Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: Its the 1950s and your Air Force will choose only one fighter for its core, choose!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,176

    Its the 1950s and your Air Force will choose only one fighter for its core, choose!

    a continuation of the last one but with an added caveat

    the aircraft must have been in service for at least 5 years during the 50s, so no late 50s aircraft like the Phantom II.
    But aircraft that preceded the 50s are okay, like the Meteor.

    some random examples; mig-15, 17, saber, tunnan, fury, banshee, etc

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    278
    Most of the aircraft of that era were in service for a very short time. They were designed, prototyped and built in less time than it takes today's airforce to write a RFP for toilet paper. Aeronautics went from straight-wing-podded-engines 450mph to delta winged mach 2 in a decade! Of course many if not most of the machines built in that era were rather unsafe.

    That said. Hawker Hunter.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    629
    The F-100A was in squadron service in 1954 (thought not yet IOC). It was the biggest, most powerful fighter available... by all rights should be a top pick.

    However seems like it had tons of issues and wasn’t particularly liked or even ready for combat?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,739
    1950's are tough because of the rapid technological advances (and rapid obsolescence) of propulsion, radar, weapons.
    Going to stick with pure day fighters and split the '50's into two halves:

    First half of the 1950's:
    Mig-15bis (pilot attrition due to spin characteristics would be a concern)
    F-86E or F (relatively weak guns)

    Second half of 1950's:
    Mig-19 (lack of missile armament is a knock)
    Super Mystère (I may be overrating these due to Israeli combat performance)
    Last edited by FBW; 23rd January 2018 at 17:00.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    162
    Super Mystère or Hawker Hunter look like the obvious choices but I will cast my vote for the de Havilland Venom/Sea Venom.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    340
    Hunter or improved version of Sabre, specifically the Avon (Australia) or Orenda (Canada) powered Sabres. They had better power than any US Sabre, and the Avon Sabres had cannon replacing the .50 machine guns. Canadian Mk6 usually considered the "best" Sabre.

    If you desire air to ground capability as well to go with your fighter, edge goes to the Hunter.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,179
    I'm gonna say Hunter. 4x 30 mm guns for the win. Later upgrades offer Sidewinders and robust A/G capabilities with AGM-65. Can be kept until the 90s if you're really desperate
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    542
    As said fighter evolution during the '50s was so rapid that any fighter introduced in the end of decade is going to have massive advantage. Nevertheless...
    Finnish test pilots flew Mystere, Hunter and Gnat in late '50s and their opinion was that Gnat was much, much better than either of the two. It wasn't really even close, Gnat made Hunter and Mystere feel like slugs and was also about half the cost. Alas, Gnat turned out to be a lemon in squadron service, but when it worked, it was truly glorious.

    Dave Sutton who had flown both MiG-17 and Hunter once opiniated that although Hunter is nice and elegant aircraft, MiG-17 is much better fighter.

    Joker candidate: J 32U, unbuilt "ultimate" fighter variant of Lansen. New engine with afterburner and thinner wing offering less drag and much improved supersonic handling. Was cancelled when it was decided to build Draken.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    629
    The Gnat seems to have performed well in Indian service against Pakistan’s Sabres. It served alongside Hunters and Mystère IVs so the Indians must have had some good points of comparison.

    Why was it a dud for the Finns? (Besides being basically obsolete by the time it entered service in the late 50s)
    Last edited by H_K; 23rd January 2018 at 23:11.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Gloster Javelin.

    T/W - 0.79
    Wing Loading - 34lb/sq.ft
    Armament - 4 x 30mm Aden and 4 De Havilland Firestreak AAMs

    Few more years and pick would be F-8.
    Last edited by St. John; 24th January 2018 at 00:22.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    542
    Gnat was nightmare to maintain. All the equipment and structures were very tightly packed in tiny airframe, everything was hard to reach, required squeezing one's hands into very crampled places inside the aircraft (especially unfun in wintertime). Also there were lots of teething problems with subsystems as the aircraft was very much untested. Accident rate was high. Finns bought the license for Gnat but it went unused.

    Indian experience was much of the same, really. This is why they built Ajeet but it came so late that it was already meaningless in fighter duties.
    But it's true that when the Gnat worked and nothing broke down and it didn't run out of fuel, it was great and capable of whipping pretty much any contemporary fighter in a curve fight. I mean, jet fighter with empty weight less than Spitfire V: it's pretty awesome concept when you think about it. Even Fiat G.91 which was specificially designed to be as small and cheap as possible was 50% heavier.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,739
    Quote Originally Posted by St. John View Post
    Gloster Javelin.
    Armament - 4 x 30mm Aden and 4 De Havilland Firestreak AAMs
    So your saying it was just armed with cannon.... and wing ballast. JK

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    It worked in testing anyway.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GLz4Fgiktk

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    864
    F-11F Super Tiger

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,919
    I suggest F-101 like I did for the 1960's. My second choice is the F-8 Crusader. Can the North American A-5 Vigilante get a radar and play fighter? Or how about a fly-off between Sea Vixen and Buccaneer? All of them seem pretty solid. I wouldn't dismiss Mirage III, Lightning, Delta Dart, Hunter, or MiG-19 as solid choices.
    Go Huskers!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    65
    For someone who got so worked up over spelling, it surprises me you missed the part where the OP stated the aircraft must have spent at least five years in service in the 50s.

    Your choices entered service in 1957. Note that many posters here suggested subsonic aircraft

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,919
    You're right, not very many choices when you draw it down to at least five years of service. The problem becomes numbers, because short of F-86, MiG-15, and MiG-17; there wasn't a deluge of jet fighter production prior to 1955. Most jets in the military had narrow purposes.
    Go Huskers!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    9,243
    Not many choices?

    Well there was the F-80...a capable fighter and excellent ground attack type, the F-84E which gained fame only as an attack type, the multi-role swept wing F-84F that served in NATO until the coming of the F-16,.
    The Grumman Panther and it's swept wing variant, Cougar.
    And, speaking of Navy types, don't forget the FJ Fury family, the later models were said by some to be the best of the Sabre line.
    Then there was the Australian Avon Sabre, though the time frame may not fit in the 50s.

    For a pure fighter, I understand the often forgotten Douglas F4D Skyray was impressive.
    However like other fighters designed around the dud Westinghouse W40 jet, the McDonnell F3H Demon had many good qualities. By the time they fitted a different engine to it, it had been overtaken by later designs.

    For UK fans, the RAF kept the Meteor in production and service for a long time so I assume it must had had some good points despite its age, not to mention the Vampire family. I liked the looks of the DH 110 (a childhood friend had the Dinky toy) too bad it went nowhere.
    Oh, don't forget the Swift.
    Also the Canadian CF-100...again it gained fame as an interceptor, but had some attack capability...after all they sold some to Belgium.
    Last edited by J Boyle; 24th January 2018 at 17:46.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    65
    There was also an Argentine plane, I forgot the name, something like polqui or pulqui that was based on a German design.

    I am sure the Soviets had many rivals to the MiG-15 and 17 from one of those WW2 design houses that no longer exist today.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,127
    F5D Skylancer
    More capable than the F-11 Super Tiger.
    A production order was put in but stopped after 4 aircraft mainly due to politics.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,495
    Thanks to the F5D nomination I went to read about it on wiki & found the best nickname for a US project : the X20 Dyna-soar.

    Nic

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,685
    F5D Skylancer
    More capable than the F-11 Super Tiger.
    A production order was put in but stopped after 4 aircraft mainly due to politics.
    The F5D is really a 1960s aircraft - it first flew after the F-104 and F-8 first flights.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,127
    First flight F5D April 1956.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    42
    Has to be in service, not just first flight. First flight of the EE Lightning was 1954 for instance, but ISD was 1959.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,685
    Has to be in service, not just first flight. First flight of the EE Lightning was 1954 for instance, but ISD was 1959.
    Which definitely rules out the F5D which never entered service at all.

    First flight F5D April 1956.
    Which means it probably would not have been available for export until the early 1960s

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,170
    F-100. Produced 54-59, supersonic, multirole.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,025
    B-47 Stratojet! Come at me brah! Name:  B47_DF-ST-88-01015.jpg
Views: 383
Size:  395.2 KB
    -=*J33NELSON*=-

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    20,922
    Hawker Hunter.


  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    542
    God bless Hunter, it is a beautiful aircraft and had long and very successful service: but efficient design it was not. I built 1/72 Hunter back in the day and when I unboxed it, I had to check that I had not accidentally bought a wrong scale model, or that Revell has not screwed up dimensions. The plane is huge for the period. A 6-ton day fighter was massive for the day (same weight as Gripen...) and the Hunter did not offer anything special for the size - performance was unexceptional, range was pitiful and there was no radar. It's no wonder that Petter wanted to design something smaller. And Javelin was much bigger...

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,685
    God bless Hunter, it is a beautiful aircraft and had long and very successful service: but efficient design it was not. I built 1/72 Hunter back in the day and when I unboxed it, I had to check that I had not accidentally bought a wrong scale model, or that Revell has not screwed up dimensions. The plane is huge for the period. A 6-ton day fighter was massive for the day (same weight as Gripen...) and the Hunter did not offer anything special for the size - performance was unexceptional, range was pitiful and there was no radar. It's no wonder that Petter wanted to design something smaller. And Javelin was much bigger...
    The Hunter was 2 or 3 tonnes lighter than the F-100, almost the same weight as the Super Mystere and about a tonne heavier than the MiG-19. I'm pretty sure it was efficient enough.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES