I wonder what the reliability of this beast is like, but I guess only time will tell.
If anyone is interested in this kind of stuff (fiberglassing fuselages, building cockpits...), Peter Sripol, a model plane enthusiast, made his own DIY plane that can carry a human with hobby grade brushless motors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSN6qet1kE
Yeah, I wish my parents would have taught me this when I was young.
Apparently this distance is about 100ft.
Stats are all over the place, but "DRACO will climb at 4,000 feet-per-minute (FPM) and cruise at 180 mph (290 km/h) at 16,000 feet." which apparently blows everyone else out of the water (and it should for a 1M+ plane)
Also, 5 months is a crazy timeline to build something that flies. I can't imagine the amount of skill (and confidence needed in your skill) to hop in a plane you tore apart and redid in less than 1/2 a year.
Apparently, he only sleeps a few hours a day.
I look forward to the day that that particular trick of genetics is discovered. It took me about eight years to accept that a small percentage of the population is just born with that gift, and that trying to emulate it by restricting my sleep hours was only hurting me.
Minor article nitpick, bushplanes are more like the Land Rover Troopy or Enduro motorbike bike of the sky, and not at all like an SUV. SUVs are lumbering, fragile and impractically large people busses, often with all the luxuries you can think of. Bush Planes are nimble, barebones, and pragmatic vehicles of utility. Getting hot? Crack the window. Luggage? Not today sorry, the air is too thin.
Except this one, still a bush plane, just an incredibly powerful one!
I've heard that for the old 206's, if you could fit it through the doors you could haul it. (Insert long discussion here about that being a good way to kill yourself. Presumably there's some bush wisdom to prevent that from happening)
There's a few companies designing smaller turbines (100-200 kW size) for aircraft, http://www.turbotech-aero.com/ and https://www.turb.aero/ , competing with Rotax 912, Lycoming, Continental. Guess we'll see if the promises of lower costs come true.
There's also a few companies making diesel aircraft engines, AFAIK these have seen some success in Europe where 100LL is crazy expensive.
Maybe GA is, ever so slowly, entering the jet (fuel) age..?
Plenty of the small PT6s coming off older airframes for -135 upgrades or airframe retirements.
They were bought by a company in China and are now being marketed in the US by Continental. There are STCs for many Cessnas, which seems like a pretty appealing option.
For example the Viking Air rebuilt turbine beavers:
To have the money AND the skill and what an amazing attitude!
The video highlights all the changes he made- including lights from a 737 :D
One of the most popular high performance light bush planes at the moment:
The money makers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-3_Otte... (plus it's twin cousin)
So these aren't bush planes?
Edit: further, there's nothing inherent to carbon or turbines that make them unsuitable for the backcountry. Turbines are generally more reliable and have fewer moving parts. There's nothing on them that you can't fix with bailing wire that you can on a piston engine. The Wilga is overwhelmingly aluminum monocoque but if you need to fix the cowling (the main carbon part) some speed tape will do as it's not really load bearing. The cessna I took my checkride in was probably missing half it's cowling bolts :/
Also, a bush plane is, by definition, any logistics aircraft that doesn't need a runway which those very much fall into.
Surely a prop is better suited for this? You could even carry a spare "just in case".
Small/medium sized turbines are used all the time on helicopters, which routinely see backwoods operation.
In airline service engines are monitored and inspected and overhauls are done when there is evidence that it is needed. One CFM-56 on a 737 went over 40,000 hours before being removed from the airplane for rebuild.
The extreme reliability of turbine engines is why they permit twin engine airliners to operate on routes that could require up to 370 minutes of single engine operation. That is, the FAA considers the risk of a second engine failure is acceptable for over six hours. 
The current most popular 4-seater, the Cirrus SR22 goes for about $600k-750k new depending on options.
Even the turbine-power Lancair Evolution comes in right around $1M, and that's for a fully certified-factory built aircraft.
The aircraft in the OP is an expirimental (e.g. you can't make money using it) aircraft and the quoted price did not include hundreds or thousands of hours of labor.
The largest single cost was the $400K+ engine that allows him to take off in a very short distance as well as fly extremely high for this type of plane. He added oxygen, and numerous improvements.
Lots of awesome footage of these people landing in all sorts of crazy places. Also some videos about this plane and its owner.
The PT6A-28 is also a surprising and interesting choice... though I suppose once you get past the idea of not using a piston engine, it's less surprising.
googling aside, are there resources on how to start with carbon fiber?
I imagine even for bush planes the battery weight will be immense due to the much much lower energy density (it's about 2-3 orders of magnitude and you loose fuel while you fly, batteries don't change weight when discharged).
edit: electric motors do have penalties for high altitude, notably the reduced pressure will make cooling less efficient and reduce the maximum power output (though generally your efficiency overall should remain stable and normal)
however, but they are not insurmountable, and many people are doing it:https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/cheaper-lighter...
also, the high altitude penalties for electric motors are completely negligible. cooling efficiency for an electric motor has nothing to do with power output.
This pretty much removes any part of "engineering challenge" there
I wonder if he gets even a full hour of flight time from a full fuel tank...
It probably helps that the original Wilga is very fuel-hungry, it's basically a flying tractor :)
Consider the Lancair Evolution
Turbines can actually acheive better specific fuel consumption (lbs fuel/hp/hr) than piston engines when operating at high power... it's actually at _low_ power settings that they really suck fuel wise.