4. Remember my predicted number is on the low side of how much juice they would need. Of course they get much better efficiency than a conventional jet on taxi and takeoff, so maybe it ends up being closer to what you are saying. I wish they had some more hard data.
5. Yep, commented on this in another post but even just removing takeoff wear and tear on a conventional engine would be big.
6. I would take that with a big dose of salt. United has a deal with Boom (a complete fraud of a company in my view) to purchase planes. So maybe not the best metric.
7. I haven't done the math but the $5 takeoff doesn't pass the smell test for me. $5 doesn't buy much juice (50 kWh? So like a gallon of jet fuel?) and getting a 30k+ lb plane to cruising altitude is not trivial.
"Personally - I don't know if they'll make it work, but it's definitely an interesting play, with more real thought put into it than most attempts I've seen."
Totally agree, which I never thought I would say about an aerospace startup.
4. Remember my predicted number is on the low side of how much juice they would need. Of course they get much better efficiency than a conventional jet on taxi and takeoff, so maybe it ends up being closer to what you are saying. I wish they had some more hard data.
5. Yep, commented on this in another post but even just removing takeoff wear and tear on a conventional engine would be big.
6. I would take that with a big dose of salt. United has a deal with Boom (a complete fraud of a company in my view) to purchase planes. So maybe not the best metric.
7. I haven't done the math but the $5 takeoff doesn't pass the smell test for me. $5 doesn't buy much juice (50 kWh? So like a gallon of jet fuel?) and getting a 30k+ lb plane to cruising altitude is not trivial.
"Personally - I don't know if they'll make it work, but it's definitely an interesting play, with more real thought put into it than most attempts I've seen."
Totally agree, which I never thought I would say about an aerospace startup.