Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!rutgers!att!cbnews!fiddler@Sun.COM
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B1A vs. B1B
Message-ID: <6320@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 May 89 03:37:14 GMT
References: <6185@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6257@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

In article <6257@cbnews.ATT.COM>, tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) writes:
> The XB-70 was going to be the ultimate in high-altitude precision
> bombing. It did pioneer some titanium construction technologies, which
> I have heard were later applied to the SR-71. I don't know much about

The two aircraft's development overlapped quite a bit, so the SR-71
wouldn't have benefitted much from the XB-70 program.  Doubt if
Lockheed talked all that much with Northa American, either.

The B-70 may have used some titanium, but the majority of its
structure and skin was stainless steel.  They spent quite a bit
getting steel honeycomb bonding down right.  Even then, the faster
bird (XB-70A) ended up having speed limitations set on it after
it lost some skin during high-speed flight because of bonding
failures.