Best 50s/60s fighter?

Nonskimmer · 10-08-2006, 08:38 PM

I agree, the Avon Sabre was probably the deadliest Sabre variant with those cannons. All Canadair Sabre marks stuck with the standard six .50 cal machine gun arrangement. Only the Canadair marks 4, 5, and 6 were built in any quantity with the Orenda engines (Orenda 3 for the Mk.4, Orenda 10 for the Mk.5, and Orenda 14 for the Mk.6), and as far as I've been able to determine only the Mk.6 had significantly improved performance over the North American models. The Canadair Mk.2 was basically just a straight copy of the North American F-86A, GE J47 engine and all, with power assisted controls. The Mk.3 was just a testbed for the Orenda series.

davparlr · 10-08-2006, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

The Mig-15 was about as good as the Sabre. I think the Sabre was the best.

Watched an interesting documentary on the dogfights between the Mig-15s and the Sabres in the Korean War. Most of the Mig-15s were flown by Russian Pilots. They were interviewing both Russian Mig pilots and US Sabre Pilots.

Both talked very highly of the Mig-15s and the Sabre pilots actually gave the edge to the Mig-15.

Overall though and for it its impact I go with the Sabre.

I would agree. I'll bet that none of those pilots would have swapped their Sabre for a Mig.

This is a difficult topic because of the speed of the increase of technology that occurred in the 50s. The early Mig 17 (before the Mig 17F) was roughly equivalent to the contemporary Sabre F-86F. The Mig 17F, with afterburning, appears somewhat equivalent to the later versions of Sabre. However, the Mig 17F is really a contemporary of the F-100 also. I don't know much about the dogfighting ability of F-100 but it had much superior performance (100 mph faster and twice the climb). After 55, then planes like the F8U, F11F comes into play. And I don't know much at all about any European aircraft although the Hawker Hunters seems quite capable. Late in the 50s, a whole lot of planes come into play (Mig-21, F4H,et. al.) and become a new thread!

So, through 1954, the Sabre for performance and weapons systems.

FLYBOYJ · 10-08-2006, 11:29 PM

I know the F-100 was a hot rod but it was the later models that were operated effectively. The F-100C didn't have flaps, a little unnerving when landing, this I heard from the pilots at Flight Systems who flew them up till a few years ago as target tow planes in Germany. I think the Mig-17 was more on par with later moder Sabres, it was the Mig-19 that I would put as a F-100 contemporary. The Mig-19 was another effective fighter that at one time was the most cost effective fighter to operate (this data gained fro Pakistan).

ndicki · 10-09-2006, 02:01 AM

Don't forget the very short range of the Lightning...

What about some of those obscure USN fighters that I can't remember the names of? Cutlass? Fury? Phantom I, etc? Limited production, so maybe not brilliant, but interesting to throw in nonetheless!

plan_D · 10-09-2006, 02:48 AM

No one can forget the short range of the Lightning (450 mile combat radius) but as an interceptor, it's the best in this catergory.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-09-2006, 05:44 AM

For that time yes.

I agree though that this is a dificult topic because the advance in technology was so fast in the 1950s and 1960s.

davparlr · 10-09-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ndicki

Don't forget the very short range of the Lightning...

What about some of those obscure USN fighters that I can't remember the names of? Cutlass? Fury? Phantom I, etc? Limited production, so maybe not brilliant, but interesting to throw in nonetheless!

The early Navy jets were rather low performing compared to AF and Russian jets. This included the FH-1 Phantom, F2H Banshee, F9F Panther (which did great service in Korea, and I believe nailed a few Migs), FJ Furys (Basically Navalized F-86s, which was a redesign of the Navy FJ-1), and F9F Cougar. The F7U Cutlass had potential but tended to kill the operator and was retired quickly. The F4D Skyray was a nice jet with good performance and set some speed records and would be a contemporary to the Mig-19. The F3H Demon was kind of a dog and never lived up to expectations, mainly due to the engines, I believe. Then came the F8U and F4H. Both are classic jets and stand tall in the world of fighter jets (F-8 is in the shadow of the ubiquitous and great Phantom II, but don't tell an F-8 pilot that).

Glider · 10-09-2006, 05:37 PM

I always had a soft spot for the F8, considering it to be at least the equal of the F100, which would be a fairer comparison than the F4

Glider · 10-09-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I know the F-100 was a hot rod but it was the later models that were operated effectively. The F-100C didn't have flaps, a little unnerving when landing, this I heard from the pilots at Flight Systems who flew them up till a few years ago as target tow planes in Germany. I think the Mig-17 was more on par with later moder Sabres, it was the Mig-19 that I would put as a F-100 contemporary. The Mig-19 was another effective fighter that at one time was the most cost effective fighter to operate (this data gained fro Pakistan).

Cannot disagree with this, The USAF could have had a lot of problems if N Vietnam had been equipped with more Mig19's as opposed to Mig 17's.

FLYBOYJ · 10-09-2006, 05:49 PM

In the 1980s the Mig-19 was the 2nd most cost effective fighter to operate, the F-16 was #1. This was in an Aviation Week about the PAF.

davparlr · 10-10-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

I always had a soft spot for the F8, considering it to be at least the equal of the F100, which would be a fairer comparison than the F4

I, too, have always liked the F-8 and it make my list of best looking aircraft. I think it was clearly superior to the F-100. As I said, don't say that it's not a fair comparison to the F-4 to an F-8 pilot.

I forgot to mention F11F Tiger which was a nice aircraft but just didn't fit in. It was overshadowed by the F8U. Its main claim to fame was to be a Blue Angels plane.

kiwimac · 10-10-2006, 10:31 PM

Hunter, personally. Although we shouldn't forget the Vampire / Venom either

Bf109_g · 10-14-2006, 07:22 PM

Hawker Hunter...

dahut · 01-19-2007, 09:49 AM

I think this really comes down to two choices, so I'll vote for the MIG. While the Sabre had much more press exposure in combat, what we know of the MIG's indicate that it was pilot skill that truly made the difference.
Had the same aircraft been reversed, ie, Sabre being ComBloc and Mig being GI, one has to wonder where this would have all "landed."

FLYBOYJ · 01-19-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahut

I think this really comes down to two choices, so I'll vote for the MIG. While the Sabre had much more press exposure in combat, what we know of the MIG's indicate that it was pilot skill that truly made the difference.
Had the same aircraft been reversed, ie, Sabre being ComBloc and Mig being GI, one has to wonder where this would have all "landed."

Overall the Saber was a much more advanced aircraft and I think it has the advantage over the Mig. I've worked on both, the only problem I see is reliability. The Mig-15 was very simple to maintain and operate. The F-86 did have some operational problems. A big advantage with the F-86 was the use of G suits. This took some of the manoeuvrability advantage away from the Mig-15. At the end of the day I think the F-86 is the more superior air-to-air combat aircraft as it has the ability to make the Mig-15 to fight on its terms. The F-86F at lower altitudes was far superior to the Mig-15, and that includes the Mig-15bis.