B-58 Hustler
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
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.
Probably about as easy to maintain as a 4-engined Lightning?
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Rossian
...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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Abraham
Okay
FoxtrotAlpha18
The SR-71 first flew in 1964, and entered service in '66. DAFICS wasn't installed until 1980.
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.
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.
That's correct.
hval
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).
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).
Depends on what speed you fly it at...
The MiG-21, F-102A, and F-106A all had delta wings and had similar turning performance. At Mach 0.8 @ 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.
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.
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.
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
So the plane wasn't directionally stable enough?
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.
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.
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.
Talking about the 71 Jane
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 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. 
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
hval
A delta-winged aircraft has a number of disadvantages: it cannot use flaps, and so has a long takeoff run
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.
A delta wing aircraft loses speed quickly on turns, limiting manoeuvrability.
The MiG-21, F-102A, and F-106A all had delta wings and had similar turning performance. At Mach 0.8 @ 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
BTW: I don't want to be perceived as arguing with anybody -- that is not my intention.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willard Whyte
Unsure, but I think it was 2,000 to 2,500 supersonic, and 4,000 subsonic...
Those radii seem a little on the high side, are you sure they're not one-way figures?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This of course means that the unstarts encountered early in the program were far more violent than most encountered later.
I even replaced a cockpit liner after an extremely violent un-start. The pilots helmet hit it so hard it cracked.
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?
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?
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,
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...
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,
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...
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
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B-58
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always had a soft spot for the A-3/B-66. Interesting X-plane conversion too.
One wonders how many Mid East exports would've taken place if the name 'Satan' had been adopted.
'F-110' (which seems to have been an early designation for the F-4)
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 2nd Aug 2011 at 21:33.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'F-110' (which seems to have been an early designation for the F-4)
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
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Willard Whyte
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.
'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.
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.
Sept. 18: With the changes in military designations, the McDonnell F-110A becomes the F-4C and the Spectre name is discarded.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ghlcarl
I didn't know they would cause that much structural damage.
Yikes 
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 even replaced a cockpit liner after an extremely violent un-start. The pilots helmet hit it so hard it cracked.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
My info is that the name 'Satan' was considered as a name for the 'plane that became the F-4 Phantom.