I recall that it had a very high speed landing, and didn’t have a very complex flight system on board? I believe it had a “pod” for each crewmember to egress in. Very complex airframe made of then exotic composites in the airframe. Do you think that it would have made a good ecm aircraft in vietnam as well as a photo recon? any thoughts?

The speed of the landing was proportional to the length of runway. Many of the SAC bases had very long runways that would allow the crews to use the aircrafts delta wing shape to use the ground effect to *float* the aircraft down where the speed at touchdown could be a lot lower then say a runway that only had 9000ft. On shorter runways the aircraft had to be *putdown* as soon as it crossed the fence. I recall watching videos where the chutes seemed to be popped when the mains were still a few feet off the ground!!

I’m not sure which “pod” your refering to. They had early enclosed seat pods for ejecting at high mach speeds such as used on the XB70 – although not as complicated.

Did you know of the plan to use the B58’s lower MB-1 pod to transport up to 5 people? The *plan* cooked up by some airforce people, was to install seats, small windows and enviro controls to allow this aircraft to transport people across the US at close to mach 1.4. At the time they were going to install a chute in the tail of the pod to allow it to be ejected in the event of the aircraft running into trouble. I’m not sure if this system was planned to allow these “passengers” to eject on their own, or if only the crew could do this.

In reading about this rather wild plan to carry passengers in the pod, the authors of the book I read on the B58 kept referring to the issue of – not that they couldn’t design and build such a pod – but that they couldn’t find anyone high up in the US Airforce that would allow this program to even get to the testing stage. Can you picture being in this pod and running down the runway with only 12 inchs of ground clearance under your butt?! Or landing…(eek!)

The idea was dreamed up during the cold war and the thinking was that it would allow senior Air Force or JCS people to be able to transit from any area in the US back to Washington in around a 4 – 4.5 hour time frame in the event of a national emergency. Several of these B58 models would be stationed around the country and a few would be stationed at Andrews AF base for a quick exit to Colorado and NORAD HQ.

Convair got this pod to the wooden mock-up stage before the idea was quietly dropped. Several people who have books out on the Hustler believe that Convair was also interested in this idea as it would give them a head start on experience on the upcoming American SST development. One idea was the model 58-9 which *would* featured a long, slim 150-foot fuselage with a pressurized cabin that could carry a maximum of 52 passengers seated two abreast at a speed of 2.4mach using upgraded J58 engines. Never happened.

Without the normal pod attached, the range of the B58 was very short (without air to air) and this limited it’s top speed because it did not have enough fuel to allow for a climb to operating alt where the air was thin enough for high speed runs. At lower alt the aircraft was limited by airframe heating. It’s top dash speed was 1.6mach

Without this pod, the aircraft also had no weapons systems to deploy as the pod was split into two sections – fuel and weapon. Whenever you see a Hustler without the pod it is usually a training flight for nav or pilot training.
SAC operations were run as an independent group away from training groups and were on a 3-min system from alarm to wheels off the ground – yet typical practice was sometimes 1 min from alarm to airborne.

Curtis LeMay disliked this aircraft and the JCS NEVER liked it, as it was very costly to maintain compared to the B52, which LeMay WAS behind. The accident record of the B58 was also very high in relation to other current aircraft of the day.

The B58 was cutting edge – yet was designed and built with very early computer systems that did not quite have the reliability that aircraft designed even two or three years later had. The Hustler was unloved by senior airforce staff because of the size of its budget and how this affected *their* budgets. While the aircraft should have been upgraded with newer available equipment – it was never allowed this, as this would have extended its service life and as a result – it would have continued to impact other program budgets. It had to die as some generals stated. Another aircraft with the same fate and almost identical issues, (also unloved by LeMay) was the XB70.

It was an example of too soon, too expensive and developed during the era of America’s new dependence on ever cheaper missile systems. The B58’s effective stay in the airforce inventory was a short 10 year span of which only 6 years was it the chief highspeed SAC nuclear defence weapon as the B52 was quickly added to the inventory as soon as delivered.

As far as Vietnam: The B58(A) was not equipped with any bombing system that would have allowed it to use non-nuclear weapons. The wings did not have any hard points built into them – nor could they be retrofitted. There was no internal bomb bay. Most of the aircraft structure was filled with fuel.
Unless the US was planning on nuking Hanoi (!!) there was no mission available for this aircraft in Vietnam. In fact – stationing this aircraft “in country” would have forced China to up the game as they would have suspected that it as being postioned in Vietnam in order to provide a very short strike/surprise nuclear strike option on China. There was a plan to design and build the model *B* that was to have conventional weapons capability. This required a complete new wing design.

The stories of Hustlers blowing cars off remote highways in Utah as they flew overhead at an alt of 50feet (!) may or may not be true but the training was taking place at heights under 1000ft and 500 ft was not unusual. That must have been a total rush! No wonder crews loved this aircraft. The second and third crewmember positions must have sucked as they only had tiny windows. I do not recall clearly, but I believe the other two positions did not have flight controls – so the pilot better not get sick once airborne! One must have taken quite a good look at your PIC before flight to make sure he wasn’t hung over, (too much…)!!

Sorry this post is long.

It’s funny you guys are talking about this, heres an email I sent when I found out Wings was changing to the Military Channel.

————————-
TO: Discovery Wings Channel (comments@discovery.ca)
RE: The change from the Discovery Wings Channel to the
Military Channel on Jan 10, 2005

1/ Lets start off with the fact that your webpage and
its lack of direct email contact is out of whack with
the rest of the world wide web. One shouldn’t have to
go through what seems to be hundreds of pull down
menus JUST to send a letter to a TV network! The fact
that you only have a little comment box instead of a
real email address listed anywhere on your site
suggests to me that your really not interested in what
your viewers think. That one is forced to contact you
in this matter is embarrassing and amateurish on your
part.

2/ It was long my contention that the Discovery Wings
channel was poorly supported by its corporate masters.
The number of re-runs per day of the same show and the
lack of material that was re-run through out the year
was obscene from my viewpoint, (the paying customer).
I actually pay to see your channel through a digital
channel charge through _ _ _ _ _ Cable Ltd. I SELECTED
your channel – it is not part of a package. So
therefore I have a real stake in what you show both
financially and emotionally as an enthusiast of
aviation. Your lack of up to date quality aviation
content is the reason for your lack of success and
your sudden decision to see if you can go trolling
after the Military market.

3/ You never really understood the market you were
targeting did you? Most aviation enthusiasts who would
take the trouble to sign up for Discovery Wings are
not of the type who like the odd plane so to speak. We
shop in aviation stores dedicated to the love of
aviation. Let me let you in on a little secret: Most
of what you show on your channel can be found in
well-stocked aviation stores. The videos and DVDs that
you show have for the most part, already been seen by
the market you have targeted. If I wanted to watch the
content you have shown to date, I would have reached
above my TV and put it into my VCR / DVD to watch it!
Do you not understand this? What we the aviation fan
wanted, was content that is not normally available.
Here is a new concept – ORIGNAL PROGRAMING! Gee we
wouldn’t want to bust our butts and spend any money
commissioning an original work huh…

4/ Your corporate masters have made the decision to
put as little ($) into this channel as possible and as
a result I feel personally cheated. What could have
been a wonderful channel has turned into just another
digital channel that most likely has the resources of
a staff of 5 or 6 and a few little closet like offices
with a wall of rehashed videos. No phone in programs
with expert guests, no live broadcasts of events such
as the Reno air races or EAA air adventures, no movies
nights, no program following the start to finish of a
war bird restoration etc. etc. You just didnt get it
did you?

5/ No, what we got were five year old shows repeated
hundreds of times through out the year. What did you
pay for the BBC series on how to build a homebuilt
aircraft and learn to fly? A few thousand dollars?
Well we the viewer are paying for it now arent we –
Ive seen this series repeated twice this year alone
and the program is many years old. (Hint: some people
can and do read the production notes at the end of
programming where they show year of production).

6/ I predict right now that your decision to create a
military channel will end up going down the same road
as your Wings channel does – milk the military
enthusiast market of every dollar you can with as
little content as you can get away with until its
empty – then move on. Whats next after the Military
channel – the Tractor and Combine Channel? One night a
week of so-called aircraft programs within this
military channel is not enough for this viewer. It
most likely will show F16s blowing up stuff anyway…
Thats not aviation – its war making.

7/ One supposes you feel that there must be a market
for rehashed reruns of military tapes on the market.
Well all the best to you I guess, but you’ll soon
disappoint this market as well. It must be sad to work
for such a poorly supported organisation. I don’t hold
it against your group – it’s your corporate masters I
have an issue with.

In conclusion: Consider yourselves fired as of Jan 9th
2005 as far as my viewership goes. You have your
papers gentleman.

——————————————————-

I had a bad day at work that day I guess and a bit of time on my hands. (grin)