Lilium vertical take off "jet"

[mickjoebill]

Lilium Aviation (http://lilium-aviation.com)
Another people carrying drone.
This simpler than others as it isn't trying to be a car.

Verticle takeoff and land using 36 electric fans.
2018 rollout.
The Lilium Jet, cruise 500km (310mi) max 400kph (248mph), and reach an altitude of 3km (9,900ft). Recharges overnight from a standard household outlet. Max range at 180mph. Autonomous landing.
Sports liscence.
360kw battery, over 400hp.
200kg payload.


I wonder what the endurance is in the hover...
The wing appendage that look like a flap is the array of motors that swivels down to hover.
http://lilium-aviation.com/img/stadt-takeoff.jpg

Price of a Tesla maybe?

Mickjoebill

[Ascend Charlie]

The cg is WAY in front of the wing, with no canard to supply lift at the front, so that cylinder at the front will be permanently pointing down to provide upward thrust to counter the cg moment. Instant death if the battery goes flat or the motor quits.

Another dream of some dude playing with a 3-d drawing program and no understanding of physics. Where is the fan motor with its huge intake? Where do the wheels go? Will they add a "Verticle" fin for some stability? And just a little bit of sunburn from that big canopy.

[Freewheel]

The cg is WAY in front of the wing, with no canard to supply lift at the front, so that cylinder at the front will be permanently pointing down to provide upward thrust to counter the cg moment. Instant death if the battery goes flat or the motor quits.



Yeah, but you'll get a great view!

[DeltaV]

That looks daft.

I prefer this one,
http://www.maxon.net/uploads/pics/Sinus_4500px.jpg
and the CGI is better too.

[mickjoebill]

The 36 motors are distributed to create some redundancy.

Not sure about CG as the battery could be rearward and won't alter during flight:)


For reference
A boffin has torn down a Tesla battery. It is a good reference for the weight and specs of a state of the art battery
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/pics-info-inside-the-battery-pack.34934/
Tesla battery (LiCoO2):
Total 85kwh battery cell weight is 900lbs plus uber strong housing of 300lbs.
The pack contains modules. Each module weights 56 lbs and delivers 5.31kWh with a mass of 1001 in^2 -

Or 10.55 lbs per kWh
188.4 in^2 per kWh

Edit: The above are specs of a tesla car battery for reference. No specs released yet for the Lilium battery.

M

[Ascend Charlie]

Total 85kwh battery cell weight is 900lbs plus uber strong housing of 300lbs.


That makes 1200 lb or about 500kg, the total takeoff wt is 600kg, which minus the 200kg payload leaves an airframe of 400kg, 100kg short of the battery weight by itself - doesn't add up.

Go to the website, look for the photo looking up at the machine and see that everything is forward of the wing - it will not fly.

See also the pop-out cylinders for hovering - when they pop back in, the occupants' feet are crushed.

Looks very pretty, but somebody is playing with himself.

[PDR1]

No vertical surfaces? Is the directional stability synthetic as well?

Also canard is at the same height as the mainplane, so the inner 25% iof each semispan won't do anything useful.

From that picture it looks like the man propulsion uses ducted fans embedded in the flaps, which would have intakes above the mainplane in forward flight. This could provide some "blown" surface enhancement in the cruise (when you shouldn't need it) which will suddenly disappear as soon as the flap/thrusters are dropped for transition to the hover (when you WOULD need it).

The originator should be given some crayons and left to amuse himself while grown-ups are talking. Oh, he was...

PDR

[mickjoebill]

That makes 1200 lb or about 500kg, the total takeoff wt is 600kg, which minus the 200kg payload leaves an airframe of 400kg, 100kg short of the battery weight by itself - doesn't add up.


It doesn't add up because the figures you quote include the weight of the massive battery frame needed to form the superstructure of the Teslar Model S car.
Base your power v weight calculations on the individual battery modules, these weight 5 kilos and deliver 1kWh.

No specs available on the batteries planned for the Lilium, so using the tesla battery modules as a guide.

In respect to what look like flaps, perhaps they are not required to reduce stall speed.

Wouldn't lifting the nose, let's say, 45 degrees and simultaneously gradually tilting the canard and wing fans downwards, produce a smooth transition from the wing providing lift to the fans taking over?

The Lilium is mentored by ESA, so hard to imagine that they are crackpots.

Mickjoebill

[PDR1]

As far as I can see the concept is trying to use the fuselage as a canard, but even assuming this works I struggle to see how a canard surface with a sub-unity aspect ratio could ever be even vaguely efficient. It should be hideously draggy.

But it might be trying to do something clever with the heavily blown foreplane (more evident in this view):

http://lilium-aviation.com/img/oceanflight.jpg

Concepts like this have been done before. There was a Cessna 150(?) which was fitted with a tiny wing all within the propwash and on its sole flight appeared to fly very well - right up to the point where the engine stopped, revealing the essential weakness of the concept. When I get home I'll loook out the references for that one.

The thing is that other images on the site appear to imply that the "foreplane" and its thrusters would be retracted in the cruise:

http://lilium-aviation.com/img/mountainflights.jpg
http://lilium-aviation.com/img/londonflight.jpg

So it would then be dependant on the fuselage as a foreplane which (as I mentioned) should be hideously inefficient.

With that number of fans active (synthetic) yaw stabilisation should certainly be possible, but certifying it as an alternative to a fin could be a challenge. It's not at all clear how this machine would survive a complete power failure. for this and many other reasons.

PDR

[Ian Corrigible]

The wing layout is reminiscent of the RQ-3A DarkStar (http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A20070230000), though the forward CG is far more extreme.

The propulsion approach is similar to the recently announced Aurora LightningStrike (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/575671-new-trends-helicopter-engines.html#post9299433) concept, which may have prompted the ESA 'business incubation (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/TTP2/Personal_aircraft_aiming_to_take_off_from_your_home)' funding.

Given that the Lilium project was only "founded in February 2015 by four engineers and doctoral students," I'd say we have a better chance of seeing the sky blackened with Mollers (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/290044-air-car-anyone.html), Hoverbikes (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/454228-hoverbike-makes-debut.html) or Terrafugias (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/514321-terrafugia-plans-stop-fold-tiltrotor-hybrid-car.html) by 2018 than we do of seeing the Lilium reach the marketplace.

I/C

[mickjoebill]

I don't disagree with comments about the aerodynamic puzzle.
Hard to see how it can be controlled with the forward canards retracted.
The things that looks like wings may not need to produce much lift if motors are tilted down?

They claim 325kw/435 horsepower and endurance at cruise of approx 1hr 25min. Empty weight of 400kg.
Is this achievable if applying the specs of Tesla batteries of 5kilos per 1kWh? The Tesla modules themselves in an 85 kWh Model S are about 900 lbs. The other ~300 lbs is everything else for the pack.


Mickjoebill

[riff_raff]

The vertical lift efficiency of all those small diameter/high speed rotors will be miserable. And it's VTOL operation that drives the size of the electric motors/power electronics. An electric propulsion system sized for VTOL operation that accounts for less than 5% of total flight time usually means the motors/PEs will be over-sized for the other 95% of flight time in conventional (wing-borne) operation. This weight penalty can be significant.

Compare this to a battery-electric 2 seat rotorcraft that was actually built and flown (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD8TfjDMYT0). It was a modified S-300C helicopter which already had a well developed rotor system and lightweight airframe. The electric motor was rated at 141 kW which was the same power produced by the original Lycoming piston engine. The lithium ion battery pack weighed 1100 pounds which was limited by the S-300C max GW capability . This allowed around 15 minutes of flight with a single pilot on board.

I'm sure the engineers that designed the Firefly were competent, and the motor/controls/battery were all based on current technology. So it would be fair to use the Firefly's demonstrated performance as a baseline to evaluate concepts like Lilium.

[Rotorbee]

Apart from the things already pointed out - it doesn't even look as it should fly in an environment commonly know as air - , they should have studied the regs a bit more.
They want it to be a light sport aircaft.
A few points:
Max speed 180mp/h - Oh no. Max speed of an LSA can't be more than 138 mph.
No rotorcraft in the LSA category. Since it has lots of rotors, it disqualifies even multiple times.
One engine/motor only in a LSA.

... and a 600kg it would be just 1.2 kg too heavy for an LSA. But that's nitpicking.

Looks like somebody didn't even do the most basic research or they are just in the business to get crowd funding and then disappear to somewhere sunny ... to get in the mood for the project, I am sure.

[Ascend Charlie]

No pix of it on the ground or with wheels showing - where in the nose could you put a retractable nosewheel that doesn't get in the way of the retractable cylinders? Where would the main gear go and still leave room for a battery?

And just imaging the NOISE from 36 screeching little fans doing 15,000rpm to push some air downwards. Pure pud-pulling.

[Wageslave]

Come on, cut them a bit of slack, it's no more than silly verbiage applied to a series of pretty pictures drawn by someone with no knowledge whatsoever of aerodynamics.

It clearly isn't a serious proposal or anywhere close to one.

If anything it's a good troll judging by all the serious technical replies.

[Nige321]

drawn by someone with no knowledge whatsoever of aerodynamics

Really...??
Well either the armchair designers here are wrong, or this lot are...:8

We are a team of visionary aerospace engineers and product designers from the Technical University of Munich, Germany.
Our academic and professional backgrounds span from aeronautics and aerodynamics to robotics and ultra-lightweight structures. Initially funded by the European Union and supported by the European Space Agency and its Business Incubation Centre Bavaria we are developing the most advanced personal aircraft the world has ever seen.

[oggers]

This is the Lilium Jet, the world's first electric vertical take-off and landing jet

...just one problem with that: HELLO, it's only a pretend photo!

[mickjoebill]

And just imaging the NOISE from 36 screeching little fans doing 15,000rpm to push some air downwards. Pure pud-pulling.]

But its German visionaries say it will be much quieter than a helicopter!??

Some reasonable criticism of most of its specs on Pprune, are we losing something in the translation or are they onto something new?

Mickjoebill

[riff_raff]

"We are a team of visionary aerospace engineers and product designers from the Technical University of Munich, Germany. Our academic and professional backgrounds span from aeronautics and aerodynamics to robotics and ultra-lightweight structures. Initially funded by the European Union and supported by the European Space Agency and its Business Incubation Centre Bavaria we are developing the most advanced personal aircraft the world has ever seen."

Based on what this team is proposing, I would question their claims of expertise as "visionary aerospace engineers" or the ability to develop "the most advanced personal aircraft the world has ever seen". Unfortunately, this group of young inexperienced engineers will learn the cold, hard lesson of the difference between conceptual and real world designs. Those 36 tiny electric rotors will produce far less lift than they predict, the complete system will be far heavier than they predict, and it will be much more difficult to control this system than they predict.

[Ascend Charlie]

Then these "Experts" should know that it is far more efficient to accelerate a large amount of air to a low speed, then a small amount of air to a high speed, as well as the noise. Compare the noise and downwash disturbance from a 5-ton helicopter (S-76) in the hover to a Harrier jet.

And their claim to hold degrees from a particular university is far outweighed by my degrees and doctorates from Snotgobbler University, Noo Joisey, they cost me $50 each.

[Wageslave]

Initially funded by the European Union and supported by the European Space Agency and its Business Incubation Centre Bavaria

ie a glitzy prestige project funded by a irresponsible and financially corrupt body notorious for handing vast sums of cash as "subsidies" to anyone with a slick line of talk and maybe a bit of inside influence.
The "visionary" (quaaludes???) designers (aka ambitious permanent students) will live high on the hog for a few years just drawing silly pictures and issuing press statements before it all goes tits-up and they start again with another half decade of taxpayer-funded smoke, mirrors and champagne.
Not a bad lifestyle, all in all, even if it is ultimately one sponged off the taxpayer (ie us) with nowt to show for it.

[konradb]

this looks like

LightningStrike X-Plane ? Aurora (http://www.aurora.aero/lightningstrike/)

it is going to use the AE1107 turboshaft as used in the v-22 to drive 3 x 1 megawatt generators
will weigh 12000lb, 3000lb of fuel and 1500lb of payload

[mickjoebill]

NASA just disclosed design of their X57 experimental electric plane.
They too are exploring many small props rather than a couple of large fans.
The small props on leading edge are used for takeoff and landing, larger motors on wing tips used in cruise.
NASA's X-57 Hybrid Electric Research Plane | NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasas-x-57-hybrid-electric-research-plane)

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-electric-research-plane-gets-x-number-new-name
This one doesn't seem to have VTOL capability.
Yes, image is an artists impression.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/sceptor_city_nasa_half_res.jpg
Mickjoebill

[Ascend Charlie]

One heck of a yaw moment when one engine stops......asymmetric flight would improve your leg muscles somewhat.

[PDR1]

Or you could just fire up a number of the T/O motors on that wing to bring it back into balance...

PDR

[PDR1]

Concepts like this have been done before. There was a Cessna 150(?) which was fitted with a tiny wing all within the propwash and on its sole flight appeared to fly very well - right up to the point where the engine stopped, revealing the essential weakness of the concept. When I get home I'll loook out the references for that one.


I'd forgotten about this - apols!. I've just looked it up and my memory was faulty. The aeroplane I was thinking of was the 1953 Larsen Speed Bird, which was based on a Taylorcraft BC-12:

http://www.aerofiles.com/larson.jpg

PDR

[riff_raff]

Don't know if I believe the claims made by NASA for the benefits of this concept.

"NASA’s aeronautical innovators hope to validate the idea that distributing electric power across a number of motors integrated with an aircraft in this way will result in a five-time reduction in the energy required for a private plane to cruise at 175 mph."

They claim the thinner wing will reduce drag in cruise flight. But it does not seem to come close to offsetting the added drag/weight of the 12 electric propellers that are not used in cruise flight.

[mickjoebill]

The Venture Capitalist company "Atomico" are backing Lilium Aviation to the tune of €10M

Atomico - Great companies can come from anywhere (http://atomico.com/news/the-future-of-sustainable-transportation)



New pictures of the prototype/mockup
Big announcement (http://us13.campaign-archive1.com/?u=6880a459b4ee98b1add17e979&id=1b35b6ee9e&e=85cc7af9ad)

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/6880a459b4ee98b1add17e979/_compresseds/c0ed95e7-58da-4c3f-bf6e-f598243bb315.jpg

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/6880a459b4ee98b1add17e979/_compresseds/12640368-8fb0-40bc-92f2-0e4dc1c5b4af.jpg

Mickjoebill

[mickjoebill]

It flys.(unmanned)

https://youtu.be/ohig71bwRUE

For a measure of the potential significance of this test flight, read the previous posts from the many whom doubted it was possible.
ohig71bwRUE


Mickjoebill

[CTR]

[QUOTE=mickjoebill;9747213]It flys.(unmanned)

https://youtu.be/ohig71bwRUE

Mickjoebill,

Please rewatch the video and pay close attention to the editing cut from the full scale non flying mockup to a much smaller flying model.

Also notice that the landing gear is different and no one is photographed next to the flying mode to give a reference to scale.

[PDR1]

Erm...that looked like an RC model at about 1/4-1/3 scale (compare its size to the taxiway it landed on, and look at the wobble when it first lifted off).

If so I'm not sure what it proved.

PDR

[fatmanmedia]

I was laughing so loud I nearly peed myself watching it, it was clearly a RC scale model, the video was a nicely edited bt of junk.

I'll take more interest when they fly with a person in the cockpit.

[mickjoebill]

Hey CTR, PDR1 and Fatmanmedia, in response to your claims about the video, Lilium Aviation posted the following;

As a founder, I can guarantee on behalf of our amazing investors and all you people out there, we did NOT use CGI or a size scaled model. This is the original size of our previous two-seated concept.

Their published timeline is for the first manned flight in 2019.

Mickjoebill

[Nige321]

I've just watched it on a very big screen. I'd say it's full size, there's just too much detail for it not to be... Some armchair experts need to go to Specsavers...
:8

[CTR]

I am willing to be convinced with two pieces of data.

Flying model size compared to non flying prototype shown earlier in the video.

Most importantly, the flying models actual weight.

[mickjoebill]

I am willing to be convinced with two pieces of data.

Flying model size compared to non flying prototype shown earlier in the video.

Most importantly, the flying models actual weight.


A multicamera recording, along with a personal guarantee from Paddy, a co-founder, that it is their full size two seater in the video has already answered your first data request..but you still don't believe them, because...?


Mickjoebill

[CTR]

Mic,

I don't believe because I am an engineer and have done the math. Battery and motor technology is not viable yet. And will likely not be for 10 to 20 years at best.

Regarding scale, the founder stated "This is the original size of our previous two-seated concept". He did not state it it was the same generous size as the mockup shown earlier in the video. I believe it is about 3/4 scale at best.

Regarding weight, I have seen mockups of full scale cars flying. Using one or two pies of composite cloth you could make a good scale size Lilium model that weighed under a 60 lbs fly. But this is far less difficult than what is required to make a real two passenger weight aircraft fly.

So give me real dimensions and weight of what is flying in the video. Then I can check my math.

[PDR1]

So all this happened at an airfield in Germany?

If it is a full-size, remotely piloted version where are the certification papers and NOTAMs required for legally flying an untethered SUAV of that size? Germany has rules about that sort of thing.

Personally I'm still sceptical and will remain so until the videos stop using the typical tricks used to obfuscate the size - showing it with nothing at all in the frame to scale it being one of the main ones.

I also don't believe that fans which are lifting what must be over 1,000kg of airframe could be anything like that quiet.

PDR

[mickjoebill]

"This is the original size of our previous two-seated concept".
The point he is making is the production model will be a four seater.
Do you agree that what was flown was a full size two seater craft, ie of a size that could fit two adults?

Mickjoebill

[Vertical Freedom]

Auto....Auto......wanna see an AUTO :D :mad: :D

[Cazalet33]

Auto....Auto......wanna see an AUTO

Ah, that would be the dreaded 35 motor approach. Even scarier: two motors out on the same wing, so now down to 34 motors.

[RVDT]

QUOTE]Auto....Auto......wanna see an AUTO[/QUOTE]

Er its called ballistic recovery parachute system as fitted to many LSA and larger aircraft. Cirrus C 172 C 150 etc etc.

Been around since the 80's and so far used successfully about 250 times.

Even works when the wings drop off obviously.

mzh0gGj1zog

You blokes need to get out more often.:O:O

[PDR1]

Do you agree that what was flown was a full size two seater craft, ie of a size that could fit two adults?


Not without something in the video to scale it, no. The dynamics of the lift of were all wrong - something weighing over a ton wouldn't wobble in that way. Also I can't see how ~2000lbs or more of vertical thrust could be achieved with so little noise and so little evident jet-sheeting over the surrounding grass.

It looked and sounded like a model weighing perhaps 10-15kg with an array of standard electric ducted-fan units totalling somewhere in the region of 3-4kW. If it WAS bigger and capable of carrying a couple of hundred kilos of self-installing flight control system then show me the paperwork that would be needed to test fly that under remote piloting (because that's not a trivial thing in an EASA country). Then perhaps I might be less sceptical.

PDR

[Ascend Charlie]

When viewed full-screen, you can see lots of little wobbles in the pitch and yaw plane - a machine of real size and weight (with the subsequent inertia in pitch and roll) could not wobble that fast without some serious stresses.

[CTR]

The point he is making is the production model will be a four seater.
Do you agree that what was flown was a full size two seater craft, ie of a size that could fit two adults?

Mickjoebill

Mick,

If you know or have access to the actual flight vehicle dimensions, just provide them. It may be capable of fitting two passengers, but it appears smaller than he non flying mockup shown earlier in the video.

Regarding the flying aircrafts actual weight. Stop the video at 1:24 and look at the landing gear being used. The three thin curved hoops of either composite or metal could not support a realistic weight of a two passenger aircraft.

[PDR1]

And why no wheels? I know it's supposed to be a VTOL aeroplane, but those silly little skids will make it a right pain to move around on the ground (like helis with skids).

Sorry, but no one would get that far with a project with that kind of schoolboy error. It's making the F313 look credible...

PDR

[fatmanmedia]

OK, I relooked at the video and a number of questions came to my mind.

1. why did it take off from a taxiway and not from either the runway or a helicopter landing pad?

2. for a first flight why was there no flight data probes? surely you would want to know the environment that the aircraft was flying in?

3. Why did they not list the airport that they took off from, every other first flight video tells you the time and date and where the first flight occurred? Was this flight legal?

4. When it took off it had aGoProo mounted at each wing tip let later on in the video there was one missing, did it loose a GoPro if not was it the second flight that we saw later on in the video?

To be honest there are too many questions and not enough data to make those questions disappear.

Fats

[mickjoebill]

Re the previous posts, sensible questions from Ppruners, which have been put to the company on social media.
They have replied directly, saying the video was edited from more than one flight during their test program and the craft was their full size two seater.

This conversation raises the question of the definition of a "prototype".


Mickjoebill

[CTR]

Re the previous posts, sensible questions from Ppruners, which have been put to the company on social media.
They have replied directly, saying the video was edited from more than one flight during their test program and the craft was their full size two seater.

This conversation raises the question of the definition of a "prototype".


Mickjoebill

Mick,

Weight and dimensions please. Then the truth is clear.

[tottigol]

Then these "Experts" should know that it is far more efficient to accelerate a large amount of air to a low speed, then a small amount of air to a high speed, as well as the noise. Compare the noise and downwash disturbance from a 5-ton helicopter (S-76) in the hover to a Harrier jet.


You mean an 11,000 lbs with 1,100 SHP engines helicopter compared to a 23,000 lbs gross weight aircraft and rated jet engine?
Yeah, the noise may be different.

[Nige321]

... show me the paperwork that would be needed to test fly that under remote piloting (because that's not a trivial thing in an EASA country). Then perhaps I might be less sceptical.

PDR

ESA are involved. I doubt they'd put up with fake videos.
ESA website (http://www.esa-bic.de/index.php?anzeige=lilium.html)

[etudiant]

ESA are involved. I doubt they'd put up with fake videos.
ESA website (http://www.esa-bic.de/index.php?anzeige=lilium.html)

The ESA web site so helpfully referenced says the concept has been 'validated ...with several scaled prototypes weighing 25 kg'.
It goes on to say that Lilium is now developing its first product, a two seater ultra light...
I think that settles the matter, the video is of one of the prototypes.

[mickjoebill]

A Manager at Lilium HQ have said it was their full scale 2 seater used on the maiden flight video and that the video contains pictures from multiple flights.

You could estimate the craft dimensions from the drone shot with the tech laying underneath.

I'll ask about weight but don't hold your breath:)
One assumes their plan for world domination has factored in the prospect of evolving battery efficiencies.

Pity they didn't show an unedited flight from takeoff to landing. I've suggested they release an unedited shot from the camera drone that was also airborne.


Mickjoebill

[riff_raff]

When viewed full-screen, you can see lots of little wobbles in the pitch and yaw plane - a machine of real size and weight (with the subsequent inertia in pitch and roll) could not wobble that fast without some serious stresses.

That's what also caught my eye. It's unfortunate that this start-up felt compelled to release video of a vehicle that clearly does not conform to a production configuration, making a very brief flight that demonstrated some potential stability/control issues.

[CTR]

Thanks Mick,

I agree. I won't hold my breath waiting for an aircraft weight.

[Cazalet33]

video of a vehicle that clearly does not conform to a production configuration

Did they claim that it was a production model? I don't think so.

Similarly, the flying bedstead wasn't a production model Harrier.

[PDR1]

A Manager at Lilium HQ have said it was their full scale 2 seater used on the maiden flight video and that the video contains pictures from multiple flights.


"A Manager" - why no name? Despite the claims that there are tens of people working ion this project you only ever see two or three. Hardly a hive of development activity.


You could estimate the craft dimensions from the drone shot with the tech laying underneath.


Ah, but lying under what? That looks like the mock-up, because no one puts that much fit & finish effort into a flight-test sample. Also if it's a flight-test aircraft where are the datum marks, instrumentation probes etc etc?


One assumes their plan for world domination has factored in the prospect of evolving battery efficiencies.


Current [sorry!] batteries are very efficient - what they need is much higher energy density (especially with respect to mass), not efficiency.


Pity they didn't show an unedited flight from takeoff to landing. I've suggested they release an unedited shot from the camera drone that was also airborne.


So straight questions:

1. Did this (these?) flight(s) take place in Germany?
2. If so where are the notams for the area concerned that would be needed to operate a remotely piloted vehicle with in AUW in the thousands of pounds region?
3. In Germany an RC model weighing more than (IIRC) 5kg needs various approvals both during construction and to fly. Alternatively a "commercial" remotely piloted vehicle would need certification to something akin to CS22 with a certified design organisation and an operating organisation holding approvals to something akin to the UK's Part 8(a)1. Who holds these approvals, who undertook the certifications or were they flown illegally?

If they could just provide some pretty simple and non-confidential answers they would blow our scepticism out of the water...

PDR

[mickjoebill]

PDR,
It was, apparently real person with a real job title in marketing who responded to me by email.

So both head of marketing and the co-founder are saying the same thing, that the video was of their full size 2 seater.


Mickjoebill

[PDR1]

Both Nigel Farrage and Boris Johnson said that we would save paying £350m a week by leaving the EU. Both of them saying the same thing didn't make it any truer.

I'm not accusing anyone of mendacity - I just find it strange that the identified inconsistencies could be easily and simply resolved with almost no effort, but they have chosen not to do so.

Look, I don't know if you've ever tried to integrate "remote piloting systems" into a full-size airframe with a view to legally flying it (even in very restricted tests) European airspace, but I have been involved in it. It's non-trivial. In my view (others may have different views and I may even be wrong) doing the initial tests "unmanned" makes it harder rather than easier, and I simply don't see any of what I would expect to see as the minimum prerequisites in any of the information and claims they've shown to date.

Never mind the picky little detail of how the aerodynamics of that configuration are supposed to work in wing-borne flight.

I'm cutting them some slack - I have assumed that things like the variable nozzle systems needed to allow the same fans to work efficiently for both hover lift and 200mph flight are something they'll add at a later date. But there are just too many details that simply don't add up.

Want one more? Why the deeply-tinted windscreen glass? How's that going to work in marginal viz? Why bother having it on a flight-test specimen...

PDR

[Morane]

The flight took place at the Grob Airfield im Mindelheim.

Jo

[SansAnhedral]

The ESA web site so helpfully referenced says the concept has been 'validated ...with several scaled prototypes weighing 25 kg'.
It goes on to say that Lilium is now developing its first product, a two seater ultra light...
I think that settles the matter, the video is of one of the prototypes.

Indeed, the slow speed flight dynamics certainly do indicate that this scaled prototype in the video was 25 kg

[aox]

Some great pictures of it in a British newspaper site about a year ago.

And apparently it will be on sale in 2018

Lilium the world's first electric vertical take-off and landing jet | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3579328/Is-future-private-jets-world-s-electric-vertical-landing-jet-fly-garden.html)

One thing occurs to me - are those front pods or whatever they are called retractable into the front fuselage sides, as one photo implies?

If so, where are your legs?

[Ascend Charlie]

Yeah, been asked before - when the "pods" retract;

1. Front seaters' legs get crushed;
2. Retractable front wheel assembly gets mangled; and
3. Machine pitches nose down due to the whole structure c.g. being in front of the lifting surface.

[PDR1]

Yeah, been asked before - when the "pods" retract;

1. Front seaters' legs get crushed;
2. Retractable front wheel assembly gets mangled; and
3. Machine pitches nose down due to the whole structure c.g. being in front of the lifting surface.

Well you don't get all that innovation without some downsides...

PDR

[PDR1]

So in summary what we are seeing is a "scaled prototype" (ie not full size) weighing 25kg (not something with a 200kg payload or a 300 mile range).

So it's an RC model aeroplane, as we said. Its power system, energy storage and structure will not be representative in any way. Its control system might employ similar general principles, but won't use the same hardware. As such it matters not whether it's a model of the 2-seater or the 4-seater; it's still just an RC model.

And more to the point it's only shown in jet-borne flight; there is no video of it in wing-borne flight (whether with the front fan units deployed or retracted) so it does nothing to address the fundamental questions we have been asking about how it is to work aerodynamically.

I believe our scepticism is growing rather than receding.

PDR

[WillyPete]

Yeah, been asked before - when the "pods" retract;

1. Front seaters' legs get crushed;
2. Retractable front wheel assembly gets mangled; and
3. Machine pitches nose down due to the whole structure c.g. being in front of the lifting surface.

Reminds me of the old Tucker automobile, where he originally planned for front wheel fairings to turn with the wheels and thus have the headlights mounted on them follow the direction of travel, but had to settle for a single headlight in the centre of the bonnet that turned with the steering wheel.

[Slatye]

Indeed, the slow speed flight dynamics certainly do indicate that this scaled prototype in the video was 25 kg
That seems like a reasonable number, which should be quite achievable using the foam (either sheet or carved from a solid block) construction used for millions of RC planes. If you wanted to do a mock-up to show to potential investors, as well as having the ability to do demo flights, that would be a good way to start.

Stick a couple of big-ish (110 - 130mm) electric ducted fans in there (up to around 8kg thrust each at 6kW; 5kg would be more common in the cheaper models) and you should be able to fly that around very nicely - at least when there's no wind.

[mickjoebill]

Indeed, the slow speed flight dynamics certainly do indicate that this scaled prototype in the video was 25 kg

So who is digging a deep hole for themselves, Ppruners or Lilium?


Lilium Facebook post from co-founder Patrick Nathen,
"As a founder, I can guarantee on behalf of our amazing investors and all you people out there, we did NOT use CGI or a size scaled model. This is the original size of our previous two-seated concept."

Email from Marketing manager in response to edited video.
"I can confirm that it is the full scale 2-seater.
We are running a test flight program, which means, we are testing it more than once.
We can start and land anywhere, doesn´t have to be exact the same spot, right?
Best, Mareike

Mareike Mutzberg
communications manager"

A remote test flight, apparently not above 100 feet, on "private" property of a fly-by-wire craft, backed by ESA and funded by the founder of Skype is not far fetched. Especially since they were test flying several scale models throughout 2016, videos of which are on u tube.

The thing is just a drone on steroids so remote control is embedded in its DNA.
They plan for it to be autonomous, so there is less to be converted.

Sure, they have shot themselves in the foot by labelling the video a "maiden flight" when it is a glossy compilation of several flights. They seem reluctant to release a continuous unedited shot of a flight which would adress the scepticism that scale models were used.

But it would be very silly of lillium to further mislead the public by making the statements quoted above if they were not true.

Has anyone found a report from a journalist who eye-witnessed the test flights?

Ppruner scepticism up to a point (!) is encouraged, given the radical design and the "forward looking" specification and performance of the craft and the unsatisfactory presentation of the test flights.

Mickjoebill

[Terry Dactil]

In regard to the forward fan array not being retractable without crushing front passengers legs, it's apparently a moot point as the two seater was a concept not necessarily meant to go into production.
It's a bit of a worry that the design team did not notice that small problem right at the start.
I expect the next announcement will be something like
"Yeah, that one was just the concept. The production version will have extra wings... and wheels.... and a big engine... and...err, lots of other stuff" :E

[mickjoebill]

So in summary what we are seeing is a "scaled prototype" (ie not full size) weighing 25kg (not something with a 200kg payload or a 300 mile range).
The airfield in Tussenhausen Germany can be viewed on Google Earth.
According to google earth the taxiway the craft lifted from is around 6.5 meters in width.
Video from a few angles indicates the wingspan of the lilium craft is a similar width to the taxiway.

So an extraordinary achievement if the craft has a wingspan of over 6 meters yet weights only 25kg:)

Mickjoebill

[ShyTorque]

I wonder how it taxied from the hangar to the runway?

[PDR1]

A remote test flight, apparently not above 100 feet, on "private" property of a fly-by-wire craft, backed by ESA and funded by the founder of Skype is not far fetched. Especially since they were test flying several scale models throughout 2016, videos of which are on u tube.


But if it is an air vehicle of significant size and mass (larger than the germa large RC model rules would cover) it would still require the airfield and surrounding area to be notam'd - it should be easy enough to find that notam to add some substance to the claims.


The thing is just a drone on steroids so remote control is embedded in its DNA.
They plan for it to be autonomous, so there is less to be converted.


Stunning! I must try that as a safety case argument:

"Certification, design standards compliance and range airspace sanitation/segregation not required because remote control has been embedded in the vehicle DNA".

Yep, I can see the airworthiness authorities signing off on that!


But it would be very silly of lillium to further mislead the public by making the statements quoted above if they were not true.


Making unsupported and expansive claims to attract inward investment is hardly a novel practice.

PDR

[PDR1]

I wonder how it taxied from the hangar to the runway?

Indeed - that was one of the many as-yet un-answered questions asked in the preceding pages.

PDR

[PDR1]

The whole "retractable forward lift motors" thing seems to be a feature of this "flight test model" only. The other concept picture show a large and blown foreplane, so I'm confused. Are they saying that this sample is ONLY for jet-borne flight, and the one that does wing-borne flight will have a foreplane? Why build two that are different?

The CG issue perplexes me. It is claimed that the final product is a 4-seater, with all the seats forward of the mainplane. That's a load which could be anything from (say) 100kg to 400kg. Now if there is a large foreplane it's conceivable that the CG lies somewhere in the cabin area and this variable load could be accommodated.

But if it is flown with no foreplane then the CG will need to be somewhere around 15% MAC (typical stability point for an unswept "plank" tail-less with a reflexed wing section to give the favourable pitching moments). That means that the occupants will all be ahead of the CG. Now if we assume there is a vast battery weighing more than a brace NFL quarterbacks which is mounted right at the "back end" (please stop me if this techie jargon is getting too complicated) that would balance the occupants. But how would it cope with the massive variations in occupant weight? This doesn't stack up.

The website talks about the final vehicle will charge overnight form a normal mains outlet, and then defines a mission profile of just over an hour's duration. So let's be generous and say a 12:1 charge/use ratio. In the UK/Europe the most you can take out of a mains socket is 13A, which gives you a smidge under 3kW. So if we ignore charging losses that tells us the average power consumption across the mission would be no more than 36kW - 47bhp.

Does it sound reasonable that a vehicle could carry 4 people and luggage at 180mph for 200 miles with vertical take off and landing on an AVERAGE of 47bhp - less than a typical VW conversion in a Turbulent?

There are other techie howlers on the website as well, but the man's down so I'm stopping the kicking.

PDR

[pettinger93]

Well, either it will fly or it won't. If the above sceptics are right, and nothing beyond a scale model ever flies, we won't hear much more about it. If, on the other hand and in the fullness of time, a full size airworthy aircraft surprises us all with new and astounding technology, the above pruners will all have to eat humble pie. Stranger things have happened and time will tell.

[Ascend Charlie]

This one looks a bit more like it will ... ummm ... take off?

Aurora Unveils New eVTOL Aircraft at Uber Elevate Summit (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aurora-unveils-new-evtol-aircraft-at-uber-elevate-summit-300445361.html)

[IFMU]

Compare this to a battery-electric 2 seat rotorcraft that was actually built and flown (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD8TfjDMYT0). It was a modified S-300C helicopter which already had a well developed rotor system and lightweight airframe. The electric motor was rated at 141 kW which was the same power produced by the original Lycoming piston engine. The lithium ion battery pack weighed 1100 pounds which was limited by the S-300C max GW capability . This allowed around 15 minutes of flight with a single pilot on board.

I'm sure the engineers that designed the Firefly were competent, and the motor/controls/battery were all based on current technology. So it would be fair to use the Firefly's demonstrated performance as a baseline to evaluate concepts like Lilium.

I don't believe the Firefly ever flew. Sorry for the response to an old post, I'm behind here.

I will say that anything will fly if you get the disk loading low enough. Asking about size and weight are entirely appropriate.

[oggers]

So a year after their claimed date for a manned flight they have managed instead to fly a large drone that looks like the concept but cannot carry out the functions of the concept. Certification in 2018? :rolleyes:

Electric drones doing VTOL is decades old news. The concept was for this thing to carry people and also the wings to fold away so it could drive along the highway. This "first test flight" was actually an RC model aircraft that could do neither. Boring.

[Thracian]

So a year after their claimed date for a manned flight they have managed instead to fly a large drone that looks like the concept but cannot carry out the functions of the concept. Certification in 2018? :rolleyes:

Electric drones doing VTOL is decades old news. The concept was for this thing to carry people and also the wings to fold away so it could drive along the highway. This "first test flight" was actually an RC model aircraft that could do neither. Boring.
According to their new timeline, first manned flights will take place in 2019 now. Well, I do remember the old one you´re referring to ;-)
Additionally, the new pictures don´t show the slightest chance of retractable "wings". Maybe they came across some serious physical issues with CG? On of the founders being an (inactive) glider pilot, I would have expected this encounter a few years earlier ;-)
What remains, is an electrical driven VTOL aircraft.
A five seater Lilium will presumably be bigger (in terms of wing span) than a comparable 5 PAX classical Heli in rotor diameter. I wonder, how they will get their "Lilium Pads" in downtown Manhattan...


But hey, the´ve got their investors, they seem to have some App (or at least some true image manipulation geeks).
Isn´t that all you´ll ever need in modern business?
:E


Thracian

[Nige321]

For those that can be bothered, there's a different video on Liliums Facebook page which shows a couple of different camera angles and some extra detail.

As certain posters seem to be utterly convinced the whole thing is a scam, I'll leave them to find it themselves...

[Ian Corrigible]

Bell is now also getting into the electric VTOL game: Bell Helicopter, Embraer partner with Uber for electric VTOL taxis (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-helicopter-embraer-partner-with-uber-for-elect-436541/) (Bell microsite here (http://www.bellhelicopter.com/company/innovation#sectionUberElevate)).

I don't believe the Firefly ever flew.
Correct, though someone did manage to get a battery-powered R44 airborne: Electric Boogaloo part 2: R44 Edition (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/585190-electric-boogaloo-part-2-r44-edition.html)

I/C

[SansAnhedral]

So who is digging a deep hole for themselves, Ppruners or Lilium?

Mickjoebill

So what is the gross weight?

[EDMJ]

Have never, ever seen a "real" aircraft prototype flying in Germany without a registration. Which begs the question which class they're going to register it in..

A clever, modern version of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Anyway, Germans are suckers for these things. Does anyone remember Cargolifter and the amount of money the German state sunk into this....

[mickjoebill]

So what is the gross weight?

No idea.
Have a guess, a 6 meter wingspan, canopy, electric motors and a battery long enough for one of the test flights, let's say 1 minute.

I wonder how it taxied from the hangar to the runway?
Perhaps the same way a helicopter get to the pad?
Maybe those square things under the bed springs are part of a dolly?

But if it is an air vehicle of significant size and mass (larger than the germa large RC model rules would cover) it would still require the airfield and surrounding area to be notam'd - it should be easy enough to find that notam to add some substance to the claims.

Perhaps someone familiar with dragging Notams from the archive on the Notam website could have a look.
It is a great point that there was no registration. What is the max weight of the large agricultural drone in Europe?


Mickjoebill

[Thracian]

Have never, ever seen a "real" aircraft prototype flying in Germany without a registration. Which begs the question which class they're going to register it in..

A clever, modern version of "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Anyway, Germans are suckers for these things. Does anyone remember Cargolifter and the amount of money the German state sunk into this....
Careful ;-)
We germans don´t have the slightest trace of humor ;-)


You have to distinguish between state investments and private ones. Look at the Volocopter guys (building a Heli-like looking electrical 18 rotor multicopter with battery exchange system). They are already doing manned flights with a registered aircraft. Their first manned takeoff was a year ago.
And they´re doing it in Germany.


They just have presented their "2X" model for certification in 2018.


In my humble opinion this will be the first electrical manned aircraft being commercially available.


Of course, it´s not fast, but it´s a beginning


Thracian

[XV666]

I wonder how it taxied from the hangar to the runway?

Really? 1:05 in the video clearly shows a trolley under the machine as it lifts.

[aox]

The airfield in Tussenhausen Germany can be viewed on Google Earth.
According to google earth the taxiway the craft lifted from is around 6.5 meters in width.
Video from a few angles indicates the wingspan of the lilium craft is a similar width to the taxiway.

So an extraordinary achievement if the craft has a wingspan of over 6 meters yet weights only 25kg:)

Mickjoebill

And the pictures in the Daily Mail a year ago really are of it flying amongst some mountains and across some sea quite low.

May 2016: on sale in 2018.

April 2017: first manned flights in 2019

What will next year's update say?

[mickjoebill]

Lilium have just raised $90 million to continue development of the lilium jet.
70 staff, recent senior hires from Airbus, Tesla and Gett, co-founders of Twitter and Skype on board.
The team continue to look impressive on paper and social media:), but endurance v payload yet to be well defined, other than one hour endurance at 300kph mentioned in the press release.
https://lilium.com/news/

"The Lilium Jet will be able to travel at up to 300 km per hour for one hour on a single charge - meaning an example 19 km journey from Manhattan to JFK Airport could last as little as five minutes. The jet’s economy and efficiency means flights are predicted to cost less than the same journey in a normal road taxi."

Here is one way to increase payload and range:)
https://www.facebook.com/CivilWork/videos/1452061358200167/
Mjb

[Ascend Charlie]

MJB, did you read the comments on that clip? Astounding how many rockapes thought it was real.

[mickjoebill]

MJB, did you read the comments on that clip? Astounding how many rockapes thought it was real.

Potential Lilium investors!

Mjb

[Hot and Hi]

More recent 'artist's impressions' on their website https://lilium.com/technology/ now show a big canard (span maybe half of the wingspan of the main wing).

https://lilium.com/images/press/resources/lilium-jet-white-front-diagonal-with-gear.jpg

[Ascend Charlie]

OK, so now those canards appear to have lost their swivelling hinges and are now looking very fixed?? Now it is just the engines that swivel to the vertical, but no hinge or actuator is visible - under the wing must be some very strong actuating arms. And the early "design" where the front canard retracted into the nose has been dropped. Obviously they paid attention to the constructive criticism here on Proon.

[cattletruck]

I hear it suffers from the dreaded 35 engine approach.

(someone wants their computer cooling fans back).

[Rengineer]

Mmmh, let's at least try and guesstimate if this thing has a chance.
To lift off, those fans will need to create more lift than its mass, at least including ground effect. I did a quick calculation based on comparison with known aircraft and found that if it had a mass of say 2 tons and the fans a diameter of 0.6m, depending on propeller efficiency, ground effect, and some more esoteric things, it should require between 700-1200kW total power; let's say 25kW for each of those 36 engines. That doesn't appear totally out of the question for me.
Then, for cruise flight, power would obviously depend on the lift/drag ratio and on speed. For some reasonable assumptions, I find it would need only a fraction of the T/O power (as one would have expected); again depending on assumptions, this could be 5-15% of the take-off power.
Then, with decent batteries, say between 150-300 Wh/kg, there really is a corner of the design space where this vehicle might just potentially be realizable. I'm not saying it will necessarily be successful or reach any of the advertised performance goals, but just from looking at the energy and mass budget, it doesn't seem to be quite out of the question. Obviously that's before we've talked about controllability, failure tolerance, minimum reserves, and all that stuff. We'll see.

[riff_raff]

I hear it suffers from the dreaded 35 engine approach.(someone wants their computer cooling fans back).

That's funny. Except it should be "the dreaded 36 motor approach".

Unfortunately, there are quite a few practical issues with this concept that they do not seem to have fully resolved yet.

First, relying solely on differential thrust produced by speed changes of (36?) small diameter fixed pitch rotors to provide satisfactory pitch/roll/yaw control authority, plus the required lift in hover, is a very inefficient approach for VTOL operation.

Second, their claims of "simplicity" and "high redundancy" may be rather optimistic. Having 36 individual motor driven fans does not make the propulsion safer or more reliable if there is some single point in the motor control/power system which if it fails would disable enough motors to cause loss of lift/control of the aircraft. This means several isolated/separate systems for power/control of those 36 motors.

Third, using 36 electric motor-driven fans does not reduce the maintenance requirements or increase reliability versus a conventional commercial helicopter drivetrain. In fact, the most failure prone part of this system will be the high-power motor control electronics. A good helicopter gearbox and turboshaft engine will last >2000 hrs. But an air-cooled aircraft-weight electric motor and high-power control system will likely have an MTBF of a couple hundred hours at best. Consider how worse the situation gets with 36 motors.

[mickjoebill]

Frank Stephenson joins the Lilium team.

Mjb

[Ascend Charlie]

If it was Frank Robinson it might gain a little credence.

[Aluminium Mallard]

Frank Stephenson joins the Lilium team.

Mjb

It's just what they need at this stage... a designer to polish the turd a bit more and suck up some more investment. Can't wait for the shiny new video complete with inspiring music.

[Rotorbee]

I clicked trough the website a bit more in depth and I am not sure, but somehow I have the impression the team isn't the same as in the beginning. I think to remember on the old site that the founders where entirely non-aviation.
It looks like the new toy has not a lot in common with the first idea, even with the one in the video. That swivelling canard wing is gone. It does not retract. That makes it a fairly normal canard configuration, except for the straight main wing. The arm of the winglets as vertical stabilisation devices seems awfully short. I wonder how effective they are. Anyway, I think reality got them. It looks much more feasible than 3 years ago.
It is hard to judge the extent of the fail safe system approach for the FBW, but let's assume, that they know what they do.
But it does have a parachute now. Either because they want to certify it as some kind of VLA/UL and not in a completely new class as they said on the old page (EASA wasn't amused, probably) or they don't trust the thing as much either. But it swims, too.
While I still don't like the 38 motors configuration (entry to the minimum equipment list, at least 36 must be working), let's see how far they get. My bet is, that the "flap actuator" mechanism will be the biggest problem. Four heavy control "surfaces" (planks with a lot of fans on it) which have to move constantly to keep things at bay. Make it three times redundant, that adds to 12 fast and very light electric motors probably with gear boxes, constantly working back and forth.
I don't see how they want to get yawing under control while hovering. Not with those winglets. I think they make things even worse.
Imagine a gust of side wind close to the ground while hovering. If you "lean" into the wind with these wings, they will suddenly become a nice big sail that wants to push down. I wonder if the fans are speeding up fast enough to counteract this. Or I see one wing suddenly wants to fly and the other not. Now the fans of the not flying wings have to produce lift like hell and yawing, on the other wing they must be virtually stopped, which will disrupt the lift over the wing ... I think they have even worse aerodynamic problems than helicopters.
And we haven't even touched the word flutter with those heavy and wings and vibration producing fans.
The fans compress the air like jet engine, without heating it. I don't get the point of that. Only probably that they need more thrust but the size of the fans is fixed. Is this very efficient as a propulsion system?
The Lilium Jet engines have only one moving part - the central shaft of the rotor holding both the fan in the front and the magnets of the electric motor. This ensures highest reliability in operation and low maintenance costs of the propulsion system. The high redundancy of the system allows large inspection intervals to keep costs much lower than for helicopters or reciprocating engines
Where is the redundancy in a single electric motor. I don't think EASA would let you go flying with even just one motor broken. I think you get even higher maintenance because out of 38, one is bound to fail.

[mickjoebill]

Not a lot of new here... a video of a Lillim Presentation made in May by Daniel Wiegand at WORLD.MINDS MOBILITY 2018
Has an apparently unedited video of the 90 second test flight of full scale prototype from 2017.
(curious that they didn't use one of the edited videos that had higher production value and the air to air shot from a drone)

https://lilium.us13.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6880a459b4ee98b1add17e979&id=7648efdc37&e=85cc7af9ad

Hopes/claims/design
JFK to Manhattan, same price as a taxi.
60-70% stripped away from the complexity of previous designs.
300 kilometer range in cruise at 300kph
Same energy consumption per kilometre as a electric car but 5x faster
Any component can fail as there is redundancy to every part.
Plus parachute.
ect

[Ascend Charlie]

OK, a planeload of 200 international passengers lands at JFK.

40% of them, 80 people, want to go to the same hotel in Manhattan via Lillium "taxis". At 5 pax per load, that is 16 Lilliums. (Lillia?) But there are only pairs of passengers, no single travellers, and they all have a pile of bags.
There doesn't seem to be a cargo compartment, so the bags go in the back seat. That is now 40 Lillia needed.
The landing pads shown in the videos generally depict one central landing spot and 4 parking spots. Say we start with 4 Lillia already on the spot, charged up. 8 pax load their own bags, and hop in. One by one, they stagger into the air and by the magic of their computerised flight plans, they avoid conflicting with the real airplanes landing every 30 seconds at JFK on the alternate runways. They will NOT be blasting off in a straight line to downtown like shown in the videos.

The other 72 people are waiting for another Lillium. They have to come from somewhere, so it takes time - they can't be buzzing around airborne waiting for a landing spot, as that will chew up its battery life, and besides there isn't enough available airspace for 4 more or 36 more to be orbiting the rooftop of the Acme Airlines building. Passengers waiting. Waiting. Stuff it, a real taxi will be faster.
See a problem? The fluffy thinking doesn't allow for any practicalities.

A 300-km range is from fully charged to dead empty. You gotta land with some reserve power, in case some other Lillium is already on your desired spot, and if it flew into JFK to pick you up, it already has a decreased range. Then when you hop out, it doesn't have enough power to go back to its home base, 280km away, so it has to occupy the pad until it is charged up - if there is a facility to charge it.

But this whole industry will keep the CGI people in clover, drawing up more and more Jetson-like creations and asking gullible people to invest in it.

They talk of redundancy - showing that if up to 4 engines on one side stop, the rest can take over. What if they are all at max power already in the hover? A rapid roll takes place, or else it shuts down 4 on the other side, and a descent takes place.

Using too many brain cells on this one, I will have a beer instead and kill them off.

[Ascend Charlie]

Got a beer now, but the redundant brain cells are still saying "Horsefeathers!!" to this article.

He claims there is no need for any infrastructure, other than a landing site. (And charging cables/meters?)

Our excitement-prone travellers have packed their bags and carry-ons and purses, and have ordered a Lillium to land on their large front yard, 300km from NY, to take them to JFK for their big Europe trip. It arrives, and then needs 3 hours of charge time from a long extension cord. It's gotta be fully charged to make the distance.

They change their flights to allow for the 3-hour delay, only costs them an extra $300 and a missed connection. They board the Lillium, and fly to JFK. It lands on a LilyPad Somewhere. This place needs to be "Landside", because the baggage hasn't been screened. They find the elevator, which only has one destination - the departures foyer, where they drag their bags into the snake-like queue and wriggle along to the screening points. Along with those who came by regular transport.

There can be no direct entry to the Business Lounge, because there has been no screening for departures.

The arriving passengers also need to go through the full arrival procedure, claim bags, and go out of the secure area at Arrivals, and find the elevator to the top floor LilyPad, to wait for their ride. Which is sitting on the roof, flat battery, while other Lillia circle angrily.

"Any component can fail". What about the parachute?

[Terry Dactil]

My *BS* meter maxed out when he started saying it was powered by 'electric jet engines'.
If someone dealing with technology does not know the difference between a motor and an engine, then he is just babbling on with sounds good marketing hype for gullible investors.

BTw. It is an old video of the first model where the front fans were designed to retract into the fuselage and crush the legs of the front passengers.
It appears this feature has been deleted from the latest version.

[riff_raff]

Hearing the claims about "redundancy" made in the video reminds me of the classic line from Princess Bride, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Redundancy is not the same thing as fault tolerance of a system. What good are all those "redundant jet engines" if the control surface they're attached to cannot be moved to the position required for a safe controlled (vertical) landing? This is a regulatory requirement. And ballistic parachutes are no help with certification, since they do not ensure the capability for a safe and controlled landing.

[Hot and Hi]

Looks a bit like a Lilium with an extra wing: Ava CX (https://www.verticalmag.com/news/evtol-test-pilot-perspective/?utm_source=vertical-daily-news-top-story&utm_campaign=vertical-daily-news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=top-story&utm_content=V1)

[mickjoebill]

Another contender/pretender sets up shop... early days

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/29/the-look-ahead-march-29-2019.html

[mickjoebill]

Lillium hovered their 5 seat prototype, they say at full weight, a few weeks ago.
36 engines, 12 on the forward canards!
“Triple redundancy” of something...

https://youtu.be/8qotuu8JjQM

https://youtu.be/8qotuu8JjQM

Would love to know if in the event of failure of one of the rotation mechanisms, if either the forward or rear wings can independently support the craft in an emergency vertical descent. (https://youtu.be/8qotuu8JjQM)

[Rotorbee]

It still shows no sign of an experimental registration. I suppose, for EASA/LBA that thing is still a drone or model aircraft, albeit a large one. Though, they can do whatever they want.
Hovering is easy. Transition is difficult. Flying forward too. I doubt that thing has much statical stability.
It would not autorotate, that's for sure, but with those wings, would it glide? The L/D must be horrible and since there is no vertical control surface to speak of, controlling it mechanically would be pretty much impossible, therefore electricity can not be lost. The flight controls are triple redundant. The batteries, too? I just imagined a stall situation. At a certain AoA, the propwash of the front wing will hit the main wing and that would reduce the lift of it significantly. That would mean that the main wing may stall before the front wing, which is a terrible idea.
I think, whenever the proverbial sh... hits one of the 36 fans, bang comes a chute. I am not sure, if the certifying agencies will accept that as the only mean to save you from even the slightest mishap like a dirty windscreen.

[Ascend Charlie]

Wonder why there is no sound of it hovering? And on the concrete pad, no indication of the amount of downwash. These things will stop it from landing in backyards or footy fields.

[gg17]

More news from Lilium, which is now planning on basing its tech development team / software engineers in London:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lilium-picks-london-as-its-software-engineering-hub-458866/
https://www.ft.com/content/fe259350-8c03-11e9-a1c1-51bf8f989972
At least this round of press releases has stopped talking about 'electric jet engines'.

[sandringham1]

Lilium have raised $45m more funding now at a total of $375m see https://www.eenewspower.com/news/electric-aircraft-covid-downturn and they say they have built the factory ready for production to start with deliveries by 2025, and all this without any evidence of the prototype actually making a wholly wing borne flight or full translation, let alone carry a passenger or the weight of one/four. I admire their confidence and pitch but surely some of these basics should have been nailed by now, how can production be talked about when the proof of concept is still an embryo.

[Evil Twin]

How much did Moller raise for that ridiculous aircar thing that never got anywhere?

[sandringham1]

Lilium have been very quiet for a while now with no news regarding flight testing although infrastructure and operational plans have appeared but with 600 staff funding must be an enormous issue. This review explains where they are currently. https://evtol.com/features/lilium-reportedly-seeking-public-investment-spac-high-stakes-electric-air-taxi-makers/

[Two's in]

I find it fascinating that the proposed Orlando "vertiport" is about 2 miles due south of the threshold to 35R (Lake Nona). Obviously you need convenient connections for arriving international passengers, but there must be obvious airspace limitations for a bunch of unmanned electric UAVs wazzing around next to the extended centerline inside the Class B.

[Ascend Charlie]

https://assets.evtol.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Brian-Garrett-Glaser-bio-150x150.jpgBy Brian Garrett-Glaser
Doubts persist over Lilium’s aircraft design

Lilium is a polarizing company in the eVTOL space, with many outspoken in their dislike of the company’s aircraft design, which employs 36 small electric ducted fans embedded in the wing and forward canard. Mark Moore, for many years the chief evangelist of electric air taxis at Uber Elevate — recently handed off to Joby Aviation (https://evtol.com/features/uber-offload-elevate-joby-aviation/) — concluded in 2019 that the aircraft’s disc-loading, a measure of power consumption in hover, is far too high (https://evtol.com/news/lilium-doubles-down-distributed-propulsion/).

In January 2020, an article published by German aerospace magazine Aerokurier (https://www.aerokurier.de/elektroflug/lilium-weitere-experten-unterstuetzen-kritik/) titled “Hoffnungsträger Oder Hochstapler?” — “Hope Bearer or Imposter?” — an anonymous aerospace engineer concluded it was impossible for the Lilium jet to reach its desired flight time and range. The author calculated that, using current battery technology of 240 watt-hours per kilogram, the jet would only be able to sustain a hover for 67.7 seconds (https://www.aerokurier.de/elektroflug/lilium-jet-dossier/). Allowing only 60 seconds of hover time without reserve — parameters that regulators will almost certainly not approve — the engineer found the jet would be able to fly for less than four minutes, or 11 miles (18 km).

“Either Lilium has found solutions for technical problems no one else knows, or Lilium’s promises can’t be kept,”


In February, Lilium’s first full-scale technology demonstrator was substantially damaged in a fire (https://evtol.com/news/lilium-evtol-catches-fire/) during ground maintenance activities — an unfortunate but somewhat common occurrence for electric aircraft (https://www.flightglobal.com/eviation-alice-prototype-damaged-by-electric-fire-in-arizona/136327.article) developers.

“Our second demonstrator was not damaged in the fire and we will continue our flight test campaign with this aircraft once we have fully understood the cause of this incident,” a Lilium spokesperson said at the time. Lilium has made no announcements concerning its root cause analysis of the fire, which may still be ongoing. The company has not flown a demonstrator aircraft since then,

and on and on the veneer goes.

[mickjoebill]

and on and on the veneer goes.
$375m sunk so far! Next step is to reimagine the airport, heliport, airfield.....

"​​​Vertiport"

https://lilium.com/newsroom-detail/ferrovial-and-lilium-develop-us-vertiport-network

Mjb

[sandringham1]

Interesting Forbes analysis of Lilium https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2021/02/10/lilium-evtol-spac-air-taxi/

[Nige321]

This whole thing reminds me of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos)
That didn't end well...

[mickjoebill]

Interesting Forbes analysis of Lilium https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2021/02/10/lilium-evtol-spac-air-taxi/

The most detailed article so far on Lillium, well worth the read. They really haven't reached any kind of flight related critical milestone.. haven't even transitioned to high speed forward flight.



Mjb

[Evil Twin]

Any Lilium investors reading, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.....

[etudiant]

Any Lilium investors reading, I have a bridge for sale that you may be interested in.....
Seems there is lots of money for this project: https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/lilium-plans-us-listing-as-it-eyes-commercial-operations-in-2024/143112.article

Valued at $3B+ under this deal's terms.

[Less Hair]

Are they actually flying it?

[etudiant]

Are they actually flying it?

Not to my knowledge, this is all 'on the come'. As with many others, they are selling a story,
The flood of money currently being pumped out by the authorities is fueling this and other speculations in aerospace.as well as elsewhere.

[mickjoebill]

Foolish timing to make an announcement of futuristic product.

Mjb

[mickjoebill]

5 years after starting this thread, Photographs and video of the full size interior of the 7 seater Lilium posted on Lilium's Facebook page.

https://fb.watch/v/1WHujFth4/
A striking interior, with fabulously large windows and an illuminated ceiling.

Is the canard a significant factor in pilot visibility?

If only it wasn't a mock-up

Mjb

[rrekn]

Interesting to note that things that are missing in the interior:

Air Conditioning Vents
Reading Lights
Headset jacks
Escape Path Lighting
Fire Extinguishers
Emergency Exits
Seatbelts

Might be a little tricky to certify without these. They also claim to have a cruise altitude of 10,000 ft... in an unpressurised cabin.

This is what happens when you let the designers in without the engineers.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1901x713/capture_ad7544a3e169b29e4a6423452cf8b3ff9c2a63bd.jpg

[MeddlMoe]

This is what happens when you let the designers in without the engineers.



This is Lilium in a nutshell

The performance claims are made up.
The time line for entry into service is made up.
The physics are made up

[meleagertoo]

Just imagine! An 'illuminated cieling'!

Oh! The innovation!

I can't wait...

[Ascend Charlie]

The electricity to power the illuminated ceiling could perhaps be used to power the rotors?

And look at all those screaming little turbine blades just outside the window, at ear level. Lovely.

[WingNut60]

The electricity to power the illuminated ceiling could perhaps be used to power the rotors?

And look at all those screaming little turbine blades just outside the window, at ear level. Lovely.
Like the crapper on an F-28 or DC-9

[Ascend Charlie]

They also claim to have a cruise altitude of 10,000 ft... in an unpressurised cabin.

By the time they get up there, it will be time to descend anyway, so the pax won't have time to get hypoxic.

[mickjoebill]

Lillium just announced on video in Facebook page, they will ​launch product with piloted flights in 2024.Former CFO of autonomous car tech Cruise is CFO.
Former CEO of Airbus will be chairman.
They plan to launch on NASDAQ, valued at $3B!
"Lilium’s aircraft will have 30x fewer components than a commercial airliner and is designed for ease of manufacturability and scalability. Lilium applies automotive-style design for manufacturing methods and is designing for fully automated high-quality production of its engines, actuators and batteries"

Has anyone seen a project where all facets of such a disruptive new business, are in place before the product is proven?

​​​​

[Ascend Charlie]

Lilium’s aircraft will have 30x fewer components than a commercial airliner

By "30x fewer" do they mean 1/30th of the number? Pretty easy for a piddly 6-seater to have 1/30th the components of a B787. Take 180 seats, divide by 6, you get 30. Simples!

Hope they aren't relying on Taiwan for any computer chips, they might not be available when China decides to move in next year.

[Hot and Hi]

The electricity to power the illuminated ceiling could perhaps be used to power the rotors?

And look at all those screaming little turbine blades just outside the window, at ear level. Lovely.
Now I know why the crew dims the cabin light during takeoff and landing.

[casper64]

Interesting to note that things that are missing in the interior:

Air Conditioning Vents
Reading Lights
Headset jacks
Escape Path Lighting
Fire Extinguishers
Emergency Exits
Seatbelts

Might be a little tricky to certify without these. They also claim to have a cruise altitude of 10,000 ft... in an unpressurised cabin.

This is what happens when you let the designers in without the engineers.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1901x713/capture_ad7544a3e169b29e4a6423452cf8b3ff9c2a63bd.jpg
wait wait… do you mean it has to be certified??? 😂

[cattletruck]

they will ​launch product with piloted flights in 2024

This is the pilot controls:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/300x168/image_9d932105088f766bc8d6cc6efe676bb0d2072ef0.png

[etudiant]

This is the pilot controls:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/300x168/image_9d932105088f766bc8d6cc6efe676bb0d2072ef0.png

Seems to be a Germany specific issue, every dodgy promotion harvests there, thanks to demonstrably incompetent regulators. Look up Wirecard as the most recent example.

[Woolf]

This is the pilot controls:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/300x168/image_9d932105088f766bc8d6cc6efe676bb0d2072ef0.png

Free flights: Up Up Down Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select Start :}

[rrekn]

Free flights: Up Up Down Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select Start :}

That is pure gold!

[Less Hair]

Seems to be a Germany specific issue, every dodgy promotion harvests there, thanks to demonstrably incompetent regulators.
They had cargo lifter we had Airlander. But they have Volocopter as well.

[mickjoebill]

Could this be the press statement with news of the begining of the most disruptive period in the history of rotary?
Brazilian airline "orders" 220 liliums and talks of a potential requirement for 1000...

In a video interview, interesting and pertinent comments by Azul Airlines CEO, noting how Lilium will integrate into Brazil's helicopter market.

https://youtu.be/gO-ZkHDn_wY


https://lilium.com/newsroom-detail/capital-markets-day-planned-1-billion-commercial-deal-with-brazilian-airline-azul-appointment-of-new-board-members

[mickjoebill]

Short video on lilium Facebook page of approach and landing of their latest test platform. Not much new to see, the craft does not feature the landing gear on the full scale mockup nor the straight edged engine nacelles. Engines still have trendy serrated outflow.
https://fb.watch/7V2i1JsCkv/

https://lilium.com/jetWebsite has info on tie-up with a custom battery manufacturer.
mjb

[sandringham1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqmdqSVOLg

Ummmm!

[aa777888]

There's a sucker born every minute! Better cash out early before that stock tanks!

[Hot and Hi]

According to Engle, USD 4.5m per aircraft (if you buy over 200)

[mickjoebill]

Charging spec is shuttle friendly. Marketing funding in place, they just need to build and fly a full scale aircraft. :)
"We’re excited to announce plans for ABB to provide fast-charging infrastructure for our high-speed regional air network — helping us deliver the quick turnaround times needed for electric aviation. The charging points are designed to fully charge batteries in approximately 30 minutes and up to 80% in 15 minutes."

[Dave B]

21 September Bristow announced it would be buying up to 50 Vertical Aerospace VA-X4 e VTOLs.
Reference Aero space Royal Aeronautical Society October page 7

[Winemaker]

I'm still curious how they intend to meet certain FAA rules......
§ 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=89ef57ffe626edb2df5bf10d8ab4f876&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:B:S ubjgrp:5:91.151) conditions.(a) No person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=0dc5e415556e65322f1454c927515578&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:B:S ubjgrp:5:91.151) may begin a flight in an airplane (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=ee9803083700896cd85aff74cb4f95ea&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:B:S ubjgrp:5:91.151) under VFR (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=89ef57ffe626edb2df5bf10d8ab4f876&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:B:S ubjgrp:5:91.151) conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed -

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

(2) At night (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=42cc71f7839629cad92e7678ccaa330e&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:B:S ubjgrp:5:91.151), to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

(b) No person (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=0dc5e415556e65322f1454c927515578&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:B:S ubjgrp:5:91.151) may begin a flight in a rotorcraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=7957d9dfa53e63c17541d55ae61fe67a&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:B:S ubjgrp:5:91.151) under VFR (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=89ef57ffe626edb2df5bf10d8ab4f876&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:B:S ubjgrp:5:91.151) conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

[MarcK]

I'm still curious how they intend to meet certain FAA rules......
Powered Lift category is not mentioned in that FAR

[Ascend Charlie]

What is going to be the target passenger? People going to the airport? Coming from the airport? Let's look at these 2 first.

Travellers will have baggage. Doesn't look like much room for bags on Lili. "Oh, we are aiming at business travellers, just taking a briefcase for a meeting." Straight away the potential list of passengers is slashed, particularly in Oz, where the customer Lilies into Sydney, gets a taxi to the Quaintas terminal, but then waits for 2 hours, flies to Melbourne for 1.5 hrs, taxi into town, wait, go to the meeting, wait, taxi back to airport, wait 2 hours, fly for 1.5 hrs, go back to Lily Pad - long day.

And then, where does Lili take you (within 30 mins)? It won't be to the street outside your house. It won't be to the sports field 1km from home, the council won't allow that, and then you need another taxi to get home. It won't be to the rooftop terminal for your suburb, it doesn't (and won't) exist.

Dreamers. Take your money, spend some of it on great CGI, pocket the rest.

[Winemaker]

Powered Lift category is not mentioned in that FAR
Fair enough, but where is it mentioned? I've looked for FAA fuel requirements for powered lift and failed to find any. Do you have a link?

[MarcK]

Fair enough, but where is it mentioned? I've looked for FAA fuel requirements for powered lift and failed to find any. Do you have a link?
Powered Lift was added as an aircraft Category in 1997. Maybe they just forgot to update the fuel requirements, as there were no non-military types at that time. Shhhh....

[Baldeep Inminj]

Powered Lift category is not mentioned in that FAR
They won’t have to. A brand new set of bespoke requirements is being written specifically for EVTOL devices.

[casper64]

What is going to be the target passenger? People going to the airport? Coming from the airport? Let's look at these 2 first.

Travellers will have baggage. Doesn't look like much room for bags on Lili. "Oh, we are aiming at business travellers, just taking a briefcase for a meeting." Straight away the potential list of passengers is slashed, particularly in Oz, where the customer Lilies into Sydney, gets a taxi to the Quaintas terminal, but then waits for 2 hours, flies to Melbourne for 1.5 hrs, taxi into town, wait, go to the meeting, wait, taxi back to airport, wait 2 hours, fly for 1.5 hrs, go back to Lily Pad - long day.

And then, where does Lili take you (within 30 mins)? It won't be to the street outside your house. It won't be to the sports field 1km from home, the council won't allow that, and then you need another taxi to get home. It won't be to the rooftop terminal for your suburb, it doesn't (and won't) exist.

Dreamers. Take your money, spend some of it on great CGI, pocket the rest.

Yep… not a big “believer” yet either, in any of the eVTOL other than being “toys for the rich” maybe… But even then: The building of a craft really is the “easy” part…. But then what do you really do with it? How? Under what rules? Etc etc…

[MarcK]

And then, where does Lili take you (within 30 mins)? It won't be to the street outside your house. It won't be to the sports field 1km from home, the council won't allow that,Maybe councils in the UK won't allow that. I once landed an R-22 in my backyard during training, so I think a Lilli would fit.

[Ascend Charlie]

I once landed an R-22 in my backyard during training, so I think a Lilli would fit.

Times change, I have landed LongRangers and Squirrels in (big) backyards to pick up rich dudes, but that was in the 90s in Sydney. Don't think we would get away with it these days. And when operating police choppers in the 80s we could plop onto any sports field if the requirement was there, with an agreement from all the local councils.

Statements that CA$A is onside and "working" on a solution for Lili Pads across Melbourne make me laugh, CA$A is hard pressed enough to cope with the normal regulatory processes without spending time on the CGI daydreams.

[Evil Twin]

Statements that CA$A is onside and "working" on a solution for Lili Pads across Melbourne make me laugh, CA$A is hard pressed enough to cope with the normal regulatory processes without spending time on the CGI daydreams.

Bwahahhahahahhahaah CA$A couldn't arrange a bunk-up in a brothel with $100 hanging out of each ear. They still haven't fixed the fur lined ocean going balls up that was the part 61 implementation from Sept 2014!

[mickjoebill]

Oct 2021 test flight of the gen 5 vehicle.
Looks like a calm day.
Still no transition from high speed flight to a hover. The transition in this flight, from 40kph to hover is smooth.

https://youtu.be/SqMEFdbuzQY
Mjb

[Ascend Charlie]

There seems to be a new boy on the block:

nceptivemind.com/cityhawk-worlds-first-wingless-compact-evtol-aircraft-moves-step-closer-reality/21212/?fbclid=IwAR3RLz4TKohuIfLPxyMsBPsRVUWEDIBvJ-cRRX_J9SQr2lr8L95qkFAd694"Urban Aeronautics, the Israel-based aerospace company behind the world’s first compact, wingless electric vertical takeoff, and landing (eVTOL (https://www.inceptivemind.com/tag/eVTOL/)) vehicle, is getting closer to turning its groundbreaking concept into reality. The company said it has raised the first $10 million of a $100 million funding round this week towards CityHawk from private investors in the US, Brazil, and Israel.

According to the company, the car-sized, six-seater CityHawk has more in common with birds than with nearly every other eVTOL prototype in existence. With a distinct, wingless exterior and patented fully-enclosed Fancraft rotor system, the CityHawk is mainly designed for commercial air charters and emergency medical services (EMS) (https://www.inceptivemind.com/urban-aeronautics-provide-four-ems-cityhawk-vtol-aircraft-hatzolah-air/17064/). It will be fueled by hydrogen, the most sustainable technology in development today. This means it must be able to conduct multiple trips within a city per day with zero emissions (https://www.inceptivemind.com/tag/zero-emission/) and minimal noise.

An innovative Fancraft technology is based on dual enclosed, ducted rotors with a variable pitch for thrust control, which enable uncompromised stability even in strong winds and turbulence during takeoff, hovering, and landing. The enclosed structure also results in minimal noise, both inside the cabin and outside.


The compact eVTOL (https://www.inceptivemind.com/urban-aeronautics-partners-ascent-develop-uam-services-asia/12437/) also incorporates autonomous systems able to detect and avoid oncoming traffic, power lines, and other structures along the route. Besides, the multi-spectral see-through weather detection and anti-icing capabilities enable the VTOL to fly safely at night, in inclement weather, and in degraded visibility conditions.

In addition, the compact design makes it possible to land CityHawk at your block’s rooftop vertiport to save an hour by flying over traffic, especially in case of emergencies. Inside, the CityHawk has all the perks of a luxury car with comfortable seats, Wi-Fi (https://www.inceptivemind.com/tag/Wi-Fi/), and touchscreens, plus a view of your city from above.

The company (https://www.urbanaero.com/) recently announced the partnership with California-based Hypoint to adapt hydrogen-fuel-cell technology for aviation. The redesigned hydrogen-powered version of its CityHawk eVTOL aircraft replaces its current Safran Arriel turboshaft engine with a propulsion system based on HyPoint’s cutting-edge hydrogen fuel (https://www.inceptivemind.com/tag/hydrogen-fuel/) cells."

Geez, on a 30-minute flight with amazing views, the milennials still want wifi. And of course, your block has a roof-top heliport, doesn't everybody's?

[Less Hair]

Will the noise and the blast when hovering make it acceptable for inner city and metro area flight operations?

[Winemaker]

It will be fueled by hydrogen, the most sustainable technology in development today.
Oh come on. Run some basic numbers re fuel energy density of hydrogen vs liquid hydrocarbons like petrol then do some basic calculations re volumes and storage (liquid hydrogen and/or compressed gas) and then look at the weight of the tankage..... etc. etc. Lets not even get into the weight, efficiency, and output of fuel cells; a battery system would be necessary for surge energy demands like take off, adding weight....

I have run these numbers many times and there is no way an aircraft is going to fly for any reasonable period of time using hydrogen as a fuel, especially a vertical machine; factor in endurance then just laugh. It just doesn't work, both from a weight and a volumetric perspective; let's not even talk about how hydrogen is produced, sources (probably a steam process on natural gas), energy requirements for chilling and liquefying the gas (pressure tanks would be WAY too heavy for aircraft), and the infrastructure to supply the fuel...... More grabbing headlines and money here, IMHO; buy stock early and then bail when the time is right..... The only hydrogen craft I see flying passengers are balloons, blimps, or dirigibles.

[muermel]

Will the noise and the blast when hovering make it acceptable for inner city and metro area flight operations?

Neighbours and local residents of hospitals in Germany are going to court against EMS helipads beccause of noise already nowadays. What makes people think that helipads for THESE things will be allowed in cities? There's a reason there's no helipads in larger cities except hospital pads. Not going to happen :=

[Ascend Charlie]

And here's the latest wet dream from the "gimme some development money" crowd:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1190x774/screen_shot_2021_12_04_at_10_52_14_am_788766d54296e4f078b912 29333c04bf433dce0c.png

Not a lot of lifting surface for forward flight, and the wing has big holes in it with drag-inducing fan stuff.

The noise from those 2 piddly propellors (nose, tail) must be a real scream.

[Less Hair]

I am impressed by all the money they collected but does this new design mean their own original tilt-impeller concept finally did not convince them?
Now it looks more like a toy. Love those tiny front and tail propellers.

[Winemaker]

I am impressed by all the money they collected but does this new design mean their own original tilt-impeller concept finally did not convince them?
Now it looks more like a toy. Love those tiny front and tail propellers.
Pretty funny. But you have to understand they are turning a 50,000 rpm ± so the craft is supersonic....... I wish I could come up with one of these schemes for instant wealth.

[Less Hair]

All the laurels for Bezos and Musk who fund their own visions. But should the more general financial community get a better technical education to prevent them from all this fantasy financing? How bad will risk capital investments be in other less visible areas, say bio, AI and quantum computing, if even this vapourware gets funded with hundreds of millions of dollars?
We might need stricter rules to prevent money getting extracted from funds on -hopefully not- intentional fake promises.

[netstruggler]

I am impressed by all the money they collected but does this new design mean their own original tilt-impeller concept finally did not convince them?
Now it looks more like a toy. Love those tiny front and tail propellers.

The photo posted by Charlie is not anything to do with Lilium.

Let me provide the missing source:

Ascendance revises the design for its long-range hybrid eVTOL (newatlas.com) (https://newatlas.com/aircraft/ascendance-evtol-hybrid/)

[Less Hair]

Thanks for the clarification, a bit confusing to distinguish all those phantasies.

[Ascend Charlie]

Oh geez, another one:

Sydney Seaplanes orders fleet of electric air taxis to provide escape from Sydney traffic

They have ordered the Embraer EVE toy.

Sydney Seaplanes has the advantage of Grandfather Rights on the Rose Bay flying boat base, and they do trips to Palm Beach and other places in Pittwater.

Back in the 90s we proposed a floating heliport to use this pre-approved water runway, the pontoons would have been designed for the task, but the EPA and Sydney MSB pounced on it for noise considerations. No landing was allowed within 1000m of the shore, which meant that there was a lot of moving the pontoons between flights, or using water taxis, both impractical. And the rabid Labor voters of Balmain stopped anything west of the bridge.

Be interesting to see how they plan on landing at Barangaroo, on the west side of the bridge and almost requiring an approach/departure under the bridge.

[cattletruck]

The comments section in this link makes for interesting reading.

Monte-Copter Model 15 Triphibian helicopter - development history, photos, technical data (http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/montecopter-15.php)

Even though the design still looks quite futuristic 60 years on I doubt the early investors will ever see their money back.

[mickjoebill]

The money keeps flowing for development.
The move to Spain to allow higher speed testing. Former RAF and Leonardo helicopters pilot Andrew Strachan steps up as test pilot.

https://lilium.com/newsroom-detail/lilium-arrives-in-spain-hires-chief-test-pilot-Andrew-Strachan

Mjb

[Winemaker]

The money keeps flowing for development.
The move to Spain to allow higher speed testing. Former RAF and Leonardo helicopters pilot Andrew Strachan steps up as test pilot.

https://lilium.com/newsroom-detail/lilium-arrives-in-spain-hires-chief-test-pilot-Andrew-Strachan

Mjb
Looks like they are only flying RC models; that company website is absolutely devoid of actual hard information.

[widgeon]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-03-03/netjets-agrees-buy-and-operate-150-lilium-evtols
Hmm I wonder if Net Jets actually put any money down , if so they are either longsighted visionaries are complete idiots ,
Please send your vote on a 20$ bill to . Makemerich@[email protected]

[Winemaker]

Ilium says they will be all set, certified, and flying in 2024..... From their website:
Lilium is aiming to certify its eVTOL and start commercial services in 2024.
From FAA.gov
......the certification of a new aircraft type can take between 5 and 9 years.

[Pilot DAR]

......the certification of a new aircraft type can take between 5 and 9 years.

Which might not include the time to establish a changed certification basis and special conditions, which could be necessary if the conventional power off landing requirements cannot be demonstrated. This type of aircraft will succeed, but acceptance for commercial fare paying transport will be a little further off, while operating standards are adjusted to accommodate a changed certification basis.

[sandringham1]

An analysis of Lilium by Iceberg, financial and accounting fraud investigators.
https://iceberg-research.com/2022/03/14/stronglilium-nv-the-losing-horse-in-the-evtol-racenbsp-strong/

And a Youtube glowing review.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpdDY2rDsLI

[sandringham1]

Can someone explain what is meant by this statement by Lilium, I tried a search on Helicopter footprint and the only references are to a noise footprint. https://ir.lilium.com/techfaq
'In the Lilium Jet we are using electric ducted fans for propulsion. The advantage of the ducted fans is that they are much smaller than open propellers to lift the same weight of an aircraft. Or in technical terms - they can operate in high disc loads. The consequence of this is that VTOL aircraft using ducted fans need less ground footprint for a given weight and passenger (PAX) capacity of the aircraft. This in turn creates the potential to scale the aircraft to higher PAX and take-off weight for a given size of landing infrastructure'

[Protolanguage]

Somebody please wake me when its over

[212man]

Can someone explain what is meant by this statement by Lilium, I tried a search on Helicopter footprint and the only references are to a noise footprint. https://ir.lilium.com/techfaq
'In the Lilium Jet we are using electric ducted fans for propulsion. The advantage of the ducted fans is that they are much smaller than open propellers to lift the same weight of an aircraft. Or in technical terms - they can operate in high disc loads. The consequence of this is that VTOL aircraft using ducted fans need less ground footprint for a given weight and passenger (PAX) capacity of the aircraft. This in turn creates the potential to scale the aircraft to higher PAX and take-off weight for a given size of landing infrastructure'

footprint in this context just means the physical surface area required. They are saying for any given area, they will be able use an aircraft with a greater payload.

[mickjoebill]

From FAA.gov
Quote:
......the certification of a new aircraft type can take between 5 and 9 years.

This thread is approaching it's 6th birthday, how many candles will be on the cake celebrating the maiden commercial flight?

Mjb

[mickjoebill]

Two videos.

45kts test flight
https://youtu.be/yRx_iwGZl3s

Interview with engineer
https://youtu.be/RqCWgkhNdCY
Mjb

[mickjoebill]

Lillium state this is the first transition from hover to wing-borne flight for a full scale, all electric aircraft.

130Kmh, 1200fpm climb.
Transition occurs at 1:30 in the clip.

https://youtu.be/QNl0DDUnp0E
Mjb

[Lonewolf_50]

mjb, as I watched the video, I wasn't sure if there was a person in the aircraft. Was that whole flight accomplished remotely?

[CTR]

mjb, as I watched the video, I wasn't sure if there was a person in the aircraft. Was that whole flight accomplished remotely?

All Lillium flights to date have been remote. This is due to both pilot safety and pilot mass. They have barely enough battery energy to fly, a pilot’s mass on board would make it almost impossible to leave the ground.

[mickjoebill]

All Lillium flights to date have been remote. This is due to both pilot safety and pilot mass. They have barely enough battery energy to fly, a pilot’s mass on board would make it almost impossible to leave the ground.
Latest video today from CTO Alastair McIntosh, states the range and power density. They apparently have confidence these specs can be achieved, a range of 250km empty operational and 175km max take off weight. They state with a run-on landing the range will increase ( as the hover landing phase uses more juice)

This is the most revealing video thus far, they outlined the finalised design of the production model.
As CTR states, the battery density of existing commercially available technology is a hurdle. In this video they claim new battery tech will deliver the stated range and a full payload, presumably full payload is a person in each seat?
In other videos they mention the production model will have 7 seats and 30 engines (The prototype is full scale 5 seater with 36 engines)
The engine guru states there will be a mechanical connection to adjust flow to optimise energy use between landing and cruise. (10x more energy required for the hover) This is a repeating theme with electric aircraft, hover phase is a means to an end, gas powered helicopters will rule slow orbit tasks until battery density is improved.
https://youtu.be/qZ73PftBfFg

[WillyPete]

Latest video today from CTO Alastair McIntosh, states the range and power density. They apparently have confidence these specs can be achieved, a range of 250km empty operational and 175km max take off weight. They state with a run-on landing the range will increase ( as the hover landing phase uses more juice)

To put it in perspective, this is almost the same range as our VW ID4 Life model. (Shorter range battery, less tax)

They state with a run-on landing the range will increase ( as the hover landing phase uses more juice)


What about take off?
I don't foresee these ever taking hold as rooftop delivery for pax, but on shorter controlled fields in well regulated air corridors.

A short takeoff could be assisted with a cable tow, similar to gliders, but may not be what passengers might appreciate.

[Petit-Lion]

My take-away is: 9 times more power to hover than to cruise. A conventional helicopter is close to 1:1. It starts to worsen with tiltrotors. Then there are those oversized multicopter drones. Did Lilium chose the worst way to hover?

[widgeon]

My take-away is: 9 times more power to hover than to cruise. A conventional helicopter is close to 1:1. It starts to worsen with tiltrotors. Then there are those oversized multicopter drones. Did Lilium chose the worst way to hover?

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/45631/do-helicopters-use-more-fuel-when-hovering
i don't think there is a helicopter that burns same fuel in hover as fwd flight ,I am sure ratio is much better than 9 to 1 though
.

[Non-PC Plod]

My take-away is: 9 times more power to hover than to cruise. A conventional helicopter is close to 1:1. It starts to worsen with tiltrotors. Then there are those oversized multicopter drones. Did Lilium chose the worst way to hover?
You are looking at it the wrong way - It has fixed wings , which is makes it much more efficient in the cruise than a helicopter. So, its not that it is inefficient hovering, it is instead more efficient in forward flight.

[Mee3]

You are looking at it the wrong way - It has fixed wings , which is makes it much more efficient in the cruise than a helicopter. So, its not that it is inefficient hovering, it is instead more efficient in forward flight.
Rotors are wing surfaces. You'd be surprise how much lift they produce in forward flight.

[Ascend Charlie]

Rotors are wing surfaces. You'd be surprise how much lift they produce in forward flight.

They are quite inefficient. The retreating blade is the limiting factor, with only around 40% of it producing useful lift, and at a high AoA with resultant drag.

The advancing blade has to throw away all that beautiful lift it gets from the added forward airspeed, to match the poor old retreating blade.

If both blades were advancing, lotsa lift both sides, no need to worry about retreating sides, hence the ABC test aircraft and Hokums and intermeshing tandems.

[mickjoebill]

To put it in perspective, this is almost the same range as our VW ID4 Life model. (Shorter range battery, less tax)



What about take off?
I don't foresee these ever taking hold as rooftop delivery for pax, but on shorter controlled fields in well regulated air corridors.

A short takeoff could be assisted with a cable tow, similar to gliders, but may not be what passengers might appreciate.

They only quote the run on landing in the context of flight endurance for certification for commercial flights.


Mjb

[Mee3]

Dissymmetry lift is not 0 lift at retreating side and plus with multi blades also gets the benefit of multi wings instead of a pair. And rotorcraft limits 150kt Vne not only preventing shock wave but also to make sure retreating blade still plane air faster than relative air flow.

Powered flight always been dealing with dilemma of disproportion power requirement between MTOW and cruise. Compound design like lilium is one of those went physically challenged approach to this. If they resort to running takeoff, might as well venture into extreme STOL dropping the expensive vector thrust part. I predict first 10 years into the market operation will be limited from airfield of some sort instead of helipad. And a super STOL might even be a winner.

[Ascend Charlie]

Dissymmetry lift is not 0 lift at retreating side and plus with multi blades also gets the benefit of multi wings instead of a pair. And rotorcraft limits 150kt Vne not only preventing shock wave but also to make sure retreating blade still plane air faster than relative air flow.

Never said it was 0 on the retreating side, just that the limit to the aircraft's lift generation is the retreating blade.

Be nice to have an advancing blade on each side, and not have to worry much about the retreater.

[Petit-Lion]

And a super STOL might even be a winner.
Or a conventional helicopter... With these much-awaited (still non-existent) great batteries, right-sized motors... ground effect, translational lift, well-understood flight regimes...
And what about the very high nozzle velocity of those tiny fan-jets? Ultraclean FOD-free Lillipads?

[Winemaker]

Endurance seems, to me, to be the big problem. With the much bigger power demand with a vertical landing and take off, a go-around would see to be a real deal breaker for certification. As for the machine(s) as extreme STOL, that seems to totally destroy the entire concept of their potential use as some sort of city air taxi. How did the New York rooftop helicopter flights turn out? Probably a good reference. I suspect their business case with the huge number of passengers is a bit off the mark....

[Ascend Charlie]

Does their claimed range include 30 mins reserve? If not, why would CA$A approve them to operate with less reserve than a real aircraft?

[Silver Pegasus]

Is this achievable if applying the specs of Tesla batteries of 5kilos per 1kWh? The Tesla modules themselves in an 85 kWh Model S are about 900 lbs. The other ~300 lbs is everything else for the pack.

Previously, the battery pack was 157-watt hours per kilogram in the 85kWh Model S, and in the new 100kWh Plaid it is 181.5-watt hours per kilogram.

[sandringham1]

An in depth assessment of Lilium by Leeham News, worth a read.
https://leehamnews.com/2022/07/29/bjorns-corner-sustainable-air-transport-part-30-lilium-jet-vtol/

[CTR]

An in depth assessment of Lilium by Leeham News, worth a read.
https://leehamnews.com/2022/07/29/bjorns-corner-sustainable-air-transport-part-30-lilium-jet-vtol/


Thank you for the article link. Excellent article.

[mickjoebill]

https://leehamnews.com/2022/07/29/bjorns-corner-sustainable-air-transport-part-30-lilium-jet-vtol/

Worth posting this quote
"The widely proclaimed transition in early June was a main wing transition, not a transition for the vehicle (canard + main wing). Such a transition is yet to be made."


Mjb

[sandringham1]

https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a42240818/lilium-prepares-evtol-production/

Some impressive fundraising happening at Lilium and plans to build 25 units next year, followed by 250 the following year.

[sandringham1]

If your a follower of Lilium with a couple of hours to spare then you might find this analysis interesting, personally I would be delighted to be posting a link to a manned flight but that still seems to be just a dream.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk6kF2eOxOQ

[Evil Twin]

If your a follower of Lilium with a couple of hours to spare then you might find this analysis interesting, personally I would be delighted to be posting a link to a manned flight but that still seems to be just a dream.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk6kF2eOxOQ

You're or you are!

[Winemaker]

You're or you are!

Though we're not sure what you were trying to imply, you are certainly welcome to post your comment. On topic, watched the video and it'll never fly; it's unbelievable people invested in its company.

[Evil Twin]

Though we're not sure what you were trying to imply, you are certainly welcome to post your comment. On topic, watched the video and it'll never fly; it's unbelievable people invested in its company.


If your a follower of Lilium with a couple of hours to spare then you might find this analysis interesting

[Kulwin Park]

Though we're not sure what you were trying to imply, you are certainly welcome to post your comment. On topic, watched the video and it'll never fly; it's unbelievable people invested in its company.
Why do you say it will never fly??
I believe it will reach commercial flying status. It has so much going for it due to not having rotating dynamic components anywhere.

[fdr]

I'm open to their general concept, distributed fans are not a bad option, however, they have to achieve a high efficiency, and while it is likely that a Coanda effect will occur that can be subject to variables. There is likely some redundancy with the rear wing, the front wing looks to be lean on redundancy. Perimeter driven electric motors, would have a low mass and high torque, remaining with standard designs or even Tesla type motors would not be my choice. scaling them down to run the fans would be needed, they were used to replace a B206BIII TR/TRGB/TR drive and TR control system and needed ballast to be added...

Battery mass is going to suck. and you get to carry the flats along for the ride.

[mickjoebill]

Another $190m to grease the wheels toward reaching the regulatory finish line. https://lilium.com/newsroom-detail/lilium-releases-q2-2023-shareholder-letter

I'm surprised that after the time and $$ they are apparently still developing a power unit.

https://www.facebook.com/100067464501808/posts/597968995795245/?sfnsn=mo&mibextid=6aamW6

[mickjoebill]

*Very* informative webinar on the subject of batteries. Includes performance, manufacturing and regulatory aspects.
It is a pretty good 101....
They compare efficiency of lift fan with tilt rotor, (think of Wisk Aero as their competition)
​​​​
Charging will be CCS standard.
1st fleet will have a 175km range with a reserve. 6 full size prototypes begin production Dec 2023, manned flight test 2024.
They assess an industry growth rate of 4% per annum in battery power density.
They make predictions of an increase in range to allow flights from Munich to London
The battery in launch models will have 800 charge cycles (100-0%) which equates to 1200 flight cycles, with cycle degradation resulting in 88% battery capacity.
Battery cells can be replaced.
New battery cells will require stc.
Key battery developments are use of silicon anodes with the tech being commercialized in 2024 and 2026.

https://youtu.be/QgBp-YqZ_5M?feature=shared

[mickjoebill]

Glowing comments from EASA following lilium's Design Approval.
https://www.facebook.com/100067464501808/posts/662320249360119/?mibextid=Nif5oz

[mickjoebill]

Full size aircraft is being assembled.

https://lilium.com/newsroom-detail/lilium-starts-production-of-the-lilium-jet-in-watershed-moment-for-sustainable-aviation

Mjb

[mickjoebill]

The head of industrial Julie Spanswick puts her neck on the line, stating that their production goal is rolling out an airframe every two days. Julie was the former manager of airframes at Airbus.
​​​​​
https://youtu.be/1Y1SBsFahuw?si=_V4NsH74hcbjSKlP

Mjb

[rrekn]

At least they are showing seat belts in the renderings now...

[212man]

There will be a lecture about it at RAeS HQ next month: https://www.aerosociety.com/events-calendar/raes-alan-bristow-memorial-lecture-an-introduction-to-the-lilium-jet/

[Hot and Hi]

There will be a lecture about it at RAeS HQ next month: https://www.aerosociety.com/events-calendar/raes-alan-bristow-memorial-lecture-an-introduction-to-the-lilium-jet/

Seems like an in-person event only?

[212man]

Seems like an in-person event only?
I suspect it will be available to watch online later. Here is last year’s https://youtu.be/95lrq5zTAXo?si=MkXtbUaQb2u0e_fA

[mickjoebill]

Latest video drop from Lillium.
I'm interested in feedback from wind tunnel experts of the scenes shot in the wind tunnel. In particular the scenes where the ambient lighting in the wind tunnel appears to be ultra violet.
Is this lighting state "for real" and part of the testing regime? or was it created by the video director?
We are all interested in testing techniques, the direction of
Elon musk fired the Tesla PR team responsible for shooting videos few days ago as he said the videos were generic and made Teslas look no different any other car.
​​LIllium take note, that in my opinion as a media guy for 40 years, you've moved from an mostly authentic high quality blog to glossy promotion, in Elon Musk words you have made a generic glossy video of a unique product.
​​​​​​

https://youtu.be/Jj8f02iI1d4?si=_Y-IejD2-FMfhoME

Mjb

[JimL]

Here is the URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUNHAcca5N

[VM325]

Latest video drop from Lillium.
I'm interested in feedback from wind tunnel experts of the scenes shot in the wind tunnel. In particular the scenes where the ambient lighting in the wind tunnel appears to be ultra violet.
Is this lighting state "for real" and part of the testing regime? or was it created by the video director?
We are all interested in testing techniques, the direction of
Elon musk fired the Tesla PR team responsible for shooting videos few days ago as he said the videos were generic and made Teslas look no different any other car.
​​LIllium take note, that in my opinion as a media guy for 40 years, you've moved from an mostly authentic high quality blog to glossy promotion, in Elon Musk words you have made a generic glossy video of a unique product.
​​​​​
https://youtu.be/Jj8f02iI1d4?si=_Y-IejD2-FMfhoME

Mjb
The UV light is used in conjunction with flo-vis paint to visualise boundary layer flows on the model...

Link here... (https://www.onera.fr/en/news/colored-coatings-in-a-wind-tunnel)

And Ferrari did it for fun... (https://petapixel.com/2014/10/16/photographer-captures-speed-photos-using-uv-paint-wind-tunnel-new-ferrari/)


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x317/californiat_4_df8fa7803323df659b93cd598bd9ac2c401f5f89.jpeg

[helispotter]

...It has so much going for it due to not having rotating dynamic components anywhere.

I realise I am asking about an old post, but doesn't it have at least 30 rotating dynamic components by way of all those ducted fans? Doesn't seem simple to me. I assume all fans need to be in good working order prior to any proposed flight.