1. #1
    Grue_'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    579
    Someone told me about this aircraft and I'd never heard of it. Wow.

    http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Grue_'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    579
    Someone told me about this aircraft and I'd never heard of it. Wow.

    http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Taylortony's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    8,557
    Yes they built 2 they ran on ZIP Fuel that was supposed to be the be and end it all of fuel, but it wasnt, it was also designed with cranked down wing tips, this with the combined thrust of its six engines that worked in a way like a ram jet on the underside of the fuselage and increased its speed................ project was scrapped after one of the chase planes ran into one of them and it all ended in tears and a large amount of flames

    See additional information below
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Cajun76's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,239
    The threat of the Valkyrie is what prompted the Russians to develop the Foxbat.

    Truly an awesome bird, the author did miss a piont about the shape of the underside. It was designed as a the cross section of a bullet, so that the plane rode it's own shockwave. Surf's up.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Sergio_101's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,095
    Wow, if ever there was negative spin read "Taylortony" 's post.

    The XB-70 had one fault, it was WAY to expensive.

    the XB-70 was fueled by conventional JP-4 or JP-7.
    The wing tips folded down to make use of the
    "compression lift" caused by the six engine instalation.
    It all worked, and Mach3+ was achieved.

    There was no ramjet effect and no "zip fuels".

    The cost per hour of flight time set new records!
    To date the XB-70 is the most expensive jet aircraft
    ever flown on an hourly basis.

    The XB-70 project attempted to do what the A-12/YF-12A/SR-71
    project did, mach3 cruise. But Valkyrie did it by brute force.

    Oh yes, XB-70 prototype #2 was destroyed in a photo shoot
    when a F-104 was aparrantly caught in the wing tip turbulence
    anf rooled into the plane killing the F-104 driver and one
    of the XB-70 crewmembers.

    Sergio

    http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/resea...s/b5/b5-67.htm
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Quite the story on this Bird...

    Another link with the events of the XB-70.

    http://area51specialprojects.com/xb70_crash.html
    Share this post

  7. #7
    ...so are we getting it in the next patch?
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Zeus-cat's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,437
    If you ever make it to Dayton, Ohio you can see the survivng XB-70 at the National Museum of the US Air Force. She is in the Presidentail Aircraft hangar right now. Here is the museum's link to the XB-70.

    http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf37.htm
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Taylortony's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    8,557
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
    Wow, if ever there was negative spin read "Taylortony" 's post.

    the XB-70 was fueled by conventional JP-4 or JP-
    There was no ramjet effect and no "zip fuels".
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It was run on the standard fuels because of problems developing ZIP Fuel....... I studied this and the design principals during My RAF Training as an Aircraft Engineer..... the fuel was a major problem so was abandoned, therefore it was relegated to standard fuels... I would suggest you Google Zip fuels before you put your foot in your mouth and say it never existed

    "Use of ethyl borane fuel stood to further enhance the bomber's performance, and RAF Flying Review of September 1958 dubbed WS-110 the "Boron Bomber". They guesstimated from "unofficial reports" that it would fly at 100,000 feet, cruise at Mach 2 with room for Mach 3 "dash" performance, and achieve a 6,000 mile range without refuelling.

    The six GE engines were housed in an engine box under the wings, profiled to generate compression lift. On "zip fuel" one engine alone made more noise than any air-breathing engine in history.
    To make matters more awkward, the expensive boron fuel program was cancelled".


    NAA had exhausted the possibilities of area-ruled design, advanced afterburning engines and unusual configurations. One route to higher performance was a brutal frontal attack with 'zip fuel' to make engines more powerful. Various totally new fuels based on boron, such as the ethyl boranes, offered higher energy than traditional kerosenes. The problems were terrible, but in the absence of any better idea the USAF and US Navy began pouring tens of millions (today equivalent to billions) of dollars into vast new plants to produce zip fuel for the 1960s. On zip fuel just one was noisier than any previous air-breathing engine in history. Fortunately, the technical and political problems of zip fuel were so enormous that this program was terminated in August 1959, only days before the huge plants were to go 'on stream'.

    The first aircraft had looked complete in 1963, but over a year was spent trying to cure seepages of fuel through millions of microscopic holes, the special (modified JP-6) kerosene billowing away in vast smoke clouds as the tanks were bent and twisted at up to 554 degrees F (290 degrees C). Curing the seeping welds was almost the last straw, and when 62-001 was finally rolled out the no. 5 tank at the junction of fuselage and wing was still unusable (and so it remained).
    Share this post

  10. #10
    LEXX_Luthor's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ussia
    Posts
    8,824
    I would like to know if this is true...

    I heard the -70 compression lift was optimized for a specific high airspeed around m=3, and when flying at this speed afterburners were not needed, but when flying slower, afterburners were needed (more drag). Where I read this also stated that this allowed backup thrust if one (or 2?) engines was lost, afterburners could still maintain the optimized speed.

    I don't know if this is true and I read it only one place. Its very interesting indeed if true.
    Share this post

Page 1 of 4 123 ... Last ►►