7 ms·
The SR71 was flying at a much higher altitude to achieve lower drag and fits 2 pilots, 0 commercial passengers. If you want to compare apples to apples, I sugg
by AlphaCharlie 3y ago
The SR71 was flying at a much higher altitude to achieve lower drag and fits 2 pilots, 0 commercial passengers.
If you want to compare apples to apples, I suggest you refer to the 2 metrics I mentioned:
- gallons of fuel per miles flown
- fuel used per passenger
One without the other is a useless comparison as you pointed out.
- looping__lui 3y agoU miss the point entirely that supersonic planes work differently from “traditional” subsonic planes. Just assuming that “faster equals less fuel efficient” is not really correct. Turbofan engines are kind of draggy and not so fuel efficient close to Mach 1. Ramjets change your equation… :-)
- taeric 3y agoThe point is poorly made. Would be like talking about how fuel efficient the space station is for it's speed. Can only work if you ignore the trip to that steady state. So, for the blackbird, how does it do on take off? You know, when it is literally leaking fuel? :)
- looping__lui 3y agoMaybe you just wanted to understand the point in a certain way so you could argue about it?
- taeric 3y agoCertainly fair. I can't see any world where the comparison is relevant, though. :( Down thread it was pointed out that sports cars are more efficient than busses. Per vehicle. This is about the same idea, at best.