Please improve your pronunciation, for your own sake.

Please do notice that the supposedly faster air flowing through it does not in any way, in any place, impose any force of the structure of the plane. So, with no additional force on the plane, the plane itself will not go any faster as a result of that greater air flow. The test model might indeed work, but it's just the normal forces impacted on the interior of the exit slots. Forget that special rectangular "thing" and put the slots on the trailing edges of normal wings and you'll get the same effect, the same speeds.

The most promissing development is not to increase laminar flow but to reduce turbulent drag instead. Laminar flow is very hard and trick to be mantained in special for the wing and fuselage surfaces high Reynolds Number flow in large jet airplanes for which about 40% of their drag come from turbulent friction drag. New methods to reduce turbulent boudary layers friction are being sought and a good example is the Lufthansa/BASF AeroShark skin using riblets.

500L was going to be a real success if they stuck with it... Huge market for it. Now they are likely doomed unless get acquired by airbus or something. What a shame. The whole point of 500L was EFFICIENCY AND COST. It was efficient to fly and maintain due to a car engine powering the propeller.

ALL, yes ALL, VTOLs companies will go bankrupt. HINT. Joby fails to understand the market and the problem with their design. Same with the 100 other misguided companies who also fail to understand the future of transit and air taxi. It is 100% invalid and will be at least 10 times more costs than competition. If you do VTOL, get ready for bankruptcy. Everything about the design is wrong. For example, the pitch of the props. Sorry, there is a much better way. Another example: Nothing about this design is worth anything, including the EV drives. You cannot use Li-Ion batteries for the drive. 2000C fire requires the battery to be dropped like a bomb onto population centers. Sorry, no sane FAA would allow suck silly nonsense. No EV system will be allowed, especially as people start to realize the risks of EV fires. All the investors will lose all their investments. ALL.

...this video is full of extreme dangerous misinformation. Powering the rotor of a gyrocopter wont allow it to hover "in case of main thruster failure". If the gyrocopter is hovering its rotor MUST spin freely. If yoh put a torque on it (with an electric motor to generate more lift), it will spin the fuselage. Sure so long ad the gyro is going forward the tail controls will allow it to not enter an uncontrolled spin fron powering the main rotor. But as soon as there is no air is flowing over said control surfaces on the tail, if you power the main rotor you enter a spin. Yes. Helicopters have tail rotors for a reason.

Wow video producers were smoking the good stuff when they came up with these numbers.

One thing that comes to mind: what if, just what if you put a ramjet engine after this Coanda engines? IMHO, it would significantly simplify turbojet to ramjet mode switch, also, potentially, you could use ramjet's combustion chambers as afterburners even at subsonic speeds, and at supersonic you just turn off the compressor and go full ramjet. The only possible downside seems to be that the ramjet ramp/cone would lower the subsonic flight efficiency.

so its magic? this is BS

You can add Edison Aerospace to the list of estol developers!

Good technical overview of some of the powered lift VTOL systems in development. I would like to understand: Is there is a genuine advantage in electric powered lift over electric helicopter (including wing compounding)? Is the demise of Lilium an indication that ducted fans with coanda effect over the wing is a developmental dead end? Are we going to see powered lift designs with lower and lower disk loading over time? Is system redundancy really a credible alternative to autorotation?

A very useful survey with a good market overview.

Aerodynamic beauty

It was testen and it was the same pressure lol

Depending on how much it costs of course, I may consider buying one for myself, as long as the FAA accepts it as an ultralight and doesn't require a pilot's license to fly it.

I desire to live in the air.

Electric aircraft can only be so reliable. Mining for all the raw materials and rare earth metals they require also creates a sizable carbon footprint. It would be better to utilize a biofuel- or hydrogen combustion-powered hybrid electric system.

The Tensor 600-X is the coolest looking and most proficient design yet.

This what I was dreaming. Love it...

Love this design! Another thing is that probably if all engines fail it seems that this aircraft can glide and land as a plane. Thank you for sharing!

I REALLY like the looks and the design. Given that 20 years ago a Piper Cub replica cost near $100,000, and I haven't even checked recently, the price seems very reasonable. It can likely qualify for Light Sport or the coming MOSAIC rules (I am on the rules committee) so should have a reasonable Certification cost.

Still far worse range and payload than even the worse helicopter.

But they are imensely noisy so they are not for Urban environment !

I would like to see a 2 place 12 motor kitplane VTOL. Just like in the video except the inboard upper wing motors would be gas powered paramotors, about 200 pounds of thrust each. After reaching cruise of 120 MPH the gas motors takeover cruise and the electric motors would idle. i would like to see 3.5 hours of range, about 400 miles. Now we would have something useful.

Down tilting rear props for vtol have a long history the Do 29 used the idea based on the ww2 Focke Aegilis design and numerous 1950s designs - noise IS bis issue when behind a wing ,as the Piaggio, Vari Eze, B 36 et al proved. Cyclic loads have created long term oroblems (eg B36 shedding props) Basically a clone of many other similar VFS register coprcat designs.

So now a number of auto manufacturers will be more interested in this space. I like that the rear motors tilt down, as mine did in the competition we had on this channel. Its actually the only way you can configure them if you want to contribute to translative thrust as you move forward, and it does mean you will get an amount of transverse flow across the wing contributing to lift. Also a top wing design means you have the wing area across the fuselage added to lift, and as this is the suction side it is more than you will get from the pressure side of a low wing design, in effect something like 60/40. Its like theyre avoiding personal transport designs for the present.

Excellent report and performance analysis.

This simple "Axe" EVTOL is the one for me ... if. (Weight, weight ,weight. Just take water/snacks/undies/toilet-paper/3 cig lighters/ibuprofen/two knives/22LR pistol+ammo/cellphone/mini AM radio & a tiny solar charger for phone/2-way radio transceiver (wakie-takie) ... all in a cloth bag.😊)

It will have a gas turbine generator in in (maybe dual fuel; inflight being JP4 and NG for ground use)

YO .2 YEARS IN ON airship CONTENT. with a life time of, really into JET TURBINE aeroplanes. i was a child in dreby. ROLLS ROYCE. UK BABY. I AM OLD.. The industrial museum. in derby had a awesome train set. AND ALL OF the uk,s jet turbine engines. i lived there every Saturday. cus it wa free. and i liked it. jets n big WEIGHT liftin bubbles. NO ONE HAS DONE IT. f off. they just dint TELL US.

hi bin researching the airframe history of airships. ya vid is bs. composite construction dint exist. but the technology worked for over 30 years.100% PROVEN. B4 JET TURBINES. OH MOMMA. power 2 weight ratio always lacking. that jet engines FIX. BUT NO 1 EVER PERSUED IT. REALLY

If downward rotors are such a great idea then why don’t the front rotors go down also??

I nearly asked why the front rotors don’t face down. Then I realised that it would push backwards as it transitioned. (And the same for upward facing rear rotors) So theirs is the ideal.

Am I correct that the bigger you go, the further the batteries will take you? (Like Besse SUVs)

Cheers ! 😁

I don't know how the weight and drag trade offs work out. But it sure looks slicker when all rotors tilt, instead of some just idling.

Pushers have one fatal (as in a barrier to adoption) flaw. They're loud as hell. Any time you put disturbed air in front of a propeller (including just the air coming off the back of a wing) it makes a lot of noise. Putting one prop in front of another is the loudest configuration possible. It doesn't hurt efficiency significantly but it makes municipalities not want your aircraft flying over and landing at their local airports. The Piaggio P180 Avanti has push props, and it's extremely fast and efficient, but has been banned from several airports in the U.S. and many more in Europe. Even in a hover mode, just having the props on the bottom is louder than the top for the same reason.

Let’s fly it

I was told two bladed rotors increased efficiency.

Hyundai is a manufacturing giant, not just an automotive one, they build ships, earthmoving equipment, etc etc.

I fail to see the efficiency gains by having the props directly in line with one another

Is range defined as round-trip distance from start to destination back to start or distance from start to destination only?

Does payload include passenger weight?

the dyson bladless fan is a lie. If you look at the patent you see a fan in the base.

This truly looks futuristic and beautiful, this makes me remember of the planes from "Ghost in the shell" where they were inspired from birds and insects.

are ANY of these designs, in any kibd of operational deployment?

Thanks, I really like the details you bring. This setup doesn't need the motors to change direction either or become dead weight while cruising. Will they beat Archer at this? 👍💪✌

Excellent content. Are you planning a video on the present status of Lilium?

Thanks a lot for keeping us updated and all the good work on this channel. Do you work on any VTOL (or aviation in general) projects yourself? And if so, where can we look into them?

They tested this aircraft and found that it does not live up to the simulation data.