Supermarine Swift and Attacker

[PR19_Kit]

They had a  job getting the afterburner of the Swift working at ANY altitude! 

I saw an FR5 crash when the 'burner died just after it got airborne. The pilot punched out without a moment's hesitation though.

[rickshaw]

They had a  job getting the afterburner of the Swift working at ANY altitude! 

I saw an FR5 crash when the 'burner died just after it got airborne. The pilot punched out without a moment's hesitation though.

Understandable.  I've just finished the "In the Cockpit" book on the Swift.  The FR5 was more reliable than earlier marks but it still had its problems.

[NARSES2]

A long dead thread revived.

I've looked at my references on both the Attacker and Swift but with no luck so I thought I'd see if anyone here has an idea.

Put simply did that honking great under belly fuel tank have much effect on the aircraft's performance ? Particularly speed, manoeuvrability and climb to altitude ?

[The Rat]

A long dead thread revived.

I've looked at my references on both the Attacker and Swift but with no luck so I thought I'd see if anyone here has an idea.

Put simply did that honking great under belly fuel tank have much effect on the aircraft's performance ? Particularly speed, manoeuvrability and climb to altitude ?

Which aircraft's performance are you asking about? Or both?

[NARSES2]

Hi Ratty.

I'm actually thinking about the impact on the Attacker's performance, but I thought it might have had a similar impact on the Swift's ? In percentage terms anyway. Can you tell I spent 40 years working in statistics ? 

For the role I'm planning for my build it doesn't really need the extended range but if there's not much impact on its performance then it might help to extend her duration.

In my research I came across pictures of Pakistani Attackers with both that belly tank and drop tanks. So I might just go the drop tank route.

[PR19_Kit]

IIRC the Pakistani ones weren't navalised so they didn't have the folding wing (tips...) or hooks. May be worth looking into whether the navalised ones could carry wing tanks?

[NARSES2]

The Pakistani ones were definitely de-navalised and looking at the photo in my Putnam's the tanks are mounted on the bomb pylons. They are 93 gallon tanks and in the photo look quite odd, almost as if they'd joined two tanks side by side ?

Found the same photo on the BAE Systems site, and it's the only one I've found of the tanks, about a third of the way down the page.

http://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/vickers-supermarine-type-371-spiteful

[jcf]

I would hazard a guess that the overload tank did have an affect on top speed,
as the reason the Attacker's vertical tail was re-designed, they added the extended
dorsal fin, was a side-slip issue that was caused by the tank, that could, evidently,
cause a rudder lock-over.

[PR19_Kit]

The Pakistani ones were definitely de-navalised and looking at the photo in my Putnam's the tanks are mounted on the bomb pylons. They are 93 gallon tanks and in the photo look quite odd, almost as if they'd joined two tanks side by side ?

Found the same photo on the BAE Systems site, and it's the only one I've found of the tanks, about a third of the way down the page.

http://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/vickers-supermarine-type-371-spiteful

What an odd shape, they DO look as if they're two tanks welded together with flat spacers in the centre. I've never seen tanks like that anywhere. 

[Dizzyfugu]

What an odd shape, they DO look as if they're two tanks welded together with flat spacers in the centre. I've never seen tanks like that anywhere. 

Totally agree. Odd!

[NARSES2]

I would hazard a guess that the overload tank did have an affect on top speed,
.

Cheers Jon.

[andrewj]

A long dead thread revived.

I've looked at my references on both the Attacker and Swift but with no luck so I thought I'd see if anyone here has an idea.

Put simply did that honking great under belly fuel tank have much effect on the aircraft's performance ? Particularly speed, manoeuvrability and climb to altitude ?

Published figures for the Swift FR5 give a max speed [clean] of 691mph or 674mph with ventral tank , similarly for the Swift F7 , 691mph [clean] or 668 with two missiles. This would suggest to me , that there would be very little difference between the ventral tank or two wing mounted tanks.

Andrew

[NARSES2]

Cheers Andrew  . I hadn't found those figures for with and without for either the Attacker or Swift

[jcf]

Found on Facebook, don't recall which group. 

[Weaver]

Ooooh, and here's me with a Swift fuselage going begging too....