# F86-Sabre or Cf-100 Canuck which was better?



## 102first_hussars (Oct 8, 2005)

I would say the Canuck because it was faster, had all weather capability among other things.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2005)

Don't you mean F-86? Both were designed for two different roles but the F-86E is about 30 mph faster than the Canuck. The Orenda engine Sabres also used by the RCAF were more than 60 mph faster......


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 8, 2005)

oops typo


----------



## plan_D (Oct 8, 2005)

And what about the Australian Sabres, FB? C'mon, it had the same engine as the English Electric Lightning, although it only had one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2005)

The F-86 was conceived as a pure air-to-air fighter and showed it's worth over Korea. Although it is evident that the 10 to 1 kill ratio claimed by the USAF was actually like 4 to 1, it was still quite evident that the F-86 dominated the MiG-15 over Korea.

An all weather version, F-86D equipped with 24 2.75 inch rockets was used through out the 50s and 60s by the US and several other NATO countries...

In my opinion, the CL-100 is a classic cold war interceptor, but as far as over all performance, versatility and combat record (something the Canuck doesn't even have) you're comparing a rather lackluster interceptor to one of the greatest fighter aircraft of all time. The RCAF deployed both Canuck and the CL-13 "Sabre" which over 1300 were built with many being sold abroad. If you want to compare them as a bomber interceptor, the Canuck was designed for that role, if you want to match them up fighter to fighter, I think the Sabre, Especially the Orenda engine CL-13 would have the CL-100 for lunch!!!!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 8, 2005)

You're breaking my balls here, Joe. *chinese accent* - what about the Australian Sabre? It must have been like a Sabre but with a kick up the arse. 23,000 lbs worth of thrust in those Avons!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2005)

plan_D said:


> And what about the Australian Sabres, FB? C'mon, it had the same engine as the English Electric Lightning, although it only had one.



As stated in the other post - They were probably the most deadly of the F-86s, but the Orenda Sabres were very good as well - but the Aussie Sabers did have those Arden Cannons!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 8, 2005)

The Canuck was not better than the Sabre. In fact, the Canuck wasn't really even a great interceptor, as interceptors go. That's what it had been designed for initially. It was actually a mostly out of date design by the time it entered service. Don't get me wrong now, it wasn't a complete piece of crap, but it wasn't the best plane for any job. It was like a jeep: functional but not very fancy. The crews called it the "Clunk".

Canadair Sabre Mk.6's had the Orenda engine, but they never carried missiles or cannons operationally. As far as I've been able to find, they only carried the standard six .50 calibre guns. Some were tested with rockets I think. This is all just off the top of my head of course.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2005)

I think the F-89 and the F-94 (the F-94C is one of my favorite aircraft) were probably better than the CL-100. The Canuck MK 5 was able to fly a respectable 690 mph and stayed in services until 1981 as a ECM platform. 693 CF100s were built, I think over 3000 F-86s and Canadair Sabres were built. I think comparing the CF-100 to the F-86 would be like comparing a Corvette to a pick up truck...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 8, 2005)

53 Canuck Mk.5's were sold to the Belgian Air Force. There were plans to create a Mk.6 equipped with afterburning engines and armed with Sparrows that never took-off (pardon the pun), and a few other concepts. I've seen pictures of a mock-up of the swept wing CF-103 mentioned here.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avcf100.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2005)

Yep- heard of that too, the CF-103 - straight wing aircraft with an afterburner?!?! I think at that point you get a pick up truck with a huge V-8 in it, although I could of just pictured that thing firing Sparrows!!!


----------



## Glider (Oct 8, 2005)

PLanD the Avon in the Sabre didn't have an afterburner and produced around 7,500lb thrust which was about the same as the Canadian Sabre. It weighed a bit more than the Canadian planes so I would expect their performace to be similar.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 8, 2005)

K where did you guys get the CL from? its Cf CF-100


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

Oh, well that's just pointless then. Why bother puttin' an Avon in the freakin' thing if it's lacking it's afterburner.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> K where did you guys get the CL from? its Cf CF-100



Actually it was a Typo - The the CL-13 was the Canadiar desigation for the Sabre


----------



## Glider (Oct 9, 2005)

Because the American Sabre only produces around 6000 ib thrust.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

But does the plus 1,500 lbs make up for the increase in weight? And it'd be much better with 23,000 lbs.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 9, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The the CL-13 was the Canadiar desigation for the Sabre


Yeah, we always have to change things like that for some reason. Like sticking the red maple leaf in the centre of the McDonald's logo. We've "Canadianized" it.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

My god ...next you'll be sticking the maple leaf in your flag and saying you're a real country.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 9, 2005)

And then there goes North America...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 9, 2005)

Seriously though, we do that with a lot of things. I mean I'm a proud enough Canuck and all, but...I dunno. It just seems a bit pointless to me sometimes to have to stick a leaf on something just to make it seem home-grown to people who couldn't really care less anyway. What's the difference?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

Well, you get CJD from Canadian McDonalds ...maybe that's the difference.


----------



## Glider (Oct 9, 2005)

The weight of a Aussie Sabre was about 10% more than an F86F, Its engine the Avon was about had about a 23% increase in thrust compared to the J47-GE-27. 
This was more than enough to give a significant improvement in performance over the USA Sabre, as well as having all the extra kit.

As an aside, the Avon weighed less than the J47 and had a lower fuel consumption, which helped the designers with weight and gave an increase in range.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

Can't you just sling all the information about the Australian Sabre at me, please? How did it compare to the F-86F? Speed? Ceiling? Performance at altitude? So on and so forth. And ...what the hell did it look like?


----------



## evangilder (Oct 9, 2005)

Here you go for some pics:

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/sabre50thanniversarybg_1.htm


----------



## Glider (Oct 9, 2005)

It looked like a Sabre but with two big gun ports not six little ones.

Commonwealth Sabre CA27
Empty Weight 12,100lb
loaded Weight 16,000ib
Max Speed 610MPH
Ceiling 55,000ft
Range with Drop tanks 1,150 miles
Thrust 7,500 lbs
Twin 30mm with 162 rounds

F86F
Empty Weight 10,890lbs
loaded weight 20,357lbs
Max Speed 600 mph
Ceiling 48,000ft
Range Drop Tanks 925 miles
Thrust 6,090 lbs

The first line say sound like a joke, but that is the only major visible difference.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 9, 2005)

That's a good picture. Thanks. And thanks for the information.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Well of the two I would deffinatly go with the Sabre and I dont think that the Sabre really had much competition besides the Mig-15 at the the time and it proved what was better.


----------

