Talk:Convair B-58 Hustler/Archive 2

John Travolta
Only trivia but is it true that John Travolta's dad flew the B-58? Worth adding to the article if a ref can be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.18.124 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont think John Travolta's dad is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure John Tavolta is all that notable anymore... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but John Denver's father did. Henry Duechendorf(?) held at least one world speed record as a B-58 pilot.

B-58s for Australia?
Some time ago I saw a picture in a book showing a model of a B-58 in RAAF markings carrying conventional 'iron' bombs. Was the aircraft ever considered an export prospect?Graham1973 (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Pima Air Museum photo
I took a photo of a decently-preserved B-58 at the Pima Air Museum last year. If someone wants to incorporate it into a future revision of the B-58 Hustler page, they can do so. If not, I just thought I'd share my photo of this awe-inspiring aircraft.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IMG_3704c.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.227.23 (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

RB-58?
Was there really an official version RB-58? I've just read in a Polish article (obviously basing upon some English sources), that RB-58 designation was never official, and primary missions of all B-58s were bomber ones, even if they could be fitted with LA-1 recce pods. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * According to a number of surces (including the USAF Musuem http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2727) a batch of 17 test aircraft (58-1007 to 58-1023) were completed as RB-58As rather than YB-58A to carry a ventral reconnaissance pod. All were used as test aircraft and most were later converted to B-58A standard. So when operational they were all B-58A, but the RB-58s did exist. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Carried Mk53 weapon
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-53_warhead and the pod was dropped on the target with the bomb inside, rather than a bomb being dropped out of the pod. The pod also was a fuel tank. Using the B43 as cited here would have required a bomb bay package in the pod; very elaborate. Also, SAC's four-bomb clip-in package for the B-52 was built for the B28 bomb, and if memory serves, was too big to go in the B-58 pod (I looked over the B-58 at Pima County Air Museum last year; no obvious sign of bomb bay doors on the pod) The B43 was an external carriage tactical weapon, except for internal carriage in the F-105 and the F-111 (originally two bombs, but only one bomb after they put the M61 gun in the right-hand bomb position) Both the F-105 and the F-111 also had provisions for external carriage, as did other tactical fighter-bombers. I was a USAF munitions officer, going through school in 1968-9, and worked with the F-100, F-105, F-4 and F-111. Summary: The B-58 carried the W-53 weapon and only that. 68.110.169.4 (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You're half right, the article is half right - neither is the whole story. There were 5 weapon hardpoints. One (the upper pod) with a W53 inside. The four B43s were carried externally towards the rear of the pod, and were dropped first. (I'm only surprised the article has this rather obvious point wrong) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Records and Trophys
Anyone have a complete list? The Jimmy Stewart documentary lists quite a few. 68.148.93.15 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious claim
"In 1963, a B-58 flew the longest supersonic distance. It went from Tokyo to London (via Alaska), a distance of 8,028 miles in 8 hours, 35 minutes, 20.4 seconds, averaging 938 mph. As of 2013, this record still stands.[24]"

How was this accomplished, without aerial refueling ? Can you perform aerial refueling at supersonic speed ?Tallewang (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly true with multiple sources, it did use five inflight refuelings, clearly "Greased Lightning" slowed down to refuel but it was so fast in between refuelling they averaged 938 mph. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Mark 39 bomb
Over at the Mark 39 nuclear bomb article, there is a claim that the W39 warhead was used in the B-58 weapons pod. This strikes me as unlikely. No explicit source is given, but the page links http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html, which also makes the claim without giving a specific source. I don't regard the Nuclear Weapon Archive as a reliable source. The claim is also made here, in 'U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Canada', which does not strike me as an authoritative source. However, I am loathe to remove information with some kind of plausible reference, even where I would never add it myself, and the Canada book was published by Dundurn Press, which is apparently reputable. It is harder to find a source to *disprove* a claim that it is to prove it. Does anyone have a definite source with a complete list of weapons used in the B-58 Hustler? If that exists and the W39 warhead does not appear there, I would happily remove the claim from the article. - Crosbie 11:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.thisdayinaviation.com/26-october-1962-3/ has an image of a B-58 weapon load including a W39. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank-you very much - that is interesting.  That seems to be some kind of blog so I guess we can't use it as source.   However, that picture clearly shows something much bigger than a B-43, which tends to corroborate the sources above I doubted.   I guess then ideally, it is *this* article's 'Armament' section which should change, to include this larger weapon.   I wouldn't be happy adding it myself without a better source than those I have seen so far though.  I note Volume 5 of Chuck Hansen's 'Swords of Armageddon'  also states 'A version of the MK 39 Mod 1 was developed for the B-58 weapon pod.'  However, I'm afraid I *also* tend to distrust this, as a self-published source.  Perhaps I am too picky.  I would expect there to be a authoritative source for the armament of this major weapons system from fifty years ago. - Crosbie 17:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it would be nice to find a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Miller book (1985, reprinted 2001) describes the the MB-1C pod as carrying the W39Y1-1 'warhead': "Empty weight was 2,500 Ibs. without the standard W39Y1-1 warhead", along with a wealth of other detail. Odd that all sources use the term 'warhead' and not 'bomb'.  Anyway, the article already relies heavily on Miller, so this allows us to name the larger weapon, and gives a pretty strong clued that it is indeed a W39 variant. Thank-you again for the above link - Crosbie 20:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The so-called "two component pod" did not contain a discrete bomb, the larger, outer pod contained fuel, the inner, smaller pod contained a modest amount of fuel and a warhead, to be dropped over the target. I'd imagine this, and the tendency for bombs and warheads to have separate designations, to be the source of any confusion regarding the W39 warhead, the "too large" bomb observed was probably the inner pod.

The two part pod and the two purpose inner pod
AIUI, the two-part pad was used with a mission profile of a subsonic cruise to target, then a high-speed dash over the target. The larger external pod was too draggy for the dash (either limiting speed or making the fuel burn unworkable) and so this carried the fuel for the main cruise to target and then dropped immediately before the dash.

The smaller pod (warhead and fuel) was then used to supply fuel for the approach part of the dash and was dropped on the target. This pod, being much smaller diameter, had less effect on aerodynamics. However the dash approach fuel was still too great for the internal tankage, thus the need for an external tank and thus the need for a second fuel/warhead pod, rather than merely a non-aircraft-specific standard bomb.

Return fuel then relied on the internal tankage.

Can anyone source this? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Miller, Jay. Convair B-58 Hustler: The World's First Supersonic Bomber, 1985, pp. 18–20. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yenne, Bill. Convair Deltas: From SeaDart to Hustler, 2009, p. 179. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

One or five weapons in the lead?
Re

Should for the purposes of the lead the B-58 be described as carrying "a nuclear weapon in a pod" or five nuclear weapons?

For a long time this article rejected the additional external carriage hardpoints altogether. There was some resistance to getting them added at all. Whilst they certainly belong here, my understanding is that the original concept (owing to the size of early weapons) was solely pod-based. As this is a defining charracteristic of the B-58, IMHO the lead should keep it simple and introduce it as carrying a podded weapon. This isn't to deny the later hardpoints, it's just to leave them (as a lead must always do with most topics) until later in the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)