>New turbofans have efficiencies close to 50%, so it's more like 20 MJ/kg. Depends if we're talking LHV or HHV. Additionally, we're talking smaller jet fueled

>New turbofans have efficiencies close to 50%, so it's more like 20 MJ/kg. Depends if we're talking LHV or HHV. Additionally, we're talking smaller jet fueled vehicles which rarely have access to state-of-the-art efficiency. >Beyond Mach 0.5, the efficiency degrades very rapidly. In this case, we're talking Mach 0.5 or less. >this can be done for any aircraft, not just the electric ones. Didn't imply otherwise. The highest performance jet plane can fly literally around the world. But this is far more performance than anyone needs in an aircraft. And for whatever reason (partially because of aging fleets, at least for very small commuter aircraft), generally there have been efficiencies left on the table still, just the same as conventional car makers left efficiencies on the table which Tesla and the like have taken advantage of. > Do you really believe there is a market for 1200km hops at Mach 0.5. For domestic flights, yes. For transatlantic, no, not a large market. Not as long as jet planes aren't paying for their climate externalities. >We already have ATR 72 and Bombardier Q400. Why no one is using them for long haul flight? Because those have the same maintenance requirements and use the same fuel as jets, which are just as efficient and faster. I don't think we'll do many transatlantic electric passenger flights until the climate externalities are priced-in for the cost of air travel or until lithium-air or similar. But now we've moved the goal posts to long-haul and transoceanic flight. Electric flight is clearly possible and for domestic flights it'll likely be cost-competitive even without fully accounting for climate externalities, particularly for these 9 passenger FAR-23 electric aircraft competing with fuel-guzzling and maintenance-heavy 40 year old fleets.