Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
XB-70 Vs. Original B-70?  
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6667 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.
5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6599 times:

Actually I think there was provisions for a B-29 sized bombbay between the engine ducts.

During the test program it oddly enough held test gear.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13241 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6375 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.


User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6345 times:

The XB-70 had a bomb bay forward of the engines. The engine duct work wrapped around it. The doors would slide backwards instead of opening like a clamshell.

I am curious if the test program ever progressed to doing any test drops.

It has long been the showpiece of the, now titled, National Museum of the United States Air Force. The nose boom does appear to be sagging a bit since it was delivered to the museum in Feb 1969.

Here is a link to the museum's web page on the Valkyrie: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b5/b5-67.htm

Gary
Cottage Grove, MN




Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineLurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6194 times:

Hi

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!


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6081 times:

Actually saw one of these in flight once. It was in July, August or early September 1965. We were at Fort Ord, near Monterey, California and it was making a turn overhead, back down toward EDW.

It served one great purpose.

It may have been the single most beautiful thing man ever made from metal.

Go to the Dryden site and download the picture of it in high altitude flight. The sky is blue-black and the underside of the plane is lit light blue by Earth's albedo. So cool!



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic XB-70 Vs. Original B-70?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
New XB-70 Page posted Sat Oct 26 2002 00:43:31 by Sllevin
Revised XB-70 Web Page posted Thu Aug 22 2002 09:38:07 by Sllevin
Russia Pulling Out Of An-70 Project posted Sat Apr 8 2006 10:36:04 by EHHO
The ARH-70 Arapaho posted Mon Nov 21 2005 00:24:56 by AGM114L
Antonov An-70 posted Sun Nov 16 2003 10:10:17 by Flyf15
Czech Republic Ops For TheAN-70 posted Thu Apr 18 2002 19:17:57 by Flying-Tiger
Antonov An-70 posted Sun Oct 7 2001 09:59:58 by YKA
Presidential Helicopters, Shipping Vs Ferrying posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:01:14 by Boeing Nut
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer
Fail-Safe Vs Dr.Strangelove posted Fri Sep 22 2006 19:30:52 by B741

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format