XB-70 Valkyrie

Experimental aircraft including -but not limited to- X-planes, from the Bell X-1 to the Su-47
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2810
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post19 Nov 2004, 22:11

Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

RyanCollins

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2004, 19:24
  • Location: Mar del Plata, Argentina

Unread post19 Nov 2004, 22:12

Thank you, habu2... :)

But, what happened with the Valkyrie...? (I don't know much about it...)
Offline

Occamsrasr

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 173
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 04:04

Unread post19 Nov 2004, 22:24

Two B-70s were built. One, AV2, crashed in the desert on June 8, 1966 after participating in a "General Electric" photo shoot. Several GE powered planes got in formation to take pictures and a F-104 rolled over the top of the B-70, killing the pilot of the Starfighter and causing the B-70 to spin. The pilot survived but the co-pilot did not.

AV1 was retired to Dayton, Ohio for the Air Force Museum in February of 1969. It is still there, by the way.

The B-70 was designed to study the effect of compresion lift at high speeds, and as such had wingtips that folded down. The B-70 incorporated 6 YJ-93 turbojets, a derivative of the J-79 core.

The Soviet Union developed the MiG-25 to counter this threat, even though the B-70 program was canceled.

I am sure there is lots more but that was all from memory.
Offline

RyanCollins

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2004, 19:24
  • Location: Mar del Plata, Argentina

Unread post19 Nov 2004, 23:21

This is what I founnd about the specifications of XB-70

North America XB-70 "Valkyrie"

Specifications:
Span: 105 ft.
Length: 185 ft. 10 in. without boom; 192 ft. 2 in. with boom
Height: 30 ft. 9 in.
Weight: 534,700 lbs. loaded
Armament: None
Engines: Six General Electric YJ-93s of 30,000 lbs. thrust each with afterburner.

Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,056 mph. (Mach 3.1) at 73,000 ft.
Cruising speed: 2,000 mph. (Mach 3.0) at 72,000 ft.
Range: 4,288 miles
Service Ceiling: 77,350 ft.

I got this pictures of the "front view of the XB-70 with all three wingtip angles":
Attachments
frnt-0.jpg
frnt-25.jpg
frnt-65.jpg
Last edited by RyanCollins on 19 Nov 2004, 23:31, edited 2 times in total.
A circle is the reflection of eternity: It has no beginning, and it has no end...
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2810
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post20 Nov 2004, 01:19

My pics of AV-1 at WP USAF Museum are here

Image

The XB-70 program was really killed by the development of the ICBM, in addition to being way over budget and the fallout from the crash/loss of AV-2.
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

TC

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 3998
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2004, 07:06

Unread post21 Nov 2004, 02:34

Also, the latest Soviet SAM (I believe SA-2) was another factor that led to the B-70's cancellation. I have heard that the program was actually cancelled before the midair, which by the way killed test pilot Joe Walker. Walker was the chief test pilot in the X-15 program after Scott Crossfield left the program. The Valkyrie was/is a beautiful jet though, still one of the best looking planes ever built, in my opinion.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!
Offline

KarimAbdoun

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 516
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2004, 19:47

Unread post21 Nov 2004, 09:15

Just to get something straight, the XB-70 was an X-plane, experimental not an operational bomber?
Just to be sure
The fighter is not what counts, it's the one who's flying it that matters!
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2810
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post21 Nov 2004, 19:59

Not officially one of the research "X-Planes", the X prefix did denote prototype/experimental though. NASA later used AV-1 as a research aircraft, but it was never one of the "X Planes" like the X-1, X-15 etc.
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

bdn12

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2007, 23:37

Unread post23 Jul 2007, 19:02

Did the XB-70 and TSR.2 have the ability to aerial refuel?
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2810
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post24 Jul 2007, 04:03

I don't know about the TSR.2 but the neither of the two XB-70s had provisions for inflight refueling. The third XB-70 was to have a refueling receptacle forward of the windscreen and was to test supersonic refueling, but the program was canceled before #3 was built.
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

snypa777

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1684
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 02:00

Unread post24 Jul 2007, 08:30

TSR.2 had a retractable IFR probe on the left of the forward fuselage.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avtsr2.html A good TSR.2 page.
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2150
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post24 Jul 2007, 13:30

Habu2,
If the XB-70 was to test supersonic refueling, what were they planning to use for a tanker?
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2810
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post25 Jul 2007, 02:45

johnwill wrote:Habu2,
If the XB-70 was to test supersonic refueling, what were they planning to use for a tanker?

The books I have didn't say, but they assumed it would be another XB-70 (KB-70?)

IMO the best XB-70 book is "Valkyrie" by Dennis Jenkins and Tony Landis, highly recommended for Valkyrie fans.
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

Kryptid

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 343
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2008, 01:16

Unread post03 Nov 2008, 22:20

The XB-70 was capable of cruising at Mach 3. It was powered by six YJ93 turbojets, which impresses me. Unlike the SR-71, which used the unique J58 engines which combined aspects of the turbojet and the ramjet, the YJ93 was a raw turbojet.

Classically, one is told that simple turbojets do not do well at Mach 3 and can even be destroyed by such speeds. What special design implementations were there in the YJ93 that allowed it to do what other turbojets could not?

If a Mach 3 turbojet could be designed in 1960's, then why haven't we seen more Mach 3 turbojet designs in more recent years? Surely we would be able to design engines with such capabilities with even greater efficiency than the YJ93?

What are the drawbacks to Mach 3 turbojets? High costs? Long maintenance times? Poor performance at low altitudes and low airspeeds? Large size?
Offline

Roscoe

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1334
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
  • Location: Las Vegas

Unread post04 Nov 2008, 01:35

Fuel flow sucks, and long term health due to the high temps are also lousy
Roscoe
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
Next

Return to X-planes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest