The Insane Engineering behind The Lilium Jet | Part 1

[@vernepavreal7296]

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

[@supervolant]

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

[@vernepavreal7296]

@@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

[@vernepavreal7296]

Thanks Robert Your description was excellent cheers

[@supervolant]

@@vernepavreal7296 Is received! Wish a nice day.

[@635574]

Also the tip curves up on the big rear wings into a sort of fin, i'm not airplane expert at describing this.

[@Phrancis5]

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.

[@pelleban]

Check out joby evtol, my personal fav 🙂

[@williamzk9083]

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.

[@LukeFG]

@@pelleban agree. Best Technology by far

[@TecnamTwin]

​@@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.

[@pelleban]

@@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?

[@nixl3518]

Not sure how one would define this to be "insane engineering"!! To me it looks about as sane as it gets!!

[@ludwigsamereier8204]

A small toy impeller is extremely inefficient period. If you install 30+ impeller you only multiply energy waste.

[@nixl3518]

@@ludwigsamereier8204 "Period" yourself!! A-H! And for some insane reason, you assume to know better than the engineers that designed this aircraft!! You obviously don't!!

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

@@ludwigsamereier8204 yup Only non-engineers would invest in that dumpster fire of money.

[@AscendDynamics]

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!

[@flightisallright]

Hover is short, but it will really eat into the battery.

[@AscendDynamics]

@@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!) 😂😅

[@wiliamamramon7591]

​@@flightisallright,He's very horrible. its looks a contraption flying in reverse. As for technology it is undoubttedly accurate. tanks.

[@victoryfirst2878]

So nice to see advancements are going on in the field of aviation. I look forward to take a flight in the new machine.

[@arunyathinsit3849]

Great analysis! Thank you

[@kingplays5369]

I love your videos. They are always such a high quality 👍🏼

[@cbazzarella]

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.

[@Kiyoone]

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

[@ziad_jkhan]

Absolutely and the other smoking gun is the focus on the advantages only with no mention of the disadvantages of such an approach

[@kazedcat]

Search for NASA's research on distributed electric fans it is the opposite of inefficient.

[@ziad_jkhan]

@@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.

[@kazedcat]

@@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.

[@mmmuwwwti2]

Very interesting video concerning the innovating process of this new flighing technology

[@alanmakoso1115]

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.

[@benturp3492]

It's nothing special mate. 😂

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

The ducts should be on the bottom in order to receive higher density air.

[@dprajeswararaolicnrt]

Excellent innovation.

[@812gorod]

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!

[@CubeAtlantic]

The Luiium Jet looks advanced, & unique lookin' i always generate, & incorporate ideas similar like this at my job.

[@DruMcDoo]

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.

[@Glen.Danielsen]

_Beautiful_ video! 💛🙏🏼

[@DrZond]

Thank you for making a video with hard information in it. Good explanations. I learned a lot.

[@SJR_Media_Group]

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.

[@timothylovet3041]

Men’s best successes come after their disappointments.

[@TheMrSlyxx]

This is the most beautiful design of all the EVTOL's. Lilium is the only EV aircraft I want to ride in.

[@ludwigsamereier8204]

You´ll never have the chance to. The Lilium scam is over.

[@RR-kl6sl]

Great video !! Well done !

[@akirsch76]

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!

[@stefanweilhartner4415]

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.

[@joeyricci3141]

They also partnered with Livent to make a new high performance battery

[@TomasSawer]

@@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.

[@stefanweilhartner4415]

@@TomasSawer the pipistrel is already in commercial use for years now

[@TomasSawer]

@@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.

[@aQ-in1lo]

Nice video, good work

[@duncanweel7259]

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.

[@kingplays5369]

Keep up the great work 👍🏼

[@yvandaniel8050]

Energy density !

[@explorer9070]

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.

[@lucasmichaud-acapulco]

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?

[@jamesadams893]

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.

[@stefanweilhartner4415]

"in flight charging possibilities"?

[@Ironman-33]

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.

[@familei3349]

I'd enjoy watching fly in some turbulence! Not just a nice pleasant sunny day in optimum conditions! Throw in some birds and sand!

[@frankyw8803]

​@antonelli scrump·tious Good job, there was no sand and birds back in the early flight pioneering days.

[@slimmy696jim7]

THANK YOU LILIIUM for using " First principles thinking " 🤓🤓🤓 your on your way ...

[@ena_ldy]

Hello, thank you very much for this very interesting video. However It would be so nice if there were at least english subtitles please!

[@Thunderwave1988]

this thing is a very impressive answer on a question never asked...

[@dxvout]

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.

[@JJs_playground]

This seems to be a much better solution than all the open rotor drones.

[@jsubb4680]

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

[@joeprizzi407]

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.

[@netroy]

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.

[@skyak4493]

@@netroy They already do it on aircraft carriers for fighters that have drastically higher cruise speed. 3Gs would not be too unpleasant.

[@cascito]

Yeah , I was thinking about the same..

[@cascito]

@@netroy We can easily lower the acceleration for launching it..

[@FlyingFun.]

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.

[@ModitRC]

Shades of jetwing technology. Pretty darn cool.

[@parasharkchari]

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.

[@court2379]

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?

[@timcuatt1640]

@@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.

[@timcuatt1640]

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.

[@court2379]

@@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.

[@paulntege3357]

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

[@oddvarsand5568]

Very nicely presented, and well deserved for this amazing aircraft.

[@ziad_jkhan]

It's potential scam though

[@JSDudeca]

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 :(

[@eVTOLinnovation]

Google Lilium paper architecture. Also, in their website a blogpost The technology behind the Lilium Jet

[@danielschroederministies]

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?

[@jimanderson4444]

Looks like they have that option yet with a little tilt and energy the virtical lift is a great benefit.

[@sleeplessstu]

Thank You ! This is the video that needed to be made about this amazing aircraft.

[@yuniorprades3023]

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😍🙏👏👏👏

[@paullavender-pc1uz]

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.

[@girenloland]

Great graphics and idea. Good luck with investor's

[@kwasikwakye294]

What is the rpm of the edfs?

[@noelleonard2498]

Amazing how long the Rutan canard design has stood the test of time

[@robertweekley5926]

Actually - it came before Rutan, win the Wright Brothers first Aircraft. Burt Just "Revived" it!

[@liamcollinson5695]

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

[@richardschneider294]

Incredible engineering.

[@rathwije1579]

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

[@dustintravis8791]

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.

[@denilpt1999]

Excellent

[@nicholashartzler2205]

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.

[@itoibo4208]

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.

[@nicholashartzler2205]

@@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.

[@pgltrade8232]

The video looks so inspiring....

[@SEA-mw9zy]

You made no mention of the motors that are constantly moving the Evtol wings to keep balance and their consumption of energy.

[@petargashi5423]

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.

[@mehrdadzand386]

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

[@sean1336]

better by microwave on takeoff and land (wire sounds awkward. microwave receivers are light)

[@thegiggler2]

@@sean1336 How about lazers?

[@waynet8953]

New technology can increase the range in a few years.

[@mehrdadzand386]

Yes, if that technology really available, as microwave recharge means one 747 flying over the Atlantic oceans could recharge hundreds of 9 seater battery powered 9 seaters planes and can at the same time carry cargo either direction too , win win

[@mehrdadzand386]

Undoubtedly, but but if we can use what technology we have now and make practical use of them . If and when better batteries on the market that would bring about improved range , They could easily replace the batteries and keep fling those planes

[@zedrocky6529]

Impressive engineering gotta say

[@joshy0369]

Awesomeness ✌ 😎

[@Mr.lamusa]

Love your video too much and I would like to follow, subscribe, and watch it everyday! Thanks!

[@ezequielsanuy6311]

Es una genialidad, las turbinas estan arriba creando aun mas baja presion en la superficie superior del ala.

[@carldavis391]

I love the Lilium video.♥️😊

[@gpaull2]

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.

[@michaelnoble2432]

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).

[@waynet8953]

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.

[@dariush.2375]

@@waynet8953 given the fact that normal six seater ga planes have one too, i would be disappointed if it does not get one

[@xanderunderwoods3363]

Then get some life insurance

[@Kefoo_]

-- Excellent!

[@aryaeskandari4852]

Thanks

[@CajunBoyJake]

I just want to know what the range is. If it can only fly for 20 min all of that aerodynamics still arent enough.

[@youtubemakesmedothis7280]

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.

[@eVTOLinnovation]

Video update coming next week

[@youtubemakesmedothis7280]

@@eVTOLinnovation Looking forward to it!

[@crazyoilfieldmechanic3195]

ABSOLUTELY NOT JETS WHATSOEVER

[@boombeachnoob3642]

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.

[@fahadazmi3998]

it was great Thanks mate

[@therealzilch]

Very impressive indeed. This looks like the first possibly viable electric aircraft I've seen so far.

[@htomerif]

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.

[@seanalexander5513]

I wonder how it will perform in windy conditions.

[@purplecreamband]

Brilliant nice design Congratulations

[@kinkin8286]

Wonderful, but where is the parachute?

[@OrganicOyster]

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 :)

[@stefanweilhartner4415]

so far, compared to other electric solutions, i don't see any drawback.

[@robertweekley5926]

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.)

[@erebology]

Vertical take-off could be assisted by an electrical extension cord, jettisoned prior to transition, to conserve battery charge.

[@coryeadams]

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.

[@alaskawilliam1]

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.

[@simonac688.]

Awsome technologie 👍

[@pieteri.duplessis]

Most exciting.

[@exploreworldbirds]

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!

[@jeffbertuleit5848]

What motors are they using and when will there be an actual piloted model flying?

[@efrankphd]

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?

[@amirozani1212]

I don't get it. Does it run on charged batterie? , 🤔 ? So it has to be heavy ? Where is the power comes from?

[@forest42821]

Will it work if they use the big 7 seater configuration to only fly 3 to 5 passengers and stuff more batteries?

[@dogaarmangil]

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.

[@eVTOLinnovation]

There are 3 EDF per flap. 12 flaps in total.

[@brianharris4144]

@@eVTOLinnovation what's the glide ratio without power?

[@tapaskumarsen3492]

Fantastic. Are you involved in this project?

[@eVTOLinnovation]

No, but I’d love to

[@FB0102]

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.

[@ericmeyers6981]

Wish E-VTOL would weigh in on batteries. Absence on this issue is conspicuous and noted.

[@mrherbal]

If they fly on a height of 3.000 m, won't the flight be incredibly turbulent? Specially during bad weather? If they loose engine power, can they still be landing? Or do they have to hover?

[@pihu17591]

Sir I am very keen to construct turbo jet engine for aviation line. Can I give me some guidance.

[@nassimfaid2719]

keep the good work!

[@minuteman4394]

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

[@freepadz6241]

??? More efficient than unducted

[@minuteman4394]

@@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?

[@michaelnoble2432]

@@minuteman4394 you are absolutely correct - EDFs are inefficient compared to larger props, so any advantage gained by ducting is overwhelmed by the size disadvantage.

[@kennyzhou4353]

@@michaelnoble2432 But someone said EDFs are more efficient than open props with the same sized props...

[@michaelnoble2432]

@@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.

[@forest42821]

At this point, it seems like Lilium’s concept will work, although the initial performance may not be optimal.

[@vornamenachname906]

what is its glide angle ?

[@michaeltyborski4802]

Lilium designed a fantastic product. They demonstrate their dedication to innovation and quality. Let's hope we see their jet in commercial use soon.

[@dorecannon2851]

This airplane just gets better looking every year.

[@royshashibrock3990]

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?

[@ColinDaviesNZ]

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.

[@royshashibrock3990]

@@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.

[@tonywalker8030]

So smooth, so quiet, you would swear it's alien.

[@WRNPR]

I have 1000 shares invested on this.

[@VenturiLife]

I liked this design a lot.

[@ahsnsb]

Fan in a duct isn't a Jet. Change my mind

[@xnavyro]

One has to wonder what the MIT torroidal prop design will do to enhance VTOL performance?

[@paulklement4274]

Biased videos, should be marked as ad... Also, the thumbnail and title are clearly ripped off from real engineering.

[@faizalbaharuddin-b8e]

Can't they provide parachute for this aircraft?

[@richardcottone6620]

Is it possible to heat the existing air to create more thrust

[@mojaveclimber]

Battery, location, energy density, voltage, and bms?