Finally: US New Supersonic Passenger Jet Takes Its First Flight!

The future of aviation looks bright! Following the recent unveiling of the upcoming silent supersonic jet, the X-59 Quesst, another aviation startup, Boom Supersonic, recently took a major step toward its goal of returning commercial supersonic aviation to the skies after the company's prototype aircraft, the XB-1, left the ground for the first time last month. In this video, you will learn about the XB-1's first flight, the key technologies it validates, and what the future holds for this project.

[@ozzy8286]

Concorde still looks much better

[@finleyfendt3750]

Please, please do NOT let Boeing build this.

[@robertclary8774]

A tiny airplane that went a little over 7000 feet and 237 mph. They have a long way to go.

[@Khether0001]

There was not enough demand for it then, today after everyone is working from home there should be even less.

[@randysmitchell4810]

7:33 - "throttling back only over oceans"? Hmmm - throttling back usually means reducing power - which reduces speed?

[@peterwilliamallen1063]

At least the pilot was the only passenger, just a joke never be as good as Concorde

[@bgreen2266]

This test platform not a passenger Jet. In spite of what the vdo states a private company not NASA is going have to build it. And the private company needs to do it profitably. and nobody watching youtube vdo's will be able to afford the tickets.

[@stevendegiorgio3143]

Looks like we are heading in the right direction towards supersonic flight.Its going to take a lot of time to get to the full size supersonic airliner.I believe they will succeed.I want to see another SST again.Good job Boom,keep on going.

[@guilleminbruno7898]

Concorde much better

[@citationxpilot2293]

As long as the "passenger" is a rated pilot, it's all good.

[@richardmckeown7457]

While Mach 1.7 is fast, Concorde had an average cruise speed of Mach 2.02, so it's sounding slightly underwhelming for some reason. Or am I missing something?

[@alanbreeze4731]

But they haven't achieved Mach 1.7..... overture is just a computer generated fantasy

[@dan797]

lol. 237 MPH I thought I heard that wrong. I had to go back and replay it. How many years ago did they develop Concorde? It will still be the one and only in my book I used to fly it a lot in the 80s. I was fortunate.

[@Retr0racin]

A ticket to London and back will only cost you 4.5 million dollars

[@commonsenselogic]

Technically speaking, some jet liners can go faster than the speed of sound. Not much faster, but faster.

[@irishskipper9620]

Which ones?

[@BillHalliwell]

@@irishskipper9620 G'day Irish, most of them, really. It's all about fuel consumption. Cheers, Bill H.

[@irishskipper9620]

@@BillHalliwell I don’t know where you are getting this information from but it’s wrong. I flew commercial airliners for 31 years and there aren’t any supersonic ones. There WAS one - the Concorde, but it’s gone. Most commercial jets cruise anywhere from .72 - .84 Mach. Their Vmo - max operating speed, is only slightly above that. None of them exceed the speed of sound or Mach 1, fuel consumption or not.

[@mrrcassidy]

If you can make the process of arriving/boarding/disembarking and collecting luggage more efficient, you could knock hours off your journey times without going any faster.

[@BillHalliwell]

G'day MrMrC, You bring up an excellent point. Also, existing aircraft can, and if not can be cheaply modified, to fly faster than they do now. It's all a fuel thing. But, essentially, you're correct. Spewing out 400 people into any one space is a recipe for delay and irritation. They did away with the A380s now what a pity they've come back. I'm 70 in February and I can actually recall when commercial flying was enjoyable! 😃 All the aircraft seated fewer passengers; the onboard service was friendly, magnificent; even in 'Economy' The in-flight food was similarly great and, here's the thing; the airports were smaller. Bigger aircraft, bigger airports, bigger crowds waiting for their luggage and let's not forget the 'security' (thank you terrorists of the 70s & 80s) 🤬 We're all just tiny bits of meat in the sausage machine called Commercial Aviation. Cheers, Bill H.

[@Afuru1]

So if the prototype looks nothing like the production product, how exactly is the lessons aligned?

[@conantdog]

Magical thinking by coporate elites for use by other elites 🤔

[@MrGaryGG48]

For a plane that few people have seen yet and limited prototype flights have been completed, there are an awful lot of loud skeptics out there. There are too many voices blathering on about how this thing will never work. Either tune in a different channel to occupy yourself or show a bit of patience while the people putting up the money to invent a new technology are hard at work, creating something new. It hasn't cost any of us a dime so far and probably won't cost any dimes in the future if it is even near as expensive as the wailers have predicted. I don't find it any less interesting. I find it well worth my time, reading up on new technologies in many directions. Few ever start out as saleable.

[@BillHalliwell]

G'day Gary, I love reading sci-fi too. Sorry, didn't mean to offend those poor creative souls out there. Cheers, Bill H.

[@MrGaryGG48]

@@BillHalliwell Hi Bill. Thanks for the reply. It is quite a long reach but there are a couple of fairly credible customers already nibbling around the edges. Who knows, at this point where it will all sort out but I worked with a few guys who lost their jobs when the SST project got shut down in the early '70s, and they were positive that it actually had a future. They didn't think it was without a few issues (Noise!) that needed a resolution but it worked. There has been a loooong 50 years for the idea to simmer so I'll be interested in seeing its outcome.

[@etiennenobel5028]

Beautiful

[@kalroy45]

If by "vintage" you mean still in regular use by the USAF... then sure.

[@robertlevasseur6843]

This company should try to solve a real problem that passengers have, like how to get through security at an airport without suffering post traumatic stress disorder. That would be a true advancement in civil aviation.

[@danielsnook5029]

And a seat that prevents the passenger behind you touching it.

[@cpgoef6]

It’s called flying in a private jet. That’s why I don’t believe this will succeed.

[@tonyrotzler63]

That is NOT the companies job, refer to the local authorities responsible for that

[@LuxuryFlyer]

Why are yall complaining so much? This is such a milestone in the aviation and engineering world. And I bet if you tried a bit harder to solve your problem you would hear about something called TSA pre check.

[@Hotdogger808]

Oh, hey......it looks like Concorde.........funny that! I say Bring back that master piece of engineering and give it a 21st century upgrade. Not much will ever look as beautiful as Concorde or make as much lovely twin spool RR Olympus turbojet noise.

[@trevoryoung2700]

Things you could have mentioned: 1. Supersonic flight is inherently energy inefficient. Per “passenger-km”, supersonic transport aircraft will consume at least seven times more fuel (kerosene or SAF) than a subsonic commercial airliner of similar state of the art. 2. Ticket prices will be orders of magnitude greater due to significantly increased operational cost, aircraft purchase price, and maintenance cost (new supersonic engines). Consequently, if the venture is successful, it will only appeal to a niche market. 3. SAF production today is a fraction of 1% of global jet fuel demand, and the expected ramp-up over the next two decades is modest (and reliant on subsidies to compete). The industry -as a whole- will rely on fossil fuel for decades. Supersonic flight (using SAF) will consume a disproportionate amount of a scarce resource transporting passengers a given distance. 4. Commercial production of SAF today is not truly sustainable. Approved pathways reduce lifecycle CO2 by about 50-85% depending on the feedstock, energy supply & process. SAF production based on carbon extraction by DAC (Direct Air Capture) and hydrogen electrolysis is an appealing long term option for the aviation industry, but with technical and commercial hurdles. Potential showstoppers exist - e.g. vast amounts of renewable (or nuclear) energy will be needed.

[@thomasrudder9639]

CO2 doesn’t have jack shit to do with global warming.

[@firehawkws7845]

Someone hasn't heard of super cruise.

[@AntonK-jw3vx]

Проектирование такого самолета больше сфера развлечений, чем экономичность иначе не было бы быстрых суперкаров. Так же она позволяет строить больше сверхзвуковых двигателей для военных( на военном 1-2 двигателя, а на пассажирском такие же но 3-4), тем самым удешевляя их и увеличивая финансирование для разработки новых. Сейчас для удешевления переходят с жидкого топлива на сжиженный газ с гибридными технологиями, в морских перевозках и авиация в очереди.

[@JP_TaVeryMuch]

2:11 I'm greatly encouraged to hear about this endeavour and wish the team well. I just hope that when I press play on the video again in a moment, the titular supersonic achievement will actually be shown to have been reached. Not even a third of the way there with 273mph... Plus, it's neither _the_ Concorde or indeed pronounced cuncoored, if you don't mind and as you might note from Cap'n Bannister's statement. 3:51 No aeronautical engineer me, yet I'm surprised that the drop nose is still a thing. Fighter jets aside, I'm of the school of "No! We can't blindly follow current trends" such as putting all our eggs in the one basket that is digital displays alone, for instance. These time honoured maxims have stayed the course for a reason: they're essential and pertinent. If I were the new plane's pilot, I'd want to know what to do if the screens go down; I'd want the ability to be able to look out of the window when flying and landing; If this weren't possible because it had been designed out by the creators of such a beautiful beast, I'd need a damned good reason why and what they thought ought to happen in an emergency like this.

[@danielsnook5029]

If it doesn't match Concorde's speed I ain't going!!😂

[@carltonlarsen]

you could have been more honest with the title. A lightweight single seat proof of concept test bed is NOT a supersonic airliner.

[@timothyshiu2263]

Is it true that it is an exponential relationship between the speed (x-axis) and the fuel (y-axis)? In other word, the more you burn fuel, the little you get speed up. In other word, prohibiting airplane ticket per flight. Is it true that concord crashed because concord operator has to cut cost a bit too much at the expense of maintenance. Would this concord 2.0 follow the same cost problem? It is good to study and research this subject and come up with interesting solution. The current fastest speed holder is still a meteor that burn up in the atmosphere.

[@nightstorm9128]

Built by one mans private company,,,,,,,The last time that happened 5 people were crushed to death in a submarine ,,,,,,,,No thanks,,I'll take an airbus ,,,

[@benhogan6860]

Looks like the concord

[@tomallen9179]

Thank you for this very well put together video story. I look forward to the next episode.

[@andrewturnbull5897]

Boom should rename as “NoBoom”. I’ll gladly accept an honorarium should they choose this new moniker! 😄

[@dip-tree]

Am I missing something? 273mph???

[@bgw33]

Liked video. AND I almost unsubscribed because of the misleading title.

[@Homoprimatesapiens]

Finally, there isnt end on headline deceiving.

[@BruceBusby]

I hope this isn't another titanic submersible type thing

[@royrodgers4297]

I bet now residents will again be lining the airport in protest against noise pollution! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@geoffreymartinez7208]

273 mph? Phew! I'll hold on to my $299 deposit for the time being.

[@Homoprimatesapiens]

If you want learning end results on a.c. development the experimental a.c. have to look the same as the one you aim for otherwise you will learn or achieve no positive results.

[@lmenascojr]

That is one beautiful looking bird! Hope they can upsize it to commercial viability!

[@mrrcassidy]

Indeed. It looks just like Concorde.

[@TheManGrant]

I am not sure that the intake air scoop on the top is a good idea. This design was abandoned in the DC-9 because of the poor intake resulting from the fusilarge. However, i presume that the engineers have addressed that concern. I guess it is okay in level flight, and only reduces performance on take off.

[@robertclary8774]

I think you meant DC10 or Lockheed L1011

[@TheManGrant]

@@robertclary8774 Yes, thank you. It has been a long time.

[@LongJohn97]

@@TheManGrant there was no problem with that arrangement on the 727, Trident, Tristar , DC10, TU154 or Dassault Falcons

[@RobertH-tj3ik]

I love the comments. Great read Lost interest in this advertising featurette a short way in. Will be pleased to see the real thing if it ever materialises Would have been great to go on Concorde but now I fancy a suite on an A380. Thats not likely to happen either 😅

[@miguelriego9254]

Great milestone. When will supersonic tests will begin?

[@davidwolf226]

Dave says "cool"! Otherwise, I'll believe it when I see it.

[@dougball328]

I am skeptical of Overture having nonstop US to Japan range. That is 5000 n. mi. And then there are all the environmental issues. Don't believe that just because you are over water that the boom is no longer an issue. Hauled pinipeds, bird migration routes, all sorts of things still need to be addressed. And no mention of takeoff noise (a HUGE problem)

[@SimonAmazingClarke]

First test flight they did what? Crawl... I hope their investors have deep pockets because the passenger version will cost 1,000's of times more to design, and about the same to certify.

[@oldgandy5355]

These people need to work on a Transporter like Star Trek used. That, and true solid state batteries for vehicles, would be much more beneficial to mankind. A diagnostic health scanner, also from Star Trek, and maybe some unobtanium and dilithium would help.

[@danielocarey9392]

Variations of a theme will not solve much. This isn't a thinking out of the box. But consider a wing that is not the same per side. Perhaps a fuselage on one side with the wing on the other. The oblique wing idea is yet primitive. But this thinking needs to be worked with instead of just a little tweaking of a swept wing airplane which does not impress me very much.

[@darrenfitch]

Looks more like a fighter jet than passenger plane... It's no Concord

[@harryeames6200]

Boom is buying these aircraft, but they fail to mention that it's NASA who designed them in the first place..

[@vonschleppin]

Let’s take an airplane that has been retired over 20 years ago, repackage it, make it slower and lower, and then say we invented something completely new! Humanity is well into its second century of flight and it is still relying on the wing, speed, jet propulsion and runways to get aloft. I guess there wasn’t much to learn from those little green men in NM.

[@tinaandalex]

Yes I would like very much to fly supersonic from New York to London……. As long as it costs no more than $50 more than a regular flight.

[@chrisg9627]

Putting unproven power-plants into an unproven concept aircraft is not a good omen. Why did RR bail out ?

[@dougball328]

Wanted to stop wasting money.

[@andyinnes2178]

All the same issues Concord had. Wake me up when they actually make the finished version.

[@guilleminbruno7898]

Concorde in advance on his time

[@984francis]

Concord had commercial rather than technical issues. Technically it was a stunning success. It was the US that crippled it commercially by severely limiting where it could fly into.

[@andyinnes2178]

@@984francis Actually Concord had multiple technical issues, and they used a very similar test plane to pioneer the double delta concept in the Fairy Delta.

[@mikestirewalt5193]

8 billion development cost? Loss of Rolls Royce support and development of a supersonic engine from scratch? Interesting technology of course but if people need to get across the planet in record time, Elon has that in the works.

[@htimsid]

Who actually needs 'to get across the planet in record time'?

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

Just another misleading title for a YT episode. This plane is not able to take passengers.

[@kenwhitfield219]

This is a 1/3 scale prototype built to test the requisite technologies before starting construction of the full size passenger airplane named Overature. Should have actually watched the video!

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

@@kenwhitfield219 Perhaps I missed that in the avalanche of words presented here.

[@leeoldershaw956]

No it's not even close to a 1/3 size prototype. This is a dead end as it's extremely unlikely they could produce an engine.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

@@kenwhitfield219 But try putting passengers into this 'passenger jet'!

[@standard_gauge]

@@kenwhitfield219 the XB 1 was to be used to explore the flight envelope of the then Overture tri jet. However Overture is now a quad jet. The XB 1 first flew in March no indication as to when the first supersonic flight will be.

[@synergy6294]

Only 7000 ft and 270 mph ? Must be some new definition of supersonic 😂

[@BillWhittleChannel]

1st test flight in a series of 15 to push to supersonic speeds. Must be some new definition of Cognitive Disability. 😂

[@synergy6294]

@@BillWhittleChannel that disability is seen in making fanfare of nothing ... real news will be when designed ceiling and speed are achieved... reliably.

[@synergy6294]

@@BillWhittleChannel tell us when it's done no.15

[@JoeDavidson-tf5wk]

Not 300 or so, what a 737 carries...

[@stevecarter529]

Well it`s not being made by Boeing ore contracted through NASA, so it has a good chance.

[@lynnkramer1211]

Wow! 7120 feet?! 274 mph?! that mind blowingly not supersonic. Not at all. It is not large enough for a second seat even and ever will be.

[@JoeyRay-fz1qe]

This was done before by France and the UK called the SST and it was a failure even during the times of plenty. To make a plane like this it would have to be streamline with powerful fuel guzzling engines. Like the SST it was consider to be all first Class and still it couldn't be profitable. Now with prices out of control and airlines saying they can't make money I don't see an aircraft like this being bought in numbers to make it profitable for the company to make!

[@XAirForce]

Hurry up I need a new Air Force One

[@XAirForce]

I don’t want Boeing’s Air Force One Max :)

[@XAirForce]

I also made it to B3 bomber

[@XAirForce]

Lol

[@travispower2683]

Still a long way to go. Engines on this model are old technology. They still need a real engine.

[@guilleminbruno7898]

AU lieu de développer des supersoniques ce sont des avions moins rapides et qui vont moins haut qu'il faudrait développer . 500km/h 6000 m d'altitude environ là où c'est possible. Et pour les traversées maritimes, beaucoup, beaucoup plus bas. On pourrait envisager de traverser l'Atlantique à quelques centaines de mètres au-dessus du niveau de la mer , là où c'est possible

[@aukhan9289]

Where is supersonic passengers aircraft

[@monkey56001]

I don't believe this aircraft will ever enter commercial service, concord never made profit, it was heavily fined everytime its took off or landed at Heathrow Airport, it was an iconic aircraft and the flagship of ba, that was the only reason it was kept flying. Unless a supersonic aircraft can be cheaply manufactured on mass, with cheap running costs, commercial supersonic flight will never be profitable or viable.

[@JoeDavidson-tf5wk]

Jet means JET as in about 10-12 passenger's, fool...

[@thomassawicki2065]

Yeah, that sounds good, riding at supersonic speed in a plastic plane.

[@Kitchguy]

It's 2024, shouldn't they be spending all this time and money to come up with one that doesn't run on fuel.

[@penelop96]

I don’t know why they are even talking about the return of supersonic commercial flight. I was talking to someone who flew on the Concorde years ago. Back then, a cross Atlantic trip would set you back at least 10k CDN; a prohibitive cost that puts it out of reach for the average person making commercially unviable.

[@Marie579]

Am I the only one who’s seeing a modern reincarnation of a certain British bomber the Wilson government scrapped? Eg TSR2

[@alanbreeze4731]

Hype hype hype.....show me the money!!!!!!!!!!

[@dinosaurus4189]

Is this a Boeing subsidiary?

[@thomasimcurious9967]

It could easily be; lots of bored Boeing employees have money to invest, a negative amount of common sense and a need to satisfy their big fat ego.

[@suddenlysolo2170]

They haven't figured out how to retract the landing gear yet....?

[@brianfoster7794]

There's nothing new about supersonic flight , dragging your feet behind the concorde and the Russians version. And only taken 77 years since the X-1 to arrive at the XB-1 😅😂😅 . when you actually get the passenger version in the air, there could be supersonic airspace restrictions for it.

[@StefanMochnacki]

I'm afraid that supersonic passenger jets are just not a needed technology. Far more important is to develop more efficient subsonic engines and airframes. And these days, to develop better drones and means of producing them in vast masses to defeat the enemies of freedom. Governments of democratic nations need to rapidly drive more capital into arms and munitions production... and to ameliorate the conditions leading to migration.

[@boblivingston4841]

Will never happen, they don't have engines for the full size aircraft.

[@iankravitz5723]

With this design, one can imagine the fun if one of those 'fat acceptance activists' decide to try to board!

[@williampeek7943]

This plane and the passenger version look a lot like The Concord. It will have the same problems as Concord. It will burn too much fuel and only carry a limited number of passengers to make it a viable business model. Plus, it will need a much longer nose and above wing engines to reduce sound decibels below most countries regulations.

[@richbuckley6917]

What will it cost for a business class seat in today’s dollars?

[@geoffreymartinez7208]

All seats will be business class.

[@dunkermitcell83]

If this works well somebody is gonna make allot off money,my is dunker and build space ships 😎✌️🛸

[@melbournechugging2999]

Booommmm!!!!

[@davidstevenson9517]

Misleading indeed! Since when has the United States EVER built a supersonic passenger airliner? What an insult to the British and French aerospace designers of Concord! (Do any Americans know the meaning of the term, "concord"?)

[@placidewilliam]

That little plane 😂😂😂??

[@Dr_Kenneth_Noisewater]

10 years to get to 273 mph? 1960s engines? INVEST NOW!

[@speedbirdconcorde4534]

Wont happen in our lifetime for a commercial equivalent to Concorde. BOOM. Going from a ‘model’ to a working commercial aircraft that is safe and reliable and maintainable and and and …to carry passengers and luggage and not just a pilot and 10 other wealthy people….and to fly at a speed that makes it worthwhile whilst returning a good ROI… well, that takes a lot of knowledge…and that is assuming you have a business model !! A mach3 commercial aircraft is not feasible as the gains ( across the atlantic) are marginal compared to Concorde and going Mach1 -1.3 also doesnt provide the time gains to make it worthwhile. Without an engine manufacturer willing to invest, cant see it ever happening. The Olympus 593 engines ( including the intakes and exhaust) on Concorde were a masterpiece. Most don’t understand what it took and takes to do what Concorde did and beyond.

[@dougball328]

Liked your comment about Mach 3. During the HSR program we studied a variety of vehicles and speeds. The baseline mission was US/Japan - 5000 n. mi. Due to normal aircraft operations (terminal areas, climb, descent, etc) a Mach 2.4 cruising airplane had a 'block' speed (distance divided by mission time) of Mach 2. A vehicle that cruised at Mach 10 was only Mach 4 block speed. I will say that Overture's Mach 1.7 cruise speed is a good choice. You don't need variable geometry inlets at that speed to still get good inlet recovery performance. And no mention of ozone . . .

[@stewarthumphreys8960]

Maybe 3 passengers at £13000 a ticket .. Lol

[@gardnep]

At least it can slowly hit a mountain. Cannot afford a human speaker.

[@donalddepew9605]

I think it’s a scam. They might have test flown the demonstrator but, that’s about it. Sorry to be such a skeptic but none of this technology is new, it’s pretty much off the shelf,

[@technophobe7067]

And this aircraft can reach hi attitude! Call me thicko I thought it was high altitude aircraft have to reach. And without Rolls Royce bringing its engine technology to the party it’s doomed engines from the 50’s are not the way forward.

[@colinbarnard6512]

Think of it: it would take more money to develop this SST than SpaceX has spent on Starship. Point-to-point sub-orbital rockets are the future. Noise control is not an option.

Point-to-point sub-orbital rockets are a phantasy. You have to start and land them far away from cities because of the enormous noise and risks.

[@silaskuemmerle2505]

Point to point rockets are stupid

[@984francis]

The technological propaganda is reminiscent of the Titan.

[@pgilb70]

Who really cares abt saving 3-4 hours?

[@williamdowney8600]

By the time this aircraft comes into service, we will have seen 30 years pass by without supersonic travel. Concorde was there, running and effective. Is the technology to get such an aircraft back into service like Concorde not currently available?

[@miguelmouta5372]

Very expensive, indeed. But from where would come such funding?🤔

[@Paul1958R]

Just like Concorde: Funded by the ordinary taxpayer but to be flown on only by the ultra wealthy

[@alastair1953]

They.ve just copied the TSR-2

[@sheldoninst]

Who cares about the promotional bent of this video.. the really question is: How did the prototype perform at supersonic flight, and specifically, is the sonic boom as muted as promised??!?

[@dougball328]

The boom mitigating airplane is a different vehicle. Neither Boom vehicle is designed for low boom operation. They will N-Wave blast their way across the ocean.

[@sheldoninst]

@@dougball328 Hmm.. that’s not what I understood… in fact, I thought the idea was to make supersonic travel possible over land, at least that’s what was initially advertised

[@dougball328]

@@sheldoninst This video has confused this issue. NASA has built the X-59, a low boom demonstrator that is getting ready to fly. It is designed to not only reduce the magnitude of the overpressure but also the rise time. The Boom Overture vehicle will be a typical N-Wave vehicle (similar to Concorde), and as such, will not be allowed to fly supersonic over land (most places). The NASA X-59 is the outgrowth of the HSR program that NASA, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas participated in from the mid 80s to around 2000. Hope this helps clear this up.

[@sheldoninst]

@@dougball328 Understood… but I clearly remember a Boom SS ad stating reduction of the SS boom…

[@dougball328]

@@sheldoninst Boom's greatest competency is marketing. Two of my engineers at Boeing ended up at Boom. After less than two years they both left. They were not comfortable with some of the 'activities' taking place. I will leave it at that.

[@rogerhardy6306]

Yes, it's an innovative shape but what's the connection between it and the SST that's also proposed (which looks rather like the Boeing and Lockheed SSTs proposed in the 1960s)? The shape and layout are entirely different. What new technologies does it bring to the whole issue of commercial supersonic flight? Is it quieter? More economic? This prototype has shown it can fly but the displays, structure, intakes etc are current or old technologies. This one even uses J85 engines...the same as the 65-year old chase plane. Ok, they are a sensible choice for a supersonic demonstrator but all this will show is a privately developed aircraft that is capable of supersonic flight, but RR pulling out isn't a good sign. Great, congratulations, but there's a helluva leap between that and a viable supersonic airliner. I wonder whether it's just a money-laundering exercise...

[@grahamkearnon6682]

This project has had more publicity than all the media ever made about Concorde, what your seeing is the US number one product ie self promotion!

[@user-cw9qn1nb2n]

Doesn't look to be any advance on thousands of supersonic fighters being flown every day by air forces throughout the world. Doesn't look to me to be scalable up to a passenger-carrying aircraft. And only carrying about 70 people would make it hyper-expensive to travel on.

[@frankgallagher5786]

Yeah right. Throw in some proper English commentary and fill the rest up with men and women in white jackets with goggles and it looks like it really is what its not. Theres no market for this shit! Private subsonic jets are the way to go. Might take a few hours more but so what. Wider cabin, real stand up cabin height allows more freedom of movement, and luxury.

[@kitcole4927]

Having to develop their own engine is an expensive neccessity , it reminds me of many startups , ambition clouding judgement . Moving more people efficiently is better than moving a few quickly , after atwo hour wait for airport proccessing !