Is the Hunter the 'Spitfire' of the jet age...? [Archive]

Jackonicko

7th Oct 2002, 21:18

In interviewing tens of Spit pilots over the years (few of whom are left) I never met one who didn't love the aircraft, and precious few who could find any fault with it at all. (A handful of BoB veterans did complain about its inadequate armament and the negative g carburettor problem, however). Interestingly, the Spit seems to have been an aircraft with both beautiful flying qualities (please God let me find out for myself before I die) and with equally good combat capabilities.

I've met many Hunter pilots (but only those who flew Hunter 1s and 4s) who criticised the aircraft fairly severely, though the Hunter 2, 5, 6 and 9 must have been very much better, cos pilots of those types still rave about 'em! It must have been a superb flying machine. But in its intended day fighter role, inadequate range, primitive avionics, etc. made it a natural for relegation to the fighter-bomber role! Hardly a Spitfire, then.

The Lightning wasn't a jet Spitfire, either, since all Marks were handicapped by lack of range, endurance and firepower, however great it might have been as a flying experience.

For a brief period in the late 1940s the Vampire might have been a jet Spit, though, and (presumably in some respects and at certain heights) I have even heard the Venom described as such. From a pure flying characteristics point of view, those with hands of silk seem to have rated the Gnat pretty highly, though it was perhaps not much of a trainer.

Which leaves us with the intriguing thought that if there has been a Jet Spitfire, it probably isn't British. The F-16 perhaps? The Gripen? Perhaps even the MiG-29!!!!

Interestingly though, the three aircraft types I've never heard their pilot's speak ill about at all were the Gloster Gauntlet, the Hawker Fury and (of all things) the Westland Whirlwind (though no-one liked its nasty Peregrine engines).

Out Of Trim

7th Oct 2002, 21:32

Lightning....!! :p

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/brug.jpg

Photo courtesy of DamienB - from Aviation History and Nostalgia

ORAC

7th Oct 2002, 22:39

"The Lightning wasn't a jet Spitfire, either, since all Marks were handicapped by lack of range, endurance and firepower".

Both exhibited the perennial problems of UK fighters, lack of range and lack of firepower. I think they're a good match.

The original Spitfire had an endurance of 1hr at normal rpm and 1/4 hour at maximum rpm. Average endurance for the Lightning was around an hour. Shortest I ever saw was around 15 minutes fighting a couple of A-10s off Spurn.

Most Spitfires had a total firing time of 12 seconds, the Lightning around 10 seconds .

Lightning = God's sports car. :) :)

Ali Barber

8th Oct 2002, 04:45

Once got recalled shortly after airborne in a Mk 6 Lightning (big ventral tank - more fuel). Burners against gear, flaps and airbrakes and I was on the ground after 12 minutes with minimum fuel.

Flew Hunter Mk 9 for 6 months on TWU and it was the dog's bollox. Still undecided on which was the best, Lightning or Hunter.

teeteringhead

8th Oct 2002, 07:01

I always thought it ironic that (in most people's eyes) the Spitfire (Supermarine) overshadowed the Hurricane (Hawker), yet (in everybody's eyes) the Hunter (Hawker) overshadowed the Swift (Supermarine).

Another point: although a number of people (lucky s*ds) must have flown both Spitfie and Hunter, (thinking BBMF, privately owned etc), there must be some (VERY lucky s*ds) out there who have OPERATED both on front-line squadrons. Any comments from them.....???

BlueWolf

8th Oct 2002, 07:04

Got told a tale one time from a source who I feel inclined to believe....about a pair of F4s which took off from an airbase in Wales (don't know which one) and flew north on full reheat, landing at an airbase in Scotland (don't know which one either), out of fuel, eight minutes later. Impressive stats on velocity and kero consumption even for the shortest possible hop, if indeed it's true.

As for a Jet Spit....my favourite bedtime theory is that it would have been the AJS 37 Viggen, had it ever been given the chance. I guess we'll never know. Shame really. Failing that, I'll go with Jacko on the F-16, which may yet have the opportunity to prove it.

Bus14

8th Oct 2002, 08:56

Ali Barber,

You really should make more effort to get value from the dear tax payer's fuel!

For my first solo on the mk6 Lightning I was being briefed by BJ Aldington for the usual steep turns and ILS malarky when he noticed a rather glazed look on my face. Once he'd ascertained that I fancied something a bit more interresting, we had a brief discussion on the relevance, or not, of various speed, mach, and altitude limitations and off I went.

40 minutes later I touched down on minimum fuel. In the meantime I'd explored mach 1.9 (climbing on the (non AAR probe) IAS limit-it wouldn't go any faster that day (maybe the AAR probe didn't help!)). I'd also had a look at the world from 57,000 feet, followed by a idle/fast idle 150 nm glide back to Binners. When I found BJ to apologise for not having enough fuel to do the 2 circuits he'd recommended I do to get used to the mk6's different wing, he didn't seem to mind.

Anyway, back to the thread. The problem for most of us is not having flown the various jets when they were new. The mk9 Hunter was a blast, but also a rather scary vintage machine by the time I got my hands on it. The Lightning was great too. The Harrier I did fly on the front line, and it was the most fun of all. However, the handling is not exactly viceless. The Jaguar? Least said the better, although I did have some fun with it in a 'looking over your shoulder for the grim reaper' kind of way.

For me, the best (British) jet at doing it's job was the Hawk. It lacks the punch and power of some of the others, but it does what it says on the tin, and it does it in a near viceless way.

On a slightly different tack, the guys who used to wind me up were the 'old and bold' ex Hunter pilots who thought that everything that followed on was a Hunter derivative ie Harrier=Hunter that hovers, Lightning=supersonic Hunter, etc

I'm delighted to have flown many of the single seat front line jets, but I can't really compare them to the Spitfire since no one has been daft enough to lend me one!

Jackonicko

8th Oct 2002, 11:32

"there must be some (VERY lucky s*ds) out there who have OPERATED both on front-line squadrons. Any comments from them.....???"

Some years ago, while writing about the Battle of Britain, I interviewed a number of former Spitfire pilots, some of whom even flew both types during the Battle itself. Gordon Sinclair, for instance, went from Gauntlets to Spits on No.19 Squadron, then took command of a Czech Hurricane squadron. Others flew Hurricanes later, or went from Hurricanes to Spitfires. The Hurricane chaps loved the aircraft, of course, but those who flew both almost universally preferred the Spit.

It was much more difficult to find pilots who'd flown the 109E in the Battle, and those I did find seemed much older and shockingly less 'with it' than their RAF counterparts, perhaps because they had suffered the ageing effect of imprisonment by the Russians or had survived in ravaged East Germany

rivetjoint

8th Oct 2002, 12:33

Are we talking about a jet powere battle proven, multi-role aircraft that can only rarely be beaten by its foe? You'd have to look across the Atlantic, F-15 or F-16. It'd be nice to select on which was British but history suggests otherwise.

skyraider

8th Oct 2002, 15:27

evening all... most of you that have commented probably have military backgrounds considering the forum this was moved to.

My chances of getting a ride in a Hunter or a Spit are right up there with a ride on the space shuttle:rolleyes: .

I raised the question more from a crowdline point of view and appreciation, ie a classic aircraft that is pleasing to the eye and has a distinctive sound and air about it.

As far as the lightning goes, while I do like the aircraft a lot, it is more like a seat strapped to 2 rockets and the aviation equivalent of the maclaren F1. :D Its great to drive and I would never say no to a ride but for me personally is doesn't have the same presence as the hunter.

Everyone's comments are probably spot on in their own right but for me watching y'all drive these birds by from time to time.

Sorry for excluding the american aircraft guys. the thought was raised by seeing a hunter and lightning parked next to each other...

cheers
Sky...

teeteringhead

8th Oct 2002, 15:29

Jacko
...err sorry, I was ambiguous. I meant Spitfire AND Hunter (very very lucky s*ds!). Spitfire remained in service until (?) mid 50s, and Hunter certainly started early 60s (I remember my 1/11d Airfix model of a "Trembler Hunter"....).
I'm sure one of my first Staishs said he'd flown both.......

Archimedes

8th Oct 2002, 15:46

Teeteringhead,

The last Spit sortie was made during the Malyan emergency; think it was a PR19 from 81 Squadron at some time inn 1955 (one presumes that we're including Griffon engined Spits as 'proper' Spits :) ), and the Hunter F1 entered service in '54.

This makes the chances of the crossover very high. I seem to recall some of the RAF Historical Society publications have implied reference to the more senior pilots/flight commanders/COs on Hunter squadrons being veterans of the War on fighters - almost certain that some of these would have been Spitfire pilots. Also, given that 60 Squadron flew attack missions over Malaya, it's quite possible that some of the junior pilots on that unit would have gone on to Hunters.

There's a new book by Peter Caygill (I think) called 'Jet Jockeys' (published by Airlife), which, from what I recall (my copy is currently residing with my father some 100 miles from me) mentions this sort of thing. Indeed, I remember that one of the chaps interviewed for the book describes the Hunter as 'the Spitfire of the jet age'. That said, someone else gives that accolade to the F-86 (or Sabre F4, if we're being correct).

DamienB

8th Oct 2002, 16:11

Well seeing as my Lightning pic's popped up, have a Spit, Hurri and Hunter too:

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/owom.jpg
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/owol.jpg
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/yeohunter.jpg

John Farley

8th Oct 2002, 19:18

If anybody can find Sqn Ldr Tim McElhaw he would have a view. He was shot down in a Spit in the Middle East (after WWII) and was also my boss on IV(AC) Sqn when we had Hunter 4s and 6s in 57-58 time.

For me the Spit IX had the best lateral control on short finals of anything I have ever flown. Which is why it is such a doddle to do a curved approach right to the flare. Guys and girls (get Diana Barnato Walkers ATA book - better still talk to her) seen doing this are not showing off but just flying it the way it pleads to be operated.

You have to have limited experience to think the lateral control of a Hunter is other than diabolical (from false locks to manual revision forces). Even at the end Hawkers had never cracked providing a useable aileron trimmer in the cruise let alone anywhere else. Keep your hand on the stick and enjoy the ride for sure, but there is more to a good aeroplane than that.

Congratualtions on the pictures Damien. Top stuff.

Jackonicko

8th Oct 2002, 19:35

Tim McElhaw's career must have stalled somewhat - he ended up OC No.14 Squadron at Wildenrath on Canberra B(I)8s in about 1968-70. I think there have been Lightning bods who flew Spit/Meteor/Hunter/Lightning.

Busta

9th Oct 2002, 00:28

Didn,t fly the hunter enough to have to "cruise" in it, clean shiny Hawks weren't too bad. Thinking outside the UK box, very limited exposure to F16,15 and 18 courtesy of TLP and Tiger Meet invalidates any sensible comment. F4J gets my vote.

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

steamchicken

9th Oct 2002, 13:29

Was SLdr McElhaw one of those shot down in the contretemps with the Israelis then? (by IAF Spits or the Merlin-engined, Spanish-built 109s?)

izod tester

9th Oct 2002, 17:21

An interesting discussion so far. Has anyone considered the F86 Sabre? A superb kill record against the MiG 15 in Korea and in RAF service for a while too. Can someone who flew them comment?

Jackonicko

9th Oct 2002, 18:37

The F-86? A great aeroplane, sure. An extremely successful fighter, too. But the kill ratio in Korea was wildly exaggerated (the top-scoring pilot in that conflict flew another type entirely...) and the result of tactics and training more than aircraft quality. Moreover, none of those I've spoken to regarded the Sabre as being anything special as a pilot's aeroplane, and I'm told that the type was vulnerable to aircraft like the Venom at some heights. It did very poorly against the Hunter in the Indo Pak spats, too, notwithstanding PAF propaganda. Many RAFG Hunter 4/6 types cut their teeth on the Sabre, but it's the Hunter that they inevitably remember with the greatest fondness.

Flatus Veteranus

9th Oct 2002, 19:27

Perhaps the "Spitfire of the jet era" covers too much ground (more than 50 years) and needs to be divided into generations. I flew Meatboxes, "screaming kiddy-cars" and the Hunter (a little). The Vampire just made a lot of noise and did little. The Hunters was a delight, but I remember a bit of bu**eration by "false locks" and manual reversion. Peter Caygill's excellent book "Jet Jockeys" covers the first generation up to the Hunter and Javelin. He records that the guys who converted from the F86, of which the RAF had a few squadrons at Linton and in RAFG, to the Hunter thought it was a retrograde step. They were critical of the Hunter's lack of a "flying tail" which degraded pitch control at high Mach, lack of a radar ranging gunsight that worked, inadequate armament (low velocity Adens and you could only fire two of them) - and the lack of range/endurance characteristic of British fighters. Perhaps the Aussies had the best of it with their Avon-engined Sabres. I did not fly the F86, so I will not vote.

An old 208 mate and former tp went to the States earlier this year and bought himself a conversion onto the Mig 15 (not bad for 70+!). He was highly impressed. THe handling was delightful and the systems were much like the Meatbox's. Rods, cables, and ball-cocks.

Sven Sixtoo

9th Oct 2002, 21:36

OK

10 hrs on Hunter 7's, 14 hours on Hunter 9's, preceeded by 105 on the Hawk.

Hunter was a great punch in the back but as a useful machine . . .

Just don't lose sight of the lighthouse.

Hawk on the other hand was an absolute delight, the most fun of any of the 20 or so types I've flown (most of them are helicopters so that may be unfair, but you go with what you are given) and ego trips for young pilots don't come much better than XX310 in Red Arrows paint with delivery mileage only.
If I had unlimited cash to buy myself an aeroplane as pure fun, a Spitfire would be the first choice. But if the RAF gets round to selling the Hawks, it would be a great machine to go on holiday - I remember returning to Valley after monstering the Scottish highlands with div fuel for Nice on board ( but the bastards claimed the Wx was green till I landed then went red surprise surprise).

Sven
:) :)

Pontius

12th Oct 2002, 17:08

Hunter :) ...jumpers for goal-posts, Mmmmm. Nicest handling thing I ever got to fly and worthy of a Spitfire analogy. The Harrier was great fun and a fantastic toy, but as B14 said; it had/has a few vices...ahem. The Hawk is, in my opinion, the closest version of the Hunter (handling wise) to anything around nowadays. Nice and smooth, but it just didn't have quite the control harmony and 'silkiness' of the Hunter.

Damien.....more GA11s please. Got 866 in the book a few times. They were, without a shadow of doubt, the best to fly.......drifts off into days gone by of trying to take out the quarterdecks of frigates in the Wed/Thurs Portland wars.......happy days.

Now, back to more serious and grown-up stuff. Tea please Miss Stewardess :D

Chocolates aweigh,

Pontius

CoodaShooda

13th Oct 2002, 12:50

I seem to recall it was 'Johnny' Johnson who rated the F86 with the Spitfire in the book "Full Circle" circa late 1960's

smartman

14th Oct 2002, 14:19

Spitfire pilots got it up only slowly, and couldn't do a lot --------
Lightning pilots could get it up rapidly, but not for long---------
Harrier pilots only get it up with lots of help-------
Tornado pilots had to flap things backward 'n forward to do it------
Buccaneer pilots could do most things but (most)were ugly-------
Hawk pilots can only train to do it---------

But HUNTER pilots could get up quickly, stay awhile, and perform most acts all at once - and did it ever so beautifully---------

And if you'd done it with a Mk9 all over the Middle East, then nothing compared before or after-----------

And c'mon Mr Farley - lateral control in your beloved hovering beast wasn't exactly confidence inspiring was it ??

HUNTER - ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEST

(Oh - forgot the Jaguar - but then so has everybody)

SASless

15th Oct 2002, 01:16

Jacko.....

"The Lightning wasn't a jet Spitfire, either, since all Marks were handicapped by lack of range, endurance and firepower, however great it might have been as a flying experience. "

I suggest they were identical in those respects....both were short legged....short enduranced.....and lacked firepower. Until the Spit got the 20mm cannon.....it did not begin to have the firepower it justly deserved.

As beautiful an airplane as it was.....it took the Mustang to go all the way to Berlin .....fight the Germans on their own turf.....and return to England. It did that and is a beautiful airplane in its own right. Packing the .50 Caliber Browning machine guns it did also meant it had the firepower to be truely effective. .303 caliber rounds just do not pack the punch that either the .50 or 20mm do and that was the one real failing of the Spitfire.

But for shear by god ugly good looks give me a round engined Thunderbolt anyday! Now that is a Real Man's airplane!

John Farley

15th Oct 2002, 13:58

Hi smartman

Sorry if I got up your nose, but I am afraid I do need to make a couple of comments.

I never said the Harrier had good lateral controls. I was talking about the Hunter.

As it happens I do believe the Harrier lateral control system was the best of any of the Hawker fighters when measured by such criteria as stick force per rolling acceleration, ability for thick thighed pilots to apply full stick, reliability (after the wing tip RCV actuation rod eye end mod) and trimability, although that was not fully sorted until the SHAR lateral gearing change. That mod made trimming in the hover something else again and enabled me to let go of the stick during the first SHAR hover, get a camera out of my trouser pocket, and take a picture of a fireman looking up at me on the eastern ORP.

What I think you may be talking about is the appalling and lethal lateral controllability of the jet with the metal wing at mid transition speeds. This was nothing to do with the lateral control system itself, but was due to the aircraft having too much rolling moment due to sideslip. Once St Louis did the plastic wing that problem was considerably diminished. Indeed on my first flight with the St Louis wing fitted to an AV-8A (known as the YAV-8B) to try it out, I put in full rudder at 8ADD and 80kts and had to let go of the stick to see if I was using any aileron to keep the wings level.

Then came the need to droop the ailerons on the US wing (in order to increase wing lift during high weight STOs) so some rolling moment due to sideslip returned, but it was nothing compared with the original problem.

Sorry to be pedantic, but in my view criticism needs to be accurate. Especially when trying to make things better.

Regards

John

smartman

15th Oct 2002, 15:07

Thanks John - no criticism intended, only fun-----------
;)

Jackonicko

15th Oct 2002, 17:10

SASless,

There was a fascinating SETP paper in which a group of modern TPs compared the Mustang, T'Bolt, Corsair and F6F. The results were quite surprising - with the Mustang bottom of the heap for handling characteristics.

I summarised bits of this (OK ripped it off unmercifully) in an article about the P-47 recently.

"On paper, the Thunderbolt did have a marginally worse turn performance than the P-51, and did bleed energy more rapidly in a max rate turn. Weighed against this marginal inferiority was the fact that the Thunderbolt had much lower stick forces (about 7.7-lb per g compared to the P-51’s 20-lb per g) which made the aircraft less tiring to manoeuvre, and making accurate gun tracking much easier. The P-47 also had a better rate of roll than the Mustang, so while it was slower turning in a sustained turn, it could change direction more quickly, and instantaneous turn rate was no less impressive. The P-51 could not accelerate or dive as quickly as the Thunderbolt and also had unpredictable and dangerous stall characteristics, with little warning and a vicious departure. This meant that the P-51 pilot could easily ‘overcook’ a combat manoeuvre and find his aircraft rolling rapidly through as much as 270°, losing perhaps 500 ft and experiencing a violent aileron snatch which could tear the stick out of his hands.

By contrast the Thunderbolt was generally easy and pleasant to manouevre, and was stable enough to allow its pilot to place the ‘pipper’ on the target and keep it there throughout energetic manoeuvres. The P-47 pilot could also safely fly in the pre-stall buffet, maximising his turn performance, without risking the type of departure which ruined many a Mustang pilot’s day.

An evaluation of the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Hellcat and Corsair by modern test pilots during the 1990s judged the P-51 as being ‘totally unsuited to the ACM environment’ but conceded that it was ‘well suited to long range escort missions, intercepting and defending against non-manoeuvring targets’. Fortunately, by the time the Mustang replaced the P-47 in the long range escort role, the main German home defence fighter was the heavyweight and rather sluggish Bf109G, which even the P-51 could deal with without difficulty."

SASless

15th Oct 2002, 18:24

Jacko.....you have redeemed yourself....thanks for that information...very enlightening. I have never heard a Jug pilot say anything bad about them except for their climb ability. Everyone of them noted that they could outdive anything!
The real beauty of the Jug over the Mustang was the air cooling vice glycol cooling and the fact you could lose a couple of complete cylinders (jugs) and that big old radial would still bring you home....banging and knocking...but home. A single hit in the wrong place and all the coolant left the Mustang and it was time for ersatz coffee and brown bread for the duration.

BEagle

15th Oct 2002, 20:27

JF is, of course, absolutely spot-on regarding the control harmony of the Hunter. At around 420KIAS at low level it was OK - but was really rather prehistoric at much higher IAS (very twitchy in pitch) or at low speed (very sloppy in roll); it was, after all, mere 'power steering' and nothing like the clever system in the Gnat with its q-gearing and cam K. The manual reversion forces in the Hunter were not for the faint-hearted and the whole manual system was very much a 'get-you-home' device......until you experienced the divergent Dutch Roll on final!

But every overgrown schoolboy loved it - it had a big, noisy engine and was, so we thought, a Real Man's jet!!

henry crun

15th Oct 2002, 21:50

Jacko, you missed out one important capability that the P47 had in combat unmatched by any other aircraft of its era.

I knew a guy who flew them during ww2 and he said that if all else failed they could undo the straps and hide in the map case. :)

Roger_Ovair

30th Oct 2002, 22:00

Sky,

Have just read the thread and am really sorry that you never got to fly the Hunter. It was a joy. I remember my first solo in an F6, single seat for the first time ever... wondering what the funny (and loud) noise was as I opened up the throttle on the runway (bleed valves) ... trying to keep the thing under control as it rocketed skywards... missing the outbound radial by miles.... climbing at 400kts no matter how hard I tried to pull the nose up.

I have flown loads of other more modern aircraft, including the F-15, and I still think the Hunter was fantastic. Of course there are things that turn, climb or accelerate better, aircraft that carry more, fly higher or go further. But none have a place in my heart like the Hunter.

Favourite version was the F6 at Valley (hated Valley loved the jet). Then the FGA9, 'cos it was big and carried lots. Least loved, the weird ones that we flew as 2-seat trainers for the Buccaneer. "Hecate" was the only tub I ever enjoyed flying.

Different times then, and I reckon you could still give modern jets a hard time with it.
:)

soddim

6th Mar 2003, 16:09

Great aircraft the Hunter but it cannot be compared with the Spitfire because it never earned its place in history either as a world-beater in air to air combat or in ground attack. Not that it was a slouch in either role but it was never called upon to take on any decent opposition in war.

Having flown both I guess I am allowed to say that each represented the best in British aircraft design in their day and neither were challenged by any other nation's product until some years after they entered service. The Lightning was probably the last World-beater we got into service and since then it has been all downhill.

The demise of a once great aircraft building country.

Flatus Veteranus

6th Mar 2003, 17:43

But surely, Soddim, the question is whether the Hunter challenged the F-86 Sabre, which was in service some years earlier, for the title of "best fighter of its era". Those who flew both seemed to favour the Sabre because its flying tail gave better control in pitch at higher Mach Nos. The Australian version of the F-86 with the Avon engine was probably the Queen of the Skies. :confused:

Someone at staff college with me said (of the Lightnings at Watch'em) that they could maintain a favourable air situation for five minutes over Southend. Range and endurance have always been the failings of British fighters. :)

Archimedes

6th Mar 2003, 23:49

FV - was that with or without AAR? :)

soddim

7th Mar 2003, 18:10

FV - sadly, I never had the opportunity to bounce an F-86 and I would be interested to hear from anybody who had the opportunity for a hands-on comparison.

Regarding the Lightning's fuel reserves - 'tis true there were none in the small ventral version but the large ventral gave a more reasonable combat capability to the Mks 6 & 2A. However, as Lady Soddim frequently concurs 'tis better to do it quickly and well than to take an age and do it badly. Nevertheless, I must agree that the Lightning in particular was better as a ground based point defence fighter than a long range standing CAP asset with or without AAR.

Shame we have not built a decent fighter since - shall we pin our hopes on Typhoon?

Jackonicko

10th Mar 2003, 13:09

There are quite a few Indian Hunter pilots who could tell you a thing or two about Sabres..... (And their conclusions are very different to the PAF propaganda accounts.....)

ARXW

10th Mar 2003, 18:37

Excuse me ppl (and no offence meant to any Indians around here), but didn't the Indo-Pak experience show that the Pakistanis had the most competent AF and that the F-86 v hunter ratio was rather possibly in the PAF F-86s favour?

Wholigan

14th Mar 2003, 17:47

soddim -- "sadly, I never had the opportunity to bounce an F-86 and I would be interested to hear from anybody who had the opportunity for a hands-on comparison"

Also Jacko and ARXW --

Can't compare actual "hands-on" experience of the 2 aircraft, but around 1970 we took a bunch of Hunters to Peshawar and trained in air-to-air combat with the PAF Sabres and F6s (Chinese variant of the MiG19). Funnily enough - the next Indo/Pakistan war started not long afterwards. (Were we a "training tool"?)

The Sabres we fought against were (I think) big-engined, hard leading edge variants and were flown by the staff of the PAF Day Fighter Combat School, which they had (wisely) continued with when we had closed ours some time before.

We took a mix of pilot experience with us and - suffice to say - we (as a squadron) lost a bit over 50% of the fights with the Sabre. This may not be too surprising when you consider our mix of experience and the fact that the opposition aircraft were flown by DFCS staff. The scenarios we flew were 1v1, 2v2, 4v2 and 4v4.

One particular fight sticks in my memory. I fought the boss of the DFCS. The fight was long and arduous and there was little or no advantage being gained either way for an awful long time. I eventually got a confirmed guns kill, but we could not show the ciné film in the hot debrief, as it was attended by some VERY senior wheels of the PAF, and the minimum range was busted rather severely! (Well - a kill's a kill after all!). (I'll try to find the picture and post it sometime).

The PAF said afterwards (unofficially) that they had invited us to determine whether or not it was the Hunter that was easy to beat or the Indian Air Force pilots. I did not hear their conclusion publicly.

Incidentally, we won the fights against the F6!!

So - for what it's worth - that's my experience!

PS: If my old mate (he knows who he is) reads these forums, could he please post a link to an article he wrote about this detachment for one of the aviation magazines. I was shown it once but never got a copy and it is very interesting!

soddim

14th Mar 2003, 18:21

Wholigan - grateful for your informative post. Interesting to see that you qualify the results by discussion of the experience and ability of the pilots involved. I remember a discussion of air combat tactics with some very senior Israeli fighter pilots when they were buying their F4s. They were firmly of the opinion that it was best to turn with the opposition Mig 21s whilst our preferred tactic was to take a min separation pass and extend, returning only when we were able to take a front hemisphere shot - something the Migs could not do. In the ensuing argument they pointed out that their enemy was easy in a turning fight even though he had a better turn capability - I think the expression was "but we fight arabs". I often wondered if any of them subsequently came up against a good arab pilot.

jumpseater

15th Mar 2003, 04:12

The large number of the PAF's sabre's were Canadair built, thus they had the Orenda engines which were well thought of. About 90ish were secondhand ex German Air Force, and due to arms embargo's were sold to Iran via a swiss broker. They never stopped and ended up in Pakistan as they were always intended to!. One of the PAF wingco's became the first jet 'Ace in a day', shooting down five Hunter MK56's (Hunter MK6), four of them in under one minute!

The RAF also used them (Canadair Sabres), with this thread in mind, due to delays with the delivery of the Hunter! Some six of the RAF machines ended up in Honduras having operated for the Yugoslav's in the middle, and in the mid 1980's I nearly bought some of them.

Jackonicko

15th Mar 2003, 13:36

Ref the PAF and its Sabres:

There is no doubt that the Pakistanis won the propaganda war, and the IAF failed to do anything to set the record straight until the 1990s.

On 7 September 1971 Squadron Leader MM Alam (OC 11 Squadron, flying an F-86F) actually originally claimed five Hunters within a space of 30 seconds, not just four in five minutes!

This was an impressive feat, made even more impressive by the fact that during six waves of attacks (33 individual sorties) against Sargodha the IAF actually lost two Mysteres (at 0558 and 1540) and three Hunters (two at 0605). Another Hunter was lost en route home, 100 km from Sargodha, having been hit by ground fire over the target. Five aircraft, which must have been Alam's five kills....

Except that the Mysteres were officially credited to Flt Lt Amjad Hussain of No.9 Squadron, flying an F-104, and Flt Lt Malik of No.11 Squadron. Hussain had to eject after flying through the debris of his victim (Sqn Ldr Devaya of No.1 Sqn, IAF). Malik's victim was Flt Lt Guha.

This left two Hunters (flown by FO JS Brar and Sqn Ldr SB Bhagwat) as Alam's victims.

Although Alam cleverly slipped through the space time continuum to compress the timescale of his kills, while stealing some of them from his colleagues, the PAF originally credited him with only four kills on that day, with two more scored the previous day (see the citation for his Sitara e Jurat award). The propagandists soon invented the five kills in 30 seconds story, though this was soon discredited. The PAF's own 1988 official history credits him with only two Hunter kills, both scored on 7 September.

On other occasions, the cannon-armed Hunter did rather better against Winder-equipped PAF Sabres. On 6 September, for example two 2 v 2 combats resulted in the loss of three Sabres and one Hunter. Even the IAF Gnats achieved at least four air to air kills against the F-86.

scroggs

15th Mar 2003, 21:36

For Spitfire/Hunter/Lightning comparisons, I think Cliff Spink could probably help out, if anyone knows where to reach him. There are probably others.

I only flew the FGA9 (and various bastardised T7s and T8s), and then only for a short time, but I thought it compared badly with the Hawk on all handling issues except outright speed and rate of climb. But it didn't 'alf look good, and the combined 'blue notes' of a four-ship on the break at 420+ was orgasmic!! By the time I flew it ('79), it was old, unreliable and something of a 'bitsa', with unplanned additions all over the cockpit. The first time I strapped it on for my Hunter solo, I was convinced I was now 'a real pilot'! Subsequent events proved that judgement somewhat premature....

Still, it looks and sounds great, and I doubt there are many aircraft that can raise the passion that this one does.

Trumpet_trousers

16th Mar 2003, 00:33

Re: Spitfire and Hunter flying together in RAF service:

If my memory serves me correctly, there is a (famous?) picture of a Spit, Hunter and Lightning in formation taken at Binbrook when all 3 were on the strength of the Fighter Command Development Unit, or some such similar outfit! (There may even have been a Javelin in the shot as well, but can't be sure - but the Lightning sure had a lot of Alpha to stay with the Spit!)

ahhh............WIWOL!! :D

Jackonicko

16th Mar 2003, 01:02

Back in the early 60s CFE borrowed a PR.Mk 19 from the BoB Flight for trials intended to develop tactics for use against Indonesian P-51D Mustangs using the Lightning and Hunter. That's when the photos to which you refer were taken.

Trumpet_trousers

16th Mar 2003, 12:33

Jacko:

Thank you for putting the record straight....it does make an interesting photo though!

aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh..................WIWOL!!

ARXW

16th Mar 2003, 17:30

Mr Wholigan,

Are you talking about this article?:

http://babriet.tripod.com/articles/art_roadpeshawar.htm

I, also, wonder about the PAF propaganda mention. I have seen this website http://www.pafcombat.com and in it the following resume can be found:

Exchange Ratio in PAF-IAF
Aerial Engagements

Although outnumbered 3:1 in its wars with India, the PAF has prided itself in having 'bested the best.' Air combat and marksmanship have been its forte, as evidenced by a superior exchange ratio in aerial encounters:

> 1965 – 2.4:1 in favour of PAF (17 PAF kills vs 7 IAF kills)

> 1971 – 1.8:1 in favour of PAF (18 PAF kills vs 10 IAF kills)

How true is this?

Interesting assertion by Soddim on the Israelis I think. I'm sure the first 'batch' of Israeli instructors to have trained on the F-4 in America have come up at least against a few good Arab pilots...

The 'very senior' pilots in question (if we are talking about the same people) included pilots like Ehud Hankin (27 years old during his conversion on the F-4!), later IDF/AF CO Ben-Nun and others. To the best of my knowledge none were ever shot down in air combat. The six pilots in particluar on that course had, eventually, accounted between themselves for a total of over 20 a/c shot down.

It is surprising but perhaps more than a little true that the IDF/AF of the time despite all their aggression were more than a little reckless and with not as much air combat discipline as would be expected from a western AF nor as rigid tactics as some other AFs with well established ad sound tactical doctrines. They would frequently take Arab Migs on in big furballs going 1v1 against them sure that they would come out on top and that the Arab pilot were not as switched on tactically to take advantage of the lack of cross coverage or their numbers.

Having said that recent exercises against world class, top tactical air arms (the USN namely) have done nothing to disprove the IDF/AF legend as either dogfighters or tacticians!! ;)

Wholigan

16th Mar 2003, 18:46

ARXW - brilliant - many thanks!!! By heck, does that bring back memories :D :D :D

solotk

17th Mar 2003, 19:08

Wholigan

The article you seek, definitely appeared in either Flypast or Aeroplane monthly. I remember it, because it was a very very good read. I also read the part about your knifefight, sadly the guy involved was killed in action shortly afterwards. Lot of good piccies, of Hunters in the rain etc.

On reflection, definitely Flypast.

If you go along to the Flypast Forum www.flypast.com , and ask the question, someone will scan and post the piccies for you

Regards

Tony