There were examples of DC-3s and Neptunes with them fitted, but as above unsure when they came about.

Sorry Ken, my posts contain worse spelling mistakes in them than that even, I know it is Gripen (being a confirmed SAAB fan) put I was posting from a mobile phone from the middle of an airfield, not much of an excuse I’m afraid:o

The straight wing / swept wing issue is quite interesting, something to consider is that the 100+ mph Tiger Moth has swept wings, while 600+ Venoms and supersonic capable F-104s don’t.
In fact in planform the Venom wing is more akin to the Douglas DC-3, ie a straight wing with swept leading edges and straight trailing edges.

The Venom was just simply old fashioned by the time it arrived in service, it was initially developed because the services were afraid to order advanced types such as the DH.110 during the late 1940s, causing the situation where more basic designs would be proffered up by the manufacturers. The Venom entered service at a similar envisaged time to the planned DH.110 date (though development issues probably would have effected that), it was wholly conventional in structure, aerodynamics, and powerplant wise, and so was thought to be a safe bet, especially in ground attack.
The type really reflects that era when British procurement was very backwards looking, the Korean war caught the system unawares and thankfully more forward thinking designs were given ‘super priority’, after early wing problems the Venom did go on to give dependable service for the RAF around the world, and in some conflicts.

The Venom didn’t have swept wings, the leading edges were swept but not the trailing edge, they seem swept compared to the Vampires tapered planform.
My understanding is that DH used the ‘swept-wing’ description so that the woeful gap in British technology on the RAF’s latest fighter bomber didn’t seem quite so bad.

I’m undertaking research into another DH fighter at the moment, and from that it is obvious that the company were keen to use powered ailerons as a measure against flutter and controllability problems on higher performance aircraft with conventional mechanical controls. John Derry very keenly extolled the virtues of the technology after his experiences with the DH.108 programme.
The powered ailerons undoubtedly helped with pilots work load and augmented manouverability, but it seems that flutter (a huge and little understood problem in that era) was a big reason for employing them.

It will be operated in a different country for a start.

Don’t forget the aircrafts’ past record in the services is taken into account, not sure what the Viggens’ safety history (not the term I’m really looking for)was like but the Lightnings’ isn’t seen as great. It is a previous generation to the Tornado.
Also manufacturer/DA support, and the aircrafts systems, such as manual revision, or backup hydraulic control systems built in (as the Sea Vixen does) are all important factors.

I admire the Swedish historical flight/movement, unsure how it is operated but it really does fly types representative right across its history, both foreign and SAAB built.

Phantom intake splitter plate?

If so open house again, agree about varying the format aswel!

Fantastic and comprehensive write up and set of pictures by flyernzl, I hadn’t realised that BJHS was a Sunderland rather than a Sandringham, in a way it’s a shame she wasn’t kept as a Sunderland.

I remember the aircraft displaying at St Mawgan one year, presumably that must have been shortly after it arrived in the UK as I didn’t go to any displays later than about 1980?

That was Sandingham 4 VP-LVE, now pereserved at Southampton Hall of Aviation, in 1976, when Captain Blair was joined by his wife Maureen O’Hara.

I think that sums it up quite well Peter, the Meteor was comparitively simple, reliable, tough, and aerodynamically unchallenging, coupled with fairly reliable centrifugal engines this made for an attractive proposition for the services at the time.

As JB touches on, the Me262 was more advanced for sure, but needed the right industrial might behind it, especially in the engine department. The engines of course were of the axial flow type which went on to be the better and dominant type.
The Me also had that perfect high, midships cockpit/pilot positioning under a large mainly transparent canopy.

The Americans did come up with a supreme fighter design with the swept-wing F-86 Sabre, without a doubt, even more remarkable when you consider that it was planned as a fighter from the start. Again the pilot and canopy arrangement was superb.
However the UK had already started producing swept wing jets, the D.H.108 flew in May ’46, 17 months before the XP-86, the UKs first conventional all swept jet, the Supermarine 510 flew only 2 months later.
However these were (tricky) prototypes and their trials and tribulations only highlight the North American achievement.

It’s interesting that the fabled Miles M.52 design didn’t have a swept-wing, but featured a very thin section straight wing. Although swept wings were the way to go with ’40s & ’50s airframe technology and aerodynamics, the thin straight wing has ultimately been shown to be the best solution for high speed flight, witness the Starfighter, F-5, F-16, F-18 etc.