A Really Bad Paint Job on a Gnat
 

Hope this is the right forum?

I just came across this Gnat for sale, in USA, big overhaul and ready to fly. I think the paint job is just dire, speaking as a former Gnat pilot at 4 FTS.

Photo Album

Well, I happen to agree with you but the fact remains that it is his aeroplane and if he chooses to paint it in Hunting Stewart tartan then that is his prerogative.

The instrumentation is wrong too. Should be OR946 presentation.

If I may speak as an A1 QFI and Gnat driver. I do not care what he does with his aeroplane - he is Yank and cannot possibly be expected to respect history and heritage.

This is simply because these things do not exist where he lives.!:ugh::ugh::ugh:


GOOD EVENING NEWT. :ok:

A2QFI,

I note Jaguar in your portfolio. Since I have almost 2000 hours on type then I must know you.......

Maybe we both know him LM!!
Good to see you are alive and kicking:ok:

The opening post in this thread has seriously pi**ed me off. Should we be really so pompous about the owners choice of paint scheme? He (or she) has clearly spent some $$ in keeping it airworthy.

Which genuine scheme would you have? the one that was in use when you were associated with it, in which case which scheme would you not have (thus consigning it to the mire of inadequate history). Off the top of my head I think it flew in 5 schemes not counting the display teams.

Maybe grounding Miss Demeanour for being outrageously offensive to Hunter fans?

Should Red Bulls Sea Vixen have refused funding 'cos they wanted a scheme not reflecting the glories of the FAA?

TBH whether you flew for RAFAT or 4FTS is irrelevant. You can't afford to play a part in maintaining this aircraft in flying condition (otherwise you would have referenced the fact), the current owner can.

Be grateful for that.

Well, I quite like it! Anyway, how authentic are the gloss finishes seen on so many restored warbirds... ;)

I reckon any members of the Parachute Regiment, past and present, would be really chuffed with it! All it needs now is Pegasus on the fin!:ok:

Agreed, as an ex Gnat stude I cannot say I like it, but better flying like thay than scraped or "static" - funny instrumentation though. Anyway, it is "his" toy, he can do what he likes with it ast long as he knows the STUPRE drill!

Does anyone know the airframe number of this one when it was in one or other of the "authentic" paint schemes? I'm curious to know whether it was one of the 74 I enjoyed flying.

WANDER00
STUPRECC would make it a slightly less complicated jet in manual.

This is N530X, formerly XP530

Laurence

N-A2 - You are probably correct, but then I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast -- OK -what's "breakfast" - but you get my drift.

I recall the instruction at Valley, on the basis that "no engine, no power controls", "In the event of engine failure solo students are to eject; instructors are to use their discretion, and then eject".

Why all the fuss? His jet, his colours. I think it looked rather snazzy, personally. As for the 'OR946' stuff - what would YOU do if you were trying to maintain a flight instrument system in a serviceable state so it can be used? Know a good source of 946 spares?

Thanks for the rapid response, Laurence, that was "one of mine".:D

Maybe you'll buy it then!

Laurence

I rather like it.

Looks OK. Makes a change from the rather predicatable all red colour scheme.

If I was rich enough to own a Gnat, I would paint it any colour I liked :-)
Fitting standard US instruments seems a very practical decision, from a maintenance point of view.

I would like to see a picture of it flying low over water, then I think it could be a very effective paint scheme, as it looks like it is partially submerged now.

BOAC

have you flown the Gnat and do you know what OR946 is?

Do let us know:=

As for a source of spares, I suspect they can be found if one knows where to look!!