Talk:Lilium Jet

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Units of measure

Why would anyone write speed/weight etc in non-metric when then aircraft i German? Rkarlsba (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me nobody is holding you back from "correcting"/"improving". That said, it does look a bit funny in its current presentation. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsion

Do the 36 motors really produce 430 hp each? That would make this craft an orbital launcher... Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/lilium-jet/ seems to read 320kW (435hp) as total power not individual. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "each" is an artifact of {{Aircraft specs}}. I don't know enough about them to know if there is a work-around, but it's now the standard specs template, so it should probably be looked into. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked at Template talk:Aircraft specs#Electric engine specs. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all we really need is a source that gives the kw/hp of the individual motor. Technically we could just divide the total power by the number of engines (approx 20hp each), but I feel like that would be crossing into WP:OR. Sario528 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But why can't we have a field for total power when necessary? - BilCat (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Eng_note parameter seems to do the job. You could probably also have used it to generate something like "20hp (n kW) average" if the fancy took you GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battery specification

[moved from User talk:Marc Lacoste were it was less relevant--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Dear, far be it fom me to enter an edit/revert war; but I insist that you've got it wrong. I find it curious to see such an error from you, who have always stood out with the excellent quality of your contributions. Anyway, a battery has no power rating. A battery has a capacity, and will deliver whatever power is drawn from it for as long as its capacity will allow. You can (theoretically) draw 1MW from a 9V block battery! Only the time will be limited to seconds, or even milliseconds, plus there is a maximum current rating to a battery, too. Still, it seems to me that the power claim for this battery is commercial rather than technical. Can you indicate a source for it? Kindly, Jan olieslagers (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan! An electric battery has a power rating. The max current drawn is limited by its internal resistance. You can't pull 1MW from a 9V household battery. It's often sated as a C-rate: eg a 5C rated 1kWh battery can output 5kW. I agree that's confusing and is a bad way to state a metric, nearly confusing kW and kWh.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quick and polite reaction. Still, you more or less agree to my point: the information as given is confusing, to say the least. I do agree to your 5C example, but it does not make the present version of the text more acceptable: the 1MW cannot but be a peak power indication, saying nothing about endurance or sustained speed. Allow me to insist on its removal. (and by the way: you neatly mentioned a source, unfortunately it is behind paywall. Still I do not trust that source, I suspect them of blindly copying some commercial text from the project). Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1 MW is a power rating, but the battery capacity is not mentioned in the source, so no C-rate can be given. Aviation Week is as good as it gets for an aviation media. I find them even more thorough than FlightGlobal. The relevant quote is [ducted fans] driven by 1 megawatt of lithium-ion battery power.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC) The Aviation Week subscription is only $50/year, really low given the material quality. Give yourself a nice present![reply]

Excuse me for repeating myself: that information is irrelevant. Even if it comes from a reputed source. We could as well publish that the prototype is painted white, for example: it is not untrue, but it adds no encyclopedic value. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The power available is one of the most important spec for an aircraft.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(thanks for the move, indeed I had been considering it myself). "The power available" is still limited by the motors; that the battery is able to supply much more power for a short period adds nothing. That there are 36 motors of so-and-so much HP/kW is indeed relevant. Do we say for liquid fuel-powered airplanes that their tanks contain a total of so-and-so much energy, or how big a peak fuel flow they can provide? That would be just as irrelevant. Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The power available is limited by the battery: the sum of motors is superior because there is redundancy between them: some motors can fail but the craft can continue to fly on the others: the total output is limited by the battery, not the motors. There is no limitation on power output from fuel tanks, you can always put a larger pump if you want. Not the same thing for battery packs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing me. The sum of the motors is 320 kW, as I read the article. Which seems indeed reasonable for a craft of this weight. But are you telling me that 320 kW is more than 1 MW? As far as I know and understand, the motors can never draw more than 320 kW from the battery. Redundancy is even less relevant: if one or several motors fail, the maximum power drawn will be even less. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1MW is for the 5-seat craft, not the previous 2-seater. Total installed power is 2,000 hp (1,500 kW).[1]--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously telling me that we are, in one and the same article, describing two different craft, a 2-seater and a 5-seater? In that case I am much worse than confused! How unencyclopedic could one go?? 12:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The 2-seater prototype was a step towards the present 5-seater. It's not a bad thing to keep all in the same article. The real deal will be the production model, if it is ever produced.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is, admittedly, made in the present article, to some degree; but I still find it very confusingly written, to an unacceptable degree. Wouldn't it be better to to have a separate paragraph for the 2-seater, somewhere between the "Design and development" and the (indeed "intended") production version? And to make it very clear to which of the two the "Specifications" apply? Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in a poor state. Be WP:BOLD, improve it!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Ah, thank you, you finally recognise the article is "less than perfect". Leaving it to me to clear a confusion I never created nor suggested is, however, too much kindness on your side! Kindly accept my sincere gratitude!</sarcasm> Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the article was good. I think the best way to improve it is to add material from the best references. Ultimately it will transform to a good one.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:BOLD, improve it! Instead of adding to the confusion, as you have been doing. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were confused.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sincerely. Eternal shall be my gratitude, especially for the solutions you brought. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed changes

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The requested text's references are not formatted according to the citation style predominantly in use with the subject article (WP:CITEVAR). Any additions made to the article should have references formatted according to the style already in use with the article. Please see the reply section below for more information about this issue.

Information to be added or removed:

Extended content

The Lilium Jet is "Planned for 2025" Explanation of issue: It currently says "Planned for 2024". This needs to be updated to reflect the correct date. [2]

Information to be added or removed: The Lilium Jet is a vertical take-off and landing electrically powered aircraft designed and produced by Lilium GmbH. The Lilium Jet five-seater prototype first flew in early May 2019. Explanation of issue: New information has been included. The above can be copy-pasted. [3]

Information to be added or removed: Under 'Development': Over 20 different subscale aircraft were tested first, and different design variants were studied where the wings would fold forward, so that the aircraft could be driven as a VTOL and recharge in only few hours from a standard 240 V electrical outlet. Explanation of issue: More specific information has been included. The above can be copy-pasted. [4]

Information to be added or removed: Under 'Development': The unmanned first flight of the five-seater Phoenix prototype was on May 2019 at Munich. Explanation of issue: This should be included in the article. The above can be copy-pasted. [5]

Information to be added or removed: Under 'Design': For safety, the aircraft’s engines are individually shielded, so the failure of a single unit doesn't affect adjacent engines, and the entire aircraft has its own parachute. Explanation of issue: This should be included in the article. The above can be copy-pasted. [6]

Information to be added or removed: Under 'Design': In July 2019 the Lilium five-seater Jet received a Red Dot Award: Design Concept for “Best of the Best”. The company also won the Luminary award in September 2019, beating more than 4,200 entries to win the Red Dot’s highest level of recognition. Explanation of issue: This should be included in the article. The above can be copy-pasted. [7]

Information to be added or removed: Remove specifications. Explanation of issue: The specifications listed are of the Lilium Jet two-seater (defunct). The current prototype is a five-seater. [8]

Information to be added or removed: Maximum range 300km, maximum speed 300km/hr, five-seater Explanation of issue: Updated information. The above can be copy-pasted. [9]

Information to be added or removed: Under 'Usage': The Lilium GmbH plans to found an air taxi service for urban air mobility and regional air mobility with the Lilium Jet. Explanation of issue: Updated information. The above can be copy-pasted. [10]

--Rebecca Abigail Agency (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 27-NOV-2019

Unable to implement

Your edit request could not be implemented because the provided references are not formatted correctly.^[a] The citation style predominantly used by the Lilium Jet article is Citation Style 1 (CS1). The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's.^[b] Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. (See WP:CITEVAR.) In the extended section below titled Citation style, I have illustrated two examples: one showing how the edit request was submitted, and another showing how requests should be submitted in the future:

Citation style

Bare URL reference formatting:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,^[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.^[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.^[3]

In the example above there are three ref tags provided with the claim statements, but these ref tags have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Lilium Jet article. Using this style, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following:

Citation Style 1 formatting:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Harinath|first1=Paramjit|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Science|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2019|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2019|page=2}}</ref>
Which displays as:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,^[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.^[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.^[3]

References

^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2019, p. 1.

^ Harinath, Paramjit. (2019). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.

^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2019, p. 2.

In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such as yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly resubmit the edit request below at your earliest convenience, taking care to ensure that it makes use of CS1. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards, Spintendo 17:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ The fault for this formatting error may have originated with the automated prompts used by the edit request template, which asks for a COI editor to "supply the URL of any references used". While the resulting omission of information would not be the fault of the requesting COI editor, it nevertheless remains their responsibility to supply the references formatted in the style used by the article.
^ The use of bare URLs as references is a style which is acceptable for use in Wikipedia. However, general practice dictates that the style already in use for an article be the one that is subsequently used for all future additions unless changed by editorial consensus.^[1]

References

^ "WP:CITEVAR - Wikipedia:Citing sources". Wikipedia. 20 October 2018. Retrieved 22 October 2018. Guideline: It is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it.

History out of date

Can you ace editors add some history of the past 3 years? This article is woefully out of date. https://lilium.com/news Sedimentary (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please post new threads below the last one. If you can find any reliable news over the last three years, we'd love to hear it. The company puff about related goings-on which you linked to is not relevant. There have been rumours of financial trouble, but nothing confirmed. Funnily enough, this applies to rather a lot of gee-whizz e-vehicles and flying cars right now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/27/flying-taxi-firm-lilium-receives-eu-approval-for-its-electric-jets.html

https://www.compositesworld.com/news/lilium-begins-lilium-jet-aircraft-production

https://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/lufthansa-group-and-lilium-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-for-strategic-p/

https://www.flyingmag.com/liliums-pioneer-edition-jet-hits-u-s-market-with-launch-of-private-sales/ Sedimentary (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[noteFoot01a] Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2019, p. 1.

[noteFoot02a] Harinath, Paramjit. (2019). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.

[noteFoot03a] Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2019, p. 2.

[1] The fault for this formatting error may have originated with the automated prompts used by the edit request template, which asks for a COI editor to "supply the URL of any references used". While the resulting omission of information would not be the fault of the requesting COI editor, it nevertheless remains their responsibility to supply the references formatted in the style used by the article.

[3] The use of bare URLs as references is a style which is acceptable for use in Wikipedia. However, general practice dictates that the style already in use for an article be the one that is subsequently used for all future additions unless changed by editorial consensus.^[1]

[2] "WP:CITEVAR - Wikipedia:Citing sources". Wikipedia. 20 October 2018. Retrieved 22 October 2018. Guideline: It is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]