B-58 Hustler: Why Did This Beautiful Plane Fail
- Thread starter johnbr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
1. The development of surface to air missiles meant the B-58 could no longer penetrate enemy defenses at high altitude. Tests of low altitude penetrations showed it would come apart due to the increased loads.
2. A wing of B-58's cost three times to operate what a wing of B-52's cost.
3. The FB-111A came along.
2. A wing of B-58's cost three times to operate what a wing of B-52's cost.
3. The FB-111A came along.
AMC
Airman
Your observations make perfect sense, and now I know why this beautiful dream machine of my youth was gone so quickly.
In my mind I always likened it to the Etype Jaguar of the day.....
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I always wondered why they did not make an ECM version. It would have been a lot less vulnerable than an EB-66. Of course it could not have carried as many operators.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,984
- Jun 25, 2013
I seem to remember the B-58 also had a very high loss rate
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Well, I don't know about that, but I do believe that the USAF crashed them at the Paris Airshow two years in a row.
AMC
Airman
Three aircrew were killed in the first crash, and one in the second I believe...
How did the nose wheel retract?, with the POD coming right up to it?
mikewint
Captain
I would certainly agree a beautiful aircraft with many innovations but:
According to the 2012 book Rearming for the Cold War, 1945-1960 by retired USAF Col. Elliott V. Converse III.
As a supersonic jet bomber the B-58 was capable of flying significantly faster, Mach 2.0, than the B-52 Stratofortress and the Stratojet. With a maximum altitude of 63,400 feet, it flew much higher than both of those bombers but the Hustler was also small, for a bomber, with its 95.10-foot length and a 56.9-foot-wingspan. A B-52 is 64 feet longer and has 128 more feet of wing. The Air Force's top priority was speed and the Hustler's four J79-GE-5A turbojet engines were capable of individually producing 10,400 pounds of dry thrust. The delta wing shape also helped increase speed, but the resulting drag pushed the engineers to redesign the fuselage in a curved "coke-bottle" shape leaving no room for a bomb bay thus a large bomb-and-fuel pod sat underneath the fuselage. To reduce heat, Convair designed the B-58's skin out of honeycombed fiberglass sandwiched between aluminum and steel plates, glued together instead of riveted, a process that would later be used in future jet aircraft.
The Air Force aimed to have the bombers armed with a single nine-megaton B53 nuclear bomb or four B43 or B61 nuclear bombs on four wing pylons. Its goal was to dash into the Soviet Union and China at speeds and altitudes that interceptors and surface-to-air missiles would have difficulty reaching. At the time,1964, the CIA determined that the only Chinese aircraft possibly capable of intercepting it was the MiG-21 Fishbed and "even then" the chances of a successful hit would be "marginal.".
Unfortunately the Hustler's small size created one of its biggest shortcomings for a jet designed to penetrate Soviet airspace, i.e. an unrefueled combat radius of only 1,740 miles. This would require the Air Force to base its Hustlers in Europe or devote substantial numbers of tankers for aerial refueling. The short range was a serious concern in the Air Force and Lt. Gen. Curtis LeMay of Strategic Air Command disliked the bomber and wanted the planes kept away from SAC. To make matters worse, the bomber was mechanically complicated, expensive to operate (three times as much as the B-52) and it was proving difficult to develop. For example, to redesign the fuselage into the "coke bottle" forced delays in the program and an increase in costs. As the problems and costs mounted the Air Force would end up buying only 116 Hustlers, a third of what had originally been proposed.
While speed had been the number one concern it also created problems. Because the bomber traveled so fast, the Air Force needed a new navigation and bombing system — the Sperry AN/ASQ-42 — which proved most troublesome of all to develop. Then the J79 engine ran into problems, as did the braking system and ejection seats, the latter of which Convair ultimately swapped out for ejectable pods.
Ultimately two factors doomed the Hustler. The first was the development of better Soviet surface-to-air missiles in the 1950s culminating in the May 1960 shoot down of a high-flying U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers. The weapon, an S-75 Dvina — known by NATO as the SA-2 Guideline — could reach thousands of feet higher than the B-58's maximum operating altitude.
While the B-58 cold fly lower, flying low also means flying slow and that defeated the very purpose of the Hustler's design. The low and slow B-58 also handled very poorly which caused several crashes.
The second problem was inherent to the U.S. Air Force's demand that the B-58's development occur concurrently, i.e., a system should be designed from the outset as an integrated whole and, based upon this plan, work on all of the elements making up the system, including its subsystems and aspects of its employment such as supporting facilities and equipment and training programs, should all take place at the same time.
This demand for concurrency meant that when problems arose, they created a series of cascading problems for the entire project. The system then had to either be redesigned or wait for the problems to be solved. As a result, development slowed, some production preparations had to be scrapped, costs rose, and deployment was delayed.
If this sounds familiar, it should, recall the repeated delays to the F-35. While the Air Force promised that concurrency would reduce costs for the stealth fighter, it hasn't. In fact, quite the opposite.
According to the 2012 book Rearming for the Cold War, 1945-1960 by retired USAF Col. Elliott V. Converse III.
As a supersonic jet bomber the B-58 was capable of flying significantly faster, Mach 2.0, than the B-52 Stratofortress and the Stratojet. With a maximum altitude of 63,400 feet, it flew much higher than both of those bombers but the Hustler was also small, for a bomber, with its 95.10-foot length and a 56.9-foot-wingspan. A B-52 is 64 feet longer and has 128 more feet of wing. The Air Force's top priority was speed and the Hustler's four J79-GE-5A turbojet engines were capable of individually producing 10,400 pounds of dry thrust. The delta wing shape also helped increase speed, but the resulting drag pushed the engineers to redesign the fuselage in a curved "coke-bottle" shape leaving no room for a bomb bay thus a large bomb-and-fuel pod sat underneath the fuselage. To reduce heat, Convair designed the B-58's skin out of honeycombed fiberglass sandwiched between aluminum and steel plates, glued together instead of riveted, a process that would later be used in future jet aircraft.
The Air Force aimed to have the bombers armed with a single nine-megaton B53 nuclear bomb or four B43 or B61 nuclear bombs on four wing pylons. Its goal was to dash into the Soviet Union and China at speeds and altitudes that interceptors and surface-to-air missiles would have difficulty reaching. At the time,1964, the CIA determined that the only Chinese aircraft possibly capable of intercepting it was the MiG-21 Fishbed and "even then" the chances of a successful hit would be "marginal.".
Unfortunately the Hustler's small size created one of its biggest shortcomings for a jet designed to penetrate Soviet airspace, i.e. an unrefueled combat radius of only 1,740 miles. This would require the Air Force to base its Hustlers in Europe or devote substantial numbers of tankers for aerial refueling. The short range was a serious concern in the Air Force and Lt. Gen. Curtis LeMay of Strategic Air Command disliked the bomber and wanted the planes kept away from SAC. To make matters worse, the bomber was mechanically complicated, expensive to operate (three times as much as the B-52) and it was proving difficult to develop. For example, to redesign the fuselage into the "coke bottle" forced delays in the program and an increase in costs. As the problems and costs mounted the Air Force would end up buying only 116 Hustlers, a third of what had originally been proposed.
While speed had been the number one concern it also created problems. Because the bomber traveled so fast, the Air Force needed a new navigation and bombing system — the Sperry AN/ASQ-42 — which proved most troublesome of all to develop. Then the J79 engine ran into problems, as did the braking system and ejection seats, the latter of which Convair ultimately swapped out for ejectable pods.
Ultimately two factors doomed the Hustler. The first was the development of better Soviet surface-to-air missiles in the 1950s culminating in the May 1960 shoot down of a high-flying U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers. The weapon, an S-75 Dvina — known by NATO as the SA-2 Guideline — could reach thousands of feet higher than the B-58's maximum operating altitude.
While the B-58 cold fly lower, flying low also means flying slow and that defeated the very purpose of the Hustler's design. The low and slow B-58 also handled very poorly which caused several crashes.
The second problem was inherent to the U.S. Air Force's demand that the B-58's development occur concurrently, i.e., a system should be designed from the outset as an integrated whole and, based upon this plan, work on all of the elements making up the system, including its subsystems and aspects of its employment such as supporting facilities and equipment and training programs, should all take place at the same time.
This demand for concurrency meant that when problems arose, they created a series of cascading problems for the entire project. The system then had to either be redesigned or wait for the problems to be solved. As a result, development slowed, some production preparations had to be scrapped, costs rose, and deployment was delayed.
If this sounds familiar, it should, recall the repeated delays to the F-35. While the Air Force promised that concurrency would reduce costs for the stealth fighter, it hasn't. In fact, quite the opposite.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I had a post, "Testing the Hustler" on the first USAF crew to fly a B-58.
By the way the B-58 led to the development of a rocket engine, made by Bell, that originally was supposed to power a large stand off missile that would have taken the place of the B-58's pod. The missile never went into service but the engine, the XLR-81, was used to power one of the most important upper stages of the early years of US space efforts, the Agena.
By the way the B-58 led to the development of a rocket engine, made by Bell, that originally was supposed to power a large stand off missile that would have taken the place of the B-58's pod. The missile never went into service but the engine, the XLR-81, was used to power one of the most important upper stages of the early years of US space efforts, the Agena.
AMC
Airman
Well well that's the best demonstration of how something works I have ever come across. Many thanks for the trouble and effort , mystery solved!!!.
I remember being in Woolworths back in the early sixties one day and having to decide if I would buy one of the new Corgi Lancasters, or a spacelike Jet, which happened to be a 1/96 scale Hustler (maybe Lindberg or Aurora?). I bought the Hustler then, but later bought the first of many Lancasters.
The sixties, heady days with world events happening on a daily basis.....
"The golden evening brightens in the west.
Soon soon to faithful warriors cometh rest"....
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
I recall seeing a picture of what I believe was the second B-58 crash at the Paris Airshow. I do not know what the entire sequence was, but the nosegear collapsed.
At my first USAF active duty assignment was with an organization with responsibilities that included aircraft oxygen equipment. They told me that for the last B-58 mishap before the aircraft was phased out of service the USAF Mishap Board determiend that the cause was the "highly flammable oxygen system." This produced considerable amusement in the engineering organizations, since oxygen does not burn.
At my first USAF active duty assignment was with an organization with responsibilities that included aircraft oxygen equipment. They told me that for the last B-58 mishap before the aircraft was phased out of service the USAF Mishap Board determiend that the cause was the "highly flammable oxygen system." This produced considerable amusement in the engineering organizations, since oxygen does not burn.
Last edited:
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Look at Item 45: "Inflight Printer" I can see it now, "Abort, abort! We are out of toner!"
Last edited:
ODonovan
Airman 1st Class
That is not entirely true. Oxygen DOES burn. A fire requires heat, a fuel, and oxygen (which is, strangely enough, called the "oxidizer"). To say oxygen does not burn is the same as saying gasoline (or any fuel) does not burn. If there is no oxygen, gasoline does NOT burn, but you don't hear anyone saying gasoline doesn't burn. To have fire, both oxygen and fuel must be present. Increased oxygen will make a fire burn hotter and faster.
Anyone old like me
will remember the Apollo 1 disaster, where three astronauts died in a capsule fire, during a launch rehearsal. One of the main contributors to their deaths was the pure oxygen atmosphere in the capsule at the time of the fire, which caused the fire to burn so hot it prevented any attempts at rescue.Apollo 1 Capsule
After the Apollo 1 fire, changes were made in the Block II spacecraft and other equipment, the most important of which were use of a nitrogen/oxygen mixture instead of pure oxygen before and during launch, and removal of flammable cabin and space suit materials.
So yeah, oxygen burns...just not by itself.
-Irish
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Fuel burns.
Oxygen does not.
You need fuel and an ignition source in addition to the oxygen - or an oxidizer. Try mixing motor oil with swimming pool chlorine and see what happens.
But the Oxygen does not burn. By itself it does nothing. It cannot start or sustain a fire.
Oxygen does not.
You need fuel and an ignition source in addition to the oxygen - or an oxidizer. Try mixing motor oil with swimming pool chlorine and see what happens.
But the Oxygen does not burn. By itself it does nothing. It cannot start or sustain a fire.
ODonovan
Airman 1st Class
Using that same principle, fuel does not burn. By itself, it cannot start or sustain a fire either. Both fuel and oxygen are "consumed" in a fire, so they both "burn." The fuel has a carbon molecule removed which is combined with the oxygen molecule to form carbon dioxide. Both the fuel and oxygen are altered on the molecular level.
As far as mixing motor oil with chlorine, mix gasoline with liquid oxygen and you won't have a fire either. Specific conditions for a fire have not been met. Chlorine is actually a highly explosive compound, but the the right circumstances have to occur, same as with a fire.
-Irish
chipieal
Airman
I do not claim to be an expert - however the Hustler suffered from the same exact problem that plagued the B - 36. Both airplanes were designed to meet requirements that were a snapshot in time. By this I mean that at their design inception there was a need for the specific requirement of each. However, as it takes so long to design, test and build a bomber by the time they rolled out the target had moved. Luckily for Convair the B - 36 was capable of filling the role of a hemisphere bomber which saved it. The Hustler however, was built to a very specific specification that would not afford adaptability. and as is often repeated on these pages, a great airplane design is one that can be adaptable.
GreenKnight121
Senior Airman
- 672
- Mar 16, 2014
Barrett
Senior Airman
One of the aces I got to know pretty well was the late Col. James K. Johnson. Tremendous career: his first tactical aircraft was the P-26 and his last was the B-58, as he was (IIRC) first CO of the 43rd BW. In between he flew P-47s in Europe and of course 86s in Korea.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Oh, Please! We are on Planet Earth, where Oxygen is a significant component of the atmosphere. There is always an oxydizer around. And a jelled mixture of LOX and RP-1 does not require an ignition source; hit it with a hammer, stomp on it and it goes off. Impacts of LH2/LOX at greater than about 100 ft/ sec have explosive yields greater than the equivalent mass of TNT. And combinations of Chlorine and Hydrocarbons produce highly exothermic reactions require no ignition source. The standard way for Fire Depts to set fire to a wooden building for fire fighting practice is to spread swimming pool chlorine granules on the floor, pour motor oil on it and then sit back and wait for it to catch fire.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
