Geoffrey Sinclair

I found a weekly report of aircraft movements to Malta and the Middle East, with a couple of weeks in March missing, it has from week ending 20 March 1942 to end 1942 35 PR Spitfires flew from Gibraltar to Malta, 2 of which failed to arrive. No information on how many stayed versus flew on to the Middle East. The report says there were quite a lot of aircraft staging at Malta during the year. Similarly in the week ending 30 October 1942 2 Spitfire fighters made the Gibraltar to Malta trip, 10 more in week ending 6 November and 3 more in week ending 20 November. No losses recorded. So all up 15 flew direct, again no information on how many stayed. So was incorrect when stating no fighters made the trip, I had not looked past the carrier deliveries. No mention of UK to Gibraltar flights by Spitfire fighters, while in the above time period 43 PR Spitfires made the journey, all arrived. Geoffrey Sinclair

Reports of Spitfires flying direct from Gibraltar to Malta echo the section in Morgan and Shacklady about trials with a 170 gallon external and an additions 29 gallon rear fuselage fuel tank. The additional fuel weight meant "All extraneous equipment" was removed, which sounds like armament at least. Weight was 8,700 pounds presumably with both extra fuel tanks full. Morgan and Shacklady report 16 Spitfires were flown out as Operation Quarter, taking 5.5 hours to fly to Gibraltar. In addition 15 more Spitfires were shipped out on the Cape Hawk (note spelling) AB262, 264, 329-332, 334-338, 341, 343, 344 and 346. To be flown of an aircraft carrier, takeoff weight 7,420 pounds, flaps 25 degrees, 3,000 RPM, plus 12 pounds boost, take off run 650 feet. Eagle's flight deck is listed as 652 feet long. So we are left with either the take off run is incorrect or it is for still air. Next comes the fly off point was 500 miles from Malta, or about 5 degrees west, distance wise 500 miles is about the Spitfire V range on internal fuel, another 90 gallons external would go close to doubling what would be the economic cruise range, not doubt they flew faster. Shores talks about 660 mile flights. The reported Spitfire flights from Britain showed up problems with the fuel system, yet the book then talks about 2 batches of Spitfires both needing assembly, a Supermarine representative was sent out to help. The first fly off attempt on 22 February 1942 had only 3 aircraft with serviceable overload tanks, plus 2 more after 5 hours work. Operation postponed and another Supermarine representative sent, arriving 5 March. Delivery of the first 15 Spitfires listed above was made between 5 and 10 March. On 20 March the fleet sailed again to deliver AB461, 263, 340, 333, 348, 343, 347, 419, 458, 500, 418, 420 and BP844, 845, 850, 856 and 849, a total of 17 aircraft but AB343 is listed again. Checking the various other sources, the Delivery Log entries for AB262, 264, 329-338, 341, 343, 344 and 346, so 16 serials, all have "Quarter" in SS Cape Hawk (again note spelling) against their names. While the following serials all have "Scantling" in SS Queen Victoria in their delivery log entry, AB263, 327, 340, 342, 348, 418, 419, 420, 451, 454, 500, while BP844, 845, 846 849 and 850 have Malta 2.3.42,, total 16 aircraft. Its history says BP856 did not leave Britain while AB417, 418, 452, 460, 507, 511, 512, 514, 517, 525, 526, 531, 535, BP846, 847, 848, 850, (Possibly 851 "special commitment"), 853, 855, 856, 857, 860 to 865 have the word special (Merlin 46 instead of 45?) at the start of their online mini histories. Operation Spotter 7 March 1942, 16 on board, 15 sent. The Arnold Hague database has the ship name as Cape Hawke. Graham Boak list, AB262, 264, 329 to 338, 341, 343, 344 and 346 but AB333 did not take off. Morgan and Shacklady, AB262, 264, 329 to 332, 334 to 338, 341, 343, 344 and 346 Delivery Logs, AB262, 264, 329 to 338, 341, 343, 344 and 346. So everyone agrees. Given AB333 did not take off. Note AB343 is in both Morgan and Shacklady lists. Queen Victoria probably arrived at Gibraltar on 12 March. Operations Picket I and II, 21 and 29 March 1942, 16 aircraft sent, with AB333 trying again after not taking off on Operation Spotter, which means 1 Spitfire was left at Gibraltar, while no further sea shipments of Spitfires had arrived. GB list, AB263, 333, 340, 342, 347, 348, 418, 419, 420, 454, 500, PB844, 845, 846, 849, 850 M+S list, AB263, 333, 340, 347, 348, 418, 419, 420, 458, 461, 500, and BP844, 845, 849, 850 and 856. DL list, AB263, 327, 340, 342, 348, 418, 419, 420, 451, 454, 500, while BP844, 845, 846, 849 and 850 So remembering 1 had to be left in Gibraltar for some reason, In all three lists, AB263, 333, 340, 348, 418, 419, 420, 500, BP844, 845, 849, 850 and 856, total 13. The Morgan and Shacklady list unique serials, AB458 became a mark IX, to Gibraltar in March 1943, AB461 and AB856 never left Britain. It is quite possible 458 is really 454, 461 is 451 and 856 is 846. Now to the differences between Graham's list and the Delivery Logs, AB327, AB347 and AB451. The delivery log entry for AB327 is quite a sight, firstly the original entry "Scantling" in SS Queen Victoria, is ruled through with an entry above it Tarkoradi by <ship name> 25? April 1942 also ruled through and a second "Scantling" SS Queen Victoria has been added The aircraft history says lost in Egypt 22 July 1942, which agrees with Shores et. al. A History of the Mediterranean Air War. So it would seem, unless the Spitfire was on flown to Egypt from Malta, that any references to it being on Queen Victoria and at Gibraltar and Malta are most likely incorrect. That is the Takoradi Delivery Log entry is the correct one and the second Scantling entry should have been for AB347, not AB327. The delivery log entry for AB347 simply says Malta 1 April 1942, Malta the Spitfire year has it present in Malta on 12 April, so it would have been on Queen Victoria, and flown in during operation Picket. Which means AB451 was the Spitfire left in Gibraltar as the simplest explanation, but it is reported lost in an air raid at Malta in April 1942. There is only one Spitfire from operation Pickett that survived past 9 May 1942, when Eagle flew off 17 Spitfires from Gibraltar, and that was AB500, it is reported as having a flying accident on 17 April 1942 with 185 Squadron, is there any definite date for when 185 Squadron started operating Spitfires? I thought is was after 20 April, Operation Calendar. So using loss dates AB451 was on operation Picket, AB500 on Operation Bowery or later. Malta the Spitfire Year makes no mention of AB451, which would be possible if it was lost on the ground soon after arrival, and takes until 7 July to mention AB500. However AB500 is reported as present at Malta on 29 March and AB451 has no such entry, leaving AB451 to be lost in April 1942 presumably at Gibraltar. Straightforward, isn't it? Geoffrey Sinclair

Surely not.... :-). It is all hand written, left to right, essentially in 2 lines, with the date above the "name", except for the SOC entry. So the second date could be 1943 and the third 1944, or 1942 and 1943 but it is Malta then NWA. And AR466 has A6107 10 Jul 42, Malta 3 Aug 42.

I have not yet looked into the PR.IV movements, they flew out, long term there is the need to see how they were counted as exports and there also must be the chance some staged through Malta for the Middle East. The various export reports in the archives have exports to the Mediterranean February 1942 to February 1943, to the Middle East February 1942 to April 1943, North Africa October 1942 to April 1943, Mediterranean Air Command May to December 1943, the Mediterranean Allied Air Force from January 1944 to December 1945. There is a chance Spitfires moving overseas as parts of units were not counted as exports. And unfortunately the SSxxx codes, usually R.xxx I think, are not given in the ship movement cards, which can be sort of viewed online at the UK archives (watermarks over them). The ship cards for Australian ports have been made available for copying at http://www.navy.gov.au/media-room/publications/wwii-merchant-ship-movement-records-australia and they can fill in gaps for those shipments. Then comes cross referencing with the data at www.convoyweb.org.uk Interesting, the few identified Spitfires I have for Baritone are from the Gibraltar pool, delivered by Empire Clive and Empire Darwin. Lots of the Spitfires for Wasp have Abbotsinch and Renfrew in their histories, a good clue given where they are and where Wasp was to load Spitfires. It helps explain a smaller cluster of Spitfires at Abbotsinch in late July 1942. Delivery log entry for AR464:- A6107 8 Jun 42, Malta 1 Aug 43 (Yes 43), NWA 1 May 43, SOC 1 Jan 47, which is an administrative catch up date. A quick look at that page shows AR466, AR470 and AR471 are all part of A6107 but dated July. Geoffrey Sinclair

Thanks for the web site, I am actually working off Andrew Pentland's web site, which is the source of allspitfirepilots data. The shipments do show a build up of Spitfires at Gibraltar from September 1942 onwards. And a new ship name match, the Fordsdale becomes the Fondadab in the aircraft histories. Malta Spitfire Vs - 1942, Their Colours and Markings by Brian Cauchi. Unfortunately even when the libraries open again it looks like I will have to cross a large body of water to see a copy. Agreed no list will be perfect (the spark for this investigation was a report one Spitfire for the RAAF was offloaded in New York after taking damage crossing the Atlantic, so what happened to it? EE736 became A58-131, arriving 3 months after the rest of the Spitfires shipped on Empire Strength, then converted to components, the delay does not seem to be noted or explained in the histories) So in compiling the Malta Spitfires list in the book did you look at the ships they were reported as being transported in and any associated dates? Since that is the way I have created the list of possibles, apart from mentions of Malta in 1942. Worth comparing lists? There are lots of records with ship name but not date and the other way around. The Spitfires on Empire Heath have Takoradi mentioned but in fact it only went to Gibraltar. Interesting the report Furious did a direct delivery, which one? If operation train in October that simplifies things. Since it eliminates from consideration all September Spitfire shipments to Gibraltar. I believe the Spitfires that flew direct from Gibraltar to Malta were all the PR types, mostly mark IV. And as far as I know used the standard 90 gallon tanks for the trip as they had a lot more internal fuel than the mark V. Geoffrey Sinclair

Does anyone know of or have access to a good list of the serial numbers of the Spitfires flown off carriers to Malta March to October 1942? Malta: The Spitfire Year by Shores, Cull and Malizia, gives quite a few but of course it is a history, not an aircraft count. While the USS Wasp took Spitfires direct from Britain the RN carriers relied upon a pool of Spitfires stationed at Gibraltar and there is a nice relationship between shipments to Gibraltar and Malta. So Cape Hawke delivers 16 Spitfires on 22 February, operation Spotter flies 15 of them to Malta on 7 March. Queen Victoria, 16 or 17 Spitfires on 12 March, operations Picket I and II fly 16 Spitfires to Malta in the second half of March. USS Wasp (Operation Calendar) flies 47 Spitfires to Malta but is reported to have 52 on board, probably the other 5 were offloaded at Gibraltar. Same day the Guido and the Empire Heath deliver around 42 (Possibly more, including some on unnamed ships) Spitfires to Gibraltar. Wasp returns with 47 Spitfires for Operation Bowery. The 17 Spitfires on HMS Eagle on Operation Bowery and the 17 for Operation LB in early May come from the Gibraltar Spitfires. (BR126, the Spitfire that landed back on Wasp on operation Bowery was sent on Operation LB) And so on, at least 80 Spitfires delivered late May and early June, 63 flown out on 3 and 9 June. The problems in matching things are the usual ones, the available published individual aircraft histories can lack dates and ship names, or use code numbers for the ships. The RAF dates tend to be when loaded/unloaded, versus the days the ship left/entered port. Then comes some interesting spelling mistakes, Port Dunedin becoming Port Duradin, Hindustan becoming Miss Cluston for example. My main aim is a first pass at sorting out which ships freighted Spitfires. Geoffrey Sinclair

Sorry, there was a carry the one error in both totals, 24025 to 24040 is 16 (40-25+1) then 26001 to 26040 is 40, then 28001 to 28009 is 9, total 65 construction numbers. AAM339-AM274 is 339-274+1 =66 serial numbers. Correct, delivery logs are a serial number list of aircraft, the preserved ones I know of are from K1000 to RZ499, and usually give at least arrival and departure, including cause of departure. Contract cards are similar to delivery logs. Census is just that, a counting of the aircraft holdings, in the RAF case, end of month. No, in this case the RAF tracked the handed over aircraft. In February 1943 the RAF had 144 effective Sea Hurricane I on strength, including 50 in Canada, 1 in West and 7 in South Africa, its list of "ineffective" was 2 instructional, 26 Category E at home, 1 Category E in Dominions, 249 with the Admiralty, 1 in Russia, 5 unaccounted for on evacuation. In June 1944 the RAF had 45 effective Sea Hurricane I on strength, its list of "ineffective" was 42 instructional, 65 Category E at home, 212 with Admiralty, 1 in Russia, 56 in Dominion Air Forces, 4 unaccounted for on evacuation. Note the shift of where the overseas aircraft are counted. Geoffrey Sinclair

My take on the Canadian Hurricane Story. Meant to accompany a list of monthly production. Hopefully it makes enough sense. As noted few Canadian built Hurricanes were test flown immediately after assembly and in fact most as rolled out of the factory were not ready to fly even if an engine was available. A report in December 1941 noted stored mark I airframes were complete less wheels, brakes, tyres and tubes but needing engines, propellers, instruments, and all other appendix A Serial 1160 Embodiment Loan Equipment. The mark II then in production emerged from the factory in a similar state to those stored, "require from England, wheels, brakes, air compressors and drives and couplers for same, hydraulic pump drives and couplings, airscrews and instruments". The brakes being magnesium alloy castings. The Hurricane production figures to the end of 1941 vary considerably between references, it is assumed there was an overhaul in reporting procedure in 1941, and the cumulative and quarterly figures in the Canadian Q1/1942 report are correct. That is the cumulative total to 30 September 1941 and figures for production in Q4/1941 and Q1/1942 are correct, as these agree with the monthly figures published by MAP in England, those in the US War Production Board Report, which start from September 1939, and ultimately give the accepted grand total for Canadian Hurricane production, but clearly the agreement could simply be the US and UK figures repeating the Canadian ones. The following monthly figures from the Canadian archives file Record Group 28 Volume 3 have been altered to fit the War Production Board monthly totals, by doing this the altered figures also then agree with the cumulative totals and the Canadian quarterly figures. The changes are, three aircraft are removed from the December 1940, two from the March 1941 and three from the June 1941 figures, a total reduction of eight aircraft. Even with these reductions the official total of one thousand four hundred and fifty one Hurricanes is two more than the currently traced RAF and RCAF serial numbers officially used. There were one thousand one hundred and ninety nine RAF and four hundred and thirty RCAF serials issued that have been confirmed so far, including one RAF serial that was officially a duplicate. Thirty RAF order aircraft, AG287, AG293 to AG296, AG299, AG300, AG302, AG304 to AG319, AG323, AG325 to AG327, AG330 and AG332 were also given the RCAF serials 1351 to 1380, while serials 1381 to 1410 were initially reserved for further Hurricane transfers they were ultimately used for Beech Expeditors and so are not counted here. One hundred and fifty aircraft from the RCAF mark XII order, serials 5376 to 5775, were given RAF serials between PJ660 and PJ872 (less blackout blocks, that is serials deliberately not used) the aircraft transferred were RCAF serials 5483, 5504 to 5577, 5580 to 5583, 5591 to 5622 and 5737 to 5775. In both cases the assignment of serials from one air force to the other was irregular. The fifty RAF serial aircraft BW835 to BW884 were ordered and completed as Sea Hurricane mark I but operated by the RCAF while retaining their RAF serials. This leaves one thousand four hundred and forty nine known unique serials. One of the confirmed RAF serials is AM270, a serial also assigned to a Catalina, Hurricane AM270 was completed around early March 1942 to Dutch standards as part of an order for the Netherlands East Indies (KM/KNIL) and given the serial HC3-287, its subsequent fate is unclear beyond being used by CCF for test flying. Two more known allocated Hurricane serials, JS372 and JS373, were officially cancelled from the RAF order but most likely after they were sent to Britain where they were scrapped. Adding JS372 and JS373 would mean there are one thousand four hundred and fifty one unique serials, matching the reported production total. RAF serial allocations P5170 to P5209, T9519 to T9538, Z6983 to Z7162, AE958 to AE977, AF945 to AF999, AG100 to AG344, AG665 to AG684, AM270 to AM369, AP138, BW835 to BW999, BX100 to BX134, JS219 to JS468, PJ660 to PJ695, PJ711 to PJ758, PJ779 to PJ813 and PJ842 to PJ872. There were one thousand six hundred CCF construction numbers allocated, as each of the one hundred and fifty aircraft transferred from the RCAF order to the RAF, the PJ serials, received a second one, removing these results in only one thousand four hundred and fifty known construction numbers. CCF allocated construction numbers in batches of 40 with a gap of 1,960 between batches, so for example 24001 to 24040, 26001 to 26040, 28001 to 28040. It is known AM274 had construction number 24025 while AM339 had 28009, the difference is sixty five serials but only sixty four construction numbers. Within this serial block are AM321 and AM322 which have no known records, it is probable one of them did not have a construction number or else had a unique, currently undocumented, one, or was never built. It also means AM270/HC3-287 should have had construction number 24021. Hurricane production was split between the RAF and RCAF but no production report giving the monthly break down between mark I, II, Sea and XII has yet been found, while the RAF delivery logs consider only mark I and II were built. The RCAF documentation states it received twenty mark I in 1939 from British production then the following from Canadian production, thirty mark I in early 1942 which were the AG serial aircraft listed above, fifty Sea Hurricanes (the BW serials listed above) and four hundred mark XII with one hundred and fifty of the mark XII transferred to the RAF and given serials starting PJ. Survivors of the thirty AG serial aircraft transferred were later upgraded to mark XII with Merlin 29. The fifty Sea Hurricanes were also mark I airframes and again were later upgraded to mark XII with Merlin 29 engines. The Canadian production schedules and quarterly production reports do split production between those for the RAF and those for the RCAF, giving cumulative totals to the given end of month and, in the quarterly reports, mark XII production by quarter. They show nine hundred and fifty aircraft built for the RAF to the end of June 1942, with the first RCAF order aircraft built in June. Production continues with the RCAF order until sometime in the first quarter of 1943 when the remaining one hundred and one RAF order aircraft were built, followed by the remainder (at least fourteen and probably twenty five) of the RCAF order. The quarterly reports and schedules also give the total number of aircraft under order, from eight hundred, all for the RAF, at the end of June 1941, to one thousand two hundred at the end of February 1942, including four hundred for the RCAF ordered in the third quarter of 1941, to one thousand four hundred and fifty including four hundred for the RCAF at the end of March 1942, after a further two hundred and fifty more for the RAF were ordered. As of the end of March 1943 the planned production total was still one thousand four hundred and fifty but the production report for the second quarter of 1943 has one thousand four hundred and fifty one, with four hundred for the RCAF. This final change is believed to account for AG341 which, despite its serial number, is recorded in the RAF contract cards and delivery logs as one of the last aircraft built in 1943. However a document listing the sixty airframes in storage in December 1941 lists AG341 and omits AG343 but incorrectly has AG201 instead of AG301, leaving open the possibility AG343 is also an error. Canada reports one of the nine hundred and fifty one RAF order aircraft to serial JS368 (including the duplicate AM270) was not officially built before 1943. The Department of Munitions and Supply report for the second quarter of 1943 has the following under new orders for the quarter, placed in Canada, “1 Hurricane shipped in excess of order for 250 by Canadian Car and Foundry” and as noted the final RAF order was for two hundred and fifty aircraft. To compare the production figures to the dates given in the RAF and RCAF documentation as a basic check requires a caution, with aircraft being shipped overseas and the final sixty mark I being stored in Canada against an allocation of one hundred for training purposes the dates are incomplete and are probably not consistent, for example not always reporting the delivery date. Cross referencing the cumulative totals from the Air Force dates and the production reports shows considerable month to month variation but the gap in production in September and October 1941 does provide a check. The RAF dates give four hundred and eighty Hurricanes built to end August 1941, which is the number of RAF serials allocated from P5170 to AG344, the official production total is five more. The build order, apart from the initial forty P serials, does not follow serial number order, the twenty T serials overlap with the initial aircraft from the one hundred Z serials, which in turn overlap with the twenty AE serials and the fifty five AF as well as the two hundred and forty five of the two hundred and sixty five AG serials, to AG344, (except AG341 which was a 1943 aircraft) with the last aircraft built to end September 1941 having AF serials. Whether there was a decision to deliberately build airframes in non serial order at times, like the Sea Hurricanes were, or the uncertainties in the dates for the airframes stored in Canada, or whether this is simply the result of shipment difficulties and delays is unknown. Later Canadian Lancaster production started with the KB serials before switching to the FM serials order. The October 1941 onward production is a mixture of, in order of appearance, the one hundred and sixty five BW (starting with the Sea Hurricanes), the ninety nine AM (starting around AM297, not AM271, which seems to be related to the 1941 plan to store the hundred airframes in Canada, sixty of which were listed as stored in a December 1941 report, and/or to airframes partly assembled when production paused in 1941), the final twenty AG serials AG665 to AG684 (again appearance times probably related to the 1941 storage plan), also AP138 (the AM270 replacement) and the thirty five BX serials until April 1942, which reports AG, AM, BW and BX serial aircraft delivered that month and also the first JS serial deliveries. After the first one hundred and fifty JS serials, to JS368, were built delivery of them stops in June while the Canadian order, the four hundred RCAF serials 5376 to 5775, begins, with only the Canadian order in production until JS serial deliveries resume in March 1943, at which time the Canadian order stops deliveries even though there are twenty five aircraft still outstanding, while the final ninety eight of the RAF JS serial order plus AG341 are delivered, RCAF deliveries resume in June after the end of the JS serial aircraft. As can be seen from the production figures the Air Force dates are normally later then the official production dates. It means the production reports have five more aircraft to end September 1941 but then two less from November 1941 on compared with using the dates from the air force documents. The Canadian production schedules and quarterly production reports have nine hundred and fifty aircraft built for the RAF to the end of 1942, which accounts for all RAF serials, including AM270, except for the final hundred JS ones (JS369 to JS468) and AG341. The difference comes in 1943, where the Canadian reports state one hundred and one aircraft built for the RAF while the RAF is reporting ninety nine received, consisting of AG341 and the final one hundred JS serials less the cancelled JS372 and JS373. As of 1 October 1942 the US had agreed to supply one hundred and twenty Merlin 28 plus another twenty four as spares for the order for the two hundred BW and BX serial aircraft, and four hundred Merlin 29 plus another eighty as spares for the RCAF order for four hundred mark XII, along with four hundred and eighty Hamilton 23E50 propellers. The document giving the engine numbers also noted seven hundred and sixty three of the one thousand and fifty five Hurricanes delivered to date were shipped without engines or propellers. Packard did not start building Merlins until August 1941 and had built forty nine to the end of the year of which thirty two were Merlin 28, versus a cumulative total of five hundred and fifty six Canadian Hurricanes built to the end of 1941. Merlin 29 production began in February 1942 and the propeller order in March. Air 20/2019 gives monthly figures of Canadian Hurricane imports into England. It notes a total of four hundred and nineteen mark I airframes, four hundred and forty seven mark II airframes and two hundred and thirty four mark II with engines between March 1940 and June 1943. It is known at least eight mark I and eleven mark II were lost at sea on the way from Canada to England. Air 19/524 reports the number of Canadian built Hurricanes issued to the RAF in England. It is also known that seventeen of the pre war British built Hurricane I operated by the RCAF were sent back to England, they are considered part of 1 squadron RCAF equipment and are not counted as imports, but are counted as delivered to the RAF. The import figures have one more mark I than the accounted for Canadian production, which is explained by the return of the pattern aircraft L1848, sent to CCF in February 1939, it was reported back at Hawkers in October 1940 and issued to 310 squadron in November. The import figures have fifty six mark I airframes imported in 1940 then another three hundred and sixty three January to the end of August 1941, one anomaly is the imports begin in April 1940 but the RAF reports receiving five in March. The weekly report for 27 April 1940 states five CCF Hurricanes had arrived sometime to 20 April, so it is believed the April 1940 import figure is actually March and April combined. After the end of mark I imports there is a gap to December 1941 when the first seven mark II airframes arrived. The 1942 imports of mark II ended in August after three hundred and eight airframes and one hundred and eighteen with engines had arrived. The mark II imports would correspond to the AG, AM, AP, BW and BX serials, along with the first one hundred and fifty JS serials, excluding AG341, those lost at sea or retained in Canada. In 1943 imports resumed in March and ended in July, totalling one hundred and thirty two mark II airframes and one hundred and sixteen with engines, which would correspond to the one hundred and fifty PJ serials, the final one hundred JS serials and AG341, less those lost at sea. All up one thousand one hundred Hurricanes were officially imported into England from Canada between March 1940 and June 1943, of these two hundred and thirty four had an engine installed before shipment. In addition seventeen of the pre war RCAF order returned. Some one thousand and seventy three of the Hurricanes imported into Britain were issued to the RAF (including those then sent to the USSR or RAF overseas commands), while twenty one mark I in the AG108 to AG273 batch were reduced to spares and six other mark I and two mark II were not issued for unknown reasons. The final issue of new CCF Hurricanes to the RAF was in October 1943. The one thousand one hundred arriving in Britain, along with nineteen known lost at sea en route and three hundred and thirty retained in Canada, accounts for one thousand four hundred and forty nine aircraft, but imports include the return of L1848, removing it reduces the total of accounted for CCF built Hurricanes to three less than the official production total of one thousand four hundred and fifty one. The candidates for the final three aircraft are AM270 which only appears in Dutch and CCF documentation, AM321 and AM322 which have no known documentation, JS287 which is listed as being taken on charge on 5 May 1942 but no further details have been found and JS372 and JS373, despite being reported as officially cancelled. Looking at the import versus production totals to September 1942 the number of Hurricanes unaccounted for is three, implying AM270, AM321, AM322 and JS287 are the likely candidates. The 1943 imports less lost at sea match the number of Hurricanes reported by Canada as built for the RAF that year, implying JS372 and JS373 were built, sent to Britain but scrapped, support for this comes from the fact that two of the 1943 mark II imports that were not delivered to the RAF. Given the production total of one thousand four hundred and fifty one the weight of evidence is all allocated RAF serials were used, including JS372, JS373 and the duplicate AM270, and it, along with AM321 and AM322, are the aircraft that either never left Canada or were lost at sea on the way to England without the RAF recording the loss. An alternative is JS372 and JS373 were actually cancelled and two of AM270, AM321 and AM322 were shipped to England in 1943 and not issued to the RAF while being double counted in the Canadian production reports as both 1942 and 1943 production. David Birch has been investigating Merlin production, his research indicates all Merlin 29 imported by Canada stayed in Canada, but all Merlin 28 imported for Hurricanes were exported, either as a stand alone engine or fitted to a Hurricane. When the decision was taken to transfer one hundred and fifty of the RCAF order to the RAF either another one hundred and forty one Merlin 28 were ordered or the engines were diverted from those on order for Lancasters to power the Hurricanes The one hundred and forty four Merlin 28 engines in the first, 1942, order at least lacked accessories and could not be flown, in addition apart from one or two aircraft selected for some brief test flights any Canadian Hurricane arriving in England with an engine had it immediately removed and replaced by a Merlin XX. The Merlin 28 then being used to power British built Lancasters. This presents a problem in counting how many of each mark were built, as the engine largely defines the mark. Clearly most Hurricanes built in Canada to 1 October 1942 were shipped to England to be fitted with engines, and in fact around 60% of total production was exported as airframes only plus most CCF Hurricanes were accepted as built without any test flights, about one in ten of the Mark I were tested and it is possible none of the mark II built for the RAF were flight tested in Canada. As noted the official definition of Hurricane mark number largely depends on the engine fitted. The mark I had a Merlin II or III, the mark II a Merlin XX, the mark IV a Merlin XX, the mark V a Merlin 27 (or 32), the mark XII a Merlin 29. The mark X was a proposed mark for Sea Hurricanes with Merlin 29 but not used, though the Dutch called their Hurricane version a mark X and some RAF documentation refers to CCF built mark I as mark X. The mark XI was also a proposed mark number for ex RAF order Hurricane I fitted with Merlin 29 but again not used. While the RCAF order were officially Mark IIB (Can) until they were renamed mark XII on 16 April 1943. A further complication is, of the sixty mark I airframes stored in Canada in 1941, thirty were issued to the RCAF as mark I while thirty were apparently converted to mark II and shipped to Britain. The wide spread reported definitions of mark X as Merlin 28 and mark XI as Merlin 28 with Canadian equipment do not seem to have officially existed, the closest being an informal plan to call RAF order Hurricanes with Merlin 28 expected to be retained in Canada as mark II (Eng). It also is clear few Hurricanes flew powered by a Merlin 28 except for some test flights. The RAF contract cards consider the 60 mark I airframes stored in Canada to be mark II while the delivery log entries mostly only give a mark number for those that reached Britain, the exceptions being AG292 to 296 and AG316 listed as mark I and AG332, listed as a mark II. Based on the production total of one thousand four hundred and fifty one, Canadian Hurricane production as rolled out was four hundred and eighty six mark I, five hundred and twelve mark II, four hundred mark XII (but called IIB (Can) during most of the production run), fifty Sea Hurricane mark I, one to NEI standard and called by them a mark X (Merlin 28 (Possibly 29) but with a US radio, gun sight and other equipment) and two more unknown but most probably mark II if flown, making the mark II total five hundred and fourteen. With the note that a few mark II aircraft were actually factory fitted and initially flown with a Merlin 28 engine for some test flights after arrival in Britain and so not really a mark I, II, IV or XII. It is clear from the 1942 and 1943 import figures which RAF aircraft had an engine fitted in Canada is not related to their order but depends on another unknown criteria. RAF serials P5170 to AG340 and AG342 to AG671 were mark I, while AG341 and from AG672 onwards were mark II as built, except for the block BW835 to BW884, which were the Sea Hurricanes. However mark I airframes AG292, 7, 8, AG301, 3, AG320, 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, AG331, 33 to 40, AG342, 3, 4, and AG665 to 71 were apparently converted to mark II before being exported to Britain and so appear as mark II on all RAF documentation and, given the lack of test flights in Canada, were probably mark II as initially flown. The June 1944 RAF census indicates of the six hundred and ninety four CCF built mark II for the RAF, including the one hundred and fifty from the RCAF order but excluding the thirty RAF order transferred to the RCAF, five hundred and sixty four were IIB and one hundred and thirty IIC. The delivery logs have most IIC entries as IIB with the B replaced by a C, implying at least some conversions, and give five hundred and seven IIB and one hundred and eighty seven IIC, so fifty seven more IIC. The Contract Cards that exist move seventy nine of the Delivery Log IIC to IIB. It is probable CCF built B wings for all mark II airframes. Then comes the possibility C wings were substituted on arrival in Britain. The thirty mark I transferred to the RCAF and the fifty Sea Hurricanes were all A wing.

I agree if the parts are available and the workshop is equipped it should not take a long time, if everything is accessible. No wheels slows movement down, unpacking from crates costs time and so on. The centre section would be fitted as per the photograph, so that assembly had to be ready to go as well, otherwise it is more time to fit the tanks and undercarriage etc. So far all photographs of partially assembled Hurricanes have the wing centre section attached to the fuselage. C&E = Carl and Elizabeth and the 4 part article on RCAF Hurricanes published by the Canadian Aviation Historical Society, the pre war photograph shows fuselages with engines but minus tails and outer wings, propped up on trestles since the radiator is in place. No idea about the undercarriage, or just the wheels, whether retracted or removed. Since the tyres were meant for grass fields and wore out quickly on the runways the RCAF was using, leading to a pre war shortage. I agree by end January 1942 at least some of the missing supplies had arrived, given we know some of the RCAF Hurricanes entered service, after the effort to obtain them I doubt the RCAF was interested in sending any spares straight back versus keeping them in stock for the 80 strong force expected to operate in Canada.

Agreed it is the standard arrangement, but what happens if there are no wheels, tyres and tubes? As reported to be the case with the stored mark I. Would the airframe be further disassembled or rested on chocks or trestles? In the photographs replacing the outer wings, engine mount and fuselage fairings would be simple enough, but the wing centre section would be a lot more work. CCF shipped its airframes incomplete.

No problems about the delayed reply, if I could only figure out how to see my private messages again I could be sure of what I said back then. I have not seen a copy of the updated versions of the book so I am not in a position to comment on them. I have found differences in the original versions and things like the production reports and RAF delivery logs, for example NF702 ad NF735. I have copies of official British Naval Aircraft Production reports for the RN from 1933 to early 1955 as a possible sanity check, with the caveat such reports can and do omit regular production aircraft for a number of reasons and I have only double checked/cross referenced 1935 to 1949. The delivery logs generally mention when an aircraft was transferred to the RN/FAA. Finally I wanted to mention the web site and its photographs.

Changing the outer wings and front fuselage are simple enough, the wing centre section is in the photograph, connected to the fuselage and the undercarriage, to replace that you need to lift the fuselage off at least, maybe disconnect the main undercarriage and move it to the new wing centre section. However we know none of the stored mark I had wheels, brakes, tyres or tubes, so what they were resting on becomes an issue, perhaps chocks or trestles or they were more disassembled than the ones in the photograph.

The letter with the list of Hurricanes in store is dated 31 January 1942 replying to one sent on the 21st and as of that time it was 60 for the RCAF with "a possibility ... may be reduced to 30, but I am awaiting written confirmation regarding this point". Thanks again Carl and Elizabeth. The 30 sent to Britain, AG serials, Taken on Charge or Arrival at Maintenance Unit dates, * means MU date, and where both an MU and ToC date are given they are the same. Feb-42 343* Mar-42 297*, 301*, 668, 670 Apr-42 303*, 320*, 321*, 324*, 329*, 333*, 334, 335*, 339, 340, 342, 344, 665, 666, 667, 671 May-42 292*, 322*, 328*, 331*, 336, 337, 338, 669 Others: 298 Russia Jun-42, which implies it is one of the earlier arrivals. The above arrival times are consistent with the AG672-684, and early AM serials, the ones needed to make the 100 mark I for Canada. The ones that were probably mostly on the assembly line when it shut down and remained partially assembled but moved aside/suspended so the Sea Hurricanes could be built. By the way, in the September Sea Hurricane assembly hall photograph, people are confident the airframes on the other side are mark I, how confident about Sea mark I, not standard mark I? Things like radiator fits were done to the stored mark I or at least radiators are not listed as needed to make them flyable. They key date above is AG343 at 13 MU on 25 February 1942, then comes 297 on 2 March (but just possibly May, the writing is hard to read). The aircraft had to be disassembled for shipping, so if the stored aircraft were assembled CCF could substitute new mark II parts for the relevant mark I easily enough during packing. If they were disassembled that actually might be harder depending on how much packing had been done and what parts were packed together, unpack mark I parts, substitute mark II, (re)pack for export sort of thing. 60 Hurricanes would take up a fair amount of room, admittedly removing the outer wing panels would save much space, so would they be stored in as complete a state as possible or would some work be done to reduce storage space requirements? If the decision was taken to reduce the RCAF allotment to 30 in late January and CCF were aware Britain would only accept mark II, there is just enough time to have one of the stored airframes upgraded and arrive at an MU in Britain on 25 February, we know from the 1941 exports it can take under a month from Canada to Britain, the arrival date of AG343 shows this again, but the upgrade process has to be along the lines of move mark II parts in and mark I out in hours not days of extra time versus just packing the existing airframe. The RAF etc. say all upgrade work was in Canada, logic says all the stored and partially built airframes could go through a standard process of upgrade at CCF before shipping. Air Britain is putting up a warning sign but that warning sign has its own problems by saying AG667-71 were IIB when it is definite they were mark I as built.

So Air Britain considers all AG serials to AG344 to be mark I, mostly converted to mark II and AG665 to 684 all mark II. So yet another reference that has its own ideas. The 5 unreported serials, AG297 to 128 Sqn. RAF, SOC 31.5.45. Squadron was at Sierra Leone and reported using Hurricane I to January 1943, mark II from November 1942 to March 1943. AG297 was sent to the Middle East on 8 September 1942. AG303 to Russia 24.9.42 The Russians would not have accepted a mark I that late. AG337 to 2 Sqn. then 6 Sqn. Royal Indian Air Force, AG338 to 2 Sqn. Royal Indian Air Force, then 607/20 Sqn. RAF. AG337 shipped to India 28 August 1942, AG338 on 8 November 1942, while 607 squadron stopped using mark I in September 1941 and the Indian Air force says it operated mark II. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units/Squadrons/2-Squadron.html http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Units/Squadrons/6-Squadron.html AG342 to 28/20 Sqn. RAF 28 squadron reports only using mark II, IIB from December 1942 to April 1944, IIC March 1944 to October 1945, 20 squadron used IIB January to May 1943, IID March 1943 to September 1945, IV December 1944 to September 1945. So apart from AG297 the service usage says they were all mark II and it seems reasonable to assume AG297 was a mark II. The letter dated 10 December 1941 has Sea Hurricane status being 15 despatched, 9 ready for despatch, 26 complete except for generator couplings and some wheels while mark IIB were in production at a rate of 2 per day. I read that to mean all Sea Hurricane airframes were off the assembly line, with some but not all had been officially produced. The Taken on Charge dates would be after the official production dates, so there were probably more than 5 Sea Hurricanes officially produced in November. The conclusion is CCF mark I Hurricanes were all serials to AG671 less AG341. Air Britain declaring all the AG665 to 684 being mark II can be taken as evidence they were converted before leaving Canada, the import reports, RAF and Ministry of Aircraft Production reports also say no mark I imports after August 1941, but Air Britain reporting conversions, presumably from the individual aircraft cards, suggests some conversions were done in Britain. Given Carl and Elizabeth’s clear depth of information they seem the only obvious source to provide more evidence to firm up the conclusions.

As far as I can tell we can drop the FAA aircraft for the moment as Sturtivant is reporting their version on arrival to the FAA, so after CCF and RAF work. Thanks for the Air Britain listings. The first obvious question is converted from what? The reason I mentioned the RCAF aircraft the 60 stored airframes were A wing and that is how they *should* have been sent to Britain unless CCF manufactured another up to 30 sets of B wings. So converted to IIB could mean from IIA. It is unlikely CCF was taking A wings from stored aircraft to fit to Sea Hurricanes and replacing them with B wings, start with the fact all Sea Hurricanes had their wings as of 10 December and how ready the aircraft in storage are reported. Air Britain reporting AG665-71 were mark IIB on arrival in Britain says at least some wing swaps had to occur, or maybe since they were operating mark I the RCAF kept some A wings as spares. I know the Taken on Charge dates need to be used with caution, but for AG673 (not 2) to AG684 they are basically linear, from 28 February to 12 March 1942, for AG665 to 672 they are, in order in 1942, 29 April, 2x30 April, 13 March, 6 March, 2 March, 30 April and 14 April. The later serials clearly arriving first. Does “unreported” mean there is no data against the serials or no mention of conversion? Our anchor points are the 60 stored airframes (59 built in July/August, 1 in October) which end in serial AG671 (excluding AG341/3), the inventory of Sea Hurricanes as of 10 December 1941 being 15 despatched, 9 ready for despatch, 26 complete except for generator couplings and some wheels, while mark IIB were in production at a rate of 2 per day, and being exported as rapidly as possible. The Sea Hurricane taken on Charge dates say 31 delivered by end December 1941. Official Hurricane production (all types) for November was 31 and then 70 in December. To add to the complexity the aircraft arriving in Britain in December 1941 were *not* AG672 to AG684, nor AM270 to 296, the next set of serials ordered, but from around AM297 onwards, this 40 or so airframe gap, along with the 60 stored, meets the requirement of 100 aircraft for 1 Operational Training Unit in Canada, as noted in other documents. Now to move into trying to make the pieces fit. Production is 31 in November plus around 20 aircraft built to 10 December that need to account for any Sea Hurricanes and 40+, say 50, other airframes being produced *if* production was in serial order, given the serials of the early mark II arrivals in Britain. Highly doubtful. Going the other way all Sea Hurricanes, by using slave equipment, could have been tested and officially produced by 10 December, again highly doubtful as that would mean mark II were just coming off the line and the first 7 needed to be in Britain in 3 weeks. We know CCF had Sea Hurricanes being assembled in September so it is highly likely all 50 Sea Hurricanes airframes came off the line before any other new airframes did, but the fact the Sea Hurricanes had to be in flyable condition says some at least were officially produced later than the first mark II which had an airframe only requirement for it to be counted. We can then turn to the possibility CCF had a number of partially built airframes moved off the production line while awaiting parts, in order to build the Sea Hurricane, maybe up to 40 partially built mark I airframes from AG672 onwards, given the would be the same version as the stored airframes, to complete the allotment for 1 OTU. Deduct them and deduct the 24 Sea Hurricanes despatched or ready to be despatched and it means around 26 mark II built in November to around 10 December of which 7 made it to Britain in December. I doubt we will find the exact numbers but the simplest conclusion is November to 10 December 1941 there are a mixture of Sea Hurricanes and mark II officially built, while a number of partially built airframes have been moved off the production line and will ultimately be delivered as mark II when the decision is taken to defer equipping 1 OTU. A point to consider is that until around August 1941 CCF was building airframes where almost all the parts were being made in Canada but which needed significant amounts of equipment to complete after arriving in Britain, then it was confronted with the need to make 150 complete aircraft, which required more parts from Britain and the line suddenly shut down for around 2 months. Now to add in the reports parts from the 24001-40 construction number block (AG665-84, then AM270-89) ended up in Sea Hurricanes. That at least fits with the idea a number of airframes from AG672 to around AM297 were available as either partially built or still to be built airframes. Jumping to assumption mode, production of around 60 a month drops to 11 in August 1941, so unless it was an unlikely planned shut down there would be a number of partially assembled airframes, all marked to be kept in Canada for the training system, in the assembly hall. They are moved into storage or are cannibalised and the Sea Hurricanes started, unless I am mistaken the requirement for 100 aircraft for the OTU included reserves, so the final 40 are not as high an immediate priority for the training system and certainly behind the Sea Hurricanes, so they or their parts are available for higher priority aircraft. In summary CCF was actually producing Hurricane mark I airframes for the RAF to mid 1941 and had received a change of direction to produce completed aircraft, 100 mark I for training, 50 Sea for the RN. This required more imports of airframe components and when those imports failed the line was forced to shut down, leaving the area with 59 near complete airframes in storage, around 40 or so partially assembled airframes that were moved off the line (or reworked/reallocated) to enable Sea Hurricane assembly. When the line reopened it completed a final mark I and the Sea Hurricanes while moving to mark II airframe production, including completing the partially assembled airframes as mark II. 30 of the mark I airframes in storage sent to Britain became mark II, either before or after leaving Canada, the conversion program for the other airframes suggest and RAF documents say before leaving Canada. Quite neat, though why CCF could not have started a mark II airframe assembly line in mid 1941 needs an explanation, lack of imported components is the simplest reason. One side point part of the confusion about which were IIB and IIC could easily be the fitting of IIC wings made in Britain during assembly and retaining the Canadian built IIB wings as spares.

We know one of the 61 airframes AG287, AG292 to AG344 and AG665 to AG671 was not in storage, based on the list Carl and Elizabeth provided, either AG343 or 341, one of these needs to be dropped and since AG341 was as far as I can tell not delivered until 1943, I recommend AG341. Firstly to verify the airframes we are talking about, the ones put in storage in Canada but ultimately shipped to Britain, AG292, 7, 8, AG301, 3, AG320, 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, AG331, 33 to 40, AG342, 3, 4, AG665 to 71. Total 30. Mason lists AG298, AG301, AG320, 1, 4, 8, 9, AG333, 6, 9, AG343, 4, total 12 as converted to IIB and sent to Russia, Sturtivant lists AG292, AG332, 4, 5, AG340, AG666, 7, 9 all as IIB, with AG292, 340, AG666, 7 converted to IIC and AG334 maybe converted. Do these look correct? What are the Air Britain listings and what do they say? The delivery logs have AG666, 7 listed as IIC, AG671 converted from IIB to IIC, all the others IIB, no conversions mentioned from mark I. To RN AG292, AG334, 5, AG340, AG666, 7 The Mason report seems to come from a shipping list to Russia, which is missing AG303, note he is calling the AG serials mark X, that is US Merlin and many as A wing so being listed as a IIB on the shipping list would indicate a conversion from what he thinks they were produced as. The letter that talks about the stored airframes implies they are all A wing and the photographs of those in RCAF service indicate A wing, so we have a choice of conversions, from IA to IIA in Canada then to IIB in Britain or from IA to IIB in Canada or from IA to IIB in Britain. Any others?

The latest summary using the information from Carl and Elizabeth. The RCAF1351-1410 serials list as listed above is correct, once you add in the 1 initially omitted. AG201 is the serial in the document matched to 1381, clearly a typo for AG301 and RCAF 1396 is paired with AG341 while AG343 is missing, given AG201/301 for the moment it is assumed AG341 in the list should be AG343, given the RAF documentation mentions AG343 in 1942 but AG341 does not officially arrive until 1943, and in fact is the absolute last entry in the final order contract card. Next in a letter dated 10 December 1941 from the (Canadian) Director General of Aircraft Production reported 15 Sea Hurricanes already despatched for the east. 9 Sea Hurricanes tested and ready at Fort William 26 Sea Hurricanes that were missing between them, 24 generator couplings, 11 pairs of wheels, 8 tail wheels (slave (CCF test) equipment can reduce this to 8 pairs and 6 tail wheels). The brakes, being magnesium alloy castings, and the wheels must come from England, generator couplings from Merlin 28 can be used. Some items of service equipment are also needed, "secret wireless device" etc. Fort William has 60 mark IA airframes (explicitly stated can only take Merlin III engines), complete less wheels, brakes, tyres and tubes but needing engines, propellers, instruments, and all other appendix A Serial 1160 Embodiment Loan Equipment. The deficient equipment will have to come from Fairey Battles, including a cut down two pitch propeller. The mark II in production emerge from the factory in a similar state to the stored mark I. "require from England, wheels, brakes, air compressors and drives and couplers for same, hydraulic pump drives and couplings, airscrews and instruments". It seems these items were on order from Britain. 7 Merlin 28 had arrived at Fort William by 10 December. End of information from letter. The PJ serial airframes, the ex RCF order ones, were stripped so as to be the same standard as mark II production. While the final JS serials had their radiators removed to be used in Mosquitoes. So my conclusion of when mark II production began, based on the RAF contract cards, is incorrect. While 30 of the stored airframes were converted to mark IIB before arrival in Britain by the looks of the RAF documents. The statement AG665 onwards were built as mark IIB needs to have the starting serials changed to AG341 (or 343) and then AG672 on. There is a good chance all CCF mark II were IIB, The BW serials order, CCF was notified on 18 April 1941 and it originally included 100 Sea Hurricanes but that was quickly changed to 50. Then 15 Sea Hurricanes to the RCAF in January 1942 as a loan, more followed after the Merchant Ship Fighter Scheme was stopped. Mark X, proposed mark number for Sea Hurricane with Merlin 29, not used. (as noted earlier the Dutch called their Hurricane mark X) Mark XI, proposed mark number for ex RAF order Hurricane I with Merlin 29, not used. Mark XII. The RCAF order were officially Mark IIB (Can) until they were renamed mark XII on 16 April 1943 while mark XIIA was used for the 8 gun wing, the Sea and mark I conversions. The plans for more advanced training in Canada using Hurricanes. As noted the idea was around in mid 1941, using 100 aircraft, the original aircraft were reallocated but in January 1942 the plan was still 102 Hurricanes for 1 OTU, however the RCAF insisted they be built after the RCAF order, to be equipped with Merlin 28 and at best semi-officially called mark IIB (Eng), in the end these airframes were sent to Britain,

Transcribing lists where many of the "words" are almost the same is a really easy way to make unobserved typos. Been there, done that far too many times. Like in my reply, for 1369 read 1396, easy isn't it? So 1382 = AG301 and I presume 1396 = AG343, leaving AG341 as the missing serial. Which agrees with the contract cards and delivery logs and seems to make AG341 the 1 in the 1,451 production. RG = Record Group = Canadian Archives? Lovely reading room, glass wall with a superb view of the park leading down to the river. Now to try private messaging.

Hello Carl and Elizabeth, my but the material you are providing is interesting. Firstly congratulations on 53 years of married life and being such an effective team. The list in your message is 59 aircraft and does not include AG301 and AG343, the number ties exactly with the 59 officially built in July and August 1941, however the list is missing RCAF serial 1382 while RCAF 1369 is paired with AG341 , the RAF serial which does not appear until 1943 in the documents I have, while there is nothing in them that mark AG301 and 343 as unusual. AG671 is number 487 in the list of CCF built Hurricane serials, removing the 426 mark I you are left with 61, given a total of 60 airframes in storage this does tie in with one of the AG291 to AG344 or AG665 to 671 not being produced in 1941. As noted the evidence I have points to AG341 being that airframe. Do you have a citation for the list, that is what RCAF/Archives file it came from? I have not tried to post an image so cannot help there, I assume you are trying to post the image from your computer rather than from a web site. Not sure what you mean by the Sea Hurricanes as they retained their RAF serials. Jon Leake is trying to put together a definitive book on the Hurricane, an update on the Mason works, if you are interested in that idea, the project has been some years in the making and sounds like it still has some time to go before publication. I am sure plenty of people reading your message would like to see the results of all that work. and I doubt a text only posting of that size would break the system but of course once it is public anyone can take a copy. PM is definitely Private Message, though as a newcomer I am unsure how the system quite works and of course if more than a few people want a copy it could become a problem. Exchanging email details may be a better way, so you have a direct connection to whoever receives a copy and can put in any terms and conditions you feel appropriate. By all means post the Kittyhawk material, probably by starting a new topic, I am sure someone can give you a guide on how and where to do that.

First more on the RCAF P-40 order. Air Arsenal North America by Butler and Hagedorn report the P-40 from RAF order were replacements for the RCAF P-39 order, but do not mention what that order was. Looking at some of the files from the Canadian Archives, (Note the RCAF also had B-26 and Vultee Vengeance on order.) As of 26 August and 25 September 1941 there were 144 P-39 on order, with no definite schedule available before March 1942 and deliveries not expected before June 1942. As of 22 January 1942 the P-39 order is gone but there is an order of 60 Hurricanes, 7 received in week ending 17 January, 14 per week thereafter. Given the RCAF wanted 144 P-39, 72 P-40 would undoubtedly be considered not enough, hence the requests for Hurricanes, 60 (plus 30 Sea?) would give a fighter force of around the P-39 order numbers. Hurricane production schedules Q3/1941 800 RAF on order, 412 delivered to 30 June 1941 (147 Q1/41, 189 Q2/41), Forecast 150 in Q3 and again in Q4/41, 88 in Q1/42, order to be completed in February 1942. (The Q1/1942 production report has 400 RCAF and 1,050 RAF on order.) Note the expected output in the final 6 months of 1941 versus the 175 actually built. An estimate for Hurricane production, seems to be dated 31 May 1942 but the forecast starts in January 1942. There were 521 (517?) produced to December 1941 out of 1,450 on order. The January to December 1942 monthly forecast production is 78, 115, 77, 92, 67, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80, 20 respectively, order completed December 1942. March 1942 forecast, 400 RCAF, 800 RAF on order, with 714 RAF built to 28 Feb 1942. Output then is estimated to be 70 RAF in March, 16 RAF, 84 RCAF in April then 80 per month to finish production in August. June 1942 forecast, production to 31 May had been 925 RAF, output to be 80 RCAF per month June to November, with the final 45 RAF in December. September 1942 forecast, production to 31 August had been 950 RAF, 73 RCAF, monthly production of 50 per month September 1942 to March 1943, then 77 in Q2/1943. Q2/1942 production 186, versus forecast of 260 Q3/1942 production 86, versus forecast of 240 Q1/1943 production 150, versus forecast of 163 The relevant dates have been given, RAF 5 in November 1941, 26 in December, and 19 in January 1942, RCAF 28 in December 1941, 21 in January 1942, 1 in April. As has been commented on the RAF officially received them first then passed them to the RCAF for operations. Look at the production schedules and how difficult it was to obtain accurate forecasts. I disagree it was poor production management, instead of inevitable delays and changing priorities. Think of the 1941 RAF situation, early in the year there was a great need for fighters on the assumption the Germans would try for a second Battle of Britain along with pressure in the Middle East. As of end June it was clear the RAF would have at least 6 months where its losses would be largely decided by the RAF, what operations it did, since the Germans were busy in the east, there would need to be aid to the USSR, which most people expected to collapse by the end of the year. The urgent need for fighters had decreased to an extent, though the USSR was sent nearly 700 Hurricanes in 1941, another 1,350 or so in 1942. With the reduction in urgency some Hurricanes could be retained in Canada, fitted with US engines, to allow more advanced training before personnel were sent to Britain, useful given the training limits in Britain. The US engines were of course delayed, but then so were the airframes. Then comes the late 1941 situation where there is a new Pacific front which needs fighters, the USSR is staying in the war and requires fighters, the US is not supplying promised fighters. The Japanese have proved much better than expected so modern fighters are required, things like operations Cross and Churn pick up fighters from Takoradi and move them to Singapore, HMS Indomitable acts as an aircraft ferry as well, and the aircraft that do arrive are usually lost within a short time. So the advanced training idea in Canada is abandoned, releasing the stored aircraft. How sure are you that exactly 50 Merlin III were imported for the Sea Hurricanes, I would have expected some extras given maintenance requirements. And agreed the one way Sea Hurricanes were unlikely to receive new engines. If you are going to use allocation dates to the USSR, particularly in 1942, remember convoy PQ17. No Hurricanes were officially exported to the USSR October to December 1942. And I must stress again I am working off the delivery logs, they are not meant as a detailed history, that requires the individual aircraft cards, possibly enough details of which are in the Air Britain Serials books, otherwise it is the RAF museum. I can only report what the first date is in the delivery log and as noted it is clear some are the pre war definition of Taken on Charge, that is out of the factory, and others are arrival at a Maintenance Unit in Britain. Given the dates when Hurricanes en route to the USSR are reported lost at sea versus their Russia dates it is best to assume the latter is allocation date. What happened to the CCF built Hurricanes after they arrived in Britain cannot I think be of much use in figuring out Canadian production order. AG680 Taken on Charge 9 March 1942, AM274 was Taken on Charge on 6 April 1942. Note there were only 7 imports of CCF Hurricanes in December 1941 and none in November. Where mentioned, Maintenance Unit, AM299 to AM355. 5MU AM305, 309, 312, 313, 316, 324, 339, 354, 355 13MU AM306, 315, 331, 333, 353, 20MU AM299, 300, 303, 332, 341, 346 To repeat myself, For an idea of average travel times the table is month, the first number is production for the month and the second is production yet to arrive in Britain, as of end of month Sep-40 1 / 1 Oct-40 7 / 7 Nov-40 13 / 15 Dec-40 15 / 21 Jan-41 35 / 40 Feb-41 46 / 63 Mar-41 66 / 69 Apr-41 58 / 73 (4 lost at sea removed) May-41 72 / 95 Jun-41 59 / 51 (4 lost at sea removed) Jul-41 14 / 8 Aug-41 0 / 0 That gives a good indication of the time between official roll out at CCF and official arrival in Britain, then comes delivery to the RAF. The 1941/42 period is complicated because everything so far indicates the first 100 officially mark II production was held in Canada, plus the Sea Hurricane production. Then the decision was taken to release the stored airframes, 70 to RAF, 30 to RCAF. While in 1943 we do not know when the ex RCAF Hurricanes were released, it looks like after the final RAF order aircraft started production and includes RCAF 5737 to 5775, some of which were definitely built after the last RAF order ones. So trying to determine the average travel times means looking at the 1941 production and assuming similar times in 1942 and 1943.

Thanks very much Carl for a very informative contribution. The Kittyhawk I order was delivered as RCAF 1028 to 1099, so 72 aircraft, Taken on Strength dates were Oct-41 16, Nov-41 11, Dec-41 12, Jan-42 15, Feb-42 10, Mar-42 2, Apr-42 2, Nov-42 2, assuming the November 1942 are not typos for 1941, the 12 or so per month continued until February, giving 66 Kittyhawk. Also another 12 Kittyhawk IA, RCAF720-31 were Taken on Strength on 10 April 1942. So the RCAF was certainly right to be worried about supply but the deal, presumably with the British, was essentially continued until April. The mid 1942 date for the RACF Hurricane order is interesting, it actually began in June despite 100 RAF order aircraft still outstanding, sounds like the date mattered more than finishing the RAF orders. I wonder if the date was long planned assuming no 1941 delay, but the delay meant the decision was taken to switch before finishing all RAF orders. Any idea of the date when RCAF were allowed to take over the Hurricanes or at least the agreement date? Thanks for confirming they would be RCAF, not RAF on loan. Not sure how the ready to fly and fight would apply to the stored aircraft, I can only assume they were ready to go except for engines, so armament etc. fitted. Meantime the RCAF took its first 5 Sea Hurricanes on Strength on 9 December 1941, by which date the RAF had Taken on Charge another 6. There would be around another 40 airframes built by CCF since the line restarted in October 1941, including some of the above Sea Hurricanes, less any airframes already exported to Britain, which received 7 in December 1941. The 60 airframes in storage should have been mostly the 59 built in July/August, the document stating they were awaiting engines is actually important, as the only engines currently known as being supplied to Canada for RAF order Hurricanes are Merlin 28, making the airframes mark II, does the document indicate the mark of Merlin being supplied? So all 60 aircraft in storage were allocated an RCAF serial, and the document you have also gives the RAF serial as well , if this is correct please post the list, it will be of great use in figuring out what was going on, starting with what airframes were being stored. AG341 is of particular interest. I note AG287 – 342 and AG665 – 671 is 63 airframes, but we know the 4 airframes AG288-91 were shipped to Britain as mark I in mid 1941, but this serials list omits AG343 and AG344. AG671 is number 486 in the RAF serial number list, taking off the 426 mark I leaves 61 airframes, taking off AG341 leaves 60. Yes CCF were known to have had some Merlin III to test some mark I airframes, the 88 flights for 426 mark I is at best 1 in 5 of the airframes receiving 1 test flight each, more like 1 in 10 were tested. Agreed that with mark I production over CCF had no need for any Merlin III, presuming Britain shipped a quantity of Merlin III for the Sea Hurricanes. Agreed also the supply of Merlin III was proving a problem for places like Canada and Australia as the Battles were being flown so much. Also the supply of Battles was running out, with a total of 2,200 built over 1,300 were exported from Britain from April 1940 onwards, and others before that date, most exports done by end 1941, only another 15 would be shipped to Canada in 1942. The statement the airframes had to be erected rather contradicts the "ready to fly and flight" claim, it does fit with them being broken down to an extent to enable efficient storage, you would expect CCF to put them back together rather that freight them from Ontario to Nova Scotia for presumably RCAF units to do the work, but then CCF were under considerable pressure at the time. One point is the photographs of RCAF1351-80 show A wing armament as far as I am aware, and it would be remarkable if the wings in storage were not shipped along with the fuselages, so IIA in storage, with those exported reworked to IIB? So as of early December 1941 the RCAF says 60 airframes were in storage, at least partially disassembled, they do not mention around another 40 that had been built mostly in November, nor indicate if CCF had some partially assembled airframes over and above those on the assembly line. Look at the averages from the export list, 2 months is slow in terms produced to arrived in Britain, the US Army example then shows the sorts of delays between the British docks and the reception areas, in this case the Maintenance Unit. The trouble is the production pause, everyone agrees the number of Hurricanes in the September photograph is less than 1 months production at early/mid 1941 pace, so they could have been started in early September for example, we simply have no evidence, only that something was preventing any completed production of both mark I and II variants August to October 1941. Airframes on the line in mid September , assuming the photograph is of the entire assembly hall, should have all been assembled by around the end of the month. At some point CCF would have run out of storage space for partial airframes, more so if they wanted them under cover. I am not sure the dates of allocation after arrival in Britain can tell us much about CCF production order, the taken on charge etc. dates are best for that. After import the CCF Hurricanes would enter the general pool of Hurricane II. Actually unless there was another engine order around we do not know about the stored machines which were for the RAF, not RCAF, when stored, were waiting for Merlin 28, the 144 we know were on order, the Merlin 29 were committed to the RCAF order and the US could not use Merlin 28 with their shafts meant for British propellers, while the British could not use Merlin 29 with their shafts for US propellers. Part of the reason for the stronger mark II centre section was to carry external loads. Were any RACF Hurricanes fitted with wing racks? I have not seen any such photographs. In which case the converted Sea Hurricanes would be the equivalent of a mark II series i, while the mark XII would be the equivalent of a mark II series ii. Also as part of the conversion did the Sea Hurricanes stay as the sea version, with the relevant radio, arrester hook etc.? On the in service mark II to I conversion, I am told the RN radios were heavier than the RAF ones, and this hurt given the radio was aft of the cockpit. Keeping the forward fuselage extension would have helped. https://www.thunderbay.ca/en/city-hall/canadian-car-and-foundry-.aspx for a couple of CCF pictures that call into question how many Hurricane lines there could have been. https://www.google.com.au/search?=canadian+car+and+foundry+fort+william+ontario&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5w5CCz8PjAhXymeYKHWlrCJsQsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=1366&bih=695#imgrc=Bp_Vb9p4K8UjTM:&spf=1563629988703 If the second link does not work it came up when I went searching for CCF Hurricanes. Does anyone know what is the time out for a log in is? I find I am logging in to compose a reply, then having to log in a second time to post it.

Z7051 is interesting, a significant delay, the question from AM274 is how much of that was in Britain. For BW836 we have a photograph dated 18 September of the assembly line but it gives no idea how close to completion any of the aircraft were, the Sea Hurricanes could have been waiting on engines from Britain at least. AM274 shows the delays within Britain. For an idea of average travel times the table is month, the first number is production for the month and the second is production yet to arrive in Britain, as of end of month Sep-40 1 / 1 Oct-40 7 / 7 Nov-40 13 / 15 Dec-40 15 / 21 Jan-41 35 / 40 Feb-41 46 / 63 Mar-41 66 / 69 Apr-41 58 / 73 (4 lost at sea removed) May-41 72 / 95 Jun-41 59 / 51 (4 lost at sea removed) Jul-41 14 / 8 Aug-41 0 / 0 So something over a month on average, with better times in summer. Agreed the training Hurricanes could be mark I, the next 100 airframes end around AM295 and at full production the order should have been filled by around end August 1941, but in fact took until late December numerically and early January after you take into account the Sea Hurricanes, it is unlikely any complete airframes were not counted as produced during the period. The idea CCF had the only open mark I line at end June is strictly correct, but it was only the last 8 still to be officially built, Glosters output in June 1941 was around 20 to 25% mark I, a matter of weeks difference. The Sea Hurricane order clearly had an elevated priority, if they were built in order they would have appeared in January 1942, not starting in November 1941. As to whether they took precedence over the 100 to be stored the numbers say not really, 59 airframes before the break, another 32 October/November versus 5 Sea Hurricanes Taken On Charge, 70 production in December versus 26 Sea Hurricanes Taken on Charge. By end December 1941 there were over 100 more mark II Hurricane airframes officially produced than had arrived in Britain even after deducting the ones used by the RCAF. Agreed the need to make changes should have slowed down the Sea Hurricane production versus mark I, it cannot explain such a big gap. The serial numbers of the first arrivals in Britain in December 1941 could indicate the storage plan was largely done, or alternatively at least some of the earlier official mark II were partially completed airframes awaiting final assembly or an engine or conversion from mark I. RCAF 1351-80 were Taken on Strength in December 1941 and January 1942, this period clearly overlaps the Sea Hurricane production, so the line was receiving mark I parts. As noted the Merlin III went out of production in May 1941, Merlin 28 production started in August 1941, shipments of Merlin 28 for the Hurricanes were arriving in numbers in January or certainly in February 1942. The placing into RCAF service of stored airframes earlier than April 1942 can be evidence the airframes were mark I, on the basis early arrival means less work was involved. At the same time it was an emergency situation and so far there seems no problems with attaching A wings and mark I forward fuselages to the stronger mark II wing centre section. As noted before for every reason for the stored airframes to be one mark a counter reason can be given for them being the other. For example it is logical to think the Hurricanes destined for the training system in Canada to be mark I given the Fairey Battles present, however the Merlin III engine had ended production but was still in demand for the Battles, Defiants, Hurricanes and Spitfires either still operational or making their way into the training system plus of course the Sea Hurricanes the Admiralty were receiving. Why set up more demand for the engine when the US was near and able to supply engines? For example the Anson mark IV airframes sent to Canada to use US engines, the Oxford mark V that did the same thing. The Merlin 28 and 29 orders for CCF built Hurricanes. To give an idea of the effort required to move all the stuff around. A convoy from the US to England in March 1944, 18 full and 24 part ship US Army cargoes (1,500 vehicles on wheels, 200 cased, 200 aircraft and gliders, 50,000 tons of supplies). The Army cargoes took eight days to discharge, 75 trains using 10,000 cars to clear, plus some road transport, these land movements also generated the need for 27 trains with 8,000 cars for things like inter depot movements and rail supplies.

You certainly have more interest in who made the Hurricanes used by the RN, I used Sturtivant's list then looked at the delivery logs and was given a list of serials where MSFU is mentioned. Mark and Total I 53 I/Trop 48 Sea Ia 16 Sea Ib 281 Sea IIb 2 Sea IIc 107 IIA 3 IIB 26 IIB/Trop 4 IIC 76 IIC/Trop 14 IV 1 Total 631 I Airframe 398 II Airframe 232 Of these the actual versions for 3 mark I, 6 I/Trop and 7 Sea Ib are uncertain. Probable additions 22 mark I, 2 Sea IIc and 1 IIc, probable deletions 1 I/Trop, 2 Sea Ia, 5 Sea Ib and 3 Sea IIc. Another 87 mark I identified via Air Britain Serials, plus another 3 where the only mention is in the delivery logs. Sturtivant (therefore the above list) only includes BW841, BW855, BW856 from the CCF built Sea Hurricanes as 2 Sea Ia and 1 Ib.

I know the above text did not come out as intended. Everything I have seen refers to production as the finished product, but then I am dealing with the production reports, work could certainly continue without completing airframes. At the same time there were storage limits, aircraft rapidly take over a lot of area. More so if you want to keep them indoors, safe from a Canadian winter. As noted the British would install dedicated parts to test the airframe, declare it acceptable then move the aircraft to storage and remove the relevant parts. CCF output is somewhat unique, few of its British order Hurricanes were flight tested in Canada, so produced really means airframe rolled out. Given the stories of come parts for CCF coming from Britain a ship being sunk, damaged or delayed could affect production and could take weeks to remedy. Agreed the aim was to ensure smooth flowing output but that did not happen thanks to the way the economy was so stretched the spare capacity to deal with a shortfall was not usually available. We have the photographs of *an* assembly hall, I presume it was actually *the* assembly hall and clearly had the potential for two production lines, one on each side, which was used. Unless there is evidence to the contrary I expect the building was taken over, not put up to enable aircraft production, let alone Hurricane, so it would be a case of making the space work. As people have noted despite a lack of completed output it is possible CCF completed as many airframes as much as they could given limits on parts and storage area. Consider the possibility that when completed output restarted the airframes then on the assembly line were completed first followed by the partially assembled ones that had been moved to storage, so the line was kept open and the backlog was then dealt with, or say keep the line flowing and only then allocate resources to the incomplete airframes, with the background idea of shipping (and testing?) them with engines. We actually have a measurement of travel time between CCF and Britain, CCF need to complete a minimum of 14 mark I in July 1941 and 6 of these were in Britain by the end of the month, so around 4 weeks, certainly others took longer and I doubt any took less time. The US Army worked out if took around 3 weeks in well equipped port to load and then completely unload a merchant (liberty?) ship. A US Army study found its dry cargo ships to the UK were taking an average of 59.8 days for a return voyage in 1943. Army dry cargo ships were taking 76.9 days on average to complete a round trip voyage to England in the period January to June 1944, including 15.4 days in English ports and 27.4 days in US ports. War Shipping Administration figures for 1,412 ships completing round voyages to England January 1943 to March 1944 gives the average round trip time as 69.4 days including 18.4 days “in overseas area” but with 5 less days at sea and 5 less days in US ports than the army cargo ships. Certainly 2 months was possible from CCF factory to maintenance unit but that sounds like more likely to be the longest, just like 4 weeks would be the shortest.

Production restarted is the usual term, as production is measured by output. Certainly work could and usually was done during the pause, even something simple like a clean up of the working areas. Also it was more than a 1 month production pause, more like early August to late October, based on what the line could produce versus what was produced in those three months. We have a still photograph of the Hurricanes, and I expect assembly work was being done though probably not at full pace given Sea Hurricane production dates, at the same the line could be frozen, no work being done, proof of course would be a sequence of photographs showing change. Anyway given the time required to build airframe assembly work would have started before production officially did. AM299 and AM300 Taken on Charge Dates are arrival at 20 MU. However AM295 ToC is 11 March 1942, at 13 MU 3 May. When the ToC date was measured clearly varies. Now to throw in yet another anomaly, if built in serial number order AM299 and 300 are numbers 530 and 531, but only 517 were built to end November 1941, and at regular production rate AM299 and 300 would appear around 7 December, and yet are reported at 20 MU under two weeks later and I really doubt they flew. So we may have a "Sea Hurricane" effect of serials being built out of order, or airframes set aside awaiting engines or earlier airframes needed to be reworked to mark II standard or a highly unlikely really fast delivery or something else. Given Hurricane marks were defined by the engine fitted it is quite correct RCAF1351-80 were mark I as initially flown, later mark XII, and agreed the mark XII conversion could have been done to mark I airframes. What I am trying to do is figure out why the airframes should be reported as mark II by the production system, it could be a mistake or it could be the RCAF took mark II airframes and made them mark I. Removing the wing centre section is work, removing the mark II wing fairings and extra length less so. Essentially were the RCAF forced to work with mark II airframes (and possibly constrained by RAF standards requirements when doing modifications), or were they mark I and the ones sent to Britain reworked to mark II. So far no evidence seems to exist to prove either case conclusively as not all the mark I to II airframe changes are visible. With the extra airframe strength, slightly longer fuselage and ability to take a heavier engine a standard mark II airframe would be slightly more expensive than a mark I. How many mark XII had the A wing, or ended up with A wing armament? When I went looking almost all photographs of RCAF Hurricanes I found had the A wing. From the very start the value of the extra machine guns and the problems they caused meant the B wing armament was being questioned. As far as I am aware mark I wings could be fitted to mark II and vice versa. So agreed A wing armament along with the tail wheel are good pointers but not proof.