Much of this research and diagrams was provided in part by Aerospace Projects Review, a fantastic resource that has plenty of exciting diagrams and history in the world of aviation. Many thanks! Check them out here: www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/

@vitaliylomanoff1759

7 ай бұрын

Hey Found And Explained? Are You The Most Sponsors Channel In World?

@robertphelan1657

7 ай бұрын

Where does it say the B-58 carried 5 nuclear missiles like the video stated? hint, it doesn't. Let's try and do a better job with your research and yes, details really do matter.

@campanr

7 ай бұрын

​@@robertphelan1657Quite right. It could carry five bombs, not missiles.

@John.0z

7 ай бұрын

I am fairly sure that the female voice was selected after a series of psych tests. It was not just a matter of the female voice and jock pilots, it was a fairly common response by male subjects - and that really should not be a surprising result. This came up when I was studying psychology. I still think the Hustler was the most dramatic-looking aircraft of it's time. If the USAF had stayed focused on the mission it was designed for, maybe it would have a better reputation. I recall a magazine telling that the Russians went through all their satellite footage _very_ carefully during the START negotiations - even demanding that one crashed but visually intact-looking B-58 hull was utterly destroyed. So, regardless of it's perceived vulnerability to the SA-2, they seem to have taken the type as a very serious threat. Yes, I would love to see a video on that SST version.

@JohnPatterson-kz8jr

7 ай бұрын

​@vitaliylomanoff1759 Ironically the B52 is still flying long after the B47 and B58 is still on active duty.

I was a 2nd Lieutenant in the USMC flying the F-4B and was at Bunker Hill AFB on a training flight. I was waiting for TO clearance when I was told to hold my position on the taxiway. A couple of minutes later, two B-58s rolled by me and took the runway for TO. They ran up all eight J79 engines at the same time and my F-4 shook like a model T from the enormous power of the engines. My F-4 had two of those same engines so I was used to some sound but not eight at one time. What a beautiful bird! It looked like it was in motion just sitting on the runway.

@sidefx996

7 ай бұрын

God Bless you sir. What an amazing experience that must have been.

@debbiestimac5175

7 ай бұрын

Four J-79's.

@Tornado2409

7 ай бұрын

now that's something I'd love to experience

@stickiedmin6508

7 ай бұрын

@@debbiestimac5175 Yes Debbie - Two bombers, with four J-79 engines each, makes *_eight_* J-79 engines total.

@matthewdavies2057

7 ай бұрын

​@@stickiedmin6508 doh!

To call it “useless” is completely asinine just because WW3 never happened. Deterrence was the whole point. And regarding cost and reliability, you have to keep in mind what this represented in 1956. Most countries can’t build anything like this in 2023.

@michaelmoorrees3585

7 ай бұрын

Yes, deterrence is underrated ! Even active deterrence, like the Vietnam War, though costly (both in money, and lives), showed the Soviet Union, that the US wasn't going to idly sit by. If we had shown a little more teeth, the Russians would never have dared invade Ukraine.

@Chilly_Billy

7 ай бұрын

​@@jbradley8659 Everyone assumes a nuclear WW3 would've begun suddenly and without warning. That is a highly suspect concept. International relations heat up over time. Wars don't occur overnight, especially nuclear Armageddon. In short, there would have been plenty of time to send B-58's to any number of NATO bases much closer to their Soviet targets. SAC regularly practiced this from its earliest days as a USAF command.

@whyjnot420

7 ай бұрын

@@jbradley8659 Isn't it amusing how something can be groundbreaking, technologically stunning and yet barely be worth anything at the same time?

@Comm0ut

7 ай бұрын

​@@jbradley8659 The correct answer is "the NUCLEAR TRIAD" of which the bomber force was a key component. The more the Soviets had to defend against the more it cost them and the eventual result vindicated the triad which is maintained to this day. In a nuclear exchange pilot lives don't matter, they're not even drama when millions are immolated. Bombers permit gestures that missiles do not. Instead of just considering hardware, read Herman Kahn and learn about how complex (and real) nuclear war theory and doctrine really are.

@sethb3090

7 ай бұрын

This is like saying the F-22 is useless because no one ever wanted to fight it

The B-58 "Hustler" was one legendary airplane. During it's very brief use in the Air Force, it demonstrated it's performance superbly. It might've been useless, but it really was an amazing creation in itself.

@rbaxter286

7 ай бұрын

Kinda different opinion from a work associate of mine who said the guidance computers were one of the most unreliable, nightmare-to-calibrate-and-then-KEEP-calibrated, dangerous bleeding edge tech he's ever been asked to service, and then be expected to work miracles with anyway, cuz 'Generals' Credibility at Risk'. That alone made it a hideously expensive prestige toy for the USAF.

@brucewelty7684

7 ай бұрын

According to the narrator's view the B-36 was also useless.

@huiyinghong3073

7 ай бұрын

Looks like a Mig 21

@decimated550

7 ай бұрын

can't besos or musk take their FU money and refurbish a fleet of these beauties?

@scootergeorge7089

7 ай бұрын

@@brucewelty7684 - The B-36 did seem pretty useless. There are good reasons it never saw combat. It would not have survived.

The B58 was a great aircraft designed to fill the very same role as the French Mirage 4 bomber in the 1960s. Yet the Mirage 4 was never considered obsolete as it perfectly fulfilled its objective: deterrence. You don't need to drop a nuke to complete your mission.

@Sacto1654

7 ай бұрын

But the Mirage IV eventually got a stand-off missile (ASMP) that made the plane more survivable because with ASMP, the plane didn't need to fly over the target. That's why the B-52 first got the SRAM missile and eventually the ALCM missile so the plane didn't need to overfly the target with all the issues of survivability.

@huiyinghong3073

7 ай бұрын

Looks like a Mig 21

@dukecraig2402

7 ай бұрын

The B58 could have easily been adapted to do any one of other jobs, but the pentagon had enough money to just have other aircraft developed specifically for other roles.

@air-headedaviator1805

7 ай бұрын

Right…”deterrence”. The myth of mutually assured destruction… as formidable an aircraft it is, if its role was deterrence, it didn’t do too hot, since more weapons were developed to combat and compete

@billmullins6833

7 ай бұрын

@air-headedaviator1805, very much deterrence! You are too young to have participated in Nuclear Warfare drills in school. They would sound the air raid sirens and we would go into the hall and practice something called "duck and cover". The proof that deterrence worked is that know-nothings are able to write ignorant screeds about it not working.

Idc if it was useless, it’s a beautiful aircraft

@jayjay53313

7 ай бұрын

Wait until you try to land it, you won't like it for sure

@JohnFrumFromAmerica

7 ай бұрын

Aircraft and designed to perform a mission not look good haha

@earth3671

7 ай бұрын

Please make video of tornado fighter jets

@user-wv5qu7ox4s

7 ай бұрын

Idc if 38 people died and 3 billion dollars were lost, it still looks beautiful

@mcjdubpower

7 ай бұрын

This.

My father-in-law was a B-58 crew chief. He said the things were total maintenance hogs. The avionjcs were beyond state of the art, they were absolute bleeding edge. He told me the things never took off without more than one "red X" (priority malfunction) write-ups against it. It's a wonder more weren't lost. You had to have balls of solid brass and the size of watermelons to strap on one of those things.

@debbiestimac5175

7 ай бұрын

Down Gripes and Up Gripes. Down Gripes you aren't supposed to fly... but it was the Cold War. The biggest problem with B-58 was that it was before the integrated circuit was invented/in use. Vacuum tubes don't like vibration or high mach G loads. Can you imagine the pile of busted and blown out ones, outside the Instrument Shops at Hustler Bases?

@chaosXP3RT

7 ай бұрын

Insane how many American aircraft, vehicles, equipment and weapons are such failures

@billmullins6833

7 ай бұрын

@chaosXP3RT, and yet we are "the Joneses" that so many nations bust their hump to keep up with! The Hustler was not a failure; it was a magnificent success. It was a triumph of American know-how and sheet engineering creativity. The rest of the world should have such "failures"!

@control_the_pet_population

7 ай бұрын

@@chaosXP3RT Meh... tons and tons of stuff designed all over the world in the decade following WW2 could be deemed a 'failure'. Technology was advancing at a ridiculous rate... America, Britain, USSR, France... they all dropped tons of time and money into stuff that barely had a front line service life. Fighters went from 400-450mph up to 1,200-1,400mph in a little over a decade. Realistic engagement altitudes of anti aircraft weapons went from 30-40k feet up to well over 100k in a little over a decade. What seemed like a good mission profile in 1953 was borderline suicidal by 1960. As a standalone nuclear weapon delivery system, the B-58 was largely useless by the time they reached legitimate service strength... it was not going to have a good time against mid 60s SAMs that simply didn't exist when the design was approved... But as a stepping stone to future technological advancement? It was probably money well spent.

@ssnerd583

7 ай бұрын

VERY INTERESTING point.....indeed....what a nightmare@@debbiestimac5175

4:20 Minor correction - Little Boy was a gun-type bomb, not an implosion-type; that was Fat Man.

@dmillhoff

7 ай бұрын

I caught that too. Very likely it should have been 'fat man'.

@obelic71

7 ай бұрын

@@dmillhoff If you look at the guppy shape of the pod beneath the B58 its way more then likely

@dmillhoff

7 ай бұрын

@@obelic71 I doubt they would have re-instigated production of an obsolete design for a new bomber.

@jacobmccandles1767

3 ай бұрын

​@@dmillhoffyou're likely correct: "Bombs: 1× Mark 39 or B53 or 4× B43 or B61 nuclear bombs..." None of these are identical to Fat Man or Little Boy.

@lesliemacmillan9932

3 ай бұрын

Since the design of American nuclear weapons is still classified (although much is available in open-source documents) it isn't clear what exactly these bombs were. The Mark 39s and B53s are described as using "Oralloy" in their fission primaries, which is highly enriched uranium. Would this have been the crude Little Boy gun-type assembly? or implosion which for Nagasaki (Fat Man) used plutonium? The gun-type assembly requires a lot of linear space because you have to keep the two sub-critical components far enough apart that no chain reaction can start before the gun shot slams them together...and then somehow you have to arrange to fit in the lithium deuteride secondary to be fused by the X-rays from the primary. Also, implosion, compared to gun assembly, causes more of the fuel to undergo fission before the rapidly developing fireball blows the whole mess apart. So I'm guessing that all bombs after Fat Man itself used implosion of a convenient sphere of either Pu or U. All this from Richard Rhodes's two books on the making of the atomic and hydrogen bombs. I join everyone here in being a great fan of the B-58. Never saw one "alive" but it is nice to see the one the USAF Museum in Dayton has.

The B-58 was very useful during the Cold War. This airplane, just by existing, was a massive deterrent. It looks like an Angry, Agressive Hornet. It caused the Soviets to invest a lot of resources in high attitude air defences and interceptors. The Soviets were in awe of the thing: how would you like something like that coming after You? Even by today's standards, the performance was awesome. However, the B-52 was about as Effective, using low level penetration, and ballistic missiles were faster. The B-58 was a victim of it's own superb performance. The B-52 turned out to be the Airplane Of The Future. The last B-52 pilot hasn't been born yet.

@dukecraig2402

7 ай бұрын

I wonder if it's what inspired John Denver to write "I'm leaving on a jet plane, don't know when I'll be back again".

@hinzuzufugen7358

7 ай бұрын

Nah.. don't know if I'd ever be back again😢

@thunderatsea3843

7 ай бұрын

That is an interesting way of putting it, it may be true that the last B-52 pilot hasn't been born yet, despite its 50+ years of service.

@dukecraig2402

7 ай бұрын

@@hinzuzufugen7358 I wonder if people get my John Denver reference to the B58 or his connection to it. John Denver was his stage name, his real name was Henry John Deutschendorf Jr, his father Henry John Deutschendorf Sr was a US Air Force B58 pilot that set a record in one that I believe still stands to this day.

@hinzuzufugen7358

7 ай бұрын

@@dukecraig2402 I found out myself, meanwhile. I thought, what a coincidence OR just a reference to his father. Wonder how Americans pronounce the "eu" in that most German name - "oyi" as in German?

The Hustler never had missiles. She did carry the B-61 on the external hardpoints but they were gravity bombs just like the main system.

@ace9xx

7 ай бұрын

Planes and ships are not women...

@benn454

7 ай бұрын

@@ace9xx Traditionally, they are. Have been for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Get over it.

@stinkyfungus

7 ай бұрын

​@@benn454 True that. Our boy here Prolly thinks that a dude with tits, wearing a dress is a woman though...

@smark1180

7 ай бұрын

@@gort8203 I don't think so. "The MA-1C pod was a proposed rocket-propelled version of the MB-1 free-fall pod, designed to give the B-58 a stand-off capability. The pod was to be powered by a Bell Aerospace LR81-BA-1 rocket engine, fueled by a combination of JP-4 and red fuming nitric acid. The maximum range was expected to be 160 miles. During the flight to target, a maximum altitude of 108,000 feet and a maximum speed of Mach 4 was to be obtained. A Sperry guidance system was to control the pod during its flight to the target. The MA-1C pod was cancelled before it could be deployed." - The _B-58 Hustler Page_

@smark1180

7 ай бұрын

@@gort8203 I don't think so "there were early versions of the B-58 weapon pod that were actually propelled by a rocket motor after release." But with your reply, " it was cancelled," you confirmed what I wrote.

John Denver's dad, Maj Henry J. Deutschendorf, set an early speed record piloting his B-58.

@carltonleboss

7 ай бұрын

Now that's what I call leavin' on a jet plane.

@chipps1066

7 ай бұрын

Wow I did not know that!

@jochenpeiper2021

3 ай бұрын

His dad's brother John was my pastor. Really cool people.

@notreallydavid

Ай бұрын

Fact of the day! No snark!

@robertmaybeth3434

7 күн бұрын

Well if he were alive o the time, not sure what he'd have made of John Denver's very strange death - sad and unnecessary.

The most spectacular take off I have ever seen was a B-58 taking off from Carswell sometime in the early sixties. My mom was driving South from the main gate at General Dynamics On what is now Lockheed Boulevard. A B-58 was just lifting off in full afterburner as it passed us going south. It was my favorite plane and I'll never forget the experience.

@BruceWall-gv4up

7 ай бұрын

That's awesome,. I. wish. I. could. have. seen. that,. My. Dad said a. B-58. took. off. from. around. Dallas. one. morning. early. 60,s. ,. about 10. minutes later,. it. crashed just outside Hattiesburg, Mississippi,. now. that's. moving.

@colerape

5 ай бұрын

Carswell was where I was born. Dad spent much of his career in SAC. He spent 3 years in SE Asia during Vietnam supporting B-58 operations out of Thailand. He was in avionics, but worked ECM/ECCM when he was in Thailand. Years from now we are going to find out that a lot of those accidents actually occurred over Vietnam. My Dad said that the Hustler was a great plane and that the USAF destroyed the airframes during the war from low altitude high speed flight. Dad passed away this year so I can't ask him any more questions, but I don't think he lied about that stuff.

@johnr8252

5 ай бұрын

Hi ben, I lived over in Dallas at that time so I heard the Hustlers, but never got to see one. Envy you!

@thomasbell7033

2 ай бұрын

​@@colerapeI'm a retired aviation writer, and would not want to contradict your late father. However, given many factors, including its limited bomb load, I can't imagine the B-58 having any value as a conventional bomber. In fact, I don't think I've ever even seen a photograph of a B-58 with a load of iron bombs. But, again, that's not to say such a picture isn't out there somewhere. Nobody expected to see the F-104 Starfighter hung with "trash" either, and it spent two years hauling bombs in Vietnam.

@colerape

2 ай бұрын

@@thomasbell7033 I understand what you are saying. However, one question. How many operational B-58 units were around post Vietnam and how long before they were decommissioned?

My Uncle Ken was a frustrated fighter pilot! He flew P-40's prewar and before they could transition to the P-38 he was transferred to Kansas and started flying B-24's from Libya and then Italy. He flew in the Berlin Airlift and was then transferred to B-50's and the fledgling SAC. After the introduction of the B-47 and transferred to a SAC Wing in South Carolina. That unit would periodically fly out of Wheeles AB in Libya. His final flight with that unit saw him transferred to Texas and assignment to a SAC B-58 Wing. He absolutely loved the Hustler!

@abaddon4823

7 ай бұрын

That’s amazing!

@drewber565

6 ай бұрын

If your Uncle Ken is still around, ask him if he knew CDR Emerson Earl Moore. My late father flew combat for the Navy in the Pacific in WW2. He went on to lead the Navy contingent of the Airlift. In the 90s, the BAVA was formed, or became really active. Many of the Berlin vets were hosted on trips to Berlin, for some special occasions. Dad came to one of them, while my wife and I were stationed in Germany. Dad was voted president for life of the BAVA, Berlin Airlift Veterans Association, in the early 2000s. I think because he would do it and nobody else anted to. ;-) I got to be an honorary member of the group.

@a3300000

5 ай бұрын

👍👍

The B-58 was a testament to just how fast aerospace technology was advancing at the time; just one decade was the difference between groundbreaking and obsolete. That's no fault of the aircraft. My uncle worked at Convair and was heavily involved in the design of the Hustler. RIP, Mickey!

@MrMarinus18

6 ай бұрын

The B-52 was just far superior in the two areas that mattered: Bomb load and loitering time. Neither the B-58 nor the B-52 would dare go into areas with intact heavy air defenses so the speed of the B-58 was largely useless. Even the more agile F4 almost never did supersonic attacks cause it made the plane far too cumbersome and an easy target for Mig 21's and ground AA fire. Even so high speed bombing runs were somewhat successful mostly because the US had far more resources to throw at it so it could afford to lose a few planes. The B-58 was an awkward middle ground. It wasn't agile or cheap enough to be a fighter-bomber, not resiliant enough to be a ground attack plane but it also didn't have the loitering time and bomb load to be a bomb dumb truck.

@stuartkidney3257

6 ай бұрын

​@@MrMarinus18 ...more negativity ("so the speed of the B-58 was useless). NASA was the big winner from development of the B-58 and helped develop the future pilot corps that helped plant the astronaut program in coming years. Plus it scared the Russians during the very peak of Cold War fear between both powers. Lots of the tech developed on The Hustler matriculated to future projects, by solving current issues and/or proving some tech was not the best alternative for new platforms.

@MrMarinus18

6 ай бұрын

@@stuartkidney3257 While that is all true I think the real winners were the plane producers. America has always had a level of corruption and the B-58 was in many ways designed to get as much money from the government as possible. A big reason why it filled so many niches is because that meant it was applicable to many different streams of funding. The F4 had a similar issue as did several other planes. That's why later on the department of defense changed their methodology.

@MrMarinus18

6 ай бұрын

@@stuartkidney3257 The standard US fighter bomber could drop nuclear bombs. It never did nor were there ever any plans for it to do so. But because it could in theory the program got more funding. This let to major issues cause it ended up being too big, too cumbersome and had far too high a stallspeed.

@stuartkidney3257

6 ай бұрын

​@@MrMarinus18 LOL ; I know crew that flew the platform and fixed 'em; they loved it and it put the Russians on their heels for ten years. Nothing in the World had the capability to project power, speed with nuke capability. Lots of aircraft platforms had huge issues during development, but the B-58 tackled speed, distance and altitude all in one platform. Brave, smart men designed, maintained and flew her. I'm grateful for their hard work and bravery.

What killed the B-58 was extreme maintenance cost and the price of the Vietnam war. Flying at extreme altitude was no longer a good defense. Instead the USAF got the FB-111 and the B-1 bombers.

@HenryKlausEsq.

7 ай бұрын

B-1 Lancer/Bone is the sleek spiritual successor. F-111 was also legendary and a workhorse. Amazing aircraft.

The technology was rapidly changing at the time. The B-58 was an amazing jet! Not useless at all. Much was learned from the design.

@billpartridge6865

7 ай бұрын

agreed....a beatiful plane, fast as hell. A bit difficult to fly, but if I was an airplane I would want to be a B-58 hustler.

@chipps1066

7 ай бұрын

The B-1's daddy.

@derekv8534

7 ай бұрын

It’s only purpose was to get nukes on Soviet cities super fast. They were essentially manned ballistic missiles. In all reality they were designed to make one way nuclear strike missions.

@johnsmith1474

7 ай бұрын

Idiotic analysis, this thing was criminal in al respects.

@kirkmooneyham

6 ай бұрын

@@johnsmith1474, is that what you got from Chinese propaganda?

I believe the B-58 was used as the misguided American bombers in the classic Cold War movie "Fail Safe."

@MultiMustafa7

7 ай бұрын

Yep. They were called 'Vindicator' bombers. The Movie had a chilling ending.

@Sherwoody

7 ай бұрын

“What’s there to go back to”

@TheKulu42

7 ай бұрын

@@MultiMustafa7 I believe you're right. And that ending is chilling indeed.

@TheKulu42

7 ай бұрын

@@Sherwoody That one line highlighted the tragedy of the whole situation.

@Chilly_Billy

7 ай бұрын

"The Matador... is me!"

It was a breathtakingly advanced bomber, but the B-58 came at a time when the Nuclear Deterrent switched from bombers to missiles, both land based ICBMs or SLBMs housed in Submarines. Bombers were retained for conventional use, but the B-58 was too specialized and expensive for this.

@CptJistuce

7 ай бұрын

Right tool at the wrong time.

@mvjoshi

7 ай бұрын

Accurate reply. It was not useless but overtaken by nuclear weapon strategy and infrastructure.

@stuartkidney3257

6 ай бұрын

@@mvjoshi The Hustler broke a lot of ground tech wise, and that knowledge and experience likely matriculated to making future supersonic platforms better and safer.

@Sitzenleben

5 ай бұрын

Also the development of cruise missles launched from a b52

@billballbuster7186

5 ай бұрын

@@Sitzenleben Not Cruise Missiles in the modern sense. Skybolt was designed for the B-52 from the late 1950s, but that was a Hypersonic missile. It was scrapped as being impractical in 1962

Why did I just see an SR71 launched off a carrier

@drjamespotter

7 ай бұрын

Do you mean the Sea Vixen?

@dalenichols7414

3 ай бұрын

@@drjamespotter www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Sea+Vixen%3F nope

Fifteen years before this beast flew, piston bombers were state of the art. How far have we come in the past 15 years compared them? Not much. Says tons about the ingenuity of the engineers using tables and slide rules way back then.

@JohnFrumFromAmerica

7 ай бұрын

It's more to do with almost maxing out jet technology. There is no alternative to jets.

@sidefx996

7 ай бұрын

The improvements are more under the hood and less obvious on the outside, but totally get your point.

@Iden_in_the_Rain

7 ай бұрын

@@JohnFrumFromAmericathe next step is getting scramjets to work at low velocities, imo.

@peterheinzo515

7 ай бұрын

the software progressed massively in the last 15 years.

@Gerhardium

7 ай бұрын

Aside from top speed this aircraft has nothing on modern strike aircraft. Nothing. The remarkable evolution in avionics since then is something of which some people are apparently ignorant.

My father was in the Air force when I was in grade school during the 50's. Me & my pals were always building model plane kits. The most memorable plane was a large scale B-58 that a neighbor kid built. We all sat around it ''pointing & nodding'', as it WAS industrial art w/ a capital 'A'. I think it was the 1st attempt at the B-1.

When I was a kid my Dad took me to a air show in northern Indiana at Grissom air force base. I remember to this day looking to the right and they had B-58's in open ended scramble hump hangars. The Thunderbird's were performing at the airshow flying F-100 Super Sabers.

It might have been useless… but it was on of the most beautiful aircraft designs to ever grace the skies.

@chaosXP3RT

7 ай бұрын

Soviet aircraft are better looking

@spazzey0

7 ай бұрын

​@@chaosXP3RT not really, theyre just more rugged and rough around the edges, the Myasichev M-50 comes pretty close though

@joeblowe3180

6 ай бұрын

@@spazzey0 Except they're not more "rugged" than their American competitors. The Kill/Death rates prove that

@joeblowe3180

6 ай бұрын

@@chaosXP3RT No they're not

Where I live, it's rare to see any military aircraft flying overhead. When I was a kid, one of these flew over. My neighbor came running up asking if I saw it. This plane looks cool whether it's flying or standing still.

Just a sleek and beautiful aircraft. i do believe ( correct me if i am wrong) this was the bomber shown in the gripping early 60's film " Fail Safe" with Henry Fonda and a young Larry Hagman that dropped the nuke on Moscow.

I love the custom models/animation that goes into your videos, but on top of that the information on each plane is so well done! Great work again. The B-58 is one sexy plane.

By far my favorite jet, so gorgeous. I only saw one once, when I was about 10 in 1965. I heard it, looked up, and it thundered over me so low I could read the USAF under the wing.

B-58 Hustler was very revolutionary aircraft of its time it wasn't designed with a computer it was designed with a slide rule. The engineers at convair did incredible job making this aircraft yes it only served for 10 years. Well it did its job and that's what it was supposed to do fly very fast not to get shot down and I was able to if it had to drop big thermonuclear weapons. I always want to see one fly and I never got a chance to hear the noise from that thing deafening I've Been Told.

@robertmaybeth3434

7 күн бұрын

I was in the Air Force c. 1980 at a state-side base in Kansas. A B-52's took off once in a while there. In the office I was working (ok, reading) late at night, a B-52 went to full power presumably for take off. No windows in the office, I knew this because every wall shook, even the floor, the roar was ear-splitting, you felt it in your bones, as the power was obscene. I had to be at least half a mile away no less and I marvelled how something man made could be so powerful.

One of my all time favorite aircraft. You can see it's design influence on the B-1

@rbaxter286

7 ай бұрын

'Area Rule' in the design is hardly a 'design influence'. That's like calling 'landing gear' a design influence'.

@gort8203

7 ай бұрын

What design influence? These two aircraft have very little in common. Delta wing vs swing wing. No horizontal tail vs a big tail, separately podded engines vs grouped engines. No bomb bay vs multiple bomb bays. Separate tandem crew positions vs conventional multi-place cockpit.

@GrantvsMaximvs

7 ай бұрын

@@gort8203 same mission: low level supersonic penetration. Same thin, long fuselage, same windscreen sweep, same dorsal hump, and realistically a swing wing is just a Delta wing in its high speed configuration

@gort8203

7 ай бұрын

@@GrantvsMaximvs Long thin fuselage describes most high-speed aircraft, as it is a basic aerodynamic principle rather than a styling cue. What you call a dorsal hump is not an actual dorsal hump like aircraft such as the A-4M have, it is simply the cockpit being elevated to provide view over the nose as in most aircraft, such as the B-17. Realistically speaking the swing wing is fundamentally and dramatically different in appearance, function, and performance compared to the delta wing of the B-58. Sorry, but the B-58 did not influence the design of the B-1 any more than any other previous aircraft did.

@dmillhoff

7 ай бұрын

That ICBM-launcher, with the extended tail, started looking like a B-1 from the side.

I served in the 305 BW. Early morning, before dawn, afterburner take offs were spectacular. 4 pink, purple, and blue exhaust plumes were a thing to behold.

Back in the 60s, I built this Revel B-58 model. It was quite different to the one available today in one big way. It carried an ATOMIC BOMB that could be dropped. The release was on the top behind the cock pit. Models available today are but a shadow in quality to those available in the 50s and 60s.

With project bullseye taken into account, the B-58 could have been the first Wild Weasel aircraft. So cool!

I spoke with a retired Colonel who flew the B-58 Hustler. It was displayed right outside his home at Chanute AFB Illinois. He said, "It flew like the devil"!, when describing it's flight characteristics. He flew it for two years before it was retired.

A six barrel 20mm gun was housed in the tail turret, not a 30mm.

@uurkisme

4 сағат бұрын

They said that. It started off with a 30mm design which was later scrapped for a 20mm to save weight

The film Fail Safe pictured the B 58s lifting off with full afterburners. In the film they were dubbed Vindicators. Superb drama with a shocking end. The Hustler remains my fav supersonic bomber.

@alanstevens1296

5 ай бұрын

The Vindicator was ficticious as it could cruise at 2,000 mph for 5,000 miles. But they did use a B-58 for the footage.

Not a mistake at all but a leap in technology that was ahead of its time. In the 1950s, there was a horrendous accident rate in the military, and pointing this case in percentage form is leaving out the actual numbers of other aircraft type accidents happening under more benign circumstances.

1:30 kind of a nitpick, but aerodynamic heating is not from 'friction' with the air. Gasses heat up when you compress them, so the heating occurs near the part of the airstream where the most compression happens.

@ronjon7942

7 ай бұрын

Not really a nitpick from my point of view, since I thought it was the former too. I just figured it was the heat from the air molecules hitting the skin, but I never felt satisfied with this being the mechanism that could, for example, melt a streamlined inconel structure at high mach numbers - especially in high altitude, rarefied air. The compression rationale makes so much more sense, I’m embarrassed I didn’t think of it. But when things happen outside one’s realm of experience, and one isn’t taught…. Thnx, brother

@kc5402

2 ай бұрын

Hot tip!

My dad was a mechanic before she got retired. The Hustler was one awesome aircraft.

The two SR71's taking off from the carrier deck at the end 30:30 is fantastic. I wonder!

@daveballard8673

7 ай бұрын

Almost... unbelievable.

@concordegaming5037

7 ай бұрын

That’s a DCS video from iceman_fox1, it’s pretty cool, nonetheless

@dannydaw59

7 ай бұрын

Did they takeoff from carriers? I never heard of that.

@daveballard8673

7 ай бұрын

@@dannydaw59 No. They never did. It does look convincing. Look at the tail numbers. Every actual tail number is unique.

The B-58 Hustler was one of my three top Air Force designs, strictly on the appearance/performance/sex appeal scale. The other two are the XB-70 Valkyrie and SR-71Blackbird. Strictly an personal selection on my part and ignoring the economics/practicality but amazing technology IMHO .

@Hattonbank

7 ай бұрын

Make it four, and add the F-104.

@GrandsonofKong

7 ай бұрын

@@Hattonbank Good point! I'll go as far as saying all the "Century" fighters as well.

@Hattonbank

7 ай бұрын

Agree, but for style, F-104/105/106 really had it.

Love the virtual Blackbird launch off the carrier at the end.

The graphics really helps show off the aircraft. We lived about 50 miles away from Edwards AFB. I saw one of these fly over as a kid. It was LOUD!

The computer artwork created for this and your other videos is simply outstanding.

In the movie "Fail Safe", in one scene the plane being flown was described as a B-58, except there was a pilot and "co-pilot" sitting side by side (literary license)? ;-)

I worked at General Dynamics/Fort Worth in the aerodynamic/performance group in the 1970s. I also grew up watching B-58s along Bomber Drive next to the main runway at Carswell AFB. I'd experienced B-52s and the ear-crushing KC-135A. But only the B-58 could be felt through the ground! Why?. As I studied aero, I hypothesized that, during takeoff rotation, standing shock waves formed behind the two inboard engines, reflected between the runway and the underside of the B-58A's big delta wing (to my knowledge, no other aircraft design trapped so much thrust in this manner). We would take guests to Bomber Drive when I was a boy. Besides an unparalleled visual experience for the time, I remember my grandmother saying she thought another B-58 would give her a heart attack! While the other jets were loud, only the B-58 could make your watch band rattle.

The B-58 is one of my favorite aircrafts. I would like a video on the Civilian transport version.

One of the challenges experienced by the B-58 is it was trapped in the EVTOL paradox that we see currently, the aircraft was actually carrying a heavy massive drag-inducing object just like an electric aircraft carrying it's heavy battery halfway into the flight. Awesome video 👍

I knew two people who flew B-58s. One pilot and one Defensive Systems Officer. They both loved the bird. The Defensive Systems Operator had bailed out of one.

Your models are gorgeous. Also, your blueprint transitions make the changes much easier to understand.

I joined the USAF in December, 1969. During Basic Training, one day we were shown a film about the B-58, a film produced by the Air Force, and it basically called the airplane junk. One incident described was when one of the four engines was "winding up", a fan blade from the turbine broke loose, shot through the engine housing and hit an airman in the throat. I was really surprised the Air Force would produce such a film essentially saying the airplane was a mistake to buy.

@evanfinch4987

7 ай бұрын

I'd like to see this film. Also, rotating parts shooting through engine nacelles happens on all jet aircraft.

* This was a hell of a plane and as a young guy was my favorite plane. This and the Northrup P61 Blackwidow.

This aircraft simply was a fighter jet sized bomber. A bit ahead of its time and a design that still today looks ahead of its time. The camoed B-58 at 20:26 looks drop dead gorgeous. A beautiful aircraft.

@jamesday1295

6 ай бұрын

It's a bit bigger than that. A good 50% bigger than an Eagle. There's a 50,000lb difference in max take off weight. Still a good looking plane 👌

I smile every time I see the Hustler mentioned... one of the shortest service histories of any Air Force fighter/Bomber, it was incredibly fast and sexy in the " Roger Ramjet" era of Jet design. Mt Grandfather was a B-17 Pilot in WW2 and stayed on after the war. During one of his " blow into town, shower us with gifts " trips...he gave me an actual Convair marketing model of the Hustler. I was so proud of that thing and it had a prominent display slot on my model Airplane shelf. My Mother scooped up everything into a huge trash bag and chucked out all my stuff when I joined the Army . Seeing my childhood bedroom stripped bare and turned into a Nursery for my Sister's kid was a kick in the balls. Welcome to adulthood😅

There might also have been another reason for cancellation. When I was working for Lockheed-Martin at NAS Whiting Field as a Contract Simulator Instructor for young Navy/USMC/USCG/Foreign flight students, we had a colleague who'd flown with the USAF. He claimed to have personally seen a B-58 explode at high altitude. Allegedly, the engines had a spike that would extend into the windstream ahead of the engine, so as to drop the air flow to sub-sonic speed for engine ingestion. He said that this spike was hydraulically extended, but that if the hydraulics failed, the spike would retract itself, allowing supersonic air to enter the compressor section. This would likely have caused an engine explosion.

@elfpimp1

3 ай бұрын

Damn.

I can't believe you missed the chance for the line "supersonic drop bears"...

@FoundAndExplained

7 ай бұрын

Oh don’t tell me that I’ll be sad all day….

Very good documentary and analysis! Except for 30:13 - where I had to LMAO at the thought of a SR-71 being *catapult launched from an aircraft carrier*. XD

They were based at LittleRock AFB when i was a kid. Seen a few fly over the house. Looked liked a spaceship to a 9yr old kid.

Cold War aviation was a beast of its own the likes of which we haven’t seen since

I had no idea there were so many variants of the B-58 Hustler. Excellent research.

As a child, i watched one of these beasts fly over my house at about 100meters AGL, and supersonic. A sonic boom that knocked 4-y.o. me off mt feet, and shattered windows (none on my house). This was circa 1955, on the olive bracch route down the Susquehanna river valley. A sight and event I will never forget!! There was no warning, just a quiet day and suddenly this HUGE aircraft and incredible concussion, and then it was gone.

@smark1180

5 ай бұрын

LOL! No you did not.

The Nazis didn't invent the delta wing, French airplane designer Nicholas Payen was building flying prototypes of his PA-22 before the P.13a was a gleam in Alexander Lippisch's eye.

The B58 was good at one thing, fly high and fast in straight lines. However in the 1960’s the goals became low high subsonic and able to manoeuvre, something the b58 could not do

@RMSTitanicWSL

7 ай бұрын

Incorrect. In fact, according to a number of B58 pilots, the B58 could actually outperform the B52 at subsonic speed and outmaneuver the B52 because of its delta wing. The B52s wings proved too flimsy for such maneuvering, and several B52 crashes happened because of this.

@control_the_pet_population

7 ай бұрын

​@@RMSTitanicWSL Except that isn't actually relevant. The B-58 was retired as SAC was accepting its first F-111s, which was a much more capable low level penetrator and much cheaper to maintain.

@RMSTitanicWSL

7 ай бұрын

@@control_the_pet_population It's highly relevant. The B58 was actually still cheaper on a plane-by-plane basis than the B52, despite it's maintenance costs.

@control_the_pet_population

7 ай бұрын

@@RMSTitanicWSL I think you are missing the point. The debate in DoD and USAF was never B-58 vs B-52. It was B-58 vs F-111. The F-111 could carry a comparable amount of warheads a longer distance in the low level penetration role and do it for much cheaper than the B-58. (Granted, the F-111 had it's own teething issues but they were largely worked out by 1971/72 and it was a premier low level penetrator for the next 25 years) Sure, the B-52 was more expensive per plane then the Hustler, but it could fly four times farther with four times the warheads. These weren't remotely comparable weapon systems and had different roles. The comparison you need to worry about is the F-111, which is what replaced it in service.

@RMSTitanicWSL

7 ай бұрын

@@control_the_pet_population It was very much about the B52 vs the B58. The B52 people put great effort into killing off the B58 program. Nuclear war was very much about reaction time. Several studies proved the B52s couldn't even deploy fast enough in the event of a surprise strike--which made it useless even though it could carry more, simply because they couldn't get off the ground quick enough to avoid being destroyed. Nor could the B52 fly four times further, especially at that point in time. The B52's current range is 8,800 miles, and the B58's range was 4,700 miles, but the B52 has undergone many improvements over the decades, and one of them was range. The earliest variants had a much shorter range than the current planes.

Little Rock AFB a B-58 testing and trimming its engines, one engine 'ran away' and tore itself off the wing and went down the flight line by itself.

The B58 is extremely slick and elegant.

I've always had a thing for the Hustler. This was a badass sexy hotrod. It's easily one of the coolest aircraft of all time.

The B-58 Hustler was just Sex with wings , I remember Jimmy Stuart in a Film where at the End he gets shown a B-58 in a hanger , it was Gorgous , but great Vid and Animations really well done.

@gort8203

4 ай бұрын

If the film you mean was the great "Strategic Air Command" starring Jimmy Stewart, it was a B-47 he was shown in the hangar. There is an Air Force publicity film of him climbing out of the cockpit of a B-58.

I recently made a ceramic model of the B-58, and it looks very similar to the real thing, from the silver color to the black nose, to the tail gun, even the fuel/bomb pod on the underside. I made it mainly to put it with my ceramic XB-70, F-104, T-38, F-4, F-5, and Learjet 25, and they are incredibly close in scale with each other The B-58 and the XB-70 will always be some of my favorite planes

@bobcastro9386

7 ай бұрын

Bravo! Three of the aircraft you mentioned are my favorites in terms of design: The XB-70, the B-58 and the LearJet 25 (Tip Tanks are a must).

@concordegaming5037

7 ай бұрын

@@bobcastro9386 Oh yeah, I added the LJ25 tip tanks as well

It was a great "Just in Time" cargo plane. Showed up at RCAF Base Trenton regularly to pick up parts from Erie Tech that were needed in a rush.

She definitely hustled into my heart. One of my favorites of the "old style" aircraft.

The same view of the uselessness was shared by the RAF. The AVRO 740 was to be the replacement for the V-Force bombers but with the advanced Soviet anti-aircraft SAMs taking out Gary Power's U2 the way was not clear for High and Fast and the interim solution before ICBMs for the nuclear deterrent entered service would be a subsonic low altitude penetration with a stand off missile. This was the V-Force going Low and Slow with Blue Steel and the B-52 with Houndog and then the cancelled Skybolt. The Pentagon having so much money could get a type into service earlier even though inefective.

@yukaribestwaifu

7 ай бұрын

avro 730? the 740 was a passenger jet if I recall correctly

@TurboMountTV

7 ай бұрын

Uhh the AVRO 730 was cancelled in 1957. Powers was shot down 1960

@rudyyarbrough5122

7 ай бұрын

It wasn't "Useless" but was made for an emergency that never occurred, thank God.

@huiyinghong3073

7 ай бұрын

Looks like a Mig 21

@BigDaddy-yp4mi

7 ай бұрын

Little known fact: a confirmed 14 missles were shot at him and other soviet sources from times past said it was 14 from that SINGLE missile battion group and that around 32-33 were shot on the entire flight at Powers....shooting down one of their own jets in the process.(just happened again in October 2023 in Ukrainian 'Special Operation' which translates exactly, not roughly, in English to INVASION)

Can't stop to think about cold war astethics, I mean to me desins by Convair where like the Cadillac of the skies!

Area rule did not help the airplane cruise at Mach 2. Area rule reduces drag in the transonic range and helps an airplane accelerate through that drag rise. Once the plane is fully supersonic area rule has done its work. The Mach 2.5 F-15 doesn't even have area rule because it has so much acceleration is doesn't need it.

I was MA Repoman and I'm extremely grateful that I never had to work on these friggin things!

When my dad transitioned from the B-47 to the B-58, he said for the first time he thought he might actually survive dropping a nuclear bomb. The B-58 could better out run the effects of the explosion than the B-47.

@ohwell2790

4 ай бұрын

Like the fact you mention the B-47. Went to tech school at Chanute AFB in 1964. Came from a small rural town and the first time I saw a B-47 it was just huge. Enjoyed every minute on the plane. Got to run engines take flight controls and put them back on and all that stuff. Out of tech school went to Edwards AFB and was a mechanic on the TB-58 6515 OMS 43151E chase for the XB-70 1964-1966.

The most beautiful and sexy plane ever built. Period.

Love the CGI of the SR-71 being catapulted off a carrier at the end of the video!

I was between 10-12 yrs old and built any type of plastic military model aircraft. $1 from my paper route was mailed , and by return postage I received a ready to assemble scale model of the new B58 Hustler by Lindberg. It was awesome. Narragansett Bay

This was a beautiful bomber. It even looked like something the enemy wouldn’t want to see coming.

One of the most beautiful planes ever. Sad that I never saw one fly. Wish a few were preserved for air shows.

@bobcastro9386

7 ай бұрын

You can see a real one at the Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton Ohio. I enjoyed walking around it but the B-58 was dwarfed by the XB-70 nearby.

@rescue270

7 ай бұрын

There is one preserved in the desert at the Pima Aviation Museum. It is in such good condition it looks as though it could be serviced and flown. I saw them occasionally, but my most memorable experience was when one went howling over my house at perhaps 1000 ft. This was about 1967. I was five years old. I did not see another one until I saw the one at Pima in 1999. It is still there.

Because of the short range, one American General quipped that it was the ideal bomber if you wanted to invade Canada. I’m sure the woman’s voice was called “Bitchin’ Betty” rather than Sexy Sally.

In a piece of Cold War trivia, footage of the B-58 was used as the “Vindicator” bomber in the movie Fail Safe.

Can you imagine how confused you'd be if you found one of the ejection pods, opened it, and found a bear inside?

@milol.akkaraprud8681

7 ай бұрын

*Joe Rogan liked this comment*

@bobcastro9386

7 ай бұрын

Even more so, imagine how confused the bear would be when you opened his pod and found he wasn't flying anymore. Until, that is, he realized that he was hungry after the excitement of his ejection and proceeds to eat you!

Very Interesting. However I'd like to see a video concerning what you showed at the end of that video, which was SR-71's being launched off a Aircraft Carrier. When did that occur ? Was that a Navy/Air Force joint mission of some kind ?

The first time I laid eyes on a photo of it, I loved it!

I first became aware of this bomber in the early 70’s when my parents gave me a book on the history of aircraft for Christmas, great gift. There was a few pictures of this bombers in the books, just loved it too death always felt this was such a beautiful looking aircraft

5:52 The B-58 was retired after a few years. Although, imo, it is by far the most beautiful nuclear-capable bomber to ever fly it was an operational failure. Would that apply to websites designed using the sponsor’s products? Asking for a friend.

Was waiting for F&E to do a video about this for awhile, and my wishes finally came true. Now all I'm waiting for is a video about the B-1R Lancer

@dalelumina3

7 ай бұрын

he should definitely make a b1r video its really obscure

In 1958, Buick used the "B-58" name to promote it's line of turbine based automatic transmissions.

61-2059 “Greased Lightning” is at the Strategic Air Command and Aerospace Museum in Ashland, Nebraska. I actually work there.

I did a very noticeable double take, my heart jumped out of my chest, and I held my breath when I saw the Hustler for the first time, parked at Pima. I don’t think I would have the same reaction had I run into Greta Garbo or Audrey Hepburn.

@darksu6947

7 ай бұрын

Audrey Hepburn was really something wasn't she?

@Hattonbank

5 ай бұрын

But Marilyn Monroe or Sophia Loren?

If you call the B-58 useless, then all miltary efforts were useless during the cold war.

@llynellyn

7 ай бұрын

Dude, the video literally explains why it was useless, by the time they built the thing and got it into service it was already redundant.

Supersonic Bears!!!!!! Falling from the sky on unsuspecting civilians... And ppl call me a conspiracy theorist? I say NOT SIR!

Amazing informative video! Keep it up!

lol imagine being the bears

I never got to see an operational B-58, but I was very imressed with the static diplay in the mid-1970s of the B-58 at (now decommissioned) Chanute Air Force Base at Rantoul, IL. The Chanute chapel boasted that it was the only Air Force chapel with a "Hustler" hanging out across the street. The airplane has been moved to Castle Air Museum (at the former Castle Air Force Base). Chanute also had a static displays of many aircraft types including the immense and beautiful B-36 which type carried "parasite" versions of the developing B-58 (the B-36 was also moved to the Castle Air Museum.)

That last clip of two SR-71s on board a carrier, with one being launched from the carrier must be from a computer animation

@Hattonbank

5 ай бұрын

I have seen an SR-71 on a USN carrier. (OK, the Intrepid museum carrier in NYC!).

26:26 Of course we want to see the passenger version! My god man! You know we are insatiable viewers right?

If they had replaced the gunner and tail cannon with a fuel tank I feel like it would have had a much longer service life.

@johnstuartsmith

7 ай бұрын

Trading the tail gunner and cannon for enough fuel to fly supersonic for another 10 or 15 minutes wouldn't have made a huge amount of difference.

@Hattonbank

7 ай бұрын

Surely there was no gunner? Was it not radar directed?

@gort8203

4 ай бұрын

@@Hattonbank Yes, the Defensive Systems Operator in the third cockpit seat operated the gun. He was much more than a gunner.

There are pbotos and videos where the CB-58 airframe was slung under a B-36 to be transported for testing. The B-58 would also do daily super sonic flights over Oklahoma City to test the acceptance of sonic booms over populated areas and damage to infrastructure

29:52 October 1963, Greased Lightning flew from Kadena Japan to Greenham in England, thus a Tokyo-London via Alaska, Northern Canada, Greenland and Iceland. Not as shown in video graphic over USSR. 🤨