And today they announced Flexjet plans to buy 300 of them. It's all hopes until money changes hands, but they do have some decent VC funding.

https://ottoaerospace.com/news/otto-aer ... h-flexjet/

And next year I plan to have roses growing out of my butt.

Pictures... Or it didn't happen. Of course, would be nice to see a picture of a functioning Celera as well. Also wonder how pax are going to respond to not being able to see out. Especially take off and landing. Would think that claustrophobia would be an issue. Virtual windows are not the same. I don't even like the virtual rear view mirror in my car.

Pictures... Or it didn't happen. Of course, would be nice to see a picture of a functioning Celera as well. Also wonder how pax are going to respond to not being able to see out. Especially take off and landing. Would think that claustrophobia would be an issue. Virtual windows are not the same. I don't even like the virtual rear view mirror in my car.

Me too. So many times, hey kids, we are flying over the Grand Canyon. Cool Dad, as they have the window shades down glued to their technology. I do require shades up below 10,000 feet and if in icing conditions, though. The default flying condition.



But is there a difference between voluntarily pulling the shades down, and not having a window at all?

And today they announced Flexjet plans to buy 300 of them. It's all hopes until money changes hands, but they do have some decent VC funding.

https://ottoaerospace.com/news/otto-aer ... h-flexjet/

Well if Flexjets buys 300 of them, should be able to get some depreciated P300's for pennies (well maybe quarters) on the dollar.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but I put Otto in the same category as the Moller Skycar and Karem Aircraft. They conjure up a design concept with fantastical claims and numbers, roll out a mockup, and produce glossy marketing materials. They pump it out to general media who have no aviation specific knowledge in hopes that someone will be sucker enough to pick up. When they do they use that press to bring in equally un-savvy investors. Lather, rinse, repeat. The goods ones can keep it going for decades.

It's tempting to say if they can get away with it, why do I care. Well the problem is that they are hoovering up all the aviation venture capital/gov't grants/etc..., leaving legit companies with realistic product plans struggling for investment.

I used to work for a small OEM. We had a factory actively building aircraft with an FAA Production Certificate, a good basic product, and plenty of ideas for new aircraft and meaningful upgrades to our existing ones. We are actually doing, building aircraft, day in and day out. We couldn't get a friggin' dime of investment. And the State building us a new factory? Forgettaboutit.

In the meantime we read about some startup that has gotten millions in investment, a US Army grant, and States are fighting over tax breaks and free factories to woo them, and if someone spent even ten minutes looking at the FARs they'd realize this startup is on crack. You are going to FAA certify AND put into production a single channel fly by wire tiltrotor in 2-3 years? Really?

And they fail. And investors learn not to invest in aerospace. And we continue to fly 50 year old designs powered by magnetos and leaded gas.

The free market is a messy place. Still the best thing out there.

old rule in venture capital

the crazier and more outlandish it looks the more money it gets. A practical well thought out product aimed at a good market can't get funding.

A good one showing this rule is Eco Motor. 25 million from Gates, old idea shown in a strange form still nowhere the efficiency of a modern diesel

a good design using modern technology that runs on any available gas and eliminates the 100LL problem with excellent efficiency, cannot get any investment. https://flyadept.co.za/ it looks too normal.

It would take a lot longer than 2-3 years, more like never.