Yesterday a USAF F-35 crashed and blew-up , the pilot made a successful ejection. I mention this because the F-35 cost a staggering $ 135 million , You could have equipped an entire Wing of Gnats , for that money.
@@kevinbarry71 Horses for courses. In Afghanistan and some current African conflicts, something like the Gnat might be quite useful in a ground attack role. Or as a carrier for standoff missiles and glide bombs It is probably also cheap enough to consider for conversion into drones. For that matter, the Ukrainians have been using jet trainers to shoot down iintruding Russian drones and cruise misssiles.
@@tomgoff7887 i'm sure it could be useful in some marginal cases. However the comments suggested it could replace an f35. Or a whole bunch of them could replace one. That is preposterous.
@@kevinbarry71 Not really. Replacing a single F35 out of a fleet of such aircraft, with an eentire fleet of Gnat-like aircraft might provide useful operational flexibility. Using F35s to chase down Shaheds would be preposterous for example. James Webb simply seems to be suggesting that an airforce with a hi/lo aircraft mix might be worth contemplating.
This little guy really punches above his weight. Folland Gnat shoved it's true abilities in the Indian service. Skilled Indian pilots managed to beat with Gnat far more advanced planes.
Gnat being so tiny in size, it was difficult to track it continuously on radar. That size also made it more difficult for Sabre F -86 pilots (PAF) to spot it quickly. Keeler brothers of Indian AF became famous for their success in Indo - Pak war.
@@iftikharfaridy2974 Keelor brothers flew gnats. Trevor keelor was flying gnats from No. 23 squadron while his brother denzil was flying gnats from No. 4 Squadron. Both of these squadron never had hunters in first place.
6:15 A Fighter jet aircraft needs to be a wee bit unstable. A very good pilot can tame it and even use it to advantage. Anyone associated with "Gnat" will love it, that includes me (was associated with its production). Not only Gnat was Sabre-slayer (Sabre, a Korean war veteran, has become obsolete by then), but dodger for American F-104 star fighter-both interceptors though. F-104 was a supersonic interceptor (an "oxymoron" ?). In air engagements, Gnat with a horribly small turning radius, used to beat F-104, that set the the Americans to redraw their options and to go back to the drawing board. They too saw the superior performance of a "Light Weight Fighter" (LWF) in dog fights. They gave the competitive projects to two companies. Result is YF-16 & YF-17. In turning radius (as seen visibly) YF-16 beat YF-17, was selected and was inducted int USAF as LWF. Later, Y in YF-16 was dropped (X, Y are prefixed to "experimental" projects) and it emerged as F-16, the most successful fighter jet aircraft, ever. The Navy took YF-17 (not a loser, though marginally less in performance) and adapted it as F-18. That is the story of "Gnat" pedigree. Engine of Gnat (Orpheus) was fitted (twin engines) for Marut (HF-24) and that was a disaster. The fine aerodynamic design was under-powered and got wasted. Marut never proved itself because of this. That was the time, that nobody give fighter jet engines to India, for love or money. So we had subsist. Probably that set in motion, India's quest for an indigenous fighter jet engine, resulting in "Kaveri" now. Often I compare it with Maruti-800 Car (my first buy & good entry level car just as Gnat is fine as entry-level trainer). Both are good within their limited design envelopes.
Great story of this remarkable aircraft. The Folland Gnat was a remarkable little fighter with very high transonic performance. The Gnat was known as the "Sabre Slayer" in Indian, in total it shot down 11 Sabres, 7 in 1965 and 4 in 1971 and also 1 Cessna Birddog light aircraft.
@@iftikharfaridy2974 Pakistan of course does not admit to losses. But in 1965 and 1971 Pakistan was thoroughly thrashed and defeated on land. sea and air. Loosing Bangladesh and more tha 65% of its population LOL. So I take the word of the victor
Stuff like the Folland Gnat reminds me of the quality and reliability of old-school British engineering; really wish the UK could revive their engineering sector again. BTW, I'm not British - I'm Indian, and I wish our government could allow British scientists and engineers to work in India, in Indian companies and Indian universities; given the number of highly competent and skilled scientists and engineers applying for increasingly fewer academic jobs in the UK, I'm sure India would stand to benefit by inviting the ones who didn't get the academic/industry job in the UK, as they're likely to be in the same skill and/or competence bracket as those who actually got in.
In the same era, Douglas , Ed Heinihan also had similar ideas which became the A4 Skyhawk, carrier capable, which had one of the longest production run in history.
and that jet kicked butt in the south atlantic war, middle east and vietnam. and if only eddie and billie had gotten together we wouldn't have had the F 4.
Excellent video. Only one airforce used this plane in large numbers in it's fighter role. "It could carry nothing nowhere" which is what they said of the Northrop F-5.
@@SANJAYWILLIAMS1975 So, 3 outright victories earned the Gnat the name of "Sabre Slayer." Balance that against 1 victory against the Gnat in 1971 and one Gnat captured intact and is in the PAF Museum in Karachi. 3:2? hardly a glorious record. The real victory goes to the Indian propogandists who could put Dr. Goebbels in the shade.
The genuine challenge is not so much the aircraft, as I see it, but the quality and quantity of flight crew and servicing personnel. This situation already exists within the RAF. It is no small thing and is unlikely to go away, irrespective of the quantity of aircraft available, they must be fully crewed and serviceable.
There was a concept to have 3 Midges parasite aircraft attached to a Vulcan bomber for escort fighters when it reached enemy airspace. The GNAT was also part of the YellowJack display team.
"Let's save weight. We'll do away with air brakes and use the gear doors instead." A common naughty was to pop the #31 circuit breaker to turn off the roll rate limiter further enhancing what the aircraft could do. I understand that the Red Arrows always flew the Gnat that way.
I too recall this tale; from a Red Arrows documentary if memory serves. in order for it to be true Folland made that breaker ONLY affect that system and made it accessible to the pilot. I have difficulty believing it was accidentally a 'feature' Ever sat in a safety/liability vs performance discussion? Feels like an engineers middle finger there so I hope its true.
@@andidubya3840 Not sure if it's just the impression I get or whether it's actually true but it seems to me that the Gnat was a more nippy performer than the Hawk. I seem to recall that the roll rate was limited to 360 degrees? second until you popped the circuit breaker. Then you got 720+. Not bad for an aircraft with such a low power/weight ratio. That said it was not exactly under powered. 1.86 pounds per pound of thrust compared with the Hawk's 1.4
@@mothmagic1 Yes I'd agree with all of that!! Red arrows transitioning to the hawk would have happened when I was about 8 or so, and gleefully interested. The Hawk "felt" like a downgrade for a Red Arrow. I'm a bit older now, so understand the reasons. Still with these rose tinted glasses on it's another thing good about the UK aircraft industry in the post war years
I did undercarriage functionals on a Gnat while doing trade training at RAF Halton. A little quirk was the undercarriage was also the air brake, the fairing and legs would extend halfway to act as a brake.
I've seen one up close in an air museum in upstate NY. I was amazed at this tiny little thing! Especially when 200 feet away, was an old F-14 Tomcat which was gigantic compared to it. And I read that a great deal of the dogfighting success was because it was really hard to shoot down at that size. I think it's amazing.
My Great Uncles Astead of small numbers of more larger complex aircraft. Go into the design life of him and you will reasise what aircraft he designed from first world war to the 1950sin ircraft Company only developed the plane as a quick usable plane in multiple numbers. sorry eyesight not that good so hope you understand.
The Gnat was much smaller and lighter than the F-16, and even the A-4. It was a fighter at the WWII and Korean War level, i.e. close-in dogfighter with guns. Air-to-air missiles soon came to dominate, needing larger fighters to carry them and their associated radars and other electronics. Where tiny fighters may come to dominate in future is as UAVs, taking advantage of extreme manouverability and very compact electronics (e.g. Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat aka Australian "Loyal Wingman", though it is hardly "tiny").
There is a 'Static Display' Gnat 2 Seater outside RAF Woodvale on the A565 near Formby Merseyside. It's in Black Livery, and looks great. Thanks for this fascinating story, much appreciated.
It was Teddy's uncle Percy who pushed STOL and VTOL research at Westlands. The Folland Gnat was the foundation design for the Harrier jump jet. Teddy designed a STOL version of the Whirlwind with tilting wing's. Still classified but copied in Canada by a company that built a craft called the Dynavert. Teddy never received credit for all his design work because of bureaucratic jealousy. TSR 2 was also from his drawing board.
@@indigohammer5732 Exactly. Same overall wing plan and the benefits of Anhedral giving higher lift and manoeuvrability with lower tip drag and less wing area. This made the Gnat faster too because lower drag. Similar engine. In all probability Teddy had a VTOL version of the Gnat on his drawing board as well as its bigger cousin the Harrier. Same with TSR 2. It's blown flaps gave it excellent handling characteristics. Why is this not well known ? Official secrets act plus jealous American aviation companies who couldn't repeat Teddy's genius. So they sabotaged many British aviation programs and tried to steal the credit with their own crappy designs like the F111. The Gnat was inspired by a much more advanced fighter with forward swept anhedral. Very compact, superior manoeuvrability and hard to beat in a dogfight.
@@joschmoyo4532 I thought the harriers use of high wing and anhedral was dictated by the pegasus nozzels and the bicycle undercarige requiering tip mounted outriggers - early drawings of the harrier show tricycle undercarridge and no anhedral -of course the original concept for the harrier was by frenchman Michel Wibault, - Agreed usa sabotaged other manufactures (with the help of our corrupt politicians) - see F-104
The Harrier wing was essentially similar to the outer sections of the Hunter wing. The Harrier was shoulder wing to accommodate the lift nozzles below it
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 The Hunter was a mid wing with no anhedral. The planform was not dissimilar. The only slight issue with the Hunter was the engine being further back and causing C of G to be not ideal. Shoulder mounted wing's allowed the engine to be brought further forward on the Harrier and Gnat. The other less known factor in the performance of these aircraft was the potential for retro fitting of magnet runner's. This would have allowed for the benefit of effective mass reduction and power supply for pulse cannons. With those additions in the X squadron prototypes the Gnat was supersonic and lethal as a front line fighter.
I often wonder when we will turn to small aircraft once again. Imagine the gnat with the benfit of modern technology and how much chesper it would be/how many morr we could have.
@@strayling1 Either your young or naive. I work in the drone industry (big stuff powered by jet engines, not the toys) and not one could shoot down a Sopwith Camel...yet.
its just the size of a small car, amazing . . I ve seen it personally at Pakistan Air force Museum, Karachi . . An Indian Air force Gnat, which was forced to land on a Pakistani Airfield during 1965 Indo-Pak War and now on display as War Trophy . .
One is sitting in PAF museum Karachi as war trophy bcz all four pilots chickened out on seeing only one starfighter, and ran in different directions one forced to land in Pakistan fully operational.
@@nilanjangupta763 ever country does get war trophy but this gnat I am talking about ran away on seeing starfighter and was forced to land in Pakistan.
@@snd9826 Gnat is no match before F-104 star fighter. Normally Gnat evades F-104 and successfully so & F-104 (supersonic) can't turn back to pursue Gnat.
When I first joined the RAF, Gnats were still in service...........just. We did use them for marshalling training whilst on my fitters course and later got to familiarise ourselves with the ejection seats and carry out seat pin fits (A later modification for when the 'techies' climb all over them). Very different to Martin Baker seats.
Many in the Fleet Air Arm (RN) thought the Gnat would be quite ok for the service.. EAGLE could have hangered lots more in its two full length hangars than it did of the aircraft they had at the time.
Imagine a Gnat powered by a lighter, more fuel efficient GE CF700 (TF37 military designation) rear mounted turbofan engine that produces about the same thrust as the much heavier, fuel guzzling cannular Orpheus engine. An inertial navigation system (INS) with an instrument landing system (ILS) and distance measuring equipment (DME) would enable the Gnat to operate in day/night and restricted visibility conditions.
@Tillerman56 True. But there was a design change (modification). Folland Gnat has a very small range, to be effective. It was effective in Indo-Pak war(depth or breadth of Pak Territory was nowhere more than 250 nautical miles or 460km), but not on Chinese border. Reason was the low fuel capacity. Often Gnat had to carry drop tanks, thus reducing its capacity to carry bomb load. In the new design, "Ajeet" was given wet wings (fuel stored in wings) that remarkably increased its weapons delivery. But Ajeet didn't face any wars, like the veteran Gnat.
@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 Yes. Gnat has the lowest RCS for radars to see (detect) a Gnat, till it is too close. That is a huge advantage. Part of the LWF "design" is the low RCS.
It was rumoured in those days that initially the company was against selling those jets to India as they were under the impression that India is not a democratic but communist country. Accidentally when they had found that cricket is one of favourite game in India and no communist country plays cricket the deal to sell the jets were finalised.
Top video and top little plane. I still think we have gone way to the other side of ridiculous with expensive tech. We should consider something like this today, cheap & easy to construct. Oh hold on we can’t afford the pilot training so forget that. BTW can we lose the annoying music track?
@mollyfilms In "Technology" one needs to trade something for another. In India, we have an advantage with man-power (low wages as per international standards). Similarly, HAL's (Bengaluru) "Overhaul" division is the real money-earner and always was demand with Western companies (right from WW II, when Colombo was the set of South Eastern Command of the allied forces). The Curtis Commando C-46 (double bubble cross section), cruising at about 130 knots, the grandpa of Dakota C-47 were operated in India, well into 1970s (six were there, but cannibalizing reduced them to four).
I think they call these planes manned drones today! The Indians showed us what they could do. We know how tough Indian troops are from both World Wars. Thank you India.
Makes one think of the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen . A very small and relatively cheap plane, but in contrast to the Gnat with a highly advanced punch. Would be interesting if we could see the Gripen in combat in Ukraine.
@rameshkaria5773 Technology has advanced so fast and the adversary aircraft have become unbeatable. Tejas is a Light weight Combat aircraft too, with delta wing.
The principles are still correct today in a real war NATO airforces would run out of planes in a couple of weeks, In Ukraine a modernised low cost Gnat is better than an F16 as Ukraine simply doesnt have the infrastructure to operate F-16s long term effectively.
Shades of the Spitfire and the F-16! None wanted by their respective governments but eventually proving their worth in spades. Nice looking bit of kit as well.
The HAL Ajeet was an Indian-built update of the Gnat with a "wet wing," which increased range & added an extra wing station. It wasn't as agile as a Gnat, but it shared small visual and radar cross section with superior maneuverability to other 2nd & later generation fighters.
It was a time before the ramifications of the suez crisis had registered on British psyche and Britons considered themselves to be THE world power. It's strange how the psyche of being the great impacts minds of the humans and they do really end up making the Great things 😁 It was a beautiful little fighter, the Falland Gnat... The Sabre killer ❤️
Yes the money was in arming these little African countries and various despots with cheap fast jets and other modern weapons so easy to train a ghzat pilot compared to say a harrier or an F6
That's like being impressed you outmaneuvered a city bus on a motorcycle. Lots of early cold war American jets were downed by smaller, more maneuverable aircraft. The crews had not been trained in Dogfighting, and the big missile trucks were not designed to maneuver.
Smaller and lighter everything was basic with machine gun and and ww2 tech but American got Heat seeking missile they were built according to coldwar needs with Russia .
Pretty sure you're wrong. The Gnat F.1 could also climb to 45,000 feet in 5 minutes. The F-16C climbs to 50,000 feet in ONE minute, of course the Gnat F.1's stats are from 1958.
Yesterday a USAF F-35 crashed and blew-up , the pilot made a successful ejection. I mention this because the F-35 cost a staggering $ 135 million , You could have equipped an entire Wing of Gnats , for that money.
Nonsensical statement. Such an aircraft would be shot down immediately in anything like modern combat.
@@kevinbarry71 Horses for courses. In Afghanistan and some current African conflicts, something like the Gnat might be quite useful in a ground attack role. Or as a carrier for standoff missiles and glide bombs It is probably also cheap enough to consider for conversion into drones. For that matter, the Ukrainians have been using jet trainers to shoot down iintruding Russian drones and cruise misssiles.
@@tomgoff7887 i'm sure it could be useful in some marginal cases. However the comments suggested it could replace an f35. Or a whole bunch of them could replace one. That is preposterous.
@@kevinbarry71 Not really. Replacing a single F35 out of a fleet of such aircraft, with an eentire fleet of Gnat-like aircraft might provide useful operational flexibility. Using F35s to chase down Shaheds would be preposterous for example. James Webb simply seems to be suggesting that an airforce with a hi/lo aircraft mix might be worth contemplating.
You could outfit a whole airforce of sopworth camels with this.
You forgot to mention its iconic role in the 1980's Top Gun spoof, "Hot Shots!"
Great movie
The famous Oscar EW 5894 Phallus Lightweight Tactical Fighter Bomber.
This little guy really punches above his weight. Folland Gnat shoved it's true abilities in the Indian service. Skilled Indian pilots managed to beat with Gnat far more advanced planes.
Gnat being so tiny in size, it was difficult to track it continuously on radar. That size also made it more difficult for Sabre F -86 pilots (PAF) to spot it quickly.
Keeler brothers of Indian AF became famous for their success in Indo - Pak war.
False . . Keeler flew hunters . .
@@iftikharfaridy2974 Keelor brothers flew gnats. Trevor keelor was flying gnats from No. 23 squadron while his brother denzil was flying gnats from No. 4 Squadron. Both of these squadron never had hunters in first place.
6:15 A Fighter jet aircraft needs to be a wee bit unstable. A very good pilot can tame it and even use it to advantage.
Anyone associated with "Gnat" will love it, that includes me (was associated with its production).
Not only Gnat was Sabre-slayer (Sabre, a Korean war veteran, has become obsolete by then), but dodger for American F-104 star fighter-both interceptors though. F-104 was a supersonic interceptor (an "oxymoron" ?). In air engagements, Gnat with a horribly small turning radius, used to beat F-104, that set the the Americans to redraw their options and to go back to the drawing board. They too saw the superior performance of a "Light Weight Fighter" (LWF) in dog fights. They gave the competitive projects to two companies. Result is YF-16 & YF-17. In turning radius (as seen visibly) YF-16 beat YF-17, was selected and was inducted int USAF as LWF. Later, Y in YF-16 was dropped (X, Y are prefixed to "experimental" projects) and it emerged as F-16, the most successful fighter jet aircraft, ever. The Navy took YF-17 (not a loser, though marginally less in performance) and adapted it as F-18. That is the story of "Gnat" pedigree.
Engine of Gnat (Orpheus) was fitted (twin engines) for Marut (HF-24) and that was a disaster. The fine aerodynamic design was under-powered and got wasted. Marut never proved itself because of this. That was the time, that nobody give fighter jet engines to India, for love or money. So we had subsist. Probably that set in motion, India's quest for an indigenous fighter jet engine, resulting in "Kaveri" now.
Often I compare it with Maruti-800 Car (my first buy & good entry level car just as Gnat is fine as entry-level trainer). Both are good within their limited design envelopes.
Thank you sir, very informative
Great story of this remarkable aircraft. The Folland Gnat was a remarkable little fighter with very high transonic performance. The Gnat was known as the "Sabre Slayer" in Indian, in total it shot down 11 Sabres, 7 in 1965 and 4 in 1971 and also 1 Cessna Birddog light aircraft.
False . . It never shot down 11 sabres . . At most just a single sabre . .
@@iftikharfaridy2974 Pakistan of course does not admit to losses. But in 1965 and 1971 Pakistan was thoroughly thrashed and defeated on land. sea and air. Loosing Bangladesh and more tha 65% of its population LOL. So I take the word of the victor
@@billballbuster7186 65 war was a stalemate . . In 71 war, Pakistan lost . . Instead of bullshit, better talk on facts . .
@@billballbuster7186 by the way, any reason for merging two separate wars of 65 with 71 . .
@@iftikharfaridy2974 The Gnat / Ajeet flew in both conflicts.
I sat in a Red Arrows Gnat at a show in Leeds in the mid seventies as a young kid, i remember it clearly, it really was tiny.
Stuff like the Folland Gnat reminds me of the quality and reliability of old-school British engineering; really wish the UK could revive their engineering sector again. BTW, I'm not British - I'm Indian, and I wish our government could allow British scientists and engineers to work in India, in Indian companies and Indian universities; given the number of highly competent and skilled scientists and engineers applying for increasingly fewer academic jobs in the UK, I'm sure India would stand to benefit by inviting the ones who didn't get the academic/industry job in the UK, as they're likely to be in the same skill and/or competence bracket as those who actually got in.
In the same era, Douglas , Ed Heinihan also had similar ideas which became the A4 Skyhawk, carrier capable, which had one of the longest production run in history.
and that jet kicked butt in the south atlantic war, middle east and vietnam. and if only eddie and billie had gotten together we wouldn't have had the F 4.
Excellent video. Only one airforce used this plane in large numbers in it's fighter role. "It could carry nothing nowhere" which is what they said of the Northrop F-5.
My late father was IAF veteran from 1960 to 1972 he used to use the moniker Saber Slayer for GNAT ,
Exactly how MANY Sabres were shot down by the Gnat in the Pakistan/India wars?
@@sadiqjohnny77 5- out of which 3 outright victories
@@SANJAYWILLIAMS1975 So, 3 outright victories earned the Gnat the name of "Sabre Slayer." Balance that against 1 victory against the Gnat in 1971 and one Gnat captured intact and is in the PAF Museum in Karachi. 3:2? hardly a glorious record. The real victory goes to the Indian propogandists who could put Dr. Goebbels in the shade.
@@sadiqjohnny77 7 in total. 2 in 1965 and 5 in 1971
@@maiholiaw4927 I stand corrected
You never climbed into a Gnat....you strapped it to your back
The genuine challenge is not so much the aircraft, as I see it, but the quality and quantity of flight crew and servicing personnel. This situation already exists within the RAF. It is no small thing and is unlikely to go away, irrespective of the quantity of aircraft available, they must be fully crewed and serviceable.
Gnat is one of the prettiest jets
There was a concept to have 3 Midges parasite aircraft attached to a Vulcan bomber for escort fighters when it reached enemy airspace. The GNAT was also part of the YellowJack display team.
"Let's save weight. We'll do away with air brakes and use the gear doors instead." A common naughty was to pop the #31 circuit breaker to turn off the roll rate limiter further enhancing what the aircraft could do. I understand that the Red Arrows always flew the Gnat that way.
I too recall this tale; from a Red Arrows documentary if memory serves. in order for it to be true Folland made that breaker ONLY affect that system and made it accessible to the pilot. I have difficulty believing it was accidentally a 'feature'
Ever sat in a safety/liability vs performance discussion? Feels like an engineers middle finger there so I hope its true.
@@andidubya3840 Not sure if it's just the impression I get or whether it's actually true but it seems to me that the Gnat was a more nippy performer than the Hawk. I seem to recall that the roll rate was limited to 360 degrees? second until you popped the circuit breaker. Then you got 720+. Not bad for an aircraft with such a low power/weight ratio. That said it was not exactly under powered. 1.86 pounds per pound of thrust compared with the Hawk's 1.4
@@mothmagic1 Yes I'd agree with all of that!! Red arrows transitioning to the hawk would have happened when I was about 8 or so, and gleefully interested. The Hawk "felt" like a downgrade for a Red Arrow. I'm a bit older now, so understand the reasons. Still with these rose tinted glasses on it's another thing good about the UK aircraft industry in the post war years
I did undercarriage functionals on a Gnat while doing trade training at RAF Halton. A little quirk was the undercarriage was also the air brake, the fairing and legs would extend halfway to act as a brake.
In the early 90's I worked on the GNAT. Our boss would buy them, bring them over to the states, and we would demilitarize the planes for civilian use.
I've seen one up close in an air museum in upstate NY. I was amazed at this tiny little thing! Especially when 200 feet away, was an old F-14 Tomcat which was gigantic compared to it. And I read that a great deal of the dogfighting success was because it was really hard to shoot down at that size. I think it's amazing.
Gnat was also part of Indian Air force inventory. It's so small, don't require a ladder to enter cockpit.
I have seen this plane in a park in Mumbai. Its size is about that of medium sized bus. I could not believe it is a real plane and not a mockup.
My Great Uncles Astead of small numbers of more larger complex aircraft. Go into the design life of him and you will reasise what aircraft he designed from first world war to the 1950sin ircraft Company only developed the plane as a quick usable plane in multiple numbers. sorry eyesight not that good so hope you understand.
The first F16!!!!!
The Gnat was much smaller and lighter than the F-16, and even the A-4. It was a fighter at the WWII and Korean War level, i.e. close-in dogfighter with guns. Air-to-air missiles soon came to dominate, needing larger fighters to carry them and their associated radars and other electronics. Where tiny fighters may come to dominate in future is as UAVs, taking advantage of extreme manouverability and very compact electronics (e.g. Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat aka Australian "Loyal Wingman", though it is hardly "tiny").
@@awuma I know all that.
"Yankee Doodle Floppy Disk, this is Foxtrot Zulu Milkshake..."
"Roger that, Milly Vanilly Chilly Willy."
Used to love seeing these at RAF Little Rissington CFS
There is a 'Static Display' Gnat 2 Seater outside RAF Woodvale on the A565 near Formby Merseyside. It's in Black Livery, and looks great. Thanks for this fascinating story, much appreciated.
INDIAN HAL COMPANY SHOULD HAVE COLLABORATED WITH GNAT'S DESIGNER AND DEVELOPED MID-SIZED HIGHLY MANOUVERABLE FIGHTER PLANES FOR GLOBAL MARKET.
Watched a few of your vids, rwally enjoy them and ive now subbed. Excellent content
A very interesting video but I think it would have been better without the background music.cheers .
Agreed
Great looking plane...
It was Teddy's uncle Percy who pushed STOL and VTOL research at Westlands.
The Folland Gnat was the foundation design for the Harrier jump jet. Teddy designed a STOL version of the Whirlwind with tilting wing's. Still classified but copied in Canada by a company that built a craft called the Dynavert.
Teddy never received credit for all his design work because of bureaucratic jealousy. TSR 2 was also from his drawing board.
I never realised that, but the Gnat and Harrier do look very similar.
@@indigohammer5732
Exactly. Same overall wing plan and the benefits of Anhedral giving higher lift and manoeuvrability with lower tip drag and less wing area. This made the Gnat faster too because lower drag.
Similar engine. In all probability Teddy had a VTOL version of the Gnat on his drawing board as well as its bigger cousin the Harrier.
Same with TSR 2. It's blown flaps gave it excellent handling characteristics. Why is this not well known ? Official secrets act plus jealous American aviation companies who couldn't repeat Teddy's genius. So they sabotaged many British aviation programs and tried to steal the credit with their own crappy designs like the F111.
The Gnat was inspired by a much more advanced fighter with forward swept anhedral. Very compact, superior manoeuvrability and hard to beat in a dogfight.
@@joschmoyo4532 I thought the harriers use of high wing and anhedral was dictated by the pegasus nozzels and the bicycle undercarige requiering tip mounted outriggers - early drawings of the harrier show tricycle undercarridge and no anhedral -of course the original concept for the harrier was by frenchman Michel Wibault, - Agreed usa sabotaged other manufactures (with the help of our corrupt politicians) - see F-104
The Harrier wing was essentially similar to the outer sections of the Hunter wing.
The Harrier was shoulder wing to accommodate the lift nozzles below it
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958
The Hunter was a mid wing with no anhedral. The planform was not dissimilar. The only slight issue with the Hunter was the engine being further back and causing C of G to be not ideal.
Shoulder mounted wing's allowed the engine to be brought further forward on the Harrier and Gnat.
The other less known factor in the performance of these aircraft was the potential for retro fitting of magnet runner's. This would have allowed for the benefit of effective mass reduction and power supply for pulse cannons.
With those additions in the X squadron prototypes the Gnat was supersonic and lethal as a front line fighter.
I often wonder when we will turn to small aircraft once again. Imagine the gnat with the benfit of modern technology and how much chesper it would be/how many morr we could have.
We already have. They're called drones.
@@strayling1 Either your young or naive. I work in the drone industry (big stuff powered by jet engines, not the toys) and not one could shoot down a Sopwith Camel...yet.
@@Thinkflite Gratuitous insult aside (what are you, 12?) tell that to Ukraine.
@@strayling1 What Ukrainr drones are shooting down fast jets? ...or Sopwith Camels for that matter.
Hot Shots 1 !👍
part deux didn't use foland gnat ? my memory is blurred
That is a good looking aircraft, looks fast even sitting on the ground.
It was a pocket rocket. The M.G of the aircraft world😊loved it😊😊
It was not chinese as mg junkers are!
its just the size of a small car, amazing . . I ve seen it personally at Pakistan Air force Museum, Karachi . . An Indian Air force Gnat, which was forced to land on a Pakistani Airfield during 1965 Indo-Pak War and now on display as War Trophy . .
The Folland Gnat was nicknamed Giant Killer when it shot down the F4 Phantom in the Indian Pakistani war.
'Sabre Slayer,' and it was the F-86 Sabre. F4 Phantom has never been in service in the Subcontinent.
One is sitting in PAF museum Karachi as war trophy bcz all four pilots chickened out on seeing only one starfighter, and ran in different directions one forced to land in Pakistan fully operational.
@@snd9826you have our equipment as "War trophy" and we have yours in our museum.
@@nilanjangupta763 ever country does get war trophy but this gnat I am talking about ran away on seeing starfighter and was forced to land in Pakistan.
@@snd9826
Gnat is no match before F-104 star fighter. Normally Gnat evades F-104 and successfully so & F-104 (supersonic) can't turn back to pursue Gnat.
Wasn’t the G.91 in service with Portugal as well?
G91 was built in large numbers but not that successful in service. Italy spent a lot of money on developing the twin engined development.
Yes. Although Portugal's G.91s may have been second hand.
When I first joined the RAF, Gnats were still in service...........just. We did use them for marshalling training whilst on my fitters course and later got to familiarise ourselves with the ejection seats and carry out seat pin fits (A later modification for when the 'techies' climb all over them). Very different to Martin Baker seats.
They still had them in 1983@ #1 school of Engineering
Still a surprising number airworthy, considering it wasn't really a mass-produced aircraft.
Many in the Fleet Air Arm (RN) thought the Gnat would be quite ok for the service..
EAGLE could have hangered lots more in its two full length hangars than it did of the aircraft they had at the time.
Too technical for skimmers!
Imagine a Gnat powered by a lighter, more fuel efficient GE CF700 (TF37 military designation) rear mounted turbofan engine that produces about the same thrust as the much heavier, fuel guzzling cannular Orpheus engine. An inertial navigation system (INS) with an instrument landing system (ILS) and distance measuring equipment (DME) would enable the Gnat to operate in day/night and restricted visibility conditions.
“Folland Gnat”?
I believe you misspelled “Oscar EW-5894 Phallus Tactical Fighter.”
..maybe similar to a skyhawk concept?
The Gnats license built in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited were named HAL Ajeet.
@Tillerman56
True. But there was a design change (modification). Folland Gnat has a very small range, to be effective. It was effective in Indo-Pak war(depth or breadth of Pak Territory was nowhere more than 250 nautical miles or 460km), but not on Chinese border. Reason was the low fuel capacity. Often Gnat had to carry drop tanks, thus reducing its capacity to carry bomb load.
In the new design, "Ajeet" was given wet wings (fuel stored in wings) that remarkably increased its weapons delivery. But Ajeet didn't face any wars, like the veteran Gnat.
Gnat philosophy .... first you have to see me coming and then youve got to try and hit me ...but im not going to stay still for long enough.....😁🇬🇧
@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665
Yes. Gnat has the lowest RCS for radars to see (detect) a Gnat, till it is too close. That is a huge advantage. Part of the LWF "design" is the low RCS.
Colin Chapman’s cars won innumerable races by following the same principles.
It was rumoured in those days that initially the company was against selling those jets to India as they were under the impression that India is not a democratic but communist country. Accidentally when they had found that cricket is one of favourite game in India and no communist country plays cricket the deal to sell the jets were finalised.
Are you out of your mind . India always had close ties with UK
I want one!
Top video and top little plane. I still think we have gone way to the other side of ridiculous with expensive tech. We should consider something like this today, cheap & easy to construct. Oh hold on we can’t afford the pilot training so forget that.
BTW can we lose the annoying music track?
SAAB JAS-39 Gripen anyone?
@mollyfilms
In "Technology" one needs to trade something for another. In India, we have an advantage with man-power (low wages as per international standards). Similarly, HAL's (Bengaluru) "Overhaul" division is the real money-earner and always was demand with Western companies (right from WW II, when Colombo was the set of South Eastern Command of the allied forces). The Curtis Commando C-46 (double bubble cross section), cruising at about 130 knots, the grandpa of Dakota C-47 were operated in India, well into 1970s (six were there, but cannibalizing reduced them to four).
I think they call these planes manned drones today!
The Indians showed us what they could do.
We know how tough Indian troops are from both World Wars.
Thank you India.
Why bring up Indian troops. It was the Indian air force that flew the Gnat.
@@stephenconnolly3018
"Indian Armed Forces".
Makes one think of the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen . A very small and relatively cheap plane, but in contrast to the Gnat with a highly advanced punch. Would be interesting if we could see the Gripen in combat in Ukraine.
Red Arrows where the second RAF display team as they were proceeded by the RAF YELLOW JACKS flying Gnats.
F-86 Sabre, and not Saber.
Saber or Sabre are both correct spelling in the U.S. with the Sabre spelling being seen as needlessly fancy.
Same theory as the F-20 Tigershark. Same production result from the military agencies at the time.
alien technologies and that of which man or woman has created and graced with your eyesight is what makes us so special and unique 😅🎉😊
Orpheus engine! Orpheus engine! Not obvious engine! Ah the limitations of A.I.
The Gnat was the pocket rocket
I saw this aircraft in 'HotShots!" comedy movie and I thought it was a fictional aircraft. lol
I'm (almost) sure the aircraft in that movie were Ajeets - the Indian-developed variant of the Gnat.
‘The Navy’ 😂
They picked this airframe because it was inexpensive and looked fairly silly.
India should start production gnat fighters if they can be produced faster, in mass scale, of course employing as many as possible smart toya
@rameshkaria5773
Technology has advanced so fast and the adversary aircraft have become unbeatable. Tejas is a Light weight Combat aircraft too, with delta wing.
Yet another otherwise great video (thanks btw) skipping right over the Yellowjacks (pic at end though 🍌 ).
I think they made the jet provost too
I think they made the jet provost too , but if you look at India they ended up with mig21 so anyone’s market
The principles are still correct today in a real war NATO airforces would run out of planes in a couple of weeks, In Ukraine a modernised low cost Gnat is better than an F16 as Ukraine simply doesnt have the infrastructure to operate F-16s long term effectively.
Interesting and informative. I wonder if I am the only one to find the weired music a distraction.
If your supremely rich, you can buy one of these for fun
Shades of the Spitfire and the F-16! None wanted by their respective governments but eventually proving their worth in spades. Nice looking bit of kit as well.
is this the plane from HotShots?
Yep, I'm pretty sure the airframes used in the movie were Indian built versions though.
@@kdrapertrucker I don't care I want one!
It is also known as "Sabre Player".
The G-nintey one (not nine one) also saw use with the Portuguese Air Force...another N.A.T.O. member
6:11 you use a joystick to play ipace invaders. In s plane, it's just a stick. Control stick if you must. But never s joystick.
always makes me think of Indian AGEET .
The HAL Ajeet was an Indian-built update of the Gnat with a "wet wing," which increased range & added an extra wing station. It wasn't as agile as a Gnat, but it shared small visual and radar cross section with superior maneuverability to other 2nd & later generation fighters.
@@ElmCreekSmith
Yes.
Like a lot of people he was preparing for the last war not the next. Waste if resources.
Wow!
Unbelievable!
Kin' I have one?
🙈🙉🙊 😎 🇺🇸
Your this mighty lion had surrendered before PAF F 86 remain on display at PAF museum Karachi.
You should make a video about the Iconic Hawker Sea Hawk
Modern and fully un-manned or remotely controlled fighters might be needed in the future!
What no need for orrificers?
Small Pocket Rocket. Good A/C for dogfighting.
Hot Shots.
Kind of like Rutan’s little fighter. Similar result. Too bad.
It was a time before the ramifications of the suez crisis had registered on British psyche and Britons considered themselves to be THE world power. It's strange how the psyche of being the great impacts minds of the humans and they do really end up making the Great things 😁
It was a beautiful little fighter, the Falland Gnat... The Sabre killer ❤️
Its shriveled-up empennage makes it an unattractive design. The two-seater is much better proportioned,
Hey, it's called Saber Slayer!!! Don't be fooled by the nonthreatening appearance.
"Lighter than the Spitfire when fully loaded". W hat did it carry under its hard points, tooth picks?
@richardwarner3705
Regular armament. Yet the air-frame and engine are lighter by design. Gnat has limited fuel carrying-capacity.
Yes the money was in arming these little African countries and various despots with cheap fast jets and other modern weapons so easy to train a ghzat pilot compared to say a harrier or an F6
i need that seed money for what was done to me
Yes nats bought American jets down.
That's like being impressed you outmaneuvered a city bus on a motorcycle. Lots of early cold war American jets were downed by smaller, more maneuverable aircraft. The crews had not been trained in Dogfighting, and the big missile trucks were not designed to maneuver.
Smaller and lighter everything was basic with machine gun and and ww2 tech but American got Heat seeking missile they were built according to coldwar needs with Russia .
GEt ur Indian Map right
“8
Silly plane. Only stumpy little men could fly it. Hobbits.
Brown Ronald Jackson Donald White Barbara
Brits use a trainer for demonstrations? Boy Scouts
The Indian Gnat parked in a Museum is actually a war trophy captured by Pakistan Air Force and is currently in display at PAF Museum Karachi.
Gnat error needing correction. No aircraft climbs at 20,000’ per minute, I’m pretty sure.
Pretty sure you're wrong. The Gnat F.1 could also climb to 45,000 feet in 5 minutes. The F-16C climbs to 50,000 feet in ONE minute, of course the Gnat F.1's stats are from 1958.