Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The XB-70 (2019)

codex99.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 137 posts

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#31

Post by wanderingmoose »

ben7799 wrote: post #6

I have a love/hate relationship with this plane. In 2014 I got to visit the AF Museum in Dayton, OH. With all the exceptional exhibits there it is completely obvious the XB-70 is THE crown jewel in that museum. And it snowed while we were visiting and they shut down the hangar with the XB-70 because it required a shuttle ride. So now I still have on my bucket list to see it.

I have a love/hate relationship as well, mostly because I grew up within bicycling distance and spent way too much time at the museum.

The XB-70 used to be parked outside right in front of the main entrance. The cool thing is they also have the X-3, which seems like the same design family so you can see the test article then the attempt at a usable aircraft.

It was also the location of one of the most bonkers thing I've ever seen which was when they relocated an SR-71 to the museum and landed it on this very short old runway at the site. That thing was so big and so fast and that runway even at the time seemed so short. Here's a vid. I saw it from the road off the end of the threshold and it looked like it was going to hit the fence on the landing pass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib1EXdIam44

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#32

Post by jghn »

ben7799 wrote: post #6

I have a love/hate relationship with this plane. In 2014 I got to visit the AF Museum in Dayton, OH. With all the exceptional exhibits there it is completely obvious the XB-70 is THE crown jewel in that museum. And it snowed while we were visiting and they shut down the hangar with the XB-70 because it required a shuttle ride. So now I still have on my bucket list to see it.

The only time I went to the AF Museum was in the early 80s while in grade school. I still remember that thing. It was the coolest thing I'd ever seen. I was completely floored.

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#33

Post by nocoiner »

Syonyk wrote: post #28
slow_typist wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sheer amount of gas this plane must have carried in order to fulfil its mission…

Per Wikipedia, the XB70 carried: 300,000 pounds (140,000 kg) / 46,745 US gal (38,923 imp gal; 176,950 L), on a maximum takeoff weight of 542,000 lb - so about 55% of takeoff weight was fuel. A 747-8I carries up to 63,034 gallons, or about 400k pounds, on a max takeoff weight of 987,000 pounds, or about 42% of takeoff weight. Interestingly, the ranges are about the same. The XB70's combat radius (there and back) is 3,…

Was the XB-70 capable of inflight refueling? On a quick look, I can’t tell if that was the plan, or if it was going to be a one-way trip (optimistically landing in Turkey or something to refuel, but realistically…).

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#34

Post by ge96 »

bediger4000 wrote: post #27
ge96 wrote: post #5

A beautiful plane, shame those 6 engines in line is unreal to see. Similar vibe would be the B1-lancer for engine although in 2s

The Wings Over the Rockies museum on the east side of Denver CO has a B-1A (!!!) on display. Landing gear is really tall, you can walk under the wings to see the engines.

I watched a really cool walk around video of it on YT

It's crazy it can carry as much payload as a B-52 if I recall right

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#35

Post by Aloha »

tqi wrote: post #18

"got a job with the Flight Propulsion Division of General Electric in Evendale (just outside of Cincinnati), initially working night shift in the Controls and Accessories department... the engine required the efforts of hundreds of engineers to design everything from a new turbofan and compressor, to new fire-suppression systems, to a special high-temperature fuel. Exactly what part my dad worked on is unclear; I alw…

Yes, there is often manufacturing engineers on duty 24/7 and of course, line management.

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#36

Post by Syonyk »

nocoiner wrote: post #33
Syonyk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per Wikipedia, the XB70 carried: 300,000 pounds (140,000 kg) / 46,745 US gal (38,923 imp gal; 176,950 L), on a maximum takeoff weight of 542,000 lb - so about 55% of takeoff weight was fuel. A 747-8I carries up to 63,034 gallons, or about 400k pounds, on a max takeoff weight of 987,000 pounds, or about 42% of takeoff weight. Interestingly, the ranges are about the same. The XB70's combat radius (there and back) is 3,…

Was the XB-70 capable of inflight refueling? On a quick look, I can’t tell if that was the plan, or if it was going to be a one-way trip (optimistically landing in Turkey or something to refuel, but realistically…).

I don't believe it was capable of it, which is why it was so massive. The SR-71, which required inflight refueling repeatedly, only held 80k pounds of fuel (about 12k gallons). I don't have any good sense of fuel burn vs speed either, but in general, jets like to run high and fast. The old Lear 23s burned about as much fuel (pounds per hour) idling on the ground as they did at cruise, and I think the SR-71 (which mostly used the turbojets to keep the afterburners lit, at cruise...) fuel economy up high was quite good. Apparently the major problem with performance was keeping it from overspeeding - left to their own devices, the engine (... entire engine assembly, however long it was) was running so efficiently that they just wanted to go.

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#37

Post by rmnwski »

runjake wrote: post #4

As someone who once worked on B-52s, I find it amusing how many "successors" it has outlasted. And I know why, because I worked on many of those, too. It has taught me to be skeptical of unproven claims and promises, especially when someone is particularly passionate about them. Also that simplicity is king. Complexity is the enemy. I have great respect for the XB-70. It's the only strategic bomber I haven't worked o…

I always wondered why the B-52 didn’t get replaced by converted airliners (787 has quite similar dimensions I believe). Would be much cheaper to run and could do practically the same thing, no?

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#39

Post by agloe_dreams »

ben7799 wrote: post #6

I have a love/hate relationship with this plane. In 2014 I got to visit the AF Museum in Dayton, OH. With all the exceptional exhibits there it is completely obvious the XB-70 is THE crown jewel in that museum. And it snowed while we were visiting and they shut down the hangar with the XB-70 because it required a shuttle ride. So now I still have on my bucket list to see it.

The AF Museum is probably the best air museum in the world. Of course, you have the Smithsonian in DC, but the size limits and general audience they expect really tones it down. You end up with a couple insane exhibits (Command Module, X-15, Wright flyer) but they all feel out of context. I actually preferred the annex with the Shuttle more.

The AF museum is our modern history and society shown through the lens of the air and is insane in size.

Re: The XB-70 (2019)

#40

Post by retrocryptid »

rmnwski wrote: post #37
runjake wrote: post #4

As someone who once worked on B-52s, I find it amusing how many "successors" it has outlasted. And I know why, because I worked on many of those, too. It has taught me to be skeptical of unproven claims and promises, especially when someone is particularly passionate about them. Also that simplicity is king. Complexity is the enemy. I have great respect for the XB-70. It's the only strategic bomber I haven't worked o…

I always wondered why the B-52 didn’t get replaced by converted airliners (787 has quite similar dimensions I believe). Would be much cheaper to run and could do practically the same thing, no?

not really.
Post reply on HN