View Full Version : B-58 Hustler


Jane-DoH
24th Jul 2011, 05:06
I'm wondering something about the B-58 Hustler. Some people said it had fighter like agility, other's said it was structurally flimsy -- which is right?



A2QFI
24th Jul 2011, 05:46
Convair B-58 Hustler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-58_Hustler)

stilton
24th Jul 2011, 06:28
Why not just close this Forum and defer to Wiki for all our aviation questions and discussions ?


Seriously, a question was asked about the B58 hoping for a reply from someone with actual experience in operating or working on the type.



You don't get that from Wiki, this site, however historically delivers 'from the horses mouth' so lets not tell people to go elsewhere.

howiehowie93
24th Jul 2011, 06:28
Shouldn't all these questions about last century American war birds be in the Aviation History & Nostalgia section ??

Aviation History and Nostalgia - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia-86/)

F101, F105 now the B58 ??

Regards

H

Saint Jack
24th Jul 2011, 06:59
I've been intrigued with the B-58 since watching 'Fail Safe' many, many years ago. For those who missed this excellent movie; it was a serious and thoughtful look at essentially the same doomsday sceanario as 'Dr. Strangelove' but without the comedy. One aspect of the aircraft that I still haven't gotten a plausible answer to is this; how did the nose undercarriage retract? All photographs suggest that if it swings forward the wheels will end up in the radome and if it swings rearward it will strike the centre-line pod. Can anyone enlighten me?

A2QFI
24th Jul 2011, 07:12
I was going to say that agility and frailty are not mutually exclusive. I agree that it would be marvelous to have a response form an operator or engineer and I should perhaps have waited before posting a Wiki link but I will lay odds we get no replies from the horses mouth, so to speak

TBM-Legend
24th Jul 2011, 07:21
Historic aircraft
Shouldn't all these questions about last century American war birds be in the Aviation History & Nostalgia section ??

Aviation History and Nostalgia - PPRuNe Forums

F101, F105 now the B58 ??

Regards

H

I guess if you don't like a topic you should ignore it and move to the next one.:bored:

Willard Whyte
24th Jul 2011, 07:49
All photographs suggest that if it swings forward the wheels will end up in the radome and if it swings rearward it will strike the centre-line pod. Can anyone enlighten me?

I seem to recall the main strut bent in the middle.

rh200
24th Jul 2011, 07:54
I think Jane is usually after fairly technical information, and not just about nostalgia. Hence I would imagine there would be a swag of people who are in civvy street now working on the civillian side who might read the technical forums.

SirToppamHat
24th Jul 2011, 08:29
A2QFI

Well I for one thank you for the Wiki link. I think the nose gear is starting to retract on the photo on that site, indicating an unusual system, but what I found most interesting was the capsule ejection system for it's 3 crew - it's astonishing that the crew could continue to operate the ac whilst clammed-up. Makes you wonder why we had such a haphazard system for Vulcan rear crew.

STH

ORAC
24th Jul 2011, 09:27
B-58 Nose Gear Retraction Sequence (http://www5a.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Et_miyama/b58leg02.html)

Pontius Navigator
24th Jul 2011, 09:55
I recall an incident report, nothing to do with the wheels though, where the aircraft was on a flight flight after major servicing.

On rotate the pilot's panel died with just the turn and slip working. His navigator talked him round as his panel was working. It seems that the pilot's panel was supposed to be secured with just 4 fasteners and all the connections were gold pin butt connectors. Very advanced for the 60s.

Had the pilot applied mechanical pressure - thumped the panel - it might have worked.

The aircraft also had an astro-tracker, a large electro-mechanical computer.

On its handling I can only offer a negative comment. It certainly had speed that the Vulcan lacked but we never heard USAF fighter crews talking is its fighter like performance whereas they were in awe of the Vulcan.

Fareastdriver
24th Jul 2011, 10:01
Is not this the aircraft that if it lost an outboard engine in supersonic cruise the resultant yaw would swipe the pod off.

TBM-Legend
24th Jul 2011, 10:07
It was indeed a looker in my opinion.

I have a good friend who was a navigator on B-58's. Fast and fuel critical. Had the balloon ever gone up it was a one way mission he said. Recovery was to Turkey for most of their assigned targets.

He also said she was a nightmare to keep serviceable. The avionics were cutting edge and basically unreliable. He said if they needed the Vulcan gatling cannon in the tail she was a goner as they could not manoeuvre at speed too much.

hippocrates
24th Jul 2011, 11:41
B-58 Hustler Association HomePage (http://b58hustlerassn.net/)


There is no physical communication between the three cockpits arranged in tandem, and except for the intercom each crew member is on his own, in cramped quarters which do not permit standing, for missions lasting 7 to 8 hours. The pilot has vision ahead and to the sides through a six-window wrap-around windshield, plus two small windows in the canopy for overhead vision. The bombardier/navigator and defense systems operator have a minute window measuring not more than 4 x 6 inches on each side of their compartments. These might seem to serve solely as antidotes to claustrophobia, but often are covered by opaque cloth curtains the better to view radar scopes within the cockpits. Each cockpit has its own individual, jettisonable canopy, hinged at the rear and moved pneumatically.

Each cockpit also has an individual escape capsule--the first enclosed escape system in an aircraft in regular service use. Flight personnel are "sized" for the capsule at the start of the training course, and failure to fit the capsule is a cause for separation from the B-58 program.

The capsule can be closed and pressurized within 7 seconds in case of loss of cabin pressure at high altitude, enabling flight personnel to dispense with pressure suits. In this situation the pilot can see part of his instrument panel through a window in the capsule door, and with full control through the stick inside the capsule, he may fly the aircraft to an altitude below 40,000 feet and decapsulate. Buttons on the stick enable him while encapsulated to disconnect the autopilot, shift the center of gravity, and retard the throttles. In an emergency, rockets eject the capsule from the aircraft, with the enclosed personnel being protected against wind blast, wind blast erosion and thermal injury. After deceleration of the capsule, a 41-foot diameter parachute lowers it. The capsule contains survival gear, including a radio, rations, water, desalting gear, clothing, and a rifle, and will float if it lands in the sea.

:eek:

LowObservable
24th Jul 2011, 13:44
There are some outstanding B-58 tales here:

tate - bombs awry - AbeBooks (http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=tate&sts=t&tn=bombs+awry&x=0&y=0)

Looking at that AAHS thing - The bomb-nav on the 1961 record crew captained by John Denver's father, Henry Deutschendorfer (not surprising that John went for something a little snappier) was Bill Polhemus. He went on to develop the head-tracking system that is used in the JHMCS helmet display system, among others.

It also talks about the record-breaking flight from NY to Paris, but doesn't mention that the return-leg crew were killed when the B-58 crashed in a flight demonstration days later.

Saint Jack
24th Jul 2011, 13:49
ORAC; Many thanks, deceptively simple, isn't it.

goudie
24th Jul 2011, 14:09
First saw the Hustler at Nellis Field in '59,
when 617 Sqdn was on detachment there with 4 Vulcans.
I recall the Hustler literally disappearing over the horizon during it's take-off run. Black plumes of smoke rising in the distance indicated it had eventually taken off (Courtesy of curvature etc). Whenever it landed a fire tender was usually in close attendance.
In response, our pilots took great delight in doing short take-off runs and climbing away into the blue yonder. I believe it was the first visit of Vulcans to Nellis and to say the USAF guys were rather impressed would be an understatement!

Some years ago I was talking to an American who was a Defense radar operator around that time. He said they once picked something up on the radar that was the fastest thing they'd ever encountered and thought it must be a UFO! It was reported but nothing was said, only later did he discover it was a B-58!

Flash2001
24th Jul 2011, 16:02
Remember reading a precis of an accident report on a Hustler that had rolled over and crashed on takeoff. It concluded that the pilots were too busy with the ATO checklist to monitor aircraft attitude. The recommendation was to add "monitor aircraft attitude" to the list.

It is ever thus...

Tankertrashnav
24th Jul 2011, 19:27
Makes you wonder why we had such a haphazard system for Vulcan rear crew.



And indeed for Valiant and Victor crews.

I am fairly sure a capsule escape system was looked into in the development stage of the Valiant, but money/practicability considerations soon put an end to that idea. There were also plans to fit ejector seats for the rear crew, and ejection trials were actually carried out, again on the Valiant, but once again money talked. The arguments surfaced from time to time, with questions even being asked in Parliament, but by the time I joined the Victor tanker force in 1971 this was just one of those things you accepted.

goudie
24th Jul 2011, 20:41
As a matter of interest, does anyone know if the B58 capsule escape system, was ever used successfully? It apparently had a high accident rate.

SirToppamHat
24th Jul 2011, 21:34
Certainly some successes, but it's difficult to know what percentage of the accidents here would have been survivable with other escape methods:

B-58A Ejection Seat History (http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/B-58_hustler.htm)

STH

hval
24th Jul 2011, 22:12
Here is a link to A web site by Phil Rowe (B-58 DSO) that has some interesting stories and information.

Phil Rowe Web Site (http://home.comcast.net/~prowe31/b58stuf2.htm)

Willard Whyte
25th Jul 2011, 15:05
One of the better websites for general info on many aircraft is this one:

Air Vectors (http://www.vectorsite.net/indexav.html)

LowObservable
25th Jul 2011, 16:10
One of Grover Ted Tate's stories was that if you did not fit into the capsule when it was open, you certainly would by the time it closed...

The need for the capsule was driven by an accident (one of many) in testing, obliquely referred to above. The test involved simulating the failure of an outboard engine at high Mach. The vertical stabilizer failed (yaw load + rudder load?) and the aircraft broke up. None of the crew survived due to the high ejection speed.

hval
25th Jul 2011, 16:51
A link to a NASA Technical Report for you (declassified - ish).

Investigation of the low-speed flight characteristics of a 1/15-scale model of the Convair XB-58 aeroplane (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660082009_1966082009.pdf)

LowObservable
25th Jul 2011, 22:06
Model used in the NACA paper reminds me of this one:

http://www.oldmodelkits.com/jpegs/Lindberg%20551-198%20B-58RCPr.JPG

Jane-DoH
26th Jul 2011, 02:44
Willard Whyte

One of the better websites for general info on many aircraft is this one:

From that site, it said that it was surprisingly maneuverable for it's size. So I assume it's agility was more fighter like than bomber like.


LowObservable

The need for the capsule was driven by an accident (one of many) in testing, obliquely referred to above.

I was always under the impression that the ejection capsule was conceived after the basic design was outlined but wasn't finished until the plane flew. I'm surprised they didn't factor the low pressure at high altitude and the affect of airspeed on the crew.

The test involved simulating the failure of an outboard engine at high Mach. The vertical stabilizer failed (yaw load + rudder load?) and the aircraft broke up. None of the crew survived due to the high ejection speed.

If I recall the rudder or the tailfin was prone to a flutter problem which evidently was present at the very least at high mach and airspeed.

GreenKnight121
26th Jul 2011, 05:49
You might look at this site for more info... B-58 Hustler Association HomePage (http://b58hustlerassn.net/)

This site also has good info: Convair B-58 Hustler (http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b58.html)

From the second site: Several accidents had revealed that the Convair-developed ejection seats were not sufficient to protect the crew throughout the B-58's performance envelope. Consequently, an encapsulated seat built by Stanley Aviation Corporation of Denver, Colorado was adopted.
.....

The B-58 accident rate in 1959 and 1960 had been alarmingly high, which led SAC to delay acceptance of executive responsibility for the aircraft.



The first accident had taken place on Dec 16, 1958, near Cannon AFB, NM when 58-018 was lost. The accident was attributed to a loss of control during normal flight when autotrim and ratio changer were rendered inoperative due to an electrical system failure.



On May 14, 1959, 58-1012 was destroyed by fire during a refueling operation at Carswell AFB.



58-1017 was destroyed on September 16 of that year when a tire blew during takeoff from Carswell AFB.



On October 27, 55-669 was destroyed near Hattiesburg, Mississippi when it lost control during normal flight.



On November 7, 55-664 was destroyed during a high-speed test flight near Lawton, Oklahoma when it disintegrated in midair. Convair test pilot Raymond Fitzgerald and Convair flight engineer Donald A. Siedhof were both killed. The flight was attempting to collect vertical fin side loads data under the conditions of the loss of an engine at high speed. A friend of mine witnessed this accident from the ground. Although the cause of the accident was never adequately explained, it appears that a design flaw in the aircraft's flight control system and defects in the integrity of the vertical fin structure were to blame. There is also the possibility that when the number 4 engine was purposely shut down for the test, number 3 lost thrust as well.



On April 22, 1960 a failure of the Mach/airspeed/air data system caused the loss of 58-1023 near Hill AFB, Utah. On June 4, 1960, 55-0667 was lost due to pilot error while flying at supersonic speed near Lubbock, Texas.



The unusually high accident rate made SAC apprehensive about the reliability of the aircraft in service, and led to postponement of Category III testing. In addition, the Fitzgerald accident raised questions about certain aspects of the control system. As a result, B-58s were restricted to subsonic flight only for nearly a year afterwards until the control system and tail structure could be fixed.


This site discusses the ejection capsules: http://www.ejectionsite.com/eb58caps.htm

The USAF says this: Factsheets : B-58 Escape Capsule (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2691)
When the supersonic B-58 Hustler entered service in 1961, it had individual ejection seats for its three crew members. However, ejection at speeds above 665 mph was extremely hazardous. To improve ejection survivability, the Stanley Aircraft Corp. developed a high-speed high-altitude capsule ejection system that would allow safe ejection at supersonic speed. The capsule was adopted for retrofit beginning in late 1962, making the B-58 the first USAF aircraft with a capsule ejection system. It was effective throughout the flight envelope up to 70,000 feet and twice the speed of sound.

The Old Fat One
26th Jul 2011, 06:51
Reading about this beast I suggest it could have all the fancy escape systems it wants...it was still a dangerous m**** f****!!

V bombers somewhat safer overall methinks.

Dick Whittingham
26th Jul 2011, 08:29
I was at Paris in 1961 when the B58 crashed. The rumour among the display pilots was that the Americans had said never mind the Vulcan, they would show how a real aircraft could roll. In the ensuing display it seemed that the aircraft entered a roll/yaw coupling regime and broke up

Dick

BEagle
26th Jul 2011, 09:03
Dick, I found this interesting comment about the crash of 59-2451 on the Internet (I've redacted the names and amended the date to the correct year):


I was a Staff Sgt. in the 43rd A&E (Armament & Electronics Maint Sqdn.) and worked on the B-58 Bomb/Navigation system from 1960-1966 at both Carswell AFB Texas and Little Rock AFB Arkansas. I remember some of the incidents that were involved in the crash of A/C 451 during the Paris Air Show of 1961. What you have on your web page may be the official news release of the incident, but it's not the story we got. Maj. M**** was our Maint. Officer with the A&E sqdn. The word we got was that the flight crew was ordered to do a slow roll over the trophy presentation when the A/C went into a fog bank and the attitude indicator in the 1st station was referenced to the bomb/nav system instead of the Auxillary Flight Reference System. The B/N system had mechanical limits that were exeeded when the A/C did the slow roll and with the A/C in a fog bank, the AC lost horizontal reference and the A/C ended up upside down on a farm outside Paris. The Wing Commander, Col. J****** was relieved of command shortly afterward. The A/C were all modified to include a secondary attitude indicator referenced to the Auxillary Flight Reference System at all times to make sure something like that never happened again.


The later B-58 accident at Paris in 1965 occurred when the aircraft landed short of the runway. The pilot was killed and the other 2 crew members were injured.

Dick Whittingham
26th Jul 2011, 11:13
Beagle,

Interesting. Old men forget, but I do not remember fog banks at Le Bourget, certainly not on the day I flew, nor visible from the field on the day of the crash. Anyone out there got wx data? Possibly amend breakup to read departure and loss of control?

Dick

Cunliffe
26th Jul 2011, 12:21
I seem to remember reading that when violent yaw occured because of an engine fialure an automatic system kicked in opposite rudder to correct it. It was said that the effect on the crew was to smash the helmets on one side of the cockpit as the engine stopped and then on the other side as the rudder applied, all within less than a second.

BEagle
26th Jul 2011, 12:31
Cunliffe, I suspect you're thinking of the SR-71 inlet unstart condition? If the inlet shock became unstable, automatic resequencing would occur to restore the correct conditions. At Mach 3+, this was allegedly indeed something of a head-banging event!

Argonautical
26th Jul 2011, 12:38
There is a fast flyby of a B-58 in this clip of an airshow, it certainly made the crowd jump! Wish airshows were like that now.

‪B-58 Hustler fly by - Mach 2 cold war bomber‬‏ - YouTube

Cunliffe
26th Jul 2011, 12:52
Thanks BEagle
I think my cranial hard disk needs a defrag.

Thud_and_Blunder
26th Jul 2011, 13:04
Argonautical, many thanks for the vid link. Can't see anything like that ever being auth'd for public viewing (outside Switzerland) these days!

Rossian
26th Jul 2011, 13:42
...I remember seeing a similar film when I was at South Cerney (video hadn't been invented for the yoof).

The display was opened by a general with a gazillion medals and mirror shades who would not have been out of place as Dr Strangelove.
The highlight was an F-100 demonstrating a lay down delayed bomb which didn't delay. The a/c looked as if it had been booted up the backside and pitched nose down followed by a small figure descending under his 'chute.

Oh and the B-47 pulling up so hard I was sure the wing tips would clap together. I think he rolled off the top and did a 180.

As T-a-B says "you won't get that today".

The Ancient Mariner

LowObservable
26th Jul 2011, 13:46
Cripes...

I counted nine combat aircraft types of which exactly one (the B-47) had flown more than seven years before that show. And the CIA and Lockheed were hammering out details of the A-12 contract.

Pontius Navigator
26th Jul 2011, 17:03
.Oh and the B-47 pulling up so hard I was sure the wing tips would clap together. I think he rolled off the top and did a 180.

That was normal for an over the shoulder toss.

"pop-up" attacks, coming in at low level at 425 knots (787 km/h) and then climbing abruptly near the target before releasing a nuclear weapon, and the similar "toss bombing" procedure, in which the aircraft released the weapon while climbing, and then rolled away to depart the area before bomb detonation

They had 2000 of them so they could afford to use them hard.

con-pilot
26th Jul 2011, 17:20
That was normal for an over the shoulder toss.



By a strange turn of events I have become friends with some former B-47 crew members, to the man they hated the 'over the shoulder' bomb toss.

One of the pilots was the sole survivor of a B-47 that exploded in air. He told me he was flying along and the next thing he knew he was badly burned, was descending under his parachute. Even stranger, while the accident team was examining what was left of the aircraft, which was scattered over miles, they found his ejection seat, it had not been used.

He continued his Air Force career ending up flying F-4 in Viet Nam and retired as a full colonel.

keesje
26th Jul 2011, 18:51
Nice clips of the B58s

‪B-58 Hustler‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=B-58+Hustler&aq=f)

An uncompromised speed machine.

must have been one off the loudest too, 4 J-79s.

http://pic.phyrefile.com/b/bl/blind_io/2010/12/15/b58ab.jpg

SMT Member
26th Jul 2011, 19:10
Only ever seen a Hustler in the flesh at the USAF museum in Dayton. Even at rest she looks about the break the sound, if not the light, barrier. It is pure bomber porn.

BEagle
26th Jul 2011, 19:30
B-47 LABS:

mqIJL8lx00o&feature=related

Jane-DoH
27th Jul 2011, 02:13
GreenKnight121

When the supersonic B-58 Hustler entered service in 1961, it had individual ejection seats for its three crew members. However, ejection at speeds above 665 mph was extremely hazardous. To improve ejection survivability, the Stanley Aircraft Corp. developed a high-speed high-altitude capsule ejection system that would allow safe ejection at supersonic speed. The capsule was adopted for retrofit beginning in late 1962, making the B-58 the first USAF aircraft with a capsule ejection system. It was effective throughout the flight envelope up to 70,000 feet and twice the speed of sound.

I'm surprised that they didn't realize there was a danger bailing out at altitudes over 50,000 feet with a regular flight-suit (unless they wore pressure suits initially).

The first accident had taken place on Dec 16, 1958, near Cannon AFB, NM when 58-018 was lost. The accident was attributed to a loss of control during normal flight when autotrim and ratio changer were rendered inoperative due to an electrical system failure.

Was the B-58 the first USAF aircraft to have an automatic-trim system?

Although the cause of the accident was never adequately explained, it appears that a design flaw in the aircraft's flight control system and defects in the integrity of the vertical fin structure were to blame. There is also the possibility that when the number 4 engine was purposely shut down for the test, number 3 lost thrust as well.

If it's not classified what problem with the flight control system would have aggravated such a situation?

Also, why did the number 3 engine lose power along with number 4?

On April 22, 1960 a failure of the Mach/airspeed/air data system caused the loss of 58-1023 near Hill AFB, Utah.

How did that occur? Did it

1.) Cause the pilot to attempt to climb or dive in order to deal with the erratic airspeed/mach readings
2.) Did it cause the automatic trim, artificial feel systems, to function abnormally causing an loss of control/overcontrol and break-up?
3.) Did it cause an inlet malfunction?


BEagle

I was a Staff Sgt. in the 43rd A&E (Armament & Electronics Maint Sqdn.) and worked on the B-58 Bomb/Navigation system from 1960-1966 at both Carswell AFB Texas and Little Rock AFB Arkansas. I remember some of the incidents that were involved in the crash of A/C 451 during the Paris Air Show of 1961. What you have on your web page may be the official news release of the incident, but it's not the story we got. Maj. M**** was our Maint. Officer with the A&E sqdn. The word we got was that the flight crew was ordered to do a slow roll over the trophy presentation when the A/C went into a fog bank and the attitude indicator in the 1st station was referenced to the bomb/nav system instead of the Auxillary Flight Reference System. The B/N system had mechanical limits that were exeeded when the A/C did the slow roll and with the A/C in a fog bank, the AC lost horizontal reference and the A/C ended up upside down on a farm outside Paris. The Wing Commander, Col. J****** was relieved of command shortly afterward. The A/C were all modified to include a secondary attitude indicator referenced to the Auxillary Flight Reference System at all times to make sure something like that never happened again.

I do remember there was a situation where a B-58 did a lightly loaded takeoff followed by a vertical climb and a series of rapid rolls. As I understand it, it totally threw some of the gyros in the navigation system out of alignment requiring them to be reset.


Cunliffe

I seem to remember reading that when violent yaw occured because of an engine fialure an automatic system kicked in opposite rudder to correct it. It was said that the effect on the crew was to smash the helmets on one side of the cockpit as the engine stopped and then on the other side as the rudder applied, all within less than a second.

What you're thinking of is the A-12/YF-12/SR-71. The yaw was caused by an airflow disturbance in the inlet due to either a improperly configured inlet or clear air turbulence. The result is a rapid loss of thrust and an increase in drag which produces a rapid yaw, and with it, a substantial rate of roll too. The inlet system can be controlled manually, but in practice it is done automatically, and the bypass doors open up, and the inlet is moved forward to restart the inlet. The vented air overboard produces additional yaw and drag.

One solution cooked up early on was to have the aircraft automatically boot in opposite rudder, but it worked too good! The pilot sometimes began resetting the wrong inlet and the other kept unstarting until it failed and yaw only increased. Eventually the solution was to have both engines go through the restart cycle simultaneously -- you still got a yaw and roll but it wasn't as bad.


Rossian

Oh and the B-47 pulling up so hard I was sure the wing tips would clap together. I think he rolled off the top and did a 180.

Generally they did a 3.5g pull released the bomb on the way up followed by an immelman. It actually did put a heavy strain on the aircraft which reduced service life and they stopped doing it.

Airways Ed
27th Jul 2011, 04:28
Argonautical -- great clip, thank you for posting.

I believe that would be Holloman AFB, NM, where live firing of ordnance at shows continued into the 1970s, if not later. NAS Pt Mugu, CA, was the other US base where you could see such demonstrations, well into the 1980s.


Jane -- suggest you obtain a copy of Jay Miller's book on the B-58 for all the data you seek.

Brian Abraham
27th Jul 2011, 05:06
One solution cooked up early on was to have the aircraft automatically boot in opposite rudder, but it worked too good!The aircraft had no "engine failure" recognition system as such. The yaw SAS system comprised three yaw rate gyros, three lateral accelerometers, three computers and two servo channels (A & B hydraulic systems). The lateral accelerometers provided long term damping and provided corrective inputs to minimise sideslip. SAS authority was limited to approx 8° left and right. Rudder travel is 20° left and right when below Mach 0.5, and limited (by manual handle selection) to 10° L/R when above Mach 0.5.

goudie
27th Jul 2011, 23:26
Argonautical -- great clip, thank you for posting.




I believe this clip was, in fact, shot at an air show as part of the 'World Congress of Flight', held in Las Vegas in April '59 (see my earlier post). I was at the back of the crowd line, sitting on top of our coach, so had an excellent view.
I have a few pics somewhere of the various flypasts and weapons demonstrations. Pity the Vulcans aren't shown! Three flew past in formation, and as they flew over the desert at a fairly low, (and bumpy) height, two of them briefly brushed wing tips. Apart from some scratched paint and a slight dent in the compass magnetic detector access panel, no damage was done.

jamesdevice
27th Jul 2011, 23:35
"The yaw SAS system comprised three yaw rate gyros, three lateral accelerometers, three computers and two servo channels "

Just what sort of computer technology were they using there?
Presumably some kind of analog vacuum tube device?? This is pre-microprocessor surely?

Jane-DoH
28th Jul 2011, 01:23
Brian Abraham

The aircraft had no "engine failure" recognition system as such.

Are you talking about the B-58 or the A-12? I was talking about the A-12 and not really about engine failures but unstarts. I only mentioned an engine failure because it was a possibility if an unstart went uncorrected. Yaw would get worse so even if you had no indicator you'd know!

The yaw SAS system comprised three yaw rate gyros, three lateral accelerometers, three computers and two servo channels (A & B hydraulic systems). The lateral accelerometers provided long term damping and provided corrective inputs to minimise sideslip. SAS authority was limited to approx 8° left and right. Rudder travel is 20° left and right when below Mach 0.5, and limited (by manual handle selection) to 10° L/R when above Mach 0.5.

What kind of directional instability problems did the B-58 have?


R.C.
"That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep), and should I be arrested or framed for a criminal offense, or disappear entirely -- I think we all know who to blame for it"

Brian Abraham
28th Jul 2011, 05:33
Talking about the 71 Jane

Just what sort of computer technology were they using there?
Presumably some kind of analog vacuum tube device?? This is pre-microprocessor surely?

jamesdevice, the A-12 (precursor to the 71) first flew early 1962 and Honeywell changed the AFICS to DAFICS (Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System) in August 1980, so guess you might be on the money.

FoxtrotAlpha18
28th Jul 2011, 06:59
A-12s were retired permanently in 1968 and the surviving YF-12 in the late 70s, and both only ever used the AFICS.

The dozen SR-71s equipped with DAFICS had much more stable inlets and weren't anywhere near as prone to unstarts. The inlet doors could be 'fine tuned' in flight by the pilot, but on the occasions when it did happen the system would actually unstart the 'other' engine by pushing the spike back out in order to arrest the yaw.:eek:

At cruise the speed would typically drop from ~M3.2 to around 2.8 during an unstart event and the aircraft could lose >10,000ft. The pilot would have to reset the inlets and climb back to speed and altitude. Not fun if over or near contested airspace!

I've been told by a former SR-71 driver that every jet was different and had its own little inlet idiosyncracies, but you generally flew with the same 2 or 3 jets on an operational 'Det' in Japan or the UK and got to know them well.

hval
28th Jul 2011, 07:38
The following rather good web site has flight manuals and some information on the above aircraft.

Link (http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/)

Jane-Doh, back to your original question re manoeuverability of the B-58 Hustler; it wasn't.

A delta-winged aircraft has a number of disadvantages: it cannot use flaps, and so has a long takeoff run; its low wing loading makes for a rough ride at low altitude, even though the B-58 actually gave quite a good ride at low altitudes. A delta wing aircraft loses speed quickly on turns, limiting manoeuvrability. However, it is a simple, robust configuration that offers high straight-line speed and plenty of volume for fuel tanks.

hval
28th Jul 2011, 07:54
Came across this little gem; Popular Science, August 1961 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GyEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=b-58+inlet+problems&source=bl&ots=vmRb_bmXd6&sig=S1lRuzSSksBtXA1rdpivb9x7Tt4&hl=en&ei=ihQxTq3XOMWxhQfPlNnfCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false). Doesn't say anything new though

NutherA2
28th Jul 2011, 08:23
A delta-winged aircraft has a number of disadvantages: it cannot use flaps
It can if it also has a "conventional" tailplane....Like the Javelin.

hval
28th Jul 2011, 11:32
A delta-winged aircraft has a number of disadvantages: it cannot use flaps

It can if it also has a "conventional" tailplane....Like the Javelin.


That's cheating; but true

hval
28th Jul 2011, 11:34
@<hidden> Greenknight,

Reference the B-58 incident (airframe 55-664) 25 miles South East of Lawton, Oklahoma on the 7th of November 1959. This was a test of inflight shutdown and restart of the engines at supersonic speed. It has also been said that there may have been carrying out tests on side loads for the fin. I am not sure how true this is.

The test was simulating outboard engine failure at Mach 2. A failure of the Yaw Damper caused the aircraft to yaw at supersonic speed and the shock wave entered No. 4 engine while No. 3 was shut down resulting in a flat spin at supersonic speed causing the aircraft to break apart. A Convair crew was flying the aircraft at the time.

It was determined that a number of factors had contributed to the accident. The official report noted "design deficiency in that the directional restoring moments on the aircraft were not adequate for the test conditions". This was a deficiency in the tail fin structural integrity and a complex aerodynamic phenomenon that involved the aircraft’s large elevons and a small set of control surfaces at the wing root that served as trimming devices. Solutions were quickly put into place, and all B-58s were modified.

Hydraulic Systems
There are two separate and independent hydraulic systems, the utility and the primary, each having two engine-driven pumps maintaining a pressure of 3000 p.s.i. Both systems share in the operation of the flight controls, the elevons and rudders; should one fail the other system assumes the full load; should both hydraulic systems fail, the pilot has no means of controlling the aircraft and the crew must eject. The hydraulic systems also operate the landing gear, nose wheel steering, wheel brakes, tail turret, aileron, elevator and rudder damper servos.

hval
28th Jul 2011, 11:45
A short YouTube clip showing the flight control systems

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s_TjSjkPjA&feature=related



Why does it insert the YouTube clip twice?

hval
28th Jul 2011, 12:35
The following web site provides information on design, flight safety, history, specification etc. Also has other interesting stories, informations and links

B-58.com (67.189.28.191/b-58/aboutthehustler.cfm)

BEagle
28th Jul 2011, 13:07
hval - I've discoveredf that if you just cut and paste the script after the 'watch=' part, it usually embeds rather better:

_s_TjSjkPjA&feature=related

hval
28th Jul 2011, 13:55
Beagle,

Thank you for your assistance, much appreciated.

From an engineering point of view (maintenance) the B-58 looks like it may have been somewhat difficult to maintain from systems to airframe.

BEagle
28th Jul 2011, 17:17
Keine prob, hval!

Mind you, it was originally designed in 1949! Probably about as easy to maintain as a 4-engined Lightning?

To cruise for an hour at Mach 2 in those days was pretty special - but 600KIAS at low level must have been fun.

hval
28th Jul 2011, 18:11
Beagle,

Probably about as easy to maintain as a 4-engined Lightning?

Ouch. Mind you at least the B-58 engines dangle from the mainplane. I was thinking more about the aluminium/ fibreglass honeycomb panels amongst other things.

Definitely special going those speeds, even if it could only do mach 2 for 30 minutes. The engines could do the speed, and more; the paintwork couldn't take it.

glad rag
28th Jul 2011, 22:18
...I remember seeing a similar film when I was at South Cerney (video hadn't been invented for the yoof).

The display was opened by a general with a gazillion medals and mirror shades who would not have been out of place as Dr Strangelove.
The highlight was an F-100 demonstrating a lay down delayed bomb which didn't delay. The a/c looked as if it had been booted up the backside and pitched nose down followed by a small figure descending under his 'chute.

Ah the old [yank] weapons and effects film, bouncing bombs and napalm tanks [unfused through radar caravans] great viewing on certain "courses" only for the polish to be immediately taken off, as it were, by that other yank classic, How to Stage a Disaster......:ooh::ooh::ooh:

Jane-DoH
29th Jul 2011, 03:57
Brian Abraham

Talking about the 71 Jane

Okay


FoxtrotAlpha18

A-12s were retired permanently in 1968 and the surviving YF-12 in the late 70s, and both only ever used the AFICS.

The dozen SR-71s equipped with DAFICS had much more stable inlets and weren't anywhere near as prone to unstarts.

The SR-71 first flew in 1964, and entered service in '66. DAFICS wasn't installed until 1980.

The inlet doors could be 'fine tuned' in flight by the pilot

As I understand it, the inlets were either functioning fully autonomously, or the aft-bypass doors were controlled by the pilot which affected the aft bypass doors indirectly. There was a manual override to control the spike and so forth in the event of a malfunction.

but on the occasions when it did happen the system would actually unstart the 'other' engine by pushing the spike back out in order to arrest the yaw. :eek:

Not exactly... the other engine would go through the same restart cycle to reduce the degree of yaw produced by the unstarted inlet. They called this a sympathetic unstart. This was applied at some point on the A-12 program then applied to the other designs.

This of course means that the unstarts encountered early in the program were far more violent than most encountered later.

I've been told by a former SR-71 driver that every jet was different and had its own little inlet idiosyncracies

That's correct.


hval

A delta-winged aircraft has a number of disadvantages: it cannot use flaps, and so has a long takeoff run

Actually a delta wing can use flaps -- you simply need leading and trailing edge flaps working together. One produces lift up front, the other in the back. It doesn't work as well as a tailed design though.

As for takeoff run, that depends on the takeoff speed of the plane and it's acceleration. The F-102's and F-106's had rotation speeds of around 125 kts, and a lift-off speed of 140 kts which is quite low. Acceleration rate is determined by thrust to weight ratio, drag of the airframe and it's attitude on the ground, and the inlet design (a short inlet which is often used on subsonic aircraft works very well; a long inlet designed with geometries for supersonic flight does not work quite as well because it's longer and its geometry isn't as optimized for supersonic flight).

its low wing loading makes for a rough ride at low altitude, even though the B-58 actually gave quite a good ride at low altitudes.

The B-58 didn't have a very light wing-loading. Typical takeoff weight was 163,000 pounds and very early on in it's service career it was increased to 176,000 (though rarely operated in this configuration); wing area was 1,542 square feet which yields a wing-loading of 105.7 to 114.1 lbs/ft^2. When the fuel capacity is reduced to 50% that brings the weight down to around 115,500 to 118,500 and the wing-loading to 75 to 77 lbs/ft^2 which is still pretty high (it's heavier than a fully loaded F-100 at takeoff weight). Though wing-loading isn't an absolute as far as I know for low altitude ride, aspect ratio among other factors are important too -- from what I remember reading (I think Phil Rowe's site) it did ride rough on the deck at least at certain loads (during a test flight, it was said to have flown rough on the deck).

A delta wing aircraft loses speed quickly on turns, limiting manoeuvrability.

Depends on what speed you fly it at...:E The MiG-21, F-102A, and F-106A all had delta wings and had similar turning performance. At Mach 0.8 @<hidden> 15,000 feet (which IIRC is around 420 kts) they could sustain in excess of 6g's in a level turn. As you slow down the L/D ratio falls off quickly and airspeed bleed-off becomes excessive.

This was a test of inflight shutdown and restart of the engines at supersonic speed. It has also been said that there may have been carrying out tests on side loads for the fin. I am not sure how true this is.

It almost certainly was the former, though the latter could have been conducted simultaneously as the yaw, sideslip, and rudder application would all put a load on the rudder.

The test was simulating outboard engine failure at Mach 2. A failure of the Yaw Damper caused the aircraft to yaw at supersonic speed

I'm uncertain what kind of yaw-damper malfunction would have produced this result, as virtually all engine failures in multi-engined aircraft induce yaw (an exception being the EE Lightning) requiring opposite rudder input, so the pilots would have just had to apply a little more rudder than they were expecting. The only thing I could think of would be that somehow a dutch-roll started and the crew overreacted with rudder inputs, or; the yaw damper swung the rudder the wrong way; the yaw damper swung the rudder left and right in rapid succession, over-stressing the tail.

and the shock wave entered No. 4 engine while No. 3 was shut down

Hmmm, if they were simulating an outboard engine failure -- they would have cut engine 1 or 4, not 3. As for shock-waves entering the #4 engine -- that seems nonsensical -- I did some reading and the B-58 had an interesting problem called "fuel stacking" which occurred when the tanks were half empty and it seems that it could come very close to endangering the structural integrity of the aircraft and no engine problems seemed to occur. Could be wrong though

It was determined that a number of factors had contributed to the accident. The official report noted "design deficiency in that the directional restoring moments on the aircraft were not adequate for the test conditions".

So the plane wasn't directionally stable enough?

This was a deficiency in the tail fin structural integrity and a complex aerodynamic phenomenon that involved the aircraft’s large elevons and a small set of control surfaces at the wing root that served as trimming devices.

I don't remember the B-58 having any small trimming devices other than the elevons at the wing-root -- it almost looks like they're talking about something like the F4D's trimmer-vanes.

Regardless what they're talking about seems almost like a problem that occurred with the F-15 during it's test period -- there was an aeroelastic problem with the booms (the trailing-egde root-extentions) which mounted both the horizontal and vertical tails which ultimately was fixed by putting a dogtooth on the tail.

From an engineering point of view (maintenance) the B-58 looks like it may have been somewhat difficult to maintain from systems to airframe.

Yes, it was. The electronics were very complicated, which included the bomb-navigation system (which in turn included a star-tracking system, a doppler system, and a downward looking radar), the automatic inlet-control system, while I don't know how complex this was at the time, the aircraft was automatically trimmed; it had a sophisticated autopilot which could also automatically adjust the C/G position in addition to fly the plane; it had a radar in the base of the tailfin (not that complex for the time, but it all adds up) to feed guidance data to the turret (which truthfully was unnecessary for the aircraft), it had a very advanced jamming system.

Mechanically, it was complicated in terms of the honeycomb panels which include stainless steel honeycomb-panels in the leading and trailing-edge, and the elevons; aluminum/aluminum and aluminum/composite honeycomb-panels which were expensive to make, expensive to replace, and the composite cored panels corroded. The landing gear system was complicated due to the need for the wheels to have the clearance to make the ground with the pod on it and be able to retract without hitting the pod, so the nose gear had a joint on it; the main gears flipped up to lie flush with the strut, which then flipped back into a fairing. The actuators for the inlets also probably required a decent amount of maintenance.

Definitely special going those speeds, even if it could only do mach 2 for 30 minutes.

That doesn't sound right. A supersonic range of 2,000 miles was admitted to early on which means an endurance of 90 minutes minimum; in a book written about the B-58, I think it was stated that it's radius was 4,000 miles with a supersonic radius of 2,000 to 2,500 miles.


BTW: I don't want to be perceived as arguing with anybody -- that is not my intention.

Willard Whyte
29th Jul 2011, 05:44
Those radii seem a little on the high side, are you sure they're not one-way figures?

Jane-DoH
30th Jul 2011, 03:12
Willard Whyte

Those radii seem a little on the high side, are you sure they're not one-way figures?

Unsure, but I think it was 2,000 to 2,500 supersonic, and 4,000 subsonic...

Jane-DoH
2nd Aug 2011, 02:00
Does anybody have any responses to posts #66, #68?

glhcarl
2nd Aug 2011, 03:30
This of course means that the unstarts encountered early in the program were far more violent than most encountered later.


I worked in the sheet metal shop at Beale from April 1966 until February 1969 and unstarts were a way of life. They would crack and bend stiffeners and angles in the nacelles. We would have to drill out the damaged angles, fabricate new ones and reinstall them using bolts and nuts. That way the next time there was an unstart it was easier to change a damaged parts.

I even replaced a cockpit liner after an extremely violent un-start. The pilots helmet hit it so hard it cracked.

stilton
2nd Aug 2011, 06:54
Not a bad response on a subject 'best taken to Wiki' !!!!

pr00ne
2nd Aug 2011, 13:41
glad rag,

I remember that film US weapons and effects film, seemed to go on for ages and was filmed at alarmingly close quarters. Your mentioning of radar caravans being taken out reminded me of of poking fun at wannabee fighter controllers!
Can you remember what it was actually called and is it available on YouTube, DVD etc?

BEagle
2nd Aug 2011, 15:26
That was the old Tactical Air Command Weapons Effects movie, I guess.

Most of the camera shots were taken with well-protected remote cameras!

I recall the Zuni rockets as being particularly prone to doing their own thing!

This isn't the actual movie,

Te2CP33m8hM

but there are some good period shots of the F-100, RF-101, F-104, F-105, 'F-110' (which seems to have been an early designation for the F-4), B-66, KB-50 and C-130.

Also, rather satisfyingly, a drone getting swatted by a sidewinder...:ok:

Wander00
2nd Aug 2011, 15:48
That is a film I remember from my days at Sleaford Tech - shown by Bob Pomeroy, the US Air Force major on the war studuies team, who also coached basketball. Sadly killed in Vietnam IIRC. RIP

esa-aardvark
2nd Aug 2011, 17:51
I seem to recall seeing a B-58 roll almost straight off
the ground at an air show in the UK. Or maybe it was a low pass
+ roll . Around 1958 or so, so maybe my memory is incorrect.
At a USAF base of course.
John

Willard Whyte
2nd Aug 2011, 21:18
Always had a soft spot for the A-3/B-66. Interesting X-plane conversion too.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/X21A.jpg/300px-X21A.jpg

'F-110' (which seems to have been an early designation for the F-4)

One wonders how many Mid East exports would've taken place if the name 'Satan' had been adopted.

Squirrel 41
2nd Aug 2011, 22:44
'F-110' (which seems to have been an early designation for the F-4)

<Anorak Mode> ON

The F-110A was the USAF's initial designation for the F-4C before the unification of the USN and USAF designation systems, in, IIRC, 1962ish. Thus, the next project was F-111....

Depending on who tells the story, the USAF either produced a land-based optimised fighter, or buggered about with a perfectly good aeroplane because it had to be "better" (read: different) to the USN's version. Again, IIRC, there were surprisingly large differences between F-4B and F-110A and RF-110A - the USAF ones had different wheels and tyres, for example.

<Anorak Mode> OFF

S41

GreenKnight121
3rd Aug 2011, 01:50
Quote:
'F-110' (which seems to have been an early designation for the F-4)
One wonders how many Mid East exports would've taken place if the name 'Satan' had been adopted.

The F-110 was to have been named "Spectre"... in line with McDonnell's history of naming fighters after supernatural creatures... XF-85 Goblin; XF-88 Voodoo; FH Phantom; F2H Banshee; F3H Demon; F-101 Voodoo; F4H Phantom II.

Since the Phantom had so much going for it, in January of 1962, President Kennedy requested Congressional approval for the procurement of F4H-1 derivatives for the Air Force under the designation F-110. The F-110A was to be the tactical fighter version, with RF-110A being the tactical reconnaissance version. The name Spectre was assigned to the aircraft.

McDonnell F-110A Spectre/F-4C Phantom II (http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_7.html)


Sept. 18: With the changes in military designations, the McDonnell F-110A becomes the F-4C and the Spectre name is discarded.

Boeing: History -- Chronology - 1957 - 1963 (http://boeing.com/history/chronology/chron09.html)

Jane-DoH
3rd Aug 2011, 22:48
ghlcarl

I worked in the sheet metal shop at Beale from April 1966 until February 1969 and unstarts were a way of life. They would crack and bend stiffeners and angles in the nacelles.

I didn't know they would cause that much structural damage.

I even replaced a cockpit liner after an extremely violent un-start. The pilots helmet hit it so hard it cracked.

Yikes :ouch:

Willard Whyte
4th Aug 2011, 20:42
G-K, I can't get as anal about trivia as some; perhaps I don't fit in here.

My info is that the name 'Satan' was considered as a name for the 'plane that became the F-4 Phantom.

GreenKnight121
5th Aug 2011, 02:04
I wonder where your info is from... I have never seen that anywhere.

GreenKnight121
6th Aug 2011, 07:52
Ahhh... ONE guy wanted to name it that, I see.

Sure a narrowly-decided issue, eh?

Willard Whyte
6th Aug 2011, 14:39
The info, thank you Brian, does not contradict that which I wrote.

As a matter of 'narrowly-decided? As I said earlier, I can't get as anal as some folk.

Dr Jekyll
6th Aug 2011, 14:42
Always thought 'Phantom' was a strange name for such a noisy and substantial aircraft.

Pontius Navigator
6th Aug 2011, 21:17
That doesn't sound right. A supersonic range of 2,000 miles was admitted to early on which means an endurance of 90 minutes minimum; in a book written about the B-58, I think it was stated that it's radius was 4,000 miles with a supersonic radius of 2,000 to 2,500 miles.

In quoting ranges/roa it is usual to define the profile. A statement 'supersonic range of 2,000 miles' looks good but is entirely illogical. A supersonic dash is required only during a short period of a mission for instance penetration and egress of a target SAM belt. In the case of Moscow this would require a supersonic dash of perhaps 150 miles. Such a supersonic profile could only be mounted from a forward operating base. It is more likely that it would have been a refuelled mission with the fully fuelled aircraft case off some 1,000 miles from the target, a high subsonic cruise until feet dry and then a supersonic dash as required to penetrate defences. As previously mentioned a through flight to Yesilkoy or similar could conclude the mission. A profile might have involved a transatlantic subsonic cruise, a flight refuelling before coasting in at Oreland, Big M, thence to Turkey and you have your 2000-2500 range.

A 4000 mile range was theoretically possible with the Vulcan operating at similar weights and subsonic speed on a hi-hi-hi profile. An un-refuelled 4000 mile ROA or 8000 miles unrefuelled would last roughly 16 hours - given a typical 1960s turbojet fuel burn of 2000-2500 lb/hr that would require a magnificent 130,000 - 160,000 lbs of fuel. Given a max fuel (based on an earlier post) of 110,000 lbs there is an obvious shortfall but not an absolute impossibility for a 4000 mile ROA especially if we are talking statute miles (another variable).

I submit therefore that the ROA quoted had to include flight refuelling or that ROA was actually range.

Jane-DoH
8th Aug 2011, 03:22
Pontius Navigator

In quoting ranges/roa it is usual to define the profile. A statement 'supersonic range of 2,000 miles' looks good but is entirely illogical.

A lot of ideas the USAF had were illogical (I wouldn't be surprised if the RAF had some illogical ideas too), but the purpose of the B-58 was to fly faster, higher, and farther than the threats it was to face. These included SAM's as well as fighter-interceptors.


Such a supersonic profile could only be mounted from a forward operating base.

As I understand it, the intention was to either operate the plane from a forward deployed base; or fly the plane subsonic to within a decent proximity to enemy territory, then refuel and accelerate supersonic.

A profile might have involved a transatlantic subsonic cruise, a flight refuelling before coasting in at Oreland, Big M, thence to Turkey and you have your 2000-2500 range.

True

An un-refuelled 4000 mile ROA or 8000 miles unrefuelled would last roughly 16 hours - given a typical 1960s turbojet fuel burn of 2000-2500 lb/hr that would require a magnificent 130,000 - 160,000 lbs of fuel.

As far as I know the B-58 had a higher T/W ratio than the Avro Vulcan, a faster climb-speed (425 kts) and an overall higher rate of climb. The faster you can get up to altitude gives you more fuel to spend cruising around.

I don't know what the SFC of the J-79's were, but I think the J79's were less powerful than the Bristol Olympus, so even if the SFC was identical, you'd have less fuel consumption in terms of pounds per hour.

Given a max fuel (based on an earlier post) of 110,000 lbs there is an obvious shortfall but not an absolute impossibility for a 4000 mile ROA especially if we are talking statute miles (another variable).

Well, from what I was told the B-58 weighed between 55,000 and 56,000 pounds empty; about 163,000 at typical maximum weight (it could go up to 177,000 pounds when carrying 4 x Mk. 43's externally), it carried a 10,000 pound bomb. I don't know how much the weapons pod weighed but I remember reference being made to carrying a 13,000 pound payload (the bomb only weighed 10,000 IIRC).

I submit therefore that the ROA quoted had to include flight refuelling or that ROA was actually range.

ROA = Radius of Action?

Pontius Navigator
8th Aug 2011, 09:01
Jane, the Vulcan time to 45k was about 9 minutes at full chat. At 5000 fpm it would be at height some 60-70 nm from take-off. A B58 at a higher climb rate might have only gained 30 nm high altitude cruise - insignifcant I suggest.

ROA, correct.

Supersonic cruise all the way? I don't think so. The Force d'Frappe had a similar capability which was as I described - high-subsonic with a supersonic target penetration.

A DID report in the mid-60s analysed an SA3 (I think) engagement with a headon target at high subsonic speed - it could have been against the B58 or the upcoming FB111. It calculated the number of shots that a battery could fire - single shot - as the aircraft approached, overflew, and departed. I cannot remember exactly if it was the SA3 on a low level engagement or SA2 on a high level one. It was before the multiple SA2 launchers were developed.

Pentration of the Moscow SAM belt was a special case and high speed, non-manoeuvering penetration would probably have worked.

Finally, on the Bomb Comps the B58 sortie was IIRO 6 Hours.

hval
8th Aug 2011, 19:15
HJ,

On the B-58.com (http://b-58.com/)web site go to the Contents/ Links page where there are links to other web sites, many with some fascinating tales and information. Well worth a look.

It is a web site I, or someone else already recommended.

hval
8th Aug 2011, 20:50
The B-58′s designed temperature limit was 115șC but the Convair engineers deemed it safe to operate at 126șC. Any faster and the honeycomb aluminum skin would begin to debond.

The aluminium/ Stainless steel/ fibreglass honeycomb panels reduced the number of welds and rivets. This gave a smoother skin and meant that heat absorbtion was cut by about 38șC.

This increased temperature limitation allowed the crew to push the aircraft to over 1400 miles per hour.

There were also limitations as to how long the airframe could maintain such temperatures.

The original mission profile for the B-58 was to cruise to the target area at .91 Mach, then dash at Mach 2-plus above 50,000 feet for approximately 500 miles. Then drop the pod containing the nuclear weapon and return to home base at .91 Mach cruise.

Maintenance crews reported that for every hour the B-58 flew, it took 35 hours of maintenance.

Jane-DoH
8th Aug 2011, 23:02
Everybody

If it's not classified how many g-'s could a B-58 pull without coming apart? They said it had fighter like agility, so I would assume over 6g but it never really specified.


Pontius Navigator

Jane, the Vulcan time to 45k was about 9 minutes at full chat. At 5000 fpm it would be at height some 60-70 nm from take-off. A B58 at a higher climb rate might have only gained 30 nm high altitude cruise - insignifcant I suggest.

Well it does take a lot more energy to get up to altitude and speed than to stay there (one reason why SAM's are so much bigger than AAM's for the same range), but considering you're more knowledgeable on this here, I won't argue.

Regardless, Avro Vulcan had a higher L/D ratio which would cut fuel consumption down. After all, as I understand it, the Breguet range equation factors in (could be wrong here) airspeed/mach number, specific fuel consumption, thrust/weight ratio, ram-compression to determine range. Even if the B-58 had a better fuel fraction, it's L/D ratio was lower so it wouldn't work out as well most likely.

I assume both aircraft could fly a cruise climb profile whereby you progressively climb gradually upwards as you burn off fuel which helps add additional range anyway.

Supersonic cruise all the way? I don't think so.

I was always under the impression that they would tank up off the coast, then go supersonic to the target, drop the bombs, and weapons pod, then race on out, go feet wet, hit the tanker, then cruise back home.

The Force d'Frappe had a similar capability which was as I described - high-subsonic with a supersonic target penetration.

Force d'Frappe = French Nuclear Deterrent?

A DID report in the mid-60s analysed an SA3 (I think) engagement with a headon target at high subsonic speed - it could have been against the B58 or the upcoming FB111. It calculated the number of shots that a battery could fire - single shot - as the aircraft approached, overflew, and departed. I cannot remember exactly if it was the SA3 on a low level engagement or SA2 on a high level one. It was before the multiple SA2 launchers were developed.

Pentration of the Moscow SAM belt was a special case and high speed, non-manoeuvering penetration would probably have worked.

Then why did the DoD act as if the B-58 was "unsurvivable" against high-altitude penetration of the USSR, and instead they insisted on low altitude missions instead?

Finally, on the Bomb Comps the B58 sortie was IIRO 6 Hours.

The bomb-comps only had a provision for a 6 hour mission?


hval

The B-58′s designed temperature limit was 115șC but the Convair engineers deemed it safe to operate at 126șC. Any faster and the honeycomb aluminum skin would begin to debond.

I figured they could have gone faster than that. The leading-edges were honeycomb stainless steel which is where the stag-temps would be at (the trailing edges also had stainless steel honeycomb panels because of the exhaust from the J79's impinging on them :}) with the rest of the skin consisting of honeycomb aluminum.

The aluminium/ Stainless steel/ fibreglass honeycomb panels reduced the number of welds and rivets. This gave a smoother skin and meant that heat absorbtion was cut by about 38șC.

I didn't know the aerodynamic smoothness would make that much of a temperature difference. Regardless, I was under the impression that honeycomb metals could operate better at high temperatures additionally because the internal surface area they had (the honeycomb) helped better radiate heat away than a regular sheet panel.

I do remember the germans doing some work on some kind of aluminum (sinterized?) foam that could take unusually high temperatures which if I recall had to do with the internal surface area.

There were also limitations as to how long the airframe could maintain such temperatures.

How short exactly was this limit, if it's not classified.

Maintenance crews reported that for every hour the B-58 flew, it took 35 hours of maintenance.

Well, I knew it was maintenance intensive...

Pontius Navigator
9th Aug 2011, 08:18
Everybody

If it's not classified how many g-'s could a B-58 pull without coming apart? They said it had fighter like agility, so I would assume over 6g but it never really specified.

You don't need high Gs to pull inside a fighter. The Vulcan could turn with a Lightning doing say 5g and pull no more than 1.25-1.5. At high level against a Javelin or F102 we would turn inside and climb through the low 40s while they struggled to keep with us but stuck in the mid-30s.

I assume both aircraft could fly a cruise climb profile whereby you progressively climb gradually upwards as you burn off fuel which helps add additional range anyway. A 301 engined Vulcan on combat power would be at about 45k before it had to cruise climb. A level cruise at the trop would have been more efficient but put it firmly in the SAM engagement zone.

I was always under the impression that they would tank up off the coast, then go supersonic to the target, drop the bombs, and weapons pod, then race on out, go feet wet, hit the tanker, then cruise back home.

Fair dink but recovery to the south would make a tanker both improbable and unlikely. Tanking in OTOH is what the Reflex crews were all about.

Force d'Frappe = French Nuclear Deterrent?

Yup.

Then why did the DoD act as if the B-58 was "unsurvivable" against high-altitude penetration of the USSR, and instead they insisted on low altitude missions instead? I didn't mention how many shots it could take :). Against a .9 target it was IIRC about 4-5 head on and 1-2 tail on. Given a battery had 6 missiles it would of course have been shot out. This is one reason why then penetrators would go concentrate on just one or two corridors through a SAM belt. It might have seemed attractive to overfly one site rather than run a gauntlet through two but the local ADA (air defence artillery) at each site was a significant threat inside the missile dead zone.

The bomb-comps only had a provision for a 6 hour mission?

Yes, remember each crew flew 2 sorties over 3 days. Something like 40-50 aircraft at 10 minute stream would take 7 hours to flow through so simple logistics dictated sortie length. IIRC the celestial navigation legs were 1200-1400 miles and there were a number (I don't recall) RBS attacks (Radar Bomb Score).


The one I remember where the Vulcan won a trophy had a B58 in the navigation lead one night with a terminal error of 0.2 nm and the Vulcan at 0.4 nm. A second B58 was close. The next night sortie had everyone on tenterhooks. Could the Vulcan repeat its success or was it a fluke? Would the unknown B58s achieve consistent results.

As the competition unfolded so the results were posted.

First in was the Vulcan at 1.2 nm. Groans. Anything under a mile would put either B58 ahead. Next in came the top B58 - 3.2 nm. Then a wait for the other B58. It came in at under 4 nm but with an aggregate of only 1.6 nm the Vulcan was the clear winner.

The second night scores were not as good as there had been slight turbulence.

Jane-DoH
9th Aug 2011, 16:18
Pontius Navigator

You don't need high Gs to pull inside a fighter.

True enough, if you're moving slow and turning tight might not necessarily pull as many g's as a plane moving extremely fast and turning moderately well.

The Vulcan could turn with a Lightning doing say 5g and pull no more than 1.25-1.5.

Makes sense, it had a lighter wing-loading, thicker wings, a higher aspect ratio and better wing/body blending.

At high level against a Javelin or F102 we would turn inside and climb through the low 40s while they struggled to keep with us but stuck in the mid-30s.

I'm surprised the F-102's would have had trouble.

A 301 engined Vulcan on combat power would be at about 45k before it had to cruise climb.

I don't know at what altitude the B-58 would reach before it would start a cruise climb

A level cruise at the trop would have been more efficient but put it firmly in the SAM engagement zone.

Higher and faster is generally better for dealing with missiles, especially missiles of that era.

Fair dink but recovery to the south would make a tanker both improbable and unlikely.

Why? I thought Turkey was friendly...

Tanking in OTOH is what the Reflex crews were all about.

What's a reflex crew?

I didn't mention how many shots it could take :). Against a .9 target it was IIRC about 4-5 head on and 1-2 tail on. Given a battery had 6 missiles it would of course have been shot out.

If they were flying in a straight-line you mean? If you were doing a series of 60-degree banks, climbs and descends if necessary to keep a decent degree of airspeed, and had the jammers on chances of survival would probably greatly improve.

Against a plane like the B-58, supersonic, maneuvers, jammers on and various climbing and descents with the rapid altitude deviations when climbing and descending (and course deviations when turning), I assume you'd have to lob a butt-load of missiles at a B-58 in order to score a lucky shot.

but the local ADA (air defence artillery) at each site was a significant threat inside the missile dead zone.

I thought you'd be above AAA at 45,000 feet -- let along 60,000 feet like in the B-58...

Yes, remember each crew flew 2 sorties over 3 days. Something like 40-50 aircraft at 10 minute stream would take 7 hours to flow through so simple logistics dictated sortie length.

Wait, if the comps only went to six hours, and they routinely flew seven hours...

The second night scores were not as good as there had been slight turbulence.

And the faster you go, I'd assume the deviations produced by it would be more massive...

Pontius Navigator
9th Aug 2011, 17:54
I'm surprised the F-102's would have had trouble. I am not sure that the F106 was any better. On one occasion a Vulcan en route Goose embellished their flight plan. A succession of Darts were scrambled and each failed to get a kill. On landing, when the crew met the deuce guys in the bar the latter, unlike most figter pilots, were all very subdued. It seemed that had an ORIT and had been flagged as a fail.

Higher and faster is generally better for dealing with missiles, especially missiles of that era.

If they were flying in a straight-line you mean? If you were doing a series of 60-degree banks, climbs and descends if necessary to keep a decent degree of airspeed, and had the jammers on chances of survival would probably greatly improve.

Against a plane like the B-58, supersonic, maneuvers, jammers on and various climbing and descents with the rapid altitude deviations when climbing and descending (and course deviations when turning), I assume you'd have to lob a butt-load of missiles at a B-58 in order to score a lucky shot.

All very true though one line of thinking was that a supersonic mover would minimise its exposure by flying through. Doing an evasive manoeuvre would increase its exposure. However our manoeuvre predicated a 60 course change every 60 seconds based on the need for acquisition and tracking for more than 60 seconds.

What's a reflex crew? This was the KC135 operation to support the bombers. They pulled alert in places like Goose Bay and Fairford. Goose, IIRC, had 12 aircraft. They were fully fuelled and the copilots had to recalculate the max fuel load every 6 hours or so with top up/defuel as necessary.

Turkey, friendly indeed. Black Sea not so friendly with the Black Sea Fleet capable of taking missiles as far as the Turkish coast. The 1960s Norwegian Sea may have been 'friendly' but the Black Sea most certainly was not.

I thought you'd be above AAA at 45,000 feet -- let along 60,000 feet like in the B-58... They had 100mm and 130mm ADA:

The Soviet 130mm anti-aircraft gun KS-30 appeared in the early 1950s, closely resembling the German wartime 12.8 cm FlaK 40 antiaircraft gun. The KS-30 was used for the home defense forces of the USSR

100 mm air defense gun KS-19 (Russian: 100-мм зенитная пушка КС-19) was a Soviet anti-aircraft gun. Following the end of the Second World War the Soviet Union introduced into service the 100 mm KS-19 and 130 mm KS-30. This could reach 50k. However you are correct about SAM ADA which was to cover the dead zone. In the case of the SA2 this was a 'sugar loaf' shape 5 nm radius to 20000 feet.

Wait, if the comps only went to six hours, and they routinely flew seven hours... But the Vulcan was pushed over 6 hours high level and there was the timing issue as I mentioned.

And the faster you go, I'd assume the deviations produced by it would be more massive...

As I said, they were in a stream of about 50 aircraft hence the exercise fly period was about 8 hours.

Tailspin Turtle
9th Aug 2011, 18:47
Actually a delta wing can use flaps -- you simply need leading and trailing edge flaps working together. One produces lift up front, the other in the back. It doesn't work as well as a tailed design though.

Leading edge slats/flaps do produce a nose-up pitching moment but not nearly enough to counter the nose-down pitching moment that results from lowering trailing-edge flaps. As a result, delta or flying wings can utilize flaps in the conventional sense only if there is a control surface, like a horizontal tail or a canard, that imparts enough additional nose-up pitching moment to allow the use of flaps. As it happens, leading-edge flaps or slats can be used on deltas or flying wings (e.g. the F4D Skyray and F7U Cutlass) to increase lift because the pitch change is countered with a relatively small flap-like movement of the trailing-edge control surface that also increases the airfoil's camber and therefore lift.

Jane-DoH
9th Aug 2011, 20:57
Pontius Navigator

I am not sure that the F106 was any better. On one occasion a Vulcan en route Goose embellished their flight plan. A succession of Darts were scrambled and each failed to get a kill.

I'm surprised the F-106 pilots couldn't have just used their superior thrust to weight ratios to compensate for any shortcomings in turning performance by performing a series of vertical maneuvers?

All very true though one line of thinking was that a supersonic mover would minimise its exposure by flying through. Doing an evasive manoeuvre would increase its exposure.

Because it covers less distance than blowing straight through? Still, the course and altitude changes you'd figure would still make it a real pain in the buttocks for the missile to keep with it, especially with the jammers going.

However our manoeuvre predicated a 60 course change every 60 seconds based on the need for acquisition and tracking for more than 60 seconds.

So, so long as you changed course more than 60-degrees in 60-seconds the missile couldn't acquire you?

This was the KC135 operation to support the bombers. They pulled alert in places like Goose Bay and Fairford. Goose, IIRC, had 12 aircraft. They were fully fuelled and the copilots had to recalculate the max fuel load every 6 hours or so with top up/defuel as necessary.

You know, I'm amazed that nobody thought of having a nuclear-fueled tanker :}. Sure a nuclear-powered bomber (which was a proposal) seems cool, but once you drop your bombs you have to land no matter what; if you have a nuclear fueled tanker, you just tank up with another tanker and are then able to continue tanking up other aircraft, plus since a nuclear fueled tanker
wouldn't have to burn any of the fuel, you'd have an added plus.

Turkey, friendly indeed. Black Sea not so friendly with the Black Sea Fleet capable of taking missiles as far as the Turkish coast. The 1960s Norwegian Sea may have been 'friendly' but the Black Sea most certainly was not.

So you'd have to be significantly over the Turkish coast to be safe?

They had 100mm and 130mm ADA ... This could reach 50k.

Wow, who would have ever thought you could put flak up that high -- though I suppose if a battleship could lob a 16.5 inch shell over 30 miles, it's not all that far fetched that you could lob a shell 10 miles up.

As I said, they were in a stream of about 50 aircraft hence the exercise fly period was about 8 hours.

I figured you guys would have flown that many aircraft in several different corridors -- come in from multiple different headings bomb the crap out of everything, and then exit along multiple corridors on the way out. That was done in Vietnam.


Tailspin Turtle

Leading edge slats/flaps do produce a nose-up pitching moment but not nearly enough to counter the nose-down pitching moment that results from lowering trailing-edge flaps.

I never said the trailing-edge deflections would be massive. I was just trying to say that if you popped the slats out, you could lower the trailing edges a little.

As it happens, leading-edge flaps or slats can be used on deltas or flying wings (e.g. the F4D Skyray and F7U Cutlass) to increase lift because the pitch change is countered with a relatively small flap-like movement of the trailing-edge control surface that also increases the airfoil's camber and therefore lift.

Actually, the F7U Cutlass was actually the example I was thinking of...

oldcrow2
16th Jan 2014, 03:56
The gents at Convair solved the problem of clearing the pod by designing a hinge at the top of the gear. The top of the strut folded aft so the strut & wheel assembly could raise fwd.

Howard Bialas, DSO, 43BW. Member of B-58 Test Force, joint ARDC/SAC

goofer3
16th Jan 2014, 15:57
Links to gear animation; Front,

http://www5a.biglobe.ne.jp/~t_miyama/b58leg2.gif

Main,

http://www5a.biglobe.ne.jp/~t_miyama/b58leg1.gif

tdracer
16th Jan 2014, 17:32
Here is a good background article on the B-58:

Speed Freak | History of Flight | Air & Space Magazine (http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/speed-freak.html)
(BTW, the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine is great...):ok:

For a long time, much of what I knew about the B-58 was from the movie "Failsafe". After I saw the B-58 and XB-70 at the USAF Museum in Dayton I became more interested and started reading about them. Pretty amazing what they did in the 1950's and early 1960's with the limited technology of the time. The XB-70 still blows me away - 500,000 lb. when we still thought a 300,000 lb. 707 was a big airplane, and could cruise at Mach 3. :D When I was reading about the XB-70 and looked where they flew it supersonic, it occurred to me that some of those sonic booms I heard as a kit in Colorado may well have been XB-70 test flights.:E

While I think the airplanes and such we work on today are pretty cool, I often think being an Aero Engineer in the 1950's and 1960's must have been fantastic. Today we stretch the state of the art - back then they completely redefined state of the art and did it on a regular basis. Must have been great fun (maybe not so much for the pilots though, it appears we killed them with great regularity :eek:)

Molemot
16th Jan 2014, 19:57
Back in 1981, I had a few (!) drinks in the Bar Apollinaire in the Hotel Nikko in Paris, with a chap who said he had been a Crew Chief on the B-58. He told me his B-58 career started when he was posted to the factory where it was being built.....his briefing was that the aeroplane was being built with no regard for maintenance at all, and the crew chiefs would have to find ways to do it and help write the manuals as the construction progressed. He said he regarded his Hustler as HIS aeroplane...he had a photograph in his wallet and said he even went to visit it where it was parked in the desert!