This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Absence of evidence

As of the present, this prototype aircraft has flown 31 flights (as claimed by the maker), with no reported performance numbers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The lack of any performance specifics from the prototype flights should be treated as suspect.

The history of aviation is littered with outfits promising extraordinary performance, and failing to deliver. Keep in mind that laminar flow is not remotely new. Examples of aircraft for which laminar flow was a principle design feature include:

The North American P-51 Mustang (designed in 1942)
The Mooney M20 (introduced in 1953) - see https://airfactsjournal.com/2020/06/the-magical-mooney (and many others)

The Rutan Boomerang offers an interesting comparison with a slippery, more modern design. The Boomerang needs 410hp to reach 250mph (cruise) and 311mph (maximum). The Celera with six passengers, a large cabin, and 550hp - I would be reasonably impressed if the Celera could reach the same speeds as the Boomerang. Keep in mind that power required increases with the square of velocity. Reaching 450mph could easily require more than twice the power.

The front-end of the aircraft looks alright, the back-end not so much. Those clumsy scoops look to make dirty, turbulent airflow into the propeller. Dirty airflow tends to decrease efficiency and increase noise. This increases my skepticism. Actual performance might not get past 300mph. Would be delighted if proven wrong. :)

Too many folk are taking the claims from Otto as fact. We want to get actual measured and verified results. The Wikipedia article should make clear that unverified claims from the designer could be wildly wrong.

pbannister (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:NOTFORUM: talk pages are not here to discuss the merits of the article subject, but to discuss sources reliability, or maybe the article presentation. Second, we can do a fast reality check: the closest 6-pax, single engine airplane is the Piper PA-46 M600 : it can reach a 274 kn cruise with 600hp. The Otto 500L claims 400 kn with a similar engine, a similar gain between the conventional Super King Air 250 (310 kn) and the aerodynamically very refined Piaggio P.180 (400 kn) with similar engines. So, doable (but not easy). On a side note, taking a Rutan prototype as a benchmark is not really wise. See this comparison between the efficient P.180 and the ill-fated Beech Starship. 3.5 times the wing area for the same stall speed! A shame.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well pick an angle. The article at present is nothing of more value than a press release. Is Wikipedia a venue for press releases with entirely unverified claims? The company has issued a press release (with claims of theoretical, not actual performance), and no other facts. We do not know anything about the actual performance of the prototype. There are no third-party facts. The third-party articles are all simply echoes of the press release. This misleads the casual reader. To my read, this is an exact mapping to the tags applied.

The PA-46 is a good example. The Piper only cruises at 300-318mph. Otto claims they can get 450mph with much larger frontal area. This seems unlikely if not impossible. Note the Piper is pressurized, and Otto makes no mention of pressurization with the Celera. The Piper can fly faster and more efficiently at higher altitude. The Piper offers an example of actual performance at similar power.

The Piaggio is also a good example. Note the P.180 has two engines with a total of 1700shp. (The P.180 is also one of my favorite designs.) The Piaggio offers an example of power required for similar performance.

1700hp like the king air 250 for similar weights. Apples to apples comparisons.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Starship is not a good example. Rutan was required by Beechcraft to massively over-engineer the aircraft (as management was uncomfortable with composite construction). This made the Starship heavier, slower, and more expensive.

A convenient excuse.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point to all this is the Wikipedia article as it stands is nothing more than a press release. Also there are words in Wikipedia policy that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Otto has made extraordinary claims, with no proof.

pbannister (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:NOTFORUM (and by stating one design is your "favorite", you seem biased). Anyway, the current article does not reports performance, but only bold claims from the designers: The aircraft's designers [...] claim that the production aircraft will achieve [...] or Specifications: Data from manufacturer's pre-production estimates, mirroring the as reliable as you can get flightglobal. Press releases or direct references to Otto's website are clearly labelled as such. If you can get an established WP:RS that refutes the performance claims, you can add it to the article! But please stop giving your aircraft type preferences here, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era

Regarding the standard "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era" section found in most aircraft articles: are there any viable candidates? Turboprop singles like the Pilatus PC-12 serve a similar role but seem to fail the configuration test. Otto is obviously targeting very light bizjets like the HondaJet but the configurations are even more drastically different. The LearAvia Lear Fan and Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster are interesting comparisons from a configuration standpoint but fail the era test; also, the Otto isn't a bomber, unless there's something the company isn't telling us. Carguychris (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar role: small turboprop singles (Piper M600, SOCATA TBM - the PC12 seems to be much larger) and maybe small single jet like the Cirrus SF50 - the twinjets have different operating limitations and benefits.

Similar config: indeed the LearFan and maybe the OMAC Laser 300, AASI Jetcruzer or the Grob GF 200, not the much older Douglas XB-42. The P.180 could be interesting with its large area laminar flow and pusher config, but is a twin.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added your suggestions, plus the Beechcraft Starship, although this puts several turboprop twins on the list. Decided against the M600 series, TBM, and PC-12, since the props are at the wrong end and Otto seems to be aiming for a higher market segment. For what it's worth, the reason I went with the PC-12 initially is that the Otto will have a lavatory, implying that it's a heavier aircraft than the M600 and TBM; of course, operating weights are conspicuous in their absence from Otto's current claims. Carguychris (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

page removal

let's all just To cut to the chase. Wikipedia does not accept the manufacturer of a product as a source. All but one of the references on this page come from the company making the product. And the other one is a totally unreliable source that uses Verbiage straight from the company website. A company just can't come to Wikipedia and create a page about its own product using materials from its own marketing department. I've never lobbied for the removal of an entire page but I am doing so here. In my 15 years of editing here I've never seen a more blatant example of a page that doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all. There may be some reliable source information on this aircraft that can be used to create a web page. If someone wants to start from scratch and do that they can. But I'm making a note to myself to find out how to remove an inappropriate Wikipedia page. I just don't have time today. Bigger fish to fry.Jackhammer111 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a usage that every aircraft is notable enough to deserve its own page. Better references could be found, but the single reference outside the manufacturer itself (which is the sole source for tech details for now) is Flight International, one of the two most reputable aviation media--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the article to replace Otto references by the other most WP:RS aviation media, Aviation Week references.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

I've emailed the company today requesting release statement for use of their press release pictures or that they upload here . If anyone has any other free source please add --:GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴^⍨talk 16:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've found companies don't really understand the implications of creative commons licensing here, and could back off. An easier thing to do is to propose them to upload it on flickr with a CC license, and it seems easier for them. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Phew, more talk than article, a record? 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:19CE:7B1E:95:D452 (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]