Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Lilium vertical take off "jet"

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Lilium vertical take off "jet"

Old 12th May 2022, 20:30
  #181 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,806
New test flight video

Two videos.

45kts test flight

Interview with engineer
Mjb
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2022, 02:18
  #182 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,806
Houston, we have transition

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.

Mjb

Last edited by mickjoebill; 8th Jun 2022 at 05:29.
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2022, 12:13
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 5,976
mjb, as I watched the video, I wasn't sure if there was a person in the aircraft. Was that whole flight accomplished remotely?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2022, 13:01
  #184 (permalink)  
CTR
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 197
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
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.
CTR is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2022, 23:07
  #185 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,806
Specs announced

Originally Posted by CTR View Post
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.


Last edited by mickjoebill; 12th Jun 2022 at 02:01.
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2022, 08:55
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by mickjoebill View Post
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)

Originally Posted by mickjoebill View Post
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.
WillyPete is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2022, 17:31
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Montréal
Posts: 38
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?
Petit-Lion is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2022, 20:41
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 69
Posts: 797
Originally Posted by Petit-Lion View Post
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/q...-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
.


widgeon is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2022, 19:53
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 666
Originally Posted by Petit-Lion View Post
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.
Non-PC Plod is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2022, 03:50
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: NW
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by Non-PC Plod View Post
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.
Mee3 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2022, 05:43
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 3,788
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.
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2022, 08:06
  #192 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by WillyPete View Post
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
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2022, 08:38
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: NW
Posts: 110
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.
Mee3 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2022, 19:19
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 3,788
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.
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2022, 18:09
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Montréal
Posts: 38
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?
Petit-Lion is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2022, 23:06
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 178
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....

Last edited by Winemaker; 19th Jun 2022 at 23:08. Reason: added last comment
Winemaker is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2022, 02:36
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 3,788
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?
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2022, 16:28
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by mickjoebill View Post
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.
Silver Pegasus is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.