Hawk with XX316

[Wrighty]

Had XX316 pass me with another UID, was wondering down at CU today has taken note which Hawk was with XX316

Cheers

[buzzer]

Live log has XX217 logged down same time as XX316. They both returned to CU at about 15:40 ish!!
Hope that helps.

[EGDR]

Has XX217 got the tail number 170? I was at CU when 316 got back and saw 170 on the others tail, I assumed this matched it's serial

[Mike]

Has XX217 got the tail number 170? I was at CU when 316 got back and saw 170 on the others tail, I assumed this matched it's serial

The tail number on Hawks are always the last 3 of the serial, so if it's got 170 on the tail then the serial is XX170.

[EGDR]

Has XX217 got the tail number 170? I was at CU when 316 got back and saw 170 on the others tail, I assumed this matched it's serial

The tail number on Hawks are always the last 3 of the serial, so if it's got 170 on the tail then the serial is XX170.

Thanks for the help, Mike. I thought it was like that, just making sure

[Wrighty]

Cheers Buzzer, that does help, we had XX217 on radar at the time also but was at FL120 on Swanwick Mil Squawk, and Kyles pics does show XX170

[EGDR]

Culdrose 008 by Kyle Greet, on Flickr

Just to give some evidence

Looking at it now, you can just about make the first number of the serial out.

[Mike]

Yup, it's definitely got XX170 on the fuselage.

[buzzer]

Humm so it would seem XX170 returned with XX316 NOT XX217. So either XX217 landed earlier, didnt land at CU Or its got the wrong mode S box fitted. OR.. it was XX170 That was up with XX316.???!!!!!!!! The plot thickens!

[rh226]

Just to add a little confusion, XX217 was showing on PP by itself over central Devon earlier on the 28th. It was showing "TEST0001" as its callsign.

[POL]

So much confusion considering both aircraft in question were read off!

[buzzer]

So much confusion considering both aircraft in question were read off!

No Chris ....that's the point. The two that returned were read of... but that doesn't mean that this was the pair that were spotted together wrighty earlier in the day.( although one of them was!) His unidentified hawk might not have returned to CU.
The point were all trying to make is that 3 736sqn hawks were up at the time stated. But not all pinging on mode S!!

[POL]

So did you read 217 off returning with 316? And if so, at what time?

[buzzer]

So did you read 217 off returning with 316? And if so, at what time?

No...I didn't . But 316 and 170 were read of landing together late in the afternoon.BUT the point I'm trying to make is that just because these two returned together doesn't mean that it was these 2 that were spotted by wrighty!!
3 were up at about the time 2 were notedby wrighty!.Very often hawks go out in 3's and 4's,then spilt up to do there own thing. Then return with a different play mate to the ones they departed with!!
Catch my drift?!!

[POL]

Yes, but as no-one can confirm that 217 actually flew, and the fact it didn't return around the same time would suggest that it wasn't in the air.

[buzzer]

Yes, but as no-one can confirm that 217 actually flew, and the fact it didn't return around the same time would suggest that it wasn't in the air.

Ah.. but a single hawk did return a little time before the two ship did!. Seem to remember it was using a navy callsign or spider. I can't remember!..
217 was showing on live log(I understand that some times this means nothing,as they often use different boxes or enter in wrong details!)
and was roughly the same time as 316. That's why I thought it could possibly be the second machine wrighty was looking for?!!!!
Only trying to help after all!!

[Mike]

hello
im the mrs (of what ever he is calling himself on here)
anyway i saw this this morn and i heard what i beleived it was yet when looked up it just looked to me as a normal plane.hubby said it was that it was just far away.
how was i to know im only into dogs and knitting

[Malfatron Malkovic]

736NAS Hawks rarely show up on your live logs, Dave. For instance, during the 30 minutes i stopped at CU yesterday, XX236 and XX301 arrived as a pair, XX337 about 5 minutes later. Only XX301 showed on the log.

Also your Baggers always show up wrong. One Bagger(XV672)consistently records as an E-6B!
XV697 records on your log as XV707 and XV707 records as XV714!!Theses are just examples.

[Mike]

Mike, was your picture taken on the day in question or just for reference ?

Just a reference shot, Dave.