Folland Gnat T1

I checked with a friend as he’s an expert in them & he said it needed restoring.

Careful there Black Knight, I wouldn’t touch it unless you’re sure it would be improved by ‘restoration’. It might be both financially and historically more worthwhile to leave it in original finish, no matter what the condition.

I have a manufacturers model of the T1. It’s wood & is approx 18 inches long. I’m just about to start restoring it as the original paint is all cracked.

Hi Jusdin,
Have you still got your CAD of a Folland Gnat T1, I would be most interested.
This is the Hawk project at 1/2.9 scale just flown.

……You all appear to have fallen into the common trap by associating the MoD (or almost any government department) with the words “standards” and “logic”. ;)…….

LOL

Ok, OK but are there any other examples of the same number being used for different models off the production line?
For example NOT the Victor K2 which was a post-production conversion of the B2.

Roger Smith

I have an unfinished CAD model I was making from various info. Any good? Let me know what format you can handle.

Justin

A couple of things.

You all appear to have fallen into the common trap by associating the MoD (or almost any government department) with the words “standards” and “logic”. 😉

Also, if you use the shorthand mark designation, there is no need for the dot to separate the letter from the number. I have seen (and filled in) copious official documents and have never included the dot (full stop).

It should be Gnat T Mark 1
OR
Gnat T Mk.1
OR
Gnat T1

The dot is only used when you abbreviate the word “Mark” to “Mk.”

I don’t know where the predeliction for adding this dot in came from, but I suspect it was from the enthusiast community, not officialdom.

Game, set, match 😉

The ministry of supply when they contracted & paid for the first six i presume ?

.

……. These suffixes are MoD issued ……

So, if they are an MoD designation, who named/designated the fighter version “F.1”
“15 all” 😉
Roger Smith.

But that logic would have made the Canberra B6, the B5 as the “B5” (VX185) never entered RAF service?
I’m sure you’re right though,
Jim

Having an affinity to the Gnat I have a question if anyone can answer it.

There was, of course, the original fighter version of the Gnat – the F.1. Yes I know it didn’t enter service with the R.A.F. but a small number were given military serials for evaluation and the F.1 was used by foreign air forces. Why then, when the two-seat trainer was introduced, was it not designated T.2 in line with what appeared to be “standard” practice?

I can’t think of another British type (except maybe where there was a post-build conversion from single-seat to two-seat) where this occurs.

Roger Smith.

Doesn’t your own statement that it didn’t enter service with the R.A.F. provide the answer? These suffixes are MoD issued, and therefore surely the T1 was correct in being the first Mark of the type in RAF service.

Having an affinity to the Gnat I have a question if anyone can answer it.

There was, of course, the original fighter version of the Gnat – the F.1. Yes I know it didn’t enter service with the R.A.F. but a small number were given military serials for evaluation and the F.1 was used by foreign air forces. Why then, when the two-seat trainer was introduced, was it not designated T.2 in line with what appeared to be “standard” practice?

I can’t think of another British type (except maybe where there was a post-build conversion from single-seat to two-seat) where this occurs.

Roger Smith.

PM sent.

Yes indeed, naturally i have all the info’ you’ll need and then some. 😀

How soon do you need it ?

.