From the video:<p>Range: 125 miles all electric<p><pre><code> 500 miles with hybrid system (electric + conventional turbo prop)</code></pre>
At last! Enough range to allow a few dozen passengers to spend ~3 hours getting to and from airports to replace the grueling two hour drives they'd otherwise be forced into making.<p>Yeah... this isn't going to do it. <i>Maybe</i> there's an argument for this hybrid plane in the regional airliner market if there's a significant fuel savings vs. turboprops (the linked video is silent on the subject, but it's plausible).<p>But the "all electric" bit is just a joke.<p>Edit to point out: this company is less sexy, but has made the same design mistake Boom did: they designed a physical airframe for what is <i>actually</i> a propulsion problem. Boom's story about how they're going to push their plane has changed like six times now. And likewise what this startup should be hawking is a hybrid turboprop that they can sell to Bombardier or whoever.<p>I mean, who cares that they built yet another high wing puddle jumper? That's a 60-year-solved problem. It's the stuff in the nacelles that matters!
Can I be the one to make the obligatory train comment? Moving hundreds of people 500 miles in comfort, using only electricity, is also a VERY solved problem.
> 500 miles with hybrid system<p>> the grueling two hour drives<p>What country are you in, and perhaps more importantly, what roads are you driving on?
Gotta be Germany and the Autobahn. The questions really are:<p>What car are you driving?<p>How are you not dead?
To repeat: the market is filled with fuel-driven turboprops. This only wins if it's better, and it's only better if it's cheaper. Is it cheaper? If it's cheaper they should say, and not spend time talking about "all electric" range in a regime that doesn't want aircraft at all.<p>And sure, there are places in the world that don't have limited access highways. But the 125 mile range is already served very well by piston-driven lightplanes! Again, who's going to buy one of these vs. just continuing to run their 40+ year old Beavers or Caravans or whatever?<p>Also: if the only market for your high tech electric superplane startup is backcountry work in Alaska, you're probably never going to get funded to begin with.
I'm pretty excited for the hybrid airplane. Use battery charge to get up to altitude. Hybrid power during cruise and top off the battery with the leftover power. Far less power requirements, far less fuel use, better climb performance, and can use the most efficient engine rather than hugely inefficient but power dense turbines. And as a bonus, put the prop power anywhere you want. Designs that distribute props across the leading endge, or right on the leading edge of the rudder, are exciting.<p>What an age to witness.
I feel as a civilization we are further behind in battery technology than we should be at this point.
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.
Thought this was a great watch, as a first time founder myself!
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.<p>They need to hire an actual designer, if the plane weighs 0.5% more but has actual human usability that's worth it.