That’s why I approximated the fuselage as two EVS (the frontal area) and I only looked up the drag coefficient of a 737 because it’s a well-known narrow-body airliner.
I don’t know what speeds they flew, but AFAIK most maiden flights are very tame. My point stands, low hundreds of kilowatthours of energy seems like the right ballpark.
> That’s why I approximated the fuselage as two EVS (the frontal area)
Have you ever seen a car and a plane? The Tesla model x has a frontal area of 2.6 sqm and a 737 fuselage alone, without any wings is already 11 sqm.
With all attachments it’s at least 20 sqm.
And half of the energy for altitude gain and half for drag is way too optimistic.
Drag coefficient is about the shape and needs to be multiplied by area to get drag. Your car is a lot smaller when viewed from the front than a 737.
And there's no way a plane flying at the speed it does has the same drag losses as two EVs.