Folland Gnat WHIF Ideas

[rickshaw]

How about a "double sized" gnat bomber carrying a "half scale" gnat cruise missile, along the lines of a weaponised Jindivik, under each wing? Do 1/48 and 1/144 gnats exist?

I'm aware of:

Aeroclub did a 1/48 T.1 in mixed media.
Aeropoxy (from Serbia?) do a 1/48 F.1 in resin.
Kador did a 1/50 F.1 in injection (I used one in my Folland TSR.2 Wasp conversion, above).

I'm unaware of any 1/144 scale Gnats.

[Weaver]

Weaver

Indeed, and also because I was looking at it in the context of a medium-sized aircraft to compete with the Mirage, Starfighter etc... rather than a "super-fighter". Re-reading the posts, I realise that Kendra was talking about the big Super-Crusader rather than the regular F-8, which is more the size of my "Big-Gnat".

Okay, so it would be more like an F-100 or F8U-1 type design?

[/quote]

Yeah, that's it: something exportable and multi-role, in the general class of the MiG-21, Lightning, Mirage III, Starfighter etc... Applying 20/20 hindsight, it would sacrifice a bit of speed and altitude "interceptor" performance for better dogfighting ability, since most of those "interceptors" ended up dogfighting their way through the '60s and '70s. I like the idea of two small engines (works for the F-5E....) on the grounds of survivability (if you get the detail design right) and faster spool-up: two small engine cores change speed faster than one big one.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

Yeah, that's it: something exportable and multi-role, in the general class of the MiG-21, Lightning, Mirage III, Starfighter etc... Applying 20/20 hindsight, it would sacrifice a bit of speed and altitude "interceptor" performance for better dogfighting ability, since most of those "interceptors" ended up dogfighting their way through the '60s and '70s.

Not if you design it right.

• MiG-21: Often considered a light-weight air-superiority fighter, it was technically an interceptor (it could do both). 
  
• Lightning: Was supposedly very agile despite being designed as an interceptor
  
• Mirage III: Designed as an interceptor though was clearly capable as an air-superiority fighter
  
• F-102A: Was designed as a dedicated interceptor, was however highly agile largely hampered by it's lack of guns and missiles inadequately suited for dogfighting
  
• F-106A: Was originally to be called the F-102B, was designed for the same mission, was faster and higher flying, equally maneuverable, and possessed the same shortcomings early on, though later this was rectified by adding an M-61 gun-pack.
  
• XF8U-3: Was designed as both an interceptor and an air-superiority fighter.  Could maneuver just as well as the earlier F-8 Crusader, yet could fly higher and faster than both the earlier Crusader, and the F-4 which it was competing head to head with.
  

..
The thing that made them all successful was the fact that they were designed with high T/W ratios and were designed with high altitude in mind.  Generally designing for high altitude capability also results in good agility at lower altitudes.

I like the idea of two small engines (works for the F-5E....) on the grounds of survivability (if you get the detail design right)

I thought it was mostly survivable of you lose an engine when cruising.  I didn't think it made much of a difference in combat -- I assume if you blew an engine you'd lose so much performance you'd probably be unable to keep up a turning fight and would end up getting drilled to death.

two small engine cores change speed faster than one big one.

I didn't think that actually applied significantly.  IIRC the J57 and J75 had about the same spool-up rate...

[rickshaw]

If you have two engines and lose one, you may escape and be able to limp home.  If you have one engine and lose it, you can't escape, you can't get home.  In the early days, with the general unreliability of many jet engines, having two, particularly for over-water flights was very important as well - much more than the survivability argument IMO.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

If you have two engines and lose one, you may escape and be able to limp home.

Doesn't that generally apply if you lose the engine when cruising around, not in combat?  I figure if you blew an engine in a dogfight, you'd be unable to accelerate, climb, or hold in turns well enough to get away most of the time.  Still I suppose I'd rather have the two engines in the few cases where you'd be able to get away!

In the early days, with the general unreliability of many jet engines, having two, particularly for over-water flights was very important as well - much more than the survivability argument IMO.

True, but some of the early jet-engines didn't put out all that much thrust.

[Weaver]

Well by "survivability" I meant in relation to all sorts of threats or emergencies, not just air-to-air combat. Surviving a technical failure on one of two engines is a real military advantage if the alternative is losing the plane and baling out over hostile territory. Likewise the ability to survive ground fire is improved by having two engines. In all cases though, the detail desgin has to be right: you don't get "twin engine effect" if the catastrophic failure of one engine takes out the other one because it's insufficiently protected or because they share common sub-systems.

[TsrJoe]

there was a 1/144 scale Gnat produced in the early 80's in epoxy resin, a really nice little model, no surface detail whatsoever but accurate in outline. Iv a few in my stash (along with a Sea Fury from the same source) il see if i can dig them out, might be worthwhile cleaning up and detailing

cheers, Joe

[Mossie]

Aeropoxy do a resin Gnat F.1 in 1/72 with a 1/48 kit on it's way.  The 1/72 kit looks less detailed than the Olimp/Pro Resin kit but costs about a 1/3 less (20 Euros, about £16 compared to about £24 for the Pro Resin kit).

1/72 kit:               http://aeropoxy.wordpress.com/models/aeropoxy-resin-kits/folland-gnat-f-mk-i/
1/48 kit preview:    http://aeropoxy.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/folland-gnat-f-mk-i-preview/
1/48 kit page:        http://aeropoxy.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/folland-gnat-f-mk-i-148-scale-resin-kit/

[deathjester]

there was a 1/144 scale Gnat produced in the early 80's in epoxy resin, a really nice little model, no surface detail whatsoever but accurate in outline. Iv a few in my stash (along with a Sea Fury from the same source) il see if i can dig them out, might be worthwhile cleaning up and detailing

cheers, Joe

I didn't realise you had an Electron Microscope...

[coolpop6307]

What about a firefighting for the USFS as spotter/and a little bomber for small fires.

[rickshaw]

Aeropoxy do a resin Gnat F.1 in 1/72 with a 1/48 kit on it's way.  The 1/72 kit looks less detailed than the Olimp/Pro Resin kit but costs about a 1/3 less (20 Euros, about £16 compared to about £24 for the Pro Resin kit).

1/72 kit:               http://aeropoxy.wordpress.com/models/aeropoxy-resin-kits/folland-gnat-f-mk-i/
1/48 kit preview:    http://aeropoxy.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/folland-gnat-f-mk-i-preview/
1/48 kit page:        http://aeropoxy.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/folland-gnat-f-mk-i-148-scale-resin-kit/

Aeropoxy 1/48 is available - http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Folland-Gnat-F-MK-1-48-resin-AEROPOXY-kit-/190642515179?pt=UK_ToysGames_ModelKits_ModelKits_JN&hash=item2c632deceb

[Mossie]

Thought I'd post some real world Gnat and related projects with the Gnat Themed Build being announced.  Mostly from Secret Projects.

Gnat Mk.2 and trainer variant


Gnat Mk.2 with tip tanks


Gnat Mk.4 and naval variant


Gnat Mk.5 twin engines


Folland Light Bomber

[PR19_Kit]

The Mk 5 is BRILL! 

Has anyone ever modelled one so far? And if so, how?

[Mossie]

Carlos (ysi_maniac) started one a few years ago.  The basic air frame was together but I've not seen any finished pics.  I've given him a bump for the good of all mankind.
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/board,2.0.html

[PR19_Kit]

I read that one first. 

I'm sure the new Gnat, perhaps mated with the rear end of a G-91Y and some longer, more swept wings, would get a long way there.