Talk:Convair B-58 Hustler

message: Is it true that the B-58 was so fast that bullets emerging from the tail gun would be almost stationary relative to the ground? Drutt (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, irrelevant. Doesn't anyone take Mechanics 101 in college these days? HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwYB9nCdKOM before commenting again. John Simpson54 (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

text: What matters isn't the bullet's speed relative to the ground, but its speed relative to the target. If a B=58 is shooting its tail gun at a target, then presumably the target is an enemy aircraft, and that aircraft has an airspeed close to that of the B-58. In such a situation a round of ammo with zero groundspeed still has a large impact speed on contact with the enemy target aircraft.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The missed point here (when the bullet is travelling at a lesser speed towards the rear than the plane is travelling going forward) is the bad aerodynamics imposed on the bullet. In effect, once it is spat out of the M61 its 2,240 m/s speed (imparted by riding with the aircraft) is nothing more than slowed by 1,050 m/s. It is now travelling forward (relative to the plane) at 1,190 m/s. Unfortunately, this is its speed travelling BACKWARD in the context of the bullet's aerodynamics. It is trying to plow through the air butt first, with the tapered aerodynamic front fairing pointed rearwards (in the context of the direction of travel). Many engineers at Convair argued this reality to the Air Force during the design stage, saying that the plane's gun would be useless at design speed.  When fired from an aircraft travelling at speeds faster than the muzzle velocity of the bullet, the gun would be terribly inaccurate because all of its fired rounds would become immediately aerodynamically uncoupled. The Air Force still wanted the gun, stating that at those speeds no Soviet interceptors could close on a B-58 anyway, and the gun would thus not be needed in that scenario. It would, however, be extremely useful in the eventual low-level attack profile, which would be conducted at far lesser speeds. Fired in that scenario, the gun would regain its accuracy. (Brad Cone, Cedar Park, Texas, March 19, 2019.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:F0C8:CA00:F959:BEFA:D178:73E7 (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Small point - the aircraft's speed was 2240 km/h, not 2240 m/sec. 2240 km/h is 622.2 m/sec. So any rounds fired from the aircraft when flying forward at 622 m/sec would emerge from the muzzle at 1050 m/sec relative to the aircraft and in the opposite direction (assuming it was firing directly aft). The bullet would have an apparent ground speed - aftward - of 1050 - 622.2, or 427/8 m/sec aftward. However, as pointed out by HammerFilmFan and User:24.223.130.32, the aftward groundspeed of the bullet is immaterial, as the gun would be firing at an aircraft astern and flying at some speed fairly close to that of the Hustler in question. What matters is the relative speed of the projectile and the closing aircraft. Let's say an aircraft was also flying at 2240 km/h; the relative speed between the two aircraft is therefore 0 km/h, in which case the relative speed of the round to the target aircraft is 1050 m/sec closing. If the target aircraft is moving faster, then the speed of the round fired at it is the difference in aircraft closing speed + 1050 m/sec. 2604:3D08:137A:A700:2D53:FF4B:2699:623B (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Tail gun