Best 50s/60s fighter?

FLYBOYJ · 01-20-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

Personally I found that the Avon wasn't a Grudge (new word for me but I take it not to be complimentary) to work on. The Avon was one of the most successful jet engines of all time certainly of its era, being used in a number of aircraft. It was also widely used in engineering and on ground installations for a variety of uses.

Agree - it was just accessing it and in the Hunter it looked like a heck of a lot harder than the Saber

pbfoot · 01-20-2007, 09:13 PM

Didn't the 86 waste more Hunters then they Sabres lost in the Indo Pakstani conflict 21 Sabres lost vs 37 Hunters in head to head combat. Sounds like game set match to me

FLYBOYJ · 01-20-2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Didn't the 86 waste more Hunters then they Sabres lost in the Indo Pakstani conflict 21 Sabres lost vs 37 Hunters in head to head combat. Sounds like game set match to me

I looked that up earlier - I think it was even...

pbfoot · 01-20-2007, 09:59 PM

I counted it again and come up with the same results or pretty close to that number off acig it looks like the Gnat did better then the Hunter

FLYBOYJ · 01-20-2007, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I counted it again and come up with the same results or pretty close to that number off acig it looks like the Gnat did better then the Hunter

That doesn't surprise me - I think on that site there's an article stating that the PAF pilots said the Gnat was a tough customer...

Glider · 01-21-2007, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I counted it again and come up with the same results or pretty close to that number off acig it looks like the Gnat did better then the Hunter

True but it should be noted that the Hunter in Indian use was a Ground Attack plane and in most air to air combats were at a tactical disadvantage. The F86 being a fighter in Pakistani use tended to have the advantage as well as their pilots training being biased to air to air not GA.

For the Hunter to break even in such circumstances is not a bad performance.

I also understand that the Jordanian Hunters that were met in the air gave the IAF a hard time during the six day war, the details of which I will need to check.

Re the maintanence of the Hunter FJ is correct in that it is probably more difficult to get access for maintanence. However is one important detail it was ahead of most planes of its era and that was turnaround time in a combat situation.
All the fuel tanks were refueled by one fueling point in the port wheel bay, the oxygen bottles didn't have to be removed and were charged via a valve in the front wheel bay. The guns didn't have to be rearmed, the guns and ammunition were in one package which was taken out of the plane in one go and replaced by another package, a much faster process than laoding belts of 30mm and the oil levels could be checked via a panel in the starboard side under the rear of the wing without taking a panel off.
There was also a telebriefing plug at the back of the fuselage so the pilot could be briefed/debriefed without leaving the aircraft.

I don't know how the F86 compares in these respects but I do know that the Mirage for instance didn't have these advantages and that was a later aircraft.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-21-2007, 04:32 AM

very interesting, didn't know a lot of that hunter stuff!

Gnomey · 01-21-2007, 07:06 AM

Yep, good stuff! Here is a picture of the Hunter's 30mm when detached.

http://f3.yahoofs.com/users/41a9f969...Y51sFB.1U11LhI

Glider · 01-21-2007, 10:03 AM

At FRADU they didn't have the 30mm but used the space and power for various electronic packages used in training the RN and other navies in how to deal with various contingecnies including ECM and other environments.

I attach a photo in which you can see the aerials for one of the packages in one plane but not the other.

Apologies to those who have seen it before

FLYBOYJ · 01-21-2007, 10:56 AM

The F-86 had provisions for gravity and single point pressure refueling. It also had 3 gun boxes in each gun bay where armament was pre-loaded into the boxes and "snapped" into place. I've seen photos of this but the F-86s I've worked on had the guns long removed.

The drop tank/ stores were pretty standard and it probably took no more than 5 or 10 minutes to remove and re-install a drop tank or any other item to be carried ont he pylon.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-23-2007, 01:10 PM

that doesn't change the fact the guns are puny .50cals, i'd take cannon in the jet age anyday........

FLYBOYJ · 01-23-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

that doesn't change the fact the guns are puny .50cals, i'd take cannon in the jet age anyday........

The "puny" .50s in the Saber used incendiary rounds. When paired with a properly functioning radar computing site it only took a few rounds to bring down a Mig-15.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-23-2007, 03:31 PM

i'm not just thinking -86vs. mig here, the hunter is still in service in some places in the world or was until a few years back, for the masses of roles and combats she took place in the cannon stood her in better sted than .50cals, particularly for ground attack...........

FLYBOYJ · 01-23-2007, 04:05 PM

The 20mm would work well in air-to-air and air-to-ground as it did in the Hunter. Larger caliber cannons like those on the Mig-15 or Mig-17 had velocity problems as admitted by some pilots, it would be like lobbing a brick at something, but god help you if you got hit by one. Remember, later model F-86s had 20mms as well...

A lot more operators used the Sabre (Gotta love Wikpedia)

37 Operators

22 Operators

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-23-2007, 04:46 PM

what the hell kind of half wit chart is that it doesn't even have Britain down as using the Hunter