*Thank you for watching. This video is a part of a four-part CNBC Tech series on eVTOLS. You can check out the other parts below:* • What are eVTOLS? The evolution of 'flying cars' explained - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7gLBJpnmAo8.html • Inside Alef, the company trying to build a car you can both drive and fly - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qtzuL3WSiGY.html • Take a ride inside Ehang’s fully autonomous, two-seater air taxi - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XBCq6JGKqUg.html
Aviation will be one of the last industries to fully electrify, but it will happen. The transition will start from the bottom with smaller short-haul aircraft and work its way up. Designing from scratch is way more optimal than converting existing aircraft. Lilium looks like they are doing awesome work. These kinds of companies are the future, and the future will be clean, sustainable, and less noisy.
Its not necessary to electrify all sectors because it will increase the reliance on China due to supply chains that mostly mined in that country therefore your claim is baseless and intended with the aim of destroying the West
I think it might actually be one of the earlier ones. Aviation is very centralised and mostly owned by larger businesses which are much more open to cost-saving innovation than private users or small businesses. And fuel costs are THE cost driver in aviation, electrification is not only an environmental question but has a significant economic incentive. Another hurdle to electrification is the availability of recharging infrastructure which is much easier to provide at airports and helicopter landing pads, compared to cars/trucks or even ships.
@@trnogger: Of course everyone seems to forget that most of the electricity used to run EVs of any kind is produced by burning fossil fuels in the first place with various extra losses of efficiency along the way so until that’s corrected the entire process is a fool’s paradise - there is no benefit to the environment and there is no economic benefit. Better to just burn the fuels directly in the engine, don’t you think?
i would always worry when they move very quickly on from the propulsion details to emphasise the fact that you will be able to have a trim finish in whatever style you want.
Here we see the "lift" design. Create low pressure on top of the wing, over a wide area. Having multiple engines makes for safety, and controlled variable performance.
Visions don't make flying aircraft. Range, Turn-Around-Time, Safety and Economics must carry the Vision. Here we see fancy shapes and not true physical prove of this thing becoming a safe, reliable tool.
@@mike_delv7228 you prove that there is not much knowledge about aircraft design, physics, aeronautics and propulsion as well as safety issues. Working almost 40 years in combat and civil aircraft design both in Germany and abroad as in all related topics makes me more than competent to see Lilium as a phantasy.
"AI how long did it take to develop the helicopter?" Answer: "The development of the helicopter has a long history. The idea of the rotorcraft, which characterizes the helicopter, was already known in ancient China and was used in the “Flying Top” toy 2,500 years ago. Leonardo da Vinci made the first sketches of flying machines around 1487-1490. But it wasn't until the 20th century that the development of helicopters really took off. It ultimately took over 500 years until the helicopter was “perfected” in its current form and flight dynamics."
evtols are not flying cars , they are meant to be a taxi service and not a private flying car, because if everyone has it the traffic will not decrease
He says compressor but I dont see any compressor on the engine, plus what you supposed to do with compressed air if you are not burning it? These are just fans that accelerates the flow. Honestly that guy does not seem like an experienced engineer.
I’m really not sure about that pilot UI screen. As some who drives a new car with a similar screen that fails and turns off randomly I would prefer to see some analog tech for the pilot but maybe there’s a second set of controls.
What exactly is best on a prototype after 10 years that can barely fly empty? It has never been lifting a single person - its just a large RC prototype The nice looking stuff with seats has never been flying at all - great technology🤣
How can they be a "leading eVTOL company" when they haven't even created a prototype that has been flying with a single pilot/passenger? I thought CNBC had some journalistic standards, like doing research and presenting facts? Instead its just an ad trying to keep the investors on board.🙄 Since 10 years are looking at an "RC plane" that can't fly with a single person on board and are annually pretending to sell a 6 or more seater very soon? Its also not a jet unless you call your blow dryer a jet as well ... its a ducted fan ... just like an inefficiently small propeller inside a tube. I am really waiting for the day they can finally present one of two people on board and make it fly some 30-40km, then I'll start to take them serious.
Energy density of a lithium ion battery being generous: 300 W.h/kg, of kerosene: 11900 W.h/kg. Factor of 39x. I would like to see these guys succeed, but they’re up against some hard limits that make me skeptical.
It's a design and marketing company. Any experienced engineer will confirm how inefficient and wasteful it is under the hood. A decade in the making and still no figures reported about the workload.
@@ovariantrolley2327 It's more about the lack of specific. Again, there has been zero disclosure of the workload carried during the tests or the energy consumed. Ten years went by and hundreds of articles and videos were published but we still don't have access to the most basic information.
Since first flight in 1905 one thing is absolute common in aviation: The natural balance and the ability for gliding. Irrelevant it’s a helicopter, fixed-wing aircraft or a paper glider. The smallest problem in flight control, and this Lilium thing will fall down like a piece of stone. I haven't seen a single video of the Lilium gliding with the engines stopped. As I think that this shape is revolutionary new and unique, or rather strange, but it violates the basic principles of aviation.
Imagine your jet filled with a few thousand tons of fuel catches fire. You wouldn't be the first passenger burnt to a crisp after a crash landing in a conventional plane. If the impact doesn't kill you, that's the next likely way to die in a plane crash. Battery fires are more likely with some batteries than with others. Guess which type they are using here ...
99% of the premium market aren't interested in something which can only fly regionally and still costs €8-9million. They also aren't motivated by green-flight, or the advantages of VTOL. I'm afraid with several hundred competitors, most of them will have to fold.
Not necessarily for everyone for the forseeable future, but definetly something worth investing into. At the time pilots would be replaced by AI, this might even become a highend public transportation vehicle for say otherwise hard to reach places or should mass production become really cheap overall for anyone. Just not with human pilots.
...and everybody else in GA still flying leaded gasoline. xD ...lets hope this tech evolves and adapts fast. And maybe also bring out a 4 seater for about 500k - 1mio €....
It's a fairly simple electric ducted fan. They call them "jets" for exactly the reason you've noticed - to make it sound like they're doing revolutionary things.
We walk through some of the different eVTOL designs in our explainer, which came out earlier this month: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7gLBJpnmAo8.html
Range Anxiety is already one of the biggest issues in aviation. It's why the USA banned trans-oceanic twin engine jets for most of the 1900s, and why several models don't fly transpacific fights. An e-mobility plane not talking about range when Boeing and Airbus lead there marketing materials with range is laughable. Domestic flights are a huge market, so even if this e-jet has crap range they could sell 200 private jets given a big Walmart order or something similar. Walmart has all of their regional managers fly in and out of Arkansas every week, and they go to like 3-4 remote rural cities in the usa a week to check on operations. Other businesses would buy a lot of e-jets too, but you got to give them range if you want to compete against bombardier or lier jets
It's meant as urban helicopter replacement... So think lots of short point to point flights from say Calabasas to LAX or Montauk to Manhattan... I believe it's 300 km range, 300 km/h... So something like that...
I bought the shares of this company for a year. It is always negative. This company does not care about small shareholders. The only way to increase capital is to sell cheap shares to domestic people.
NONE OF THE OLD OEMS HAVE MANAGED TO SUCCEED COMMERICAILLY IN ELECTRIFICATION! ONLY ONE COMPANY HAS AND ITS CEO HAS PROMISED TO MAKE A VERTICAL TAKEOFF AND LANDING SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT IF NOBODY ELSE DOES!
If this revolutionizes air travel, I will make a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. All these startups do is burn money. Have we not seen countless examples of this?
An der Stelle kann Wasserstoff wirklich Sinn machen, auch wenn es dann noch teurer wird, aber bei den ineffizienten Triebwerken mußt Du extrem viel Strom liefern, was mit aktuellen Akkus und dem unglücklichen Leistungsgewicht quasi nicht möglich ist - da ist Wasserstoff tatsächlich eine Option.
You couldn’t ask how they source their lithium and other materials? It doesn’t matter if you’re carbon neutral when flying if you’re destroying the ocean floors and stealing from and ruining indigenous communities with the lithium mining. Just a thought on how you could probe at more important questions than just “are you carbon neutral?”.
No its not 8 years. We only have cars to go by, and Teslas used as Taxis have done 300,000 and 400,000 miles. They don't need replacing after 8 years, that's just the warranty period.
NO... Just no... we don't need private vertical takeoff vehicles... Why? I DON'T WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO AN AIRPORT. And if all my neighbors get one of these, I will live next to an airport...
😂right, 45 minutes of electric power....when the battery is brand new, it's not too cold, and you don't spend too much time hovering. Flying VFR FAA/EASA requires you to retain 30 minutes of flight time AT Destination....for a reason. That's at best a 15 minute mission. A zero minute if you fly IFR. But battery are getting better and cheaper, right ? Well why do regular people turn their back on them ? At least you don't have to a lift an entire Tesla ou VW to make the journey, and the only penalty to drain out the battery is to park on the side of the road, and the only casualty, self-esteem...this is balloony, all about Vr, design, (AI anyone), and btw carbon is NOT light, it's stiff and strong...if you actually use them properly, in heavy loaded aerostructures, otherwise, plywood or wood &fabric, or even aluminium is a much lighter option. This is a graphic design-driven project, not a rationale engineering choice.
There is no such thing as zero emission. You just move the emissions to another place. We need to go completely nuclear, not electric. Nuclear is the greenest and safest source of energy.
LMAO. A ZEV has zero emissions during operation which is huge milestone for any vehicle considering the huge amounts of operating emissions otherwise from fossil fuel vehicles. Electricity can be produced from recyclable renewable technology which is some of the lowest emission power technologies available that are only getting cleaner.
"Safest" Perhaps In terms of their operation track record but their severity remains at the catastrophic level. Even then the storage management (or disposal) of nuclear waste alone poses a significant safety hazard. - The development of nuclear fusion could offset some of these severities compared to traditional nuclear fission. I say "could offset" since it's still in the experimental stage meaning there are uncertainties still left unknown... - Of course, obviously, this is all (hopefully) accounted for, with the current and future nuclear safety methods especially the need in the pace of Innovation of reducing these hazardous cases.
@@GinnyGlider Yes, "catastrophic" is the operative word here. Nuclear power is the only form of energy that can produce catastrophic 20,000+ year variety. It's not just the immediate effects either. There are long-term psychosomatic effects even if one is only near the radiation zone. Villages and towns near or downwind of irradiated zones (Chernobyl, Fukushima-Daiichi) will be especially prone to this. Because, for decades later, every lump in their throat or body will cause them to wonder if it's the start of a cancerous growth because of their proximity. Constant fear is no way to live. Long term effects of nuclear may not be known for decades either. If a person died of cancer 30+ years after, how can we know how much of that was related to long-term exposure? they could have avoided the cancer altogether perhaps. The accounting of causation may be masked by decades of time. People are well aware of this. All communities will have a large section of residents that will fight against a new nuclear plant anywhere near their neighborhoods. Nuclear power will come against NIMBY to the extreme. Add that to the long construction times and huge budget overruns.
If you are still not supposed to eat game or mushrooms from the wood near you because Russia fucked up more than 30 years ago, you might find yourself thinking differently.
Yeah they been spruiking this snake oil for years. It's an accident waiting to happen. 10 million for a range of what ??? 150 miles. They don't even have a full scale test model yet after all these years. Snake Oil. Design is flawed. One major power outage and it's doomed. No control surfaces !!!
The best thing that could ever happen to me is pessimistic people like you, Joey. Without such people the price would be much higher. Luckily it hasn't been for the last 4 months and I was able to get in cheap :) Thank you very much and please continue to be pessimistic
Joey, I notice you have made a heap of comments on this video, all of them negative and all of them have been downvoted to the bottom of the list. We all see videos we don't like and perhaps give one negative comment, but there has to be a reason for so many negative comments from you. So I have to ask why you are so passionately against this company? Did someone who works there do something nasty to you?
@@Dave_Sisson The fact that they are using l-ion is a major issue. 25 per 100k electric cars catch fire. When this happens in the air it will be far more catastrophic. Battery powered human/cargo flight will require far better batteries. They wouldn't have a hard time finding investors if these prototypes had a significant amount of field testing under load in varied conditions. I'm not counting them out completely, nor am I a pessimist. My great grand uncle was taught to fly by Wilbur and Orville Wright and is in the Canadian aviation hall of fame. He believed in reasonable risk as do I. I just think that certain hurdles need to be cleared which are not being addressed, not at least in this video.
Why they do not use Solid Hydrogen as their power source is suspect. Surely they know this is the only way to achieve extended flight times, yet they and others do they not use it? Why? Suppressed by Big Oil?
