Best British jet fighter for Korean War if development expedited?

If launched expedited - best jet fighter for Korean War?

  • Hawker Hunter (first flight July 1951)

    Votes: 54 65.9%
  • Hawker Sea Hawk (first flight 1947)

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • Supermarine Swift (first flight 1948)

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • Supermarine 508 (first flight Aug 1951)

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • Hawker P.1052/1081 (first flight 47/51)

    Votes: 20 24.4%

  • Total voters
    82
  • Poll closed .
If you want side-by-side cockpits this is how it's done...

If you want side-by-side cockpits on a fighter, the Sea Vixen is the slightly ridiculous but only viable option. If you want a fighter, like the F-14 Tomcat with tandem seating, the last thing you want is side-by-side seating, like the F-111 or SU-24, attack aircraft, unless your deck lifts don't allow for a longer aircraft, in which case, you need bigger lifts.
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I think that's a gorgeous photograph of the Sea Vixen. It should have been chosen ahead of the Javelin for the RAF I think. I still think the P1052/1081 was the only possible MiG 15 equivalent for Korean service.

Off topic but since I'm already here typing I've often wondered if a version of the Canberra with the belly gun pack and some modifications such as A.I. radar wouldn't have made a good interim night fighter. Also on the subject of night fighters (and I know we weren't but..) what about a radar equipped version of the 2 seat Hunter?
 
Yes it looked wrong. They couldn't even put the canopy in the middle. And yes, I know they were trying to shade the radar operator, but still...



If you want side-by-side cockpits this is how it's done...

I think the reason for the radar operators position was that originally he had one very large screen and two smaller screens to look at and needed elbow room to operate the radar. The original radar transceiver dish was so big it dictated the diameter of the fuselage, the engine intakes would have encroached on the space for the radar operator if it had been a tandem cockpit so logically it had to be a side by side layout. To keep the big screens out of the eyeline of the pilot they needed to be set low so why not have the radar operator in the coal hole.

The layout might look odd but in 1945 who knew what jets would look like in 5 years time never mind 50 plus.
 
If you want side-by-side cockpits on a fighter, the Sea Vixen is the slightly ridiculous but only viable option. If you want a fighter, like the F-14 Tomcat with tandem seating, the last thing you want is side-by-side seating, like the F-111 or SU-24, attack aircraft, unless your deck lifts don't allow for a longer aircraft, in which case, you need bigger lifts.

Side by Side TF-102
TF-102A_41351.jpg
tf102vg_8.jpg
Still supersonic
 
Still had full combat capability to shoot down Bears, as did the tandem F-106B

I think the point is that it didn't have a dedicated radar intercept officer, so didn't need the darkened cabin for the second crew man. Not that I'm defending the Sea Vixen, but the radar operator was put where he was for a reason.
 
I think the point is that it didn't have a dedicated radar intercept officer, so didn't need the darkened cabin for the second crew man. Not that I'm defending the Sea Vixen, but the radar operator was put where he was for a reason.
Convair-F-102-Delta-Dagger-003.preview.jpg

True. Had two display scopes and 'gun'sights for the FFAR, but did have a pull out for the scope

They could use the nuclear warhead version of the Falcon, but not sure what it had for flash/thermal protection.
 
Convair-F-102-Delta-Dagger-003.preview.jpg

True. Had two display scopes and 'gun'sights for the FFAR

... which I would imagine was just a doubled up version of what was in the single seater, so each crewman had the full instrument layout.

According to Wiki, it wasn't until the F-106 that Convair produced an all weather capable interceptor, so I would imagine that the F-102's radar was a lot less capable than the Sea Vixen's.
 
... which I would imagine was just a doubled up version of what was in the single seater, so each crewman had the full instrument layout.

According to Wiki, it wasn't until the F-106 that Convair produced an all weather capable interceptor, so I would imagine that the F-102's radar was a lot less capable than the Sea Vixen's.

Wiki seems off, as the F-94 was considered all weather in 1949. The F-102 was the first supersonic all-weather interceptor
 
... which I would imagine was just a doubled up version of what was in the single seater, so each crewman had the full instrument layout.

According to Wiki, it wasn't until the F-106 that Convair produced an all weather capable interceptor, so I would imagine that the F-102's radar was a lot less capable than the Sea Vixen's.

The Sea Vixen had a radar. The F-102 has a weapons system, of which the fire control system was an integral part, of which a radar was a component, as was the IR scanner.


You are right, but Wiki is often off.

Quite so. But, not just Wiki.


It does raise the question as to why the Sea Vixen and Javelin needed an extra crewman...

It raises the point that aircraft with the same radar could have one or 2 crew. In the case of the Sea Vixen, only it carried that radar, and it had more scopes.
 
To get back to Korean era single seaters I doodled a bit with a picture of the Gloster CXP1001

Original plan
Gloster-CXP-1001-01_zpspzkiqxyx.jpg


My cruddy work using Microsoft Paint which took me a whole 5 minutes just sweeping back the leading edge and straightening the trailing edge of the wing and tail, doodled in a intake bullet and moved the top gun down to a more RAF position.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/R2fFR9] gloster-cxp-gloster by Stuart, on Flickr[/URL]

I think it looks quite good in a doodle sort of way I only wish I had the skills to do a proper picture in RAF colours.
 
Last edited:
To get back to Korean era single seaters I doodled a bit with a picture of the Gloster CXP1001

Original plan
Gloster-CXP-1001-01_zpspzkiqxyx.jpg


My cruddy work using Microsoft Paint which took me a whole 5 minutes just sweeping back the leading edge and straightening the trailing edge of the wing and tail and doodled in a intake bullet.

gloster-cxp-gloster on Flickr

I think it looks quite good in a doodle sort of way I only wish I had the skills to do a proper picture in RAF colours.

I like it. It's effectively a small Nene powered fighter with a tailed delta layout. I'd lose the hint of the shock cone, but apart from that I'll buy it.
 
Top