Supermarine Swift

[ancientaviator62]

Apologies if this is not the correct forum but a neighbour of mine has asked me what the problem was with the Swift that precluded it serving alongside the Hunter as an interceptor. Being ex RAF I am supposed to know all the answers but I do not ! I can just about cope with queries about the Hunter and the Hercules. Perhaps someone on this very informative forum could enloghten him (and me ) in layman's language.
Thankyou.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

I understand the Swift had an unhappy and protracted developement and went into service as a sort of emergency fighter, the front-line RAF Meteors being well past their use by date and the Hunter not yet in service. They had handling problems and there were crashes. Once the Hunter was in service they just weren't needed.

There was a successful recon version, but I have read that even it couldn't light its reheat at high altitude:uhoh:

[ORAC]

History can be found here (http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/swift/history.html).

IIRC repositioning the guns to under the engine intakes also led to the unfortunate habit of the engine flaming out when they were fired. Hence the aircraft role being mainly restricted to recce....

[ZFT]

Around the early 60s there was a Swift parked at RAF Northolt on the A40 side for a few years. ATC 14F used to have access to it and I recall crawling all over it. Any idea which aircraft this was? (Why didn't I take more photos in those days. Same, same with the gate guard Spitfire).

[chevvron]

The latest Aeroplane Monthly has a large part devoted to the whys and wherefores.
The one at Northolt was used for wet runway trials at several airfields; it was I believe a Mk 7

[pulse1]

The Swift which was used for wet runway trials was used at Cranfield, with the undercarriage locked down. It was then earmarked for conversion for use in a landspeed record attempt but I don't know what happened after that.

[henry crun]

Jet Jockeys by Peter Caygill devotes a chapter to the Swift which details the many and varied problems it suffered from.

Although the Mk 5 became a fairly successful photo recce aircraft the earlier versions were an unmitigated disaster.

[Brian Abraham]

Book "Swift Justice" by ex Swift pilot Nigel Walpole is a good read on the aircraft. The following gives some back ground as to why it failed to make it as a interceptor.
The formal CFE Report on the Swift F1 was most damming on the fighter combat capability. Given its superior speed and with an element of surprise, it might have some success against first generation fighters (remember the Swift is second generation) but not in a dog fight because of its large turning radius and loss of speed in the turn. This was shown in simulated combat with Venoms and F-86 Sabres both of which also had a better combat ceiling. For the same reasons, battle formation at high altitude was very difficult, AFDS comparing tactical formation in the Swift at 30,000 feet to that of the Sabre at 40,000 feet. Also, while forward and beam visibility was good, poor rearward vision required very wide formations to give adequate cross cover and thereby exacerbating the handling problems. Formations of four were not, therfore, recommended above 35,000 feet or pairs above 40,000 (whereas Hunter F4's would be flying four ship formations up to 50,000 feet in the following year). The report concluded that the Swift F1 had four main shortcomings: poor operational ceiling, poor manoeuvrability and handling at high Mach numbers, a tendency for the engine to surge at low speed and high angles of attack, and poor rearward visibility.

Although the pilots of F1 and F2 versions understood why they were limited officially to 25,000 feet, 550 knots and 0.9 IMN, some pilots found the temptation to explore beyond these boundaries irresistible. It was they, understandably, who then became very critical of the Swift's potential as a high level combat fighter and they did not argue against its withdrawal from service.

As ORAC mentions the aircraft did suffer engine surge when firing guns, as did the Hunter, and in both cases was resolved by fuel dipping. VV119, the second experimental aircraft, was the only one which had provision for wing guns but they were never fitted.

By the mid 1950's the Meteor FR9's were tired from the exertions of high speed, low level flight and the Hunter FR versions could not be made available for some years without detriment to the production of fighter and ground attack variants. Happily the Swift was available and its robust airframe, precise control and stability at low level endeared itself to all pilots in this new role.

Most crashes were the result of engine failure and none were attributed to "handling problems", although the #2 prototype was lost in a spin and another from a spin while practising stalls.

[ancientaviator62]

Thanks everyone for your replies, I can update my neighbour on some of the problems that kept the Swift
confined to lower altitudes. If my memory serves me correctly only the Avon Hunters had gun firing rngine problems whereas the Sapphire version did not. In some ways the Sapphire was a better engine than the Avon.

[old-timer]

I know a guy who used to fly the supermarine attackers - interesting tail dragging jets -how did that work ? - must have been 'hot' on the runway surfaces !:eek:

[wz662]

Some Attackers were built and test flown from High Post airfield (just off the western end of Boscombe Down). Which being a grass airfield had a fair amount of scorch marks on it. I have seen an aerial photograph where they are clearly visible.

[old-timer]

I guess the Attacker design saved the weight of nose gear, the Whittle jet, Meatbox & Me 262 all had nose gear though so maybe it was just a quirky idea ?

The guy I know used to fly with the naval reserves post 'tiger force'
deployment cancellation.

[Noah Zark.]

Think it was because they wanted to use the wing off a taildragger prop (can't remember which one) ..
Laminar wings from the Supermarine Spiteful.

[E cam]

What year was the Swift retired from service?

[henry crun]

1955, after about 1 year of very intermittent service.

[Brian Abraham]

The Swift ended its life with 56 Squadron on the 28th March 1955. However it went on to serve with 2 Squadron until 13th April 1961 and with 79 Squadron until 30th December 1960 when the squadron disbanded. 79's Swifts then went to 4 Squadron which was equipping with Hunter FR10's and the last 4/79 Swift was repatriated from Gutersloh to Church Fenton on 7th February 1961.

[tribo]

Constructed in 1956 by Vickers Armstrong LTD at South Marston, Swindon. Serial No. VA9597, one of only twelve F7 aircraft built (XF113-124)
Aircraft XF114 - 124 were destined for trials of the Fireflash air to air missile with No1 Guided weapons Development Squ. at RAF Valley but XF114 was kept on the books of the MOD rather than the RAF.

It was this subtlety that saved XF114 from the scrapman's flame cutters. All the surviving RAF F7 aircraft were scrapped when the trials ended. What little of XF113 remains is at Boscombe Down where it is being restored for exhibition.

XF114 was first flown on 04/09/56 by Les Colquhoun DFC GM DFM. 10 pre release to service flights were carried out. On 14/03/57, Colquhoun delivered her to to A&AEE Boscombe Down. The records show that this was for familiarization flying by Naval pilots. This utilization seems unlikely to have ever taken place. The aircraft's records show that from 03/09/57 and for the rest of the aircraft's operational life, she was used for various tests relating to the "coefficient of friction between aircraft tyres and wet runways" or to us, aquaplaning!

The first contract was 6/Acft/15373/CB9(c) with trials taking place at Wisley, Pershore, Coltishall, West Raynham, Upper Heyford and Filton. These lasted until 16/02/62 when the next contract was awarded, KC/W/063/CB9)c) for "Aquaplaning and Slush Drag" investigations. These took place at Wisley, London Heathrow, Bedford, Weybridge and finally Cranfield.

On 14/04/67, she was struck off charge and after brief storage at Aston Down, sold to Flintshire Technical College, Lelsterton as an instructional airframe.

In the ten years of service, the records we have show that although she hurtled down the runway many times, she had only amassed 12 hours 10 minutes flight time!

http://www.neam.co.uk/swift.html

http://www.heritageaviation.com/swift/swiftmainframe.htm

[Brian Abraham]

December copy of "Aeroplane" has a in depth write up apparently on the aircraft. Not arrived in the colonies yet, the November issue arrived this week.

[tinpis]

I had a Jetex powered 20" span jobby that flew very well :ok:

[panda-k-bear]

old-timer mentioned, when discussing the Attacker, the unusual taildragging configuration.

In fact the Me262 was originally a taildragger but was eventually redesigned with a nosegear due to control and braking issues with the orginal configuration.

The Russians followed suit with the Yak-15 (NATO reporting name "Feather") which was another early taildragging jet fighter, amongst others in the Eastern Block.

[A2QFI]

I never saw it but I was told that, if a Swift was held in the vertical during a display, with some slight -ve G, and the relight button was pressed, flames would come out of numerous different vents and holes on the outside surface. Not as impressive as the F 111 ignited fuel dump but maybe useful in the 50s?

[aviate1138]

The Swift ended its life with 56 Squadron on the 28th March 1955. However it went on to serve with 2 Squadron until 13th April 1961 and with 79 Squadron until 30th December 1960 when the squadron disbanded. 79's Swifts then went to 4 Squadron which was equipping with Hunter FR10's and the last 4/79 Swift was repatriated from Gutersloh to Church Fenton on 7th February 1961.
We used to have the odd Swift pass through RAF Benson Ferry Squadron? in 1959/60. Whenever one was due to take off, the entire base could be seen peering across the airfield waiting/hoping for the inevitable. Seems that more than one wound up in the watercress beds just off the northeast end of the airfield. The one take off I witnessed was fine and a low level blistering pass followed as a farewell - no idea where the Swift was going - Germany I think.
Those were the days.......

Aviate 1138

[Milt]

Had one ride in a Swift Mk5 (tail No 903) at BD 29 Nov 1957.
Unhappily cancelled AB after take off and was surprised how it climbed like a lead sled. Cannot recall its characteristics going supersonic.

Understand the straight wing Swift had BAD pitch up, as did the early Hunters until the introduction of the cranked wings. My first experience of pitch up was in a Hunter on the top of a loop. Fell out of the loop somehow with the stick against the forward stop to no avail. Didn't try for a pitch up in the Swift as I believed the cranked wings had corrected the problem.

Wonder what happened to 903 and what were the peculiar letters that went before the number?

[DaveW]

Milt,

That would have been XD903, which was the first FR Mk5. It was delivered 31 May 55 and it's reported here (http://www.ukserials.com/results.php?serial=XD) as having been scrapped, but with no date for that event.

[Davaar]

I seem to remember reading years ago that early marks suffered from aileron locking is there was any extended loiter before take-off. That apart, my sole recollection is non-technical but it has remained with me over the years. One instructor Flt Lt XXXXX at RAF ********** was going through his routine and in it appeared a photograph the Swift. His words were: ".... and this is the Vickers-Supermarine Swift, of which it has been truly said: 'They will never strap XXXXX's arse to one of these'".

[henry crun]

Davaar: The aileron locking you refer to was caused by a false achorage when changing from manual to power control.

If the pilot had been flying in manual control and then restored power, it caused hydaulically powered pawls to fit into slots in the aileron actuating rod.
If the pawls were not lined up with the slots, one might clamp on the rod.

The only way to correct this was to move the stick over its full travel until the other pawl engaged. Considerable force was needed to achieve this.

[Milt]

henry crun

Manual flight control reversion. Having had only one flight in a Swift Mk5 and a fading memory I cannot recall whether that Swift had manual reversion. The early Hunters certainly had that problem with the flight controls when re-engagaing powered control. The pucker factor was high when doing a re-engagement particularly if one made the attempt under flight conditions different to the dis-engagement. Whatever tried to re-engage would miss a detent and leave one with a very peculiar stick free position. Very disconcerting.

Never did try a landing with a mis-aligned FCS.

Did try the odd landing in a Valiant with FCS in manual. Control forces were at the extremes of one's strength.

The Vulcan was a challenge with a various combinations of its 8 control surfaces closed down and trailing. No reversion to manual available.

Surprisingly the Comet 2C with it's triplicated FCSs and spring feel could be tentatively controlled on one FCS with hydraulics only from a windmilling engine. Excessive control inputs would result in jack stalls causing one to consider a rapid re-engagement of an additional FCS.

[tribo]

A nice photo to of the SWIFT XF114 VA.9597 to be found at this link:

AirlineFan Royal Air Force Swift F7 XF114 VA.9597 Photo (http://www.airlinefan.com/airline-photos/1988513/Royal-Air-Force/Supermarine/Swift-F7/XF114/)

Another photo of the aircraft to be found at this link:

Photos: Supermarine Swift F7 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Supermarine-Swift-F7/0291114&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=1&sok=WHERE__%28reg_%3D_%27XF114%27%29_&sort=_order_by_photo_id_DESC_&prev_id=&next_id=NEXTID)

Can anyone shed some more light on its use in wet friction testing in the 60's?

[Brian Abraham]

From the book “Swift Justice” by Nigel Walpole.

XF114 went first to Boscombe Down in March 1957 where it is reputed to have been used for fast jet familiarisation, general handling and lead in training for Royal Navy pilots destined for the Supermarine Scimitar squadrons. From 1958 to 1962, it came under contract to the Ministry of Aviation for wet runway braking trials at airfields which included Pershore, Coltishall, West Raynham, Upper Heyford, Wisley, Filton, London Heathrow, Bedford and Cranfield. Test pilots Les Colquhoun, David Morgan, Pee Wee Judge, Jasper Jarvis and Dizzy Addicott were all involved in gathering information on aircraft braking characteristics, investigating whether runway surfaces should be of concrete or asphalt, smooth or grooved, and what effects different tyres could have. The Swift, with its robust airframe and rugged undercarriage, served this purpose well. Brian Holdaway remembers helping to fit the necessary instrumentation at Wisley, that the undercarriage fairings were removed (at least for the latter sorties) and that the pilot was given the means to isolate the anti skid system. Les Colquhoun, who had carried out the initial flight tests on XF114 and flew the aircraft again in the aquaplaning trials, claimed that where runway arrester barriers were available they were never used. That is not to say the trials went off without incident; the movement log of XF114 shows that on 15 April 1959 it burst both tyres (a not infrequent occurrence given the nature of the trials) and David Morgan barely avoided a confrontation with the Americans on the runway at Upper Heyford – the event coincided with a Strategic Air Command alert and the Swift could have been bulldozed off the runway without a by your leave, and this nearly happened. Flight International dated 31 May 1962 reported that Dizzy Addicott carried out landing trials in XF114 on London Airport’s 9300 feet No. 1 runway, typically landing at 200 knots just before a 3000 feet strip flooded with 6000 gallons of water, with ‘little apparent loss of speed’ until reaching the dry area. This would come as no surprise to Swift pilots but the tests confirmed, among other findings, that the lower the tyre pressure the greater the braking effect, the lighter the aircraft the greater the chance of hydroplaning, and the higher the landing speed the lower the coefficient of friction. These trials finished at Cranfield where XF114 was struck off charge in April 1967 and moved into storage at Aston Downs. It was sold to the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education at Connah’s Quay, Clwyd.

The book contains a photograph of the aircraft in the exact same location as in tribo’s Airliners.net link photo, but prior to the painting in the red and white finish.

[Jig Peter]

Tha Attacker's tail-dragger layout was said to be an advantage for naval flying, as the aircraft was already almost in a take-off attitude at launch, and again for arrested landing ...
Further, it served long and well with the Pakistani Air force, in some pretty rough environments, if I remember aright.
And, yes, it did have the Spiteful's laminar flow wing.
:8

[tribo]

Some reports from tests with SWIFT Mk.7, No. XF.114

Flight tests to determine the coefficient of friction between an aircraft tyre and various wet runway surfaces:

Reports on work carried out by Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft) LTD- under M.O.S contract 6/AIRCRAFT/15373/C.B.9(c)

Part 1 - Preliminary instrumentation-proving trials at Wisley Airfield (S&T MEMO 15/59)

Part 2 - Trials on a brushed concrete runway at R.R.E. Pershore (S&T Memo 6/60)

Part 3 - Trials on treated and untreated sections of brushed concrete runway at R.A.F. Station Coltishall (S&T MEMO 2/61)

Part 4 - Trials on a grooved asphalt runway surface at R.A.F. Station West Raynham (S&T MEMO 19/61)

Part 5 - Trials on an asphalt surface at Upper Heyford (S&T MEMO 2/62)

Part 6 - Trials on an old asphalt runway at A. & A.E.E., Boscombe Down (S&T MEMO 20/61)

Part 7 - Trials on a concrete runway at Filton (S&T MEMO 3/62)

[VictorGolf]

Would I be right in thinking that the late, great Ray Hanna learnt his not inconsiderable low flying skills (later used to great effect in Spitfire MH434) in Swifts and Meteors in RAF Germany?

[tribo]

The article in Flight International 31 May 1962 mentioned in the book “Swift Justice” by Nigel Walpole can be found at these links:

1962 | 0851 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%200851.html)

1962 | 0854 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%200854.html)

1962 | 0855 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%200855.html)

[RedhillPhil]

I'm sure that I wasn't dreaming but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Hunter was originally ordered in case the Swift was a failure - or was it the other way around?
Damn this Altzheimers!

[pulse1]

For the friction tests at Cranfield, long shallow rubber tanks were installed on the runway and these were filled with water for the trials. The main wheels were marked so that high speed cameras could show wheel movement as they passed through the water. I left Cranfield in late 1966 and the Swift was replaced by a Hunter just before that. The test pilot seemed to shed twenty years when he stopped flying the Swift although that may have had more to do with the arrival at Cranfield of some of the aircraft from filming of "The Magnificent Men..." . I think he spent more time flying those than he did the Hunter.

[Double Zero]

There's a good, 'complete' example of a Swift ( forget which Mk, but I think it's mentioned in the recent article and is on their website) at Tangmere Museum, West Sussex; one is able to touch and open / close the nose camera eyelid, but I never said that.

[390cruise]

The Tangmere Swift is a mark FR5 WK281, parts (complete?) of at least five others exist at various locations.There was talk that one was on the road to airworthy status (G-SWIF ?)

Regards

390

[mcdhu]

ah jetex - I remember that. Can you still get jetex engines - and the pellet thingys that made it go?

[virgo]

Some of the unfavourable comparisons between the Swift and the Hunter, although true, are a bit unfair.
The Swift was originally purely a high-speed research aeroplane designed to explore the transonic and low supersonic handling characteristics.
The Cold War started getting even colder and as a back-up for the Hunter, Vickers was more-or-less told to turn it into a fighter - hence the gunfiring and some handling problems, the aeroplane was never originally designed to carry guns or be a fighting machine.
The Hunter, however was designed from square one as an interceptor fighter, at which it excelled.

[fleigle]

mcdhu
Google is your friend, lots of information there.
I had a Hunter with a Jetex 50B motor in the '50's, lots of non-flights, or flights where the belly hatch (which held the motor), came off and they (hatch and motor) "did their own thing"
f

[Dick Whittingham]

Virgo,

The Hunter (mks 1, 4 and 6 in my experience) was fun to fly but never "excelled as an interceptor". It had problems with pitch response at high M, not cured until the rapid folow-up trim came in, coupled with the usual transonic nose down trim and very strong nose down trim if you used flap. First off, you couldn't fire the guns at height as the flame went out. When that was cured four guns cracked the structure round the gun bay, and we were limited to two guns at a time. That fixed, they found gun firing tipped the nose down and spoilt your aim, and brought in the gun exhaust deflectors.

By this time the Hunter had become a good ground attack aircraft, but the world had moved on. The 4 struggled with the F86E and was outclassed by the F100.

Dick

[virgo]

Dick W.......Yeah, OK you're right. I suppose I should have said it was a BETTER fighter than the Swift.................but a lot prettier !

[Wwyvern]

I don't remember the Hunter being outclassed by the F100. I do remember tracking an F100 from the rear and watching as he slowly accelerated out of range by lighting his after burners.

Or am I thinking of another target?

[Treble one]

VG

Ray Hanna was indeed a pilot on 79 Squadron at RAF Gutesloh, and did indeed fly the Swift (and I assume the Meteor also, before they converted).

[Out Of Trim]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_1BXJmcdgZEw/SQcFAfvI9oI/AAAAAAAAFYw/uHp4VPjdBpk/s800/DSC_0250.JPG

[dereklynes]

I too remember the Northolt Swift. Did you ever establish its identity and/or subsequent fate?