Lilium Runs Out of Money

It's hard to keep all these "air taxi" companies straight. I'm sure all will go under before it's over.
Edited to align with my prediction.

Which is not to say there won't be successful air taxis in the future, it's just that I can't imagine any of the first-wave companies having enough funding to get past the current technical hurdles needed to make it to production and commercial success.
 
it's just that I can't imagine any of the first-wave companies having enough funding to get past the current technical hurdles needed to make it to production and commercial success.
It depends on the company. Lilium never recieved or attracted the top-tiered partnerships or large focused investment base like Joby or Archer did. Some say it was their design which was the downfall of a few other programs.

As to the hurdles, those appear to have crossed since Joby and Archer are in the middle of the FAA/EASA certification process with Joby in Phase 4 of 5. And the FAA recently released the final rule for Powered-Lift pilot certification and integration of eVTOLs into the NAS.
 
I really don't foresee eVTOLs being a big success. If there was such a marketplace for this level of transportation, there would be a whole market of R-44 operators already doing it. There is nothing magical about eVTOLs that is going to make flying cheap enough for the masses.
 
I really don't foresee eVTOLs being a big success. If there was such a marketplace for this level of transportation, there would be a whole market of R-44 operators already doing it. There is nothing magical about eVTOLs that is going to make flying cheap enough for the masses.
Preach
 
If there was such a marketplace for this level of transportation, there would be a whole market of R-44 operators already doing it.
Not really. Helicopter based UAM is hardly new and was quite popular in a few large cities in the US during the late 60s to mid-70s. But helicopters were/are very limited in what they could provide so that’s the main reason you don’t see “R-44s” all over the place. Even in the largest helicopter UAM system in the world in Sao Paolo it too is very limited and it supports 400+ helicopters and 250+ heliports.

But you’re right its nothing magical. eVTOLs simply can go where, and do things, helicopters cannot in a fully functioning UAM transport system. Hence the reason and money behind eVTOLs. But all things considered if there was an alternate means to handle the projected global urban transport needs over the past 20 years and future 30 years, why hasn’t something else been put forward except an airborne system via UAM/AAM?
 
Not really. Helicopter based UAM is hardly new and was quite popular in a few large cities in the US during the late 60s to mid-70s. But helicopters were/are very limited in what they could provide so that’s the main reason you don’t see “R-44s” all over the place. Even in the largest helicopter UAM system in the world in Sao Paolo it too is very limited and it supports 400+ helicopters and 250+ heliports.

But you’re right its nothing magical. eVTOLs simply can go where, and do things, helicopters cannot in a fully functioning UAM transport system. Hence the reason and money behind eVTOLs. But all things considered if there was an alternate means to handle the projected global urban transport needs over the past 20 years and future 30 years, why hasn’t something else been put forward except an airborne system via UAM/AAM?
I respectfully disagree.

Have you actually been near one of these things when it's running?
 
A few, but more "not running" than running.

I'm really surprised you think they are a good idea.
They may be a decent idea to move a (relative) few people, but they are not a mass transit solution and the battery technology isn’t there yet. I just don’t think the concept is widely practical without better batteries.
 
I'm really surprised you think they are a good idea.
So am I. All my UAM experience was strictly helicopter based. However, several years ago got involved in some hybrid-propulsion work which was linked to an e-prototype. Then I saw the Joby in action. Combine that with my previous UAM knowledge/experience, and yes, not only do I think it is a good idea, but I think it will work where helicopters failed on a number of levels. This isn’t going away anytime soon.

the battery technology isn’t there yet
FYI: the existing battery tech is more than enough to meet the current UAM requirements and the reason they started the certification process. For future requirements or other variants like RAM, not so much, which is driving development of smaller turbo-generators to offset the lack of current battery capacity.
 
Not VTOL, But I've seen the electric Pipistrel, I think it will work sooner rather than later. Batteries need to get an order of magnitude cheaper and lighter but that's gonna happen.

Not surprised they ran out of money though. Breakthru technologies are expensive.
 
nothing more than VC money gambling in a llllloooonnnngggg shot. Grow a hint of an idea into something you can sucker some OTHER VC to buy at a huge markup.

I'd like to know how they can convince anyone to invest in EV planes when it's obvious that battery tech is simply not ready.
 
I'd like to know how they can convince anyone to invest in EV planes when it's obvious that battery tech is simply not ready.
UAM is one of the applications where current batteries can work. They don't have to go long distances, so capacity isn't as big of a deal as it would be if they were trying to replace applications where we use airplanes today. They're definitely going to spend a fair amount of time charging, and I think they're gonna be a pretty expensive ride.
 
Not really. Helicopter based UAM is hardly new and was quite popular in a few large cities in the US during the late 60s to mid-70s. But helicopters were/are very limited in what they could provide so that’s the main reason you don’t see “R-44s” all over the place. Even in the largest helicopter UAM system in the world in Sao Paolo it too is very limited and it supports 400+ helicopters and 250+ heliports.

But you’re right its nothing magical. eVTOLs simply can go where, and do things, helicopters cannot in a fully functioning UAM transport system. Hence the reason and money behind eVTOLs. But all things considered if there was an alternate means to handle the projected global urban transport needs over the past 20 years and future 30 years, why hasn’t something else been put forward except an airborne system via UAM/AAM?

So what mission are these eVTOLs able to do that current helicopters can't do, and at what price point? The investors are convinced they can build and operate these aircraft (and they are still aircraft) for UBER-esque pricing and serve the general public. But realistically, what is the acquisition cost of one of these aircraft, when a Cessna 172 is $500,000? And what can they do that a current help can't? They take off and land vertically, carry 1-4 passengers less than 100 miles. All they are is new technology in an existing market.
 
So what mission are these eVTOLs able to do that current helicopters can't do, and at what price point? The investors are convinced they can build and operate these aircraft (and they are still aircraft) for UBER-esque pricing and serve the general public. But realistically, what is the acquisition cost of one of these aircraft, when a Cessna 172 is $500,000? And what can they do that a current help can't? They take off and land vertically, carry 1-4 passengers less than 100 miles. All they are is new technology in an existing market.
A complete assumption: their operating costs will be much smaller than helis, similar to EVs compared to ICEs.
We have had 2 EVs for 4 years and have had zero maintenance on them. They cost 2.5-3 cents per mile to run. All this adds up to an opex that is several times lower than comparable ICEs.
 
A complete assumption: their operating costs will be much smaller than helis, similar to EVs compared to ICEs.
We have had 2 EVs for 4 years and have had zero maintenance on them. They cost 2.5-3 cents per mile to run. All this adds up to an opex that is several times lower than comparable ICEs.
I do think that is true. Helicopters have outrageous maintenance requirements, life limited parts, and engines that need overhaul.

The EVTOL's will have a big battery that wears out, but can't be more expensive than an IO-540.

I think the capex of the helicopter is probably going to be lower though. Batteries are expensive, carbon fiber composites are expensive, electric motors and copper wire are expensive. So these things spend what percentage of their time sitting and recharging? Maybe swappable batteries might make sense, but as big as they'll have to be that's still going to take a while. That's an expensive asset to have not making any return.

I just can't see these things being able to lower the cost of air travel by the order of magnitude necessary to do what they're claiming they're going to. They might make hopping over LA/DFW/NYC a thing for the 2% instead of just the 1%. And that's fine....just don't **** on my leg and tell me it's raining.
 
A complete assumption: their operating costs will be much smaller than helis, similar to EVs compared to ICEs.
We have had 2 EVs for 4 years and have had zero maintenance on them. They cost 2.5-3 cents per mile to run. All this adds up to an opex that is several times lower than comparable ICEs.
Are you comparing similar capabilities? Range being the biggest. Any $25k econo-box can do 450 miles easy. At $70k a Silverado EV is about the only reasonably priced one I can find with a +400 mile range... An ICE low end $37k Silverado can do 432. For the $30-40k price difference you are not saving any money over a 10 year period.

Two weeks ago I had to drive about 550 miles to a rural part of NC. Not a charger in sight. Was able to fill up my truck in 10 minutes, for $35-ish at any number of gas stations. Tell me more about this 'economic' value... I don't see it
 
Are you comparing similar capabilities? Range being the biggest. Any $25k econo-box can do 450 miles easy. At $70k a Silverado EV is about the only reasonably priced one I can find with a +400 mile range... An ICE low end $37k Silverado can do 432. For the $30-40k price difference you are not saving any money over a 10 year period.

Two weeks ago I had to drive about 550 miles to a rural part of NC. Not a charger in sight. Was able to fill up my truck in 10 minutes, for $35-ish at any number of gas stations. Tell me more about this 'economic' value... I don't see it
I did not compare the range, because it does not apply here. eVTOLs will not have the same range as helis, and their initial business plan does not require it. The real use case is Manhattan-JFK and other short, but busy commutes.

In terms of EVs, they are not for everyone, due to their range and relative lack of charging infrastructure. However, they satisfy the vast majority of societal needs, especially Teslas (but soon all others).
 
So what mission are these eVTOLs able to do that current helicopters can't do,
The main issues why conventional helicopters did not monopolize UAM were they produced too much noise and couldn’t provide street-level access within the goals of the UAM concept. And this was further verified in several real-world studies over the last 25 years or so.

Once the technology became available, Joby, Archer, and other eVTOLs were designed to correct the short-comings of the helicopter side to include reducing their complex noise signature and allowing street-level access. Which they have significantly accomplished and then some. Basically, without the quieter footprint and the development of Distributed Electric Propulsion (DEP), eVTOLs would not be feasible in a UAM environment or garnered the same global interest.

But realistically, what is the acquisition cost of one of these aircraft, when a Cessna 172 is $500,000?
No clue. But need to keep it in context. The UAM concept is to publicly move people in a high density, urban environment and not a non-urban private means of transport. So from what I understand the costs are handled differently. Plus you’ll find, in general, eVTOLs have little in common with conventional aircraft. Which is the reason the FAA abandoned their Part 23 certification route for a separate CFR to certify powered-lift aircraft and is similar to EASA process.

On another cost level, most current eVTOL designs are nowhere near the complexity of even a 172. For example, a 172 engine has 100s of individual parts vs a Joby engine with only 10-12 parts. Add in eVTOLs will be produced in similar fashion to modern vehicle production lines vs the hand-made methods for a 172. And so on. So actual acquisition costs are still only projections as are how many units will be produced.

All they are is new technology in an existing market.
Not really. As implied above, the intent of an eVTOL is not to replace a helicopter, merely to operate in UAM areas and routes a helicopter is not permitted/capable of for various reasons. Technically, its really a new aviation market as the only real competition are buses, taxis, and uber.
 
Are you comparing similar capabilities? Range being the biggest. Any $25k econo-box can do 450 miles easy. At $70k a Silverado EV is about the only reasonably priced one I can find with a +400 mile range... An ICE low end $37k Silverado can do 432. For the $30-40k price difference you are not saving any money over a 10 year period.

Two weeks ago I had to drive about 550 miles to a rural part of NC. Not a charger in sight. Was able to fill up my truck in 10 minutes, for $35-ish at any number of gas stations. Tell me more about this 'economic' value... I don't see it
Interesting. It costs me about $35-40 to fill up my Hyundai Elantra, which is fuel efficient and has about a 12gal tank.
Either you have the a truck with a tiny gas tank, or I need to move to North Carolina for cheap gas!
 
We build eVTOL by pouring billions into their development when same billion might build out some infrastructure like rail, subways etc that everyone can benefit from. It’s private vs public money yes, but interesting way humans assess value in real life.
 
We build eVTOL by pouring billions into their development when same billion might build out some infrastructure like rail, subways etc that everyone can benefit from. It’s private vs public money yes, but interesting way humans assess value in real life.
I don’t disagree. There are cases like Brightline where $$$ is being invested in rail Problem is, in most cases, money is only part of the problem; acquiring land, passing the environmental assessment and dealing unhappy neighbors are unquantifiable problems.

With eVTOl, if someone can make a functional aircraft with range, payload, and safety, the infrastructure necessary is almost trivial in comparison.
 
We build eVTOL by pouring billions into their development when same billion might build out some infrastructure like rail, subways etc that everyone can benefit from. It’s private vs public money yes, but interesting way humans assess value in real life.
Yes, this would be much better for the society, but my understanding is that building new rail lines is nearly impossible due to having to go through land whose owners do not want it.
 
We build eVTOL by pouring billions into their development when same billion might build out some infrastructure like rail, subways etc that everyone can benefit from. I
Depends. That was actually one of the 1st questions I had many years ago. And the answer I got was eye-opening. However, in general, its very subjective to the urban location what makes monetary sense or not.

For example, take New York City which had one of the 1st UAM city wide plans in the US and actually was the center for helicopter based UAM up till the late 70s.

To use your “eVTOL development billion vs subway build billion” comparison if you look up the NYC 2nd Ave. Subway project, you’ll find its about 3 miles of new subway for a total projected cost of $10.5 billion. Last I read, the entire eVTOL industry development investment funding totaled between $9-10 billion. So its still not really a “one for one” as I learned and hard to compare in the big picture.

However, in some locations they will be combining new rail and eVTOL capabilities as a way to reduce or remove vehicle congestion in urban centers. Fortunately or unfortunately, most future urban transport plans also restrict or even ban personal vehicles in those same city centers.
 
The main issues why conventional helicopters did not monopolize UAM were they produced too much noise and couldn’t provide street-level access

Giant swinging rotor blades of death. Helo crashes can go very wrong. Electric power allows multiple smaller rotors housed in protective fairings.
 
Are you comparing similar capabilities? Range being the biggest. Any $25k econo-box can do 450 miles easy. At $70k a Silverado EV is about the only reasonably priced one I can find with a +400 mile range...
EVs are purposely not being built with 400+ mile range, with a few exceptions, because there are very few people who want to drive that long without stopping, and the weight of the batteries means that your performance, range, and efficiency are all negatively affected by the increased battery pack size. It simply doesn't make sense to build an EV with 600-mile range. In fact, the only one that's been announced is the next-gen Tesla Roadster, and I expect they will change that spec before delivery because they're trying to maximize acceleration. They'll probably do what they have to do to smash records at Laguna Seca, the Nurburgring, etc and no more.
Two weeks ago I had to drive about 550 miles to a rural part of NC. Not a charger in sight.
Probably because you weren't looking for a charger. :rolleyes: Not that there would be one where you were going, but there'd be one along the way somewhere, and thus along the way back... Plus you can plug into whatever random electrical outlet you can find while you're there.

As for the UAM stuff... I think @Jim K pretty much nailed it.
 
I did not compare the range, because it does not apply here. eVTOLs will not have the same range as helis, and their initial business plan does not require it. The real use case is Manhattan-JFK and other short, but busy commutes.
Unless they have figured out rapid charging, more capable batteries, and/or battery swapping, won't the eVTOL's be limited to a handful of trips in the morning and another surge in the evening ('cause they need a 4 hour charge between their hour long duty cycle)? They absolutely have to figure something out there, because it'll be ridiculously expensive if an expensive asset can only operate 2-3-4 hours a day.
 
Back
Top