Slashdot Mirror
All-Electric 'Flying Car' Takes Its First Test Flight In Germany (theverge.com)
Today, Munich-based Lilium Aviation conducted the first test flight of its all-electric, two-seater, vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) prototype. "In a video provided by the Munich-based startup, the aircraft can be seen taking off vertically like a helicopter, and then accelerating into forward flight using wing-borne lift," reports The Verge. From the report: The craft is powered by 36 separate jet engines mounted on its 10-meter long wings via 12 movable flaps. At take-off, the flaps are pointed downwards to provide vertical lift. And once airborne, the flaps gradually tilt into a horizontal position, providing forward thrust. During the tests, the jet was piloted remotely, but its operators say their first manned flight is close-at-hand. And Lilium claims that its electric battery "consumes around 90 percent less energy than drone-style aircraft," enabling the aircraft to achieve a range of 300 kilometers (183 miles) with a maximum cruising speed of 300 kph (183 mph). "It's the same battery that you can find in any Tesla," Nathen told The Verge. "The concept is that we are lifting with our wings as soon as we progress into the air with velocity, which makes our airplane very efficient. Compared to other flights, we have extremely low power consumption." The plan is to eventually build a 5-passenger version of the jet.
More like a small aircraft with VTOL capabilities.
Can't be both, unless it's a hybrid. I guess that's possible.
/DNRTFA
"The only good windmill is a tilted windmill."
Sorry but a propeller in a cowling is not a "jet engine". (stupid marketers)
Not that I wouldn't want one of these...looks pretty cool.
Does it make that familiar putt-putt-putt sound and fold into a briefcase-sized portable?
If not, then we must say, the world of the Jetsons is not yet here.
BTW, did anybody ever notice that there were never any racial minorities in the Jetsons? What's up with that?
This demo is just a hover demo, the wings are actually just pure decoration for promo purposes. Not to say that a hover demo is an easy feat, but the cool looking slippery fuselage is not doing anything useful in an aerodynamic sense, rather it is purely for social engineering at this point. Doubt me? Look at the canard, it is not even an airfoil by any stretch of the imagination. This aircraft is absolutely incapable of gliding, it would immediately dive straight down if you tried to do so, with spectacular results.
Given that this is just a hover egg, maybe optimize it for that? The concept render actually shows an airframe that could be capable of some kind of glide ratio, but from the look of it, only at really high speed. Trying to flare out for a standard runway landing would most likely be a life threatening experience. With all those ducted fans, the profile drag will be through the roof. Glide ratio, maybe 5 to 1, optimistically, unless the profile drag can be reduced by some as-yet uninvented magic. By comparison, a garden variety Cessna gets 9:1, which means that landing without power already requires some skill. With 5 to 1, you basically need to be a Chuck Yeager to walk away from it.
Might as well just be honest about it and lose the wings entirely. Simple sticks will do, like the canard, and save some weight. Then what is the remaining reason for having such small fans? Small fans are less efficient than larger ones, meaning the batteries will run out considerably faster than some more practical design.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I guess we'll never hear what these things sound like. Anyone care to speculate on the decibel level when your neighbor lifts off his driveway?
Imagine if you will the shriek of 36 leaf blowers in your ear every morning
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This flying car won't fit in my garage, won't travel down the highway (or any road for that matter), won't land at the grocery store and pick up milk.
It only works if you live at an airport and your house backs up to the runway.
You seem to know a lot more about aero-dynamics and flight than me (not saying much).
But aren't you comparing this vehicle to a plane when perhaps it should be compared to a helicopter? In that case, would the lift from the airframe moving forward would be much more than an equivalent helicopter and thus the range would be much better?
True, if the engines die you can't "glide" it back to a landing. However the massive redundancy (36 fans) would prevent that from being the point of failure (but the battery, power electronics might be). That's where the parachutes come in I guess.
Since I'd rather have a (safe, easy to fly) helicopter than a plane, I think I'd buy this to go (short) island hopping in the South Pacific. :) (If you plastered it with solar cells, how long would do you think it take to charge?)
there's this thing called a works council in Europe and Germany / France are the worst about it
you want to roll out a new tool? lol the German works council tells you to fuck off
but they are ok with self driving cars? lol
Can we please get over flying cars just like how we got over beowulf clusters?
I am just wondering how the traffic management will be, when these cars are everywhere.
hilarious
Suggested correction to article: "In a video (subscription required)"...
Whereas there may be a prototype somewhere, this looks 100% CGI. Does anyone actually believe this video demonstrated anything that happened in real life?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Whats with that?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Looks to be permanently within the dead man's curve whenever in VTOL mode. No thanks.
A. Demo shows a bias of motion from attitude, aka tilt to direction you want to move.
B. The rotation of thrust would have ripped the frame apart. Why? Look at the canard pods... *the vibration* looks nuts.
C. Why do they Europeans, especially Germans, talk too much art and philosophy rather than what's important? Safety, performance, and features? They do great mechanical, why not focus in advertising it? It's a person flying vehicle, we get.
D. Materials look like foam, plastic canopy, cf body and frame. Would never be strong enough to carry anyone.
E. Ducted fans? Greatest static thrust, bad dynamic thrust in order to hover.
F. Ducted fans are loud as heck. As loud as a turbine.
Redundancy is great, but this's design has serious issues....
Oh yeah. That DARPA X-plane we saw only a few days ago here. Only the Germans made it a tad less ugly.
So how is this one different? Looks like exactly the same technology.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Now make it do that with a passenger on-board.
Sorry but I block Facebook on the router level, any video link for people who value their privacy?
and whatever you do, don't sell out for an offer of billions. Keep your technology and workers in Germany.
36 jet engines? That sounds like a really loud bird.
BTW, they are not jets (which burn fuel). They are ducted electric impellers.
Very cool, tho. It just jumped off of the ground in the test video.
This thing had better fly at less than 500 ft in altitude, to avoid ever entering FAA-controlled airspace & corridors.
The FAA would require so many over-engineered (high engineering margins=heavy parts) and triply redundant systems that it would be too heavy to fly anywhere with controlled airspace (cities), once the FAA got done bulking it up.
FYI, the FAA long ago taken over by regulatory capture from the airline and aircraft industries. The company in the article would probably never be able to get all of the proper approvals because the in-place air-transport players would use the FAA like a bludgeon.
I wonder what the glide path of this thing is. That is, in case of a major power loss, could it safely land?
I am very suspicious of the angles chosen in the video and the lack of visual clues to indicate true scale. Not sure what the payload was for this version. And already it has 30 feet wingspan. I doubt it is lifting anything more than the "tesla" like battery.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
IAAEngineer. On the Lilium website, the images show the "flight mode" having all of the impellers on the top of the wings, instead of the bottom. They are all sitting on the portion of the wing where aerodynamic lift is generated. There's a wing-surface on top of the nacelles, but the design still looks like it would have negative lift. Anyone who knows how a wing generates lift will understand.
The impellers, necessarily pushing air through faster than the vehicle is traveling, would create a low-pressure zone right in front of them, where flowing air is supposed to be compressed. It's the lower air-pressure over the back of a wing that generates lift. The nacelles are sitting right in the way.
Or does their design position the front-face of the impellers right in that spot. They would have a lower relative air pressure just in front of them, of course. It's hard to tell from the few images the exact positioning, but can an Aeronautical Engineer chime in?
You're the dumbass. All of those FAA rules have been learned the hard way. They may not be optimum, but damn near every one is directly linked to a fatality. Why triple-string redundancy? Because shit happens, and there are cases where it's very hard to tell which of two computers or sensors is wrong.
Oh and your supporting argument for regulatory capture is batshit insane. "The FAA would require so many ...- heavy parts)" but you claim that's regulatory capture from the airlines that are desperate to reduce weight to improve fuel efficiency.
That is not a flying car - it is a teeny weeny airplane with folding wings. Ridiculous.
It looks interesting, but I'll hold on my congratulations until I see a version with most of the safety stuff, seats, navigation, etc integrated in it with a few decently sized/weighted crash test dummies onboard. At the moment it looks like it could be an empty lightweight shell.
Of course not you savage. This is for the people with class, intelligence, style, and money. Stay in your lane.
#ChelseaClinton2020!
This uses 36 ducted fans. I don't know what market idiot thinks they are jet engines.
Ducted fans have terrible efficiency compared to regular propellers. So this thing undoubtedly wastes a lot of power to stay in flight.
The only time a ducted fan makes sense is when you're using it for compression as in an actual jet engine.
A. Demo shows a bias of motion from attitude, aka tilt to direction you want to move.
B. The rotation of thrust would have ripped the frame apart. Why? Look at the canard pods... *the vibration* looks nuts.
C. Why do they Europeans, especially Germans, talk too much art and philosophy rather than what's important? Safety, performance, and features? They do great mechanical, why not focus in advertising it? It's a person flying vehicle, we get.
D. Materials look like foam, plastic canopy, cf body and frame. Would never be strong enough to carry anyone.
E. Ducted fans? Greatest static thrust, like bad dynamic thrust in order to hover.
F. Ducted fans are loud as heck. As loud as tur
And Lilium claims that its electric battery "consumes around 90 percent less energy than drone-style aircraft"
I'm confused. Aren't the batteries supposed to supply energy?
Kilometer per hour is km/h, not kph, you insensitive clod.
...no, wait...
I have it!
We'll build projectile launchers into residential homes, and launch the people into the air! No "car" required! Think of the weight savings!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
when you can't get the power you need out of a single unit.
Like all those laughable prototypes of aircraft in the past with a half dozen or more weak gas engines, we see designers attempting to do the same with electric motors.
Hauling more weight, more controllers, more wiring because the motor such aircraft NEED simply hasn't been designed or built yet.
Its easier to get investment and demonstrate a prototype, but when the real innovation needed to spur electric flight is NOT new airframe designs but that larger motor, all these multimotor concepts are a wasteful dead end.