[Someone]

“hydrogen is a three-fold improvement but is a net-negative fuel requiring far more energy to produce than it provides”

I am not sure how fair that is. Does that look significantly better for kerosene, if you have to construct it out of water and CO2?

As to take off, the power to reach take off speed could come from batteries that don’t move at all. A catapult as on aircraft carriers likely won’t be a good idea (requires stronger and thus heavier airplanes, acceleration will be ‘a bit’ on the large side), but electric trains can be powered at 500km/hour, so a third/first rail could work. I fear, though, most power is spent not on acceleration, but on lifting the plane to cruising height. That would make such a construction fairly useless.

[dmitrygr]

Takeoff power is not only needed at takeoff. It is needed at go-around (if the landing is not working out) or in emergencies (what do you think will happen when 1/2 engines quits?)

Catapults address one of those cases, and you die in the other two. No thanks.