Author Topic: Hustling the Hustler (Read 14442 times)

tc2324 · « **on:** April 05, 2015, 04:53:13 PM »

Glad I got this done in 1/48, although as already mentioned, the mould really is in need of an update. As you can guess the finished article is big. The width is about the same as a 1/72 Lanc or B-17, but it`s the length that`s the main displaying issue. (No sniggering at the back thank you.....)

So with no further ado........

Convair B-58K Hustler
617 Squadron RAF
RAF Marham
1980

Buzzbomb · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2015, 05:15:06 PM »

There is so much right in that.

Nice all over

FAAMAN · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2015, 06:02:06 PM »

Sniggering ........ why

Absolutely brilliant Whiff, wonderful finish very well done!!

LemonJello · « **Reply #3 on:** April 06, 2015, 12:55:25 AM »

Awesome! Really looks like it means business, too.

Volkodav · « **Reply #4 on:** April 06, 2015, 02:03:18 AM »

elmayerle · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2015, 02:28:32 AM »

Gorgeous!! Plausible, too.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2015, 04:02:44 AM »

Sweet!

Jeffry Fontaine · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2015, 04:09:52 AM »

Very nice Hustler! A camouflage scheme that really looks good on it too.

Steve Blazo · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2015, 04:47:54 AM »

Very well done Hustler. I don't build airtargets anymore, but the B-58 is one of the sexiest airtargets ever built. The camo and markings work too.

Silver Fox · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2015, 09:23:20 AM »

Real nice!

Now I have an idea of what to do with the 1/72 TB-58 I added to the stash ages ago. I think mine will be a Canadian version in Arctic camo.

Weaver · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2015, 09:35:06 AM »

That looks great, and the RAF did have a look at the B-58 for real IIRC. Would probably have made more sense for us than for SAC, since our distances to the targets were much less.

Well done! :)

Kerick · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2015, 12:23:47 PM »

The problem for the B-58 was that the Soviet missile system made high altitude attacks impossible and the B-58 wasn't built to do low level runs. The mission it was built for ceased to exist. It does make me wonder how much airframe and electronic modifications would have had to have been made to make it into a low level attacker.

tc2324 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2015, 03:17:36 PM »

Thank you all chaps. :)

.... and quite right about the low level aspect in that it wasn`t designed for that role.

My thinking was along the lines of a low level dash, the high-low-low attack aspect so to speak which it may well of adapted to quite well.

finsrin · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2015, 04:06:52 PM »

Camo puts B-58 in a different light. Looks as if they were that way :)
Can picture flight line with mix of B-58 and Vulcan bombers.

Volkodav · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2015, 08:23:01 PM »

There is a video on youtube of a low level, cross continental, Hustler mission, so it was capable of low level penetration. Its handling was as I understand it not that different to that of the F-111 so fit a TFR and it could have been viable although I don't know how it would have gone fatigue wise. The issue was I believe its operating costs verses other types capable of the sort of missions it may have been able to move to. Now if anyone was going to take them low level regularly it would have been the RAF, I wounder of Hustlers would have killed off the TSR2 before it got seriously underway?

Weaver · « **Reply #15 on:** April 07, 2015, 03:22:07 AM »

You've also got to wonder if converting the Combined Store into an actual missile would have enabled it to reach further and keep the B-58 outside of the target's defences. After all, it's got to be more efficient to burn the fuel in the pod to just take a nuke to Moscow than it is to take a nuke AND a whole aeroplane there. I suspect guidance might have been the sticking point though.

KiwiZac · « **Reply #16 on:** April 07, 2015, 06:58:14 AM »

Love it. Just love it!

Frank3k · « **Reply #17 on:** April 07, 2015, 07:09:20 AM »

This is just perfect! Too bad there aren't any 1/8 V Bombers to park this next to...

KiwiZac · « **Reply #18 on:** April 07, 2015, 10:22:50 AM »

I hope that's a typo, Frank - I feel ill at the thought of a 1/8 Victor or Vulcan!! $:-\$

elmayerle · « **Reply #19 on:** April 07, 2015, 10:48:44 AM »

Quote from: Weaver on April 07, 2015, 03:22:07 AM

You've also got to wonder if converting the Combined Store into an actual missile would have enabled it to reach further and keep the B-58 outside of the target's defences. After all, it's got to be more efficient to burn the fuel in the pod to just take a nuke to Moscow than it is to take a nuke AND a whole aeroplane there. I suspect guidance might have been the sticking point though.

There were studies of putting an ALBM under the Hustler. What would be interesting is a supersonic long-range cruise missile it could launch from an adequate stand-off range. Could be interesting to scheme for late-50's/early-60's state of the art.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #20 on:** April 08, 2015, 02:47:10 AM »

Quote from: Frank3k on April 07, 2015, 07:09:20 AM

This is just perfect! Too bad there aren't any 1/8 V Bombers to park this next to...

I assume you mean 1/48...in which case, there were/are at least two examples I know of, both of the Vulcan.

Frank3k · « **Reply #21 on:** April 08, 2015, 05:06:11 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on April 08, 2015, 02:47:10 AM

I assume you mean 1/48...in which case, there were/are at least two examples I know of, both of the Vulcan.

Yeah, only you would be able to build and store a 1/8 Vulcan. I assume the 1/48 Vulcans were vacuforms?

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #22 on:** April 09, 2015, 02:28:25 AM »

Yep - here's one to prove my claim:

bluesman · « **Reply #23 on:** May 25, 2015, 01:15:26 AM »

I like the classic bare nake silver B-58 but that RAF version is very nice.

Scooterman · « **Reply #24 on:** May 26, 2015, 01:32:56 AM »

Quote from: elmayerle on April 07, 2015, 10:48:44 AM

There were studies of putting an ALBM under the Hustler. What would be interesting is a supersonic long-range cruise missile it could launch from an adequate stand-off range. Could be interesting to scheme for late-50's/early-60's state of the art.

Blue Steel? Would it fit be the question.

apophenia · « **Reply #25 on:** May 26, 2015, 04:15:18 AM »

In a word, 'Yes'. The Avro Vulcan and the B-58A were the same length -- 30 metres. Blue Steel was 10.7 m long ... or about the same as the upper component of the Hustler's BLU-2 pod (although a bit chubbier).

FAAMAN · « **Reply #26 on:** May 26, 2015, 01:02:58 PM »

Whoa! That'd be a great Whiff, a B-58 in RAF colours standing alert with a Blue Steel

CiTrus90 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 06, 2015, 12:08:28 AM »

Love it!!

finsrin · « **Reply #28 on:** August 06, 2015, 08:13:47 AM »

Quote from: FAAMAN on May 26, 2015, 01:02:58 PM

Whoa! That'd be a great Whiff, a B-58 in RAF colours standing alert with a Blue Steel

Yes that would :)

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #29 on:** August 07, 2015, 01:51:34 AM »

Does anyone make a 1/48 Blue Steel?

Nexus1171 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 07, 2015, 06:50:58 AM »

The blue-steel sounds like a great addition over the existing B-58: Depending on range you might need an extra refueling or two, but it'd do the job.

Tophe · « **Reply #31 on:** August 07, 2015, 11:30:02 AM »

Nice model... :)
Just a question: with this RAF Hustler, would the TSR2 never have existed even as project?

elmayerle · « **Reply #32 on:** August 07, 2015, 12:05:44 PM »

Quote from: Tophe on August 07, 2015, 11:30:02 AM

Nice model... :)
Just a question: with this RAF Hustler, would the TSR2 never have existed even as project?

Quite possibly a bit later in time as a follow-up and replacement program. With any luck, that would give the necessary technologies time to mature.


Swords to Plowshares GB Now Open!!

News:

Author Topic: Hustling the Hustler (Read 14442 times)