North American XB-70 Valkyrie

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I am trying to get my head around the dimensions of the bomb bays on the proposed production version of the B-70. I know what weapons load it was specified to carry as we discussed it here. Peter E. Davies states in his Valkyrie book that the weapons bay was in two 14ft sections (including 1ft of unusable space between them- so effectively 13.5ft each) with a total volume of 1,200cu ft. For comparison:

B-52: 1,003ft, total length 27ft, sometimes divided in two by a moveable bulkhead
B-1A: 3 x 14ft bays with a total volume of 1,643cu ft

The near exact two-thirds of a B-1 bomb bay configuration and the similarly sized individual bomb bays suggests that the B-70 and B-1 may have had similar design drivers (e.g. specific bomb types) for bomb bay length and volume. Does anybody know if this was the case? what was the original bomb load specification for the AMSA program?

What were the width and depth measurements for the B-70 bomb bays?

B-1 weapons bays were sized for SRAM (14ft length) I believe.

 

[Forest Green]

I am trying to get my head around the dimensions of the bomb bays on the proposed production version of the B-70. I know what weapons load it was specified to carry as we discussed it here. Peter E. Davies states in his Valkyrie book that the weapons bay was in two 14ft sections (including 1ft of unusable space between them- so effectively 13.5ft each) with a total volume of 1,200cu ft. For comparison:

B-52: 1,003ft, total length 27ft, sometimes divided in two by a moveable bulkhead
B-1A: 3 x 14ft bays with a total volume of 1,643cu ft

The near exact two-thirds of a B-1 bomb bay configuration and the similarly sized individual bomb bays suggests that the B-70 and B-1 may have had similar design drivers (e.g. specific bomb types) for bomb bay length and volume. Does anybody know if this was the case? what was the original bomb load specification for the AMSA program?

What were the width and depth measurements for the B-70 bomb bays?

B-1 weapons bays were sized for SRAM (14ft length) I believe.

The AGM-86A was originally designed to be interchangeable with the AGM-69 but it didn't have the required range so it had to be stretched, such that it no longer fit in the internally bays of the B-1B or B-52G. The B-52H was made with longer bays.

 

[TomS]

B-1 weapons bays were sized for SRAM (14ft length) I believe.

13-14 feet was a versatile dimension for lots of weapons. B28, B41, B43, and B48 were all around 12-13 feet long, depending on how they were configured. Conventional Mk84s are around 12.5 feet as well (the B-70 was supposed to carry conventional bombs too).

 

[sferrin]

I am trying to get my head around the dimensions of the bomb bays on the proposed production version of the B-70. I know what weapons load it was specified to carry as we discussed it here. Peter E. Davies states in his Valkyrie book that the weapons bay was in two 14ft sections (including 1ft of unusable space between them- so effectively 13.5ft each) with a total volume of 1,200cu ft. For comparison:

B-52: 1,003ft, total length 27ft, sometimes divided in two by a moveable bulkhead
B-1A: 3 x 14ft bays with a total volume of 1,643cu ft

The near exact two-thirds of a B-1 bomb bay configuration and the similarly sized individual bomb bays suggests that the B-70 and B-1 may have had similar design drivers (e.g. specific bomb types) for bomb bay length and volume. Does anybody know if this was the case? what was the original bomb load specification for the AMSA program?

What were the width and depth measurements for the B-70 bomb bays?

B-1 weapons bays were sized for SRAM (14ft length) I believe.

The AGM-86A was originally designed to be interchangeable with the AGM-69 but it didn't have the required range so it had to be stretched, such that it no longer fit in the internally bays of the B-1B or B-52G. The B-52H was made with longer bays.

AGM-86B would have fit in the B-1B when the removable bulkhead between the forward two bays was removed.

 

[Johnbr]

 

[Orionblamblam]

I am trying to get my head around the dimensions of the bomb bays on the proposed production version of the B-70.

Gentlemen, BEHOLD:

 

[Orionblamblam]

The REAL question, of course, is just what the "rocket packages" were that the B-70 was to carry in dedicated side-bays.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I am trying to get my head around the dimensions of the bomb bays on the proposed production version of the B-70.

Gentlemen, BEHOLD:
View attachment 615775

1704 - 1357 = 347 inches = 28ft 11 in = 8.8m

 

[JFC Fuller]

Thanks everybody, wonderful images. I think that all but confirms two 14ft weapons bays which would in turn make them viable for SRAM as built (which would have an impressive range from 70,000ft). It would be fascinating to know if the guided missiles in the weapons bay drawing were based on actual concepts or were just generic shapes sized to the B-70 weapons bays.

With regard to the "rocket package" bays, would they be the two doors directly behind the main undercarriage doors in this image (and circled in the attachment)? As they are directly behind the under-carriage, and given the "rocket package" label I wonder if they were for RATO packs, or alternatively for an emergency performance boost as a defensive measure?

When I went looking for the Phrase "rocket package" in the context of the US aerospace in the 1950s I found two consistent examples:

1) A rocket propulsion package, e.g. the "X-15 rocket package"
2) Multi-cell rocket launchers of the type installed instead of guns on some fighters in the 1950s

Both would work for the bays in question.

 

[sferrin]

Thanks everybody, wonderful images. I think that all but confirms two 14ft weapons bays which would in turn make them viable for SRAM as built (which would have an impressive range from 70,000ft).

There's a slide around here somewhere showing the range of SRAM launched from an SR-71 at speed and altitude, Something like 500 miles.

 

[GeorgeA]

Could it be a bay for a BDM?

 

[TomS]

With regard to the "rocket package" bays, would they be the two doors directly behind the main undercarriage doors in this image (and circled in the attachment)? As they are directly behind the under-carriage, and given the "rocket package" label I wonder if they were for RATO packs, or alternatively for an emergency performance boost as a defensive measure?

Could it be a bay for a BDM?

I think RATO is the most likely option here. Just a gut feeling, but a BDM (Bomber Defense Missile) bay woudn't need to be that tall, given the likely proportions of the missiles.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Could it be a bay for a BDM?

Definitely a candidate: "WS-132A (Air Force) Bomber defense missile for the B-70. Under development by G.E./McDonnell and Republic/Westinghouse teams when work was ordered suspended in November 1956."

Source: Missile and Space Projects Guide 1962.

NA366-600?

I just realised that the missiles in the weapons bay drawings look similar to the one in this painting, may I ask where you found it? I note also that NAA-366 was a project number for a missile.

 

[GeorgeA]

. . .
work was ordered suspended in November 1956."

Ah, that would well predate the definitive XB-70 design, so it's probably not a BDM bay. I guess RATO is the more likely option.

 

[aim9xray]

FWIW, note the 'rocket' nomenclature.

B-52G/H were later fitted with wing pylons between the inner and outer engine nacelles - for penaids (penetration aids), which were forward firing chaff rockets. The current B-52H's now use one of the pylons for Litening pod carriage. Just a stray thoughtlet.

OTOH, forward-firing rockets would need some sort of flip-out launcher. Likely, this was a "provisions & space reserved" features.

 

[DermotODyna]

Where were the Pye Wacket LDM's supposed to be carried? They were 70" in diameter and 9" tall.

 

[sferrin]

FWIW, note the 'rocket' nomenclature.

B-52G/H were later fitted with wing pylons between the inner and outer engine nacelles - for penaids (penetration aids), which were forward firing chaff rockets. The current B-52H's now use one of the pylons for Litening pod carriage. Just a stray thoughtlet.

OTOH, forward-firing rockets would need some sort of flip-out launcher. Likely, this was a "provisions & space reserved" features.

On that note, a poster by the name of BUFFDRVR, on F-16.net, mentioned they'd considered putting a couple AIM-120s on those pylons for self-defense at one point.

 

[aim9xray]

Uh huh. Pointing which direction?

 

[sferrin]

Uh huh. Pointing which direction?

Forward.

Thought it was F-16.net. Turns out that's just where a discussion came up. The actual quote was from a bit earlier. Like exactly 19 years.

"

BUFDRVR​

6/26/00​

Other recipients:

They've actually fit checked and flight checked both AIM-120's and AGM-88's on the B-52 ACMI hardpoints. I'll take the HARM's, leave the A-A to stuff to the guys that are professionals in that realm. I'd be scared out of my mind with BUFF's and
>No,today we would use Amraams! Maybe a few HARM's,too.
>Dale Brown's EB-1,EB-52 ??? You could fit a lot of stuff on a EB-52!
They've actually fit checked and flight checked both AIM-120's and AGM-88's on
the B-52 ACMI hardpoints. I'll take the HARM's, leave the A-A to stuff to the
guys that are professionals in that realm. I'd be scared out of my mind with
BUFF's and BONE's flying around an AOR with A-A missiles on them !

BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

 

[Johnbr]

Although often described as a single 29-foot long weapons bay, there were in reality two separate 14-foot-long bays covered by a shared set of doors. The combined bay extended from FS1356 to FS1704. Using a pair of sliding doors on a single set of tracks instead of the usual outward-opening snap-action doors solved the problem of opening the weapons bay doors at very high speeds. The length of the track permitted only one door to be opened at a time. Moving both doors aft opened the forward 14 feet of the bay; moving only the aft door opened the rear 14 feet of the bay; the center 1 foot was unusable since the doors never cleared the area. This also meant that weapons longer than about 13 feet could not be carried by the B-70. In the closed position, the leading edge of the forward door was held tight against the step fairing of the fuselage by two interconnected hooks that engaged the fuselage structure. The aft door was locked to the forward door in a similar manner. It should be noted that the weapons bay doors on A/V-1 and A/V-2 were not powered and could not be opened in flight. The forward weapons bay contained the flight test instrumentation package while the aft weapons bay contained the air inlet control system equipment. A/V-3 would have had powered doors, as well as suspension and release equipment in the rear portion of the weapons bay for a single type of weapon for demonstration purposes.1

The weapons bay was sized to house a variety of bombs, including thermonuclear devices up to 10,000 pounds each, 20,000-pound conventional bombs, various smaller conventional bombs, chemical and biologial weapons, or up to two new air-to-ground missiles. The missiles were to have a range of 300 to 700 nautical miles and an accuracy of less than a mile; conceptually these missiles were much like the later AGM-69A SRAM. Other missiles (probably Douglas GAM-87 Skybolts) were to be carried on external hard points under the wings, along with additional fuel in external drop tanks.

 

[TomS]

Uh huh. Pointing which direction?

Forward.

Thought it was F-16.net. Turns out that's just where a discussion came up. The actual quote was from a bit earlier. Like exactly 19 years.

"

BUFDRVR​

View attachment 615832 6/26/00​

Other recipients:

They've actually fit checked and flight checked both AIM-120's and AGM-88's on the B-52 ACMI hardpoints. I'll take the HARM's, leave the A-A to stuff to the guys that are professionals in that realm. I'd be scared out of my mind with BUFF's and
>No,today we would use Amraams! Maybe a few HARM's,too.
>Dale Brown's EB-1,EB-52 ??? You could fit a lot of stuff on a EB-52!
They've actually fit checked and flight checked both AIM-120's and AGM-88's on
the B-52 ACMI hardpoints. I'll take the HARM's, leave the A-A to stuff to the
guys that are professionals in that realm. I'd be scared out of my mind with
BUFF's and BONE's flying around an AOR with A-A missiles on them !

BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Wow, there's a blast from the past (USENET)! And I remember BUFDRVR. He certainly seemed a credible source at the time.

 

[sferrin]

Uh huh. Pointing which direction?

Forward.

Thought it was F-16.net. Turns out that's just where a discussion came up. The actual quote was from a bit earlier. Like exactly 19 years.

"

BUFDRVR​

View attachment 615832 6/26/00​

Other recipients:

They've actually fit checked and flight checked both AIM-120's and AGM-88's on the B-52 ACMI hardpoints. I'll take the HARM's, leave the A-A to stuff to the guys that are professionals in that realm. I'd be scared out of my mind with BUFF's and
>No,today we would use Amraams! Maybe a few HARM's,too.
>Dale Brown's EB-1,EB-52 ??? You could fit a lot of stuff on a EB-52!
They've actually fit checked and flight checked both AIM-120's and AGM-88's on
the B-52 ACMI hardpoints. I'll take the HARM's, leave the A-A to stuff to the
guys that are professionals in that realm. I'd be scared out of my mind with
BUFF's and BONE's flying around an AOR with A-A missiles on them !

BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Wow, there's a blast from the past (USENET)! And I remember BUFDRVR. He certainly seemed a credible source at the time.

Yep. I always looked forward to his posts. Searching through those old threads sure brought back memories. Wonder where some of them are these days.

 

[hesham]

From Ailes 19/11/1962.

 

[RareBird]

The REAL question, of course, is just what the "rocket packages" were that the B-70 was to carry in dedicated side-bays.
View attachment 615776

Wow! Never seen that image before! What publication, or link?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Interestingly, at one stage it was proposed to fit the B-70 (and incidentally the B-52 fleet) with the Navy's Temco ASM-N-8 Corvus ARM.

In Vought Aeronautics report AER-E1R-TIA-2 26OCT61
It discusses a Target Identification and Acquisition (TIA) subsystem for the B-70.


The system "is basically a passive Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) device having
inherent capabilities for rapid display of information on multiple types and patterns
of communication and radar emitters."


Towards the end of the report is shows a CORVUS Azimuth display, CORVUS RF/PRF-
Tuning panel, and an CORVUS armament panel. In the notes it states that a B-52
installation could have an additional CORVUS Armament panel.


bill

 

[sferrin]

I'd thought those were for self-defense missiles.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

North American XB-70 Valkyrie Details Page 1

North American XB-70 Valkyrie Walk Around Page 2

North American XB-70 Valkyrie

The futuristic XB-70A was originally conceived in the 1950s as a high-altitude, nuclear strike bomber that could fly at Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound) -- any potential enemy would have been

www.nationalmuseum.af.mil

 

[Firefinder]

This war posted on the warplanes reddit recently and after a quick flip through the thread I did not see it so here you go.

https://imgur.com/cliNGP7

 

[Archibald]

B-70 orbital bombers... in your faces, Dynasoar and Saenger !!

Stupendous artwork, really. Would make a jaw-dropping wallpaper.

Incidentally, it is a shame they could never get a flypast and photo of the XB-70 number 1 (number 2 life was waaaaay too short alas) with a couple of YF-12 as "escorts".
Or even better: add one SR-71, one A-12, and a M-21 with a drone on its back.
That would have been completely awesome.
I suppose that, after the June 8, 1966 disaster, nobody wanted to take any risk... plus the M-21 / drone also got his own disaster soon thereafter...

 

[hesham]

From the book; North American XB-70A Valkyrie (Warbird Tech 34),

what was this contest,and do we have a drawings to the tenders ?.

 

[RareBird]

The REAL question, of course, is just what the "rocket packages" were that the B-70 was to carry in dedicated side-bays.
View attachment 615776

I have looked all over you web site, did you ever offer any drawing that this is from? Thank you!

 

[TsrJoe]

Are there any drawings showing the AV.3 overall configuration, i understand the canard foreplanes were to be of a different angle to the first two airframes ? was AV.3 intended to have the dihedral wing or flat ? (i am also unsure what wing was intended as 'production' form as i understand the third airframe was to represent ?)

cheers, Joe

 

[RareBird]

All over - it's called stainless steel honeycomb sandwich.

The whole forward fuse, starting just fore of the main wing apex is TI skin over H-11 steel longerons, stringers and runners. No SS honeycomb.

 

[BillRo]

Not quite B-70 exactly, but the people responsible for the stainless honeycomb sandwich were involved in a company called Stressskin in Orange County, CA (A Division of Tool Research) after North American went away. I was between jobs (747 - F-5E) in 1970 and went to work there designing the thrust reverser clam shells for the Concorde, the responsibility of SNECMA, the French engine company. We designed them in inches and then converted all the dimensions to metric. There is an interesting article in AWST April 13 1970 about this project.

 

[isayyo2]

Hot off the presses from the Materials Command: NAA B-70 VALKYRIE VARIANTS: A Future That Never Was

Lots of pics!

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_a3_15Vgrs

 

[BillRo]

I don't think this drawing has been uploaded to this thread before. It was done by North American in '65 so it should be accurate. It is too big for my scanner so I have done it in pieces with reference marks so that someone smarter than me can assemble it perhaps??

 

[aim9xray]

Assembled as requested.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

Just noticed that speed chart on page 1 stating the XB-70 could do Mach 2 on mil power alone.....holy Jesus.

 

[flateric]

Found also at Ron Downey's blog - seems it was scanned in one piece along other with NAR scale plans

North American Company 3-Views

There was a time when you could write to an aircraft company and receive many good things! Case in point, I obtained these twelve prints f...

aviationarchives.blogspot.com