Erik Houghton
I agree.

scalemates
all under 1 topic?

Jan H.
Why not use Curtiss' own designations with Model no instead?
en.wikipedia.org/wik..urtiss_Hawk_aircraft

The turkish, argentinian and chinese Hawk III's are no Navy Hawks.
surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/hawk_iii.htm

You have the same problem with all export versions of Model 75 Hawk that you have to put under USAAF designation P-36

scalemates
i'm lost with the hawks... can i already merge some topics which are the same plane?

Juan M Leria
Jan, I know Hawk III isn't a Navy plane, but is related to the Navy Hawks and included in the same wiki entry: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BF2C_Goshawk
If we use the Curtiss system we'll have the same trouble -even worst- for establishing relations between kits: P-1 and P-6A are Model 34, P-6E prototype is Model 35 but P-6E demonstrator is Model 47!!!
I'm proposing the same classification as the Squadron book; I believe it will be easier for most modellers, most of them not familiar to this history.

scalemates
Can't we call them "Curtiss BF2C Goshawk" like on wikipedia?

Calling them Navy models or Army models will confuse next creation of topics, as some people could start dividing other topics into Air Force, Civil, ... and than we are completely in the wrong direction. (Not rejecting the proposal, just expressing my thoughts)

Juan M Leria
It´s really a trouble.
If we call it in that way, the following day we'll have 'Curtiss Hawk III' again!!!

scalemates
hmm, maybe I should create some logic. To have "synonyms", when somebody types the synonym it is automatically corrected to the new one? Just like when you type "kv-2" you get "Kliment Voroshilov tank"

scalemates
Can I already merge "Curtiss Hawk II" to "Curtiss F11C Goshawk", and "Curtiss Hawk III" to "Curtiss BF2C Goshawk"... this will at least decrease the amount of topics and help me to find a solution. As I'm lost 🙂

Juan M Leria
.... xF11C-3 = BF2C :-D

Juan M Leria
It's really a mesh!!!
Oh, Curtiss! Why did not you think of us?

scalemates
aaahhh... ok, let us do it the other way arround then. Which topics can be merged to "Curtiss F11C Goshawk"?

Juan M Leria
Hummm... under my point of view.... all related to Navy models!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

scalemates
so "Curtiss F11C Goshawk" is a synonym for "Curtiss Hawk - Navy models"?

Juan M Leria
For me, yes.

scalemates
can you tell me which topics should be merged to "Curtiss F11C Goshawk", I'll then create the synonyms

Juan M Leria
- Curtiss BFC Goshawk
- Curtiss BF2C Goshawk
- Curtiss Hawk III
- Curtiss Hawk IV

scalemates
Done

Jan H.
There are 5 in "Curtiss Hawk" to be merged to "Curtiss F11C Goshawk" too.
A mix of Navy and export Hawk III's

scalemates
can you do this manually please? I can only bulkmerge whole groups. And for the manual work I miss the intelligence on this topic

Jan H.
I'll do that

scalemates
thx, can you also tell me to which topic the "Curtiss Hawk" in the gallery belongs? so we can get rid of the generic topic "Curtiss Hawk"

scalemates
Hawk II must be merged to Curtiss F11C Goshawk too?

scalemates
ps: I'll be offline in 5mins for a longer period of time...

Jan H.
No topics left in that category.
I've also sorted all the stray H75 Hawks and Mohawk IV I've found to "P-36 Hawk"

Jan H.
"Hawk II must be merged to Curtiss F11C Goshawk too?"
Don't mix the aircraft with retractable and fixed landing gear.

Also keep the F9C airship fighters in an own category

Jan H.
as it is

Juan M Leria
This is the mother of the lamb (Spanish expression to refer to the heart of a problem): some Hawk II are related to F11C, but the P-6E is a Hawk II too and not related directly to F11C.
F11C is a spin-off from Hawk II with radial engine; P-6E is Hawk II with in-line engine.

Juan M Leria
In fact, P-6E is most commonly known just as 'Hawk' as all the previous Curtiss Army types; and 'Hawk II' is most known for the radial engined models.
Maybe we would merge Hawk II to Goshawk, and merge all the Army types under 'Curtiss Hawk'..

Jan H.
Another suggestion:
Put all F11C, BFC and P-6E Hawk II with fixed landing gear or floats
under "Curtiss F11C Goshawk"
and
all F11C-3, BF2C and export Hawk III and IV with retractable landing gears under "Curtiss BF2C Goshawk"
and as Juan already has said, all early P-1 to P-6 Hawks under "Curtiss Hawk"

Juan M Leria
But BF2C is F11C too....

Jan H.
edit: P-6E Hawk II in "Curtiss Hawk" instead

Jan H.
I still think you should keep the Model 67A and 68 Hawks with retractable landing gear apart from the earlier ones

Jan H.
If you follow the Navy designation
joebaugher.com/usattack/usnavyattackdesig.html
XF11C-1, F11C-2, XBFC-1, BFC-2 is a version change.
BFC to BF2C is a generation change

Jan H.
Compare that with SBC and SB2C Helldiver.
SCM Search: "Curtiss SBC Helldiver"
SCM Search: "Curtiss SB2C Helldiver"

Juan M Leria
See wiki:
'they received the revised designation BFC-2 in recognition of their fighter-bomber or, as the Navy would have it, bomber-fighter role. The last aircraft in the XF11C-2 contract was converted to the prototype XF11C-3, that incorporated a more powerful R-1820-80 engine and a hand-operated retractable landing gear.'
Same basic cell, some improvements. This is, the ties between F11C-1 and BF2C are as close as between Bf 109A and HA-1112 or Avia S.199
You can't say the same about SBC and SB2C, isn't it?

Jan H.
Ok, let's put all Goshawks in the same egg basket 🙂
Some of the export Hawk III reverted to the original wooden framed wing from F11C instead of the metalframed wing of BF2C so there are ties between the different versions.
But, it's sometimes better to merge the topics, sometimes not.
Boeing P-12 and F4B are all under "Boeing P-12"
The 109 topic can be a a pain too look through if your searching for any of the not so common versions.
Next nightmare is the Mirage III,5, IAI Dagger, Nesher, Finger and Atlas Cheetah.
They are all mixed between "Mirage III", "Mirage V" and "Denel Cheetah".
Some of the kits share sprues for both versions but you can't link them to each other over the topics.

Juan M Leria
Yes, I agree. I exposed to Tim the trouble about crossed topics some time ago, but there is no solution at this time.
Most popular planes are a bit of pain, really. Even worse when there are several different toolings in the same brand, not to say when any of those toolings comes from another company.