1dgram, mate, do you see massive CofG issues, cooling issues and crazy performance figures too? God knows what happens when bugs get on the airframe. If laminar flow is lost will it even fly? I have serious doubts about this project The basic configuration screams at me. It will be horrendously noisy, as ALL pusher props are due to being in the high/low pressure turbulence from the wings etc. I look forward to seeing some verified data with passengers, fuel and bags, at gross weight. When they talk of super cheap running costs, I remember hearing such talk so many times before. Time will tell I guess.
My back of the napkin calculations show, that the Re is several orders of magnitude too big (its about 10^7) for cruise speed and altitude, how can the shape change so much? Even if they would use something like shark skin, I cant imagine that they can improve 10000 times. I know, Re is more of a guesstimate for non calibrated situations, but it sounds like a miracle.
To be able to *ENTIRELY* avoid TSA and airline checkin and the annoyances of large airports is valuable to many people. Also to be able to fly between any two small towns you wish is very convenient too, which avoids long drives from the small towns to bigger cities. I'm not sure this airplane is that great (mostly due to the market segment it is optimized to serve), but avoiding standard airports and airlines and TSA and such is ... quite wonderful.
@@andreas4010 Not in the US. Our train system is not very developed compared to the EU and is mostly optimized for freight. Only in the Acela Corridor is it somewhat more built out. (I think Australia may be similar in being more optimized for air and car travel than train.)
You might want to follow the progress and cost of California attempt to built a high speed train. The attempt has been a failure. The costs are outrageous.
Actually the push propeller has another very important advantage for saving power. Based on a concept called Boundary layer ingestion, the push propeller actually ends up using the power in the boundary layer (formed on the aircraft fuselage) which would otherwise go waste. This concept is quite commonly used in marine propulsion for saving power.
Yes this far rear mounted prop contributes to extent the thicker and thicker laminar flow backwards to the tail rudder level but one disadvantage of rear propulsion is that the engine cooling "lost its fan" and cooling is either poor or adding too much drag (B36 syndrom). Here diesel cycle and specially hi power two stage intercooled turbo versions reduces water and oil cooling need extensively. High pressure Ferrari-Ducati like cooling can also today reduce 40% of the cooler size and eliminates afterboiling at shutdowns. Once plane will be pressurized, reinforced for it and fully equipped the current performances of the 500L could be reduced slightly. For the laminar size limit, one could reproduce the Twin Mustang concept to double a 1000L capacity ...Also, the new Airbus H2 flying wing concept with extrado multiple E fans and fuel cells is a much larger design (up to 200 seats?) using again an extended laminar flow solution, so concept is spreading...
The USA has thousands of small airports that can handle this plane. Many of them phased out commerical runs. This plane could bring those runs back to the small airports, it has the potential to be a complete game changer for small airports and the communities near them.
Exactly and the real advantage would come from small airport to small airport, bypassing the giant ones and saving traveler time. The flights might even schedule a chain of those airports, say A-B-C-D-E over a day. One passenger might fly A to B and another B to E. Business flyers could go to another city and back in a single day.
But those small airports don't have the infrastructure to support many passengers. I.e. public transport, parking lots, rental car, road access that can handle the traffic, etc.
@@kkobayashi1 Valid concerns but it has to start somewhere, the hardest thing to solve is probably getting flights there economically. Once that's possible I'm sure the passengers with a bit of creativity will find ways to get to/from the airports. Whether that's by being picked up/dropped off by family/friends or maybe a taxi/uber ride to/from the nearby town. As for the limited infrastructure to support passengers and road access? Might end up being just fine if it's not a high peak throughput number for any individual small airport but many direct flights. Time will tell if the plane makes it to market and if it ends up being a big hit or not, the numbers mentioned seem quite promising but I'd still want to see what a final production airplane can do. Also that hint about electric flight, batteries sadly have a high weight density and piss poor energy density compared to liquid fuel that gets burned in engines. Makes me wonder how much cargo/people they can carry and how far, especially given that current regulations often require a lot of reserve flight time fuel.
@@DJKinney he's done some epic videos on a wide range of things which are scientific, in depth, and accurate, including collabs with other science RUclipsrs, his rocket videos are the best, ngl.
What makes me more ready to believe Otto aviation's claims is that they did all of the design, from conception to testing, without chasing publicity. They just silently got on with the job without any fanfare. That tells me they're confident in the viability of this aircraft, this isn't just some investment payday project.
Agreed. I’m used to decades of vaporware and artist’s renderings and pretty mockups. This isn’t some electric truck rolling down a hill (Nicola), it’s real, it flies. Here’s hoping they have their own version of Elon to make it work.
@@kkobayashi1 They have funding obviously but the key is they actually built a flying prototype that actually is flying. Plus Otto is someone who knows quite a lot about aerodynamics and is not someone working out of their garage.
Couple of points for the non-aviators to do some readings, adding to the interesting video (and yes, it has created some buzz on the aviation forums - and we are usually quite weary, you know, due to past experiences): What claims and allusions in the aircraft development history can you look up to get some imagination together? A) Focke-Wulff 200 (Churchills biggest nightmare in combination with U-Boats), sleek & piston can make for amazing endurance. B) Bullet shape X-1 has been mentioned here, you can see how a drop of water falls and slim that drop down - there you go. C) Predator UAV/ UACV - with a Rotax 914 and little payload, little speed and long runway you can have amazing endurance, again with a piston engine, and still take off on a normal long hard concrete runway (this is not for the flying doctor’s sercie in the Outback, but for all runways of 1300 m). Noticed they use double Fowler flaps? There is a reason for that - a small engine, but they don’t want to go with a wing of a D) Stemme S12, U2/TR1, Grob G520 Egrett etc. But that altitude on a double compressor/ turbo has been proven by Caproni, Tank 152 and Spitfire ages ago. E) aviation Diesel - if they wouldn’t have been so temperamental with load changes, the Junkers Doppelhubkolbenzylinder would have been even more efficient than the already formidable Diesels we have seen in aviation. (but here I digresse, the RED is already certified and a mere double V6; that however gives the project credibility in endurance and fuel efficiency; anyway, that part of the claim is doable, proven decades ago and recently certified by a few companies in an admittedly minuscule market of SEP). F) Laminar flow icing/ wing heating: I guess a TKS will suffice. If you look at the certification standards, the duration in the clouds is not that long. And for the mission profile this will do easily, just check out the C208 in comparison. The prop might not even need heating due to the exhaust. G) small hull huge pressure differential can be structurally overcome, as shown in the bizjet of Morgan Freeman (so rare that I keep forgetting its name), due to TUC one pilot will always wear a mask at high altitude. As already done with a few airliners. Conclusion: All done before and imaginable, with the limitation of a single engine piston that despite a glide ration of 1:22 (same as the A380, btw) could certainly reach a market potential of 30 - 300 units a year for the reason of economics already well analyzed by our favourite Mentour. Plus the owner/ developer has the track record with the B-1B avionics and his own company, including the secretness of development, to get it done. He put his money where his mouth is, the engine already was certified by a smal specialized company that specializes in automobile racing near the most traditional, prestigious racing track of the country that invented both the Otto and Diesel engines, for the new Yak military trainer, thus funding and reliability have some claim to faim as well (though not in PT-6 gasturbine MTBF). Market potential in surveillance, non-manned military or law enforcement missions can add to the economy of scale as well. No BRS - for the mission profile, perhaps understandable. But it’s still an SEP with some critical phase of flight in case of an EFATO. At the glide ration of 1:22 and operating on very long runways, I could actually imagine it would take very long to have the first ever victims of that very, very late. So for air taxi ops in remote or small markets, more affordable bizjet competition, it can be a long seller. Even as a hybrid or electric (the former allowing for steeper climbs and more redundancy in that critical phase. Some noise reduction due to steeper climbs). Decentralized personal booking at “semi fixed times” could really bring some good use to towns of 30,000 - 300,000 people. There is one thing however which I cannot grasp: 550 hp to reach 400 ktas? Looking at L/D, performance of WW 2 fighters and Reno race modifications I can easily imagine a very high Vne (and for robustness, check out the g-limits of the Extra 400 and 500). But that speed, even at high altitudes, from that prop diameter? Perhaps after a very long, slow climbout, burnt up fuel.... but on the other hand, in the certified world, with CAD and CFD in this application, perhaps it’s possible at the edge of the envelope. At lower altitudes? Hard to imagine. For me. (Commercial pilot, world rounder in a C350 with 16 hrs endurance at 9.7 gph, so at least I know a little bit about single engine LOP extreme endurance oceanic flights.. not an aeronautical engineer though)
Hello Peter! Your explanation of laminar flow is the best I have heard in a lifetime. And in my engineering studies, I attended loads of fluidodynamics lectures and trainings. Also. The standing of your dogs. They look like they know the entire matter by heart, to the point they are patiently napping - and listening every other word! Thanks you for the video on this inusual airplane. My fears come from the fact that common aviation users are somewhat traditionalists and, in some cases they just shun innovation. I like the bullet aircraft, as it is obvious that a lot of tought went into its design. Albeit, I try to avoid flying in small aircrafts, in special way the "light" ones. The smaller aircraft I have flown on, was a Fokker twin turboprop, from London to Edinburgh. I like propellers more than turbojets, but they are: Shaky Shaky Shaky, all the way, wow!
I fully subscribe to your views Mentour, the Celera is undoubtedly a plane with huge potential, no matter how one may turn the issue, this plane holds great promises all round, and yes, the environmental footprint seems a lot lighter too. Let's keep tuned on this, thanks a lot for another brilliant narration.
I'd like to see smaller even smaller versions of this suppositorium for general aviation / private pilots, for a single person or up to 4-seaters! Half the size.
You could probably do it with electric motors. The problem is the redundancy could be gone moving to a small plane, using a smaller motor. This is a big 12 cylinder engine and requires one side to work if the other fails. If the plane is classified as 1 or 2 people to where no one is paying to fly in the plane then you probably can reduce the minimum safety requirements and could get away with a single bank. Or, maybe an 8 cylinder dual bank would still be light enough for that smaller size and could still generate enough power with a single bank. But with an electric motor, more reliable and you could have redundancy with the battery packs. But you probably can't get the same range.
Just to be clear. The water tap issue your referring to is the aerator which adds air into the water stream causing you to think your using more water than you actually are. But we understand your point
Air in water prevents splashing when hitting object. Great example of laminar flow is making light sensitive emulsion layer on photographic film. Smartereveryday has made marvelous video serie of Kodak manufacturing plant in Rochester, US. Truly fantastic documented piece.
Isn't the water in water tap becomes white because water taps have aerators in them to mix air in to make the flow softer? If you screw that off the faucet the water remains transparent. I think the same is true for waterfalls I guess as air gets mixed in and surface tension breaks the water into many droplets. The typical example used for to demonstrate laminar and turbulent flow and the Reynolds number is the the smoke that comes up from chimneys on a calm day: first it rises vertically and as it speeds up it gets turbulent.
Point is, air will only get mixed in if the flow is turbulent. If the faucet has an aerator, it would become turbulent at a much smaller flow, but I think you can still create a laminar flow if the flow is small enough.
I was impressed with your presentation of fluid dynamics in layman's terms that is easily understandable. Overall technically a very solid explanation of why this aircraft is a improvement to conventional.
Saw this plane on another video & was highly impressed. Been exceptionally well thought out, with an obvious eye to electric power.. Most promising idea in recent times, IMO.
I think an extreme disadvantage of this plane is its power to weight ratio. 500hp for a plane that size is nothing and it relies on efficiency to stay in the sky. High take off speeds, high landing speeds. Even if they do something clever with the variable pitch to use it as a brake, low power to weight means it *will* require long runways. Its already excluded itself from its unique selling point: point to point, long range, small airports.
@@htomerif Yes, I do agree! Even if it is a success, it will be a *_niche_* market product. I am skeptical that it will be adaptable to large-scale commercial aviation. Most likely only in the private/business jet sector! And also I'm very skeptical when companies give these highly optimistic time frames! 2025?? Really?? With all of the trials, FAA certification processes and so on, just add 5 years to their claimed time frame. So something like 2030. And also, just because something looks and sounds great in a "prototype setting" does not mean it will lend itself well to MASS PRODUCTION. There are *_TONS_* of hurdles to overcome to bring something like this to market in large numbers (production, manufacturing techniques etc.)
@@747-pilot Yeah, and theres a big, big, huge difference between the safety of things like a 737 and any small plane. If they ever were mass produced people would see that this isn't as safe as a private 737, its as dangerous as any other small aircraft. I have to say when I first saw pictures of it I thought it was just a pusher turboprop. Gas turbine engines are more expensive, yes, but they're far, far more reliable than what's effectively a detroit diesel built mostly of aluminum, just way more moving parts, every one of them critical. I guess the position of the engine and prop make it less vulnerable to bird strikes though.
@@htomerif Yes, absolutely! The argument that it is just as safe as a multi engine aircraft because one bank of cylinders can operate independently is laughable at best! There is so much more to the redundancy of a second engine!! The reason single engine aircraft like the Pilatus PC-12 are considered extremely reliable is because they are *_turbine_* powered. And as you correctly pointed out turbine engines are orders of magnitude more reliable than their piston powered counterparts due to fewer moving parts!
While the concept is certainly interesting, I see a few problems with the advertised speeds. 1. Trying to keep the flow around the wing laminar isn‘t a new idea. The viscous interactions in the turbulent boundary layer are essential for stability of the flow and in keeping it from separating though. When a laminar wing is used, the flow isn’t as stable anymore. This is currently a heavily researched topic, so it does certainly make sense that they are trying to use it. 2. When flying with the advertised speeds a propeller, especially in combination with a piston engine, is highly inefficient, which is why jet engines are normally used. 3. The wings they used don’t seem to be optimized for high speed. At 400 knots supersonic effects on the wing have to be taken into account. This usually results in the backswept design you‘d see on jets. I would be very skeptical about what they are advertising. Maybe for shorter distances and at slower speeds, comparable to something a Cessna 172 would be used for, it might work. Everything else honestly sounds too good to be true.
what this guy said, ha ha ha, on a side note it took me over an hour to research and learn what you said. For stupid people , this looks a bit like skyway, great promise, but the tech dont really add up.
I am a little bit suspicious as well. I don't know much about aerodynamics, but you'd think there is a reason why they use jet engines for those sort of speeds. Typical startup, using buzzwords like laminar flow, promising everything, but nothing comes out in the end.
The designer is a very serious and renown engineer though. Old guy too and likely very well off, not really fitting the profile of some money hungry startup.
I remember having read about the concept of laminar flow having been used and exploited in World War 2, specifically on the wings of the P51 which improved fuel efficiency without compromising the plane's maneuverability.
What's interesting is as time passes and technology progresses, new versions of old things can come back around such as R/C aircraft in the form of electric powered quadcopters and in this case a new piston engine and propeller plane that can perform like a jet (or almost) but be more efficient. Very impressive.
I've actually seen one of the flights, well take off and landing, and spoken with some of the engineers at the company. This is a great aircraft, and they have really done their homework and are on their way. They are looking for production locations right now to produce 50 aircraft per month. I'm not allowed to say more than that, but great video with good information. Everyone stay tuned....
They have done their homework hey? None of the claims made are accurate. Even with ideal aerodynamics, the required HP needed to obtain a 460 MPH cruise is 750HP short. Since this number is off, actual speed and range is also a pipe dream. Notice on their website, there are zero specifications listed just bold claims. The only people talking about this aircraft are people who don’t know squat about aviation engineering
@@brianthompson9592 I'm not an aviation engineer, but do have a degree in mechanical engineering, and minored in thermal physics. I've traveled around the world doing business with aerospace manufacturers in helping them solve problems, mainly in process and equipment. As such, I get the chance to meet a number of very sharp people around the world in places like Boeing, Airbus, COMAC, Bombardier, Lockheed Martin, Bell and Sikorsky to name a fe OEM's. They have done enough test flights and have gathered enough data to know what the real numbers are. The real question is if there can be enough interest in these changing times to get it across the finish line of the FAA and the EASA.
@@harveysmith100 whats your background? I am always curious when people with zero background in avaition engineering write articles than are nothimg but summaries ofa press relesse. My background is aerosoace eb
If the claims are true, which I still doubt at the moment, theoretically. Not that you would go with a single engine over the atlantic, because that is insane.
@@jort93z There are two questions here, 1) Would the aircraft have the range, according to their published numbers it appears so. 2) Would I want to make that flight? I for one would give that a hard no. But others have done it, so it can be done.
What's a pilot's hourly wage? $50-100? That wouldn't substantially change the economic opportunity. $500 per hour total for a party of 6 is still good value for a private taxi. Roughly the same as business class on a commercial flight, but without the queues.
Happy Birthday MentourPilot in advance! Cheers to a life full of great memories ahead! Thanks for these videos, very informative, interesting, insightful n inspiring!
Will be interesting to see how this new engine does long term for reliability. If all 12 cylinders drive 1 crankshaft a problem that locks up movement in one side would stop the whole engine ?
No, that's the point. This separate banking operation has been available in cars for nearly 20 years. Basically you can still have one crankshaft, and one bank can lock up, or seize, and the other banks still work on its own - independently. It's all down to something called smooth ratchet bearings. It basically means that if the conrods stop moving on one bank, the conrods can continue to move independently turning their own bearings. What's more, when this happens, the crankshaft only loses around 0.06% efficiency.
I don't think it's a single shaft. I think it's two. If it's one though it's designed in a way to where one bank can lock up and the other still works which gives the redundancy. 6:00
Hi Mentour, your explanations of laminar vs turbulent flow are really masterful for the lay audience (like me, although I do know a bit of stuff). This is a very special skill. Thanks.
It's amazing that it's actually more efficient than an SUV. The only issue I see if runway capacity. If anyone could suddenly get their own private jet for the price of an economy ticket, where are all of these flights going to land? If they could make it VTOL though... then you basically have a flying car.
No it wouldn't work that way because it's still going to be a millionaire or flying enthusiast that buys something like this. The point he was trying to make at the end but didn't really do a good job is you don't need to do into a big airport. You could fly private to private airport, or private to regional or ALL kinds of flight patterns that aren't possible now. If I take a trip across the US using air travel, I might first have to drive 2 - 3 hours to get to a regional airport, fly to a national or international airport, possibly fly to another regional airport, then another few hours drive. I'm only using the U.S. as an example here because I can't speak for other countries. We have LOTS of private or regional airports or small municipal airports. It's cheaper to operate out of these. It's much cheaper for an owner to have a plane in a hanger at a private or municipal airport. So NOW, I can take a flight where I skip all the airport hopping which can be an entire day just in layover times and flight and then all the driving. And this is why he used the word "taxi". Consider it like an Uber driver but in the air. I live in a big city so I have multiple airports around me, but when I lived out in the country there was one small airport a few minutes away, and about 1.5 hours away an international airport. But there are plenty of people in the US that are many hours away from an international airport. It's almost so much driving that you'd rather just drive the entire trip to wherever it is you're going, even if it's 2 or 3 days of driving, especially if at the other end of the flying you STILL have to drive for hours to get to your destination. Yes, that would revolutionize flying. It would disrupt the business models. And it relies on a very fuel efficient design.
Laminar flow doesn’t like wet wings. Where this plane might fall down (literally) is by inability to perform over a wide enough weather range. It would be interesting to hear figures about how performance is affected. Qu: Might higher speeds shrug off water and reestablish a reasonable laminar flow?
@@rowerwet though this is a high flying piston, that engine is flat rated to something like FL200 and is turbocharged so could operate at FL300+ without too much issue. its really a modernised concept that the germans used in WW2 on the JU86 high altitude reconnisance variants, with the Jumo 205 diesel engines they could fly at nearly FL500.
@@rowerwet It is said that celera 500L have can reach 65000 feet, most commercials flight fly just under 40000 feet. 65000 feet sounds a bit much tho and I haven't managed to confirm this officially, but on their website they have glide distance numbers from 30000 feet. So it seems that Celera 500L can fly above most weather just fine.
Basically, laminar components represent the future of incoming airliners. As we speak, Airbus is still studying laminar wings by imputing small laminar airfoils at the tips of a flight test A340 to study the gain of such devices. Unfortunatly, for us engineers the study of turbulent flows, which represents most the flows along airliners is still very complicated to do. We use very ressource-demanding algorithms to solve partial differential equations, which is very long and unreliable at times. The study of turbulence is one of the foremost subjects in fluid mechanics, which could be key in the developpement of electric / ultra efficient airliners in the upcoming years.
Just a nitpick: the algorithms themselves are not really that resource demanding. It's the sheer size of the mesh what makes it hard, as you well know. :) If only we could calculate everything using a mesh that resolves everything down to the viscous level. But alas, we have to crudely approximate most of the turbulence with some simple model, as the data amount would be impossible to handle. But as you said, this causes the simulations to differ from reality quite a bit and quite often.
I've always been a little puzzled why they put engines under the wings. From an aerodynamic perspective it's about the worst place (yes there's other reasons: maintenance, centre of mass, weight offset by lift). The wings on that plane do seem tiny, more like hydro foils than transitional aircraft.
@@garethevans9789 How so? Aerodynamically it is very advantageous. Maintainance does not hurt, though. But lets see: 1) Engines receive very clean air flow in practically every situation 2) Engines disturb the airflow around the wings very little, so wings get nice clean flow as well 3) Engines situated mostly in front of the wings function as anti-shock bodies, lessening the need for adjusting the body of the aircraft in order to remain efficient at transsonic speeds. 4) The exhaust is not a problem for anything. And as you mentioned, there are other benefits: - Fuel delivery is somewhat simpler - Simpler maintainance / removal The biggest downsides are: - Large yaw from loss of thrust in one engine - Some extra drag, but not a big deal unless the engine is not running (then it's a big deal) Clean air to the engines additionally means that engines are immune to ice that may break loose from wings. You are probably thinking about having the engines installed internally like in fighter jets..? Going supersonic makes some difference (that exact type of inlet does not work anymore). Additionally, fighters try to have small moments of inertia and having engines on the wings slows down rolls dramatically. They also benefit from the small degree of protection the fuselage gives to the engines, and it makes the infrared signature easier to hide as well. One very important reason is hiding the fan from radar as the fan reflects radar extraordinarily well.
I think the Laminar flow wing was invented by Edgar O. Schmüd for the P-51 Mustang in WW2. Maximum thickness of wing was shifted aft, giving the wing in cross section a wedge shape, instead of the conventional teardrop form. Result was reduction of drag.
This is amazing! I love when we get new innovation and ideas that materialize in aviation. Makes me hopeful for the future. Thanks for sharing this Peter.
Private pilot here from Australia . I am a little surprised I didn’t come across the Celera 500L sooner. We have all heard of so many fast, supersonic , concorde like conceptual designs that were gonna revolutionise commercial aviation but if there is going to be any major breakthrough in the civil aviation world the Celera 500 is the most promising one yet. I do sincerely hope this would be a success . Just thinking about it I’m already getting so excited about the opportunities this would open up in the aviation world. Out of curiosity did you ever hear back from Otto Aviation Mentour? Did you get to see it in flesh?
Laminar Flow...that's a word I hadn't heard for awhile. I was a graphic designer at NASA LaRC in the Hypersonic Propulsion Branch (X-43 M7 & M10 record breaker) and I saw that term a LOT! Great explanation!!! You have a deep accent but I think I also heard "Reynolds number" too and that was a very familiar term over the years.
The World War Two P-51 Mustangs had a Laminar Flow wing, it worked because the maximum thickness was back farther from the leading edge than the conventional wings of the time, they worked off this same principle.
the water turns white out of the tap because of the "aerator" device installed in the business end of the tap. it forces air into water stream to increase its cleaning capability and essentially decrease water consumption. not a good example, but I get the idea.
17:50 "It doesn't cost more than driving a normal car". Hmmm, that should be "It doesn't cost more in fuel than driving a normal car". I dare say all the other operating costs of the aircraft are much higher than a normal car. Not many 'normal cars' cost USD$300+ per hour to run. Exciting aircraft none the less.
The big difference is that in aircraft, while you spend more per hour, you spend far less hours. Up to an eighth as many hours. So if it costs you more than 50$ per hour in a car, going by this plane is saving you money as well as time.
@@RazvanMaioru not quite, although you will save time, consumption was discussed as a measure of distance and is still directly comparable. If the plane is going 3x the speed of the car, the plane is also consuming 3x the fuel as the car for the given time period, but it has also gone 3x as far, so it all works out the same fuel per distance. Of course a plane can fly in a straight line, the car is bound to the roads so it is less distance for a plane, but once you put the cost of airframe hours and maintenance on the plane (and all other expenses for operating a plane such as licences, airport fees et), it will be far more expensive than a car. Still heaps cheaper than other planes, but not anywhere near a car.
I just wanted to mention one thing: The water from a regular tap does become "white" because of a thing inside the tap called "tap aerator". It mixes air into the water to make it feel soft ;-) Just google it and I'm sure you know it. You can screw it of from your tap as well, you'll notice that the water then will come out in a real turbulent flow manner, even if you turn it almost off. 17:45 Normal People like you and I ... from the man who's flying commercial aircrafts. Well, I'd really like to be as normal as you ;-)
Yeh, the analogy with the aerator is missleading. In an un-obstructed tube, water can flow laminar at several machs, and that's what is done in high-pressure water cutters (speed in the order of mach 3). The aerator is basicaly a grid across the flow, inducing turbulences. At low speed the turbulences are not strong enough, so no air and water still transparent even if the flow is already not laminar. Air nearby the fuselage (considered locally as a flat surface) is non obstructed, right? so I don't understand why it should become turbulent... Or is it because the whole plane is to be considered as the obstruction to the flow of air around it? That must be the right answer...
This will dovetail well with full autonomy. Get rid of the cost of the pilot and now it is competitive with an airline ticket. What a revolutionary product! Thanks for the info.
Very interesting. At these efficiencies, electrification could definitely be able to produce another reduction in cost of operation. The reference here would be the Eviation Alice which has around a fifth of the range of this plane and also uses a push propeller. I think they advertise operational cost of around 200$/hour. With this plane, I imagine the inlets have a cost in terms of aerodynamics. So, an electrical plane could do without that and gain a little bit from that while also reducing operational cost to probably similar levels (less moving parts, reduced maintenance cost, low cost electricity). The rest is basically a compromise between useful load and battery weight. In Europe, 1000nm is a perfectly decent range. Many commercial flights fly much less, as you well know probably. I imagine this design could potentially leap frog the Alice in range and performance even when fully electrified. Regarding environmental concerns; electric is one of the options that makes flight more or less pollution/emission & guilt free. One of the concerns with aviation fuels is that they are currently based on oil, and put a lot of emissions in our higher atmosphere that both add to our carbon footprint but also do other damage. Synthetic fuels or hydrogen could long term be an interesting alternative where we keep the useful range but maybe fly a lot cleaner. By the time planes like this are shipping in volume, there will be a lot of need for pilots but also an increase in autonomous flight. E.g. Cessna flew a freight version of one of their planes a few weeks ago and seems to intend to start flying this commercially.
Thank you for all the videos you have made. From listening to your videos I’ve gained a sense of what it’s like to really fly an aircraft. I’ve always wish I could have been a pilot but because of my eye sight, I could never become a pilot. Thank you my friend and I hope you can get back in the air soon and doing what you love.
Actually, the example at 9:48 has nothing to do with laminar flow. Most residential water taps are aerated, meaning little bubbles are introduced into the water to increase its volume while using less water. This makes it easier to wash your hands, since the bubbly water covers your hands more evenly instead of being a jet of water at one point on your hands. You can find some older taps which aren't aerated, and the water flow remains laminar even at full water pressure.
Air isn't just kindof like a fluid. It is one. Also, white water isn't white because of turbulence, but because of entrained air bubbles scattering light
But the bubbles only get entrained because of the turbulence. The chaotic flow pattern of the water takes air from outside and pulls it into the stream. As long as the flow stays laminar, no air bubble can get inside the water flow.
I’m happy you touched on (and asked the manufacturer!) about single pilot operation. I’m guessing PPL IR (HP/Complex) in this type would be all you’d need, right? 4500 NM at 400kt is 10hrs of range/endurance...on 250gal of Jet-A?!?! I’d love to know how high it flies as well... Have you checked out the Raptor Aircraft channel?
Brilliant! Thanks for this early review of this brilliantly designed aircraft, Petter! I especially like the idea of the potential electric drive motor!
In the tap's case, its designed to make water turn into smaller droplets so that when it touches surfaces like you hand, it doesnt splash all over the floor.
I occasionally discover into a tap that seems to aereate the water and make it feel very soft but normal taps are simply tubular yet will show behaviour consistent with his explanation. These 'soft' taps seem to have an exit consisting of many small holes.
I immediately thought of short cargo runs/immediate need type of things, small fields, and developing countries.......this could give aviation and short haul & emergency shipping a new field to play in.......
maybe rural MEDEVAC too, like the Australian Royal Flying Doctor Service. they currently use pilatus PC24's as they're capable of landing on dirt strips.
Now, can this laminar effect be exploited on lifting body aircraft? I'd imagine that having the fuselage do some of the work would also reduce the size of wings needed, thus reducing drag further.
I would assume this company is experimenting with different designs, but every line you introduce can create drag so I would think you want to minimize even the surfaces creating lift. You have to create that lift surface with the least amount of drag possible and adding another form of lift probably also means you created resistance.
Love the concept. Reminded me "somewhat" of a single engine Piaggio Avanti. A couple of questions might be, what happens to all that nice laminar flow with a bit of icing climbing to altitude not to mention that same icing killing lift on the wing and CG shift on that great big nose. Certainly it needs to be certified all weather if it's going to hit it's target market. Love the performance figures if they can pull it off and make it all weather.
As an aviation engineer, all of this sounds laughable BS to me.. They've already stated THE most important specification related to lift efficiency: Celera 500's glide ratio is 22:1, or so their claim. Numerically speaking, this value is is also exactly same as the overall Lift/drag ratio of the aircraft (not just wings, all aircraft).. For comparison, existing gliders have somewhere between 30:1 and 60:1, Lockheed U-2 has 25,6:1 an A380 has 20:1, and 777 has 19,5:1... Even if we assume their L/D number is accurate, its aerodynamic efficiency lies between an U-2 and a 737, nowhere to be called "revolutionary". Actual record-breakers like Rutan Voyager has 37:1 glide ratio. With that in mind, rest of their numbers don't make sense.. WWII-era P-51 Mustang has 15,3:1 glide ratio (L/D), so Celera 500 claims to be 43% more efficient.. P-51 has 1720HP engine, so it has 3,12x more engine power than Celera.. However, Celera claims to cruise at 460mph while P-51 has 362mph cruise speed. In fact, Celera claims to cruise 20mph faster than P-51's 440mph top speed... This is just wrong, assuming their flight weight is the same, (so Lift necessary for level flight in both aircraft is the same), Celera would have 69% drag and 32% thrust, assuming thrust is linearly proportional to engine power for the sake of argument. With these constraints, Celera 500 would have 440mph*SQRT(0,32/0,69) =300mph top speed. F8F Bearcat, one of the fastest piston engined propeller aircraft, has *maximum speed* of 455 mph with 2250hp engine. Not to mention, P51 and F8F has 1600 and 1100 mile ranges respectively and both are single-seated aircraft. Cruising at 460mph with just 500hp engine while seating 6 people plus carrying sufficent fuel to reach 4500mile range?? Please... PS, All of their claims don't make sense from engineering standpoint You can't really design FOR laminar flow simply by modifying shapes and without changing fundementals. Approximating from cabin dimensions, its wings alone at stated cruise speed should have a reynolds number above 12 million.. Somehow I don't think some good engineering will reduce 12.000.000 to "less than 2300" and achieve laminar flow.
I am absolutely not an (aviation) engineer. Yet, as an amateur cyclist, i seem to have a better understanding of aerodynamics than you. Your comparisons with WW2 fighter aircrafts are absolutely idiotic. What you can't seem to understand is overall drag, especially at higher speeds, regardless of glide ratio. Drag rises exponentially relative to airspeed, remember?
@@patrickbateman7444 Also to add to that, take a look at modern supersize cargo ships, look at the size of engine they use and the speeds they achieve, then compare that to similar top speed WW2 warships of much smaller size. You'll quickly realise that those warships had a vastly higher engine output despite a similar top speed and a vastly lower mass. And thats just a combination of a super optimised for drag hull and some improvements in propeller design. Doesn't mean i automatically believe the aircraft can do whats claimed, but comparisons to such an ancient design, (that also had to be able to do serious aerobatics), doesn't really help at all.
@@darthkarl99 Yes, you get it. Comparing this to a 80 year old fighter plane, which had a wing profile built for mobility, carrying weapons etc is so mindblowingly dumb, that i hope that this dude isn't actually an aviation engineer, or that he's doing rc airplanes. WWII figher planes were all about mobility. When WWII top ace Erich Hartmann had to evaluate the F104 Starfighter plane, he hated it immediately, because it didnt have any wings.
@@patrickbateman7444 Yeah, there's just SOMETHING about wind resistance isn't there? It's resistance, and resistance increases with velocity. I'd have to dig into a physics book to get the equation. But I'll help you. A tube frame has to have either a passive stabilizer, or fly by wire which isn't used yet, although I think the 737 MAX incorporated a VERY minor form of fly by wire, but it's not about replacing a passive stabilizer. Military fighters like the F22 and F35 do away with any passive stabilizer and do fly by wire. Of course they also get into neat stuff like thrust vectoring. There's a really good video done by "Real Engineering". I don't know if this channel accepts links and I don't want to come back to check if this comment is still here. He talks about battery power eventually making its way into aircraft using another airframe that this channel shows for hydrogen. It can really be used for either. It's fly by wire. But he gets into the engineering of flight. So, point of balance, point of lift, how they are offset, why they are offset and why you need a stabilizer along with the attack angle of that stabilizer. A stabilizer always creates friction because of the attack angle. But, the rest of the frame creates some friction too. He does more than one video on flight so I can't be sure which one it is, sorry.
@@patrickbateman7444 So arrogant yet so clueless on the subject who cannot comprehend what I've written in the wall of text above. You don't deserve any explanation with that attitude but I'll write nontheless. 1- "Drag is exponential to airspeed" what a great contribution you've made... Math-101 A-hole: Lift=1/2*(density of air)*(Wing Area)*(Lift coefficient)*Velocity^2 Drag=1/2*(density of air)*(Wing Area)*(Drag Coefficient)*Velocity^2... So if you are looking for Lift to Drag Ratio L/D, density of air, wing area and velocity squared all cancel out. What you have is a Cl/Cd... You have 1000kg of mass. You need 1000kg of lift to hold it in air. If yo have 1000kg of lift, and 10:1 L/D, you will have 100kg of drag, period. Speed has *nothing* to do with it, at least directly. 2-Indirectly, L/D DOES vary with speed depending on design, but it doesn't matter for my argument: Most aircraft, and obviously *ALL* of these aircraft I've mentioned above are designed to be most efficient at their cruise speeds anyway. Because otherwise would be very silly ie; why design B737 to be most efficient at 200ktas, when it cruises at 430ktas? Only to make it burn more fuel? 3- "WWII figher planes were all about mobility." What "mobility" lol, you probably meant maneuverability but please save your BS, WWII aircraft were never about energy-maneuverability. All of these aircraft were cruise-optimized as F-104. The difference is, F104 was optimized for its own quite high cruise speed, which translated into smaller wings, (because of you know V^2 you mentioned). Only after 1960s, energy maneuverability and optimisation for anything other than efficient cruise became relevant. 4- John Boyd's energy-maneuverability theory didn't even exist when P51 or F-104 was designed... It only: a) became a concern for 4th gen fighters, which are basically designed to be efficient at wider range of lift coefficients, at the cost of a lot less fuel efficient at cruise speeds and less overall maximum L/D, and b) became possible with advent of low-bypass turbofan engines, otherwise range trade-off from inferior cruise characteristics would have been unacceptable. For example; MiG-29's flight manual says best L/D it can achieve is ~10,4 around CL=0,4 mark; not impressive at all. And second "problem" is MiG-29 at 13tons weight, cruising at 30k feet at M0,85 will only need CL=0,22 and so it has L/D of just 8. So in other words, its NOT most efficient 1G cruise, but its actually MOST efficient while pulling 1,76Gs at that flight conditions, or 5,5Gs at sea level, same airspeed. Like I've said, such designs emerged with specific purpose of conserving energy while turning. This is also evident within their zero-lift drag coefficients; P-51 has Cd0=0,0163, MiG-29 has Cd0=0,025. For comparison with another aircraft aerodynamically wasteful fuselage; Learjet 24 with has Cd0=0,022.. 5- So... My comparison about several propeller driven piston aircraft are pretty on spot. Your and the other idiot's brilliant assumptions of modern designs have magic in them is just laughable. Again, for the retarded, P-51 has 15,3 glide ratio its manufacturer says so. Celera 500's has 22:1 glide ratio, its manufacturer says so... So what are you talking about? Technological advances? Where do you think 43% improvement came from geniuses? Now go stick to cycling instead of making smartass comments here.
I would imagine that with a passenger capacity of only six, it would have to be a single pilot setup; otherwise, the crew would represent a quarter of the payload, and that doesn't sound economical.
@@sakadabara I doubt the FAA would approve it, and I certainly wouldn't fly on it. Automated systems inevitably fail. I'm not sanguine about self-driving cars, but at least a car can pull to the side of the road if there's trouble. You can't do that with an aircraft.
My second cousins dad flies a jabiru j170, and he has promised me to fly with me the next time the wheather is good. Looking forward to that! Just wanted to share it with someone that actually cares about aviation, contrary to most of my friends.
That looks like a fun aircraft. Are you flying from somewhere where you have a chance of decent weather anytime soon? Any intentions of learning to fly yourself?
WIRRUZZZ Well, normally the weather isn’t to bad, but when it first gets bad weather, it’ll stay there for a long time, so I’ll probably fly with him in 1-2 weeks. And yes, I wanna learn how to fly (though that is not the intention of flying with him when the weather is good again)
Biggest cost would be pilots. It would be revolutionary if they can integrate automated take off, cruise and landing capabilities to allow single pilot operations safely.
10:00 Just a note for explanation: The reason why water is getting white and opaque with turbulences is primarily not the turbulences themselves, but it is air getting sucked in and mixed into the water stream. And on a tap, there is this aerator at the end which is designed to do exactly that, but it needs a certain water flow speed to generate the necessary vacuum. So, both examples are actually not showing the turbulences themselves.
Tesla needs to acquire this. The potential of combining this with electric engines AND Starlink (possibly autonomous flying) can change aviation as we know it.
Autonomous flying is commonly known as autopilot. Yeah, a joint venture with Telsa would be a wonder to behold. Cover the roof in flexible solar panels and you can even recharge in flight, so long as you fly West.
@@danuttall There's simply not enough area on the top side of the aircraft to put solar panels on to enable those solar panels to power main propulsion on their own. Solar Impulse, which is the only human-piloted aircraft that I know of that can maintain flight on solar power alone, is designed as a powered glider specifically because that's the only way to simultaneously produce enough lift from a light enough airframe, have a low enough wing loading that powering it from solar power is feasible, and have enough area for solar panels to actually be able to sustain flight on just solar power. It looks nothing like the aircraft in this video, instead it looks like a really big version of a single-seat glider with a propeller. I'm not saying putting solar panels on this aircraft is a bad idea, I'm just saying you need to manage your expectations about what it's actually capable of powering. Sure, solar panels provide "infinite" energy from the sun, but the rate at which you can obtain that energy is limited by how much surface area your solar panels cover, what angle they are at relative to the sun, and how efficient they are at converting incoming photons into a flow of electrons. Oh yeah and they don't work very well at all when it's cloudy.
As an engineer and as a pilot my jaw is dropping while hearing the specs given in this video.
1dgram, mate, do you see massive CofG issues, cooling issues and crazy performance figures too?
God knows what happens when bugs get on the airframe. If laminar flow is lost will it even fly?
I have serious doubts about this project
The basic configuration screams at me.
It will be horrendously noisy, as ALL pusher props are due to being in the high/low pressure turbulence from the wings etc.
I look forward to seeing some verified data with passengers, fuel and bags, at gross weight.
When they talk of super cheap running costs, I remember hearing such talk so many times before.
Time will tell I guess.
My back of the napkin calculations show, that the Re is several orders of magnitude too big (its about 10^7) for cruise speed and altitude, how can the shape change so much? Even if they would use something like shark skin, I cant imagine that they can improve 10000 times. I know, Re is more of a guesstimate for non calibrated situations, but it sounds like a miracle.
dropping until you realize the exaggeration?
@@venusreena2532 Or the aircraft dropping if it encounters icing conditions...
@@1dgram .. yes I was thinking a canard as well
Laminar flowing video - no drag whatsoever. Incredible stuff. Always beautifully done. Your two assistants did brilliantly too!
Drag is never zero when an object us moving in air or a fluid in general.
Your ability to see past the “intrusion into aviation” and see this as the true benefit that it might become is both refreshing and compelling.
and delusional.
See? Can the pilots see out?
Moller Air Car , oh, SkyCar
That his delivery is so calm and collected; surrounded by the corpses of those dogs is frankly impressive.
Deleted
@@Conservator. It does mean dead. But it's a joke.
@@williamjordan5554
Tx! I obviously didn’t get it at first but now I do and it’s funny.
I’ll delete my comment bc it doesn’t add anything.
Lol. Like my dog.
Hahahaha
To be able to *ENTIRELY* avoid TSA and airline checkin and the annoyances of large airports is valuable to many people. Also to be able to fly between any two small towns you wish is very convenient too, which avoids long drives from the small towns to bigger cities. I'm not sure this airplane is that great (mostly due to the market segment it is optimized to serve), but avoiding standard airports and airlines and TSA and such is ... quite wonderful.
You just described taking the train
@@andreas4010 Not in the US. Our train system is not very developed compared to the EU and is mostly optimized for freight. Only in the Acela Corridor is it somewhat more built out. (I think Australia may be similar in being more optimized for air and car travel than train.)
@@nerysghemor5781 Europeans who haven’t been to America don’t realize how useless our rail system is compared to their’s.
@@The_ZeroLine Yeah, that’s why I wanted to offer some perspective.
You might want to follow the progress and cost of California attempt to built a high speed train. The attempt has been a failure. The costs are outrageous.
United Airlines can stuff at least 40 people in that plane.
comfort economy
Not CAN! . . . WILL ! ! !☺
Air Koryo can at least stuff 400 corpses there!
Ryanair?? 🤔
in 2008 I flw with American ... and this should have been patented as a torture method. Fortunatly this thing wont take off with this number of souls
Actually the push propeller has another very important advantage for saving power. Based on a concept called Boundary layer ingestion, the push propeller actually ends up using the power in the boundary layer (formed on the aircraft fuselage) which would otherwise go waste. This concept is quite commonly used in marine propulsion for saving power.
Can they make it close to "flying wing" design, if they can't make it longer or taller?
Thanks - that's my 1 new thing learnt for today
Think Nuclear subs. Prop at the rear. Does the prop actually suck in the airflow from the fuselage, cutting drag?
Yes this far rear mounted prop contributes to extent the thicker and thicker laminar flow backwards to the tail rudder level but one disadvantage of rear propulsion is that the engine cooling "lost its fan" and cooling is either poor or adding too much drag (B36 syndrom). Here diesel cycle and specially hi power two stage intercooled turbo versions reduces water and oil cooling need extensively. High pressure Ferrari-Ducati like cooling can also today reduce 40% of the cooler size and eliminates afterboiling at shutdowns. Once plane will be pressurized, reinforced for it and fully equipped the current performances of the 500L could be reduced slightly. For the laminar size limit, one could reproduce the Twin Mustang concept to double a 1000L capacity ...Also, the new Airbus H2 flying wing concept with extrado multiple E fans and fuel cells is a much larger design (up to 200 seats?) using again an extended laminar flow solution, so concept is spreading...
Mention also the extended intake design intended to reduce back pressure and maintain the flow.
The USA has thousands of small airports that can handle this plane. Many of them phased out commerical runs. This plane could bring those runs back to the small airports, it has the potential to be a complete game changer for small airports and the communities near them.
I was thinking that too! I'd love to see local airports and FBOs get a boost.
Exactly and the real advantage would come from small airport to small airport, bypassing the giant ones and saving traveler time. The flights might even schedule a chain of those airports, say A-B-C-D-E over a day. One passenger might fly A to B and another B to E. Business flyers could go to another city and back in a single day.
You only see air taxis in remote regions, this could change that.
But those small airports don't have the infrastructure to support many passengers. I.e. public transport, parking lots, rental car, road access that can handle the traffic, etc.
@@kkobayashi1 Valid concerns but it has to start somewhere, the hardest thing to solve is probably getting flights there economically. Once that's possible I'm sure the passengers with a bit of creativity will find ways to get to/from the airports. Whether that's by being picked up/dropped off by family/friends or maybe a taxi/uber ride to/from the nearby town. As for the limited infrastructure to support passengers and road access? Might end up being just fine if it's not a high peak throughput number for any individual small airport but many direct flights.
Time will tell if the plane makes it to market and if it ends up being a big hit or not, the numbers mentioned seem quite promising but I'd still want to see what a final production airplane can do. Also that hint about electric flight, batteries sadly have a high weight density and piss poor energy density compared to liquid fuel that gets burned in engines. Makes me wonder how much cargo/people they can carry and how far, especially given that current regulations often require a lot of reserve flight time fuel.
How cute these puppies are, sleeping behind Peter symmetrically with different colors' contrast in their bodies and pillows...
he drugged them :)
You also notice that the pillows are always coloured port and starbord? In the right orientation? Hehehehe.
I like the way you have the NAV lights--- I mean pillows in the correct orientation based on color. Such a pilot thing to do ;)
Hahahaha, yep! Even as a pilot's kid I know "Right Red Returning"! He is clearly flying his couch towards us. XD
Where's Destin from SmarterEveryDay? You mentioned laminar flow. That's like Destins bat signal.
Get him here!!
*s u m m o n h i m*
@@DJKinney Are you kidding me? He's actually is a rocket scientist.
@@DJKinney he's done some epic videos on a wide range of things which are scientific, in depth, and accurate, including collabs with other science RUclipsrs, his rocket videos are the best, ngl.
@@DJKinney Yeah, you might need to check your facts. The man is actively working in his Doctorate.
What makes me more ready to believe Otto aviation's claims is that they did all of the design, from conception to testing, without chasing publicity. They just silently got on with the job without any fanfare.
That tells me they're confident in the viability of this aircraft, this isn't just some investment payday project.
They must have investors though, even if they aren't publicly disclosed.
Yeah, good thing they didn’t pull the ol’ fancy 3D rendered sales video on GoFraudMe or ScamStarter.
Agreed. I’m used to decades of vaporware and artist’s renderings and pretty mockups. This isn’t some electric truck rolling down a hill (Nicola), it’s real, it flies. Here’s hoping they have their own version of Elon to make it work.
How about building a scaled-down mock up of this design, to confirm that it will not fly (lack of lift). Engineering in action.
@@kkobayashi1 They have funding obviously but the key is they actually built a flying prototype that actually is flying. Plus Otto is someone who knows quite a lot about aerodynamics and is not someone working out of their garage.
Couple of points for the non-aviators to do some readings, adding to the interesting video (and yes, it has created some buzz on the aviation forums - and we are usually quite weary, you know, due to past experiences): What claims and allusions in the aircraft development history can you look up to get some imagination together? A) Focke-Wulff 200 (Churchills biggest nightmare in combination with U-Boats), sleek & piston can make for amazing endurance. B) Bullet shape X-1 has been mentioned here, you can see how a drop of water falls and slim that drop down - there you go. C) Predator UAV/ UACV - with a Rotax 914 and little payload, little speed and long runway you can have amazing endurance, again with a piston engine, and still take off on a normal long hard concrete runway (this is not for the flying doctor’s sercie in the Outback, but for all runways of 1300 m). Noticed they use double Fowler flaps? There is a reason for that - a small engine, but they don’t want to go with a wing of a D) Stemme S12, U2/TR1, Grob G520 Egrett etc. But that altitude on a double compressor/ turbo has been proven by Caproni, Tank 152 and Spitfire ages ago. E) aviation Diesel - if they wouldn’t have been so temperamental with load changes, the Junkers Doppelhubkolbenzylinder would have been even more efficient than the already formidable Diesels we have seen in aviation. (but here I digresse, the RED is already certified and a mere double V6; that however gives the project credibility in endurance and fuel efficiency; anyway, that part of the claim is doable, proven decades ago and recently certified by a few companies in an admittedly minuscule market of SEP). F) Laminar flow icing/ wing heating: I guess a TKS will suffice. If you look at the certification standards, the duration in the clouds is not that long. And for the mission profile this will do easily, just check out the C208 in comparison. The prop might not even need heating due to the exhaust. G) small hull huge pressure differential can be structurally overcome, as shown in the bizjet of Morgan Freeman (so rare that I keep forgetting its name), due to TUC one pilot will always wear a mask at high altitude. As already done with a few airliners.
Conclusion: All done before and imaginable, with the limitation of a single engine piston that despite a glide ration of 1:22 (same as the A380, btw) could certainly reach a market potential of 30 - 300 units a year for the reason of economics already well analyzed by our favourite Mentour. Plus the owner/ developer has the track record with the B-1B avionics and his own company, including the secretness of development, to get it done. He put his money where his mouth is, the engine already was certified by a smal specialized company that specializes in automobile racing near the most traditional, prestigious racing track of the country that invented both the Otto and Diesel engines, for the new Yak military trainer, thus funding and reliability have some claim to faim as well (though not in PT-6 gasturbine MTBF). Market potential in surveillance, non-manned military or law enforcement missions can add to the economy of scale as well.
No BRS - for the mission profile, perhaps understandable. But it’s still an SEP with some critical phase of flight in case of an EFATO. At the glide ration of 1:22 and operating on very long runways, I could actually imagine it would take very long to have the first ever victims of that very, very late. So for air taxi ops in remote or small markets, more affordable bizjet competition, it can be a long seller. Even as a hybrid or electric (the former allowing for steeper climbs and more redundancy in that critical phase. Some noise reduction due to steeper climbs). Decentralized personal booking at “semi fixed times” could really bring some good use to towns of 30,000 - 300,000 people.
There is one thing however which I cannot grasp: 550 hp to reach 400 ktas? Looking at L/D, performance of WW 2 fighters and Reno race modifications I can easily imagine a very high Vne (and for robustness, check out the g-limits of the Extra 400 and 500). But that speed, even at high altitudes, from that prop diameter? Perhaps after a very long, slow climbout, burnt up fuel.... but on the other hand, in the certified world, with CAD and CFD in this application, perhaps it’s possible at the edge of the envelope. At lower altitudes? Hard to imagine. For me. (Commercial pilot, world rounder in a C350 with 16 hrs endurance at 9.7 gph, so at least I know a little bit about single engine LOP extreme endurance oceanic flights.. not an aeronautical engineer though)
I love those dogs, I can see them thinking "does he have to talk with his hands" :-)
It looks like the SciFi designers from the 1940s may have been onto something.
Yea, they figured a tuna moves faster than a dolphin.
Flah Gordon's rocketship also comes to mind.... 😄🚀
Hello Peter!
Your explanation of laminar flow is the best I have heard in a lifetime. And in my engineering studies, I attended loads of fluidodynamics lectures and trainings.
Also. The standing of your dogs. They look like they know the entire matter by heart, to the point they are patiently napping - and listening every other word!
Thanks you for the video on this inusual airplane. My fears come from the fact that common aviation users are somewhat traditionalists and, in some cases they just shun innovation. I like the bullet aircraft, as it is obvious that a lot of tought went into its design. Albeit, I try to avoid flying in small aircrafts, in special way the "light" ones. The smaller aircraft I have flown on, was a Fokker twin turboprop, from London to Edinburgh. I like propellers more than turbojets, but they are: Shaky Shaky Shaky, all the way, wow!
a pity the explaination is not that good. The reason why your water turns white going out of the tab is because of the aerator in the tab.
Best explanation and discussion of Celera 500 on the internet....well done!
Don't be fooled: the dogs are pretending to sleep, but they are listening and learning.
I'm pretty sure they are ded
Yeah, I remember that pose back in school
LOL
The dogs know very well how to fly...
The dogs are just waiting for the prime opportunity to take over the world. Personally, I think I'm ready to submit to our doggo overlords.
I fully subscribe to your views Mentour, the Celera is undoubtedly a plane with huge potential, no matter how one may turn the issue, this plane holds great promises all round, and yes, the environmental footprint seems a lot lighter too. Let's keep tuned on this, thanks a lot for another brilliant narration.
I'd like to see smaller even smaller versions of this suppositorium for general aviation / private pilots, for a single person or up to 4-seaters! Half the size.
You could probably do it with electric motors. The problem is the redundancy could be gone moving to a small plane, using a smaller motor. This is a big 12 cylinder engine and requires one side to work if the other fails.
If the plane is classified as 1 or 2 people to where no one is paying to fly in the plane then you probably can reduce the minimum safety requirements and could get away with a single bank. Or, maybe an 8 cylinder dual bank would still be light enough for that smaller size and could still generate enough power with a single bank.
But with an electric motor, more reliable and you could have redundancy with the battery packs. But you probably can't get the same range.
Just to be clear. The water tap issue your referring to is the aerator which adds air into the water stream causing you to think your using more water than you actually are. But we understand your point
Air in water prevents splashing when hitting object. Great example of laminar flow is making light sensitive emulsion layer on photographic film. Smartereveryday has made marvelous video serie of Kodak manufacturing plant in Rochester, US. Truly fantastic documented piece.
Isn't the water in water tap becomes white because water taps have aerators in them to mix air in to make the flow softer? If you screw that off the faucet the water remains transparent. I think the same is true for waterfalls I guess as air gets mixed in and surface tension breaks the water into many droplets.
The typical example used for to demonstrate laminar and turbulent flow and the Reynolds number is the the smoke that comes up from chimneys on a calm day: first it rises vertically and as it speeds up it gets turbulent.
Point is, air will only get mixed in if the flow is turbulent. If the faucet has an aerator, it would become turbulent at a much smaller flow, but I think you can still create a laminar flow if the flow is small enough.
Yeah, I agree that a watertap isn't a great example of laminar/turbulent flow transition.
yes, yes they do. but the job of the aerator is to do exactly what he said.
the aerator essentially just adds more turbulence and allow turbulence to occur at lower speeds. The general principle still applies.
Finally, maybe one day we might be hearing V12s howling in the skies again
F1 fans will be heartbroken.
@@martinoriz7524 dammit, you read my mind x'D
@@Azivegu xD
@@martinoriz7524 Bathing in Vettels tears
Just requiring to be named after a mythical creature/magician ;)
I was impressed with your presentation of fluid dynamics in layman's terms that is easily understandable.
Overall technically a very solid explanation of why this aircraft is a improvement to conventional.
Saw this plane on another video & was highly impressed. Been exceptionally well thought out, with an obvious eye to electric power.. Most promising idea in recent times, IMO.
10:30: white puppy momentarily excited by the possibility of laminar flow sustainability at higher speeds.
14:00: dogs change color!
High speed, great range, extremely efficient, inexpensive...
Sounds perfect. Forgive my cynicism but I’ll believe it when I see it.
I think an extreme disadvantage of this plane is its power to weight ratio. 500hp for a plane that size is nothing and it relies on efficiency to stay in the sky. High take off speeds, high landing speeds. Even if they do something clever with the variable pitch to use it as a brake, low power to weight means it *will* require long runways. Its already excluded itself from its unique selling point: point to point, long range, small airports.
@@htomerif Yes, I do agree! Even if it is a success, it will be a *_niche_* market product. I am skeptical that it will be adaptable to large-scale commercial aviation. Most likely only in the private/business jet sector! And also I'm very skeptical when companies give these highly optimistic time frames! 2025?? Really?? With all of the trials, FAA certification processes and so on, just add 5 years to their claimed time frame. So something like 2030. And also, just because something looks and sounds great in a "prototype setting" does not mean it will lend itself well to MASS PRODUCTION. There are *_TONS_* of hurdles to overcome to bring something like this to market in large numbers (production, manufacturing techniques etc.)
@@747-pilot Yeah, and theres a big, big, huge difference between the safety of things like a 737 and any small plane. If they ever were mass produced people would see that this isn't as safe as a private 737, its as dangerous as any other small aircraft.
I have to say when I first saw pictures of it I thought it was just a pusher turboprop. Gas turbine engines are more expensive, yes, but they're far, far more reliable than what's effectively a detroit diesel built mostly of aluminum, just way more moving parts, every one of them critical. I guess the position of the engine and prop make it less vulnerable to bird strikes though.
@@htomerif Yes, absolutely! The argument that it is just as safe as a multi engine aircraft because one bank of cylinders can operate independently is laughable at best! There is so much more to the redundancy of a second engine!!
The reason single engine aircraft like the Pilatus PC-12 are considered extremely reliable is because they are *_turbine_* powered. And as you correctly pointed out turbine engines are orders of magnitude more reliable than their piston powered counterparts due to fewer moving parts!
When something looks too good to be true .... it too good to be true.
While the concept is certainly interesting, I see a few problems with the advertised speeds.
1. Trying to keep the flow around the wing laminar isn‘t a new idea. The viscous interactions in the turbulent boundary layer are essential for stability of the flow and in keeping it from separating though. When a laminar wing is used, the flow isn’t as stable anymore. This is currently a heavily researched topic, so it does certainly make sense that they are trying to use it.
2. When flying with the advertised speeds a propeller, especially in combination with a piston engine, is highly inefficient, which is why jet engines are normally used.
3. The wings they used don’t seem to be optimized for high speed. At 400 knots supersonic effects on the wing have to be taken into account. This usually results in the backswept design you‘d see on jets.
I would be very skeptical about what they are advertising. Maybe for shorter distances and at slower speeds, comparable to something a Cessna 172 would be used for, it might work. Everything else honestly sounds too good to be true.
what this guy said, ha ha ha, on a side note it took me over an hour to research and learn what you said. For stupid people , this looks a bit like skyway, great promise, but the tech dont really add up.
I am a little bit suspicious as well.
I don't know much about aerodynamics, but you'd think there is a reason why they use jet engines for those sort of speeds.
Typical startup, using buzzwords like laminar flow, promising everything, but nothing comes out in the end.
It's probably that it's this efficient at half top speed or something around that.
The air speed at the back of the aircraft is slower
The designer is a very serious and renown engineer though.
Old guy too and likely very well off, not really fitting the profile of some money hungry startup.
I remember having read about the concept of laminar flow having been used and exploited in World War 2, specifically on the wings of the P51 which improved fuel efficiency without compromising the plane's maneuverability.
What's interesting is as time passes and technology progresses, new versions of old things can come back around such as R/C aircraft in the form of electric powered quadcopters and in this case a new piston engine and propeller plane that can perform like a jet (or almost) but be more efficient. Very impressive.
I've actually seen one of the flights, well take off and landing, and spoken with some of the engineers at the company. This is a great aircraft, and they have really done their homework and are on their way. They are looking for production locations right now to produce 50 aircraft per month. I'm not allowed to say more than that, but great video with good information. Everyone stay tuned....
They have done their homework hey? None of the claims made are accurate. Even with ideal aerodynamics, the required HP needed to obtain a 460 MPH cruise is 750HP short. Since this number is off, actual speed and range is also a pipe dream. Notice on their website, there are zero specifications listed just bold claims. The only people talking about this aircraft are people who don’t know squat about aviation engineering
@@brianthompson9592 Can I ask your background please
I don’t get it? Are every aviation critiques diagnosed with Dunning Kruger effect?
@@brianthompson9592 I'm not an aviation engineer, but do have a degree in mechanical engineering, and minored in thermal physics. I've traveled around the world doing business with aerospace manufacturers in helping them solve problems, mainly in process and equipment. As such, I get the chance to meet a number of very sharp people around the world in places like Boeing, Airbus, COMAC, Bombardier, Lockheed Martin, Bell and Sikorsky to name a fe OEM's. They have done enough test flights and have gathered enough data to know what the real numbers are. The real question is if there can be enough interest in these changing times to get it across the finish line of the FAA and the EASA.
@@harveysmith100 whats your background? I am always curious when people with zero background in avaition engineering write articles than are nothimg but summaries ofa press relesse. My background is aerosoace eb
Otto powered by Diesel...pun intended 😁
V12 👌
Was looking to see if anyone else realized that :-)
Rudolph is giggling.
Never mind, I don’t think he ever giggled.
This thing has the range to fly from Boston to London! So that is rather amazing
You don't mean Boston England, in which case isn't so far... but satisfactory for electric powered flight
Allegedly. 😉
Boston, Mass to London, Canada maybe.
If the claims are true, which I still doubt at the moment, theoretically. Not that you would go with a single engine over the atlantic, because that is insane.
@@jort93z There are two questions here, 1) Would the aircraft have the range, according to their published numbers it appears so. 2) Would I want to make that flight? I for one would give that a hard no. But others have done it, so it can be done.
Looks a little like the Bell X-1.
Yep, I just commented on that and then I see I am not alone.
Looks a little like the rocket my mom used to keep in the drawer of her bedside table.
seq165432: Nope, not gonna ask...
These operating costs don't include the cost of hiring a pilot, which in an airliner is spread over many more passengers.
What's a pilot's hourly wage? $50-100? That wouldn't substantially change the economic opportunity. $500 per hour total for a party of 6 is still good value for a private taxi. Roughly the same as business class on a commercial flight, but without the queues.
Happy Birthday MentourPilot in advance! Cheers to a life full of great memories ahead! Thanks for these videos, very informative, interesting, insightful n inspiring!
Will be interesting to see how this new engine does long term for reliability. If all 12 cylinders drive 1 crankshaft a problem that locks up movement in one side would stop the whole engine ?
Its redundant, its designed to still crank with a single bank.
No, that's the point. This separate banking operation has been available in cars for nearly 20 years. Basically you can still have one crankshaft, and one bank can lock up, or seize, and the other banks still work on its own - independently.
It's all down to something called smooth ratchet bearings. It basically means that if the conrods stop moving on one bank, the conrods can continue to move independently turning their own bearings. What's more, when this happens, the crankshaft only loses around 0.06% efficiency.
I don't think it's a single shaft. I think it's two. If it's one though it's designed in a way to where one bank can lock up and the other still works which gives the redundancy. 6:00
the doggo on the right looks like he's smiling while sleeping. Too cute.
Awww thanks for pointing that out
Must have heard this story already
I was surprised when the dogs magically swapped places in the middle of the video !
Your not fooling anyone, that's Thunderbird 2 painted white.
🤣😂🤣❤👍
No it's not
Hi Mentour, your explanations of laminar vs turbulent flow are really masterful for the lay audience (like me, although I do know a bit of stuff). This is a very special skill.
Thanks.
The elliptical tailplane looks like it has a Spitfire embedded in there. Hmmm-- big V12 as well...
You know he's excited when he doesn't have time to say "today on the video guys" and just says "today on the video"
When he doesn’t even take the time to put his uniform on lmao
I saw the news and was REALLY curious about what you think, so glad to see the video! :)
I would love to try this bird out! I really like the concept as it checks many boxes that no other aircraft can come close. :)
It's amazing that it's actually more efficient than an SUV. The only issue I see if runway capacity. If anyone could suddenly get their own private jet for the price of an economy ticket, where are all of these flights going to land? If they could make it VTOL though... then you basically have a flying car.
Like the 1950s cartoons - we each get a personal jet pack!
No it wouldn't work that way because it's still going to be a millionaire or flying enthusiast that buys something like this.
The point he was trying to make at the end but didn't really do a good job is you don't need to do into a big airport. You could fly private to private airport, or private to regional or ALL kinds of flight patterns that aren't possible now. If I take a trip across the US using air travel, I might first have to drive 2 - 3 hours to get to a regional airport, fly to a national or international airport, possibly fly to another regional airport, then another few hours drive. I'm only using the U.S. as an example here because I can't speak for other countries. We have LOTS of private or regional airports or small municipal airports. It's cheaper to operate out of these. It's much cheaper for an owner to have a plane in a hanger at a private or municipal airport. So NOW, I can take a flight where I skip all the airport hopping which can be an entire day just in layover times and flight and then all the driving. And this is why he used the word "taxi". Consider it like an Uber driver but in the air. I live in a big city so I have multiple airports around me, but when I lived out in the country there was one small airport a few minutes away, and about 1.5 hours away an international airport. But there are plenty of people in the US that are many hours away from an international airport. It's almost so much driving that you'd rather just drive the entire trip to wherever it is you're going, even if it's 2 or 3 days of driving, especially if at the other end of the flying you STILL have to drive for hours to get to your destination.
Yes, that would revolutionize flying. It would disrupt the business models. And it relies on a very fuel efficient design.
Laminar flow doesn’t like wet wings. Where this plane might fall down (literally) is by inability to perform over a wide enough weather range. It would be interesting to hear figures about how performance is affected.
Qu: Might higher speeds shrug off water and reestablish a reasonable laminar flow?
Have you ever flown in an airliner before?
If you did, did you notice how much of the time the plane actually spent flying below clouds?
@@floatingchimney those are jets, pistons spend much more time down in the weather.
@@rowerwet though this is a high flying piston, that engine is flat rated to something like FL200 and is turbocharged so could operate at FL300+ without too much issue. its really a modernised concept that the germans used in WW2 on the JU86 high altitude reconnisance variants, with the Jumo 205 diesel engines they could fly at nearly FL500.
@@rowerwet It is said that celera 500L have can reach 65000 feet, most commercials flight fly just under 40000 feet. 65000 feet sounds a bit much tho and I haven't managed to confirm this officially, but on their website they have glide distance numbers from 30000 feet. So it seems that Celera 500L can fly above most weather just fine.
They will just cover the entire plance with Rain-X and water will not stick to the wings nor to the body. No more wet wings, how about that.
Basically, laminar components represent the future of incoming airliners.
As we speak, Airbus is still studying laminar wings by imputing small laminar airfoils at the tips of a flight test A340 to study the gain of such devices.
Unfortunatly, for us engineers the study of turbulent flows, which represents most the flows along airliners is still very complicated to do. We use very ressource-demanding algorithms to solve partial differential equations, which is very long and unreliable at times.
The study of turbulence is one of the foremost subjects in fluid mechanics, which could be key in the developpement of electric / ultra efficient airliners in the upcoming years.
Just a nitpick: the algorithms themselves are not really that resource demanding. It's the sheer size of the mesh what makes it hard, as you well know. :) If only we could calculate everything using a mesh that resolves everything down to the viscous level. But alas, we have to crudely approximate most of the turbulence with some simple model, as the data amount would be impossible to handle. But as you said, this causes the simulations to differ from reality quite a bit and quite often.
I've always been a little puzzled why they put engines under the wings. From an aerodynamic perspective it's about the worst place (yes there's other reasons: maintenance, centre of mass, weight offset by lift).
The wings on that plane do seem tiny, more like hydro foils than transitional aircraft.
@@Puukiuuki And we end up choosing between LES and RANS otherwise computation time is just awful ^^
@@Slyze33 Indeed. In this domain you just cannot do DNS: computation time (and memory requirements) will just explode.
@@garethevans9789 How so? Aerodynamically it is very advantageous. Maintainance does not hurt, though. But lets see:
1) Engines receive very clean air flow in practically every situation
2) Engines disturb the airflow around the wings very little, so wings get nice clean flow as well
3) Engines situated mostly in front of the wings function as anti-shock bodies, lessening the need for adjusting the body of the aircraft in order to remain efficient at transsonic speeds.
4) The exhaust is not a problem for anything.
And as you mentioned, there are other benefits:
- Fuel delivery is somewhat simpler
- Simpler maintainance / removal
The biggest downsides are:
- Large yaw from loss of thrust in one engine
- Some extra drag, but not a big deal unless the engine is not running (then it's a big deal)
Clean air to the engines additionally means that engines are immune to ice that may break loose from wings.
You are probably thinking about having the engines installed internally like in fighter jets..? Going supersonic makes some difference (that exact type of inlet does not work anymore). Additionally, fighters try to have small moments of inertia and having engines on the wings slows down rolls dramatically. They also benefit from the small degree of protection the fuselage gives to the engines, and it makes the infrared signature easier to hide as well.
One very important reason is hiding the fan from radar as the fan reflects radar extraordinarily well.
Looks like that aircraft hit the cheetos pretty hard in quarantine.
dont know if anyone has said this but your dogs are adorable oml
I think the Laminar flow wing was invented by Edgar O. Schmüd for the P-51 Mustang in WW2. Maximum thickness of wing was shifted aft, giving the wing in cross section a wedge shape, instead of the conventional teardrop form. Result was reduction of drag.
As soon as he said "Laminar flow" I expected Destin from Smarter Everyday to pop out
Yep. I expected him to magically appear with a snatch block in his hand.
turbulent flow is superior
This is amazing! I love when we get new innovation and ideas that materialize in aviation. Makes me hopeful for the future. Thanks for sharing this Peter.
Two “t” in his name: Petter. He is Swedish. :-)
Uh ok?
the dogs, they are so cute.... I just could't stop looking at them.
Private pilot here from Australia . I am a little surprised I didn’t come across the Celera 500L sooner. We have all heard of so many fast, supersonic , concorde like conceptual designs that were gonna revolutionise commercial aviation but if there is going to be any major breakthrough in the civil aviation world the Celera 500 is the most promising one yet. I do sincerely hope this would be a success . Just thinking about it I’m already getting so excited about the opportunities this would open up in the aviation world.
Out of curiosity did you ever hear back from Otto Aviation Mentour? Did you get to see it in flesh?
Laminar Flow...that's a word I hadn't heard for awhile. I was a graphic designer at NASA LaRC in the Hypersonic Propulsion Branch (X-43 M7 & M10 record breaker) and I saw that term a LOT! Great explanation!!! You have a deep accent but I think I also heard "Reynolds number" too and that was a very familiar term over the years.
The World War Two P-51 Mustangs had a Laminar Flow wing, it worked because the maximum thickness was back farther from the leading edge than the conventional wings of the time, they worked off this same principle.
A-26 also, designed a few months later using same Laminar Flow wing theory.
the water turns white out of the tap because of the "aerator" device installed in the business end of the tap. it forces air into water stream to increase its cleaning capability and essentially decrease water consumption. not a good example, but I get the idea.
17:50 "It doesn't cost more than driving a normal car". Hmmm, that should be "It doesn't cost more in fuel than driving a normal car". I dare say all the other operating costs of the aircraft are much higher than a normal car. Not many 'normal cars' cost USD$300+ per hour to run. Exciting aircraft none the less.
550 hp car, 740 km distance? Close.
The big difference is that in aircraft, while you spend more per hour, you spend far less hours. Up to an eighth as many hours. So if it costs you more than 50$ per hour in a car, going by this plane is saving you money as well as time.
@@RazvanMaioru not quite, although you will save time, consumption was discussed as a measure of distance and is still directly comparable. If the plane is going 3x the speed of the car, the plane is also consuming 3x the fuel as the car for the given time period, but it has also gone 3x as far, so it all works out the same fuel per distance. Of course a plane can fly in a straight line, the car is bound to the roads so it is less distance for a plane, but once you put the cost of airframe hours and maintenance on the plane (and all other expenses for operating a plane such as licences, airport fees et), it will be far more expensive than a car. Still heaps cheaper than other planes, but not anywhere near a car.
@@guyb7995 0⁷
But the cars can’t cruise at 740km/h. At 400 Kts, $300 equates to only 65c/mile or 41c/km. Not many cars can beat that.
I just wanted to mention one thing: The water from a regular tap does become "white" because of a thing inside the tap called "tap aerator". It mixes air into the water to make it feel soft ;-) Just google it and I'm sure you know it. You can screw it of from your tap as well, you'll notice that the water then will come out in a real turbulent flow manner, even if you turn it almost off.
17:45 Normal People like you and I ... from the man who's flying commercial aircrafts. Well, I'd really like to be as normal as you ;-)
Faucet aerator
Correct, because the areator's job is to create "turbulance".
Yeh, the analogy with the aerator is missleading. In an un-obstructed tube, water can flow laminar at several machs, and that's what is done in high-pressure water cutters (speed in the order of mach 3).
The aerator is basicaly a grid across the flow, inducing turbulences. At low speed the turbulences are not strong enough, so no air and water still transparent even if the flow is already not laminar.
Air nearby the fuselage (considered locally as a flat surface) is non obstructed, right? so I don't understand why it should become turbulent...
Or is it because the whole plane is to be considered as the obstruction to the flow of air around it? That must be the right answer...
This will dovetail well with full autonomy. Get rid of the cost of the pilot and now it is competitive with an airline ticket. What a revolutionary product! Thanks for the info.
Imagine flying this aircraft, it just looks badass!
Think about to fly an A380... more beautiful?
Very interesting. At these efficiencies, electrification could definitely be able to produce another reduction in cost of operation. The reference here would be the Eviation Alice which has around a fifth of the range of this plane and also uses a push propeller. I think they advertise operational cost of around 200$/hour. With this plane, I imagine the inlets have a cost in terms of aerodynamics.
So, an electrical plane could do without that and gain a little bit from that while also reducing operational cost to probably similar levels (less moving parts, reduced maintenance cost, low cost electricity). The rest is basically a compromise between useful load and battery weight. In Europe, 1000nm is a perfectly decent range. Many commercial flights fly much less, as you well know probably. I imagine this design could potentially leap frog the Alice in range and performance even when fully electrified.
Regarding environmental concerns; electric is one of the options that makes flight more or less pollution/emission & guilt free. One of the concerns with aviation fuels is that they are currently based on oil, and put a lot of emissions in our higher atmosphere that both add to our carbon footprint but also do other damage. Synthetic fuels or hydrogen could long term be an interesting alternative where we keep the useful range but maybe fly a lot cleaner.
By the time planes like this are shipping in volume, there will be a lot of need for pilots but also an increase in autonomous flight. E.g. Cessna flew a freight version of one of their planes a few weeks ago and seems to intend to start flying this commercially.
Objective: Listen to what Mentour Pilot has to say.
Obstacle: Those cute little dogs.
Thank you for all the videos you have made. From listening to your videos I’ve gained a sense of what it’s like to really fly an aircraft. I’ve always wish I could have been a pilot but because of my eye sight, I could never become a pilot. Thank you my friend and I hope you can get back in the air soon and doing what you love.
Actually, the example at 9:48 has nothing to do with laminar flow. Most residential water taps are aerated, meaning little bubbles are introduced into the water to increase its volume while using less water. This makes it easier to wash your hands, since the bubbly water covers your hands more evenly instead of being a jet of water at one point on your hands. You can find some older taps which aren't aerated, and the water flow remains laminar even at full water pressure.
Rooting for the manufacturer to see this video and let you fly the prototype :)
Air isn't just kindof like a fluid. It is one.
Also, white water isn't white because of turbulence, but because of entrained air bubbles scattering light
But the bubbles only get entrained because of the turbulence. The chaotic flow pattern of the water takes air from outside and pulls it into the stream.
As long as the flow stays laminar, no air bubble can get inside the water flow.
Sometimes people confuse fluid with liquid, and so might think it's an analogy when it isn't really
I’m happy you touched on (and asked the manufacturer!) about single pilot operation. I’m guessing PPL IR (HP/Complex) in this type would be all you’d need, right? 4500 NM at 400kt is 10hrs of range/endurance...on 250gal of Jet-A?!?! I’d love to know how high it flies as well...
Have you checked out the Raptor Aircraft channel?
Brilliant! Thanks for this early review of this brilliantly designed aircraft, Petter! I especially like the idea of the potential electric drive motor!
I have some bad news for you. Your dogs clearly are not into airplanes.
They look like the subject is very stressful
His dogs are cute. They look a bit older so I think they're mostly senior power napping.
Hello 👋 Commander! That was Really Interesting! Unfortunately, once Again, The Puppy’s 🐶 Steal Your Thunder. Awesome. Thnx! CJ
In the tap's case, its designed to make water turn into smaller droplets so that when it touches surfaces like you hand, it doesnt splash all over the floor.
I occasionally discover into a tap that seems to aereate the water and make it feel very soft but normal taps are simply tubular yet will show behaviour consistent with his explanation. These 'soft' taps seem to have an exit consisting of many small holes.
@@springford9511 There is a multi layered filter at the tip which help filtering and aeration.
How much does it's efficiencies drop off in less than ideal weather/poor weather?
Thank you for this very informative video. Love the dogs.
This is going to be the #1 game changer for aircrafts in the world!
I wants one!
when i hear laminar flow for aviation, i remember the P-51 Mustang's wing.
I immediately thought of short cargo runs/immediate need type of things, small fields, and developing countries.......this could give aviation and short haul & emergency shipping a new field to play in.......
Me too!
maybe rural MEDEVAC too, like the Australian Royal Flying Doctor Service. they currently use pilatus PC24's as they're capable of landing on dirt strips.
@@RPRiley :)
@@tech4pros153 Yes..... :)
Cessna Caravans are doing a bunch of that work every night. (FEDEX and others).
Now, can this laminar effect be exploited on lifting body aircraft? I'd imagine that having the fuselage do some of the work would also reduce the size of wings needed, thus reducing drag further.
I would assume this company is experimenting with different designs, but every line you introduce can create drag so I would think you want to minimize even the surfaces creating lift. You have to create that lift surface with the least amount of drag possible and adding another form of lift probably also means you created resistance.
Love the concept. Reminded me "somewhat" of a single engine Piaggio Avanti. A couple of questions might be, what happens to all that nice laminar flow with a bit of icing climbing to altitude not to mention that same icing killing lift on the wing and CG shift on that great big nose. Certainly it needs to be certified all weather if it's going to hit it's target market. Love the performance figures if they can pull it off and make it all weather.
As an aviation engineer, all of this sounds laughable BS to me.. They've already stated THE most important specification related to lift efficiency: Celera 500's glide ratio is 22:1, or so their claim. Numerically speaking, this value is is also exactly same as the overall Lift/drag ratio of the aircraft (not just wings, all aircraft).. For comparison, existing gliders have somewhere between 30:1 and 60:1, Lockheed U-2 has 25,6:1 an A380 has 20:1, and 777 has 19,5:1... Even if we assume their L/D number is accurate, its aerodynamic efficiency lies between an U-2 and a 737, nowhere to be called "revolutionary". Actual record-breakers like Rutan Voyager has 37:1 glide ratio.
With that in mind, rest of their numbers don't make sense.. WWII-era P-51 Mustang has 15,3:1 glide ratio (L/D), so Celera 500 claims to be 43% more efficient.. P-51 has 1720HP engine, so it has 3,12x more engine power than Celera.. However, Celera claims to cruise at 460mph while P-51 has 362mph cruise speed. In fact, Celera claims to cruise 20mph faster than P-51's 440mph top speed... This is just wrong, assuming their flight weight is the same, (so Lift necessary for level flight in both aircraft is the same), Celera would have 69% drag and 32% thrust, assuming thrust is linearly proportional to engine power for the sake of argument. With these constraints, Celera 500 would have 440mph*SQRT(0,32/0,69) =300mph top speed. F8F Bearcat, one of the fastest piston engined propeller aircraft, has *maximum speed* of 455 mph with 2250hp engine. Not to mention, P51 and F8F has 1600 and 1100 mile ranges respectively and both are single-seated aircraft. Cruising at 460mph with just 500hp engine while seating 6 people plus carrying sufficent fuel to reach 4500mile range?? Please...
PS, All of their claims don't make sense from engineering standpoint You can't really design FOR laminar flow simply by modifying shapes and without changing fundementals. Approximating from cabin dimensions, its wings alone at stated cruise speed should have a reynolds number above 12 million.. Somehow I don't think some good engineering will reduce 12.000.000 to "less than 2300" and achieve laminar flow.
I am absolutely not an (aviation) engineer. Yet, as an amateur cyclist, i seem to have a better understanding of aerodynamics than you. Your comparisons with WW2 fighter aircrafts are absolutely idiotic. What you can't seem to understand is overall drag, especially at higher speeds, regardless of glide ratio. Drag rises exponentially relative to airspeed, remember?
@@patrickbateman7444 Also to add to that, take a look at modern supersize cargo ships, look at the size of engine they use and the speeds they achieve, then compare that to similar top speed WW2 warships of much smaller size. You'll quickly realise that those warships had a vastly higher engine output despite a similar top speed and a vastly lower mass. And thats just a combination of a super optimised for drag hull and some improvements in propeller design.
Doesn't mean i automatically believe the aircraft can do whats claimed, but comparisons to such an ancient design, (that also had to be able to do serious aerobatics), doesn't really help at all.
@@darthkarl99 Yes, you get it. Comparing this to a 80 year old fighter plane, which had a wing profile built for mobility, carrying weapons etc is so mindblowingly dumb, that i hope that this dude isn't actually an aviation engineer, or that he's doing rc airplanes.
WWII figher planes were all about mobility. When WWII top ace Erich Hartmann had to evaluate the F104 Starfighter plane, he hated it immediately, because it didnt have any wings.
@@patrickbateman7444 Yeah, there's just SOMETHING about wind resistance isn't there? It's resistance, and resistance increases with velocity. I'd have to dig into a physics book to get the equation.
But I'll help you. A tube frame has to have either a passive stabilizer, or fly by wire which isn't used yet, although I think the 737 MAX incorporated a VERY minor form of fly by wire, but it's not about replacing a passive stabilizer. Military fighters like the F22 and F35 do away with any passive stabilizer and do fly by wire. Of course they also get into neat stuff like thrust vectoring.
There's a really good video done by "Real Engineering". I don't know if this channel accepts links and I don't want to come back to check if this comment is still here. He talks about battery power eventually making its way into aircraft using another airframe that this channel shows for hydrogen. It can really be used for either. It's fly by wire.
But he gets into the engineering of flight. So, point of balance, point of lift, how they are offset, why they are offset and why you need a stabilizer along with the attack angle of that stabilizer. A stabilizer always creates friction because of the attack angle. But, the rest of the frame creates some friction too. He does more than one video on flight so I can't be sure which one it is, sorry.
@@patrickbateman7444 So arrogant yet so clueless on the subject who cannot comprehend what I've written in the wall of text above. You don't deserve any explanation with that attitude but I'll write nontheless.
1- "Drag is exponential to airspeed" what a great contribution you've made... Math-101 A-hole: Lift=1/2*(density of air)*(Wing Area)*(Lift coefficient)*Velocity^2 Drag=1/2*(density of air)*(Wing Area)*(Drag Coefficient)*Velocity^2... So if you are looking for Lift to Drag Ratio L/D, density of air, wing area and velocity squared all cancel out. What you have is a Cl/Cd... You have 1000kg of mass. You need 1000kg of lift to hold it in air. If yo have 1000kg of lift, and 10:1 L/D, you will have 100kg of drag, period. Speed has *nothing* to do with it, at least directly.
2-Indirectly, L/D DOES vary with speed depending on design, but it doesn't matter for my argument: Most aircraft, and obviously *ALL* of these aircraft I've mentioned above are designed to be most efficient at their cruise speeds anyway. Because otherwise would be very silly ie; why design B737 to be most efficient at 200ktas, when it cruises at 430ktas? Only to make it burn more fuel?
3- "WWII figher planes were all about mobility." What "mobility" lol, you probably meant maneuverability but please save your BS, WWII aircraft were never about energy-maneuverability. All of these aircraft were cruise-optimized as F-104. The difference is, F104 was optimized for its own quite high cruise speed, which translated into smaller wings, (because of you know V^2 you mentioned). Only after 1960s, energy maneuverability and optimisation for anything other than efficient cruise became relevant.
4- John Boyd's energy-maneuverability theory didn't even exist when P51 or F-104 was designed... It only: a) became a concern for 4th gen fighters, which are basically designed to be efficient at wider range of lift coefficients, at the cost of a lot less fuel efficient at cruise speeds and less overall maximum L/D, and b) became possible with advent of low-bypass turbofan engines, otherwise range trade-off from inferior cruise characteristics would have been unacceptable. For example; MiG-29's flight manual says best L/D it can achieve is ~10,4 around CL=0,4 mark; not impressive at all. And second "problem" is MiG-29 at 13tons weight, cruising at 30k feet at M0,85 will only need CL=0,22 and so it has L/D of just 8. So in other words, its NOT most efficient 1G cruise, but its actually MOST efficient while pulling 1,76Gs at that flight conditions, or 5,5Gs at sea level, same airspeed. Like I've said, such designs emerged with specific purpose of conserving energy while turning. This is also evident within their zero-lift drag coefficients; P-51 has Cd0=0,0163, MiG-29 has Cd0=0,025. For comparison with another aircraft aerodynamically wasteful fuselage; Learjet 24 with has Cd0=0,022..
5- So... My comparison about several propeller driven piston aircraft are pretty on spot. Your and the other idiot's brilliant assumptions of modern designs have magic in them is just laughable. Again, for the retarded, P-51 has 15,3 glide ratio its manufacturer says so. Celera 500's has 22:1 glide ratio, its manufacturer says so... So what are you talking about? Technological advances? Where do you think 43% improvement came from geniuses?
Now go stick to cycling instead of making smartass comments here.
I guess the dogs have already heard about laminar flow. They almost look like they're fake- out cold!
Those dogs are soooo cute!
Made me giggle - laminar what?
I would imagine that with a passenger capacity of only six, it would have to be a single pilot setup; otherwise, the crew would represent a quarter of the payload, and that doesn't sound economical.
I'm thinking co-pilot/flight attendant combo for the second crew member.
Or even no pilot at all ! PLFD (passenger laminar flow drone )
@@sakadabara I doubt the FAA would approve it, and I certainly wouldn't fly on it. Automated systems inevitably fail. I'm not sanguine about self-driving cars, but at least a car can pull to the side of the road if there's trouble. You can't do that with an aircraft.
2/6 = 1/4?
@@damonhp 2/8 = 1/4. 6 passengers, 2 pilots.
Your little pups look so relaxed and content!
I'm very impressed of all your videos. I have an neck injury that course many ours in my bed every day and your skill impress me so much. Thanks
The dogs look like they are in online school.
They have K-9 programmed instruction fatigue.
Well, they kind of.. are.
My second cousins dad flies a jabiru j170, and he has promised me to fly with me the next time the wheather is good. Looking forward to that!
Just wanted to share it with someone that actually cares about aviation, contrary to most of my friends.
That looks like a fun aircraft. Are you flying from somewhere where you have a chance of decent weather anytime soon? Any intentions of learning to fly yourself?
WIRRUZZZ Well, normally the weather isn’t to bad, but when it first gets bad weather, it’ll stay there for a long time, so I’ll probably fly with him in 1-2 weeks. And yes, I wanna learn how to fly (though that is not the intention of flying with him when the weather is good again)
Biggest cost would be pilots.
It would be revolutionary if they can integrate automated take off, cruise and landing capabilities to allow single pilot operations safely.
10:00 Just a note for explanation: The reason why water is getting white and opaque with turbulences is primarily not the turbulences themselves, but it is air getting sucked in and mixed into the water stream. And on a tap, there is this aerator at the end which is designed to do exactly that, but it needs a certain water flow speed to generate the necessary vacuum. So, both examples are actually not showing the turbulences themselves.
A-mazing - this could truly transform (and eco-modernise) the industry
Doggies - "Laminar Schlaminar. When do we eat?"
This would make one heck of a private plane.
10:35 Dog thinks...my god when this guy going to stop talking to himself. Buddy...whom are you talking to, let me sleep.
I really enjoyed the video & I learned a few things, but the two little doggies kept me laughing the whole time.
@@TELE6220 Cuteness overload, but yeah, off & on for 20 minutes or however long the video lasts.
Very interesting video. Your pup looks incredibly comfortable. :)
Your puppies are funny and deserve their own fan club.
I've been watching you for over a year and only now did I realize why the green and red pillows 😂
Tesla needs to acquire this. The potential of combining this with electric engines AND Starlink (possibly autonomous flying) can change aviation as we know it.
Autonomous flying is commonly known as autopilot. Yeah, a joint venture with Telsa would be a wonder to behold. Cover the roof in flexible solar panels and you can even recharge in flight, so long as you fly West.
@@danuttall I meant flying pilotless. It's not gonna happen very soon but it will happen.
@@danuttall There's simply not enough area on the top side of the aircraft to put solar panels on to enable those solar panels to power main propulsion on their own.
Solar Impulse, which is the only human-piloted aircraft that I know of that can maintain flight on solar power alone, is designed as a powered glider specifically because that's the only way to simultaneously produce enough lift from a light enough airframe, have a low enough wing loading that powering it from solar power is feasible, and have enough area for solar panels to actually be able to sustain flight on just solar power.
It looks nothing like the aircraft in this video, instead it looks like a really big version of a single-seat glider with a propeller.
I'm not saying putting solar panels on this aircraft is a bad idea, I'm just saying you need to manage your expectations about what it's actually capable of powering.
Sure, solar panels provide "infinite" energy from the sun, but the rate at which you can obtain that energy is limited by how much surface area your solar panels cover, what angle they are at relative to the sun, and how efficient they are at converting incoming photons into a flow of electrons. Oh yeah and they don't work very well at all when it's cloudy.
Faucet has an aerator that introduces flow turbulence.
I like the way you have vulgarized the concept of the Reynold's number with the water tap. Simple and direct.
I have completed my commercial pilot, this new aircraft could open so many doors for us at this level of training, I cannot wait!