This VTOL aircraft is quite interesting. Will be even more interesting if it's actually produced!

https://lilium.com/technology/

More ways for rich stupid people to kill themselves.

300 km range. That's just under 162 nm.

300 kph cruise. That's just under 162 kts.

Jet? Hah! Piston-powered V-Tail cruises 174 kts (198 mph), with almost five times the range.

One hour endurance? FAA regs require 30 minute reserve fuel for daytime VFR flight, reducing the flight-plan endurance to 30 minutes, or 81 nm range. IFR regs require fuel to primary destination, plus divert to alternate, plus 45 minute reserve. One hour endurance does not provide for much of a flight.

Rhino is correct. This aircraft is essentially useless.

quote:

300 kt cruise. 300 km/h cruise. That's just under 162 kts.

Fixed a small typo.

quote:

Originally posted by SigSAC:

quote:

300 kt cruise. 300 km/h cruise. That's just under 162 kts.

Fixed a small typo.

You are correct. Thank you. I'll go back and fix it.

We’re going to have to see some serious leaps in battery technology for this to ever get off the ground. Current batteries and that many motors? Not going to happen. This idea goes on the shelf next to my perpetual motion machine.

Not having a pilot in your recorded, maiden flight says something. Having 40 engineers & nobody said 'fuck it, I'll fly it' is unbelievable.

quote:

Originally posted by snidera:
Not having a pilot in your recorded, maiden flight says something. Having 40 engineers & nobody said 'fuck it, I'll fly it' is unbelievable.

Insurance costs for manned flight for an experimental platform are enormous. Moller ran into that in California. They had to have their unit tethered to have a pilot in it for later testing.

Wow, it can lose three motors and still fly! I’d like to see it fly with half the motors out, like everything else does for certification.

If I could get a helipad on the roof at work, I’d just call it a flying car and go with that.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
<snip>
One hour endurance? FAA regs require 30 minute reserve fuel for daytime VFR flight, reducing the flight-plan endurance to 30 minutes, or 81 nm range. IFR regs require fuel to primary destination, plus divert to alternate, plus 45 minute reserve. One hour endurance does not provide for much of a flight.
<snip>

I would've guessed that VTOL capability would ease some of those requirements.

What I see is a 10-15 million dollar comuter vehicle with a service range of 40 or 50 miles. In order for this to break even the person purchasing it would have to value their time in many 10 thousands of dollars per hour.

Another potential problem is those tiny "jets". Those things have to be spinning at a rather high speed and I have to wonder what happens if you were to fly into a swarm of small birds or even a swarm of insects such as Mayflies. Plug enough of those motors during lift off and the lack of any lift produced by forward motion means it will drop like a stone.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
300 km range. That's just under 162 nm.

300 kph cruise. That's just under 162 kts.

Jet? Hah! Piston-powered V-Tail cruises 174 kts (198 mph), with almost five times the range.

One hour endurance? FAA regs require 30 minute reserve fuel for daytime VFR flight, reducing the flight-plan endurance to 30 minutes, or 81 nm range. IFR regs require fuel to primary destination, plus divert to alternate, plus 45 minute reserve. One hour endurance does not provide for much of a flight.

Rhino is correct. This aircraft is essentially useless.

And I'm sure that's in ideal conditions. Wonder what happens to the battery pack and range when its say 0 to 30 degrees outside, like is is all over the northern seaboard? I think this could more accurately be described as a 10 million Euro (or mark?) science project for a bunch of college geeks.

And I'll say in 25-50 years I can see an electric, pilotless Uber type VSTOL aircraft flying to your house to pick you up and wisk you away to your local bar.

This is a small step but like all firsts, it's going to be expensive and painful (for some).

It's not a jet. It's electric ducted fans.

Airflow forward of the powerplants would be affected significantly, altering airflow over the wings. A dynamic change would occur with flap movement. Loss of engines wouldn't simply be loss of thrust, but also loss of airflow over the airfoil.

Clearly all powerplants couldn't run from the same electrical bus, and the potential complexity to ensure power redundancy to each side, and each critical area may prove more difficult than they think, if it's to be a truly safe multi engine aircraft.

With such a low speed and such a limited range, especially given that the only power is battery, I'd have real reservations about much other than flight directly over the field.

In the event a pilot runs out of electrical power (it will happen), how does that aircraft glide with all engines unpowered, especially as they are nearly full span on all lifting surfaces? How about flight control after complete power loss? It doesn't look like much of a glider.

All the naysayers crack me up. Human nature I guess.

I love it, great idea. Of course it isn't "practical" at this moment, heck, it doesn't even exist in a certified and purchasable form (and may never) so what does it matter?

Could lead to some great innovations though. Especially paired with something like the uber-battery Fiskar says they developed that will be ready in 5 years. Double the range and re-chargeable in 5-10 minutes? Yeah, that would be practical, especially for a VTOL.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
All the naysayers crack me up. Human nature I guess.

Substitute "professionals" for "naysayers," and you'll be on the right track.

If you've ever been pilot in command with a complete power loss, or experienced an electrical loss, especially under adverse circumstances, you'll understand.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
All the naysayers crack me up. Human nature I guess.

Substitute "professionals" for "naysayers," and you'll be on the right track.

If you've ever been pilot in command with a complete power loss, or experienced an electrical loss, especially under adverse circumstances, you'll understand.

Yep. V-tail and the other pilots can best weigh in on this, but I'll offer Strambo this little fact. I'm currently 54 years old. During my entire lifetime thus far, designers have worked toward the invention of personal flying transportation. After all those years, we are little closer today than we were when I was a child. Its going to take a major breakthrough in an alternative energy source and/or battery tech before anything like this is even a glimmer on the horizon.

Well, physics is a tough mistress. The uninterrupted energy needed to keep something like this or the Moller in the air is significant.

Couple that problem with the desire to make these things compact so that they can be used in confined areas, parked efficiently etc, which naturally increases loads on all lifting surfaces, then add in redundancy for safety of those in the craft and on the ground and you have a very unattractive set of design parameters, with sufficient, reliable, cheap power being one of the primary concerns.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
All the naysayers crack me up. Human nature I guess.

Substitute "professionals" for "naysayers," and you'll be on the right track.

If you've ever been pilot in command with a complete power loss, or experienced an electrical loss, especially under adverse circumstances, you'll understand.

Yep. V-tail and the other pilots can best weigh in on this, but I'll offer Strambo this little fact. I'm currently 54 years old. During my entire lifetime thus far, designers have worked toward the invention of personal flying transportation. After all those years, we are little closer today than we were when I was a child. Its going to take a major breakthrough in an alternative energy source and/or battery tech before anything like this is even a glimmer on the horizon.

And yet, the differences in out daily lives in other areas are staggering but at introduction the naysayers were in full effect. Cell phones comes to mind off the top of my head (why would anyone need a phone with them all the time?). Fiskar says they have the breakthrough in battery tech today (do they?)

How about electronic gun sights? I had an NCO refuse to use a CCO, so I ordered him to. After qualifying with it, he commented how much better it was and thanked me.

Anyway, my point is not to argue the current state of this, in-development and may never see the light of day, aircraft with pro pilots.

However, it is a very innovative approach and combined with some new battery tech could be viable in the near future. Or, it could spin off in a different direction. Or, it could be a monumental flop.

I like reading about new things and I guess just don't feel the need to sharp-shoot products that aren't even on the market.

Speaking of flying, it would have been funny to read internet threads about the development of heavier than air flight pre 1903! I'm such and such years old and never in my lifetime thus far has powered heavier than air flight happened. They keep promising it, but never works out.

There is no question this thing can fly, only remains to be seen if it can be made safe and reliable, pass certification, and be produced at a price point allowing the company to stay in business...