It's great to see this sort of development taking place and I know it's only baby steps. However I wish they'd be more restrained with some of their claims.
"You are dealing with 50 years (of) engine technology in aircraft, so that complexity adds to the risk of flying and the time it takes to learn to fly," he said.
I'm struggling the comprehend how an electric motor will reduce the time it takes to learn to fly. Yes, the risk of engine failure may be reduced but there will still be a need to be train for a power off emergency landing.
Technologies developed specially for this aircraft cut the cost of ab-initio pilot training by as much as 70 per cent, making flying more affordable than ever before,
Given that fuel and engine related costs are about half of the total operating cost of an internal combustion engine aircraft (including engine overhaul), there will be some costs associated with an electric engine. It's pretty hard to see the operating costs with the electrfic engine being 70% less.
One article quotes a life of 1000 hours for the batteries. What is the cost of replacing the batteries. How will the cost of battery replacement compare with engine overhaul costs? What inspections will be required on the engine and batteries? I assume there will be bearings that need checking and perhaps replacement. What about the brushes or are they using brushless motors? The batteries will need monitoring of some sort to keep an eye on endurance.
I'm curious as to how they monitor battery endurance. As a battery ages it endurance reduces, so it will no longer be 60 minutes flight time with 30 minutes reserve. Doing this in flight when the battwry is under load isn't that difficult. I'm wonder how accurate the figures would be when measured before flight, i.e. during the preflight when you want to know "what's in the tanks". No load or small load battery tests don't usually give accurate results. Perhaps they have some tricky circuitry to do this.