LoPresti SwiftFury

Spike, just put the Continental 210 hp IO 360 STC in a Swift and you'll get just about the same thing :) I got to fly one last summer and was grin grin grin.
 
Last edited:
That is a dream plane. Would love to own one.
 
How funny, Swift was my first thought also -- the resemblance is uncanny.

I really like the vintage roundy-tipped wings on planes. I dunno why, they seem much more friendly to me. From a purer era I suppose.

I'm smiling just writing this -- I wonder if Tom D experiences that every time he looks upon a Fairchild. :swoon:
 
schmookeeg said:
How funny, Swift was my first thought also -- the resemblance is uncanny.
Click to expand...

The LoPresti Fury *is* a descendant of the Swift. IIRC, after Swift pretty much went under, TEMCO (who had also been building Swifts under license) got the rights and built them for a couple more years, but production ceased in 1951. At some point, Roy LoPresti wanted to revive the "Super Swift" (really, just a GC-1B Swift with a bigger 180-210hp engine added under STC, there was never an official Super Swift) as the Swift Fury, but for some reason the project was halted somewhere along the way and Roy died eventually. However, the LoPresti family still owned some sort of rights to the design (though I believe the type certificate for the original GC-1A and GC-1B Swifts is now owned by the Swift Museum Foundation). A few years ago, the project was resurrected by the rest of the LoPresti family.

This is all completely off the top of my head and I welcome corrections, especially from Ken Ibold who is actually involved in the LoPresti Fury project.

OBTW - I want one too. Gonna be a sweeeeeeet little airplane! :goofy:
 
BTW, as far as changes from the original Swift, right off the bat I can see that the landing gear are fully enclosed when up (as opposed to exposed wheels), there are what appear to be stall fences on the wings, there are of course some of LoPresti's famous speed mods (flap splitters are fairly obvious in the video) and the original window/"lid" configuration has been replaced by a sliding canopy (also available on Globe Swifts via about 3 different STC's). And, of course, the stick, also available via several STC's on original Swifts.

I'm hoping the rudder is a little bigger too, the original Swifts were placarded against spinning, and takeoff direction in an original Swift with the 210hp engine becomes not an excercise in finding "which runway gives me the best headwind" as it'll leap off the ground with all that power, but instead "which runway gives me the most right crosswind" because the airframe was originally designed with an 85hp engine and it just doesn't have enough right rudder available.

I still want one. Old or new, I don't care - But if it's the old one, I want sticks. :yes:
 
AdamZ said:
More so than the Sai Marchetti that you love so much?
Click to expand...

No. The SF260 is #1 on my wish list as a far as something "achievable" someday.

Good memory Adam. :)
 
bbchien said:
Spike, just put the Continental 210 hp IO 360 STC in a Swift and you'll get just about the same thing :) I got to fly one last summer and was grin grin grin.
Click to expand...
Bruce, he flew in to see us on Thanksgiving weekend, and I made this video for him. He rarely needs to do a go-around at our farm, but he did one while we were filming. Landing downhill on a short runway over an obstacle can sometimes be a challenge and when it doesn't look right, it's time to go around. :yes: Besides, it gave us the chance to get more good shots of the Swift. :D He has also landed his Pitts on that runway in a very strong wind. I have a video clip of that somewhere.

 
I haven't flown one, looks like a fun sport plane, but my dream plane would be more aerobatic capable than this bird. But nice...
 
I'd be happy with an RV-7/7A.
 
I saw the SwiftFury at AOPA in Hartford. Pretty cool. IIRC they were planning to charge about $275k for it. I'm sure that's changed in 3 yrs.
 
A kit is a good idea, since I suspect the market for a certificated retractable two-seat tail dragger to be somewhat on the slim side.
 
steingar said:
A kit is a good idea, since I suspect the market for a certificated retractable two-seat tail dragger to be somewhat on the slim side.
Click to expand...

That might explain why Micco we under. I flew the SP-26 and it was a nice flying machine but I'd hardly call it a legitimate acro bird. Fun sport plane though. It was also in the high-200's.
 
Only a limited market for certified acro aircraft as well. Dat's why dey ain't too many.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm hoping the rudder is a little bigger too, the original Swifts were placarded against spinning, and takeoff direction in an original Swift with the 210hp engine becomes not an excercise in finding "which runway gives me the best headwind" as it'll leap off the ground with all that power, but instead "which runway gives me the most right crosswind" because the airframe was originally designed with an 85hp engine and it just doesn't have enough right rudder available.

I still want one. Old or new, I don't care - But if it's the old one, I want sticks. :yes:
Click to expand...

My dad's Swift has the 210 continental engine installed and I never felt there was inadequate rudder.
 
mcjon77 said:
You guys know that they are exploring turning the Lopresti Fury into a kit, right?

http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-04-08_fury_kit.asp

A polished swift is, IMHO, the most beautiful production GA aircraft I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

My Dad's Swift with the 210hp Continental.

DSC04250.jpg
 
Diana said:
Bruce, he flew in to see us on Thanksgiving weekend, and I made this video for him. He rarely needs to do a go-around at our farm, but he did one while we were filming. Landing downhill on a short runway over an obstacle can sometimes be a challenge and when it doesn't look right, it's time to go around. :yes: Besides, it gave us the chance to get more good shots of the Swift. :D He has also landed his Pitts on that runway in a very strong wind. I have a video clip of that somewhere.
Click to expand...

Thank you, thank you, thank you for that video. I thought I bounced my Mooney a lot, I have renewed confidence :thumbsup:


We will be building highly-refined versions of the M-20 airplane in the year 2000--Roy LoPresti, president of Mooney Aircraft, 1985.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
My Dad's Swift with the 210hp Continental.
Click to expand...

What are the performance figures on the various engined Swifts? Climb/speed, etc..

I always wondered if fuel load was an issue with the bigger engines. Stock is 34 gallons, right? The new Fury is at 60 gallons.

The Swift has been my "if I won the lottery" and bought an airplane planes. I really only need a 2 seater for my foreseeable future.

--Carlos V.
 
Diana said:
He rarely needs to do a go-around at our farm, but he did one while we were filming.
Click to expand...

I like how you moved farther from the runway for his 2nd pass and what was left of his 1st pass. *grin*

--Carlos V.
 
According to a first hand account from Corky Fornof about the only design feature the Fury shares with the Swift is the main landing gear.
 
Exocetid said:
Thank you, thank you, thank you for that video. I thought I bounced my Mooney a lot, I have renewed confidence :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I have a video of several of my bounces, if watching it would make you feel even better. :D Except I'm not posting it. :no: :D

Unbeliever said:
I like how you moved farther from the runway for his 2nd pass and what was left of his 1st pass. *grin*

--Carlos V.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Get an RV8 and spend the difference on flying 300 hours a year...

denny-o
 
Steve said:
According to a first hand account from Corky Fornof about the only design feature the Fury shares with the Swift is the main landing gear.
Click to expand...

Gosh I hope not - I don't think the gear is the most robust system on the airplane. :no:
 
Unbeliever said:
What are the performance figures on the various engined Swifts? Climb/speed, etc..
Click to expand...

All anecdotal, but I've heard the 145hp ones are in the neighborhood of 150mph, whereas the 210hp ones can bump right up on Vne which is 185mph IIRC.

I also saw a post from a gentleman with a 210hp Swift who was having issues bringing the gear up prior to Vlo without climbing at a fairly extreme (in his opinion) nose-up attitude. But, when you put a 210hp engine on a 1970-lb (if it has the MGW increase STC) airplane, you get a hot rod. Whee! :goofy:

I always wondered if fuel load was an issue with the bigger engines. Stock is 34 gallons, right? The new Fury is at 60 gallons.
Click to expand...

Stock is 26, IIRC - It's in the upper 20's anyway. It's also a little odd in that while there are tanks in both wings, there's only a filler cap on one wing. There are several added tank STC's - 9 gallons in the baggage compartment, outboard wing tanks, etc. and some of the big-engined Swifts total 59 gallons. I bet the LoPresti version doesn't have its 60 gallons in 5 different tanks, though, so managing it should be easier.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I also saw a post from a gentleman with a 210hp Swift who was having issues bringing the gear up prior to Vlo without climbing at a fairly extreme (in his opinion) nose-up attitude.
Click to expand...
Funny - did it dawn on the gentleman that he always has the option of pulling the power back?
 
jesse said:
Funny - did it dawn on the gentleman that he always has the option of pulling the power back?
Click to expand...

Yeahbut... If you had a Ferrari, would you drive it at 35mph? Nobody buys a hot rod to go slow.

Plus, for takeoff, I'd want full power to a safe altitude regardless of what I was flying - If you can get there quicker, so much the better. However, I'd take the high climb angle to keep the airspeed where I needed it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yeahbut... If you had a Ferrari, would you drive it at 35mph? Nobody buys a hot rod to go slow.

Plus, for takeoff, I'd want full power to a safe altitude regardless of what I was flying - If you can get there quicker, so much the better. However, I'd take the high climb angle to keep the airspeed where I needed it.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of aircraft out there that full power at takeoff is not always the best plan. Some simply have too much torque or require climb angles that wouldn't be safe at all if the engine were to quit.

Some aircraft will simply torque roll at high angles of attack with full power. If that happens down low - you're dead. You also won't have enough rudder on the takeoff roll to overcome that much power coming off the prop. More then one P51 pilot have died by suddenly slamming in full power down low at high angles of attack.

There are plenty of high performance agricultural aircraft that cannot run full power on the takeoff roll (depending on conditions) because it'll run them right off the runway. They'll also have the dangerous torque roll habit at high angles of attack with light loading.

I doubt a 210 HP swift is one of those aircraft, but that said, if the climb angle makes for a difficult recovery down low if the engine quits but if you climb less steep you'll blast through your gear speed you either need to pull the power back or pull the gear up. Either one will be safer (depending on the angles).

There are some aircraft that'll climb nearly straight up at full power. If you were 80 degrees nose up and the engine quit at 100 feet you better hope you have an ejection seat...
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
Some aircraft will simply torque roll at high angles of attack with full power. If that happens down low - you're dead. You also won't have enough rudder on the takeoff roll to overcome that much power coming off the prop. More then one P51 pilot have died by suddenly slamming in full power down low at high angles of attack.

There are plenty of high performance agricultural aircraft that cannot run full power on the takeoff roll (depending on conditions) because it'll run them right off the runway. They'll also have the dangerous torque roll habit at high angles of attack with light loading.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, like I said, an aircraft *I* would be flying. ;)

I doubt a 210 HP swift is one of those aircraft
Click to expand...

As do I, though I sure hope I get the chance to find out. :goofy:
 
Unbeliever said:
Yeeesh, that's some short legs.
Click to expand...

Well, you've gotta remember that the airplane was originally designed with an 85hp engine, and that 26 gallons would last as long as you'd want to sit in the airplane anyway. Then it got the 125hp which still would get you places with that little fuel. But when you strap an engine on it that's 147% larger than the original design, 2.5 hours to dry tanks is about all you can expect. :D

But, that's why there's all the tank STC's available.
 
I'm only good for two hours as well. Oh wait, we're talking about airplanes. Actually the Pitts I fly is good for about 2 hours to a stopped prop in economy cruise with the ferry tank full. But you know what, some birds can give you all the fun you can stand in way less time than that and I've never wanted more without taking a break first - and yes, I'm still talking about airplanes.
 
dmccormack said:
I have 3 hours to dry, and quite frankly 2 hours of tolerance.

:yesnod:
Click to expand...

Heh... Well, I'm crazy enough to have done a 5.3 hour leg. Once. What I like about having more fuel capacity is the ability to not fuel up every place I stop - I prefer to let the tanks empty out a bit more and buy more fuel from the places that are doing their part to keep flying as cheap as possible. :yes: But I also plan on at least an hour at landing, 'cuz I don't want to make the front page. :no:

Of course, tankering in a Swift seems kinda silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top