Talk:XB-70 Valkyrie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the XB-70 Valkyrie article.
Article policies
Good article XB-70 Valkyrie was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 3, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Dihedral angle

NASA historian Richard Hallion discussed the XB-70 research program in his book "On the Frontier," part of NASA's Special Publications series. I seem to recall that the dihedral angle of #2 ship varied from that of #1 by about 2 degrees, after flight tests with #1. This helped #2 fly faster. --MWS 19:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


According to the Discovery Wings show, the angle was 5 degrees. Who's correct?

Aircraft #1 had a dihedral angle of 0 degrees. Aircraft #2 had a dihedral angle of 5 degrees. Twredfish 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It was a design change to improve stability. Subsequent ones would have stayed with the 5 degrees. -Fnlayson 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lift drag ratio comment

someone asked this on the actual page. I am just moving it to discussion Edit: the D-21 was a pilotless drone- how could it possibly best the XB-70's record of highest lift-to-drag ratio on a manned aircraft? --Mitchowen 00:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed the same thing. Dumb.A2Kafir 03:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Clumsy wording, but I suppose it could mean (I am guessing on this) that the XB-70 achieved the record of highest l/d of any aircraft, and the record was broken by the unmanned drone, which now holds the record. But as the article states, the XB-70 (still) holds the record for manned craft. -- Paul Richter 09:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm 98% sure that it should be the highest for any *supersonic* manned aircraft. The wing trick gives an extra 22-30% lift for no extra drag, but supersonic L/D sucks to start with. I can't find a reference either way though, so I can't fix it.WolfKeeper 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Subsonic often do *much* better than this.WolfKeeper 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
None of this is relevant anymore -- text from old revisions. Twredfish 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Highest manned, powered L/D ratio" should remain, but we need a citation for it. If it is higher than any other powered & manned, it should state so. If it only qualifies as highest supersonic, then use, "manned, powered, supersonic"BQZip01 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Aerodynamic efficiency of the 767-200 can be judged by the maximum lift-drag ratio, estimated to be about 18.[1]
L/D ratio: Boeing B707-320 19.4[2]
L/D ratio: B-52 21.5 (estimated)[3]
L/D ratio: B-58 Hustlier 11.3 (without weapons/fuel pod)[4]
L/D ratio: FB-111 Aardvark 15.8 (supersonic-capable, though a swing-wing, L/D of 15.8 is undoubtedly when not swung back.)[5]
Above cited ratios are by me, keeping notes for the main page. Fuller explanation added to main page. Twredfish 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There's references that the drop wings increase L/D by about 40%. Concorde managed a L/D of 7.14 at supersonic speeds. If that's typical (and I would expect it to be on the high end of typical since Concorde's designers *had* to get good range) Thus we would SWAG about a L/D of maybe 11 for this aircraft. And we know that the XB-70 didn't have particularly good range, which is what L/D primarily increases.WolfKeeper 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This document gives CL and Cd predictions at different mach: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800009724_1980009724.pdf
I get a L/D of about 6 at Mach 2.5 from table 2.WolfKeeper 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for dropping the XB-70 project

This article claims that the U-2 shootdown was the caused the project to be abandoned. I think the real reason was that rocket powered SAMs became so fast that no jet powered craft could outfly them. There is also the issue of sub launched nuke missiles taking over the job of being the guaranteed second strike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.196.57 (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Your theory lacks a basis since the SR-71 (with similar flight capabilities) was never shot down and flew well into the 1990s. In addition, please get a user name and sign your comments with 4 tildes. BQZip01 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I believe the reason was due to the mid-air collision with the F-104 chase plane, and due to the fact that by the end of the project each plane costed ten times their weight in gold.--LWF 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The "weight in gold" benchmark is totally meaninless. If you take into account ALL development costs almost any state of the art system will cost more than their weight in gold. BTW, the cost of a B-2 bomber was $2,1 Billion for 21 operational planes (+ 5-6 test articles). XB-70's cost cited in 1961 = $700M. Converted to 1981 $ that's $1,9B - $2,1B for only 2 planes!!! Had the B-2 been cancelled after 2 planes were built they would probably have had a price tag in excess of $10B. You must also take into account the costs associated with developing Valkyrie's engines (that were to be shared with the defunct F-108A "Rapier" project). The B-2 on the other hand does not require high performance engines and IIRC has something developed from off the shelf GE turbofans. --Hyperboreean archer 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC) http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-70.htm
Added cited reference as to program cancellation. LWF is incorrect. The program was canceled and turned to a 2-aircraft pure research program long before the crash of aircraft #2. Twredfish 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In a related topic, I have removed the portion about Soviet air defenses being a valid threat. It was full of inaccuracies, including ignoring that the B-70 was designed with defeating Soviet air defenses in mind. The Soviets may have been able to track it, but they had nothing capable of bringing it down, and until proof of such is presented, such wild claims should not be present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.225.177 (talk • contribs)

  • Nothing wild about it. Anti-aircraft missiles is one reason cited when canceling the B-70. See the paragraph starting with the U-2 downing. And all that is sourced, so don't claim that's inaccurate too. It was designed for high altitude flying not the terrain following AF designed went to afterwards. -Fnlayson 04:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There was literally nothing the Soviets had with the performance necessary that could bring it down. I'll quote from "The Manned Missile - The story of the B-70"

"A subsonic bomber such as the B-52, detected by the Russians at the Finnish coast and headed for the Moscow area, would bring upon itself fighters based as far as the northern and southern periphery of western Russia by the time it reached its target. The B-70 reduces the size of this capable fighter force by a factor of thirty-two. Its exposure time on such a run is so unbelievably slight that only a few interceptors could get to it in time. From initial detection off Leningrad to its target near Moscow is an eight-minute flight for the B-70. Since it would take seven minutes for the Soviet defense network to respond, the B-70 would be exposed to actual fire for a total of about two minutes in and out of the target area. During this time it has a high passive defensive capability with its arsenal of infrared flares, ECM, gear, chaff, etc. Also, because of its speed and altitude it would release its bomb thirty miles from target, a long slant distance for surface-to-air missiles to reach.

This review, however, gives the defense an advantage it would not have under combat conditions when the B-70 would lob megaton air-launched ballistic missiles ahead of it to degrade the well-ordered defense system, disrupt communications and control systems. The chaos of combat itself would work for the attacking bomber. A ten-minute time delay in the long chain of events from detection to interdiction decreases the number of intercept weapons that would reach the Mach Three strike force by 85 per cent ( compared with 47 per cent for the Mach 1.5 force). But the B-70's best shield against the fighter is its maneuverability-cum-speed, A B-70 on a deep penetration into the Soviet Union presumably would be tracked by the air-defense network, which would vector an interceptor to a predicted intercept point a considerable distance ahead of the fast-flying bomber. But by making a thirty-degree turn ten minutes before collision time, the B-70 pilot places himself a cool 146 nautical miles from the spot where the battle was to have been joined and where the fighter pilot now waits in a lonely sky.

The Soviets do not have a Mach Three defense nor, as the U-2 program proved, do they have a 70,000-foot reach." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.225.177 (talk) 18:56, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Technically the soviets did have a mach 3 defense -- the air to air missile carried by the Mig-25. That missile (I forget the name) reached higher than Mach 3, when coupled with the speed of the launching Mig, which had to be moving quite fast at time of launch 76.67.93.100 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Gamma

  • The B-70's days were numbered by the time the MiG-25 first flew in the mid-1960s. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes. Might I suggest a slight re-arrange though? The design section should be just that. It contains quite a bit of history. That would be OK but for the fact that the "flight history" contains history such that the article appears disjointed. Also 'mistaken lift to drag belief' repeated twice.
2. Factually accurate?: Fails criteria 2(a) - there are many important statements that aren't cited. The major ones I can see are; Soviet concern and development of the Mig-25 in response, the speed of the aircraft, the development of the XF-108, the change of doctrine away from high level recce to low level, the first three paragraphs of "Flight history", the Sukhoi T-4 benefitted from the developments? How exactly?, and finally the statement that the sonic booms of this aircraft contributed to SST cancellation
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes. Get's a bit bogged down in L/D ration in my opinion, but not to the detriment of accessability. Engines - new development? Cancelled also? Only mention of the manufacturer is in infobox. This warrants a mention in article body - perhaps along with where it fits in its corporate history; Was the cancellation a major blow? Did the technology help the company's other projects?
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
5. Article stability? Yes
6. Images?: Good.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Mark83 13:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

XB-70 Valkyrie
SCORES IN KEY AREAS
Legality A A A A
Neutrality A A A A
Writing A A A A
Sources B B B
Citations B B B
04:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


It appears to be a good article with not many sources and barely formatted citations. The writing is good and appears to be neutral. All the pictures are in Wikimedia Commons, so they are of course acceptable for GA. Find more sources and insert more citations, especially in paragraphs which are lacking them (also you need >2 sentences a paragraph), so keep the up the writing quality. Regards, ◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems very lacking in background & development on the B-70 before it was canceled and the prototypes converted to test planes. I'm going to try and expand on these areas. -Fnlayson 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the references directs to a Wikipedia mirror, which is not an acceptable outside source. Reference #4 (dealing with sonic boom abatement) has a disclaimer (with the Wikipedia logo) at the bottom of the page. The other references appear to be legitimate, although ref #7 links to a site that was last updated in 1999. Horologium t-c 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll see what I can find of the sonic boom thing, probably covered in NASA report. I don't see a problem with the 1999 page, since the subject happened in the 1950s and '60s. -Fnlayson 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason I mentioned the age of the page was because it was an odd choice to use to support the statement that "[some] claim that the XB-70 have the highest lift-to-drag ratio of any aircraft". Maybe a fresher source should be used to support that statement, unless it is a very small minority opinion, in which case the paragraph should be reworded to eliminate the statement (and remove the reference). Horologium t-c 16:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Yea, you're right. I should have checked. I agree that highest lift/drag statement should be yanked if it can't be supported. -Fnlayson 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't agree with it, it seems to be an urban legend, but it's probably notable, a lot of people (regrettably) actually believe it, but it's not credible (Concorde seems to have a better L/D for example) [1]WolfKeeper 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I know that the XB-70 doesn't have the highest lift-to-drag ratio, but the reference we are discussing was supplied to support the assertion that "some claim..."; it is quite stale, and I'd prefer something fresher if we are going to include any discussion about the incorrect belief. If it is widely held, a better source ought to be easy to find. And I wouldn't really call it an urban legend, since 99% of the population would give you a blank look if you started arguing about lift-to-drag ratios of various aircraft. (grin) Horologium t-c 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I did a few internet searches, including (ratio "B-70" OR Valkyrie "lift to drag"). A few pages are copies of this wiki article. The others are XB-70 Valkyrie Story & Flight of the Valkyrie. I doubt if either meets the WP:Verifiability requirements. -Fnlayson 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Well, I'd prefer dubious concepts such as 'freshness' don't gate article reviews. Can you give me a reference to this being a guideline within the wikipedia? I've never heard of anything like it before; and I can't imagine it ever being agreed to.WolfKeeper 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
                • I'm not going to rate this article, regardless of whether the link stays in or not. I'm just pointing out things that I noticed while checking out the article. I ran across it because it is the second oldest GA nominee that hasn't been closed yet, so I swung by to take a look. As to my concern, there is nothing that says that old links are bad, but WP:V might be an issue. Horologium t-c 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Edits by fnlayson removed the comments about "Some sources claim that..." Very old versions of the wiki article flatly supported the patently false "Valkyrie HAS the highest lift to drag." I toned the language down, to, "Some sources wrongly state that..." Two pages with detail on the Valkyrie support that, but I had the wrong citation for them. Pages are mentioned above that falsely claim that. That at least offers a little history on why the admittedly clumsy section is in there. Perhaps better to simply give some LD numbers like is done now and leave that for readers to understand, or remove it outright. Is it worth having a paragraph in there to refute a false webpage, other than perhaps to dodge future reversions by well-meaning but uninformed authors?Twredfish 01:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • I couldn't find what I thought was a decent reference to back claims for highest. I think the cited numbers speaking for themselves. The claims for highest L/D didn't seem that wide spread on the internet searches I did. -Fnlayson 01:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comments to consider for FA (not GA)

Please consider these comments for taking the article to FA. I don't think that these comments play a major part at GA level.

  • why is "North American" bolded? remove it
  • " in response to the threat such a high speed bomber posed" - doesn't sound right. copyedit required
  • "The proposed cost of the aircraft, along with changes in the technological environment led to the cancellation of the program" - need year of cancellation
  • "to replace these bombers by 1965." - which is the reference to "these" - B52/B58. disclaimer: i am not a major military terminology geek and hence don't know if B58 is a bomber or not.
  • "work would eventually lead to the B-70 Valkyrie, a much more capable design" - need clarification here on 2 aspects. (1) Is XB-70 and B-70 the same aircraft (Infact i wonder if "X" designation is for proto machine and thru production?). Why does the article not refer to XB-70 outside the lead para and refer to just the B-70?(2) What is "capable design" phrase intended for?
  • "The Valkyrie was a large " - should it not be "The Valkyrie was to be a large "
  • "As a cost saving measure, the engines and many subsystems were engineered to be common between the two aircraft." - needs reference?
  • fleet was canceled n" - replace "n" with "in" [i do some diligent reading! - :O)]
  • SUGGESTION: Any input on what type of objectives did the research program have? Did it ever achieve these objectives?
  • "sound from the sonic boom reached the ground to an unacceptable degree" - any data available?
  • "SST programs" - what is SST programs? Is it supersonic transport? That is not obvious.
  • SUGGESTION: Can you please create a stub page for Carl Cross? Else, remove the wikilink. As a preference, I would like the former, though it is your call.
  • While the pilots involved were experienced pilots," - needs copyedits
  • "Chuck Yeager has " - provide his reference to the overall accident
  • "The Soviet Sukhoi T-4 was a medium-range bomber/missile carrier prototype designed to take advantage of many of the advances made during the development of the XB-70." - i am bemused and confounded. how did a Soviet aircraft take advantage of US airplane?
  • "General Electric YJ93" - provide stub article or remove wikilink
  • "Yeager, Chuck and Janos, Leo" - remove wikilink for Leo Janos or provide atleast stub article
  • reference 4 currently states "^ [1]" - provide explanation of the link

Once these comments are addressed, i think the article is good to go to FA. --Kalyan 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This article is lacking much background on the B-70 program to meet breath of coverage requirement. I don't see how it is ready for GA, let alone FA. -Fnlayson 17:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
A couple of observations, in response to Kalyan's comments:
  • "North American" is North American Aviation, the manufacturer of the aircraft. A quick perusal of US military aircraft articles indicates that the convention is to bold the manufacturer and the aircraft designation, as in B-52 Stratofortress, F-4 Phantom II, and T-38 Talon, which open with Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, and Northrup T-38 Talon, respectively.
  • "B" in US military aircraft designations is "Bomber" and "X" is "experimental". Because of the novelty of much of the technology used in this aircraft, the first models were experimental in nature, hence the "XB" (Experimental Bomber). The production version would have been the B-70, as noted throughout the article. (Prototype aircraft carry the designator "Y", FYI; cf Northrop YF-23.) A handy reference is here; Wikipedia might be able to use something similar, or provide a link, perhaps?
Horologium t-c 14:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've tried to address Kalyan's comments & questions in the article. OK, it was my understanding that the X modifier means an early prototype and the Y modifier means a pre-production prototype. I guess it's really an experimental version of the aircraft. -Fnlayson 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments Kalyan. Another set of eyes to review is good. I'm trying to address your comments/questions in the article. But I've had little to do with it until recently and probably can't address them all. -Fnlayson 06:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Although the article has undergone extensive changes since this list was posted, a few of these were still in the current version so I have addressed them to the extent possible. A few I disagreed with, and took in a different direction, hopefully to the same end. Maury (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA closure

I think this article has been in GA for quite a long time without any consensus. I am going to remove the article from GA and will in the next couple of days, summarize all outstanding issues for the author/workgroup to address before this can be re-nom to GA. --Kalyan 09:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variant entries

The last 2 entries are supposed to come from the NASA B-70 Aircraft Study. I believe they are inaccurate based on my Jenkins book.

  • B-70A - Planned fleet of 50 operational bombers (with wing-tip fuel tanks) canceled in December 1959.
  • RS-70 - Alternate planned fleet of 50 reconnaissance aircraft (with a crew of four and in-flight refueling capability) was evaluated in February 1959.

Volume II (39 MB) of that report is only part with historical background that I see. It has a 1955-56 SAC Bomber on page II-12 (V2 file page 22) with the wingtip fuel tanks. It then shows a different B-70 design on the next page without the wingtip fuel tanks. Also, that's the way the designations work. The B-70 would be the production version of the XB-70. The RS-70 figure shows the 4 person crew and air refueling interface. Where are the quantities listed? From what I've read these varied and were cut back to try and save the program. -Fnlayson 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The NASA Study Volume 1 Page I-307 shows a count of 62 vehicles (2 XB-70A, 1 XB-70B(YB-70A), 10 YB-70A, 50 RS-70/B-70A). Gunter 10:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I think all that is covered in the Development and Variants sections now. -Fnlayson 02:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subcontractors long list

This list was added to the article a day or two ago.

  • Aeronca: Folding Wing Tip Assembly, Wing Tip Box, and Honeycomb Panels
  • Airesearch: Central Air Data Subsystem
  • Automation: minor Wing Rib Assembly, Wing Spars, and Edge Members
  • AVCO: Aft Section – Upper Fuselage Intermediate Fuselage, and Honeycomb Panels
  • Beech: Alert Pod Subsystem
  • Bendix: Secondary Power System Transmission Shaft
  • Boeing: Fixed Wing Structure
  • Chance Vought: Horizontal and Vertical Stabilizers
  • Cleveland Pneumatic: Landing Gear Subsystem
  • Convair: Inboard Wing Boxes, Folding Wing Tip, Sine Waves, and Sine Wave Spars
  • Curtis Wright: Wingtip Fold Actuating Subsystem
  • General Dynamics: Honeycomb Panels
  • General Electric: YJ93 Engines, Secondary Power Generating Subsystem Controls, and Aircraft Generators
  • Hamilton Standard: Environmental Conditioning System, and Air Induction Control System
  • Hayden: High Temperature Switches
  • Houston Fearless: Escape Capsule Ballistic Stabilization Booms
  • IBM: AN/ASQ028(V) Bombing Navigation and Missile Guidance Subsystem
  • Koehler: Fuel Level Control Valves
  • Liquidometer: Fuel Management System
  • Lockheed: Upper Intermediate Fuselage
  • LTV: Leading Edges, and Honeycomb Panels
  • Marquardt: Duct Buzz and Inlet Unstart Sensors
  • Micro Switch: High Temperature Switches
  • Motorola: Mission and Traffic Control, and Antenna Subsystem Group
  • Northrup: Honeycomb Panels
  • Parker: Fuel Tanks Inerting and Pressurization Subsystem
  • Rocket Power: Escape Capsule Ballistic Rocket Catapult
  • Rohr: Elevons, Leading Edges, Bulkheads, and Honeycomb Panels
  • Solar Aircraft: Engine Extraction Air Ducting Subsystem
  • Sperry Gyroscope: Auxiliary Gyro Platform Subsystem
  • Statham: High Temperature Transducers
  • Sunstrand: Secondary Power Generating System
  • TRW: Fuel System Simulator
  • Vickers: Hydraulic Pumps, Hydraulic Motors, and Emergency Electrical Generator Hydraulic Motor
  • Westinghouse: AN/ALQ-27 Defensive Subsystem Group
  • Whittaker: Engine Compartment Cooling System
  • Zenith Plastic: Mission and Traffic Control

I think it is excessively long the way it's laid out. Writing about th emain subcontractors in paragraph form would be better. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything ... [or] Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". -Fnlayson 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wingweb.co.uk

I run a site titled Air Vectors that covers military aircraft and gets cited here and there on Wikipedia. I don't normally touch wikipedia articles other than to correct typos and the like, but I just found out about a site named "Wingweb.co.uk" which is also cited here and there on Wikipedia (for example in this article) ... but whose aviation articles are largely or entirely downloads of Air Vectors articles -- advertized as "original content & images" though they also lifted many of my photos and artwork.

I have no fuss to make. I just want to make sure the Wikipedia community knows that Wingweb.co.uk is a ripoff operation. Cheers / MrG 4.225.208.126 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. That is pretty shifty by them. -Fnlayson 15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You meant to say "shifty"? LOL Thanks for the heads-up, Greg. FWIW Bzuk 16:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Yes, shifty which would generally be complementary in sports. But not here. -Fnlayson 16:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, complement or compliment withstanding, it was a bit of doggy do! Bzuk 16:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC). (Now don't get me started on verbal gymnastics!)
Shifty, shady, underhanded, whatever pick a word you like.. -Fnlayson 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Boron fuels

How certain is the statememt that the "boron fuel" project was cancelled in 1959? Callery Chemical were still making it (boron hydride) in 1995 (as for that matter were a couple of Soviet plants - I was offered the stuff in commercial volumes from Russia and the Ukraine in the early 1990's)Tibb the cat 01:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I thought that meant the Air Force's boron fuel program was canceled in 1959. -Fnlayson 04:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no problem with buying boron, but it doesn't work out well in jet engines, I can't recall off hand whether the boron damages the combustion chamber or whether it suffers from combustion instability, but it's one of these things that works great on paper... but not for real in an aircraft.WolfKeeper 06:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specifications

I've just been doing some reading and I've come across some information which on contrary to what the article has. Under "maximum speed" mach 3.1 is written. This is actually closer to the "maximum cruising speed" of mach 3.08. In fact the fastest ever speed recorded by the aircraft was mach 3.8 on 12 april 1966. I'm going to go through and change that. I'm getting this from my catalogue of "world aircraft information files".Polmerfox (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through a added some information about the aircraft and different facets and they are now under the heading "design". I'm not very good at referencing and I'm only new a editing wikipedia. Could someone please add in the citations? I got the information from "world aircraft information files - file 879 sheet 6". Thanks for you help.Polmerfox (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting your edits. Your information would suggest that the XB-70 currently holds the world speed record, which it does not. Your information also appears to be cut and paste from the same source. --Asams10 (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The Mach 3.8 max speed is just fiction. It was designed for Mach 3 flight and hit a max Mach 3.05 in flight testing. Wikipedia has a policy about using Reliable Sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm guessing the "3.8" number was supposed to read "3.08" and someone fat-fingered the zero out of existance. Maury (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)