A California company has unveiled its concept for a business jet that burns 62% less fuel than a conventional aircraft of similar size and it does it entirely with improved aerodynamics that maximize laminar flow over the whole airframe. Otto Aviation released this video last week.
There is an axiom that if it looks good it flies good. This should fly great but right now all I see is a computer simulation.
I remain highly skeptical of the claims Otto Aviation is making. If I read what they’re saying correctly, essentially they’re saying over half of aircraft efficiency is killed just by airflow disruption over the windows.
I like everything about it except the lack of windows. “Focus on what you need to get done…” while en route? My focus is studying nature from above the earth, a rare and immensely valuable experience that I am certain even the best video can’t adequately recreate. I’d rather drive. I’m sure they add weight, but I don’t see how it’s not possible to make the exterior window junctions virtually seamless.
How about virtual windows? Put a nice, wide-angle camera somewhere it won’t upset all the perfect airflow and put some nice displays showing what you would see. But if you want to see out the other side, you just press a button instead of unbuckling. Food for thought…
How about virtual windows?
Watch the video; that is exactly what they’re doing.
…now all I see is a computer simulation.
See their pusher propped Celera 500 demonstrator: Celera 500.
55 flights.
Boom Supersonic are depending at least in part on that, to reduce need to droop nose for landing as Concorde did.
XB-1 had that. Preceded by simulator testing and flying a system in a light airplane.
Seems like they couldn’t get the piston version of this concept to work (projected 400kts with 4,500 mile range, 30,000 foot ceiling at 18-25mpg from a 550HP diesel engine - definitely game changing if it had worked). So now they’re going for the jet and looking for investment. What does it cost to develop a jet from scratch? Has to be > $500M (Eclipse aviation raised > $300M 20 years ago). Maybe they should raise $1B to be comfortable. Good luck.
A window-less bizjet is an interesting PoC in aerodynamic design, but I think they underestimate the human desire to see outside. Even subways have windows. Admittedly, elevators do not, and we all know the delightful experience of being crammed into a box of strangers, everyone looking straight ahead, suddenly wishing they’d had time to visit the restroom. Any reason the think that putting video screens on the walls of that box would make the experience less cringey?
Sixty two percent less fuel? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
So what did the Celera 500 accomplish? If it was proof of concept what were the real world numbers and at what weight? Maybe the SR71 could achieve those fantastic speeds with half the power and a little cosmetic cleanup, but I doubt it.
These guys lost all credibility with the Celera 500 – a make-believe “airplane” in a falsified press release video. Celera answered critics of its absurd performance claims with the announcement that the airplane was proof of concept only and will never fly again. “You’ll just have to believe us.” How conveeeeeenient!
Celera’s investors are easy pickins’ for every charletan’s miracle technology.
Think about it: Boeing has spent 70 years making the window/fuselage joints smooth. They’re pretty good at it.