The biggest thing to happen to aviation and travel in 50 years
August 27, 2020 2:08 PM Subscribe
Secretive aerospace company Otto has unveiled the Celera 500L. The super efficient aircraft seats six and has up to ten times the fuel efficiency of a private jet while offering similar speeds. With a range of up to 4,500 miles, it could theoretically fly between any two airports in the continental U.S. without refueling.
CO2 emissions from air travel pose a serious challenge to efforts to control climate change. This new aircraft uses an extremely efficient shape designed to optimize laminar flow and a V12 piston engine to dramatically improve fuel efficiency relative to conventional jet aircraft.
CO2 emissions from air travel pose a serious challenge to efforts to control climate change. This new aircraft uses an extremely efficient shape designed to optimize laminar flow and a V12 piston engine to dramatically improve fuel efficiency relative to conventional jet aircraft.
“In many cases, individuals and families will be able to charter the Celera 500L at prices comparable to commercial airfares, but with the added convenience of private aviation.
Lol.The figure of merit isn't mpg, its mpg per PERSON you fuckwits. This is making niche private jets more efficient, but still much less efficient than large passenger jets per person. And you're looking to expand markets = consume more
Attempts to get more people in the air with more planes with more weakly trained & regulated pilots (if they're gonna save all that money) at a time when we should be flying less PERIOD. What could go wrong?
posted by lalochezia at 2:19 PM on August 27, 2020 [41 favorites]
Lol.The figure of merit isn't mpg, its mpg per PERSON you fuckwits. This is making niche private jets more efficient, but still much less efficient than large passenger jets per person. And you're looking to expand markets = consume more
Attempts to get more people in the air with more planes with more weakly trained & regulated pilots (if they're gonna save all that money) at a time when we should be flying less PERIOD. What could go wrong?
posted by lalochezia at 2:19 PM on August 27, 2020 [41 favorites]
Neat! From what I remember about Reynolds numbers, the shortness of the plane is a big part of what allows it to remain in a laminar flow regime at those speeds.
But, yeah, as lalochezia points out, training enough pilots to make this an every-family-can-afford-to-fly-one proposition seems unlikely. I'm sure a much higher number of planes would have an effect on airports, too, meaning you'd need a lot more highly trained air traffic controllers.
Cool technologically, but probably in the end a private jet replacement for eco-conscious CEOs.
posted by clawsoon at 2:23 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
But, yeah, as lalochezia points out, training enough pilots to make this an every-family-can-afford-to-fly-one proposition seems unlikely. I'm sure a much higher number of planes would have an effect on airports, too, meaning you'd need a lot more highly trained air traffic controllers.
Cool technologically, but probably in the end a private jet replacement for eco-conscious CEOs.
posted by clawsoon at 2:23 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
There's... nothing revolutionary about this. It maintains status quo horrifically well, and maybe even does ahrm. I'd much rather hear an announcement about nation-wide, hi-speed rail.
posted by FirstMateKate at 2:31 PM on August 27, 2020 [26 favorites]
posted by FirstMateKate at 2:31 PM on August 27, 2020 [26 favorites]
“In many cases, individuals and families will be able to charter the Celera 500L at prices comparable to commercial airfares, but with the added convenience of private aviation.
I've seen addendums to this statement making it clear that at best, this would offer up a comparable cost to flying your family of 6 in first class.
We're still talking thousands of dollars per person, not hundreds.
posted by thecjm at 2:33 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
I've seen addendums to this statement making it clear that at best, this would offer up a comparable cost to flying your family of 6 in first class.
We're still talking thousands of dollars per person, not hundreds.
posted by thecjm at 2:33 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
A version of the aircraft, possibly unmanned, equipped with any number of sensor suites could be an impressive persistent surveillance and communications relay platform able to orbit over particular areas for very long periods of time and cover a wide swath of the battlefield from its high perch. It could also be able to reposition itself quickly and transit to its tasking area at jet-like speeds
It's also a revolutionary new surveillance platform, I guess.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:34 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
It's also a revolutionary new surveillance platform, I guess.
posted by BungaDunga at 2:34 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
Plane wings get less lift from a hotter atmosphere, requiring a longer runway to take off. I'm curious if this plane is engineered with that in mind, i.e., does this plane require a longer or shorter runway than conventional planes, which changes the time to get the speed and lift needed.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:35 PM on August 27, 2020
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:35 PM on August 27, 2020
Lol.The figure of merit isn't mpg, its mpg per PERSON you fuckwits.
If you're going to call people fuckwits, at least it right yourself. It's person*miles/gallon.
posted by ryanrs at 2:36 PM on August 27, 2020 [13 favorites]
If you're going to call people fuckwits, at least it right yourself. It's person*miles/gallon.
posted by ryanrs at 2:36 PM on August 27, 2020 [13 favorites]
Lol.The figure of merit isn't mpg, its mpg per PERSON you fuckwits. This is making niche private jets more efficient, but still much less efficient than large passenger jets per person
Have you actually done the math? Because my back of the envelope math, using numbers from wikipedia, has the most efficient medium haul airliners fully loaded coming out at about 100 passenger-miles per gallon, while this (assuming it lives up to the promises) would be 23 miles per gallon with six passengers, or 138 passenger-miles per gallon.
But what would I know? I'm just a fuckwit with a calculator.
posted by firechicago at 2:42 PM on August 27, 2020 [39 favorites]
Have you actually done the math? Because my back of the envelope math, using numbers from wikipedia, has the most efficient medium haul airliners fully loaded coming out at about 100 passenger-miles per gallon, while this (assuming it lives up to the promises) would be 23 miles per gallon with six passengers, or 138 passenger-miles per gallon.
But what would I know? I'm just a fuckwit with a calculator.
posted by firechicago at 2:42 PM on August 27, 2020 [39 favorites]
“In many cases, individuals and families will be able to charter the Celera 500L at prices comparable to commercial airfares, but with the added convenience of private aviation.
You can do this right now, today, with JetSuiteX, if you want to pay "Southwest, booked more than two weeks in advance" prices. Or, with SurfAir if you want more destinations but more like "American, booked only day or two ahead of time" prices.
I do agree getting from valet to on the plane in 5-7 minutes is pretty convenient, but it gets less convenient when you realize the Atlantic Aviation terminal at SJC (where lots of these not-really-private jets go in an out) is way off in an office park on Coleman, like a mile away from the rental cars and taxis. After stuff like the slower speed of the planes vs the big jets and the lack of redundancy in the fleets and how that leads to delays get factored in, much of the time you realize that just doing the regular Southwest flights are just as about as convenient if you fly enough to know how to travel efficiently.
We're still talking thousands of dollars per person, not hundreds.
I paid $150 each way for my BUR to/from SJC flights with JetSuiteX. Those were 15 passenger jets, so slightly larger than these things and perhaps not as "first class", whatever that really means. But, still very price competitive with regular commercial.
posted by sideshow at 2:43 PM on August 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
You can do this right now, today, with JetSuiteX, if you want to pay "Southwest, booked more than two weeks in advance" prices. Or, with SurfAir if you want more destinations but more like "American, booked only day or two ahead of time" prices.
I do agree getting from valet to on the plane in 5-7 minutes is pretty convenient, but it gets less convenient when you realize the Atlantic Aviation terminal at SJC (where lots of these not-really-private jets go in an out) is way off in an office park on Coleman, like a mile away from the rental cars and taxis. After stuff like the slower speed of the planes vs the big jets and the lack of redundancy in the fleets and how that leads to delays get factored in, much of the time you realize that just doing the regular Southwest flights are just as about as convenient if you fly enough to know how to travel efficiently.
We're still talking thousands of dollars per person, not hundreds.
I paid $150 each way for my BUR to/from SJC flights with JetSuiteX. Those were 15 passenger jets, so slightly larger than these things and perhaps not as "first class", whatever that really means. But, still very price competitive with regular commercial.
posted by sideshow at 2:43 PM on August 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
Interesting. Contrary to the company name, it looks like this is a diesel engine. Glad it's not running on leaded avgas.
posted by ryanrs at 2:45 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 2:45 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
You can immediately see the similarity of the body shape to some natural laminar flow airfoils, with the slowly increasing profile out to 50% or 60% of the chord (distance front-to-back) and then a shorter "pressure recovery" section at the back which has to be very carefully designed to prevent airflow separation and stall. I wonder if part of the reason for putting the propeller at the back was to make the pressure recovery section more robust, since its airflow would - I am guessing - help keep the airflow over the body better attached.
But I'm just spitballing here. Yeah, BungaDunga, revolutionary new surveillance platform is probably where it's at. :-( I remember looking up a handful of airfoils with great performance for certain applications that were designed in the '80s and '90s, and wondering why there seemed to be no followup on the research. And then one of the papers mentioned the design competition it was for, and I realized that all of the research was for what became the Predator drones, and that's why it had all gone quiet. Sad face.
posted by clawsoon at 2:47 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
But I'm just spitballing here. Yeah, BungaDunga, revolutionary new surveillance platform is probably where it's at. :-( I remember looking up a handful of airfoils with great performance for certain applications that were designed in the '80s and '90s, and wondering why there seemed to be no followup on the research. And then one of the papers mentioned the design competition it was for, and I realized that all of the research was for what became the Predator drones, and that's why it had all gone quiet. Sad face.
posted by clawsoon at 2:47 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Let's take the best mileage figure of 25mpg. In more common L/100km units that's 9.4L / 100km. In fuel per seat terms that's 1.56 L / 100km per person. That compares quite badly with commercial passenger aircraft, which typically range from ~2 - 4.5 L / 100km per person.
probably in the end a private jet replacement for eco-conscious CEOs.
At best, yeah.
posted by jedicus at 2:47 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
probably in the end a private jet replacement for eco-conscious CEOs.
At best, yeah.
posted by jedicus at 2:47 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
When I was learning to fly back in the 90's I went into a used magazine store, (the good old days for sure,) and purchased a decades worth of aviation magazines. All I can say is that aviation is a weird place with lots of uptight performative rectitude sitting right next to the most wild ass criminal careless fraud and hucksterism. Making a new airplane is hard, revolutionary is usually bogus or really just besides the point. Remember the Eclipse Jet or the Lear Fan two revolutionary aircraft that ran into more quotidian realities. And then there is always the infamous Moller Skycar?
In short I wish the best but wouldn't invest.
posted by Pembquist at 2:49 PM on August 27, 2020 [12 favorites]
In short I wish the best but wouldn't invest.
posted by Pembquist at 2:49 PM on August 27, 2020 [12 favorites]
Don't have a care about eco-friendly stuff - and my passenger flight days are long behind me - but this is a very cool looking plane.
posted by davidmsc at 2:52 PM on August 27, 2020
posted by davidmsc at 2:52 PM on August 27, 2020
Let's take the best mileage figure of 25mpg. In more common L/100km units that's 9.4L / 100km. In fuel per seat terms that's 1.56 L / 100km per person. That compares quite badly with commercial passenger aircraft, which typically range from ~2 - 4.5 L / 100km.
I'm really not an expert here, but I'm pretty sure that when you flip from miles per gallon (i.e. distance per amount of fuel) to liters per 100km (i.e. amount of fuel per distance) you also flip the direction you want to go. That is, you want a high mpg number, but a low L/100km number. So 1.56 L / 100km means that this plane would be using about 20% less fuel than the most efficient commercial passenger aircraft.
posted by firechicago at 2:55 PM on August 27, 2020 [28 favorites]
I'm really not an expert here, but I'm pretty sure that when you flip from miles per gallon (i.e. distance per amount of fuel) to liters per 100km (i.e. amount of fuel per distance) you also flip the direction you want to go. That is, you want a high mpg number, but a low L/100km number. So 1.56 L / 100km means that this plane would be using about 20% less fuel than the most efficient commercial passenger aircraft.
posted by firechicago at 2:55 PM on August 27, 2020 [28 favorites]
you also flip the direction you want to go
Ah dang you're right. Sorry for contributing to the trainwreck of units confusion in this thread.
posted by jedicus at 3:00 PM on August 27, 2020 [10 favorites]
Ah dang you're right. Sorry for contributing to the trainwreck of units confusion in this thread.
posted by jedicus at 3:00 PM on August 27, 2020 [10 favorites]
I'm getting some Theranos vibes here; no black turtlenecks yet but we'll see.
posted by echo target at 3:01 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by echo target at 3:01 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
My private jet gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!
posted by kaibutsu at 3:13 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 3:13 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
echo target: I'm getting some Theranos vibes here; no black turtlenecks yet but we'll see.
From an airplane engineering perspective it's not ridiculous. There's stuff - weight required for wing structural strength, power required - that goes up at something like load_weight^1.5, IIRC, which means that the smaller and lighter the load the more efficient you can get. It's one reason that there are no animals as big as human that can fly, but millions of insect species that can.
I'll admit I was expecting to see something that looked more like a sailplane (PDF on the steady progress in sailplane efficiency), but perhaps the speeds they're talking about make the long sailplane wings less ideal.
posted by clawsoon at 3:27 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
From an airplane engineering perspective it's not ridiculous. There's stuff - weight required for wing structural strength, power required - that goes up at something like load_weight^1.5, IIRC, which means that the smaller and lighter the load the more efficient you can get. It's one reason that there are no animals as big as human that can fly, but millions of insect species that can.
I'll admit I was expecting to see something that looked more like a sailplane (PDF on the steady progress in sailplane efficiency), but perhaps the speeds they're talking about make the long sailplane wings less ideal.
posted by clawsoon at 3:27 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Secretive aerospace company Otto has unveiled the Celera 500L.
Eh. Experience has taught me that what I really want is the Pentia 500L.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:30 PM on August 27, 2020 [19 favorites]
Eh. Experience has taught me that what I really want is the Pentia 500L.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 3:30 PM on August 27, 2020 [19 favorites]
This airplane has a single piston engine. That is not reliable enough for commercial operations -- no sane person would fly behind a single piston engine over an ocean. Reliability requires at least a turbine engine -- and we already have those, like the PC-12 and TBM. Those are much cheaper to acquire and operate than a business-jet, but we're still talking about first-class prices -- no way will regular people ever be able to afford that.
At this point there is no magic bullet, we already know all the aerodynamic and engineering tricks. Flying is more efficient than most people think but it will never be better than road or rail.
(I am a [non-airline] commercial pilot.)
posted by phliar at 3:34 PM on August 27, 2020 [21 favorites]
At this point there is no magic bullet, we already know all the aerodynamic and engineering tricks. Flying is more efficient than most people think but it will never be better than road or rail.
(I am a [non-airline] commercial pilot.)
posted by phliar at 3:34 PM on August 27, 2020 [21 favorites]
Pembquist: In short I wish the best but wouldn't invest.
Didn't Warren Buffett say to never invest in aviation after losing a bunch of money on airlines and before losing a bunch more money on airlines?
posted by clawsoon at 3:39 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Didn't Warren Buffett say to never invest in aviation after losing a bunch of money on airlines and before losing a bunch more money on airlines?
posted by clawsoon at 3:39 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Contrary to the company name, it looks like this is a diesel engine.
Specifically a RED A03, a 6L Twin Turbo V12 producing 368kW (500 HP) at 2127 Propeller RPMs (takeoff), which is pretty much what you got in a pre-financial crisis Audi Q7.
posted by Freelance Demiurge at 3:48 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Specifically a RED A03, a 6L Twin Turbo V12 producing 368kW (500 HP) at 2127 Propeller RPMs (takeoff), which is pretty much what you got in a pre-financial crisis Audi Q7.
posted by Freelance Demiurge at 3:48 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Pretty cool tech. It does seem unlikely to be as much of a "revolution" in air transportation as the article portrays. It's really hard to imagine the air traffic control infrastructure being able to handle even a reasonable fraction of the traffic it currently handles on large commercial jets being shifted to small aircraft like this, but as it seems foolish to authoritatively declaim on a subject I don't actually know much about, I'll just leave it at that.
Significant improvements in fuel economy for air travel seems like a really good thing, even if it only fills a relatively small niche. There is no single magic bullet for solving climate change: if and when we get to a carbon-neutral economy, it'll be (in part) by adopting a whole host of solutions, including the development of more efficient technologies like this one. The idea that this forms a valuable technological stepping stone to fully-electric commercial flight also makes a lot of sense, and it would be great if we could eventually power flight on purely renewable energy sources.
posted by biogeo at 3:48 PM on August 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
Significant improvements in fuel economy for air travel seems like a really good thing, even if it only fills a relatively small niche. There is no single magic bullet for solving climate change: if and when we get to a carbon-neutral economy, it'll be (in part) by adopting a whole host of solutions, including the development of more efficient technologies like this one. The idea that this forms a valuable technological stepping stone to fully-electric commercial flight also makes a lot of sense, and it would be great if we could eventually power flight on purely renewable energy sources.
posted by biogeo at 3:48 PM on August 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
The lack of passenger windows is a bit offputting.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:50 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Thorzdad at 3:50 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
no sane person would fly behind a single piston engine over an ocean
What about purely overland flight? Is it still too unreliable for that? The article seems to suggest a use case for this in flights within the continental US, so maybe transcontinental flights aren't part of the intended usage.
posted by biogeo at 3:51 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
What about purely overland flight? Is it still too unreliable for that? The article seems to suggest a use case for this in flights within the continental US, so maybe transcontinental flights aren't part of the intended usage.
posted by biogeo at 3:51 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
It's not a single piston engine. It's a v-12.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 3:52 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 3:52 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
It's not a single piston engine. It's a v-12.
Lol! Good one.
posted by clawsoon at 3:54 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
Lol! Good one.
posted by clawsoon at 3:54 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
Not sure what's LOL about that? See freelance demiurge's comment above. It's a red A03 engine according to the article, which is a V-12 diesel.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 3:58 PM on August 27, 2020
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 3:58 PM on August 27, 2020
What about purely overland flight?
If you have an engine failure over land, cool, you will live. But you will probably land in a field in the middle of nowhere -- not something a paying passenger or CEO wants to experience.
posted by phliar at 4:00 PM on August 27, 2020
If you have an engine failure over land, cool, you will live. But you will probably land in a field in the middle of nowhere -- not something a paying passenger or CEO wants to experience.
posted by phliar at 4:00 PM on August 27, 2020
The real question in my mind is, how long will it be before Harrison Ford emergency-lands one of these on a golf course or something?
posted by hippybear at 4:00 PM on August 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 4:00 PM on August 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
Not sure what's LOL about that?
"Single-piston engine" vs. "single piston-engine".
posted by phliar at 4:01 PM on August 27, 2020 [21 favorites]
"Single-piston engine" vs. "single piston-engine".
posted by phliar at 4:01 PM on August 27, 2020 [21 favorites]
Larry David Syndrome: Not sure what's LOL about that? See freelance demiurge's comment above. It's a red A03 engine according to the article, which is a V-12 diesel.
He meant that it's an aircraft with a single engine (instead of having two or three or four engines, as many aircraft do), and that engine is a piston engine.
Your username made me think you were making a joke. :-)
posted by clawsoon at 4:03 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
He meant that it's an aircraft with a single engine (instead of having two or three or four engines, as many aircraft do), and that engine is a piston engine.
Your username made me think you were making a joke. :-)
posted by clawsoon at 4:03 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Oh god, now I can't read any of LDS's posts without hearing them in Larry David's voice. Everything was fine before, why did you do this to me?
posted by hippybear at 4:07 PM on August 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 4:07 PM on August 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
That would have been a clever joke to make, and I wish I could say it was intentional! [slaps forehead}
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 4:11 PM on August 27, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 4:11 PM on August 27, 2020 [12 favorites]
no sane person would fly behind a single piston engine over an ocean
What if it was equipped for safely landing on water and remaining afloat whilst awaiting rescue?
posted by acb at 4:16 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
What if it was equipped for safely landing on water and remaining afloat whilst awaiting rescue?
posted by acb at 4:16 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Contrary to the company name, it looks like this is a diesel engine. Glad it's not running on leaded avgas.
There are a number of diesel-powered general aviation aircraft on the market. Even the venerable Cessna 172 has a diesel option.
AV gas is (finally) on the way out. Many existing piston aircraft engines Now offer MO (motor) gas options. Now, if we could get rid of the ubiquity of carbureted engines in favor of FADEC (full-authority digital engine control) management, we could see improvement in aviation emissions.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 4:19 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
There are a number of diesel-powered general aviation aircraft on the market. Even the venerable Cessna 172 has a diesel option.
AV gas is (finally) on the way out. Many existing piston aircraft engines Now offer MO (motor) gas options. Now, if we could get rid of the ubiquity of carbureted engines in favor of FADEC (full-authority digital engine control) management, we could see improvement in aviation emissions.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 4:19 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
no sane person would fly behind a single piston engine over an ocean
The Spirit Of St. Louis
posted by hippybear at 4:20 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
The Spirit Of St. Louis
posted by hippybear at 4:20 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
The Spirit Of St. Louis
Are you arguing for or against? :-)
posted by clawsoon at 4:21 PM on August 27, 2020 [20 favorites]
Are you arguing for or against? :-)
posted by clawsoon at 4:21 PM on August 27, 2020 [20 favorites]
Not sure, really. Just making the point that oceans have been crossed by single piston engine planes since... well, since they were first crossed by planes. Lindburgh is problematic, but he did do the thing.
posted by hippybear at 4:24 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 4:24 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Many, many people have crossed oceans in single-engine piston airplanes. (Some day I'd like to do that too.) However this behaviour is definitely not sane.
posted by phliar at 4:28 PM on August 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by phliar at 4:28 PM on August 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
The risk of a piston engine is something I hadn't considered. Thanks for pointing that out phliar.
If you have an engine failure over land, cool, you will live.
Um, maybe. Depends where over land. Also I'm no aerodynamicist but this thing looks like it isn't exactly going to fly well without power. Would love to read what the glide ratio for this thing is. You may have very little time to put down.
I know it's not cool on Metafilter to find new tech things interesting, but this seems pretty neat. A very fuel efficient small aircraft that travels at jet speeds? That'd be awesome! The reality of aircraft manufacturing, though, makes me skeptical this will work in the market. I'm glad it's not my money on the line trying it.
posted by Nelson at 4:42 PM on August 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
If you have an engine failure over land, cool, you will live.
Um, maybe. Depends where over land. Also I'm no aerodynamicist but this thing looks like it isn't exactly going to fly well without power. Would love to read what the glide ratio for this thing is. You may have very little time to put down.
I know it's not cool on Metafilter to find new tech things interesting, but this seems pretty neat. A very fuel efficient small aircraft that travels at jet speeds? That'd be awesome! The reality of aircraft manufacturing, though, makes me skeptical this will work in the market. I'm glad it's not my money on the line trying it.
posted by Nelson at 4:42 PM on August 27, 2020 [7 favorites]
Putting an aircraft this out of the norm into production is pretty cool and there is a gap in commercial aviation that this might slide into (particularly if they scale up a touch).
But taking off my rose colored glasses there are some details left out of the hype machine - how much does this aircraft cost vs the direct competition? Is this aircraft pleasant to be in and fuel efficient at high speeds? What’s the fuel efficiency fully loaded with passengers and luggage? How easy will certification be? Whether or not this is a commercial aviation “game changer” relies on a lot of details.
posted by q*ben at 4:47 PM on August 27, 2020
But taking off my rose colored glasses there are some details left out of the hype machine - how much does this aircraft cost vs the direct competition? Is this aircraft pleasant to be in and fuel efficient at high speeds? What’s the fuel efficiency fully loaded with passengers and luggage? How easy will certification be? Whether or not this is a commercial aviation “game changer” relies on a lot of details.
posted by q*ben at 4:47 PM on August 27, 2020
Would love to read what the glide ratio for this thing is.
Press release says around 22:1. Why do you think it doesn't look like it will fly well without power? To me it seems like it should do fine... and being a certified airplane its stall speed will be less than 61 knots.
This airplane is only usable for enthusiasts -- which means volumes will be low, and I agree, I don't think this will do well in the market. (I would love to fly it of course.)
posted by phliar at 4:49 PM on August 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
Press release says around 22:1. Why do you think it doesn't look like it will fly well without power? To me it seems like it should do fine... and being a certified airplane its stall speed will be less than 61 knots.
This airplane is only usable for enthusiasts -- which means volumes will be low, and I agree, I don't think this will do well in the market. (I would love to fly it of course.)
posted by phliar at 4:49 PM on August 27, 2020 [5 favorites]
Can somebody who knows how airplanes work explain why they might want a diesel instead of a li'l turbine?
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:52 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:52 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm seeing 20:1 for a Boeing 787 and 9:1 for a Cessna 172, so if that glide ratio is real it seems like it'd be pretty good.
posted by clawsoon at 4:52 PM on August 27, 2020
posted by clawsoon at 4:52 PM on August 27, 2020
The only reason to want a diesel instead of a turbine is because you don't have money. Turbines win on every count except cost.
To be fully pedantic -- turbines aren't too efficient under 500 HP or so, which means small airplanes are always powered by piston engines.
posted by phliar at 4:56 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
To be fully pedantic -- turbines aren't too efficient under 500 HP or so, which means small airplanes are always powered by piston engines.
posted by phliar at 4:56 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
GCU Sweet and Full of Grace: Can somebody who knows how airplanes work explain why they might want a diesel instead of a li'l turbine?
Other people know lots more than I do, but this article has a pretty good discussion. Lower cost, better efficiency at lower altitudes, and a lighter fuel load as a result of greater efficiency.
posted by clawsoon at 4:57 PM on August 27, 2020
Other people know lots more than I do, but this article has a pretty good discussion. Lower cost, better efficiency at lower altitudes, and a lighter fuel load as a result of greater efficiency.
posted by clawsoon at 4:57 PM on August 27, 2020
How loud are these things? Piston engines aren't exactly renowned for low decibel levels.
posted by jamjam at 5:00 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by jamjam at 5:00 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Seems a lot like a Beechcraft Starship, but that was a twin turboprop. So, like a less practical Beechcraft Starship. Man, even Eviation are making a twin.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 5:02 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 5:02 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
> delivering actual production Celera 500Ls to customers by 2025.
I don't know what the world will look like in 2025, but I can tell you that right now people aren't rushing to spend hours inside a sealed metal box with people outside their quarantine pod. Also for right now, the passenger-miles per gallon for commercial jet liners but with little to no passengers is atrocious.
posted by fragmede at 5:06 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
I don't know what the world will look like in 2025, but I can tell you that right now people aren't rushing to spend hours inside a sealed metal box with people outside their quarantine pod. Also for right now, the passenger-miles per gallon for commercial jet liners but with little to no passengers is atrocious.
posted by fragmede at 5:06 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
fragmede: people aren't rushing to spend hours inside a sealed metal box with people outside their quarantine pod.
Isn't that an advantage of this size of aircraft? Small enough to just bring your family and some baggage?
posted by clawsoon at 5:08 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Isn't that an advantage of this size of aircraft? Small enough to just bring your family and some baggage?
posted by clawsoon at 5:08 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
I think anywhere you bring your family you bring some baggage, whether you have packed suitcases or not.
posted by hippybear at 5:11 PM on August 27, 2020 [26 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 5:11 PM on August 27, 2020 [26 favorites]
The weight limit can handle your two carry ons but if you bring uncle Victor you are OVER THE LIMIT.
posted by q*ben at 5:17 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by q*ben at 5:17 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Otto? What's it made out of, Otto parts? Hah hah hah!
posted by glonous keming at 5:22 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 5:22 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
more planes with more weakly trained & regulated pilots
think it's going to be a while before we have a pilot shortage
posted by philip-random at 5:23 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
think it's going to be a while before we have a pilot shortage
posted by philip-random at 5:23 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Press release says around 22:1. Why do you think it doesn't look like it will fly well without power?
Oh wow, my ignorance of aerodynamics is confirmed. Thanks for the info, that's amazing. I think I just looked at those tiny little stubby wings and was like "no way does that thing glide". But of course the whole plane is designed for aerodynamic efficiency; the same design that makes it use less fuel per mile probably also makes it glide better.
I'm also a little curious whether they considered a turbine engine and rejected it, or what. I mean you can put a turbine in a little Cessna 206 if you want. I suspect the engine is part of their special sauce.
posted by Nelson at 5:49 PM on August 27, 2020
Oh wow, my ignorance of aerodynamics is confirmed. Thanks for the info, that's amazing. I think I just looked at those tiny little stubby wings and was like "no way does that thing glide". But of course the whole plane is designed for aerodynamic efficiency; the same design that makes it use less fuel per mile probably also makes it glide better.
I'm also a little curious whether they considered a turbine engine and rejected it, or what. I mean you can put a turbine in a little Cessna 206 if you want. I suspect the engine is part of their special sauce.
posted by Nelson at 5:49 PM on August 27, 2020
Interesting. Contrary to the company name, it looks like this is a diesel engine. Glad it's not running on leaded avgas.
posted by ryanrs at 5:45 PM on August 27 [+] [!]
FTA: "The A03 has a multi-stage turbocharger and can run on Jet A1 fuel, as well as kerosene or biodiesel. "
posted by achrise at 5:56 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 5:45 PM on August 27 [+] [!]
FTA: "The A03 has a multi-stage turbocharger and can run on Jet A1 fuel, as well as kerosene or biodiesel. "
posted by achrise at 5:56 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Wow, with the bad calculations and name calling in this thread I would almost think they’re powering it by throwing puppies in a wood chipper!
posted by blue_beetle at 6:03 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 6:03 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
Another disadvantage of the piston engine. With a turbine you don’t even need the wood chipper.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:09 PM on August 27, 2020 [19 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:09 PM on August 27, 2020 [19 favorites]
"ten times the fuel efficiency of a private jet"
I call bullshit. We already know all the tricks for fuel-efficient flight. If they'd said 20% more fuel efficient then I'd raise my eyebrows coz that would be a huge improvment. 90% better isn't a credible claim.
posted by happyinmotion at 6:16 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
I call bullshit. We already know all the tricks for fuel-efficient flight. If they'd said 20% more fuel efficient then I'd raise my eyebrows coz that would be a huge improvment. 90% better isn't a credible claim.
posted by happyinmotion at 6:16 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
I have a little doubt about speed because efficiency decreases in a compressible medium as you approach Mach 1 at the propeller tips. And if the plane is flying at half Mach how the hell is that prop working. Maybe because it is small and has a lot of blades? I think this is one of the big deals. I wonder if it is a variable pitch prop?
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:38 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:38 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: they’re powering it by throwing puppies in a wood chipper!
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:10 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:10 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
It's almost certainly a variable-pitch propeller - they are standard equipment on aircraft of this size and cost. Most turboprops fly at M0.5 or greater with much larger diameter propellers (though with 5-6 blades to minimize that diameter and tip speed as you say) so the cruise speed isn't a problem to achieve. I am just skeptical that it lives up to the marketing release implied promises for revolutionary fuel efficiency.
Additionally, they say it's conducted 31 test flights so far, and are projecting to certify in 2023. It takes hundreds if not thousands of hours of test flights to certify a new design, and there is much more to certification than just the test flying. This is still a prototype that has yet to weather regulatory validation by the FAA.
posted by cardboard at 7:15 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Additionally, they say it's conducted 31 test flights so far, and are projecting to certify in 2023. It takes hundreds if not thousands of hours of test flights to certify a new design, and there is much more to certification than just the test flying. This is still a prototype that has yet to weather regulatory validation by the FAA.
posted by cardboard at 7:15 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
If you read up on the RED A03, they claim that it is functionally 2 separate inline 6-cylinder engines which share the same block, but can operate independently in event of a failure. This seems very plausible. The degree of computer control and monitoring of the engine performance is also very impressive.
My skepticism is with their claimed low cost of operation. All of the engine performance claims seem realistic, but they don't go into much detail about the engine construction other than saying it's "all aluminum". It's a lot easier to get rid of waste heat at 300mph than at automobile speeds (see every turbine powered car experiment) and they also have what looks to be a very clever heat-exchanger system as an integral part of an engine, but aluminum is relatively soft stuff, and expands, contracts and shifts around quite a bit as it heats and cools. That, plus the newness of the engine makes me think that they're being very optimistic about the maintenance part of the operating costs.
Still, it does seem pretty cool.
...and it's also worth noting that the whole point of this "unveiling" is that they are advertising for another round of funding. I expect that this is why they are throwing every possible application at the wall (surveillance! autonomous flight! combat! executive travel!) and not because they are building a drone or warplane first and foremost. It's not like the Department of Defense is tight-fisted with development contracts.
posted by Anoplura at 8:04 PM on August 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
My skepticism is with their claimed low cost of operation. All of the engine performance claims seem realistic, but they don't go into much detail about the engine construction other than saying it's "all aluminum". It's a lot easier to get rid of waste heat at 300mph than at automobile speeds (see every turbine powered car experiment) and they also have what looks to be a very clever heat-exchanger system as an integral part of an engine, but aluminum is relatively soft stuff, and expands, contracts and shifts around quite a bit as it heats and cools. That, plus the newness of the engine makes me think that they're being very optimistic about the maintenance part of the operating costs.
Still, it does seem pretty cool.
...and it's also worth noting that the whole point of this "unveiling" is that they are advertising for another round of funding. I expect that this is why they are throwing every possible application at the wall (surveillance! autonomous flight! combat! executive travel!) and not because they are building a drone or warplane first and foremost. It's not like the Department of Defense is tight-fisted with development contracts.
posted by Anoplura at 8:04 PM on August 27, 2020 [9 favorites]
10x efficiency is believable. Many industries stay in a cycle of non-innovation because they just keep doing what works, and customers are willing to pay for it. We haven't seen any major changes in the fundamental form and engines of passenger jets for the past 50 years.
Elon Musk's Space-X for example, delivers payload to space for $2,720 per kg. This replaces what the Space Shuttle used to do, at $54,500 per kg - an efficiency improvement of 20x, or an efficiency improvement of 4x for manned flights due to the increased weight of the Dragon spacecraft.
Nothing has changed in our understanding of physics, no special materials were used - Falcon-9s are fueled with kerosene, with a single launch taking on as much fuel as a fully loaded passenger jet.
Looking at the business cases for private jet taxi travel it seems most of the demand will be comparing the extra cost versus time spent waiting. Say you have a team of 5 senior engineers earning $200,000 per year, they're paid $100 per hour, or $130 including fringe. If they're being sent to evaluate a dam or wind power installation, and a regular commercial flight would involve 1 stop over + wasting an extra day + overnight stay at a hotel, versus a flight in / out, the cost of the extra day of work lost plus cost of hotel stay would be more expensive than paying for a private flight.
posted by xdvesper at 8:05 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
Elon Musk's Space-X for example, delivers payload to space for $2,720 per kg. This replaces what the Space Shuttle used to do, at $54,500 per kg - an efficiency improvement of 20x, or an efficiency improvement of 4x for manned flights due to the increased weight of the Dragon spacecraft.
Nothing has changed in our understanding of physics, no special materials were used - Falcon-9s are fueled with kerosene, with a single launch taking on as much fuel as a fully loaded passenger jet.
Looking at the business cases for private jet taxi travel it seems most of the demand will be comparing the extra cost versus time spent waiting. Say you have a team of 5 senior engineers earning $200,000 per year, they're paid $100 per hour, or $130 including fringe. If they're being sent to evaluate a dam or wind power installation, and a regular commercial flight would involve 1 stop over + wasting an extra day + overnight stay at a hotel, versus a flight in / out, the cost of the extra day of work lost plus cost of hotel stay would be more expensive than paying for a private flight.
posted by xdvesper at 8:05 PM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]
So I read the article and it sounds... ambitious. I don't think it's a pipe dream (especially if there's a prototype flying right now, so many of these schemes never get past fancy renderings), but I think real world performance is not going to match their expectations.
As a point of comparison, my club has a Cessna 206. It's a hauler - seats six, anything that can fit through the door will fly basically. It has a 325 horsepower flat six driving a three blade constant speed prop with a cruise speed of 135 kts and a range of about 750 nm. The book fuel efficiency (with no wind) is about 13 nautical miles per gallon, or around 15-16 statute miles per gallon. They're looking at a design with a much bigger engine to get twice the fuel efficiency at 3 times the speed. Since drag increases with the square of velocity, I'm curious just how much streamlining is going to help here.
To take this press release in context, you need to understand how airplane marketing works. Small GA planes like this ("this" being vaguely small bizjet or turboprop size) can either fit people or fuel, not both. So a claim of a 4500 mile range is going to mean full fuel tanks, but the pilot is going to be alone and he or she is going to be stripped down to their shorts to save weight. With six occupants and luggage, taking that 4500 mile claim at face value I would expect a "realistic" range to be somewhere between, say, 2,500 and 3,500 miles. Still impressive, but not what they're advertising. That speed claim will also not be what you're normally flying at; to get the range they're advertising, you would be flying at an "economy cruise" power setting which will drop that speed back by quite a bit.
Concerns about pilot/ATC shortages - don't be. Any private pilot would be able to fly this with no additional ratings. Also, you would be surprised at how many small aircraft are above you on any given day. The skies are not just for the big iron!
Some other stuff that stuck out to me... forward visibility looks absolutely atrocious, this thing is going to be a huge pain to land. 2150 RPM on takeoff is remarkably low for a piston engine, so I would expect it to be fairly quiet. Pusher props are notorious for issues with "tail" strikes because if you over rotate on landing you've dug the prop in to the pavement which means a new engine, so the approach angle is going to be shallow and that's going to impact short field performance.
As far as cost - I think to be competitive it's going to need to be in the $1-3 million range. You can get a Pilatus for that much and I think that's really going to be their main competition. There's a stigma against prop planes (and piston engines in particular) so I think the regular Gulfstream flier is not going to be interested in this. This could be an attractive option for the stereotypical monied doctor whose other option would be a PC-12 or a TBM. It's also going to kill a lot of people if that's who ends up buying them.
posted by backseatpilot at 8:08 PM on August 27, 2020 [24 favorites]
As a point of comparison, my club has a Cessna 206. It's a hauler - seats six, anything that can fit through the door will fly basically. It has a 325 horsepower flat six driving a three blade constant speed prop with a cruise speed of 135 kts and a range of about 750 nm. The book fuel efficiency (with no wind) is about 13 nautical miles per gallon, or around 15-16 statute miles per gallon. They're looking at a design with a much bigger engine to get twice the fuel efficiency at 3 times the speed. Since drag increases with the square of velocity, I'm curious just how much streamlining is going to help here.
To take this press release in context, you need to understand how airplane marketing works. Small GA planes like this ("this" being vaguely small bizjet or turboprop size) can either fit people or fuel, not both. So a claim of a 4500 mile range is going to mean full fuel tanks, but the pilot is going to be alone and he or she is going to be stripped down to their shorts to save weight. With six occupants and luggage, taking that 4500 mile claim at face value I would expect a "realistic" range to be somewhere between, say, 2,500 and 3,500 miles. Still impressive, but not what they're advertising. That speed claim will also not be what you're normally flying at; to get the range they're advertising, you would be flying at an "economy cruise" power setting which will drop that speed back by quite a bit.
Concerns about pilot/ATC shortages - don't be. Any private pilot would be able to fly this with no additional ratings. Also, you would be surprised at how many small aircraft are above you on any given day. The skies are not just for the big iron!
Some other stuff that stuck out to me... forward visibility looks absolutely atrocious, this thing is going to be a huge pain to land. 2150 RPM on takeoff is remarkably low for a piston engine, so I would expect it to be fairly quiet. Pusher props are notorious for issues with "tail" strikes because if you over rotate on landing you've dug the prop in to the pavement which means a new engine, so the approach angle is going to be shallow and that's going to impact short field performance.
As far as cost - I think to be competitive it's going to need to be in the $1-3 million range. You can get a Pilatus for that much and I think that's really going to be their main competition. There's a stigma against prop planes (and piston engines in particular) so I think the regular Gulfstream flier is not going to be interested in this. This could be an attractive option for the stereotypical monied doctor whose other option would be a PC-12 or a TBM. It's also going to kill a lot of people if that's who ends up buying them.
posted by backseatpilot at 8:08 PM on August 27, 2020 [24 favorites]
they don't go into much detail about the engine construction other than saying it's "all aluminum".
Every piston airplane engine on the market today is an aluminum block. This is not new technology and is well understood.
posted by backseatpilot at 8:10 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Every piston airplane engine on the market today is an aluminum block. This is not new technology and is well understood.
posted by backseatpilot at 8:10 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Does it come in black?
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:23 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:23 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
I would be curious if this would have a practical application in remote areas, like communities in Alaska that are distant from major cities and don't have enough people to warrant standard passenger aircraft. If it's really what it claims to be, then it could be a lifeline for people in those places.
posted by LSK at 8:41 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by LSK at 8:41 PM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]
Every piston airplane engine on the market today is an aluminum block. This is not new technology and is well understood.
Exactly my point. Why keep saying "all-aluminum"? Is it just bad phrasing by the marketing weasels? Other aluminum piston engines use steel, titanium or ceramic sleeves - and tend to make a big deal about it when it is the latter two - as it increases lifespan and reduces maintenance.
True all aluminum engines have been done in the past. (...and are still done in some very high performance RC helicopters, and likely other edge applications) It is lighter and cheaper than sleeving. Making the pistons, valves and other moving parts out of aluminum would also save cost and weight and increase fuel efficiency.
But I would expect that to come at the cost of service life. Especially when engines of the this type tend to be more efficient at higher combustion temperatures/pressures, and their own marketing materials highlight its "Better hot & high performance".
I have no doubt the performance is there. I'm only questioning what RED means by "all-aluminum", and how realistic Otto's maintenance cost estimates are.
posted by Anoplura at 9:30 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Exactly my point. Why keep saying "all-aluminum"? Is it just bad phrasing by the marketing weasels? Other aluminum piston engines use steel, titanium or ceramic sleeves - and tend to make a big deal about it when it is the latter two - as it increases lifespan and reduces maintenance.
True all aluminum engines have been done in the past. (...and are still done in some very high performance RC helicopters, and likely other edge applications) It is lighter and cheaper than sleeving. Making the pistons, valves and other moving parts out of aluminum would also save cost and weight and increase fuel efficiency.
But I would expect that to come at the cost of service life. Especially when engines of the this type tend to be more efficient at higher combustion temperatures/pressures, and their own marketing materials highlight its "Better hot & high performance".
I have no doubt the performance is there. I'm only questioning what RED means by "all-aluminum", and how realistic Otto's maintenance cost estimates are.
posted by Anoplura at 9:30 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
Oh, duh...
Googling "All Aluminum Aircraft Engine" reminded me that the RED engine is the commercial offshoot of a Novosibirsk State Technical University (Russia) project to make an aircraft engine where everything really is made of aluminum, and is protected from wear by a hardened layer of aluminum oxide.
I had read this a day or two ago when this was first released, and it had piqued my interest/skepticism, but had forgotten about it.
Wiki link
Russia Aviation News Link
posted by Anoplura at 9:46 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
Googling "All Aluminum Aircraft Engine" reminded me that the RED engine is the commercial offshoot of a Novosibirsk State Technical University (Russia) project to make an aircraft engine where everything really is made of aluminum, and is protected from wear by a hardened layer of aluminum oxide.
I had read this a day or two ago when this was first released, and it had piqued my interest/skepticism, but had forgotten about it.
Wiki link
Russia Aviation News Link
posted by Anoplura at 9:46 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
Metafilter: they’re powering it by throwing puppies in a wood chipper!
That, and scarcity. At any decent-sized airport, I'd rather see 10 big jets receive a landing slot than see those landing slots go to 9 luxury family planes and 1 big jet.
posted by sebastienbailard at 9:52 PM on August 27, 2020
That, and scarcity. At any decent-sized airport, I'd rather see 10 big jets receive a landing slot than see those landing slots go to 9 luxury family planes and 1 big jet.
posted by sebastienbailard at 9:52 PM on August 27, 2020
Remember the Eclipse Jet or the Lear Fan...?--Pembquist
This looks very similar to the Lear Fan. It was built in the 1970s, but Bill Lear died before it was finished. His widow worked on getting it finished, and prototypes were built, but it had too many issues to make it into production. I wonder if it would have made it if Bill Lear had lived longer. It was also supposed to be much more efficient than competing planes.
If this thing is as efficient as claimed (taking everyone's corrected math into account), I hope it makes it into production.
posted by eye of newt at 10:49 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
This looks very similar to the Lear Fan. It was built in the 1970s, but Bill Lear died before it was finished. His widow worked on getting it finished, and prototypes were built, but it had too many issues to make it into production. I wonder if it would have made it if Bill Lear had lived longer. It was also supposed to be much more efficient than competing planes.
If this thing is as efficient as claimed (taking everyone's corrected math into account), I hope it makes it into production.
posted by eye of newt at 10:49 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
A version of the aircraft, possibly unmanned, equipped with any number of sensor suites could be an impressive persistent surveillance and communications relay platform able to orbit over particular areas for very long periods of time and cover a wide swath of the battlefield from its high perch. It could also be able to reposition itself quickly and transit to its tasking area at jet-like speeds
BungaDunga: It's also a revolutionary new surveillance platform, I guess.
It's also a revolutionary platform for the transport of illegal cargo, without the potential complications associated with having a crew that can be arrested and interrogated if the aircraft is intercepted and forced to land before it reaches its intended destination, or are arrested upon arrival.
If properly planned out beforehand to effectively conceal/obfuscate its current owner and sale history, and the aircraft suitably modified for communications from the aircraft to air traffic control to be relayed from the remote pilot(s)/operator(s) to give the impression that the plane was manned, the smuggler would only lose the plane and the cargo if it were caught.
Would it be expensive? Of course, but depending on the value and destination of the illicit cargo being transported and nobody on the plane to arrest if it gets intercepted, an occasional loss of one of these planes and its cargo would likely be well under an acceptable loss limit. I did some rough calculations (which I can share if you want), and even if this thing costs twice as much as a Learjet 70, that would put it at about $22 million. Using the 2016 wholesale drug price info posted by the UN Dept of Drugs and Crime, the FAA standard weights for passengers and luggage, and stripping out the seats, I estimate it could transport at least 850kg, which could net up to about $45 million in cargo per trip.
So, um... yeah. Looks cost effective, I guess. Wasn't planning on getting all caught up in drug smuggling math, but there it is. I remember seeing articles about 10 years ago where cartels were building their own submarines, so them investing in this kind of tech is quite possible. I guess something along these lines is going to be a big challenge for law enforcement to address.
posted by chambers at 11:30 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
BungaDunga: It's also a revolutionary new surveillance platform, I guess.
It's also a revolutionary platform for the transport of illegal cargo, without the potential complications associated with having a crew that can be arrested and interrogated if the aircraft is intercepted and forced to land before it reaches its intended destination, or are arrested upon arrival.
If properly planned out beforehand to effectively conceal/obfuscate its current owner and sale history, and the aircraft suitably modified for communications from the aircraft to air traffic control to be relayed from the remote pilot(s)/operator(s) to give the impression that the plane was manned, the smuggler would only lose the plane and the cargo if it were caught.
Would it be expensive? Of course, but depending on the value and destination of the illicit cargo being transported and nobody on the plane to arrest if it gets intercepted, an occasional loss of one of these planes and its cargo would likely be well under an acceptable loss limit. I did some rough calculations (which I can share if you want), and even if this thing costs twice as much as a Learjet 70, that would put it at about $22 million. Using the 2016 wholesale drug price info posted by the UN Dept of Drugs and Crime, the FAA standard weights for passengers and luggage, and stripping out the seats, I estimate it could transport at least 850kg, which could net up to about $45 million in cargo per trip.
So, um... yeah. Looks cost effective, I guess. Wasn't planning on getting all caught up in drug smuggling math, but there it is. I remember seeing articles about 10 years ago where cartels were building their own submarines, so them investing in this kind of tech is quite possible. I guess something along these lines is going to be a big challenge for law enforcement to address.
posted by chambers at 11:30 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]
@Thorzdad
The lack of passenger windows may be reflecting what some other airlines like Emirates are testing for traditional aircraft - removing passenger windows and using flat screens instead. Windows add weight and complexity in construction, and structural weakness.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 12:31 AM on August 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
The lack of passenger windows may be reflecting what some other airlines like Emirates are testing for traditional aircraft - removing passenger windows and using flat screens instead. Windows add weight and complexity in construction, and structural weakness.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 12:31 AM on August 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
> I guess something along these lines is going to be a big challenge for law enforcement to address.
They've adopted quadcopter drones for short deliveries. I dunno if something about the size of a cessna makes sense for longer trips makes sense, considering radar signature.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/08/24/mexican-drug-cartel-carries-out-drone-strikes-in-gang-war/#251509fd9432
They've adopted quadcopter drones for short deliveries. I dunno if something about the size of a cessna makes sense for longer trips makes sense, considering radar signature.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/08/24/mexican-drug-cartel-carries-out-drone-strikes-in-gang-war/#251509fd9432
...posted by sebastienbailard at 12:32 AM on August 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Mexican cartels have now progressed their own smuggling drones from commercial components, which can carry over a hundred pounds of drugs in one trip: the perfect drug mule, they are expendable and will never talk to the authorities. This type of innovation – which has also brought the boom in ‘narco-submarines ‘ — may see more advanced drone weapons being fielded as the CJNG escalates the war against its rivals. The group makes free use of military-style weaponry; in July it released a video of a long convoy of heavily-armed, armored vehicles.
...
IF this happened, it has the power to change the perspective of most of the people.
posted by voiceofwealth at 12:53 AM on August 28, 2020
posted by voiceofwealth at 12:53 AM on August 28, 2020
At any decent-sized airport, I'd rather see 10 big jets receive a landing slot than see those landing slots go to 9 luxury family planes and 1 big jet.
Those landing slots at the biggest airports are only a competitive because of the hub-and-spoke business model that airlines depend on for efficiency. Otto seems to be positioning its aircraft for something more like a direct chartered flight model, which would be able to take better advantage of the many smaller airfields at which congestion is virtually nonexistent.
posted by teraflop at 1:05 AM on August 28, 2020 [6 favorites]
Those landing slots at the biggest airports are only a competitive because of the hub-and-spoke business model that airlines depend on for efficiency. Otto seems to be positioning its aircraft for something more like a direct chartered flight model, which would be able to take better advantage of the many smaller airfields at which congestion is virtually nonexistent.
posted by teraflop at 1:05 AM on August 28, 2020 [6 favorites]
10x efficiency is believable. Many industries stay in a cycle of non-innovation because they just keep doing what works, and customers are willing to pay for it. We haven't seen any major changes in the fundamental form and engines of passenger jets for the past 50 years.But this doesn’t look to have any fundamental changes to its design, so huge increases in efficiency should not be expected. The only way to increase fuel efficiency that much would be through a new technology that could extract 10x more power from the same amount of fuel, or some way of reducing the need for that power by 10x (requiring a revolutionary reduction in drag and/or aircraft weight). Diesel engines and laminar-flow wings have been around for years, so there is no revolution here.
The Musk example of reducing launch costs is one of cost efficiency, not fuel efficiency, and is not (as) limited by physics.
posted by cardboard at 3:51 AM on August 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
Attempts to get more people in the air with more planes with more weakly trained & regulated pilots (if they're gonna save all that money) at a time when we should be flying less PERIOD. What could go wrong?
But it's disruptive! - It's "Uber for PJs", etc. ...
posted by carter at 4:35 AM on August 28, 2020
But it's disruptive! - It's "Uber for PJs", etc. ...
posted by carter at 4:35 AM on August 28, 2020
Roger, Cobalt Two-Two. Understand that you are hidden in a derelict church and that enemy are approx 800 meters searching for you. That's gonna be a service surcharge.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:44 AM on August 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 5:44 AM on August 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
Reminds me of MGS V. Once you've already blown your cover, why not spend the credits to call in a gunship to thin out the opposition?
posted by wierdo at 6:27 AM on August 28, 2020
posted by wierdo at 6:27 AM on August 28, 2020
MeFi: just a fuckwit with a calculator.
posted by fairmettle at 7:24 AM on August 28, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by fairmettle at 7:24 AM on August 28, 2020 [4 favorites]
Otto Aviation has already proposed further developments based on the Celera 500L design. These include a possible variant using hybrid or all-electric propulsion for even greater efficiency and fuel economy, the aforementioned unmanned version, and an enlarged Celera 1000L.
This would explain the single engine, to be replaced by an electric motor at some point, maybe the Tesla of corporate aircraft but with a backup motor. And flying pilot-less would be a huge savings, which is already being tested on commercial aircraft. Jumping out with a parachute might be a problem with the propeller in the rear, where puppies in wood chippers comes to mind.
posted by Brian B. at 7:36 AM on August 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
This would explain the single engine, to be replaced by an electric motor at some point, maybe the Tesla of corporate aircraft but with a backup motor. And flying pilot-less would be a huge savings, which is already being tested on commercial aircraft. Jumping out with a parachute might be a problem with the propeller in the rear, where puppies in wood chippers comes to mind.
posted by Brian B. at 7:36 AM on August 28, 2020 [1 favorite]
Back in 80’s, a coworker decided to buy a plane, now that his stock options could be cashed in. He laughed about it though because as he put it, when buying a new plane, as soon as you sign the sales contract, the plane is now worth half of what you just paid for it. No resale value.
posted by njohnson23 at 8:57 AM on August 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 8:57 AM on August 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
the single engine, to be replaced by an electric motor at some point
Electric motors are fantastic. The problem with electric propulsion is where you get the electricity from -- batteries are just not feasible for airplanes, only liquid fuels have the required energy density. The way of the future is hybrid propulsion -- a fuel-burning turbine turning an alternator which drives the propulsion motors. (There are advantages to putting propellers on the wingtips, turning in opposite directions.) In a post-fossil-fuel future it would be preferable to synthesize liquid fuels for airplanes (the way Germany had to in WW2).
flying pilot-less would be a huge savings
Aviation is very conservative (rightly so), it will be a while before you see paying passengers on a pilotless aircraft. (In the US, I should add, I only know about the FAA.) Because pilots aren't primarily there to fly the airplane -- a computer can do that, and does on every airline flight -- pilots are needed to handle emergencies and unexpected events. A remote pilot on the ground has too much latency, and our communication links are too unreliable.
Pilotless drones are fine for cargo, of course.
posted by phliar at 9:29 AM on August 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
Electric motors are fantastic. The problem with electric propulsion is where you get the electricity from -- batteries are just not feasible for airplanes, only liquid fuels have the required energy density. The way of the future is hybrid propulsion -- a fuel-burning turbine turning an alternator which drives the propulsion motors. (There are advantages to putting propellers on the wingtips, turning in opposite directions.) In a post-fossil-fuel future it would be preferable to synthesize liquid fuels for airplanes (the way Germany had to in WW2).
flying pilot-less would be a huge savings
Aviation is very conservative (rightly so), it will be a while before you see paying passengers on a pilotless aircraft. (In the US, I should add, I only know about the FAA.) Because pilots aren't primarily there to fly the airplane -- a computer can do that, and does on every airline flight -- pilots are needed to handle emergencies and unexpected events. A remote pilot on the ground has too much latency, and our communication links are too unreliable.
Pilotless drones are fine for cargo, of course.
posted by phliar at 9:29 AM on August 28, 2020 [2 favorites]
So to do some silly numbers with a calculator, here's how it would work out as an electric fuelled plane:
Yes, for an electricity source for a plane, you'd probably be best off in the long run with a fuel cell over batteries. Toyota say they get 2kW/kg out of the fuel cell on the Mirai, and Air Liquide can (for rocketry purposes) store 28 tons of liquid hydrogen in a tank that weighs 5.5 tons empty.
To match the 368kW engine with a 93% efficient electric motor, you need about 400kW of fuel cell, so that's 200kg of fuel cell, and 50kg of electric motor (a Tesla's 360hp (270kW) motor weighs 32kg), which is competitive with the 250kg of the motor that's fitted to this system. And to match the 225 gallon tank it's reckoned to have, you need 200kg of hydrogen, and say you can get that in a 100kg tank. That would be quite large: 1500 litres, compared to 1000l for the avgas tank.
But it's all plausible. There's quite a bit of losses on the ground with the hydrogen generation and liquification, though.
posted by ambrosen at 10:07 AM on August 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yes, for an electricity source for a plane, you'd probably be best off in the long run with a fuel cell over batteries. Toyota say they get 2kW/kg out of the fuel cell on the Mirai, and Air Liquide can (for rocketry purposes) store 28 tons of liquid hydrogen in a tank that weighs 5.5 tons empty.
To match the 368kW engine with a 93% efficient electric motor, you need about 400kW of fuel cell, so that's 200kg of fuel cell, and 50kg of electric motor (a Tesla's 360hp (270kW) motor weighs 32kg), which is competitive with the 250kg of the motor that's fitted to this system. And to match the 225 gallon tank it's reckoned to have, you need 200kg of hydrogen, and say you can get that in a 100kg tank. That would be quite large: 1500 litres, compared to 1000l for the avgas tank.
But it's all plausible. There's quite a bit of losses on the ground with the hydrogen generation and liquification, though.
posted by ambrosen at 10:07 AM on August 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
For very short flights, like electric propulsion already makes sense. Cape Cod Air, which flies small planes from Boston to Provincetown, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket has ordered electric aircraft for its fleet.
A big advantage of electric motors is their reliability and low maintenance costs. They are much quieter as well.
posted by haiku warrior at 10:56 AM on August 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
A big advantage of electric motors is their reliability and low maintenance costs. They are much quieter as well.
posted by haiku warrior at 10:56 AM on August 28, 2020 [3 favorites]
Pretty toy, will never amount to anything more.
posted by MartinWisse at 3:02 AM on August 30, 2020
posted by MartinWisse at 3:02 AM on August 30, 2020
« Older Electrify Everything | Have you ever asked if a face can be engraved on... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
If they live up to the hype and get 18-25 mpg in flight, that's a huge improvement in efficiency over small jets.
The problem is I think the 18-25 mpg is a BIG "if" to bet on, but I'd like to see this, or something like it, succeed.
posted by tclark at 2:16 PM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]