banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 19:29 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 244 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2021, 12:40 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19766
Post Likes: +19431
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
Autoland is a very expensive system. Not all airliners are equipped, very far from it.
It's only multi-crew, requires 6 month-recurrent training (which is why many airlines choose to be Cat2 only).
It can only be flown at a rather limited set of CAT3 airports, and when one chooses to do that, the regulation/spacing crawls to a slow pace.
Not to mention that not all Cat3 planes are cat3c. Ours is autoland, but it requires pilot input a few seconds after touchdown. I'll spare you the rather lower xwind limitations* as well.

So you see, even 55 years later, it's not autonomous. Or single pilot.

As to mil drones (or civ), the reliability is nowhere in the ball park of every day operations at an airline.

Please feel free to believe modern tech is reliable enough, and that latency is not an issue. There is no question that you must think of solutions which elude me.
I am not saying it's not possible, just that your firmly-positive assertion should be, in my opinion (and much more modest experience, which I acknowledge :oops: ), a bit more nuanced.

Non merci to the nuance.

I'll let Rocky's observation of the Garmin Autonomi system stand on its own merits. Airline autoland is based on ancient technology that is already obsolete. We can do much better with less.

That said, the original point centered around synthetic forward vision, which I contend is possible with current technology. Is it available today? Maybe not. Could it be if someone wanted to develop and certify the system? I would say yes. Crazier things have happened. This isn't a stretch.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2021, 13:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/31/12
Posts: 3094
Post Likes: +5447
Company: French major
Location: France
Aircraft: Ejet
Can I ask, in the nicest possible way, are you cat3 rated?
Not a put-down, just for me to understand better.

Regarding autonomi, that's a fair point, if you understand the limitations of the system. Again, the problem with automatic landing is beyond the tech onboard a plane. Look at what happens in a big airport when LVP are in progress. Expect TSAT/slots.

I appreciate that you must be fed up with me being argumentative. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's a very interesting and stimulating exchange for me.
So let me end on a question/scenario, regarding synthetic vision.

At the moment, between the outside and me, there is a 2 or 3-pane window. Its failure modes are quite well-known, and relatively limited:
-frosting/icing
-FOD/birdstrike
-failure of the seals/install and inflight quick removal

Instead, let's put a screen, and consider that technology has evolved in such way that there is no issue with latency, parallax, energy, etc.
Let's disregard the risks of a big screen, the fatigue on the eyes, etc.

it's a bad day, electrical failure. Everything shuts down but the standby horizon. Lucky us, we're not at 50000ft.

In my plane with outside vision, I can land anywhere VMC. If I am really unlucky, I shoot a cat1 ILS on the stdby, and I can vacate the runway. Or even go around if I see something on said runway.

In my plane with SV, I only can fly the ILS on the stby, that's it. Arguably, can't see anything at minimum, but it's mayday so carry on. With the clock running on the battery. Can't vacate. Can't see what's on the runway. Simply can't see outside.

I don't think the 1 or 2% in fuel savings created by a slimmer nose are worth the risk.
Nevertheless it is more than possible you have the right idea, and are faced with an interlocutor who can't see beyond the old ways.

_________________
Singham!


Last edited on 12 Oct 2021, 13:05, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2021, 13:03 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/05/11
Posts: 9553
Post Likes: +6409
Company: Power/mation
Location: Milwaukee, WI (KMKE)
Aircraft: 1963 Debonair B33
Rather than the idea of "screen" or "windshield", can't it be a windshield and a HUD?

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2021, 14:00 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/18/11
Posts: 7681
Post Likes: +3685
Location: Lakeland , Ga
Aircraft: H35, T-41B, Aircoupe
Some folks can do it.
https://pioneersofflight.si.edu/content ... ind-flight

I flew our king air twice to flare using only garmin 600 with synthetic vision. Probably could have touched down smootHly both times buT safety pilot said look up.
Aspen not quite good, we seem to have no problem with simulator screens.
Reality is they will get good visibility.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2021, 14:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/26/15
Posts: 9514
Post Likes: +8745
Company: airlines (*CRJ,A320)
Location: Florida panhandle
Aircraft: Travel Air,T-6B,etc*
Username Protected wrote:
Rather than the idea of "screen" or "windshield", can't it be a windshield and a HUD?

Speaking as someone with some hours flying from the back seat of a tandem cockpit, my view directly to the front greatly obscured by a student's helmet, seat, and canopy/windshield structure, I thought my own HUD back there would have been a very nice thing to have during approaches to minimums as well as many common flying situations- even though the HUD symbology would have been projected onto nothing "real" out front or the part of the real world that was visible from my vantage point. What I mean by that is I would have actually liked the HUD there in addition to the same coping methods to takeoff, fly, and land from a seating position of pretty lousy forward visibility.

That's just one pilot's opinion (little ol' me).

Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, different from the other examples we're discussing like the Celera forward view (or Lindbergh's periscope, Concorde's nose), but the common thing is the pilot's forward view being compromised in order to achieve some other design goal.


In my example of a training airplane, any benefit of a second HUD for the rear cockpit isn't worth the added expense, but it's a good question for a different airplane like the Celera.

:shrug:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2021, 17:17 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19766
Post Likes: +19431
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
Can I ask, in the nicest possible way, are you cat3 rated?
Not a put-down, just for me to understand better.

Regarding autonomi, that's a fair point, if you understand the limitations of the system. Again, the problem with automatic landing is beyond the tech onboard a plane. Look at what happens in a big airport when LVP are in progress. Expect TSAT/slots.

I appreciate that you must be fed up with me being argumentative. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's a very interesting and stimulating exchange for me.
So let me end on a question/scenario, regarding synthetic vision.

At the moment, between the outside and me, there is a 2 or 3-pane window. Its failure modes are quite well-known, and relatively limited:
-frosting/icing
-FOD/birdstrike
-failure of the seals/install and inflight quick removal

Instead, let's put a screen, and consider that technology has evolved in such way that there is no issue with latency, parallax, energy, etc.
Let's disregard the risks of a big screen, the fatigue on the eyes, etc.

it's a bad day, electrical failure. Everything shuts down but the standby horizon. Lucky us, we're not at 50000ft.

In my plane with outside vision, I can land anywhere VMC. If I am really unlucky, I shoot a cat1 ILS on the stdby, and I can vacate the runway. Or even go around if I see something on said runway.

In my plane with SV, I only can fly the ILS on the stby, that's it. Arguably, can't see anything at minimum, but it's mayday so carry on. With the clock running on the battery. Can't vacate. Can't see what's on the runway. Simply can't see outside.

I don't think the 1 or 2% in fuel savings created by a slimmer nose are worth the risk.
Nevertheless it is more than possible you have the right idea, and are faced with an interlocutor who can't see beyond the old ways.

I am not Cat III rated. I toyed with getting the certification while in college in my dad's Arrow just for fun but never had time to jump through the hoops. I do realize that system is fairly complex and not very versatile. I'm not advocating its use in this application, rather using it as an example that automated landings can be done. Autonomi would have been a better example to lead with.

I don't mind the discussion. I am not prepared to debate the practicality of the Celera design; this is an academic exercise.

The original discussion was not around auto-land, but rather forward vision, so let's give a nod to Autonomi as an emergency system and move on to forward visibility for normal operations...

We seem to agree that technologically, a system could be made which would provide real-time forward vision with suitable redundancy and reliability. I won't entertain the eye strain argument simply because we already fly behind screens in conditions similar to those that Celera would, namely instrument approaches.

Emergency operations would be a valid concern, however you would have to be in IMC down to minimums and lose both screens before the situation became grave, and even then the solution is the same in VMC or IMC; fly what you have down to the flare, kick in some rudder to visually acquire the landing surface, flare and remove the rudder. Not ideal, but it's an "emergency".

Here's where I think the whole thing actually would fall down: See and avoid. Flying around and landing are not the problem, but the certifying agencies are not likely to be OK with the idea that you cannot see what's in front of you. Not everyone has TCAS or even a transponder. In VMC we're required to see and avoid other traffic, which simply cannot be reliably accomplished without forward visibility. I would agree with an argument that even a high resolution camera is not an adequate substitute for a windscreen for that purpose.

Entering and flying a visual pattern at an uncontrolled airport with nothing but SynVis out the front would be a bad dream. Yes, biplane pilots do it, but they can see ahead through most of the pattern. It's on final when the world typically disappears, and then they can kick rudder to move that snout now and then. Celera can't do that because it would have to be moving the nose constantly to see what's ahead, not just on final.

So... it'll be interesting to see how they address the issue.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2021, 23:38 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5521
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Username Protected wrote:

The bigger issue is still the time to climb to 50,000 ft. The airplane is not marketable for short or even medium length trips as there are other airplanes that can do it better at those slow speeds. Even on longer legs, if you convert the gas savings to capital cost savings, I do not see any buyers left.


Why would you need to go to FL500 for a shorter trip? It's a little unfair to call it slow to get up there when in reality, it will only need to get there on the longest legs.

The longer I fly, the more I am about efficiency and less about top performance. Nobody needs to be loved by an oil company - what have they ever done for me?

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2021, 00:28 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3097
Post Likes: +2222
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
Username Protected wrote:

The bigger issue is still the time to climb to 50,000 ft. The airplane is not marketable for short or even medium length trips as there are other airplanes that can do it better at those slow speeds. Even on longer legs, if you convert the gas savings to capital cost savings, I do not see any buyers left.


Why would you need to go to FL500 for a shorter trip? It's a little unfair to call it slow to get up there when in reality, it will only need to get there on the longest legs.

The longer I fly, the more I am about efficiency and less about top performance. Nobody needs to be loved by an oil company - what have they ever done for me?


Why would you buy a 5 million airplane to fly at 190 knots (based on their marketing numbers, and assuming the plane makes them) at 20,000 feet?

It’s not slow because of the climb, it’s slow because it does not have much power. What makes it fast is 50,000 feet. If the airplane had a 25,000 ft service ceiling it would be a very slow, more expensive Epic with severely limited visibility.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2021, 02:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/17/15
Posts: 153
Post Likes: +150
Location: LIMG / EDDK
Aircraft: PA-28 / C172
John, your message is addressing what I was referring before: a safety assessment, for a system that may have Catastrophic outcomings in case of failure.
This is the correct way to address the matter, it is not enough yelling "we have the tech, we can do it" without a clear analysis of the safety and operational requirements (and the failure conditions).
A complete analysis of the system reliability, the required redundancies, common modes failures (and their required dissimilarities, too!), Single Events Upset is part of this process.
Not mentioning SW...
There's a lot to demonstrate before saying it could be done and certified, and the overall resulting cost may not be affordable on a small aircraft.
Thank you to have steered the discussion back on the correct track.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2021, 07:08 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19766
Post Likes: +19431
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
Thank you to have steered the discussion back on the correct track.

Sometimes I just need to talk awhile to fully understand the problem. ;)

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 05 Nov 2021, 21:59 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/31/19
Posts: 284
Post Likes: +195
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC (KMYR)
Aircraft: 1952 Bonanza C35
I'm a little late to this discussion, but have been aware of the Celera for a while. I just read an article that popped into my news feed today. Quote by the company CEO:

He describes the aircraft as "...four to five times the efficiency of other turboprop aircraft, and seven to eight times the efficiency of jet aircraft" -William Otto Jr., CEO

Does this mean that it uses 10-12.5% the fuel of a jet yet still flies just as fast or faster, and has the same range or greater?

In the same article the plane is described as being able to fly 400 knots and have a range of 4,500 miles.

I find these to be dubious claims. Does anyone know for sure if the Celera follows the same laws of physics as other airplanes?

Link to the article:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/celera-500l-business-aircraft-future/index.html


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 05 Nov 2021, 22:38 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Does anyone know for sure if the Celera follows the same laws of physics as other airplanes?

The majority of new aircraft designs announced in any given year follow roughly the same "physics" as this one.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 05 Nov 2021, 23:27 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/18/11
Posts: 1026
Post Likes: +584
Aircraft: Seabee Aerostar 700
those claims seem designed to catch investors with too much money and to little smarts. the Eclipse story is a good example of what happens in the real world.

I view claims of spectacularly better performance as vaporware until a reliable independent observer gets a ride it.

under ideal situations with perfect shape in perfect weather an aircraft potentially can go somewhat faster but in everyday conditions reality sets in.

in a mature technology like aerodynamics I really have the view "show me before I will believe it"

The Piaggio is probably an example of the actual increase in performance available in an actual aircraft.

I seem to remember seeing one of these spectacular (on paper designs) almost every year at OSH funny thing when they actually build and fly one they seem to disappear from view.

Physics is a tough master


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2021, 00:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3097
Post Likes: +2222
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
It’s just a piston aircraft with massive turbocharging designed to fly at a bazillion feet which is ultra efficient. This is not magic. The problem is getting up there in a reasonable amount of time, which they haven’t solved. What they seemed to have solved really well is making it look super goofy and combining that with misleading claims which results in a very high click through rate for online publications.

This is to say nothing of deicing, ultra reliable pressurization system at those dangerous altitudes, and reliably maintaining laminar flow.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Otto Aviation Celera 500L Flew This Week
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2021, 00:57 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5521
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Username Protected wrote:
It’s just a piston aircraft with massive turbocharging designed to fly at a bazillion feet which is ultra efficient. This is not magic. The problem is getting up there in a reasonable amount of time, which they haven’t solved. What they seemed to have solved really well is making it look super goofy and combining that with misleading claims which results in a very high click through rate for online publications.

This is to say nothing of deicing, ultra reliable pressurization system at those dangerous altitudes, and reliably maintaining laminar flow.


Well, the P180 has shown that you can achieve great savings if you design in a fashion that prioritizes laminar flow and drag reduction. Add diesel engines to this and the savings go up. It's not inconceivable that it could achieve 15% of bizjet operating cost, but with less performance.

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 244 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.ei-85x150.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.