I recommend that a 3 ft x 2 ft hood (nominally 6 sq. feet of capture aperture) should have 6 x 90 = 540 CFM of full power flow rate. Baffles and other restrictions, even with MUA, will likely make the rated blower requirement 1.5 X that value, or around 800 CFM.

For duct, the desirable diameter is that which keeps the velocity in the range of 1000 to 2000 ft/min. This balances grease particulate collection from condensation with that from impingement. Velocity equals actual CFM divided by sectional area (in sq. ft.).

Most residential hoods have baffle angles well below that required for commercial hoods, so the amount of drainage to one end is a competition between flow creep and rancidification. Horizontal is OK when you are constrained by cost, space, or aesthetics. You will, in many cases depending on what is cooked, need to address the grease by more frequent washing.

I haven't looked up these candidate hoods. I hope that almost all of their exterior size is covered by the baffle assemblies, and not some tiny interior patch.

An in-line blower may be accessible and allow choosing the ideal flow rate. You can also insert a silencer between the blower and the hood if some of that distance is in an attic.

My only comment is see how loud they are. we have a zypher hood (sienna i think)- works great but we almost never crank it up to 600 cfm because it’s loud! We leave it at one of the lower settings but it seems to keep air clean and collect tons of oil nonetheless. Its easy to pop the baffles in the dw periodically. the 36” hood works fine with our 36” induction cooktop - happy to have the extra storage space instead of bigger hood.

I can't comment on those models, but I can say that I have a Z-line and the baffles are super-easy to take out to pop in the dishwasher once a week and pop right back in -- that alone is worth the price of admission for me, coming from a hood that had PITA mesh baffles that were not easy to slide into place and plastic parts on them that melted in the dishwasher.

This model has solid quality fit and finish with a claimed 25” depth per spec. It also has warming lamps and optional accesories such as a backsplash and warming rack if so desired.

https://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/JXW9036HP.html

600 rated CFM (maybe 400 CFM actual) is too little unless the cooking will not include hot oil/grease at the smoke point, such as wok cooking or meat searing.

@Louis's comment above reminds me that I failed to address the OP's phrase "I like the angles baffles (larger capture area?) ... " The capture area, or hood entry area, is that horizontal area at the base of the hood that air can flow into and, at least potentially, be contained by getting pulled past the baffles. Due to modest transverse air flow at the edges of the hood base, one might include in the capture area the thickness of the hood edges. The light bar at the front has partial effectiveness as capture area, less so for island hoods, but this depends on what the plume component velocity is at the bar vs. the hood blower's air velocity at the bar. Plume "rays" that aren't deviated by blower flow as they rise that reflect from the bar will likely escape and count as "spillage."

Baffle angling adds reservoir volume below them allowing some averaging of the plume across the baffle space, but this effect is slight for typical residential hoods. Commercial hoods have large volumes under the baffles that help average-out transient plumes and reduce required air velocity through the baffles.

Due to this small volume, and general air entrainment goals, I have always suggested for residential hoods higher specific flow rates (90 CFM/sq. ft.) than Greenheck suggests for commercial hoods in their Figure 4 table within their guide for similar cooking: https://www.tagengineering.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/KVSApplDesign_catalog.pdf Flow rates, of course, have to account for the blower fan curve, system pressure losses, and adequate MUA.

All of this "stuff" is approximate! So far, though, there have been no complaints of capture and containment inadequacy from designs intended to achieve 90 CFM/sq. ft.

Thanks everyone for the feedback thus far. And @kaseki thank you for the capture vs. containment clarification. We don't do any wok cooking but do occasionally sear meat. Look like I might have to look at something with higher CFMs. The Victory Hurricane looks promising in that respect, anyone have any experience with this model?