Nothing on recharging the battery in the landing phase, so room for improvement.
There are SOME planes where you want to avoid the "no thrust" situation because their implementation of "no thrust" can lead to weird aerodynamics or prop pitch behavior, or can stress the engine.
My assertion is that there are no turboprop plans that can maintain a 3° glideslope at normal approach speed without thrust from the engines. If you think there is such a plane, name the type, and show me a citation from it's POH to support the claim.
> My assertion is that there are no turboprop plans that can maintain a 3° glideslope at normal approach speed without thrust from the engines
These are very different claims, in every dimension. Yes, the final approach is intentionally very shallow, is a minor part of the entire descent phase and the plane flies it in a very "dirty" configuration (gear down, flaps). Yes, the prop on turboprops causes a ton of drag. Are we going to mention the fact that a 737 or an A320 (the most common airliners in the world) are NOT turboprops, they both have a glide ratio comparable to trainer gliders and are fast as fuck?
I’m talking about turbo props because the article’s hybrid technology is specifically for turbo props.
My challenge stands: find me a turbo prop that would be happy at idle thrust for either approach or cruise descent.