The Otto Aviation Celera 500L

Tantalum said:
I'm

I'm not the FAA and that's the reason Lear gave for why it didn't work out.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it wasn’t because of the design concept of connecting two turbines to one transmission. It’s a proven design in other applications, they just chose the wrong gearbox. For all we know, just one engine powering that particular gearbox would’ve created “excessive wear.”

They really closed up shop because they ran out of cash. Even if the testing phase went flawless, I doubt they would’ve survived. Whole thing reminds me of the Delorean. Get a bunch of cash from the British Govt, set up a manufacturing facility in Northern Ireland, then run out of cash to lack of investors. Both were ahead of the times in design and manufacturing and both had their own teething problems because of it.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah but it wasn’t because of the design concept of connecting two turbines to one transmission. It’s a proven design in other applications, they just chose the wrong gearbox. For all we know, just one engine powering that particular gearbox would’ve created “excessive wear.”

They really closed up shop because they ran out of cash. Even if the testing phase went flawless, I doubt they would’ve survived. Whole thing reminds me of the Delorean. Get a bunch of cash from the British Govt, set up a manufacturing facility in Northern Ireland, then run out of cash to lack of investors. Both were ahead of the times in design and manufacturing and both had their own teething problems because of it.
Click to expand...
Thanks, and so did the Bristol Brabazon and many others.. I was just going off what I remember reading about the Learfan in an aviation book I had.. forget the name but it was a cool paperback, featured many "different" or otherwise unusual types of planes
 
With 5.26lbs/ft² wingloading, why would you question 160hp?? A Cessna 152 has twice the wingloading, yet nearly the same power to weight.

3393RP said:
One of the three Lear Fan test articles is hanging from the overhead structure at the Frontiers of Flight museum, which is located near the threshold of 31R at KDAL. When Bill Lear passed away before the prototypes flew, the program was thrown into uncertainty from which it never recovered.


960px-Frontiers_of_Flight_Museum_December_2015_112_%28LearAvia_Lear_Fan_2100%29.jpg


Please indulge me in my journey into thread drift.

The FoF collection has expanded greatly over the years, and one of my favorites is the Chance Vought V-173 "Flying Pancake". It's been beautifully restored, and while looking it over, one realizes that test pilots employed to fly designs cooked up during WWII weren't paid enough.

The aircraft weighs 2,248 lbs and is powered by two Continental A-80 flat fours that produce 80 HP each. One wonders how those tiny engines were able to turn the huge 16' diameter propellers. I suspect every takeoff roll made during its brief career was quite exciting.

The workmanship is flawless. The handcrafted wooden propellers are works of art. Could these monsters even be duplicated today? So many aeronautical construction skills have been lost forever.

IMG_0138-1024x682.jpg


The spacecraft located next to the V-173 is the Apollo 7 command module, the first Block II module to fly, the first manned Apollo flight, and the first flight after the tragic January 27, 1967 fire on pad 34B which claimed the lives of astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee. The mission was accomplished by Walter Cunningham, Walter Schirra, and Donn Eisele in this spacecraft between October 11 and 22, 1968.
Click to expand...
 
Justin Martin said:
With 5.26lbs/ft² wingloading, why would you question 160hp?? A Cessna 152 has twice the wingloading, yet nearly the same power to weight.
Click to expand...

The 16' diameter propellers are what struck me as odd, not the engines' HP rating.
 
...while we're all watching the saga of Peter and the Raptor here's an update on this other unusual plane..

**it has flown, 31 times
**they now have a legit and very serious website: https://www.ottoaviation.com/

here is it, flying!
 
Tantalum said:
...while we're all watching the saga of Peter and the Raptor here's an update on this other unusual plane..

**it has flown, 31 times
**they now have a legit and very serious website: https://www.ottoaviation.com/

here is it, flying!
Click to expand...
I'm gobsmacked that it got off the ground. I know why it's shaped that way -- it's a dirigible full of helium. That helps a lot.
 
Last edited:
OOOPs. My bad.
I'm curious. Anyone know the percentage of pilots who have tailwheel endorsements?
How many of those will actually be able to fly the Eviation Alice?

I guess it could always be a "buy it, we will teach you to fly it."
Anyone ground loop the Alice yet?
 
I hope they're successful and make lots. More airframes are always a good thing in the Book of Steingar.
 
Shepherd said:
OOOPs. My bad.
I'm curious. Anyone know the percentage of pilots who have tailwheel endorsements?
How many of those will actually be able to fly the Eviation Alice?

I guess it could always be a "buy it, we will teach you to fly it."
Anyone ground loop the Alice yet?
Click to expand...

I thought they were counting on automation and differential thrust.
 
A headwind the Otto plane will face that I'm not sure he's even considering is the overall appeal.

1) It's for the corporate market
2) High level execs who fly in corporate planes have very large egos
3) They see corp jets as bragging rights, a way to preen in front of others, etc.
4) They don't really care about fuel efficiency, or sad to say even really care about costs
5) Climbing into what charitably looks like a flying egg is not going to stroke their egos

In this market, form is over functionality.
 
WDD said:
A headwind the Otto plane will face that I'm not sure he's even considering is the overall appeal.

1) It's for the corporate market
2) High level execs who fly in corporate planes have very large egos
3) They see corp jets as bragging rights, a way to preen in front of others, etc.
4) They don't really care about fuel efficiency, or sad to say even really care about costs
5) Climbing into what charitably looks like a flying egg is not going to stroke their egos

In this market, form is over functionality.
Click to expand...

To me, the most compelling business case would be the regional cargo mission. That depends on what kind of useful load it ends up having though.
 
WDD said:
A headwind the Otto plane will face that I'm not sure he's even considering is the overall appeal.

1) It's for the corporate market
2) High level execs who fly in corporate planes have very large egos
3) They see corp jets as bragging rights, a way to preen in front of others, etc.
4) They don't really care about fuel efficiency, or sad to say even really care about costs
5) Climbing into what charitably looks like a flying egg is not going to stroke their egos

In this market, form is over functionality.
Click to expand...
True. But I can also see this appealing to some new 'woke' startup

They're alleging six passengers so it could have some use as an air taxi
 
WDD said:
A headwind the Otto plane will face that I'm not sure he's even considering is the overall appeal.

1) It's for the corporate market
2) High level execs who fly in corporate planes have very large egos
3) They see corp jets as bragging rights, a way to preen in front of others, etc.
4) They don't really care about fuel efficiency, or sad to say even really care about costs
5) Climbing into what charitably looks like a flying egg is not going to stroke their egos

In this market, form is over functionality.
Click to expand...

First, that's a pretty broad brush to paint with.

Second, I think a good coat of paint solves most of those issues and if they meet their stated performance goals on speed that would go a long way.

Also, the interior is quoted to be more spacious than similar sized aircraft - and that definitely matters if you're in this market.

Personally, I think it's exotic looking - spaceshippy and B-29y.
 
Seanaldinho said:
First, that's a pretty broad brush to paint with.

Second, I think a good coat of paint solves most of those issues and if they meet their stated performance goals on speed that would go a long way.

Also, the interior is quoted to be more spacious than similar sized aircraft - and that definitely matters if you're in this market.

Personally, I think it's exotic looking - spaceshippy and B-29y.
Click to expand...


You could be right - it might be appealing visually because it's so different. And maybe a snappy designer could paint it up nicely.

My gut say's no - but we shall see.
 
WDD said:
A headwind the Otto plane will face that I'm not sure he's even considering is the overall appeal.

1) It's for the corporate market
2) High level execs who fly in corporate planes have very large egos
3) They see corp jets as bragging rights, a way to preen in front of others, etc.
4) They don't really care about fuel efficiency, or sad to say even really care about costs
5) Climbing into what charitably looks like a flying egg is not going to stroke their egos

In this market, form is over functionality.
Click to expand...

I would argue that was all true maybe 10 years ago, or perhaps even 5 years ago. But we're starting to see a significant shift to cleaner and more efficient operations in pretty much every industry, and with public image being so important these days, being able to state "this aircraft is so efficient it's like removing X number of Competitor A's business jets from the sky" would be huge.
 
Tantalum said:
True. But I can also see this appealing to some new 'woke' startup

They're alleging six passengers so it could have some use as an air taxi
Click to expand...
The wokeness of it all is the key. The 4500 nautical mile range, 450 mph speed, 22:1 glide ratio, ability to operate from 3,300-foot runways, and 6’2” stand-up cabin are* impressive and all.

But the real reason this airplane will sell like hot cakes is because it produces 80% lower emissions than a corporate jet and 40% lower than “the most efficient commercial aircraft on a per-passenger basis.” When celebrities show up at climate conferences to tell people to stop driving cars if they’re too poor to buy a Tesla, they can all but eliminate criticism of their hypocrisy by using a plane that is better for the environment than flying coach.

* Would be, if they are true and also they can avoid mid-air collisions with all the flying pigs.
 
Yeah. Maybe. Given celebrities fly their Corp jets bs flying commercial, drive their hummers, etc. Or have a 30000 sq foot house

Or execs who have built into their contracts personal use of Corp jets

they’re not known for ever leading by example

But let’s see
 
The silent ones lead more by example, Keanu Reeves, etc., they're not all hypocrites. I think he's given most of his money away and lives quite modestly. It was stated somewhere that some of these celebrities pay sufficient carbon offsets to neutralize their otherwise lavish lifestyles. I had a friend once also "justify" their actions by claiming that with the big audience they have if they're able to influence their fanbase to reduce their footprint by even 10% that makes up for their larger carbon footprints

In somewhat objective terms, for security reasons, I can also understand why someone like Paris Hilton, JLo, etc., would opt to fly privately. There are likely some security concerns and other unwanted publicity that traveling by regular air travel would cause

**however, I generally agree, the point is not lost on me.. if you can't lead by example then don't preach it either. Just be a good person and live and let live.


iamtheari said:
But the real reason this airplane will sell like hot cakes is because it produces 80% lower emissions than a corporate jet and 40% lower than “the most efficient commercial aircraft on a per-passenger basis.”
Click to expand...
If this were my company that's exactly what I'd be pushing, the whole "green" aspect of it.. and like Cirrus does with their jazzy color schemes, offer up some pastel blues and greens for the color schemes with names like "Clean Oceans Blue" and "Rebuild the Forest Green" - hell, send some of the proceeds to climate initiatives and now you're appealing to just about all aspects of Maslow's hierarchy. Otherwise I agree with the earlier point that this plane will never be the plane of choice when someone with a lot of money is looking at TBM, King Air, PC12, Mustang, etc.
 
IMO, the bigger commercial headwind for the design is the drop in reliability between turbine and piston engines. Clients value reliability and safety and a diesel will be a step backwards in that front.
 
Not having a turbine is a puzzle
 
I think the Otto looks cool actually; it'll be interesting to see what the price tag eventually looks like. I can imagine them getting close to their projected performance numbers if they really did get the drag down as low as they seem to be claiming. 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.
 
deyoung said:
I think the Otto looks cool actually;
Click to expand...

I like the looks of it. I hope they actually make it. I have a diesel pickup and tractor, so having a diesel plane would fit right in. Plus V-12 engines just sound cool...
 
MountainDude said:
Their project operating costs are $330/hr. Can any turbine plane get close to that?
Click to expand...
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
 
No passenger windows? Great progress with actual flight testing.
 
Rein Hart said:
No passenger windows? Great progress with actual flight testing.
Click to expand...

The production version has windows.

Whatever the projected purchase price is now, I predict it will follow the same trajectory as the Icon A5.

In any event, I hope they are successful In bringing it to what I see as a very limited market.

And that they have a lot of spare wheels for the Ventral fin:D

Cheers
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
A headwind the Otto plane will face that I'm not sure he's even considering is the overall appeal.

1) It's for the corporate market
2) High level execs who fly in corporate planes have very large egos
3) They see corp jets as bragging rights, a way to preen in front of others, etc.
4) They don't really care about fuel efficiency, or sad to say even really care about costs
5) Climbing into what charitably looks like a flying egg is not going to stroke their egos

In this market, form is over functionality.
Click to expand...

Dead on. At my home airport, watching a G650, Global Challenger, or Falcon 7x pick up 3 people to fly a <1000nm leg is a daily occurrence. Corporate aviation is all about showing off.
 
Cervieres said:
Dead on. At my home airport, watching a G650, Global Challenger, or Falcon 7x pick up 3 people to fly a <1000nm leg is a daily occurrence. Corporate aviation is all about showing off.
Click to expand...

I was sitting in Flagstaff one day when a 737 BBJ rolled in. 5 folks got out, including the flight crew and FA.

I sat there wishing I made as much money in one year that it cost for that one trip....
 
One of the line guys at my home airport told the story of the Falcon 900 which regularly comes in during the summer to drop off a family, then back the next weekend to pick them up. One Sunday when they were preparing to take off on the pickup flight the pilot asked the line guy how late he was working as he was coming back later that evening. One of the women in the family wasn't ready to leave yet so they were taking the rest of the family home then returning later for her.

Even better was the week the family was dropped off on Sunday, then the line guy heard the plane calling inbound on Tuesday. When the plane stopped at the fuel pumps he asked the pilot if the family was leaving early, the pilot said not quite. Then the copilot walked down the air stair carrying a cat in a carrier, the kids were missing the cat so it was flown to them.
 
Cats are never important!
 

Attachments

  • 7610148C-C128-4455-9F87-39C50D43DF6D.jpeg
    7610148C-C128-4455-9F87-39C50D43DF6D.jpeg
    147.2 KB · Views: 57
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top