[simpits-tech] Sea Hawk

[Darren Beaumont]

Gene,

A lot of aircraft were built purely as an interim solution, while the
designers/engineers got on with producing aircraft that would do what the
RAF, RN etc wanted it to.  A very big problem then, was the early jet
fighters just didn't have the performance to be able to shoot down any
potential high level threat, hence the need to keep refreshing the front
line squadrons with new technology.  Funnily enough, the Canberra, the RAF's
medium level bomber, was the only a/c in the UK that did have the required
perfomance, hence the Canberra was often used as a Russian a/c in exercises.

Some aircraft types only saw operational service on the frontline for a year
or two before being replaced with something new.  One such a/c type, the
Swift F2 was used in the fighter role, as an interceptor, for 13 months (a
total of 1,086 sorties = 781.23 hours) before being withdrawn from service
and being replaced by the Hunter F5.  Thats 781 hours across the entire
fleet of 12 a/c and only 34 pilots flew the Swift F2 operationally during
its role as a fighter.  Supermarine, who produced the Swift, did try and
develop the airframe further, but never really succeeded in developing the
Swift into an acceptable fighter.

There is an excellent book - Jet Jockeys by Peter Caygill - all about the
first RAF jet fighters.  The book highlights the problems with operating
aircraft that were effectively experimental and that many a/c at the time
had serious shortcomings.  Unfortunately this led to a horrific loss rate of
both pilots and airframes for the RAF.

You must wonder why they took such large risks and spent so much money,
until you realise how serious the threat from the East was.

Darren



-----Original Message-----
From: simpits-tech-admin@simpits.org
[mailto:simpits-tech-admin@simpits.org]On Behalf Of Gene Buckle
Sent: 07 November 2002 15:08
To: 'simpits-tech@simpits.org'
Subject: Re: [simpits-tech] Sea Hawk


> > Did you find out why the airframe was struck?
> >
>
> Age. Te Sea Hawk was designed for 4 years service - and thats all they
> did !
>
> 212 flying hours.
>

Is it just me or is designing a fighter with a planned 4 year service life
the most preposterous thing you've ever heard of?

g.


_______________________________________________
Simpits-tech mailing list
Simpits-tech@simpits.org
http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
Thanks!