"First Ospreys Land In Iraq; One Arrives After 2 Setbacks"

Tiger wrote:
Vince wrote:

Tiger wrote:

The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...


The B 58 What a great example

everything sacrificed to high speed
everything had to be gold plated
andby the tiem it was ready the mission was gone


Nevertheless, it had a much smaller weapons load and more limited range
than the B-52 Stratofortress. It had been extremely expensive to acquire
(in 1959 it was reported that each of the production B-58As was worth
more than its weight in gold). It was a complex aircraft that required
considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment,
which made it three times as expensive to operate as the B-52. Also
against it was an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 aircraft were lost
in accidents, 22.4% of total production. An engine loss at supersonic
cruise was very difficult to safely recover from due to differential
thrust. SAC had been dubious about the type from the beginning, although
its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft (its
performance and design were appreciated, although it was never easy to
fly).

By the time the early problems had largely been resolved and SAC
interest in the bomber had solidified, Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon
system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile
became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union
extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low
altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus detection time.

While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not
do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the
design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to
the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was
ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a
reprieve, proceeded on schedule.


sounds like the V-22

Vince

Yet I bet the B-58 never got a TIME mag cover story hit piece? That was
my basic point. True all military programs have reasons to be critical
of them( the m-16 (still), the m9(still), the hummer(a suv forced to be
more), the Stryker, Now the DDG51 has a weak bow). The V-22 just seems
to get more heat than deserved.


Or maybe I'm biased by driving by Boeing everyday?


Normally we junk the stinking maggot filled carcass, this one has been
left to rot far too long

Vince

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:59:31 -0400, Vince wrote:

Tiger wrote:
The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...


The B 58 What a great example

everything sacrificed to high speed
everything had to be gold plated
andby the tiem it was ready the mission was gone


Nevertheless, it had a much smaller weapons load and more limited range
than the B-52 Stratofortress. It had been extremely expensive to acquire
(in 1959 it was reported that each of the production B-58As was worth
more than its weight in gold). It was a complex aircraft that required
considerable maintenance, much of which required specialized equipment,
which made it three times as expensive to operate as the B-52. Also
against it was an unfavorably high accident rate: 26 aircraft were lost
in accidents, 22.4% of total production. An engine loss at supersonic
cruise was very difficult to safely recover from due to differential
thrust. SAC had been dubious about the type from the beginning, although
its crews eventually became enthusiastic about the aircraft (its
performance and design were appreciated, although it was never easy to fly).

By the time the early problems had largely been resolved and SAC
interest in the bomber had solidified, Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon
system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile
became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union
extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low
altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus detection time.

While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not
do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the
design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to
the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was
ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a
reprieve, proceeded on schedule.


sounds like the V-22

Vince

Beancounter. What else did you (conveniently) forget to list?

It was also a stepping stone,
An advancement in technology in powerplant and airframe,
It set speed records,
It reduced the crew size,
It posed problems that had to be overcome,
Problems that passed the advantage of technology to subsequent
generations of aircraft.

It made the Russians scared that they could be attacked faster than
they could defend.

It became obsolete partly because it existed. Its own design and
operation propelled technology forward.

XB-70 as well.

Aircraft don't have to be an operational success to contribute.

Tiger wrote:

The Media bashing of the V-22 is getting old. The B-58 had more
accidents than the v-22 ever had. Other programs have had troubled
histories: F4U, F7U, F-104, AV-8,etc...

So, for that matter, did the CH-46 that the V-22 is replacing.
The CH-46's bigger brother, the CH-47 was a killer in its early days.
CH-47As would just "stop flying" usually with fatal results.
(Never heard if that habit ever actually stopped, either)
--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion