18 ms·
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
by alberth 13d ago
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 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-unveils-new-airplane-design-confirms-air-canada-and-saab-as-new-shareholders https://www.heartaerospace.com/newsroom/heart-aerospace-unve...
- luma 13d agoHybrid 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.
- misterderpie 13d agoFor anyone looking for the reference, it's stated at 10:16 [0] [0] https://youtu.be/nM86DBOqgPM?si=BdoZzp1Dxa4S3C_9&t=616 https://youtu.be/nM86DBOqgPM?si=BdoZzp1Dxa4S3C_9&t=616
- coin 11d agoYes it's super misleading. All the marketing and title is calling it "electric" where in reality it's a hybrid electric-gas airplane with a 125 mile electric range. Aviation uses nautical miles yet they advertise 125 statute miles so the number seems bigger (125 statute miles = 108.62 nautical miles). It would be like Toyota marketing the Prius as an electric vehicle, then buried in their presentation sneaking in the gas propulsion. Same with Chrysler Pacifica (32 mile electric range).
- werdnapk 13d agoSo what do regular aircraft do when they run out of fuel? They require a forced landing. Aircraft fly with a buffer of fuel though to avoid such situations, so why can't an electric aircraft fly with a similar buffer on it's range? ie. Always fly less than the current charged range of the aircraft.
- luma 13d agoSimply put, batteries are heavy.
- gblargg 13d agoSomething like 1/30 the energy density of liquid fuel. Plus unlike fuel, a discharged battery weighs virtually the same as a charged one.
- marcosdumay 13d agoRegular aircraft fly with enough fuel to change into at least one other airport in an emergency (ideally two). That aircraft would need a very large battery to do that, and it's way more efficient to have some burnable fuel there that you'll never actually use.
- MobiusHorizons 13d agoRegular aircraft are required to have enough fuel to be able to divert to the alternate airfield in their flight plan plus all the margins for taxiing and waiting for a landing clearance. If a plane is low on fuel they can declare an emergency and get priority over other traffic, but that obviously is disruptive and should not happen on well planned flights unless something pretty significant happens after takeoff.
- phire 13d ago> and should not happen on well planned flights You make it sound like it is acceptable for a badly planned flight to have a fuel emergency. It is not. If there is a fuel emergency (or the plane lands with less than 30min of fuel) there will be an incident investigation that treats the situation as serious as if the plane had crashed. If the investigation discovers it was nothing more than bad planning, (at minimum) the planning procedures will be changed to ensure it never happens again.
- dyauspitr 13d agoUnless they have a whole new airport and flying experience, I don’t think a lot of people are going to fly just 125 miles. That’s less than two hours of driving. It would be 2 hours of just airport shenanigans much less the flight itself.
- deleted 13d ago[deleted]
- tomjessessky 13d agoThere are a fair number of connecting flights that this is a good fit for. For example, I fly out of Madison, WI regularly and almost always connect through Chicago, which I believe is right around the 125 mile mark.
- zxexz 13d agoUsed to regularly take the shortish flight from Boston to Chicago, and then a bus >3x as long to Madison to see family, because the puddlejumper was too expensive or not even running.
- Toutouxc 13d ago> 125 miles … That’s less than two hours of driving. I don’t know where you live or what you drive, but I just punched in a destination 200 km away as the crow flies, the Alps are in the way and I’m looking at five hours of driving. Also, water.
- Thlom 13d agoRookie numbers. As the crow flies it's 250km between me and my old town. Used to drive back and forth a lot back in the days and it takes everything from 8 hours to 10 hours depending on the route you take and whether you hit the ferries on schedule or not. Plus 30 minutes for resting and eating. Flying takes 50 minutes in a propeller airplane + travel to and from airports and airport shenanigans (not too bad at these small airports). If you take the morning flight you'll be in town by the time people start showing up for work. If you drive you'll be in town by the time people start leaving work.
- giancarlostoro 13d agoHonestly, I'd feel better knowing it has a reserve system in case there's any issues, even if the batteries have more than enough power, beats having it and never using it, than needing it and suffering as a result.
- IrishTechie 13d agoDo current aircraft have a backup in-case their fuel tanks run dry?
- ben-schaaf 13d agoThere's reserve tanks or more generally reserve fuel for emergencies. Other than that there's no propulsion backup for when the fuel runs out, instead redundancy comes from multiple independent fuel tanks.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13d ago> redundancy comes from multiple independent fuel tanks. And in larger aircraft, multiple independent engines. See for instance ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS From the pictures, I see that this new aircraft has 4 engines. So it should be adequately resilient to single engine failure.
- dmitrygr 13d agoCurrent aircraft have * MULTIPLE HOURS* of fuel tanks. Compared to dozens of minutes of battery that this thing has.
- tonyarkles 13d agoTypical reserve requirement is 30 min for a turbine aircraft (45 for piston). Given the 125 mile battery-only range and the probability that it flies at at least 200 kts (230 mph), it’s pretty unlikely to hit even a 30 min reserve on only batteries. I like the design, I think they get the problem and have a decent solution for it
- seanmcdirmid 12d agoI remember reading about making ground effects electric planes for this reason. You need a reserve, but if your plane could double as a boat and was flying over water, that would satisfy the requirement.
- nradov 12d agoAs long as water conditions allow for a safe landing. In much of the world that severely limits when you can operate due to storms or ice. In practice routine use of ground effect vehicles will be mostly limited to lakes and inland seas with fairly benign weather. Like I don't think we're going to have regular passenger service from San Francisco to Los Angeles or Detroit to Cleveland.
- deleted 12d ago[deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 12d agoGround effect planes are already pretty limited to calm water situations. Like between Seattle and Victoria, or maybe Seattle and Vancouver. I would say the Alaskan marine highway would be a good fit, but that is mostly for freight and cars.
- deleted 12d ago[deleted]
- yndoendo 13d agoWith 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 https://www.heartaerospace.com/es-30
- tuatoru 13d agoSurprised 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeG4zLlFkak Linear engine starts around 11:19
- anonymars 13d agoTurbines are extremely reliable and well-understood in aviation propulsion
- MobiusHorizons 13d agoThis! Anything unproven makes the flight certification process longer. They already have to get their electric side certified, might as well make the backup generator as easily certified as possible.
- tuatoru 13d agoGood point. Only have one new tech at a time. Generation II then.
- bitwize 13d agoMy father, a mechanical engineer, was a tireless advocate of the hypocycloid crankshaft mechanism. In the 90s, hybrid vehicles with a hypocycloid-based generator feeding the batteries that make the electric motors go was the application he was going for, especially since hypocycloids function best at constant RPM.
- strictnein 13d agoI say this with all sincerity, I love this sentence: "My father, a mechanical engineer, was a tireless advocate of the hypocycloid crankshaft mechanism." For some reason just reading that brought a smile to my face.
- 13d ago
- class3shock 13d agoThe X1, which is what flew, is all electric. The ES-30, their proposed product, is hybrid.
- dyauspitr 13d agoIt uses aviation fuel only after the electric battery is empty. And uses the fuel to run generators, the motors are all electric.
- _heimdall 13d agoIts hard to call that the largest electric aircraft IMO. It's electric until it can't, then its not.
- disillusioned 13d agoWell, technically, it's always electric. Sometimes the source of that electricity is from the battery system, and sometimes it's from an onboard generator.
- frollogaston 12d agoNah, electric means battery
- frollogaston 12d agoYou can't dip into emergency fuel for non-emergencies, cause then you could have a real emergency. It's not like a hybrid car that people could run completely on gasoline. So sounds like this plane would be electric almost all the time.
- Gravityloss 13d agoBut on this flight it did not have a combustion engine, I assume it was fully electric and if so, the title is 100% correct.
- mapt 13d agoAccording to the founder, he can make the economics of short trips (1-2hr) work with all-battery. He cannot make them work if he has to store enough battery to fly around for an additional hour or two searching for an airport to divert to in an emergency, which is an FAA requirement. So he has the heavy battery bank for regular trips costing almost nothing per flight-hour, and the expensive fueled backup system for emergencies.
- mikepurvis 13d agoSeems like an extremely practical way to handle that requirement without hauling around a ton of extra battery capacity that will rarely get used.
- frollogaston 12d agoWhy do the generators specifically need aviation fuel? They aren't the actual motors.
- Lt_Riza_Hawkeye 12d agoI think the video states they are actually turboprop engines
- frollogaston 12d agoOk that makes sense