Supermarine Swift
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swift Displays
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?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Those were the days.......
Aviate 1138
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milt,
That would have been XD903, which was the first FR Mk5. It was delivered 31 May 55 and it's reported here as having been scrapped, but with no date for that event.
That would have been XD903, which was the first FR Mk5. It was delivered 31 May 55 and it's reported here as having been scrapped, but with no date for that event.
I'll mak siccar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Tir nan Og
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'".
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supermarine SWIFT F7
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
Another photo of the aircraft to be found at this link:
Photos: Supermarine Swift F7 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Can anyone shed some more light on its use in wet friction testing in the 60's?
AirlineFan Royal Air Force Swift F7 XF114 VA.9597 Photo
Another photo of the aircraft to be found at this link:
Photos: Supermarine Swift F7 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Can anyone shed some more light on its use in wet friction testing in the 60's?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attacker
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWIFT Mk.7, No. XF.114
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)
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)
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?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWIFT XF114 at Heathrow
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
1962 | 0854 | Flight Archive
1962 | 0855 | Flight Archive
1962 | 0851 | Flight Archive
1962 | 0854 | Flight Archive
1962 | 0855 | Flight Archive
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!
Damn this Altzheimers!
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Clone of Victor Meldrew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: england
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR5...?
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
Regards
390
Last edited by 390cruise; 22nd Jul 2010 at 19:10.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: sussex
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Jetex
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
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
Last edited by fleigle; 1st Aug 2010 at 20:35. Reason: spelling