[aidenn0]

I think the XB-70 is useful in the way that TFA suggests the Dyna Soar could have been useful; it collected data that future airplanes did use.

Its flight performance is quite impressive (32 minutes of sustained Mach 3), but as a theoretical bomber, it leaves a lot to be desired.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Do photos exist from directly after that 32 minutes flight of sustained Mach 3? I've read that most of the paint was gone then.

(German: Da war der Lack ab!)

[aidenn0]

I used to know a little German, but I'll admit I had to look up "ab sein" to get that. At least my dictionary claims it's colloquial...

[LargoLasskhyfv]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ab-

That aside I'm really fasicinated by those fast planes. I mean, it's now public knowledge that the SR-71 leaked fuel between gaps in the fuselage onto the tarmac. Because of that they only fueled it up a little to get into the air without leaking too much.

Then after take off, speeding up until the thermal expansion closed those gaps, and full aerial refueling directly after that.

How did they solve that with the Valkyrie I wonder? Did similar things occur there, or were of no concern because of different materials, dimensions, make, etc.?

Edit: > my dictionary claims it's colloquial...

Not more so than The front fell off! :-)

[aidenn0]

My understanding is that the fuel in the SR-71 was also the coolant, so it might not have been the fuel-loop that was leaking, but the coolant loop, as the coolant necessarily must go to hotter parts of the aircraft.

I doubt that the fuel served this dual-purpose on the XB-70, and exotic coolant might not have been needed for <30 minutes at Mach 3 anyways.