Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1     9/27/83; site hplabsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!hplabs!hplabsc!dsmith
From: dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: B-36 and the Flying Wing (nostalgia)
Message-ID: <2150@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Sep-84 14:00:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.2150
Posted: Fri Sep 14 14:00:42 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 02:20:59 EDT
References: <12777@sri-arpa.UUCP> <643@ihnp4.UUCP>, <2128@hplabsc.UUCP> <4513@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 25


    Does anyone out there know any details about what the problems
    were with the B-58, and/or any interesting stories regarding
    them? If so, please post!

Back in 1976 there was an issue of AIRPOWER devoted to the B-58.  The
reasons cited for its demise were

    1.  The downing of Gary Powers in his U-2 indicated that bombers
	were not safe at high altitude.  The B-52, with wing strengthening,
	could penetrate at low altitude.  The B-58, with much less range
	than a B-52, could not accept the high fuel consumption entailed
	by a long low-level penetration run.

    2.  The B-58 may have stretched technology a little too far.  It was
	hot and difficult to fly, and was feared by its crews.  Several
	crashed because of control reversal. (The controls worked as usual,
	but in some flight regimes, the aerodynamics caused an effect
	opposite to that intended.  Other planes experience this in
	(conditions leading to) a spin, but it was particularly bad in
	the B-58.)

    3.  It was replaced by the F-111 (no jokes, please).

I once saw a B-58 take off.  It was impressive.  Much hotter than an F-100,
comparable to an F-106.