Swing Wing & The Tornado
 

The "swing wing" was much of the late 1960's/early 1970s and used by several military designs of which the Tornado was one of the last.

Its advantages was high speed with superior low-speed handling, long sub-sonic range and shorter runway rolls...

However against this is the weight of the swing structure and complication of the mechanism which presuably leads to higher aquisition and maintenance costs.

So would it have been possible for the Tornado to perform its strike and interceptor mission with a fixed wing...and in retrospect would that have been a better option than the swing wing.

Was the swingwing a deadend of aviation? No designs subsequent to the Tornado , F111 ,F-14, B-1 and those of contemporary Russian design have featured such technology.

Yes.

Yes.

Prior to the invention of fly by wire technology and computer driven FCS software, it was problematic to design a wing that would give a good compromise between docile low speed handling, maneuverability and low drag at high speeds without the aircraft being too aerodynamically unstable to actually fly in a controlled fashion. Swing wing was onesolution to this - but the rise of FBW meant aerodynamically unstable configured aircraft's handling issues could now be tamed, rendering swing wings as un-necessary.

Fly by wire uses computers to potentially make hundreds of adjustments to the aircrafts control surfaces every second without the pilots input, in order to ensure the aircraft remains in relatively stable flight.

That a swing wing configuration often results in a lot of additional weight, and often too a maintainance intensive airframe, is another reason its been abandoned and no new jet design since the early 1980s has seen it used.

Ah, the first attempt at the Su24 which was a TSR2 knock-off (sort of) an didn't have VG, but the second prototype morphed into a F1-11 clone after the TSR2 was binned and did. Moral of the story? Don't copy design dead ends just because the west has (had) lost grip on reality!

The microchip was the reason. All those unpleasant high/low speed handling characteristics are now modified by judicious use of computers that modify FBW handling to the point that the throttle/stick sloppy link can sit there fat, dumb, and waiting for his incentive pay - until it all goes tits up of course.

1) Yes, but less effectively.

2) No.

Reason?

Speed. Pure and simple.

Had to post to this thread simply because of my user name.:)
I don't have any experience flying the Tornado, but have plenty on the Aardvark, and the arguments are pretty similar.

All the points about FBW, handling characteristics etc are valid arguments from a test pilot perspective - but don't forget what the combat role was about when the F-111 / Tornado etc were conceived. It was all about Hi-Lo-Hi strike in Eastern Europe . The low part simply envisaged going as fast as possible - and then some. This was a very valid tactic to MEZ-deny against early generation SAM threats, and before Fox-1 faceshooters were in common usage, speed was a great tactic against airborne threats too.
Push a bandit aft of your 3-9 line, crank up the burners and forget about him!
With the wing and engine combinations available in the day, you needed reasonably pronounced sweep to extract the sort of speed we're talking about (750KIAS+ on the deck).
However, you need full aft wing to get there (72deg in the Pig) - but with the sort of wing shape we're talking about, that would produce a threshold speed of more than 300KIAS - try stopping that much jet at that speed in any reasonable runway length.
Hence, there was no option but to employ variable geometry to allow the speed ranges required - particularly since carrier landings were originally in the design brief.
Is it still valid today, given the extra weight and engineering? Not so much, since while speed is still critical in a fight, it doesn't provide the defence it used to with the advances that have been made in missile technology. Plus, the engines on jets like the Beagle etc can get fixed geometry aircraft up there anyway.
So yes, it was valid at the time, given the mission that the designers had in mind.
Also, it's really cool taxiing around with the wings back and your arm out the window.
So there.
SW

Also, consider the Buccaneer. At high speed, low level, steady as a rock up to around 630KIAS. But below 300 KIAS it became a very different beast; going from the clean configuration at 420KIAS on the break to the landing configuration required very great care and was probably the busiest part of any flight. In blown 45-25-25 configuration at datum+10, it demanded very high pilot skills indeed - it felt like trying to balance a pencil on your finger. Contrast that with FBW and the 'carefree' handling qualities of modern fast jet aircraft!

And as for TSR2, it had similar characteristics, I was told by a TP. Fabulous at high speed, but a pig to fly on the approach!

wing sweep reminder
 

DS…. Speak to the gingers and get them to install that vibrating/buzzing thing when you go to fast. I think they got the idea from the light that tells you when to change gear in a race car. :ok:

Don't forget that the good old F-4 had swing wings, albeit in the vertical plane. And the RAF only tried it in the air once, failing spectacularly.

>Zoom,
That sounds interesting matey - but I have no idea what you are on about - can you explain please?

He's referring to the time a RAF Phantom took off with the folding outer wings unlocked...... Unsuccessfully.

Another of Barnes Neville Wallis' great ideas that have come to nothing due to the holders of purse strings not being willing to take a risk.

Ah yes; the Swallow; http://www.barneswallistrust.org/swingwing.htm .

OTOH a USN F4 did indeed manage a circuit with wings folded.

If it was a carrier launch it was certainly not a carrier landing. IIRC the approach and touchdown speed was 245k.

F-4's with wings folded.
 

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3227/wingfold.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/DF4022A764289B9/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/8502544B4B0D1B7/standard.jpg
:ooh:

Swing Wing makes a good case for the F-111 but that performance was achieved at a price and a weight - c.100,000lb gross I believe.

In common with Beagle's Buccaneer both were designed with carrier landings in mind something outside the Tornado brief.

But, as we are on the subject of aircraft designed to land on carriers, how about a bigger Jaquar instead of the Tornado?

ps nice photos Focks 2

OK, so I got the approach speed wrong, but it was 40 years ago.

I remember a cyprus gun camp when we did a backseater day on the last day, we put 26 people up in the back of the jet and the last guy, our tame rockape went up black and came out white........HLWSCU faliure with the waggly bits back at 45 degrees, prepare for a fast landing...........
was a quick one but all ok, if it was me in the back the driver would be landing light one pax with the sunroof open!!! I'd be famous as the liney with a shortened spine, a court-martial and a tie from Mr Martin and Mr Baker

Woo Hoo :ok:

Et Voila, Jaguar Maritime.
http://frenchnavy.free.fr/projects/j...jaguar-009.JPG