Talk:ABC Gnat

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Sopwith Bee

According to Mason's The British Fighter since 1912, the Bee had a 50 hp Gnome rotary, not a Gnat (which were used by the Sparrow and the incomplete AT flying bomb.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Alec Lumsden is confused! I can only go on what he writes in the book. It looks to me that in those days they tried all sorts of different engines on the same type of aircraft. Where there is doubt he does usually say so. He actually wrote the entry as 'Sopwith Bee/Tadpole/Sparrow', I broke them up into separate entries. perhaps he was regarding them as one and the same thing? Do we have articles on these types? I did have a quick look. I know we shouldn't use WP as a reference but I do usually have a look at the application aircraft as a 'confidence' check and also to wikilink the engine while I'm there. I doubt if there is enough to write articles on the other ABC engines, might have to summarise them in the company article. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are photos of the Bee in Mason and it definately looks to have a rotary engine - it was a very small runabout/plaything for Harry Hawker (16 ft 3 in span), so 50 hp seems about right. It could be related to the Sparrow - which (from Bruce's British Aeroplanes 1914-18 was also a small single bay biplane with wing warping but from the photo looks slimmer.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I just had a look through the flight archives and found a rear quarter view of the Bee, a sort of stumpy Pup! Also referred to as the 'Tadpole' in a discussion which centered around what size Gnome it had fitted, 50 and 80 hp were mentioned. I found some more Gnat applications on another Flight page: [1]. All good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just had another look in Lumsden's book as there is another master list at the back that lists aircraft and their engines (reverse to how he does it on the engine pages). Again he has 'Sopwith Bee/Tadpole/Sparrow' with 'Gnat I' next to that entry and the next line down is 'Sopwith Sparrow' next to 'Gnome 7 Omega 50 hp' which would be our missing Gnome Omega article. Was hoping for clarification there but I suppose I got a little bit more 'gen'! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bee and Tadpole quite different.

Lots of sources seem to see the Bee and the Tadpole as similar, if not the same, but they were quite different - as the pictures show. Rather than constructed from bits of the PUP the design owes far more to the Camel.

The Bee Dimensions are probably: span 16 ft 3 in (4.9 m) and length 15 ft 3 in (4.3 m). It's engine the 50hp Gnome. The Tadpole dimensions were similar but it was fitted with the ABC Gnat 35hp twin.

Both Aircraft were part of the Sparrow aerial target programme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breguet (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]