XN923but no Spitfire!:confused:
http://www.gov.im/post/stamps/FutureIssue.aspx?categoryid=158
That’s a tiny bit of balance redressed then!
XN923‘We’re going to need a bigger boat’
XN923Funny, when I was a kid Amy Johnson definitely seemed to be among the pantheon of ‘great Britons’ like Captain Scott, Nelson, Florence Nightingale and so on. I remember seeing the biopic, visiting ‘Jason’ in the Science Museum, and making the cut-out 3D picture of her DH Moth from the back of a ‘Shreddies’ packet all before the age of 7. Was this me or did she go out of fashion??
…those ‘Shreddies’ things were great 🙂
XN923Skip 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.
XN923I 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.
XN923I 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.
XN923I 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…
XN923And yet everybody says what a wonderful A/C the Buccanneer was in the low level/high speed role; possibly the Falklands conflict, and Desert Storm, have shown a need (if only in the eyes of the RAF top brass), for that very type of A/C.
The Swift suffers from the DH Comet syndrome, it was a first, and it had faults, (some of those brought about by the RAF top brass rewriting spec whilst the A/C was being developed) and all the Comets crashed because of square windows……
I’m not sure I understand. The Buccaneer was designed for the naval/maritime strike role, which presupposed attacking at low level and high speed – the only change with the RAF was to do it over land as well as over sea. The Bucc was remarkably successful in its designed role and later added others. (And Desert Storm Buccs operated at medium level to avoid ground fire IIRC, and still made the Tonkas look ordinary).
The Swift on the other hand suffered from serious shortcomings in its design role that were never eradicated. Pitch-up when manouevring at high altitude, woeful rate of turn, ‘burner that could not be lit at altitude, wing that developed insufficient lift… The ‘first British-built swept-wing jet in RAF service’ is a bit of a qualified ‘first’ and somewhat negated by the F1’s rapid removal from service. Not really comparable to the Comet IMO.
I did not mean that there were no low level roles – just that the Swift only had one such role, and that a minor one that was found for it and could easily be fulfilled by other, more useful aircraft, which pretty quickly it was. I don’t believe that it was a latterday Hawker Typhoon.
XN923I do think the Swift had a greater potential in the low level roles.
What low-level roles?
The aircraft (with the Hunter) was conceived and developed as an interceptor, which at the time meant get quickly to high altitude where the ‘Bears’ played, dodge the radar-laid guns, deal with any fighter escort and shoot the bombers down. Swift could do none of the above. The tactical recon role was assigned because the Swift was there and vaguely suitable. It was soon replaced by PR versions of the Hunter which would have been developed anyway. Swifts may have won ‘Royal Flush’ but most agreed that RF was pretty useless as an indication of ability in the field.
TAC R is a fairly narrow role for an aircraft that cost the taxpayer rather a lot and was ‘super priority’ as an interceptor. There was no suggestion of developing the Swift for strike or ground attack which Buccaneers and Hunters later excelled at.
Swift FRs were an attempt to make the best of a bad job, which to be fair was what was achieved.
The 535 looked good in ‘The Sound Barrier’ though.
XN923The real tragedy as far as the Battle squadrons were concerned is that the aircrews could have been flying much better aircraft.
The RAF issued a requirement for a Battle replacement (P.4/34) which resulted in a Fairey design of a cleaned-up Battle development and Hawker’s Henley, which used several major Hurricane components. Both were stressed for dive bombing and were considerably faster and handier than the Battle. Hawker’s Henley won the specification and was put into production, only for the requirement to be cancelled. The several hundred Henleys built were converted to target towing.
Meanwhile the Fairey was suggested as a stop-gap naval fighter, initially as insurance against failure of the Roc and then to supplement and eventually replace the Skua.
While the Battle squadrons were being torn to pieces over France, Henleys were towing drogues over England, 40-50mph faster, nearly as manouevrable as a Hurricane and able to carry 1000lb of bombs internally.
XN923I wonder what would have happened if the design had been frozen at the Nene (or Tay)-engined Type 535 stage with two Adens instead of four – would the RAF have had a capable-enough ‘stop gap’ fighter between the Meteor F8/Venom and the Hunter, a couple of years before the latter came into service?
XN923The one with the Daks is beautiful
XN923xn293 wrote on cycling
Well if you don’t mind the rest of the road users pointing out that cyclists benefit from a road and cycle infrastructure for which they do not contribute in the same financial way as motorists/ motor cyclists ( rfl) Nor do they face up to the liabilities of third party cover with insurance as the above are legally required. Just an o/t thought or two 🙂
Ah, the old ‘road tax’ myth. Vehicle Excise Duty is a tax on motor vehicles, not a payment to cover road use. Motorists don’t pay for the infrastructure, all taxpayers do. Motorists pay for the privilege of putting far more wear and tear on that infrastructure than everyone else. Would you charge pedestrians for using the pavements or crossing the road?
But we are very o/t now and I’m not going to push it. Wouldn’t want to be thought of as part of a lycra clad vocal minority. I’m a cyclist, a motorist and an aviation enthusiast – why do we have to have this ‘them and us’ about everything?
XN923If this is indeed the list then cycleways gets my vote, anything that gets rid of the obnoxious gits cycling on the roads can’t be a bad thing:diablo:
Don’t suppose there is any point objecting to these rather sweeping and rude statements is there? Or pointing out the long and fruitful relationship between cycling and aviation? In a world where Jeremy Clarkson is revered, I suppose not.
XN923Technologically,the Germans led the field in design overall.
I don’t buy this. The Luftwaffe ended the war with the same basic design of main fighter it had started it with (Bf109) and another that had already flown before the start of the war (Fw190). German manufacturers utterly failed to come up with an effective strategic bomber for the entire length of the war (He177 was late and when it did arrive, a disaster). Their jet designs were in service marginally ahead of the British designs but were much less reliable. (The RAF did not put Meteors in Europe in 1944-45 in strength because they did not need to, but this has been perceived as being because it was behind the Me262. Even Vampires and Lockheed F80s barely missed the war in Europe). The German aviation industry simply wasn’t set up for long term development the way British and particularly, American manufacturers were.
The explosion of creativity seen in German industry in the latter part of the war was at best a sign of desperation and a need to make up lost ground in one jump, and at worst a dangerous distraction. For all the designs that did work, there were ten which would have never worked in a million years. The engines on the Me262 could operate 10 hours between overhauls, consuming resources and time. The Me163 was an evolutionary dead end that killed more German personnel through fuel explosions and awful in-flight characteristics than ever it shot down bombers. The RLM made big revolutionary jumps because it had to. Note that the Allies had an axial flow turbo jet during the war – the Metrovick F2. It didn’t put it into series production because the Welland/Derwent and Halford H1/2 were more dependable and easily available.
Sign In
