The Insane Engineering behind The Lilium Jet | Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 тра 2024
- The Lilium Jet is a marvel of engineering. This eye-catching attractive Aircraft revealed in 2021, generated skepticism among aviation experts. At first glance, Lilium’s ambitious design seems impractical for a fully electric, seven-seat, vertical take-off and landing aircraft. The associated implications of the propulsion system selected appear to make such an evtol concept impossible, mainly given the thrust required for take-off.
In fact, more than 80% of the leading evtol companies are using conventional open propellers as the main propulsion system.
Lilium, instead, has developed a novel electric ducted jet engine that integrates smartly with the wings of the aircraft. The success of this powerful technology not only will allow Lilium to achieve all the performance objectives of the flight profile, but also could help the aviation industry in the transition to affordable emission-free intercity air travel.
In this video, I will go over the 3 key innovations that make this technology truly impressive and technically sound.
This is the Engineering behind The Lilium Jet.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Chapters:
00:00 First-principles approach to eVTOL design
03:25 Electric Ducted JET Engines
05:50 Distributed Electric Propulsion
08:47 Variable Area Nozzle
09:50 Sustainable Aviation
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
◼︎Related Video:
📺 The Technology behind KittyHawk HEAVISIDE eVTOL Aircraft 👉
[ • The Technology behind ... ]
📺 Why are Electric VTOL Aircraft more efficient than Electric Vehicles? 👉
[ • The reason why electri... ]
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
You can now Sponsor my next eVTOL Innovation UA-cam video!
Get your product, service, or content in front of an audience of 231,500 viewers per video [Average]
Reserve a Sponsorship ➡️ www.evtolinnovation.com/sponsor
Website: www.eVTOLinnovation.com
Contact me: ezequiel@evtolinnovation.com
💎 My Second Channel 💎
/ @evtolengineering
Follow me on Twitter 👉 / evtolinnovation
I hope you enjoy it!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
If you really enjoy my content, you're welcome to support me and my channel with a small donation via Stripe or Crypto. 🙏
Stripe: Buy me a coffee ☕️ buy.stripe.com/4gw034g0A27Xdp...
Bitcoin Cash [BCH] 👉 1JRTiZg8TWWPajuue9EntM15q7c7TMZTuZ
Bitcoin [BTC] 👉 1JRTiZg8TWWPajuue9EntM15q7c7TMZTuZ
Ethereum [ETH] 👉 0x9041e9c8694a05b6c0c4c575cf719f1062f28e4f
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Sources:
➡️ lilium.com/
➡️ lilium.com/files/redaktion/re...
➡️ lilium.com/newsroom-detail/te...
➡️ • The Future of Airliner...
➡️ • Otto Lilienthal's Firs...
➡️ • Aircraft Control Surfa...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✌️
#TheLiliumJET #DuctedFans #eVTOLinnovation
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
►FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
- Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
1)This video has no negative impact on the original works (It would actually be positive for them)
2)This video is also for teaching purposes.
3)It is transformative in nature.
4)I only used bits and pieces of videos to get the point across where necessary.
►NO INVESTMENT ADVICE DISCLAIMER
The content of this video is not investment advice and does not constitute any offer or solicitation to offer or recommendation of any investment product. It is for general purposes only and does not take into account your individual needs, investment objectives, and specific financial circumstances. Investment involves risk. - Наука та технологія
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
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
@@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
Thanks Robert
Your description was excellent cheers
@@vernepavreal7296 Is received! Wish a nice day.
@@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.
Check out joby evtol, my personal fav 🙂
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.
@@pelleban agree. Best Technology by far
@@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.
@@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!
Hover is short, but it will really eat into the battery.
@@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!) 😂😅
@@flightisallright,He's very horrible. its looks a contraption flying in reverse. As for technology it is undoubttedly accurate. tanks.
I love your videos. They are always such a high quality 👍🏼
So nice to see advancements are going on in the field of aviation. I look forward to take a flight in the new machine.
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.
It's nothing special mate. 😂
Great analysis! Thank you
Keep up the great work 👍🏼
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!
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.
They also partnered with Livent to make a new high performance battery
@@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.
@@TomasSawer the pipistrel is already in commercial use for years now
@@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.
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!
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.
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.
_Beautiful_ video! 💛🙏🏼
Energy density !
Thank you for making a video with hard information in it. Good explanations. I learned a lot.
The Luiium Jet looks advanced, & unique lookin' i always generate, & incorporate ideas similar like this at my job.
Great video !! Well done !
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?
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.
"in flight charging possibilities"?
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.
I'd enjoy watching fly in some turbulence! Not just a nice pleasant sunny day in optimum conditions! Throw in some birds and sand!
@antonelli scrump·tious Good job, there was no sand and birds back in the early flight pioneering days.
Nice video, good work
Very interesting video concerning the innovating process of this new flighing technology
Shades of jetwing technology. Pretty darn cool.
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
better by microwave on takeoff and land (wire sounds awkward. microwave receivers are light)
@@sean1336 How about lazers?
New technology can increase the range in a few years.
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.
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.
@@netroy They already do it on aircraft carriers for fighters that have drastically higher cruise speed. 3Gs would not be too unpleasant.
Yeah , I was thinking about the same..
@@netroy We can easily lower the acceleration for launching it..
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.
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.
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.
Es una genialidad, las turbinas estan arriba creando aun mas baja presion en la superficie superior del ala.
keep the good work!
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.
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).
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.
@@waynet8953 given the fact that normal six seater ga planes have one too, i would be disappointed if it does not get one
Then get some life insurance
I love the Lilium video.♥️😊
it was great Thanks mate
Excellent
Very nicely presented, and well deserved for this amazing aircraft.
It's potential scam though
Excellent innovation.
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.
Video update coming next week
@@eVTOLinnovation Looking forward to it!
ABSOLUTELY NOT JETS WHATSOEVER
Great graphics and idea. Good luck with investor's
Love your video too much and I would like to follow, subscribe, and watch it everyday! Thanks!
The video looks so inspiring....
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.
-- Excellent!
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.
Thank You ! This is the video that needed to be made about this amazing aircraft.
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
Incredible engineering.
This airplane just gets better looking every year.
this thing is a very impressive answer on a question never asked...
Fan in a duct isn't a Jet. Change my mind
This seems to be a much better solution than all the open rotor drones.
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.
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?
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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
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?
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.
@@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.
Impressive engineering gotta say
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 :)
so far, compared to other electric solutions, i don't see any drawback.
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.)
THANK YOU LILIIUM for using " First principles thinking " 🤓🤓🤓 your on your way ...
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?
Looks like they have that option yet with a little tilt and energy the virtical lift is a great benefit.
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 :(
Google Lilium paper architecture. Also, in their website a blogpost The technology behind the Lilium Jet
I am an investor and I love your videos!
Bill SerGio, The Infomercial King, Pinecrest, FL
You aren't the king. Your neighbors confirmed that.
~The Princess of Facebook,
Cooper City, FL
I have made more money than all the other companies in this business and no other company comes close. Have a nice day.
I liked this design a lot.
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.
Most exciting.
Amazing how long the Rutan canard design has stood the test of time
Actually - it came before Rutan, win the Wright Brothers first Aircraft. Burt Just "Revived" it!
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
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.
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
Absolutely and the other smoking gun is the focus on the advantages only with no mention of the disadvantages of such an approach
Search for NASA's research on distributed electric fans it is the opposite of inefficient.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
There are 3 EDF per flap. 12 flaps in total.
@@eVTOLinnovation what's the glide ratio without power?
Very impressive indeed. This looks like the first possibly viable electric aircraft I've seen so far.
You made no mention of the motors that are constantly moving the Evtol wings to keep balance and their consumption of energy.
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.
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.
Wish E-VTOL would weigh in on batteries. Absence on this issue is conspicuous and noted.
Awsome technologie 👍
At this point, it seems like Lilium’s concept will work, although the initial performance may not be optimal.
Brilliant nice design Congratulations
Lilium designed a fantastic product. They demonstrate their dedication to innovation and quality. Let's hope we see their jet in commercial use soon.
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.
Damn right I own Lilium stock. 🚀🤑 All the other ones look analogous to legacy auto, Lilium looks like Tesla. Thanks for this bud. 🤙
Awesomeness ✌ 😎
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!
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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!
@@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!
@@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.
Vertical take-off could be assisted by an electrical extension cord, jettisoned prior to transition, to conserve battery charge.
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?
Nice👷♂️✈️
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😍🙏👏👏👏
Thanks
This is the best electric VTOL I have EVER seen ! It's the safest , quietest , best looking and most versatile new electronic aircraft that follows the proper aerodynamic principal's of flight ! Well done to the designer's and engineers. All theother electric VTOL aircraft I have seen are just upscaled drones with limited to no redundancy and poor cruise flight Power consumption. Am so glad someone has got it right ! Keep up the good work guy,s.
So smooth, so quiet, you would swear it's alien.
Very interesting. How fast can the plane go?
Hello, thank you very much for this very interesting video. However It would be so nice if there were at least english subtitles please!
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.
In 20 years people will look at these like model t’s
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
Fantastic. Are you involved in this project?
No, but I’d love to
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!
4:54 Groundskeeper Willy evolved
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?
What is the rpm of the edfs?
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
??? More efficient than unducted
@@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?
@@minuteman4394 you are absolutely correct - EDFs are inefficient compared to larger props, so any advantage gained by ducting is overwhelmed by the size disadvantage.
@@michaelnoble2432 But someone said EDFs are more efficient than open props with the same sized props...
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
Is it possible to heat the existing air to create more thrust
Each propeller blade has its own losses - lots of them. That's why more isn't better, in this case ! "Insane engineering" hits the point pretty dead on. ;D
Yay, someone with a brain cell!
Each propeller has en percentage efficiency, for example 80% either big or small. So effieciency will basically be 80% whether one motor or 24!
What motors are they using and when will there be an actual piloted model flying?
Why the speed and altitude restrictions, man just go for it!!! The propulsion system looks cool and all but I'd argue that battery technology isn't there yet. I would like to know what the proposed specs of the full size version will be. For example, a Cirrus Vision which is a single jet engine has a range of 1,000 km with a speed of 300 knots. Will the Lilium be able to be able to match that?
You can't escape the fundamentals of "big propeller = more efficient". You can entrain air all you want. This thing will fly half as far as something that uses actual propellers for the same energy. The end.
I wonder how it will perform in windy conditions.
what is its glide angle ?