If in the future MRC needs a new model to offer, may I recommend the B-58 Hustler? Big and impressive. I would buy it.
-
-
Yup, four 70 or 80mm fans, that would be impressive. I'd be willing to go into debt for one of those.
Might want to put this in the RC Product Request forum at the bottom of the page. -
Good story about one here.
Must have felt like an eternity !
Man I gotta pee......lol
I was born in 61
PlaneComment
-
I had not heard of the B-58 before, but I always find it interesting researching new aircraft.
One of the things that stuck out about the B-58 in my research that might impact an RC model, was that it was very sensitive to changes to the center of gravity. One of the three crew members jobs was to monitor the fuel flow and distribution between its tanks to maintain the plane balanced. Another thing to consider is that to keep an RC model of the B-58 as scale as possible it would most likely have to use 4x 70mm EDF's because the engine compartments are small.
But judging how I have seeing many on here cry/prefer a single EDF setup over a twin just to keep cost and weight down I don't know how a quad EDF aircraft would be accepted.
Speaking of super sonic bombers with quad engines, I think a Rockwell B-1B Lancer model would be a far more popular model.
Comment
-
Yeah, have to agree with that. B-1s are impressive!Comment
-
-
Are we ready for a quad EDF? Wondering how a version with two motors and two empty tubes would fly?
Hustler or B-1 would be impressive!Comment
-
I have a 70 mm XB-70 with single fan and 4 outlets. Works fine in that config.Comment
-
I would love to see a B-58 or B-1B! I've always wanted the 106's big brother in RC form. 4x70mm fans for the 58, and a twin 80mm for the B-1B. The 58 would be tough for a lot of reasons though. The fuselage is very thin, and it would be very difficult to fit a normal battery. Perhaps a 2x 4S batteries could fit, similar to the flightline planes. A 4000 4S for each side could be doable, especially if the fans were 9 blades like the big A-10. Then there is the retracts.. They are a work of art, even on the real airplane:
As for the B-1B, that seems more realistic, but again, the gear would be a real challenge if done properly. They move inboard and back at retraction, you can kind of see that here:
Then again, after the awesome gear we've seen on the Freewing 90mm F-16, and on the new FMS F7F Tigercat, I'd like to think that we might get to see some of these custom gear systems make it to market.Comment
-
Well, it could be scaled so that the batteries WOULD fit. I Would not be picky about the landing gear being scale...
I want BOTH aircraft.
Add a Concorde for good measure:
Comment
-
A second battery could be located inside the large center line tank the B-58 carried. That would probably be the most ideal place to locate it to achieve a better balence.
Attached FilesComment
-
-
Good thinking, Evoman...I like it! Even without the tank, the plane has some serious wing area/lift.Comment
-
During my transition training into the F102 there were several SAC pilots receiving 102 training to become familiar with flying a delta wing a/c. This was in 1960, when the B58 was coming into service, If I remember correctly, the external pod is to contain the bomb load, maybe also some fuel. Several a/c were lost due to engine flameout during supersonic flight, when the a/c became uncontrollable, if my memory is correct. This might also be a factor with a scale model.Comment
-
"supersonic flight"...love scaling THAT!Comment
-
The B-58 was a highly complex aircraft, it required a considerable maintenance also cost three times as much to operate as the B-52. This included special detailed maintenance for the nose landing gear, which retracted in a complicated fashion to avoid the center payload.Originally posted by F106DeltaDart View Post
After doing some more in-dept research I found the B-58 to be a complex bird with some adverse flight characteristics. The B-58 might look cool as a display model but it might not make a good RC model.
Check out these adverse flight characteristics taken from wikipedia.
While its performance and design were exceptional and appreciated, it was never easy to fly. This was caused by the 60° leading edge sweep back of its wing and was inherent in these types of delta wing platforms. It required a much higher angle of attack than a conventional aircraft, up to 9.4° at Mach 0.5 at low altitudes. If the angle of attack was too high, in excess of 17°, the bomber could pitch up and enter a spin. Several factors could prevent a successful recovery: if the pilot applied elevon, if the center of gravity was not correctly positioned, or if the spin occurred below 15,000 feet (4,600 meters), recovery might not be possible. The B-58 also had stall characteristics that were not conventional. If the nose was elevated, the bomber maintained forward motion without pitching down. Unless large amounts of power were applied, the descent rate increased rapidly.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. The B-58 was very difficult to safely recover from the loss of an engine at supersonic cruise due to differential thrust.
The plane had very unusual takeoff requirements, with a 14° angle of attack needed for the rotation at about 203.5 knots (376.9 km/h; 234.2 mph) for a 150,000 pound combat weight. This poor takeoff performance was also evident with the high landing speed that necessitated a drogue parachute for braking.
Comment
-
True and well known facts.
Being that this bird could max out at almost 177,000 pounds many issues would become problematic. Don't forget, this was a time of innovation and experimentation and they were trying new technology. Seems like they eventually solved most of its problems before it became obsolete due to surface-to-air missile improvements. With the brain power of MRC and Freewing et al, am sure they could scale it exactly to be problem-free. Fortunately, a 15 to 20lb model would pose less of an engineering and avionics challenge.
After performance issues were ironed out, the design allowed this bomber to be the fastest of its time...several times.Comment
-
Evoman, all of the characteristics that you mentioned are simply part of flying a delta-winged aircraft, and can easily be mitigated or controlled. Cruise AOA is a function of your weight and airfoil choice. The 58 was designed to cruise at high mach numbers ~Mach 0.9 and go as fast as Mach 2, so it was aerodynamically inefficient in the lower speed spectrum of its envelope (High AOA needed). In fact, one of the best things about deltas in the RC range is their superior performance at high AOA. This means they can be brought in at incredibly slow speeds for landing with proper throttle management. The fuel and CG shift issues aren't even applicable to a model either, since our CG remains constant the entire flight. If built fairly large, with a decent wing loading, I have no doubt that an RC B-58 would fly fantastic! The gear, and particularly clearing the centerline payload, would be a real challenge, but could be done with proper geometry and machined parts. Failure of an engine would be very difficult to deal with in an RC version, but that is the case for any multi-engined EDF, simply because it is difficult to tell which engine failed, you just suddenly have less power, and it starts to turn. This happened on my F-14, and by the time I could tell what happened, it was too late. It has since been repaired and flown though.
If you doubt my opinion on the flight characteristics, check out a few videos of the Freewing Mirage. Wing sweep angle is extremely close to the B-58, and it flies quite nicely. Also, for my flight performance class in college I did a research paper on the handling/performance characteristics of the F-106, which shares the 60 degree sweep, and was also built by Convair. Like any aircraft, it can bite you if you really push it outside its design, but there were many things it did extremely well. Its maneuverability at high altitude was incredible compared to many aircraft, and it is still the fastest single-engine jet to this day.Comment
-
I found this early attempt of a RC B-58 build from back in 1995. Unfortunately at the time EDF units were not available and turbines were probably too expensive if they were available for RC use. So the builder had to resort to ducted fans powered by nitro engines. Too bad this build could not wait till better technology was available. The vibration from the engines ultimately caused the radio to cut off which let to its demise.
Comment
-
In F102 training, after a few flights in the TF102 two seater, on the first flight in the single seat version and flying with your instructor in a chase a/c,
the high nose up attitude was demonstrated with the chase beside you and power was slowly decreased while flying formation on the instructor. He then told the student to look in the cockpit at the rate of climb/descent instrument. While the a/c still had full yaw and roll response, the rate of descent was pegged at the maximum. The demo was started at 35,000 ft, as the descent approached 10,000 ft/min. We were trained for a deadstick flameout pattern, which required approaching over the touchdown point at 10,000 ft above the runway and doing a tight 45 degree banked turn to roll out at the touchdown point. Exiteing, and fun to practice to say the least.Comment
-
I'd buy a 2018 version!Originally posted by Evoman View PostI found this early attempt of a RC B-58 build from back in 1995. Unfortunately at the time EDF units were not available and turbines were probably too expensive if they were available for RC use. So the builder had to resort to ducted fans powered by nitro engines. Too bad this build could not wait till better technology was available. The vibration from the engines ultimately caused the radio to cut off which let to its demise.
Comment
Comment