avatar_Pellson

Convair B-58F thoughts

Started by Pellson, March 12, 2022, 12:06:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pellson

As some of you in this distinguished association of modelling expertise most likely already knew, the otherwise very nice Italeri B-58 Hustler is about 12% too short due to a ridiculous mistake when scaling the kit. There is apparently some chaps that have gone all the way to correct this, but that involves an inhuman amount of cutting, extending and reshaping. I'm not really inclined to go down that route.

There were five Hustler variants with more or less official marks/version designations.
B-58(A); the only bomber built
TB-58(A); conversion trainer
RB-58(A); B-58 with a camera instalment in the mission pod
B-58B; a slightly stretched B-58A with newer versions of the J79 power plant, canards and improved performance
And finally, the
B-58C; a significantly enlarged version with four power packs scavenged from the A-12/SR-71 project, capable of Mach 3.

In addition to these, there were possibly two studies that might or might not have gotten version letters. The (F)B-58D that might have been a B-58 interceptor variant, powered by 2xJ58 or 4xJ75 and the rather similar tactical strike B-58E.

These are design sketches I found on the web



Not intending to arse myself into major reconstruction, I will not build any of the above, mainly because I'm too lazy to correct the length difference and adhering wing plan form. Rather, I'm considering to leave the model short, explaining that by suggesting a new mark, cut down a bit to save on weight and cost but still improving on some of the inherent flaws of the original design, thereby gaining the nod from the congress. Other changes will be kept pretty short, so I'll keep the J79's, if in a more modern version, as well as the general layout of the aircraft, but I'll most likely introduce canards and/or LERX'es as per the proposed B-58B variant never built. In addition to curing some nasty behaviour in flight, this will improve on takeoff and landing characteristics as the original B-58A landed much like a F-111 on full sweep, according to a test pilot. Some high AoA abilities were sorely needed, I'd guess..

Before getting started, I'd like to get some feedback from you, oh wizards of Whif, on a few issues where I haven't landed yet.
Most acute is the escape system. In the real B-58A, the three crew sat in ejection capsules that encased them when ejecting, in order to protect them from the very high friction of the air at Mach 2+. Those capsules weren't very much liked by aircrew as they were a bit cumbersome and in an emergency would close automatically, effectively shutting the pilot off from most ways of correcting a problem. Also, their parachute deployment characteristics apparently left something to be desired. To my knowledge, no other Mach 2 capable aircraft ever used something similar. The F-111 came closest with its ejectable cockpit, but that wasn't very much liked either.

Accordingly, looking at depicting an aircraft redesigned in the second half of the 1960's, incorporating some major changes while still sticking to the basic design of the original (and here comes the question!) - would you have thought that the ejection capsules would have been left out and replaced with more standard ejection seats, or would they have stuck with the capsules? Main mission would be substituting the FB-111A before it was built, performing low level intruder strikes.

In my application, I'm in the 1990's. By then, the B-58F will be fielding 4 ALCM's or CALCM's on wing root pylons. Second question: Would the big pod have been used, possibly storing some additional cruise missiles plus fuel, or would the smaller pod also included in the Italeri kit have been more realistic, only housing fuel?

I'd really like some input on this, and by the way on the idea as such. Please knock yourselves out.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

McColm

#1
From the book American Secret Projects, bombers, attack and ASW aircraft  1945-1974.
The side-by-side seating arrangement option.

Perhaps something similar to the F-111 in escape capsules.


VSTOL
The example shows the B-58 seaplane proposal.



A slightly different engine layout

Pellson

Cool info, Stephen, but I'm not going to modify anything to that extent this time.  ;)
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

PR19_Kit

How about having the entire nose jettison for the escape system, like the F-111 but more of it?

Having a ring of explosive bolts around the fuselage just aft of the cockpit would sort that out pretty well I'd have thought.
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Pellson

Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 12, 2022, 02:09:13 PM
How about having the entire nose jettison for the escape system, like the F-111 but more of it?

Having a ring of explosive bolts around the fuselage just aft of the cockpit would sort that out pretty well I'd have thought.

Hmmm. As the F-111 solution wasn't that well liked either, I think I'll either go for a standard ejection seat or keep the capsules.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

sandiego89

The early B-58's and the TB-58 for their entire in service used the conventional SAC seats. 

The XB-70 used capsules also, and the one time they were used, the capsule likely killed Major Cross as he was last seen struggling to encapsulate in the gyrating spin. 

I think they would have kept the capsule seats in the late 1960's, but with the primary role being low level at high subsonic speeds your backstory could say they returned to the SAC seat, as Mach 2 at high altitude was less of the profile, and the weight and complexity allowed a return to the SAC seat.

If your are using the 4 wing root stations for ALCMS, I would go with the small pod for fuel.  While the nuclear stores could clear the pod, not much room there.     
Dave "Sandiego89"
Chesapeake, Virginia, USA

McColm

You could go down the route of the B-66 Destroyer or was it the Skyworrier which had sideways ejection seats.

Wardukw-NZ

Ok this is out there bit working on Kits idea but going abit further.
Turning the entire nose section into the escape pod but also using the carnads as well..build a spine from the back of the cockpit which in part will act like a small tail and the carnads as wings.
Since ya cant go behind the cockpit anyway a smaller ..much smaller engine powers the pod and when it's at a safe speed parachutes depoly to bring the pod to the ground.
With the pod being so small it wouldnt have a lot of range but enough to get the crew away from the plane to a safe distance  and a safe speed..problem solved.
Like i said..its a wee bit out there  ;D
If it aint broke ,,fix it until it is .
Over kill is often very understated .
I know the voices in my head ain't real but they do come up with some great ideas .

Beermonster58

#8
Well, I cannot really tell by looking at it that it is too short and, it's unmistakable as  a, B-58 so, I really don't care.
Besides, its the only one readily available in the one true scale! 😉😂.
Now, as to design changes, if I recall correctly the never built B-58C incorporated a longer fuselage with extended wingspan and, drooped wingtips?
I've also seen an illustration with the wings clipped and, the outboard engines mounted on the wingtips. Each engine pod also having a small vertical fin fitted in addition to the normal vertical tail.
I have five of these kits so, I have a cunning plan to kitbash a pair of them to produce a longer fuselage, V tailed version with the wingtip mounted engines! 😊

Allan
Hates rivet counters! Eats JMNs for breakfast!

Beermonster58

Quote from: McColm on March 12, 2022, 03:55:33 PM
You could go down the route of the B-66 Destroyer or was it the Skyworrier which had sideways ejection seats.

Was the original A-3D on which it was based not nicknamed "All 3 Dead" on account of the fact it had no ejection seats at all?

Allan
Hates rivet counters! Eats JMNs for breakfast!

McColm

Or downwards firing ejection seats.

PR19_Kit

Quote from: McColm on March 13, 2022, 04:13:40 AM

Or downwards firing ejection seats.


Never a good idea for a low level strike bomber.....  :-\
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

zenrat

Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 13, 2022, 05:39:52 AM
Quote from: McColm on March 13, 2022, 04:13:40 AM

Or downwards firing ejection seats.


Never a good idea for a low level strike bomber.....  :-\

Unless the seats stay where they are and the entire airframe is ejected upwards...
Fred

- Can't be bothered to do the proper research and get it right.

Another ill conceived, lazily thought out, crudely executed and badly painted piece of half arsed what-if modelling muppetry from zenrat industries.

zenrat industries:  We're everywhere...for your convenience..

Scotaidh

Quote from: Beermonster58 on March 13, 2022, 03:33:14 AM
Quote from: McColm on March 12, 2022, 03:55:33 PM
You could go down the route of the B-66 Destroyer or was it the Skyworrier which had sideways ejection seats.

Was the original A-3D on which it was based not nicknamed "All 3 Dead" on account of the fact it had no ejection seats at all?

Allan

What the Whale had was a slide, similar to the F-3D Skyknight.  The rear bulkhead of the cockpit had a grab-bar mounted across the top of a kick-out panel leading to s short slide down to a spring-loaded panel in the bottom of the aircraft.  A crewmember using this was very quickly out of the aircraft, facing aft and falling feet-first - perfect for pulling his own chute. 
Thistle dew, Pig - thistle dew!

Where am I going?  And why am I in a handbasket?

It's dark in the dark when it's dark. Ancient Ogre Proverb

"All right, boyz - the plan iz 'Win.'  And if ya lose, it's yer own fault 'coz ya didn't follow the plan."

Pellson

Quote from: sandiego89 on March 12, 2022, 03:40:47 PM
The early B-58's and the TB-58 for their entire in service used the conventional SAC seats. 

The XB-70 used capsules also, and the one time they were used, the capsule likely killed Major Cross as he was last seen struggling to encapsulate in the gyrating spin. 

I think they would have kept the capsule seats in the late 1960's, but with the primary role being low level at high subsonic speeds your backstory could say they returned to the SAC seat, as Mach 2 at high altitude was less of the profile, and the weight and complexity allowed a return to the SAC seat.

If your are using the 4 wing root stations for ALCMS, I would go with the small pod for fuel.  While the nuclear stores could clear the pod, not much room there.     

Thanks, mate. Useful comments.  :thumbsup:
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!