B-58 Hustler

[GreenKnight121]

I wonder where your info is from... I have never seen that anywhere.

[GreenKnight121]

Ahhh... ONE guy wanted to name it that, I see.

Sure a narrowly-decided issue, eh?

[Willard Whyte]

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]

Always thought 'Phantom' was a strange name for such a noisy and substantial aircraft.

[Pontius Navigator]

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]

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]

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]

For Hanoi Jane

HJ,

On the 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]

B-58 Temperature Limitations

The B-58′s designed temperature limit was 115ºC but the Convair engineers deemed it safe to operate at 126ºC. 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 38ºC.

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]

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 115ºC but the Convair engineers deemed it safe to operate at 126ºC. 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 38ºC.

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]

Originally Posted by Jane-DoH

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Jane-DoH

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]

Delta Wing Flaps

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]

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]

B-58 Nose gear retraction

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]

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]

Here is a good background article on the B-58:

Speed Freak | History of Flight | Air & Space Magazine
(BTW, the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine is great...)

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. 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.

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 )

[Molemot]

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!