| Author |
Message |
|
habu2
|
 Posted: Nov 19, 2004 - 10:11 PM
|
 
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Sep 05, 2003 - 09:36 PM
Posts: 2811
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 26, 2013 - 11:34 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
RyanCollins
|
|
Posted: Nov 19, 2004 - 10:12 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Nov 07, 2004 - 07:24 PM
Posts: 651
Location: Mar del Plata, Argentina
Status: Offline
|
Thank you, habu2... 
But, what happened with the Valkyrie...? (I don't know much about it...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occamsrasr
|
|
Posted: Nov 19, 2004 - 10:24 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2004 - 04:04 AM
Posts: 173
Status: Offline
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RyanCollins
|
|
Posted: Nov 19, 2004 - 11:21 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Nov 07, 2004 - 07:24 PM
Posts: 651
Location: Mar del Plata, Argentina
Status: Offline
|
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": |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
1.42 KB |
| Viewed: |
10862 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
1.54 KB |
| Viewed: |
10862 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
1.48 KB |
| Viewed: |
10862 Time(s) |
|
_________________
A circle is the reflection of eternity: It has no beginning, and it has no end...
Last edited by RyanCollins on Nov 19, 2004 - 11:31 PM; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
habu2
|
|
Posted: Nov 20, 2004 - 01:19 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Sep 05, 2003 - 09:36 PM
Posts: 2811
Status: Offline
|
My pics of AV-1 at WP USAF Museum are here
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
TC
|
|
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 - 02:34 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator
Joined: Jan 14, 2004 - 07:06 AM
Posts: 4006
Status: Offline
|
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! |
_________________
"He counted on America to be passive...He counted wrong." -- President Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
|
KarimAbdoun
|
|
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 - 09:15 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jan 30, 2004 - 07:47 PM
Posts: 509
Status: Offline
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
habu2
|
|
Posted: Nov 21, 2004 - 07:59 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Sep 05, 2003 - 09:36 PM
Posts: 2811
Status: Offline
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
bdn12
|
|
Posted: Jul 23, 2007 - 08:02 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Jul 17, 2007 - 12:37 AM
Posts: 38
Status: Offline
|
| Did the XB-70 and TSR.2 have the ability to aerial refuel? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
habu2
|
|
Posted: Jul 24, 2007 - 05:03 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Sep 05, 2003 - 09:36 PM
Posts: 2811
Status: Offline
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
snypa777
|
|
Posted: Jul 24, 2007 - 09:30 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527
Status: Offline
|
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".
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnwill
|
|
Posted: Jul 24, 2007 - 02:30 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 24, 2007 - 09:06 PM
Posts: 1364
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Status: Offline
|
Habu2,
If the XB-70 was to test supersonic refueling, what were they planning to use for a tanker? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
habu2
|
|
Posted: Jul 25, 2007 - 03:45 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Sep 05, 2003 - 09:36 PM
Posts: 2811
Status: Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kryptid
|
|
Posted: Nov 03, 2008 - 10:20 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Aug 10, 2008 - 02:16 AM
Posts: 343
Status: Offline
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roscoe
|
|
Posted: Nov 04, 2008 - 01:35 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Jun 29, 2004 - 09:14 PM
Posts: 1279
Location: Las Vegas
Status: Offline
|
| Fuel flow sucks, and long term health due to the high temps are also lousy |
_________________
Roscoe
<b>"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns"</b> - <i>Dos Gringos</i>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
