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.