Hawker Hart vs Audax and Hind

[wombat]

Does anyone have a link to , (or can list) the visible differences between the Hart, Audax and Hind? Can a kit of one easily be converted to another?

[Graham Boak]

The Audax has a long bendy exhaust pipe, otherwise like a Hart plus message collecting hook, probably bigger tyres.  The Hind has the lowered rear gun position like a Demon, not sure whether the rear fuselage is similarly lowered too, plus a tailwheel?  Don't overlook Hartbeest, Osprey, Hardy.  Conversions from one to the other are generally easy for all these Hawker types, depending upon exhaust pipes. fin/rudder, tyre sizes and role fits.

 

What kit, what scale?  Hart, Pegasus Hart, Audax and Hind are all fairly recently available in 1/72.  Also Osprey, Floatplane Osprey, and Hart Fighter.  This is not counting the old Airfix Hart and Demon, nor a wide range of variants from Kora including Hart Trainer.  Hector is also available which is just as well because would not count as an easy conversion.

[dogsbody]

Some reading: https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Modeling-References/Aircraft-Profiles/Britain/Between-the-Wars/Hawker-Audax-Hardy

 

                        https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Modeling-References/Aircraft-Profiles/Britain/Between-the-Wars/Hawker-Hart-57

 

 

 

 

Chris

[Work In Progress]

Hart Trainer is also not an easy conversion because you have to change the sweep of the top wing, which a lot of people don't appreciate. A Hind Trainer, perversely, uses the standard Hart/Hind wing layout.

[Work In Progress]

On 12/20/2019 at 8:30 PM, Graham Boak said:

 The Hind has the lowered rear gun position like a Demon, not sure whether the rear fuselage is similarly lowered too,

The Hind has the standard rear fuselage depth. That is how I first noticed the discrepancy of the Demon fuselage being shallower than I (and most people) had always assumed: a few years ago seeing the resident Shuttleworth Collection ex Afghan Air Force  Hind parked next to the Skysport-built Demon one day, after the Demon moved to OW from Henlow. If you project the top line of the rear fuselage forward towards the front cockpit on the Hind it arrives in a different place from when you do the same with the Demon.

 

There is a stock Alamy photo here of the two in close formation which shows it very clearly. I shan't embed it as I don't want to land Mike in a copyright row but follow the link

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-hawker-hind-and-a-hawker-demon-51000979.html

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Work In Progress

[Graham Boak]

Re Hart Vs Hind trainers. All Hart variants coped with CG shifts by adding external weights.  For example flying with no rearcrewman.  These are provided in some of the kits, memory says the Audax and those kits developed from it.  So presumably the Hind Trainer coped by permanently carrying some of these, or had some other, perhaps internal, ballast arrangement.  The Hart Trainer redesign avoided this and hence any potential problems.  A better approach for the purist, perhaps, but costlier.

[AWFK10]

"Ram's horn" exhaust manifolds were sometimes fitted to Hinds: http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/hawker_hind_1.jpg

[JWM]

I think there were differnces in having from zero to two MGs on sides of fuselage. Also size of oil coler and details of engine covers (ventilation systems). Few years ago I studied all difference making series of five Hawkers biplanes including chqanged wing swept in Hart trainer and two radial engines....But not too much of this knowledge left....

Cheers

J-W

here they are

 

[John Aero]

In answer to  post #1 There are quite a few threads on these aeroplanes on Britmodeller if you care to search. Under the skin the various types are remarkably similar . As Graham has pointed out the Hart and Audax are basically the same airframe. The Hind is the same airframe with minor changes except that it has the visibly lowered and sloped gun ring.  Exhausts and tail wheels are all minor things but the biggest problem is always the fuselage panels which do vary a lot.

 

The Demon two seat fighter and its cousins the Australia Demon and Hartebeest are basically Demon two gun airframes with the different (from the Hind) sloped gun ring and the lowered top deck. The latter two have light bomber capability as so differ again with panels and fittings.

 

John

[John Aero]

The problem with trying to widen the scope of what in real life are straight forwards bolt on, or wood and fabric changes, they will in a model mean a completely new mould cavity and in the case of a Hart to Demon, almost a completely new kit. To the inexperienced eye they look awfully similar but it's only when serious researchers pick up the nitty gritty (such as "why are there two different reference numbers for these struts") It might mean nothing at all physically, (such as a stronger part) or it might mean a physical change which affects a major component like a wing and it's location. Now you have evidence of previously unknown shape or dimension change.

 

Graham picked up the mention of the lower top deck of the Demon in a book, which I also have, but hither too Graham mentioning it, it had slipped my notice. Once the penny drops you look at photos in a different way. The obverse is looking at photos and saying something doesn't look right, but I can't find the evidence.  Sometimes it's pure detective work.

 

It's the same with colour, the great A.J. Jackson (author of British Civil Aircraft and many others) once wrote in a reply to me "I didn't much bother about colour in those days" (of black and white photos).  Sadly our Putnam's authors haven't always checked the whole story. If you read about the Hartbees(t) in the Hawker Aircraft Putnam book It suggests there was only one forwards gun, but the reality is two.  My research shows that the the Australian Demon and the Hartbees are rougher colonial siblings of the Demon as used by the RAF.

 

John