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.
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?)
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
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*
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?
This exists to extract money from someone, either rich people or the government, who don't understand the subject but think it looks sexy.
No more or less...
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?
That is not a flying car - it is a teeny weeny airplane with folding wings. Ridiculous.
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.
If I were an airline, I would want this up-start competitor to be saddled with as much weight as possible. Otherwise, they could be competition for me, the airline, which has the FAA in its pocket.
You can think what you want about Germany, but I can assure you private companies are not government founded.
However when the product hits the market some government agencies might buy some.
What is wrong with that?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There is no product here, this is not something that will ever actually become a flying vehicle that can be used by people.
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.
Then your previous post:
This exists to extract money from someone, either rich people or the government, who don't understand the subject but think it looks sexy. ...
Makes no sense at all.
If there is no product, from where/whom would they 'extract money'?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.