Sea Hurricane

[Bruce Archer]

I realized I know very little about Hurricanes, esp. Sea Hurricanes. As I have started new Airfix Sea Hurricane I have a question as to its designation. I know that 8-gunned Hurricanes are Hurricane Ia (or IIA) and 12 gunned a/c are I or IIB. But tthe Airfix Sea Hurricane, an 8 gunned a/c is designated as a Ib. Why?

 

Bruce

[Graham Boak]

The SH Mk.IA had catapult spools but no arrester gear, and were intended for the CAM ships - merchant ships with a catapult on the bow.

The SH Mk.IB had catapult spools and arrester gear, and were intended for service on the Fleet Carriers.

Plus, according to one much later source,

The SH Mk.IC had arrester gear but no catapult spools, and were intended for service on escort carriers. 

Forget the idea that there were any service 4-cannon SH Mk.IC - trials only and not adopted.

 

The use of sequential series of suffix for armament was not standardised at this time.  So, for example, the Beaufighter Mk.I came in two variants.  The Mk.IF was a night fighter and the Mk.IC was a long range day fighter for Coastal Command.  There were no Beaufighter Mk.IA, B, D or E.

 

Incidentally, there were no Hurricane Mk.IA or B - they were all 8-gunned Mk.Is, and there were no Spitfire Mk.IA nor F Mk.IXc either, but it is convenient to use the designations now, after the event.

 

However there were Hurricane Mk.IIA, B and C, and Sea Hurricanes Mk.IIB and IIC where the suffix had the same meaning as on the land-based fighters.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Graham Boak

[72modeler]

7 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

The SH Mk.IA had catapult spools but no arrester gear, and were intended for the CAM ships - merchant ships with a catapult on the bow.

The SH Mk.IB had catapult spools and arrester gear, and were intended for service on the Fleet Carriers.

Plus, according to one much later source,

The SH Mk.IC had arrester gear but no catapult spools, and were intended for service on escort carriers. 

Forget the idea that there were any service 4-cannon SH Mk.IC - trials only and not adopted.

 

The use of sequential series of suffix for armament was not standardised at this time.  So, for example, the Beaufighter Mk.I came in two variants.  The Mk.IF was a night fighter and the Mk.IC was a long range day fighter for Coastal Command.  There were no Beaufighter Mk.IA, B, D or E.

 

Incidentally, there were no Hurricane Mk.IA or B - they were all 8-gunned Mk.Is, and there were no Spitfire Mk.IA nor F Mk.IXc either, but it is convenient to use the designations now, after the event.

 

However there were Hurricane Mk.IIA, B and C, and Sea Hurricanes Mk.IIB and IIC were the suffix had the same meaning as on the land-based fighters.

Graham,

 

Not that it makes any difference for modeling either one, but did the SH Mk 1a's and b's have naval radio equipment replacing the standard radio fit?

Mike

[Fernando]

Hi, Graham,

 

Wasn't there (famously) a single 4x20mm cannon SH at Pedestal? If so, are you counting it as part of the "trials"?

 

Fernando

[Graham Boak]

The 4-cannon SH on Pedestal is a myth, despite its origin in the wartime HMSO booklet on the FAA.

 

I don't know which radios the RN used at this time, but if I had to make a suggestion it would be the same as that in tropicalised Spitfires, the earlier TR9D.

[detail is everything]

Is the following an explanation of the mythical 4-cannon SH on Pedestal ?

 

I quote...

 

It is fairly easy to fit a Merlin III into a "Mk.II" airframe - it was done on/for HMS Indomitable after the ship retained one Hurricane Mk.IIb whose engine went sick on a Java delivery. (or should that be Sumatra?). The aircraft simply becomes a rather heavy Mk.I.   This was an RAF Hurricane Mk.IIb (BD771) that went serviceable during a reinforcement mission to the Far East in 1942 and while the others took off, this one remained in the hangar of HMS Indomitable and was converted by the Fleet Air Arm lads of 880 NAS into a Sea Hurricane to fly alongside the Sea Hurricane MkIb`s (some say that the work was carried on aboard ship and others say that this occurred in Aden, I`d go for the former and that it was completed by the time the carrier reached Aden).

 

It retained its RAF Dark Earth, Dark Green and Sky Blue camouflage (which stands out against the others with their Temperate Sea Scheme) and it also retained its Vokes filter but it had Fleet Air Arm codes 7-Z added in Medium Sea Grey plus a Sky spinner and rear fuselage band (maybe yellow wing leading edges too?) and served with 880 NAS. It moved on to 759 NAS at Yeovilton as a fighter trainer during February 1943 but was written off in November 1943. For Pedestal it had the yellow fin too.

[Work In Progress]

Hard to see how that accounts for the notion of there being 4-cannon Sea Hurris on Pedestal. Not a 20mm in sight.

 

The original (spurious) tale is an extremely hardy and pervasive little information-virus, a sort of Japanese Knotweed of aviation history. It involves serious numbers of aeroplanes. It's still today declared to be the case on Wikipedia and several other internet sites claiming a degree of authority. e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane_variants#Sea_Hurricanes

 

"Sea Hurricane Mk IC

"Hurricane Mk I^[15] version equipped with catapult spools, an arrester hook and the four-cannon wing. From February 1942, 400 aircraft were converted. The Sea Hurricane IC used during Operation Pedestal had their Merlin III engines modified to accept 16 lb boost, and could generate more than 1400 hp at low altitude.^[16][17] Lt. R. J. Cork was credited with 5 kills while flying a Sea Hurricane IC during Operation Pedestal.^[18]"

 

[Graham Boak]

Mea Culpa here.  Despite what I said in my Pedestal article in Scale Aircraft Modelling, BD771 did not retain its RAF camouflage (as suggested from interpretation of b&w images), but was photographed on colour film in Temperate Sea Scheme.  This was published on DVD as part of a series on the RN at war.  As an 880 Sq aircraft it would have received yellow leading edges because 880 Sq retained the markings carried during its time land-based in the UK.  800 Sq did not adopt the Sky band and spinner nor the yellow trim on their SH, except where they were  retained on two transferred from 880 Sq.

 

One thing is surely right: as the 12-gun BD771 was considered too heavy and cumbersome, a 4-cannon Mk.I would have been even more so.

 

A couple of quibbles.  Well into the war, most of the maintenance crews in the FAA were RAF personnel, though what the state was on Indomitable from November 1941 onwards I don't know.  Also NAS was Naval Air Station, not Squadron, at this time.

 

PS (following WIP's cross-posting)  I think Mason claimed 100 Mk.Ic - unreal enough but 400 really is well over the top.  Sturtivant was unable to find any service examples in his history of FAA Aircraft.   I haven't heard (and don't believe) this story about 16lb boost on Merlin Mk.IIIs either.  I doubt that the engine was strong enough: but whether this is right or wrong Cork did complain of not being able to catch Ju88s at altitude in his SH, and had there been any such excess boost available it surely would have been mentioned in this context.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Graham Boak

[detail is everything]

Whilst I'm at it, I thought I'd bring up the question of Canadian manufactured Sea Hurricanes, how they were designated by the FAA, their noses and armament.

 

The following is compiled from other posts and my own research.  There are several questions contained within it. I apologize for the length of the post, but it is a rather complex subject.

 

Canadian built machines  

 

Mk. I - Merlin II or III powered Hurricane Mk.Is. They were not re-designated as Mk. Xs when this designation was introduced. These used engines and Watts or De Havilland propellers imported from the UK.

 

Mk. X – early (Merlin III? powered) Canadian built Hurricane Xs converted to Sea Hurricane standards were all initially classified either Mk.Ia or Mk.Ib by the RN depending on the accelerator/arrester fit.  Some machines were re-fitted with Merlin XXs as part of their conversion in the UK and became MK. IIb or Mk. IIc according to weapon fit.  Some later airframes may have retained their Merlin 28s when converted and also  been referred to as Mk. IIs (batch 3 doesn’t fit this pattern though).

 

Mk. XIs - similar to later Mk. Xs (manufactured with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings) but with Canadian specific equipment for RCAF use only.

 

Mk XII - these were a Canadian built MK IIs, armed with either  8/12 Mg's or 4 cannons, depending on whether they were rebuilds or new builds.  The Sea Hurricane conversions were classified as Mk.IIs by the RN.

 

Mk.XIIa  - with 8 guns (re-engined and re-built Mk. Xs)

 

Mk.XIIb  - with 12 guns (initial new builds)

 

Mk.XIIc  - with four cannon (later new builds?)

 

The Mk. X, XI and XII designations were used to identify Hurricanes manufactured in Canada. References state that these were manufactured with American manufactured Packard Merlin single-stage, two-speed 28/29 (Merlin XX equivalent) engines.

 

The Royal Navy didn’t differentiate between Canadian and British manufactured machines, referring to them as Mk. Is or Mk. IIs according to whether they had Merlin IIIs or Merlin XXs (or 28/29s if they were retained?). This is not surprising since I imagine operationally, there wouldn't have been fundamental differences between Canadian and UK built machines, especially when UK Merlin engines were fitted.   Operationally it would make no difference – the Merlin 28/29s were effectively Merlin XXs and hence "Mk.IIs" for all intents and purposes. It would have complicated the supply chain but this would also be true of the airframes, as you can guarantee Hawker and Canadian parts were generally not interchangeable. As long as they were restricted to a few escort carriers this could be managed. I would regard re-engineing as an unnecessary complication and delay.

 

Some references, for example the Airfile publication on Operation Torch, and the Aviation Workshop book on the Hurricane, refer to Sea Hurricane Mk. Xs and XIIs being used during operation Torch, but I don’t think these were designations recognized by the Royal Navy? Perhaps the last of the Canadian manufactured machines kept their Merlin 28/29s and they kept their Canadian designations accordingly?

The first production batch of Canadian Hurricanes (P5170 – P5209) were 40 Merlin II or III powered Hurricane Mk.Is. They were not re-designated as Mk. Xs when this designation was introduced. These used engines and Watts or De Havilland propellers imported from the UK. According to sources (see below)

 

The completed airframes were exported to the UK in between march and November 1940 and six airframes (P5180, P5182, P5187, P5203 and P5206) were subsequently operated by the Royal Navy. P5187 as a Sea Hurricane Mk. Ia and the rest as Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs.

 

Designation for the next Canadian production batch was then switched to the Mk X.  Canadian built Hurricane Xs converted to Sea Hurricane standards were often classified either Mk.Ia or Mk.Ib by the RN depending on the accelerator/arrester fit. Those which were re-engined with merlin XXs were classified as Mk. IIs.

 

This is where the confusion starts….

 

Most references state that Mk. Xs were manufactured with the single-stage, two-speed Merlin 28. This means that they would have had to have the Mk.II 4" nose extension required to accommodate the single-stage, two-speed Merlin. In which case why did the Royal Navy classify these long nosed airframes as Mk. Is when they classified other long nosed (Merlin XX powered) airframes Mk.IIs?

 

Long and short nosed Sea Hurricane Mk. Is?

 

On the face of it, the Sea Hurricane Mk. I designation did not relate to the engine and therefore in theory you could have had both long and short nosed Mk. Is. The only engine which seems to prompt a Mk. II designation was the Merlin XX. But is that really the case?

 

It is conceivable that all Sea Hurricanes sourced from Mk. X airframes did have the Mk. II extended nose. On carriers, where parts storage was limited, you would have thought they would have used the same DH Hurricane prop/spinners used by their short nosed companions, rather than the Rotol set-up usually seen on Mk. IIs? The oil spill ring was on all versions from the Mk.II onwards, but it can also be seen on late Mk.Is. It was certainly on some Sea Hurricane Mk.Is during Pedestal, so this isn’t necessarily an identification clue either. So (unless the Mk. Xs had the later articulated tailwheel) you would be relying on spotting the subtle 4” differences in the nose panels between the cockpit and the exhaust stack to spot the long nosed machines. However, photographic evidence tends to discount long nosed Mk. Is (see below).

 

Long and short nosed Mk. Xs?

 

It is claimed in another posting that the first production batch of Mk. Xs were in fact built with Merlin IIIs and that Hurricane XIIas were all rebuilt aircraft that started out as Merlin III powered RCAF Hurricane Xs or Sea Hurricane conversions of, which were rebuilt to XII standard with Packard Merlin 28s and associated longer noses, but retained the eight gun wings for their lifetime.

 

I assume that early Mk. X Sea Hurricane conversions were therefore delivered to the RN with the Merlin IIIs and short noses they were originally manufactured with, hence the Mk.I classification. If they were delivered with the long nose and then fitted with Merlin IIIs during the Sea Hurricane conversion process, you would have thought they would have retained the long nose (is that possible?) to help address the aft C of G issue? It is fairly easy to fit a Merlin III into a "Mk.II" airframe - it was done on/for HMS Indomitable after the ship retained one RAF Hurricane Mk.IIb whose engine went sick on a Java delivery. (or should that be Sumatra?). The aircraft simply becomes a rather heavy Mk.I.

 

As stated above, the first production batch of Canadian Hurricanes were 40 Merlin II or III powered Hurricane Mk.Is, fitted with engines imported from the UK. They were not referred to as Mk. Xs.

 

Designation for the second Canadian production batch was then switched to the Mk X (Mks. X upwards were allocated to Canadian built machines). I believe that that designation related to the country of manufacture and not necessarily the engine they were built with?

 

First production batch of Mk. Xs

 

Looking at Francis Mason’s book on the Hurricane and the Hurricane production details therein, then cross referencing with Sturtivant’s Air Britain book on FAA aircraft 1939-45, I note the following;

Production of the first Mk. X batch was split into three parts. Jackson says the first two parts of the first Mk. X production batch were built as Mk. Is with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings. Some being subsequently re-fitted with Merlin XXs in the UK and re-designated Mk. IIs. The third part was built as Mk. IIbs with Merlin 28s and mostly shipped to Russia.

 

Part 1

 

All of the first part (AE958 – AE977) were shipped to the UK in June 1940 before being converted into Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs in 1941. Four airframes were lost en route and four were initially delivered to 401 sqdn in Sept 1940 before (according to Sturtivant) also being converted to Sea Hurricanes Mk. Ibs in 1941.

 

Part 2

 

The second part (AF945 - AG344) were shipped to the UK in August 1940. 21 of the first 22 were converted to into Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs in 1941. The exception was AF961 which was fitted with cannons and used by 43 sqdn RAF. Sturtivant concurs with this, although a couple of airframes (AF958 and AF975) are described as Hurricane Is rather than Sea Hurricanes, despite being delivered to the Royal Navy.

 

Of the remaining airframes from this part, some were converted to Hurricane Mk. IIbs by 13MU Henlow through the fitting of Merlin XXs and some of these (AG292, AG332, AG334, AG335 and AG340) were used by the Royal Navy. AG292, AG334 and AG340 were later converted to Mk. IIcs.

 

Those not converted to either Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs or Hurricane Mk. IIs , remained classified as Mk. Xs but many had 12 gun or 4 cannon wings fitted.

 

Part 3

 

The third part (AG665 – AG684) were shipped to the UK in 1941 as Mk. IIb equivalents. The first six frames stayed in the UK, the rest were shipped to Russia. Of those that stayed in the UK, three airframes (AG666, AG667 and AG669) were used by the Royal Navy. Two (AG666 and AG667) were subsequently converted to Mk. IIcs in 1942. Sturtivant refers to the aircraft as Hurricane Mk. IIs and concurs with Jackson. No mention of fitting Merlin XXs is made but that isn’t to say it didn’t happen as per previous UK Mk. X to Mk. II conversions.

 

Discussion

 

Building Hurricanes as Mk. Is but with single-stage, two-speed Merlin 28s, seems to be a contradiction. This would suggest that the first part and at least some of the second part were built and exported as Mk. Is with Merlin IIIs (perhaps those engines leftover from those imported for the first Canadian production batch of hurricane Mk. Is?).

 

Photos of Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs in the AE958 –AF982 serial range confirm that there were no substantive differences in appearance between them and other UK built Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs. There are photos of such airframes (AF974 7●D, AF955 7●E and AE966 7●F) taken during or around the time of operation Pedestal. The Squadron/Signal book ‘Fleet Air Arm’ by Ron Mackay has several large photos of Pedestal deck scenes. Graham Boak has studied Pedestal Sea Hurricanes in detail, publishing an article in Scale Aircraft Modelling January 2000 and submitting posts on this forum. He sees only short noses, De Havilland props and 8 gun wings.

 

It might be that all the airframes from the first two parts were manufactured with Merlin IIIs, but that would mean that there were both short nose (parts 1 and 2) and long nose (part3 onwards) Mk.Xs. It has been said in other posts that there were in deed short and long nosed Mk. Xs. Those second part airframes converted in the UK to Mk. IIbs had Merlin XXs fitted so if they were exported as short nose Mk. Xs, they would have needed more than just an engine change. Alternatively they could have started fitting Merlin 28s in long nosed airframes post AF982 (during production of part 2). Photos of unconverted Mk.Xs in the AG101 – AG280 serial range would help confirm if they were exported with short or long noses.

 

Looking at the Air Britain RN Hurricane records, the first of the airframes from the second part to be classified as a Hurricane Mk. II is AG292. This and several of the subsequent part 2 airframes and three from the third part (AG666, AG667 and AG669)) are classified as Hurricane Mk. IIbs even though they were operated by Royal Navy squadrons. This is not unusual since many of the subsequent (UK built) Mk. II airframes used by the RN are referred to by Sturtivant as Hurricanes, rather than Sea Hurricanes.

 

Second production batch of Mk. Xs

 

The two Royal Navy operated airframes (AM277 and AM288) from the second production batch of of Mk. Xs (AM270 – AM369) continue this pattern, being referred to as Hurricane Mk. IIbs. Jackson states that this batch was shipped to the UK in 1941 with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings before being converted to Hurricane Mk. IIbs by 13MU Henlow in November 1941 through the fitting of Merlin XXs and 12 gun wings.

 

Third production batch of Mk. Xs

 

Interestingly, the three Royal Navy operated airframes (BW841, BW855 and BW856) from the third production batch of Mk. Xs (BW835 – BW884) are referred to by Sturtivant as Sea Hurricane Mk. Ias (BW841, BW855) and a Mk. Ib . Again, these were apparently manufactured with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings. Most were shipped to Russia with others kept for RCAF service. Perhaps they ‘missed the boat to Russia’ and were impressed into training service by the Royal Navy? But why the short nose Mk. I designation if they were fitted with Merlin 28s?

Did Sturtivant or the Royal Navy get it wrong, or were they imported with Merlin IIIs as per early production airframes? Jackson offers no airframe histories for this batch. No mention made of the fitting of Merlin XXs (or Merlin IIIs) in the UK, but that isn’t to say it didn’t happen as per previous UK conversions. Perhaps they retained their Packard Merlin 28s, thus attracting the Mk. I designation. Photos of other airframes from this batch would confirm whether they were built with Merlin IIIs (unless they were subsequently re-built as XIIas as suggested in other posts).

 

First production batch of Mk. XIs (and fourth production batch of Mk. Xs?)

 

References refer to Mk. XIs as similar to Mk. Xs (manufactured with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings) but with Canadian specific equipment for RCAF use only. However Jackson states that the majority of the batch (BW885 – BX134) were shipped to the UK and onwards to Russia, although a few were retained for RAF use. Another sources states that a batch of fifty (Mk. XIs) were mixed in with Mk IIs (Mk. Xs?) on UK contracts. The latter scenario would seem to resolve the contradiction.

 

Jackson gives airframe histories for three airframes (all RAF) only. Sturtivant identifies 8 Airframes from this batch which were operated by the Royal Navy ( BW886, BW900, BW911, BW921, BW929, BW991, BX126 and BX133). These are described as Sea Hurricane Mk. IIb (BW929, BW991, BX126 and BX133) and Mk. IIcs. No mention of the fitting of Merlin XXs, but that isn’t to say it didn’t happen as per previous UK Mk. II conversions.

 

First production batch of Mk. XIIs (and second production batch of Mk. XIs

 

Serials given are JS219-JS371 and JS374-JS468, no indication is given re the split between Mk. XIs and Mk. XIIs (perhaps first lot Mk. Xs and second lot Mk. XIIs?). Some were manufactured with Merlin 28s (Mk. XIs) and some with Merlin 29s (Mk. XIIs). What’s more, 185 were manufactured with 12 gun wings (Mk. XIbs and Mk. XIIbs) and 63 with four cannon wings (XIIcs). Again, no indication as to which airframes received which wings. Many shipped to Russia but some were retained.

 

Sturtivant lists the following airframes as Sea Hurricane Mk. IIbs. JS265, JS272, JS274, JS297, JS314, JS320, JS324, JS328, JS331, JS336, JS348, JS356, JS357. All but JS314 were converted to Mk. IIcs soon after transfer to the Admaralty in August/September 1942. Other airframes are noted as Sea Hurricane Mk. IIcs from the start (JS222, JS225, JS226, JS231 – JS233, JS235, JS241, JS248, JS253, JS260, JS261, JS269, JS270, JS272, JS273, JS280, JS292, JS304, JS310, JS318, JS319, JS327, JS332, JS333, JS335, JS339, JS345, JS346, JS351, and JS353 – JS355). No mention of the fitting of Merlin XXs on arrival, but that isn’t to say it didn’t happen as per previous UK conversions.

 

Conclusion

 

So in conclusion, the first one and a half (possibly two) parts of first Mk. X production batch was delivered with Merlin IIIs and 8 gun wings.

 

Subsequent airframes from the first and second production batches were delivered to the UK with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings where many were converted to Hurricane Mk. IIbs through the fitting of Merlin XXs and, in some cases, 12 gun wings. Many were later converted to Mk. IIcs with cannon wings.

 

The third production batch of Mk. Xs don’t fit the pattern since the three Royal Navy operated airframes are referred to as Mk. Is.

It might be that;

1. the Sturtivant references are wrong,
2. they were fitted with Merlin IIIs or
3. they were fitted with Merlin 28s and not re-fitted with Merlin XXs and the Royal Navy regarded these as Mk. Is, despite the longer nose.

Subsequent Royal navy operated airframes from production batches of Mk. X, XI and XIIs are referred to as Sea Hurricane Mk. IIs by Sturtivant, although it is not noted whether they retained their Packard Merlin 28/29s or were re-fitted with Merlin XXs, once they arrived in the UK.

 

For operation Torch, references tend to refer to cannon armed versions as Mk. Xs and 12 gun versions as Mk. XIIs, but it clearly isn’t that simple since all three versions were probably present with differing armament.

This engine confusion surrounding Mk. X production is also why there is so much confusion as to what is a Hurricane XIIa and a Hurricane XII.

 

XIIs were all new built aircraft (originally called Hurricane IIB(Can)) in the 5*** serial range. They had 12 gun or four cannon wings and were powered by Packard Merlin 29s.

 

The Hurricane XIIa were all rebuilt aircraft that started out as Merlin III powered RCAF Hurricane Xs or Sea Hurricane conversions of and were rebuilt to XII standard with Packard Merlin 28s and associated longer noses, but retained the eight gun wings for their lifetime.

Edited November 13, 2017 by detail is everything

[Troy Smith]

42 minutes ago, detail is everything said:

Is the following an explanation of the mythical 4-cannon SH on Pedestal ?

 

 

I doubt it.   The plane referred to is a IIb,  and note, if you take the outer wing guns out of a IIb you get basically a IIa. 

 

the Sea Hurricane IC was planned,  in Hurricats by Ralph Barker he mentions the IC was supposed to be for CAM ships,  where the cannons would make more sense for anti U-boat and Fw 200 attacks,  though as @Graham Boak  has often pointed out the IIc was heavy and cumbersome,  so how effective that would have been.

Maybe the reason it was never made in quanity.

this pic does not help

 

which has been in nearly every Hurricane book.

7 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

The original (spurious) tale is an extremely hardy and pervasive little information-virus, a sort of Japanese Knotweed of aviation history. It involves serious numbers of aeroplanes. It's still today declared to be the case on Wikipedia and several other internet sites claiming a degree of authority

 

And every Hurricane book I own or have seen!    If there is one that does not repeat this, I have not seen it.

AFAIK this dates back to the work of Francis K Mason,  who worked for Hawkers and was "the authority" 

As I have lamented before, the Hurricane is not the Spitfire,  and is frequently overshadowed, and thus there seems to be a lack of actual primary source research.   There is a lot of information out there, but it's not been sorted through and made generally available. (see recent comments on the Hurricane IV) 

 

regarding the Sea Hurricane IC,  @Graham Boak  posted this here

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

On 21/6/2011 at 09:21, Test Graham said:

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?

 

and

On 4/5/2015 at 11:18, Graham Boak said:

The wartime HMSO publication on the Fleet Air Arm claimed that the cannon-armed Sea Hurricane (i.e. Mk.Ic) was in action on HMS Indomitable during Operation Pedestal (August 1942), and this was linked to FAA ace "Dicky" Cork of 881 Sq. . This didn't happen, according to the armourer on 881 Sq at the time. F.K. Mason claimed that 100 Mk.Ic were built, but other than two test examples these have completely evaded all photographs, serial records, squadron records, personal memoirs, historical accounts... One of the two examples armed this way was later recorded as a standard Mk.Ib. It seems likeliest that the Mk.I was judged as being overloaded with four of the heavy Hispanos and their ammunition.

The Revell kit is of the Mk.IIc, which is quite another matter. It was favoured on Arctic missions because of the firepower against the armoured Bv138 shadowers, but also came in useful against U-boats on this and other duties.

 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

Just to clarify, the difference between a Sea Hurricane and a Hurricane in RN service was whether the aircraft had or had not been through General Aviation's conversion programme.  RN Hurricanes did not serve on carriers, nor generally (Desert use excepted) see combat, but served in training units (700-series squadrons).  Similarly RN Spitfires vs Seafires and Mosquitos vs Sea Mosquitos.  I can't think of another example offhand, perhaps you can?

 

SH Mk.IIs seem to have used the "bullet" Rotol (designed to fit the Hurricane' smaller nose diameter)  rather than the DH, even on carriers.  If you are changing other spares then not swapping the props wouldn't have been considered.  Small beer, really.  This prop was seen on late RAF Mk.Is and all later RAF marks.

 

The photo of V6741 lacks Royal Navy markings, but does have both hook and spools - something not seen on CAM-ship SH.  The Navy was definitely interested in the 4 cannon variant for the reasons given - hence their disappointment when this was ruled out for the Seafire.

[Troy Smith]

15 minutes ago, detail is everything said:

Whilst I'm at it, I thought I'd bring up the question of Canadian manufactured Sea Hurricanes, how they were designated by the FAA, their noses and armament.

 

The following is compiled from other posts and my own research.  There are several questions contained within it. I apologize for the length of the post, but it is a rather complex subject.

 

which sums up the point about lack of "back to primary source" research.

You have hit another complex area, Canadian Hurricanes, even before you get to Sea Hurricanes! 

@airjiml2 Jim Bates posted some of your post in his A Scale Canadian blog 

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

 

24 minutes ago, detail is everything said:

Subsequent Royal navy operated airframes from production batches of Mk. X, XI and XIIs are referred to as Sea Hurricane Mk. IIs by Sturtivant, although it is not noted whether they retained their Packard Merlin 28/29s or were re-fitted with Merlin XXs, once they arrived in the UK.

 

one point about Packard Merlins,  from reading on Lancasters,  the Packard Merlin's were not interchangeable parts wise with RR Merlins, even having their own specific  toolkit (which was made of better quality metal and much liked ) so just from spares commonality it's liable that  Merlin XX's were used.

(also, this is noted in aircraft Mks,  Lancaster I, Spitfire IX -  Rolls Royce Merlin, Lancaster III, Spitfire XVI -  Packard Merlin, even though the rest of the airframe was the same)

 

I'll have a really careful read of your post later and see if I can clarify anything.

maybe @tango98  can pitch in, he's got lots of Hurricane references  

 

[ClaudioN]

17 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

this pic does not help

 

which has been in nearly every Hurricane book.

This picture is typically cropped (in Mason's book, for instance), so that the date is seldom seen. It' s April 1943! By that time, escort carriers were getting Sea Hurricane Mk.IICs, or Martlet/Wildcat Mk.Vs

 

In the IWM collections there seems to be a whole set of reference photographs for the whole Hurricane family (a picture of Hurricane Mk. IV KX877 is also dated April 1943).

 

SEA HURRICANE (HAWKER) MARK IA. © IWM (MH 6469)IWM Non Commercial Licence

 

Among the subjects is Sea Hurricane Mk.IA Z4852, never recorded on RN charge and possibly a former Merchant Ship Fighter Unit (MSFU) machine. The same April 1943 date is given, with IWM ref. no. MH6469. The Mk.IA is noted as "used from merchant ships".
The Mk.IC picture is IWM ref. no. MH6470. The next, IWM ref. no. MH6471, shows Sea Hurricane Mk.IIC NF717. The MK.IIC is noted as "flown from aircraft carriers". Nothing is said about how the Mk.IC was employed, which may possibly point at something.

Incidentally, the last 24 Mk.IICs delivered by Hawkers, NF716-NF739, were all taken on charge by the Royal Navy in May 1943 according to Sturtivant (NF717 went to No. 748 Squadron at St. Merryn). At the time the picture above was taken, the Mk.IC must have been little more than a curiosity.

 

Note these aircraft are all nice and clean in spite of previous service use, at least for V6741. It seems like they have been "prepared" for a photo session.
 

Jim Bates provided an extensive account of Canadian-built Hurricanes and Sea Hurricanes. Summarising:

1. Canadian-built Hurricanes were typically received in Britain as engine-less airframes;
2. even later Canadian-built airframes that were possibly shipped with a Packard Merlin, seemingly did not actually use it and the US-built Merlins went to Lancasters instead;
3. FAA Mk.I airframes (shorter nose) received the Merlin Mk.III;
4. FAA Mk.II airframes (longer nose) received the Merlin Mk.XX;
5. a few Canadian-built Mk.I airframes may have been turned into Mk.IIs by conversion kits;
6. Mk.X and Mk.XI appear to have been unofficial (Hawker?) designations;
7. Mk.XII was the official designation for the Canadian-built RCAF Hurricanes. What makes a Mk.XII is the use of a Packerd Merlin 29 with a US-manufactured Hamilton standard propeller;
8. the Merlin 28 and Merlin 29 were both Packard-built variants of the Merlin XX. They differed because the 28 had a British SBAC standard propeller shaft, while the 29 had the US SAE standard shaft;
9. Canadian-built Mk.II airframes had the 12-gun wing. They were shipped to the UK during the build-up for Operation Torch and as many as possible (but not all) were converted to the four-cannon wing;
10. Sea Hurricane Mk.IIs taking part in Operation Torch were only the Canadian-built ones. Deliveries from Hawkers followed from December 1942.

HTH

Claudio

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by ClaudioN

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

On 13/11/2017 at 2:10 PM, Graham Boak said:

Also NAS was Naval Air Station, not Squadron, at this time.

I am definitely no expert on Sea Hurricanes, so I’m sure your info is correct concerning them... but this assertion is definitely not true. NAS meaning “Naval Air Station” is a USN usage and always has been; RN airfields are RNAS and/or HMS (e.g. RNAS Arbroath / HMS Condor).  That is true now and was true during the war.  

 

Naval squadrons have always (at least, since recovering control of the FAA in 1938) used the terms “Naval Air Squadron” / “NAS” and simply “Squadron” pretty much interchangeably in everyday speech/writing - but officially they have always been Naval Air Squadron.  My father’s WW2 logbook has an invitation to a 1945 Christmas party in it, which clearly says “the Commanding Officer 810 Naval Air Squadron...”.  He also recorded his appointments as (for example) “744 NAS” in the back.  

 

While I was serving on 820 NAS 40 years later, I was privileged to do some research into 820’s WW2 records (I’d broken my arm playing rugby and was grounded, and the Boss didn’t seem to share my view that this meant some extra leave!).  They too regularly used the term “820 Naval Air Squadron” in some contemporary documents - and simply “820 Squadron” in others.

[StevSmar]

On 12/11/2017 at 3:12 PM, Graham Boak said:

.... Forget the idea that there were any service 4-cannon SH Mk.IC - trials only and not adopted....

1

That explains Hawker's photograph that's available of the MkIc then. I did not know that none ever entered service. It makes sense, the poor old MkIc with cannon (and arrestor gear? Can't recall) must have been a bit sluggish.

[Troy Smith]

21 minutes ago, StevSmar said:

That explains Hawker's photograph that's available of the MkIc then. I did not know that none ever entered service. It makes sense, the poor old MkIc with cannon (and arrestor gear? Can't recall) must have been a bit sluggish.

 

 

On 13/11/2017 at 14:31, Troy Smith said:

this pic does not help

 

which has been in nearly every Hurricane book.