1/32 Bae Hawk in maintenance

[Victor K2]

Hi again, good spot using those photo's. On the Black Mainplane (wing) photo, you will notice white spots. These are rigging markings to aid the positioning of the rigging boards for aileron, flaps and to aid the incidence of the Mainplane. They are blue on the Reds (if the painters remembered to apply them when they go in for re paint).

As always, your attention to detail is Spot (pun intended) on

Bob.

[Stevepd]

So when I said I was doing the airbrake strengthening plates, I actually meant the area underneath the bacon slicer. Measurements done and again my go to 10thou plasticard. These are 2 peices close together and encouraged over the tailpipe contour. Secondly i wanted to have one light cover off, so port side it was. I added plasticard against the wing to box the faces smooth. Then 4 strips added just below the skin and glued them in. I've then trimmed the width down a bit to more the surround of the cover. I tried a tear drop of superglue on a rod of plastic and it suddenly looked massive. So I rounded off the edges of a plastic rod. This is meant to be a bulb and not an LED. I'm aiming for a mid80's aircraft and I don't think LED bulbs were used then. Strobe lights are hit and miss on the time period as they're fitted.

 

 

Have a nice weekend everyone.

 

Steve.

 

[SwissFighters]

Which part is the bacon slicer?  🫢 
Thanks for sharing - it's very instructive!

Tony

[Stevepd]

8 hours ago, SwissFighters said:

Which part is the bacon slicer?  🫢 
Thanks for sharing - it's very instructive!

Tony

Hi Tony.

 

It's the vertical plate attached between the tailplane and the fuselage. It's engraved on the kit but is more pronounced on the real aircraft.

 

Also the 4th photo down in this link. Shows up very well in the red paint.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235001070-hawker-siddeley-hawk-t1-red-arrows/

 

Steve.

Edited February 1 by Stevepd

[geedubelyer]

 

Where were those Red Arrows walk-arounds when I was building mine? 

 

They're awesome. So much detail that I missed but I'm not making another 

 

Keep it up Steve. 

There can be no excuses with references that good 

[Derek B]

Great work so far Steve. If you are specifically modelling XX154 (the prototype Hawk aircraft), there are a few things to be aware of. As the first aircraft of the type, it (along with the next few aircraft off the production line) was used to develop many of the features used on the later full production T.Mk.1/1A aircraft, so essentially, it was a pre-production or development aircraft for its entire career.

 

This means that XX154 is different to later production T.Mk1/1A aircraft in many minor respects. For example, this aircraft, because of its development nature, could not be brought up to full production T.Mk.1/1A standards, so never was. During 2000s, all existing T.Mk.1/1A fuselages were running out of fatigue life hours (all of the wings of the RAF Hawk fleet had already been replaced with new wings at this stage for the same reason). Production of the original standard of Hawk T.Mk.1/1A fuselage had long ceased in favour of further development of the export Hawk 100 series of aircraft by then, so a solution had to be found?

 

The solution was to keep the original fuselage cockpit section (up to frame 11/12) and make a new rear fuselage for the rest (this was known as Mod 2010). This rear fuselage is actually built to Hawk Mk.65A standard, so all existing Hawk T.Mk.1/1A aircraft fuselages (apart from XX154 and a few other close original T.Mk.1 aircraft) are hybrid Hawk T.Mk.1/1A and Mk.65A fuselages, with new build replacement wings (bit of a 'Trigger's broom really).

 

As XX154 has always been a T.Mk.1 aircraft (and possibly the next three serial numbered aircraft), they have never been fully modified to full production standards, so may display non-standard cockpit and other airframe differences to later RAF Hawk T.Mk.1/1A aircraft, so double check before you modify the kit completely based on later aircraft.

Regards

 

Derek

[DonH]

16 hours ago, Derek B said:

(bit of a 'Trigger's broom really)

LOL, I was thinking this exact thing as I was reading your post. Really interesting, thanks!

[SwissFighters]

On 2/1/2025 at 5:47 PM, Stevepd said:

Hi Tony.

 

It's the vertical plate attached between the tailplane and the fuselage. It's engraved on the kit but is more pronounced on the real aircraft.

 

Steve.

Cool. Good to know!
Those close ups are fantastic but I get the feeling I'm looking at a Soviet aircraft - pretty rough (but I find that appealing).
Tony
 

[SwissFighters]

18 hours ago, Derek B said:

Great work so far Steve. If you are specifically modelling XX154 (the prototype Hawk aircraft), there are a few things to be aware of. As the first aircraft of the type, it (along with the next few aircraft off the production line) was used to develop many of the features used on the later full production T.Mk.1/1A aircraft, so essentially, it was a pre-production or development aircraft for its entire career.

 

This means that XX154 is different to later production T.Mk1/1A aircraft in many minor respects. For example, this aircraft, because of its development nature, could not be brought up to full production T.Mk.1/1A standards, so never was. During 2000s, all existing T.Mk.1/1A fuselages were running out of fatigue life hours (all of the wings of the RAF Hawk fleet had already been replaced with new wings at this stage for the same reason). Production of the original standard of Hawk T.Mk.1/1A fuselage had long ceased in favour of further development of the export Hawk 100 series of aircraft by then, so a solution had to be found?

 

The solution was to keep the original fuselage cockpit section (up to frame 11/12) and make a new rear fuselage for the rest (this was known as Mod 2010). This rear fuselage is actually built to Hawk Mk.65A standard, so all existing Hawk T.Mk.1/1A aircraft fuselages (apart from XX154 and a few other close original T.Mk.1 aircraft) are hybrid Hawk T.Mk.1/1A and Mk.65A fuselages, with new build replacement wings (bit of a 'Trigger's broom really).

 

As XX154 has always been a T.Mk.1 aircraft (and possibly the next three serial numbered aircraft), they have never been fully modified to full production standards, so may display non-standard cockpit and other airframe differences to later RAF Hawk T.Mk.1/1A aircraft, so double check before you modify the kit completely based on later aircraft.

Regards

 

Derek

Hi Derek, 
That's really helpful to know as I have quite a comprehensive catalogue of pics of the Swiss M66 U-1251. What you describe as a hybrid fuselage probably accounts for the slight differences in shape I find when looking at the aft fuselage of this aircraft (including the bacon slicers!) compared to the Mk 1. In fact, I bought the Kinetik Hawk 100 with the plan to graft its rear end onto the Revell T.1A. I think that should provide a closer, if not totally correct representation of the Mk 66. I suppose the differences could also be because Revell failed to capture the proper lines in the first place.
Does that make sense?
Tony

[Stevepd]

20 hours ago, Derek B said:

Great work so far Steve. If you are specifically modelling XX154 (the prototype Hawk aircraft), there are a few things to be aware of. As the first aircraft of the type, it (along with the next few aircraft off the production line) was used to develop many of the features used on the later full production T.Mk.1/1A aircraft, so essentially, it was a pre-production or development aircraft for its entire career.

 

This means that XX154 is different to later production T.Mk1/1A aircraft in many minor respects. For example, this aircraft, because of its development nature, could not be brought up to full production T.Mk.1/1A standards, so never was. During 2000s, all existing T.Mk.1/1A fuselages were running out of fatigue life hours (all of the wings of the RAF Hawk fleet had already been replaced with new wings at this stage for the same reason). Production of the original standard of Hawk T.Mk.1/1A fuselage had long ceased in favour of further development of the export Hawk 100 series of aircraft by then, so a solution had to be found?

 

The solution was to keep the original fuselage cockpit section (up to frame 11/12) and make a new rear fuselage for the rest (this was known as Mod 2010). This rear fuselage is actually built to Hawk Mk.65A standard, so all existing Hawk T.Mk.1/1A aircraft fuselages (apart from XX154 and a few other close original T.Mk.1 aircraft) are hybrid Hawk T.Mk.1/1A and Mk.65A fuselages, with new build replacement wings (bit of a 'Trigger's broom really).

 

As XX154 has always been a T.Mk.1 aircraft (and possibly the next three serial numbered aircraft), they have never been fully modified to full production standards, so may display non-standard cockpit and other airframe differences to later RAF Hawk T.Mk.1/1A aircraft, so double check before you modify the kit completely based on later aircraft.

Regards

 

Derek

Thanks Derek I never knew that. My plan is to model one of the 3 ETPS aircraft from the mid-80's. This is when I was at BD and fond memories even though you couldn't take photos. However my trusty little note pad with hand drawn drawings and notes (job loosing worthy) have come in very handy over the years. So where I've added the strengthening plates under the tailplane, would you think that was applied after mid 80’s as you've mentioned above?. Also the 2 triangular plates on each side just aft of the exhausts on the top of the fuselage?. I know the 3 Hawks had the sutton tail end. It's easy to remove and scouring the net I can't just determine whether they had the plates or not, so I went with it. 

 

Steve.

Edited February 2 by Stevepd

[Derek B]

5 hours ago, Stevepd said:

Thanks Derek I never knew that. My plan is to model one of the 3 ETPS aircraft from the mid-80's. This is when I was at BD and fond memories even though you couldn't take photos. However my trusty little note pad with hand drawn drawings and notes (job loosing worthy) have come in very handy over the years. So where I've added the strengthening plates under the tailplane, would you think that was applied after mid 80’s as you've mentioned above?. Also the 2 triangular plates on each side just aft of the exhausts on the top of the fuselage?. I know the 3 Hawks had the sutton tail end. It's easy to remove and scouring the net I can't just determine whether they had the plates or not, so I went with it. 

 

Steve.

 

If you have the serial numbers of all three aircraft, it should be possible to find suitable images of all three. The later the serial number, the more likely it is to be closer or fully representative of an in-service T.Mk.1/1A aircraft.

 

It appears that XX154 does have the strengthening plates under the tailplane, which makes sense, as it is a fatigue critical area, so will be common to pretty well all Hawk aircraft as a build standard.

 

Cheers

 

Derek

Edited February 2 by Derek B

[Derek B]

On 2/2/2025 at 7:13 AM, SwissFighters said:

Hi Derek, 
That's really helpful to know as I have quite a comprehensive catalogue of pics of the Swiss M66 U-1251. What you describe as a hybrid fuselage probably accounts for the slight differences in shape I find when looking at the aft fuselage of this aircraft (including the bacon slicers!) compared to the Mk 1. In fact, I bought the Kinetik Hawk 100 with the plan to graft its rear end onto the Revell T.1A. I think that should provide a closer, if not totally correct representation of the Mk 66. I suppose the differences could also be because Revell failed to capture the proper lines in the first place.
Does that make sense?
Tony

 

Hi Tony,

 

I never thought of that option! It could actually be a good idea (I will have to check out both kits). If the Kinetic kit fuselage is actually good for the 60 series Hawk aircraft fuselage, then this may be a good option. In fact, I would even go as far as considering back-dating the whole Kinetic Hawk 100 kit to a T.Mk.66 standard by only swapping the nose sections (and nose leg) and cockpit IP panels, as the Kinetic kit already has the correct seats for a Swiss aircraft (it shouldn't be too difficult to modify the wingtips and fin).

 

Cheers

 

Derek

Edited February 3 by Derek B

[Stevepd]

2 hours ago, Derek B said:

 

If you have the serial numbers of all three aircraft, it should be possible to find suitable images of all three. The later the serial number, the more likely it is to be closer or fully representative of an in-service T.Mk.1/1A aircraft.

 

It appears that XX154 does have the strengthening plates under the tailplane, which makes sense, as it is a fatigue critical area, so will be common to pretty well all Hawk aircraft as a build standard.

 

Cheers

 

Derek

XX341, 342 & 343. I've googled it to death and gone through all my BD magazines and ETPS brochures. Secondly the addition strip (L shape about an inch on each angle) that runs ontop of the intakes and along the fuselage where the intake trunking blends into the fuselage. This I can see on all I've viewed so far.

 

My wife's off to Aberdeen tomorrow for a few days, so I might spread all the books out again and have a second look.

 

Steve.

 

Edited February 2 by Stevepd

[Grunticus]

Great what you are doing to this kit Steve! Fantastic work.

[Derek B]

3 hours ago, Stevepd said:

XX341, 342 & 343. I've googled it to death and gone through all my BD magazines and ETPS brochures. Secondly the addition strip (L shape about an inch on each angle) that runs ontop of the intakes and along the fuselage where the intake trunking blends into the fuselage. This I can see on all I've viewed so far.

 

My wife's off to Aberdeen tomorrow for a few days, so I might spread all the books out again and have a second look.

 

Steve.

 

 

That's good to know Steve. They are all late (or high) production serial numbers, so they are all very likely standard Hawk T.Mk.1A standard aircraft, so you should be OK (externally) with any T.Mk.1A aircraft (just double check that none of them were ex-RAFAT aircraft before EPTS service, just in case any specific RAFAT mods are still evident on them).

 

Cheers

 

Derek