What happened to the 3RD Valkyrie ??


ACCESS: Restricted
9 July 2007
Reaction score
Hello All,
While searching XB-70s on the net I found this (now somewhat dated ) link, I then searched Valkyrie threads on here and couldn't trace any mention of the 3rd Air Vehicle, so as a newbiee I thought I'd dip my toes in the water and see what you learned contributors know.

Could this really be the outcome of XB-70 AV3 20208. Which was
a lot changed from AV1 & AV2? Didn't large pieces of this unfinished
airframe go "missing" from Palmdale, do I recall site 3 and or 8 being
mentioned. I read somewhere that many of the YJ-93 engines were
unaccounted for as many as half the 30+ completed. Does a US citizen
member wish to ask GE about that under FoIA?
Please excuse my ignorance if this appears naive, perhaps our more
tecnologically errudite members can advise? Would a Ram-Jet or Pulse Detonation engine work better with a
(Mach 3)flying start?
Are these alleged craft launched from beneath the mother ship because
of lessons learnt from the D-21 problems?
I have serious difficulty with the C-5 aspects of the article,
unless the cheek pods were removeable like the old speed-pak on a
constellation. As for a CIA C-5 coded CL I'm sure someone somewhere
would have noticed it, however wasn't CL a lockheed design prefix of
years ago?
Given the airlift commitments facing USAF at the moment and over
recent years I'm sure you would have to have a gold plated high value
reason take over a major asset like a C-5. I know about the C-5Cs the
actual USAF C-5C (Space Cargo Modified) aircraft are 80213 and 80216,
but they have never been true airlift assets have they? Have they ever
been noted on regular air force duties? Do they ever leave ConUS
except to collect damaged TR-3/RF-23 airframes from Boscombe Down?
Be lucky
David Truman

Would love to know where those engines went/are
Some of the components built for AV-3 were used to replace damaged bits of the first two aircraft during the test program.
Bill Scott said:
...iron-clad confirmation that meets AW&ST standards...

I find that part to be laughable. Wasn't it AvWeek's very own Bill Scott that proposed this alleged "Blackstar TSTO" system ever existed in the first place? And wasn't it based solely on his own personal conjecture supplemented by various "unnamed" sources? Hardly the "iron clad" info that we are made to believe his publication releases in my humble opinion.
The AvWeek article was very specific in saying that "these are rumors we've heard, bits and pieces we've found".
Bill Scott is (IMHO) one of the best aerospace writers/journalist in this world. Reading his articles (I've started in late 80s) didn't make me Aurora believer, though - just because as Sferrin correctly stated, no hard attempt to make you a believer was made. Scott wrote one of the best books on B-2 program I've ever read - Inside The B-2: The B-2 Story (TAB Aero Books) filled with zillion interesting facts from program insiders - that's in early 90s, when minimum information leaked outside. BlackStar issue was one of that events that really makes your heart beats...may be all that bullshit, but this inspires curiosity - I mean other kind of curiosity, apart from little grey men and UFOs.
I remember seeing on CNN in the 90's that one of there reporters so it land at a base.



  • Aviation_Week_03-06-2006_cover.jpg
    33.5 KB · Views: 253
Is it possible that the 3rd Valkyrie prototype was later converted into a mothership for prototype spacecraft, which could explain the alleged "Brilliant Buzzard" and Blackstar mothership projects?
Is it possible that the 3rd Valkyrie prototype was later converted into a mothership for prototype spacecraft, which could explain the alleged "Brilliant Buzzard" and Blackstar mothership projects?

Nope, no way.

The only mothership purpose envisioned for the XB-70 as such (maybe AV-2) was in coupling it with the X-15A3 "Delta" projected but never realized.
Pleas take into account that even as X-15 launcher the Valkyrie could support only suborbital spacecraft as the "Delta" was, not the orbital behemot of the alleged "Blackstar".
Not counting that all the "Blackstar" rumors spoke about underbelly launch, while the X-15A3 would be launched by the top, making this unpractical with the actual engines configuration of the XB-70, otherwise this would imply an extensive re-design of the whole aircraft.

Similar threads

Top Bottom