Well, the data we do have is that the flight was just under 30 minutes and very likely under 100 miles.

From the Wikipedia on airline fuel efficiency:

The worst-performing flights are short trips of from 500 to 1500 kilometers because the fuel used for takeoff is relatively large compared to the amount expended in the cruise segment, and because less fuel-efficient regional jets are typically used on shorter flights.

In the example values table, the most efficient plane for a 560km trip burns 0.92 kg of fuel per km, so doing some rough math and assuming the electric plane travelled 100 miles, that would be roughly 148kg of fuel, or 50 gallons (190L).

At current jet fuel prices ( $3.76/gallon ) that’s about $188 US in jet fuel as a rough estimate. It’s unclear if the test flight went up to full altitude or if the plane was at full weight, so a fair comparison might have used even half as much jet fuel.

Edit: From some of the other comments, it seems like they might have only considered flight time as cruising time, not takeoff and landing, so my numbers will be quite far off if that’s the case. My gut feeling is that this is probably the case, because this seems like too big a difference otherwise.

That’s good enough to get from Britain to Ireland

$5 of electricity to lift an airplane 10,000 feet definitely seems low.

If you want to be really smug, you could say a gas powered plane requires $0 of fuel to glide for 30 minutes

Now that you mention it, they specify a maximum total weight of 25,000 lbs, so at 100% efficiency it would take 339MJ of energy to lift the fully loaded plane to 10,000 ft. That can be converted as 94 kWh, and at the current cheapest electricity price in the US of $0.1235/kWh, that’s $11.63

Therefore, it is literally impossible for this plane to reach 10,000 ft for $5 fully loaded.

price in the US of $0.1235/kWh, that’s $11.63

Way cheaper than I’d have guessed.

737 at max takeoff weight is 175k lbs. So that’s around $80 to get airborne. Seems like a steal when you’re charging easily triple that for one seat.

To be clear, this is the theoretical minimum amount of energy to lift a mass straight up. I’d be surprised if an airplane moving sideways would hit even 30% efficiency in comparison.

That’s consumer pricing.

The plane only went 100 AGL. It has a service ceiling of 2,000 feet AGL

This plane has massive wings, making it incredibly good at gliding (for its massive weight)

As far as I can tell from public information, they climbed to 1,100 and glided the rest of the time to land

Jets are less efficient because they’re designed to carry large amounts of cargo and/or passengers. This plane was at near max weight, 25,000 pounds, with zero cargo or passengers

The entire thing had to be stripped down. Single pilot op because they didn’t have the capacity for a 2nd seat and pilot

All this “jet” can do is transport its own batteries short distances, slower than a Cessna 150, and very low altitudes

27 minutes of slow flight in a 150 at high density altitude, well leaned out, would cost about the same and have the ability to carry a passenger

This plane is nothing more than a marketing ploy. At least it’s quite effective at that

$5 for 30 minutes in the air. pick any speed you want. it doesn’t matter. avgas and jet fuel don’t compete with $5.

I pick 30 minutes at Mach 7, here’s your $5 Canadian and please get out of my way, I do intend to board now.

i definitely won’t be in your way. bring back pictures.

I pick 30 minutes at Mach 7

How long do you want to spend at Mach 7 relative to stopping and starting? Because that could be a lot of G-force.

Meh just accelerate with F-force and then switch to G-force when you are up to speed and vice versa when slowing down, problem solved!

Using N-force, which is the little can of Nox under my seat

This ride is making have to P-force

Just use the speed-force and you can get to your destination in no time at all

Yes

I want people to find my face at the starting runway, and my skull in some field 7 miles away from where the plane landed.

$3.60 for mogas at a couple places near me. Very high density altitude, well leaned out, in slow flight, you could get 27 minutes out of a 150 for $5

These guys are also apparently getting electricity for 2-4 cents per KWh, which is many times cheaper than most would be able to get it

You’d even have more useful load than this “jet” that can carry no passengers or cargo

You could also fly a glider. It’d be as useful as this thing

Wrong thread buddy. Maybe you need a refresher in navigation theory.

The site for the plane manufacturers says they have a max range of 125 miles.

So this is practically useless for flights. It’s faster to just drive 125 miles in an EV.