Best 50s/60s fighter?

[R988]

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]

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

 

[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.

 

[pbfoot]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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....

 

[Glider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Glider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.