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?
|
Who remembers the episode when a disaffected person ran amok along the line and bent all the pitot probes? 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?
|
I'm sure I remember someone from that era telling me that the Lightning was a good lead-in trainer for the Gnat... 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! |
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. 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!
|
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 6635698)
The UK's 6 x Gnat F1 fighters were used by the Ministry of Supply as development aircraft, but as far as I'm aware, were never used by the RAF.
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.