Talk:North American XB-70 Valkyrie/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

So, go for FA now?

I believe fnlayson's CITE issues have been addressed in the intervening time. If so, does anyone have any other issues before we go for an FA? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See above concern in related topic about the Jacobsen work being used in the bibliography. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC).

I've removed the section. It contained no factual details that add to the section within the article, and it is duplicated without the conspiracy-like claim on the author's own web page. I have also removed the ref and replaced that with a link in the externs, which is self-supporting due to the photography. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible cover up on the XB-70 crash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzmqxtp6Wk

I am new to Wikipedia editing but would like to edit this article. See the above you tube where the Master Sergeant in charge of center scheduling alleges a cover up with the military. This is a credible source. I videotaped the interview. I tried to put the link in the article but someone keeps deleting it. How can I get it in there. The public deserves to know, even if it is over 40 years late. --Tedw22 (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Ted Wegener

This video was discussed some in the "Allegations of "hidden facts" on crash" section a little up the page. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, something is wrong here. We have an eyewitness who was there and who says he cancelled the flight and then it was covered up later. And, apparently, its not credible unless a "historian" references it. You mean a second hand reference by a "historian" is better than a first person eyewitness testimony? I think readers of wikipedia should be able to go to the link and make up their minds for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedw22 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong here - we have an unattributed Youtube video interviewing someone who claims to a Master Sergeant, who is making these allegations. There is nothing to show that he is who he says he is or that this his tale has any basis in truth (and from the discussion above it appears to be nonsense anyway). According to wikipedia policy, this is unsuitable for inclusion in the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Status

isn't the status "cancelled" rather than retired - the XB-70 never entered service. Similarly there shouldn't be a section of "operational history" - "development history" would be more appropriate.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The B-70 was canceled. The XB-70 served for a while in testing aerodynamics and then was retired. Hcobb (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The XB-70 served an experimental aircraft in support of sonic boom testing. This testing was totally unrelated to developing the aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Largest control surfaces?

I don't remember where, but I distinctly remember a line about the Valkyrie wingtips being the largest moving control surfaces yet fitted to an (operational) aircraft. If this is verifiable, I think it's worthy of noting in this article, and possibly in the List of Large Airplanes article. Steve8394 (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Altitude vs attitude

"At high altitude and high speed, the XB-70A experienced unwanted changes in altitude."

Yes, altitude stability is the problem. Of course, altitude doesn't change by itself but by (minute) attitude changes, but if you have more than extremely slight attitude problems at Mach 3 your plane will just desintegrate. "At Mach 3, just one degree of pitch would send the XB-70 into a 3,000 foot per minute change of altitude." Please check with source or supply alternate WP:RS before reverting again. --Zac67 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have that book. It or another one on the Blackbirds or Valkyrie refers to these altitude changes as "porpoising" as I recall. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly – porpoising is oscillating around a certain altitude like a porpoise over and under the water surface. --Zac67 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

ArmaLite AR-5 survival rifle

Is the article on the ArmaLite AR-5 survival rifle an appropriate See also link? According to its article, it was originally developed for XB-70 aircrew. The claim is referenced but I don't have access to the cited source. OTOH I have no reason to doubt it. So it seems to me that there is a case for having a link in the XB-70 article. But it is such an unexpected link to find that it keeps getting reverted (I did so myself at first). Does anybody object to it being restored? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is an appropriate link at all for the See also section on this aircraft. While the aircraft may be important to the gun, the gun isn't significant to the aircraft. We shouldn't be adding links that people will have to follow to work out why the link was there.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Makes more sense to me to include it in the body of the article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If the rifle was developed for the XB-70, why does it pre-date it by some years?

AIUI, this rifle was developed for the general problem of strategic bomber crew survival. That includes B-52s and B-58s, maybe even the earlier aircraft, and these all pre-date the XB-70. There's just no reason to link it to this specific aircraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. I made the edit re. the AR-5. Interacting w/the above from top down: (1) I looked for some place to include this new info and did not think of "See also" until I saw the subsection of "Related." Hard to argue that the AR-5 is not "related" to the XB-70. (2) There is an image of the reference at the first of two unnamed links in the AR-5's "External links" section. Here's the link: https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=123&t=608019 You want to go ~2/3rds the way down to the post dated "3/26/2013 10:01:17 AM EST". This direct link to the image might be easier: http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/ewasashinki/GampA1971AnnualPetersenPublishing254mb_zps2ff9ab9a.jpg

In case the links die or the image is pulled, here's the relevant info. The gun was a prototype "proffered by Colonel Burton Miller of ArmaLite". Acc to Mel Tappan's Survival Guns, Col. Miller (USAF-RET) was Vice President of Armalite, so presumably he knew what he was talking about when he loaned the AR-5 to Gun & Ammo for testing & evaluation. See: https://books.google.com/books?id=NoDKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT428&lpg=PT428&dq=Colonel+Burton+Miller+armalite&source=bl&ots=Q6VpTri0Ha&sig=fb7aIlcl8Yg9xSAxiVRqtfv4zKo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIgL_ch93JAhUP6GMKHQEjDn0Q6AEIQDAG#v=onepage&q=Colonel%20Burton%20Miller%20armalite&f=false

Here's the relevant quote from the article: "The germ of the idea behind this piece is intertwined with the development of the abortive XB-70 manned bomber for the United States Air Force. The Air Force needed a lightweight survival rifle which was to be stowed in survival kits aboard the aircraft, so it had to be light and accurate." I'm assuming they got that info along w/the rifle from Col. Miller.

(3) I think Steelpillow may have looked at the AR-5 Wiki entry via a mobile device. The AR-5 Mobile Wiki page did not update w/my Sunday edits until this afternoon. Thus, the sentence w/the XB-70 and the reference were not viewable in Mobile Wiki until this afternoon.

(4) Nigel, I put a parenthetical that explained the relevance of the link, why it was there. Also, the link was not under a general "See also" but under the "Related" subcategory. Again, I do not see how you can argue the AR-5 and the XB-70 are not related. The latter program mandated the former. If a special helmet or food had to be developed for the XB-70's crew, would you argue those should not be linked/mentioned somewhere?

The AR-5 was, in a way, a spin-off just the way the space blankets and many other things are NASA spin-offs. One of the great strengths, values and pleasures of Wiki is its links that allow you to quickly and easily follow connections you might otherwise never discover.

(5) Faceless Enemy: If any of you can think of a better location for a link and/or info about the AR-5, go for it! Perhaps embedded in the main body is better, like the way "Skylab food" is embedded in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#Habitability

(6) Andy, both programs were initiated back in the early to mid-'50s. Naturally, even though the AR-5 was radically advanced for its era, its program took much less time to complete than the XB-70's. As the quote above from the reference indicates, the AR-5 was developed specifically for the XB-70.

Hope that answers your questions. I'll check back this coming weekend to see if you have more questions. Phantom in ca (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

To me, this is exactly the kind of thing that See also links are meant for. To quote from WP:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." But it should go in the main See also section, not the one on Related because that is meant for related aircraft types.

The link that was posted did include an explanation of the connection, so there would be no risk of puzzlement.

As pointed out, the gun has no relevance to the plane itself. There is nowhere in the main article where it could sensibly be mentioned. The See also section is the only place left.

So I don't see those objections as valid. Rather, it looks more like Phantom in ca has taught us aero enthusiasts something we didn't know. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Back again. Seems like there's no new questions/issues. I'll let Steelpillow restore the link/info where they think best.

Since Gen. LaMay played a large role in the XB-70, I thought you'd get a kick out of this photo showing that the 1st AR-5 was given to him, as seen in his signature on a small plaque on the left side of its magazine well:

http://s271.photobucket.com/user/halpark/media/IMG_0007.jpg.html

Phantom in ca (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating PDF published by the Air Force

Hi folks. If you have the slightest interest in the B-70 (of course you do, or you would never read this) you MUST download this PDF published by the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) in November 2020...

https://media.defense.gov/2020/Nov/23/2002540204/-1/-1/1/B-70%20VARIANTS.PDF

You will find a treasure trove of diagrams, photos, and artwork. I couldn't find any copyright notices, or any 'ALL RIGHTS RESERVED' statements, or (c) strings, anywhere in the document, so I suppose the contents are fair game for inclusion in the article, or on commons. I added the link as a 'cite book' as the last entry in the external links. Enjoy. — Itsfullofstars (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

engines destroyed in 65?

I'm finding it astounding they had 6 spare engines on hand to re-engine the thing within 4 months.. In any case the engines being destroyed is not mentioned at all in the cited article. Gjxj (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Why vido

E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.161.2 (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)