The Hunter was a great aicraft, but if only . . . - images.jpg

[[email protected]]

[Charles Lindbergh]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:16:07 -0400, wrote:

If only, what? If only the USA had purchased the aircraft?

[Byker]

"Charles Lindbergh" wrote in message
...
>
> If only, what? If only the USA had purchased the aircraft?

The U.S. already had the F-100 as a transonic jet.

The Lebanese air force flew Hunters until a couple of years ago

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:57:59 -0500, "Byker" > wrote:

>"Charles Lindbergh" wrote in message
...
>>
>> If only, what? If only the USA had purchased the aircraft?
>
>The U.S. already had the F-100 as a transonic jet.
>
>The Lebanese air force flew Hunters until a couple of years ago


Why should the US NOT have bought the Hunter? It's cost was only about
half that of the F100. That would have come to a $660-million saving
over the life of the aircraft, or about $6-billion in today's money.
Even if a decision to buy Hunters had been delayed until the F100 was
ready for service, the development cost of the Super Sabre
($23-million) would easily have been written off.

Then there was the F100's awful accident rate. 889 aircraft, or about
one-third of the total production, were lost to accidents, involving
the loss of 324 pilots.

OK, the F-100 was faster by about 25mph in level flight and ongoing US
developments called for somewhat different requirements.

[Charles Lindbergh[_2_]]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:39:43 -0400, wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:57:59 -0500, "Byker" > wrote:
>
>>"Charles Lindbergh" wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> If only, what? If only the USA had purchased the aircraft?
>>
>>The U.S. already had the F-100 as a transonic jet.
>>
>>The Lebanese air force flew Hunters until a couple of years ago
>
>
>Why should the US NOT have bought the Hunter? It's cost was only about
>half that of the F100. That would have come to a $660-million saving
>over the life of the aircraft, or about $6-billion in today's money.
>Even if a decision to buy Hunters had been delayed until the F100 was
>ready for service, the development cost of the Super Sabre
>($23-million) would easily have been written off.
>
>Then there was the F100's awful accident rate. 889 aircraft, or about
>one-third of the total production, were lost to accidents, involving
>the loss of 324 pilots.
>
>OK, the F-100 was faster by about 25mph in level flight and ongoing US
>developments called for somewhat different requirements.

I am unable to find any historical information about the USA having considered purchasing the Hunter. If you
can point me toward any such information, it would be an interesting read.

[Byker]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:39:43 -0400, wrote:
>
>
>Why should the US NOT have bought the Hunter? It's cost was only about
>half that of the F100. That would have come to a $660-million saving
>over the life of the aircraft, or about $6-billion in today's money.
>Even if a decision to buy Hunters had been delayed until the F100 was
>ready for service, the development cost of the Super Sabre
>($23-million) would easily have been written off.
>
>Then there was the F100's awful accident rate. 889 aircraft, or about
>one-third of the total production, were lost to accidents, involving
>the loss of 324 pilots.

Had Hunters served as many hours as the F-100, I would expect it to have
similar losses:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/20176#.Vvxyr_krKUk

In wartime you can expect a lot of accidents (half the aircraft lost in WWII
were lost to accidents). From 1961 until their redeployment in 1971, the
F-100s were the longest serving U.S. jet fighter-bomber to fight in the
Vietnam War. Enemy fire and training accidents took their toll over ten
years.

Oh, and BTW, the F-105 Thunderchief became the dominant attack aircraft
early in the Vietnam War. The F-105 could carry more than twice the bomb
load farther and faster than the F-100, which was used mostly in South
Vietnam. Of the 833 F-105s built, a combined 395 F-105s were lost in
Southeast Asia, including 334 (296 F-105Ds and 38 two-seaters) lost to enemy
action and 61 lost in operational accidents.

>OK, the F-100 was faster by about 25mph in level flight and ongoing US
>developments called for somewhat different requirements.

Hey, you're catching on!

[Byker]

"Charles Lindbergh" wrote in message
...
>
> I am unable to find any historical information about the USA having
> considered purchasing the Hunter. If you can point me toward any such
> information, it would be an interesting read.

I haven't found anything about considered purchases, but I have found a
number of comparisons between the Hunter and the F-86 Sabre:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/9686/Hawker-Hunter-and-dogfight-capability#.Vvx0GPkrKUk

https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130810075828AA0Ocz9

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/best-50s-60s-fighter.5366/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0NmC0Jrx78

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsaZ7BvvaZk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbDg8hsl4wc

[[email protected]]

Very stimulating image. Kind of looks OK in USAF livery.

[Byker]

wrote in message ...
>
> Very stimulating image. Kind of looks OK in USAF livery.

And in Korean War F-86 livery

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:46:36 -0500, "Byker" > wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:39:43 -0400, wrote:
>>
>>
>>Why should the US NOT have bought the Hunter? It's cost was only about
>>half that of the F100. That would have come to a $660-million saving
>>over the life of the aircraft, or about $6-billion in today's money.
>>Even if a decision to buy Hunters had been delayed until the F100 was
>>ready for service, the development cost of the Super Sabre
>>($23-million) would easily have been written off.
>>
>>Then there was the F100's awful accident rate. 889 aircraft, or about
>>one-third of the total production, were lost to accidents, involving
>>the loss of 324 pilots.
>
>Had Hunters served as many hours as the F-100, I would expect it to have
>similar losses:

I did a quick check of Hunter accidents (204 or just over 10% of total
fleet) and resulting pilot losses (80). Of this aggregate figure, the
Swiss suffered 33 accidents (20% of their aircraft) and the loss of 16
pilots.

The F100 and Hunter came into service at about the same time (1954/55)
but whereas the F100 was taken out of service in the early 1970s, the
Hunter continued with the RAF until the 1980s and the Swiss AF into
the 1990s. The highest FH for a Hunter (in Royal Navy service) was
6925 hours. The RAF got about up to about 5100. It was not unusual for
an airframe to have 2000 to 3000 or more hours before being converted
to FGA9s or Swiss/Singapore versions. The Swiss then put an average of
about 2500 hours more on their F58s and 1500 hours on their F58As.

>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/20176#.Vvxyr_krKUk
>
>In wartime you can expect a lot of accidents (half the aircraft lost in WWII
>were lost to accidents). From 1961 until their redeployment in 1971, the
>F-100s were the longest serving U.S. jet fighter-bomber to fight in the
>Vietnam War. Enemy fire and training accidents took their toll over ten
>years.
>
>Oh, and BTW, the F-105 Thunderchief became the dominant attack aircraft
>early in the Vietnam War. The F-105 could carry more than twice the bomb
>load farther and faster than the F-100, which was used mostly in South
>Vietnam. Of the 833 F-105s built, a combined 395 F-105s were lost in
>Southeast Asia, including 334 (296 F-105Ds and 38 two-seaters) lost to enemy
>action and 61 lost in operational accidents.
>
>>OK, the F-100 was faster by about 25mph in level flight and ongoing US
>>developments called for somewhat different requirements.
>
>Hey, you're catching on!

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:46:36 -0500, "Byker" > wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:39:43 -0400, wrote:
>>
>>
>>Why should the US NOT have bought the Hunter? It's cost was only about
>>half that of the F100. That would have come to a $660-million saving
>>over the life of the aircraft, or about $6-billion in today's money.
>>Even if a decision to buy Hunters had been delayed until the F100 was
>>ready for service, the development cost of the Super Sabre
>>($23-million) would easily have been written off.
>>
>>Then there was the F100's awful accident rate. 889 aircraft, or about
>>one-third of the total production, were lost to accidents, involving
>>the loss of 324 pilots.
>
>Had Hunters served as many hours as the F-100, I would expect it to have
>similar losses:
>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/20176#.Vvxyr_krKUk
>
>In wartime you can expect a lot of accidents (half the aircraft lost in WWII
>were lost to accidents). From 1961 until their redeployment in 1971, the
>F-100s were the longest serving U.S. jet fighter-bomber to fight in the
>Vietnam War. Enemy fire and training accidents took their toll over ten
>years.
>
>Oh, and BTW, the F-105 Thunderchief became the dominant attack aircraft
>early in the Vietnam War. The F-105 could carry more than twice the bomb
>load farther and faster than the F-100, which was used mostly in South
>Vietnam. Of the 833 F-105s built, a combined 395 F-105s were lost in
>Southeast Asia, including 334 (296 F-105Ds and 38 two-seaters) lost to enemy
>action and 61 lost in operational accidents.
>
>>OK, the F-100 was faster by about 25mph in level flight and ongoing US
>>developments called for somewhat different requirements.
>
>Hey, you're catching on!

But this 25 mph comes right on the cusp of the speed of sound and, in
1955, the implications of operating in this transonic speed band were
just beginning to be understood. In particular is the loss of
longitudinal stability and resulting pitch-up encountered when
maneuvering. This may not be too bad when shooting off missiles but
would certainly make machine gun operation a bit of a problem, Then
there is the issue of wave drag and the resulting increase in fuel
consumption.

BTW: NASA was still investigating transonic maneuverability in 1976,
using the YF-17 Cobra which was later developed into the F/A-18.

So, to my mind, this extra 25 mph is really only good for "getting the
hell out of Dodge".

[[email protected]]

[Byker]

wrote in message ...
>
> The F100 and Hunter came into service at about the same time (1954/55) but
> whereas the F100 was taken out of service in the early 1970s.

That's because the USAF literally flew them until they wore out. The same
went for the B-47, which the Air Force flew like a fighter for ten years,
ignoring metal fatigue until they just started flying apart in midair. Our
pilots trained under wartime conditions throughout the Cold War, pushing
their machines to the limit.

Besides, had the DOD thought the Hunter was so hot, we'd have built them
under license like the Canberra/B-57.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:02:41 -0500, "Byker" > wrote:

>wrote in message ...
>>
>> The F100 and Hunter came into service at about the same time (1954/55) but
>> whereas the F100 was taken out of service in the early 1970s.
>
>That's because the USAF literally flew them until they wore out. The same
>went for the B-47, which the Air Force flew like a fighter for ten years,
>ignoring metal fatigue until they just started flying apart in midair. Our
>pilots trained under wartime conditions throughout the Cold War, pushing
>their machines to the limit.
>
>Besides, had the DOD thought the Hunter was so hot, we'd have built them
>under license like the Canberra/B-57.

Yes. That would have been nice too. But I do realize that the USA does
tend to keep its strategic assets under the control of US
manufacturers, except for niche applications such as the Canberra, the
Beaver, the Cariboo and the Goshawk. That's why I said "if only"
rather than "should have" in the subject line.

[Byker]

wrote in message ...
>
> So, to my mind, this extra 25 mph is really only good for "getting the
> hell out of Dodge"

And the F-100 could do just that. Pix: Making a nuclear toss-bomb delivery.

That's when you have to make yourself scarce QUICK