Slashdot Mirror
German Company Building An Electric 'Air Taxi' Makes Key Hires From Gett, Airbus and Tesla (techcrunch.com)
Lilium, the Germany company known for building an electric "air taxi," is announcing a number of key hires from notable companies in the transportation space. While the company is still in its early days, it is ambitiously striving to make flying cars a reality. Back in April, the company launched its first public (and successful) test flight in Germany. TechCrunch reports: [The key hires] are Dr Remo Gerber, former MD for Western Europe at Gett, who joins Lilium as Chief Commercial Officer; Dirk Gebser, who takes up the position of VP of Production and previously held manufacturing executive roles at Airbus and Rolls Royce; and Meggy Sailer, who joined Lilium as Head of Recruitment in February and was formerly Tesla's Head of Talent EMEA. In a call with Gerber, he told me he was "super happy" to be joining the German startup, noting that there are very few companies in Europe with the same level of ambition. "It is definitely the most fascinating job I could have ever imagined," he says, audibly excited. "I've done quite a few things in my time and I've seen quite a few companies but never anything even remotely like that." To add a little color, Gerber pointed out that his training is in physics ("a long time ago") and that his grandfather was a pilot in World War II, and his uncle also a pilot. This, and the first time he saw the Lilium jet fly, made the opportunity to join a startup building a new kind of air travel "irresistible."
Is the product marketable? Because while there may be some big names being tossed around, all those positions are hierarchy garnishings and don't seem to be having much impact on anything.
Let's be honest, an air taxi will pretty much sell itself if it works. And whether it works is exactly where my doubts lay :D.
messerschmidt or folke-wolfe or volkswagon ... okay then.
If they think to fill the city sky with planes, this will be New York Airways all over again (and worse).
It will last exactly until the first bad accident.
... when 3rd parties independently test it.
Good luck.
but it hasn't been happening. Making it electric doesn't change the reasons it makes no sense.
Sorry folks, the future is looking more and more like the present.
Where else do you get to kill people in new and thrilling ways?
I guess autogyro isn't an option here. While they have rotor redundancy, I don't see a plan for total loss of powered flight.
A fixed-wing aircraft uses something between 2 and 3 *times* as much energy per km. If you add vertical performance you can multiply that by another 2 or 3 or so.
The problems we're in now are because we valued convenience over everything. We need to *stop* doing that.
If someone can do it than it's the Germans.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
This will never fly. It's not a jet. It has no power-off life savings. It won't work within the national airspace systems.
Lillium calls it a jet. One of the quotes in the original article says it's a jet. It's not. There are four kinds of "jet" motors - turbojet (turbine heats gasses and expels them to provide thrust, like a fighter jet), turbo shaft (turbine heats gasses which drive another turbine that powers a shaft for a helicopter or tank, like an M-1 Abrams or a UH-01 "Huey" helicopter), turboprop (turbine powers propeller, like a regional jet), and turbofan (turbine powers a ducted fan to provide high-bypass - 747 - or low bypass - F14 - ducted fan thrust). Lillium uses no turbine, no jet exhaust, just DJI-like electric fans.
Lillium has no strategy for emergency power-off failure. Fixed-wing planes can glide to landing. Helicopters can autorotate. Autogyros are already in permanent autorotations. There is NO PASSENGER-CARRYING AIRCRAFT certified anywhere in the world that hasn't been proven to survive a power off (lost engines, get to ground safely) landing. Lillium can barely make weight lifting its own shell. Lifting its own shell plus cargo or humans is not yet possible. To add to that the ability to do power-off landings is beyond what is feasible.
The US National Airspace System (NAS) and the equivalent in Europe, Japan, Australia, and other countries do not allow aircraft to function in Visual Flight Rules (VFR) areas without constant verbal communication with Air Traffic Control. That means unlicensed "pilots" wouldn't be able to take off or land anywhere in these countries without lots of training... but more importantly they'd have to be in control of the aircraft, which Lillium says would be an automatic self-flying device.
For these reasons (and more, including that no insurer would ever insure it because you can't hold an autonomous vehicle responsible for anything...) this will never fly.
Ehud Gavron
US FAA commercial helicopter pilot
They already produced a full scale model that actually flies. There are 36 individual fans, I guess powered by separate battery packs for redundancy, so a single fan failure doesn't result a crash of the vehicle. Two separate computers for redundancy also.
Then, there is a parachute that should cover the situations where both computers fail for a reason.
I think the goal is to have an autonomous vehicle, so you don't need all the training. They can integrate the autonomous system with the air traffic control - we are not in the 40's anymore - there is no need to call air traffic while a computer can send your exact position and flight plan. This is something that will have to be solved one day anyways - if we are to have any kind of flying vehicle that doesn't require extensive pilot training.
>Lillium has no strategy for emergency power-off failure.
On small enough vehicles, you can have a ballistic chute sufficient to bring the whole vehicle to ground at a survivable velocity. They make them for ultralight aircraft. Lillium may not have thought of this yet, but it's a realistic option.
As for automatic navigation... I've seen some amazing commercial drone software. Current rules (here) are that the drone must be in visual range of the operator, but I have to tell you that those things can compensate so quickly for a gust of wind you barely see them move... they fly their route like they're on rails. It's just a matter of time before they're certified as more reliable than a human operator.
What I don't see is these things being cost-effective... ever. No matter how good the batteries get, it'll always be massively more efficient to use them to power a ground vehicle. Something that doesn't have to use energy just to fight gravity. Something that only the most extreme weather makes unsafe to operate.
What we're seeing here is a slightly less expensive commuter helicopter alternative so more of the slightly-less-rich can fly above the rest of us proles.
This airtaxi runs on hot air alone.
Never say never. When (if) autonomous VTOL craft are feasible, and if there is enough public demand and perceived benefit to society, the rules will be changed. Perhaps we'll see a new class of airspace, under (semi) automated air traffic control in order to cope with the increased traffic. Which will be great, we can stick the toy drones in that control network too. But sure, I don't expect to see these things flying around my city in the next decade.
Insurance for these things is exactly what it will be for autonomous cars: a non-issue. Oh I am sure we'll see plenty of lawyers lining their pockets in cases over accidents caused by autonomous vehicles, but insurance can work like it does for regular auto insurance here in NL: in principle the owner of the vehicle is liable (not the driver like in many other countries) and has to take out insurance on that vehicle. The insurer simply assesses potential liability and risk and sets the coverage and premiums accordingly. If something happens, they pay. If it turns out there's a nasty defect or gross negligence on part of the manufacturer, the insurer will sue them. This is nothing new. And I fully expect that insurance for autonomous cars, once they hit the road, will actually become a lot cheaper than that for regular cars, after a few years. For autonomous aircraft, a lot will depend on their safety record, but eventually insurers can routinely handle policies for these,
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
You are mixing up "jet" with "turbine".
This are impeller engines, hence they are jets.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
IFR requires communication with ATC. VFR only requires it in Class B, C, and D airspace (and the very rare class E airport with a control tower). The vast majority of the US's airspace below 18,000 feet is class E, and does not even require the aircraft to have a radio. Class G is uncontrolled airspace, generally under 1,200 feet.
I recently flew from Schaumburg airport, 8 miles from O'Hare airport in Chicago (Class E underneath the Class B) to Bowman Field (Class D) in Louisville, KY, and didn't talk to anyone until I was entering Bowman's airspace for landing. Most of my local flights only involve talking to ATC until I've cleared the class D. There is no requirement to talk to ATC for a VFR flight unless you're near a field with a control tower.
Sources: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/71.71
Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge - Chapter 15 (free download from FAA)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.205
To be honest, their website has a paragraph on "Electric Jet Engines" which is kind of non-sense since, as you mention, these are impellers. There is no engine (as in reaction engine) in this thing, nothing is ever burnt in normal operation.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Would you fly the Bat?
It might be nice if the demo tape mentioned this. Maybe make a new tape that shows some "what-ifs?"
This will never fly. It's not a jet. It has no power-off life savings. It won't work within the national airspace systems.
Ehud Gavron
US FAA commercial helicopter pilot
Their design includes, as a standard, a quick-deploy parachute/parafoil system. This is for instances of failure.
And true, it's not a jet, but ducted electric props. No combustion == not a jet.
There is NO PASSENGER-CARRYING AIRCRAFT certified anywhere in the world that hasn't been proven to survive a power off
If they lose power over the middle of the Pacific, everybody will drown. Still there are aircraft being certified to fly there. So the certification in that case is based not on the survivability of a "power off", but on its (un)likeliness.
No.
Aircraft certificated for operation beyond gliding distance from land are required to have flotation devices, passenger exit devices (e.g. slides), and demonstrated ability to stay above water long enough to evacuate the passengers.
E
Then all water jet engines are nonsense, too?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There doesn't exist anything in terms of a air traffic control management system for these vehicles. So they may develop a nice vehicle but it is going nowhere.
Here's the thing: there are far more jet engines than the four you have mentioned. I can name three out of my head that go without any turbine: pulsejet, ramjet and motorjet.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
This is true but fundamentally all jet engines operate using combustion. An electric motor is not a jet.
If you're curious, Brazil already has air taxis. They're not very expensive and are quite profitable. They work inside the cities, as well as taking passengers to other cities.
Source: I've been in them and spoken with some users and pilots.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
A check of the dictionary says you, and other people, are wrong. No combustion is required,
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
There is no combustion in nuclear jet engines either.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
KingAir: Tower, we're going around, unstabilised approach. (aborting landing)
Tower: KingAir, copy going around.
Tower: AirTaxi, Beechcraft King Air at your 9 o'clock, going around. Commence left hand orbit abeam tower for traffic avoidance.
AirTaxi: ....?
Source: EASA Private Pilot
I concede, you're right. I know almost nothing in this area. But you have to admit that usually, when people speak of a jet engine, that involves more than just a compressor.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Yes, I admit it :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.