Kalavo May 16, 2019 03:46 AM Here we go.. everyone hug eachother now yaaayyy...🙄🙄 Roger Garrett May 16, 2019 04:42 AM It's NOT A JET !!!Pretty amazing that they can do all that engineering and not s single participant points out to them that what they've built is not a jet. You cannot power a jet engine with electricity. The very definition of jet engine REQUIRES combustion. This is just a while bunch of ducted fans. Deres May 16, 2019 05:28 AM Vertical flight and transition to horizontal flight is not new at all. It is in fact very well down by helicopters that can be lectric if you wish. Thus, the real issue are : noise, cost (thus efficiency) and safety.It seems the safety is assured by mutiple jets but is it sufficient ? Does the plane has multiple independent controling systems and electric circuits ?Fopr the noise, it must be proved it is less noisy than an helicopter.I had that the flight test will be a nightmare when they will have to do a specific test for the failure of each jet and the combination failure of 2 or 3 ...I also want to see the test against birds as they will surely destroy several contiguous motors at the same time.I also feel that the aerodynamic especially when one motor is at idle may be quite complex. Bob Stuart May 16, 2019 06:30 AM Very clever, claiming to reduce noise on the ground by producing more noise in the air. "Jet" may not always require combustion in technical language, but it does imply inefficient, noisy exit velocities. Martin Winlow May 16, 2019 10:28 AM Roger,It's the Jet (with a capital 'J'). Does Ford's Mustang have a swishy tail and go 'nay'. Nay. So, why should Lilliums Jet be a jet? Martin Winlow May 16, 2019 10:39 AM Surely it can't have been *that* much of a surprise to all gathered that the thing left the ground?! guzmanchinky May 16, 2019 11:41 AM How interesting. But how is it better than the other designs out there using fewer ducted fans? Is it quieter maybe? Or more reliable? Or faster? Or have better range/power? And if this is such a step in the direction of future air mobility, why isn't Airbus or Boeing (or Cessna, or Pilatus, or Cirrus, or Sikorsky), who arguably have bigger budgets/engineering expertise going for it? Not naysaying here, just genuinely curious... notarichman May 16, 2019 12:21 PM what is the taxi fare from JFK to Manhattan? $40? i've never been there. however, i can imagine some rich folks paying $200 for the flight and being disappointed that they can't because there are only 4 of these electric "jets" available. oh, and the fare would be $200 per person. these aircraft would sell for how much? $200,000? that's about 250 trips to pay for the aircraft plus how many more to pay for the pilot's wages, repairs, battery charging, airport expenses, advertising, rental services, internet fees, etc. i'll just guess at 1000 trips. by that time they will have to have a new aircraft. CarolynFarstrider May 16, 2019 12:47 PM I’m mystified by how EVERYONE can fly. The sky would be full of metal and glass fibre flying objects, regardless of how they are powered..... or am I missing something? Colt12 May 16, 2019 12:58 PM Interesting as it is now, whenever a new power source is invented equaling more range it will be a real winner.