The Otto Aviation Celera 500L

No one is going to trade their G550 for one of these, but if a company along the lines of Wheels Up buys a fleet of them, and markets them correctly, I could see them being very popular with the new to charter crowd. Assuming the performance they are predicting holds true.
 
Groundpounder said:
No one is going to trade their G550 for one of these, but if a company along the lines of Wheels Up buys a fleet of them, and markets them correctly, I could see them being very popular with the new to charter crowd. Assuming the performance they are predicting holds true.
Click to expand...

The TBM 700 is a comparable airplane with a high cruise of 350 mph airplane on 700 hp. I struggle to understand how the Celera is gonna go 100 mph faster on 200 fewer HP. But, even at 350 MPH, it would be a pretty quick point to point airplane East of the Rockies or along the West coast.
 
From what I understand, the speed (450 mph) will be achieved at 65,000 ft. Assuming the plane can climb at 2000 fpm all the way up (doubtful), it will take >30 min of climbing at a slower speed and higher fuel burn.
 
MountainDude said:
From what I understand, the speed (450 mph) will be achieved at 65,000 ft. Assuming the plane can climb at 2000 fpm all the way up (doubtful), it will take >30 min of climbing at a slower speed and higher fuel burn.
Click to expand...

Where'd you find the 65K' reference? That's a ridiculously high number for umpteen reasons. The military won't go that high without pressure suits.

And at some point you get into critical mach numbers and coffin corner. Where's @nauga when you need him?
 
kyleb said:
Where'd you find the 65K' reference? That's a ridiculously high number for umpteen reasons. The military won't go that high without pressure suits.

And at some point you get into critical mach numbers and coffin corner. Where's @nauga when you need him?
Click to expand...

The performance figures are all derived from the patent filing, I believe.

I'd have more faith in their ability to come up with something marketable if their claims were more conservative. I don't believe that current designs are leaving that much on the table.

Just looking at the engine, the Wikipedia entry for the RED A03 engine gives a specific fuel consumption value of 210/g/kWh, while a similar size Pratt and Whitney PT6 is around 380/g/kWh. That's a quite a bit less, but then on their web site they state it uses "up to 8 times less" fuel than jet aircraft. Maybe that's true when you compare it to an early Jetstar, but not when you look at a PC12, which is a more realistic comparison.
 
kyleb said:
The TBM 700 is a comparable airplane with a high cruise of 350 mph airplane on 700 hp. I struggle to understand how the Celera is gonna go 100 mph faster on 200 fewer HP.
Click to expand...

Much much lower drag. At least that's the idea.
 
Tantalum said:
Yeah, Celera is banking heavily on that unorthodox shape for its claims.
Click to expand...

Speed increases with the cube root of the of HP increase. So, to go 30% faster, you'd need twice the HP if the drag profile doesn't change.

Think about that relative to the TBM700. The Celera plans to go 1/3 faster on 71% of the HP. It isn't like the TBM is a drag monster. It is a pretty clean aircraft in its own right.
 
kyleb said:
Speed increases with the cube root of the of HP increase. So, to go 30% faster, you'd need twice the HP if the drag profile doesn't change.

Think about that relative to the TBM700. The Celera plans to go 1/3 faster on 71% of the HP. It isn't like the TBM is a drag monster. It is a pretty clean aircraft in its own right.
Click to expand...

*at twice the altitude.

Also, from their website:

EXTENSIVE USE OF LAMINAR FLOW SURFACES RESULTS IN A ~59% REDUCTION IN DRAG COMPARED TO A SIMILAR-SIZED CONVENTIONAL AIRCRAFT
Click to expand...

No clue what conventional aircraft they're comparing it to
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
*at twice the altitude.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. But twice the altitude isn't realistic or practical for a bunch of reasons.

I'd love to see their projections for sub-RVSM altitudes. Not that they can't equip it for RVSM, but...
 
Wow, quite an aggressive air frame in terms of changing things up. Looks like a great design to reduce flow separation as much as possible, which is probably why they believe they will get the speed, range, fuel economy. That back end has be wondering how they are going to deal with tail strikes. They are almost asking for it imo.
 
Anyone know where the 65,000ft came from? The engine website mentions up to 50,000ft capability.
 
Rocketman4992 said:
That back end has be wondering how they are going to deal with tail strikes. They are almost asking for it imo.
Click to expand...

I’m wondering if that’s not deliberately built that way to protect the prop.
 
Tantalum said:
Yeah, Celera is banking heavily on that unorthodox shape for its claims.
Click to expand...

Yes! The problem with the "unorthodox shape" idea is that a modern tube fuselage has a Cd as low as 0.022 and is generally not the major contributor to total airframe drag. Creating lift is. Additionally, cooling drag is a major factor with certain engine designs (pistons, for example)

It's interesting to compare the various airliner designs that eliminate the fuselage entirely and place passengers in the wing, reducing drag by about 20%. However, as always, the way the drag reduction happens may be intentionally unclear. It's by the downsizing of the airframe itself (for a given passenger load) , and not by it's shape.
 
cujet said:
Yes! The problem with the "unorthodox shape" idea is that a modern tube fuselage has a Cd as low as 0.022 and is generally not the major contributor to total airframe drag. Creating lift is. Additionally, cooling drag is a major factor with certain engine designs (pistons, for example)

It's interesting to compare the various airliner designs that eliminate the fuselage entirely and place passengers in the wing, reducing drag by about 20%. However, as always, the way the drag reduction happens may be intentionally unclear. It's by the downsizing of the airframe itself (for a given passenger load) , and not by it's shape.
Click to expand...
I think the Piaggio Avanti has a very efficient, and somewhat unorthodox shape.. IE, rather than try and make the "tube" more efficient they made is such that the tube contributes 20% of the lift and thus they have a smaller wing which creates less drag

This is an underappreciated plane.. crazy fast, good performance, and sips gas, despite having two engines. This guy has probably the best, and most comprehensive, and least annoying CLICKBAIT SMASH THE LIKE button videos out there

It says walk around but he spends a lot of time walking through the cockpit
 
It's good to note that turbodiesel engines, such as used in the Celera, can be configured to make rated HP at any normal altitude we would use. The higher the plane goes, the faster it will go for a given HP (to a point of course) . This is unlike a PT-6, for example. Which may be flat rated to 10-12K ft or so, and after that is subject to normal lapse rate HP losses. It's just a matter of turbocharger/supercharger and intercooler workload. And of course, the associated increased cooling drag. There are some difficulties with high altitude compression ignition engine (diesel) use, including the inability to re-start above 14-16K feet. And the requirement to carry power on descent, to prevent flameout.
 
As I understand the Piaggio Avanti, it’s the layout of the three wings, combined with the weight & balance, that greatly benefits efficiency because all three wings are lifting surfaces. Contrast that with the traditional layout where the main wing is pulling up, while the horizontal stab is pushing down, which results in greater drag compared to the Avanti.

In any case, the Avanti is a cool plane.
 
Tantalum said:
I think the Piaggio Avanti has a very efficient, and somewhat unorthodox shape..
Click to expand...

I'm based at PBI, and Piaggio was based in our hangar for many years. I absolutely love the "idea" of the Piaggio, love the look and I believe the idea should be refined to perfection.

But again, it's good to let reality settle in for a bit. The Piaggio has 2ea. 1600HP engines on an airframe that is not all that much bigger than the Celera, engines that also produce significant jet thrust (unlike the Celera which has cooling drag) . The Piaggio climb/descent profile is nothing like a jet, but rather like any other turboprop. Piaggio's 400Kts cruise is possible in the low FL300's, but 350kts is the "efficient" speed. What you get is a 3 hour trip vs 2 hour trip in a jet, due to the above. The total fuel burn is lower per hour, but not that much lower per trip. And you have the substantial additional cost of regular prop overhauls. That alone purchases a lot of fuel!

Those who design aircraft would do well to remember that many of these ideas have been tried in the past and the results are well understood. The trend towards jets is a good one for many reasons, including the performance in weather/icing conditions. Props are props and jets are jets.
 
WillFly4Food said:
...all three wings are lifting surfaces. Contrast that with the traditional layout where the main wing is pulling up, while the horizontal stab is pushing down, which results in greater drag compared to the Avanti.
Click to expand...
A well-designed two-surface airplane requires minimal downforce in trimmed level flight, so the increased lift on the main wing should not be a big hit to efficiency. As for all surfaces lifting, drag is inversely proportional to aspect ratio, so letting a high aspect ratio wing do the majority of the lifting is going to be the most efficient. Same idea applies to a fuselage - better to spend time reducing drag than increasing lift on a fuselage, let the most efficient surface do the lifting.

Nauga,
and trim drag
 
deyoung said:
And a 22:1 glide would definitely be nice, and a nice bonus if you're worried about reliability -- that's a glide range of about 75 miles from 18,000 ft (AGL); you're pretty likely to be able to find an airport somewhere within that in most areas.
Click to expand...

Even in the TBM at 14:1, generally in cruise (FL300-310) we have around 70 miles of glide available, and most of the time if I'm looking at the glide ring up there, it's a matter of "which airline airport is more likely to get my passengers home today?" more so than "is there somewhere I can land safely?" a 70nm circle anywhere east of the Missouri River gives you a TON of options.

WDD said:
Not sure. I do know jets replaced pistons - in addition to other reasons - because of economics of operation. Lower maintenance costs, longer time between overhaul, etc
Click to expand...

Eh, not really. Reliability is the name of the game. Less scheduled maintenance, less unscheduled maintenance! That keeps the planes flying and making money.

But, for example, the PT6 requires a hot section inspection at 1800 hours, and an overhaul at 3600 hours. NOT optional the way it is with pistons. @Ted DuPuis can surely tell us what the low end is on a hot section, but an overhaul is certainly going to be well into six figures, or seven figures if it got abused.

In addition, the fuel cost is quite a bit higher. We burn around 90gph at takeoff to get 850 shp, down to maybe 52 gph in cruise (at maybe 86% torque, so 730shp). Pure jets are worse.

kyleb said:
The TBM 700 is a comparable airplane with a high cruise of 350 mph airplane on 700 hp. I struggle to understand how the Celera is gonna go 100 mph faster on 200 fewer HP. But, even at 350 MPH, it would be a pretty quick point to point airplane East of the Rockies or along the West coast.
Click to expand...

Altitude.

However, I think that 450 is really a marketing number. We fly in the neighborhood of FL300, where about 70% of the atmosphere is already below us. at FL650, 95% of the atmosphere is below you.

Ideally, you'd have enough engine power to get to where cruise is at L/dmax... But unless you have a REALLY long leg to fly, it wouldn't be worth it to go that high.

I wish them luck, though. I like it when people at least try to break the mold a little.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I wish them luck, though. I like it when people at least try to break the mold a little.
Click to expand...
Yes! That's why, even though our friend Peter has questionable practices and often gives us head scratchers, I appreciate that he's pushing the envelope on his own too
 
We don’t know yet. Haven’t seen any performance figures get released.
 
I can’t find any record of it actually flying. There is the claim that it has flown 31 times, repeated across a wide variety of blogs that just cite to each other. FlightAware has a position-only flight for N818WM but that was in 2015 near Houston. If it’s flying in Southern California in 2020, it is hard to imagine airspace where ADS-B isn’t mandatory. If it’s flying in or above Class A airspace, it should be on an IFR clearance. If it has flown, where is the proof?
 
iamtheari said:
I can’t find any record of it actually flying. There is the claim that it has flown 31 times, repeated across a wide variety of blogs that just cite to each other. FlightAware has a position-only flight for N818WM but that was in 2015 near Houston. If it’s flying in Southern California in 2020, it is hard to imagine airspace where ADS-B isn’t mandatory. If it’s flying in or above Class A airspace, it should be on an IFR clearance. If it has flown, where is the proof?
Click to expand...
You think this was fake?

 
iamtheari said:
I can’t find any record of it actually flying. There is the claim that it has flown 31 times, repeated across a wide variety of blogs that just cite to each other. FlightAware has a position-only flight for N818WM but that was in 2015 near Houston. If it’s flying in Southern California in 2020, it is hard to imagine airspace where ADS-B isn’t mandatory. If it’s flying in or above Class A airspace, it should be on an IFR clearance. If it has flown, where is the proof?
Click to expand...
There's a video of it on YouTube and Vimeo
 
Tantalum said:
There's a video of it on YouTube and Vimeo
Click to expand...
Where did they fly it? The video looks legitimate but 31 flights without any ADS-B data seems odd. One would think that a plane designed to cruise above Class A airspace would have been up to 10,000 within the first 2 dozen test flights, even if it’s well outside other rule airspace.
 
iamtheari said:
Where did they fly it? The video looks legitimate but 31 flights without any ADS-B data seems odd. One would think that a plane designed to cruise above Class A airspace would have been up to 10,000 within the first 2 dozen test flights, even if it’s well outside other rule airspace.
Click to expand...
For some reason they have been operating somewhat under a veil of secrecy. Early on in the development some were speculating if it had some kind of military application because they were so hush-hush about it
 
*I think they were flying it out of victorville, one of the articles in thedrive mentioned l California logistics port. Middle of nowhere
 
this article mentions the logistics port as where they've been playing with it: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...volutionary-celera-500l-aircraft-may-fly-soon

that would put it comfortably outside the mode C veil, and given that they probably, so far, have stayed under 10K might explain? they may have also gotten clever in trying to hide it from curious eyes

in contract to Peter, these folks seem to be doing a lot of behind the scenes stuff and doing a very slow, methodic approach to their testing

what I'm curious about most is:
(A) how fast will it really go
(B) how high can it really go
(C) the fact that they're using a completely homegrown new type of engine is news in itself https://red-aircraft.com/?lang=en .. and posting the homepage image here because some people, including me, are lazy to click on links. But the claims of this engine are bonkers in themselves.. up to 600 hp, allegedly half the fuel burn compared to a TURBINE, and operating up to 50K.. that's bonkers.

upload_2020-9-13_15-47-47.png
 
flyingcheesehead said:
But, for example, the PT6 requires a hot section inspection at 1800 hours, and an overhaul at 3600 hours. NOT optional the way it is with pistons. @Ted DuPuis can surely tell us what the low end is on a hot section, but an overhaul is certainly going to be well into six figures, or seven figures if it got abused.
Click to expand...

They are still optional it’s just rare to ever see anyone ignore them in practice.
 
iamtheari said:
Where did they fly it? The video looks legitimate but 31 flights without any ADS-B data seems odd. One would think that a plane designed to cruise above Class A airspace would have been up to 10,000 within the first 2 dozen test flights, even if it’s well outside other rule airspace.
Click to expand...

Awful lot of assumptions in your conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top