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.

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 ^,,^

"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.