North American B-70 Valkyrie

[dannydale]

I'm still not getting a facebook account.

 

[Steve Pace]

I'm still not getting a facebook account.

click on the link three places above. -SP

 

[Arjen]

I'm still not getting a facebook account.

click on the link three places above. -SP

I did, without an account. Excellent!

 

[Steve Pace]

Thanks Arjen! I've added two illustrated magazine articles - The Great White Bird (1977) and Triplesonic Twosome (1986), written by yours truly. -SP

 

[dannydale]

Ooh awesome, so beautiful! B)

 

[Grey Havoc]

B)

 

[DSE]

I'm still not getting a facebook account.

click on the link three places above. -SP

So what's the point of giving FB any copyright to this material, especially with hosting so inexpensive these days?

I don't get it.

 

[Steve Pace]

I'm still not getting a facebook account.

click on the link three places above. -SP

So what's the point of giving FB any copyright to this material, especially with hosting so inexpensive these days?

I don't get it.

DSE - I'm just trying to share the Valkyrie with the world. I'm not sure what you're getting at. -SP

 

[Orionblamblam]

My understanding is that Facebook claims copyright over anything you post there. This does not mean - I think - that they can go after you if you republish your own stuff later, but it does mean that FB can turn around and use anything you post for their own purposes (advertising, say).

While if you set up your own webpage, you retain control over what you post *and* the wbesite won't change around on you as Facebook changes their policies on ads and appearance and whatnot.

Shrug.

 

[DSE]

DSE - I'm just trying to share the Valkyrie with the world. I'm not sure what you're getting at. -SP

FB like most "free" sites claims nonexclusive copyright to whatever you post. How would you feel if they were to sell a book containing all your material posted amassed together with you getting zip in the process?

 

[Arjen]

Everything on Steve's Facebook page is material by his own hand, previously published. Still available if you're willing to take used copies, new copies will be hard to find. I'd guess reprints are unlikely. Presenting the material on Facebook is a way to share material that's out of print.

 

[circle-5]

Another early XB-70 configuration, previously unknown to me.

This is a wind tunnel model of one NA-259 configuration, which still has rudders instead of all-moving tails. It also pre-dates the addition of compression-lift fold-down wing tips. Wide spacing of verticals is noteworthy.

 

[Whisperstream]

I wrote a case study on the XB-70/F-104 mishap. It can be found on page 127 of this document:

http://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/break_mishap_chain_detail.html

A lot of people have tried to pin it on a single cause, but there was a chain of events that led to the final outcome.

 

[Steve Pace]

Good read - thanks for sharing! -SP

 

[Triton]

http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=369

 

[Jemiba]

Although quite small and of low quality only, I thought this photo, which I found in "Airplane Stability and Control",
by M.J.Abzug and E.E.Larrabee to be interesting, showing the XB-70 in flight, streaming vortices from the canards.

 

[Triton]

North American B-70 Valkyrie brochure found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Offl-North-American-Aircraft-Brochure-B-70-Valkyrie-1950-/350590211740?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51a0ce169c

 

[Grey Havoc]

An old Flight article from 1958, "Thoughts on WS-110A; A Mach 3 Bomber with a 6,000 mile Range":

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958%20-%200042.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958%20-%200049.html

 

[Triton]

North American XB-70 Valkyrie model by Topping found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Topping-Models-XB-70-Jet-Plane-US-Air-Force-North-American-Aviation-Inc-Military-/151006833257?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2328b56a69

 

[carsinamerica]

That does not give 14 and those loads are not simultaneous. Maximum number of warheads would be 4 class D weapons.

How do those devices translate into actual weapons?

I read on another forum -- http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.military/2009-04/msg00559.html -- that the B61 was the source of the 14-bomb load. I don't know if that's true, since the B61 was later in the decade, but its development did start in '61, so I suppose it's conceivable.

I also read this (Ball, Desmond. Politics and Force Levels: The Strategic Missile Programs of the Kennedy Administration. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1980):

y 1967 the force should include 126 Atlas and Titan ICBMs, 1,012 GAM-87 Skybolt missiles, and 20 RS-70 bombers, each with 21 to 28 very accurate strike missiles. (p. 74)

Any ideas on those weapons? I know that the RS-70 was supposed to be missile-armed, and that Pye Wacket wasn't an offensive strike weapon. Could it be the SRAM? I can't imagine how they'd fit 28 missiles. If the bays were wide enough, I suppose that the 2 B-70/RS-70 bays could have accommodated three SRAM launchers (about 220 inches each) -- barely -- for 24 missiles, and I'm not sure what that would weigh.

 

[Grey Havoc]

(h/t flateric)

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

JFC Fuller


If I do my math right (4.5 billion dollars, 200 planes), that would make the B-70A about 22.5 million apiece. That doesn't sound as crazy as I've been told in the past...

 

[hesham]

Hi,


I sent this drawing before in a wrong place,so I put it in right one




http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800002822.pdf

 

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mBVJZewbEI

 

[bobbymike]

sferrin - great video. There seemed to be a period of time we could do the impossible as the routine. :'(

 

[TsrJoe]

is there any information as to wither the third and subsequent production B.70 aircraft would have had wing dihedral as per the ill fated second prototype or 'flat' like the first airframe ?

anther aspect i have oft been curious about is i recall reading the canard foreplanes (changes in le./te. angle?) were to be modified for the third aircraft (and again production airframes ?) has anyone seen comparative drawings of the difference ?

cheers, Joe

 

[hesham]

Hi,

a good artist drawing to XB-70,PAGE 124;

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=v0QEAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[CliffyB]

What missile is that supposed to be under the wing?

 

[bobbymike]

What missile is that supposed to be under the wing?

Skybolt?

 

[fightingirish]

The same artist drawing is also shown in the book "Valkyrie North American's Mach 3 Superbomber", by Dennis R. Jenkins & Tony R. Landis.
Yes, it is the Douglas GAM-87/AGM-48 Skybolt shown been lauched.


Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1305777747/XB-70+Valkyrie,+Mach+3+Bomber-+where+were+the+bombs+going+to+go-

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dear Rolf.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is anther XB-70 artist drawing,page 16;


http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yk2E8qhNAOcC&pg=PA4&dq=boy's+life+1962&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yoURVMWTHIjxPPmjgNgK&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBTgK#v=twopage&q=boy's%20life%201962&f=false

 

[The Artist]

Hi,


here is anther XB-70 artist drawing,page 16;


http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yk2E8qhNAOcC&pg=PA4&dq=boy's+life+1962&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yoURVMWTHIjxPPmjgNgK&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBTgK#v=twopage&q=boy's%20life%201962&f=false

In fiction maybe, but not likely in the real world. From what I remember of walking under the bird at the Air Force Museum, the main gear would straddle a two-lane country road. The weight of the beast would have the gear digging into the soft earth.

 

[Delta Force]

And if you REALLY need accuracy. There's always subsonic sea-level penetration (look at Range Mission IV on the SAC).

What is considered to be sea level? I thought the B-70 had notoriously poor handling at low altitudes?

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the NAA RS-70.


FR 3/1964

 

[Orionblamblam]

XB-70 diagram provided to APR Patrons. The full-rez version is more than ten times bigger.

 

[flying-finn]

Some color photos of this bird from LIFE: http://images.google.com/hosted/life/d45d9acc43572351.html

 

[Grey Havoc]

And to think, this could have still been in service today.

 

[Moose]

And to think, this could have still been in service today.

Only if missile technology never advanced.

 

[sferrin]

And to think, this could have still been in service today.

Only if missile technology never advanced.

Because it forced the B-52 into retirement right? If the XB-70 had gone into service I guarantee you they'd have found uses for it. Supersonic, gliding JDAMs comes to mind. Or SRAM, ASALM, etc. (Yes, yes, I know TODAY'S JDAM doesn't fit that description.)