PDA

View Full Version : B-58 Hustler article.



Waldo.Pepper
01-11-2008, 06:01 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/B-58/AirSpace2006.jpg

Eight page article from Smithsonian Air and Space - January 2006 exploring possible explanations for the untimely demise of such a stunner.

OCR (wordsearchable) PDF format BTW.

http://www.zshare.net/download/6423610ffa967e/

Waldo.Pepper
01-11-2008, 06:01 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/B-58/AirSpace2006.jpg

Eight page article from Smithsonian Air and Space - January 2006 exploring possible explanations for the untimely demise of such a stunner.

OCR (wordsearchable) PDF format BTW.

http://www.zshare.net/download/6423610ffa967e/

I_KG100_Prien
01-11-2008, 07:28 PM
Thanks for sharing, never knew too much about the B-58 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mortoma
01-11-2008, 09:17 PM
As a kid in Indiana we'd occasionally see these fly over as there was a squadron of them stationed at Grissom AFB, near the small town of Peru. That came to an end about 1972 or so as they went out of service and were replaced by the F-111s Ardvarks. Used to see those fly over too.

I now live near Salt Lake City, Utah and there was one that crashed into the Great Salt Lake once. Something went wrong, one of the two crew was able to eject but the other went down with the ship. This plane had advanced electrics/electronics for it's time but they never got things to work quite right, thus the crashes.

woofiedog
01-11-2008, 10:23 PM
Quite the Bird in it's day... at work now but will read this article when I get home and can download it. Thank's for posting.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00095.jpg

-HH- Beebop
01-12-2008, 12:58 AM
I remember this bird quite well. I had a very detailed plastic toy one that my father gave me one Christmas. It had retracting gear and a HUGE bomb that would release. I loved bombing the Commies for hours at a time and practicing a bombing maneuver I saw in Popular Mechanics coverage of the plane where you pull up short of the target and lob it in. It even had an ejecting pilot with a parachute!
My favorite bomber of the era. Looks menacing and futuristic.
Thanks Waldo!

Nice looking skin woofiedog. MSFS I assume?

woofiedog
01-12-2008, 01:40 AM
-HH- Beebop... A screenshot I did from SF/WoV/WoE game series. It's an addon [done by USAFMTL] and they do have the Nuc's on board as part of their armment load also! LoL

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00079.jpg

woofiedog
01-12-2008, 06:08 AM
Very interesting article! And talk about speed...

When the airplane was light, and the four General Electric J79 engines were in afterburner, the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">B-58 could climb at an astonishing 46,000 feet per minute. </span>All that power was put on display during the early 1960s when the B-58 fleet broke a number of speed and range records (with aerial refueling). It won the Thompson Trophy, Bendix Trophy, France's Blériot Cup, the MacKay Trophy, and the Harmon Trophy. Howard Bialas and his crew were the only bomber crew ever to receive the Thompson Trophy.

Again Thank's for posting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Should add there is a lot of Fine reading at the Air & Space Smithsonian site... http://www.airspacemag.com/

M2morris
01-12-2008, 07:19 AM
The hussler was one on my favorite planes when I was a kid next to the X-15, I had a plastic model of a B-58 also. I saw an interview with Jimmy Stewart once and he said he got a chance to go up in a B58 and it was like being in a rocket going strait up. I will read the article now, thanks Waldo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEBillfish
01-12-2008, 07:52 AM
Nice, like I've always said the prop plane I found most beautiful was the Constellation, yet for jets was the B-58....Asked my husband again to be sure and guess his cousin flew one of these as well as B-52's for SAC.

Heliopause
01-12-2008, 08:01 AM
Thanks for the info, great reading material http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GreyFox5
01-12-2008, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by -HH- Beebop:
I remember this bird quite well. I had a very detailed plastic toy one that my father gave me one Christmas. It had retracting gear and a HUGE bomb that would release. I loved bombing the Commies for hours at a time and practicing a bombing maneuver I saw in Popular Mechanics coverage of the plane where you pull up short of the target and lob it in. It even had an ejecting pilot with a parachute!
My favorite bomber of the era. Looks menacing and futuristic.
Thanks Waldo!

Nice looking skin woofiedog. MSFS I assume? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That big bomb was actually a fuel tank/or munitions system. Those J79s go through fuel very quickly.

The B-58 is my favorite bomber - it's better looking that the B-52

crucislancer
01-12-2008, 09:17 AM
Awesome article, Waldo. Thanks!

My Dad recently told me a couple of stories related to the B-58. His Boy Scout troop had a trip to a local USAF base one day, and while they were up in the control tower word came down that all unauthorized persons had to go. The troop was escorted to the middle of the tower so there was no windows, and they waited for about 20 mins as they could hear something big obviously land. When they were able to leave the tower, they noticed a hanger that was cordoned off with security. He asked his uncle about it, a career USAF officer who was a navigator on B-24s during WWII. He told my dad he would give him the scoop later. It turns out that it was the B-58, still top secret at the time. His uncle was part of a few war games involving the B-58, and he was very impressed with the performance of the bomber. Sad that it didn't last very long.

BillyTheKid_22
01-12-2008, 10:59 AM
http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/522/USAF_Hustler_B58_n_Thud1.jpg

woofiedog
01-12-2008, 11:27 AM
GreyFox5... the pods are both fuel and warhead combined.

The B-58 did not have a bomb bay but could carry one nuclear weapon externally with the centerline fuel pod fitting over it. Four weapons, whether nuclear or conventional, could be carried on external hard points if the fuel pod was eliminated, thus degrading the aircraft's range further.

The pod or pods carried beneath the aircraft are also largely filled with fuel. The single 57-foot-long MB pod contains mostly fuel. The 54-foot-long lower element of the two-part TC pod, designed to be dropped before run-in to the target, is filled entirely with fuel, while the 35-foot-long upper pod contains at least 2,450 Ib. of fuel as well as a warhead.

Billy_BigBoy
01-12-2008, 01:16 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Thanks for sharing! I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif that plane.

Sergio_101
01-12-2008, 05:01 PM
B-58 could sustain MACH2 until it ran out of gas, no after burner required!
Typically AB was only used for takeoff and fast climbs.A B-58 could fly into self destruction.
It was a severly over powered aircraft.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2711

"The official time for the New York to Los Angeles flight was 2 hours, 15 minutes, and 50.08 seconds. The total round trip time was 4 hours, 41 minutes, 14.98 seconds. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We averaged 1214.71 miles per hour for the duration of the flight."

Sergio

LEXX_Luthor
01-12-2008, 05:28 PM
Yough woofie, I'm using ThirdWire's A-7 cockpit, reskinned and with canopy frames removed, inside Pasko's B-58 external model. I think this is how they are doing it in their WW1 sim, since so much of the external model should be visible from the cockpit of WW1 aircraft, a visual feature that diminished as aircraft gained performance in WW2 and beyond.

If you'd like to see more, go here ~&gt; http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4410

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Cockpits/2.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Cockpits/img00007.jpg

Sergio_101
01-12-2008, 06:06 PM
I was in the USAF, only a few years after the USAF killed the B-58,
we all knew it was killed to early.

It was 50 years ahead of it's time.

With todays avionics and engines it would
be a world beater again.
Alas, all but a couple were scrapped.

I only know of seven more or less intact survivors and one derelict.

Sergio

Sergio_101
01-12-2008, 08:03 PM
Thanks for the excellent article.
The luftwhiners will be screaming about this one.

NO GERMAN TECH USED.

Not on any of the convair delta's.
XF-92, F-102 or F-106 and the B-58.
All home grown AMERICAN ideas.
But I knew that.
Nice to see it in print in a creditable publication.

Sergio

LEBillfish
01-12-2008, 08:25 PM
p.s......50+ year old technology for those forgetting to do the math...

mortoma
01-12-2008, 08:55 PM
I bet I'm the only one on the forums that have actually seen the Hustler fly back in its heyday. I saw one fly quite low over the town I went to grade school in the spring of 1970.

mortoma
01-12-2008, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
p.s......50+ year old technology for those forgetting to do the math... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then why do you like flying simulated aircraft in our 1946 that are 70 years old and even more primitive? Did you forget to do the math??

Sergio_101
01-12-2008, 08:59 PM
Look at those marvelous machines of the mid 1950s to the early 1960s.

The
XB-70
A-12 (SR-71)
B-58

The Century series fighters,
F-100
F-101
F-102
F-104
F-105
F-106
And the ultimate screw up by the USAF the F-107.
F-107 "Ultra Sabre" was a world beater, and it got passed over.

The sheer volume of ultra high performance aircraft types
turned out by American industry is staggering.

Add to the list

Vought Crusader
MD F-4
NAA Rockwell RA-5 Vigilanty

And the only true supersonic seaplane, the delta wing Convair XF2Y-1 Sea Dart.

And all of those listed above flew their maiden flights before 1965 (most in the 1950s).

And my all time favorite. This one peggs the "wierd $hit O meter"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/699px-P6M_SeaMaster.jpg/300px-699px-P6M_SeaMaster.jpg
The Martin P6M Sea Master. There is good data
that this monster exceeded Mach 1 on at least one test flight!

Sergio

roybaty
01-12-2008, 09:01 PM
I built a model of one of these as a kid, even had the ejection capsule (ejecting at high altitude, and high mach you needed more than a pressure suit and overalls to survive)

I always thought it was a sweet plane.

berg417448
01-12-2008, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
I bet I'm the only one on the forums that have actually seen the Hustler fly back in its heyday. I saw one fly quite low over the town I went to grade school in the spring of 1970. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not the only one. I saw one landing at Andrews AFB in 1967.

roybaty
01-12-2008, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">RA-5 Vigilanty </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also built a model the bomber version of the A-5 as a kid, the bomb ejection method was how shall I say...none standard http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

Wow all that model building, man was I a dork http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

LEBillfish
01-13-2008, 12:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
p.s......50+ year old technology for those forgetting to do the math... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then why do you like flying simulated aircraft in our 1946 that are 70 years old and even more primitive? Did you forget to do the math?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

have some problem or issue mortoma?.....Or do you not find this aircraft amazing for 50+ year old technology?

Impress us with your response...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

R_Target
01-13-2008, 08:49 AM
I always buy Hustler for the articles. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mortoma
01-13-2008, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
I bet I'm the only one on the forums that have actually seen the Hustler fly back in its heyday. I saw one fly quite low over the town I went to grade school in the spring of 1970. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not the only one. I saw one landing at Andrews AFB in 1967. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is really cool and you beat me. I think a landing beats a flyover, sort of.

mortoma
01-13-2008, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
p.s......50+ year old technology for those forgetting to do the math... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then why do you like flying simulated aircraft in our 1946 that are 70 years old and even more primitive? Did you forget to do the math?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

have some problem or issue mortoma?.....Or do you not find this aircraft amazing for 50+ year old technology?

Impress us with your response...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I thought you were making fun of the Hustler because it is so old and it's technology is very old. But you really apparently meant to praise it for being ahed of it's time. I thought you were insulting the bird.

LEBillfish
01-13-2008, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
p.s......50+ year old technology for those forgetting to do the math... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then why do you like flying simulated aircraft in our 1946 that are 70 years old and even more primitive? Did you forget to do the math?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

have some problem or issue mortoma?.....Or do you not find this aircraft amazing for 50+ year old technology?

Impress us with your response...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I thought you were making fun of the Hustler because it is so old and it's technology is very old. But you really apparently meant to praise it for being ahed of it's time. I thought you were insulting the bird. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I find that an impressive response....~Salute~!!!

K2

woofiedog
01-13-2008, 04:07 PM
LEXX_Luthor...

Wow... Extremely Mint work on the Cloud Program and the Cockpit rework for the B-58[ just happens to be on my favorite Rides list for bombers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif]... those screens are something! That is some Wicked work on these programs.

Both look Great... Thank's for the link.

LEXX_Luthor
01-13-2008, 04:54 PM
Thanskie!

B-57? I figure that would make a replacement for the B-45 supporting longer range strike aircraft flying deep into PVO lands, then a bit later, the B-66.

woofiedog
01-13-2008, 05:24 PM
"B-57"... Sorry... Yes by all means... B-58! LoL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

roybaty
01-13-2008, 05:32 PM
F-107
http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f-107_3.jpg

That just doesn't look right for some reason http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif.

I myself love the F-104 Starfighter, and yes...I built a model of that one too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

So pretty:
http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f-104_1.jpg

woofiedog
01-15-2008, 05:20 AM
LEXX_Luthor... I'm at lost with 2 items with the Cirrus Clouds & the Siberian Sun Mods.

I can't seem to have the Cirrus clouds overhead... but I have the clouds that are on the horizon.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00003.jpg

And a question with the Siberian Sun... how do you change in between the different sun effects?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00002.jpg

Wtornado_439th
01-15-2008, 05:12 PM
I was all happy to open this thread and expected
an article with pictures from Hustler I figured
they weren't too dirty.


dissappointed here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Nice dog pic woffie!

Bremspropeller
01-15-2008, 07:16 PM
http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f-107_3.jpg

Can't help, but those intakes just seem calling "no high alpha pleeze!!11"

Pull back on the stick and *cough cough* there goes the engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Okay, it's more like "*BAM* there goes the engine..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Sergio_101
01-16-2008, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f-107_3.jpg

Can't help, but those intakes just seem calling "no high alpha pleeze!!11"

Pull back on the stick and *cough cough* there goes the engine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Okay, it's more like "*BAM* there goes the engine..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truth is it flew well, no issues more than the usual prototype related bugs.
It easily out flew it's competetor the F-105.
There seems to be no clear reason why the USAF rejected it.
The inlet had problems in the aircraft supplied to NASA, but
it was because there were never any spare parts made
for the variable inlet and it's actuators.

There was no airflow issues even in high angle of attack flight.

Only problem I have found in print is the obvious lack of rear visibilaty.

It also turned like a demon, even at supersonic speeds. It had full flight controls
past mach1 due to a all flying vertical fin
and independant horizontal tail surfaces.

I agree, it appears a bit akward in apperance.

But when it first flew only the Vought Crusader III could
come near it in overall performance.

One plane that could have made the Vietnam air war very different.

Sergio

Bremspropeller
01-16-2008, 05:15 AM
Turned like a
http://military.sakura.ne.jp/aircraft/photo1/1_f-3.jpg
huh?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One plane that could have made the Vietnam air war very different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

But no a/c helps with 'tard leadership... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Breeze147
01-16-2008, 05:39 AM
There is a nice one on display at the Texas Air Museum in Galveston.

I was in the Air Force during it's heyday but never saw one. I had a buddy who was reassigned to that base in Indiana that had them and he was very excited to be going there to be around B-58's.

woofiedog
01-16-2008, 06:09 AM
Bremspropeller... Do you mean... turns like a F3H-2 Demon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Great 50's fighter... I find it one of the better of the missile armed bird's with it's afterburner you can catch up to those enemy bomber flights. Plus you can fire outside of their defensive gun range.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00067.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00125.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00123.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-16-2008, 08:12 AM
I'd take an F8U over the F3H any day the week.

woofiedog
01-16-2008, 08:56 AM
Bremspropeller... The F8U is a Great bird... but the F3H-2 is more ajile in the game. Although not as fast as the Crusader.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00010.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00017.jpg

Bremspropeller
01-16-2008, 09:12 AM
I always consider the F8U an unfair ride - for the AI http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

That a/c is pure pwnage.
I rarely come home with less than 3-4 kills...in the campaign that is...

LEXX_Luthor
01-16-2008, 09:14 PM
woofiedog:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LEXX_Luthor... I'm at lost with 2 items with the Cirrus Clouds & the Siberian Sun Mods.

I can't seem to have the Cirrus clouds overhead... but I have the clouds that are on the horizon.

And a question with the Siberian Sun... how do you change in between the different sun effects?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi woofie. Best we talk at the ThirdWire forums, Modders Corner forum. I have a "Siberian Sun" thread there, although the cirrus clouds are more basic to start with. I need to releace an update for those, very old.

ah, here ~&gt; http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/

woofiedog
01-16-2008, 10:13 PM
LEXX_Luthor... Thank's!

Will check out the ThirdWire forum thread.

Sergio_101
01-17-2008, 01:12 AM
F8U-3

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/XF8U-3_2_from_Vought.jpg

"The XF8U-3 first flew on June 2, 1958. During
testing, the aircraft reached Mach 2.6
at 35,000 ft (10,670 m), with Vought projecting
a top speed of Mach 2.9."

"NASA pilots flying at NAS Patuxent River routinely intercepted and defeated U.S. Navy Phantom IIs in mock dogfights, until complaints from the Navy put an end to the harassment."

Credit for text and photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F8U-3_Crusader_III

Another world beater that did not make the cut.

Sergio

Bremspropeller
01-17-2008, 08:22 AM
Yeah but the F-4 was, in hindsight, the clearly superior plane.

More Missiles, better bombload, twin-engined, twin-manned.

GreyFox5
01-17-2008, 09:39 AM
Hope this doesn't turn into a rant but the F-4 was well a pig - Fast at the cost of large amounts of Fuel. Agile due to the huge engines. Aerodynamically the bent wings at the ends and the cant down elevators were due to shortcomings with the wing design being so short. The Navy wanted twin engine jets for reliability that's why the F-8 was phased out and it was getting on in years. But what knucklehead thought removing the guns was a good idea? Anyway it was a hit since the pilots flying the F4 were well trained and highly disciplined until the advent of the Top Gun school most pilots had less than average dogfighting skills from what I read. My 2 cents about the F4 - the Cadillac of the late 60's - late 70's

Bremspropeller
01-17-2008, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But what knucklehead thought removing the guns was a good idea? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was the Navy's idea.
MDD initially designed the F4H to be equipped with guns.

Brutom
01-17-2008, 02:42 PM
Thanks for the link.

Bremspropeller
01-17-2008, 04:08 PM
If you want a real azz-kicker, check this out:

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/368/image1uc3af4.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
01-18-2008, 12:31 AM
we will never know what had happend if the Luftwaffe had choosen this one
http://www.livre-aviation.com/upd/images-produits/gin044w.jpg

and IIRC the Marinefliegers first choice was the Buccaneer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sergio_101
01-18-2008, 02:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
we will never know what had happend if the Luftwaffe had choosen this one
http://www.livre-aviation.com/upd/images-produits/gin044w.jpg

and IIRC the Marinefliegers first choice was the Buccaneer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F11F was a wonderful bird with a painfully flawed engine.
The Wright J65-W-18 turbojet was never nearly reliable
and forced the early demise of an otherwise excellent aircraft.
Problem was that there was no suitable replacement
that could fit in the tight F11F's engine bay.

Mediocre performance coupled with miserable engine reliability
and the advent of the F4 Phantom spelled the demise of the F11F.

The USN went through a laundry list of jet fighters
in the 1950s. Some outright dangerous, some only guilty
of bad timing. Things were changing so dang rapidly!

The redesigned fuselage of the F11F-1F
allowed the use of the successful, RELIABLE and more
powerful J-79 turbojet.
Again, to late, missed the buss.

Sergio

JG53Frankyboy
01-18-2008, 02:55 AM
according to Corky Meyer (Grumman testpilot) Steinhoff said to him in the 1970s that chosing the F-104 over the F11F-1F was the biggest mistake in his life !

beside the troubles the F-104 had, it was most propably superiour as a low level, nuclear strike aircraft , as it was first used in the german Fighterbomberwings (using US nukes, that were stationed on every german JBG base. But official Germany was sure not nuclear armed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ). but after the NATO changed to the flexible response , the Supertiger would have been for sure superiour in the role as a tactial fighter.
and most propably is was also superiour in the classic dogfight.................. a possible MiG-Beater http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

woofiedog
01-18-2008, 01:17 PM
Quote... a possible MiG-Beater http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The F11-FI moded by Fleet-Defender and Team is a extremely Mint fighter against the Mig-17's and the Soviet bomber fleet's.

Speed, nicely armed with 4 early Sidewiders and 4 20mm's to give it a little bit of a punch. And last of all... it cuts the air with no problem.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00021.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v438/woofiedog/img00026.jpg

berg417448
01-18-2008, 01:38 PM
I'm so old that I actually saw the Blue Angels when they were flying the F-11 Tiger...Twice! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EmKen
01-18-2008, 03:01 PM
I think we all know why the Fedreral Republic of Germany bought the F-104 "Widowmaker" -it was less to do with any proper evaluation of rival aircraft types and more to do with massive bribes by Lockheed!! The USAF wouldn't touch it with a bargepole if they could get away with it, but Lockheed needed plenty of dosh to develop the SR 71 and U-2.

Bremspropeller
01-18-2008, 04:51 PM
The F11F is pretty much to the Navy what the F-100 was to the Air Force.
Unfortunately, the F8U came out and had very good performance all across the board, so the F11F was pretty much obsolete.
Unlike the years before, the Navy was to standardize it's fleet and exotic fighters like the Cutlass disappeared for good.
As well as the "low-end" machines with potential.
The Navy already had a winning team by '60/'61 with the F8U/ F4H combo. Further fighters weren't neccessary.
By the time the F-14 appeared on the first carriers, the F-8 had gone, too.

The "Tiger" was a decent fighter, but it didn't have enough "juice" up it's tail.

The F-104 was a very god choice for it's initial use (read: up 'till ~1967) as a low-flying interdictor, carrying a single nuke way beyond the iron curtain. Coming back was not part of the plan anyway.
Things changed when the mission got more complicated with the NATO's "flexible response".
The 104 just couldn't carry enough iron to fulfill it's new task.

Thatswhy Germany went on to buy the F-4F and RF-4E. What was initially thought to be an interim solution untill the Tornado's arrival, pretty much lasts on till today.

Meanwhile, the RF-4Es have been replaced by Tornados ('94). Typhoons have started to take over the F-4F's role. Both FBWs were converted into full Fighter Wings (JaboG 36 =&gt; JG 72 and JaboG 35 =&gt; JG 73). JG 72 has been disbanded, JG 73 transitioned to the Tiffie in 2004, JG 74 is currently undergoing transition and JG 71 is going to soldier on with the good ole Rhino untill the last F-4s have been phased out in 2012.


So much for interim solutions.

Sergio_101
01-19-2008, 01:24 AM
Who is doing major phase overhaul on F4 Phantoms these days?
We used to do it at a remanufacturing plant at Hill AB Utah.
I saw F4s in Luftwaffe markings there (in the early 1980s).
The facility has been converted to major airframe
overhaul on C-130s.

Sergio

Bremspropeller
01-19-2008, 07:25 AM
EADS does at Manching, where they also overhaul Tornados and where the Tiffie is built.

Those Lw F-4s were propably from George AFB.
For a short period, the Lw even owned a hand full of F-4Es, but they were only used for training at George, and later Holloman.

Any Luftwaffe plane stationed in the US also carries USAF markings for insurance reasons.
We have a couple of T-37s and T-38s at Sheppard. They also carry American insignias.

The RF-4E crews were trained in Shaw (IIRC, gotta look that up), where the USAF flew RF-4Cs.