I was a core engineer in a different manned eVTOL project, so have spent a lot of time thinking about this technology and watching the space. Lilium raised some eyebrows recently with their SPAC IPO valuation of over $3B, without having released footage of a single manned flight. The prototype is unique and aesthetically appealing, but my engineering mind recoils at the complexity of the design. The variable pitch blades, the adjustable exhaust nozzles, the tilt-wing vectored thrust system, etc. With complexity comes cost, maintenance, and exponentially increasing failure modes. Safety is paramount in aviation, so all flight-critical failure modes require redundant backup systems, which further increase cost and complexity. It's a slippery slope.
The eVTOL space is currently seeing a Cambrian explosion of different design concepts, but the first to see economic viability I think will be the simpler ones.
The whole thing hinges on battery energy density more than anything else. The planning document says 20 seconds of hover at landing, with a 60 second reserve.
The demo flight has 45 seconds of VTOL mode/hover at landing. That's cutting it close. You don't get a second chance at landing. No go-around.
Regard this as a bet on improved batteries. With current batteries, it's a nice demo.
Yes, and it's a bet they will probably lose, if they really need 500 Wh/kg in three years time. Their battery graph is a fairytale at best.
The current state-of-the-art batteries that researchers build in laboratories that last 10-20 cycles can put out about 400 Wh/kg. You're simply not going to achieve first a 20% improvement over that, then a development of the tech to increase lifetime to something useable, and then scaling that to widespread commercial availability, within three years time.
If we speak about what's available in laboratories, Lithium–sulfur battery gives around 550 Wh/kg with up to 1500 charge-discharge cycles ([1]). Not available commercially, but there are a few companies that try to commercialize them ([2], [3], [4]).
I would not bet that these batteries arrive fast enough to save Lillium.
Yeah, I'm kind of assuming Li-S batteries won't work out. Sony announced in 2015 they were going to have commercial production in 2020. No news since then. Many others in that field have gone into bankruptcy, including one of those you link to.
Agree their chart is a fairytale based on current chemistries. It's basically a bet on commercially viable solid state batteries, which are targeting somewhere in that 500 Wh/kg range, but are probably a couple more years out than Lilium needs. I guess they could drop their viable range quite a bit at the start to compensate...
I recall Vaclav Smil saying batteries are consistently about 2-3% per year over the long haul. It's not a Moore's law scenario, but a very slow crawl. "Miracles might happen," he says, "but would I bet on a miracle happening? No."
Edit: here's a more recent video of Smil talking about energy density of batteries and the problems there, specifically mentioning the unlikelihood of flying on battery anytime soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91Cs-ZkAjCg
This was my take as well - and was wondering what is Fig. 11 based off of? We can predict, but we don't know how the market for batteries will form in the next decade or so. I.e. the COVID disturbed all sorts of markets bad enough that price of many commodities went up X-fold and haven't gotten down yet.
The Apollo Lunar Module had the ability to abort landing by dropping the descent stage and firing the ascent engine. So if they had run out of fuel while searching for a safe landing site they still had a safe alternative option.
On the other hand, Apollo had no option than to abort to orbit. Just ditching somewhere and hoping for the best wouldn't have been an option on the Moon, but it's commonly done in aviation on Earth.
One of my senior projects in college was designing a ducted lift fan UAV. One of the things that was apparent from digging through the old research was the monstrous total complexity even of conceptually simple designs that had 1-2 ducted fans embedded in the body or wings. Computers make the complexities of controlling these things tractable, which was a much bigger problem in the 1960s. But even with relatively modern technology e.g. Lockheed has had a hell of a time with the F-35B.
When near the ground and moving slowly the wings are stalled and not providing any lift; they're essentially just dead weight. A bigger risk near the ground with older turbine engine VTOL designs was ingesting hot exhaust gasses back into the intake, thus causing a sudden loss of thrust. The F-35B mostly resolved that by using a shaft driven lift fan in the forward fuselage.
> The eVTOL space is currently seeing a Cambrian explosion of different design concepts, but the first to see economic viability I think will be the simpler ones.
Mind expanding a bit on this? And curious where you are now instead of this space... is it because you see the tech too far out?
My original interest began with the SkyCar 400 from Moller. The same design theory of a lot of eVTOLs today; just with a petrol motor. The petrol motor reduced responsiveness of the control system, but I always thought it would work out in software.
eVTOLs are wonderful, but I think any eVTOL without a 'hot swap' battery is going to be DOA in terms of the personal transport revolution.
I ended up moving on for personal and geographic reasons, nothing to do with the tech. The tech is all there for short-haul flights with batteries as the only limiting factor for range and speed.
There are various paths to economic viability for an eVTOL aircraft but I don't see how Lilium's current prototype fits into any of them. Unlike an ultralight design, it will require a certified pilot to chauffer passengers around until the day when full automation moves into the aviation space. Other than selling as an extravagant toy, this limits it to air taxi service. The design is complex so will be very expensive to buy and to maintain, so I don't see it as an improvement over existing helicopters beyond the 'green' energy source and claimed lower noise.
I am familiar with the Moller SkyCar. Lots of promises were made and broken, and lots of money burned on that project. Many modern eVTOL concepts suffer from the same basic design flaw: forward flight hanging from small propellers is inefficient. If you care about range, you need the lift of a large airfoil. Moller also had stability issues, but the responsiveness of electric propulsion and the advances in IMUs have solved this problem.
I think you can have a viable eVTOL product without a hot-swappable battery in the same way that electric cars have shown.
For air taxi service do you think the battery can be recharged in the time it takes to unload passengers, service the cabin, and load new passengers? If there's a long delay for charging that kind of kills the economics.
A landing pad for something like the Lilium would get a lot less NIMBY attention than a helicopter pad though, which is often a major factor in decision-making.
I don't think that Lillium uses variable pitch blades. Also, using multiple fans will lower the chance of catastrophic failure due to loss of one or more fans. For example, A system with only four fans would mean loss of a single would be truly catastrophic.
If Lillium uses multiple battery packs and redundant wiring and controls, they could achieve excellent redundancy; to a level much lower than many competing in this space.
Agree re simplicity. Ehang has been using what is essentially a consumer drone design for some time, and has demonstrated success with many flight tests. Although they aren’t using the most efficient design, I wouldn’t be surprised if they dominate the short range air taxi field.
The Ehang AAV does fly, but it seems like a commercial dead end. They aren't going to get type certification to carry paying passengers under the aviation regulations that apply in most countries. The reserve endurance is too low, and the technology for reliable autonomous operations is way too immature.
Bell also basically had this same exact dream of tilt-rotors when they were designing and building the V-22. This was a huge part of the sales pitch of titlrotor development in general at the time.
I’m still highly skeptical of where this kind of vehicle, even if you can make it very quiet, fits in to reality. There are so many hurdles to adoption in the regulatory aspect alone that it seems intractable, but the economic aspects feel like the true nail in the coffin.
The US is somehow singularly incapable of implementing decent public transport. Thus venture capitalists are throwing stupid amounts of money at exotic technology that could potentially alleviate some of the problems arising from this stupidity.
First we had the "full" self-driving cars and robotaxis coming any day now. Then there's Musk's attempts at tunnel digging and Hyperloop that have gone nowhere. And now eVTOLs that will go nowhere.
Oh sure, and countries in Asia as well, we don't hesitate to join in on these things.
I'm just saying, if you trace these ideas back to their original motivation, it's the lack of decent public transport in California specifically and the US generally.
Besides the high-tech hype, there's also the economic absurdity behind all these proposals. The average American household already spends 1/6th of its income on (car) transportation. These VTOLs are cars on steroids, with even more modes of failure and imaginably more regulation. I assume they would do a ride-sharing / taxi business model, but even then... the average person won't be able to afford a ride in one of these because the average American can't even keep up with ordinary car payments.
It's depressingly comical to see these futuristic pitches when the reality is there won't be any customers left because the middle class will be completely gone in near time. People need to have money in order to spend it.
All air taxi services are targeted toward affluent customers, not the middle class. That's just the nature of the industry. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad business plan — Ferrari does pretty well targeting those customers. But even if the industry is viable that doesn't mean Lillium will succeed.
The US is somehow singularly incapable of implementing decent public transport. Thus venture capitalists are throwing stupid amounts of money at exotic technology that could potentially alleviate some of the problems arising from this stupidity.
With trains you don't need self driving cars!
Rather, why don't we imagine a differently configured society? If you have streetcar suburbs, then it's possible to have a lot of last mile delivery delivered by light rail.
From a safety perspective (ignoring cost, though which is also critical for viability), I mean minimizing the number of 'Jesus bolts' in the design - single components that if they fail, you are in a world of trouble. In the Lilium for example, what if the tilt mechanism for one of the main wings locks up while in cruise, and you only discover this while coming in for a vertical landing? This could be due any one of many possible reasons: SW bug, electrical failure, mechanical failure, debris jamming the mechanism, etc. You've got one wing producing forward thrust and the rest producing vertical thrust which is not likely to end well. You need to either prove that every part of this particular system is extremely reliable or you need a redundant backup system in place. Due to the design, neither of these options are easy here.
Obviously you need to assume there will be motor-out situations in any eVTOL design and the system needs to handle this with full payload over the flight envelope needed for a safe landing. Lilium has the advantage of many propulsion systems to take over the lost thrust, but many other eVTOLs are questionable here.
The same thinking has to be applied throughout the entire aircraft design (electrical and mechanical) and then you need to test, test, test. Each failure mode, using full payload over the full flight envelope, stability testing under differing weather conditions, the list goes on. To give you a rough idea, having a flying prototype is great but once you are comfortable enough with the design to put in a test pilot under controlled, monitored, and ideal conditions, you are maybe 20% of the way towards something you can responsibly put into service. If you want to see a simple design, check out the Opener Blackfly.
It certainly increases the safety factor, but should never be relied upon as the sole redundant backup system. There are situations where it will not do you any good such as hovering at low altitude. If the aircraft does not have a reasonable glide slope, most people would feel a lot more comfortable with one.
"Simple by design, there are no ailerons..." then goes on to describe a vectored-thrust control scheme consisting of essentially 36 blown elevons. Clearly we mean something very different by the word "simple."
I know very little about aerospace, but from a manufacturing perspective it seems like having a single part or unit that you need to manufacture and test would be simpler
but I imagine that this offloads complexity to the flight control software, though – is that what you are referring to?
Moving to an electric ducted fan instead of an internal combustion engine with a variable pitch propeller definitely simplifies things, though replacing that ICE and prop with 36 ducted fans mounted to elevons seems like you're just swapping one set of complexities for a different set, though gaining complexity through redundancy isn't really the worst thing.
My biggest concern with this system is what kind of glide ratio this has in a power loss scenario.
A way around this risk is to come up with a design for which a total power loss is extremely unlikely (i.e. it would take multiple simultaneous non-correlated failures in a short span of time). This could be achieved through a distributed battery system where each motor has its own battery physically and electrically separated from the others, and critical flight electronics have their own backup batteries. A ballistic parachute is always nice as a last-resort hail mary.
Redundancy does go a long way, but that also introduces a lot of extra weight and complexity into an already heavy aircraft and can screw with your weight distribution.
The parachute can work since there are ones for air dropping tanks, but at the same time I'm not sure I've seen anyone try to use a parachute as safety equipment on an aircraft this heavy.
Agreed, the distributed battery system does not seem practical for the Lilium design but you could get at least part way there by segmenting the central battery into parallel modules with separate safety disconnects. Not sure about the feasibility of the parachute system, it may be impractical due to the aircraft weight as you mention.
Would it be enough for the safety batteries at the motors to be only as big as to provide power for the aircraft for an emergency landing? Like for a 30 sec full thrust?
That might not bother the weight distribution that much.
Maybe? Honestly my weight distribution comment is a tad silly since complexity and weight are far bigger concerns, and two that just don't seem to have any avenue to go away.
That too. As far as I can tell, this thing has all the control and glide capabilities of a brick. At least the brick has the inherent safety feature of not being mistaken for a passenger aircraft.
There is a ballistic chute on the cirrus SF50 (their single-engine jet). It's a 7 seater IIRC (6 minimum), and roughly the same weight (2.7T for the cirrus, 3.1 for the lilium).
Like most modern jets. Fly by wire is quite common. Also, in many recent cars, the steering column is no longer mechanically coupled to the wheels. Power loss scenarios are bad, which is why people mitigate against such things with all sorts of redundancies.
And of course mechanical connections can fail too.
Most modern airliners have batteries and ram air turbines in order to power the flight control systems even if the engines are out and fuel is exhausted.
I never saw any cookie prompt since I block cookiebot.com. Things seem to work just as good/bad without it, try blocking that domain and see if it works for you - not just on this site but all others which use these "services".
If you're on desktop there is no spacebar hijacking for scrolling, so I switched to that since the article was interesting anyway. But I agree with the sentiment.
This paper "Electric VTOL Configurations Comparison" [ https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/6/3/26/pdf ] presents a pretty decent energetic analysis of a few of these eVTOL projects (including Lilium) and is very generous to them.
Lilium is vaporware. Ask anyone who has worked in the space. Or just look at it. Or their promotional materials.
Ducted fans huh... meh. I don't think they have an interest in people understand how fly-y/hover-y things actually work.
I do applaud the investors for their vigorous desire to increase the velocity of money throughout society, it is important econometrically. Somehow I doubt they'll be happy to see their currency shredded by 36 rc brushless motors struggling to thrust an anemic wing into the sky though (before its glorious ~250km/h cruise to destination [of course])--and then ~15s landing hover.
No doubt the whole eVTOL/AAM space will lead to positive and long lasting developments for aviation, but the amount of money chasing specifically the air taxi/uam space (Joby, Lilium, Archer, Volocopter, etc.) is staggering given how utterly nonsensical the business plans and projections are.
Right now everyone is in a race to certify. I guarantee that will be the easy part. The whole list of issues this community is not thinking through and addressing dwarfs those that they are. Energy density is just the start.
For instance: Power requirements for these business models at scale will require a sudden turnaround and mass embrace of nuclear. Infrastructure build will require government investment and widespread use of eminent domain. City laws and ordinances allowing for uam flight need to be rewritten. I could go on…
There's a lot of money floating in this sector for sure. But it's also a potentially huge market that might make it worth the risk.
The value proposition is simple: get from A to B quickly at the cost of a few KWH. This plane has a 300KWH battery. That's about 5x a Tesla battery (the big 75KWH ones). The expensive rate for charging a Tesla is about 15$ (give or take). So this, 7 seat plane would cost about 5x that (at the expensive rate, you could get a better rate). 75$. Lets call it 10$ per passenger. And that would be for the maximum range. For short hops, think in terms of a decent coffee at your local coffee shop. Maybe two cups. Just the energy cost of course, there's more cost than that.
But that's great value in a world where short 20-40 mile distances in dense urban environments can take an hour+ to travel and where people routinely do that by taxi, uber, or public transport. The premium segment of that is thousands of people paying north of 50$ routinely for relatively long journeys every day. That kind of is the market for this thing. Charge 50-100$ per ride at a cost that is likely closer to 10$. Nice fat margins.
The unit price of a single plane is probably going to be around 3 million (initially). So, selling a thousand of those would amount to about 3 billion revenue. Likely prices will come down over time. But basically the first few companies that manage to produce vehicles like this in very modest volume are looking to rake in billions of revenue. The early adopter market is going to be amazingly profitable. The long term market when cost drops, production scales, and the novelty wears off is still going to be quite nice. Fundamentally these machines are not vastly more complicated to build than a premium EV and their energy cost is similarly low.
That's why these companies are so hot right now. There will be a lot of companies that fail and a few that might end up printing money. Lilium has a great sales pitch. The only question is whether they can deliver.
This simple value prop fails to take into account the physics of flying, the operational costs of aviation, the societal disruption and associated costs of building and managing support infrastructure, etc, etc. Its nonsense.
i want to agree with you but then again i find myself thinking how even moderately rich ppl use helicopters to move around in dense metropolitan areas basically for decades.
'Jet' has been used to describe many different types of propulsion system. The first jets were what you'd call rocket engines. Then we got 'turbojets' (mostly on aircraft), followed some time later by 'turbofans'. Most confusingly, ducted propellers on submarines are called 'pump-jets'.
I would agree with you that this seems better-described as a ducted fan (which the author also says), but this use of 'jet' is not beyond the pale.
There is also waterjet and jet stream. Not uncommon dictionary of jet is narrow,forceful stream of fluid or the nozzle producing it. Taking that into account difference between jet and propeller in tube is matter of speed and compression. It's just that fuel combustion is one the most practical energy sources including for producing jets of gas.
Please be aware though, that there's always going to be a large population segment that will desire to proceed directly from point A to B in comfort.
Unless by "public transport" you're including "government owned autonomous taxis", public transport will never be attractive to that population segment.
> Please be aware though, that there's always going to be a large population segment that will desire to proceed directly from point A to B in comfort.
How large do you consider this population segment to be?
Quite large, certainly a good chunk of the population that currently drives. There's also a segment of the public transit riding population that would prefer personal transit, but do not have the option.
People generally prefer to a) be comfortable, and b) proceed directly from point A to B with no interstitial bullshit.
You almost never get b) with public transit as commonly realized today.
A high-speed train can connect inner cities just as fast as this gimmick jet. It is orders of magnitude more efficient and scalable, and much more safe. A good train could easily be more comfortable, if there is a market for that. Do you think that jet will have dining rooms, sleeping cabins, ample room for luggage? Do you think it will even have a toilet?
High-speed trains are awesome. We absolutely should be building more of them for the people who'd like to use them.
But if someone wants to go directly from point A to B in a "gimmick jet", why should we try to prevent that?
I'll reiterate with your example. Building high-speed trains, and developing "gimmick jets" are not mutually exclusive endeavors. It's clear that you are not personally interested in a "gimmick jet", but there are people who would be. Why exactly should we be stopping those people?
If we put a higher regulatory burden on some means of transport than others, we'll distort the market.
I'm all for letting everyone with an idea try it. But we need to apply our safety etc. standards consistently. A lot of these new transport startups are really just regulatory arbitrage where they're relying on not being regulated because they don't fit existing categories. Make it legal to build high-speed trains with the same (low) safety, noise pollution, interoperability etc. standards as gimmick jets, and we'd see a lot more practical transport getting built.
I would not want to stop these people. As an engineer, I find the technology very interesting and cool. And it is electric, so it is relatively less harmful than normal jets and helicopters.
I do think that there are big challenges in people transport (mainly around cars and planes) and this does not solve any of those challenges, as it does not scale. So I see it as a gimmick: cool tech to show off.
I like trains too (and short-haul aircraft frighten me), but it's much easier to find an unobstructed path for a small aircraft than a high-speed train. There's also more latitude for experimentation with these piecemeal private sector experiments. I would expect a high-speed rail line between San Jose and San Francisco, for example, to cost far more than Lilium's current market cap. I'm not even sure where you'd put the track, without killing an existing train line.
Lilium Jet has 600 employees. What do you think they could contribute to sustainable public transport that the millions of people employed across the globe directly involved in public transport can't do?
Lilium, as I see it, has by far the most secure design of all air carrier designs we have seen recently. And there have been a lot including some really nice!
Lilium is the only company going for this distributed propulsion system with so many rotors, adding the the safety of the whole thing. Safety should be paramount! A couple of deadly accidents can literally ground a fleet otherwise.
Volocopter also tries a similar approach, but the lack of eVTOL probably makes that bird much slower than the Lilium product.
What do you mean that their concept might not work at all? They have flown several iterations of their prototypes already but maybe you have something different in mind, e.g. doubts about the possibility to scale the concept up?
It’s all unmanned unfortunately. Still waiting for them to demo at least a dummy payload like Joby did a few months back.
Also, Joby, Ehang, and Volocopter are much further ahead in the sense they have done point to point or are building out the factory (same time last year Ehang got hit by being called a scam by Citron, however).
From what I read, rumor is the big issue is battery density which is holding Lilium from being viable. We shall see!
Also, Joby is most likely the one to look at to track the progress of this air taxi segment since they have just Spac’ed and their aircraft is the most conventional.
Interestingly, safety was not even one of the stated "aircraft requirements" from this article:
"So, the Lilium aircraft requirements can be summarised as follows:
Zero operating emissions
Highly efficient cruise phase
Vertical take-off & landing for inner city accessibility
Low noise for high frequency inner city flight operations and customer acceptance
High seat capacity to achieve attractive unit economics and affordable pricing over time
Scalability whilst maintaining ground footprint and low noise."
why are all these new variants of sport aircraft appearing at the moment? There must be something in the water because I've seen so many re-interpretations of the flying car in the past year or two. They look cool in movies but how are they at all a practical method of transportation outside of being toys for the ultra-rich?
Electric cars have increased the availability of mobile electric power systems: experience with batteries, motors, controllers etc in cars is transferable to aircraft. It's "in the air" so to speak.
Edit: Also the mass market adoption of small quadcopters; these "distributed electric propulsion" flying car type things are basically the same concept: flight control by altering the speed of an array of propellers.
Also a lot of university teaching/research on both of the above.
One of the main backers of Lilium is Frank Thelen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Thelen), a VC from Germany, best known for his participation in the German version of Shark Thank ("Die Höhle der Löwen").
He seems to believe that eVTOL are the future of mass transportation, like an airborne version of taxis. I personally don't find that plausible at all, but maybe I'm just not creative enough to imagine a future where this would work.
I mean I love the sci-finess of the concept also I doubt it'll ever "fly".
But I will bet money that we'll see self driving electric Ubers on the road before we see those air-taxis.
And it's going to be incredibly hard to compete with those. Especially as city will be becoming less crowded as more and more people realize they don't need a car anymore.
I live in Bangkok where Taxis are extremely cheap compared to owning a car. I would never bother getting my own car, it's just so convenient to let someone else drive in the city.
- are the air taxi concepts technologically viable? I'd say yes, after all they are flying one way or the other. Besides being electric concepts like Joby and Volocopter are proofen. Lilium is techologically more challenging, but still feasible with existing tech. Not sure robo taxis will beat them there.
- Commercial viability. We know there will be a market for robot taxis, they are taxis without a driver. There UAM is the big bet, is there a market, and if so how big is it? There robo taxis might be faster.
Be aware that you are usually looking at prototypes, not available products.
Currently its mostly another set of startups to invest in. They might look attractive to VCs because they're ambitious, require lots of capital, and the technical feasability of a specific approach is complex enough to find merits in. The jury is still out if any of them are actually viable from a technology and economic perspective.
Lilium's approach specifically has been publicly critized by aviation experts to not be make sense when looking at the basic physics.
Computerized controls and CFD have made these multi-thruster aircraft practical to design and fly. These things are promised to be way easier to fly than conventional helicopters, with stuff like autolanding since fly-by-wire has become almost a commodity. The flowfields from having 10+ fans interacting with a body was also impractical to analyze in previous generations, but now CFD tooling has caught up and we can get good results without physical tests (of course you still need testing at the end).
Controllability, safety, carbon emissions, NOISE, better forward flight performance in some cases. Flying a helicopter is VERY hard and that is a huge barrier to public acceptance, but you need a VTOL craft for a practical everyday air transport. What problem does OS X solve over raw FreeBSD? This is a vastly smoother experience.
I think everyone is trying to replicate the Tesla formula where the first Roadster was a toy for the rich, then followed by real products and now $Trillion in market cap. But there are a few steps in there that are probably hard to copy, like being able to sell carbon credits to other manufacturers, federal tax credit for buyers, etc. Oh, and one Elon Musk.
"fifth evolution of our technology over our six year history" reads: "it still doesn't work, we aren't sure if it can, but need more investor cash"
Their rosy projections of how they expect battery systems to magically materialize and double in density over the next few years to make this device actually work are also quite funny.
Lilium and other electric vtol would benefit greatly in my eyes from a cable assisted starting. Just have 500 m of powercord on take-off and once you are over that initial peak you just drop the cable. Not as sci-fi, but alot of kilometers in ex-change.
These are som pretty impressive goals. If they can truly achieve a hover state as quiet as 60db, and get the efficiency they've outlined, these could truly change the way we look at short-haul travel.
The idea of a 2 hour drive from a small town to the big city being reduced to a 1hr flight (with no airport - yay helipads) is already a market where helicopters are making money. Doing that in even less time, in more comfort (ugh - choppers are loud), and at lower cost per hour/mile will change things dramatically.
Experts always have questions about disruptive technology.
They are often not right, since disruptions are not incremental change, but tons of nuanced ones that lead to a significantly better overall system.
Edit: "Often" does not mean always, or the majority of the time. Lilium is clearly not a scam, and seems to be making steady progress towards their goals.
I think this is such an important point to differentiate. Yes, incumbent experts can be caught flat-footed when a new technology comes along that is essentially just much better at what they do. Best example in my mind is the iPhone, where essentially the big old-school cell phone execs totally poo-poo'ed Apple's ability to create a compelling cell phone in 2008: "A computer company doesn't know what they're doing."
But that is fundamentally different than pointing out real physical limitations of an idea, and the danger is you get exactly the OP response, "The old guard always dismisses you until you change the world!" yada yada. This is basically exactly what happened with Theranos - anyone in the actual field of microfluidics knew it was all bullshit.
Of course, but it seems like the gap between what is physically possible and what has been demonstrated is pretty large when it comes to aircraft. Has anyone made a specific argument that Lilium violates the laws of physics?
Air taxis are unlikely to become as common as the industry hopes.
But helicopters are already viable. Increase reliability, drop upfront/operating costs an order of magnitude, and make it autonomous to remove cost of a pilot; then you have a lot more cases where it would be a viable option.
That whole article looks and reads like an automatic translation. I’m guessing the original says “Ist der Lilium Jet eine Luftnummer?” Or perhaps “Luftpumpe”. A “Luftnummer”, an “air number”, is “hot air”. A “Luftpumpe” is an air pump but can also mean someone is a BS artist.
There’s also a bit of a bad pun hiding in there if it was “Luftnummer”, because “eine Nummer schieben” means to have sex, colloquially. If you really wanted to preserve that … you’d reach for the “blow job”.
They should be compared to vehicles that occur in the space that these "air taxis" are meant to take off and land in. If they're relegated to airports, fine, compare to helicopters. If they're meant to take off and land in my neighborhood, compare them to cars.
A bullet train is better if there's one that already happens to go from your location to your destination. If they manage to make these VTOL planes safe and cheap enough, they'll be far easier to deploy than any train system. Also while there's overlap between short haul aviation and train markets, the infrastructures don't have to be mutually exclusive.
You are thinking the classic hub and spokes transport network where you have to travel to a major city with an actual bullet train station travel to another big city at high speed and then do an uber/taxi/whatever to get to and from the station on both sides. In the extreme case, this would be more of a point to point kind of thing. Walk to the nearest flat surface where one of these things can land and wait a few minutes to be picked up. Your local super market's parking lot would be big enough. On the other side, you land at a similar venue and then walk to your destination in a few minutes.
Most cities could end up with hundreds or thousands of suitable locations for these things to take off and land long term. So, about similar to the density of subway stations or better. But a lot cheaper to build.
I would say, at least in the near/medium future, the fact you'll never hit a traffic jam for a 1 hour commute is a big plus.
But then again, weather probably will ground it more often.
The ultra rich in London, NYC, and LA: you can live 2 hours as the crow flies by car (which would be 3-6 hours depending on traffic) and cut it to an hour or less.
Or you can plop your floating megamansion offshore and commute to the city from there.
Bullet trains are point to point, and you have transit to station overhead. This is more direct above and beyond an absolute speed advantage.
My take was actually the opposite. I can't see this changing anything.
Since this thing won't be able to take off from my driveway or land at my destination, I figure it will still take 2 hours to go door to door. Once you arrive, you'll still need your own transportation too.
Unless this is somehow cheaper and more comfortable than driving, I can't imagine ever using something like this.
Interesting stuff. Haven't heard of the Lilium specifically, but have seen other distributed electric propulsion concepts here and there. DEP is such a nice idea, eliminating a lot of the problems with helicopters/fixed wing aircraft (noise, space requirements etc.) to carve out a new category of aircraft that is perfectly suited to an emerging technology (high energy density batteries).
If we ever do get flying cars, they will use distributed electric propulsion.
They could test the market for these in Norway, the Scottish Islands or the Greek Islands. Places where 15 min flights with low passenger numbers over a distance of 50-100km would have a high value compared to a 1-2hr ferry crossing. Wouldn’t need to go anywhere near max range and would still mostly over land not much other air traffic to bump into.
Why are designs with multiple wings no longer developed, not just bi/tri wing planes with wings stacked, but why aren’t their rows of smaller wings, or multiple wings? Do the vortices of the trail of a leading wing fuck up themlift potential on wings behind it?
—-
We simple golf balls for greater distance through the air, and Wales see an advantage to the barnacles that grow on the leading edge of their flippers which have shown to create eddys behind the tail edge of the flipper which aids in greater vortices and greater propulsion..
Why don’t we dimple wing surfaces? Or plane bodies?
Or helicopter blades?
What happens when we simulate the leading edge barnacle bumps on the leading edge of a wing, or more aptly, the leading edge of a blade on a helicopter?
What software is used to model the airflow over a wings surface, such as solid works…
—
How much overlap is there between fluid hydro and aero dynamics? (Specifically the observation of the impact to flow/eddy creation over a surface?)
What stands out to me about all this eVTOL/air taxi vehicles are that they operate in 3D space instead of 2D like cars.
This means, even though more inefficient than cars, you can have more “lanes” to operate in.
On roads, you have to have traffic lights and stop streets, traffic itself, and cars driving inconsistent speeds or braking when turning.
In the air this can all fall away, so people can live further away from city centres, streets can be left for cycling, and less concrete/asphalt infrastructure is required.
I've been watching this space for quite a long time and this company seems to have the engineering and backing to make it happen. From a safety perspective, this design has a potential for massive redundancy over several other designs being promoted out there.
Considering that their marketing is not to desperate, and their releases of footage is slow and stead, I predict that they are very confident in their designs.
If I had a few million to throw around, I would definitely be investing in this company.
> Lilium’s greatest breakthrough is not accepting that traditional approach to trade-offs but rather getting to first principle understanding of the physics and then systematically innovating and optimising each subsystem in an integrated and coherent manner such that the resulting aircraft achieves all stated performance objectives.
You cannot "innovate such that ...", you can only "innovate and hope to achieve ..."
I have to wonder about the glide ratio. All those fans will probably create a ton of drag. If for some reason you have a complete power/engine(s) failure, that thing is likely to become a lawn dart.
At least with a helicopter you can autorotate if you lose your engine. Unless this plane will get an airframe parachute, I would not fly in it.
The glide ratio of an auto-rotating helicopter is not great; not a very hard target aerodynamically. The glide ratio is not going to be great if all 36 engines are out but I'd expect crash landing as a glider it should be totally doable and probably easier than auto rotating a helicopter (nose down to keep the speed up, flare at the right moment). And of course installing some parachutes on it is probably going to be a thing as well.
Of course that scenario is not great for either this thing or a helicopter in a dense city.
Could it be clear to everybody that this thing will require energy and thus will, in a way or another, emit somthing (either CO2 from electricity production or CO2 from the construction of means of electricity production).
Besides, why not just invest in trains ? (or lighter alternative if any)
I don't doubt this concept could ferry people around. But its safety margin is razor thin. 60s reserve? That is barely time for an operator to figure out where to ditch.
There is one fundamental error in this blog; the battery energy density graph. Battery tech does not follow Moore’s law. Batteries are not transistors..
Where is the safety margin? i.e. what happens if something goes wrong? Can the aircraft make a safe landing if the motors fail? Do the limited control surfaces give it enough maneuverability to make an emergency landing in a tight field, especially in bad weather?
tl;dr great blog, thank you for the technical insight, it sounds like you've designed Lilium for a perfect world. Popular aviation needs to have basic safety margins and there are no safety margins evident here.
Not only is this company obviously a scam, if their product actually did exist it would be extremely expensive as well as louder and more dangerous than a regular helicopter.
Quite a bold statement to make with no substantial backing. If you have any experience with drones or following this air taxi movement, then you’d see many working prototypes out there.
Off topic, sorry, but:
Why do web designers think that they can provide a better scrolling experience than the default system behavior that the user expects in every other interaction?
By the way, hijacking scrolling behavior often breaks other things, such as searching for text in a page. Go ahead, try it, search for a term in that article.
I hate scrolljacking too, but to answer your question, overriding the default system behavior in general isn't about providing a better experience but rather a more consistent (from the POV of the designer) experience.
The downside of course is that it looks less consistent with other apps and webpages from the user POV.
The sexier the blogpost, the less believable it is for me. Make this page in Times New Roman or Computer Modern typeface, preferably in a PDF format, and I am automatically convinced :-). It just means that they have better things to do than aesthetics!
I was about to say that it's quite smooth for me on Safari - then I searched for something as per your suggestion and the whole page was vertically offset and effectively broken... oh dear.
Edit: The scroll hijacking makes more sense in the context of the home page, which actually uses it to reasonable effect (not endorsing the technique, but the home page is attractive at least).
I think the mistake was leaving it on for heavy content pages like the one linked where it adds very little but breaks other basic behaviour.
What is missing from the presentation is anything about recharging. The reasonable conclusion is they have no good story, there.
Most of the profitability of an air transport, when there is any, comes from quick turnaround. Having to wait to charge for an hour eliminates any possibility of that. An alternative is to have removable batteries, so when you land, you drop off dead batteries and slot in charged ones; and charge at the airport.
A better design would have an aft liquid-hydrogen tank and fuel cell, instead of batteries, for longer range and much lower mass. LH2 would be produced at the airfield during minimum energy spot prices, and stored underground.
What gives you this impression? They have amazing engineers and huge backers. My impression is that they are one of the most likely to succeed in this space.
After reading your article I came to one conclusion: RUN, don't walk from Lilium. They are obviously tricking people who don't know a single thing about airplane engines.
Lilium responded to the aerokurier article on Monday with an email in which our experts were accused of having set the hover efficiency of the drives far too low with an efficiency of 20 percent. Lilium, on the other hand, claims that values "of 85-95% are the industry standard for turbo fan levels". According to Lilium, this mistake should have been noticed by any industry expert.
Lilium is right with regard to the efficiency of turbofan engines viewed in isolation, as they are standard today on all high and fast flying airliners. However: There are no turbo fans installed on the Lilium Jet. They are jacketed propellers driven by electric motors.
That is precisely the problem: believing that one can succeed in this space.
Flying personal transport is not economical. On a side note, it doesn't matter how brilliant an engineer is if you set impractical goals to him. Neither good engineers not deep pocketed backers could make Theranos real.
He's certain because of energy budgets, weight constraints, safety reasons and more. The history of the automobile vs aircraft shows he's right.
To move something in the air inherently uses more energy than any sort of ground transport. To make the aircraft more efficient, you have cut weight, which means more exotic (i.e. expensive) materials. The powerplant has to have a higher power:weight ratio (again more expensive). It's more dangerous to be flying, so you need additional safety equipment that ground vehicles don't need. Etc, etc.
And if any aviation technologies manages to gain price/performance better than the stuff used for ground transport... it will be adopted by ground transport. Which still leaves air transport more expensive for the reasons listed above and many others. Hell, in WW2, they stuck an aircraft engine into the most common US tank (sherman). Interestingly, sherman tank crews didn't have to worry about falling out of the sky and dying if their engine failed (though they had lots of other worries, of course).
Long story short: there is nothing magical about electric motors turning propellers.
And battery energy density is utterly horrible vs gasoline/kerosene. Air transport will ALWAYS be more expensive than ground transport. Perhaps someday it will be cheap enough to be common. But personally, I doubt that such a day is anytime soon.
Last aside... You can buy a small used two or four seater plane NOW for < $100k. Get a pilots license and you can fly around to your heart's content. General passenger aviation today is not reserved for the ultra rich.
3. Exotic materials like aluminum and carbon fiber? The BMW i3 adopted the latter for example
4. A better way to look at it isn’t whether air transport will ever be cheaper, but whether air transport can be cheap enough to be worth it due to the unique advantages it offers. Eg flying in a straight line, flying faster, no traffic, relatively easy autonomy compared to ground, etc
The eVTOL space is currently seeing a Cambrian explosion of different design concepts, but the first to see economic viability I think will be the simpler ones.