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

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 =----

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.