What did I say about Sydney Camm being Britain's Willy Meserschmidt? How did the Typhoon's combat record really stack up?
It was a fine ground attack plane. About as good as the Apache. The thing still vibrated like a badly tuned kazoo
It also operated as low level escort fighter and worked well
It needed top cover, which is a big no-no over France in 1944.
We won't mention the Hawker Tornado that was to be equipped with the defective RR Vulture engine.
Again the Tornado was just an RR engined typhoon
And how did that work out, please?
At least the Sabre engined Typhoon was of 'some' use.
But it did not work. Putting an additional rotten egg into a flying kazoo, as one pilot called that vibrational harmonic tail flutter mistake is not spreading your risk. You compound it.
I think not.
Outside my interest period but from what I can find the Israelis regarded the Hunter asn being a match for thier Mirage II and superior to the Mysteres -
I think you need to look beyond those figures, the Hunter might have been shot down a lot but that alone does not make it a poor fighter, in fact it was more manuvuerable in all planes than most of its competitors and was the plane and as posted before was regarded as a match for the Mirage II and superior to the Mysteres (pilot quality counts a lot ) plus I believe that a large proportion of these kills were against ground targets
it does not mean they were not shot down but the opinion of the opposition counts a lot, it is also worth mentioning that Switzerland were happy with the Hunter into the 80s it was a good match for any fighter in a subsonic fight it tight environments
This is true, much of what you say, but... the Hunter was flown by GOOD pilots (Iraqis when they were British trained, and Jordanians, also British trained. (Those numbers count, when you look at India versus Pakistan, too.
The F-86 Sabre flown by Paks wins against Indians who pilot Hunters? This does not say that the Hunter was that good. It says that mediocre pilots shot down Hunters flown by good pilots.
Lansens were better designs. as were Mysteres (My opinion of course.)
Lansens I know nothing about so will not comment, however from what I have read I would not put the Mysteres on par with the Hunter, as pointed out above the Israelis certainly did not think that they were a match let alone superior
Lansen... think of it as a Swedish Hawker Hunter with a slightly lower service ceiling, much better air to air missiles (American Sidewinders) slightly lower cornering speed, and more useable minutes in the air than the Hunter. Also a lot TOUGHER as it was built to operate in Sweden.
As the Hunter was operated in such varied environment I could argue against it being tougher on that point, the Hunter did use Sidewinders, stall speed in a turn I don't know but from what is written about the Hunter I would be surprised, range - another range is king argument that to be honest I completely disagree with, range is ONLY a factor when you are a big distance from the fight and the Hunter and the Lansen wouldnt be.
I will discuss those points about the Lansen and the Hunter.
Sweden is a long nation from north to south. It's air frontier is huge for its small size. It is also a nation of climate extremes, with weather that is arctic to north German in variation. In addition, its conscript air force, though well educated, was a conscript air force, not a professional one like the RAF or the USAF or the AdA. The Swedish plane would have to be tough to take off and land from unimproved airstrips, and be maintained by boys who were not trained jet engine mechanics.
The Lansen was designed with the same type British engine as the Hunter used, the same type cannon, with American and German avionics. It would therefore have those mechanical parities and advantages compared to the Hunter. It's search radar WORKED, as did its missiles (*Sidewinders were better than Firestreak or Red Top.)
The Lansen was INTENDED to carry assorted guided missiles the start, (hence the backseat radar operator), the Hunter was not.
The Lansen with a slightly greater payload had a faster climb to a lower height and a better corner speed in the turn than the Hunter which it so closely resembles. That this is surprising is true, but SAAB aircraft are notorious good turners. (See pilot comments about Gripen.)
About range... from the Negev to western Egypt is about an hour and a quarter one way, at Mach 0,7. That would be three hours round trip per combat sortie. Both the Hunter and Lansen would make it, but the Lansen would have more useable minutes over target, and as both were originally designed as BOMBERS, that endurance does matter.
To be honest, if the Lansen had been in Arab service, I would expect more losses than the Hunter, because the Arabs would have made a bigger mess of it with the more capable (and complex from a weapon platform point of view) aircraft than the simpler Hunter, which was the simpler plane to fly and use.
If the Indians had the Lansen? Now there, would be a FAIR test of our opinions. I have no respect for the Pak air force after 1966, that air force being too much arabized by imshalla by that time. The Indians, however, improved to the point where their RAF inspired traditions made them the best air force in south Asia. (That includes the PLAAF, the Vietnam's Peoples' Air Force, and even the Americans USAF of that sorry era.).
It wasn’t until 1895, when Hans Goldschmidt of Germany developed the aluminothermic reduction process for producing carbon-free chromium, that development of stainless steels became a reality.
In 1904 French Scientist Leon Guillet undertook extensive research on many iron-chromium alloys.
Guillets work included studies on the composition of what would now be known as 410, 420, 442, 446 and 440-C. In 1906 Guillet went on to analyse iron-nickel-chrome alloys, which would now be considered the basics of the 300 series. However, while noting the chemical composition of his alloys, Guillet failed to acknowledge the potential corrosion resistance of his materials.
� 1998 -