Why Aren't Swing Wing Aircraft Made Any More?

Go to ground.news/droid to access data-driven information from around the world. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off the Vantage plan for unlimited access. From the mid-60s up to 1981, swing-wing aircraft led the way for new multirole aircraft that combined the low-speed stability and efficiency of a straight wing with the high-speed performance of a swept wing and led to some of the most famous fighters and bombers of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. But from 1981 onwards not a single new aircraft was built with a swing-wing design. In this video, we look at why this happened.
To give one off tips and donations please use the following :
www.buymeacoffee.com/curiousd...
or paypal.me/curiousdroid
/ curiousdroid
This video is sponsored by ground.news/droid
Written, Researched, and Presented by Paul Shillito
Images and footage: Images and footage : General Dynamics, USAF, US Navy, RAAF, RAF, Grumman, US DoD
And as always a big thank you also goes out to all our Patreons :-)
Eριχθόνιος JL
Adriaan von Grobbe
Alex K
Alipasha Sadri
Andrew Gaess
Andrew Smith
Bengt Stromberg
Brian Kelly
Carl Soderstrom
Charles Thacker
Daniel Armer
erik ahrsjo
Florian Muller
George Bishop II
Glenn Dickinson
inunotaisho
Jesse Postier
John & Becki Johnston
John A Cooper
Jonathan Travers
Ken Schwarz
L D
László Antal
Lorne Diebel
Mark Heslop
Matti Malkia
Patrick M Brennan
Paul Freed
Paul Shutler
Peter Engrav
Robert Sanges
Ryan Emmenegger
Sirrianus Dagovax
stefan hufenbach
Steve Ehrmann
Steve J - LakeCountySpacePort
tesaft
Tim Alberstein
Tyron Muenzer

[@CuriousDroid]

Go to ground.news/droid to access data-driven information from around the world. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off the Vantage plan for unlimited access.

[@MADmosche]

You are still calling people your “patreons” 😂 Your patreon subscribers are “patrons”.

[@liquidiced]

Hi Paul! I’ve been watching your channel for many years and absolutely love the videos you make. I think I’ve seen all of them! Your style of presentation, speaking voice, impartial approach, article research, shirts, and obviously topics of interest have kept me watching. That said and as much I do actually enjoy Ground news, the segways in to the advertisements have become a tad more jarring as of late. Maybe it’s just me, maybe not. Perhaps a poll would help 🤷🏼‍♂️ In this video, the transition was so seamless that I actually skipped it immediately as soon as I realised. My suggestion and something I’ve seen work on other channels, is to include a little info box that states ‘Advertisment’. It lets the viewers know that the information now on screen is NOT the subject matter, and tunes them in to what you’re saying about the advertisement, and might lead to more conversions to the sponsor link. Maybe 🤷🏼‍♂️ Just a thought. I might be wrong.

[@molnibalage83]

@@liquidiced Meanwhile the video is totally inaccurate at the end. The stability / instability and having swing wing are totally separated features. The point of the swing wing the optimized wave and transsonic drag which is also has noting to do wit the stability. If you really interested in the topic I rather recommend the Militavia channel.

[@gringostarr69]

Have no trust on 99% of those media outlets that was shown on your advertisement. And not talking about cognitive biase. Thank you Paul from good and informative video though - again! Miss your moogs a lot! Cheers from Finland chap!

[@jochenheiden]

You’re a shameless shill for this BS company.

[@RaderizDorret]

They were ditched because the cost of maintaining them was insane. The F-14's maintenance cycle was 50 hours of wrench time for each hour of flight time.

[@Pete292323]

Soooo... easier to maintain than an f-22?

[@clydemarshall8095]

@@Pete292323without the stealth and newer electronics. And with modern avionics and engine, I’m not sure there’s much need for variable geometry wings.

[@faragar1791]

@@Pete292323 I doubt it. Swing wing aircraft usually need hydraulics in order to move the wings. Military aviation hydraulics need to withstand extreme heat and cold. This means that military aviation hydraulic liquids are usually some of the most toixc cancer causing chemicals known to man. They are very dangerous to work with during maintenance. An F-22 might take longer to service, but at least you don't have as many moving hydraulics parts as an F-14. Edit for spelling.

[@sferrin2]

Nope. The Tomcat was plenty complex even taking swing-wings out of the equation.

[@sferrin2]

@@faragar1791 Uh-huh. 🙄

[@josephpiskac2781]

I am 71 years old and it is amazing to have lived through the rise and completion of various technologies.

[@88_TROUBLE_88]

Hell of a perspective you've undoubtedly gleaned from that period of time..

[@KarmaMechanic988]

When we were kids and the TV didn’t function, we unscrew the back yank the plugs and took them on our bicycles to the hardware store. Plug them into the tube tester and got a new one. It seems 100 years ago.

[@oeliamoya9796]

Joseph I hope you live all the way to 120. Or long enough to see the completion of the first lunar base. To have a colony on the moon - now that is the future!

[@lorentzinvariant7348]

If I may, I would like to suggest a topic. The humble slide rule. Back in the day, they were a pretty big deal. Being a slide rule collector and enthusiast, I can also say emphatically, there are things you can do with a slide rule that are impossible on a calculator. If you really understand them, they can be quite powerful. And they were used to build the modern world.

[@rivetjoint6355]

My dear old dad was an EE with AT&T and would often refer to his trusty slide rule fondly as his guessing stick.

[@petesheppard1709]

The SR-71 was designed with slipsticks and in some ways, it STILL has not been surpassed!

[@lorentzinvariant7348]

A lot of things you see on Curious Droid were designed with slide rules. There were some several feet long that had the precision of some calculators. A 20 inch Keuffel & Esser log log duplex was a very powerful calculating tool.

[@RCAvhstape]

I have three of them, sometimes still use one at work when I'm too lazy to reach for my calculator.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

@@lorentzinvariant7348 Harold Wilson used to use a six-footer in making plans for the UK -- which is insane since nothing in economiics is good for more than about two significant digits.

[@robertborglund5783]

The F-14 Tomcat had 6000 moving parts, the F-18 had 1700.

[@paulstewart6293]

How many moving parts does a human body have? And how much time does it need for maintenance after use?

[@mack3579]

@@paulstewart6293the body self regenerates 😮

[@paulstewart6293]

@@mack3579 That's a good trick. Maybe we should try making things like that. They'll eat anything.

[@jayqontaviousshabooba8024]

@@paulstewart6293they actually already have! there is a robot that can feed off organic matter! (unless you mean self maintenance)

[@miamijules2149]

Yeah but the F-14 had TopGun and Tom Cruise…. that was bound to add to weight, maintenance and logistical complexity.

[@paulholmes672]

On the F-111 aircraft, we seldom had any maintenance issue regarding the swing mechanism nor the items to accommodate it in the fuselage. Yes, we had major wing carry through box issues early on, but the design was sound, just the issue of welding embrittlement bit us in the butt, big time, and we lost a few crew, unfortunately, again, early on. IIRC (I was an Aircraft Production Superintendent) at most we had to keep an eye on the over wing fairing systems, but it was never, ever a chronic issue like some of the early avionics and stab actuators, just a check for wear on pre & postflights.

[@miamijules2149]

It’s good to see maintainers receive, slowly but steadily, well-deserved praise for keeping these machines flying. It’d be hard enough if these were Soviet or Russian jets - which fly with the equivalent of duct tape and bubble gum - but for American or NATO airplanes it’s no small damn feat.

[@lordvalentine471]

I agree with this I was a hydraulic mechanic on these at Mountain Home Air Force Base from 1986 to 1989 we did do a lot of Maintenance I think it was 12 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight but by then this program was kind of headed towards the end of its life flew the s*** out of them during Desert Storm though they were highly successful

[@jj4791]

I think the issue is, once the conceptual designers resort to large expensive complexities such as swing wing geometry. At that point, everything else is allowed to value complexity over simplicity.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

The 'carry through box' issues were eventually solved by RAAF engineers, who figured out how to do a Carbon Fibre Overwrap on them, so the CF took the stretch loads and the metal took the compression and flex loads. It's the reason why the US tried to force a sale of the Aussie jets back to the manufacturer, to pull the boxes apart and try to reverse engineer them. Story goes that when the jets few back to the US for some maintenance tasks, the original boxes were refitted, as the Carbon over-wrap technique used was classed as a National Secret at the time.

[@PiDsPagePrototypes]

@@lordvalentine471 I wonder, spitballing here, with SpaceX's Starship using Tesla Model S motors and gearboxes to drive it's wing-flaps up and down, if an electrically driven mechanism with that amount of torque could replace the large mass of hydraulics used to swing the wings? And if so, would it be lighter?

[@phoenixrising4073]

Small correction; it's B-47 Stratojet not Stratofortress. Great video, I miss watching this channel regularly. Please keep making more videos

[@duartesimoes508]

Yes, Stratofortress is the B-52, but for everyone in the universe it's the BUFF... 😀

[@ryanjohnson3615]

That "Swallow" design @10:31 is gorgeous... I wonder where that model is now.

[@Andy_Novosad]

It only looks cool, but in reality it is a horrendous design. The asymmetrical thrust in case of the engine failure on one side, especially at low sweep angles, would cause an instant catastrophe.

[@Shinzon23]

It looks like something from the 1980 sci-fi era only 30 years early ​@@Andy_Novosad

[@RCAvhstape]

@@Shinzon23 It looks like something from Thunderbirds Are Go

[@benoregan3318]

It’s at Royal Air Force Museum Midlands, at RAF Cosford. A few other interesting concept models with it as well.

[@ryanjohnson3615]

@@Andy_Novosad I'd think the jets could be closer to the body, or within it. But yeah kind of looks like it would be like trying to push wet spaghetti.

[@trustnoone81]

I feel that saying "In 1947 Busemann moved to the US" is underrepresenting the scope of Operation Paperclip somewhat.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

excellent comment... the british dont like to be reminded.

[@trustnoone81]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Honestly, none of us like to be reminded.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@trustnoone81 Operation Paperclip and Operation Lusty boosted America a decade ahead of the rest of the world in aerospace technology

[@suprememasteroftheuniverse]

I feel that you need more therapy and someone to give you your medicines so you don't forget.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@suprememasteroftheuniverse Operation Paperclip was monumental program and the largest transfer of technology between two countries in human history. Germanys aerospace industry was packed up and move en masse to the United States, thousands of personnel, thousands of tons of data, test equipment, vehicles and entire factories and research facilities were brought to America.

[@chrissmith2114]

The English Electric lightning made do with almost no wings at all, pilots used to joke that the the Lightnings wings were only there to space the navigation lights apart.

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

Thinking of the F-104 as well. The wings look almost comical.

[@xponen]

The English Electric Lightning seems superior to the F-104 for several reasons. The Lightning reaches Mach 2.3 compared to the F-104's Mach 2 speed. Additionally, it boasts a larger wingspan of 10 meters, providing better stability and maneuverability, compared to the F-104's shorter 6-meter wingspan. Furthermore, the Lightning has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.74 compared to the F-104's 0.54. It's puzzling why the F-104 was designed with its stubby wings if it doesn't achieve higher speeds than the Lightning.

[@duartesimoes508]

The F-104 was an outstanding jet but a lousy Fighter and combat aircraft. She had a formidable climb rate but apart from that everything was downhill. Everytime the Starfighter entered combat her performance was lacklustre and I'm not even going to dwell into how an unforgiving aircraft she was. The Luftwaffe above all others was screwed big time with the contract, losing - I believe - 292 aircraft out of 916. This is horrendous. But even Air Forces who didn't play with the aircraft's wing load had an unacceptable rate of accidents too. RCAF namely.

[@duartesimoes508]

​@@xponenyes, but remember that the Lightning had two jet engines, possibly each one more powerful than the J-79. The Starfighter had just one.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

@@duartesimoes508part of the Luftwaffe’s problem was that Lockheed tried to sell them an interceptor with bombs slapped on to make a strike aircraft. It wasn’t bad at what it was built to do, it was just bad at what it was forced to do.

[@AdamJRichardson]

Man the Vickers Sparrow looks like it's straight out of Thunderbirds. Amazing!

[@matthewmulcahy4402]

...or did the T-birds come from the Vickers Sparrow?

[@rogerking7258]

TB1 was actually a swing wing design and they made a marvellous overhead shot of it deploying the wings to their forward position for the first ever episode.

[@windowboy]

Being from Brisbane, the F111 were quite popular with the annual fireworks festival in the CBD. The big dump and burns were quite the spectacle

[@ProjectSerpo90]

Yes they are. I grew up in the 90s so the F-14 Tomcat has always had a special place in my heart.

[@scroopynooperz9051]

It only became iconic because of Top Gun 😂 People wouldn't have this fixation with it if it wasn't for nostalgia.

[@ProjectSerpo90]

@@scroopynooperz9051 It became iconic to me because me neighbor flew F-14s in VFA-103 and used to give me patches from his squadron when i was a kid and he gave me a toy model of a Jolly Roger F-14. I saw Top Gun after the fact. And so what how it became iconic to people? I don’t understand whats funny about that or why it matters, it was still a damn good bird that served the Navy well for many years.

[@AtheistOrphan]

The F-14 is one of my favourite aircraft and is still the pride of the Iranian Air Force. (The only export customer for the type).

[@Chris_at_Home]

I first saw the F-14 flying in the spring of 1972. It was getting phased out in the 1990s.

[@kitsunehouse3504]

@@scroopynooperz9051 it was robotech (macross) for me

[@richardconway6425]

Hey Paul, may I suggest that you do an episode on *torpedoes* ? I've always been fascinated by these things, but not really understood them, especially how they made them effective in ww2 era given that they were unguided. Some of the modern designs are insane, like the super-cavitating rocket propelled ones. Anyway, thanks for the video, fascinating as usual.

[@shanent5793]

WWII torpedoes were guided, they at least had gyroscopes and a programmable heading. Homing torpedoes were also used in the war. One thing I found interesting about their development was that they needed very robust vacuum tubes that could survive impact with the water after the torpedo was dropped from an airplane. Instead of glass envelopes they were placed inside of cavities machined out of a metal block, and the filaments were overdriven to reduce warm up time so they could be lit immediately after hitting the water

[@richardconway6425]

@@shanent5793 yep, that's interesting stuff. I didn't know any of those things. Homing torpedoes? I hadn't heard of those either. What exactly were they 'homing' on to ?

[@shanent5793]

@@richardconway6425 the mechanical noises of the ship's engine and drive were quite distinct so the homing torpedoes would attack the source of those noises

[@tz8785]

For a quick fix, Drachinifel has a video on the history of torpedoes until WW1 and two specific models of WW2.

[@simongeard4824]

@@richardconway6425 Occasionally, the submarine which fired them. The US Mk14 torpedo was infamous for a long list of reasons, one of which was that it would sometimes swim in circles... the only time at which crews would be happy about the notoriously-unreliable detonator...

[@maxsmodels]

Swing wings were an aerodynamic solution that have since been surpassed with superior powerplants, flight computers and far more advanced aerodynamic designs. Advances in materials have aided that greatly. Herr Busseman looks like a Hollywood casting directors idea of a German scientist.

[@fredmyers120]

Great point. The F-104 didn't have a true swept-back wing, but was supersonic

[@tz8785]

@@fredmyers120 The F-104 wings were thin and sharp like the wings of the X-1.

[@tuunaes]

@@fredmyers120 F-104 also got name Widowmaker, because that tiny thin wing with little lift made it hard for landing and take off and maneuverability was propably at level of potato making for lots of accidents. It was basically good only for flying in straight line.

[@PaulVerhoeven2]

That is not true. All the advances in engines and aerodynamics could still be applied to a variable-swing aircraft, and it would still have much wider flight envelope everything else being equal. Because physics. Variable angle is not free, but neither is NOT having it. While fixed-angle is cheaper to build, it either cannot attain the same high speeds at all altitudes, or cannot fly as slow, or (as in most real examples) BOTH. The latter (lack of low speed) costs you dearly as you need longer runways, For Navy aircraft it means you need supercarriers instead of regular aircraft carriers (SO EXPENSIVE!) and much more powerful catapults and arrestors, necessitating heavier running gear.

[@gort8203]

If you think swing wings have been surpassed you misunderstand their purpose. There isn't a non- VG aircraft that approaches the aerodynamic efficiency of a VG wing over a wide flight envelope. Quite literally the aircraft gets to use a different wing for the flight regime in which it is operating at any given moment. Bombers like the F-111 and B-1 had swing wings because they can lift more and fly further while retaining the ability to go very fast when necessary. You can go that far with a big high aspect ratio wing or you can go that fast with a small low aspect ratio wing, but you can't do both with a single wing. Aerodynamics didn't change, the mission profile changed.

[@geneballay9590]

very interesting. I learned a lot (as has been the case on all of your other videos). Thank you for all the work and then sharing.

[@dmac7128]

The Tomcat is my favorite of the swing wing aircraft. For a big aircraft is was quite maneuverable at low speeds with the wings straight. It had the first microprocessor (custom made) that controlled a flight computer that governed the wing sweep. The Tomcat's wing sweep was automatically set by the computer based on aerodynamics at any given moment. I would imagine the hinged design limited their max g more than what later aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 were limited to. And there was more maintenance required for them than ones with a fixed sweep or delta wing.

[@ieuanhunt552]

It's so cool seeing the wings hanging like that during all those crazy maneuvers. You'd think they'd only want to do that during level flight. Though I can hear all the maintainers wincing whenever they see it. Must have been a right ball ache to service all those hydraulics.

[@jj4791]

The F-14 was rated for something to the tune of +6.5g at combat weight. But was known to survive nearly 13g at low weight, in an emergency situation. (Bent/written off).

[@Solidboat123]

Actually thanks to the lifting body fuselage (i.e. the 'tunnel' between the engines), as G increased load on the wings dropped off as the fuselage's lift contribution increased kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6DPn4uQo9xlmbs&ab_channel=FighterPilotPodcast 55:30 is the timestamp for the relevant bit if you don't fancy watching the whole thing

[@Solidboat123]

@@jj4791 Originally 7.5G (same as the F/A-18 incidentally), later reduced to 6.5 to try and extend the life of aging and irreplaceable airframes. There are HUD videos out there of Tomcats pulling 8-9G in displays with no issues.

[@AtheistOrphan]

The F-14 is one of my favourite aircraft and is still the pride of the Iranian Air Force. (The only export customer for the type).

[@saintuk70]

Great video as always, thank you.

[@etep878]

I am a struggling aeronautical engineering student. Your videos keep me motivated in my darkest moments,

[@spiritusinfinitus]

Fantastic video. You've just successfully answered every question this ex-7 year old kid had after constructing his Airfix Tomcat many decades ago!

[@ancliuin2459]

I've asked myself that question quite often - thanks for the enlightenment!

[@jj4791]

Swing-Wing aircraft CAN accelerate through the Mach and transonic regime like few others can, given the same amount if thrust/weight ratio, a swing wing will blow the doors off an equivalent fixed wing jet, except deltas. (Which can't land anywhere near as slow). Bottom line: Delta is the best. Swing-wing performs similar at high mach. But can land far slower and handle better at low speed.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

Yeah, the low speed performance of a straight or back swept wing and the high speed performance of a delta wing. That is flight performance, not carrying performance. The weight of the swing mechanism is weight that can't be used for bombs or fuel, so a swing wing design will have less range and/or payload capacity than a fixed wing design. Plus the mechanic means higher manufacturing and maintenance cost.

[@MyNewUserName47]

@@HappyBeezerStudios the F14D had a longer range/flight time than the F18 super. it also had both a higher cruise & top speed, a bit faster rate of climb & a higher ceiling. with the 14 carrying over 1,000 gallons more fuel(about 7~8,000 pounds more) the 18 had about 3,000 pounds more payload than the 14. on the ground, the 18 had both a shorter take off and landing distance. the gross takeoff weight of the 18 was about 10,000 pounds lighter than the 14.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

I would contend that advances in aerodynamic design actually had very little to do with swing wings disappearing. Most swing-wing aircraft actually had more complex flaps and slats than the fixed geometry aircraft that replaced them, often including double and triple Fowler flaps and real slotted slats instead of just leading edge droop. Leading edge extensions that many modern fighters have their roots in the wing gloves of swing-wing aircraft and the double delta of the Sweedish Drakken from the same era. The F-14 was the odd one out as the only production swing wing air superiority fighter or interceptor, and only because as a naval interceptor it needed to combine an interceptor's speed with long loiter times and unrefueled range. the F-15, which was designed around the same time for the same role, except for the airforce, which has much more refueling capacity, had no need for swing wings. Basically every other swing-wing aircraft was a strike aircraft designed to fly fast at low level to avoid radar. The faster you go, the bigger your wings, and the less sweep, the more turbulence throws you around, so going supersonic under 500 ft requires extremely small and highly swept wings so the aircraft stays controllable and doesn't exceed its G limits going that fast in low-level turbulence. The F-105, which was the last pre-swing-wing plane to play that role had a takeoff and landing speed of around 230 mph, a full 100mph faster than the swing-wing aircraft that replaced it. swing wings both increased lift for takeoff and landing themselves and allowed extreme flap configurations to be mounted so that they could takeoff and land at forward bases with less than 6000 ft (2000m) of runway. It also made low-level supersonic strategic bombers like the B-1, Tu-160, and Tu-22 possible at all. Just as an interesting aerodynamic note, the concord represents about the maximum size for a supersonic aircraft without a swing-wings regardless of its engines. large aircraft have to use delta wings because blade-like wings don't have enough bending strength. those delta wings (with or without a tail or canards) have a significant bleeding edge angle, so as the wing gets bigger, its span and area is limited by how long the wing root is. Because area scales with length squared while volume scales with length cubed, if you tried to get bigger than the concord with a delta wing, the wings would have to be longer than the plane, which obviously doesn't work. What killed swing wings from a military perspective wasn't improving aerodynamics or engines so much as improving electronics, mostly for cruise missiles that could do the same job better and with less risk without having to worry about takeoff or landing.

[@jj4791]

That's a great comment, lot's of detail. But I disagree (slightly). The reason the F-14 needed a swing-wing was for mach 2.4 performance while being able to land on a carrier under manual control of the pilot directed by a signal officer in all weather. It had to get slow. And it had to go fast. And it had to do both with a heavy weapon and fuel load. Swing wing is practically the only way to make this happen. No naval jet can reach or exceed mach 1.6-1.8 without swing wings.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

@@jj4791 there actually was a proposal for a Naval F-15 with bigger wings that I think would have had a similar landing speed to the modern superhornets, which are still landed manually, or at least were until very recently. A naval jet could exceed 1.8 without swing wings, F-4 Phantom did. it actually served alongside the tomcat for a long time, particularly on the smaller carriers the F-14 wouldn't fit on when we still had.

[@spinningsquare1325]

"f-14 only fighter interceptor built with swing wing" Bs, rest of the comment invalidated. There is mig-23

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

​@@spinningsquare1325 you're right. I don't know soviet planes very well. Siberia does impose a lot of the same challenges as the ocean, so I guess it makes sense.

[@robertoblanco3494]

Excelent video, the first one I watch from this channel, it is very professional, well explained and documented. Congratulations and thanks from my part.

[@Gigalisk]

Always good to see you Paul. Big up on beating cancer you GENT!!

[@philiphumphrey1548]

I imagine the biggest problem with swing wing is when the wings move back the centre of lift also moves back and the trim has to be adjusted. Presumably it's most in balance in at the most commonly used speed and setting.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

John Boyd studied the swing Wing concept at length, and concluded that additional weight and complexity, was not worth it. On the other hand, he never had to land on carriers.

[@gort8203]

Was not worth it for the F-15, but definitely worth it for the F-111 and B-1. The mission requirements drive the wing design, and the F-15 mission was completely different.

[@maxvaessen]

Thanks for all you do! ❤ hope you are doing well

[@Simonize41]

Marvellous! I love Paul’s aviation episodes, they are well put together and are a great watch. Right up my street.👍🏻

[@orangelion03]

A mention of Grumman's first swing-wing project should have been included...the XF10F Jaguar.

[@nozrep]

oh wowww that swallow one was sooooo pretty! I also would wish to hear the man’s voice presenting that swallow aircraft in that video clip. I’ll bet it’s that simply delightful 1940s/1950s type of British accent that I love to listen to clips of!

[@JWQweqOPDH]

Do you mean the Mid-Atlantic accent that was invented and taught to voice actors and presenters?

[@justincase5272]

Excellent, accurate and in-depth coverage! Thank yu.

[@woof355]

Thanks for a very interesting and well made video!

[@garryb374]

You said since 1981 no new swing wing aircraft have been built. The Tu-160 didn't enter service till 1987 and it is currently in production. The Tu-22M3 remained in production into the 1990s

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Those were old designs, though, so they weren’t “new” by all definitions.

[@JWQweqOPDH]

He's only counting the first ones built. Continued production of a pre-1982 design doesn't count.

[@JohnPreston888]

I see your point, but it has provoked debate. Semantics. "Built" meaning "assembled" and yes, I agree, they have been built since 1981, despite the newer designs - without swing-wings - becoming the norm. But if he had qualified it to have the emphasis on "design", then it would have been less contentious. (It's good that he does state that swing-wings (i.e. variable geometry) are still in service today.)

[@harbingerdawn]

That annoyed me too, he should have said no new swing-wing designs have flown since 1981. The bit about the Tu-160 at the end just makes his intended meaning even less clear.

[@castlerock58]

@@Justanotherconsumer That is irrelevant. They are still being made which is what is being claimed here.

[@anngo4140]

I always thought the added weight, the taken space for potential fuel and avionics, the structural compromises and added maintenance challenges negated the benefits.

[@matthewnewnham-runner-writer]

As a former F-111 fighter jock, this was an enjoyable watch. Thanks for your insights and best wishes from Spain.

[@mste456]

brilliant vid mate, keep erm coming

[@Tom-Lahaye]

Not only the B-1 and Tu160 remain in service, but I see Panavia Tornado's flying over my house on an almost daily basis. They are of the German Luftwaffe.

[@leschroder7773]

Also the fencer which is also still in service

[@immikeurnot]

@@leschroder7773 And lots of countries still using the MiG-23. And Iran still has F-14 that are maybe still operational.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

If it works, it works. It takes time for a new, cheaper to maintain plane to balance out the purchasing cost.

[@grahambuckerfield4640]

The B1B’s frontal radar signature was smaller than a Cessna 172, likely due to the propeller which always really shows up on radar. This was demonstrated with comparisons at the 1987 Paris Air Show by Rockwell, just after a German teenager had flown a Cessna right into the USSR and landed in Red Square, the Soviets would have had a delegation at the show.

[@matthewdavies2057]

Mathius Rust. What balls that kid had. Red Fucking Square in broad daylight.

[@shanent5793]

@@matthewdavies2057 just stupidity. His true character was known after he stabbed his co-worker

[@jj4791]

Interestingly, I never heard of this story. In spite of being interested in US/Soviet relations, fall of the wall history, and a fan of general aviation. Based on my amateur/armchair psychology, I would say this Rust person might be a psychopath. Clearly a driven and motivated individual accomplishing interesting feats. Clearly lacks regard for any and all laws. Or of any real dangers of reality itself. Lacks any and all empathy, stabbed a female co-worker for rejecting him. His parents appear to have sold his exclusive story before he arrived back home. What kind of parents would capitalize of their captured son before he returned? (Bad mothers/not good enough mothers, see Prof. Sam Vaknin for a professional explanation on how this is the driving mechanism which creates Psychopaths).

[@rickgpz1209]

@@shanent5793 indeed, he is garbage. On 24 November 1989, while doing his obligatory community service (Zivildienst) as an orderly in a West German hospital, Rust stabbed a female co-worker who had rejected him. The victim barely survived. He was convicted of injuring her and sentenced to two and a half years in prison, but was released after 15 months. wiki

[@clc2328]

Russia STILL can't stop light aircraft in its airspace.....pilot or not

[@richardbrayshaw570]

Thanks Paul, another great video. Now I'm off to binge on Panavia Tornado stuff!

[@skeelo69]

With the plethora of military channels on KZbin...it takes Paul to deliver the goods...Excellent video 👍

[@allandavis8201]

Having worked on the Tornado for a few years I would speculate that the reason for variable geometry wings fell out of favour was the complexity of the swing wing mechanical and hydraulic systems, especially the hydraulic system, and why do I say that?, well plainly speaking it was a complete pile of 💩 to get at, remove and install components and a complete sack of Sh1t, but that is just my opinion and probably has more to do with advancements in aerodynamics and technology systems. Out of all the “swing wing” aircraft types built the best looking is the B-1B Lancer/“bone” it just looks fantastic and vicious, something that it definitely is, and it will be a sad day, for aviation enthusiasts, when the bone is finally put out to grass.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

Cost and need.

[@stevesullivan9377]

Swing wing aircraft are cool AF.

[@UndeadKIRA]

I just loved seeing the wings change on Ace Combat, super cool

[@carlossaraiva8213]

Only in a Thunderbirds world. Our technological advances made them obsolete.

[@stevesullivan9377]

@@carlossaraiva8213 it doesn’t stop them from being cool.

[@carlossaraiva8213]

@@stevesullivan9377 tell that to the maintance crew of those planes. They hated them with a passion.

[@stevesullivan9377]

@@carlossaraiva8213 I couldn’t give a shit about the maintenance crew. The planes look cool,

[@pianniello]

hope your health is good. cheers. watching now 1m after publishing and im sure this is wonderful content as always.

[@jefskijeff.7729]

Thank you for your amazing work and knowledge.

[@jedidrummerjake]

The F-16 is still the coolest looking plane there is! ❤

[@andersjjensen]

Agreed. It looks like it want to go fast and do wild turns.

[@kineticstar]

Weight and stealth requirements is my best guess.

[@RaderizDorret]

Nope. Maintenance costs. The F-14, for example, requires 50 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight time. This trend continues today with the B-1B being notoriously difficult to keep flying with lower readiness rates compared to the B-52 or B-2

[@genericscottishchannel1603]

@@ideadlift20kg83 have you seen the F-111?

[@mostevil1082]

​@@RaderizDorret Your "nope" is incorrect. It does make stealth features difficult and less effective and adds weight. The swing mechanisms and wings deforming do need more maintenance but it's definitely not only that.

[@clydemarshall8095]

@@ideadlift20kg83the F-111 did have wing mounts for ordnance and equipment. They pivoted as the wings did to keep said arms parallel with the fuselage.

[@RaderizDorret]

@@mostevil1082 The Navy disagrees with you because they specifically cited the massive expense in keeping the Tomcat operating for retiring it 4 years early (retired in 2006 vs the originally planned 2010) and accelerating procurement of Super Hornets.

[@fredericklee4821]

A very concise and through presentation. Thanks.

[@mpmyprojects6687]

Funny how I askes myself this exact question a couple of days before this video appeared and here we are. Thanks for the detailed information!

[@radioactive9861]

One thing not mentioned in this video about 'swing wing', and I'll make this point specifically about the F14... I have learned a lot about dogfights by watching DCS videos(specifically: Growling Sidewinder(aka: GS)). GS loves the F14, however, when GS dogfights against the F14 he points out certain things about it, specifically: you can get a pretty good 'read' on how fast the F14/swing wing aircraft is flying based on the geometry of it's wing(ie, the F14 is slow when it's wings are straight and fast when it's wings are swept). This is very good information if you are the adversary aircraft(knowing the approximate speed of your enemy aircraft allows you to make the correct maneuvers to put your aircraft in an advantageous position to kill your enemy). somethingtothinkabout

[@torginus]

This sounds like an info a modern doppler radar would just tell you.

[@kc5402]

If you're a pilot who needs to get close enough to an enemy to see its wing sweep before you can make an estimate of its flying speed, then you're not qualified to be a combat pilot! I'm afraid your post is just silly, @radioactive9861 !

[@kbm2055]

@@kc5402 I remember "Snort" Snodgrass would often manually move his wings to disguise his speed so at least at the time it wasn't necessarily so silly.

[@radioactive9861]

@@kc5402 CONTEXT kc...I'm referring to an in close turning dogfight...learn something before you submit a silly post, kc...GEEZ!

[@radioactive9861]

@@torginus Yes, but in a turning dogfight 'on the deck' and close in, when your opposing aircraft is not in the gimbal limits of the radar, and your eyes are outside the cockpit so you have to rely on your eyeballs and brain(something kc5402 obviously has no clue about) it is very good information to know.

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

In the Fifties the ministry couldn't afford a round in the pub.

[@zakiranderson722]

Really enjoyed this 1. I loved the swept wing designs.

[@gamingforpizza5142]

F-16 is such a monumental achievement that even today, 50 years later remains the top dog.

[@grimmpickens5766]

Because stealth. End of video.

[@ryanjohnson3615]

And fly-by-wire.

[@grimmpickens5766]

@@ryanjohnson3615 meh, you can do fly by wire in a variable geometry plane.

[@ryanjohnson3615]

@@grimmpickens5766 Right, but fly by wire could already do what they they wanted the swing wing for mainly.. I thought was mentioned..

[@AirwayZombie]

@@ryanjohnson3615 FBW does not do what a swing wing does.

[@user-ge1kx7ot6t]

Really awesome video mate 👏

[@MurCurieux]

Enlightening, as always!

[@k.h.1587]

1974 was the b1A. Which was killed by Carter. Reagan brought the program back which was redesigned as the b1b Lancer, which wasn't as fast at high altitude, but had faster low level dash speeds

[@larrybremer4930]

The X-1 also that the benefit of a TWR sufficient to overcome the missive transonic drag of its design. With its shape the biggest problem was that it did not have area rule incorporated in its shape as much as its straight wings.

[@rob5944]

Excellent video.

[@Pau_Pau9]

This guy covers *the most interesting topics ever!!*

[@PhilthySpectre]

The Vickers Sparrow is out of this world, never seen it before. Really amazing design

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

indeed... the Swallow was pure science fiction.... Vickers never built a supersonic aircraft, it only made a single subsonic jet.

[@erasmus_locke]

I remember hearing that the F-111 was 9% of the Gulf war air fleet but accounted for 25% of the maintenance costs. Cost aside a double delta wing or wing with leading edge extensionsis basically the same but way easier to build and design

[@user-uw4ch8qr5e]

Excellent video!

[@frankgulla2335]

Thank you, for this look at the arrival and disappearance of swing-wing aircraft.

[@narannavan]

Thank you for the video. I hope you are doing well.

[@SpiritWolf1966]

I enjoy all of Curious Droid videos

[@SaturnCanuck]

Not sure why I have to keep correcting this, but. In 1947 the aircraft was known as the Bell XS-1, for Sonic Research Experimental number 1. The aircraft was not designated as X-1, for Special Research number 1, until 1948, so, thus, in October 1947 the aircraft was the XS-1 NOT the X-1. As well, the B-47 was the StratoJet NOT the Stratofortress.

[@jbtechcon7434]

13:51 He finally gets to the point and vaguely answers the question. The video would have been a lot more interesting if they'd focused on answering the question and detailed HOW swing-wings create stability and HOW active controls do it better, leaving stealth to be major design factor. It's such a shame and rather frustrating when a title poses an intriguing question but then content barely addresses it.

[@gasdive]

High performance hang gliders are slightly swing wing. The angle of the wings is swept slightly further back for takeoff and landing which increases washout and makes stall more forgiving and makes it more manoeuvrable.

[@nokitanada7390]

Love this quality content!

[@Istandby666]

In 1974, it was the B-1A design not the B-1B. I was at Edwards Air Force Base when a B-1A crashed in the 80's. That crashed is what led to the B-1B.

[@suntzuwu]

Paul, Thanks for all the hard work you put in to these videos. I tried Ground News but dropped them after they identified AP and Reuters as Right of Center. For funding, you should start selling the shirts you wear in these videos. I haven't seen the same one twice and they are all cool enough to command a great following. Cheers!!

[@danwalker77]

Brilliant, as usual!!

[@ledenhimeganidleshitz144]

Partly, one of the reasons is the advent of lightweight materials. Lighter weight allows better and slower landing speeds.

[@halamish1]

Excellent presentation!

[@alt5494]

The Vickers Swallow removal of control services was done by vectored thrust not variable wings. The four engines where vectored similar to rocket engines for control authority.

[@catwhispurrer137]

That Swallow aircraft looks like it could double as an alien spacecraft in the Star Trek series.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

It was really more science fiction considering Vickers had only ever made a single jet aircraft and it was unable to fly supersonic.

[@Angl0sax0nknight]

Always educational 👍

[@Marbeary]

Since as a kid a love how the F14 tomcat looked and had a toy with a swing wing that was so cool up until now. But as I grew old knowing the more moving parts are there the more headaches to deal with.

[@aldraone-mu5yg]

It takes a-lot of work to look this good.

[@sandyhamilton8783]

A big factor was also low level operation during the cold war. It is no great surprise that most of the swing wind aircraft were air to ground. The swing wing allows them to move from a low wing loading for shorter take off and landing to a higher wing loading for smoother low level flight. The pinnacle of this was the Panavia Tornado which, as well as swing wings, had slats, full length double slotted flaps and thrust reversers to aid with short take off and landing as well as fly by wire to allow smother low level flight at very low levels.

[@edutaimentcartoys]

wow, nice video ... very informative

[@williamromine5715]

I am 82 and have only been using my smart phone since I retired 4 years ago to take care of my invalid wife. I subscribed to Ground News early on because I like to have both sides of an issue. I am not a shill for Ground News, but I can attest to it's giving both sides of an issue. It might seem unusual for an ordinary person to comment on an Ad on u-tube, but I just wanted to tell people about my experience with Ground News. It delivers what it promises.

[@iankphone]

LMAO at the Swallow. Engine failure and the resulting asymmetrical thrust would be...interesting to deal with.

[@dinoschachten]

Amazing that this design went out of production THAT early - given the service life of many of these jets (and especially the Tomcat being such an icon of the 80s) I didn't realise how very old these designs were. Btw. I appreciate how you pronounce Luftwaffe correctly, and want to offer some advice for other German words: What you see is what you get in many cases, meaning the vowels are usually pronounced just like in the phonetic alphabet (as well as the Romance languages). ;)

[@ReadTheShrill]

10:30 The Swallow looks like something out of Looney Tunes. The pilot was Marvin The Martian 🤣

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Vickers only built a single jet aircraft it it wasnt even supersonic...

[@harfenspieler]

A feature of the Tu 160 series would be much appreciated - thank your for all the great content!

[@btoogood]

Untrue that there were no commercial swing wings - for example the Carreidas 160

[@Jakob_DK]

At least in the mind of Hergé and Tintin.

[@posmoo9790]

another big the thing is swing wings allowed for ideal aerodynamic & therefore fuel efficiency at all speeds. improvements in engine efficiency & the ubiquity of tankers obviated this advantage. b1 still has the best range of any bomber.

[@grantstafford-renard9095]

So from what I’ve heard, part of the reason was because they added a ton of weight to the design, which could impact the performance of the aircraft.

[@Redmenace96]

Just to clarify, 56-57 Swallowtail design @ approx. 11:00 because U.S. DoD didn't approve. It was because it was completely conjectural. It was the wrong place to put money. Tail-less and without surface controls would not be even possible until computer control had advanced by decades. In the 50's and 60's computer tech's possibility wasn't even comprehended by serious, hard-working, and advanced engineers. It was pie in the sky. There were at least 20 more deserving places to put money that had promise of delivering national security. Even now, with 20/20 hindsight, the design was not viable and doesn't exist. It would have gotten a lot of people killed.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

I must be remembered that Vickers had absolutely no experience building supersonic aircraft and only built a single jet aircraft... the Swallow is clearly nothing more than wishful thinking.

[@dannyv.6358]

Thank you!

[@terminusest5902]

Maintenance , weight, mass, stress fatigue. And the development of fly-by-wire technology allowed for very different fighter designs with critical instability. Greatly improving handling, capability, safety and fly-ability. And using leading edge flaps and wing route extensions for greater lift when need. With many minor computer controlled adjustments each second. Allowing thinner wings with greater lift and much easier and stable landings. Built in instability can improve maneuverability but make flying difficult. Computers can overcome that problem and make aircraft safer to fly. The center of balance can be changed. Route extensions also added lift with less mass and volume. Stealth could also be problematic. Next generation fighters may also lack vertical stabilizers to improve stealth while retaining control and stability. Using fly by wire. And may not have bubble cockpits for good observations. Relying on sensors instead. High G dogfighting being a less important factor. And may not have variable exhaust ducts like the F-22. Even pilots may be optional. Computers doing most of the work anyway. It is not easy to keep pilots away from fighters.

[@DerInterloper]

I firmly believe the first aircraft to break the sound barrier was the Me163. There are eyewitness reports of an example producing a great boom in a high speed dive that nearly destroyed the airframe. It landed, but was found to be missing most of its control surface. In short, supersonic by fluke not by practice.

[@WilhelmKarsten]

Me-262... not the Me-163. Flown by Hans Mutke The Messerschmitt Me-262 was wind tunnel tested to speed up to Mach 1.4

[@thetimebinder]

The X-1 was the first to do it in level flight.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@thetimebinder The X-1 was the first MANNED in level flight, the German A4B rocket plane flew Mach 4 in 1945 (unmanned)

[@thetimebinder]

@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Yeah, I was just correcting the dive vs level flight debate. There are reports of planes breaking the sound barrier in dives but the X-1 was the first manned craft to break the sound barrier in level flight.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

@@thetimebinder Indeed, the Me-163 is however the fastest manned aircraft in level flight until the Bell X-1. Hans Mutke in the Me-262 was the first to pass through his own shock wave at Mach 1 and live to tell the tale... Chuck Yeager would confirm Mutkes story after flying the Bell X-1.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

My first thought is "They are complex, heavy, and expensive" Sure, it can have different aerodynamic modes, each with it's own optimal speed area, but all that mechanical stuff has weight, weight that doesn't do anything for the plane when it's not changing the wing mode. Weight that could be used for more fuel or more payload. Lots of bits necessary to maintain the mechanic. So more different replacement parts need to be manufactured. All that increases cost. You need more planes to deliver the same payload and each of these planes is more expensive to build and maintain. And then obviously the fact that modern jets aren't build to fly at the same speeds. Intercepting duty is done by missiles, so no need for those huge speeds and climb rates. Close range dogfights are exceedingly rare, so no need for extreme slow speed manoeuvrability. (Some even suggest omitting the nosegun for that reason) And what we see nowadays are delta and trapezoid wings, which are fine from slow speeds up to slow supersonic flight. Exactly what modern jets do.

[@antontsau]

Tu160 can not be produced anymore at all. Its central piece, 2t monolythe machined titanium truss, required not only weird money, but special plant where such a thing can be casted and machined in protective gases. So ussr made several of them and perished, and to restore such a plant to operation is well beyond modern Russia capability.

[@kebman]

10:33 omg that's must be the most outlandishly sexy airplane I've ever seen. The Vickers 010 Swallow.

[@garyhand5104]

i missed him so much, glad hes back!

[@jamesturner2126]

I want to build a line of folding wing amphibious aircraft, so they can utilize most boat docks.

[@paulqueripel3493]

Of course Schairer wrote to Boeing, he was their chief designer. Had been since 1939. Been pretty odd if he'd written to a competitor. He basically told them to change the design of the B47, to start again, and why.

[@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke]

Schairer also spoke and read German fluently... as did Theodor von karman who accompanied him.