The Fact the Swift F.7 is STILL missing its variable Tail tells me alot about what you think of British Aircraft

[Heavytanker1945]

You even have the cut outs in the fuselage and everything for it.

The Variable tailplane was the savior the Swift needed, it legit made them more agile than Meteors in most scenarios, yet the F.7 is stuck with the same exact clunky(And inaccurate) Flight model of the F.1 swift.

The Swifts were excellent turn fighters, the early models were on par with the Meteors, and heavily out maneuvered any other Jet of their era, and the Variable tailplane just made it even better, by fixing the Instability issues the aircraft had at lower speed, and giving it more tail authority, while not harming their turn fighting capability ONE bit. It also on the flip side Fixed the aircraft proneness to compress at higher speeds, and in dives

If they TURNED like they should, the Swifts would be entirely worthy of their 8.3 and 8.7 BRs, because they would be damn good planes, But as is, the things get out done by planes that are even lower Brs than them, let alone in uptiers where they gotta deal with F104s and early harriers.

I mean even in their OWN BR they aren’t fast anymore, That used to be something you could use, But Not anymore.

[Stockholm_Blend]

Well, who cares about the British anyway? :|

I cannot wait to see that F-86A-5 becomes 7.7 while Swift F.7 becomes 9.0 because ‘Swift F.7 has the same reheating engine just as F3H-2 does’.

/s

[Josephs_Piano]

@Heavytanker1945

The Swifts were excellent turn fighters, the early models were on par with the Meteors, and heavily out maneuvered any other Jet of their era,

So good that the F1 thought F3 were considered completely unsuitable… see Supermarine Swift | Secret Projects Forum

The Swift Mk.1 suffered from tightening in turns, the Mk.2 having the c.g. moved forward, improved elevator control tensioning, and modified stick-elevator gearing and elevator tab movement. The drooped leading edge and dog-tooth were also introduced to counteract this.

The turning circle was also too large. Adding reheat and a variable incidence flying tail to the Mk.4 was meant to solve this problem but with the afterburner unlit the Mk.4 had an even worse turning circle than the Mk.1.
Mk.1: SL 1,900yd, 30,000ft 3,550yd, 40,000ft 5,800yd
Mk.4 (with reheat on): SL 1,450yd, 30,000ft 3,300yd, 40,000ft 5,450yd
…
In February 1955 the Minister of Supply told the Cabinet that the first three Marks were not acceptable for service use and that the Mk.4 was “unlikely to be successful”.
…
I think the Mk.5 and Mk.7 were only continued with in a vain hope of keeping Supermarine’s workers employed until Scimitar was in production and of obtaining some use for the millions wasted. The FR.5 was probably deemed to be acceptable enough given its low-altitude role and unlikeness to be mixing it with MiG-17s and MiG-19s at altitude.
…
AIR 2/11158 Supermarine F.105P Operation Requirements (Swift)
AIR 2/11159 Supermarine F.105P Operation Requirements (Swift)
AIR 2/11160 Supermarine F.105P Operation Requirements (Swift)
AIR 2/11161 Supermarine F.105P Operation Requirements (Swift)
AIR 2/13554 Investigation into History of Hunter and Swift Aircraft: Operational Requirements Aspects

and Supermarine Swift – Four Prop

The major problem was that it was incapable of combat at altitudes beyond 40,000ft, unable to offer the endurance, manoeuvrability or reliability demanded.

[Heavytanker1945]

@Josephs_Piano

The major problem was that it was incapable of combat at altitudes beyond 40,000ft, unable to offer the endurance, manoeuvrability or reliability demanded.

Okay and? Not a single match in Warthunder takes place that High up.

It didn’t turn well when Up high, i knew that. its wings were just too small, and the engine was on the weak side.

BUT when in good thick low down air, they were a force to be reckoned with.

The British were trying to force what was a Low altitude Fighter Interceptor, to fight at Long range bomber altitudes. while the Hunter was literally the plane they were looking for, yet they forced it into a low altitude role for the most part.

[BasherBenDawg8]

This might be a visual thing, it doesn’t mean the flight model is incorrect per se. For example it could be a visual bug, which is on the Vautours ingame.

The French Vautours have variable tails, modeled as such visually. However the ones in the Israeli tree fly identical, but the tails do not move whatsoever for whatever reason. Not bug reported but I can get you proof if you need it

[AlvisWisla]

I tried looking for a bug report and found nothing.

[Smin1080p_WT]

Hello

All of the Swifts in game are modelled with their historical flight performance data. From primary sources such as the manual:

Spoiler

If you believe something is incorrect in game with their performance and have factual based evidence to show specifically what and by what metric, please feel free to make a report here: Community Bug Reporting System

Please note that statements such as:

@Heavytanker1945

The Swifts were excellent turn fighters, the early models were on par with the Meteors, and heavily out maneuvered any other Jet of their era

Cannot be accepted as a fact without any evidence to support such claims.