Otto Aviation done with Phase One testing of Celera 500L aircraft

Projected 460 mph at 50,000 ft? Can the plane even get that high?

It actually did >250 at 15,000 I think.
 
RingLaserGyroSandwich said:
Projected 460 mph at 50,000 ft? Can the plane even get that high?

It actually did >250 at 15,000 I think.
Click to expand...

The discussion on another board is around the complexity of supplying enough manifold pressure at 50K' to run a diesel. My thought is that nobody is gonna spend the time to climb to 50K' in a recip. The climb rate just won't be there to make it practical. Which is different than saying it can't be done.
 
kyleb said:
The discussion on another board is around the complexity of supplying enough manifold pressure at 50K' to run a diesel. My thought is that nobody is gonna spend the time to climb to 50K' in a recip. The climb rate just won't be there to make it practical. Which is different than saying it can't be done.
Click to expand...
But it means it probably shouldn't be.
 
Velocity173 said:
I’m optimistic. Like another well known pusher doing 300 KTAS at FL250 on a modified Audi Diesel engine. It can happen.
Click to expand...

These guys at least have some science and engineering experience on their side. That other guy was in wayyy over his head pretty early.
 
kyleb said:
These guys at least have some science and engineering experience on their side. That other guy was in wayyy over his head pretty early.
Click to expand...

I agree but I don’t see 400 KTAS at FL500 with this. They say they’ve proven its aerodynamic efficiency in 2019 but yet haven’t even come close to their claims yet.

When I think of something like a Lancair IV or even something more comparable like an Epic Lt, they hit their numbers early in testing and kits shipped soon after. Three years and 55 test flights later and all this aircraft has achieved is around 220 kts at 15,000 ft. An Epic looks like a 330 kt aircraft on 1,200 hp. I just don’t see it with this aircraft.
 
I read their original 550 hp power plant wasn’t cutting it. No kidding. :rolleyes:
 
FormerHangie said:
Hoping for more investor money, I suppose.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. Isn’t that the business model adopted by a lot of these guys? Pick a concept that sounds sexy but is utterly unattainable without some theoretical vast leap in one technology or another - better if it needs two or three. You can suck up investor money for decades on a sexy hobby project, never produce anything other than promises and “prototypes”, and when it all comes to nothing and the money is gone…. Well, it’s not YOUR fault the world just wasn’t ready for you.

It’s nice work if you have the stomach for it.
 
As I read this, this is all still a simulation. Do you think they'll have to go to the trouble of actually building a mock up (let alone a prototype) before it raptorizes?

EDIT: Nauga pointed out that a prototype has flown. Several flights reached airspeeds of over 250 mph at altitudes up to 15,000 feet, which projects to an airspeed of 460 mph at 50,000 feet, officials add.

But not actually flown to 50,000 feet. Is it really possible? If so, why didn't they?
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
As I read this, this is all still a simulation. Do you think they'll have to go to the trouble of actually building a mock up (let alone a prototype) before it raptorizes?
Click to expand...
They are flying, or at least have flown, a prototype.

Nauga,
pressing to test
 
"World's most efficient passenger plane"

Funny since they haven't actually carried passengers...

With that said, I'm on board with trying to advance hydrogen fuel cell technology. Batteries I doubt will ever get to anything useful for cross country style trips
 
Interesting twist I think.
Based on the press so far, the basic airframe looks like it has been validated to some level. But Otto is rather tight lipped about what has exactly been validated, and why they stopped there.
One significant advantage of the H2 fuel cells is they are less susceptible to altitude issues. Therefore in theory, the ZeroAvia which has built multiple prototypes, might actually be addressing an altitude issue that has been postulated here (and on other forums).

Still not sure on the H2 source....

Tim
 
Go with the PT6. They can keep trying to add bigger blowers to stuff more air into a recip, but ultimately you’ve got to get rid of the heat somehow. At FL500 seems like that would be dicey.

Or just add a bunch of 5 gallon containers in series with the cooling loop. That “worked,” until it met the cornfield.
 
Velocity173 said:
Only thing that’s gonna validate their proposed specs is a PT6 with 1,600 hp.
Click to expand...
They need to pick which specifications will sell more aircraft: performance or fuel efficiency. I agree they won't get both with their current engine. Perhaps they should give GE a call and offer it as a test bed for the new GE Catalyst turboprop engine. Throw in the use of SAF and they may get better than 60% of the current fuel burn and have the ponies to get to altitude. Unfortunately, the PT6 series are gas hogs and one of the reasons they supposedly didn't go the turbine route. However, I think they're driven (financed?) mostly by the fuel burn side which is why they are looking at hydrogen instead to the new turbine designs out there.
 
Bell206 said:
They need to pick which specifications will sell more aircraft: performance or fuel efficiency. I agree they won't get both with their current engine. Perhaps they should give GE a call and offer it as a test bed for the new GE Catalyst turboprop engine. Throw in the use of SAF and they may get better than 60% of the current fuel burn and have the ponies to get to altitude. Unfortunately, the PT6 series are gas hogs and one of the reasons they supposedly didn't go the turbine route. However, I think they're driven (financed?) mostly by the fuel burn side which is why they are looking at hydrogen instead to the new turbine designs out there.
Click to expand...

It does seem like they’re shooting for efficiency over outright speed but I’m kinda skeptical of the company (ZeroAvia) they’ve chosen. Seems like they’re in baby steps right now and all they’ve produced is a Piper Matrix power plant. One that failed and resulted in a crash I might add. They say it outperforms the petrol version but they don’t release any specifics. They’d have to ramp up in a hurry if they plan on producing a production aircraft by 2025.
 
Hey, don’t get down on suppositories. The Brits built an entire freaking building in London like that. Out of glass, no less.
 
What does it say about an aspiring aircraft manufacturer naming its company after a blowup character from the movie Airplane?
 
Domenick said:
What does it say about an aspiring aircraft manufacturer naming its company after a blowup character from the movie Airplane?
Click to expand...
That is the only thing that makes me think they know anything about flying.
 
Racerx said:
https://www.smart-energy.com/renewable-energy/hydrogen-paste-a-new-fuel-option-for-vehicles/

There's also been advances on the electrolyzer front. Infrastructure is probably the biggest hurdle hydrogen has.
Click to expand...

This is brilliant. It probably costs next to nothing to manufacture, requiring heat just 2.5 times the melting point of steel.

The paste is made out of magnesium, which is combined with hydrogen to form magnesium hydride in a process conducted at 3500C and five to six times atmospheric pressure.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
This is brilliant. It probably costs next to nothing to manufacture, requiring heat just 2.5 times the melting point of steel.

The paste is made out of magnesium, which is combined with hydrogen to form magnesium hydride in a process conducted at 3500C and five to six times atmospheric pressure.
Click to expand...

So the question is: Does the manufacturing process produce more greenhouse gasses than the paste eliminates?
 
Applaud the creative thinking. Not there yet, or maybe never. Magnesium, hydrogen, high temperature? Sounds like the Hindenburg.
 
Power paste is not an energy source, it is an energy storage system, with the usual energy loss in its creation, and release.

The cartridge system of storage means the refueling station will have a dumpster to toss the empty cartridge and its contained magnesium residue in for return and recycling. That infrastructure will be in addition to other recycling systems, and separate, as the cartridges will have specific handling requirements to remain re useable.

The power density may make it feasible for aircraft, and the concentration of aircraft refueling at a relatively small number of airports per city, makes infrastructure issues more cost effective.
 
Arnold said:
So the question is: Does the manufacturing process produce more greenhouse gasses than the paste eliminates?
Click to expand...
I think the same question could be asked of lithium batteries and it's impact when you look at extraction and charging from mostly coal and natural gas.
 
I know most all of this is vapor at this point but I was surprised at this article how light they can make hydrogen tanks. and hydrogen is at least possible to make in a sustainable way. Maybe make it when you have spare power in the middle of the day. For the record I think aviation will be one of the last categories to transition away from fossil fuels.

https://newatlas.com/aircraft/hypoint-gtl-lightweight-liquid-hydrogen-tank/
 
Racerx said:
lithium batteries and it's impact
Click to expand...
TheDrive recently did a good review of this. It's not just coal and where the power comes from, it's the whole mining process of lithium that is often overlooked. For several of these applications the breakeven point is well down the line as far as CO2 emissions goes

https://www.thedrive.com/news/electric-pickup-trucks-are-dirtier-than-you-think

TLDR-sorta-from the article;

"..
These are large, heavy vehicles with massive batteries, and there's still an environmental price to pay even if the costs have been pushed upstream and out of sight. Most electricity generation in the U.S. still produces CO2, though renewables are more in the mix depending on where you are. More important is that manufacturing electric trucks produces far more emissions than their internal-combustion counterparts. The crush of new models this year made us wonder: Where's the break-even point between gas and electric pickups? How far would you need to drive both a 6.2L V8 Ram TRX and a silent Hummer EV before their lifetime emissions catch up and the Hummer becomes the truly greener option?

We crunched the numbers, and found out the answer is farther than you'd think. Will today's electric trucks be better for the planet over time than their fossil-fueled equivalents? Absolutely. Do they cut carbon emissions enough in the short or long term to justify driving one over something smaller, even a gas car? Absolutely not.
.."
 
lmao. They are asking a question for which they will not like the answer.
American's have bought cars that make no sense financially or environmentally for decades. And suddenly the authors think Americans will change?

Tim
 
Arnold said:
So the question is: Does the manufacturing process produce more greenhouse gasses than the paste eliminates?
Click to expand...
Or the fact that 90% of the current hydrogen supply is derived from fossil fuel namely natural gas.
geezer said:
The power density may make it feasible for aircraft,
Click to expand...
While I haven't seen the paste mentioned in the aviation side, the current routes actively being taken are with modifying current ICE turbines to use hydrogen and with new generation hydrogen fuel cells. Airbus and CFM will use an A380 test bed to run a modified GE engine on hydrogen which is slated to fly around 2025-26. And Piasecki Aircraft will test the HyPoint hydrogen fuel cell propulsion unit in a modified German LSA helicopter and is scheduled to fly next year. These newer fuel cells have a power density numbers that warrant the move into the test flight stage. Piasecki is also working on the certification requirements for a Part 27 hydron fueled helicopter using a larger version of the HyPoint fuel cells.
TomF said:
For the record I think aviation will be one of the last categories to transition away from fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
I'd agree on the AVGAS side it will be the last, but on the turbine side the transition to 100% SAF is here. Depending how these latest 100% tests go, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Part 121 side be the first global industry to transition away from fossil fuels rather than the last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top