Author Topic: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler  (Read 36236 times)

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #50 on: April 29, 2016, 03:58:09 AM »
How about an RAF B-58K with the J-79s replaced by afterburning Speys? More fuel-efficient in subsonic cruise, more thrust in supersonic dash. There might be a US equivalent with TF-30s.

How do you represent this? Simple: use the engine pods from the 1/64th Lindberg kit on a 1/72nd airframe, or the pods from Lindberg's 1/128th version on a 1/144th airframe.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Online Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #51 on: April 29, 2016, 04:53:59 AM »
Needs a RATO or catapult to really impress.  :)

Would that RATO be the size of a Minuteman III? 

I seem to talk myself in and out of adding a B-58 to the collection...and here you all go finding cool artwork and ideas to tempt me.

If the Hustler were carrying the bomb/fuel pod then the RATO units could be mounted on the hard points for the four nuclear weapons just beneath and aft of the wing trailing edge.  Rocket units would be about the same size as what was used for the Mace and Matador missiles or maybe the Snark if you can find the Lindberg 1:48th scale kit for cheap. 

That would solve the RATO question easily enough.  With that thing sitting at angle in that hardened shelter is may as well be a ZELL launcher :)

I seem to talk myself in and out of adding a B-58 to the collection...and here you all go finding cool artwork and ideas to tempt me.

I'm debating about selling my 1/48 scale kit. I WANT to sell it, then I see something cool  :-\ hell it just looks cool sitting there
If you sell your Hustler don't worry, I have at least three of the things in protective custody :)
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 04:55:53 AM by Jeffry Fontaine »
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #52 on: April 29, 2016, 11:27:13 PM »
How about an RAF B-58K with the J-79s replaced by afterburning Speys? More fuel-efficient in subsonic cruise, more thrust in supersonic dash. There might be a US equivalent with TF-30s.

How do you represent this? Simple: use the engine pods from the 1/64th Lindberg kit on a 1/72nd airframe, or the pods from Lindberg's 1/128th version on a 1/144th airframe.

I speculated / wondered a while ago as to whether a B-58 retrofitted with non-after burning Olympus or Conway would still be supersonic.

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #53 on: April 30, 2016, 01:32:05 AM »
Could make an interesting diorama:




From an unaired episode of "Thunderbirds" where Jeff Tracy gets fed up with The Hood for the last time, and launches a nuclear strike against his hidden fortress. I think it was called "The Boom Boom". :o
 ;)

Alvis 3.1

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #54 on: June 16, 2016, 10:40:15 AM »
Found on Facebook:



Source: Facebook The Greatest Planes That Never Were
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #55 on: April 21, 2017, 06:55:08 PM »
Just finished reading "The B-58 Blunder - How the US Abandoned its Best Strategic Bomber" by Colonel George Holt Jr, US Air Force Retired and picked up some very interesting incites.

For instance the B-58 was actually cheaper to operate than the B-52 with the quoted two wings of B-58s cost more to operate than six wings of B-52s being disingenuous as B-52 wings had 15 aircraft each and the B-58 wings had 39 aircraft, this being due to the much longer scramble time of the B-52 requiring it to be dispersed to have a chance of surviving a pre emptive strike while every airworthy B-58 would be airborne and well away from the airfield before an ICBM strike could hit. 

So it was really a comparison between 78 B-58s and 90 B-52s, discounting the fact the B-52 required 6 bases to operate those aircraft.  They had also used the acquisition and development costs, ignoring the fact that both types were owned by the USAF therefor amortised development costs didn't matter when considering ongoing operations.  Then there is six crew verses three, the fact the B-58 was more survivable and far more likely to succeed in its mission due to its better penetration capabilities and much lower RCS.

What I also didn't realise is the B-58 actually had a larger nuclear warload than the B-52, meaning not only was it more likely to get through, but it would do more damage once it did.   The B-58 had also just been through a comprehensive inspect and repair / upgrade program and could have easily served for another decade with no extra investment while the B-52s that SAC was trying to save were C and F models that ended up being retired only a couple of years later.

Following reading the book I am now of a mind that the type would have been an outstanding silver bullet for the RAF and RAAF with its podded engines providing some very interesting re-engining options.  There's also the USAF upgrade options that could have made it even more capable and survivable, probably better worth keeping than even the G model B-52s, replacing all the older B-52s with FB-111s and B-1Bs.  Its stellar performance, it could literally outrun intercepting fighters, makes you wonder how the type would have done as a long range interceptor.

Offline Kelmola

  • Seeking motivation to start buillding the stash
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #56 on: April 21, 2017, 08:08:19 PM »
An idea I had when I got my hands on the 1/72 Italeri kit was to arm it with AGM-69 SRAM's instead of the B28 gravity bombs (plus the huge drop tank/H-bomb combo). Would add to its survivability and viability against SAM-defended targets - an added bonus would be that SRAM range and speed would probably be greatly increased with high-speed high-altitude launch. Maybe it could even deliver the huge belly nuke (unless a new tank containing nothing but fuel was designed) after softening up the approach with four SRAM's...

Also, miniaturisation in electronics would have allowed it to eventually incorporate ECM equipment in the space formerly occupied by avionics, giving up a few kph's of speed in exchange for the associated lumps and bumps.

Of course, this updated concept from around 1970's would have the SAC camo of the era - SEA uppers and anti-flash white belly.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #57 on: April 21, 2017, 10:34:54 PM »
I'm thinking a conventional mission conversion with the B-61s replaced with conventional munitions, maybe the GBU-15 or Popeye.

I still want to know if the B-58 could super cruise with a turbofan or larger turbojet than the J-79, further increasing range and it low level performance.  A TFR is probably a no brainer but if exported, hence still in production in the mid to late 60s, the unit cost would drop and there would be younger airframe suitable for modernisation and retaining in service into the late 80s, early 90s therefore worth further upgrades until replaced by the B-1

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #58 on: April 22, 2017, 10:15:54 AM »
Delta wings are bad news when flying low level in dense air.  They suffer excessive vibration and are harder to control than a swept wing aircraft.  Fitting the B-58 with TFR would be interesting but you'd have a severely shortened service life.   Using Olympus instead of J-79 engines would be interesting.  Speys would offer better economy.  Conway, with afterburner (if developed) would offer best alternative IMO.

Conway - Maximum Thrust - 17,150 lb
Olympus 101 - Maximum Thrust - 11,000 lb
Spey 202 - Maximum Thrust - 12,140 lb; with reheat: 20,500 lb
J79-GE-17 - Maximum Thrust - 11,905 lb; 17,835 lb with afterburner

With any of the three alternatives the B-58 would IMO be comfortably supersonic. 

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #59 on: April 22, 2017, 11:16:52 AM »
I've been thinking of doing a modernized B-58 with F404s replacing the J79s or, if you wait a little later to replace the engines, PW1120s to replace the J79s.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #60 on: April 22, 2017, 11:23:19 AM »
B-52 suffered regular, fatal, catastrophic structural failures when they started flying at low level, the bonded honeycomb B-58, with its much smaller wing did not.  The B-58 proved much more suited to low level than the B-52, let alone the more difficult to fly B-47, was it perfect, no, but it was the best they had, better even than the too small FB-111.

There is another myth that the B-58 was subsonic at low altitude and subsonic when fitted with external stores, this was from erroneous testimony given by McNamara to Congress where he stated that it was his understanding that supersonic aircraft could not exceed the speed of sound with external stores fitted, therefore the B-58 was subsonic with same.  This is wrong as the B-58 could fly at Mach 2+ with its centre pod and four B-61s and could dash at supersonic speeds at low level but more importantly it could cruise at 610kts at low level with a full war load, making it almost impossible to track, let alone intercept.

Another myth the book set straight was the accident rate of the B-58, given as 26 aircraft, over 22% of the fleet.  Of the 26 aircraft lost, 7 were development aircraft lost before the type entered service, three were ground / taxiing accidents (one aircraft was actually repaired and not lost) which is actually 14% and considering the bleeding edge technology of the type pretty low.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #61 on: April 22, 2017, 12:00:05 PM »
Well, you've definitely convinced me to buy that book.  For the 1969 time frame, I wonder if they would consider afterburning TF41s for a re-engining?  Given the rather greater diameter (and for all that it's derived from the Spey, it's of rather greater diameter than those engines in the Phantom FG.1/FGR.2; I'll skip the long-winded dissertation unless asked.  I wonder if 1/48 engine pods and exhausts would fit under a 1/72 airframe?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #62 on: April 22, 2017, 04:21:39 PM »
Apparently the RCS of the B-58 was similar to the Mig 21 while the B-52 was a flying barn door.

Offline finsrin

  • The Dr Frankenstein of the modelling world...when not hiding from SBA
  • Finds part glues it on, finds part glues it on....
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #63 on: April 22, 2017, 04:27:58 PM »
Kitbash with two canted tails ?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #64 on: April 22, 2017, 08:52:21 PM »
Why not?

Sorry if I seem to be carrying on about the Hustler a bit and I know the author was biased but his account is the first time I have ever seen any contradiction of the standard story that it was too inflexible, too short ranged, to expensive to operate, couldn't fly low level etc. To actually see many of those claims disputed by an expert who crewed B-47s, B-52s and B-58s, together with an explanation of the politics, i.e. four wings of B-52s meant the loss of four wing commander billets, while disposing of the B-58 would only cost two says a lot and I could see it happening.

Offline Kelmola

  • Seeking motivation to start buillding the stash
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #65 on: April 22, 2017, 11:32:56 PM »
I wouldn't be surprised at all if McNamara willfully lied in order to advance his pet project, the F-111, and B-58 just so happened to be in the way of FB-111A (and F-111A to a lesser extent).

Never mind that when fully loaded, FB-111's performance suffered much more than B-58's, and it was still shorter ranged, even though on long-range missions it would have carried just one SRAM to have the necessary range. Sure, FB-111 could on paper carry more conventional ordnance, nevermind that it was not tasked to do that until B-1B became operational and at maximum load would not have been a great performer, limiting it to smaller loads in practice (Meanwhile in Operation Bullseye, B-58 proved it could fly at 600+ kts at low altitude while carrying four MER's full of bombs).

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #66 on: April 23, 2017, 12:47:29 AM »
I wouldn't be surprised at all if McNamara willfully lied in order to advance his pet project, the F-111, and B-58 just so happened to be in the way of FB-111A (and F-111A to a lesser extent).

Never mind that when fully loaded, FB-111's performance suffered much more than B-58's, and it was still shorter ranged, even though on long-range missions it would have carried just one SRAM to have the necessary range. Sure, FB-111 could on paper carry more conventional ordnance, nevermind that it was not tasked to do that until B-1B became operational and at maximum load would not have been a great performer, limiting it to smaller loads in practice (Meanwhile in Operation Bullseye, B-58 proved it could fly at 600+ kts at low altitude while carrying four MER's full of bombs).

McNamara eventually gave in and the B-58 was slotted to serve until 1974, it was Melvin Laird, Nixons Sec Def who authorised the retirement based on the recommendation of the Chief of the Air Force, who in turn acted on the advice of the head of SAC who had deliberately bypassed anyone he thought would dispute his decision and justification, i.e. anyone with first hand operational knowledge of the B-58s capabilities and true operating costs.  Once the recommendation had been made to government the USAF couldn't back out but the head of SAC copped it from the hear of the USAF for not following procedure and deliberately misleading him. 

Basically the Heavy Bomber Mafia within SAC did to the Medium Bomber Community what they had been doing to Naval and Army aviation for generations, they deliberately and maliciously misled their superiors and government to protect their own little fiefdom.  The really stupid bit is the 60 B-52s they saved, only served for less than another two years as they were older C and F models that were significantly less capable than the newer Gs and Hs, even the big bellied Ds and especially the B-58s.  They were even the aircraft flagged to have been replaced by the FB-111 at the earliest opportunity (i.e. 1974) therefore the sacrifice of the B-58 is even more nonsensical.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #67 on: December 04, 2017, 06:06:00 AM »
Dam Volkodav, in my Alternative ADF ORBAT, I had  proposed "interim" A-5B Vigilante taking up the slack of F-111 development delays and issues. But now you've seriously got me thinking of the 'real-world' U.S. offer of the B-58 Hustler......Arrrrrrrr >:D

M.A.D

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #68 on: December 04, 2017, 06:21:50 AM »
Why not an affraid (manned) version?

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #69 on: August 29, 2018, 07:28:35 PM »
Found on Facebook.



Note: Image currently unavailable.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2019, 09:20:35 AM by The Big Gimper »
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Online Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #70 on: August 30, 2018, 12:26:42 AM »
^ @Carl - nice find!  Makes you wonder what the Hustler would look like with a Grand Slam or Tall Boy strapped to the belly :)
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #71 on: August 30, 2018, 12:33:25 AM »
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #72 on: September 02, 2018, 03:21:16 AM »
Hmmm...maybe one in NASA scheme?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #73 on: September 02, 2018, 02:05:53 PM »
I've been thinking of one in Aerospace Weather Service markings, such as B-47's flew in.  Perhaps they could check the weather on SST routes for military SSTs?

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Convair (General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler
« Reply #74 on: September 02, 2018, 07:26:12 PM »
I've been thinking of one in Aerospace Weather Service markings, such as B-47's flew in.  Perhaps they could check the weather on SST routes for military SSTs?

Great idea Evan.  Baby brother could be a WF-107A Super Saber in the same finish. 
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...