Hawker Biplanes

Superb picture of a Demon possibly of 604 Sqn (Red and Yellow triangles). The Lewis is a Mk.III (deeper trigger guard) with Norman Vane sights and to the right of the Ring and Bead forwards sights can be seen the mounting for the Aldis sight. The boy on the right is holding on to the barrel clip (when the gun is stowed aft).

John

Lovely picture powers passion, wonder what become of those in the photo. Fantastic look on their faces, you can almost imagine what they are thinking.

May 1936 Hendon, Empire Air Day

[ATTACH=CONFIG]239979[/ATTACH]

All very interesting stuff. Thanks for the info! Looking forward to seeing the Hind at Shuttleworth when I can!

[QUOTE=PhantomII;2249430]That was for the rear gunner I presume?

If you mean the rear gunner for the Aldis sight. No the gunner’s sights were the standard Lewis type in use. (Norman vane ?). I found 500 rounds in the King Armament book. The two Vickers when fitted were mounted in a similar way but with variations in the belt feed chutes. It’s of note that the Swedish Harts had the FF gun on the Stbd side.

John

That was for the rear gunner I presume?

A few places in the MMP book it mentions 600 rounds as opposed to 500, but that may have been for the Audax or Demon? Would the setup for the forward firing gun generally be the same for all variants aside from whether or not it was one or two guns?

I’m not sure but I think the Hind bombs are to represent the later 120 lb type. The normal forwards firing gun was a Vickers air cooled Mk.II or III with provision for 500 rounds. The gunners Lewis gun used the 97-round magazine. The sights were ring and bead mounted in slots on a tube. The Demon also has an Aldis sight fitted.

John

Both families are without doubt some of the best looking biplanes ever to be created in my opinion.

I’m making my way through the MMP book on the Hart, and I’ve already learned a few things so I think I’ve caught the bug!

Looking forward to seeing more of these machines here soon when I get the chance. I was only at the RAF Museum (Hendon) a few weeks ago, and looking back I wish I had taken more photos of them examples they have there. Perhaps the one at Cosford is worth a visit at some point.

Its back to Putnam’s again, I think. In this case Armament of British Aircraft 1909 – 1939 by H.F.King. There was also a series called British Aircraft Armament by R Wallace Clarke published by Patrick Stevens Ltd.
The Demon came too late (1933) to influence the single seaters and as their role was very different I doubt that there was much to learn. John Aeroclub can no doubt fill you in with the details

Yeah it would make sense that the Fury family is a different lineage although would I be incorrect in saying that the lessons learned from the Demon were incorporated into the Fury/Nimrod series?

I suppose I should a beautifual PAIR of airplane families (i.e. Hart & variants, Fury & variants).

I’m particularly keen to learn about the variety of armaments the Hart/Hind were fitted with. The Vickers gun in the fuselage seems fairly standard. Any idea how it was aimed (standard ring & bead sight?) and how many rounds as well as the rate of fire? Did the rear gunner use standard 97-round (is that right?) drums?

The bombload is usually quoted at anywhere from 500 to 520-lbs. Any ideas how this was broken up? The Hind from Shuttleworth I’ve seen a few awesome video clips of, and I’d be interested to learn what the replica bombs are supposed to represent.

Sorry lots of questions, but I have to spit it all out when I think of it.

I got the MMP book in the mail todayso I look forward to reading it.

A beautiful family of airplanes I must say.

If the Nimrod wasn’t related to the Fury or Hart, then was it just a coincidence because the similarities are striking.

Apart from basic construction techniques the Hart two seater family has no shared lineage with the single seat types.

There however seems to be a myth about the Nimrod being an entirely different aeroplane from the Fury, to the extent that some odd OA lengths have been published for the Nimrod. My researches show that there is virtually no difference when copies of Hawker drawings of the fuselages are laid on a light board. Yes material specs and specialist fittings do vary and the Nimrod wings are larger but they both stem from the same lineage of the Hoopoe, Hornet and Norn. Indeed if you read the first chapter in Mason’s Hawker Putnam book, Camm insisted that the Nimrod need not diverge too radically from the RAF version (the Fury). The Nimrod II did have swept wings and at some point a larger span tailplane.

John

The MMP books by Alex Crawford, ‘Hart Family’ & ‘Fury & Nimrod’ are the perfect primers and long remain faithful companions in my journey.

The Kestrel engine common across these types certainly give a ‘look and feel’ of grace and ‘business’ to these types.

Once you start to get into the detail of these designs interesting, practical and brilliant personalities behind these aeroplanes start to become apparent, like an old Polaroid shot developing : Fred Sigrist, who developed the Hawker system of construction, which in myriad ways causes the eye to see the same DNA in all the types; Sidney Camm, who put outward slanted interplane struts into a single bay biplane design, with dihedral and sweep back, that gave the 700HP Kestrel engine the wrapping it deserved and Tom Sopwith, who had the rare wisdom of spotting genius like Sigrist and Camm and freeing it and pushing it to create, when these first appeared in 1929, a sensation.

Eighty five years later these are still formidable machines, and the crackling sound of a Kestrel surprising and good, very good.
Catch the disease!

I got the MMP book in the mail todayso I look forward to reading it.

A beautiful family of airplanes I must say.

If the Nimrod wasn’t related to the Fury or Hart, then was it just a coincidence because the similarities are striking.

The Audax was known in the RAF as “an Art wiv an Ook due to the army cooperation fit. The Demon,(two forwards guns) originally called the Hart Fighter (one forwards gun) first introduced the cut down gunners ring mount and this was fitted to the Hind variants.

A couple of oddities The Australian Demon was in effect a two gun Hind as it had the bombing fit which RAF Demons did not have. The Demon has a lower rear turtle deck (about 3″lower) than all the other Hart family. I am beginning to suspect that the Hartbees also had this lowered deck and I think the restored South African example has two forward firing guns fitted again making it similar to the Australian Demon.

The Hector was basically an Audax with a Napier Dagger engine and a straight top wing to compensate for the differing engine weights. This also differed in having a Barr and Stroud gunners sight with a cranked mounting bar which required a larger cutout for the Lewis gun storage.

The Osprey besides having folding wings introduced the larger fin and rudder which is also found on the various radial engine’d versions sold to foreign Air forces.

The Hart trainer has a reduced top wing sweep of 5 deg but the Hind trainer has the standard 10 deg sweep.

The Putnams book is a very useful guide but it is a little short and inaccurate on some of the differences and dimensions of the Hawker beauties.

John

The Nimrod, despite appearances, was a new design – as was the one off Hornet.
Variants of both the Nimrod and the Osprey could be fitted with floats.

A slight tangent if I may.

1. 1935 – the flight that sealed my future – XV Sqn Abingdon – Hind – Uncle (Engineer Wg Cdr) pilot.
2. 1940 – Harts and Hinds – greatest wish, to fly Fury.
3. 1940 – July – take off top wing and you have a Hurricane!!

Tim

Mason, in Hawker Aircraft since 1920, says that Hartbees is on the original Hawker drawings, contracts, production licence and customs receipts and clearances, but that Hartbee or Hartebeeste appear on various documents from the manufacturers, Government departments, the SAAF and in the press

Think I may have seen “Hartebeeste” used as well!
Audaxes were also used for training: I’ve just been reading Tom Neil’s account of learning his trade on them and Harts (Gun Button To Fire). He mentions firing at drogues with the fixed Vickers, did any Hart Trainers have armament?)

You need to track down a copy of Hawker Aircraft since 1920 by Francis Mason, ebay or any online secondhand book site should hold a few. Its a bit biased but covers all the types.
That will lead you to the earlier designs that led to the Hart and Fury lines; the Hornbill and Hawfinch for example. Other related types such as the Horsley, Dantrop and PV4, and Fury follow-ons; High Speed Fury and PV3

Wasn’t the Hector a member of the Hart family too?

Rob