Vulture B.1 ---- (RAF B-58 Hustler), 1/72 **FINISHED PICS PG 14**

[NARSES2]

That photo has always fascinated me. I always have this thought that the aircraft is a model as it just doesn't look large enough compared to the crew in my brain ? Never been able to shake it off. Needed to see a B-58 in the flesh I suppose.

Having seen the B-58 in person in a museum setting, it is indeed strange aircraft to size up, it seems both small and large at the same time, if that makes any sense. 

Makes perfect sense to me mate, thanks 

[TheChronicOne]

Uhhhhhhhhh...............           HMMMMMMMMMMM.......               


 

Now I'm very confused. I can't find ANY pods in this kit. Go back a couple pages and see where I took a pictures of everything.  No pods there so...............  (OOPS, actually, the one sprue I missed taking pics of is the one in question, it was the one that also had all the cockpit panels )    all those months ago when I bought this, did I buy a kit sans pods?!?!  I coulda swore the big one (MB1) was in here, at least, and the instructions definitely have it in there. According to the parts diagram and written instructions, there are two pods..  the instructions are a bit vague and says one is an MB pod and the other is the upper half of the twin pod (but no bottom pod!? ).  I can't find either at the moment but clearly remember working on the sprue they came on because some of the parts on that sprue were to be eliminated and I remember doing that. Since I was tunnel visioning on that aspect, I wasn't specifically looking for pods, so I can't remember if they were on the sprue or not?!   This is the type of thing that drives me mad. I'm going to have to hop on eBay and go way back to when I bought this thing and hope the listing is still there and hope there are pictures of the sprues that may help solve this mystery. I don't remember setting them aside anywhere but I may well have.. I just don't know. Pitfalls of having a shoddy memory.   

So, I guess now, rather than work on this, I'll be trying to ascertain what in the hell happened to me pods!      Sheesh, always something man. 

[steelpillow]

But if you are going to give it a Blue Steel or a spaceplane or something, what does it matter?

BTW, the Hustler was small for a US nuclear bomber, its length of 97 ft compares to the Valkyrie at 189 ft or the B-1 at 143 ft. Mind you, the British TSR-2 was only 89 ft. and the French Mirage IV a mere 77 ft.

[TheChronicOne]

Sounds good, I was already well on my way contemplating not having anything at all hanging from it so if I don't produce these pods pretty soon I'll just go that route. 

[TheChronicOne]

I found the pods! I remember now; I took them out at the very beginning of the build.      ..........and then set them aside then proceeded to forget all about them.


Oh well. I've mentioned at times that I have a bad memory. 



Here's the cool part, though, I'm going to model this one "clean." I'm taking the two pods and all the nuclear bombs and putting them into the parts stash and will just make a slick bomber.      This is good because it will save considerable time and effort.  This thing will be sexy AF, though, without the "baggage" and she's long-legged to boot so it should make for an interesting subject.

[NARSES2]

Maybe, just maybe when the U.S. supplied the Hustler to the U.K. the nuclear options were removed ? The U.K. used them either in the conventional role as quick in, drop the load and quicker out bombers  or just in the P.R. role ?

[scooter]

Maybe, just maybe when the U.S. supplied the Hustler to the U.K. the nuclear options were removed ? The U.K. used them either in the conventional role as quick in, drop the load and quicker out bombers  or just in the P.R. role ?

Or SEAD/Iron Hand

[zenrat]

Maybe, just maybe when the U.S. supplied the Hustler to the U.K. the nuclear options were removed ? The U.K. used them either in the conventional role as quick in, drop the load and quicker out bombers  or just in the P.R. role ?

Or SEAD/Iron Hand

And there's your "V" name - Vild Veasel...

[scooter]

Maybe, just maybe when the U.S. supplied the Hustler to the U.K. the nuclear options were removed ? The U.K. used them either in the conventional role as quick in, drop the load and quicker out bombers  or just in the P.R. role ?

Or SEAD/Iron Hand

And there's your "V" name - Vild Veasel...

[sandiego89]

The proposed version for Australia was with iron bombs. Believe I have a nice picture of the proposal in my B-58 book. Will dig it out tonight.

[TheChronicOne]

hha!!! 


Good stuff, here, folks. Actually, yeah, I WAS sort of thinking of PR Hustler....   The pods instead of nukes, have camera arrays and fuel.

But hell, I was thinking along even more simplistic terms. Perhaps it is a fully fledged nuclear bomber and carries the MB1 pod and all the nukes, just this one is at/does air shows so it's stripped down and light so it can do a bit of manouvering and stuff and to make it look sexy. 

[PR19_Kit]

.......... do a bit of manouvering and stuff and to make it look sexy. 

I'm trying to imagine a B-58 'manouvering' with all four J-79s in burner. The turning circle would cover maybe four or five UK counties! 

[Weaver]

I know you don't want to complicate things, but just food for thought: the original proposed configuration for the B-58 had the engine pods paired on the inner pylons only (like B-47 inners) and slipper-style fuel tanks in the outer pylon positions (no actual pylons, just the tank blended into the wing). The Convair engineers seemed the really like this layout and several alternative proposals went back and forth between this and the four-separate-engines layout.

Name-wise, here's a left-field idea for you. The RAF/MoD might have taken the view that 'V' names were only to be the standard for the first generation deterrent bombers, and that the next generation should move on to the next letter of the alphabet in the way that navy ship classes sometimes do. That would mean the RAF B-58s having a 'W' name:

Warrior
Warhammer
Woden
Wolf
Wolverine
Wolfhound
Watchman
Warlock
Warlord
Werewolf
Wrangler
Witch

On 'V' names, if the RAF knew they were getting B-58s in the late 1950s, they could always have reserved 'Vanguard' for it and told Vickers to find some other name for their airliner...

[PR19_Kit]

On 'V' names, if the RAF knew they were getting B-58s in the late 1950s, they could always have reserved 'Vanguard' for it and told Vickers to find some other name for their airliner...

Would it have had a 15" gun turret in that case? 

Now THAT'D be a Whiff and a half! 

[zenrat]

...Name-wise, here's a left-field idea for you. The RAF/MoD might have taken the view that 'V' names were only to be the standard for the first generation deterrent bombers, and that the next generation should move on to the next letter of the alphabet in the way that navy ship classes sometimes do. That would mean the RAF B-58s having a 'W' name:

Warrior
Warhammer
Woden
Wolf
Wolverine
Wolfhound
Watchman
Warlock
Warlord
Werewolf
Wrangler
Witch

On 'V' names, if the RAF knew they were getting B-58s in the late 1950s, they could always have reserved 'Vanguard' for it and told Vickers to find some other name for their airliner...

Has there ever been an aircraft called the Wolverine?