# The Otto Aviation Celera 500L

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by AggieMike88, Jun 9, 2019.

1. ### iamtheariPattern Altitude

Joined:
Mar 15, 2016
Messages:
1,989
Display Name:

Display name:
Ari
I didn't draw any conclusions. Which unfair assumptions do you think I made?

2. ### thebrucePre-Flight

Joined:
Jul 8, 2013
Messages:
92
Location:
San Diego
Display Name:

Display name:
the Bruce
My last engineering class was decades ago, so maybe it's a New Math thing, but I have no idea what "> 50% lower" means. Instinctively I interpret it the same way you do, but the phrasing is so imprecise as to appear deliberately misleading, or careless. But still a cool plane and I'm with you on condoning out of the box approaches to aviation.

3. ### TantalumFinal Approach

Joined:
Feb 22, 2017
Messages:
6,069
Display Name:

Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Yeah, it's an odd way to write it.. maybe it's just dumbed down? Or misleading on purpose

4. ### iamtheariPattern Altitude

Joined:
Mar 15, 2016
Messages:
1,989
Display Name:

Display name:
Ari
Marketing. Vague claims can't be tested, so you can never fall short of them. Their website commits the even worse mathematical sin of saying "Up to 8 times lower fuel consumption than jet aircraft comparable in size." I have never been able to figure out what it means for a number to be "N times lower" than another number.

Joined:
Feb 23, 2005
Messages:
23,698
Location:
UQACY, WI
Display Name:

Display name:
iMooniac
It means that if the jet burns 100 gallons per hour, and 8*100 is 800, that this plane burns 100 - 800 = -700 gallons! So, as long as you have enough fuel in the tanks to start the engine, you can go fly. You just have to land before the tanks fill up or you go over max gross weight.

Bobanna and iamtheari like this.
6. ### iamtheariPattern Altitude

Joined:
Mar 15, 2016
Messages:
1,989
Display Name:

Display name:
Ari
That combined with a fuel dump valve would explain the 4,500-mile range.

7. ### TantalumFinal Approach

Joined:
Feb 22, 2017
Messages:
6,069
Display Name:

Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
YES! but this is one of the most common transgression from math-ignorants

I assume it means "1/8th" but yeah it's absurd

My biggest pet peeves are

example 1
when someone expresses an increase from 40% to 60% as a "20% increase" NO NO NO NO.. 20 points, no 20 percent!

example 2
when someone expresses an increase 50 to 100 as "200 percent increase" NO NO NO NO.. it's twice as much, but that's a 100% increase! I like to ask people, if 50 to 100 is a 200 percent increase, than what is a 100 percent increase?

Bobanna likes this.
8. ### charheepLine Up and Wait

Joined:
Feb 5, 2013
Messages:
765
Location:
Aurora, IL
Display Name:

Display name:
charheep
Yellow obviously...

9. ### FormerHangieEn-Route

Joined:
Oct 28, 2013
Messages:
3,193
Location:
Roswell, GA
Display Name:

Display name:
FormerHangie
It's kind of reversed. Looking at this chart of specific fuel consumption, you can reasonably assume that a turbine of the same size (size does matter) would burn about 50% more fuel than would a Diesel for the same output. The RED engine should use about a third less fuel than would a 500-600 hp PT6. It will also require airflow to its heat exchangers that will increase drag, and the engine will probably weigh 300 -350 pounds more as well. For a decent length trip, the lighter fuel load should make up for the heavier engine. I would expect the cost of purchasing the diesel should be quite a bit less than the turbine, at this point any speculation as to the total operating cost would be just that.

I don't see any way they can make anything that can carry six people and has 500 - 600 hp on hand will come anywhere close to those performance figures that they have been showing. Piper lists the M600's cruise speed to be 274 knots, maybe the Celera gets 300 knots? Again, I don't think existing aircraft leave that much on the table to where there are large aerodynamic gains to be had.

10. ### Jeff767Pre-takeoff checklist

Joined:
Jan 24, 2018
Messages:
208
Display Name:

Display name:
Jeff767
They have flown enough test flights that if they were anywhere close to their promised numbers they would be screaming it from every rooftop.

Piperonca likes this.
11. ### TantalumFinal Approach

Joined:
Feb 22, 2017
Messages:
6,069
Display Name:

Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Yeah my thinking is similar. I was using the TBM as a performance benchmark.. with the "Mooney wing" and a competent engineering firm standing behind them I'm doubtful there is *that* much left to give. Putting all their eggs in the fuselage/powerplant basket it seems

but hell... even if this turns into a 275 knot 6 passenger 30K aircraft, then, depending on price point it could still have a potential market. A brand new SR22T is close to \$1M, and isn't pressurized, is realistically a 3 (maybe 4) passenger plane, and ultimately isn't that fast. Having something else to fill the gap between that and the TBM might be an option?

The other problem though, it's just not that sexy looking, to me at least. Aircraft purchases are as much pragmatic choices as they are romantic. The plane everyone flies is the "best" plane to them.. and while few would admit it, overall "look and feel" plays a big part of that... "ramp presence" so to speak, and how many times do you turn around walking away from your plane

Maybe if Peter gets tired of the Audi engine he can try strapping this powerplant in there..