The idea of being stuck in a plane for hours with no windows is...odd.
There's a rendering further down showing windows. It may just be the prototype lacking them.
Probably because while private jet sounds great, the actual money will come from the military and cargo. A small plane at the efficiency of large cargo planes that can fly between most US airports would be a game changer for Fedex & UPS. They would save massive amounts with more direct routings, current small planes are just very limited and inefficient. Also, cargo planes could be unmanned much earlier than passenger flights.
The engine in the Celera is designed for aircraft use. It is a turbocharged turbodiesel. In order to get the Chevrolet V-8 to work at altitude, you'd need to put a turbocharger on it which would destroy the fuel economy, especially in this application. Also, automotive engines are not designed to withstand the heavy duty cycle that this aircraft requires.
Actually, the Chevrolet LS series small block V8 has been used in airplanes and helicopters. The only automotive engine series I am aware of that used in aviation. http://www.v8seabee.com/ . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Hummingbird
There are plenty of automotive engines that have been converted for use as aircraft engines. Subaru EA81 flat-4s, for one. I've also seen VW Beetle engines and Mazda rotaries converted for experimental aircraft use.
Snowmobiles and jetskis aren't automobiles, but many ultralight engines are based on snowmobile/jetski engine designs. (Rotax is very common, though I've seen at least one BD-5 with a Polaris snowmobile engine converted for aircraft use.)
Not gonna lie, this week I've read two HN postings about dope planes for rich people (boom, now this)......and news articles detailing a crisis of austerity for the NYC subway. It's really sad to me that we can VC these wild bets on inefficient transport for the few, meanwhile perhaps the most efficient people-mover ever devised for the many is on an entirely politically-caused death bed.
If the design works there's no reason it shouldn't work on a A320/B737 size. But without a small prototype, the billions for developing a completely new plane and engine are not worth it.
I'm sure Airbus & Boeing are following this closely. A large turboprop (even at sizes of a A220) would further reduce ticket costs for budget airlines.
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…
3,300 feet in not a long runway - it means you can access ~80% of the ~5,000 runways in the US. On the the other hand A 777 needs 8,000-10,000 feet meaning it can only access https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#777-200LR
Also, a 3300' take-off roll doesn't mean you need a 3300' runway to operate--if you lose the engine just before rotation speed, you might need a few thousand more feet to stop the aircraft.
Another point that doesn't get mentioned in the article is noise. Laminar flow with a 59% reduction would make the aircraft much quieter, especially during approach. Aerodynamic drag is the primary source of landing planes, reducing that can greatly help communities around airports and avoid curfews.
>Especially getting 20+ mpg for 4500 miles, while flying at 450mph That's not what they're claiming though. They're claiming that: 1. 20+ mpg 2. maximum speed of 450 mph 3. range of 4500 miles are possible individually, not that 1+2+3 are possible all at the same time.
TFA did not say maximum speed 450mph, it said "maximum cruising speed of at least 450mph" Still doesn't mean it gets 18-25mpg at 450. If it can realistically do half of 4500 miles at 450mph, there are a lot of interesting routes (Gets you as far as Tel-Aviv from London, Boston to Phoenix, or Los Angeles to Miami). Using that completely-pulled-out-of-my-ass number of half the range at 450, and assuming quadratic drag,…
$5k plus pilots (I’d want two for a transatlantic flight). And you’d still be stuck inside a very small space for 12 hours, with what’s likely to be a porta-potty level lavatory and minimalist galley. Oh, and a single piston engine, which is less reliable than turbines, over a lot of very cold water. Not sure that would be the best use case for this plane.
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…
Ok, but so what? Is there something bad about diesel engines?
They weigh more but have lower fuel consumption. More complex than gasoline aero engines. Usually more reliable but making them light probably impacts that. I think the lower fuel consumption compensates for the higher weight for longer flights.
Big reason for switching to them after 100 years of using gasoline is aviation gas is expensive and concerns about lead. Big picture I think refineries and distributors don't want to supply aviation gasoline anymore.
And as others have mentioned, it's taken advantage of newer technology that allows six of pistons to be turned off. The engine basically sounds like two in-line six cylinder engines that share many common single engine features but with the ability to shut off one side and use power from the remaining side. So hypothetically, you fly up to altitude and climb using all 12 cylinders, then cruise on six. That could be w…
Naturally aspirated != carb.
You can have a naturally aspirated engine with electronic (even direct) injection, or a turbocharged engine with a carburetor, or any other combination.
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…
I would bet they end up putting liquid cooled electric motors in the wheels to shorten the take off distance to 1500 feet.