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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Great video as always, thank you.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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!

brilliant vid mate, keep erm coming

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

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

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.

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

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

Swing wing aircraft are cool AF.

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

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

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

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.

Weight and stealth requirements is my best guess.

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

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

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

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

Thanks for a very interesting and well made video!

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

Because stealth. End of video.

Thank you for your amazing work and knowledge.

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

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

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.

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!

Enlightening, as always!

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.

Really awesome video mate 👏

A very concise and through presentation. Thanks.

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

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

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

Love this quality content!

Expense, added weight, reliability problems in combat, maintenance, logistics, etc. We can simulate all the advantages of swing wing aircraft with computer assisted flight, which wasn't available back then.

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

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.

Excellent video!

Excellent video.

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

Brilliant, as usual!!

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.

I enjoy all of Curious Droid videos

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

Always educational 👍

wow, nice video ... very informative

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

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.

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!!

There is still a niche that swing wings could mathematically fill in the gen 4.5+ world where they would bring either more performance or more range than their non variable counterparts, but the level of complexity and cost associated with that basically makes it unjustified because it's a relatively marginal advantage. You can't beat the advantage of having physically longer wings at low speeds as any fancy aero tricks you use to do so could also be applied to the swing winged plane too, and again you can't beat the specific speed optimised swept profile of them at high speeds either, it's just actually justifying that in the real world really doesn't make a lot of sense because it's a relatively marginal gain for *so much* extra cost and complexity...and at that point just go 5th gen

Great presentation. Just a correction, the B-47 was the Stratojet, the Stratofortress was B-52.

Thank you!

The B-1A was built in the 70's. The Bone (B-1B) as we know it today was built in the 80's, and was not the same as the A. It shared only about 54% parts commonality.

In other words: Fly by wire was the first nail in that it allowed computers to do the same thing as what swept wings had to do with analog mechanisms. And then stealth was the nail in the coffin--swing wing mechanisms are complex and need a certain shape which ISN'T stealthy, so RIPBOZO.

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

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

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.

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.

i missed him so much, glad hes back!

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.

Sikmple answer - the WEIGHT was a noticeable cost, it was IMPOSSIBLE to make them stealthy, and the performance advantage wasn't worth the costs.

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

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.

Even as an F15 guy, there is something so cool about an F111 or F14 or Tornado with it's wings all the way back!

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.

Heavy, complex, difficult to maintain, and we now more about aerodynamics now to make better fixed wings

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.

The whole point of swing wings was so you could go supersonic at low altitude , survive the turbulence and still be able to land at a safe speed. If you were hauling at mach 1.2 just 100 feet above the ground to avoid radar , you needed small wings that wouldnt slam the aircraft with 15G bounces when you hit the kind of turbulence you see at 100 ft. But wings that small wouldn't be able to take off with a heavy payload So the F-111 Then cruise missiles got good and took over that job. The F-14 was a high speed interceptor to carry a lot of long range air to air missiles extremely fast and still be able to land on a Carrier. Then the SM-2 got good. The reason swing wings went away is because missiles took over the jobs they were doing.

Very simple answer: Not worth the weight penalty when digital FCS can provide excellent high and low speed handling with any swept wing shape.

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.

The P-38 lightning was quite notorious for suffering from the effects of portions of the wings and control surfaces in a dive.