^ congrats.


Saw this earlier, which is a physical re-creation of a CG animated music video from 2001:


(The run starts at 1:18)

 

Adopted another cat eh?

 

 

 

Serious question: range and useful payload?


On the one hand, I understand that this is comparable to asking the same questions about the original Wright Flyer.

On the other hand, Orville & Wilbur weren't competing against established technologies which can transport 850 people (plus cargo) halfway around the world at mach 0.85, with turnaround times of under an hour. They were competing against a horse.






Edit: God damn, I grew up in a small town. I just realized that you could fit half of the students in my high school into a single A-380 without violating FAA regs.

 

Well, EDF (electric ducted fan) technology has been around in the RC world for quite a while, and it's not very efficient. For example, an RC plane weighing around 10lbs with a fairly efficient wing and two ducted fans will carry 25-30% of it's gross weight in batteries and have a flight time of 6-8 minutes. And VTOL takes a LOT more energy than a conventional takeoff. Unless they've made some giant breakthrough in battery technology, it'll never be more than a curiosity.

Interesting that no pilot was visible... first flight remotely piloted for safety? Or weight?

 

They didn't say anything about payload, but range was 300km. (@1:37)

 

I think the purpose of the lilium is to eventually deliver something that is very easy and cost effective to fly.
It's supposed to be a short range commuter meant for just a few passengers.
Essentially, it's the flying car we've been promised by science fiction for the last 70 years or so.

 

If things go according to plan over the next year or two, I may find myself shopping for an airplane.

Obviously my budget will be the equivalent of "1.6 NA Miata, but rust-free" if that happens.

My instinct is to go back to N6066R, the 60s vintage Cessna 172 Skyhawk that I learned on, which was destroyed in hurricane Charley. But I counter that against the fact that while my intuitive instinct in motorcycle-shopping is to fall back to the Honda CB250 Nighthawk (which was my first "real" motorcycle, and still my favorite bike of all time), there are better, more efficient motorcycles out there. Like the SV650. (**** you, Suzuki, for killing the best (from a technical standpoint) bike I ever owned.)


It only occurs to me now that both contain the word "hawk" in their name. Ever actually met a hawk? It's a total dipshit of a bird which bears little resemblance to either aforementioned mechanical conveyance.

 

The real problem with "flying cars" isn't a technology hurdle, but rather bureaucratic & infrastructural ones. Type cert can be obviously be a major financial hurdle, but it really comes down to air traffic management. Air traffic mgmt. has been a bottleneck in aviation since forever. The whole "NextGen" air traffic mgmt. plan to distribute traffic management to the pilots so that traffic mgmt. scales with actual traffic would have to actually be in place & working before masses of idiots could start flying to work every day.

It's kind of like the power grid problem with electric cars: yeah, a small percentage of the population can drive them, but there isn't an infrastructure to support EVERYONE driving one.

 

Leave it to MT.net to get practical about flying cars.


NSFW: language

 

The first gasoline powered automobiles were able to do 200mph and get 75 mpg. But the gov't stifled it in the interest of BIG OIL.

 

You can't just extrapolate from a model at a smaller scale, because of square/cube effects and minimum component sizes. The demo they have supposedly goes a 150 miles and flies for an hour or so.

And yeah, looks like it was remotely piloted. Safety is all the explanation you need, there's no reason to infer weight problems.

To me, it looks like it has the potential to be an incrementally cheaper version of an executive helicopter. It's got the potential to do many of the things a helicopter would do but for somewhat less money and requiring somewhat less maintenance. It's not going to be the "flying car" that everyone wants. Bureaucracy is trying its hardest to make sure that never happens.

--Ian

 

If power fails, a helicopter will generally be able to land without killing all the occupants.



With the stubby wings on that thing, I assume that loss of electrical power will result in uncontrolled descent into terrain, with extreme prejudice.

 

Also:

 

Congrats! My wife and I's first child is due in late October.

 

Change it to 'sometimes' and I'll agree. Auto-rotation isn't quite as routine as that.

OTOH, with multiple independent electric ducted fans there are a lot fewer single points of failure on that aircraft than on any helicopter.

--Ian

 

Dad had a 1948 Stinson 108-3 up until I was in college.



Tail number N4219C

The automotive equivalent would be a 1950 Oldsmobile.



After he sold it he built a Kolb Firefly in the garage.



It was the automotive equivalent of a KX-80




They are a tube and fabric aircraft that cruises about 65mph on a 40hp Rotax 2 cyl two stroke. They can be kept as a legal ultralight and the government doesn't need registration or anything more than if you bought a new riding lawn mower.

Here's a nicely done little video. Some video is taken wit the camera beneath the belly but the shots from the pilot's perspective show you just how open it is.



And one of the more practical features was the folding wings. The white canister on top of the wings is a Ballistic Recovery Systems parachute.

 

 

Those little birds look like a lot of fun.