Rule of cool

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
16 January 2024
Messages
982
Reaction score
1,215
I saw a B58 Hustler for the first time the other day, I was surprised by how small it was. I also finally understand what the combination fuel-weapon store is and does.

Was the design too specific and limited to remain in service beyond 1969? Could it have carried SRAMs or other advanced nukes? What about any conventional role? Was the FB111A a step up or down?
 
Think about what happens if one of the outer engines surges during super sonic flight.
The FAA representative that certified Concorde had been a B-58 pilot (not sure if test or production). When the Concorde team wanted to demonstrate an engine surge, he about shat himself on the spot.

You have an outboard engine surge at Mach 2 on the Hustler, you're losing the plane and crew unless everyone's guardian angels are very happy with them.

He didn't realize that Concorde had been designed for an engine surge to be as close to a non-event as possible.
 
I never thought of that, so many of these ground breaking aircraft had hideous design compromises or flying characteristics. I once read that the B47s top speed and stall speed were single digit knots apart at high altitude, or something like that.

So the B58 is too limited to last longer, or pick up a conventional rile in Vietnam or something?
 
Was the design too specific and limited to remain in service beyond 1969? Could it have carried SRAMs or other advanced nukes? What about any conventional role? Was the FB111A a step up or down?
Basically B-58 was an attempt of making long-range supersonic bomber, using technology almost completely too immature for the task. It was done, eventually, but the measures were drastic and the result "kinda worked, sort of".
 
I saw a B58 Hustler for the first time the other day, I was surprised by how small it was. I also finally understand what the combination fuel-weapon store is and does.

Was the design too specific and limited to remain in service beyond 1969? Could it have carried SRAMs or other advanced nukes? What about any conventional role? Was the FB111A a step up or down?
Added during the B-58's service were individual attachment points under the wing roots for 4 B-43 (~2,100lb) or B-61 (715 lb) nuclear weapons in addition to the centerline store/fuel tank.

wing-root pylons #1.jpg


Here is a B-58 with 4 inert B43s (top) and inert B-61s (bottom):

B-58 added nukes #1.jpg

B-58 added nukes #2.jpg
 
Last edited:
The B-58 was a very demanding aircraft to fly... evasive maneuvers to evade enemy fighters could cause a crash all on their own.

While the B-58's performance and design were exceptional for the era, it was not an easy aircraft to fly. This was caused by the 60° leading-edge sweepback of its wing and was inherent in these types of delta-wing platforms. It required a much higher angle of attack than a conventional aircraft, up to 9.4° at Mach 0.5 at low altitudes. If the angle of attack was too high, in excess of 17°, the bomber could pitch up and enter a spin. Several factors could prevent a successful recovery; if the pilot applied elevon, if the center of gravity was not correctly positioned, or if the spin occurred below 15,000 ft (4,600 m), recovery might not be possible.

The B-58 also possessed unconventional stall characteristics; if the nose was elevated, the bomber maintained forward motion without pitching down. Unless large amounts of power were applied, the descent rate increased rapidly. Another problem pilots faced was called "fuel stacking", taking place whenever the B-58 accelerated or decelerated. It was caused by fuel movement within the tanks, which led to sudden changes in the aircraft's center of gravity. This could cause the B-58 to abruptly pitch or bank, potentially resulting in a loss of control.

The aircraft had unusual takeoff requirements, with a 14° angle of attack needed for the rotation near 203.5 knots (376.9 km/h; 234.2 mph) for a 150,000-pound (68,000 kg) combat weight (max takeoff weight was 176,890 lb (80,236 kg)).
 
I saw a B58 Hustler for the first time the other day, I was surprised by how small it was. I also finally understand what the combination fuel-weapon store is and does.

Was the design too specific and limited to remain in service beyond 1969? Could it have carried SRAMs or other advanced nukes? What about any conventional role? Was the FB111A a step up or down?
Way too limited and specific. It was expensive to fly, got murdered in low-level roles, and just plain wasn't versatile enough.
 
The B-58 was a very demanding aircraft to fly... evasive maneuvers to evade enemy fighters could cause a crash all on their own.
Yes, so demanding that many of the Blackbird crews were pulled from the Hustler community, both Pilots and RSO/navigators. Butch Sheffield was B-58 crew, for example, though Brian Schuul was a fighter pilot.
 
The B-58 and Mirage IV were so similar, but I have to give the nod to Mirage in comparison. B-58 probably should have been three engines rather than four. The Mirage uses half the engines for similar results.
Mass is a much better comparison than physical size for aeroplanes. B-58 is over twice the mass, which leads through into payload-range advantages.
 
Whereas B47s were based in the UK (near me at RAF Brize Norton) the B58 and FB111A were based in the US. I assume this was because TAC F111s became available for theatre nuclear roles.
 
I once read that the B47s top speed and stall speed were single digit knots apart at high altitude, or something like that.
AFAIK every aircraft has a point where this is the case. It's just that most aircraft aren't intended to routinely operate in that regime.
Whereas B47s were based in the UK (near me at RAF Brize Norton) the B58 and FB111A were based in the US. I assume this was because TAC F111s became available for theatre nuclear roles.
The B-47s based in the UK didn't have theatre roles, but strategic ones. At that point in time, SAC's war plan called for a significant part of the B-47 force - and the B-29/B-47 force before it - to operate against the USSR out of forward bases, and the deployments to the UK were intended to ensure part of that force was already in position prior to the outbreak of WW3.

The withdrawal of that force - which was always permanently based in the US, with a portion undertaking temporary deployments to the UK (or Spain, Morocco, or a few other places) - was due to a combination of long-range B-52s becoming available, increased reliance on air refuelling, increased vulnerability to Soviet IRBMs, and the need to find bases for tactical forces when they were required to leave France.

Keeping forward basing as a viable strategy is probably helpful for the B-58 entering, and remaining, in service in more substantial numbers. Among its many shortcomings was high dependence on tankers for intercontinental operations. There was some argument in favour of this - there's a RAND study from the 1950s which argues forward basing is more cost effective than air refuelling.
 
Rule of cool, may I suggest you have a listen to this great and insightful interview with Col. George Holt Jr. in regards to his description of the B-58's capabilities - including it's low-altitude capability, it's potential longevity ['retired long before it's time'], it's navigation system and it's stealth characteristic........

View: https://youtu.be/bEA2_LTmXvk?si=MY7C5pkG9gBn2mMN


Regards
Pioneer
 
I have a vague notion that once it became clear the B58 would have a short life in the nuclear role it could be used up in other roles before retirement. But that's just the romantic in me, the fleet manager would want to get rid it fast!
 
-There were too few of them in the first place because Le May hated them, range was too short
-Only 116, with a severe attrition rate that cut that number even more
-Unlike all the B-52 variants, B-58 never got a chance to improve. The B-58B was canned in June 1959
 
Through dumb luck the B-58 ended pretty good at launching large rockets. It could hang up to 70 000 pound on its centerline, with plenty of ground clearance. Tangentially, the canned MA-1C rocket-bomb-fuel-pod passed its Bell LR-81 to the Lockheed Agena upper stage. B-58 + big solid-fuel booster + Agena could orbit at least 3000 pounds.
 
AFAIK every aircraft has a point where this is the case. It's just that most aircraft aren't intended to routinely operate in that regime.
I wasn't even aware that the B-47 operated up in "coffin corner"...

The only plane I knew of that operated there was the U-2!
 
I wasn't even aware that the B-47 operated up in "coffin corner"...

The only plane I knew of that operated there was the U-2!
Seemingly, the B-47 was the first aircraft with the performance to get there... and because it didn't initially have spoilers or air brakes, it didn't have a way to get out of it.

It would seem unwise to operate a bomber in that part of the performance envelope as a routine matter, since there's no margin for manoeuvre. A high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, sure.
 
Mass is a much better comparison than physical size for aeroplanes. B-58 is over twice the mass, which leads through into payload-range advantages.
Probably close to 2.5x the mass, true, but those podded engines were high drag. Having a configuration with a less draggy layout would have been beneficial, especially in low altitude flight.
 
Probably close to 2.5x the mass, true, but those podded engines were high drag. Having a configuration with a less draggy layout would have been beneficial, especially in low altitude flight.

The B-58's pods actually fill the area-rule, that's the reason the engines were separated out from the initial twin-pods design. So essentially they're freebies in terms of high-subsonic & transonic drag. B-58_area_diagram.png
 
Probably close to 2.5x the mass, true, but those podded engines were high drag. Having a configuration with a less draggy layout would have been beneficial, especially in low altitude flight.
Not as draggy as trying to fit four engines, their intakes, and all that fuel INSIDE the fuselage. And have that OML to haul around for the entire mission. Call me crazy but, given all the speed records the Hustler broke, I'm going to say it probably wasn't as "draggy" as you think.
 
Imagine a B58 in a situation where it fired its gun in anger, that would be a very studied engagement.
 
MiG-25 or -31 trying to chase it down...
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Hustler have a top speed of Mach 2?

I don't know everything but I know that Mig-25 could regularly go M2-something with ease (even though it wasn't for long)...
 
Last edited:
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Hustler have a top speed of Mach 2?

I don't know everything but I know that Mig-25 could regularly go M2-something with ease (even though it wasn't for long)...
The catch is the limited time the MiG-25 can go that fast. IIRC Mach 2.8 without overheating the engines, 3.2 if you're okay with removing and replacing the engines after the flight.

Since this is assuming a war, I'd assume someone being willing to write off a pair of engines for the MiG.

But the MiG still has to climb up to altitude and then get itself into position where the missiles could engage.
 
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Hustler have a top speed of Mach 2?

I don't know everything but I know that Mig-25 could regularly go M2-something with ease (even though it wasn't for long)...
You need a decent performance advantage over the target to be confident in achieving an intercept. The MiG-25 could only sustain Mach 2.35 - time at higher speeds was limited due to potential airframe damage. That gives it only a 200 knot advantage over a B-58.

In a wartime scenario, that may be fine. Not only can you push to higher speeds and accept the consequences, but AFAIK the R-40 air-to-air missiles are capable of all-aspect engagement. Meaning you don't need to line up for a stern shot. But in peacetime, it means the MiG-25 has a comparatively small no-escape zone against a B-58.

There's also the question of turning performance - I don't know what the MiG-25 performance envelope looked like, but one of the things that drove the size of the CF-105 was a requirement to achieve a 2g turn without loss of speed or altitude at 50,000 feet and Mach 1.5. That was what was thought necessary to reliably intercept B-52 class targets in a stern chase.

Achieving a similar margin against a B-58 class target would require a sustained turn at Mach 3.5 and 65,000 feet - considerably exceeding MiG-25 or SR-71 performance even in level flight. And for a B-70 class target, the performance requirement just gets silly. You can see why all-aspect missiles become very important against supersonic bombers.
 
You need a decent performance advantage over the target to be confident in achieving an intercept. The MiG-25 could only sustain Mach 2.35 - time at higher speeds was limited due to potential airframe damage. That gives it only a 200 knot advantage over a B-58.

In a wartime scenario, that may be fine. Not only can you push to higher speeds and accept the consequences, but AFAIK the R-40 air-to-air missiles are capable of all-aspect engagement. Meaning you don't need to line up for a stern shot. But in peacetime, it means the MiG-25 has a comparatively small no-escape zone against a B-58.

There's also the question of turning performance - I don't know what the MiG-25 performance envelope looked like, but one of the things that drove the size of the CF-105 was a requirement to achieve a 2g turn without loss of speed or altitude at 50,000 feet and Mach 1.5. That was what was thought necessary to reliably intercept B-52 class targets in a stern chase.

Achieving a similar margin against a B-58 class target would require a sustained turn at Mach 3.5 and 65,000 feet - considerably exceeding MiG-25 or SR-71 performance even in level flight. And for a B-70 class target, the performance requirement just gets silly. You can see why all-aspect missiles become very important against supersonic bombers.

Nice!

Interceptions are hard, the reason SAMs are good is because they can be made to go very fast, but Mach 2.3 interceptor trying to get into position against Mach 2 at high altitude only allows for limited shot windows.

So what does the tail gun in the B58 do, give it bit if a danger zone for interceptors to make that shot window smaller?
 
So what does the tail gun in the B58 do, give it bit if a danger zone for interceptors to make that shot window smaller?
Yep, pretty much. With guns, unguided rockets, or early AAMs, the only reliable way to make an attack was a stern shot. Even with radar, AFAIK because the change of bearing for a head-on intercept was too rapid for early seekers. Combined with the missile kinetics still requiring a relatively short range engagement, tail defence could still be effective.

Even SAMs need a decent speed and altitude margin to have a decent probability of making the intercept. The S-75 would only have been marginally effective against B-58s, and almost totally useless against a B-70 or SR-71 unless it directly overflew the missile site. Linebacker II didn't so much prove that B-52s were vulnerable to SAMs, as demonstrate that they were no more vulnerable than B-17s over Germany.
 
Its likely that the proliferation of the very high performing S200 saw to the demise of the B58 in the nuclear penetration role.

It'd be interesting to see it get a last blast in a conventional role, perhaps in Vietnam in 1972.
 
B-58 at US Air Forcee Museum, Dayton, Ohio & Pima Air Museum, Tucson Arizona. The Air Force Museum also show the ejection pod employed instead of the standard ejection seats.

DSC_0552.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • DSC_1144.jpeg
    DSC_1144.jpeg
    950.4 KB · Views: 5
  • DSC_0561.jpeg
    DSC_0561.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 4
  • DSC_0560.jpeg
    DSC_0560.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 3
  • DSC_0559.jpeg
    DSC_0559.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 4
  • DSC_0555.jpeg
    DSC_0555.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 3
  • DSC_0554.jpeg
    DSC_0554.jpeg
    991.8 KB · Views: 3
  • DSC_1146.jpeg
    DSC_1146.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 4
  • DSC_1145.jpeg
    DSC_1145.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 4
  • DSC_1147.jpeg
    DSC_1147.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 5
  • DSC_2230.jpeg
    DSC_2230.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 4
  • DSC_2254.jpeg
    DSC_2254.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 4
  • DSC_2255.jpeg
    DSC_2255.jpeg
    1 MB · Views: 4
  • DSC_2256.jpeg
    DSC_2256.jpeg
    963.1 KB · Views: 4
  • DSC_2258.jpeg
    DSC_2258.jpeg
    936.5 KB · Views: 4
  • DSC_2257.jpeg
    DSC_2257.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 3
  • DSC_2260.jpeg
    DSC_2260.jpeg
    1 MB · Views: 3
  • DSC_2262.jpeg
    DSC_2262.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 2
  • DSC_2265.jpeg
    DSC_2265.jpeg
    879.9 KB · Views: 2
Here's a book by a retired Colonel who was a B-58 navigator. Same guy in the video posted above. He felt the aircraft was retired too soon. It's one of those print on demand books, but has a lot of B-58 information in it. He also singles out those he felt responsible for the premature termination of the program. Termination was announced late in 1969, and aircraft retired by end of January, 1970.

Several variants (B-58B, C, D, and E) were proposed by Convert but never built. The B-58B would have replaced the General Electric J79-GE-1 turbojet engines with more powerful uprated J79-GE-9 engines, have a a longer fuselage for extra fuel capacity, and canards,.

The aircraft itself had some difficult flight handling issues, including a pitch up problem if the AOA was too high, leading to a spin. Stall conditions were another piloting challenge. Of the 116 B-58A built, 24 were lost in crashes. Still, it had a lot of amazing features, including an Inertial Nav system (IMU) with astro-tracker stellar location correction in flight.


B-58 Book.jpg
 
Last edited:
You have an outboard engine surge at Mach 2 on the Hustler, you're losing the plane and crew unless everyone's guardian angels are very happy with them.
Losing an expensive bomber like that is quite bad on its own, but why wouldn't the crew have enough time to eject in such a scenario? Or would the results of such engine surge be so immediately catastrophic where there is almost no time to act?
 
Under Operation Bullseye in April 1967, experiments were carried out to see if the B-58 could carry and deliver conventional bombs using the four wing root bomb racks which were normally used for the B43 or B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs. In coordination with Republic F-105Ds and McDonnell F-4C/Ds, sorties were flown using B-58s as lead ships and pathfinders and as independent strike aircraft. It was demonstrated that the B-58 could carry and drop iron bombs of varying weights up to 3000 pounds, usually from low altitudes and at speeds of 600 knots or 690 mph. Almost all of the drops were visual, with the AN/ASQ-42 system rarely being used. However, the fear that the B-58's integral wing tanks would be vulnerable to ground fire during low-altitude delivery led to the abandonment of the program (Brewer & Brewer, 1994-2024).

82c8c46a1c0353fa0e875efe5bd036f7aede8183.jpeg


Although the exact details of the types and number of bombs the B-58 could carry is not known, Nostalgistic (2024) of War Thunder Forum claims that the Hustler could carry the following ordnance using Triple Ejectors Racks and Multiple Ejector Racks as well as direct pylon mounting:
  • 4 x 3000-lb M118
  • 4 x 2000-lb Mark 84
  • 12 x 1000-lb Mark 83
  • 12 x 750-lb M117
  • 24 x 500-lb Mark 82
  • 24 x 250-lb Mark 81
I am uncertain if the above loadout is accurate without confirmation from other information sources, so take them with a grain of salt. It also appears that the external fuel drop tank shown is smaller than the bomb/fuel pod so as to make room for conventional bombs.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom