Hello there, I fall in love of the Globe Swift airplane. I'm watching so many videos about this plane. I really like it so far because it is so beautiful and has a beautiful design! I am working quite hard to buy a Swift right after my pilot license (that is coming early next year). Wish you all a safe flight and fun, Bonjour de France, Thibaud.
Very beautiful aircraft. A modernized Swift work of art. The Military needs to research a modern version of the T-35 Buckaroo. Pilots would be fighting over the chance to fly it. I know I would.
I happened by luck to be joined at lunch with Roy Lopresti an a couple of companions. He was a true gentleman, humble, interested in others, and interesting to talk to. Its a shame his accidental death took him "west" before he could finish this project.
@@LoPrestiArtGalleryandStudio Usually turbines have noses that are WAY too long. This airplane is absolutely gorgeous and with nearly perfect proportions aesthetically.
At 200 to 220 MPH the controls get real heavy, how did they overcome this? I have about 1000 hours in super swifts. Not fast by todays Lancairs and Glasairs but super fun to fly and vert aerobatic.
This was a proof of concept plane and it was going to be put on the Piper production line in 1992.....but they went bankrupt and the engine manufacturer wanted the engine back.
I have a feeling it’s because the demand for that kind of plane was low even though it looks amazing there was only one seat and there’s lots of available options out there probably costs a fortune too.
@@mordfustang1933 working at Mooney in Kerrville I had the opportunity to work for a man that had a proclivity to take credit for other peoples work. I recall two aerodynamicists at Mooney, Fen Taylor and wife Dorothy. They had the task of redesighning or improving the MLG doors in order to get a knot more out of the already very efficient J & K models. The 80s brought layoff and factory shutdowns. The redesign was in the works and finished, long after the the major shutdown. Due to the temporary company shutdown, no mod was instituted by design change at Mooney. Guess who had some craftsmen rework the door fairing and then flight test the improvement. Then guess who took credit for it and called it theirs. This family of people were excellent at leeching other peoples work and taking the credit for it, and profit. Look at anything these people touch. They never do anything original.
@@robertottwell605 Having worked for Mooney and Roy L. I can guarantee that they never could. Did the people get their money back if a deposit was required?
Let's invest in building a two seat, limited range airplane no one can afford except a few highly experienced pilot millionaires . We will sell them like hot cakes!
Swift is an OK airplane to fly, but the landing gear really, really sucks! I have had 2 gear related "crashes" in a swift and will not get in another one! (gear did not lock down as indicated by a green light AND a visual indicator x 2)
I can sympathize with you and your landing gear problems with the Swift. In the early 1950's, when I was an airport bum as a kid, I always went to the back of hangers to see where the Swift was with a collapsed landing gear. Sure enough - there it was! I think every hanger had one.
I'm sorry but I have to call this out: The only connection between this and either a P-40 or a spitfire is that all three have wings and a propeller. It looks tame and harmless. As for 5000 ft/min clam - hmmm - I want proof.
Well to get your proof you would have to get in your time machine because the airplane no longer exists. You can try Bill Cox I think he did a flight report on this airplane. As for the 5000 feet per minute claim. Was actually a little more than that. But 5000 was a nice round number.
Having flown a similar sized aircraft with comparable cruise speeds and HP/weight ratio, 5K was definitely possible. Far more performance than what something like a Mustang II would provide. As for the P-40/spitfire similarity, I'm not sure what you were expecting...it's not a scale replica, it simply borrows style and design elements from both, just like a Midget Mustang/Mustang II borrows elements from the P-51. The tail is certainly reminiscent of a P-40 and later model Spitfires. It's not as evident in this video, but the canopy of an original GC-1 had the same birdcage design of early P-40 and Spitfires, and the rear window followed similar lines that early P-40's had over the turtledeck. Even the wing planform of the GC-1 followed the same lines as the P-40. This particular aircraft had squared off wingtips that reduced the planform similarity, as well as the redesigned canopy that diverges from the original swift, but the similarities are still there.
Can't speak regarding the Spitfire similarity...but some resemblance to the Curtiss P40 may be bc KH "Bud" Knox had a hand in designing both the P40 and GC1B. Knox worked for Curtiss before working for Globe.
Hello there,
I fall in love of the Globe Swift airplane. I'm watching so many videos about this plane. I really like it so far because it is so beautiful and has a beautiful design! I am working quite hard to buy a Swift right after my pilot license (that is coming early next year).
Wish you all a safe flight and fun,
Bonjour de France,
Thibaud.
I'm definitely in love with this aircraft.
God bless America long live the republic
Friggin Great ! Wish they were in Production ! Regards from Alaska!
Very beautiful aircraft. A modernized Swift work of art. The Military needs to research a modern version of the T-35 Buckaroo.
Pilots would be fighting over the chance to fly it. I know I would.
I happened by luck to be joined at lunch with Roy Lopresti an a couple of companions. He was a true gentleman, humble, interested in others, and interesting to talk to. Its a shame his accidental death took him "west" before he could finish this project.
@@riedjacobsen8620 thank you
Aesthetically, that thing is beautiful. I like how that tail drags.
A turbine that doesn’t look stupid! Wow!
There’s no reason for an airplane to look stupid. We would not of created one that was not sexy looking.
@@LoPrestiArtGalleryandStudio Usually turbines have noses that are WAY too long. This airplane is absolutely gorgeous and with nearly perfect proportions aesthetically.
good looking airplane!!!
I prefer the regular swift. Definitely not the same level of performance but it is a classic machine!
Roy got hooked after he won the Cafe 400 race on his taped-up Mooney.
At 200 to 220 MPH the controls get real heavy, how did they overcome this? I have about 1000 hours in super swifts. Not fast by todays Lancairs and Glasairs but super fun to fly and vert aerobatic.
The control system was totally redesigned and greatly improved
I figured the answer was to cruise closer to its 300 plus mph top end.
My "I Want One" gauge is pegged on this!
WOW . I dig the D-Day markings . I want one .
Beautiful. But I do miss the 52 Buick grill.
What happened to the plane?
This was a proof of concept plane and it was going to be put on the Piper production line in 1992.....but they went bankrupt and the engine manufacturer wanted the engine back.
Where do I know that name from?
Is the Swiftfire available for sale?
I wish! No, that was a proof of concept airplane. It was amazing!
Those "state of the art computers" are old 1990's floppy disk computers. How old is this video???
LOVE IT
Very cool. Unfortunate never came to light
So how many of these aircraft are being built today....none.
I have a feeling it’s because the demand for that kind of plane was low even though it looks amazing there was only one seat and there’s lots of available options out there probably costs a fortune too.
@@mordfustang1933 working at Mooney in Kerrville I had the opportunity to work for a man that had a proclivity to take credit for other peoples work. I recall two aerodynamicists at Mooney, Fen Taylor and wife Dorothy. They had the task of redesighning or improving the MLG doors in order to get a knot more out of the already very efficient J & K models. The 80s brought layoff and factory shutdowns. The redesign was in the works and finished, long after the the major shutdown. Due to the temporary company shutdown, no mod was instituted by design change at Mooney. Guess who had some craftsmen rework the door fairing and then flight test the improvement. Then guess who took credit for it and called it theirs. This family of people were excellent at leeching other peoples work and taking the credit for it, and profit. Look at anything these people touch. They never do anything original.
This was the only one. They got over 550 orders but never went into production from what I could find out.
@@robertottwell605 Having worked for Mooney and Roy L. I can guarantee that they never could. Did the people get their money back if a deposit was required?
What’s it’s burn rate 25 gal hour ?
As long as the video was, and you didn't even show a takeoff.
This must have an allison 250
Correct.
Dang!
Let's invest in building a two seat, limited range airplane no one can afford except a few highly experienced pilot millionaires . We will sell them like hot cakes!
Swift is an OK airplane to fly, but the landing gear really, really sucks! I have had 2 gear related "crashes" in a swift and will not get in another one! (gear did not lock down as indicated by a green light AND a visual indicator x 2)
There was a total redesign on the gear. The new one was hydraulic.
I can sympathize with you and your landing gear problems with the Swift. In the early 1950's, when I was an airport bum as a kid, I always went to the back of hangers to see where the Swift was with a collapsed landing gear. Sure enough - there it was! I think every hanger had one.
that is some serious speed. too bad the company went bankrupt.
Endurance 1:15…..
I'm sorry but I have to call this out: The only connection between this and either a P-40 or a spitfire is that all three have wings and a propeller. It looks tame and harmless. As for 5000 ft/min clam - hmmm - I want proof.
Well to get your proof you would have to get in your time machine because the airplane no longer exists.
You can try Bill Cox I think he did a flight report on this airplane.
As for the 5000 feet per minute claim. Was actually a little more than that. But 5000 was a nice round number.
Having flown a similar sized aircraft with comparable cruise speeds and HP/weight ratio, 5K was definitely possible. Far more performance than what something like a Mustang II would provide.
As for the P-40/spitfire similarity, I'm not sure what you were expecting...it's not a scale replica, it simply borrows style and design elements from both, just like a Midget Mustang/Mustang II borrows elements from the P-51. The tail is certainly reminiscent of a P-40 and later model Spitfires. It's not as evident in this video, but the canopy of an original GC-1 had the same birdcage design of early P-40 and Spitfires, and the rear window followed similar lines that early P-40's had over the turtledeck. Even the wing planform of the GC-1 followed the same lines as the P-40. This particular aircraft had squared off wingtips that reduced the planform similarity, as well as the redesigned canopy that diverges from the original swift, but the similarities are still there.
Can't speak regarding the Spitfire similarity...but some resemblance to the Curtiss P40 may be bc KH "Bud" Knox had a hand in designing both the P40 and GC1B. Knox worked for Curtiss before working for Globe.
Let's put a 450 h.p. tubine on a 1940,s airplane that original 85 h.p. Here hold this.....i think i can....
Hey bro I'm not real sure I like the pull knobs ..I think I would rather see a throttles quadrant ...
It kinda looks like Art Scholls chipmunk
A chute !..... hey... a chute!..hmmmm.
Definitely not in Dire Straits
meh....