It wasn't Walker's fault. He followed orders from the General Electric representative who was coordinating this photo shoot. The GE rep, who had no piloting knowledge, instructed Walker to fly closer to the Valkyrie in order to get the shot he needed.
The photo shoot by GE was intended to start a marketing program showing all of the aircraft at the air base of origin that used GE engines.
When Walker accepted orders, his F-104 was sucked into the XB-70's tail because of the large wake.
In his book Chuck Yeager said Walker was not qualified to fly in FORMATION with the B-70 for the photo shoot, which was the mission that day. Right before the accident while flying formation he told NASA ground control he strongly objected to the photo shoot as very dangerous and uneeded. I think the old man in this video meant formation flying, not chase flying.
Back to the point. The man said that Walker wasn't qualified to fly chase on the B-70. That's the point. You tried to make a sweeping generalization that he was a qualified chase pilot, period, and I tried to clarify by saying that we all know how qualified our hero Jow Walker was. But as THIS man says, he wasn't qualified for the particular mission at hand. Plausible. That was an oversight and it cost dearly.
After seeing this video I talked to a couple of people that were involved in the XB-70 test program or had extensive knowledge of it. I can now say without doubt that this story is completely and utterly bogus.
Specifically, one respondent noted that Walker had "previously flown chase for the XB-70 nine times, eight of those missions in an F-104"
That directly contradicts the claims made here, and as Walker's B-70 chase flights are a matter of historical record, this video is wrong. Period.
Joe Walker WAS a "qualified chase pilot," and flew chase for a number of X-15 flights in between his own X-15 flights.
Nobody knew what the airflow next to the outboard wings would be, and when Walker came in tight the turbulence got him, trashed the lift on his left wing, the F-104 rolled and moved in on AV/2.
BTW, the program was NOT canceled -- AV/1 flew for several more years, and there were only ever two of the planes approved in the first place.
@SoloPilot6 What he said was, that Walker wasn't qualified to fly chase on the XB-70. That sounds plausible to me. Having been in aviation maintenance for a long time, what this man says sounds realistic, that being qualified in one type of operation does NOT necessarily mean you are qualified to do the other. I think they knew ALL about the aerodynamics surrounding the XB-70. This was modern times, after all. And they did have a tendancy to cover up things back then. The good old days.
@JetMechMA Well, let's just pretend that my having been an experimental test pilot since the 1970s, having designed a couple of homebuilt planes and having built or helped built a couple of dozen of various types gives me some slight understanding about airplanes, flying and aerodynamics. AV/2 had a different wing shape -- thus different flow characteristics -- than AV/1, and they don't even have a full set of charts for THAT plane, with years' more study before it was retired.
@SoloPilot6: Or do you think we spend all that time and money -- and lives -- testing planes that we already know everything about . . ?
JM: That's right. They already knew everything about it. An aircraft of that size is a flying SYSTEM...not just an airplane. The testing is about seeing how well integrated the SYSTEM is. NOT about aerodynamics. As you can see, the aerodynamics went Mach 3 right out of the box. I guess they knew what they were doing with their slide rules, wouldn't you say?
I am happy this got on the record. I for one am the most critical of "conspiracy nuts" but this one comes of as real. The nutty so-called "Roswell UFO" types do not. I know many whose reports to CAIB or Roger's Commission (NASA) were also omitted, for a variety of reasons. I agree Chase for X-70 much different than chase for X-15 and concur, this LOOKS REALLY BAD. All I know is program was cancelled, people died and again thanks for the first-hand report from your well-placed perch. God Bless!
Senile ramblings of an old man. The record is pretty clear as to what happened and why. A couple of O-6's were either reassigned or reprimanded - for not getting permission for the photo-op, not for letting an unqualified pilot fly chase. And Joe Walker was far from unqualified.
Having spent a bunch of Yrs in the Active A.F. associated with the flying side
of the house,( then known as the HardCore A.F.) I am ALL too familiar with the unsettling truth of how far the Military WOULD Go to protect an Officer.
Especially a couple of Full-Bulls. Such a shame. I also WOULD NOT be a bit surprised to discover that this Man was MOST LIKELY Threatened in an
effort to maintain his silence. Guess he figures @ the age he is now, and after all this time, What're they gonna do?
The report concluded that Walker, piloting the F-104, likely maintained his position by looking at the fuselage of the XB-70, forward of his position. The report estimated that the F-104 was 70 ft (21 m) to the side of, and 10 ft (3 m) below, the fuselage of the XB-70.
The USAF summary report of the accident investigation stated that, given the position of the F-104 relative to the XB-70, the F-104 pilot would not have been able to see the XB-70's wing, except by uncomfortably looking back over his left shoulder.
With the loss of both rudders and damage to the wings, the Valkyrie entered an uncontrollable spin and crashed into the ground north of Barstow, California. NASA Chief Test Pilot Joe Walker (F-104 pilot) and Carl Cross (XB-70 co-pilot) were killed, while Al White (XB-70 pilot) ejected, sustaining serious injuries, including one arm being crushed as it was caught in the clamshell-like escape capsule as it closed around him just before ejection from the aircraft.
On 8 June 1966, XB-70A #2 was in close formation with four other aircraft (an F-4, F-5, T-38, and F-104) for a photoshoot at the behest of General Electric, manufacturer of the engines of all five aircraft. With the photoshoot complete, the F-104 drifted into contact with the XB-70's right wing, flipped over, and rolling inverted, passed over the top of the Valkyrie, struck the vertical stabilizers and left wing and exploded, destroying the Valkyrie's rudders and damaging its left wing.
It wasn't Walker's fault. He followed orders from the General Electric representative who was coordinating this photo shoot. The GE rep, who had no piloting knowledge, instructed Walker to fly closer to the Valkyrie in order to get the shot he needed.
The photo shoot by GE was intended to start a marketing program showing all of the aircraft at the air base of origin that used GE engines.
When Walker accepted orders, his F-104 was sucked into the XB-70's tail because of the large wake.
kinshasaAPP 1 month ago
Wow, the truth revealed. Just, ... wow.
Capt777harris 2 months ago
"I was running center scheduling at the Air Force Flight Test Center in June of 1967."
I hope he meant 1966.
ignoblius 4 months ago
In his book Chuck Yeager said Walker was not qualified to fly in FORMATION with the B-70 for the photo shoot, which was the mission that day. Right before the accident while flying formation he told NASA ground control he strongly objected to the photo shoot as very dangerous and uneeded. I think the old man in this video meant formation flying, not chase flying.
USAmerican100 5 months ago
Back to the point. The man said that Walker wasn't qualified to fly chase on the B-70. That's the point. You tried to make a sweeping generalization that he was a qualified chase pilot, period, and I tried to clarify by saying that we all know how qualified our hero Jow Walker was. But as THIS man says, he wasn't qualified for the particular mission at hand. Plausible. That was an oversight and it cost dearly.
JetMechMA 5 months ago
After seeing this video I talked to a couple of people that were involved in the XB-70 test program or had extensive knowledge of it. I can now say without doubt that this story is completely and utterly bogus.
Specifically, one respondent noted that Walker had "previously flown chase for the XB-70 nine times, eight of those missions in an F-104"
That directly contradicts the claims made here, and as Walker's B-70 chase flights are a matter of historical record, this video is wrong. Period.
MMfromthenorth 5 months ago
Joe Walker WAS a "qualified chase pilot," and flew chase for a number of X-15 flights in between his own X-15 flights.
Nobody knew what the airflow next to the outboard wings would be, and when Walker came in tight the turbulence got him, trashed the lift on his left wing, the F-104 rolled and moved in on AV/2.
BTW, the program was NOT canceled -- AV/1 flew for several more years, and there were only ever two of the planes approved in the first place.
SoloPilot6 10 months ago
@SoloPilot6 What he said was, that Walker wasn't qualified to fly chase on the XB-70. That sounds plausible to me. Having been in aviation maintenance for a long time, what this man says sounds realistic, that being qualified in one type of operation does NOT necessarily mean you are qualified to do the other. I think they knew ALL about the aerodynamics surrounding the XB-70. This was modern times, after all. And they did have a tendancy to cover up things back then. The good old days.
JetMechMA 8 months ago
@JetMechMA Well, let's just pretend that my having been an experimental test pilot since the 1970s, having designed a couple of homebuilt planes and having built or helped built a couple of dozen of various types gives me some slight understanding about airplanes, flying and aerodynamics. AV/2 had a different wing shape -- thus different flow characteristics -- than AV/1, and they don't even have a full set of charts for THAT plane, with years' more study before it was retired.
SoloPilot6 7 months ago 2
@SoloPilot6 If they didn't know about the aerodynamics of the new wing shape, ....how did they design it? Doh!
JetMechMA 6 months ago
@JetMechMA Gee, JetMech, you think maybe that's why they are called "EXPERIMENTAL" aircraft? That they build them and see how well they fly?
Or do you think we spend all that time and money -- and lives -- testing planes that we already know everything about . . ?
DOH!
SoloPilot6 5 months ago
@SoloPilot6: Or do you think we spend all that time and money -- and lives -- testing planes that we already know everything about . . ?
JM: That's right. They already knew everything about it. An aircraft of that size is a flying SYSTEM...not just an airplane. The testing is about seeing how well integrated the SYSTEM is. NOT about aerodynamics. As you can see, the aerodynamics went Mach 3 right out of the box. I guess they knew what they were doing with their slide rules, wouldn't you say?
JetMechMA 5 months ago
I am happy this got on the record. I for one am the most critical of "conspiracy nuts" but this one comes of as real. The nutty so-called "Roswell UFO" types do not. I know many whose reports to CAIB or Roger's Commission (NASA) were also omitted, for a variety of reasons. I agree Chase for X-70 much different than chase for X-15 and concur, this LOOKS REALLY BAD. All I know is program was cancelled, people died and again thanks for the first-hand report from your well-placed perch. God Bless!
FloridaBeachMG 10 months ago
Senile ramblings of an old man. The record is pretty clear as to what happened and why. A couple of O-6's were either reassigned or reprimanded - for not getting permission for the photo-op, not for letting an unqualified pilot fly chase. And Joe Walker was far from unqualified.
dukeford 11 months ago
Having spent a bunch of Yrs in the Active A.F. associated with the flying side
of the house,( then known as the HardCore A.F.) I am ALL too familiar with the unsettling truth of how far the Military WOULD Go to protect an Officer.
Especially a couple of Full-Bulls. Such a shame. I also WOULD NOT be a bit surprised to discover that this Man was MOST LIKELY Threatened in an
effort to maintain his silence. Guess he figures @ the age he is now, and after all this time, What're they gonna do?
ancientastronomer 1 year ago
The report concluded that Walker, piloting the F-104, likely maintained his position by looking at the fuselage of the XB-70, forward of his position. The report estimated that the F-104 was 70 ft (21 m) to the side of, and 10 ft (3 m) below, the fuselage of the XB-70.
Postal67 1 year ago
The USAF summary report of the accident investigation stated that, given the position of the F-104 relative to the XB-70, the F-104 pilot would not have been able to see the XB-70's wing, except by uncomfortably looking back over his left shoulder.
Postal67 1 year ago
With the loss of both rudders and damage to the wings, the Valkyrie entered an uncontrollable spin and crashed into the ground north of Barstow, California. NASA Chief Test Pilot Joe Walker (F-104 pilot) and Carl Cross (XB-70 co-pilot) were killed, while Al White (XB-70 pilot) ejected, sustaining serious injuries, including one arm being crushed as it was caught in the clamshell-like escape capsule as it closed around him just before ejection from the aircraft.
Postal67 1 year ago
On 8 June 1966, XB-70A #2 was in close formation with four other aircraft (an F-4, F-5, T-38, and F-104) for a photoshoot at the behest of General Electric, manufacturer of the engines of all five aircraft. With the photoshoot complete, the F-104 drifted into contact with the XB-70's right wing, flipped over, and rolling inverted, passed over the top of the Valkyrie, struck the vertical stabilizers and left wing and exploded, destroying the Valkyrie's rudders and damaging its left wing.
Postal67 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing.
seamusmcfayden 1 year ago
Thank you so much for sharing. As seen here, there is always a twist to major events in history.
chaff2 1 year ago
Thank you so much for saying this is a brave thing to do
FSXairpilot 1 year ago