North American B-70 Valkyrie

[hesham]

From Interavia 1959,

here is a speculative artist drawing to XB-70,should been,just Wow.

It looks definitely like some unknown version of the B-58 Hustler rather than anything closer to the actual B-70...

That's right my dear Archipeppe.

And from Interavia 1960.

 

[Forest Green]

It looks definitely like some unknown version of the B-58 Hustler rather than anything closer to the actual B-70...

Both the B-58 and XB-70 were studied as the basis for an aircraft to fulfill the reconnaissance role that eventually went to the A-12 and SR-71.

 

[StevieC]

Wasn't there once a proposal to build a delta-winged X-15 to be carried aloft atop a Valkyrie's rear-fuselage and air-launched at supersonic speed, too?

 

[flateric]

right in the same topic

 

[BlackBat242]

Wasn't there once a proposal to build a delta-winged X-15 to be carried aloft atop a Valkyrie's rear-fuselage and air-launched at supersonic speed, too?

Just look in the earlier posts in this thread... they are there.

 

[red admiral]

There was much discussion in this topic about weapon bay size, but how were the weapons released? I can't see anything on the doors etc. Which must have been pretty challenging at high Mach

 

[TomcatViP]

It depends essentially of the altitude. High Mach at high alt faces the same pressure recovery as at low alt high speed, the kinetic pressure being essentially a factor of air density (0.5ro*v^2).

In effect, YF-12 weapons bays doors were pretty basics in their geometry. For example, at 50000ft air density is less than one fifth of what it is at ground level.

 

[sferrin]

There was much discussion in this topic about weapon bay size, but how were the weapons released? I can't see anything on the doors etc. Which must have been pretty challenging at high Mach

IIRC they didn't open like traditional bays. The "door" translated aft exposing the bay as I recall.

 

[jstar]

There was much discussion in this topic about weapon bay size, but how were the weapons released? I can't see anything on the doors etc. Which must have been pretty challenging at high Mach

Several posts regarding the translating doors here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/north-american-b-70-ws-110a.20814/#post-204741

 

[dbrower]

Hi!
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ファイル:North_American_XB-70A_Valkyrie_fuselage_final_assembly_061122-F-1234P-032.jpg
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ファイル:North_American_XB-70A_Valkyrie_forward_fuselage_assembly_061122-F-1234P-031.jpg

Is there more of the AV/3 overview sheet available anywhere?

 

[hesham]

From Life magazine 1965.

 

[sferrin]

 

[hesham]

From Naval Aviation News 1960,

I think that,it was an XB-70's model ?.

 

[hesham]

From Le Fana 2018-7

 

[hesham]

From Aeroplane 1960.

 

[Archibald]

Something I never quite realized before is that WS-110A (the Valkyrie) and WS-125A (the nuclear supersonic bomber) were at least loosely related, notably through Pratt J91. That one had one foot in WS-110 (J91 lost to GE J93) and another in WS-125A (J91 tech was part of Pratt competing design with G.E J87 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J87)

More exactly, J87 was WS-125A DIRECT cycle by General Electric; while J91 tech was used by Pratt for the INDIRECT cycle.

Bottom line: there were kind of three "ultimate bombers" on the drawing boards circa 1956-57
WS-110: classic chemical (eventually with boron fuels - that other BIG technology craze)
WS-125A, direct cycle - nuclear
WS-125A, indirect cycle - nuclear

The sky was the limit, or no longer was. That is, until they found boron toxicity and deposits ruining the turbojets. And then that a supersonic nuclear bomber was simply unfeasible, whatever the nuclear cycle.
So the whole thing was downrated to CAMAL - subsonic, but for days of time (can't help thinking about MCU helicarriers !)
Another subtelity however was that direct cycle was feasible, but a radiation nightmare; and indirect cycle was the exact opposite. Annoying.
In the end JFK threw ANP under a bus early 1961 and was probably right to do so...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Note also that on the XB-70, the enclosure just encapsulated the crewmember and seat, whereas in the F-111 the entire crew compartment was ejected intact. It's worthy of note that the B-1A was originally designed with a crew compartment that separated intact similar to the F-111. This was abandoned early on when it was determined that conventional ejection seats actually gave a better chance of survivable than ejecting the whole compartment. The first three B-`As were too far along to make the change, but the fourth -1A, and all the Bs used regular ejection seats.

That seems counterintuitive. Got links or a discussion here?

Hi!
Is this wing cross sectional drawing correct?

проект "Валькирия"

translate.google.fr

Yes, hexagonal wing cross section!

Just noticed that speed chart on page 1 stating the XB-70 could do Mach 2 on mil power alone.....holy Jesus.

6x 20klbs thrust on mil power... 28klbs in AB.

 

[hesham]

From Air Force 1959.

 

[hesham]

From this report.

 

[hesham]

From Air Force 1959.

From the same source,a clearer and bigger view.

 

[hesham]

From Flying 1960-4.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=ijaaa

 

[hesham]

From Le Fana 2018-7

The whole article.