B-58 Myths

The B-58 was a supersonic bomber that flew at twice the speed of sound (Mach-2.)   The B-58’s war-time mission was to enter enemy territory at a very low altitude, just below the speed of sound, to destroy their assigned high-value targets. I flew, as a Navigator/Bombardier, in this aircraft for three years.

I started this blog to clear the air over the many unfounded myths about the B-58.

In my book, “The B-58 Blunder – How the U.S. Abandoned its Best Strategic Bomber” I provide the real reason the “Hustler” was retired after only 10 years in service.      I also identified ten unfounded myths about the B-58 that had given the Hustler such a bad rap.

However, I am amazed at the plethora of erroneous information that still exists and continues to be perpetuated about the B-58. Many authors, rather than conduct their own independent research,  merely quote from long standing treatises about the B-58. In many cases those writings contain false information or information that is no longer valid. For examples, most recently we find;

Air Force Magazine. September 2017 Special issue. “Celebrating 70 years of the Air Force.” A brief two sentences for the B-58 with the erroneous statement that it was “costly to fly.” Of course this is not true. It was actually less costly to fly than the B-52.

United States Strategic Bombers 1945 – 2012. “In the low-altitude role it was no faster than the B-52.” Not true. The B-58 was much faster than the B-52 at low-level.

                                          B-58 MYTHS STILL PERSIST

Many erroneous Hustler myths are still evident in various publications. Most of the  following are in addition to those already mentioned in my book.

1. “The introduction of highly-accurate Soviet surface-to-air missiles forced the B-58 into a low-level-penetration role that severely limited its range and strategic value.”

THIS MYTH IS FALSE: Its range was not severely limited and was quite adequate for the Hustlers to attack all of their 160 assigned targets in the Soviet Union. And the B-58 could do this with less tanker support than what was required for its former high-altitude supersonic attack role. So, in comparison to other bombers its strategic value was actually enhanced.  Wikipedia notes the following about the B-58’s strategic value, “Although its large wing made for relatively low wing loading, it proved to be surprisingly well suited for low-altitude, high-speed flight.”

2. “Offensive armament typically consisted of a single nuclear weapon.”

 FALSE: Shortly after deployment the B-58s were modified to carry a total of five nuclear weapons and this remained their typical weapons loading.

3. “The B-58 cost three times as much to operate as the B-52.”

 FALSE: To justify the above false statement we often see the following rational. “The cost of maintaining and operating the two operational B-58 wings equaled that of six wings of B-52s.^”  Now if one does the math this one-to-three ratio appears to make perfectly good sense. But what is missing from the argument is the fact that one B-58 wing contained almost three times as many aircraft as a B-52 wing. Economy of scale favored the B-58 because they required only two bases compared to the six bases required for the six B-52 wings. As a reminder, operational costs not only includes flying costs, but also maintenance, personnel, logistical support and all other base support costs associated with these aircraft. (See the ‘Cost Comparison with the B-52’ in Chapter 5 and ‘Myth 3’ in Chapter 6 of my book) As pointed out in Chapter 5, a more accurate cost comparison between the B-58 and B-52 on an aircraft by aircraft basis would be,

“For the cost of operating 66 B-52s, we could have operated 78 B-58s.”

4.  “The B-58 had Adverse flight characteristics.”

FALSE: There are a number of erroneous Wikipedia claims under this section, such as;

5. “The B-58 was never easy to fly.”

 FALSE: I’ve found just the opposite to be true. Among all the pilots I’ve known in my three years of flying in the B-58, none thought the B-58 was hard to fly. In fact, they thought it was the smoothest airplane they ever flew. Especially those who have flown fixed wing (B-47s and B-52s) as well as other Delta wing (F-102/F-106s) This includes Colonel Al Dugard who was a B-58 Combat Crew Training School instructor pilot who said, “All deltas give a smoother ride than other aircraft. Responsiveness to controls is instantaneous as you don’t wait for a wing to respond to control movement.  Stability of flight is because of the delta wing.  Formation flight i.e. Air Refueling was much easier due to the stable platform.”

6. “It required a much higher angle of attack than a conventional aircraft, up to 9.4° at Mach 0.5 at low altitudes.”

 FALSE: The B-58 flew at much higher airspeeds than Mach 0.5. At cruise altitude the B-58 would fly at Mach 0.91. Even low-level training missions were never flown below Mach 0.70. In both cases the angle of attack was much lower. During cruise flight at optimum altitude the angle of attack, regardless of gross weight, would be about 6 degrees and at low-level it would run about 5 degrees. It appears that someone found a worst-case scenario in a chart contained in the B-58A Flight Manual (T.O 1B-58A-1.) and wanted readers to assume that a B-58 operating at maximum gross weight at such a low airspeed was a normal flight condition for the Hustler, and of course it was not. The B-58 would never have cruised at that gross weight, at that low of an altitude, and at such a low airspeed.

7. “If the angle of attack was too high, in excess of 17°, the bomber could pitch up and enter a spin . . . if the spin occurred below 15,000 feet, recovery might not be possible.”

 TRUE: However, the possibility of inadvertently entering a spin was quite remote if the minimum flying speeds and control techniques for stalls were observed. Stalls could occur when the angle of attack exceeded 17 degrees. At 17 degrees, a red warning light would come on followed by a voice warning system of  “Angle of attack too high.” Bottom line – the pilot would have had to intentionally lower his airspeed and raise the nose of the aircraft well above 17 degrees to force a stall and then intentionally spin the aircraft. This practice was strictly prohibited in the B-58.

8. “The B-58 was very difficult to safely recover from the loss of an engine at supersonic cruise due to differential thrust.”

FALSE: The installation of a “Triple Redundant Yaw Damper” system allowed safe recovery when an outboard engine was lost, even while flying at Mach 2.

      9. “The plane had very unusual takeoff requirements, with a 14° angle of attack needed for the rotation at about 203.5 knots. This poor takeoff performance was also evident with the high landing speed that necessitated a drogue parachute for braking.”

 FALSE: The inference here is that the B-58 had poor takeoff and landing performance when just the opposite was true. A 14^o angle of attack is normal for a delta wing aircraft as it generates immediate lift and with the power of four engines in full afterburner the airspeed quickly accelerated to 425 knots climb speed. It was a joy to behold and unlike any aircraft I had ever flown in before. The reader should note that in Chapter one of my book, we took off with a light fuel load and were climbing through 15,000 feet before we passed the end of the runway.

Landings were made at high speed due to the fact that the B-58 did not have flaps or boards to decelerate. Yes, it used a drag chute upon touch down, but that was not peculiar to the B-58. Both B-47s and B-52s also used drag chutes. This is because, unlike modern airliners, military bombers did not have reverse thrust engines to decelerate after touchdown. With the B-58, aerodynamic braking was also used to decelerate. This was done by lifting the nose after touchdown so the full underside of the delta wing created its own drag. My pilot had occasionally made landings without the chute and never experienced a problem or had hot brakes.

10. “Another problem pilots faced was called “fuel stacking” and took place when the B-58 accelerated or decelerated. It was due to fuel moving in the tanks and causing sudden changes in the center of gravity. This could cause the aircraft to pitch or bank and subsequently lose control.”

FALSE: This may have occurred in one of the early flight tests but “fuel stacking” was never a problem with the operational fleet of B-58s. Fuel was shifted effortlessly when going into or coming out of Supersonic flight.  In my three years of operational flying in the B-58 I had never heard of the term “fuel stacking” nor did Lt. Colonel Dick Dirga, a former DSO who taught new B-58 crews about the Hustler’s fuel system.

Copyright © 2017 by Colonel George Holt, Jr.

Copies of my book, “The B-58 Blunder – How the U.S. Abandoned its Best Strategic Bomber”  are available on Amazon.com