If the 500L was canned, which had the best chance of success, then this project is a fantasy. Hopefully, someone (who's not controlled by big investors) can pick up where Celeras left off. A low cost flyer is huge for future progression where individuals matter more than big corporations.
The numbers behind the 500 were breathtaking. 400 mph cruising speed at a fraction of the cost. It could easily transform county and municipal airports into profitable transcontinental air operations.
I think the aim of the 500L was to offer an airplane with an economic single engine with an excellent performance, but it seems to be like the formula didn’t work. Now I see the 800L like another business jet competitor in the market.
Honestly I'm not surprised that the 500L was cancelled, even though it was flying. It never achieved even close to the jetlike performance it advertised, and it's super laminar flow technology was so finicky and prone to disruption that any improvement in the percentage of performance over traditional aircraft would have been in the single digits. This aircraft, if it is ever built, will likely only see similar single-digit performance improvements over existing aircraft, leading to no interest from investors or buyers which would be needed to get it beyond the prototype stage (Exactly like what happened to the 500L). Given they've never even published the performance achieved by the aircraft from testing, only that it "achieved all the goals that it set out to achieve" and that external analysis state that the aircraft reaching even half it's performance goals would be very generous for the design, this new jet design and scrubbing of the 500L from the website seems like an attempt to bury a failed prototype that didn't come close to what was expected of it.
It never used active aero, the propeller design was a mess, ... anything that tries to lower costs that much will suffer a lot of sabotage from the usual suspects. There are many experimental aircraft powered by piston engines and using propellers or fans (not turbofans), they have absurd performances and can be used as a baseline to what is possible to do.
yes, but those are 2,000+ Horsepower superprop fighters,@@vitordelima, and the 500L used a 500 horsepower engine. This was the only piston powered aircraft made since the Scaled Composites Pond Racer that claimed to be able to go even half as fast or high in the last 50 years. The design was never meant to use Active Aerodynamics, that is only something speculated for this new jet. Face it, the 500L and the Celera as a whole are either pure vaporware meant to fool outside investors who haven't a lick of aeronautical knowledge, or run by someone who has deluded themselves into thinking they're the best thing since "Kelly" Johnson while only having the understanding of a 3rd year aeronautical engineering student.
You can't do 6 passenger and baggage to 460 mph or so on just over 530 HP. Unless u like really lower the payload make the plane super small and streamlined and basically make the prop more like a fan in my opinion. Even with a significant reduction in drag. The power just wasn't enough to achieve the lofty speed goals they set out. The p 51 and piaggo Avanti have like 3 times the power to achieve a speed like that and are both efficient design. Theres no 500 mph free lunch on 500 and change HP. Even with a large reduction in drag its just still not enough. I knew those goals were too lofty from the start. 4000 NM range no fuel in wings. Diesel engine is heavier for the power it makes. If it were that easy it would have been done already. Its a good idea don't get me wrong. But 460 mph 4000 NM range on 530 HP I'm sorry it just doesn't work way. With no fuel in wings.
@@andrebello4191 Yes, the Piaggio hosts 8 to 10 passangers (including 1 pilot) but more than double the hoursepower (the power conversion between turbocharged piston and turboprop isn't 1:1). Either the reduction in drag was absurd (which probably it wasn't) or it would never get there.
I imagine the reason they dropped the 500L is that the authorities would never certify it. One engine and one prop would be virtually impossible to certify for night IFR or over large bodies of water. Same problem that led to the cancellation of the Lear Fan.
It’s not certification as such, but the Part of the FAA regs that the flight and plane is operating under. Commercial (parts 121, 135) passenger carrying operation wouldn’t be allowed in that case. But for part 91 personal flying I don’t think there’s any limitation up to 12500 mgw In any case it wouldn’t affect certification if they had sought it, but only a limit on operation as a commercial aircraft.
I keep hearing about ships run on Ammonia and Ethanol. I am not sure about the feasibility for the same as an aviation fuel. Does anyone know why? I thought the gravimetric density is almost the same as current aviation fuels.
Re the ships they are already being built and trialed and also incorporate rigid fat section wing sails and modified props. .. if they have flat bottoms they can also use air bubble bleed systems to reduce the drag of water on hulls. The legal frameworks have been set plus withe the problems navigating the two canal short cuts most shipping is having to go round the long way via the Horns. The other problem is the Black fleet ... basically the Russian vessels shipping transfering and mixing Russian oil with other oils in attempts to beat sanctions and keep the oil trade going to pay for Putins war and millitary losses. Also much of the rest of the oil and gas buisness. On the aviation front the UK company that converts human sewage into jet fuel Or Deisel type fuel seems a way to go that doesnt involve growing food crops for biofuel.. The other problem of jets is the contrails which are as things work out more damaging than even just the CO2. 🤷🏻♂️ Though a young Aisian female Dr engineer who also works at Cranfield has patented a system for stopping those .. and has also developed and patented a new engine that avoids the problem ..
Ethanol could be used by general aviation but you need a higher gravimetric energy density for commercial aviation so SAF (synthetic kerosene) is what the industry has selected for the short/medium term. Ammonia can be burned clean but handling it is problematic.
@@jborgesssexactly. Methanol could still make it (beware, it's toxic), but ammonia requires either -33°C or 20 bar vessels. Also, ammonia has about half the specific heat of jet fuel, and this even before accounting for vessel/container/insulation weight and bulk.
These considerations of power applications and speed are important market factors, and in my opinion on this, I can restate where I thought electric cars would go from back in the 80's. I cant see why an electric aircraft would look all that different from a conventional aeroplane. Apart from the innovation of the capacious fuselage shape, that's where we are at, and on that. Fuselage of this type wont be easily reproduced in metal, so they're almost always going to be plastic, and more expensive. They may be efficient aircraft types, but probably not servicing a civil or general aviation market.
If it’ is indeed true that the Celera 500-L has been cancelled in favour of the swept wing jet powered 800-L, this is a huge loss for aviation, before that amazing prototype could even start production. Either the design was flawed in some way not yet disclosed or the leadership of the company had a group brain stroke… either way it’s a huge loss. Otto aviation will likely never successfully pull off the creation of yet another jet aircraft which is something that the world doesn’t need and there is likely no market for. In either case Otto Aviation is almost certainly going to fail as well… what a waste!
500L was going to be a real success if they stuck with it... Huge market for it. Now they are likely doomed unless get acquired by airbus or something. What a shame. The whole point of 500L was EFFICIENCY AND COST. It was efficient to fly and maintain due to a car engine powering the propeller.
The canning of the 500L and the scrubbing of all details of it on their website reveals the problem with all EVTOL designs. The public & investors only ever see the good news, not the inherent Physics limitations. It's like drug companies before the registration system. Companies can cherry pick data and flight videos, to such a point that any problems are hidden. It's like P-hacking in academia. Celera will go bust (how much does a render cost with AI nowadays?), as will almost all EVTOL companies. Maybe Opener will continue with a recreational product. But the range and safety just aren't there. And you need range & safety to have an economically viable product. Sorry for all the investors.
I don’t want to pose as a smart guy, but when Mentour Pilot featured it a year or two ago, I left a comment that it would never go into production. As I wrote the history of aviation is littered with countless startups that announced too early they were planning to go into production. And most of them were trying to introduce a new airframe only, but in this case it was a new airframe and a new engine. Not to mention of course all the issues with full laminar flow, which has been thoroughly investigated and experimented with by the biggest organizations in aviation since the 1930’s and implemented wherever and in what amounts possible long ago. In other words nothing new, and if their concept was dependent on that, they didn’t really have a concept. The “plan” also of creating mini commuter airlines based on it would not fly, pun intended. Airlines are extremely cautious in aircraft choice, a wrong choice can bankrupt the airline, and it’s a multi decade commitment and relationship. No airline is going to risk procuring planes from a new startup with a new airframe and a new engine. This business jet idea looks like typical kickstarter CGI vaporware.
Очередной летательный аппарат от некомпетентных проектировщиков . Ламинарные компоненты это замечательно , но самолет собран абсолютно бездарно с дикими потерями на балансировку и микшированной матрицей моментов . Самая худшая компоновка , которую только можно представить . Дно инженерной мысли со старперскими комплексами и догмами из плохих учебников .
Типичный стартап который почему то не здох в первый же год, мне уже надоели новости о нем, особенно об очередной смене силовой установки на еще более прорывную и перспективную от другого стартапа
@@alexprost7505All the innovation for this sector used to be done by private or public research labs or the military sector. It's too expensive and takes too long for the private sector to be interested. Even when the innovation itself can be done this way, it gets stuck in the certification process later.
Yeah... back to barrels and barrels of conehead mass quantities jet fuel... and pollution... just another private jet. Now if it's too efficient just put another engine on it. Gotta match the competition for fuel glutton and pollution. No more stupid 28 miles per gallon with the vision for maybe hydrogen fuel cell possibility. No no no scratch that. Holy cow if my Republican Friends could see me now
If the 500L was canned, which had the best chance of success, then this project is a fantasy. Hopefully, someone (who's not controlled by big investors) can pick up where Celeras left off. A low cost flyer is huge for future progression where individuals matter more than big corporations.
The numbers behind the 500 were breathtaking. 400 mph cruising speed at a fraction of the cost. It could easily transform county and municipal airports into profitable transcontinental air operations.
I think the aim of the 500L was to offer an airplane with an economic single engine with an excellent performance, but it seems to be like the formula didn’t work. Now I see the 800L like another business jet competitor in the market.
Thanks for the update on this project, it’s very interesting
Thanks for watching!
No, it is not.
Honestly I'm not surprised that the 500L was cancelled, even though it was flying. It never achieved even close to the jetlike performance it advertised, and it's super laminar flow technology was so finicky and prone to disruption that any improvement in the percentage of performance over traditional aircraft would have been in the single digits. This aircraft, if it is ever built, will likely only see similar single-digit performance improvements over existing aircraft, leading to no interest from investors or buyers which would be needed to get it beyond the prototype stage (Exactly like what happened to the 500L). Given they've never even published the performance achieved by the aircraft from testing, only that it "achieved all the goals that it set out to achieve" and that external analysis state that the aircraft reaching even half it's performance goals would be very generous for the design, this new jet design and scrubbing of the 500L from the website seems like an attempt to bury a failed prototype that didn't come close to what was expected of it.
Lol its just scamming investors. Kinda awesome
It never used active aero, the propeller design was a mess, ... anything that tries to lower costs that much will suffer a lot of sabotage from the usual suspects. There are many experimental aircraft powered by piston engines and using propellers or fans (not turbofans), they have absurd performances and can be used as a baseline to what is possible to do.
yes, but those are 2,000+ Horsepower superprop fighters,@@vitordelima, and the 500L used a 500 horsepower engine. This was the only piston powered aircraft made since the Scaled Composites Pond Racer that claimed to be able to go even half as fast or high in the last 50 years. The design was never meant to use Active Aerodynamics, that is only something speculated for this new jet. Face it, the 500L and the Celera as a whole are either pure vaporware meant to fool outside investors who haven't a lick of aeronautical knowledge, or run by someone who has deluded themselves into thinking they're the best thing since "Kelly" Johnson while only having the understanding of a 3rd year aeronautical engineering student.
You can't do 6 passenger and baggage to 460 mph or so on just over 530 HP. Unless u like really lower the payload make the plane super small and streamlined and basically make the prop more like a fan in my opinion. Even with a significant reduction in drag. The power just wasn't enough to achieve the lofty speed goals they set out. The p 51 and piaggo Avanti have like 3 times the power to achieve a speed like that and are both efficient design. Theres no 500 mph free lunch on 500 and change HP. Even with a large reduction in drag its just still not enough. I knew those goals were too lofty from the start. 4000 NM range no fuel in wings. Diesel engine is heavier for the power it makes. If it were that easy it would have been done already. Its a good idea don't get me wrong. But 460 mph 4000 NM range on 530 HP I'm sorry it just doesn't work way. With no fuel in wings.
@@andrebello4191 Yes, the Piaggio hosts 8 to 10 passangers (including 1 pilot) but more than double the hoursepower (the power conversion between turbocharged piston and turboprop isn't 1:1). Either the reduction in drag was absurd (which probably it wasn't) or it would never get there.
I imagine the reason they dropped the 500L is that the authorities would never certify it. One engine and one prop would be virtually impossible to certify for night IFR or over large bodies of water. Same problem that led to the cancellation of the Lear Fan.
Are the current single turboprops certified for this?
I think there remains a weight restriction of 12500 pounds for single engine IFR
It’s not certification as such, but the Part of the FAA regs that the flight and plane is operating under. Commercial (parts 121, 135) passenger carrying operation wouldn’t be allowed in that case. But for part 91 personal flying I don’t think there’s any limitation up to 12500 mgw
In any case it wouldn’t affect certification if they had sought it, but only a limit on operation as a commercial aircraft.
Maybe Piaggio will take a look and make something similar. No one else is close.
At least computer graphics actually improved a lot over the years.
Today's startups:
1. make hyper claims
2. pocket investors money
3. repeat until bankrupt
Thats true for a lot of start ups
Cool design but fixing the windshield/glass would cost a ton! Need simpler windows I think
I keep hearing about ships run on Ammonia and Ethanol. I am not sure about the feasibility for the same as an aviation fuel.
Does anyone know why? I thought the gravimetric density is almost the same as current aviation fuels.
Re the ships they are already being built and trialed and also incorporate rigid fat section wing sails and modified props. .. if they have flat bottoms they can also use air bubble bleed systems to reduce the drag of water on hulls.
The legal frameworks have been set plus withe the problems navigating the two canal short cuts most shipping is having to go round the long way via the Horns.
The other problem is the Black fleet ... basically the Russian vessels shipping transfering and mixing Russian oil with other oils in attempts to beat sanctions and keep the oil trade going to pay for Putins war and millitary losses. Also much of the rest of the oil and gas buisness.
On the aviation front the UK company that converts human sewage into jet fuel
Or Deisel type fuel seems a way to go that doesnt involve growing food crops for biofuel..
The other problem of jets is the contrails which are as things work out more damaging than even just the CO2. 🤷🏻♂️ Though a young Aisian female Dr engineer who also works at Cranfield has patented a system for stopping those .. and has also developed and patented a new engine that avoids the problem ..
Ethanol could be used by general aviation but you need a higher gravimetric energy density for commercial aviation so SAF (synthetic kerosene) is what the industry has selected for the short/medium term. Ammonia can be burned clean but handling it is problematic.
@@jborgesssexactly. Methanol could still make it (beware, it's toxic), but ammonia requires either -33°C or 20 bar vessels. Also, ammonia has about half the specific heat of jet fuel, and this even before accounting for vessel/container/insulation weight and bulk.
We blew the original idea, let's save our butts with some good rendering.
👍💪✌
These considerations of power applications and speed are important market factors, and in my opinion on this, I can restate where I thought electric cars would go from back in the 80's.
I cant see why an electric aircraft would look all that different from a conventional aeroplane. Apart from the innovation of the capacious fuselage shape, that's where we are at, and on that.
Fuselage of this type wont be easily reproduced in metal, so they're almost always going to be plastic, and more expensive. They may be efficient aircraft types, but probably not servicing a civil or general aviation market.
I said it sounded too good to be true. I was right.
If it’ is indeed true that the Celera 500-L has been cancelled in favour of the swept wing jet powered 800-L, this is a huge loss for aviation, before that amazing prototype could even start production. Either the design was flawed in some way not yet disclosed or the leadership of the company had a group brain stroke… either way it’s a huge loss. Otto aviation will likely never successfully pull off the creation of yet another jet aircraft which is something that the world doesn’t need and there is likely no market for. In either case Otto Aviation is almost certainly going to fail as well… what a waste!
looks to have a HIGH wing loading.
Perhaps its just pregnant with twin Cessna 172s?
500L was going to be a real success if they stuck with it... Huge market for it. Now they are likely doomed unless get acquired by airbus or something. What a shame. The whole point of 500L was EFFICIENCY AND COST. It was efficient to fly and maintain due to a car engine powering the propeller.
6:35 never
That makes me a sad panda
In Short - "It Sucked" (to Get Better Laminar Airflow and greater efficiency!)!
The canning of the 500L and the scrubbing of all details of it on their website reveals the problem with all EVTOL designs. The public & investors only ever see the good news, not the inherent Physics limitations. It's like drug companies before the registration system. Companies can cherry pick data and flight videos, to such a point that any problems are hidden. It's like P-hacking in academia. Celera will go bust (how much does a render cost with AI nowadays?), as will almost all EVTOL companies. Maybe Opener will continue with a recreational product. But the range and safety just aren't there. And you need range & safety to have an economically viable product. Sorry for all the investors.
So i guess the 500l failed after all these years of waiting
A tax shield, at best. And food for the braindead web.
I don’t want to pose as a smart guy, but when Mentour Pilot featured it a year or two ago, I left a comment that it would never go into production.
As I wrote the history of aviation is littered with countless startups that announced too early they were planning to go into production. And most of them were trying to introduce a new airframe only, but in this case it was a new airframe and a new engine.
Not to mention of course all the issues with full laminar flow, which has been thoroughly investigated and experimented with by the biggest organizations in aviation since the 1930’s and implemented wherever and in what amounts possible long ago. In other words nothing new, and if their concept was dependent on that, they didn’t really have a concept.
The “plan” also of creating mini commuter airlines based on it would not fly, pun intended. Airlines are extremely cautious in aircraft choice, a wrong choice can bankrupt the airline, and it’s a multi decade commitment and relationship. No airline is going to risk procuring planes from a new startup with a new airframe and a new engine.
This business jet idea looks like typical kickstarter CGI vaporware.
Очередной летательный аппарат от некомпетентных проектировщиков . Ламинарные компоненты это замечательно , но самолет собран абсолютно бездарно с дикими потерями на балансировку и микшированной матрицей моментов . Самая худшая компоновка , которую только можно представить . Дно инженерной мысли со старперскими комплексами и догмами из плохих учебников .
There are many other obvious problems besides those you listed.
Типичный стартап который почему то не здох в первый же год, мне уже надоели новости о нем, особенно об очередной смене силовой установки на еще более прорывную и перспективную от другого стартапа
@@alexprost7505All the innovation for this sector used to be done by private or public research labs or the military sector. It's too expensive and takes too long for the private sector to be interested. Even when the innovation itself can be done this way, it gets stuck in the certification process later.
Yeah... back to barrels and barrels of conehead mass quantities jet fuel... and pollution... just another private jet. Now if it's too efficient just put another engine on it. Gotta match the competition for fuel glutton and pollution. No more stupid 28 miles per gallon with the vision for maybe hydrogen fuel cell possibility. No no no scratch that. Holy cow if my Republican Friends could see me now
🔱💙💙💙 Слава
💛💛💛💛 Україні