In this state the motor cannot maintain temperature, so going beyond that time window will shorten its lifespan or cause damage if continued.
Hobbyst EVs often take advantage of this by having a small motor and overloading it when accelerating.
Parachutes. They are now a very practical option for GA aircraft. More than a few cessnas have been saved. The concept of "off-field forced landing" should too be going away.
https://brsaerospace.com/cessna-faqs/
" Q. How many aircraft saves are credited to a BRS Whole Aircraft Rescue Parachute System? A. As of August 2017, 376."
Call me a skeptic until they provide hard numbers and details of what planes make it back into the sky v's scrapped, and those planes have a year or two of a service history showing they make it back into a reasonable service lifestyle, I'd be shocked to hear this is great at saving planes. I find a lot of the old 172's i fly have plenty of bumps and scratches, but wouldn't be super excited to trust the frame of a plane that went through an experience like this.
I like it from a safety perspective, but in my mind, the reward you get out of a system like this should be your life...I have zero expectations the plane will ever fly again.
A 172 or similar that has been retrofitted with a BRS? Yeah, not so much.
This is a 9-passenger airplane, maybe too large for current recovery parachutes? (though I imagine that will change.)
[1] https://www.cirruspilots.org/copa/safety_programs/b/pull_ear...
Actually, this has me thinking: not all low-altitude situations are the same - an airplane with a downwards trajectory, such as one in a spiral dive, will need more height to save than one that is in a glide, such as after a power failure. This is why even a zero-zero ejector seat will not always save you, if you are descending rapidly at low altitude.
Even so, replacing a motor, if that is all it takes, is going to be cheaper than repairing or replacing an airframe that has undergone a parachute recovery.
(Action starts at about 02:05)
I guess it depends on one's definition of low altitude. Rocket-deployed parachutes open very fast.
Overpowering the motor during the entire take-off would bring a high risk of having it fail too. But overpowering it to overcome the most common obstacles is perfectly viable in an emergency.
Anyway, about fires, they are a reasonably easy problem to deal with. Fires on liquid are much more dangerous than fires on solid, and batteries have a lower tendency of exploding and creating fumes than the gasoline that propels smaller planes. I imagine the largest problem of a fire would be on losing power. You can mitigate this by creating many independent battery banks, but this adds weight.
In Eviation's Alice, the failure or shutdown of one of the wingtip's motors would require the shutdown of the other, on account of asymmetric thrust. It can be flown on the rear motor alone, but I do not know how well it would climb in the case of a motor failure on takeoff. Maybe an EE can step in and say whether electric motors can be over-powered for relatively short durations (in this case, a few minutes to return to the airfield) without much increase in the risk of it failing?
BTW, I see that this prototype is a tail-dragger, though rendered images show a tricycle gear.
[1] https://electrek.co/2018/06/04/siemens-electric-plane-protot...