avatar_Dizzyfugu

DONE @p.5 +++ HAL Samudree Baaj (Sea Hawk) Mk. 201, Indian Navy

Started by Dizzyfugu, March 20, 2021, 09:21:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dizzyfugu

In January 2021, SPINNERS posted a nice rendition of a navalized BAE Hawk 200 in Indian Navy service:



I found the concept inspiring, and since I have a Matchbox Hawk 200 in The Stash, as well as a T-45, I will kitbash the idea to the hardware stage, with a thorough navalization beyond the virtual re-badging. This calls for major surgeries, even though I am afraid that they will be hardly obvious at all. ;)
The result will become the "HAL Sea Hawk-i 201". The wacky "-i" suffix was recently actually added to the HAL-license-built and updated Mk. 132 trainers. Weird.

Stay tuned.

Gondor

#1
That makes about three of us that are planning to build one of these or simmilar  :thumbsup:

Gondor

*Edit: I'm thinking Brazilian Navy for mine*
My Ability to Imagine is only exceeded by my Imagined Abilities

Gondor's Modelling Rule Number Three: Everything will fit perfectly untill you apply glue...

I know it's in a book I have around here somewhere....

AeroplaneDriver

Quote from: Gondor on March 20, 2021, 09:55:47 AM
That makes about three of us that are planning to build one of these or simmilar  :thumbsup:

Gondor

Four... ;)
So I got that going for me...which is nice....

Dizzyfugu



That's almost a small Group Build...  :o I am really curious how these builds differ in their construction and ingredients and how they will turn out!
Good thing is that I found some suitable leftover IN decals from a Model Alliance Sea Harrier sheet. However, I will probably not go for SPINNERS' classic EDSG/White livery, but rather for a more toned-down (and modern) DSG/MSG finish.

BTW, here's a look at yesterday's progress. First, the ingredients:


A navalized Hawk 200 (exact title pending) in Indian Navy service - WiP
by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr

Then the landing gear issue, mentioned elsewhere: the T-45 has a wider/longer landing gear, and its wells are markedly bigger - here's a direct comparison:


A navalized Hawk 200 (exact title pending) in Indian Navy service - WiP
by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr

The Matchbox Hawk 200 more or less "only" provides the nose section, the canopy and a piece of its spine, because the T-45 has the respective area as s separate piece and the canopy frames of the wto aircraft are different - using the 200's piece should secure a good canopy fit.
The T-45's front wheel well is also much different and bigger from the Hawk, so that I cut out a suitable opening and fitted a  styrene sheet "ceiling" into the well:


A navalized Hawk 200 (exact title pending) in Indian Navy service - WiP
by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr

I furthermore tried to integrate the T-45's rear cockpit into the Hawk 200's fuselage (The Matchbox kit only offers a seat, not even a pilote figure as a distraction, and an avionics box behind it). Took some cutting and adjustments, but it basically works. I am just curious how it will look when the canopy is in place?


A navalized Hawk 200 (exact title pending) in Indian Navy service - WiP
by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr

The rear from the T-45 went together well. I added a radar warning fairing to the fin, extendeding it this way, cut out the flaps (to be mounted in loweerd position later) and the 200's spine section has been implanted - but it does not fit at all, the fuselage shapes are very different. Thsi will need some serious cutting and PSR.


A navalized Hawk 200 (exact title pending) in Indian Navy service - WiP
by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr

Last measure from day #1: mating the cockpit with the hull. Again, some differences and shape and size become apparent - the 200's parts are somewhat taller/more massive, and there is the problem that the boundary layer spacers on the intakes are on the 200 part of the fuselage, while the T-45 has them molden into the intake parts. Therefore, I will try to shave them off of the fuselage and see if that's enough to make the inkates fit.


A navalized Hawk 200 (exact title pending) in Indian Navy service - WiP
by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr

kitbasher

#4
Stick with Sea Hawk, Dizzy.  After all, Hawker did design the the original 1950s Sea Hawk that was (coincidentally) operated by the Indian Navy.

And maybe have the Hawk 100 wingtip 'Winders'?

That pesky helicopter with the same name was called something else in your timeline!
What If? & Secret Project SIG member.
On the go: Beaumaris/Battle/Bronco/Barracuda/Flatning/Hellcat IV/Hunter PR11/Hurricane IIb/Ice Cream Tank/JP T4/Jumo MiG-15/P1103 (early)/P1154-ish/Phantom FG1/I-153/Sea Hawk T7/Spitfire XII/Spitfire Tr18/Twin Otter/FrankenCOIN/Frankenfighter

Dizzyfugu

Quote from: kitbasher on March 21, 2021, 02:58:51 AM
And maybe have the Hawk 100 wingtip 'Winders'?

Of course!

BTW, I'll see if I can find a Hindi name for the aircraft. HAL seems to take a lot of pride in the indigenously updated Hawk 132 trainers, so a home-brew navalized single-seater might have an even stronger local flavor? We'll see, lots of legwork to do for the background...  :angel:

Dizzyfugu

#6
Day #2 offers less structural progress, it was more about PSR. The air intakes eventually fit - they had to be modified on both "internal" surfaces, but now they help to hold the new nose in place. I will also retain the Hawk 200's gun tray, which only the prototype carried. That protruding tub under the cockpit looks a bit awkward, but it visually sets the aircraft apart from the standard Hawks. And as a light naval strike fighter, some internal guns are a good option. This also frees the central hardpoint for a drop tank - another rather unusual detail. Work on surface details (wing tip launch rails, landing gear, lowered flaps, pylons) next.


A navalized Hawk 200 (exact title pending) in Indian Navy service (What-if/Kitbashing) - WiP
by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr


A navalized Hawk 200 (exact title pending) in Indian Navy service (What-if/Kitbashing) - WiP
by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr

nighthunter

Quote from: Dizzyfugu on March 22, 2021, 12:17:16 AM
I will also retain the Hawk 200's gun tray, which only the prototype carried. That protruding tub under the cockpit looks a bit awkward, but it visually sets the aircraft apart from the standard Hawks. And as a light naval strike fighter, some internal guns are a good option.
So, BAe got rid of the internal cannon? Why?
"Mind that bus." "What bus?" *SPLAT!*

Dizzyfugu

No idea. Space and weight issues, I guess - and customers probably did not order them, when the standard gun pod was readily available.

Doug K



Pellson

As you're able to compare - are there any other (in 1/72 visible) changes to the wing besides the landing gear, going from the 200 to the T-45?
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Dizzyfugu

#12
Uh, hard to tell. I think that the wings and the stabilizers of Italeri's T-45 are simply wrong and blunt Hawk copies: in real life, the tips should be squared off, and the T-45 has slats that the Italeri kit omits altogether! In this picture the new shape is quite evident:



Maybe the early T-45s had the rounded wing tip shape? The Italeri kit also misses the ventral fin around the arrester hook fairing - but this was missing on the T-45s with the Hawk-shaped wings, too.

Furthermore, the bigger landing gear necessitates significant bulges on the wheel covers which also extend to the fuselage and wing area around them:



However, since we are building a navalized Hawk from india here, the flaws hardly matter and just adds to the whiffy overall look.  ;)

Pellson

Thanks! That was lots on info I'd missed!
I'm not too surprised about Italeris offering, though. They tend to go hard on prototypes, and I suspect this is just another such case. That said - who cares in our application?  ;)
Those squared off wings - Am I stupid, or are they shortened?
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Dizzyfugu

I assume that - like the Matchbox Hawk 200 - the kit was designed during the real aircraft's early stages. The Italeri Goshawk might represent a T-45A, but not a later, updated C.
And the wings have AFAIK the same span, just the area is a little bigger through the different shape. But the stablizers should have a bigger span (at least with the squared tips).