Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Businesses Technology

German Startup Unveils Electric 'Flying Taxi' Prototype (theguardian.com) 115

Posted by BeauHD from the future-transportation dept.
German startup Lilium has unveiled a new "flying taxi" that can vertically take off and be the basis for an on-demand air service within six years. The Guardian reports: The electric jet-powered five-seater aircraft is designed to travel up to 300km, a journey that would take it an hour at top speed. While a smaller version of its novel plane flew in 2017, Lilium said that the maiden flight of a full-scale prototype earlier this month -- a brief, remote-controlled test hover in Munich -- was a "huge step." The firm, which has attracted more than $100 million in investment since its founding in 2015, has set a target of offering Uber-style, app-based air taxis in multiple cities by 2025.

The latest iteration, with room for a pilot and four passengers, will be the template for Lilium's mass production model. With sufficient economy of scale, Lilium believes fares would be around $70 per head for a cross-city hop from, for example, JFK airport to Manhattan. According to Lilium, the relatively simple design, beyond the 36 electric jet engines needed for vertical take-off and landing, make it more safe and affordable than other planes. Once in the air, the power needed in cruise is little more than that of an electric car, Lilium says. The fixed wing design gives a longer range than competitors with drone-based aircraft, which consume much more energy keeping airborne. Lilium will now seek certification for its new plane through rigorous flight testing, the next landmark being to move the jet seamlessly from vertical to horizontal flight.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

German Startup Unveils Electric 'Flying Taxi' Prototype More

German Startup Unveils Electric 'Flying Taxi' Prototype

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday May 18, 2019 @02:12AM (#58612458)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

      Electric aircraft are a non-starter. The amount of energy required to lift and fly a plane is massive.

      Except that they already exist, and work fine [youtube.com]. Time is needed to work out the legal issues and business model, not to prove the concept.

      And then there's the matter of safety. A VTOL plane has zero defense against system failure at low altitude.

      Neither does a conventional helicopter. Yet people still fly in them everyday.

      The main difference in safety is that an electric hex-copter is far more reliable, and far more fault tolerant. Multiple motors would have to fail simultaneously, and brushless DC motors are extremely reliable.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          It is electricity or fossil fuel that defines flying cars, it is two things and two things only, 'NOISE' and of course every bingle over a city will more likely kill than not. Add both together and they kill number of vehicles allowed.

          They can waffle all the IPO shite they want, no city, NO CITY, will allow noisy airborne over their houses, all night every night. People would be demanding the heads of politicians who allowed pretty damn quick. You can pretty much guarantee a ban and not just at night, pret

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            You do realize that this is far, far more quite than a helicopter, right?

            • You do realize that this is far, far more quite than a helicopter, right?

              What isn't, apart from artillery? Damned with faint praise.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by q4Fry ( 1322209 )

                Right, but I can't stop the helicopters from flying overhead. My MP says it's for our safety.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Your maths are wrong. With current technology up to an hour flying is possible in small aircraft.

          Since a lot of flights are only 30 minutes or less the is a good case for making them electric.

          Charging is already no problem. We have very high speed charging for buses and ferries. Oh, and trains too.

          • There are two very good self launching electric gliders that can self launch and fly for an hour on batteries, The LAK17 Mini FES, and the silent 2 Electro.
            Many others are in development, at for example GP gliders and the Antares electric self launch.

        • So you spent more time to write your two stupid first posts than actually was required to read the article?

          First of all: the plane has 36 engines. You want to tell us that it is likely that more than 18 fail?
          Secondly, not in the article, the plane has parachutes. No idea how you call that in english, but the lose translation would be "full vehicle rescue device" ... as the shutes rescue the plane, not the individual passengers.

          Thirdly, the plane in question has a 300km range. They claim during flight it cos

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Obviously you math is crap.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Neither does a conventional helicopter. Yet people still fly in them everyday.

        The main difference in safety is that an electric hex-copter is far more reliable, and far more fault tolerant. Multiple motors would have to fail simultaneously, and brushless DC motors are extremely reliable.

        Indeed. In fact, if somebody invented the conventional helicopter today, it may well be impossible to get the idea flight-certified.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday May 18, 2019 @04:17AM (#58612652)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Reality: A Tesla battery pack (75 - 100kWh) weighs 600kg. A large part of that is structural reinforcement and cooling system.
        The Tesla has a range of about 2,500km. That plane has a range of 300km. No need to transform into miles, the difference is obvious.

        Did I mention? You are an idiot? Perhaps I forgot, so to clarify it: you are an idiot.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by xonen ( 774419 )

      The safety concerns i share with you. I'd rather not fly any airplane where the pilot is not onboard him or herself.

      But for short-range, i see no reason why a small 10" battery-powered drone that flies 30 minutes could not scale up to carry passangers. I wouldn't expect cross-Atlantic flights anytime soon, especially not using lithium batteries, but short-range taxi services, sure why not. And fast-charge is a non-issue, batteries can charge pretty fast, typically at about the rate they can discharge (thoug

      • And fast-charge is a non-issue, batteries can charge pretty fast, typically at about the rate they can discharge (though usually 1/2C is used to be on the safe side)...

        This is incorrect. The types of batteries used in high-discharge rate applications (such as drones, power-tools and such) usually have much higher discharge rates than they do charge rates. For example, an LG HE4 cell can discharge at 20A, but the max charge current is 4A. That is a 5:1 ratio. Other high-discharge-rate cells are similar. At high charge rates (or when the battery is very cold) undesirable chemical reactions occur in the battery, causing it to fail prematurely, and possibly creating a hazard

    • Electric aircraft are a non-starter. The amount of energy required to lift and fly a plane is massive. Even if batteries can get anywhere near the power density of fossil fuels, the infrastructure to charge them *at scale* and in a reasonable time is immense. Do the math. It doesn't fly.

      It's almost as if you're not allowing for any advances in technology in your thought processes.

    • SlashDot. Ruining dreams since 1997.
    • Modded as 'nsightful? Ya, right.

    • Electric aircraft are NOT a non-starter.

      Take a look at Harbour Air and check out the economics: https://www.skiesmag.com/news/... [skiesmag.com]

      MagniX expects the transition to electric propulsion to reduce direct operating costs by 50 to 80 per cent, including the replacement cost of the battery.

      It starts out with niches like Harbour Air to a) make money and b) bring the technology to maturity. Then technology improves and it moves into other markets.

      Electric aircraft are coming - maybe not next year, but I would expect within 10 years there will be a number of viable market sectors for them.

      • Electric aircraft are not a non-starter. In fact, model aircraft flying around all over the place prove it is possible. BUT, lithium ion powered VTOL aircraft operating in high-population-density areas are a non-starter for myriad technical reasons which cannot be overcome without major advances in multiple areas and major changes in infrastructure, etc. So it is fair to express skepticism that this can be rolled out any time soon.

        Also, Harbour Air cannot be held up as an example of a success just yet since

    • Electric aircraft are a non-starter. ....

      And then there's the matter of safety. A VTOL plane has zero defense against system failure at low altitude. A power failure at 50ft before transition to level flight means all passengers are dead. ...

      You are mixing your FUDs up.

      Do not mix electric-vehicle FUD with VTOL FUD, or you risk looking uninformed.

      Oh, you are? Well then.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Maybe read up on what you criticize first. Because all you sound is clueless. You are talking about classical designs in general and they are different and very much so.

    • Actually, most short hop planes in BC will be all electric before 2020, and this will soon be true in WA OR and CA.

      Some of us are living in 2019, not 1969, friend.

  • Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zmooc ( 33175 ) <zmooc@@@zmooc...net> on Saturday May 18, 2019 @02:17AM (#58612468) Homepage

    This thing doesn't use jet engines but ducted fans. Apparently they don't know what jet engines are (this is not a case of sleepy journalist; they used that word themselves), which is not a good sign. Also, this thing hovered for a few seconds and that's it. Hovering an electric multi-rotor VTOL vehicle is not a breakthrough; everybody with enough time on their hands can achieve that with off the shelf parts. These guys employ 300 people. And this is their achievement? I wonder how many of those work in the marketing department :p

    The proof we need to see is this thing flying a proper distance autonomously without falling apart (it looks very flimsy).

    This is not new for nerds; there's no news here, just a boat-load of money spend on an oversized drone that can only hover. This may be news for investors, though :p

    • You are appear to believe that turbojets, a virtually obsolete technology, are still in use. All jet engines in commercial use now are turbofan engines that are a type of - wait for it - ducted fan.

      A turbofan engine, wherein a gas turbine drives a ducted fan that provides the actual propulsion, is called a "jet engine" everywhere by everyone even though the turbine in modern engines provides a near-negligible direct contribution to the thrust. The by-pass ratio (the ratio of air going through the ducted fan

    • This thing doesn't use jet engines but ducted fans

      Yes! Finally! So many journos are calling ducted fans jets, it's confusing the public.

      They also do not know the difference between a jet, a turbojet, and a turbo-prop. All three of those are jet engines; the latter example has propellers that are driven by the jet engine.

      Ducted fans are not jets.

    • Apparently they don't know what jet engines are (this is not a case of sleepy journalist
      It looks more like that you don't know what an jet engine is.
      Hint: at the exhaust side of the "jet engine" exists a "jet of something". In case of an airplane it is air, sometimes hot air, sometimes cold air. In case of a jet ski it is water ... oops, you failed (again! as I remember your stupid comment on the same issue, the same airplane a year ago ... I call people like you: idiot)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by zmooc ( 33175 )

        It looks more like that you don't know what an jet engine is.

        I do. But apparently most people don't...

        A jet engine is a reaction engine; it produces thrust by expelling mass, like a rocket. A ducted fan does not obtain the majority of its thrust by expelling mass but by creating a pressure difference between the front and the rear of the duct, which exhibits a force on the fan. It is just a propeller in a duct. That does not make it a jet engine.

        You mention jet ski's. Those are called jet ski's for a reason; they do actually produce thrust by shooting out ridiculous

  • Drone upscale (Score:3)

    by DrTJ ( 4014489 ) on Saturday May 18, 2019 @02:45AM (#58612502)

    This looks like some drone enthusiasts decided to scale it up to a passenger vehicle.
    * 30 engines? That doesn't sound cost effective. It looks like those bi- or tri-planes of early aviation with long arrays of engines. Not because it is the best solution, but because the engine technology at that point in time wasn't powerful enough. Are "real engines" too expensive, or are there no powerful electric ones available yet for aviation?
    * Really shaky stability - not a very good PR. Not only the craft itself, but also the wings - they seem very weak and distort a lot under the tiny load.
    * Why this obsession with VTOL? Especially with the considerable weight and bad energy density of the batteries - why fight gravity with such an approach?

    It really sounds like a glorified drone project.

    • 30 engines? That doesn't sound cost effective.

      At least this provides some redundancy. Bigger engines do exist, but they have the drawback of looking (and working) like a huge exposed meat grinder. I'd be interested in comparing the efficiency between the two setups (many small fans vs a couple of huge ones).

      Why this obsession with VTOL?

      Their intended market is urban taxi service. If you don't operate out of an airfield, VTOL is pretty much a requirement.

      It really sounds like a glorified drone project.

      All of these things do. As any model airplane enthusiast knows: strap a big enough engine one, and you can get anything to fl

    • "Why this obsession with VTOL?"

      Because it's highly desirable for a "taxi" to be able to get into and out of tight ground footprints if it is going to compete with conventional ground vehicles for passengers.

  • Please stop bullshit videos (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lorinc ( 2470890 ) on Saturday May 18, 2019 @02:50AM (#58612510) Homepage Journal

    I've looked at the youtube video of the event. I don't get the hype. Why does everybody working in this company looked stressed and anxious as if somebody is going to die and and then cheers in relief like they see their first newborn baby. It's just a fucking casual test where the thing lifts off the ground about 1 meter and that's it. Like it wasn't expected to be successful? This guy [youtube.com] did it in his backyard. And if it fails, so what? Back to work and fix things. If it works, back to work to do the next tasks. You'll celebrate when you have a real achievement. That should have been a 10 seconds video with the title "Test 0.1a: lifting off ground OK."

    Seriously, stop making overhyped hyper emotional video for nothing. I find it disgusting. Every time I see an overproduced media piece to celebrate nothingness with bad acting, I thing your company is just a mediocre PR bullshit stunt full of childish idiots. You should aim for better than that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      While I agree that it's overhyped, you can't compare it to that guy. He made a quadrocopter that lifts one person. Theses guys built an electrical jet with five seats. Not the same class of things.

      • Theses guys built an electrical jet with five EMPTY seats that can hover 2 meters above the ground for a few seconds.

        FTFY.

    • The guy in that video you linked is sitting on top of a bunch of banked RC lipo batteries. I hope he has ass fire insurance.

  • ... said no one ever.

    Even if they are electric theyâ(TM)re not silent. They, or their passengers, will come with cameras attached. If people can, then people _will_ do stupid/evil things with them. They will fly low and direct; if your house, your school, your life is in the way then at scale they will be, like similarly idiotic delivery drones, be bringing their dubious benefits(?) to it.

    We already know that living in the noisy and polluted sh*t hole cities that weâ(TM)ve created makes us ill.

  • Moller's Skycar will beat them all with its pants down and penis wagging for another bunghole to broach.

  • This aircraft is actually very interesting if you ignore all the flying car hype rubbish (this is not going to be an flying car anytime soon). I follow aircraft design a bit, and there are really two big potential trends that engine and plane manufacturers will have to look too for the next generation of aircrafts - distributed ducted fans and boundary layer ingestion.

    Distributed ducted fans is about putting a whole bunch of ducted fans along the wing (exactly as they have done in this design) and powering

  • VTOL near people is a non-starter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mamba-mamba ( 445365 ) on Saturday May 18, 2019 @04:18AM (#58612656)

    VTOL near people is a non-starter because of down thrust. Just think of a helicopter. There is no way to achieve liftoff thrust without blowing a ton of air downward. So these things will be limited to some type of helipad type area, maybe on roofs or something. Anyone who thinks taxis are going to hover down to the ground outside a grocery store or something is dreaming.

  • Why is this better than a helicopter? The rotor disk on a helicopter moves much more air, so it is more efficient. If this can be electric and self driving, no reason a helicopter can't. Helicopters work, but their operating costs are huge - so large that the cost of the pilot isn't a big deal.Why is this better?

    The picture is pretty, but where are the actual performance specs of the actual flying prototype?

    • The picture is pretty, but where are the actual performance specs of the actual flying prototype?
      On their web site. Can't be so hard to read the article and follow the links.

  • We don't call things "jet powered" in common English unless they use a jet turbine engine. When they use electric jet thrusters, we just call those shrouded fans.

  • We just need that order of magnitude jump in battery density and things change quickly. Yeah, I'm not asking for a lot.

Slashdot Top Deals

In practice, failures in system development, like unemployment in Russia, happens a lot despite official propaganda to the contrary. -- Paul Licker

Close