Enviation's Alice 9-seat aircraft is a larger and heavier electric only aircraft with a similar range and is fully battery electric but it is not clear that it has flown yet It was displayed at the Paris Air Show and they have announced an initial customer in the US. I was hoping that it would be shown at the Experimental Aircraft Association's Oshkosh airshow this year but they were not there. Maybe next year with an operating plane.

An interesting problem with a battery electric aircraft is that they do not burn off weight as they fly so they have to land at the same mass as they took off.

sd:

The 6 seater is just the test platform:

' ZeroAvia plans to start supplying its platform to commercial operators and aircraft manufacturers in 2022, initially targeting up to 500-mile regional flights in 10 to 20-seat fixed-wing aircraft.' (ibid)

The bigger and heavier the aircraft, and the longer the flight envelope required, the more the advantage of fuel cells and hydrogen over batteries, as even with the associated tanks and so on they are still way more dense in weight than batteries including losses in coverting hydrogen to electricity also.

Still nowhere near jetfuel of course for really big aircraft and distances of course, but far cleaner.

The Eviation Alice is an All-Electric 9-seat passenger plane having 8,000 lbs of battery out of 14,000-lb takeoff weight, having a range of 1,000 km.
Let's consider a hypothetical Fuel Cell alternative to the 8,000-lb of battery, thanks to a recent discovery of a Manganese Hydride complex that can store Hydrogen at 10.5% weight percentage. Given 920 kWh battery capacity which translate to 920 kWh / 22 kWh per kg of H2 = 41 kg of H2. 41 kg divided by 10.5% = 398 kg = 876 lbs.
Needs also 450 kW of fuel cells at 1 kg per kW = 450 kg = 990 lbs.
Total e-storage system weight = 876 + 990 = 1866 lbs. This is very light in comparison to the 8,000 lbs of battery required to travel 1000 km, so wings, tail, and e-motors and inverters can be downsized, result in a lot of weight reduction in airframe weight and motor + inverter weigh. Maximum Takeoff Wt will be around half of current, at around 8,000 lbs, and thus will consume a lot less energy per mile, permitting a total range as far as 1,700 km, which is more in line with petroleum powered planes of this size, and can be refueled almost as fast, and not so slow as with battery recharging.
The waste heat from the fuel cells can be harvested for cabin heating and anti-icing purpose on all forward-facing surfaces, and not wasted at all.

Not much is reported about the ZeroAvia powerplant, though some details are in the Aviation Week article, "Startup Sees Fuel Cell Future For Regional Aviation” Aviation Week Aug 14, 2019.
ZeroAvia is using a Piper PA-46-350P Malibu Mirage aircraft . The original motor, a Lycoming TIO-540 engine has 260 kW (350 hp, weight 199 kg) will be replaced by a pair of 130-kW electric motors. Note: Siemens eAircraft (now Rolls Royce) has a 260 kW motor -SP260D - that would work. It weighs only 50 kg and runs at 2500 RPM non-geared.
ZeroAvia CEO Miftakhov mentions in the Aviation Week article that "a fuel-cell pack capable of producing 150 kW weighs around 50 kg". This is better than Honda or Toyota (they get around 100 kW for a 50 kg fuel cell), maybe it is the Horizon Fuel Cell which gets about 50% better using bipolar plates. It would be interesting to know.
Also, a 150 kW fuel cell would handle cruise power, however, takeoff and climb would require higher energy outputs. Miftakhov says "the company has had to get creative to overcome this hurdle, insisting that batteries will not be used to provide additional power during such profiles.”
ZeroAvia has some good ideas. It will be interesting to see how they develop.

LIPO batteries can output at 20C, you don't need many to climb.

Thanks for the additional info, gryf.

It would be good to know how they intend to get around peak power considerations.

The fuel cells from Hyundai and Toyota should reach comparable density in their next iteration after 2020.

Since I criticise those who assume that super batteries will come in anytime soon, I am not going to assume that the manganese hydride Kubas-1 storage system for hydrogen will be available.

However the figures work in any case for light and low range aircraft using presently available off the shelf storage technologies, and still provide a very large advantage over battery only solutions for anything except the very lightest and lowest range airdraft, trainers and so on.

It says "largest aircraft flying without any fossil fuel support". 2 rebuttals of that, firstly that is unlikely to happen for this aircraft in the real-world. Operators will probably use a natural gas reformer to obtain the hydrogen on-site at the airport. just like hydrogen-fuelled city busses do. Anything coming in a tanker truck will similarly be derived from natural gas. It is not fossil-fuel-free just like my Tesla is not. It's certainly better, but fuel-cells are not dinofuel-free. They *could* be, but they're not.

Secondly put suitable biofuel in any Jet-A burning aircraft and it is fossil-fuel-free. That has been done already for many much larger aircraft. It's also cheaper to run, because it doesn't have the million dollar fuel cell cost.

I'm inclined to agree with @Floatplane. They'll have all these stories about renewable H2, but they'll end up reforming most of it from fossil methane.
As SJC says, "use renewable methane", but who knows what they'll actually use.

I don't think it is productive to be absolute in demands for 'all renewables right now' and so on.

Hydrogen can certainly be produced renewably, as well as a host of other ways such as the 'blue hydrogen' that places like the UK and Australia are developing, where sequestration is the deal as is already done at the million ton level.

But in any case, the other pollutants from present planes are also significant and very damaging, and either battery planes or FCEV ones can ameliorate that.

The ideal should not be the enemy of improvement.

There is more than one metric involved in deciding the optimum strategy.
Hydrogen by weight is just one of them, with how easy or tough it is to get the hydrogen out critical.

And fuel cells are modular, but there is a lot of ancillary equipment including hydration and air flow.

Those kind of ranges of performance and restrictions mean that a range of solutions are available, and don't lend themselves to back of the envelope dismissal of the particular ones chosen.

An ideal safer 20+ passenger FC airplane would have 3 smaller FCs and 3 e-motors/props for take-offs and would cruise at less than 50% power or on 2 out of 3 power units during emergencies?

Clean H2 could be made and stored at airports with appropriate electrolysers and REs.

Piper M-Class airframe...
M600 rate of climb 1500+ fpm