21–30 of 252 posts
The idea of being stuck in a plane for hours with no windows is...odd.
This is the future of airplanes. Windows add cost and reduce the structural integrity of the plane. Commercial airlines are already removing them. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44383220
It seems to require a pretty seriously long runway to take off. On a warm day, we’re talking international airport length runway. While pistons are cheaper than turbines, that’s because almost all of the approved pistons on the market use 1940s or earlier technology. They are very, very, very simple machines. They are still extremely expensive. This engine is very complicated, even for an automotive engine. It’s got…
The article says its typical takeoff run is 3300 feet, which is about half what a 737 needs. I don’t know a lot about airplanes, but that seems like a pretty short runway length requirement. What am I missing?
For a better comparison, the world's most popular aircraft, the four-seater Cessna 172, needs under 500 feet to take off in optimal conditions, although you might need 1500 feet if fully loaded and high up.
http://www.dmjwilliams.co.uk/gbsep_performance.htm (in meters, not feet)
However, the Cessna Citation M2 business jet, which targets a similar market as the Celera, also requires ~3000 ft (again depending on weight, altitude, conditions). So not seeing a huge difference here.
The base engine has been flying for several years. This is the turbocharged model. So it's an engine design with some flight experience.
Speed seems to be almost comparable to a turbine aircraft in cruising speed if you go by their numbers, despite it being V12 piston prop driven. Cruising speed of the 500L is 450 mph and the cruising speed of a Gulfstream IV is 520 mph. This air frame looks uncannily like the failed Planet Satellite in 1948 though.
You don't see a lot of pusher-configuration aircraft. I wonder if they plan on using the same design for a military UAV? Having a multi-fuel capable engine is a pretty clever design choice, and I imagine the improved aerodynamics come from the combination of the pusher configuration and the lack of windows (the latter enables a lighter, stronger, and more streamlined fuselage). Fuel consumption looks to be about doub…
> One question did spring to mind: why have they styled it after a vibrator? “It’s all about the laminar flow”[0] [0] https://www.ottoaviation.com/technology
The idea of being stuck in a plane for hours with no windows is...odd.
It's a Diesel. The engine is made by RED in Germany.[1] Almost the same Diesel powers the YAK-152 trainer.[2] Celera avoids the term "Diesel", but that's what it is. It runs on Diesel fuel, or JET-A, which is much the same thing. The base engine has been flying for several years. This is the turbocharged model. So it's an engine design with some flight experience. [1] https://red-aircraft.com/ [2] https://en.wikipedi…
It seems to require a pretty seriously long runway to take off. On a warm day, we’re talking international airport length runway. While pistons are cheaper than turbines, that’s because almost all of the approved pistons on the market use 1940s or earlier technology. They are very, very, very simple machines. They are still extremely expensive. This engine is very complicated, even for an automotive engine. It’s got…
The article says its typical takeoff run is 3300 feet, which is about half what a 737 needs. I don’t know a lot about airplanes, but that seems like a pretty short runway length requirement. What am I missing?
On paper it beats those aircraft, but by a far less impressive margin when you consider engine TBO, which is currently 1250 hrs on the EASA cert. With the inherent unreliablilty of piston engines, a PT-6 might look more appealing.
I'd love to see this aircraft come to market, but I fear it may go the way of many innovative aircraft; the company underestimated the cost and complexity or certification and goes bankrupt.
