Folland Gnat: Tiny Jet, Big Impact

Рет қаралды 90,142

Ай бұрын

In the 1950s, the aviation industry was trending towards bigger, heavier, and more expensive fighter jets. But a small British company decided to challenge this direction by demonstrating that there was a viable market for affordable, lightweight fighters. This is the story of the Folland Gnat.
A Revolutionary Concept
The Gnat was a game-changer. Smaller than almost any jet fighter of its time, even more compact and lighter than the Spitfire, it was conceived by the brilliant aircraft designer William Petter. Petter's career was marked by remarkable achievements, including the Westland Lysander, Whirlwind, and significant contributions to the Spitfire during WWII. His journey led him to Folland Aircraft in 1949, where he became the managing director and chief engineer.
Challenging the Norms
Petter believed that the trend towards heavier and more complex aircraft was flawed. Drawing from his WWII experience, he argued that these designs would be impractical in a prolonged conflict. Thus, he envisioned a lightweight, simple fighter with low production and operational costs-an idea that led to the development of the Folland Gnat.
Development and Prototypes
Folland took a bold step by developing this aircraft at their own expense. They first built a proof-of-concept demonstrator, the Fo-139 Midge, which flew in August 1954. The Midge exceeded expectations, leading to the more advanced Gnat prototype, which first flew in July 1955. This new aircraft was agile, with impressive speed and climb rates, making it a pilot's dream to fly.
International Interest and Service
Despite initial setbacks, such as NATO's preference for other aircraft and the RAF's choice of the larger Hawker Hunter, the Gnat found its niche as a trainer. The two-seater variant, the Gnat T.1, became the primary advanced trainer for the RAF and the first aircraft of the Red Arrows aerial display team, achieving widespread fame.
Combat Performance
The Gnat also proved its worth in combat, particularly with the Indian Air Force during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Its small size, speed, and agility made it a formidable adversary, earning a reputation as a highly effective fighter.
Legacy
The Folland Gnat's legacy is one of innovation and resilience. It defied the trend of its time, offering a compelling alternative to the larger, more complex fighters. Its role with the Red Arrows and its success in international markets underscore the enduring value of William Petter's vision for a lightweight, versatile aircraft.
Don't miss this fascinating look at the Folland Gnat, a true pioneer in aviation history!
🔔 Subscribe for more insightful videos on aviation history!
👍 Like and Share this video if you enjoyed it!
📝 Leave a comment with your thoughts on the Folland Gnat!
#FollandGnat #AviationHistory #JetFighters #RedArrows #WilliamPetter #AviationInnovation #1950sAircraft #AviationDocumentary
_________________________________________________
To contact me directly: Dashboardglobal@techie.com
_________________________________________________
Our channel is about Aviation.
We make the best educational aviation videos you've ever seen; my videos are designed to clear misunderstandings about airplanes and explain complicated aviation topics in a simple way.

Пікірлер: 190

@jameswebb4593 Ай бұрын

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 Ай бұрын

Nonsensical statement. Such an aircraft would be shot down immediately in anything like modern combat.

@tomgoff7887 Ай бұрын

@@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.

@kevinbarry71 Ай бұрын

@@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.

@tomgoff7887 Ай бұрын

@@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.

@kiwiadventures3773 Ай бұрын

You could outfit a whole airforce of sopworth camels with this.

@ronlucock3702 Ай бұрын

You forgot to mention its iconic role in the 1980's Top Gun spoof, "Hot Shots!"

@guaporeturns9472 Ай бұрын

Great movie

@13thdukeofwybourne69 Ай бұрын

The famous Oscar EW 5894 Phallus Lightweight Tactical Fighter Bomber.

@vishwaskarmarkar9932 26 күн бұрын

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 25 күн бұрын

False . . Keeler flew hunters . .

@atharvzemse6599 23 күн бұрын

@@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.

@lukasz.adamski Ай бұрын

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.

@RAJAT6555 22 күн бұрын

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.

@MrPoornakumar 29 күн бұрын

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.

@bungasujatmo1439 21 күн бұрын

Thank you sir, very informative

@billballbuster7186 Ай бұрын

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 25 күн бұрын

False . . It never shot down 11 sabres . . At most just a single sabre . .

@billballbuster7186 25 күн бұрын

@@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

@iftikharfaridy2974 25 күн бұрын

@@billballbuster7186 65 war was a stalemate . . In 71 war, Pakistan lost . . Instead of bullshit, better talk on facts . .

@iftikharfaridy2974 25 күн бұрын

@@billballbuster7186 by the way, any reason for merging two separate wars of 65 with 71 . .

@billballbuster7186 25 күн бұрын

@@iftikharfaridy2974 The Gnat / Ajeet flew in both conflicts.

@michaelrynne5254 Ай бұрын

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.

@tonylam9548 Ай бұрын

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.

@cocodog85 Ай бұрын

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.

@SANJAYWILLIAMS1975 Ай бұрын

My late father was IAF veteran from 1960 to 1972 he used to use the moniker Saber Slayer for GNAT ,

@sadiqjohnny77 21 күн бұрын

Exactly how MANY Sabres were shot down by the Gnat in the Pakistan/India wars?

@SANJAYWILLIAMS1975 19 күн бұрын

@@sadiqjohnny77 5- out of which 3 outright victories

@sadiqjohnny77 19 күн бұрын

@@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.

@maiholiaw4927 19 күн бұрын

@@sadiqjohnny77 7 in total. 2 in 1965 and 5 in 1971

@SANJAYWILLIAMS1975 14 күн бұрын

@@maiholiaw4927 I stand corrected

@jaws848 Ай бұрын

You never climbed into a Gnat....you strapped it to your back

@trilochankhuntia979 18 күн бұрын

Gnat was also part of Indian Air force inventory. It's so small, don't require a ladder to enter cockpit.

@Cartoonman154 Ай бұрын

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.

@user-en9zo2ol4z Ай бұрын

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.

@mothmagic1 Ай бұрын

"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.

@andidubya3840 Ай бұрын

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.

@mothmagic1 21 күн бұрын

@@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

@andidubya3840 21 күн бұрын

@@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

@Istandby666 Ай бұрын

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.

@werre2 Ай бұрын

Gnat is one of the prettiest jets

@seanjoseph8637 Ай бұрын

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.

@Ob1sdarkside Ай бұрын

Watched a few of your vids, rwally enjoy them and ive now subbed. Excellent content

@katherineberger6329 29 күн бұрын

"Yankee Doodle Floppy Disk, this is Foxtrot Zulu Milkshake..."

@prinz4279 11 күн бұрын

"Roger that, Milly Vanilly Chilly Willy."

@curiousuranus810 Ай бұрын

The first F16!!!!!

@awuma Ай бұрын

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").

@curiousuranus810 Ай бұрын

@@awuma I know all that.

@johnfolland3997 Ай бұрын

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.

@marco-58 Ай бұрын

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.

@shaider1982 Ай бұрын

Hot Shots 1 !👍

@bluedragontoybash2463 21 күн бұрын

part deux didn't use foland gnat ? my memory is blurred

@MONTY-YTNOM Ай бұрын

Used to love seeing these at RAF Little Rissington CFS

@peterszar Ай бұрын

That is a good looking aircraft, looks fast even sitting on the ground.

@sarkybugger5009 Ай бұрын

Great looking plane...

@shirleydrury5565 Ай бұрын

It was a pocket rocket. The M.G of the aircraft world😊loved it😊😊

@JohnSmith-ei2pz Ай бұрын

It was not chinese as mg junkers are!

@rolanddunk5054 Ай бұрын

A very interesting video but I think it would have been better without the background music.cheers .

@vickyking3408 Ай бұрын

Agreed

@55gryphyn Ай бұрын

The Folland Gnat was nicknamed Giant Killer when it shot down the F4 Phantom in the Indian Pakistani war.

@moime3300 Ай бұрын

'Sabre Slayer,' and it was the F-86 Sabre. F4 Phantom has never been in service in the Subcontinent.

@snd9826 Ай бұрын

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 Ай бұрын

@@snd9826you have our equipment as "War trophy" and we have yours in our museum.

@snd9826 Ай бұрын

@@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.

@MrPoornakumar 29 күн бұрын

@@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.

@johnp8131 Ай бұрын

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.

@JohnSmith-ei2pz Ай бұрын

They still had them in 1983@ #1 school of Engineering

@joschmoyo4532 Ай бұрын

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 Ай бұрын

I never realised that, but the Gnat and Harrier do look very similar.

@joschmoyo4532 Ай бұрын

@@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.

@malakiblunt Ай бұрын

@@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

@andrewwmacfadyen6958 Ай бұрын

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

@joschmoyo4532 Ай бұрын

@@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.

@mumbaiverve2307 22 күн бұрын

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.

@davidvavra9113 Ай бұрын

I want one!

@Thinkflite Ай бұрын

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 Ай бұрын

We already have. They're called drones.

@Thinkflite Ай бұрын

@@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.

@strayling1 Ай бұрын

@@Thinkflite Gratuitous insult aside (what are you, 12?) tell that to Ukraine.

@Thinkflite Ай бұрын

@@strayling1 What Ukrainr drones are shooting down fast jets? ...or Sopwith Camels for that matter.

@ALVIEDZANE Ай бұрын

“Folland Gnat”? I believe you misspelled “Oscar EW-5894 Phallus Tactical Fighter.”

@narayanjoshi9346 18 күн бұрын

INDIAN HAL COMPANY SHOULD HAVE COLLABORATED WITH GNAT'S DESIGNER AND DEVELOPED MID-SIZED HIGHLY MANOUVERABLE FIGHTER PLANES FOR GLOBAL MARKET.

@Twirlyhead Ай бұрын

Yet another otherwise great video (thanks btw) skipping right over the Yellowjacks (pic at end though 🍌 ).

@Tillerman56 Ай бұрын

The Gnats license built in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited were named HAL Ajeet.

@MrPoornakumar 29 күн бұрын

@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.

@iftikharfaridy2974 25 күн бұрын

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 . .

@mannyjohnson8146 Ай бұрын

Wasn’t the G.91 in service with Portugal as well?

@andrewwmacfadyen6958 Ай бұрын

G91 was built in large numbers but not that successful in service. Italy spent a lot of money on developing the twin engined development.

@natquesenberry6368 28 күн бұрын

Yes. Although Portugal's G.91s may have been second hand.

@csk4j Ай бұрын

..maybe similar to a skyhawk concept?

@PeterPiccolo Ай бұрын

alien technologies and that of which man or woman has created and graced with your eyesight is what makes us so special and unique 😅🎉😊

@robertpatrick3350 Ай бұрын

Colin Chapman’s cars won innumerable races by following the same principles.

@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 Ай бұрын

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.....😁🇬🇧

@MrPoornakumar 29 күн бұрын

@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.

@rossmansell5877 Ай бұрын

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.

@JohnSmith-ei2pz Ай бұрын

Too technical for skimmers!

@awuma Ай бұрын

Still a surprising number airworthy, considering it wasn't really a mass-produced aircraft.

@steffenb.jrgensen2014 Ай бұрын

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.

@mrluckygilli Ай бұрын

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.

@manu18190 22 күн бұрын

Are you out of your mind . India always had close ties with UK

@RamJetJockey Ай бұрын

Same theory as the F-20 Tigershark. Same production result from the military agencies at the time.

@ozzy8286 Ай бұрын

The Gnat was the pocket rocket

@matthewmoore5698 Ай бұрын

I think they made the jet provost too

@rameshkaria5773 Ай бұрын

India should start production gnat fighters if they can be produced faster, in mass scale, of course employing as many as possible smart toya

@MrPoornakumar 29 күн бұрын

@rameshkaria5773 Technology has advanced so fast and the adversary aircraft have become unbeatable. Tejas is a Light weight Combat aircraft too, with delta wing.

@ersikillian Ай бұрын

Orpheus engine! Orpheus engine! Not obvious engine! Ah the limitations of A.I.

@mollyfilms Ай бұрын

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?

@sarkybugger5009 Ай бұрын

SAAB JAS-39 Gripen anyone?

@MrPoornakumar 29 күн бұрын

@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).

@tomarmstrong1281 6 күн бұрын

Interesting and informative. I wonder if I am the only one to find the weired music a distraction.

@otanguma Ай бұрын

I saw this aircraft in 'HotShots!" comedy movie and I thought it was a fictional aircraft. lol

@jackywhite880 Ай бұрын

I'm (almost) sure the aircraft in that movie were Ajeets - the Indian-developed variant of the Gnat.

@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Ай бұрын

‘The Navy’ 😂

@kdrapertrucker 22 күн бұрын

They picked this airframe because it was inexpensive and looked fairly silly.

@deltavee2 Ай бұрын

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.

@GeorgeRuffner-iy7bm Ай бұрын

Wow! Unbelievable! Kin' I have one? 🙈🙉🙊 😎 🇺🇸

@janaizeme6937 Ай бұрын

It is also known as "Sabre Player".

@marcjohnson4884 Ай бұрын

If your supremely rich, you can buy one of these for fun

@matthewmoore5698 Ай бұрын

I think they made the jet provost too , but if you look at India they ended up with mig21 so anyone’s market

@Taketimeout3 Ай бұрын

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.

@stephenconnolly3018 Ай бұрын

Why bring up Indian troops. It was the Indian air force that flew the Gnat.

@MrPoornakumar 29 күн бұрын

@@stephenconnolly3018 "Indian Armed Forces".

@pratvachan Ай бұрын

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 ❤️

@jaws848 Ай бұрын

The G-nintey one (not nine one) also saw use with the Portuguese Air Force...another N.A.T.O. member

@shahidmehmood7944 26 күн бұрын

Your this mighty lion had surrendered before PAF F 86 remain on display at PAF museum Karachi.

@fredtedstedman Ай бұрын

always makes me think of Indian AGEET .

@ElmCreekSmith Ай бұрын

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.

@MrPoornakumar 29 күн бұрын

@@ElmCreekSmith Yes.

@Ivy2D Ай бұрын

is this the plane from HotShots?

@kdrapertrucker 22 күн бұрын

Yep, I'm pretty sure the airframes used in the movie were Indian built versions though.

@Ivy2D 22 күн бұрын

@@kdrapertrucker I don't care I want one!

@danielburkett7835 Ай бұрын

Small Pocket Rocket. Good A/C for dogfighting.

@user-en9zo2ol4z Ай бұрын

F-86 Sabre, and not Saber.

@kdrapertrucker 22 күн бұрын

Saber or Sabre are both correct spelling in the U.S. with the Sabre spelling being seen as needlessly fancy.

@jonsouth1545 Ай бұрын

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.

@TRabbit1970 Ай бұрын

Kind of like Rutan’s little fighter. Similar result. Too bad.

@mohammadharisfahim6614 19 күн бұрын

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.

@Icelander112spotter Ай бұрын

You should make a video about the Iconic Hawker Sea Hawk

@hasan8084 Ай бұрын

Hot Shots.

@blainehebert1376 Ай бұрын

Modern and fully un-manned or remotely controlled fighters might be needed in the future!

@JohnSmith-ei2pz Ай бұрын

What no need for orrificers?

@paulgush Ай бұрын

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.

@06colkurtz Ай бұрын

Like a lot of people he was preparing for the last war not the next. Waste if resources.

@ftc9258 25 күн бұрын

Hey, it's called Saber Slayer!!! Don't be fooled by the nonthreatening appearance.

@PeterPiccolo Ай бұрын

i need that seed money for what was done to me

@rodharrison6867 22 күн бұрын

“8

@matthewmoore5698 Ай бұрын

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

@YouDingo88 Ай бұрын

Its shriveled-up empennage makes it an unattractive design. The two-seater is much better proportioned,

@SunilBhalla1304 27 күн бұрын

GEt ur Indian Map right

@richardwarner3705 Ай бұрын

"Lighter than the Spitfire when fully loaded". W hat did it carry under its hard points, tooth picks?

@MrPoornakumar 29 күн бұрын

@richardwarner3705 Regular armament. Yet the air-frame and engine are lighter by design. Gnat has limited fuel carrying-capacity.

@yogishmanjarekar7931 Ай бұрын

Yes nats bought American jets down.

@kdrapertrucker 22 күн бұрын

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.

@yogishmanjarekar7931 22 күн бұрын

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 .

@richardrobinson1651 Ай бұрын

Silly plane. Only stumpy little men could fly it. Hobbits.

@06colkurtz Ай бұрын

Brits use a trainer for demonstrations? Boy Scouts

@stuartfeen9236 Ай бұрын

Gnat error needing correction. No aircraft climbs at 20,000’ per minute, I’m pretty sure.

@ElmCreekSmith Ай бұрын

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.