Discussion
dr_gn said:
As with flying cars - can anyone seriously see widespread use of these things within the next 100 years?
dr_gn said:
Let's re-convene in 2025 and see how far it got.
You're losing confidence in your pessimism, then? We've gone from 100 years to 8 years, in just a few posts. 
Equus said:
dr_gn said:
As with flying cars - can anyone seriously see widespread use of these things within the next 100 years?
dr_gn said:
Let's re-convene in 2025 and see how far it got.
You're losing confidence in your pessimism, then? We've gone from 100 years to 8 years, in just a few posts. dr_gn said:
Not at all: 2025 is the year quoted on their website when we'll all be able to order an air taxi...
And nobody is saying that it isn't over optimistic. They're trying to raise funding capital - of course they're presenting things as more deliverable than they really are. That's always been the way, right back to Isambard Kingdom Brunel's day.It will be more interesting to see if they manage to hit their target of manned flight by 2019.
But your question related to a timescale of the next 100 years
All early attempts at technological advances tend to fail financially and in terms of timescale. Do you think that the Wright brothers shouldn't have bothered, because they weren't building commercial airliners within 8 years of Kittyhawk?
Equus said:
dr_gn said:
Not at all: 2025 is the year quoted on their website when we'll all be able to order an air taxi...
And nobody is saying that it isn't over optimistic. They're trying to raise funding capital - of course they're presenting things as more deliverable than they really are. That's always been the way, right back to Isambard Kingdom Brunel's day.It will be more interesting to see if they manage to hit their target of manned flight by 2019.
But your question related to a timescale of the next 100 years
All early attempts at technological advances tend to fail financially and in terms of timescale. Do you think that the Wright brothers shouldn't have bothered, because they weren't building commercial airliners within 8 years of Kittyhawk?
An electric VTOL personal transport is far more specific, and more importantly, bypasses several major hurdles that haven't even been achieved by conventionally powered/configured aircraft yet: small, door-to-door personal commuter aircraft, VTOL for same, navigation/collision avoidance for same, cost effectiveness for same, noise control for same, control systems, safety systems etc, etc.
If there was an existing baseline usage of even a few hundred for conventional versions of this type of machine (or "flying cars") that would be something, but there aren't, nor does there seem much chance of it happening any time soon. Adding the aforementioned power density issue with batteries and I just ask myself as things are, really, what's the point?
Don't get me wrong, I've designed and flown small scale novel aircraft concepts myself as part of my job. In fact Im in the process of test flying a novel VTOL concept at the moment (but for a totally different application). I therefore fully appreciate the engineering skill that's gone into their model, but theres a huge difference between a novel idea and commercial viability. In this case I don't see how the concept warrants anything like the timescales or use models presented.
dr_gn said:
...and more importantly, bypasses several major hurdles that haven't even been achieved by conventionally powered/configured aircraft yet: small, door-to-door personal commuter aircraft, VTOL for same, navigation/collision avoidance for same, cost effectiveness for same, noise control for same, control systems, safety systems etc, etc.
That's rather the point, isn't it?You're exaggerating the unsolved issues (guess what? people have been navigating and avoiding collision in helicopters for decades; control systems similarly... we've fought wars with VTOL aircraft, and inexpensive drones are routinely doing precision survey and filming work all over the world without any issues).
Nobody (not even Lillium) is mentioning door-to-door personal commuting; the suggestion seems to be more city centre to city centre, which has been an aspiration of heliports and aircraft like the Rotodyne for decades, but has been stymied by the noise.
Equus said:
dr_gn said:
...and more importantly, bypasses several major hurdles that haven't even been achieved by conventionally powered/configured aircraft yet: small, door-to-door personal commuter aircraft, VTOL for same, navigation/collision avoidance for same, cost effectiveness for same, noise control for same, control systems, safety systems etc, etc.
That's rather the point, isn't it?You're exaggerating the unsolved issues (guess what? people have been navigating and avoiding collision in helicopters for decades; control systems similarly... we've fought wars with VTOL aircraft, and inexpensive drones are routinely doing precision survey and filming work all over the world without any issues).
Nobody (not even Lillium) is mentioning door-to-door personal commuting; the suggestion seems to be more city centre to city centre, which has been an aspiration of heliports and aircraft like the Rotodyne for decades, but has been stymied by the noise.
City centre to city centre just makes the whole thing even more safety and noise critical. Have you ever heard how loud a single small EDF is, let alone multiples of them scaled up to power a real aircraft? They're ear splitting.
As I suggested, let's see how close they are to their goal in 2025. I'd be amazed if there was even a battery available to reliably give the speed and range targets let alone anything else that's required.
dr_gn said:
Either way, what was the last war we fought with an electric VTOL aircraft? And how many helicopters currently operate simultaneously within the average city?
The stability and control issues are the same whether it's a gas turbine turbofan or an electric ducted fan. No difference, except that, as has been pointed out, it's a damn sight safer with 36 individual motors vs. one Pegasus, if you get a failure. Ditto vs. a conventional helicopter: there's no reason these things shouldn't be much, much safer; not only have they got a much higher level of redundancy for engine failure, but they should glide rather better, too.I used to work in Leeds City Centre (Merrion House, if anyone knows it) and watch the air ambulance flying in and out of Leeds General Infirmary several times a day. If you're ever in London, you'll see plenty of helicopters commuting in and out daily. It's really no big deal, if you've got fixed "heliports", which is what Lillium are suggesting if you read their website: "Order your air taxi to the nearby landing pad". No mention of commuting door-to-door. It's a simple air traffic control issue just like any other. Even as pilotless drones, the issues are much more straightforward than for driverless cars, and we're all getting used to that idea pretty quickly?
You're fabricating problems out of thin air.
Equus said:
dr_gn said:
Either way, what was the last war we fought with an electric VTOL aircraft? And how many helicopters currently operate simultaneously within the average city?
You're fabricating problems out of thin air.
k someones a grumpy old bdr_gn said:
Which I believe is exactly where this concept will disappear into.
And that's what you're arguments come down to: a matter of belief. Clearly, there's no point in debating further, as despite clear evidence that the 'problems' you're raising are imaginary, your mind is made up.
I do indeed believe that there are currently NO viable commuter/personal/flying car/whatever you want to call them, aircraft flying in any significant numbers (if at all) today despite, over many decades, a steady stream of concepts far simpler and requiring far lower TRL's than an electric VTOL aircraft.
This Leads me to believe that the likelihood of the concept being developed into a viable system any time soon is pretty damned low.
I also believe they'd spend your investment very wisely.
Is that acceptable?
This Leads me to believe that the likelihood of the concept being developed into a viable system any time soon is pretty damned low.
I also believe they'd spend your investment very wisely.
Is that acceptable?
Equus said:
dr_gn said:
...and more importantly, bypasses several major hurdles that haven't even been achieved by conventionally powered/configured aircraft yet: small, door-to-door personal commuter aircraft, VTOL for same, navigation/collision avoidance for same, cost effectiveness for same, noise control for same, control systems, safety systems etc, etc.
Nobody (not even Lillium) is mentioning door-to-door personal commutingQuote from website:
"It is our mission to make air taxis available to everyone and as affordable as riding a car."
Isn't that "door to door personal transport?
"Available to everyone" implies the vision is to have hundreds of these things flying around large cities simultaneously.
dr_gn said:
Yes they are:
Quote from website:
"It is our mission to make air taxis available to everyone and as affordable as riding a car."
Isn't that "door to door personal transport?"
In a word: No. Quote from website:
"It is our mission to make air taxis available to everyone and as affordable as riding a car."
Isn't that "door to door personal transport?"
You're making an enormous and unfounded leap between the suggestion of affordability and the destination served.
If the boss of Ryanair came out tomorrow and said that he wanted to make air travel as cheap as going by bus, would you interpret him as meaning that he planned to land Boeing 737's at your local bus stop?
the Lillium website said:
A large network of small and inexpensive landing pads and central places in cities...
Seems clear enough to me, and nothing like 'door to door personal transport'.Equus said:
dr_gn said:
Yes they are:
Quote from website:
"It is our mission to make air taxis available to everyone and as affordable as riding a car."
Isn't that "door to door personal transport?
In a word: No. Quote from website:
"It is our mission to make air taxis available to everyone and as affordable as riding a car."
Isn't that "door to door personal transport?
You're making an enormous and unfounded leap between the suggestion of affordability and the destination served.
If the boss of Ryanair came out tomorrow and said that he wanted to make air travel as cheap as going by bus, would you expect to see Boeing 737's landing at your local bus stop?
the Lillium website said:
A large network of small and inexpensive landing pads and central places in cities...
Seems clear enough to me, and nothing like 'door to door personal transport'.What then, will make it cheaper than commuting to a city by, say an R22? How can they make a completely new form of transport so much cheaper than that, to the extent that "everyone" has access to it and its as "cheap as driving a car"? Where's this magic ingredient that removes certification, maintenance and running costs? Presumably it's mainly down to this mythical battery (presumably charged for free by a new network of magic mushroom powered generators)?
Cut it any way you want. Most forms of Aviation are fundamentally very expensive and very unforgiving. This thing ain't gonna happen any time soon - it just doesn't add up on so many levels.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff