Aurel Tristen Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 This is sweet: http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat/aero/xb70a.html (more text to added soon) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 It looks cool! Any stats on it if any? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 It looks cool! Any stats on it if any? Bottom of the page. ; ) I will add a lot more this evening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Thanks. Lookin' forward to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sktchrtst2002 Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Hope everyone knows this aircraft actually exsisted and wasn't a design by studio nue! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerwalker Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 No battroid mode??? Not even gerwalk??? Thanks WJ!! I love the real valk!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 What's the little twin-engined jet flying with it? I thought it might be an F-108 but it's nothing like one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerwalker Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 What's that thing that is flying below the XB-70? seems to be one of those lifting bodies from NASA with a pair of engines.... interesting...the sides are similar to the QF-3000E Ghost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 I wonder whom in Nue drew that? It looks more like a sketch than anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 What's the little twin-engined jet flying with it? I thought it might be an F-108 but it's nothing like one. >ewilen: >What's the little twin-engined jet flying with it? I thought it might be an F-108 but >it's nothing like one. >Gerwalker: >What's that thing that is flying below the XB-70? seems to be one of those lifting >bodies from NASA with a pair of engines.... interesting...the sides are similar to >the QF-3000E Ghost Original "<-- WHAT'S?" was written next to that smaller craft (I edited out the text.). I imagine that it is a fictional design... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 I wonder whom in Nue drew that? It looks more like a sketch than anything. Yes it is a sketch. I believe Miyatake drew this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbs357 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Hope everyone knows this aircraft actually exsisted and wasn't a design by studio nue! I thought it looked reaaaaaalllllly familiar. Wasn't there one of these in one of the Gundam series? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Hope everyone knows this aircraft actually exsisted and wasn't a design by studio nue! I thought it looked reaaaaaalllllly familiar. Wasn't there one of these in one of the Gundam series? Yes, it shows up somewhere in Gundam, as well. The surviving XB-70 is on display at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio. It's monstrous, especially when your 10 years old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grayson72 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Here's the real one And a link describing it http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf37.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dedalus001 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I wonder whom in Nue drew that? It looks more like a sketch than anything. its a cold war design for the USAF ironically its nickname is valkyrie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I wonder whom in Nue drew that? It looks more like a sketch than anything. its a cold war design for the USAF ironically its nickname is valkyrie. Ummm.... yeah, I know that. I was simply commenting on how it looked more like a doodle than an intentionally crafted drawing. IIRC- The XB-70 is one of Kawamori's favorite planes, and is the direct inspiration for the VF-1's name "Valkyrie". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 (edited) It appeared in Macross as well. It was a model in Hikaru's room. You see it in one scene. The downward folding wings on the XB-70 makes it the COOLEST looking wing in my book. Way cooler then swing wings (forward or back). And the way they stacked six jets in a row for that millenium falcon/hot rod effect. And its like a late 1950's design!!!! Even today, building something like that again would be a major bitch. Edited March 31, 2004 by Retracting Head Ter Ter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 (edited) FYI, this was the plane that inspired Kawamori into aeronautics. A shame these kinds of planes didn't suceed. They're one of the coolest bombers I know of (And capable of supersonic speed!) If any information comes up about that spotter plane I'd like to hear about it. ...And this has given me motiviation to attempt a variable XB-70 (Don't know if it would fly well though...) EDIT: Er...Nanashi, do you have a bigger scan of the XB-70 and it's escort? I'd like it if it wasn't too much trouble. And how did you get this artwork? Edited March 31, 2004 by Boxer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 A shame these kinds of planes didn't suceed. They're one of the coolest bombers I know of (And capable of supersonic speed!) Well, the SR-71 was just as fast and smaller (with smaller radar return I assume) and even the SR-71 showed that it wasn't immune to SAMs. So it made military sense not to go ahead with a fleet of these. They should have made it into an SST. Would have kicked Concorde's arse right out of the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Yes, but was it quiet and fuel efficient? Those two factors were part of the concorde's downfall. It was expensive and noisy (Meaning it was once prohibited from flying supersonic over the United States because of the boom) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Yes, but was it quiet and fuel efficient? Those two factors were part of the concorde's downfall. It was expensive and noisy (Meaning it was once prohibited from flying supersonic over the United States because of the boom) In its then current form, no way it could have been a viable commerial jet. I was dreaming of a refined 70/80s version of the design. Maybe cut the cruise speed down a bit to Mach 2.5/2.8. Would still be faster and cooler looking then a concorde. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phyrox Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 The Concord was once prohibited from overflying the U.S.? It was my understanding that it has always been prohibited from doing so...which is why it only did London/Paris-New York And what's this about the SR-71 showing that it wasn't immune to SAMs? I suppose I can buy that in theory, but you implied it was somehow demonstrably revealed. How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 And what's this about the SR-71 showing that it wasn't immune to SAMs? I suppose I can buy that in theory, but you implied it was somehow demonstrably revealed. How so? It happend in 1967 IIRC. A volley of six SAMs got near enough to cause shrapnel damage. No Blackbird got shot down, but in the context of the XB-70s cancellation, the XB-70 is a much bigger bird and doesnt look half as stealthy as the SR-71, esp with those big folded down wings and boxy air intakes while not being any faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 (edited) The SR-71 has the massive advantage in that its payload is only a couple of cameras. The XB-70 was supposed to carry enough nukes to zap the USSR into the stoneage. Can't do that with a small plane. The XB-70 is the biggest fast plane, and the fastest big plane. Also the SR-71 was DESIGNED to be stealthy, the XB-70 was not. You can't hold stealthiness against a design that wasn't supposed to be. (Unlike say, YF-22 vs YF-23, when they're both supposed to be stealthy) Anyways, the XB-70 cancellation can be summed up in 4 letters: ICBM. Missile tech advanced WAAAAAAAAY faster than they thought. They thought the ONLY way to nuke would be with very fast, large bombers. Then they made nukes 1/100 as big as before, and missiles that could go much faster and farther--and thus, no need for hideously expensive bombers. It's not that the XB-70 failed in any way, it simply wasn't needed. It'd be like making a dedicated ship class just to carry Tomahawks, when most any Navy ship can be retrofitted. From the time of the XB-70's first design sketch, to its first flight, its purpose vanished. PS--yup, an SR-71 has been hit by SAM shrapnel. The SR-71 wasn't designed to be utterly invulnerable (or like 99.9999999999%) (that'd take Mach 3.5, or another 10,000ft), only to be able to evade like 99% of missile launches. So if you fire enough SAM's, one's bound to get lucky. PPS----XB-70's are HUGE. There's pics of guys having lunch inside the intakes. Nice place to hide from the boss. Edited March 31, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J A Dare Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 What's that thing that is flying below the XB-70? seems to be one of those lifting bodies from NASA with a pair of engines.... interesting...the sides are similar to the QF-3000E Ghost That's my guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatalist Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Concorde prohibited from flying over US airspace? I seem to remember an airshow in San Diego a long while back when the Concorde was on show, and for 2000 (i think) they would allow you to fly from San Diego out around Hawaii and back. All in 2 1/2 hours? I dunno. Thats just what I heard. Hell, I was in grade school then. But I did see it fly in, as well as see it at the show on the ground as well as taking off. Pretty cool stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted March 31, 2004 Author Share Posted March 31, 2004 A shame these kinds of planes didn't suceed. They're one of the coolest bombers I know of (And capable of supersonic speed!) Well, the SR-71 was just as fast and smaller (with smaller radar return I assume) and even the SR-71 showed that it wasn't immune to SAMs. So it made military sense not to go ahead with a fleet of these. They should have made it into an SST. Would have kicked Concorde's arse right out of the air. The SR-71 was much smaller.... the XB-70's fuel load weighed more than the Blackbird lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I heard from a book about Lockheed's Stealth program that the XB-70 argueably had some stealth qualities from head-on, but not enough to make it a stealth plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Here's a good photo that will give you a size comparison to the ground crew: http://www103.sakura.ne.jp/~key/aircraft/photo2/2_xb70.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerwalker Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 What's that thing that is flying below the XB-70? seems to be one of those lifting bodies from NASA with a pair of engines.... interesting...the sides are similar to the QF-3000E Ghost That's my guess. Yes, I found that little bastard too by doing a quick search in Google, very similar to Nue's design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Concorde prohibited from flying over US airspace? I seem to remember an airshow in San Diego a long while back when the Concorde was on show, and for 2000 (i think) they would allow you to fly from San Diego out around Hawaii and back. All in 2 1/2 hours? I dunno. Thats just what I heard. Hell, I was in grade school then. But I did see it fly in, as well as see it at the show on the ground as well as taking off. Pretty cool stuff. as mention earlier in the thread. the concord was prohibited from flying in us airspace at supersonic speeds, so windows wont get broken and stuff like that. but it could enter at subsonic speeds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronocidal Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Hehe... I've got fond memories of that plane.. I think I've still got a picture somewhere of myself at about age 4 standing under the engines. Btw, as another size comparison, I've got a 1/72 scale kit of the XB-70 under my bed.. it's three feet long. A 1/48th kit would easily be four and a half feet long (I've actually seen one.. vacuuform kit, very rare and pretty expensive). VERY big plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sildani Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 My grandfather was a liason between the Air Force and North American during the design stages of the Valkyrie. It was his responsibility to tell NA what the AF wanted, and then to tell the AF what NA could accomplish. If any of you have questions about the aircraft that can't be answered with normal research, ask, and I'll see what he can tell me. A couple more reasons the XB-70 was cancelled: SAM (surface-to-air) missile tech advanced extremely quickly, so that cruising at Mach 3 at 70,000 feet wasn't sufficient defense. The titanium honeycomb skin construction was invented for the aircraft. It could only be produced in small pieces, and was hideously fragile and expensive. It was unsuitable for mass-production of large monocoque panels, so both XB-70s were hand-built of thousands of these small honeycomb panels. What's worse, after every flight, a few invariably were missing. The Valkyrie was just a hair ahead of its time, technologically, and obsolete strategically. Anyhow, great stuff, Nanashi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupremeKaioshin Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 that thing is a COMPLETE failure. If Mig-25's can shoot it down.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 (edited) Supreme kaoishin--that statement's close to flamebait, IMHO, considering who's here (namely many Valkyrie/plane-lovers) How would MiG-25's shoot it down? Their real max speed is Mach 2.8, and only if lightly loaded. Of course, like most any plane they can overstress their engines and go faster for a few seconds before the turbines melt... And their altitude isn't high enough either. XB-70 is right up there with the SR-71 for the "too fast, too high" category. If the SR-71 is 99% invulnerable to SAM's and high-speed interceptors, then the XB-70 is like 90% invulnerable. If you're slower and lower than a plane, it's pretty darn hard to get off a shot. (Tonight I'll go look at my speed/alt chart for defeating SAM's, see if I can get an exact percentage for the XB-70) Anyways--the Concorde is banned from flying SUPERSONICALLY over LAND in the US, and most of the entire world. It can go supersonic San Diego-Honolulu because that's over water. It can go to Texas (as it did in service) by flying subsonically over US land. Just about every nation has banned supersonic overflights over land, regardless of type of plane. (Of course there's exceptions, like the middle of nowhere Nevada) Edited March 31, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.