1950's Dogfighters. Hawker Hunter vs MiG-17 Fresco??

Question

Hi all, just another question for debate. Which do you think was the superior combat aircraft in the 1950's - Hawker Hunter or the MiG-17. If you were equipping an air force back then (political considerations aside) which would you have chosen and why?

Note: I was going to throw the F-100 Super Sabre into the mix but I feel it was probably a superior aircraft to both. What do you think?

Answer 1

well my paper sources claim that the MiG17 was approx 2.5-3 tonnes lighter than Hunter. surprisingly the Hunter claims three times faster climb rate, 90meters per second while the MiG is credited with only 5000 meters in three minutes /the Hunter recalculated would reach same level in one miinute/

Hunter has  the longer range.

in the summary, the one who sees the enemy first would have the definite advantage. for the Fresco -hit 'n run tactics. for Huntertwo separated formations, one feigning slower/heavier aircraft the other punishing the overconfident fresco pilots.

Answer 2

Even outcome, almost matched birds if going with guns alone. With missiles, the Hunter would have an upper hand. In a horizontal fight, the MiG can torment the Hawker and vice versa if the Hunter engages the Fresco in a vertical fight.

But then you should remember that the MiG-17s have whacked a few F-105s in Vietnam.

Answer 3

Hay Mick,   The hawker would win hands down to a combat pilot. To ANYONE else, they only see the outside looks, an performance.  I've seen the insides of alot of Russan built aircraft, an feel like alot of other pilots, "that they're a fling trash truck."  But to be honest, the Mig's got the addvantage if you don't give a **** for the pilots life.  Flying an airplane is only the mechanial reward of the sensation of flight.  True flight to me is like the only time you felt true love, with a woman.   I love fling.