Airbus patents Mach 4.5 plane
Call me a cynic but there's more chance that Pan Am will grace the skies again than any of this lot of XB70 derivatives or Airbus concepts.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And when Pan Am does grace the skies again, so will their pioneering spirit of introducing many firsts in their rich history. With someone having the innovative drive of Juan Trippe at the helm they would likely be the first to introduce supersonic (or even hyper sonic) service when its viability one day is proven.
With respect to the XB-70: its impact on aviation has far outstripped her recognition. The aircraft is often a hazy memory, yet the technology it pioneered would dictate aerospace manufacturing for decades after its last flight. The integrated aerodynamic package this aircraft represented would remind designers that shape can best brute force when it comes to speed and performance. Most who even remember the XB-70, recall images of an expensive, cranky, and problematic design.
Until you look at the logs of the second and improved prototype, the confidence that had been developed doesn't come through. One has to remember that the chief test pilot was going to leave the program, signalling that from an engineering standpoint the aircraft had accomplished the goals set for it.
From a pilot's judgement it was an easy airplane to fly, considering that due to budget restraints in this research program the airplane was flown without an autopilot and was equipped with "off-the-shelf" flight deck instrumentation.
With respect to the XB-70: its impact on aviation has far outstripped her recognition. The aircraft is often a hazy memory, yet the technology it pioneered would dictate aerospace manufacturing for decades after its last flight. The integrated aerodynamic package this aircraft represented would remind designers that shape can best brute force when it comes to speed and performance. Most who even remember the XB-70, recall images of an expensive, cranky, and problematic design.
Until you look at the logs of the second and improved prototype, the confidence that had been developed doesn't come through. One has to remember that the chief test pilot was going to leave the program, signalling that from an engineering standpoint the aircraft had accomplished the goals set for it.
From a pilot's judgement it was an easy airplane to fly, considering that due to budget restraints in this research program the airplane was flown without an autopilot and was equipped with "off-the-shelf" flight deck instrumentation.
Last edited by Green-dot; 19th Aug 2015 at 18:41.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MG 23 says: "If you ignore the fact that most current hydrogen production comes from natural gas".
There are views that NASA has innovative methods of H2 production for their launchers. See my post #29 above.
There are views that NASA has innovative methods of H2 production for their launchers. See my post #29 above.
Last edited by Downwind Lander; 19th Aug 2015 at 16:03.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green-dot
With a bit of tweaking using current technology in a proven concept of 50 years ago this could be reality sooner than the Airbus patent. . . .
With a bit of tweaking using current technology in a proven concept of 50 years ago this could be reality sooner than the Airbus patent. . . .
That futuristic Pan-Am concept aircraft aircraft actually few. It was called the XB-70 Valkarie.
A great project with high promise, until some maverick in a chase-plane ran into the back of it. A bit like TSR2, another great project with high promise, until the Labour Party ran into the back of it. And they destroyed the jigs and tools, so no future government could restart the project. That was just pure spite.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember that part of the design mission is zero carbon emissions.
That means LH2 (liquid hydrogen) fuel.
That means LH2 (liquid hydrogen) fuel.
Hydrogen is not a zero emissions fuel.
In fact, the standard hydrogen car outputs much more CO2 than my diesel car. The hydrogen has to be generated via grid electricity or the gas reduction process, which outputs a lot of emissions. And since there are so many losses on the cooling and storage of hydrogen, the hydrogen 'battery' is a very inefficient one.
London Transport had three hydrogen buses, that they championed as being 'emissions free'. But after prompting and getting a FoI request, it turned out that the hydrogen generator was in the London Docklands. So all they were doing, is taking the emissions out of Central London, and spraying them all over the people living in the East End.
Charming.
Exactly Silvertate.
I keep telling people, hydrogen is not a viable energy source, it's an energy medium. And a not particularly efficient one given current technology.
I keep telling people, hydrogen is not a viable energy source, it's an energy medium. And a not particularly efficient one given current technology.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Rainsville
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit like TSR2, another great project with high promise, until the Labour Party ran into the back of it.
The pilot flying chase
I wonder how long it was before someone fessed up to the Pentagon brass that this was in fact not a test flight.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not exactly flying chase at the time.
I wonder how long it was before someone fessed up to the Pentagon brass that this was in fact not a test flight.
The investigative board ultimately concluded that the position of the pilot in the F-104 relative to the XB-70 left him with no good visual reference points for judging his distance. Therefore, a gradual movement in any direction would not have been noticeable to him. An inadvertent movement of the F-104 placed it in a position such that contact was inevitable. The length of the precision formation may have been a factor. Cloudy weather had extended the flight time and forced the formation to move to a different area than had originally been planned. Other air traffic in the area created distractions (a B-58 in a supersonic corridor at higher altitude caused other members in the formation to report traffic in sight by seeing its contrail). Accidents are usually the result of several factors, so no one knows for sure what happened that day.
Many moons ago I worked with a guy that had been on the XB-70 project at North American. According to him, the popular theory was that the F104 got caught in the wing vortex of the XB-70 which flung the F104 into the vertical stabs (the collision took out both the vertical stabs on the XB-70 making it uncontrollable and it went into a flat spin).
Supposedly there is some spectacular video of the collision (after all, it was a photo shoot) but most of it remains classified.
Supposedly there is some spectacular video of the collision (after all, it was a photo shoot) but most of it remains classified.
Thankyou Green-dot and tdracer for putting things straight.
In a better world, with better planning, briefing, training, and authority gradient,
perhaps the F104 pilot would have said: "No! this is too dangerous. I'm backing off."
Possibly before takeoff.
In a better world, with better planning, briefing, training, and authority gradient,
perhaps the F104 pilot would have said: "No! this is too dangerous. I'm backing off."
Possibly before takeoff.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oblivia
Damn those socialists for, err, not wasting taxpayers' money on a Cold War project that history proves we didn't need...
Damn those socialists for, err, not wasting taxpayers' money on a Cold War project that history proves we didn't need...
Err, if the West had disarmed in the '60s, do you really think you would be speaking English instead of Russian? The test of a reaally good weapon system is one that is so superior that you never have to use it. And so the reason the USSR did not start WWIII was because of superior Western weaponry, and the demonstration of that superiority in the two great Israeli wars.
In the Six Day War Israel only had Super Shermans, and yet they went through the Russian T34s like a knife through butter. In the Yom Kippur War Israel had M-60 Pattons and British Centurians, and they went through the thousands of Russian T55s and T62s like a knife through butter. Check the Valley of Tears, where a small Israeli force knocked out 500 Syrian tanks.
So the pivotal event that prevented the Russians rolling across Germany and starting WWIII, was the decimation of all its hardware in the Israeli wars. If that scale of destruction could happen in the Near East, it could certainly happen in Europe.
Silver
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harry
and had all sorts of unresolved issues to fix - such as the engines.............
and had all sorts of unresolved issues to fix - such as the engines.............
The TSR2's Olympus engines went on to power Concorde, so it was obviously a very good design. As the power plant for Concorde, it was probably one of the most reliable engines of the era - especially considering it was operating on the edge of the envelope and with lots of reheat.
Silver
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the popular theory was that the F104 got caught in the wing vortex of the XB-70
After searching for F-104 wreckage in the desert (especially for the upper surface of the left tip of the horizontal stabilizer) in the days after the accident, this part of the horizontal stabilizer was found. A careful study of this stabilizer fragment was made. On the top outer edge was an imprint of the XB-70's right wingtip position light.
Thankyou Green-dot and tdracer for putting things straight.
In a better world, with better planning, briefing, training, and authority gradient,
perhaps the F104 pilot would have said: "No! this is too dangerous. I'm backing off."
Possibly before takeoff.
In a better world, with better planning, briefing, training, and authority gradient,
perhaps the F104 pilot would have said: "No! this is too dangerous. I'm backing off."
Possibly before takeoff.
The accident XB-70 (A/V-2) was best suited for the NASA program as it was an improved version compared to the first prototype (A/V-1) which was restricted to M 2.6 due to skin panel separation as a result of a steep learning curve during construction and poor quality control. This issue and many others were corrected during construction of A/V-2.
