Talk:Convair B-58 Hustler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wing Loading[edit]

The B-58 didn't have a light wing-loading when fully loaded. It weighed around 176,000 lbs with 1,542 square feet of wing, that yields a very high wing-loading. As the fuel burns off, the wing-loading does drop down to a substantial lower level and by landing it's pretty decent. It's landing speeds were still rather fast AVKent882 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of anyone coming across this - the reason that the wing-loading seems so high is because for the above calculation, the *Maximum takeoff weight* was used - this weight is hardly ever reached in practice, with combat weights possibly as much as 30-50% below this absolute limit. Usually these more practical figures are used to quote its "real" performance. So yes, at maxTOW, the hustler would have a higher wing loading than the F104 starfighter, but in practice it would have radically different performance (a bomber's weight of course can be varied within a very wide range, making this issue more acute.)

B-58 Hustler in Little Rock, Arkansas, USA[edit]

Around 1965, third grade to fifth grade to me, my dad was a navigator on the B-58 aircraft at the Stategic Air Command (SAC) Little Rock (Arkansas) Air force Base (AFB). His main reason for switching from the B-52 he says was the ability to survive a crash (the ejection system). They held ping-pong tournaments. (I guess eye hand coordination was a factor.) I fished to help supply food, as my mother always complained there wasn't enough money for us five kids. I remember having a picnic lunch with us kids, my mother, and my father in his flight suit (including helmet with oxygen supply) with the B-58s in sight on the other side of a barbed wire fence on the flight line; with nuclear bombs that my father was to use to kill millions of people if he was ordered to do so. People that don't understand the cold war was a real war just don't understand. 4.250.138.177 01:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a few more memories of this same era: In 1967-1969 (my first & second grade) my dad was a B-58 pilot stationed at LRAFB, and also was selected out of B-52 service (he couldn't fit in the cockpit of a U-2). I recall the same picnics at the Alert Facility described above. We initially lived on-base, where the engine tests were rumored to be timed to coincide with Gunsmoke, and where we always had to stand outside and watch the columns of black smoke and wonder whose aircraft didn't make it. One of the B-58's many unique features was its four engines with afterburners, used on takeoff for dramatic climb-outs and acceleration once at altitude. Afterburners are literally groundshaking. We moved to Squaw Island (probably now renamed), in North Little Rock prior to Nixon cancelling the B-58 program for good. It was a popular new subdivision for B-58 crews: I recall that my dad's DSO (defensive systems operator) lived three houses up the street, and the base commander lived a block or so away. Early one morning, my dad had to fly, and had been razzed the previous night for leaving the base commander's party early... at about 0700 hrs, he commenced to delay the full afterburner climb-out until he was directly over the subdivision. Twice. Quite the exciting morning in our neighborhood. I have to agree with the author above - the cold-war was a real war, and my dad fought it. He flew the Cuban Missile Crisis and three tours in Southeast Asia. His favorite aircraft during his career in the USAF was the B-58. Horseheaven 07:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)H. Lippold[reply]

B-58 at Dyass AFB[edit]

I am certain that there was a B-58 Hustler at Dyass AFB air museum.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.189.252.111 (talkcontribs).

Name origins[edit]

An IP user claimed:

The B-58 was named "the Hustler" because of the recorded female voice used to warn crew members of trouble. The box that contained the recordings was called "the Bitch Box."

Color me skeptical. Can someone provide a credible reference for this? - Emt147 Burninate! 21:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed unlikely -- the name came from Convair engineering (most of whom wouldn't have heard the recorded voice) before the plane went into service, and "hustle" just means "to hurry". Kaleja 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nonsense and other comments. The origin of the nickname (which did indeed come from Convair engineering) is given in an August 1961 article in Popular Science.John Simpson54 (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't see any explanation of the source in that article? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quoth Popular Science, AUG-1961, page 182:
This was the B-58. At first a secret concept with no name, at Convair's Fort Worth plant, it was one day being described with zest by Robert Widmer, chief engineer, to Stan Brown, another Convair official.
"From what you say", remarked Brown, "this plane is really going to hustle. Why not call it The Hustler?"
So it was christened, and so it performs.
Last January (1960), the B-58 hustled its way to six official world speed records, with varying payloads.
-- Maikel (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd missed those appendix pages later on. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. No hustle, erm, hassle. Maikel (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


maru (talk) contribs 02:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Range[edit]

It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union extensively deployed.
Yet the article states that the plane only has a 1500-mile combat radius. How could it have done anything useful in a strategic attack against the USSR? The Russians had almost no defensive systems within 1500 miles of North America, even when you count Siberia. -Rolypolyman 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With refuelling, and use of cruise/dash sprints profiles, the B-58 would be capable of intercontinental missions. FWIW Bzuk 20:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The B-58 was originally designed for a high-high-high mission profile, giving it a 3,500 nm range, extending this to 4,000 nm in the B model. This was not terribly useful for CONUS based strategic missions, but was extremely useful for missions based out of existing B-47 bases in Spain and England (the B-47 had similar or shorter range). When the mission profile changed to high-low-low the range dropped with it to 1,500 nm. With the exception of Turkey, this rendered all of the FOB sites out of useful range.
So they got creative. Since the only way the Hustler could reach the strategic targets was with in-flight refueling, they re-jiggered the missions to demand it all the way. Using high-altitude cruise they would meet up with tankers over northern Canada and Alaska, and/or ones based out of Europe (there were nations that allowed tankers that didn't allow combat aircraft). From then on it was a low-level penetration, but even with the last top-up many targets were too far to get to a friendly base. In these cases the crew had to eject and walk out. Great plan eh? I've always been curious how many Hustlers they projected to lose due to missed tanking on the way in.
Its interesting to see how all of this worked out historically. SAC originally had the B-47/B-52, considering both of them to be outdated by the late 1950s. They intended to replace these with the B-58/B-70 in basically the same "split" by the mid-60s. However, the missiles came into the picture, forcing low-level penetration profiles. This made the B-58 basically useless, and so dramatically reduced the B-70's effectiveness that it too ended up being cancelled. So then the idea was a true penetrator aircraft, the FB-111 for the medium range and B-1 for long range roles. Although the FB-111 "made it" the B-1 was so delayed technology had overrun it again, and everyone was pinning their hopes on the F-117/B-2. And throughout it all, the Buff just keeps on going! Maury 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read somewhere, and I can't remember if it was a reliable source, that the B-58 was only intended to fly one-way missions in the event of a nuclear war, with the aircrew bailing out if they managed to make it out of the USSR. Given that they wouldn't have had bases to return to anyway this makes a certain kind of sense. --Nick Dowling 10:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great discussion... I enjoyed the comments! -Rolypolyman 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USAF doctrine said that any aircraft capable of hitting targets in the USSR could be launched even if they would not have the fuel to return. In case of war the risk to the pilot was considered subordinate to the survival of the USA. USAF training documents include how pilots downed in the target zone would minimize radiation effects by digging holes and covering the hole for a given amount of time before trying to move. Those capable of aerial refueling could hope that their would be tankers available to them. Pilots were given emergency landing, or ejection locations outside the USSR that they might reach if not able to return to a US base. Bases in Turkey and Iran could be used to stage and refuel bombers if they were launched before being struck by the USSR. Saltysailor (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operational History[edit]

I removed the nickname "Aardvark" from the link to the FB-111. While the F-111 varients were indeed called the Aardvark, the FB-111 was essentially a different aircraft and had no official name. It even says so in the Wikipedia article on the F-111. Hildenja (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(According to my father-in-law, who worked on the project, 20% of the pilots who flew this died in crashes. He is 83, but I believe him. I include this as a side note.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.126.65 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

surviving at Edwards[edit]

There is a Hustler at Edwards AFB that was abandoned after an emergency landing near the south edge of the base. Is this "Snoopy" referred to in the article? The abandoned Hustler has engines missing and most items striped, leaving the airframe. Saltysailor (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy was a conversion to test the fire control system intended for the F-12 IMI, the extra electronics and the radar dish meant the radome on Snoopy was longer and was lower than the standard B-58 nose. The pod on Snoopy was also no standard, being thinner, and holding an XAIM-47 missile (ancestral to AIM-54 Phoenix) and associated launch rails.

cockpit arrangement[edit]

My recolection of being in two B-58 crew compartments was that one could move along the left side between the seats. Saltysailor (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. Things were pretty cramped in the B-58. Perhaps you're thinking of the B-47? The Bombadier-Naviagator could move along a catwalk along the side of the pilot and copilot crew stations, but don't think the pilot and copilot could get down from their seats. Watch Jimmy Stewart in "Strategic Air Command" and this is illustrated in one scene. Jmdeur (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B-58 vs F-12[edit]

I was told by a USAF Colonel that the B-58 was considered for the interceptor role that the YF-12A was to fulfill. Although the B-58 could not fly as fast, the belly pod could carry many more missiles to shoot down incoming bombers and a conversion of the bombers would be cheaper than a new plane. Saltysailor (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically a B-58 (Tail number 55-665) was actually fitted with an AN/ASG-18 radar, a redesigned radome (to carry the larger nose), and a different weapons pod to carry the GAR-9/AIM-47. It conducted a bunch of in-flight supersonic test-firings of the GAR-9/AIM-47 Super-Falcon missile. The plane because of it's gigantic nose was nicknamed "Snoopy". That was just a test-plane though. I do however know of a couple of concepts which Convair developed which were to use a modified B-58 to perform the role of a long-range high-speed interceptor. The one that I remember most was a design that featured 2 x J-58's in lieu of 4 x J-79's and what I assume was to be a revised weapons-pod, AIM-47 capacity and an ASG-18 radar AVKent882 (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another reason for ending service[edit]

The B-58 was designed to carry the very large fusion bomb. By time they were deployed the size of the bombs were shrunken considerably. I was told by Convair Employees at the time that this was a major reason that the USAF decided to withdraw the Hustler from service. The USAF expected that it could get another bomber quickly. As time went on the majority of generals in the USAF were fighter pilots who favored spending on fighters. See the history section on the B-1 Lancer. Saltysailor (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how much the size of the weapons were an issue. The plane could have easily been re-configured to carry a more powerful bomb of the same size. The problem with the B-58 was that it was pretty much exclusively a nuclear-bomber -- it didn't have any provision for the release of conventional weapons. It's weapons capacity also wasn't that high. From what I remember the bomber only typically carried a 5,000 or 10,000 pound warhead (Though it could carry up to 22,000 something and even achieve cruise-speed it came with massive performance penalties.) which was actually less than the maximum capacity of certain fighters (The F-105 could carry up to 14,000 lbs of bombs, the F-4B could carry up to 16,000 lbs -- greater than 5,000 lbs or 10,000 lbs). Additionally the maximum speed and altitude of the B-58 was either not perceived to be enough, or actually not enough to keep it safe from Soviet SAMs, possibly even Soviet Interceptors. This required the B-58 to fly low and fast to enable it to avoid detection by ground based radar (and then current Russian aircraft-radar). The B-58's range at a given Mach number at low altitude isn't anywhere near as efficient as it is at high altitude as it's pushing through thicker air, so it's range takes a hit; It's lightly loaded wing (Which to the best of my knowledge was around the same as the F-106A) would be highly succeptable to thermal-lifting and would experience a very turbulent ride over the deck, it would also respond quite easily to gusts (That's why the F-105 has such tiny wings -- it's heavily loaded wing yields a nice smooth ride and almost no gust response) AVKent882 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the bigger bomb argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense - the aircraft was already carrying smaller nuclear bombs under the wings in addition to the one or two part centerline pod, so smaller bombs were option all along. However, the discussion of the reasons for the B-58's demise in the main article here are just as superficial. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-58-fc.htm for a rather interesting discussion of the phaseout decision that includes rising maintenance costs, need for extensive upgrades for low-level operations, McNamara's obsession with his F-111 (remember he even tried to foist it on the Navy), etc. The article is right about one thing - the Hustler was known for its booming voice - I grew up within about 30 miles of Bunker Hill/Grissom AFB and still remember hearing them in the 60s before the FAA anti-boom noise regulations came into existence. Jmdeur (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, you quoted a from discussion from globalsecurity... awkward. They are a bastion of information, but not a lot of accurate information.

that's okay, the same can be said about wikipedia - there are plenty of examples of just plain wrong info in wiki as well - so sort of like the kettle calling the pot black...

B-58 at The Mighty 8th Air Force Museum in Savannah, GA[edit]

There is a B-58 Hustler at the rear entrance facing the interstate at the 8th Air Force Museum in Savannah, GA I will provide the frame number in a couple of weeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.9.15 (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climb performance[edit]

"A lightly loaded Hustler would climb at nearly 4,600 ft/min (23.5 m/s), comparable to the best contemporary fighter aircraft.[7]"

Is this a typo? Climb rate of 4600ft/min was achievable even by WW2 era prop fighters - hardly great rate of climb by jet age standards.--Mikoyan21 (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no I'd like to point out the climb rate of a P-38 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38l-25092-climb.jpg Nowhere does it reach 3,000ft/min --Anonymous Internet user tired of lies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.2.114 (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "A lightly loaded Hustler would climb at nearly 4,600 ft/min (23.5 m/s), comparable to the best contemporary fighter aircraft.[7]" is mis-quoted. The correct figure is 46,000 ft/min (235 m/s) Here's some links to corroborate that - http://plane.spottingworld.com/B-58_Hustler - http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.military/2007-08/msg01609.html

AVKent882 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tail gun[edit]

Is it true that the B-58 was so fast that bullets emerging from the tail gun would be almost stationary relative to the ground? Drutt (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Muzzle velocity of the M61 cannon was 1,050 m/s (see relevant entry), the top speed of the B-58 was 2,240 km/h or 622 m/s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.166.209 (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, irrelevant. Doesn't anyone take Mechanics 101 in college these days? HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What matters isn't the bullet's speed relative to the ground, but its speed relative to the target. If a B=58 is shooting its tail gun at a target, then presumably the target is an enemy aircraft, and that aircraft has an airspeed close to that of the B-58. In such a situation a round of ammo with zero groundspeed still has a large impact speed on contact with the enemy target aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The missed point here (when the bullet is travelling at a lesser speed towards the rear than the plane is travelling going forward) is the bad aerodynamics imposed on the bullet. In effect, once it is spat out of the M61 its 2,240 m/s speed (imparted by riding with the aircraft) is nothing more than slowed by 1,050 m/s. It is now travelling forward (relative to the plane) at 1,190 m/s. Unfortunately, this is its speed travelling BACKWARD in the context of the bullet's aerodynamics. It is trying to plow through the air butt first, with the tapered aerodynamic front fairing pointed rearwards (in the context of the direction of travel). Many engineers at Convair argued this reality to the Air Force during the design stage, saying that the plane's gun would be useless at design speed. When fired from an aircraft travelling at speeds faster than the muzzle velocity of the bullet, the gun would be terribly inaccurate because all of its fired rounds would become immediately aerodynamically uncoupled. The Air Force still wanted the gun, stating that at those speeds no Soviet interceptors could close on a B-58 anyway, and the gun would thus not be needed in that scenario. It would, however, be extremely useful in the eventual low-level attack profile, which would be conducted at far lesser speeds. Fired in that scenario, the gun would regain its accuracy. (Brad Cone, Cedar Park, Texas, March 19, 2019.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:F0C8:CA00:F959:BEFA:D178:73E7 (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Small point - the aircraft's speed was 2240 km/h, not 2240 m/sec. 2240 km/h is 622.2 m/sec. So any rounds fired from the aircraft when flying forward at 622 m/sec would emerge from the muzzle at 1050 m/sec relative to the aircraft and in the opposite direction (assuming it was firing directly aft). The bullet would have an apparent ground speed - aftward - of 1050 - 622.2, or 427/8 m/sec aftward. However, as pointed out by HammerFilmFan and User:24.223.130.32, the aftward groundspeed of the bullet is immaterial, as the gun would be firing at an aircraft astern and flying at some speed fairly close to that of the Hustler in question. What matters is the relative speed of the projectile and the closing aircraft. Let's say an aircraft was also flying at 2240 km/h; the relative speed between the two aircraft is therefore 0 km/h, in which case the relative speed of the round to the target aircraft is 1050 m/sec closing. If the target aircraft is moving faster, then the speed of the round fired at it is the difference in aircraft closing speed + 1050 m/sec. 2604:3D08:137A:A700:2D53:FF4B:2699:623B (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Travolta[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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?[edit]

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)[reply]

Pima Air Museum photo[edit]

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)[reply]

RB-58?[edit]

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 ←« 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Carried Mk53 weapon[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Records and Trophys[edit]

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

Dubious claim[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mark 39 bomb[edit]

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, [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would agree that it would be nice to find a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yenne, Bill. Convair Deltas: From SeaDart to Hustler, 2009, p. 179. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One or five weapons in the lead?[edit]

Re [2]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Convair B-58 Hustler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Convair B-58 Hustler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]