|
Thanks for the video Agile, quite interesting and pretty much explains why Lilium went bust.
|
Originally Posted by JimL
(Post 11747268)
eVTOL is a technology-led product still looking for the killer application.
As wrench1 has said: Joby has already shown that, with fuel-cell technology, liquid hydrogen can extend that range (currently at about 30 minutes) to several hours without adding dramatically to the take-off mass. But to return to UAM, it is not quite as simple as it first appears; yes, eVTOLs with their many thrust units with modern geometry props/rotors are much quieter, and therefore acceptable, than the current crop of helicopters. But, they suffer from issues of downwash/outwash (some of them extreme) and, because of their certification basis (EASA - 'enhanced', and FAA 'increased performance'), will be subject to rules similar to Performance Class 1 (although for the FAA that is not yet clear). EASA's enhanced certification requires that the safety target of 1 x 10-9 be achieved; depending on the reliability of the power-unit train, this might mean the loss of one or even several thrust units (and asymmetric power control might not be that easy). However, for UAM it is the limitation of the take-off climb 'obstacle limitation surface' (OLS) in an obstacle-rich environment that might be the real issue. ICAO addressed this several years ago by permitting the elevation of the (origin of the) OLS sometimes by hundreds of feet - thus allowing it to be positioned above all obstacles. Helicopter manufacturers met that challenge (or might even have facilitated it) with the development of 'vertical procedures' - allowing the attainment of the OLS elevation by adding an all-engines-operating (AEO) steep/vertical (ascent/descent surface) element to the Category A profiles. Elevation of the OLS remains the solution for vertiports in an urban environment. but the achievement of the steep/vertical ascent/descent requires an application of maximum power for a period that might wreck the previously designed flight profiles with the demand on battery power. Yes, eVTOL development is moving at an impressive pace but still has to satisfy the population's (both those travelling and those over which operations are being performed) aspirations of safe flight. Jim Obviously that’s a very specific aircraft but backed by Uber and so one imagines maybe quite numerous if the concept gains traction. Not sure how that could ever be flown in an urban environment without accepting more risk that seems acceptable today. |
Background on failed bailout(s)
|
Originally Posted by mickjoebill
(Post 11842473)
|
That feels like their blame game going on. They had blamed a lack of tax funding they suddenly had requested for not being able to continue already.
Why don't they just demonstrate how far they had come and what their vehicle can do that others can't if this is so promising? Something doesn't add up. |
Originally Posted by Winemaker
(Post 11842510)
Oh come on. How much money did they blow through? Seems to be over a billion (with a 'B') dollars. What a scam.
|
There are techno-scams, and there are technical dead-ends. Investing beyond your knowledge is gambling, so don't complain.
|
Originally Posted by Petit-Lion
(Post 11843746)
There are techno-scams, and there are technical dead-ends. Investing beyond your knowledge is gambling, so don't complain.
first come the government grants and sponsorships then come the angel investors (and the kind, crowdfunding +++), they will group up to 20 millions, for a project without proven potential, mostly on gut feeling. finally comes the venture fund: in the 200million per round investment category, they have experts on staff, and will not invest without their blessing. when a project like that (with a fundamental technical handicap) comes to the last stage of financing, that is usually where they fail: because the smart money is not moving to them. I am not saying the lower stage investing is stupid money, they just work with a different value system and a different reward system. I have been brainstorming that in the context of the HX50 project, (not saying it has technical handicap as in this case) but if they would need 200+ million, could they get it... |
Originally Posted by Agile
(Post 11843757)
I have been brainstorming that in the context of the HX50 project, (not saying it has technical handicap as in this case) but if they would need 200+ million, could they get it...
Where the Lilium and similar efforts have fell short has more to do with investment source and design. But while I’m sure there were a few “scams” out of the 100+ eVTOL start-ups a majority of the projects are/were an honest attempt to participate in the industry's next growth area: e-aviation. Like it or not its here to stay and if it follows the growth cycle of the civilian UAS market, it will be here sooner than later. |
Originally Posted by wrench1
(Post 11843973)
Doubtful in a conventional sense as the HX is a very different investment type and overall project.
Where the Lilium and similar efforts have fell short has more to do with investment source and design. But while I’m sure there were a few “scams” out of the 100+ eVTOL start-ups a majority of the projects are/were an honest attempt to participate in the industry's next growth area: e-aviation. Like it or not it’s here to stay and if it follows the growth cycle of the civilian UAS market, it will be here sooner than later. |
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
(Post 11844164)
Today IMO there are zero that will make it simply because the market isn’t what they claim it to be.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:47. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.