ClaudioN

Here's the IWM link: GROUND CREW WORKING ON FLEET AIR ARM AIRCRAFT AT RNAS YEOVILTON, SEPTEMBER 1943. © IWM (TR 1275) IWM Non Commercial License 761 Sqn, at the time, was No. 2 Naval Fighter School (and the place is Henstridge, not Yeovilton). The photo is in a set of colour photographs in the Imperial War Museum collection. It seems the Fleet Air Arm only added the 'ROYAL NAVY' title in 4-inch characters above the fuselage serial, but did not take time to care about the colour scheme for a training machine. I agree green shade variations are interesting, to me they look like some wet areas drying up, maybe morning mist? Cheers Claudio

And it seemingly disappered on Mk. IIs (except maybe early ones, like the Mk. IIA I posted above).

Not in the cockpit, look at the inside of the fuselage panel that the man on the ground is holding in his hand. In the centre of the lower row of frame spaces. Other examples: ROYAL AIR FORCE FIGHTER COMMAND, 1939-1945.. © IWM (CH 17331) IWM Non Commercial License Mk. I P3395 AIRCRAFT OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE 1939-1945: HAWKER HURRICANE.. © IWM (CH 9222) IWM Non Commercial License Overpainted but still there on (Canadian) Mk. I AG111 HURRICANE MARK IIA (HAWKER). © IWM (MH 4936) IWM Non Commercial License The shape is also there on Mk. IIA Z2515 HURRICANE MARK I (HAWKER). © IWM (CH 2402) IWM Non Commercial License Seemngly a proper unpainted window on Mk. I XR-J

The dark shape on the inside of the panel looks like some shield for the window (?). This is VY-Q, the other Hurricane might be VY-R (it is seemingly the subject of a photo sequence).

https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/91344/

Early in the war code number '1' was rather rarely used in practice, and only Ark Royal was large enough to accommodate up to four TSR squadrons (Swordfish). The senior squadron in a carrier used to take the lower number, so 2 = 810 Sqn, 3 = 814 Sqn, 4 = 820 Sqn, 5 = 818 Sqn in Ark Royal. In Illustrious 4 = 815 Sqn and 5 = 819 Sqn, but also 3 = 818 Sqn and 4 = 816 Sqn in Furious, so that starting from '2' does not appear to have been necessary. Early in the war just one fighter squadron went aboard each carrier, again with the exception of Ark Royal, so one had 6 = 800 Sqn and 7 = 803 Sqn both with Skuas, then 803 Sqn was replaced by 808 Sqn with Fulmars, and this unit also used '7'. For Illustrious, initially it was only 6 = 806 Sqn (Fulmars), but 7 = 805 Sqn (Fulmars) was also in the Med. In 1942 Indomitable had a large fighter complement, so that 6 = 800 Sqn, 7 = 880 Sqn, 8 = 806B Sqn (still supposedly in order of seniority aboard). Carrier letter was discarded (on aircraft, not on paperwork) after the start of the war. This situation remained more or less stable until 1943.

To me, it looks like a Neutrality Patrol colour scheme, with the "neutrality star" intended to be well visible at the front of the hull. I agree with @Chuck1945, Light Gray overall with Dark Blue-Gray on upper surfaces. For a guess on Bureau Numbers, I'd go for an early dating, maybe from Bu. Nos. 6440-6454. Serials at the time were small and white, thus nearly invisible. Claudio

This may provide some clue.

Not sure, I seem to recall the wing stiffeners requirement was a bit more specific. Anyway, here is a photo of MB357:T, No. 801 Squadron, HMS Furious, 6-9 July 1943 No wing stiffeners, wooden wedges between wing and flaps to create the "intermediate" take-off flap setting. 801 Sqn winged trident emblem below cockpit. WATCH OVER THE FLEET. BIG SHIPS AND DESTROYERS ON PATROL "UNDER THE WING" OF THE FLEET AIR ARM. 6 TO 9 JULY 1943, ON BOARD HMS FURIOUS, ON NORTHERN ALLIED CONVOY.. © IWM (A 17996) IWM Non Commercial License

BL676 was the first new-build Seafire Mk. IB, however it was for some time a test machine, delivered at the end of December 1941 for preliminary carrier trials on Illustrious. Not all Seafire Mk. IBs had the wing reinforcement strakes, I suspect just BL676/MB328 and maybe a few more produced in early 1942 had them. Photos of 801 Sqn. machines (e.g., MB357:T) do not show the strakes, although they were from the same batch of 48 new-build machines. By the way, the 48 "new build" aircraft were Spitfire Mk. VBs that never entered service, but were taken from RAF storage and converted, being re-delivered to the FAA a few months later as MB328-MB375. The Mk. IB was the only Seafire version that had no fuselage stiffeners.

Didn't mean to be unkind to you, sorry.

What I meant is, the volume corresponding to one gallon is little more than (6 in x 6 in x 6 in). As the tank is the same, I am wondering whether some additional internal fitting, maybe only required in the fixed tank, might account for a slight difference in volume available for fuel. Fairly minor point, I agree.

Now I get why the experimental project was discontinued... the firewood storage compartment moved the aircraft C.G. unacceptably aft.

Malfunctioning heaters still kill today because of that... which brings back to my question, why US and UK standards seemingly differed with regards to CO hazard.

Of course... cold pizza is an awful thing, you really need fast delivery.

Comparing the two images, I'd say there are two additional frames between frame 7 and frame 8. The logical consequence would be that the top image shows the structure of a two-seater of some kind.

Just out of curiosity, what was the rationale for the "acceptability" of carbon monoxide levels? Unless US Navy pilots always flew on oxygen, I assume they were breathing like FAA pilots would do, yet this assessment appears to be frequent for US-built types tested in Britain.

Just wondering, is it a glitch? Maybe a fixed external tank might have some additional fitting (a fuel vent, for instance) that took up a little space? One gallon is not that much volume, after all.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, just reported what Cdr. Crosley had to say about the Mk. II in "They gave me a Seafire", but I may have misunderstood: "The Mark II was also fitted with a new two speed super-charger. The two speed gear changed automatically at about 10,000 feet to higher gear whenever the maximum boost fell below about eight pounds per square inch. However, as the gearing took an extra two hundred horsepower out of the engine to drive the turbine -- although the final power output was much greater than the Mk. I Hurricane -- it used fuel at a frightening rate." and: "... we had our wings modified to allow us to carry two 45-gallon long range fuel tanks under each wing. Thereafter we could almost make the 700 mile journey from Lee-on-Solent to Hatston in one go." Mason gives the internal fuel for the Sea Hurricane Mk. IIC as 69 gallons plus 28 gallons reserve, that makes 97 gallons. It seems like LR tanks nearly doubled the fuel capacity, is that correct?

By the way, the Sea Hurricane Mk. IIC performed better, but was shorter-legged. Some 24 Sea Hurricane Mk.IIs were modified to carry long range tanks previous to Operation Torch. I do not know if this modification was extended to the 60 new-build aircraft delivered by Hawkers, anyway I doubt long-range tanks and catapult firing would go well together. If endurance only is considered, the Mk.IC could have some advantage. An opponent like the Bv 138 was heavily armoured, but comparatively slow and 20 mm cannon, even on a slow fighter, might give some chance.

From MSFU records it appears that at some time in early 1943 the unit had both cannon-armed Mk. ICs and hook-equipped aircraft, the latter to practice deck landing. The idea may have been to have mixed CAM Ship/CVE escorts, enabling aircraft from CAM Ships to land on Escort Carriers after they had been fired. Considering the performance a cannon-armed Mk. I could have, it is not surprising the concept was short-lived. As Hurricanes were still in strong demand, even the better performing Sea Hurricane Mk. IIC was in short supply. Considering losses during Operation Torch, the FAA had just about 90 left in early 1943, probably barely enough to equip the early CVEs until sufficient Martlet/Wildcat Mk. Vs became available.

Yes, plenty of red primer on the gun ports, particularly 20 mm cannon. I assume it was for protection against dust and moisture, possibly applied regularly after servicing?

The two photos of Indomitable above seem to illustrate the accident, mentioned by Popham in "Sea Flight", of Judd's Sea Hurricane blown into the catwalk while being handled on deck.

I definitely need to start planning for new shelf space. And saving for p&p charges, too. Eagerly awaited!

Maybe she had some chance to actually talk with the 'plane driver, as well...