The Hunter was a great aicraft, but if only . . . - images.jpg

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:39:43 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:57:59 -0500, "Byker" wrote:

"Charles Lindbergh" wrote in message
. ..

If only, what? If only the USA had purchased the aircraft?

The U.S. already had the F-100 as a transonic jet.

The Lebanese air force flew Hunters until a couple of years ago


Why should the US NOT have bought the Hunter? It's cost was only about
half that of the F100. That would have come to a $660-million saving
over the life of the aircraft, or about $6-billion in today's money.
Even if a decision to buy Hunters had been delayed until the F100 was
ready for service, the development cost of the Super Sabre
($23-million) would easily have been written off.

Then there was the F100's awful accident rate. 889 aircraft, or about
one-third of the total production, were lost to accidents, involving
the loss of 324 pilots.

OK, the F-100 was faster by about 25mph in level flight and ongoing US
developments called for somewhat different requirements.

I am unable to find any historical information about the USA having considered purchasing the Hunter. If you
can point me toward any such information, it would be an interesting read.