Convair B-58 Hustler

sferrin said:
Okay, fair. But "ideally suited" is close enough.
Click to expand...
Can't say that either. it never performed the task so your point was never validated. Was the A-12 "ideally suited" as mothership?
 
Byeman said:
Can't say that either. it never performed the task so your point was never validated. Was the A-12 "ideally suited" as mothership?
Click to expand...
Given the B-58 was designed to carry large payloads externally, deploy them from high altitude and supersonic speed, and actually launched several successfully, I'd argue the facts are on my side. With other aircraft would do it better?

King Lofus IV
"Four missiles were initially ordered from Lockheed. The missile project was known under the code name High Virgo and was given project number 199C. In order to save money and speed up the project, Lockheed elected to use proven components from the XQ-5, the X-17, the Polaris and the Sergeant missile programs. The Lockheed-designed ALBM ended up being 30 feet long and had a diameter of 31 inches. The missile was to be guided by an Autonetics inertial system. The rocket engine was a Thiokol XM-20 solid-fuel motor offering a thrust of 50,000 pounds for 39 seconds. There were four guidance fins installed around the exhaust nozzle skirt. The total weight of the missile was about 12,000 pounds."

"On September 22, 1959, a final ALBM
(nicknamed King Lofus IV) launch was conducted,
again out of Eglin AFB, this time in an attempt to
intercept and photograph the newly launched
satellite. The launch, taking place at an altitude
of 37,500' and a speed of Mach 2, went smoothly,
but some 30 seconds later, all communication with
the missile was lost."

WS 138A
"One of the prime considerations in the development
of Weapon System 138Awas that of operational
flexibility. The configuration, as proposed, can be
used either as a two-stage or as a single stage missile
system, depending upon the momentary operational
requirement. The propulsion stages have been sized
in such a manner that the first stage can be used
alone to provide excellent periormance. The nose
cone is interchangeable and can be assembled either
to the second stage or directly to the first stage.
Through use of this modular concept, a range of 861
n. miles can be obtained with one stage from the B-58
with a Mach 2.2 launch at 60,000 feet."

"The missile system, as proposed by Convair, will
meet the periormance requirements specified for the
design launch conditions in the GSR. For this condition
(Mach .73 launch at 40,000 feet) the missile in the
two-stage configuration has a range of 1,068 n. miles,
and for supersonic launch from the B-58 (Mach 2.2
launch at 60,000 feet), it has a range of 1,365 n. miles."
 
sferrin said:
Given the B-58 was designed to carry large payloads externally, deploy them from high altitude and supersonic speed, and actually launched several successfully, I'd argue the facts are on my side. With other aircraft would do it better?
Click to expand...
The supersonic capability of the B-58 offers no real advantage as a carrier for hypersonic vehicles over others like the B-52, KC-135, etc.

The B-52 is a proven hypersonic vehicle carrier.
 
Byeman said:
The supersonic capability of the B-58 offers no real advantage as a carrier for hypersonic vehicles over others like the B-52, KC-135, etc.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. A missile launched at Mach 2 and 60,000 feet will travel far further/faster than the same missile launched from subsonic speed.

Byeman said:
The B-52 is a proven hypersonic vehicle carrier.
Click to expand...

So was the B-58.
 
sferrin said:
Of course it does. A missile launched at Mach 2 and 60,000 feet will travel far further/faster than the same missile launched from subsonic speed.
Click to expand...
A little, but shock impingement and interactions cause problems.
 
sferrin said:
Had never heard that it was a poor flyer.
Click to expand...
Not a poor flyer, but one that required the pilots undivided attention or the plane would slap the pilot upside the head for not paying attention.

Basically all the original Blackbird pilots and RSOs were drawn from Hustler crews, because the Blackbird was similarly intense to fly.
 
I would say that B-58 big pod and tall undercarriage might have been of interest to drop big rockets and missiles. Been there, done that in my aerospace uchronia: B-58 meets again Bell LR-81, once on its powered pod, later gone to the Agena. I bring them together again.
BUT - to be honest: nothing beat a B-52 and its wing pylon. Even twice as fast, the B-58 (from TOWN HALL documents I'll link) is too small: it was limited to a maximum of 71 000 pounds on its belly pylon.
Compare that to the 130 000 pounds ISINGLASS concept, carried X-15 style.
Of course the XB-70 bury both, and not only because it flies at Mach 3. According to Dennis Jenkins, a XB-70 could have carried up to 200 000 pounds on a belly fairing. But air dropping at Mach 3 might be hair raising...

Of the three, the B-52 wing pylon carrying 130 000 pounds sounds the best bargain.

I have checked air-launch "boost" numbers from varied papers (Burnside Clapp, Sarigul-Klijn and a couple others).

Broadly
- dropping from a B-52: 40 000 ft, 30 degree AoA carves 1100 m/s out of an ascent to orbit 9000 m/s.
- dropping from a B-58: 40 000 ft, 30 degree AoA carves 1600 m/s out of an ascent to orbit 9000 m/s.
- dropping from a B-70: 40 000 ft, 30 degree AoA carves 2000 m/s out of an ascent to orbit 9000 m/s.

So by orbit standard, the supersonic carriers don't make that much of a difference.
 

Attachments

  • B58MissileLaunchCapability.pdf
    535.7 KB · Views: 16
Archibald said:
I would say that B-58 big pod and tall undercarriage might have been of interest to drop big rockets and missiles. Been there, done that in my aerospace uchronia: B-58 meets again Bell LR-81, once on its powered pod, later gone to the Agena. I bring them together again.
BUT - to be honest: nothing beat a B-52 and its wing pylon. Even twice as fast, the B-58 (from TOWN HALL documents I'll link) is too small: it was limited to a maximum of 71 000 pounds on its belly pylon.
Compare that to the 130 000 pounds ISINGLASS concept, carried X-15 style.
Of course the XB-70 bury both, and not only because it flies at Mach 3. According to Dennis Jenkins, a XB-70 could have carried up to 200 000 pounds on a belly fairing. But air dropping at Mach 3 might be hair raising...

Of the three, the B-52 wing pylon carrying 130 000 pounds sounds the best bargain.

I have checked air-launch "boost" numbers from varied papers (Burnside Clapp, Sarigul-Klijn and a couple others).

Broadly
- dropping from a B-52: 40 000 ft, 30 degree AoA carves 1100 m/s out of an ascent to orbit 9000 m/s.
- dropping from a B-58: 40 000 ft, 30 degree AoA carves 1600 m/s out of an ascent to orbit 9000 m/s.
- dropping from a B-70: 40 000 ft, 30 degree AoA carves 2000 m/s out of an ascent to orbit 9000 m/s.

So by orbit standard, the supersonic carriers don't make that much of a difference.
Click to expand...
@Archibald where do you come up with 130,000 lbs for the BUFF? The stock BUFF is 20-25,000 lbs for the under-wing pylons, Balls 8 was specially modified for X-15 with lots of structural reinforcements, Balls 25 wasn't, and IIRC couldn't do more than 25,000 lbs.
 
mkellytx said:
@Archibald where do you come up with 130,000 lbs for the BUFF? The stock BUFF is 20-25,000 lbs for the under-wing pylons, Balls 8 was specially modified for X-15 with lots of structural reinforcements, Balls 25 wasn't, and IIRC couldn't do more than 25,000 lbs.
Click to expand...
This was the weight mooted for the Model 192 RHEINBERRY vehicle, pre-drop. The LH2 and LOX would have been carried in a tank under the opposite wing, and the vehicle fueled in flight before launch.

To be honest, it’s one of the more squirrelly parts of the Model 192 conops.
 
GeorgeA said:
This was the weight mooted for the Model 192 RHEINBERRY vehicle, pre-drop. The LH2 and LOX would have been carried in a tank under the opposite wing, and the vehicle fueled in flight before launch.

To be honest, it’s one of the more squirrelly parts of the Model 192 conops.
Click to expand...
Thanks, again 130,000 lbs isn't happening without a big-time structural update.
 
mkellytx said:
Thanks, again 130,000 lbs isn't happening without a big-time structural update.
Click to expand...
It's well within the total load capacity of a BUFF. BUFFs regularly haul ~70klbs of boom and over 300klbs of fuel in total. (That fuel fraction is more appropriate for a freaking rocket than an airplane!)

The question is really how much lift the RHEINBERRY airframe makes at ~400mph. If RHEINBERRY empty is ~25,000lbs, you then add ~70klbs of hydrogen and 35klbs of oxygen to the bird once in the air and it's providing lift... That's 70klbs of LH2 in an absolutely enormous pod under one wing (~490,000 liters capacity!), LOx in a tank in the bomb bay.

Probably have to run both wings more or less empty of jet fuel to have the overall weight acceptable, but then you can pump 100klbs of jet fuel out of the fuselage tanks and into the wing where the hydrogen pod is to keep the balance within limits. I'm pretty sure a B52 won't particularly notice ~25klbs out of balance on the wing pylon. Rebalancing after the drop is likely to be scary, though. I'm sure a B52 will not be happy about ~100klbs out of balance on the wing.
 
We aren't quibbling about total payload capacity... the problem is with hanging that much weight OFF ONE PLACE UNDER THE WING!

The wing structure cannot carry that much weight without a complete redesign for new-build wings - serious (and heavy) reinforcement would be required to even go past 25,000 lb hanging from the pylon.
 
Archibald said:
So by orbit standard, the supersonic carriers don't make that much of a difference.
Click to expand...
By way of comparison, assuming an effective exhaust velocity of 4.5 km/s, you could get the following weights into orbit:
  • B-52 - 22,465 lb / 11,710 lb
  • B-58 - 13,710 lb / 7,980 lb
  • B-70 - 42,215 lb / 26,435 lb
The first figure is gross, second figure is net of stage weight assumed at 10% of total fuel weight, all rounded down to the next lowest 5 lb. Figures for a 3 km/s effective exhaust velocity and 6% stage weight are... underwhelming. But generally, the lower the rocket stage performance, the bigger the advantage of a higher performance airbreather.

I think it's fair to say that any heavy space launch derivative of a bomber would require significant structural alterations. If it stays within the overall weight limits of the aircraft, those should be limited to more-or-less local redesign.
 
Yellow Palace said:
By way of comparison, assuming an effective exhaust velocity of 4.5 km/s, you could get the following weights into orbit:
  • B-52 - 22,465 lb / 11,710 lb
  • B-58 - 13,710 lb / 7,980 lb
  • B-70 - 42,215 lb / 26,435 lb
The first figure is gross, second figure is net of stage weight assumed at 10% of total fuel weight, all rounded down to the next lowest 5 lb. Figures for a 3 km/s effective exhaust velocity and 6% stage weight are... underwhelming. But generally, the lower the rocket stage performance, the bigger the advantage of a higher performance airbreather.

I think it's fair to say that any heavy space launch derivative of a bomber would require significant structural alterations. If it stays within the overall weight limits of the aircraft, those should be limited to more-or-less local redesign.
Click to expand...
Snce you're crunching numbers, how does Stratolaunch compare?

Enjoty the Day! Mark
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's well within the total load capacity of a BUFF. BUFFs regularly haul ~70klbs of boom and over 300klbs of fuel in total. (That fuel fraction is more appropriate for a freaking rocket than an airplane!)

The question is really how much lift the RHEINBERRY airframe makes at ~400mph. If RHEINBERRY empty is ~25,000lbs, you then add ~70klbs of hydrogen and 35klbs of oxygen to the bird once in the air and it's providing lift... That's 70klbs of LH2 in an absolutely enormous pod under one wing (~490,000 liters capacity!), LOx in a tank in the bomb bay.

Probably have to run both wings more or less empty of jet fuel to have the overall weight acceptable, but then you can pump 100klbs of jet fuel out of the fuselage tanks and into the wing where the hydrogen pod is to keep the balance within limits. I'm pretty sure a B52 won't particularly notice ~25klbs out of balance on the wing pylon. Rebalancing after the drop is likely to be scary, though. I'm sure a B52 will not be happy about ~100klbs out of balance on the wing.
Click to expand...
The jet cannot takeoff legally with full tanks, much less with a max payload and full tanks. The empty weight is about 185,000 lbs, max gas is 312,000 lbs and max gross is 488,000 lbs. You'll be almost 10,000 lbs over with full tanks. The most I ever saw was 260-280,000 lbs when we flew from ED to EG to shoot a MALD. We had two HSAB's, a MALD and was just about grossed out. We took off at 0600 from 04R (15,000 ft) and it was the longest, slowest takeoff roll I ever experienced. The 70 knot time was long. We had an hour at the range and then took 60,000 lbs of gas to get home.

I don't even want to think about the weight and balance problem, it wouldn't be pretty.
 
mkellytx said:
The jet cannot takeoff legally with full tanks, much less with a max payload and full tanks. The empty weight is about 185,000 lbs, max gas is 312,000 lbs and max gross is 488,000 lbs. You'll be almost 10,000 lbs over with full tanks. The most I ever saw was 260-280,000 lbs when we flew from ED to EG to shoot a MALD. We had two HSAB's, a MALD and was just about grossed out. We took off at 0600 from 04R (15,000 ft) and it was the longest, slowest takeoff roll I ever experienced. The 70 knot time was long. We had an hour at the range and then took 60,000 lbs of gas to get home.

I don't even want to think about the weight and balance problem, it wouldn't be pretty.
Click to expand...
Right, the way I see it, the plane would take off with about 150k in jet fuel and ~105k in rocket fuel and oxidizer, and use 100klbs of jet fuel as ballast. You can stick some 100klbs of fuel into one wing, right?

Ironically, the reinforcement would need to be on the hydrogen side most of all, since you're packing ~70klbs of hydrogen and
oops, completely messed up on the chemical equation balances!

*facepalm*

Oxygen is 16x more massive than hydrogen per mole, so 2lbs of LH2+16lbs of LOx for stoichiometric combustion. That greatly helps the weights/volumes. 100klbs of fuel and oxidizer divided by 18 is 5,556, 16 x 5,556 = ~88,900lbs LOX and 11,100lbs of LH2 out under the other pylon. ~70,500 liter tank for the LH2 plus insulation volume. 35,500L tank for the LOx.

So the LH2 tank wouldn't be any heavier than 12x ALCM on the pylon. I'd hate flying with ~90klbs of LOx in the belly.

Sitting on the ramp, RHEINBERRY would weigh ~25-35klbs under the wing. The question is how much lift would it generate at 400mph as you fuel the beast? Obviously, at whatever design cruise speed was it'd lift at least 75klbs. But if it generates more or less 25klbs of lift at 400mph the pylon only needs to be rated for ~100k. Which is a hell of a lot, but better than having 135klbs sitting there static.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right, the way I see it, the plane would take off with about 150k in jet fuel and ~105k in rocket fuel and oxidizer, and use 100klbs of jet fuel as ballast. You can stick some 100klbs of fuel into one wing, right?

Ironically, the reinforcement would need to be on the hydrogen side most of all, since you're packing ~70klbs of hydrogen and
oops, completely messed up on the chemical equation balances!

*facepalm*

Oxygen is 16x more massive than hydrogen per mole, so 2lbs of LH2+16lbs of LOx for stoichiometric combustion. That greatly helps the weights/volumes. 100klbs of fuel and oxidizer divided by 18 is 5,556, 16 x 5,556 = ~88,900lbs LOX and 11,100lbs of LH2 out under the other pylon. ~70,500 liter tank for the LH2 plus insulation volume. 35,500L tank for the LOx.

So the LH2 tank wouldn't be any heavier than 12x ALCM on the pylon. I'd hate flying with ~90klbs of LOx in the belly.

Sitting on the ramp, RHEINBERRY would weigh ~25-35klbs under the wing. The question is how much lift would it generate at 400mph as you fuel the beast? Obviously, at whatever design cruise speed was it'd lift at least 75klbs. But if it generates more or less 25klbs of lift at 400mph the pylon only needs to be rated for ~100k. Which is a hell of a lot, but better than having 135klbs sitting there static.
Click to expand...
I'd have to look in the -1 and I don't mine handy ATM. That amount of imbalance wouldn't be good, heck it's more likely than not prohibited, but as I said I don't have my -1 handy.

Edit:

Forgot to add fuel usually feeds from the wings (again no -1 so the weasel word), so can't pump everything, Also, when we planned X-51 the pilots brought up that we'd damage the airframe if we tried to land with less than 20,000 lbs on the jet, it was a major constraint for that mission plan.

Edit #2:

Also, forgot there was the first synthetic fuel mission that I conducted with an Undersecretary of the Air Force onboard that we blew a hydraulic line and couldn't extend an outrigger, so we purposely burned down an imbalance to keep that wing tip off the runway (bad form to drag a pod on the tarmac) and it was only 10-20,000 lbs, maybe 30,000 lbs max because stayed airborne less than an hour after the failure. So, it doesn't take a lot to affect the roll axis.
 
Last edited:

110. Memorandum of Conference with the President, and Department of Defense and NSC Leaders.1​

Washington, November 28, 1958, 8:45 a.m.

The purpose of this meeting was to brief the President on the status of the Department of Defense budget request for FY 1960. The presentation was delivered by Secretary McElroy.

Manned Bombers—In the manned bomber field, production of the B–52G is being stepped up to five or six planes per month. This is being done because “the B–47 is undergoing fatigue.” One squadron of B–52s replaces two squadrons of B–47s.

Mr. McElroy went on to say that the Department of Defense considered cutting back B–58s and actually is planning to buy only three a month. Some procurement of this aircraft is considered justified since its speed of mach 2 will be a great advantage, and a limited number of these going in against Soviet defenders can open the way for the B–47s and B–52s.

Here the President interposed the question of why we produce B–58s along with more B–52s. He concurs with the policy of introducing a few new high performance aircraft for psychological purposes, but he questions the retention of TITAN, ATLAS, B–52s and B–58s. He voiced the question, “How many times do we have to destroy Russia?” This question, though rhetorical, was partially answered by General Twining when he stated that the total wings in the active Air Force go down. He further specified that the B–58 may be able to replace the F–108.



Historical Documents - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell
history.state.gov history.state.gov
 
rooster said:
Sec defs come and go and the usaf wanted the amsa and not the fb111. The usaf was able to keep amsa alive despite the sec def. Eventually the fb111 was bought as an interim until the b1 was ready... A paltry 76. But of course we all know Jimmy Carter. But the usaf still managed to keep the amsa now the b1 going with additional test flights. I find it interesting that to be an aviation enthusiast means also needing to be a political expert!
Click to expand...
President Carter spent a boatload of Classified money on Nuclear programs and the R and D for the nascent Stealth B-2--****** And money for the development of the F-117 Nighthawk-- PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter was a pro-defense guy who got lost listening to too many DEMS who hated Advanced DOD projects.
 
Now since the B-58A was used as a launch aircraft for the High Virgo air-launched rocket which helped pave the way for the Douglas AGM-48 Skybolt ALBM it made me wonder if the Hustler was considered as a carrier for the Skybolt?
 
I read here and there that the Hustler had dangerous behavior in an engine-out scenario at high speed but here is the correct depiction of it:

With the installation of the “Triple Redundant Yaw Damper” system, crews were once again allowed to fly at Mach 2. Colonel Al Dugard, an Instructor pilot in the B-58 would normally cut an outboard engine at Mach-2 to show the student pilot that it was a safe operation.
Click to expand...

Extracted from the link below, as suggested by @sienar here

 
Last edited:
Several of my professors in college were aero engineers who had been caught in the drawdown of the mid-1960s and turned to teaching to make ends meet. One of them had been involved with the B-58 and he said that the pilots used to comment on how smooth the ride was at supersonic speeds, but in fact the airframe was trying to shake itself to pieces. It just happened that the cockpit sat at the node of the major vibration frequency, where the motions had the lowest amplitude. I've never heard that from any other source, but it's not the kind of thing he would have just made up.
 
Hi everyone, even though most of the avionics were removed, I found it quite interesting to see all three cockpits. :cool:
Paul Stewart said:
Inside the Convair B-58 Hustler!
Join me in this walkaround tour of a Convair B-58 Hustler on display at the Strategic Air Command and Aerospace Museum in Ashfield, Nebraska. This cold war mach 2 capable strategic bomber was in service from 1960 until 1970 before being replaced in that role by the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress.
Click to expand...
Video:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpE6IJveAW4

Code: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpE6IJveAW4
 
Capsule flotation test, Airman Bruce Barwise spending three days in Buffalo Harbour.

Flight, 05 Feb 1960
 

Attachments

  • B-58_capsule_Flight_1960_0167.jpeg
    B-58_capsule_Flight_1960_0167.jpeg
    420 KB · Views: 57
stever_sl said:
Several of my professors in college were aero engineers who had been caught in the drawdown of the mid-1960s and turned to teaching to make ends meet. One of them had been involved with the B-58 and he said that the pilots used to comment on how smooth the ride was at supersonic speeds, but in fact the airframe was trying to shake itself to pieces. It just happened that the cockpit sat at the node of the major vibration frequency, where the motions had the lowest amplitude. I've never heard that from any other source, but it's not the kind of thing he would have just made up.
Click to expand...
Not directly related to the B-58, but the B-1 uses the two small canards near the cockpit and lower rudder section to control fuselage flex as part of its Structural Mode Control System to reduce fatigue stress and improve the crew ride. Quite possible this was a lesson learned from the B-58 experience.
 
F119Doctor said:
Not directly related to the B-58, but the B-1 uses the two small canards near the cockpit and lower rudder section to control fuselage flex as part of its Structural Mode Control System to reduce fatigue stress and improve the crew ride. Quite possible this was a lesson learned from the B-58 experience.
Click to expand...
If you haven't seen it, NB-52E, a CCV version of the B-52 with three canards/fins to damp structural flex.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom