
Lilium – Electric vertical take-⁠off and landing jet - ptrptr
https://lilium.com/
======
gooseus
Very skeptical of any claims until I hear some hands-on opinions by
individuals far smarter than I am. They didn't show anything about the inside
of the aircraft or the controls.

However, to speculate for a moment. If it is possible to create a vehicle such
as this, then this is what I would love to see as the real direction of all
those self-driving car companies (Google,Lyft,Apple,Uber,etc).

I trust humans in land-craft far more than I trust humans in aircraft, and I
might even consider the problems to solve by AI in shuttling humans from point
A to point B through the air might actually easier than those you have to
solve navigating the roads and ground-based hazards... way less human-driven
vehicles and dumb animals (including humans) up in the air and a lot more ways
to maneuver and avoid them.

I think a much better future is the one where our tech companies use their AI
to control these air taxis and have them pickup and dropoff between tons of
mini-airstrips (including the tops of apt buildings?) and we get a new
ubiquitous form of fast public transportation which takes the load off of the
rest of the transportation infrastructure without creating a weird human/AI
dynamic on the roads.

But, as has been said... probably too good to be true for right now.

~~~
TylerE
Their useful range is almost nil.

300km cruise speed with 300km range = 1 hour endurance. General flight
planning guidelines call for at least 45 minutes of reserve fuel in case of
things like weather or landing holds.

So really the useful range is more like 50km.

~~~
steego
Real world policy aside, if you're taking off and landing vertically, would
the 45 minutes of reserve fuel really be necessary if you're not constrained
to use an airfield?

Also, if they could magically double it, would it then be useful for a high-
end taxi service?

Don't get me wrong, even with a working prototype, I see this moving really
slowly unless the company is commanded by an exceedingly talented team that
understands how to influence governments to update policies.

~~~
falcolas
> would the 45 minutes of reserve fuel really be necessary if you're not
> constrained to use an airfield?

Yup. High winds in an area would make it unsafe to land anywhere in that area.
Ditto for low cloud cover (need a minimum of 1000') or low visibility (need
more than 2 miles).

From an overview of the differences in regulations that cover Helicopters
(which are likely more maneuverable at low speeds than this aircraft):

>>> Helicopters must complete the flight to the first airport of intended
landing, then fly from that airport to the alternate airport; and then fly
after that for 30 minutes at normal cruising speed. Normally, other aircraft
are required to have 45 minutes. <<<

[http://www.cfidarren.com/hpart91.htm](http://www.cfidarren.com/hpart91.htm)

Long story short, batteries are heavy, heavy beasts. Generally available
electric vehicles have trouble going much over 300 miles on a single charge;
aircraft are going to have even more problems.

------
Applejinx
That thing's empty. It's a giant carbon-fiber drone. Cool and all, but that is
not a test flight.

Initially I thought it was using those spinning-cylinder wings to produce the
VTOL behavior! Decent approach, though.

No sound. I'd like to hear how noisy it is: the wind alone will be pretty
loud, even if the electric motors are silent. And again, there's nobody in
that: with a passenger it's going to work maybe three times as hard, depending
on how light and dronelike it is empty. They might have next to no batteries
in there, it behaves like it's quite staggeringly light.

Clever to use dronelike autostabilization to avoid having much in the way of
control surfaces. This vehicle absolutely depends on having those fans
working, and probably couldn't glide to a landing of any sort.

~~~
byw
They could probably fit a parachute to compensate for the lack of gliding
ability for emergency landings.

~~~
tlrobinson
How high would it need to fly for the parachute to be effective?

~~~
nradov
Even with a rocket deployed parachute you need to be at least about 200ft
above the ground for it to work. So there's a dead zone during takeoff and
landing where you're too high to survive a crash but too low to parachute
down. Military VTOL jets like the Harrier and F-35B address that risk using
zero/zero ejection seats which can launch the pilot straight up high enough
for a parachute to work but that's obviously not feasible for general
aviation.

~~~
srvlsct
Since ejection wouldn't be feasible, wonder if an undercarriage airbag,
perhaps like bumper rails to keep weight down and work around landing gear,
would be effective in a crash?

~~~
nradov
If the aircraft is falling out of control there's no guarantee it will impact
the ground with the undercarriage side down. Plus airbags would have to be
huge and heavy to do any good.

------
Animats
That's a nice achievement. The question is battery life. They've built a big
drone. The cockpit is empty except for a GoPro.[1] How far can they go with a
payload?

The video looks like a Kickstarter promotion. Too many neckbeards, not enough
video of product working. A few minutes of uninterrupted flight video would be
more impressive. They don't show the transition from vertical to horizontal
flight, either.

There have been several battery-powered human carrying aircraft. Most are
scaled-up quadcopters.[2] Here are five of them.[3] All have flown and none
are shipping.

[1] [https://youtu.be/ohig71bwRUE?t=65](https://youtu.be/ohig71bwRUE?t=65) [2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrZwt9KIvWs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrZwt9KIvWs)
[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYsDcoS5Gt8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYsDcoS5Gt8)

~~~
zokier
> There have been several battery-powered human carrying aircraft. Most are
> scaled-up quadcopters

Umm.. wat? Afaik most serious attempts for electric (battery-powered) aircraft
have been fairly conventional fixed-wing designs. As you seem to like youtube
videos, here are couple:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoy3Efsxp3o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoy3Efsxp3o)
from Airbus

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiu8TFnXYFY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiu8TFnXYFY)
Siemens

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiADDbeFanU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiADDbeFanU)
Pipistrel

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1g1JrRRkY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1g1JrRRkY)
Electroflight

I think the Pipistrel one is actually already shipping today.

~~~
Animats
I was just looking at the VTOL aircraft, since the parent article was about a
VTOL.

------
aphextron
As a pilot I would never step foot in this thing. The thought of being in an
aircraft with zero aerodynamic control, or ability to glide in a dead stick
situation is a complete nightmare. It doesn't matter how redundant your
systems are if you have a fundamentally unstable airframe with no yaw control.
In a total power loss situation, you _must_ have some type of glide profile.
All other forms of aircraft have this. Such a design would be fine for drones,
but this will never carry humans.

~~~
dm_i386
How is the glide profile any worse than a helicopter's?

~~~
dingaling
Helicopters glide or 'autorotate' tolerably well after engine or driveshaft
failure, at least enough to land controllably.

In the R22 two-seater the best glide ratio is about 4:1 ( 4ft horizontal for
1ft drop ) and those at my local airfield practice autorotation to landing all
day long.

Apparently the worst helicopters for autorotation are those with Kamov's
superimposed coaxial rotor system, which struggle to reach 2:1 for some
aerodynamic reason I don't know.

------
alistproducer2
I have to say I'm impressed. This is a game changer for several reasons. The
first is that full autonomy is much easier in aviation than with ground
transport. Second is successful implementation of flying cars would change
things (for the middle class and rich) in a major way: potentially for
everyone if the economics of sharing these works out where regular folks could
afford to hail these and the system could scale.

Something like this that connects the exurbs to the city would be a game
changer. I would imagine inner city luxury housing would take a big hit.
Anyways, super cool to see that thing take off.

~~~
monkmartinez
I am squarely middle class... how in the hell would I be able to afford this,
pilot training, maintenance and more if I can't afford to buy a 1960's Cessna
172? Nevermind the maintenance, training and more?

Flying cars for the masses are a delusional pipe dream.

~~~
gfodor
And don't forget about fuel. My horse, for example, costs me only $50/mo to
keep well fed and gives me transportation year round. These sound like a huge
drain on the wallet just to keep them running.

~~~
pjc50
I think that underestimates the TCO of horses - shoes, medical care, grooming
etc!

------
jacquesm
The elephant in the room is the weight of the batteries (a few 100 Kg at
least) and the range / max flight duration given those specific batteries.
That's a dealbreaker with a design like this if it doesn't work out.

Wonder how heavy the demo was and what part of the weight was batteries.
Everything else is just along for the ride. Short wings -> needs lots of speed
to get any advantage from the wings.

~~~
popey456963
It's the first point they mention on the landing page:

\- 300 km range - Travel from London to Paris in one hour.

~~~
dragonwriter
That's what they claim they will do, not what they've demonstrated. This seems
to be a modernized version of Moller International's "just around the corner"
hype of the last, what, 30 or so years, only Lilium's hype seems more oriented
toward potential investors/acquirers rather than selling pre-orders to
aspiring individual owners of flying cars that'll never be commercially
viable.

~~~
jacquesm
Aka investor bait. It's been awfully quiet around Moller since 2010 or so,
maybe that's why this company is able to do what it does. Normally you'd be
sent home to do your homework if you came up with a battery powered VTOL with
short stubby wings.

The _first_ and _only_ interesting problem these guys should solve is how they
are going to power it. Everything else can wait until then.

~~~
dragonwriter
Well, there's an interesting, tangentially related bit in their March 2017
newsletter [0]

\---

Moller International has received a number of emails from newsletter
subscribers who have expressed concern that MI’s lead in VTOL capable flying
cars is being upstaged by companies like Airbus, Ehang, Embraer, Google, and
Joby. Nothing that is presently contemplated as a battery powered flying car
is a threat to the technology that has been developed by MI.

\---

Incidentally, it it wrong that a kind of want a Moller v. Lilium PR battle to
be a thing?

[0] [http://us2.campaign-
archive1.com/?u=84c20a8ab4539585a29aaaa5...](http://us2.campaign-
archive1.com/?u=84c20a8ab4539585a29aaaa59&id=5c63fa8fd2&e=a1b268d7ce)

~~~
jacquesm
That will only happen if they see each other as going for the same sources of
funds. The one is in .de the other in the United States to I doubt that that
would happen.

Even so, it would be hilarious. Maybe we can set them up? Mail them both
saying you're ready to pre-order but are also looking at the other?

Incredible that Moller is still going at it and that he _still_ manages to get
more money. Elizabeth Holmes could learn a thing or two from Moller.

------
ChuckMcM
I give them kudos for getting past the Moeller air-car stage and actually
having _something_ flying. I think if they had been a bit more plugged into
the typical fraud patterns from this sort of pitch they might have shot that
video a bit differently. In particular it has exactly zero frames where it is
in an environment that can authenticate its scale. Consider that this
airbus380
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rt9zX1rZFU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rt9zX1rZFU))
is a really big model but when it is in the air and there are no scale
references you could believe it was full size if you had seen a static mock-up
of one on the ground. To avoid this you need the unit to fly by, or operate
near items that set its scale accurately. A good one is to have people near it
when it takes off or lands.

That they flew it without a person is understandable (its a new aircraft after
all and who wants to kill a test pilot really?) but the cockpit area was
_completely empty_ and that is a problem. Test flight data is really only
valid if you're testing actual flight conditions. So they really should have
had crash test dummy and enough ballast to at least simulate the mass of a
pilot in command. The thing that was even more challenging was that the lift
moment of the vertical fans in the rear of the wing are _behind_ the center of
mass for the pilot. So all of the pilots mass is going to create a pitch down
moment on the much smaller front fans. There are really good engineering
reasons that most flying car prototypes put the weight over (or under) the
wing. They could of course be counter balancing the weight of the batteries
that are all located behind the wing, but that would make carrying the weight
in the pilot seat even more important.

~~~
jacquesm
It's full size, that I believe without any problem. But it really is just a
scaled up model, there is no payload and it probably would not be able to stay
aloft much longer than the video. (you can see the interior is totally empty
in the overhead shot at the beginning of the video).

The wing being behind the pilot was probably done for visibility reasons but
it will make it very hard to get those front fans retracted or at least out of
the way (because of the extra drag they create).

At a guess and judging from the way it takes off the COG is just aft of the
leading edge of the wing so adding a pilot would have the effect you describe.

Scaling a model is hard enough so they definitely should get some credit for
that but the way it is spec'd right now it would very much surprise me if they
ever go to any level of airworthiness with passengers. Battery tech would have
to go through some kind of revolution (and then you'll immediately have a ton
of competitors, quite a few of those are much further along in creating viable
aircraft but none based on the VTOL model because of its obvious limitations).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Alpha_Trainer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Alpha_Trainer)

Has 126 Kg of batteries, can regenerate when it loses altitude (forget that
with ducted fans) and has a pretty good wing surface compared to the Ilium:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiADDbeFanU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiADDbeFanU)

Not being VTOL it manages to get about 1 hours worth of flying time (but you'd
need to keep a reserve).

So there is no question about whether or not electric aircraft are possible.
It's just that I don't see the VTOL/short fixed wing and small ducted fan
combination work out, especially not at 300 Km/h where drag forces would be
considerable, no matter how nice the body looks.

It really is an electric version of the Moller Skycar.

------
monkmartinez
This is cool... and let me say I am no aerospace engineer. I am a flight
enthusiast... mostly R/C quadcopter and plane as real planes are $$$.

It looks like an extremely large ducted fan R/C plane with VTOL. Calling it a
"jet" in the parlance of today seems like a stretch. Are ducted fans "jets"? I
guess the argument could be made. I would think the people buying these would
very well think of a jet as propulsion from combustion. Also, the FAA and
turbine (jet) rating... I could go on...

The VTOL is awesome, and something I think we'll see more of as quadcopter
technology scales to more robust .gov missions. The applications for this tech
are limitless...

~~~
strgrd
Why spend the time pontificating, asking others for things that are clearly
explained on the website, when you could answer these questions yourself?

[https://lilium.com/technology/](https://lilium.com/technology/)

~~~
monkmartinez
I saw that and it is not a jet in today's parlance of what most pilots would
call a "jet". Hell, it looks like there are 36 extremely large brushless
outrunner motors.

~~~
lvh
In order to avoid a goalpost-moving exercise, what is concrete the working
definition of jet you feel most pilots would agree with? Is the difference
between that and this as trivial as "has an ICE"?

From an engineering perspective, if something produces thrust primarily by
producing a jet of surrounding matter (water or air) and taking advantage of
Newton's third law, I'm not sure I see the issue. There's no exposed airfoil,
and it doesn't appear to care about Bernouilli's law (except for lift).

------
poultron
Many people are failing to appreciate the "tesla for the skies" model that is
coming. Uber is actively pursuing the acquisition of companies like Lilium.
Long term, roads aren't a great solution to increasing populations. The Ubers
of the sky which land in your front yard or the top of your building and whisk
you anywhere within 200-300 miles is coming... fast. And by making the eletric
VTOL aircraft autonomous with waypoints, no one has to be a pilot. You simply
hail a plane with your app, hop in, fly to your destination and depart. Many
companies are testing full-size models like Lilium... for example,
[http://www.jobyaviation.com/](http://www.jobyaviation.com/). No one has
carried a human passenger yet, and none with autonomous waypoint flying. But
soon... within a year.

~~~
FabHK
> No one has carried a human passenger yet

Volocopter, first manned flight, April 2016:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OazFiIhwAEs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OazFiIhwAEs)

------
mschuster91
Biggest problem, given they're German: these things won't fly in Germany
outside of airports.

In Germany, it's not even allowed to do agricultural aircraft flying based on
anything but a licensed airstrip - the only kind of aircraft permitted to
start and land anywhere are SAR and military aircraft, and gliders can only
land anywhere (simple physics) but have to be started from a licensed
airstrip. Helicopters (SAR/military excepted) also may start and land only on
licensed helipads, which won't be licensed in cities.

And to those imagining a future of living in rural countryside and flying to
work... no way cities are going to permit random people flying over it, not
after 9/11.

------
ohazi
Given that this is an electric aircraft, their range estimate is delusional.

~~~
david-given
I dunno. Remember it's got wings, which means once it shifts into forward
flight mode, the engines are used solely for propulsion and not for lift,
which is vastly more efficient.

Playing with the numbers here:

[http://web.mit.edu/lochie/www/erange/main.html](http://web.mit.edu/lochie/www/erange/main.html)

...shows it can be made to work, provided the thing has very low drag (I was
using a battery specific energy of 200 for a LiPoly cell). Given it's a
streamlined blob with stubby wings, that seems vaguely plausible.

Anyone with a better grasp of the principles want to comment?

 _Update:_ I found their tech page (see link upthread). They use lithium ion.
They have about the same specific energy as lithium polymer.

~~~
pdelbarba
Look at the power requirements for similar aircraft to get an idea of range.
An SR-20 (similar size, speed and composite) needs 180hp and probably 140 for
the roughly 300kmph cruise. That's 104 kW for an hour plus the FAA 30min
minimum remaining at maybe 80 kW (higher for commercial ops) that's 720kg of
batteries or roughly the the empty weight of a cessna 172

edit: this is also very generous because it assumes you don't need to takeoff
and climb. Max cruise on the SR-20 is 155kn so the power requirement is as
much as 20% greater

~~~
vvanders
I wonder how head-wind factors into that as well, I know on our EV I can
easily see 10-15% consumption difference if I run into a strong one at freeway
speeds.

~~~
pdelbarba
Wind will always affect flight speeds regardless of configuration. To use
physics terminology, the air around you becomes your frame of reference. 10kt
tail wind and 100kt True Air Speed = 110kt ground speed

------
_Adam
They didn't mention any battery specifications. Chemistry, capacity, weight,
nothing. Just a wistful "300km'.

That's a bad sign. Battery technology is _the_ gating factor for electric
planes and not even calling that out suggests they have not solved it.

Great design, great prototype, now give us the power consumption specs. Show
me where that 300km is coming from.

------
BuffaloBagel
Energy Density:

Jet fuel - 46 MJ/kg

Lithium-ion battery - less than 1 MJ/kg

~~~
Element_
Energy density is "good enough". Cities like New York banned helipads on the
top of high-rises after the Panam crash in the 70's because of the risk of jet
fuel flowing down a high-rise and igniting.

Electric powered vehicles like this would solve that issue and allow quick
travel around high density cities, they could land on top of buildings to pick
up passengers. Current battery technology should be enough to support these
short range trips around a city.

A good example would be a corporate executive traveling from their NYC
headquarters to the local airport to board their business jet. It's not a long
distance trip but helicopters are not suitable.

~~~
BuffaloBagel
By what metric is it "good enough"? Appears to me to be not good enough by a
long shot. VTOL is especially energy intensive.

~~~
Element_
By the metric of range. The website says the range is 300km which is more than
enough to travel in/out of the core of most major cities.

~~~
BuffaloBagel
You must be new to the internet. These numbers are very wishful thinking for
some undetermined future date.

------
Symmetry
So, putting huge numbers of small electric motors on your wings has big
efficiency advantages. But is there any reason this has to be stricktly
battery powered? This seems like a situation very well suited to hybrid
electric power with a internal combustion generator providing the power for
level flight.

------
aviationthrway
Hi Hacker News,

Several people in this thread have pointed out the major reason that this
airplane design is not viable, which is the weight of the batteries.

I have developed an alternative that I would like to patent. I asked for an
introduction here:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/65cazg/i_need...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/65cazg/i_need_an_introduction_to_an_engineer_who_has/)

But I did not receive responses. Subsequent to this, I reached out directly to
patent attorneys I thought would be qualified. Here I ran into a big problem.
I will quote my reply email:

>"After speaking with the partner who handles our firm’s major aviation
client, we have determined that taking you on as a client would likely result
in a conflict of interest. This is more than just a matter of potentially
overlapping subject matter. The fact that you wish to license your IP to other
aviation companies would actually mean we couldn’t represent both you and our
other client in those negotiations. In effect, we’d be on both sides of the
discussion, which is by definition a conflict of interest."

This is actually an issue with any qualified patent attorney who might take on
this case.

I would therefore like to work with an aviation engineer. I believe we could
draft the patent language ourselves.

I don't want to include a terrible amount of information here, but I want to
list one benefit of the invention:

\- Solves the distance issue.

jacquesm's analysis in this thread is absolutely correct. This is what
motivated me to ask if there were any aviation engineers in this thread. The
cost to entering the aviation market is extremely high and the only viable
means of doing so is via the patent approach, so I would like to work with
someone who has had patents in their own name.

Please let me know if you would be someone who might be able to collaborate
with me on this project, and I will get in touch with you. Thank you!

~~~
rhino369
The following isn't legal advice and I'm not your attorney. Keep looking for
someone with related but not direct experience. Many of the details of patent
prosecution are procedural and legal, not exactly technical. Anyone who has
done patent prosecution is better than a technical expert.

Even if you get a patent passed the examiner, you might have gotten claims
that were too broad or too narrow. You might have made statements during
prosecution that make asserting the application difficult. You might have
written the claims in a way that is difficult to enforce.

~~~
aviationthrway
thanks for this feedback. if you don't mind replying with an email address I
have some more questions along the same lines, since it sounds like you know
what you're doing. (if not you can ignore this reply.) thanks again.

------
aphextron
Anyone interested in the _actual_ future of electric powered flight should
check out Pipistrel
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiADDbeFanU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiADDbeFanU)

------
marvin
These folks are doing exactly what I've been saying for ages that someone
should do once battery tech gets good enough. With a couple of brilliant
additions like making the engine pods part of the lifting body, and using many
smaller engines instead of a few larger ones. You can't use powered lift for
long-distance travel, it isn't energy efficient enough for batteries to work.
But you need to use electric motors because you get away with much lower
mechanical complexity.

This is a disruptive concept regarding where people will choose to live,
assuming that the details can be solved.

------
jressey
> The system can still do a vertical landing with a loss of up multiple
> engines.

I'm more than skeptical about the quality of the safety features if there are
glaring mistakes in the language describing it.

~~~
FabHK
I assume they used to specify the number ("loss of up to 6 engines"), then
switched to the vague "multiple", and screwed up the editing.

------
desdiv
Here's Aurora Flight Sciences, contracted by DAPRA, flight testing their
similar but smaller prototype a year ago:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgWSuZbGh0s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgWSuZbGh0s)

This is part of DAPRA's VTOL X-Plane program:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL_X-
Plane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL_X-Plane)

------
rosalinekarr
This seems way too good to be true. Seeing as the timeline on their mission
page puts the first manned flight at some time in 2019 and their technology
page states that the vehicle is built primarily with aluminum and carbon
fiber, I'm guessing that this thing is incredibly light, maybe even under
500kg. The video seems to back this up with how easily the craft drifts side-
to-side in the air with cross-breezes.

That low weight is an impressive feat of engineering, but it's also a big
disadvantage for any real world applications because passenger and cargo
weight is going to be a huge problem. You can't build passengers out of
aluminum and carbon fiber. Even combustion-powered, light aircraft have
serious problems with weight, and their pilots frequently have to work
passenger weight into their fuel calculations.

My guess is that this technology will do wonders for aerial photography,
scientific research and maybe even military reconnaissance, but transportation
and any kind of serious shipping are still a very long way off.

------
clueless123
I could easily imagine it picking me up from the top floor of my apartment
building, taking me to the heliport at the top floor of an office building.

My current commute is 10 km of horrendous traffic. Driving time on rush hour =
1.5 hours Flying time @ 100kph (average of speed up, slow down and cruise) 6
minutes!

Then it would just fly on it's own to pick up the next customer.

~~~
jacquesm
Imagining it is as close as you'll ever come to flying this thing. It just
isn't going to happen. See also: Moller Skycar.

------
heisenbit
While there are reasons to be skeptical it is worth noting that this effort is
carried out in the south of Germany which is where there is a cluster of high
tech resources within driving distance <2h

\- BMW

\- Mercedes

\- Audi

\- Porsche

\- Airbus suppliers

\- Military aerospace companies

\- Key tech universities (Munich, Stuttgart) including aerospace oriented
engineering

\- World class glider manufacturer Schempp-Hirth

------
notheguyouthink
I'm curious on how they get "less noise than a motor bike". There are plenty
of _quad copters_ that i feel are more loud than most bikes, let alone the
weight this thing has to put out some significant thrust requirements...

------
brink
From the bottom of their mission page..

First full scale prototype has already been flown.

First manned flight planned for 2019.

On demand air transport planned for 2025.

[https://lilium.com/mission/](https://lilium.com/mission/)

~~~
clueless123
Was the flight test done at full weight capacity ? (Passengers and/or cargo)

------
mbfg
Congratulations. you've made life somewhat easier for the top 1%. I'm glad
someone is taking up their cause for a change.

------
tobyhinloopen
I have a hard time believing the range. We have a hard time creating 300km
range on cars, how would they do it on a freaking plane?

~~~
antisthenes
If you put it on a bootstrap template, it _must_ be true!

------
huula
There's no people sitting in the vehicle in all these videos. Is 300km with or
without load?

~~~
jmcphers
They've never done a manned flight[0]. Presumably they expect 300km with
typical load, but they haven't actually demonstrated it yet.

[0] [https://lilium.com/mission/](https://lilium.com/mission/)

------
jacquesm
Looking a bit more at this, here (at the bottom) are two more videos of
earlier prototypes. All appear to be extremely light.

[https://www.youtube.com/c/LiliumAviation](https://www.youtube.com/c/LiliumAviation)

------
intrasight
I do expect to live to see the day that such things are ferrying people
around. But I also do think that it'll take a major breakthrough in energy
storage technology. And if that happens, then all kinds of things become
possible.

------
pvelagal
This looks awesome! Hopefully more companies build stuff like this and drive
adoption.

------
agumonkey
Fun coincidence I was just reading about SuperCar
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar_(TV_series)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar_\(TV_series\))

------
sidcool
Quite amazing if the claims are true. They are too good to be true.

------
amerine
It's been a while since my jaw dropped when I saw a video. Even if this goes
nowhere I'm impressed with what they've done so far. Best of luck Lilium!

------
Kinnard
Ok, I'm calling it, this is technically a flying car!

~~~
jacquesm
Technically, it's a large drone.

~~~
cestith
Are we sure it's not an over-powered leaf blower?

------
joshaidan
When I read the part about "Order your air taxi to the nearby landing pad," I
immediately thought of the old Commodore 64 game SpaceTaxi.

`Pad 1 please` :)

------
dfar1
What are the fail safeties? Parachute? Alternate motor? It would suck to have
one of these things fall on my head.

~~~
dmh2000
Helicopters can autorotate, planes can glide. like the Moeller contraption,
this type of thing falls. I would insist on a ballistic parachute.

~~~
rl3
It has one, though I'd go further and insist it have a deployment mechanism
that does not rely on any computers or complex electronics.

------
loup-vaillant
So, everyone can "drive" it, it would fly above and land into cities…

Regulating this is going to be _fun_.

~~~
marcosdumay
Probably as much as for helicopters.

That said, what's the differential why one would want this instead of an
helicopter? It it cheaper? Faster? The site is certainly not telling this.

~~~
runako
>what's the differential why one would want this instead of an helicopter

From the homepage:

"Access inner cities with less noise than a motorbike"

That's a huge difference.

~~~
enimodas
I have a lot of trouble believing that. Ever been in the vicinity of a large
drone?

------
dwarman
Why do they cakl it a jet? all I see are bunches of small ducted fans. And
it's electric powered.

------
jokoon
Who cares? Once batteries can get as much, or more energy density than fuel,
those types of machines will appear naturally.

I'm not really impressed by this project to be honest, I'm more interested by
cost and energy density of batteries. Can't wait to see how the giga factory
impacts the price of batteries.

~~~
JBReefer
I don't think it's fair to assume that rechargeable batteries will ever have a
higher usable energy density greater than Jet A.

------
philip1209
There's no wheels - would a plane be required to taxi to fly at a US airport?

~~~
nradov
Helicopters aren't required to have wheels. They just land directly on a
designated helipad and stay there. Then if the ground crew needs to move it
they attach temporary wheels and a tow cart.

------
Sephr
How would this compare with the TriFan 600?

------
nkristoffersen
It totally looks like a rendering.

------
red023
This looks like cars all over again. Massive energy waste for transporting
single persons. Looking at this reminds me of people driving alone on heavy
massive gas consuming 4 seat vehicles to drive the same way everybody else is
driving. Except that now its in the air and for rich people only. I don't see
flying cars happening, well at least not like this. There probably will be
flying shuttles that take people to different places like buses or metros that
would make way more sense then this.

~~~
iamatworknow
>There probably will be flying shuttles that take people to different places
like buses or metros that would make way more sense then this.

Airplanes exist. The future is now!

~~~
red023
No I mean small shuttles like buses that start vertically and transport people
short distances across a city for example.

------
red023
The future is here - but for rich people only.

~~~
Banthum
The future is here; it's just not evenly distributed yet.

That's been true for a long, long time, though, and rich people always take
the role of vanguarding expensive new technologies. Later it'll get developed
into more efficient forms and commoditized.

