100% correct. I'm also tired of "kids" spewing out stuff, and have no aviation knowledge.

@Kiri Tiatia Otaraua O'C-TX5 My apology. You are right.

@Kiri Tiatia Otaraua O'C-TX5 Sorry.. it's not a jet. I'ma pilot. It's called a ducted fan. A ducted fan can be powered several ways..but EVEN being powered by a "turbine" engine does NOT make it a jet. I'm 71 years old kid. Want to argue further?

​@@pilot3016 Appeal to authority logic. Jet Ski, Squid Jets, Jet Stream. It's not using a Jet engine, but it does use an electric motor. Said motor jets air in the same way as an impeller jets water in a Jet boat.

Correct. More precision please

Buy one

0

140$ per day for commuting? Not many could afford this.

@@0Turbox Not for everyone initially, but with time the use case will expand and prices will go down. The limiting factor with electric vehicles is not price.

@@MrGorgefla it will be a massive means of transportation for the top 1% of rich people, which will have no effect on current everyday soul crushing bottlenecks

@@sapitron I am not in the top 1% and I know I will use the Lilium service. This is not Blue Origin and if you look into the company you will realize the design is for regular people to use. Like the airline industry and cruise industry all people now use those transportation services. I buy a plane ticket and I am not thinking this is for the 1%. I buy a cruise and I am not thinking this is for the 1%.

Lachnummer

What is the stock name?

You'll lose it all. Even Muck's 'hyperloop' is finally going broke. It's the end for these hare-brained 'inventions'.

@@grahamstevenson1740 🤡

@@kevinh3979 Lost for words are you or can't you write ?

​@@kakrot9516 LILM

you can't even leave your mother's basement.

Going to take a lot more than that. Lol

Bro to normalise that ..they call it engines.. electric engines

@@octopusmusic332 Conventionally, electric gear is called "motor" rather than engine. It's an arbitrary distinction, but it is generally followed.

I read that the design of the engines makes it such that the noise can be mitigated by sound protection built in the nacelles. So at take off and landing it will be something like 60 dB but in cruise it'll drop significantly to a whisper while flying overhead. Not sure how much I believe it but maybe. I guess you can also say that if they can reduce the amount of cars in the city that'll reduce noise and pollution as well. One thing is for sure though, not only will you have to teach your kids to look both ways at the street but also look up!

You need like 100X more energy density bateries...

@@nielsdaemen it's actually just 16x more density for the weight of the battery to be the same weight as jet fuel in a jumbo jet. Still, out of reach for the current tech.

Futuristic nonsense ! Batteries simply can't provide enough power.

@@jordanbertagnolli7388 Spot on. When the energy density of batteries improves 16 fold, they'll be able to compete.

Dictionaries have multiple defintions. Water Jet, Air Jet, Jet Stream. Technically they are often called EDF "Electric Ducted Fans" but Electric Jet will do.

@@williamzk9083 JET is ENTIRELY INCORRECT. A 'jet' is something under high pressure. This is a FAN.

@@grahamstevenson1740 Fan is to air jet as pump is to water jet. Before Ohain and Whittle's invention there were already jets in different realms. The usage of words changes and now they changing back to the original.

I have seen other reports about the certification steps they have started or achieved. Unlike the supersonic jet company that recently folded, this one is well beyond the design phase. Being skeptical myself, I remained concerned that this will not become “flight-worthy”, but it is progressing well. My initial skepticism is lessened,but not removed yet. For this to make a major impact, the range will have to increase along with the cruising speed. Without those improvements, this will be a niche market aircraft. However, the improvements necessary will come along with battery improvements and, maybe, the inclusion of solar panels in the airfoils. Alternatively, a hydrogen-based hybrid version could be offered to achieve the improvements.

a rare voice of reason!

it is scam. And good for the founders, but so far it won't work. Best are the videos where the founder demonstrates the great foot leg room in the plane. Range (250km) minus security = 150 km (2x 75), better only 2x50 (with 80 % loading). And then wait for another hour to load (3 trips per day) and buy a new battery after 2 years (6000 flights). Crazy.

@@markusdicks648 Right, it is so sad, what is wrong with Daniel, he really lost his marbles, or maybe he never had any in the first place. Why are so many people on board with this concept - even some that should know better?! Is there so much money to be made in lying to the world until it is obvious that it will no work as designed within this decade and maybe further in the future? Even if a very powerful battery would significantly help to get closer to flying with some payload on board, are these small ducted fans capable of carrying such a huge and heavy aircraft with 7 POB without melting the tiny motors before transitioning from hover to horizintal flight mode? I really don't see that ... possibly a two seater some day, but Daniels vision proves a total loss off reality.

@@markusdicks648 Their website says that it is EASA certified?! Maybe the seats? I think I should have my sofa EASA certified.

The wings are the best feature of their design. They allow the aircraft to use less energy to travel horizontally, which is the direction of most of the flight. Once out of hover mode, energy consumption decreases significantly. So you only need hover thrust for two miles but you need horizontal travel for 100 miles. The length of the wings is more or less the diameter of a helicopter rotor and tail boom.

As explained, the lift provided by the wing increases flight time by reducing the engine requirement. If they shortened the wings then they would need to use more battery power to fly.

@@rudyyarbrough5122 You are reading my post backward. Please note that I do fully understand that "the lift provided by the wing increase flight time by reducing the engine requirement." As battery performance increases going forward in time, which we can confidently expect, then the size of the wings may be allowed to decrease accordingly. Why would anybody want to reduce the size of the wings? I don't know. Just saying, the option may become available with increased battery performance.

@@davidportwood233 Don't get your hopes up with "availability of increased battery performance", since battery tech hasn't changed much in 20+ years other than different form factors

This over sized drone is not powered by "engines" it is powered with 36 electric motors.

Great comment, at least someone gets the idea that this is not a helicopter.

They are not jets.

Ducted fans. Some are props. The constant reference to "jets" in the video was annoying.

Just put the batteries between the compressor and the turbine. When the batteries go boom, you might get a bit of thrust.

Buy it

@@sharonbraselton3135 Sure. Would make a great flying ambulance for busy cities jammed with traffic. 🤔

@@Muuip yes it is

Yeah

There are aviator neighborhoods, that have streets wide enough to drive airplanes on, and garages big enough to fit airplanes. There is one in Cameron Park California, where you can drive your plane from your house to the Cameron Park airport , which is connected to the streets of Cameron Park airpark neighborhood. Check it out, google .

@@davidholden1280 cool

@@davidholden1280 You are right, I landed my small plane, in southern California, back in the 1980's....(Apple Valley or Hesperia) .and as I rolled out....beautiful wide driveways to people's houses, with an airplane in each garage / hanger. along the runway.

Their business model is to offer transportation services, not to sell the planes.

Otherwise in title is "Engineering masterpiece" and I can't see any masterpieces in this video. This plane looks almost good but not beautiful and technical fixtures aren't game-changing. Engineers and designers didn't make effort.

They will start off piloted by trained human pilots (supported by a bunch of automation) and then will eventually be autonomous once passengers accept pilotless flight and when regulations catch up. As long as they stay out of the path of the airliners I will fly and as long as they fly safe I don’t care who or what pilots them.

@@nikobelic4251 Well, they certainly won't be going near any airports because of the potential conflict with REAL aircraft.

Where did this notion come from that machines are better than people? Autonomous flight makes economic sense, but caution is required before handing it all over to a machine...or rather to its programmers

They'll never exist in reality. Pure nonsensical futurism gone mad.

If you put every car that's been made since the beginning times In the sky they would all be over a km apart from each other

Should be easy to adapt to hybrid power. I am sure they are talking about all-electric for the sake of political correctness.

I think you are one of those guys who did not went to witness the first ever flight performed by the Wright brothers. Only 6 people arrived to witness the greatest achievement in human history and no I am not hating you.

That's why it has engines. They are aeronautical engineers, they would have added more wing span, if it was needed.

This thing has to fit into small landing and parking spaces in city "vertiports" to be practical, and it's designed to take people from A to B at a relatively high speed. A glider, as I understand it, is more designed to be able to stay aloft with very little power and at slow speeds.

@@phamnuwen9442 I'd like to see how it fares in a 15 knot WIND ! It's probably uncontrollable.

@@grahamstevenson1740 Why do you think so?

@@marcdepiolenc1880 The over-riding reason is that batteries do not remotely have the energy density for VTOL aircraft that can travel any worthwhile distance. There are 2, only 2 trainer aircraft around that use wings for lift and even they can carry only 2 people with 1 hour duration. That's actually quite a decent achievement. Vertical take-off and hovering use VASTLY more energy. I've not seen any of these e-VTOL craft that go fast enough to supplement their lift with any addition from the conventional wings, so these will be aerodynamically stalled all the time. Airbus got as far as making a prototype 'urban air mobility vehicle' of this kind. I've seen a video of it. Endurance was 13 minutes with 1 person. You can change the look and shape all you like but this will be representative of what's achievable. I expect I don't need to point out that ALL these craft rely heavily on fancy CGI animation to sell an impossible dream. It's just an 'uber-techno' sci-fi scam/fraud.

You couldn't afford one anyway.

@@grahamstevenson1740 how do you know for sure?

@@samREDICEbunny I'm fairly certain.

@@grahamstevenson1740 ok

In 10 years you'll still be waiting. That is how such things go. Promises, promises...

Those are in the works. Research it.

It sounds cool. Marketing 101

I can't watch it for this reason. None of these aircraft are jets

@@timothywalsh866 is jet because are not rotor, real electric engine

They're not propellers, they're called fans - the same as can be found on the front of every modern jet engine. Although the engine has been replaced by an electric motor, the basic form factor is the same. If you think 'jet' means kerosene-burning engine, then what about jet boats? Their propulsion is a jet of water. *Jet* _noun_ - A high-velocity fluid stream forced under pressure out of a small-diameter opening or nozzle. - An outlet, such as a nozzle, used for emitting such a stream. - Something emitted in or as if in a high-velocity fluid stream.

@@gh8447 explain the difference between a propeller and a fan. They seem the same to me. Also these "jets" aren't emitting a stream of anything except air.

i beg to differ

I agree with you. Batteries aren't ready for this. They should try using a gas turbine and generator for the electrical source. The design would still have advantages over a standard helicopter.

Which evtol do you think has the potential to actually be a successful one?

@@KingDayDayDay00 for me i think lilium, the technology is sound

@@KingDayDayDay00 the one that figures out flying beyond the visual line of sight without any issues first. They will find problems they don't even know exist yet. Same as Volocopter and Flyarcher, etc

According to the CTO, it "uses twice as much power in a hover than a similar weight design with larger tilting rotors. But after the first 30 seconds of vertical lift and transition, the small fan banks offer low drag in forward flight, where these aircraft will spend most of their time."

""From all the concepts that are currently being proposed, yes, we would probably have the least disc area out there," says Nathen. "But this is intentionally. Our idea was always to go in this direction of rather small ducted fans with a compact design. The economic benefits that we get from their increased efficiency in cruise flight outweigh the normally perceived disadvantages of smaller fans."

Can I get an approx value

is a Jet, ech engine is a electrical engine, no rotor

They're using fans - the same as can be found on the front of every modern jet engine. Although the engine has been replaced by an electric motor, the basic form factor is the same. *Jet* _noun_ - A high-velocity fluid stream forced under pressure out of a small-diameter opening or nozzle. - An outlet, such as a nozzle, used for emitting such a stream. - Something emitted in or as if in a high-velocity fluid stream.

Also lower noise and increased safety.

Correct, but also *massive* noise reduction and significantly increased redundancy.

@Tran Stu Without crashing and dying on the way.

Oh, they will figure out a way to make it costly when it gets to the consumer.

Small passenger aircraft can have whole plane parachutes. Cirrus planes for example have a parachute that if engines fail you can just pull and the plane will float gently to the ground.

Ofcourse, I can see a whis-bone bucket shape handle , with the shoulder margins adjacently hidden aerodymanicly around the lower frame glass shield behind the passenger pod chamber, that flips up behind with the top tip, having a parachute concept component box. Lifting the passenger & pilot pod chamber out from the body ejected. Buts that is, if they ever fly higher then the test demos.

Wrong BMW bat e 195 mioe rabge

The control of the ilium is completely by computer. The pilot opperates it remotely at the moment but when its safe the real pilot will operate from inside in exactly the same way.

Worbg

Have you read the article on Forbes where Lilium Jet is exposed by former employees?

I don't understand why people are falling for this vapourware left and right. Because I over estimated people's intelligence ( I am sure the same is true for millions of other people, actually most people) I missed out on the greatest opportunity to be Uber wealthy with a couple thousand bucks, in almost no time, for the only time in human history. And I mean 5 houses, 3 jets, superyacht wealth. With many, many billions left over and never contributed shit to the economy.

@@markpoidvin5382 Agreed. It seems today's best ever career choice is running a scam for a dream product. You need a sci-fi book only. You need no schooling no previous experience no financial background. All you need is hiring a graphics studio to mock up some convincing video a few shots with smiling future costumers and post it. Most media outlet will happily run with it and the money comes in from some gullible people. The only way to stop further decay is education and critical thinking. I feel lucky to have those in hand to guide me today but worrying to see how many haven't. Many years ago I was seeing Elon Musk as Tony Stark but over the years it became very clear he is probably the best vapourware salesman ever lived. If you can make some good products you can sell all sorts of other shit without anyone questioning your intentions. I am afraid many kids will be like Elon when growing up.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a9uboLZqv7DRZGQ.html

@@usuario8245 Thanks for sharing. Good to see it can actually fly. I would like to know how much energy has been consumed and how much was the take off weight. I could not see if it was flown by a person in the cockpit or remotely. In comparison most drones have 4 or 8 brushless motors and depending on their take off weight they can fly for 30mins max. The battery is always a dead weight and currently we don't know better source than Lithium Polymer. The same type this test plane is using (same energy density). Simply put by using 36 motors to lift the plane, the battery and four person (avr 70kgs each) is just beyond our current state in battery technology. A few minutes flight with one person (or no person) on board has been already achieved by several start ups but carrying passengers and fly for hours is a very very different ballgame. Unfortunate the video has no audio. I assume this plane is not exactly silent either.

Thanks, I think I'll be doing that for a long time.

I don't think you do either

You are wise. Yup, no mention of it having any glide ratio. Little to no glide ratio means splat! if the engine(s) fail. And then, even if it has a suitable glide ratio, one needs training in how to land such a gliding aircraft. Just another "flying car" AND EV scam.

Lilum have a 4 seater test bed flying, their 5th prototype. It's carrying about the weight of 1-2 humans in the form of instrumentation. It is hovering, maneuvering and flying at 50kmh. It is heading of to Spain to an RPV test centre to allow transition to full speed flight. (Open space is needed for safety due to the 300kmh speed). These sophisticated aircraft are controlled via fly by wire and their on board gyroscopes. There is no need to test these aircraft with a pilot on board. Its safer to do it by remote control. Manned flight will come. The Lilium Jet needs battery cells of 300WHr/Kg. They are now available.

@@williamzk9083 Why are you prattling on about testing via remote control? Re-read -- CAREFULLY this time -- my post and answer THAT instead. All these baby steps toward the manufacturer's spec of the finished vehicle will amount to only one inevitable conclusion: **FAILURE** It's not about popping champagne corks once a testbed carrying a half load can hover for four minutes untethered at a height of six feet; it's about a vehicle carrying six fat-assed Americans with their gear through a typical piloted trip of 30 miles there in the morning and thirty back after a recharge at the end of the workday, day after day. It's about being able to stop quickly enough by flaring or whatever mechanism is necessary, and safely maneuvering under full load. It's about fault tolerance and redundancy of critical systems. An engineer can build SPECTACULAR scale model machines on a workbench and have them do AMAZING things in the air. Just look at those little racing drones that can fly over 170 mph, stop on a dime, reverse, flip over and over ten times in a second. That's because gravity and air have fixed ranges of properties, within which tiny craft can easily leverage their low mass / high energy output ratios to make sport of gravity and air. But as you increase vehicle mass against those "fixed" (within their tight ranges) properties of gravity and air, things aren't so easy anymore. And then, when you've increased mass to six fat Americans and their briefcases, and you've increased frame strength (and weight) to safely accommodate those six people, and you've increased battery power and capacity (and weight) sufficiently to fly those six fatties thirty miles away at sixty knots, and increased propeller size to handle same, and safely shrouded those props to prevent the vehicle from being legally categorized as a $1.3M Cuisinart Food Processor, and safety this, and comfort that... Well, suddenly you realize you are playing an entirely different game than the fun one you had planned. As in, "This is Rugby, son, not Badminton." I restate in full my original post and stand by every detail of its premise.

@@adamchurvis1 You're just ranting. Here is the Data for a Schubler Electric Ducted Fan type DS-215-DIA HST (195 mm). It weighs 3.4kg and produces 25kg thrust. This is a model aircraft EDF, Lilium can do much better. The best commercial rechargeable Lithium Batteries are now 450 Watt Hours/Kg and can discharge in less than 10 minutes. Lilium only needs 300 Watt Hour per kg batteries cells. Roughly 3.4kg of EDF & 8kg (total 11.4kg) of battery will get you 25kg of thrust on a model EDF. There is plenty of room there to lift and fly and aircraft. Amprius has Shipped First 450 Wh/kg, 1150 Wh/l Battery Cells. Lilum will use the battery maker custom cells who will have 300 Watt Hour batteries that can allow operation at 150C so allowing air cooling.

@@williamzk9083 You cannot calculate the outcome of an entire system based on the assessment of a single component of that system, so... Every single word you just wrote means absolutely NOTHING with respect to my premise, which is that this thing will NEVER -- as in saying "Never" even after being admonished to "Never say 'Never'" by a Nobel Prize-winning statistician -- **NEVER** carry six real-world people and their gear on real-world flights, like to work thirty miles away and then back again maybe an hour later after the team meeting. Never. NE-VER. "Never gonna get it never gonna get it never gonna get it -- gonna get it (oh no no no!)" The only place this thing will EVER fly to spec is in -- you guessed it! -- Never Never Land. never (adv.) Middle English never, from Old English næfre "not ever, at no time," a compound of ne "not, no" (from PIE root *ne- "not") + æfre "ever" (see ever). Early used as an emphatic form of not (as still in never mind). Old English, unlike its modern descendant, had the useful custom of attaching ne to words to create their negatives, as in nabban for na habban "not to have." Ah-beh-dee ah-beh-dee ah-beh-dee ah-beh-dee -- That's ALL, folks!

@@adamchurvis1 I proved to you that an Electric Ducted Fan and Its Battery can generate over twice their own weight in thrust for 10 minutes. 25kg thust for 15kW power for a weight of 3.4.kg An Modern Airliner like an A330-900 can get to 44% by weight fuel fraction and this is the same battery fraction Lilum would need to achieve.

You are literally posting this everywhere

I doubt the 'designers' know that much about aeronautics or they wouldn't be doing this. It's a guaranteed failure with no practical applicability.

You're forgetting something. A conventional airplane has to sideslip to compensate for a crosswind while holding runway orientation. This machine can face into the wind when landing under all circumstances.

exactly what I was thinking

All aircraft propulsion is by reaction - by "jets." Since roughly WW2, jet propulsion has come to mean propulsion by gas turbines, alone or driving fans. This is purely an arbitrary distinction. If you look at it another way, these electric ducted fans are more "jetty" than anything now in production, because the core motor does not contribute its own exhaust gases to propulsion - only the fans and stators contribute.

@@marcdepiolenc1880 A JET has a specific meaning ! It's a JET of FAST moving air. Those idiot lift fans will merely waft the air about a bit.

@@marcdepiolenc1880 if you're talking about WW2 plane engines, it's nice to point out they weren't using normal propeller engines, but Motorjets - version of jet engine without a compressor.

"Simple tiny inefficient electric fans." Embedded Distributed Propulsion with ducted fans is not inefficient. Its very efficient. They aren't taking that approach for fun. "Distributed propulsion (DP) is a type of powered flight propulsion system for fixed-wing aircraft in which engines are distributed about a vessel. Its goal is to increase performance in fuel efficiency, emissions, noise, landing field length and handling performance." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_propulsion

@@martinw245 if is so efficient with these tiny fans, why does it not fly and nobody else use it? Why do you think planes use props with larger diameters? Why do wind turbines not use thousands of tiny ducted fans? There is probably a reason for that. Do you really think tiny screaming fans are less noisy? Distributed propulsion is great in theory but why do you think jets that go across the Atlantic these days have rather two huge efficient engines than the previous generations with 4, when they could have 6 or 8?

@@n1vca "if is so efficient with these tiny fans, why does it not fly and nobody else use it?" It does fly. And others have experimented with this concept but like all innovative concepts somebody has to be the first to implement it in a prototype. NASA have been experimenting with this concept for years. The reason it’s only becoming viable now, is that with electric power trains its feasible to have many small electric motors rather than a few large extremely heavy combustion engines, thus, Electric Distributed Propulsion becomes feasible. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oeBzZph32ZrciI0.html "Why do you think planes use props with larger diameters?" Because they have no choice. You can't fit 30 or 40 large, heavy high bypass turbofans on a wing. And battery tech and electric motors aren't yet capable of providing the range for a longer range aircraft. Hence why you see BEV aircraft for very short range. "Why do wind turbines not use thousands of tiny ducted fans?" Because, and I don't know if you've noticed, massive wind turbines don't fly through the air and have to worry about mass and the huge structures aerodynamic drag. Generating as much electricity as possible from the wind is an entirely different concept to flying through the air. An aircraft has to generate lift to stay in the air, in which case it must balance lift with drag and keep weight to the absolute minimum. "Do you really think tiny screaming fans are less noisy?" Yes, its feasible. Ducted fans are known to be better acoustically because the duct blocks sound. And Lilium and other are incorporating sound deadening material inside the duct. "Ducted fans are quieter : they shield the blade noise, and reduce the tip speed and intensity of the tip vortices both of which contribute to noise production. Ducted fans can allow for a limited amount of thrust vectoring, something for which normal propellers are not well suited." "Distributed propulsion is great in theory but why do you think jets that go across the Atlantic these days have rather two huge efficient engines than the previous generations with 4, when they could have 6 or 8?" Maintenance cost basically. ETOPS certified aircraft like the Boeing 777 have less maintenance associated with the engines due to there being half as many engines compared with a 747 or A340. Again though, a 777 or A330 is a very large aiorcfat designed to take people across the Atlantic. And as I said... distributed propulsion requires batteries and small electric motors. And we don't have the battery technology to enable long haul huge passenger jets to be powered by distributed propulsion. When the day arrives where hybrid or full electric power trains are capable of providing the required range for a long haul passenger aircraft, you may well see distributed propulsion, due to the benefits it brings. Daher, Airbus and Safron are working together as we speak on hybrid electric distributed propulsion. Not with ducted fans, but with many small prope. www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2019/06/daher-airbus-and-safran-team-up-to-develop-ecopulsetm-a-distributed-hybrid-propulsion-aircraft-demonstrator.html As you can see below, NASA and its partners have already converted a Tecnam P200T to distributed propulsion with no less than TWENTY small props. scitechdaily.com/distributed-electric-propulsion-may-usher-in-a-new-era-of-flight/

@@martinw245 Let me try to clarify a few things ... first what we agree on: - Distributed propulsion - when done right!!! it can give you great efficiency and very improved safety and less noise - Ducted fans can reduce the noise in specific directions - Ducted fans are better for thrust vectoring - We currently don't have enough battery power to do any long haul flight with practicable dimensions of speed - When the battery technology is there we will see more distributed propulsion Regarding your links: - I have seen the empty Lilium "Jet" fly slowly in hover mode ... there is none in there and it doesn't even transition to its supposed 300km/h horizontal flight? This thing is empty ... a lot of experienced RC hobbyist can make such a thing hover slowly while flying without passengers, that is just not the problem. Don't you get the point that they created a design that looks very sexy and futuristic, because whoever designed it probably wasn't a physics or aviation guy. People invested into that dream and now over the last years they found out that you can collect a lot of money, just selling this visual idea. They also hope technology would move so fast that this extremely far fetched concept could be possible in some 10 years? Since 5 years? they show off the aircraft and it is still not able to even hover with a single or two person on board and while this is not flying at all in horizontal flight mode and now they talk about a 7 seater? This is the most ridiculous claim that could follow their years of no success in the real world and painful narrow mindedness. - Link to the EcoPulseTM ... interestingly enough it doesn't have tiny props, neither does it have your efficiency boosting ducts - I guess that is because Daher, Airbus and Safran employs only dummies who don't get it, when it could be more efficient and silent, who wants that? :-) - Even the NASA Tecnam design isn't ducted and uses fans at least 4 times the size of Lilium's Jet? What does Nasa and Tecnam know about aerodynamic and aviation? The above companies have many decades of real world experience designing planes AND have them mass produced and are now more progressive and experimental entering the electric domain, so why do you think they don't apply all the things that are so obvious to you and Lilium? So my main criticism is that it is not smart to use so many TINY fans ... if they would be at least 4 times bigger in diameter they might have a chance to reach part of their goal but it would look less cool and their vanity and promises to the investors that keep them alive for so many years with no money made, seem to make it impossible to go that route, which is a lot closer to reality and really sad they don't even try it. Actually that is not entirely true, because one of the first versions actually had much bigger rotor blades and it flew too, it just didn't look that cool and that is not what the investors paid for. If you have ever built an electric powered RC model aircraft and played with prop sizes in the real world, you will know exactly what I am talking about, as simple as that. One more thing, I think they are slowly coming to their senses ... look at this latest simulated iteration kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h618a7KYq8u8lYE.html less and bigger fans, this has a chance to actually get the job done at some point sooner! I truly wish them well, but I also have a practical approach to life.

@@n1vca 😆 Lilium have just taken an order from a Brazilian airline for one billion dollars. Clearly that Brazilian airlines negotiators and engineers that assessed the technolgy have an "educated" opinion that's diametrically opposed to yours. Lufthansa, Honeywell, CustomCells and others wouldn't be committing to a full partnership unless it was a viable concept and the former CEO of Airbus wouldn't be risking his reputation by running the company. I find it amusing that you say "they should use bigger propellers that can actually fly" but now admit distributed propulsion with multiple small fans is effective. "When done right" you say, but without the knowledge to know yourself is its done right or not. You arent an aeronaurical engineer, you are just "a guy on KZfaq". Those that work for Lilium (and there are 600 employees) do know what they are talking about and many *are* aeronautical engineers. I doubt you had even heard of distributed propulsion till I told you about it. "Not smart to use lots of tiny fans" 😆 So you say distributed propulsion is viable when donr right and now contradict yourself by saying its not smart and should use a few big propellers. Lots of small fans (ducted or not ducted) IS DISTRIBUTED PROPULSION. A few big props/fans is not distributed propulsion. Dont mean to be rude but you have no idea what you are talking about. "Slowly comming to their senses" Glad you think so Mr Aeronautical Engineer. 😆 There are 36 motors for the latest version. So no, they know what they are doing. You don't. Your video was only a view of the front wings with six ducted fans on each. 😆 The rear wing has the rest. Total 36. lilium.com/jet I'll answer the rest of your claims tomorrow.

Jesus. Call it what you like

In the UK we have a 220V 50Hz supply.

@@Pete-tq6in I'm in the US and I was referring to three-phase power which would be the minimum that you would need to even CONSIDER this viable.