Revell Hawk

[Derek B]

That's really all I will need.

As long as the airframe is dimensionally the same, & from the detail shots I have it looks like it would be very doable.

 

The dimensions of the airframes look close enough to me that it would be doable. Yes, there would definitely be some scratching involved with the moved scoops, rear lower fuse stabilizers, newly (but no by much) shaped rudder, new nose gear, different opening canopies, new lower fuse strake, tail hook., re-scribed panel lines, dive brakes, several new differently placed antennas, and new slightly re-shaped nose and canopy.

 

I could make a convincing T-45A from the Hawk T.Mk.1. I dont mind scratching in this manor, as the airframe dimensions are close enough for me. I think in the end if I can start with the obvious, and work my way to the less obvious, I dont think it would be the most work Ive ever put into a model.

 

 

 

 

The rest of the interior/dash/seat layout differences along with any other differences including technical and/or shape, on the Navy version, I most likely would not even bother with as they would be close enough for the way I work.

 

Cheers,

Brian

 

Hi Brian,

 

It would certainly be an interesting project, so I for one would watch it with interest. I would not pay too much attention to the profiles you posted, as they do not really represent the T-45 very well at all (they are simply T.1/Mk.50 Hawk profiles modified to look something like a T-45, but I am sure that you already know this and are just illustrating a point?).

 

The largest changes occur at the rear end of the aircraft - the front end is not greatly altered (apart from the nose gear and bay of course). The canopy is identical to all other Hawks - so I'm not quite sure what you mean about the differing opening here? What you haven't really mentioned is the very different wing and tailplane shapes - the fin is taller, the tailplanes square cut and the wing leading edge straight with full length slats (the flaps also have full length vanes). Interestingly, some of the T-45 modifications found their way onto later production export Hawk aircraft!

 

HTH

 

Derek

[Out2gtcha]

Hi Brian,

 

It would certainly be an interesting project, so I for one would watch it with interest. I would not pay too much attention to the profiles you posted, as they do not really represent the T-45 very well at all (they are simply T.1/Mk.50 Hawk profiles modified to look something like a T-45, but I am sure that you already know this and are just illustrating a point?).

 

Yes for sure. They were only reference points for the airframe fuse length and relative shape.

 

 

The largest changes occur at the rear end of the aircraft - the front end is not greatly altered (apart from the nose gear and bay of course). What you haven't really mentioned is the very different wing and tailplane shapes - the fin is taller, the tailplanes square cut and the wing leading edge straight with full length slats (the flaps also have full length vanes).

 

Very true. the nose is not really changed save some of the fared in nose lights I seem to see on some T.1s and have yet to see on the Navy T-45s. The fin shape is taller and even most of the basic profiles do reflect this as well as the squared off elevators.

These I dont really see as any problem scratching.

However the largest hurtle will be as you mentioned Derek, getting the wings "straight". The squared off tips of the leading edge could be an issue. I also gave some thought to the leading edge slats as well, concluding that they will most likely be left in the closed position (even though photos I have show they in the open position when parked) and just re-scribed when the rest of the air frame is.

 

The canopy is identical to all other Hawks - so I'm not quite sure what you mean about the differing opening here?

Hmmmm....

 

I know some of the reference books I have including Warplanes of the fleet, US Airpower (by Evans) indicated things done by the Navy as "single canopy" but im not sure if it was meant as a change from the T1 or something that was kept the same. Could have sworn I saw a T.1 version with individual opening canopies..........guess I was wrong about that one then. Will save me a bit of work in that aspect though! Thanks Derek.

 

Brian

[Derek B]

Yes for sure. They were only reference points for the airframe fuse length and relative shape.

 

 

 

 

Very true. the nose is not really changed save some of the fared in nose lights I seem to see on some T.1s and have yet to see on the Navy T-45s. The fin shape is taller and even most of the basic profiles do reflect this as well as the squared off elevators.

These I dont really see as any problem scratching.

However the largest hurtle will be as you mentioned Derek, getting the wings "straight". The squared off tips of the leading edge could be an issue. I also gave some thought to the leading edge slats as well, concluding that they will most likely be left in the closed position (even though photos I have show they in the open position when parked) and just re-scribed when the rest of the air frame is.

 

 

Hmmmm....

 

I know some of the reference books I have including Warplanes of the fleet, US Airpower (by Evans) indicated things done by the Navy as "single canopy" but im not sure if it was meant as a change from the T1 or something that was kept the same. Could have sworn I saw a T.1 version with individual opening canopies..........guess I was wrong about that one then. Will save me a bit of work in that aspect though! Thanks Derek.

 

Brian

 

No probs Brian - glad to help (my, er, daytime job helps me a little here!). RAF Hawk T.Mk.1/1A aircraft have always (to the best of my knowledge) had glazed noses with the light and lens fitting! I say go for it Brian (there are plenty of ways to represent the open slats accurately - just keep a good stock of litho printer's aluminium plate handy, and you've cracked it!).

 

Cheers

 

Derek

[Out2gtcha]

I'm sure you *could* do it. You could convert a 1/144 727 into a 1/24 P-51B if you really wanted to. But there's a lot more to the T-45/Hawk than meets the eye. I suggest you do some serious research if you want to build an accurate model. You'll need a totally new wing for starters. The main gear is in a different place. The gear itself is completely different, the flaps are different, the flap actuators are different, the T-45 has a leading edge slat, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's a very serious, involved conversion. I just don't want you to delve into it and get discouraged when you find out just how different the two are.

 

No problem there as I am quite aware of the changes necessary.

Im no T.1 expert but I have at least 3 very good reference books on the subject along with experts like Derek helping along the way. The changes to the wing I do not believe would necessitate an entirely new wing as the main changes seem to be are the wing tips, extended flap actuators, slats and Navy changes to the landing gear mains and new nose gear.

I dont recall reading anywhere in the ref books about the mains being completely relocated, but maybe Derek could substantiate that or not.

 

Either way, I have a feeling my building style is a bit different than yours Jennings. I do not require everything to be down to the enth MM, so this conversion is doable, and I am confident I have all the reference material and required skill to make a conversion on par with my own personal standards. Trust; None of what you mentioned discourages me.

 

I tend to build models and worry about the talking later. If they are not 200% accurate down to the last rivet, Im ok with that.

Believe me, it will look just like a T-45 when im done building it. It just may not live up to your apparent impossibly high standards.

 

Also, comparing a conversion of a 1/32 T.1 to a 1/32 Navy T-45 to converting a 1/144 727 into a 1/24 P-51B is at best "not even remotely in the ballpark" when speaking of comparisons even taking exaggerations into consideration, it comes off as quite a ridiculous statement just to prove a point.

Its a bit like saying you shouldn't build a F8F2 out of an F8F1 because you may get sad in the middle of it because you have to make a new rudder, exhaust and and a whole slew of other changes, then comparing that re-make to making a 67 split window corvette out of a AMC Pacer.

 

I guess maybe it would seem as impossible as you make it out to be if I never built nor scratch built anything, but that is not the case.

[Kagemusha]

...And not forgetting Brian, the sooner you do it, the sooner (ie. just after you've applied your final gloss coat) Revell will release a T-45...

 

Just remembered a cutaway I saw in Flight sometime ago HTH! http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/militaryaviation1946-2006cutaways/grumman-t-45-goshawk-cutaway-11502.aspx

[Out2gtcha]

...And not forgetting Brian, the sooner you do it, the sooner (ie. just after you've applied your final gloss coat) Revell will release a T-45...

 

Well Kage, you are surely right about that!! Murphys Law and all.........

 

Just remembered a cutaway I saw in Flight sometime ago HTH! http://www.flightglo...away-11502.aspx

 

Wierd.........the "T-45" in that cutaway has rounded wingtips and elevators like a T.1, as well as (what seems like) errant wing fences that are not on the T-45?

 

The T-45 leading edge slats also seem to be missing from the cutaway........

[Kagemusha]

Hmmm... seems to have been drawn early in the programme, as there are quite a few things wrong with it to my untrained (pun intended ) eye, hope you get some use out of it... off to flagellate myself...

[Derek B]

No problem there as I am quite aware of the changes necessary.

Im no T.1 expert but I have at least 3 very good reference books on the subject along with experts like Derek helping along the way. The changes to the wing I do not believe would necessitate an entirely new wing as the main changes seem to be are the wing tips, extended flap actuators, slats and Navy changes to the landing gear mains and new nose gear.

I dont recall reading anywhere in the ref books about the mains being completely relocated, but maybe Derek could substantiate that or not.

 

Either way, I have a feeling my building style is a bit different than yours Jennings. I do not require everything to be down to the enth MM, so this conversion is doable, and I am confident I have all the reference material and required skill to make a conversion on par with my own personal standards. Trust; None of what you mentioned discourages me.

 

I tend to build models and worry about the talking later. If they are not 200% accurate down to the last rivet, Im ok with that.

Believe me, it will look just like a T-45 when im done building it. It just may not live up to your apparent impossibly high standards.

 

Also, comparing a conversion of a 1/32 T.1 to a 1/32 Navy T-45 to converting a 1/144 727 into a 1/24 P-51B is at best "not even remotely in the ballpark" when speaking of comparisons even taking exaggerations into consideration, it comes off as quite a ridiculous statement just to prove a point.

Its a bit like saying you shouldn't build a F8F2 out of an F8F1 because you may get sad in the middle of it because you have to make a new rudder, exhaust and and a whole slew of other changes, then comparing that re-make to making a 67 split window corvette out of a AMC Pacer.

 

I guess maybe it would seem as impossible as you make it out to be if I never built nor scratch built anything, but that is not the case.

 

Should be an interesting exercise Brian - Let me know when you want to start it and I shall offer what help I can. The undercarriage - to the best of my knowledge - is still located where it should be, but has been modified for carrier use (ie Designed to cope with 12ft/sec sink rates). Andy's cut away does indeed show a very early configuration - the production aircraft differed as you have noted.

 

Cheers

 

Derek

 

 

 

[Out2gtcha]

Hmmm... seems to have been drawn early in the programme, as there are quite a few things wrong with it to my untrained (pun intended ) eye, hope you get some use out of it...

 

For sure Kage, thanks. Im sure Ill be implementing the wing changes but any and all reference material can help including that one.

 

off to flagellate myself...

 

Im not 100% sure what that means but it sounds fun!

 

Should be an interesting exercise Brian - Let me know when you want to start it and I shall offer what help I can. The undercarriage - to the best of my knowledge - is still located where it should be, but has been modified for carrier use (ie Designed to cope with 12ft/sec sink rates). Andy's cut away does indeed show a very early configuration - the production aircraft differed as you have noted.

 

Cheers

 

Derek

 

Awesome Derek, Thanks!

 

Any help from someone like yourself who has the experience as you do, as well as your scratching/pattern making skills would be most welcome when I start. This conversion will be MUCH easier with the knowledge I didnt pay freekin $120 for the kit, and immediately started hacking it up!

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Once the kit is actually out, first order of business is to scan all my ref, books and materials to blow up accurate 3 views to 32nd to chase down the wing differences. I have a TON of pretty good walk around photos of the beefed up carrier modified main gear and Navy dual nose wheel as well that will come into play.

 

Brian

 

Brian

[alaninaustria]

Hi guys, I know practicaly nothing of the Bae Hawk family... but I do know Canada operates a certain version of them at the NFTC. Is it possible to get a Canadian bird from the Revell release without too much trouble?

I would like to hear from those who know!

Cheers

Alan

[Kagemusha]

Basically it's got a different nose and wingtips, you can bet there will be a conversion on it's way as quite a few airforces operate similar models. http://www.airliners.net/photo/South-Africa--/BAE-Systems-Hawk/1804355/L/&sid=b4baae4124dc59ea25637b9d2c726fff

 

Plus as Revell have engineered the kit's fuselage in one piece they obviously don't have any plans to release the 100 series model.

[Derek B]

Hi guys, I know practicaly nothing of the Bae Hawk family... but I do know Canada operates a certain version of them at the NFTC. Is it possible to get a Canadian bird from the Revell release without too much trouble?

I would like to hear from those who know!

Cheers

Alan

 

 

Hi Alan,

 

The Canadian CT-115 (Hawk Mk.115) is basically the same as the the earlier Hawk Mk.109 (IT) aircraft. I suspect that Revell will market a 100 series Hawk in due course (in the same way that Airfix did with their 1/48 offerings).

 

A new longer nose and nose leg doors, fuselage SMURFS, taller fin with RWR, brake parachute housing, centre line fuel tank, wing tip launchers (tip lights relocated to the intake sides), light weight M-B Mk.10 seats, and modified cockpit instrument panel layout should basically see you right. The modifications are far from daunting!

 

You may find this link useful

 

HTH

 

Derek

[Guest Hunter]

Well, if the price advertised is right, then you (almost) can do the WHOLE Red Arrows team for the price of a new Trumpemiya kit !

 

Hubert.

 

And in time ... I bet someone will!

[Guest Hunter]

Interesting thread starting on Britmodeller http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58778&pid=631945&st=0entry631945

 

About dyslexia or spelling in forums? I hear ya, looks like its getting back on track again.

[Guest Hunter]

Seriously though ... I love 1/32, would like the Arado, but even though its probably better than the Hawk, I want the Hawk more ... I bet these are still beta Hawk run shots too?

 

The Red Arrows Hawk will do me just fine, especially at that price.