My dad worked for North American Aviation. We went to the USAF museum in Dayton, OH and there is the one remaining XB-70 displayed there. My dad said that in the company (NAA) the XB-70 was nicknamed "God" because everyone that saw the plane for the 1st time would always exclaim "Oh my God!"
My dad worked on the xb70 valkyrie he designed the electrical system and the jamming system for the aircraft. And yes the name of the aircraft was God because when you saw it outside you see the first words out of somebody's mouth would be God and then damn it was incredible playing and I remind people that it was 10 years before the Concord it was another one of North American Aviation cocktail aircraft. Because a lot of the best aircraft North America never made was done on the cocktail napkins. And it was one of the most aerodynamic aircraft ever built
@@marksinclair701 You're so right a friend of mine used to live in Palmdale when the first flight was and he said it was something else I never got to see it fly I always wish I could have
You think North Americans aviation committed war crimes it saved the world during world war II North American aviation built over 25,000 aircraft North American aviation was the leader of supersonic technology rocking engines like the F1 that got us to the Moon North American aviation developed the shuttle B1B bomber and lots of other incredible aircraft and spacecraft
Thanks, you brought tears to my eyes. Such concepts that I saw long time ago in a Time Life magazine you brought them again to life, from a parallel and plausible future that was never was. Deeply thanks.
Great video. I loved XB-70 and the X-15, even if these concept probably couldn't fly. But, thanks for the imaginative fantasy, keep them coming. All the best.
I think that the X-15 on the back is the only feasible one. I'd like to know how the landing gear of the first one would have worked and how the aircraft would fly with a gaping hole in the bottom. With the second one how would the shock waves interact with the wings and drooped tips. Seems like a lot of asymetric drag there for stability. Flying off the back of a supersonic aircraft was proven with the SR-71/D-21 combo but it might have been scary as hell.
Stunning video, as usual. You set the bar pretty high there :) However, some issues. The first "bottom drop" Dynasoar can't work for a number of reasons. Firstly the 'bubble' wouldn't allow the use of the aircraft landing gear so it can't actually take off in that position. Two is that the way the "compression lift" and flight dynamics mean you can't have that bubble blocking the body lift at high speed. Worse opening that bubble up would cause all sorts of dynamic issues and likely tear the bubble, space plane and aircraft into pieces. Similar issues with the 'under-wing' carry as the nose and body of the hypersonic test article would have impacted the aerodynamics of the XB-70 causing all sorts of control issues. (There was a concept for the B-70 to possibly carry two (2) "Skybolt" air launched ICBM's but they could only be carried near the wing roots and the B-70 could not exceed Mach 2 carrying them) And when are we going to get a video on the conical RBCC (Synerjet likely) single stage to orbit concept? Would especially like to see the VTVL design with the cargo/passenger area in the base of the vehicle :) The third design (aka on-the-back carry) is actually the only way to "launch" from a XB-70 as as like the SR-71 and drone combo (actually M71 and D21 but that's a nit) that's the only position where you have stable air and more importantly don't affect the performance of the XC-70 as much. (Like the Blackbird the Valkyrie always flew with a slight 'nose-up' angle-of-attack due to the nature of supersonic flight so the air over the back was "smoother" and the X-15 et-al would have more of a chance to gain stability before it interfaced with the XB-70 supersonic shock cone. I also get that your are using the SR-71/D-21 archived footage to model the X-15 separation but in fact the X-15 would have to have an auxiliary booster to keep it from simply falling rapidly backwards. the D-21 started its ramjet before separation so it could make a clean separation maneuver from the Mothership Lastly the XB-70 derived SST would have had the "hump" of the passenger cabin extend much further back in order to carry more passengers and freight.
Yeah, the second one looked the most improbably to me... you can get away with an asymmetric payload like that if you're flying something big and slow like a B-52, but there's no way you're doing it with a carrier that's trying to do mach 3....
Spectacular! Thank you for another vision of a future that should have been, but wasn't quite. The scene at 3:15 is especially interesting for modelers. In 1964, Lindberg Models came out with a (box scale) 1/172nd scale model of the XB-70, and followed this up with a "Mach 3 Jetliner" based on the tooling. The early issue had Continental Airlines livery, and the 1965 issue came with TWA livery, (and an optional, single-tail option.) This kit is still in production, and retains the single-tail civilian airliner option. For anyone who wants to build the XB-70 Mothership and the X-15C, Atlantis has reissued the old Revell B-52 / X-15 combination that came in 1/175th scale. Close enough for all but the most finicky scale snob. Thanks for making this and sharing it with us! 39th Like.
@@rapidthrash1964 The Lindberg XB-70 is made by Round 2 Models. It was last issued in 2014, but I saw some at the hobby shops near me, so they shouldn't be too difficult to find. The same for the Atlantis reissue of the Revell B-52 / X-15 combination. Happy modeling!
My dad worked on the xb70 valkyrie he designed the electrical system and the jamming system for the aircraft. And yes the name of the aircraft was God because when you saw it outside you see the first words out of somebody's mouth would be God and then damn it was incredible playing and I remind people that it was 10 years before the Concord it was another one of North American Aviation cocktail aircraft. Because a lot of the best aircraft North America never made was done on the cocktail napkins. And it was one of the most aerodynamic aircraft ever built
Scramjet technology have already evolved so much that you can actually use variable geometry scramjet as afterburners in TBCC (turbine-based combined cycle) powerplants, either with turbofans or turbojets nowadays (like what SR-72 and its fictional counterpart Darkstar got therein), especially for taking off with afterburners, and eventually with engines shut down, speeding past Mach 2.6 - 2.8 to Mach 6 or 7 speed. That would basically keep XB-70 smaller with nacelle pods already present instead of adding more on the wings which would easily affect its flight performance while attaining hypersonic velocity.
@@raiyaankazi Losing any part of an aircrafts frame is usually very bad, so no matter where you launch from you risk destruction of the carrier aircraft
@@battleoid2411 Look up why they gave up on launching D-21s from A-12s and opted for B-52 underwing launches instead. This launch configuration between vertical stabilizers always runs a greater risk of tailstrikes if the daughter vehicle fails to start.
Launching off the back of the XB70 would have been the 'best' of these options, but not during cruise - all shockwave-interacting hell would have broken loose. Best to zoom-climb the XB70 so that the separation manoeuvre occurred at very low dynamic pressure.
You really did her justice with those beautiful takes. She deserved some more recognition. Could You, by any chance, give some spotlight to the M-50, her (sort of) Soviet counterpart? Its nuclear powered variant, that someone made up, would make an interesting video. Not that I’m trying to commission anything, too broke for that.
First one looked a bit impractical in thar the B-70's landing gear looked to be blocked. Other than that, it is a great presentation software whar "might have been'.
Incredible work! Thank you! I can't imagine the B-70 was expected to reach Mach speeds while carrying or deploying these? It was just meant to carry them to altitude? That is, the huge extra drag involved would have created problems with reaching faster-than-sound speeds?
They originally intended to use Zipfuel that had boron in it. It generated 40% more thrust but had many drawbacks. I do not know for sure but perhaps that boost would be enough to reach mach speeds with external stores. I seriously have my doubts on all but the back-mount. I especially question the supersonic garage door payload bay, lol.
@@snower13 Phenomenal knowledge! and thank you. I'm a private pilot but not an aeronautical engineer. When I saw the "garage door" opening, I was thinking, "umm, can you really do that at Mach 3?....."
@@snower13 going by how that D-12 drone program (reconnaissance drone carried by a A-12 Blackbird) worked out, I doubt even back mounted would have worked at supersonic speed. IIRC the shockwaves made it very hard for the released craft to separate from the carrier.
@@AccAkut1987 You're right. Johnson didn't want to risk more lives to figure it out. We probably have the analytic and modeling tools to figure out how to do it now but not in the B-70 era.
The first two concepts would never have worked - The first requires a massive change in the center of pressure as the bay doors open, the second has more drag to one side, imparting a massive yaw change as the vehicle drops away, as well as interfering with the shockwave surfing the wing tips created. The third would indeed have been possible, and let the X-15 throttle up on launch, so it would start it's up hill run at Mach3, rather then having to push from subsonic. The Valkyrie would still be in use for that task today, but with commercial launches.
Everyday Astronaut did a video "Why Don’t They Launch Rockets From Aircraft?" and showed why its not the best way, especially if you want your rocket to carry any kind of meaningful payload into orbit.
Are you freakin' ins.... scrub that :). Given the nature of it's demise, operating anything near this gorgeous beast would be suicidal and the first 2 concepts are completely ludicrous; but of the 3 options the last one is not and does pose an interesting option. Considering the operational ceiling (15km) and top speed (960kph) of the B52 vs the XB70 (23km and 3300kph) it would be interesting what performance advantages this would've offered the latter part of the X15 program.
When engineer's brains go wild... 😁 There's a reason why you don't see Mach 3+ motherships today - because at these speeds even normal flight is challenging. 😜
Cool video, but the Valkyrie was already dangerously unstable without tacking another aircraft onto it. Launching something from it would almost certainly recreate the accident that destroyed one of the two prototypes.
Joe Walker's F-104 is thought to have been in a position where he couldn't see the wings of the XB-70 and was keeping station based the forward fuselage, then drifted into vortices due to a lack of references revealing the motion. It wasn't the best formation plan, nothing to do with stability of the Valkyrie. At least, no one ever observed or reported a stability issue on the other flights.
My dad worked for North American Aviation. We went to the USAF museum in Dayton, OH and there is the one remaining XB-70 displayed there. My dad said that in the company (NAA) the XB-70 was nicknamed "God" because everyone that saw the plane for the 1st time would always exclaim "Oh my God!"
My dad worked on the xb70 valkyrie he designed the electrical system and the jamming system for the aircraft. And yes the name of the aircraft was God because when you saw it outside you see the first words out of somebody's mouth would be God and then damn it was incredible playing and I remind people that it was 10 years before the Concord it was another one of North American Aviation cocktail aircraft. Because a lot of the best aircraft North America never made was done on the cocktail napkins. And it was one of the most aerodynamic aircraft ever built
@@coolhand6669 That would be God to his friends, and Mr Damn to the rest of us ;-)
@@marksinclair701 You're so right a friend of mine used to live in Palmdale when the first flight was and he said it was something else I never got to see it fly I always wish I could have
He worked for warcrimes too!
You think North Americans aviation committed war crimes it saved the world during world war II North American aviation built over 25,000 aircraft North American aviation was the leader of supersonic technology rocking engines like the F1 that got us to the Moon North American aviation developed the shuttle B1B bomber and lots of other incredible aircraft and spacecraft
Great selection of launch concept. The PANAM colours in the end... perfect!
Thanks, you brought tears to my eyes. Such concepts that I saw long time ago in a Time Life magazine you brought them again to life, from a parallel and plausible future that was never was. Deeply thanks.
Great video. I loved XB-70 and the X-15, even if these concept probably couldn't fly. But, thanks for the imaginative fantasy, keep them coming. All the best.
I think that the X-15 on the back is the only feasible one. I'd like to know how the landing gear of the first one would have worked and how the aircraft would fly with a gaping hole in the bottom. With the second one how would the shock waves interact with the wings and drooped tips. Seems like a lot of asymetric drag there for stability. Flying off the back of a supersonic aircraft was proven with the SR-71/D-21 combo but it might have been scary as hell.
Awesome! The XB-70 is one of my favorite aircraft that never was. Hypersonic launch platform kicks butt!!
Scenes from an alternate and better universe!
Once again a masterclass in animation. Loved the sun streaks with the X-15 variant.
And now there are TWO airframes -- The _UH-1 Huey_ and the _XB-70 Valkyrie_ -- that I associate that music with...👍😊
Stunning video, as usual. You set the bar pretty high there :)
However, some issues. The first "bottom drop" Dynasoar can't work for a number of reasons. Firstly the 'bubble' wouldn't allow the use of the aircraft landing gear so it can't actually take off in that position. Two is that the way the "compression lift" and flight dynamics mean you can't have that bubble blocking the body lift at high speed. Worse opening that bubble up would cause all sorts of dynamic issues and likely tear the bubble, space plane and aircraft into pieces.
Similar issues with the 'under-wing' carry as the nose and body of the hypersonic test article would have impacted the aerodynamics of the XB-70 causing all sorts of control issues. (There was a concept for the B-70 to possibly carry two (2) "Skybolt" air launched ICBM's but they could only be carried near the wing roots and the B-70 could not exceed Mach 2 carrying them) And when are we going to get a video on the conical RBCC (Synerjet likely) single stage to orbit concept? Would especially like to see the VTVL design with the cargo/passenger area in the base of the vehicle :)
The third design (aka on-the-back carry) is actually the only way to "launch" from a XB-70 as as like the SR-71 and drone combo (actually M71 and D21 but that's a nit) that's the only position where you have stable air and more importantly don't affect the performance of the XC-70 as much. (Like the Blackbird the Valkyrie always flew with a slight 'nose-up' angle-of-attack due to the nature of supersonic flight so the air over the back was "smoother" and the X-15 et-al would have more of a chance to gain stability before it interfaced with the XB-70 supersonic shock cone. I also get that your are using the SR-71/D-21 archived footage to model the X-15 separation but in fact the X-15 would have to have an auxiliary booster to keep it from simply falling rapidly backwards. the D-21 started its ramjet before separation so it could make a clean separation maneuver from the Mothership
Lastly the XB-70 derived SST would have had the "hump" of the passenger cabin extend much further back in order to carry more passengers and freight.
nice info and thought. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, the second one looked the most improbably to me... you can get away with an asymmetric payload like that if you're flying something big and slow like a B-52, but there's no way you're doing it with a carrier that's trying to do mach 3....
There really only was one choice for the music.
Spectacular! Thank you for another vision of a future that should have been, but wasn't quite.
The scene at 3:15 is especially interesting for modelers. In 1964, Lindberg Models came out with a (box scale) 1/172nd scale model of the XB-70, and followed this up with a "Mach 3 Jetliner" based on the tooling. The early issue had Continental Airlines livery, and the 1965 issue came with TWA livery, (and an optional, single-tail option.) This kit is still in production, and retains the single-tail civilian airliner option.
For anyone who wants to build the XB-70 Mothership and the X-15C, Atlantis has reissued the old Revell B-52 / X-15 combination that came in 1/175th scale. Close enough for all but the most finicky scale snob.
Thanks for making this and sharing it with us!
39th Like.
who makes this model kit now?
@@rapidthrash1964 The Lindberg XB-70 is made by Round 2 Models. It was last issued in 2014, but I saw some at the hobby shops near me, so they shouldn't be too difficult to find. The same for the Atlantis reissue of the Revell B-52 / X-15 combination.
Happy modeling!
My dad worked on the xb70 valkyrie he designed the electrical system and the jamming system for the aircraft. And yes the name of the aircraft was God because when you saw it outside you see the first words out of somebody's mouth would be God and then damn it was incredible playing and I remind people that it was 10 years before the Concord it was another one of North American Aviation cocktail aircraft. Because a lot of the best aircraft North America never made was done on the cocktail napkins. And it was one of the most aerodynamic aircraft ever built
Literally "Ride of the Valkyrie".
Great work let’s use the XB70 again
Truly awesome animation and a very imaginative concept using an XB-70 has a re-usable high altitude carrier for an orbital launch vehicle! Well done!
Scramjet technology have already evolved so much that you can actually use variable geometry scramjet as afterburners in TBCC (turbine-based combined cycle) powerplants, either with turbofans or turbojets nowadays (like what SR-72 and its fictional counterpart Darkstar got therein), especially for taking off with afterburners, and eventually with engines shut down, speeding past Mach 2.6 - 2.8 to Mach 6 or 7 speed. That would basically keep XB-70 smaller with nacelle pods already present instead of adding more on the wings which would easily affect its flight performance while attaining hypersonic velocity.
Option three seems the less suicidal launch option. The XB-70 was a beautiful beast.
Very funny of you to say considering the accident that ended the XB-70 project involved a prototype losing both vertical stabilizers.
@@raiyaankazi Losing any part of an aircrafts frame is usually very bad, so no matter where you launch from you risk destruction of the carrier aircraft
@@battleoid2411 Look up why they gave up on launching D-21s from A-12s and opted for B-52 underwing launches instead. This launch configuration between vertical stabilizers always runs a greater risk of tailstrikes if the daughter vehicle fails to start.
@@battleoid2411wouldn’t a bay opening that large on the first one be really bad for aerodynamics at that speed?
@@spooders8424 Perhaps, but _cf._ SOFIA where it wasn't an issue.
If ever there was a perfect choice for the musical score for a video. X-15D gets my vote.
Wow! That was so cool! Your graphics are the best!!
The most beautiful aircraft ever made, at a time when the future promised so much. Anyway here we are in future and it sucks a bit
I've heard rumors of something like this actually existing: Dark Horse.
Man these concept are wicked cool 😎
Launching off the back of the XB70 would have been the 'best' of these options, but not during cruise - all shockwave-interacting hell would have broken loose. Best to zoom-climb the XB70 so that the separation manoeuvre occurred at very low dynamic pressure.
You really did her justice with those beautiful takes. She deserved some more recognition.
Could You, by any chance, give some spotlight to the M-50, her (sort of) Soviet counterpart? Its nuclear powered variant, that someone made up, would make an interesting video. Not that I’m trying to commission anything, too broke for that.
Absolutely monumental work as usual Haze! This is simply magnificent - I don't know how you do it! You're a Star - we salute you!!🌟
Wow. The X-70 had PAN AM logo on vertical stabilizer. Hooray. 😂
Wonderful thanks ❤
First one looked a bit impractical in thar the B-70's landing gear looked to be blocked. Other than that, it is a great presentation software whar "might have been'.
We have been waiting 🙏
Brings to mind the mythical, rumored XB-70esque Mother Ship that supposedly was a launch platform for post-SR71 reconnaissance speedsters.
WOW! I NEVER THOUGHT IT COULD BE USED FOR LAUNCHING!
Awesome stuff, these vids must take an immense effort to produce!
I HAVE to try making some of those concepts work in KSP though! :O
This is the most Kerbal nonsense imaginable!! Brilliant work as always.
XB-70, my beloved.
Thunderbirds Go!
*are go
Incredible work! Thank you! I can't imagine the B-70 was expected to reach Mach speeds while carrying or deploying these? It was just meant to carry them to altitude? That is, the huge extra drag involved would have created problems with reaching faster-than-sound speeds?
They originally intended to use Zipfuel that had boron in it. It generated 40% more thrust but had many drawbacks. I do not know for sure but perhaps that boost would be enough to reach mach speeds with external stores. I seriously have my doubts on all but the back-mount. I especially question the supersonic garage door payload bay, lol.
@@snower13 Phenomenal knowledge! and thank you. I'm a private pilot but not an aeronautical engineer. When I saw the "garage door" opening, I was thinking, "umm, can you really do that at Mach 3?....."
@@snower13 going by how that D-12 drone program (reconnaissance drone carried by a A-12 Blackbird) worked out, I doubt even back mounted would have worked at supersonic speed. IIRC the shockwaves made it very hard for the released craft to separate from the carrier.
@@AccAkut1987 You're right. Johnson didn't want to risk more lives to figure it out. We probably have the analytic and modeling tools to figure out how to do it now but not in the B-70 era.
@@snower13 Short answer: NO
Epic! 😎
The first two concepts would never have worked - The first requires a massive change in the center of pressure as the bay doors open, the second has more drag to one side, imparting a massive yaw change as the vehicle drops away, as well as interfering with the shockwave surfing the wing tips created.
The third would indeed have been possible, and let the X-15 throttle up on launch, so it would start it's up hill run at Mach3, rather then having to push from subsonic. The Valkyrie would still be in use for that task today, but with commercial launches.
AWESOME work!
Love that you of course chose the appropriate music for this video!
Love the Pan Am reference.
Awesome vid.
Great song choice
AMAZINGNES!!!
Beautiful. Oh, if only.
Perfect song for the video!! 😉 😉!
On the music, 👍
But then I loved Blue Danube for 2001 movie.
There's no way you can fit this whole Dynasoar inside such a small volume ^^
2:38 Invisibility powers activated
I feel like opening a bay that big going at that speed would vibrate the aircraft too much. Even with it being unpressurized
Well that was different. Fanciful but fun.
What the heck was that needle aircraft? 1:14
Everyday Astronaut did a video "Why Don’t They Launch Rockets From Aircraft?" and showed why its not the best way, especially if you want your rocket to carry any kind of meaningful payload into orbit.
Beautiful but the M-21/D-21 experience shows us the dangers of hypersonic dorsal launch... But beautiful nonetheless.
Are you freakin' ins.... scrub that :). Given the nature of it's demise, operating anything near this gorgeous beast would be suicidal and the first 2 concepts are completely ludicrous; but of the 3 options the last one is not and does pose an interesting option. Considering the operational ceiling (15km) and top speed (960kph) of the B52 vs the XB70 (23km and 3300kph) it would be interesting what performance advantages this would've offered the latter part of the X15 program.
I was researching these variants only a few months ago, so this upload really brings those to life :D.
Sorry PanAm that entire fuselage was fuel tank!
Could you imagine doing maintenance on a Pan-Am B-70? You think mechanics are hated by corporate now, hoo doggie
The only "viable" one of those "drink and design" concepts is the X-15! 😁😝🤪🤣👍👍🇺🇸
What I would pay for a high quality metal model of the Valkyrie
When engineer's brains go wild... 😁
There's a reason why you don't see Mach 3+ motherships today - because at these speeds even normal flight is challenging. 😜
I would have paid good money to fly the civilian version of the XB-70.
😊
Why doesn't the plane turn left due to payload?
neat
The second one is complete infeasible from a drag and carriage standpoint.
can stratolaunch takes its place?
DYNASOAR!!!!!!
Cool video, but the Valkyrie was already dangerously unstable without tacking another aircraft onto it. Launching something from it would almost certainly recreate the accident that destroyed one of the two prototypes.
Joe Walker's F-104 is thought to have been in a position where he couldn't see the wings of the XB-70 and was keeping station based the forward fuselage, then drifted into vortices due to a lack of references revealing the motion. It wasn't the best formation plan, nothing to do with stability of the Valkyrie. At least, no one ever observed or reported a stability issue on the other flights.
@@DarthRustThough that does make the second option unfeasible.
@@pseudotasuki For sure. The landing gear changes for either of the first two are mind boggling....but no less awesome.
The XB-70 was not "dangerously unstable". Calling bullshit on this comment.
ref: www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/xb-70-valkyrie/