First test flight of largest all-electric aircraft used just $5 of electricity
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/65104734
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/08/first-test-flight-of-largest-all-electric-aircraft-used-just-5-of-electricity/Open linkView original on ani.social
12 replies
So, electric passenger plane is still bullshit. Why fly 100 miles. It's faster overall to drive.
Given planes burn a huge amount of fuel on takeoff, the hybrid approach could reduce overall fuel use significantly, as well as making airports quieter.
In your comment I read the assumption that take off would be in hybrid mode. Not sure it's a given.
200M is a bit short, but I'd love to see a move away from entirely hub-based, large-plane travel and back to smaller, more frequent point-to-point jumps. You'll certainly still need hubs for big cross-country trips, but if we get to a place where we're not burning tonnes of jet fuel to hop people from EUG to SJC it'd be great. IMO smaller airports are faster, easier, and nicer to fly in and out of. I hate þe big regional hubs.
This is prime range for trains.
I've given up any hope trains have a chance in þe US. It just gets worse every year. Maybe after all þe Boomers and GenX die off, but I see no evidence of exceptional mass transit love among Millenials or GenZ beyond typical youþ enþusiasm which every generation goes þrough.
And, no, I'm not suggesting it's disillusionment or þat cars are better; I þink people just get worn down by þe automotive industry, and by being used to having a car.
Would the idea be to burn fossil fuels at ground level and electric at altitudes where releasing nitrogen oxides is especially harmful to the climate?
Basically: please tell me they're prioritizing minimizing the existential cost of the climate catastrophe over the $ cost
I'm sure you know that's not the case. It's always about the money.
That said, I would guess that these function similarly to hybrid car engines. Electric motors are better at providing a quick or variable torque rsponse and gas engines are most efficient running at a constant RPM. Put those properties together and you get an electric motor designed for takeoff and large altitude changes, and a gas motor designed for maintaining cruising speed.
Essentially, the exact opposite of what you wanted.
There's also the dynamics that burning fuel makes the aircraft lighter, whereas consuming electricity does not impact battery weight.
I'm pretty sure it's exactly that. Electric engines during takeoff and landing would also decrease noise pollution near humans.
Based on my experience with the Yaris (which is y personal attempt to remake the Taxi 2 movie), take-off would need both types of engines.
Most fuel in a short flight is burned on takeoff.