1-3. Agreed 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

1-3. Agreed 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.