The World’s Fastest Nuclear Bomber: North American XB-70 Valkyrie | Mach 3 Aircraft

The North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie was the prototype version of the planned B-70 nuclear-armed, deep-penetration supersonic strategic bomber for the United States Air Force Strategic Air Command. Designed in the late 1950s by North American Aviation (NAA), the six-engined Valkyrie was capable of cruising for thousands of miles at Mach 3+ while flying at 70,000 feet (21,000 m).
By the mid-1950s, the United States had developed a state-of-the-art, all-jet-powered bomber force. The newly introduced Boeing B-52 Stratofortesss could reach the Soviet Union from just about anywhere in the world. The soon-to-be-introduced supersonic Convair B-58 Hustler could dash to supersonic speeds. Both aircraft were engineering marvels. But even so, they were expected to perform poorly over Soviet airspace. The B-52 flew too slowly to stand a chance against the latest generation of Soviet interceptors, while the supersonic B-58 lacked the required range and payload to be truly effective. The U.S. Air Force needed a next-generation bomber that would combine the capabilities of both these aircraft. A plane that could fly at supersonic speeds, travel long distances, and carry large payloads.
To meet their new bomber requirements, the Air Force contracted leading aerospace companies to explore radical new technologies, like nuclear-powered jet engines for extending aircraft range and high-energy ‘zip-fuels’ to increase aircraft performance. Boeing and North American Aviation would play a vital role in research. But given the limitations of technology, the most practical solution put forward was the ‘dash concept’ which detailed an enormous aircraft that would travel subsonically most of the way to its target, before jettisoning outer portions of its wings and fuel tanks to make a supersonic dash. These concepts were studied in an era of extraordinary advances in aviation technology and engineering, and by 1957 it became apparent that it might be possible to build a large, long-range bomber that could fly supersonically over its entire mission.
In 1957, the Air Force outlined their specifications for an aircraft that would cruise at Mach 3, up to an altitude of 75,000 feet. It was expected to offer a similar payload and range to the B-52. Boeing and North American Aviation both submitted design concepts, but North American’s proposal was selected for development. A key principle in North America’s design was compression lift, which would significantly improve the aircraft’s lift-to-drag ratio when flying at high supersonic speeds. The new bomber would be designed as the B-70 (XB-70 in experimental prototype form) and named the Valkyrie.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 185 ft 0 in (56.39 m)
Wingspan: 105 ft 0 in (32.00 m)
Height: 30 ft 0 in (9.14 m)
Wing area: 6,297 sq ft (585.0 m2)
Airfoil: Hexagonal; 0.30 Hex modified root, 0.70 Hex modified tip
Empty weight: 253,600 lb (115,031 kg)
Gross weight: 534,700 lb (242,536 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 542,000 lb (245,847 kg)
Fuel capacity: 300,000 pounds (140,000 kg) / 46,745 US gal (38,923 imp gal; 176,950 L)
Powerplant: 6 × General Electric YJ93 afterburning turbojet, 19,900 lbf (89 kN) thrust each dry, 28,000 lbf (120 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: 1,787 kn (2,056 mph, 3,310 km/h)
Maximum speed: Mach 3.1
Cruise speed: 1,738 kn (2,000 mph, 3,219 km/h)
Combat range: 3,725 nmi (4,287 mi, 6,899 km)
Service ceiling: 77,350 ft (23,580 m)
Lift-to-drag: about 6 at Mach 2
Wing loading: 84.93 lb/sq ft (414.7 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.314
Thank you for watching

[@Dronescapes]

Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes

[@3516mos]

I believe I located an error. @ 2:13. Yeager achieved mach 1 on 14 October, 1947, not 09 December 1946.

[@MonteZamudio-ru6lj]

🙏🙏🙏😎

[@chrisbrooks6697]

I was so sad to see the XB-70 sit outside at Wright-Patt so long. Especially when you could see it start to deteriorate after a while. No one was ever out there where they kept it, and I felt like I was the only one who would walk out to visit. It was so great when they finally built the new hangar and cleaned up and maybe even repainted the XB-70, and moved it inside. If I remember right, they have a B-36 in there too! Absolutely LOVE the Air Force Museum! Got to see the SR-71 land there, too! He did a pass over the crowd before coming back around to land.

[@jordanbrown4886]

Yes the B36 and XB70 are both inside at Wright Patterson. There is an X15 sitting next to the xb70 as well

[@kaospat4173]

I just admire what these people where able to do...they whent from passing the sound barrier in rocket powered x planes to building the biggest plane at the time that could also go Mach 3 in less than 15 years ... and all of that without real computers....just wow

[@jakobole]

It's one of those planes that looks like they are going fast, even when standing on the ground.

[@billkunert7281]

It's incredible that 3 of the highest performance aircraft ever built, XB-70, YF-12A, and SR-71 were designed in the late 50's - early 60's using slide rules.

[@realshompa]

Check the ethnicity of the inventors and workers. We cant do these things today in the west because of diversity. There is a reason why we cant go to the moon today.

[@winternow2242]

Slide rules...and hundreds of millions of dollars. They probably used the analog computers of the day.

[@karinchaney101]

Thanks to the hard working GREATEST GENERATION. I am a boomer and proud of it but more proud of my parents generation.

[@Jack-tx2ve]

When men were men

[@karstentopp]

Do not forget the XF-108 Rapier, the CF-105 Arrow and the Soviet MiG 25

[@AndyinMokum]

The XB-70 Valkyrie was poetry made into an aeroplane. She was simply stunning!

[@lencac7952]

I'm old enough to remember when this stuff was happening. I was a gearhead, built street rods. But back then we would look at these guys as the ultimate gearheads.

[@jsy-tak]

They are, the plane is insane.

[@mdood9299]

I can't imagine how exciting it was in the 60s and 70s for aerospace. I'm in awe of the engineers of the time.

[@MM_in_Havasu]

I was definitely privileged as a transfixed, duly impressed and totally flabbergasted 8 year old kid to have been able to see this aircraft fly at Edwards AFB around circa '65 or '66, just remember it being so loud on takeoff that it crackled like a rocket. 6 bigass afterburning turbojet engines sure made it go like hell! I'm 65 now and retired, but will never forget seeing this aircraft getting put through its paces during takeoff and climbing out to altitude leaving a pronounced contrail where it was flying over the air base(and could still be heard loud and clear). The only other aircraft I saw/heard make that kind of hellacious noise was the SR71 during my USAF service in late '70's. We have the right stuff here in the US!

[@salvagedb2470]

Always seen the XB70's in flight collision , but not other footage or the Factory stuff ..Great Vid and footage.

[@MarcStjames-rq1dm]

A not so good looking aircraft designed to kill people and destroy things. A waste of money that could’ve been used constructively elsewhere. Video was interesting to a point. Good to know where they spend so much money and time. And people shudder at the cost of social services and infrastructure….. I understand the desire and in many cases even the need for a country like the USA to have a robust military. But, this plane and so much other stuff is just B.S.!

[@markwinfrey4503]

I bought a book at the air force museum on the Valkyrie, and one of the chapters in the book is titled...a half a million pounds at mach 3 .... listed takeoff weight according to what I read was around 542,000 pounds... incredible! Not to mention you could park a full size pickup truck in the intakes...geez.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

It never reached it's full potential.

[@spikymikie]

The most beautiful aircraft ever made, IMHO.

[@Coyote27981]

Considering how succesful was the A-12/SR-71 at not getting shot... The potential it had was amazing.

[@winternow2242]

Blackbirds never had to fly deep into Soviet or Chinese territory.

[@Yaivenov]

​@@winternow2242And the physics don't change.

[@sulrich70]

Clint Eastwood’s FireFox I think got alot of inspiration from the xb-70…

[@jakegeiselhart3912]

Air Force Designer: I saw this episode of Star Trek with the Klingons. Wanna build their starship? The NAVY has the Enterprise. Pentagon: Why the hell not!

[@johngeverett]

Lots of interesting material here! One point, though: the US and Britain both had operational jet aircraft before the end of WWII, not just experimental. The British Gloster Meteor actually saw action, and the American P-80 was deployed but never saw action.

[@karstentopp]

One of, if not the most beautiful aircraft even envisioned.

[@adamfrazer5150]

Truly one of those amazing concepts - no matter what year you arrived here, it's hard to forget it once you've discovered it 👍

[@jeffreydeeds9225]

I wish I could have seen her fly. I can only imagine the massive roar those afterburners produced. I recall reading something about the Valkyrie being the loudest aircraft made in America. The engineers who designed her, the technicians who built her, and the pilots who flew her were exceptional people.

[@djpalindrome]

Nobody called it S-A-C. It was always “sack”

[@rexpositor6741]

Seriously. Cringe.

[@MissilemanIII]

I was part of SAC (sack)

[@stevekennerk4958]

Nor does anyone say one fourth century. Quarter century muchacho

[@roadwarrior1459]

Even Kyle Reese knew the right way to say it.

[@MM_in_Havasu]

SAC-trained killer here as well.....to err is human, to forgive is not SAC policy.

[@radioguy1620]

B 58 still my favorite looks wise.

[@c.j.7752]

Truly an incredible air craft. Just seeing one. You almost can't believe that it was anything but a concept model, and that it never flew.

[@user-ez3kl5ih8j]

飛行してますよ、墜落しましたけど

[@sgd5k292]

Back in the early '60's, I had an all balsawood free flight model of the XB-70, powered by an OK Cub .049 engine (or maybe an .074) at the tail in a pusher configuration. I had a lot of fun with it and on one flight, lost it over the neighborhood next to the high school. Eventually found it in a backyard stuck in the grass, some feet away from an angry woman who was hanging her clothes. If it had hit her, it could have really injured her with it's sharp nose full of BB's for ballast. After that, I filled the tank only 1/2 full to limit flight time. A few years later, I was just a few weeks from graduating from Air Force tech school when an XB-70 was lost during a photo shoot. A very sad day for a lot of people that I will never forget!

[@josephclark2268]

That was very cool! Best XB-70 documentary I’ve seen, to date. A lot of footage I’ve not seen before. Appreciate your time putting this together! God bless…

[@phil4483]

My compliments, Sir. An excellent presentation, especially since all the (rarely seen) video matches the audio, unlike many.

[@shadeelocc]

I absolutely admire the supersonic wonders from this era of planes

[@MrRedfire2005]

Much more detailed than previous stories. Very interesting. Great job!

[@shenmisheshou7002]

The book "Valkyrie - North American's Mach 3 Superbomber" is the best aircraft book I have ever read. It covers the competitive designs, the F108, the cold war effect on the military establishment and politics, the incredible engineering advancements (no computers!) the design, the manufacturing (Brazed honeycomb) and the flight testing. This is a epic book. I have read maybe 30 airplane books and this one stands at the pinnacle, thought the fantastic "Magnesium Overcast" on the B36 was also excellent and did more to change my mind about how good the B-36 was than I could have ever imagined. Valkyrie is the best book ever written about an airplane before though. IT is out of print, but available used.

[@robertsolomielke5134]

TY-BEST work ever on the XB-70, my fav plane , so I have seen many, if not all the info on this beautiful bird. TY Brits for their part of the research contributions, and god keep the fallen test pilots in his embrace.

[@stevenlitvintchouk3131]

Here we are, 60 years later, and the XB-70 still looks futuristic, like something you'd see in a sci-fi movie.

[@TraderDan58]

SAC (Strategic Air Command) is pronounced as Sack not Es-A-See

[@chriskitoo1]

Great archive footage. A truly magnificent machine!

[@geos569]

Excellent video! There is footage in here that I've never seen before.

[@kevinkaufhold4292]

I remember visiting Wright-Patt often as an adolescent and teenager and seeing the XB-70 on display outdoors. I’m looking forward to seeing it restored (from the deterioration of the elements) in its hangar with the other research and development projects. This is an incredible video. I hadn’t really known much about the Valkyrie, especially the action of the wingtips. I’m tempted to go visit it this afternoon.

[@michaela.6381]

One of my favorite planes. I have a picture of myself standing next to it at at its static display right outside WPAFB’s air museum. I’m in my Army BDU’s as I had just jumped (parachuted) into the Dayton International Airshow, which was actually at Dayton International Airport and then I got onto a bus that was taking the public to the museum. I was in the 82nd Airborne and stationed at Ft. Bragg, NC, but volunteered for the Dayton jumps as a free trip home. I had my friends from Cincinnati come and pick me up at WPAFB museum that Saturday right after the jump and then the next morning (Sunday), my brother took me back to Dayton so I could do the Sunday jump and then fly back to Ft. Bragg. It was a fun weekend.

[@ag1317]

I’ve been wanting to go for so long but I’m never in the area 😭

[@Glyn-r]

Many bombers have tried replacing the legendary B52 but it's still with us.

[@Coyote27981]

Because they tried replacing a truck, with something thats not a truck. But what they needed ... Was a truck.

[@robertheinkel6225]

The B-21 will replace the B-1 & 2 before the 52 goes away.

[@johnkelly6888]

I'm glag that I saw it in Dayton Ohio,it's has an enormous size.

[@EstorilEm]

North American didn’t come up with the concept of compression lift, NACA did - and many defense contractors looked into it. NA just happened to actually take advantage of the data and implement it into a surprisingly feasible aircraft.

[@carlhursh505]

When I first saw it at Wright Pat., I thought it was hanging from the ceiling. IT IS SO HUGE!

[@robertheinkel6225]

When it was parked outside, they would drive buses right under the fuselage,when dropping off visitors.

[@daystatesniper01]

Superb doc' and she looks amazing in the amazing museum in Dayton ,one question ,does actual footage exist of the collision ?

[@skunkjobb]

32:35 The escape capsules weren't unique to the XB-70. The B-58 Hustler had similar capsules and existed before the Valkyrie.

[@Tiddy-boy-lacroix]

Mcnamara ruined absolutely everything he ever got hia stupid hands on.

[@intercommerce]

Best documentary on the best plane ever built. One question I've never figured out, was where the hell was the bombay?

[@winternow2242]

the XB-70A was a fkight test aircraft, not a bomber. It did have a payload bay for instruments, and that was in the lower fuselgae behind the intakes.

[@LuciFeric137]

NAA built some incredible air vehicles.

[@5kylord]

Your date of the sound barrier being broken for the first time is wrong. 2:09. The correct date was October 14, 1947.

[@lesterweinheimer665]

Great program, I love your Channel! I'm a pilot and I would have given my eye teeth to fly one of those!!

[@oleksandrkyiv7080]

XB-70 - one of my favourite! Great work! Thank you!

[@danmathers141]

This is a great plane. Sad about the tragedy. What would have been the next few steps for this plane if it had continued? What would the bomb bay looked like in a production vehicle?

[@AITF045]

Based on what I’ve found out about the plane so far, there was to be a single bomb bay right behind the “step” on the underside of the aircraft. It’s door was to slide backwards inside the fuselage. The actual armament is somewhat unclear

[@stevenlitvintchouk3131]

@@AITF045 The XB-70 was so fast that it could catch up to its own missiles.

[@tylernewton7217]

It’s just amazing - I look at that thing- the sheer SIZE, the cutting edge design elements, the pure extreme of it all and I can’t believe the US was willing to take it THAT FAR! I mean, it’s pretty clear by the mock-up stage it was going to be way too extreme a machine to realistically field in worthwhile numbers. But they still went into the full testing phase before canceling.

[@ashfaq1999]

Great video of this amazing airplane

[@ronmoore5272]

Thank you for the memory refresher. I remember this from Life Magazine and talking about it in school and that my birthday is June just made the memory more personal to a 9 year old kid that loved airplanes.

[@harryblox760]

That must have been nerve-wracking on the second flight, getting the landing gear up knowing that previously it stayed down and on landing caught fire. They must have been thinking if we get the gear up, what if it doesn't go down when we need it too for landing. The test pilots for all of those planes back then were something else. I can't begin to think what goes through their minds on a planes very first flight, especially new groundbreaking designs like these.

[@Bransons.]

Lucky to have seen the one at Wright Patt. Very neat plane

[@slimsygeoduck8]

Another excellent video

[@cosiDIVerso]

23:56 the chaser pilot then said " a beauty" just after the white bird touched down. Seconds after another cameraman down near a bush would take a view of the t38 from below, couple feet above him while laning.

[@tkskagen]

Such a beautiful aircraft!

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

Valkyrie probably couldn't survive flying over the Soviet Union, but then again no other bomber could, either. And the Americans would certainly shoot down Bears and Backfires like a turkey shoot. What the Valkyrie could probably do was provide a rapid response alternative to doomsday ICBMs that can't be recalled. The Valkyries could be called to stand by in a Defcon 5 situation and fly at supersonic speed to the Soviet border and launch standoff nuclear missiles if given the go ahead. Or, turn back if recalled if political solutions come through last-minute. It could respond faster than the B-52. The B-52 had the advantage in conventional war but the B70 could have been a useful alternative to ICBMs and SLBMs from submarines as a real, ultimate, end of the world mutually assured destruction threat. Plus if given ECM it could evade SAMs just like SR-71.

[@cfcgregd]

The management at North American Aviation were given an 8mm firm of the aircraft in various modes, landing and take off. My mother was given one of those 8mm films which is in our family, today.

[@andrejbovhan1591]

Watched all I could find on the net about this plane, sure hope there's something I heaven't heard before

[@jonathancooley8745]

such a beautiful aircraft

[@ashfaq1999]

Great video of the xb70

[@Chima4289]

Brilliant plane, brilliant Engineers!!!❤

[@JonathanEzor]

I've loved the Valkyrie since I first heard about it. Thank you.

[@victorgavidia6724]

A complete Duddddd... Looks amazing but the Sr-71 is my kind of machine

[@drummerdoingstuff5020]

Amazing video

[@sw653j]

Can you imagine, having a B-58 Hustler as a chase plane...Cool...

[@JohnCunningham-sy5ug]

Yes invisibility is the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room. Part of my motorcycle training decades ago a vidio was shown to the class and we were asked if we saw the Gorilla? Most did not the second time around knowing to look for it eureka we saw it. The point was to illustrate that you are not a natural occurrence so assume you are invisible to most drivers and do what you can be noticed. Contrasting colors help don't let vanity handicap you being noticed. The example of black rain gear is correct. Be seen. Great video keep it coming

[@dougball328]

Let's get a few things corrected. The Sr-71 was also flying at Mach 3 in the same timeframe (starting with the A12), Second, this is the XB-70, not XP-70, and it's pronounced SAC, like sack, not S-A-C. And Yeager broke the sound barrier on Oct 14, 1947, not in December.

[@philliplopez8745]

An excercise powered by fear , a fear that lingers even today .

[@harryparsons2750]

Nuclear powered aircraft? I never knew anything even thought about it

[@larryblanks6765]

Most beautiful Bomber ever built.

[@smark1180]

It wasn't a bomber.

[@MrPolymers]

I was a kid in 1969 when my Dad took us to Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio where I saw the Valkyrie when it had just flown in on it's last flight. Before it was brought inside the museum..

[@Marc816]

When the XB-70 was first displayed, it scared the s___ out of the USSR.

[@winternow2242]

Not a chance. By the time the XB-70A flew, the B-70 had long been canceled, so there was no military Valkyrie to be afraid of. Also the Soviets flew the MiG-25 before Valkyrie's first flight. The Soviets had SAMs for defense, and ICBMs for retaliation. There's no historical evidence that the Soviets at all feared this airplane, and more evidence to the contrary.

[@martykarr7058]

It started as a package deal, with the XF-108 as an escort, using the same compression-lift technology, but when they started cutting the program, the 108 was the first thing cancelled. Additionally, in North American's handout on the XB-70, there was a proposed SST version for civil aviation.

[@winternow2242]

Doubtful. The XF-108 was supposed to have a combat range of only 1200 miles, far short of the 4,000+ miles range for the B-70, the plane you suggest was it's intended escort. Also, I've never seen any evidence that XF-108 was designed with compression lift in mind. The XF-108 lacks the prominent ventral intakes of the B-70, and that plane's folding wingtips. It's clear that nobody expected them to work with each other.

[@smark1180]

False. It wasn't a "package deal." The F-108 was an interceptor, not an escort, nor did it employ compression lift.

[@martykarr7058]

@@smark1180 Actually it was intended to fulfill BOTH roles as part of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier#WS-202A. And if you look at the concept art of the article, you'll notice it had the wing tip droop, just like the XB-70, indicating it would have used compression lift.

[@smark1180]

@@martykarr7058 First, you didn't address "package deal" - it wasn't. Second, WS-202A evolved from LRI-X Long-Range Interceptor, Experimental program, not an escort program. "In addition to the F-108's interceptor role, *North American (not WS-202A) proposed it* as a penetration fighter to aid its own B-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber prototype." "To accompany the B-70 all the way to its target and back, the F-108 in its initial concept would have, at best, marginal range." Third, yes one version showed the XF-108 with very slight wingtip "droop," but that was not for compression lift. Unless you provide some documentation, your claim is baseless speculation.

[@winternow2242]

​@@martykarr7058actually of you look at the wiki page you'll see that's entirely wrong. XF-108 wouldn't have been long ranged enough to accompany the B-70 to its target. Also, the point of making a triple sonic, high altitude altitude bomber is that it's impervious to defenses, and doesn't need an escort. Also, there's more to compression lift than "wing tip droop". Have you found any published information showing that compression lift had anything to do with the Rapier's design?

[@K-Effect]

As this beautiful, awesome and amazing aircraft is being built, the Ford Mustang is still on the drawing board

[@ioanbota9397]

Realy I like this powerful supersonic bombardiers

[@ChrisHopkinsBass]

Nice of the narrator to mention that the US only got into jet research when the UK gave them engines and blueprints

[@realnutteruk1]

I never worked out where they were going to store the bombs!

[@winternow2242]

Lower fuselage, behind the intakes.

[@robertheinkel6225]

It only carried nukes.

[@Real_Claudy_Focan]

I like the documentary bits between ads

[@derjoh1986]

What's the name of the music? 47:25

[@ioanbota9397]

I like this powerful bombardiers

[@michaelhilborn4204]

The Valkyrie suffered the same fate as the British TSR-2 and the Canadian CF-105 Arrow. Magnificent aircraft utilizing breakthrough technology, they were all rendered obsolete once it became clear the best way to accomplish the mission was to be invisible. The rules of the game had changed and they were left behind.

[@TheChipsDesireEST]

I am surprised you didn't mention the aluminum infused rubber tires used also on the sr-71

[@twt3716]

Is this the plane that was used in the film Firefox ? Looks a lot like it.

[@winternow2242]

The Firefox movie plane was just a prop. While having some features similar to XB-70A, there are also many differences.

[@markconner5569]

I have Al Whites Book and he talks a bit about the time it took for him to recover. Does anyone know if he was a guest of Jackie Cochran & Floyd Odlum during this time period? Floyd seemed to have been quite magnanimous w the Test Pilot crowd of the day.

[@intercommerce]

Well, that, some proto-computers, and some damn clever designers, engineers, and the U.S. taxpayers!

[@rob379lqz]

Yabus. How ✋ dooz nuclear boiler heat up to schpin dem propies zo fast?? Das nitogena in they tires?

[@WilliamCollins-sh6lm]

That thing is HUGE !!! And can be seen in Dayton Ohio !!!

[@WilliamCollins-sh6lm]

Perhaps not that one but still one is on display at Wright Patterson !!!

[@rbnhd1976]

Thanks

[@rbnhd1976]

Why in he11 does everyone have @ now

[@MandG80439]

Chase planes flying REALLY close. Eventually that caught up with them. Interrelated aerodynamic effects.

[@HandicapRacer]

Im convinced the u.s. pay two companies to compete unknowingly against eachother and whoever has the better design the u.s. takes and whoever was ahead or on schedule would actually get to build it, even if it wasnt the iriginating conpany....

[@davidmalcolm9524]

If it hadn't been for Bell Engineers "Taking" the schematics of the 'All Moving Tailplane' from the British Miles M52 - yeager would not have been able to break the Sound Barrier when he did. That is a fact. Also - British Gloster Meteor proper Jet Fighters Routinely broke the Sound Barrier in shallow Dives as early as 1946 - not like Yeager in his "Rocket" Powered X-1, which incidentally resembles the Miles M52 rather a lot - or at least it did after Bell visited the Miles Factory and took Schematics back to the US with them in 46!

[@Dronescapes]

According the Eric Brown, an authority on the matter, as he was supposed to be the M.52 pilot, they did indeed assist Bell with their issues, but the X-1 was not a copy. It is safe to say, as Brown clearly implied with his British aplomb, that the British government abruptly cancelled the 95% ready M.52 test without any explanation whatsoever (to this day). The only logical conclusion us that they were asked to give Bell the edge, as their first attempt was scheduled for much later (months). It was the least that Britain could do for the country that saved them. I am sure that you are aware that later they secretly run a scale model of the M.52, and it easily broke the sound barrier. Ultimately Imthink the U.S. deserved that goal, but eventually history will tell us that Britain could have easily achieved it a lot earlier. Eric Brown, beside being 5he most successful test pilot in history, also knew what he was doing, which is why he survived countless adventures. Bless him!

[@jerryg53125]

There was no Miles M-52....ever.Miles only got as far as a Ply-Wood mock-up when the project was cancelled.

[@myguitarjoe]

Nice video.

[@oxcart4172]

The speed of sound was broken on 14th of October 1947!

[@winternow2242]

Actually it was broken I'm 1942, when the first A-4 missiles were launched. 1947 was the first supersonic flight of a manned aircraft.

[@oxcart4172]

@@winternow2242 Well, technically, it was broken the day somebody invented the whip, but thanks for that!

[@wbertie2604]

The video would have more credibility if it had got the year that Yeager went over Mach 1 correct.

[@jerryg53125]

Yes you are right.How about October 14,1947.

[@ag1317]

Dude, it’s Ex-BEE-Seventy. Why do I keep hearing XP-70?!

[@sheldoninst]

Why did the XB70/B58 omit a drop down nose, where as the civilian SSTs included one? Was it because these aircraft had different angles of attack during takeoff/landing, along with parachutes to help slow the planes down on landing that the drop down nose was omitted? That would seem to contradict the civilian SST version of the XB70 as it also omitted the drop down nose…

[@winternow2242]

I'm going to guess it has something to do with runway length. I can't find any online Info about how long a runway Valkyrie needed. Most of the XB-70A's life was spent at Edward's which has a 15,000 foot runway. That's longer than all 3 runways at KJFK, which is where Concorde spent much of its life. It's also longer than the runways at WP, where XB-70A retired, but that last flight was likely made on limited fuel.

[@sheldoninst]

@@winternow2242 But what about the B58, it also lacked a drop nose. So it seems runway length doesn’t quite fit

[@winternow2242]

@@sheldoninst B-58s compensated with high nose-up angles on approach, something that would have not been acceptable for an airliner. Even so, the B-58 suffered heavy attrition, losing 1 of every 5 airframes in accidents.

[@sheldoninst]

@@winternow2242 B58s suffered high attrition as did B47s, probably due to the relative novelty of flying delta winged and nearly prototype aircraft for sure. But the B58 and SSTs both have very high angles of attack for takeoff/landings, yet the B58/XB70 never employed a drop nose. It seems there’s some other reason because the fundamentals (runway length, speed, delta wing qwerks, high angles of attack) are common to all supersonic platforms…

[@winternow2242]

@@sheldoninst "But the B58 and SSTs both have very high angles of attack for takeoff/landings, yet the B58/XB70 never employed a drop nose." because they are military aircraft, not civilian, so their operators accept more rigorous conditions than would be acceptable for an airliner. Also, those considerations were much less of a concern for the XB-70A, which was not going to enter production/regular service. Few supersonic platforms use delta wings, notably those that use variable geometry that allows them to mimic delta wings; also, and accepting tailed-deltas, the Hornet and MiG-29 are definitely not deltas, while the delta-winged Vulcan isn't supersonic.

[@dennisking1555]

And to think you didn’t even mention Sir Frank whittle,the leading pioneer in jet propulsion

[@Dronescapes]

Well, we have an entire documentary dedicated to him... kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWG3ZWCOfJtkaLM We are also publishing his never seen before raw interviews. The channel is a great supporter of his legacy

[@F5Storm1]

"XP70" lmao

[@kristensorensen2219]

#632👍🤔😤Such a pointless loss of two great airmen in that midair colission. It was and should have been avoidable had the unfortunate chase plane stayed out of the vortex from the wingtip. Nice video!!

[@dylanwyatt7419]

23:51 what aircraft is landing with the XB-70

[@RazelDiel-vh9tp]

Oh my god....

[@businessjetguru1298]

Your inaccuracy does a disservice to many people. The jet engine was invented by Sir Frank Whittle. The US was given samples and plans for Whittle’s designs, which is how jet engines started development in the US, by companies including Bell. The first Whittle engine entered service on the Gloster Meteor, in 1943. All of the pioneering work in developing jet aircraft and ballistic rockets was either completed by the Germans (V1 and V2 programs created by the future head of NASA, Walter von Braun) or by the British (Whittle turbojet engine and Gloster Meteor airframe). Get your facts right.