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

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 wrote:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

"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 wrote:

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

Lots of thanks to everybody for the insightful answers!

Michael.

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 =----