Flying Failures - Supermarine Swift

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

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.

[@uingaeoc3905]

Both engines were widely adopted by US and made under licence there.

[@Damien-q8t]

Oh how the mighty Supermarine fell from grace with this one

[@macjim]

Ah, yes! The hawker hunter, not only beautiful but good too! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

[@WAL_DC-6B]

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.

[@johnwilson6721]

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.

[@sski]

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.

[@PiefacePete46]

You probably looked at it with wide-eyed wonder... now Ruairidh has burst your bubble!

[@sski]

@@PiefacePete46 Yeah, a wee bit. But it's still a snazzy looking flying machine for the time. Cheers!

[@charlesmoss8119]

Here is your new aircraft lads - now there are a few restrictions - first is on no account are you ever to get in it

[@uingaeoc3905]

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.

[@sullivanrachael]

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.

[@mothmagic1]

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.

[@notmenotme614]

Basically Supermarine aircraft were always an evolution or upgrade of older designs. Rather than a brand new bespoke design from scratch.

[@notmenotme614]

@@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.

[@allangibson8494]

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).

[@drstevenrey]

Nice one. Supermarines downfall. Well done, again, as usual really. Thank you so much.

[@prowlus]

Wasn't the Scimitar the true downfall because it was a lemon?

[@spencerhardy8667]

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.

[@1258-Eckhart]

Ah! The Classes D6100 and D6300 from NBL!

[@PiefacePete46]

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!

[@rogerjohnson6676]

Nice work sir. Matches your rail videos for quality, and very educational as well.

[@AnonNomad]

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.

[@jimsvideos7201]

Elegant shape, if nothing else.

[@davidpeters6536]

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

[@PiefacePete46]

Interestingly, as I type this, in a column on the right side of the screen KZbin 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' KZbin 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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGecq5yJdqaIeLcsi=xxYPuURHde0vpt2T

[@AnthonyAnthony-o4v]

Very informative. Thanks.

[@LadySophieofHougunManor7325]

Fantastic video love the history

[@matthewrowe9903]

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]

[@BobAbc0815]

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.

[@PiefacePete46]

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"!

[@BobAbc0815]

@@PiefacePete46 i guess it was more of a rationalisation of financial restraints then strategic thinking.

[@johnjephcote7636]

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.

[@RichardCorongiu]

The aircraft were removed..what about those responsible for persisting with a failure ?

[@kurttate9446]

It was certainly a thick boi.

[@davidfuller581]

Attlee's government did so much good, and yet so much bad. It's truly remarkable.

[@able_archer01]

The classic British blunder of thinking the world will always follow their predictions.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

​@@able_archer01 Especially very much delusional at this stage where Britain was basically less powerful and USA was calling the shoots now.

[@sullivanrachael]

@@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 😮

[@Margarinetaylorgrease]

@@sullivanrachael I think you mean, doing as they are told 🧐

[@sullivanrachael]

Ah yes - Compliance! That’s another British speciality. Not allowed to deviate from the written policy!

[@Deviation4360]

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.

[@jimgordon1563]

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?

[@jeremycruickshank8614]

It's a Supermarine 508, that evolved into the Scimitar.

[@johnmorris7815]

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.

[@PiefacePete46]

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.

[@andrewrussell4707]

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?

[@TheFjordflier]

Same as with the UK car and motorcycle industries 🤔

[@andrewrussell4707]

@@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.

[@chriswalford4161]

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.

[@Damien-q8t]

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.

[@peterdavy6110]

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.

[@drstevenrey]

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.

[@PiefacePete46]

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! 😜

[@drstevenrey]

@@PiefacePete46 You're right, but here in Switzerland we never ever even think of actually fighting, so we want and need something that looks good. That was among the main reasons why we had the Hunter and loved it to bits. Sadly their all gone now, save for a finger full of private ones.

[@PiefacePete46]

@@drstevenrey : I live in New Zealand. Very thankful to be as isolated from the present nastiness as possible. Humanity never learns from history... we seem to use it as a reason to repeat unthinkable acts. Our armed forces are more involved in checking that fish are caught by the right people than actual conflict... I hope we can keep it that way! The world has much to thank Switzerland for; they set a fantastic example.

[@drstevenrey]

@@PiefacePete46 Hope you don't mind if I disagree a bit. We also have a very nasty habit of being the bank for just about all the nasty arses the world has to offer. I am convinced that some of our banks still have gold and/or money from the good old and dead Adolf in their vaults. That is why I referenced the 'not actually fighting' thing. We are the bank, we don't need to fight, not Putin, Kim, Erdogan, Orban or any of these nasties. Us, an example, please don't.

[@peterfahey8798]

The Vertical tail has always bothered me on the Swift Looked totally undersized & inadequate Anyone know the reason for this?

[@brettbuck7362]

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.

[@JonManProductions]

Any time I see this jet in war thunder... all I think of is "damn it looks like a chubby seal from the front."

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

Aircraft likeness made it to Oldsmobile motor cars in the States. Not all in vain.

[@notmenotme614]

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).

[@ulaysoe6742]

Suffered from wrong defence policy.

[@davidcomtedeherstal]

The Swift seems to have been worse the the Me 262.

[@prowlus]

The Me-262 was at least an effective interceptor

[@uingaeoc3905]

Nope .

[@nicks4934]

Uk engines plus soviet designs would have been unbeatable ❤

[@uingaeoc3905]

Soviets had some failures too. But they derived thier jet engines from the UK.

[@anthonywalsh2164]

More British blundering!

[@simbastra]

Is there a SAAB Viggen standing there to the left of the Swift at the museum?

[@macjim]

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? 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

[@matthewrowe9903]

Seems the Swift in 4 years of service suffered 12 total losses in accidents with 4 pilots lost

[@leifvejby8023]

@@matthewrowe9903 But no mention of the exploding engines or the aileron flutter.

[@theprofessorfate6184]

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.

[@richardvernon317]

No Dollars in the Piggy Bank to pay for US Aircraft!!!

[@adriancash7063]

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

[@uingaeoc3905]

You seem unaware that the US bought British planes - Canberra, Harrier, Hawk even Short Sherpa.

[@adriancash7063]

@@uingaeoc3905 and whilst we did order American I recall the F-111 order was cancelled because of its protracted delays in development.

[@theprofessorfate6184]

@@uingaeoc3905 No, I'm aware. I'm also aware that none of them were that great.