I love clear, clean and concisely delivered technical data. This is the second video of yours I have viewed and it is time to hit the subscribe button.
My wife has seen it flying twice, and I haven't seen it once yet. We commute by SCLA, and pass under the approach. We've seen drones, Cosmic Girl, stacks of 737 Max vertical stabilizers, and all kinds of interesting aircraft.
Also worth noting is that the vertical and horizontal stabilizers do not use hinged control surfaces. Instead, the entire vertical and horizontal stabilizers move in the same way you see the horizontal stabilizers move on jet fighters like the F-15 and F-22.
Thank you for showing the correspondence between Celera 500 and electric plane. They both were inspired by long-endurance drones. Scale the Celera up, make it electric (with another generation of battery), and you have a real revolution, no matter what powers it.
The video does explain why it may not be practical to scale the Celera up. More length, more girth . What is the use of eight, ten, twelve foot high cabin ceilings? Lengthening a tube aircraft increases structural weight and cost linearly. A spheroidal shape's structural weight and cost increases at nearly the cube of the length increase.
@@herbertshallcross9775 I assume they would not scale the shape exactly...that's obvious. In fact, a longer shape only makes it easier to maintain laminar flow. AS for 'what's the use'...if it were wider and higher....plenty of use: 2 floors in height? More cargo? More capacity in a shorter body than regular planes? Thus, less skin stress? One must use their imagination.
@@jaimesk1688 A sphere's surface area goes up much faster with increase in length than a tube of fixed diameter.That slightly lower skin stress is offset by having the weight of a lot more skin. Much easier to have slightly larger stringers on a tube. There have been a few aircraft designs with two levels, but it creates problems. A double-height Celera would only fit in airliner-size hangars which has an impact on maintenance costs and scheduling. Interior stairs take up space and payload weight. Double- decker means more difficult loading/unloading, with passengers schleppping bags up a narrow staircase, not to mention more difficult emergency exit.
When I originally learned of this aircraft a few months back. I was stunned to discover the great disparity in performance when compared to others. I would have thought that given current advancements, improving performance, by what ever measure, would be small and incremental, not orders of magnitude !
Kudos for mentioning Connie! But I cannot fathom not mentioning the production airplane designed with all these principles in mind and sharing almost all aerodynamic features, Piaggio P.180 Avanti. It uses two pusher engines, so does not re-energize the boundary layer ove fuselage, but applies another little trick: three lifting planes.
Thank You for the presentation. Many of us are excited about these advances in design and how they can greatly improve performance and efficiency! This is a far cry from the classic general aviation planes we're so used to!
Aircraft engineers here ? I think the lower fin is rather for yaw stability, and to protect the propeller on ground operation. Concerned about the CG being far aft, with a long fuselage forward protrusion destabilizing the whole thing. Hence the need for a giant fin. But there is no room for a standard low AR fin as the structure of the fin must leave space for the engine compartment. This fin has an AR ratio so high it may stall under relatively modest slip angles. As always, optimization of a criterion being made at the expense of other criteria. Comments welcome.
Review wright speed hybrid electric power generator for a hybrid electric power source, also review controlled flexible wings and wing tips for control surfaces that reduce drag and power requirements. This seems to be a very good design for drone freight and passenger vehicles doing point to point flights.
It is true that Elliptical wings reduce induced drag but they are also heavier than those with bell-shaped lift distributions and in some instances that in turn generates more drag force even though it has a smaller drag coefficient. My main other concern for this particular aircraft is it's stability, how does it maintain lateral stability if the tail and the wing are so closely held together?? The downforce of the horizontal stabilizer must be huge with such little distance to the CG, is it really worth the viscous-drag to induced-drag exchange??. (I do get that at high speeds parasitic drag is substantially bigger than induced drag). Anyway this was a great video mate!!! I would really like to turn this comment section into a healthy aeronautics discussion.
One could make this a vertical take off relatively easily. It could take off like a helicopter, legs folding out from around the cockpit area. The cockpit would need to swivel, or special cameras would be used to help the pilot land.
Exactly! If you use multiple fans that are retractable in fuselage like, for example, 3 in the front and 3 in the rear in each side(i'm with some EVTOL's design in my mind, that ones that have many small fans like lilium jet) and makes it eletric... damm Don't know if this glider like wings would make it impossible but would be an evtol to beat all planes and helicopters. It would fly faster than any prop plane at 700 kph and surely faster than any heli with much less cost with gas and maintenance than even the most cost efective airplane but with the capacity of vertical landing and take off. Present evtols are set to have 240km or 150 miles range. So if this can have 1000km range being eletric it would be a revolution i believe. Cheers!!
Great insight and well presented. I think the celera will be a good fit with future air travel, smaller more direct flights with high efficiency . Can only hope you don't run out topics, but the future is clear, evs are the future
If this aircraft lives up to its claims, it will be far more than a good fit. It will rock the aviation world; especially if its price tag is in any way reasonable.
Makes me wonder about the weights and balancing for this plane. Gives the appearance that if a rear seat passenger goes to the cabin it might try to stall
I suspect the C of G is engineered to compensate for the heavy diesel V12 at back and the wing placement would aid this. The electric unit would weigh less and its batteries could be positioned forward.
It seems to be a great game changer in aviation, but I can't find an example or explanation of how does this plan land, with an engine failure. I just like every news about all kind of new technologies, so if anyone could explain this doubt, it would be awesome. thaks a lot for the upload.
It has a pretty specific use case though. Small passenger planes. If they could make an airliner carrying hundreds of passengers it would change the world, but sadly the aerodynamics does not work in the larger sizes. On the other hand it looks like it will make electric planes more practical.
Yet another article that lacks basic research of the factory's projected performance claims versus fact. It is Impossible to meet the altitude / speed / range claims made. Readers should go to the article by Peter Garrison - FLYING magazine - Dec 2020 QUOTE: " The Celera 500L is not so revolutionary as it claims to be. ... What sets the Celera apart is its huge passenger cabin and efficient diesel engine. I doubt it will achieve the announced performance-I’m happy to be proved wrong-but if it cruises at 260 ktas at 30,000 feet burning 90 pph and has a toilet inside, that will be good enough. "
great video! also noticed that the aircraft doesn't have passenger windows. They must have saved a lot of weight by removing those and the structure that's needed to make up for the resulting weakpoints. I know of research about removing windows in large commercial planes and replacing them with screens for that reason. How did they solve it here without creating psychological issues of flying in a dark barrel?
I have serious doubts about the claimed per hour costs. Another issue, that they don't mention, is that pusher props, especially behind three, or in this case, four tail fins are extremely noisy, especially on takeoff. This is well known with flying wings in the RC model world, where pusher props are often used. The prop cuts through and interrupts the airflow from either the wing, or here, the tail and it is a very noisy and annoying noise.
Not to be racist but usually when I listen to Indians I could barely understand what they're saying. Kudos to you because I can understand clearly what you're explaining.
Looks very similar to a sea creature, such as a whale. which makes sense considering nature is the best engineer. Edit: it was later mentioned in the video (:
Curious that, despite the target of low drag, there is no wing to fuselage fairing. Such a square corner is the highest drag configuration for that area.
most likely a toss up - disrupting the laminar flow as little as possible vs some drag reduction at the wing root. given the low aspect ratio wings, just as on gliders. looks like laminar flow wins.
During World War 2, the American Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber had high-aspect wings. It led to a longer range and bomb load then the similar Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers, which did ot have these wings.
Keep in mind that the nose of an airliner is shaped correctly for the typical airflow over it. As a typical airplane has some "nose up" attitude in normal flight. One need only look at the positions and angles of the pitot tubes on modern planes to know what the average direction of airflow is.
Excellent video but I can't understand your speech very well. Can you slow down the rate of speaking slightly? When you go too fast the words get too close together. Publishing your script here would help too. Thanks!
Could this style of aircraft be scaled down to a little electric two seater and if so would it need a very long runway? If not, that would be very desirable.
The shape of this airplane fuselage is similar to high performance glider that also have laminar flow over the body. True a propeller in the front creates turbulent air flow that impacts the fuselage as turbulent. The air vortexes off the trailing edge of the propeller air foils creates a vortex that is mixed with the slip stream, breaking up into turbulence. The push propeller has a second positive effect other then the turbulence it creates is no in contact with the fuselage. The laminar boundary layer is compressed against the surface for a fuselage body that is expanding, increasing cross section. However, expansion can not continue for ever. The laminar boundary layer expands off the surface it is contracting. About 8 degrees is the maximum angle. Clearly the contraction is greater then 8 degrees. That is where the propeller comes in. The air is accelerated by the vacuum created in front of the blades, velocity squared. So the air on the contacting fuselage is accelerated towards the propeller which reduces and may even change the expanding boundary layer to a compressing boundary layer. Drag is determined by the cross section of the boundary layer when it separates from the body which must occur at the propeller. The thickness of a laminar has a limit when it will turn turbulent. However, the engine needs air so the air frame can be bigger when the engine is used to remove the laminar boundary layer sending that air to the intake of the engine(s). This has already been done on aircraft to prevent boundary layer separation on wings.
So this is what NASA engineers mean when they say putting the engines on blended wings back there is even more efficient than not having them at all. Very interesting! Putting engines on wingtips could take advantage of natural vortex regions perhaps?
If you study laminar flow, you will find that natural transition will occur at say Renolds number = 3 million. Speed then dictates the laminar flow distance and it will be 0.3 m or so, not more. (at 150 m/s) Many years ago we (Dutch Aerospace Lab NLR) measured that on the leading edge of a T33 fighter of the RNAF. So only the nose cone of this Celera aircraft is laminar: this are physics of air. If you add a lower pressure field behind the nose, like the shape of the Celera aircraft, the laminar transition can occur at say Re = 7-10 million (maximum), which will mean 1 meter of the nose is laminar flow, the rest is turbulent flow. The fuselage has no lower drag than for instance a Learjet shaped aircraft, good to know for those Learjet owners. B.t.w: try to beat that aircraft. You cannot bent aerodynamic law, unless you use boundery layer suction. The Celera has none of that.
Why not have the air intake at the front? Instead of a rounded nose, there would be a hole, ducted through the plane to the engine components that require air (the cooling system and the intake manifold or plenum or whatever the engine uses to breathe). Fuel injection nozzles could be up towards the front too, giving the fuel plenty of distance to tumble around and break apart (fuel atomization). The more surface area each fuel molecule has, combustion will be more complete. Less fuel wasted = greater range and further reduction in exhaust gasses.
Interesting stuff. With conventional planes the aerodynamic center of the wing is close to the cog and the horizontal stabilizer is used to set the pitch of the plane and angle of attack of the wing to adjust lift. This plane appears to have a cog significantly forward of the wing and its center of pressure. This would cause a large moment that would tend to push the nose down. The small horizontal stabilizer would have to be generating lots of downforce OR the fuselage is actually providing some lift to counteract the nose down tendency. Since you are covering the planes aerodynamics would you care to comment?
From the information I was able to gather from the internet/forums, yes the fuselage is a lifting body fuselage. Some suggested that as much as 28% of the lift is coming from the fuselage. It would be interesting to run a CFD model to ascertain, exactly how much of lift is exactly generated and what is the centre point of lift. It is most probably in front of the wings. Since the propulsion is at the rear, it kind of counterbalances. The CTO from Celera has mentioned that the plane must maintain an essentially flat pitch attitude or angle of attack, including during take off and approach to landing phase.
@@ElectricAviation I would also think that the heavy diesel engine at the back shifts the COG which is compensated by a lengthy fuselage. I would love to see some kind of folding front canard stabiliser similar to TU144. It could be used for takeoff and landing and fold in at cruising speeds.
I love clear, clean and concisely delivered technical data. This is the second video of yours I have viewed and it is time to hit the subscribe button.
My wife has seen it flying twice, and I haven't seen it once yet. We commute by SCLA, and pass under the approach. We've seen drones, Cosmic Girl, stacks of 737 Max vertical stabilizers, and all kinds of interesting aircraft.
No regrets after subscribing! Keep up the phenomenal work!
Also worth noting is that the vertical and horizontal stabilizers do not use hinged control surfaces. Instead, the entire vertical and horizontal stabilizers move in the same way you see the horizontal stabilizers move on jet fighters like the F-15 and F-22.
Hi Electric, another great technical presentation! Keep this up.
Thank you for showing the correspondence between Celera 500 and electric plane. They both were inspired by long-endurance drones. Scale the Celera up, make it electric (with another generation of battery), and you have a real revolution, no matter what powers it.
The video does explain why it may not be practical to scale the Celera up. More length, more girth . What is the use of eight, ten, twelve foot high cabin ceilings? Lengthening a tube aircraft increases structural weight and cost linearly. A spheroidal shape's structural weight and cost increases at nearly the cube of the length increase.
@@herbertshallcross9775 I assume they would not scale the shape exactly...that's obvious. In fact, a longer shape only makes it easier to maintain laminar flow.
AS for 'what's the use'...if it were wider and higher....plenty of use: 2 floors in height? More cargo? More capacity in a shorter body than regular planes? Thus, less skin stress? One must use their imagination.
@@jaimesk1688 A sphere's surface area goes up much faster with increase in length than a tube of fixed diameter.That slightly lower skin stress is offset by having the weight of a lot more skin. Much easier to have slightly larger stringers on a tube. There have been a few aircraft designs with two levels, but it creates problems. A double-height Celera would only fit in airliner-size hangars which has an impact on maintenance costs and scheduling. Interior stairs take up space and payload weight. Double- decker means more difficult loading/unloading, with passengers schleppping bags up a narrow staircase, not to mention more difficult emergency exit.
great work!
A great lecture on aerodynamics.
I learned things never imagined.
Superb Explanation, Well Researched and Great Examples...excellent job! Thanks and Keep them coming!
I found your channel yesterday and I have really enjoyed your videos! Thanks!
Very good review. I like the way you explain and use comparisons to back up your explanations. You would make a great teacher...
The RC world has been using the "plank" aerodynamic layout for decades now. The Celera 500L is basically a full-scale Strix Goblin.
agree on that
Just discovered your channel today ... I’m enjoying your posts a lot, - informative video essays with excellent and ‘courteous’ narration 👍🏻
When I originally learned of this aircraft a few months back. I was stunned to discover the great disparity in performance when compared to others.
I would have thought that given current advancements, improving performance, by what ever measure, would be small and incremental, not orders of magnitude !
That is the difference when you uncompromising in your design. (Well... almost. As mention in the video the intakes are a compromise, for now".)
Thanks for the info
Many more aircrafts are coming improving performance, by orders of magnitude with new materials and new engines !
Kudos for mentioning Connie! But I cannot fathom not mentioning the production airplane designed with all these principles in mind and sharing almost all aerodynamic features, Piaggio P.180 Avanti. It uses two pusher engines, so does not re-energize the boundary layer ove fuselage, but applies another little trick: three lifting planes.
Thank You for the presentation. Many of us are excited about these advances in design and how they can greatly improve performance and efficiency! This is a far cry from the classic general aviation planes we're so used to!
Really in depth explanation! Can’t wait so see more from this channel
Thanks for this. You are a wealth of information and much appreciated.
Thanks for another wonderful analysis. Very clear and accurate.
9:54 should be "high aspect ratio" wing, but we know what you meant.
This was very nice to watch. Thanks for making it, I hadn't heard about the ventral fin helping prevent prop strike but it makes sense.
Great explanation! Thank you!
This is really well done content. Informative, well researched and on the point.
Love it!
Much appreciated!
Aircraft engineers here ? I think the lower fin is rather for yaw stability, and to protect the propeller on ground operation. Concerned about the CG being far aft, with a long fuselage forward protrusion destabilizing the whole thing. Hence the need for a giant fin. But there is no room for a standard low AR fin as the structure of the fin must leave space for the engine compartment. This fin has an AR ratio so high it may stall under relatively modest slip angles. As always, optimization of a criterion being made at the expense of other criteria. Comments welcome.
Nice presentation. You might be interested in another example of a plane with similar features, the Lear Fan.
I hope they succeed in bringing out Hydrogen/Fuel Cell based aircrafts too.
Review wright speed hybrid electric power generator for a hybrid electric power source, also review controlled flexible wings and wing tips for control surfaces that reduce drag and power requirements. This seems to be a very good design for drone freight and passenger vehicles doing point to point flights.
I really love that you end your videos with "And with this, the video is concluded" ^______^
Glad you enjoy it!
Love your channel, and will be waiting for your "Electrification of the Celera 500L" video
$ 350 for 450 km, that too for 6 people. Car economy for 7 times the speed.
It is true that Elliptical wings reduce induced drag but they are also heavier than those with bell-shaped lift distributions and in some instances that in turn generates more drag force even though it has a smaller drag coefficient. My main other concern for this particular aircraft is it's stability, how does it maintain lateral stability if the tail and the wing are so closely held together?? The downforce of the horizontal stabilizer must be huge with such little distance to the CG, is it really worth the viscous-drag to induced-drag exchange??. (I do get that at high speeds parasitic drag is substantially bigger than induced drag).
Anyway this was a great video mate!!! I would really like to turn this comment section into a healthy aeronautics discussion.
The lower dorsal fin is to assist in yaw stability, especially in prevention of spinning.
Area at the rear must equal area up front.
Love these videos!
Good information ... great aircraft
Very interresting. Thank you.
Great explanation
One could make this a vertical take off relatively easily. It could take off like a helicopter, legs folding out from around the cockpit area. The cockpit would need to swivel, or special cameras would be used to help the pilot land.
Exactly! If you use multiple fans that are retractable in fuselage like, for example, 3 in the front and 3 in the rear in each side(i'm with some EVTOL's design in my mind, that ones that have many small fans like lilium jet) and makes it eletric... damm
Don't know if this glider like wings would make it impossible but would be an evtol to beat all planes and helicopters. It would fly faster than any prop plane at 700 kph and surely faster than any heli with much less cost with gas and maintenance than even the most cost efective airplane but with the capacity of vertical landing and take off. Present evtols are set to have 240km or 150 miles range. So if this can have 1000km range being eletric it would be a revolution i believe. Cheers!!
Such a beautiful , clean design , in fact all 3 aircraft are !. Wales UK.
Great show
I would like to know more of its interior, but I bet it comes with multiple options.
Brilliant videos dude
Excellent well done
Great insight and well presented. I think the celera will be a good fit with future air travel, smaller more direct flights with high efficiency . Can only hope you don't run out topics, but the future is clear, evs are the future
Thanks Paul. I remember you mentioned to make a video on this. So thank you for that tip
If this aircraft lives up to its claims, it will be far more than a good fit. It will rock the aviation world; especially if its price tag is in any way reasonable.
@@billyboblillybob344 it won’t. Interesting concept plane, but not practical in so many real world aspects of aviation. It won’t see mass production.
Really looking forward to the electric variant of this plane. Should be a game changer for domestic air travel
You won't see a battery powered version with any range in your lifetime.
The fuselage shape looks very close to the airfoil Selig ‘S1014’.
Well done, sir!
Great video! Thank you so much!
Makes me wonder about the weights and balancing for this plane. Gives the appearance that if a rear seat passenger goes to the cabin it might try to stall
I suspect the C of G is engineered to compensate for the heavy diesel V12 at back and the wing placement would aid this. The electric unit would weigh less and its batteries could be positioned forward.
@@rickburke7167 There is only so much you can do. I doubt it would stall, but trim drag would certainly go through the roof.
Nicely Done.
That was a fantastic presentation!
Glad you enjoyed it!
You goofed. @ 8:40 you list low aspect ratio wings as opposed to high aspect ratio. Otherwise, a very informative presentation.
My apologies
great vid
It seems to be a great game changer in aviation, but I can't find an example or explanation of how does this plan land, with an engine failure. I just like every news about all kind of new technologies, so if anyone could explain this doubt, it would be awesome. thaks a lot for the upload.
Very good presentation -thanks! You forgot to mention Thunderbird2 though! 🤔😂
It’s going to be cool if their claims turn out to be true. This would become the most popular plane in the world overnight.
It has a pretty specific use case though. Small passenger planes. If they could make an airliner carrying hundreds of passengers it would change the world, but sadly the aerodynamics does not work in the larger sizes. On the other hand it looks like it will make electric planes more practical.
Yeah, if the engineering pans out. It’s going to be the worlds first practical electric aircraft.
Good stuff!
An electric version can eliminate the scoops or vastly reduce them improving the drag ratio even more. Edit you covered this, good job.
Exactly
Did I miss you mentioning the number of seats and payload mass?
Excellent reviews.
Glad you think so!
Very informative, 👍
Great video as always !
Thanks again!
Excellent coverage.
Excellent. As usual.
Yet another article that lacks basic research of the factory's projected performance claims versus fact. It is Impossible to meet the altitude / speed / range claims made. Readers should go to the article by Peter Garrison - FLYING magazine - Dec 2020 QUOTE: " The Celera 500L is not so revolutionary as it claims to be. ... What sets the Celera apart is its huge passenger cabin and efficient diesel engine. I doubt it will achieve the announced performance-I’m happy to be proved wrong-but if it cruises at 260 ktas at 30,000 feet burning 90 pph and has a toilet inside, that will be good enough. "
Same opinion: too small power (
great video! also noticed that the aircraft doesn't have passenger windows. They must have saved a lot of weight by removing those and the structure that's needed to make up for the resulting weakpoints. I know of research about removing windows in large commercial planes and replacing them with screens for that reason. How did they solve it here without creating psychological issues of flying in a dark barrel?
This is great analysis, thanks, ^oo^
Great channel / content
I have serious doubts about the claimed per hour costs. Another issue, that they don't mention, is that pusher props, especially behind three, or in this case, four tail fins are extremely noisy, especially on takeoff. This is well known with flying wings in the RC model world, where pusher props are often used. The prop cuts through and interrupts the airflow from either the wing, or here, the tail and it is a very noisy and annoying noise.
Not to be racist but usually when I listen to Indians I could barely understand what they're saying. Kudos to you because I can understand clearly what you're explaining.
Learning English is such a treat
1:43 "Laminar flow"
SmarterEveryday has entered the chat.
:o)
Body part wise... the fuselage, you can use similar body part twice....
How many passengers can this plane carry??? How big a load???
i think it should be a v tail for even less drag
Looks very similar to a sea creature, such as a whale. which makes sense considering nature is the best engineer.
Edit: it was later mentioned in the video (:
Love your channel! Please add some ambient music
Curious that, despite the target of low drag, there is no wing to fuselage fairing. Such a square corner is the highest drag configuration for that area.
Thank you for pointing that out
most likely a toss up - disrupting the laminar flow as little as possible vs some drag reduction at the wing root. given the low aspect ratio wings, just as on gliders. looks like laminar flow wins.
With a lot of luck, the purported laminar flow will fix the glaring centre of gravity issues the configuration guarantees.
Good video !
I just got my technical dose before sleep.
There's a phrase that describes laminar flow wings without robust on-board de-icing equipment..."eventually suicidal".
During World War 2, the American Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber had high-aspect wings. It led to a longer range and bomb load then the similar Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers, which did ot have these wings.
Thx. nice research.
You're welcome
Keep in mind that the nose of an airliner is shaped correctly for the typical airflow over it. As a typical airplane has some "nose up" attitude in normal flight. One need only look at the positions and angles of the pitot tubes on modern planes to know what the average direction of airflow is.
A Bell X1 made in 2020. Interesting
Intresting
Excellent video but I can't understand your speech very well. Can you slow down the rate of speaking slightly? When you go too fast the words get too close together. Publishing your script here would help too. Thanks!
Could this style of aircraft be scaled down to a little electric two seater and if so would it need a very long runway? If not, that would be very desirable.
You mean the PLAN-DEMIC!!👍👍4
Good information.👍
The shape of this airplane fuselage is similar to high performance glider that also have laminar flow over the body. True a propeller in the front creates turbulent air flow that impacts the fuselage as turbulent. The air vortexes off the trailing edge of the propeller air foils creates a vortex that is mixed with the slip stream, breaking up into turbulence. The push propeller has a second positive effect other then the turbulence it creates is no in contact with the fuselage. The laminar boundary layer is compressed against the surface for a fuselage body that is expanding, increasing cross section. However, expansion can not continue for ever. The laminar boundary layer expands off the surface it is contracting. About 8 degrees is the maximum angle. Clearly the contraction is greater then 8 degrees. That is where the propeller comes in. The air is accelerated by the vacuum created in front of the blades, velocity squared. So the air on the contacting fuselage is accelerated towards the propeller which reduces and may even change the expanding boundary layer to a compressing boundary layer. Drag is determined by the cross section of the boundary layer when it separates from the body which must occur at the propeller.
The thickness of a laminar has a limit when it will turn turbulent. However, the engine needs air so the air frame can be bigger when the engine is used to remove the laminar boundary layer sending that air to the intake of the engine(s). This has already been done on aircraft to prevent boundary layer separation on wings.
So this is what NASA engineers mean when they say putting the engines on blended wings back there is even more efficient than not having them at all. Very interesting!
Putting engines on wingtips could take advantage of natural vortex regions perhaps?
Looks like a flying submarine
아주 좋은 연료 절약형 디자인
미래형 비행기의 첫걸음
If you study laminar flow, you will find that natural transition will occur at say Renolds number = 3 million.
Speed then dictates the laminar flow distance and it will be 0.3 m or so, not more. (at 150 m/s)
Many years ago we (Dutch Aerospace Lab NLR) measured that on the leading edge of a T33 fighter of the RNAF.
So only the nose cone of this Celera aircraft is laminar: this are physics of air.
If you add a lower pressure field behind the nose, like the shape of the Celera aircraft, the laminar transition can occur at say Re = 7-10 million (maximum), which will mean 1 meter of the nose is laminar flow, the rest is turbulent flow.
The fuselage has no lower drag than for instance a Learjet shaped aircraft, good to know for those Learjet owners.
B.t.w: try to beat that aircraft.
You cannot bent aerodynamic law, unless you use boundery layer suction. The Celera has none of that.
How much is it? What's the pricetag?
Why not have the air intake at the front? Instead of a rounded nose, there would be a hole, ducted through the plane to the engine components that require air (the cooling system and the intake manifold or plenum or whatever the engine uses to breathe). Fuel injection nozzles could be up towards the front too, giving the fuel plenty of distance to tumble around and break apart (fuel atomization). The more surface area each fuel molecule has, combustion will be more complete. Less fuel wasted = greater range and further reduction in exhaust gasses.
High aspect ratio wings
Interesting
Interesting stuff. With conventional planes the aerodynamic center of the wing is close to the cog and the horizontal stabilizer is used to set the pitch of the plane and angle of attack of the wing to adjust lift. This plane appears to have a cog significantly forward of the wing and its center of pressure. This would cause a large moment that would tend to push the nose down. The small horizontal stabilizer would have to be generating lots of downforce OR the fuselage is actually providing some lift to counteract the nose down tendency. Since you are covering the planes aerodynamics would you care to comment?
From the information I was able to gather from the internet/forums, yes the fuselage is a lifting body fuselage. Some suggested that as much as 28% of the lift is coming from the fuselage. It would be interesting to run a CFD model to ascertain, exactly how much of lift is exactly generated and what is the centre point of lift. It is most probably in front of the wings. Since the propulsion is at the rear, it kind of counterbalances. The CTO from Celera has mentioned that the plane must maintain an essentially flat pitch attitude or angle of attack, including during take off and approach to landing phase.
@@ElectricAviation I would also think that the heavy diesel engine at the back shifts the COG which is compensated by a lengthy fuselage. I would love to see some kind of folding front canard stabiliser similar to TU144. It could be used for takeoff and landing and fold in at cruising speeds.
Only one propeller. What would be the protocol if that failed?
Skinny wings are high aspect ratio, not low aspect ratio.
A pair of canards and a swept wing would make it look much better, like the Grumman X-29!
👌👌👌👌👌👌