View Poll Results: Is the Hunter the 'Spitfire' of the jet age...?
Yes
52
60.47%
No
19
22.09%
Don't care
15
17.44%
Voters: 86. This poll is closed
Is the Hunter the 'Spitfire' of the jet age...?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the hunter
ive always thought of the hunter as a jet hurricane. both started out as fighters but soon ended up as fighter-bombers, if anything the lightning was a jet spitfire. and the jet mosquito was the canberra.
In interviewing tens of Spit pilots over the years (few of whom are left) I never met one who didn't love the aircraft, and precious few who could find any fault with it at all. (A handful of BoB veterans did complain about its inadequate armament and the negative g carburettor problem, however). Interestingly, the Spit seems to have been an aircraft with both beautiful flying qualities (please God let me find out for myself before I die) and with equally good combat capabilities.
I've met many Hunter pilots (but only those who flew Hunter 1s and 4s) who criticised the aircraft fairly severely, though the Hunter 2, 5, 6 and 9 must have been very much better, cos pilots of those types still rave about 'em! It must have been a superb flying machine. But in its intended day fighter role, inadequate range, primitive avionics, etc. made it a natural for relegation to the fighter-bomber role! Hardly a Spitfire, then.
The Lightning wasn't a jet Spitfire, either, since all Marks were handicapped by lack of range, endurance and firepower, however great it might have been as a flying experience.
For a brief period in the late 1940s the Vampire might have been a jet Spit, though, and (presumably in some respects and at certain heights) I have even heard the Venom described as such. From a pure flying characteristics point of view, those with hands of silk seem to have rated the Gnat pretty highly, though it was perhaps not much of a trainer.
Which leaves us with the intriguing thought that if there has been a Jet Spitfire, it probably isn't British. The F-16 perhaps? The Gripen? Perhaps even the MiG-29!!!!
Interestingly though, the three aircraft types I've never heard their pilot's speak ill about at all were the Gloster Gauntlet, the Hawker Fury and (of all things) the Westland Whirlwind (though no-one liked its nasty Peregrine engines).
I've met many Hunter pilots (but only those who flew Hunter 1s and 4s) who criticised the aircraft fairly severely, though the Hunter 2, 5, 6 and 9 must have been very much better, cos pilots of those types still rave about 'em! It must have been a superb flying machine. But in its intended day fighter role, inadequate range, primitive avionics, etc. made it a natural for relegation to the fighter-bomber role! Hardly a Spitfire, then.
The Lightning wasn't a jet Spitfire, either, since all Marks were handicapped by lack of range, endurance and firepower, however great it might have been as a flying experience.
For a brief period in the late 1940s the Vampire might have been a jet Spit, though, and (presumably in some respects and at certain heights) I have even heard the Venom described as such. From a pure flying characteristics point of view, those with hands of silk seem to have rated the Gnat pretty highly, though it was perhaps not much of a trainer.
Which leaves us with the intriguing thought that if there has been a Jet Spitfire, it probably isn't British. The F-16 perhaps? The Gripen? Perhaps even the MiG-29!!!!
Interestingly though, the three aircraft types I've never heard their pilot's speak ill about at all were the Gloster Gauntlet, the Hawker Fury and (of all things) the Westland Whirlwind (though no-one liked its nasty Peregrine engines).
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Lightning....!! 
Photo courtesy of DamienB - from Aviation History and Nostalgia
Photo courtesy of DamienB - from Aviation History and Nostalgia
Last edited by Out Of Trim; 7th Oct 2002 at 21:44.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
"The Lightning wasn't a jet Spitfire, either, since all Marks were handicapped by lack of range, endurance and firepower".
Both exhibited the perennial problems of UK fighters, lack of range and lack of firepower. I think they're a good match.
The original Spitfire had an endurance of 1hr at normal rpm and 1/4 hour at maximum rpm. Average endurance for the Lightning was around an hour. Shortest I ever saw was around 15 minutes fighting a couple of A-10s off Spurn.
Most Spitfires had a total firing time of 12 seconds, the Lightning around 10 seconds .
Lightning = God's sports car.
Both exhibited the perennial problems of UK fighters, lack of range and lack of firepower. I think they're a good match.
The original Spitfire had an endurance of 1hr at normal rpm and 1/4 hour at maximum rpm. Average endurance for the Lightning was around an hour. Shortest I ever saw was around 15 minutes fighting a couple of A-10s off Spurn.
Most Spitfires had a total firing time of 12 seconds, the Lightning around 10 seconds .
Lightning = God's sports car.
Last edited by ORAC; 7th Oct 2002 at 23:26.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once got recalled shortly after airborne in a Mk 6 Lightning (big ventral tank - more fuel). Burners against gear, flaps and airbrakes and I was on the ground after 12 minutes with minimum fuel.
Flew Hunter Mk 9 for 6 months on TWU and it was the dog's bollox. Still undecided on which was the best, Lightning or Hunter.
Flew Hunter Mk 9 for 6 months on TWU and it was the dog's bollox. Still undecided on which was the best, Lightning or Hunter.
Gentleman Aviator
I always thought it ironic that (in most people's eyes) the Spitfire (Supermarine) overshadowed the Hurricane (Hawker), yet (in everybody's eyes) the Hunter (Hawker) overshadowed the Swift (Supermarine).
Another point: although a number of people (lucky s*ds) must have flown both Spitfie and Hunter, (thinking BBMF, privately owned etc), there must be some (VERY lucky s*ds) out there who have OPERATED both on front-line squadrons. Any comments from them.....???
Another point: although a number of people (lucky s*ds) must have flown both Spitfie and Hunter, (thinking BBMF, privately owned etc), there must be some (VERY lucky s*ds) out there who have OPERATED both on front-line squadrons. Any comments from them.....???
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got told a tale one time from a source who I feel inclined to believe....about a pair of F4s which took off from an airbase in Wales (don't know which one) and flew north on full reheat, landing at an airbase in Scotland (don't know which one either), out of fuel, eight minutes later. Impressive stats on velocity and kero consumption even for the shortest possible hop, if indeed it's true.
As for a Jet Spit....my favourite bedtime theory is that it would have been the AJS 37 Viggen, had it ever been given the chance. I guess we'll never know. Shame really. Failing that, I'll go with Jacko on the F-16, which may yet have the opportunity to prove it.
As for a Jet Spit....my favourite bedtime theory is that it would have been the AJS 37 Viggen, had it ever been given the chance. I guess we'll never know. Shame really. Failing that, I'll go with Jacko on the F-16, which may yet have the opportunity to prove it.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: @ a loss
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ali Barber,
You really should make more effort to get value from the dear tax payer's fuel!
For my first solo on the mk6 Lightning I was being briefed by BJ Aldington for the usual steep turns and ILS malarky when he noticed a rather glazed look on my face. Once he'd ascertained that I fancied something a bit more interresting, we had a brief discussion on the relevance, or not, of various speed, mach, and altitude limitations and off I went.
40 minutes later I touched down on minimum fuel. In the meantime I'd explored mach 1.9 (climbing on the (non AAR probe) IAS limit-it wouldn't go any faster that day (maybe the AAR probe didn't help!)). I'd also had a look at the world from 57,000 feet, followed by a idle/fast idle 150 nm glide back to Binners. When I found BJ to apologise for not having enough fuel to do the 2 circuits he'd recommended I do to get used to the mk6's different wing, he didn't seem to mind.
Anyway, back to the thread. The problem for most of us is not having flown the various jets when they were new. The mk9 Hunter was a blast, but also a rather scary vintage machine by the time I got my hands on it. The Lightning was great too. The Harrier I did fly on the front line, and it was the most fun of all. However, the handling is not exactly viceless. The Jaguar? Least said the better, although I did have some fun with it in a 'looking over your shoulder for the grim reaper' kind of way.
For me, the best (British) jet at doing it's job was the Hawk. It lacks the punch and power of some of the others, but it does what it says on the tin, and it does it in a near viceless way.
On a slightly different tack, the guys who used to wind me up were the 'old and bold' ex Hunter pilots who thought that everything that followed on was a Hunter derivative ie Harrier=Hunter that hovers, Lightning=supersonic Hunter, etc
I'm delighted to have flown many of the single seat front line jets, but I can't really compare them to the Spitfire since no one has been daft enough to lend me one!
You really should make more effort to get value from the dear tax payer's fuel!
For my first solo on the mk6 Lightning I was being briefed by BJ Aldington for the usual steep turns and ILS malarky when he noticed a rather glazed look on my face. Once he'd ascertained that I fancied something a bit more interresting, we had a brief discussion on the relevance, or not, of various speed, mach, and altitude limitations and off I went.
40 minutes later I touched down on minimum fuel. In the meantime I'd explored mach 1.9 (climbing on the (non AAR probe) IAS limit-it wouldn't go any faster that day (maybe the AAR probe didn't help!)). I'd also had a look at the world from 57,000 feet, followed by a idle/fast idle 150 nm glide back to Binners. When I found BJ to apologise for not having enough fuel to do the 2 circuits he'd recommended I do to get used to the mk6's different wing, he didn't seem to mind.
Anyway, back to the thread. The problem for most of us is not having flown the various jets when they were new. The mk9 Hunter was a blast, but also a rather scary vintage machine by the time I got my hands on it. The Lightning was great too. The Harrier I did fly on the front line, and it was the most fun of all. However, the handling is not exactly viceless. The Jaguar? Least said the better, although I did have some fun with it in a 'looking over your shoulder for the grim reaper' kind of way.
For me, the best (British) jet at doing it's job was the Hawk. It lacks the punch and power of some of the others, but it does what it says on the tin, and it does it in a near viceless way.
On a slightly different tack, the guys who used to wind me up were the 'old and bold' ex Hunter pilots who thought that everything that followed on was a Hunter derivative ie Harrier=Hunter that hovers, Lightning=supersonic Hunter, etc
I'm delighted to have flown many of the single seat front line jets, but I can't really compare them to the Spitfire since no one has been daft enough to lend me one!
"there must be some (VERY lucky s*ds) out there who have OPERATED both on front-line squadrons. Any comments from them.....???"
Some years ago, while writing about the Battle of Britain, I interviewed a number of former Spitfire pilots, some of whom even flew both types during the Battle itself. Gordon Sinclair, for instance, went from Gauntlets to Spits on No.19 Squadron, then took command of a Czech Hurricane squadron. Others flew Hurricanes later, or went from Hurricanes to Spitfires. The Hurricane chaps loved the aircraft, of course, but those who flew both almost universally preferred the Spit.
It was much more difficult to find pilots who'd flown the 109E in the Battle, and those I did find seemed much older and shockingly less 'with it' than their RAF counterparts, perhaps because they had suffered the ageing effect of imprisonment by the Russians or had survived in ravaged East Germany
Some years ago, while writing about the Battle of Britain, I interviewed a number of former Spitfire pilots, some of whom even flew both types during the Battle itself. Gordon Sinclair, for instance, went from Gauntlets to Spits on No.19 Squadron, then took command of a Czech Hurricane squadron. Others flew Hurricanes later, or went from Hurricanes to Spitfires. The Hurricane chaps loved the aircraft, of course, but those who flew both almost universally preferred the Spit.
It was much more difficult to find pilots who'd flown the 109E in the Battle, and those I did find seemed much older and shockingly less 'with it' than their RAF counterparts, perhaps because they had suffered the ageing effect of imprisonment by the Russians or had survived in ravaged East Germany
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we talking about a jet powere battle proven, multi-role aircraft that can only rarely be beaten by its foe? You'd have to look across the Atlantic, F-15 or F-16. It'd be nice to select on which was British but history suggests otherwise.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: on your left, a little low.....
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ammendment
evening all... most of you that have commented probably have military backgrounds considering the forum this was moved to.
My chances of getting a ride in a Hunter or a Spit are right up there with a ride on the space shuttle
.
I raised the question more from a crowdline point of view and appreciation, ie a classic aircraft that is pleasing to the eye and has a distinctive sound and air about it.
As far as the lightning goes, while I do like the aircraft a lot, it is more like a seat strapped to 2 rockets and the aviation equivalent of the maclaren F1.
Its great to drive and I would never say no to a ride but for me personally is doesn't have the same presence as the hunter.
Everyone's comments are probably spot on in their own right but for me watching y'all drive these birds by from time to time.
Sorry for excluding the american aircraft guys. the thought was raised by seeing a hunter and lightning parked next to each other...
cheers
Sky...
My chances of getting a ride in a Hunter or a Spit are right up there with a ride on the space shuttle
.I raised the question more from a crowdline point of view and appreciation, ie a classic aircraft that is pleasing to the eye and has a distinctive sound and air about it.
As far as the lightning goes, while I do like the aircraft a lot, it is more like a seat strapped to 2 rockets and the aviation equivalent of the maclaren F1.
Its great to drive and I would never say no to a ride but for me personally is doesn't have the same presence as the hunter.Everyone's comments are probably spot on in their own right but for me watching y'all drive these birds by from time to time.
Sorry for excluding the american aircraft guys. the thought was raised by seeing a hunter and lightning parked next to each other...
cheers
Sky...
Gentleman Aviator
Jacko
...err sorry, I was ambiguous. I meant Spitfire AND Hunter (very very lucky s*ds!). Spitfire remained in service until (?) mid 50s, and Hunter certainly started early 60s (I remember my 1/11d Airfix model of a "Trembler Hunter"....).
I'm sure one of my first Staishs said he'd flown both.......
...err sorry, I was ambiguous. I meant Spitfire AND Hunter (very very lucky s*ds!). Spitfire remained in service until (?) mid 50s, and Hunter certainly started early 60s (I remember my 1/11d Airfix model of a "Trembler Hunter"....).
I'm sure one of my first Staishs said he'd flown both.......
Teeteringhead,
The last Spit sortie was made during the Malyan emergency; think it was a PR19 from 81 Squadron at some time inn 1955 (one presumes that we're including Griffon engined Spits as 'proper' Spits ), and the Hunter F1 entered service in '54.
This makes the chances of the crossover very high. I seem to recall some of the RAF Historical Society publications have implied reference to the more senior pilots/flight commanders/COs on Hunter squadrons being veterans of the War on fighters - almost certain that some of these would have been Spitfire pilots. Also, given that 60 Squadron flew attack missions over Malaya, it's quite possible that some of the junior pilots on that unit would have gone on to Hunters.
There's a new book by Peter Caygill (I think) called 'Jet Jockeys' (published by Airlife), which, from what I recall (my copy is currently residing with my father some 100 miles from me) mentions this sort of thing. Indeed, I remember that one of the chaps interviewed for the book describes the Hunter as 'the Spitfire of the jet age'. That said, someone else gives that accolade to the F-86 (or Sabre F4, if we're being correct).
The last Spit sortie was made during the Malyan emergency; think it was a PR19 from 81 Squadron at some time inn 1955 (one presumes that we're including Griffon engined Spits as 'proper' Spits
), and the Hunter F1 entered service in '54. This makes the chances of the crossover very high. I seem to recall some of the RAF Historical Society publications have implied reference to the more senior pilots/flight commanders/COs on Hunter squadrons being veterans of the War on fighters - almost certain that some of these would have been Spitfire pilots. Also, given that 60 Squadron flew attack missions over Malaya, it's quite possible that some of the junior pilots on that unit would have gone on to Hunters.
There's a new book by Peter Caygill (I think) called 'Jet Jockeys' (published by Airlife), which, from what I recall (my copy is currently residing with my father some 100 miles from me) mentions this sort of thing. Indeed, I remember that one of the chaps interviewed for the book describes the Hunter as 'the Spitfire of the jet age'. That said, someone else gives that accolade to the F-86 (or Sabre F4, if we're being correct).
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anybody can find Sqn Ldr Tim McElhaw he would have a view. He was shot down in a Spit in the Middle East (after WWII) and was also my boss on IV(AC) Sqn when we had Hunter 4s and 6s in 57-58 time.
For me the Spit IX had the best lateral control on short finals of anything I have ever flown. Which is why it is such a doddle to do a curved approach right to the flare. Guys and girls (get Diana Barnato Walkers ATA book - better still talk to her) seen doing this are not showing off but just flying it the way it pleads to be operated.
You have to have limited experience to think the lateral control of a Hunter is other than diabolical (from false locks to manual revision forces). Even at the end Hawkers had never cracked providing a useable aileron trimmer in the cruise let alone anywhere else. Keep your hand on the stick and enjoy the ride for sure, but there is more to a good aeroplane than that.
Congratualtions on the pictures Damien. Top stuff.
For me the Spit IX had the best lateral control on short finals of anything I have ever flown. Which is why it is such a doddle to do a curved approach right to the flare. Guys and girls (get Diana Barnato Walkers ATA book - better still talk to her) seen doing this are not showing off but just flying it the way it pleads to be operated.
You have to have limited experience to think the lateral control of a Hunter is other than diabolical (from false locks to manual revision forces). Even at the end Hawkers had never cracked providing a useable aileron trimmer in the cruise let alone anywhere else. Keep your hand on the stick and enjoy the ride for sure, but there is more to a good aeroplane than that.
Congratualtions on the pictures Damien. Top stuff.
Tim McElhaw's career must have stalled somewhat - he ended up OC No.14 Squadron at Wildenrath on Canberra B(I)8s in about 1968-70. I think there have been Lightning bods who flew Spit/Meteor/Hunter/Lightning.