Garmin G3000 Selected For ES-19 Electric Airliner

7

Garmin announced on Thursday that it will be providing its G3000 integrated flight deck for Heart Aerospace’s ES-19 all-electric airliner design. According to Garmin, the G3000 system that will be featured on the ES-19 will offer “enhanced capabilities to optimize the aircraft’s electric drive train and battery management systems” along with being designed to facilitate system upgrades “as the electric aircraft industry continues to evolve.” As previously reported by AVweb, United Airlines also signed an agreement with Heart last July to acquire 100 ES-19s contingent on the aircraft meeting its safety, business and operating requirements.

“It’s an honor to have our G3000 integrated flight deck chosen for the ES-19 and to work alongside the Heart Aerospace and United Airlines teams in their commitment to long-term sustainability by reducing aviation’s carbon emissions,” said Carl Wolf, Garmin vice president of aviation and marketing. “We’re confident in Heart’s practical, market-driven approach to expanding the regional air transport market with the introduction of the first all-electric airliner, whose lower operating costs have the potential to enable more universal access to air travel and a broader network of short-haul flights.”

Headquartered in Gothenburg, Sweden, electric aircraft startup Heart Aerospace is developing the ES-19 for the regional air transport market. The company says the aircraft will have a maximum range of up to 250 miles and be capable of carrying 19 passengers. Heart is aiming to have the aircraft enter service by 2026.

Avatar photo
Kate O’Connor works as AVweb's Editor-in-Chief. She is a private pilot, certificated aircraft dispatcher, and graduate of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Other AVwebflash Articles

7 COMMENTS

  1. It is beginning to appear that all of these “electric start ups” are analogous to throwing spaghetti at the wall to determine which one will “stick”. Eventually, someone is going to come up with some sort of an aircraft that will be airworthy, realistically suited to the proposed missions, and economically feasible.

  2. Wouldn’t it be better to choose a matching phantasmagoric avionics suite that does not exist? These work better in planes that do not exist.

    Say the Do-it-all 2000?

    Its lighter, less expensive, gets OTA updates, lightens the airframe by 45 pounds and shifts the CG in any desired direction by 18 inches.

  3. 19 passengers a maximum of 250 miles? I guess it has to start somewhere. Be to me that is nothing but “Gee Whiz” stuff with absolutely no practical use that I can think of. Locally here it wouldn’t make it from Nashville to Memphis. But someone’s got the “big flick”…I guess.

    • Everything I’ve seen so far mentions maximum range and speed or capacity compared to operating cost. Current operating costs for this equipment is based on relative quick turn-arounds. Sitting on a ramp while plugged into a charger will easily cut the number of cycles the aircraft is available for service and that directly drives cost of operations. I also trying to find that “big flick” because right now the teasers and trailers don’t make any sense at all.

    • The punch line is reliability and operational costs. I have 2 vehicles, a Chevy Bolt EV and a GMC 2500. I use the GMC to go off road and haul a camper. Otherwise, I take the Bolt. I pay 11 cents a kilowatt hour and have averaged 4.3 miles per kilowatt hour. Do the math. It costs me 2.5 cents per mile to drive. I have driven over 45,000 miles and the only maintenance has been to change the rear wiper blade and add washer fluid. I can even park and get free charging in places.

      The first electric aircraft will be using lithium ion batteries with about 260 kilowatt hours per kg but Lyten expects to have lower cost lithium sulfur batteries with 900 kilowatt hours per kg with a charge time of 20 minutes so instead of a range of 250 miles, you will have a range of 900 miles.

      I think that some of the commenters on this site are far too negative. Maybe they have sniffed too much leaded fuel.

  4. In general I am against being forced into EV’s but the Bolt is a good one.

    I am not surprised at your low operational costs but they do not apply to airplanes.

    There is no technology to allow an battery powered electric airplane to compete with a real airplane for practical purposes.