On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:57:59 -0500, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
>"Charles Lindbergh" wrote in message
>news:t8hlfb9vt4afmjfnglctk2imsdaeng3v24@4ax.com...
>>
>> If only, what? If only the USA had purchased the aircraft?
>
>The U.S. already had the F-100 as a transonic jet.
>
>The Lebanese air force flew Hunters until a couple of years ago
Why should the US NOT have bought the Hunter? It's cost was only about
half that of the F100. That would have come to a $660-million saving
over the life of the aircraft, or about $6-billion in today's money.
Even if a decision to buy Hunters had been delayed until the F100 was
ready for service, the development cost of the Super Sabre
($23-million) would easily have been written off.
Then there was the F100's awful accident rate. 889 aircraft, or about
one-third of the total production, were lost to accidents, involving
the loss of 324 pilots.
OK, the F-100 was faster by about 25mph in level flight and ongoing US
developments called for somewhat different requirements.
|
|
){kind=link}