Convair B-58 Projects

taildragger said:
Images of roughly the same configuration produced as a display model, identified on the stand as the "Advanced Hustler". It's interesting that the landing gear fairings have disappeared from the wings, although I'm not sure if these are represented on the Topping B-58A model.
Click to expand...

I wonder are they Drop tanks or two B61 Nukes ?
if last point is the case that could indicate the big pot is away and room for new landing gear ?
 
Michel Van said:
I wonder are they Drop tanks or two B61 Nukes ?
Click to expand...
It's possible that they're two pods similar to the single pod of the standard aircraft, but I'd be very surprised if that's all they were. They're definitely far too large to be B61s, or any other nuclear weapon, and presumably additional fuel capacity would be needed to replace the centreline pod.
 
Could the Hustler withstand Mach 3 flight? If so, could it withstand Mach 3 flight for extended periods of time?
 
It probably could travel for bursts at Mach 3, like the MiG-25. But whether it could travel at prolonged periods of time is a whole different matter. That is the real question.
 
Wyvern said:
Could the Hustler withstand Mach 3 flight? If so, could it withstand Mach 3 flight for extended periods of time?
Click to expand...
Aerodynamically-I'd say Yes. From a structure standpoint-no-the vehicle was built out of aluminum, and that metal starts to melt very quickly much above Mach 2.3-2.4. Now was the proposal to build the B-58C out of titanium? -new ballgame
 
As said above.

Mach 3.5 is from the engine nacelle and ramjet effect, rather than J58 by itself. also the B-58 was build from al-li / aluminium alloy, must have limited it to Mach 2.25 like all the others.
As a SR-71 buff it took me some time to grasp that putting J58s on other aircraft didn't made them Mach 3 automatically. In the case of the B-58, it was rather a matter of getting more power with less engines. Could have picked J93 or J75, alternatively.

Heck, the J58 was created for the P6M Seamaster - an awesome beast but hardly Mach 3 by any mean.
 
I still don't understand how did they planned to get the FISH below a B-58. The Internet tells me FISH was 9.8 ft tall. Was there that much height below a B-58 ?
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • B-58 with F101 engines.jpg
    B-58 with F101 engines.jpg
    28.5 KB · Views: 139
Archibald said:
I still don't understand how did they planned to get the FISH below a B-58. The Internet tells me FISH was 9.8 ft tall. Was there that much height below a B-58 ?
Click to expand...
There not much space left if put King Fish under it...
image85-jpg.614965
 
Need a lot of runway to clear the 50 foot obstacle on take off! Maybe one degree nose up? Much more and you scrape the back of the King Fish on the runway.
 
martinbayer said:
Unfolding the King Fish nose in flight would have been entertaining...
Click to expand...

Would have thought it would happen as soon as the nose gear retracted, before the B-58 started to accelerate . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
Would make some sense, although it would impact potential in flight abort options, like for a failure to separate.
 
 
martinbayer said:
Would make some sense, although it would impact potential in flight abort options, like for a failure to separate.
Click to expand...

Found this on the Code One site, HERE :-

"Like the Super Hustler, this early version of FISH had a nose tip that hinged downward and tucked below the fuselage to deal with the space limitations of the B-58 carrier. (The nose could be swung up after the landing gear of the B-58 was retracted.)"

Cheers,
Robin.
 
Which means the B-58 nose landing gear could only be activated again if a) the King Fish had successfully separated or b) the nose unfolding could be reversed in flight if separation was unsuccessful and an abort of the mated aircraft was required. I don't know whether such a reversal was contemplated.
 
Seems that in the event of something going wrong with the B-58 after takeoff but before separation, the thing to do would be separate and jettison Fish/Super Hustler fuel and return to base or the nearest convenient dry lake bed, landing each craft separately. But the Super Hustler has the additional problem of the booster stage with the attached H-bomb.

Imagine being tucked into the Fish cockpit under the B-58 when suddenly there's a "bang" and the B-58 pilot starts screaming about one of the engines exploding.

oh-no-im-out.gif
 
Orionblamblam said:
I'm not sure I'd want to land a B-58 with a Super Hustler or a Fish hanging underneath it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I would want to try and take off with a Fish underneath it.
 
southwestforests said:
Archibald said:
The Internet tells me FISH was 9.8 ft tall. Was there that much height below a B-58 ?
Click to expand...
Don't know if the count was 9 feet, but the thing was certainly not a lowrider,

From, https://b58facts.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/first-blog-post/


and from, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-convair-rb-58-recce-hustlers-short-but-fascinating-career

Click to expand...

The pod was 75 feet long with a diameter of about 5 feet.
Click to expand...

5 ft is a tiny man - the hell with that, let's go metric. 10 ft is 3.05 m, Titan diameter. Half of that is 1.52 m. A grown man is 1.80 m or more. The photo you provide clearly shows that height was more than 1.90 m.
 
Preliminary studies by General Dynamics/Ft.Worth indicate the B-58 bomber could carry a combination of two Douglas Skybolt air—launched ballistic missiles which would greatly increase its standoff bombing capability. and two one— megaton yield tactical free—fall bombs. Heat considerations would limit flight to subsonic speed. B58 air—launched several ballistic vehicles in feasibility tests that led to the Skybolt program.
Click to expand...
Aviation Week 24 July 1961
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
Was the B-58C supposed to use afterburning or non-afterburning J-58's (The B-58-9 used Non-AB J-58's)? Also was it to use the non bleed-bypass J-58's, or the bleed-bypass J-58's?

KJ Lesnick
Click to expand...
All J58s had to be bleed-bypass, the compressors choked out and would stall otherwise.
 
Scott Kenny said:
All J58s had to be bleed-bypass, the compressors choked out and would stall otherwise.
Click to expand...
The J-58 was initially a relatively conventional design for various Navy projects and not Mach 3+ optimised. The bleed bypass system was added as part of the engine redesign for the A-12.

KJ was asking if it was the earlier J-58 or the actual production J-58 intended.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
The J-58 was initially a relatively conventional design for various Navy projects and not Mach 3+ optimised. The bleed bypass system was added as part of the engine redesign for the A-12.

KJ was asking if it was the earlier J-58 or the actual production J-58 intended.
Click to expand...
As per Habubrats and quite a few videos, the J58 engines would choke out without the bypass tubes. Trying to cram too much air into too small a volume.

The Mach 3 optimization is from the inlet and afterburner designs, at Mach 3 the J58s are making negative net thrust, dragging on the engine mounts!
 
This comment and discussion on how J-58 works would be better off here.

I explained the context of the question you replied to and you again went off on a unrelated tangent.

The J-58-P2 engine proposal and prototype DID NOT HAVE BYPASS DUCTS and this design worked fine up to Mach 2.5.

Part of the redesign of the engine for the A-12 ADDED BYPASS DUCTS amoung many optimisations for Mach 3+.

The purpose of the ducts in the production engine have no relevancy to this point.

The point of the original question was, did this B-58 with J-58 proposal use the original Mach 2.5 design or the later Mach 3+ design of the engine. I would suggest the former.
 
Last edited:
I thought I read somewhere that J-58 was started to power a Navy attack bomber to replace the Vigilante.
 
AL said:
I thought I read somewhere that J-58 was started to power a Navy attack bomber to replace the Vigilante.
Click to expand...
Not sure about an attack bomber, but yes it started as a Navy project hence the even designation number. USAF-initiated projects got odd numbers. And when a USN plane got an odd numbered engine, the sub-variant number was always even (and vice versa).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not sure about an attack bomber, but yes it started as a Navy project hence the even designation number. USAF-initiated projects got odd numbers. And when a USN plane got an odd numbered engine, the sub-variant number was always even (and vice versa).
Click to expand...
That idea was also applied to guided missiles early on, though the Air Force didn't particularly follow it, and was briefly tried with the 1948-1962 USAF aircraft scheme - it's why there's no H-36/38 or C-136/138, and some other designations around that time are weirdly out of order.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom