{"id":40097,"date":"2014-03-01T15:15:11","date_gmt":"2014-03-01T20:15:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/valorguardians.com\/blog\/?p=40097"},"modified":"2014-03-16T12:53:09","modified_gmt":"2014-03-16T16:53:09","slug":"the-lovely-valkyrie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=40097","title":{"rendered":"The Lovely Valkyrie"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>No, I\u2019m not talking about the TAH commenter by that name \u2013 though based on her photo in the Member\u2019s Gallery, she indeed qualifies. (smile) \u00a0I\u2019m talking about this lovely lady.<\/p>\n<p><center><br \/>\n<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"\" src=\"http:\/\/www.murdoconline.net\/2008\/xb-70_rear.jpg\" width=\"500\" height=\"400\" \/><\/center><center><br \/>\n<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"\" src=\"http:\/\/photos.interceptor.com\/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&amp;g2_itemId=9320&amp;g2_serialNumber=2\" width=\"500\" height=\"358\" \/><\/center>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Valkyrie\u2019s story is IMO worth telling.\u00a0 I\u2019ll tell it briefly here.<\/p>\n<p><strong>. . .<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><!--more-->Most of us have heard of the SR-71 \u2013 the USAF\u2019s Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft that was developed from the CIA\u2019s A-12.\u00a0 However, at various times the US developed other Mach 3 airframes.\u00a0 Most of them were experimental platforms only, built to investigate high-speed flight but never intended for production.<\/p>\n<p>However, one of them almost made it to production.\u00a0 That one was the XB-70 \u2013 the Valkyrie.<\/p>\n<p>It was an impressive \u2013 and beautiful &#8211; aircraft.\u00a0 Two prototypes were built; each flew above Mach 3.<\/p>\n<p>Fate was to decree that these would be the only two ever built.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Background<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The XB-70 program began in the mid-1950s.\u00a0 It was originally designated WS-110A by the USAF.<\/p>\n<p>The initial USAF request for proposals was for a subsonic system with a 4,000nm combat radius, a 50,000 lb payload, and having a 1000nm \u201cmaximum possible speed\u201d dash-to-target capability.<\/p>\n<p>The USAF received multiple initial design proposals which, to be blunt, bordered on the absurd.\u00a0 Here\u2019s a diagram of the original WS-110A proposal from North American Aviation (NAA), the XB-70&#8217;s eventual builder.\u00a0 The <span style=\"color: #800080;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.rp-one.net\/b_ws_110a\/graphics\/2a.png\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">Boeing proposal<\/span><\/a><\/span> was similarly odd.<\/p>\n<p><center><br \/>\n<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"\" src=\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/2\/2c\/WS-110_original_proposal.gif\/640px-WS-110_original_proposal.gif\" width=\"500\" height=\"374\" \/><\/center>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>For comparison purposes, the \u201cfloating panels\u201d in the NAA design that would be jettisoned prior to the supersonic dash to target <i>were approximately the size of a B-47<\/i>.\u00a0\u00a0 About these proposed designs, then SAC commander Gen. Curtis Lemay reportedly remarked:\u00a0 \u201cThat\u2019s not an airplane, it\u2019s a 3-ship formation.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The USAF rejected this initial group of proposals, but did not terminate the WS-110A program.\u00a0 Since the state of the art in supersonic flight had advanced substantially since the original request for proposals had been released, the USAF revised the requirements to specify a Mach 3 cruise capability and requested a second round of proposals.<\/p>\n<p>A second group of very different proposals were submitted.\u00a0 The winning proposal, by NAA, was the to become the XB-70.\u00a0 It featured several novel features:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the use of high-energy fuels (a mixture of kerosene-based and borane-based fuels (termed \u201chigh energy fuels&#8221; &#8211; AKA HEF or \u201czip fuels\u201d &#8211; which provided approximately 40% more fuel by weight and volume than standard jet fuels) in its afterburners;<\/li>\n<li>the use of <span style=\"color: #800080;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Compression_lift\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">compression lift<\/span><\/a><\/span>;<\/li>\n<li>the use of moveable wing sections 20\u2019 long, designed to be lowered during flight to either 25 degrees below horizontal (300kts to low supersonic) or 65 degrees below horizontal (high supersonic) in order to trap more of the aircraft\u2019s shock wave and enhance the compression lift effect (these were reputedly the largest moveable aircraft control surfaces ever built); and<\/li>\n<li>an aircraft skin constructed out of two thin layers of stainless steel brazed to a stainless-steel honeycomb structure formed from stainless steel <i>approximately 0.02\u201d thick<\/i> (titanium was to be used only in extreme high-temperature areas such as the nose, \u201csplitter&#8221; [the pointed peak in front of the air intakes], leading wing edges, and exhausts; titanium made up less than 10% of the XB-70s structure).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Contract Award &#8211; and Program Cancellation<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The contract for construction of the B-70 was awarded in January 1958.\u00a0 The planned system received the \u201cB-70\u201d designation.\u00a0 Its name \u201cValkyrie\u201d was chosen in an USAF \u201cName the Bomber\u201d contest shortly afterwards.<\/p>\n<p>Problems for the program began even before the contract was awarded.\u00a0 There were four major ones.<\/p>\n<p>First:\u00a0 not long after the B-70\u2019s contract was awarded, the USAF terminated its HEF program.\u00a0 This was not fatal \u2013 it reduced the projected payload and range for the planned production B-70s, but conversion of one of the two planned bomb bays mitigated the effect.\u00a0\u00a0 Better kerosene-based fuel (JP-6) helped, and weapons design improvements (making them lighter) made the loss in payload capacity acceptable.<\/p>\n<p>Still, the range of the craft was reduced substantially.\u00a0 Without HEF, aerial refueling would be a necessity.<\/p>\n<p>Second:\u00a0 the B-70 was designed as a high-altitude, high-speed platform.\u00a0 Unfortunately, a little development had occurred since the USAF first asked for WS-110A proposals.<\/p>\n<p>That \u201clittle development\u201d was called \u201csurface to air missiles\u201d, or SAMs.\u00a0 By the late 1950s, SAMs could easily reach the XB-70s altitude.<\/p>\n<p>The Valkyrie was huge \u2013 nearly 190\u2019 long, with a wingspan of 110\u2019 and a height of over 30\u2019.\u00a0 Given its stainless-steel skin and physical configuration, there was no way to make it stealthy in the least.\u00a0 (The A-12 and SR-71 had a much better design in that respect, incorporating composite materials in critical areas, radar-absorbing paint, and a shape that reduced its radar reflection by an order of magnitude over a more conventional aircraft design with the same aerodynamic performance.)<\/p>\n<p>Further:\u00a0 if a nuclear weapon was used in a SAM, well, getting a SAM \u201cclose enough\u201d for a knockdown became relatively easy.<\/p>\n<p>To survive in the early\/mid 1960s, strategic bombing changed tactics.\u00a0 Because of the high-altitude SAM threat, bombers would need to use low-level penetration tactics.\u00a0 (Indeed, because of the magnitude of the SAM threat to manned bombers the US was moving was away from reliance on manned bombers to missile systems for its primary nuclear deterrent.)\u00a0 And at low altitudes, the B-70 would only fly at subsonic speeds \u2013 indeed, it would not fly significantly faster at low altitude than did the B-52.<\/p>\n<p>Third, the newly elected President Kennedy found out that the alleged &#8220;bomber gap&#8221; of the late 1950s was in fact a myth, and did not exist.\u00a0 Both Kennedy and Nixon had been proponents of the B-70 during the 1960 election campaign \u2013 Kennedy as a way to attack Nixon with criticism that the Eisenhower administration in which Nixon had been VP had been &#8220;soft on Defense&#8221; (Eisenhower didn&#8217;t want the B-70), and Nixon as a defense against this attack.\u00a0 Now that he&#8217;d been elected POTUS JFK no longer needed to support the B-70 for political reasons.<\/p>\n<p>Finally:\u00a0 the B-70 program was projected to be <em>extremely<\/em> expensive.\u00a0 It would cost substantially more to build B-70s than B-52s, and operating them would be much more expensive than the existing B-52 fleet.<\/p>\n<p>In short, the B-70 program was a weapons system that had become obsolete before its first prototype had even been built.\u00a0 It was now a wonderful aerial platform &#8211; which due to changes in technology and threat now had little or no real military utility.<\/p>\n<p>JFK ordered cancellation of the B-70 as an Air Force weapons system just over 2 months after he was sworn in as POTUS \u2013 in late March, 1961.\u00a0 After some additional wrangling \u2013 and despite the efforts of Gen. Curtis LeMay, who was a huge B-70 proponent, to save it &#8211; Congress assented.\u00a0 The B-70 was cancelled.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Research\/Test Program<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The program was not terminated outright, however.\u00a0 It was continued as a research program.\u00a0 The research aircraft were to be designated the XB-70.<\/p>\n<p>Two XB-70 research aircraft were built:\u00a0 Air Vehicle One (AV-1; tail number 20001), and a somewhat modified version AV-2 (tail number 20207).\u00a0 A third aircraft was originally planned, but was cancelled during construction.\u00a0 Its intake tunnel is on display today at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.<\/p>\n<p>AV-1 made its first flight on 21 September 1964.\u00a0 Roughly three weeks later &#8211; on 12 October 1964 &#8211; it flew supersonic for the first time.\u00a0 It made unclassified history on 24 October 1964, flying 40 minutes continuously above Mach 1 to set an acknowledged record for sustained supersonic flight.\u00a0 It made a number of additional flights at Mach 2+, and made its sole Mach 3 flight on 14 October 1965.<\/p>\n<p>Being the first prototype, AV-1 had numerous problems.\u00a0 Breakup and ingestion of the \u201csplitter\u201d at the apex of the craft\u2019s delta wing (which was immediately front of the aircraft\u2019s intakes) had ruined all 6 of the aircraft\u2019s engines during a flight on 7 July 1965, nearly leading to loss of the aircraft. On its sole Mach 3 flight, AV-1 lost a section of its leading-edge wing skin &#8211; with parts again ingested by its huge air intakes, again ruining some of its engines.\u00a0 Separation of its stainless skin from the underlying stainless honeycomb was determined to be the reason for this latter incident.\u00a0 As a precaution, AV-1 was restricted to flights at Mach 2.5 or less thereafter.<\/p>\n<p>AV-2 flew for the first time on 17 July 1965.\u00a0 Though not trouble-free, improvement in fabrication techniques due to experience and lessons learned from AV-1\u2019s troubles (and resulting modifications) meant that AV-2 had many fewer problems.\u00a0 It made multiple flights above Mach 3.\u00a0 Unfortunately, this airframe was <span style=\"color: #800080;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=fCORwUxlNQo\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">lost in a mid-air collision<\/span><\/a><\/span> with an F-104 during a USAF-sanctioned photo-shoot on 8 June 1966.\u00a0 The pilot that day, NAA Test Pilot Al White, was able to eject and survived with injuries.\u00a0 The co-pilot \u2013 USAF Maj. Carl Cross, making his first XB-70 flight \u2013 did not eject and was killed.\u00a0 (The pilot of the F-104 that day, NASA test pilot Joseph A. Walker, also died during the collision.)<\/p>\n<p>The remaining XB-70 (AV-1) continued with flight test operations in support of NASA\u2019s National Sonic Boom Program (NSBP) program and other investigations concerning control of structural dynamics \u2013 both presumably in support of the US Supersonic Transport (SST) effort.\u00a0 It made numerous high-speed instrumented flights in support of these efforts.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Retirement and Disposition<\/span><\/p>\n<p>AV-1 was retired in 1969.\u00a0 Its last flight \u2013 a subsonic one &#8211; was on 4 February 1969.\u00a0 It was flown to Wright Field, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, and was transferred to the Air Force Museum (now called the National Museum of the US Air Force).<\/p>\n<p>For years the surviving XB-70 (AV-1, tail number 20001) was on display outside at the Air Force Museum, and was one of the first things a visitor saw while approaching the museum on foot.\u00a0 I can tell you from personal experience that made one helluva impression.<\/p>\n<p>AV-1 is still at the museum today.\u00a0 However, it\u2019s now been moved to the museum\u2019s R&amp;D hangar and is protected from the elements.<\/p>\n<p>As I alluded to above, I\u2019ve seen this airframe too \u2013 over 30 years ago.\u00a0 It was amazing then, and still is.\u00a0 IMO, it\u2019s perhaps the only aircraft I can think of that can come close to the A-12\/SR-71 family in terms of either performance or physical beauty.\u00a0 On the latter score, I\u2019d be hard pressed to pick between the two.<\/p>\n<p>I never got to see either take off, or in flight.\u00a0 I certainly wish I had.<\/p>\n<p>Seeing a takeoff for either would truly have been something to remember.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Sources<\/span>:<\/p>\n<p>There are a variety of sites and articles about the XB-70 freely available on the Internet.<\/p>\n<p>Wikipedia\u2019s article on the XB-70 appears reasonably accurate and gives an excellent overview of the aircraft\u2019s background, mission issues, a brief programmatic history, and the events leading to its cancellation.<\/p>\n<p>The site <span style=\"color: #800080;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/xb70.interceptor.com\/\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/xb70.interceptor.com\/<\/span><\/a><\/span> provides an absolutely excellent history of the aircraft, focusing more on its flight test operations and technology.\u00a0 It\u2019s definitely worth a read.\u00a0 It also has an excellent photo gallery with photos of the XB-70 and other aircraft.<\/p>\n<p>Various other sites have images or other information about the craft.\u00a0 Some of the images of the XB-70 I find worth looking at are found at the following links:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scenicreflections.com\/files\/North%20American%20XB-70%20Valkyrie%20Wallpaper__yvt2.jpg\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/www.scenicreflections.com\/files\/North%20American%20XB-70%20Valkyrie%20Wallpaper__yvt2.jpg<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.murdoconline.net\/2008\/xb-70_rear.jpg\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/www.murdoconline.net\/2008\/xb-70_rear.jpg<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/7\/7c\/North_American_XB-70_in_Flight_EC68-2131.jpg\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/7\/7c\/North_American_XB-70_in_Flight_EC68-2131.jpg<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/File:North_American_XB-70A_Valkyrie_in_flight_061122-F-1234P-022.jpg\">http:\/\/<span style=\"color: #800080;\">en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/File:North_American_XB-70A_Valkyrie_in_flight_061122-F-1234P-022.jpg<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/9\/9f\/North_American_XB-70A_Valkyrie_in_flight_with_wingtips_in_25_percent_%28transitional%29_drooped_position_061122-F-1234P-020.jpg\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/9\/9f\/North_American_XB-70A_Valkyrie_in_flight_with_wingtips_in_25_percent_%28transitional%29_drooped_position_061122-F-1234P-020.jpg<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/7\/76\/North_American_XB-70A_Valkyrie_in_flight_061122-F-1234P-022.jpg\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/7\/76\/North_American_XB-70A_Valkyrie_in_flight_061122-F-1234P-022.jpg<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.flygplan.info\/images\/XB-70_800.jpg\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/www.flygplan.info\/images\/XB-70_800.jpg<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/pl.yoyowall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/Air-Force-XB70-Valkyrie.jpeg\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/pl.yoyowall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/Air-Force-XB70-Valkyrie.jpeg<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.thexhunters.com\/xpeditions\/xb-70a_aircraft_3.jpg\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/www.thexhunters.com\/xpeditions\/xb-70a_aircraft_3.jpg<\/span><\/a> &#8211; This photo is noteworthy in that is shows both the XB-70 and the B-58 (used as a chase-plane for some XB-70 flights) together, and gives an idea of the relative size of the XB-70.\u00a0 <i>The B-58 was nearly 100 feet long (96ft 10in).<\/i><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800080;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/i6.photobucket.com\/albums\/y217\/dirksterg30\/Aircraft\/B-70.jpg\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/i6.photobucket.com\/albums\/y217\/dirksterg30\/Aircraft\/B-70.jpg<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800080;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/api.ning.com\/files\/HfUvPSttO0Jx7wxzeEqxNDa5gR0YRJHqJFHoJkFRTZjkUkJSFfOukfc6QLlfPTrBoh1Vdm0GJJtDuQfdtoqFCf0YMmK2ZWwo\/XB70Valkyrie1.jpg\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/api.ning.com\/files\/HfUvPSttO0Jx7wxzeEqxNDa5gR0YRJHqJFHoJkFRTZjkUkJSFfOukfc6QLlfPTrBoh1Vdm0GJJtDuQfdtoqFCf0YMmK2ZWwo\/XB70Valkyrie1.jpg<\/span><\/a><\/span> &#8211; This photo shows the XB-70 on the ground, surrounded by people, at the North American Aviation plant (I think this was taken at the plane\u2019s public \u201croll-out\u201d).\u00a0 It also conveys the huge size of this aircraft.\u00a0 Its wingspan \u2013 <i>105 feet\u00a0 with wingtips horizontal<\/i> \u2013 was longer than the B-58\u2019s length.\u00a0 It was <i>189 feet long<\/i>.\u00a0 Max takeoff weight was <i>542,000 lbs (271 TONS<\/i>).<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #800080;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/photos.interceptor.com\/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&amp;g2_itemId=9318&amp;g2_serialNumber=1\"><span style=\"color: #800080;\">http:\/\/photos.interceptor.com\/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&amp;g2_itemId=9318&amp;g2_serialNumber=1<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The bird was indeed a beautiful one.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>No, I\u2019m not talking about the TAH commenter by that name \u2013 though based on her &hellip; <a title=\"The Lovely Valkyrie\" class=\"hm-read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/?p=40097\"><span class=\"screen-reader-text\">The Lovely Valkyrie<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":623,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[187,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-air-force","category-historical"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/623"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=40097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=40097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=40097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=40097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}