World’s 1st vertical takeoff and landing aircraft

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
for personal use.

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Clickbait heading.

Try to enter the full title "World’s 1st vertical takeoff and landing aircraft for personal use" in the subject line to see if it will fit before accusing someone of "Clickbait heading"

I chose this title after reading the last sentence of this paragraph:

"Wonder what’s in store for the future of private jet flying? Here’s a glimpse. A start-up company—hosted in a European Space Agency (ESA) business incubator center (BIC) Bavaria—released an idea for an egg-shaped two-seater plane called Lilium that’s currently in the works. With a top speed of 250 mph and a range of 300 miles, the plane can travel roughly between Munich and Berlin in about 90 minutes. And according to the ESA, if the testing succeeds, this will be the world’s first vertical takeoff and landing aircraft for personal use."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eustaciahuen...n/#63e965d5dd87

Think about it, I should have this title as it fits the subject line "World’s first VTOL aircraft for personal use ?"

By the way, this company is found by some German Engineers, not backyard mechanics.

 

[mk378]

The Moller is proposed to have EIGHT wankel engines. Two independent engines in each pod. That just isn't practical, no one wants a plane with more than two engines due to high maintenance costs.

There could be a big market for small electric VTOL aircraft to make short trips, such as daily commuting or going to the airport to get into your jet. Ground travel in most cities is a real hassle.

 

[Ducked]

JUST pipped at the post...but this wasn't practical...Oh, wait...

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
If I had a dollar for every "flying car", "personal airplane", "technological revolution in air transport" or the like that has graced the cover of "Popular Science" or "Popular Mechanics" over my lifetime, I could practically retire...

The ideas keep popping up, but none of them ever reach even prototype phase...


Not quite true. For example...



Did kill its developers, but apart from that it did work surprisingly well (i.e. at all). Not sure why you'd want one, but if it'd been a bit better built it might have had a niche market in say, California?

I like the bit where the arriving big-jessie-private-pilot is soooo strung out by having to wait for a hire car and load his own luggage that he has to have a wifely neck rub.

The Right Stuff?

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: Ducked

Did kill its developers, but apart from that it did work surprisingly well (i.e. at all).


A poor sales video. Imagine a family of four using a Ford Country Squire station wagon and then trying to fit in a Pinto.
So was this the same company that built the flying car on the James Bond flick "The Man With the Golden Gun"?

 

[Vikas]

That was not Pinto but Pacer; Now granted, both looked uglily (is that a word) similar!

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
That was not Pinto but Pacer; Now granted, both looked uglily (is that a word) similar!


You talking about the flying car in "The Man With the Golden Gun"? Not to get too nit-picky, but it was a Matador, not a Pacer. The Pacer was the fat, wide car. (I remember the Pacer commercial on TV and there still is a local near by who drives one)

 

[DoubleWasp]

Another investment scam that will never happen.

I've followed enough aeronautical startups to know that even selling a traditional airplane has major challenges and pitfalls.

The problem is not even making the product. It's selling it once it's out there and people realize that it is a ridiculous expense that they won't really be able to make use of.

At the end of the day they're going up against Robinson helicopters; a tried and true vertical takeoff and landing aircraft with decades of established use.

What is the purpose of an electric plane anyway? It will lack the only two things that an airplane has over a helicopter: Speed and range.

Reduction in noise? How much when you have what looks like 80 small fans generating high-frequency noise all at the same time?

But like I said: The question that is going to be posed by any potential consumer is, "Why should I buy this over a Robinson?". I'm not seeing an answer yet.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
They want to power it with electricity? It wouldn't even be able to lift its battery pack, much less a payload.


With lithium polymer batteries, it could happen, but Li-Poly is far from being stable or affordable.

I'd be concerned about that whole arrangement because multiple small electric motors would be ridiculously inefficient, as would multiple small fans. That's a serious shot in the arm right there.

 

[cjcride]

"If you want to end up with a small fortune in aviation, start out with a large fortune"
Not my quote, I read it somewhere along the way.

 

[PandaBear]

What problem is it trying to address here?

We have helicopter for people transit that's proven and reliable (military is fronting all the R&D already). We have drones for small scale efficient non human transport need (camera and sensor, crop dusting) that's cheap and easy to use (no pilot needed). Then we always have large airplanes and passenger vehicles that can move people around with high speed and long range.

Militaries across the world will not buy it because it is existing technology and not better than what they already have.

Other than being a cool toy for the super rich, I don't see how this adds value.

 

[andyd]

Google Yves Rossy Dubai wing suit. Wiley Coyote eat your heart out.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
If I had a dollar for every "flying car", "personal airplane", "technological revolution in air transport" or the like that has graced the cover of "Popular Science" or "Popular Mechanics" over my lifetime, I could practically retire...

The ideas keep popping up, but none of them ever reach even prototype phase...and after 50+ years of being promised a revolution in personal transportation, I'm becoming quite the skeptic...


I took this as "inspiration" for an end-of-year English paragraph writing exam question.

The first flight of a flying car was in 1946. Do you think you will have a flying car in the future?

The text book has a "Future Cars" chapter which takes the usual "Popular Mechanics" implausible gee-whiz approach, so I built in a bit of "critical thinking" potential. Critical thinking is heavily emphasised in the schools new [censored] syllabus, which would be suicide to implement with Taiwanese students.

I doubt that I'll be giving many critical thinking bonus points.

 

[ccap41]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
Eh?

Um..helicopters?
Um...Harrier?

Thats without getting historical, which I'm sure would turn up some early 20th century contenders.

IOW your title is plainly bollocks.

+1 Agreeeeeed

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: ccap41
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Eh?

Um..helicopters?
Um...Harrier?

Thats without getting historical, which I'm sure would turn up some early 20th century contenders.

IOW your title is plainly bollocks.

+1 Agreeeeeed


I forgot about the Montgolfier bros, though, so early 20th century was about 100 years too late.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Kruse
Originally Posted By: Vikas
That was not Pinto but Pacer; Now granted, both looked uglily (is that a word) similar!


You talking about the flying car in "The Man With the Golden Gun"? Not to get too nit-picky, but it was a Matador, not a Pacer. The Pacer was the fat, wide car. (I remember the Pacer commercial on TV and there still is a local near by who drives one)


Ugly? Doode, that thing is ORSUM.



Bit pricy, but probably cheaper with less provenance