Gnat down at CarFest
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The confusion wrt 'wings' is not helped by the RAF changing the goalposts over the years. It was that the 4FTS course would conclude with wings and the 'student' would proceed to Brawdy or Chivenor for a Tactical Weapons Course also on the Hawk and then proceed to type (OCU).
All is now done in house at Valley; but certain squadrons have certain roles. My understanding is that 208 Sqn teaching is/was limited to handling the aircraft, not operating it.
To leave the service from 208 Sqn is strongly indicative of a student not attaining wings standard. Of course 'capacity' for a 'training risk' student can; and usually does grow with time. Failure of an RAF flying training course need not condemn anybody as unfit to fly for life.
The QFI who chopped Prince Andrew (Sea Harrier pilot desig) from the FJ pipeline was overheard as saying (upon hearing that Andrew had Sea King Captaincy) that it showed that if you throw enough money at someone you can turn them into an aircraft Captain.
Whatever the facts are; there is a widow and daughter missing a very special man. .... and I have often heard talk of the best aircraft, that they have the character of a sports car on a wet day; and must be treated as such - less they be unforgiving. Last weekend will long be remembered on the air show circuit for all the wrong reasons; and the lessons learnt will be little consolation to the loved ones left behind.
All is now done in house at Valley; but certain squadrons have certain roles. My understanding is that 208 Sqn teaching is/was limited to handling the aircraft, not operating it.
To leave the service from 208 Sqn is strongly indicative of a student not attaining wings standard. Of course 'capacity' for a 'training risk' student can; and usually does grow with time. Failure of an RAF flying training course need not condemn anybody as unfit to fly for life.
The QFI who chopped Prince Andrew (Sea Harrier pilot desig) from the FJ pipeline was overheard as saying (upon hearing that Andrew had Sea King Captaincy) that it showed that if you throw enough money at someone you can turn them into an aircraft Captain.
Whatever the facts are; there is a widow and daughter missing a very special man. .... and I have often heard talk of the best aircraft, that they have the character of a sports car on a wet day; and must be treated as such - less they be unforgiving. Last weekend will long be remembered on the air show circuit for all the wrong reasons; and the lessons learnt will be little consolation to the loved ones left behind.
G TIMM potted history:
Gnat G-TIMM was actually XP504, the oldest airworthy Gnat in existence - it was the fourth production machine. Served at 4 FTS, RAF Valley, and then 1 School of Tech Trg, Halton as ground instructional airframe..
Sold Nov 91, restored to flying condition at Leavesden. First flt Nov 92 to Cranfield. Acquired by Kennet in 1993
Early Red Arrows colours, Ray Hanna’s ac - and had the smoke system used by the Red Arrows.
airsound
Gnat G-TIMM was actually XP504, the oldest airworthy Gnat in existence - it was the fourth production machine. Served at 4 FTS, RAF Valley, and then 1 School of Tech Trg, Halton as ground instructional airframe..
Sold Nov 91, restored to flying condition at Leavesden. First flt Nov 92 to Cranfield. Acquired by Kennet in 1993
Early Red Arrows colours, Ray Hanna’s ac - and had the smoke system used by the Red Arrows.
airsound
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaggy Sheep Driver
We?
There's a big difference between informed speculation by the professionals here who fly or have flown mil jets and uninformed speculation by others.
Why not just read and learn.
- of course we'll speculate
We?
There's a big difference between informed speculation by the professionals here who fly or have flown mil jets and uninformed speculation by others.
Why not just read and learn.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport gains this week's pompous post prize. Wind your neck in, read, and YOU might learn something you patronising arrogant so and so!
I was tempted to be very rude there but managed to contain myself.
I was tempted to be very rude there but managed to contain myself.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Wales, near EGNR
Age: 50
Posts: 68
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the fact that the Gnat was able to return to its home base mean that the AAIB don't feel it's a mechanical issue with the type of aircraft?
Was wondering if the remaining Gnat may have done a flypast as a tribute on Sunday but thought that as well as it being emotional for the pilot that the aircraft may have been grounded.
Was wondering if the remaining Gnat may have done a flypast as a tribute on Sunday but thought that as well as it being emotional for the pilot that the aircraft may have been grounded.
Does the fact that the Gnat was able to return to its home base mean that the AAIB don't feel it's a mechanical issue with the type of aircraft?
The AAIB is not a regulator, and if you think of all the civil aircraft accidents that take place, how many of them result in a grounding in the immediate aftermath? Those that do are either self imposed by the operators, or by the regulator following a series of similar incidents/accidents.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"..inference he was a military pilot flat wrong...should be rebutted"? Really, TOFO? Why's that? How does whether or not he was awarded his wings bear on this accident at all?
Not long ago another pilot of a single engined jet tragically lost his life in an unexplained display crash. I don't recall any of this delving into his background -and if there had been, I suspect it would have provoked a furious response. Why is there a different set of rules here?
Not long ago another pilot of a single engined jet tragically lost his life in an unexplained display crash. I don't recall any of this delving into his background -and if there had been, I suspect it would have provoked a furious response. Why is there a different set of rules here?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,836
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
G TIMM potted history:
Gnat G-TIMM was actually XP504, the oldest airworthy Gnat in existence - it was the fourth production machine. Served at 4 FTS, RAF Valley, and then 1 School of Tech Trg, Halton as ground instructional airframe..
Sold Nov 91, restored to flying condition at Leavesden. First flt Nov 92 to Cranfield. Acquired by Kennet in 1993
Early Red Arrows colours, Ray Hanna’s ac - and had the smoke system used by the Red Arrows.
airsound
Gnat G-TIMM was actually XP504, the oldest airworthy Gnat in existence - it was the fourth production machine. Served at 4 FTS, RAF Valley, and then 1 School of Tech Trg, Halton as ground instructional airframe..
Sold Nov 91, restored to flying condition at Leavesden. First flt Nov 92 to Cranfield. Acquired by Kennet in 1993
Early Red Arrows colours, Ray Hanna’s ac - and had the smoke system used by the Red Arrows.
airsound
We also had to destroy a load of complete Avon engines so they could be sold as scrap and couldn't be used again, we had large GS screwdrivers, hacksaws and some sledgehammers, I remember it was bloody hard work to damage one..
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Gnats Display Team operate under CAA authority and within the regulations defined under CAP 563.
https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20...20Aircraft.pdf
Covers all facets or links to others that are greater in depth. Certainly covers experience, currency, maintenance, equipment's, organisation, auditing, etc. Even been updated on the fact that it is now legal to cover some costs by passenger payments.
https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20...20Aircraft.pdf
Covers all facets or links to others that are greater in depth. Certainly covers experience, currency, maintenance, equipment's, organisation, auditing, etc. Even been updated on the fact that it is now legal to cover some costs by passenger payments.
Busterbucani,
Stall speed increases with the square root of the load factor - I am sure that your error was just a typo! However, this is a simplified approximation that assumes that the lift curve slope remains constant at all speeds. In reality it does not. As Reynolds number (in essence TAS) increases, Cl max increases and thus the actual stall speed at greater than 1g is less than determined by the above relationship. This tends to be the case at low altitudes. However, as Mach number increases, Cl max reduces and so at high altitude the actual stall speed will be greater than the theoretical value calculated as above. This is also exacerbated by the fact that as altitude increases, the IAS for a given EAS increases. So, overall not as simple as you have implied.
My lack of comment as to the motion of the Gnat as shown in the videos is totally intentional! This is based on a few hours in the Gnat and significant experience of spinning and accelerated stalling in swept wing aircraft.
Stall speed increases with the square root of the load factor - I am sure that your error was just a typo! However, this is a simplified approximation that assumes that the lift curve slope remains constant at all speeds. In reality it does not. As Reynolds number (in essence TAS) increases, Cl max increases and thus the actual stall speed at greater than 1g is less than determined by the above relationship. This tends to be the case at low altitudes. However, as Mach number increases, Cl max reduces and so at high altitude the actual stall speed will be greater than the theoretical value calculated as above. This is also exacerbated by the fact that as altitude increases, the IAS for a given EAS increases. So, overall not as simple as you have implied.
My lack of comment as to the motion of the Gnat as shown in the videos is totally intentional! This is based on a few hours in the Gnat and significant experience of spinning and accelerated stalling in swept wing aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
Heliport gains this week's pompous post prize. Wind your neck in, read, and YOU might learn something you patronising arrogant so and so!
I was tempted to be very rude there but managed to contain myself.
I was tempted to be very rude there but managed to contain myself.
I wholeheartedly agree that it could have been worded a lot better than it was.
Equally, I agree with BEagles sentiment some posts back. There's a grieving family and grieving friends somewhere out there and pointing the finger at this point isn't helping them.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Milt in Post #108
You say the nose wheel door acted as the air brake on the Gnat?
My involvement with the Gnat revolves only as a young spectator and later as a Halton Apprentice (plenty of Gnats to work on in 1984 during the 'airfield' phase).
I thought it was the main gear that extended partially to allow the main gear 'doors' (fairings would be a better term) to act as air brakes - or am I mistaken?
Perhaps it was all three gear doors?
You say the nose wheel door acted as the air brake on the Gnat?
My involvement with the Gnat revolves only as a young spectator and later as a Halton Apprentice (plenty of Gnats to work on in 1984 during the 'airfield' phase).
I thought it was the main gear that extended partially to allow the main gear 'doors' (fairings would be a better term) to act as air brakes - or am I mistaken?
Perhaps it was all three gear doors?
I think Busterbucani has it right: 'high-speed' stall followed by not enough height to recover (the biggest airshow killer of them all).
Condolences to family and friends. the Gnat team are one of my favourite airshow acts, reminding me of the first time I saw a real jet (Red Arrows Gnat parked at the entrance to Brighton Pier in the mid-70s). I expect it was one of those detailed mock-ups like the later Hawk that used to do the rounds with the RAF Recruiting Team.
The only jets I had ever seen in real life were airliners like the Trident; that Gnat looked like a spaceship from the future as I was probably about 7 or 8 at the time!
Very grateful that the Gnat Display Team kept them flying
; I for one don't care how rich they are or what their individul motivations may be.
Flug
Condolences to family and friends. the Gnat team are one of my favourite airshow acts, reminding me of the first time I saw a real jet (Red Arrows Gnat parked at the entrance to Brighton Pier in the mid-70s). I expect it was one of those detailed mock-ups like the later Hawk that used to do the rounds with the RAF Recruiting Team.
The only jets I had ever seen in real life were airliners like the Trident; that Gnat looked like a spaceship from the future as I was probably about 7 or 8 at the time!
Very grateful that the Gnat Display Team kept them flying
; I for one don't care how rich they are or what their individul motivations may be.Flug
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't ban or censure speculation, unsettling though it is to many aircrew - its a small time internet based public forum (PPrune ffs-not The Times)- anyone can post here. We need free speech (and thought) as much as ever within the (largely controlled) media. People are right to ask hard questions about this weekend. They would be asking a lot more if this aircraft had come down upon the general public.
I spell it out- a very old ex military aircraft yet again, doing a display and flying over the general populace comes to grief, and yet again my question on Prune is how necessary and safe is this exactly?
I say again; fortunate enough that nobody was underneath the aircraft when it came to grief, considering it was a mass outdoor event within densely populated England.
And incredible though it seems to some pruners, please spare a single thought for the fire crews, the medical staff and the police in their efforts to deal with and control the unpleasant aftermath of the crash.
I spell it out- a very old ex military aircraft yet again, doing a display and flying over the general populace comes to grief, and yet again my question on Prune is how necessary and safe is this exactly?
I say again; fortunate enough that nobody was underneath the aircraft when it came to grief, considering it was a mass outdoor event within densely populated England.
And incredible though it seems to some pruners, please spare a single thought for the fire crews, the medical staff and the police in their efforts to deal with and control the unpleasant aftermath of the crash.
ShotOne said:
How does whether or not he was awarded his wings bear on this accident at all?
How does whether or not he was awarded his wings bear on this accident at all?
Purely my viewpoint and no disrespect to the individual concerned. It appears to me to be poor media reporting (or media being misled).
At least it will be an independent inquiry and the 'truth will out' in a decent timeframe.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and yet again my question on Prune is how necessary and safe is this exactly?
As for safety, it can be done very safely and with minimal risk. Look no further than the RAF BBMF. Their record is as good as it is because they have a team of dedicated, highly trained and experienced engineers to give the airframes all of the TLC they will ever need from the moment they are shut down. Yes, it's expensive.... but so is anything else that's worth doing. If safety was a big issue then the Flight would be disbanded and millions would be saved.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"..inference he was a military pilot flat wrong...should be rebutted"? Really, TOFO? Why's that? How does whether or not he was awarded his wings bear on this accident at all?
It's a simple question...was he a military pilot or was he not? Since you seem to want to pick a fight, let me spell it out again...I make no inference about the accident whatsoever. My beef is with lazy, inaccurate and complacent journalism.
Hopefully you can get your head round that without looking for a debate when there is none to be had.
PS
Voicemail, thanks for the reply
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can clear one thing up - Kev was not chopped from fast jets; he left of his own volition. I met him recently in a city context and he was extremely helpful and charismatic; a very impressive man.
I also feel speculation is fair game in/on this forum
I also feel speculation is fair game in/on this forum
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Alaska
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right
Touche, Lomcevak, spellcheck is the bane of my earthly existence.
At least you were paying attention and double checked my assertion with memory perhaps aided by a surreptitious mouse click.
You did rather digress however because the subject at hand is a Gnat traveling at 350 KIAS give or take on the deck pulling hard G to reform with the 2 ship formation. You then concurred with me by saying "This tends to be the case at low altitudes." Therefore mach numbers and high altitudes are of no relevance here.
You say "So, overall not as simple as you have implied." Actually dear boy, it is.
Anyone with any tactical swept wing fighter time will have on their first dual sortie been instructed to pull to the buffet, then through the buffet into full departure before recovering several thousand feet below. A 6-8G pull in a Gnat such as the one shown would easily lead to a high speed high G load departure that I believe we are seeing. It is perhaps the single most classic and tragic cause of repeated airshow accidents in high performance aircraft from 51's to swept wing vintage jets.
And yet many pilots still do not understand that they can stall a fast jet or other aircraft doing 350 KIAS in a bank but level attitude (or any other configuration) by pure G loading. You have demonstrated that you understand this as do others here.
I have several hundred hours in MiG 15 and 17F aircraft (and less time in training aircraft such as the L39 and Dornier Alpajet), a modest background but you will allow of some relevance here. Ditto for the P51 which will also depart with a 6-8G pull in the right conditions. I have zero time in the lovely, iconic and timeless Folland Gnat which is why I have learned much from this discussion. I mourn the lost aircraft as I mourn its pilot.
If I am accused of being an "armchair theorist(s) (are) crawling out of the woodwork" then I stand guilty as charged. The brittle pomposity apparent in these accusations is as unhelpful as it is unattractive.
I have lost a dozen or so close friends and acquaintances in air show crashes in the USA over the last 15-20 years in P51's, F4U's, and F86's. Most to pilot error. I merely seek to understand this accident as do others here.
"There is no reason to doubt the skills of the late pilot or the professionalism of the team and it is disrespectful for anyone to do so.
Just wait for the accident report, please."
Oh My Gawd really??
The team seems professional and the pilot had time in training aircraft, the turboprop Tucano and the Hawk. Ironically his best experience was probably flying the Gnat for what, 8-10 years? This analysis is not disrespectful at all. There seem to be a surfeit of precious old vicars lurking on this thread. Humility dictates that we respect their opinions as they should respect ours.
Do forgive my temerity as a new poster but this is a good thread and a robust exchange of views should be defended from the tyranny of petty minds.
“I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things. ”
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Tragic accident to be sure, but flying vintage swept wing fighters at airshows is an intoxicating if unforgiving mistress!
At least you were paying attention and double checked my assertion with memory perhaps aided by a surreptitious mouse click.
You did rather digress however because the subject at hand is a Gnat traveling at 350 KIAS give or take on the deck pulling hard G to reform with the 2 ship formation. You then concurred with me by saying "This tends to be the case at low altitudes." Therefore mach numbers and high altitudes are of no relevance here.
You say "So, overall not as simple as you have implied." Actually dear boy, it is.
Anyone with any tactical swept wing fighter time will have on their first dual sortie been instructed to pull to the buffet, then through the buffet into full departure before recovering several thousand feet below. A 6-8G pull in a Gnat such as the one shown would easily lead to a high speed high G load departure that I believe we are seeing. It is perhaps the single most classic and tragic cause of repeated airshow accidents in high performance aircraft from 51's to swept wing vintage jets.
And yet many pilots still do not understand that they can stall a fast jet or other aircraft doing 350 KIAS in a bank but level attitude (or any other configuration) by pure G loading. You have demonstrated that you understand this as do others here.
I have several hundred hours in MiG 15 and 17F aircraft (and less time in training aircraft such as the L39 and Dornier Alpajet), a modest background but you will allow of some relevance here. Ditto for the P51 which will also depart with a 6-8G pull in the right conditions. I have zero time in the lovely, iconic and timeless Folland Gnat which is why I have learned much from this discussion. I mourn the lost aircraft as I mourn its pilot.
If I am accused of being an "armchair theorist(s) (are) crawling out of the woodwork" then I stand guilty as charged. The brittle pomposity apparent in these accusations is as unhelpful as it is unattractive.
I have lost a dozen or so close friends and acquaintances in air show crashes in the USA over the last 15-20 years in P51's, F4U's, and F86's. Most to pilot error. I merely seek to understand this accident as do others here.
"There is no reason to doubt the skills of the late pilot or the professionalism of the team and it is disrespectful for anyone to do so.
Just wait for the accident report, please."
Oh My Gawd really??
The team seems professional and the pilot had time in training aircraft, the turboprop Tucano and the Hawk. Ironically his best experience was probably flying the Gnat for what, 8-10 years? This analysis is not disrespectful at all. There seem to be a surfeit of precious old vicars lurking on this thread. Humility dictates that we respect their opinions as they should respect ours.
Do forgive my temerity as a new poster but this is a good thread and a robust exchange of views should be defended from the tyranny of petty minds.
“I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things. ”
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Tragic accident to be sure, but flying vintage swept wing fighters at airshows is an intoxicating if unforgiving mistress!