Talk:North American XB-70 Valkyrie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dihedral angle

NASA historian Richard Hallion discussed the XB-70 research program in his book "On the Frontier," part of NASA's Special Publications series. I seem to recall that the dihedral angle of #2 ship varied from that of #1 by about 2 degrees, after flight tests with #1. This helped #2 fly faster. --MWS 19:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the Discovery Wings show, the angle was 5 degrees. Who's correct?

Aircraft #1 had a dihedral angle of 0 degrees. Aircraft #2 had a dihedral angle of 5 degrees. Twredfish 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• It was a design change to improve stability. Subsequent ones would have stayed with the 5 degrees. -Fnlayson 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lift drag ratio comment

someone asked this on the actual page. I am just moving it to discussion Edit: the D-21 was a pilotless drone- how could it possibly best the XB-70's record of highest lift-to-drag ratio on a manned aircraft? --Mitchowen 00:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed the same thing. Dumb.A2Kafir 03:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clumsy wording, but I suppose it could mean (I am guessing on this) that the XB-70 achieved the record of highest l/d of any aircraft, and the record was broken by the unmanned drone, which now holds the record. But as the article states, the XB-70 (still) holds the record for manned craft. -- Paul Richter 09:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm 98% sure that it should be the highest for any *supersonic* manned aircraft. The wing trick gives an extra 22-30% lift for no extra drag, but supersonic L/D sucks to start with. I can't find a reference either way though, so I can't fix it.WolfKeeper 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Subsonic often do *much* better than this.WolfKeeper 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

None of this is relevant anymore -- text from old revisions. Twredfish 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Highest manned, powered L/D ratio" should remain, but we need a citation for it. If it is higher than any other powered & manned, it should state so. If it only qualifies as highest supersonic, then use, "manned, powered, supersonic"BQZip01 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Aerodynamic efficiency of the 767-200 can be judged by the maximum lift-drag ratio, estimated to be about 18.

L/D ratio: Boeing B707-320 19.4

L/D ratio: B-52 21.5 (estimated)

L/D ratio: B-58 Hustlier 11.3 (without weapons/fuel pod)

L/D ratio: FB-111 Aardvark 15.8 (supersonic-capable, though a swing-wing, L/D of 15.8 is undoubtedly when not swung back.)

Above cited ratios are by me, keeping notes for the main page. Fuller explanation added to main page. Twredfish 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There's references that the drop wings increase L/D by about 40%. Concorde managed a L/D of 7.14 at supersonic speeds. If that's typical (and I would expect it to be on the high end of typical since Concorde's designers *had* to get good range) Thus we would SWAG about a L/D of maybe 11 for this aircraft. And we know that the XB-70 didn't have particularly good range, which is what L/D primarily increases.WolfKeeper 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This document gives CL and Cd predictions at different mach: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800009724_1980009724.pdf

I get a L/D of about 6 at Mach 2.5 from table 2.WolfKeeper 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason for dropping the XB-70 project

This article claims that the U-2 shootdown was the caused the project to be abandoned. I think the real reason was that rocket powered SAMs became so fast that no jet powered craft could outfly them. There is also the issue of sub launched nuke missiles taking over the job of being the guaranteed second strike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.196.57 (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Your theory lacks a basis since the SR-71 (with similar flight capabilities) was never shot down and flew well into the 1990s. In addition, please get a user name and sign your comments with 4 tildes. BQZip01 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I believe the reason was due to the mid-air collision with the F-104 chase plane, and due to the fact that by the end of the project each plane costed ten times their weight in gold.--LWF 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The "weight in gold" benchmark is totally meaninless. If you take into account ALL development costs almost any state of the art system will cost more than their weight in gold. BTW, the cost of a B-2 bomber was $2,1 Billion for 21 operational planes (+ 5-6 test articles). XB-70's cost cited in 1961 = $700M. Converted to 1981 $ that's $1,9B - $2,1B for only 2 planes!!! Had the B-2 been cancelled after 2 planes were built they would probably have had a price tag in excess of $10B. You must also take into account the costs associated with developing Valkyrie's engines (that were to be shared with the defunct F-108A "Rapier" project). The B-2 on the other hand does not require high performance engines and IIRC has something developed from off the shelf GE turbofans. --Hyperboreean archer 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC) http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-70.htm

Added cited reference as to program cancellation. LWF is incorrect. The program was canceled and turned to a 2-aircraft pure research program long before the crash of aircraft #2. Twredfish 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In a related topic, I have removed the portion about Soviet air defenses being a valid threat. It was full of inaccuracies, including ignoring that the B-70 was designed with defeating Soviet air defenses in mind. The Soviets may have been able to track it, but they had nothing capable of bringing it down, and until proof of such is presented, such wild claims should not be present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.225.177 (talk • contribs)

• Nothing wild about it. Anti-aircraft missiles is one reason cited when canceling the B-70. See the paragraph starting with the U-2 downing. And all that is sourced, so don't claim that's inaccurate too. It was designed for high altitude flying not the terrain following AF designed went to afterwards. -Fnlayson 04:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There was literally nothing the Soviets had with the performance necessary that could bring it down. I'll quote from "The Manned Missile - The story of the B-70"

"A subsonic bomber such as the B-52, detected by the Russians at the Finnish coast and headed for the Moscow area, would bring upon itself fighters based as far as the northern and southern periphery of western Russia by the time it reached its target. The B-70 reduces the size of this capable fighter force by a factor of thirty-two. Its exposure time on such a run is so unbelievably slight that only a few interceptors could get to it in time. From initial detection off Leningrad to its target near Moscow is an eight-minute flight for the B-70. Since it would take seven minutes for the Soviet defense network to respond, the B-70 would be exposed to actual fire for a total of about two minutes in and out of the target area. During this time it has a high passive defensive capability with its arsenal of infrared flares, ECM, gear, chaff, etc. Also, because of its speed and altitude it would release its bomb thirty miles from target, a long slant distance for surface-to-air missiles to reach.

This review, however, gives the defense an advantage it would not have under combat conditions when the B-70 would lob megaton air-launched ballistic missiles ahead of it to degrade the well-ordered defense system, disrupt communications and control systems. The chaos of combat itself would work for the attacking bomber. A ten-minute time delay in the long chain of events from detection to interdiction decreases the number of intercept weapons that would reach the Mach Three strike force by 85 per cent ( compared with 47 per cent for the Mach 1.5 force). But the B-70's best shield against the fighter is its maneuverability-cum-speed, A B-70 on a deep penetration into the Soviet Union presumably would be tracked by the air-defense network, which would vector an interceptor to a predicted intercept point a considerable distance ahead of the fast-flying bomber. But by making a thirty-degree turn ten minutes before collision time, the B-70 pilot places himself a cool 146 nautical miles from the spot where the battle was to have been joined and where the fighter pilot now waits in a lonely sky.

The Soviets do not have a Mach Three defense nor, as the U-2 program proved, do they have a 70,000-foot reach." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.225.177 (talk) 18:56, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Technically the soviets did have a mach 3 defense -- the air to air missile carried by the Mig-25. That missile (I forget the name) reached higher than Mach 3, when coupled with the speed of the launching Mig, which had to be moving quite fast at time of launch 76.67.93.100 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Gamma

• The B-70's days were numbered by the time the MiG-25 first flew in the mid-1960s. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, 3M fighter is not needed. At those speeds, chase is not an option, it would span half a globe. Both interceptors and missiles are not fired/directed at the current position, they lead the plane. 2.5M interceptor would work. And antiaircraft rockets usually fly at ~5M. But OTOH, 3M bomber does strain defenses a lot just by requiring them to respond in such a short time.

Which brings another question - is 3M really the maximum possible speed for a practical manned bomber? Adding 1M or even 0.5M would be cool. 89.102.37.40 (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, a M2.5 interceptor can fly horizontally at M2.5, it cannot gain altitude at the same speed. So the B70 just turns away while the interceptor trundles up to altitide. If you dig around on the web there are some published intercept analyses. The other problem is that a typical fighter cannot manouever at 80000 ft, B70 could. Wingloading and thrust is the fundamental reason. The maths is pretty straightforward. Greg Locock (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes. Might I suggest a slight re-arrange though? The design section should be just that. It contains quite a bit of history. That would be OK but for the fact that the "flight history" contains history such that the article appears disjointed. Also 'mistaken lift to drag belief' repeated twice.

2. Factually accurate?: Fails criteria 2(a) - there are many important statements that aren't cited. The major ones I can see are; Soviet concern and development of the Mig-25 in response, the speed of the aircraft, the development of the XF-108, the change of doctrine away from high level recce to low level, the first three paragraphs of "Flight history", the Sukhoi T-4 benefitted from the developments? How exactly?, and finally the statement that the sonic booms of this aircraft contributed to SST cancellation

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes. Get's a bit bogged down in L/D ration in my opinion, but not to the detriment of accessability. Engines - new development? Cancelled also? Only mention of the manufacturer is in infobox. This warrants a mention in article body - perhaps along with where it fits in its corporate history; Was the cancellation a major blow? Did the technology help the company's other projects?

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes

5. Article stability? Yes

6. Images?: Good.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Mark83 13:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

North American XB-70 Valkyrie SCORES IN KEY AREAS
Legality	A	A	A	A
Neutrality	A	A	A	A
Writing	A	A	A	A
Sources		B	B	B
Citations		B	B	B
04:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a good article with not many sources and barely formatted citations. The writing is good and appears to be neutral. All the pictures are in Wikimedia Commons, so they are of course acceptable for GA. Find more sources and insert more citations, especially in paragraphs which are lacking them (also you need >2 sentences a paragraph), so keep the up the writing quality. Regards, ◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• It seems very lacking in background & development on the B-70 before it was canceled and the prototypes converted to test planes. I'm going to try and expand on these areas. -Fnlayson 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• One of the references directs to a Wikipedia mirror, which is not an acceptable outside source. Reference #4 (dealing with sonic boom abatement) has a disclaimer (with the Wikipedia logo) at the bottom of the page. The other references appear to be legitimate, although ref #7 links to a site that was last updated in 1999. Horologium t-c 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can find of the sonic boom thing, probably covered in NASA report. I don't see a problem with the 1999 page, since the subject happened in the 1950s and '60s. -Fnlayson 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason I mentioned the age of the page was because it was an odd choice to use to support the statement that "[some] claim that the XB-70 have the highest lift-to-drag ratio of any aircraft". Maybe a fresher source should be used to support that statement, unless it is a very small minority opinion, in which case the paragraph should be reworded to eliminate the statement (and remove the reference). Horologium t-c 16:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yea, you're right. I should have checked. I agree that highest lift/drag statement should be yanked if it can't be supported. -Fnlayson 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't agree with it, it seems to be an urban legend, but it's probably notable, a lot of people (regrettably) actually believe it, but it's not credible (Concorde seems to have a better L/D for example) [1]WolfKeeper 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I know that the XB-70 doesn't have the highest lift-to-drag ratio, but the reference we are discussing was supplied to support the assertion that "some claim..."; it is quite stale, and I'd prefer something fresher if we are going to include any discussion about the incorrect belief. If it is widely held, a better source ought to be easy to find. And I wouldn't really call it an urban legend, since 99% of the population would give you a blank look if you started arguing about lift-to-drag ratios of various aircraft. (grin) Horologium t-c 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I did a few internet searches, including (ratio "B-70" OR Valkyrie "lift to drag"). A few pages are copies of this wiki article. The others are XB-70 Valkyrie Story & Flight of the Valkyrie. I doubt if either meets the WP:Verifiability requirements. -Fnlayson 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, I'd prefer dubious concepts such as 'freshness' don't gate article reviews. Can you give me a reference to this being a guideline within the wikipedia? I've never heard of anything like it before; and I can't imagine it ever being agreed to.WolfKeeper 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm not going to rate this article, regardless of whether the link stays in or not. I'm just pointing out things that I noticed while checking out the article. I ran across it because it is the second oldest GA nominee that hasn't been closed yet, so I swung by to take a look. As to my concern, there is nothing that says that old links are bad, but WP:V might be an issue. Horologium t-c 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Edits by fnlayson removed the comments about "Some sources claim that..." Very old versions of the wiki article flatly supported the patently false "Valkyrie HAS the highest lift to drag." I toned the language down, to, "Some sources wrongly state that..." Two pages with detail on the Valkyrie support that, but I had the wrong citation for them. Pages are mentioned above that falsely claim that. That at least offers a little history on why the admittedly clumsy section is in there. Perhaps better to simply give some LD numbers like is done now and leave that for readers to understand, or remove it outright. Is it worth having a paragraph in there to refute a false webpage, other than perhaps to dodge future reversions by well-meaning but uninformed authors?Twredfish 01:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • I couldn't find what I thought was a decent reference to back claims for highest. I think the cited numbers speaking for themselves. The claims for highest L/D didn't seem that wide spread on the internet searches I did. -Fnlayson 01:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The XB-70 is capable of outrunning a MiG-25 because of its high speed and high range and wouldn't be protected by fighters the same the B-52 is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickman1234 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

comments to consider for FA (not GA)

Please consider these comments for taking the article to FA. I don't think that these comments play a major part at GA level.

• why is "North American" bolded? remove it
• " in response to the threat such a high speed bomber posed" - doesn't sound right. copyedit required
• "The proposed cost of the aircraft, along with changes in the technological environment led to the cancellation of the program" - need year of cancellation
• "to replace these bombers by 1965." - which is the reference to "these" - B52/B58. disclaimer: i am not a major military terminology geek and hence don't know if B58 is a bomber or not.
• "work would eventually lead to the B-70 Valkyrie, a much more capable design" - need clarification here on 2 aspects. (1) Is XB-70 and B-70 the same aircraft (Infact i wonder if "X" designation is for proto machine and thru production?). Why does the article not refer to XB-70 outside the lead para and refer to just the B-70?(2) What is "capable design" phrase intended for?
• "The Valkyrie was a large " - should it not be "The Valkyrie was to be a large "
• "As a cost saving measure, the engines and many subsystems were engineered to be common between the two aircraft." - needs reference?
• fleet was canceled n" - replace "n" with "in" [i do some diligent reading! - :O)]
• SUGGESTION: Any input on what type of objectives did the research program have? Did it ever achieve these objectives?
• "sound from the sonic boom reached the ground to an unacceptable degree" - any data available?
• "SST programs" - what is SST programs? Is it supersonic transport? That is not obvious.
• SUGGESTION: Can you please create a stub page for Carl Cross? Else, remove the wikilink. As a preference, I would like the former, though it is your call.
• While the pilots involved were experienced pilots," - needs copyedits
• "Chuck Yeager has " - provide his reference to the overall accident
• "The Soviet Sukhoi T-4 was a medium-range bomber/missile carrier prototype designed to take advantage of many of the advances made during the development of the XB-70." - i am bemused and confounded. how did a Soviet aircraft take advantage of US airplane?
• "General Electric YJ93" - provide stub article or remove wikilink
• "Yeager, Chuck and Janos, Leo" - remove wikilink for Leo Janos or provide atleast stub article
• reference 4 currently states "^ [1]" - provide explanation of the link

Once these comments are addressed, i think the article is good to go to FA. --Kalyan 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• This article is lacking much background on the B-70 program to meet breath of coverage requirement. I don't see how it is ready for GA, let alone FA. -Fnlayson 17:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of observations, in response to Kalyan's comments:

• "North American" is North American Aviation, the manufacturer of the aircraft. A quick perusal of US military aircraft articles indicates that the convention is to bold the manufacturer and the aircraft designation, as in B-52 Stratofortress, F-4 Phantom II, and T-38 Talon, which open with Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, and Northrup T-38 Talon, respectively.
• "B" in US military aircraft designations is "Bomber" and "X" is "experimental". Because of the novelty of much of the technology used in this aircraft, the first models were experimental in nature, hence the "XB" (Experimental Bomber). The production version would have been the B-70, as noted throughout the article. (Prototype aircraft carry the designator "Y", FYI; cf Northrop YF-23.) A handy reference is here; Wikipedia might be able to use something similar, or provide a link, perhaps?

Horologium t-c 14:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to address Kalyan's comments & questions in the article. OK, it was my understanding that the X modifier means an early prototype and the Y modifier means a pre-production prototype. I guess it's really an experimental version of the aircraft. -Fnlayson 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments Kalyan. Another set of eyes to review is good. I'm trying to address your comments/questions in the article. But I've had little to do with it until recently and probably can't address them all. -Fnlayson 06:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Although the article has undergone extensive changes since this list was posted, a few of these were still in the current version so I have addressed them to the extent possible. A few I disagreed with, and took in a different direction, hopefully to the same end. Maury (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GA closure

I think this article has been in GA for quite a long time without any consensus. I am going to remove the article from GA and will in the next couple of days, summarize all outstanding issues for the author/workgroup to address before this can be re-nom to GA. --Kalyan 09:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Variant entries

The last 2 entries are supposed to come from the NASA B-70 Aircraft Study. I believe they are inaccurate based on my Jenkins book.

• B-70A - Planned fleet of 50 operational bombers (with wing-tip fuel tanks) canceled in December 1959.
• RS-70 - Alternate planned fleet of 50 reconnaissance aircraft (with a crew of four and in-flight refueling capability) was evaluated in February 1959.

Volume II (39 MB) of that report is only part with historical background that I see. It has a 1955-56 SAC Bomber on page II-12 (V2 file page 22) with the wingtip fuel tanks. It then shows a different B-70 design on the next page without the wingtip fuel tanks. Also, that's the way the designations work. The B-70 would be the production version of the XB-70. The RS-70 figure shows the 4 person crew and air refueling interface. Where are the quantities listed? From what I've read these varied and were cut back to try and save the program. -Fnlayson 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The NASA Study Volume 1 Page I-307 shows a count of 62 vehicles (2 XB-70A, 1 XB-70B(YB-70A), 10 YB-70A, 50 RS-70/B-70A). Gunter 10:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think all that is covered in the Development and Variants sections now. -Fnlayson 02:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Subcontractors long list

This list was added to the article a day or two ago.

• Aeronca: Folding Wing Tip Assembly, Wing Tip Box, and Honeycomb Panels
• Airesearch: Central Air Data Subsystem
• Automation: minor Wing Rib Assembly, Wing Spars, and Edge Members
• AVCO: Aft Section – Upper Fuselage Intermediate Fuselage, and Honeycomb Panels
• Beech: Alert Pod Subsystem
• Bendix: Secondary Power System Transmission Shaft
• Boeing: Fixed Wing Structure
• Chance Vought: Horizontal and Vertical Stabilizers
• Cleveland Pneumatic: Landing Gear Subsystem
• Convair: Inboard Wing Boxes, Folding Wing Tip, Sine Waves, and Sine Wave Spars
• Curtis Wright: Wingtip Fold Actuating Subsystem
• General Dynamics: Honeycomb Panels
• General Electric: YJ93 Engines, Secondary Power Generating Subsystem Controls, and Aircraft Generators
• Hamilton Standard: Environmental Conditioning System, and Air Induction Control System
• Hayden: High Temperature Switches
• Houston Fearless: Escape Capsule Ballistic Stabilization Booms
• IBM: AN/ASQ028(V) Bombing Navigation and Missile Guidance Subsystem
• Koehler: Fuel Level Control Valves
• Liquidometer: Fuel Management System
• Lockheed: Upper Intermediate Fuselage
• LTV: Leading Edges, and Honeycomb Panels
• Marquardt: Duct Buzz and Inlet Unstart Sensors
• Micro Switch: High Temperature Switches
• Motorola: Mission and Traffic Control, and Antenna Subsystem Group
• Northrup: Honeycomb Panels
• Parker: Fuel Tanks Inerting and Pressurization Subsystem
• Rocket Power: Escape Capsule Ballistic Rocket Catapult
• Rohr: Elevons, Leading Edges, Bulkheads, and Honeycomb Panels
• Solar Aircraft: Engine Extraction Air Ducting Subsystem
• Sperry Gyroscope: Auxiliary Gyro Platform Subsystem
• Statham: High Temperature Transducers
• Sunstrand: Secondary Power Generating System
• TRW: Fuel System Simulator
• Vickers: Hydraulic Pumps, Hydraulic Motors, and Emergency Electrical Generator Hydraulic Motor
• Westinghouse: AN/ALQ-27 Defensive Subsystem Group
• Whittaker: Engine Compartment Cooling System
• Zenith Plastic: Mission and Traffic Control

I think it is excessively long the way it's laid out. Writing about th emain subcontractors in paragraph form would be better. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything ... [or] Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". -Fnlayson 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wingweb.co.uk

I run a site titled Air Vectors that covers military aircraft and gets cited here and there on Wikipedia. I don't normally touch wikipedia articles other than to correct typos and the like, but I just found out about a site named "Wingweb.co.uk" which is also cited here and there on Wikipedia (for example in this article) ... but whose aviation articles are largely or entirely downloads of Air Vectors articles -- advertized as "original content & images" though they also lifted many of my photos and artwork.

I have no fuss to make. I just want to make sure the Wikipedia community knows that Wingweb.co.uk is a ripoff operation. Cheers / MrG 4.225.208.126 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. That is pretty shifty by them. -Fnlayson 15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You meant to say "shifty"? LOL Thanks for the heads-up, Greg. FWIW Bzuk 16:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

• Yes, shifty which would generally be complementary in sports. But not here. -Fnlayson 16:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, complement or compliment withstanding, it was a bit of doggy do! Bzuk 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC). (Now don't get me started on verbal gymnastics!)

Shifty, shady, underhanded, whatever pick a word you like.. -Fnlayson 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Boron fuels

How certain is the statememt that the "boron fuel" project was cancelled in 1959? Callery Chemical were still making it (boron hydride) in 1995 (as for that matter were a couple of Soviet plants - I was offered the stuff in commercial volumes from Russia and the Ukraine in the early 1990's)Tibb the cat 01:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I thought that meant the Air Force's boron fuel program was canceled in 1959. -Fnlayson 04:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no problem with buying boron, but it doesn't work out well in jet engines, I can't recall off hand whether the boron damages the combustion chamber or whether it suffers from combustion instability, but it's one of these things that works great on paper... but not for real in an aircraft.WolfKeeper 06:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifications

I've just been doing some reading and I've come across some information which on contrary to what the article has. Under "maximum speed" mach 3.1 is written. This is actually closer to the "maximum cruising speed" of mach 3.08. In fact the fastest ever speed recorded by the aircraft was mach 3.8 on 12 april 1966. I'm going to go through and change that. I'm getting this from my catalogue of "world aircraft information files".Polmerfox (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through a added some information about the aircraft and different facets and they are now under the heading "design". I'm not very good at referencing and I'm only new a editing wikipedia. Could someone please add in the citations? I got the information from "world aircraft information files - file 879 sheet 6". Thanks for you help.Polmerfox (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting your edits. Your information would suggest that the XB-70 currently holds the world speed record, which it does not. Your information also appears to be cut and paste from the same source. --Asams10 (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mach 3.8 max speed is just fiction. It was designed for Mach 3 flight and hit a max Mach 3.05 in flight testing. Wikipedia has a policy about using Reliable Sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm guessing the "3.8" number was supposed to read "3.08" and someone fat-fingered the zero out of existance. Maury (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a book written by Steve Pace which is about the XB-70 and I remember there was a part in the book which discussed the Boeing and North American competition and it stated that the X279E (which was what the J-93 was called before it got an official "J" designation) was rated for Mach 4. I don't remember exactly what page it's on, and I'm currently looking for the book (I've been moving stuff around my house the past couple of days) to verify.

While saying "I have heard" doesn't exactly say much evidence wise -- I remember either hearing that Walt Spivak (who was the Chief Engineer on the XB-70 design) said that the XB-70's inlets were designed to take temperatures encountered at Mach 4. Considering the X279E/J-93 were allegedly rated for Mach 4, this doesn't sound necessarily all that out there.

While I'm at it, I'm not sure how necessary this is to say, but it is pretty much established that the J-91 and J-93 had the same maximum mach capabilities (The J-93 however had a higher pressure ratio, made do-able by improved air-cooling and allowed a smaller lighter engine, which is why it won the competition). The J-58 was an 80% scale version of the J-91 and also was designed for the same speed.

If I am wrong in anyway I apologize AVKent882 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mach 4 is mentioned in my Pace book (ISBN 0-8306-8620-7) on page 39 as possible with improved engines and redesign. It says the Valkyrie was designed for Mach 3.2 however. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the book I have! If you read earlier in the book where it showed the WS-110 program and the Boeing 804-4 (The design with six engines in individual pods with the canard that looked like an enlarged BOMARC) it did state that the X-279E was rated for Mach 4. You are correct in that the book does list the XB-70's max speed as Mach 3.2 however.

While saying "I have read" has little weight here, I have hearing, more or less, that the XB-70's Chief Designer Walt Spivak stated that the inlets were designed to withstand Mach 4 conditions more or less. I should note that the higher the speed the airplane flies at, it becomes harder to produce an efficient inlet. For low supersonic speeds a single shock inlet (one that uses one shockwave to slow the flow down from supersonic to subsonic) is sufficient for the task, and also nice and simple. As you get faster such an inlet becomes quite inefficient (low pressure recovery). From an efficiency standpoint it is more efficient to slow supersonic flow down to subsonic speed using a whole bunch of weak shockwaves rather than use one big one for the job. Multi-shock inlets however are more complicated in design than single-shock inlets so as a rule if 4 or 5 shocks is needed to do the job efficiently, generally you're not going to use 10 shockwaves as the complexity would be more extreme (and I'm not truthfully sure how much of an extra benefit you'd get -- for a given mach number there is a theoretical maximum ram-compression that can be achieved, so you might end up reaching a point of diminishing returns) than need be. Well, If I recall correctly, in the Steve Pace book (if not that, at least one of the XB-70 books I have -- I have a couple) actually depicts the inlet duct and the shock-wave pattern at speed. From what I remember the inlet produced something like 14-16 shockwaves (reflected shocks count as well) which is quite extreme for a Mach 3 design (even one designed for sustained supersonic flight). The Lockheed L-2000 which was one of the designs involved in the SST competition (It lost to the Boeing B-2707) and was to fly at Mach 3 used either a 4-shock or a 5-shock inlet AVKent882 (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The missile problem

While the missile problem section is correct in the context of the time, SR 71 demonstrated that the missile problem was vastly overstated - a maneuverable M3 high altitude aircraft is practically invulnerable except for nuclear SAMs(which have their own problems - how quick is your chain of command?), or to interception by fighters of similar wing and power loading, which are rather thin on the ground. Should there be a further statement pointing this out?

Greg Locock (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"SR 71 demonstrated that the missile problem was vastly overstated"

Really? The SR-71 was hit by SA-2 missiles over Vietnam, although those versions were older models and the flight path over the protected territory was relatively limited both in distance and time. The USSR had already upgraded their own SA-2 units to better deal with high-speed targets, and by the mid-60s were in the process of deploying the SA-5/S-200, a missile of dramatically improved performance. On the contrary, I would say the SR-71 clearly demonstrated that the problem was just as real as they believed it to be. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

cite? Greg Locock (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Found it http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xwPFC3GtcL8C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=BX6743&source=bl&ots=ghLEoTCEnk&sig=_fm4nSWCSP9JMboACSqDVEjsb2Y&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result An A-12 was hit by a single piece of shrapnel, from a salvo of 8 SA-2s, would be a more accurate summary than "The SR-71 was hit by SA-2 missiles". Greg Locock (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• The A-12 is the SR-71 older "Blackbird" brother. I believe that's mentioned in a book I have. Pretty minor hit in any event. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

However, having had a bit of a read, I would agree that realistically the missiles doubled in performance in (roughly) 10 years,so although non-nuclear SA2 v B70 or SR71 was very marginal indeed, it is no big stretch to see the next generation of missiles would pose a vastly greater threat, with double the speed, the S200 being introduced in 1967. Obviously the performance of the aircraft could not be improved at the same rate.Greg Locock (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention thanks for the link above. That could be a good book to get. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well now, I am told that the following Pks apply for SAMs, I am attempting to find a good ref. Since the M6 limit is a material problem (stagnation temp) it is unlikely that a SAM could exceed twice the B70s speed. So it looks as though a salvo size of at least 4 is required for 90% confidence (if 90% is good enough).

2.0 Speed Advantage and 1.0 Altitude Advantage for 25% pK

3.0 Speed Advantage and 2.0 Altitude Advantage for 50% pK

4.0 Speed Advantage and 3.0 Altitude Advantage for 75% pK

5.0 Speed Advantage and 4.0 Altitude Advantage for 90+ pK

So I withdraw my retraction! Greg Locock (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't understand what the "speed advantage" of a missile approaching on a lead-computed command-guidance approach from under the target would be. Infinite? Zero? Its different for AAM's where it's horizontal performance that counts, and that is indeed a function of outright speed, so I might buy these numbers if that's what they're really for. Let's not forget that Spartan was slower than the targets it intercepted. Let's also not forget that the fSovs built something like 20,000 SA-1's, which were only used around Moscow. Hundreds (thousands) were on combat alert at any given time. Four missiles needed for a 90% Pk? Phsaw, I got 50 for ya. Sorry, I'm not convinced. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Shrugs. That's where the maths goes. I wonder if it is possible to calibrate that model using the SR71 data. Greglocock (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Designation Error

The WS-110 Program was called WS-110A in the beginning. By the time the XB-70 design came along it was called the WS-110L. On the XB-70 Wiki-entry the picture which shows a comparison between the Early WS-110A and the later WS-110L erroneously lists the XB-70 as a later WS-110A which it isn't AVKent882 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is covered in the article in First attempts section and cited there. WS-101L merged with WS-101A. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-write

A very extensive edit has recently taken place. Rather than just using the BRD provision, there should be some discussion re: how the article now reads (or looks). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This article gets into too much detail in places. Too much content on nuclear propulsion, the up/down/up swing in the 1958-60 period, and the missile problem, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the new edit is scalloped from somewhere else and digresses especially in the "notes" into other aspects of the era concerning related projects. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Doesn't this article go into waaaaay too much detail and what is the deal about that note section, most of it is unnecessary. The complex quotes are not accessible and can be greatly simplified. What say you? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

Yep. This summarizes the 1959-60 period.

In late 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower felt manned bombers were outdated in a "missile age" and would not support full funding for the B-70 program. Then in December 1959 the Air Force announced the B-70 project would be cut to a single prototype, and most of the planned B-70 subsystems would no longer be developed. Then interest increased due the politics of presidential campaign of 1960. The Air Force changed the program to full weapon development and awarded a contract for a XB-70 prototype and 11 YB-70s in August 1960. In November 1960, the B-70 program received a $265 million appropriation from Congress for FY 1961.

Note: Some sources list something like $365 million as the appropriation for FY 1961 (can't remember exactly). -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate, the note section should, at least, be folded in, or preferably done away together as they do not add to the information, rather they completely detract by being mainly asides. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like the notes. #3 is questionable though, as it seems to have nothing to do with the XB-70. The rest seem interesting though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Location

The aircraft was in the Research and Development hanger at least four years prior to the date listed (2008). I am not sure when it was actually put there and I am unsure about the date of the nose gear damage so I have not edited the article. B. P. Battaglia (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Espionage and the Tu-144?

The line that references this is from but a single source, and I can't seem to find the source "Moon 1989." No ISBN is provided and no other reference exists. Perhaps this is a typo? It seems a little dubious that the Tu-144 was the result of espionage -- and there is no way to confirm or deny this because the reference is poor. Darthveda (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Moon 1989, p. 92." is a footnote (see WP:CITESHORT for more). It points to the Moon book entry in the Bibliography section. There are many other footnotes like that used in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Argh I can see how I missed it -- but thanks. Though I'm somewhat aghast that both a citation and bibliography can exist, and the entry "Moon 1989" is a little deceptive. Darthveda (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Go for FA

I'm thinking its time to go for an FA on this. I'd like to make a few changes though:

1. I think Variants should be moved down, or eliminated entirely. Given that only two aircraft were built, both of the same version, the value of this section seems questionable.
2. Cleanup Notes. I suggest removing #3 outright, and greatly trimming the missile one.
3. Cleanup "Acceleration". I think there's a lot of good stuff in here, but as others have noted, a lot of quotes that don't really add anything. I also think the fact that Kennedy was informed shortly taking office of the problems with the program is useful to the discussion, because it illustrates precisely the sort of tricks Ike was talking about in the "Military-industrial complex" talk.

Other than that I think it looks great. Maybe another picture or two?

There's not a lot of aircraft FA's, and I think this one will be of interest to most readers. Plus, it's one of the best looking aircraft out there... Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are some parts that need to be referenced better and non-WP:RS ones replaced/supplemented. A lot of the short phrase quotes should be summarized instead. Only major quotes from major people are needed, I think. I shortened the text in the Variants section. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-RS refs have been removed. I'll try and add some more reliable material over the coming days. Kyteto (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of "hidden facts" on crash

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzmqxtp6Wk ) has an old man claiming to have hidden info on the crash: how about interviewing the person in the video and including his comment here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.211.114 (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't interview people, see WP:Original research. We're a record of reliable viewpoints and sourced material (see WP:Reliable sources, we do not manufacture our own accounts and evidence. Find a historian who's willing to give credit to the allegation in a book, and we can reference the event; we can't cite random people speaking on a webcam who self-published their accoutn on a social-media site, it has to have been already recognised by a valid RS source. Kyteto (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I watched the video and there's really nothing too groundbreaking here. All he claims is that the pilot was moved up to fly the F-104 to cover the B-70 flight when he hadn't been cleared to do so. I don't know if this is true or not, but I suspect the accident report would mention it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And then I also asked a number of people who I know are familiar with the B-70 program. One of them noted that Walker had not only flown 9 chase missions on the B-70 prior to the accident, but had done 8 of those in the F-104. So basically this's guy's story is bunkum. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base as a source

Annie Jacobsen's sensational "tell-all" book is nothing of the sort. Rife with factual errors, relying heavily on unnamed sources who now have come forward to deny involvement with secret programs or the author, this should be relegated to at least the dubious, if not downright ridiculous. See Jon Stewart's interview where he rolls his eyes in disbelief of the cockamanny nonsense she spouts. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Unless a more reliable reference can be found then I would suggest deleting the Area 51 radar operator Barnes.. paragraph. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't want to know more about Soviet secret flying saucers, Mengle-created midgets or other conspiracy nonsense?? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

No thanks I am to busy hiding my flying saucer from the spy satellites, sorry must go police helicopter over the house. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)