I was fortunate to be able to see the initial flight of the second XB-70 from Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale. I will never forget how beautiful it was as it passed directly overhead, heading to Edwards AFB.
Wow!! Really? What an incredible experience! Witnessing the initial flight of such a groundbreaking aircraft like the XB-70 is a once-in-a-lifetime moment. The sheer power, elegance, and technological marvel of the aircraft must have been breathtaking to see firsthand, especially as it soared directly overhead! It's moments like these that leave an indelible mark on our memories. Thank you for sharing this awe-inspiring moment with us! 🛩️
I@@Engineering_Secrets Indeed, it was quite unforgettable. I was fortunate to grow up near AF Plant 42. Before the first flight, I would hear North American ground-testing the engines, and it was quite loud even though my family's house was more than seven miles away.
its absolutely crazy how the rest of nation doesnt realize how much important aircraft tech comes out of california. most of the west coasts defenses lie in california. pendleton and 29palms. people who shit talk california are wastes of life
When I was a kid, we had a relative who lived in Barstow. We would often go to his house in the late Summer or early fall to go hunting in the desert, when it was legal to do so. On one trip in 1966, soon after the XB-70 crash, we happened upon a good-sized door to the aircraft lying on the desert floor. My dad and his cousin picked it up and carried it back to the truck, and they took it back to my cousin's house. Later, they called the air force to come and pick it up. I was 8 at the time, and as you could imagine, I became an XB-70 enthusiast for a brief period after that.
What an incredible memory! It's amazing how such unexpected encounters can spark a deep interest and curiosity in us. The fact that your family did the right thing by informing the air force shows great integrity. It's no wonder that this experience left such a lasting impression on you and ignited your enthusiasm for the XB-70. Thank you for sharing this fascinating piece of personal history with us! 🛩️
@@smark1180 Bull sitting in a tiny bubble is not living life. I have walked through an airplane crash site before. You may not be curious and adventurous
The F104 pilot that collided with the Valkyrie was test pilot Joseph "Joe" Walker, who had qualified as an astronaut after surpassing the Kármán line (twice) while flying the X15.
Thank you for adding that valuable piece of information! Joseph "Joe" Walker was indeed an extraordinary pilot and his contributions to aviation and space exploration are noteworthy. The X-15 flights that surpassed the Kármán line are a testament to his skills and bravery. It's always a tragedy when pioneers like him are lost. Thanks for reminding us of his legacy and the sacrifices made in the name of progress and exploration. ✈️🚀
Many years ago, one of my female cousins was married to an aeronautical engineer, Don Schlosser, that worked for North American in the early 60's. He worked on both the B-70 and the X-15 projects. As a young kid (I was 7-12) and lover of all aircraft, I thought Don must have had the coolest job in the world!! 👍👍
That sounds absolutely amazing! Being involved in projects like the B-70 and the X-15 would indeed make Don's job one of the coolest, especially during such an innovative period in aviation history. It's no wonder you looked up to him with such admiration. Those aircraft are iconic, and knowing someone personally who contributed to their development must have been incredibly inspiring, especially for a young aircraft enthusiast like yourself. Thanks for sharing this wonderful memory with us! 👍
The XB-70 was one of those crazy-amazing projects that were undertaken as a result of the terror of the Cold War and the awesomeness of the Space Race. It was a privilege to grow up in those days.
Absolutely! The Cold War era, with all its complexities, really did spur some of the most innovative and groundbreaking developments in aerospace and technology. The XB-70 stands as a testament to what humans can achieve when driven by competition and necessity. Thank you for sharing your perspective!
I don't know why this plane affects me so deeply. Perhaps for it's combination of beauty and deadly purpose. The picture of the crash bring tears to my eyes, both for the pilots and their families, and for the lost potential.
It's completely understandable. The XB-70 Valkyrie is a symbol of human ambition, innovation, and the duality of creation. Its sleek design and groundbreaking technology represent the pinnacle of aviation engineering, while its intended purpose serves as a reminder of the geopolitical tensions of its era. The tragedy associated with it, especially the loss of life and potential, can evoke deep emotions. It's a testament to the power of human stories and the artifacts of history that they can resonate so profoundly with us. Thank you for sharing your heartfelt connection to this aircraft! 🛩️❤️
@@Engineering_Secrets Great to see responses from you like this. Most definately not the usual low-effort/botting military 'secrets' channel at all! You earned my sub right here.
@@shane888davies6 It's been my observation that bots don't even bother answering comments. If they do, they are as you say similar and unemotional. This guys replys seem real to me.
@@exidy-yt Thank you very much! We're trying our best to create a strong connection with our audience. Most "faceless" RUclips channels lack a sense of community! And thanks for the sub, we appreciate it!
My father was one of the engineers that worked on the XB-70. He worked for N.A.A. for many years and contributed to the Mercury and Gemini programs as well. He helped develop the gyroscope system used in the first space walks. Unfortunately I was estranged from him for most of this time due to my old substance abuse problems. Fortunately I was able to recover and eventually spend some quality time with him before his passing. I have always been fascinated by aerospace and outer space and I believe it comes from him.
Thank you for sharing such a personal story. It's clear that your father was deeply involved in some of the most cutting-edge and transformative aerospace projects of his time! It's heartwarming to hear that you were able to reconnect with your father and spend valuable time together before his passing. Life can be full of challenges and complexities, but it's moments like these - of reconciliation and shared passion - that truly matter. Cherish the memories, stories, and the legacy he left behind. Your shared interest in aerospace can be a bridge to honoring his contributions and keeping his spirit alive!
There were TWO. It was NOT destroyed. It was retired from service. One plane crashed after being hit by a supersonic jet fighter caught in its slipstream flying in formation with it. The remaking plane is in a museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio.
The U2 was at 70.000 feet when shot down and could only fly at approximately 420mph . The XB 70 could fly up to 79.000 feet at mach 3+ approximately 2100 mph. A lot harder to shoot down. Im a retired McDonnell Douglas Engineer and just loved the the great engineering on the XB-70. What a beautiful aircraft! It still my favorite.
Oh wow! Such an honor to have an ex-McDonnell Douglas engineer comment on our video! It's truly incredible to consider the engineering marvels of aircraft like the XB-70 and the U2, especially given their era. The XB-70 is indeed a testament to what humanity can achieve when pushing the boundaries of aerospace engineering. Thank you for sharing your perspective and passion for such an iconic aircraft!
To me, when the XB 70 is being towed out of the hangar and you’re looking at it head-on, it looks like a huge mechanical dragon. The black anti-glare paint makes the nose look like a face of some sort. Just a really eerie deadly looking craft.
Thank you for sharing your experience! It's incredible to think that even after all these years, the XB-70 Valkyrie still has such a futuristic appeal. The Wright Paterson Aerospace Museum is indeed a treasure trove for aviation enthusiasts. It's always fascinating to see these marvels of engineering up close. Thanks again for your comment! 🛩️
Excellent video! One thing u ommited was that on the first flight the aircraft was saved by a paper clip! It was used to get the gear down, by shorting out a connector, but as u said, a hydraulic problem caused the brakes to jam-causing the fire.
Thank you for the kind words and for sharing that intriguing tidbit! It's truly fascinating how sometimes the most advanced pieces of machinery can be aided by the simplest of tools, like a paper clip. It just goes to show how innovation and resourcefulness can come together in unexpected ways. The combination of complex engineering and on-the-spot problem-solving makes aviation stories like this one so captivating. I appreciate your keen insight and knowledge on the topic. It's great to have engaged viewers/readers like you who contribute to enriching the narrative!
I first learned about this plane when I was fortunate enough to see a static display at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton Ohio. Phenomenal aircraft museum. Amazing plane.
That sounds like an incredible experience! The National Museum of the U.S. Air Force is indeed a treasure trove for aviation enthusiasts and history buffs alike. Being able to see such groundbreaking aircraft up close gives a whole new appreciation for the marvels of engineering and the dedication of those who contributed to aviation history. The plane's design and capabilities truly highlight the innovative spirit of its time. Thank you for sharing your personal experience!
My Dad worked for NAA in the '50s, '60, and '70s on the F-108, the B-70, and then on the Apollo spacecraft. I still remember him telling me stories about all of them. The design of the B-70 was based on the same principles learned during the design of the F-108 Rapier and that included surfing the 'wave'! Have you done a video on the Rapier yet? It looks like a mini Valkyrie. I am still in awe that all these aircraft designs were done in the '50s, including the YF-12A (SR-71).
Oh wow, that's a rich history your Dad was a part of! The Rapier is indeed an interesting subject with its similarities to the XB-70. It's always cool to trace the lineage and see how one design influences another. I haven't created a video on the Rapier yet, but it certainly sounds like a compelling topic to delve into. Thank you for sharing this piece of personal history! Stay tuned for more content!
I think the XB-70 one of the less talked about jets but so awesome. I think it looks beautiful, on par with the Concorde. Also great video. Good mixed of historic footage with different animations (like the ejection nice) to keep it interesting, and although I'm pretty sure the voice is automated it's still pretty awesome. I have no idea why you have only 2.4k subs when this is so polished but I bet this isn't your first channel! Keep it up, the view will come!
After ww2, those who remained were a breed of people that cannot be imagined today. Capable of producing radical new things with a fraction of the technology we have now.
Thank you for your enthusiasm! It's truly awe-inspiring to witness the engineering marvels like the Valkyrie and the SR-71 in person. They stand as testaments to human ingenuity and the spirit of exploration. Thanks for sharing your passion for aircraft with us! ✈️
Absolutely! The XB-70 Valkyrie was a testament to human ingenuity and a prime example of pushing the boundaries of aerospace engineering during its time. Thanks for your comment!
Visiting the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson and being able to touch historic aircraft like the XB-70 Valkyrie is indeed a special experience! If you decide to revisit, you're likely to encounter new displays and restored aircraft. It's always a treat for aviation enthusiasts to see how the museum evolves over time.
Thank you so much for the kind words! We're passionate about delivering quality content and it's wonderful to hear that it resonates with viewers like you. Stay tuned for more documentaries in the future!
It's no wonder it's one of your all-time favorites! The XB-70 Valkyrie is certainly a remarkable aircraft with its distinct design and advanced capabilities for its time. Thank you for your comment!
@@Engineering_Secrets I can't for the life of me imagine what K-Effect would place above it?!!! Even if only the look of it. They're aren't many women that are more beautiful than Lady Valkyrie.
Absolutely! The B-1 Lancer is indeed an engineering marvel. Thanks for pointing out that fun nickname! It's always great to share and learn more about these amazing machines!
The sentiment was meant to convey that ICBMs can be launched without risking the life of a pilot or aircrew, unlike manned aircraft. However, the inherent danger and catastrophic implications of using such missiles, especially those with nuclear warheads, are significant and cannot be understated.
I was working on the NASA Paraglider program for the Gemini spacecraft during the same time at Edwards AFB. During this period two XB-70 were being tested and the SR71 was also flying. It was agreat time to be there!
Being a part of such groundbreaking programs and witnessing these monumental advances in aviation and space technology must have left you with some incredible memories and stories. Thank you for sharing a glimpse of your experience!
In the 1970s, I used visit the Air Museum where you drove past the XB-70 to get to the parking area. It was so cool to see it as an introduction for the museum. It, along with many aircraft stored outdoors, have since been stored indoors.
Wow, what a fantastic memory! Driving past the iconic XB-70 as an introduction to the museum must have been an awe-inspiring experience! It's great to hear that they've since moved many of the aircraft indoors to preserve them better. Museums play such a crucial role in preserving history and allowing future generations to witness the marvels of past engineering. Thank you for sharing your personal experience and connection with aviation history! 🛩️🏛️
Haha, indeed! The XB-70 and CVN-65 (USS Enterprise) are prime examples of that "go big or go home" mentality. It's always fascinating to see how engineering and design philosophies evolve over time based on the challenges and goals of the era. Thank you for sharing that perspective and invoking a bit of nostalgia with the Tim Allen reference. Keep those insights coming!
That sounds like a fantastic experience! Building model airplanes is a great way to appreciate the intricate design and aesthetics of these engineering marvels. I bet having a model of such an iconic aircraft brought a lot of intrigue and admiration from those who saw it. Do you still have the model? It must hold a special place in your collection! Speaking of that, have you already seen the video of the RC Valkyrie Scale Model? Check it out: ruclips.net/video/g9G4dWpA-h8/видео.htmlsi=ysjnd62orH3FtJ54
Great plane. But what was "untold" in this video? 1960 U-2 downing was not news in 1964-66. Also ,one of the 2nd prototype pilots survived the accident. Feedback to SR-71? Please get chronology right.
Makes you wonder why aircraft like this aren't revisited today, given the advancements in computing, materials, and engineering (other than the taxpayer can't be milked for money for the R&D since that's done already). So many quality aircraft build during the 50s-70s, that if brought back, could be truly useful.
Absolutely, it's a compelling thought! The aviation marvels of the 50s-70s were indeed groundbreaking for their time. With today's technological advancements in aerodynamics, materials science, and computer-assisted design, one could imagine how some of those concepts might be refined or even revolutionized. It's worth noting, however, that the goals of aerospace design have shifted over the years. During the Cold War era, there was a significant push for performance at nearly any cost. Nowadays, considerations like fuel efficiency, multi-role capabilities, stealth, and adaptability often take precedence. Still, revisiting older designs with a fresh perspective and updated technology could offer some surprising benefits. Your comment also highlights the economic aspect. While the initial R&D costs might be lessened, integrating modern technology into older designs can still be pricey. But who knows? The future is always in flux, and there may come a day when revisiting these icons of the past makes perfect sense. Thanks for the insightful comment! It's always exciting to imagine the "what-ifs" of aviation history.
Doesn't make me wonder at all. Even if we brought back the basic design, the research in applying all those advancements would probably cost more than what was spent on the original program, all for an airplane that didn't ad to America's defensive and offensive capabilities over 60 years ago.
Thanks for your feedback and suggestion! For sure videos about such amazing planes will be made! They're already on our list! Stay tuned, and thanks for being a part of our growing community!
Absolutely! Unique and audacious designs not only push the boundaries of what's technically possible, but they also inspire and captivate the imagination. Here's to hoping that the future brings more innovative and out-of-the-box designs to life, making our world a bit more exciting and fun! Thanks for your comment!
Absolutely! The XB-70 showcased the cutting-edge engineering of its era. Applying those lessons, combined with today's advancements, to hypersonic flight would be fascinating to witness. Thanks for your comment!
Strange how it looks similar to Concorde. The Brits were so far ahead of everyone. Why didn’t the USA ban it from flying over USA like they did with Concorde?
Nobody had to ban Concorde because Concorde would never have made any money. Nobody wanted Concorde, not even airlines in countries that are far from the United States and do substantial business flying nowhere near the United States. As for looking like the XB-70A, have you ever looked at pictures of each plane side by side? They look nothing like each other. What features do you see that are unique to these planes?
Absolutely. The loss of one of the XB-70 Valkyrie prototypes in a mid-air collision was tragic not just for the loss of human life but also for the setback to aviation advancement. It's unfortunate when pioneering technology is lost or set back due to unforeseen circumstances or human error!
The Air Force Museum in Dayton is indeed a treasure trove of aviation history. It's always amazing to see such iconic prototypes up close. Hope the video added some value to your experience! Stay tuned for more content!
Greaqt info on the B-70! It is too bad that the one that crash was not the first prototype! My research on the B-70 and the U-2 was that the U-2 was shot down while it was flying at an altitude of 70,500 feet and not 79,000 feet as stated in this video. Also, the B-70 was not terminated because of it problems, which any new plane has, but more because the U-2 downage showed that the B-70's max altitude was probably not enough, and was perhaps vulnerable at being shot down like the U-2 was in 1960. The SR71 has about a 10,000 feet maximum altitude increase over the B-70, and it has never been shot down, although it has been fired upon many times.
Thank you for sharing your insights on the B-70 and U-2! You're right, the shoot-down of the U-2 certainly highlighted the vulnerabilities of high-altitude flight, especially in the face of advancing enemy missile technology. It's an interesting point to consider how the perceived vulnerabilities of the B-70's maximum altitude played a role in its eventual termination. The SR-71's impressive altitude and speed capabilities indeed made it a formidable aircraft that could evade many threats. It's always great to have knowledgeable enthusiasts like you contribute to the discussion! Your perspective and research are much appreciated!
What really killed the B-70 was neither of these things, though the issue with missiles was indeed an important factor. What really killed it was the ICBMs and in particular the Polaris missile. If you want to take a great deep dive into the B-70, I recommend the book "Valkyrie, North American's Mach 3 Superbomber" by Jenkins and Landis. I have read in depth books on dozens of aircraft and missile systems, and the book on the Valkyrie by Jenkins and Landis is absolutly the best book I have ever read on any airplane. It is far more than a book about the plane itself. It delves into the competitive designs, the defense industry, the remarkable engineering required to overcome so many of the challenges associated with the design of something that such a monumental leap over everything before it, and in particular, why the program was cancelled. This book is out of print and might be a bit expensive on the used market, but trust me, this is the best book about aircraft ever written. It is a magnificent piece of work.
@@winternow2242 The SR-71 never operated in Soviet airspace. Before the SR-71 even became operational, the US had already launched a couple of dozen KH (Keyhole) satellites and most probably went over Russia. The SR1 was operated extensively over Vietnam, China and Indochina, the middle east, eastern Europe, and other areas of strategic interest to the US, but never over Russia. It just was too dangerous.
As far as I know, it was only operated at edges of China, like the Soviet union. None of the other countries, with exception of DRVN were in combat with the us, other than maybe libya. Vietnam had little practical ability to down the SR-71, but even less of a reason to do so, since the SR-71 carried no bombs, and Vietnam held few secrets from western intelligence. It wasn't that Vietnam's strategic sites were secret, it was thar American rules of engagement put them off limits.
It was never mentioned anywhere, but when the visor was up at cruising speed, was forward visibility fully blocked, or did the pilots have a small amount of forward visibility? At cruising altitude, there wouldn't be much of anything to see and they would likely be on instruments for more or less the entire time, but if the visor ever got stuck in the "up" position throughout the flight... granted, pilots perform CAT III ILS landings in thick fog, but at least there is usually some visibility at the very last moment. The Boeing 2707 had a little bit of visibility to the forward-left and forward-right despite the mach 3 cruise speed, due to the pinched nose shape. Also, we never see any interior shots of the bomb bay in any films of the XB-70. It appears that the bomb bay is big enough for perhaps 2 to 4 free-fall bombs or missiles but there isn't much to confirm that. From what I understand, it had a sliding door for the bomb bay.
The XB-70 Valkyrie's design was indeed unique. Its design features and innovations, while advanced for its time, still raise questions and interest today. The visor of the XB-70, when raised, did severely limit forward visibility, but as you rightly pointed out, during its high-altitude cruise phase, forward visibility wasn't as critical. Instead, the crew would rely heavily on instruments. In a situation where the visor was stuck in the up position, the aircraft would probably have had to descend to a safer altitude, slow down, and follow a protocol for such an anomaly. And, as you mentioned, with modern avionics and instrument-based landing systems, it's plausible that the plane could be landed safely even with limited forward visibility. The XB-70 was initially intended as a strategic bomber, so it indeed had provisions for a bomb bay. The actual design specifics and capabilities of the bomb bay weren't widely publicized, as with many details of military aircraft, especially during that era. The exact number and type of weapons it could carry would depend on various factors, including the design and weight of the weapons and the intended mission profile. You can find some info here: www.quora.com/Where-would-the-bombs-be-stored-on-the-XB-70-Valkyrie
The XB-70A had no bomb bay because it wasn't a bomber. It was a flight test aircraft based on a bomber. The XB-70A had an instrument bay in the lower fuselage behind the intakes - presumably, the never-built B-70 would have used the same space for its weapons.
@@Engineering_Secrets Two topics that might be interesting to research and present: 1.) Aircraft with no or very limited forward visibility. There were actually a surprising number throughout history...it wasn't just the Spirit of St. Louis, and 2.) oblique wing aircraft other than the NASA AD-1 which is actually fairly conventional. I used to have an oblique wing flying model, and it actually flew great and it It had no conventional tail. It would be an unwieldy craft for passengers but it could make an interesting, low-drag sensor platform.
Why? The Valkyries weren't combat aircraft, they were flight test aircraft. The B-70 bomber was never built. By the time it would have become operational, it would have hordes of soviet missiles and interceptors. The Soviet also had developed ICBMs that could be launched quickly, giving them a credible capacity for overwhelming retaliation. The only people who were scared of this plane were those who'd have to pay for it.
Subscribed to your new channel. Excellent narration. The music is tasteful, not too loud, however not necessary and became annoying by about halfway mark. Wish you great success! Thank you for this content!
Thank you so much for your subscription and kind words! It's great to hear that you enjoyed the music selection, though I completely understand that everyone has their own preferences when it comes to background music. Your feedback is very valuable and we'll definitely consider adjusting the music duration or variation in future content. Our primary goal is to make the viewing experience as enjoyable as possible for our audience. Wishing you all the best, and stay tuned for more content!
I found out that the development of this aircraft had another effect. The Soviet Union intelligence must have found out and developed the MIG 25 Foxbat that caused great concern to many in the U.S. Listening to a former engineer or pilot or someone from the former Soviet Union, at least one or all of the MIG 25 Foxbats could reach Mach 3 and travel for 10 minutes at that speed but the engines would have to be replaced after the flight.
How did you find about the Soviets developing this because of the B-70? Because that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Soviets were working on high speed interceptors in the mid 1950s. The B-70, which was never built, was designed afterwards, around 1958. The MiG-25 didn't begin getting developed until 1961. The B-70 was cancelled a few weeks later.....but the Soviets kept developing the MiG-25 for the next decade. The us built 2 Valkyrie test aircraft, having no combat capabilities, then developed a successor program which led to the B-1, which was completely different. The us lost 1 of the Valkyries in a freak accident, and never replaced it. By early 1969, the sole surviving XB-70A Valkyrie was retired to the USAF museum. And after that, that was when the Soviets put the MiG-25 into operation. Clearly the 2 planes have nothing to do with each other.
@@winternow2242 Just what I heard on a TV or other documentary. That the Soviets designed the MIG 25 to be fast enough to intercept the XB-70. The MIG 25 first flew in 1964.
@@daruscole1586 Sounds like you're not sure where you heard it from, and that you're probably not sure what you heard. What you're saying is widely held on the internet, but it's the facts that undermine that. "Soviets designed the MIG 25 to be fast enough to intercept the XB-70. The MIG 25 first flew in 1964." The XB-70A wasn't a bomber, it was a flight test aircraft, nobody needed an aircraft to intercept it. The MiG-25 was designed during a program that began in 1961, years before even the XB-70A were built. The MiG-25 actually flew first, in March of 1964. The XB-70A didn't fly until the following September and didn;t reach mach 3 until the following October, over a year and a half after the MiG-25's first flight. The Soviets really had no way of knowing that B-70 or XB-70A were that fast - mach 3 was not part of the original WS110 specification. The Soviets were probably unaware of compression-lift and had no real reason in 1961 to expect the Americans to develop a triple-sonic bomber. Shortly after the Soviets began working on the MiG-25, the B-70 (which was never built) was cancelled, meaning that the plane the MiG-25 was needed to counter, wasn't going to be built. The Soviets abandoned many projects (Sukhoi T-4 and Tupolve 144 come to mind), but stuck with the MiG-25. The fact is, the Soviets had plenty of other reasons to develop the MiG-25, namely the B-52, the B-58, F-104, F-101, F-106, SR-71, Saab J35, TSR2 and the Mirage III, and the vast size of the Soviet frontier that required defense.
Indeed, unfortunately this was only seen after the video was uploaded... I apologize for that. "Canards" is indeed the correct spelling when referring to the small, forward wings located toward the front of an aircraft.
The B-70 Programs was cancelled before the first prototype was finished. What killed the B-70 program was the ICBM, and and the Polaris missile, which first flew before the XB-70, was the nail in the coffin of the B-70. President Eisenhower Told the Air Force Chief of staff that the B-70 left him cold in terms of making military sense. Eisenhower believed that talking about a manned bomber in the missile age was like talking about bows and arrows in the gunpowder age. (This was obviously in the context of being a strategic deterrent.) Interestingly, President Jimmy Carter (also a former military officer) thought the same thing when he canceled the Rockwell B1, which was reborn as the B1B, but just as Carter said, it was colossal waste of money. Meanwhile the dump truck of the bomber world, the B52, is going to be in service for another 25 or 30 years, but the B52 is essentially a tactical bomber now, as it has no real strategic purpose. Building the B1 Lancer was a pork barrel politics decision, just as with the F-35, which is so expensive to fly (about $38,000 an hour) that the Air Force wants a light weight fighter to "Compliment" the F-35. Military Spending is a huge problem in the US because Congress has never met an expensive program that it didn't like, because that means jobs, and jobs get votes.
Thank you for sharing that comprehensive overview! The evolution of aircraft and missile technologies always intertwines with political considerations, budgetary constraints, and strategic necessities. Your point about military spending and its ties to political considerations is well-taken. The allocation of defense budgets often balances between national security needs and domestic political imperatives. It's always enlightening to engage in such discussions that touch upon history, technology, and politics. Stay tuned for more videos!
@@Engineering_Secrets If you like to read, the best aviation book I have ever read is "Valkyrie, North Amerian's Mach 3 Superbomber." It is out of print but available used. I has all of the elements you mentioned and so much more. It includes the competitor designs for the B-70, politics, engineering, manufacturing, complete details of the test program, and so much more. I have read maybe 20-30 books on different airplanes, and the one above is absolutely the best, not just because the B-70 was a remarkable achievement, but because it is a epic read about what was driving or thinking during the cold war. Highly recommended.
Great video! The Valkyrie was an awesome plane, and would surely have been a success had it been developed with today's tech. Only the original prototype survives today, and you can see it at the Wright Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. We visit there often, and it holds the most extensive military aircraft display I've seen, rivaling even the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
Thank you for the kind words! The XB-70 Valkyrie is indeed a testament to the innovative spirit of its time. It's wonderful that you've had the opportunity to visit the Wright Patterson Air Force Museum and witness the Valkyrie in person. Museums like that are invaluable in preserving and showcasing the history of aviation!
@@winternow2242, you might want to re-watch the video, and pay a bit more attention.. It was NOT successful, having problem after problem. The second prototype had less issues, as the builders had learned from all the failures of the first. The necessity of the plane was clear, at the time of it's design, but because of all the failures, it was outdated and replaced by ICBMs before it could be completely fixed. So...
@@DaveDrawing and you might want to pick up a book on the subject. I know it might demand more of your attention more than a 3 minute youtube video does, but you'll get a more accurate story. The plane posed technical challenges...much as any high performance airplane will, and nothing in this video displays "problem after problem", and "of all the failures" that you complain about couldn;t have been so bad if you couldn;t give any of them as an example. "because of all the failures, it was outdated and replaced by ICBMs before it could be completely fixed" Nope. the plane had nothing to do with ICBM's because it wasn't a bomber or any other military airraft. Here's the thing that escapes people who know nothing about this plane other than what they've seen on youtube: the XB-70A wasn't a bomber. It was a flight test aircraft. it was based on the design of the B-70 bomber, but that plane was never built. The B-70 had no failures, it was just rejected as unnecessary. That it would have added nothing to America's military capabilities doesn't detract that the XB-70A, which had the same design as the B-70-, successfully reached impressive performance goals. Al White called it a challeng to fly during the high-speed parts, but blamed that on instrumentation. In takeoff and landing, it was easier to fly than a B-52. And as for ICBM's, you may also want to pick up a book on the subject of Ameria's strategic forces. ICBMs didn't replace any manned aircraft, and America has developed at least 3 generations of manned strategic bomber since XB-70A and the dawn of ICBMs.
@@winternow2242 you cut and paste with the best of them, Sir. But you still need to re-watch the video and pay attention. I'm done with this, so I'll leave you to your desperately needed Last Word.
Thank you for sharing that personal connection with the Valkyrie's history! The crash site is a somber reminder of the risks and sacrifices made in the pursuit of technological and aeronautical advancement. Thank you for your comment, and safe travels on your monthly journeys!
The XB-70 was designed to have a bomb bay located in the central fuselage, between the wing roots but aft of the cockpit area. More info about it here: www.quora.com/Where-would-the-bombs-be-stored-on-the-XB-70-Valkyrie
@@Engineering_Secrets The B-70 weapons bay was to be exactly where I said it was. On the XB-70 it is the equipment bay. It's clearly labeled as #56 in the cutaway behind the nose wheel well as I indicated, with the #14 "Recording systems, digital and analogue computers (ahead of weapons bay)." sandwiched between the wheel well and weapons bay. The fuselage included the "neck" of the XB-70. It was attached between the wing roots as you described. But to describe the weapons bay as "aft of the cockpit area" is misleading. First of all, there is no "cockpit area." There's simply the cockpit, which is in the _upper_ fuselage. While the weapons bay is aft of it, so are the engines and vertical stabilizers, but it doesn't accurately describe their locations. Almost the _entire airplane_ is "aft of the cockpit area." The weapons bay is in the _lower_ fuselage. Furthermore, please refer to the preflight walk-around - #5 is immediately behind #4. Section 2.1 Pre-flight Exterior Inspection. 1 - Forward fuselage area. 2 - Right canard area. 3 - Right inlet area. 4 - Nose wheel area. 5 - Weapons bay area. 6 - Right main landing gear area. 7 - Right wingtip area. 8 - Rear fuselage area. 9 - Left wingtip area. 10 - Left main landing gear area. 11 - Left inlet area. 12 - Left canard area. The
I think after the accidents and with the SR 71 being developed, it sealed its fate. We had perfected ICBMs as well so we didn't really need this as a delivery vehicle. The SR 71 could have been converted to a bomber but it didn't make sense as it was more valuable dor recon. great video.
Nope. The bomber program had been cancelled years before the accident. As for the SR-71, it would have needed to be radically redesigned in order to have 1) the ability to carry any weapons, in addition to the fuel that it does carry, 2) and extend its range to match the B-70. What sealed the B-70's fate was its cost.
Yes, there are some striking resemblances between the XB-70 Valkyrie and the Concorde in terms of their delta wing design and sleek profiles. Thanks for your comment!
Yes, the XB-70 Valkyrie aircraft was equipped with a special ejection seat, known as the "escape capsule" or "crew escape capsule". In case of an emergency, the entire cockpit capsule could detach from the aircraft structure, protecting the pilots from the extreme conditions of a high-speed, high-altitude descent. During the accident between the XB-70 and an F-104 Starfighter on June 8, 1966, the co-pilot of the XB-70, Major Carl Cross, tried to activate the capsule, but unfortunately did not succeed and lost his life. The pilot, Alvin S. White, managed to escape from the aircraft but was seriously injured in the process. The two losses stated in the video are related to the XB-70 Co-pilot and the F-104 Pilot. Several factors made the rescue difficult. The collision took place at a relatively low altitude, giving the crew members very little time to react. Moreover, the unexpected nature of the accident and the rapid sequence of events made it difficult to activate the rescue system in time.
E=MC2 describes the conversion of mass into energy. Combustion engines don't do that. Rather, they convert chemicals into other chemicals, releasing energy as they do. Atomic nuclei for the former, electrons for the latter.
Say what?? The fuel is the converted MASS to energy! They can NEVER carry enough to achieve their aims! Fuel = weight --all to be transported to achieve speed! You are effectively carrying your own burden to try to go faster! Check it out!!@@eracer1111
Great question! That equation specifically relates energy to mass, with "c" being the speed of light. It's fundamental to nuclear reactions and particle physics but isn't directly relevant to the fuel storage and operation of a jet like the XB-70. For the Valkyrie, the challenge was to store enough fuel to allow the aircraft to travel its intended distances at the speeds it was designed for. The XB-70 had a fuel capacity of around 300,000 pounds, which was stored in tanks spread throughout the aircraft. This fuel capacity was necessary due to the intense consumption rates of its six turbojet engines, especially when operating with afterburners at supersonic speeds. Jet fuel storage and usage are based on the principles of combustion and the need to convert chemical energy (from the fuel) into kinetic energy (the motion of the aircraft). So while E=mc^2 is a fundamental equation in the world of physics, in this context, the engineering and design of the aircraft were more focused on traditional principles of aerodynamics, propulsion, and combustion. Thank you for your comment!
Thank you for your comment! Isn't that fascinating? The liquid-cooled tires of the XB-70 are indeed an extreme and intriguing example of the innovative engineering solutions developed for this plane. Designers and engineers were pushed to develop novel solutions to manage the extraordinary conditions that high-speed, high-altitude flight presented, from intense heat to substantial structural stresses.
The National Museum of the U.S. Air Force has some of the most incredible pieces of aviation history. The XB-70 stands out not only for its design but also for the engineering marvel that it represents. Thank you for sharing your experience!
At 11 min 5 sec mark, "ICBMs has become more capable and reliable going from one country to the next without risking anyones life." I find that ironic since the bomber and rockets arent delivering chocolate safely. Its a weapon and even if the bomber made it there and back. The other countries weapons systems would or already be in play. Will you come back to any landing site at all?
You raise an important point. The distinction between risking a pilot's life versus the broader implications of using these weapons is indeed a significant one. While the development of ICBMs reduced the risk to pilots and aircrews, the potential consequences of launching such missiles could be catastrophic for entire populations. It's a reminder that while technological advancements can bring about greater efficiencies or capabilities, they also come with profound ethical and strategic considerations. Thanks for highlighting the broader context; it's essential always to view these technologies within the bigger picture.
I totally disagree on the quote that ' a lot of power is ahead of it's time'. That is, in 2023, the wrong mindset. The simple fact is, that anything moving needs not forever more power, but more efficiency. Less power to move the same mass is the key to the future.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, and you make a very valid point. In the modern era, the emphasis has indeed shifted towards optimizing efficiency rather than just increasing power. It's essential to develop technologies that make the best use of the available resources, reducing waste, and minimizing negative impacts.
ICBM able to be launched from one country to another without risking anyone's life? I'm sure relieved to hear that we are all going to be safe whan an ICBM launches.
My apologies for any oversight. The sentiment was meant to convey that ICBMs can be launched without risking the life of a pilot or aircrew, unlike manned aircraft. However, the inherent danger and catastrophic implications of using such missiles, especially those with nuclear warheads, are significant and cannot be understated.
@@BobGeogeoThere's some weird pacing and inflection here and there, but I bet most people watching this don't even know it's AI. I just think these throwaway AI generated content channels are a nuisance.
To be fully transparent, we use AI narration because we judge it to be of good quality and extremely practical and efficient for this type of content creation. However, that's the only thing that's AI. The script and editing are all manually done, and actually that's why there's some errors here and there, we are a new channel and we're still improving our scripts to mitigate this type of stuff, so don't confuse it with trash channel with fully AI empty content, there's really an effort to make good videos here, always improving!
The design of the SR-71 Blackbird was specifically tailored to its recon missions, high-speed and high-altitude flight profiles. Adopting its design for other purposes, would require evaluating the specific needs and goals of the project. However, many of its design elements and technological advancements have influenced subsequent aircraft designs. It's always a balance of mission requirements, costs, and available technology.
The XB-70 Valkyrie was intended to be a high-speed, high-altitude bomber that could deliver nuclear bombs, but it wasn't "nuclear-powered." There may have been some confusion because of the title...
Scientists: "We just created the greatest aircraft ever!" Me: "Cool! What can it do?" Scientists: "It can fly 3x the speed of sound, send nuclear weapons halfway around the world, start world war 3, potentially ending human civilization."
six engines is ok ONCE it gets up there in the thin air those engines will have little oxygene to burn fuel , and since the engines KNOW they have little oxygene they pump in less fuel. Also the air resistance up there is less. It is all mathematical balance. But the fuel consumption is under control and actually beneficial and nice once the plane is up there. So can go coast to coast crossing oceans in an economical way. We know russian gear is shit but an important thing like this project .... USA whimpered out fearing russians easily improve their missiles at a lower cost then this plane. That is the excuse for cancelling the project. But there should be other reasons. Like , if the russian AA missile threat did not materialize, XB70 need to decelerate over the target area and become a B52. Well USA allready had B52 .... XB70 should have been purely a penetrator and a nuke delivery platform. So why spend more money? Delivering dumb bombs with precision requires slow down. But no kidding XB70 was a technical achievement. One might think USA chickened but possibly really not when they had the B52. I suspect the guys in Pentagon know their math.
Indeed, jet engines perform efficiently at high altitudes due to reduced drag and thinner air. The threat of Soviet missile technology was a significant factor in reevaluating the viability of bombers like the XB-70. With the development of advanced missile systems, the strategic and economic rationale for the XB-70 became questionable, especially when compared to the proven B-52. While the XB-70 was a technical marvel, defense decisions often balance technology, strategy, and cost, leading to its eventual cancellation.
Huh? What does Jimmy Carter have to do with the XB-70A? Also, nobody had to be thanked, since the plane's immense costs made it militarily impractical.
@@MrShobar it's a typical response on RUclips, unfortunately, blaming presidents for decisions either made long before or after their time, and often blaming those presidents as stupid for canceling projects that nobody wanted, and were likely too expensive.
12:47 i thought it had a fancy shmancy ejection setup ??? what happened there ??? lol why didnt they ejct righ the fkk away when they realized they were hit.. hey had 16 seconds... surely they saw aw burning f4 phantom and were radiod "uhhhh valk niner san trangender 69ers suck and cant beat my BROWNIES !!!!! uhhh come in ya ur tail is gone and ur wing is damaged i sugest you GET OUT asap over and out. then do asick right bank turn.
Yes, the XB-70 Valkyrie aircraft was equipped with a special ejection seat, known as the "escape capsule" or "crew escape capsule". In case of an emergency, the entire cockpit capsule could detach from the aircraft structure, protecting the pilots from the extreme conditions of a high-speed, high-altitude descent. During the accident between the XB-70 and an F-104 Starfighter on June 8, 1966, the co-pilot of the XB-70, Major Carl Cross, tried to activate the capsule, but unfortunately did not succeed and lost his life. The pilot, Alvin S. White, managed to escape from the aircraft but was seriously injured in the process. The two losses stated in the video are related to the XB-70 Co-pilot and the F-104 Pilot. Several factors made the rescue difficult. The collision took place at a relatively low altitude, giving the crew members very little time to react. Moreover, the unexpected nature of the accident and the rapid sequence of events made it difficult to activate the rescue system in time.
Xb70 was build to do over Mach 3+ but didn’t in 1964 the sr-71 was built 1966 and was the most beautiful jet made to this day but they say it only went mach 3.5 haha do you smell that cause I smell bull shit
I was fortunate to be able to see the initial flight of the second XB-70 from Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale. I will never forget how beautiful it was as it passed directly overhead, heading to Edwards AFB.
Wow!! Really? What an incredible experience! Witnessing the initial flight of such a groundbreaking aircraft like the XB-70 is a once-in-a-lifetime moment.
The sheer power, elegance, and technological marvel of the aircraft must have been breathtaking to see firsthand, especially as it soared directly overhead!
It's moments like these that leave an indelible mark on our memories. Thank you for sharing this awe-inspiring moment with us! 🛩️
That is awesome. And I was proud of having seen the Concorde make several low overhead passes during Expo 86 in Vancouver, but you got it beat. o7
I can only imagine the sound.
I@@Engineering_Secrets Indeed, it was quite unforgettable. I was fortunate to grow up near AF Plant 42. Before the first flight, I would hear North American ground-testing the engines, and it was quite loud even though my family's house was more than seven miles away.
its absolutely crazy how the rest of nation doesnt realize how much important aircraft tech comes out of california. most of the west coasts defenses lie in california. pendleton and 29palms. people who shit talk california are wastes of life
When I was a kid, we had a relative who lived in Barstow. We would often go to his house in the late Summer or early fall to go hunting in the desert, when it was legal to do so. On one trip in 1966, soon after the XB-70 crash, we happened upon a good-sized door to the aircraft lying on the desert floor. My dad and his cousin picked it up and carried it back to the truck, and they took it back to my cousin's house. Later, they called the air force to come and pick it up. I was 8 at the time, and as you could imagine, I became an XB-70 enthusiast for a brief period after that.
What an incredible memory!
It's amazing how such unexpected encounters can spark a deep interest and curiosity in us.
The fact that your family did the right thing by informing the air force shows great integrity. It's no wonder that this experience left such a lasting impression on you and ignited your enthusiasm for the XB-70.
Thank you for sharing this fascinating piece of personal history with us! 🛩️
If this story is true, the thing to do was not touch it and call the authorities.
@@smark1180
Come on nobody who thinks wouldn’t pick it up. Curiosity would make everyone investigate the airplane part.
@@andrewday3206 Not people "who think."
@@smark1180
Bull sitting in a tiny bubble is not living life. I have walked through an airplane crash site before. You may not be curious and adventurous
The F104 pilot that collided with the Valkyrie was test pilot Joseph "Joe" Walker, who had qualified as an astronaut after surpassing the Kármán line (twice) while flying the X15.
Thank you for adding that valuable piece of information! Joseph "Joe" Walker was indeed an extraordinary pilot and his contributions to aviation and space exploration are noteworthy.
The X-15 flights that surpassed the Kármán line are a testament to his skills and bravery. It's always a tragedy when pioneers like him are lost.
Thanks for reminding us of his legacy and the sacrifices made in the name of progress and exploration. ✈️🚀
Saw this amazing aircraft at Wright Patterson AFB up close. An awesome plane from all sides.
Walker was NASA's Chief Pilot.
Many years ago, one of my female cousins was married to an aeronautical engineer, Don Schlosser, that worked for North American in the early 60's. He worked on both the B-70 and the X-15 projects. As a young kid (I was 7-12) and lover of all aircraft, I thought Don must have had the coolest job in the world!! 👍👍
That sounds absolutely amazing!
Being involved in projects like the B-70 and the X-15 would indeed make Don's job one of the coolest, especially during such an innovative period in aviation history. It's no wonder you looked up to him with such admiration.
Those aircraft are iconic, and knowing someone personally who contributed to their development must have been incredibly inspiring, especially for a young aircraft enthusiast like yourself.
Thanks for sharing this wonderful memory with us! 👍
You thought that because you were right =)
The XB-70 was one of those crazy-amazing projects that were undertaken as a result of the terror of the Cold War and the awesomeness of the Space Race. It was a privilege to grow up in those days.
Absolutely! The Cold War era, with all its complexities, really did spur some of the most innovative and groundbreaking developments in aerospace and technology.
The XB-70 stands as a testament to what humans can achieve when driven by competition and necessity.
Thank you for sharing your perspective!
I don't know why this plane affects me so deeply. Perhaps for it's combination of beauty and deadly purpose. The picture of the crash bring tears to my eyes, both for the pilots and their families, and for the lost potential.
It's completely understandable. The XB-70 Valkyrie is a symbol of human ambition, innovation, and the duality of creation. Its sleek design and groundbreaking technology represent the pinnacle of aviation engineering, while its intended purpose serves as a reminder of the geopolitical tensions of its era.
The tragedy associated with it, especially the loss of life and potential, can evoke deep emotions. It's a testament to the power of human stories and the artifacts of history that they can resonate so profoundly with us. Thank you for sharing your heartfelt connection to this aircraft! 🛩️❤️
@@Engineering_Secrets Great to see responses from you like this. Most definately not the usual low-effort/botting military 'secrets' channel at all! You earned my sub right here.
@@shane888davies6 It's been my observation that bots don't even bother answering comments. If they do, they are as you say similar and unemotional. This guys replys seem real to me.
@@shane888davies6 Hey! I'm a real person hahaha
@@exidy-yt Thank you very much! We're trying our best to create a strong connection with our audience. Most "faceless" RUclips channels lack a sense of community! And thanks for the sub, we appreciate it!
My father was one of the engineers that worked on the XB-70. He worked for N.A.A. for many years and contributed to the Mercury and Gemini programs as well. He helped develop the gyroscope system used in the first space walks. Unfortunately I was estranged from him for most of this time due to my old substance abuse problems. Fortunately I was able to recover and eventually spend some quality time with him before his passing. I have always been fascinated by aerospace and outer space and I believe it comes from him.
Thank you for sharing such a personal story. It's clear that your father was deeply involved in some of the most cutting-edge and transformative aerospace projects of his time!
It's heartwarming to hear that you were able to reconnect with your father and spend valuable time together before his passing. Life can be full of challenges and complexities, but it's moments like these - of reconciliation and shared passion - that truly matter.
Cherish the memories, stories, and the legacy he left behind. Your shared interest in aerospace can be a bridge to honoring his contributions and keeping his spirit alive!
There were TWO. It was NOT destroyed. It was retired from service.
One plane crashed after being hit by a supersonic jet fighter caught in its slipstream flying in formation with it.
The remaking plane is in a museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio.
he said that in the video champ
The U2 was at 70.000 feet when shot down and could only fly at approximately 420mph . The XB 70 could fly up to 79.000 feet at mach 3+ approximately 2100 mph. A lot harder to shoot down. Im a retired McDonnell Douglas Engineer and just loved the the great engineering on the XB-70. What a beautiful aircraft! It still my favorite.
Oh wow! Such an honor to have an ex-McDonnell Douglas engineer comment on our video! It's truly incredible to consider the engineering marvels of aircraft like the XB-70 and the U2, especially given their era. The XB-70 is indeed a testament to what humanity can achieve when pushing the boundaries of aerospace engineering.
Thank you for sharing your perspective and passion for such an iconic aircraft!
To me, when the XB 70 is being towed out of the hangar and you’re looking at it head-on, it looks like a huge mechanical dragon. The black anti-glare paint makes the nose look like a face of some sort. Just a really eerie deadly looking craft.
Saw the last remaining one at Wright Paterson Aerospace museum. Awesome machine, still looks like it came from the future.
Thank you for sharing your experience! It's incredible to think that even after all these years, the XB-70 Valkyrie still has such a futuristic appeal. The Wright Paterson Aerospace Museum is indeed a treasure trove for aviation enthusiasts. It's always fascinating to see these marvels of engineering up close. Thanks again for your comment! 🛩️
Inside, it still looks like the 1950s!
Excellent video! One thing u ommited was that on the first flight the aircraft was saved by a paper clip! It was used to get the gear down, by shorting out a connector, but as u said, a hydraulic problem caused the brakes to jam-causing the fire.
Thank you for the kind words and for sharing that intriguing tidbit! It's truly fascinating how sometimes the most advanced pieces of machinery can be aided by the simplest of tools, like a paper clip. It just goes to show how innovation and resourcefulness can come together in unexpected ways. The combination of complex engineering and on-the-spot problem-solving makes aviation stories like this one so captivating.
I appreciate your keen insight and knowledge on the topic. It's great to have engaged viewers/readers like you who contribute to enriching the narrative!
I first learned about this plane when I was fortunate enough to see a static display at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton Ohio. Phenomenal aircraft museum. Amazing plane.
That sounds like an incredible experience! The National Museum of the U.S. Air Force is indeed a treasure trove for aviation enthusiasts and history buffs alike.
Being able to see such groundbreaking aircraft up close gives a whole new appreciation for the marvels of engineering and the dedication of those who contributed to aviation history. The plane's design and capabilities truly highlight the innovative spirit of its time.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience!
My Dad worked for NAA in the '50s, '60, and '70s on the F-108, the B-70, and then on the Apollo spacecraft. I still remember him telling me stories about all of them. The design of the B-70 was based on the same principles learned during the design of the F-108 Rapier and that included surfing the 'wave'! Have you done a video on the Rapier yet? It looks like a mini Valkyrie. I am still in awe that all these aircraft designs were done in the '50s, including the YF-12A (SR-71).
Oh wow, that's a rich history your Dad was a part of! The Rapier is indeed an interesting subject with its similarities to the XB-70. It's always cool to trace the lineage and see how one design influences another. I haven't created a video on the Rapier yet, but it certainly sounds like a compelling topic to delve into. Thank you for sharing this piece of personal history!
Stay tuned for more content!
🔵 *XB-70 VALKYRIE PRODUCTS COLLECTION | 10% DISCOUNT!*
engineeringsecretstore.com/pages/xb-70-valkyrie-products-collection
🤝 *GET EXCLUSIVE BENEFITS!*
Channel Member: www.youtube.com/@Engineering_Secrets/join
Patreon: www.patreon.com/EngineeringSecrets
I think the XB-70 one of the less talked about jets but so awesome. I think it looks beautiful, on par with the Concorde.
Also great video. Good mixed of historic footage with different animations (like the ejection nice) to keep it interesting, and although I'm pretty sure the voice is automated it's still pretty awesome. I have no idea why you have only 2.4k subs when this is so polished but I bet this isn't your first channel! Keep it up, the view will come!
Thank you so much for the kind words! We're glad you appreciated the quality of the content! Stay tuned for more!
it's crazy what they could do in the 60s
Most beautiful plane ever built
Indeed! And many aviation enthusiasts share your sentiment regarding its beauty!
After ww2, those who remained were a breed of people that cannot be imagined today. Capable of producing radical new things with a fraction of the technology we have now.
love air craft. have seen the valkyrie and the sr71 awsome to see these planes.bless the USA
Thank you for your enthusiasm! It's truly awe-inspiring to witness the engineering marvels like the Valkyrie and the SR-71 in person. They stand as testaments to human ingenuity and the spirit of exploration. Thanks for sharing your passion for aircraft with us! ✈️
One of the most beautiful planes ever made,
Absolutely! Its sleek, delta-winged design and distinctive features made it stand out.
The XB-70was incredible
Absolutely! The XB-70 Valkyrie was a testament to human ingenuity and a prime example of pushing the boundaries of aerospace engineering during its time. Thanks for your comment!
I got to touch #2 at the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson, I was in awe. I want to go back and see what’s changed.
Visiting the Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson and being able to touch historic aircraft like the XB-70 Valkyrie is indeed a special experience! If you decide to revisit, you're likely to encounter new displays and restored aircraft. It's always a treat for aviation enthusiasts to see how the museum evolves over time.
This channel is so underrated. Can't wait to see more of these documentaries!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
We're passionate about delivering quality content and it's wonderful to hear that it resonates with viewers like you. Stay tuned for more documentaries in the future!
@@Engineering_Secrets I sure will!!
One of my all-time favorite aircraft
It's no wonder it's one of your all-time favorites! The XB-70 Valkyrie is certainly a remarkable aircraft with its distinct design and advanced capabilities for its time. Thank you for your comment!
@@Engineering_Secrets
I can't for the life of me imagine what K-Effect would place above it?!!! Even if only the look of it. They're aren't
many women that are more
beautiful than Lady Valkyrie.
That's one very impressive feat of engineering there.
The B-1 Lancer has its own distinction - IIUC, many people called it the Bone (B-one) . . .
Absolutely! The B-1 Lancer is indeed an engineering marvel. Thanks for pointing out that fun nickname! It's always great to share and learn more about these amazing machines!
intercontinental missiles were developed that could launched without risking anyone's life's best line ever.
The sentiment was meant to convey that ICBMs can be launched without risking the life of a pilot or aircrew, unlike manned aircraft.
However, the inherent danger and catastrophic implications of using such missiles, especially those with nuclear warheads, are significant and cannot be understated.
I was working on the NASA Paraglider program for the Gemini spacecraft during the same time at Edwards AFB.
During this period two XB-70 were being tested and the SR71 was also flying. It was agreat time to be there!
Being a part of such groundbreaking programs and witnessing these monumental advances in aviation and space technology must have left you with some incredible memories and stories. Thank you for sharing a glimpse of your experience!
In the 1970s, I used visit the Air Museum where you drove past the XB-70 to get to the parking area. It was so cool to see it as an introduction for the museum. It, along with many aircraft stored outdoors, have since been stored indoors.
Wow, what a fantastic memory! Driving past the iconic XB-70 as an introduction to the museum must have been an awe-inspiring experience!
It's great to hear that they've since moved many of the aircraft indoors to preserve them better. Museums play such a crucial role in preserving history and allowing future generations to witness the marvels of past engineering.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience and connection with aviation history! 🛩️🏛️
I've seen it. You absolutely can not believe how big it is.
I ride a Valkyrie motorcycle that had a 6 cylinder engine! It too is a big powerful machine.
Sometimes they went Tim Allen on projects. Six big honking engines on the XB-70, eight reactors on CVN-65.
Haha, indeed! The XB-70 and CVN-65 (USS Enterprise) are prime examples of that "go big or go home" mentality. It's always fascinating to see how engineering and design philosophies evolve over time based on the challenges and goals of the era. Thank you for sharing that perspective and invoking a bit of nostalgia with the Tim Allen reference. Keep those insights coming!
Sometimes the right answer IS "More power!" We're getting more power in smaller footprints today, but still... we push for more power. 😁
I'm here before this channel reaches 1 million subscribers.
Thank you so much for your comment! We really hope we can get there!
Thanks!
Thank you so much for your donation! Every bit of support helps us continue to create and deliver quality content. Once again, thank you!
Just waiting for Linda Sheffield to come on here just to comment how much better the SR71 is lol.
I built a XB-70 model airplane in the late 1950’s early 1960’s. It was a big model and really wired looking.
That sounds like a fantastic experience! Building model airplanes is a great way to appreciate the intricate design and aesthetics of these engineering marvels. I bet having a model of such an iconic aircraft brought a lot of intrigue and admiration from those who saw it. Do you still have the model? It must hold a special place in your collection! Speaking of that, have you already seen the video of the RC Valkyrie Scale Model?
Check it out: ruclips.net/video/g9G4dWpA-h8/видео.htmlsi=ysjnd62orH3FtJ54
Great plane. But what was "untold" in this video? 1960 U-2 downing was not news in 1964-66. Also ,one of the 2nd prototype pilots survived the accident. Feedback to SR-71? Please get chronology right.
The U-2 shoot down was the front page headline on the 5/06/1960 New York Times.
The most beautiful aircraft ever developed.
I couldn't agree more! Thank you for your comment!
As an XB-70 I approve this video
Hahaha, thank you so much, mighty XB-70! It's an honor to receive approval from such an iconic aircraft. Stay soaring high and keep making history!
@@Engineering_Secrets I'm always happy to provide my (air) support
Makes you wonder why aircraft like this aren't revisited today, given the advancements in computing, materials, and engineering (other than the taxpayer can't be milked for money for the R&D since that's done already). So many quality aircraft build during the 50s-70s, that if brought back, could be truly useful.
Absolutely, it's a compelling thought! The aviation marvels of the 50s-70s were indeed groundbreaking for their time. With today's technological advancements in aerodynamics, materials science, and computer-assisted design, one could imagine how some of those concepts might be refined or even revolutionized.
It's worth noting, however, that the goals of aerospace design have shifted over the years. During the Cold War era, there was a significant push for performance at nearly any cost. Nowadays, considerations like fuel efficiency, multi-role capabilities, stealth, and adaptability often take precedence. Still, revisiting older designs with a fresh perspective and updated technology could offer some surprising benefits.
Your comment also highlights the economic aspect. While the initial R&D costs might be lessened, integrating modern technology into older designs can still be pricey. But who knows? The future is always in flux, and there may come a day when revisiting these icons of the past makes perfect sense.
Thanks for the insightful comment! It's always exciting to imagine the "what-ifs" of aviation history.
The taxpayers dollars are milked by the military industrial complex and its circus of corporations
Doesn't make me wonder at all. Even if we brought back the basic design, the research in applying all those advancements would probably cost more than what was spent on the original program, all for an airplane that didn't ad to America's defensive and offensive capabilities over 60 years ago.
do one about the b2 bomber, sr71 and such
Thanks for your feedback and suggestion! For sure videos about such amazing planes will be made! They're already on our list! Stay tuned, and thanks for being a part of our growing community!
We definitely need more crazy designs like this. Makes things more fun.
Absolutely! Unique and audacious designs not only push the boundaries of what's technically possible, but they also inspire and captivate the imagination.
Here's to hoping that the future brings more innovative and out-of-the-box designs to life, making our world a bit more exciting and fun! Thanks for your comment!
مشاركات في عمليات الحرب العالمية وتشغيل النشاطات والعمل على تشغيل المذيد والمذيد والمذيد من غارات هرقليز
more aircraft videos bro, this was so good, do more aircraft videos in you style
Thank you for the enthusiastic feedback! I'm glad you enjoyed the content. Stay tuned for more!
Fantastic demonstrator, ingenious engineering at the time, would love to see the lessons learned applied for high speed hypersonic flight.
Absolutely! The XB-70 showcased the cutting-edge engineering of its era. Applying those lessons, combined with today's advancements, to hypersonic flight would be fascinating to witness. Thanks for your comment!
Strange how it looks similar to Concorde. The Brits were so far ahead of everyone. Why didn’t the USA ban it from flying over USA like they did with Concorde?
Nobody had to ban Concorde because Concorde would never have made any money. Nobody wanted Concorde, not even airlines in countries that are far from the United States and do substantial business flying nowhere near the United States.
As for looking like the XB-70A, have you ever looked at pictures of each plane side by side? They look nothing like each other. What features do you see that are unique to these planes?
How is it strange? Regardless, its only similarity is the delta wings, and even those are different types.
Frustrating that the better prototype of this beautifull design was lost due to a human error that had nothing to do with the plane itself.
Absolutely. The loss of one of the XB-70 Valkyrie prototypes in a mid-air collision was tragic not just for the loss of human life but also for the setback to aviation advancement. It's unfortunate when pioneering technology is lost or set back due to unforeseen circumstances or human error!
Realy I like this powerful nuclear bombardiers
It's truly amazing how technology and engineering have evolved to create such powerful and sophisticated aircraft. Thanks for sharing your enthusiasm!
Guess I saw the first prototype, at the airforce museum, Dayton OH. Nice vid.
The Air Force Museum in Dayton is indeed a treasure trove of aviation history. It's always amazing to see such iconic prototypes up close.
Hope the video added some value to your experience! Stay tuned for more content!
Very fine dissertation. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comment! Stay tuned for more videos!
Perfect analysis. Thanks.
Thank you for the kind words!
Greaqt info on the B-70! It is too bad that the one that crash was not the first prototype! My research on the B-70 and the U-2 was that the U-2 was shot down while it was flying at an altitude of 70,500 feet and not 79,000 feet as stated in this video. Also, the B-70 was not terminated because of it problems, which any new plane has, but more because the U-2 downage showed that the B-70's max altitude was probably not enough, and was perhaps vulnerable at being shot down like the U-2 was in 1960. The SR71 has about a 10,000 feet maximum altitude increase over the B-70, and it has never been shot down, although it has been fired upon many times.
Thank you for sharing your insights on the B-70 and U-2!
You're right, the shoot-down of the U-2 certainly highlighted the vulnerabilities of high-altitude flight, especially in the face of advancing enemy missile technology. It's an interesting point to consider how the perceived vulnerabilities of the B-70's maximum altitude played a role in its eventual termination.
The SR-71's impressive altitude and speed capabilities indeed made it a formidable aircraft that could evade many threats. It's always great to have knowledgeable enthusiasts like you contribute to the discussion!
Your perspective and research are much appreciated!
What really killed the B-70 was neither of these things, though the issue with missiles was indeed an important factor. What really killed it was the ICBMs and in particular the Polaris missile. If you want to take a great deep dive into the B-70, I recommend the book "Valkyrie, North American's Mach 3 Superbomber" by Jenkins and Landis. I have read in depth books on dozens of aircraft and missile systems, and the book on the Valkyrie by Jenkins and Landis is absolutly the best book I have ever read on any airplane. It is far more than a book about the plane itself. It delves into the competitive designs, the defense industry, the remarkable engineering required to overcome so many of the challenges associated with the design of something that such a monumental leap over everything before it, and in particular, why the program was cancelled. This book is out of print and might be a bit expensive on the used market, but trust me, this is the best book about aircraft ever written. It is a magnificent piece of work.
SR-71s never needed to fly as deep into Soviet airspace as a production B-70 would have.
@@winternow2242 The SR-71 never operated in Soviet airspace. Before the SR-71 even became operational, the US had already launched a couple of dozen KH (Keyhole) satellites and most probably went over Russia. The SR1 was operated extensively over Vietnam, China and Indochina, the middle east, eastern Europe, and other areas of strategic interest to the US, but never over Russia. It just was too dangerous.
As far as I know, it was only operated at edges of China, like the Soviet union. None of the other countries, with exception of DRVN were in combat with the us, other than maybe libya. Vietnam had little practical ability to down the SR-71, but even less of a reason to do so, since the SR-71 carried no bombs, and Vietnam held few secrets from western intelligence. It wasn't that Vietnam's strategic sites were secret, it was thar American rules of engagement put them off limits.
It was never mentioned anywhere, but when the visor was up at cruising speed, was forward visibility fully blocked, or did the pilots have a small amount of forward visibility? At cruising altitude, there wouldn't be much of anything to see and they would likely be on instruments for more or less the entire time, but if the visor ever got stuck in the "up" position throughout the flight... granted, pilots perform CAT III ILS landings in thick fog, but at least there is usually some visibility at the very last moment. The Boeing 2707 had a little bit of visibility to the forward-left and forward-right despite the mach 3 cruise speed, due to the pinched nose shape.
Also, we never see any interior shots of the bomb bay in any films of the XB-70. It appears that the bomb bay is big enough for perhaps 2 to 4 free-fall bombs or missiles but there isn't much to confirm that. From what I understand, it had a sliding door for the bomb bay.
The XB-70 Valkyrie's design was indeed unique. Its design features and innovations, while advanced for its time, still raise questions and interest today.
The visor of the XB-70, when raised, did severely limit forward visibility, but as you rightly pointed out, during its high-altitude cruise phase, forward visibility wasn't as critical. Instead, the crew would rely heavily on instruments. In a situation where the visor was stuck in the up position, the aircraft would probably have had to descend to a safer altitude, slow down, and follow a protocol for such an anomaly. And, as you mentioned, with modern avionics and instrument-based landing systems, it's plausible that the plane could be landed safely even with limited forward visibility.
The XB-70 was initially intended as a strategic bomber, so it indeed had provisions for a bomb bay. The actual design specifics and capabilities of the bomb bay weren't widely publicized, as with many details of military aircraft, especially during that era. The exact number and type of weapons it could carry would depend on various factors, including the design and weight of the weapons and the intended mission profile.
You can find some info here:
www.quora.com/Where-would-the-bombs-be-stored-on-the-XB-70-Valkyrie
The XB-70A had no bomb bay because it wasn't a bomber. It was a flight test aircraft based on a bomber. The XB-70A had an instrument bay in the lower fuselage behind the intakes - presumably, the never-built B-70 would have used the same space for its weapons.
@@Engineering_Secrets Two topics that might be interesting to research and present: 1.) Aircraft with no or very limited forward visibility. There were actually a surprising number throughout history...it wasn't just the Spirit of St. Louis, and 2.) oblique wing aircraft other than the NASA AD-1 which is actually fairly conventional. I used to have an oblique wing flying model, and it actually flew great and it It had no conventional tail. It would be an unwieldy craft for passengers but it could make an interesting, low-drag sensor platform.
When the Valkyrie first appeared, it scared the s___ out of the USSR!!!!!
Why? The Valkyries weren't combat aircraft, they were flight test aircraft. The B-70 bomber was never built. By the time it would have become operational, it would have hordes of soviet missiles and interceptors. The Soviet also had developed ICBMs that could be launched quickly, giving them a credible capacity for overwhelming retaliation. The only people who were scared of this plane were those who'd have to pay for it.
What a beautiful aircraft. Most delta winged aircraft are.
Absolutely! Delta winged aircraft have a unique and sleek silhouette! Thank you for sharing your appreciation!
Ahhhh, it's been told a million times.
Awesome plane.
Indeed! The XB-70 Valkyrie was an exceptional aircraft, both in terms of design and capability.
Subscribed to your new channel. Excellent narration. The music is tasteful, not too loud, however not necessary and became annoying by about halfway mark. Wish you great success! Thank you for this content!
Thank you so much for your subscription and kind words! It's great to hear that you enjoyed the music selection, though I completely understand that everyone has their own preferences when it comes to background music.
Your feedback is very valuable and we'll definitely consider adjusting the music duration or variation in future content. Our primary goal is to make the viewing experience as enjoyable as possible for our audience. Wishing you all the best, and stay tuned for more content!
I found out that the development of this aircraft had another effect. The Soviet Union intelligence must have found out and developed the MIG 25 Foxbat that caused great concern to many in the U.S. Listening to a former engineer or pilot or someone from the former Soviet Union, at least one or all of the MIG 25 Foxbats could reach Mach 3 and travel for 10 minutes at that speed but the engines would have to be replaced after the flight.
How did you find about the Soviets developing this because of the B-70? Because that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Soviets were working on high speed interceptors in the mid 1950s. The B-70, which was never built, was designed afterwards, around 1958. The MiG-25 didn't begin getting developed until 1961. The B-70 was cancelled a few weeks later.....but the Soviets kept developing the MiG-25 for the next decade. The us built 2 Valkyrie test aircraft, having no combat capabilities, then developed a successor program which led to the B-1, which was completely different. The us lost 1 of the Valkyries in a freak accident, and never replaced it. By early 1969, the sole surviving XB-70A Valkyrie was retired to the USAF museum. And after that, that was when the Soviets put the MiG-25 into operation. Clearly the 2 planes have nothing to do with each other.
@@winternow2242 Just what I heard on a TV or other documentary. That the Soviets designed the MIG 25 to be fast enough to intercept the XB-70. The MIG 25 first flew in 1964.
@@daruscole1586 Sounds like you're not sure where you heard it from, and that you're probably not sure what you heard. What you're saying is widely held on the internet, but it's the facts that undermine that.
"Soviets designed the MIG 25 to be fast enough to intercept the XB-70. The MIG 25 first flew in 1964."
The XB-70A wasn't a bomber, it was a flight test aircraft, nobody needed an aircraft to intercept it.
The MiG-25 was designed during a program that began in 1961, years before even the XB-70A were built. The MiG-25 actually flew first, in March of 1964. The XB-70A didn't fly until the following September and didn;t reach mach 3 until the following October, over a year and a half after the MiG-25's first flight. The Soviets really had no way of knowing that B-70 or XB-70A were that fast - mach 3 was not part of the original WS110 specification. The Soviets were probably unaware of compression-lift and had no real reason in 1961 to expect the Americans to develop a triple-sonic bomber.
Shortly after the Soviets began working on the MiG-25, the B-70 (which was never built) was cancelled, meaning that the plane the MiG-25 was needed to counter, wasn't going to be built. The Soviets abandoned many projects (Sukhoi T-4 and Tupolve 144 come to mind), but stuck with the MiG-25.
The fact is, the Soviets had plenty of other reasons to develop the MiG-25, namely the B-52, the B-58, F-104, F-101, F-106, SR-71, Saab J35, TSR2 and the Mirage III, and the vast size of the Soviet frontier that required defense.
@5:30 the word "canards" is not spelled correctly.
Indeed, unfortunately this was only seen after the video was uploaded... I apologize for that.
"Canards" is indeed the correct spelling when referring to the small, forward wings located toward the front of an aircraft.
The B-70 Programs was cancelled before the first prototype was finished. What killed the B-70 program was the ICBM, and and the Polaris missile, which first flew before the XB-70, was the nail in the coffin of the B-70. President Eisenhower Told the Air Force Chief of staff that the B-70 left him cold in terms of making military sense. Eisenhower believed that talking about a manned bomber in the missile age was like talking about bows and arrows in the gunpowder age. (This was obviously in the context of being a strategic deterrent.) Interestingly, President Jimmy Carter (also a former military officer) thought the same thing when he canceled the Rockwell B1, which was reborn as the B1B, but just as Carter said, it was colossal waste of money. Meanwhile the dump truck of the bomber world, the B52, is going to be in service for another 25 or 30 years, but the B52 is essentially a tactical bomber now, as it has no real strategic purpose. Building the B1 Lancer was a pork barrel politics decision, just as with the F-35, which is so expensive to fly (about $38,000 an hour) that the Air Force wants a light weight fighter to "Compliment" the F-35. Military Spending is a huge problem in the US because Congress has never met an expensive program that it didn't like, because that means jobs, and jobs get votes.
Thank you for sharing that comprehensive overview! The evolution of aircraft and missile technologies always intertwines with political considerations, budgetary constraints, and strategic necessities.
Your point about military spending and its ties to political considerations is well-taken. The allocation of defense budgets often balances between national security needs and domestic political imperatives.
It's always enlightening to engage in such discussions that touch upon history, technology, and politics.
Stay tuned for more videos!
@@Engineering_Secrets If you like to read, the best aviation book I have ever read is "Valkyrie, North Amerian's Mach 3 Superbomber." It is out of print but available used. I has all of the elements you mentioned and so much more. It includes the competitor designs for the B-70, politics, engineering, manufacturing, complete details of the test program, and so much more. I have read maybe 20-30 books on different airplanes, and the one above is absolutely the best, not just because the B-70 was a remarkable achievement, but because it is a epic read about what was driving or thinking during the cold war. Highly recommended.
Great video of this amazing aircraft.
Thank you so much for your kind words! Stay tuned for more videos!
@@Engineering_Secrets Your Welcome 🤝
The remaining one is at the Air Force museum in Dayton, Ohio.
That's right! If anyone is an aviation enthusiast or just curious about history, it's a must-visit!
Great video!
The Valkyrie was an awesome plane, and would surely have been a success had it been developed with today's tech.
Only the original prototype survives today, and you can see it at the Wright Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio.
We visit there often, and it holds the most extensive military aircraft display I've seen, rivaling even the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
Thank you for the kind words! The XB-70 Valkyrie is indeed a testament to the innovative spirit of its time. It's wonderful that you've had the opportunity to visit the Wright Patterson Air Force Museum and witness the Valkyrie in person. Museums like that are invaluable in preserving and showcasing the history of aviation!
The Valkyrie was succesful, it just wasn't all the necessary. It's great speed and range did not add to America's military capabilities.
@@winternow2242, you might want to re-watch the video, and pay a bit more attention..
It was NOT successful, having problem after problem. The second prototype had less issues, as the builders had learned from all the failures of the first.
The necessity of the plane was clear, at the time of it's design, but because of all the failures, it was outdated and replaced by ICBMs before it could be completely fixed.
So...
@@DaveDrawing and you might want to pick up a book on the subject. I know it might demand more of your attention more than a 3 minute youtube video does, but you'll get a more accurate story. The plane posed technical challenges...much as any high performance airplane will, and nothing in this video displays "problem after problem", and "of all the failures" that you complain about couldn;t have been so bad if you couldn;t give any of them as an example.
"because of all the failures, it was outdated and replaced by ICBMs before it could be completely fixed"
Nope. the plane had nothing to do with ICBM's because it wasn't a bomber or any other military airraft. Here's the thing that escapes people who know nothing about this plane other than what they've seen on youtube: the XB-70A wasn't a bomber. It was a flight test aircraft. it was based on the design of the B-70 bomber, but that plane was never built. The B-70 had no failures, it was just rejected as unnecessary. That it would have added nothing to America's military capabilities doesn't detract that the XB-70A, which had the same design as the B-70-, successfully reached impressive performance goals. Al White called it a challeng to fly during the high-speed parts, but blamed that on instrumentation. In takeoff and landing, it was easier to fly than a B-52.
And as for ICBM's, you may also want to pick up a book on the subject of Ameria's strategic forces. ICBMs didn't replace any manned aircraft, and America has developed at least 3 generations of manned strategic bomber since XB-70A and the dawn of ICBMs.
@@winternow2242 you cut and paste with the best of them, Sir.
But you still need to re-watch the video and pay attention.
I'm done with this, so I'll leave you to your desperately needed Last Word.
Problems? That's why you test. There were several F-14 prototype losses before it went on to become an iconic fighter.
We pass the Valkyrie crash site to China Lake about once a month.
Thank you for sharing that personal connection with the Valkyrie's history!
The crash site is a somber reminder of the risks and sacrifices made in the pursuit of technological and aeronautical advancement.
Thank you for your comment, and safe travels on your monthly journeys!
It was a magnificent airplane.
Absolutely! The blend of engineering, design, and purpose that went into creating it was truly remarkable!
No reason for those fighters to be that close.
They needed to fit in the picture.
@@winternow2242 It was a publicity photoshoot for General Electric - all five (XB-70, F-4, F-5, T-38, F-104) had engines made by the same company.
@@maurices5259yep. That's why they had to fit in the picture.
I just wonder with the intakes taking up most of the underside of the XB-70, where were the bombs going to be sored?
Lower fuselage behind the intakes. The airflow was ducted around them.
Behind the nosegear wheel well.
The XB-70 was designed to have a bomb bay located in the central fuselage, between the wing roots but aft of the cockpit area.
More info about it here:
www.quora.com/Where-would-the-bombs-be-stored-on-the-XB-70-Valkyrie
@@Engineering_Secrets The B-70 weapons bay was to be exactly where I said it was. On the XB-70 it is the equipment bay. It's clearly labeled as #56 in the cutaway behind the nose wheel well as I indicated, with the #14 "Recording systems, digital and analogue computers (ahead of weapons bay)." sandwiched between the wheel well and weapons bay.
The fuselage included the "neck" of the XB-70. It was attached between the wing roots as you described. But to describe the weapons bay as "aft of the cockpit area" is misleading. First of all, there is no "cockpit area." There's simply the cockpit, which is in the _upper_ fuselage. While the weapons bay is aft of it, so are the engines and vertical stabilizers, but it doesn't accurately describe their locations. Almost the _entire airplane_ is "aft of the cockpit area." The weapons bay is in the _lower_ fuselage.
Furthermore, please refer to the preflight walk-around - #5 is immediately behind #4.
Section 2.1 Pre-flight Exterior Inspection.
1 - Forward fuselage area.
2 - Right canard area.
3 - Right inlet area.
4 - Nose wheel area.
5 - Weapons bay area.
6 - Right main landing gear area.
7 - Right wingtip area.
8 - Rear fuselage area.
9 - Left wingtip area.
10 - Left main landing gear area.
11 - Left inlet area.
12 - Left canard area.
The
I think after the accidents and with the SR 71 being developed, it sealed its fate. We had perfected ICBMs as well so we didn't really need this as a delivery vehicle. The SR 71 could have been converted to a bomber but it didn't make sense as it was more valuable dor recon. great video.
Nope. The bomber program had been cancelled years before the accident. As for the SR-71, it would have needed to be radically redesigned in order to have 1) the ability to carry any weapons, in addition to the fuel that it does carry, 2) and extend its range to match the B-70. What sealed the B-70's fate was its cost.
They should use this design for a commercial air plane
If that was plausible they would. But it isn't so they didn't.
Kruschev, a Russian leader in the 50’s and 60’s living in the 20’s.
Kind of looks like the Concorde!
Yes, there are some striking resemblances between the XB-70 Valkyrie and the Concorde in terms of their delta wing design and sleek profiles.
Thanks for your comment!
Really? I don't see it. What similarities, unique to these planes do you see, because I see only differences.
Das Flugzeug hatte doch einen speziellen Schleudersitz. Warum haben sich die Piloten nicht rausgeschossen ?
Yes, the XB-70 Valkyrie aircraft was equipped with a special ejection seat, known as the "escape capsule" or "crew escape capsule". In case of an emergency, the entire cockpit capsule could detach from the aircraft structure, protecting the pilots from the extreme conditions of a high-speed, high-altitude descent.
During the accident between the XB-70 and an F-104 Starfighter on June 8, 1966, the co-pilot of the XB-70, Major Carl Cross, tried to activate the capsule, but unfortunately did not succeed and lost his life. The pilot, Alvin S. White, managed to escape from the aircraft but was seriously injured in the process. The two losses stated in the video are related to the XB-70 Co-pilot and the F-104 Pilot.
Several factors made the rescue difficult. The collision took place at a relatively low altitude, giving the crew members very little time to react. Moreover, the unexpected nature of the accident and the rapid sequence of events made it difficult to activate the rescue system in time.
Where did they store all the fuel for those 6 burners? I was taught that E=MC 2 . Didn't those physics apply here?
E=MC2 describes the conversion of mass into energy. Combustion engines don't do that. Rather, they convert chemicals into other chemicals, releasing energy as they do. Atomic nuclei for the former, electrons for the latter.
Say what?? The fuel is the converted MASS to energy! They can NEVER carry enough to achieve their aims! Fuel = weight --all to be transported to achieve speed! You are effectively carrying your own burden to try to go faster! Check it out!!@@eracer1111
Great question! That equation specifically relates energy to mass, with "c" being the speed of light. It's fundamental to nuclear reactions and particle physics but isn't directly relevant to the fuel storage and operation of a jet like the XB-70.
For the Valkyrie, the challenge was to store enough fuel to allow the aircraft to travel its intended distances at the speeds it was designed for. The XB-70 had a fuel capacity of around 300,000 pounds, which was stored in tanks spread throughout the aircraft. This fuel capacity was necessary due to the intense consumption rates of its six turbojet engines, especially when operating with afterburners at supersonic speeds.
Jet fuel storage and usage are based on the principles of combustion and the need to convert chemical energy (from the fuel) into kinetic energy (the motion of the aircraft). So while E=mc^2 is a fundamental equation in the world of physics, in this context, the engineering and design of the aircraft were more focused on traditional principles of aerodynamics, propulsion, and combustion.
Thank you for your comment!
No it didn’t. THAT level of energy hasn’t been applied to an aircraft
The fuel is stored in fuel cells which are distributed throughout the airframe, as they are in any airplane.
The TU-144 was a ‘Competitor’?
How could a supersonic airliner compete with an intercontinental Mach 3+ bomber?
Hello! It was a competitor of the Concorde!
The tires were liquid cooled. That’s extreme.
Thank you for your comment! Isn't that fascinating? The liquid-cooled tires of the XB-70 are indeed an extreme and intriguing example of the innovative engineering solutions developed for this plane.
Designers and engineers were pushed to develop novel solutions to manage the extraordinary conditions that high-speed, high-altitude flight presented, from intense heat to substantial structural stresses.
And the Eurpoeans think that their Concord was impressive.
The concord pales in comparison to this XB-70 craft.
They made the whole inside of that thing into the main part of the wing. Then they filled the whole wing/body thing with engines. 😂😅
Saw this at the museum of the Airforce. A beautiful bird
The National Museum of the U.S. Air Force has some of the most incredible pieces of aviation history. The XB-70 stands out not only for its design but also for the engineering marvel that it represents.
Thank you for sharing your experience!
At 11 min 5 sec mark, "ICBMs has become more capable and reliable going from one country to the next without risking anyones life." I find that ironic since the bomber and rockets arent delivering chocolate safely. Its a weapon and even if the bomber made it there and back. The other countries weapons systems would or already be in play. Will you come back to any landing site at all?
You raise an important point. The distinction between risking a pilot's life versus the broader implications of using these weapons is indeed a significant one. While the development of ICBMs reduced the risk to pilots and aircrews, the potential consequences of launching such missiles could be catastrophic for entire populations.
It's a reminder that while technological advancements can bring about greater efficiencies or capabilities, they also come with profound ethical and strategic considerations.
Thanks for highlighting the broader context; it's essential always to view these technologies within the bigger picture.
And what time is that
RIP 😇
I totally disagree on the quote that ' a lot of power is ahead of it's time'. That is, in 2023, the wrong mindset. The simple fact is, that anything moving needs not forever more power, but more efficiency. Less power to move the same mass is the key to the future.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, and you make a very valid point. In the modern era, the emphasis has indeed shifted towards optimizing efficiency rather than just increasing power.
It's essential to develop technologies that make the best use of the available resources, reducing waste, and minimizing negative impacts.
Untold?
ICBM able to be launched from one country to another without risking anyone's life? I'm sure relieved to hear that we are all going to be safe whan an ICBM launches.
My apologies for any oversight. The sentiment was meant to convey that ICBMs can be launched without risking the life of a pilot or aircrew, unlike manned aircraft.
However, the inherent danger and catastrophic implications of using such missiles, especially those with nuclear warheads, are significant and cannot be understated.
sr71 outran missles too. not that big a deal nowadays
Untold?
Really cool!!
AI voices are getting too good
Superficially, yes. But the narrative is sloppy in sequence and has serious errors.
@@BobGeogeoThere's some weird pacing and inflection here and there, but I bet most people watching this don't even know it's AI. I just think these throwaway AI generated content channels are a nuisance.
To be fully transparent, we use AI narration because we judge it to be of good quality and extremely practical and efficient for this type of content creation. However, that's the only thing that's AI. The script and editing are all manually done, and actually that's why there's some errors here and there, we are a new channel and we're still improving our scripts to mitigate this type of stuff, so don't confuse it with trash channel with fully AI empty content, there's really an effort to make good videos here, always improving!
WHY NOT FOLLOW THE DESIGN OF
SR-71 THE BLACK BIRD.
The design of the SR-71 Blackbird was specifically tailored to its recon missions, high-speed and high-altitude flight profiles.
Adopting its design for other purposes, would require evaluating the specific needs and goals of the project. However, many of its design elements and technological advancements have influenced subsequent aircraft designs. It's always a balance of mission requirements, costs, and available technology.
What advantage is there for the Blackbird over this plane? Also, XB-70A was Based on the B-70, which was designed before the SR-71.
Nuclear bomber? No.
The XB-70 Valkyrie was intended to be a high-speed, high-altitude bomber that could deliver nuclear bombs, but it wasn't "nuclear-powered." There may have been some confusion because of the title...
Some of the information as retold in this video isn't 100% accurate. Much better videos on the XB-70 exist, don't waist your time on this.
Or waste it.
Scientists: "We just created the greatest aircraft ever!"
Me: "Cool! What can it do?"
Scientists: "It can fly 3x the speed of sound, send nuclear weapons halfway around the world, start world war 3, potentially ending human civilization."
six engines is ok ONCE it gets up there in the thin air those engines will have little oxygene to burn fuel , and since the engines KNOW they have little oxygene they pump in less fuel. Also the air resistance up there is less. It is all mathematical balance. But the fuel consumption is under control and actually beneficial and nice once the plane is up there. So can go coast to coast crossing oceans in an economical way.
We know russian gear is shit but an important thing like this project .... USA whimpered out fearing russians easily improve their missiles at a lower cost then this plane.
That is the excuse for cancelling the project. But there should be other reasons. Like , if the russian AA missile threat did not materialize, XB70 need to decelerate over the target area and become a B52. Well USA allready had B52 .... XB70 should have been purely a penetrator and a nuke delivery platform. So why spend more money? Delivering dumb bombs with precision requires slow down.
But no kidding XB70 was a technical achievement. One might think USA chickened but possibly really not when they had the B52. I suspect the guys in Pentagon know their math.
Indeed, jet engines perform efficiently at high altitudes due to reduced drag and thinner air.
The threat of Soviet missile technology was a significant factor in reevaluating the viability of bombers like the XB-70. With the development of advanced missile systems, the strategic and economic rationale for the XB-70 became questionable, especially when compared to the proven B-52. While the XB-70 was a technical marvel, defense decisions often balance technology, strategy, and cost, leading to its eventual cancellation.
There's nothing new here. Old story. Yawn.
We can thank stupid Jimmy Carter for canceling this amazing airplane.
Huh? What does Jimmy Carter have to do with the XB-70A? Also, nobody had to be thanked, since the plane's immense costs made it militarily impractical.
We can thank your parents for an ignorant commenter.
This program was cancelled long before Carter entered office, as could be easily verified. Now, who's stupid?
@@MrShobar it's a typical response on RUclips, unfortunately, blaming presidents for decisions either made long before or after their time, and often blaming those presidents as stupid for canceling projects that nobody wanted, and were likely too expensive.
@@winternow2242 OK. I'm blaming Millard Fillmore for this cancellation, then.
12:47 i thought it had a fancy shmancy ejection setup ??? what happened there ??? lol why didnt they ejct righ the fkk away when they realized they were hit.. hey had 16 seconds... surely they saw aw burning f4 phantom and were radiod "uhhhh valk niner san trangender 69ers suck and cant beat my BROWNIES !!!!! uhhh come in ya ur tail is gone and ur wing is damaged i sugest you GET OUT asap over and out. then do asick right bank turn.
Yes, the XB-70 Valkyrie aircraft was equipped with a special ejection seat, known as the "escape capsule" or "crew escape capsule". In case of an emergency, the entire cockpit capsule could detach from the aircraft structure, protecting the pilots from the extreme conditions of a high-speed, high-altitude descent.
During the accident between the XB-70 and an F-104 Starfighter on June 8, 1966, the co-pilot of the XB-70, Major Carl Cross, tried to activate the capsule, but unfortunately did not succeed and lost his life. The pilot, Alvin S. White, managed to escape from the aircraft but was seriously injured in the process. The two losses stated in the video are related to the XB-70 Co-pilot and the F-104 Pilot.
Several factors made the rescue difficult. The collision took place at a relatively low altitude, giving the crew members very little time to react. Moreover, the unexpected nature of the accident and the rapid sequence of events made it difficult to activate the rescue system in time.
Xb70 was build to do over Mach 3+ but didn’t in 1964 the sr-71 was built 1966 and was the most beautiful jet made to this day but they say it only went mach 3.5 haha do you smell that cause I smell bull shit
Yeah, something smells alright. The XB-70A did fly faster than mach 3. What have you been reading that tells you otherwise?