Thread Tools
Nov 06, 2003, 01:39 AM
stegre's Avatar
Thread OP

BAE Hawk T1

Now in the USA , from Dezzanet in Australia. Nice Kit !

We have a fun group of planes. I wish I had time to build and fly them all.... and there's more to come soon!

Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Nov 06, 2003, 03:00 AM
Insert custom witicism
Jeff Charlot's Avatar
Has anybody from this group flown this yet? It's a good looking plane.

Nov 06, 2003, 03:14 AM
wow very nice !
especially love the swept back wings
looks abit like a wing sloper with a fuse and fins added on ?
Nov 06, 2003, 03:20 AM
stegre's Avatar
Thread OP
According to the manufacturer, it was designed using the 3-view of the real airplane, and then making slight adjustments to improve flying.

I too am curious to see if any board users have built one. I am going to build one, but I have about 3 planes ahead of it I have to finish.


Nov 06, 2003, 04:49 AM
I have one, it's not the greatest plane in the world, I feel the wings are a tad too small so they don't produce quite enough lift, and it's slow as a snail. I'm still trying things out on mine, I have recentley covered mine with solarfilm instead of the tape, looks alot better now. Also loaded it up with weight, I don't like doing this but if I want a floater i'd buy a 2m glider or something, I prefer a light plane that goes fast not a heavy one but with this one comprimises have to be made. If the winds right tomorrow i'll fly it with the new covering job and the extra weight and see how it goes.

As for construction it's pretty good, The manual guides you through well but does lack a bit of detail in places, the elevator set-up is useless, throw it all away and make a real one, because of the drooping tail-plane you need a two piece elevator and the supplied rod doesn't fit into the coreflute elevators and when it does it flexes the other elevator which causes them to move out of sinc. I made a Y shapped thing that goes from the ny-rod in Y shape to two clevices and ran this through the epp so that it fits well, this means that both the elevator will always move exactly the same amount and there is no need for links between them which stuff things up. I am getting almost twice the recomended movement with this set-up and it's solid as a rock no slop.
Everything else is pretty good, The instructions call for the battery pack though to be mounted in the right or left air-intake to get the CG right, this though then stuffs up the balance of the plane width wise......

Last time it was flown I wasn't impressed, but will see how it goes this time. At present I wouldn't buy another one but will see how it goes with the extra weight.
Nov 06, 2003, 06:45 AM
de-registered abuser
gouch's Avatar
Very interesting Omurru, slow as a snail? I was under the impression it is a fast one, at least that's what dezza told me.
What does it weigh? It uses a modified mh-45 airfoil. I have heard from a couple of guys that fly them and they like it, they were talking combat though.

I have been thinking of buying one for my son for xmas, but not if it's gonna float around like a combat plane. It was between that and the jazz 60.

I am still building my hawk, but it's been put back until i get the rest of the fleet I have finished.

I just bought a brushless 36" ezipper from wingwarrior so it has gone to the top of the list.

My hawk hasn't changed from this photo for about 3 months

It has a epp rg-14 airfoil and 1.2m span. 960mm long, fuse hand carved from blue foam.

Nov 06, 2003, 09:33 AM
Registered User
TFLG's Avatar
It's pretty damn hard to make a modern jet fly great as a slope glider. They just have way too many thing working against them. The Hawk is actually not too bad though compared to most jets. But regardless it has a swept wing, very short tail moment, long nose and a big fuse. Do you expect a glider with these attributes to fly great???? With most PSS jets you need to lower your expectations. Be prepared to settle for cruising back and forth with the odd roll thrown in for style points. They don't loop well, they don't do pumps well and most are not that fast. The more scale you try to make the jet the worse it is. Now there are some jets that can be made to fly really well like the MB-339, CT-114 or the F-84 (straight wings nice tail moments etc).

Just realize that most jet PSS gliders are not going to fly as well as a more conventional plane such as a P-51. That way you will not be dissapointed when you finish the jet. Even when the jets are stretched and thinned you can still tell the difference versus a standard plane. The CSD F-20 flies great but it still does not fly as well as the Me-109 or any of the other PSSers he makes.

Build your jet to look cool and have fun flying it within it's flight envelope. When you want better performance land an throw off another plane with better aerodynamic qualities.

Nov 06, 2003, 11:02 AM
stegre's Avatar
Thread OP
Yes, I agree with Brian. The main reason for building a PSS style jet is to have something that looks different, cool and to have fun.

It will not fly like a floater, but you can get good performance. A scale jet will roll, loop, fly inverted and DS. There is a video of my son DSing a Canterbury F20 on my site.

F-20 DS

No real need to lower expectations depending on what they are! (real jets don't do stall turns in pumps do they TFLG? ) Here is a photo of me hovering a F-20 inverted ( which of course real jets don't do either):

People have become accustomed to seeing the "usual" slope plane subjects..... 2 meter floaters, combat wings, WWII warbirds, etc. When they see a jet, it really draws their attention.

Now if you want to have some real fun..... nothing looks as cool launched on a bungee as a jet.

F20 bungee

We often get 2 or 3 together and launch them at the same time.

So, do your best job building and covering, and go out and have fun!

PS Gouch... your scratchbuilt one looks cool, you should finish it.

Last edited by stegre; Nov 06, 2003 at 12:14 PM.
Nov 06, 2003, 11:49 AM
Registered User
If anyone wants to fly an excellent BAE Hawk try one of Doug Buchannons kits, I never owned one but I flew one a few times.

You can see it here:

Super performer from slow landing speed to ripping accross the slope and very scale looking although I don't know if it was exactly to scale.

Tony Dempsey
Nov 06, 2003, 12:21 PM
stegre's Avatar
Thread OP
Here is a set of pics showing the Dezza BAe Hawk T1 design process:

3 View

to CAD

to proto

to finished model

Nov 06, 2003, 12:32 PM
Registered User
TFLG's Avatar
Sorry Steve, Iv'e flown 3 different CS F-20s so far. They fly....I would not put them in the great category. I thought they flew pretty mediocre to be honest. They were not real bad flyers which echos my earlier comments "just don't expect too much". The F-20s have a fairly straight wing so they should fly better than that Hawk though.

Nov 06, 2003, 03:02 PM
stegre's Avatar
Thread OP
Brian, we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one.

I get messages all the time from some of the hundreds of very satisfied builders and fliers of the Canterbury F-20. These messages are all of praise and enthusiasm for the F-20.

And by the way.... here are a few review quotes:

from Australia #188 “ The Canterbury Sailplanes F-20 Tigershark is well worthy of a glowing review. The model, the kit and the concept are nothing short of fantastic. On top of all of this, the model flies very well.”

“Very Smooth, very stable, and an incredible roll rate. Loops were OK, rolls were great and inverted was as stable as a rock.”

“It is an extremely good kit and is competitively priced.”

from England March 2003 “This is a great little model –it flies far better than I thought it would with none of the usual EPP “dangling on a bit of elastic” flight characteristics that so many of the “rubber models” exhibit in anything more than a gentle breeze.”

“This one will cope with a good blow as well as soaring efficiently in light conditions and show a nice turn of smooth speed when pressed. It’s a fun little model and if you are a raw beginner then it will certainly serve as a basic trainer. For the experienced, just up the movements and have a ball! Nice job Canterbury …”

Review November 2003 “If I had to choose one word to summarize the Canterbury Sailplanes F-20 slope glider it would be “striking”. It’s aggressive look and smooth flight characteristics make this plane a joy to own and fly.”

”Surprisingly the F-20 can be flown in very light wind and has flown decently in wind as light as 8 MPH.”

“Although most 2-channel combat slope gliders are not known for spectacular aerobatics, the F-20 will perform axial and barrel rolls very nicely, with minimal loss of airspeed.”

“The F-20 is easy enough for a beginner to fly, but it will still hold the interest of experienced pilots.”

“Landing the F-20 is a piece of cake.”

“The F-20 is one of the fastest EPP foam planes I have ever flown. The plane tracks straight and true and does exactly what you tell it to do.”

In addition, pleased end users send in videos showing how much fun they are having flying:

F-20 On-board Camera Video

F-20 seaside video

The ultimate tale will be in the continued business coming in the form of orders from people who enjoy the planes and the way they fly.

If only get 25% of the orders for Hawk T1s that I've shipped in F-20s, I'll be very happy .

Last edited by stegre; Nov 06, 2003 at 03:09 PM.
Nov 06, 2003, 03:29 PM
Registered User
TFLG's Avatar

It's the greatest plane ever and the other couple of hundred planes I've flown all bow down to it's superiority.

Take it easy I didn't say it was a turd. Just comparded to whats out there it is very mediocre. Now if you've only flown a few planes then it may seem like the greatest thing since a molded gliders. But if your flown a few planes then you know it's performance is just average. To me it flies more like a DAW kit, which may be great for many guys but I prefer something with more performance.

The airplane news review is a crackup.

Fastest EPP glider he's flown. He don't get out much. And BTW magazine review are about as impartial as you can get. The reviewer gets the plane and in most cases the gear for free. The review then goes to the mfg for a proof. If the mfg does not like it it gets killed. If the reviewer wants more free planes he pretty much has to write a glowing review. Ever seen a bad review?? S&E ran a review of the AMD Su-35 and said it was a great flying plane. I know of no one that could even get one to fly let alone fly well.

Now back to the thread

I still say "it's a jet, don't expect too much and you'll be happy"!

Nov 06, 2003, 04:24 PM
stegre's Avatar
Thread OP

I'm not upset with you, I just didn't agree with you. Still don't.

Here are the real facts.

Model Airplane News submitted the review to us only to check the accuracy of facts and specifications. We are not allowed any input beyond that. Articles are not killed by the manufacturer.

We even asked them to add a line with my website address before printing, and they didn't.

And... they are not done in return for advertising... we've only done 2 small B&W ads with Model Airplane News. Hardly worth a several page color spread.

And free planes are not really a big deal to these guys, they pretty much can get what they want by asking.

The other two reviews just appeared without our (at least my)prior knowledge.

SO, having said that all, I'll stand by the fact that it is great plane for a variety of situations for a large number of fliers, and you don't have to drive a couple of hours to find a high lift location to have a good time.

Last edited by stegre; Nov 06, 2003 at 04:30 PM.
Nov 06, 2003, 04:49 PM
Registered User
TFLG's Avatar
Having written reviews that HAVE been killed I can tell you than in most (99.999%) cases if the mfg/distributor does not like the review it will be killed or rewritten. Kit review in magazine are useless for getting factual info on a kit. I'm not saying that they are all wrong. Certainly there are great kits and the reviews are spot on, but not all of them are so accurate. I can think if a half dozen off the top of my head that were so bogus as to be laughable. Your correct that most magazines do not require advertising for a review, some do however. Free planes and gear IS a big deal to most of the reviewers because in most cases that is thier payment for writing the review.


Quick Reply

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion BAe Hawk T1 Matt Halton Large EDF Jets 8 Nov 16, 2017 02:13 PM