Hacker News Reader

Honestly, even if it was 10% less efficient, I'd be on board with that just to spectate. I'd also invest heavily in barf-bag stocks and neck pillows.

> I wonder how much fuel and maintenance could be saved

Maintenance?

Catapults are notoriously finicky and expensive to operate. Also the additional stresses on the airframe couldn't possibly reduce maintenance. If anything (assuming they could withstand them), they would require more inspections.

Catapults only solve the problem of not having enough runway. And you'll notice that fighter jets taking off from carries will be on full thrust and full reheat.

Very little. By one estimate jets burn about 10% of fuel to reach _cruising altitude_. [1] Unless the catapult got you up to altitude it would not help much. Catapults solve a different problem, namely taking off from a short runway.

[1] https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-is-burned-during-take-of...

On the plus side, a catapult that could get the airplane up to cruising altitude in one piece would make for a heck of a ride.