Lilium eVTOL 2

[rb1957]

Interesting news that both EASA and FAA have determined their basis of certification. It'd be nice to see this if anyone can access.

I've been trying to see Lilium specs, but seems to be very difficult. It appears that their marketable version is their 7 place plane (6 pax plus a pilot), so payload = 1400 lbs ?; with 250km range (fully loaded ? maybe not, they coyly say "max range" ... so min payload ?) at 3km altitude (no (or little) pressurisation ?), at 280 km/hr. They say they'd recharge the batteries from a "normal" 240V outlet ? I wonder about the installed battery capacity ? how long it'll take to recharge ? Maybe with a level 3 DC charger ??

They've got a prototype flying (they used to have a 1/2 scale demonstrator) ... I wonder what the transition from vertical to horizontal is like ? how difficult ?? It may not be difficult at all ... if the plane's line of flight is along the jet thrust line ... so there'd be a large radius curve to transition from vertical to horizontal ?? wonder if the jets can rotate past 90 deg, so the plane can "nudge" backwards ?

They're predicting a 2025 certification ... probably very optimistic ! Maybe 2030 ?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[btrueblood]

Rb, you're talking about the G1 certification (cert. of the plan to qualify if I read that correctly) awarded? Is it normal to make the cert. plan public (I'll have to ask around, Seattle has a few real aeronautical engineers around for some reason). They have a video posted on their website showing approx. 4-5 min. flight test with a brief period of flight at 180 kph...but it looks like the forward canard remains in transition (partial vertical thrust mode) even at the higher speed, and you can see tufts on the upper thrust cowl surface wobbling around in near fully stalled airflow.

They need the newer/better batteries first...which they are hoping to have by 2025?

 

[rb1957]

am I right in thinking that this defines the cert basis for the type cert ? As a document it doesn't sound that proprietary (particularly as it'll be listed on the type certificate, in the fullness of time).

If they're using the new Part 23 ... that'll be "interesting".

If it is the basis of cert then that means their clock has started.

flying with a stalled wing ... what can go wrong ? but maybe it was only some test or preliminary thing ?? In service they wouldn't want all that drag

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[rb1957]

"The FAA has approved the G-1 certification basis for ... eVTOL aircraft. The company announced today that it has received the G-1 Issue Paper, which clears the way for it to seek type certification under the standards in the agency’s 14 CFR Part 23 regulations." ...

is this "just" saying the FAA has determined the cert basis for our Part 23 type certificate ? (like we do in our cert plan document).

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[SWComposites]

Yes, the FAA G-1 cert basis issue papers are public. Here is the Joby one:

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...s-criteria-for-the-joby-aero-inc-model-jas4-1

Don't know if EASA posts them also.

 

[rb1957]

thx, very interesting.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[WKTaylor]

Interesting/associated related 'reads'...

SAE R-462 Fundamentals of Electric Aircraft

SAE T-135 Electric Flight Technology: The Unfolding of a New Future

ASTM F3457 Standard Guide for Aircraft Certification Education Standards for Engineers and Professionals in Aerospace Industry

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[WKTaylor]

SAE EPR2021011 UNSETTLED TOPICS CONCERNING FLYING CARS FOR URBAN AIR MOBILITY

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[GregLocock]

Stable doors come to mind. If you were to put sensible noise limits in place, say the same as cars, 80 dBA ish at 7.5m at full throttle, then many would need to be redesigned. The safety side of things seems even worse.

Here's some noise testing, 65 dBA is fine, but that's at 100m, that's quite a lot of real estate in a city centre.

https://newatlas.com/aircraft/nasa-joby-evtol-noise/

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?