Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: VirginiaJim on May 09, 2013, 05:24:27 AM
-
US Air Force Col. Tom Crimmins, vice commander of the 19th Airlift Wing at Little Rock AFB, Arkansas, speaks during the dedication ceremony for the newly restored TB-58A Hustler Mach 2 jet bomber at the base’s airpark on 3 May 2013. Convair built 116 B-58s in Fort Worth, Texas, from 1959 to 1961. This aircraft is one of eight Hustlers converted into operational trainers with dual controls for student and instructor in tandem. Crews from the 43rd Bombardment Wing flew B-58s at Little Rock from 1964 through 1969.
(http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/news/2013_News_Web_B58_130503_F_IY632_157_1269967624_1602.jpg)
-
Beautiful airplane but after Gary Powers in a high altitude spy plane got shot down by a Russian missile it was replaced by the low level flying B-47 and then by the B-52.
-
Not quite. The -47 was replaced by the -58. It, in turn was replaced by the F-111.
IMO the plane was more of an experiment in what they could build than a viable weapons platform
Without the underbelly pod it was a beautiful plane. It was used to set a few records, winning the Bendix trophy. Kind of validates my opinion.
And to go from the -58 to the -52 to deliver nukes,citing the Russian missles makes no sense to me.
ICBMs could do the job better. Just lile sattellites rendered the SR-71 obsolete.
-
I never got a chance to see one of these fly. I always loved this airplane and was one of my favorite models.
The whole point of strategic nuke bombers was that they could be launched at any time and recalled unlike an ICBM. Low and slow won the day over fast and high due to more stealthy.
Also I don't disagree that spy sats rendered the SR-71 obsolete to a point but there was a continuing need for aircraft recon due to the predictability of sats. It was drones that eventually grounded the SR-71.
-
I never got a chance to see one of these fly. I always loved this airplane and was one of my favorite models.
I was just entering my comment about building a B-58 model when Rhino slipped in ahead of me.
(http://www.oldmodelkits.com/jpegs/Testors%20694%20B-58%20MD.JPG)
I too painted mine up in Silver and stuck those water-based decals on it.
I remember the model could detach the bombload if desired to build without it
-
I was just entering my comment about building a B-58 model when Rhino slipped in ahead of me.
(http://www.oldmodelkits.com/jpegs/Testors%20694%20B-58%20MD.JPG)
I too painted mine up in Silver and stuck those water-based decals on it.
I remember the model could detach the bombload if desired to build without it
+1 :thumbs: Not sure but I think it was a Revell model.
-
The B-36 was used on one occasion to transfer the B-58 lifting body to Wright Pat for testing....
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/b-36/b36-gallery-ads.htm (http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/b-36/b36-gallery-ads.htm)
It was one of my favorite models as well when I was a kid.
Additional information...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-58_Hustler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-58_Hustler)
-
Revell and Monogram and Revell/Monogram
-
Revell and Monogram
Monogram! I was trying to remember the other brand.
-
Google and Ebay are your friends...
You can still get a Monogram version from Revell...
http://www.hobbyshipper.com/cgi-bin/wsr600p?V=RMX&I=MONS5713 (http://www.hobbyshipper.com/cgi-bin/wsr600p?V=RMX&I=MONS5713)
-
What was the scale of the monograms? All I could ever find was 1/72 in the 80's. I built in 1/48th and a majority was monograms as they were good kits in the 80's. The Japanese built fantasically detailed kits but out of my price range back then and no 58's.
-
Cost of operation did in the SR if ya really want to get down to brass tacks.
The U-2s are still in operation today.
Sats aren't manuverable but there are enough in place if a specific spot not covered by sats needs investigating the "Dragon Lady" still gets it done.
I have a few friends who worked on both the U-2 and SR. Drones are fine if you are already in the theater of operation.
The B-58 was a maintenance nightmare. And it couldn't be landed with a bomb aboard.basically the -58 was obsolete when introduced.
-
Cost of operation did in the SR if ya really want to get down to brass tacks.
The U-2s are still in operation today.
Sats aren't manuverable but there are enough in place if a specific spot not covered by sats needs investigating the "Dragon Lady" still gets it done.
I have a few friends who worked on both the U-2 and SR. Drones are fine if you are already in the theater of operation.
The B-58 was a maintenance nightmare. And it couldn't be landed with a bomb aboard.basically the -58 was obsolete when introduced.
Holy $hit! That's a major problem! So did it ever fly with a live nuke?
-
Probably not. Both the bomb and fuel pods were dropped when deploying a bomb. The plane had two sets of nose gear. One, for takeoff was on the pod. This couldn't take the stress of landing. That was for the conventional nose strut.
-
A B-58 Hustler (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/b58/) bomber was taxiing into position for takeoff at what became Grissom AFB in Indiana when it slid off the runway and caught fire. The three crew ejected but one perished due to a hard impact of his escape capsule. Five nuclear weapons were aboard the plane and several were damaged in the fire. Contamination was released but confined to the immediate vicinity of the wreckage. This was considered a 'Broken Arrow' incident.
This could imply that they could indeed carry nukes and land without dropping them. The B-58 was modified to carry weapons on pods (two on each wing and the one in the center). I guess this would account for the 5 number. Just guessing.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0268.shtml (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0268.shtml)
Ironically the escape capsule was developed so that they could eject at supersonic speeds. I guess it didn't help much at lower speeds.
General LeMay didn't want the aircraft developed and thought it was a waste of money for SAC. He contended that the lower priced slower bombers (B-52) could handle the job at hand. Gotta love LeMay.
-
The aircraft was balanced with the belly pod. Unfortunately when it didn't carry the belly pod, it had to be counterweighted at the front to keep it from tipping back on it's tail while parked.
-
CORRECTION.
Later models had shorter bomb pods permitting the use of the integral nose wheel on landing.
Yep, that counterweight weight 8k pounds.
To service the radar the ejection pods had to be removed. To test it the pods had to go back in. If the radar didn't work, out came the pods.
To replace a wing/fuselage panel the plane had to be put in a jig before panel removal. And it couldn't be moved until the panel was replaced!
The plane was cutting edge technology when designed but technology had improved by the time of its release.
I have no doubt some of its technology was borrowed for the SR.
-
Have seen some of these fly back when I was a kid. Convair (later General Dynamics) used to have an airshow in Fort Worth all the time and we would go because my parents worked out there. My dad actually worked on these. I always thought it looked like it was going a million miles an hour even when it was sitting still.
I also saw the XB-70 fly at one of those shows. I think they may still have one of those at the museum at Wright-Patterson in Dayton. We lived there for a few years, too.
-
Yep, W-P has a XB-70. Another plane built as an experiment. Another engineering marvel designed with slide rules and T squares.
-
Have seen some of these fly back when I was a kid. Convair (later General Dynamics) used to have an airshow in Fort Worth all the time and we would go because my parents worked out there. My dad actually worked on these. I always thought it looked like it was going a million miles an hour even when it was sitting still.
I also saw the XB-70 fly at one of those shows. I think they may still have one of those at the museum at Wright-Patterson in Dayton. We lived there for a few years, too.
I've walked underneath that XB-70 at WP AFB in Dayton. It was a religious experience of sorts.
Only two functional XB-70s were built. One crashed during testing in California (chase plane clipped it, causing it to go down), so the one in Dayton is the only one left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie)
While I think some of the new aircraft are cool (read: F-22), I just don't think that Aviation design is quite as exciting as it was back in the 50s and 60s. A lot of the cool stuff comes from that era...
-
+1, especially the century series of fighters.
-
I've walked underneath that XB-70 at WP AFB in Dayton. It was a religious experience of sorts...
+1 on the XB-70 experience up close and personal. It is heartbreaking to watch the video clip of the collision between the F-104 chase plane and XB-70.
XB-70 Valkyrie Mid-air collision June 8, 1966 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCORwUxlNQo#)
I just 'had' to ride back from 2012 Nationals in Arkansas via North Carolina for a nephew's wedding which then put me in line to visit Wright-Patterson for two days of sheer enjoyment. Walking around the XB-70 there was awesome in every sense of the word.
-
+1 on standing under the Valk. One huge aircraft.
Only got to spend one day there as it was too expensive to keep the rental aircraft for two days.
Flew a C-310 out and a Be-76 back.
Took lots of pics!
-
+1 on the XB-70 experience up close and personal. It is heartbreaking to watch the video clip of the collision between the F-104 chase plane and XB-70.
XB-70 Valkyrie Mid-air collision June 8, 1966 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCORwUxlNQo#)
I just 'had' to ride back from 2012 Nationals in Arkansas via North Carolina for a nephew's wedding which then put me in line to visit Wright-Patterson for two days of sheer enjoyment. Walking around the XB-70 there was awesome in every sense of the word.
WOW !!! I was just talking to Debbie about this very event, It was on the cover of a science magazine. I think that this is on of the most coolest aircrafts.
Also I always loved the Hustler, I remember seeing it in USAF safety films back in the early '80. Powered by 4 J-79's, the same motor that powered my No#1 fighter, the F-4 Phantom. When I first joined the USAF, F-105's Thunderchiefs were still in service. All the above jets are so damn sexy.
Cheers
Ron
-
There is a gutted B-58 on display in Galveston
It looks like two giant engines with a plane attached from the front!
Very impressive!