Alternative fighter for Argentine AF & Navy during Falklands war.

[Wotan]

One squadron of jet fighters based on the Falkland airfield would have also posed massive problems to the landings and the subsequent logistic support required.

 

[Rule of cool]

The Gnat has little range no ? Could never fly from Argentina to Falklands and back. Not sure it could fly out of Port Stanley runway.

When tested by the RAF against the Hunter in the 1958 VRET it had a combat radius of 188nm against the required 240nm. Dunno about using Port Stanley runway, the VRET was done in the Middle East on at least 1 compacted sand runway, so the runway requirements were pretty tough.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And the following [Gnat F.1] performance numbers:

• 0.64 thrust/weight at take-off (clean). Similar to an F-8E Crusader and better than all A-4 Skyhawks except for the souped-up A-4M
• ~0.283 fuel fraction at take-off (clean). Similar to a clean Etendard IV with full fuel, or an F-8E Crusader or A-4 Skyhawk with 85% fuel
• ~700m take-off run lightly loaded with 2x AIM-9s (3,550kg), ~900m at 4,100kg max take-off weight
• ~650m landing run at 2,800kg landing weight (200kg fuel + 2x AIM-9s)
• ~200nm max range at sea level with allowances for take-off, landing and 2.5 minutes combat (this aligns with the Ajeet's combat radius of ~93nm with 2x 500lb bombs)

All in all the the runway take-off and landing performance is definitely compatible with Port Stanley's 1,200m runway. Thrust/weight is on par with high-performance aircraft like the F-8 and A-4M. Fuel fraction with the wet wing is decent but the max combat radius is limited unless you add external fuel tanks.

That's marginal for a rejected takeoff. Add takeoff and landing lengths together and compare to runway length. 1350+m versus 1200m runway.

Your V1 decision point is going to be many seconds before your rotate speed.

 

[Rule of cool]

This thread time and time again has come back to those ribbons of tarmac being a key driver of air power.

Which is good, because it makes my obsession with them seem less unhealthy, or so I tell myself anyway.

 

[H_K]

That's marginal for a rejected takeoff. Add takeoff and landing lengths together and compare to runway length. 1350+m versus 1200m runway.

Your V1 decision point is going to be many seconds before your rotate speed.

Perfectly normal to have a gap between V1 and Vr during which you're putting your trust in your zero zero ejection seat. Especially in wartime.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Perfectly normal to have a gap between V1 and Vr during which you're putting your trust in your zero zero ejection seat. Especially in wartime.

Not wrong, but it does mean that pretty much any rejected takeoff is writing off the plane in this stiuation. Not ideal. We're honestly back to sending the engineers in Wave 2, to add turning loops on both ends of the runway plus maybe 50m of marston matting each side.