Not with current battery tech they won't. Even the article mentions a pitiful 200km range with up to 400km using hybrid tech (so back to using combustibles, are we?). Real world practical range capabilities of electric planes will have to wait until we get better battery tech with higher energy density. Right now this seems like another too-good-to-be-true company which appears promising so that they get investors and subsidies to line the pockets of the founders.

>line the pockets of the founders.

All new technologies are too-good-to-be-true when they start out, and all startups need to paint an optimistic outlook to get funding. You seem to be suggesting corruption, which need not be the case.

Remember also, electric aircraft don't need a super long range to carve out an important niche. They are prop-driven and can actually be faster than jets on these short routes, doing so without expensive fuel.

I can see a future where electric planes take over some short air routes for sure.

So apparently Heart Aerospace is partnered with Northvolt's Cuberg whose solid electrode Lithium-ion cell energy density has been validated at 380 Wh/kg.

https://northvolt.com/articles/cuberg-july2022

> But he is confident improvements in battery density will happen, and quickly. For example, cell manufacturer Cuberg is already working on next-generation battery technology that promises better energy density at lower cost. Cuberg has several links with Heart: it is a supplier to Electroflight, and in March was acquired by Northvolt, a Swedish battery specialist whose chief executive Peter Carlsson is also an advisor to the aircraft manufacturer.

> Forslund points out that the requirement to change battery packs after they have been through a certain number of cycles means that operators will, in effect, “get a better aircraft on a yearly basis”.

> That energy density improvement will also enable Heart to develop a larger future aircraft of “approaching 50 seats”, although Forslund is keeping mum on the timeline.

i cant. its cold in the upper atmosphere.

Personally I dont think so, well at least not anytime soon. The problems are kinda major, short range low power are not exactly thrust characteristics anybody wants. It's also important to know that commercial aircraft have a substatial electrical system in place already, that both generates electricity, and powers motors to a degree. Seriously, combustion in a turbine is so efficient, making a biofuel from alcohol is a better solution, that uses existing technology, and gives performance on par with conventional systems.

However for air taxi's and such, quadrathopter esq people carriers in cities and shorter trips that can use a simple parachute in case of emergency will see some real implementation imo, but an actual "airliner" seems far fetched, unless you could use the electricity to replicate the heat produced by a combustion reaction, now that would be something.

The range is only half of the picture. Current airplanes can refuel quickly and easily and get back in the air. A battery powered airplane would need either multiple charge points or swappable batteries.

Then there's fire suppression unless a battery that is much less flammable than lithium ion batteries are used.

> However, United Airlines-backed Heart Aerospace says swapping batteries will add unnecessary complexity and that charging times will be about 40 minutes for an 'average mission'.

I believe their solid electrode battery has a much lower risk of fire.

No. It won't. You're better off trying this with h fuel cells than batteries. Also God phorbid you make an emergency landing and compromise the battery

Yeah, the too good to be true tech are called scams, vaporware and greenwashing. People need to stop throwing money on useless trash just because a few millionaires think it's a cool. Idea.

Examples: Theranos. Hyperloop, waterseer, that one electric truck company, solar roadways. To name a few. Fucking morons throwing money at garbage.

These pop up every week. But yeah the "I swear bro this time it's different, just give me money bro, I'm gonna revolutionize travel bro I swear bro this time for real bro" crowd on here is just beyond help. It's impossible to explain to a stupid that they're stupid

>a fully electric range of 200km

Not going to cut it. Broadly the weight of the battery will increase linearly with range. The only way to get a useful range is to make the plane one big flying battery, with no actual passengers.

Actually, you can expect range to more closely approximate logarithmic growth with respect to battery mass. Basic physics.

Depends if you are assuming the same aircraft with the same total eight, and replacing payload with battery, then the battery would scale linearly. If you are assuming a fixed payload capacity and a longer range, then the near logarithmic growth applies.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

So far, we don’t have battery packs that have the energy density, max output, fast charging, and longevity that would allow for anything in passenger flight. It just doesn’t exist. “Replacing batteries every few cycles” sounds horribly expensive. You would also have a range approved based on battery life. You need distance+circling+ going to other airport plus at one go around. It just isn’t going to happen with any battery tech we know of, and it’s unlikely for hydrogen planes with more than about 20 people for about 200 miles

They cant keep teslas from spontaneous combustions yet

Chemical batteries are a wild animal

[removed]

god forbid an emergency landing and compromise the fuel deposits

Solar frikin’ roadways!

Yeah,hydrogen fuel cells or green jet fuel replacements are the solution for the forseeable future.