Bonkers is the right word for this.
Those wings don’t look very swept back at all, so I have a hard time believing it gets anywhere near mach .9.
That jet might produce enough thrust…but what happens when it fails? Jumbo Jets have 2-4 engines for redundancy, this has none.
Why would they put that fuel bladder on top? I get not being in the wing for thinner more aerodynamic. But why not stick the bladder below? The CG/stability of that top engine mount and fuel on top can’t work out well.
Any investor in this I could guarantee has never piloted a plane.
And the entire “can take off and land in small airfields”. I might be able to theoretically take off and land on shorter runways, but shorter runways aren’t made to handle the weight of such a massive plane, so this will still only be able to land on the same ‘beefed up’ long runways at major airports. Sure, smaller airports could improve their short runways to be able to handle that weight, but one, then why not just extend the runway if that was the case, and two, the reason they have smaller runways to fit smaller planes is because less people live there and need service of a larger plane. So making a massive plane that could service a short runway is a futile ‘benefit’.
If there is investment in future of aircraft, it is electric/hydrogen, which is happening slowly but are limited to propellers which have limited speeds and altitudes but has 0 emissions. Or the more promising super sonic planes boom sonic is developing https://boomsupersonic.com/
This is fascinating technology that I don’t understand but somehow is so fast it utilizes the carbon in the air and turns that into fuel so thought it might not be reducing emissions, it sure is utilizing 70% less fossil fuel. I would invest it that a thousand times before this laughable “jumbo jet”. I am not even sure if this was a joke plane to troll aviators.