Heart now pledges 30-seat hybrid electric commercial flights by 2028

Heart Aerospace, which previously planned to have hundreds of 19-seat all-electric planes in the air by 2026, has ditched its previous design in favor of a 30-seat hybrid model with similar capabilities. The ES-30 will fully replace the ES-19, of which 200 were ordered by United Airlines and regional US airline Mesa Air Group …

[M.V. Lipvig]

Neat

I wonder how many kilowatts of power an airplane takes to fly 30 people 200 miles, and how that power will be supplied when there's not enough juice to supply the millions of electric cars that are coming? I guess they can line the wings with solar cells, which should produce more power since they'll be closer to the sun, which makes about as much sense as carrying a full electric drivetrain and an entire fossil fuel setup. Otherwise they'll have to use the generators all the time, which means no real difference ve what we have now. The extra weight of the motors and batteries plus generators vs just using a jet engine means the electric bits are just carrying themselves.

Icon, because these guys should be flying on electricity or not at all.

[Giles C]

Re: Neat

Well on another site I found it will have 20t take off weight with 5t of batteries with a pair of 800kW-class turbogenerators which would weigh quite a lot as well.

Doesn’t leave much for the airframe and passengers

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Neat

> Otherwise they'll have to use the generators all the time, which means no real difference

Aircraft generally need 100% of engine power at take-off but much less for cruise.

If you have enough battery to supply 50% of take-off power you can rate the engines for 50% - just enough for cruise. It's also quieter and lower emissions at take off - especially important for city centre airports.

[captain veg]

Re: Neat

> Aircraft generally need 100% of engine power at take-off but much less for cruise.

Perfect for capacitors, then.

-A.

[zuckzuckgo]

Re: Neat

>Perfect for capacitors, then.

Or maybe a catapult like on an aircraft carrier. Or a very long extension cord plugged in just for take-off.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Neat

Or maybe a catapult like on an aircraft carrier. Or a very long extension cord plugged in just for take-off.

Or Scalectrix-style launch rails.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Neat

Aircraft generally need 100% of engine power at take-off but much less for cruise.

Aircraft often use 100% power at take off, but they certainly don't need it. They have to be able to climb away safely with one of two engines or two of four engines out, so that's 100% extra power at the very least.

[Mayday]

Re: Neat

“ not enough juice to supply the millions of electric cars that are coming” and the rest

Airfields have much more electricity supply than a typical house. Most have some kind of light industrial, commercial facilities and ALL that would serve as a destination for this kind of aircraft will have a terminal, radar, and about half a megawatt of lighting already sitting there. Most of this is also backed up by emergency generators so aircraft can still land and night in the event of a power failure.

These things won’t be that hard to “fuel” at all.

PS. I’m a pilot. Not that it matters that much in this context, but I know what you’ll find at an airfield.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Neat

I think that the problem is what the airfield's connected to. No point in having 1MW of infrastructure if the grid generators can't supply it.

[captain veg]

Re: Neat

> No point in having 1MW of infrastructure if the grid generators can't supply it.

They can. That is literally what they are there for.

-A.

[Richard 12]

Re: Neat

They can't.

The UK National Grid publish a white paper every year reminding everyone that there isn't enough generation capacity to do even 10% of the electric stuff that is supposedly planned, and that the grid itself doesn't have the capability to distribute it.

In places like Texas, the state grid can't even cope with normal loads.

[werdsmith]

Re: Neat

The UK National Grid has published an article saying that they've got this. It's all in hand according to them.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Neat

"The UK National Grid publish a white paper every year reminding everyone that there isn't enough generation capacity to do even 10% of the electric stuff that is supposedly planned, and that the grid itself doesn't have the capability to distribute it."

Maybe not at 5pm on a hot day, but perhaps at 2am on a mild night. In some places, the government is mandating everybody get EV's AND switch from gas to electric appliances so that's likely to create issues. The rate of change is often the bigger problem than what the change is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Neat

That is literally what they are there for.

Then why do we have to regularly buy power from our neighbours to cover shortfalls at times of high demand?

[zuckzuckgo]

Re: Neat

> Then why do we have to regularly buy power from our neighbours to cover shortfalls at times of high demand?

That's normal operating procedure. Over a large connected grid different regions have different peaks in energy requirements. Overall capital cost are reduced by interconnecting regions.

There could also be times you have to import jet fuel and other energy supplies.

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

Skin effects

"I wonder how many kilowatts of power an airplane takes to fly 30 people 200 miles, and how that power will be supplied..."

The amount of power it takes to fly 30 people is not affected by the range. If it takes 1600kW to fly them 10 miles, it will also takes them 1600kW to fly 1000 miles.

As to how it will be supplied, I assume they charge the batteries up beforehand, rather than spool out a very long cable that's attached to the plane.

[tip pc]

Re: Skin effects

@Brewster's Angle Grinder

The amount of power it takes to fly 30 people is not affected by the range. If it takes 1600kW to fly them 10 miles, it will also takes them 1600kW to fly 1000 miles.

if you reread that do you see how wrong that is?

as a clue, you need to keep putting energy in to travel further and land safely.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Skin effects

1600KW is a measure of power not energy

[that one in the corner]

Re: Skin effects

And this whole daft subthread came about because the OP mistakenly wrote kilowatts instead of the kilowatt-hours.

Though I've no idea why the subthread is labelled "skin effects". Are we arguing over what AWG you need to use to carry that 1600 kW? Have we decided on the voltage and frequency yet?

[the spectacularly refined chap]

Re: Skin effects

You need additional power to carry the extra weight of that energy you are carrying, however it is stored.

[Graham Dawson]

Re: Neat

The figure you want is energy, not power. Unfortunately, they give absolutely no information about how much power *or* energy their plane requires; they just give a range. That tells me that they aren't confident in their numbers.

[captain veg]

Re: Neat

There's plenty of "juice". In solar and wind generation, essentially an unlimited supply.

You forgot to mention that the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow all the time. That's why we need storage.

Like the batteries that will be fitted to these planes.

-A.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Neat

That's the advantage of a wind turbine powered plane. In the event of an engine failure you get a lot of wind for free instantly

[captain veg]

Re: Neat

They already do that.

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

-A.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Neat

I wonder how many kilowatts of power an airplane takes to fly 30 people 200 miles

First one I can think of is a Saab 340, which flies 30 - 36 passengers with two 1,390kW engines, though probably only at 80% or so power in the cruise.

For comparison, a WCML Pendolino has 5950 kW for 589 passengers.

[that one in the corner]

... how that power will be supplied ...

30 passengers at 400 W apiece...

Business Class get recumbent frames, First Class tourers and the other 20 old-style sit-up-and-beg.

Carry on must all fit into the whicker basket.

[MachDiamond]

It's not time to railroad

Aircraft are the last thing that should be looked at for electrification. In the US, much more can be done with rail (if they don't go on strike), local delivery and even EV's for people that can fit them in to their lifestyle. I don't fly anymore do to a indignities of the process and seats that are narrower than my shoulders are wide, but if I really just had to, it would not be in an electric aircraft. I could likely get to the destination as or more quickly if I just hop in the car and go if it's only a couple of hundred miles.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: It's not time to railroad

Railway electrification could require infrastructure investment that won't pay off in the current financial year.

[MachDiamond]

Re: It's not time to railroad

"Railway electrification could require infrastructure investment that won't pay off in the current financial year."

Agreed, but it doesn't all need to be done by next week. The easiest way to do it is to start where it's easy to do. If freight trains, which are already "hybrids", can be converted to Tribrids, they could run near populous areas from overhead lines rather than from dirty diesel power plants. In the desolate stretches across the middle of the US where running lines would be the most expensive, the locomotives could fire up their diesel engines to provide power until such a time as the whole system is electrified. Maybe that total electrification takes another 100years. So be it, that's fine. Taking the first steps is important or nothing is getting done.

[Peter Ford]

Re: It's not time to railroad

There are plenty of examples of railway locomotives in Europe that can run on either electric pickups (two different types in the UK) or diesel. For a locomotive, where weight is not so much of an issue, it works just fine.

I also see that there is work in hand to make battery locomotives too - for some applications like trundling along over long distances a diesel battery hybrid might make sense, especially if the batteries can be charged from overhead or third rail pickups at locations where power is accessible, and also from regenerative braking.

But I don't think the USA has an appetite for rail travel in place of flying or driving...

[MachDiamond]

Re: It's not time to railroad

"I also see that there is work in hand to make battery locomotives too "

A battery tender car could be a good addition for short stretches where it would be hard to have overhead lines such as switching yards and freight terminals where overhead cranes load/unload containers. It would also allow for operation while a train fires up its diesels if the overhead lines lose power.

[DJO]

Re: It's not time to railroad

Aircraft are the last thing that should be looked at for electrification.

Why? While electric propulsion is out of the question for long haul it is perfect for short haul flights.

85% of flights are short haul.

As for road & rail, well if the infrastructure is already there and properly maintained then perhaps but for short haul routes without existing ground routes or crossing water or other unnavigable terrain flight is the best and most economical option.

As for concerns of power generation, these aircraft are at least 6 years away, plenty of time to increase generating and storage capacity which must happen anyway.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: It's not time to railroad

Dragging heavy batteries around in a weight-sensitive situation is daft. Far better to use bio fuels, either in an ICE or a fuel cell.

[MachDiamond]

Re: It's not time to railroad

"Far better to use bio fuels, either in an ICE or a fuel cell."

Fuel type is a massive issue with aircraft. There have been some major accidents due to fuel temperature issues so that can be a huge roadblock to many bio-fuels. Using bio-fuel can also be more energy intensive than just sticking with good, old fashioned, Jet-A. Fuel cell? You mentioned dragging around a huge amount of dead weight. A storage vessel strong enough to pump up with Hydrogen to run a plane any distance isn't going to be quite heavy.

[Potemkine!]

Re: It's not time to railroad

Hydrogen is much more the future than batteries

[MachDiamond]

Re: It's not time to railroad

Hydrogen is silly.

[MachDiamond]

Re: It's not time to railroad

"85% of flights are short haul."

You should have stated what you consider "short haul". My argument was that for very short flights, ~200 miles, I can beat a flight to the destination in my car after adding up all of the requirements of getting to the airport, queuing for the strip search, boarding, taxiing to the runway, the flight and all of the same things on the other end before I get to where I'm going, assuming my final destination isn't an airport. I also have the advantage of taking all of the luggage I want, a bevy of snacks and the ability to stop and smell the wildflowers (and water them as well) when it takes my fancy to do so.

I'm in the US so there isn't geographical obstacles to overcome that can't be done in a car or train for me. I've travelled the world several times over already so I'm done with that at this point. I do plan on some domestic trips and driving will be part of the adventure unless I'm going by train. If either or both can be electric, that's great.

[DJO]

Re: It's not time to railroad

I said if the infrastructure exists and is maintained then surface travel makes sense but for things like island hopping or getting from one side of a mountain to the other where for those situations building a bridge or boring a tunnel would be absurdly expensive electric short haul flight is an ideal solution.

Just because electric flight is not suitable for every role that's no reason not to use it where it does make sense.

For example electric propulsion for two seat trainers that hardly fly any distance from their home airfield is becoming increasingly common.

[MachDiamond]

Re: It's not time to railroad

"Just because electric flight is not suitable for every role that's no reason not to use it where it does make sense."

I have issues on how it's being sold. There can be some niche applications where it makes sense such as a mail plane that hops from island to island. As a passenger craft, it's not that great. A two seat Cessna is more money than my house. One with electric propulsion is going to cost even more. If there isn't a need to puddle jump and go places inaccessible by road, it's going to be far cheaper and often faster to travel by land vehicle.

Without a pretty good market size, getting electric aircraft through all of the approvals to carry passengers will also add too much cost. In the US there is an "experimental" classification that is much easier to get a sign off for flight, but I'm not sure if that allows any sort of commercial activity. I know it doesn't for passengers, but maybe for mail and packages.

[GrahamRJ]

Re: It's not time to railroad

85% of flights are short haul

If you count flights by airplane take-offs, then single/2-seaters flying touch-and-goes are definitely going to give you that figure, sure. But 85% of passengers, not so much. With a 200-mile range, that's not even enough to get from London to Manchester; and realistically you'd be lucky to make Birmingham and still have enough power to stay in the stack for a bit. Typically you'd consider "short haul" to get from London to anywhere in the UK or near airports in neighbouring European countries, and this emphatically can't deliver that.

[DJO]

Re: It's not time to railroad

And it's nowhere near 85% by mileage either but I refer you to the statement I made above: "Just because electric flight is not suitable for every role that's no reason not to use it where it does make sense."

London (Luton) to Birmingham (Airport) is about 100 miles, easily within range but why fart about with busy international airports, these light aircraft can use much smaller airfields which seldom have stacking issues and are likely to be closer to your final destination.

For inter-city journeys like London to Glasgow, Manchester or Cardiff then rail is the best bet, but up in Scotland where there are loads of little islands where there's not enough demand to justify building a bridge.

You could use ferries but you have to have one ferry per route as chugging along the coast to another island takes far too long but a short haul aircraft with a crew of 3 or 4 could easily cover 10 routes a week which to do by boat could need up to 10 fully crewed boats.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: It's not time to railroad

"I could likely get to the destination as or more quickly if I just hop in the car and go if it's only a couple of hundred miles."

Yes, for many people, short haul flights are often more of a status or habit thing. If you don't live near the departure airport and need to be somewhere well away from the destination airport, the extra travel at each end plus the security theatre at the airports can easily make it quicker to travel by car, train or coach/bus for many.

[MachDiamond]

Re: It's not time to railroad

"can easily make it quicker to travel by car, train or coach/bus for many."

I also like the flexibility. Missing a flight can mean flushing the price of the ticket down the loo. Wanting to return earlier or later than booked can also mean spending a bunch more money. As an added bonus if I drive, I have my car to use when I get there.

[captain veg]

Re: It's not time to railroad

> Aircraft are the last thing that should be looked at for electrification

Indeed.

We already have electric trains and road vehicles are coming along nicely. So it's time to look at aircraft. At last.

-A.

[Emir Al Weeq]

Seat plan please

"By dropping five passengers, Heart said, the ES-30's range doubles to 800 km,"

Does anyone know which seats have the trap-doors under them? I'd rather like to sit elsewhere.

[captain veg]

Re: Seat plan please

As someone who may be stout, I fear that that might depend on (for example) how much luggage and/or cargo they're carrying.

But nearer the back, I assume. Along with a a large mechanical kicker to get maximum reaction impulse out of me. I mean them.

-A.

[TWB]

Re: Seat plan please

"As someone who may be stout" - NTNON?......

[captain veg]

Re: Seat plan please

Indeed. Squeezing back inside the closet might be the best strategy to avoid being dropped.

-A.

[abetancort]

"By dropping five passengers, Heart said, the ES-30's range doubles to 800 km,"

By dropping the whole plane and building a helium balloon it could very well circumnavigate the earth. No, kidding!!

[Zolko]

metoo

And if I pledge to build à flying electric bus that can carry 30 passengers on the road AND by air for 500km, how many millions will I get ? Asking for à friend.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: metoo

Impossible, what would you call it ? Unless Nikolai Tesla had a middle name then all the acceptable electric vehicle company names are taken

[that one in the corner]

Re: metoo

"Galvani" is still up for grabs.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: metoo

Too many curves, doesn't make for a good tech logo, same with Ampere .

Is Volta taken?

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Autopilot in an electric vehicle

Hybrid or otherwise, at least this vehicle will feature an "Autopilot" from a proven heritage and very very unlikely to cause the vehicle under it's control to run into stationary vehicles of the law enforcement kind

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Autopilot in an electric vehicle

>cause the vehicle under it's control to run into stationary vehicles of the law enforcement kind

Computer does Praxis

[Meeker Morgan]

United Airlines? Chicago O'Hare is their hub.

Illinois. Lots of wind turbines compared to other states, but that's mostly good in rural areas near the wind turbines.

In effect (assuming the grid can take it), airplanes powered by coal fired steam engines.

Several diesel powered fast freight trains per day carrying the coal from further south.

Well OK I haven't done all the calculations.

Maybe it's still less CO2 than using jet fuel?

[Richard 12]

Re: United Airlines? Chicago O'Hare is their hub.

Jet fuel requires transportation too, so it's reasonable to assume moving the fuel is a similar CO2 cost either way.

So just need to compare the burning.

Burning fuel at high altitude is believed to cause a higher CO2 equivalent than at ground level, I think 1.5-1.8 is the usual multiplier.

So if it only burns the hybrids during takeoff and landing, I guess that might be a saving but it's not exactly large.

[Fursty Ferret]

Doesn't make sense

Even the most basic back of the envelope maths says that with current technology, battery-powered commercial aircraft are not feasible. So many major flaws in this plan:

1. How on earth does removing 5 passengers (300 kg) get you 400 km more range?

2. Normal batteries offer about 0.2 kWh per kg at best. Unfortunately, the reason we use kerosene in planes is because it's incredibly energy-dense. Assuming our 30 passenger aircraft has 6.5 tonnes of batteries, that's only 1.3MWh and that's hugely optimistic.

3. Even if electric propulsion works for short flights, it's still pointless when you can squeeze 30x the passengers on a train that doesn't have to drag the power station along with it.

4. Airport infrastructure will be incapable recharging one aircraft during a turnaround, let alone a fleet of them. 35 minutes on the ground? Not going to work. What about smaller destinations with poor grid connections?

5. Propulsion is just one part. The cabin air compressors on a Boeing 787 pull close to 400kW by themselves, and that's before you even get to wing anti-icing, IFE, hydraulic pumps, window heaters, etc etc. Sure, a 30 passenger aircraft is much smaller but it still has big loads.

6. Inverter and motor reliability is unproven.

7. What happens if the aircraft diverts to an airfield without significant ground power? Even assuming, optimistically, that you can still 90kW into it, you're going to be waiting on the ground for a day.

8. A minor fault in one battery pack may instantly render a significant proportion of total stored power unusable.

It's just not possible. We may as well accept the CO2 issues from passenger aircraft (and maybe look at biofuels via solar power and carbon capture) instead of bothering with this. I'm not anti-electric, I drive an EV and have solar panels, but this is not going to work.

Got to admire the ability to extract money from investors, though.

[Bitsminer]

Re: Doesn't make sense

Harbour Air is currently running test flights between Vancouver and Victoria. They are 72km apart.

People in the know are aware of the concerns with running trains between these two cities.

[Richard 12]

Re: Doesn't make sense

There's a very small number of short hop routes where it might make sense, I guess.

But it's still only going to be able to make two to three flights a day, at most. I guess that works for some inter-island routes that local laws require they fly, but not for commercially viable routes.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Doesn't make sense

Westray to Papa Westray?

[MachDiamond]

Re: Doesn't make sense

"Harbour Air is currently running test flights between Vancouver and Victoria. They are 72km apart."

Xcor flew their rocket plane about 10 miles between Mojave and California City airports as a test. They're out of business now and the Rocket Racing League never got going. Given the time and crew needed, it was simpler to drive so while it was pretty cool, it wasn't a practical form of transportation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Doesn't make sense

How on earth does removing 5 passengers (300 kg) get you 400 km more range?

Americans, so more like 600kg

[zuckzuckgo]

Re: Doesn't make sense

> 1. How on earth does removing 5 passengers (300 kg) get you 400 km more range?

Maybe they burn them as fuel?

[Crypto Monad]

Re: Doesn't make sense

This.

Solar -> capture atmospheric CO2 and turn it into fuel.

It doesn't even have to go via electricity: you can make syngas directly, or just plant sugar cane and ferment it.

Doing anything else only makes sense if you have a huge surplus of carbon-free electricity. Even then, for aircraft it would still be better to turn the electricity into fuel than to store it in batteries - until such time as there's a new type of battery that's many times more energy-dense than we have today.

[imanidiot]

Re: Doesn't make sense

1. -> Lower wing loading, far less weight to haul to altitude. Most energy is wasted just hauling the load to cruising altitude. With the right wing design and an efficiently chosen cruising speed (Which will likely be very far from VNE) the aircraft uses far less power during cruise. If ATC cooperates even more gain can be had by choosing a high altitude cruise and then gliding all the way into the next airport if possible. Or if faster decent is required theoretically they could even partially recharge the batteries by windmilling the props and using the motors as generators during decent. Gives a heck of a lot of resistance but if fast decent is not a problem then it might actually be an advantage.

2. Yes and this has been a problem for a long time. The 150 to 200 Wh/kg of the latest gen LiFePO batteries is starting to get just good enough where electric planes might just be feasible for short routes.

3. Trains don't work everywhere in all situations. There's still plenty of places in the world where (at least for the foreseeable future) there isn't enough traffic to warrant building a rail line but short haul electric flights might be feasible.

4. That is a problem to solve for each individual airport. Perhaps for many applications it won't NEED to fly multiple times per day and recharge immediately upon landing.

5. a 30 passenger prop plane isn't going to be cruising anywhere near the altitudes were that much compressor power is required. I wouldn't even be surprised if this thing is going to be unpressurized or only minimally pressurized, for which cabin pressurization compressor power requirements are far lower. (And the 787 is a bad example in that regard as it has such powerful engines and a non fatigue life limited composite fuselage it has "best in class" cabin pressurization and runs at a higher cabin pressure than any other jet)

6. Motors and inverters have been around for a LONG LONG time. Running in far more life critical applications too. There is absolutely nothing new or unproven under the sun there.

7. What happens if a jet low on fuel diverts to an airfield without refueling capabilities? They'll be waiting for a long time on the ground too until fuel can be trucked in. This is a relative non-issue. Most of the time you'll choose an alternate that can get you the facilities you need and if you don't have the choice then you'll just have to suck it up and wait. Not a particularly big issue this.

8. Yes, a minor fault in one battery pack might also set the entire aircraft on fire. That's where certification and maintenance comes in. It's very rare for well designed battery packs to just go kaput without warning.

It's possible for a limited number of use cases. Certainly for GA aircraft. Whether it's currently commercially viable for airlines remains to be proven. Biofuels via solar power and carbon capture? Now there's a pointless idea (small hint, you'd need to cover the Sahara desert with generating plants even with today's most efficient designs to get even close to the fuel consumption of aviation).

Aviations CO2 output is a problem. It needs to be tackled, and realistically if it's not through initiatives like this then it'll happen by flying becoming much much more expensive and far less accessible to Joe Average.

[DJO]

Re: Doesn't make sense

For 4) removable battery packs, perhaps in a standard air cargo container could make turnaround faster than a liquid fuel top-up.

It's odd that so many people seem to have an almost visceral hatred for the idea of electric aircraft. It's a bit like people in the 19th century who insisted that rail travel above 30mph would be fatal to passengers. Daft ideas with no basis in fact.

Plainly such aircraft are not suitable for every route but where they are suitable there's no reason not to use them.

It's early days, once they are established the technology can and will improve.

[captain veg]

Re: It's just not possible.

Just as well that Orville and Wilbur didn't take this attitude.

-A.

[Graham Dawson]

Re: It's just not possible.

Orville and Wilbur didn't deliberately attach several hundred kilos of dead weight to their aircraft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It's just not possible.

At the time many did not believe that heavier than air powered flight was even possible and ridiculed those that tried.

[claimed]

Re: It's just not possible.

Where on earth would that idea have come from...?

Birds are heavier than air...no?

I don't believe anyone worth listening to thought that. Same people as vaccine conspiracy theorists, but I wouldn't cite those people

[that one in the corner]

More than one way to fly electric

IIRC a long time ago one of the pulp magazines (probably Analog) had a go at taking seriously some of the old ideas about electric flight.

Such as whacking a massive charge on the aircraft and, by suitable extraction and retraction of needle points, or similar fine discharge sites, using the "electric wind" effect for lift and propulsion.

Some drawbacks to that scheme were noted but it did make the next seem more practical: a magnetohydrodynamic drive (crudely put, ionise the air and accelerate it with induced currents). Again, sadly, there are power issues, but an MHD aircraft would be quite fun: eerie pulsating glows from the engines, VTOL and hover plus rapid shift from vertical to horizontal thrust. This all reminds me of something, though not sure it could be identified if it happened to fly past.

[Auntie Dix]

Cross Off Heart, and Hope It Dies

Can people not smell "EV" BS?

"Heart Aerospace, which previously planned to have hundreds of 19-seat all-electric planes in the air by 2026, has ditched ...the ES-19, of which 200 were ordered by United Airlines and regional US airline Mesa Air Group. It is our understanding that these orders were not meaningfully fulfilled, if at all."

Duh. Of course, that ludicrous scam was not fulfilled.

Note to self: Not only is United a cattle-car carrier of last resort, it is a gullible spendthrift, too.

Now, there is more good scam news:

"While adding 11 passengers, the ES-30 doesn't extend the older model's range of only 200 km (124 miles) under fully-electric operation."

124 miles? Are you f#cking kidding?

Why not use instead balsa wood and rubber bands?

[MachDiamond]

Re: Cross Off Heart, and Hope It Dies

"124 miles? Are you f#cking kidding?"

I can drive 124 miles much faster than it would take to fly. The flight itself isn't that bad, but everything else getting to the point where the plane is in the air would take much longer. I'd have to drive a bit over 100 miles to get to the closest passenger airport to start.

[Anonymous Coward]

Long range electric flights

Add a bunch of keys on strings and only fly in thunderstorms!