Supermarine Swift
Thread Starter
Supermarine Swift
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.
Thankyou.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
There was a successful recon version, but I have read that even it couldn't light its reheat at high altitude
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
History can be found here.
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....
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....
N4790P
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).
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
The one at Northolt was used for wet runway trials at several airfields; it was I believe a Mk 7
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Although the Mk 5 became a fairly successful photo recce aircraft the earlier versions were an unmitigated disaster.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 Nov 2006 at 07:58.
Thread Starter
SWIFT
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.
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.
attacker
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 !
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
nose gear-less
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.
The guy I know used to fly with the naval reserves post 'tiger force'
deployment cancellation.
Ich bin ein Prooner.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Home of the Full Monty.
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swift F7
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/swif...tmainframe.htm
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/swif...tmainframe.htm
Bear Behind
Taildragging
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.
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.