World's First Crewed Solid-State Flight Electrifies Aviation's Future 75
The Helios Horizon has completed what its developers call the first crewed, fixed-wing flight powered by solid-state batteries. New Atlas reports: On June 5, test pilot Miguel Iturmendi lifted off from Zephyrhills Municipal Airport in Florida at the controls of the Helios Horizon -- the first crewed, fixed-wing aircraft ever to fly on solid-state batteries. The flight was neither spectacular in distance nor in duration -- it was a series of short tests to validate the aircraft's weight and balance after the new batteries had been installed -- but it didn't need to be to make history. [...] The Helios Horizon's previous lithium-ion pack delivered 260 Wh/kg (watt-hours per kilogram, a measure of how much energy a battery holds relative to its weight). The new solid-state cells hit 410 Wh/kg, a 60% jump. Chief test pilot and company founder Miguel Iturmendi expects that figure to grow another 40% within two years.
Though the battery pack can be topped up over any AC outlet, no special infrastructure needed, fast-charging is also supported for up to 80% capacity in under 15 minutes. The aircraft also recovers energy in flight through wing-mounted solar panels and a regenerative system that spins the propeller as a wind turbine during glides and descents. "Regenerative flight can significantly extend the aircraft's range," Iturmendi said after the test flights.
The Helios Horizon itself started life as a Pipistrel Taurus motorized glider. Iturmendi's team added proprietary battery management, a custom propulsion stack, thermodynamic controls, and solar panel wing extensions. The aircraft already holds the world altitude record for electric planes in its weight class, having reached 24,000 ft (7,315 m). The next goal is 40,000 ft (12,192 m), commercial cruising altitude, in stratospheric flights planned for later this year.
Though the battery pack can be topped up over any AC outlet, no special infrastructure needed, fast-charging is also supported for up to 80% capacity in under 15 minutes. The aircraft also recovers energy in flight through wing-mounted solar panels and a regenerative system that spins the propeller as a wind turbine during glides and descents. "Regenerative flight can significantly extend the aircraft's range," Iturmendi said after the test flights.
The Helios Horizon itself started life as a Pipistrel Taurus motorized glider. Iturmendi's team added proprietary battery management, a custom propulsion stack, thermodynamic controls, and solar panel wing extensions. The aircraft already holds the world altitude record for electric planes in its weight class, having reached 24,000 ft (7,315 m). The next goal is 40,000 ft (12,192 m), commercial cruising altitude, in stratospheric flights planned for later this year.
Silly. (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason no one else has done this is that the electricity stored per ounce of battery is so low. Electronic drones make sense because they do not have to carry anything EXCEPT the battery. But building an electric plane to carry something as heavy as a person? Makes no sense.
We knew it could be done but that it would be economically stupid. It's like building a bicycle out of cardboard. Yes, we can do it, but why????
Someone did this, ok, they have more money than brains.
You want to impress me, ma
Re: Silly. (Score:2)
It's like building a bicycle out of cardboard. Yes, we can do it, but why????
I don't believe you. Prove it!
Re: Silly. (Score:1)
Get a pen knife and an amazon box and go to town.
No one said the bike had to be rideable.
Re: Silly. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Electric airplanes are perfect for flight schools - they are much easier to fly than piston engined aircraft and are far cheaper to operate. The range is not important for that.
And by the way, i seriously doubt that you are important enough for anyone to go out of their way to impress you. Certainly not for an aircraft manufacturer.
Re:Silly. (Score:5, Informative)
Then there's the recharging. At the flight school I attended, the airplanes would typically go up 4 times on busy days, sometimes 5. With recharging, that drops to 2-3 flights a day (you're not draining the battery completely on each flight). But if operating costs for electric planes are significantly lower, perhaps having a few extra planes might turn out to be economical... but it does mean you can't pass that savings on to your students.
Re: (Score:2)
You had me until you said this
but it does mean you can't pass that savings on to your students.
Savings for a profitable venture does not get passed onto anyone but the owners and investors. At most, they can be more competitive then flight schools that don't use electric aircraft, but I seriously doubt any savings is going towards the customer.
Otherwise, 100% your post sounds great.
Re: (Score:2)
> Savings for a profitable venture does not get passed onto anyone but the owners and investors
Exactly! That’s just basic economics. It perfectly explains why most western folks spend half their income on food, large TVs cost 10k, and only the super rich can afford indoor plumbing or air conditioning.
Re: (Score:2)
Works for these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Silly. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm confused by your point about weight, because it's exactly what is addressed in the summary.
The new solid-state cells hit 410 Wh/kg, a 60% jump.
A 60% increase in power stored "per ounce" of battery is pretty significant. This isn't going to be the last increase, this is just the very first time solid state batteries have been used in this way.
Drone range has continued to increase. I see no reason range for planes that carry people, couldn't also increase.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that this is another "we totally have a solid state battery, honest" claim. We've been seeing this claim for at least last half a decade. They are universally followed by "no details on actual battery chemistry, and absolutely nothing on the solid electrolyte".
If the claimed "solid state" battery ever makes it into public's hands (most never do), someone cuts it open and universally, every single time we found liquid electrolyte inside.
The usual marketing spiel for that battery (if they even
Re: (Score:2)
Two years of testing and development doesn't seem unrealistic. Eventually, *somebody* will do it.
This story might indeed be a PR release without substance. We will all know soon enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Well over three years.
Re: (Score:2)
Battery improvement is hard.
Re: (Score:1)
Water is wet.
This sort of "let's state the obvious and pretend something so profound was uttered so it can stand on its own with no other commentary"-posting is not helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was an appropriate response to your comment that it's been in development for "well over three years" apparently implying that it shouldn't take that long. Battery technology being hard, is a reason why it would indeed take that long, or longer.
Re: (Score:1)
The point was quite obvious in context. You stated, and I quote:
"Two years of testing and development doesn't seem unrealistic."
I pointed out the obvious. It's been over 50% longer than that.
But beyond that, "solid state battery is eternally a few years away" has been a thing for well over a decade at this point. It's the same marketing category as "fusion on planet's surface is 50 years away" and "lithium air batteries are 20 years away".
Re: (Score:2)
Two years doesn't seem unrealistic because it's *not enough* time not *too much* time.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if battery energy density started getting close to that of liquid hydrocarbons, and thats a looong way off still, youd still need more batteries than you would fuel because batteries dont get lighter as they discharge like burned fuel does, rocket equation stuff. A 747 carries ~150k kilograms of fuel, if that didnt burn off thats an extra 37k kg the first quarter of the flight, an extra 75k kg the first half of the flight and so on...
Battery planes may never make widespread sense, if we ever start gene
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with all of that. Battery technology is hard. We've had 125+ years to perfect the fuel-powered plane. We can expect it to take a while to get where we're going with batteries.
Yes, batteries have existed even longer. But no one seriously tried to use them in aviation until recently.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no reason range for planes that carry people, couldn't also increase.
It does not solve the problem you think it solves. Not by an order of magnitude. The article is talking about a modified Pipistrel Taurus, a motor glider. It's a pleasure craft, not a commercial vehicle at all. It is making short demonstrator flights on solid-state batteries. That is legitimately interesting engineering. The ugly number the press release is dancing around is energy density.
The number the press-release is hiding from you is energy density compared to conventional liquid fuel. Aviation fu
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, battery-powered flight is hard. It's not going to replace jet passenger or freight planes any time soon. But progress is progress.
There are already electric passenger / freight planes flying, that can carry loads or people up to 80 miles. That's not nothing.
https://harbourair.com/going-e... [harbourair.com]
Re: (Score:3)
eVTOLs are where you'll see this technology first used - then the range required is parking-lot-to-parking-lot, instead of airport-to-airport.
https://beta.team/aircraft [beta.team]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Such motor gliders do not do six hundred mile gliding flights. The beast of them gets just over 30:1 glide angle. Most do not even have a retractable undercarriage.
Nearly every long flight is done in a glider above 40:1, usually at least 42:1. The best modern gliders that set the records are between 60-70:1 glide ratios.
A major factor is the speed at which best glide is achieved. Motor gliders are usually around 55kts and lucky to be 10:1 at 100kts, whereas ballasted glider only or self launching gliders ca
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, the Taurus is a self launching glider, not a motor glider. It does claim a 41:1 glider ratio. There is still no way it would set any records for distance, due to,its poor high speed glide.
In gliding, a glider with a retractable propeller of a folding prop is referred to as self launching.
Re: (Score:1)
I suspect you're thinking racing gliders. This is a side by side seating glider with a wide canopy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes its a side by side two seater. There is no such thing as a racing glider. Any glider can race under the class system in gliders.
Either way, the Taurus is never going to be a record setter, side by side has a high drag penalty.
Re: (Score:1)
Racing gliders are a specific subset of gliders that are optimized for higher speed gliding. They generally are single seaters (with some exceptions of two seaters in one behind the other configuration).
Most important difference is fuselage and wing shaping to generate optimal laminar flow at different speeds compared to normal gliders. I.e. those are the ones that get best glide ratios at 100kt and up.
Most people don't seem to know that the reason why gliders have that distinct shape is because they're opt
Re: (Score:2)
The reason no one else has done this is that the electricity stored per ounce of battery is so low.
On the contrary, lots of companies [wikipedia.org] have created electric aircraft. It's clear to everyone in the industry that they're going to be important in the future. A few have already moved into production, and many many more are at the prototype stage.
All the existing ones use conventional lithium ion batteries, and yes, low energy density is the main thing holding them back. Which is why this story is such a big deal: 60% higher energy density than the batteries in existing electric aircraft. Somehow you flipp
Re: (Score:2)
Because 60% is not enough. No where near enough.
Energy density (ED) of jet fuel tops out at 48 MJ/kg
ED of kerosene: 46.4 MJ/kg
ED of gasoline: 45.4 MJ/kg
ED of Lithium Ion batteries: 1MJ/kg, (100 to 300 Wh because nobody bothers to measure Lithium Ion batteries in megajoules)
60% increase is not even 2 MJ
They need to improve it by at least 20 times or 2,000% to be less than HALF as good as jet fuel.
Talking about a 60% increase is like telling everyone that you got your new rubber band powered car to travel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The reason no one else has done this
The reason no one else has done this is because it's the first to use solid state batteries. It's not the first all-electric crewed aircraft. Not even close. Small fixed-wing aircraft (2-6 people) have been commercially viable for a few years now. They've been using all-electric (retrofitted DHC-2) commuter planes in Canada since 2019 [harbourair.com].
I wouldn't say the DHC-2 is "like building a bicycle out of cardboard" - it's a robust and proven commercial aircraft.
> You want to
Re: (Score:2)
You want to impress me, make an electric plane that can fly 600 miles carrying at least 4 people. And it should be cost no more than what a Cessna 172 which does the same thing.
Agree with everything except the cost part. Perhaps eventually after many years of commercialization, there might be an expectation that the cost is equivalent or at least economically viable. However, that's an unnecessary and progress-blocking requirement during the research phase, a requirement that would have killed most historical technological progress. The key during research is to demonstrate technical viability along with a path to eventual economic viability.
Re: Silly. (Score:2)
I cannot understand... (Score:2)
...why it is so different from this electric airplane [harbourair.com], that is silently serving Canada since 2019.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of using solid state batteries is that they store more energy per kg.
Re: (Score:2)
Solid state batteries. This is also a demo of those.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim is not that this is the first crewed electric plane. It's the first one that uses a solid state battery. And that will increase the range. Harbour Air's planes have a maximum range of 80 miles. Solid state batteries will increase that distance.
Re: I cannot understand... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point? Convert that Canadian plane to solid state, and it will be able to get even more range.
Re: I cannot understand... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the specifications on that website, the planes have maximum power of 750 HP = 500 Kw. If the plane flies for half an hour at this maximum power, it will use 250Kwh. If the batteries have energy density 250Wh/Kg, it will need 1000 Kg of batteries (1200 Kg, if the batteries are discharged to 20%). These planes have payload 500Kg. 1000 Kg of batteries is 2X the payload, which does not seem excessive.
For comparison, a Boeing 787 has fuel capacity of 100 000 Kg, which is 100 times the above batt
Re: (Score:2)
Different battery is the difference. Magnix/Harbour Air is a fantastic project. But the Magnix battery is 300Wh/kg. https://www.magnix.aero/batter... [magnix.aero]
At 410Wh/kg this one is theoretically 36% more power dense by mass.
Battery energy density (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Battery energy density (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So what? The first computers weren't much good either.
Should they have stopped then?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to make an analogy, make it factual.
Re: Battery energy density (Score:2)
The first computers were leaps and bounds above the state of the art at the time of their introduction. The state of the art being pencil and paper, (manually calculated) log and trig tables, and maybe a sliderule.
Electric airplanes today are leaps and bounds worse in cost, range, payload capacity than what you could buy commercially almost a century ago.
And some pretty fundamental chemistry principles strongly imply it's gonna stay that way. One of those principles being that burning fuel sheds mass throug
Re: Battery energy density (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Battery energy density (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But electric aircraft are impractical from many aspects. You see, unlike a car whose engine is basically idling most of the time an aircraft engine is working hard. A car engine may generate 200+hp on 1.5L displacement, but an aircraft engine can get 160hp... from 5L. But the aircraft engine will be
Re: Battery energy density (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the actual news here is the 410wh/kg battery. It is a good increase over the 300wh/kg top of the line batteries available.
We already have batteries with higher power densities. In fact CATL released a 500Wh/kg battery back in 2023. The problem is they are expensive, and thus haven't found a market in cars, homes, or grid solutions. Economics change a bit when talking about aircraft.
It's not a density breakthrough we need, it's a density breakthrough that doesn't sacrifice many of the other specifications that are important to using a battery.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the kind of stunt you do if you want people to believe in your vaporware. Instead of releasing actual stats about your battery, or simply building a mass scale factory, you put it into a little airplane. Small commercial electric planes are here now and you can buy them [youtube.com]
That's a cool little plane, for certain, probably good as a trainer, mostly.
There is no reason to prefer solid state batteries. It's just another battery technology, with charge times, weight, temperature safety ranges, mechanical stress limits, etc. If another battery technology gets you the better numbers in those metrics, then use the other battery technology. If the solid state battery does better, then prefer that.
Exactly. The number of different types of batteries and their use cases is pretty huge. Just chemistry and the electrochemical series.
Right now, everyone is agog about Lithium (something) batteries, with increasing interest in Sodium -ion batteries.
The so called solid state batteries are apparently just Lithium batteries, and haven't lived up to the hype anyhow.
SS Batteries have always sounded pretty Grift-y to me. Soli
HowBow Dat? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So a day or two ago, it was shown that "solid State batteries were only Lithium batteries. But now they are solid state again?
Someone labels a comment about "Solid State batteries" offtopic I an articles about..... wait for it.... Solid state batteries powering an airplane. So cute.
This is a milestone (Score:4, Insightful)
They are not close to commercial viability. But they made another step in that direction. Some things just need time, sometimes several generations. Still worth doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is. The thing you are overlooking is that this milestone needs to reach decision makers. These people are not smart and have no understanding of technology. Hence you need to simplify it on the level of a comic or other child-appropriate ways to "tell the story", or research money will dry up. For a case where they did only that and had massive (short-term) success, look at the current LLM insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Making a better battery, or commercializing it, is a milestone. Putting a research battery into an airplane is not a milestone. It's a publicity stunt.
Building a reliable long-range monoplane in 1927 was a milestone. Flying it solo from New York to Paris was a publicity stunt.
Which of these two actions do people remember and celebrate today?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure they are the first (Score:3)
The Blackfly from Pivotal is crewed and fixed wing. I have passed their flight training program in 2025 and fly a Blackfly occasionally. The crewed and fixed wing part is absolutely true. I think the batteries are LiPo, which are not solid state.
Not only have they been flying crewed for years now, they have delivered aircraft to customers and are being used professionally by an EMS organization to fly the EMT to the patient for faster responses.
I am happy that Helios Horizon is flying and I think electric motor gliders are a great combination of the technology but the only thing that makes this a 'first' is the solid state batteries, and I don't think that's actually a big deal. Just adding qualifiers until you get a new combination and calling it a 'first' (Crewed, fixed-wing, solid state) seems mid at best.
https://aopa.org/news-and-medi... [aopa.org]
http://pivotal.aero/ [pivotal.aero]
https://evtolinsights.com/pivo... [evtolinsights.com]
Slashdot is... (Score:2)
My conclusion from reading this thread is this:
Slashdot is incapable of analysing new technologies, and decidedly incompetent at predicting the future.
When I watched Star Trek as a boy, I remember thinking how impossible the "comm badges" seemed. Just tap your badge and talk to anyone wirelessly. Yet these would be easy to implement now - we use watches instead because it's more practical. But in general the technologies we have available already are even more amazing. And for example tech like google g
Re: (Score:2)
I remember posts on here, in the 90's and early 2000's, about why the Electric Car was impossible, because of the same energy density of gasoline vs batteries reasons as now. Plus a host of other issues, battery degradation, toxic NiCad materials, etc. None of those posters seemed to have conceived that the technology would improve over time and a few of these posters even argued that this energy density problem showed the laws of physics themselves proved a practical electric car is impossible to exist in
man powered flight (Score:2)
Man-powered flight was achieved decades ago, Icarius notwithstanding. Yet, no one has yet built commercial man-powered airliners. Truly a missed opportunity.
The battery brick is better but It's still a brick (Score:2)
I would happily own some version of an electric ultralight, gyroplane, or breakfast-hop airport toy if the numbers ever worked for my wallet and my runway.
But that is exactly why the hype needs to be separated from the engineering.
This solid-state flight is pretty cool. A modified Pipistrel Taurus motor glider flying on 410 Wh/kg solid-state cells is genuinely interesting. Current electric aircraft batteries are in the rough neighborhood of 200-260 Wh/kg; 410 Wh/kg is a serious improvement. Push that toward
Regeneration? (Score:2)
The aircraft also recovers energy in flight through wing-mounted solar panels and a regenerative system that spins the propeller as a wind turbine during glides and descents. "Regenerative flight can significantly extend the aircraft's range," Iturmendi said after the test flights.
How is regeneration helpful during descents? Maybe during the middle of the flight, but recharging the batteries right at the end of the flight doesn't seem that helpful. I'm not a pilot. How often do descents in the middle of a flight happen? Maybe for reconnaissance flights but not for passenger or cargo flights?