Sea Hawk prototype N7/46

[John R]

I was just putting the finishing touches to a model of VP413, the navalised version of the P1040 which, after a number of changes became the Sea Hawk.

Starting with a Sea Hawk kit I had incorporated all the differences between it and the prototypes that I knew about and was fitting the u/c covers to the main legs when it became obvious that there was something very wrong. Unobservant twit that I am I had not realised that the Sea Hawk landing gear did not match that of the earlier P1040 and N7/46.  Photos seem to indicate that the Sea Hawk legs were much shorter than the prototypes. To me the Sea Hawk seems to sit more tail down than its earlier version - possibly to give better take-off characteristics when being catapulted. Can anybody enlighten me further please?

I found this on the internet and wondered if it was lightly loaded

but then this brochure shows a picture of it on a carrier looking the same

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HAWKER-SEA-HAWK-BROCHURE-LEAFLET-1950-RARE/372189242219?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D49129%26meid%3D3d21c91be8264b748890705bf6a9836c%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D8%26sd%3D372182442897&_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850

One final thing I have seen side view pictures of the P1040 and N7/46 in Barry Jones' book and and can't make the gear door shapes match those shown in Barrie Hygates' book.

John

[Colin W]

Hi John.

I was struggling with a similar issue last year when building a 1052 from the Classic Airframes kit. The wheels were different to the base Seahawk.

Peter Malone who is knowledgeable on such matters sent me the information below.

 

·         All the span increase of 2' 6'' from P.1040 prototype to Sea Hawk was in the centre section. The outer panels were essentially the same. Part of this was to accommodate the wing fold mechanism, but part of it was to accommodate a longer, (when retracted), undercarriage. The legs on the Sea Hawk were longer stroke to absorb the shock of carrier landings. They would have about the same length with the weight of the aircraft on them, but longer when un-weighted, thus needing more space for stowage. 

I believe that the legs were moved outboard about 6'' on the Sea Hawk, compared to the P.1040, (and therefore the P.1052). The wheel track of the Sea Hawk is given as 8' 6''. I have found no hard info for the wheel track on the P.1040, but the Hawker drawing scales, (yes, I know, Rule No.1: never scale from a drawing), to about 8'. I believe that the U/C pivot was moved outboard and the inward rake of the legs increased from about 2 degrees on the P.1040 to 7 degrees on the Sea Hawk.

This, of course, means the U/C wells and U/C attachment point will have to altered if using the CA kit.

 

The air intake goes from the fuselage to the wing fold and this can be seen on the 1052 VX272 at Yeovilton. This is a different shape to the Seahawk due to the difference in span.

 

Hope this helps

Colin

 

 

[John R]

It seems a bit odd about the increase in span being in the centre section as the N7/46, which came between the P1040 and the Sea Hawk F1, had the short span wings which folded.

I am not quite sure what you are getting at regarding the differences between the 1052 and P1040 as the intake was deeper at the root and shorter spanwise on the 1052. The fold does start just outboard of the intake on the 1052 whereas it starts further outboard on the N7/46 as can be seen on the photo above.

Regarding the track the drawing I worked from, in Barrie Hygate's book, gives a track of 8.6" between the u/c legs and 7.5' feet between the tyre centres.

All the Sea Hawk kits I have seen show a close match between the shape of the centre section and that of the P1040. The 1052 u/c was very different to that of the P1040/Sea Hawk.

The P1040 was scrapped and I have seen nothing about the fate of the N7/46 so we may never get a definitive answer. Do you know where Peter got his data?

John