Folland Midge/Gnat
Comp. Serv. Manager
the Folland Midge. I possess a book that doesn't include it but a friend
insists they've seen a colour print of a Midge in an Israeli AF colour
scheme.
From: Graham Dash
E-Mail: sutto...@dial.pipex.com
Astracon
forerunner to the Gnat, and as such never made it into production. All
Gnats produced for the RAF were two-seat trainers.
The Gnat was produced for the Indian AF by Hindustan Aeronautics, and this
was a single-seat fighter version (I believe they called it the HAL
Kiran). To my knowledge none of the Indian aircraft ever made it to
Israel, and certainly none of the RAF examples did. But feel free to
prove me wrong!!!
Steve
Martin/Jennifer Keenan
astr...@aol.com (Astracon) wrote:
>The Gnat was produced for the Indian AF by Hindustan Aeronautics, and
this
>was a single-seat fighter version (I believe they called it the HAL
>Kiran).
Actually, the single seat fighter version was called the HAL Ajeet.
The HAL Kiran was a jet engined trainer aircraft, which I belIeve was
an entirely indigenous Indian design.
Martin
Frank Wielbo
>
> The Folland Midge was a single-seat development aircraft which was the
> forerunner to the Gnat, and as such never made it into production.
>
> was a single-seat fighter version
How about Finland ?
Did they not Fly Gnats - single seat ones.
I am sure i have a photo somewhere taken at RAF Turnhouse of a single seat
Gnat/Midge in Red Arrow Markings which was used by the RAF exhib Flt or
whatver it was called in the 60s/70s . It was demo of how to build a plane in
an hour . No one ever seemed to fly it!
I have always wondered if this was a Midge.
Anyone got any ideas /records of displays during that period
Frank
David Lednicer
inventory. The RAF had two seater trainers, the Indian Air Force had
single seat Gnats and Ajeets, and a few two seaters of their own
development, Finland had a few Gnats and Yugoslavia bought two Gnats.
That is the total list of customers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: da...@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090
Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299
vsom
The Indian Airforce and the Finnish AIrforce have operated the Gnat. The
Indian AF has had a long history with the type which has seen much action
in the '65 and '71 wars against Pakistan. The Gnat was significantly
modified when it entered IAF servive - changes to the undercarriage etc.
In later years, the Gnat came to be license manufactured in India by
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited as the Ajeet.
During the '65 and '71 wars, the Gnat was instrumental in downing aircraft
ranging from the F-86 Sabre to the F-104 Starfighter. The Gnat was tiny
and difficult to track in air-air combat - it was also extremely
manueverable. The type was retired only in the late eighties (if not
later). It seems that the design of the new Indian Light Combat Aircraft
which is being readied for its first flight has been influenced somewhat by
the design of the Gnat. The LCA too is tiny and has a tail that resembles
that of the Gnat.
Vishnu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vishnudeep Som /.
Graduate School of Communications o__ _|_ .--.
Carleton University ___-o____/-- `---"---" "---.___
Ottawa, Canada. `------------------------------'
email:vs...@ccs.carleton.ca.
tel.: (613) 521-8013
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amitabh Dubey
>During the '65 and '71 wars, the Gnat was instrumental in downing aircraft
>ranging from the F-86 Sabre to the F-104 Starfighter. The Gnat was tiny
>and difficult to track in air-air combat - it was also extremely
>manueverable.
I must say I never heard of a Gnat shooting down an F-104 Starfighter. In
1965 the Starfighter was the terror of the Indian AF, with its acceleration,
Sidewinders and mythical reputation. The Indian AF, by contrast, had no
AAMs (since the MiG-21F-13 was not yet operational) and the US refused to
sell it what I think may have been the AIM-4 Falcon (I'm not sure). In the
1971 war, when the Indian AF did fairly well, the Pakistan AF deployed its
frontline Starfighters to Iran (!) rather than deploy them to combat
areas for fear of destruction. Now why an AF buys planes only to hide them
during wartime escapes me (a little like Iraq 1991). The Gnat had an
illustrious history in service with the Indian AF, but it did NOT shoot
down any Starfighters!
Amitabh Dubey
----------------------------------------
Amitabh Dubey
University of Chicago
Committee on International Relations
am...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu
---------------------------------------
Jukka Raustia
On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Frank Wielbo wrote:
> Astracon wrote:
> >=20
> > The Folland Midge was a single-seat development aircraft which was the
> > forerunner to the Gnat, and as such never made it into production. =20
> >=20
> > The Gnat was produced for the Indian AF by Hindustan Aeronautics, and t=
his
> > was a single-seat fighter version=20
>=20
> How about Finland ?=20
>=20
> Did they not Fly Gnats - single seat ones.
The Finnish Air Force had 13 Folland Gnats. They were delivered 1958-
1960, bought in 1957 (?) to political rather than military reasons. ( Durin=
g=20
this period there were doubts about finnish neutrality by the UK / US,=20
and after big tank purchase from the USSR the Finnish Government decided to=
buy=20
cheapest western fighter available, the Folland Gnat. Air Force wanted
Hunters. )
Numbers were GN-101 - GN-113. GN-112 and GN-113 were recon versions.
(local conversions). Last Gnats were retired in 1974. Gnats were=20
agile little planes and pilots liked them, althought maintenance and=20
training were difficult. (no two-seaters were bought) No other missiles
than rockets were used. ( Did Indian Ajeets have any kind of missiles? )
If i remember correctly, the GN-101 "Kreivi Von Rosen - Count Von Rosen"
is displayed in Finnish Aviation Museum in Malmi, near Helsinki.
--
Jukka Raustia, VJ, OMK, World Jamboree-95, Loisto-96, Telemark, Scouting
"Sosialismi etenee, kapitalismi m=E4t=E4nee!" "URAAA!"=20
Roger Basford
<astr...@aol.com> writes
>The Folland Midge was a single-seat development aircraft which was the
>Gnats produced for the RAF were two-seat trainers.
>
>Israel, and certainly none of the RAF examples did. But feel free to
>prove me wrong!!!
>
Gnats and worked on Gnat simulators says that there was a plan to use
(4?) Gnats underslung from a V-bomber, possibly a Vulcan. This sounds a
bit far-fetched to me but he has promised to dig out some info and I
will post it to r.a.m. if anyone is interested.
Has anyone heard of this scheme and what would be the advantages,
greater range?
*///////////////////////////////////////*
* e-mail: Bas...@g3vkm.demon.co.uk *
* Roger Basford, Haddiscoe, Norfolk U.K.*
*///////////////////////////////////////*
Frank Wielbo
>
> In article <4l406d$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, n
> >
> A family member who was with the Red Arrows ground crew when they used
> Gnats and worked on Gnat simulators says that there was a plan to use
> (4?) Gnats underslung from a V-bomber, possibly a Vulcan. This sounds a
> bit far-fetched to me but he has promised to dig out some info and I
> will post it to r.a.m. if anyone is interested.
The "fighter support Vulcan" was to cary three Gnats to counter Soviet aid
defences . They would be released fight , land in Friendly territory or
refuel from the Vulcan.
There is a drawing of the proposal in th book Avro Vulcan - Post War
military Aircraft No 4 By Andrew Brookes
Frank
Frank Wielbo
>
> In article <4l406d$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Astracon
> <astr...@aol.com> writes
> >The Folland Midge was a single-seat development aircraft which was the
> >forerunner to the Gnat, and as such never made it into production. All
> >Gnats produced for the RAF were two-seat trainers.
However six aircraft designated FO141 Gnat F.1 were produced for the
Ministry of Supply/Air Ministry and evaluated at Boscombe Down by the A&AEE.
RAF, RN, CFE and RAE pilots all flew the aircraft.
Frank
Bruce J. Grayson
Ajeet. Some sources quote it as having shot down Pakistani Sabres.
I am not totally convinced of this, as only some sources quote it.
Anandeep Pannu
(1) The Indian enhanced version was called Ajeet (and not Kiran as mistakenly
stated by a poster). It had wet wings which replaced the two drop tanks that
were permanent fixtures on Gnats. Even with the drop tanks its endurance was
45 minutes! Without drop tanks it was "fuel emergency" on takeoff.
(2) The Gnat was truly the "Last Gunfighter" it NEVER carried any guided
missiles in IAF (or any other air force) service. The closest it came to
missiles were SNEB rocket pods.
--
Anandeep Pannu
Research Programmer
Robotics Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/pannu/www/pannu.html
Bruce J. Grayson
weight possible. It was seen by Mr Folland (who I think designed the
Gladiator as well) as the antithesis of the Hawker Hunter and subsequent a/c
which were persistently getting heavier.
The USAF tried this tactic in the mid-70's, but somehow the F-5 would be the
closest thing to the philosophy of the Gnat, rather than the F-16.
The RAF used them as advanced trainers until the advent of the Hawk. The Red
Arrows indeed used them.
They look great. I'd be glad to have a go in one. But I don't know what their
endurance would be.
Vesa Halme
> six aircraft designated FO141 Gnat F.1 were produced for the
>Ministry of Supply/Air Ministry and evaluated at Boscombe Down by the A&AEE.
>RAF, RN, CFE and RAE pilots all flew the aircraft.
Finland had a dozen of them (F.1's), used in the 60's and early 70's before
the Drakens arrived. Some are still in museum, like the one at Helsinki-Vantaa
Airport - Finnish Aviation Museum. A nice little plane.
Vesa Halme
war...@vmhalme.pp.fi
http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/vmhalme
Subhendu Kumar Mishra
The Ajeets nicknames were the "Sabre Slayers", since quite a few
PAF Sabres were brought down by the Ajeet/Gants.
-- SKM
Philip Morten
>
> The Gnat was an exercise in building the best fighter possible at the lightest
> weight possible. It was seen by Mr Folland (who I think designed the
> Gladiator as well) as the antithesis of the Hawker Hunter and subsequent a/c
> which were persistently getting heavier.
Yes, Henry Folland was responsible for the Gladiator, and the S.E.5 and many other aircraft but
he did not design he Midge or Gnat. He retired as managing director and chief engineer of
Folland Aircraft in 1951 and was succeeeded by W E E Petter who designed the Midge and the Gnat.
Here is some information about these two designers.
H P FOLLAND
___________
Henry Philip Folland, OBE, FRAeS, FIAeS, FRSA, 1889-1954
After serving an apprenticeship with the Lanchester Motor Co and working at
Daimlers, Folland joined the Royal Aircraft factory at Farnborough as a
draughtsman working with Geoffrey de Havilland. As a designer he was
responsible for the B.S.1, the S.E.4 and most importantly the S.E.5. In 1917 he
joined Nieuport & General Aircraft and in 1921 he became chief designer of
the Gloucestershire Aircraft Co where he was responsible for all that company's
aircraft up to and including the Gladiator. In 1937 he left Glosters (as the
company had been renamed) and founded Folland Aircraft Ltd at Hamble. He
retired in 1951 and died three years later.
W E W PETTER
____________
William Edward Willoughby Petter, CBE
Son of the Chairman of Westlands, Petter joined that company for a two-year
apprentiship in 1929 then joined the drawing office, this was followed by a
stint as personal assistant to Robert Bruce, the chief designer. He was
appointed a director of the company in 1934 - a move which led to Bruce's
resignation - this was shortly followed by that of Geoffrey Hill, the
Pterodactyl designer, when Petter was made technical director. While in this
position Petter was responsible for the design of the Lysander, Whirlwind and
Welkin. In 1944, after having been refused the post of chief engineer, he
resigned and joined English Electric as chief engineer taking with him the
initial designs for what would become the Canberra. After leading early
design work on the P.1 (later Lightning) Petter moved on again and joined
Folland Aircraft as managing director and chief engineer in succession to H P
Folland who was retiring. His first design for Folland was the Midge, a
private-venture light fighter which first flew in 1954 and this was followed
by the slightly larger Gnat and later by the two-seat Gnat trainer.
Anandeep Pannu
am...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Amitabh Dubey) wrote:
>In the
>1971 war, when the Indian AF did fairly well, the Pakistan AF deployed its
>frontline Starfighters to Iran (!) rather than deploy them to combat
>areas for fear of destruction. Now why an AF buys planes only to hide them
>during wartime escapes me (a little like Iraq 1991).
That is definitely NOT CORRECT. The PAF used the F-104A extensively in the
1971 war. In fact they had a whole squadron transferred in FROM Jordan to
supplement the 1 squadron which had Starfighters in service since 1961
(No 9 Squadron in Sargodha). The IAF claims to have shot down 4 in air to
air combat in 1971 - one flown by PAF Wg Cdr Middlecoat as it was making
an attack on Jamnagar airfield, two which attempted to intercept an HF-24
formation attacking a railway yard in the South West desert area and one
claimed to have shot down by HF-24 (but could have been shot down by ground
fire). In all the PAF lost 7 Starfighters. In fact even their real expensive
prestige aircraft at the time (the Mirage III ) was used pretty extensively
towards the end of the war. I have spoken to a Squadron Leader of the IAF whose
wing man was blown away by a Mirage missile and who escaped by pulling so many
Gs that rivets popped on the Gnat! He saw the Mirage go by fifty feet above
him!
>The Gnat had an illustrious history in service with the Indian AF, but it
>did NOT shoot down any Starfighters!
You are right here; the IAF never claimed a Starfighter shot down by a Gnat.
The closest they got to this was claiming that a Gnat out manoveured a
Starfighter
and got on its tail but the F-104A hit burner and extended away.
According to PAF sources themselves the success of the F-104 in the 1965 war
lulled them into believing that the aircraft was good for the role of
interceptor. The F-104 was used correctly in 1971 for low level attack for
which
it was suited (refer to John Frickers "Battle for Pakistan") but mixing it
with MiG-21s in low level turning combat was not a wise thing to do. Another
factor was that F-104A's could outrun the MiG-21F-13s (Type 74 in IAF service)
in 1965 at low level, which lead them to believe it could do the same with
the more powerful MiG-21FL in service by 1971. WRONG!
Another thing I observed was that the PAF operated the F-104A from 1961 (the
first country outside the US to do so except for Taiwan) and did not have
a single accident. This is amazing and speaks well for the ground crew and
pilots of the PAF. The USAF and other air forces F-104s were dropping like
flies around the same time! And it was not that the PAF molly coddled the
F-104s. They were used for roles like low level attack and night interception
- roles for which the F-104A was NOT cleared even by the USAF. I was impressed
despite myself!
The Canberra pilots of the IAF did amazing stuff too - but thats another story.
Mike Stannard
Several guys wrote:
>>The Gnat was produced for the Indian AF by Hindustan Aeronautics, and this
>>was a single-seat fighter version (I believe they called it the HAL
>>Kiran).
Close but no cigar. If memory continues to serve, the Gnat was known
as the Ajeet in Indian service. The Kiran was an advanced
trainer/light attack aircraft which looked something like an angular
Jet Provost.
If you can bear to take a look at the movie "Hot Shots" you'll see at
least one single seat Gnat/Ajeet playing at being an F14!
>A family member who was with the Red Arrows ground crew when they used
>Gnats and worked on Gnat simulators says that there was a plan to use
>(4?) Gnats underslung from a V-bomber, possibly a Vulcan. This sounds a
>bit far-fetched to me but he has promised to dig out some info and I
>will post it to r.a.m. if anyone is interested.
>Has anyone heard of this scheme and what would be the advantages,
>greater range?
Not dissimilar from the plans the Americans had for hanging fighters
under B29's. The plan is mentioned in "Avro Vulcan" by Andrew Brookes
(PSL books). The idea was to have a "fighter support aircraft" that
would carry a Gnat under each wing, and one in the bomb bay. After
release, these would either land in friendly territory or refuel from
the mother ship! Like several other projects (Vulcan airliner,
vertical take off Vulcan - I kid you not) this one never even made it
off the drawing board.
The cynic in me wonders if it was just a ploy to try and find ANY use
for a lightweight fighter in the RAF of the 1960's.
Cheers,
Mike