HOME | DD
BlacktailFA — Warplane Disasters! Episode 13: The Swift
#541 #air #avon #british #f1 #f2 #f3 #f4 #f7 #fighter #fireflash #force #fr5 #hawker #hunter #jet #jetfighter #missile #nene #pr6 #raf #royal #supermarine #swift #turbojet #type
Published: 2016-01-24 06:40:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 752; Favourites: 4; Downloads: 10
Redirect to original
Description
Have you ever wondered what happened to Supermarine after the 1940s, while companies like Hawker, AVRO, and Short continued to prosper and carry-on their names? As it happens, they were done-in by a blunder so colossal, even the company that developed the Spitfire couldn't survive it.That aircraft was the Swift, the first attempt by Supermarine to develop a transonic swept-wing jet fighter. It was a rejected Navy design, and was re-engineered throughout it's development to within an inch of it's life, ultimately resulting in an aircraft that handled badly, had an appalling safety record, tended to flip-over when pitching the nose up, had an afterburner that wouldn't light at it's combat altitude, and so on. The Swift also had the ignoble distinction of entering service *after* the Hawker Hunter fighter that it was meant to serve as a stop-gap for.
There are more dramatic Warplane Disasters than the Swift, but it's still pretty awful.
These are my sources for this presentation...
"The World's Worst Aircraft", by Jim Winchester (Barnes & Noble, 2005)
www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.…
www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermar…
www.airvectors.net/avsuper.htm…
www.airrecce.co.uk/postww2/ac/…
www.militaryfactory.com/aircra…
www.aviastar.org/air/england/s…
Related content
Comments: 16
Actually, didn't the few aircraft that entered service ended up as pretty decent reconnaissance aircraft? Or was that the Scimitar?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Have a gander at the rest of the presentation. One recon version of the Swift served into the early 1970s, but it was also never deployed to a combat zone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It sure wasn't the British aerospace industry's finest moment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What a way to go down they win so well in in WW2 but then they pull this shit. Its like Californians throwing pool parties to help stop drought.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This happens to all sorts of companies, particularly in the defense industry. They end up resting on their laurels for so long, that they lose the ability to manufacture products that are competitive in the present day, and end up surviving on government hand-outs without producing anything to show for it --- but only for as long as it suits the whims of the politicians then in office.
I call it "Curtis-Wright Syndrome" (read about the XP-87 Blackhawk, and you'll understand).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that thing where they took a P61 and slapped piss poor jet engine in the wings
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It looks more like the North American B-45 Tornado (the first US jet bomber), which was a contemporary of the XP-87... and which also had about the same size, weight, and thrust. ;-(
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And that is the failure the fighter moved like a bomber.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This was indeed a sad ending for the company that produced the Spitfire. For what I know, though, the Spitty's very existence was almost an accident and, in the end, its true value might have been overblown. Still a wonderful aircraft in my opinion.
The Hunter is another legend, and one that truly needed no back-up plan. As far as I know it had a few issues, but in the end it served well the militaries that bought it. I remember reading about the Arab-Israely wars and the Indian-Pakistan wars and the Hunter performed wonderfully there, gaining nothing but respect by its enemies. It also served until 2014 (albeit with limitations) in the Lebanese Air Force. Of course, the Lebanese were strapped of resources, but still it is impressive in my opinion.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how the Fireflash even works...
Finally... Is it my imrpession or does the Swift seriously recalls me of a certain modern fighter... once that can only fly under severe limitations, is already claimed to be combat ready but is nowhere near doing so, blows itself up while still on the runway- you know what I'm talking about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Spitfire was a warplane developed in a hurry, much like the Hurricane; though unlike some expedient fighter aircraft (*cough*CAC Boomerang*cough*), these were very effective in combat.
The Hunter was truly the Spitfire of it's day; fast, heavily-armed, agile enough to astonish most contemporary fighter pilots, and stunningly handsome... but also lacking in range.
As for the Fireflash, it works a lot like the AA-1 Alkali, or the early Soviet ATGMs. The pilot used a radio beam to steer the Fireflash to the target; basically, the missile's guidance system would interpret a weak signal off to one side or another as a command to turn toward the opposite side, until it had maximum reception. Of course, if you steer the beam too fast, you'll lose control of the missile! All in all, it's too complex and involved for use in aerial warfare.
A modern fighter with serious limitations, that tends to unpredictably blow-up on the runway? Nonsense! All modern warplanes are immaculate! LoL
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
They were indeed. I do like do find interesting how as the war developed they eneded up complementing each other quite well within the Royal Air Force - The Spitty kept developing faster and numbler air superiority versions, while the Hurricane, with its sturdier wing, evolved into ground attack roles, like the tankbuster of North Africa. Of course, one aircraft had more potential to be developed than the other, but still.
Yes, the Hunter was admirable. The cutaway always surprised me, seeing how much of the aircraft was "wasted" in terms of space, hence the short range. I had the same surprise with the F-84 and the A-4, where the engine is placed in the middle, allowing very little space for fuel and adding a long tailpipe that negates using that space for fuel. I know there were reasons for that, but compared with the ultra-compact modern design of aircraft it feels odd.
Evidently, there are no aircraft like that nowadays!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The A-4 Skyhawk at least was very effective in combat. The F-84 Thunderjet... not so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed, some air forces (and even a navy) still use the A4.
I know the F-84 was lackluster, and the Portuguese Air Force tried to replace them by the G.91 as soon as possible, but don't really know much more than that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The Fireflash had two large boosters which were attached to an unpowered dart which contained the warhead and guidance system. When the boosts cut out, the dart separated and coasted to the target, hopefully.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sounds like a "semi-guided" missile to me. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0