Talk:North American XB-70 Valkyrie

message: 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)
replies: text: See above concern in related topic about the Jacobsen work being used in the bibliography. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So, go for FA now? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible cover up on the XB-70 crash 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Status 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Largest control surfaces? 

message: :"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Altitude vs attitude 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on North American XB-70 Valkyrie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311031636/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=592 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=592
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628163241/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/exhibits/r%26d/index.asp to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/exhibits/r%26d/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025174047/http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/encyclopedia_postww2_bombers.pdf to http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/encyclopedia_postww2_bombers.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fascinating PDF published by the Air Force 

message: 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)
thread_title:  engines destroyed in 65? 

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