Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:46:33 -0500
From: "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
References: <j1elfbp264hq07tflmokp4ijb6k4oaj68f@4ax.com> <t8hlfb9vt4afmjfnglctk2imsdaeng3v24@4ax.com> <y5ednYkDsLPplWbLnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> <be6ofb9l9fhoan9ipm7t9f4ct5caih2c5s@4ax.com> <63gofb1fduq6e46bp2v9lmsd8ahd8r46qf@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <63gofb1fduq6e46bp2v9lmsd8ahd8r46qf@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: The Hunter was a great aicraft, but if only . . . - images.jpg
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:46:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160330-3, 03/30/2016), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Message-ID: <quadnVXqZZf07mHLnZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 36
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.0.210.228
X-Trace: sv3-FYz6UKD9CC0gYJBBAxrRv8vCjXCPu9mtSPH9TKB0EMBrVsETyngN1PMq/Hmdm96i3iwzAUCzS0zD9g/!1ceNXD6OUsxYboTIycdWxkOPeLixsrZjdkOn6ThnW+LiPHLO/vLHRPcpLtFHjHQlnagcsanga6T6!/CRtlNVA1dJJVwLa0IT0eMTIuIkdthslcg==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3293
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3892835880
X-Received-Bytes: 3546
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:3449
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:39:43 -0400, frank@thehowards.ca wrote:
>
>
>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.
Had Hunters served as many hours as the F-100, I would expect it to have
similar losses:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/20176#.Vvxyr_krKUk
In wartime you can expect a lot of accidents (half the aircraft lost in WWII
were lost to accidents). From 1961 until their redeployment in 1971, the
F-100s were the longest serving U.S. jet fighter-bomber to fight in the
Vietnam War. Enemy fire and training accidents took their toll over ten
years.
Oh, and BTW, the F-105 Thunderchief became the dominant attack aircraft
early in the Vietnam War. The F-105 could carry more than twice the bomb
load farther and faster than the F-100, which was used mostly in South
Vietnam. Of the 833 F-105s built, a combined 395 F-105s were lost in
Southeast Asia, including 334 (296 F-105Ds and 38 two-seaters) lost to enemy
action and 61 lost in operational accidents.
>OK, the F-100 was faster by about 25mph in level flight and ongoing US
>developments called for somewhat different requirements.
Hey, you're catching on!
|
|
){kind=link}