Enzo the Magnificent Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 The Supermarine Swift had a protracted and difficult development. The early interceptor versions were plagued with problems and suffered a number of accidents. Eventually many of the problems were resolved but not before the Swift was abandoned as an interceptor. Although the safety problems were resolved, there were still issues related to the failure of the afterburner to light at altitude. Supermarine decided to change their immediate focus and concentrate on a low-level fighter-recce version designated the FR.5. The FR.5 became quite successful. However, there were some elements in the Supermarine design team who would not let the afterburner issue rest. The problem was eventually found to be due to a resonance problem in the tailpipe which only became apparent at altitude but effectively stopped the afterburner igniters from operating. The problem was resolved by the very simple measure of adding small intakes on the rear fuselage which fed uncompressed air to the afterburner thereby counteracting the resonance. This simple measure revitalised the Swift programme. The first thing that Supermarine did was to introduce the PR.6 high altitude photo-recce version. Unfortunately this was not the success that Supermarine hoped as the RAF only bought 16 airframes. The high altitude PR role was satisfactorily filled by the Canberra which had a greater range than the Swift. However, the PR Swift did find a niche providing quick response PR of Soviet naval ports from bases in Norway. Disregarding the afterburner problem, Supermarine had proposed a missile armed version, the Swift F.7, to the RAF. This was intended to be armed with the Fairey Fireflash missile and the RAF bought 14 airframes which were used for development of tactics for missile deployment. The afterburner fix suddenly made the RAF re-assess the Swift F.7. The DeHavilland Firestreak missile was being introduced to service in the Javelin fleet and would be compatible with the Swift. Therefore it was decided the place further orders for modified Swift F.7s and operate them as interim support for the Javelin fleet. There was a possibility that English Electric could provide an aircraft which would surpass both the Javelin and Swift but in the meantime a two-tier air defence would suffice. The Swifts major competitor had always been the Hawker Hunter. Supermarine considered the Swift to be at a disadvantage as the Hunter had two-seat trainer versions. Supermarine therefore introduced a two-seat version of the Swift, designated T.8. This was intended for conversion training and so did not have a radar fitted. The nose was shortened so that it was somewhere between the length of the FR.5 and the original Swifts. The RAF bought 36 airframes. The revitalised Swift programme became a great success. Eventually, the English Electric programme matured into the Lightning. The Lightning far exceeded the performance of both the Javelin and the Swift and both were rapidly withdrawn from service. However, the Swift story was not over. In 1962 the Fleet Air Arm started to take delivery of the Blackburn Buccaneer S.1. Blackburn did not elect to provide a dual-control version of the Bucc. The Admiralty became somewhat concerned about the lack of a trainer version, which was odd because they had not had any issue with the lack of trainers for the Scimitar and Sea Vixen. Nevertheless, the Admiralty wanted a training solution for the Buccaneer although it was clear that this would not come from Blackburn as that company was stretched to the limit. When Gloster had been unable to provide volume production of the Meteor night fighter, development and production had been transferred to Armstrong-Whitworth who had spare capacity. A similar solution was suggested from the Buccaneer. Unfortunately the British aircraft industry had just undergone a major change, amalgamating a number of companies. Blackburn had become part of the Hawker Siddeley Group. Armstrong-Whitworth had become part of the British Aircraft Corporation. Hawker Siddeley were understandably unwilling to transfer production of one of their designs to a rival company, so that idea came to nought. Nevertheless, there was still a requirement for a Buccaneer trainer. Thankfully someone at the MOD noticed that the RAF were just about to scrap a number of aircraft which were still relatively new. When it was realised that the similar wing loading and power-to-weight ratio of the buccaneer and Swift led to similar handling characteristics, the scene was set for yet another phase of the Swifts career. The Swift T.8s were transferred to the Fleet Air Arm as trainers for the Buccaneer programme. The cockpits were reworked with Buccaneer instrument panels. The belly tank was found to strike the ground when the aircraft followed a Bucc landing profile so it was removed. Additional fuel capacity was provided using hardpoints on the wing to carry 100 gallon tanks. An additional modification was an arrestor hook. The modified Swift was designated the T.8A. It became known as the Sea Swift although the name was never officially adopted and was in fact totally inaccurate. The Swift was never intended to fly from carriers, unlike the Buccaneer, but it was used to provide deck landing experience for prospective Buccaneer pilots. With this in mind the Buccaneer conversion unit, 736 NAS, instituted a novel training programme at RNAS Lossiemouth. A representation of a carrier deck was painted on the runway at Lossie. A mirror landing system and arrestor gear were installed in the relevant position. This allowed arrestor crews to be trained at the same time as Buccaneer pilots. The arrestor cable was not secured to the equipment on one side, thereby allowing the cable to run out when a Swift took it. Some minor issues were found when the cable was found to whiplash as it left the hook, damaging the aircrafts rear fuselage in the process. This problem was solved by modifying the hook to fold back under tension from the cable. This would sound a horn in the cockpit, informing the pilot of a good trap. The Buccaneer training programme was a success and the Swift was kept in service far beyond its original withdrawal date. In fact in the late 1970s when the RAF took over the Buccaneer fleet, the Swifts were returned to their original owners. This led to a further variant. The RAF Buccaneers did not operate from carriers so the arrestor hook was removed leading to the Swift T.8B. The Swifts soldiered on until the late 80s when there was no further requirement for Buccaneer pilots. Not bad for a 1950s design which had been considered a failure. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Top stuff Enzo Love a back story that moves seamlessly from fact to fiction. Only one thing I'd suggest may need a quick change; RNAS Lossiemouth had a satellite airfield called Milltown just a couple miles down the road that was used for deck landing training, aircraft operating from there used the MV tailcode, being so close made it (along with Kinloss) the site of a few mistaken landings by Lossie-based students according to my dad. "Very good son, you managed to do that without killing us both, now let's try it once more but perhaps using the right bloody runway this time!" 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raptormodeller Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 All believable, brilliant back story! chomp chomp -raptor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davepb Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Great story, but was the twin tandem or side-by-side? Now where is that spare Falcon kit? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted August 15, 2015 Author Share Posted August 15, 2015 Great story, but was the twin tandem or side-by-side? You'll see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Okay, time for me to update this thread. Firstly the box And the sprues. I'm pretty certain that this kit was produced by Sword. The plastic is identical in colour and texture to the new Jet Provost kit. And the cockpit parts from an old Italeri Phantom... The forward fuselage and cockpit are assembled - quite crudely as very little will be seen on completion. Airframe assembled and filled with Milliput Sanded and almost ready for priming. The seats have also been added. These are taken from a Hasegawa Phantom and cut down slightly. Seat harnesses are added from Tamiya tape. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 It lives! Yay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Not too far from reality - one of Tony Buttler's books mentions a Sea Swift, but that's the only information I've ever seen on a 'real' version. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 Canopy on and in the process of masking. Guess where the canopy came from... Primed with Alclad2 grey primer Undersurfaces sprayed white with Alclad2 white primer. I have always had problems spraying white enamel or acrylic as it always comes out translucent and takes far to many coats to provide a decent finish. I sometimes use domestic appliance gloss white from a rattle can, but that presents its own problems as it is far too easy to get paint runs. Alclad2 white primer solves all the problems. It is perfectly good to use as a top coat and is very opaque. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Bonkers! But well worth watching for the outcome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 You're going to need to carry external fuel tanks full time, given what was in the airframe where you've placed the rear pilot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 This is good! I love the back story too. Trevor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 You're going to need to carry external fuel tanks full time, given what was in the airframe where you've placed the rear pilot. Definitely! However, given that the aircraft was used for deck landing training, with a high sink rate on touchdown, I don't think the standard Swift belly tank would be a good idea. As you can see, I have drilled location points for underwing pylons which will carry 100 gallon tanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Tidy work on the new canopy and paintwork 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-32 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 That looks cracking 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted November 15, 2015 Author Share Posted November 15, 2015 Uppersurfaces sprayed with Xtracrylix XA1005 Extra Dark Sea Grey. Starting to apply the stickers... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Now that's looking smart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted November 15, 2015 Author Share Posted November 15, 2015 Can anyone hazard a guess where the walkways and squadron markings came from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 This is looking the business! Trevor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted November 28, 2015 Author Share Posted November 28, 2015 Finished! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Well done that looks really rather plausible. Trevor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Womby Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Nice one. Great idea. I like that a lot. David 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts