Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 19 Posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7797 times:
By what the XB-70 (which by the way is f*ckin huge!) looked like, anyone should be able to see there is nearly no practical room for payload, the engines take up the entire undersurface profile. The XB-70 shape might have been for pure experimentation. What about the original B-70 plane, how could it have gone Mach 3 with a payload?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13474 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days ago) and read 7505 times:
One of the reasons it was axed, it could only eject free fall nukes out of a bomb bay, presumably do recce too, but the SR-71 had that covered.
Look at the shape, what a huge radar target, it's very impressive performance might have made a SA-2 hit difficult, but not a SA-5, of course the threat of the B-70 compelled to USSR to build a quick and dirty response in the shape of the Mig-25.
A fabulous aircraft, deviod of a mission, stand off weapons on B-52s, ICBMs, SLBMs all sufficed, unlike the B-52, the B-70 was not suitable for adapting to conventional missions.
Lurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7324 times:
If you go on to the NASA DRYDEN website they have film footage of the XB-70 in test operations the Films have no sound but show all the Subsonic parts of the test flying and are in Colour they are also down loadable!
DRYDEN beeing the Civil name for EDWARDS air force Base!