What if
October 21, 2014, 04:40:45 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Links Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
  Print  
Author Topic: B-58 Hustler  (Read 13141 times)
salt6
Makes own decals
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 325



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2005, 12:45:39 AM »



Logged

Steve B


"The time has come,
         The Walrus said,
     To talk of many things:
Of shoes and ships
         and sealing wax
      Of cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot
      And whether pigs have wings."
Jeffry Fontaine
Don't need no stinking instructions
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3380


What-If's "Uncle Jeffry"


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2005, 01:04:17 AM »

Quote
the B-58 was - born pretty, lived fast, died young.
How fitting for an epitaph in regards to the short career of the B-58 Hustler.  

My own personal preferences for a WHIF based on the B-58 would be to do one as still active after having gone through a service life upgrade program of some kind later on to give it a new lease on life with improved avionics, and other bells and whistles such as additional pylons on the wings for countermeasures pods or defensive missiles such as AGM-45 Shrike, AGM-78 STARM, or AGM-69 SRAM to give it the ability to perform the SEAD mission for other strike aircraft.  

If this were to be carried over to a WHIF in RAF markings, it would have to be something with a black underside since that color would look more suitable for an aircraft that is operating at high altitude and this would reduce the possibility of sunlight shining on the under side and creating points of illumination as it streaked across the skies at altitude.  It would probably be armed with some kind of stand-off weapon based on a solid fuel weapon.  Maybe a pair of Skybolt or the British Grand Slam II stand off missiles.  This would give the Hustler the desired stand-off cabability and allow it to remain outside of air defenses to attack the targets.  

For a Canadian B-158, I would hazard that it would carry the same ordnance as the USAF version since it would be simpler to maintain the weapons under US control until the warning order was received to issue the weapons to the end user and unlock the permissive action links that secured the weapons from unauthorized use.  As far as painting, I would consider something in overall gray or NMF with the CAF style red/white stripe along the side of the aircraft that would be similar to that design found on the CF-101 Voodoo.  Other camouflage options would be for an Avro Vulcan style green and gray top surface and an all black underside.  

For something completely different, how about a Taiwan B-58 with a Taiwanese/American crew? 

I was really hoping to see some better images of Steve Brooks' (SALT6) WHIF B-58 other than what he has provided on his web page.  They are a bit fuzzy but you can make out some of the modifications that he has done to his.  Steve, if you are reading this, how about some better images of your Hustler project?

I did have one other wild idea for a B-58 as a tactical strike aircraft with a semi-conventional weapon.  Take your standard B-58 Hustler and replace the big fuel and bomb pod with the 22,000 pound Grand Slam bomb.  Replacing the fuel and bomb pod with the Grand Slam would certainly limit the range but this would be made up for by topping off from tanker aircraft to and from the target.  The question now is how to attach the Grand Slam to the underside of the Hustler and make it look plausible since the chain sections provided with the original bomb in the Lancaster is not replicated on the resin copy nor were any additional parts provided for mounting the weapon on an aircraft. 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2009, 04:11:48 PM by Jeffry Fontaine » Logged

Unaffiliated Independent Subversive
----------------------------------
"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
John Howling Mouse
Man-Ho
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9493


I confess: I am a plastic model molester.


« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2005, 03:14:32 AM »

The Hustler is one of those aircraft that just amazes me when you consider its looks and capability in the context of other engineered items of the day.

Look at the 1950's Hustler versus the most exciting, cutting edge automobiles of the same era.  What a contrast!

It's like the Hustler was sent back in time from a few decades in the future.

I've often wondered what aircraft like the Hustler would have been like, performance-wise, if they had fbw technology back then.

Did the later (i.e. Italian) Starfighters ever employ fly-by-wire controls?

 
Logged

Styrene in my blood and an impressive void in my cranium.
Daryl J.
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2934


This is the Age of Imaginarius


« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2005, 03:44:01 AM »

This is one aircraft I've always felt would wear the gorgeous Raspberry Ripple very well.

FYI (Americans), Hobbyland has 1/48 Hustlers for $25.99 through Dec 31.

That, along w/ a Monogram B-29 are my holiday gifts to me.   Oh...the Missus is getting shoes.  Cheesy

But back to the B-58......

How about a PR variant utilising the belly pod?   Low level Operation Telic as a compliment to the Canberra PR.9?     High speed strike bomber with large LGBs based at Seymour Johnson?   cheesy  Belgian markings with an Art Tail and matching F-104s?  Wub      Executive transport for Microsoft? Costco? IKEA?  evil
It'd be a bit too fast for anti-submarine duty, wouldn't it?

 Cheers!
Daryl J.
Logged
Matt Wiser
Makes own decals
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2005, 06:52:57 AM »

Actually, there was a recon pod for the B-58. Cameras in the lower part of the pod, and fuel in the upper. Only reason for SAC to want that would be for post-strike recon....The Hustler did have a fuel-only pod as well, which was carried by planes with the Mark-43 bombs carried under the fuselage. The Military Channel here in the States had a show about the MiG-25, and the show indicated that the rationale for the MiG-25 was not just the B-70, but also the B-58, as the Hustler could outrun at altitude any Soviet fighter. It was also planned IIRC to send a det of B-58s to SEA in 1967 for a combat eval, but the deployment was canceled. Several pods were made to carry conventional bombs, and there were supposedly drop tests at Nellis AFB. 
« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 03:56:41 AM by Jeffry Fontaine » Logged

Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect; but always have a plan to kill them.

Old USMC adage
Roger the Cabin Boy Again
Guest
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2005, 07:20:49 AM »

Looked up IAPR vol2.  This says there was an Hustler SST proposal, model 58 - with a fuselage stretch from 96 feet ton 150.

It also talks about a Super Hustler mach 4 parasite taking the place of the pod.  (not on the airliner version though)

And an interceptor with AIM-47 Phoenix predecessors, one Hustler having the YF-12 radar nose grafted on.  Another 'Snoopy'.

In 1959 Convair proposed a conventional bomber version to the Australians.

 :ar:
 
 
Logged
Madoc
Targeted for assassination by JMNs
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2005, 05:15:52 PM »

Folks,

One thing I'd like to see is a model of the "high speed VIP transport" version ofthe Hustler.  That's the one where the fuel pod has been replaced with a passenger carrying pod - replete with windows, its own environmental system, seats, all the requisite other cabin appointments as would befit military VIP's, and a really secure set of "non-pilot releasable" bolts securing the pod to the aircraft.

The sketches of this thing looked pretty cool and it would've made for a heckuva ride!  Mach 2+ in air conditioned comfort whilst those four J79-5A's screamed but a few feet away from the cabin windows...

Madoc
Logged

Wherever you go, there you are!
Bryan H.
Scratchbuilds the entire model
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 717


Don't mess with Texas!


« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2005, 05:36:29 PM »

Howzabout, during the Cold War the USN revived some of its land-based bomber units (old VPB & VB units from WWII that flew Privateers).  

The new VB/VPB squadrons use Hustlers for long-range maritime strike/reconaissance.  The USN has constantly updated their Hustlers the way the USAF has modernized their B-52's.  The current USN Hustlers have 4x F110 engines, modernized radar, electronics & avionics and can carry loads of Harpoons, HARM's, or for closer in engagements loads of LGB's, cluster bombs (they're cleared for just about any air-ground or anti-shipping armament).  In addition to the Vulcan tail-gun, they can also carry 4x Sidewinders or AMRAAM's for self-defense.  The current camouflage scheme is very similar to the Greek 'Aegean blue' camouflage scheme.

 Cheers! Bryan  
Logged


Miscellany (that effects modeling):
My son & daughter.
School - finishing my degree

Models (upcoming):
RCN A-4F+ ArcticHawk
MCS
Out of the Whiffing Closet
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2005, 05:38:31 PM »

I've had an idea of an electronic warfare version of the B-58 for some time now. Figured, if the aircraft stayed in service a bit longer (early/mid 70's), it might have been considered as an alternate to the F-111.

The B-58 could carry more payload, it had an additional crewmember, and all of the electronics could be contained in a standalone equipment/fuel pod slung underneath the fuselage.

By then, J-79's were more powerful and efficent and advances in electronics might've smoothed out some of the aircraft's more difficult traits.

Anyone know of any sites that have info on jamming equipment (U.S. and allies) of the period (mid/late 70's)?

TIA,
Mike
Logged

Spends too much time researching rather than building...
noxioux
Feels like he missed something really, really important
Needs A Life Outside What-If
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627



« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2005, 07:13:10 PM »

Don't have any specific EW info, but I think an EB-58 would be a cool idea.  Another idea would be to use the pylons for various EW pods, and use the centerline for extra fuel for longer loiter time.
Logged
Bryan H.
Scratchbuilds the entire model
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 717


Don't mess with Texas!


« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2005, 07:23:16 PM »

That's a good idea.  A long-range, supersonic EW platform for escorting bombers into hostile airspace.  You could fit it out for either SEAD with HARM's, Shrikes, other armament or massive jammers or some combination of both.  Sort of an 'economy-sized' EF-111 with an offensive capability.

 Cheers! Bryan  
Logged


Miscellany (that effects modeling):
My son & daughter.
School - finishing my degree

Models (upcoming):
RCN A-4F+ ArcticHawk
Gary
Gone but not Forgotten
Needs A Life Outside What-If
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3080



« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2005, 07:42:14 PM »

Awesome idea and the electronic escorting into hostile airspace is such a neat addition. I don't know much about Intruder opps but I've always had the impression that ELINT aircraft always stayed waaaaaaay in back. What a cool idea having a guy running alongside you running electronic interference. Strap a couple of Slam missles in the pod too will ya. Hooo Raaa

That would make for a neat inflight diorama. A flight of 4 Hustlers, three carrying bombs and one in the tail end Charley with the Wizzo gear. All in grey formal dresses for the big dance.

Damn-it, I have waay too many projects and now I wanna steal that one too!
Logged

Getting back into modeling
MCS
Out of the Whiffing Closet
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2005, 09:59:52 PM »

Quote
Another idea would be to use the pylons for various EW pods, and use the centerline for extra fuel for longer loiter time.
Thanks for that idea. Taking it a step further, I'm thinking of aerodynamic pods (shaped similar to the centerline canoe on the EF-111) that would mount directly to the wing in place of the pylons.

I figure the volume of the pods combined with the space made available after all the obsolete avionics/electronics are replaced (IIRC, Jay Miller's book on the B-58 quoted a ridiculous figure for the weight of all the 50's era electronics), an EB-58 would be able to hold quite a lot of equipment.
Logged

Spends too much time researching rather than building...
overscan
Administrator
Targeted for assassination by JMNs
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 752



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2005, 10:08:01 PM »

Well, late 1960s you are looking at;

USAF

EB-66E with 34 noise jamming transmitters, mostly ALT-6B's

B-52 Phase V - ALR-18, ALR-20, ALR-25 receivers; 4 x ALT-6B, 6 x ALT-28, 2 x ALT-32H, 2x ALT-32L, 2 x ALT-16 jammers

USN

EKA-3B TACOS - 2 x Litton ALT-27 steerable noise jammers, ALQ-92 noise jammer

EA-6A - ALQ-76 noise jammer pods, ALQ-86 receiver (fin bullet fairing), ALQ-49/51 deception jammers for self protection.  

1970s you are looking at EA-6B and its ALQ-99 system, which was then adopted for the EF-111A (1981).



 
Logged

Paul Martell-Mead / Overscan
"What if?" addict
Roger the Cabin Boy Again
Guest
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2005, 11:42:07 PM »

Having perused the photos in IAPR2, one thing mystifies me.  How did the B-58 nosewheel leg actually retract with that humungous tank in the way?

Anyone got sketches  / threeviews  / GAs of the HuSSTler airliner?  As the military ones had an an appalling safety record, doubt it would have been popular, mind.  Airlines tend to get all twitchy about attrition.

 :ar:  
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.1 seconds with 23 queries.

Google visited last this page October 18, 2014, 01:00:15 AM