What was really wrong with the Supermarine Swift?

Supermarine Swift;

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?&aircraft_genericsearch=Supermarine%20Swift&nr_of_rows=20&first_this_page=0&page_limit=15&sort_order=photo_id+DESC&nr_pages=2

Supermarine Swift

With regards maintenance it was like removing the back axle of a car to refuel it.

7167M – Meteor F.3 EE352.

There were about six Meteors out to grass at Halton at that time.

Mark

If only we could go back in time-I would love to have saved this one,I don’t have any records but was she ex-616 Sqn?

Going off the subject slightly, looking at the Meteor in the photo, the shape of the engine nacelle suggests a Mk3!Can anyone confirm from the M number if it is & what the original serial was?

7167M – Meteor F.3 EE352.

There were about six Meteors out to grass at Halton at that time.

Mark

RM: (Swift & Javelin were designed in case the Hunter failed to come upto expectation).
13/3/1947: ITP VS535; 23/3/47: ITP P.1052. Nene-experiments. No enemy, no urgency, no money.
3/4/1948: Marshall Aid enacted. By no co-incidence:
14/4/1948: Cabinet tasks Chiefs to repel USSR in N.Germany. With not very much money.
24/6/1948: Berlin Blockade. RAFG feels sick.
25/11/1948: ITP, P.1067 in hope of producing 2 day fighters (to be Swift/Hunter) for fly-off.
13/4/1949: ITPs, G.A.5 and DH.110 (to be Javelin/Vixen) in hope of producing 2 FAWs for fly-off.
27/1/1950: US/UK Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement. Money flowing.
26/11/1950: PRC invades N.Korea. Money cascades. Anything that flies, some that don’t, bought in quantity.

Inadequate mainplane in the punishing low level role.

Halton late 1950’s.

Mark

Going off the subject slightly,looking at the Meteor in the photo, the shape of the engine nacelle suggests a Mk3!Can anyone confirm from the M number if it is & what the original serial was?

Back to the Swift, there is a slight irony in that both production companies had a reversal in fortune I.e. the Spitfire eclipsed the Hurricane,whilst the Swift was eclipsed by the Hunter (I sure I have read somewhere that the Swift & Javelin were designed in case the Hunter failed to come upto expectation).

I have managed to keep out of this…so far!! The Swift was not as bad as everybody seems to think it was. The F1 Hunter can hardly be construed a success story with its low range, poor power, surge and gun problems. (The necessary aerodynamic fixes did detract from the F1’s incredible good looks…but functionality is important). F1s were only really in service for 3 years.

Earlier marks of the Swift were poorer, but in the F7 the aircraft was very good, however, the aircraft was heavy, the reheat system complex, the flying control system was more complex than the Hunter. Sadly my old aircraft XF113, spent most of its time at ETPS on the ground with annoying fuel leaks.

Without wishing to sound like a broken record, we will have several Hunter noses from F1 to T7 and also a Swift F7 at CockpitFest in June so come and have a looksee!

Skip bombing I understand, skip bombing with nukes….. surely not?

Sorry, ‘toss bombing’. Idea being you approach at low level, and an analogue computer sorts out pull-up and bomb release – aiming that the bomb is thrown at the Soviet ship and detonates near enough to wipe it out, far enough from the now-desperately-fleeing Bucc to avoid taking that out as well.

Under the radar approach very important.

Skip bombing I understand, skip bombing with nukes….. surely not?

I was under the impression that by the time the F.4 came along it had solved all the problems except for the inability to use re-heat at altitude, I would be amazed if this was not a problem that could be solved without too much hassle.

Most of the handling issues had been rectified, the saw-tooth leading edge and variable incidence tail had just about cured the pitch up, but performance was still poor at altitude I believe. Mock dogfights between a Sabre and a Swift proved that the latter did not handle at 30,000ft+ and when the Swift did not stall and fall out of the sky, the Sabre was easily able to get on the Swift’s tail.

I’m not sure the afterburner problems were so minor. Though I know little of jet engine issues, I believe that intake and jetpipe design would have a lot to do with it.

Perhaps I should have said …. “In the public’s perception – the Spitfire was the better, more aesthetically pleasing machine”

Good oh. I’d understood that from the public and air force point of view the Hurricane was the fighter with credibility and profile, while the Spitfire was a unknown quatity prior to W.W.II. ‘Downwind’ Gillam’s record, and the achievements (in the media) of the France Hurricane squadrons was good PR and credit to the type. Presumably at some point in 1940, the focus shifted to the Spitfire, and since then the later achievements (as well as the 1940 ones) of the Spitfire have eclipsed the previous status of the Hurricane in contemporary popular notice and air force profile.

Trying to quantify it is interesting, and I don’t have the time to wade through the contemporary views, but it would be a fascinating task.

Cheers,

IMHO, the Hurricane was the important type from 1936 – 40, the Spitfire was generally unrivalled from the Battle of Britain on.

That said, in terms of useful types (in numbers) for the RAF, Hawker’s was the company that mattered, while Supermarine had a few OK to good designs and one great design – OK two – the Walrus and the Spitfire… 😀

Camm also gave the RAF what they needed, not what they asked for and neither ended up in the wilderness from providing too good a design (Fairey’s with the Fox) or giving them what they asked for (just about anyone…).

Just opinion, of course.

I am not denigrating the Hawker Hurricane and agree with all you say.

Perhaps I should have said …. “In the public’s perception – the Spitfire was the better, more aesthetically pleasing machine”

The reverse was true of the Swift/Hunter.

Ken

Certainly no point in ‘Swift bashing’, I agree.

What do looks have to do with the aircraft’s quality, achievement, efficacy or anything useful? I’d hope the RAF got aircraft that worked and were cost effective. The Swift was neither, I understand, so if it had supermodel looks would still not salve it’s essential uselessness and failure. Governments buy art for looks – warplanes are to do a job (and move cash and employment around) pretty isn’t a factor.

The Phantom II was generally regarded as stunningly ugly in the early days, yet is one of the greatest types in history. Aviation history is full of ‘odd looking’ types that did a great job, or weren’t given a chance – the “if it looks right it’ll fly right” maxim is (IMHO) probably the most misleading statement in aviation and says more about designer and pilot conservatism than it does about aerodynamics or design.

The Swift was fundamentally flawed in its aerodynamic design, while, I understand (I’m no expert) the Hunter had problems that were solved without a back to the drawing board redesign which the Swift ‘needed’ to become any good at the job it was built for. That’s a smart choice rather than a lottery of chance ‘whatever reason’, I’d suggest.

Just curious, happy to be corrected…

Looks are highly important, no airforce or airline should ever operate an ugly aircraft and attractive aircraft should be operated irrelevant of their usefulness.;) 😀

I was under the impression that by the time the F.4 came along it had solved all the problems except for the inability to use re-heat at altitude, I would be amazed if this was not a problem that could be solved without too much hassle.

I believe the Buccaneer was originally designed to be capable of delivering a nuclear strike, (probably not in the low level role) and so can’t be seen as purely designed for low level; when it was re engined because of short comings in performance, it wasn’t suggested that there were short comings
in the original design, just that engine design had moved on.

If the swift had reverted to the 2 gun configuration,(and optimum wing shape) and was fitted with underwing missiles/stores (it had been tested up to .95 mach with combinations, with little reported affect to handling),together with a more reliable engine and reheat system, it would have been as good an A/C as the Lightning or the Hunter, (bearing in mind that the roles for these A/C changed as frequently as the RAF “top brass” meetings were held).

The RAF was spoilt for choice in the 1950’s, and there was always going to be winners and losers; look at the Vampire /Meteor competition, both first generation jets both competing for the same job, but ultimately finding their own role within the RAF.

The Buccaneer was required to approach Soviet warships at very low level to avoid radar detection, and then ‘skip bomb’ its nuclear ordnance at the enemy ships. The Gyron Junior was the best engine available for the S.1 and while the S.1 had to be refuelled after take-off when in hot climates, its mission performance did not suffer. The Spey allowed for much greater flexibility.

While true that the wing redesign to accommodate four Adens did the Swift no favours, it still suffered from insufficient lift an a fuselage that was designed for the Nene, which was much wider and shorter, and causing balance and handling headaches for VS engineers. As JDK suggested, it would never have fulfilled its potential without a total redesign. As for becoming as successful as the Hunter and Lightning, I simply don’t agree.

As far as history redressing the balance.. I’m a bit mystified by this. The Hunter was built in large volumes and served in the interceptor, trainer, ground attack fighter, air superiority and photo recon roles. The Swift was withdrawn as a fighter within months of coming into service and seven production marks produced only one successful variant, in a less important role. There is no question that the Hunter was by far the more successful aircraft.

I think the Swift would have had its place as a stop gap in place of the RAF’s Sabres had VS been able to produce the Type 535, which by all accounts had very pleasant handling and with an afterburning Nene performed about as well as a Sabre, not so good in some regimes, slightly better in others.

Maybe it was histories way of redressing the balance after WWII ??? 😀

In that conflict Supermarine had the better machine in the Spitfire – Hawker’s Hurricane always played second fiddle.

IMHO, the Hurricane was the important type from 1936 – 40, the Spitfire was generally unrivalled from the Battle of Britain on.

That said, in terms of useful types (in numbers) for the RAF, Hawker’s was the company that mattered, while Supermarine had a few OK to good designs and one great design – OK two – the Walrus and the Spitfire… 😀

Camm also gave the RAF what they needed, not what they asked for and neither ended up in the wilderness from providing too good a design (Fairey’s with the Fox) or giving them what they asked for (just about anyone…).

Just opinion, of course.

Maybe it was histories way of redressing the balance after WWII ??? 😀

In that conflict Supermarine had the better machine in the Spitfire – Hawker’s Hurricane always played second fiddle.

The reverse was true with the Hawker Hunter and the Supermarine Swift….. 😮

Ken

I believe the Buccaneer was originally designed to be capable of delivering a nuclear strike, (probably not in the low level role) and so can’t be seen as purely designed for low level; when it was re engined because of short comings in performance, it wasn’t suggested that there were short comings
in the original design, just that engine design had moved on.

If the swift had reverted to the 2 gun configuration,(and optimum wing shape) and was fitted with underwing missiles/stores (it had been tested up to .95 mach with combinations, with little reported affect to handling),together with a more reliable engine and reheat system, it would have been as good an A/C as the Lightning or the Hunter, (bearing in mind that the roles for these A/C changed as frequently as the RAF “top brass” meetings were held).

The RAF was spoilt for choice in the 1950’s, and there was always going to be winners and losers; look at the Vampire /Meteor competition, both first generation jets both competing for the same job, but ultimately finding their own role within the RAF.

I will however refrain from the Swift bashing

As will I. Just trying to be realistic. As JDK pointed out there were considerable differences between the Hunter’s problems and those of the Swift. It was a good thing that the Swift found a niche, was popular with some pilots and was at least effective in one role. Let’s not pretend that it suffered only the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune – it was a fundamentally flawed aircraft in the form it went into production while the Hunter was a superb aircraft with a few teething problems.

In relation to the aesthetics point, look at any photograph of a Hunter and a Swift in company and then tell me the Swift is attractive. Tubby waist and ‘elephant ears’? Eye of the beholder I suppose…

Alertken wrote: “to spew many Sapphires and to licence it as Curtiss J65 (F-84F, B-57).”

The Wright J65 (Sapphire 100) was also used in the FJ-4 Fury (highly modified F-86E [redesigned wing and fuselage], A-4A[B, C] Skyhawk, & F11F Tiger.

To show that production problems in a well-proven engine are not always the result of a US conspiracy, the Wright-produced J65 had a tendency to suddenly use up most of its oil, sometimes resulting in engine failure on take-off (when the oil had been filled before engine start)… and sometimes shed turbine blades to a much greater extent than UK-produced ASSa. 100s)… and the Buick-produced J65s (which went in all types using the J65 as an “second source”) would often leak oil outside the casing then ignite it… resulting in cockpits filling with smoke.

Buick had so many problems making J65s that eventually the USAF cancelled their entire production contract well before it had been filled.

This also led to the USN replacing the J65 with the J52 in the A-4E on, and in fitting the J79 in the F11F-1F “Super Tiger”, instead of upgrading to the comparably upgraded ASSa. 200 series.

The Buccaneer and the Swift are two very different beasts, the former was always intended to be a low level strike aircraft, the latter was not. I will however refrain from the Swift bashing,

Certainly no point in ‘Swift bashing’, I agree.

…becouse I have always thought it to be a very aesthetically pleasing aircraft…

What do looks have to do with the aircraft’s quality, achievement, efficacy or anything useful? I’d hope the RAF got aircraft that worked and were cost effective. The Swift was neither, I understand, so if it had supermodel looks would still not salve it’s essential uselessness and failure. Governments buy art for looks – warplanes are to do a job (and move cash and employment around) pretty isn’t a factor.

The Phantom II was generally regarded as stunningly ugly in the early days, yet is one of the greatest types in history. Aviation history is full of ‘odd looking’ types that did a great job, or weren’t given a chance – the “if it looks right it’ll fly right” maxim is (IMHO) probably the most misleading statement in aviation and says more about designer and pilot conservatism than it does about aerodynamics or design.

and becouse its early problems seem no more severe than those of the Hunter. For whatever reason the Hunter won the day and the Swift all but fell from th pages of History. As you say though, as nothing but a tactical recon aircraft it was very expensive!:eek:

The Swift was fundamentally flawed in its aerodynamic design, while, I understand (I’m no expert) the Hunter had problems that were solved without a back to the drawing board redesign which the Swift ‘needed’ to become any good at the job it was built for. That’s a smart choice rather than a lottery of chance ‘whatever reason’, I’d suggest.

Just curious, happy to be corrected…