B -58 | "It Was Built Like A Ship!" - Part 2

Подписаться 113 тыс.

Просмотров 10 тыс.

50% 1

The B-58 included so many new technologies to be considered a marvel of aerospace engineering. The B-58 structure, propulsion, aerodynamics, weapon systems, all of them were at the cutting edge. In this episode we go through some of them, but the B-58 will keep giving and there will be much more to come!
#B58 #Jet
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millenn...
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
tinyurl.com/y4g528lt
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the RU-vid Partner Program, Community guidelines & RU-vid terms of service.

Опубликовано:

5 дек 2020

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 73

@Millennium7HistoryTech 3 года назад

Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7

@gort8203 3 года назад

The engine was not meant be intentionally operated at 107% for 5 sec or less, that was a time limit for an unintended overshoot of the intentional 103.5% overspeed limit. The pilot could select an 103.5% overspeed with the throttle , but the T-2 cutback system would not allow the rpm to increase to that level until the ram air temperature parameter was met. This rpm only increased thrust at those high ram temperatures, and below them the MAX AB detent produced more thrust.

@robertsanders3174 3 года назад

Thank you for giving this plane the respect it deserves.

@jkoeberlein1 3 года назад

When I was a child it was my favorite plane. 4 engines with a delta wing! They need to bring it back to with canards.

@jimdean5333 3 года назад

it was mine also, I had a battery powered B58 with the external fuel tank

@henryschmitt7577 3 года назад

I had the Monogram 1959 reissued B-58 in 1975 and played with it and I could push the button on top to drop the pod on targets in my back yard as a kid. Fun times and my all time favorite SAC bombers!!!

@Ni999 3 года назад

Operational dead end or not, this was still a very impressive plane. Thanks for taking the time to cover it properly! 👍

@gort8203 3 года назад

You can say all historical airplanes are operational dead ends. They no longer operate the Hawker Hurricane either. The B-58 served its design purpose for a meaningful length of time if you consider the rapid pace of change underway when it was designed.

@Ni999 3 года назад

@@gort8203 And here I thought that aeroplanes stayed in active service forever - thanks for squaring me away on that. I promise I'll try to do a much better job with the language if I ever try to make a one sentence summary of a complex subject again. Honest.

@bchoward0000 3 года назад

I appreciate your honesty about the places/things for which you can't find pictures. Much better than the other channels that just slap in some stock footage of a completely different airplane. Thanks again for the great content! Looking forward to part 3.

@mrrolandlawrence 3 года назад

and the americans said only a brit would put guns in the fuel tank (lightening) well the b58 had an atomic bomb in their fuel tank ;)

@magoid 3 года назад

The F-89 had rockets and missiles on the wingtip fuel tanks.

@Ni999 3 года назад

Exactly. Things worth doing are worth doing well.

@rodrigorincongarcia771 3 года назад

I think if that bomb explodes, having a few thousand pounds of fuel around it won't make a great difference.

@andik.4235 3 года назад

This plane does not only look stunning. And I`m glad to learn more about what was already achieved in the 50´s in the last century.

@lycossurfer8851 3 года назад

@3:17 If you want a cutaway of the bonded sandwich panel (just a drawing though), try Air & Space Smithsonian Magazine in the Jan 2006 issue; they had an article on the plane.

@tijotypo5252 3 года назад

this is why i like YT, you always find a golden nugget.

@gort8203 3 года назад

I believe the 10,00 lbs. thrust rated you quoted for the J-79 was for dry thrust rather than with afterburner. Afterburner thrust was around 15,000 lbs. Later versions of the engine produced even greater dry and AB thrust.

@Mi1lerTime 3 года назад

Thanks for the history lesson, mate. The B-58 is a special piece of engineering.

@cannonfodder4376 3 года назад

The more the video went on and the more you explained, them more insane and remarkable this bird is. The fuel management system for CG balance seems nightmarish alone. Given the other crew stations, I am sure the next video on the pilot instruments will seem nightmarish. Good video as always.

@blahorgaslisk7763 3 года назад

I agree. There were so much brilliant engineering involved, and so many things that just sound like an accident waiting to happen.

@gort8203 3 года назад

The video makes it sound as though the B-58 was unique in being susceptible to hot brakes. The B-58 had a drag chute so hot brakes was not a normal occurrence on landing. All airplanes can experience hot brakes on a rejected takeoff or overweight landing, and fire fighters avoid approaching them from the side on any aircraft. The risk of tire explosion is reduced by fuse plugs that should melt before the tire explodes, but extreme temperatures can lead to burst hydraulic lines and fire. The B-58 was not unique or deficient in this area.

@wkelly3053 3 года назад

Excellent comments.

@gort8203 3 года назад

@@wkelly3053 Nice to hear somebody appreciated them.

@nathanzylla4961 3 года назад

Ah the b-58. Watching the history of the statigic air command while sipping coffee from a strategic air command museam cup...got it from the SAC museam as well...if you see one of them in person..it's a bad ass plane

@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles 3 года назад

This is a really good two part video. I enjoyed it.

@jayakrishnanm2975 3 года назад

never clicked so fast for a video....AMAZING

@vickydroid 3 года назад

Thanks again can't wait for the next installment, ground running 10 hours at full afterburner, serious testing , shows high Mach is no mean feat. Love the technical info in your series.

@xaquko9718 3 года назад

So the B-58 was basically a giant fuel tank attached to a nuke flying at the speed of sound.

@foufou81 3 года назад

you are doing a great job !! thank you !

@blech71 3 года назад

The hustler was huuuge. Most people don’t realize just how big this aircraft actually was

@billhanna2148 3 года назад

Thank you 🙏 AGAIN for an excellent succinct informative flawless video 👍🙏💪 priceless value$$

@williamtell1477 3 года назад

Great series so far!

@darveshzamindar 3 года назад

Part 2 uploaded after a long time , nevertheless another fine video 👍 from you .

@alfabethe1753 3 года назад

Grazie mille 😀!

@matthewdavies2057 3 года назад

I want one to display on my front lawn.

@Dr.Westside 3 года назад

How about a video about lifting body aircraft .

@stalkinghorse883 3 года назад

THE MATADOR, THE MATADOR!!

@DecidedlyNinja 3 года назад

Oh mighty RU-vid Algorithm, hear my comment! May you deem this channel worthy of appearing in your majestic recommendations section!

@Millennium7HistoryTech 3 года назад

Wow, thank you!

@gospodinkenobi9903 3 года назад

Oh boy, uploaded 1 minute ago :D

@AlexDeese 3 года назад

Since you have done videos on Convair's F-106 and B-58, could you do similar videos for the Dassault's Mirage 3 and Mirage 4?

@rodrigorincongarcia771 3 года назад

A great video (as usual in this channel). Only thing that doesn't fill right is what you said about engine thrust. For a J-79 wit full afterburner, it should be closer to 15000-16000 pounds if I'm not mistaken.

@Millennium7HistoryTech 3 года назад

Yes, it was a mistake, unfortunately

@unclejoeoakland 3 года назад

Is it just me or does this thing have a strong family resemblance to the B1, in the cockpit and nose?

@Ni999 3 года назад

I never noticed but yeah, long pointy nose, paned windows - good eye. 👍

@gort8203 3 года назад

The resemblance must coincidence rather than family because they were not of the same family, right? Coincidence easily occurs when all fast jets have pointed noses.

@Ni999 3 года назад

@@gort8203 It's not unheard of to describe two unrelated people as having a family resemblance. In fact, it's really quite common. No one really analyzes genealogy when that happens, the phrase simply underscores the similarity in those cases. Of course, everyone in the human race does have a family resemblance - along with a genus resemblance and a species resemblance. And so it is with the two planes in question. Both made of metal, both employing some sort of jet engine technology, both having landing gear, and both using flight control surfaces. Coincidence? Or maybe there is a family and it's "bombers selected for production by the USAF during the Cold War."

@gort8203 3 года назад

@@Ni999 II guess it's 2020 and words have no meaning. If you want to expand the subset called a family to include a larger set that includes multiple families have at it. I'm just too old for newspeak. Every human has a head with a nose in the front, but I don't consider it a family resemblance, although we might look all the same to a space alien. I think many people who are less familiar with airplanes also think they all resemble each other..

@Ni999 3 года назад

@@gort8203 Yeah, don't hand me that. It wasn't a good time to be pedantic when I watched my first Hustler roll off of the apron in 61 and it's not a good time now. No newspeak about it - not even a nice try with that chestnut. This started out as just a pleasant Sunday morning whiling away the time with a pleasantry over a simple notion. You wanted the opportunity to show how yours is bigger - and you got what you asked for.

@pratikpal5565 3 года назад

Nuclear warhead on the fuel tank .. that is frightening and hilarious

@Ni999 3 года назад

Not really frightening at all. The nuke could go down in a fireball and not detonate by accident. All nukes ride along with the fuel when you get right down to it. Nuke firing safety is designed to be reliable and proven to work in a number of accidents.

@pratikpal5565 3 года назад

@@Ni999 that is good to know👍

@Ni999 3 года назад

@@pratikpal5565 My pleasure. 👍 The original design was a little sketchy because the nuke would be soaked if fuel leaked. Why take any chances? That was quickly fixed by separating the two packages and putting the nuke on top, and the fuel part could be dropped separately. The B-58 and the external pod takes a lot of criticism but it was very early and we just didn't know as much back then. Even so, if we didn't care about stealth these days, we could still go with the final pod from back then.

@k3lzZz 3 года назад

If you could trigger an atomic bomb with a fire, i think we would know. XD

@Big_Black_Dick 3 года назад

i think ur videos are brilliant, the info is gold and yes it is hard to find,, i also love the fact that u might be a russian dude lol i like u guys 😀 let's team up against china 😉

@csabascs5913 3 года назад

He is italian... :)

@Big_Black_Dick 3 года назад

Csaba SCS lol 😂 true true, im part italian 2 lol, im actually a haitian and italian mix, my grandfather was italian but i just look like a regular Black dude tho 🤣

@hendrikbootha7285 3 года назад

Was on my way to the shops that will now wait about 12min

@magoid 3 года назад

7:44 10.000lb in afterburner? That is in dry thrust no?

@tijotypo5252 3 года назад

it would fun to know how much it cost to fill up the fuel tanks?

@lycossurfer8851 3 года назад

The pilots got the company discount, so only a five figure bill

@jo-jobighiker5552 3 года назад

Done with Slide Rules! (Google)

@Millennium7HistoryTech 3 года назад

True!

@egyeneskifli7808 3 года назад

Sexiest bomber ever built. And it had brain too.

@FangPaw 3 года назад

Degrees Farenheit? Pounds? psi? For us European viewers, could you please also include metric units (as used by the scientific community throughout the world) ?

@matthewdavies2057 3 года назад

American plane, American units.

@FangPaw 3 года назад

@@matthewdavies2057 American units are Imperial, based on the British system. So what units did the US Marines use when they were fuelling their Harrier jump jets? UK gallons? And do you think the European countries that fly US military or commercial aircraft use "American units" for speed, height, temperature, fuel, etc? It'd be interesting for airlines that fly both Boeings and Airbuses ...