At Mail Call, Jim Sanders was heard saying to Derek Wakefield
JS> The B-58 was too late and too fuel costly.  We could not longer
JS> use high altitude tactics due to SAMs...
     Yeah, I can't disagree with you on that point. However, that's
why I was curious about version with turbofans.
     I had a converse on this echo several years ago with a gent who
used to drive 101s, 102s, 104s and 106s (of which the messages I saved
have disappeared [darn it!]). One of the commentaries he made was that
the 106 was a great handler at low alts. That got me to wondering if
there had been a way to fit the 58 with less fuel guzzling engines if
it might've survived a bit longer in the low-level supersonic
penetration role.
     Yeah, it's a hypothetical question, but I've always had a
personal interest in "what if" scenarios.
     However, the concept of a SST version seems totally ridiculous
even in my PoV.
JS> That is the reason they went to the junque yard so soon... I was
JS> offered a good job with the 43rd Bomb Wing when they got their
JS> B-58s but turned it down.
     "Junque Yard"... (I'll have to remember that one!)
     Letmeesee if I remember this right. The 43rd was based at Little
Rock AFB for awhile, before trading in it's 58s for 52s and moving
westward to Andersen AFB, Guam...right?
     You wouldn't happen to know what the other units were that
operated the 58?
JS> It set lots of records.. good for that... Took five
JS> inflight refuelings from New York to Paris run. Really one of
JS> the Best designs in history was the B-47s. but its life was
JS> not as long as the B-52....
     JFTR, I like the 47 too. Very beautiful plane, whose career
seemed woefully too short. I remember seeing a documentary titled
"1964" back in HS, that included a scene of 47s being guilotined at
Davis-Monathan AFB. Very sad piece of film, IMHO. With it's bubble
canopy, and decent range, I've always thought that the 47 would've
made a halfway decent Maritime Recon/Patrol Bomber (like the Bear,
Badger, and Bison ended up being). I know there was a recon version,
and I understand why it was never deployed as such, but still...
     I read (and captured) the article you posted about the 47 from
AFMag on the Flying Echo. That was very informative.
     However, from a personal PoV, I've always been a bit more
intriqued with the Consolidated/Convair stable of bombers...the B-36,
B-58, and B-60.
     Granted, the 36 was too big, too slow, too complicated, too
manpower intensive, and suffered from fuel leaks in artic environs.
Still, I've always wondered it might've been adapted to a Maritime
Recon/Patrol or Early Warning role. Then again...the P-3 and EC-121
were probably just as effective, and FAR more cost effective. And like
with the 47...since the AF didn't do the Maritime Patrol schtick back
then... The fact they've since converted a number of 52s for
minelaying and maritime interdiction in recent years, made me start to
wonder about some of this. Ain't hindsight wonderful .
     Then there's the 58...nuff said. Still, the Peacemaker`s size and
the Hustler's sleek appearance and high speed have always inspired a
sense of Awe in me.
     As far as the B-60 goes, my interest in it goes back to my
facination with the 36. I know it was rejected because it was slower
than the 52 due to it's tremendously thick wing (borrowed from it's
B-36 design basis). However, you can't deny that it had one **** of a
conventional bomb load. It makes me wonder if it might've been a
better choice than the 52 in conventional iron-bomb laden Arclight
missions such as those carried out over Nam and Iraq. From a defensive
standpoint (lacking the 52s speed) I don't know, but offensive wise...
JS> It kept a lot of Fort Worth people eating.
JS> 'Nuff said.
Yep!
Derek (/\)akefield
iscandar@chatter.com
... Historians study who did it
--- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR]
---------------