Heart aerospace completes first flight of largest electric aircraft

Join the discussion

• Hacker News
• GOOD POINT by my wife. Is there a super high density battery they could use just to have available to count for reserves even if it’s one time use. Just plan never to use it in normal flight.
  by bilsbie
• A suitable one-time-use super high energy density battery would be jet fuel.
  by Mawr
• No. The closest I can think is to have a solid rocket booster and that has obvious risks as well.
  by coryrc
• It’s funny they tell you the weight at takeoff. That’s uh not changing.
  by bilsbie
• Presumably the generators have fuel that can be depleted
  by tyromaniac
• $5 of energy at even $0.10/kWh is 50 kWh. One horsepower is roughly ~754 watts. 50 kWh for 27 min at 100% efficiency means 111 kW sustained output which is 147 HP. The math is wrong, there’s no way this plane flies with only 147 HP. That’s roughly what a Cessna 172 has for engine power.

  Conclusion: AI wrote this article and it has at least one and probably several more errors.

  by quickthrowman
• At 120 miles of useful pure electric range, I can't imagine there are many US corridors where that pure electric range makes sense. That's still a range where the door to door time of a car can still win. I wonder why they don't push the idea of it being a hybrid more, as it seems to me a lot of useful routes are going to rely on the generators.

  I'd love to see something that can do around 250mi. It would be nice to electrify transit in the Texas Triangle if we end up never being able to actually build useful HSR.

  I wish them luck on continuing to try!

  by vel0city
• San Francisco - Napa Valley

  Booze Cruise aka "Winetasting" for the tech crowd

  Fly sustainable, guzzle some fermented bio grapes, ...

  by Garlef
• There are like 10,000 flights between Milwaukee and Chicago every year. Personally I would take the train, but a lot of people do not.
  by burkaman
• Appx 5% of us domestic flights, 1200 per day.
  by tiahura
• Portland to Seattle is about 140 miles and has constant flights. Even if a small part of the flight uses fuel, that’s major cost savings.
  by jdlshore
• Island hopping is the usual sales pitch for these planes.
  by kevin_thibedeau
• The best use case might be short flights over water or other geographic obstacles where driving routes might be much longer or impossible. Like Kahului Airport to Ellison Onizuka Kona International Airport for example.
  by nradov
• >"At 120 miles of useful pure electric range, I can't imagine there are many US corridors where that pure electric range makes sense. That's still a range where the door to door time of a car can still win."

  It's about feeding the existing network. Millions of people in the US live in places a 2+hr drive to the nearest major airport, but have plenty of smaller municipal fields nearby. Electric aviation could finally make it profitable and cheap enough to run those routes. It also opens the door to true commuter aviation becoming a thing, when you can offer short flights for the cost comparable to a train ticket, and operate out of small fields with small planes multiple times a day and no need for the whole TSA experience.

  by ramesh31
• As someone who lives in the Great Lakes region - there are a ton of 100 mile flights that would take 4 hours to drive - often as the first leg in a two-flight trip. Also places like Denver -> Ski resorts (Vail/Aspen/Crested Butte) are 2 - 3hr drives, heavily dependent on road conditions all within the pure-electric range.
  by mikeyouse
• Link to the first flight on YouTube if you click through from the article:

  https://youtu.be/fEudbAjschs?is=707pjOJKf4chS4O2

  by ElijahLynn
• > Powered entirely by batteries, X1 used approximately $5 worth of electricity during its first flight

  It's fun to look at the arithmetic behind this to pull out the assumptions. To lift a 25000 lb mass 1100 ft in the air requires just over 10kWh, but that's assuming no air resistance or friction, so let's triple the energy needed to 30 KWh.

  Let's add another 10 kWh for forward distance covered (assuming it was mostly gliding). Then let's pad it up to 50kWh for anything else. If they say that was $5 in electricity that implies an electricity price of $0.10/kWh, which is possible with utility scale solar.

  I'd guess the actual flight time was only 10 of the 27 minutes, 30 kWh used over 10 minutes is 300kW of peak power.

  300kW seems very low compared to equivalent jet powered planes, which output an order of magnitude more power for a 30 seater plane. Even if the electric drivetrain is far more efficient than a jet engine it stretches credulity.

  Which of my numbers is off?

  by danans
• I don't believe the $5 cost either.
  by learn_more
• The jet planes are flying much higher and are loaded; I'm assuming this one was empty. That would account for the power discrepancy.

  Finally, I think you might be still high on the power cost. $.10/kwh is retail cost in the PNW, they might be, um, bullshitting a little and have purchased power at a very good rate at a particular time just so they could say $5. They didn't say every flight would be $5. So energy could have been 3x more than you estimated.

  by coryrc
• > I'd guess the actual flight time was only 10 of the 27 minutes, 30 kWh used over 10 minutes is 300kW of peak power

  I would note this line from the press release:

  > its all-electric propulsion system delivered more than one megawatt of power.

  I assume this was peak during takeoff.

  by SECProto
• Ooo, sneaky. Not being familiar with flight verbiage, I didn't catch the "27 minute mission" being different than a 27 minute long flight!
  by jmaw
• Does anyone know if there is a theoretical limit for how energy dense a battery could be?

  I wonder if there is a possible future where some sort of commercial long haul flights could be done by a fully electric plane. I've never gotten a great answer on this, and maybe we don't have an answer for certain since battery chemistry is some sense is still early days

  by TSiege
• The answer to this question depends heavily on your definition of "battery".
  by margalabargala
• From what I remember on the topic, batteries are not yet remotely close to dense enough to enable long haul flights. Even hydrogen electric doesn't cut it, and hydrogen fuel is much denser energy wise than conventional batteries.

  Perhaps if solid state batteries become cost effective to produce at scale that would change the feasibility, but someone else would have to chime in there.

  by tensor
• Lithium air batteries theoretically can reach 10000-12000w/kg though they have only reached 1200w in labs so far. Gasoline is 13000w/kg. We don't need to match gasoline as it is inefficient. CATL just got it's 500w/kg batteries for commercial aviation approved I am betting China is going to do the same with electric planes that it did with cars. They can't build a efficient enough jet engine to be competitive yet but they already can build the narrow body planes replace the jet engine with electric take over the market for short haul aviation once the battery densities cross 1000w/hr.
  by xbmcuser
• All FedEx express packages in my area come and go via a dedicated twin-prop plane that flies 35 miles to the hub. I'm sending a package today, and $14 of the 54$ total is a fuel surcharge. I wonder if I will be seeing electricity surcharges in the future.
  by ortusdux
• Do you happen to live in Alaska? Or is this common in the US?
  by echoangle
• Also a short video on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEudbAjschs
  by chha
• You never get to hear what these planes sound like in these promo videos
  by dagurp
• 27 mins endurance (?) for $5 of power. Not bad. I rent a 172 and have been paying a $5/h fuel surcharge for the past few months due war in Iran - but at UK avgas prices 27 mins in my plane would be $55ish. Haven’t looked into the details but kind of crazy impact on economics of aviation if this size plane (10x 172 MTOW) can actually do useful short haul
  by dbuxton