
The potentially revolutionary Celera 500L aircraft - tomohawk
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36016/the-potentially-revolutionary-celera-500l-officially-breaks-cover
======
scarier
For some perspective, the Scaled Composites Catbird (powered by a 210-hp V6)
achieved just over 20 mpg at 200 mph with close to 1000 lbs of payload (it
could carry a pilot and four passengers) in the late '80s and early '90s.

Amateur-built experimentals have achieved upwards of 50 mpg in realistic
flying conditions, but they generally tended to be tandem-seat designs with
minimal frontal area and low-powered engines.

More recently, the Pipistrel Taurus G4 (a highly modified sailplane with an
electric motor between twin fuselages, designed to carry a pilot and three
passengers) achieved just over 100 mpg at ~107 mph.

I eagerly await proof that the Celera--a significantly larger, heavier, and
faster aircraft than Rutan's Catbird--actually achieves similar fuel economy.
If true, it would be a pretty incredible leap for an industry that's been
largely stagnant for decades, but these sorts of claims have a long history of
being either sadly mistaken or outright fraudulent.

~~~
qzw
Definitely some extraodinary claims that will require extraordinary evidence
to prove. Especially getting 20+ mpg for 4500 miles, while flying at 450mph,
which is near the top end of what piston/propeller aircraft are capable of.
For reference, the P51 (one of the fastest fighters of WWII) had a comparable
top speed. The Piaggio Avanti [0] has a somewhat similar design and top speed
(460 high speed cruise), but has twin turboprops and a far shorter range and
far lower claimed mpg.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti)

~~~
desdiv
>Especially getting 20+ mpg for 4500 miles, while flying at 450mph

That's not what they're claiming though. They're claiming that:

1\. 20+ mpg

2\. maximum speed of 450 mph

3\. range of 4500 miles

are possible individually, not that 1+2+3 are possible all at the same time.

~~~
qzw
Sure, there are all kinds of trade offs between speed, range, useful load,
altitude, burn rate, etc. But it’s really the combination of 450, 4500, and
20+ that would make this plane _revolutionary_. Otherwise it wouldn’t be all
that interesting. And if we are to take seriously their claim of competing
with commercial aviation, then it would really have to perform pretty close to
all three of those numbers at the same time to even have a chance.

Edit: just to add a few numbers from the back of my napkin. To go 4500 miles,
it would probably need to do 20mpg anyway. That’s 225 gallons of fuel. JetA is
6.7lb/gl, so ~1500lb. Not sure a small plane could carry a whole lot more than
that without giving up all the useful load. And if it can only cruise at
~300mph in order to go 4500 miles, then we’re looking at a 15-hour flight in a
pretty confined space with likely fairly basic amenities. It’s not exactly
bringing back the glamour of aviation.

~~~
justinclift
Well, from London to New York is apparently about 3500 miles, and a 15 hour
journey for that sounds reasonable.

~~~
cerebellum42
A single engine plane is most likely not going to be used for ocean crossings
regularly, for safety reasons, even if it is technically capable of it.
Additionally, I'm not sure it has enough spare fuel reserves to make the trip
with enough margin for error or unforeseen circumstances.

~~~
VBprogrammer
Single engine aircraft with a range of around 800 miles are regularly ferried
across the Atlantic. Now, I'm not for a minute suggesting that this is an
everyday pleasure flight, it's something which takes planning, preparation and
additional equipment. However, all I'm pointing out is that range would be the
least of your problems if any of the claims prove true.

If you are interested this site gives a good overview of the routes and the
legs involved [http://220kts.com/ferry-flights/atlantic-ferry-
routes.html](http://220kts.com/ferry-flights/atlantic-ferry-routes.html)

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
Ferrying is not a paying passenger flight, correct?

How would single-engine craft comply with ETOPS - the relevant standard for
passenger flights, or equivalent?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS)

[https://aerosavvy.com/etops/](https://aerosavvy.com/etops/)

~~~
VBprogrammer
The short answer is they don't and it's pointless to ask about it since these
flights are conducted under part 91 for private aviation. There is almost no
charter or scheduled flights allowed on single engine aircraft in Europe and
the few that do exist are using single engine turbines on an exemption (the
exemption is based on the fact turbines have a demonstrated order of magnitude
better reliability).

~~~
NovemberWhiskey
This has changed relatively recently (2017) in the EASA rules and single-
engine IFR charter flying is possible without special exemptions as long as
the engine has demonstrated good reliability (basically it means turbine
engines).

------
Animats
It's a Diesel. The engine is made by RED in Germany.[1] Almost the same Diesel
powers the YAK-152 trainer.[2] Celera avoids the term "Diesel", but that's
what it is. It runs on Diesel fuel, or JET-A, which is much the same thing.

The base engine has been flying for several years. This is the turbocharged
model. So it's an engine design with some flight experience.

[1] [https://red-aircraft.com/](https://red-aircraft.com/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-152](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-152)

~~~
gregschlom
Ok, but so what? Is there something bad about diesel engines?

~~~
msandford
Nothing is inherently bad but diesels tend to be heavier for the power they
make. And there's a fairly well understood weight vs reliability tradeoff.
Light an unreliable is bad for airplanes and so is heavy and reliable. You
want light and reliable, ideally.

~~~
baybal2
It is a V12. Historical military V12s had a feature of two bank redundancy.
One row of 6 cylinders can be shut down along with its pumps, cooling, etc.

And I have a big suspicion that they use _two_ of these engines inside.

~~~
davidgould
V* engines share a common crankshaft with both banks, that's the V part.
Please cite any specific V12 aircraft engine that can have one bank of
cylinders shut down. I don't believe one exists.

~~~
desdiv
>Please cite any specific V12 aircraft engine that can have one bank of
cylinders shut down.

The RED A03 Engine[0], which is what this sub-thread is about.

>Two cylinder-bank redundancy concept for high safety.

>Robustness and safety are incorporated into the engine design. The two
6-cylinder banks are capable of independent operation. All critical engine
sub-systems are mutually-independent.

[0] [https://red-aircraft.com/](https://red-aircraft.com/)

~~~
londons_explore
Except the crankshaft...

Oh, and any mechanical issues with pistons or valves in one side will jam the
crankshaft, therefore stop the other half working...

And that crankshaft needs some kind of oil... And a pump to pressurize that
oil. And if a leak forms anywhere the oil drains out and the crankshaft
seizes. Pretty hard to lube one crankshaft with two redundant and isolated oil
systems...

Overall, I'd call the engine 1.5x redundancy...

~~~
calcifer
Agreed. Based on the documents, I also don't see any protection against
metorites or the sudden loss of oxygen in the planet's atmosphere. That's not
even 1x redundancy really.

------
karlkatzke
It seems to require a pretty seriously long runway to take off. On a warm day,
we’re talking international airport length runway.

While pistons are cheaper than turbines, that’s because almost all of the
approved pistons on the market use 1940s or earlier technology. They are very,
very, very simple machines. They are still extremely expensive.

This engine is very complicated, even for an automotive engine. It’s got some
revolutionary attributes, but it also has a bunch of single points of failure
that would mean traveling in this airplane over long distances and large
bodies of water isn’t a good idea.

I’m frankly not holding my breath. While they’ve got a bunch of buzz around
them, that and a working example are like 1/10 the battle in the aircraft
industry. Wish them the best for trying to advance the art but many more
established and better funded folks have tried and gone bankrupt before them.

~~~
joshyeager
The article says its typical takeoff run is 3300 feet, which is about half
what a 737 needs. I don’t know a lot about airplanes, but that seems like a
pretty short runway length requirement. What am I missing?

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
The 737 is a _far_ larger plane. The Celera has capacity for 6 passengers,
while you can cram over 200 into a 737.

For a better comparison, the world's most popular aircraft, the four-seater
Cessna 172, needs under 500 feet to take off in optimal conditions, although
you might need 1500 feet if fully loaded and high up.

[http://www.dmjwilliams.co.uk/gbsep_performance.htm](http://www.dmjwilliams.co.uk/gbsep_performance.htm)
(in meters, not feet)

However, the Cessna Citation M2 business jet, which targets a similar market
as the Celera, also requires ~3000 ft (again depending on weight, altitude,
conditions). So not seeing a huge difference here.

[https://prijet.com/performance/Cessna%20Citation%20M2](https://prijet.com/performance/Cessna%20Citation%20M2)

------
rm445
With a supposedly 10x improvement in an important metric (fuel consumption,
together with reasonable speed and carrying enough fuel for range), there must
surely be a big idea driving the change. Something that stands out.

I can't quite follow what specifically makes this aircraft special. I mean,
it's an odd shape, and it has a piston engine. But what's driving the huge
improvements? Improvements in CFD software driving aerodynamic design?
Automotive technology bringing engine efficiencies? Some trade-off of
stability that has previously been avoided but new avionics have overcome? The
comparisons are all against business jets - is it in some way a well-designed
propeller aircraft sitting in the space where the utility of jets versus
propeller craft starts to cross over and small jets become inefficient?

I suppose it's not impossible that it sits in an unexplored area of the design
space - a clever designer starting from a clean sheet of paper and ending up
with something that works really well. But it would be extremely unusual after
a century-plus of innovation. I don't like that breathless articles are
written about this plane without any attempt to describe what the special
sauce may be.

~~~
fluffything
> had a maximum cruising speed of at least 450 miles per hour and a range of
> over 4,500 miles

Given the shape of the airplane, I'd guess the 4,500 miles range is not at 450
miles per hour, but much much less. Also, it needs to fly very high, so you
need to correct the time it takes to travel with this with the longer take off
and landing times.

It wouldn't surprise me if the "effective" velocity of this plane for long
distances was more like 200 mph. I hope I'm wrong.

------
Stevvo
It seems a bit dishonest to compare it to a jet, when the obvious competition
is a single engine Turboprop like a TBM or PC-12.

On paper it beats those aircraft, but by a far less impressive margin when you
consider engine TBO, which is currently 1250 hrs on the EASA cert. With the
inherent unreliablilty of piston engines, a PT-6 might look more appealing.

I'd love to see this aircraft come to market, but I fear it may go the way of
many innovative aircraft; the company underestimated the cost and complexity
or certification and goes bankrupt.

~~~
baybal2
Big guesstion, do they have one, or _two_ engines? A combiner gearbox does not
fare well in aviation, as history show.

I have a hard time believing they can get to such speed with just 500hp.

~~~
karlkatzke
One engine, a turbocharged V-12.

~~~
sirk1882
And as others have mentioned, it's taken advantage of newer technology that
allows six of pistons to be turned off.

The engine basically sounds like two in-line six cylinder engines that share
many common single engine features but with the ability to shut off one side
and use power from the remaining side.

So hypothetically, you fly up to altitude and climb using all 12 cylinders,
then cruise on six.

That could be where the fuel efficiency is being notched up versus burning all
12 cylinders at all times.

Kinda like how people are still amazed variable displacement engines took them
from 10mpg to 18-20mpg. It's also likely the engine has a number of other more
recent innovations included too. Variable valve timing, etc, etc. A lot of new
rather exciting new engine technology has come out in the last 20 years.

It's much like when we went from naturally aspirated aka carbs to electronic
fuel injection/ignition.

~~~
Toutouxc
Naturally aspirated != carb.

You can have a naturally aspirated engine with electronic (even direct)
injection, or a turbocharged engine with a carburetor, or any other
combination.

~~~
sirk1882
True. Naturally aspirated simply refers to the lack of a
turbocharger/supercharger pressurizing atmospheric air as "boost".

I just wish carbureted was an easier word to spell after not using it for
months at time.

------
nabla9
The revolutionary part is to use V12 turbo-diesel piston engine for high
cruise altitude instead of turboprop or jet engine.

Aerospace experts are skeptical [https://www.thedailybeast.com/this-weird-
plane-could-be-the-...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/this-weird-plane-could-
be-the-prius-of-the-skies)

>Juan Alonso, a professor in the Department of Aeronautics at Stanford
University, has his doubts. A 30 percent improvement in fuel-efficiency is
possible in an airplane with a new, more aerodynamic wing design, an ultra-
light airframe made from high-tech composite materials and a super-efficient
engine.

>But an 800 percent improvement? “Unlikely,” Alonso told The Daily Beast. The
Celera 500L’s rear-mounted propeller is a good choice for a more fuel-
efficient plane, Alonso said. But the egg-like fuselage probably is less fuel-
efficient than the narrower fuselages on planes such as the PC-12, he pointed
out.

>Mark Drela, an MIT aeronautical engineer, is equally skeptical. “The 500L
looks fairly well-designed,” Drela told The Daily Beast, “but I cannot say
whether it’s close to optimum, or whether the diesel engine makes sense.”

> To say for sure, Drela said he’d need to know how much the Celera 500L
> weighs and how efficient its engine is. Since Otto isn’t talking, Drela can
> only guess. And he’s guessing that the Celera 500L isn’t nearly as efficient
> as Otto hopes it will be.

------
ahelwer
Large parts of this article read as though they were lazily & uncritically
copied straight out of a press release.

~~~
throwanem
Welcome to The Drive.

~~~
lvs
Or any industry blog/magazine.

------
alfalfasprout
It's still a GA aircraft though... so you still have to deal with all the BS.
If you don't own it yourself then you need to pay a pilot (though with the
recent downturn there's no shortage of pilots). There is absolutely no way
many people will try and get their pilot's license. The FAA written test for a
PPL may be easy compared to IR but it's still not a walk in the park. The
checkrides are very strict nowadays too.

So if you're paying a pilot, FBO costs (or dealing with a commercial operator
of the planes), etc. at the end of the day it's never going to be as cheap as
commercial airlines. This certainly would make it affordable. But not _that_
affordable.

~~~
skykooler
That said, it would definitely be cheaper to certify a pilot on this than on a
business jet, since the flight hours for the aircraft cost much less.

~~~
alfalfasprout
Ehhh usually type ratings aren't the most expensive part of training though.
Plus on larger business jets there are simulators that are used in lieu of in-
aircraft time for most of the training.

You're still looking at bare minimum a CPL with instrument rating which is
minimum 250 hours (realistically 350 or so). Probably more than that before
any insurance company is OK with you flying it single pilot.

------
PowerfulWizard
The fuel mileage sounds incredible, it's in the same range as an F150. The
pilot must be a major part of the expense, meaning it could also be well
positioned for an autonomous shuttle future, if those are ever fully trusted,
bringing the cost down even further.

Obviously they still have a long way to but they are saying the right things
to get me excited, even though my knowledge of aircraft efficiency is pretty
minimal.

edit: It looks like the Yak-152 mentioned elsewhere in the thread can do about
14 mpg if wikipedia & my math is right.

~~~
kbenson
> It looks like the Yak-152 mentioned elsewhere in the thread can do about 14
> mpg if wikipedia & my math is right.

Isn't the MPG highly dependent on what it's paired with? You can't expect a
Honda Civic to hit it's stated MPG either if you overload the car or tow
something, but if you replace a lot of parts with lighter equivalents (or put
the engine in a lighter car) you would expect it to get a higher MPG.

One of the major points of this plane is that it's supposed to be extremely
aerodynamic.

------
Ericson2314
Not gonna lie, this week I've read two HN postings about dope planes for rich
people (boom, now this)......and news articles detailing a crisis of austerity
for the NYC subway.

It's really sad to me that we can VC these wild bets on inefficient transport
for the few, meanwhile perhaps the most efficient people-mover ever devised
for the many is on an entirely politically-caused death bed.

~~~
lightgreen
NYC is a very rich city. NYC can definitely afford a better subway.

People come to the voting stations and pick the candidate with the most
important agenda for them. Obviously, the NYC subway does not seem to be the
largest issue.

If you want to blame rich people for that, well, welcome to the USSR.

~~~
Ericson2314
The subway that benefits the city is controlled by the state of New York. The
state of New York that would like to spend counter-cyclically is constrained
by laws and the inability to issue currency, and thus has a budget that is
controlled by the feds.

At every level, the political power is structured poorly to make the subway
(and regional infra in general) a low priority.

------
hindsightbias
Bill Lear did it first:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LearAvia_Lear_Fan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LearAvia_Lear_Fan)

Success is dependent on the gearbox.

~~~
KMag
> Success is dependent on the gearbox.

This uses a single V12 Diesel engine. The Lear Fan used dual turboshaft
engines.

~~~
baybal2
It is not clear yet: [https://the-drive.imgix.net/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-
west-2.amazo...](https://the-drive.imgix.net/https%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-
west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fthe-drive-cms-content-staging%2Fmessage-
editor%252F1559926122712-before.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.2.1&s=cb2187a8c3bff915c858175126ed48d3)

And the speed figures are hard to believe for just 500hp, and an aircraft of
this size.

What is on the photo make me think they have 2 of them, mounted at 120
degrees.

~~~
hindsightbias
It is in fact registered as a single-engine[1], but I am also suspicious.
There is wiggle-room in a twin with single drive train.

If the engine were also turbo/supercharged and could do closer to 1000shp,
might be possible. But if really only 500hp I think it's more 450 mph with a
single pilot and no load at 45K. Same with range and field length.

[1]
[https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?N...](https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=818WM)

------
mzs
All of this is lifted from from
[https://www.ottoaviation.com/](https://www.ottoaviation.com/) which seems
geared for investors.

------
dx034
Another point that doesn't get mentioned in the article is noise. Laminar flow
with a 59% reduction would make the aircraft much quieter, especially during
approach. Aerodynamic drag is the primary source of landing planes, reducing
that can greatly help communities around airports and avoid curfews.

~~~
AtlasBarfed
But planes need that to decelerate / reduce both kinetic and gravitational
potential energy though, don't they? I suppose air should always be able to do
that even at higher efficiency.

------
donw
You don't see a lot of pusher-configuration aircraft. I wonder if they plan on
using the same design for a military UAV?

Having a multi-fuel capable engine is a pretty clever design choice, and I
imagine the improved aerodynamics come from the combination of the pusher
configuration and the lack of windows (the latter enables a lighter, stronger,
and more streamlined fuselage).

Fuel consumption looks to be about double a Cessna 182 (18-25 gal/hour), but
that's rather good for an aircraft of this type.

One question did spring to mind: why have they styled it after a vibrator?

~~~
charliemil4
> One question did spring to mind: why have they styled it after a vibrator?

“It’s all about the laminar flow”[0]

[0]
[https://www.ottoaviation.com/technology](https://www.ottoaviation.com/technology)

~~~
tyingq
I was reminded of those water pressure rocket toys:
[https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0812/07/parks-p...](https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0812/07/parks-
plastics-toy-water-rocket_1_accc416bea0904ba50b8b85cbc41acd3.jpg)

------
TulliusCicero
> This and aircraft's other notable performance characteristics are made
> possible in large part due to its highly aerodynamic overall laminar flow
> shape, which produces approximately 59 percent less drag than existing
> similar-sized, more conventionally-shaped aircraft.

Wait, if the shape is _that_ much more efficient, why don't we already see
this sort of shape for commercial jets? Are there other compromises involved?

------
jdhn
I'm kind of curious as to why they went with the engine that they did instead
of something based off of Chevrolet's LS engine architecture, but tuned for
the unique demands of planes. Seems that they place efficiency as a high
standard, and the LS series of engines are pretty efficient in terms of how
much power they generate vs how much space the engine takes up.

~~~
AmVess
The engine in the Celera is designed for aircraft use. It is a turbocharged
turbodiesel.

In order to get the Chevrolet V-8 to work at altitude, you'd need to put a
turbocharger on it which would destroy the fuel economy, especially in this
application. Also, automotive engines are not designed to withstand the heavy
duty cycle that this aircraft requires.

~~~
55873445216111
Actually, the Chevrolet LS series small block V8 has been used in airplanes
and helicopters. The only automotive engine series I am aware of that used in
aviation. [http://www.v8seabee.com/](http://www.v8seabee.com/).
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Hummingbird](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Hummingbird)

~~~
KMag
There are plenty of automotive engines that have been converted for use as
aircraft engines. Subaru EA81 flat-4s, for one. I've also seen VW Beetle
engines and Mazda rotaries converted for experimental aircraft use.

Snowmobiles and jetskis aren't automobiles, but many ultralight engines are
based on snowmobile/jetski engine designs. (Rotax is very common, though I've
seen at least one BD-5 with a Polaris snowmobile engine converted for aircraft
use.)

------
travisgriggs
Nice and all, but I just got my private pilots wings a month and a half ago.
I've looked at planes. I could buy an fleet of old pipers and burn 9gallons an
hour throwing a plane away a year for what just one of these will probably
cost. The tech is cool, but I would love to have something robust and cheep
for the private pilots out there.

~~~
dx034
It won't make sense to buy for any individual. But if you run it close to 24/7
renting it out, fuel efficiency matters much more. You could have it on some
kind of a scheduled service but sell out flights as a whole for businesses or
families.

That way you still get a private jet experience but at a much lower price due
to lower flexibility. Still appealing for most.

------
Judgmentality
The idea of being stuck in a plane for hours with no windows is...odd.

~~~
bgorman
This is the future of airplanes. Windows add cost and reduce the structural
integrity of the plane.

Commercial airlines are already removing them.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44383220](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44383220)

~~~
mortenjorck
Wow, this is a literal nightmare for flight anxiety sufferers.

~~~
Someone1234
Only if they don't replace them with even larger digital "windows." There's
also been work towards electronic windows in aircraft.

~~~
sirk1882
Yeah but it'd be cooler if the sides were completely digital "windows".

What should these be called? Dindows? Digidows? Digdows?

I live in the arctic and I was thinking of building a home without windows but
with same idea. It allows you to remove convective heat loss from windows
almost entirely. Not to mention it's much cheaper than shipping up glass
windows.

~~~
twic
Windows 2.0.

------
bigtones
Speed seems to be almost comparable to a turbine aircraft in cruising speed if
you go by their numbers, despite it being V12 piston prop driven. Cruising
speed of the 500L is 450 mph and the cruising speed of a Gulfstream IV is 520
mph.

This air frame looks uncannily like the failed Planet Satellite in 1948
though.

~~~
enjeyw
If anything the Planet Satellite plane looks more modern - its wings are
nicely blended into the base of the fuselage. In contrast the Celera looks
like someone got lazy on CAD an just intersected a bullet shape with a wing
shape.

------
jeffreyrogers
Big if true. The claimed performance on this is wild, especially since the
pusher propeller configuration is usually less efficient than the puller
configuration and its top speed is up there with the fastest piston engine
aircraft (which are designed for speed not fuel efficiency).

------
rob74
Ok... lifting body, clean efficient wing, rear-mounted propeller to avoid
disturbing the laminar flow - I get all of that. But what are the two gizmos
mounted on the top of the fuselage between wing and tail? They look a bit big
to just be the air intake for the engine?!

~~~
clucas
Presumably air intake and exhaust for the piston engine.

------
hyko
Where are the windows? Human payloads need windows.

------
geokon
Is there a reason why small aircraft don't just use a car engine (with some
appropriate gearing I guess)? Those have had so much R&D in them and they're
pretty much as efficient as you can get - plus much easier to maintain and
repair

~~~
Czarcasm
Automotive engines are designed to produce power at a wide range of operating
speeds, at the detriment of peak power output and peak efficiency. Aircraft
engines can take advantage of the fact that they will be operating at a single
RPM range for most of their life, which allows you to optimize every single
aspect of the system for that speed. Aircraft engines also have much, much
higher reliability, lifecycle, and quality control requirements than
automotive engines.

For these reasons and a few others, you would basically end up redoing most of
the engineering work on an automotive engine to repurpose it for aerospace
applications, thus negating the savings of reusing the existing design.

~~~
m4rtink
But you can do it the other way around, resulting in the M4 Sherman. :-)

------
haecceity
MPG*person is probably a better measure.

------
scott31
That aircraft is extremely risky, it is designed by amateurs who are not even
using metric system. Pretty much guaranteed that FAA won't let it fly

~~~
AtlasBarfed
by "that aircraft" do you mean the Celera 500L?

------
Sebb767
It looks like the view range is pretty limited based on the images, especially
in the front. Can a pilot chime in and explain how important this is?

------
greatNespresso
What's fun also is that "Celera" sounds just like "scélérat" in french, which
is an old word for criminal.

------
zaroth
This is super neat. Wish them the best of luck trying to get this
commercialized!

One thing which was a bit surprising was actually how small the whole craft
is. Scroll down the page and they show a human for scale. Looks like you can
barely stand up in the center of it. But I’m sure as a private craft they will
come up with some incredible interior designs nonetheless.

------
paulsutter
Huge if true:

\- 450 miles per hour, range of over 4,500 miles

\- 18 to 25 miles per gallon (vs 2-3 mpg for jet)

\- per-hour flight cost of just $328 (vs $2100 for light jet)

------
anovikov
OK, at least they are not claiming 10x increases in fuel economy anymore, it
reduced to the more reasonable 5x, which is sorta believable, especially since
most of the affordable jets are not using latest generations of jet engines.

Let me guess: the catch is the high maintenance cost of the piston engine.

------
dmitrygr
> A03 V12 piston engine

there's why it is cheaper! turbines are expensive, pistons are cheap.

~~~
virtue3
Sort of. Yes yes development costs.

They are claiming the plane is also cheaper to fly dramatically, and having a
similar airspeed to modern jets. That's not easy.

Modern jetliners use "turbo-fans" which are just jets powering giant fans.
This allows them to be -incredibly- efficient.

The complexity of the piston based engine is in the superchargers and how they
get air into the engine at high speeds.

You can read about it from the highly famous WWII engine the Rolls-Royce
Merlin _- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-
Royce_Merlin#Supercharge...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-
Royce_Merlin#Supercharger)

------
NovemberWhiskey
Hmmm, a complex V-12 turbocharged piston single - sign me up, as long as I
don't have to fly over water or mountains.

------
Mountain_Skies
It's not real until it's in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020.

~~~
Stevvo
As awesome as the new Flight Simulator is, as an avgeek the Flight model is
very disappointing. X-Plane can, and has, been used to design real world
aircraft because you input the aircraft geometry and it simulates how it
should fly based on that. MSFS extrapolates a lookup table over the input
geometry, making it useless for real-world aerodynamic predictions.

From the consumer perspective, both models are capable of outputting accurate
results, but from the developer perspective, MSFS is no better than FS 98.

~~~
nikitaga
Which aircraft were actually designed with X-plane, and why? I've heard this
several times but that never made sense to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if their blade element theory approach is superior to
whatever Microsoft is doing (not familiar), but still both of those are
optimized for realtime simulation, not for correctness.

When I wanted to analyze performance of a hypothetical rigid wing hang glider
I went with XFLR5. That isn't a perfect tool by any means either but its
algorithms should be miles ahead of X-Plane. Though of course you can't
actually fly the plane in XFLR5, just do the math.

~~~
0xffff2
I don't know about production aircraft, but NASA uses X-Plane pretty
extensively for all kinds of research, including modeling flight dynamics for
small UAVs. It's used often enough that several years ago I developed (and
released on NASA's GitHub) a tool to simplify programmatic interaction with
the X-Plane simulation engine. It's not nearly popular enough to make
maintaining it a full time job (thankfully), but I do get pretty regular
comments from NASA researchers and members of the public.

I have never heard of anyone using MS Flight Sim in the same way, although
another fairly common use case for my library is to disable the X-Plane
physics completely and just use if as a visualization tool. If someone
developed a library that made that equally easy for MSFS, I can see it taking
over that role. It certainly looks better the X-Plane IMO.

------
Giorgi
Looks like engine is 90% to blame for that economy

------
pontifier
Uber for airplanes coming soon!

