60 years ago – on September 21, 1964, the XB-70 Valkyrie made its first flight

A lone XB-70 Valkyrie is photographed during its move to a new building at the U.S. Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, Oct. 27, 2015. From the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, testing was conducted at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex, in support of the XB-70 program. The now-retired aircraft first flew on Sept. 21, 1964. (U.S. Air Force photo by Will Haas)

An article published on the US Air Force website commemorates the 60th anniversary of the first flight of the legendary XB-70 Valkyrie, a supersonic bomber that captured the imagination of both enthusiasts aviation, and engineers. Known for its sleek and futuristic design, the XB-70 remains a symbol of the experimental and ambitious spirit of Cold War aircraft development. Although only two prototypes were built, the aircraft left an indelible mark on stories military aviation.

The XB-70 Valkyrie was originally conceived in the 1950s as a high-speed, high-altitude bomber for the United States Air Force's Strategic Air Command. The North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie is the prototype for the planned B-70 supersonic, long-range, nuclear-armed strategic bomber for the United States Air Force's Strategic Air Command.

Developed in the late 1950s by North American Aviation (NAA) to replace the B-52 Stratofortress and B-58 Hustler, the delta-winged bomber could fly thousands of miles at a cruising speed of Mach 3 (3 mph) at 185 ft (70 m). At a time when technological advances were rapidly accelerating, the U.S. Air Force was looking for a bomber that could fly faster and higher than the B-000 Stratofortress, its workhorse of the era (and the backbone of the strategic bomber force) fleet today and several decades into the future).

With a planned cruising speed of Mach 3 and an operating altitude of 70 feet, the XB-000 project promised to produce a combat bomber capable of Defense The USSR, which became a growing concern for US leaders during the Cold War.

If we take into account the fact that the speed limit of targets captured by the AS of the main S-25 and S-75 air defense systems of the USSR of that time was 1,5 Mach (1 km/h), the same applies to the controlled rocket weapons class "air-to-air" Soviet interceptors, then it can be confidently stated that the project had prospects. True, these advantages would have been temporary in any case, already in the second generation of Soviet SAMs the parameters of the intercepted targets approached the flight characteristics of the "Valkyrie".

The only remaining scientific and technical interest was that of the creators of this engineering miracle. At the time of the R&D work on the project (late 1950s – early 1960s), the aircraft was technically, technologically advanced and an extremely promising project, but the Americans fiddled with it for too long, and the Russians got ahead of them.

One of the XB-70's most remarkable features was its ability to ride its own shock wave, an innovative design feature that allowed it to remain stable and controllable at supersonic speeds.

The Valkyrie's delta wing, coupled with its six powerful jet engines, gave it an exotic and futuristic appearance, making it one of the most visually distinctive aircraft ever built. Its outer wing panels were hinged, allowing them to be lowered during flight to optimize aerodynamic performance at high speeds.

From this angle, the XB-70 looks like an alien spaceship.

The article highlights the critical role played by the Arnold Engineering Development Complex (AEDC) in the development of the XB-70.

Testing of the Valkyrie's engines, aerodynamics, and other key components began at Arnold Air Force Base in the late 1950s, long before the first prototype was built. AEDC's equipment played a major role in pushing the boundaries of aviation capabilities at the time.

One of the earliest tests involved jet engine nozzles proposed for the XB-70 in March 1958. This was followed by extensive wind tunnel testing of scale models of the Valkyrie, which also examined the aerodynamic characteristics of bombs dropped from the aircraft.

A technician makes adjustments to a scale model of the XB-70 Valkyrie prior to evaluating aerodynamic characteristics associated with the aircraft in Tunnel A of the von Karman Gas Dynamics Complex at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, home of the Arnold Engineering Development Complex, in 1959.

From the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, testing was conducted at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, home of the Arnold Engineering Development Complex, in support of the XB-70 program. Only two Valkyries were built, and of the pair, only one remains. This now-retired aircraft made its first flight on September 21, 1964.

Development continued into the early 1960s, when the YJ93 turbofan engines developed specifically for the XB-70 underwent rigorous testing at AEDC. These engines were critical to the Valkyrie's ability to reach and maintain supersonic speeds.

However, in 1961, before the first prototype was completed, the bomber program was cancelled due to budget constraints and concerns about the bomber's vulnerability to rapidly improving Soviet surface-to-air missiles.

Although the XB-70 bomber program was cancelled, the Valkyrie found new life as a research aircraft.

To reduce the XB-70's landing roll, three drag chutes were required (image courtesy of Reddit edit by The Aviationist).

The US Air Force recognized the aircraft's potential for research in the fields of aerodynamics and high-power engine thrust, particularly in studying the aerodynamics of large supersonic aircraft.

As a result, two XB-70 prototypes were completed and testing continued, including at AEDC, where a scale version of the XB-1962 intake was tested in conjunction with a full-scale YJ70 engine in August 93.

XB-70A number 1 (62-001) made its first flight from Palmdale to Edwards AFB, California, on 21 September 1964. The second XB-70A (62-207) made its first flight on 17 July 1965. The latter differed from the first prototype in that it was built with an additional 5 degrees of dihedral on the wings, as suggested by wind tunnel studies at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.

A North American XB-70A Valkyrie on a taxiway with a lift. Photo taken September 21, 1964, the day of its first flight. Note: The left main landing gear brakes locked during landing, causing two tires to blow out. (USAF photo)

While 62-001 made only one flight above Mach 3 due to poor directional stability above Mach 2,5, the second XB-70 first reached Mach 3 on January 3, 1966, and had successfully completed a total of nine Mach 3 flights by June of that year.

However, the Valkyrie program suffered a devastating setback in June 1966 when the second prototype suffered the "Curse of Maxim Gorky" and was destroyed in a mid-air collision with an F-104N Starfighter during a photo shoot. This tragic crash resulted in the loss of key flight personnel and diminished the future prospects of a civilian version of the Valkyrie.

An XB-70A Valkyrie just after impact. Note that the F-104 is at the leading edge of the fireball and most of the XB-70A's vertical stabilizers are gone (USAF photo)

Despite this setback, the remaining XB-70 continued to serve as a valuable research platform. In 1967, the US Air Force transferred the aircraft to NASA, where it was used as part of the National Supersonic Transport (SST) program. NASA used the XB-70 to research supersonic flight, but the SST program was ultimately canceled in 1971, marking the end of America's efforts to develop a commercial supersonic airliner.

The XB-70 Valkyrie's final flight took place on February 4, 1969, when it was flown to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. There, the aircraft was placed on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, where it remains a testament to the bold engineering and design of its era.

A view of the six massive afterburners on the XB-70 Valkyrie as the aircraft is temporarily removed from its display hangar for museum maintenance.

Although only two XB-70s were built, their legacy endures: the aircraft's pioneering achievements in aerodynamics, engine performance, and high-speed flight helped shape the vision of supersonic aviation.

Pilots scheduled to fly the first test flights for the XB-70 Valkyrie operate the YJ93 engine on the stand, the XB-70's powerplant, as the engine is tested under simulated flight conditions in May 1964 at the Missile Test Center at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, headquarters of the Arnold Engineering Development Complex. This was done to help pilots become familiar with the engine's performance characteristics before the XB-70's first flight, which took place on September 21, 1964.

Beginning in the late 1950s and continuing into the mid-1960s, testing was conducted at Arnold AFB under the XB-70 program. Only two Valkyries were built, and only one of the pair survived (USAF photo).

The first prototype completed a total of 83 flights, logging 160 hours and 16 minutes of flight time, while the second prototype completed 46 flights, logging a total of 92 hours and 22 minutes of flight time.

A bold design with innovative capabilities, the XB-70 Valkyrie continues to fascinate aviation enthusiasts and aeronautical engineers. Its history, though brief in aviation history terms, highlights the relentless drive for innovation that characterized both American and Soviet aircraft design in the 1950s and 1960s.

Sixty years after its first flight, the Valkyrie remains an iconic symbol of the bold ambitions of Cold War-era aircraft design.

Comments

[75 Sergey]

The MIG-25 landed it very well.

[Prokop_Pork]

The last flight of the XB-70 was in 1969, the MiG-25 entered service in 1970. It didn't work out that way.
But there was an opportunity to land the repeat offender SR-71. And not once.

[garri-lin]

Well, when the MIG 25 was being developed, the performance characteristics included the ability to intercept targets with the parameters of the Valkyrie.
Our answer, so to speak.

[75 Sergey]

Again you are being disingenuous, distorting the facts, what kind of people are you, crooked?
It was put into service in 1970.

[bayard]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

The last flight of the XB-70 was in 1969, the MiG-25 entered service in 1970. It didn't work out that way.

The MiG-25 was developed to counter the Valkyrie and Hustler, it was repeatedly demonstrated at air parades and it set speed records before entering service. The US knew about it, just as we knew about the Valkyrie. But our new S-200 long-range air defense systems scared the American generals.

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

there was an opportunity to land a repeat offender SR-71. And not once.

The SR-71 never violated the borders of the USSR, flying along our borders in international space. And it was conditionally intercepted more than once, especially when the MiG-31 and R-33 appeared.
The Vietnam War showed that speed and altitude do not save, and American aviation began to go to low and extremely low altitudes. Instead of the "Valkyrie", the B-1A was developed first, and then the B-1B - for low-altitude breakthrough.

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

Prokop_Pork

Speaking self-identification.
The USSR had serial combat fighters that developed 3000 km/h, and the speed was limited exclusively by the "thermal barrier". After replacing the MiG-31 canopy glazing, the permitted speed increased to 3200 km/h and briefly to 3400 km/h. These were (and are) combat fighters with weapons and in quantities of over 1000 units (for the MiG-25) and hundreds for the MiG-31. The US had only experimental or special (reconnaissance) aircraft with such speeds and never carried weapons.
It was precisely because of the appearance of the MiG-25 in the USSR that work on the "Valkyrie" was curtailed, the B-1A was not accepted into service, and the B-58 "Hustler", which was already in service, was hastily removed from service. This is from the very numerous Western publications of those years and later. Any specialist in the field knows this, this is ABC ... But this is a truism for Prokop_Svinin unknown.

[Prokop_Pork]

Pulling an owl over a globe and getting personal often go together. Familiar, and not impressive. So, your reality is only for your internal consumption.

[bayard]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

Pulling an owl onto a globe

Did the SR-71 fly over the territory of the USSR?
Can you give any specific examples?
Or is this your Owl on the globe of Ukraine?

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

But there was an opportunity to land the repeat offender SR-71. And not once.

When did this offender cross the border of the USSR and when did the relapses occur?
At the same time, interceptions of SR-71s during their flights over the Baltic were carried out more than once (not to say regularly) by Soviet MiG-31s ​​from an airfield in the GDR. I personally knew the operational duty unit of the air defense that controlled this process. The MiG-31 almost regularly approached the "Blackbird" to the range of using its missiles. But this bird never risked testing the effectiveness of our air defense and flew ONLY in international space or over the territory of allied and friendly states.
Yes, even the Swedish "Viggen" once intercepted it (SR-71).

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

there was an opportunity to land a repeat offender SR-71. And not once.

So - when and where were such opportunities?
The incident over the Kuril Islands is well known and there he was not simply intercepted, but was very much surprised - he did not fly again.
But our "Hawks" were never intercepted or shot down over England, although they certainly violated the law.

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

with a transition to personalities

Did you complain, Prokop?
But the "Valkyrie" is a really beautiful airplane, as is our "Sotka". And both remained only as prototypes.
And the "Blackbird" got on our nerves and kept us on our toes. But it only flew along our borders.

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

your reality is for your internal consumption only.

My reality is from the practical work of the USSR Air Defense units, to which I had a direct relationship.

[Prokop_Pork]

When did he violate? I won't say every time, but to go in for even a few minutes was a piece of cake. If he hadn't violated, there wouldn't have been a commotion and a hubbub throughout the air defense zone. The officers said: if we had known his route in advance, we could have shot him down, but alas. And he flew over the areas once or twice a month.

[bayard]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

When did he break it? I wouldn't say every time, but

But you don't know of a single specific case. Is that right?

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

, but to come in for even a few minutes is a piece of cake.

So why didn't you spit even once?

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

If he hadn't violated it, there wouldn't have been any commotion or noise.

Prokop!! Readiness No. 1 is declared IN THE EVENT OF A THREAT OF CROSSING THE STATE BORDER. Or if the target enters/intends to enter the 25-kilometer zone adjacent (!) to our border. But with the SR-71, the case was special - the target was very fast and blinking at such a thing was expensive. BUT! The thing is that this aircraft was too specific, including the method of refueling with fuel from a tanker after warming up the glider at supersonic speed, and only then the main flight on the mission. Of course, this whole circus was accompanied by lively radio exchange and our special forces groups warned the air defense forces on duty 30-40 minutes before the "Drozd" left for the route. So there was more than enough time to prepare, alert the troops and set up an ambush. They (ambushes) were prepared. And regularly. And their flight routes were most often standard and quite predictable. And more often than not, they were simply known in advance. After all, they prepared each flight as if it were a flight into space. So they fell into our ambushes almost regularly, especially with the introduction of the MiG-31. Of course, the Drozd could break away from it, but from its missiles - never. That's why the Drozds flew very carefully, without being impudent or provoking unnecessarily - only over international waters and allied/partner countries.

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

there was commotion and ringing throughout the entire air defense zone.

The usual bringing to Readiness No. 1, and since the target is very fast and has a large radius of action, all neighboring air defense units were brought to such readiness. The usual routine work, not without a certain share of drive and adrenaline. Everyone dreamed of putting such a bird on their account in the event of a border violation.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

The last flight of the XB-70 was in 1969, the MiG-25 entered service in 1970. It didn't work out that way.
But there was an opportunity to land the repeat offender SR-71. And not once.

The first flight of the Valkyrie was performed on September 21, 1964. The first flight of the MiG-25 E-155P-1 prototype: September 9, 1964. Everything worked out quite well. The Americans calculated and realized that the game would not be worth the candle...

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

But there was an opportunity to land the repeat offender SR-71. And not once.

SR-71 never crossed the USSR air borders. That's why it was called "never". And after the appearance of the MiG-31, they practically removed the SR-71 from flights in the MiG-31's area of ​​responsibility, and then from service...

[Prokop_Pork]

Crossed - did not cross. No one would trumpet about it, so as not to incur reputational costs, and not to create embarrassment among the people. There is no shame now, but back then it was strict.
And to awaken a sense of self-importance, attributing one's influence to other people's actions is a long-standing tradition for us. Even fighting it is pointless.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

Crossed - did not cross. No one would trumpet about it, so as not to incur reputational costs, and not to create embarrassment among the people. There is no shame now, but back then it was strict.

That is, even if he didn't cross it, he still crossed it, because they didn't talk about it. Read the publications of American authors dedicated to the creation of the SR-71 aircraft....

[bayard]

Quote: Fitter65

Read publications by American authors dedicated to the creation of the SR-71 aircraft....

His religion does not allow him to read such things.

[Gimlet]

Crossed or not crossed. No one would trumpet about it, so as not to incur reputational costs and not to create confusion among the people.

The one who "crossed" would start to trumpet in order to receive reputational bonuses and to generate a sense of pride among the people.

And to awaken a sense of self-importance, attributing one's influence to other people's actions is a long-standing tradition for us. Even fighting it is pointless.

And to awaken a sense of one's own insignificance, to belittle one's successes, attributing special influence to the actions of others - this is our "new liberal" tradition, since the 90s of the 20th century... For this, the "masters" will shower you with goodies...

[Nesvoy]

Whatever anyone says, the plane is incredibly beautiful and futuristic.

[FoBoss_VM]

Yes, from an engineering point of view it is a brilliant idea and implementation. But our T100 is no worse, and in some performance characteristics it was even superior. But the result is the same, single copies, a couple of flights and eternal parking.

[Aviator_]

But our T100 is no worse, and in some performance characteristics it was even superior.

Only it flew almost 10 years later, and then the Tupolev Design Bureau trampled it - it was a competitor after all.

[Bad_gr]

Quote from: FoBoss_VM

But our T100 is no worse, and in some performance characteristics it was even superior.

The T-4 took off almost immediately, and in some respects, exceeded expectations.
The XB-70 Valkyrie had a lot of bugs that would have taken years to fix (from the history of the creation of this aircraft).

Its outer wing panels were hinged, allowing them to be lowered during flight to optimize aerodynamic performance at high speeds.

[Nesvoy]

What did the T-4 surpass? It barely accelerated to 1,5 Mach. But the Valkyrie flew at full 3 Mach in over 40 minutes.

[Bad_gr]

Quote from Nesvoy

What did the T-4 surpass there?

It seems to be written in Russian:

Quote: Bad_gr

surpassing in some respects expected.

Where did you find the comparison of speed with Valkyrie in this line?

Read the history of the creation of these aircraft, then stupid questions based on your guesses will disappear.

[Nesvoy]

Well, okay. And by what parameters was Sotka superior to its counterpart?

[Bad_gr]

Quote from Nesvoy

Well, okay. And by what parameters was Sotka superior to its counterpart?

I read the history of these planes (and not only these) more than ten years ago, so I don’t remember the details. I made general conclusions for myself about each plane.

[Nesvoy]

We can’t prove anything, but you have 100% confidence that Sotka is better somewhere and that’s it.

[Bad_gr]

Quote from Nesvoy

We can’t prove anything, but you have 100% confidence that Sotka is better somewhere and that’s it.

We can, but if you are too lazy to read the histories of these planes, then why should I do it, shoveling through material that has long since lost its novelty for me and I will not read anything new there?

[Nesvoy]

This is your statement, which means you should provide facts and not be unfounded. And certainly not send me to look for something when you yourself can’t really say anything.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bad_gr

The XB-70 Valkyrie had a lot of bugs that would have taken years to fix (from the history of the creation of this aircraft).

https://topwar.ru/22128-strategicheskiy-bombardirovschik-hv-70-valkiriya.html :

.....There were so many problems in the design of the XB-70 that the North American company could not cope with such a huge task alone and transferred part of the work to other companies, the number of which exceeded 2000. The main ones were: Air Research (air signals system). Autonetic (automatic control system). Avco (rear section of the upper part of the fuselage), Chance Vought (horizontal and vertical tails). Newmo Dynamics (landing gear). Curtiss Wright (wingtip deflection drive). Hamilton Standard (air conditioning system). Pop (elevons and wing leading edges), Solar (air intake). Sperry (inertial navigation system). Sundstrand (auxiliary power unit)......

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote: Bad_gr
The XB-70 Valkyrie had a lot of bugs that would have taken years to fix (from the history of the creation of this aircraft).

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/b70.html

.....During testing, a problem was encountered with the peeling of the upper sheets of the laminated skin panels as a result of manufacturing defects and aerodynamic heating of the structure in flight. In several flight incidents, the air flow "torn" from the aircraft and carried away significant (for example, 1,02 x 0,91 m and 0,20 x 0,97 m) bulging sections of sheets.
__During flight tests, there were problems with the landing gear - in particular, failure to turn the main landing gear bogies. On the stand, the complex kinematics worked without failures, but in flight, after a long stay at supersonic speed, the landing gear bogies came out of the compartments, but did not turn into a horizontal position. After retracting and re-extending the landing gear, the bogies nevertheless took the normal position. The cause of this incident was thermal expansion of the rods and rockers of the main landing gear kinematics. There were also cases of failure to spin the wheels on landing due to imperfections in the braking system, which blocked the wheels. During one of these landings, the left landing gear bogie ignited from friction against the runway, and the rims of two wheels wore down by more than a third. At the same time, the landing gear and brakes worked normally when landing was performed with a very large aircraft weight - 190,5 tons. The service life of the main brake wheels was initially 3-4 landings, then it was increased to 5-10 landings.
__The power plant also caused a lot of trouble for the testers. As on the "three-Mach" reconnaissance aircraft SR-71, the calculated operation of the air intake was repeatedly disrupted in flight due to the formation of a knocked-out shock wave at the inlet. Particularly unfavorable consequences of this phenomenon occurred at Mach number = 3: thrust dropped sharply, there was a rumble and shaking, the aircraft made involuntary movements in roll, pitch and yaw. One of the major operational problems with the engines was their frequent damage by foreign objects - rivets, birds, ice from the drainage channels. But at the same time, the suction of objects from the runway into the air intakes during takeoff was never observed. The titanium blades used in the YJ93 turbojet engine compressor were much more susceptible to damage compared to steel ones. During the first two years of testing alone, it was necessary to remove the engines from the aircraft 25 times for repairs due to compressor failures......
.
....... Unlike the B-58, which at one time was proposed to be modified into a low-altitude bomber, there were no such proposals for the Valkyrie. One of the reasons for this was its extreme sensitivity to atmospheric turbulence. The Valkyrie had this drawback despite the fact that its wing aspect ratio was somewhat less than that of other aircraft designed for long supersonic flight. This was caused mainly by the comparatively low rigidity of the long fuselage, although the relatively low specific wing loading also played a role......

[Bad_gr]

Oh, the people have already appreciated the reference information.
The question is, was it worth my time to search for it and duplicate it here?

[dimon642]

Up to January 1974, 10 flights were made. The speed of M=1,36 was reached at an altitude of 12000 m.

[Nesvoy]

Amendment 1,36 maha. Who is the troll here? Rhetorical question. Below is a link to "Sotka" on VO.
https://topwar.ru/154627-t-4-sotka.html

[bayard]

This is an article on VO, and there is an interview with the test pilots of this aircraft, where they claim differently - that they reached 3M in the last authorized flight. The flight assignment for the last flight did indeed include the specified speed, but they reached the standard/declared speed of 4M for the T-3 (3400 km/h), and that is exactly how they told it on camera. So you can read the flight logs, or you can listen to the participants in the process.

[Aviator_]

He barely reached Mach 1,5.

It was a competitor for the Tu-22. You can seriously think that the Tu-22 developed more. Especially since it was later banned from going supersonic. Tupolev pushed it into production, and this machine was called the "widow maker". The story is very reminiscent of the competition between passenger planes in our time - the Tu-334 and the "Superbudget"

[Luminman]

How much fuel do six engines consume, especially at such speeds?

[qQQQ]

Quote: Luminman

How much fuel do six engines consume, especially at such speeds?

I will add that the flight range with a load at these speeds is also interesting.

[bayard]

Quote: Luminman

How much fuel do six engines consume, especially at such speeds?

A lot, a lot. The entire internal space of the glider was allocated for fuel. There was no weapons bay there - only fuel. The plane was experimental, scientific research. After it, the Yankees completely lost their desire to build high-speed and monstrous planes. They weren't even tempted by a passenger supersonic, although at first they wanted to. All the costs, difficulties and the non-recoupability of the result were then realized and ... the race for speed and altitude was over. Mach 2 +, that's the lot of today's combat aviation.

[Strelkin]

After him, the Yankees' desire to build high-speed and monstrous aircraft was completely discouraged.

The SR-71 flew from 1966 to 1998, a total of 32 years.
"Concorde" - over 27 years of regular and charter flights, more than 3 million passengers were transported, the total flight time of the aircraft was 243 hours. It never flew empty, despite the price of tickets.

[bayard]

The SR-71 was prepared for each flight as if it were a flight into space, its takeoff was ALWAYS detected by our special forces groups and it was always awaited by air defense forces on the ground and MiG-25 and MiG-31 interceptors in the air. There were at least dozens of actually recorded interceptions (when it was within the range of our interceptors' air defense missiles).

Quote: Strelkin

"Concord"

French-English CIVIL airliner, similar to our Tu-144. Only ours made its first flight several months (up to six months) earlier, developed a higher speed, approximately the same number of Tu-0 and "Concord" were built. At the same time, "Concord" was unprofitable (as was Tu-144) and it was left on airlines only as an exotic and for the sake of prestige.
And what does the "Concorde" have to do with it, if we are talking about the USA, the "Valkyrie", and about the fact that having received the experience of the "Valkyrie", the USA did not want to play with their own supersonic, but built a luxurious "Jumbo" - the Boeing-747, which became the King of the Sky for many years.

[Strelkin]

The SR-71 was prepared for each flight as if it were a flight into space.

Nevertheless 32 It had been in operation for years, so it was believed that the benefits of its operation outweighed the costs.

Quote: Strelkin
"Concord"

French-English CIVIL airliner, similar to our Tu-144. Only ours made its first flight several months (up to six months) earlier, developed a higher speed, approximately the same number of Tu-0 and "Concordes" were built.

What does it matter at all? If the Concorde flew in a planned mode for 27 years and carried 3 million passengers, and the Tu-144 carried as many as

In total, the Tu-144 made 102 flights under the Aeroflot flag, 55 of which were passenger flights (3284 passengers were transported).

How can you compare three thousand passengers carried on the Tu-144 and three million on the Concorde? The commercial range of just over 3000 km for the Tu-144 and 7222 km for the Concorde?

At the same time, the Concorde was unprofitable (like the Tu-144) and it was left on airlines only as an exotic aircraft and for the sake of prestige.

Concorde was never unprofitable, it was just that tickets on it across the Atlantic cost almost 10 times more than on a Boeing 747, but rich people always snapped them up.

[bayard]

Quote: Strelkin

However, it was used for 32 years, so it was considered that the benefits of its operation outweighed the costs.

"Drozd" is a CIA plane, not a US Air Force plane, and the CIA does not count money, it spends it. Its operation was valuable in that when it appeared at the borders, all the control systems on duty were turned on when ready, which exposed the air defense system, and it took the information remotely. Or they were taken by satellites, and "Drozd" played the role of a provocateur. But it never played the role that was prescribed to it during its creation. Although it seemed to violate the Chinese border.

Quote: Strelkin

The Concorde flew in a planned mode for 27 years and carried 3 million passengers, and the Tu-144 carried as many as

All the Concordes that were built were sold to companies for a symbolic 1 franc and 1 pound each. The program turned out to be a total loss.

Quote: Strelkin

How can you compare three thousand passengers carried on a Tu-144 and three million on a Concorde?

We simply refused to operate them because the range specified in the technical specifications was not achieved. I think it was due to the lack of experience of its chief designer, Tupolev's son. He chased records in the competition with Concorde, made the plane larger, placed an extra row of seats in the cabin, and since the engines were very fuel-hungry, the overloaded plane took in less fuel. According to plans, the Tu-144 was supposed to fly from Moscow to Khabarovsk and Vladivostok ... but the range was not enough for this. Therefore, they were taken out of service pending suitable engines. But as a mail plane, the Tu-144 flew to Khabarovsk, and even several times to Vladivostok. They were going to put NK-32 on them, and even one plane was equipped with such engines, but it was tested in the USA, which leased it for several years.

Quote: Strelkin

Tickets for it across the Atlantic cost almost 10 times more than for a Boeing 747, but rich people always snapped them up.

We wouldn't have had it then, although if the planes had received engines, the state could have subsidized the lion's share of the ticket price, providing them with free fuel, for example. But passenger supersonics have proven that this is a dead-end branch of Civil Aviation. But many rich people and (for example) the Special Aviation Squadron of the Russian Federation would like a supersonic business jet now. They are working on them in the US and here, but something will appear only in the next decade. Engines for them are already being prepared.

[Strelkin]

"The Thrush" is a CIA plane, not a US Air Force plane, and the CIA doesn't count money, it spends it.

Money is very well counted by the commissions of the US Congress and the US Senate.

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote from: FoBoss_VM

But the result is the same: single specimens, a couple of flights and eternal parking.

Well, the result can also be called the acquired experience in creating such machines, and it is worth a lot.

[mr.ZinGer]

A boring, translated article.
What prevented the author from considering the HV-70 in parallel with the M-50, T-4 (100)?

[Bad_gr]

There, on VO, there was a more informative article about the plane.
https://topwar.ru/22128-strategicheskiy-bombardirovschik-hv-70-valkiriya.html

[Victor Leningradets]

In fact, the development of the classic bomber branch ended with the Valkyrie. And this is understandable, a rocket, as a more advanced aerodynamic product with a much greater thrust-to-weight ratio, will always overtake an airplane.
The development of intercontinental aviation platforms-carriers of guided missiles began. At the same time, this process revived the previous generation of slow-moving stayers B-52 Stratofortress, Vulcan B-2, Tu-95, 3M.

[bk0010]

To reduce the XB-70's landing roll, three drag chutes were required (image courtesy of Reddit edit by The Aviationist).

A North American XB-70A Valkyrie on a taxiway with a lift. Photo taken September 21, 1964, the day of its first flight. Note: The left main landing gear brakes locked during landing, causing two tires to blow out. (USAF photo)

The photos are gone. Too bad.
The article also lacks the performance characteristics of the Valkyrie (it is better in comparison with the B-52 (Tu-95), F-111 (Sotka), Concorde (Tu-144) and B-1A (Tu-160)) and information about its fuel.

[dauria]

Here is this photo with the chassis locked.

[ln_ln]

The first anti-skid machine was developed for the Valkyrie.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

One of the big problems with flying at such speeds is that the turning radius is prohibitively large. That is, the trajectory of movement is predictable. Due to this, interception on intersecting courses by slower interceptors and anti-aircraft missiles is quite easy to implement.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

One of the big problems with flying at such speeds is that the turning radius becomes prohibitively large.

If my memory serves me right, the SR-71 Blackbird has a minimum turning radius at cruising speed of 150 km.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

If my memory serves me right, the SR-71 Blackbird has a minimum turning radius at cruising speed of 150 km.

This is if at a speed of 3300 km/h and a roll of 30 degrees. But I highly doubt it, there is an overload of under six with such data. And as far as I remember, this ashcan was not particularly durable. So most likely at such a speed the roll is no more than 10. And this is already a 485 km radius. And then the overload is 1,7.

[Strelkin]

This is if at a speed of 3300 km/h and a bank of 30 degrees. But there are big doubts, there is an overload under the six with such data. And as far as I remember, this ash heap was not particularly strong. So most likely, at such a speed, the roll is no more than 10. And this is already a 485 km radius. And that is an overload of 1,7.

The overload at a bank of 30° AT ANY SPEED is determined by the formula: 1/cosγ, where γ is the bank angle. Therefore, at a bank of 30° at any speed, the overload will be ny = 1:0.866 = 1.155 g. only! And not 6 g at all. Even a helicopter pilot should know the basics of general aerodynamics at least at the level of a regional flying club.
The formula for the turning radius is: R = V²/g*tgγ, where V is the true speed in m/sec. At a speed of 3300 km/h = 917 m/sec with a bank of 30°, the turning radius will be 148 kilometers.
................................
My diploma and its supplement, Vladimir Ivanovich:

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The overload at a bank of 30° AT ANY SPEED is determined by the formula: 1/cosγ, where γ is the bank angle. Therefore, at a bank of 30° at any speed, the overload will be ny = 1:0.866 = 1.155 g. only! And not 6 g at all. Even a helicopter pilot should know the basics of general aerodynamics at least at the level of a regional flying club.
The formula for the turning radius is: R = V²/g*tgγ, where V is the true speed in m/sec. At a speed of 3300 km/h = 917 m/sec with a bank of 30°, the turning radius will be 148 kilometers.

Even if we assume that the diploma is yours, you should know that all aircraft aerodynamics is only a special case of helicopter aerodynamics.
Furthermore, no one argued that at a speed of 3300 km/h = 917 m/s with a bank of 30° the turning radius would be about 150 km.
We were talking about the one that, with a 10° bank, has a turning radius of almost 500 km.
You are unusually inattentive, and your reaction time is something else, for a pilot.
I didn’t calculate the overload, I just figured out what would happen if I made a forced turn, just to reduce the same radius.

[Strelkin]

Even if we assume that the diploma is yours

There, in the neighboring topic, I presented SIX photographs, in chronological order - from cadet to lieutenant colonel, take a look!

...then you should know that all the aerodynamics of an airplane is only a special case of the aerodynamics of a helicopter.

Yes, the propeller-driven vehicle is a masterpiece! Of unimaginable complexity.

We were talking about the one that, with a 10° bank, has a turning radius of almost 500 km.

"All moves are recorded", why "lie to your face"? No one will make a U-turn at 3300 km/h with a 10° bank, there are no fools. You stated that at a 30° bank the overload would be 6 units, and that was funny..

I didn’t calculate the overload, I just figured out what would happen if I made a forced turn, just to reduce the same radius.

Have you figured out what's there? 6g, and there's only 1.155g, - wow, "guesswork"! But now, finally, you know (1) how to calculate the dependence of the overload on the bank angle - one divided by the cosine of the bank angle - three seconds of work with the calculator and (2) that the overload on the turn does NOT depend on the flight speed.
And you will never forget this and you will tell others...

[vovochkarzhevsky]

There, in the neighboring topic, I presented SIX photographs, in chronological order - from cadet to lieutenant colonel, take a look!

Photos of your dad with anniversary medals?

Yes, the propeller-driven vehicle is a masterpiece! Of unimaginable complexity.

Naturally. That's why there are far fewer countries capable of building helicopters (light ones don't count) than those that build airplanes. Didn't know? Ask your dad, if anything.

You figured that there was 6g there, but there was only 1.155g - what a "guessment"!

Do you know anything at all? forced Have you heard about the turn? Although your dad hardly told you about it. Osh only flew according to instructions.

[Strelkin]

Please show me your grades in the diploma supplement? I have a diploma, but no grades for it? (What if there are only Cs there?!) You can even send me your dad's, or your mom's...
I presented mine...

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Please show me your grades in the diploma supplement? I have a diploma, but no grades for it? (What if there are only Cs there?!) You can even send me your dad's, or your mom's...

Yes, Misha-Voodoo, you have become really bad there in Israel. You don't recognize anyone anymore.
Old age, however, is like that.
You spent your entire service at the navigator school, and now you're pretending to be an expert.

[Strelkin]

- I remain what I was! "Show your face, Gulchatay" - Look, I'll find out?!
And I didn't "sit it out". I worked there, though! And you were probably flying on the Space Shuttle at that time?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

- I'm still the same as I was! "Show me your face, Gulchatay" - maybe I'll recognize you?!
And I didn't "sit it out". I worked there, however! And you, probably, were flying on the "Space Shuttle" at that time?

That's right, I worked like a civilian. No distant garrisons, no hot spots, just dryness, warmth, and meals according to schedule.
And your memory is definitely a problem.
Okay, if I forgot, then I forgot. I'll go, I'm too lazy to start our squabbles in circles again, and listen to how you were rubbed out at work.

[Strelkin]

- No, at first they wanted to send me to the test pilot school (there wasn’t a single Jew there after Gallay), but then they changed their minds and decided to send me straight to the cosmonaut corps...
But something did not grow together ...
By the way, this also applies to hot spots, and distant garrisons, etc., etc.
ONLY NEARBY.
They told us to stay warm, comfortable and dry until we were demobilized...

[mr.ZinGer]

There were several quartermasters in Vietnam where the SR-71 flew into Chinese airspace because of this radius.

[Illanatol]

Quote from Nesvoy

What did the T-4 surpass? It barely accelerated to 1,5 Mach. But the Valkyrie flew at full 3 Mach in over 40 minutes.

For a bomber, 40 minutes is nothing. Real cruising speed will be lower. At maximum speed, you'll burn through fuel very quickly.
And it is unlikely that this "Valkyrie" flew with a payload. Otherwise, some supersonic aircraft with bombs on board for some reason becomes subsonic.

[opposite28]

From the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, testing was conducted at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex, in support of the XB-70 program. The now-retired aircraft made its first flight on September 21, 1964. (U.S. Air Force photo by Will Haas)

In turn, the USSR closed down the T-4 (hundred) project from the Sukhoi Design Bureau, remarkable machines that outpaced the development of aviation technology, but were very expensive to produce. But the developments on the projects were embodied in the remaining implemented projects brought to serial production.

[BAI]

a spitting image of the Tu 144. Who copied who?

[spektr9]

Where are the other two engines of the Tu 144, and the speed of three machs? Or is it a spitting image of the type, also two wings and a tail, and a white one at that?

[Proctologist]

Only two Valkyrie aircraft were built.

repeated in the article twiceIt makes sense to proofread and work on the text.

[Des]

Repetition (even paragraphs)) in this article is the author's trick and the one who allowed it to be published)). As is the absence of photographs mentioned in the translation.

[Fitter65]

The first prototype made a total of 83 flights, having flown in 160 hours 16 minutes, and the second prototype made 46 flights, having flown in a total of 92 hours 22 minutes.

WHAT ILLITERACY!!!! The plane does not fly, but the hours fly. You can only fly into a scandal....

[Alex_Bora]

He even outdid Kirill Ryabov. He repeats the same thing three times in the article. Horrible...

Or is it Ryabov himself, under a different nickname)))

[SovAr238A]

The author trusted machine translation so much that not only the number of repetitions is striking, but also the style of presentation of the material, which is tongue-tied for the Russian eye.
Well, you want to write about such a masterpiece of an airplane? Well, spend a little time rethinking the text and presenting the material ... In RUSSIAN...

[AdAstra]

Let the Holy War begin!!! "" "

[AC130 Gunship]

I have a photo near this plane. What a gorgeous museum!