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:
>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!
But this 25 mph comes right on the cusp of the speed of sound and, in
1955, the implications of operating in this transonic speed band were
just beginning to be understood. In particular is the loss of
longitudinal stability and resulting pitch-up encountered when
maneuvering. This may not be too bad when shooting off missiles but
would certainly make machine gun operation a bit of a problem, Then
there is the issue of wave drag and the resulting increase in fuel
consumption.
BTW: NASA was still investigating transonic maneuverability in 1976,
using the YF-17 Cobra which was later developed into the F/A-18.
So, to my mind, this extra 25 mph is really only good for "getting the
hell out of Dodge".
|
|
')){kind=link}