The Lilium VTOL Electric Jet

[MartinW 0]

https://lilium.com/

 

300 km range.

300 km/h.

All electric.

 

Quote

The Lilium Jet consists of a rigid winged body with 12 flaps. Each one carries three electric jet engines. Depending on the flight mode, the flaps tilt from a vertical into a horizontal position. At take-off, all flaps are tilted vertical, so that the engines can lift the aircraft. Once airborne, the flaps gradually tilt into a horizontal position, leading the aircraft to accelerate. When they have reached complete horizontal position, all lift necessary to stay aloft is provided by the wings as on a conventional airplane.

 

Quote

 

The beauty of this system is its simplicity. In comparison to existing concepts, Lilium Jets require no gearboxes, no foldable or variable pitch propellers, no water-cooling, and no aerodynamic steering flaps. Just tiltable electric engines.

What’s more: The Lilium Jet has the highest possible structural efficiency. As we can provide differential thrust from the engines in cruise flight, no stabilizing tail is necessary.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2017 by MartinW

[allardjd 1,853]

Impressive and promising, though 160 nm range at 160 knots is not earthshaking, particularly assuming that the useful load is probably quite low.  As proof of concept it's pretty neat and appears to fly well and take off and land handily.  It would be interesting to see a landing in gusty winds, but helicopters can do it so I guess this could too if the controls are up to it.  The "spring" landing gear is a neat idea, no doubt saving considerable weight.

 

I still contend that to be profitably marketable to GA customers an electric AC will have to meet or beat Skyhawk performance at a not-much-higher price.  When you can fly, say 500 pounds of people/stuff 500 nm at 100 knots TAS and refuel in a few minutes, for a new price of ~$300,000 USD, including the legitimacy (i.e. certification) to use public airports and enough capability for night flight and a limited IFR capability, you'll have a marketable, competitive GA product.  This one isn't in that ballpark yet, though the VTOL capability might make it attractive as a fair-weather commuter for technophile rich guys.  

 

If it can be certified and is price-comparable to a light 1 or 2 place helicopter there could be a niche market there, though I don't think those enjoy large sales volume.  If noise is lower than for a similar performing light helicopter, that might make it more "acceptable" for use in residential areas.  Light helicopters are too noisy to be "good neighbors".  If your neighbor uses one to commute, you won't be happy.  If this has a significantly lower noise footprint, and it may, that could be a real plus for that market, assuming that market exists.

 

John

[allardjd 1,853]

Notice the name includes "Jet".  If an airscrew-driven column of air (or many) makes this a jet, then so too is the Piper Cub, the Spruce Goose and even the Wright Flyer.  Who knew?

 

I don't understand why organizations do things like that.  It fools almost no one and damages their credibility on anything else they are claiming.  It's not a Jet, it's a lie.

 

John

[MartinW 0]

Quote

I still contend that to be profitably marketable to GA customers an electric AC will have to meet or beat Skyhawk performance at a not-much-higher price.  When you can fly, say 500 pounds of people/stuff 500 nm at 100 knots TAS and refuel in a few minutes, for a new price of ~$300,000 USD, including the legitimacy (i.e. certification) to use public airports and enough capability for night flight and a limited IFR capability, you'll have a marketable, competitive GA product.

 

 

 

Very true, It'll be a while before electric aircraft achieve the sort of performance you mention. To be expected though, it's early days for the technology. Progress is being made, especially in terms of battery tech. The inventor of the lithium-ion battery for example, (Professor John Goodenough) at the grand old age of 97 has one-upped himself. He's come up with an all solid state battery that beats lithium-ion by a mile. Three times the energy density, not combustible, charges fast (minutes not hours) and has a much longer lifespan. There are other battery technologies in the pipeline too. Still probably won't achieve the performance figures you mention but heading in the right direction.

 

For now, it's mostly aircraft for flight schools that are interested it seems. For example Pipistrel's electric offering. Up for a lesson, land, slide in a new battery pack and up with the next student. Handles like a conventional fuel driven aircraft.

 

 

Lilium claim...

 

Quote

Lilium enables you to travel 5 times faster than a car by introducing the world’s first all-electric vertical take-off and landing jet: an air taxi for up to 5 people. You won’t have to own one, you will simply pay per ride and call it with a push of a button. It’s our mission to make air taxis available to everyone and as affordable as riding a car.

 

 

 

I raised an eyebrow too when I saw "jet". However, these days we commonly refer to "jet" engines when in reality they are really high-bypass turbofans. This guy is pretty much an electric  turbofan so perhaps we can forgive them.

 

Incidentally, NASA are also pursuing the electric turbofan, after better than expected performance results from initial evaluations. This is in regard to their 737 sized hybrid turbo-electric airliner.

 

 

Quote

The electric jet engines work like turbofan jet engines in a regular passenger jet. They suck in air, compress it and push it out the back. However, the compressor fan in the front is not turned by a gas turbine, but by a high performance electric motor. Therefore, they run much quieter and completely emission-free.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by MartinW

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

the future never looked so promising...

 

 

[MartinW 0]

Nice video. Sums up the state of play for electric aircraft nicely.

 

I knew the Airbus E-Fan project was the first stage on the road to hybrid technology and I mentioned Pipistrel above,  but I didn't know they too were involved in hybrid research. Apparently last year they powered up the most powerful hybrid electric power-train yet. 

 

Quote

 

 The 200 kW propulsor developed during the project HYPSTAIR delivers the power equivalent to a typical general aviation piston engine and can run in three modalities: electric-only mode using batteries, generator-only mode or hybrid mode combining both power sources.

 

All powertrain components developed by Siemens during the project represent the state of the art of electric flight propulsion. The drive motor, delivering 200 kW take off power and 150 kW continuous, and the generator, delivering 100 kW feature a power density exceeding 5 kW/kg and dual windings with four power controllers to provide unprecedented reliability. Further element of innovation is the Human-Machine-Interface designed to simplify the operation of a complex powertrain. A single lever with haptic feedback is used to apply power and a new integrated cockpit display to monitor the powertrain status and performance.

Following the extensive laboratory testing of components and the integration on a representative airframe at the Pipistrel aviation factory in Slovenia, the successful power up trialled all propulsion modes at low and high powers, driving a specially developed five blade low rpm, low noise propeller. Tests of take-off power were performed using combined output of the generator driven by a turbonormalised engine and the high-performance battery custom developed to support high discharge rates.

 

 

 

http://www.hypstair.eu/most-powerful-hybrid-electric-powertrain-powers-up/

 

 

Quote

 Panthera Hybrid
The 145 kW hybrid-electric powertrain, supported by the state-of-the-art battery system and range-extender generator unit, which is a special in-house development for the Panthera is a true revolution in aviation! The ability of noiseless, pure-electric take-offs and landings is coupled with uncompromised range characteristics. Short-field, powerful climb, extreme aeroefficiency and long-range, which are signature to Panthera are further enhanced with the revolutionary hybrid powertrain. Panthera Hybrid represents a quantum leap forward in thinking and will pave the way for the future of aviation!

 

 

 

 

http://www.pipistrel.si/plane/panthera/overview

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by MartinW

[allardjd 1,853]

It's not a jet engine...

 

 

What your posts describe is an electric fan propulsor, related to a turbofan, but by definition, not a turbofan.  A true turbofan gets 20-25% of its thrust from the jet engine that drives the fan (and the compressor, which is an integral part of the jet engine).  The electric fan propulsor lacks this.  It's not much more than a glorified ducted fan, which have been around for years, with an electric motor instead of an internal combustion engine driving the fan.  Technically, it's not even an engine.

 

It's all good research and is interesting but not sure where all this is leading.  I don't see a commercial market for quite a while yet, so it's research.  I suspect all of this is being driven by government grant money - not that there isn't private money involved too, but without the subsidies this research would dry up and blow away.  I'm not against government support of research into applied sciences, nor even against this (these?) particular projects but the concept is neither needs-driven nor anywhere near the possibility of a fiscal break-even.

 

John

[allardjd 1,853]

My new Electric Jet car...

 

 

[brett 2,314]

Mehh, good for scientific studies and some applications but nothing beats the sound of a good ol' combustion engine.

[Andrew Godden 943]

1 hour ago, allardjd said:

My new Electric Jet car...

 

 

 

I'll take it. Can I get it customised with twin chrome exhaust stacks and double overhead foxtails? 

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

sorry John you're tethered it doesn't count

[MartinW 0]

Quote

It's all good research and is interesting but not sure where all this is leading.  I don't see a commercial market for quite a while yet, so it's research.  I suspect all of this is being driven by government grant money - not that there isn't private money involved too, but without the subsidies this research would dry up and blow away.

 

 

 

The world needs cheap, clean aviation, so yes it's clearly needs-driven, thus leading somewhere. There are numerous electric and hybrid projects like this worldwide, some close to fruition, some not, some are partly government funded, some are not. Government support of the aircraft industry isn't new. So just because there may be government funding involved I don't believe we should assume the funding will suddenly be withdrawn and all of the projects in question destined to fail. Some clearly will fail, some won't. 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

Of the projects we've mentioned here...

 

Lilium: No government funding. All funding in place.

 

Pipistrel Panthera hybrid: Part of the HYPSTAIR project, so part funded by the EU.

 

Pipistrel Alpha Electro - electric: Part EU funded. Aimed at flight schools. 

Pipistrel Taurus Electro - electric: No Government funding.  Already in production. 

 

 

Quote

The concept is neither needs-driven

 

Quote

 

Why the Environment Needs Electric Drives

“We are convinced that electric drives will become irreplaceable in aviation,” says Anton. Driving his optimism is the fact that the European Commission wants to lower total CO₂emissions in aviation by up to 75 percent by 2050. The only way to achieve this in the face of steadily increasing air traffic volume is through the implementation of new technologies.

 

The solution is the electrification of aviation. “Hybrid-electric drive systems drive propellers or ducted fans electrically and generate power with gas turbines that can be optimized for constant travel performance,” explains Anton. Additional battery power can be used for ascent.

This concept separates energy conversion from thrust generation, which yields new possibilities for aircraft development because the central energy conversion system and the distributed electrical thrust generation system can be optimized individually. The savings potential of such systems is enormous: Siemens experts expect that it will be possible to reduce fuel consumption and pollutant emissions by up to 50 percent.

 

Furthermore, electric aircraft are much quieter than conventional aircraft. This will benefit not only those who live near airports but also flight operators, because quiet drive systems may make it possible to offer evening and night flights that are now banned for noise reasons. This could significantly increase aircraft capacity utilization and therefore the profitability of business models.

 

 

 

https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/home/pictures-of-the-future/mobility-and-motors/electromobility-electric-aircraft-maiden-flight.html

 

Worth remembering that Diamond in conjunction with Siemens and EADS had their hybrid design in the air back in 2013. 

 

Both generator and electric motor first power up. Will be in the air soon. And if it performs the way they say it will, who wouldn't want such a significant fuel cost saving.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm straying into an environmental realm where we profoundly disagree, which wasn't my intention. so I'll leave it at that. Hopefully some of you found it interesting.

 

I'll now switch to gas guzzling mode and gear myself up for  RIAT 2017 and the deafening roar of the F22, F-35B and the B-1. This year from the grandstand! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by MartinW

[mutley 4,497]

Don't leave your mobile phone on top of your car Martin. (Remember?)

[MartinW 0]

I certainly do remember. Flung across the Stratford road and crushed by a passing lorry. I won't be doing that with my new galaxy S8.

[allardjd 1,853]

18 hours ago, Andrew Godden said:

I'll take it. Can I get it customised with twin chrome exhaust stacks and double overhead foxtails? 

 

I don't think that's available, but it comes stock with a Greenpeace bumper sticker and Sierra Club window decals on both sides.

 

John

[allardjd 1,853]

The Lilium is still not a jet, no matter what they choose to call it.  If it is, so is this...

 

 

John

 

 

[allardjd 1,853]

10 hours ago, MartinW said:

And if it performs the way they say it will, who wouldn't want such a significant fuel cost saving.

 

Yawn!  Wake me when they turn a profit on it.  Local avgas is $3.38 a gallon, lowest since 2011, despite OPEC "curtailments" to prop up oil prices (thank you, frackers).

 

John

[MartinW 0]

31 minutes ago, allardjd said:

The Lilium is still not a jet, no matter what they choose to call it.  If it is, so is this...

 

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be honest I'm not bothered what they call it. They can call it a turbo sausage if they like. It's just a name.

 

Not exactly like the image above. The Lilium engine has a front compressor fan, so it, err, compresses. Perhaps we should invent a new name. I suggest... "engine that sucks in air compresses it and then pushes it out of the back but the front fan is not turned by a turbine". Should trip of the tongue nicely.

Edited June 26, 2017 by MartinW

[MartinW 0]

13 minutes ago, allardjd said:

 

Yawn!  Wake me when they turn a profit on it.  Local avgas is $3.38 a gallon, lowest since 2011, despite OPEC "curtailments" to prop up oil prices (thank you, frackers).

 

John

 

 

 

So if you jump in your plane and fly, lets say, 800 nautical miles, how much will it cost you? And you wouldn't fancy paying half that much? And half the emissions? Pardon me, forget the last bit.

[allardjd 1,853]

19 minutes ago, MartinW said:

And you wouldn't fancy paying half that much?

 

Well, certainly not at any cost.  That's only a valid question if the cost of buying and maintaining the Schpitzen-Schparken 500 Jet FlugZug is comparable to that for a similar-performing conventionally powered aircraft. 

 

The ongoing cost of periodic battery replacements must be included in the maintenance costs as well and that is not likely to be chump-change.  GA aircraft can and often do, if properly cared for, last 3 or 4 decades with no diminishment of utility or performance, so the long term cost of ownership is even more relevant for a light aircraft than for an automobile.  It's not unreasonable to speculate that the battery pack of an electric GA aircraft would require total replacement a number of times during the expected life of the plane.  As with all AC, that kind of serious maintenance must be performed and documented by licensed (read high-priced) people, certified to do so and with replacement parts certified for aviation use.  Only home-builders escape any of this and even in their case, not all of it.  Periodic wholesale replacement of the battery pack in an electric plane is going to be a very significant cost factor over the expected life of the plane.

 

There are some other issues of flexibility that enter in as well.   For example in an avgas aircraft, the pilot has the ability to forego some fuel (and range) in favor of more "stuff" placed aboard.  It happens all the time.  If you fly AirHauler you're no doubt intimately familiar with the concept.  Fill the seats - fill the tanks - fly; pick any two.  On the other hand a flat-on-its-arse battery pretty much weighs the same as a fully charged one.  You don't have that capability to swap some range for some payload.  In the hybrid, there's still some ability to do that but it seems obvious that the amount of fuel carried (and thus potentially left behind in favor of payload) is going to be much less.

 

Re-fuel time is also an issue.  I see some are saying that fast-recharge batteries are in the labs now, but nobody is talking yet where those stack up in terms of power density (KW-hours vs. weight), cost (including disposal cost which you will no doubt be charged for) and overall battery life.  If your AC won't make it all the way to the intended destination without a fuel stop, four hours or more vs. 40 minutes (approach, land, taxi, park, pee, refuel, pay, taxi, take-off) to top off the tank is not going to please you.

 

John

[allardjd 1,853]

49 minutes ago, MartinW said:

To be honest I'm not bothered what they call it.

 

Good choice of words - "honest" is the crux of why I AM bothered by them calling it a "Jet".  It goes against their credibility for whatever else they say.

 

John

 

[brett 2,314]

As to cost, just as in cable and phone companies no matter how they adjust the plans the cost equals out across all of them. Companies need to and will adjust prices across the board to equal out profits.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

I have been Honestly enjoying some of the word and image play in this discussion, and the fact that it is staying "civilian" liveried thus far.

 

My 2 cents to the subject is that I consider all basic research to be worth doing no matter if it looks like it will "win" the profitability contest. There is value in the pursuit of a radical idea because their is potential gold in the "Ah Ha" moments that come from it. Sometimes it leads to completely new directions of research even it if may appear that currently it is a waste of the investment should it not achieve the "intended goal".

 

No one expects that Human Powered flight will end up profitable, but I am fairly certain the the pursuit has had ancillary benefits from pursuing the effort...the technology of making components lighter will benefit powered flight and certainly electric powered flight down the road if not already.

 

And I agree that ducted fans don't need to be called Jets to help sell an airplane...it should fly on it's own merit. . //1 more cent.

[allardjd 1,853]

I'm not against research in most cases and specifically not against it in the projects above.  They're interesting and potentially valuable.  I do believe, however that sometimes worthless "research" (or even, sometimes, worthy research) is pursued on the government dime simply because the government dime is easily available for it.  I think governments in general ought to be a little more parsimonious with the taxpayers money - ask Greece, Venezuela, Puerto Rico and Illinois where deficit spending got them.  I hope the projects we're discussing are not boondoggles for government money, but such things exist and they are far from rare.

 

I'm not sure I agree that much of scientific value came out of the human-powered flights but if I recall correctly, they were in pursuit of a monetary prize that was privately (I hope) funded, and of course bragging rights for their university's engineering program.  That latter is no small thing and has a pretty attractive financial payback for the institution too.  I don't think anyone's life is significantly better because of those projects.

 

I also don't feel that these cutting edge projects have to "win the profitability contest", but neither do I think that we all ought to squeal in glee at the thought that this is the future of flight.  Unless they can evolve into at least a credible entrant in the profitability contest at some point, they aren't likely to be where we're going at all. 

 

There is room for more than just the winner in most markets.  Ask Airbus and Boeing and Lockheed; ask Ebraer and Gulfstream; ask Cessna, Piper and Beech.  I don't know that there's a clear winner in any of those market contests, but those who are still in the market are competing credibly and turning a profit for their shareholders.  On the other hand, there's a long, long list of aviation companies that no longer exist because at some point they lost their ability to be a credible entrant in the profitability contest.  If one or more of these state-of-the-art projects that we see in the posts above is indeed where we are going, sooner or later they'll have to be credible contestants too - otherwise they'll join the ranks of zeppelins and autogyros - aviation curiosities that didn't quite pan out.  That's exactly why when I see one of these things, I try to put on long-range glasses and ask myself, "Will it ever sell?"  If not, it's not likely that we'll ever adopt what they're developing.

 

I'm frankly betting against them.  I don't think pure electric flight is ever going to go mainstream either in GA or the larger aircraft.  The future of hybrids MAY be a little rosier but things like that REQUIRE one of three things, 1) prohibitively higher prices for fuel for the conventional types based on supply and demand, 2) serious government subsidies, or 3) serious government taxes on the technologies they are competing against.  You'll note that 2 and 3 are opposite sides of the same coin - government using taxpayer money to tilt the playing field in favor of a technology that can't compete economically on a level field.  

 

Finally, I agree that the tone of this has been refreshingly high-brow compared to some threads in the past.  No lock yet.  

 

John

[Andrew Godden 943]

Hmmm, all very novel, but that's about all right now.

 

It's nice that Anton thinks electric drives will become irreplaceable in aviation, of course he does, he has to justify his existence and wants to keep his job. You can have the "greenies" screaming for green energy ad nauseum and dreaming about emissions targets, etc., etc., ad infinitum, but only one thing will drive this, demand, and that demand will be driven by cost, and when it's cheaper than the current option, hey, it might even fly. Oh, and none of us here will even care when it does, because we will no longer exist. For now though, it's not much more than an ostrich wearing a Samsung VR headset thinking it can fly.

 

However, as far as this goes, I think my batteries just ran flat.