Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!BIESEL@RUTGERS.ARPA
From: BIESEL@RUTGERS.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Supersonic Bombers
Message-ID: <13239@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Sep-84 12:17:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.13239
Posted: Fri Sep  7 12:17:11 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 19:53:39 EDT
Lines: 24


Concerning "unsuccessful" supersonic bombers, both the B-58 and the FB-111
have seen service with the Air Force, as opposed to the XB-70, which never got
beyond the prototype stage.
Concerning "gimmicks" to win defense contracts, ignorance of aerodynamics and
structural dynamics of aircraft should not be sufficient motivation for
flaming about aerospace companies. The XB-70 had dropped tips, and the FB-111
and B-1 have wings that pivot for very sound aerodynamic reasons. The same is
true of the forward swept wings of the X-29.
Finally, the XB-70 crash was caused by a collision with a chase plane taking
pictures. The chase plane came in contact with the aft wing structure of the
XB-70, causing enough damage the make the XB-70 uncontrollable. It was
definitely not a question of a slow and cumbersome aircraft being unable to
avoid an impending collision. Given the position of the chase plane impact,
the pilot of the XB-70 could not even see the chase plane. In any case, it
ought to be pretty obvious that a large aircraft is less maneuverable than
a small one, and the XB-70 crash hardly makes a statement about the relative
vulnerability of US bombers vs. Soviet fighters.
The crash of the B-1 prototype is still being investigated, and the exact
sequence of events is not known. Until they are known, comments about causes
of the crash, the maneuverability - or lack of it - of the B-1 are conjecture
at best.
	Pete.
-------