Hybrid after the first 125 miles, total range 500 miles. Their problem is diversions - an incident at the destination airport may mean an passenger aircraft may need to land at an airport which could be a couple hundred miles away. The hybrid powerplant throws the fuel efficiency numbers off so goal is not to run it unless needed, but they could not get certification without it.

With limited information form their web site, both. Being able to run pure electric while switching to fossil fuel. [0]

The way modern hybrids can charge from an outlet, I classify them as EV-Hybrid, and only use gas if need be vs older ones that only charge through the gas engine, Hybrid.

[0] https://www.heartaerospace.com/es-30

Surprised they are not using linear opposed piston crankshaftless generators to make an extended range EV aircraft.

Smaller, lighter, simpler, cheaper, and more flexible about fuel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeG4zLlFkak

Linear engine starts around 11:19

> Cheap electric transportation can finally offset USA's lacking rail commutes

I'm not sure how building an electric aircraft would help with this. Are people going to suddenly switch to commuting by plane?

Fixing America's commute problem is primarily an urban planning one (ie, putting all the homes nowhere near anything) and not an insufficient-electric-aircraft one.

Btw, I kind of changed my opinion on AI. Finally, everybody can build an app, so we no longer have to pretend the people who built one and made it big are some sort tech pioneers pushing humanity forward.

Likewise, if you're a nerd, you can spend your free time building stuff you thought you would never get around to.

Yes, AI as marketed is a bit of a snakeoil, but much more real and meaningful than crypto and social media. And math nerds finally can get a high paying job that's not about peddling ads or figuring out how to make a hedge fund even richer.

USA's lacking rail commutes come down to the fact that America's leaders made the deliberate decision to destroy its own rail network and force people onto planes. The electric range of this aircraft is 125 miles[0], which is at the low end of the range where conventional intercity rail is time-competitive with the plane. A bullet train would absolutely smoke this.

tl;dr I have a few qualms with this app[1].

Now, this thing might take off (pun intended) anyway, for one simple reason: a theoretically faster train does not compete with it if it doesn't exist. The midwest and west are chock full of towns whose rail connections were either abandoned or never existed in the first place, but have regional airports. This thing would be perfect to service feeder flights from hub airports to regionals or as a charter plane.

That being said I wouldn't expect this to revolutionize air travel. You're still going to be packed into a sardine can and made to pay extra for the privilege of bringing a reasonable amount of toiletries with you. And all the long-haul flights are still going to be using fossil fuels because the energy density of batteries sucks. But still, I'd rather have this than 10 million AI companies.

[0] 500 miles for hybrid operation on SAF, because the FAA would not certify a plane with such a small range

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

Mech eng dad here. He guessed something like this would probably happen, but wasn't betting on it happening so soon.

Aircraft design is very intricate. Change the CG, break the whole system.

Fuel is often placed in wings because adding/burning fuel from your center of lift means your CG doesn't significantly change through a flight and you spend less on pumping fuel within the aircraft. With batteries, you are looking at a constant mass from the beginning of the flight to the end... so you can place it anywhere. Electric motors are orders of magnitude lighter than jet engines. Also, you don't need to pump electrons against gravity so placing all of that weight lower has handling/performance advantages.

By using an airframe shape that is well known, they are reducing risk and appealing to existing pilots. By building it from the ground-up, they are taking advantage of differences between the tech.

eg: all of that weight in the fuselage instead of the wings means that rolling is going to be much more nimble. Yaw might be affected as well, depending on the placement/moment of the batteries.

It may be too hard to do a good retrofit. If you basically have to tear the entire plane apart and rebuild and recertify it to put batteries in the right places, maybe the costs aren’t worth it for potential customers.

I know many planes use their wings as fuel tanks but given the weight of batteries maybe that doesn’t work.

I agree it’s interesting. Not a small undertaking.

I think an interesting aspect is that on normal aircraft fuel tanks have to be near the center of lift to maintain weight and balance as fuel is burned off. When using batteries, this is not really a concern, and I would think might lead to some more interesting designs. To be sure, if there is space in the wing, awesome - the batteries can now also be used as ballast though too if required.

Probably because they intend to sell aircraft, not electric motors.

Judging by the seats, perhaps making it as light as possible. Existing airframes are relatively light but let's be honest, they aren't trying to save 500g here and there when they have massive jet engines to get everything airborne.

It beats it by mostly not using the turbines. The turbines are there for long range diversions which should happen rarely enough to not really matter in terms of carbon release.

Nit: When they did the actual flight I did the math on the $5 worth of power claim, and it just doesn’t pencil out even at the lowest power rates in North America. Just to illustrate: at $.05 per kWh (which is less than half the price of electricity where they flew), you get 100kwh for $5. 100kw is what it takes to takeoff a 1200 pound Cessna. Probably about 75kw for an efficient cruise in that same plane.

Still an incredible feat, but no idea where the $5 comes from. Maybe that’s just the power they use to get from the threshold of the runway to wheels up.

Would be interested to see this compared to the costs to take off a comparable small jet fuel aircraft.

It won't likely perform better as it ages but it may continue out-performing a fleet that tends to hold its value. If the maintenance cost of the electric motors and batteries along with the turbines operating at reduced power is better than the maintenance cost of two turbines that are operated at 100% power to take off, it could really pay off, as that tends to be a very expensive part of the operation. Airframes also often appreciate these days, as it is very expensive to buy a new one and an old one is somewhat proven.

This plane basically has to outperform a Saab 340.

That made me double take too, but he must be talking about the software getting better, and thus higher value.

Better battery tech ?

If Teslas could be appreciating assets [0], why not electric planes? /s

If anything, planes have real autopilots!

[0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/musks-claim-teslas-appreciat...

In the video he explains that the goal of the hybrid system is mainly to be used when for some unexpected reason the airplane cannot land at its original destination.

There are maybe some advantages to a hybrid system.

The higher reliability of electric.

Losing an turbine engine doesn't mean asymmetrical thrust. Plane still flies normally.

Losing an engine on takeoff you still have full power.

Electric motors spin up faster than turbines. Which means faster throttle response. Which you need when hit with a wind shear on landing.

Take off and landing under electric power means much less noise.

Efficiency, you can increase the number of props or fans to get a much higher bypass ratio. Worth noting the plane in the video has four props.

Agreed, however only fuel for piston engine aircraft is leaded. Not many of them at a large commercial airport. More of a GA issue.

Wikipedia says “It was initially developed by Bombardier Aviation with the program launched on 13 July 2008 and had two years in-service as the Bombardier CSeries.”

Hence 18 years.

Really, a prototype airplane, the first of this size ever built with this novel propulsion system, had engineers involved in the design?

But maybe they’re aiming at short haul cargo. And either way, wouldn’t that really be one of the last things to do? Just proving the plane can even get in the air and stay there for a useful distance on electricity is more important than how comfortable it is.

customers buy furniture options when they order the plane.

related : many flight demonstrators in the past for large passenger planes have had no interior at all aside from the cockpit and ballast kits.