Gnat vs. Hawk Flight Characteristics

[Fonsini]

So there happens to be a Gnat for sale over on Controller.com all decked out in Red Arrows livery and the write up makes specific mention of how RAF pilots took a step down in performance when they transitioned to the Hawk.

For those few who have flown both types, what would your take be on such a statement ?

[sharpend]

So there happens to be a Gnat for sale over on Controller.com all decked out in Red Arrows livery and the write up makes specific mention of how RAF pilots took a step down in performance when they transitioned to the Hawk.

For those few who have flown both types, what would your take be on such a statement ?


I flew Gnats in the 60s and Hawks in the 80s. The performance of the Hawk was inferior to that of the Gnat. Additionally, the Hawk handing was much more benign than the Gnat. Rate of roll of a Gnat was 480 deg/sec.

[Davef68]

Probably down to the fact that Gnat was a fighter adapted to a trainer. Hawk was a purpose designed trainer

[beardy]

I believe that the original RAF test pilot report of the Hawk was less than complementary. He was quietly shuffled off to CFS.

[B2N2]

How many peace time losses of the Gnat vs the Hawk?

[BEagle]

The Gnat had true swept wing handling, a very responsive engine, an excellent offset TACAN system, was easily supersonic in a dive and had a superb compass system. You also felt that you were part of the little jet when you strapped into the simple, reliable Folland seat.

The Hawk had none of the above. Yes, it was much easier to fly, known as the JP6 by some, had much better range and had simpler systems. I can well believe, beardy, that it received a less-than-complimentary assessment from an RAF TP! I also recall reading in some Learning Command crash comic "The deficiencies of the Hawk compass system were well-known before the aircraft entered service".... So why was it allowed to enter service then? I only flew the 'orange button' pre-AHARS Hawk and the compass system was utterly dire. The Hawk had a better radio fit, with both UHF and VHF, whereas the Gnat was single UHF-only, with a 243.0/243.8 standby radio. The Hawk also had a full-frequency ILS system (but no VOR), whereas the Gnat had a 12(?) channel crystal system which could only be reached by someone with the dexterity of James Herriot sticking his hand up a cow's arse.

The worst aspect of the Gnat was its twitchiness in close formation - which was a bugger. Whereas despite its sluggish engine response, formation in the Hawk was dead easy. I once left 1 notch of flap down (by mistake) when flying the Gnat in close formation and it was vastly easier to fly - interesting that the Reds usually flew it that way!

At TWU, the Hawks I flew didn't have the dorsal fin extension, so weren't terribly yaw stable for strafe. Astonishingly, they also lacked a gun sight as good as the ones we had in the Hunter a few years earlier. But they did have a much better camera - no juggling with cine mags unlike in the Hunter.

The Gnat's longitudinal control system was very complicated and failure procedures had to be immediate and correct; AC/DC failure was also quite complicated to resolve. STUPRECCC and CUBSTUNT probably haunt many an ex-Gnat pilot to this very day! By the time I flew it in 1975, the Gnat had a feel trim position indicator and Mod399 standby TPI changeover switches, which made the hydraulic failure procedure much simpler and safer.

But my favourite red-and-white trainer? The lovely Hunter GT6 - and not just because it didn't have a seat for a QFI. Quite viceless and it went like stink!

That said, one of my favourite Hawk trips ever was a 2-ship tactical formation exercise at low level in Devon, led by sharpend - quite brilliant fun!

[nipva]

Fonsini,

I think Beagle above has given a pretty comprehensive and accurate answer . I have 100+ hours on the Gnat mainly as a student in the 60's and 800+ hours on the Hawk mainly as a TWU instructor.
The Gnat was significantly faster than the Hawk, had ultra-responsive controls including a head banging rate of roll and was more compilcated . It was thus a challenging aircraft to fly and therefore, in my opinion, a better lead-in to later fastjets. The Hawk was less of a challenge and, because of this, the TWU course had to be altered to give students a similar degree of challenge to the Hunter course that it replaced.. Its performance at low-level in the TWU environment was always a problem - a realistic top speed of about 480Kts thanks to the external gun pod and wing hardpoints and sortie lengths of less than an hour. Beagle has detailed the systems and equipment but I would add 2 others. The back seat for we instructors was luxury compared with the contortions necessary in the Gnat. The other is the simplicity of arming the Gnat's ejection seats. No pins to drop just a ball on a stick in the back of your neck that you turned through 90 degrees to arm it.

Which was the better? The Hawk was simpler, more reliable and a quantum leap for the instructot. The most fun? The Gnat by a country mile.

[DaveUnwin]

To give an almost diametrically opposed perspective to Nipvas, I have about an hour in a Gnat and two hours in Hawks. After the second Hawk trip I honestly felt that I could have safely taken it around the patch. It was CAVOK and about 15kts of wind straight down a nice long runway, and the Hawk just wasn't that intimidating to fly. I don't mean to claim I could have taken it low-level or anything tricky, just a few circuits.
The Gnat? I think I would've taken a lot longer before even thinking about going solo!

[nipva]

DaveU
I think that you may have misconstrued my post in which I said that the Hawk was less of a challenge to fly than the Gnat which seems to be the point that you are making so not sure where the 'diametrically opposed perspective' resides.

On a separate note for others on this subject, I should have mentioned that the Gnat could be a real handful during crosswind landings - no such problem with the Hawk. As to Beagle's reference to the Hunter GT6 I completely agree - almost as much fun as a Lightning especially the stripped F1A's at Colt. .

.

[DaveUnwin]

Sorry Nipva, my bad - perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I deliberately didn't say 'view' but 'perspective'.
My point was I was looking at the two machines from having very little experience of either, whereas you had plenty in both.
And of course having viewed both aircraft from our diametrically opposed perspectives, the conclusions were nevertheless the same!
Out of interest, did students solo the Hawk much quicker than the Gnat? My own very limited experience did suggest this might be the case.

[nipva]

Dave,
Sortie 8 was the first solo on the Gnat at 4FTS Valley. I regret that I don't know on which sortie current Hawk students first solo. My own Hawk convex was at the TWU and took 2 duals before solo but I was already instructing and current on the Hunter. Hopefully someone else can give you the normal solo time for ab initio students at Valley. I would be surprised if it was not muchquicker than the Gnat where the leap from the Jet Provost to the Gnat was quite eye-watering; I am sure that the transition from Tucano to Hawk was much less traumatic.

[DaveUnwin]

Thanks Nipva. Yeah, I bet the Gnat was a BIG step up from a JP (have flown a StrikeMaster a couple of times).

[BEagle]

Well, there's a thing! Just checked my old logbooks and found that it's 44 years to the day since I flew my first Gnat solo!

March 04 1975 Gnat T1 XR977 Self solo Ex10 0:30 captain and 3 landings. As I recall it was a nice, sunny day - after a pre-solo trip in the morning I was sent off to fly once round Anglesey followed by a couple of touch-and-gos and a full-stop. All went absolutely fine - one of my better 4FTS Gnat trips.

[Dan Winterland]

I am sure that the transition from Tucano to Hawk was much less traumatic.

The Tucano was designed to lead the students into the Hawk, but rather convolutedly ended up being more complex. I recall the jump from the JP5 to the Hawk as being quite a step. But after instructing in the Tucano, a return to the Hawk seemed easy-peasy.

[Shaft109]

Your solo Gnat is comfortably in retirement at RAFM Cosford,

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/collections/85-A-146-HS-Gnat-T-1-XR977.pdf

[mahogany bob]

About trip 3 on the Gnat conversion - T and G s - over the threshold high and hot so throttled back - hit the concrete like a brick!
Welcome to the swept back world - didn't do that again!

[X767]

After 7.15 mins dual with Tony Doyle, first solo in XP539 in 1963. It's been a long time, but the jump from JP to Gnat didn't seem too arduous.
As a precursor to my next tour on the Hunter, it was a delight !

[Pontius Navigator]

Where did they plan to use the Jaguar as a trainer? Was it planned as a Hunter replacement for TWU or after the Gnat?

[Phantom Driver]

Gnat ? Quite simply--" Sports car of the Air " :ok:
( drove down the A5 pass the other day ; that brought back a few memories of recovering back to Valley......)

[Fonsini]

Crickey - and they are only asking $125,000 for it.....

I do recall one driver commenting that the rudder pedals were an unnecessary luxury in the Gnat, it was all roll and pull. Do we have anyone who flew the single seater ?

[ORAC]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Folland_Gnats

[J1N]

Clearly aeroplanes from different eras. Was the Gnat better suited as a lead in to early fast jets such as the Lightning, and the Hawk optimised as an introduction to later fighters such as the Tornado with fewer rough edges?

[treadigraph]

There's an airworthy single seater Hindustan-built Gnat (Ajeet?) at North Weald - pic on the Air Britain site (https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/search?q=G-SLYR&f=registration&exact=1&search_type=simple&source=g-info)...

[ancientaviator62]

Risking a little thread drift would the Gnat have made a suitable fighter for the RAF ? The IAF version seemed to perform well enough to be dubbed 'the Sabre slayer'.

[BEagle]

The cockpit of the Gnat to which the OP refers has been butchered into bearing scant resemblance to any RAF Gnat...

The Gnat's OR946 instrument display and general characteristics made it an excellent lead-in trainer for the Lightning, although students would first have to complete their weapons course on the Hunter.

Hawk was intended to replace both Gnat and Hunter but had few, if any, swept-wing characteristics. But as a trainer it has served the RAF well - even though it lacks the Gnat's soul.

[nipva]

Beagle
Re your post #6 above I am intrigued. It implies that you soloed on both the Gnat and the Hunter whilst at Valley so how come? As I recall, students generally did the Gnat course with the Hunter course on 3 Sqn being reserved for foreign nationals and those that were too big/long for the Gnat.

[Herod]

BEagle. Your Gnat isn't at Cosford. It's on display at Hendon.

[Davef68]

Where did they plan to use the Jaguar as a trainer? Was it planned as a Hunter replacement for TWU or after the Gnat?

The original plan was as a Gnat (and Hunter T7) replacement as an advanced trainer - the switch to a primarily tactical attack aircraft led to Hawk and Alpha Jet to fulfil the trainer role

[BEagle]

As there was usually a 'hold' between completing the Gnat course and starting at TWU, we were given a short Hunter refresher course of around 20 hrs at Valley before starting at Brawdy.

In my case, I finished my Gnat course on 4 Jun 1975, then had an interesting detachment to Wildenrath in July and August before my planned Hunter refresher course at the end of September. But after 3 sim trips I was told that someone else needed my slot, so I went back to hold with 2 Sqn 4FTS, scrounging 18 hours of sandbag time until my Hunter course recommenced in mid-November.

I went solo on the GT6 on 9th Dec, but the course was mainly dual so I only had 3 solo trips before it finished in early January. Then solo again at Brawdy in the F6A a couple of weeks later.

The long Hunter course was indeed mostly for foreign students and those too big to fit the Gnat, but the short Hunter refresher was for everyone except those creamed off to be Gnat QFIs.

[Wander00]

22 Course at Valley in '66, and mention of the Gnat still makes me grin from ear to ear.......

[RetiredBA/BY]

Some thread drift:
The removed section of flap vane on the Hawk cured the strong pitch down with flap, as discovered by Duncan Simpson on its first flight. As the removed section is outboard of the tailplane span, can anyone explain just how that works ?

Hawk, Gnat, you guys dont know what you missed ( fortunately) not flying the Vampire T11 !!!!!!

Probably the worst cockpit of any aeroplane I got to fly, in comparison the Gnat and Hawks were a dream !

My own limited experience of thse two types, suggest to me the Hawk was halfway between a JP 5 and the Gnat.

[BEagle]

I had one trip in a Sea Vampire T22 back in 1969 - the cockpit was indeed rather an ergonomic slum! I recall one pre-start check was to make sure that instructor and student hadn't got their straps interconnected!

But we flew back from RNAS Lossiemouth to RNAS Yeovilton in little more time than it took me to get from RAF Kinloss to RNAS Lossiemouth as a passenger in what must have been one of the RAF's last Standard Vanguards!

[RetiredBA/BY]

You recall correctly, it was a check, running your hand between the seats, on the T11 I still remember !

[kenparry]

Where did they plan to use the Jaguar as a trainer? Was it planned as a Hunter replacement for TWU or after the Gnat?

It was going to replace the Gnat, AFAIK.

When the first Gnats arrived at Valley I was a stude there on the Vampire. Echoing the comment above about the Gnat in a crosswind, I remember a bar conversation with one of the first Gnat QFIs. Having asked what the new bird was like, the answer was:

"Well, if you have let down through 30,000ft of cloud, seen the lights at minimums, and touched down in the middle of the runway on the crosswind limit, then in most aircraft your problems would be over. With a Gnat, they are just beginning."

I did have a ride in one at Rissy a few months later, and was impressed by its modernity compared with the Vampire T11. All a long time ago...……………..

[KenV]

I'm an A-4 driver with zero experience on Gnat and Hawk. Anyone out there with Gnat/Hawk and A-4 experience who could provide a comparison? I realize that the A-4 was twice the weight, wing area and thrust of the Gnat, but I'd be grateful for a comparison. Thanks.

[DaveUnwin]

I flew a Vampire T.11 many years ago. The cockpit was an ergonomic nightmare, but what sticks in my memory is how poor the initial acceleration was. I was pushing the throttle hard against the stop and even asked P1 if the brakes were dragging!

[longer ron]

Some thread drift:
The removed section of flap vane on the Hawk cured the strong pitch down with flap, as discovered by Duncan Simpson on its first flight. As the removed section is outboard of the tailplane span, can anyone explain just how that works ?

Below is an excerpt from an aerosociety.com article...
I have a feeling that the the 'Phantom Dive' IIRC did not occur on XX154 (1st Hawk) but on some of the subsequent A/C and came as a nasty surprise,but sorted fairly quickly by removal of the outer flap vane.

https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4842/the-hawk-story.pdf










(1)....Stall behaviour The stall, as first experienced, occurred at a good low speed, but with very little buffet warning. One or other wing dropped suddenly and uncontrollably, though the aircraft did not depart into a spin and recovery was normal, rolling out to controlled flight. But clearly this was not acceptable. Flow visualisation revealed that a sudden ‘leading edge’ type of stall was occurring, originating at about mid-semispan. This was perhaps partly due to an aerodynamic concession, in that for production simplicity (and hence lower cost), the trailing edge flaps had been made with constant chord and section. But they were fitted to a fairly sharply tapered wing (taper ratio 0.34. tip to root) and so the ratio of flap chord to wing chord was at its highest at the outboard end of the flap and required too much of the flow at the local leading edge. Guided by work on the half model, the flap vane on the outer part of the flap was removed to detune it somewhat, at the cost of some maximum lift. Although the initial separation of the flow still occurred at the same point, the flow breakdown at the stall was kept from rapidly spreading towards the outer wing by the judicious positioning of a large fence. Buffet warning was obtained, at the cost of a little more maximum lift by putting triangular section “breaker strips” on the leading edges, inboard to give warning and outboard to give repeatability. As is related later, the outboard end of the flap vane was removed for another reason, and together with the devices above now gave acceptable behaviour, but lost about 5 knots of stalling speed. However, there was enough of a margin in maximum lift coefficient to meet the field performance requirements for the RAF. Clearly there was scope for much more fine tuning and investigation of more refined stall fixes, but there was a tight deadline to meet for the RAF, and this work was left to be done on the later developments.


(2) Phantom Dive ....It was first discovered when recovering from a stall with full flap and undercarriage up. It was found that at forward centre of gravity in that configuration, rapid fore-and-aft movement of the control column could induce an uncontrollable nose down pitch, with the nose down attitude and speed increasing quite rapidly. Recovery was straightforward, either by retracting the flap a few degrees, or by extending the undercarriage, but this was not acceptable as an operation, even though the configuration was unlikely to be used normally. It was dubbed the “Phantom Dive”. . It was shown with the half model of the Hawk at Hatfield that high local downwash at the tail,coupled with the very large nose down pitching moment induced by the flap, was causing the tailplane to stall on its lower surface, so that it could no longer provide adequate balancing power. It needed more lift, extended to higher angles of attack. A fixed slot with its associated drag was not an option on the Hawk although a cambered tailplane was tried on the model with some success.
Removal of the outboard vane of the flap reduced the flap pitching moment to such a value that the standard tailplane could cope, so this was the quick solution for the RAF.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Thank you, at last a sound explanation.
Got to agree with Ken Parry. When at CFS, the thought of sitting in the back of a Gnat, with its poor visibility, with a marginal student, on a filthy night with a cross wind at Mona, steered me to stay on the JP side !

[longer ron]

Very sensible staying on the JP's BA/BY -
The view from the back cockpit of the Hawk by comparison to the Gnat - well there is no comparison - from the back of a Hawk one could see the RWY right down to touchdown.

1st line - the Hawk T1 is a doddle to look after and (generally) very reliable,after I left the Air Force - I went to Zim to work on the Hawk T60 (as a civvy), I was based at Thornhill and once I had sorted out some long term problems (they did not have any Hawk experience)- most of my time could be spent drinking tea on the Hangar Veranda with an occasional 'work break' outside.
I even managed to get a Hawk ride including some spinning LOL (verboten for pax in the UK).

[ex-fast-jets]

KenV - I have flown all three.

My Hawk time is very limited - but I found it an easy aircraft to fly and very forgiving. The view from the rear is great for a trainer, but because the rear cockpit is raised above the rolling axis of the aircraft, it is slightly uncomfortable in a dynamic ACT sortie where there is lots of rolling under "g". Very easy to fall over when getting out at the end of the sortie! But a good trainer, albeit not good at instilling some of the important aspects of flying such as landing on speed on the numbers. Too forgiving!

The Gnat was an absolute delight to fly, as others have said. Very quick, and very responsive. Tiny jet which you strapped on, rather than in. But it was a trainer and carried no external stores - other than semi-embedded "slipper" tanks for fuel. A great trainer but a dreadful view from the rear cockpit. However, I think that all who flew it loved it.

The Scooter (I flew the A-4M, so it had the big engine - P408?) was as delightful as the Gnat in many ways with a similarly small cockpit which you strapped on. I never flew a clean-wing A-4, but it's load carrying ability was remarkable for such a small aircraft and it performed supremely well even when loaded. It was very close to the responsiveness of the Gnat - but those aerodynamic full leading edge slats which could deploy asymmetrically at times when pulling "g"and rolling in a dynamic ACT setting was disconcerting to say the least, and the cause of the odd headache! I loved the A-4M - however, the TA-4 with the P6 or P8 engine - you can keep!!

If offered the choice of which to fly one more sortie in - I'd go for the A-4M - simply because you could do so much more in it. If it had to be a two-seater, then the Gnat wins without question.

[SFCC]

Dave Unwin....

flew or flew in?


Semantics are important

[DaveUnwin]

Well, I taxied it out, took it off flew it around for a bit, tried a few steep turns, rolls etc and then a couple of circuits so yes - I'd say I flew it. In fact the last landing was pretty good, if I say so myself. I wasn't P1, never claimed to be.

[Mogwi]

KenV - I have flown all three.

My Hawk time is very limited - but I found it an easy aircraft to fly and very forgiving. The view from the rear is great for a trainer, but because the rear cockpit is raised above the rolling axis of the aircraft, it is slightly uncomfortable in a dynamic ACT sortie where there is lots of rolling under "g". Very easy to fall over when getting out at the end of the sortie! But a good trainer, albeit not good at instilling some of the important aspects of flying such as landing on speed on the numbers. Too forgiving!

The Gnat was an absolute delight to fly, as others have said. Very quick, and very responsive. Tiny jet which you strapped on, rather than in. But it was a trainer and carried no external stores - other than semi-embedded "slipper" tanks for fuel. A great trainer but a dreadful view from the rear cockpit. However, I think that all who flew it loved it.

The Scooter (I flew the A-4M, so it had the big engine - P408?) was as delightful as the Gnat in many ways with a similarly small cockpit which you strapped on. I never flew a clean-wing A-4, but it's load carrying ability was remarkable for such a small aircraft and it performed supremely well even when loaded. It was very close to the responsiveness of the Gnat - but those aerodynamic full leading edge slats which could deploy asymmetrically at times when pulling "g"and rolling in a dynamic ACT setting was disconcerting to say the least, and the cause of the odd headache! I loved the A-4M - however, the TA-4 with the P6 or P8 engine - you can keep!!

If offered the choice of which to fly one more sortie in - I'd go for the A-4M - simply because you could do so much more in it. If it had to be a two-seater, then the Gnat wins without question.


Bomber, PM sent on another subject.

Mog

[57mm]

On the Gnat, apart from the very neat seat harness and arming mechanism, anyone recall the equally neat mic/tel connection through the oxygen hose?

[KenV]

KenV - I have flown all three.

My Hawk time is very limited - but I found it an easy aircraft to fly and very forgiving. The view from the rear is great for a trainer, but because the rear cockpit is raised above the rolling axis of the aircraft, it is slightly uncomfortable in a dynamic ACT sortie where there is lots of rolling under "g". Very easy to fall over when getting out at the end of the sortie! But a good trainer, albeit not good at instilling some of the important aspects of flying such as landing on speed on the numbers. Too forgiving!

The Gnat was an absolute delight to fly, as others have said. Very quick, and very responsive. Tiny jet which you strapped on, rather than in. But it was a trainer and carried no external stores - other than semi-embedded "slipper" tanks for fuel. A great trainer but a dreadful view from the rear cockpit. However, I think that all who flew it loved it.

The Scooter (I flew the A-4M, so it had the big engine - P408?) was as delightful as the Gnat in many ways with a similarly small cockpit which you strapped on. I never flew a clean-wing A-4, but it's load carrying ability was remarkable for such a small aircraft and it performed supremely well even when loaded. It was very close to the responsiveness of the Gnat - but those aerodynamic full leading edge slats which could deploy asymmetrically at times when pulling "g"and rolling in a dynamic ACT setting was disconcerting to say the least, and the cause of the odd headache! I loved the A-4M - however, the TA-4 with the P6 or P8 engine - you can keep!!

If offered the choice of which to fly one more sortie in - I'd go for the A-4M - simply because you could do so much more in it. If it had to be a two-seater, then the Gnat wins without question.Thanks for the thorough comparison. I too loved my time in the Scooter. I flew the later A-4F with the same -408 engine as the A-4M. The A-4M got a bigger cockpit than the F, so in the F it really felt like you were strapping on the scooter. I later flew Hornets and that was a total paradigm change. Almost no comparison. But still very enjoyable to fly and with modern avionics, glass cockpit and two engines a joy to fly for reasons very different than the scooter.

[Fareastdriver]

I do not know why everybody is being so rude about the Vampire T11. Six hundred of them trained an awful lot of pilots and they didn't lose many compared with the Meteor T7. I had a very pleasant time with them. Why have a searing take off performance when you leave 1,000 yards of runway untouched.

I can still remember circling over London at FL 320 on a gin clear night seeing the lights from Birmingham to the Channel in the days when civil ATC stopped at 290.

[RetiredBA/BY]

I dont think we were being rude about the T11 per se, just its dreadful cockpit, gear, flap and airbrake levers all together !

Having said that, at t least they got two MB. Seats in the later T1. and having had to use one in a JP I was glad they did !

I too, remember climbing to 30 k plus at night over London, and, frankly, marvelling at the view.

Dont think we can be too critical of the Meteor T7, much of the asymmetric traning was, by todays training standards, b. dangerous.

[Lyneham Lad]

Am currently reading Tony Doyle's 'Flying at the Edge...' in which he gives detailed explanations of Meteor 7, asymmetric training and the perils therein. :eek:

[Fareastdriver]

I had the 'Phantom Dive' demonstrated to me when I had a couple of gash rides in T7s at Oakington. I was told to slow it down to 170 knots with the airbrakes, stabilise it and then lower the undercarriage without retracting the airbrakes. I wasn't fast enough to catch the yaw roll and dive (asymmetric lowering of undercarriage) and I recovered about 2,000 ft. lower. After that I didn't want to know about the single engine performance.

There was nothing wrong with the Vampires control tower. The Throttle, HP and LP cocks were logical as was the airbrake lever. One was advised to look down at the co-located flap and undercarriage lever but one was fitted with a flat handle and the other with a wheel on the end.

One of the ones from Oakington was, maybe still is, open cockpit at Duxford. I trotted up the ladder and stepped in as normal and it didn't seem that small to me. It was 'pally' in the cockpit but those giants with long legs were sent off to the Meteor flight where they could use their legs to climb out.

[Phantom Driver]

Hawk, Gnat, you guys dont know what you missed ( fortunately) not flying the Vampire T11 !!!!!!
Probably the worst cockpit of any aeroplane I got to fly,


Looxury ! You should try the MiG 21......I once had the dubious "pleasure" of a trip in the rear seat of the trainer ; was glad to get feet back on mother earth . Nice touch was the periscope to help the instructor out in landings .

[ATSA1]

I was an assistant in ATC at Valley in the 80s, and I asked a Duty pilot in the VCR one day, if he had flown the Gnat..he said yes, and I asked him which was better, Gnat or Hawk?
he smiled and said " the Gnat was a handful...but it sorted the men from the boys! if you could fly the Gnat well, you could fly anything! The Hawk, on the other hand, is a lovely aeroplane, but its too good...very reliable, and the duration is fantastic...so when a student gets his wings, and goes on to TWU, he thinks he is a hot shot pilot...then comes the OCU, and he is immediately faced with all sorts of unserviceabilities, frightening corners of the flight envelope, and drilled in keeping his eye on the fuel gauge!!"

[Monarch Man]

I realise that this is a bit more thread drift...but, anyone flown the Alpha Jet? I realise it’s a two smoker, but I’ve heard from those who have had a go...it eats my beloved T1.
Thoughts and informed opinions folks.

[Mach2]

I flew the Gnat as a student in 1967. A delightful aircraft to fly - until you got an emergency, either for real or (more likely) instructor induced. Then you had to get the emergency drills exactly right, or it became a real handful. It soon sorted out those who could cope from those that couldn't. The Hawk (which I also flew later on in the '80s) was much more forgiving and docile, so in order to assess the students' capabilities more thoroughly, they were put under greater pressure by increasing the workload in the cockpit on many of the later sorties of the course.