On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:39:43 -0400, frank@thehowards.ca wrote:
>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.
I am unable to find any historical information about the USA having considered purchasing the Hunter. If you
can point me toward any such information, it would be an interesting read.
|
|
){kind=link}