Flying Failures - Supermarine Swift
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Join this channel to get early access to new videos a week ahead of their public release:
/ @rorymacve
Hello all! :D
Coming as the result of an incredibly short sighted government policy following the end of World War II, the Supermarine Swift was essentially a rapidly thrown together response to the fact that Britain needed new fighters and bombers to counter the emerging threat of the Soviet Union, with the Hawker Hunter being positioned as the flagship, while the Swift would provide backup in case the Hunter failed to reach its goals.
However, the Swift proved to be a machine that was practically unflyable, with a persistent problem of abrupt pitching up making this exceptionally flawed aircraft a killer, one that saw its intended role as an RAF interceptor be curtailed within days of its service entry, though it did find later promise in the position of a low-level recon fighter.
All video content and images in this production have been provided with permission wherever possible. While I endeavour to ensure that all accreditations properly name the original creator, some of my sources do not list them as they are usually provided by other, unrelated UA-camrs. Therefore, if I have mistakenly put the accreditation of 'Unknown', and you are aware of the original creator, please send me a personal message at my Gmail (this is more effective than comments as I am often unable to read all of them): rorymacveigh@gmail.com
The views and opinions expressed in this video are my personal appraisal and are not the views and opinions of any of these individuals or bodies who have kindly supplied me with footage and images.
If you enjoyed this video, why not leave a like, and consider subscribing for more great content coming soon.
Press the Join button to get access to new videos a week ahead of schedule by becoming a channel member for just £2.99 a month!
Paypal: paypal.me/rory...
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/rory...
Thanks again, everyone, and enjoy! :D
References:
- Key Aero (and their respective references)
- Wikipedia (and its respective references)
The Hunter had plenty of problems as well. Both the Avon and Sapphire engines had many issues including on the Avon suffering from compressor stalls.
Both engines were widely adopted by US and made under licence there.
Here is your new aircraft lads - now there are a few restrictions - first is on no account are you ever to get in it
The real cause of the failure of the Swift was that it was essentially an over development of the Spitfire!
Firstly the Advanced Laminar Flow Wing was put on the Spitfire to become the Spiteful and SeaFang.
Then Supermarine decided to get a jet version of those by simply moving the Cockpit forward and putting the engine behInd the pilot with a jet pipe through the tail - that was the Attacker.
Then Supermarine took the Attacker and gave it swept wings., that was the 510, still a tailwheel sitter which showed its lineage clearly.
Tidying up the 510 and replacing the Nene with the Avon and giving it a nosewheel really is all the Swift was.
Supermarine did the same with its twin engined fighter entry and added swept wings to produce the Scimitar. another failure.
So it was a case of trying to reuse a proven design rather than taking the trouble to design a fuselage around the new engine. Perhaps the power control, afterburner and all the new tech was change enough to cope with.
And there you have put military procurement in a nutshell. The users have equipment foisted upon them which is totally unfit for purpose. Always late and over budget.
Basically Supermarine aircraft were always an evolution or upgrade of older designs. Rather than a brand new bespoke design from scratch.
@@mothmagic1 In my career, I learnt that military capability and war fighting ability wasn’t the objective of politicians (including those wearing blue suits!) but money for the armament industry was all that mattered. To the point where us blue suits on the front line were told to stop complaining as you’re upsetting the civilian contractors. Put up with the unsuitable contract.
The tail wags the dog. And I’ve never seen any other sector or industry like it.
And North American went through exactly the same with the P-51 Mustang to the FJ-1 Fury to the F-86 Sabre (and FJ-2 ect Fury’s).
Elegant shape, if nothing else.
The whole "there will be no War for X Years Rule" should have been a Warning to anyone (which at this Time should have been everyone) in Procurement, familiar with the same Rule prior to the prior War.
I had never heard of that... I shook my head in wonder when I heard it! I cannot think of a more perfect example of "burying your head in the sand"!
@@PiefacePete46 i guess it was more of a rationalisation of financial restraints then strategic thinking.
Very informative. Thanks.
It’s strange that the U.K., by the 1950’s, seems to have lost the talent of designing the right aircraft for the given specifications.
There is a DVD of the Farnborough air show during the years 1950 to 1959, and it’s a depressing thing to watch
By 1959, the U.K. was simply recycling ideas from 1950 … and to be frank, it was almost a case of ‘polishing turds’.
I wonder if the U.K. aircraft manufacture’s fall from importance was simply a case of hubris?
Same as with the UK car and motorcycle industries 🤔
@@TheFjordflier yes, no difference.
The U.K. had a commonwealth to sell to and had that benefit of a sort of ‘closed’ marketplace. I think that loyalty to buying British had gone by the mid fifties, and by the seventies, U.K. cars and bikes were inferior to those from Germany and Japan.
Some of that’s true, but Britain had just won a gruelling war which had exhausted it, and during which a lot of the supporting industry had to make-do.
Attlee's government did so much good, and yet so much bad. It's truly remarkable.
The classic British blunder of thinking the world will always follow their predictions.
@@able_archer01 Especially very much delusional at this stage where Britain was basically less powerful and USA was calling the shoots now.
@@able_archer01- it’s still part of our management culture. We do precision guesswork, in complex risk assessments; thorough financial projections which all depend on the world behaving as anticipated 😮
@@sullivanrachael
I think you mean, doing as they are told 🧐
Ah yes - Compliance! That’s another British speciality. Not allowed to deviate from the written policy!
And the Scimitar. Don't forget to watch that episode. Heroes to zeros.
Thank God we had the fridge makers to build the best interceptor jet ever made in the UK, or anywhere else:
The Lightning
Interestingly, as I type this, in a column on the right side of the screen UA-cam is offering me a video on the Lightning.
The Splash screen reads; "Aluminium Death Tube"!
*** I PAUSED HERE, AND WATCHED THE VIDEO, which is on the 'Air Force Anecdotes' UA-cam channel. ***
Flt. Lt. Simon Morris, the pilot featured in the video, praised the aircraft from the flying viewpoint. He was less enthusiastic about the amount of work expected of a single pilot, who had to manage the aircraft, nav systems, and unsophisticated radar / weapons systems. It made him a very busy boy!
I loved his quote; "You've never really been lost until you're lost at Mach 2!"
Well worth the 4:30 it took to view. ua-cam.com/video/v69ziSAAUBU/v-deo.htmlsi=xxYPuURHde0vpt2T
It looks quite good. Sure it was a bit of a mule to fly. On looks alone she can't really win against the Hunter though. Note, in my eyes, the Lightning, English Electric Lightning, was eye cancer inducing ugly. In the 80's I worked on Aden canons in the Air Force here. Loved them passionately. We used four on the single seater and two on the trainer. However, the Hunter could not shoot with all four at once. that dislodged the weapons tub in the fuselage.
I agree with your thinking on the Lightning's good looks. 😎 Even it's mother must have had a few nightmares.
However... when you are off to fight a battle, it is probably better to look like a bruiser than a beauty queen! 😜
Pretty much all early jets were as much a failure as was the Swift was, both in engine let downs and aerodynamic Ooops's. It was all too new and post war interest waining limited the results.
It is well known that the Me-262's wing sweep was as much a quick fix adjustment of the wings centre of lift for the balancing out of the eventual jet engine placements, that yeilded a pleasant surprise regards compressibility cures. After all the original prototype flew with a recip engine in the nose for back-up, which makes that aircraft CG well forward and where the initial designed wings centre of pressure was balanced.
Oh how the mighty Supermarine fell from grace with this one
Ah, yes! The hawker hunter, not only beautiful but good too! 🏴
Nice one. Supermarines downfall. Well done, again, as usual really. Thank you so much.
Supermarine's rise was all down to R.J Mitchell who was responsible for his incredible racing aircraft, flying boats and of course the Spitfire. His successor Joseph Smith was a capable enough designer but he never had a 'Spitfire moment' in him. The Attacker, Swift and Scimitar just weren't stable and cutting edge enough to keep up with the performances set by other British aerospace manufacturers, let alone the jets being developed in the US.
Supermarine jets and North British diesels...
One can see similarities in both stories, both tried to crowbar the new technologies onto old designs.
Oddly, both were beaten by English Electric.
Ah! The Classes D6100 and D6300 from NBL!
One of the early 1950s plastic model kits by the Hawk Model Co. of Chicago was a 1/72 scale kit of the Supermarine Swift.
The aircraft were removed..what about those responsible for persisting with a failure ?
More British blundering!
There’s been periods in time where aircraft procurement and fleets were entirely political driven… Capability and delivering world beating airpower wasn’t the objective, but giving taxpayer money to the production industry was.
No doubt those in charge new how bad the Supermarine jets were, but they didn’t care as long as Supermarine got a multi million £ contract. The politicians could justify it by saying hey we’ve created a few hundred jobs (for now).
The Spitfire was the only Supermarine fighter that was any good. They were a seaplane company first and foremost and when they went out of fashion, didn't really have a lot going for them.
Aircraft likeness made it
to Oldsmobile motor cars in the States. Not all in vain.
A beautiful but flawed plane remember looking over WK275 as she quietly rotted outside an army and navy store in Leominster [later saved then lost again to private storage]
That's it! That's the plane! When I was a kid I had a book that had a head-on shot of this aircraft with the caption underneath, "Jet Airplane". I never knew what type it was until now, 40-some years later.
You probably looked at it with wide-eyed wonder... now Ruairidh has burst your bubble!
@@PiefacePete46 Yeah, a wee bit. But it's still a snazzy looking flying machine for the time. Cheers!
It was certainly a thick boi.
Fed up to the back teeth of these ridiculous titles. From 1942 to 1970 the pace of aircraft development was stratospheric, an aircraft on the drawing board would be considered cutting edge but by the time the prototype flew it was usually run of the mill and by the time it made it to operational service it was obsolete. Technology was moving along at the same blistering pace with new ideas being incorporated as the aircraft was still being developed, the only thing that was still stuck in the 1930’s was the relationship between the aircraft companies, the design engineers and the test pilots.
I don't see a problem with the title. Regardless of the pace of progress, the number one thing to want from any aircraft design is that it flies well.
There are many reasons why a design might become obsolescent earlier than planned, but if it's an aircraft it should at least fly OK.
I would hardly call this example a success.
The Vertical tail has always bothered me on the Swift
Looked totally undersized & inadequate
Anyone know the reason for this?
Properly sized but looks wrong because the fuselage looks like a beer barrel. It needed to be that big with a centrifugal compressor engine, and wasn't fixed when they switched to an axial flow engine.
Fantastic video love the history
I remember seeing the Swift and Hunter prototypes at Farnborough and admiring them both. Supermarine of course was held in high esteem by members of the public such as me and we knew nothing of the technical and specification problems. On the face of it, the Swift looks as if it should work, but clearly it didn't. I had forgotten, if I even knew it, that it was in RAF service for so long, even if in a minor role.
Interesting, as always, thank you Ruairidh. I finished watching this and realised I had been shaking my head in amazement at the stubborn determination to make it work.
I guess Porsche is the obvious example of a questionable design being made to work by copious quantities of time and money... the Swift didn't have enough of either!
Looking at this aircraft it seems oddly proportioned....from a model plane builders perspective it looks like a 1/72 scale vertical stabaliser grafted on to a 1/48 scale airframe.
I last saw one 'parked' (put out to grass?) at the far end (by the road) of DH's Hatfield runway sometime in the early 1960s.
Nice work sir. Matches your rail videos for quality, and very educational as well.
Thank you for this fascinating post of an almost forgotten early British jet. What is the jet that seems to be escorting the Swift at 6.49? It looks like a Sea Hawk with a Magister V tail?
It's a Supermarine 508, that evolved into the Scimitar.
Any time I see this jet in war thunder... all I think of is "damn it looks like a chubby seal from the front."
The Swift seems to have been worse the the Me 262.
The Me-262 was at least an effective interceptor
Nope .
Uk engines plus soviet designs would have been unbeatable ❤
Soviets had some failures too. But they derived thier jet engines from the UK.
Re-heat=afterburner. I'm not sure why the RAF couldn't comply with standardized terms after WW2 . . They were never going to be what they once were after WW2 and England knew it. They should have just purchased jets from the US and saved themselves the trouble.
No Dollars in the Piggy Bank to pay for US Aircraft!!!
Because there’s never been troublesome US jets - F104 ? So popular in USAF service … they sold it to the Germans….and it continued to make widows
You seem unaware that the US bought British planes - Canberra, Harrier, Hawk even Short Sherpa.
@@uingaeoc3905 and whilst we did order American I recall the F-111 order was cancelled because of its protracted delays in development.
@@uingaeoc3905 No, I'm aware. I'm also aware that none of them were that great.
You said it was the deadliest aircraft in the RAF, due to its handling issues… were the pilots killed when it flipped back or were they able to get out to live and fight another day? 🏴
Seems the Swift in 4 years of service suffered 12 total losses in accidents with 4 pilots lost
@@matthewrowe9903 But no mention of the exploding engines or the aileron flutter.
Is there a SAAB Viggen standing there to the left of the Swift at the museum?