>It would take about 24,901 seconds, or roughly 6.92 hours (≈ 6 hours 55 minutes) to circle the Earth at 1 mile per second.Some say 11 hours, probably require refueling? Either way, Is this the pinnacle?
>>64406061The XF-103 was a better design for +M3.0 that didn't require a complex air-vent and gates system.
>>64406104>XF-103 was a better designhow do you know? it literally never took off.
>>64406139Not an SR but an A-12
>>64406147because it just is ok?!?!?!?
>>64406147It was cancelled during late development, but not requiring a complex engine (that needed a new ECU years afterwards to make it usable) or having influence of the retarded CL-400 is enough to be better.
>>64406061Well, if starship does suborbital point to point delivery as they promise that'll drop to about an hour.Also, doesn't the valkyrie have more range without refueling?
>>64406315that one is a yf-12, used look down shoot down missiles developed by hughes. a-12 looked similar to blackbird minus the black paint. a-12 was faster than the sr-71 because it weighed less iirc.
That is a YF12 the prototype for a SR71 interceptor. This is a A12 that is the predecessor of the SR71.
>>64406104>that didn't require a complex air-vent and gates system.yeah
>>64406584>ramp intake, 2 gates and completely separated ramjet - turbojetvs>movable cone intake working alongside 4 gates and a variable cycle engine (variable bleed air leaky turbojet), with no separation restricting the turbojet footprint and operating temperatures (the compressor outlet was hotter than 1000K and that was cooking all the engine bearings for hours...)
>>64406104SR-71 looks way cooler
>>64406600I forgot the pic.The hydraulic ECU of the J-58 and its turbine blades were absurdly complex, expensive and they didn't work well for an aircraft that would fly slow if one engine fails, had to shut off both engines during a flameout (that were common with the old ECU) and the engine separation (compared to the Kingfish) was dangerous.
>>64406061>>64406139not a weapon
>>64406139>>64406428>>64406315>>64406450the built-for-Central-Intelligence-Agency photographic overflight A-12, and its Air Force interceptor derivative, the YF-12A, are the original airplanes. They are similar in that each have the same rear fuselage and empennage. (YF-12A combat interceptor for the Air Force has a longer forward fuselage for the WSO back-seater and nose radar installation) No, the SR-71 is not related to the YF-12A at all, it's a development of the A-12SR-71 was a later aircraft for the AIr Force, designed *not for photographic overflight* (as the camera-only A-12 was, similar to its predecessor U-2) but for strategic reconnaissance: for these missions the USAF required a multi-sensor platform capability with electronic equipment mounted throughout the forward fuselage that was redesigned to hold a second crewmember as systems operator behind the pilot. SR-71 was about eight feet longer overall than A-12 and had a slightly extended tail cone on rear fuselage: that is one identifying characteristic to distinguish it from A-12 / YF-12A, the other is the SR's notably longer fuselage overall with its slightly curved forward chines (the A-12's nose chines are sharply pointed like a dagger, and the YF-12A is most visible of all with its nose radar, cut-off nose chines and raised 2-seat tandem cockpit)There's a third A-12 variant the M-21 drone carrier for the D-21 ramjet drone. The M-21 is just an A-12 with a second cockpit seat put into place of one of the camera bays behind the pilot, therefore its forward fuselage external shape and profile is not altered and it doesn't look similar to either a YF-12A or SR-71
>>64406139
