Military Review

B-58A Hustler bomber: dangerous even in a parking lot

56

B-58A during service


When used correctly, a strategic bomber is dangerous only to the enemy. However, any violation of the instructions leads to risks and dangers for the flight and technical personnel. Security issues are always given great attention, especially when it comes to complex and capricious techniques. For example, during the operation and maintenance of the Convair B-58A Hustler long-range bomber, American specialists had to monitor a number of factors and follow certain safety measures.

Useful but dangerous


For its time, the B-58A had outstanding tactical and technical characteristics and combat capabilities. He could break through the air defense of a potential enemy, drop special ammunition on the target and safely return to base. Maximum speed exceeded 2100 km / h, combat radius - more than 4100 km, combat load - 8,8 tons in a special container.

High performance was ensured by the use of a number of modern technologies and the latest types of avionics. So, four General Electric J79-GE-5A turbojet engines with a maximum thrust of 4536 kgf and afterburner 7076 kgf were responsible for flight performance. Flying and hitting targets were performed using the Sperry AN / ASQ-42 sighting and navigation system, which included several different instruments. In case of an enemy attack, there was a 20-mm automatic gun with a radar sight.

The use of all these new products gave certain advantages, but led to negative consequences. Complex and expensive aircraft made special demands on the training of staff. In addition, some of its components could pose a risk to people and equipment. Therefore, for safe operation with the aircraft, simple rules should be followed. In particular, it was recommended not to get into the danger zones around the aircraft.

Engine threat


A number of risks and dangers of the B-58A for ground personnel were associated with its power plant. Four GE J79-GE-5A engines created several hazardous areas around the aircraft with different “damaging factors” and risks. Getting into some of them threatened, at least, with injuries.


Hazardous areas around engines. Illustration from B-58A flight manual

In nominal mode, the J79-GE-5A engine consumed 77 kg of atmospheric air per second (approx. 60 cubic meters). As a result of this, a powerful stream was formed near the air intakes, capable of picking up one or another object. For this reason, when the engines were running, it was forbidden to be in the hemisphere in front of the air intake in a radius of 25 feet (7,6 m), as well as in an area 5 feet (1,5 m) deep behind it. The location of the engines was such that the hazardous areas of the air intakes were blocked and combined. The general area was wider than the aircraft, and only the nose fairing did not fall into its limits.

In maximum mode, the temperature in front of the turbine reached 930 ° C. At the same time, a supersonic gas stream flowed out of the nozzle. When you turn on the afterburner, the temperature and gas velocity increased. Running engines formed a continuous danger zone behind the aircraft with a depth of 40-75 m. In this regard, it was recommended to build gas baffles near the parking lots.

At a distance of 25 feet, the speed of the jet stream exceeded 260 m / s; temperature - approx. 220 ° C. At 100 feet, the speed dropped to 45 m / s, and the temperature dropped to 65 ° C, which was still a danger. When using afterburner, the gas velocity at 25 feet from the nozzle reached 460 m / s, the temperature - 815 ° C. At a distance of 100 feet, these parameters were reduced to 76 m / s and 175 ° C, respectively. According to calculations, the engine in all modes was dangerous for people and equipment at distances up to 70-75 m, which required appropriate precautions.

When operating the J79-GE-5A engines, especially when starting and switching between modes, there was a non-zero risk of destruction of the starter or turbine. In such an accident, debris could fly apart from the engine nacelle within a narrow sector. Each engine had two such annular zones.

The obvious problem was the noise of running engines. The operation manual required the constant use of personal protective equipment. Failure to do so would result in permanent hearing loss. However, in this regard, the B-58A was no more dangerous than other aircraft of its time.

Hazardous electronics


The AN / ASQ-42 sighting and navigation system included several systems for various purposes, some of which could be dangerous. Microwave stations threatened humans, electronic devices, and ammunition and fuel storage facilities. In this regard, additional zones around the aircraft were determined, which were subject to certain restrictions.


Hazardous areas of radio equipment

The B-58A carried several radar systems for various purposes. We used the AN / APN-110 Doppler navigation locator, the AN / APN-170 station for enveloping the terrain, the AN / APB-2 bomber sight, and the MD-7 radio sight to control the gun mount. Some devices were located in the nose of the fuselage, others - at the bottom of the tail and at the base of the keel.

When using nasal radars, the hazardous area was the 180 ° front sector. Operating radars were dangerous for people at a distance of 100 feet (30 m), for fuel - up to 200 feet (61 m). The MD-7 radio sight had a different power, which is why a less wide sector of the rear hemisphere with a radius of 160 feet (48,6 m) was considered dangerous for humans. For fuel, twice the distance was set. The tail radio altimeter emitted in the zone in the form of a cone with a base with a diameter of 8 feet (2,4 m).

Risk on Wheels


Due to the specific aerodynamics, the B-58A bomber was distinguished by high take-off and landing speeds. When touching the landing strip, the speed was 300-330 km / h. This led to high mechanical and thermal loads on the wheels and the brake system of the main landing gear. There was a risk of fire or explosion of tires - with understandable unpleasant consequences. By the time the nose strut touched, the speed was falling, and the loads on its wheels were lower, which made them safer.

After landing and taxiing into the parking lot, the wheels of the main supports should be closed with special screens capable of withstanding the explosion. If they were absent, appropriate safety measures should be followed and not approach the chassis. The lateral sectors 90 ° wide (45 ° forward and backward relative to the axles of the wheels) within a radius of 100 feet were considered dangerous. It took 30 minutes to cool the chassis, after which it became safe.

accident prevention


B-58A bombers were in service with the US Air Force from 1960 to 1970. In total, 116 such aircraft were built, and during operation lost 26 units. The high cost of equipment, the complexity of operation, and the breakdown record-breaking for its class, led to a fairly rapid withdrawal from service and replacement with other aircraft.


Fragmentation zones of fragments during the explosion of the wheels of the main struts

The precautions proposed by the developer of the bomber fully paid off. Compliance with restrictions on hazardous areas and other measures avoided damage to equipment and infrastructure or serious personal injuries. Abnormal situations associated with the effects of engines or avionics were managed to prevent.

At the same time, in practice, the importance of safety measures in relation to the chassis has been repeatedly demonstrated. Wheel ruptures and rack struts on landing, mileage or taxiing were quite common. They clearly showed why it is not necessary to approach the aircraft until the landing gear cools down.

However, throughout the life of the B-58A, the accident rate remained quite high. Various incidents were caused by the complexity of maintenance and piloting and other factors. Thus, an overly complex aircraft turned out to be dangerous not only for a potential enemy, but also for its pilots or technicians. However, compliance with simple rules and recommendations made it possible to sharply reduce the danger of technology and avoid unnecessary losses.
Author:
Photos used:
U.S. Air Force
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 4 June 2020 18: 46 New
    18
    Chihiks ... I immediately remembered the unique device in the B-58 high-tech cockpit, which was part of the system of protection against unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. smile
    The greatest “pride” of the pilots of a super-automated aircraft was caused by a device that had no analogues in world aviation - a clothesline stretched between two pulleys installed in the first and third cockpits. If the crew needed to remove nuclear weapons from the fuse, a small bag was attached to the rope in which the commander put his part of the coded permit. Scrolling the rope, the bag was moved to the navigator, and he lowered his part into it, then it was the turn of the operator of the defensive weapon. When all three gathered the correct code, the navigator-scorer took off the fuse. Among pilots, this device often served as the object of all sorts of ridicule, and the crews of the B-58 preferred to remain silent about its existence.
    1. Python 57
      Python 57 8 June 2020 10: 34 New
      0
      It was in B-36, not 58. Cocking fuses with atomic bombs.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 June 2020 11: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: Python 57
        It was in B-36, not 58. Cocking fuses with atomic bombs.

        Judging by the article in "AiV" on "Hustler" - this device migrated to him (in the photo on the right).

        © Alexander Chechin, Nikolay Okolelov. Outrun the globe. Bomber Convair B-58 Hustler - "AiV" No. 4, 2004
  2. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 4 June 2020 18: 47 New
    +8
    You can hammer a finger with a hammer. There are no words about the power tool. The bomber is just awful. But this is all about journalists who were heavier than the pen did not hold anything. And competent specialists exploit all this equipment without harm to health.
    1. Normal ok
      Normal ok 5 June 2020 12: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Michael m
      You can hammer a finger with a hammer. There are no words about the power tool. The bomber is just awful. But this is all about journalists who were heavier than the pen did not hold anything. And competent specialists exploit all this equipment without harm to health.

      I wanted to say the same thing. For example, you can’t be in the RPG range, when fired. So do not shoot? No, you need to learn how to properly operate.
    2. zenion
      zenion 5 June 2020 18: 18 New
      +3
      The same danger is every working aircraft. Tighten the engine of a working jet - just spit. When checking such engines, a grille was always installed before entering the engine.
  3. dgonni
    dgonni 4 June 2020 18: 47 New
    20
    I alone did not understand what the article itself was about? For the Tu-128, let the author come up during the radar regulations. That is a microwave. Shaving so definitely will not.
    1. Evdokim
      Evdokim 4 June 2020 19: 06 New
      29
      Quote: dgonni
      I alone did not understand what the article itself was about?

      The article is that, for safety, you need to go around the cow at the back, and the horse in front, and do not put your fingers in the socket.laughing
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 03: 37 New
        +2
        Quote: Evdokim
        The article is that, for safety, you need to go around the cow at the back, and the horse in front, and do not put your fingers in the socket.

        And that will not help. 26 irretrievable losses of 119 pieces, for 10 years without combat use. How many flyers he sent to perpetual flight, the story is silent .... request Classic freak. Beautiful, scary for the enemy, fast, impossibly modern and .... freak request
  4. Magic archer
    Magic archer 4 June 2020 19: 08 New
    -1
    I read somewhere about the radiation of a decked Hokai. The first models in terms of amy and other delights were also dangerous. But I don’t know how things are now.
  5. knn54
    knn54 4 June 2020 19: 28 New
    +1
    At least made a significant contribution to the development of the US aviation industry.
    Almost 5000 industrial firms participated in the project.
    For example, in project В1В the number of suppliers is not more than 4000.
  6. sergo1914
    sergo1914 4 June 2020 20: 39 New
    +4
    Hustler is a magazine with girls. How can it be dangerous?
  7. Scipio
    Scipio 4 June 2020 20: 44 New
    +2
    Eh .... An excellent plane, it's a pity our "friends" were removed from service)
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 03: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: Scipio
      Eh .... An excellent plane, it's a pity our "friends" were removed from service)
      fool
      They really wanted to live and realized that they didn’t fight on shit (10 years in the ranks). Need to do Airplane.
      B-52 - Aircraft, although old, but serious, B-58 - Crap for the parade.
      In-52
      Start of operation February 1955
      Status in service: 70 [1] 2018
  8. Maks1995
    Maks1995 4 June 2020 20: 48 New
    -12
    A weakly the same article with an analysis of SU 57, for example?
    And then the plane 50 years ago, and even a stranger ...
    it is clear that with ancient technologies everything was not easy ...
    1. Hog
      Hog 5 June 2020 21: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: Max1995
      A weakly the same article with an analysis of SU 57, for example?

      Well, how does this kind of information appear in the public domain, so they will immediately (40-50 years later).
  9. Pavel57
    Pavel57 4 June 2020 21: 19 New
    +1
    A similar description is requested for other aircraft. And then, only the B-58 is one such dangerous.
    1. Hog
      Hog 5 June 2020 21: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: Pavel57
      A similar description is requested for other aircraft. And then, only the B-58 is one such dangerous.

      Yes, he was one of the most dangerous aircraft in operation.
  10. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 4 June 2020 21: 52 New
    +3
    If he is so dangerous on earth, then how much fear did he get while in the air and who was more afraid, a pilot in or around flying, I’m not talking about oncoming ones?
  11. Prisoner
    Prisoner 4 June 2020 21: 55 New
    -5
    And what is this article for? There was once such a device, a very so-so device. And okay, "Maxim died, well, to hell with him."
  12. Rostislav Prokopenko
    Rostislav Prokopenko 4 June 2020 22: 09 New
    +2
    So here she is ... WunderWaffle laughing
  13. agoran
    agoran 4 June 2020 22: 25 New
    +7
    Interesting enough for its time. It was set 19 world records.
    “About 80 percent of the cladding consisted of honeycomb panels of two sheets of duralumin with a thickness of 0,25 to 1 mm with an interlayer of cellular filler. In places subject to heating, the honeycombs were also made of duralumin, in others - of fiberglass, which has a high thermal insulation coefficient. ". And this is 1956.
  14. smoltish
    smoltish 4 June 2020 22: 34 New
    +2
    "Threat of engines" - any aircraft has.
    "Dangerous electronics" - for any modern aircraft equipped with electronic warfare and electronic warfare.

    It is unclear why the author focused on this. But he did not say about the most important feature and danger. About the MV-1C tank container with two fuel compartments (containing 12 kg of kerosene), between which was located the THERMO-NUCLEAR (!!!!) warhead W490Y39-1. This was really dangerous.
  15. DDT
    DDT 4 June 2020 23: 08 New
    +1
    I can imagine what it would be like to escort fighters ... God forbid, in the heat of battle, the distance did not manage to keep the distance? Or is this pepelats so cool that it does not require IP? And the name is some ... pornographic wassat
  16. BLADFROST
    BLADFROST 4 June 2020 23: 17 New
    0
    In the SGA, the most dangerous is the police!
  17. Angelo Provolone
    Angelo Provolone 4 June 2020 23: 20 New
    +4
    The plane is beautiful. Why is he a "pickpocket". Well, at least called "Wrangler" or "badass"
  18. opus
    opus 5 June 2020 00: 01 New
    +1
    Quote: Author
    dangerous even in the parking lot

    dangerous, dangerous ...
    And there are only 26 incidents ...
    2 of them are so successful that a training film would be shot

    19 world records, one of the first "golden" aircraft in America = 30150 kg equivalent
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 03: 19 New
      0
      Quote: opus
      And there are only 26 incidents ...
      2 of them are so successful,

      Face to face, face not see
      Big seen in the distance ...
      And some, after 50 years, neither see nor hear. Maybe they don’t want to? WIKI
      By the time of withdrawal from service of 116 issued B-58 twenty six were irrevocably lost.
      And is this a weapon made for war? fool I'm sorry.
      1. strelokmira
        strelokmira 5 June 2020 08: 57 New
        +2
        And is this a weapon made for war? Sorry.

        But we do not see logs in our own, out of 311 Tu-22s, 70 were lost as a result of operation
        Also sympathize, or maybe someone should turn on the brain and understand that for the first machines of this type it was the norm?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 5 June 2020 09: 39 New
          -1
          Quote: strelokmira
          But we do not see logs in our own, out of 311 Tu-22s, 70 were lost as a result of operation

          Wow! It turns out that the "twenty-second" has overtaken in "specific losses" even Yak - shmyak on the deck! belay
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 5 June 2020 20: 31 New
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            It turns out that the "twenty-second" overtook even the Yak in terms of "specific losses" - on the deck!

            The Yak-38 of all modifications was operated for 13 years,
            during this time 71 733 flights were completed,
            11 catastrophes happened to him, in which 13 people died.
        2. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 10: 28 New
          +4
          VO 2018: Tu-22: a symbol of the Cold War and a real threat to NATO
          For 30 years of active operation of the aircraft, for various reasons, more than 70 out of 311 bombers that were prematurely dropped out (crashed, burned down on the ground, finally failed). More than 20 percent of the park was lost. It is not surprising that in the USSR Air Force the plane had different nicknames - "sewed" for the original form of the body and "cannibal" for high accident rate.
          Quote: strelokmira
          Also sympathize, or maybe someone should turn on the brain and understand that for the first machines of this type it was the norm?
          For fans to include brains: To and 50 grams is the norm. fool The accident rate of the TU-22 is about 20% over 30 years of operation, if the V-58 lasted 30 years, how much would be lost? 50-75%. Or 100% and there would be nothing to put in a museum? Aircraft and losses are simply disproportionate in reliability.
      2. opus
        opus 5 June 2020 12: 07 New
        -3
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        And is this a weapon made for war?

        Yes. This is the newest weapon for war in something unique.
        and what are the problems?
        with the brain or with conceit?
        fool
        Tu-22 (weapons made for war, a support, so to speak, of aviation of the USSR): out of 311 fired, from 1958 to 1991 inclusive, about 70 Tu-22 aircraft of various modifications were lost
        311 / 70 =4,43

        Quote: Mavrikiy
        IKI
        By the time of withdrawal from service of the 116 issued B-58 twenty-six were irretrievably lost.

        116 / 26 =4,46 BETTER than TU-22, even if you take "26"
        about 26 you try. 2 saved
        116 / 24 =4,83
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        I'm sorry.

        and I to you. Take off your glasses
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 13: 42 New
          0
          Quote: opus
          Take off your glasses

          Do you wear glasses, or wipe the optics, is it foggy? fool I repeat, for the gifted, or you are from the generation of the exam, then you can do anything. fool
          if the B-58 lasted 30 years, how much would be lost? 50-75%. Or 100% and there would be nothing to put in a museum? Airplanes and casualties just disproportionate in reliability.


          opus (Anton) This is the newest weapon for war in something unique.
          and what are the problems?
          with the brain or with conceit?
          fool
          Yes, I don’t know what your problems are, but I don’t want to guess. So live .. fool
        2. +5
          +5 5 June 2020 14: 10 New
          +1
          10 and 31 years of adnak ...
          1. opus
            opus 5 June 2020 16: 00 New
            -2
            Quote: 5-9
            10 and 31 years of adnak ...

            We do not count years.
            58 - golden plane
            Quote: opus
            one of the first "golden" aircraft in America = 30150 kg equivalent

            the crew sat there like Baltic sprats in a bank.
            qualification of service staff and crew is beyond.
            but also in terms of parameters ...
            And if he flew for 31 years, they would climb and bring to mind. the number of accidents would decrease.
            everything was in the first years.
            1. Nosgoth
              Nosgoth 5 June 2020 20: 08 New
              0
              Quote: opus
              We do not count years.

              What do you think? Just what is FAVORABLE for you? For such ... "cunning" (or simply manipulators) ... they came up with average values ​​that are used all over the world. For example, "crimes per 1 people", which allows you to compare the crime rate both in a large metropolis and in an urban-type settlement, regardless of the difference in the number of people in the population. So here too, only one parameter will tell the truth about accidents - "the average number of accidents per year."
              1. opus
                opus 5 June 2020 20: 14 New
                0
                Quote: Nosgoth
                For such ... "cunning" (or simply manipulators) ...

                Well, let's "proZdachёk" our deduce the formula and bind specific by year and so on.
                you are not
                Quote: Nosgoth
                jugglers


                Quote: Nosgoth
                For example, "crimes per 1 people"

                it's generally tops
                Quote: Nosgoth
                So here, only one parameter will tell the truth about the accident rate - "with

                well forward: numbers
                comparing 58 and 22ndBy years
  19. Mooh
    Mooh 5 June 2020 02: 20 New
    0
    He could break through the air defense of a potential enemy, drop special ammunition on the target and safely return to base.

    Were these precedents?
  20. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 5 June 2020 03: 08 New
    +2
    However, compliance with simple rules and recommendations made it possible to drastically reduce the danger of technology and avoid unnecessary losses.
    And in the event of hostilities, also run around the "evil dog" for a kilometer?
    A total of 116 such aircraft were built, and during operation lost 26 units.
    The "energetic" murderer-murderer-suicide fully justified its essence. repeat
  21. Ilya_Nsk
    Ilya_Nsk 5 June 2020 07: 06 New
    +3
    All of these hazards are true for ALL military (and not only) jet aircraft. And air intake, and jet stream, and microwave radiation. But with the wheels - a joke
  22. Starkov
    Starkov 5 June 2020 07: 54 New
    0
    When used correctly, a strategic bomber is dangerous only to the enemy. However, any violation of the instructions leads to risks and dangers for the flight and technical personnel.

    This applies not only to this technique. Moreover, we must not forget that he was the first serial supersonic. New technology always suffers from a bunch of sores, and on this plane there were more than novelties for its time. And do not forget, for example, about our Yaks of vertical take-off. They also suffered from everything that new developments can suffer. Yes, and a lot of them were beaten.
  23. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 5 June 2020 08: 49 New
    +3
    Among other things, the author should have mentioned that a huge tank under his belly was not recommended to be empty, since an aircraft with an empty tank tended to fall on its tail.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 5 June 2020 21: 00 New
      0
      However, it was planned to be used in Vietnam without a tank.
      1. Reserve buildbat
        Reserve buildbat 5 June 2020 21: 03 New
        0
        But it didn’t happen))) So there are photos of the hustler who has risen to the tail. The centering of his extremely back was with an empty tank. Without a tank it’s a little better, but I don’t remember exactly, I won’t lie
  24. strelokmira
    strelokmira 5 June 2020 08: 49 New
    -2
    Is this a new bout of senility, in the form of ridicule of 60s US planes?
    But
  25. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 5 June 2020 12: 35 New
    0
    Hmm, so with any aircraft, the same. Try standing next to the Tu-95MS soaring closer hundreds of meters, for example. And about Tu-22M3 or about Tu-160 (with engines with a take-off thrust of 25-30 tons per unit- and the total, respectively, of 50 and 120) - and I don’t say :) And with a microwave, it’s forbidden to turn on the radar on the ground- will fry :)
  26. +5
    +5 5 June 2020 14: 11 New
    0
    In those years, many were freaks, with disgusting VPH and high accident rate ...
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 5 June 2020 21: 02 New
      +1
      About freaks - is debatable. Aesthetics is a strictly individual thing. For me - there are no planes more beautiful than the 60s. Feels both power and speed, and design personality.
  27. Hog
    Hog 5 June 2020 21: 12 New
    +1
    Quote: smoltish
    "Threat of engines" - any aircraft has.
    "Dangerous electronics" - for any modern aircraft equipped with electronic warfare and electronic warfare.

    The point is not that everyone has a threat, but that it was much more than other planes of that period.
    1. smoltish
      smoltish 6 June 2020 11: 21 New
      0
      Here the author did not indicate the most dangerous threat. About a tank with thermonuclear ammunition.

      "The point is not that everyone has a threat, but that it was much greater than that of other aircraft of that period." - and that the B-52 was less dangerous in your opinion? If we talk about the parameters specified in the article. Boeing's electronic warfare system gave out awesome radiation.
      The article is so-so. Firstly, I did not write the main feature and the main threat. Secondly, about the dangers that are inherent in everyone (this is about engines, no matter how many and how much power). It seems that it’s just written on the Internet fashion topic - the main thing is to write that amerkos has everything bad.
      1. Hog
        Hog 6 June 2020 14: 59 New
        +1
        Was the B-52 less dangerous in your opinion?

        And even so, in comparison with the B-58 it is the top of reliability and safety (all danger zones are several times smaller, and some are completely absent).
        1. smoltish
          smoltish 7 June 2020 09: 57 New
          0
          I'm not talking about reliability, but about safe operation on the ground. The article is mainly about this.
          "(all danger zones are several times smaller, and some are completely absent)." - Have you seen the technical documentation for the B-52?
          The electronic warfare system at 52nd is more powerful and there is no smaller zone. Engines 8 pieces. Yes, they are less powerful. As for the zone, show the link then reliable. And I will estimate how many times the zones are smaller.
          I saw the documentation for our aircraft. If the area on the Tu-160 is larger than on the Su-27, so what is the conclusion? Is the Tu-160 dangerous, and the Su-27 reliable and not dangerous by your logic?
          Some kind of nonsense in the article.
        2. smoltish
          smoltish 7 June 2020 10: 02 New
          0
          "he is the top of reliability and safety" look at the early versions of the B-52. The top of reliability and safety can not be called in any way. A bunch of accidents and disasters. And more than a dozen with special ammunition accidents. At first, the accident rate was such that you cannot say about the "top of reliability". And in terms of protection against radiation from personnel, it is also not safe.
  28. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx 21 June 2020 23: 07 New
    0
    ... Issue No. 4647 "Safety measures during the operation of aviation equipment." unlike more readable. And more useful, even though it came out 40 years ago.
  29. Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 16 September 2020 21: 35 New
    0
    The aforementioned features of operation were typical for other jet aircraft of that time. and it must be borne in mind that it was the first serial supersonic strategic bomber. The car was well controlled, accelerated faster than the interceptors of that time, could fly at supersonic longer than fighters! Three crew members had individual escape pods (!). The plane carried a nuclear bomb in a suspended container that served simultaneously as a fuel tank. The aircraft produced 19 world records for speed and altitude, but was removed from service in the 70s due to high operating costs, maintenance complexity and too narrow specialization. It was a high-altitude or medium-altitude supersonic bomber for a nuclear strike with a not too high flight range.