B-58 Pictures - B58A.jpg (1/1)

[Panic[_2_]]

[Michael Huber[_2_]]

This may be a dumb question, but why the design with the pod? As I
understand it, the pod carried the bomb, effectivly, it was the bomb bay. A
bomber with a bomb bay would not make sense, so one would expect few
Hustlers to depart on missions without a pod. If the preceding is true, why
use pod at all? Wouldn't it be more aerodynamically efficient to integrate
the bomb bay into the fuselage?

Thanks for enlightenment,

Michael.

[Michael Huber[_2_]]

Michael Huber wrote:

> with a bomb bay would not make sense
Without. Without a bomb bay, is what I meant to write.

[Waldo Pepper]

Other bombers lig an empty bomb bay around. Even when it is empty! How
smart is that.

Waldo.

BTW here is the article I thought I might post - I put it on Zshare
for those who are sensitive about posting FAQ's and the like.

http://www.zshare.net/download/6423610ffa967e/



On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:45:02 +0100, Michael Huber
> wrote:

>Michael Huber wrote:
>
>> with a bomb bay would not make sense
>Without. Without a bomb bay, is what I meant to write.

[Waldo Pepper]

Lug NOT lig! (LOL)

Waldo.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:10:03 GMT, Waldo Pepper
> wrote:

>Other bombers lig an empty bomb bay around. Even when it is empty! How
>smart is that.
>
>Waldo.
>
>BTW here is the article I thought I might post - I put it on Zshare
>for those who are sensitive about posting FAQ's and the like.
>
>http://www.zshare.net/download/6423610ffa967e/
>
>
>
>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:45:02 +0100, Michael Huber
> wrote:
>
>>Michael Huber wrote:
>>
>>> with a bomb bay would not make sense
>>Without. Without a bomb bay, is what I meant to write.

[Dave Kearton]

Waldo Pepper wrote:
>> Other bombers lig an empty bomb bay around. Even when it is empty!
>> How smart is that.
>>
>> Waldo.
>>
>> BTW here is the article I thought I might post - I put it on Zshare
>> for those who are sensitive about posting FAQ's and the like.
>>
>> http://www.zshare.net/download/6423610ffa967e/
>>
>>
>>



Thanks for that, it was quaite an interesting article.




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Waldo Pepper]

I thought so too! A somewhat 'forgotten' aircraft that doesn't get a
lot of press. So I though I'd post that for that reason alone.

Waldol.
>
>Thanks for that, it was quaite an interesting article.

[Bob Harrington]

Waldo Pepper > wrote in
:

> I thought so too! A somewhat 'forgotten' aircraft that doesn't get a
> lot of press. So I though I'd post that for that reason alone.
>
> Waldol.
>>
>>Thanks for that, it was quaite an interesting article.

There were a couple nice Hustler images posted in the last day or so at the
USAF photo link - http://www.af.mil/photos/ There have been quite a few
great photos of older aircraft posted in the last week, just keep clicking
on the 'next page' link at the bottom of each page.

Bob ^,,^

[Panic]

"Michael Huber" > wrote in message
...
> This may be a dumb question, but why the design with the pod? As I
> understand it, the pod carried the bomb, effectivly, it was the bomb bay.
> A
> bomber with a bomb bay would not make sense, so one would expect few
> Hustlers to depart on missions without a pod. If the preceding is true,
> why
> use pod at all? Wouldn't it be more aerodynamically efficient to integrate
> the bomb bay into the fuselage?
>
> Thanks for enlightenment,
>
> Michael.

At the time the B-58 was designed the technology to cruise at mach 2
dictated a narrow fuselage using the Whitcomb area rule. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule To achieve this the decision was
made to use the pod design. As you can see in the referenced B-58 photo of
the armament laid out on the ramp they also had pylons under the wing just
outboard of the fuselage to carry 4 small nuclear weapons... 2 in tandem on
each side. The B-58 was designed from the start for nuclear bombs only.
They couldn't carry enough conventional weapons to be cost effective.

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

[Michael Huber[_2_]]

Michael Huber wrote:

> This may be a dumb question, but why the design with the pod?

Lots of thanks to everybody for the insightful answers!

Michael.

[Ken Murphy]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:44:21 +0100, Michael Huber
> wrote:

>This may be a dumb question, but why the design with the pod? As I
>understand it, the pod carried the bomb, effectivly, it was the bomb bay. A
>bomber with a bomb bay would not make sense, so one would expect few
>Hustlers to depart on missions without a pod. If the preceding is true, why
>use pod at all? Wouldn't it be more aerodynamically efficient to integrate
>the bomb bay into the fuselage?
>
>Thanks for enlightenment,
>
>Michael.


Michael - it is not a dumb question. The pod or pods, as fitted,
carried the bomb but also carried fuel.
This site is full of info -
http://www.aviation-history.com/convair/b58.html
To quote just one sentence from it:
>The pod or pods carried beneath the aircraft are also largely filled with fuel. The single 57-foot-long MB pod contains mostly fuel. The 54-foot-long lower element of the two-part TC pod, designed to be dropped before run-in to the target, is filled entirely with fuel, while the 35-foot-long upper pod contains at least 2,450 Ib. of fuel as well as a warhead.
So, not a dumb question, and very ingenious on the part of the
designers of the day. Dump the empty fuel tank, drop the weapon, and
skedaddle out of town as a sleek low-drag supersonic plane.

Ken Murphy

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Michael Huber[_2_]]

Ken Murphy wrote:

> Dump the empty fuel tank, drop the weapon, and
> skedaddle out of town as a sleek low-drag supersonic plane.

It makes sense now. For some reason, I got hung up on "why design a bomber
without a bomb bay, it nedds to carry a bomb no matter what" and completely
forgot about the entire getting-home-alive-after-dropping-the-bomb thing.