content: The problem is the technology as presented is a dead end.  The article from half a decade ago was postulating that these fields could be used to improve aircraft fuel efficiency.  And this article touched on that at the bottom.  But the technology was abandoned because even with the enormous electric generating capacity of FREAKING JET ENGINES driving your plane just the weight AND DRAG of the ion setup was a net negative on moving a plane from place to place. I don't make this stuff up.  It is called Physics.  Every idea that sounds awesome doesn't fit within those confines.  This is one of them.  Sure, there is room for improvement on the edges.  Although there is precious little about aerodynamics that we do not understand to 11 decimal places at this point.    Parasitic drag is parasitic drag.  You don't wish that away. Mass = weight that must be overcome by generating lift. It is funny you mention Kitty Hawk.  The Wright flyer did NOT have sufficient thrust to get off the ground.  The only reason it worked was an (if I recall 25 knot headwind).  What the Wright brothers really contributed is a rigorous scientific understanding of airfoils.  The biggest difference between the Wright Flyer and a P-51 is actually the engine.  Their home made internal combustion engine produced 12 HP while the V12 monster in the P-51 produced 1700 (TWO orders of magnitude and change better).  The areo surfaces (which MOST DEFINITELY includes the propeller itself) where not nearly so improved. And thus we get back to how much THRUST can you generate for a given WEIGHT and DRAG in order to produce the LIFT you need to get your fat ass off the ground. Physics is a Stone Cold Bitch This technology fails in balancing this equation.