Giorgio N

Hi Peter

glad to hear from you and to better know your story ! Sounds fascinating, and as an enthusiast I am a bit envious of your career.

Personally I'd have loved to enter the Air Force but my eyesight was not good enough and I also probably didn't have enough "support" to enter the Academy... so I got my engineering degree hoping to work in aerospace... that I did only up to a point, as most of my career has been in sensors based on optical fibres. As these are of interest to the aerospace world, I've kept contacts with this but really today most of my work involves civil infrastructures like bridges, tunnels, railways and things like that...

I understand your feeling when reading certain comments, I believe that too many people even here base their views on hearsay and stereotypes, without really understanding what's behind an aircraft design and its operational history. National pride also often plays a part, I've seen this in most internet forums. Personally I have the "advantage" that having spent many years iliving in other countries I tend to be more objective. I even lived for a while in Australia ! While there I had some contacts with the DSTO in Melbourne, where they had a group that was doing very interesting things with fibre optics sensors for aircraft use. I'm sure you know the establishment well if you were in R&D ! Really I enjoyed my time in Australia, I then kept visiting for 6-8 weeks every two year for work reasons  but then the company I was working for closed their European operation soI haven't been in the Country since 2016. I should really come back as a tourist !

As you can see as really I try to judge aircraft types (or any other mechanical thingie) without attaching any emotional string to them. Of course I have my favourites but I still look at them as things, designed for a mission, sometimes more and sometimes less succesful.

But you know as I do how the whole process of drafting an RFP, issuing this, designing a proposal, updating and modifying it, then getting a contract, building prototypes, flight and structural testing and then introduction into service is something long and convoluted in most cases, and how many compromises are made, both in technical and other aspects. Not everyone really think of the whole story behind an aircraft design before typing on a computer keyboard. There's some on the forum who come from similar backgrounds and I can see how they generally tend to be the less emotionally involved...

On the Hunter Vs. Sabre debate, IIRC there was a similar discussion before and again someone suggested that the Hunter was much more advanced.. but I guess really this has a lot to do with national pride more than else. You may have noticed that there are other types that seem to attract a similar cult following on the forum, I can understand it as in the end many of these types were true crowdpleasers in their days, but would be good to be able to look at them today with a more objective eye.

In any case, I still feel the same as when I was a kid when I see real aircraft, be it at airshows or in the museums. I may be watching a type with the worst combat record ever but to me it's always something fascinating...

Cheers

Giorgio