I'm surprised by the struts supporting the wing; that saves weight (probably important here), but at the cost of drag. Wikipedia suggests a rule of thumb of 200mph being the break-even point for struts vs cantilever, and I would guess this plane is supposed to cruise faster than that. However, I didn't see the cruise speed listed anywhere; does someone know what they are targeting?

On another note, other than the struts, the design is reminiscent of the DHC Dash-7, a STOL airliner from the '60s that also used slower propellers (with gearing instead of an electric motor, of course) to reduce noise. That plane wasn't particularly fast either (240kts max speed).

Is this EV or Hybrid?

The founder seems to sneak in the word "hybrid", around 1m30 mark in the video below.

https://youtu.be/nM86DBOqgPM?si=5unXLmPxk6M_kmuN&t=86

Note: not being negative, I just want to ensure I understand correctly since the title might imply something else.

Update: confirmed, it does use aviation fuel.

> "The airplane will also include a reserve-hybrid configuration, consisting of two turbo generators powered by sustainable aviation fuel. The reserve-hybrid system is installed to secure reserve energy requirements without cannibalizing battery range, and it can also be used during cruise on longer flights to complement the electrical power provided by the batteries."

https://www.heartaerospace.com/newsroom/heart-aerospace-unve...

Doing some math. Regional jets get somewhere around 45.9 seat miles per gallon (1). So 30 seats, going 125 miles would take around 80 gallons of jet fuel. This is likely low because all the jets listed are bigger and likely flying longer flights that are more efficient but just go with it.

Jet fuel has a specific energy of 12 kwh/kg and a density of 6.7 lb/gal (2). So 80 gallons of jet fuel is 536 lb, or 243 kg, and contains 2,916 kwh of energy. Jet engines are not very efficient, so lets say only 30% of this energy actually ends up being used. So 875 kwh.

Lets say we are using batteries that are 300 wh/kg (0.3 kwh/kg), which seems on the high side of what electric cars are using now (and that there are no efficiency loses in the electric motors or elsewhere).

Now maybe I messed up my unit conversions but I think that means to carry the same energy onboard you would need 6,428 lbs of batteries. And you are still going to carry atleast 1,600 lbs of fuel on top of that. And you have the weight of both electric and conventional engines.

I could see this reducing costs like they say but when many big costs are fixed (pilot, hangar, etc.) will this actually make sense? Will airlines fly something that has thousands of pounds less payload than a competitor but lower running costs? I don't know but it will be interesting to see.

(1) https://airinsight.com/seat-miles-gallon-fuel-burn-update/ (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

These kind of startup excite me. More so than the "next killer app" or "look what we shoved AI into."

Cheap electric transportation can finally offset USA's lacking rail commutes and attack Europe's short flight market (which is already cheap). Now we need bigger planes or more frequent planes and the next startup to solve the energy needs.

Maybe I missed it but they didn't delve much into the TAM.

"Half of all flights in the world are under 2 hours." Then they give examples of Fjord-town hopping in Norway, or Island hopping in Hawaii, which seem very niche.

Will they be able to compete in any of the busiest routes? Could it take me Melbourne-Sydney in 1 - 2 hours for < $100? I'd sacrifice some time and $ for an eco-friendly option, but obviously there's a limit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_flig...

Interesting decision to build the whole aircraft instead of the propulsion system only. I wonder what the decision process was between retrofit of existing turboprop frame vs. build from the ground up? I would expect the level of effort and certification to be much higher building from scratch even though you get complete control.

Heart Aerospace (YC W19) just flew the largest electric airplane ever flown — a 100-foot wingspan, a takeoff weight of 25,000 pounds, and $5 of electricity to get it off the ground.

The interesting part to me is that a lot of current electric aircraft development seems to be waiting for battery technology to catch up. They're far ahead in terms of the motors, propeller, electric propulsion control system. The limitation is the battery capacity.

Companies like Joby, Archer and others also seem to be taking the huge gamble that battery density in Watt-hours per kilogram will SIGNIFICANTLY increase in the next 5-10 years (before they run out of money/investors) making the range of their aircraft much greater, and more viable for commercial operation.

'The first clean sheet airliner to be flown in any category. electric or not, in the US in the last 18 years'

This is the statement that matters and why I think electric is a huge deal. We can't get new designs into the air. It costs too much and takes too long. Electric has the potential to bring the design cycle back to something reasonable. Electric engines, and the supporting systems around them, are just so much simpler so there is so much less to certify. Once we really start designing for electric, and iterating on those designs, I think we will start seeing massive gains very rapidly.

I wonder if these airplanes are using helium to "reduce the weight"... that is something I also don't usually on drones. Probably too expensive.

I don’t see how a purely electric aircraft could ever beat synthetic jet fuel made with electricity.

If this is a hybrid, I am curious where they are stealing energy from.

Practical challenges aside, I'll gladly file this under "things my physicist dad said would never happen" and call it a win.

I was just at Newport Technology preview where they demoed a ground effects aircraft drone. This was a scaled model and the final drone aircraft is designed for 12 passengers. All electric.

https://polaristechbridge.org/bluetide/

https://www.regentcraft.com/

I'm not sure I get the 'appreciating asset' point he makes in the video. How will the plane perform better in 10 years?

Cool stuff regardless!

From the video:

Range: 125 miles all electric

       500 miles with hybrid system (electric + conventional turbo prop)

I also saw this about a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T9cxv9ubRg

More of a replacement for the "helicopter market"...

The noise wouldn't be significantly lower during takeoff/landing, only during taxi, right? Good for workers on the tarmac, but doesn't get rid of the largest noise pollution issue.

The moment he talked about "remote pilots managing many planes," I closed the tab. Remote pilots sound great until something goes wrong, and things inevitably go wrong, not often, but they go wrong.

I will never fly on any aircraft that does not have a minimum two-person crew on the flight deck. The ability to "feel" the plane is invaluable in an emergency situation. Frankly, just the fact that someone whose life is literally on the line doing the walkaround is an invaluable part of the safety of commercial flight.

I was rooting for this company when I saw the news of their first flight. I am no longer rooting for them because it is obvious that their leadership does not understand the human element of commercial air travel.

Thought this was a great watch, as a first time founder myself!

Hybrid! That's what happens when you build new devices around old infra. Steve Jobs didn't design the iPhone around Carriers; it was the other way around.

the concept of electric motors with ultimate "any" fuel flexibility for generators is definitely the future

then we are not tied to global fuel politics

and maybe airports will become far less toxic with leaded fuel finally being completely eliminated

(and there is a Ycombinator video channel? never knew)

To be clear, this is a hybrid aircraft, but it's still an awesome step forward!

This is awesome! More of this in YC and less Flock's.

Did it fly?

Most of the video is the workshop.

Where is the airplane??

> It's the first clean sheet airliner to be flown in any category, electric or not, uh, in the US in in the last 18 years.

Uh, what about the Bombardier C-series (A220)?

Hope it's accurate. Sounds good to be true.

The interior of the plane is clearly designed by an engineer. They stripped everything down to save weight, passenger comfort be dammed. The seats don't even look comfortable.

They need to hire an actual designer, if the plane weighs 0.5% more but has actual human usability that's worth it.

[dead]