jjsylvestre

Theoretically, yes I think so. There are some key enabling technologies (energy storage and electric propulsion) that need to be developed further before something like that could be built.

Paging Elon..

I'll let @mliben comment on the motor questions.

The motor inductance is relatively low so we're running a high switching frequency (40-60kHz) to maintain reasonable phase current ripple. No output filter is used. Also, our phase busbars are very short so we don't run into the transmission line effects you typically see with fast switching SiC/GaN and phase cables.

We are looking into some advanced modulation schemes and switching topologies to reduce CM bearing current. Also looking into hybrid bearings with ceramic balls. This is definitely an area of active research, but we are trying to get away from a CM input filter as they can be bulky and heavy.

Right now, we are using 1200V SiC MOSFETs.

Absolutely. Appreciate the advice Nate!

We are planning to add a MW-class machine to our portfolio in the next five years which could serve as a nice replacement for the dirty diesel engines on these larger ships.

Looking at Taiga Motor's electric jet ski, 250kW would be a bit on the high-side. It would also be a very expensive jet ski :) https://taigamotors.ca/watercraft/

Yeah this is definitely a market we're looking into - both KERs and Formula E drive units. Great product-market fit.

Love the brainstorming. As you mentioned, "decoupling" the cruise mode from the takeoff mode could make a lot of sense. One of the most innovative and feasible solutions I've seen is from a former YC company called Talyn Air https://www.talyn.com/

They have a nice animation showing the lifter and the cruiser vehicles.

Love what they are doing. I would consider them one of the leaders in the pack right now. Val has a practical vision to get to market on a timeline that is very compelling. Hydrogen FC is very promising for long-range flight applications due to its high energy density so I think they are focusing on the right things.

The big advantage of using existing airframes is that you dramatically reduce certification costs and commercialization time. If you can "retrofit" an existing airframe with electric propulsion, then you can get to market a lot faster.

You're absolutely right though - changing the airframe design and moving to distributed propulsion can lead to improvements in aerodynamic efficiency, L/D, and fault tolerance.

1. There are parts that are certainly harder and there is one part I can think of that may be easier.

- Harder: Longer and more expensive iteration cycles, MVP can be expensive, manufacturing and production required to scale, expensive certification

- Easier: Raising money (sometimes) especially if you are a moonshot with a big vision. Good example is Boom Supersonic.

Good news is there has never been a better time to start a hardware company than today. Iteration cycles are becoming shorter due to advances in rapid prototyping and there is a lot of capital available, especially in electric vehicles and sustainable tech.

Peter Thiel talks a lot about this in Zero to One, but much of the innovation that’s been done in the past decades has been in the digital space. We have so many problems that require innovative hardware solutions and I think now we are just beginning to scratch the surface.

2. We all met through Formula SAE in college. This is a great place to meet super talented engineers and is why Tesla, SpaceX, and the other top companies in the world recruit heavily from these programs. It teaches you both the hard skills and the soft skills. If you are still in college, I would recommend getting involved in teams like this.

3. I haven't really read anything hardware-startup specific, but I love Zero to One and find myself rereading it all the time.

Would love to hear other peoples thoughts on this as well. Good questions

Also, cargo UAV is a big one right now. Many UAM companies are using this as a stepping stone to start generating revenue while they certify their aircraft.

Marine is a big one though.. especially in Scandinavia. Lots of interest in electrifying boats and ships there.

Thanks! Yes, high-altitude UAVs is a great application for our motors. We're developing a new insulation system for our coils so we have spent a lot of time looking into the challenges high altitude poses - corona, cooling, all sorts of fun stuff. Lots of altitude chamber testing in our future!

This is an excellent question. For narrow body aircraft we've studied, they require high propulsive power during the takeoff and climb phases, and a fraction of the peak propulsive power during the cruise phase. One aircraft we looked at required 30-35MW during takeoff and ~10MW during cruise.

So, thrust power and system level power density (kW/kg) are critical during takeoff/climb and cruise efficiency is important for minimizing energy consumption.

Like Audunw mentions, its very application dependent as well. It all boils down to the propulsion system mass fraction. For lower PSMF, efficiency matters more once you are above a certain power density. For higher PSMF, power density matters more. There is an optimal balance of efficiency vs. specific power for every aircraft. We can "tune" our technology relatively easily depending on what that balance is to maximize range.

I'll let my cofounder Max chime in since he does a lot of vehicle-level architecture and optimization. He's been doing some studies for rotorcraft and planes to look at how specific power and efficiency impact range/endurance so I'm sure he can expand on my answer a bit.