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.