mjt@mcnc.org (Michael Tighe) (09/24/89)
From: Michael Tighe <mjt@mcnc.org> >From: "Stephen D. Grant" <miles@ms.uky.edu> >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. It was built by North American. And, if I recall my history correctly, The U.S.S.R. built the MiG-25 in order to shoot down the XB-70. ------------- Michael Tighe Internet: mjt@ncsc.org
wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (09/26/89)
From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) I don't have any of my source info here at work, but I will do the best job I can. If I should err, forgive me. To the best of my recollection, the XB70 Valkyries were built by North American Aviation in response to a DOD request for a high-altitude, high- mach (as in 2+ and possibly 3) nuclear penetration bomber. The aircraft had no armament, per se like cannons etc. although I think it did have or would have had in production versions a fair EW capability. In terms of getting it to its target, I have seen photos of another North American design, which I THINK was the F-108 Rapier. My understanding is that it was designed to be an escort (and a long-ranged one, at that) for the B-70's. I have never seen much info. on this aircraft but the photo I saw was of a mockup (I don't think it ever even made it to prototype stage) of a fairly good sized aircraft. As many of you may know, during the late fifties and early sixties there was a tremendous argument in the defense community about how to spend the defense buck; within the Air Force there was the "missles-vs-bombers" argument. The B-70 program came out on the losing end as several developments came along. First, sources inside and outside the Soviet Union have stated that the Mig25's sole original purpose in life was to shoot down B-70's. Since the Soviet Union never had the problems deciding where to spend it's money, it seemed obvious that they could probably produce far more Mig25's than we could B-70's and F-108's. Add to that the fact that Mig's would be operating over their own support areas, and it just didn't seem likely that ANY of the B-70's would ever reach their targets. Second, the missle technology skyrocketed (pun intended....sorry) in the late fifties and early 60's to the point where the missiles were actually far more likely to get through. So, the project was cancelled. However, the XB-70's were such unique aircraft that they were used both by NASA and the AF as research planes to study high speed, high altitude flight (much like the YF-12's after THAT program got canned). The XB-70's were truly "neat" aircraft - the outer 1/3 to 1/4 of the wing folded down during high speed flight to provide additional stability. The ejection seats were also marvels, at least in theory, as they had water, food rations, etc., and a clamshell that would snap closed around the whole assembly to protect the pilot during a high-mach ejection. This seat also had an inflating cushion that was SUPPOSED to provide a margin of "sponge" to the landing. The accident that claimed ? number of lives was apparently caused by the pilot flying the chase plane (sticks in my mind the name was Walker) which was an F-104 Starfighter. The account I read states that he tried to do a slow roll from one side of the XB up and over the back down to the other side but miscalculated and struck one of the two vertical stabilizers. The chase plane disintegrated in a fireball and I THINK the pilot was reported to have been killed instantly. The XB actually continued in a straight line for a moment before going out of control and heading for the ground. The crew (2, I think) ejected but I know one of them was killed due to some kind of seat failure. I don't recall the fate of anyone else. If any of you have access to Time-Life's book series, "The Epic of Flight", one of the books has a series of photographs of this accident. I have had the opportunity to see the other XB-70 at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH. My personal opinion is that it is one of the most beautiful-looking aircraft ever built. It was so big that I couldn't get the whole thing in one photograph (wish they had larger buildings so they could spread things out a bit). To me it is right up there with the Concorde in looks (my personal #1), while I think the SR-71 and its predecessors, the YF-12 and A-12, are the most menacingly beautiful aircraft ever made (ok, ok, I admit it. I LIKE taking photographs of airplanes and YES, I admit it, I have a certain artistic feeling about it). Anyway, to those who have asked about the XB-70, that is about all i can recall. I guess it ended up as "the bomber without a mission". For those who commented about its predating the B2, you might find interesting reading by looking up Jack Northrop's B-35 and B-49 Flying Wings...... the man was about 40 years ahead of his time! Duane (yes, I go to Confederate Air Force shows, too....)
roberts@uunet.uu.net (09/28/89)
From: cognos!sunray!roberts@uunet.uu.net Sorry, still more on the crash of the XB-70 prototype at Edwards. [But providing some additional details , so I'm posting it. --CDR] Following up to several postings on the cause of the crash: I am fairly certain that the determined reason for the crash was pilot error on the part of the pilot of the F-104. His aircraft was caught in the huge vortices generated in the area above and behind the six side-by-side jet exhausts and slammed into one of the vertical stabs. (Pilot error is a somewhat brutal assessment, because no aircraft before or since the XB-70 has had the capability of generating such enormous forces in such a restricted volume of air). Most of the vertical stab was sheared off, and the XB-70 went into a flat spin from which it was unable to recover. There is a fair amount of film footage of the accident available which shows all of this. When the crew tried to eject, the ejection sequencing failed. Crew seats deployed forward from the individual ejection pods, on little rails. The planned ejection sequence moved the seats back into the pods, closed the pod doors, blew the aircraft skin hatches, and ejected the pods (hopefully clear of the enormous vertical and horizontal surfaces). The XB-70's flat spin resulted in a very large centripetal force acting towards the nose of the aircraft, based on the considerable distance of the cockpit forward of the centre of rotation. This force was apparently larger than the force supplied for stage one of the ejection sequence, moving the seats back into the pods. (Only two crew were on board, in the left and right front seats.) The crew member who did eject apparently managed to horse his seat into the pod manually, by brute strength, and suffered severe injury in the process. As I recall, the other crew member rode the aircraft into the ground, because I think the ejection sequence was locked by the failure of stage one. The point is moot, ejecting with the seat deployed forward of the ejection pod would not be survivable; in fact, it is unlikely that the pod would clear the airframe, and the forces involved in a Mach-3 capable system are extremely destructive. Robert_S -- | _ \ / _ \ / __| Robert Stanley UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!roberts | |_> || |_| |\__ \ INET: roberts%cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net |_| |_\|_| |_||___/ Voice: (613)738-1338 x6115 Cognos Inc., 3755 Riverside Drive, PO Box 9707, Ottawa, Ont K1G 3Z4, Canada
raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) (10/03/89)
From: amdcad!raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man)
In <27444@amdcad.AMD.COM> David L Jacobowitz wrote
>....It was one of the first airplanes to have canards.
The Wright Flyer was a canard. The XB-70 is actually
more significant in being the first (and only?) wave rdier
(so called compression lift from boxing in the shock waves
with the fold down tips.)
I believe I have read that the were performance
problems because it was first designed with a special
fuel which has a much high calorific value (like 3 times normal)
but the program for the fuel was cancelled because of technical
problem.
Just call me `Man'. Uh-oh. I don't know.
raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu