Yes this is a reupload if you didn't notice! In my haste with the first version I let an error slip through, and I failed to fix it with the youtube editor - resulting in my video completely falling away! haha hope you enjoy round 2!
My mother remembers seeing this thing on the ramp and in the hangar at Edwards AFB when she was a kid. She said it always looked like a huge white dinosaur to her. My grandfather, Vic Horton, was a NASA engineer and test pilot and flew on the YF-12A and SR-71 with Fitz Fulton, one of the Valkyrie test pilots. Grandpa also organized search and recovery efforts after the #2 ship crashed. He knew all three men involved. We still have an autographed momento that was aboard the XB-70's first Mach 3 flight (it's a sample of the unique stainless steel honeycomb cut in the shape of the airplane).
@@person5476 he was. He used to try to tell me about things like this, but I was too young to understand. Now I look back and it's like, "WOW!!! He did THAT???"
Would love a video about the North American XF-108 Rapier. The proposed interceptor "baby brother" of the XB-70 that was to use the same engine. So beautiful.
I love how they were planning on replacements for the B-52 in 1954. Meanwhile, in 2021 the B-52 still serves with distinction and no one would dare replace it.
In its former main role it was replaced by B-1s and B-2s, however die to its versatility it's used for different purposes today. It's the versatility which left it in service.
@@johnosbourn4312 it will remain in service until 2040, at least this are the plans. However, the B-21 will replace the B-2 and the B-1, not the B-52. The B-52 is used for a different role today as a cheap bomb truck, for little to not defended airspace, while the B-21 will be capable of penetrating defended airspace due to the stealth
One of my top 3 favorite terrestrial aircraft. The original Valkyrie AV-1 is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB outside Dayton, Ohio. Half a century later it remains as magnificent and awe-inspiring as ever; I highly encourage seeing it for yourself!
I saw that beautiful beast in Dayton AF National Museum while visiting the US two years ago… it is truly impressive! (and looks a bit like a mechanical giraffe) 🥰✈️
@@t65bx25 I’m mad this plane never got made. The Rooskies made the Mig-25 Foxbat specifically to counter this kind of intercontinental bomber, but if they could’ve made this fly at Mach 3 for hours like the SR-71, the MiGs wouldn’t have been able to catch it.
Volume production amortizes development costs: "We got a bunch parked out back, so why don't you just buy one of those?" I am a fan of COTS and not spending money to re-invent the wheel.
7:18 Ionic Engine. That got a double take. Maybe it would have had two of them. You know, Twin Ion Engines. Might be an acronym there for a fighter version.
Adjacent engines, could've helped in the fine tune yaw steering, that NASA was 13:20 bickering about (aside from being the cause of the accident with their spectate planes😒). But it would be a concept, that Lockheed mastered, forgotten in this Boeng craft. Which Lockheed achieved with the 71 & 72 SR models, making the aircraft *body* itself, *BEING a (elongated)* Wing, the only reason SR 71 & 72 had extends of wings form, was to carry bulk efficient engines that exploited sound for speed. Not perfect though, Lockheed also lacked another dilemma, no *cooling cycle* turbine, traveling in mid Earth hemisphere high, a turbine that cycled micro air intakes from front side, of wing rims and engines, compress lather flowed to the front nose cone, shower cooling from thin atmosphere burns 🔥. Instead, "Titanium" was a 'solution,' but would only lead to *extreme maintenance tagging* on arrival, for EVERY landing retun.
Actually the XB-70 was found to have superior low handling performance to the B-52. It was not only faster, but more stable and exceptionally maneuverable for its size. It would have been an insane low level interdiction bomber. However it's cost was ridiculous when compared to the conventional BUFF and at the time, mid sized low level penetration bomber was already flying for the USAF - the B-58 Hustler. The B-58 was no where near as fast as the Valkyrie but it was still far faster than any BUFF, and flew well at low level. It seemed almost pointless to maintain the XB-70 program when ever you already had two bombers that could do what it could at low level, and the cost of the XB-70 was so high because it was meant to fly high at Mach 3 - a saving to which even the controversial Hustler looked better on paper for.
A truly amazing aircraft! I had the opportunity to see the remaining one in person. It is such a massive aircraft, bigger than anything else they have in the Museum including a B1B and B52. It even makes the B36 on display look small.
Cool 3D model! The air outlet (or whatever it is) on the fuselage above the "U.S. AIR FORCE" text is very noticeable in it. I wasn't actually that aware of that detail on the Valkyrie (even if I have spent a lot of time building an own 3D model of it in Blender), you don't really notice it in most photos.
my mom worked at north american rockwell and we had XB 70 test films and models and photos, along with x-15 models and photos around the house... seemed normal when I was a kid.. but so glamorous looking back at it now.
@@winternow2242 I still have the X-15, the only other one I've ever seen is at MIT. I think my brother had the XB-70 at one point.. but probably lost it.
Congratulations. Your facile and relatively comprehensive technical narrative compliments your stock footage selection, including some footage I have never seen until now. I know how difficult and time intensive the process of documentary making, however short, can be. Just a small quibble though: You imply, via a shot of stock footage showing welding, that indeed the stainless steel honeycomb panels were fabricated by this method (10:15). Actually, they were fabricated by compression of the three components with brazing compound applied, and brazing was then accomplished by putting them in a heated autoclave in an inert gas environment.
Around 1969, my Dad took our family to Wright Patterson Airforce Base Dayton. I was around 10 years old. I remember seeing the Valkyrie on the Tarmac. Little did I know that this was it's final flight and end of this bird's flying days.
I find the link between the 2 more assumed than established. That’s the conventional wisdom - a mach 3 interceptor to handle a mach 3 bomber. The problem is that the timing is off. The MiG-25 followed earlier research programs into high-speed interceptors of the Ye-150 family, work that was older than the B-70, meaning that Soviet research into dealing with the B-70 began before the B-70 even existed. The MiG-25 program itself was initiated before the B-70 was cancelled as a weapons system, but not by much - maybe a few weeks. Despite the end of the B-70 program, America’s not replacing the loss of AV2 in 1966, and the B-70’s replacement with the more modest AMSA program, the Soviets continued developing the MiG-25 for years. MiG-25 serial production began in 1969, the year that the last B-70 was sent to the Air Force museum. The Soviets, not unlike the Americans, began many exotic programs, and then abandoned them. But accepting the MiG-25/B-70 theory requires the belief that the Russians continued developing - and spending huge sums of money - on a plane to deal with a problem that hadn’t existed for years.
I followed, as best I could, the news developments in regards to this plane hoping it would go into production simply because I thought it was the most beautiful plane I ever laid eyes on. 56 years later my original sentiment still holds.
It was outrageous, WHY it never went into production. 12:24 Just because of an air flight accident practice during test! Not even flaws of designs, all because a bunch of *maverick* flying spectate 12:43 goons (NASA's spectate planes th-cam.com/video/7NYPWip7H2g/w-d-xo.html ), traveling so close. A loss in a potential *Orbitliner* ability, as well, *space craft carriers* future services.
It never went into production because it didn't add enough to America's military capabilities to outweigh its anticipated costs. The accident had nothing to do with canceling the B-70 as a weapons system. That happened in 1961. The accident was in 1966.
I wanted to mention something, an observation on some of the footage for SST research and super sonic planes. There's a scene with an engineer setting up a large scale white plane in a wind tunnel and oddly the plane looks different from the actual proposed designs and doesn't match other concepts.
You can stipulate english application alone though, your comments have nothing to do with aerospace engineering and even less people care about your opinion in this case. It's like the English lit kid showing up for AutoCAD 🤨. No one cares.
@Galileo7of9 exactly, dozens of ideas left unnoticed.... Until now courtesy of your attention to detail. Thanks bait, you snagged the algorithms on this one. My work is done here.
As a Long Haul Flight Attendant with Qantas, was privileged to work on 767-200 767-300 747-200 747-300 747-400 A330-200 A330-300 Then Air New Zealand 787 Dreamliner. As horrific as COVID has been for us all, it gave our skies a break. Once we take down the monster CCP that we created and have allowed to get away with murder literally, we can look after our planet again. Amen. Keep up the awesome mahi. Kia Kaha from Aotearoa. 🇳🇿👍🏻🙏🏻☺️
Maybe some flight attendant stories would be a cool & fun addition to your channel? Loved the Eastern Airlines ghosts who were trying to help the living crew with problems before they arose, that was fascinating! 🥰🙏🏻👍🏻☺️
There was no XB-70, and XB-70A, this was one, and the same, respectfuly. This is still a very remarkable aircraft, for its day, and the plane is also very beautiful, because, her nickname is The White Maiden.
Take a trip to Dayton OH and you can see this beauty in the flesh. As a child I had a love affair with three aircraft the XB-70/X-15/YF-12A. I've always wondered what the Max speed and altitude of the X-15 would have been if launched from the XB-70. Gigantor
Another aircraft you can cover in a future video is the North American XF-108 Rapier interceptor which is powered by two of the XB-70 Valkyrie's General Electric YJ93 turbojets.
It's ridiculous yet impressive that something so much bigger than SR-71 could fly as fast at 2,000 MPH. Impressive aviation technology marvel right there. And I remembered reading that they also were considering developing a SST variant of Valkyrie as well - why reinvent the wheel when you have something already proven in the flight? (And yes Boeing already pretty much here been doing the same thing - they intentionally designed their jumbo jets to be modular.)
Just Imagine this magnificent mashine was build in the Late 50´s / early 60´s , I dont even want to think of what they could doo today with todays Tech, it was a plane like 50 years ahead of its time, just magnificent, my all time fav bomber
You mention the boron fuels but never point out that they were dropped early on due to operational issues, (deposits in testing that tougher than solid stone and could only be removed through careful grinding which more often than not damaged the equipment and toxic combustion residue in the exhaust) and never used operationally in the XB-70.
They build expirimental planes around the expirimental pilots. The pilots happily spend their lives devoted to experimentation, powered by that same jet fuel their plane uses. It is a symbiotic relationship, one could not exist without the other
It was such a beautiful plane. I got to see it when it was in the experimental hangar of the Dayton Air Force Museum and it was amazing. I'm happy they moved it to the 4th hangar so everyone can see it
Hypothetically, what are the technical feasibility of replacing the XB-70 Valkyrie's six General Electric YJ93 turbojets with the same number of General Electric F101 turbofans which also powered the B-1A/B Lancer?
If only the chase pilot maintained proper distance, this story would have had a bad ass ending. My favorite aircraft ever since turning the page in Jane's revealing this exotic, powerful monster
It didn't have any impact on it.That crash happened in June of 1966.The XB-70 has already been cancelled.Nasa was flying the two XB-70's as test aircraft.
The aircraft was replaced by ICBM - which were cheaper and proposed a higher success rate. Very fast aircraft typically have a high crash rate too, for example the B-58, which was Mach 2, but very hard to fly and the crash rate was high.
I could see a variant of this craft with a single engine or a single fuel cell with liquid o2 that kicks on when the craft hits a high enough altitude to break through the atmosphere and use that engine and fuel cell to maneuver in orbit then reenter the atmosphere. Or better yet, use the flat bed plane concept with an XB variant mounted on top with 4 engines using conventional jet fuel, but 2 using solely liquid o2 for in atmosphere, and in orbit versatility
can you make a video about the soviet interceptor that was designed to intercept and shoot down the xb-70 valkyrie ( the mig-25) and the successor of the mig-25 ( the mig-31)
4:02 - THAT THING WEIGHS 235 KG?! 🤔 My 98kg self would upset the aircraft in flight... Weird/funny story: my first Elementary school was in San Leandro, California, at a very non-descript, average looking place. But, the moment my 5 year old self walked into the Library, I was mesmerized by the collection of odd aircraft models on display. I'd ask about the models, if they were real planes, and various details I could see. One of those models was a XB-70 Valkyrie, which even had the moving windscreen section. No idea who made the models, but they influenced me deeply. All of the "secret," cancelled and prototype aircraft models were just so damn neat.
XB-70 INSANE & CORRECT FACTS taken from amazing 250 page book “Valkyrie - North American’s Mach 3 Super Bomber” The XB-70 is the ONLY aircraft EVER designed to be able to use compression lift causing it to still have to this day the best lift tp drag ratio increasing overall lift by 34% and INDEFINITELY fly/cruise (the engineers learned that it was much more fuel efficient to stay at mach 3.15 than to just dash when close to target, all other planes to this very day can only dash for short periods at supersonic speeds before having to slow down) at a speed of Mach 3.15 at a height of 95,000 ft weighing a massive 540,000 lbs, with an operational range without refueling of 5,290 nm but could be refueled in air extending its range (it could hold 47,000 gallons of JP-6) carrying 50,000 lbs of 20 megaton thermonuclear bombs on the first ever rotary launchers in two weapons bays which interestingly could only be opened one at a time and not simultaneously . The XB-70 has 6300 sq ft of wing area (NOT including the largest canards of any aircraft ever), the folding wingtips are the largest all moving surface of any aircraft to this day comprising 40% of the total wing area, the highest hydraulic pressure of any aircraft @ 4000 psi (note: V-22 osprey beat that), most of the pioneering R&D for the XB-70 was used by lockheed for the much much less impressive A-12 which turned into the sr-71 everyone loves but only weighed 91,000 lbs and could carry almost no weapons except 3 gar-9 falcon air to air missiles on the cool yf-12 interceptor the worlds TRUE fastest interceptor ever made (NOT the practically useless, but interesting Mig-25 which was built in response their learning of the XB-70, but here’s the kicker: the XB-70 flew higher and faster and by the time the migs were scrambled and up to their maximum of mach 2.85 the xb-70 would have been too high too fast and far away to target with missile/homing tech at that time…I digress). If u wanna know literally ANYTHING about the greatest aircraft ever made by man just reply here. Cheers! Btw, the Intakes on the XB-70 are the largest ever made and you could comfortably stand up in them and inside them it was like being in a small living room, the massive 60inch diameter YJ93-GE-3 jet engines could each produce over 30,000 lbf thrust at 95,000ft at Mach 3.2 for over 500 continuous hours and the true max thrust is STILL classified…
I never found an explanation for compression lift. I know that winglets on subsonic planes reduce the bending on the wing root. Jets have these triangular planforms to keep most lift close the fuselage and reduce bending already in this way. Winglets sense a different angle of attack. So I would guess they operate the regime where a plane is stable? At least with swept wing they increase directional stability. The long, thin fuselage on modern jets has a thick boundary layer and thus destroys lift. Still we better try not to push the airflow to the outside ( The space shuttle has a clean belly). The subsonic leading edge lets air escape from the bottom site to the top. I read the this creates such a large flow that one engine on the Concorde is in danger to stall and gets special treatment. So the winglet catches this flow? The Phantom has jagged leading edge. Can't we use this to get the best of super and sub sonic leading edges? The hustler has pods protruding -- clearly even at supersonic speeds you can still manage aeroelastic stability. Same with the SR-71 cones. Pods look a bit ugly on supersonic planes, but I guess it is the only way to stay clear of the nose wheel debris.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt So when they designed the XB-70 the thing that SPECIFICALLY creates the lift from the shock front is the special splitter at the apex of the lifting massive delta wings, this splitter created a special shockwave that upon hitting the splitter would create extra pressure in the shockwave impinging on the lower surfaces of the wings. In general, “compression lift” is achieved by positioning the wing in a manner to take advantage of the pressure field behind the shockwave generated by the fuselage body. Since a supersonic air inlet for the engines must create a disturbance in the form of a shockwave in order to compress and slow the incoming air and make it available to the engines, North American already had a ready source of a large pressure field. So at Mach 3 this shockwave was bent back about 65 degrees and there was a 0.3 Mach reduction from in front of the shockwave to just aft of it. This resulted in an average pressure rise of 40 lbs per sq ft. By shaping the underbody at the same angle, the compression field was maintained for most of the length of the fuselage. Superimposing the wing on top of the shock system exposed nearly the entire undersafce of the wing to the pressure rise. Since there was no equivalent pressure wave on top of the wing to cancel it out, a 34% increase in lift was available with no drag penalty.
@@ShinVega So it is very sensitive to velocity or temperature. Especially the latter may work out quite well. But on the Concorde the inlets just direct the shock downwards and directly create lift. Also they keep most of the shock internal and manage it. The pressure under the wing can easily changed the normal way: Angle of attack. I agree that the SR-71 is kinda ugly with its 3 noses which spill shockwaves all over the place. I just want to stress that there is nothing better on the XB-70 than on the Concorde. You could switch to more expensive materials and the Concorde (Shape) would win.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt Th Concorde was a piece of shit compared to the XB-70. It had no compression lift and only weighed 400k lbs and couldnt fly nearly as fast or as high or as long as the XB-70. So where’s you reasoning?
@@ShinVega My reasoning is that compression lift does not really exist. Like with winglets you could say wingspan is better ( see 787 with folding winglets ). It is a small second order effect that you reduce bending and thus weight on the wing root. Naíve compression lift descript looks for some first oder effect, which just does not exist. Soviet Union found out with their copy of XB-70 and Anglo-French designers knew that this was just to save the honor. NASA did just measure stuff for research data, not because they built on it (I already mentioned Space Shuttle) . SR-71 is based upon the fact that surface friction becomes your main enemy above Mach3. I am not sure about the leading edge extension, but the shoulder wings and the mid mounted engines and the bevel sure try to minimize surface area. It looks like Canberra. Any cross flow due to compression from this splitter adds to flow and friction and is bad. The sharp Pods on Concorde are not ideal. Also I feel that the landing gear belongs into the pods like on Tu-144 in order to keep the fuselage sleek. The Concorde already has steel leading edges. You just need to gradually move from aluminium to steel. Usage of titanium is just: Throwing money at it. Note how the space shuttle is also made of aluminum so maybe we keep a lot of it. The Concorde is a comfy plane, with lots of payload, noise dampening, A/C. It has a droop nose. I don't like the extended leading edge due to the surface friction and the wing "tip" vortex at supersonic speed. Tu-144 canards ( like on XB-70 ) should be better. I think people exaggerate the weight penalty of movable parts like wingTip, Wings, nose, canards, flying tail-planes.
At the National museum of the United states of america air force in dayton ohio one of the 2 places to get a snack is named in tribute to this amazing plane! I live about 2 hours away from the place, it is quite amazing, you can spend easily an entire day there!
Yes this is a reupload if you didn't notice! In my haste with the first version I let an error slip through, and I failed to fix it with the youtube editor - resulting in my video completely falling away! haha hope you enjoy round 2!
aaah
I came back from the earlier upload and you still haven't fixed the 235 KILOGRAMS weight of the video at 4:02
Hahahaha
Stabibility at 11:50
Guess there's no changing it now
Please join Novalogic or Microprose as CGI experts then give us new flight combat sims
It looks like the russian Concord
My mother remembers seeing this thing on the ramp and in the hangar at Edwards AFB when she was a kid. She said it always looked like a huge white dinosaur to her. My grandfather, Vic Horton, was a NASA engineer and test pilot and flew on the YF-12A and SR-71 with Fitz Fulton, one of the Valkyrie test pilots. Grandpa also organized search and recovery efforts after the #2 ship crashed. He knew all three men involved. We still have an autographed momento that was aboard the XB-70's first Mach 3 flight (it's a sample of the unique stainless steel honeycomb cut in the shape of the airplane).
CIA: "write it down! WRITE HIS ADDRESS DOWN!"
your grandfather is awsome
@@person5476 he was. He used to try to tell me about things like this, but I was too young to understand. Now I look back and it's like, "WOW!!! He did THAT???"
your grandpa is really cool
06ń
4:03 What a looovely light plane. Just 235 Kilograms. No wonder it was so fast.
Theres a few verbal mistakes in this video, stab-ability twice and the pilot injected.
@@joemyers5302 and thats ok, people make mistakes
Lol and 6:11 (not a mistake) hook up just sounds wrong
He might be a non-native speaker, can’t tell though. The video’s are very easy to follow and understand, and a couple of mistakes don’t matter!
4267
Knew about the story of this plane but nothing at all about all those fascinating side projects. Very enlightening, thanks!
Just wanted to second this comment! It's been a long time since I learned anything new about the XB-70.
Il third this comment the plane is well known in the circles but the side projects completely new.
Would love a video about the North American XF-108 Rapier. The proposed interceptor "baby brother" of the XB-70 that was to use the same engine. So beautiful.
The XF-103 is another “what if” that never happened.
Thomas has had enough of your bs
không có hình ảnh máy bay cất hạ cánh.. thì vẫn chỉ mô hình... hoặc là trên bản vẽ... không thể hiện thực
I love how they were planning on replacements for the B-52 in 1954. Meanwhile, in 2021 the B-52 still serves with distinction and no one would dare replace it.
In its former main role it was replaced by B-1s and B-2s, however die to its versatility it's used for different purposes today.
It's the versatility which left it in service.
The B-52, will, someday, be finally replaced by the B-21 Raider.
The B-52, will, someday, be finally replaced by the B-21 Raider.
The B-52, will, someday, be finally replaced by the B-21 Raider.
@@johnosbourn4312 it will remain in service until 2040, at least this are the plans. However, the B-21 will replace the B-2 and the B-1, not the B-52.
The B-52 is used for a different role today as a cheap bomb truck, for little to not defended airspace, while the B-21 will be capable of penetrating defended airspace due to the stealth
One of my top 3 favorite terrestrial aircraft. The original Valkyrie AV-1 is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB outside Dayton, Ohio. Half a century later it remains as magnificent and awe-inspiring as ever; I highly encourage seeing it for yourself!
B-52 and Tu-95 will outlive us all!
Stabability! Gonna use that in conversation and see if anyone picks up on it! Great video about an incredible aircraft. Keep up the good work!
u mean stability?
@@urmom2438 Nope, at least twice he said "staber-bility"
Also at 12:58, "the pilot was able to inject in time" unless I'm mishearing it. ^^
@@kirkc9643 I’m aware.😑 bet ur real fun at parties
@@urmom2438 And I bet the jokes at parties always go over your head. I was responding to your questioning of OPs terminology.
You make all your videos look so slick man, amazing work as always🤗
I would love to see this plane fly side by side with the Avro Arrow
I saw that beautiful beast in Dayton AF National Museum while visiting the US two years ago… it is truly impressive! (and looks a bit like a mechanical giraffe) 🥰✈️
I live very close to there, they have some incredible aircraft there. I need to go back soon
Damn, one of my favourite planes, the majestic Valkyrie
is it me or do plane makers in the 1950-1970s always think they can make one plane for air fueling and passengers and also for the army
It was perfectly sound logic and happened all the time during almost all of the propeller era, so it makes sense that an old habit would die hard.
Army?
@@t65bx25 I’m mad this plane never got made. The Rooskies made the Mig-25 Foxbat specifically to counter this kind of intercontinental bomber, but if they could’ve made this fly at Mach 3 for hours like the SR-71, the MiGs wouldn’t have been able to catch it.
Volume production amortizes development costs: "We got a bunch parked out back, so why don't you just buy one of those?"
I am a fan of COTS and not spending money to re-invent the wheel.
@@thatcarguydom266 the SR-71 didn't have to fly as deep into Soviet as a bomber would, or face the same defenses.
This plane would be so cool to see in games like Ace Combat. It's design is so futuristic and it just looks gorgeous.
@Sakkra123 what plane are you talking about? I remember no such plane similar to XB-70 in Zero
The B-70 is used in the Nuclear War card game by Doug Malewicki.
7:18 Ionic Engine. That got a double take. Maybe it would have had two of them. You know, Twin Ion Engines. Might be an acronym there for a fighter version.
Yesssss
Adjacent engines, could've helped in the fine tune yaw steering, that NASA was 13:20 bickering about (aside from being the cause of the accident with their spectate planes😒). But it would be a concept, that Lockheed mastered, forgotten in this Boeng craft. Which Lockheed achieved with the 71 & 72 SR models, making the aircraft *body* itself, *BEING a (elongated)* Wing, the only reason SR 71 & 72 had extends of wings form, was to carry bulk efficient engines that exploited sound for speed.
Not perfect though, Lockheed also lacked another dilemma, no *cooling cycle* turbine, traveling in mid Earth hemisphere high, a turbine that cycled micro air intakes from front side, of wing rims and engines, compress lather flowed to the front nose cone, shower cooling from thin atmosphere burns 🔥.
Instead, "Titanium" was a 'solution,' but would only lead to *extreme maintenance tagging* on arrival, for EVERY landing retun.
There is something about the XB-70...I can only explain it saying its my all time favourite flying thing
Thanks for fleshing out my knowledge of this great plane.
One of my favorite planes. Especially the rumor that the third was built in secret to launch a small manned craft to orbit.
My most favourite of planes, thank you for making this. Its seems that it has become popular recently.
Actually the XB-70 was found to have superior low handling performance to the B-52. It was not only faster, but more stable and exceptionally maneuverable for its size. It would have been an insane low level interdiction bomber.
However it's cost was ridiculous when compared to the conventional BUFF and at the time, mid sized low level penetration bomber was already flying for the USAF - the B-58 Hustler. The B-58 was no where near as fast as the Valkyrie but it was still far faster than any BUFF, and flew well at low level. It seemed almost pointless to maintain the XB-70 program when ever you already had two bombers that could do what it could at low level, and the cost of the XB-70 was so high because it was meant to fly high at Mach 3 - a saving to which even the controversial Hustler looked better on paper for.
The pilot of the F-104 involved in the midair collision was Joe Walker, who was also the first person to make two space flights.
Really enjoyed the video! I'm off to Dayton in March and can't wait to see this beauty in the metal! :)
A truly amazing aircraft! I had the opportunity to see the remaining one in person. It is such a massive aircraft, bigger than anything else they have in the Museum including a B1B and B52. It even makes the B36 on display look small.
Oh how I envy you. Read my other post, u gotta read that book. This is the greatest plane ever made.
I would love to hear an XP-70 takeoff at full throttle
Ditto!
Ditto!
Ditto!
Ditto!
Ditto!
Cool 3D model! The air outlet (or whatever it is) on the fuselage above the "U.S. AIR FORCE" text is very noticeable in it. I wasn't actually that aware of that detail on the Valkyrie (even if I have spent a lot of time building an own 3D model of it in Blender), you don't really notice it in most photos.
my mom worked at north american rockwell and we had XB 70 test films and models and photos, along with x-15 models and photos around the house... seemed normal when I was a kid.. but so glamorous looking back at it now.
How many of those models still exist?
@@winternow2242 I still have the X-15, the only other one I've ever seen is at MIT. I think my brother had the XB-70 at one point.. but probably lost it.
Congratulations. Your facile and relatively comprehensive technical narrative compliments your stock footage selection, including some footage I have never seen until now. I know how difficult and time intensive the process of documentary making, however short, can be.
Just a small quibble though: You imply, via a shot of stock footage showing welding, that indeed the stainless steel honeycomb panels were fabricated by this method (10:15). Actually, they were fabricated by compression of the three components with brazing compound applied, and brazing was then accomplished by putting them in a heated autoclave in an inert gas environment.
I’ve seen it in person it is amazing
Crazy that this flew almost as fast as the SR 71 years before the 71 flew and being so much bigger
Didn't they both fly in 1964?
I really enjoyed it , thanks heaps 😇
Around 1969, my Dad took our family to Wright Patterson Airforce Base Dayton. I was around 10 years old. I remember seeing the Valkyrie on the Tarmac. Little did I know that this was it's final flight and end of this bird's flying days.
I always wanted a video on the XB 70 valkiaire 👍👌
Last week, Mustard made a video on the MiG 25 Foxbat - the plane designed to intercept the Valkyrie.
I find the link between the 2 more assumed than established.
That’s the conventional wisdom - a mach 3 interceptor to handle a mach 3 bomber. The problem is that the timing is off.
The MiG-25 followed earlier research programs into high-speed interceptors of the Ye-150 family, work that was older than the B-70, meaning that Soviet research into dealing with the B-70 began before the B-70 even existed.
The MiG-25 program itself was initiated before the B-70 was cancelled as a weapons system, but not by much - maybe a few weeks. Despite the end of the B-70 program, America’s not replacing the loss of AV2 in 1966, and the B-70’s replacement with the more modest AMSA program, the Soviets continued developing the MiG-25 for years.
MiG-25 serial production began in 1969, the year that the last B-70 was sent to the Air Force museum.
The Soviets, not unlike the Americans, began many exotic programs, and then abandoned them.
But accepting the MiG-25/B-70 theory requires the belief that the Russians continued developing - and spending huge sums of money - on a plane to deal with a problem that hadn’t existed for years.
10:05 thank you!
I audibly said “That’s just a big gripen”
Beautiful graphics your artist is a master I hope their future is bright!
Always loved this plane never knew it's story though thanks for sharing it!
My Dad saw one or a similar prototype in 1944 in San Diego while he was recovering from battle injuries near the naval hospital.
The most beautiful aircraft ever.
13:00 "We're going down! Inject! Inject!!" Haha
This jet actually got out of the hanger a couple of times in the past 12 - 18 months, but only to reposition within the museum.
I followed, as best I could, the news developments in regards to this plane hoping it would go into production simply because I thought it was the most beautiful plane I ever laid eyes on. 56 years later my original sentiment still holds.
When things in the 50s are more futuristic than today
There is one of these at the Wright Patterson Airforce Museum. I saw it upclose in the cold war hanger I think it was. If I'm remembering correctly.
I wasn’t expecting this to be posted, no regrets at all.
It was outrageous, WHY it never went into production. 12:24 Just because of an air flight accident practice during test! Not even flaws of designs, all because a bunch of *maverick* flying spectate 12:43 goons (NASA's spectate planes th-cam.com/video/7NYPWip7H2g/w-d-xo.html ), traveling so close. A loss in a potential *Orbitliner* ability, as well, *space craft carriers* future services.
It never went into production because it didn't add enough to America's military capabilities to outweigh its anticipated costs.
The accident had nothing to do with canceling the B-70 as a weapons system. That happened in 1961. The accident was in 1966.
I wanted to mention something, an observation on some of the footage for SST research and super sonic planes. There's a scene with an engineer setting up a large scale white plane in a wind tunnel and oddly the plane looks different from the actual proposed designs and doesn't match other concepts.
@Galileo7of9 pretty much, rocket science and aerospace engineering is a matter of curiosity. Unfortunately not on everyone's priority list.
You can stipulate english application alone though, your comments have nothing to do with aerospace engineering and even less people care about your opinion in this case. It's like the English lit kid showing up for AutoCAD 🤨. No one cares.
@Galileo7of9 by your off topic prattle.
@Galileo7of9 the plane I'm referencing is here @ 1:56 mins. th-cam.com/video/Y91Zr480Tn4/w-d-xo.html
@Galileo7of9 exactly, dozens of ideas left unnoticed.... Until now courtesy of your attention to detail. Thanks bait, you snagged the algorithms on this one. My work is done here.
Love the look! 🥰
Love this channel🥰
Thank you so much!!
Nice... keep them coming.
As a Long Haul Flight Attendant with Qantas, was privileged to work on 767-200 767-300
747-200 747-300 747-400
A330-200 A330-300
Then
Air New Zealand 787 Dreamliner.
As horrific as COVID has been for us all, it gave our skies a break.
Once we take down the monster CCP that we created and have allowed to get away with murder literally, we can look after our planet again.
Amen.
Keep up the awesome mahi.
Kia Kaha from Aotearoa.
🇳🇿👍🏻🙏🏻☺️
Maybe some flight attendant stories would be a cool & fun addition to your channel?
Loved the Eastern Airlines ghosts who were trying to help the living crew with problems before they arose, that was fascinating! 🥰🙏🏻👍🏻☺️
Amazing how you animate and make video scripts so fast.
My favourite X-plane
i paused at 02:25 and i went to make some salty and sweet popcorn. good idea. thanks :)
I would like to see a video about the G10 Fugaku, the intercontinental bomber thought up by Imperial Japan
My dad was a weights and balancing engineer on the 2nd prototype. They would have loved to have a computer for crunching all of the numbers.
i can't imagine aircraft engineering before computers....
@@FoundAndExplained my dad had a really fast slide-ruller,pocket protector and glasses. He was built for the job.
"Dynasoar"
What they did there, I see it...
Amazing video. Please make one about plane pods or those boieng experimental tilrotors
People in the 50s:we'll have mach 6 capable vehicles in the future! And pilots bio engineered to handle 40 gs
The future: *360ing su57 noises*
Stunning design!
When you mention the "5 degree added dihedral angle" on the wing are you talking about the variable geometry wing tips?
This is like my fav plane next to the yf 23 black widow 2
There was no XB-70, and XB-70A, this was one, and the same, respectfuly. This is still a very remarkable aircraft, for its day, and the plane is also very beautiful, because, her nickname is The White Maiden.
Would have loved to see some diagrams as to how compression lift is achieved rather than voice over! :)
we have super sonic bomber planes, we have flying tanks.. but we can’t even get a fricken flying train
it's called a plane
Cries in maglev
@@icecraftgaming8661 Indeed
This thing is insane in person, I highly recommend going to see it in Dayton, Ohio. It’s absolutely massive, and way bigger than any of you think.
Take a trip to Dayton OH and you can see this beauty in the flesh. As a child I had a love affair with three aircraft the XB-70/X-15/YF-12A. I've always wondered what the Max speed and altitude of the X-15 would have been if launched from the XB-70. Gigantor
Another aircraft you can cover in a future video is the North American XF-108 Rapier interceptor which is powered by two of the XB-70 Valkyrie's General Electric YJ93 turbojets.
This plane must be that "Triangle shaped UFO with 6 tail lights" people in the 1960's saw, the only logical explanation.
How I adore this channel, incredible effects, well explained, all congratulations, team, they are magnificent.🤗👍👏👏👏👏👌🙏💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎💎🤩
Ahh! This the most amazing video ,
rlly wish you would add audio credits man some of these backin tracks r beautiful
I was waiting for a vid like this :0
I love stuff like this
Yeah!rbother! great picture.👐
Facinating airplane, thanks.
It's ridiculous yet impressive that something so much bigger than SR-71 could fly as fast at 2,000 MPH. Impressive aviation technology marvel right there. And I remembered reading that they also were considering developing a SST variant of Valkyrie as well - why reinvent the wheel when you have something already proven in the flight? (And yes Boeing already pretty much here been doing the same thing - they intentionally designed their jumbo jets to be modular.)
Just Imagine this magnificent mashine was build in the Late 50´s / early 60´s , I dont even want to think of what they could doo today with todays Tech, it was a plane like 50 years ahead of its time, just magnificent, my all time fav bomber
Because America have catched some hitler scientist back then
You mention the boron fuels but never point out that they were dropped early on due to operational issues, (deposits in testing that tougher than solid stone and could only be removed through careful grinding which more often than not damaged the equipment and toxic combustion residue in the exhaust) and never used operationally in the XB-70.
I love this channel =)
This Aircraft most likely inspired the Huge Space Planes seen in James Cameron's Avatar, wich are also called Valkyrie.
You can go see it in Dayton Ohio.... truly breathtaking
as somone who have seen this in person these things are huge
Fun fact, the Mig-31 was created as a by-product of the XB-70
Byproduct? Like they ground up B-70's and made MiG-31s out of them? Your fun fact isn't that factual, or fun
most of these plane designs look like they were made in simpleplanes
and how the frick do you get in?
Noclip in
They build expirimental planes around the expirimental pilots. The pilots happily spend their lives devoted to experimentation, powered by that same jet fuel their plane uses. It is a symbiotic relationship, one could not exist without the other
Most beautiful bomber ever made.
It was such a beautiful plane. I got to see it when it was in the experimental hangar of the Dayton Air Force Museum and it was amazing. I'm happy they moved it to the 4th hangar so everyone can see it
Hypothetically, what are the technical feasibility of replacing the XB-70 Valkyrie's six General Electric YJ93 turbojets with the same number of General Electric F101 turbofans which also powered the B-1A/B Lancer?
If only the chase pilot maintained proper distance, this story would have had a bad ass ending. My favorite aircraft ever since turning the page in Jane's revealing this exotic, powerful monster
how would a collision with a chase plane have any impact on the viability of the design?
It didn't have any impact on it.That crash happened in June of 1966.The XB-70 has already been cancelled.Nasa was flying the two XB-70's as test aircraft.
The aircraft was replaced by ICBM - which were cheaper and proposed a higher success rate.
Very fast aircraft typically have a high crash rate too, for example the B-58, which was Mach 2, but very hard to fly and the crash rate was high.
@@simonm1447 A big difference is the B-58 was an operational aircraft.The XB-70 never got past the X version.The B-58 was a major problem for sure.
@@simonm1447 im quoting the video, not the actual reason.
I could see a variant of this craft with a single engine or a single fuel cell with liquid o2 that kicks on when the craft hits a high enough altitude to break through the atmosphere and use that engine and fuel cell to maneuver in orbit then reenter the atmosphere. Or better yet, use the flat bed plane concept with an XB variant mounted on top with 4 engines using conventional jet fuel, but 2 using solely liquid o2 for in atmosphere, and in orbit versatility
Was wondering where the video went. Was watching Simon Clark, then it disappeared
Yes sorry I made a mistake and then made it worse trying to fix it 😂👀
can you make a video about the soviet interceptor that was designed to intercept and shoot down the xb-70 valkyrie ( the mig-25) and the successor of the mig-25 ( the mig-31)
th-cam.com/video/W1L1sU0uI0o/w-d-xo.html
4:02 - THAT THING WEIGHS 235 KG?! 🤔 My 98kg self would upset the aircraft in flight...
Weird/funny story: my first Elementary school was in San Leandro, California, at a very non-descript, average looking place. But, the moment my 5 year old self walked into the Library, I was mesmerized by the collection of odd aircraft models on display. I'd ask about the models, if they were real planes, and various details I could see. One of those models was a XB-70 Valkyrie, which even had the moving windscreen section. No idea who made the models, but they influenced me deeply. All of the "secret," cancelled and prototype aircraft models were just so damn neat.
Where do you get the 3d footage? I'm really inspired by you and want to make a documentary like this one.
She was too beautiful for this world.
Wtf is that at 1:50
XB-70 INSANE & CORRECT FACTS taken from amazing 250 page book “Valkyrie - North American’s Mach 3 Super Bomber”
The XB-70 is the ONLY aircraft EVER designed to be able to use compression lift causing it to still have to this day the best lift tp drag ratio increasing overall lift by 34% and INDEFINITELY fly/cruise (the engineers learned that it was much more fuel efficient to stay at mach 3.15 than to just dash when close to target, all other planes to this very day can only dash for short periods at supersonic speeds before having to slow down) at a speed of Mach 3.15 at a height of 95,000 ft weighing a massive 540,000 lbs, with an operational range without refueling of 5,290 nm but could be refueled in air extending its range (it could hold 47,000 gallons of JP-6) carrying 50,000 lbs of 20 megaton thermonuclear bombs on the first ever rotary launchers in two weapons bays which interestingly could only be opened one at a time and not simultaneously . The XB-70 has 6300 sq ft of wing area (NOT including the largest canards of any aircraft ever), the folding wingtips are the largest all moving surface of any aircraft to this day comprising 40% of the total wing area, the highest hydraulic pressure of any aircraft @ 4000 psi (note: V-22 osprey beat that), most of the pioneering R&D for the XB-70 was used by lockheed for the much much less impressive A-12 which turned into the sr-71 everyone loves but only weighed 91,000 lbs and could carry almost no weapons except 3 gar-9 falcon air to air missiles on the cool yf-12 interceptor the worlds TRUE fastest interceptor ever made (NOT the practically useless, but interesting Mig-25 which was built in response their learning of the XB-70, but here’s the kicker: the XB-70 flew higher and faster and by the time the migs were scrambled and up to their maximum of mach 2.85 the xb-70 would have been too high too fast and far away to target with missile/homing tech at that time…I digress).
If u wanna know literally ANYTHING about the greatest aircraft ever made by man just reply here.
Cheers! Btw, the Intakes on the XB-70 are the largest ever made and you could comfortably stand up in them and inside them it was like being in a small living room, the massive 60inch diameter YJ93-GE-3 jet engines could each produce over 30,000 lbf thrust at 95,000ft at Mach 3.2 for over 500 continuous hours and the true max thrust is STILL classified…
I never found an explanation for compression lift. I know that winglets on subsonic planes reduce the bending on the wing root. Jets have these triangular planforms to keep most lift close the fuselage and reduce bending already in this way. Winglets sense a different angle of attack. So I would guess they operate the regime where a plane is stable? At least with swept wing they increase directional stability. The long, thin fuselage on modern jets has a thick boundary layer and thus destroys lift. Still we better try not to push the airflow to the outside ( The space shuttle has a clean belly). The subsonic leading edge lets air escape from the bottom site to the top. I read the this creates such a large flow that one engine on the Concorde is in danger to stall and gets special treatment. So the winglet catches this flow? The Phantom has jagged leading edge. Can't we use this to get the best of super and sub sonic leading edges? The hustler has pods protruding -- clearly even at supersonic speeds you can still manage aeroelastic stability. Same with the SR-71 cones. Pods look a bit ugly on supersonic planes, but I guess it is the only way to stay clear of the nose wheel debris.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt So when they designed the XB-70 the thing that SPECIFICALLY creates the lift from the shock front is the special splitter at the apex of the lifting massive delta wings, this splitter created a special shockwave that upon hitting the splitter would create extra pressure in the shockwave impinging on the lower surfaces of the wings. In general, “compression lift” is achieved by positioning the wing in a manner to take advantage of the pressure field behind the shockwave generated by the fuselage body. Since a supersonic air inlet for the engines must create a disturbance in the form of a shockwave in order to compress and slow the incoming air and make it available to the engines, North American already had a ready source of a large pressure field. So at Mach 3 this shockwave was bent back about 65 degrees and there was a 0.3 Mach reduction from in front of the shockwave to just aft of it. This resulted in an average pressure rise of 40 lbs per sq ft. By shaping the underbody at the same angle, the compression field was maintained for most of the length of the fuselage. Superimposing the wing on top of the shock system exposed nearly the entire undersafce of the wing to the pressure rise. Since there was no equivalent pressure wave on top of the wing to cancel it out, a 34% increase in lift was available with no drag penalty.
@@ShinVega So it is very sensitive to velocity or temperature. Especially the latter may work out quite well. But on the Concorde the inlets just direct the shock downwards and directly create lift. Also they keep most of the shock internal and manage it. The pressure under the wing can easily changed the normal way: Angle of attack. I agree that the SR-71 is kinda ugly with its 3 noses which spill shockwaves all over the place. I just want to stress that there is nothing better on the XB-70 than on the Concorde. You could switch to more expensive materials and the Concorde (Shape) would win.
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt Th Concorde was a piece of shit compared to the XB-70. It had no compression lift and only weighed 400k lbs and couldnt fly nearly as fast or as high or as long as the XB-70. So where’s you reasoning?
@@ShinVega My reasoning is that compression lift does not really exist. Like with winglets you could say wingspan is better ( see 787 with folding winglets ). It is a small second order effect that you reduce bending and thus weight on the wing root. Naíve compression lift descript looks for some first oder effect, which just does not exist. Soviet Union found out with their copy of XB-70 and Anglo-French designers knew that this was just to save the honor. NASA did just measure stuff for research data, not because they built on it (I already mentioned Space Shuttle) .
SR-71 is based upon the fact that surface friction becomes your main enemy above Mach3. I am not sure about the leading edge extension, but the shoulder wings and the mid mounted engines and the bevel sure try to minimize surface area. It looks like Canberra. Any cross flow due to compression from this splitter adds to flow and friction and is bad. The sharp Pods on Concorde are not ideal. Also I feel that the landing gear belongs into the pods like on Tu-144 in order to keep the fuselage sleek.
The Concorde already has steel leading edges. You just need to gradually move from aluminium to steel. Usage of titanium is just: Throwing money at it. Note how the space shuttle is also made of aluminum so maybe we keep a lot of it. The Concorde is a comfy plane, with lots of payload, noise dampening, A/C. It has a droop nose. I don't like the extended leading edge due to the surface friction and the wing "tip" vortex at supersonic speed. Tu-144 canards ( like on XB-70 ) should be better. I think people exaggerate the weight penalty of movable parts like wingTip, Wings, nose, canards, flying tail-planes.
Stfu, im watching *Found and Explained*
Love your channel man, cheers from Argentina!
Cheers from the US!
Cheers from Australia
Anyone else wondering if aircraft will one day get to ace combat levels of crazy?
At the National museum of the United states of america air force in dayton ohio one of the 2 places to get a snack is named in tribute to this amazing plane! I live about 2 hours away from the place, it is quite amazing, you can spend easily an entire day there!
Lost Future. I like that one. 🙂👍