Gannet AEW3's
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Kingston, Canada
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't recall an RAF exchange pilot on 849, he may have gone to 360 Squadron (combined RN/RAF aircrew and equipment).
Anyway, thought the following might interest a few of those people who seek Gannet info:-
The Gannet's Double Mamba engines were, effectively, a single unit neatly tucked into the front of the aircraft under the cockpit floor. Although two separate engines drove two separate props via two separate gear trains, an engine change really involved both. So we were encouraged to make even use of them when flying single-engined on patrol. This ensured as near a balance of hours as possible when it came to an engine change.
And, being a turbo-prop, the use was very different from a pure jet. In flight, both engines ran at 100% rpm (15,000). The gear train to each prop had a 10:1 reduction ratio, so the props were at a constant 1,500 rpm. This meant that use of the throttles varied the fuel flow, the resultant torque and adjustment of pitch were then done automatically by the Pitch Control Unit of each prop.
The result? The figure that mattered most was percentage POWER, and 100% power was instantly available on applying full throttle. Unlike the jets, that landed on by fighting a battle between thrust (high rpm = high power) and airbrake (to counteract the high power/thrust) as insurance against a bolter, a Gannet could bolt with ease. Very comforting.
There was a Flight Idle gate in the throttle quadrant, below which you DID NOT GO when airborne. In this position, rpm were still at 100% but power was minimal.
I put all this in as it is part of the true story that follows:-
Summer 1965, in Centaur, in the Med. The end of a 2-hour sortie and time to relight the stopped engine en route back to Mother. So, having bumbled along comfortably at about 85% power on the port engine for the last hour:-
........which usually went flawlessly. Not this time though. Power available on the starboard engine was only 90%.
OK, tell the guys in the back, shut it down, pause of two marching paces and re-start it again. Just over 80% power. Keep it running this time, tell Mother.
We would be the last to land on anyway, so we ambled back and did a straight-in approach with throttles increasingly staggered to ensure even power on both engines. I was told to stay where we stopped in the wires and shut down.
I climbed down and was confronted by an indignant AEO. Dougie clearly thought the new boy on the Flight had got it wrong, again. He hadn't forgotten that night bounce, (#54 above).
At this point, one of Dougie's crew was peering up the starboard jetpipe just as a passer-by idly moved the lowest blade of the starboard prop.....and a handful of turbine blades fell out at his feet.
Suddenly, all was forgiven. At least I'd got back on both engines. A single-engined landing is perfectly feasible in a Gannet, but Pilot's Notes strongly advised against overshooting below 300 feet, so better get it right first time!
Mike
Anyway, thought the following might interest a few of those people who seek Gannet info:-
Starting up and breaking up
And, being a turbo-prop, the use was very different from a pure jet. In flight, both engines ran at 100% rpm (15,000). The gear train to each prop had a 10:1 reduction ratio, so the props were at a constant 1,500 rpm. This meant that use of the throttles varied the fuel flow, the resultant torque and adjustment of pitch were then done automatically by the Pitch Control Unit of each prop.
The result? The figure that mattered most was percentage POWER, and 100% power was instantly available on applying full throttle. Unlike the jets, that landed on by fighting a battle between thrust (high rpm = high power) and airbrake (to counteract the high power/thrust) as insurance against a bolter, a Gannet could bolt with ease. Very comforting.
There was a Flight Idle gate in the throttle quadrant, below which you DID NOT GO when airborne. In this position, rpm were still at 100% but power was minimal.
I put all this in as it is part of the true story that follows:-
--------------------------------------------------
Summer 1965, in Centaur, in the Med. The end of a 2-hour sortie and time to relight the stopped engine en route back to Mother. So, having bumbled along comfortably at about 85% power on the port engine for the last hour:-
- Starboard LP Fuel cock ON - two, three....
- Starboard HP Fuel cock ON - two, three and
- Press the relight button in the HP cock - this released the brake on the stopped prop and unfeathered it while starting fuel flow and igniters
- When rpm stabilise, match the throttles
- Check power available on relit engine
- Set power on both as appropriate
........which usually went flawlessly. Not this time though. Power available on the starboard engine was only 90%.
OK, tell the guys in the back, shut it down, pause of two marching paces and re-start it again. Just over 80% power. Keep it running this time, tell Mother.
We would be the last to land on anyway, so we ambled back and did a straight-in approach with throttles increasingly staggered to ensure even power on both engines. I was told to stay where we stopped in the wires and shut down.
I climbed down and was confronted by an indignant AEO. Dougie clearly thought the new boy on the Flight had got it wrong, again. He hadn't forgotten that night bounce, (#54 above).
At this point, one of Dougie's crew was peering up the starboard jetpipe just as a passer-by idly moved the lowest blade of the starboard prop.....and a handful of turbine blades fell out at his feet.
Suddenly, all was forgiven. At least I'd got back on both engines. A single-engined landing is perfectly feasible in a Gannet, but Pilot's Notes strongly advised against overshooting below 300 feet, so better get it right first time!
Mike
Eeeeee when I were a lad...
.....in Invergordon, we lived across from the dockyard and I do remember bits of Wyverns and the odd Seafire being brought in on low loaders usually having come to grief in the hills around and on Tain range.
I was also a keen modeller and built models of the Wyvern and the Gannet ASW version.
The latter is one of those aircraft that (even though I never flew in one) generates a feeling akin to "affection". The AEW version rather less so. The Varsity (which I did fly in) has the same effect.
But what really got to me in those days was watching a Sunderland or a Catalina landing on the firth of a summer evening just kissing the glassy calm water and sort of "grumbling" their way to the moorings.
Probably why I spent 35 years as a maritime aviator and enjoyed every minute of it.
The Ancient Mariner
I was also a keen modeller and built models of the Wyvern and the Gannet ASW version.
The latter is one of those aircraft that (even though I never flew in one) generates a feeling akin to "affection". The AEW version rather less so. The Varsity (which I did fly in) has the same effect.
But what really got to me in those days was watching a Sunderland or a Catalina landing on the firth of a summer evening just kissing the glassy calm water and sort of "grumbling" their way to the moorings.
Probably why I spent 35 years as a maritime aviator and enjoyed every minute of it.
The Ancient Mariner
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset
Age: 75
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seamew
I was told by one gentleman who spent time as child at one of the FAA stations in Scotland telling me of Seamews flying in on delivery, taxied across the field and scrapped. I cannot vouch for this, obviously.
Ah, the heady days of cost-plus, I suppose?
Ah, the heady days of cost-plus, I suppose?
I'm afraid I've lost my notebooks but I certainly remember seeing the Seamews parked out at Lossiemouth when I was at a cadet camp there in either '57 or '58. There were at least 2 Sea Hornets there as well and what we would give to see one of those in the air again. I was in the CCF at the time but unfortunately my school only had an Army section but the course at Lossie did promise some aviation. This was provided in the form of a flight in a Dominie (the Rapide variety) followed by 15 frightening minutes in a Dragonfly flown by a bearded naval aviator who scared the pants off my colleague and I by doing an autorotation towards a rock on which some seals were basking. Unfortunately i don't remember any Gannets so apologies for the thread drift.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: 40nm east of BLL
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gannet Driver wrote: There are two good links to the Farnborough performance at ............ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6IJtuq_j3g at 4.06 (briefly) and 4.52.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,625
Received 296 Likes
on
164 Posts
It's a Westland Wasp, not sure what the "pods" are, maybe litters for casualty evacuation? Seem to be plenty of pics on Google showing them.
I vaguely remember a newspaper article showing a picture of a Seamew and making a 'big thing' about the fact they were being 'sold on' by the FAA having only 'delivery time' on the clock and without entering operational service.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Under the downwind leg
Age: 87
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seamew confirmation
Located on the North side of Lossiemouth airfield late 1958 was the redundant aircraft park which was on the charge of the Aircraft Holding Unit (AHU).
I recall climbing over Wyverns, Seamews, Sea Hornets, and a Wildcat/Hellcat marked up as flown by Captain PD Gick.
I recall climbing over Wyverns, Seamews, Sea Hornets, and a Wildcat/Hellcat marked up as flown by Captain PD Gick.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Gick
This I am sure was Percy Gick, who flew off Victorious to make the first assault on Bismarck. He then went to Ark Royal and was one of the last Swordfish pilots to land on before the Ark was hit. I recall the story that along with Val Bailey he liberated some wine from the mess, and sat on the bows monitoring the non existent tow as the Ark very slowly capsized. He was one of the last off.
I only ever met Val, but Percy must have been equally larger than life and I am sure great company.
Sorry nothing to do with Gannets. But I cant let a chap like that go unremarked.
I only ever met Val, but Percy must have been equally larger than life and I am sure great company.
Sorry nothing to do with Gannets. But I cant let a chap like that go unremarked.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seamew: not really an issue of cost-plus pricing.
R&D/prototype funding 4/52 (Korean War), to be quick, cheap for inshore detection (for RAF Coastal Command) and for CVL escorts: Shackleton and Gannet to do the longer, heavier work. Production order 2/55. RAF deleted the idea, 1956; RN after Sandys Defence Paper, 4/57, by when Colossii were gone (even the Putnam hagiography has "as difficult to manage as a race- horse among camels").
R&D/prototype funding 4/52 (Korean War), to be quick, cheap for inshore detection (for RAF Coastal Command) and for CVL escorts: Shackleton and Gannet to do the longer, heavier work. Production order 2/55. RAF deleted the idea, 1956; RN after Sandys Defence Paper, 4/57, by when Colossii were gone (even the Putnam hagiography has "as difficult to manage as a race- horse among camels").
