Talk:Hawker Hart

WP:MILHIST Assessment

Includes the majority of what needs to be said on this subject; includes pictures, specs and an infobox, and has more prose than many mil. aviation pages. Nice work. LordAmeth 08:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Could use more citations to be even better. --Colputt 01:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Too many photos crammed in and too many on both margins, a deprecated practice. Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

use of Osprey

in the description it says: "The Hawker Osprey was the navalised carrier-borne version " - the term "carrier-borne" strikes me as wrong! As far as I can see it was not used on carriers but large surface units EXCEPT carriers like the cruiser Enterprise (see picture). But this is a float-plane! 80.151.9.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It was operated off carriers with a conventional landing gear, but could also be fitted with floats - like many aircraft operated by the Fleet Air Arm at the time - see File:Service of Squadron Leader Arthur Berkeley in the Royal Air Force, 1925-1934 HU63336.jpg for an example of an Osprey without floats.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hawker demons range

I need to knoww 148.252.132.148 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hawker Demon V Fury

In the section on the Hawker Demon it say... While the Hawker Fury offered better performance, lower production volumes made it more expensive and therefore it remained available only in small numbers, so when a fighter version of the Hart was suggested, the Air Ministry selected the type as an interim fighter until higher-performance fighters could be bought in larger numbers. While I cannot dispute that the referenced source says this, I would dispute that many other sources contradict this. The Demon and Fury cannot be compared because the Demon was a "Zone Fighter", designed and equipped to be flown by both day and night with a short-wave radio to alert it to incoming enemy aircraft flying from bases that surrounded London. While the Fury was an "Interceptor", designed to only fly during the day and lacking any radio. Only enough were initially ordered to equip the 3 Squadrons at the only two "interceptor" stations on the coast, Tangmere and Hawkinge. To suggest that the daylight-only Fury could have replaced the Day-and-Night Demon is wrong (the Fury was later fitted with a short-wave radio but they were never equipped with night-flying equipment, not even the later Mk II version). See: "No 25 (Fighter Squadron) - Interceptors at Hawkinge": An article by Major F.A. de V. Robertson in the December 8th 1932 edition of Flight magazine.

Also: https://www.dingeraviation.net/interceptor/firstinterceptor.html ~2026-36074-74 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources I've seen is that the Demon was purchased because it offered reasonable performance immediately - comparing to existing fighters like the Bulldog (rather than specialist short-range interceptors like the Fury- and then the doctrine was developed to match it - which is part of the reason why the Demon's successor as two seat fighter, the Defiant, was a failure - because the RAF didn't really have a clear doctrine that really needed a two seat turret fighter.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)