Hype? BS? Getting some serious Theranos vibes.

"phenotyp" (phenotyp) 08/28/2020 at 09:46 • Filed to: planelopnik, otto, celera

2

24

Hard to say, but they’ve been flying this thing for a few years, now, and they’re making !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

Personally, I think it needs a few more windows, if you’re gonna haul people, but I’d guess that their market is more in the unmanned end of the spectrum.

“Otto’s goal is to have achieved FAA certification by 2023 and then have a manufacturing facility delivering actual production Celera 500Ls to customers by 2025.”

For Sweden > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 09:58

2

Paint a FedEx Feeder livery on that thing and you’re cooking a stew

user314 > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 09:59

0

Eh, fit the interior with flat s creens; probably be a wash weight-wise, and the fuselage would be stronger. 

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 10:03

2

IF you add more windoews the fuselage will have to increase in thickness and weight to have the same loading capacity.

I’ve wondered for a while with the relentless drive for cheaper fares if a large multi engine turboprop could be commercially successful. Yes you would drop 100- 200 mph but on under 2 hour flights would it be noticeable? 

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 08/28/2020 at 10:08

1

I think there’s a lot of spaces where slow steaming techniques can be applied. If it’s not time critical, why not?

Tripper > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 10:15

0

Was waiting for all of the aviation oppos to chime in on this thing, kind thought the same thing. I am however, a man that knows very little about aviation.

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 10:17

2

Just line the canopy with a panoramic flexible  lcd display, then broadcast the exterior image live. That would be badass.

Kiltedpadre > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 10:18

2

I have been intrigued with diesel aircraft engines like this uses. Unfortunately I can’t get the manufacturer’s website to load to get more information about it. It’s really odd that the article gives fuel burn in miles per gallon instead of using gallons per hour. It may have been converted to make it easier for people reading the article to understand though.

Some of the claims definitely sound like inflated marketing fluff. I’ll be curious to see how well some of the tests turn out. More interesting though will be seeing a cost if it ever hits the market. I don’t see any way they can make it inexpensive enough to actually make it likely to see enough of them out there to be chartered for around the same cost of commercial flights for a family.

WasGTIthenGTOthenNOVAnowbacktoGTI > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 08/28/2020 at 10:19

2

It shows more windows in the private plane version. Probably lose some efficiency and range.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 10:22

1

No interior windows, just use LCD screens that transmit real time video from outside the plane. 

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 10:23

2

Flying prototype is a big step... It means they’ve already invested big R&D and fab money. They say they’ve verified efficiency (though not specifically stating if they met their goal, they do seem to have some pretty impressive initial numbers), and it certainly flies... Weather it works as well as they hope in it’s intended role remains to be seen, but it sure is cool looking. I also like the not-really-turbo-compound-but-sort-of-like-it waste heat thrust augmentation idea. The cabin space utilization and layout also seems pretty imp ressive. The fact that up to this point it’s been pretty secret and was not (still isn’t for the most part) surrounded by marketing wankery makes it seem like they’re pretty serious. 

user314 > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 10:24

1

Seriously, it’s like they designed the plane to engender lust first, and any aerodynamic effect was a bonus. 

phenotyp > Kiltedpadre 08/28/2020 at 10:25

1

Yeah, I thought that fuel statement was a bit odd. And I’m betting that the 4,500 mi range is with a naked pilot, no passengers.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 10:29

0

Hoo boy, that Theranos doc was crazy...

JawzX2, Boost Addict. 1.6t, 2.7tt, 4.2t > Kiltedpadre 08/28/2020 at 10:30

0

Cost is for sure a consideration. If it’s initial purchase price is too high, the savings from efficiency will take a long time to realize and the outlay will be hard to justify for operators... Especially if an existing aircraft fits into their maintenance and pilot training at a significantly lower upfront cost. (see: the entire reason the 737 MAX line exists...) Private operators don’t have those considerations to the same degree, but if it’s too expensive for anyone but the <1% to buy you sure won’t see many of them in the skies.

facw > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 08/28/2020 at 11:27

1

Not the same!

ttyymmnn > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 12:29

2

What’s old is new again.

kanadanmajava1 > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 12:33

1

A company called Otto Aviation is making an aircraft powered by a D iesel engine? WTF? This is stupid and pure blasphemy for Otto engines . Why aren’ t they named Diesel Aviation?

Jayhawk Jake > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 14:22

4

This thing is trash. Here comes a roast.

And just so we’re clear, IAMA aerospace engineer with 9 years of experience in private aviation both in new aircraft design and in marketing.

This ugly thing is trying really hard to follow in the Burt Rutan style of “innovating in the face of any commercial success”. I don’t know who they expect to buy this chunky potato. The marketing messaging comparing it to a jet is a joke. That has never worked. No one that is shopping for a twin engine jet is going to buy something with a single pusher prop out the back. It didn’t work for Piaggio, it’s not going to work for an uglier Piaggio.

Speaking of Piaggio, it’s like someone decided to copy their homework but with a single large diesel engine instead of two turboprops. That seems like a mistake. They tout a cross country range but no one will want to fly this over- sized single over water, especially with an unproven engine. And having such a large engine way out back forces the wings to be super far back and the tail to be so awkwardly tall. The wings being back and midship might be the only thing I like about this plane - it opens up the space in the fuselage for a larger cabin, but they should have kept copying Piaggio and added a forward surface to balance it out better.

The cockpit visibility looks like a joke, contributing all the more to this things absolute fatal flaw. Want to give people the experience of operating a jet? Give them a jet. I had a particular professor in college who, for as brilliant of an engineer and teacher he was, hated marketers. He thought marketing and business folks all had their heads up their rears and didn’t understand aviation. He was very much a “if you build it they will come” type, which is what this project reeks of. Who is asking for this? Who are you competing with? On paper they want to compete with a King Air and a CJ3+ . I don’t see how it compares with either in the real world. 

Kiltedpadre > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 14:28

0

I’d be curious to see how much fuel you could actually carry with 4 passengers, two pilots, and 4-5 days worth of luggage.

I’d also like to see a weight and balance chart. Those wings seem like they’re awfully far back, and a V-12 even in an aero usage is still a hefty chunk.

phenotyp > Jayhawk Jake 08/28/2020 at 14:37

1

Agreed on pretty much all counts, but I’m guessing that they’re banking pretty hard on military/border patrol/surveillance markets, especially if the unmanned version comes to fruition.

Of course, I imagine cartels might be pretty interested in that, too.

WilliamsSW > phenotyp 08/28/2020 at 19:39

0

The fact that they’re quoting MPG and range in miles tells me that they’re not marketing this thing to aviation professionals.  

WilliamsSW > Jayhawk Jake 08/28/2020 at 19:41

0

As a further question, how efficient can that little prop be, all the way behind that bulbous fuselage?

Also, last I checked, ALL pusher props were noisy AF - which means lots of vibration.  Pax used to jets will absolutely love that.  

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > WilliamsSW 08/28/2020 at 20:27

0

I think they can be quieter (inside) as the exhaust is direct rearwards vs a front engine turbo prop that directs in down from the front.

Jayhawk Jake > WilliamsSW 08/28/2020 at 22:27

0

Props are efficient in general, I don’t think it would be too problematic back there.