Lilium Aviation flies prototype of its 160-knot all-electric VTOL

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-228903-1.html
160-Knot VTOL Flying Car Flown Says Company

By Russ Niles | April 23, 2017

Lilium Aviation http://lilium.com, of Munich, says it has flown a
prototype of its all-electric VTOL tilt-engine aircraft that the company
says will fly 160 knots in horizontal thrust configuration with a range of
180 miles. A video provided by the company of the first flight shows the
aircraft, with what looks like a spacious automotive-style cabin,
autonomously taking off vertically, turning tightly and transitioning to
aerodynamic flight before landing vertically. There has been no independent
confirmation that the video is an accurate rendition of the flight but if
it’s all real then it appears some breakthroughs have been made by the
company, which is reportedly backed by Skype co-founder Niklas Zennstrom.
“We have solved some of the toughest engineering challenges in aviation to
get to this point,” the company said in a statement.

They call it a “jet” but it’s powered by 36 electric-powered ducted fans, 24
on rotating “flaps” on the wings and six on each of the tubular canards
ahead of the cabin. According to some reports, the motors have a total of
430 horsepower and the main technological breakthrough is in the batteries.
The company will have a chance to celebrate, and explain, its milestone at
the Uber Elevate Summit in Dallas this week. CEO Daniel Wiegand will be a
panelist at the eVTOL Developer Concept and Technologies discussion at the
meeting.

Videos: https://youtu.be/ohig71bwRUE
https://youtu.be/5r3kpl5Ao5s
https://youtu.be/erjdYiwoYAo

See also:
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-228897-1.html
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-228898-1.html
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-228895-1.html
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-228893-1.html

Lilium has a brilliant design.


On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 10:51:04 AM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:
snip
They call it a “jet� but it’s powered by 36 electric-powered ducted fans...

Terminology is needing to be re-looked at. 'Ducted Fan' is a standard term.. And the word 'jet' has a very specific meaning to most people. Lilium is clearly working to broaden the more typical understanding of what 'jet' means so that this word encompasses ducted fans. It is obvious that the company is driven by innovation. And perhaps innovation with terminology would be a good approach here. Instead of bending words, we could invent a new one. If Lilium feels that 'ducted fan' is not a strong enough term to convey the character of their engines, we could call them something else. One idea would be:

- Jet Fan.

The 'jet' part conveys power that is stronger than a regular propeller, and
the 'fan' part conveys that the essential design is that of a ducted fan.

So 'jet fan' could be a new term that would be used for ducted fans that are in a thrust category that sets them apart from more typical ducted fans.


And there is an even more important term that needs to be re-looked at:

VTOL.

Helicopters are VTOL aircraft. Quadcopters are VTOLs. But there is a special subcategory of VTOLs that have a much greater efficiency in speed and range. This is VTOL aircraft that can cruise horizontally with wing lift used to efficiently overcome gravity rather than rotor lift or jet lift. This category includes aircraft such as the AV-8 Harrier, the V-22 Osprey and the F-35. Because this group of aircraft has such strong advantages over VTOL aircraft that are not capable of horizontal cruise (using wing lift), it would be very helpful to have a special term for this group. One idea here would be:

- VTOL/HC, or VerToLHoC (pronounced 'VertolHawk')

Vertical
TakeOff &
Landing /
Horizontal
Cruise

So using these two terms, the Lilium aircraft can be concisely described as a:

- Jet Fan Vertolhoc.


I see that to be far more descriptive than to call it a "VTOL jet".
I don't know how well this post would translate into German, but I hope that the company considers the merits of those who make suggestions like these..

Lilium is an amazingly impressive company, considering how much they have accomplished in such a short timespan and with just a small group of engineers. This company's efforts fit very well with the legacy that Otto Lilienthal started in Germany. Having pioneered heavier than air flight, Germany is a fitting place for flying cars to come into their own.

This is a vision that was popularized by The Jetsons. And Lilium has taken some very impressive steps toward making this our reality.

My understanding is that the company name is a tribute to Otto Lilienthal, along with Litium Ion battery technology. Taken together, there is a hybrid meaning in the name which is the reason for the flower logo.

Calling their aircraft a 'Jet Fan Vertolhoc' is a mouthful. So another tribute can be used to help communicate more clearly and concisely. A 'JFV' aircraft can be referred to as:

- a Jetson.

That rolls off the tongue quite smoothly. So this particular aircraft is a Lilium Jetson. More broadly:

'Jetson' can be the term used for any successful flying car design that capitalizes on VTOL/HC efficiency, regardless of whether ducted fans, propellers, jets or whatever is used for propulsion.

~ COPE

On 7/5/2017 2:21 AM, wrote:
And there is an even more important term that needs to be re-looked at:

VTOL.

Helicopters are VTOL aircraft. Quadcopters are VTOLs. But there is a special

subcategory of VTOLs that have a much greater efficiency in speed and range.

This is VTOL aircraft that can cruise horizontally with wing lift used to

efficiently overcome gravity rather than rotor lift or jet lift. This

category includes aircraft such as the AV-8 Harrier, the V-22 Osprey and

the F-35. Because this group of aircraft has such strong advantages over

VTOL aircraft that are not capable of horizontal cruise (using wing lift),

it would be very helpful to have a special term for this group. One
idea here would be:


Just FYI, a few years ago the FAA wrote a bunch of regulations for a new
category of aircraft called "Powered Lift" A close reading of the below
definition shows that it applies to the aircraft you mention above.

FAA definition of "Powered Lift": Powered-lift means a heavier-than-air
aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed
flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine
thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating
airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 5:29:32 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 7/5/2017 2:21 AM, wrote:
And there is an even more important term that needs to be re-looked at:

VTOL.

Helicopters are VTOL aircraft. Quadcopters are VTOLs. But there is a special
subcategory of VTOLs that have a much greater efficiency in speed and range.
This is VTOL aircraft that can cruise horizontally with wing lift used to
efficiently overcome gravity rather than rotor lift or jet lift. This
category includes aircraft such as the AV-8 Harrier, the V-22 Osprey and
the F-35. Because this group of aircraft has such strong advantages over
VTOL aircraft that are not capable of horizontal cruise (using wing lift),
it would be very helpful to have a special term for this group. One
idea here would be:


Just FYI, a few years ago the FAA wrote a bunch of regulations for a new
category of aircraft called "Powered Lift" A close reading of the below
definition shows that it applies to the aircraft you mention above.

FAA definition of "Powered Lift": Powered-lift means a heavier-than-air
aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed
flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine
thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating
airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.

Thanks for clueing me in about that. I see that my thoughts are in line with what the FAA has been doing.

I wonder how they came up with that term "Powered Lift" and what other terms they had considered instead of this. For me, those two words are not sufficient for conveying the efficiency that comes with the "nonrotating airfoils for lift during horizontal flight" part of the definition.

So maybe someone at the FAA would like to consider the much more comprehensive term being presented he

Vertical
TakeOff &
Landing /
Horizontal
Cruise

When compressed down into its acronym form, it has the same number of syllables as what they've been using. And this term even uses a few less letters/spaces, while conveying a much more complete meaning. To simply say "Powered Lift"...
It seems like every time you write that you'd need to mark it with an asterisk:

Powered Lift*

* - not to include rotating airfoils for lift during horizontal flight.

To be fair, one could say the same about Vertolhoc, considering how all rotorcraft perform "horizontal flight":

Vertolhoc*

* - horizontal cruise accomplished with non-rotating airfoils.

And my argument would be that it is far easier to imply the latter than the former. Kind of like how the most general term "aircraft" implies non-rotating airfoils (let alone heavier than air). So it is common to see it specified:

rotary wing aircraft

....even though helos were aircraft to begin with.


HMMM. Now that I think about it, this entire issue could be fixed with this little tweak:

Vertical
TakeOff &
Landing /
Horizontal
Plane

The new acronym being Vertolhop. No asterisk necessary! And the connotations are even better, because these are aircraft that let you hop from one place to the other flying as an airplane, 'plane-ing' the air with your fixed airfoils.

VERTOLHOP.

I hope the FAA is listening.

~ COPE

(Reposting with change to Subject Line.)

-------------
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 5:29:32 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 7/5/2017 2:21 AM, wrote:
And there is an even more important term that needs to be re-looked at:

VTOL.

Helicopters are VTOL aircraft. Â*Quadcopters are VTOLs. Â*But there is a special
subcategory of VTOLs that have a much greater efficiency in speed and range.
This is VTOL aircraft that can cruise horizontally with wing lift used to
efficiently overcome gravity rather than rotor lift or jet lift. Â*This
category includes aircraft such as the AV-8 Harrier, the V-22 Osprey and
the F-35. Â*Because this group of aircraft has such strong advantages over
VTOL aircraft that are not capable of horizontal cruise (using wing lift),
it would be very helpful to have a special term for this group. Â*One
idea here would be:


Just FYI, a few years ago the FAA wrote a bunch of regulations for a new
category of aircraft called "Powered Lift" A close reading of the below
definition shows that it applies to the aircraft you mention above.

FAA definition of "Powered Lift": Powered-lift means a heavier-than-air
aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed
flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine
thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating
airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.

Thanks for clueing me in about that. Â*I see that my thoughts are in line with what the FAA has been doing.

I wonder how they came up with that term "Powered Lift" and what other terms they had considered instead of this. Â*For me, those two words are not sufficient for conveying the efficiency that comes with the "nonrotating airfoils for lift during horizontal flight" part of the definition.

So maybe someone at the FAA would like to consider the much more comprehensive term being presented he

Vertical
TakeOff &
Landing /
Horizontal
Cruise

When compressed down into its acronym form, it has the same number of syllables as what they've been using. Â*And this term even uses a few less letters/spaces, while conveying a much more complete meaning. Â*To simply say "Powered Lift"...
It seems like every time you write that you'd need to mark it with an asterisk:

Powered Lift*

* - not to include rotating airfoils for lift during horizontal flight.

To be fair, one could say the same about Vertolhoc, considering how all rotorcraft perform "horizontal flight":

Vertolhoc*

* - horizontal cruise accomplished with non-rotating airfoils.

And my argument would be that it is far easier to imply the latter than the former. Â*Kind of like how the most general term "aircraft" implies non-rotating airfoils (let alone heavier than air). Â*So it is common to see it specified:

rotary wing aircraft

....even though helos were aircraft to begin with.


HMMM. Now that I think about it, this entire issue could be fixed with this little tweak:

Vertical
TakeOff &
Landing /
Horizontal
Plane

The new acronym being Vertolhop. Â*No asterisk necessary! Â*And the connotations are even better, because these are aircraft that let you hop from one place to the other flying as an airplane, 'plane-ing' the air with your fixed airfoils.

VERTOLHOP.

I hope the FAA is listening.

~ COPE
-------------

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:41:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
(Reposting with change to Subject Line.)

-------------
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 5:29:32 PM UTC-5, Vaughn Simon wrote:
On 7/5/2017 2:21 AM, wrote:
And there is an even more important term that needs to be re-looked at:

VTOL.

Helicopters are VTOL aircraft. Â*Quadcopters are VTOLs. Â*But there is a special
subcategory of VTOLs that have a much greater efficiency in speed and range.
This is VTOL aircraft that can cruise horizontally with wing lift used to
efficiently overcome gravity rather than rotor lift or jet lift. Â*This
category includes aircraft such as the AV-8 Harrier, the V-22 Osprey and
the F-35. Â*Because this group of aircraft has such strong advantages over
VTOL aircraft that are not capable of horizontal cruise (using wing lift),
it would be very helpful to have a special term for this group. Â*One
idea here would be:


Just FYI, a few years ago the FAA wrote a bunch of regulations for a new
category of aircraft called "Powered Lift" A close reading of the below
definition shows that it applies to the aircraft you mention above.

FAA definition of "Powered Lift": Powered-lift means a heavier-than-air
aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed
flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine
thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating
airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.

Thanks for clueing me in about that. Â*I see that my thoughts are in line with what the FAA has been doing.

I wonder how they came up with that term "Powered Lift" and what other terms they had considered instead of this. Â*For me, those two words are not sufficient for conveying the efficiency that comes with the "nonrotating airfoils for lift during horizontal flight" part of the definition.

So maybe someone at the FAA would like to consider the much more comprehensive term being presented he

Vertical
TakeOff &
Landing /
Horizontal
Cruise

When compressed down into its acronym form, it has the same number of syllables as what they've been using. Â*And this term even uses a few less letters/spaces, while conveying a much more complete meaning. Â*To simply say "Powered Lift"...
It seems like every time you write that you'd need to mark it with an asterisk:

Powered Lift*

* - not to include rotating airfoils for lift during horizontal flight.

To be fair, one could say the same about Vertolhoc, considering how all rotorcraft perform "horizontal flight":

Vertolhoc*

* - horizontal cruise accomplished with non-rotating airfoils.

And my argument would be that it is far easier to imply the latter than the former. Â*Kind of like how the most general term "aircraft" implies non-rotating airfoils (let alone heavier than air). Â*So it is common to see it specified:

rotary wing aircraft

...even though helos were aircraft to begin with.


HMMM. Now that I think about it, this entire issue could be fixed with this little tweak:

Vertical
TakeOff &
Landing /
Horizontal
Plane

The new acronym being Vertolhop. Â*No asterisk necessary! Â*And the connotations are even better, because these are aircraft that let you hop from one place to the other flying as an airplane, 'plane-ing' the air with your fixed airfoils.

VERTOLHOP.

I hope the FAA is listening.

~ COPE
-------------


To be fair, one could say the same about Vertolhoc, considering how all rotorcraft perform "horizontal flight":

Here I had intended to write "horizontal cruise", per the acronym as first proposed.

And also in the new subject line I used, it probably would have been good if I had given some indication of the subject line that this thread had originated with:
"Lilium Aviation flies prototype of its 160-knot all-electric VTOL".


As for acronyms that are widely in use, I have long wondered why people say VEEtol and not VERtol. To me, the acronym would flow much better if spelled out as the word Vertol. And then it dawned on me that it could very well be that the reason this did not catch on is because of some trademark issue by a company like Boeing Vertol.

So this new acronym that's been proposed today could turn out to be a reclaiming of the "vertol" part, because I have never seen the word Vertolhop used ever before. And if this word has been invented here, then I don't see how Boeing or some other established company would have grounds to claim this word for their own.

I just now googled it, and a grand total of three pages were found. All three were from the website "Vertoshop.ru". Poking into those pages, it appears that the character string "www.vertolhop.ru" was machine generated, because this was in a pulldown list of "possible errors in typing" for those trying to get to the url vertoshop.ru.

So Google is giving strong evidence that the word Vertolhop has not been used before.

~ COPE

On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 23:21:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

This company's efforts fit very well with the legacy that Otto Lilienthal started in Germany. Having pioneered heavier than air flight, Germany is a fitting place for flying cars to come into their own.

While I have great respect for the late German aviation pioneer Otto
Lilienthal https://youtu.be/t-XC0dxerYs
http://british-hang-gliding-history.com/1971/articles/larry-dighera-cert-1971.html
who gave his life for human flight saying, "Sacrifices must be made," I'm
not sure it is proper to assert that "Germany is a fitting place for flying
cars to come into their own."

It would seem the recent Chinese acquisition of Boston-based flying car
developer Terrafugia may lend credence to the notion that that sentiment may
belong to the USA:
http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2017/0...tomaker-geely/
https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/05/...g-car-startup/
==================================================

Gregory T. Huang
July 5th, 2017
Xconomy Boston —
Terrafugia, a Boston-area company that has been working on flying cars since
2006, is being acquired by Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, an automotive
manufacturer based in Hangzhou, China. Terms of the deal have not been
disclosed.

The news was first reported by the South China Morning Post, but Xconomy has
independently been tracking rumors about the acquisition. According to a
source with knowledge of the deal, the transaction size is modest, but Geely
plans to invest in flying-car technologies and put its automaker resources
behind Terrafugia’s approach.

Terrafugia co-founder and CEO Carl Dietrich (pictured above in 2013) and
board member Semyon Dukach both declined to comment on the news.

Geely (pronounced Jee-lee) is a 30-year-old multinational company that owns
brands such as Volvo and The London Taxi Company. It also owns a majority
stake in Lotus Cars.

There is always strong interest in flying cars, but the past year has seen
some major developments. Google co-founder Larry Page was outed as having
started not one, but two companies working on flying-car
technologies—Zee.Aero and Kitty Hawk. (Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos can’t be far
behind.) Kitty Hawk recruited self-driving car pioneer Sebastian Thrun to
serve as its CEO.

Terrafugia’s founding team of MIT grads originally set out to build a
“roadable aircraft”—a flying vehicle for private pilots that could land on a
runway, quickly fold up its wings, and drive on public roads. The company’s
first product, called Transition, has been flight- and road-tested; it has a
long list of customer pre-orders but hasn’t shipped yet (list price
$279,000). More recently, the company has been working on a next-generation
product called TF-X, a hybrid-electric flying car with vertical takeoff and
landing capabilities—as well as autonomous flying features.

As of 2013, Woburn, MA-based Terrafugia had raised a little over $10 million
in financing from angel investors and $1.25 million in U.S. defense
contracts. The company has raised more money since then, but the amount
wasn’t disclosed; New York-based Transcendent Holdings and Beijing-based
Haiyin Capital are also investors in the company. (Dietrich and Terrafugia
participated in a Boston-area event organized by Haiyin Capital in the fall
of 2015.)

As a small company, Terrafugia has taken a long time to get its product to
market. Then again, no one else has successfully sold a flying car yet. It
sounds like Geely’s backing and car-manufacturing facilities could greatly
advance Terrafugia’s vision—if the integration and cultural issues can be
sorted out.

One question is whether China’s regulatory environment might be more
conducive to flying cars and other transportation technologies than that of
the United States. Terrafugia has made good progress with the U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration in recent years, but Chinese cities and roadways
have unique issues (you think your commute is bad).

Another thread here is increasing competition between Chinese and U.S.
technology companies—particularly in areas like artificial intelligence,
robotics, and hardware—even as more U.S. firms are looking to China for
investors and partners. If the balance of power is shifting, Terrafugia’s
sale to Geely is one more data point.

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:05:56 AM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 23:21:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

This company's efforts fit very well with the legacy that Otto Lilienthal
started in Germany. Having pioneered heavier than air flight, Germany is a
fitting place for flying cars to come into their own.

While I have great respect for the late German aviation pioneer Otto
Lilienthal https://youtu.be/t-XC0dxerYs
http://british-hang-gliding-history.com/1971/articles/larry-dighera-cert-1971.html
who gave his life for human flight saying, "Sacrifices must be made," I'm
not sure it is proper to assert that "Germany is a fitting place for flying
cars to come into their own."

It is one thing to express disagreement. But here you are questioning whether my opinion is "proper". How could it not be proper? Heavier than air flight was mastered outside of Berlin. On top of this, it was the Germans who invented jet airplanes. And on top of both of those, it was the Germans who invented computers. Or "a" German, specifically Konrad Zuse. Flying cars will have computers as integral components for what gets them off the ground. Some will have jets. And all of them will be doing heavier than air flight.

All three of these major aspects were invented in Germany, and you are raising a flag that I have expressed a personal opinion that it would be fitting for the Munich-based company Lilium to be the ones who bring flying cars into their own.

A very curious statement. I can guess why you've said it. But I don't have any need for you to explain. I am quite confident that my personal opinion is within the bounds of what I know to be proper.

It would seem the recent Chinese acquisition of Boston-based flying car
developer Terrafugia may lend credence to the notion that that sentiment may
belong to the USA:
http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2017/0...tomaker-geely/
https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/05/...g-car-startup/
==================================================

Gregory T. Huang
July 5th, 2017
Xconomy Boston —
Terrafugia, a Boston-area company that has been working on flying cars since
2006, is being acquired by Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, an automotive
manufacturer based in Hangzhou, China. Terms of the deal have not been
disclosed.

The news was first reported by the South China Morning Post, but Xconomy has
independently been tracking rumors about the acquisition. According to a
source with knowledge of the deal, the transaction size is modest, but Geely
plans to invest in flying-car technologies and put its automaker resources
behind Terrafugia’s approach.

Terrafugia co-founder and CEO Carl Dietrich (pictured above in 2013) and
board member Semyon Dukach both declined to comment on the news.

Geely (pronounced Jee-lee) is a 30-year-old multinational company that owns
brands such as Volvo and The London Taxi Company. It also owns a majority
stake in Lotus Cars.

There is always strong interest in flying cars, but the past year has seen
some major developments. Google co-founder Larry Page was outed as having
started not one, but two companies working on flying-car
technologies—Zee.Aero and Kitty Hawk. (Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos can’t be far
behind.) Kitty Hawk recruited self-driving car pioneer Sebastian Thrun to
serve as its CEO.

Terrafugia’s founding team of MIT grads originally set out to build a
“roadable aircraft�—a flying vehicle for private pilots that could land on a
runway, quickly fold up its wings, and drive on public roads. The company’s
first product, called Transition, has been flight- and road-tested; it has a
long list of customer pre-orders but hasn’t shipped yet (list price
$279,000). More recently, the company has been working on a next-generation
product called TF-X, a hybrid-electric flying car with vertical takeoff and
landing capabilities—as well as autonomous flying features.

As of 2013, Woburn, MA-based Terrafugia had raised a little over $10 million
in financing from angel investors and $1.25 million in U.S. defense
contracts. The company has raised more money since then, but the amount
wasn’t disclosed; New York-based Transcendent Holdings and Beijing-based
Haiyin Capital are also investors in the company. (Dietrich and Terrafugia
participated in a Boston-area event organized by Haiyin Capital in the fall
of 2015.)

As a small company, Terrafugia has taken a long time to get its product to
market. Then again, no one else has successfully sold a flying car yet. It
sounds like Geely’s backing and car-manufacturing facilities could greatly
advance Terrafugia’s vision—if the integration and cultural issues can be
sorted out.

One question is whether China’s regulatory environment might be more
conducive to flying cars and other transportation technologies than that of
the United States. Terrafugia has made good progress with the U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration in recent years, but Chinese cities and roadways
have unique issues (you think your commute is bad).

Another thread here is increasing competition between Chinese and U.S.
technology companies—particularly in areas like artificial intelligence,
robotics, and hardware—even as more U.S. firms are looking to China for
investors and partners. If the balance of power is shifting, Terrafugia’s
sale to Geely is one more data point.

Wow. That is surprising news. Thank you!
I have a strong personal connection to Terrafugia.
(Not a direct connection to the company itself.)

Yes, I agree with what you're saying about China having the potential for doing a better job with regulating this new era of flight that is coming.

....and I won't question whether your opinion on that is proper. Heh.

~ COPE

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 4:13:00 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:05:56 AM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 23:21:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

This company's efforts fit very well with the legacy that Otto Lilienthal
started in Germany. Having pioneered heavier than air flight, Germany is a
fitting place for flying cars to come into their own.

While I have great respect for the late German aviation pioneer Otto
Lilienthal https://youtu.be/t-XC0dxerYs
http://british-hang-gliding-history.com/1971/articles/larry-dighera-cert-1971.html
who gave his life for human flight saying, "Sacrifices must be made," I'm
not sure it is proper to assert that "Germany is a fitting place for flying
cars to come into their own."

It is one thing to express disagreement. But here you are questioning whether my opinion is "proper". How could it not be proper? Heavier than air flight was mastered outside of Berlin. On top of this, it was the Germans who invented jet airplanes. And on top of both of those, it was the Germans who invented computers. Or "a" German, specifically Konrad Zuse. Flying cars will have computers as integral components for what gets them off the ground. Some will have jets. And all of them will be doing heavier than air flight.

All three of these major aspects were invented in Germany, and you are raising a flag that I have expressed a personal opinion that it would be fitting for the Munich-based company Lilium to be the ones who bring flying cars into their own.

A very curious statement. I can guess why you've said it. But I don't have any need for you to explain. I am quite confident that my personal opinion is within the bounds of what I know to be proper.

And there is of course a 4th major aspect for the legacy of a flying car that can be mentioned here as well. And that would be the invention of the car itself. Credit for the first practical motorcar is traced back to Germany on top of all these other amazing inventions.

The "Kitty Hawk of the horseless carriage", if you will, was Mannheim, Germany.

And we could go even further back into history, because Benz invented the gas powered car about 20 miles south of the place where Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press. That's an invention that is credited for going a long way toward pulling us out of the "Dark Ages" and into the "Enlightenment" and the scientific revolution. Who knows how long it would have taken to invent things like cars, planes, jets, computers and such if it wasn't for the printing press.

All of these things happened right there in Germany. (Or in the case of the printing press, a place that would become Germany.)

These are widely known facts that I see to be as strong support for my opinion about flying cars. Of course, anyone is free to disagree.

~ COPE