Bob J sent me solo.

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". :rolleyes:

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.

There just HAVE to be more Ganat stories out there.....

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.

For all of us Gnat watchers, "Hot Shots" is on the box again tonight - 23:00 on E4:ok:

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...'?

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.

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?

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

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.

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

how tall are you?

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!

True

True

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!

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.

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.

Except that on 3 Sqn, there was also that lead sled, the T7....

Which would I prefer to fly again? BOTH!!

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.:ok:

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.

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!

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.

The Gnat
 

Great stories. I adore this little beauty. I was on 75 course at Valley. Many of our instructors were ex-74 Frightning jocks and they were great folk to be around and to fly with.
Loved that shot going round the corner in the A5 pass and the one with South Stack light in the background.
I too was fooled by my instructor on a roller at Mona in unlock. Boy did we go up when I retracted the gear.
My proudest moment at Valley was winning the 75 aeros comp.
The aircraft I flew was XP 502 which was the first production Gnat to enter service with the RAF.
It is now on static display at Delta Jets in Kemble.
To be posted to Victor Tankers was a great disapointment but that is another story.

Per Ardua Ad Loungebar.

Could'nt resist another dabble with Photoshop using a couple of landscape photos I took while watching Hawks at the Ogwen corner . Added a couple of shots of a 1/72nd Gnat and added wing tanks (roughly).
I guess it would have looked something like this around 1964.
Mods - whizz it if inappropriate.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...2/aupsides.jpg

I believe my flying instructor did a lot of the trials work on the Gnat at Valley....

The cockpit issue was thigh length - too long and your kneecaps would disappear on ejection. Formation - a doddle!:rolleyes:

Some of us were too small, not too big.
 

I was so skinny when I did my first Gnat trip that we could not get the seat straps to tighten on my shoulders. The Squiffer SNCO sent me back to the block to get my wooly pooly so that I had a wee bit more padding as he thought that on ejection I could slip out of the seat harness.

Last week I found it tricky trying to get the seatbelt on a PA28 to reach all the way round me. I was six and a half stone when I went to Valley and I am now 118 Kilos. I don't want to do the conversion to stones & pounds, I'd just get upset.

I found a single seater recently at Cosford....there is also one at Southampton

Here's the Cosford one nestling peacefully under the wing of the Lincoln

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k2...ica/gnatfb.jpg

In over 30 years flying, including seven fighter types, the only non-martin baker seat I sat on was in the Gnat. I seem to remember a unique safe seat arrangement that replaced the use of safety pins with a simple 'head knocker'. Hard to forget to put the seat to live because it would remind you by hitting the back of your head whenever you put your head up straight. The safety record of the seat was also pretty good as I remember it.

A bit of thread drift, but the current centre of Gnat flying is North Weald. Two currently airworthy with two more being restored to flying condition. They were out displaying at the weekend.

Here's G-RORI returning after a sortie earlier in the summer. :ok:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ORILanding.jpg

Gnat Photos
 

There have been some lovely pics, but anyone got anymore -especially low level in Wales - previous Mrs W saw to mine!

Gnat Photos
 

Wander00,
Not low level but somewhere I have a shot of a diamond 16 practicing for a flypast over Birmingham the following day. It's in one of several shoe boxes in a trunk. I'll have a look.

I30th December 2004, 23:23

I don't think pitot tube sabotage ever happened at Valley but I found this in a Thread re damage at Airshows,

"30th December 2004, 23:23

A pitot tube incident also happened while 4 x Iraqi Mirage F1s were on their delivery overnight stopover in Greece. A Guard leant on a pitot tube, bent it, then decided to bend the three others so they'd look the same!

A2..sorry to disappoint you but..the pitot incident did happen at Valley, in the very late 60's and was caused by one, possibly two disgruntled line mechs.

The basis for my assertation is not hearsay, but more to do with the fact I did a tour in Gaydon hangar in the early 70's and we were all made aware of this event.

Thanks. My only disappointment, if any, is that professional people could see fit to damage aircraft!

The Pitot Tube Saga.
 

There was a very bent pitot tube hanging on the wall of "A" flight instructor's crew room in 1973. Perhaps proof positive?

Birmingham flypast
 

Hi dmussen - I would love to see the 16 a/c Birmingham flypast photo as I was in the formation - purely as a back seat student from 74! Practice on the 11th Aug 73 and the real thing on the 18th - both with Graham Larke, our RCAF exchange instructor.

I have one too
 

Al B-H and Roy Lawrence, 48 course with one of the first red/white jets at Valley during August 1969.[IMG]http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/...ly/48cse-1.jpg[/IMG]

Good Lord! B-H was never that young was he?

As a teenager I remember seeing one of the single seaters at Leuchars.

Not only was it tiny in comparison with the Meteors, but it was the first aircraft where I was able to look into the cockpit whilst still standing on the tarmac.

Looked very cramped inside but I always loved the Gnat since then.

Ah, the days when you could actually wander round the planes, look up into the wheel wells and bomb bays.

I must be getting old - I thought they were that colour scheme in '66

indeed they were - unless my colour perception was faulty too. I was there from 64 to 66 and the only different colour schemes I saw were the Yellowjacks.