Be kinde to folk. This changeth the whole habitat.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 5
https://electrek.co/2025/10/12/clear-skies-ahead-d...Delta Air Lines announced a new partnership with Maeve Aerospace meant to accelerate certification and deployment of the startup’s next-generation hybrid-electric regional aircraft – a move that could reduce the company’s fuel consumption on those routes by up to 40% compared to ICE-only assets.
Maeve introduced its M80 hybrid-[electric](https://electrek.co/2025/06/03/beta-technologies-e...), 80-seater aircraft in November of 2023 as a sustainable, cost-effective aircraft designed to satisfy the operational needs of the majority of regional operators and airports.*
As designed, the M80 promises an operating range of more than 900 miles (~1,500 km) with 40% higher fuel efficiency than conventional aircraft. [Similar in concept to the way Toyota’s Prius uses its electric motors to accelerate and cruises on a small ICE engine](https://electrek.co/2025/10/04/you-can-get-antique...), the Maeve’s hybrid engine architecture provides additional electric power assistance at low altitude, high-drag flight.
No. of Recommendations: 4
...next-generation hybrid-electric regional aircraft ...
One could safely ignore this post, as I haven't looked into their technology.
But taking a step back...a hybrid, any hybrid, ultimately gets all of its energy from the fuel pumped into it. Fossil fuel, as a rule.
The only gains come from (a) increased efficiency, notably regenerative braking for cars, but otherwise generally being stuff you could do with or without hybridization (aerodynamics, that sort of thing); and (b) the amount of charge the batteries had when you left home.
For a hybrid aircraft, regenerative braking isn't a thing, and efficiency improvements are available without a change in propulsion. And, compared to the energy use during a flight, the amount of energy in batteries at take-off is negligible.
So, again forgiving my ignorance, where is there a gain?
The ability to use a greener fuel than a fuel-driven mechanical engine is nice, but jet kerosene could in principle be synthesized without fossil fuels too.
Is the putative gain purely from the greater energy conversion efficiency of (say) fuel-fuelcell-electricmotor or fuel-turbinegenerator-electric, versus fuel-jetturbine? And is it greater?
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 6
But taking a step back...a hybrid, any hybrid, ultimately gets all of its energy from the fuel pumped into it. Fossil fuel, as a rule.
A little less with every passing day. In some parts of the US the amount of electricity produced by renewables is over 50%. Clean electricity in China is now almost 40%. Half of new cars in China are battery powered, and its 30,000 miles of high speed rail are electric.
We still have a frightfully long way to go, true, and we (the US) are behind in the clean electricity business, having put our faith in “drill baby drill” (natural gas now instead of coal) but others are taking it a little more seriously. (It’s true that the total energy mix hasn’t changed that much worldwide, but imagine what it would be like if no one was working on renewables!)
Of course we are continuing to expand our energy appetite, but hopefully all these data centers and other electrified doo-dads will likewise encourage the utilities to work harder at providing clean electricity, especially now that those prices are coming down. At the very least I would hope it takes a little power away (pardon the pun) from the Petroleum-states, to who we’ve been in thrall these last 50 years.
OK, I know I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one…(good song lyric, that)
No. of Recommendations: 1
I too am completely ignorant about this plane. Jim's protests seem (and are) perfectly logical, but let's add an additional variable. Let's assume that the plane needs substantially more "horsepower" during take-off and landing than during cruising. That would mean that, in a regular plane, the engines would have to be large enough for this periodic event. If a separate electrical propulsion system could supplement the main engines during take-off and landing, then the main engines could be much smaller and, in a perfect world, much more efficient. While, in theory, the same amount of energy is used wither way, in practice, they may be significantly different.
Of course, I could be spectacularly wrong.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 5
f a separate electrical propulsion system could supplement the main engines during take-off and landing, then the main engines could be much smaller
Good point. That makes sense.
The trick would be to make sure the combined system is not heavier, or at least not sufficiently heavier that it offsets that advantage.
I'm sure they can work it out, but I'm not immediately fond of the idea of big lithium batteries on board with me : )
Kerosene isn't exactly a happy travel companion either, but it lacks that charming spontaneity of lithium battery packs.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 4
The limitation with any electrically powered or assisted airplane is the energy density of batteries. They are simply too heavy in an application where weight is a critical factor
IC engines would be similarly hampered if they had to carry the oxygen needed to combust fuel, but fortunately, O2 is available readily and widely in the atmosphere.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm sure they can work it out, but I'm not immediately fond of the idea of big lithium batteries on board with me : )
Kerosene isn't exactly a happy travel companion either, but it lacks that charming spontaneity of lithium battery packs.
With a hybrid you get the best of both worlds!
