PDA

View Full Version : XB-70 - Valkyrie



Grue_
03-12-2006, 03:27 AM
Someone told me about this aircraft and I'd never heard of it. Wow.

http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html

Grue_
03-12-2006, 03:27 AM
Someone told me about this aircraft and I'd never heard of it. Wow.

http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html

Taylortony
03-12-2006, 05:12 AM
Yes they built 2 they ran on ZIP Fuel that was supposed to be the be and end it all of fuel, but it wasnt, it was also designed with cranked down wing tips, this with the combined thrust of its six engines that worked in a way like a ram jet on the underside of the fuselage and increased its speed................ project was scrapped after one of the chase planes ran into one of them and it all ended in tears and a large amount of flames http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

See additional information below http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cajun76
03-12-2006, 05:26 AM
The threat of the Valkyrie is what prompted the Russians to develop the Foxbat.

Truly an awesome bird, the author did miss a piont about the shape of the underside. It was designed as a the cross section of a bullet, so that the plane rode it's own shockwave. Surf's up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sergio_101
03-12-2006, 05:46 AM
Wow, if ever there was negative spin read "Taylortony" 's post.

The XB-70 had one fault, it was WAY to expensive.

the XB-70 was fueled by conventional JP-4 or JP-7.
The wing tips folded down to make use of the
"compression lift" caused by the six engine instalation.
It all worked, and Mach3+ was achieved.

There was no ramjet effect and no "zip fuels".

The cost per hour of flight time set new records!
To date the XB-70 is the most expensive jet aircraft
ever flown on an hourly basis.

The XB-70 project attempted to do what the A-12/YF-12A/SR-71
project did, mach3 cruise. But Valkyrie did it by brute force.

Oh yes, XB-70 prototype #2 was destroyed in a photo shoot
when a F-104 was aparrantly caught in the wing tip turbulence
anf rooled into the plane killing the F-104 driver and one
of the XB-70 crewmembers.

Sergiohttp://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/xb70.jpg http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b5/xb70ac4.jpg

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b5/b5-67.htmhttp://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b5/xb70s1.jpg

woofiedog
03-12-2006, 08:37 AM
Quite the story on this Bird...

Another link with the events of the XB-70.

http://area51specialprojects.com/xb70_crash.html

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-12-2006, 08:45 AM
...so are we getting it in the next patch?

Zeus-cat
03-12-2006, 09:17 AM
If you ever make it to Dayton, Ohio you can see the survivng XB-70 at the National Museum of the US Air Force. She is in the Presidentail Aircraft hangar right now. Here is the museum's link to the XB-70.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf37.htm

Taylortony
03-12-2006, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Wow, if ever there was negative spin read "Taylortony" 's post.

the XB-70 was fueled by conventional JP-4 or JP-
There was no ramjet effect and no "zip fuels".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was run on the standard fuels because of problems developing ZIP Fuel....... I studied this and the design principals during My RAF Training as an Aircraft Engineer..... the fuel was a major problem so was abandoned, therefore it was relegated to standard fuels... I would suggest you Google Zip fuels before you put your foot in your mouth and say it never existed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Use of ethyl borane fuel stood to further enhance the bomber's performance, and RAF Flying Review of September 1958 dubbed WS-110 the "Boron Bomber". They guesstimated from "unofficial reports" that it would fly at 100,000 feet, cruise at Mach 2 with room for Mach 3 "dash" performance, and achieve a 6,000 mile range without refuelling.

The six GE engines were housed in an engine box under the wings, profiled to generate compression lift. On "zip fuel" one engine alone made more noise than any air-breathing engine in history.
To make matters more awkward, the expensive boron fuel program was cancelled".


NAA had exhausted the possibilities of area-ruled design, advanced afterburning engines and unusual configurations. One route to higher performance was a brutal frontal attack with 'zip fuel' to make engines more powerful. Various totally new fuels based on boron, such as the ethyl boranes, offered higher energy than traditional kerosenes. The problems were terrible, but in the absence of any better idea the USAF and US Navy began pouring tens of millions (today equivalent to billions) of dollars into vast new plants to produce zip fuel for the 1960s. On zip fuel just one was noisier than any previous air-breathing engine in history. Fortunately, the technical and political problems of zip fuel were so enormous that this program was terminated in August 1959, only days before the huge plants were to go 'on stream'.

The first aircraft had looked complete in 1963, but over a year was spent trying to cure seepages of fuel through millions of microscopic holes, the special (modified JP-6) kerosene billowing away in vast smoke clouds as the tanks were bent and twisted at up to 554 degrees F (290 degrees C). Curing the seeping welds was almost the last straw, and when 62-001 was finally rolled out the no. 5 tank at the junction of fuselage and wing was still unusable (and so it remained).

LEXX_Luthor
03-12-2006, 12:56 PM
I would like to know if this is true...

I heard the -70 compression lift was optimized for a specific high airspeed around m=3, and when flying at this speed afterburners were not needed, but when flying slower, afterburners were needed (more drag). Where I read this also stated that this allowed backup thrust if one (or 2?) engines was lost, afterburners could still maintain the optimized speed.

I don't know if this is true and I read it only one place. Its very interesting indeed if true. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Sergio_101
03-12-2006, 01:37 PM
Wow, there's some neat stuff.
I never heard of a "Zip fuel".
I knew two guys who wrenched the XB-70A-1
and A-2, both told many stories.
Not one about zip fuel or thousands of leaks.

The first prototype used JP-4 initally.
Later the USAF had them use JP-8 for it's
very high flash point.
there was a chemical additive for starting on JP-8.

As I remember there were NO high speed flights
over MACH2 with any other fuel than JP-8.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the XB-70.
while I knew some guys who wrenched it
Iever recorded their stories. Bummer eh?

The first XB-70 was constant trouble.
The second was amazingly trouble free.
No one wanted to be stuck with the "dog".
XB-70 #1 spent thousands of hours in maintainents
for every hour in the air.

Oh yes, there is a lot to do with Use of ethyl borane fuel
on the web, and perhaps your correct in that respect.
But your post indicates no knoweledge of the
facts and some rather negative spin.

"six engines worked in a way like a ram jet on the underside of the fuselage and increased its speed"

More ignorance and spin, the compression lift effect
was for lift, not speed.

And sir, get the facts straight. The program was cancled
before the first plane ever flew.
It was continued as a research program.

And you claim "project was scrapped after one of the chase planes ran into one of them and it all ended in tears and a large amount of flames"

More ignorance and spin.

The first XB-70 made 38 more flights.
The program had been canceled long before the crash.

By the way, the colission had nothing to do with
the XB-70.
It was a bad mistake by the pilot of the NASA NF-104A
in an attempt to get a picture.

But if the XB-70 ever was intended to run on
a "Zip Fuel", none ever did, contrary to your initial post.

Sergio

Stackhouse25th
03-12-2006, 01:41 PM
any jet that goes up high in altitude will have fuel tank leaking problems

clayman_52
03-12-2006, 01:43 PM
Great thread. I've always found the XB-70 fascinating. A friend worked at Teledyne on the SR-71 at the time of the mid-air. He was the one that sparked my interest way, way back.

mortoma
03-12-2006, 01:57 PM
Yea, and I suppose the Germans invented it and we stole it from secret W.W.II prints!! I guess some of the German posters have not made it here yet.

Taylortony
03-12-2006, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Wow, there's some neat stuff.
I never heard of a "Zip fuel".
I knew two guys who wrenched the XB-70A-1
and A-2, both told many stories.
Not one about zip fuel or thousands of leaks.

The first prototype used JP-4 initally.
Later the USAF had them use JP-8 for it's
very high flash point.
there was a chemical additive for starting on JP-8.

As I remember there were NO high speed flights
over MACH2 with any other fuel than JP-8.

But your post indicates no knoweledge of the
facts and some rather negative spin.

"six engines worked in a way like a ram jet on the underside of the fuselage and increased its speed"

More ignorance and spin, the compression lift effect
was for lift, not speed.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was not referring to the compression lift but to compression effect and to the correlation between the engine installation design and the way it was installed.......... Engine design and thoery is one thing I do know about, Having spent 30 years in the Industry.. what is with all this Spin? u work for the Labour party?

"However, even if the Valkyrie's demise as a warplane was inevitable, its true contribution--aborted SST plans in the past notwithstanding--has yet to be realized in future aircraft that will cross oceans in minutes, not hours. Engineers recently reviewed XB-70 test data while working on the design of NASA's high-speed civil transport, another proposed Mach 3 airliner. The HSCT was cancelled, but an even more advanced vehicle is in development, one that still draws on the Valkyrie. Engineer Paul Reukauf who works on development of Hyper-X, an experimental unmanned aircraft that will operate at Mach 8 to 10, says, "There is exactly a direct correlation between XB-70 and SR-71 work and future projects like the Hyper-X." The XB-70 and the SR-71 were propelled not only by their turbojet core engines but also by the powerful compression of air as it moved through their inlets before entering the engines. "In fact, the scramjets and ramjets we're looking at are basically the same engine as the intakes of the SR-71 and the XB-70 if you injected fuel behind them," Reukauf says. "The propulsion technology [for a hypersonic transport] is pretty well in hand because of those aircraft."

Which I was trying to get across in one line http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


This might help you understand it with out going to deep, it is for the Blackbird

http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Supp/FM99/oxcart.html

At Mach 3, the inlet itself produces 54% of total thrust through pressure recovery, the engine contributing only 17% and the ejector system 29%. The compression ratio at cruise is 40 to 1.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif hope that helps you understand the principal..

BfHeFwMe
03-12-2006, 05:09 PM
Kind of hard to believe since JP-8 didn't exist in the USAF supply system until 1978. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Sergio_101
03-12-2006, 05:27 PM
Incorrect sir, all SR-71/A-12/YF-12A were powered by JP-7.

It was in the supply system from 1972-1980
for sure, I was in the USAF at that time
and we had it on base for SR-71s!

JP-7 was first brewed in the late 1950's.

Note my first post, JP-8 is an oops.
I ment JP-7.

Sergio

LStarosta
03-12-2006, 05:36 PM
Sergio's on a roll!

M2morris
03-12-2006, 06:10 PM
Awesome thread, I always loved and was fascinated by the XB-70 and was sad to see what happened to it when that F-104 got too close and was cought in the wing-tip vortex and rolled over the twin fins, just made me sick. But I did not know there was an XB-70 still in existance at a museum. Great.

LEXX_Luthor
03-12-2006, 06:23 PM
Easy there fellas. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

McNamara killed the B-70 because of (1) availability of ballistic missiles and (2) fear of future high altitude Soviet super SAMS such as S-200.

But he was not alone. Kruschev, a willing collaborator with the Soviet missile lobby -- everybody had a missile lobby -- killed off Soviet military aviation -- most notably Sukhoi T-37 interceptor. Duncan Sandys did the same in England. McNamara, Sandys, and Kruschev all worked together.

Visualize the world, or solar system, today if B-70 entered service. There were plans to launch satellites from B-70, with possibly greater in orbit payloads, less cost than the rockets, and the ability to launch at any time desired without having to setup a rocket.

M2morris
03-12-2006, 06:35 PM
It's sad when you realize that such creative efforts and creativity are ultimatley guided and controlled by political issues with the intention of destruction, or having to defend against destruction.

hobnail
03-12-2006, 06:52 PM
The Valkyrie lives!

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_stor...id=news/030606p1.xml (http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/030606p1.xml)

Please ensure that tinfoil hat is securely fastened before reading the linked article.

Badsight.
03-12-2006, 11:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woofiedog:
Quite the story on this Bird...

Another link with the events of the XB-70.

http://area51specialprojects.com/xb70_crash.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>fookin ell

spent two hours there , had to force myself to log off , so interesting , thanks!

joeap
03-13-2006, 02:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by woofiedog:
Quite the story on this Bird...

Another link with the events of the XB-70.

http://area51specialprojects.com/xb70_crash.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>fookin ell

spent two hours there , had to force myself to log off , so interesting , thanks! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup not two hours but too long.

alert_1
03-13-2006, 06:13 AM
Yes as Hobnail noted, the beast live, some interestng quotes from the article:
_______________________________________
THE SPACEPLANE'S SMALL CARGO or "Q-bay" also could be configured to deliver specialized microsatellites to low Earth orbit or, perhaps, be fitted with no-warhead hypervelocity weapons--what military visionaries have called "rods from god."
__________________________________________

and also
__________________________________________
Very loud engines. ONE OTHER classified military aircraft may have used the same type of powerplant.
___________________________________________

woofiedog
03-13-2006, 07:30 AM
Badsight. & joeap... Hope Yah had a couple of Cold Ones for that one. LoL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Let me call over Sally for the next round...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/TV_mabel.jpg

Wingstrut_1
03-13-2006, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
If you ever make it to Dayton, Ohio you can see the survivng XB-70 at the National Museum of the US Air Force. She is in the Presidentail Aircraft hangar right now. Here is the museum's link to the XB-70.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf37.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If anyone who is in North American, the USAF Museum in Dayton is well worth a day trip. You can fly to Dayton airport from about any hub in the central US or east coast.

They have perhaps the largest military aviation collection in the world. There WWII collection is very good and they have a number rare birds. Here is a photo of their MC 200 I shot late last year. Over the last 3 years or so they have done some extensive changes in the museum in terms of display presentation.



http://www.wingstrut.com/images/Mc200D1x.jpg

Treetop64
03-13-2006, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M2morris:
It's sad when you realize that such creative efforts and creativity are ultimatley guided and controlled by political issues with the intention of destruction, or having to defend against destruction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mankind at it's best!

Well, you can't get something clean without getting something else dirty, I suppose... Many of mankind's greatest technological achievements are a direct result of nessesity and research during times of war.

M2morris
03-13-2006, 09:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M2morris:
It's sad when you realize that such creative efforts and creativity are ultimatley guided and controlled by political issues with the intention of destruction, or having to defend against destruction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mankind at it's best!


Well, you can't get something clean without getting something else dirty, I suppose... Many of mankind's greatest technological achievements are a direct result of nessesity and research during times of war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yep, necessity is the mother of invention; like why they invented the dictionary I don't use to spell neccesserry, or why the anhieser bush company made the beer that I drank when I wrote that blubbering statemant in the first place. But I know whatchya mean. Alot of things, I mean ALOT of things in common use today were created by inventions intended for war(here goes a thread hijacking) But it's true.

wayno7777
03-13-2006, 10:22 PM
Woofie, send Sally over to the Dirty Fokker....

TX-Zen
03-14-2006, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
The threat of the Valkyrie is what prompted the Russians to develop the Foxbat.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And a misunderstanding of the Foxbat's abilities, combined with confused reports of it being in widescale mass production (which was actually the MiG-23, not the Foxbat), led to the urgent development of the F15.

Boy, what a surprise when Viktor Balenko flew his Foxbat to Japan in 1976.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif