Boeing Sonic Cruiser

[AviationEnthusiastic]

CONCORDE OWNED (and still owns actually).

[RusskieHunter13]

Damn, look at that sexiness! Too bad it was cancelled :(

[matchbox555]

lol its not even as fast as concorde, we are going backwards

[itsmegp46]

@matchbox555 First, this design was abandoned nine years ago, due to non interest. Airliners favored slower more fuel efficient planes. While this plane would have flown slower than a Concorde, it would have flown 15-20% faster than any current commercial jet flown today. Its chief advantage over the Concorde was no sonic boom.

[matchbox555]

@itsmegp46 so its not even going to be built.. even worse then

we will have to hope the chinese develop super fast flight.. someone needs to

[starladear002]

@matchbox555 First, we did have it, for thirty years. It was too expensive and too noisy. Second, the reason the sonic cruiser development was abandoned as I mentioned earlier was because the airlines favored slower, more fuel effcient planes over faster ones. There is no point in bulding a plane that no one will buy, is there? Finally, until someone finds a way to eliminate the sonic boom associated with super sonic planes, again, no one will buy them.

[zszs100]

@matchbox555 First of all they build the 787 instead of this plane. Second, the concord was very fast (twice the speed of sound) but it was unsafe.

[AviationEnthusiastic]

@zszs100 "Concorde was unsafe" - ignorant.

[zszs100]

@AviationEnthusiastic The tires burst often. = unsafe. 

[waqasayub22]

thats look like sr 71

[TheBearcat222]

Who selected this dishrag to be the presenter? Maybe he is intelligent, but he has ZERO public relations skills. What a loser he acts like.

[123d57]

they ave completely scraped this and is is a bunch of S**T

[Ichristian96]

I wish they would make something like this, but does anyone else think this aircraft would be extremely unsafe? O:

[Brad1711]

@Ichristian96 Why...?

[Ichristian96]

@Brad1711 Its long, with a small wing in the back, granted its supersonic but, thats going to take alot of speed to get it moving, so if there was ever anything wrong with one of the engines, it would probably fall out of the sky.

[Brad1711]

@Ichristian96 Brilliant.  I hate it when airplanes fall out of the sky. It's like when the cables break on an elevator--down you fall.

[wtficantgetausername]

absolute crap

[Knightsairsoftteam]

The same thing will happen that happened with the Concorde, because essentially this aircraft is just a redesigned one.

[FsFlightTV]

Will it be abandoned?.... absolutely.

[DVA5212]

@FsFlightTV

This aircraft eventually morphed into the 787.

[markallayban]

it may have metal fatigue because the engines is sticked to the fuselage

[mondeost2202008]

If this make this then were on the right track. It's not the technology, its not the speed or efficiency (because it ain't efficient) but the fact that it will be more expensive and that means we won't have any problems sitting with some fat backpacker and other annoying passengers because it would be more expensive to them. A plane that not only could get you anywhere faster but less frustrating as well.

Bring this up and we're back in the 50's Jet Age Babe!

[chavitavb]

I think boeing might use this design one day.

[cgoffa]

multiplex built a radio control model of this called the " sonic liner" its a sweet flier and a real shame that boeing didnt go thru with this

[sofruity3]

instead of the development of the sonic cruiser they should improve all the technology on all latest boeing planes. for example, a computerized third pilot that dectects and solves all problems.

[ChRIs23696]

Guys, no-one seems to know this from who I've been talking to, but for a year Boeing have been developing this. It's called the Icon 2 now, but essentially the same concept. It's in a vid of mine if anyones bothered but no need if you'd rather look itup on Google or something.

[mj1234321]

This would've been more exciting than the 787! We'll been stuck at Mach 0.85 for the next 50 years....

[teta809]

boeing should really consider this plane and the cool design. the concorde wasnt a success but decades later are tech is far superior. meaning a super sonic planes is much much safer.( the Concorde is iconic though)

[locosherman1]

It's like a Concorde, I wish they could make airplanes like this, then I could get places faster, and more comfortably. -Thanks

[VIR092]

I think the Sonic Cruiser would have been a more viable project than the B787. Thanks for posting.

[krislyttle]

Scale it down by half and it just might be practical enough to make one helluva bizjet.

[TheMarkOfTheBeast1]

It is beyond ridiculous that in the year 2010, we STILL haven't made any steps forward in supersonic passenger transport. Seriously, what's going on? It's utterly tragic that this project was abandoned, and instead Boeing wasted their money on the 787.

Where's the ambition? I want to see Concorde's successor!

[coldfarted]

@TheMarkOfTheBeast1 I agree 100% I just got back from a 24 hour plane trip from Asia. This time it was Manila to Guam to Hawaii to Texas to KC. Try that 12 hour Japan to Chicago trip sometime and you will hope to God they start building a super sonic aircraft and I bet you will pay a few hundred extra for a ticket too.

[TheMarkOfTheBeast1]

@coldfarted

Jesus, that is a joke... you must be physically exhausted after that.

You're absolutely right. Long-haul flights at anything less than the speed of sound are simply uncomfortable and inconvenient

[digitalblue9000]

No 1. Boieng is the best. But Airbus 380 sucks !

[shababsta]

boeing make this, and airbus are going to bring back the Concorde 2.0!

[05u16hep]

Kind of pointles... I mean if u put a 767 on full power it would go that fast easily, it might shake a bit and use lots of fuel, but still! If your going to do that, might as well go all the way to m.1.5 or even 2

[cst1908]

the wing jst like the concorde and tu144 but this is crazy because the speed is too fast imagine how the passenger inside the plane i would like to fly this plane in the future

[tpsossff]

That plane just did not look right, Concord was right, it did not need the wings at the front. The engines on this one looked too far apart and too far back fpr the aircraft to handle a sudden power loss at maximum thrust.

But face it, the age of supersonic travel has come and gone. When I go to Australia I want a cheap ticket, not spent a few months wages to save a few hours on the trip.

[TheMarkOfTheBeast1]

@tpsossff

The age of EXPENSIVE supersonic travel has come and gone.

[monkeyman1140]

Boeing made a huge mistake canning this project. After he economic downturn of 2008-09, smaller faster jets are more economically feasible. The A380 is having trouble getting customers for that reason.

[rangeclerk]

The Reality is BOEING needs to develop a vehicle, around the size of the 737 which can takeoff from a runway, go into low earth orbit and land at another airport (skip-orbit?). The Tech is around it just takes industrial, govt and economic will to achive it!

[wesso707]

What da ya think? Stupid....

[R3MUS2007]

I can think of a few ways to change the design to be it more aerodynamic and fit more people into it. This is a very one sided design. They keep going back to the tubular design. What they need to do is look at the single wing concept and implement it. You get a more aerodynamic design, that fits more people, while allowing for quicker flights. Plus if you put the engines on top, the flight becomes less noisy for those in the plane, as well as those on the ground.

[detibry]

i really, really, really think the teams of engineers at boeing know what they're doign

[Jaymazing2point0]

That costs more to repair, costs more to inspect(because it takes more time) and costs more to refit.

Those ideas have already been addressed by aeronautics and deemed completely unsuitable for commercial flight.

[R3MUS2007]

I still think they should at least attempt it. Its not that its unsuitable for commercial flight, its that the engineers have already seen the tubular design go through millions of tests and they rely on it more. They would have do all of those tests again on the Uni-wing design, which wouldnt be very cost effective. But hey if they wanna have mediocre aircraft in the future thats their call. Since the Airforce are looking into the Uni-wing I thought commercial should give it a try too.

[Jaymazing2point0]

As I said before. The cost to repair and refit a Uni-wing design is too much for commercial use, engines on tubular designed craft can be easily removed and refitted as well as easily inspected. Uni-wings aren't as easy and therefore would cost more to maintain.

The Airforce can afford to as they aren't a profit driven organisation, their aim is to have the best equipment in field, not necessarily the lowest cost.

[xanalyoko]

IF this is really someone from boeing then i have 1 question..

Have you looked into the history of the concorde includeing the crash?

[shamk9]

concorde accident wasnt concordes fault yo and sonic cruiser project is cancelled

[monkeyman1140]

The concorde was unsafe, and the British and French knew it. Look at its history of tire explosions and aborted takeoffs. Even the Russians knew better and they put the landing gear in the engine nacelles of the Tu-144. The concorde had its rear landing gear located in the wings, and it would have been a huge weight and cost penalty to put armor there to keep pieces of exploded tire from puncturing the wing tanks.

Its really amazing the Concorde had only one crash really.

[R3MUS2007]

I think they just need to redesign the Concorde for safer flight. Then it would be good to go again. Use a mag-lev rail or something to launch the plane instead of tires. =P

[nakazatoGTR]

@R3MUS2007 replace the olympus engines, with pratt and whitney F-110 engines. it wont even need afterburners then.

[TheMarkOfTheBeast1]

@R3MUS2007

Concorde wasn't cancelled because of safety issues. It was the safest aircraft in the world. The problem was fuel efficiency, noise and cost. It was costing too much to run. So they cancelled it, and now we're stuck with only sub-sonic jets for god knows how many more years...

[bettermaxim]

@TheMarkOfTheBeast1 lol it was definilty cancelled becuase of safety issues which they couldn't resolve. tooo many concordes were crashing and they had no idea what malfunctions occured. Like every other airline if they don't find out why there aircrafts failed, there pretty much screwed becuase they can't resolve the problem and then people don't feel safe and then the go outta business.

[TheMarkOfTheBeast1]

@bettermaxim

What are you talking about? It only crashed once. It was the safest plane in the world. If you think it was withdrawn because of safety, then why hasn't the 737 and loads of other aircraft been withdrawn?

You need to at least do some research before you come out with false statements. The Concorde was cancelled due to rising maintenance costs, low passenger numbers and fuel efficiency. It simply wasn't making enough profit.

[R3MUS2007]

@TheMarkOfTheBeast1 Are you kidding me? The Concorde was canceled because there were two major accidents caused by faulty design/lack of maintenance. Of course it was safety. When an airplane blows up, that's an automatic safety issue.

[TheMarkOfTheBeast1]

@R3MUS2007

Airplanes crash all the time. If every model of aircraft was cancelled because of a crash, then there would be hardly any planes left in the sky. What a ridiculous logic. Just look up the crash history of the 737, why hasn't that been cancelled? The Concorde only crashed ONCE in its entire history.

Safety had nothing to do with it being cancelled. It simply wasn't making enough profit. It wasn't fuel efficient, and it wasn't profitable.

Do some research and stop talking nonsense.

[R3MUS2007]

@TheMarkOfTheBeast1 I have done research. You're right, it wasn't profitable, and it wasn't efficient. But they stopped producing it because of the accidents that happened. The manufacturer couldn't convince airlines that the Concordes were worth the cost of maintenance and fuel, when they also had safety problems. If the plane was cheap to maintain and service, but had some safety problems, they would have found ways to cope with the safety problems.

[TheMarkOfTheBeast1]

@R3MUS2007

They didn't stop "producing" it, they stopped flying it. They only built like 20 and only 14 were in service. And the Concorde was ONLY to be used by British Airways and Air France, as they owned the rights to it. So other airlines weren't interested in purchasing it because they couldn't.

Again, safety wasn't an issue. It crashed once in its entire history. Stop making things up as you go along.

[TheLastOutpost]

@R3MUS2007 Umm, mate MarkOfTheBeast is right. There was only one major accident with Concord. It had nothing to do with the concord and more to do with a tri-star [from memory] dropping parts on the runway. Cause of accident-FOD.

[coldfarted]

@R3MUS2007 Please kindly inform us of the other accident... as far as I know the one that occurred on take off was caused by damage from the plane running over debris on the runway.

[agent866]

@R3MUS2007 ? shiit I know this was three months ago but really ? two major accidents ? There was one major accident and that was because the jet in front had a lack of good repair so a titanium ripped off it hitting the fuel tank on concorde. That isn't lack of safety. No airplane can withstand that without a problem it's highly important that the airport is clear of all debris. Concorde was one of the most perfect airplanes of all times I would even go as far as saying it's as good as a 747

[Brad1711]

@agent866 Check your facts. Concorde had a major design flaw and had structural damage to that section of the fuel tank at least half a dozen times before the major accident occurred. That configuration never should have been approved or certificated.

[TheBearcat222]

@Brad1711 Congratulation, you just invented a word. There is no such word as "certificated".  You intended to write "certified", but even that would have been incorrect, because it would have been redundant after having written "approved". Moron, please kill yourself.

[Brad1711]

@TheBearcat222 You obviously don't work in aircraft certification. Before you make authoritative claims, try Googling (yes, I turned a proper noun into a verb--do you want me to kill myself again?) the word to make sure you're actually right and not just a moron who should kill himself.

[Brad1711]

@agent866 There is no way running over (or even ingesting) a relatively small piece of FOD should bring down any certificated commercial airplane.  I'll say again: Bad design.

[agent866]

@Brad1711 Really? if so why do they spend all that time on big airports hiring people and everything to check if there is some debris on the airport.

[Brad1711]

@agent866 I never said debris doesn't cause damage; I said FOD should not have catastrophic consequences. FOD happens. FOD is expensive. FOD should not bring down an airplane.

[agent866]

@Brad1711 Concorde is of course though not as safe but as a supersonic airliner it can't be much safer. At least not during the time it was designed. This way of flying should be for business people who need a quick flight at much higher cost and of course needs to have higher inspection. Both on the plane and the airport it uses. So I can't say this is the 100% plane's fault because when we're talking about such a great speed to take of all the debris would be catastrophic.

[agent866]

I might have hit a wall there with my other comment. Did a little research so I'm going to correct myself. 747 takeoff speed is greater than Concorde. But seriously when we're talking about a supersonic passenger jet the plane can't get much safer. It just needs to follow another step of air safety it can't follow the jetliners safety regulations. They're just not strict enough for a plane on this caliber.

[Brad1711]

@agent866 There are a multitude of requirements you put on an aircraft when you're designing it, regulatory and company-specific. These include things like fires, tires exploding, runway FOD, bird strikes, turbine rotor burst, etc. The Concorde's fuel tanks are located above and behind the MLG, right where something would hit if the tires ran over an object. This actually happened on at least half a dozen occasions. That configuration never should have made it past preliminary design review.

[itsmegp46]

@Brad1711 Running over a piece of debris is not what brought down the Concorde. That debris was heavy and hard enough that it hit the fuel tank and ruptured it causing the fire. It should be noted that during nearly three decades of commercial flight, this was Concordes only fatal crash.

[Brad1711]

@itsmegp46 Can't tell if stupid or trolling... If running over that debris didn't bring down the Concorde, then what did?

And it should also be noted that there were only 20 Concordes in service for only 27 years, so statistically speaking one catastrophic event in that time is actually a pretty bad accident rate.

[zesoengas]

I think the main issue here would be the fact that a 20% increase in speed doesn't conpensate PAX. It would be more profitable for businesses to have less 20% in speed and more.

[hoteret]

It looks awsome, but it's use less... Only around 50 ppl can fit in

[G777GUN]

Reminds me of a SR-71 Blackbird. Got canards though.

[cameronm96]

why was it abandoned???? it looks amazing!!!! :D

[miked860]

Probably not fast enough to bother. 20% speed increase is probably not enough to warrant spending hundreds of millions if not billions on R&D. Maybe they found out it would not be as economical or as profitable as they first thought. It's obvious airlines don't care about speed when they put all kinds of orders out for the 787 which travels slowers than most. It's all about getting the most profit and a fuel efficient plane is the way to do so. The more speed the more fuel required.

[Danielyeoh5885]

Fact 1, rising oil price

Fact 2, lack of advance material

Fact 3, expensive development cost

[Fuchizaa]

looks like an eel.

[Forrestman69]

The DC-8 broker the sound barrier empty flying level.

[xoio]

The VC-10 could go supersonic as well in level flight i think...

[scaremenga]

Any plane can hypothetically go supersonic. However, how it handles and wether or not it will stay intact is the major issue. During the A380's flight testing (and other aircraft) it began to shake violently before Mach 1 was reached. It "could" reach Mach 1, but it's occupants would die..

[barthoedemaker]

looks like a copy of the russians again + concorde was supersonic, this thing is going only 20% faster than normal planes. STUPID again.

[monkeyman1140]

Well I wouldn't say its a copy of the Russians, but the wing does have a remarkable resemblance to the Tu-144's wing, which is a double straked delta.

[CristoffandFriends]

It would've been cool to see one of those flying over my house.

[applesweeter]

Dear All,

I have some question on psychology:

*Why do we love flying?

*Why do we always want to new design aeroplanes that can fly faster and higher?

*What is the motivation behind our delication these aviation milestone?

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE for your creative ideas and brainstorm!!!

[superfunny125]

Becuase, everyday there is something new. We want to explore the world. We want to get higher and higher because we want......

[619cactusjack]

sonic is 1 mach and that is 0.95 mach ¬_¬

[ismail0zz]

the futere concorde is back :P

[lostinseganet]

Too bad this plane was canned for the dreamliner :( THis is soo much cooler.

[Del1720]

Giant sr-71 i guess?

[biped19]

Are we full of crap? "aaabsolutely." Are we not satisfied with making a little less money for the sake of innovation? "aaabsolutely." Is that why we canned it? "aaabsolutely."

[Cssfan101]

"absolutely"

lol

looks really nice, reminds me of the SR-71

[StanleyKu]

That thing is really cool looking.

[Dorothyinstead]

Why? Why do we celebrate the continued waste of our earths resources in pursuit of things that we don't really need. Spock said it well in Star Trek once, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

[spazzymagey]

why cant they just make a bunch of super planes and get rid of all the old ones and move on? i know it will cost loads but then all of this is out of the way with, we have the technology so why not go for it?. wtf they only built 20 Concords (i saw one getting disassembled when they went out of business it was cool) why didn't they build more than that?

[ojmardueno]

nobody was willing to buy them, too many people didn't like the idea of having to hear a sonic boom every time one flew overhead, it was also too expensive, to make them, to fly them, to service them, and only the rich could afford to fly on one.

The only countries that flew them were England and France, they were the ones that made those planes.

The only other country that allow them in their airspace was the U.S., and they required the plane to slow down under the speed of sound.

[colanjapanco]

the sonic cruiser is not a supersonic jet, it's just a sonic boom, it would have flown at 0.95 mach. since it wouldn't have broken the sound barrier, there wouldn't be any sonic booms.

[ojmardueno]

Yeah, I know. I was responding to spazzymagey asking why didn't they build more Concordes.

[hadiway]

Alan are you liar?? Absolutely LOL

[RedDragon765]

like seriously...why don't they just build a similar plane to the concorde? or just bring it back

[Bosniansupamanxx]

i know what you mean the concorde only had 1 crash and they remove it wtf

[1ohtaf1]

becasue they realised it was more dangerous than other planes and it was to expensive so they dont get enough passengers.

[ahowlettuk]

This is proof of just how advanced Concorde was. It is still the only aircraft that maintain supersonic flight at Mach 2 WITHOUT the use of afterburning engines.

Boeing must go back to the drawing board on this one!

[stealthyf23]

You completely missed the point. They could make airplanes go beyond mach 3 back in the cold war. There were similiar projects to concord during its time from both the US and Soviet. It's not about technology feasibility to go fast. It's about going fast and at the same time not making it expensive for people to buy its tickets. That's where concord failed, and the reason why the US cancelled their program before it could fly. this cruiser also failed by the way.

[5bStix]

@stealthyf23 To add to your points. Boeing and indeed Airbus both saw the maket demanding cheaper and more frequent travel. Boeing decided to abandon their "Sonic Cruiser" project to persue this ideal. This eventually lead to the development of the 787 series, a fuel efficeint and long range aircraft, that is used for point to point travel. As stated, Airbus also saw this maket trend and developed the current A380 series to tailor to the Hub & Spoke theory.

[TheBearcat222]

@5bStix If you cannot spell or type correctly, shut the fuck up.

[5bStix]

@TheBearcat222 You patronize me without any value being added to the argument because i mistyped one word. Good work (Y) continue on your crusade to troll and correct the grammar of billions of comments. When your finished and have learned some manners, come back and then we will speak, you cunt.

[kekecom]

i don't want that the 747 exctint with the 777-300ER - A380 !!!!! the 747 family is very elegand with the curves!!!!!

[rj2003grad]

boeing should have never abondoned this project

[CrazyPilotMilo]

is it going to be abandomed, abosolutely

[Razgriz100000]

hope not

[osama0406]

pity it got abandoned.. but the 787 dreamliner seems awesome too!

[jonataseuuk]

ABSOLUTELY! GOOD!

[je3d]

Hard to belive or not they are expected to be delivering the 747 stretch this year (no its not been cancelled) set to carry 500+ passengers over 7500 miles, check the 787 stats, none of its versions come close to that. So yes, it is worth while for them.

[je3d]

Boeing are going the right way? airbus building bigger?? Sort the facts mate, boeing are developing a bigger version of the 747 (bigger than a380) in direct response to it!

[Sigrafix]

I find that hard to believe.. especially with all the interest and hype surrounding the new 787.. why would they waste ANY time or resources developing something bigger than the A380 when the projected sales of the 787 alone will secure the companies future for sure?.. Did you not hear that Airbus is actually now R&D-ing a replacement for the a320 to compete with the 787?.. I think Boeing is going in the right direction.. taking a few risks with the composite body but it may pay off BIG TIME.

[dustziggy]

the 'even bigger version of the 747' is not as big as the A380. Its called the 747-8. Also the 787 will compete with the A330 and A350XWB not the A320 which airbus has no plans to replace yet.

[Mat54hondekop]

all bla bla talk!

[Humbertusmarius]

I guess this beautiful aircraft went the way of the giant rotating permanent space stations and bases on the moon and Mars. Now it will never get built.

[YogaNate79]

I think the market is definitely heading towards smaller and faster aircraft of subsonic speed that are environmentally friendly and energy efficient. Boeing seems to be going on the right path as Airbus delivers the world with their behemoth gas guzzling A380. I personally would like to see the Sonic Cruiser. Lightening speeds and not be crammed into a tin can of sardines like the A380 will be doing with it's 600 passengers. Airlines in the US are cutting seats and using smaller planes.

[arsenium666]

The Boeing President fired for Sex Scandals also said:

"Isn´t me the biggest liar in the USA?????

...Absolutely".

"Have I raped all secretaries in the Boeing´s Offices Buildings????

...Absoutely."

"Wasn´t me the shortest lived President of the entire Boeing Company´s History????

...Absolutely."

LOL.

[ScottKin]

arsenium666 - Stop drinking all of that Absinthe!

Fecking asshat!

[SingaporeAirlinesSIN]

ABSOLUTELY!

[Coventelite]

ABSOLUTELY!

[bigbangAT]

woooow did he just said mach 9.8!!! that is 9800 km/h the fastes plane on earth goes around 3200 km/h (blackbird)

[greatbritainwba]

He said 0.9 lol.

[AirbusA380pilot]

no dude he said Mach .98 9.8 would shread the airplane to bites in just nano seconds

[hohahohi]

I like the earlier disigh of super sonic boeing in 1970s

[300man04]

here is a summary of the history of this aircraft. The boeing sonic cruiser was created in response to airbus' a380 in 2001. The aircraft was never worked out before the project was abanedoned. And no orders were ever forthcoming. Thanks to the 2001 terrorist attacks and a weak market.

[walters1992]

still not as good as concorde though

[DCX88]

I hope they make it

[loshasguy]

Just another 2707 looks good (model) at least boeing didnt waste trees on a full scale wooden mockup, face facts airbus has got boeing against the ropes!

[woutboeing]

i would reconsidder your post here, since in 2007; boeing Did got back to airbus, selling 810 airplanes so far of the 787 dreamliner, now where's airbus? 150 lousy orders on their oversized jet... they had misfortune with the events in 01; but they got back with their marvellous 787 you have to admit...

[loshasguy]

The 787 respect where its due ,but you must admit that airbus are now a major world player,and have just taken orders for another 150 plus aircraft.myself i love nothing better than the 757 but prefer the A320 to the 737,fair comment on 787 though,a great plane ,wish it every success!

[woutboeing]

yes its true, i somtimes get caught up in my Boeing enthousiasm (hence my name) but i have to admit, Airbus is a worhty counterpart:)

[jpbalkenende]

Ioshasguy was wrong but you aren't right either. The a350 xwb (competitor to the 787) is the fastest selling commercial airplane ever. If you factor in the 787 delays and I think both companies are on a equal level now. Airbus has got to worry about the currency exchange though (even if it may hurt the 70% outsourced 787 as well).

[wapomumalo]

The Boeing President fired for Sex Scandals also said:

"Isn´t me the biggest liar in the USA?????

...Absolutely".

"Have I raped all secretaries in the Boeing´s Offices Buildings????

...Absoutely."

"Wasn´t me the shortest lived President of the entire Boeing Company´s History????

...Absolutely."

LOL.

[charimakis]

i love that plane

[Mamba205]

the50s60s70s: we live in the 21 century not the 12 century!!!

[thunderdragon14]

I hope boeing can acctually make a supersonic plane that they fly and not just abandon.

[megamaximus07]

Just note that when it comes to designing supersonic aircraft, first of all it has too look good and secondly that pile of shit looks as if it would weigh 2,000,000,000 tons. iF the aircraft industry is going to design an SST aircraft make sure it looks just as good if not better than the TU144LL and Concorde

[megamaximus07]

This is a big pile of shit

[burrichello]

Was´t that guy the same Boeing President fired because sex xcandals???...The plane...being a great concept...was used to build what? The right perception about Boeing...great designs that can´t flyght..as the 787...

[the50s60s70s]

I am sorry to say, no offense, but I'd rather see those types of aircraft flying supersonic or hypersonic. We now linve in the 12st century. The Concorde has gone, but the idea still lives forth. In that regard, Boeing did not impress me.

[superbertie]

this guy is just a joke (as is the airplane)

[quaternion]

This project was indeed cancelled because of the post-911 effect.

The USA should have pumped money in this. Now we have to wait for the french and Japan to do the work on new supersonic aircraft.

damn shit the French !

PS:nothing against french people i like them. but french industry, damn !

[superbertie]

sorry but french have produced/participated into Airbus, Concorde, TGV (the best hi speed train in the world), the most efficient power stations and much more. Just do your homework before saying stupid things.

[LEBATO]

Don't blame other countries, blame the stupid American companies like Boeing which are going straight to bankruptcy because of their inability to create and develop. they got used to free congress money fuckers!!!

[Valkyrie7E7]

Yea, Boeing's going straight to bankruptcy with their 500+ orders for the 787. Also, Airbus gets the free money in the form of government loans they don't have to pay back if their product doesn't break even....

[jamedorr]

It ended, because gas prices went up and airlines began to look toward efficiency. Alot of the work with materials from this airplane was transitioned to the 787.

[cmferreira]

Any news of this project? Is it going to end like the Boeing SST?

[TheFlightMan]

It's like a XB-70 and a SR-71 Combined

[TheFlightMan]

Its like a XB-70 and a SR-71 combined

[KilllaKel]

its just a knock-off of concorde

[CroakerMD]

Yeah except it looks absolutely nothing like it, has completely different design, avionics, engines, and so on.

I mean I guess it is a plane & a fast airliner... and that is about what it has in common with it.

[seax19]

WTF? ITS SUBSONIC. Sheesh you make anything with a delta wing and everyone thinks its a concorde?

[Yoga1978]

wasn't this cancelled due to its cost?

[TrickShepherd]

It was cancelled right after comercial aviation took a downturn after 911. Customers wanted a plane that lowered costs 20% not so much lower flight time 20%.

[seax19]

Yes and so Boeing decided to forget the SC and instead decided to build the 787

[LEBATO]

it didn't got cancel because of 9/11 it got cancel because the idea was stupid it was just a bunch of shit

[LEBATO]

thats one of the many things