XB-70A Valkyrie: Progress Report 16

[@Akula114]

I can't imagine anyone's stomach not taking a dip when the narrator mentioned chase planes. Heartbreaker.

[@fw1421]

What an amazing piece of engineering. In ‘65 I was 12 years old and an avid plastic model builder. Airplanes like this made me awestruck. They came and before they ever went into production they were obsolete and gone. At least they didn’t scrap the only one left like they did with the Flying Wing bombers. I was at the USAF Museum in the early 2000’s and was able to go to the restoration facility and X-Planes hangar. There she was the most beautiful and huge airplane I’d ever seen. The aircraft were jammed together even under the XB-70. I was walking under it admiring how perfectly smooth the skin was when I noticed right in front of the engine intakes that there were wrinkles in the tubular part of the aircraft skin. That didn’t look right to me. Later I found one of the Museum Docents and asked her about it. She said that all the years it sat outside moisture had built up in the stainless steel honeycomb and areas had disbonded from the skin. But now that it was permanently inside it shouldn’t get any worse. I commented that maybe they should put some kind of support under it to take the weight off it. She said that engineers had given it an ok for not needing support,after all it was designed to stand high heat and Mach 3 stresses. I’m hoping to go back to the museum sometime soon. The new hangar has more historic planes to see and the Memphis Belle is now on display in the WWII hangar.

[@skeligun]

Why don't we have videos like this anymore, this is beyond fascinating. I appreciate how much detail they went into.

[@darylsmioth1904]

Its weird watching the old trucks and vehicles around the XB-70. Looks like they got caught in a time warp.

[@joeshupienis4388]

Cars and trucks are developed with planned obsolescence to encourage consumers to buy the latest model every year or two. Aircraft have always been designed for longevity and lifelong support, due to their extreme cost and to meet the stringent specifications of their customers. Having said that the motor vehicles are funny and ugly, while the aircraft are beautiful, even to this day, where many of the aircraft seen here are still used today, some 60 years later!

[@karpovlepreux2323]

Great video ! USAF & NASA at their best. 😊

[@tonerotonero1375]

Fabulous machine. A technical wonder. Great video, very instructive, thanks for the upload.

[@sbains560]

Futuristic then and now What a beautiful aircraft I saw it up close in Dayton Ohio 😎

[@orange70383]

There was some super sharp hard working people back then, everything hands on.

[@philorkill]

Amazing plane and amazing documentation! So much detail. I love it.

[@Gillymonster18]

It’s mind boggling the scale and complexity of programs like these. Almost every reasonably conceivable event and data accounted for.

[@dougadoo1976able]

Absolutely beautiful plane very far ahead of its time. How did we get so far ahead in such a very short time

[@gillesbueno1153]

Douglas Warner simple: you were by far the wealthiest country in the World, we were at the peak of the Cold War, you were about to send men to the moon, your pop culture was at its peak and spreading throughout the World, music, cinema, litterature.in other words, you were the leader of the Western World. April 2020.

[@pikefolsom6061]

Aliens

[@gregtaylor6146]

..... by not wasting money on 'social projects.'

[@LuciFeric137]

@Najaf right

[@LuciFeric137]

The modern era was essentially created from 1939 to 1946. We peaked in 1969.

[@magooracing]

I just saw the remaining XB70 at the Air Force National Museum in Dayton Ohio. Crazy how large it is. Took two days to go thru the whole place. If you like planes, there’s over 350 they say.

[@trankt54155]

That was when America was on top of the game...

[@leslierhodes1316]

Most awesome plane ever made

[@ilya.kortev]

Very interesting time, people completely gave themselves for progress.

[@troycarothers8254]

11:26 Tractor-feed printout paper. I remember the sound of those printers...LOUD!!!

[@barryrudge1576]

Called a teleprinter, I used to use them regularly in the early 70's. To send a message you first typed the message onto a roll of tape that punched out rows of holes. If you made a mistake you've have to back space hit the key that punched 4 holes that registered nothing when you fed it through the reader. Very mechanical and at one time I could read a message directly off the punched tape.

[@osvaldomedina2577]

que maravilla de avion, era una epoca increible, felicitaciones

[@davidgeoghegan8506]

Incredible

[@catcraftgaming]

Does anyone know where I can find all the progress reports? I'm so interested into the XB-70 and I'd love to watch them all.

[@ronjon7942]

Even the Starfighters look out of date next to this machine.

[@rael5469]

8:10 WHOA ! Inspections performed after 25 hours of flight time? I think it's ten times that now.

[@FlyNAA]

Sooo, it stands to reason there are Progress Reports 1-15 and maybe 17+? Pleasepleasepleaseplease...

[@LuciFeric137]

North American Aviation designs: P 51, X 15, XB 70, Apollo Command Module.

[@vibrolax]

North American Rockwell: Space Shuttle Orbiter

[@ronjon7942]

Laf, and the X-15 and Shuttle; might have to leave that to a Blender renderer.

[@philipselden7264]

How loud that plane must have been in full afterburner.

[@bassbob42]

very cool stuff

[@davidbaldwin1591]

With a life cycle of 35 hours on each screaming siren of an engine, nobody was wasting time. I could waste 35 hours just interviewing the slice of pie at 5:09, wearing those, very forward for the day mind you, screaming tight slacks.

[@KN4PHS]

DUDE, that is a DUDE!

[@davidbaldwin1591]

@@KN4PHS I don't mean to dispute that, but the person with the blue/white shirt has breasts and heels, and she has hips.

[@jeffb8561]

She was a hottie! Must have had every guy there wanting to take her out on a date! I know I would have been!

[@shaunwilliams4231]

So beautiful in person:)

[@daninfrance2892]

I wonder if the data collected during this program is still available. It could be useful for the companies that are developing supersonic business jets.

[@Gillymonster18]

Technologically this program has been left far behind. Since then we’ve advanced so much in electronics and material science. It obviously worked and I feel could easily be applied in a modern aircraft but our thinking has changed so much. Even just the idea of supersonic business jets is uncertain: if they’re even worth it, would they be considered acceptable? Still, it’s amazing what these people accomplished. Doing so much math and design work by hand. Before ready-made calculators and integrated circuits..

[@ThunderAppeal]

I expect to be kept updated on the progress.

[@bobsondugnutt2762]

This remarkable aircraft predates the original Star Trek TV series by almost exactly TWO YEARS.

[@borntoclimb7116]

3:01 so beautiful

[@RobertReenders]

Fascinating!

[@whirledpeas3477]

North American was ahead of Lockheed at the time. Both are great American companies

[@ronaldtartaglia4459]

This is gold!

[@MrShobar]

Joe Cotton once saved the XB-70 from destruction using a paper clip removed from the flight plan, and some simple household tools he kept in his briefcase.

[@kh40yr]

110,000,000 bits of information stored in 90 minutes. was that the Nasa recorder pallet,, or the AF recorder info??,, or both??. Hmm. Just wow anyways.

[@luizcomet1969]

5:13 uh lá lá...

[@lukehanley5392]

Thunderbirds are GO.

[@beardedbatman225]

We used to be so cool

[@borntoclimb7116]

Amazing

[@kevkeary4700]

wow I loved that 🙂

[@richardlong9877]

All of those parts, people, and logistics and only 2 of these planes were built?

[@brianhiles8164]

_Three._ One of the lesser “advertised“ aspects of the XB-70A prototype joint AF and NASA flight assessment project, was that a third _Valkyrie_ was 95% finished when the presidential decree was made to terminate the bomber program. It was immediately scrapped. Four prototypes had been initially ordered. Too bad. Government-funded projects are typically not ameniable to the foresight of museum preservation. I guess the 12,000 lb of titanium and the rest mainly of high tensile stainless steels was just too valuable to not reutilize. Titanium is still expensive nowadays, even though it is now locally mined and smelted due to a new industrial process, but back in the era of the _Valkyrie_ and the _Blackbird,_ it is to be noted that all the titanium utilized for the fabrication of the latter aircraft, and _probably_ the former as well, was surreptitiously purchased at great expense by the CIA _from the USSR,_ which was at the time the only source in the world for industrial quantities of that metal.

[@joeshupienis4388]

Development of Mach 18 ICBMs rendered Mach 3 bombers irrelevant for WMD delivery before pencil was ever set to paper by the XB-70 designers. The project was really created to study high Mach flight platforms as a government gift to commercial airlines, and for tactical aircraft. The outcome was that even though Mach 3 was possible, and more fuel efficient high-Mach engines were on the horizon, the limited maneuverability of Mach-3+ flight precluded any tactical use, and a break-even passenger fare would exceed $4,000 for a 2,000 mile transoceanic flight (á la Concorde) per passenger. And that $4,000 in 1967 translates to $34,000 in today's watered-down, inflation-devalued "money".

[@wallemon06]

Is the airframe in the film the one that crashed or the one now in the museum?

[@winternow2242]

Both appear to have been used in the film. In at least 1 shot, the tail number ends 01, which is the one in the museum. In 21:40, you can see the tail number end in 07, which is the plane that crashed.

[@non-human3072]

110000000 bits = 13.75 megabytes of data... wowsers

[@Gillymonster18]

That’s a mountain of data back then. Didn’t even have integrated circuits yet.

[@sujitsingh7446]

What was the year when this footage was shot ?

[@smark1180]

It's dated 31 DECEMBER 1965. So before then.

[@clydecessna737]

I've never seen a picture of the bomb bay open. Has anyone else seen it?

[@winternow2242]

There's no bomb bay because this wasn't a bomber prototype, but an experimental aircraft.

[@vertisjohnson219]

That what was to have been a weapons bay carried test equipment only.

[@vivvar2000]

super

[@encoencomen8361]

I have parts belonging to AV-2

[@ronjon7942]

Which parts? Spill! That would be interesting to read about. You’re a lucky collector.

[@timflomer2438]

To bad Boeing didn't have any engineers that could develop a bomber that could fly faster than mach 1.

[@belacickekl7579]

You do realize that Boeing bought Rockwell/NA, right?

[@winternow2242]

Boeing was one of the finalists for the B-70, and their version was definitely capable of flying faster than Mach 1.

[@MrShobar]

Boeing won the contract to build the SST.

[@tbugher62]

Too bad about the one that crashed,and ended the program.

[@winternow2242]

There were 2 B-70 programs, and the crash ended neither of them. As a weapons system, the B-70 was already over in 1961, before any aircraft had been built. Instead, both planes were flown fore experimental purposes, as the US was pursuing a civilian SST program, powered by a civilian version of the B-70's engine. That program continued on after the crash, with its last flight in 1969.

[@renesarmiento130]

Yrs, You know the Russians used this Design to Make the SU-27 Flanker.

[@winternow2242]

It barely looks, and flies anything like the Su-27. The Russians didn't begin work on the Su-27 until 1969, the year in which the B-70 was sent to the USAF museum.

[@ronjon7942]

Maybe the Tu-4?

[@winternow2242]

@@ronjon7942 what about the Tu-4?

[@guillermomarcucci2582]

La verdad, con el paso del tiempo, mas y más absurda fue la razón por la cual dieron de baja el programa XB 70. Acaso el B 52 no es obsoleto a los misiles tierra-aire?? No es obsoleto el B-1B ?? Y por qué no hicieron igual los rusos que hoy por hoy se pabonean con el TU-160??? Tendría que re vivir !!!!

[@winternow2242]

The B-70 relied on speed and altitude to elude air defenses. Soviet technology advanced to negate speed and altitude performance. Newer aircraft are arguably obsolete, but have a better chance because they can fly lower, under enemy radar, enjoy a reduced radar cross section and are harder to detect, or use more sophisticated electronic warfare gear.

[@guillermomarcucci2582]

@@winternow2242 Si ya se todo ese tipo de cosas. El B-52 no fue diseñado precisamente para el vuelo bajo, para eludir radares, y ahí está. Por otra parte, Bush hijo, luego de la guerra de Irak, pidió un bombardero supersónico Mach 3, mínimo o más en lo posible.

[@winternow2242]

@@guillermomarcucci2582 do you have any evidence that a mach 3 bomber is in development? The B-21 proposal was in 2014, and it's barely supersonic. The Invasion of Iraq was nearly 20 years ago, and there's no word of a manned Mach 3 bomber.

[@guillermomarcucci2582]

@@winternow2242 tu eres de Estados Unidos?? Porque de ser así, lo que yo digo sobre la directiva de Bush hijo fue noticia pública, vale hombre, que hasta yo me enteré por la CNN. Se especulo mucho con un proyecto ultra secreto Aurora, bombardeo de Mach 6. Las especificaciones generales de Bush eran de un bombardero Mach 3, mínimo y una carga bélica en sus bodegas superior a la de un B-52 en armas convencionales.

[@winternow2242]

@@guillermomarcucci2582 "Aurora" isn't news. Firstly, there's no evidence, only rumors. Secondly, those rumors are way older than either President Bush. Can you actually link an article that actually quotes a source?

[@mossmonaco9061]

Unlimited resources and 'Can Do'.

[@dougtaylor7724]

That was 1965. Just think what we have in 2021.

[@raffiaroyan1118]

Unfortunately I think the 60s was the peak of aerospace research and development, all we got nowadays are pork projects, cost overruns and products that don’t meet their goals

[@dougtaylor7724]

@@raffiaroyan1118 Back then they never considered a project was impossible, their thinking was “we just haven’t figured it out yet.”

[@winternow2242]

Nothing we can afford to put into production.

[@gregtaylor6146]

Shame that yahoo pilot Joe Walker took it upon himself to 'kamikaze' into ship 2.

[@davidbaldwin1591]

I also like the comment of some, who pointed out this whole thing was a risky low speed, highly repeated photo op, that from a technical point was totally unnecessary. You could say this mismatched, and tiring formation flight had a built in danger, when you add the human factor. All for promotion, & what safety officer signed off on this?

[@MrShobar]

@@davidbaldwin1591 Several were reprimanded for this largely unauthorized commercial promotion (for General Electric).

[@joeshupienis4388]

At the low speed, the wake turbulence from the XB-70 was a complete unknown. Unfortunately Joe Walker's aircraft was the first experience of the XB-70's wake, and was overpowered by it. Catastrophe followed. Such is the nature of test flight.

[@ronjon7942]

Not sure I’d consider Mr. Walker anything but one of the world’s best pilots. He was instrumental in the X-15 program. I would defer to his excellence that the tragic accident was due to miscalculation.

[@gregtaylor6146]

@@ronjon7942 - Not quite sure what you're saying there Ron ....especially that last sentence? Soory, but my point still stands.