Always? Well, not always.
There are not many “swing wing fighters” or even “swing wing strike fighters” to begin (SU-17/20/22, Mig-23/27, F-111, F-14 and Tornado GR1/4/FMK3). Almost all of them could be quite fast on their “home turf altitude”, but by no means they are/were the “Indisputed Speedy Gonzalez” of their age.
Any of the above mentioned would be hard pressed by a F-104, a BAC Lightning, a RA-5 Vigilante or a TSR-2, nevermind the Mig-25/31 (lets not even talk of the YF-12).
Hell, a Concorde can make a “Tonka” look like a snail.
We are here to talk about the acceleration not the top speed.
[QUOTE=Sintra;1810616]
When the wings are fully retracted the “typical” swing-wing fighter (whatever that his) will (in theory at least) have a very decent drag coefficient by comparison with its “fixed wings” companions. On the other hand the “swing mechanism” used on these aircrafts were fairly complex, heavy and they took space, so (again on theory) you could have a lighter fighter for the same size/thrust if the wings were “fixed”.[QUOTE]
There is no linear relation between only weight and acceleration.
So there you have it, its all about compromises, if you want “accelaration” above anything else, the swing wing is not for you (try something “light” with a small wing and ungodly thrust).
The Tornado Fmk3 drivers can vouch for me 😀
(yes i know, that thing is awfully fast at low altitudes)
Cheers 🙂
A lighter a/c deemed as better acceleration IS Not always.
Sign In
