This is optimized for really long distance flight, thousands of miles. That’s the whole point. Cruise height of 30,000ft, I think.

Why would you be shocked by flying at heights comparable to typical jet aircraft flying similar distances?

I wouldn't be surprised by a long-range cruise altitude around FL300, but if it was FL450 I'd be extremely surprised. If the plane achieves the advertised 20mpg on a hypothetical 4500-mile flight at FL500, but only makes a small fraction of that on a more realistic 400-mile regional hop at FL210, it's not really a practical success.

(Aside: the advertised range seems like drastic overkill for something designed to offer a cheap alternative to private jets--it's difficult to overstate how much it sucks being cooped up in a tiny plane for over 11 hours, even if you have the luxury of rich leather seats, can stand up in the cabin, and don't have to pee into plastic bags. Even if a family wants to charter a private jet from LA to the Bahamas for a long weekend, it'd be miserable trying to one-leg it.)

11 hours in a private plane with lots of room and being able to lay down flat or be in a zero gravity chair would be sheer luxury compared to many flights I've taken. My last long distance flight took 24 hours of travel to get from San Jose to Israel with 3 legs in Coach and going through multiple security gates. One time I flew 16 hours Coach from LA to Guanzhou China and that was a second leg. My tail bone was in pain for a day from sitting that long.

If an airplane like this meant being able to fly private, it's completely worth it. One other factor you have to consider is that this plane can probably use tiny airports which shaves a 4 hours of additional driving and security gates. I'd rather be in a slower flying plane for 7 hours than fly for 4 hours but spend 4 additional hours at security gates and car traffic.

The whole business case for this vehicle is that it enables extremely low cost granular travel between distant city pairs. The short regional hop is not its target market. It’s designed to be competitive with commercial air travel.

That's fair--400 miles is on the shorter end of the spectrum.

Still, "low cost" is relative to a chartered private jet--which, emphatically, is not a service that people purchase because it's the most economical option--rather than a commercial airliner (although, if true, the SFC per passenger of the Celera would be in the same ballpark as modern commercial airliners, which is very impressive). The average domestic flight is under 1000 statute miles (https://www.bts.gov/content/average-length-haul-domestic-fre...), so this plane needs to offer compelling efficiency gains at ~500-1500 mile ranges in order to compete with existing services, unless they're strictly planning to fill the niche of one-leg, long-range flights that existing private jets don't have the legs for.

No, they intend to compete with like commercial travel, maybe business class at first, in price per seat per trip to charter an aircraft like this.

$300/hour charter price with 6 seats for a 5 hour trip (2000 miles) is about $250 per seat each way. This is pretty competitive.

$328/hr is the advertised operating cost of the aircraft (fuel and maintenance), not anything close to what a charter would actually charge. Commercial airline operating costs, including crew salary and overhead, are roughly an order of magnitude more (~$3000/hour is a rough, somewhat conservative, number for something like a B737, including fuel, crew, maintenance, and aircraft depreciation/rental costs). The airline is paying under $20 per passenger-hour for all expenses, while a charter service operating with volunteer pilots, free airplanes, and no other costs would break even at ~$55 per passenger-hour (assuming the $328/hr estimate is accurate, which is still very much an open question for an aircraft that's still undergoing initial flight testing and may never be produced in significant volume). Even the best-case scenario doesn't strike me as particularly competitive.

Their patent application implies that it is optimized for cruising at 50,000 feet.

[1]https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3b/f3/9a/928c862...

I mean, their patent application also claims an SFC of ~30-42 MPG at 460-510 mph...

A design cruising altitude of FL500 implies that they're seeing nearly all of their efficiency improvements due to the thin air at altitude (flying around 200 mph indicated, which isn't totally unreasonable for 20 mpg in a small-ish piston-prop), but I doubt they have the climb rate to actually reach that altitude in anything short of a transcontinental flight.

I like to think they crunched the performance numbers once or twice, but if they're off by the same amount they were with their initial SFC calculations, there's no way they'll reach an acceptable cruising altitude during an average flight.