On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:46:36 -0500, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
>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:
I did a quick check of Hunter accidents (204 or just over 10% of total
fleet) and resulting pilot losses (80). Of this aggregate figure, the
Swiss suffered 33 accidents (20% of their aircraft) and the loss of 16
pilots.
The F100 and Hunter came into service at about the same time (1954/55)
but whereas the F100 was taken out of service in the early 1970s, the
Hunter continued with the RAF until the 1980s and the Swiss AF into
the 1990s. The highest FH for a Hunter (in Royal Navy service) was
6925 hours. The RAF got about up to about 5100. It was not unusual for
an airframe to have 2000 to 3000 or more hours before being converted
to FGA9s or Swiss/Singapore versions. The Swiss then put an average of
about 2500 hours more on their F58s and 1500 hours on their F58As.
>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}