The US also had a bad experience with their version of the 20mm Hispano cannon during WW2 - short version is, the ones they made didn't work. That is likely to have left them with a bad taste in the mouth and the senior people making the decisions reluctant to go with cannon until thoroughly convinced the problem was solved.
No Nenes to Russia?
- Thread starter MattII
- Start date
Middle of an upgrade cycle/paralysed by political interference and traditional british design conservatism verging on incompetence
The Hunter eventually became "superior", but took many years to get right, after it entered service with the RAF. For example, if that airbrake under the rear fuselage looks added on as an afterthought, that's because it essentially was. Early Hunters also suffered the unfortunate handicap of the Avon being prone to surges and stalling due to gas ingestion when the guns were fired, among other problems. Firing the guns was actually forbidden for a time on a fighter in frontline service until a fix was found. Even if ready in 1951, they weren't fit for combat. It would take until 1956 or so until that kind of point was reached.
And we shouldn't forget about it's contemporary the Supermarine Swift either. Or maybe we should. Great tactical reconnaissace machine. Pity it was designed as a fighter
Postwar British fighter design makes for somewhat depressing reading.I'm struggling to find an on-line link, but I've seen in a few printed sources that early FB.1's were subject to handling restrictions for some reason or another meaning aggressive manouvering was out. They could out manouvre Hunters though once the gloves were off apparently.
Saphroneth
Banned
But it wasn't the engine at faultMiddle of an upgrade cycle/paralysed by political interference and traditional british design conservatism verging on incompetence
The Hunter eventually became "superior", but took many years to get right, after it entered service with the RAF. For example, if that airbrake under the rear fuselage looks added on as an afterthought, that's because it essentially was. Early Hunters also suffered the unfortunate handicap of the Avon being prone to surges and stalling due to gas ingestion when the guns were fired, among other problems. Firing the guns was actually forbidden for a time on a fighter in frontline service until a fix was found. Even if ready in 1951, they weren't fit for combat. It would take until 1956 or so until that kind of point was reached.
And we shouldn't forget about it's contemporary the Supermarine Swift either. Or maybe we should. Great tactical reconnaissace machine. Pity it was designed as a fighter
The way I see it is that US wasn't trying to intercept enemy bombers so much as it was maintaining air superiority and that meant it would be up against smaller aircraft. WWII showed that enough 50 cal bullets would thrash just about any fighter. You didn't even need to obliterate the plane, you could just damage it enough that it would be out of the fight. Having six machine guns gives you a much higher rate of fire than two, slower firing, larger caliber weapons so you've got a better chance of hitting your enemy. I think it was a justified design philosophy.
The CAC and Canadair Sabres were the best Sabres, as befits their extra 3-4 years development. However those extra couple of years meant that these Sabres were produced in the same timeframe as the supersonic F100, so were behind the state of the art.
The .50cal/20mm gun thing is strange, while the USAF stuck with the inadequate 'six-fifties' the USN fighters were well armed with 4 x 20mm cannon. 'Six-fifties' was inadequate because jet fighters are bigger and heavier than WW2 piston fighters and need more punch to be knocked down; a Mig 15 weighs about 5000kg, a Fw190 about 4200kg and a Ki84 about 3600kg.
The Venom may well have had handling restrictions in place in it's early days. But they would have been peacetime restrictions to limit pilot and aircraft losses, in a wartime situation I'd imagine that such restrictions would be relaxed and a solution would be found more quickly. Alas no RAF fighter squadrons were deployed to Korea, so it didn't happen.
The .50cal/20mm gun thing is strange, while the USAF stuck with the inadequate 'six-fifties' the USN fighters were well armed with 4 x 20mm cannon. 'Six-fifties' was inadequate because jet fighters are bigger and heavier than WW2 piston fighters and need more punch to be knocked down; a Mig 15 weighs about 5000kg, a Fw190 about 4200kg and a Ki84 about 3600kg.
The Venom may well have had handling restrictions in place in it's early days. But they would have been peacetime restrictions to limit pilot and aircraft losses, in a wartime situation I'd imagine that such restrictions would be relaxed and a solution would be found more quickly. Alas no RAF fighter squadrons were deployed to Korea, so it didn't happen.
Last edited:
Apart from a few Fleet Air Arm missions in the Korean war the British never fought the MiG so I wouldn't call it the biggest mistake Britain made in the 1940's.
As far as the Korean war is concerned the Americans would suffer less air losses and feel more comfortable in their air superiority but it wouldn't affect the outcome of the conflict. It may even retard aircraft development in the West because they wouldn't fear the Soviet competition as much.
Well you couldn't blame it on anyone else could you?
Maybe not, but I think it would have, since after the appearance of the Mig-15 B-29s were restricted to night-time raids, and mostly against logistical targets. If they'd been able to operate during the day, and against front-line troops I can imagine the war could have ended quite differently.
I suspect that would last only about as long as it took the soviets to put out a decent fighter.