Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “Convair B-58 Hustler — The Strategic Bomber Built to End the World” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/convair-b-58-hustler/.
Convair B-58 Hustler — The Strategic Bomber Built to End the World
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
Cedric
Custom
Agreed.
One of many airplanes I simply love.
There were some goofy things about them (the need for an external weapons pod, the clamshell crew escape pods) but there was nothing like them. There still isn’t, aside from the B-1, and only then in the original form.
One of our lab instructors at A&P school said his brother flew them in nuke drop tests. The feel of those four afterburners lighting off was very welcome.
Some of Convair’s plans for B-58 spin-offs were fascinating, if maybe far-fetched (water-based version). I would’ve loved to have seen the passenger variant.
There is a small but very nice collection of airplanes at the former Grissom AFB in Indiana, including a B-58. The highway drops below ground level as it passes the collection, so as you come by southbound you pop out of an overpass to get sudden and interesting upward angle view up at the B-58’s tail stinger.
There were some goofy things about them (the need for an external weapons pod, the clamshell crew escape pods) but there was nothing like them. There still isn’t, aside from the B-1, and only then in the original form.
One of our lab instructors at A&P school said his brother flew them in nuke drop tests. The feel of those four afterburners lighting off was very welcome.
Some of Convair’s plans for B-58 spin-offs were fascinating, if maybe far-fetched (water-based version). I would’ve loved to have seen the passenger variant.
There is a small but very nice collection of airplanes at the former Grissom AFB in Indiana, including a B-58. The highway drops below ground level as it passes the collection, so as you come by southbound you pop out of an overpass to get sudden and interesting upward angle view up at the B-58’s tail stinger.
Last edited:
Are you sure? Fully 22% of all the B-58's that ever flew, crashed. Many of these were ground incidents & early experience but that's the stat. Classic technological over-reach for the time.
Cedric
Custom
As a kid I had a B-58 toy replica. Not the scale model from Revell, but the moving parts plastic one. It was about 16 inches long I think.
I had a tiny toy B-58, maybe 1/300th or 350th scale. Even that small, it looked so screaming fast.
Last edited:
I am watching an interesting 45 minute YouTube video on the B-58 that disputes some of the commonly-known negative “facts” about the plane. The host interviews a retired colonel who flew as a navigator on B-58s.
1- The B-58 cost more to operate than the B-52 by a factor of two or three.
The retired colonel in the video was in the Pentagon when the decision to drop the B-58 was made. He said that statement comes from a faulty comparison because it was not an aircraft-to-aircraft but a wing-to-wing comparison. (By “wing” I mean the USAF unit, not the aircraft component.) A B-52 wing was made up of 15 aircraft, where a B-58 wing had 40. Of course it would cost more to operate 40 aircraft than 15.
2- Poor low level performance.
Apparently that’s not true at all. Not only was the accuracy more than acceptable, the B-58 was much harder to detect on radar on approach and departure of the target.
3- More costly and harder to maintain than the B-52.
It was difficult to maintain, but it wasn’t really a problem. The B-58 wings constantly maintained their readiness status.
4- High accident rate.
The 26 lost aircraft number includes those lost in aircraft testing and training the early crews. Operational loss rate numbers were comparable to other bombers. It looks worse due to the small numbers made. Had there been as many operational B-58 wings as B-52 wings to absorb the early loss numbers, the loss percentage would of course be lower.
Long video but interesting.
Col Holt wrote a book on the B-58’s premature demise. I have it, but have not read it. I will move it up on my list.
1- The B-58 cost more to operate than the B-52 by a factor of two or three.
The retired colonel in the video was in the Pentagon when the decision to drop the B-58 was made. He said that statement comes from a faulty comparison because it was not an aircraft-to-aircraft but a wing-to-wing comparison. (By “wing” I mean the USAF unit, not the aircraft component.) A B-52 wing was made up of 15 aircraft, where a B-58 wing had 40. Of course it would cost more to operate 40 aircraft than 15.
2- Poor low level performance.
Apparently that’s not true at all. Not only was the accuracy more than acceptable, the B-58 was much harder to detect on radar on approach and departure of the target.
3- More costly and harder to maintain than the B-52.
It was difficult to maintain, but it wasn’t really a problem. The B-58 wings constantly maintained their readiness status.
4- High accident rate.
The 26 lost aircraft number includes those lost in aircraft testing and training the early crews. Operational loss rate numbers were comparable to other bombers. It looks worse due to the small numbers made. Had there been as many operational B-58 wings as B-52 wings to absorb the early loss numbers, the loss percentage would of course be lower.
Long video but interesting.
Col Holt wrote a book on the B-58’s premature demise. I have it, but have not read it. I will move it up on my list.
Thanks. I watched that one right before the other one. Pretty neat.
And a new one came out practically every couple of days!
I’ve heard it said that WW2 moved aviation forward by 50 yrs, and I believe it. Remember the Bismatk was disabled by Fairey Swordfish cloth wing biplane torpedo planes flying like 75 miles per hour. Within 4 years the Germans were fielding jets and the Brits (Glouster Meteor) and Americans were bringing them on line. Amazing
Icepick Mike
Operator
I'm thinking this A/C is featured in the movie FAIL-SAFE. When I was a kid this was the model airplane to build that was the heat.
Icepick Mike
Operator
500AGL or lower at 700 MPH. HA! took big nads to handle that.
Talyn
SAINT
Especially before terrain-following radar became the norm.