Geoffrey Sinclair

41-39416 delivered 1 December 1944 at Long Beach. The 416th Bomb Group officially converted from A-20 to A-26 on 6 November 1944, the last A-20 mission being on 17 October, first A-26 mission on 17 November. "Glass nose Invaders were not available in England at this time, and so the group retained its glass nose bombardier A-20J and A-20K aircraft to lead flights and boxes." The 409th converted on 29 November 1944, leaving the 410th as the only A-20 Group. The 323rd group went from B-26 to A-26 on 14 February 1945, the 391st on 10 April 1945.

There is a higher quality reproduction of the photograph on page 104 of The 9th Air Force in World War II by Kenn C. Rust. The serial number is quite clear for example. It also shows up the contrasts better. The anti glare panel is a different tone to the cowl ring. The 373rd Fighter Group identification colour was black, the stripes on the tail and the cowl ring. Main problem is the book says the 410th squadron did not use a cowl ring, the photograph has a ring about the size of that used by the 411th squadron but then again it seems the cowl ring was fairly optional. 42-25845 was a P-47D-22-RE, from Farmingdale, delivered 1 March 1944.

Looks like the first production of De Havilland 4 blade propellers for Typhoon I, Tempest I and II was in December 1942 and the one made was lacking a Constant Speed Unit. In January 1943 the model numbers are included, propeller D3/446/1, CSU is BY 11. In February 1943 now for Typhoon I, Tempest I, propeller model numbers D3/446/1, D6/446/2 In April 1943 the first mention of spinner production by aircraft model, zero made in the month for Tempests. In May 1943 propellers are now for Typhoon I, Tempest I, V, still no spinner production. In June 1943 first spinner production for Typhoon I, Tempest I, V. In July 1943, spinner production for Typhoon I and Tempest V listed separately to that for Tempest I. In October 1943 Spinner production for Typhoon I, Tempest I and V all in one total. In October 1943 first mention of Rotol 4 bladed propellers for Tempest II, no production. In April 1944 De Havilland propellers, CSUs and spinners now for Typhoon I, Tempest V In June 1944 first production of Rotol 4 bladed propellers and spinners for Tempest II. CSU seem to be the generic GRF and GR/GL. In October 1944 first mention of Rotol 4 bladed propellers and spinners for Tempest V, no production. CSU for De Havilland now BY 11, 13, 14 In November 1944 first production of Rotol 4 bladed propellers and spinners for Tempest V, Rotol model numbers given for the first time, the propeller for the Tempest II is R21/4B6/6. De Havilland CSU now BY 13, 14. December 1944, first mention of propellers for Tempest VI, to be a Rotol, no production. Tempest II CSU model given for first time, CGR. De Havilland CSU now BY 14. February 1945 end production De Havilland 4 bladed propellers for Typhoon and Tempest. Rotol model numbers are mark II R21/4B6/6, mark V R32/4B6/7, mark VI R35/4B6/7, still no production for mark VI. CSU for Tempest V and VI GRF and GLF. Tempest II CGR. May 1945 last production of Rotol Tempest V propellers. September 1945 first production of Tempest VI propellers.

Looking at the USAAF delivery logs. Long Beach built A-26B from September 1943 to July 1945, plus 1 A-26C in May and 4 in July 1944. First Acceptance of model 3-Sep-43 A-26B-1 29-Dec-43 A-26B-5 10-Mar-44 A-26B-10 10-May-44 A-26B-15 20-Jul-44 A-26B-20 5-Oct-44 A-26B-25 14-Nov-44 A-26B-30 6-Dec-44 A-26B-35 20-Dec-44 A-26B-40 31-Jan-45 A-26B-45 17-Mar-45 A-26B-50 2-Apr-45 A-26B-51 13-Apr-45 A-26B-55 24-May-45 A-26B-56 25-May-45 A-26B-60 26-May-45 A-26B-61 7-Jul-45 A-26B-66 41-39152 on 31 May 1944 as A-26B-15, redesignated A-26C-1 18 July. 11-Jul-44 A-26C-2 Notes on A-26B-15, 43-39180 became A-26B-30? 43-39183 to 39192, 41-39194 and 41-39196 to 39198 became A-26B-16? Tulsa built 1 A-26B in January 1944 then A-26B production March 1944 to January 1945, A-26C production September 1944 to July 1945. First Acceptance of model 31-Jan-44 A-26B-5 24-Jun-44 A-26B-10 24-Aug-44 A-26B-15 8-Sep-44 A-26C-16 23-Sep-44 A-26C-15 13-Nov-44 A-26B-20 14-Nov-44 A-26C-20 23-Dec-44 A-26C-25 29-Dec-44 A-26B-25 5-Mar-45 A-26C-30 30-Mar-45 A-26C-35 26-Apr-45 A-26C-40 14-May-45 A-26C-45 24-May-45 A-26C-50 17-Jul-45 A-26C-55

Piper Cub, British Import report says 4 arrived in the Middle East in March 1943, Serial Registers 3 taken on charge 14 April 1943, 1 on 1 May 1943, 1 Category E 29 February 1944, one struck off but brought back on charge, 1 unknown fate, 1 returned to US. Serials HK936 to HK939, with HK939 returned. The 30 August 1945 statement on Lend Lease aircraft says 4 Piper Cub received, 3 already lost. Air Arsenal North America says they were originally meant to have the serials FR886 to FR889. USAAF Delivery Logs say 43-743, 750, 751 and 787 all accepted in September 1942 allocated to Britain. They were not exported until 1943. Stinson L-5 Sentinal, 100 received by the RAF, 44 lost by 30 August 1945. Import report, 40 mark I, 60 mark II, arrived in India August, September and October 1944 and January 1945, with 40 in September and 20 in the other months.

Martlet I delivery dates according to the RAF, all to RNAS Donibristle except AL252 which does not have a delivery date as such, the date given is when to Scottish Aviation Prestwick. AL236 13-Nov-40 AL237 23-Nov-40 AL238 09-Nov-40 AL239 07-Dec-40 AL240 13-Nov-40 AL241 09-Nov-40 AL242 27-Nov-40 AL243 08-Dec-40 AL244 17-Dec-40 AL245 11-Dec-40 AL246 10-Dec-40 AL247 02-Jan-41 AL248 13-Dec-40 AL249 13-Dec-40 AL250 02-Dec-40 AL251 13-Dec-40 AL252 29-Oct-41 AL253 02-Jan-41 AL254 27-Dec-40 AL255 17-Dec-40 AL256 27-Dec-40 AL257 17-Dec-40 AL258 30-Nov-40 AL259 28-Nov-40 AL260 04-Feb-41 AL261 27-Nov-40 AL262 27-Nov-40

Not sure I can help that much. AW207 was taken on charge in May 1941, 18 MU on 1 June, 86 squadron on 20 June, lost on a mine laying mission to the Freise Gat 24 November 1941. Shot down by flak. It was amongst the last of the initial mark I production, mark II started in September 1941, mark I production resumed in February 1942. The beam guns began being fitted in May 1940, a field modification, The semi circular plates behind the nacelles began to be fitted in mid 1941, just in time to discover the larger diameter Wasps in the mark II did not need them. The plates were retrofitted to earlier mark I production. As the Beaufort is known as a torpedo bomber there do not seem to be any published references describing the mine carrying arrangement. The mines came in at about 1,500 pounds, 9 feet long, slightly smaller diameter than the torpedoes which were 16 feet 3 inches long, 1,548 pounds (mark XII) and 17 feet 2.75 inches long, 1,801 pounds (mark XV), I expect the mine could be carried in the bomb bay, unlike the torpedo.

I assume the need to wait a year was the difficulty in finding anyone to support the claims. I suppose you are aware of the many errors in Clostermann's books, which means his claims need some sort of backup? Its a great read, but not an accurate memoir. And the roll rate of an Fw190 was superior to the Spitfire, enabling it to initiate a turn quicker.

Australian Archives Series A705 Control Symbol 9/53/27 is DTS [Directorate Technical Services] - Spitfire Aircraft - Performance comparison - tropical and non-tropical types, it is 72 pages, the differences are small speed wise but larger for full throttle height. The file can be read online at the archives site. https://www.lancasterbombers.net/form-78-aircraft-movement-cards/ has the Individual aircraft cards (RAF Form 78) for most of the bombers built in WWII, the site also has accident and loss cards.

No details on Tomahawk configurations or for painting as received by the RAF. This is the USAAF report on acceptances and exports of the first 100 Tomahawks, note the delays in exporting and so the time available for reworking, Jun-40, 6, 0 Jul-40, 20, 0 Aug-40, 47, 1 Sep-40, 27, 22 Oct-40, 0, 76 Nov-40, 0, 1 Also 36 from the second order were accepted in September, none exported, in October 109 accepted, 49 exported. The Tomahawk I is generally considered a P-40 with an extra gun in each wing, according to the RAF it has an Allison C.15 engine, with 2x0.5" in the fuselage and 4x0.303" in the wings. The RAF documentation I have only has I, not Ia or Ib. The Tomahawk IIA is reported approximately like the P-40B, but the Tomahawk I was built October and November 1940, the P-40B February to May 1941. The Tomahawk IIB is reported approximately like the P-40C but again the IIB was built November 1940 to July 1941, the P-40C March to May 1941. So in both cases the Tomahawk came months earlier than its reported P-40 equivalent. The USAAF reports the P-40 All metal, low wing monoplane, with two 0.50 cal. synchronised machine guns and two 0.30 cal. machine guns, one in each wing. Radio command set SCR-183, filter RC-32, throat microphone P-20-A, amplifier RC-19, armour plate, bulletproof windshield, leakproof tanks installed in service. P-40B Similar to P-40 except as follows: Armour plate in front and rear of pilot; bulletproof windshield; leakproof fuel tanks; four 0.30 cal. wing guns instead of two; command set SCR-283; camouflage finish. P-40C: P-40B modified with internal leakproof cell fuel tank instead of external covering. Radio set SCR-274N

To confirm things, agreed the Spitfire landed on Indomitable after flying off Furious bound for Malta? Operation Bellows/Grinnel 40 Spitfires on Furious, 1 did not take off, 1 landed on Indomitable.

P3728 Shipped ME via the cape in July 1940, 33Sq 26-9-40 CB FB 10-12-40 SOC 22-4-41 P3725 Shipped ME via the cape in July 1940 P3721 Shipped ME via the cape in July 1940, Iraq 31-7-41 SOC 31-3-43 P3763, P3818, P3822 and P3819 were part of the HMS Argus delivery to Takoradi in August 1940. V7492, V7566 were part of the HMS Furious delivery to Takoradi in November/December 1940 V7728 Shipped ME via Takoradi, flew out of Takoradi 22 March 1941. Reported DBR in air raid Mersa Matruh 14-7-41 There was no Hurricane V3818. What the RAAF calls the 3 squadron history sheets are available from the Australian Archives, as PDF files but they are big, or you can read and download 1 page at a time. 3 Squadron SAAF formed in South Africa in September 1940, operated Hurricane I as part of the East African campaign, Pre war the SAAF received L1708, L1710, L1711, L1874, L1875, L1876 and L1909, which ended up with SAAF serials. Next were 9 Hurricanes exported in August and 8 in September 1940, plus another 7 that ended up in Kenya direct, all officially exported for South Africa, any further ones would need to come from Middle East stocks. If anyone has details, like ship names full dates etc. the information would be appreciated Some were on the Burdwan and others City of Eastbourne, some had SAAF serials allocated, P3233, P3250, P3251, P3252, P3253, P3254, P3257, P3258, P3259, P3262, P8815, P8817, R4082, R4083, R4103, R4104, V7276, V7277, V7278, V7279, V7280, V7281, V7282, V7283

USN Record of Acceptances. I: Grumman 200 TBF-1 FN750 to FN949, 2 TBF-1 JZ101 and JZ102 which were BuNos 24441 and 24442, then TBF-1C JZ103 to JZ300. II: Eastern RN TBM-1 received serials JZ301 to JZ361, the TBM-1C JZ361 to 634. This is a correction to my previous message, 60 -1 and 214 -1C III: RN TBM-3 were JZ635 to JZ746. The RN TBM-3E were KE430 to KB509. Eastern began TBM-3 production in June 1944 and -3 and -3E in parallel May to September 1945. Eastern stopped building TBM-3 for the RN in June 1945, then built 50 TBM-3E in July and 30 in August for the RN. The USN Airplane Serial Record for the RN TBM-3E is headlined KE430 to 609, which is 180 aircraft, entries stop at KE509 accepted 28 August 1945. Clearly not all were delivered to the RN. Eastern for RN, 60 TBM-1, 274 TBM-1C, 112 TBM-3, 80 TBM-3E, total 526 First column is RN serial order, second USN BuNo. 30 TBM-1 BuNo 24766 to 24795 = RN JZ301 to JZ330 \\ 26 TBM-1C BuNo 16967 to 16992 = RN JZ501 to JZ526 30 TBM-1 BuNo 24876 to 24905 = RN JZ331 to JZ360 \\ 8 TBM-3 BuNo 23257 to 23264 = RN JZ635 to JZ642 30 TBM-1C BuNo 25076 to 25105 = RN JZ361 to JZ390 \\ 8 TBM-3 BuNo 23615 to 23622 = RN JZ643 to JZ650 30 TBM-1C BuNo 25226 to 25255 = RN JZ391 to JZ420 \\ 30 TBM-1 BuNo 24766 to 24795 = RN JZ301 to JZ330 20 TBM-1C BuNo 25336 to 25355 = RN JZ421 to JZ440 \\ 30 TBM-1 BuNo 24876 to 24905 = RN JZ331 to JZ360 20 TBM-1C BuNo 25446 to 25465 = RN JZ441 to JZ460 \\ 30 TBM-1C BuNo 25076 to 25105 = RN JZ361 to JZ390 20 TBM-1C BuNo 25556 to 25575 = RN JZ461 to JZ480 \\ 30 TBM-1C BuNo 25226 to 25255 = RN JZ391 to JZ420 20 TBM-1C BuNo 25676 to 25695 = RN JZ481 to JZ500 \\ 20 TBM-1C BuNo 25336 to 25355 = RN JZ421 to JZ440 26 TBM-1C BuNo 16967 to 16992 = RN JZ501 to JZ526 \\ 20 TBM-1C BuNo 25446 to 25465 = RN JZ441 to JZ460 23 TBM-1C BuNo 45570 to 45592 = RN JZ527 to JZ549 \\ 20 TBM-1C BuNo 25556 to 25575 = RN JZ461 to JZ480 23 TBM-1C BuNo 45843 to 45865 = RN JZ550 to JZ572 \\ 20 TBM-1C BuNo 25676 to 25695 = RN JZ481 to JZ500 23 TBM-1C BuNo 46141 to 46163 = RN JZ573 to JZ595 \\ 23 TBM-1C BuNo 45570 to 45592 = RN JZ527 to JZ549 23 TBM-1C BuNo 73136 to 73158 = RN JZ596 to JZ618 \\ 23 TBM-1C BuNo 45843 to 45865 = RN JZ550 to JZ572 8 TBM-1C BuNo 73359 to 73366 = RN JZ619 to JZ626 \\ 23 TBM-1C BuNo 46141 to 46163 = RN JZ573 to JZ595 8 TBM-1C BuNo 73467 to 73474 = RN JZ627 to JZ634 \\ 13 TBM-3 BuNo 53171 to 53183 = RN JZ721 to JZ733 8 TBM-3 BuNo 23257 to 23264 = RN JZ635 to JZ642 \\ 13 TBM-3 BuNo 53509 to 53521 = RN JZ734 to JZ746 8 TBM-3 BuNo 23615 to 23622 = RN JZ643 to JZ650 \\ 8 TBM-3 BuNo 68328 to 68335 = RN JZ651 to JZ658 8 TBM-3 BuNo 68328 to 68335 = RN JZ651 to JZ658 \\ 8 TBM-3 BuNo 68632 to 68639 = RN JZ659 to JZ666 8 TBM-3 BuNo 68632 to 68639 = RN JZ659 to JZ666 \\ 14 TBM-3 BuNo 69140 to 69153 = RN JZ667 to JZ680 14 TBM-3 BuNo 69140 to 69153 = RN JZ667 to JZ680 \\ 14 TBM-3 BuNo 69479 to 69492 = RN JZ681 to JZ694 14 TBM-3 BuNo 69479 to 69492 = RN JZ681 to JZ694 \\ 23 TBM-1C BuNo 73136 to 73158 = RN JZ596 to JZ618 13 TBM-3 BuNo 85738 to 85750 = RN JZ695 to JZ707 \\ 8 TBM-1C BuNo 73359 to 73366 = RN JZ619 to JZ626 13 TBM-3 BuNo 86076 to 86088 = RN JZ708 to JZ720 \\ 8 TBM-1C BuNo 73467 to 73474 = RN JZ627 to JZ634 13 TBM-3 BuNo 53171 to 53183 = RN JZ721 to JZ733 \\ 13 TBM-3 BuNo 85738 to 85750 = RN JZ695 to JZ707 13 TBM-3 BuNo 53509 to 53521 = RN JZ734 to JZ746 \\ 13 TBM-3 BuNo 86076 to 86088 = RN JZ708 to JZ720 50 TBM-3E BuNo 91229 to 91278 = RN KE430 to KE479 \\ 50 TBM-3E BuNo 91229 to 91278 = RN KE430 to KE479 30 TBM-3E BuNo 91479 to 91508 = RN KE480 to KE509 \\ 30 TBM-3E BuNo 91479 to 91508 = RN KE480 to KE509

F3A production run, first column is acceptances for the month, the others columns are on site worker hours per aircraft, that is excluding sub contractor time. F4U production began in July 1942, FG in April 1943. Month \ No. F3A \ F3A \ F4U \ FG Jun-43 \ 2 \ 16000 \ 8645 \ 37750 Jul-43 \ 3 \ 16000 \ 7736 \ 18320 Aug-43 \ 0 \ 16000 \ 7106 \ 18320 Sep-43 \ 8 \ 16000 \ 6477 \ 14303 Oct-43 \ 27 \ 31000 \ 5810 \ 12175 Nov-43 \ 28 \ 28000 \ 5322 \ 10330 Dec-43 \ 68 \ 18500 \ 5176 \ 9944 Jan-44 \ 61 \ 17322 \ 4980 \ 9438 Feb-44 \ 78 \ 15265 \ 4640 \ 8250 Mar-44 \ 100 \ 13905 \ 4305 \ 7500 Apr-44 \ 119 \ 12824 \ 4221 \ 5500 May-44 \ 122 \ n/a \ 3895 \ 5000 Jun-44 \ 102 \ n/a \ 3717 \ 4200 Jul-44 \ 17 \ n/a \ 3526 \ 4400 Brewster had about a third of worker hours per aircraft done by subcontractors, Vought and Goodyear were about 40% to 45% in 1943, going to 50% in 1944. So add 50% to the Brewster numbers and multiply the others by 1.66 to 2 for total hours per aircraft. The SB2A was not a great design but in worker hours per pound Brewster was similar to Curtiss SB2C production.

Time to check data. According to what I have Grumman switched from TBF-1 to TBF-1C in July 1943, building 1,524 TBF-1 and 764 TBF-1C, with BuNo 24443 the first TBF-1C. The RN received from Grumman 200 TBF-1 FN750 to FN949, 2 TBF-1 JZ101 and JZ102 which were BuNos 24441 and 24442, then TBF-1C JZ103 to JZ300, the RN actually receiving the first 14 TBF-1C built, BuNos 24443 to 24456. The production change over actually happened in a batch of 20 BuNos for the RN, 24437 to 24456 = FN946 to FN949, JZ100 to JZ115. BuNo 393 was the XTBF-1, 24141 and 24341 were the XTBF-3. It may simply be an error but the USN report only uses TBF-1B for the first 60 for the RN. For some reason Eastern built BuNos 24521 to 25070 as TBM-1, then BuNos 16792 to 17091 as TBM-1C, then BuNos 25071 to 25720 which were -1C except 25175, 25521 and 25700 as XTBM-3. The -1 to -1C change over being in September 1943. The RN TBM-1 received serials JZ301 to JZ500, the TBM-1C JZ501 to 634. Again there was a serial reversal, the final TBM-1C were BuNos 73117 to 73498, the first TBM-3 were BuNos 68062 to 59538. The RN TBM-3 were JX635 to JZ746. The RN TBM-3E were KE430 to KB509. Eastern began TBM-3 production in June 144, ending -1C in September and produced -3 and -3E in parallel May to September 1945. It is actually quite useful that Eastern filled the RN requisition in serial number order, unlike what it did for the USN, it helps track BuNo production order. The information I have is 430 Corsair III/F-3A to the RN, 69 retained in US, rest exported. From the Admiralty Fleet Orders, https://www.navy.gov.au/sea-power-centre/spc-publications 1944 335.—Aircraft—Avenger (late Tarpon) (TBF-1, TBM-1 and TBM-3)—Interchangeability of Spare Parts (N.S. 05660/43.—20 Jan. 1944.) Avenger (late Tarpon) I (TBF-1) is manufactured by the Grumman Aircraft Corporation and Avenger II (TBM-1) and Avenger III (TBM-3) by General Motors Corporation, Eastern Aircraft Division, and for all practical purposes interchangeability between the products of the two manufacturers should be regarded as non-existent although both manufacturers apply the same part numbers to spares performing equivalent functions. For this reason the composition of individual squadrons will as far as possible be confined to aircraft from one manufacturer, i.e. either TBF or TBM. 2. On receipt from America of airframe spares for these types into store depots in the United Kingdom and abroad, great care must be taken to identify the parts by the type symbol (TBF or TBM) shown on the invoice (form 600) and the manufacturer’s tab attached to each part. Spares for the two types must also be stowed and accounted for separately. 3. All demands on store depots for Avenger airframe spares must indicate the Mark number and maker of the aircraft for which the spares are required, in order to avoid the possibility of supply of spares which may prove to be unsuitable. It should be noted, however, that although the majority of the spares are not “interchangeable” as between the aircraft built by the two manufacturers, many will be found to be “replaceable,” that is, capable of being fitted, with some adjustment by drilling or reaming, to the aircraft produced by the other manufacturer. Consequently, store depots in dealing with demands for spares for one type which are unavailable in stock should advise the availability (if this should be the case) of the corresponding spares of the other type. 4940.—Aircraft—Avenger (T.B.F.I., T.B.M.I. and T.6.M.3)—Interchangeability of Mainplanes (N.S. Air/AE . 4222/44.—14 Sep. 1944.) Mainplanes of Avenger aircraft of the same basic Mark vary as to the forward firing armament and certain other details. All mainplanes of the same basic mark are, however, interchangeable provided they are complete with flaps and ailerons. 2. There is no objection to mainplanes embodying provision for forward firing armament being fitted to an aircraft which already has forward firing armament in the fuselage. In no circumstances, however, should mainplanes not fitted with forward firing armament be installed in an aircraft which has no forward firing armament in the fuselage. {A.F.O. 335/44.)

The simple answer is the 92nd mark IId was HW266 from Langley. After a batch of 44 IId built January to April 1942 there was a pause before production resumed in August with 31 built followed by 24 in September making total IId production 99. A minor hitch is there are 45 IId Taken on Charge January to early May, the first 37 Langley, then 8 from Brooklands, the first IId BN571 went to the A&AEE and that often means it was not counted in the production reports, or not counted until it came out of the experimental system. Both Brooklands and Langley were building IId which means for example HV672, the last Brooklands IId, was Taken on Charge 26 September 1942 while HV734 was 6 August 1942 from Langley, but Brooklands only produced 28 IId and of course the other 20 were in August and September 1942. Using Taken on Charge dates the 92nd IId was HW251 on 2 October 1942, the last Brooklands IId ToC is 26 September. By Toc, Langley production only with *** being number 92. HW177 27-Sep-42 HW256 30-Sep-42 HW266 1-Oct-42 HW276 1-Oct-42 HW293 1-Oct-42 HW298 1-Oct-42 HW251 2-Oct-42*** HW261 2-Oct-42 HW271 2-Oct-42 HW303 2-Oct-42 HW308 2-Oct-42 HW313 2-Oct-42 If you list by serial number, HW177 27-Sep-42 HW182 15-Oct-42 HW187 12-Oct-42 HW251 2-Oct-42 HW256 30-Sep-42 HW261 2-Oct-42 HW266 1-Oct-42*** HW271 2-Oct-42 HW276 1-Oct-42 HW293 1-Oct-42 HW298 1-Oct-42 HW303 2-Oct-42 HW308 2-Oct-42 HW313 2-Oct-42 HW318 2-Oct-42 Given the above it is probable Mason's number 92 was HW266. KX171 was a IId. Mark IId and IV production "change over", all mark IV from Langley as the last Hurricanes from Brooklands were ToC in October 1942. Month, IId, IV Dec-42, 52, 10 Jan-43, 32, 30 Feb-43, 3, 37 HW683 was a IId converted to a mark IV on 25 June 1943 according to the aircraft card, HW747 was the first production mark IV. In serial terms next comes 20 mark IV between KW792 and KW921 but they were not built until May 1943, in arrival terms the next mark IV after HW747 start at KX178. The last IId was KX866, there were 72 mark IV KX serials were between KX178 and KX862. 30 mark IV went to Russia via Iran, they were shipped from Britain in March 1944, LE748, LE750, LE751, LE753, LE754, LE835, LE838, LE843, LE922, LE924, LE925, LF109, LF470, LF471, LF472, LF473, LF476, LF479, LF480, LF494, LF495, LF496, LF499, LF503, LF504, LF505, LF506, LF510, LF595, LF596 60 mark IId were shipped in May 1943 for Russia via Iran the report says 46 were accepted, 14 rejected, the aircraft cards say 45 and 15. Accepted HW686, HW722, HW724, KW773, KW777, KX140, KX141, KX165, KX167, KX169, KX171, KX173, KX175, KX177, KX181, KX225, KX230, KX231, KX232, KX233, KX248, KX250, KX293, KX294, KX296, KX297, KX298, KX299, KX300, KX301, KX302, KX303, KX305, KX415, KX418, KX420, KX423, KX461, KX462, KX463, KX466, KX468, KX864, KX865, KX866 Rejected, sent to India, HW720, HW721, HW725, HW726, HW727, HW730, KW753, KW757, KW761, KW765, KW769, KX174, KX247, KX249, KX465 184 squadron IId, from the aircraft cards, a far as I can tell the squadron did no operations with IId, only mark IV. HW683 20MU 2-11-42 184Sq 29-12-42 CB 9-3-43 DeH riw 16-3-43 48MU 3-7-43 2SoTT 6SoTT 11-9-43 to 4617M HW684 20MU 2-11-42 184Sq 26-1-43 5MU 6-4-43 AFDU 19-8-43 1689Flt 4-3-44 CE 9-11-44 HW685 20MU 2-11-42 184Sq 26-1-43 5MU AFDU 13-8-43 1689Flt 4-3-44 1652CU 21-11-44 22MU 14-7-45 to 5344M SOC 2-9-46 HW713 20MU 2-11-42 184Sq 28-12-42 CB 17-1-43 recat CE 22-1-43 HW714 10MU 2-11-42 184Sq 22-12-42 5MU 6-4-43 5SoTT 26-9-43 to 4135M then 4611M SOC 16-4-45 HW715 22MU 8-11-42 184Sq 28-12-42 SLAIS 13-1-43 184Sq 4-3-43 5MU 6-4-43 5SoTT 26-9-43 to 4136M then 4612M SOC 16-4-45 HW716 10MU 2-11-42 184Sq 22-12-42 5MU 6-4-43 5SoTT to 4137M then 4613M SOC 27-5-47 HW717 10MU 2-11-42 184Sq 28-12-42 5MU 6-4-43 1SoTT to 4134M then 4610M SOC 29-11-45 HW718 10MU 2-11-42 184Sq 22-12-42 5MU 5SoTT 30-9-43 to 4138M then 4614M SOC 15-3-45 HW721 10MU 2-11-42 184Sq 22-12-42 5MU 6-4-43 52MU 15-5-43 ‘Ben Williams’ 18-5-43 (Hapmat) Russia reject ACSEA 29-2-44 SOC ber 14-3-46 HW723 22MU 2-11-42 184Sq 29-12-42 5MU 6-4-43 5SoTT 30-9-43 To 4139M then 4615M SOC 15-3-45 HW725 22MU 8-11-42 Low attack School Milfield 13-1-43 184Sq 25-2-43 5MU 6-4-43 52MU 13-5-43 ‘Bradford City’ 19-5-43 (Hapmat) Russia reject ACSEA 31-1-44 SOC 23-6-45 HW726 20MU 3-11-42 184Sq 29-12-42 5MU 6-4-43 52MU 13-5-43 ‘John Vining’ 18-5-43 (Hapmat) Russia reject ACSEA 31-12-43 CE 23-3-44 HW727 44MU 8-11-42 184Sq 30-12-42 5MU 6-4-43 52MU 12-5-43 ‘Ben Williams’ 18-5-43 (Hapmat) Russia reject ACSEA 31-1-44 CE 26-7-45 HW728 22MU 8-11-42 1SLAIS 184Sq 5-3-43 CB 28-3-43 DeH riw 4-4-43 5MU 16-7-43 1SoTT 30-9-43 To 4133M then 4609M SOC 29-11-45 KX142 20MU 24-12-42 184Sq 26-1-43 CE FA 10-3-43 KX176 20MU 23-12-42 184Sq 26-1-43 CB 24-2-43 Taylorcraft riw 3-3-43 22MU 26-8-43 AAEE 13-10-43 AC 7-2-44 ros AAEE 7-3-44 CB 24-8-44 Morrisons riw 2-9-44 22MU 9-11-44 SOC 30-11-45 KX304 48MU 8-1-43 184Sq 2-2-43 5MU 21-6-43 1SoTT Halton 30-9-43 To 4608M SOC 29-11-45

What you appear to be doing is treating the Barnes information as correct and then trying to fit any new information to it, with the new dropped if there is any conflict. At best you are confusing Bolingbroke GR with the Blenheim IV bomber. Otherwise thank you for letting me know what I write here is not evidence, and the online readable references I use to back up the data will be ignored. The Bolingbroke GR added several hundred pounds of weight, the easiest way to balance that was halving the bomb load. Like the watertight compartments, the fourth crew member, GR equipment and so on? Your suppositions are evidence, the Bolingbroke GR specification is what? Time to disassemble Barnes. Barnes notes the original type 149 to G24/35, wider body, roomier turret, navigator amidships, radio forward of the turret. Then there is the interim GR version, the 11/36 specification, maintaining as many Blenheim components as possible, nose lengthened 3 feet, radio and navigation station ahead of the pilot, outer wings strengthened to allow more fuel. Order later cancelled to prevent dislocation to Blenheim production, but as many aircraft as possible to be delivered to Bolingbroke standard, The Blenheim III designation reserved for a short range version with the long nose. “found possible to phase in both the long nose and the extra tankage after 66 of the current batch had been assembled” “to avoid confusion” the Blenheim IV name was adopted instead of Bolingbroke. The first production contract with Bristol was for 150 Blenheim I K7033 to K7182, then came the 450 mark I L1097 to L1546 AND the 118 mark I/IV L4817 to L4934 as Contract 527114/36 requisition, 37/36. There was an overlap period, January 1939 to July 1939, when Bristol produced 130 mark I and 164 mark IV. Also the 118 which probably make up the Barnes “current batch” were 18 mark I (L4817 to L4834), 68 mark IV (L4835 to L4902) and 32 mark I (L4903 to L4934), so 50 I and 68 IV, note the serial order, the RAF Contract cards further state serials from L1472 onwards, from the block of 450 serials, were built in January 1939 or later. Add to this we know the early mark IV did NOT have the long range tanks as built, Barnes states this. Barnes has a clean change over mark I to IV, that did not happen, which is aircraft 66 of the “current batch”? Specification: “A station for a wireless operator is to be provided immediately forward of the gun turret with safety belt and parachute stowage. A window is to be provided in the fuselage side at this station.” The RCAF noted “Electrical, wireless, instruments and oxygen equipment are rather fuller than that for the Blenheim.” Barnes has location of the radio station wrong. He also does not date the changes, September 1937 long nose first flown, unsatisfactory, December 1937, interim GR order cancelled, long nose now conventional, June 1938 scalloped nose, August 1938 long range tanks, January 1939 first Blenheim IV. Nowhere does Barnes mention the extra equipment the GR type had to carry or the other airframe changes. The Bolingbroke contract was cancelled, the numbers changed to Blenheims to “Bolingbroke standard”, what is that standard? Where is the name confusion? Barnes is stating the Bolingbroke name stayed around for some time after the GR version was cancelled in December 1937, lasting until at least January 1939, when the first Blenheim IV was produced. If the Bolingbroke was just a Blenheim with what became the mark IV additions it could not have caused disruption to production. How many Blenheim mark IV were delivered with 11/36 specifications, like watertight compartments, the radio area behind the pilot, with a window added? Have you read the specification? I do not know what other modifications to the Blenheim I rear fuselage were planned to make a Bolingbroke, shifting the navigator to the nose moved them plus their equipment. The GR specification added equipment, changes to the gun turret, the fourth crew member required space and the radio equipment was altered. Whether all the new items meant changes to the rear fuselage is unclear. Blenheim IV to Canada, Barnes reports 9 earmarked for the RCAF “only four (P4856 to P4859) were delivered”, in fact none of these were delivered, they went to 107 and 110 squadrons. Only one Blenheim arrived in Canada, K7072, the long nose prototype, described in Canada as a mark IV, it arrived on 15 February 1941 but despite the date some references report it as a pattern aircraft. Seemingly because after the production of 17 Bolingbroke I and 1 III November 1939 to September 1940, Bolingbroke IV production began in April 1941 and all subsequent production was a IV, IVC, IVW or IVT. Note the lack of Bolingbroke mark II. Now how much further do I have to smash Barnes? That the East Germans preferred the Trabi is clear from the events, I would have though the fact the RAAF could not even buy Ansons might be a clue about how much chance there was of other RAF types in 1938/39. The Bolingbroke was cancelled, a GR type, and replaced by the bomber type Blenheim IV. The RAAF was after GR, they started with the Bolingbroke in March 1937, increased the order in November, took the promised Beaufort GR in early 1938 as the replacement, ordered more in August 1938, ordered Hudsons, the new RAF interim GR type in January 1939, agreed to put the Beaufort into local production in March 1939, then tried to provide the GR types with a fighter escort by ordering 18 Beaufighters in June 1939, then doubled the Hudson order after war was declared. Notice how it is all GR Types on order, no B types. Canada produced a total of 18 Bolingbrokes 1939/1940 and the RCAF considered itself just as short as the RAAF in terms of modern aircraft. I actually say the Bolingbroke as built in Canada can be so described, NOT the Bolingbroke designed in Britain. Please do not misquote me. That translates as Barnes is correct, write a book to contradict him before any new evidence will be evaluated. Bristol had the type 142M Blenheim I, then came a request for a minimum changes GR version, result lots more weight, fewer bombs, extra crew etc., the Type 149 Bolingbroke I but the design was cancelled before any production, with only the lengthened fuselage trialled and found problematical. After cancellation additional fuel tanks were trialled. These two items were incorporated into the Type 149 Blenheim IV, none of the Bolingbroke GR changes made it. Before Bolingbroke cancellation in Britain the RCAF had ordered production of 18 in Canada. Like the RAAF it wanted a GR aircraft, so the RCAF kept the name and equipped the aircraft as GR, but as a variation on the Blenheim IV, 3 crew for example.

Correction time, the type 149 was called Bolingbroke in the 12 February 1937 RAAF cable ordering them, A705 9/18/15 page 220, available to read online. Please do not speculate when you consider how much documentation had to be gone through to come up with the timeline already given. Finding out about cancelled orders and designs tends to be a lot harder than when something was built. You just piled assumption on top of assumption, they did it elsewhere, no evidence. The RAF wanted an interim GR “quickly” so an aircraft based on the Blenheim I was explored in 1935/37, doing things like reducing normal bomb load to 500 pounds as weight compensation to keep design changes down, but giving something better than the Anson, longer term were the torpedo carrying Beaufort and Botha. The short answer is no, the aircraft design and associated order was cancelled, the name lived on in Canada, the type number at Bristol. Though there is a school of thought the number ordered were shifted into the Blenheim orders. I suggest you read the specification and see how much the Blenheim IV fitted it, like the fourth crew member and GR equipment for a start. Please provide the Bolingbroke design as of November 1937 so we can see the “appropriate changes” that were made to becoming the Blenheim IV, the Blenheim I was considered cramped for room, the Bolingbroke had the problem it still wanted 2 crew in the fuselage behind the pilot. How does a design that carries extra crew and equipment resulting in halving the normal bomb load become considered an improved bomber? As for the Hudson the RAF mission to the US began in April 1938, months after the Bolingbroke order was cancelled, how does the RAF know about the Hudson in 1937? The Blenheim I became the basis for a 4 seater GR aircraft design that was never built, the development program made improvements like greater range and a longer fuselage (but months after the design had been cancelled) that were used in the still 3 seater Blenheim IV. The Canadians, having placed a local order for Bolingbroke before the type was cancelled, kept the name and it is clear these had a number of differences with the Blenheim IV, but could be described as modified type 149 Blenheim IV., but not a 1935/37 Bristol type 149 Bolingbroke. If I understand Carl Vincent correctly with the depression still ongoing the RCAF was wary of giving any reason to re-examine orders for new aircraft, the fact the design was classified General Reconnaissance, not Bomber also helped. Where is the evidence the RAAF preferred the Beaufort in 1937/38? It had to change its order from a cancelled type to one that was under development but would not fly for almost a year after the Bolingbroke was cancelled, was a new airframe using a new engine so everyone knew that almost certainly meant production schedules would slip, or the whole thing cancelled. The RAAF spent a lot of time from 1935 onwards trying to obtain modern aircraft, in particular GR types given the main local mission was expected to be sea patrol and defence against raiders. The first upgrade was to Ansons, buying Demons and Avro Cadets at least gave some equipment delivered without much delay, as promises from Britain on performance and especially delivery times were not kept, in 1938/39 the RAAF received 40 chartered Ansons, the RAAF to pay for freight to and from UK (estimated at around 45,000 pounds, though they were never returned) along with charges per flying hour etc. That is how available British aircraft were at the time. The Bolingbroke then the Beaufort were the British designs reported available soon enough that looked likely to fill the RAAF mission. In the end Hudsons did the duty for the first 2 years of the war, doubling as bombers, as the Beauforts would do 1942 to 1945. The RAAF was trying to buy British, apart from the British is Best people came the US neutrality legislation and what that would mean in wartime, plus the desire to have commonality with RAF equipment. Meantime the RAF was looking at its own lack of modern equipment, the major problems many designs under development were having and believing any combat aircraft shipped to Australia were essentially lost as far as confronting the Luftwaffe was concerned. The reality was development and manufacturing times were expanding, not contracting, despite all the money and new personnel, and it was worse for engines.

An evaluation, together with ClaudioN, of the Sea Hurricane Ic from the Merchant Ship Fighter Unit records. From October 1942 onwards the MSFU reports undertaking simulated aircraft carrier landings and take offs and from January 1943 some actual aircraft carrier landings and take offs from HMS Argus and HMS Activity. This was part of a change over plan, where convoys would have a mixture of escort carriers and catapult ships, if the MSFU aircraft was used it would have the option of landing on the carrier. In 1943 the MSFU was wound down, officially disbanding on 7 September 1943, with its Hurricanes probably mostly removed in June and July. The MSFU normally records Hurricanes as mark I, encompassing all the standard mark I, the Sea Ia and Sea Ib. Whether a given aircraft is a Sea version can only be inferred if the aircraft is mentioned as being deployed to a merchant ship, or doing practice catapult trials, or doing landings and take offs from an aircraft carrier. Firstly https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/hurricane/hawker-sea-hurricane-ic-v6741-iii-april-1943/ dated April 1943, showing proof of at least 1 Sea Hurricane Ic, versus reports of up to 400 existing. Starting on 12 May 1943 the MSFU begins reporting it has Hurricane Ic on strength, in all 7 different Ic are mentioned, not including the photogenic V6741. Looking for what these aircraft have in common finds there were 10 Sea Hurricanes sent to General Aircraft Limited in February 1943, including V6741, nine of them returned to the MSFU in May 1943, seven of the returns were identified as Ic, one as a Hurricane I and one is not mentioned. All 9 were transferred to 59 OTU in June. None are recorded as doing catapult launches or carrier landings so it is an assumption all were finished to the standard of V6741, which is recorded as being originally converted to a Ia, so no hook fitted, the 8 known conversions come from 5 Sea Ia (catapult), 2 Ib (catapult and hook) and 1 either a or b. A further 3 Sea Hurricanes in March, 6 in April and 3 in May 1943 are recorded as going to GAL, but did not return to the MSFU, whether they were converted is unknown, most ended up at 59 OTU later in the year. It would have been straightforward enough to do the a to c and back again wing changes. The 59 OTU records may be able to help further. What we are left with at the moment is at least 8 Sea Ic existed, none with the RN, all converted from existing Sea Hurricanes, all with the MSFU, and none appeared before mid 1943, a time when the RN was using Hurricane II and Wildcat, with Seafire, Hellcat and Corsair on the way. There is no evidence any Sea Ic were allocated to an RN unit. As one of the February 1943 GAL Sea Hurricanes returned without being modified a stay at in 1943 at GAL is not evidence of conversion while V6741 shows not all aircraft converted to Ic were delivered to the MSFU. The conclusion is there were at least 8 Sea Hurricane Ic, it is unlikely there were many more and even more unlikely any extra Ic flew as such beyond trials after the conversion unless with 59 OTU. The following are sorted by the arrival date at GAL, firstly the 10 sent there in February, then the ones sent March to May, history from just before the arrival at GAL in 1943. V6741, Ia>Ic, 48MU storage 12-8-42 GAL 3-2-43 48MU 3-4-43 59OTU 12-9-43 63OTU 8-2-44 3TEU 19-3-44 CE 27-5-44 Z4936, Ia>Ic, 22MU 14-7-42 GAL 3-2-43 48MU 10-4-43 MSFU 11-5-43 59OTU 22-6-43 CB 12-8-43 Rosenfield riw 19-8-43 22MU 22-11-43 Rosenfield riw 18-2-44 22MU 1-3-44 Morrisons 23-10-44 SOC 2-11-44 N2630, Sea I>Ic, 48MU storage 12-8-42 GAL 8-2-43 48MU 15-4-43 MSFU 23-5-43 59OTU 18-7-43 AC 13-8-43 Rosenfield riw 20-8-43 22MU 19-12-43 41OTU 14-1-44 CE 25-5-44 P3620, Ia>Ic, 48MU 1-10-42 GAL 8-2-43 48MU 13-4-43 MSFU 23-5-43 59OTU 26-6-43 CE FA 7-8-43 V7170, Ia>Ic, 20MU 4-1-43 GAL 8-2-43 48MU 11-4-43 MSFU 4-5-43 59OTU 23-6-43 CE FA 26-7-43 FH253:50 W9315, Ib>Ic, 48MU storage 12-8-42 GAL 9-2-43 48MU 11-4-43 MSFU 11-5-43 59OTU 23-6-43 DeH 9-2-44 22MU 22-4-44 SOC obs 12-1-45 N2599, Ib>Ic, 48MU 29-11-42 GAL 11-2-43 48MU 10-4-43 MSFU 4-5-43 59OTU 29-6-43 7PAFU 5-2-44 DeH CE 8-6-44 V6867, Ia, 22MU 27-7-42 GAL 11-2-43 48MU 18-4-43 MSFU 25-5-43 59OTU 26-6-43 CB 3-2-44 Rosenfield riw 12-2-44 22MU 31-5-44 To 5038M V6957, Ia>Ic, 44MU 5-9-42 GAL 11-2-43 22MU 20-4-43 MSFU 4-5-43 59OTU 22-6-43 7PAFU 5-2-44 CE 27-7-44 W9279, Sea I, 22MU 6-8-42 GAL 11-2-43 48MU 18-4-43 MSFU 15-5-43 59OTU 29-6-43 5PAFU 30-1-44 CE 3-1-45 AE965, Ia, 51MU 28-8-42 GAL 22-3-43 5MU 5-5-43 55OTU 19-12-43 41OTU 11-1-44 22MU 10-5-44 Morrisons 18-12-44 SOC 29-12-44 W9224, Sea I, 10MU 17-7-42 GAL 28-3-43 5MU 16-5-43 DeH 17-11-43 5MU 3-2-44 CE rts 4-9-44 Z4852, Sea I, 10MU 3-9-42 GAL 28-3-43 48MU 13-5-43 55OTU 7-8-43 CE 27-5-44 P2717, Sea I, 51MU 19-9-42 GAL 5-4-43 5MU 21-5-43 59OTU 11-8-43 DeH riw 9-2-44 22MU 4-6-44 To 5054M 3-3-45 V6990, Ia, 51MU 18-8-42 GAL 5-4-43 5MU 17-5-43 6SoTT 22-11-43 To 4350M 2SoTT 14-12-43 6SoTT 23-1-44 V7129, Ia, 48MU 16-8-42 GAL 20-4-43 5MU 2-6-43 DeH riw 7-12-43 5MU 21-2-44 CE rts 4-9-44 Z7083, Ia, 48MU 19-2-43 GAL 20-4-43 20MU 20-6-43 59OTU 30-7-43 CE 29-11-43 FH196:05 Z7145, Ia, 48MU 9-10-42 GAL 20-4-43 5MU 28-5-43 59OTU 22-10-43 ECFS 30-1-44 Rosenfield riw 16-3-44 22MU 11-6-44 To 5042M Z4846, Ia, 22MU 29-8-42 GAL 24-4-43 20MU 12-6-43 56OTU 3-8-43 DeH riw 22-4-44 recat CE 22-5-44 W9209, Sea I, 10MU 17-12-42 GAL 7-5-43 10MU 16-6-43 59OTU 3-9-43 63OTU 9-2-44 CE FA 8-3-44 Z4050, I, 22MU 16-10-42 GAL 7-5-43 10MU 23-6-43 59OTU 3-9-43 63OTU 5-2-44 4TEU 12-3-44 CE 27-5-44 W9313, Ia, 51MU 13-8-42 GAL 22-5-43 5MU 7-7-43 DeH 7-12-43 5MU 21-2-44 CE rts 4-9-44 The MSFU records using Seafire IIc, ex Mark V, AD371 (second IIc prototype) from August to January 1943, Spitfire I R6993 In January 1942, mark IIa P8139 in February 1942, and mark I R6771 and X4490 in December 1942/January 1943.

The hopefully short answer. Bristol came up with a design based on the type 142M Blenheim I as the type 149 interim General Reconnaissance aircraft, it was to be a 4 seater, which posed problems as the Blenheim I was considered cramped as a 3 seater. A copy of the specification is in Australian Archives file A1196 control symbol 1/501/213 pages 200 to 209, readable online. As a General Reconnaissance type there were a series of changes, like more navigation equipment, flare stowage, watertight compartments, dinghy stowage etc., the new wireless station was to have a window, the aircraft greater range. All up another 720 pounds of crew and equipment weight expected to be added, plus additional airframe weight for things like watertight sealing. The name Bolingbroke was allocated. As a way to increase internal space the nose was to be lengthened, that took a while to work out. When the aircraft was cancelled Bristol kept the type number, took the lengthened nose and extra fuel but none of the GR requirements to become the type 149 Blenheim IV, Canada kept (many of) the GR requirements and called the design the Bolingbroke I, both were 3 seaters with similar dimensions and engines. Timeline, In 1935 specification G 24/35 issued. Definitive specification, 11/36, issued on 14 July 1936 Unknown date, believed to be in 1936, RAF order for 134 Bolingbroke I, Bristol construction numbers say the sequence was first Blenheim order, Blenheim I for the Finland and Turkey, Bolingbroke order, Beaufort order (contract 552915/36, September? 1936). 12 May 1936 (probable date, Australian Archives, A1196 control 1/501/24, page 15) mentions 36 modified Blenheims required for the RAAF, with 24 wanted March to June 1937, for a pair of General Reconnaissance squadrons. November 1936 the RAAF informed its liaison officer in London of a plan to place an order for 40 Bristol Type 149. Canada was also expressing an interest at the same time. 2 March 1937 Formal RAAF order for 40 type 149 (no name allocated yet). Also around March 1937 Canada signed an agreement to acquire a license to build the type 149. 24 September 1937 type 149 long nose prototype, K7072, first flight, windscreen well forward of the pilot position. 19 October 1937 RCAF contract issued for 18 Bolingbroke from Fairchild Canada. 29 November 1937 another 10 type 149 ordered for the RAAF, the papers confirming the name Bolingbroke had been allocated. December 1937 the Bolingbroke was cancelled. The Canadians were informed of this on the 23rd. The type 149 long nose design was now conventional symmetric below the pilot’s station. February 1938 RAAF order became 50 Beauforts. 30 April 1938 RCAF liaison officer flew in K7072, reporting it a great improvement. June 1938, type 149 scalloped nose first flown. August 1938 Blenheim L1222 testing the extra fuel tanks 15 October 1938, Beaufort first flight. January 1939, first Blenheim mark IV produced by Bristol, initial production lacked the extra fuel tanks. November 1939 first Bolingbroke mark I produced by Fairchild. RAAF order references, Australian Archives Series A14487 Control Symbol 11/AB/1997 for 40 Bristol type 149, advanced notification sent 24 November 1936, approved 2 March 1937. London Order number 550. Series A14487 Control Symbol 11/AB/2128 for 10 Bolingbroke, order approved 29 November 1937. Mercury VIII engines (Blenheim I) Overseas Indent 591. Both readable online. RAAF Beauforts, on 31 August 1938 approval was given to raise the Beauforts on order from 50 to 90, with a plan to order another 47 when funds were available. Over roughly the next 2 years the order for 90 was reduced to zero in a series of steps to pay for things like Hudsons and a 1939, ultimately cancelled, order for Beaufighters. The order from Bristol was in addition to local production, originally set at 180 in mid 1939, with the first 90 for Britain.

Officially the only FR Spitfires produced (versus converted) were mark XIV and XVIII. All mark IX were F, LF or HF, no C or E wing designations.

Timeline HL885 48MU 24-6-42, 82MU 5-7-42, ‘Cefn-y-Bryn’ 28-7-42, Takoradi, flown to ME September 1942, Hit by HL840 while parked Martuba 9-12-43 DBR

The RN operated a mixture of normal mark IIB and C as well as Sea IIB and C, including CCF built. None of the RN Hurricanes traced so far were ex RCAF mark XII order, the RAF PJ serials. At this time it appears from the RAF cards 36 CCF built Hurricane II were converted to Sea Hurricanes, all from RAF orders, all CCF mark II and XII had B wings as built. The RAF cards note 14 CCF built Sea Hurricanes were refitted with C wings, Ray Sturtivant says another 21 were also refitted. IIB BX126 RAF reports C wings fitted BW886, BW900, BW921, JS226, JS233, JS248, JS260, JS261, JS270, JS292, JS304, JS325, JS333, JS353 Sturtivant reports C wings fitted BW911, JS222, JS225, JS231, JS232, JS235, JS241, JS253, JS265, JS269, JS273, JS310, JS318, JS319, JS327, JS332, JS345, JS346, JS351, JS354, JS355. Photographs show not all those listed by Ray Sturtivant were in fact fitted with C wings.

It appears 87 squadron went with serial numbers in their records, not code letters, other squadrons do the opposite, some did both. Agreed ER310 is most likely the correct aircraft, a simple check is to see how often it is mentioned before and after the reported loss date. About "The squadron records covering the period haven’t been digitised", the original message contains extracts from both the squadrons' summary and record of events. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/advanced-search using 87 squadron as the search string (and 1944 or 1943 as the year if you want to keep the numbers found down), followed by selecting those available for download will give the records to read, but between the watermarks. You can order copies from the archives, I think there is a still a free monthly limit but at a normal 2 files per month the limit does not go that far. Vokes filters were about dusty environments, which included Normandy in 1944 for a time, in theory the filters were not needed in Sicily and Italy. As for finishes I am what I call paint blind, I have only a few documents about official finish standards and even less on how that translated into field use. My main interest is how many, when and where did the aircraft come from and when and where did they end up.

There does not seem to be an AIR 81 casualty report. As you note the squadron records do not record code letters. That leaves log books and photographs. Whether the 87 squadron association is still around is unknown. http://www.rafcommands.com/database/wardead/index.php?qname=&qcntry=&cur=0&qunit=&qnum=&qmem=&qdate=1944-02-02 Says he was flying mark Vc JK763, but JK763 was transferred to the USAAF 31 October 1943 but also lost on 2 February 1944.