Canadian Hurricanes

[ClaudioN]

Canadian Hurricanes have been discussed several times on Britmodeller. Recently I was having a look at stills from the colour film in this post:

Amazing RCAF/RAF colour wartime footage

and my attention was captured by the Hurricane coded 2A: this is definitely a Sea Hurricane Mk. Ia, it has catapult spools, headrest and de Havilland propeller, but no hook. And, it is in Canada but carries 'Royal Navy' titles on the rear fuselage. Intriguing. This instantly got me into the story of Canadian Hurricanes.

 

As I searched through Britmodeller and the web at large, it turned out the topic is far from straightforward. A good idea of the questions is given here:

Sea Hurricanes converted from Canadian manufactured airframes – long or short nosed?

and this was enough to send me back to my references (Mason, "The Hawker Hurricane", Robertson, "British Military Aircraft Serials" and Sturtivant, "Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939-1945").

I also found aome very useful references on the web, in particular:

 

1) three consecutive posts by Mr. Geoffrey Sinclair, who analyses production and delivery data from Canadian and UK archives:

Canadian Hurricane Production

Canadian Hurricane Production 2

Canadian Hurricane Production 3

 

2) Jim Bates' blog:

A Scale Canadian

 

3) the invaluable web pages by R.W.R. Walker:

Canadian Military Aircraft Serial Numbers

 

Finally, I found an interesting article by Mr. Clarence Simonsen on the Packard Merlin and aeronautical production in Canada during World War II:

The Packard Merlin Rolls-Royce Engine and Avro [Canadian] Lancaster Bomber

 

When it comes to aviation history I am strictly an armchair researcher, so I started from the posts on Canadian Hurricane Production, that contained a wealth of interesting information. Furthermore, the author already tried to organise the whole into a coherent picture, so I kept searching, thinking that using those posts as a basis it would be a quick and fun exercise to discover the whole story. Fun it has been, but the exercise was very absorbing and it actually went on for a couple of weeks...!

 

In the end, I think I learned a lot about wartime aircraft production and history, and in the process I pieced together information that either were new to me, or suggested a different interpretation of facts. 

I thought here's something interesting for us modellers, so I will be reporting what I found in successive posts, trusting in help from the collective wisdom of Britmodeller to correct my errors.

 

It's getting late now, but I'll be back soon.

 

Claudio

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by ClaudioN

[Graham Boak]

Just to tidy up your first point, if you haven't already from your researches, a stock of Sea Hurricane Mk.Ia were kept in Canada for the CAM ships.  I look forward to reading the rest of your  posts.

[Tony Edmundson]

Jim Bates had the 3 part article concerning Canadian Hurricanes in the   issues Vol. 38 #2-4 of IPMS  Canada's RT magazine.   Excellent work!!

 

Cheers, Tony

[airjiml2]

So I will worn you that there is a shocking amount of misinformation out there about the CCF and RCAF Hurricanes. Sadly, those links repeat many of those misconceptions.

 

I did the best I could with the articles for IPMS Canada and even then I have since discovered errors and additional information.  I considered expanding the articles into a book, but there is so much left to learn and so many files to research that I've decided to shelf that plan for the time being. 

 

I am happy however to try to answer any questions. 

 

Jim

Edited March 13, 2017 by airjiml2

[ClaudioN]

'fraid I'm far less knowldgeable than my audience... please be patient with me.

 

Let's start with the Hurricane Mk. I or, to be more correct, with Mk. I airframes manufactured by Canadian Car & Foundry (CCF), to be engined with a Rolls-Royce Merlin III.

RAF orders:

• P5170-P5209, 40 aircraft – initial production contract
• T9519-T9538, 20 aircraft – somewhere referred to as "attrition replacements"
• Z6983-Z7017 (35), Z7049-Z7093 (45), Z7143-Z7162 (20), 100 aircraft – first large series production batch
• BH732-BH781 (50), BH797-BH841 (45), BH855-BH904 (50), BH921-BH955 (35), BH968- BH997 (30), BJ112-BJ136 (25), BJ150-BJ199 (50), BJ213-BJ257 (45), BJ274-BJ323 (50), BJ332-BJ351 (20), BJ369-BJ408 (40), 440 aircraft – direct purchase order.

This makes a total of 600 aircraft.

• five aircraft from the first batch (P5180, P5182, P5187, P5203, P5206) served in the Fleet Air Arm.
• the “attrition replacements” were probably related to the deployment of No. 1 Squadron RCAF (renumbered No. 401 Squadron). I might think this recognised the Canadian effort, but actual use was not so restricted and the unit had access to the general RAF maintenance and supply organisation. At the end of the war T9531 from this batch was with the Rhodesian Air Training Group.
• of the 100 Hurricanes in the third RAF order, 38 served in the Fleet Air Arm. Robertson, in "British Military Aircraft Serials", gives a slightly higher number (44), I assume the balance are Sea Hurricane Mk. IA's issued to the Merchant Ship Fighter Unit (MSFU). This was an RAF unit.
• the 440 aircraft in the fourth order were re-allotted serial numbers taken from the 9000 in allocation to the British Purchasing Commission in the USA, after changing from direct purchase to lend-lease. These aircraft had their designation revised to Hurricane Mk. X which suggests to me that, in addition to Hawker's request for separate Canadian Mark numbers, the change suited an administrative requirement to differentiate between direct purchase and lend-lease equipment. The BPC did not use black-out blocks in serial allocations, but interspersed batches of different aircraft types. New Hurricane Mk. X serials were: 

AE958-AE977 (20), AF945-AF999, AG100-AG344 (300), AG665-AG684 (20), AM270-AM369 (100)

• 28 aircraft in the AExxx and AFxxx serial ranges served in the Fleet Air Arm.

In the posts on Canadian Hurricane Production I found, among other things, an indication of the number of Mk. I airframes received by the RAF between May 1940 and the end of August 1941. The total of 419 includes the returning pattern aircraft L1848, initially sent from Britain. This leaves 418 airframes from the CCF production line, all of which arrived in Britain without engine.

 

At first I was startled by the idea of engineless airframes, until I realised that there was no production of Merlin engines in Canada. Although Packard was tooling up for production in the US, the first Packard-built Merlin was demonstrated in August 1941 and engines started coming off the production line only in December 1941. In fact, it has been suggested that only a small number of CCF Hurricanes were flight tested before shipping. As the aircraft were for the RAF, I think it makes sense avoiding the double risk of sending large numbers of Merlin engines across the Altlantic to Canada, only to have them back within an airframe a few months later. Of course, those aircraft that were retained in Canada had to wait for their engines to come through from Rolls-Royce.

 

A breakdown of non-arrivals in Britain was attempted by Geoffrey Sinclair in Canadian Hurricane Production 2, but I found it difficult to understand, so I attempted my own, based on my references and his data. This yields:

• 30 aircraft handed over to the RCAF (AG287 AG293-AG296, AG299, AG300, AG302, AG304-AG319, AG323, AG325-AG327, AG330, AG332)
• 8 airframes lost at sea (AE971-AE974, AG220, AG227, AG228, AG230)
• 3 serials not issued (according to the posts by Geoffrey Sinclair)
• 21 more airframes in the AGxxx serial range that, again according to Geoffrey Sinclair, were reduced to spares

This makes 62 airframes in all that, added to the 418 arrived in Britain, give a total of 480 Mk. I airframes produced by CCF. Afterwards, RAF documents seemingly no longer mention Hurricane Mk. I's, all later arrivals being recorded as Hurricane Mk. II's. The total nicely corresponds to the sum of the first four RAF orders to CCF less the final 120, that are AG665-AG684 and AM270-AM369. If this reconstruction is reasonable, then the Mk. X production run was split into 320 Mk. I airframes and 120 Mk. II airframes, the latter with the 4-inch extension to the engine bearers and cowling panels that allowed for the installation of the more powerful Merlin XX.

 

To sum up, we have:

• 418 Mk. I airframes arrived in Britain, where they were fitted with Rolls-Royce Merlin Mk. III engines
• of these, 71 were operated by the Fleet Air Arm, part as shore-based Hurricanes (e.g., AE977), part as fully modified Sea Hurricanes (e.g., Z7067)
• some of the AG-serialled airframes were converted to Mk. II and, in fact, I suspect the 21 airframes mentioned above, not recorded among arrivals in Britain, might have been under conversion and shipped later, rather than being reduced to spares.

The story of Hurricanes with Merlin III engines has not ended yet. I stop here for the time and I'll happily receive comments.

 

Claudio

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by ClaudioN

[tonyot]

As far as I know about the early Canadian built Mk;I`s,..... didn`t the Merlin III engines come from Fairey Battles that had been sent to Canada? Some were test flown using one of thee engines and then shipped to the UK minus engine which was then re fitted into another airframe for testing.

 

Jim is probably one of the most knowledgeable people on this site re RCAF Hurri`s and I believe that esteemed Canadian historian Carl Vincent may also be researching a book about Canadian Hurri`s for Avieology publications, which if it does come to fruition would most likely be the best round up that we will ever get on the subject. 

 

I built a model of one of the RCAF Sea Hurri I`s a while ago,...here;

 

Cheers

            Tony

         

[ClaudioN]

Part 2, where confusion starts.

 

This looked like a puzzle: I was able to find several pieces, put them together and what I see is sensible to me. Whether it is the true picture, I do not know.

 

In 1941 Canadian Car & Foundry (CCF) received three orders for the Hurricane:

• a RAF order for 200 aircraft, again with consecutive serials: BW835-BW999 (165), BX100-BX134 (35)
• a RCAF order for 400 aircraft, serials: 5376-5775
• an elusive Dutch order, only the prototype for which was flown. This accounts for the '1' in the CCF production total of 1451 aircraft.

With these orders, Packard production of Merlin engines comes into the picture. The initial production order placed with Packard was for 9000 engines:

• 6000 for the British, designated Merlin 28
• 3000 for the Americans, which received the US military designation V-1650-1

The Packard Merlin 28 corresponds to the Rolls-Royce Merlin XX. Reportedly, Lancaster bombers could use either Merlin XX or Merlin 28 indifferently, but Packard manufacturing processes partly differed from those of Rolls-Royce. I would assume this had some relevance for maintenance, that justified the use of a different number. 

 

Together with the 400 Hurricanes, the RCAF placed an order for 480 engines (400, plus 20% as spares) that, however, received the designation Merlin 29, not 28. In the Canadian Hurricane Production posts, Geoffrey Sinclair adds that Merlin 29s, unlike Merlin 28s, were never exported and remained in Canada. This had long been puzzling me: what is a Merlin 29, actually? The Wikipedia entry showing the List of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants simply says it had a "splined propeller shaft". Now, any engine must have a splined propeller shaft, because that's the way the propeller is secured to the engine. On looking further into the matter, it turned out that the aeronautical industry had standardised the shaft splining. Predictably, there were two standards, the SBAC for the British, who specified it for the Merlin 28 and the US SAE standard, to which V-1650-1 propeller shafts were manufactured.

The RCAF was going to equip its Hurricanes with Hamilton variable-pitch Hydromatic propellers and had placed in the USA an order for 480 Hamilton 23E50 units. This number, that identified the hub type rather than the entire propeller, shows that the unit was the same fitted also to B-25s, C-47s, Catalinas and several other US warplanes. Clearly, it was a standard US product and must have required a propeller shaft splined to the US SAE standard. The simplest explanation I can find, then, is that the Merlin 29 was simply the Canadian/British designation for the V-1650-1 version of the Packard engine. 

 

The RAF order for 200 included 50 aircraft to be completed as Sea Hurricanes. These were required for the catapult armed merchant (CAM) ships that, from 1941, provided some form of escort for convoys. Aircraft pools were to be established at key ports from where convoys sailed, one of them being Halifax, NS. Accordingly, it was planned to set up an aircraft pool at the RCAF airfield in Dartmouth, with a total of 100 Canadian-built Hurricanes initially planned. As the number of CAM ships dropped to an eventual 35, and with launches resulting in fewer total aircraft losses than expected, this number dropped to 50.

As shown in the colour film that inspired my study, these aircraft were Sea Hurricanes with a Merlin III engine and de Havilland propeller, catapult spools and pilot headrest, which identifies them as Mk. IA's. They slightly differed from the late RAF Sea Hurricane standard, that used the Rotol propeller. The 'ROYAL NAVY' legend appearing on the rear fuselage of many of them is a result of the persistent misunderstanding that a 'Sea' Hurricane must necessarily be a naval aircraft. Some aircraft, though, appear to be fitted with an arrester hook (or built with the arrester hook housing), actually making them Mk. Ib's.

 

An order for 144 Merlin 28 engines (120, plus 20% as spares) was associated to the following 150 aircraft in the RAF order, suggesting that at least 120 were planned to be engined with the Packard Merlin. This particular batch is also associated with the elusive Mk. XI designation. If the Lancaster changed to Mk. III when using the Packard Merlin 28 instead of the Rolls-Royce Merlin XX, a similar change appears justified for the Hurricane. However, I was unable to find positive evidence of this.

 

On average, the CCF production line turned out about 50 Hurricanes per month. However, according to production figures, it almost came to a halt during 1941, with only 11 aircraft delivered during August, none during September and just 1 in October 1941. I'd rather think that this part of the year was the time when the 50 Sea Hurricanes and the 30 Hurricane Mk. I's transferred to the RCAF were coming off the production line. These were the first CCF-built aircraft that needed to wait for their Rolls-Royce Merlin III engines (and de Havilland propellers) to come over from the UK. Aircraft deliveries may have been delayed accordingly, but I find it hard to believe that production stopped. 

 

About the same time, mid-1941, the CCF production line must have switched to the Mk.II airframe. Late Mk. X deliveries had been shipped to the Middle East, as there was no further use for Mk. I's in the UK, other than with second-line units. It can also be noted that, among the final Mk. I airframes produced in the AG100-AG344 range:

• 30 were transferred to the RCAF as Mk. I's
• 12 were converted to Mk. IIB's in Britain and shipped to the USSR
• 5 were converted to Mk.IIB's in Britain and delivered to the Fleet Air Arm
• a few more were converted to Mk.IIB's in Britain and taken on charge by the RAF

Just 5 aircraft from the final batches of the Mk. X order (AG666, AG667, AG669, AM277, AM288) and 8 aircraft from the following 150-aircraft batch (BW886, BW900, BW911, BW921, BW929, BW991, BX126, BX133) were taken on charge by the Fleet Air Arm.

 

The need to supply Hurricanes to the USSR drained away most of the 120 aircraft remaining from the Mk. X order, as well as most of the 150 airframes of the following RAF order. It must be remembered that the USSR expected deliveries of Hurricane Mk.II's, not Mk. I's. Although some conversions did take place, I find it hard to believe that over 200 aircraft had to undergo this process. Although not a positive proof, I'd consider this a further hint that, from AG665 onwards, CCF Hurricanes were indeed Mk. II airframes that were to be fitted with the Merlin XX or Merlin 28. However, until the early months of 1942 production of Packard Merlins seemingly lagged behind CCF Hurricane production. It is reported that the Merlin 28 first flew in a Hurricane in 1942, therefore I assume that most, if not all of the 800 Hurricane airframes considered so far, were still delivered to the RAF without engine.

 

Claudio

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by ClaudioN

[ClaudioN]

26 minutes ago, tonyot said:

As far as I know about the early Canadian built Mk;I`s,..... didn`t the Merlin III engines come from Fairey Battles that had been sent to Canada? Some were test flown using one of thee engines and then shipped to the UK minus engine which was then re fitted into another airframe for testing.

 

Jim is probably one of the most knowledgeable people on this site re RCAF Hurri`s and I believe that esteemed Canadian historian Carl Vincent may also be researching a book about Canadian Hurri`s for Avieology publications, which if it does come to fruition would most likely be the best round up that we will ever get on the subject. 

 

I built a model of one of the RCAF Sea Hurri I`s a while ago,...here;

 

Cheers

            Tony

         

 

Thank you Tony,

 

getting Merlins from the Battles seems a sensible thing. I was unable to determine whether Battles had the Merlin II or Merlin III, though. I vaguely recall this also had something to do with the splining of the propeller shaft.

Your RCAF Sea Hurricane is a beauty. And, for me, this all started when I looked more carefully at the picture of that aircraft. 

 

Best regards

 

Claudio

 

[tonyot]

3 minutes ago, ClaudioN said:

 

Thank you Tony,

 

getting Merlins from the Battles seems a sensible thing. I was unable to determine whether Battles had the Merlin II or Merlin III, though. I vaguely recall this also had something to do with the splining of the propeller shaft.

Your RCAF Sea Hurricane is a beauty. And, for me, this all started when I looked more carefully at the picture of that aircraft. 

 

Best regards

 

Claudio

 

Glad to be of use Claudio,

                                       The same happened to me when I saw `those' colour pics and it also sparked an increased interest in Canadian Hurri`s,...... I also built a later Mk.XII too;

 

Good luck with your quest!

Cheers

            Tony 

[Graham Boak]

I believe that you are right about the spline differences: the Merlin Mk.III, as I understand it, had a spline that was common to the Rotol and DH propellers.  There's something about it in the Haynes manual on the Hurricane, if I remember correctly.  I'll try to dig it out.

 

I have seen it said, in old references, that Battles were Mk.I, Mk.II or Mk.III depending upon whether they had Merlin I, II or III.  I think that this terminology, if ever official, didn't last with the standardising on the Merlin III.

[airjiml2]

Yikes, Claudio, I didn't know you were going to post a masters thesis!  I will try to respond to as much as I can.  I will admit that my research has focused on RCAF involvement with the Hurricane and only related to CCF production when necessary for that story.  The CCF production story is a mess, as it is hard to document some of the previous published material, as most primary documents are not surviving.  The intent in my research was not to just rehash "known" facts, but to use primary document as much as possible.  Even among a small group Canadian/UK researchers discussing these matters there is disagreement on a few key issues and every day more information is surfacing.  

 

A few quick hits:

 

-  A Merlin 29 is a Merlin 28 but with a prop shaft that will accept U.S. props.

-  Tony is indeed correct that the RCAF 13** serial Hurricanes were fitted with props and Merlins taken from RCAF Battles

-  The Hurricane X and XI were not CCF or RCAF designations.  Hurricane X may have been a RAF designation, but most CCF Hurricanes were known as Hurricane I or Hurricane II in RAF service.  It is possible that it was a Hawkers designation, but I've not seen it listed in any primary document.

-  There is an open debate as to when the switch from long to short fuselage took place.  I am of the opinion that the 13** Hurricanes and BW*** serial Hurricanes that served with the RCAF were short fuselage.

- There were not that many Merlin IIIs at CCF and many Hurricanes were shipped without engines to the UK.

- Some of the previous published CCF product data appears to be in error.  I know of at least one Hurricane that appears to have been completed long before its serial block was considered in production.

-  The MSFU does play into the picture, but not very many CCF Hurricanes, outside of the BW*** series, appear to be connected to the unit.

-  It is exceedingly unclear if all BW*** Hurricanes were built with hooks or not.  Clearly a few aircraft didn't have hooks with their during their time with the RCAF.  Currently it is unknown if that was how they were construction or a modification made at Dartmouth.

 

Jim

 

 

[ClaudioN]

1 hour ago, airjiml2 said:

-  A Merlin 29 is a Merlin 28 but with a prop shaft that will accept U.S. props.

A-HA! Got it...

 

-  Tony is indeed correct that the RCAF 13** serial Hurricanes were fitted with props and Merlins taken from RCAF Battles

No need to wait for props and engines from the UK, then. I've been unable to find any picture of a 13** serial Hurricane on the web. They must have been quite peculiar... no spinner, I'd guess?

 

-  The Hurricane X and XI were not CCF or RCAF designations.  Hurricane X may have been a RAF designation, but most CCF Hurricanes were known as Hurricane I or Hurricane II in RAF service.  It is possible that it was a Hawkers designation, but I've not seen it listed in any primary document.

So I can delete one item from my list of doubts... Thank you

 

-  There is an open debate as to when the switch from long to short fuselage took place.  I am of the opinion that the 13** Hurricanes and BW*** serial Hurricanes that served with the RCAF were short fuselage.

I share your opinion. They also have the Mk. I tailwheel.

 

-  It is exceedingly unclear if all BW*** Hurricanes were built with hooks or not.  Clearly a few aircraft didn't have hooks with their during their time with the RCAF.  Currently it is unknown if that was how they were construction or a modification made at Dartmouth.

I was just looking at the colour film and noticed that some had a cut-out in the ventral strake, others didn't...

 

 

Jim,

 

thank you a lot for your comments. I made a brief reply below some of them.

No, I'm not writing a master's thesis. I just happen to enjoy this kind of aeronautical puzzles, although in this case it's more akin to Sudoku... that's more challenging.

 

Cheers

Claudio

[Troy Smith]

21 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I believe that you are right about the spline differences: the Merlin Mk.III, as I understand it, had a spline that was common to the Rotol and DH propellers.  There's something about it in the Haynes manual on the Hurricane, if I remember correctly.  I'll try to dig it out.

 

 

I have read somewhere that the Merlin III introuduced a 'universal' shaft, which could take either type of prop.

 

for ease of reference, the relevant posts on Jim's "A Scale Canadian" blog are

http://www.ascalecanadian.com/2007/10/rcaf-hawker-hurricanes-part-1.html

 

http://www.ascalecanadian.com/2015/06/the-sea-hurricane-in-canada.html

 

and since Propellers have been mentioned, this is worth adding in for ease of reference

Quote

As shown in the colour film that inspired my study, these aircraft were Sea Hurricanes with a Merlin III engine and de Havilland propeller, catapult spools and pilot headrest, which identifies them as Mk. IA's. They slightly differed from the late RAF Sea Hurricane standard, that used the Rotol propeller. The 'ROYAL NAVY' legend appearing on the rear fuselage of many of them is a result of the persistent misunderstanding that a 'Sea' Hurricane must necessarily be a naval aircraft. Some aircraft, though, appear to be fitted with an arrester hook (or built with the arrester hook housing), actually making them Mk. Ib's.

one small point Giorgio

I have seen CAM Hurricanes with 'bullet' Rotol props, but actaul Sea Hurricanes Ib's , I have only ever seen with the De Havilland Hurricane unit, as the metal prop helped to balance out the weight of the arrestor hook.

Sea Hurricane II's all have the 'bullet' Rotol.

 

One other Sea Hurricane point,  I beleive all the Sea Hurricane IIb's are Canadian Built Mk.XII's,  and are often listed as Sea Hurricane XII (I don't know what is the correct designation)

as seen in the photos of Operations Torch aircraft.

eg

Sea Hurricane XII, JS327

 

and

Sea Hurricane MkXII Operation Torch JS355 HMS Biter

Edited March 14, 2017 by Troy Smith
added photos

[ClaudioN]

Thank you for your comments.

I added short replies below individual sentences in your text

 

Best regards

 

Claudio

 

On 14/3/2017 at 8:31 PM, Troy Smith said:

I have read somewhere that the Merlin III introuduced a 'universal' shaft, which could take either type of prop.

 

Yes, I believe that is the SBAC standard shaft

 

On 14/3/2017 at 8:31 PM, Troy Smith said:

I have seen CAM Hurricanes with 'bullet' Rotol props, but actaul Sea Hurricanes Ib's , I have only ever seen with the De Havilland Hurricane unit, as the metal prop helped to balance out the weight of the arrestor hook.

 

Indeed. Sea Hurricane IB's needed the DH prop for balance reasons. But Sea Hurricane IA's only had catapult spools and seemingly had less of a balance problem. Several pictures show them having Rotol props. Canadian Sea Hurricanes appear to only have had DH props.

 

Quote

Sea Hurricane II's all have the 'bullet' Rotol.

 

With the engine moved 4 inches forward, the balance was different and the greater weight of the DH prop was no longer needed. I suspect a DH prop wouldn't be a good match for a Mk. II either.

 

Quote

One other Sea Hurricane point,  I beleive all the Sea Hurricane IIb's are Canadian Built Mk.XII's,  and are often listed as Sea Hurricane XII (I don't know what is the correct designation)

as seen in the photos of Operations Torch aircraft.

 

I also believe so. Hawker-built Sea Hurricane Mk. II's were all cannon-armed and delivered later than CCF. The FAA needed Mk.II's to re-equip units in preparation for Operation Torch, and these had to come from Canada.

Just enough to equip Nos. 800, 804 and 891 Squadrons. Nos. 802 and 883 in Avenger still had Mk. IB's. Until the carrier blew up, that is.

Sorry, I was wrongly quoting from memory. Actually, from "Carrier Operations in World War II" by J. D. Brown:

• HMS Biter: No. 800 Squadron, 15 Sea Hurricanes
• HMS Avenger: No. 802 Squadron, 9 Sea Hurricanes, No. 883 Squadron, 6 Sea Hurricanes
• HMS Dasher: No. 804 Squadron, 6 Sea Hurricanes, No. 891 Squadron, 9 Sea Hurricanes

According to "Squadrons of the FAA" these units were all equipped with the Mk. IIs.

This makes a total of 45 aircraft, out of the 64 Mk. IIs the FAA received from Canadian production in the few months before. Quite an effort, I'd think.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by ClaudioN
Torch FAA Hurricanes corrected

[airjiml2]

Those are Sea Hurricane IIbs, not Sea Hurricane XIIs.  (There is no such thing, not matter how many times it is repeated in books.)  As far as CCF was concerned they were either Sea Hurricane Mk. IIs or Hurricane Mk. IIs.  (See below as to why the confusion.)  At this point, I posit that the Hurricane XII and XIIA designations are RCAF only designations and never adopted by the RAF. 

 

There are indeed (Sea) Hurricanes in the JS block that ended up with the FAA as Sea Hurricane IIcs.  JS310 and JS222 are examples.  My opinion is they were built as (Sea) Hurricane IIBs in Canada and modified in the UK with cannon wings.

 

I am unclear how many of the Sea Hurricanes were built as such in Canada.  Clearly, at least a portion of the BW*** were built as Sea Hurricanes.  I have no idea if some or all of the JS*** serials had hooks or not.  I would assume they were built with hooks, but we all know about assumptions.  As I said previously, so much more research is needed!

 

(I will leave Graham or Tony to correct my Sea Hurricane a/d/c suffixes...I usually mess them up.)

 

Jim

[Max Headroom]

This is all very interesting and got me to google for some pictures.

 

I found this.......

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/archivesofontario/14845626239

 

It's precisely dated and shows Sea Hurricanes being produced by CCF. No serial unfortunately but the nearest is marked '602'. Unfortunately it's actual serial has yet to be applied. A quick look in the SAMI Hawker Hurricane data file has failed to reveal a suitable candidate. Not sure if this helps buts it's an interesting photo.

 

Trevor

[Troy Smith]

Thanks Jim

Quote

(I will leave Graham or Tony to correct my Sea Hurricane a/d/c suffixes...I usually mess them up.)

 

Jim

 

Sea Hurricane I suffixes seem to be 

IA - catapult spools only

IB- Arrestor hook and catapult spools

IC - Arrestor hook only

 

there have been discussions on here about this, as ALL the books say a Sea Hurricane Ic is a Mk.I with cannon armed wings

Graham Boak wrote this here

Quote

Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) · Report post

I put a lot of study into this some years back: the source of the story appears to lie with His Majesty's Stationery Office, who published a wartime booklet on the Fleet Air Arm stating that there had been a cannon-armed Sea Hurricane on Indomitable. The link with Cork appears to be purely wishful thinking. The historian who looks after Shuttleworth's Sea Hurricane has talked to veterans of 880 Sq on the subject, and confirms that Cork himself is not known to have talked of any such. The armourer with 880 Sq confirmed that there were no cannon-armed Sea Hurricanes on Indomitable. Cork is known to have complained about the disappointing performance of the Mk.Ib after trying to catch a Ju88 shadower - he'd have been even more vocal about any (much heavier) cannon-armed variant.

7:Z: It was also said that BD771 was disliked amongst the pilots because it was heavier. Colour film on Indomitable shows that it was repainted into TSS - so presumably had Sky undersides.

Despite the claims of FK Mason, there were no 100 production cannon-armed Hurricanes, only a couple of test examples which were not issued to units with that wing. There is even an alternative definition of the Sea Hurricane Mk.Ic: that it was intended to cover a variant with arrester gear but no catapult spools, for use on escort carriers.

Cork's section were coded J,K,L and M. Z4642, although present in his logbook, was an RAF Hurricane lost in North Africa. Z4624 is also in his logbook, and had a history with 880 Sq. I was told by a member of the FAAM staff that it is not the only transcription error in his logbook.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Graham Boak

 

and http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/72790-hms-avenger-deck-colors/

 

Quote

Mason does say this, but he is wrong. Despite his many merits, he isn't particularly good on Sea Hurricanes generally. Ray Sturtivant could not find a single Mk.Ic in the FAA records. Neither is there any evidence of any on Pedestal, as confirmed by an 880 Sq armourer. Cork is not known to have ever mentioned such, but he did complain about the slowness of the Sea Hurricane trying to catch a Ju88. He'd have been even more vocal with an overweight 4 cannon aircraft. The individual aircraft on Pedestal have been identified, and the only one not a standard Mk.Ib was a converted RAF Hurricane Mk.IIb with a Merlin III. It had been left behind with engine trouble on a ferry to Java, and adapted for carrier use. It was unpopular because it was heavier - had they been able to fix the Mk.XX Merlin it might have done a better job of chasing that Ju88.

801 Sq did not serve on Avenger. 802 and 883 had SH Mk.Ib for PQ18 then re-equipped with Mk.IIB in September. After the November sinking 883 was not reformed (later RCN) and 802 was equipped with Seafires.

What has confused matters is that the suffixes on Sea Hurricanes Mk.Is did not reflect the armament. The a suffix was used for aircraft with catapult spools but no arrester hooks, used on the CAM and Fighter Direction ships. The b was for aircraft with both spools and hook, for the fleet carriers. Both variants had eight guns. I have a piece of paper (dated much later, from a BAe document) which states that the c suffix was for aircraft without spools but with arrester hooks, intended for escort carriers. I've seen nothing to suggest that this was ever used although perhaps here is the root of the confusion over the aircraft on Avenger?

 

Sorry for the diversion, this is another area of Hurricane confusion!

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Troy Smith
add details and corrections

[airjiml2]

4 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

This is all very interesting and got me to google for some pictures.

 

I found this.......

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/archivesofontario/14845626239

 

It's precisely dated and shows Sea Hurricanes being produced by CCF. No serial unfortunately but the nearest is marked '602'. Unfortunately it's actual serial has yet to be applied. A quick look in the SAMI Hawker Hurricane data file has failed to reveal a suitable candidate. Not sure if this helps buts it's an interesting photo.

 

Trevor

 

Trevor,

 

My opinion has always been that the first aircraft is one of the BW*** Sea Hurricanes that ended up with the RCAF as the date is close to their construction period and the 602nd aircraft built would fall into that serial range. 

 

Jim

[Graham Boak]

Re the Mk.IC.  I should add that there is at least one photo of a trials example with four cannon, but this was later reported in service with the standard armament.  (Source Owen Dinsdale at Shuttleworth again, I believe.)   At this early stage the Air Ministry had not settled on a standard system for prefixes/suffixes to their marks, so back-reading the Hurricane Mk.II examples to the Mk.I just doesn't work.   The Beaufighter Mk.IC was equipped for coastal day fighter duties: the Spitfire Mk.IC for Air Sea Rescue.

[Max Headroom]

Hi Graham, you mean this one?

 

 

and if I remember rightly Arthur Bentley has drawn this example too.

 

Trevor

[Troy Smith]

HI Trevor

 

The above looks like a standard Sea Hurricane IIc,  note Mk.II radiator and carb intake, 'bullet' Rotol.

 

the  only image of a SH IC is this oft reproduced image

 

There is a photo of a cannon armed Hurricane with a shallow radiator,  which maybe a IC,  but even that looks to be a training unit, as it is being worked on by WRENS or WRAF.

I'll see if I can find the pic.

AH ha

"WAAF armourers and flight mechanics servicing a Hawker Hurricane Mk IIc at RAF Sealand"

 

 

 

AL Bentley did indeed draw the C wing in his Hurricane drawings.

 

cheers

T

Edited March 15, 2017 by Troy Smith
added photo

[Graham Boak]

The photo of V6741 is the one I had in mind, although I've a feeling there is another.  (Being so vague about it, it may well be a mis-captioned Mk.II anyway.  Sorry.)  The aircraft in the lower picture has a Mk.I radiator but a Mk.II wing/nose fairing.  I suspect a maintenance training airframe that has had bits removed and re-attached at various times.

[tonyot]

This is the other view of a Sea Hurri Mk.Ic that I have seen;

Tony

[airjiml2]

Troy says that the Sea Hurricane Mk. I suffixes were not related to wing armament.  Was this changed with the Mk. IIs?  For example, does a Sea Hurricane Mk. IIB have the 12 gun wing and a Sea Hurricane Mk. IIC the four cannons?  Are capitals correct or should the letter not be capitalized?

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

[gingerbob]

Those two photos of V6741 have the appearance of the standard "identification" photos taken at Boscombe Down when a new variation showed up, complete with captioning at lower right on one of them.  I don't see any mention of Sea Hurricanes in "The Secret Years", but there should be at least one A&AEE report on the aircraft.

 

bob