Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Celera 500L (and high altitude discussion)

Malibuflyer wrote:

Would be very interesting to learn how they achieve required pitch axis stability in such a design without adding a canard

It just flew for the first time, stability is not tested/demonstrated yet? A MCAS-like system? (/ducks)

Last Edited by lionel at 27 Aug 11:05
ELLX

Malibuflyer wrote:

Because of that thing called “market”. There simply is only a very limited market (if any) for multi engine for recreational flying. The additional cost is seen by almost all customers as not been justified compared to the limited (if any) safety of an dual engine design on a typical burger flight that takes you rarely over longer stretches of water.

Yes, but they compare it to an expensive jet!
So I assumed that his is not just for recreational flying…
Looks like I assumed wrong.

EGTR

It already flew 30+ times. I think they already have quite some data.

EBST, Belgium

arj1 wrote:

And why all of them are single-engine?!

Their web site claim that the engine is in effect two separate engines. I guess that if connecting two separate engines to one shaft works on multi-engine helicopters it should in principle work on airplanes as well.

Also, the glide ratio is given as 1:22, which is makes it glide not much worse than the glider in which I first learned to fly in 1983.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

Their web site claim that the engine is in effect two separate engines. I guess that if connecting two separate engines to one shaft works on multi-engine helicopters it should in principle work on airplanes as well.

Also, the glide ratio is given as 1:22, which is makes it glide not much worse than the glider in which I first learned to fly in 1983.

And how does it help over North sea when a prop fails?
Or Atlantic?
737 glide ratio is allegedly 17:1…

EGTR

The takeoff roll is advertised as 3,300 ft, which is horrible. But if other aspects of the concept really do work – engine, laminar flow fuselage etc, then it should be possible to make a variant with a different wing for lower speed takeoff but still have spectacular cruise numbers.

Upper Harford private strip UK, near EGBJ, United Kingdom

This thing has ‘military applications’ written all over it…. Aside from that, looking at these wings I am more than a little skeptical about the 1:22 glide ratio. Also – 4500 Nm range? Hmmmmm.

Can I be the first to put my money on this being absolute vapourwear? They are claiming it can go 60kts faster than a TBM900 on 65% of the power and with 3 times the range. It can fly as high as the Grob Strato 2C (which had a turbine gas generator) and appears to have used a couple of surfboards for wings rather than the sailplane like wings typical of aircraft which operate in that region.

It’s very Flash Gordon.

Andreas IOM

arj1 wrote:

And why all of them are single-engine?!
I’m an IT guy and don’t like single points of failure.

That’s what my Mrs says when I’ve had a few beers……

The machine looks to me like a piston powered Bell X-1, with take-off performance to match.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top