Crag_r

Hawker Hunter (Early) F.1 discussion thread

Gentlemen. Its now been officially confirmed.

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/153690-updated-british-aviation-in-war-thunder/

Official info's; https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?showtopic=263645&p=5089105#entry5089105

 

Hunter Status; Work In Progress - 1.53 (mostly confirmed, it appears it was pushed from 1.51)

http://war-tundra.livejournal.com/3084247.html

 

So since this topic here got pinned in this section before going onto get documented as a suggestion i thought we might need a new topic here again. http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/134285-hawker-hunter-f1-early-ra7-with-actual-fm-data/#entry2540142 From which the all mighty Lassar has approved its addition as well as many of the Mods, research pilots, Alpha testers and even the awesome Scarper gave their approval, plus over 93% of votes out of 360 people so hopefully we see something! So lets have this topic to discuss its prospects in game and balance requirements (and everything British) ect. But with more pretty pictures! XD

 

Hunter5.jpeg

 

Anyway so again disclaimer; We are talking about the 20 or so initial production F.1's sometimes referred to as the pre-production F.1's. First flying in March 1953 in service and some delivered by early June of that year for evaluations. With the main production F.1's coming online in mid 1954. So the cut off is not applicable for these F.1's in particular. (So don't event think of telling me wiki says this 1954) Note that these F.1's for the topic are missing various fittings and modification to increase the performance like that of the main F.1's. This Avon engine does not have afterburning like the R.A.7R with reheat on the F.1 (later F.3) that went on to set the world speed record, for info on the R.A.7R you can look here [link no longer working]. But im not asking for the production F.1 or F.3... well until a possible MiG-17 comes along but we will deal with that hurdle when we come to it. 

 

***A single Hunter F.1(WT556) was part of Performance Testing Squadron; A&AEE 16/07/1953. In the games time and in "Squadron" service! Also with another attached to a combat Squadron by November 1953 so GTFO timeline haters***

 

Info on the aircraft DELIVERED to the RAF in the games time http://www.ukserials.com/

Look here for reasoning http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/144613-hawker-hunter-early-f1-thread/?p=2710721 but one of the Hawker Hunter F.1's WT556 in Squadron Service in July in 1953.

 

If you want to argue some timeline argument... well remember that the Hunter F.6 was flying before the B-57B was... (Jan 1954 vs Jun 1954)

 

In my opinion it qualifies for the original timeline, but if you want to be a stickler and say that it wasnt in SQN service ready to be deployed to war or something silly then read this and weep http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/135275-is-there-a-cutoff-date-for-war-thunder-anymore/ 

 

For procedural information on all the aircraft working; (and any other British aircraft in/will be in game;

A fantastic resource on not only the Hunters pilots notes / PoH but also the same for a lot of the British and commonwealth aircraft in game can be found here http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/170185-british-aircraft-pilots-notes-also-commonwealth-aircraft-too/ with a HUGE thanks to JimSan for posting it up. Now this is for production Hunters so there will be some slight changes here and there, however many applications, procedures and data is still quite applicable. 

 

 

Hunter-WT555-Neville-Duke-Vliegfeest-195

WT555 on its first flight

(this one is a bit confusing since the rear fairing between the tail surfaces changes around)

 

 

So what of the early F.1's performance? Well according to this [Link no longer working] Document provided by RAF testing and published on the 1st of June 1953 kindly found by Razielkaine & his RAF museum friend goes a little something like this;

9p2CyCZ.png

YkvJmon.png

qrlNqWr.png

(Most likely a primary source from initial RAF testing on WT555, currently held at the RAF Museum London)

 

So lets highlight the main stuff.

Performance; at 16,350lb's (7.416kg's)

At Alts;                0ft-0m                              40,000ft-12,192m               45,000ft-13,716m

Max Speed;        598knots-1,107km/h          532knots-985km/h              524knots-970km/h

Rate of climb;     7,400ft/min-37.6m/s           2,250ft/min-11.4m/s            505ft/min-2.6m/s

Climb time          -                                         8min . 33sec                       11min . 39 sec

(Climb to 49,500ft; 14min 24 sec)

 

Turn radius;      1,828.8m                             4846.3m                              7452.4m

At speeds;         538knots                            479knots                             471knots

 

At G's                4.37G                                 1.63G                                  1.29G

 

Operational ceiling at 16,350lb's; 45,900ft

(maintaining a 1,000ftmin climb)

Cruise ceiling been 47,400ft

Max ceiling been 49,500ft

 

Misc info from the pilots notes

VNE (never exceed) been 620 knots IAS with no Mach limitation.

VLO (Landing gear operation) been 230 knots

VFE (flap extension) been 300 knots to flap 40° Otherwise Mach 0.9

Stall speed been 130-115 knots depending on configuration and loading.

  • The aircraft (depending on the F.1 in question) should have the use of powered/boosted tail surfaces, powered/boosted ailerons and a flying tail.
  • The Aircraft is fitted with Fire extinguishers for the engine that can either be activated by pilot control or by an inertia switch on a crash landing.
  • The Airbrake (depending on the F.1) cannot be deployed with the undercarriage down
  • The Aircraft is fitted with an ejection Seat.
  • G suits are used with the Aircraft as standard
  • The Aircraft has a Gryo gun sight GGS Mk.5 that also uses a Radar ranging (ARI. 5820) in order to get an accurate range to target (within 200-800 yards) providing the sight with a Gryo lead and a radar range. The Sight also has the backup ability to show a fixed sight in the form of a reflector sight without ranging. The sight also has modes for the use of medium and steep RP's
  • Operationally the Rolls Royce Avon Mk.113 engine the engine is allowed to be operate at 7900 +/-50 RPM, 705°C for 10 minutes, 7800 RPM, 680°C for 30 mins with 7550 RPM 630°C been unrestricted.
  •  G limitations been operationally +7 or -3.75, however loads in excess of 9G been still demonstrated as safe. Above Mach 0.9 that becomes +4 or -3.75.

So regardless of what happens the F.1 here should have; Boosted/powered tail surfaces (Elevator and tail). The Devs have said that the Powered/Boosted ailerons are likely and the flying tail is possible as well;

ytv4Vef.png

 

Shooty stuff

4x ADEN Mk.4 Cannon; Fires a 30x113mm 250g round at 790 m/s at 1,200 rounds per minute. With 150 rounds per gun.

 

U4l1qLU.png

 

That gives a total rate of fire 4800rpm and a through weight of close to an astonishing 20kg/s for 7.5 seconds. The let down there been slower velocity of the round compared to its counterparts. And it does not appear to be able to carry external ordinance. That rate of fire will take a bit of getting used to as most British pilots have been accustom to the ~15 seconds worth of fire on the rest of the Meteors or 12 seconds on the Vampire.

 

This gun has a less rate of fire and MV then the US M39 cannon, however the ADEN does fire a high capacity 30mm round as oppose to the M39's 20mm round. The gun is comparable to the French DEFA cannon which has a slightly smaller rate of fire but a greater muzzle velocity. 

 

The high capacity high explosive round itself containing 52.5g of an Hexal/Aluminum mix. With also An Incendiary, Armour Piercing and Practice shell (don't make the practice shell in the standard belts Gaijin, it wasn't used outside of training)

 

Misc gun info

[spoiler]

 

Table 2. LEADING PARTICULARS
 
Weight and Dimensions:
 
Length of Gun Overall 64.5 in. (1638.30mm.)
 
Maximum Width 9.5 in ( 241.30mm.)
 
Maximum Height 10.5 in. ( 266.70mm.)
 
Weight of Gun (Without Barrel) 165 lb. ( 75 kg.)
 
Barrel details:
 
Caliber 1.181 in. ( 30mm.)
 
Weight 27 lb ( 12.3 kg.)
 
Overall Length 42.5 in. (1079.5mm.)
 
Rifling Progressive Right-hand twist
 
Number of grooves 16
 
22
 
Parallel Portion 1.60 in. ( 40.64mm.)
 
Parabolic Portion 33.41 in. ( 848.61mm.)
 
Uniform Portion 6.22 in. ( 157.48mm.)
 
Ammunition:
 
Types Used High Explosive, Incendiary, Armour Piercing, Practice (Ball) 
 
Weight of one round 15.75 oz ( 0.45kg.)
 
Weight of Projectile 9 oz. ( 0.25kg.)
 
Means of Ignition Electric Cap
 
Miscellaneous Details:
 
Muzzle Velocity 2600 feet/second (790 metres/second)
 
Firing System Electrical
 
Rate of Fire 1200 to 1400 rounds per minute
 
Ammunition Supply Disintegrating Link
 
Initial Loading Pneumatic Cocking Unit - 1200 pounds per square inch
 
Input Voltage 24V dc
 
Output Voltage to Gun 40V ac 1500MHz

 

[/spoiler]

Thanks to Crumpets for the gun information.

 

More info on the guns; http://www.hawkerhunter.com/6787/index.html 

Forum source material; https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/144613-hawker-hunter-early-f1-discussion-thread/page-380#entry4887768

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/144613-hawker-hunter-early-f1-discussion-thread/page-379#entry4879134

http://i.imgur.com/WFLO4TT.png

 

300px-Quad_ADEN_30mm_Cannon.jpg

(Hunter and its Gun pack)

The Gun pack is actually very cool since instead of other aircraft that replace only the ammo on each "reload" The Hunter just drops out the gun pack (guns & ammo included) and pops in another. Making reloading a hunter (IRL) faster then almost any other fighter aircraft in game, also on par with the MIG-15 with a similar system. Also the guns are in better condition since cleaning and maintenance can be done with the guns not even mounted on the aircraft!

 

So whats that mean for its competition?

 

Max Speed; (level flight)

CL-13 Mk.5; 1111km/h - 600 knots

Hunter F.1; 1,107km/h - 598 knots

F-86F-2; 1,106km/h - 597 knots

F-86F-30; 1,106km/h - 597 knots

MiG-15bis; 1,076km/h - 581 knots

(Meteor F.8; 967km/h - 522 knots)

 

Thrust/Weight;

MiG-15bis; 0.55

Hunter F.1; 0.46

CL-13 Mk.5; 0.44

F-86F-2; 0.38

F-86F-30; 0.38

 

Wing loading;

CL-13 Mk.5; 47.2lb/ft

Hunter F.1; 48.1lb/ft

MiG-15bis; 49.3lb/ft

F-86F-2; 49.4 lb/ft

F-86F-30; 49.4 lb/ft

 

Rate of climb at Sea Level;

MiG-15bis; 10,080ft/min - 51.2m/s

CL-13 Mk.5; 9,700ft/min - 49.3m/s

F-86F-2; 9,130ft/min - 46.4m/s

F-86F-30; 9,130ft/min - 46.4m/s

Hunter F.1; 7,400ft/min - 37.6m/s (from a rolling start, ~ extrapolated in excess of 8,500ft/min otherwise)

 

Seems pretty good to me, maybe under-performing a little in its rate of climb but it will accelerate a bit better then a Sabre and its guns will bring the lol's.

 

4Fjkrng.png

 

So is it needed and where will it go? First off YES. Britain is the only nation to be left without a top jet currently. And ideally it would go on top of the Hawker line to ideally look something a bit like this (thanks LB95)

 

 

Its position on the tech tree has been confirmed to be after the Tempest II, which puts a (likely) top BR jet straight after one of the best teir 4 props. Which would upset the flow of top jet matches due to relatively new jet players getting immediate access to a top BR jet... (logically put the Sea Hawk in-between but that will be on the FAA line)

 

Hunter16.jpeg

 

Now why do i keep going on about the Hunter? Well currently the Meteor F.8 has a top BR for the British tree. This was found to be pretty much outdated when it was designed around 1948 and was only really put in as a stop gap until Canadian Sabers (Based off the F-86A and F-86E) could be acquired and Britain develops things like the Swift, Venom and Hunter. The F.8 has no place going up against MiG-15's, F-86F's and Canadian CL-13's(thats basically team killing IMO) as standard. Currently the F.8 is out accelerated in game by both its main opponents the CL-13 and MiG-15bis, it is out climbed by a bit of a margin and it will snap wings trying to go at their cruise speeds. It is better at accelating then the American F Sabers and will often climb with or just shy of them. The only thing it can do is turn fight at low level and its not too bad at rolling... but then again so is a clipped wing spitfire. The F.8 in my opinion is probably best looking at a BR of 8.3 assuming its fully upgraded, though 8.0 is not looking too bad either with the SW. Especially with the F-86A and F-86F-30(Japanese BR's totes bad) at 8.3 and MiG-15(not bis) at 8.0. The addition of the Venom improves things and really should be above the Meteor F.8 but fighting at the same BR as the top doges may not be the best of ideas. Ideally the Venom should probably be at 8.3 to 8.7 depends on whats done with its flight model and wing breaking. Which still leaves at gap at 9.0 that much needs filling. In terms of rolls the British still lack a high performance & speed fighter, the Venom is better then the F.8 but still slightly lacking compared to the bis let alone the Sabres.

 

What is needed is something like the Hunter here (my personal favorite since it looks the best), but also things like the Supermarine Swift. With the Hawker Sea Hawk [FAA], Supermarine Attacker [FAA], DH Sea Venom [FAA] and late Mk DH Vampires all possible. Also Canadian and Australian jets, mostly Sabers but also some Canadian, Aussie and maybe French original designs all been possible as well. ALL of those jets are better suited for the top spot then the Meteor F.8, and some are really not suited for the top spot... see where im going with this? Or why the Meteor F.8 should not be at the top spot? Things do get fairly annoying when the Russian MiG-15bis gets its BR dropped because its not performing like a top jet when the Meteor F.8 gets its left at 8.7. As it stands Britain is the only tree in game without a top performing jet so the addition of a new top jet (like the Hunter or Swift) is simply a must in game. In my opinion, the opinion of most British fans and in the opinion of most top jet players this is the most important thing right now the British tree needs.

 

This aircraft also poses a huge player base for people wanting to use aircraft that their respective countries did. The Hunter was in service with 22 nations.

 

Also; LISTEN TO THAT ENGINE NOTE  :Os 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9tf4zydHGk

Plus the Swift looks like a slightly deformed hump back whale IMO

 

TL:DR - Gib the early Hunter F.1. It fits perfectly in game performance wise, it fits perfectly in game time line wise and Britain really REALLY needs it.

 

For info & performance on the main production series F.1 look here; http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/134941-hawker-hunter-f1-in-detail/

 

And those that say no, well i will unleash Gerald upon you :3

[spoiler]p9EtH0b.jpg[/spoiler]

 

For all your Hunter related questions; http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/159137-lassar-responds-current-and-future-aircraft-and-their-armamentdamage-models/

Q: With the apparent incoming Pre production F.1 Hunter on its way in the future. Has it been decided which one will be used as some didn't have Airbreaks, while others did, and some didn't have flying tails/powered ailerons while other ones did have them added. Will we be seeing the one with an airbreak, flying tail and powered ailerons or without?

A: Too early to answer

 

Q: Since you confirmed Hawker Hunter F.1 early production model, which one that has airbrakes, powered tail or powered controls? It's important to know, since first 11 pre production model didn't have those. Only 12th to 20th has air brakes and other controls that were crucial in high speed turning.

A: without airbrakes

 

Q: have the devs chosen between the Hunter [and swift]

A: Hunter F.1

 

Q: Hello Lassar, thanks for answer about F.1, however, can you state reasons why you said specific model of F.1 with no airbrakes? If it was out of timeline, that's not right- we have evidence of airbrakes being installed on 12th to 20th preproduction model of F.1, airbrakes being installed under fuselage, same concept as F9Fs. 

So, another question- do you think we should get F.1 with airbrakes (12th to 20th model)? since airbrakes are very, very crucial for aerial combat. 

A: I've answered it just a little ago.

We want add new OP or add powerful jet to compete with MIGs and Sabers? :( 
I prefer to make changes by little, very little steps. 

 

Q: In regards to the Hawker Hunter what controls will be powered and/or will a flying tail be present? With all of the early F.1's having powered elevator, rudder and partial powered ailerons. With the 15th Early F.1 having fully powered ailerons and the 9th Hunter having a 'flying tail'. With both of those flying in 1953.

A: This question is for ElBarca

 

Q:  Why did the air-breaks not be considered on the Hunter? The 12th Hunter F.1 with air-breaks fitted and trialed was flying in 1953 and air-breaks are considered fairly crucial for jet combat.

A: We don't want to add OP aircrafts. 

 

Q: Do you think the Meteor F.8 is suitable for a 8.7BR despite been horribly out performed or will it be lowered soon?

A: at least F.8 doesn't feel bad himself with this BR

 

Q: Will the Supermarine Swift still be added at some point as well? If so when?

A: I can't answer that. We were between Hunter and Swift and when we will return to Swift is a hard question for now

 

Q: So now the Hawker Hunter is confirmed is their any update on the time-frame of it been added to the game?

A: ASAP, but Naval aircrafts for Britain have first priority

 

Q: Is there an estimated time for the Hunter to be added to the game?

A: Can't announce. It's hard to predict

 

Q: So which line on the British tree will it go on? The "Hawker line" with the Tempest ect but that would mean you go straight from props to a top jet. Or on the "spitfire" line with all the spitfires so it can go after the other jets or even possibly after the Vampire.

A: Hawker line of course!

 

(updated as they come)

Q: 

A:

 

2112789.jpg

Edited by Crag_r
  • Upvote 120
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks.

 

I'm wondering why you say that?

  • Upvote 31
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why you say that?

Gotta cloobe with CL-13 probs.

 

Anyway...

 

4933171+_50b5509793b1e83564e23ba3fd343b0

 

Gib glorious Hunter. And if that's how you think the Sea Fury will be placed, then I better start grinding for the Tempest II instead of the Meteor Mk 4. :P

  • Upvote 9
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why you say that?

Firstly, it's outside the timeline. Yes, I know that the German/Japanese Sabre is too, but that Sabre is basically a copy and paste of the American Sabre, so they are only tuily outside the timeline in name only.

 

Secondly, I don't feel as if a controversial aircraft should have much, if any priority as far as development goes.

 

Thirdly, not all nations need an 8.7 jet. This has been shown through the devs reduction of the MiG-15Bis to 8.3.

 

Last but not least: it's ugly. :(

  • Upvote 10
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, it's outside the timeline. Yes, I know that the German/Japanese Sabre is too, but that Sabre is basically a copy and paste of the American Sabre, so they are only tuily outside the timeline in name only.

 

Secondly, I don't feel as if a controversial aircraft should have much, if any priority as far as development goes.

 

Thirdly, not all nations need an 8.7 jet. This has been shown through the devs reduction of the MiG-15Bis to 8.3.

 

Last but not least: it's ugly. :(

 

Well its not outside the timeline, multiple aircraft were delivered not just first flying in the timeline and operational enough for evaluations for the main production F.1's. Second WITHOUT A DOUBT it meets this requirement;  http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/135275-is-there-a-cutoff-date-for-war-thunder-anymore/?p=2567650

 

I don't see it as that controversial to be honest. What exactly is controversial? Or at least more controversial then say the 229.

 

Well for a lot of the time the MiG-15bis has been a 8.7 jet, its an 8.7 jet on the German tree, the Japanese and US have their own 8.7 jets. Either way the Meteor F.8 is not suitable for its current BR and there are multiple aircraft including the Hunter which can give Britain an 8.7 jet.

 

IMO its better looking then most of the Russian jets  :Ds

Edited by Crag_r
  • Upvote 73
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well its not outside the timeline

Not in service, not in the timeline.

 

Arlindo's answers are not from the devs.

 

 

Well for a lot of the time the MiG-15bis has been a 8.7 jet, its an 8.7 jet on the German tree, the Japanese and US have their own 8.7 jets. Either way the Meteor F.8 is not suitable for its current BR and there are multiple aircraft including the Hunter which can give Britain an 8.7 jet.

And for 'a lot of the time' the Meteor was an 8.7 jet. I'm sure it will fall as people lose in it. A nation doesn't need an 8.7 jet.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in service, not in the timeline.
 
Arlindo's answers are not from the devs.
 

And for 'a lot of the time' the Meteor was an 8.7 jet. I'm sure it will fall as people lose in it. A nation doesn't need an 8.7 jet.

Are you saying the F8 should be an 8.7 now? I thought it was Standard Aviation Knowledge™ that it should only be 8.3 max.
  • Upvote 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying the F8 should be an 8.7 now? I thought it was Standard Aviation Knowledge™ that it should only be 8.3 max.

I'm saying it shouldn't be 8.7. How can you possibly misinterpret what I said so hard. Maybe because you are purposefully here just to make a personal attack?

 

Grudges make people read and understand things very oddly!

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All nations will get a top tier jet. If Germany and Japan needed them that bad for Gaijin to go to the lengths and exceptions to the rules that they did (CL-13, F86 F30 and MiG-15bis) then they really do want all nations to have a top tier jet. With the Meteor F.8 not being a reliably effective opponent to either the Sabre or MiG, Britain needs a top tier jet. Why cant this be the answer? Also USSR will get an 8.7 BR jet. I highly doubt that Gaijin would let a nation famous for Korean war era jets void of a top tier jet. Whether that be a MiG-17 is up for debate.

Edited by Owni
  • Upvote 15
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in service, not in the timeline.

 

Are you daft? There is plenty of prototypes that were never in service at all, including I-I85, XP-55, XP-50, Ho 229 (upcoming one), XP-38G (nonexistent, fantastical paper plane that never existed but will change), X5F5, etc. 

Evidence points out that Hawker Hunter F.1 RA7 as twenty of them were made as pre-production model, in service for evaluation and testing in APRIL-MAY 1953. Please, read the Crag's post before making this slly statements, mmkay? 

 

 

 

And for 'a lot of the time' the Meteor was an 8.7 jet. I'm sure it will fall as people lose in it. A nation doesn't need an 8.7 jet.

 

Meteor F.8 cannot compete with MiG15bis and F86F series, period. You should well aware of this, Nabutso. That's sole reason why F.8 failed against MIG15bis in Korean War and was switched to ground attack role. 

Ergo, yes, British does need its own top tier jet (BR of 8.7 at maximum), to compete with MiG15bis and F86F series, which it calls for two top performance jets (with early models) aka Supermarine Swift F.1 and Hawker Hunter F.1 RA7. 

Edited by Helezhelm
  • Upvote 24
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying it shouldn't be 8.7. How can you possibly misinterpret what I said so hard. Maybe because you are purposefully here just to make a personal attack?
 
Grudges make people read and understand things very oddly!

Only you would misconstrue that as a personal attack. Sorry if you're looking for an attack from the shadows, but I'd be coming from the front.

Also, it was never really an 8.7 worthy jet. I don't know where you got the idea that it was, but as a long time owner of it (1+year) it never really was.
  • Upvote 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in service, not in the timeline.

 

Arlindo's answers are not from the devs.

 

And for 'a lot of the time' the Meteor was an 8.7 jet. I'm sure it will fall as people lose in it. A nation doesn't need an 8.7 jet.

 

Oh, so you better remove the Tempest V Vickers P, 229, Sea Meteor, 262 C-B2, Japanese Saber, German CL-13(with anyone) and MiG-15bs with the Germans or BOTH the Germans top BR tanks. You don't appear to be a Dev either knowing that, so im more inclined to take Arlindo's view on the matter if you don't mind :3

 

Oh look, were those other tanks and planes made up so a nation can have a top BR vehicle? Why is it so dastardly that we have something that actually flew in the games time and was delivered to the RAF and in service for evaluating the main F.1's and would later become them be added?

Edited by Crag_r
  • Upvote 35
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it goes again.

Time to get popcorn and wait for more posts from Nabutso.

Edited by CrusaderXx
  • Upvote 26
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it goes again.

Time to get popcorn and wait for more posts from Nabutso.

Cant wait to see what he pulls out of his ass to save his "Research Pilot" Title this time.

  • Upvote 33
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...sigh...

why must all the interesting stuff happen right when I wanna go to bed...

 

Anyways... considering how this aircraft was flying in 1953 and the fact that we have prototypes in game all ready I see no reason why this plane should not be added into the game. Also considering how the suggestion for this plane has been locked and documented I see no reason why you would even want to try to debate it at this point in my opinion.

  • Upvote 15
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insulting someone because they disagree with you. Good strategy! 

 

That's because your first post, frankly, sounded ridiculous.

 

 

Regarding prototypes: see those WW2 prototypes? You need to first convince me that they could not have possible entered service if their programs were not canceled before the end of the timeline. The Hunter? Prototype through the end of the timeline. 

 

They didn't enter in service because it ended in failure or losing in competition or favoritism. For example, XP-55 crashing in midflight. XP-50 was there during 1940s, IIRC, and it was phased out to favor for other better performing planes like XP-49 which it became P-38 Lighting. I-I85 had numerous technical issues and it didn't enter in service as they favored La-5 over I-I85. Ho 229 was underwent testing but it was too late to see production as the war ended. 

Hawker Hunter F.1 RA7 saw the service via evaluation/testing through April to May 1953 until 1954. So yes, it fits the timeline by few months before end of the Korean War. 

 

 

Yes let's read what Crag posted again: 

"First flying in March 1953"

Hm. First flown date, ok.

 

And? It proves that it saw flights and was being evaluated/tested in 1953, ergo, it fits timeline. 

 

Unless you have proof that Hawker Hunter F.1 RA7 (RA7 is keyword) got tested or evaluated or under service in different date, post it. 

 

 

 

 

"some delivered by early June of that year for evaluations"

Doesn't look like they were evaluated within the timeline to me.

 

Please reread Crag's OP. Seems I am not the one misreading it here.

 

Actually, read the Crag's post again. 

 

 

And that is why it shouldn't be a top tier jet. Not all nations need top tier jets, however. 

 

Oh of course, all nations needs top tier jet, it's freaking common sense. MIG15bis's BR of 8.3 is likely indication of possible addition of MiG17F or A (which it is fine since it can compete with F86F better). So, your argument is mostly moot at this time. 

 

 

So Britain needs an 8.7 jet and Russia is fine with an 8.3 jet? It is your personal opinion that all nations should have an 8.7 jet. It is a decent argumentative tool, but it is not reason enough alone to get a jet which was not within the timeline added to a line. 

 

See above. 

 

 

 

I never said it was worthy of being an 8.7 jet. Please re-read my post. Then re-read it again. Then re-read it again. Maybe you will understand it.

 

You implied it to be. Read your post again to make sure. 

Edited by Helezhelm
  • Upvote 12
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i see its perfectly balanced with other nations top tier jets, there is absolutely zero reason not to add such an iconic British aircraft.

 

Plus its kinda stink Japan and Germany get top tier jets for the sole purpose of competing, but the British get the F.8?  

  • Upvote 11
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i see its perfectly balanced with other nations top tier jets, there is absolutely zero reason not to add such an iconic British aircraft.

 

Plus its kinda stink Japan and Germany get top tier jets for the sole purpose of competing, but the British get the F.8?  

 

Exactly what he said. 

There is no absolute reason why they shouldn't add top tier jet for British since British has NOTHING to offer to compete with MiG15bis (possibly MiG17F if they add) and F86F series since their best "top tier" jet is F.8 which it is best, comparable to F9F Panther or MiG9 levels. 

  • Upvote 7
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.