XB-70 Valkyrie, who remembers?

reply to post by Shadowhawk



Thank you for the very detailed history of this amazing aircraft.
It crashed with out a doubt, but you did mention something, that there were 3 prototypes. How far along was the third airframe? Maybe thats what the individual was talikng about. Could it be the 3rd airframe wasnt scrapped, and was blacked out, so to speak. There was a lot of cutting edge stuff going on on that aircraft.

The third XB-70 (AV-3) was never built. Construction of subassemblies began, but AV-3 was officially cancelled on 5 March 1964.

NASA paid the Air Force $263,275 to complete a partially built canard that had been under construction for AV-3, so it could be used in thermal loading experiments in support of Supersonic Transport (SST) development. the heat loads tests took place at the NASA Flight Research Center (now NASA Dryden) between December 1966 and late 1968.

Some of the AV-3 components were used as spare parts for AV-1 and AV-2. One of the main landing gear bogie beams for AV-3 was eventually installed on AV-1 to replace a damaged part. Another one was used on AV-2 for the same reason.

Leftover AV-3 material was eventually sold as scrap. Some of it ended up in the hands of private collectors. I have a piece lying around somewhere.

Well, I certainly do. Great aircraft, IMHO.

Anyone remember that Discovery program on aircraft? Used to have that cool music and narration? Maybe I'm dating myself.

reply to post by Shadowhawk


Thanks for filling in the gaps to my quick answer Shadowhawk. Since it was you and Mark that found the wreckage i figured you have the first hand experince to put to rest the bogus claims of a fake crash etc.

Out of curiosity what are you hunting for right now if anything?

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

No problem, Canada_EH.

BTW, I got to see a number of AV-3 components that had been rescued from the scrap yard. If nothing else, North American Aviation definitely had a handle on stainless steel honeycomb construction techniques. Kelly Johnson chose not to use this method for constructing the A-12 because it was extremely complex.

I'm not really hunting anything at the moment.

I can't remember, being a teenager but I have enjoyed this thread, learned a bunch. It is quite a majestic bird, beautiful to look at. Here's a link in appreciation for those members who'd like to view some great old photos at Dryden Research Flight Center XB-70A Valkyrie Photo Collection. It's name is our beach volleyball "kill" scream. Spike!

Mira

Great book on the XB-70

There's a whole section devoted to the crash with photos I've not seen elsewhere, including the 104s wingtip tank with the swapped paint.

Chapter 8 is devoted to the 3rd unbuilt aircraft, which according to plans designed in an effort to save the program, would have been quite impressive. She was to have been a satellite-killer, among other things.


Got mine at sticker price of $19.95, Amazons used copies start at $25. So I guess it's out of print.

I'll scan some of the pics if anyone's interested.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by SpaceMax]

reply to post by 123143


you talking about the great planes documentry? I watched that this week on the net pretty neat.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk

I'm not really hunting anything at the moment.

Shadowhawk, Ed Lewis was a very good friend of mine and fellow QB. I was wondering what the speculation was around NASA about the cause of the accident?

At first glance it would seem that it was a simple case of 2 high time captains flying in the same airplane each thinking the other one was in command.

It was a great tragedy and I am truly sorrowed by the loss of my friend Ed Lewis who was always interested in my opinions.

Ed was the one that invited me to speak at the QB convention in San Francisco several years ago.

He told me he spent some time up at the Tonopah Test Range for NASA.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Canada_EH
you talking about the great planes documentry? I watched that this week on the net pretty neat.

No. This show was on in the late 80's/early 90's on Discovery. It had neat music and narration. I remember both being changed for some reason, perhaps to update the series in terms of music and new references.

The XB-70 episode was one of the more memorable episodes, although the entire series was fantastic.

It's incredible what was built in the 60's and 70's. I'm a Blackbird fan myself. I can only imagine what they're working on now that I'll never live to see.

reply to post by SpaceMax

SpaceMax, I'm always interested in aircraft photos. Please post.

123143

I went to the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson in October and visited the Presidential and X-craft hangers on the base while I was there. I saw the XB-70 on display. I read everyone's post trying to figure out what was going on, but I still have a question.

Is the XB-70 that I saw and photographed the first one built (and only one left) or was it a Mock up? Because if it was a mock up, it was a gigantic one.

I couldn't get a shot of the entire aircraft due to the hanger size and the other aircraft crowed around it. I remember thinking that it was a shame to have all this history crowded together like so many toys in a kids closet. I hope to go back some day and spend two or three days there. Saw and SR-71 and F-111F that I had actually worked on in my career. It was like visiting old friends.

Originally posted by paraclete1
I went to the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson in October and visited the Presidential and X-craft hangers on the base while I was there. I saw the XB-70 on display. I read everyone's post trying to figure out what was going on, but I still have a question.

Is the XB-70 that I saw and photographed the first one built (and only one left) or was it a Mock up? Because if it was a mock up, it was a gigantic one.

Yup, that one at Wright Patterson is the real deal - the first test aircraft retired in 1969.

reply to post by RichardPrice


Cool, I was impressed with how high the fuselage was off the ground. I had to take a picture of the nose, the walk under it to photograph the intakes.

I would be nice if they'd install an elevated walk way to look down on the aircraft.

reply to post by johnlear


Well It doesn't shead much light but I found the NTSB prelim report. Check it out if you wish John. I can't help but think back to the saying that is worse to have 2 chief pilots one in the right and left hand seat. Mind you I didn't know these guys John just one of those gut feelings.

www.ntsb.gov...

Man have -I- got a pix for you...



An unbuilt prototype for an alternate Valkyrie design...

reply to post by Badge01


Source? because that looks alot like another nuclear power prototype.

Originally posted by johnlear
As Clay's cameraman was shooting out the right passenger window Walker gets too close to the B-70's right wing. He apparently was not aware of the tremendous wingtip votices and it flipped Joe's F-104 upside down and to the left cutting off both vertical fins of the B-70.

The B-70 went into a flat spin.

Clay followed the B-70 down while the camera guy shot the photos of its final plunge. These pictures appeared in Life Magazine that week.

Nice to be in agreement for once...

So that's where the pictures come from. First time I saw them (and learned about the Valkyrie) was in my dad's hardcover series History of Aviation from Time/Life ("close relativity" noted).

That was in the mid-80s and the photos looked awfully real to me. Given that they depicted the 60s, for them to be faked would have been an excellent level of artistry, one I would have little difficulty putting in the "not then acheivable" category.

What I like about the Valkyrie is the example of "form fits function"...look at the wings for both Concorde and Tupolev Tu 144...all three went into design and production (what there was of it) around the same time.

Valkyrie goes up there with Avro Arrow for my "huh, what?" award. Why spend all the money getting it into the air, where it proves capable, just to scrap it? Okay, a bunch of guys were kept in employment (very socialist), but what was the nation's benefit?

I guess it's a mix of the Cold War and economies of scale. Back then it was a lot cheaper to develop a prototype than now and a lot more of them were produced. These days everything has to work, every time, so only one prototype is developed (JSF, anyone) and a lot more is expected of it.

(okay, there's more than one JSF prototype, but there were only two entries in the comp. Think of how many types the Air Force and Navy used to fly, to how many they do now...)

Dude, like, I just drew that with, uh, paintbrush.
(teasing).

That's the prototype Northamerican WS-110A Supersonic Bomber, according to the caption.

Who knows where the guy got it? It's just a drawing.

But I thought it was rad. I used to make crafts like that when I was a kid, using, of all things, an old spent shotgun shell (as the fuselage) and modeling clay. (why the shotgun? Well the nose and forward canard thing came off, and the shotgun shell has this crimped opening, which would open, (in my imagination) and a tiny rocket or capsule could come out. I was only 10 or 12, so not sure where I got the idea, or the concept of separating stages. Don't think the military was doing multi-stage like that, then. (the oldest multistage design was in the 14th century, but it was a side-booster type, not a stacked booster).

In fact I recall sitting in the basement making those forward canards and the forward swept wings using wooden q-tips for struts (cotton removed), heh, and the wooden sticks my mom used to make 'city chicken'. She loved that (not!).

In fact, it was kind of a minor obsession, 'cuz I'd make them over and over. (hmmmm...Richard Dreyfus, much?)

Here's another link with other stuff like the XB

reply to post by 123143


North American Employee Report Sept 64
Page 1

Page 2

Page 3