted engines, different engines, different fuselage, different market, different almost everything.
You keep mentioning prop noise, but remember, this plane can cruise far above where people would hear it. If you live under the takeoff path, well, don't do that.
This is NOT your father's diesel! Well worth a glance- very easy read: https://red-aircraft.com/?lang=en [red-aircraft.com]
12 small cylinders means you don't need anywhere near the heavy iron block and heads to deal with typically HUGE diesel pistons and cylinders, long-stroke crankshaft, etc. Proof: it's all-aluminum.
And multi-stage turbo results in much more HP per unit weight. :) And better fuel efficiency.
And, the 2 banks of 6 cylinders can operate independently if necessary.
This plane is a game-changer. Most impressive. I want one now. Maybe I'll contact the Make a Wish foundation. :)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @07:19PM (2 children)
> Maybe I'll contact the Make a Wish foundation. :)
I'll go in with you, maybe we start a Soylent News flying club!
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday September 06 2020, @08:02PM (1 child)
Flying club? You mean the kind we'll use to clobber trolls? That plane kind of looks like a club. I'm so confused. :)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2020, @05:01AM
I think he just offered to fuck you in the bathrooms.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fakefuck39 on Monday September 07 2020, @12:22AM
The speed, fuel utilization, and cruising height are separate specs. It's not doing 450 at 25 per gallon at 50k ft while traveling 4500mi. A propeller does not do well at 50k ft. What this is instead of a game-changer is a VC money grab with misleading marketing. There was a good discussion about this on NH like a month ago.
The whole "cost of airline ticket is bs too. That's the operational cost of the plane - the cost of a full-price Y-class airline ticket. Which is high anywise. But then to that cost, you add the cost of pilots and operator margin, and you're at the price above a 1st class ticket. So again, marketing hype.
With their underpowered engine, they will also take a thousand miles to reach their optimized cruising altitude of 50k, and go at maybe 200mph up there, since the fan up the ass doesn't perform well in thin air.
And this isn't a new engine. They just added another stage to the engine powering the YAK-152.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday September 07 2020, @11:06AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday September 07 2020, @12:39PM
Yeah- I see it as several steps of engineering refinement. Nice to see. I particularly like the MPG. Only thing I wonder about is the engine-off glide path; IE, does it drop like a rock. I suspect it glides pretty well.
Some years ago I worked for a guy who owned a Cessna Skymaster and I loved that thing. His had everything- pressurized, turbos, variable prop pitch, 'retractable' landing gear, autopilot, I forget the rest. Cruised 220 kn or so at FL220. Took several trips in it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Monday September 07 2020, @03:49PM (1 child)
It would be nice if they has resurrected the Napier Nomad II [wikipedia.org]
Paraphrasing from Wikipedia:
The Napier Nomad II was a diesel aircraft engine designed and built by Napier & Son in 1949. They combined a piston engine with a turbine to recover energy from the exhaust and thereby improve fuel economy. The Nomad II, using the turbo-compound principle, coupled the two parts to drive a single propeller. The Nomad II had the lowest specific fuel consumption figures seen up to that time.
Power output: 3140 hp
Specific fuel consumption: 0.340 lb/(hp.h)
Efficiency: 40.7 %
It would, however, be a little oversized for this application.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday September 07 2020, @05:23PM
Wow, what a contraption! Thanks, I'd never heard of that. The Otto designers and / or the Raikhlin engine people must have known of the Napier Nomad II and been inspired. What I mostly like about the Celera 500L, like I commented above, it the significant engineering refinement that has gone into it. All my life I've seen and heard about this and that cool technological / scientific development, but airplanes, from smallest to biggest, are pretty much same old same old. Sure, here and there someone builds their own ultralight or whatever, but IMHO it's rare that lots of good ideas are brought together well, fairly quickly, to produce something like that. One of the reasons I like Musk so much- and really I don't know much about him personally, but obviously he's the type to bring people together in a coordinated way to get major stuff done, and really well. Can you imagine what could be done in, oh say medicine, if someone could assemble such a team with such great ideas? It doesn't have to be futuristic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @07:14PM (3 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti [wikipedia.org]
Looks like they've sold a couple of hundred of these, so not a complete flop. Uses similar engines to a turboprop King Air, but goes ~100 knots faster and uses much less fuel. Wiki seems to agree with you on noise, while objectively it may be a little quieter (dBa), the sound character is irritating:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @07:25PM (1 child)
"to fingernails on a chalkboard"
Has anyone else ever heard the early turboprop Viscount? I think that was the plane I remember hearing as a kid (c.1960). My dad flew for business and mom would take me along to meet him. The airport had an outside balcony where you could watch the planes land and taxi to the gate. The external noise was a shriek, mix of the turbine noise and the gear reduction for the prop drive, I guess. Or maybe I'm thinking of another shrieking turboprop plane?
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday September 07 2020, @02:02AM
The XF-84H Thunderscreech?
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday September 07 2020, @05:38PM
I do know where I am- SN (Speculation News), but too many here like to sound off (no pun intended) hoping to be right and someday say "I told them, but they wouldn't listen".
In fact, y'all are comparing apples to oranges. The Piaggio Avanti IS noisy because of the WING MOUNTED engines and propellers. The Celera 500L prop will function in much more laminar airflow and be much quieter. And many more refinements may come, including some exotic prop designs (if you've ever seen any glimpses of silent submarine props...) The only drawback I see is that pilots need to be much more careful landing- that they don't "tailstrike" and hit the prop. But that might be improved on too.
https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/aircraft-propulsion/otto-takes-wraps-slippery-fuel-sipping-celera-500l [aviationweek.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @06:06PM (8 children)
Nothing says "You've made it" quite like a private jet. Somehow I don't think parity with the commercial cow transporters is the point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @07:02PM
From what I read, they are not trying to compete directly with biz jets, those will remain tools and status symbols for the rich. Instead, they want to grow the general aviation market -- a family group could go on holiday for similar price to commercial airlines, but avoid the hassle of the airport with kids. Also, by going to a smaller field, possibly get much closer to the final destination.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2020, @07:26PM (5 children)
It appears to me that you are conflating three different business markets.
Private jets, owned by individuals, are a status symbol, to be sure.
Business owned planes presumably enable the business to pursue it's mission. Business expenditures generally have to be justified, as opposed to private jets which don't have to be justified to anyone.
Commercial cattle cars are something outside the scope of either private ownership, or business ownership. Cattle carriers don't survive without a helluva lot of government subsidy and assignment of monopoly rights. Cattle carriers were initially very excited over the 737 MAX. Private owners and business owners had zero interest in such a craft.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2020, @07:27PM (2 children)
Just remove the word "business" from that first sentence. Sorry.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2020, @12:12AM
That's OK, Runaway! Happens when you get older. That, and thinking you have something to tell those young people who won't get off your
lawnrunaway. Runaway Aviation expert. Just like driving a truck! It Depends!(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2020, @05:03AM
Don't worry, we removed all of the sentences. Did you even have a point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2020, @06:23PM (1 child)
That was a bad idea and delayed widespread access to air travel for decades. Luckily, they got rid of it recently... in 1978.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 07 2020, @07:43PM
Regulation, or deregulation, is no indication of the presence of subsidies.
https://www.enotrans.org/eno-resources/federal-government-subsidize-air-service-small-communities/ [enotrans.org]
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/23/us-airlines-crony-capitalism-and-subsidies/ [washingtontimes.com]
https://skift.com/2015/04/09/wikileaks-disclosure-shows-u-s-airlines-received-billions-in-subsidies/ [skift.com]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/17/government-airline-subsidies-so-what/#4a064bcd1f5f [forbes.com]
https://www.chromeriver.com/blog/do-taxpayers-support-a-big-chunk-of-the-airline-industry [chromeriver.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday September 07 2020, @06:56PM
But in this day, there is so much shaming based on CO2 emissions that a fuel efficient private aircraft will become the hottest shit. Similar to the Prius becoming a status symbol 10 years ago, you could have a Celera and say you are just as fuel efficient as the masses but enjoying the comfort of your own vehicle.
Also, when it comes to private jets, a lot of the cost comes from the service and amenities. If you want to throw some money around I'm sure Celera will build a luxury version for you.
(Score: 4, Informative) by dltaylor on Sunday September 06 2020, @09:06PM
The real mold-breaker for business travel was Beechcraft, with the Starship. Not a commercial success, alas, but it had not only a pusher layout, but composite construction, back in the early 1980s. Not sure how they thought insurance was going to work, since the companies had no data for the actuaries to produce rates for something like that. Might have made it possible for other manufacturers to have something to compare their planes against.
A few are still still flying. There is a decent article about it on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship#cite_note-POH-46 [wikipedia.org], although it is funny that they list a stall speed in the "Performance" section, since the airplane literally could not stall as an intended effect of the design.
Pretty picture (credits in photo) here:
http://www.air-and-space.com/20040621%20Mojave/DSC_1383%20Starship%20N514RS%20left%20rear%20in%20flight%20l.jpg [air-and-space.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @09:16PM
They say about private use, but I'm wondering about the possibilities of commercial flights in one of these.
A small capacity low running cost plane might make more regional flights commercially viable.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2020, @10:33PM (1 child)
Why is it that only white people are able to afford things like private jets? It's just another way black people are discriminated against. Private jets are racist.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by driverless on Monday September 07 2020, @02:09AM
And have you looked at the colour they're all painted? White's everywhere. The only black things flying are the black helicopters the government uses to spray chemtrails over suburbs.
(Score: 1) by Billy the Mountain on Sunday September 06 2020, @11:22PM (2 children)
This plane looks like it was sourced from parts in a junkyard. About the only positive I can say is it's symetrical. If the plane assaults the eye such as this one does, it's not going to perform well. Neither in the air nor the market.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2020, @04:59AM (1 child)
> assaults the eye
Looks damn pretty to me, and very low air drag as long as the surface is smooth and clean. But then I've built some things that included laminar flow airfoil shapes and I'm used to looking at the max thickness (or diameter) somewhat aft of the mid-length point.
Just 'cause it's different doesn't make it bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2020, @05:05AM
> I'm used to looking at the max thickness (or diameter) somewhat aft of the mid-length point.
You had me at max thickness.