What can I say? 

 

How about THIS?

 

Difficulty in fitting an airbrake (Hawker forgot  they needed a proper one, so that was retrofitted, and when the split tab one didn't work, they tried a single tab one, and found it couldn't be used in landings...EVER... sorted out was that? OOPS.); then this was damaged by spent shell cases from the nose cannons, casings which had to be collected in huge bulged containers (a bra giving it the Hunter the derisive nickname Sabrina hence introducing a set of blisters that ruined clean airflow over the fuselage to solve that bolluxed design fault); there was pitch-up and then pitch-down from that glitch, and engine surge when the guns were fired and those gases were sucked into the wrongly designed intakes; *(engine compressor stall and CRASH) and difficulty at high speeds with longitudinal control.

 

The last was always a problem with most 1950s era jets, but whereas the Americans solved it in the Starfighter and at least made it tolerable in the Sabre and Supersabre, the British didn't quite manage it. so the plane wouldn't POINT stabily so you shoot air to air without constant pilot fiddling to center the pipper. Then we get to the endurance in the air problem, that led to the redesigned wet wing and a shoot me here and kill me feature that made the Hunter so easy to shoot down. Or did you forget about that mass crash of Hunters that killed six of eight RAF pilots because they ran out of fuel? (Funny that the ejector seats didn't work in that case?).

 

And that is just the stuff of which I am aware

Difficulty in      fitting an airbrake (Hawker forgot  they needed a proper one, so that was retrofitted, and when the split tab one didn't work, they tried a single tab one, and found it couldn't be used in landings...EVER... sorted out was that? OOPS.);

All the Hunters had airbtrakes, the prototypes used flap style one that were in vogue at that time, these proved a poor idea and they moved to the underbelly one which did work, the F3 had side units but never entered production, you forget that these were cutting edge designs of the time and the aero forces were still not understood 

 

 then this was damaged      by spent shell cases from the nose cannons, ...

 

true, the high speeds achieved by these aircraft meant that the heavy 30mm cases did damage the plane so a fix was found however this was SOP for the time and ecffected a numvber of aircraft - again you pick out the Hunter for an issue found in a a number of aircraft

 

 there was pitch-up and then pitch-down from that glitch,

 

only when the engine power was increased not on the original version

 

and engine      surge when the guns were fired and those gases were sucked into the wrongly designed intakes; *(engine compressor stall and CRASH)

 

I have seen that gun gass ingestion caused loss of power but have found nothing about it causing crashes (have found that the Mig15 and Mig 17 both suffered this exact fault

 

and difficulty at high speeds      with longitudinal control.

 

occured with the fitting of more powerful engines, solved by the dogtooth wing

 

The last was always a problem with most 1950s era jets, but whereas the Americans solved it in the Starfighter and at least made it tolerable in the Sabre and Supersabre,

the starfighter was a lawn dart, I remember being told how to get a starfighter, buy a patch of land in germany and one will crash on it,

 

The Sabre's were dam fine fighters but from what I have read were outclassed by the hunter (PAF Sabres used to pull the hunters down low as it was only there that the Sabres could be a reasonable nmatch for the Hunter

 

 

 the British didn't quite manage it. so the plane wouldn't POINT stabily so you shoot air to air without constant pilot fiddling to center the pipper.

 

Not from what I have read, ever account seems to indicate that the Hunter was an acceptional gun platform, where do you get this that it was poor?

 

 Then we get to the endurance in the air problem, that led to the redesigned wet wing and a shoot me here and kill me feature that made the Hunter so easy to shoot down.

 

sorry but that is rubbish, even in the Indian - Pakistan conflict the majority of Hunter loses were against sidewinders and no fuel protection is going to help there, in fact of the reports i have found of this conflict fuel storage is never mentioned as a major cause of Hunter losses - again have you a source? 

 

 Or did you forget about that mass crash of Hunters that killed six of eight RAF pilots because they ran out of fuel? (Funny that the ejector seats didn't work in that case?).

 

I think you will find that only one pilot was lost of the six aircraft that were lost that day, and as it was due to weather conditions something that can cause the loss of any aircraft, 4 pilots ejected safely and one more belly landed without injury, again it seems like you cherry pick the bad bits, give me your list of superior fighters of the era and so I can do the same hatchet job on them

And that is just the stuff of which I am aware, you mean that you can quickly find, eyt your readin doew seem to be very selective as thehuge majority of sites I found all sing the praises of the Hunter

I think you are unaware of the Hunter's true history.

 

And the F-104s

 

And the Mystere's

 

and so forth.

 

Hmmm. Running out of fuel after 80 minutes in the air and a failure to GCA? 

 

The GCA bollux, was something I forgot, when you mentioned the (British) weather. They didn't have blind approach beacons up and working?

 

One more thing on the barbie.

 

these field didn't have blind landing and CGA can only deal with at most two aircraft at a time (which it did) they should never have been redirected to a field with no blind landing but they were and by the time they got there it was socked in

 

as for the f104 you got me there, for one moment I actually thought you were serious

The beacon landing system came in a VAN and was supposed to be battlefield mobile  and handle multiple aircraft. No excuse. It was a CHEAP radio glide slope system and automated. All the pilot had to do was follow the beam, down using his receiver to correct left right/up down and fly over the stupid van onto the damned runway. (The British invented it!)

 

Additionally, while I am about this, most of the Pak and Israeli Hunter kills were with machine guns and AUTO-CANNON. They shot for the wings because they knew the Hunter burned like a Mig, or a Zero. 

 

as for the f104 you got me there, for one moment I actually thought you were serious

but non of the local fields had the van!

 

I think you will find that certainly most of the 71 victories were sidewinders, the early ones I have no source to say what they were

 

I get you dont Like the hunter and will find everything however small to put it down - that is your choice but I along with every site I can find will regard it differently

 

I will hint that if you spent as much time on your other aircraft you might find that they all had similar histories

 

as for any more posts, I have no interest in Jets and cannot be bother progressing this further as you are set in your oppinion to such a dregree that you post a link to a site to support your position that actual make the claim the the Hunter was one of the finest aircraft of its era

Use ACIG. They are rather good.

 

ACIG. 

 

You will find that most of the kills were gun kills. The Israelis did not have Sidewinder until later *(67 and after) Shafir did not work. The Paks did not know how to use the Sidewinder and didn't have that many either. Most of their Sabre/Hunter kills were machine guns.

 

As for the F-104...

 

The good and the bad. 

 

Not designed to survive, is how I describe it. It, like the Hunter did not meet the first requirement of a combat aircraft, be easy to use, and relatively fitted to the purpose as designed.

 

If the Hunter had been used for its intended purpose (Look at the beast, it is a classic strike interdiction platform, not a fighter), then I would not be so harsh about it. The plane was misused because the people who obtained it didn't know how or for what it should be used.

 

 

I think you will find that only one pilot was lost of the six aircraft that were lost that day, and as it was due to weather conditions something that can cause the loss of any aircraft, 4 pilots ejected safely and one more belly landed without injury, again it seems like you cherry pick the bad bits, give me your list of superior fighters of the era and so I can do the same hatchet job on them
 

And that is just the stuff of which I am aware,