Talk:Convair B-58 Hustler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wing Loading

The B-58 didn't have a light wing-loading when fully loaded. It weighed around 176,000 lbs with 1,542 square feet of wing, that yields a very high wing-loading. As the fuel burns off, the wing-loading does drop down to a substantial lower level and by landing it's pretty decent. It's landing speeds were still rather fast AVKent882 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone coming across this - the reason that the wing-loading seems so high is because for the above calculation, the *Maximum takeoff weight* was used - this weight is hardly ever reached in practice, with combat weights possibly as much as 30-50% below this absolute limit. Usually these more practical figures are used to quote its "real" performance. So yes, at maxTOW, the hustler would have a higher wing loading than the F104 starfighter, but in practice it would have radically different performance (a bomber's weight of course can be varied within a very wide range, making this issue more acute.)

B-58 Hustler in Little Rock, Arkansas, USA

Around 1965, third grade to fifth grade to me, my dad was a navigator on the B-58 aircraft at the Stategic Air Command (SAC) Little Rock (Arkansas) Air force Base (AFB). His main reason for switching from the B-52 he says was the ability to survive a crash (the ejection system). They held ping-pong tournaments. (I guess eye hand coordination was a factor.) I fished to help supply food, as my mother always complained there wasn't enough money for us five kids. I remember having a picnic lunch with us kids, my mother, and my father in his flight suit (including helmet with oxygen supply) with the B-58s in sight on the other side of a barbed wire fence on the flight line; with nuclear bombs that my father was to use to kill millions of people if he was ordered to do so. People that don't understand the cold war was a real war just don't understand. 4.250.138.177 01:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Just adding a few more memories of this same era: In 1967-1969 (my first & second grade) my dad was a B-58 pilot stationed at LRAFB, and also was selected out of B-52 service (he couldn't fit in the cockpit of a U-2). I recall the same picnics at the Alert Facility described above. We initially lived on-base, where the engine tests were rumored to be timed to coincide with Gunsmoke, and where we always had to stand outside and watch the columns of black smoke and wonder whose aircraft didn't make it. One of the B-58's many unique features was its four engines with afterburners, used on takeoff for dramatic climb-outs and acceleration once at altitude. Afterburners are literally groundshaking. We moved to Squaw Island (probably now renamed), in North Little Rock prior to Nixon cancelling the B-58 program for good. It was a popular new subdivision for B-58 crews: I recall that my dad's DSO (defensive systems operator) lived three houses up the street, and the base commander lived a block or so away. Early one morning, my dad had to fly, and had been razzed the previous night for leaving the base commander's party early... at about 0700 hrs, he commenced to delay the full afterburner climb-out until he was directly over the subdivision. Twice. Quite the exciting morning in our neighborhood. I have to agree with the author above - the cold-war was a real war, and my dad fought it. He flew the Cuban Missile Crisis and three tours in Southeast Asia. His favorite aircraft during his career in the USAF was the B-58. Horseheaven 07:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)H. Lippold

B-58 at Dyass AFB

I am certain that there was a B-58 Hustler at Dyass AFB air museum.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.189.252.111 (talk • contribs).

Name origins

An IP user claimed:

The B-58 was named "the Hustler" because of the recorded female voice used to warn crew members of trouble. The box that contained the recordings was called "the Bitch Box."

Color me skeptical. Can someone provide a credible reference for this? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed unlikely -- the name came from Convair engineering (most of whom wouldn't have heard the recorded voice) before the plane went into service, and "hustle" just means "to hurry". Kaleja 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense and other comments. The origin of the nickname (which did indeed come from Convair engineering) is given in an August 1961 article in Popular Science.John Simpson54 (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see any explanation of the source in that article? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Quoth Popular Science, AUG-1961, page 182:

This was the B-58. At first a secret concept with no name, at Convair's Fort Worth plant, it was one day being described with zest by Robert Widmer, chief engineer, to Stan Brown, another Convair official.

"From what you say", remarked Brown, "this plane is really going to hustle. Why not call it The Hustler?"

So it was christened, and so it performs.

Last January (1960), the B-58 hustled its way to six official world speed records, with varying payloads.

-- Maikel (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed those appendix pages later on. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. No hustle, erm, hassle. Maikel (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm%7Caccessdate=2006-04-22
  • In A-6 Intruder on Sat Jun 3 22:43:46 2006, 404 Not found
  • In A-6 Intruder on Tue Jun 6 23:30:02 2006, Socket Error: (111, 'Connection refused')
  • In B-24 Liberator on Tue Jun 13 22:52:48 2006, 404 Not found

---

maru (talk) contribs 02:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Range

It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union extensively deployed.
Yet the article states that the plane only has a 1500-mile combat radius. How could it have done anything useful in a strategic attack against the USSR? The Russians had almost no defensive systems within 1500 miles of North America, even when you count Siberia. -Rolypolyman 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

With refuelling, and use of cruise/dash sprints profiles, the B-58 would be capable of intercontinental missions. FWIW Bzuk 20:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC).

The B-58 was originally designed for a high-high-high mission profile, giving it a 3,500 nm range, extending this to 4,000 nm in the B model. This was not terribly useful for CONUS based strategic missions, but was extremely useful for missions based out of existing B-47 bases in Spain and England (the B-47 had similar or shorter range). When the mission profile changed to high-low-low the range dropped with it to 1,500 nm. With the exception of Turkey, this rendered all of the FOB sites out of useful range.

So they got creative. Since the only way the Hustler could reach the strategic targets was with in-flight refueling, they re-jiggered the missions to demand it all the way. Using high-altitude cruise they would meet up with tankers over northern Canada and Alaska, and/or ones based out of Europe (there were nations that allowed tankers that didn't allow combat aircraft). From then on it was a low-level penetration, but even with the last top-up many targets were too far to get to a friendly base. In these cases the crew had to eject and walk out. Great plan eh? I've always been curious how many Hustlers they projected to lose due to missed tanking on the way in.

Its interesting to see how all of this worked out historically. SAC originally had the B-47/B-52, considering both of them to be outdated by the late 1950s. They intended to replace these with the B-58/B-70 in basically the same "split" by the mid-60s. However, the missiles came into the picture, forcing low-level penetration profiles. This made the B-58 basically useless, and so dramatically reduced the B-70's effectiveness that it too ended up being cancelled. So then the idea was a true penetrator aircraft, the FB-111 for the medium range and B-1 for long range roles. Although the FB-111 "made it" the B-1 was so delayed technology had overrun it again, and everyone was pinning their hopes on the F-117/B-2. And throughout it all, the Buff just keeps on going! Maury 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read somewhere, and I can't remember if it was a reliable source, that the B-58 was only intended to fly one-way missions in the event of a nuclear war, with the aircrew bailing out if they managed to make it out of the USSR. Given that they wouldn't have had bases to return to anyway this makes a certain kind of sense. --Nick Dowling 10:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Great discussion... I enjoyed the comments! -Rolypolyman 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

USAF doctrine said that any aircraft capable of hitting targets in the USSR could be launched even if they would not have the fuel to return. In case of war the risk to the pilot was considered subordinate to the survival of the USA. USAF training documents include how pilots downed in the target zone would minimize radiation effects by digging holes and covering the hole for a given amount of time before trying to move. Those capable of aerial refueling could hope that their would be tankers available to them. Pilots were given emergency landing, or ejection locations outside the USSR that they might reach if not able to return to a US base. Bases in Turkey and Iran could be used to stage and refuel bombers if they were launched before being struck by the USSR. Saltysailor (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Operational History

I removed the nickname "Aardvark" from the link to the FB-111. While the F-111 varients were indeed called the Aardvark, the FB-111 was essentially a different aircraft and had no official name. It even says so in the Wikipedia article on the F-111. Hildenja (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(According to my father-in-law, who worked on the project, 20% of the pilots who flew this died in crashes. He is 83, but I believe him. I include this as a side note.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.126.65 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

surviving at Edwards

There is a Hustler at Edwards AFB that was abandoned after an emergency landing near the south edge of the base. Is this "Snoopy" referred to in the article? The abandoned Hustler has engines missing and most items striped, leaving the airframe. Saltysailor (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Snoopy was a conversion to test the fire control system intended for the F-12 IMI, the extra electronics and the radar dish meant the radome on Snoopy was longer and was lower than the standard B-58 nose. The pod on Snoopy was also no standard, being thinner, and holding an XAIM-47 missile (ancestral to AIM-54 Phoenix) and associated launch rails.

B-58 vs F-12

I was told by a USAF Colonel that the B-58 was considered for the interceptor role that the YF-12A was to fulfill. Although the B-58 could not fly as fast, the belly pod could carry many more missiles to shoot down incoming bombers and a conversion of the bombers would be cheaper than a new plane. Saltysailor (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically a B-58 (Tail number 55-665) was actually fitted with an AN/ASG-18 radar, a redesigned radome (to carry the larger nose), and a different weapons pod to carry the GAR-9/AIM-47. It conducted a bunch of in-flight supersonic test-firings of the GAR-9/AIM-47 Super-Falcon missile. The plane because of it's gigantic nose was nicknamed "Snoopy". That was just a test-plane though. I do however know of a couple of concepts which Convair developed which were to use a modified B-58 to perform the role of a long-range high-speed interceptor. The one that I remember most was a design that featured 2 x J-58's in lieu of 4 x J-79's and what I assume was to be a revised weapons-pod, AIM-47 capacity and an ASG-18 radar AVKent882 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

another reason for ending service

The B-58 was designed to carry the very large fusion bomb. By time they were deployed the size of the bombs were shrunken considerably. I was told by Convair Employees at the time that this was a major reason that the USAF decided to withdraw the Hustler from service. The USAF expected that it could get another bomber quickly. As time went on the majority of generals in the USAF were fighter pilots who favored spending on fighters. See the history section on the B-1 Lancer. Saltysailor (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how much the size of the weapons were an issue. The plane could have easily been re-configured to carry a more powerful bomb of the same size. The problem with the B-58 was that it was pretty much exclusively a nuclear-bomber -- it didn't have any provision for the release of conventional weapons. It's weapons capacity also wasn't that high. From what I remember the bomber only typically carried a 5,000 or 10,000 pound warhead (Though it could carry up to 22,000 something and even achieve cruise-speed it came with massive performance penalties.) which was actually less than the maximum capacity of certain fighters (The F-105 could carry up to 14,000 lbs of bombs, the F-4B could carry up to 16,000 lbs -- greater than 5,000 lbs or 10,000 lbs). Additionally the maximum speed and altitude of the B-58 was either not perceived to be enough, or actually not enough to keep it safe from Soviet SAMs, possibly even Soviet Interceptors. This required the B-58 to fly low and fast to enable it to avoid detection by ground based radar (and then current Russian aircraft-radar). The B-58's range at a given Mach number at low altitude isn't anywhere near as efficient as it is at high altitude as it's pushing through thicker air, so it's range takes a hit; It's lightly loaded wing (Which to the best of my knowledge was around the same as the F-106A) would be highly succeptable to thermal-lifting and would experience a very turbulent ride over the deck, it would also respond quite easily to gusts (That's why the F-105 has such tiny wings -- it's heavily loaded wing yields a nice smooth ride and almost no gust response) AVKent882 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the bigger bomb argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense - the aircraft was already carrying smaller nuclear bombs under the wings in addition to the one or two part centerline pod, so smaller bombs were option all along. However, the discussion of the reasons for the B-58's demise in the main article here are just as superficial. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-58-fc.htm for a rather interesting discussion of the phaseout decision that includes rising maintenance costs, need for extensive upgrades for low-level operations, McNamara's obsession with his F-111 (remember he even tried to foist it on the Navy), etc. The article is right about one thing - the Hustler was known for its booming voice - I grew up within about 30 miles of Bunker Hill/Grissom AFB and still remember hearing them in the 60s before the FAA anti-boom noise regulations came into existence. Jmdeur (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, you quoted a from discussion from globalsecurity... awkward. They are a bastion of information, but not a lot of accurate information.

that's okay, the same can be said about wikipedia - there are plenty of examples of just plain wrong info in wiki as well - so sort of like the kettle calling the pot black...

B-58 at The Mighty 8th Air Force Museum in Savannah, GA

There is a B-58 Hustler at the rear entrance facing the interstate at the 8th Air Force Museum in Savannah, GA I will provide the frame number in a couple of weeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.9.15 (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Climb performance

"A lightly loaded Hustler would climb at nearly 4,600 ft/min (23.5 m/s), comparable to the best contemporary fighter aircraft.[7]"

Is this a typo? Climb rate of 4600ft/min was achievable even by WW2 era prop fighters - hardly great rate of climb by jet age standards.--Mikoyan21 (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no I'd like to point out the climb rate of a P-38 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38l-25092-climb.jpg Nowhere does it reach 3,000ft/min --Anonymous Internet user tired of lies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.2.114 (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement "A lightly loaded Hustler would climb at nearly 4,600 ft/min (23.5 m/s), comparable to the best contemporary fighter aircraft.[7]" is mis-quoted. The correct figure is 46,000 ft/min (235 m/s) Here's some links to corroborate that - http://plane.spottingworld.com/B-58_Hustler - http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.military/2007-08/msg01609.html

AVKent882 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)