The Convair Model 58-9 was a proposed supersonic airliner that Convair first developed in 1961, built on its experience with the B-58 Hustler bomber. It was intended to carry 58 passengers at speeds above Mach 2, and revised versions were submitted to Congress as Convair's bid for the national supersonic transport programme. The design would have reused the wing of the proposed B-58C bomber, joined to an entirely new fuselage and tail, with a cabin able to seat as many as 52 passengers. It was expected to have a maximum take-off weight of 190,000 pounds and a range of 2,500 nautical miles at a cruising speed of Mach 2.4. It remained a proposal and was never built.
Facts
StatusDesign only (never built) 1 Maximum Mass (kg) Comparison
Body StyleAircraft (no road body style) 1 Connections
Exemplifies
Source Convair B-58 Hustler - Wikipedia
Of Make
Source Convair B-58 Hustler - Wikipedia
In the Other Atlases
Manufactured By
Also in Business Atlas: the manufacturer of this subject.
Source Convair B-58 Hustler - WikipediaVariants, Model 58-9, manufacturerQuote, Variants, Model 58-9, manufacturer
Model 58-9: a proposed supersonic transport. First developed by Convair in 1961
Originated In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject originated.
Source Wikipedia: ConvairLeadQuote, Lead
Convair, originally Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, was an American aircraft-manufacturing company
Sources
1. Convair B-58 Hustler - Wikipedia
Variants, Model 58-9
Model 58-9: a proposed supersonic transport.
Variants, Model 58-9, maximum mass
maximum take-off weight of 190,000 pounds (86,000 kg)
Variants, Model 58-9, body style
the airliner's cabin would be capable of seating as many as 52 passengers
Variants, Model 58-9, manufacturer
Model 58-9: a proposed supersonic transport. First developed by Convair in 1961
View the SourceWikipedia: Convair
LeadQuote, Lead
Convair, originally Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, was an American aircraft-manufacturing company
View the Source Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.