Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Mr Petter's Baby Jet - The Folland Gnat

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Mr Petter's Baby Jet - The Folland Gnat

Old 13th Aug 2011, 10:10
  #81 (permalink)  

Dog Tired
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Bob J sent me solo.
fantom is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2011, 21:03
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 77
Posts: 1,370
Received 20 Likes on 12 Posts
One little incident at Valley still raises a chuckle. The Gnat's internal wing tanks were integral (in other words, not bag-tanks. The structure was sealed with PRC or similar) and it was not uncommon for leaks to develop such that a mainplane change was needed. For this, a Working Party from 71(?) MU would arrive on a CAT2 Assist basis to remove the offending item and fit one that had been reworked.

The Gaydon Hangar floor had servicing pits that had not been used for donkey's years and were covered with teak timbers. Over the years these had become soaked in copious amounts of fluids various. One day, whilst manoeuvring a Gnat into a slot, the port leg went through the planks and the wing hit the concrete with a resounding thud. Surveying the scene, our EngO ('Blakey', due to his likeness to the 'On the Buses' character) came up with a bright idea. In the next slot was an aircraft awaiting a mainplane change due to a leak on the starboard side. "Lets switch port wings".
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2011, 11:59
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Fair Oak Hampshire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angel Dave W

Very interested in the comments regarding the Gnat T1 and it's flying controls. I was a draughtsman in the Folland Design Office 1954 -1965 and worked on the flying controls section on the Gnat trainer. I wouldn't say the Elevator control system was complex but the Hobson unit and the electric trim did give some problems initially. The main problem as far as the RAF were concerned was the lack of longitudinal feel and the manual reversion system. Yes there was a Folland swing wing aircraft design, the FO148, not a swing wing Gnat but much larger and eventually contributing towards the MRCA and the Tornado, I worked on this design in the project office - we have the large low speed wind tunnel model of this aircraft in the Solent Sky museum in Southampton.
solentdave is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 10:53
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
There just HAVE to be more Ganat stories out there.....
Wander00 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 16:12
  #85 (permalink)  

Dog Tired
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Who remembers the episode when a disaffected person ran amok along the line and bent all the pitot probes?
fantom is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 16:31
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 77
Posts: 1,370
Received 20 Likes on 12 Posts
Who remembers the episode when a disaffected person ran amok along the line and bent all the pitot probes?
I don't recall that but do recall that aircraft on the Line were found with GS-screwdriver blade-shaped holes in the fuselage. This was in the early days of Flight Line Mechanics (FLM's or more colloquially known as Phlegms...) and there was disgruntlement/disillusion amongst a few of them when reality of life on the Line and their restrictive Terms of Service sank home. Mind you, they were mostly an excellent, hard-working, hard-playing bunch who did a very good job. The one extremely annoying trait was to remove a pea-bulb and holder or two if they felt there were too many serviceable aircraft on the Line on a Friday.

Ooh, Chief, suspect loose article - pea bulb missing! Result for those on the Friday-evening Rects shift were a bunch of aircraft requiring cockpit loose-article checks with all the resulting time-consuming nausea that guaranteed the riggers, plumbers and duty NDT man not getting home until sometime on Sat morning.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2011, 10:23
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 87
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For all of us Gnat watchers, "Hot Shots" is on the box again tonight - 23:00 on E4
NutherA2 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2011, 23:57
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My grandfather was - apparently - a gardener at the Petter family home in the 1920/30's. Where do I claim my free ride in Gnat / Lightning / Canberra....?

More seriously, if John Brown's hadn't pissed Teddy Petter off, what would Westland be building now, and how differently would the UK aircraft industry have developed?

Is there a Petter archive anywhere of 'what might have been...'?

Last edited by jamesdevice; 18th Aug 2011 at 00:24.
jamesdevice is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2011, 09:56
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jd: (what) if John Brown's hadn't pissed Teddy Petter off..?
Petter's Ltd. span off Westland Aircraft Ltd 4/7/35, but by 10/35 that "appeared...on the verge of collapse" S.Ritchie, Industry & Air Power, Cass,1997,P.46. Air Ministry facilitated John Brown's acquisition of 50% and A.E.I's of 18.75%, July,1938 to provide the general business heft needed to produce Whirlwind as the prime Home Defence type, to be built by Nuffield at Castle Bromwich. Eric Mensforth came in as M.D. W.E.W.Petter was Technical Director, a “superb design engineer”. but who sought “absolute control (in) all aspects (so with WAL’s) goodwill and the embryo bomber design (to be A1)” and with MAP's blessing (Mensforth then there as Chief Production Adviser) he migrated North in 1944 to be EE’s Design Office. E.Mensforth,Family Engineers, Ward Locke,1981,P.113.

The John Brown involvement caused fellow mariner Vickers to co-operate in MAP's shadow designation of Westland, firstly as Spitfire structure supplier, then assembler, then Seafire and Merlin Spitfire Design Authority, to release Vickers-Supermarine to do Griffon Marks. With or without a family member as Technical Director in 1946, Westland would have gone the way of others, declining to a sub-contractor, if they had tried to remain a Design Prime when there was no business. A wholly-Westland A1 would not have been funded in May,1945: Minister Cripps did so at Preston due to proven production competence and despite his officials querying EE's Design capacity as a one-man show R.Bud/P.Gummett,Cold War Hot Science,Harwood,1999. A1 (to be Canberra), if offered from Yeovil's shed, would either have been declined, or shot-gun into a team.

The salvation of WAL, lifting them above every Boulton Paul, Cunliffe-Owen, General...et al, was the change of product line into rotary. I surmise that W.E.W.Petter would have opposed that. Design creativity seldom cohabits with business flair and with team-inspiration. W.E.W was not G.R Edwards.
tornadoken is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2011, 12:28
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
interesting thoughts. Of course assembly of the Canberra at Yeovil would have been challenging with just that short grass runway. I wonder how they intended to get round that?
jamesdevice is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2011, 15:06
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm sure I remember someone from that era telling me that the Lightning was a good lead-in trainer for the Gnat...
Well the avionics were the same except that the Gnat had no auto throttle and FCS / autostab (IFIS instead of the Lightnings IFICS) . during my 18 months tech training at Cosford in the 80's I had the joy of working on an ex Red Arrows airframe. Managed to drop a fuse down the back of the front seat. No amount of fiddling with endoscopic wiggly tools would recover it. The riggers and the plumbers were pleased



S

Last edited by Squawk7143; 18th Aug 2011 at 15:11. Reason: correct typo
Squawk7143 is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2011, 18:42
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
tornadoken...

Fascinating idea that Whirlwind was intended as the prime air defense fighter, but that explains the twin configuration, design for speed and climb rate and the Dornier-disassembling, Heinkel-hacking and Junkers-junking equipment in the nose.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2011, 20:07
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I have to disagree with most here. The Gnat, to me, was a tiny aircaft, with a small wing, a narrow track undercarriage, a stupidly small cockpit, a nasty flying control system, and all else that was unrepresentative of the day. Silly little thing. On 3 Sqn, the Hunter F6 was in a different class - as ever.
jindabyne is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2011, 20:26
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jindabyne

how tall are you?
jamesdevice is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2011, 21:14
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Lower than most - as most fighter pilots are (were!). With 4 years at 4 FTS Valley on beach-side

And before Newt chips in, I was one before becoming a 'bomber' pilot!
jindabyne is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2011, 21:56
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
The Gnat, to me, was a tiny aircaft,
True

with a small wing, a narrow track undercarriage
True

a stupidly small cockpit,
A compact, well laid-out design with everything at your fingertips. Except for the ILS channel selector. It had a proper series of red and amber captions for malfunctions, a very simple fuel gauging system and that students' friend, the marvellous offset TACAN! Whereas the Hunter cockpit was an ergonomic slum, with various lights scattered haphazardly. A ridiculous fuel gauging system that only really worked in straight and level flight, circuit breakers which almost required you to dislocate your right shoulder to reset them. The Hunter had an ancient artificial horizon and a turn and slip - whereas the Gnat had a large attitude indicator and a reasonable stand by system. The TACAN indicator in the Hunter was non-intuitive; in the Gnat it was the next best thing to a moving map. The Hunter didn't have ILS or offset TACAN, but at least the Valley jets weren't limited to Rebecca DME! The GT6 Hunter cockpit had one outstanding feature though - it only had one seat!

a nasty flying control system,
Complicated, it is true. But light and precise controls, with Q-feel which provided much better harmony throughout the speed range than the crude hydroboosters of the Hunter. In 'manual' the Gnat still had light control forces, but demanded a specific procedure and was very much a 'get you home' system. Woe betide anyone who didn't understand the longitudinal control system! The Hunter in manual had very heavy controls, but was less demanding than the Gnat - although it could wallow and Dutch roll on the approach.

and all else that was unrepresentative of the day.
I disagree. The Hunter was rather an anachronism and unrepresentative of any contemporary front line fighter of the day, but we loved it for all that! It was exceptionally easy to fly and was a delight in formation, unlike the Gnat which was very twitchy.

Silly little thing. On 3 Sqn, the Hunter F6 was in a different class - as ever.
Except that on 3 Sqn, there was also that lead sled, the T7....

Which would I prefer to fly again? BOTH!!
BEagle is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2011, 16:26
  #97 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,369
Received 86 Likes on 60 Posts
In engineering terms, the Gnat was ahead of it's time in many respects being modular in contruction...well more or less. The rear fuse. came apart very easily, the engine removed, the saddle tanks the same and then the wing could simply be lifted off. The problems were re-assembly and cable tensions / setting the tailplane up... plus canopy crazing and the infamous pulley box system behind the rear seat.

A remarkably solid airframe as well, as evidenced by the one I collected at Leck after it's moment of passion with an F-104

The bent pitot incident was in the very late 60's in Gaydon Hangar by one, possibly two, "very unhappy" line mechs.

On the subject of size, the U.S. exchange pilot...R. R ( who carried out, I believe a practice fire drill over Harlech and then had the real thing..after which both left in a successful hurry )...always seemed " a very tight fit"..he was, ahem, quite well built as they say....unlike myself on the three back seat rides I managed during my time at Valley.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2011, 15:52
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I doubt if the Red Arrows ever described the Gnat as 'twitchy'.

Incidently, when evaluated by CFS prior to acceptance into service, they described it as not easy to fly in formation.

Glad the arrows put CFS back in their box.
soddim is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2011, 16:03
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'll go with the CFS evaluation on formation flying. Nevertheless, the Reds did make it look easy, which was even more depressing. My instructor was ex 111 (I think it was that team) and he made it look SO easy!
Wander00 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2011, 20:57
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
The UK's 6 x Gnat F1 fighters were used by the Ministry of Supply as development aircraft, but as far as I'm aware, were never used by the RAF.


One was evaluated (along with a Hunter F6 and a Jet Provost) as a Venom replacement for the Middle East. That was given to the Hunter FGA9.

Of course, the Indians used quite a few.
XV277 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.