Hawker Seahawk ideas and inspirations

[Volkodav]

Could the Seahawk have been rushed into service to sea action in Korea?
Could the swept wing and tail P.1081 have been rushed into service to sea action in Korea?
Could it have been re-engine early on with the RR Tay to improve performance?
What were the development options that could have kept it viable in service for longer with customer nations (real and imagined)
What decals would members recommend for a 1/48 (yes I am flirting with the dark side) RAN FAA Seahawk over Korea in 1953?
Is there a conversion kit or kit of the P.1081?

[jcf]

P.1081 was supposed to have the Tay, but it was behind schedule, so Nene was used with
a Supermarine Attacker-type jet pipe. The January 1950 P.1081 proposal was the result of
an Australian enquiry about an operational P.1052. The first P.1081 was a modification of the
second P.1052, VX279. First flight was 19 June 1950, stop work order issued 14
November 1950, aircraft lost 3 April 1951, fatal crash. A dedicated new-build prototype
with reheat had been considered but rejected.

The biggest problem with speeding up the Sea Hawk and derivatives is that of production
space, and engineering hours, for the Sea Hawk (which is why development and production
was taken over by Armstrong Whitworth) and that the swept wing 'research aircraft' were
just that, research aircraft. A huge amount of work would have been required to turn them
into 'production, combat ready' aircraft. The 800 lb. gorilla at Hawker was the Hunter project,
so everything else took second place.

So can you fudge the Sea Hawk schedule and get them in just under the wire? Probably,
as they entered service with the RN in March 1953 and the war "ended" in July 1953.

The swept-wing Sea Hawk derivatives? Not likely without an outside entity able to take over
development and production.
I wonder where one could create such an entity? 

[Weaver]

There are complete resin models of the P.1052 and P.1081, but I can't remember who makes them - sorry.

There was serious talk of rushing the P.1052 into production in response to the Berlin blockade of 1948: had that been done, it would have given an extra two years of well-funded development before the Korean War even started. JCF is quite right that the Hunter dominated Hawker's workload at the time in real life, but had the P.1052 been declared a priority by the government ("superpriority" before the word was invented) they would have had to concentrate on it. Likewise, if the intention was to buy P.1052s instead of later Meteor variants, and maybe buy more Vampire/Venom night-fighters instead of Meteor ones, that would free up production capacity at Gloster and Armstrong Whitworth.

[kitnut617]

Maintrack (possibly Whirlybirds now) and Heritage Aviation.  Got the Maintrack ones in the stash.  I thought Freightdog did them too but not sure now as they don't seem to be on their website.

[Volkodav]

P.1081 was supposed to have the Tay, but it was behind schedule, so Nene was used with
a Supermarine Attacker-type jet pipe. The January 1950 P.1081 proposal was the result of
an Australian enquiry about an operational P.1052. The first P.1081 was a modification of the
second P.1052, VX279. First flight was 19 June 1950, stop work order issued 14
November 1950, aircraft lost 3 April 1951, fatal crash. A dedicated new-build prototype
with reheat had been considered but rejected.

The biggest problem with speeding up the Sea Hawk and derivatives is that of production
space, and engineering hours, for the Sea Hawk (which is why development and production
was taken over by Armstrong Whitworth) and that the swept wing 'research aircraft' were
just that, research aircraft. A huge amount of work would have been required to turn them
into 'production, combat ready' aircraft. The 800 lb. gorilla at Hawker was the Hunter project,
so everything else took second place.

So can you fudge the Sea Hawk schedule and get them in just under the wire? Probably,
as they entered service with the RN in March 1953 and the war "ended" in July 1953.

The swept-wing Sea Hawk derivatives? Not likely without an outside entity able to take over
development and production.
I wonder where one could create such an entity? 

CAC?

[Volkodav]

Maintrack (possibly Whirlybirds now) and Heritage Aviation.  Got the Maintrack ones in the stash.  I thought Freightdog did them too but not sure now as they don't seem to be on their website.

Thanks

[GTX_Admin]

The swept-wing Sea Hawk derivatives? Not likely without an outside entity able to take over
development and production.
I wonder where one could create such an entity? 

CAC?

Given CAC's view (especially led by Lawrence Wacket's own view) of British aircraft designs vs that from the USA (especially North American), I strongly doubt CAC would want to get involved.  Moreover, if you look into the P.1081, I think you will find that it was not CAC pushing for it.  Rather it was Hawker Aircraft Limited in the UK pushing it to the Aust Govt.  If it had been accepted, CAC might have gotten involved since, after all, they wanted to be the ones to manufacture whatever new fighter was selected.  The would have preferred something else though…if they had the say.

[Volkodav]

The "ideal" I am toying with is perhaps an accelerated Seahawk in RAAF and RAN FAA service during Korea followed by NA FJ-4 and 4B (Avon / ADEN)

[Volkodav]

Ideal Hawker Australia established in 1932 to build Harts, Furies and Demons for the RAAF, switch to Hurricanes and Henleys in 1938, Typhoons then Tempests during the war and Furies/Seafuries post war.  As Hawker in the UK is concentrating on the Hunter, Hawker Australia is brought in to productionise the Hawk, as a fighter bomber, and then P.1081 while AW work on navalised variants of each (including eventually the Hunter and Superhunter(s).

[ysi_maniac]

Upgraded Sea Hawk (with radar)

[M.A.D]

Upgraded Sea Hawk (with radar)

Give it a swept wing and a couple of Aim-9B's and you've won me ysi_maniac😉

MAD