B-58 question

[Flying Sorcerer]

I assume the B-58's service life (1960-1970) was cut short mainly for economic reasons and doubts about the utility of a fast high-level bomber. How long could it have been kept serviceable if ths USAF wanted to keep it flying?

 

[sferrin]

It could still be flying. Just look at how long F-104s and F-4s have been flying. It wouldn't be cheap though.

 

[Archibald]

Considering the horrendous attrition rate, not many would be left flying by 1980. 26 lost over 116 build, that's 22% of the fleet - right between 1/4 (25%) and 1/5 (20%). All this in only 14 years, 1956-1970. Or even shorter, because 1956 was the year the prototype flew. According to Joe Baugher, entry in service was in March 1960, so that's far shorter.

Service of B-58 Hustler with USAF

 

[sferrin]

Good point. On the other hand, if they'd intended to keep them that long, maybe they'd have made more. They'd be perfect carriers of hypersonic weapons.

 

[Archibald]

Any electronic help to improve the flight characeteristics would be very welcome. surely enough that bird had plenty of room for improvement - B-58B anybody ?

 

[sferrin]

Any electronic help to improve the flight characeteristics would be very welcome. surely enough that bird had plenty of room for improvement - B-58B anybody ?

Had never heard that it was a poor flyer.

 

[TomS]

Any electronic help to improve the flight characeteristics would be very welcome. surely enough that bird had plenty of room for improvement - B-58B anybody ?

Had never heard that it was a poor flyer.

It was definitely a handful.

Speed Freak

In the 1950s, the Mach 2+ B-58 Hustler seemed a safe bet to win the arms race

www.airspacemag.com

The B-58’s complex flight control system was a cause for continual anguish; designers, pilots, and mechanics all struggled with it. Because of the delta wing configuration, the bomber had no horizontal elevators or wing-mounted ailerons. Instead, it had a very complex system of linkages that connected the wing’s elevons (a combination of ailerons and elevators) to the large rudder.

“You would sit there on the end of the runway doing all kinds of checks on the flight controls,” Cotton says. “It was an extremely complex arrangement, centered around the power control linkage assembly. When I preflighted the airplane, I made sure the crew chief had it opened up so I could look up in there to see if there were any hydraulic leaks and that the rods were all connected—the system was a hydro-mechanical-electrical maze.” Most pilots and crew members referred to it as the “three-bicycle wreck” since it looked like the engineers had run three bikes together.

“I think the flight control system led to the loss of a few people and aircraft,” Cotton says. “It took a tremendous amount of understanding. A lot of pilots would tell you that they flew the airplane a long time before they understood what they were doing when they mixed the stick around.”

 

[Flying Sorcerer]

Thank you al. I recall that a large number of accidents occurred during flight testing and that once the -58 became operational it's loss rate was somewhere around 12% during its decade of service life. There was a tactical bomber version (and I think even an air defence variant) proposed but its high cost made that a non-starter. Apparently Curtis LeMay resented it because it cost several times as much as a B-52

 

[apparition13]

If I recall correctly, it had a really narrow angle of attack envelope it which it could be flown. Like 9-17 degrees or some such. It was a bit of a handful. What it really needed was fly by wire.

Good point. On the other hand, if they'd intended to keep them that long, maybe they'd have made more. They'd be perfect carriers of hypersonic weapons.

They had an order for 190+ B-58Bs cancelled at the last minute. The design had canards, so maybe it wouldn't have been as difficult to fly. Presumably any future versions would have addressed handling problems. The B-58 thread also talks about the C (bomber), D (interceptor) and E (tactical bomber) proposals. It had a lot of potential that was never realized.

 

[Richard N]

The son of a GD test pilot told me his father said he didn't like flying in the B-58 and didn't care for the way the engines moved around on the wings in flight.

 

[Pioneer]

Found this interview by Col. George Holt Jr, a B-58 bombardier very interesting and insightful

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Michel Van]

Even if stay longer in service
with chance in doctrine from High altitude supersonic (specialty of B-58)
towards low-level flight toward target (B-1 and B-52)
it would reduce drastic the lifetime of B-58 Airframe, next to that B-58 crashes during low level flight.
i think the B-58 had be pull out service in begin of 1980s, to be replaced by B-1

 

[RetiredAFGuy]

The older guys I served with who had been B-58 maintainers hated that aircraft with a red-hot passion. Very little in the design had any "design for maintainability" forethought given.

Equipment like rate gyros were installed in the wings, behind non-removable panels. Replacing those items required working by feel through an access panel located a full arm's length away from the equipment. Much of the avionics were installed that way, leading to lots of dropped hardware by technicians working by feel, which lead to many man hours expended to recover the hardware and tools.

Not a maintainable aircraft that drove per flight hour maintenance costs higher than the B-52.