The largest all-electric plane ever flew for 27 minutes, on $5 of electricity

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,278   +64
Staff
Looking ahead: A battery-powered aircraft the size of a regional airliner has completed its first flight, a milestone for Heart Aerospace as it develops technology for a future hybrid-electric passenger plane. The test showcased both the real progress in battery-electric propulsion and the range limits that will keep Heart's first commercial aircraft dependent on a hybrid system.

Heart's X1 demonstrator flew for 27 minutes from a regional airport in upstate New York, running on battery power the entire time. The aircraft reached 1,100 feet with one pilot aboard and no passengers. The flight marked the first time the company had put the X1 in the air.

The 30-seat plane is 76 feet long and has a 106-foot wingspan. It weighs more than 25,000 pounds. Heart says it is the largest fully battery-powered aircraft yet flown. "With the first flight of X1, Heart Aerospace has demonstrated electric flight at the scale of a commercial airliner," Heart Founder and CEO Anders Forslund said in a statement.

The X1 is a test platform, not an aircraft meant for airline service. Heart plans to apply what it learns from the program to the ES-30, a 30-seat hybrid-electric aircraft it hopes to bring into service by 2031. United, Air Canada, and JSX have all expressed interest in the model.

The ES-30's design reflects a central problem in electric aviation: batteries store far less energy per pound than jet fuel. As aircraft get larger, battery packs have to grow too, leaving less room for passengers, bags, and freight. Batteries also don't get lighter in flight – a conventional plane sheds weight as it burns fuel, but an electric aircraft carries the same battery mass from departure to arrival.

Heart estimates the design can travel about 125 miles on battery power alone. That's too short for many regional routes, especially once airlines factor in reserve power. The ES-30 would add a combustion-engine range extender, which Heart says could push maximum range to roughly 500 miles.

The company argues that the hybrid approach also cuts costs. Heart says the ES-30 could be more than 40% cheaper to operate than a comparable conventional regional aircraft, citing lower energy use and maintenance needs – electric motors have fewer moving parts than conventional aircraft engines, which should mean fewer and cheaper repairs.

Heart said the X1 flight used about $5 worth of electricity. That figure covers only the energy consumed during the test, but does not account for labor, airport charges, insurance, maintenance, battery wear, or the other costs of running an actual airline.

Heart moved its headquarters from Gothenburg, Sweden, to Los Angeles in 2025, part of a broader industry push to electrify smaller, shorter-range aircraft rather than long-haul fleets.

Rolls-Royce has tested an electric race plane that hit 387 mph, while Harbour Air has developed a six-seat electric seaplane. Joby Aviation and Archer Aviation, meanwhile, are pursuing electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing aircraft for short trips like airport connections.

Heart's X1 flight doesn't resolve the range and weight constraints that have slowed electric aviation. But it does give Heart flight-test data from a larger aircraft as it works toward a hybrid regional plane.

Permalink to story:

 
Does that $5 pass the smell test? Google tells me a typical regional commuter flight burns $3,000 - $7,000 in fuel. Even assuming electric is much more efficient, how is it that much more efficient?


Tesla charges $62 cents per kWH so I would imagine a short flight isn't going to be much more than a few kWH.
 
And here I thought these plane companies were trying to reduce batteries that were on the flight due to fire hazards and so on....

Try to imagine that more battery chemistries exist than just Lithium ion.

It was an Airbus A380 I last remember having an issue with a LiIon battery failure and that was like 10 years ago.
 
I doubt the commercial airlines will ever go electric, but the smaller commuter aircraft would not only benefit from being EV by being cheaper, having fewer parts, having less maintenance and being less expensive to operate.

The only thing I need to see to sell me is a CAPS system like they have in the Cirrus SR22.

The Cessna Skyhawk 172 was the aircraft I learned in, but I would gladly switch to Cirrus for CAPS and HOTAS controls.
 
$5.00 dollar for 27 minute flight?

And yet Airlines would still charge you $500.00
Fu l costs are only one part of running the business. Do you think planes are free? Or airports? Or pilots?
Try to imagine that more battery chemistries exist than just Lithium ion.

It was an Airbus A380 I last remember having an issue with a LiIon battery failure and that was like 10 years ago.
Try to imagine that Lithium batteries are the most common type of battery, and that most alternative echemistries don't exist outside a lab.
 
Does that $5 pass the smell test? Google tells me a typical regional commuter flight burns $3,000 - $7,000 in fuel. Even assuming electric is much more efficient, how is it that much more efficient?

In some states, electricity costs less than 15 cents per kWh. $5 would buy you 33 kWh or more. That's plenty to fly for 27 minutes. 33 kWh gets me well over 120 miles in my EV. That's 2 hours driving at 60mph.
 
In some states, electricity costs less than 15 cents per kWh. $5 would buy you 33 kWh or more. That's plenty to fly for 27 minutes. 33 kWh gets me well over 120 miles in my EV. That's 2 hours driving at 60mph.

OK, let's start from those numbers. Can we call "well over" about 150 miles? for $5 of electricity? That's a great deal compared to regular gas which at say ~35 mpg and $4.10/gallon would be $17.50 which is 3.5x more. So that's great savings for the electric vehicle.

But that 3.5x is nothing compared to the savings this plane is trying to claim. If the current regional airliner needs about $5,000 in fuel, and this plane claims to need $5 in electricity, that's no mere 3.5x jump -- that's a 1000x increase in efficiency. Even if we say the real flight is twice is long, and adds 30 people and their luggage at 200 pounds = 6000 pounds more of weight from a base of 25,000, we're multiplying the cost by 2x distance and 1.25x weight = 2.5x so let's call that cost $12.50, still a 400x savings over the fuel cost.

I'm not asking these questions trying to question the value of electric in general. 3.5x is great in my book already. I'm just wondering where the 400x claim is coming from and why it's not raising more eyebrows.
 
Did they use it for take off or just for sustained flight though?

Just use hydrogen. It’s still lower in energy density than kerosine when storage is factored in but it’s still significantly higher than batteries
 
I think this is cool as an experiment/proof of concept, proving that the plane can act like an actual plane, taking off, flying and landing.

But there is not much actual use for this kind of plane. The range is too short and the crew & passenger capacity is too limited. At this point, why not just have an electric bus ?
 
I would imagine they probably trust the batteries they installed in the plane more than some passenger's old smartphone with a crappy no-name lithium battery they bought from AliExpress.
doesnt matter where you bought it from, lil hater. if it's based on Li-ion or Lipolymer, it's good.
 
I think that 5$ cost is probably by seat and even then very doubtful.

My Tesla would use 15kWh for 100km and that would be already more than 5 bucks.
Are you saying that airplane uses less power ? No f in way.


Edit: typo edit
 
Last edited:
And here I thought these plane companies were trying to reduce batteries that were on the flight due to fire hazards and so on....
They will most likely spread them out in isolated compartments. It would be interesting to know what materials they used to isolate them from other parts of the plane.
I mean, if they burn as well as car batteries, a fire would destroy the plane as quickly as an EV.


 
Does that $5 pass the smell test? Google tells me a typical regional commuter flight burns $3,000 - $7,000 in fuel. Even assuming electric is much more efficient, how is it that much more efficient?
its just that much cheaper to produce in the short run
 
I think the issue is you shouldnt trust a battery being used that way to maintain its peak performance after one drain cycle. Sure you probably could for like 5 flights before concerning battery health is an issue but why would you risk it? So they need to mass produce one time use batteries or have a intensive battery care program. Creates multiple jobs and might still be cheaper on the larger scale though.
 
Sounds like a great step in the right direction to me but I can't help thinking that if this was China, the finished product would be released next year rather than in 5 years time.
 
Does that $5 pass the smell test? Google tells me a typical regional commuter flight burns $3,000 - $7,000 in fuel. Even assuming electric is much more efficient, how is it that much more efficient?
It was a short test flight, not a typical regional flight.
 
Back