drk@MIT.EDU (David R. Kohr) (09/21/89)
From: David R. Kohr <drk@MIT.EDU>
A friend of mine recently saw one of the prototype models of the XB-70
strategic bomber at an aviation museum in Dayton, Ohio. He said it
was a huge thing, with 6 big engines on the wings, and that it looked a
lot like the Concorde. The writeup for the XB-70 exhibit said that
only 2 were ever built. Could someone please tell me more about
this plane: who built it, what happened to the program (was it superceded
by the B-2 program, or a part of that program), how many prototypes were
actually built, what missions the plane was to fulfill, what were
is performance specifications (speed, payload, range, altitude), what
was its armament, and so forth?
Thanks,
David R. Kohr M.I.T. Lincoln Laboratory Group 45 ("Radars 'R' Us")
email: KOHR@LL.LL.MIT.EDU or DRK@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
phone: (617)981-0775 (work), (617)527-3908 (home)miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) (09/22/89)
From: "Stephen D. Grant" <miles@ms.uky.edu> In article <27390@amdcad.AMD.COM>, drk@MIT.EDU (David R. Kohr) writes: > A friend of mine recently saw one of the prototype models of the XB-70 > strategic bomber at an aviation museum in Dayton, Ohio. I have also visited the museum and have seen several documentaries on the production of the 'Valkyrie' as the bomber was named. The XB-70 was meant to be a supersonic long range bomber which could carry both nuclear and conventional payloads. It was rumored that development of this bomber was made in order to phase out the B52's. According to the documentary, longs hours and painstaking work went into the production of the first two prototypes. The program was frought with difficulties, and overspending. I can't remeber offhand which company built the Valkyrie, but i remember it was one of the more well known builders such as Northrop, General Dynamics or Lockheed or something. As for the prototypes, yes, 2 were built. There were tested extensively in the south west U.S., until a mishap which caused the destruction of the #2 prototype. A chase plane which was following the Valkyrie got too close to the bomber and the two planes wingtips, or some other part touched. The Valkyrie went into a spiraling dive and was obliterated. I can't remember who survived out of this catastrophe. Well this is most of the info i can scrape from my brain... check out your local bookstore or aviation history books. Even better, go to Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio and see a bit of everything, including the following: XB-70, F4, F15, A10, B1-A, C-130, Spitfire, Mustang SR-71 (Early model a Y(something)-71), B-17, U-2 plus many more rare and interesting planes and exhibits. It's worth the trip! Miles
dlj@ark2.att.com (David L Jacobowitz) (09/24/89)
From: dlj@ark2.att.com (David L Jacobowitz) I think North American built the XB-70 Valkyrie. It's mission was to be high speed/high altitude (Mach 3/80000 ft) penetration of Soviet airspace to deliver nuclear weapons. It was one of the first airplanes to have canards (i.e. a "tail before the wings" configuration). It also had huge delta wings, with the tips of the wings able to be "bent" downward for high speed supersonic flight. However, while the XB-70 was being developed, the Soviets convinced the US Air Force that high altitude entry into their airspace was not practical. They did this by shooting down Gary Power's U-2 at 70000 ft. Hence the XB-70 never went into production, and the B1 (designed for low altitude entry into Soviet airspace at high subsonic speeds) was developed. Two XB-70 prototypes were built. The accident referred to in another article occurred during an attempt to get a "group photo" with one XB-70 prototype and about five F-104 Starfighters flying close formation. One F-104 got too close to the XB-70, and was "pulled" over the XB-70 by the tremendous airflow over the XB-70's big delta wings (the F-104 kind of barrell-rolled over it). When this occurred, there was contact between the XB-70 and the F-104. I believe the F-104 pilot successfully ejected or regained control of his aircraft, but the XB-70 crashed with at least one fatality. I don't think the other XB-70 prototype was ever flown again. The source for all this is my admittedly hazy recollection from the XB-70 segment of the "Wings, Great Planes" series on The Discovery Channel. -- Dave J. (ark2!dlj) This space intentionally usual disclaimer implied left blank.
phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (09/24/89)
From: phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) In article <27408@amdcad.AMD.COM> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes: |The XB-70 was meant to |be a supersonic long range bomber which could carry both nuclear and |conventional payloads. It was rumored that development of this bomber was made |in order to phase out the B52's. As I understood it, the XB-70 was an implementation of the "higher and faster" school of bomber design. This school "fell" out of favor as the Soviets improved their missiles to the point where they could shoot U-2s out of the sky. The H&F school was followed by the "low and fast" school (B-1?), which has turned into the "be invisible" school. (B-2) -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil "Should the US send assault rifles to Colombia? How about small arms?"
shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) (09/26/89)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix> dlj@ark2.att.com (David L Jacobowitz) writes: >Two XB-70 prototypes were built. The accident referred to in another >article occurred during an attempt to get a "group photo" with one The photo was being taken for GE, with all the airplanes in it powered by GE engines. The aircraft were the XB-70, F-4, F-104, T-38, and, possibly, one other (maybe an F-5). I have a copy of the last photo taken before the midair, but my recent move has buried it somewhere. Joe Walker, the NASA Chief Pilot, was flying the F-104. He was doing a cross-over, in trail, and hit the (right?) vertical of the XB-70. The F-104 and the XB-70 fell out of the sky. Walker died. I vaguely remember that he didn't even try to eject. I believe that all recent USAF supersonic bombers have capsules rather than individual seats--XB-70, F/B-111, B-1A. The B-52, being firmly subsonic, has ejection seats. -- Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (09/26/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <27444@amdcad.AMD.COM>, dlj@ark2.att.com (David L Jacobowitz) writes: > I think North American built the XB-70 Valkyrie. It's mission was to > be high speed/high altitude (Mach 3/80000 ft) penetration of Soviet > airspace to deliver nuclear weapons. The design grew out of a 50s Air Force requirement for a high, fast, penetration bomber. The two main competitors for the contract were Boeing and North American (now Rockwell). > It was one of the first airplanes > to have canards (i.e. a "tail before the wings" configuration). It > also had huge delta wings, with the tips of the wings able to be "bent" > downward for high speed supersonic flight. North American applied some very new theories about high speed flight, including something called "compression lift". You could get an aircraft going very fast, with reduced fuel and power requirements. Boeing's team didn't try to apply compression lift, and they had some *very* impressive design approaches. As in *really* big and heavy aircraft. To get the range called for, one of them included wing tips that departed the main aircraft (some flew back to be used again...) when it began its high-speed dash portion of the flight. > However, while the XB-70 > was being developed, the Soviets convinced the US Air Force that high > altitude entry into their airspace was not practical. The Soviets also designed the MiG-25 Foxbat during this time as a counter to the B-70. The later MiG-31 (Foxhound?) is a two-seat followup to the MiG-25 intended to deal with cruise missiles. > One F-104 got too close to the XB-70, and was "pulled" over The F-104 removed one of the B-70's vertical fins, killing the 104 pilot as it did so. One of the XB-70A's crew survived by ejecting in his escape pod. The other member of the crew never ejected. The remaining XB-70 flew a couple more times, last of all to Wright-Patterson to be stored at the museum. (I saw the XB-70 at Edwards during a highschool science class field trip. We even got to touch it!) -- "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
gopal@decwrl.dec.com (Gopal Ramachandran) (09/26/89)
From: cirrusl!gopal@decwrl.dec.com (Gopal Ramachandran) I've also seen the XB-70 at Wright-Pat. It was made by North American (now part of Rockwell International). The Soviets built the MiG-25 Foxbat to counter the threat posed by the B-70. Eventually, our strategists decided that high-altitude bombers were too vulnerable to SAMs and Foxbat-class interceptors and decided that the way to go was on the deck, under radar cover, a la B-1. A friend of mine used to be a test pilot for North American and later was involved with the flight test program for the B-70. He was part of the ground crew. He told me that one of the Air Force's acceptance criteria was a mission that combined a climb to altitude, a supersonic cruise involving some heading changes, and a descent, and there may have been some holding/loiter requirements too, I dont remember. Anyway, the airplane took off from Edwards, headed down South, turned around over Mexico, headed N up to Canada, turned round and came home. I guess they needed all three countries to complete the mission. At M3+ the aircraft had one hell of a turn radius, especially considering that it would have negligible maneuver margin at speeds close to its Mmo. The accident happened during a GE-sponsored publicity flight (a/c using GE engines). Joe Walker, flying an F-104 ran into and took out one of the vertical stabs of the B-70, and they both went down. I believe they blamed it on Walker, though he was a very experienced test pilot (I think he flew the X-15 as well). I know Walker died, and maybe others, too. Gopal
daveme%tekirl.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Dave Mead) (10/03/89)
From: Dave Mead <amdcad!daveme%tekirl.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET> There was a third B-70 I believe since I read a weird story about the unique supersonic ejection system it had. It was a self-contained clamshell affair designed to force the crewman into fetal position and slam shut just before punch-out. This thing had oxygen, survival gear, chutes, and was to protect the crewman at high altitude and supersonic speed. Well they had to use the system for real and it didn't work right. The timing was bad and the crewman got his appendages broken when the clamshell slammed down on his very non-fetal body and shot him unsealed into the cold stratosphere. I think he was further injured passing through the exit hole with mangled parts dangling. The guy lived through it but really got munched. Dave Mead
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/11/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <9861@cbnews.ATT.COM>, amdcad!daveme%tekirl.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Dave Mead) writes: > > > From: Dave Mead <amdcad!daveme%tekirl.labs.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET> > > > > There was a third B-70 I believe since I read a weird > story about the unique supersonic ejection system it > had. It was a self-contained clamshell affair designed > to force the crewman into fetal position and slam shut > just before punch-out. Both B-70s built had escape-pod ejection systems installed. (A fetal position would have been more than uncomfortable... the rider stayed in his seat to fly down.) > This thing had oxygen, survival > gear, chutes, and was to protect the crewman at high > altitude and supersonic speed. Well they had to use > the system for real and it didn't work right. When the XB-70A lost its vertical fin, loss of control made operation of the ejection system unworkable, mostly. > timing was bad and the crewman got his appendages > broken when the clamshell slammed down on his very > non-fetal body and shot him unsealed into the cold > stratosphere. The one crewmember to puch out didn't get one arm completely within the pod, but exited anyway. His arm was injured, but he recovered. Some back injuries were sustained on landing because the flotation bag didn't inflate properly. ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.