Inside Otto Celera 500L: The REVOLUTION In Aviation

Have you ever wondered what inspired the Otto Celera 500L's design? Is it a bullet, a blimp, or an elongated boiled egg? The Otto Celera 500L was the plane that changed aviation history, and it has remained one of the most talked-about aircraft since its debut. The Otto Celera, known for its unusual aerodynamics and mind-blowing appearance, is undoubtedly deserving of all the attention it has received from spectators and aircraft enthusiasts.
Here's the plane The Plane That Revolutionized Aviation: Otto Celera 500L
Want to watch more, please Subscribe for more amazing videos!
SUBSCRIBE: / @untoldaviation
New Videos uploaded EVERY WEEK

[@hijetoffroad4757]

I would be interested is seeing the outlook from the pilots seat. It looks like visibility is very limited, especially for landing.

[@toms.7913]

I love the idea of the trans Atlantic range

[@yodason1717]

Brilliant plane !

[@twistedyogert]

I can see other manufacturers doing similar things. It's a race to the top in terms of fuel efficiency these days.

[@piehound]

Not a wonder to anyone who knows about engineering. The egg shape offers minimum resistance to laminar flow. Got it ????

[@trevorbacelli]

About time some one thought of the Family Man and to be able to cross the Pacific from Australia to the USA or Brazil and being a One Pilot operation with a second Pilot seat, Bravo Mr Otto , I think your Dream will come to fruition in the very near future, God Bless & Thank you Sir, Regards & Best Wishes Trevor.W.Bacelli. Qld Australia.

[@travismoore7849]

Just think if you had a two passenger version powered by a turbo charged kubota diesel engine.

[@Hibernicus1968]

What I wonder is, will the cost savings from the increased fuel efficiency be cancelled out by the need to continually replace the prop at frequent intervals because it's constantly being damaged by debris kicked up into it by the wheels during takeoffs and landings.

[@vicbanks9079]

Wonderful innovation...hurry please.

[@i_hate_google_]

Is it just me who thinks this is a scam? No way it has performance that good. Think about it a Piaggio Avanti which is very aerodynamic and a pusher propeller configuration doesn't get this kind of performance, and they are at it for 40 years, wouldn't you imagine they would have at least made drastic improvement's if that was possible by now? The only way this can get that kind of performance and range is if it's a pretty much an empty shell with lots of fuel flying in very good conditions !

[@seq165432]

Absolutely 100%. These claims are way outside of what is possible in the real world. These days even people who should be able to know that they're being lied to GET HOOKED by flashy crap that does not add up.

[@tlt3921]

Actually it acheives it by flying at very high altitudes and the shape was derived from the fluid dynamics studies to develop the best shape for a submarine, note the similarity of shapes between a nuclear submarine ( which was derived from studies done in the 1930's to develop the best shape for a blimp which were done by a lady engineer named Hilda Lyon who developed the "Lyon Shape" which is used by blimps, nuclear submarines and blimps today). It is feasible even with combustion engines as similar altitudes were acheived in the Secon World War by a high altitudes fighter developed by Germany to combat the expected introduction of the B-29 whose speed at altitude would have obsoleted the luftwaffe. The TA-152 german fighter had a rated service ceiling of 49,500 ft but exceeded that on occasion. Three were built and germany surrendered before the b-29 was introduced into combat so they never went into production. So the celera is actually a combination of of 1930 throught 1940 engineering concepts.

[@i_hate_google_]

@@tlt3921 but think about it, why does no other aircraft come close to this, it's not like they reinvented power flight...

[@mikebikekite1]

Would they get a better flow by abandoning the windows all together? You could then have a few cameras around the plane to view from. The pilot could chose front facing or angled down for landing. Passengers could have screens that look like windows with the option of looking from any angle from the plane (looking forward from the nose, forward from the top of the tail fin, behind, straight down or just out the sides as normal). Obviously you'd also need some form of emergency backup.

[@luxuryfocus6308]

Hi. How can I contact you?

[@leeandadaelliott]

Inside the Otto Celera Clidkbait All we see is the outside.

[@ralphcarbone299]

Why hasn’t it flown in almost a year?????

[@seq165432]

Or a year later...

[@johannjohann6523]

They are fixing the pedals for the propeller. Just like in the Flintstones, and as about as realistic I'n afraid. Unless taking away all the windows does make an airplane that more efficient, and undesirable. The pilots don't need to see out of the aircraft, c'mon. lol

[@Killdozer667]

Engine "manufacturer" is a fraud

[@johannjohann6523]

II do have to wonder about the lack of windows, and visibility for the pilots??? I'm not sure I could ride in an aircraft without any windows. I guess no windows is what makes it so efficient?

[@doltBmB]

this is the prototype, the render of the passenger cabin shows 6 windows

[@fudogwhisperer3590]

I'd like to see a 2 or 4 passenger kit plane developed from this, with an electric hybrid powerplant.

[@shatdim8053]

Agree, viable only in the hybrid version, as well as everything that wants to fly rationally

[@TheJustinJ]

Why hybrid? A batter doesn't have enough capacity to fly any meaningful distance. It would be too heavy. An engine that is efficient running at its peak efficiency of say 35%, driving a generator that is 90% efficient that charges a battery rhat loses another 5% that power an electric motor thats only 93% efficient thru a ESC thats 95% efficient to drive a propeller thats 85% efficient = only 22.473% efficiency. Just use a moderately efficient engine driving the propeller directly = 30% x 0.85 = 25.5% efficiency which is a +13.47% improvement over the overly complex hyper efficient and expensive hybrid system. Engines make peak efficiency in a small range of rpm and throttle settings. Hybrids capitalize on this efficiency "island" But SO DO AIRPLANES.

[@Integr8d]

Aside from the obvious political bias and environmental messaging, the video was informative.

[@EnlightenedSavage]

Politics were not in the video. You have such a fragile ego.

[@dallisb1047]

You nailed it! Electric propulsion will not get 4500 miles.

[@martinwilliams9866]

Why don't you show the actual interior, rather than one with windows?

[@billstech1715]

You just need to do the math! the battery weight would completely defeat all the benefits. The real benefit is less fuel, this efficiency has always been popular. As far as green house gasses, we currently have 0.004% of the atmosphere comprised of CO2, at exactly half that amount 0.002% CO2, every living plant on the planet dies, has anybody bothered to think about that? Electric motors are so efficient, as soon as the technology matures, everybody will switch to electric as fast as it is practical in their individual situation. Just sayin!

[@Dec3.1903]

The CG shift with loading conditions will make it useless. It makes about as much sense as an electric airplanes.

[@TheJustinJ]

Why, what is the CG range and how does passenger loading affect this?

[@johannjohann6523]

Electric airplanes. lol. I'll let those who design or build them ride in them thank you very much. I'm sure a "pedal plane" from the Flintstones would save alot of gas too. Why Hydrogen is not being seen as the fuel for the future of automobiles (OPEC) is completely beyond me. Electric engines are great, if you can get them the electricity in a proficient way, like from the roads they drive on instead of huge heavy batteries that like to ignite for reasons still unknown? lol. Hydrogen, only the universes greatest fuel source, and steam out of the tailpipe. But that makes too much sense. If you were so very seriously worried about "climate change" and end of the world. You gotta love American ingenuity. Buying an EV truck, and simply putting a generator in the bed, and keeping it running and plugged into the battery to always stay charged. lol Somehow I think that kinda defeats the purpose, or so I thought. lol. Take care, and watch out for electric aircraft and other genius ideas from the government. (nobody talks about how electric cars don't even make a profit for car companies at their current prices either. only gov't subsidized tax credits are giving them a profit. as long as that keeps occurring it seems like a formula to destroy the auto industry via communism. but what do I know?).

[@downsouth5971]

Hydrogen expensive to store in high pressure containers. Expensive too. Cuts into range. Maybe if it were available more.

[@mikefrench3800]

Who really cares about emissions? NOT rich people!!!

[@1943rafaelpq]

No windows?

[@philliprobinson7724]

Hi. Laminar flow is all very well, but if you really want to cut drag, go higher. Propellers start losing efficiency the higher they go. At 40,000 feet they're a complete waste of time the turbo jet is the only way to go. The few prop driven planes that made it over that height were verging on the stall all the time. 450 mph will not be achievable.

[@lukesmithy372]

It’s hydrogen electric they looking into aswell rather the Hydrogen jets

[@philliprobinson7724]

@@lukesmithy372 Hi Luke. Hydrogen fuel cells powering electric motors still use a propeller. The efficiency of the propeller falls away so rapidly with height, a propeller won't meet the Celera's performance hopes. Only a jet engine will meet the performance claims. Cheers, P.R.

[@lwmaynard5180]

What about the Toroidal propeller super efficiency at greater heights ? ? With a delta hawk engine ? ?

[@philliprobinson7724]

@@lwmaynard5180 Hi there. I haven't seen figures for the toroidal prop, but as the Wright brothers' props were about 80% efficient, there's only scope for a maximum of 20% improvement. The extra height attainable will be marginal, even if 100% prop efficiency were possible. Physics is an unforgiving taskmaster. I did a quick google of the Tupolev TU95, the 1952 Russian heavy bomber which used propellers at height. Found nothing about what height it could reach, which told me the Russki's plane was nothing to boast about in that area. Not surprising. Googled the Delta Hawk engine too, yes, 40% more power if it lives up to its publicity pamphlets. It's approval by the CAA is most important thing, and it can use biofuel. It can legally get off the ground. I'm still wondering why the Celera hasn't got its CAA ticket after all these years, and suspect it may have stability problems. That tailplane seems far too close to the mainplane to allow certain stall and spin recovery. The Delta Hawk's turbo/supercharging will help the engine breathe better at height, but the prop problem is unresolvable as the Russki's found. That they soon went to pure jets says it all. An excellent book on supercharging aircraft engines is "Not much of an engineer", the autobiography of Sir Stanley Hooker, the man responsible for double supercharging the Rolls Royce Merlin and getting the Spitfire up over 40,000 feet. A ripping good read, not to be missed. Thanks for pointing me to new developments in engines. Chocks away and Cheers. P.R.

[@jeffstewart5196]

Why no windows?

[@getit9066]

You show Biden, I click elsewhere.

[@FryChicken]

The looks kill it.

[@skybirdnomad]

You don't like the looks of food fight ammo in flight?

[@AAa-cf1oe]

💚

[@instgtr52]

The concept is interesting, but why all the secrecy? There are NO pictures of what the cockpit of this thing looks like - with the lack of visibility, I don't think many (intelligent) pilots are going to want to fly this "airplane" - if this thing is for real, they're definitely going about it the wrong way...

[@user-no2wd2ny6p]

Intercontinental high-speed rail, single person, only needs 1-2 kilowatt-hours of electricity for 100 kilometers, and at most 200 kilowatt-hours of electricity for 10,000 kilometers. The energy cost of 5 dollars from China to the United States is enough

[@hud86]

Thanks for killing general aviation with your scam

[@EngineerDJ_Julius]

looks like a long distance nuke

[@jwagner1993]

""Diesel engine.."" collective woke and Hysterical reactions spikes immediately.

[@Nomamegoogle]

Is a Tuna airplane

[@slowery43]

huge fail on trying to be funny

[@Nomamegoogle]

@@slowery43 it's not funny. Really looks like a Tuna fish. Tunas have an incredible hidrodinamic.

[@gordonjohnston684]

Lear-fan replica.

[@charliebanks8419]

or buy a Piaggio Avanti EVO that's been flying for years

[@AyushYadav-oe9wo]

Just incorporate a larger pair of wings without breaking laminar flow

[@teagueman100]

Aeroplanes don't need to be and cant be electric. Aeroplanes are a very low percentage of global Co2 emissions. an electric plane of this scale would have very bad range and cargo capacity. With electric car, trucks, trains, boats and bikes. its ok that planes still use hydrocarbon fuel. Because planes make up a small percentage of world fuel usage its totally doable to have them run on bio diesel or synthetic diesel.

[@bobbys2160]

single engine airplane going 4500 miles over water no thanks. Sooner or later someone going into the drink. singe engine Not a selling point. what about cold weather operations or low vis

[@rightrightrightuhhuhuhhuh6516]

First, the plane has not "debuted". It is in testing. Second, it was not a "revolution" it is a car engine in a bullet with a rear prop.