North American B-70 (WS-110A)

[archipeppe]

Enjoy them...


Ciao
Giuseppe

 

[GeorgeA]

Superb.

 

[Stargazer]

These undoubtedly rank among your finest pieces! Thanks a lot for sharing.

 

[archipeppe]

Superb.

These undoubtedly rank among your finest pieces! Thanks a lot for sharing.

Many thanks guys

 

[RyanC]

Production B-70As would have had tanks in their droopable wingtips.


http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/B-70_Valkyrie_SAC_-_8_June_1960.pdf

 

[archipeppe]

Production B-70As would have had tanks in their droopable wingtips.


http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/B-70_Valkyrie_SAC_-_8_June_1960.pdf

I didn't know, many thanks for the info.

 

[Steve Pace]

Fantastic artwork! Thanks so much for sharing. -SP

 

[archipeppe]

Fantastic artwork! Thanks so much for sharing. -SP

Thanks Steve I'm glad that you appreciated them...

 

[Steve Pace]

You're more than welcome. They are extraordinary. One of you artists - you maybe (I forget now), said an illustration of both XB-70As in flight together was forthcoming. -SP

 

[archipeppe]

You're more than welcome. They are extraordinary. One of you artists - you maybe (I forget now), said an illustration of both XB-70As in flight together was forthcoming. -SP

Not me, anyway if you want I can try out a side by side in flight profiles of both XB-70s.

 

[circle-5]

Spectacular drawings -- thank you!

 

[TsrJoe]

beautiful artworks, many thanks for sharing, just wondering, i recall reading that the foreplanes were to have differed on AV3 (and subsequent production examples?) are there any avaliable drawings showing this ? another query is the difference in dihedral between the first two airframes, was there a finalised decision as to the production form ?

cheers, joe

 

[archipeppe]

beautiful artworks, many thanks for sharing, just wondering, i recall reading that the foreplanes were to have differed on AV3 (and subsequent production examples?) are there any avaliable drawings showing this ? another query is the difference in dihedral between the first two airframes, was there a finalised decision as to the production form ?

cheers, joe

I found out some references about that but no drawings indeed....
Perhaps Scott Lowther could know something about it.

 

[Antonio]

Bravissimo as usual. This time, however, I'm not 100% convinced about the cammo profile in drawing 02.

 

[foiling]

Beautiful artwork, just beautiful, as always. And such a magnificent aircraft. Thanks.

 

[Steve Pace]

beautiful artworks, many thanks for sharing, just wondering, i recall reading that the foreplanes were to have differed on AV3 (and subsequent production examples?) are there any avaliable drawings showing this ? another query is the difference in dihedral between the first two airframes, was there a finalised decision as to the production form ?

cheers, joe

XB-70A number one had zero dihedral; XB-70A number two had 5-deg dihedral. -SP

 

[Steve Pace]

You're more than welcome. They are extraordinary. One of you artists - you maybe (I forget now), said an illustration of both XB-70As in flight together was forthcoming. -SP

That would be awesome! -SP

Not me, anyway if you want I can try out a side by side in flight profiles of both XB-70s.

 

[archipeppe]

Here there are other 2 drawings:


1) The correct B-70 cutout with the extra tanks inside wingtips (thanks to RyanCrierie)
2) An artwork with the two XB-70s in flight (thanks to Steve Pace)

 

[Steve Pace]

WOWEEEEEE!!!! -SP

 

[Steve Pace]

For future reference - contrails don't begin right out of the exhaust nozzles but approximately 20ft aft of them. -SP

 

[Abraham Gubler]

These pictures are great but I don't think the B-70 was designed to carry a full length store internally. The bomb bay doors were to be a two piece aft sliding door that could only expose 50% of the bay at any one time. To expose the aft half the aft door would slide to the rear. To expose the forward half the aft door would slide to the rear and then the forward door would slide to the rear covering the aft part of the bay.

 

[Steve Pace]

They were called Flat Translating Doors - the forward door would slide aft, the aft door would slide forward. Each door cover a bay. -SP

 

[CJGibson]

How were the stores to be ejected?

Chris

 

[Michel Van]

Fantastic Artwork, archipeppe
and i see B-70 got the right Weapon a Skybold

How were the stores to be ejected?

Chris

What do mean with "stores to be ejected" the Doors or crew escape pods ?

 

[archipeppe]

For future reference - contrails don't begin right out of the exhaust nozzles but approximately 20ft aft of them. -SP

Yep you're right, I simply forgot it (too hurry my bad). Thanks for the tip.

 

[archipeppe]

Bravissimo as usual. This time, however, I'm not 100% convinced about the cammo profile in drawing 02.

Dear Pometablava,


such drawings cope exactly with a paint guide sheet provided by USAF in case to provide SEA camo to B-70 (if operational), as you may see as follows....

 

[TsrJoe]

waw, i hadnt seen the B.70 camouflage drawing previously many thanks indeed for posting (i knew i had a 'good' reason to have 5 examples of the 72 scale kit stashed away ) it would make for an interesting comparisim with the B.58 in similar scheme too as published in Jay Miller's Aerofax on the type

re the Skybolt loadout, how was the weapons bays intended to function with larger stores, the weapons capability of the aircraft is something iv oft wondered about ? external stores ? or would the 'waverider' configuration dictate against this ?

i know the type did not enter production and this is somewhat speculative, has anything been published re the configuration of AV.3 wither it (and subsequent airframes ?) had dihedral like AV.2 and does anyone know of a comparisim drawing re 'production' features intended for the B.70 proper

again many thanks for sharing your excellent artworks, cheers, Joe

 

[Antonio]

OMG, thanks for the reply Giuseppe!,

Please accept my apology for my doubts about the painting scheme but it was difficult to me that combinatio of huge high flying and fast aircraft with such a "tactical" cammo.

Now I see you were better informed than me, I'll enjoy and appreciate still further your work

Congratulations,

Antonio

 

[archipeppe]

waw, i hadnt seen the B.70 camouflage drawing previously many thanks indeed for posting (i knew i had a 'good' reason to have 5 examples of the 72 scale kit stashed away ) it would make for an interesting comparisim with the B.58 in similar scheme too as published in Jay Miller's Aerofax on the type

re the Skybolt loadout, how was the weapons bays intended to function with larger stores, the weapons capability of the aircraft is something iv oft wondered about ? external stores ? or would the 'waverider' configuration dictate against this ?

i know the type did not enter production and this is somewhat speculative, has anything been published re the configuration of AV.3 wither it (and subsequent airframes ?) had dihedral like AV.2 and does anyone know of a comparisim drawing re 'production' features intended for the B.70 proper

again many thanks for sharing your excellent artworks, cheers, Joe

Sincerely in everything I've read on B-70, nothing indicates potential external loads. It seems to be logical since the external loads would dirt up the clean Mach-3 designed aerodynamics (similar issues for the various F-108, YF-12 and others).


Indeed I found that B-70 could carry (internally) both nuclear and conventional bombs.


Of course I'm glad that you appreciated my works.

 

[archipeppe]

OMG, thanks for the reply Giuseppe!,

Please accept my apology for my doubts about the painting scheme but it was difficult to me that combinatio of huge high flying and fast aircraft with such a "tactical" cammo.

Now I see you were better informed than me, I'll enjoy and appreciate still further your work

Congratulations,

Antonio

Dear Antonio, no problem at all.


Me too was little bit suprised by the USAF chart aimed to paint SEA the B-70 but at that times was USAF policy to have SEA camo chart for ALL the aircraft used regardless their performance, for example a similar chart was already issued for the B-58 even if it never left its all-metal look.


Someone speculated that the later proposed RS-70 could use an all-black painting like the Lockheed Blackbirds but I never found out official reference to it.


In any case thanks for your appreciation.

 

[archipeppe]

As reference for my B-70 Drawing, among all the other staff found out in Internet, I largerly exploited the following book:


Warbird Tech Series No. 34 - "North American XB-70 Valkyrie" by Dennis Jenkins and Tony Landis, Specialty Press
[/size]ISBN [/size]1-58007-056-6

 

[Steve Pace]

I should have caught this earlier - I've had two books, two articles published on the B-70 - the NAA Charge Number for the two XB-70A airplanes is NA-278 not NA-267. I'd love to see your profile of both XB-70A airplanes without the title above the aircraft. BTW: XB-70A number two was pure white like number one except for its black radome - it appears you've made the underneath white in your illustration. -SP

 

[CJGibson]

Stores - weapons. I might be called "Self-loading freight" by chopper pilots but I would never refer to the crew as stores!

How did they intend to drop bombs? The OR.330 designers foresaw serious problems ejecting stores at high speed. Vigilantes launched them out the back, so how would the XB-70 stores release system work?

Chris

 

[archipeppe]

Stores - weapons. I might be called "Self-loading freight" by chopper pilots but I would never refer to the crew as stores!

How did they intend to drop bombs? The OR.330 designers foresaw serious problems ejecting stores at high speed. Vigilantes launched them out the back, so how would the XB-70 stores release system work?

Chris

I wondered the same, but I was unable to find any clear reference to that.
I mean no drawings or schematics how the bombs would be launched off by the bomb bay.


XF-108 had a sort of rotating mechanism to deploy and launch its 3 Falcon missiles, could the B-70 use a similiar system??
I'm only guessing around since such systems is not mentioned inside the available documentation.

 

[archipeppe]

I should have caught this earlier - I've had two books, two articles published on the B-70 - the NAA Charge Number for the two XB-70A airplanes is NA-278 not NA-267. I'd love to see your profile of both XB-70A airplanes without the title above the aircraft. -SP

Thanks for the hints Steve.


I will rework the XB-70s profiles without any title and with the correct vapor trail distance, asap.

 

[Steve Pace]

Right on! BTW: XB-70A number two was pure white like number one except for its black radome - it appears you've made the underneath more white than necessary in your illustration. But I love it! -SP

 

[Stargazer]

Giuseppe, have you considered depicting a version that would have carrier lenticular weapons (as I seem to recall that was once studied)?

 

[archipeppe]

Giuseppe, have you considered depicting a version that would have carrier lenticular weapons (as I seem to recall that was once studied)?

Could be interesting but I don't have practically any serious reference about Pye Wacket Missile.


Inded here it is the XB-70 mothership version for X-15 Delta.

 

[archipeppe]

Right on! BTW: XB-70A number two was pure white like number one except for its black radome - it appears you've made the underneath more white than necessary in your illustration. But I love it! -SP

Here it is.


And also here it is the USAF chart where I took the NAA number.

 

[Steve Pace]

Absolutely gorgeous illustrations!
That was the earlier NA-number assigned to the XB-70 mockup - the final NA-number assigned to the two XB-70A airplanes as built is NA-278. BTW: Both aircraft should be pure white instead of light gray. Email me at stevepace43@gmail.com and I'll send you proof of the NA-278 number. -SP