7 ms·

It's still a GA aircraft though... so you still have to deal with all the BS. If you don't own it yourself then you need to pay a pilot (though with the recent

It's still a GA aircraft though... so you still have to deal with all the BS. If you don't own it yourself then you need to pay a pilot (though with the recent downturn there's no shortage of pilots). There is absolutely no way many people will try and get their pilot's license. The FAA written test for a PPL may be easy compared to IR but it's still not a walk in the park. The checkrides are very strict nowadays too. So if you're paying a pilot, FBO costs (or dealing with a commercial operator of the planes), etc. at the end of the day it's never going to be as cheap as commercial airlines. This certainly would make it affordable. But not that affordable.

CydeWeys 6y ago
I think the point is more that this kind of tech could be scaled up to make commercial airliners more fuel efficient too?
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  A big part of the "tech" is the engine and its turbocharger. That doesn't really scale.
- branko_d 6y ago
  From https://www.ottoaviation.com/technology https://www.ottoaviation.com/technology "The design of the Celera fuselage takes advantage of an optimum length-to-width ratio to maximize laminar flow. These benefits will not scale for large jet transports and are therefore well suited for an aircraft like the Celera."
skykooler 6y ago
That said, it would definitely be cheaper to certify a pilot on this than on a business jet, since the flight hours for the aircraft cost much less.
- walrus01 6y ago
  If I had to guess, the certification and training process on this would best be compared to advanced single engine expensive aircraft like a Pilatus PC-12. Or a Cessna Caravan. Anything else out there in the single engine turboprop PT6 (or competing engine) category.
- alfalfasprout 6y ago
  Ehhh usually type ratings aren't the most expensive part of training though. Plus on larger business jets there are simulators that are used in lieu of in-aircraft time for most of the training. You're still looking at bare minimum a CPL with instrument rating which is minimum 250 hours (realistically 350 or so). Probably more than that before any insurance company is OK with you flying it single pilot.
badestrand 6y ago
Is there automated flying on the horizon? Seems to me that it should be a lot simpler than for cars and would make operating so much simpler and more cost effective.
- kortex 6y ago
  Unlikely. The automatable parts are basically all automated already (autopilot, take-off, landing). Making an aerial robot take off from runway X and land at Y in clear skies with a well-maintained machine is solved. Human pilots, in addition to piloting, do a bazillion small things which add up to a safe flight, such as tons of systems checks. Often, e.g. under autopilot, their job is to act as fallback when the automated systems fail. When the automated checks fail to catch issues in other automated systems, the buck stops with the captain. Or maybe it's an important radio call. Even if you patch the uav into a pilot in a sim, there's so much situational awareness lost. I don't see it happening any time soon in the commercial space.
- alfalfasprout 6y ago
  I used to think totally automated flight was possible before I started getting my pilot's license. Now I doubt we'll even see it in the next 50 years. The national airspsace system relies on interactions with other pilots and unless all planes became automated it would be really hard to pull it off. For starters, flying is the easy part. It's the fuel management, dealing with communications to ensure aircraft are safe, and reacting to constantly changing weather that gets tricky. When there's an emergency things get even more complicated since electrical malfunctions are definitely a not so uncommon possibility. For anything safety critical you're going to need 2-3 way redundancy. Plus you'd need some kind of standardized aircraft to aircraft data link on all aircraft.

CydeWeys 6y ago

I think the point is more that this kind of tech could be scaled up to make commercial airliners more fuel efficient too?

benhurmarcel 6y ago
A big part of the "tech" is the engine and its turbocharger. That doesn't really scale.
branko_d 6y ago
From https://www.ottoaviation.com/technology https://www.ottoaviation.com/technology "The design of the Celera fuselage takes advantage of an optimum length-to-width ratio to maximize laminar flow. These benefits will not scale for large jet transports and are therefore well suited for an aircraft like the Celera."

skykooler 6y ago

That said, it would definitely be cheaper to certify a pilot on this than on a business jet, since the flight hours for the aircraft cost much less.

walrus01 6y ago
If I had to guess, the certification and training process on this would best be compared to advanced single engine expensive aircraft like a Pilatus PC-12. Or a Cessna Caravan. Anything else out there in the single engine turboprop PT6 (or competing engine) category.
alfalfasprout 6y ago
Ehhh usually type ratings aren't the most expensive part of training though. Plus on larger business jets there are simulators that are used in lieu of in-aircraft time for most of the training. You're still looking at bare minimum a CPL with instrument rating which is minimum 250 hours (realistically 350 or so). Probably more than that before any insurance company is OK with you flying it single pilot.

badestrand 6y ago

Is there automated flying on the horizon? Seems to me that it should be a lot simpler than for cars and would make operating so much simpler and more cost effective.

kortex 6y ago
Unlikely. The automatable parts are basically all automated already (autopilot, take-off, landing). Making an aerial robot take off from runway X and land at Y in clear skies with a well-maintained machine is solved. Human pilots, in addition to piloting, do a bazillion small things which add up to a safe flight, such as tons of systems checks. Often, e.g. under autopilot, their job is to act as fallback when the automated systems fail. When the automated checks fail to catch issues in other automated systems, the buck stops with the captain. Or maybe it's an important radio call. Even if you patch the uav into a pilot in a sim, there's so much situational awareness lost. I don't see it happening any time soon in the commercial space.
alfalfasprout 6y ago
I used to think totally automated flight was possible before I started getting my pilot's license. Now I doubt we'll even see it in the next 50 years. The national airspsace system relies on interactions with other pilots and unless all planes became automated it would be really hard to pull it off. For starters, flying is the easy part. It's the fuel management, dealing with communications to ensure aircraft are safe, and reacting to constantly changing weather that gets tricky. When there's an emergency things get even more complicated since electrical malfunctions are definitely a not so uncommon possibility. For anything safety critical you're going to need 2-3 way redundancy. Plus you'd need some kind of standardized aircraft to aircraft data link on all aircraft.