Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Drive)   The Mach 3+ B-70 Valkyrie was an extraordinary concept just as a bomber. Here are all the proposals to also have it do reconnaissance, aerial refueling, supersonic transport, ballistic missile launches, and manned space mission launches   (thedrive.com) divider line
    More: Cool, SR-71 Blackbird, XB-70 Valkyrie, North American Aviation, United States Air Force, advanced military aircraft, variants of the B-70, aircraft engineers of the time, Air Force historians  
•       •       •

1277 clicks; posted to STEM » on 25 Nov 2020 at 8:43 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



37 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-11-25 7:48:51 AM  
Paging budawold to the XB-70 thread. Budawold, please report to the big white bomber courtesy thread.
 
2020-11-25 7:55:37 AM  
Congress must be getting ready to authorize a big cost plus spend for our newest money pit, the Cost Plus Super Stealth Bomb.  Er.

We'll never value education nearly as much as the ability to blow people up.
 
2020-11-25 8:01:50 AM  
Curse you Robert McNamara!

The most beautiful plane we ever built.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 8:29:18 AM  
Looks like the Concorde with more powerful engines and a bunch of bombs.
 
2020-11-25 8:57:11 AM  
It also sliced, diced, and julienned.
 
2020-11-25 8:59:30 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Looks like the Concorde with more powerful engines and a bunch of bombs.


While they bear similar shapes due to the necessity of supersonic physics, the XB-70 and Concorde are actually not all that related.

The XB-70 prototypes (there were two, with parts for a third that was never assembled), had no bombs, although that was the eventual intent. Robert McNamara argued correctly, damn his hide, that ICBMs were a cheaper delivery system than the XB-70, the XB-70s coming in at somewhere around $1.5B 1965 dollars per plane.

But the XB-70s were technological marvels. The SR-71 and A-12 used titanium skins to deal with superheating caused by friction with the air at speed. The titanium was purchased from the Soviet Union via a series of dummy companies set up by the CIA. The XB-70 on the other hand, used honeycomb stainless steel to deal with the superheating issues. The XB-70 had dynamic wings that the wingtips could be angled downwards at hypersonic speed to use compression lift to "surf" on its own shockwave. The XB-70 technology was truly insane. NASA was going to use Vehicle #2 as a test platform, but it crashed during an infamous photo-op for General Electric.

A very, very cool airplane, especially for us aerospace geeks.

Fark user imageView Full Size


/ Aerospace geek
 
2020-11-25 9:03:58 AM  

Ginnungagap42: NewportBarGuy: Looks like the Concorde with more powerful engines and a bunch of bombs.

While they bear similar shapes due to the necessity of supersonic physics, the XB-70 and Concorde are actually not all that related.

The XB-70 prototypes (there were two, with parts for a third that was never assembled), had no bombs, although that was the eventual intent. Robert McNamara argued correctly, damn his hide, that ICBMs were a cheaper delivery system than the XB-70, the XB-70s coming in at somewhere around $1.5B 1965 dollars per plane.

But the XB-70s were technological marvels. The SR-71 and A-12 used titanium skins to deal with superheating caused by friction with the air at speed. The titanium was purchased from the Soviet Union via a series of dummy companies set up by the CIA. The XB-70 on the other hand, used honeycomb stainless steel to deal with the superheating issues. The XB-70 had dynamic wings that the wingtips could be angled downwards at hypersonic speed to use compression lift to "surf" on its own shockwave. The XB-70 technology was truly insane. NASA was going to use Vehicle #2 as a test platform, but it crashed during an infamous photo-op for General Electric.

A very, very cool airplane, especially for us aerospace geeks.

[Fark user image 850x671]

/ Aerospace geek


Wow! Thanks!

I'm still stunned at what the Skunkworks people were able to do back in the 60's... When those dorks with vision get an unlimited budget it seems like amazing things happen.

Love it.
 
2020-11-25 9:12:22 AM  
I loved getting to see this beast in person in Dayton. It seems they moved it inside the hangars, but you still can't look inside.

I also loved seeing the B-58 Hustler, another favorite of mine.

Today we get aircraft that cost 100 times as much, deliver half the performance, and seem to actively try and kill the pilots. WTF, America?
 
2020-11-25 9:13:44 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Ginnungagap42: NewportBarGuy: Looks like the Concorde with more powerful engines and a bunch of bombs.

While they bear similar shapes due to the necessity of supersonic physics, the XB-70 and Concorde are actually not all that related.

The XB-70 prototypes (there were two, with parts for a third that was never assembled), had no bombs, although that was the eventual intent. Robert McNamara argued correctly, damn his hide, that ICBMs were a cheaper delivery system than the XB-70, the XB-70s coming in at somewhere around $1.5B 1965 dollars per plane.

But the XB-70s were technological marvels. The SR-71 and A-12 used titanium skins to deal with superheating caused by friction with the air at speed. The titanium was purchased from the Soviet Union via a series of dummy companies set up by the CIA. The XB-70 on the other hand, used honeycomb stainless steel to deal with the superheating issues. The XB-70 had dynamic wings that the wingtips could be angled downwards at hypersonic speed to use compression lift to "surf" on its own shockwave. The XB-70 technology was truly insane. NASA was going to use Vehicle #2 as a test platform, but it crashed during an infamous photo-op for General Electric.

A very, very cool airplane, especially for us aerospace geeks.

[Fark user image 850x671]

/ Aerospace geek

Wow! Thanks!

I'm still stunned at what the Skunkworks people were able to do back in the 60's... When those dorks with vision get an unlimited budget it seems like amazing things happen.

Love it.



This is a highly entertaining read, if you haven't read it yet:

https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Pe​r​sonal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003
 
2020-11-25 9:18:18 AM  

Ginnungagap42: NASA was going to use Vehicle #2 as a test platform, but it crashed during an infamous photo-op for General Electric.


Yeah, but what a photo!

Fark user imageView Full Size

/An F-104 shouldn't have been flying that close to anything.
 
2020-11-25 9:20:06 AM  

Polish Hussar: Ginnungagap42: NASA was going to use Vehicle #2 as a test platform, but it crashed during an infamous photo-op for General Electric.

Yeah, but what a photo!

[Fark user image 593x480]

/An F-104 shouldn't have been flying that close to anything.


FTFY.
 
2020-11-25 9:21:21 AM  

Polish Hussar: Ginnungagap42: NASA was going to use Vehicle #2 as a test platform, but it crashed during an infamous photo-op for General Electric.

Yeah, but what a photo!

[Fark user image 593x480]
/An F-104 shouldn't have been flying that close to anything.


The F-4 shouldn't be flying at all, but it's proof that with big enough engines, you can get a brick to fly.
 
2020-11-25 9:31:00 AM  

Ginnungagap42: NewportBarGuy: Ginnungagap42: NewportBarGuy: Looks like the Concorde with more powerful engines and a bunch of bombs.

While they bear similar shapes due to the necessity of supersonic physics, the XB-70 and Concorde are actually not all that related.

The XB-70 prototypes (there were two, with parts for a third that was never assembled), had no bombs, although that was the eventual intent. Robert McNamara argued correctly, damn his hide, that ICBMs were a cheaper delivery system than the XB-70, the XB-70s coming in at somewhere around $1.5B 1965 dollars per plane.

But the XB-70s were technological marvels. The SR-71 and A-12 used titanium skins to deal with superheating caused by friction with the air at speed. The titanium was purchased from the Soviet Union via a series of dummy companies set up by the CIA. The XB-70 on the other hand, used honeycomb stainless steel to deal with the superheating issues. The XB-70 had dynamic wings that the wingtips could be angled downwards at hypersonic speed to use compression lift to "surf" on its own shockwave. The XB-70 technology was truly insane. NASA was going to use Vehicle #2 as a test platform, but it crashed during an infamous photo-op for General Electric.

A very, very cool airplane, especially for us aerospace geeks.

[Fark user image 850x671]

/ Aerospace geek

Wow! Thanks!

I'm still stunned at what the Skunkworks people were able to do back in the 60's... When those dorks with vision get an unlimited budget it seems like amazing things happen.

Love it.


This is a highly entertaining read, if you haven't read it yet:

https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Per​sonal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003


Christmas came early for me. Thanks!
 
2020-11-25 9:41:31 AM  
Nice ass too...

Fark user imageView Full Size


/WPAFB Museum
 
2020-11-25 10:07:26 AM  
It was so good it kept breaking apart!
Really cool looking and about as useful as the X-29, unfortunately
 
2020-11-25 10:20:20 AM  
+1 subby and all that responded with pics, comments etc.
This is my favorite aircraft. I loved seeing it in Dayton.
 
2020-11-25 10:21:33 AM  

LesserEvil: I loved getting to see this beast in person in Dayton. It seems they moved it inside the hangars, but you still can't look inside.

I also loved seeing the B-58 Hustler, another favorite of mine.

Today we get aircraft that cost 100 times as much, deliver half the performance, and seem to actively try and kill the pilots. WTF, America?


To put it in perspective, the XB-70 would cost about $13e9 in today's dollars. That's about the price of an aircraft carrier.
 
2020-11-25 10:22:06 AM  
I always thought a close air support version would have been fun.
/ineffective
/but fun
 
2020-11-25 10:23:10 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I'm still stunned at what the Skunkworks people were able to do back in the 60's... When those dorks with vision get an unlimited budget it seems like amazing things happen.


That's just it.  They didn't have an unlimited budget.

The budget for the U-2 was $22.5 million.   Lockheed delivered it for $19 million.

Similarly, the Have Blue prototypes that would lead to the F-117 stealth fighter were developed under the agreed upon budget.
 
2020-11-25 10:27:46 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 10:31:53 AM  

cocozilla: [Fark user image 850x564]


What's the white one with the twin tails and red stripe along the far left wall?  That looks like some sort of hypersonic design?
 
2020-11-25 10:37:05 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I'm still stunned at what the Skunkworks people were able to do back in the 60's


The XB-70 wasn't Skunk Works though - it was made by North American Aviation, now a part of Boeing.
 
2020-11-25 10:48:31 AM  

dittybopper: Polish Hussar: Ginnungagap42: NASA was going to use Vehicle #2 as a test platform, but it crashed during an infamous photo-op for General Electric.

Yeah, but what a photo!

[Fark user image 593x480]
/An F-104 shouldn't have been flying that close to anything.

The F-4 shouldn't be flying at all, but it's proof that with big enough engines, you can get a brick to fly.



Everything is aerodynamic with the appropriate amount of thrust.

Corollary: The aircraft is not ready to fly until the weight of the paperwork is equal to the weight of the plane.
 
2020-11-25 10:51:58 AM  

Altimus Prime: cocozilla: [Fark user image 850x564]

What's the white one with the twin tails and red stripe along the far left wall?  That looks like some sort of hypersonic design?


Also North American Aviation. X-10.

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vis​i​t/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/​Article/195756/north-american-x-10/
 
2020-11-25 10:52:22 AM  

Altimus Prime: cocozilla: [Fark user image 850x564]

What's the white one with the twin tails and red stripe along the far left wall?  That looks like some sort of hypersonic design?


Looks like the X-10
 
2020-11-25 10:53:17 AM  

Ginnungagap42: Altimus Prime: cocozilla: [Fark user image 850x564]

What's the white one with the twin tails and red stripe along the far left wall?  That looks like some sort of hypersonic design?

Also North American Aviation. X-10.

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visi​t/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/​Article/195756/north-american-x-10/


Shakes tiny fists at a hypersonic velocity....
 
2020-11-25 11:03:01 AM  

LesserEvil: I loved getting to see this beast in person in Dayton. It seems they moved it inside the hangars, but you still can't look inside.

I also loved seeing the B-58 Hustler, another favorite of mine.

Today we get aircraft that cost 100 times as much, deliver half the performance, and seem to actively try and kill the pilots. WTF, America?


It was quite impressive when it was sitting out in front of the AF museum, but I think the weather was degrading all of the historic planes they had outside and so they had to expand the museum and move them into a controlled environment.

My father worked with one of the test pilots for the XB-70 program (as well as the X-15 program), and I recall him telling me that the XB-70 *did* actively try to kill the pilots. The extremely swept-back wings meant that it was quite unstable at low speeds and so takeoffs and landings were difficult. They didn't really have the sophisticated computer-controlled systems available to help compensate and so it all came down to an extraordinary amount of pilot skill.

In addition, because it needed so much speed to get going, it required extra-long runways which weren't always available in a wartime setting.
 
2020-11-25 11:03:08 AM  

Altimus Prime: Polish Hussar: Ginnungagap42: NASA was going to use Vehicle #2 as a test platform, but it crashed during an infamous photo-op for General Electric.

Yeah, but what a photo!

[Fark user image 593x480]

/An F-104 shouldn't have been flying that close to anything.

FTFY.



Closest I could find to the whole album was a YouTube playlist. Enjoy.

Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 11:15:08 AM  

dittybopper: It also sliced, diced, and julienned.


How does work with bass?
 
2020-11-25 12:44:48 PM  

Recoil Therapy: Nice ass too...

[Fark user image 768x1024]

/WPAFB Museum


Lol, when I was there two years ago, I took basically the same picture:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 12:53:16 PM  

LesserEvil: I loved getting to see this beast in person in Dayton. It seems they moved it inside the hangars, but you still can't look inside.

I also loved seeing the B-58 Hustler, another favorite of mine.

Today we get aircraft that cost 100 times as much, deliver half the performance, and seem to actively try and kill the pilots. WTF, America?


/Performance, sure.
 
2020-11-25 1:40:26 PM  

phyrkrakr: Recoil Therapy: Nice ass too...

[Fark user image 768x1024]

/WPAFB Museum

Lol, when I was there two years ago, I took basically the same picture:
[Fark user image 625x468]


Looks like they rearranged the exhibits a bit since I was there (10+ years ago - need to go up there again, it's not 'that' far...) as looking at my pic she was backed up against the back wall.
 
2020-11-25 2:08:53 PM  

Recoil Therapy: phyrkrakr: Recoil Therapy: Nice ass too...

[Fark user image 768x1024]

/WPAFB Museum

Lol, when I was there two years ago, I took basically the same picture:
[Fark user image 625x468]

Looks like they rearranged the exhibits a bit since I was there (10+ years ago - need to go up there again, it's not 'that' far...) as looking at my pic she was backed up against the back wall.


Yeah, they moved it into the museum's 4th building when it was completed in 2015.

North American XB-70 Valkyrie Moves Into Museum's Fourth Building
Youtube FCO4ls4x7Lo

/It's just music at first, they don't start talking about the plane and the move until 0:54.
 
2020-11-25 2:14:16 PM  
Ginnungagap42:

Did they forget to put in a bomb bay? You can't put them into the fuselage, that's where the six engines are. The wings are too thin. The front has the cockpit. Bombs dropped from behind the cockpit would get sucked into the engines. For a bomber it doesn't seem to have a place for many bombs.
 
2020-11-25 2:25:18 PM  

Alien Robot: Ginnungagap42:

Did they forget to put in a bomb bay? You can't put them into the fuselage, that's where the six engines are. The wings are too thin. The front has the cockpit. Bombs dropped from behind the cockpit would get sucked into the engines. For a bomber it doesn't seem to have a place for many bombs.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-25 2:43:02 PM  
How about some Wings?

Discovery Channel Wings North American Xb 70 Valkyrie
Youtube Rd0mSLv7zoA
 
2020-11-25 3:22:01 PM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.