Secret American aircraft Celera 500L made its first flight

Secret American aircraft Celera 500L made its first flight

An experimental promising American aircraft Celera 500L, developed by Otto Aviation, made its first flight. According to The Drive, the plane took off in Victorville in California.


The Celera 500L aircraft, developed by the American company Otto Aviation, most likely completed its first flight. However, since all data on the aircraft is classified, this information may be unreliable, and the flight itself may already be the second or third. Details of the tests are unknown, except that the flight itself took place in early November in California at Victorville.

In May, the 2019 of the vehicle undergoing testing was spotted at an airport in Southern California. At the same time, information about the characteristics of the new product and even about its creator Otto Aviation Group, which has been working on the project in a secret mode for about ten years, is still extremely limited.

A promising aircraft has an experimental registration of the Federal Civil Administration aviation USA N818WM. The fuselage of the aircraft resembles the shape of a bullet or air bomb.

Celera 500L’s flight speed is estimated to be 460-510 miles (740-820) per hour, altitude up to 65 000 feet (19,8 km), fuel consumption - gallon (3,8 liters) per 30-42 miles (48-68 km) . In comparison, the Pilatus PC-12, a popular lightweight single-engine turboprop, has a ceiling of 30 000 feet, cruising speed of just under 330 miles per hour and consumes an average of about a gallon on 5 miles of travel. As a result, Celera 500L performance is at least 10 times higher than existing light business jets with similar capabilities.

Celera 500L is designed according to the classic aircraft design. A Raikhlin RED A03 turboprop engine with up to 500 horsepower is installed in the tail of the aircraft. with a pushing five-blade propeller.
Photos used:
Thedrive.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

116 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Spartanez300 12 November 2019 14: 40 New
    • 13
    • 1
    +12
    The creators of the aircraft plan to achieve profitability incredible for aviation: up to ten times less fuel consumption, compared with turboprop models that have similar characteristics.
    1. Dikson 12 November 2019 14: 44 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      air taxi?
      1. Chaldon48 12 November 2019 14: 51 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        For intelligence needs in underdeveloped areas.
        1. loki565 12 November 2019 15: 01 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          And why, the UAV will be much cheaper.
          1. Vladimir16 12 November 2019 16: 14 New
            • 6
            • 2
            +4
            The fuselage of the aircraft resembles the shape of a bullet or air bomb.

            In the photo is an ordinary ellipsoid.
            I have never seen an ellipsoid bullet.

            Does the airship also remind the author of a bullet? Or a bomb? wassat
      2. Proxima 12 November 2019 15: 04 New
        • 13
        • 3
        +10
        Some nonsense is written! How can a civilian turboprop aircraft have a ceiling of almost 20 kilometers and reach a speed of 820 kilometers per hour! belay
        1. Hog
          Hog 12 November 2019 15: 10 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          Quote: Proxima
          Some nonsense is written! How can a civilian turboprop aircraft have a ceiling of almost 20 kilometers and reach a speed of 820 kilometers per hour! belay

          And somewhere there are restrictions on altitude and speed for civil aircraft?
          1. Proxima 12 November 2019 16: 14 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            Quote: Hog
            And somewhere there are restrictions on altitude and speed for civil aircraft?

            Limitations are given to it by a turboprop engine with power (!!! belay ) 500 l. From. Does this bother you? Take for example the American high-altitude reconnaissance “Lockheed U-2”, which climbed to such a height. So he had turbojet. There is a difference?
            1. Hog
              Hog 12 November 2019 17: 07 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Turbojet and turboprop have a lot in common, this is not a piston for you (and even they climbed 15 km)
              1. Demon_is_ada 12 November 2019 22: 21 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                You are deeply mistaken hi A propeller in the form of a screw at such a height ... and even at such a speed ... winked this is definitely a scam, or an advertising campaign in the form of - discounts of 100500 percent !!! Of course, you can create it, purely technically, only the efficiency of the engine will be many times higher. The proportions of the aircraft have long been verified, that is, the size of the wings as the length, area, size of the propellers as a result of the appearance, you can determine the purpose of the aircraft, flight altitude, speed, etc. hi
                1. Hog
                  Hog 12 November 2019 23: 09 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  It may not be possible to achieve these performance characteristics with a screw propeller, but they at least want to achieve them (and see if it works or not).
                  PS: And here we recall the NK-12 engine.
                  1. Demon_is_ada 12 November 2019 23: 25 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Yeah, I want the same thing. crying So what's new? Take a classic glider (towed aircraft), stick an economical engine (ideally diesel) and you will see something like that in the picture laughing , only this pot-bellied ... it will be a non-high-speed and low-altitude aircraft, but economical, it is impossible to combine all the declared characteristics ...
            2. Tersky 12 November 2019 17: 44 New
              • 9
              • 1
              +8
              Quote: Proxima
              Limitations are given to it by a turboprop engine with power (!!!) 500 hp. Does this bother you?

              As the power plant used 12-cylinder aviation diesel engine with multi-stage turbocharged RED A03. Two units are listed on the patent application, but there is only one on the FAA card. This motor is installed on Russian Yak-52 and Yak-152 aircraft. But something does not give such outstanding characteristics, so all this is propaganda nonsense.
              1. Dikson 15 November 2019 07: 01 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Maybe the second engine is in the fuselage and works as a supercharger-compressor of air at high altitude for the main one?
          2. Vladimir16 12 November 2019 16: 16 New
            • 13
            • 0
            +13
            Of course have. This limitation is called profitability. wink
            A civilian aircraft was created for profit.
            Who will rise to a height of 20 km with a "turbofan"?
            With such speed and air density at an altitude of 20 km, this fan will do what?
            1. Hog
              Hog 12 November 2019 17: 11 New
              • 3
              • 3
              0
              Say it Tu-95)
              But in fact, nobody said there that the turboprop engine would be on the serial.
              This is a theoretical opportunity and schema.
              1. orionvitt 13 November 2019 21: 22 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                An airplane with such a huge drag (judging by the photo) cannot be economical. Unlike the TU-95, which was "squeezed" as soon as possible. As well as the TU-16.
                1. Hog
                  Hog 13 November 2019 23: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  So you decide what the problem is in the screws or drag?
                  At altitude, air is discharged and drag is minimal.
                  And I said about the TU-95 because of its engines (which do not create a large part of the thrust by a screw).
                  1. orionvitt 14 November 2019 12: 56 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Hog
                    And I said about the TU-95 because of its engines (which do not create a large part of the thrust by a screw).

                    With what? In turboprop engines, 90% of the thrust is created just by the screw. Now it’s clear which of you is a specialist. laughing
                    1. Hog
                      Hog 14 November 2019 13: 05 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Read specifically about the NK-12 (very surprised).
                      "Specialist", but I'm afraid it's about you.
                      1. orionvitt 14 November 2019 13: 12 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        With your permission, I worked for twenty years in the production and testing of aircraft engines. So, I don’t need to read anything, I know EVERYTHING about it, since this is my specialty. Got nonsense from Wikipedia and are talking all sorts of nonsense.
        2. Fitter65 12 November 2019 15: 51 New
          • 8
          • 4
          +4
          Quote: Proxima
          How can a civilian turboprop aircraft have a ceiling of almost 20 kilometers and reach a speed of 820 kilometers per hour!

          The Tu-114 civilian turboprop aircraft had a maximum speed of 880 km / h, although the ceiling was only 12000 m. This is with the technology of the 50-60s., For half a century, the science of flying aircraft heavier than air has stepped forward very strongly, along with design ideas and technologies. And there are no restrictions on the speed and altitude for civilian aircraft. If you can do it, you cannot do it, no one, no one limits it.
          1. SRC P-15 12 November 2019 16: 05 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            If this “barrel” is so pot-bellied, then they are going to shove something into it? Maybe a swarm of minidrons? And what: from an altitude of almost 20 km, these babies can make a lot of noise. Especially if this swarm will be controlled by "AI".
          2. tihonmarine 12 November 2019 18: 17 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Fitter65
            If you can do it, you cannot do it, no one, no one limits it.

            Technique and science are moving, maybe a reasonable grain will come out here. The first wheel was also probably awkward and ugly, and it seemed that it would not go.
          3. Servisinzhener 12 November 2019 21: 42 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            It would be nice to know the mass of this miracle of technology. Because the power of four NK-12 Tu-114 in total was 60000 hp at 164 tons of normal take-off weight.
        3. Servisinzhener 12 November 2019 21: 32 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          I think this is a typical American trade ploy. Yes, he can climb 20 km, and develop 820 km / h. And even spend a halon for 42 miles. But where it is not indicated that he can do all this at the same time. And about the fact that at the same time he will obviously not be hammered and should not speak.
      3. Town Hall 12 November 2019 16: 20 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Quote: Dikson
        air taxi?

        Optional. It may be a private jet. Such a Cessna of the 21 century
        1. Ros 56 12 November 2019 17: 30 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Nice private jet without portholes, well. This is something so far incomprehensible.
          1. Town Hall 12 November 2019 18: 18 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            I'm not sure that windows at 20 km altitude is such a good idea.
        2. Tersky 12 November 2019 17: 42 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Town Hall
          Optional. It may be a private jet. Such a Cessna of the 21 century

          You are right, this is primarily a commercial project.
      4. Vadivak 12 November 2019 20: 04 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Dikson
        air taxi?

        yeah, secret
    2. Obi-Wan Kenobi 12 November 2019 14: 47 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      The purpose of this aircraft is unclear.

      It seems to me that the Americans are working on something on it, as a technology demonstrator. And in this form, he is unlikely to go into series. If at all, it will.
      Some muddy story with this aircraft.
      1. dzvero 12 November 2019 14: 55 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        If you get the expected flow rate effect and it will remain when scaling, then: 1. air command post; 2. The barrage carrier of the UAV / KR; 3. platform AWACS ... i.e. where the speed is not critical, but the duration of the flight time without refueling is important.
        1. loki565 12 November 2019 15: 05 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          why reinvent the wheel, this is a classic UAV scheme, they are also cheaper to operate. And then if the weight and size increase, then a second engine and a change in design will be required.
          1. Hog
            Hog 12 November 2019 15: 16 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: loki565
            why reinvent the wheel, this is a classic UAV scheme, they are also cheaper to operate. And then if the weight and size increase, then a second engine and a change in design will be required.

            1) The scheme is classic, but not quite, and here the fuselage creates lift.
            2) This is an experienced aircraft, with a UAV it resembles only a large extension of the wing.
            3) With an increase in size, everything will increase, but the best fuel efficiency relative to airplanes of comparable sizes of the classical scheme will be preserved.
            1. loki565 12 November 2019 15: 27 New
              • 6
              • 1
              +5
              1) The scheme is classic, but not quite, and here the fuselage creates lift.
              2) This is an experienced aircraft, with a UAV it resembles only a large extension of the wing.
              3) With an increase in size, everything will increase, but the best fuel efficiency relative to airplanes of comparable sizes of the classical scheme will be preserved.

              1) Does the round fuselage create lift? Well then, no more than other planes)))
              this fuselage creates lift

              2) not only
              3) the number of engines will increase, plus the shading of the fuselage of the screws, which will affect their efficiency.
              1. Hog
                Hog 12 November 2019 15: 31 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                1) Well, you showed a flying wing, so what?
                Northrop HL-10 google.
                PS: There was even an article on VO.
                2) and?
                3) Did not you just think to increase engine power, and not increase their number?
                1. loki565 12 November 2019 15: 41 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  1
                  the fuselage creates lift.

                  Well, you showed a flying wing, so what?

                  the fact that the round fuselage has a minimum lift and this aircraft will not differ from an aircraft with a classic engine layout.
                  2
                  и
                  this is a classic UAV circuit
                  3
                  UAV / KR carrier carrier; 3. platform AWACS ...

                  Didn’t you just think to increase engine power, and not increase their number?

                  Do you imagine an AWACS-sized airplane with one screw engine at the back ???)))
                  1. Dikson 12 November 2019 15: 58 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    The airship will turn out ..))
                  2. Hog
                    Hog 12 November 2019 16: 00 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    1) Yes, yes, of course)
                    2) Ok, what is the difference between the “classic UAV scheme” and the “classical manned aircraft scheme”?
                    3) Based on the data from the article, it can be assumed that such an aircraft (with characteristics similar to those of a Boeing 707) will need only one engine with a thrust of 10 kN.
                    1. abc_alex 13 November 2019 10: 27 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Hog
                      1) Yes, yes, of course)

                      No wait. The question is interesting. The lifting force is created due to the pressure difference on the lower and upper surface of the wing. You can create this difference with geometry, you can create a vortex "bundle".
                      The geometry of the fuselage is clearly not create lift. Whirlwinds?
                      Do you see a vortex formation system at this barrel? Me not. Moreover, the air intakes are on top, which means that no vortices should be there in principle - this will reduce their efficiency. And yet, the wing provides some kind of but air retention on the lower surface, although there is a problem of air flow around the end elements. And this body will flow perfectly around as soon as you create a pressure difference, it will immediately equalize ...

                      Explain how?
        2. artifact 12 November 2019 15: 47 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: dzvero
          If you get the expected flow rate effect and it will remain when scaling, then: 1. air command post; 2. The barrage carrier of the UAV / KR; 3. platform AWACS ... i.e. where the speed is not critical, but the duration of the flight time without refueling is important.

          All these functions can be performed by something like an airship-balloon. and can rise higher and freeze in place, and with ionic engines and speeds can be decent. the dimensions of the device have practically no restrictions.
          1. dzvero 12 November 2019 16: 14 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Speed ​​under 500-800 km / h for an airship ... And so - yes.
            1. artifact 12 November 2019 16: 27 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: dzvero
              Speed ​​under 500-800 km / h for an airship ... And so - yes.

              so in my purely amateurish opinion, if you make a competent glider and stick the necessary engines, then the airship will fly quickly.
              1. dzvero 12 November 2019 16: 35 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Honestly I do not know. It may work, but the price tag will be completely different.
                1. artifact 12 November 2019 16: 51 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  everything for the front, everything for the victory bully
    3. Civil 12 November 2019 14: 51 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Very strange and suspicious machine.
    4. Sky strike fighter 12 November 2019 14: 53 New
      • 6
      • 4
      +2
      The plane looks like an American football ball, but with wings. I wonder how many creators of this miracle sawed on this wunderwafle. request
    5. novobranets 12 November 2019 15: 03 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      The idea is not new, as far back as 1944, the Japanese were testing a similar aircraft, but did not manage to go into the series.
      Similar planes with a pulling propeller were in Germany, they did not cause enthusiasm.
      1. loki565 12 November 2019 15: 12 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Yes, it is full of planes according to this scheme, only there is no particular advantage in such a lineup.



        1. novobranets 12 November 2019 15: 13 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Yes. An interesting concept, but no more. Although the Japanese claimed that it would be the fastest piston fighter.
      2. Hog
        Hog 12 November 2019 15: 19 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: novobranets
        The idea is not new, as far back as 1944, the Japanese were testing a similar aircraft, but did not manage to go into the series.
        Similar planes with a pulling propeller were in Germany, they did not cause enthusiasm.

        So the chip of this project is not in the pushing screw, but in the low power requirements of the power plant.
      3. 113262a 12 November 2019 15: 56 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Japanese Kayushi, according to the Duck scheme, not classical at all! And it was built in series!
        1. yehat 13 November 2019 17: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Americans made a thick turkey from a duck)))
    6. Monar 12 November 2019 17: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      up to ten times less fuel consumption,
      Well, creators can want anything. But miracles do not happen, if they still have not invented the gravitsapu.
      By the way, the first copy was without protruding air intakes. Minus aerodynamics. Plus the consumption of tanning salons. And the pushing screw has its advantages and disadvantages.
    7. Errr 12 November 2019 17: 33 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      From the text of the article:
      In the tail of the aircraft is installed turboprop engine Raikhlin RED A03 power up to 500 hp with a pushing five-blade propeller.
      Something ducks scattered in the fall.) Actually, the RED A03 is not at all turboprop. This is a German aviation piston 12-cylinder V-type four-stroke water-cooled diesel engine manufactured by Raikhlin Aircraft Engine Developments, founded by our former compatriot Vladimir Raikhlin. Its modification (RED-A03T), the production of which seems to have already been localized in Russia, is going to be put on the Yak-152 and Altair UAVs. Funds in the development of RED A03 were invested by the Russian holding Finam.
    8. Krasnoyarsk 12 November 2019 18: 39 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: Spartanez300
      The creators of the aircraft plan to achieve incredible profitability for aviation on it:

      That's what it means to have money. There is money, there is development. And we have? And we plan to launch the updated AN-2 for the seventh year in production. Yes, they won’t start everything. Oh ho ho ho ho
    9. Samaritan 13 November 2019 12: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Who cares, watch a video about him:
    10. yehat 13 November 2019 17: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      it’s like an Italian plane with a similar scheme was in MSC recently.
      what's so secret?
  2. Genry 12 November 2019 14: 47 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Unfinished translation: feet, miles ....
    There are unfortunate pilots there, with such a viewing angle it is difficult to see the runway.
    1. Piramidon 12 November 2019 15: 04 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: Genry
      There are unfortunate pilots there, with such a viewing angle it is difficult to see the runway.

      This is not a serial model, and the testers are not "unhappy". Some samples experienced LA generally lying in the fetal position.
    2. cniza 12 November 2019 15: 05 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      That is exactly what more reminds or suggests that this is an unmanned vehicle for carrying passengers.
      1. Piramidon 12 November 2019 15: 27 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        It is unlikely. For example, I would not fly as a passenger in an unmanned aircraft. That there autopilot in his electronic brains wanders, hz request
    3. knn54 12 November 2019 15: 22 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      I do not envy passengers and crew when landing "on the belly"
      Need a long strip, the aircraft carrier is unlikely to land.
      I wonder how it is in terms of radar detection?
      1. bouncyhunter 12 November 2019 15: 34 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        hi
        Quote: knn54
        I wonder how it is in terms of radar detection?

        It is unlikely that such a bellied airship claims to be the "invisible". lol
      2. dzvero 12 November 2019 16: 17 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I wonder how it is in terms of radar detection?

        "Blamba" will be pot-bellied and in some ways remind Carlson ...
      3. Piramidon 12 November 2019 16: 51 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: knn54
        I wonder how it is in terms of radar detection?

        There is no need to guess. This "sausage with a propeller" will be visible, like a sheet of galvanized iron. Yes, he most likely does not claim to be the "invisible".
  3. loki565 12 November 2019 14: 54 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Celera 500L is designed according to the classic aircraft design.

    Hmm, this is when the classic circuit with a propeller at 5 points became ???)))
    1. Hog
      Hog 12 November 2019 15: 23 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      The classic scheme is the wing, fuselage and tail (both the Tu-22M and B-52 and AN-2 are built according to the classical scheme).
  4. Retvizan 8 12 November 2019 15: 01 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    As Zelensky said, "Rotorcraft"!))
  5. voyaka uh 12 November 2019 15: 01 New
    • 11
    • 6
    +5
    This is a competition for jet business jets.
    Rich people know how to count money.
    700 km per hour, almost without spending fuel.
    It is twice as fast as a helicopter and ten times cheaper
    private jet, usually flying
    1000 km per hour.
    1. loki565 12 November 2019 15: 53 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      the rich love security, and this is a minimum of 2 engines capable of flying as much as one. time. The noise from the screw is much greater than from the turbine, I don’t know what is inside, but from the side of Ruslan rumbles like a kitten in comparison with An 12)))
      1. 113262a 13 November 2019 18: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You haven’t heard the Tu-95 on takeoff! "
    2. Town Hall 12 November 2019 16: 22 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      This is a competition for jet business jets.

      Why not a private jet? Competition Cessne
      1. voyaka uh 12 November 2019 16: 35 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Something between Cessna and Golfstream ...
        In Cessna, the speed of 300 km per hour is unsatisfactory.
        1. Town Hall 12 November 2019 17: 23 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          A business jet is still the main comfort, speed, and price is not a determining factor (relatively). The same ones work precisely on saving mainly. Yes, and not particularly roomy in appearance. It pulls more on a family plane.
        2. yehat 13 November 2019 17: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Cessna is far from the standard. There are a bunch of screw business jets that fly much faster than 400 at a similar expense.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Servisinzhener 12 November 2019 21: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      But how much payload can he move while maintaining such fuel consumption at a speed comparable to jet aircraft? Will this load be any different from the weight of a lean pilot who didn’t dine in the evening, but would go to the toilet well in the morning.
  6. RuslanNN 12 November 2019 15: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    If the flight data is real, then this is a revolution in efficiency.
  7. askort154 12 November 2019 15: 06 New
    • 17
    • 1
    +16
    Celera 500L’s flight speed is estimated to be 460-510 miles (740-820) per hour, altitude up to 65 feet (000 km), fuel consumption - gallon (19,8 liters) per 3,8-30 miles (42 -48 km).

    You can assume anything. But to disperse this "melon" to 820 km / h, on a turbo-screw engine with a capacity of 500 l / s., Or drag it to 19,8 km, fuel consumption of 6 liters per 100 km ??? tongue Munchausen - crying
    1. Town Hall 12 November 2019 15: 25 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      And what is the air density at an altitude of 20 km?
      1. askort154 12 November 2019 16: 00 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Town Hall ..And what is the air density at an altitude of 20 km?

        If we take the standard = 760mm / r.st at the surface of the Earth,
        subtract the received number from it - taking into account the reduction - 1 mm. 110 meters high.
        This will be the pressure at a given height.
        Example:
        20 000m: 110 m = 181,8
        760 - 188.8 = 578,2 mm / r.st - this will be the pressure at H = 20 km.
        But if it’s from a specific area, then it is necessary to take pressure not standard (760), but true at a given point. hi
        1. Town Hall 12 November 2019 16: 11 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          Table. The averaged density of the atmosphere at various heights above sea level. At sea level, the temperature is taken equal to 15 ° C, and a pressure of 101325 Pa = 760 mm Hg.

          The density of the atmosphere at different heights above the ground.
          Height, km Density, kg / m3
          0 1,225
          0,05 1,219
          0,1 1,213
          0,2 1,202
          0,3 1,190
          0,5 1,167
          1 1,112
          2 1,007
          3 0,909
          5 0,736
          8 0,526
          10 0,414
          12 0,312
          15 0,195
          20 0,089
          50 1,027 * 10-3
          100 5,550 * 10-7
          120 2,440 * 10-8

          As you can see, the difference in air density between 10 and 20 km is 5 times approximately. Add a much better aerodynamics, a better wing, probably a lot less mass due to composites, an improved engine. Plus, for sure, the indicated flow rate refers only to cruising altitude and speed. And no fantastic miracles, and quite achievable indicators
          1. askort154 12 November 2019 16: 42 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Town Hall .... And no fantastic miracles, but quite achievable indicators

            Theoretically possible. But practically, I don’t remember single-engine,
            a propeller plane flying at H = 20 km. And further:
            - standard pressure 760 mm / st. reduced to the level of the Baltic Sea and conditionally taken Н = 0 m., at T nv = + 15 * C. Below the airfields, practically none. And this means that our calculations here are no longer accurate. And most importantly, we don’t know the take-off mass and quality of this aircraft. yes hi
      2. Horon 12 November 2019 16: 05 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        The screw also needs to be repelled from something; if the air density drops, the propulsive force of the screw also drops. An increase in revolutions is also not an option, going beyond supersonic in the zone of rotation of the blades forms a zone of low pressure, which in turn, again, will lead to a sharp decrease in propeller thrust.
        1. Town Hall 12 November 2019 16: 16 New
          • 0
          • 5
          -5
          Quote: Horon
          air density drops, then the propulsive force of the screw falls

          Linearly?
          1. Horon 12 November 2019 16: 25 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            For the screw what, the separate environment exists? These are interconnected parameters! It's not about the impossibility of achieving this speed. Alas, here I am not an expert. The only question is the incorrect connection between the speed and density of the air when using screws as a mover. Density will affect both lift and friction and traction at the same time!
            1. Town Hall 12 November 2019 16: 29 New
              • 1
              • 4
              -3
              Quote: Horon
              These are interconnected parameters!

              Once again. If the air density drops 5 times .. the pull force of the screw also drops 5 times or less or more?
              1. Horon 12 November 2019 16: 31 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Most likely 5 times and fall.
              2. askort154 12 November 2019 17: 09 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Town Hall Once again. If the air density drops 5 times .. the pull force of the screw also drops 5 times or less or more?

                The question is not correct. Without graphs - "curves of the required and available propeller rods" depending on the revolutions, propeller pitch and air density per N flight, there is no point in discussing here. yes hi
        2. askort154 12 November 2019 16: 57 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Horon ...The screw also needs to be repelled from something; if the air density drops, the propulsive force of the screw also drops. An increase in speed is also not an option, going beyond supersonic in the zone of rotation of the blades forms a zone of reduced pressure, which, in turn, will again lead to a sharp decrease in propeller thrust

          Totally agree with you. That is why we made coaxial screws on the Tu-95 and Tu-114. Only due to the alignment of the screws, they have a decent ceiling and speed. More than one "turbo-rifle" has no such indicators anymore! hi
    2. Hog
      Hog 12 November 2019 15: 27 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      Well, so your conclusions are not far gone tongue
    3. Horon 12 November 2019 15: 40 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      If only, the specified engine is not auxiliary! There are too many “secrets” in this plane and at the same time engine parameters are indicated! I think that for specialists the aerodynamic parameters and engine power will immediately say a lot, but the declared economic parameters exceed those values ​​that can be obtained from known data! So either the Americans invented new physics, winked or they merge only those parameters that don’t tell the others anything - a snag to distract attention!
      1. Horon 12 November 2019 16: 09 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        And getting power of 500 hp / ~ 430 kW with 8 liters of fuel, even at 100% efficiency, is somehow complicated! recourse
        1. Demon_is_ada 12 November 2019 22: 43 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          yeah ... 1 liter solariums like kerosene somewhere around 13 kW / h in theory, we multiply by 8 we get 104 kW at a flow rate of 8l / h at an efficiency of 100, 500 it will be 38,5 liters per hour or 10 gallons, at a speed of 800 on one gallon of 80 km at 100 percent efficiency of dvigla and the screw laughing
          1. Horon 13 November 2019 10: 20 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Yes, I also estimated the thermal power of different types of fuel and also did not approach 500 hp at 8 liters of flow.
            1. Demon_is_ada 13 November 2019 10: 30 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              This is probably the "best in the world of technology buy omerica" lol Hollywood and idle talk ... thirst is nothing, our advertisement is fse, people hawks with swallow ... I just want to sing in a frenzy - Omerika, Omerika filled with amber light and beat in the lap ... wassat
              1. Horon 13 November 2019 12: 01 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                There are too many secrets, and what they feed the public is not a fact is the truth! Everything may differ from what has been said from unsaid, to what is said completely opposite from the existing. Perhaps he has an electric drive for a propeller, or the power of a lie, or fuel consumption, or some kind of a fundamentally new type of mover, and the screw is only for looking away! Information is thrown into the media in order to stir up interest, but does not carry any real technical information that allows you to make at least some real assumptions.
                our advertising fse,

                So far, yes!
  8. Zaurbek 12 November 2019 15: 31 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    I don’t understand due to what? All that is applied is already in use .... there remains a unique aerodynamics ....
  9. Crimean partisan 1974 12 November 2019 15: 46 New
    • 4
    • 7
    -3
    it remains to find out who this dildo came up with. homosexual or femelesbos ???
  10. Mityay65 12 November 2019 16: 21 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    In the rear part of the aircraft, a Raikhlin RED A03 turboprop engine with a capacity of up to 500 hp is installed. with a pushing five-blade propeller.

    Just in case, from Wiki:
    RED A03 is a German aviation piston 12-cylinder V-type four-stroke water-cooled diesel engine with a capacity of 6134 cc, with a fuel system of the type of commontrail, direct injection, a turbocharger and a gearbox with a transmission ratio of 1: 1,78, with an electronic control system. The engine was developed by RED Aircraft GmbH.
    Engine developer Vladimir Reikhlin graduated from Kazan Aviation Institute with a degree in aircraft engine engineer. After college, he worked for some time at the VAZ. In the early 2000s, he founded the company RED (Raikhlin Engine Development) in Germany.
    Dvigun is not a turboprop!
  11. Tank jacket 12 November 2019 16: 37 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It looks like a plane from the ancient Egyptian barilief
    1. nPuBaTuP 12 November 2019 16: 53 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      At first glance, it came to mind about the golden Mayan or Aztec planes
      1. Tank jacket 12 November 2019 17: 33 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2

        Right in the middle. Maya airplanes have excellent aerodynamics.
        1. nPuBaTuP 12 November 2019 17: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, beautiful aerodynamics ...
          Once again, at first glance, these planes came to me ..
  12. Mikhail3 12 November 2019 16: 57 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It is worth remembering that aerodynamics is a mysterious science. There are a lot of geeks in it. Anyone who unravels the secret of the flight of the May beetle or bumblebee, may well throw off the cost of the flight dozens of times. Why not assume that some secrets of such a flight are open, at least partially? I do not claim that this is so, but the main condition for the formulation of the engineering problem is fulfilled. Cockchafer is flying. Nature solved the problem of moving a relatively large load with relatively small efforts. So this is possible, the problem has a solution.
    1. Mityay65 12 November 2019 17: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Mikhail3
      Why not assume that some secrets of such a flight are open, at least partially?

      Want to say that this is actually an airplane with flapping wings? smile
      The "Maybug Mystery" Revealed?
      1. Mikhail3 12 November 2019 17: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Want to say you were joking? Weak ...
        The solution to the mystery of flight began with the flapping wing, but the planes suddenly did not wave their wings. Grandfather Mozhaisky just wondered how it was possible, imagined something, drew a couple of formulas ... Then the others pulled themselves together, and so it went. In this case, the same is possible. Someone invented and implemented something. It happens. And you don’t have to flap wings for this, take a note.)
        1. Zeev Zeev 12 November 2019 17: 43 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Before the "grandfather of Mozhaisk" there were already formulas, and a wind tunnel, and flying models
          1. Mikhail3 13 November 2019 09: 41 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes they were. So what? Does it somehow change what I said?
  13. evgen1221 12 November 2019 17: 30 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Rather, hybrid electric motors are running in.
  14. NF68 12 November 2019 17: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    There was already such an article on VO.
  15. Zeev Zeev 12 November 2019 17: 39 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    What is he secret?
  16. Vkd dvk 12 November 2019 18: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: tihonmarine
    Quote: Fitter65
    If you can do it, you cannot do it, no one, no one limits it.

    Technique and science are moving, maybe a reasonable grain will come out here. The first wheel was also probably awkward and ugly, and it seemed that it would not go.

    The first wheel was a log rolling from a slope and, by chance, dragging some load (the same log), and noticed by the then attentive Kulibin.
  17. Vkd dvk 12 November 2019 18: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Tersky
    Quote: Proxima
    Limitations are given to it by a turboprop engine with power (!!!) 500 hp. Does this bother you?

    As the power plant used 12-cylinder aviation diesel engine with multi-stage turbocharged RED A03. Two units are listed on the patent application, but there is only one on the FAA card. This motor is installed on Russian Yak-52 and Yak-152 aircraft. But something does not give such outstanding characteristics, so all this is propaganda nonsense.

    Pusher propeller, even worked out by a computer program, air flows that do not encounter interference with wings and fuselage give advantages.
  18. yfast 12 November 2019 20: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Between the body and the ground centimeters 20. Half of the teeth will lose during landing.