The aircraft sounded interesting unfortunately I am a blind subscriber If somebody has the time could they describe the vehicle with a blind subscriber in mind thanks Cheers

@supervolant

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Verne, your curiosity and the fact that you can not see motivates me to try my best explaining the aircraft showcased in the video. It is a sleek looking aircraft that is mostly white in color featuring some additional black trimming. The aircraft architecture is utilising a set of smaller wings in the front and larger wings in the rear - a so called cannard aircraft design. It is about 11 Meter in wingspan (rear) and can seat 7 people within its extremely sleek looking fuselage, which might remind someone of the shape of a shark (without it's fins). The aircraft is being entered on the left using a splitting door with integrated steps - oftentimes seen on luxury class business jets. One centered pilotseat in the front and 6 passenger seats behind. Its propulsion system is distributed along the rear trailing edge of the wings. 36 electrically driven ducted engines in total, of which 12 of them are on the two front wings and the other 24 on the rearwings. The engines are mounted in the pairs of 3 within so called flaps that are able to tilt around 90 degrees from a hover position into a forward flight cruise position using compact and strong servo motors. One special characteristic is the fact that there is no conventional tail stabilising surfaces (like a rudder) - it's all thrust vector based and therefore relies throught its full flight envelope on complex flight computing systems. The landing gear is of fixed nature and consits of one nose landing gear and two main landing gear legs that are being covered using a aerodynamic fairing structure that is likely utilised as a stabilising surface during forward flight, effectively replacing the vertical tail of conventional aircraft. The aircraft also offers a relatively spacious looking cargo trunk in the rear. I hope I have done a good job in describing this very beautiful and elegant looking all electric vertical take-off aircraft. Let me know and I am happy to clarify things further if you want! - Robert

@vernepavreal7296

2 жыл бұрын

@@supervolant thanks Robert your explanation was excellent I hope this response gets through not sure the app is as accessible as it should be cheers

@vernepavreal7296

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Robert Your description was excellent cheers

@supervolant

2 жыл бұрын

@@vernepavreal7296 Is received! Wish a nice day.

@prathameshdusane2619

2 жыл бұрын

@@supervolant Champion.

Not sure how one would define this to be "insane engineering"!! To me it looks about as sane as it gets!!

As a long time aviation enthusiast and hobby drone builder, I've really been excited to see so many eVTOL ideas coming out. It's like the early days of aviation, where so many concepts were being hashed out. Personally, the Lilium Jet and the Blackfly are some of the most efficient, elegant, and interesting ideas IMO. Lillium is more advanced, but the Blackfly is such a simple and effective concept. Better cheaper cleaner battery tech is gonna be the big hurdle to be solved.

@pelleban

2 жыл бұрын

Check out joby evtol, my personal fav 🙂

@williamzk9083

2 жыл бұрын

Blackfly is a billionaire toy. It will never be certified but through a series of sales Boeing now own what's left of the technology and company.

@LukeFG

2 жыл бұрын

@@pelleban agree. Best Technology by far

@TecnamTwin

Жыл бұрын

​@@pelleban Lilium is faster and more efficient giving it a significantly larger range than the more conventional Joby concept. It's the best eVTOL design I've seen so far with the less developed Jetoptera being second. It also looks So Cool!! Everything else is based of some type of drone with some using tilt rotors to try to increase speed and efficiency. Hopefully Lilium wins. Quiet is good.

@pelleban

Жыл бұрын

@@TecnamTwin Well I still prefer Joby, my personal favorite. Just as a pilot point of view I find the Joby more appealing. Tried and tested design that works. Lillium might be more effective, the future will show. And maybe I missed some test range flights and FAA approvals for Lillium, are they as far in the process as Joby?

Great explanation. I had been wondering why they went with EDFs, but that explanation of the decision to favor cruise since pure hover is such a short time in the flight makes a lot of sense. Also the gains they get in transition due to the "blown" wing help for low speed flight. Thanks for this video!

@flightisallright

Жыл бұрын

Hover is short, but it will really eat into the battery.

@AscendDynamics

Жыл бұрын

@@flightisallright Yes it will. Just playing with my RC EDF jets is proof enough. I had one (FT Viggen) that could hover on 4s with just enough to climb out (thrust vectored on pitch only so hover was sketchy!) 😂😅

@wiliamamramon7591

2 ай бұрын

​@@flightisallright,He's very horrible. its looks a contraption flying in reverse. As for technology it is undoubttedly accurate. tanks.

So nice to see advancements are going on in the field of aviation. I look forward to take a flight in the new machine.

Thank you for making a video with hard information in it. Good explanations. I learned a lot.

I love your videos. They are always such a high quality 👍🏼

Great analysis! Thank you

Keep up the great work 👍🏼

_Beautiful_ video! 💛🙏🏼

Wow! To be fair, almost all eVotal, especially multi-rotor ones have a distributed propulsion architecture and redundancy. The boundary layer ingestion and ducted fan are prolly the most creative and innovative aspects of this aircraft tbh. And obviously the airframe looks like sci-fi.

@benturp3492

Жыл бұрын

It's nothing special mate. 😂

Very interesting video concerning the innovating process of this new flighing technology

Excellent innovation.

Great video !! Well done !

Nice video, good work

Excellent

Amazing what you have accomplished... the trajectory of consumer VTOL has changed. Electric Ducted Fans work great. Placement of fans on wings helps generate more lift in cruising mode. Lots of smaller fans are easier to place than several larger engine driven props. Lots of fans also mean redundancy if 1 fails.

@timothylovet3041

Жыл бұрын

Men’s best successes come after their disappointments.

This is the most beautiful design of all the EVTOL's. Lilium is the only EV aircraft I want to ride in.

Es una genialidad, las turbinas estan arriba creando aun mas baja presion en la superficie superior del ala.

-- Excellent!

The Luiium Jet looks advanced, & unique lookin' i always generate, & incorporate ideas similar like this at my job.

Хорошая идея! Очень сильный конкурент ! Главное, чтобы прошли сертификацию безопасности и др. Боюсь, что такую технологию не пустят на рынок для массовых перевозок. Удачи всем!

Energy density !

What about the batteries? In Germany, there was an extensive discussion about the performance values of the plane and the size and weight of the battery that is needed. That is the biggest challenge in this project!

@stefanweilhartner4415

2 жыл бұрын

the pipistrel alfa electric shows that it is working. my lucky guess is, that they used conventional batteries that where available at the time of development. at that time it was around 200Wh/kg. standard in EVs is now 240-260Wh/kg. highest in EVs is almost 300Wh/kg best in low volume production is around 450Wh/kg (amprius) i suspect 240-260Wh/kg for prototype testing now. but at some point when production volume of the batteries is high enough, 450Wh/kg will be available. but for that project they used custom cells from the german company "customcells" where i don't know what chemistry the are using.

@joeyricci3141

Жыл бұрын

They also partnered with Livent to make a new high performance battery

@TomasSawer

Жыл бұрын

@@stefanweilhartner4415 Basic Cessna IO-360-L2A engine produces about 150kWt so you need about 750kg battery for each flying hour. Even if this plane is twice effective then Cessna 172 (but it dont) then still seems not ready for a commercial use. Also have some worry about weight of all this 36 engines and systems around.

@stefanweilhartner4415

Жыл бұрын

@@TomasSawer the pipistrel is already in commercial use for years now

@TomasSawer

Жыл бұрын

@@stefanweilhartner4415 Pipistrel has only one commercial electic model - Velis Electro with 57.6kW engine certified for Pilot training in day VFR. It has 100Knots max speed and 50 minutes plus reserve endurance which make it more glider then commercial plane. I'm not against elecric aviation. But seems we still should develop first lighter batteries. At least 500Wh. Then it will make sense.

it was great Thanks mate

Shades of jetwing technology. Pretty darn cool.

keep the good work!

The video looks so inspiring....

Great graphics and idea. Good luck with investor's

I love the Lilium video.♥️😊

Very nice, but what about the batteries? Charging times and in flight charging possibilities would be interesting to know. Then of course, how much does everything weigh, and what is total capacity, and to what maximum distance?

@jamesadams893

2 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same thing , without high density ( power to weight ) this plane isn't worth a shit. Would make a really neat rc model though.

@stefanweilhartner4415

2 жыл бұрын

"in flight charging possibilities"?

@Ironman-33

Жыл бұрын

My thoughts ex-act-ly. Fairly new pilot here and I need concrete info before I invest in it. Lift capacity? Flight/charge time? Range? Service ceiling? Inclement weather performance? How does it/can it maneuver in a crosswind while maintaining stability? It's aesthetically beautiful, but I know what a crosswind can do to an aerodynamically stable plane on a typical day. Can this thing handle a wind gust or airflow change, i.e. crossing a frontal boundary...? If it survives safety/torture tests and has viable lift cap. and range I might be all in for this.

@familei3349

Жыл бұрын

I'd enjoy watching fly in some turbulence! Not just a nice pleasant sunny day in optimum conditions! Throw in some birds and sand!

@frankyw8803

Жыл бұрын

​@antonelli scrump·tious Good job, there was no sand and birds back in the early flight pioneering days.

Incredible engineering.

Very nicely presented, and well deserved for this amazing aircraft.

@ziad_jkhan

2 жыл бұрын

It's potential scam though

Thank You ! This is the video that needed to be made about this amazing aircraft.

Awesomeness ✌ 😎

Brilliant nice design Congratulations

Most exciting.

I believe this aircraft uses grate deal of energy and hence exhausts the battery on take-off and land. So an obvious solution seems to be why not use hard wire electricity to take off and then detach and cruse and as it can hover it can be re-attached to hard wire electricity for landing too. This should allow much longer ranger or increase redundancy factors substantially

@sean1336

Жыл бұрын

better by microwave on takeoff and land (wire sounds awkward. microwave receivers are light)

@thegiggler2

Жыл бұрын

@@sean1336 How about lazers?

@waynet8953

Жыл бұрын

New technology can increase the range in a few years.

Love your video too much and I would like to follow, subscribe, and watch it everyday! Thanks!

Really proud to see how European industry is leading this astonishing and futuristic market. eVTOL are closer to become the future we are all looking at.

What an absolutely brillantand beautiful piece of art. It's an odd thing in life how you always get skeptics, even when you showcase the most amazing piece of engineering. Somehow they have no imagination. Have worked with clueless people like this which is extremly frustrating. When you have an idea and can clearly visualise it working in your mind and no matter how simply you explain it to them, they just can't seem to grasp the concept. Fortunately there are enough brilliant engineers who team up with those geniuses to make projects like this become reality. Predict this will be the biggest innovation of the jet engine since its invention.

When I first watched you I thought, how come this channel hasn't got famous yet? Your vids are awesome man, I in the future want to be someone who creates and designs eVTOL and your explanations help a lot, plus I can listen to your vids for hours, your voice is very nice to listen to unlike some youtubers.

Awsome technologie 👍

Thanks

I feel like electric planes would really benefit from a catapult-type launch system- embedded in the runway. Since a disproportional amount of battery energy is used up during takeoff, reducing that would have a significant impact on range.

@netroy

2 жыл бұрын

For catapulting to make sense, you'd need high acceleration, which in turn would make for a very unpleasant flight. It does make a lot more sense to do that for cargo planes.

@skyak4493

2 жыл бұрын

@@netroy They already do it on aircraft carriers for fighters that have drastically higher cruise speed. 3Gs would not be too unpleasant.

@cascito

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah , I was thinking about the same..

@cascito

2 жыл бұрын

@@netroy We can easily lower the acceleration for launching it..

@FlyingFun.

2 жыл бұрын

Yep and could catch it too and regain some energy that is lost just braking . Air travel is very inefficient but could be very different with some thought. I fly rc gliders and know just how far you can fly using no power at all, something that's not so easy on the ground.

Impressive engineering gotta say

Great video. What is the source video content from? I've been following William for years and that content is not on their YT channel :(

@eVTOLinnovation

2 жыл бұрын

Google Lilium paper architecture. Also, in their website a blogpost The technology behind the Lilium Jet

this thing is a very impressive answer on a question never asked...

THANK YOU LILIIUM for using " First principles thinking " 🤓🤓🤓 your on your way ...

Thank You. I'm researching my own micro renewable energy power plant. In the artic there is No solar for 3 months. I really really like your wind turbine design.

If all power to the motors is lost I cannot imagine that this would glide very well once the dead engines acted like spoilers/speed brakes.

@michaelnoble2432

2 жыл бұрын

Not to mention that it won't be controllable at all without ailerons (not sure if this is the case, but it is implied with the discussion about using the fans instead of control surfaces).

@waynet8953

Жыл бұрын

You have a point there; there's no autorotation like a helicopter where the blades still work for a controlled descent! Wonder if it has a parachute for that scenario.

@dariush.2375

Жыл бұрын

@@waynet8953 given the fact that normal six seater ga planes have one too, i would be disappointed if it does not get one

@xanderunderwoods3363

Жыл бұрын

Then get some life insurance

Honestly when I clicked on this the title it made me think it was a Real Engineering video, but I’m not mad. Good content

Nice👷‍♂️✈️

Unfortunately, this video is already a bit out of date: The number of jets has been reduced from 36 to 30, with 18 on the front wings (three banks of three on each wing) and twelve on the canard (two banks of three on each side). The size of each jet has been slightly increased to compensate. This was done to reduce part count and complexity and thus reduce production cost.

@eVTOLinnovation

Жыл бұрын

Video update coming next week

@youtubemakesmedothis7280

Жыл бұрын

@@eVTOLinnovation Looking forward to it!

@crazyoilfieldmechanic3195

Жыл бұрын

ABSOLUTELY NOT JETS WHATSOEVER

This airplane just gets better looking every year.

I liked this design a lot.

I am an investor and I love your videos! Bill SerGio, The Infomercial King, Pinecrest, FL

@lillyanneserrelio2187

Жыл бұрын

You aren't the king. Your neighbors confirmed that. ~The Princess of Facebook, Cooper City, FL

@StationBreakTV

Жыл бұрын

I have made more money than all the other companies in this business and no other company comes close. Have a nice day.

Fan in a duct isn't a Jet. Change my mind

Wow wow i was designen one idea very very similar even without watching this video.gooood this is tge best idea keep going .believe me it is the best idea😍🙏👏👏👏

This seems to be a much better solution than all the open rotor drones.

Seeing that the wings are functional, couldn’t you opt for a short field take off and save energy, in leu of a 100% vertical take off, if a facility was available?

@jimanderson4444

Жыл бұрын

Looks like they have that option yet with a little tilt and energy the virtical lift is a great benefit.

eVTOLs will be SO much more reliable (and quieter) as there will be so many fewer moving parts. These are exciting times for aviation enthusiasts.

Great concept very intriguing. I believe it’s only the beginning of this type of engineering hats off to you. I’m sure the Wright brothers would be pretty impressed with the new design. I think that old aircraft aviation from the war eras will become obsolete. This looks like the new technology. I also believe that this new technology should be able to glide and land safely if all power fails, I think this would be an absolute necessity . Safety first.

Great aircraft. Only one thing puzzles me: why they insist on calling it a "jet," and it's engines "duct jets" and so on. The propulsion units used here are clearly ducted fans driven by electric motors. Ducted fans have been around since at least the 1940s. The term "jet" is typically associated with fuel-burning engines that use combustion to create a high speed flow of gases. With such a great design, why play such semantic games?

@ColinDaviesNZ

Жыл бұрын

The usage of the word Jet confuses me also. What is shown in the video is a simple ducted fan, but yes it produces a jet of air. To me a true electric jet aircraft engine would be: 1. The electric batteries driving a compressor 2. this compressed air would then be expelled into the fan 3. this fan could then be connected to another fan or propellor that creates the wondflow, which could create the bypass air. My guess is that the use of the word jet is to do with marketting. A lot of the public assume that a jet-plane is faster and better than other forms of aircraft.

@royshashibrock3990

Жыл бұрын

@@ColinDaviesNZ I agree with your descriptions of mechanical arrangements that would support use of the word "jet", and also with your suppositions about why Lilium used it.

Thanks for the video. I would appreciate if you talk a little more of the drawbacks of this solution. In your video it seems Lilium is the only way to go :)

@stefanweilhartner4415

2 жыл бұрын

so far, compared to other electric solutions, i don't see any drawback.

@robertweekley5926

Жыл бұрын

Primary Drawback - is simply that it is a new Aircraft that needs to be certified, but the certification requirements are all new, Because of the Energy Source (Batteries), and the Powertrain Design, (Encapsulated Ducted Fan on Flaps), and possibly a "New Flight Control" Approach, of using power adjustments for some of the Aileron and Rudder Functions! Other than that, it builds on knowledge in aerospace design, that has been collectively developed over the last 120 years! And Adds a new twist, many small vs one single large, power source! (Or, as is typical today, "Two" copies of a "Single Large Power Source" - be they Piston, Turboprop, or Fan Jet Engines! The Classic "Turbo-Jet" that has no "Bypass Fan" is seldom used anymore, in Civil Aviation.)

great job ,enjoyed the intelligent design and engineering

Very impressive indeed. This looks like the first possibly viable electric aircraft I've seen so far.

It's the sort of thing where I go that looks cool but this sort of personal flying machine has been promised but not delivered countless times

Very interesting. How fast can the plane go?

3:20.... Hold on... if it's 10x more efficient in the climb-cruise-descent phase, that in turn implies that the energy consumption per unit time is 10x greater for the VTOL phases. Meaning that even if the VTOL phases add up to 10% of the total flight time, using 10x more energy during that time means that the total energy budget just for VTOL is slightly more than half of the overall flight's energy budget. That is not a good figure at all. Yeah, it's about what I expected given the amount of energy required to actually push your own weight up as opposed to generate lift through motion. Even assuming you're using a different metric for what you define as "efficiency" (since efficiency is a relative term after all), it's still indicative of how much more power you're going to need to support VTOL and why VTOL is a bad idea for electric aircraft given the obscene weight penalty for energy storage.

@court2379

2 жыл бұрын

My guess is because the range is already limited, operators would rarely use VTOL due to the range penalty they would incur. But I don't understand why people are developing electric aircraft at all. They are energy density and weight sensitive. Both things batteries are poor at. All we are doing here is making a poor performance aircraft. It is a good goal to reduce emissions and dependency on fuels, but not really practical real world. If you are going to spend 1M US on an aircraft, this is not the one most will buy. Also safety is an issue in my opinion. Fuels give a large range buffer, these not so much. Also how are you going to heat the cabin, waste off the batteries?

@timcuatt1640

2 жыл бұрын

@@court2379 Ehhhh I feel ya. I would argue for biofuel + gas generator -> electric drivetrain personally if we're talking long term aviation technology. I think the development of electric drivetrains and new VTOL concepts are an important enabler of novel configurations, even if the whole concept of an electric aircraft is presently flawed. From a public knowledge standpoint, it's a matter of doing the homework where we can even if we don't have all the elements yet. From the standpoint of those funding or developing these electric aircraft, I have no clue- could be cynics, could be idealists, could be fools, could be wise.

@timcuatt1640

2 жыл бұрын

It's a figure of merit but not an overall term. I would say the VTOL phase of an aircraft is smaller than 10% of its flight profile, and the ability to deliver higher peak power easily is an advantage of electric motors/batteries. I mentioned in another comment though that batteries are the problem (on a power/weight measure) rather than the VTOL part. I think the VTOL aspect we see a lot is investor pressure to break into new markets since the last 60 years have shown how small the general aviation market is, even though I agree that VTOL is a little hard to justify.

@court2379

2 жыл бұрын

@@timcuatt1640 I see VTOL like flying cars. The design compromises they require make for an under performing plane in the key part of flight where it spends most of its time, cruise. This one has to use motors much larger than would otherwise be required, the power systems must handle the current for those motors, the stronger moving flaps, all leading to more weight as compared to a conventional plane (though they have saved some weight removing the vertical stabilizer). This would make this aircraft only fit a niche market of frequent travel between relatively close locations that are a bit farther than you would want to use a helicopter for, or you want to get there a little faster (though that might not be the case here being electric). I do have safety concerns with this too. The wing lift depends on the motors operating. Direction control does as well. If you fly thru a flock of birds and the fans ingest a few, do you crash? How many redundant controllers is enough? My guess is they have three planning to cope with the failure of one bank of motors. Icing forms on the leading edge of wings and then breaks off. In this design that would go right into the ducts and break them. Not that I am suggesting most aircraft this size can handle ice, but they do so more gracefully and with greater chance of surviving it. This is fly by wire. Will a small plane have sufficient redundancy in the electrical/computer systems and hardening against lightening, static discharge, EMP/solar flares, memory errors, etc.? Can it recover from a spin? Is it controllable if the battery dies or malfunctions? There are a lot of challenges on this plane, for small gains in a narrow market. It would be a fun engineering project to work on. Best of luck on their journey, but it will be next to a miracle if this succeeds.

@paulntege3357

2 жыл бұрын

there could be some niche use cases for VTOL aircrafts especially for connected cities where road traffic is a problem. quick commute times would make sense using these aircraft where traditional airliners would not be economical. could be expensive at first but the first step is to have proof of work. any learnings here can be applied to future hybrid mobility systems and maybe battery tech would also improve. there is also the case for hydrogen powered BEV so, this is exciting work indeed. far from a waste of time in imo

The main issue with this design was not mentioned in this video: batteries. Current battery technology requires a tradeoff between power efficiency and energy efficiency. You can have a battery that holds a large amount of energy (per unit weight), but it won't be able to provide high power. A battery that provides high power is less effective at storing energy. Due to the high disk loading, the Lilium Jet design requires a battery that can provide very high power efficiency, and this means that the battery won't have a good energy efficiency, thus limiting the flight time. Their performance values are actually based on battery specifications which currently do not exist. They are banking on hoping that battery technology will improve and remove these limitations, to make the design viable, but there is no guarantee if/when this will happen.

@ericmeyers6981

2 жыл бұрын

Wish E-VTOL would weigh in on batteries. Absence on this issue is conspicuous and noted.

Amazing how long the Rutan canard design has stood the test of time

@robertweekley5926

Жыл бұрын

Actually - it came before Rutan, win the Wright Brothers first Aircraft. Burt Just "Revived" it!

At this point, it seems like Lilium’s concept will work, although the initial performance may not be optimal.

7:33 ❝the system is highly redundant❞ - Having multiple fans per wing provides redundancy indeed, but mounting all of them on a single wing flap introduces another single point of failure. Having multiple independently moving flaps per wing would provide increased safety.

@eVTOLinnovation

2 жыл бұрын

There are 3 EDF per flap. 12 flaps in total.

@brianharris4144

2 жыл бұрын

@@eVTOLinnovation what's the glide ratio without power?

How to learn about these helicopter physics and its concepts like disc load and all stuff ? Everywhere i see when i search for aircraft shows planes . i want helicopter or these kind of drone physics.

Show me a man getting in, taking off, flying, landing and EXITING the plane all in one continuous stream. Otherwise it's just another Big RC aircraft. No guts NO GLORY!

You made no mention of the motors that are constantly moving the Evtol wings to keep balance and their consumption of energy.

@petargashi5423

2 жыл бұрын

Finally someone with smart words. Aerodyanmics has been researched long ago. The real problem is the energy storage. Unfortunately, we still haven't found anything that could store a vast amount of energy in a small amount of mass like natural oil and its products do.

Damn right I own Lilium stock. 🚀🤑 All the other ones look analogous to legacy auto, Lilium looks like Tesla. Thanks for this bud. 🤙

a,mazing

Lilium designed a fantastic product. They demonstrate their dedication to innovation and quality. Let's hope we see their jet in commercial use soon.

Very beautiful and simple. Lots of marvelous new ideas. (at least for me)

Well explained. What range is being a hi given current battery tech? Cost per mile comparison for private jet config? When target availability? Best tech so far it seems. Triumph of first principles. Is Elon investor?

eVTOLs will be SO much more reliable (and quieter) as there will be so many fewer moving parts. These are exciting times for aviation enthusiasts. MODERN WORLD ON THE HUMAN EARTH BRAVO KEEP UP ALL AMAZING WORKS FOR AVIATION KINDLY PLEASE

Hello, thank you very much for this very interesting video. However It would be so nice if there were at least english subtitles please!

I wouldn't call a marvel of engineering, more like a marvel of marketing. Basically Germany's Theranos equivalent. How can the CEO state in this video (11:00): "the technologies in this aircraft are jet aircraft and all of the airplanes flying today are jet airplanes". It's not jet technology, it's simply an electric fan and due to its small size highly inefficient.

@Kiyoone

2 жыл бұрын

Like that "flying cars" this will never gonna happen. Even that "Jetpack" man is more feasible than this. Why fly when you don't need to? LOL

@ziad_jkhan

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely and the other smoking gun is the focus on the advantages only with no mention of the disadvantages of such an approach

@kazedcat

2 жыл бұрын

Search for NASA's research on distributed electric fans it is the opposite of inefficient.

@ziad_jkhan

2 жыл бұрын

@@kazedcat I doubt it can ever be efficient with such small radius. Anyway, you mean it is more efficient than an normal fan? If so, we would probably start seeing camera drones starting to use them but, again, I strongly doubt it. But if you think otherwise then if you can explain the logic behind that would be awesome.

@kazedcat

2 жыл бұрын

@@ziad_jkhan Electric fans have different optimization. High RPM electric motors are lighter and more efficient than a low RPM motor of the same power. This higher RPM limits the length of the fan blades to prevent the tip going supersonic which is inefficient. The trade off is that you need more fans to get the same thrust as conventional turbo fan engine. The design of several electric motor + fans is more efficient than having one giant electric motor + one giant fan. Electric makes the optimum architecture very different than traditional engine.

Vertical take-off could be assisted by an electrical extension cord, jettisoned prior to transition, to conserve battery charge.

@coryeadams

Жыл бұрын

I upvoted but could be interesting to get to a minimal altitude to transition to a climb profile. It would still probably only be a max of several hundred feet as you could imagine that the weight of copper needed to supply the power might be of a fairly heavy gauge. The gating factor would be the max weight of the cable supplying the power that would still allow the aircraft to climb at a given gross weight.

Wonderful, but where is the parachute?

Is it possible to heat the existing air to create more thrust

Wonder how much further the range could be with a tether that would use shore power to get it to about 3-500 feet AGL before dropping the tether and starting the trip.

@itoibo4208

Жыл бұрын

idk if you need the extra power once the wheels leave the ground. by then you have gone from 0 to whatever the takeoff speed is, which has to be done rapidly since runways are not very long usually, and there is a lot of drag while running on wheels. if you mean doing vtol then that makes more sense, but it still sounds scary. a long cable whipping around in the wind attached to your aircraft? heavy and scary.

@nicholashartzler2205

Жыл бұрын

@@itoibo4208 but the point of this aircraft is vertical take of. Which is going to be required. Doesn’t matter how quiet it is, If an approved point to take off and land is allowed within a city you’re not going to also get approval to climb in motion. The aircraft will be expected to go straight up for noise abatement.

In 20 years people will look at these like model t’s

I have had some experience with edfs and they are amp hogs I would be interested to see how they have overcome this and what is the battery tech they are using. I wish them all the best with this project

@freepadz6241

2 жыл бұрын

??? More efficient than unducted

@minuteman4394

2 жыл бұрын

@@freepadz6241 I did not mention that? My query is that EDF's consume power due to the rpm being higher than normal depending on the number of stators against props where gearboxes can be employed and I am curious about the esc's, amperage and Battery type/size/range etc. I am not knocking the idea I think it is good ,just curious. Has it flown yet?

@michaelnoble2432

2 жыл бұрын

@@minuteman4394 you are absolutely correct - EDFs are inefficient compared to larger props, so any advantage gained by ducting is overwhelmed by the size disadvantage.

@kennyzhou4353

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelnoble2432 But someone said EDFs are more efficient than open props with the same sized props...

@michaelnoble2432

2 жыл бұрын

@@kennyzhou4353 yes, EDFs can be more efficient FOR THE SAME SIZE, but these are MUCH smaller (and therefore less efficient) than the propellers on a conventional plane.

what is its glide angle ?

What is the rpm of the edfs?

Excellent concept. Looking forward, past all the conflict that's so pervasive, there is a chance for a bright future for this planet.

3:15 They calculate a reserve of 60 sec. of hovering on a flight Hahaha!! Everybody on boar will shit their pants at the hint of some wind gusts at the landing site.

For the plentiful of answers from those in concern what may happen in case of partial/complete propulsion loss I simply would like to point out the (safety) standard requirements for civil aviation! Every BOEING, every AIRBUS needs a certification and a LILIUM of course as well.

@williamzk9083

2 жыл бұрын

Lilium is working with regulators EASA, FAA and Brazil.

@stefanweilhartner4415

2 жыл бұрын

if you count the amount of the motors, you can divide it by three. that means, you can make three independent batteries, control/power electronics and motor groups. that potentially gives excellent redundancy.

Great video, besides lacking battery usage details, you don't fully explain the fan engine. Do have great details for difference in lift off vs. regular flight! in ducted fan!

Years ago when i first came across the lilium Jet on youtube, And seeing its first flight footage as prototypes, It looked pretty skeptical at first, but then i really put on my old aviation professional hat, and realized what i was seeing was a game changer. With all the evtols startups, the lilium jet was the only one that truly addressed safety, by way of its ducted fans. Every other concept was clearly an very terrible if not horrific accident just waiting to happen. How could so many inventors not see the most blatant issue with their concepts. exposed rotors. But we already have exposed rotors in aviation. from small prop planes to helicopters. The difference here is operational proximity, and the amount of blades to contend with. EHANG 16 blades, Joby 28 blades or more, on and on.. in the event of an accident, those blades sheering off upon contact will be a threat to pilot passengers and bystanders hands down. Lilium on the other had does not suffer such issues. as its turbines are all confined in pods. Moreover, logistic operations means that you can operate the lilium jet in close proximity to bystanders. as their no way to its turbine to ingest bodily parts. Lliums obvious advantage safety in design, also has made it superior in scalability.

@anshuoliu3388

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure if i quite agree with your assessment on why Lilium is safer. Exposed rotors look dangerous, but we have proven technology and design that don't fail under normal operation (including debris ingestion). If it's in a crash situation, the blade might indeed come off, but these planes are designed to avoid the crash situation all together. In terms of preventing a crash, Lilium's design could be more problematic: think about the failure mode of one of the flap actuator jamming when transitioning to land (asymmetric thrust) or if one of the middle engines catches on fire, and knock out 2 adjacent engines. They can mitigate it through architecture and design, but at what cost? The biggest downside to the design IMO is the noise. Because of the high disk loading, the fans will have to push air very fast to generate enough thrust. That fast exhaust air is noise. I think noise level is V_E^4th? But, sincerely, I wish the best of luck to them, because we need all these companies to be in the race in order to have a chance to really see AAM come to market. We will surely lose up to 75% of them to attrition, and right now, we need as many flying prototypes as we can get.

@xevious2501

2 жыл бұрын

@@anshuoliu3388 I disagree on your assessment of liliums issues but whole heartly agree on the need for these particular aircraft to be successful. Joby has the lead as anticipated, its design is far more conventional than the lilium jet, which I view as the next generation past that of Joby's layout, and 97% of all the others that has taken such route, its easier more conventional to that of a standard helicopter. The issue is really scalability. The evtol industry rests on how much money can be made per flight. And even i was taken back upon viewing a breakdown, by such bean counters of what will be required for the industry to be successful. It will take alot of passengers capacity but it will also take time to build up a viable infrastructure. Basically there has to be A LOT of these aircraft flying about and i mean A LOT!!. or it becomes a high priced luxury service no different than current charter flights. In terms of accessibility for the masses, You can really compare it to current road going taxi services and road infrastructure. its going to take a chock full of these planes flying about to meet such demands needed to sustain the cost of industry growth. moreover the meat and potatoes lay with the amount of passengers each flight can take, the amount of money required per flight. You need no less than 6 passengers and 1 pilot. If not then your cost per passenger will be fairly high, rivalling that of a commercial flight of similar distance. The bread and butter of such industry is bringing those prices down, and that wont happen until there is well and enough planes to cover each route, and in that situation we are truly talking about those scenes in back to the future , The fifth Element and starwars phantom menace, where you basically have a highway worth of traffic in skies. we kinda already have as such just with commercial airline traffic into major airports. I use to live near JFK and loved to see the literal trail of lights from the airliners making their way into landing, one ever 20 miles or so. like a string of pearls in the sky. But this urban evtol would need to see an aircraft 1 every 8 miles or less, in order meet estimated demand. fast turn around. Then there is the vertiports and flight infrastructure, that also needs to tie itself into existing ATC And thats complicated. we're not talking the simplicity of what currently exist with light aircraft in bravo airspace, we are talking about highway levels of traffic in the sky, such a thing would almost have to be operated by AI. its just too many aircraft for any Traffic control operators to handle, and yet, as a backup precaution they would be required to do so should such an Ai system go down. talk about a traffic jam in the sky, and what such aircraft would need to do in the case of an emergency. As such you can see why pilots would be needed and automation is not truly viable. because automation accounts for a perfect situation. but in such a scenario where planes would have to land in obscure locations it would take a human pilot to determine where its safe. This is why i always said, vertiports would need alternative landing sites along each route in case of an emergency. such sites could be anything from a simple spat of concrete zoned out for such aircraft, parking lots , garage roof tops etc. and places where obstructions like powerlines is not an issue. so yeah theirs much more work ahead than simply the aircraft themselves. its the logistics that matter most. and we are still far from that. at least in servicing the public. BTW those vertiports make for a great source of Franchising business.

@anshuoliu3388

2 жыл бұрын

@@xevious2501 The business case is very uncertain for AAM, not only because you have to keep the price down, but one has to think of the value proposition vs. hassle ratio. How much do you want to go through in order to save 30 minutes of commute time? You have to hop in a car, hop out of a car, go through some sort of a hassle to get onto the plane and do the same on the other end. For me, I would seriously consider hopping into an automated car, do some work for an hour and half in traffic. So to minimize this hassle, you have to build lots of vertiports, and just like you said, how do you manage these ports in the ATC system? automation has to be considered. (and yes if you own a parking garage in DTLA, it's time to fetch some good money for it) However, before you get to building lots of vertiports, you have to show the aircraft is safe (not only to the authorities, but also to the perceived safety to public, like what you said) and noise so the public will welcome the planes to fly into the neighborhoods. So the bottom line IMO is the aircraft has to be right in order for a business case to exist. It's hard!

@anshuoliu3388

2 жыл бұрын

@@xevious2501 as of an automated airplane, I think it's easier than you might think to design. The trouble is with certification. Per the current regulatory framework, you have to show deterministically the SW works without fault. But when you get into these ultra complicated algorithm, and sometimes non-deterministic, how do we certify is going to be a harder problem than certifying the actual planes with a pilot. However, it has to be said that the automation of flight is easier than the automation of driving, because without pedestrians, bikers, dogs running around, there are fewer "entropy" in the environment. So fingers crossed!

@xevious2501

2 жыл бұрын

​@@anshuoliu3388As you said automation is harder for land vehicles and airplanes OF which btw already been flying for decades (and landing) under automation. pilots just give it coarse corrections and the plane does majority of the flying, but for EVtol that may need to land in an emergency, Its having to the ability to identify safe locations that such automated system will not be able to accomplish , its called human rationality. A machine can be programed to identify targets, but it cant rationalize situation awareness. Oh theres a nice spot to land, oh btw its a swamp. what does it do when its over large bodies of water. etc etc this is when a pilot need to be their to address the issue.

What motors are they using and when will there be an actual piloted model flying?

Such cool tech!