# Best 50s/60s fighter?



## R988 (Oct 2, 2006)

More specifically I will round it down to four contenders which were fairly established in the late 50's, early 60s

Hawker Hunter
Dassault Mystère
F-86 Sabre
MiG-17

Each has it's advantages and limitations, it's a tough choice, I think I'd go for a Hunter for it's all round capabilities.

Maybe the F-86 for a pure air superiority role  

Not sure how the MiG 17 compares to later developed F-86s and the Mystère is something of an unknown really.


----------



## R Pope (Oct 3, 2006)

As a kid in the '50's, the ONLY fighter plane was the "Sabrejet". It is a design that just plain works.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2006)

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.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 3, 2006)

Given that the Mig 17 is in the poll that would be my choice


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2006)

Over all I'll still stick with the F-86, especially the Canadair-Orenda ones...

The Mig-17 was a great aircraft, it solved many of the problems that plagued the Mig-15. It had an afterburner and was probably a match for the F-86F, but enter the F-86D or H and I think the playing field is somewhat leveled similar to the Mig-15/ F-86A-F comparison. the big advantage the F-86F and later models had over the Mig-17 series was the early Sidewinder missile. Although there were early Mig-17 all weather fighters deployed in 1953, the missile carrying variant didn't come into service until 1955, and even the then the K-5 missile it carried wasn't even close to the capability of the Sidewinder. After 1955 ROCAF F-86s mauled PRCAF Mig-17s in the first missile to missile air combats....

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Oct 3, 2006)

Hunter, first, second and last, however you want to measure it.

Look at its longevity, payload, performance, firepower, versitility. Its operating costs (a lot of countries purchased them with their own money, not MAP handouts), add safety record and its a no brainer.

Plus of course, this is a totally unbiased view as they are the only fast jet that I have flown in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2006)

Glider said:


> Hunter, first, second and last, however you want to measure it.
> 
> Look at its longevity, payload, performance, firepower, versitility. Its operating costs (a lot of countries purchased them with their own money, not MAP handouts), add safety record and its a no brainer.
> 
> Plus of course, this is a totally unbiased view as they are the only fast jet that I have flown in.



The Sabre has a better combat record but did participate in probably twice the combat situations that the Hunter did, however, Hunter vs. Sabre, their combat record was equal (I posted stats on that several months ago). I question the versatility, firepower and payload claim - operating costs, I don't have the data. If I flew in a Hunter I think I might be a little swayed...


----------



## Glider (Oct 3, 2006)

Payload. I think you will find that both carried 2,000lb in bombs but the Hunter could also carry 24 RP and of course 4 x 30mm Aden which is far more effective than the 6 x .50.
Range Payload - I don't have the F86 nos but the Hunter had a range of 610 miles with tanks and RP's. around 1,000 miles with 4 tanks
The Hunter had a max speed of 620kts wheras the F86 was around (I think) 580 kts.
Climb Hunter 5.25 mins to 40,000 Canadaire Sabre 6 mins to 40,000. I don't know the numbers for the USAF F86 but would expect them to be a lot less than the Canadian version.

Plus, your right, I admit it, I am a little biased, but I think youve forgiven me that sin.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 6, 2006)

How does the CAC built Avon sabre stack up against the Canadian Version? I'd be interested to know as I've heard both were superior to the American models.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 8, 2006)

If you want to know about Hunters, look out for No.1 Sqn, Rhodesian Air Force - probably the Hunter's last operational users. Far superior to the Sabre, but also a later design. Basically, that goes for all the other aircraft on the list, too.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2006)

I believe air to air the Sabre V and especially the Avon Sabres were both superior to any mark Hunter. Take off weight of the Sabre was about the same but I think the wing loading was lower. I worked around a Hunter very briefly and I know there were some maintenance "oddities" that I didn't care for especially when compared to the Saber, one of them being the powerplant IGVs which had a tendancy to stick. BTW close to 10,000 Sabres were built - about 2000 for the Hunter.....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 8, 2006)

I don't care about the four listed, English Electric Lightning would whoop them all in a dogfight and intercept. It pulls the stick back and shoves the throttle forward ...and all the others are left in it's reheat.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 8, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I don't care about the four listed, English Electric Lightning would whoop them all in a dogfight and intercept. It pulls the stick back and shoves the throttle forward ...and all the others are left in it's reheat.



I'd agree with that pD, the Lightning would be the best but it isn't listed of the list I would probably pick the F-86.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 8, 2006)

well if we can add to the list the 104 is the one that will rise to the top


----------



## Glider (Oct 8, 2006)

For air to air combat the Avon Sabre would probably have the edge over the Hunter, but I wouldn't conceed to any of the USA built machines. They were underpowered and underarmed.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 8, 2006)

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 (Oct 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 8, 2006)

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).

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ndicki (Oct 9, 2006)

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 (Oct 9, 2006)

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 (Oct 9, 2006)

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 (Oct 9, 2006)

ndicki said:


> 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 (Oct 9, 2006)

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 (Oct 9, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 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 (Oct 9, 2006)

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 (Oct 10, 2006)

Glider said:


> 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 (Oct 10, 2006)

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


----------



## Bf109_g (Oct 14, 2006)

Hawker Hunter...


----------



## dahut (Jan 19, 2007)

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 (Jan 19, 2007)

dahut said:


> 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.


----------



## Smokey (Jan 19, 2007)

MiG 17. I like its low wing loading












Must Be Art - Paul Williamson

JetPhotos.Net - The Friendly Way to Fly!


----------



## Glider (Jan 19, 2007)

Only one choice, the Hunter


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 19, 2007)

Glider said:


> Only one choice, the Hunter



bhaaaaaa!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 20, 2007)

what's wrong with choosing one of the post war's longest serving designs?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what's wrong with choosing one of the post war's longest serving designs?



Nothing - I think it's a close second to the Sabre.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2007)

I have to agree with FBJ accept that my close second would be the Mig-15 probably. If only for nostalgic reasons.


----------



## Glider (Jan 20, 2007)

Summary 
Air to Air
I agree the Avon Sabre may have the edge of the Hunter in air to air, but not any of the US types. The Mig 15s main advantage over the F86 was its better power to weight ratio which the Hunter knocks into a cocked hat. 
So I feel the Hunter has the edge (except as stated, the Avon Sabre)

Air to Ground
Hunter has better firepower, range and payload compared to either the F86 or Mig 15, so again the Hunter has it.

Handling
This would be between the Hunter and the F86, both are reported as being very good and I don't have the information to tell the difference between them.
All I can say is that the Hunter is the only swept wing jet cabable of an inverted flat spin, if it can handle that, it can handle anything.

FJ Lamb is on the menu tonight


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2007)

I think the F-86F was more maneuverable than the Hunter, especially at lower speeds. The Hunter was a bit faster but was not as stable when exceeding mach 1. I do give it to the Hunter in the air-to-ground role. An F-86 is such a great flying aircraft, it would never get into a flat spin!  Maintainability - F-86 hands down - From what I seen of the Hunter owned by Al Hansen there were a lot of screwed panels small accesses and the IGVs on the Avon looked like a nightmare.

I'll take the Hunter as a very close second...

Spice up the lamb - I like onions and garlic!


----------



## Smokey (Jan 20, 2007)

The MiG 17 had a massively improved rate of climb, top speed and better maneuvrability than the MiG 15


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2007)

Smokey said:


> The MiG 17 had a massively improved rate of climb, top speed and better maneuvrability than the MiG 15


That it did, but a late model Saber or Hunter (it's contemporary) will have it for lunch, especially at lower altitudes. The guns on it were deadly but slow firing, still no G-suit and no boosted controls. A good aircraft (Very pretty too) but still not a match for either the Saber or Hunter.


----------



## Smokey (Jan 20, 2007)

The MiG 19 was contempoary to the late Hawker Hunters and the North American F100 Super Sabre. Which was best between the MiG 19 and the F100?












index

Mojave.CA.US by Mojave Services


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2007)

I'd put the Hunter with the F-86/ Mig-15 and 17. The Mig-19 and F-100 was definetly the next generation. Out of those 2 I'd take the Mig-19. Up to the Mig-29 I feel the Mig-19 was the best Mig fighter and in some ways was even superior to the Mig-21. The Pakistani AF did a great job with their - thy armed them with sidewinders and put Martin Baker ejection seats in them.

Nice F-100 shot - I worked for Flight Systems on and off for 6 years.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 20, 2007)

Flyboy you say the Avon was a grudge to work on then why would the Aussie 86 be the equal of the Orenda powered one with the exception of the 20mm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Flyboy you say the Avon was a grudge to work on then why would the Aussie 86 be the equal of the Orenda powered one with the exception of the 20mm


It was accessing the engine - the Hunter had a lot of panels with dozens of screws and once removed there wasn't a lot of room to do work. The Sabre was very maintainable, panels with camlock fasteners with ample room to disconnect things, especially when changing engines. The Avon has its IGVs hydraulically actuated with the fuel system - a very complicated set-up. When working a very good powerplant.

I think the Aussie Avon Sabre was one of the best variants. The Fury with it's J-65 (Sapphire) was also a very powerful Sabre variant with performance close to the Aussie Avon.


----------



## Glider (Jan 20, 2007)

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.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> 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 (Jan 20, 2007)

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 (Jan 20, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> 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 (Jan 20, 2007)

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 (Jan 20, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> 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 (Jan 21, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> 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 (Jan 21, 2007)

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


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 21, 2007)

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

http://f3.yahoofs.com/users/41a9f969z66f1d5c7/d215/__sr_/d5c3re2.jpg?phY51sFB.1U11LhI


----------



## Glider (Jan 21, 2007)

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 (Jan 21, 2007)

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 (Jan 23, 2007)

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> 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 (Jan 23, 2007)

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 (Jan 23, 2007)

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 (Jan 23, 2007)

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


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



I knew you'd point that out!!


----------



## Glider (Jan 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 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)
> 
> ...



20's!!! 20's!!! who said 20's!!!

4 x 30's almost certainly the most overgunned plane ever built, some had a switch so that you could fire 2 at a time.


----------



## Glider (Jan 23, 2007)

PS most of the Sabre operators got them with MAP packages, we being tighter, stingier or plain meaner with our money, made the people who bought Hunters pay full whack.

PPS It did generally take a lot of .50's to take down an enemy but one 30mm often did the trick


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 23, 2007)

Glider said:


> PS most of the Sabre operators got them with MAP packages, we being tighter, stingier or plain meaner with our money, made the people who bought Hunters pay full whack.
> 
> PPS It did generally take a lot of .50's to take down an enemy but one 30mm often did the trick


thats how you got the F86s in the RAF and the kill ratio of almost 2-1 for the sabre over the Hunter in the indo/pakistan wars cannot be over looked


----------



## Glider (Jan 23, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> thats how you got the F86s in the RAF and the kill ratio of almost 2-1 for the sabre over the Hunter in the indo/pakistan wars cannot be over looked



We got Sabres in the RAF because we needed something better than the Meteor / Vampire before the Hunter was in service. Also it wasn't a 2 to 1 loss ratio, that has been covered earlier in the thread. It was 1 to 1 and the Indian Hunters were GA planes and in most cases at a tactical disadvantage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2007)

Both were great aircraft but I think the F-86 distributed a heck of a lot more used aircraft parts than the Hunter!


----------



## Glider (Jan 23, 2007)

I have dug out an old article written by an RAF pilot who flew the Sabre MK4 in the RAF.

Likes
G suit (remember he came from flying Meteors)
Visibility (loved it)
T-14E ejector seat very comfy (with armrests)
Cockpit (heating that worked, selective differential presure, defrosting and demisting that also worked)
Handling (described as delightfull)
AN/APG 30 radar (good up to 1,800 yard)
The sight had an automatic bomb release
Cleared for intentional spinning
Radio compass


Dislikes
Bonedome (they didn't fit well and didn't have a visor)
Takeoff run
T-14E ejector seat (wasn't as effective as the MB if you had to punch out)
Engine (underpowered and required external power to start)
CG (very sensitive)
Rate of climb and angle of climb 
Guns (lacked punch)
In GA role the aproach angle was very shallow
Gyrosyn compass and the artificial horizon toppled easily

They were only in service for 4 years with the RAF


----------



## Glider (Jan 23, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Both were great aircraft but I think the F-86 distributed a heck of a lot more used aircraft parts than the Hunter!



Didn't realise they were that unreliable


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2007)

Glider said:


> Didn't realise they were that unreliable


Yea, the Mig-15 had it's problems! 8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 23, 2007)

Glider said:


> I have dug out an old article written by an RAF pilot who flew the Sabre MK4 in the RAF.
> 
> Likes
> G suit (remember he came from flying Meteors)
> ...




The helmets, (I have a P-4 with a visor, it's great) ejection seat and artificial horizons! I give in on the seat and the comments about the GA role - but the marks are high based on that critique!


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 23, 2007)

Glider said:


> We got Sabres in the RAF because we needed something better than the Meteor / Vampire before the Hunter was in service. Also it wasn't a 2 to 1 loss ratio, that has been covered earlier in the thread. It was 1 to 1 and the Indian Hunters were GA planes and in most cases at a tactical disadvantage.


Sorry my memory on the RAF getting MAP Canadair F86's from the US must be flawed but the 2-1 sources I counted manually from these 2 locations 
Indian Air-to-Air Victories since 1948

Pakistani Air-to-Air Victories


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Sorry my memory on the RAF getting MAP Canadair F86's from the US must be flawed but the 2-1 sources I counted manually from these 2 locations
> Indian Air-to-Air Victories since 1948
> 
> Pakistani Air-to-Air Victories



Thanks for the site which I have added to my Fav list. It also clears up the confusion as I had the numbers for the 1971 conflict which were close, not the 65 which were in the PAF favour.

Note the Hunters that shot down the IAF aircraft in the 1967 war


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Both were great aircraft but I think the F-86 distributed a heck of a lot more used aircraft parts than the Hunter!



yes well Korea had something to do with that  the hunter was used all over the Empire in many of our colonial operations..........


----------



## twoeagles (Jan 29, 2007)

I've been enjoying this thread and picking up all the Hawker Hunter knowledge
I never knew I wanted! (Hunter truly is a timeless beauty built before computers
took away a lot of the artistry)...Anyway, the one bird you would most fear
in the air against you, one that crossed over from the 50's to the 60's and
which many old pilots continue to pine for is th F-8 Crusader. She gets
my vote for the best.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2007)

The "Last Gunfighter" was a great bird, did well in Vietnam scoring an impressive kill ratio (19:3). She proved she could feast on the Mig-21 with no problem. I'd still go with the F-86, as stated, the Saber was responsible for creating a lot of empty parking spaces on enemy tarmac.


----------



## Glider (Jan 29, 2007)

Certainly if we were talking about an F100/Mig19/F8 comparison the Crusader would get my vote.
It had two things the F86 didn't, a decent engine and 20mm's

Sorry FJ


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2007)

Glider said:


> Certainly if we were talking about an F100/Mig19/F8 comparison the Crusader would get my vote.
> It had two things the F86 didn't, a decent engine and 20mm's
> 
> Sorry FJ




You're right but all aircraft were at least a generation a head of the F-86.


----------



## Thumper (Jan 30, 2007)

Mirage 111


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2007)

Thumper said:


> Mirage 111


Good fighter, as we know the Israelis put them to good use but they got mauled by FAA Harriers during the Falklands conflict. Again throughout the 50s and 60s more aircraft fell to the F-86s guns than any other combat aircraft.


----------



## Thumper (Jan 31, 2007)

1 C-130 Hercules
1 Mirage III
9 Daggers
1 Canberra
1 Pucara
6 A-4 Skyhawks 

XZ453 Sea Harrier FRS1
31 Jan 80 1 SHARED over Falklands (Mirage III by Lt. S. Thomas, 801 NAS, HMS Invincible)


may have mauled the Mirage V...but not the 111


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2007)

Not a lot of difference apart from an early radar between the III and the V and aerodynamically, none worth mentioning.

The results would have been the same.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2007)

Thumper said:


> 1 C-130 Hercules
> 1 Mirage III
> 9 Daggers
> 1 Canberra
> ...




What do you think a Dagger is? A Mirage V, and the only difference between the III and the V was the nose and the lack of some all-weather equipment.


----------



## Thumper (Jan 31, 2007)

and the hurricane short down more aircraft than the spitfire during BoB
still think the spit is a better aircraft.

and still think the 111 is the better aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2007)

Thumper said:


> and the hurricane short down more aircraft than the spitfire during BoB
> still think the spit is a better aircraft.
> 
> and still think the 111 is the better aircraft.



Than the Harrier? It was a generation behind in avionics and performance. Although training had a lot to do with it, its performance over the Falklands showed it limitations.

The Hurricane shot down more aircraft than the Spit in the BoB because of it's mission, it's that simple. You're comparing apples and oranges. The Mirage III was a great aircraft in its day but it was easily eclipsed by other western and soviet aircraft, one of the reasons the IAF acquired F-15s.


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Jan 31, 2007)

hmmm, best fighters, maybe the F-4 Phantom, and maybe the Mig-21.


----------



## Glider (Jan 31, 2007)

Thumper said:


> and the hurricane short down more aircraft than the spitfire during BoB
> still think the spit is a better aircraft.
> 
> and still think the 111 is the better aircraft.



Thumper
Can I suggest that instead of making a simple statement, you explain why you came to that conclusion, then we can discuss the merits and learn. 

For myself I believe the only advantage the Mirage had over the Harrier was its speed with the afterburner on which is a one shot advantage. Also in the conditions in the South Atlantic was amost usless as the Mirage/Dagger normally carried bombs limiting its speed.


----------



## renrich (Feb 25, 2007)

The A4 was conceived in 1951 and was operational in 1956 so don't know if it would be considered contemporaneous in this discussion but I would have to give it serious consideration. It hasn't been too many years since it was a serious aggresor A/C at the Air Force and Navy fighter weapons school. It also has a fine combat record.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 26, 2007)

Just my opinion but I think the A-4 was a better attack aircraft than a fighter itself.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 26, 2007)

I think during Vietnam an A-4 shot down one Mig - with a Zuni rocket!


----------



## Glider (Feb 26, 2007)

Wasn't his lucky day (the Mig pilot)


----------



## davparlr (Feb 26, 2007)

The A-4 was tough little bird, but was not designed for the fighter job. While it was used at top gun and played an effective roll, it was most likely with the upgraded engines not available in the 50s. Those engines made it a hot rod (used by the Blue Angels).


----------



## nosredna (Feb 28, 2007)

I like the mig the best myself. Its a cool plane all around


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 28, 2007)

davparlr said:


> The A-4 was tough little bird, but was not designed for the fighter job. While it was used at top gun and played an effective roll, it was most likely with the upgraded engines not available in the 50s. Those engines made it a hot rod (used by the Blue Angels).



Davparlr, you have info on that? Didn't realize they were not original equipment.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

nosredna said:


> I like the mig the best myself. Its a cool plane all around



You do know there were more than one type of Mig right? So which one are you talking about


----------



## davparlr (Mar 1, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Davparlr, you have info on that? Didn't realize they were not original equipment.



The A-4 went through many engine upgrades. The earlier C model had 7,700 lbs thrust. The A4F and E were used as aggressors. The A4E had a thrust of 8,400 but some were upgraded to the bigger A4F engine. The A4F had a thrust of 9,300 lbs. The A4M was a big jump with engine thrust of 11,200 lbs but I saw no references for its use as an aggressor. The Blue Angels flew A4Fs upgraded with the A4M engine. This was indeed a hot rod.


----------



## str8jax (Mar 1, 2007)

The looks of the mig 17 are to say the least cool! But i would pick the f86 out of that group. The mig to sabre kill ratio speaks loudly to the sabres prowess. The topic of the 6 .50s to cannons doesnt matter much going fighter to fighter. The mig had I believe one 37mm and 2 27mm cannons (correct me if im wrong)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2007)

the F-86s in Korea used incendary rounds. Although not packing a punch like a cannon round, they did a great job of burning when they hit home...


----------



## zebraa51 (Mar 1, 2007)

as far as the props goes the P-51 was still the Best, But inn The 50`s the best Jet Hands Down was the North American Aviation F-86 was the Best The F-100 we`ll it was faster and the F-102,F-104, F-105 F-106`s were all faster than the F-86 But they Never never achived the Overall Success Like the F-86 Enjoyed........ The F-100 Came Close oweing Because of the The United States Thunderbirds which made the F-100 a Legend inn the minds and hearts of millions during the late 50`s and thru. 60`s and even into the early 70`s


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 10, 2007)

davparlr said:


> The A-4 went through many engine upgrades. The earlier C model had 7,700 lbs thrust. The A4F and E were used as aggressors. The A4E had a thrust of 8,400 but some were upgraded to the bigger A4F engine. The A4F had a thrust of 9,300 lbs. The A4M was a big jump with engine thrust of 11,200 lbs but I saw no references for its use as an aggressor. The Blue Angels flew A4Fs upgraded with the A4M engine. This was indeed a hot rod.



Wow! Guess I never paid attention. I had known that the engine had been slowly uprated, but never looked close enough to realize the thrust to weight ratio was way up there when clean. No wonder they were used as aggressors.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

Maiden flight 25 May 1953 

Source: Knaack[1]

The first operational aircraft in United States Air Force inventory capable of exceeding the speed of sound in level flight. 
On 29 October 1953, the first YF-100A prototype set a world speed record of 755.149 mph (656.207 knots, 1,215.295 km/h) at low altitude. 
On 20 August 1955, an F-100C set the first supersonic world speed record of 822.135 mph (714.416 knots, 1,232.098 km/h). 
On 4 September 1955, an F-100C won the Bendix Trophy, covering 2,235 miles (2,020 nm, 3,745 km) at an average speed of 610.726 mph (530.706 knots, 982.868 km/h). 
On 26 December 1956, two F-100Ds became the first-ever aircraft to successfully perform buddy refueling. 
On 13 May 1957, three F-100Cs set a new world distance record for single-engine aircraft by covering the 6,710 mile (5,835 nm, 10,805 km) distance from London to Los Angeles in 14 hours and 4 minutes. The flight was accomplished using inflight refueling. 
On 7 August 1959, two F-100Fs became the first-ever jet fighters to fly over the North Pole. 
USAF Colonel George E. "Bud" Day, Medal of Honor recipient (for actions in the Vietnam War) and USA's most highly decorated soldier since General Douglas MacArthur, flew F-100s. 
The U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds operated the F-100C from 1956 until 1964. After briefly converting to the F-105 Thunderchief, the team flew F-100Ds from July 1964 until November 1968, before converting to the F-4E Phantom II. 
On 04 April 1965 an F-100 Supersabre piloted by USAF Capt. Donald Kilgus shot down one of the first enemy jets of the Vietnam War,a Mig-17, using cannon fire.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

BAC Lightning Site - Tech Data.

The Lightning was the only British designed and built fighter capable of speeds in excess of Mach 2 to serve with the Royal Air Force. It evolved at a time when Britain led the way in aviation and it suffered at the hands of the government in the same way as did the industry which had created it. There is no doubt that the Lightning will go down in the history books as another classic British fighter. This site is a tribute to the Lightning, to those who served on the Lightning squadrons and to the enthusiasts who have kept airframes either running or in airworthy condition.

Maiden flight 1957-04-04 

General characteristics
Crew: 1 
Length: 55 ft 3 in (16.84 m) 
Wingspan: 34 ft 10 in (10.62 m) 
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m) 
Wing area: 474.5 ft² (44.1 m²) 
Empty weight: 28,040 lb (12,720 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 41,700 lb (18,900 kg) 
Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Avon 301R afterburning turbojets 
Dry thrust: 13,220 lbf (58.86 kN) each 
Thrust with afterburner: 16,360 lbf (72.77 kN) each 
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.27 (1,500 mph, 2,415 km/h) at altitude 
Range: 800 mi (1,300 km) combat 
Ferry range: 1,560 mi (1,360 nm, 2,500 km) 
Service ceiling: >60,000 ft (18,000 m) officially 
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (260 m/s) 
Wing loading: 87.9 lb/ft² (429 kg/m²) 
Thrust/weight: 0.63 


Fun to watch ar the air show too 

Crikey= straight up off the deck


----------



## renrich (Mar 12, 2007)

According to the book, "80 Knots to Mach2" the A4 got the J52-P-408 engine with 11,200 pounds of thrust in April of 1970. The author, Richard Linnekin in a F8U-2N came on an A4 north of Pautuxent one afternoon. To quote him," he was there, so I made a run on him." Over the next ten minutes he tried everything, vertical maneuvers, high and low yo yos, rolling scissors( he said never try any kind of scissors with this guy) and every gunnery pass he could think of, and every time he got in gun range the A4's nose was pointing at him with the 20 mms. he could not even claim a decent Sidewinder shot. I know several people who flew the A4 operationally and they did say the cockpit was awful small.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 12, 2007)

I know a guy that loved it..

and he had flown everything

(Pax is not far from me and I do a lot of Navy contractors, I love hanging out at the 'Crows Nest' adjacent to the front gate, just to look at all the stuff on the walls) 

More fun

Patuxent River Naval Air Museum

fun2


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 12, 2007)

Jackson said:


> (Pax is not far from me and I do a lot of Navy contractors, I love hanging out at the 'Crows Nest' adjacent to the front gate, just to look at all the stuff on the walls)



BEEN THERE!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2007)

Jackson said:


> (Pax is not far from me and I do a lot of Navy contractors,
> More fun




I hope those contractors were women...


----------



## twoeagles (Mar 13, 2007)

renrich said:


> every time he got in gun range the A4's nose was pointing at him with the 20 mms. he could not even claim a decent Sidewinder shot.



This pretty well sums up many first encounters with the A-4 as an adversary.
Although I never flew the P-408 engined 'Super Fox', the A-4F with the P-8 was no slouch. It had a prodigeous roll rate that would damn near snatch your helmet off, and that delta planform wing would let you pull so hard your g-suit would squeeze your nuts up under your chin. In a mid-level gunfight with the F-4 or the F-14, the Scooter was exceptionally difficult to target, and those pilots learned quickly that their best bet was early radar detection and missiles. If only the A-4 had been supersonic, too. Add a couple of SUU-23, and she was decidedly fearsome, but flying clean was her element. Flying with VF-126 as a Bandit was doggone close to the most fun I have ever had. And I have trouble believing it has been 30+ years now...


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 13, 2007)

Most excellent twoeagles! Understanding mission specifics play into my question, what was a typical loadout for an interdiction mission and how much range could you get out of her?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2007)

twoeagles said:


> This pretty well sums up many first encounters with the A-4 as an adversary.
> Although I never flew the P-408 engined 'Super Fox', the A-4F with the P-8 was no slouch. It had a prodigeous roll rate that would damn near snatch your helmet off, and that delta planform wing would let you pull so hard your g-suit would squeeze your nuts up under your chin. In a mid-level gunfight with the F-4 or the F-14, the Scooter was exceptionally difficult to target, and those pilots learned quickly that their best bet was early radar detection and missiles. If only the A-4 had been supersonic, too. Add a couple of SUU-23, and she was decidedly fearsome, but flying clean was her element. Flying with VF-126 as a Bandit was doggone close to the most fun I have ever had. And I have trouble believing it has been 30+ years now...


Sounded like it was a blast - reading your description is a carbon copy of what one of my flight instructors said about the Scooter. He flew her in Vietnam and later at Pax River chasing drones.


----------



## renrich (Mar 13, 2007)

Very good, Herr Adler. Linnekin's book is outstanding. If youall run across it somewhere it is worth a read. He started flying in Stearmans and the most high performance plane he flew was the F4.


----------



## glfpa23 (Jan 6, 2014)

R Pope said:


> As a kid in the '50's, the ONLY fighter plane was the "Sabrejet". It is a design that just plain works.



ONE hit from an Aden would surely ta ta a Sabre.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 7, 2014)

Eight years ago, Adler said this 



> 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.



I don't know if it was the same as a documentary I once saw about Sabres and MiG-15s, but they had this Russian guy and took him to a museum with an F-86 and put him in the cockpit. All I can remember is the broad grin he had on his face when seated in the American jet.

I've sat in the cockpits of both (grounded examples in museums) and by far the F-86 had better visibility. The MiG-15 has a slight nose up attitude on the ground, whereas the F-86 pilot is sitting on top of the world. The Russian cockpits of the era were well laid out and simple by comparison to their Western counterparts, almost as if they were designed for children to fly. British 1950s jet cockpits were an ergonomic nightmare and look as if they were designed _by_ children, however.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jan 7, 2014)

> Best 50s/60s fighter?



Rocky Marciano

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 8, 2014)

Not Cassius Clay?


----------



## R Pope (Jan 8, 2014)

glfpa23 said:


> ONE hit from an Aden would surely ta ta a Sabre.


But first ya gotta hit 'em!


----------



## R Pope (Jan 8, 2014)

The A4 was based on an unbuilt fighter design. That might explain the agility.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2014)

R Pope said:


> The A4 was based on an unbuilt fighter design. That might explain the agility.....



Your source for that one??? 

The A-4 was developed as a replacement for the Skyraider.

From Wiki...

_"The Skyhawk was designed by Douglas Aircraft's Ed Heinemann in response to a U.S. Navy call for a jet-powered attack aircraft to replace the older Douglas AD Skyraider (later redesignated A-1 Skyraider). Heinemann opted for a design that would minimize its size, weight, and complexity. The result was an aircraft that weighed only half of the Navy's weight specification."_

_"Heinemann believed in "simplifying and adding lightness" when it came to aircraft design. He had startled the Navy when he proposed a new attack plane that weighed only one-half the gross weight of the Navy specification. Using a delta-wing design with conventional tail surfaces, Heinemann was able to create a lightweight attack fighter that combined speed, range, and firepower into a tiny package."_

HowStuffWorks "Douglas A-4 Skyhawk"


_
On June 12, 1952, the U.S. Navy contracted with Douglas Aircraft Company of El Segundo, California, to build one prototype XA4D-1 Skyhawk attack aircraft.


In October 1952, after review of the proposed design, the Navy ordered an additonal 19 A-4s.


*Literally "hand built," XA4D-1, BuNo 137812, was the first of an eventual 2,960 Skyhawks to roll off the Douglas Aircraft Company assembly line. Powered by a Curtiss-Wright J65-W-16A engine, it had a one-piece windscreen, no tailhook or refueling probe, and the "sugar scoop" exhaust baffle was not yet conceived.*


The first Skyhawk flight, flown by Douglas test pilot Robert Rahn, took place at Edwards Air Force Base, California, on June 22, 1954._

Original Concept Blueprint;

http://a4skyhawk.org/specials/rgblueprint/rg-orig-blueprint.htm


http://a4skyhawk.org/2c/productionhistory.htm


----------



## R Pope (Jan 9, 2014)

Flyboyj...Actually read that in a few places over the years, the latest being in Air Space magazine a few months ago. An article about dissimilar aircraft combat training where the A4 is the foreign aggressor. Can't find the mag just now, though. Had a book on Douglas that went into it in some detail, but that book burned up in my brothers house years ago.....


----------



## The Basket (Jan 9, 2014)

MiG-17 outperformed the F-86.
MiG-15 was on a par with F-86 but Sabre was better flying machine.

Best 60s jet has to be F-4 Phantom. 
Best sheer performance is EE Lightning.
Soft spot goes to F-5 as it looks good.
Best crazy goes to F-104 which even today looks Buck Rogers.


----------



## R Pope (Jan 9, 2014)

I think the Saab J29 deserves at least an honourable mention here. It was used all through the '50's and into the '60's and saw combat with the UN in Africa. Gave up very little to the F86 or Mig 15. Sure, not the best, but an admirable effort by a small, independent player in a big boy's game.It first flew in 1949!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2014)

The Basket said:


> MiG-17 outperformed the F-86.



Depends what model. I think the later models were at least on par with the MiG-17, start with the F-86H and look at the CAC Sabre


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2014)

R Pope said:


> Flyboyj...Actually read that in a few places over the years, the latest being in Air Space magazine a few months ago. An article about dissimilar aircraft combat training where the A4 is the foreign aggressor. Can't find the mag just now, though. Had a book on Douglas that went into it in some detail, but that book burned up in my brothers house years ago.....



Well I'd like to kknow those author's sources. There is no mistake the A-4 started off life as a Skyraider replacement, period. Ed Heinemann would roll over in his grave if he heard that!!!!


----------



## The Basket (Jan 9, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well I'd like to kknow those author's sources. There is no mistake the A-4 started off life as a Skyraider replacement, period. Ed Heinemann would roll over in his grave if he heard that!!!!



Maybe getting mixed up with Skyray. But Skyhawk and Skyray do have a family look about em.

Chinese MiG-17 out climbed and higher service ceiling so could choose combat. Taiwan F-86 had early sidewinder to combat MiGs performance advantage. 

NVAF and PAF didnt have MiG-19 but the Chinese copy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2014)

The Basket said:


> Maybe getting mixed up with Skyray. But Skyhawk and Skyray do have a family look about em.


Maybe


The Basket said:


> Chinese MiG-17 out climbed and higher service ceiling so could choose combat. Taiwan F-86 had early sidewinder to combat MiGs performance advantage.


 The MiG-17 had only a slightly higher service ceiling than the F-86H and they both climbed almost the same. The MiG-17 was faster becuase the F-86H airframe was limited to under mach 1, the F-86H was just as fast at sea level.

The CAC Sabre was 11 mph slower then the MiG-17, climbed slightly slower and had a 2000' lower service ceiling.

In combat I think both all these aircraft would be about equal, also consider the armament


The Basket said:


> NVAF and PAF didnt have MiG-19 but the Chinese copy.



Yep!


----------



## The Basket (Jan 9, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Maybe
> The MiG-17 had only a slightly higher service ceiling than the F-86H and they both climbed almost the same. The MiG-17 was faster becuase the F-86H airframe was limited to under mach 1, the F-86H was just as fast at sea level.
> 
> The CAC Sabre was 11 mph slower then the MiG-17, climbed slightly slower and had a 2000' lower service ceiling.
> ...



from what i can find Tiawan had F86F so they didnt have the best Sabres.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 9, 2014)

The Basket said:


> from what i can find Tiawan had F86F so they didnt have the best Sabres.



I believe they had "F" models and then got F-100s


----------



## R Pope (Jan 10, 2014)

I dunno, Air Space is published by the Smithsonian, I would think they would get their facts straight on a story. And no, there was no confusion with the Skyray. I'll find my copy and quote the article later.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2014)

R Pope said:


> I dunno, Air Space is published by the Smithsonian, I would think they would get their facts straight on a story. And no, there was no confusion with the Skyray. I'll find my copy and quote the article later.



I'd like to see that. The original drwings of the aircraft indicate it was an A4D from the get go and these drawing were made by RG Smith, a very famous Douglas engineer and artist who worked with Douglas Chief Engineer Douglas Heinemann, the guy who designed the A4. 

http://a4skyhawk.org/specials/rgblueprint/rg-orig-blueprint.htm

This is from Joe Bauger's site..

_"Alarmed at the trend towards ever-increasing weight in contemporary fighters such as the USAF F-86 Sabre and the Navy F9F Panther, Douglas Chief Engineer Douglas Heinemann charted a team of engineers to work on a private venture to see if this trend could be reversed. They came up with a rather daring proposal for a jet fighter weighing only 7000 pounds. The team submitted the results of this preliminary design study to the Bureau of Aeronautics in early January of 1952. 

The Navy showed some interest, but since they were already involved in the consideration of several other fighter designs, they suggested that the Douglas team should apply the same sort of philosophy to the design of a carrier-based attack aircraft. This plane would be intended for the nuclear strike role, with a top speed of 500 mph, a combat radius of 345 miles, a 2000-lb weapons load, and a maximum gross weight of less than 30,000 pounds.

Heinemann's team responded a couple of weeks later with a proposal that exceeded these requirements by a substantial margin. The normal loaded weight of the aircraft would be only 12,000 pounds, less than half the limit specified by the Navy, and the top speed was 100 mph greater and the combat radius 115 miles greater. Douglas was authorized to proceed with further design studies. During the evaluation, the range requirements were increased, raising the gross weight to 14,000 pounds 

The design team came up with a low-winged jet-powered aircraft with a modified delta planform. The wing had a quarter chord sweep of 33 degrees. The span was only 27 feet 6 inches, which eliminated any need for wing folding and saving a lot of weight and complexity. The wing had three one-piece spars with spanwise stiffened skin. The delta shaped wing formed a single box with integral fuel tankage, and the upper and lower skins were single pieces. The spars and stringers were continuous from tip to tip. The wing leading edge was equipped with automatic leading edge slats and split flaps were provided on the trailing edge. Most of the wing between the spars contained an integral fuel tank with 560 gallon capacity. 

The aircraft had a normal tail, with a rudder and a set of elevators. The dorsal fin had a delta shape, and had a rudder set at its rear. The horizontal tailplane was set at at the lower part of the vertical tail, just above the tailpipe. The horizontal stabilizer was electrically adjustable in incidence, and could be adjusted for trim throughout the entire flight range. A large speed brake was provided on each side of the rear fuselage. 

The engine was to be a licence-built version of the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, rated at 8000 lb.s.t. It would be built by Wright under the designation J65. The engine was mounted in the fuselage center with air intakes mounted high on both sides of the fuselage aft of the cockpit. The engine had a single exhaust in the tail. 

The internal fuel capacity was 770 US gallons, carried in integral wing tanks and in a self-sealing cell aft of the cockpit and between the engine air ducts. All of the offensive weapons were to be carried externally on three stations--one underneath the fuselage centerline and one underneath each wing. The internal armament was to be a pair of 20-mm cannon, one in each wing root. Design gross weight with a single Mk 12 nuclear weapon was 14,250 pounds, and the combat radius with this weapon with internal fuel only was 400 miles. 

The tall main undercarriage members were attached to the inner wing trailing edge, and retracted forward and rotated through 90 degrees to fit into wells in the leading edge of the wing. The wing was sufficiently thin so that long fairings had to be fitted underneath the wing to cover the landing gear legs when retracted. The nose landing gear retracted forward into a well in the nose. The forward-retracting landing gear had the avantage in that emergency extension systems were not required, since the airstream flow will lock the gear down after free fall. The landing gear appears at first sight to be rather long and stalky, but it facilitiates adequate ground clearance during rotation on takeoff 

The cockpit canopy was of the "clamshell" variety, opening via a hinge located immediately to the rear. An upward- firing ejector seat was to be provided for the pilot. 

A preliminary mockup inspection took place in February of 1952 Douglas was given a contract for one aircraft On June 12, 1952. The designation was XA4D-1, and the BuNo was 137812. The project was financed by diverting funds from the cancelled A2D Skyshark program. Final mockup inspection took place in October of 1952. By this time, the Navy had ordered 9 production aircraft, which was soon increased to 19. 

The XA4D-1 was assembled at the Douglas El Segundo plant and was rolled out of the factory in February of 1954, the aircraft being given the popular name Skyhawk. In press releases, the plane was often referred to as "Heinmann's Hot Rod". The windscreen of the cockpit was frameless, and the nose was provided with a long instrumentation probe. The pilot was provided with a NAMC Type II ejection seat. Only the centerline weapons pylon was fitted, and there was no carrier arrester hook. No armament was fitted. 

The XA4D-1 was trucked out to Edwards AFB, 100 miles away. The first flight was delayed by the late delivery of its 7200 lb.s.t Wright J65-W-2 turbojet. First flight took place at Edwards AFB on June 22, 1954, test pilot Robert Rahn being at the controls. 

Late in the career of the XA4D-1, it was fitted with most of the features of the production A4D-1, including a tailhook, a jetpipe fairing, vortex generators, and all three weapons pylons." _

Again, nothing from an "unbuilt fighter design."


----------



## R Pope (Jan 10, 2014)

Air Space June/July 2004...
Designed by the brilliant Douglas Aircraft engineer Ed Heinemann, the aircraft was originally conceived to respond to the Navy's request for a super-cheap, super-lightweight jet interceptor that could be fielded against the Soviet's Mig-15s. In January 1952 Heinemann arrived in Washington to sell his design to Navy brass, only to be told that the service had dropped its interceptor requirements. But in the audience for Heinemann's presentation was legendary naval aviator Admiral Apollo Soucek, and he loved the design's light weight and great maneuverability.
Since the Navy needed a more efficient jet replacement for its piston-engine Douglas a-1 Skyraiders, Soucek asked Heinemann if he could transform his design into an attack airplane..." and the rest is history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 10, 2014)

R Pope said:


> Air Space June/July 2004...
> Designed by the brilliant Douglas AircrSkyhawk ineer Ed Heinemann, the aircraft was originally conceived to respond to the Navy's request for a super-cheap, super-lightweight jet interceptor that could be fielded against the Soviet's Mig-15s. In January 1952 Heinemann arrived in Washington to sell his design to Navy brass, only to be told that the service had dropped its interceptor requirements. But in the audience for Heinemann's presentation was legendary naval aviator Admiral Apollo Soucek, and he loved the design's light weight and great maneuverability.
> Since the Navy needed a more efficient jet replacement for its piston-engine Douglas a-1 Skyraiders, Soucek asked Heinemann if he could transform his design into an attack airplane..." and the rest is history.



Eh? Douglas had the Skyray flying. And you dont design a fighter to match the MiG-15 in 1952 coz the 15 was ancient by then.

The Skyhawk was no MiG-15 chaser.Douglas would have to go backwards from the Skyray to the Skyhawk and fighter design dont go backwards.


----------



## R Pope (Jan 10, 2014)

Flyboyj...The first paragraph of your Bauger quote mentions the fighter project that preceded the A4, doesn't it? And "using the same design philosophy" isn't all that far away from "being developed from.." Just a matter of semantics. A slightly diverging interpretation of the same circumstances..?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2014)

R Pope said:


> Flyboyj...The first paragraph of your Bauger quote mentions the fighter project that preceded the A4, doesn't it? And "using the same design philosophy" isn't all that far away from "being developed from.." Just a matter of semantics. A slightly diverging interpretation of the same circumstances..?


I think Basket nailed it (although a Skyhawk did shoot down a MiG-17 during Vietnam) and could have dealt with the MiG well if given the opportunity) - there was no "unbuilt fighter design" as you first mentioned. I think that statement could apply to other companies throwing proposals out during the same period. Ed Heinemann was concerned about aircraft weight and regardless if he was meeting with pentagon folks to solicit a contract for an air to air fighter or attack aircraft to replace the Skyraider, fact remains there was no "unbuilt fighter design" anywhere at Douglas during that period. When Heinemann returned from DC the A-4 was born.


----------



## steve51 (Jan 11, 2014)

FLYBOYJ,
Do you know if the Sabre D/K/L was comparable in dogfighting with the other Sabres. I realize it was designed as a bomber interceptor, but I've not come across anything about it's handling or maneuverability.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2014)

steve51 said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> Do you know if the Sabre D/K/L was comparable in dogfighting with the other Sabres. I realize it was designed as a bomber interceptor, but I've not come across anything about it's handling or maneuverability.



AFAIK the later Sabres were heavier and less maneuverable but because of of their engines had better thrust to weight ratios especially when they were clean. As stated the H model was mach limited.

Oh, and they were armed with cannons, something that should have been done from the get-go


----------



## steve51 (Jan 11, 2014)

FLYBOYJ,
Thanks for the reply. I agree that the cannon were definitely an improvement as I assume the afterburner was as well.


----------



## iron man (Jan 11, 2014)

Going to go off the board here and pimp for one that wasn't offered up as a choice, but should have been included. My pick is the McDonnell Douglas F-101. Why?

Let's look at the situation with the "prime contenders" for the ADC and TAC during the period.

ADC's "cross to bear" was the F-106 project ("WS-201"); TAC's was the F-105.
Look at the developmental histories of these two aircraft. The 106 has a "special place" but Republic's machine was also a "Billion Dollar Baby", in it's own right. What happened? 
Randall Whitcomb (and his/NACA's interpretation of Busseman's) "area rule", governing high Mach aerodynamics. 

<Rant on>More "Nazi Science", but the truth is that there was ONLY ONE true transonic wind tunnel in operation before the end of the war; this was at Gottingen. Busemann's work is not given due credit in popular accounts; this is just not right.<Rant Off>

All that said? McDonnell got lucky with the "Voodoo". As designed, it was conformal to area rule...with minor airframe modifications.

And the F-101B "became" the "Ultimate Interceptor" until the "Six" started gaining IOC in 1963... the F-101A/C "stood in" for the F-105 (as a low level tactical bomber) on the front line in FRG until the mid 60's as well... 

All hail the Voodoo.

Balls out, light, and going for straight "time to climb"...the F-101 killed the "six". Killed most anything for that matter once you lit those two J57's and sat it on it's ass. The Orenda engined CF-104 (hottest of the bunch, until the Eyeties did the F-104S mods) could not even hope to keep up with a CF-101 in time to altitude from a standing start. In a "Zoom climb" situation the numbers were closer but the 101 kept on pushing when the "going got tough" (i.e.+FL400) while the Starfighter would have to reduce AOA to hit it's best climbing solution.

The F-12/SR-71 is another matter entirely but that is TOTALLY out of the realm of this discussion.

Hence my choice. It was in the right place (developmentally) at the right time. Production numbers verify this. As many F-101's were built, as were the two aircraft (105 106) that they were built to provide the CYA factor for... and this says a bunch.

The EE Lightning had a similar philosophy but it lacked the "lifting body" properties of the 101's design; it also lacked the attendant internal space for tankage and this makes it inferior as a candidate...at least when viewed from a "NORAD" perspective. 

I get so choked when people ("Arrowheads") decry the F-101 as a "poor man's" solution. Not the case. Not at all.
This was a premium solution for the RCAF's NORAD commitment; if you actually look at the lease terms? We made out like bandits in the deal...

Our CF-101 guys killed on all of the "William Tell" exercises they attended; this has to say something as well. A mean, mean, fighting machine. 

Balls out and no regards for tomorrow...

All for this one, Ron

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

