Talk:Hawker Hunter/Archive 1

Name
Who thought of that name? Hawker Hunter, Pah!

The name followed the Hawker company's extensive use of alliteration during the pre and post war years. Strangely during the second world war the Tempest and Typhoon names were introduced, alluding to the succession from Hurricane. KitW

A couple of points. Firstly, shouldn't some mention be made of the huge export success of the Hunter? Secondly, If I remember correctly the Hunter was used by the RAF during the Suez Crisis, yet there is no mention of this in the Combat history section. I would modify the article myself on these subjects if I had some good sources, but I'm not confident in my facts so perhaps someone else better versed on the subject could look into it? 84.92.80.169 11:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some other trivia could be included too - such as the 'Blue Note'. The name given to the gun packs - Sabrinas, etc.

I think they used at least one Hunter the movies 'Right Stuff' (for some of the Bell X1 shots) and in the Top Gun spoof 'Hot Shots' I think there are some Hunters on the flight deck of a carrier...!

Also there should be more mention of the Hunter based teams esp the Black Arrows methinks. See my clip on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUU6fpENvtQ

81.86.144.210 16:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The planes in "Hot Shots" were Folland Gnats... Getztashida 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PPL
Shouldn't it be mentioned that the Hawker Hunter is legal to fly on a Private Pilots License in the UK? Just a thought as in this respect it is fairly unique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.232.124 (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it unique? can you fly the other ex-mil aircraft Jet Provost, L-39 etc on a PPL?. Not sure why the Hunter would be unique in this regard? MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To fly the other military types a jet rating is required, for some reason the Hunter is exempted from this requirement. Even so, don't you think it should be included as a fact about the aircraft? Just a suggestion, as it is an intresting fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.147.94 (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source that indicates that the Hunter is the only aircraft that can be flown without a jet rating then perhaps that should be added. Still find it hard to believe you can fly a Hunter but not a Jet Provost! MilborneOne (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Griffin
Extensive use appears to be made of David Griffin's Hawker Hunter 1951 to 2007 - as a reference - it seems to be published by Lulu Enterprises - a self publishing/Print-on-demand publisher. Are we sure this meets the requirements of WP:RS?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a good question to ask. I think the text is much of this article's information was originally sourced from long ago, without credit or notification, some of the patterns and orders in how information is laid out is just too similar to pass off. It would be a shame to lose it, as it is good information; but verifiability is very important. Kyteto (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add that I have no problem with replacing the citations with 100% unquestionable references, and I like your initiative. I'll try to do the same where I can, but I'll have to wait until tomorrow on that. I imagine the dozen or so books (which shouldn't all be flawed!) that I've skimmed across already shoudl have plenty of useful operational information. Kyteto (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Flightglobal archive contains a considerable amount of information on the Hunter: as well as on just about anything going back to 1909.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.200 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Armament in specs section
As I formatted the section to display hardpoints first and then what hangs off them, I read it through. I'm not aware of the 81 mm rockets being fitted to British Hunters. I thought British use was predominately Matra/SNEB. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * IIRC, it was tested by the RAF but was not adopted for use as a sizable RAF inventory of SNEB was already in place although the novel mounting arrangement of the SURA-Ds did freed up the other hardpoints. Later, it was also offered to existing and other customers of export variants (mostly based on the FGA.9, itself based on the F.6). -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If it was not used operationally and the F.6 was not fitted for it, it doesn't really belong in that section. It doesn't help that the cited source is only a advert showing it on an unspecified variant on the Hunter.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While the RAF didn't use SURAs, it did use the old 3-inch rockets, and the later Hunters (including the F6) could carry up-to to 24 of them. The SNEBs came later.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And of course the RAF never hung Sidewinders or Mavericks off its Hunters either, although others did.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The spec section should just describe the F.6 any other armament used should really be in the design section under armament. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a comparative table for armament, similar to that showing the Avro Vulcan variants could illustrate better the range of weapons that were carried in different variants and services. eg F.6, FGA.9 Swiss Hunter 80. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On a separate note

 * I found my tear ducts going into overdrive when I was improving on the RSAF section of the article (which has been left to rot for god-knows-how-long), all the memories of the pilots and my old crew chief mentor just came back to me suddenly and vividly, it was as if it was yesterday when we sold them off. I'm going for a break. Cheers all. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Article protected vis Indian Air Force
I have protected the article from editing due an edit war in the Indian Air Force section, please discuss and come to a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * About the the downing of the hunters, the achievements of the hunters in IAF have been mentioned but not a world record that was made on them which is more notable. Request to add the paragraph about the 5 hunters downed since it was properly sourced with international sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article should concentrate on what the Hunters were generally used for and overall losses, not a very uncommon event which is more about that pilot and the particular circumstances of that encounter. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What about hunters downed in general? Since their raids are mentioned? Seems a bit tilted mentioning only achievements. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It says 32 were claimed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oman
Why no mention of Oman. They were a major operator of the Billy during its swansong, and they carried out considerable operational sorties in the late 70's. This is where Dave Griffins book could come in handy as he was an armourer at Thumrait up to the beginning of the century.,Petebutt (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to write up a draft of a section for insertion. One year ago, even prolific operators like Singapore, India, and Switzerland had terrible coverage - I wrote roughly a 50% expansion of the article from its old form with new information and sources. The reason I left out Oman was, despite reading upwards of 40-odd books on the hunter, Oman never appeared as a notable operator with information attached - but I don't claim my overhauls to be the be-all-end-all of an article's development, just a huge step in the right direction. If it can be adequitely sourced and is signficant enough in detail, it should be written as its own section. If the information found is small-ish in quantity, it can be folded into the existing Middle East section. Kyteto (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for this article to be unprotected
Doesn't seem to be much going on to me... Egg  Centri  c  16:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Swedish Hunters With Afterburners!
I read in the book "Hawker Hunter in Sweden" that there was never more then one aircraft fitted with afterburner and that this was operated by "FC" "Flygcentralen" och Flight Central which is basically the group that does all the flight and weapons testing "in house" in the air force. The performance gain in speed was not significant but time to altitude was halved. However with the Hunter already having so little onboard fuel it was decided the performance gains where not significant enough for the cost. Also at this time the new better performing indigenous fighters like the Lansen and Draken where being delivered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwand (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Swiss Hunters
I searched for more informations about the Swiss hunters and i found them. I know as well the general attitude of wikipedia, it is not a news to me..

But reverting several kbs made with hours of research with apparently no reasons to do it (the swiss section is scarse and quite crappy) is not 'improve wikipedia', it is a loss. Maybe some stuff should be conserved and discussed instead to delete it, FOR THE WIKIPEDIA interest, not mine or others. This is not an edit war, just the trial by miself, to improve a section visibly poor as info available. I think it was a news, as example, that Hunters performed in Swiss AF 312,000 hrs with 32 losses and 14 pilots. And that many ex-Swiss Hunters were actually Mk-4 and 6 modified and there are still over 30 in service until now. That should matters, just like the batch delivered. If such material will be not accepted, atleast i would write a specified article with Hunter in Swiss service. By the way, we are talking just about 4 kb of contributions, but rich of useful infos. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But the content added is not well written, you are adding C-class material to a WP:Good Article. Polish it off-wiki, in your sandbox or here on the talk page first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment, Graeme. As we can see, I'm not the only one who has trouble reading something that I percieved to be either some sort of cut-and-paste move, or content/text translated from another language into English and added into the article page. TBH, this is not something one would normally do to an article which is already rated as one of the WP:Good articles. As suggested, it would be more prudent to draft something in your own sandbox first, then get some other editors to check through and approves of it before transplanting it into the article page. Thoughts, anyone? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * sincerly, that this is a 'good article' showing the Hunter F Mk.6 armed with 4 Sidewinders and 4 Mavericks(!!), is highly questionable. Maybe the wikipedia article's quality is generally very low, so it would be called 'good'. Evidently, the 'good article' should be improved with more consistent stuff, or we are seriously talking about the Hunter Mk.6 as 'Maverick capable'? Are you aware that in the 'good article' is not mentioned how, when and why the Hunter was equipped with Mavericks? This is very funny about my contributions. Maybe, instead to revert others' works (that costed me some hours) that a 'good article' should be better controlled overall, not only when i turn back in wikipedia and decide to re-start to contribute (only to be censored as usual).


 * Ps. for the sake of precision.. i am not Stefan or Stephano, but Stefano. If you don't like my name, atleast call me Steven, that is the exact translation in your language. Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Here the pruned paragraph. I think that there is not great need to improve it so much, but still, if a part is reverted, then it would be 'fair' to move it in the talk page in order to discuss and improve it. A bit of Wikinette would be appreciated.

Swiss Air Force
The Swiss Air Force adopted the Hawker Hunter in 1961, many of them refurbished and modernised ex-RAF aircraft, to replace earlier aircraft such as the De Havilland Venom.<:ref name = 'Martin 321'>Martin 1996, p. 321. The Hunters came in Switzerland with four contracts. The first was signed in 1959, with 100 F.Mk 58 involved. The first 12 Hunters were F.Mk 6s ex-RAF (built in 1956) upgraded to Mk.58 standards by the Swiss HAL factory; the others(J-4013 to 4100) were of new production. Deliveries took place from 3rd April 1958 to 1st April 1960 <:ref>  The Hunter survived the procurement efforts of several aircraft promising to be superior; in the case of the Dassault Mirage III this was due to excessive cost overruns and poor project management rather than the attributes of the Hunter itself.<:ref name = 'Martin 321'/> A second competition between the Mirage III, Fiat G.91YS (S stands for Switzerland, a proposed version equipped with 2 extra pylons for AIM-9 missiles) and the LTV A-7 Corsair II concluded in neither winning a contract; additional Hunters were purchased to meet the demand instead.<:ref name = 'Martin 321'/>

Another batch of 30 Hunters came with the second contract, signed in 1971. They were Mk.58A, serial numbers from J-4101 to 4130. The deliveries took place from 7th December 1971 to 13th April 1973. Another 22 F.Mk.58As came with the third contract, signed in 1973 (4131-4152, from 10th January 1974 to February 1975) and the last 8 (all T.Mk 68, serialed 4201-4208) were bought with the fourth contract (1974, deliveries occurred bewteen 2nd August 1974 to 3rd June 1975). The major part of those 60 Hunters Mk.58/68 were actually Mk.4s (built in 1955-56), few were Mk.6s and 2 were T.Mk.7s (ex Dutch Air force, converted to Mk.58A single-seat). Even the 8 dual-seat were Mk.4 converted as single seat fighters, except 4 Mk.50 (ex-Swedish Air Force).

By 1975, plans were laid to replace the Hunter in the air-to-air role with a more modern fighter aircraft, the Northrop F-5E Tiger II.<:ref>Martin 1996, p. 322. The Hunter remained in a key role within the Swiss Air Force; like the RAF's Hunter it transitioned to be the country's primary ground attack platform; and would remain in this role until the Swiss government purchased 32 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornets as replacements in the late 1990s.<:ref>Senior 2003, pp. 33-34, 74. The Patrouille Suisse, the Swiss Air Force's display team, performed in Hunters for many years; like the rest of the Air Force they have now transitioned to flying F-5 aircraft.<:ref>Patrouille Suisse. Swiss Air Force. Retrieved 14 April 2011.

The Swiss Hunters had some important upgrades, known as KAWEST (Kampfwertsteigerung = Increased Operational Performance). One of them were the powerful SURA and SNORA 80 mm rockets, up to 32 can be loaded in underwing rails. They had an 4.5 kg HEAT warhead capable to pierce up to 400 mm, or be equipped with a 7 kg HE-Frag, among the 12 versions available. Later, it was needed a even more powerful and long ranged weapon, so the old fighter was upgraded with the AGM-65 Maverick, tipically a pair under the wings, while the 80 mm rockets could still loaded in a good quantity (12-20). 42 Hunters (all first contract Mk.58s) were so upgraded. Some T.Mk 68s had Vista ECM pods for training and ECM missions. Other modifications were the brake-parachute and -atleast in 4001- AIM-9 Sidewinders.

Overall, the Swiss Hunters had a very active career lasting over 30 years, up to 1994. The great part of the first contract Hunters flew atleast 2,400-2,500 each, but many of them managed to reach 2,700 hrs and few 2,800. The most active was the J-4023, that logged 2,860 hours with 1,567 landings (the average mission time seems to be over 1-1.5 hours, despite the short endurance of the Hunter). The first batch was the most used, while the '70 fighters/trainers topped around 1,200-1,500 hrs each. Among the 160 examples, there were 32 write off/crashes (with 14 pilots killed), but the overall activity topped over 313,508 hrs, so it was a very good result (around 10 losses/100,000 hrs) for a '50s fighter. One Hunter, the 4051, was accindentally shot down by the 4171, crossing its gunfire line during a 'live' exercise (20 october 1982). The last flight was performed by the J-4001, the first 'Swiss' Hunter that opened and closed the Hunter service in Switzerland. It was originally a Mk.6, the XE536, delivered to RAF on 23 February 1956, modified by HAL in 1957-58. Flew as Mk.58 on 29th March 1958 with Hans Häfliger, and it was delivered to Emmen on 3 April 1958, serving with 7 and 20th Sqns. The last flight took place on 16th december 1994 at Dübendorf, totalizing 2,541.17 hrs and 1,330 landings. Today this aicraft is restored in '60s conditions (without braking parachute and other modifications) and preserved at Fliegermuseum Dübendorf, from august 2002.

The Swiss Hunters were well regarded and conserved. Today no less but 34 are still active, many others are conserved. Several Hunters are used in North America, one is even used by a private contractor for the French Navy (the J-4073, used by Apache Aviation). Many others are owned by aviation companies like ATAC and Hunter Aviation International Inc, Newark, USA. A british company, the Hunter team,, got 12 Mk.58 and claims to be able to make missions up to mach 0.95, -3.75/+7.5 manouvers for 90 minutes at 185 km from the base, simulating air to air and air to surface threats for military costumers with low operational costs compared to modern fighters. Lortie Aviation is another costumer of the former Swiss Hunters and its site claims to have performed 8,500 flying hours since 2002, with military missions up to 2.5 hrs endurance (with four auxiliary tanks). There is also a Hunter swiss civil association, | Amici dell'Hunter.ch. Up to 30 other Mk.58/68s are still conserved in museums scattered in Europe, North America, South Africa and Jordan.


 * Too long; didn't read... but in the interest of Wikipedia, Nigel has picked up where you left off, making good progress along the way, if I might say so. And I'm pretty sure that it'd be the best for us if you drop that condescending tone, Stefano. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But you cannot seriously say that, since 42 Hunter were equipped with Mavericks, then the whole Mk.6 version was rightfully called as 'armed with 4 Mavericks'. About the Sidewinder, almost 90% Hunters weren't equipped with those weapon. Swedish one appears to be equipped just with 2 Sidewinders. The most Hunter's costumers never saw a Sidewinder under the Hunters, not talk about the Mavericks. Omitting this particular is highly incorrect, or even disonest. A 'good article' cannot seriously claim that, right? Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah and you obviously read only what you want to read, not what others actually wrote. FWIW, I'm done talking to you, adieu~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, i am not that proficient with english. Someone hates Switzerland AF? After all that work, Ish still failed to remember the Swiss use of the Maverick. I hope that the above paragraph will be fixed and introduced in the main article, i fill that it would be necessary enlarge the Swiss section BTWStefanomencarelli (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Steve Jobs: "Stay foolish, stay hungry." -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia: BRD, as you mentioned it as the reason to revert my edits (even Swiss Mavericks: why?)

What BRD is, and is not:

WP:BRD-NOT BRD is most useful for pages where seeking consensus would be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods. When editing articles:

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes (like you apparently did).
 * BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
 * Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense (like you did not, until i started the discussion here: this means that, you can act TROUGHT BRD, but not 'because BRD' said so).
 * BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing (what happened only when i started to protest about the edit-war). The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD (that cleary you was not).

Then, Dave, you are abused of that BRD 'rule' and i, starting first the discussion in the talk page, i follow it at the best. I think that you abused of that rule basically vandalizing my edits, can you comment avoiding kidding? I can't even add Swiss Hunters in the weapon section? Singapore yeas, Switzerland not? That has nothing to do with Wikipedia 'best', it seems a page vandalizing instead. And this is not acceptable. Yes, you make me hungry, but it is not so difficult to do, if you just want to vandalizing my edits.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The person who was damaging the article was not Dave but yourself - by adding badly written, almost unreferenced screeds to a good article you lower the a]rticle's quality. The changes to the specifications that you made were credited to the wrong reference, so again removal was not only acceptable but essential. Finally by completely failing to assume good faith and attacking everybody else who has contributed to the article, you are not doning yourself any favours. Please consider these points and edit more carefully.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Stefano, go take a walk and come back in 6 hours time, we would have finished updating the Swiss and Swedish section. In the mean time, stop wasting our time so we can concentrate and focus on what we are supposed to do, WRITE!!! Jesus, what is wrong with you??? Stop being so anal about things, wil'ya??? ... -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are simply insulting me, then. I can or i can't editing in wikipedia? Who decide this? You could just improve/correct my edits in order to improve the contribution. If 'you' (who?) can edit Hunter and i can't, then why don't say it directly: if you are not english-mother language, then you cannot edit wikipedia.en. And i was 'anal'? Uh? After coming back to wikipedia i have to see it even worsened. And i am not the only one, look what our friend Jackhammond wrote in his talk the last 5th february Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Takes out the remote, depress on the "MUTE" button, enjoy~! As a side show, I noted that Nigel has reverted your uncited/unreferenced addition on another article page (as evident here!). Stefano, can you see now the same badly written and sourced content/text? Read also WP:Competency is required (under the subsection "Language difficulty") for your kind of incompetence. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You seems to overrate my 'language difficults'. There is worse. The Hunter G.10 with 4 AIM-9, as example, shown in the photo.

That's matters no less than the 'language difficulties', even in a 'good article'. Especially when you arrogate to yourself the authority to reverse my editings.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then, RAF had Sidewinder armed Hunters? If not, where those Hunter came from?
 * Second issue: the Sidewinder showned there are NOT AIM-9J, but at the best, AIM-9D. The shape of the canard wings is cleary not the one, very easy to see, of the AIM-9J/P.
 * Stefano-whats-your-name-oh, if you're really an ardent history buff of military aviation, you would have been able to tell that the US has never supplied Singapore with the AIM-9D. Don't believe? FWIW, please look through the → arm transfer database ← of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and then come back to apologise for your sheer ignorance and incompetence. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The aircraft shown in the photo is a Singapore Air Force Hunter, CONVERTED from an ex-British aircraft. No RAF Hunters had Sidewinders.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concur!~ (PS: The photographer and retired crew chief is none other than yours sincerely.) -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Closure

 * FWIW, I'm going to stop talking to Stefano once and for all, because it is really no good to be sucked into his swirling mass of bad/lousy energy. As it is, Stefano you are free to do, think or say whatever you like on English Wikipedia so long as the other regular editors don't correct your ignorance/incompetence first. Stefano, I wash my hands off of you and... *wait for it*... I forgive you~! -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

RAF Hunters and Sidewinder Installation
Folks, The RAF never installed the Sidewinder on their Hunters (the FAA Scimitar was the first aircraft in British service to get the Sidewinder). But they did consider the Sidewinder because it was so cheap and simple to operate -- the Firestreak required a complex AI radar. This photo from a 1964 edition of Flying Review International shows a wooden Sidewinder mock up idea they had in the late 1950s. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)