Hawker Sea Hawk Ideas and Inspiration

[GTX_Admin]

An aircraft I have always liked the look of has been the Hawker Sea Hawk...so let's see your ideas for them.

[GTX_Admin]

To start with, how about a scale-o-ramed one as a V-bomber?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

To start with, how about a scale-o-ramed one as a V-bomber?

Might have better luck turning it into a competitor for the Canberra competition if you are going to use a dash of scale-o-rama. 

[GTX_Admin]

Maybe...but it depends with what kit you begin with

[Weaver]

1. Replace the Nene with a pair of small axials that are actually in the wing roots (like a Banshee), then fit a fuel tank in the top middle of the centre fuselage with a bomb bay beneath it. You now have a mini Buccaneer.... The only problem with this scheme is the lack of ground clearance in which to actually load the bombs, however....

2. As above, but add a fuselage/wing root plug amidships, then replace the outer wings with Skyhawk ones. The long undercarriage should give you all the clearance neccessary.

[Daryl J.]

Fake prototype:  extend and round out the wing tips, remove the vertical tail bullet, shorten and round the vertical tail.   

Pull the same thing Grumman did in the F9F series and sweep the flying surfaces.

[elmayerle]

I intend to do a "back evolved" one as a P.1035 with Fury or Tempest wings.

Also, what studies were there for a two-seat version for the various missions where that would be preferable (and not just as a trainer)?

[apophenia]

A pair of oldies of the P.1035 ...

[Daryl J.]

Twin seat, USAF Vietnam.  Underwing stores.

[Daryl J.]

Mk.101 in service with the Royal Sahara Air Squadron.

[elmayerle]

1. Replace the Nene with a pair of small axials that are actually in the wing roots (like a Banshee), then fit a fuel tank in the top middle of the centre fuselage with a bomb bay beneath it. You now have a mini Buccaneer.... The only problem with this scheme is the lack of ground clearance in which to actually load the bombs, however....

2. As above, but add a fuselage/wing root plug amidships, then replace the outer wings with Skyhawk ones. The long undercarriage should give you all the clearance neccessary.

Perhaps a pair of Beryls?  Much like the ones tested on that one Meteor prototype?

[jcf]

1. Replace the Nene with a pair of small axials that are actually in the wing roots (like a Banshee), then fit a fuel tank in the top middle of the centre fuselage with a bomb bay beneath it. You now have a mini Buccaneer.... The only problem with this scheme is the lack of ground clearance in which to actually load the bombs, however....

2. As above, but add a fuselage/wing root plug amidships, then replace the outer wings with Skyhawk ones. The long undercarriage should give you all the clearance neccessary.

Perhaps a pair of Beryls?  Much like the ones tested on that one Meteor prototype?

F.9/40 prototype DG204/G was powered by Metrovick F.2s, the F.2/4 'Beryl' was a developed version.
The Beryl powered the Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 flying boat fighter and a Meteor F.4 testbed (RA490).

[kitnut617]

I intend to do a "back evolved" one as a P.1035 with Fury or Tempest wings.

Whereas I'm going the other way, the wings from a Sea Hawk onto a Tempest fuselage.  The air intakes would be for low drag radiators and such, I'll modify the exhaust area so it's a variable duct outlet.  Then I'll make it have tricycle u/c ---

[arc3371]

A sea Hawk with Hunter wings?

[GTX_Admin]

That would kind of look like a Hawker P.1081:

[elmayerle]

Or the earlier P.1052 which retained the Sea Hawk's bifurcated exhuast.

[GTX_Admin]

Or the earlier P.1052 which retained the Sea Hawk's bifurcated exhuast.

Agreed.

[Daryl J.]

Put the P.1052 with a swept wing Supermarine Attacker.   Mmmmmm.

[Weaver]

Combine the p.1052 with the P.1072 that had a rocket in the tail, so you have swept wings, bifurcated jetpipes and rocket for boost....

[Volkodav]

I have previously wondered if the original Hawker hawk could have been deployed instead of the later Meteor models and been available for service in Korea?  In the same slant, had the Hawk been ready earlier then maybe the Seahawk could have been too, or more to the point a P.1081 derived FAA fighter/attack aircraft at about the time the actual real world Seahawk entered service?

[tankmodeler]

Change the engine to the 50% more thrust Tay, increase wing size, strengthen structure for ground attack and add two more strengthened wing stations. Add armour to cockpit and engine.

Increased max payload to be 4 x 1000 lb + 4 x 500 lb bombs.

Add IRST sensors and weather radar in a lengthened nose to permit all-weather attack operations.

Fit wing tips for fuel tanks or Sidewinders (linked to the IRST sensor).

Add A2A refuelling probe.

With the larger wing and no need for carrier ops, you could move the landing gear out of the lower fuselage and take the jet pipe straight back, increasing available power and, in a fit of madness, allowing afterburning!

You end up with a slightly larger and (unfortunately) less attractive dedicated ground attack aircraft that could be competitive into the late 70s or very early 80s in low intensity conflicts.

Paul

[Volkodav]

My thinking is its too bad Hawkers couldn't have done more like Dassault and pumped out improved / new types every five years or less, i.e. Hawk, productionised P.1052 and P.1081, Hunter, radar Hunter, transonic Hunter, supersonic Hunter, as well as ground attack and naval variants of each with production continuing for the UK services and export customers through until the 70s. 

[Kelmola]

Speaking of ground attack variants, I've been pondering to kitbash Strikemaster wings (and possibly tailplanes too) to a Hunter (and use the Hunter wings in another project) to create one.