Otto Celera 800 vs. Celera 500L Showdown 

Thanks for sharing, I was just wondering is Otto a Australia company? I was looking for Otto Aviation in the US.

@@rickyt11 They are from the US. Look for their site Otto Aviation. They are located in Yorba Linda, California.

Always impressive to see two bots speaking to each other!

I'm from 2150 , what the f* are you saying ? what future ? we are no longer flying on this old " bs " ))) what future ? lol

Thank you for your reply

Much appreciated

Claims are fun. Delivering is revolutionary. That is why everyone makes BIG claims to raise capital to pursue ideas. There is no requirement for the claims or ideas to be good or practical to get funding.

yeh the claims are to extreme to probably be true@@Factory400

Battery technology predates the piston engine. Physics and material science is already mature. "A little" isn't enough to be viable, and "near future" isn't very likely for anything that carries cargo beyond itself.

Thank you for your comment! Yes, the concept is outstanding! Do you think it will ever take off?

Well you clearly are not an Aero Eng. Every aircraft flys' with such airfoils. These chumps are only talking about one form of drag. Their claims are pure Bull Shit and aircraft already fly at the stated mpg as the person in this vid lied or is utterly ignorant just as you are... the Celera 500 is flying at ~200knts, and ALL those aircraft that have been previously built out of CF, NO ONE will buy as they fly too damned slow for business aviation as has been proven multiple multiple multiple times over the last 40 years. Guys building aircraft in their garage will buy kits and plans though occasionally. Likewise there are mutliple 500knot aircraft as well which are identical as this 2nd joke. There hasn't been anything new in aviation for 20 years and that was the F35B. This reminds me of the Dark Aero idiots thinking they will sell their aircraft... Yea, maybe 2 or 4 of them.

Seriously, you're an Aeronautical Engineer? Shill more like it.

Clearly not a decision maker...

As an engineer you should know why those „imperfect“ designs exist. Catchphrases would be: manufacturability, customer demand, safety regulations, operational bandwith… of course you can design an airframe, that can do ONE thing really good, but will suck at everything else. So to make it useable, you have to make compromises… and i can tell you: almost no customer will accept a windowless airplane…no matter how advantageous the drag reduction would be. 😂

@@bendo7418 Boom Supersonic faces the same issues.

Thank you for your reply

If we look at the Boeing 787 fuselage surface , which is made of carbon fiber it is quite a smooth fuselage compared to old school sheet metals riveted together.

@@alex630710 yup, we've had that in small planes for some years now. Scaling it up to an airliner is certainly challenging but is beginning to be implemented as you said. Im not really talking about MAKING the plane smooth tho, Im talking about KEEPING it smooth in day to day operations.

Upkeep is worth the time....when time is money.

@@marcalvarez4890 well, upkeep while the plane is in flight actively accumulating particulates might prove difficult. And again, these particulates matter if your performance is predicated on laminar flow. Upkeep on the ground is more practical, however any time a plane spends not flying is potential lost revenue. An increase in maintenance for engines right now is costing airlines millions, not because of the cost of the maintenance but because of the increase engine off-wing time.

Yup, that's my first worry. If this thing flies through a rainstorm just after take-off, it may have trouble climbing out. A cloud of insects early in the flight could keep it from reaching its destination. Some high-performance sailplanes have wing-wipers that slide along the leading edge. Maybe they should get some.

Nobody operates a 400 mph, high altitude aircraft without a full de-icing system. Have they demonstrated that? Has one even flown with any seats in the cabin? The FAA doesn't sign off on concept drawings in a sales brochure.

They made a flying prototype, most companies never get past the digital mockup stage.

@kehreazerith3016 True. The prototype is a big step. Commercial certification is a leap across the Grand Canyon. Lets see how they do.

Sometimes youd rather trade speed for efficiency, This woud still be more efficient than classic business jets.

The planes dont even have a section on their website. They specifically use old footage to make it look like this is a well established and successful company, when in truth no one knows these people. All they have is some research papers and a CGI rendering of a plane, which means its over a decade away from being FAA certified. Boom Supersonic is on the verge on bankruptcy, even though they are backed by Boeing, have orders from major airlines and get some funding by the USAF for a potential future Air Force One. These guys have absolutely nothing, just another tech scam that wants VC funding by overpromising and using pretty renderings.

It sounds like AI generated copy.

Apply laminar improvements to a flying wing? Boeing's promo for a prototype based on the X-48 showed configurations for passenger as well as bomber service.

How huge can the diameter get before the laminar improvements are defeated? Imagine a shorter A380!

Maybe not for airliners, but there are plenty of little private jets flying all over the place and I'm sure there's at least a couple millionaires/billionaires who would buy one of these just for the uniqueness.

SpaceX makes composite tubes far bigger.

@@ianweniger6620 apparently the supercomputer models cranked out the largest one being about this size for the 800 or a little larger. Not quite a people mover but not a execu jet either

There is a bankruptcy somewhere inbetween

Agreed. You would think that reducing drag is top priority for every automaker out there. If it was that easy & cost effective, everyone would do it. But alas, money & time are the enemy & if you want a product that is not too expensive & also low maintenance (& compatible with all the infrastructures), you got to settle for 'good enough'. Good luck to them but I won't be holding my breath.

What in the hell is going on with all the pessimism here. You have to start somewhere. What have Boeing and Airbus been doing for the past 60 years. Cigar with wings, and then 0h, oh, oh, yeah, little winglets, oh wow!

@@steveperreira5850 These companies have tried a lot in their research and experimental facilities you can be sure and they are proud to save 3% with latest steps. There is a lot of illusion and wishful thinking but feasibility and economics have to be respected too.

​@@steveperreira5850 people aren't pessimists, Airbus, Boeing, and many many more have worked on those studies on their own or in collaboration, conducted experiments and trials, then projected the (promising?) feature /concept on a practical scale, and concluded it's unsafe, economically suicidal, or unproven efficient. That's the reason why you don't have flying personal car as of yet despite all the above struggling for a century to come up with something that works. It just happens those men and women studying the things aren't here on youtube to explain (they work, they don't have time to have fun like the guys doing shitty clickbait videos about some imaginary technology that will change air travel forever). The industry still exists despite increasing challenges thanks to *inevitable compromises.* It is very sad the trend is to implant false hopes into people instead of explaining what are the challenges and why the present and (near) future context imposes some concerns and restrictions. Look at youtube and other social medias: people are used to clickbaits and comments complains more about lengthy informations/explanations than thanking for being accurate and on point (common sense and mental honesty). Please read the informative (pessimistic?) comments and learn why and how : laminar isn't new, but it's expensive and poses a serious bankruptcy risk for every manufacturer. Among other minor and less major concerns, the classic way of engineering aircraft has proven much more efficient (mass production, delivery schedule, costs, certification) and much less risky (proof of concept, flexibility, cheap but safe)...

Ir isn’t hype. . Wind-shear affects all aircraft. Turbojet aircraft have longer engine spool up time to power their way out of a loss of relative wind or angle of attack suddenly increasing due to a rapidly increasing tailwind. The laminar flow wing won’t be” hurt” more by windshear. I didn’t stay at Holiday Inn Express last night but I am a 37 year commercial pilot.

shear

What about it? Is it a particular concern for this aircraft?

​@@peredavi a nuance : windshear affects more light and slow aircraft. Furthermore, the electric hype fails to address one concern : such aircraft have constant weight through the whole lap while fossil fuel aircraft are usually lighter upon arrival (burnt fuel). In case of a go around, a jet fuel aircraft is more likely to pack much more TOGA energy than an electric vehicle, the later tailored to be as efficient as possible, therefore, likely to save weight til just enough thrust to climb; incidentally, does not have the sheer power of a jet fuel based aircraft go around potential. (I mention electric as a potential outcome since it's sooo popular these days..) Since the plan here is to get as efficient as possible, the vehicle will get as lightweight as possible. The laminar fuselage will pose size restrictions, we have both light and small at the same time. Also, a laminar fuselage paired with small wings (to save weight) is most efficient with no crosswind, while the fuselage thicknesses gets more sensible to wind direction variations at low speed. I wonder if windshear is really a non issue in this very case (?)

Until it is certified, there is nothing for Amazon to jump on. A ton, you say. A six seater has about a 1200 pound useful load after you put fuel in it. Hard to make a ton of money with an air freighter that can only carry a little more than a half ton.

According to another video, test flights for the 800 are planned for 2025. That's pretty good time, but they have probably been working on the 800 concurently since the program started. I don't see much that could be called a drawback to this design, other than the fact that it doesn't appear to scale up to larger aircraft. The unique shape required by the fuselage for laminar flow, limits it's size. You can't just make it longer without making it wider. So it looks like it will be an optimized design, aimed at business class jets. At least to start. It should dominate the market in that space I would think, making conventional business jets practically obsolete. Once the design is tested, you have FAA certification. That takes approximately 5-9 years for a new aircraft, but that would depend on what stage of certification, if any, that they are at now. That's my unqualified opinion. Take it for what it's worth. They seem to have a strong team and business model and a great product concept that is essentially proven in it's design. Can't wait to see one in the air.

At least someone is asking for analysis (I hate hype and empty claims). Laminar flow isn't new, actually more than 60 years of studies, as you see, even the wind tunnel footage is older than most of us, and laminar wings have flown for 40 decades already (eg : Dassault Falcon 50). As for a laminar fuselage, it isn't new either, the Sukhoi 27 Flanker is one very nice example, an aircraft that can fly without its main wings. Problem is, as stated, SIZE. The bigger the aircraft, the fatter it gets, at some point, you'd better change plans to a blimp rather than a sturdy fuselage with wings because it becomes TOO heavy (structural strengthening), and no, composites won't help much. Because you have a size limit, the purpose of your vehicle is limited to a niche : something small, private, no heavy cargo, either a private jet/turboprop, or a small 2, 4 or 6 seater piston / EV. That's not new : Paternavia P68, Piaggio P180 Avanti, Lancair Columbia... And because you have a bunch of competitors on the market, both conventional design (efficient enough so far and proven profitability) and slightly on the edge (ego centered marketing), you, as a manufacturer, won't sell thousands of units, more likely a few hundreds (is it profitable?) Now, manufacturing and maintenance wise, such fuselage and wings are likely to be moulded/printed as a whole, when they are damaged, you cut big holes and replace/reseal. That's no small feat, and very expensive. Why? Because a cylindrical fuselage can have multiple sections, and many of those sections are nearly identical, you can design sections in such a way few minor changes via very few tooling alterations can finalize the assembly of an entire fuselage (also, provides you a comfortable room for changes/improvements depending on customer demands/expectations). Now, with a laminar fuselage, your PRODUCTION (incl. R&D) and spare parts logistics & supply skyrocket like hell. If it happens clients aren't satisfied by the prototype characteristics and performances, you'll probably go bankrupt as you can't afford to revise an entire production line in your factory. That's the invisible but very real cost/risk difference between "simple/easy (cylinder)" designs and "fine tuned/complex (laminar)" designs. You can be "perfect", but nobody cares because you're not cost/time efficient.. Everybody can claim to be an engineer (or whatever), who's right and who's wrong doesn't matter, actually, everybody is both right and wrong at the same time. What matters is "does it actually makes sense as a WHOLE?" You don't just look at it as an aeronautical engineer claiming "it's possible and it works", of course it does, but at what cost? You don't just look at it as a philanthropist who believe in the future, if you aren't the one to decide, you must at least put yourself in the shoes of who do : there are a bunch of safety regulations in the industry, which translate in several hundred or tons of equipments in the vehicle eating up on payload and fuel/batteries, so, an empty prototype is NOT enough to get airworthiness certificate, most flying EV projects fail to pay attention to those concerns, and in the end the development end in a vehicle several times LESS efficient than claimed (once you equip them with systems and safety components, a LOT of dead weight dragging range, speed, service altitude, everything down). Finally, that electric hype... On the ground wherr roads prevent you from sinking in the depths of Earth, okay, we can rule out one problem, but for flying vehicles, you must fight gravity. And in the battle of energy types, nothing as of yet beats fossil fuel : one kilogram of jet fuel packs MANY TIMES the enery you can store in one kilogram of whatever best worldwide electric battery that exists now and in the near future. Fossil fuel is so CHEAP to produce... Don't be fooled, laminar components is one thing, you can't pull the electric aircraft joker to look smart and sell the idea, those are absolutely unrelated, the only advantage of electric is being quiet, it's not even cleaner when you computes how much pollution the production of battery cells induces (from where come the components and to what extend the damages from their extraction/refinement/assembly? - No, batteries aren't cleaner than fossil fuel, you just displace the pollution in poor ill fated countries..)

@@StephenKarl_Integral I really enjoyed your analysis of problems to overcome. About the only advantage this plane has is a claimed 25 MPG and 4k nm range and 400 knot cruise speed. Is this realistic? My guess is it achieves 25 MPG at it's lightest configuration and at a much lower speed. Fully loaded and at 400 knots the MPG will be much lower?

@@gabrielteo3636 To achieve range, for a fossil/bio fuel jet (incl. turboprop), you need to fly high, and reach that altitude fast. Therefore, you need power, high lift large wings or unrestricted speed with small wings. In the video, they want small wings, biofuel engine and power is not an issue, the concern is actual conditions and regulations (traffic, weather, ATC instructions, runway characteristics...) Since a substantial amount of fuel is consumed during taxi and climb, and the fuel tanks seemingly fit in the (fat) fuselage alone, practically, a small business jet/turboprop is the only option here since they have less restrictions on low altitude speed, climb... It appears they made the right choice of purpose. 4000 nm is realistic, such private jets already exist, the question is indeed "how to achieve 25 miles per gal or less". The answer is always "save weight and reduce drag", and they seemingly flawlessly addressed those issues. I believe the speed, range and capacity are pretty accurate. The fuel consumption depends mostly on how much weight you can save, for an almost all composite aircraft, seems realistic. On the drag part, I'm not that optimistic since real operation condition is a very different world with a huge ton of imperfections, compared to a clean demonstration flight where everything is planned, you constantly run into troubles in everyday flights. But, yeah, definitely, the concept should outmatch most competitors........ in terms of characteristics and performances... Unfortunately, that's not all. The video, like so many others only talks about being the most efficient, like an engineer bragging about his/her cutting edge breakthrough, and sure, I praise the dedication and expertise, but engineers alone don't make the industry : the aircraft is very fuel efficient, but how much it cost to buy, to operate (incl. everything besides fuel), to maintain? This analysis phase always reminds me of travellers astonished by ground crew fixing issues with duct tape... unaware that's the efficient way to proceed. In a broad way, the amount of issues on a everyday operation basis is immense, you always run into something to fix, it being dead bugs on a wing leading edge, small holes in the fuselage/below the wing, a leak, an inoperative component... and that's all *costs,* in the way of consumables, crew/qualification, logistics, *time...* Fuel saving is a *tiny variable* in the actual operating cost of an aircraft. The big problems here are, manifacturer-side : - an almost impossible to alter design without substantial investments in tooling and materials (how will you cope with design changes, what will be the unit price?) - the ability from a startup to supply spare parts around the globe fast (you don't just rollout and sell n-number of units, you also manufacture spares, make stocks and contract with suppliers to dispatch them, that's a substantial amount of personnel with salary and logistics, plus the qualification timing for every ground crew you pay beforehand, that you partially include in each airframes sale) - since you heavily invested in composites, you promptly repair on demand on top of spare stocks) and you must have the means to intervene on the other side of the planet. Most likely, your way out (manufacturer) is to either get absorbed by a major manufacturer like Airbus, or find a philanthropic billionaire to sell the concept, to get the funds. In both ways, history tells it rarely ended great. Corporations/institutions (Airbus, Boeing, FAA/EASA, logistics... the whole industry) have their own standard of "good enough", the concept will likely end in small increments of sparse cutting edge technologies (like TV windows to start with, and we wait, something else will come one by one, but not as early as suggested by those videos). Sometimes like Rutan crafts and other small companies funded by private investors, you fail to demonstrate the future of aviation for being too small, too few airframes, in the end, it wasn't a game changer, and that's why you don't only focus on characteristics like an engineer........ (I'm not sad telling this, I understand how the whole thing works). The Piaggio P180 Avanti is already flying as (to me) the closest almost standard rendition of the concept, not entirely composites, and just a turboprop. We may expect, if Otto pursues its goal and pulls the safe card, something similar. For a jet, the leap from a turboprop demonstrator to a production line business jet is too great of a risk, tapping in very different ranges of speed, altitude, airframe endurance.. while you're a startup, can you bear the costs to get there and make profits? (don't be another vaporware) Mostly assumptions on my part, but one must face actual concerns through the wole journey of a type history, not discard skepticism just because "too many we don't know for sure"; drone like vehicles face similar concerns, even worse, they bring a ton of serious safety issues, reason why it's still a long way before anyone can casually travel in those, the entire picture has more huge hidden challenges youtube videos consistently fail to communicate (sorry, last time ranting about, I believe people should discuss serious matters as a token they are indeed in the expectation, but won't tolerate scam 😅)

@@gabrielteo3636 A few side notes : - range is rarely the reason to select and buy a type. Costs is the main reason, but in this niche, runway constraints also play a major role. Let's suppose we have a 5-8 seater private jet of that size, the vast majority of flown routes will be in the 1500-3000 nm range (Europe, South-east Asia, Continental US..) Since the concept has small wings with degraded lifting devices potential (because laminar as much as possible), and engines will be powerful enough to climb fast, but not enough to pick up speed cause must save weight/don't mount heavy powerful engines, it will use a substantial length of runway on take off........ In the 1500-3000nm private jet range window, operators are *much more* interested by the number of serviceable airports (short runways, especially in Europe) than how fuel efficiency the aircraft is... That doesn't mean the product won't sell, there are other ways to mitigate the issue, like proposing a lighter version with less range, but ultimately, this still affects the number of projected unit sales... - the concept demonstrates its fuel saving prowess via longer cruising... That's why similar aircraft with extraordinary performances in their respective era are *rare.* The emphase on cruising performances with that low of number of seats further narrows the interest, few operators have enough sealed contracts of regular operations of such longer routes that the need for an aircraft that optimized remains low. Otto must further find ways to reduce production and maintenance costs, which require the provision of a perfect model on the first try at the right time, you won't sell thousands of that airframe, better avoid miscalculations (the right time is replacing aging fleet of a type with similar purpose without much competition, or propose outstanding operating costs). - hopefully, the private aviation side of the industry is less picky about costs, wealthy figures will still pay to rent a plane on a trip. The business model is to have various types at various hourly costs, operators can manage to position the laminar gem the moment a client demand matches the best case to operate the plane to sell the service via sweet words 😛 - long story short, but with all I've said summed, the concept is great, but it's not the right time and the risks are too high. Maybe the manufacturer is communicating for support, and that's great, but realistic course of action would be to scale down the goals and aim for a much conventional design and characteristics/performances (something like "bite only what you can chew", sorry english is not my first tongue). Even go turboprop instead, you can still have incredible range and sufficient fuel consumption performances if you can use more composites and add more seats... Embraer 120, Jetstream 31... A 20-30 seater fast commuter is still in demand nowadays and in the near future, focus on weight reduction, not drag.. Cessna is focused on its STOL 20 seater twin prop. Piper, I don't know, Embraer is busy with E-Jets and its military lifter, Airbus (incl. entangled branches of former Paternavia and Piaggio)/Boeing can't enter the market yet.... 🤔

These factors also are in play on a conventional airliner. So if conditions can deteriorate air flow, it will also deteriorate for all planes. This shape will be always more efficient.

@@adrianomuller3569 heard that story many times before and none have ever lasted.

@@alandavis6429 There is the issue of the non-cylindrical shape for high altitudes, but there is nothing preventing structural improvements to compensate for that. Of course, there will always be setbacks, but eventually, even if we don't live to see it, more aerodynamic shapes will become the standard for aerial vehicles relying on aerodynamic lift.

@@adrianomuller3569 Not true. Laminar flow wings are much more susceptible to change in wing lift due to surface contamination. Rain, bugs and dirt…

More than you think can be done with full electric control, such as flyby wire. Think for just a second, such as the idea of a forward winglet that can retract or extend to compensate for the changing sensor of lift, Or as you know, with liquid fuel you can do it that way also. There are a lot of dull, Doctrinaire and Pessimistic people commenting here. Sad to say. Boo! Boo!

That is a good point. I don’t know if the BD-5 Had that shape because of anticipated lower drag. I doubt it, but maybe so. No matter what the shape need to take into account some measure of reducing drag

@@steveperreira5850 The BD-5 absolutely had that shape to reduce drag. The original concept was advertised promising that the absolute minimum drag would allow the plane to fly 170mph on 35 HP.

I'm not really seeing the resemblance. Round nose, propellor in back, but the actual shape of the fuselage, nope. The 500 L is mid-wing, BD-5, low wing, and the canopy of the BD-5 is practically a quarter of the fuselage total surface. BD5's fuselage is flat on the bottom and rear sides. The BD-5's fuselage had nothing to do with laminar shapes, the entire concept behind the 500L.

@@herbertshallcross9775 You really think the 500 L is a mid wing? You must be watching a different video. The BD-5 had everything to do with laminar shapes, the entire concept behind the BD-5.

The possibility for misidentification exists .The OTTO Celera 500L is the porky-looking mid-wing with the pusher turbo diesel engine. That plane actually exists, but is far from production-ready. The OTTO Celera 800 is a design concept, a paper airplane that would have two rear-mounted turbofan engines, a slightly swept low wing and an OLED video screen instead of windows (I hope just for the passengers, and not the pilots). The Bede BD-5 did use laminar flow airfoils for at least the wing. I haven't bee able to determine what airfoils the rudder and stabilator used. The fuselage was not any intentional laminar flow shape. The computer modeling OTTO used to create the shape of the 500L simply did not exist in the early 1970's. Jim Bede was impressed by the cockpit of a new sailplane design and he incorporated his impression of that with some TLAR(That Looks About Right) engineering to come up with the fuselage shape. The airfoils Bede picked for the wing roots were probably a poor choice. A home-builder modified his, and provided patterns and instructions for other homebuilders to scab on (his words) styrofoam blocks to the aluminum wing skins, sand them to shape and fiberglass over them. He got about 15 mph better landing speed and a much safer stall break. Early projected numbers for the BD 5 were nearly 200 mph on 40 hp. A little rosier than even your numbers .

This will be faster per unit of fuel. BWB will be more space efficient.

BWBs get clobbered on scaling for passenger use. if you get too far from the centerline of the aircraft, every little tilt makes the outermost passengers airsick.

@@kenreynolds1000 Yes. Our advanced design guys figured this out 25 years ago. The current ones aren’t B2 bomber like. They are wide rcenter fuselages with wings on them.

No. The planes dont even have a section on their website. They specifically use old footage to make it look like this is a well established and successful company, when in truth no one knows these people. All they have is some research papers and a CGI rendering of a plane, which means its over a decade away from being FAA certified. Boom Supersonic is on the verge on bankruptcy, even though they are backed by Boeing, have orders from major airlines and get some funding by the USAF for a potential future Air Force One. These guys have absolutely nothing, just another tech scam that wants VC funding by overpromising and using pretty renderings.

The next prototype is always just around the corner. Meanwhile, please invest your millions into our company,

Will that be enough to prevent claustrophobia? You don't want passengers clawing at the door latches .

Is this like the biodiesel that comes from used cooking oil? If somebody was going to put that in the fryer again, I hope the board of health was notified.

Apparently there is one, undergoing flight tests. No one knows what one fully equipped with everything that would be necessary for a certified aircraft would weigh, or perform like. You don't operate a passenger carrying aircraft over 20,000 feet without pressurization, but I haven't seen any mention of pressurization. Or de-icing. They apparently are still pretty far away from a type certificate.

@@herbertshallcross9775 They are all 10 yeas away for more than ten yeas. I have seen project after project. Not one ever gets past protype stage. Not 1.

the operating cost alone would be a no brainer even if it was as much as a twin jet IMHO

Your skepticism raises valid points and highlights some key concerns about the Otto Celera 800 project. It's essential to critically examine the claims made by any company, especially when it comes to revolutionary advancements in technology. Let's break down your observations: Buzzwords and Promotion: Acknowledging the use of buzzwords, slick promotional material, and fancy engineering terms is a prudent observation. Companies often employ these strategies to generate interest and attract investment, particularly in the growing space of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investments. Repackaging Existing Technology: Your point about the laminar flow lifting body concept not being entirely new and having been tried before is accurate. Innovations often build on previous attempts, and the challenge lies in whether the current iteration can overcome past limitations and deliver on its promises. Challenges with Laminar Flow: Your concerns about maintaining laminar airflow in real-world conditions due to external factors like antennas, protrusions, water drops, or dust are valid. Achieving and sustaining laminar flow is indeed a significant challenge in aerodynamics, and the success of the Celera 800 would depend on its ability to mitigate these issues effectively. Manufacturing and Operational Challenges: Questioning how the aircraft will be manufactured, operated, and serviced is a crucial consideration. The absence of windows, leading-edge wing devices, rivets, seams, or joints raises practical questions about the feasibility and complexity of production and maintenance processes. In conclusion, your skepticism prompts critical thinking about the practicality and viability of the Otto Celera 800. While the concept may sound promising, addressing the challenges you've highlighted will be crucial for the project's success. Investors and aviation enthusiasts should indeed approach such innovations with a cautious and discerning mindset. Only time will reveal whether the Otto Celera 800 lives up to its ambitious claims or faces the challenges inherent in pushing the boundaries of conventional aircraft design.

@@aviapages Thanks for the ChatGPT generated reply

You're welcome! If you have any more questions or if there's anything else you'd like to discuss, feel free to let me know. I'm here to help! :)

This isn't a promotional video; our intention is to gather information about this model and share it with our subscribers for informational purposes. We refrain from making judgments on whether a project is commendable or not, leaving that prerogative to our viewers :). I appreciate your perspective, but, as always, time will be the ultimate arbitrator. Sorry for the response from Chatgpt, it seemed to me that it provides detailed answers to your comment. We have no right to discuss such details ourselves.

@@aviapages Yikes!

Well said!

It’s OLED screens.

I agree, I would rather see at least the cockpit have real windows, so the pilots could see out in case of a digital system failure. Beautiful design!

@@matthewwallace9280 Yes, so true about the possibility of system failure. Part of the reason people love to fly is because of the views. When I fly I want to see the real thing, not a reprojection on a SCREEN. May as well stay home and watch a video of a flight then. AND if those screens fail, what now?

@@Rico11b Seeing the world from a bird's eye view - that's precisely why I learned to fly... 35 years ago. No longer current but still love it!

Do some reading on structural engineering, and you'll see why. A unit body will be FAR FAR more weight efficient than punching holes in the side of a tube. The windows on submersibles are insanely heavy for a reason.

@@marcalvarez4890 For real??? We are NOT talking about submersibles that go down deep and have to deal with TONS of pressure. We're talking about windows in SUBSONIC aircraft.

Those digital windows show up because real windows weigh more and are much weaker than un-penetrated fuselage skin. Putting the structure in to carry the loads around those openings could get heavy, expensive and have a serious impact on performance. Lots of airline passengers don't want anything to do with the windows. How much do people need to avoid claustrophobia? Could you just paint clouds on the cabin wall?

@@herbertshallcross9775 I totally understand the motivation to eliminate actual windows but pretending a screen right by your head is anything like a window is dumb.

An aircraft designer would agree that passenger windows create a structural problem, but passengers have shown a great preference for them. I think OLED screens instead of windows wouldn't work to passify claustrophobic passengers, but they may work well enough to attract investors, which is what the pretty pictures are for. @@peetiegonzalez1845

keep your day job

@@blondegirlsezthis8798 You mean I'm *not* going to take the world by storm as a stand-up comedian? 🤔

@@runem5429 well i can see better nursing homes across the southland giving you a sitting ovation

I just saw a video about a guy in the 1930's who claimed to have created a motor that could power an ocean liner to Europe and back on a gallon of water. Whenever investors started asking "Where is this marvelous motor?", he would regale them with even grander ideas for an even more wonderful motor. He kept those balls in the air for ten years and never actually produced anything. It does make you wonder...

Thank you for such an insightful comment. It's an interesting perspective. Innovations always face many obstacles; it's much harder than just taking existing technologies and creating a similar product. 9 out of 10 startups never make it to the finish line. The Celera 800 is essentially the 500, but improved. You have to agree - even if they don't succeed, it's a very noble attempt that deserves respect. But we wish them luck and believe that everything will work out.

You have no idea what you're talking about

@@kehreazerith3016 Prove it.

Fighting industrial espionage ?

Fighting industrial espionage ?

Fighting industrial espionage ?

Fighting industrial espionage ?

Fighting industrial espionage ?

yup i just posted a comment about Alaska Airlines buying a dozen and painting them like Orcas!