For those who are interested I have just updated the website with the latest information.
http://www.gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk/news/news.html

PM

I believe the disposal of some airframes from this collection to be an entirely sensible choice as having duplications just adds to the workload while adding little to the attraction value. A good decision that will help towards the future of the museum and its exhibits.

Richard

I am guessing the nose wheel is free to caster on the ground but with some sort of centering action or lock, either manually applied by the pilot or automatic when the weight comes off the leg. This would be needed to keep the wheel centered during retraction and perhaps during the take off roll when the brakes would be used to keep directional control until the rudder started to be effective.

Richard

Zorglub

That particular Delta was different to most of the others as it had a larger vertical tail, it was ordered by the Royal Canadian Air Force as RCAF 685 and later became A-149 as an instructional airframe. It is an impressive looking thing especially with the modified fin.
See here http://www.rwrwalker.ca/RCAF_651_700_detailed.htm
And here http://www.rwrwalker.ca/Inst_1.htm

Richard

If you look at a Spitfire 3 view head on you will see that the oil cooler and radiator are both actually within the arc of the propeller so should be getting some prop wash airflow. Perhaps the issue is that the Spitfire radiator was sized smaller for performance reasons making it more critical.

Richard

It looks like a Wimpy mainplane/tailplane/fin section with the tubular piece being the spar. Can be seen on this picture http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/0/1/1565101.jpg

Richard

David
Just a guess but I expect the accillary equipment would include a generator, vacuum pump, pneumatic pump and a hydraulic pump. With it being a twin I would expect all of these to be fitted to both engines.
Richard

The national archive seems to have them http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C2598 and a US site also has some heres an example http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/337223.pdf

Richard

I have been musing over the reason why a four bladed prop would have been fitted to the Hector. The Dagger already suffered from overheating issues which would have been made worse with the high power and low foreward speed when towing a glider.
As the engine is aircooled, by air entering through the intakes, one above and one below the spinner, adding a second pair of blades would have doubled the pulses of forced air into these intakes possibly helping the cooling situation.
Other factors could be noise, which in wartime I doubt was a real issue and climb performance which a finer pitched version of the two bladed prop would have resolved.

Richard