What Next: What do you like about the Sea Hawk?
I dispute that Hawkers no longer exist: the company was incorporated into what is now BAe Systems
What Next: What do you like about the Sea Hawk?
I think is has very good proportions (size and shape of fusealge, wings and empennage), then it is a real cute little aeroplane when you stand in front of one and it doesn’t look like a killing machine at all (I generally hate military stuff). The systems are simple and reliable, it obviously has excellent short-field capability, the power-to-weight-ratio is similar to a Citation Bravo, so I should be capable to master it and the wings fold for less hangar fees. If one could replace the RR Nene engine with a modern reliable quiet(er) more fuel efficient bizjet engine, it would be perfect.
I dispute that Hawkers no longer exist: the company was incorporated into what is now BAe Systems.
Wasn’t it designed and built by Armstrong Whitworth in the first place? The design has passed so many hands over the years – development started in 1944 – that nobody will want to be held responsible today if another one is to be put back into the air I suppose.
!http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/4/9/1914943.jpg!!
I agree the Sea Hawk is a good looking type. It is a little bit like the Hunter with the intakes in the wing roots. I am not an expert but I am sure I read somewhere it was designed by Sydney Camm of Hawkers.
Wikipedia has it the plane was designed by Hawker’s, in a straight line of development from their famous piston powered combat planes. But they were so busy producing Hunters for the RAF that production was delegated to Armstrong Whitworth.
I have to say I am pleased that a British Cold War aircraft is ANYONE’s favourite! My favourites are the Sea Fury, which I think is the ultimate SEP and the Vulcan because if it’s sheer size, looks, and technical audacity for the time it was designed.
You’d be surprised how many people have a soft spot for British designed planes. Myself not the least! It is doubly infuriating that some of the finest designs were cancelled for reasons completely separate from quality or performance or cost, i.e. only because of politics. The worst of all was possibly the CF-105, at least a bit of British heritage through the AVRO name. Think I needn’t name the “true” British designs that were slaughtered on the same altar.
(apologies for going widely off topic)
Jan, it’s not off topic, they wouldn’t be a C of A aeroplane…. 
I have to say I am pleased that a British Cold War aircraft is ANYONE’s favourite!
There have always been two lines of British aircraft: The beautiful/pretty ones and the ugly ones with not much in between. Many British designs are on my list of favorites in all categories, from Concorde over Comet, BAC One Eleven (a pity that the ugly DC9 won all the contracts againt it) to the Bae146. Unfortunately, there never was a pretty business jet from the UK. Sea Hawk, Hunter, Vulcan and Jaguar for the military jets and the Europa for the single engine pistons. On the other hand, I never could see much beauty in any De Havilland design (Dragon Rapide apart) and there are real ugly ducklings like the Lightning and the much praised TSR.2.
No plane looks as good as the F16. I would pay serious money to fly in one. Apparently it used to be possible in Greece (if you had contacts) but not anymore.
I think it may be possible to have one in the USA. The owner of Oracle has / used to have a fairly high-end Mig, after all.
‘Spam Can’ was a pejorative term invented long ago by traditionalists who preferred tube and rag tailwheel planes over the mass produced monocoque aluminum construction nose wheel aircraft introduced in the 50s
And now ‘spam can’ is used to describe just your ‘average’ CofA type airplane, particuarly those used at the lower end used by flying school. For those who have the luxury to move out of the AA5/PA28/C152/C172 type market, they like to use the word ‘spam can’ as a jokingly but derogative term. Personally I dislike the use of it, as I own a ‘spam can’ PA28 and OK, its late 1970’s, but actually its a very nice one with its new engine, spray job and avionics. Even if it was a pile of something or other, it saddens me that people call them a ‘spam can’ :-) Every time I see the phrase mentioned, I think ‘lets start a thread listing collecting all annoying aviation related terms’, but I dont because it would be …. annoying :-( Still, all hobbies have their colloquial or disparaging terms I guess, so I am not singling out aviation here.
