XB-70 SUPERSONIC STRATEGIC BOMBER MACH 3 FLIGHT TEST FILM 71152
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 мар 2015
- Support Our Channel : / periscopefilm
Created by North American Aviation, this historic film shows the flight test program for the XB-70 Valkyrie at Edwards AFB in California including the first flight at supersonic speeds, and the various tests made prior to undertaking a flight at Mach 3.0 -- three times the speed of sound or 2200 miles an hour. It includes footage of test pilot Alvin "Al" White, who was badly injured in an accident that destroyed one of the two prototype aircraft.
The North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie was the prototype of the B-70 nuclear-armed, deep-penetration strategic bomber for the U.S. Air Force's Strategic Air Command. North American Aviation designed the Valkyrie bomber as a large, six-engine aircraft capable of reaching Mach 3+ while flying at 70,000 feet (21,000 m); these speed and altitude capabilities would allow the evasion of interceptor aircraft, the only effective weapon against bomber aircraft at the time.
Due to improved high-altitude surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), the U.S. Air Force's doctrine changed to low-level penetration bombing, the large development costs of the B-70 program, and the introduction of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to the U.S. nuclear arsenal, led to the cancellation of the B-70 program in 1961. As such, two prototype aircraft were built, and designated XB-70A; these aircraft were used for supersonic test-flights during 1964-69. In 1966, one prototype crashed after colliding in midair with a smaller jet aircraft; the remaining Valkyrie bomber is in the National Museum of the United States Air Force, in Ohio.
The XB-70's maiden flight was on 21 September 1964. In the first flight test, between Palmdale and Edwards AFB, shortly after take-off one engine had to be shut down, and an undercarriage malfunction warning meant that the flight was flown with the undercarriage down as precaution, limiting speed to 390 mph - about half that planned. As seen in the film on landing, the rear wheels of the port side main gear locked, the tires ruptured, and a fire started.
The Valkyrie first became supersonic (Mach 1.1) on the third test flight on 12 October 1964, and flew above Mach 1 for 40 minutes during the following flight on 24 October. The wing tips were also lowered partially in this flight. XB-70 No. 1 surpassed Mach 3 on 14 October 1965 by reaching Mach 3.02 at 70,000 ft (21,300 m). The first aircraft was found to suffer from weaknesses in the honeycomb panels, primarily due to inexperience with fabrication and quality control of this new material. On two occasions, honeycomb panels failed and were torn off during supersonic flight, necessitating a Mach 2.5 limit being placed on the aircraft.
The deficiencies discovered on AV-1 were almost completely solved on the second XB-70, which first flew on 17 July 1965. On 3 January 1966, XB-70 No. 2 attained a speed of Mach 3.05 while flying at 72,000 ft (21,900 m). AV-2 reached a top speed of Mach 3.08 and maintained it for 20 minutes on 12 April 1966. On 19 May 1966, AV-2 reached Mach 3.06 and flew at Mach 3 for 32 minutes, covering 2,400 mi (3,840 km) in 91 minutes of total flight.
A joint NASA/USAF research program was conducted from 3 November 1966 to 31 January 1967 for measuring the intensity and signature of sonic booms for the National Sonic Boom Program (NSBP). Testing was planned to cover a range of sonic boom overpressures on the ground similar to but higher than the proposed American SST. In 1966, AV-2 was selected for the program and was outfitted with test sensors. It flew the first sonic boom test on 6 June 1966, attaining a speed of Mach 3.05 at 72,000 ft (21,900 m). Two days later, AV-2 crashed following a mid-air collision with an F-104 while flying in a multi-aircraft formation.Sonic boom and later testing continued with XB-70A #1.
The second flight research program (NASA NAS4-1174) investigated "control of structural dynamics" from 25 April 1967 through the XB-70's last flight in 1969. At high altitude and high speed, the XB-70A experienced unwanted changes in altitude. NASA testing from June 1968 included two small vanes on the nose of AV-1 for measuring the response of the aircraft's stability augmentation system. AV-1 flew a total of 83 flights.
The XB-70's last supersonic flight took place on 17 December 1968. On 4 February 1969, AV-1 took its final flight to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base for museum display (now the National Museum of the United States Air Force).
This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD and 2K. For more information visit www.PeriscopeFilm.com
I was on the ground crew on the TB-58 that flew chase for the XB-70 in 1964 fresh out of tech school ( mechanic ). This was a dream come true for me at the age of 19 now 76. This was the Air Force that will always be the highest point of my career in the USAF, what fun.
I must say I'm envious! Grew up on trips to the National Museum of the USAF here in Dayton, and the Valkyrie was my first love. :-)
What a fantastic experience that must have been for you. Such an amazingly complex and record breaking project. What a rare and satisfying sense of life the test pilots came away with.
🌈
Sir, I'm so super jealous. First, you've experienced the 1960s and 70s, then you've seen this beautiful bird in flight. Thank you for your service. Best wishes from Poland.
Damn you were part of a really special group of people. What a time!
My dad was an ATC Tower Chief in 1966-76. He brought home film of the XB -70 in 1969. I watched 45min of test flights of the Valkrie with my dad and neighborhood friends.I was 10 yrs old and this video brought it all back!! Thankyou. KC
I wish this thing would have gone into production. What an awesome bird.
I lived in Ft.Worth Texas in the 1960's. The planes from Carswell Airforce Base took off and landed over our heads every day. The base had an air show every year and one year they brought one of the XB-70's out from California for the show. The radio stations in town tracked its approach minute by minute and in the elementary school I attended they had a radio in our classroom. When the B-70 arrived and flew in over the school on its approach to the base we all went to the classroom window to see it. The day it left the radio stations again tracked the takeoff. My folks had a business in a strip mall under the flightpath. When it lifted off everyone in all the businesses came out into the parking lot to see it. It was incredibly loud on takeoff; you could hear it long before it got to us. The B-70 was absolutely the most beautiful, charismatic airplane I've ever seen. At the time I thought it looked like a huge, white dragon. It circled around and passed over once more and then turned west. I watched it until it was just a bright dot in the distance. The best things about the sixties were the space program and aviation. The rest was a load of crap.
What is amazing is that this thing flew 17 years post WW2. Era of slide rules and rotary dial phones. Still looks futuristic today.
I saw the same FW arrival. What a treat for a kid!
Root P
I grew up in Benbrook in the same time frame. I always remember the bid to-do was about the C-5A coming in to the air show almost every year. My Dad worked at General Dynamics Ft. Worth on the B-58, F-111, and F-16 programs.
What a badass experience I would give anything to be able to watch the b70 take off and fly
When your chase plane is B-58 Hustler. lol
It is well worth the trip to Dayton,Ohio to see the last remaining Valkyrie.
It is displayed in a large hanger and you can walk around the entire aircraft,even beneath it.
It is housed at The National Museum of the United States Air Force. The museum charges no admission.
+Jayson Conover That place is the jam. I've seen the XB 70 many times. I want to visit once more to view the new hanger. I enjoy how close you can get to the plane.
Jayson Conover Not including now it's accompanied by the last surviving *Titan IV*!
It took us three days to see the whole museum.
I worked at Skunk Works in 70s the Black Birds flew faster, longer on planned missions while gathering Intel and without loosing a single jet to enemy fire. This A/C was obsolete before its 1st flight. Sad they lost good Men in testing.
Yes sir I have been there twice and I recall the cut out they had of the micro aluminum honeycomb design used to keep the bomber lighter. Others point out the SR-71 or YF-12A as the Air-force named their new Interceptor that was supposed to use the Phoenix Missile system the F-14 Tomcat ended up adopting. I have a F-14 Sim and there is nothing like locking a target at 100 miles and they know it. I always wait until they get to about 60 to 50 miles away and fire my 4 to 6 missiles and have a 75% kill ratio with this fantastic missile system.
They did cost 500,000 each but boy there is nothing like firing 4 to 6 one after another and not having to keep your radar locked on the targets the whole time. They were a costly missile system but isn't everything costly in the military. The XB-70 is a hell of a site at the museum along with the B-1 mach 3 bomber of which I believe they have the only B-1 ever built. Carter killed the B-1 and was right to do so but the B1B is now supersonic again with it's updated Prat and Whitney J119 engines. The B1B can fly at mach 1.2 and has a computer controlled terrain guidance radar system that fly's the B1-B to levels well below radar range of any kind. I can't imagine being a pilot and just letting the jet fly itself at 200 feet or lower to avoid enemy radar but it's 4 engines are ground shaking loud and I have seen them several times at the Chicago Air Show over Lake Michigan. The B1-B's steal the show right from the beginning by shaking the ground and flying between the sky scrapers and making it feel like a earthquake is occuring! Great bomber that makes the 2.3 billion each B-2 bomber obsolete before it ever even flew! The military can build 6 B1-Bs to 1 B2 and the B-1B could actually avoid being shot down since it can turn and burn which is something the B-2 can't do! The B-2 is a absolute waste of money! Radar is improving at break neck speeds and the B-2 will look like a flock of birds that once intercepted can be shot down by any Soviet interceptor going all the way back to the Mig 15!
My dad was a Tech Rep for NAA. When I was ten he took me to see the roll out at Palmdale.
qwryyt
WOW..you daw the roll out. Beautiful!
Beautiful work of aerodynamic art.
What a stunning beautiful plane! Fantastic, thanks for sharing, and greets from the Netherlands!
Beautiful? To each his own. I think it's butt-ugly.
Absolute beauty
An amazing looking aeroplane.Still looks futuristic.
Hard to believe this was being developed in the 50s!
Not at all.
@@donlove3741 For a youngin' like me, it's hard. Imagine the amazing designs we don't know about these days.
And most all with slide rules!
Brilliant video, enjoyed watching all stages. Try to imagine what’s flying about today .
While the XB-70 program failed its survivability tests against near space altitude of 120,000 feet, that wasn't a realistic expectation. The amount of fuel burned trying to gain the 100 thousand foot mark became prohibitive to normal operational feasibility studies. Missiles are cheaper at that altitude and faster too. Without a war to propel further studies, it is predicted that wars will predominately happen at the conventional level against overly matched foes flying drones. Gone are the days of carpet bombing, hopefully to never return. However, the technical gains made in those 60's and 70's helped put the Endeavor into space in the late 80's and 90's. I think it was Oppenheimer who said, "Knowledge is never wasted time."
+William M Klepper Thanks William your comments are always welcome on our channel.
This was intended to be a faster, "non-ballistic" nuclear payload delivery system that retained the ability to be retargetable, because it was piloted (i.e. B52 replacement) A bit more precise and deadlier than WWII-style "carpet bombing". But, you're right about AI drones completely replacing pilots... that will happen in about 5 minutes from now.
I wouldnt complain if we started carpet bombing Daesh with our B-52, B1,B2
There are comments on this thread that make me wonder where people are getting their information OR what news channel are they watching?
We STILL do carpet bombing. That's a specialty of the B-52 (and probably the B-1 since it was removed from the nuclear mission and converted for conventional arms). That's one of the most basic uses of the plane besides launching ALCM's from long distances because it's suicide to fly that plane into heavily defended airspaces. It's a HUGE radar reflector! Now, in third world countries that have no great air defense system, it's cheaper to send a B-52 than an entire armada of small fighters that can't carry more than 2,000 lbs of a bombs a few hundred miles. A B-52 can easily carry 20x that at a fraction of the cost of a 24-plane wing of fighters! That's why that plane has lasted as long as it has! It's far more economical and much easier to maintain than anything supersonic or stealthy. In fact, even the B-1 (which IS marginally supersonic) is easier to maintain AND less expensive than the B-2 which is probably one of the biggest lemons that was ever put into production. The USAF will have gotten multiple times the return on the investment in the B-52. It has paid off huge dividends and is one of the best buys that service ever made. The B-2? It will go down as one of the worst weapon systems they ever bought!
120,000ft altitude?!? Where do people get that figure? The XB-70 NEVER flew above 80,000 ft!!!
The XB-70 had very good specs BUT in the most important aspects of performance, the Blackbird family had greater speed (Mach 3.5 Vs Mach 3 for the XB-70), higher altitude performance (admitted 85,000ft;; Blackbirds could "probably" fly closer to 90,000ft; I haven't read anywhere where it's realistically anything above 95,000ft;; 85,000ft is probably the maximum "sustained" altitude). The only performance stat where the XB-70 is better is range -- 4000 miles quoted versus 3000 miles for the SR-71. The SR-71 certainly was air-refuelable. I imagine the XB-70 was, too, or planned for that but I don't recall ever seeing or reading about an air-refueling capability/attempt for that plane.
For about 10 seconds, SAC considered putting the XB-70 into service as a recon plane. It would have been designated RS-70. THAT'S where the number "71" comes in for the SR-71 (except they reversed the "RS" after they decided the Blackbird would NEVER enter service as an attack plane, so RS went from being "Recon-Strike" to "Strategic Reconnaisance").
The other major reason the SR-71 went into service and NOT the XB-70 was that the XB-70 was possibly even LESS stealthy than the B-52! They knew about the importance of radar cross section even in the mid-1950s when the U-2 was being first flown. AFTER the U-2 was shot over Russia, it became even more important to design a plane with reduced detectability (in addition to higher speed and greater altitude capability) which is where the SR-71's unique design came into being. It was not that it was INVISIBLE but it was certainly a lot less initially detectable on radar than any strategic bomber design of the time. In later years, it WAS conceded that the Soviets could track the Blackbird BUT in addition to having superior flight performance to ANY other jet (faster, higher-flying), the ECM AND stealth characteristics of the airframe made it a very tough proposition to shoot down the plane. There's been a LOT of propaganda from various air forces saying that they "could have" shot down the plane but the fact of the matter is that they were talking about well-worn overflight routes and schedules that even a BABY could have planned intercepts for. Now, if the USAF/recon community had planned intelligent, erratic flight schedules and different routes, then we're talking a very different story. Even today, it would STILL be difficult to shoot down an SR-71 if it's intelligently flown.
As far as drones are concerned -- um, excuse me, but there are DARN good reasons for leaving people in control of machines! We kept manned bombers in the first place because A) it's IMPOSSIBLE to recall an ICBM once it's launched; B) the self-destruct mechanisms on hardware doesn't always work; and C) do you REALLY want to leave the decision-making for missions in the hands of cold-hearted machines OR keep people responsible for making decisions up to the last second?!? It's insane but we're literally at the point where they're going to justify saving money by handing over control to Terminators and that's SO STUPID!!!
The other thing about drones -- they're extremely small UNLESS you convert existing manned planes into RC aircraft like they typically do with decommissioned fighters for air-to-air missile tests. The drones as used in the Middle East cannot carry much in the way of bombs and they have very limited flight performance (long endurance/great loitering at the expense of speed) because most of these machines were converted from small spy planes literally not much bigger than the largest RC controlled planes a rich guy can buy from his hobby stores. Now, they OK as long as you're going to fight a limited war like they have in Afghanistan but for a larger conflict they have very limited capability.
The XB-70 was not intended to fly above or at 100,000 feet.
What a beautiful plane!
Just luv periscope movies! Thanks for posting! Keep up the great work! 😎👍
Masterpiece of engineering.
Omg the taxi-ing sound of the engines sound so damn good
the comments on the ram air handling remind me quite a lot of the SR71.
They were developed around the same time and use the same drogue chutes (though the XB-70 used 3!)
Best Video With Best explained Commentry, about achieving supersonic speed with their durations...
Achieving Mac 3 gradually accordingly It's test-flights details...
by this super gorgeous full scale, full weight, fully developed but prototype XB-70 👌🏼
More videos like that pls!! From some ex-secret military projects :)
a legend
I drew sketches of this plane when I was 10 years old... now i'm 27 *all the feels*
it was faster than the paint lol
Very beautiful and powerful aircraft! Greetings from Russia!
If you told me it was built yesterday I'd believe you.
I like when the pilot says there's three sisters. That is in The central oregon cascades. Near Bend. Beautiful scenery.
The beautiful valkyrie.
This could have been a pegasus+ launch system(1990) in the 60s. But was mothballed like everything else that is cool
Beautiful design
Undisputed 🎉 definitely better when the flight crew are highly qualified professionals who can control their emotions in a emergency
Thanks!
Thanks very, very much. Donations like this make it possible for us to save more rare and endangered films!
Love our channel? Get the inside scoop on Periscope Film! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm
9:19 That's absolutely haunting.
7:14 i love the wingtips
Super magnificent filming dedicated to this majestic, impressive, sensational aircraft🤩🤩💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎👌👍😉😊🤗😃🤩🤩👏👏
From 5:01-5:10 what are the hanging or angled trellis-like or scaffold-like structures? something to do with noise damping?
oh that sounds gooooooooooood
A very interesting plane. The wingtip angle adjustment was the most interesting aspect of the aircraft. And with the abilities of the craft to travel with heavy loads at mach 3, it is the reason that the russians began developing supersonic missiles to potentially combat such planes
The Russians already had supersonic missiles before B-70 was created, and because the B-58 also preceded the B-70, the Russians were already motivated to build them.
I'm glad I got to see the XB-70 in person I could only imagine how deafening those engines would have been on take off I bet it was pretty impressive?
In 1965 a B-70 came to Carswell AFB for their air show. My folks' business was under the flight path for takeoffs. The local radio stations announced when it was taking off. Everyone came out of the buildings to see it come over. It was still pretty low and powering up. It was VERY loud, awesome and beautiful. It was an amazing plane and I feel so lucky to have seen it fly.
Beautiful plane like something out of Thunderbirds Are Go👍
moving what miles @ 70,000 feet. it got cut out
Best than the B1 I Think.
When I was a little boy my brother took me for a full tour of one of these. Don't remember what one. I was sold on aviation that day.
The ride of the Valkyries from Wagner's ring cycle ends with gotterdamerung.
1960s look more advanced than our times instead of searching on science and progress technology evolved only for commercial purposes on smartphones and other jokes
This plane was built strictly for the purpose of dropping 50,000 lbs. of nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was cancelled because ICBMs are a more reliable way to kill millions of people. It's probably a good thing that the US and Russia aren't spending their entire budget on this stuff anymore. 😉
But it ended up not replacing the B-52 at all, too costly I think was the reason, what a shame she was a beautiful looking plane..
The biggest factor was probably that she couldn’t do low level flight
It would've been so cool if it entered service
2:30
3:20 Impressive footage from take off and landing
So where's the footage of it actually reaching mach 3? When did it happen?
Were any computers used in the design, or all calcs done by hand?
Get out your slide rule.
IIRC the cost of its later flights increasing speed above 1800 mph was averaging $11,000,000 per flight! And that was when $11m was a lot of money...... ;)
Should go back to drawing board for a new version of this aircraft
F 19 Aurora >> Google image search for it ..... "winks"
Would it be possible to somehow transform it into a passenger airliner? If so, how much work would have to be put into this?
North American Aviation had envisioned a commercial airliner version, but it never happened.
NA was 1 of 3 contenders for the US SST program. Boeing won over NA and Lockheed. NA's American SST proposal carried fewer passengers than the other competitors, and had shorter range than both of those airplanes, and the 2 SST's that actually entered service.
1:50 what make is that big helicopter in rear?
Piasecki H-21....see Google.
Was that a Hustler flying chase at 3:00 ?
👍👍👍👍
Beautiful plane. Nowadays, planes & jets are made smaller.
Physics dictates to achieve high speed the plane has to be large so it can endure rough turbulence
Those tires make me hungry for donuts!
The MiG-25 was designed to counter this beast.
Unlikely - the MiG-25 program was initiated a few weeks before the Valkyrie was cancelled in early 1961. The Soviets not only continued development, but put the MiG-25 into serial production in 1969, the same year that the surviving B-70 was sent to the USAF museum.
The MiG-25 had its roots in the Ye-150 series interceptor concept aircraft, and those began around 1955-57.
So the timing is either too late or too early to be related to the B-70.
As much as I love planes and really all high tech vehicles when I look at the XB-70 it makes me wonder if we'll ever be able to stop spending money on ways to kill each other.
North American Aviation had also planned to produce a commercial airliner version of the XB-70, it would have been the worlds first SST
@@johnorlitta It's not clear that NA-60 would have been the 1st SST, as work on the Anglo-French SST was already well underway.
The first aircraft with 'supercruise' capability, albeit with a tremendous weight and fuel consumption handicap.
I Fought Piranhas fraid not....English Electric Lightning
+crabfat Never understood why more light wasn't shed on the English Electric Lightning. That aircraft had stones even in todays environment!
F-104?
It looks very similar to the SR71 taking off. Slender from the side view
when
You just want to slap someone and say " keep those chase planes well back"!
Shame these didn't make it to production.
What abeast
I bet the book and Clint Eastwood's movie Firefox was inspired by this
It does look like the Firefox doesn't it?
Not for the book. Firefox, the novel was inspired by the MiG-25. The look for the airplane in the movie closely resembles B-70, and later editions of the novel had the movie plane on the cover. Older editions of Firefox showed a MiG-25.
it's funny that the announcer talks about flying at Mach 3 and then casually mentions flying much faster than the speed of sound.
Shannon Smith speed of sound is mach one....
Hydrolic guy fired
It looks like the tail is going to touch on take off and landing.
Never forget their coalition is one made between governments, the heavenly host snd the EvA.I( omega reporting and gathering data)
a gdzie ekologia silnik soniczny
The future, was the past.
All engineering calculations done with sliderulers only...
@Galileo7of9 sure
Looks a little bit like Concord.
Really? I don't see it? What specific features are uniquely similar to both planes? The 2 are as different as different can be.
Tail hits on landing? If any aircraft needed a tail skid this is it, beautiful machine
I fly it on a simulator and at first I thought so as well but it flies so gracefully. It takes off itself and lands itself. It does not need one at all I assure you
Its gracefully flying characteristics are likely attributed to it being a Canard configuration airplane, in effect it is flying tail first just like the Wright Flyer.
Why this the only one is in the Museum in Dayton Ohio Mothballed never to fly again.
👍🇵🇹
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaawwwwwww
First North America Aviation I mean they built the X-15 and then they built this and then later on the shuttle and I believe the X-15 in the XB-70 were pretty much done with slide rule not computer it makes you wonder how much they can do with the plane now with modern materials but either way North American Aviation they had it going on I don't get why they canceled it they claim the the Sam's from Russia was the reason but yet we went ahead with the SR-71 doing flyovers basically about the same speed
SR-71s didn't fly as deep into Soviet territory as a manned bomber would, and didn't face the same threats.
The aircraft is so Fast the paint was falling off.
Mike Motteberg
It was burning off, just like the paint on the SR-71 did. It needed touch up after every flight.
@@ralfie8801 Dropping A-bomb at mach 3, I believe it May have a problem doing that?
Mike Motteberg
Nope, the B-70 was designed for that exact purpose. It had to release the bomb approximately 18 - 20 miles before the plane reached the target.
If you read about the SR-71, it leaked fuel from the tanks while sitting on the tarmac, they only got a partial load of fuel for take off. Then they got up to the tanker for the full load before going supersonic. Once the skin of the aircraft heated up after that, all the leaks sealed up from heat expansion, or so the story goes.
Ok, I guess what I don't understand If the XB70 Was so superior, Why did it not succeed?
Mike Motteberg
Between the time it was developed and when it was being tested, the USSR made huge advances in their missile technology. They could shoot it down. The original purpose was to fly higher and faster than your opponent’s interceptors could, but once those interceptors went from fighter planes to missiles, the mission of the B-70 to overfly the soviets and deliver its payload was nullified.
This is also what killed off the B-58 Hustler after only 14 years of service.
FIREFOX?
🤔 Narrator said, "liftoff occurred under 5,000 feet". Well, yeah! They WERE lifting off from the GROUND, from -0- feet! Lol. 😁
Forever jealous at all the people who got to see this beauty fly. But seeing it at the Museum in person is incredible, the sheer size compared to the Blackbird is insane.
That aircraft must have scared the Russians (Soviet Union) after they saw it flying. It was very fast, and Gen. LeMay would have loved having it if it didn't cost so much to produce.
Funny thing is, look the plane over, there doesn't seem to be any room at all for any kind of weapon! The whole thing is fuel tanks and engines. It made a nice testbed for supersonic development of large aircraft though.
That aircraft was designed to use only internal bays like the newest aircraft the U.S. have on duty now.
Being a testbed it had no accommodations for Navigator or Bombardier and although speed at altitude was it's intended purpose,...at low level it was limited to .95 mach, only marginally faster than a B-52 at the same altitude, while carrying a smaller bomb load than the BUFF. Still,...the most beautiful plane ever built IMHO.
Oldbmwr100rs It was designed to carry 50,000 pounds (and that's just the original two prototypes that were built [AV/1, SN 20001 and AV/2, SN 20207]), and the Mk 41 (B-41) 25 Mt TNT-equivalent thermonuclear weapon was designed to be carried in the payload bay, two bombs in fact; it was also designed to handle lenticular disk missiles referred to as "pye wackets" and would be mounted underneath the wings. It had a range of 4288 miles in flight in the real world, although it had a design range of 6000 miles. There was also an SST-derived variant of this plane designed called the NAC-60, but it was the least known of the three SST designs submitted by North American Aviation (NAC-60), Lockheed (L-3000), and Boeing (B2707). This plane is still a perfectly sound design even in 2017, and I'd see to it being modernized for flight as an SST, but enlarged from its original 250 Mt maximum takeoff mass to 500 Mt (metric tons).
I don’t think it scared them near as bad as the F-111 did. They tried to get it removed from service every time any weapon limiting talks were held. They feared it because of its terrain following radar.
B-29 has dislike aircraft
Just upgrade the avionics and put her back in service, saves money and replace the B-52!
Pretty tough to replace the B-52 with the XB-70, since there were only two built, and one of them was lost in an accident during training.
It’ll never save any money either since the cost to fly it in 1966 was $11,000,000.00 per flight! That would be about $50 million or more per flight now.
Hang on Ronnie.....search that. Another fleecing of the American Defense budget.....in spades!
The goddamn thing was obsolete before it left the drawing board!!...Senator, Congressman, look at what you've done!!
Really hard to believe that this plane was built back then! You wouldn't think that the technology was that good back then! The fact that they kept the B52 around for so long I don't understand why they didn't put this plane into the military! They should have built at least 40 planes which would have been a lot better than the B52! Hell the payload is unbelievable! Makes me wonder how they get that much weight off the ground then with the speed this thing flew is just unbelievable! And btw what a beautiful aircraft!
"You wouldn't think that the technology was that good back then!"
back then, they created the satellite and thermonuclear weapons, and also put the 1st men into space, and landed on the moon.
"I don't understand why they didn't put this plane into the military!"
Because it didn't add to our military capabilities. It would not have been better than the B-52 because it probably would not have carried as much, would have cost more to fly, and would have as easily adapted to low-level flight.
@@winternow2242 according to the specs it could carry more than the Buff, but it would’ve cost significantly more to operate and Francis Gary Powers had just been shot down so it was determined that high altitude was no longer safe and as such if it couldn’t do low level, it wasn’t going into inventory.
@@silaskuemmerle2505 what specs are you looking at and where didbyiy find tjem?
@@winternow2242 it was in an old book my dad had at some point, no idea if he still has the book or not and I don't remember the title off the top of my head.
Tires made of an aluminum / synthetic rubber compound catching fire must have been some blaze. Adding an oxidizer (like say air) and you've got rocket fuel.
Valkyra or Ty177 from famous spy stories in 60ies the plane used strategicaly used as modern view what is aeroplanes but not tested fuly to be scfi aeroplane needs first curved wings ends the front wings flaps are not curved but rotational a high tech toy would be angle curved 60° rotationable and sruff like bugatti spoiler pop out on manevouring and and 2-3 airbrakes that is chasis solid an very functional using rips and tech from modeling also high tech main problem is whells, back whells should be angle curved for better landing force or even considering a double pair wheels since is heavy, main problem is front laps movable to large as it influence structure and speed by landing and take off due to lack off testing lack off computers and finacing and also 6 engine is about crap one mach more or less is pointless for bombers , usualy when chasis is minr or top scfi or receive rewards or show eceptional flight caracteristics then is engine rebulid or add new one , and after that a top peak is a spin rotation cocpit for even more scfi or drive pleasure and better flight caracteristics !Actualy this scrapy thing is about for SU eng in sibiria first to build it and remake a scrap model for future something to fly on or respect to history! And actualy if this advice didnt help you can always fly on kerballs and robocraft games on pc to see how it does fly in test!
Bozidar Skobalj 1960's punctuation?
Should have taken everything good from that bird and made our SST...would have saved a fortune not to mention, face.
NAA was 1 of the 3 competitors for the American SST. Their design, which seems to have gone through a couple of iterations, shows some resemblance to B-70, but also many differences, suggesting that there's not much that can be carried over from a manned bomber to an airliner. NAA's proposal trailed competitors from Lockheed and Boeing. There's no face to save, either as to B-70 or an American SST. And if we had put an SST I to service, it probably would have operated at a loss.
戰神侍婢式轟炸機。
All they need do TO this aircraft, is to give it a "Complete Steath Covering" . . . "3+" M, how would you "Beat" such an aircraft ? Moving at "3+" M, in "Full Stealth" . . . you'd HIT THE TARGET, an "Be Gone", by the time the target even EXPLODES ! . . . THAT, is "How its Done" !.
Uma besta que não sérvio pra nada
1st, it's overpriced, 2nd, it's 3rd-rate, concorde junk only, concorde was useful and in joan collins, carried an explosive cargo.
Concorde killed more people.
Huh? What does this have to do with Concorde? Different planes made in different countries for different jobs.
"Who's a pretty bird? Who's a pretty Bird?!"
If only Boeing partnered with North American ... sigh ...
North American was merged with Rockwell in 1967 due to the Apollo 1 fire. Then in 1996 Boeing bought Rockwell and shortly thereafter McDonnel-Douglas. So basically ... they did. The space division of what had been North American Aviation was a big part in the design of the Space Shuttle. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Boeing was trying to beat North American for the B-70 contract. Their version had the engines under the wings in pods like the B-58.
Ryan Ballenger The XB-70 was NEVER going to be anything more than a test vehicle. Boeing was trying to beat Tupolev and Concorde but too much of their money was already being poured into the queen of the skies (747). The closest the got was a very expensive full size moch up of the SST.
If you want to see what's left of that mock up, it's on display at the Hiller museum in San Carlos, CA. But yeah, the XB 70 was just a test bed, it was obsolete before it was completed, but the two were built as research planes, and much was learned from the tests.
+Oldbmwr100rs the XB-70 was problematic but not obsolete. The GE YJ-93 engines in 1964 had the equivalent power of fighter jets today. Strange they didn't progress with the design (of the engines). Apparently the plane was a pain in the butt though.
WHY must Periscope Films attach an intrusive timer/counter on top of all of it’s uploaded films!!?? Periscope films merely uploads original films produced by others (such as the US Air Force) - not their original property. This is really stupid, infuriating, and unnecessary trademark for Periscope Films.
ere's the issue: Tens of thousands of films similar to this one have been lost forever -- destroyed -- and many others are at risk. Our company preserves these precious bits of history one film at a time. How do we afford to do that? By selling them as stock footage to documentary filmmakers and broadcasters. If we did not have a counter, we could not afford to post films like these online, and no films would be preserved. It's that simple. So we ask you to bear with the watermark and timecodes.
In the past we tried many different systems including placing our timer at the bottom corner of our videos. What happened? Unscrupulous RUclips users downloaded our vids, blew them up so the timer was not visible, and re-posted them as their own content! We had to use content control to have the videos removed and shut down these channels. It's hard enough work preserving these films and posting them, without having to spend precious time dealing with policing thievery -- and not what we devoted ourselves to do.
Love our channel and want to support what we do? You can help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
If the Air Force wants to build a NEW Bomber . . . then "This", is what they should build ! ( Seriously "Up Graded" of course !, especially the ENGINES ! ) With today's tech, they could easily get to Mach 5.5 or 6 . . . just think of the "Missile Load" it could carry !.
Honestly, I doubt they could get a plane to Mach 6 for an extended length of time, much less "easily" do it.
When you double the speed, the drag quadruples, and that's got knock on effects all down the line. Quadrupling the drag quadruples the aerodynamic heating. It also means you need engines that are four times as powerful to cut through the drag which means you need a ton more fuel to do the same mission.
Improvements in materials and designing the plane would help, but not nearly enough.
Actually the engines were capable of higher speed flight back then, it's just that the structure and the environmental and hydraulics systems would have to be dramatically redesigned,
I see where Russia got their plane design from now!
Which design?
it's funny, this bomber has not been scrapped it will be used in war. probly alrdy has.
They were never put into production to scrap. There's only one, and it wasn't built as a bomber, only a research aircraft.