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.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 25th November 2006 at 07:58.