• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

The B-58 A B C E version

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,510
Reaction score
490
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.
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 ?
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
271
Reaction score
95
I wonder are they Drop tanks or two B61 Nukes ?
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.
 

Wyvern

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
311
Reaction score
274
Could the Hustler withstand Mach 3 flight? If so, could it withstand Mach 3 flight for extended periods of time?
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,637
Reaction score
236
Could the Hustler withstand Mach 3 flight? If so, could it withstand Mach 3 flight for extended periods of time?
Good question.
Probably it would as the J-58 engines on B-58C suggest, but we don't know how longer.
 

Wyvern

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
311
Reaction score
274
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.
 

gemccry

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
6
Reaction score
2
Could the Hustler withstand Mach 3 flight? If so, could it withstand Mach 3 flight for extended periods of time?
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
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,791
Reaction score
533
What makes the Blackbird go Mach 3 are not the engines themselves. It's the nacelles with their ramjet design.
Fitting J-58 engines might simply have been a way to lengthen high Mach flight time.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,689
Reaction score
1,246
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.
 
Top