Author Topic: Folland Gnat (Read 5853 times)

Rickshaw · « **on:** October 17, 2016, 12:41:08 PM »

As there doesn't appear to be a dedicated thread to Folland's little Gnat fighter or trainer, here is one.

This may interest those who have built or are planning to build a "Sea Gnat" model (from Secret Projects board):

Weaver · « **Reply #1 on:** October 17, 2016, 03:34:43 PM »

Nice. Doable with kits that are currently around too, since IIRC it's basically a trainer wing on a fighter fuselage.

Volkodav · « **Reply #2 on:** October 17, 2016, 06:29:40 PM »

Would have been an interesting option for the various Colossus and Majestic operators, especially if they could have developed a small air intercept radar.

I particularly like some of the twin engined and swing wing Gnat concepts which didn't look unlike mini Mirage F1 or G.

The Big Gimper · « **Reply #3 on:** October 17, 2016, 07:45:12 PM »

Cool. Now added on the to-build list.

Weaver · « **Reply #4 on:** October 17, 2016, 08:11:22 PM »

Quote from: Volkodav on October 17, 2016, 06:29:40 PM

Would have been an interesting option for the various Colossus and Majestic operators, especially if they could have developed a small air intercept radar.

I particularly like some of the twin engined and swing wing Gnat concepts which didn't look unlike mini Mirage F1 or G.

There was a Gnat Mk.2 that had an afterburning Orpheus and AI.23, possibly with a cut-down aerial. The RAF got as far as placing an order for these, but then cancelled it when the government withdrew support for the engine development.

Kelmola · « **Reply #5 on:** October 18, 2016, 01:48:39 AM »

"ease of handling and maintenance"
Compared to EE Lightning. Maybe.
"can lift a heavy load"
FOR YOU
"of rockets, bombs, and other under-wing missiles"
Would like to see how to fit the avionics for firing anything more complex than a Sidewinder after installing radar and all the gear needed for carrier ops in the age before microprocessors. OK, G.91 could fire AS-20's, but it was two metres longer and a ton heavier to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, Gnat was a great lightweight dogfighter, but Folland's marketing department in that leaflet sounds like having delusions of grandeur.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #6 on:** October 18, 2016, 03:03:24 AM »

Some more inspiration for you:

The Big Gimper · « **Reply #7 on:** October 18, 2016, 04:13:56 AM »

Thanks Greg. Shouldn't that be a Gnaval Gnat?

I can find the door with my eyes closed now.

Kelmola · « **Reply #8 on:** October 18, 2016, 05:37:37 AM »

The two-engined ultralight point-defence nuclear bomber (let's stop pretending anyone would be using a single 4000 lb conventional bomb, especially of that shape, as the primary weapon of a bomber in the 1950's) is so plain bonkers idea it practically begs to be built. Anyone willing to propose a bill of materials for that?

elmayerle · « **Reply #9 on:** October 18, 2016, 05:53:42 AM »

Working on a tandem-seat version using a Kader 1/48 (approx.) Gnat F.Mk.1 and bits from a 1/72 Gnat T.Mk.2. May make it as 1/72 with a single Avon or clone the aft T.2 fuselage to give it two Orpheus engines.

Weaver · « **Reply #10 on:** October 18, 2016, 06:09:39 AM »

Quote from: Kelmola on October 18, 2016, 05:37:37 AM

The two-engined ultralight point-defence nuclear bomber (let's stop pretending anyone would be using a single 4000 lb conventional bomb, especially of that shape, as the primary weapon of a bomber in the 1950's) is so plain bonkers idea it practically begs to be built. Anyone willing to propose a bill of materials for that?

The mini-bomber was 'seriously' offered as a Canberra replacement in 1957. Claimed combat radius was 540nm and nav/attack gear was basic so it wasn't in any way competetive with genuinely compliant GOR.339 (TSR.2) proposals, but it seems to have been offered in the hope that GOR.339 would be declared over-ambitious and de-spec'd in due course. They wern't alone in that belief: Blackburn's repeated Buccaneer offerings and Hawker's P.1121 were based on the same gamble.

Weaver · « **Reply #11 on:** October 18, 2016, 06:12:53 AM »

I like the way the radar-equipped versions all have ONE Sidewinder and one drop tank. Presumably that's so they can stay in the air long enough for the radar to warm up...

The Ajeet's wet, four-pylon wing was the correct solution of course, but having a dry wing in the name of simplicity was an article of faith with Petter and you know how stubborn he could be.

Bear in mind that the thickness of the wing also varied with the different proposals too. Off the top of my head, I think the Gnat F.1 was 8% and the proposed F.2 was 5%.

Daryl J. · « **Reply #12 on:** November 05, 2016, 12:31:15 AM »

I'm trying to come up with a 1/72 aircraft based on Airfix' 1/48 Gnat.

Rickshaw · « **Reply #13 on:** November 05, 2016, 10:20:59 AM »

Quote from: elmayerle on October 18, 2016, 05:53:42 AM

Working on a tandem-seat version using a Kader 1/48 (approx.) Gnat F.Mk.1 and bits from a 1/72 Gnat T.Mk.2. May make it as 1/72 with a single Avon or clone the aft T.2 fuselage to give it two Orpheus engines.

You mean like this one?

Fulll story here

elmayerle · « **Reply #14 on:** November 05, 2016, 10:29:08 AM »

Quote from: Rickshaw on November 05, 2016, 10:20:59 AM

Quote from: elmayerle on October 18, 2016, 05:53:42 AM
Working on a tandem-seat version using a Kader 1/48 (approx.) Gnat F.Mk.1 and bits from a 1/72 Gnat T.Mk.2. May make it as 1/72 with a single Avon or clone the aft T.2 fuselage to give it two Orpheus engines.

You mean like this one?

Fulll story here

Yeah, something like that, but with my own twists. I'm rather thinking of a single Avon or Sapphire along the lines of "Keeping It Simple" rather than messing with two engines and the added fuel system complexity they would bring.

Rickshaw · « **Reply #15 on:** November 05, 2016, 02:28:21 PM »

Quote from: elmayerle on November 05, 2016, 10:29:08 AM

Yeah, something like that, but with my own twists. I'm rather thinking of a single Avon or Sapphire along the lines of "Keeping It Simple" rather than messing with two engines and the added fuel system complexity they would bring.

Funnily enough, I'm working on something similar, using a 1/48 Airfix Gnat with a single Spey...