Talk:Folland Gnat/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The photo on the Folland Gnat page, titled 'Folland Gnat T.1', is not a trainer (T.1), but a fighter, therefore 'F.1'. It is one of the Gnat fighters of the Finnish airforce.

WP:MILHIST Assessment

I think it might be helpful to make it more explicit in the intro that this is a British-designed/built aircraft. When I got to "Although it was never used as a fighter by the British Royal Air Force (RAF)...", I was quite thrown off. Not knowing it was a British plane, I could have expected just as much to see "Although never used by the USAF," or "never used by the Australian Air Force..." This sentence implies that it's a British plane, but without knowledge of who WEW Petter is, the reader is not made explicitly aware of the origins of the craft. LordAmeth 13:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit change made to clarify origin of the aircraft. Thanks for the reminder, I'm just slow to react. :} Bzuk 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

Editing changes

Major reverts should first be discussed in an open forum. I invite your comments. FWIW Bzuk 04:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

After a considerable period, I have made some editorial changes to the format and not to the context or information of the article. IMHO, a bit of POV was actually diffused. FWIW Bzuk 16:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC).
No problem. I think it looks better now perhaps? Idleguy 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nirmal Jeet Singh Sekhon

i would like to see the name changed so that the "jit" is changed to "Jeet" as is correct and to maintain the proper pronunciation of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.66 (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Kerb weight?

Not an aviation term surely?! Have left it for the time being. Some contradiction in the same section; 'High operating costs' followed by 'low cost'. I trained on the Gnat, had some innovative features not mentioned here, one was 'datum shift' which was chains and cables connected from the main landing gear to the tailplane PFCU to adjust the pitch trim when the gear retracted backwards (change in centre of gravity). Clever stuff, the Tornado does the same thing electronically nowadays. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Massive download

Unless I am sorely mistaken, there appears to be a massive copyviol involved in the latest edits. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC).

Need to provide the diffs Bill, a bigger problem is the recent image overload, call me old fashioned but we are supposed to have a flight image in the infobox (which we had). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Format of designation

Although the RAF now normally uses the "F1" format for currently operated aircraft, the "F.1" format was a format used at the time the Gnat was operated - see for example the "Folland" page on the RAF Museum Aircraft Thesaurus - currently at [1].

In WP the format of the designation should match the format used at the time the aircraft was operated. Where multiple formats were used for the same variant WP should be consistent within each article.DexDor (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The designation change was made back in the 1950s–1960s. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed at WT:AIR before (I'll try to find the discussions and link to them). The UK MOD dropped the dot in their designations in the early 2000s. WPAIR consesnus is not use the dot (F1) in articles for current aircraft, or those which were in service when the dot was dropped. The dot (F.1) is used for aircraft that left service before the dot was dropped. So DexDor is correct in his edits. - BilCat (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
In this case, I contend I'm from Missouri! FWiW, for now, I'll take the above as accurate but... Bzuk (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
If I can't find it in the next few days, I'll revert myself. In any case, feel free to bting it up at WTAIR, and we'll see if that consensus stands. - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
In the immortal words of Ricki Ricardo, "Lucy (read Bill), you got some 'splainin' to do!" FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to list the discussions I've found so far. More to come, I hope! - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure we should be adding the dots back in as I am sure went round removing them all not long ago! think this needs to go to project before any more changes are made. MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you give where that was discussed? That's what I'm trying to find at the moment, as my recollection of the consensus seems to differ from yours and BillZ's! As I stated above, I've no problem going to the project again on this, as it does come up every now and then. - BilCat (talk)
(edit conflict) And to be clear, the dots were already there - BillZ removed them with in the past few days. - BilCat (talk)
Depends on where you go back, the article started sans dots in 2004, remained that way through 2008, but somewhere along the line about 2010, picked up the dots. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Milb was implying that the new user re-added the dots on his own - he did not. - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the first version of the page - it uses the dot. Your serve :) - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: "Gnat T.Mk1"- not really a "dot", more like a half-hearted effort. Love-30. Bzuk (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Theres also "Gnat Mk.II" so he was using dots, even if it was inconsistent! Match point. - BilCat (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think this topic need revisiting, considering the immense changes to the Supermarine Spitfire article and numerous others that "lost the dot." FWiW, this issue seems to have been precipitated by a relatively new fellow traveller who has already made other out-of-left-field edits (although there is nothing wrong with that!) Bzuk (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Strange things happen in GA/FA reviewed articles, not all of them in line with WPAIR consensus (one resason I don't participate in them). If removing the dots from the Spitfire article wasn't discussed at the project level, and it disagrees with project consensus, then it's wrong, and the dots should be re-added. - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
...and nearly every other RAF type, Hawker Hurricane ad ad infinitum... you may have found yourself a new hobby (LOL). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
If the consensus upholds using the dot in historical article, we can probably find a bot to do the updates, so that's no big deal. But again, it should have been discussed at the project before such drastic changes were made. - BilCat (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to note my comment was because I saw a bit of dot adding removing at English Electric Lightning at the same time it was being discussed here and I thought I would try and move you across to aircraft project for a discussion. Hasn't worked! - Perhaps we should use sunday names and go for Trainer Mark 2 doesnt need any dots! MilborneOne (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Let's do that, in trying to go through the mishmash of this article archive, it was written by a succession of idjits, looking right in the mirror at this point, and it certainly cannot be used as an example of anything other than bad research ability. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

No argument there on the idjts! Anyway, I was waiting for the cool-headed admin to start the discussion at WTAIR. ;) - BilCat (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Here goes, not waiting for Cool Hand Luke, see here and here (not sure where the discussion should go?) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The '.' used in British designations is a full stop (period) and signifies that the preceding letter is the final letter of a designation or abbreviation. For some reason at various times the typographical conventions for presenting the designations and Mark numbers varied, sometimes using a full stop, other times not. Often the '.' is replaced by a space - 'T.MK1' becomes 'T Mk 1'. But I wouldn't get too bothered about it, as like many things British, it was used inconsistently, and probably still is. It depends on the originator's understanding of proper English grammar, in the 1930s-1970s most of the people responsible for these areas in the RAF and civil service would have been to either Oxford or Cambridge and quite possibly studied the Classics, so many of them would have known about writing 'proper' English as it was then taught in these universities. That's why abbreviations such as the BBC would have been properly written B.B.C. at the time, as was R.A.F. so-abbreviated originally. The full stop denoted that the letter was short for an abbreviated word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Updates

I have made a lot of changes to the article recently as it did not flow clearly and was missing a lot of important detail. I still need to add references for these changes but please bare with me I will add them shortly. Also note I made no attempt to do anything with the Indian operational history bit other than add an introduction - could probably do with a review. Thanks for your patience. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sabre Slayer

The comment is related to the title it has been given and is a valid refutation. Just because the section name is "India" doesn't mean the article is only to present that country's views. The information is well sourced and is relevant to the title the Indian Airforce has claimed for the aircraft. Do not try to WP:CENSOR the refutations. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not claiming ownership of the article. Do not confuse personal ownership to contents of article. WP articles and sections should contain data relevant so that section and are in fact made to this can be achieved. Thus Indian section should contain number and details of planes along with IAF reviews as a user. Individual views by anyone would fall under WP:UNDUE since individual views do not affect the aircraft. For example CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder does not contain any individual views.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret a flight test, done on duty in capacity of an airforce officer, as an individual view (you will either call it that person's view when it is not misleading or other wise that airforce's view). About the article content, that way you might not be able to put a neutral balance to the war sections of Pakistan Army article for instance, if I use your comment to say that Indian views or claims are not to be presented here since the article is not titled on their name. It doesn't work that way. It works by notability. The captured aircraft is a notable one now in a museum and so were the test flights and checks done on it since they are published in a reliable source. Now if an Indian comment is present on the topic claiming it to be a 'Sabre Slayer', a refutation (if present and verifiable) is due to keep it neutral, other wise it's an obvious case of POV or unless you want to remove the title 'Sabre Slayer' given by the Indians, it would also be WP:UNDUE since a refutation is present and not given. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The sentence has been reworded to make it more neutral. The plane was referrred to as a "sabre slayer" by IAF pilots. A single opposing nation's pilot's opinion (and not a fact) quoted in a non-reliable source (not a flight magazine) by a third party and expressed in an unprofessional manner cannot be considered as the correct rebuttal. It is UNDUE & original research, or more correctly, a case of sour grapes. The versatility of Gnat as a dogfighter was recognised. The question of rebuttal of the existence of the nickname would arise if the gnat was not regarded so by some Indians or if too few Indians regarded it so and in which case it is UNDUE. In any case PAF issued figures of aircraft losses are present in the article and hence balance of POV has already been given heed to. AshLin (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey hey, go slow, you've almost added every allegation there is on a citation. Read WP:NEWSORG. The source is RS, one of the oldest newspaper of Pakistan, the writer is renown, and the pilot who tested was a PAF officer. It is not a matter of Indian rebuttal. This article covers the topic from a global perspective. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved observer chiming in. The cited reference appears to lack subjectivity and smacks of "hometown" boosterism. I can't see a reason for using it at all. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many instances that a significant person's view is given in the article and this one in specific should be regarded as PAF's view. About subjectivity, I think the cited article explains the scenario pretty well even though it is quoting RT callings, but again it's a reliable source. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I buy that reliable sources are a prerequisite, but in this case, my BS meter was off the scale, I wouldn't even give this the benefit of the doubt. No stats, nothing but an opinion, that's not even close to being verifiable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
In that case you might need to review the publisher (jang.pk). Its a mainstream source. I'm afraid this article might need a tag like {{globalize|India|UK|Finland}}, The argument the editors are giving above, that only Indians can refute a nickname given by them to affect the global perspective of the aircraft is ridiculous. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument above is that a one-sided, opinionated commentary should not be accepted on face value. Is that what you meant? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

(edit conflict)What I mean is, when such controversies are there, views of all parties should be presented. If the nickname 'Sabre Slayer' is being mentioned as attributed to the Indian pilots, the refutation from the other side should be given as well. Esp. when it's published in a mainstream RS. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
To reply to TopGun, a news publication may be considered a reliable source for news reports and reporting facts but not for the op ed piece. The article here is a Defence Day feel-good report by the Air Comde. He recalls events of fifty years ago. His account of Sqn Ldr Saad is hearsay, the tone is anecdotal and what is expressed is Saad's opinion not a fact. It is not Saad who says so but Kaiser and in a non-serious article. The fact that Gnats shot down lots of Sabres for the IAF is the only issue. If the issue of the Gnat's unsuitability was discussed in a flight magazine in a professional way with details of performance, where other pilots can judge the veracity of the claims, it would have made sense to add it but worded NPOV. However, this is a single instance, with no real proof that the Gnat was not technologically capable. It is a source which is not reliable for use where the fact is disputed and it is disputed by more than one editor (including an uninvolved editor) as non-RS and UNDUE. If neutral third party references can be found stating that the Gnat is technologically not up to the Sabre, then I will be very happy to add it. Remember, if the Gnat was inferior, the IAF pilots who used it to shoot down superior aircraft get greater credit for superior tactics, superior piloting skills not to mention courage. AshLin (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Well you need to read WP:NEWSORG before giving comments on the reliability. It clearly states that opinions of people in the relevant field carry a significant view (ie. Kaiser Tufail, the writer of the cited article). And the article is not based on hearsay and rather a research on the topic. You are judging this on your own accord. Further more, I never added it as a statement that the Gnat was not upto the Sabre, rather as an attribution to the test pilot which has no inherent bias. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This kerfuffle is obviously going nowhere, the options for all parties are to ask for a RFC or following that, if there is still no consensus or resolution, seek authoritative review by an acknowledged, objective experte. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

It is not Tufail who is giving an opinion here but Saad. Saad's opinion is not backed by a reference or citation so it tantamounts to hearsay by Tufail respected though he may be. I'm not disputing the fact that Tufail said it or Saad said it or that the source is verifiable. I am saying that it is one man's unverified casual mention of another man's opinion casually given no one knows where or how and as such is neither reliable nor significant to be added to the article. You are free to take it to RFC or to ask for opinion from an acknowledged expert at WP MilHist or Aviation, as mentioned by User:Bzuk above. AshLin (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec) First, stick to your views, you claimed it non-RS, non-serious and hearsay at the same time, so you should stand by that when you are replied to. Second, the article is a researched topic, that's why published on a mainstream media source. The fact checking has been properly done by the author and his reputability vouches for the view he is giving about Saad (the test pilot). Whether or not Saad is correct is a different debate, not applicable here since I attributed that view to Saad. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The statement appears to be an aside by Saad and doesn't go into sufficient detail as to why ge said it wasn't a "Sabre Slayer" - the comment is so short that it is not clear whether he is talking about inherent flying characteristics of the aircraft itself, the well publiced lack of reliability of key systems or some other factors - i.e tactics, pilot training, disagreeing with the Indian claims etc. Also note that brief evaluation flights on a patched together Gnat (with presumably no spares support from Hawker Siddeley or HAL) which had forced landed due to systems failure may not truly represent the performance/handling of the aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The systems failure is a claim only by the pilot who surrendered (and later his airforce I guess), but the undisputed fact that it was flown back by another pilot to Sargodha contradicts that. In any case your arguments stand very well for both sides of the given nickname. I don't think the editor above or the one citing the nick name has cited any technical details that would make it so and rather its popularity among the Indian pilots which is equivalent to the view I cited. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
It doesnt matter why but the addition of Saad Hatmi's quote has been challenged so really needs a consensus on this talk page before it can be added again, please dont edit war on the article page, this doesnt stop TopGun making his case on this talk page or appeal to other forums, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone compared Gnat vs Sabre score of Indo Pak Air war of 1965? Gnats downed 3 Sabres and damaged 1 while Sabres damaged 2 Gnats and damaged 1. (Source: Great Air Battles of Pakistan Air Force by M Kaiser Tufail, ISBN:9789690018922) --SMS Talk 12:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Good point. This along with Saad's analysis make it a sufficient inclusion to balance the claim from the Indian side. Or may be both sides' views on it being a sabre slayer can be excluded if it is so undue. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Justification for my edits/revert

  • The Pakdef.info source was tainted hence removed. It cannot be used whenever the matter is disputed.
  • The opinion of Saad Haatmi has been challenged and needs consensus before adding. Please see last paragraph of the previous section.
  • The reason for Sikand's landing is disputed by the Pakistanis. I have not insisted on the empty fuel excuse and have also not deleted the mention of the Starfighters but only brought out both sides neutrally. Please feel free to refer the issue to Disputed Noticeboard if you fee it is not neutral.

AshLin (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

AshLin, not only you stomped the non controversial edit [2] without explanation but also fail to adhere to WP:BRD. The sentence was per the source, there were no other claims than the pilot who got captured him self. This was also flown back after capture. Those claims are dubious and the only reliable claim should not be over attributed as such. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
If you are always going to revert me over when you get reverted, it will count as gaming/baiting of the 1RR.. avoid doing that. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Gaming/baiting is your ploy to avoid proper consideration of sources, NPOV etc? Like I said, take any case you feel to DRN for content issues. BTW I re-added your innocent edit. AshLin (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It is NPOV to use both sides' views. The Indian view is already mentioned calling it a Sabre slayer. On the rephrase you did., there were no claims based on facts that he was out of fuel Pakistani claims are being attributed to them as such when there are no opposing claims from independent sources? Do not assume me having a 'ploy' against you. You re added the same content inspite of the revert. That is editwar. It's bold, revert and discuss. DRN will only help as much as you are willing to agree. So if you can remain civil and to the content, it can be done here. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I see you don't bother to read the references yet again. Read the IAF history Chapter 3 reference. AshLin (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've read the reference and my view stands. Please revert the edit to the previous version and discuss it per WP:BRD. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment An editor is saying (at a recently filed report at WP:AN3) that India's view of Sikand's landing at Pasrur is more credible as he faced an inquiry and later became high ranking official (Air Marshal). I must add here that it is a well known fact that Sikand's father-in-law was a Central Government Minister at that time and it was because of his efforts that Sikand's career was not affected. --SMS Talk 12:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Quote sources, not hearsay. AshLin (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Source: Great Air Battles of Pakistan Air Force by M Kaiser Tufail, ISBN:9789690018922, pp 29. --SMS Talk 13:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hardly an unbiased source. The primary account responsible for this brouhaha. And also offline for purposes of verification. AshLin (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This dynamicity of a source is new to me. When it is supporting your pov its neutral, reliable... and when it is not it becomes hardly an unbiased source. Keep it up! --SMS Talk 13:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Its called WP:MPOV. Probably AshLin can make a list of sources in his/her user space so that we can only use those. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Btw Kaiser's book is available online and if a neutral editor asks I can help for verification. Apart from this I think this source is considered unbiased as it is already present in the article and it says that Sikand's aircraft was forcelanded at Pasrur. --SMS Talk 13:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Self-published source. See Details of Webmaster. AshLin (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
And the identity of SPS owners / writers tell how reliable they are... the webmaster says he also runs bharak-rakhshak.com.... that was deemed reliable for Indian POV as far as I remember. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Past tense?

I think it's a bit disingenuous to refer to this aircraft in the past tense when there's still flying examples in use today such as the aircraft being used in http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/watch-senior-editor-lee-hutchinson-pull-5gs-upside-down-and-not-wet-himself/

I think the description should be updated to the present tense. If the Costa Concordia could retain its present tense well past the point when it was obvious that it was a total loss, then it seems very strange that an aircraft that's still flying is referred to as "was an aircraft".

82.31.125.253 (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the word you want is disingenuous, which means to knowingly say something that is wrong. The incorrect use of the past tense in this case is simply that - incorrect.

Nick Collingridge, Woolmer Green, Hertfordshire, UK (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Gnat before Midge?

I find this change [3] rather strange: it claims (unsourced) that the Gnat began before the Midge. Apart from Folland's own numbering being against this, sources such as Hooker give the Gnat as being the variant of the Midge (i.e. the Midge begat the Gnat) with the Orpheus rather than the Viper. I know little of the Saturn as it never really went anywhere, but if the history really does go Gnat-Midge-Gnat, then this needs to be sourced and explained. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly a bit of the background to put it into perspective - Whilst (Group Captain ret'd ?) Teddy Tennant was the Folland Test Pilot, my father was Ken Tennant, the Financial Director. I can only comment on how I remember the story unfolding over the dinner-table - you will need to verify things from the authentic sources.
Petter's original design was for a Gnat. However the critical factor was to be the availability of a suitable engine. As it quite correctly states in the page Folland Midge - The Gnat was to be powered by a Bristol BE-22 Saturn turbojet with 3,800 lbf (16.9 kN 1,724 kgp) thrust. However, the Saturn was cancelled, and so Petter's unarmed proof-of-concept demonstrator for the Gnat was powered by the less powerful Armstrong Siddeley Viper 101 with 1,640 lbf (7.3 kN / 744 kgp) thrust. The demonstrator was designated Fo-139 "Midge".
The blow-by-blow story seems to be very well articulated on the page W.E.W. Petter - he was indeed a brilliant 'odd-ball' who, I remember, indeed had strong religious convictions (which caused some frictions with my lowland Scot, freethinking/agnostic, father) and firm ethical principles (of which my father did approve).
I would think that study of these other two linked pages, which are very well sourced, will enable you to edit the wording on the Gnat to give a correct account - I have already cut/pasted the sentence from the Midge - there appear to be a couple of sentences from Petter that could also be cut/pasted. I hope that this helps.
Richard Tennant (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Flight reference I added is fairly clear about the Saturn-powered design being called Gnat - in fact, it appears to have been applied to Petter's pre-Saturn proposals.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Ive just done a search for "Folland Gnat" and "Folland Midge" in the "Flight" magazine archive, over the years 1952 to 1954. And I was really surprised by the result. The earliest reference to the name Folland Midge is 1954, but the earliest reference to the Folland Gnat was 1953. So the public use of the Gnat name certainly pre-dates the Midge name. But this doesn't necessarily prove that the Fo 140 design pre-dated the Fo 139 design. KreyszigB (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Flight in the '50s can sometimes be a bit iffy though - some things were kept highly secret at the time, even from Flight, and hindsight (especially around procurement) can make their original version of events look a bit simplistic.
A couple of specific questions - first, why does the Fo-141 seemingly pre-date the Fo-139? Also, what's the Fo-140? Flight describes the ur-Gnat as the 141, but this article claims that's the 140 and the 141 was one of the sales variants.
Secondly, "conventional wisdom" is that the Midge was the precursor to the Gnat (which makes sense of 139 too). The current version of the lead states this quite plainly as such. So something still needs to change.
If it goes Gnat->Midge->Gnat (the Midge just being needed as a slightly smaller airframe to cope with the less powerful Viper until the Orpheus was ready) then any notion of the Midge as "precursor" needs to go altogether. Maybe "prototype" would be accurate, but still prone to misunderstanding. "Development airframe"? After all, all three engine choices appear to have happened before anything concrete happened with any aircraft (i.e. the Viper Midge was the first to fly, but the choice to eventually use the new Orpheus had already been made before this). All this flatly contradicts Hooker's autobio (which totally ignores the Saturn), but it's supported by the Flight articles.
Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just skimmed Chapter 2 of Victor Bingham's Folland Gnat: Sabre Slayer and Red Arrow.It states that (and I paraphase) In january 1952 Petter forwarded to the Air Staff the Folland Brochure on the Fo140. This covered two versions, one powered by the BE22 Saturn and the other by the RR Derwent... one was for the light interceptor role.... the other was for purely ground attack...On page 13/14 Bingham suggests that in mid/late 1953 Petter revised the project... In the project that would finalise in the Midge, Petter replaced the T tail with a low set tailplane, ...wing was changed to shoulder wing layout..." Based on my reading of Bingham, I get the impression that the Gnat and Midge concepts and designs were developed in parallel. I believe that the wingspan of the Midge was smaller than the Gnat, the flying controls were certainly different. The Midge was not just a AS Viper powered Gnat.KreyszigB (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The Burnet Air Enthusiast article used as a reference says that the Midge was a reduced power version of the Saturn powered Gnat, being described as simplified and lightened to match the lower power of the Viper engine, but not smaller. When the more powerful Orpheus became available, the Gnat design was ENLARGED to accommodate the slightly larger Orpheus.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Folland Gnat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Folland Gnat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folland_Gnat/Archive_1&oldid=1145966940"