Hacker News Reader

The correction for cruising height would be insignificant.

A ram-jet is an air-breathing engine and would be confined to the atmosphere. Even a 60km cruising height (which is much higher than what would be used) would only correspond to a 1% increase in flight path circumference compared to the surface value of 40.000km.

View on HN

I think the GP might have meant that Mach 3 at ground level is even more technically astonishing - a lot of the historial benchmarks for airspeed (mach 2 fighters and interceptors, the SR71's mach 3) were only valid at very high altitudes were the atmosphere is sufficiently thin to make the achivement teneable from a drag and heat-flux perspective. To cruise along at Mach 3 at sea level is a quite astonishing display of brute force.

I'm skeptical of such a capability. Even granting the engines the power and durability to do that, what about the rest of the airframe and avionics? How do they prevent those from being baked if not outright melted? The SR-71 required a substantial engineering effort to withstand the shock heating at that speed but the SR-71 flew very high in thinned air.

It’s not about physical distance, it’s about drag. Masssively more drag at sea level than in a thin atmosphere, way up in the sky.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com