The Airplane That Looked Fake, But Was 100% Real: XB-70 Valkyrie 

Huh

Hhhh.

😮 😮

When I first saw this jet 10 yrs ago I thought it was a future bomber

What do aircraft companies do when they spend hundred's of million's and thousand's of hour's fulfilling military request's and then then military changes it's mind , you should do some vids on that .

The innovative minds of those days wher f...nuts

@@nilspetterhellvik5519 What? lmao

@@mrcroob8563 Sr-71, XB-70 nuclear powered bomber, dare i say more??

@@netsimam Yes, how does that make them f nuts?

@@mrcroob8563 They made the fastest air breathing aircraft in history…

that’s clearly not true cuz only humans can speak ur obviously not one edit: it’s so funny seeing everyone take this seriously

@@TheTeaLordRBLXno he’s a xb70 and he can speak

@@hurgaheditsyea

​@@TheTeaLordRBLX he's typing tho, not speaking

@@hurgahedits that's not a real thing!

Not as odd as seeing futuristic aircraft in the 1960s.

Its like watching some sort of science fiction film

I thought this same thing.

Welcome to the fallout fandom!

The first futuristic looking wedge shaped concept cars were designed in the early 1960’s too.

100% agree. I've been to Wright Patt and seen this monster. Yes, it's unreal huge. Also- one of most fabulous military aircraft museums anywhere. Definitely worth a visit.

When my wife and I were stationed at Wright-Patt in the early 90's, I was a volunteer at the museum.

I saw it as a kid at Wright-Patterson. It seemed big at the time. Then I joined the Navy and was stationed on USS Ranger (CV-61). 15ish years later I went BACK to Wright-Patterson - and NOTHING seemed big. 9-)

It's a truly awe-inspiring experience to be around it. I've been to the museum twice, and both times, I spent a good half hour, just looking at it. Not a single bad angle to view it at.

Totally agree! We were at the Museum in Dayton a couple of months ago. It was an awesome experience standing under and about this awesome big bird!

We didn't hide this plane back in the 1960s. The SR-71, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, B-1A, B-2, YF-22 and -23, and both JSF contestants were all revealed pretty quickly. The F-117 was revealed in 1988 after a first flight around 1981, so that was kept under wraps, but only for a few years.

there's a video tour of the inside somewhere on YT which definitely shows the age of the design

TR3-B

The Vauxhall Zafira.

They can from a distance read your brain ,your memories, what you think and can talk to you and see your mental images and what you see from a distance ,a long distance no wires no chip needed.

Yes, I understand.

They didn't clean up the crash site? Or I guess there are just so many tiny pieces that even after cleanup you can still forage around and find some?

@@mrbillfeng They don't take it to the point of sifting acres of desert sand.

I love how it's real despite looking so fake it's crazy man that they actually made the thing for real I am impressed

It's not cursed. A lot can happen with prototypes, especially at this level of technical complexity.

ITS SIMILAR TO A HIGH BIRD A CANNOT REMEMBER.

it astounds me that y'all were sitting there with slide rules and did better, faster, and cooler things than we've done with CAD and "better" materials

And mechanical calculators...cranking away...the noise. Then Wang calculators.

We weren't allowed to use calculators, which cost as much as a good used car, when I was in school. Slide rules ruled.

@@MarcusWolfWanders I did use a slide rule one summer working for the highway dept, but I was not one of those who built the sr71 nor the space program. They were the real hero's those days.

I still have my slide rule from college. Spent my freshman year, 75 - 76, trying to learn electrical engineering. The Calculus torpedoed that idea.

Dihedral, not incidence. "AV 1 had zero degree wing dihedral versus 5 degree on AV 2. This change was issued to correct lateral dynamic stability problems at intermediate supersonic speed and became evident too late in the manufacturing process to be incorporated on AV 1 which utilized a bobweight to provide the capability for pilot compensation."

Have you veen in vietnam

tu-160 (white swan) is also a very beautiful plane

​​@@MrDead00 Habe you veen to any School?

​​ If he had 'veen' in Vietnam, (at least as a Western ally), he'd have known how to spell "been". 🙄

Amazing stuff ❤

damn you help me dug out something from my memory. I miss the game, now i miss the 90s

Have you tried Project Wingman?

@@DarkElfDiva i actually heard about it. It is something similar to ace combat i believed?

@@DarkElfDiva I haven't tried it but I know of it! It looks cool for sure!

I was just there last week and was surprised to see this video today.

The B36 could allow engine oil changes in flight. - former air force mechanic

I served one enlistment in the US Air Force from 1967 to 1971 as a meteorology observer . The air base training school was Chanute AB at Rantoul Illinois. FYI that is located about 40 miles north of U of Illinois campus at Champaign-Urbana IL. Back in the day, the base was a mini version of the Dayton Air History Museum. Vintage WWII aircraft were scatter around base. But the off the end of the main runway on a taxi way display ramp sat a B36 Bomber. It had suffered mechanical problems and made an emergency landing. It was never to leave as the runway wasn't long enough for it to get off the ground again. Fourty feet of the fuselage was out of the middle, the it was welded back together and put on display. Chanute AB has long since closed. It was sold to the city to become an business incubator and residential area. I have often wondered what became of the aircraft.

Glad you liked the video!

Like TSR2 and the F8F it was a pinnacle of design for an era that was already over.

Always thought the same - very futuristic! 👍

Having traveled internationally for business, and having encountered a lot of aviation buffs, you would be interested to know that while the B-70 is not well known in the US, once you get out of the US, no one has ever heard of it. When I would show them videos, they thought I was joking when I said the B-70 was deigned in the 1950s and flew in the early 60s. Lot so US pilots know the XB-70 and the XB-790 story, but get out of the US, and they think you made it up. When they see pictures, they are blown away.

Is the plane stable while folding?

@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt Yes. The wings were dropped at well below top speed, and yaw stability was reported as good. People often talk about eh SR-71 and how great it is, but the reality is that the XB-70 was probably one of greatest techmical achievements in aircraft design. While not as fast as the SR-71, it could still exceed Mach 3, had a range of about 4400 miles, and would have carried 50,000 lbs of payload. Given that this plane was done before the computer age and it used materials that had never been used before, it was an astonishing achievement.

@@shenmisheshou7002 I was thinking about dihedral anhedral. So the Concorde with its tall single stabilizer has a little anhedral on the tips. This compensates some coupling in a delta wing. XB-70 has two lower fins .. and should use less anhedral (bend a smaller portion of its wing ) or there would be severe coupling. Ah, it is just that pilots complained how delta planes like the B-58 hustler were difficult to fly.

@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt I have read summaries of most of the flights and there seems to have been little mentioned about stability. Buffeting flutter was sometimes encountered, and small changes where made to the second B-70, which was not completed until AV1 had already been flying and gathering data. For example, the flapperons had more power than anticipated, and one on each side was fixed into position. The aircraft was apparently very difficult to fly. AV1 was plagued by hydraulics failures and various types of unstarts. It took both pilots to manage the powerplants. One advantage the B70 had over the B-58 is that the thrust line was kept very close to the centerline due to the way the engines were all nestled in the same tray under the wings. The two large ducts were separated so that one duct served three and the other duct served the other three, and this placed constant demands on the co-pilot. These are all things that test programs are there for, and by the last few flights, much of this had been worked out. It is a remarkable airplane. I have friends from other countries that are aviation buffs, and almost none of them were aware of the B70, and all were speachless when I would show them the pictures and tell them that this plane was flying at Mach 3 in the early 60s. The SR 71 gets all of the glamor, but the XB-70 was (in my opinion) a much more extraordinary achievement. The book Valkarie, North Americans Mach 3 Superbomber is the best book I have ever read that is devoted to one airplane, and much of this is covered in that book. Sadly, it is out of print. I cherish the copy I have.

@@shenmisheshou7002 I am stealing this from someone else: the intakes should have been at the back. With flaps to suck air from above the wing. When the canard unloads the nose wheel, it should swing up into a bay with some space for dampers to catch it. Then open lower intakes. Wind is strong enough so that no air is sucked ( vacuum cleaned) from the ground. Only take off with enough length ahead to swing out the nose wheel again and brake the plane. Emergency skid below the cockpit.

That was my first thoughts. This huge engines look like from a Star wars movie 😂

Kind of like Starship's ITF1; test flight data obtained.

... and the weight of an L-1011.

My mom worked at Autonetics in the 60s and 70s. She was a keypunch operator working on Apollo and the XB-70 programs keying in thousands of pages of engineering program language onto punch cards that computers of the day could "read" as instructions for manufacturing processes. She had to get a Secret security clearance to do the work despite it being absolute gibberish to the average person.

If you like aviation books, the book "Valkyrie, North American's Mach 3 Superbomber" is by far and away the best book on a particular model of airplane ever written. It is far more than just a book about the Airplane. It gives insight into the cold war mentality, the request for proposal, the competitive designs, the F108 (which would have been a Mack 3 interceptor that would accompany the B-70), the incredible engineering, where engineers had to design without computers and had to foresee all of the issues around Mach 3 flight, the plane itself and what it took to build it, and the flight test program. This the best aviation book I have ever read, beating out the B36 "Magnisum Overcast" book, which is also superb, but Valkyrie book is hand's down the best, and I have read books on dozens of airplanes. The book is out of print, but you can find it used, and I highly recommend it.

Nice missile collection also. And missile launch control room.

i grew up across the street from the main gates on a little street called "wake avenue" i had a view of the xb70 from my bedroom window throughout my childhood as the plane was parked on the tarmac during those first years. she was and remains the most beautiful machine i have ever seen.

@@NoNameNoFace-rr7li Dang, I had a decent view from my window growing up but yours beats the hell out of mine!

@@CSpottsGaming where did you grow up? we must have lived near each other. I lived on Wake Avenue right in front of the main hangers. I remember when the B-17 Strawberry Bitch was a walk through aircraft ...you could climb through the nose and out the tail ..sit in the seats and touch everything.. it was a great place

@@NoNameNoFace-rr7li I grew up in the region but not quite as close as you it seems! We were close enough to make Wright-Patterson a great road trip destination (in Indiana)

Seems to be the consensus impression! TY! 👊

Right. I work for a company that tests aircraft wheels and brakes. It is a huge safety infraction to go into a test room with inflated tires.

Two line guys where I worked decided a Lear 25 needed nitrogen in its main. The got the bottle, opened the valve, forgot to adjust the regulator, and put 3000 psi to the wheel. The tire exploded, killing one, injuring the other and put a hole in the wing, spilling 500 gal Jet-A in the hangar. I'm glad I worked at the other airport. Line service stopped nitrogen service after that.

Then the USAF got their hands on a Mig 25 from a defector and realized it was basically a flying super sonic brick against an F-15. Turns out the huge wings we thought were for high maneuverability were actually needed because it just weighed so much.

@@Da0yster Valkyrie was cancelled for all of the technical issue listed in this video, and USAF also over estimated Soviet SAMs. Soviet military definitely understand the limitation of their SAMs in the early 70s and knew it had no chance of hitting this bomber if it was ever operational.

@@dyingeartheven with that, ICBMs accomplished the same goal better.

Yea

It was going slow enough for the photo plane flying underneath it to get a good shot.

I imagine it would be like a bigger, badder, and meaner B-1B Lancer. Think about it, both were supersonic strategic bombers originally intended to be nuclear capable, with plenty of speed, and having adjustable lift surfaces.

It couldn't do much due to being too "bright" on radar. By the time it flew speed was no longer a defense. Hence we stopped trying to go that fast. The newer B-1B can't even go Mach 2 because it doesn't need to.

A bit like the British TSR2

The finished two of them, and while they never carried any military gear, we know exactly what they could do and they were remarkable aircraft.

Yes, once mach 25 missiles became available to both sides, supersonic bombers became unnecessary, it also changed the mission of the B-52 to that of a long range missile launch platform, thus the BUFF will continue to fly for decades to come...100 years? Well, it's over 70 now...

from a young age I was a casual aviation fan, and my favorite planes were the SR-71, the A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog, and the AC-130. Today I'm adding the Valkyrie to that list.

@@MarcusWolfWanders While working aviation line service, I got to ask an A-10 pilot for a ride. As there is only one seat, I offered to crouch in the luggage/flight bag stowage area behind it. Pilot said; "Lols... No."

I'm German my self, but I'm really wondering what the name is, so could you tell the name maybe?

@@mcyounglordlauch7012 The name is Armentrout. Originally Ermentraudt, but later Americanized. I honestly don't know the veracity of that meaning, but as it sounds cool, it has stuck with me over the years. For whatever reason we have a fairly detailed family history available, starting in 1730 or so when they first came to the US. This is just one of the tidbits I picked up in relation to that history over the years.

Hate to be that guy but your name most certainly does not mean "friend of the valkyries".

@@f.h.4044 Hate to be that guy, but that meaning comes from a more academic teardown of the name. Also hate to be that guy. When saying that something isn't what someone said it was, YOU NEED TO SAY WHY. Also really hate to be that guy. Don't be a passive-aggressive prick if you want anyone to take you seriously. You are the guy. Notice how much I hate even parodying the guy. F right off. Also, its not MY name. They are part of my family, but I do not share their name. If you want someone to listen to you, try and pick up on details like "the German side of my family" does not impart knowledge of what my actual surname is.

@@whyjnot420 Yay, I also want to be that guy. So let me also tell you that "Ermentraudt" in no possible way, not even a "more academic one", can ever end up meaning "friend of the Valkyries". And no, someone doesn't have to honor you with an answer, as trust me, you'll learn much more from googling it yourself.

Except the B-36.

all but the b-36

And it could do it way more efficient than the sr-71. We did that shit 60 years ago!

What fighter did this plane give birth to?

We don’t teach saddle repair either, but we still seem to get around just fine.

Saddle repair schools still exist

Instead we learn 3d modeling and computer simulation.

@@kylekinsey2624no instead we get gender ideology studies

@@Sumi_S Someone's got a bone to pick.