Radar aimed or crew served???

Bruce R



"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...

Didn't make any difference. The supersonic speed going forward versus the
bullet speed going backwards, meant that it was totally eneffectual.
Luckily, they never were in a position where it was needed. But, it was
radar controlled.
Ron

"Bruce R" > wrote in message
...
> Radar aimed or crew served???
>
> Bruce R
>
>
>
> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> ...
>

"Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Didn't make any difference. The supersonic speed going forward versus the
> bullet speed going backwards, meant that it was totally eneffectual.
> Luckily, they never were in a position where it was needed. But, it was
> radar controlled.
> Ron
>

Did it actually attack at supersonic speeds? If so, how do you drop a nuke
at that speed?

Bruce R

I don't know the methods involved. According to Jay Miller's book on the
B-58, Aerograph 4, they did several drop tests at supersonic speed, one
being 1.4 M at 40,000 feet, so, it could be done. It sounds like pod
separation was very flat and stable. There may be more in the book about
mission and attack profiles, but, I haven't come accross them yet.
Ron

"Bruce R" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Didn't make any difference. The supersonic speed going forward versus the
>> bullet speed going backwards, meant that it was totally eneffectual.
>> Luckily, they never were in a position where it was needed. But, it was
>> radar controlled.
>> Ron
>>
>
> Did it actually attack at supersonic speeds? If so, how do you drop a
> nuke at that speed?
>
> Bruce R
>
>
>

True. But while it could drop its bomb pod at supersonic speeds it quickly
became a suicide mission to penetrate Soviet airspace at high altitude even
at Mach 2. Soviet radar and missiles would blow us out of the sky.
Modifications were made to use low altitude drogue chute retarded bombs to
get below the radar/missile coverage. So the supersonic ability of the
Hustler became somewhat useless as a weapon system.

We did gain a lot of data on supersonic flight from the Hustler.

--
Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler Web Site
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
Cadet Class 55-I Web Site
http://pilotclass55india.org/


"Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
link.net...
>I don't know the methods involved. According to Jay Miller's book on the
>B-58, Aerograph 4, they did several drop tests at supersonic speed, one
>being 1.4 M at 40,000 feet, so, it could be done. It sounds like pod
>separation was very flat and stable. There may be more in the book about
>mission and attack profiles, but, I haven't come accross them yet.
> Ron
>
> "Bruce R" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> Didn't make any difference. The supersonic speed going forward versus
>>> the bullet speed going backwards, meant that it was totally eneffectual.
>>> Luckily, they never were in a position where it was needed. But, it was
>>> radar controlled.
>>> Ron
>>>
>>
>> Did it actually attack at supersonic speeds? If so, how do you drop a
>> nuke at that speed?
>>
>> Bruce R
>>
>>
>>
>
>

And that is supposedly what killed the XB-70, as well.
Ron

"Panic" > wrote in message
...
> True. But while it could drop its bomb pod at supersonic speeds it
> quickly became a suicide mission to penetrate Soviet airspace at high
> altitude even at Mach 2. Soviet radar and missiles would blow us out of
> the sky. Modifications were made to use low altitude drogue chute retarded
> bombs to get below the radar/missile coverage. So the supersonic ability
> of the Hustler became somewhat useless as a weapon system.
>
> We did gain a lot of data on supersonic flight from the Hustler.
>
> --
> Darrell R. Schmidt
> B-58 Hustler Web Site
> http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
> Cadet Class 55-I Web Site
> http://pilotclass55india.org/
>
>
> "Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>I don't know the methods involved. According to Jay Miller's book on the
>>B-58, Aerograph 4, they did several drop tests at supersonic speed, one
>>being 1.4 M at 40,000 feet, so, it could be done. It sounds like pod
>>separation was very flat and stable. There may be more in the book about
>>mission and attack profiles, but, I haven't come accross them yet.
>> Ron
>>
>> "Bruce R" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>> Didn't make any difference. The supersonic speed going forward versus
>>>> the bullet speed going backwards, meant that it was totally
>>>> eneffectual. Luckily, they never were in a position where it was
>>>> needed. But, it was radar controlled.
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did it actually attack at supersonic speeds? If so, how do you drop a
>>> nuke at that speed?
>>>
>>> Bruce R
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Didn't make any difference. The supersonic speed going forward versus the
> bullet speed going backwards, meant that it was totally eneffectual.
> Luckily, they never were in a position where it was needed. But, it was
> radar controlled.
> Ron

Not quite, Ron. Say the B-58 is traveling at 1,000 MPH and has a tail
cannon with a muzzle velocity of 1,000 MPH. In relation to a ground
observer, if the cannon was fired just as it flew overhead of the observer,
the cannon shell would stop and free fall towards the observer while the
delivery aircraft flew away from the shell at 1,000 MPH departure rate.
But.... if a fighter was pursuing the B-58 at 1,000 MPH he would fly into
the cannon shell at a closure rate of 1,000 MPH. BLOOOOey!!!! goes the
fighter. Everything is relative!!!

Ok, then dispute it with Jay Miller and every other article I have ever read
on the gun.
They said the gun was inefective. And remember, eeven with that fighter
closing in at 1000mph, the bullet is losing altitude. Probably the only way
the fighter would get hit is if it was in a dive. Another thing, which they
have proven with the SR-71, the closure rate isn't too good if the chase
aircraft isn't flying any faster than the aircraft he is pursuing. Even if
he was 100mph faster, by the time he caught up, the plane would probably be
over a friendly country. I don't think they had too many aircraft that good
intercept the B-58, when the B-58 was flying.

Everytrhing is relative, but you have to look at it in the proper
perspective. BLOOEY!
Ron

"Panic" > wrote in message
...
> "Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Didn't make any difference. The supersonic speed going forward versus the
>> bullet speed going backwards, meant that it was totally eneffectual.
>> Luckily, they never were in a position where it was needed. But, it was
>> radar controlled.
>> Ron
>
> Not quite, Ron. Say the B-58 is traveling at 1,000 MPH and has a tail
> cannon with a muzzle velocity of 1,000 MPH. In relation to a ground
> observer, if the cannon was fired just as it flew overhead of the
> observer, the cannon shell would stop and free fall towards the observer
> while the delivery aircraft flew away from the shell at 1,000 MPH
> departure rate. But.... if a fighter was pursuing the B-58 at 1,000 MPH he
> would fly into the cannon shell at a closure rate of 1,000 MPH.
> BLOOOOey!!!! goes the fighter. Everything is relative!!!
>

"Ron Monroe" > wrote in
thlink.net:

> Ok, then dispute it with Jay Miller and every other article I have
> ever read on the gun.
> They said the gun was inefective. And remember, eeven with that
> fighter closing in at 1000mph, the bullet is losing altitude. Probably
> the only way the fighter would get hit is if it was in a dive. Another
> thing, which they have proven with the SR-71, the closure rate isn't
> too good if the chase aircraft isn't flying any faster than the
> aircraft he is pursuing. Even if he was 100mph faster, by the time he
> caught up, the plane would probably be over a friendly country. I
> don't think they had too many aircraft that good intercept the B-58,
> when the B-58 was flying.
>
> Everytrhing is relative, but you have to look at it in the proper
> perspective. BLOOEY!
> Ron

Gravity acts on a bullet whether it is in forward flight or free fall. A
tailgunner would have to take into account leading his target for both
target motion and the effect of gravity on his rounds.

If anything, the realtive speeds of the pursuing fighter and the tail
gunners rounds would be slightly higher in the B-58 case hypothesized
here, since the rounds would not be slowed toward their target by drag as
they moved horizontally through the air, only the vertical acceleration
due to gravity would occur.

Mind-messingly fun to envision... =)

> "Panic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> Didn't make any difference. The supersonic speed going forward
>>> versus the bullet speed going backwards, meant that it was totally
>>> eneffectual. Luckily, they never were in a position where it was
>>> needed. But, it was radar controlled.
>>> Ron
>>
>> Not quite, Ron. Say the B-58 is traveling at 1,000 MPH and has a
>> tail cannon with a muzzle velocity of 1,000 MPH. In relation to a
>> ground observer, if the cannon was fired just as it flew overhead of
>> the observer, the cannon shell would stop and free fall towards the
>> observer while the delivery aircraft flew away from the shell at
>> 1,000 MPH departure rate. But.... if a fighter was pursuing the B-58
>> at 1,000 MPH he would fly into the cannon shell at a closure rate of
>> 1,000 MPH. BLOOOOey!!!! goes the fighter. Everything is
>> relative!!!
>>
>
>

"Ron Monroe" > skrev i en meddelelse
thlink.net...

> Even if he was 100mph faster, by the time he caught up, the plane would
> probably be over a friendly country.

or the fighter would have run out of fuel . . .

"Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
> Ok, then dispute it with Jay Miller and every other article I have ever
> read on the gun.
> They said the gun was inefective. And remember, eeven with that fighter
> closing in at 1000mph, the bullet is losing altitude. Probably the only
> way the fighter would get hit is if it was in a dive. Another thing, which
> they have proven with the SR-71, the closure rate isn't too good if the
> chase aircraft isn't flying any faster than the aircraft he is pursuing.
> Even if he was 100mph faster, by the time he caught up, the plane would
> probably be over a friendly country. I don't think they had too many
> aircraft that good intercept the B-58, when the B-58 was flying.

All bullets' flight paths are moved downward by gravity no matter what their
ground speed. You always have to aim some amount above the target to allow
for this fact. Since the B-58 was never used in actual combat any opinion
of the effectiveness of the tail cannon is strictly that; opinion. If the
B-58 tail cannon was ineffective at supersonic speeds it would probably also
be ineffective at subsonic speeds.

As a continuation discussion, however, of real problems associated with
rear-firing weapons we could consider rear-firing missiles which use
external control surface movement to guide the missile. If they were
carried externally they would be travelling backwards at the instant of
launch and probably tumble out of control. consideration was given to
carrying them in tubing long enough to gain forward airspeed before leaving
the tubing and being exposed to external air. This might work but has the
potential to destroy the launching aircraft if the missile became stuck in
the tube or some other malfunction occurred.

I believe there was some experimenting with using missiles fired forward but
using a plannned reversal of course to end up behind the launch aircraft
with forward speed in that direction before targeting guidance took over.
>
> Everytrhing is relative, but you have to look at it in the proper
> perspective. BLOOEY!
> Ron
>
> "Panic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ron Monroe" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> Didn't make any difference. The supersonic speed going forward versus
>>> the bullet speed going backwards, meant that it was totally eneffectual.
>>> Luckily, they never were in a position where it was needed. But, it was
>>> radar controlled.
>>> Ron
>>
>> Not quite, Ron. Say the B-58 is traveling at 1,000 MPH and has a tail
>> cannon with a muzzle velocity of 1,000 MPH. In relation to a ground
>> observer, if the cannon was fired just as it flew overhead of the
>> observer, the cannon shell would stop and free fall towards the observer
>> while the delivery aircraft flew away from the shell at 1,000 MPH
>> departure rate. But.... if a fighter was pursuing the B-58 at 1,000 MPH
>> he would fly into the cannon shell at a closure rate of 1,000 MPH.
>> BLOOOOey!!!! goes the fighter. Everything is relative!!!
>>
>
>