Actually “historic” would mean prop driven aircraft to the purists…

Nothing to do really with surviving airframes.

If often wondered why the aircraft came out with a conical nose, then finally the ogival (however its spelt!!) nose on the later aircraft appeared.

Was it a manufacturing problem they couldn’t sort out?

I see this thread has gone downhill again in the same vein as the other thread about the YAK…. seemingly anything built by the USSR during the cold war was a heap of junk and was compared to wonderful US built aircraft which never had any similier roll. ie comparing the SU-15 to the F4….

Im guessing some of you guys were not even born during the corld war.
Stop thinking 2010 and realise we are talking about a fighter from the early 1960s.

These aircraft were designed using… OMG A HUMAN BRAIN.
A draftmans board and some paper.

Stop acting like total tawts and compare apples with apples…

Ok I duno if this was ever used operationally but none the less…. a Singapore Hunter with 4 AIM-9(D?)s

Seems like a logical armament to me. Cannons, bombs, and rockets…what else do you need? Do you know if they have any unusual modifications such as a six pylon wing like Swiss & Singaporean Hunters?

The Swiss were the first to incorporate the Maverick I believe, I think they also used the AIM-9J as well.

The Hunter is by far the “prettiest” aircraft design, no arguements there!

In all the photos posted there doesnt appear enough room for horizontal stowage, nor does there appear any “cutouts” for it to sit in.

The main gear does rotate as shown in the vedio clip but its only turning enough to fit snugly against the intake wall. 20degrees or something like that.

One has to wonder at the total stupidity shown by people these days.

To whinge that he wasnt allowed to fly because he is too fat to sit in the seat displays ignorance. Is he totally unaware that aircraft seats are small?
That in the event of accident he may not get his fatty boomba rear end through an emergency exit?

I mean seriously what happened to common sense?

Many many years ago the company i worked for used to fly in and out of a particular mine site in central QLD. One of our aircraft was an old Queenair.
In typical fashion it had an engine failure on take off and was unable to climb out. The gear had been retracted just as the reduction gearbox failed.
The aircraft settled back onto the dirt strip and went through the fence and into the trees.

Because of the curved airstair door which was hinged at the bottom, it couldnt open far enough because it had jammed up against a tree.
The emergency exit had to be used. A small window about 60cm by 80cm (or there abouts).

Onboard was a passenger who was um… very large (130kg or so). This passenger could not get out of the aircraft without considerable assistance and took a long time to exit the aircraft. (from memory some 10mins) This person had to be squeezed through the partially open airstair door.

Now imagine the plane is onfire….. (lucky it wasnt) but you see my point.