Curly things on top wing.

Yes, vents for the gravity tank. See diagram taken from my AP1404 the Hart aeroplane.

Dave

Hooks

Those “hooks” are probably forward facing vents to induce a small amount of positive pressure in the fuel tanks to aid flow whilst being so shaped to minimise the entry of rain water.

Anon.

Thanks for that Dave. The Fury and Nimrod may have been different designs from the Hart/Hind family but the shape and dimensions are so close yhat they look to be part odf the same family.

The Hector also had a straight upper wing, to take into account CoG issues with the napier engine IIRC – it had the dubious distinction of seeing active service in the bombing role duiring the Dunkirk retreat!

There were plenty of radial engined Hart derivatives, but most went to overseas or the experimental establishments.

The Fury and Nimrod were different (and separate) designs but shared a common structural construction method and engine.

Oh for sure, the problem is that the Kestrel engined family members look sooo drop dead gorgous that the Dagger version didn’t have a hope in the beauty stakes, It did look brutish though.
The radial versions don’t sit right either IMO.

Sorry mate not reading your post properly was I? I really think the Kestrel engined types were far cleaner looking than the Dagger engined one.

Hi Mike, I did mention it but I’ve possibly lumped it in with the wrong crowd maybe should have mentioned it alongside the Audax as an AAC type. As you point out it wasn’t kestrel engined it was powered by the Napier Dagger.

Pagen you forgot the Hector which as far as I can see was a re-engined Audax as it was an army co-operation machine. I’m not sure but I think the Hector was the only one not powered by a RR Kestrel. Have to say that Napier Dagger makes the fron end look too heavy for the rest of the aircraft.

Ah!!

Vickers 0.303, just by your left thigh!

Can’t seem to identify the Vickers Guns in the Hart that we defended Cranwell with?

Or were they on the Hind??

Another detail I only found out about recently are the ballast weights on the outside of the rear fuselage, just at 8 o’clock to the roundel…presumably in use in the photograph because of the empty rear seat.
Firing the fuselage mounted machine gun must have been an interesting, not to say noisy, experience..

Well spotted, or remembered, Tim I hadn’t noticed them before either.

I have a poor grasp of the subject, but I think it goes a bit like this, the Hart (1928), Hardy, Hartbees, Hind, and Hector were the two seat light bomber/multi-role series, the Demon a fighter derivitive, the Audax an Army Co-Operation version, and the Osprey a carrier or float equiped based naval spotter.
The Fury (1929 as the Hornet) was a dedicated single seat fighter, and the Nimrod basicaly the naval version of the Fury II.
Add a few prototypes and PVs into the mix aswel. Powerplants used seem to be the major differences.

Must be time for some Hind memories? Hind to Shackleton, how many people can say that!

And, of course, take off the top wing & you’re Hurricane converted.

It felt quite natural!!

So I was told by a gentleman in white overalls at Old Warden, Tim.

Lovely looking bird, isn’t she?

Adrian

All that family were good looking aircraft. It’s amazing just how many different types used the same airframe. What was there? Hind, Hart, ,Fury Audax, Hector. That’s just the ones I can remember off hand. Never could understand the reason for so many different variants of the two seaters.

Skyhooks – kept in the same cupboard as Long Weights and Striped paint

😀

So I was told by a gentleman in white overalls at Old Warden, Tim.

Lovely looking bird, isn’t she?

Adrian

Thanks – given that it’s 70 years since I last flew them, memory’s a bit faded!!

= Tim

Given the position and the fact there are 2 of them it would make sense. I’ve never noticed them before.