The remaining XB70 is my favorite airplane at the National Air Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB and happy to say I see it every day....my building (old control tower) is attached to the Experimental Hanger next to the Presidential aircraftvhanger, and our stairwell looks into the hanger. I give all my contractors a tour...of course, on my lunch hour!
You guys shouldn't be so hard on GE. It's a private, American company and was doing what it had to. Like it or not, photo shoots and showing off one's accomplishments are a necessary part of a capitalist society for sales purposes. Just a crying shame this horrible accident happened at all, let alone on such a seemingly unnecessary flight. An amazing machine that gave inspiration for the Concorde.
My dad was an engineer at General Dynamics in Ft Worth and I saw the XB-70 as a kid at a Carswell AFB airshow. I'll never forget it. The coolest looking aircraft ever.
F104 pilot was an idiot, highly trained pilot not understanding the concept of vortexes from a big plane may cause his little one to do crazy shit if he got too close.
@moomoo1337 Actually, Walker (your idiot pilot), radioed in to call off the mission due to the turbulence he was feeling from the XB-70. This was moments before the crash happened. Unfortunately he was a moment too late.
Did GE pay for the loss of planes and life? Was anyone held accountable for haveing a jet flying low speed formation (that wasn't stable in said speeds) that hit the XB-70?
The answer is NO, only the taxpayer.
Great example of the military industrial complex run amuck.
@MrPatchesPal Not sure I understand the "whatever" comment, but we're all entitled. Things like wingtip vortices and wake turbulence are subjects of much more recent study. It's understood now that even large airliners experience instablitliy in the wake of other aircaft--even with substantial distance between them. Plus, the 104 was a tiny aircraft in the suction of the low pressure side of a massive delta wing, where its draw was most intense. I fully agree with you; the B-70 is beautiful.
@historylover54 The F-104 pilot was Joe Walker, an experience test pilot who'd flown F-104s as 'chase' planes on a lot of X-15 flights. He evidently got caught in the massive vortex from the XB-70's downfolded wingtip; it threw the F-104 out of control, and it slewed across the tail section, shearing off both vertical stabilizers before exploding. The F-104 was a Mach 2 interceptor, never designed for close formation work, and wingtip vortices from big airplanes were still poorly understood.
So sad by far one of my favorite planes an absolute technical marvel. How long do you suppose the 70 managed to stay in controlled flight before she pitched over.
Amazing design that didn't take off but hence this: Could it be that the same happend with the B-49 experiment that failed only to resurface with simular design. The B-2 with simular caracteristics. Then someday another design simular to the B-70 will take place.....
The photo shoot taking place at the time of the accident was for a General Electric ad; they'd built the engines for all those aircraft, and paid the costs for the form-up after an XB-70 test mission. My dad was one of North American Aviation's lead production-tooling people, and worked extensively on both XB-70 airframes. I remember the entire Antelope Valley, where we lived, being in a state of shock after the crash. Sad memories...but thanks for posting the pictures.
@jrcadet4 where did you live as a kid, Palmdale, Lancaster, or??? My Grandfather helped design certain things on that plane but he never told my dad exactly what, so I was never told and I only met him once when i was very little so I never got to ask. I wish I had gotten the chance because the XB-70 is truly an awesome airplane...
@MattB613 I lived in Lancaster and Quartz Hill. Most of my buddies were in the same boat---our dads worked in aerospace, and we constantly swapped inside information/gossip/rumors. (We had a VERY clear idea of where Area 51 was and what went on out there. And we kept it to ourselves.)
@FSXairpilot last i took my time going there just to see this plane it wasnt in sight because of it being in restoration along with some other planes. dont ask me
I worked at NASA Dryden at Edwards AFB complex for over 30 years until retirement. AFFTC (Air Force Flight Test Center). I remember the incident like yesterday. That crash in the name of a Publicity stunt too!.
@FSXairpilot Yes, I saw the Valkyries up close and personal many times. I have to look back and laugh, because while I could fit in the Bomb bay, I could never make it far enough forward to get to the flight deck. Nevertheless, while my size kept me out of the seat of many planes, I was always a looker and passenger when I could.
Saw the video ages ago. The 104 got rolled left and across the top of the wing so quick you'd have to see it to believe it. Some of these pics were in LIFE mag. Tragic day. Thanks for the post.
@JustPastAlaska Right so more money went on making those nukes than the plane and i think it cost 7 billion at the time which would be in today's money some where about 20-60 billion I think because in that time you could by a car for $ 1,000 to $ 7000 which was the most expensive
@FSXairpilot Not sure I get your point but the plane was completely outmoded before it ever proved it's self. You should know when we are talking about military budgets money is a non-factor.
ICBMs have no known defense and can deliver their payload in 30 mins. The plane was vulnerable to many number of AA systems. and at $750mil each, seems like a huge waste of money Don't get me wrong it's nifty but it's not a game changer anywhere like the Nuclear submarine or the ICBM. Just a dead toy.
The XB-70 program had already been cancelled and given over to NASA for testing. The 3rd aircraft had also been cancelled. The bomber program had been cancelled chiefly because of the new missile threats posed by the Russians and a shift in doctrine. Low altitude penetration (ie F-111/FB-111) was the way to go. Also, there was no viable long/medium range missle for the B-70 to perform. In addition to THAT, a fuel being developed cause heavy wear on the aircrat. It was doomed from the beginning
@spins321 Exactly, I remember reading that the thing needed to burn 700 pounds of Liquid nitrogen in order to keep the red hot Jet fuel (that they used to cool the engine) from turning the XB70 into a Fuel air bomb. It was too complicated and obsolete.
But as a flying machine it is a very cool piece of technology. Just not justifiable when you could purchase several SSBN doombringers for the same price.
Have known and read about this tragedy since a kid.Seen a few photos from the great Wings and Airpower mags,but this is the first time seeing this sequence.Very sad,thanks for sharing.The XB-70 was a beauty!
you know not to let you down but the movie business just isnt interested and you wont see young teenage boys with girls going there it's just for fans but there is not alot of them
A tragic day in aviation history and the loss of two very good pilots. At least we have airframe 20001 in Dayton so future generations can get a look at one of these amazing machines.
Right, it was tragic, but the pilots were not lost. They both survived the crash. One got out in the jumpseat, the other one made it too, but was badly injured.
@FSXairpilot Al White, one of the XB-70 pilots, survived (luckily... that's a story unto itself). Carl Cross (the other B-70 pilot) and Joe Walker (F-104) both died.
xyrod--Sorry, you've got your info wrong. Joe Walker, the 104 pilot was killed instantly when his jet rolled over the XB-70s tails. Carl Cross, the 70 co-pilot was unable to eject (likely due to g-forces when the aircraft pitched and yawed) and was killed. Al White, the 70 pilot initiated his ejection pod, but it closed on his arm. He had to dislocate it to pull it in. When he landed, the air cushion on his pod failed to deploy. He was injured by massive g-forces on landing, but survived.
No Prob! I've been studying this plane since the 1980s. My first exposure to it was in a book--I think it was a Warbird-Tech Volume, but I seem to have misplaced mine. You can find a similar version on Amazon. If you like this plane, it's a must-have. Most of what I know, I learned in that book. It also had a fold-out schematic of the aircraft. This was an amazing machine. 6 GE Turbojets with 30K lbs of thrust each. It must have shook the ground like nothin' doing.
Though they looked alike, the aircraft were quite different. A lot of lessons were learned building AV/1 that went into AV/2. AV/1 had anhedral wings (the wings drooped down) while AV2 had a dihedral (upward sloping wings). This increased high-speed stabiilty. AV/1 had many bugs with her high-tech honeycomb titanium/steel structure and had a lot of hydraulic problems that were largely solved in AV/2. AV/1 reached Mach-3 but was later restricted to Mach-2 due to these problems.
Both aircraft had variable geometry wingtips to test "compression lift" which forced air under the belly to increase lift. They both had articulated canards behind the cockpit for stabiltiy and lift near the nose. Both had adjustable ramps over the cockpit to increase aerodynamics at high speed but were lowered to increase visibility when landing. Even by today's standards, these were extraordinarily complex, advanced machines.
In the XB-70 the pilots had to "encapsulate", whereby a mechanism pulled their seat back into the ejection capsule. Post accident investigation showed Carl Cross pulled the encapsulation handles but due to the high forward G-loads created by the flat spin, the encapsulation system could not generate enough force to pull him back into the capsule, it ended up blowing the system burst disc and Cross was stuck forward.
@xyrod That's not correct. Joe Walker, the F-104 pilot was killed on impact. Carl Cross, the Valkyrie commander did not eject and was killed when the XB-70 hit the ground. Al White, Valkyrie copilot was severely injured when he ejected. Al White was the only survivor.
The pod is actually part of the ejection seat assembly. It encapsulates the pilot & ejection seat within a clamshell-type housing, prior to getting fired out of the cockpit.
Alvin White was the surviving crewmember (and command pilot). He passed away in 2006, at 87 years.
This was sad indeed. GE requested a formation photo shoot of the T-38, F-4, XB-70, F-104 and F-5 that were in this formation, as they are all powered by GE engines. Clay Lacy flew the LearJet used for the shoot. Video had been taken for 40 minutes but ironically the collision happened 1 minute after the shoot officially ended. Joe Walker, NASA cheif research pilot, somehow lost situational awareness and drifted too close to the Valkyrie, going thru its wingtip and then shearing off the tails.
Why are people blaming so much of this on the 104 pilot? He had more experience than any of them, and he didn't actually crash into the wing. He just got a little bit too close and the airflow from the wing sucked the jet into it.
Well the Air Force board that investigated the crash disagrees with you, and I'll go with them. They said the vortex was only secondary, because he was going to have the collision anyways. Another words once he was close enough for the vortex to affect the tail of his plane, he was already on his way to the collision anyhow.
Fascinating! You really get a feel for how LONG the XB-70 kept flying AFTER the collision. I guess the pilots thought they could fly it back to an emergency landing...
According to White (the pilot), they didn't even realize they had been struck by the 104. They felt a 'detached thump', then heard the "MidAir" calls from one of the formation aircraft. Another pilot commented that the 'tails are gone...you'll probably spin". White still didn't realize it was them, thinking that the the other pilot said 'tail' (the B-70 had twin vert. stabs). It wasn't until the aircraft began its uncommanded yaw that he realized it was them that had been hit. (Pace).
Reports say that the F-104 slid under the wing of the XB-70. The airflow from the Valkyie's wing nuetralized the tails forces and caused the 104 to pitch up. The 104's wing caught the -70 wing and rolled over the top of the wing sheering off both veriticle stabs. The vert. stab contacted the 104's canopy and sliced the cockpit (including the pilot) in half.
I was there a month ago, What a breathtaking airplane! Its absolutely imposing and massive. Lots of other nice planes there too, including the Bockscar, the B-29 that dropped 'Fat Man' on Nagasaki.
nice comparison lol and the museam awesome and free to get into but i always make a donation....... i cant tell u how many tme ive been there and the xb-70 kicks ass massive doesnt do it justice
Where are te Russian "experts"? They ussually mouth off on how their planes are better. Did this plane force them to go back to their vodka and ugly russian broads with their mouth shut?
@sabbothbitch XB70 spurred development of the Mig 25 which aside from the sr71 is the only operationally deployed aircraft that could reach mach 3, slower than the sr71 but still more than enough to catch a b52 of the era
@FSXairpilot Hmm can't find any reliable sources that claim the MiG-25 was faster than the SR-71, and certainly not for continuous high mach number flight.
nope...sorry brother, but the mighty B52 is and then was able to climb well above fighter interdiction. that was one of its major design points and the reason its actually older the the air-force itself and slated to remain in service for many more years.
@governmentcheese411 it was the introduction of missiles, air and ground launched that triggered the shift from high altitude to low level bombing, Back in the 50's missile technology was still infant but it was quite capable of a high alt. kill into the 60's. Hence why even the wicked fast B-58 was tested and operated at treetop level.
The B-52 remains in service today because theres nothing else that can carry the same payload as it, and modern countermeasures help its survivability
well...sorta right. however, even todays missiles that are capable of reaching the B52 at its maximum alt are very very very limited to say the least, and due to the very capable electronic warfare capabilities the B52 has at its disposal. my original comment still stands. to this day only 15 B52s have been shot down,period. that is counting every war and conflict since 1952. no other aircraft in history can claim half its records.
also...the B52 is still in service today because they can find no reason to get rid of it,period. it still caries the largest and most versatile payloads of any bomber and it can operate with relative impunity, hence the reason the Valkyrie and "every other" bomber ever designed is basically GONE! and the only rival took over 200 billion dollars and over 40+ years to produce,i.e. the b2 stealth.
also...this low level bombing position you claim we took is inaccurate. it was only a cold war concept to avoid russian fighters,period. hence the reason we have not had a single successful lower level bomber program. hell, the only 2 real low level bombers we've really worked on specifically were the valkyrie and the B1 and they were both pulled. we still use the few B1s we built, but they have long been replaced now by the B2. which is a high level multi-faceted ground interdiction bomber.
@governmentcheese411 the B-70 was built as a high level high mach bomber. the b-1 was also built as a high level and high speed bomber. the b-1 later changed its mission to a high low bomber. it can do missions at low level and at high alt. there were 100 b-1s built and about 60 are still active. the b-2 was built in low numbers (21) and one crashed a few years ago.
@ifuckedyourmomandsis umm...ok. the b1 was never designed to be a high level bomber. its flight characteristics and radar package clearly show this. while it may do the job of a high level bomber. every aspect of its design was for nap of the earth flight, period. designed to penetrate deep into enemy airspace at low levels avoiding conventional radars of the time. however, due to many problems with their low level radar, a few key crashes, and a fairly limited payload. they stopped production.
@ifuckedyourmomandsis furthermore, they likely dumped the B-1 project due to the development of project half blue. the first steps towards stealth aircraft which began in the early 70s.
@governmentcheese411 the b-1a was canceled because it was considered to costly. why cancel an expensive heavy bomber program for a more expensive "light" bomber program. yeah the f-117 was a pin point precsion attack aircraft but it had a very limited payload and range.
@ifuckedyourmomandsis because like i said...they had stealth coming down the pipe and chose to cut their loses. hence the B1 got dropped, period. the stealth wasn't developed to replace the B1. it was really more for show if anything. to justify the billions spent on stealth tech. which is why everyone shut up when the spirit hit the scene. now stealth is a standard in all facets of American weapons design.
@governmentcheese411 the B-1B was ressurected by regan as a means to replace the Buff for a high speed heavy nuclear bomber. it of course is serving with the buff an spirit's. the bone was developed as a high level bomber but it is best suited for low level flight. the damn thing flies like a fighter and it also has a greater payload than the buff.
@ifuckedyourmomandsis they were not...they were designed as long range penetration, period. they where quipped from the start with the first gen ground tracking radar and were designed to fly in low and fast, drop their payload, and then hall ass out at supersonic. if high level and high speed were the choice...they would have likely stayed with the Valkyrie, but they didn't, because even then rockets were becoming more and more a real threat. hence the choice to go low and stealthy.
@governmentcheese41 explain why then a muti million dollar steath fighter was shot down by a 30 year old soviet era SAM. stealth is in every facet of military aviation. i build parts for some of those aircraft. stealth is extremely expensive and has some difficulties in manufacturing and maintenance. the B-1B was built with stealth qualitys as well. so it can go high or low stealthy.
@ifuckedyourmomandsis lol...ok, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. how can i justify their choices? what was done, is done, and that is that. the SAM is not guided by itself. it uses a near by radar system. since we know that russian radars rival our quite well and have proven to track our stealth's. my original comment still stands. we are looking at the beginning of the end of fighter craft as we know it, and stealth to for that matter.
@ifuckedyourmomandsis now as far as your persistence to defend the B1. why do you think there is a B2? because the B1 had it's own issues and the theater of operation changed, period. beyond that, your claim to its performance is null. opinion don't matter. it was designed to be a high speed low level attack bomber capable of flying nap of the earth deep into enemy territory, period. sure it could fly high and fast. so...don't matter. we wanted what we got and that's that.
I've been to Dayton several times to see the Valkyrie, and it is well worth it. It is an amazing thing to see, and now the only one left in the world.
The F-104 pilot just wasn't accustomed to flying in close formation with a large aircraft and he got "sucked in". The XB-70 fly just fine for while even without its vertical stabilisers, but eventually the crew lost control.
I never did understand why the co-pilot was unable to eject while the pilot made it out safely.
It has been suggested that he was incapacitated by g-forces and was unable to encapsulate/eject.
The pilot very-nearly didn't make it either. He caught his arm in the escape module door as it was closing, and forcibly jerked it in, dislocating his shoulder. His landing didn't go well either, but he survived.
The pilot (Al White) was badly injured. He dislocated his shoulder during the initial ejection sequence. Then, the air-bladder cusion on the bottom of his escape module failed to deploy prior to touchdown and he hit with an estimated 43g's (even with the main chutes deployed).
That's good information, thanks, I have been unable to find it elsewhere.
Fyi - Chuck Yeager has stated he believed the accident was cause by the F-104 pilot's lack of experience flying close formation with large aircraft, which tend to "suck you in".
Yes...I read that In Yeager's autobiography. He seemed to dislike the Apollo astronauts, too...(especially Armstrong), if memory serves.
A very good read is "North American XB-70 Valkyrie' by Steve Pace (Aero series #30) avilable from a number of on-line sources. Lots of USAF/NAA photos.
For those who think it's fake, first google about this, you will find what happened. If you pay attention, you can see how the XB-70 looses the vertical stabilizers, as a F-104 collided with a wing, rolled over and soon after exploded. The XB-70 was damaged, of course. You can check another video (XB70 Valkyrie crash) that is very well complemented by this sequence.
I didn't see an actual collision but that must be the explanation.
Curious to me that a test aircraft would be flown on such a cloudy day and with other aircraft very close by. Just being a monday morning quarterback I guess.
it was an unofficial photo shoot for xb-70 on a magazine but however the aircraft somehow got the f-104 to get onto it and it collided. I will later make a vid of the xb-70 on fsx but i am still preparing
ok, thanks and for the next one, maybe add text to help viewers? such as to say, here is the f104 going to collide with the xb70, stuff like that. how is your model coming along? basicmodelling has his p40 model and one scene shows a diarama with p40 in front in distance a B17 - that was realistic even though the two types likely never shared air fields :P
The sad deaths of a glorious beast and one of its pilots.
MrGoblin60 3 weeks ago
The remaining XB70 is my favorite airplane at the National Air Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB and happy to say I see it every day....my building (old control tower) is attached to the Experimental Hanger next to the Presidential aircraftvhanger, and our stairwell looks into the hanger. I give all my contractors a tour...of course, on my lunch hour!
OHIOGreene 1 month ago
The F-104 pilot was Ed Walker, a very knowledgeable test pilot who flew some of the X-15 missions. He was far from being an "idiot!"
ljsilicon 2 months ago
Very cool!
krisgrauel 2 months ago
Had to be a 104 why on earth let one near a test plane? The phantom on the other wing was never going to be the problem was it?
Cptbaker1980 3 months ago
You guys shouldn't be so hard on GE. It's a private, American company and was doing what it had to. Like it or not, photo shoots and showing off one's accomplishments are a necessary part of a capitalist society for sales purposes. Just a crying shame this horrible accident happened at all, let alone on such a seemingly unnecessary flight. An amazing machine that gave inspiration for the Concorde.
442hoeky 3 months ago
My dad was an engineer at General Dynamics in Ft Worth and I saw the XB-70 as a kid at a Carswell AFB airshow. I'll never forget it. The coolest looking aircraft ever.
Shinyokai 3 months ago
F104 pilot was an idiot, highly trained pilot not understanding the concept of vortexes from a big plane may cause his little one to do crazy shit if he got too close.
moomoo1337 4 months ago
@moomoo1337 Actually, Walker (your idiot pilot), radioed in to call off the mission due to the turbulence he was feeling from the XB-70. This was moments before the crash happened. Unfortunately he was a moment too late.
hornairs 1 month ago
@hornairs He should have known to move.
moomoo1337 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did GE pay for the loss of planes and life? Was anyone held accountable for haveing a jet flying low speed formation (that wasn't stable in said speeds) that hit the XB-70?
The answer is NO, only the taxpayer.
Great example of the military industrial complex run amuck.
TheShiteMaster 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheShiteMaster 5 months ago
@thewildtwosum that too!
FSXairpilot 6 months ago
its scary, but this is all true. on a different topic, i thought it would be video footage, but the pic are fine.
airplanelover1231 7 months ago
@MrPatchesPal Not sure I understand the "whatever" comment, but we're all entitled. Things like wingtip vortices and wake turbulence are subjects of much more recent study. It's understood now that even large airliners experience instablitliy in the wake of other aircaft--even with substantial distance between them. Plus, the 104 was a tiny aircraft in the suction of the low pressure side of a massive delta wing, where its draw was most intense. I fully agree with you; the B-70 is beautiful.
TV843 8 months ago
Man I wish they hadn't abandoned that project. And who was flying that F-104 that hit the Valkyrie?
historylover54 8 months ago
@historylover54 The F-104 pilot was Joe Walker, an experience test pilot who'd flown F-104s as 'chase' planes on a lot of X-15 flights. He evidently got caught in the massive vortex from the XB-70's downfolded wingtip; it threw the F-104 out of control, and it slewed across the tail section, shearing off both vertical stabilizers before exploding. The F-104 was a Mach 2 interceptor, never designed for close formation work, and wingtip vortices from big airplanes were still poorly understood.
jrcadet4 7 months ago 4
So sad by far one of my favorite planes an absolute technical marvel. How long do you suppose the 70 managed to stay in controlled flight before she pitched over.
elwood173 9 months ago
Did the pilots eject ?
F16V1PER 11 months ago
@F16V1PER Yeah, one of them ejected, but the other two were killed.
st0nec0ld100 8 months ago
Amazing design that didn't take off but hence this: Could it be that the same happend with the B-49 experiment that failed only to resurface with simular design. The B-2 with simular caracteristics. Then someday another design simular to the B-70 will take place.....
xxchinookxx 1 year ago
The photo shoot taking place at the time of the accident was for a General Electric ad; they'd built the engines for all those aircraft, and paid the costs for the form-up after an XB-70 test mission. My dad was one of North American Aviation's lead production-tooling people, and worked extensively on both XB-70 airframes. I remember the entire Antelope Valley, where we lived, being in a state of shock after the crash. Sad memories...but thanks for posting the pictures.
jrcadet4 1 year ago 13
@jrcadet4 Welcome.
FSXairpilot 1 year ago
@jrcadet4 where did you live as a kid, Palmdale, Lancaster, or??? My Grandfather helped design certain things on that plane but he never told my dad exactly what, so I was never told and I only met him once when i was very little so I never got to ask. I wish I had gotten the chance because the XB-70 is truly an awesome airplane...
MattB613 8 months ago
@MattB613 I lived in Lancaster and Quartz Hill. Most of my buddies were in the same boat---our dads worked in aerospace, and we constantly swapped inside information/gossip/rumors. (We had a VERY clear idea of where Area 51 was and what went on out there. And we kept it to ourselves.)
jrcadet4 8 months ago
@jrcadet4 awesome honestly i wish i was born in that generation my gen. sucks.... its full of idiots
MattB613 8 months ago
what a beautiful machine. I want to go see it at the air museum once there done restoring it
elite055 1 year ago
@elite055 What are you talking about? it is already in on piece. There was two prototypes #1 is in the museum and # 2 is the one up here that cashed
FSXairpilot 1 year ago
@FSXairpilot last i took my time going there just to see this plane it wasnt in sight because of it being in restoration along with some other planes. dont ask me
elite055 1 year ago
@elite055 ok
FSXairpilot 1 year ago
@FSXairpilot when planes just sit around they need to be cleaned up once and awhile,it takes some time to get them back in good shape.
EsOoBaCtvp 1 year ago
dang that was kinda hard to watch
eaglesdood16 1 year ago
thanks for showing this. sadly, very informative.
cablemirc 1 year ago
Special effects people should be required to see these shots and/or footage, they could learn a lot.
illustriouschin 1 year ago
I worked at NASA Dryden at Edwards AFB complex for over 30 years until retirement. AFFTC (Air Force Flight Test Center). I remember the incident like yesterday. That crash in the name of a Publicity stunt too!.
StellarBlue1 1 year ago
@StellarBlue1 did you get to see this plane in real life?
FSXairpilot 1 year ago
@FSXairpilot Yes, I saw the Valkyries up close and personal many times. I have to look back and laugh, because while I could fit in the Bomb bay, I could never make it far enough forward to get to the flight deck. Nevertheless, while my size kept me out of the seat of many planes, I was always a looker and passenger when I could.
StellarBlue1 1 year ago 5
Have to say if genuine despite being stills some of best youtube ever!
Valentine001 1 year ago
@Valentine001 thanks
FSXairpilot 1 year ago
So striving for a beautiful picture yielded more danger than the russian SAMs - at least in this case.
Anyhow, fascinating footage - thanks a lot for digging this out.
breg77 1 year ago
@breg77 very welcome
FSXairpilot 1 year ago
good thing they made two...
arvadahockey31 1 year ago
Saw the video ages ago. The 104 got rolled left and across the top of the wing so quick you'd have to see it to believe it. Some of these pics were in LIFE mag. Tragic day. Thanks for the post.
NiBaldacci 1 year ago
PRICELESS FOOTAGE! How did you get those photos?
e633xx 1 year ago
i looked online, i can't remember what site, Sorry.
FSXairpilot 1 year ago
Interesting. Hadn't seen all of these photos before.
tsarbomba1 1 year ago
what i dont understand is that why would the air force cancel the xb-70 after 1 crash, and it wasnt even the xb-70s fault.
Eirik36 1 year ago
because the xb-70 was too expensive and rockets form russia where all ready capable enough to shoot it down
FSXairpilot 1 year ago 3
@FSXairpilot Not to mention the superiority of the ICBM in delivering nuclear weapons to target.
JustPastAlaska 1 year ago
@JustPastAlaska Right so more money went on making those nukes than the plane and i think it cost 7 billion at the time which would be in today's money some where about 20-60 billion I think because in that time you could by a car for $ 1,000 to $ 7000 which was the most expensive
FSXairpilot 1 year ago
@FSXairpilot Not sure I get your point but the plane was completely outmoded before it ever proved it's self. You should know when we are talking about military budgets money is a non-factor.
ICBMs have no known defense and can deliver their payload in 30 mins. The plane was vulnerable to many number of AA systems. and at $750mil each, seems like a huge waste of money Don't get me wrong it's nifty but it's not a game changer anywhere like the Nuclear submarine or the ICBM. Just a dead toy.
JustPastAlaska 1 year ago
The XB-70 program had already been cancelled and given over to NASA for testing. The 3rd aircraft had also been cancelled. The bomber program had been cancelled chiefly because of the new missile threats posed by the Russians and a shift in doctrine. Low altitude penetration (ie F-111/FB-111) was the way to go. Also, there was no viable long/medium range missle for the B-70 to perform. In addition to THAT, a fuel being developed cause heavy wear on the aircrat. It was doomed from the beginning
spins321 1 year ago
@spins321 Exactly, I remember reading that the thing needed to burn 700 pounds of Liquid nitrogen in order to keep the red hot Jet fuel (that they used to cool the engine) from turning the XB70 into a Fuel air bomb. It was too complicated and obsolete.
But as a flying machine it is a very cool piece of technology. Just not justifiable when you could purchase several SSBN doombringers for the same price.
JustPastAlaska 1 year ago
Wasn't the F-104 known as "The Widow Maker"?
dangerherosandwich 1 year ago
Have known and read about this tragedy since a kid.Seen a few photos from the great Wings and Airpower mags,but this is the first time seeing this sequence.Very sad,thanks for sharing.The XB-70 was a beauty!
5jonesville 1 year ago
They should make a movie about this. Very engaging. Cold war politics. Hot shot X-plane pilot. Sounds like a classic.
TAfTfilms 1 year ago
you know not to let you down but the movie business just isnt interested and you wont see young teenage boys with girls going there it's just for fans but there is not alot of them
FSXairpilot 1 year ago
the co-pilot of the XB-70 was not able to eject and went down with the plane, the pilot was badly injured but survived, idk about the F-104 pilot
hellkid94 1 year ago
@hellkid94 The F-104 pilot died
tjohn6041 1 year ago
i mean its moronic to fly those planes so close. thats a tough guy attitude and it will get you killed.
sakkurae 1 year ago
amazing pictures! even seasoned experts can make mistakes...
josecarlos1955 1 year ago
The old jets are surprisingly beautiful.
212809 2 years ago
A tragic day in aviation history and the loss of two very good pilots. At least we have airframe 20001 in Dayton so future generations can get a look at one of these amazing machines.
TV843 2 years ago 2
Right, it was tragic, but the pilots were not lost. They both survived the crash. One got out in the jumpseat, the other one made it too, but was badly injured.
xyrod 2 years ago
could you tell me where you got that info?
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
@FSXairpilot Al White, one of the XB-70 pilots, survived (luckily... that's a story unto itself). Carl Cross (the other B-70 pilot) and Joe Walker (F-104) both died.
spins321 1 year ago
xyrod--Sorry, you've got your info wrong. Joe Walker, the 104 pilot was killed instantly when his jet rolled over the XB-70s tails. Carl Cross, the 70 co-pilot was unable to eject (likely due to g-forces when the aircraft pitched and yawed) and was killed. Al White, the 70 pilot initiated his ejection pod, but it closed on his arm. He had to dislocate it to pull it in. When he landed, the air cushion on his pod failed to deploy. He was injured by massive g-forces on landing, but survived.
TV843 2 years ago 17
Ok, i got the infos i wrote on an other youtube video about the xb -70. Seemed like a documentary so i believed it. Where are your infos from?
xyrod 2 years ago
No Prob! I've been studying this plane since the 1980s. My first exposure to it was in a book--I think it was a Warbird-Tech Volume, but I seem to have misplaced mine. You can find a similar version on Amazon. If you like this plane, it's a must-have. Most of what I know, I learned in that book. It also had a fold-out schematic of the aircraft. This was an amazing machine. 6 GE Turbojets with 30K lbs of thrust each. It must have shook the ground like nothin' doing.
TV843 2 years ago
Though they looked alike, the aircraft were quite different. A lot of lessons were learned building AV/1 that went into AV/2. AV/1 had anhedral wings (the wings drooped down) while AV2 had a dihedral (upward sloping wings). This increased high-speed stabiilty. AV/1 had many bugs with her high-tech honeycomb titanium/steel structure and had a lot of hydraulic problems that were largely solved in AV/2. AV/1 reached Mach-3 but was later restricted to Mach-2 due to these problems.
TV843 2 years ago 2
Both aircraft had variable geometry wingtips to test "compression lift" which forced air under the belly to increase lift. They both had articulated canards behind the cockpit for stabiltiy and lift near the nose. Both had adjustable ramps over the cockpit to increase aerodynamics at high speed but were lowered to increase visibility when landing. Even by today's standards, these were extraordinarily complex, advanced machines.
TV843 2 years ago
@TV843
In the XB-70 the pilots had to "encapsulate", whereby a mechanism pulled their seat back into the ejection capsule. Post accident investigation showed Carl Cross pulled the encapsulation handles but due to the high forward G-loads created by the flat spin, the encapsulation system could not generate enough force to pull him back into the capsule, it ended up blowing the system burst disc and Cross was stuck forward.
USAmerican100 1 year ago
@TV843
If Cross had encapsulated earlier like Al White did before the G's go too high he would have probably survived.
As you note the capsules had a lot of bugs which were corrected after this crash.
USAmerican100 1 year ago
@xyrod Nice wrong facts there.
cheames 1 year ago
@xyrod That's not correct. Joe Walker, the F-104 pilot was killed on impact. Carl Cross, the Valkyrie commander did not eject and was killed when the XB-70 hit the ground. Al White, Valkyrie copilot was severely injured when he ejected. Al White was the only survivor.
stuntmanmike37 1 year ago
@xyrod
Only Al White ejected and lived, Carl Cross did not (seat malfunction) and was killed.
USAmerican100 1 year ago
my dad knows the guy who survied the crash only one to make to his escape pod and get away
lasersailor587 2 years ago
very nice
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
The pod is actually part of the ejection seat assembly. It encapsulates the pilot & ejection seat within a clamshell-type housing, prior to getting fired out of the cockpit.
Alvin White was the surviving crewmember (and command pilot). He passed away in 2006, at 87 years.
raynus1 2 years ago
okay he knew him he lived in dayton ohio and my dad met along time ago when he wanted to be a pilot
lasersailor587 2 years ago
This was sad indeed. GE requested a formation photo shoot of the T-38, F-4, XB-70, F-104 and F-5 that were in this formation, as they are all powered by GE engines. Clay Lacy flew the LearJet used for the shoot. Video had been taken for 40 minutes but ironically the collision happened 1 minute after the shoot officially ended. Joe Walker, NASA cheif research pilot, somehow lost situational awareness and drifted too close to the Valkyrie, going thru its wingtip and then shearing off the tails.
CessnaPilot4Fun 2 years ago
Jesus... that is horrible..
mackjsm 2 years ago
yep
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The F104 pilot was completely at fault. What an idiot. Thanks to him, the XB-70 program was terminated shorterly thereafter.
Iluv2raceit 2 years ago
Why are people blaming so much of this on the 104 pilot? He had more experience than any of them, and he didn't actually crash into the wing. He just got a little bit too close and the airflow from the wing sucked the jet into it.
narrowstairs007 2 years ago 3
you see people are so angry that his happened that they cant accept that it just happened to they blame the pilot to somehow make it seem better
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
That's bullshit
Skybolter 2 years ago
what?why?explain please
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
I mean dude, how the Motherfucking pilot of the F-104 could create a BAD MANOUVER KILLING THE VALKYRIE ? IT'S A JACKASS
Skybolter 2 years ago
Don't let it bother you there is always ONE idiot that thinks he knows everything...
mackjsm 2 years ago
agreed
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
Well the Air Force board that investigated the crash disagrees with you, and I'll go with them. They said the vortex was only secondary, because he was going to have the collision anyways. Another words once he was close enough for the vortex to affect the tail of his plane, he was already on his way to the collision anyhow.
CessnaPilot4Fun 2 years ago
Fascinating! You really get a feel for how LONG the XB-70 kept flying AFTER the collision. I guess the pilots thought they could fly it back to an emergency landing...
greenseaships 2 years ago
well al white i think or the captain somehow managed o keep it flying for 16 seconds but then because of aerodynamics it was too much
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
According to White (the pilot), they didn't even realize they had been struck by the 104. They felt a 'detached thump', then heard the "MidAir" calls from one of the formation aircraft. Another pilot commented that the 'tails are gone...you'll probably spin". White still didn't realize it was them, thinking that the the other pilot said 'tail' (the B-70 had twin vert. stabs). It wasn't until the aircraft began its uncommanded yaw that he realized it was them that had been hit. (Pace).
raynus1 2 years ago
very rare !! thank you very much!!
vwsambabus 2 years ago
no prob
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
:'(
SCJohnson77 2 years ago
Reports say that the F-104 slid under the wing of the XB-70. The airflow from the Valkyie's wing nuetralized the tails forces and caused the 104 to pitch up. The 104's wing caught the -70 wing and rolled over the top of the wing sheering off both veriticle stabs. The vert. stab contacted the 104's canopy and sliced the cockpit (including the pilot) in half.
jetshopbob 2 years ago 11
really? where do you get this information from? they just talk that he accidentally collided
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
There are a couple of documentaries that talk about the vectoring problems.
archona4 2 years ago
an awful way to die.
slafkec 2 years ago
planes are dangerous unless if you use them correctly
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
These pictures were taken from Fran Sinatra's Lear Jet.
sdietri22 2 years ago
yep
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
Two Billion Dolar :))
albaniener 2 years ago
seven billion dollar
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
hey there is a video with it in the "Wright Patterson Air Force Base" UFO Dayton, Ohio..if u want to see here it is watch?v=ndQzMtjIp0A
frizstyler 2 years ago
Go to Dayton and see the remaining one (2 were built). It is the most amazing plane you will ever see.
Maxwell2323 2 years ago 2
i am rally going to! , did you see it?
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
I was there a month ago, What a breathtaking airplane! Its absolutely imposing and massive. Lots of other nice planes there too, including the Bockscar, the B-29 that dropped 'Fat Man' on Nagasaki.
waylifetruth 2 years ago
Was it the ENOLA GAY?
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
The Enola Gay dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. The Bockscar was the second and less known one. It´s like the Buzz Aldrin of the Moon landing :P
andrejcheck 2 years ago 4
nice comparison lol and the museam awesome and free to get into but i always make a donation....... i cant tell u how many tme ive been there and the xb-70 kicks ass massive doesnt do it justice
SEINORTACO 2 years ago
my friend i love unique and it was sad to see this more prefect than 20001 go down
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
Where are te Russian "experts"? They ussually mouth off on how their planes are better. Did this plane force them to go back to their vodka and ugly russian broads with their mouth shut?
sabbothbitch 2 years ago
check out sukhoi sotka t-4
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
@sabbothbitch XB70 spurred development of the Mig 25 which aside from the sr71 is the only operationally deployed aircraft that could reach mach 3, slower than the sr71 but still more than enough to catch a b52 of the era
kineticdeath 2 years ago 2
slower? it was faster, read about it
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
The xb70 is my 2nd favorite a/c! But the SR-71 is a touch faster by at least .2 mach
cobrala 2 years ago
@FSXairpilot Hmm can't find any reliable sources that claim the MiG-25 was faster than the SR-71, and certainly not for continuous high mach number flight.
Gerhardium 2 years ago
nope...sorry brother, but the mighty B52 is and then was able to climb well above fighter interdiction. that was one of its major design points and the reason its actually older the the air-force itself and slated to remain in service for many more years.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@governmentcheese411 it was the introduction of missiles, air and ground launched that triggered the shift from high altitude to low level bombing, Back in the 50's missile technology was still infant but it was quite capable of a high alt. kill into the 60's. Hence why even the wicked fast B-58 was tested and operated at treetop level.
The B-52 remains in service today because theres nothing else that can carry the same payload as it, and modern countermeasures help its survivability
kineticdeath 1 year ago
well...sorta right. however, even todays missiles that are capable of reaching the B52 at its maximum alt are very very very limited to say the least, and due to the very capable electronic warfare capabilities the B52 has at its disposal. my original comment still stands. to this day only 15 B52s have been shot down,period. that is counting every war and conflict since 1952. no other aircraft in history can claim half its records.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
also...the B52 is still in service today because they can find no reason to get rid of it,period. it still caries the largest and most versatile payloads of any bomber and it can operate with relative impunity, hence the reason the Valkyrie and "every other" bomber ever designed is basically GONE! and the only rival took over 200 billion dollars and over 40+ years to produce,i.e. the b2 stealth.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
also...this low level bombing position you claim we took is inaccurate. it was only a cold war concept to avoid russian fighters,period. hence the reason we have not had a single successful lower level bomber program. hell, the only 2 real low level bombers we've really worked on specifically were the valkyrie and the B1 and they were both pulled. we still use the few B1s we built, but they have long been replaced now by the B2. which is a high level multi-faceted ground interdiction bomber.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@governmentcheese411 the B-70 was built as a high level high mach bomber. the b-1 was also built as a high level and high speed bomber. the b-1 later changed its mission to a high low bomber. it can do missions at low level and at high alt. there were 100 b-1s built and about 60 are still active. the b-2 was built in low numbers (21) and one crashed a few years ago.
ifuckedyourmomandsis 1 year ago
@ifuckedyourmomandsis umm...ok. the b1 was never designed to be a high level bomber. its flight characteristics and radar package clearly show this. while it may do the job of a high level bomber. every aspect of its design was for nap of the earth flight, period. designed to penetrate deep into enemy airspace at low levels avoiding conventional radars of the time. however, due to many problems with their low level radar, a few key crashes, and a fairly limited payload. they stopped production.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@ifuckedyourmomandsis furthermore, they likely dumped the B-1 project due to the development of project half blue. the first steps towards stealth aircraft which began in the early 70s.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@governmentcheese411 the b-1a was canceled because it was considered to costly. why cancel an expensive heavy bomber program for a more expensive "light" bomber program. yeah the f-117 was a pin point precsion attack aircraft but it had a very limited payload and range.
ifuckedyourmomandsis 1 year ago
@ifuckedyourmomandsis because like i said...they had stealth coming down the pipe and chose to cut their loses. hence the B1 got dropped, period. the stealth wasn't developed to replace the B1. it was really more for show if anything. to justify the billions spent on stealth tech. which is why everyone shut up when the spirit hit the scene. now stealth is a standard in all facets of American weapons design.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@governmentcheese411 the B-1B was ressurected by regan as a means to replace the Buff for a high speed heavy nuclear bomber. it of course is serving with the buff an spirit's. the bone was developed as a high level bomber but it is best suited for low level flight. the damn thing flies like a fighter and it also has a greater payload than the buff.
ifuckedyourmomandsis 1 year ago
@ifuckedyourmomandsis they were not...they were designed as long range penetration, period. they where quipped from the start with the first gen ground tracking radar and were designed to fly in low and fast, drop their payload, and then hall ass out at supersonic. if high level and high speed were the choice...they would have likely stayed with the Valkyrie, but they didn't, because even then rockets were becoming more and more a real threat. hence the choice to go low and stealthy.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@governmentcheese41 explain why then a muti million dollar steath fighter was shot down by a 30 year old soviet era SAM. stealth is in every facet of military aviation. i build parts for some of those aircraft. stealth is extremely expensive and has some difficulties in manufacturing and maintenance. the B-1B was built with stealth qualitys as well. so it can go high or low stealthy.
ifuckedyourmomandsis 1 year ago
@ifuckedyourmomandsis lol...ok, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. how can i justify their choices? what was done, is done, and that is that. the SAM is not guided by itself. it uses a near by radar system. since we know that russian radars rival our quite well and have proven to track our stealth's. my original comment still stands. we are looking at the beginning of the end of fighter craft as we know it, and stealth to for that matter.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@ifuckedyourmomandsis now as far as your persistence to defend the B1. why do you think there is a B2? because the B1 had it's own issues and the theater of operation changed, period. beyond that, your claim to its performance is null. opinion don't matter. it was designed to be a high speed low level attack bomber capable of flying nap of the earth deep into enemy territory, period. sure it could fly high and fast. so...don't matter. we wanted what we got and that's that.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@sabbothbitch Funny but when you look at the records of Soviet aircraft vs Western it rarely looks good for the MiGs and their brethren.
Gerhardium 2 years ago
I've been to Dayton several times to see the Valkyrie, and it is well worth it. It is an amazing thing to see, and now the only one left in the world.
CessnaPilot4Fun 2 years ago
So sad this crush, It was a good plane after all. This plane should be constructed one more time!!!! Xb 70 & Blackbird.........
enasrak 2 years ago
agreed friend,agreed
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
Good vid, sad loss of life
1BustedMyth 2 years ago 2
agreed, agreed
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
I'm suprised that there wasn't a cine-camera filming it ,as opposed to only stills. it was a PR shoot afterall.
Tragic though.
xoio 2 years ago
The F-104 pilot just wasn't accustomed to flying in close formation with a large aircraft and he got "sucked in". The XB-70 fly just fine for while even without its vertical stabilisers, but eventually the crew lost control.
I never did understand why the co-pilot was unable to eject while the pilot made it out safely.
WinchesterRanger 2 years ago
Aparrently, it was G forces, thus he couln't move properly to initiate the Clam shell closure sequence.
xoio 2 years ago
Thanks - I never heard that before.
But somehow the pilot made it??
WinchesterRanger 2 years ago
the captain only did
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
Exactly, something that stopped the co-pilot from safely ejecting didn't stop the pilot.
Why?
WinchesterRanger 2 years ago
I read that the ejection seats sort of malfunctioned or last electrical power to actually work
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
It has been suggested that he was incapacitated by g-forces and was unable to encapsulate/eject.
The pilot very-nearly didn't make it either. He caught his arm in the escape module door as it was closing, and forcibly jerked it in, dislocating his shoulder. His landing didn't go well either, but he survived.
raynus1 2 years ago
i repsect those men who knew that flying these planes could be dangerous
FSXairpilot 2 years ago
The pilot (Al White) was badly injured. He dislocated his shoulder during the initial ejection sequence. Then, the air-bladder cusion on the bottom of his escape module failed to deploy prior to touchdown and he hit with an estimated 43g's (even with the main chutes deployed).
raynus1 2 years ago
That's good information, thanks, I have been unable to find it elsewhere.
Fyi - Chuck Yeager has stated he believed the accident was cause by the F-104 pilot's lack of experience flying close formation with large aircraft, which tend to "suck you in".
WinchesterRanger 2 years ago
Yes...I read that In Yeager's autobiography. He seemed to dislike the Apollo astronauts, too...(especially Armstrong), if memory serves.
A very good read is "North American XB-70 Valkyrie' by Steve Pace (Aero series #30) avilable from a number of on-line sources. Lots of USAF/NAA photos.
Fascinating bird.
Cheers.
raynus1 2 years ago
Good video-sequence!
For those who think it's fake, first google about this, you will find what happened. If you pay attention, you can see how the XB-70 looses the vertical stabilizers, as a F-104 collided with a wing, rolled over and soon after exploded. The XB-70 was damaged, of course. You can check another video (XB70 Valkyrie crash) that is very well complemented by this sequence.
WeAreTheRobots 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
man... this is almost as fake as the dramatic hamster
pivot360master 3 years ago
what's fake? it is the only real pictures
FSXairpilot 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the dramatic hamster is fake either you douchecock. How stupid can you be?
Nassault630 3 years ago
why would someone say its fake?
cause they are a dumbass?
victoriasteighner 3 years ago 3
im suprised no one said its fake
THEganjamatt 3 years ago
Wow - hadn't seen that before, amazing sequence. Very sad.
mozza81 3 years ago
the only one
FSXairpilot 3 years ago
Very sad to see such a beautiful bird go down.
Omps1976 3 years ago 5
agreed, this is the only footage
FSXairpilot 3 years ago
I didn't see an actual collision but that must be the explanation.
Curious to me that a test aircraft would be flown on such a cloudy day and with other aircraft very close by. Just being a monday morning quarterback I guess.
granskare 3 years ago
it was an unofficial photo shoot for xb-70 on a magazine but however the aircraft somehow got the f-104 to get onto it and it collided. I will later make a vid of the xb-70 on fsx but i am still preparing
FSXairpilot 3 years ago
ok, thanks and for the next one, maybe add text to help viewers? such as to say, here is the f104 going to collide with the xb70, stuff like that. how is your model coming along? basicmodelling has his p40 model and one scene shows a diarama with p40 in front in distance a B17 - that was realistic even though the two types likely never shared air fields :P
granskare 3 years ago