Toby,TobyVickers wrote:Peter,
Slightly off topic, but what was that one like to fly, as a combat aircraft? I dont know what if any actual conflicts you may have been involved in, but of the various paircraft you flew for the RAF what would you have most trusted (or not trusted!) in a combat situation?
It was a great turning aeroplane and if you could cut in behind something then there was no possibility of being out turned. However, there was a shortage of speed and at M0.86 you went out of control. I got good combat film of many faster aircraft that chose to stay and turn with me...Often a range increasing shot but no problem with pulling a superior rate of turn to get the necessary deflection. I got good shots of F100 Super Sabres even...when they made the mistake of pulling "G"...But when they eased and slammed in the reheat they just bore away to a small climbing dot in seconds. I also got a couple of nice Hunter shots when they made the same mistake. But all these chaps soon learned not to turn with a Venom and then it was really stalemate provided you saw him coming...Simply a matter of breaking towards and there was no chance that he could pull the required higher rate of turn to get the deflection...He would seldom take the bait and bore on through at high speed till quickly out of range and there would be very little chance of a gunsight shot on him. We could not really bounce Hunters as they were already cruising faster than our best Mach Number...They had to make the mistake of trying to turn with us, for us to have a chance of a shot.
For a really robust rock steady gun platform the best I flew was the Meteor VIII, but a Venom would out turn it.
The only slight conflict I was involved in was when General Kasseem of Iraq laid claim to Kuwait in 1961 and by that time I was on Hunter FGA9s and again in the Ground Attack role that I had always flown. I did fly a couple of top cover flights over the Iraq border but nobody ever saw an Iraqi fighter in that whole scenario...Our role was to stop his tanks and he never actually sent any so I guess his bluff was called.
If I was going to fly air combat with guns then I would probably prefer the Hunter FGA9 for its very solid robustness rapid roll and safe high angle of attack turning. It would probably out gun anything with its 4 30mm Aden Gunpack, but with the limitation of only 7 seconds firing time. Both it and the Venom would not take kindly to even one hit with a cannon shell. The Venom centifrugal engine would probably keep going but the Hunter axial flow engine would fail immediately.
I guess all this is really academic now with missiles...the only thing I've flown that fought with missiles was the Lightning and I certainly would not want to fight in that.
I guess if I was a young man and wanted to select a missile firing steed from all I've read and other hearsay, then I think I would chose a Harrier...I've never flown one but I think its vectored thrust offers distinct combat possibilities.
If I wanted to fly a very beautiful and supersonic fighter for it's sheer speed and missile capability then I would choose an F-16.
If I wanted to just own and fly a beautiful jet fighter to lavish care on, admire and fly occasionally when I could afford it. Then it would quite definitely be a Hunter FGA9 and I would call it "Echo" :dance:
Not aimed at you Sir, I can assure you! - nope, it's just one of those pet hates about English use you see on the 'net, like loose instead of lose, and Yanks (apologies to any reading, God bless all here) who type "wala" instead of voila (or even "viola" - a musical instrument is preferable to a phonetic mess!).