I don't know how many out there share my affection for the B-58 Hustler but if you do, let's make some noise and try to get a top drawer diecast manufacturer to get one going. Based on my very rough math and a comparison of my finished B-58, a diecast model in this scale would be comparable in size to the SR-71. In mind, this makes it doable if the interest is strong enough. Hopefully so.
I've always liked the Hustler ever since I bought a Plastic model of one way back in the sixties to sit alongside my then newly released Airfix Lancaster. I think it was slightly smaller than 1/72, I don't remember the manufacturer now.
The problems with a diecast Hustler I feel are twofold. One, it never went to war, so no battle scarred heroics to talk of. Secondly and even more important, they all looked the same, "Silver Plate Bombers" eliminating different colour schemes for future model runs. So one model only, would not make much monetary sense.
Sadly some of these fifties bombers, including the B47 and B36 have slipped through the historical net and are almost forgotten.....
__________________
"My hat and scarf Nester"......
I've always liked the Hustler ever since I bought a Plastic model of one way back in the sixties to sit alongside my then newly released Airfix Lancaster. I think it was slightly smaller than 1/72, I don't remember the manufacturer now.
The problems with a diecast Hustler I feel are twofold. One, it never went to war, so no battle scarred heroics to talk of. Secondly and even more important, they all looked the same, "Silver Plate Bombers" eliminating different colour schemes for future model runs. So one model only, would not make much monetary sense.
Sadly some of these fifties bombers, including the B47 and B36 have slipped through the historical net and are almost forgotten.....
Unfortunately i have to agree with you, there isn't enough variety to warrant the cost in a new diecast model. But i would definitely be in if they ever did make one.
I've always liked the Hustler ever since I bought a Plastic model of one way back in the sixties to sit alongside my then newly released Airfix Lancaster. I think it was slightly smaller than 1/72, I don't remember the manufacturer now.
The problems with a diecast Hustler I feel are twofold. One, it never went to war, so no battle scarred heroics to talk of. Secondly and even more important, they all looked the same, "Silver Plate Bombers" eliminating different colour schemes for future model runs. So one model only, would not make much monetary sense.
Sadly some of these fifties bombers, including the B47 and B36 have slipped through the historical net and are almost forgotten.....
Some were painted in SEA camo, plus there were various hi-viz test schemes, but your other points are spot on.
Can't see this happening any time soon. The difference is that the Blackbirds are popular even by those who don't particularly collect diecast. The B-58 is just too big of a tooling and just too specialized.
I'm still holding out hope for a diecast B-29 i 1/72. Yes there are technical challenges at that size, but they don't seem unsurmountable. Moreover, there are a TON of liveries to be done and several big/important country operators. Plus, the fuselage cylinder is relatively simple. It could be packaged with "attach by yourself" wings.
A C-130 could be done along the same lines, but this might be tough as the different versions arent very compatible with each other mouldwise.
Remember folks, the germans did make a 1/72 Super Constellation which is roughly B-29 size.
I've always liked the Hustler ever since I bought a Plastic model of one way back in the sixties to sit alongside my then newly released Airfix Lancaster. I think it was slightly smaller than 1/72, I don't remember the manufacturer now.
The problems with a diecast Hustler I feel are twofold. One, it never went to war, so no battle scarred heroics to talk of. Secondly and even more important, they all looked the same, "Silver Plate Bombers" eliminating different colour schemes for future model runs. So one model only, would not make much monetary sense.
Sadly some of these fifties bombers, including the B47 and B36 have slipped through the historical net and are almost forgotten.....
I think we're contemporaries, as I also built the Airfix Lancaster (G-George) in the mid-60's (my buddy built the Revell Dambuster one with the 'Secret Bomb'). I also built the B-58. Now mine was definitely smaller than 1:72, as it was the Monogram one at 1:121. Revell also offered one at 1:94, Aurora at 1:76, while I believe Lindberg did one in 1:64 (without the scale posted on the box).
I eventually bought and built this one too. It was huge. I think a diecast in 1:72 would be quite the challenge (especially the landing gear) but a worthy undertaking. There are several colour schemes to choose from.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Élégance en vol . . . Airfrance-style!
Last edited by Upkeep; 02-20-2018 at 04:31 PM.
Reason: sp/clarity
Some were painted in SEA camo, plus there were various hi-viz test schemes, but your other points are spot on.
No B58s carried the S.E Asian scheme and only the two prototypes carried schemes other than NMF. Occasionally it carried some markings on the vertical tail.
The type only operated with two wings. So the only consistent markings that differentiated units was the unit badge and band on the forward fuselage.
__________________
"The deliberately planned fighter sweep went just as we'd hoped. The MiGs came up. The MiGs were aggressive. We tangled. They lost." BRIG Robin Olds.
Last edited by Light Fire Team; 04-27-2018 at 07:54 PM.
Can't see this happening any time soon. The difference is that the Blackbirds are popular even by those who don't particularly collect diecast. The B-58 is just too big of a tooling and just too specialized.
I'm still holding out hope for a diecast B-29 i 1/72. Yes there are technical challenges at that size, but they don't seem unsurmountable. Moreover, there are a TON of liveries to be done and several big/important country operators. Plus, the fuselage cylinder is relatively simple. It could be packaged with "attach by yourself" wings.
A C-130 could be done along the same lines, but this might be tough as the different versions arent very compatible with each other mouldwise.
Remember folks, the germans did make a 1/72 Super Constellation which is roughly B-29 size.
More B58s were manufactured than the SR71 and its smaller in length and wing area. Its only 7 feet longer than the TSR2 and way smaller than the Vulcan.
Regardless it would be difficult,...and although equally spectacular in looks and stunning performance, you are right its no SR71.
Still, a TSR2 like run for two releases (one for each wing) maybe doable.
Just don't count on a profit. But you never know?
__________________
"The deliberately planned fighter sweep went just as we'd hoped. The MiGs came up. The MiGs were aggressive. We tangled. They lost." BRIG Robin Olds.
No B58s carried the S.E Asian scheme and only the two prototypes carried schemes other than NMF. Occasionally it carried some markings on the vertical tail.
The type only operated with two wings. So the only consistent markings that differentiated units was the unit badge and band on the forward fuselage.
There are many first hand reports of aircraft assigned to the Operation Bullseye low-level testing program wearing SEA, albeit no known pictures.
Still I am sure such a scheme would sell based on the possibility alone. ARD sell a wide variety of TSR2 “operational schemes” in 1/200 which are pure fantasy.
There are many first hand reports of aircraft assigned to the Operation Bullseye low-level testing program wearing SEA, albeit no known pictures.
Considering some sources state the testing for Operation Bulls Eye was conducted in Apr 64,....then its unlikely.
As for first hand reports,...do you have a link?
__________________
"The deliberately planned fighter sweep went just as we'd hoped. The MiGs came up. The MiGs were aggressive. We tangled. They lost." BRIG Robin Olds.
Last edited by Light Fire Team; 04-27-2018 at 08:59 PM.
Does Jay Miller give a source in his bibliography regarding the S.E Asian scheme and specifically 59-2428?
The Apr 64 date, which makes sense. Rolling Thunder had commenced the USAF was totally unprepared for conventional bombing and bombing methods such as remote bombing utilising the B66 enabling accurate bombing. By 1967, many of these problems had been overcome.
The idea being the B58 navigation suite allowed for more accurate bombing, in addition to dropping its own conventional ordnance.
In fact low level flying was tested in 58/59, which demonstrated the airframe performed well. Although, no one understood the effect of the stressors on the airframe at low level.
At anyrate, here is a splendid article by Global Security on the development and ongoing development of the B58 from entry to disbandment. Low level operations being a critical vulnerability of the aircraft, due to its avionics suite (unsurprisingly, it was never designed for low level work).
Regardless, there is no evidence of a S.E. Camouflaged applied to the B58. I have read the term "first hand reports" on a number of sites,...namely modelling sites. But I cannot find one on the net.
However, it has no references,...or first hand accounts and makes the extraordinary claim that B58s, with a 3000lb conventional load made 3000 sorties in 27 days.
It also contradicts other sources on the purpose of Bulls Eye and the date the Project/Operation was conducted.
My own references such as Alwyn T. Lloyd's excellent reference book, on the Strategic Air Command, "A Cold War legacy, A Tribute to Strategic Air Command", makes no reference to Bulls Eye at all.
If someone can come up with a first hand account,...or a picture I'll be dancing in the streets. But until then, the whole episode seems rather, to say the least, incomplete.
__________________
"The deliberately planned fighter sweep went just as we'd hoped. The MiGs came up. The MiGs were aggressive. We tangled. They lost." BRIG Robin Olds.
Last edited by Light Fire Team; 04-28-2018 at 09:14 PM.
As I mentioned before though, there are plenty of releases of schemes based on rumours or straight up fantasy that have been released and sell well so in regards to getting a B-58 made in diecast it would be another scheme which could be released, and would be pretty sure to be popular.
If anything the mysterious elements of the situation would more than likely add to the interest to be frank.
Does Jay Miller give a source in his bibliography regarding the S.E Asian scheme and specifically 59-2428?
Of course not, as no evidence has surfaced yet about this, as you already wrote.
But as interesting as your internet sources maybe, I wouldn't rely on them and a couple of "1964" references (I was only able to find one among the links you provided, and it may as well be a typo) to conclusively claim this scheme never existed on a B-58.
Of course not, as no evidence has surfaced yet about this, as you already wrote.
But as interesting as your internet sources maybe, I wouldn't rely on them and a couple of "1964" references (I was only able to find one among the links you provided, and it may as well be a typo) to conclusively claim this scheme never existed on a B-58.
For now nobody is able to prove that Project Bullseye did or didn't existed, so it's up to each of us to make an opinion.
Both sources are there Mystere:
Although on reflection, one probably copied the other as wording is almost the same.
I believe Bulls Eye did exist, in 1964. Other than sources I quoted (personally I think are pretty good), I believe the need for a remote bomber existed in 1964,... but maybe not so much 1967. I also believe 1967 is unlikely because by then SAC was committed to the conflict which detracted from its primary mission of Nuclear deterrence. SAC still needed the B58 to maintain deterrence whilst the B52D and F units were committed to the Vietnam War.
I am still open to the idea it was conducted in 67,....but on the face of it, I still think 64.
As you say, each of us has the ability to form our own opinion.
__________________
"The deliberately planned fighter sweep went just as we'd hoped. The MiGs came up. The MiGs were aggressive. We tangled. They lost." BRIG Robin Olds.
Last edited by Light Fire Team; 04-30-2018 at 07:54 PM.
Wow LfT, that first quote totally settles the issue!
I didn't say it settled anything as I clearly stated in my post.
Of course my post had a heap more info than what you are referring to.
__________________
"The deliberately planned fighter sweep went just as we'd hoped. The MiGs came up. The MiGs were aggressive. We tangled. They lost." BRIG Robin Olds.
Last edited by Light Fire Team; 04-30-2018 at 08:03 PM.
Unfortunately i have to agree with you, there isn't enough variety to warrant the cost in a new diecast model. But i would definitely be in if they ever did make one.
To be fair that's exactly the type of thing HM don't mind because of efficiency's in manufacturing.
The other thing to consider is there is actually quite a few airframes still in existence in preserved condition in some of the best aviation museums on the planet.
Corgi base a lot of their releases from museum pieces. For example the first 1:48 Lightning is a Brunty Lightning. The Lightning Preservation Group were engaged and they bought a stack of the model for investment purposes on behalf of the LPG. Also the Lightning has no operational experience either (other than QRA intercepts).
There is nothing to stop HM (or any other manufacturer) engaging with those Museums in the USA that have a B58 exhibit.
The B58, in my own opinion is one of, if not the most, spectacular looking aircraft ever created. That has to count for something,....just like it did for the SR71.
It certainly worth a look at for any prospective manufacturer.
__________________
"The deliberately planned fighter sweep went just as we'd hoped. The MiGs came up. The MiGs were aggressive. We tangled. They lost." BRIG Robin Olds.
Last edited by Light Fire Team; 07-31-2018 at 07:43 PM.
I agree and was blessed to have found a real nice built plastic one. Unfortunately the landing gear was broken in transit but I will put it on a stand as soon as I get one.
I do understand the lack of options for schemes, but I sure think a Cold War Nuclear Series would be immensely popular among collectors. The B-58, B-47, B-66 and B-36 would be absolutes but there are many other subjects.
I do understand the lack of options for schemes, but I sure think a Cold War Nuclear Series would be immensely popular among collectors. The B-58, B-47, B-66 and B-36 would be absolutes but there are many other subjects.
Been saying for years HM got it wrong with the venture into WW2 1:144 and Civies 1:200.
They should have done something original, barely already done and enduring,...…..Cold War Bombers/Heavies in 1:144.
A bit more risky now with Herpa and 1:200.
Its an opportunity lost,...in my view.
__________________
"The deliberately planned fighter sweep went just as we'd hoped. The MiGs came up. The MiGs were aggressive. We tangled. They lost." BRIG Robin Olds.
They should have done something original, barely already done and enduring,...…..Cold War Bombers/Heavies in 1:144.
i don't know much about scales smaller than 1/144, but, umm, isnt that what dragon and to some extent corgi (B-52, etc.) tried at with extremely limited success?
i don't know much about scales smaller than 1/144, but, umm, isnt that what dragon and to some extent corgi (B-52, etc.) tried at with extremely limited success?
What did Dragon release as a Cold War Bombers/Heavies in 1:144? How is the Dragon 1:144 series relevant to Cold War Bombers?
When was the last B52 released?
__________________
"The deliberately planned fighter sweep went just as we'd hoped. The MiGs came up. The MiGs were aggressive. We tangled. They lost." BRIG Robin Olds.
1/72 B-58 Hustler - Diecast Hopes
Re: 1/72 B-58 Hustler - Diecast Hopes
