The company I worked for had a Beech Starship. We flew it around as a commercial commuter aircraft with commercial pilots. It look good, sounded great and had lots of space inside compared to others. But we seemed to need new props about every sixth landing. We learned why almost all aircraft have the prop in the front. Upon landing, and rocks, or dirt would damage the props. New we would be far from home and ordering one or two props. They would have to fly them out with a team from the factory to replace them. It was on us to pay for it and it was $$. After the third prop replacement, we returned it to Beech. Special pilots, not as fast as a commuter jet, always waiting on parts, etc. It looked killer in the giant hangar, but it was a bad design. Never again design a prop plane with the prop in the back. They get destroyed on landing.
I have been following this design for several years now and it continues to make it milestones. Small aviation is a very important sector. Many of us would use aviation from smaller cities in an inexpensive, comfortable and quick airplane. This taps into a largely unseen market. Handling and durability will likely be the final arbiters of commercial success. Thank you
You can do it now if you like, if you live in north America or Europe... it's called air taxi... and it is very expensive... just like this fantasy airplane would be....
@@PRH123 Agreed. Usually these promos for new 'revolutionary' and 'affordable' products are all bunk. The cost of the special manufacturing & certification processes will more than outweigh the fuel savings. Probably by a lot. Aviation is expensive, and it always will be, because these machines require special engineering & infrastructure. It's that simple.
@@3rett115 What are you talking about? This plane will receive FAA certification in months. Done deal. It does not require and special infrastructure at all because it was designed to use existing airports. The hydrogen engine version will not be ready for a few years but Toyota and Mercedes have already mastered Hydrogen combustion engines so a Hydrogen based prop is only a few years away.
@@c.san.8751 Welcome to the wonderfully expensive world of broken promises that is aviation. Assuming you're new by your comment. This plane has been in development for nearly 20 years. The target date for final certs could be as late as 2025, which means it'll most likely be beyond that. Certification was supposed to cost 200M and take 3 years. Now almost 10 years later and who knows how much beyond 200M they spent. So how do you think they'll make that equity back? By tagging it to the price of the plane. Which by the way, a composite, smooth/rivet-less airframe is very complicated to manufacture and will push the cost much further north. Add to this, it's hard to find a decent A&P for more traditional planes, let alone something like this with a specialized airframe and drivetrain they'll most likely need to get special training for. Next up, these things do not scale. And for as much as they'll cost, business folks would much rather fly in a faster and much nicer Citation or Fokker that's roomier etc., for the same price or maybe even less. Look, I like innovation, but the most practical design like this exists today as a Piaggio 180. Work on converting these to hydrogen, don't reinvent the wheel in an unpractical & complicated manner like Otto is doing. This plane will fail harder than the Beech Starship.
It’s great to see so much effort put into this endeavor. The shorter runway take off is ideal for avoiding the big hubs, big traffic issues out of and into conventional International airports. That practical level of service coupled with the reduction in emissions makes this venture so worth while.
No one has released any runway length figures. It still is a very slippery aircraft with very little in the way of high lift or drag devices. A sailplane with a wing planform like this would use spoilers and quite possibly full span flaperons to keep from gliding over the first mile of runway without slowing down. This looks like it will be a very by-the-numbers aircraft that will require a quarter of every flight be devoted to very careful speed and altitude management to get to the runway threshold ready to land.
Beech Aircraft should have re-engine its Super King Air to make it fly with 25% less fuel instead of trying to expand its cabin to accommodate 2 add passengers. They sold over 4,200 units and could have also use new material that would have lower its weight and fly longer flights. It is a splendid aircraft with almost no cabin noise when they upgrade it during the 1990's.
@@CrazyForCooCooPuffs Like @HarveyCohen said, ""Calculated" performance figures, but no actual test data. It's all vaporware, but the vaguely British accent of the narrator is convincing." Except for the last bit. I did notice that it is 2024. Already. Has the Otto air mobile gone thew way of the Dodo?
@@Yutani_Crayven Test flights, yes... but the data is calculated, not from those test flights. What part do you not understand? Remember Humane's AI device... has also been shown around and "tested", but between their claims and the reality was a huge discrepancy. In the end it was just a scam.
Very impressive performance numbers. Here's hoping that this one sees full production and finds acceptance in the market if it's as good as advertised.
Providing a means for more elites to fly cheaply does NOT help "decarbonise" commercial passenger or freight air travel. This kind "save the planet" BS always means the same thing. Elites get to carry on flying while you are grounded. WAKE UP, it's a scam to return us to serfdom !
As a Airline Transport Pilot, with close to 20,000 hours of flight time, I wonder how that thing will hold up flying the ILS into Denver during a severe icing storm and winds gusting to 55......visibility out those windows don't look that great for the pilots. Unless they're intending to get rid of us?
Interesting analysis of the claims, from the Wikipedia article: With a 35 ft (11 m) long fuselage and a 55 ft (17 m) wingspan, the claimed 22-to-1 glide ratio should yield a 3.5 sq ft (0.33 m2) equivalent flat-plate area drag.[9] With 500 hp (370 kW), this would allow a top speed of 300 kn (560 km/h) at 30,000 ft (9,100 m), and 430 kn (800 km/h) true airspeed at 65,000 ft (20,000 m), but the RED A03 critical altitude is 25,000 ft (7,600 m).[9] The propeller tips would have transonic wave drag and would operate in a disturbed wake, limiting propeller efficiency, and laminar flow would be difficult to maintain for a large part of the fuselage with windows and panel seams.[9] The configuration is similar to the 1948 Planet Satellite, or the 2011 EADS Voltaire electric aircraft concept.[7] The claimed 59% drag reduction "would be quite a hard task to achieve", according to the Royal Aeronautical Society, while lift-induced drag would not be reduced by laminar flow.[7] A 1:22 glide ratio like current airliners can be reached with its high wing aspect ratio, without a sensational drag reduction: better than other general aviation designs, but lower than most gliders.[7] The 460 mph (400 kn; 740 km/h) max speed is achievable, but the cruise speed has to be lower to reach the 4,500 nmi (8,300 km) range.[7] The fuel efficiency is difficult to compare with no specified payload, cruise speed and altitude.[7] Pushing the laminar flow to the limit could hinder handling qualities or structural efficiency, and laminar flow tends to be unreliable in service, as it is highly susceptible to degradation from surface irregularities.[7]
This aircraft will never happen, very good analysis. Only a few aircraft are certified for commercial use SE IFR and only because they use a PT6 which has great reliability.
Thanks for the information. Most claims where blatantly overestimated and you can tell just by the way the information is presented. Thanks again mate!
@@MrTuhascvbouwq I look at things from the pilot perspective but this is not much different than electric aircraft. Hydrogen aircraft are never going to happen, just like electric commercial aircraft will never happen. They both fail on energy density and and safety.
This is actually worth more to the industry. I can see many companies that have private airlines picking this up also many islands for short and long distance runs Definitely a golden award . Fantastic aircraft ❤
That's all great, but the amount of experts that still don't know there's no climate change besides weather manipulation technology that's got weird weather here and there occasionally as a side effect is MIND fkn BLOWING. Germany admitted 14 years ago of aiding the US with chem trailing officially. The barrier reef is growing, the ice on the arctic ain't going nowhere, the lying cu*s, the "experts" and Obama type of sneaky MF's buying property at sea level is increasing every year. The WEF flying to their own circle jerk with 1200 private jets to tell US to shower less, not use gas stoves etc. in a time of video call and so called fighting climate change is not only laughing in our face they're literally taking a No.2 on all of our chests and we're paying for it.
Yes. Like promo films for domestic, private flying cars. Each looks so promising... but we've been seeing such things, since the 1930's and still no revolution. Oh, well! 😏
@@mombaassa The lack of flying cars is the fault of government. By the time you satisfy the DOT on the car part it is to heavy to be a practical airplane.....
Clearly the problem with this airplane is that the goal of the inventors has to do with "sustainability" "Climate change" "man made global warming" "man made global cooling" Other names? They are wasting capital on gobily gook hydrogen fantasy over using capital to get the aircraft government approved with the nice diesel engine. Many companies go bankrupt trying to pass all the government regulations or shortly after starting production. So it is NOT likely these people will have an airplane in the air for sale to the rest of us.
@@dinamiteblaa It ABSOLUTELY IS the government's fault that we don't see some of these innovations. The laws often get in the way of innovation. Also they have one go through expensive ridiculous tests before going to production.
I think the real issue at hand here is looking at why SUVs and trucks are so fuel inefficient and repealing the EPA regulations that incentivize them to be that way
Fifty years from now this will be old school, but in the present, it's eye opening innovation. This aircraft is rather intriguing and my hat's off to its creators!
Although the implementations are different and i hope they pan out this has already all been done and phased out. Having super light wings with all the weight in the fuselage is already an old school take. Having a giant egg like shape is already an old school take. Using a v12 diesel engine is an especially old school design. Fuel was moved to the wings to increase not only cargo area available but to increase maximum weight capacity by distributing weight better not to mention moving the fuel tanks with combustible fuels away from the fuselage has other added benefits. The egg shapes where either abandoned or usage reduced to only ultra light weight speed record designs because the egg shape massively increases the front cross section area. Egg shape is most aerodynamic when super long and thin or when flying super slow, afterwards other variables that also affect drag more at higher speed vastly outweighs an egg shape design. There is so much more but meh like I said i hope it pans out
@@Guardian_Arias indeed. people seem to be inventing the wheel and calling it a new thing everyday :D it so easy to get money from investors via the power of the internet thesedays
@@Guardian_Arias In addition, due to the thin wing shapes of this project, their strength will be sufficient only when relatively thicker and heavier spars and/or skins are used. A thicker wing would weigh less. Its greater drag would not use so much additional fuel that it would exceed the weight being saved in its wing structure. So, a thicker wing is more optimal and that is why it is used on long-range cruising aircraft of more conventional kinds. This thicker design is also more efficient in the way the lift is countered by the fuel weight, which does not need to be carried in the fuselage of this project.
I was flying with a friend one day and decided to calculate MPG based on fuel flow and ground speed. It was a twin engine Piper Aztec with 6 cylinder air cooled engines, and two bladed propellers. My calculated MPG was 20 and the plane was averaging about 200mph ground.
The ONLY was this happened was to have pulled back to the lowest manifold pressure and leaned to the lowest fuel flow possible to sustain level flight AND with a 75 knot tailwind. Light piston twins get around 5 Nautical Miles per Gallon average. Period. And Aztecs are actually NOT the most aerodynamic of light piston twins.
While this might be the case for your friend's Piper Aztec, it would place it among the most fuel efficient planes out there, something I can't see confirmed in any of the efficient airplanes lists out there. Looking at what is posted, a range of 1300 miles in long range configuration and a min/max fuel capacity of 133-177 gallons, it looks that that would translate to between 9.77 and 7.35 MPG. So less than half your calculated MPG. Now I don't know if your friend did any special fuel saving modifications to his Piper Aztec, but the 20 MPG that you calculated seem a bit out of spec for what a typical Piper Aztec could achieve. Maybe he had a heck of a tail wind that day?
@@csjrogerson2377 I politely disagree. And I'm not alone. The industry consensus is that 500wh/kg is the tipping point where batteries get light enough for short hop commercial flights. See recent videos from @fullychargedshow, @electricviking, @UndecidedMF . My understanding is that most recent electric cars use around 250wh/kg batteries. CATL gave a big surprise when they released that they have a 500wh/kg battery already in the works that is production imminent. They are already working with the FAA which indicates their seriousness. One big motivator is that it is significantly cheaper to operate an electric plane assuming the necessary weight of batteries is achieved. So your statement would be correct if it said 2x what it is now.
@@c.san.8751 Perhaps for aviation. H2 is typically stored at very high pressures up to 70 MPa and these tanks are heavy and require testing/recertification ($$$) every few years. I have worked with these pressures and its difficult. Battery/electric propulsion would force shorter flights but be much simpler for maintenance and lower cost.
@@ricinro I think at this stage the jury is out on that. The flights would be shorter but I can not see the math where they would be economically viable. Batteries far too heavy. Ticket prices will skyrocket.
This combination of design elements was first achieved and flown by Eau Gallie High School Aeronautics Department in the 1980's. It was called the EG-1 experimental aircraft.
Considering zero emissions is the last thing they should be doing, keep an eye on technology developments, integrate only when it becomes economically feasible
Following this aircraft through its development has sparked enthusiasm for the future of transportation by air and, due to the parallel efforts in the enhancement all azimuts of hydrogen fuel cells, of sustainable mass transit in general. But, the Celera has tickled the fancy of aircraft enthusiasts for years now, anticipating every step forward toward making this dream project an accessible reality. Hopefully, no insurmontable hurdles shall impede its accreditation/realization!
С таким крылом у него и так маленькая скорость сваливания, а с таким корпусом большие углы атаки в принципе не достижимы на эксплуатационных скоростях. Это конечно теоретически, но думаю авторы самолёта бизнес класса о безопасности подумали
These frauds are being commercially launched always '2-3 years' in the future. Journos love them. You see beautiful prototypes in glitzy videos, you get breath-taking performance estimates but somehow the launch date always gets pushed backwards. Until the bancruptcy.
The Titan submersible disaster proved, once again, that regulations are written in blood. Regulations don’t make it "impossible," they make it responsible.
Looks sleek, well done! One thing I'd like to see is the Weight & Balance envellope. Just looking at the placement of the wing surfaces, having between zero and 19 people in the cabin, compounded with difference between full and near-empty fuel tanks would appear to be a major balancing challenge.
My guess is that rhe fuel is distributed all around the body so the CG issue won’t be so bad. The real question is how much do they cost, and how much is the annual maintenance? 2025 is a long way away.
Very narrow chord wings mean a very small CoG range. It would be interesting to see how much testing has been done at extreme aft cg near max allowable weight.
Exactly. It's one thing to push a small plane with only a few passengers and achieve good mileage, but what happens when you attempt to put this to scale normally set by commercial aircraft? Size and weight will directly affect the mileage. Tell me what the mileage will be if it was used to transport 250 people from London to Moscow, or New York to Los Angeles, etc.?
@@davefranklyn7730 I will tel you what happens: If you take a Boeing 787 and divide the max fuel capacity in gallons by the range you get 33,340 US Gallons per 8463 miles. That is roughly 4 Gallons per mile. It does not sound very economical, right? Here is the kicker tough: It achieves this while carrying around 242 passangers and roughly 15 tonnes of cargo. So the fuel economy per passanger is about 60 MPG. For this reason I think these sensational "news" articles are to be taken with a grain of salt. There is a thing called economics in scale. If the airlines could save fuel by flying planes like these, then if would have been designed and built years ago...
This thing is amazimg! I really do hope it goes into production and does well. There are a lot of unnecessary flights but used wisely and efficiently, this could really go along way to cutting emissions.
I’d love to see the this aircraft perform in icing conditions. It’s performance in crosswinds will be interesting as well. No, I don’t think this will be the biggest thing in aviation.
Fuel economy on diesal engine is the real winner. Replacement of propeller will be the negative point. So, I'd suggest having two smaller propellers higher up closer rooftop. Maybe on a framework. This plane looks like a winner, I assume the copy and paste chinese companies will reverse engineer it anyway
Is it really more efficient than a traditional aircraft if it can carry less people? What would be the fuel consumption/payload weight metric for this aircraft and how does it compare to what we have now?
To begin with, they should reconsider the concept of using this aircraft and remove the stupid flight range of 8,300 kilometers at a speed of 460 km/h. No one will agree to sit in chairs for eighteen hours.
I am impressed by it as a technology demonstrator. Not so much as a viable commercial product. People with millions to spend want a proven safety track record, redundancy and turbine reliability.
I would like to see the prop noise data for this aircraft. As long-time RC pilot pusher prop systems such as these are notoriously loud, I noticed the video was very careful to avoid any mention of noise. It looks like a good concept, but I will look for videos of the plane's takeoff with sound.
I also have flown many wings and talon/mini talons and alot of the noise comes from the disrupted flow of air over the fuse to the prop. This design may not have the same problems because of this special airflow design. Also it probably has a variable pitch prop which could tune for noise and efficiency.
@@spyder000069 Excellent point, I was just wondering why in all the videos I saw there was no unedited sound of it flying or taking off, just soothing music.
Odds are the prop is only turning 17-1900 rpm, which alone will keep the noise down. Some tweaks to the tip design could also help. Once they reach the electric motor, they can refine the props even more (greater torque = wider blades) and have zero exhaust noise. I think it will be *amazingly* quiet.
@@Pix2GoStudiosAs I said, I flew Radio Control electric pusher planes and they were all loud, I just found it suspicious that they did not include the sound on their promo video.
Over-the-nose visibility doesn't look too great. On short final, with high pitch attitude, will pilot be able to see the runway? I had a plane with similar issue and eventually just did a final turn with roll out pretty much on the runway. I couldn't see the runway if I flew traditional final approach. Take off had similar issue: I'd look out the side to judge my position on the runway.
That is exactly what it means, the performance figures for this thing sound impressive but it is unlikely to be successful because its flight characteristics will be inherently unsafe especially with only one engine.
Back in the early 80's, while I was in vo-tech school, we had a very small transparent internal combustion engine that ran on hydrogen, which we produced on sight using only water and electricity. The only by-product out the exhaust was water. The fuel started out as water and returned to its original state after combustion. That was over 40 years ago and technology has come a long way. But there's still homework to be done.
I see this as an interesting experiment. I don’t, but if I were willing to accept the pretty numbers they quote then I have follow up questions. 1.) How do they maintain the laminar flow with an airplane in service. It seems to me that dirt, bugs, rain and de-icing systems and actual ice will make maintaining laminar flow problematic. 2.) How do they handle emergency descent from FL500 due to pressurization loss? That’s a lot of altitude to get rid of. 3.) When they just “switch off the engine” as they put it for an efficient glide how are they maintaining pressurization? Something has to be running to keep it pressurized. Additionally as an instructor I have shut down a number of engines in multi-engine training and it’s not uncommon for an engine to be reluctant to start back after it has cooled down. I would be unhappy to shut down an engine at the temperatures you find at FL500. 4.) If they somehow do make it run on hydrogen how are they going to handle its availability? I am thinking this will sharply decrease the amount of usable airports. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I look forward to their progress.
it cannot do FL500.. props don't work that high.. Ceiling is 30000 feet. hell it can't do any of its claims..t cant fly high enough to get to thin air, and that is where planes are at the most efficient , over weather, thin air... where jet engines work and propellors don't.
This feels so much like the hype for the Beech Starship, which was supposed to be super-light, clean and efficient, carbon fibre, laminar flow. Wound up grossly overweight and too expensive. They took two seats out before it was even certified just to try to make it work.
This has the potential to make running a charter business considerably more profitable. I can believe these haven't already flooded the charter market.
Wow. I bet it can also heal bad karma and it poops butterflies! I came here for an example of investor-fleecing lingo for my students and I was NOT disappointed 🤣
My boat carries my wife and myself and does 2 mile per gallon. Our runaround boat (smaller and faster and no sleeping accommodation) returns and impressive (for boats) 4.5 miles per gallon. Who needs aircraft with all those long and expensive licensing rules…
I get that it’s not truly a production model, but if we’re talking about passenger aircraft, they need to be able to hold large amounts of luggage and an excess of fuel in the event of an emergency. This design doesn’t seem to be effective for carrying passengers, fuel, and luggage, but we’ll see.
The video shows landings and takeoffs without so much as flaps, let alone any serious high lift devices. How do you get a slippery aircraft onto the ground.even on jet runways without them? How do you get it slowed down to pattern speeds and altitudes?
I’d get one if I was a multimillionaire. Price is $4.5M - $5M with a top speed of 460 mph. Also since planes can fly directly to your destination without the twists and bends of the road, it’s probably even more fuel efficient than a car if you wanted to get across the country.
The design of the plane is giving me airship vibes. I wonder if the shape could be applied to a zeppelin, scaled up and given toroidal propellers. With the same engine, again, scaled up, it might be what the industry needs as a transport that straddles the area between fast, but expensive (not to mention, carbon intensive) heavy lift transport aircraft and the slow, but considerably cheaper, cargo ships sailing the oceans.
The Celera 500 project is there for several years now. And it is still got nothing commercial. If it is so revolutionary, what is the problem to build like 5-10 prototypes and to give them to commercial companies with huge discount? It will immediately reveal all the pros and cons and, may be, it will be a dealbreaker.
Assuming a weight of 3 tonnes, it would take 150 kW just to keep it airborn. Assuming a cruising speed of 300 mph, that works out at 7 mpg (not 18-25 mpg as stated), and that isn't even taking into account the horrendous ICE engine inefficiency or drag. I'm calling BS :(((
@@thealzp The Lear Fan is an excellent comparison. If you add half a ton of diesel and half a ton of passengers you are nearing my assumption of 3 tons. Unfortunately, in an attempt to keep the weight down, the Lear Fan suffered from structural deficiencies. The project was eventually cancelled.
I give them points for doing something outside the norm with a considerable potential efficiency benefit. If investors want to put money into it good for them, the potential reward is there. It is very hard to get a new design all the way through certification and then on to commercial viability so the risk is there too. If you don't see it, don't invest.
Wow. I wish them the best of luck, seems like a wonderful idea. The fact that the laminar flow benefits do not scale up reminds me of an old classic book _The Forty Knot Sailboat._ The author made models of his hydrofoil and airfoil boat, also optimized for laminar flow, and they scooted across the water at great speed. But he never got a full sized one to work, and I'm guessing it was because laminar flow does not scale up.
Problem with laminar flow is the stability of this effect for large surfaces. Larger the surface the more unpredictable it becomes to the point it just breaks down totally unpredictably. Even so with a plane this large it will still have a very limited operating envelope to keep the laminar flow stable.
Looks great and all that, perfect for an experimental class where maybe one or two design elements can actually be put in use. This comes across as a marketing pitch more than anything. This "bullet body" isn't new, Zeppelins had it. And yet, a lot of modern air bodies have evolved to having air disrupters and microvanes plastered all over the airframe to improve control and even REDUCE drag. The feature of keeping fuel out of the wings threw me a bit. That was a huge design improvement at the time and was pushed as "free weight". EX: Every 100lb of fuel in the fuselage was 100lb of cargo weight. Every 100lb of fuel in the wing was within the lifting body and considered "free weight". Along with the extra fuselage space, which has to made bigger to hold the fuel because its not in the wings. Hydrogen: That is quickly becoming the new Green New Deal grift. Scientists have been poking at that for decades. At lab levels and small projects, it's fantastic. Large scale becomes a problem. Naturally occurring hydrogen is limited and takes time to form. But it can be made commercially for large scale. It's ingredients, wait for it,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Natural gas, coal and oil. Fossil fuels baby. Hydrogen is taking the same path as the ethanol grift. When people started looking behind the curtain, they found that more fossil fuels energy was being used to produce ethanol then what was produced by the ethanol. But by then the grants and tax funded programs were on a roll. But slap a Green sticker on the side of the engine and its the best thing ever. Batteries are another planet saver that really aren't. Lithium is a limited resource and planet destroying mines are going full blast to dig it up, using fossil fueled equipment and,,, save the planet? And of course batteries are charged by electricity which is made predominately by fossil fuels, something the greens seem oblivious to (or pretend they are).
Hydrogen as a source of energy is a non-starter. Hydrogen as an energy storage medium has advantages and disadvantages that must be assessed on a per-application basis. I'm skeptical of how useful it will be in aviation due to volume constraints, but I think it's worth taking a look into.
Doesn’t anyone know how to desalinate and electrolyze water these days? Just set up some water wave motion/wind turbines/solar furnaces for free energy and, voila, hydrogen(and oxygen and sodium chloride, too).
✈🌍 Impressive! The advancements in small aviation are truly remarkable. It's fascinating to see how this design is catering to the needs of travelers in smaller cities, providing them with affordable, comfortable, and efficient air transportation. I wonder, what other innovations or features would you like to see in small aviation to further enhance its commercial success? Keep up the great work! 👍🚀
@@johndavis7078Well, most objects called UFO have never been to space, and are recorded with such low tech cameras, you won't even notice it has a propeller or not 😂
It’s funny .. they said that about flight .. combustion engines.. cars.. but here they are .. thank you tho.. for the motivation to make it a reality.. your input in the project is absolutely crucial and wouldn’t happen without you…
Great stuff. But, although I'm a glider pilot and love my planes, I have a feeling that the way forward to reduce CO2 emissions from aviation may ultimately be to do a lot less of it, especially in relation to 'non essential' travel. Also, we're fixed on the idea of being able to get from A to B fast. But is that really so important, in an age of ultra fast and powerful communications. I think the shape of the future has yet to truly emerge from the fog. But, this is a great little plane from what I can see and hopefully will do well in the niche executive transport sector.
I hade an idea about électric Duckted Fan power train for planes. . Instead of using the smallest rotor diameter motor, I would use the tip of the fanblades as rotor and 3 or 4 field coils installed at the outside diameter . . . The torque increases at the square of the diameter. . So the larger the diameter, the less energy you would need to operate it. . .🙂
larger diameter also increase WEIGHT and drag... why do ordinary people think that the scientist and plane builders dont have these same ideas in a trash bin allready?
@@sujoybha yes I do. I,ve worked at Pratt and Withney for many years and I dig fan theory . . yet I beleive that it would be more economic to drive the fan from the outer edge then through the center shaft
And they fly at miles per hour which together can produce a miles per gallon calculation. A plane that uses 5 gallons per hour and flies at 100 miles per hour gets 20 miles per gallon. So, there, a plane DOES do mpg.
Eco friendly aviation time has come with this design . Simply fabulous. The egg shape fuselage for laminar flow is a breakthrough . This can be applied for SUV also
If you had listened to the video you would not that it WON'T scale up. That's why it does not exist already. Providing a means for more elites to fly cheaply does NOT help "decarbonise" commercial passenger or freight air travel.
It's actually ridiculous. One minute they're touting it's performance capabilities and will remain for corporate travel yet craps on about easing airport congestion. It's only going to support 6-10 people at most
@@Badmansband Did you listen to the video either? It said up to 19. Doesn't mean they're right, but at least that's the claim, not 6-10 people at most.
@@Badmansband I was only referring to the 6-10 people part of your comment. As for the rest of it, you are right. if it holds 6-10 people, it would be a generic sized business net. The difference is that it said take off and landing did not require the same as a business jet which would, at least in theory, spread out the traffic to smaller airports closer to the end destination. Not sure it works out like that much, but the idea sounds good.
Exciting times! I just love the current wave of future aircraft concepts with better powertrains than just burning gas. Many/most will likely fail for one reason or another, but some will indeed make it to the market and hopefully be successful!
Most single engine props do about 20mpg already. A better analogy would be to get the same fuel efficiency of a sprinter van for 12-15 people (15mpg), or bus for 40 people (4mpg). Then true short haul aviation would be a huge booming industry.
I think this will take off and become very big. These planes will become the busses of the sky growing and expanding in the small and regional airport space.
it's even more impressive when you realize cars are stuck in traffic and can't go from point a to b in a straight line. i just wish we could have personal flying vehicles sooner than later.
I think these things are going to start around $5 million. I wonder if a smaller version ( 4 seater) that could do 200 mph and had greater wing surface area could get the price down to under $1 million. This would be a much larger market. 50 miles per gallon ?
2:57 since you can shut it off and glide, I can only imagine the people that are going to hypermile this thing. It already flies over 5000 mi with the engine running, imagine if you just brought it up to 50,000 feet and then turned off the motors when as far as you could and then brought it back up to 50,000. The motors were only used for altitude not for forward motion.. well a little bit forward but you know what I mean. They're only turned on for climbing purposes. Would be a riot to watch people fly to Hawaii and stuff
The company I worked for had a Beech Starship. We flew it around as a commercial commuter aircraft with commercial pilots. It look good, sounded great and had lots of space inside compared to others. But we seemed to need new props about every sixth landing. We learned why almost all aircraft have the prop in the front. Upon landing, and rocks, or dirt would damage the props. New we would be far from home and ordering one or two props. They would have to fly them out with a team from the factory to replace them. It was on us to pay for it and it was $$. After the third prop replacement, we returned it to Beech. Special pilots, not as fast as a commuter jet, always waiting on parts, etc. It looked killer in the giant hangar, but it was a bad design. Never again design a prop plane with the prop in the back. They get destroyed on landing.
Would housing the prop in a protected enclosure stop that type of issue? Also, would the new toroidal prop design provide even more efficiency?
They also were "Low" as in "Low Prop Clearance" from the Ground!
P
Engineer a solution to it and move on
Rear props also don’t get full prop bit into the clear air… reducing efficiency
I have been following this design for several years now and it continues to make it milestones. Small aviation is a very important sector. Many of us would use aviation from smaller cities in an inexpensive, comfortable and quick airplane. This taps into a largely unseen market. Handling and durability will likely be the final arbiters of commercial success. Thank you
You can do it now if you like, if you live in north America or Europe... it's called air taxi... and it is very expensive... just like this fantasy airplane would be....
it seem like we live on two very different planets than.
@@PRH123 Agreed. Usually these promos for new 'revolutionary' and 'affordable' products are all bunk. The cost of the special manufacturing & certification processes will more than outweigh the fuel savings. Probably by a lot. Aviation is expensive, and it always will be, because these machines require special engineering & infrastructure. It's that simple.
@@3rett115 What are you talking about? This plane will receive FAA certification in months. Done deal. It does not require and special infrastructure at all because it was designed to use existing airports. The hydrogen engine version will not be ready for a few years but Toyota and Mercedes have already mastered Hydrogen combustion engines so a Hydrogen based prop is only a few years away.
@@c.san.8751 Welcome to the wonderfully expensive world of broken promises that is aviation. Assuming you're new by your comment. This plane has been in development for nearly 20 years. The target date for final certs could be as late as 2025, which means it'll most likely be beyond that. Certification was supposed to cost 200M and take 3 years. Now almost 10 years later and who knows how much beyond 200M they spent. So how do you think they'll make that equity back? By tagging it to the price of the plane. Which by the way, a composite, smooth/rivet-less airframe is very complicated to manufacture and will push the cost much further north. Add to this, it's hard to find a decent A&P for more traditional planes, let alone something like this with a specialized airframe and drivetrain they'll most likely need to get special training for. Next up, these things do not scale. And for as much as they'll cost, business folks would much rather fly in a faster and much nicer Citation or Fokker that's roomier etc., for the same price or maybe even less.
Look, I like innovation, but the most practical design like this exists today as a Piaggio 180. Work on converting these to hydrogen, don't reinvent the wheel in an unpractical & complicated manner like Otto is doing. This plane will fail harder than the Beech Starship.
It’s great to see so much effort put into this endeavor. The shorter runway take off is ideal for avoiding the big hubs, big traffic issues out of and into conventional International airports. That practical level of service coupled with the reduction in emissions makes this venture so worth while.
pffffffffff … ist greater to see it not 'too later', aligator.
No one has released any runway length figures. It still is a very slippery aircraft with very little in the way of high lift or drag devices. A sailplane with a wing planform like this would use spoilers and quite possibly full span flaperons to keep from gliding over the first mile of runway without slowing down. This looks like it will be a very by-the-numbers aircraft that will require a quarter of every flight be devoted to very careful speed and altitude management to get to the runway threshold ready to land.
Beech Aircraft should have re-engine its Super King Air to make it fly with 25% less fuel instead of trying to expand its cabin to accommodate 2 add passengers. They sold over 4,200 units and could have also use new material that would have lower its weight and fly longer flights. It is a splendid aircraft with almost no cabin noise when they upgrade it during the 1990's.
I hope all goes well for this company. It appears to be a wonderful addition to business travel.
400m jet that's flipping ceap i want one at least it's not 500 million
business travel has to die
@@brulsmurf why is that`?
@@Obtite Because all these unnecessary, selfish flights are polluting the heck out of our atmosphere. How's that for a reason?
The wing area and the airplane fuselage area are unequal. can't fly far
Are you familiar with airplane design technology?
"Calculated" performance figures, but no actual test data. It's all vaporware, but the vaguely British accent of the narrator is convincing.
True. Americans always sound like frauds. British not so.
By November 2021, 55 successful test flights had been completed, as introduction is targeted for 2024-2025
@@CrazyForCooCooPuffs Like @HarveyCohen said, ""Calculated" performance figures, but no actual test data. It's all vaporware, but the vaguely British accent of the narrator is convincing." Except for the last bit.
I did notice that it is 2024. Already. Has the Otto air mobile gone thew way of the Dodo?
@@DaveSherry-z1w Which part of "55 test flights have been completed" did you not understand?
@@Yutani_Crayven Test flights, yes... but the data is calculated, not from those test flights. What part do you not understand? Remember Humane's AI device... has also been shown around and "tested", but between their claims and the reality was a huge discrepancy. In the end it was just a scam.
Very impressive performance numbers. Here's hoping that this one sees full production and finds acceptance in the market if it's as good as advertised.
Those "performance numbers" are all PREDICTIONS. None of the impressive claims are actual results from actual test flights.🤣
Providing a means for more elites to fly cheaply does NOT help "decarbonise" commercial passenger or freight air travel. This kind "save the planet" BS always means the same thing. Elites get to carry on flying while you are grounded. WAKE UP, it's a scam to return us to serfdom !
Have you seen these numbers somewhere other than videos on UA-cam?
probrably not... they arent mentioning with or without weight loaded... with ppl or no ppl. so I have the feelings it just a what if prototype :-(
also smooth surfaces does not equal low drag as claimed here. funny enough you want minimal texture - but that is hard to maintain.
As a Airline Transport Pilot, with close to 20,000 hours of flight time, I wonder how that thing will hold up flying the ILS into Denver during a severe icing storm and winds gusting to 55......visibility out those windows don't look that great for the pilots. Unless they're intending to get rid of us?
You know it’s coming
AI will do it don't worry.
AI is replacing lots of future jobs!
It wont
I'm skeptical if its diesel powered turboprop can sustain itself at 50,000 feet
Interesting analysis of the claims, from the Wikipedia article:
With a 35 ft (11 m) long fuselage and a 55 ft (17 m) wingspan, the claimed 22-to-1 glide ratio should yield a 3.5 sq ft (0.33 m2) equivalent flat-plate area drag.[9] With 500 hp (370 kW), this would allow a top speed of 300 kn (560 km/h) at 30,000 ft (9,100 m), and 430 kn (800 km/h) true airspeed at 65,000 ft (20,000 m), but the RED A03 critical altitude is 25,000 ft (7,600 m).[9] The propeller tips would have transonic wave drag and would operate in a disturbed wake, limiting propeller efficiency, and laminar flow would be difficult to maintain for a large part of the fuselage with windows and panel seams.[9]
The configuration is similar to the 1948 Planet Satellite, or the 2011 EADS Voltaire electric aircraft concept.[7] The claimed 59% drag reduction "would be quite a hard task to achieve", according to the Royal Aeronautical Society, while lift-induced drag would not be reduced by laminar flow.[7] A 1:22 glide ratio like current airliners can be reached with its high wing aspect ratio, without a sensational drag reduction: better than other general aviation designs, but lower than most gliders.[7] The 460 mph (400 kn; 740 km/h) max speed is achievable, but the cruise speed has to be lower to reach the 4,500 nmi (8,300 km) range.[7] The fuel efficiency is difficult to compare with no specified payload, cruise speed and altitude.[7] Pushing the laminar flow to the limit could hinder handling qualities or structural efficiency, and laminar flow tends to be unreliable in service, as it is highly susceptible to degradation from surface irregularities.[7]
This aircraft will never happen, very good analysis. Only a few aircraft are certified for commercial use SE IFR and only because they use a PT6 which has great reliability.
Thanks for the information. Most claims where blatantly overestimated and you can tell just by the way the information is presented. Thanks again mate!
@@MrTuhascvbouwq I look at things from the pilot perspective but this is not much different than electric aircraft. Hydrogen aircraft are never going to happen, just like electric commercial aircraft will never happen. They both fail on energy density and and safety.
Fascinating answer, but area you sure?
Opinion on Lilium aircraft?
This is actually worth more to the industry. I can see many companies that have private airlines picking this up also many islands for short and long distance runs
Definitely a golden award .
Fantastic aircraft ❤
I already heard about this Celera about 2 years ago, but things are still there
i dont see it happening. if target is milionaires they will not use more money to go slower just cause it is carbon free
The "up to 19 passengers" was referring to this. More than 19 passengers, you need a flight-attendant in commercial service.
That's all great, but the amount of experts that still don't know there's no climate change besides weather manipulation technology that's got weird weather here and there occasionally as a side effect is MIND fkn BLOWING. Germany admitted 14 years ago of aiding the US with chem trailing officially. The barrier reef is growing, the ice on the arctic ain't going nowhere, the lying cu*s, the "experts" and Obama type of sneaky MF's buying property at sea level is increasing every year. The WEF flying to their own circle jerk with 1200 private jets to tell US to shower less, not use gas stoves etc. in a time of video call and so called fighting climate change is not only laughing in our face they're literally taking a No.2 on all of our chests and we're paying for it.
The wing area and the airplane fuselage area are unequal. can't fly far
Are you familiar with airplane design technology?
This airplane definitely appears to have a lot of potential, very cool engineering !
if I had a dime for every futuristic revolutionary video I've seen in you tube of cfap that won't ever exist I would be a millinaire.
i wish i could be a millinaire.
bro this is clearlly project number 2460291 that is vapourware made to launder money from some billionaire , just like they do in saudi arabia
Aspire to be a billinaire...
@@LygerTheCLaw You'd never have to worry about cloth again...
Yeah well if I made and sold hats professionally I'd be a milliner.
I think the key to success of this project is the high quality of the 3D video...particularly, the hangar shots.
So many videos like this. Still waiting for the travel revolution.
Yes. Like promo films for domestic, private flying cars. Each looks so promising... but we've been seeing such things, since the 1930's and still no revolution. Oh, well! 😏
@@mombaassa The lack of flying cars is the fault of government. By the time you satisfy the DOT on the car part it is to heavy to be a practical airplane.....
Clearly the problem with this airplane is that the goal of the inventors has to do with "sustainability" "Climate change" "man made global warming" "man made global cooling" Other names? They are wasting capital on gobily gook hydrogen fantasy over using capital to get the aircraft government approved with the nice diesel engine. Many companies go bankrupt trying to pass all the government regulations or shortly after starting production. So it is NOT likely these people will have an airplane in the air for sale to the rest of us.
@@scottsoper it's not the government fault, it's just impossibile
@@dinamiteblaa It ABSOLUTELY IS the government's fault that we don't see some of these innovations. The laws often get in the way of innovation. Also they have one go through expensive ridiculous tests before going to production.
I think the real issue at hand here is looking at why SUVs and trucks are so fuel inefficient and repealing the EPA regulations that incentivize them to be that way
Fifty years from now this will be old school, but in the present, it's eye opening innovation. This aircraft is rather intriguing and my hat's off to its creators!
Well it’s got to start sometime, somehow.
Although the implementations are different and i hope they pan out this has already all been done and phased out. Having super light wings with all the weight in the fuselage is already an old school take. Having a giant egg like shape is already an old school take. Using a v12 diesel engine is an especially old school design.
Fuel was moved to the wings to increase not only cargo area available but to increase maximum weight capacity by distributing weight better not to mention moving the fuel tanks with combustible fuels away from the fuselage has other added benefits.
The egg shapes where either abandoned or usage reduced to only ultra light weight speed record designs because the egg shape massively increases the front cross section area. Egg shape is most aerodynamic when super long and thin or when flying super slow, afterwards other variables that also affect drag more at higher speed vastly outweighs an egg shape design.
There is so much more but meh like I said i hope it pans out
@@Guardian_Arias indeed. people seem to be inventing the wheel and calling it a new thing everyday :D it so easy to get money from investors via the power of the internet thesedays
@@Guardian_Arias In addition, due to the thin wing shapes of this project, their strength will be sufficient only when relatively thicker and heavier spars and/or skins are used. A thicker wing would weigh less. Its greater drag would not use so much additional fuel that it would exceed the weight being saved in its wing structure. So, a thicker wing is more optimal and that is why it is used on long-range cruising aircraft of more conventional kinds. This thicker design is also more efficient in the way the lift is countered by the fuel weight, which does not need to be carried in the fuselage of this project.
In fifty years there will be no person who can support and develop such things. Every body will be making the content for tiktok and onlyfans
I was flying with a friend one day and decided to calculate MPG based on fuel flow and ground speed. It was a twin engine Piper Aztec with 6 cylinder air cooled engines, and two bladed propellers. My calculated MPG was 20 and the plane was averaging about 200mph ground.
The ONLY was this happened was to have pulled back to the lowest manifold pressure and leaned to the lowest fuel flow possible to sustain level flight AND with a 75 knot tailwind. Light piston twins get around 5 Nautical Miles per Gallon average. Period. And Aztecs are actually NOT the most aerodynamic of light piston twins.
@@MrNtheyer I have a friend with one. I 'll have to ask him.
@@MrNtheyer not to mention max weight, atmospheric conditions, wind, altitude, or poor maintenance...
That's with 2 engines!
While this might be the case for your friend's Piper Aztec, it would place it among the most fuel efficient planes out there, something I can't see confirmed in any of the efficient airplanes lists out there. Looking at what is posted, a range of 1300 miles in long range configuration and a min/max fuel capacity of 133-177 gallons, it looks that that would translate to between 9.77 and 7.35 MPG. So less than half your calculated MPG. Now I don't know if your friend did any special fuel saving modifications to his Piper Aztec, but the 20 MPG that you calculated seem a bit out of spec for what a typical Piper Aztec could achieve. Maybe he had a heck of a tail wind that day?
the window frames and gear doors trip the boundary layer... also all the little bugs... this isn't as "Laminar" as they suggest...
time for a poop✊✊😜😜
I love the push for efficiency. I'm excited to see what CATL's newly-announced aviation-grade batteries can do with an efficient design like this.
Until they get battery energy density to about 15 x what it is now, it's not competitive.
@@csjrogerson2377 I politely disagree. And I'm not alone. The industry consensus is that 500wh/kg is the tipping point where batteries get light enough for short hop commercial flights. See recent videos from @fullychargedshow, @electricviking, @UndecidedMF . My understanding is that most recent electric cars use around 250wh/kg batteries. CATL gave a big surprise when they released that they have a 500wh/kg battery already in the works that is production imminent. They are already working with the FAA which indicates their seriousness. One big motivator is that it is significantly cheaper to operate an electric plane assuming the necessary weight of batteries is achieved. So your statement would be correct if it said 2x what it is now.
Batteries are dead. Hydrogen is the way of the future.
@@c.san.8751 Perhaps for aviation. H2 is typically stored at very high pressures up to 70 MPa and these tanks are heavy and require testing/recertification ($$$) every few years. I have worked with these pressures and its difficult. Battery/electric propulsion would force shorter flights but be much simpler for maintenance and lower cost.
@@ricinro I think at this stage the jury is out on that. The flights would be shorter but I can not see the math where they would be economically viable. Batteries far too heavy. Ticket prices will skyrocket.
This combination of design elements was first achieved and flown by Eau Gallie High School Aeronautics Department in the 1980's. It was called the EG-1 experimental aircraft.
Considering zero emissions is the last thing they should be doing, keep an eye on technology developments, integrate only when it becomes economically feasible
Following this aircraft through its development has sparked enthusiasm for the future of transportation by air and,
due to the parallel efforts in the enhancement all azimuts of hydrogen fuel cells, of sustainable mass transit in general.
But, the Celera has tickled the fancy of aircraft enthusiasts for years now, anticipating every step forward toward making
this dream project an accessible reality. Hopefully, no insurmontable hurdles shall impede its accreditation/realization!
Turbulent flow is required to reduce wing stall speeds particularly at high angles of attack, so there may be some safety issues.
С таким крылом у него и так маленькая скорость сваливания, а с таким корпусом большие углы атаки в принципе не достижимы на эксплуатационных скоростях. Это конечно теоретически, но думаю авторы самолёта бизнес класса о безопасности подумали
These frauds are being commercially launched always '2-3 years' in the future.
Journos love them.
You see beautiful prototypes in glitzy videos, you get breath-taking performance estimates but somehow the launch date always gets pushed backwards. Until the bancruptcy.
Regulations make it impossible to bring something like this to market in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost.
@@jimj2683 You're wrong. It's not the laws of men that make this thing and the related claims impossible, it's the laws of nature.
The Titan submersible disaster proved, once again, that regulations are written in blood. Regulations don’t make it "impossible," they make it responsible.
I'd like to have a plane to travel into the future...
Looks sleek, well done! One thing I'd like to see is the Weight & Balance envellope. Just looking at the placement of the wing surfaces, having between zero and 19 people in the cabin, compounded with difference between full and near-empty fuel tanks would appear to be a major balancing challenge.
My guess is that rhe fuel is distributed all around the body so the CG issue won’t be so bad.
The real question is how much do they cost, and how much is the annual maintenance?
2025 is a long way away.
Very narrow chord wings mean a very small CoG range. It would be interesting to see how much testing has been done at extreme aft cg near max allowable weight.
I would be more interested in MPG per pound of load beyond vehicle weight, or dollar per mile per pound load including capital and maintenance cost.
It would also be interesting to know if their MPG claim is based on the ludicrous idea of shutting off the engine and gliding 125 miles.
Exactly. It's one thing to push a small plane with only a few passengers and achieve good mileage, but what happens when you attempt to put this to scale normally set by commercial aircraft? Size and weight will directly affect the mileage. Tell me what the mileage will be if it was used to transport 250 people from London to Moscow, or New York to Los Angeles, etc.?
@@davefranklyn7730 I will tel you what happens: If you take a Boeing 787 and divide the max fuel capacity in gallons by the range you get 33,340 US Gallons per 8463 miles. That is roughly 4 Gallons per mile. It does not sound very economical, right? Here is the kicker tough: It achieves this while carrying around 242 passangers and roughly 15 tonnes of cargo. So the fuel economy per passanger is about 60 MPG.
For this reason I think these sensational "news" articles are to be taken with a grain of salt. There is a thing called economics in scale. If the airlines could save fuel by flying planes like these, then if would have been designed and built years ago...
Skeptical. They've been promoting it for a long time now and the only video I've seen of it in the air it looked like an R/C model.
Very efficient design, well done.
diesel-electric trains are the state of the art for long distances, interesting to see it being applied to planes
I love the appearance of this aircraft, It reminds me of a seabird. That fuel efficiency sounds amazing.
This thing is amazimg! I really do hope it goes into production and does well. There are a lot of unnecessary flights but used wisely and efficiently, this could really go along way to cutting emissions.
Family worker-bee ski trips enabled by UBI will become the 1950's "as dreamed of" air-cars.👍
I’d love to see the this aircraft perform in icing conditions. It’s performance in crosswinds will be interesting as well. No, I don’t think this will be the biggest thing in aviation.
Both good points! And with lots of wing span, you can imagine the effect of turbulence on the ride!
@@LarryB-inFL High aspect ratio wings are often very flexible. Such wings give a good ride in turbulence.
@@LarryB-inFL the A380 handles turbulence very well and wing is huge
@@glennoc8585 its A380 is a big aircraft.
Fuel economy on diesal engine is the real winner.
Replacement of propeller will be the negative point. So, I'd suggest having two smaller propellers higher up closer rooftop. Maybe on a framework. This plane looks like a winner, I assume the copy and paste chinese companies will reverse engineer it anyway
Is it really more efficient than a traditional aircraft if it can carry less people? What would be the fuel consumption/payload weight metric for this aircraft and how does it compare to what we have now?
Well said. Always question. Look at all factors, pro AND con, especially in a puff piece like this.
To begin with, they should reconsider the concept of using this aircraft and remove the stupid flight range of 8,300 kilometers at a speed of 460 km/h. No one will agree to sit in chairs for eighteen hours.
I am impressed by it as a technology demonstrator. Not so much as a viable commercial product. People with millions to spend want a proven safety track record, redundancy and turbine reliability.
Also capacity for scale.
With electric motor should be very reliable. Can always add a plane parachute.
@@shahbazfawbush Plane parachute is very good for small planes and helicopters.
Dudes, at 1:43 the label reads "5100 ml" (ML) like it's a measure of liquid volume when you're referring to 5100 miles. The abbreviation is "mi"!
i was thinkingn the exact same thing
Wonder if they could also use a toroidal propeller to increase efficiency
Was also wondering about using LiquidPistons rotary engine too.
no. that is only good in water really.
I would like to see the prop noise data for this aircraft. As long-time RC pilot pusher prop systems such as these are notoriously loud, I noticed the video was very careful to avoid any mention of noise. It looks like a good concept, but I will look for videos of the plane's takeoff with sound.
I also have flown many wings and talon/mini talons and alot of the noise comes from the disrupted flow of air over the fuse to the prop. This design may not have the same problems because of this special airflow design. Also it probably has a variable pitch prop which could tune for noise and efficiency.
@@spyder000069 Excellent point, I was just wondering why in all the videos I saw there was no unedited sound of it flying or taking off, just soothing music.
@@Anoldphotographer Ha. I am not against the possibility that they are only showing what they want you to see. LoL.
Odds are the prop is only turning 17-1900 rpm, which alone will keep the noise down. Some tweaks to the tip design could also help. Once they reach the electric motor, they can refine the props even more (greater torque = wider blades) and have zero exhaust noise. I think it will be *amazingly* quiet.
@@Pix2GoStudiosAs I said, I flew Radio Control electric pusher planes and they were all loud, I just found it suspicious that they did not include the sound on their promo video.
Over-the-nose visibility doesn't look too great. On short final, with high pitch attitude, will pilot be able to see the runway? I had a plane with similar issue and eventually just did a final turn with roll out pretty much on the runway. I couldn't see the runway if I flew traditional final approach. Take off had similar issue: I'd look out the side to judge my position on the runway.
This plane is the one that really should be using the new CATL 500 Wh/kg Batteries.
I think it will be the next generation after that. There is some time before this hits the market
If it really does have totally laminar flow over the wings, wouldn't it have terribly sudden/scary stall characteristics?
things a death machine
Yep. This should be flown like a jet airliner. You fly the profile and reject anything that gets anywhere near the edge of the envelope.
That is exactly what it means, the performance figures for this thing sound impressive but it is unlikely to be successful because its flight characteristics will be inherently unsafe especially with only one engine.
What happens in the rain? Doesn't rain kill laminar airflow?
@@NeilGaede1yep, any bit of icing, hail dents, dirt/polution and wing turns to shit.
How can you have center of lift and mass so far aft and still expect any useful load? I guess you'll never have to worry about stalling.
We oughta tell them about the toroidal propellers too
You can fly from la to Seattle without making any emissions. I get the distinct feeling that was a direct translation, or so is my instinct.
Back in the early 80's, while I was in vo-tech school, we had a very small transparent internal combustion engine that ran on hydrogen, which we produced on sight using only water and electricity. The only by-product out the exhaust was water. The fuel started out as water and returned to its original state after combustion. That was over 40 years ago and technology has come a long way. But there's still homework to be done.
I see this as an interesting experiment. I don’t, but if I were willing to accept the pretty numbers they quote then I have follow up questions.
1.) How do they maintain the laminar flow with an airplane in service. It seems to me that dirt, bugs, rain and de-icing systems and actual ice will make maintaining laminar flow problematic.
2.) How do they handle emergency descent from FL500 due to pressurization loss? That’s a lot of altitude to get rid of.
3.) When they just “switch off the engine” as they put it for an efficient glide how are they maintaining pressurization? Something has to be running to keep it pressurized. Additionally as an instructor I have shut down a number of engines in multi-engine training and it’s not uncommon for an engine to be reluctant to start back after it has cooled down. I would be unhappy to shut down an engine at the temperatures you find at FL500.
4.) If they somehow do make it run on hydrogen how are they going to handle its availability? I am thinking this will sharply decrease the amount of usable airports.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I look forward to their progress.
it cannot do FL500.. props don't work that high.. Ceiling is 30000 feet.
hell it can't do any of its claims..t cant fly high enough to get to thin air, and that is where planes are at the most efficient , over weather, thin air... where jet engines work and propellors don't.
This feels so much like the hype for the Beech Starship, which was supposed to be super-light, clean and efficient, carbon fibre, laminar flow. Wound up grossly overweight and too expensive. They took two seats out before it was even certified just to try to make it work.
The concept is quite beautiful and stunning. This might be the revolution we've been waiting for!
For efficiency yes private planes that were always stupid expensive this is probably cost at least 50,000,000 to $100,000,000
I always wanted to fly in a blimp. Now my dream will come true.
This has the potential to make running a charter business considerably more profitable. I can believe these haven't already flooded the charter market.
I can. Getting anything certified by the FAA or comparable governing bodies is something akin to a Greek epic task.
Wow. I bet it can also heal bad karma and it poops butterflies! I came here for an example of investor-fleecing lingo for my students and I was NOT disappointed 🤣
My boat carries my wife and myself and does 2 mile per gallon. Our runaround boat (smaller and faster and no sleeping accommodation) returns and impressive (for boats) 4.5 miles per gallon.
Who needs aircraft with all those long and expensive licensing rules…
I get that it’s not truly a production model, but if we’re talking about passenger aircraft, they need to be able to hold large amounts of luggage and an excess of fuel in the event of an emergency. This design doesn’t seem to be effective for carrying passengers, fuel, and luggage, but we’ll see.
This is an incredible piece of work, well done!
The video shows landings and takeoffs without so much as flaps, let alone any serious high lift devices. How do you get a slippery aircraft onto the ground.even on jet runways without them? How do you get it slowed down to pattern speeds and altitudes?
I’d get one if I was a multimillionaire. Price is $4.5M - $5M with a top speed of 460 mph. Also since planes can fly directly to your destination without the twists and bends of the road, it’s probably even more fuel efficient than a car if you wanted to get across the country.
I'd love to see the numbers of this graceful bird if it was fitted with the new torodial propellers.
Also combined with the Delta Hawk engine ? ?
@@lwmaynard5180Any ounce of squeezable performance...
Innovation is one of the most appealing characteristic of human nature! The future is looking great!
The design of the plane is giving me airship vibes. I wonder if the shape could be applied to a zeppelin, scaled up and given toroidal propellers. With the same engine, again, scaled up, it might be what the industry needs as a transport that straddles the area between fast, but expensive (not to mention, carbon intensive) heavy lift transport aircraft and the slow, but considerably cheaper, cargo ships sailing the oceans.
The wing area and the airplane fuselage area are unequal. can't fly far
Are you familiar with airplane design technology?
Did you design knowing that the economical wing area should be twice the body area of the airplane? The fuselage area is the same for each wing.
"Oh the humanity!"
@@wangofree I shouldn’t laugh, but…😆😆😆
Such a pity that we have weather to contend with.
My only concern is that a fully laminar wing will stall everywhere at the same time = super dangerous!
Couldn’t one add a twist in the wing so the chord line rotates. This way tips would stall first. This is what some sailplanes do FWIU.
This only works because its still a small scale
When they scale this up to a commercial size plane
This will be more ineffecient lol
@@everydaydose7779 It says in the video it doesn't scale up. ua-cam.com/video/l6vnU3JuNVE/v-deo.html
It needs retractable VG's on the wing and perhaps on the parts of the fuselage.
The Celera 500 project is there for several years now. And it is still got nothing commercial. If it is so revolutionary, what is the problem to build like 5-10 prototypes and to give them to commercial companies with huge discount? It will immediately reveal all the pros and cons and, may be, it will be a dealbreaker.
Assuming a weight of 3 tonnes, it would take 150 kW just to keep it airborn. Assuming a cruising speed of 300 mph, that works out at 7 mpg (not 18-25 mpg as stated), and that isn't even taking into account the horrendous ICE engine inefficiency or drag. I'm calling BS :(((
Why 3 tons?
@@shahbazfawbush The Citation CJ1, which has half the cabin volume, weighs 4 tonnes when empty, so 3 tonnes is definitely a conservative assumption.
Lear Fan is the same size and speed , but with two PT6 1000kW :))
@@thealzp The Lear Fan is an excellent comparison. If you add half a ton of diesel and half a ton of passengers you are nearing my assumption of 3 tons. Unfortunately, in an attempt to keep the weight down, the Lear Fan suffered from structural deficiencies. The project was eventually cancelled.
Jackoffs
Would a toroidal propeller be applicable?
That's what I was thinking.
Big deal, Thunderbird 2 had this design feature in the mid 1960's
3:01
3:14 It reminds me of an "flying Ocean gate" 🤣
this company should contact Taylor Swift & Elon
Too slow for them
Tayler has a pretty hefty jet from what i understand
I think you meant the drug cartels....😅😅
This company seems INSANE! Super excited.
I give them points for doing something outside the norm with a considerable potential efficiency benefit. If investors want to put money into it good for them, the potential reward is there. It is very hard to get a new design all the way through certification and then on to commercial viability so the risk is there too. If you don't see it, don't invest.
Wow. I wish them the best of luck, seems like a wonderful idea.
The fact that the laminar flow benefits do not scale up reminds me of an old classic book _The Forty Knot Sailboat._ The author made models of his hydrofoil and airfoil boat, also optimized for laminar flow, and they scooted across the water at great speed. But he never got a full sized one to work, and I'm guessing it was because laminar flow does not scale up.
Problem with laminar flow is the stability of this effect for large surfaces. Larger the surface the more unpredictable it becomes to the point it just breaks down totally unpredictably. Even so with a plane this large it will still have a very limited operating envelope to keep the laminar flow stable.
Oh my goodness I would love to be able to ride on that. I hope the best for this country because this looks so promising
Looks great and all that, perfect for an experimental class where maybe one or two design elements can actually be put in use. This comes across as a marketing pitch more than anything. This "bullet body" isn't new, Zeppelins had it. And yet, a lot of modern air bodies have evolved to having air disrupters and microvanes plastered all over the airframe to improve control and even REDUCE drag.
The feature of keeping fuel out of the wings threw me a bit. That was a huge design improvement at the time and was pushed as "free weight". EX: Every 100lb of fuel in the fuselage was 100lb of cargo weight. Every 100lb of fuel in the wing was within the lifting body and considered "free weight". Along with the extra fuselage space, which has to made bigger to hold the fuel because its not in the wings.
Hydrogen: That is quickly becoming the new Green New Deal grift. Scientists have been poking at that for decades. At lab levels and small projects, it's fantastic. Large scale becomes a problem. Naturally occurring hydrogen is limited and takes time to form. But it can be made commercially for large scale. It's ingredients, wait for it,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Natural gas, coal and oil. Fossil fuels baby.
Hydrogen is taking the same path as the ethanol grift. When people started looking behind the curtain, they found that more fossil fuels energy was being used to produce ethanol then what was produced by the ethanol. But by then the grants and tax funded programs were on a roll. But slap a Green sticker on the side of the engine and its the best thing ever.
Batteries are another planet saver that really aren't. Lithium is a limited resource and planet destroying mines are going full blast to dig it up, using fossil fueled equipment and,,, save the planet? And of course batteries are charged by electricity which is made predominately by fossil fuels, something the greens seem oblivious to (or pretend they are).
Sssshhhhh... We don't use logic here....
Good observations.
Hydrogen as a source of energy is a non-starter. Hydrogen as an energy storage medium has advantages and disadvantages that must be assessed on a per-application basis. I'm skeptical of how useful it will be in aviation due to volume constraints, but I think it's worth taking a look into.
Doesn’t anyone know how to desalinate and electrolyze water these days? Just set up some water wave motion/wind turbines/solar furnaces for free energy and, voila, hydrogen(and oxygen and sodium chloride, too).
✈🌍 Impressive! The advancements in small aviation are truly remarkable. It's fascinating to see how this design is catering to the needs of travelers in smaller cities, providing them with affordable, comfortable, and efficient air transportation. I wonder, what other innovations or features would you like to see in small aviation to further enhance its commercial success? Keep up the great work! 👍🚀
The wing area and the airplane fuselage area are unequal. can't fly far
Are you familiar with airplane design technology?
Cmon bro, this is just a video on UA-cam for views. This pipe dream will never come true.
Has anyone combined the torroidal propeller concept to this plane? It's already in use on ships and aerial drones.
Taxis going five hundred miles.
One of the best ideas ever. Get it onto the market now! An additional bonus is that its shape is perfect for the modern first world passenger.
That's gonna seriously increase the amount of UFO sightings.
Are UFOs now arriving here with propellers as it's main thrust?
That should work pretty dang good in space.
@@johndavis7078Well, most objects called UFO have never been to space, and are recorded with such low tech cameras, you won't even notice it has a propeller or not 😂
There is exactly 0% chance it can achieve its goals.
Why?
It’s funny .. they said that about flight .. combustion engines.. cars.. but here they are .. thank you tho.. for the motivation to make it a reality.. your input in the project is absolutely crucial and wouldn’t happen without you…
Well... I found the Tic Tac UFO 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
There will never be "electric aviation " until battery storage achieves quantum increase in battery storage. This aircraft is the future of aviation.
I wonder if they are looking at the brand new propeller design from MIT, this could increase efficiency further.
Great stuff. But, although I'm a glider pilot and love my planes, I have a feeling that the way forward to reduce CO2 emissions from aviation may ultimately be to do a lot less of it, especially in relation to 'non essential' travel. Also, we're fixed on the idea of being able to get from A to B fast. But is that really so important, in an age of ultra fast and powerful communications. I think the shape of the future has yet to truly emerge from the fog. But, this is a great little plane from what I can see and hopefully will do well in the niche executive transport sector.
I hade an idea about électric Duckted Fan power train for planes. . Instead of using the smallest rotor diameter motor, I would use the tip of the fanblades as rotor and 3 or 4 field coils installed at the outside diameter . . . The torque increases at the square of the diameter. . So the larger the diameter, the less energy you would need to operate it. . .🙂
Do you understand the importance of gap between the stator and rotor?
@@sujoybha yes, the least , the better it is a matter of original design. .
larger diameter also increase WEIGHT and drag... why do ordinary people think that the scientist and plane builders dont have these same ideas in a trash bin allready?
Nope, The larger the diameter, the more energy you need...
@@sujoybha yes I do. I,ve worked at Pratt and Withney for many years and I dig fan theory . . yet I beleive that it would be more economic to drive the fan from the outer edge then through the center shaft
plane do not do mpg they gallons per hour!
And they fly at miles per hour which together can produce a miles per gallon calculation. A plane that uses 5 gallons per hour and flies at 100 miles per hour gets 20 miles per gallon. So, there, a plane DOES do mpg.
When you calculate gallons per seat, a typical airliner get WAY better fuel milage than your car..
@@thomasaltruda Yes, and a small aircraft also commonly does better than a car for fuel per mile. Cars are surprisingly bad in general.
They deserve every success!
The Goblin is an awesome plane. Well done Otto Aviation.
keep going on this aviation development for the bigger ,faster ,cheaper and safer .
Eco friendly aviation time has come with this design . Simply fabulous. The egg shape fuselage for laminar flow is a breakthrough . This can be applied for SUV also
This is a great design. I hope it inspires designers to scale it up to larger sizes.
Efficiency is beautiful!
If you had listened to the video you would not that it WON'T scale up. That's why it does not exist already.
Providing a means for more elites to fly cheaply does NOT help "decarbonise" commercial passenger or freight air travel.
It's actually ridiculous. One minute they're touting it's performance capabilities and will remain for corporate travel yet craps on about easing airport congestion. It's only going to support 6-10 people at most
@@Badmansband Did you listen to the video either? It said up to 19. Doesn't mean they're right, but at least that's the claim, not 6-10 people at most.
@@jarodmorris611 "scaled up" version. Show me how my comment doesn't hold? I'm talking about airport congestion.
@@Badmansband I was only referring to the 6-10 people part of your comment. As for the rest of it, you are right. if it holds 6-10 people, it would be a generic sized business net. The difference is that it said take off and landing did not require the same as a business jet which would, at least in theory, spread out the traffic to smaller airports closer to the end destination. Not sure it works out like that much, but the idea sounds good.
I like it. I would fly on it. Let's see it in the air.
Mega awesome, I hope those planes will run some day soon!
That's substantially better than most boats. Amazing
Exciting times! I just love the current wave of future aircraft concepts with better powertrains than just burning gas. Many/most will likely fail for one reason or another, but some will indeed make it to the market and hopefully be successful!
Very interesting project. Much more realistic than any electric drone BS.
Most single engine props do about 20mpg already.
A better analogy would be to get the same fuel efficiency of a sprinter van for 12-15 people (15mpg), or bus for 40 people (4mpg).
Then true short haul aviation would be a huge booming industry.
Good point. However, Avgas is around $6 per gallon, and standard diesel is almost half that price.
I think this will take off and become very big. These planes will become the busses of the sky growing and expanding in the small and regional airport space.
Nope, you will never see these things in real life. Not even at an airshow.
Not one buyer has placed an order yet.
I wonder if relying on fully laminar flow around the fuselage and wings might cause problems in the event of icing?
What a beautiful aeroplane… one step closer to cleaner flying… well done!! ❤
it's even more impressive when you realize cars are stuck in traffic and can't go from point a to b in a straight line. i just wish we could have personal flying vehicles sooner than later.
I think these things are going to start around $5 million. I wonder if a smaller version ( 4 seater) that could do 200 mph and had greater wing surface area could get the price down to under $1 million. This would be a much larger market. 50 miles per gallon ?
All the luck to them.
More clean aircraft are better for all of us !
How does the efficiency compare to a blended wing?
2:57 since you can shut it off and glide, I can only imagine the people that are going to hypermile this thing. It already flies over 5000 mi with the engine running, imagine if you just brought it up to 50,000 feet and then turned off the motors when as far as you could and then brought it back up to 50,000. The motors were only used for altitude not for forward motion.. well a little bit forward but you know what I mean. They're only turned on for climbing purposes.
Would be a riot to watch people fly to Hawaii and stuff