B-58 Hustler

[Mossie]

Nice find!  Wing root mounted engines are another possibilty, guess it'd resemble a mini Vulcan?

[Maverick]

Funnily enough, I thought about engine pods (specifically off a B-52 in parts).  I wasn't sure if it was a viable deal though as I didn't look up the specs on thrust, etc betwixt the two configs, but it's a nice surprise to see the idea was thought of IRL.

Regards,

Mav

[elmayerle]

Hmm, I've been considering a much less ambitious re-engining ofthe B-58, replacing the J79s with PW1120s.  The latest versions of teh Aerofax B-58 book have pics of a stretched and enlarged B-58 study that was to be powered with J75s (any one for using Iroquois engines instead?).  Lots of potential there.

With regards to armament, wsn't there a study, to the point of aerodynmaic flight teseting of an air-launched IRBM fitted to the B-58?  I've also been tinkering with the thought of going down to one or two seats with upgraded engines and carrying a couple ASAT missiles.  SEvarl interesting possibilities here.

[dy031101]

Could always fit a pair of podded engines (B-52 type) as on one of the early mock-ups.

For some reason I feel that the B-58 looks faster that way. 

Besides, it seems to leave room for more external fuel tanks.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Unfortunately the paired pods (while they worked better at subsonic speeds), produced substantially more drag as you got into the transonic, (in this case, right near the speed of sound), and supersonic speed-range.  That's why they went with individual nacelles.


KJ_Lesnick 

[Mossie]

And if they had gone with double pods what would Gerry Anderson have done???

(Many of the 'extras' in the Gerry Anderson shows used Hustler engine pods).

[Aircav]

Cham-chams 

[upnorth]

I know we've done threads on this quite a bit, but I've finally decided to earmark a 1/144 Academy B-58 in my stash for a British Wiff project.

Its a ways off from starting yet, but a few things I've decided:

Hemp over grey scheme

Photo recce bird from Operation Granby

Reduction of crew to two

Revise cockpit glazing to reduce amount of framing and improve visibility

Shorten and strengthen landing gear

A re-engining is most certainly going to happen, but I'm not sure (barring the Spey) would have been of a similar diameter to the J-79, but perhaps shorter and lighter and of similar thrust class in the late 70s or early 80s so that a re-engining could be done to the RAF fleet with minimum changes to the engine pods themselves. What was out there at the time in British engines that would have worked?

I have parts in my spares that will allow me to make some nice blow in doors for the engine pods, but the fronts of the pods are molded with the turbine face and shock cones in them so I'll have to bore them out. If they were re-engined with a shorter engine than the J-79 so the turbine face sat further back in the pod, would there be any logic to keeping the shock cones in the intakes, or could they be dispensed with?

I'm having the RAF take the B-58 in the 60s (with J-79s) and then carry out a major fleet wide mid life upgrade program in the late 70s and early 80s and retire the last ones right after the first gulf war.

I was also thinking of a name to give it that would work along the lines of the RAF naming their bombers after cities. Being a Convair product, it had a Texas origin so I was thinking Houston might work well. If I'm not totally misinformed there is also a Houston somewhere in the UK as well, no? If there is, is it worth naming a bomber after it?

[Weaver]

A re-engining is most certainly going to happen, but I'm not sure (barring the Spey) would have been of a similar diameter to the J-79, but perhaps shorter and lighter and of similar thrust class in the late 70s or early 80s so that a re-engining could be done to the RAF fleet with minimum changes to the engine pods themselves. What was out there at the time in British engines that would have worked?

One of the principle advantages of podded engines is precisely that they CAN be replaced with bigger units without major changes. Shorts in Belfast are engine pod specialists, so if the RAF wanted Speys (the logical choice), there'd be little reason not to fit them in new, fatter pods. I appreciate that that doesn't help your modelling problem, but that's the reality.

I have parts in my spares that will allow me to make some nice blow in doors for the engine pods, but the fronts of the pods are molded with the turbine face and shock cones in them so I'll have to bore them out. If they were re-engined with a shorter engine than the J-79 so the turbine face sat further back in the pod, would there be any logic to keeping the shock cones in the intakes, or could they be dispensed with?

The shock cones would have to stay at the inlet. It's their position relative to the intake lip, not the engine, that's critical in managing supersonic shock waves.

[TsrJoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston,_Scotland

the Houston i know up this neck of the woods next to the Royal Ordanance Facility ...

[Jennings]

One of the principle advantages of podded engines is precisely that they CAN be replaced with bigger units without major changes.

Welllll.... yes and no.  You couldn't, for instance, replace the B-58's podded J-79s with podded J-85s and get away with it.  No only would the brick not move off the hardstand, but the c/g would be all seriously out of whack.  That's an extreme example, but unless the engines were very similar in weight, it could involve a serious re-design of the pylons as well.

Shorter landing gear?  It'd drag the ground!

J

[elmayerle]

How about RR and P&W working together on a variant of the PW1120 to replace the B-58's J79s?  It would be a logical and straight-forward approach that wouldn't require near the engineering time and money that using a larger engine would.  I can see improved avionics allowing them to go to a two-man cockpit and placing more electronics in place of the third seat (been thinking that such an upgraded two-seater with a couple ASATs under it and the fuel-only pod would look quite spiffing.

[Weaver]

One of the principle advantages of podded engines is precisely that they CAN be replaced with bigger units without major changes.

Welllll.... yes and no.  You couldn't, for instance, replace the B-58's podded J-79s with podded J-85s and get away with it.  No only would the brick not move off the hardstand, but the c/g would be all seriously out of whack.  That's an extreme example, but unless the engines were very similar in weight, it could involve a serious re-design of the pylons as well.

Shorter landing gear?  It'd drag the ground!

J

True, but then if you're designing a new pod from scratch, you can set the position of the engine within it to keep the CofG correct. A Spey-on-J79 pods might have the shorter fatter tubofan in the middle, with a section of jetpipe behind it. The only problem I could see with that might be not having enough duct length to smooth the airflow ahead of the fan, but then the flow into a Nimrod's Spey's is pretty short and un-smooth, and they seem to work well enough (yes I know supersonic is different).

Here's another idea: 2 x Concorde-spec Olympus...........

[Brian da Basher]

Here's a thought, how about doing away with the engine pods and having "boxed" engines like on the Concorde and XB-70?

Or if you've got the spares, you could just hang normal engines off of pylons like on commercial aircraft.

Brian da Basher

[Weaver]

A Spey-202 (Phantom version with afterburner) was only 10cm shorter than a J-79, 10cm greater in diameter, and 250lb heavier, which makes sense, since it didn't make that much difference to the external lines of the F-4K/M Phantom. Scale that down to 1/72ns, and the increased diameter of a Spey pod would be barely noticeable.


Rounded figures, gleaned from Wiki.