B-58

[Darrell S[_1_]]

If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
the link to my B-58 web site, below.
Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

[Rob Arndt]

Darrell S wrote:
> If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
> the link to my B-58 web site, below.
> Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
> takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
>
> --
>
> Darrell R. Schmidt
> B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
> http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

The Lippisch connection and F-102/F-106 delta predecessors aside, the
B-58 is a great a/c. My USAF neighbor worked on the machine and he
still loves that plane above all other US postwar bombers.

Despite my constant German rhetoric I love the B-52 Stratofortress,
especially the D-model from Vietnam with the bullet nose and tall tail.

Hey, at least Dan can't complain about that!

Good luck with your site Herr Schmidt.

Rob

[[email protected]]

Hi Darrel

Darrell S wrote:
> If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
> the link to my B-58 web site, below.
> Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
> takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
> Darrell R. Schmidt
> B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
> http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

Here's another interesting link,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler

As I understand it, the B58 was a high
speed - high altitude bomber that entered
service about Mar/15/1960, with nil stealth
capability. Gary Power's U2 was shot down
May/1/1960, and had some stealth paint,
that the Ruskies managed to circumvent.
So 2 months after entering service, the
B58 became a *low altitude penetration*
bomber, with enough range for a one
way trip into the USSR, effectively
rendering it a kamikaze bomber.
I think the crews knew that and it's their
courage that helped keep us safe during
the transition to ICBM's.

IMO it was as sexy as anything that flew
but it was not a good warplane because
it was difficult to adapt, while the B52
could carry stand-off weapons and make
it home, though in hindsight, it filled a
vital deterrence gap in the early 1960's,
that was equivalent to the B52 swarm,
depending on gravity bombs.
Regards
Ken

[Rob Arndt]

wrote:
> Hi Darrel
>
> Darrell S wrote:
> > If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
> > the link to my B-58 web site, below.
> > Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
> > takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
> > Darrell R. Schmidt
> > B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
> > http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
>
> Here's another interesting link,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler
>
> As I understand it, the B58 was a high
> speed - high altitude bomber that entered
> service about Mar/15/1960, with nil stealth
> capability. Gary Power's U2 was shot down
> May/1/1960, and had some stealth paint,
> that the Ruskies managed to circumvent.
> So 2 months after entering service, the
> B58 became a *low altitude penetration*
> bomber, with enough range for a one
> way trip into the USSR, effectively
> rendering it a kamikaze bomber.
> I think the crews knew that and it's their
> courage that helped keep us safe during
> the transition to ICBM's.
>
> IMO it was as sexy as anything that flew
> but it was not a good warplane because
> it was difficult to adapt, while the B52
> could carry stand-off weapons and make
> it home, though in hindsight, it filled a
> vital deterrence gap in the early 1960's,
> that was equivalent to the B52 swarm,
> depending on gravity bombs.
> Regards
> Ken\


Wasn't it the fastest postwar bomber until the XB-70 came along???

Rob

[[email protected]]

Rob Arndt wrote:
> wrote:
> > Hi Darrel
> >
> > Darrell S wrote:
> > > If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
> > > the link to my B-58 web site, below.
> > > Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
> > > takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
> > > Darrell R. Schmidt
> > > B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
> > > http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
> >
> > Here's another interesting link,
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler
> >
> > As I understand it, the B58 was a high
> > speed - high altitude bomber that entered
> > service about Mar/15/1960, with nil stealth
> > capability. Gary Power's U2 was shot down
> > May/1/1960, and had some stealth paint,
> > that the Ruskies managed to circumvent.
> > So 2 months after entering service, the
> > B58 became a *low altitude penetration*
> > bomber, with enough range for a one
> > way trip into the USSR, effectively
> > rendering it a kamikaze bomber.
> > I think the crews knew that and it's their
> > courage that helped keep us safe during
> > the transition to ICBM's.
> >
> > IMO it was as sexy as anything that flew
> > but it was not a good warplane because
> > it was difficult to adapt, while the B52
> > could carry stand-off weapons and make
> > it home, though in hindsight, it filled a
> > vital deterrence gap in the early 1960's,
> > that was equivalent to the B52 swarm,
> > depending on gravity bombs.
> > Regards
> > Ken\
>
> Wasn't it the fastest postwar bomber until the XB-70 came along???
> Rob

Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
but the Ruskies may have had something
better. The A-12 (Blackbird) was considered
for a strike bomber, with a pair of tactical
nukes...that would have been a highly effective
system, but the triad deterrence (sub, b52+
stand-off, ICBM) had matured by 1965 that
rendered the A-12 redundant in the McNamara
MAD doctrine, which in hindsight looks good.
Regards
Ken

[john smith]

> > Wasn't it the fastest postwar bomber until the XB-70 came along???

> Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58

A B-58 was one of the chase planes for the XB-70.

[Ken S. Tucker]

john smith wrote:
> > > Wasn't it the fastest postwar bomber until the XB-70 came along???
>
> > Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58
>
> A B-58 was one of the chase planes for the XB-70.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70

With the petal to the metal, the B58 is a
dimishing artifact in the rear view mirror of
an XB70.
I don't know, but think an XB-70 could blow
the SR-71 away for many technical reasons,
like ballistic coefficient and thermal cooling.
Ken

[Dan[_2_]]

Rob Arndt wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> Wasn't it the fastest postwar bomber until the XB-70 came along???
>
> Rob
>

You could have omitted "postwar" since it beat anything before for
speed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Rob Arndt]

> Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
> but the Ruskies may have had something
> better.

> Ken

What a/c are you referring to? The Tu-128 Fiddler interceptor or the
Tu-22 Blinder bomber (both based on the failed Tu-98 Backfin)?

Tysbin had its own design based on the NM-1- the RSR:

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/stuff/Bask/modelism/models/rsr/tsybin_rsr_2.jpg

Rob

[Darrell S[_1_]]

You are correct. By the time the B-58 became operational the Russian radar
and missile defense systems improved to the point that high altitude, mach
2, attacks would have been suicide. The operational tactics changed to high
subsonic low altitude attack which made the mach 2 capability of the B-58
relatively unusable for combat. All the design features necessary for mach
2 flight such as the narrow fuselage made it impractical to add terrain
avoidance radar for IFR low altitude.

We practiced our low altitude high speed tactics in Oil Burner routes (now
Olive Branch) at 600 knots on the deck. Great sport.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hi Darrel
>
> Darrell S wrote:
>> If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
>> the link to my B-58 web site, below.
>> Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
>> takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
>> Darrell R. Schmidt
>> B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
>> http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
>
> Here's another interesting link,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler
>
> As I understand it, the B58 was a high
> speed - high altitude bomber that entered
> service about Mar/15/1960, with nil stealth
> capability. Gary Power's U2 was shot down
> May/1/1960, and had some stealth paint,
> that the Ruskies managed to circumvent.
> So 2 months after entering service, the
> B58 became a *low altitude penetration*
> bomber, with enough range for a one
> way trip into the USSR, effectively
> rendering it a kamikaze bomber.
> I think the crews knew that and it's their
> courage that helped keep us safe during
> the transition to ICBM's.
>
> IMO it was as sexy as anything that flew
> but it was not a good warplane because
> it was difficult to adapt, while the B52
> could carry stand-off weapons and make
> it home, though in hindsight, it filled a
> vital deterrence gap in the early 1960's,
> that was equivalent to the B52 swarm,
> depending on gravity bombs.
> Regards
> Ken
>

[[email protected]]

More proof of a German connection?
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal5/4901-5000/gal4963_Luft76_Stelzer/gal4963.htm

Rob Arndt wrote:
> Darrell S wrote:
> > If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
> > the link to my B-58 web site, below.
> > Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
> > takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Darrell R. Schmidt
> > B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
> > http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
>
> The Lippisch connection and F-102/F-106 delta predecessors aside, the
> B-58 is a great a/c. My USAF neighbor worked on the machine and he
> still loves that plane above all other US postwar bombers.
>
> Despite my constant German rhetoric I love the B-52 Stratofortress,
> especially the D-model from Vietnam with the bullet nose and tall tail.
>
> Hey, at least Dan can't complain about that!
>
> Good luck with your site Herr Schmidt.
>
> Rob

[Rob Arndt]

wrote:
> More proof of a German connection?
> http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal5/4901-5000/gal4963_Luft76_Stelzer/gal4963.htm

That is pretty original and funny... yet historically and factually,
Dr. Lippisch is firmly established postwar with Convair and their
designs.

Thanks for the humor though... impressive!

Rob

[Ken S. Tucker]

Rob Arndt wrote:
> > Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
> > but the Ruskies may have had something
> > better.
>
> > Ken
>
> What a/c are you referring to? The Tu-128 Fiddler interceptor or the
> Tu-22 Blinder bomber (both based on the failed Tu-98 Backfin)?
>
> Tysbin had its own design based on the NM-1- the RSR:
>
> http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/stuff/Bask/modelism/models/rsr/tsybin_rsr_2.jpg
>
> Rob

Thanks...
IIRC the Ruskies built something similiar to
the XB70 though smaller, I'm sorry I couldn't
find an online ref. and it was obviously not
deployed, it may be rumor. I'll reiterate,
"may have had something better".
Regards
Ken

[[email protected]]

Not that its all that germane to topic but the image of B 58's on a
one-way to Moscow in Fail Safe (negative reverse images as I recall)
comes to mind. Guess it was known to more than just the
crews.....................Doc
m wrote:
> Hi Darrel
>
> Darrell S wrote:
> > If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
> > the link to my B-58 web site, below.
> > Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
> > takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
> > Darrell R. Schmidt
> > B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
> > http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
>
> Here's another interesting link,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler
>
> As I understand it, the B58 was a high
> speed - high altitude bomber that entered
> service about Mar/15/1960, with nil stealth
> capability. Gary Power's U2 was shot down
> May/1/1960, and had some stealth paint,
> that the Ruskies managed to circumvent.
> So 2 months after entering service, the
> B58 became a *low altitude penetration*
> bomber, with enough range for a one
> way trip into the USSR, effectively
> rendering it a kamikaze bomber.
> I think the crews knew that and it's their
> courage that helped keep us safe during
> the transition to ICBM's.
>
> IMO it was as sexy as anything that flew
> but it was not a good warplane because
> it was difficult to adapt, while the B52
> could carry stand-off weapons and make
> it home, though in hindsight, it filled a
> vital deterrence gap in the early 1960's,
> that was equivalent to the B52 swarm,
> depending on gravity bombs.
> Regards
> Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

wrote:
> Not that its all that germane to topic but the image of B 58's on a
> one-way to Moscow in Fail Safe (negative reverse images as I recall)
> comes to mind. Guess it was known to more than just the
> crews.....................Doc

I can add that the seating configuration in
the Fail-Safe Movies Vindicator bomber
isn't a B58, but the shots of the B58 take-
off with afterburner are awesome, and a
wee bit of the formation flying is super!
Ken

> m wrote:
> > Hi Darrel
> >
> > Darrell S wrote:
> > > If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
> > > the link to my B-58 web site, below.
> > > Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
> > > takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
> > > Darrell R. Schmidt
> > > B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
> > > http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
> >
> > Here's another interesting link,
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler
> >
> > As I understand it, the B58 was a high
> > speed - high altitude bomber that entered
> > service about Mar/15/1960, with nil stealth
> > capability. Gary Power's U2 was shot down
> > May/1/1960, and had some stealth paint,
> > that the Ruskies managed to circumvent.
> > So 2 months after entering service, the
> > B58 became a *low altitude penetration*
> > bomber, with enough range for a one
> > way trip into the USSR, effectively
> > rendering it a kamikaze bomber.
> > I think the crews knew that and it's their
> > courage that helped keep us safe during
> > the transition to ICBM's.
> >
> > IMO it was as sexy as anything that flew
> > but it was not a good warplane because
> > it was difficult to adapt, while the B52
> > could carry stand-off weapons and make
> > it home, though in hindsight, it filled a
> > vital deterrence gap in the early 1960's,
> > that was equivalent to the B52 swarm,
> > depending on gravity bombs.
> > Regards
> > Ken

[[email protected]]

thats right, the pilots were side by side. I recall the fighters that
were scrambled in an attempt to shoot them down were Voodoos. I
remember them spiraling out of the sky after running out of fuel in the
film (carrying thier hapless pilots with them).................Doc
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> wrote:
> > Not that its all that germane to topic but the image of B 58's on a
> > one-way to Moscow in Fail Safe (negative reverse images as I recall)
> > comes to mind. Guess it was known to more than just the
> > crews.....................Doc
>
> I can add that the seating configuration in
> the Fail-Safe Movies Vindicator bomber
> isn't a B58, but the shots of the B58 take-
> off with afterburner are awesome, and a
> wee bit of the formation flying is super!
> Ken
>
> > m wrote:
> > > Hi Darrel
> > >
> > > Darrell S wrote:
> > > > If you want to see and read more about the Hustler, click on
> > > > the link to my B-58 web site, below.
> > > > Don't forget to sign the guest book. The More B-58 Pictures Annex link
> > > > takes you to 3 more pages of pictures and text.
> > > > Darrell R. Schmidt
> > > > B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
> > > > http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
> > >
> > > Here's another interesting link,
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler
> > >
> > > As I understand it, the B58 was a high
> > > speed - high altitude bomber that entered
> > > service about Mar/15/1960, with nil stealth
> > > capability. Gary Power's U2 was shot down
> > > May/1/1960, and had some stealth paint,
> > > that the Ruskies managed to circumvent.
> > > So 2 months after entering service, the
> > > B58 became a *low altitude penetration*
> > > bomber, with enough range for a one
> > > way trip into the USSR, effectively
> > > rendering it a kamikaze bomber.
> > > I think the crews knew that and it's their
> > > courage that helped keep us safe during
> > > the transition to ICBM's.
> > >
> > > IMO it was as sexy as anything that flew
> > > but it was not a good warplane because
> > > it was difficult to adapt, while the B52
> > > could carry stand-off weapons and make
> > > it home, though in hindsight, it filled a
> > > vital deterrence gap in the early 1960's,
> > > that was equivalent to the B52 swarm,
> > > depending on gravity bombs.
> > > Regards
> > > Ken

[Rob Arndt]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > > Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
> > > but the Ruskies may have had something
> > > better.
> >
> > > Ken
> >
> > What a/c are you referring to? The Tu-128 Fiddler interceptor or the
> > Tu-22 Blinder bomber (both based on the failed Tu-98 Backfin)?
> >
> > Tysbin had its own design based on the NM-1- the RSR:
> >
> > http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/stuff/Bask/modelism/models/rsr/tsybin_rsr_2.jpg
> >
> > Rob
>
> Thanks...
> IIRC the Ruskies built something similiar to
> the XB70 though smaller, I'm sorry I couldn't
> find an online ref. and it was obviously not
> deployed, it may be rumor. I'll reiterate,
> "may have had something better".
> Regards
> Ken


Ken,

That was the Su-100, a.k.a. "T-4":
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/potty/19.htm

In response, the US would have used the XF-108 Rapier as a B-70 escort:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/F-108_mockup.jpg

However, ALL these aircraft projects were cancelled...

Rob

[Rob Arndt]

Rob Arndt wrote:
> wrote:
> > More proof of a German connection?
> > http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal5/4901-5000/gal4963_Luft76_Stelzer/gal4963.htm
>
> That is pretty original and funny... yet historically and factually,
> Dr. Lippisch is firmly established postwar with Convair and their
> designs.
>
> Thanks for the humor though... impressive!
>
> Rob

Besides Lippisch, the real pioneer of delta craft (not counting German
gliders) was Roland Payen. He had a multitude of delta designs that
even surpassed Lippisch in terms of futuristic configurations and the
Nazis captured his unflown Pa-22 in France:

http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Ente/pa22.JPG

This was originally to be a ramjet fighter powered by the Melot ramjet,
but that engine failed so Payen just used a prop one instead.

The funny story here is that no one told the Luftwaffe pilot taking the
a/c that it had never been flown. He waved them aside with arrogance
and just just flew it back to Germany where it was at Rechlin for a
time before it was to be returned back to France. The Allies bombed its
storage area and so Payen lost the a/c...

I don't think it had any influence on the Lippisch P.XIII fighters, nor
the DM-1 design.

It is, however, one of hundreds of delta designs Payen had concieved
and yet he is historically all but forgotten compared to Lippisch. Sad,
but true.

Rob

[Big John]

Darrell

We couldn't catch you but in a front quarter attack we ran a Pk of
about 98%. F-89J and MB-1 Atomic Air to Air Rocket.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 10:03:39 -0700, "Darrell S" >
wrote:

>You are correct. By the time the B-58 became operational the Russian radar
>and missile defense systems improved to the point that high altitude, mach
>2, attacks would have been suicide. The operational tactics changed to high
>subsonic low altitude attack which made the mach 2 capability of the B-58
>relatively unusable for combat. All the design features necessary for mach
>2 flight such as the narrow fuselage made it impractical to add terrain
>avoidance radar for IFR low altitude.
>
>We practiced our low altitude high speed tactics in Oil Burner routes (now
>Olive Branch) at 600 knots on the deck. Great sport.

[FatKat]

Rob Arndt wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Rob Arndt wrote:
> > > > Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
> > > > but the Ruskies may have had something
> > > > better.
> > >
> > > > Ken
> > >
> > > What a/c are you referring to? The Tu-128 Fiddler interceptor or the
> > > Tu-22 Blinder bomber (both based on the failed Tu-98 Backfin)?
> > >
> > > Tysbin had its own design based on the NM-1- the RSR:
> > >
> > > http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/stuff/Bask/modelism/models/rsr/tsybin_rsr_2.jpg
> > >
> > > Rob
> >
> > Thanks...
> > IIRC the Ruskies built something similiar to
> > the XB70 though smaller, I'm sorry I couldn't
> > find an online ref. and it was obviously not
> > deployed, it may be rumor. I'll reiterate,
> > "may have had something better".
> > Regards
> > Ken
>
>
> Ken,
>
> That was the Su-100, a.k.a. "T-4":
> http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/potty/19.htm

Hmmm, T-4 bears some superficial resemblance, though it apparenly lacks
the VG wing-tips and double fin, is smaller and never demonstrated
quite as high a speed. I've never heard "compression left" directly
associated with the T-4, so if anybody has, I'd love to hear it. And
don't ge me started about that nose-droop thing. The B-70 used some
kind of motorized wing-screen which always seemed more preferable to
the big pivoting nose on T-4 which seemed more aesthetically and
functionally appealing. Does anybody know what T-4's operating
altitude was? Or its mission? I heard that T-4 was designed to strike
at enemy warships in waters along the Russian frontier, as opposed to
the B-70's strategic strike mission. From the stories floating around
the net, it appears that the T-4 was less a Soviet weapon to be used
against the West than one to be used by Sukhoi against Tupolev, hinting
that Russian aerospace was probably inundated with all sorts of
warplanes and making it inevitable that one looking somewhat like one
of our own would emerge.
>
> In response, the US would have used the XF-108 Rapier as a B-70 escort:

....which is confirmed by everybody else, including WPAFB website, but
I've always been skeptical of that given what I've read in Anderson's
"To Fly and Fight". While describing his work on the parasite fighter
program, he remarks on SAC's traditional aversion to escorts - noting
that bomber pros claim that they can go it alone and then pay the price
when that proves optimistic. (Anderson gave the Korean experience for
B-29's as an example.) Seems to me that the USAF requested the B-70 to
have high-speed/-alt performance in order to obviate the need for an
escort. So why the F-108?

[Ken S. Tucker]

FatKat wrote:
> Rob Arndt wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > Rob Arndt wrote:
> > > > > Well the XB-70 was a class above the B58,
> > > > > but the Ruskies may have had something
> > > > > better.
> > > >
> > > > > Ken
> > > >
> > > > What a/c are you referring to? The Tu-128 Fiddler interceptor or the
> > > > Tu-22 Blinder bomber (both based on the failed Tu-98 Backfin)?
> > > >
> > > > Tysbin had its own design based on the NM-1- the RSR:
> > > >
> > > > http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/stuff/Bask/modelism/models/rsr/tsybin_rsr_2.jpg
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > >
> > > Thanks...
> > > IIRC the Ruskies built something similiar to
> > > the XB70 though smaller, I'm sorry I couldn't
> > > find an online ref. and it was obviously not
> > > deployed, it may be rumor. I'll reiterate,
> > > "may have had something better".
> > > Regards
> > > Ken
> >
> > That was the Su-100, a.k.a. "T-4":
> > http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/potty/19.htm

Thanks for ref Rob. Claims the T-4 had
4 x 35,000# engines => 140,000#

-B-58 had 4x15000# => 60,000
-B-70 6x28000# => 168,000

I don't understand the rationale for the T-4,
in the time frame of the early 70's, if that's
true, except perhaps as an X-plane. If so
the T-4 would be quite more advanced than
the B-70 or SR71, with a burst speed well
over 2000mph, given the airframe and engines
and considering the Ruskies new alot about
Mach 3 ducting as the Mig 25 demo'd, it's
probably secret.

I also had in mind the "Bounder"
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/m-50.htm
contemporary with the B-58,
M-50,52 total thrust = 112,000#, and more than
likely as fast or faster than the B-58.

> Hmmm, T-4 bears some superficial resemblance, though it apparenly lacks
> the VG wing-tips and double fin, is smaller and never demonstrated
> quite as high a speed. I've never heard "compression left" directly
> associated with the T-4, so if anybody has, I'd love to hear it.

Looks like "compression lift" at the front part
of the engine pod. The way the pod expands
it would produce pressure and compression.

>And don't ge me started about that nose-droop thing.

I think that's neat, converts the wind-screen
into an air speed brake.

> The B-70 used some
> kind of motorized wing-screen which always seemed more preferable to
> the big pivoting nose on T-4 which seemed more aesthetically and
> functionally appealing. Does anybody know what T-4's operating
> altitude was? Or its mission? I heard that T-4 was designed to strike
> at enemy warships in waters along the Russian frontier, as opposed to
> the B-70's strategic strike mission. From the stories floating around
> the net, it appears that the T-4 was less a Soviet weapon to be used
> against the West than one to be used by Sukhoi against Tupolev, hinting
> that Russian aerospace was probably inundated with all sorts of
> warplanes and making it inevitable that one looking somewhat like one
> of our own would emerge.

One could argue the F-15 is a copy of the Mig-25.

> > In response, the US would have used the XF-108 Rapier as a B-70 escort:
>
> ...which is confirmed by everybody else, including WPAFB website, but
> I've always been skeptical of that given what I've read in Anderson's
> "To Fly and Fight". While describing his work on the parasite fighter
> program, he remarks on SAC's traditional aversion to escorts - noting
> that bomber pros claim that they can go it alone and then pay the price
> when that proves optimistic. (Anderson gave the Korean experience for
> B-29's as an example.) Seems to me that the USAF requested the B-70 to
> have high-speed/-alt performance in order to obviate the need for an
> escort. So why the F-108?

I see the F-108 as a parallel to the CF-105 Arrow,
which in a nutshell, were obsoleted by Sputnik,
and SAM's. Obvoiusly the manufacturer would
float any reason to keep the project, that's their
job.
Ken

[Darrell S[_1_]]

Aha! The good old Scorpion. We were part of a huge simulated invasion of
the West Coast of the U.S. one night. B-47s, B-52s, and B-58s went up into
Canada, then West to the Pacific Ocean, about 500 miles off shore. Then we
all headed inbound. Only ADC "Trusted Agents" were aware we were really
"friendlies" and just testing ADC capability to detect and intercept. We
were at sub-sonic optimum altitude and about 50 miles from our planned point
to accelerate to mach 2 and climb to 50,000' when my DSO (Defensive Systems
Officer) detected a fighter interceptor's radar pinging from our forward
left position. We had enough fuel to start mach 2 early so I quickly
started to accelerate and climb. The fighter wasn't ready for our more than
doubled speed and fell well behind us. We coasted inland just south of San
Francisco and turned south down the San Joaquin (sp) valley to Yuma, AZ
where we came out of supersonic speeds and altitudes. Never saw hide nor
hair of any fighters.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Darrell
>
> We couldn't catch you but in a front quarter attack we ran a Pk of
> about 98%. F-89J and MB-1 Atomic Air to Air Rocket.
>
> Big John
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````
>
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 10:03:39 -0700, "Darrell S" >
> wrote:
>
>>You are correct. By the time the B-58 became operational the Russian
>>radar
>>and missile defense systems improved to the point that high altitude, mach
>>2, attacks would have been suicide. The operational tactics changed to
>>high
>>subsonic low altitude attack which made the mach 2 capability of the B-58
>>relatively unusable for combat. All the design features necessary for
>>mach
>>2 flight such as the narrow fuselage made it impractical to add terrain
>>avoidance radar for IFR low altitude.
>>
>>We practiced our low altitude high speed tactics in Oil Burner routes (now
>>Olive Branch) at 600 knots on the deck. Great sport.
>

[Ken S. Tucker]

wrote:
> thats right, the pilots were side by side. I recall the fighters that
> were scrambled in an attempt to shoot them down were Voodoos. I
> remember them spiraling out of the sky after running out of fuel in the
> film (carrying thier hapless pilots with them).................Doc

Here's a site...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/goofs

Still a great movie with lot's of good shots,
In a way, the goofs are fun, makes you look
for them, if you know some stuff.
Ken

[Big John]

Darrell

Flew the F-89D, H and J at Hamilton (plus the F2H3 with Navy) '53 to
'60.

I was the guy who developed and got approved by ADC to use the head on
attack.Scared a lot of people when I proposed it and laid out the
safety parameters involved. We would sit at 20K and GCI would vector
us to the target track and we would turn down track with no off set
from head on. The RO would lock on and at 20 seconds to go (indicated
on pilots Radar scope up front) We would just pull up and center the
dot (target) in ring and computer launched missile at correct time.

The guy your RO saw on his scope had probably fired one of his two
missles (we launched way out) and was being vectored to another
target.

Probably the same exercise, SAC sent an observer to Squadrons to
watch. He was a B-47 driver and said he never saw any of us when he
flew over San Fran.We were under his nose :o)

I flew first mission (got a kill) and came down and ran the NADAR
(tape cartridge that recorded our radar).

SAC observer asked how we were killing all the SAC birds and we gave
him our tactics. Shortly thereafter SAC went from high and fast to as
low as possible.

On your defensive Radar. It was optimized for the Russian Radar and
didn't do a good job on our radar (both GCI and Interceptor). Can't
remember any time my RO couldn't burn through and get a lock and we
got a kill.

The Genie and head on attack, saved the Scorpion as it was about as
fast as my daughter could peddle her scoter :o) I got kills on all the
SAC birds and also U-2's (way up there but not very fast).

If you get around Houston I'll buy you a cool one and we can talk the
fine points of this Interceptor operation

Would have enjoyed flying the '58 but sometimes some have to do the
dirty work :o)

All the best

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````````````````````````````````


On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:15:49 -0700, "Darrell S" >
wrote:

>Aha! The good old Scorpion. We were part of a huge simulated invasion of
>the West Coast of the U.S. one night. B-47s, B-52s, and B-58s went up into
>Canada, then West to the Pacific Ocean, about 500 miles off shore. Then we
>all headed inbound. Only ADC "Trusted Agents" were aware we were really
>"friendlies" and just testing ADC capability to detect and intercept. We
>were at sub-sonic optimum altitude and about 50 miles from our planned point
>to accelerate to mach 2 and climb to 50,000' when my DSO (Defensive Systems
>Officer) detected a fighter interceptor's radar pinging from our forward
>left position. We had enough fuel to start mach 2 early so I quickly
>started to accelerate and climb. The fighter wasn't ready for our more than
>doubled speed and fell well behind us. We coasted inland just south of San
>Francisco and turned south down the San Joaquin (sp) valley to Yuma, AZ
>where we came out of supersonic speeds and altitudes. Never saw hide nor
>hair of any fighters.

[Darrell S[_1_]]

Interesting, John. Some Soviet radar equipment was captured during one of
the mid-east conflicts and they had it at Eglin AFB, FL for evaluation. My
crew went down there to do ECM runs against it at night low level in the
late 60s.. A Soviet trawler was off-shore in the Gulf watching it all. I
was informed that while our defensive ECM worked pretty well against our
fighters it actually helped the Soviet radar's ability to track us. The
Hustlers' ECM didn't scramble or jam the radar return, it operated below
their "waste gate" and "walked off" our radar return to cause our radar
return to show us in a different location than we were actually in. I
"heard" an early interceptor was making a practice intercept on a B-58 that
was using its ECM and had the autopilot engaged for an automatic intercept.
When the Hustler target "walked off" and then re-appeared in a different
place without breaking the lock-on the fighter interceptor overstressed its
wings trying to stay on target and was destroyed. That might have been BS.
But we found it actually helped the Russian radar find us.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Darrell
>
> Flew the F-89D, H and J at Hamilton (plus the F2H3 with Navy) '53 to
> '60.
>
> I was the guy who developed and got approved by ADC to use the head on
> attack.Scared a lot of people when I proposed it and laid out the
> safety parameters involved. We would sit at 20K and GCI would vector
> us to the target track and we would turn down track with no off set
> from head on. The RO would lock on and at 20 seconds to go (indicated
> on pilots Radar scope up front) We would just pull up and center the
> dot (target) in ring and computer launched missile at correct time.
>
> The guy your RO saw on his scope had probably fired one of his two
> missles (we launched way out) and was being vectored to another
> target.
>
> Probably the same exercise, SAC sent an observer to Squadrons to
> watch. He was a B-47 driver and said he never saw any of us when he
> flew over San Fran.We were under his nose :o)
>
> I flew first mission (got a kill) and came down and ran the NADAR
> (tape cartridge that recorded our radar).
>
> SAC observer asked how we were killing all the SAC birds and we gave
> him our tactics. Shortly thereafter SAC went from high and fast to as
> low as possible.
>
> On your defensive Radar. It was optimized for the Russian Radar and
> didn't do a good job on our radar (both GCI and Interceptor). Can't
> remember any time my RO couldn't burn through and get a lock and we
> got a kill.
>
> The Genie and head on attack, saved the Scorpion as it was about as
> fast as my daughter could peddle her scoter :o) I got kills on all the
> SAC birds and also U-2's (way up there but not very fast).
>
> If you get around Houston I'll buy you a cool one and we can talk the
> fine points of this Interceptor operation
>
> Would have enjoyed flying the '58 but sometimes some have to do the
> dirty work :o)
>
> All the best
>
> Big John
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````````````````````````````````
>
>
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:15:49 -0700, "Darrell S" >
> wrote:
>
>>Aha! The good old Scorpion. We were part of a huge simulated invasion of
>>the West Coast of the U.S. one night. B-47s, B-52s, and B-58s went up
>>into
>>Canada, then West to the Pacific Ocean, about 500 miles off shore. Then
>>we
>>all headed inbound. Only ADC "Trusted Agents" were aware we were really
>>"friendlies" and just testing ADC capability to detect and intercept. We
>>were at sub-sonic optimum altitude and about 50 miles from our planned
>>point
>>to accelerate to mach 2 and climb to 50,000' when my DSO (Defensive
>>Systems
>>Officer) detected a fighter interceptor's radar pinging from our forward
>>left position. We had enough fuel to start mach 2 early so I quickly
>>started to accelerate and climb. The fighter wasn't ready for our more
>>than
>>doubled speed and fell well behind us. We coasted inland just south of
>>San
>>Francisco and turned south down the San Joaquin (sp) valley to Yuma, AZ
>>where we came out of supersonic speeds and altitudes. Never saw hide nor
>>hair of any fighters.
>