Geoffrey Sinclair

No replies so far. Anyway the photographs mentioned in the private message. http://members.iinet.net.au/~sjharker_nbn/Korea1953N/index.html Web page under construction, captions to be redone and photograph order to be rearranged. HMS Ocean off Korea, including a certain Sea Fury WJ232.

Compendium third Noted about using interchangeable, should I have said meant to be the same within the contracted tolerances? For aircraft the wing/fuselage joint are would be a logical place for the construction number marking as it was usually amongst the strongest part of the airframe. Agreed we need to make clear part number versus serial/construction number. Everything would have a part number but only selected items or assemblies would have a serial number. Think of say the radio, the fully assembled radio had a serial number, its components had parts numbers and some components could have had serial numbers as well. Similar for the aircraft. Or perhaps all those parts and serial numbers in the airframe and engine and the air force has only 1 serial number, like say AG665, similar for construction number. I would also expect CCF to follow Hawker parts numbers leaving open the possibility of an additional field identifying the parts maker. The production numbers. The plan was to store 100 airframes in Canada for use in the training system, *of these* 59 were built before the August 1941 shut down, *of these* I found 44 entries in the delivery logs that were marked as being stored, a contract card added another 5. So 44/49 out of 59 out of 100, not 100+44. The Canadian documentation mention BSB598 as a known order as of 30 June 1941. In the March to July 1941 period the CCF production line was turning out an average of over 63 aircraft per month, in August that drops to 11 which is 5 to 6 days worth at the monthly rate. Why then decide production ended in September? More so when we know AG665, nearly the last built, must have been flying early in the month to be ready for the exhibition starting mid month? To finish mark I production CCF needs to build 14 in July 1941 and given production was being done in serial number order that means about the first week’s production. Then look at British imports for August, total 8, which shows how early the mark I must have been built in July. While ships could be delayed etc. it is more reasonable to assume the final mark I imports were in early/mid August, not end August. Looking at the RAF taken on charge dates they are mostly blank for the AG2xx and AG3xx airframes retained in Canada, the *earliest* taken on charge dates for AG6xx and AM2xx is 17 December 1941 for AM299. There were 426 mark I shipped before the decision to store airframes, AM299 is the 530th serial ordered, 530-426 = 104 versus the plan to have 100 stored. Circumstantial evidence when production restarted in October 1941 initial non Sea Hurricane production was stored, note AM275 and 3 AG6xx dates are 26 or 28 February, then comes early March dates and so on. By no means a perfect fit but too close to 100 stored and 120 Merlin 28 (plus 24 spares) on order to be simply a coincidence. We are still left with the production reports saying they were all mark II and the photographs of AG665 and RCAF1851-80 saying they were mark I. Next item to tick off is whether fitting the mark II wing centre section was independent of the extra fuselage length the Merlin XX and later required, so this would mean it also did not require the more extended fuselage to wing fairing. In other words can we rule out RCAF 1851-80 were mark II airframes *except* for the extra fuselage length and associated visible changes?

Compendium the second Exports as defined in the report are aircraft shipped from Britain to any destination unless they departed as part of a military unit transfer (so the allied air forces moving to Europe in 1944/45 are not exports). Destination includes allied air forces like the Middle East etc. Yes, the RCAF 1 Squadron Hurricanes, being part of a military unit were not counted as imports, they were delivered to the RAF and so still need to be taken into account. The file starts in March 1940 unfortunately. To clarify, imports from December 1941 onwards are mark II. To split the mark numbers of deliveries to the RAF you need the Ministry of Aircraft Production Monthly Statistical Bulletins, which start in March 1942 and show all deliveries to end February 1942 were mark I, while after that mark I deliveries by month are 12, 6, 15, 2, 1, March to July 1942. Something to note is AIR 19/524 production reporting 1933 to sometime in the late 1930's appears to be a reconstruction, not a contemporary document, taken from the RAF Contract Cards. Also for some reason it omits a lot of February and March 1936 production and of course a number of aircraft built for foreign governments pre war. And real horror, Tiger Moths for foreign Air Forces even in 1940. The 22 Hurricanes to a Dominion are the RCAF order plus 1 CCF pattern aircraft plus one other the RCAF says never arrived. Agreed the mark II centre section was not needed in a Sea Hurricane I, the question being was it fitted to some CCF versions and if so could it be seen from photographs, did it change the external appearance? The answer appears to be no. Agreed conversions of CCF built Hurricanes to Sea Hurricane were usually done in Britain, certainly not in Canada. As to CCF built Hurricanes making it to Greece, P5173, 4 and 6 were sent to the Middle East in August 1940, that seems to be it until April 1941. P5173 Struck Off Charge 1 November 1943, P5174 SoC 23 April 1941, P5176 SoC 16 April 1941, the latter was with 3 RAAF squadron Western Desert in early April according to Christopher Shores. Yes the RCAF dates for the Sea Hurricanes are later than the RAF ones, they were then officially handed over to the RCAF. What are major sub assemblies? Wings were regularly changed for example, probably tails as well. Chalk marks on the parts during assembly would be adequate. There could be only one plate with the details as a minimum. Given the parts are supposed to be interchangeable why label them with the construction numbers? The more information you put in the more the enemy has to work with. There is good reason to assume aircraft undergoing major overhaul came out with different major sub assemblies that what they went in with. Lancasters for example, broken into their sub assemblies then reassembled. As noted why AG341 only appears in 1943 is unknown, however it or AM270 were not officially produced by mid 1942 when the RCAF order started and it is probably AG341 that is uncounted while the non standard AM270 became available for testing. There were delays in almost all programs in the early war period and plenty throughout the war, it is best to only assume otherwise if you have evidence. While 10 months between order and first engine production sounds good to end 1941 totaled 49 or under half of January 1942 production and about a sixteenth of July 1942 production. We already know the RCAF had to seek special permission to take some Merlin III from Battles to fit to its Hurricanes. Where the Sea Hurricane engines came from is unclear but it makes sense Britian would have sent some, and note another possibility is an incorrect assumption for a time they would be using US Merlins. I do not think BSB868 comes into play, it was around in June 1941 at least and was always 50 I and 150 II. Gloster finished mark I production in June 1941, CCF in July. Agreed the Sea Hurricanes were given elevated priority, but the stopping of exports to Britain was done before the line shut down, based on the plan to store 100 but only 59 were available until October. Also involved is the expected arrival of working Merlin 28. If the CCF drop in production was due to specific component supply problems then you would expect the line to have a number of aircraft as assembled as possible waiting on those parts or partly assembled airframes to be parked around the assembly hall. It comes down to what parts and that can only be speculated on at the moment, including if it was parts. Then comes what happened to the parts that were being delivered or at least were ready on time. Given the RCAF was going to operate Hurricanes spare components would be a useful and necessary addition to the inventory, or they could be exported to Britain, like the "spare" Merlin 28 were. Agreed if the Sea Hurricanes really were an emergency order then taking parts from other aircraft is clearly a way to cut manufacturing time, if the identified parts in the survivors are mark II wing centre sections and they deliberately came from intended mark II, it says there were no mark I centre sections available. Production at the components level had switched to mark II, The book does not state whether the centre sections found today are mark I or II and we also need to take into account the later conversions to mark XII. It would be nice to know what the construction numbers found actually are and on what components. For completeness AG332 is the highest RAF serial for the RCAF 1351 to 80 group, it was in the 22xxx construction number group, not the 24xxx.

The construction numbers reported by Claudio agree with the listing. We know Sea Hurricanes were under assembly in mid September thanks to the photograph, and they were taken on strength November 1941 to January 1942, so they could all have been officially built by end December 1941 but probably some in January 1942 as the final 10 have a Taken on RAF Charge date of 17 January, so 50 Sea amongst official production Se and mark II production of 102 October to December 1941 and another 63 in January 1942. Again the Sea Hurricane construction numbers were 30001-40 and 32001-10. In serial order AG670 was the last built before the August pause, as a minimum another 52 mark II were built to end December, that is to around AM306 and the taken on charge dates for AM297 to 302 are either in December 1941 or 1 January 1942. In construction number terms mark II production restarted in the 24001-40 block (AG665-84, then AM270-89) reaching at least the 26001-40 block (which starts with AM290) by end December, so I would be wary of exchanged or swapped with the implication they were taken out of one and put into another. Parts were coming in and being allocated, it is unlikely they were placed in one airframe then moved to another. We know from the Sea Hurricane photograph another set of identification numbers were being used, the Sea Hurricanes were the 601st to 650th serials ordered and 602 etc. appear on the fuselage. That may enable/cause the mixing of parts. In any case two questions need answering. How many parts ultimately had CCF construction number information attached? And was the information attached to the part before or after assembly? To turn it around consider the possibility an error was made when the construction number information was attached to the airframe as CCF tried to cope with producing Sea and mark II versions at the same time. It is in this time period AG341 (pre production pause) is apparently not built, while AM270 the duplicate serial Hurricane (with its Dutch order requirements) and AP138 (its official replacement serial) appear together plus AM321 and 322 should have been built have no record, the Taken on Charge dates for the serials around AM321-2 are February/March 1942. In the period October to January 1942 CCF are for the first and only time as far as can be shown building two different models of Hurricane at the same time, as well as this in January/February 1942 period 30 airframes in storage are being fitted with engines and made airworthy for the RCAF, which is probably about when the idea of using Hurricanes as part of the training system is abandoned so requiring action to export the other stored airframes, also in the February/May 1942 period for the first time engines were being made available to fit into RAF order airframes, resulting in about a third being exported with an engine, plus there is the Dutch order to fill, and the RCAF order to schedule, while Canada has to face the prospect of direct attacks on its west coast. One point to consider is the new wing centre section was stronger, something the Sea Hurricane could benefit from. Also whether this centre section forced the extended fuselage-to-wing fairing at least or was independent of the extra fuselage length needed for Merlin XX. Looking for a way it would show up in photographs. The naming of AG665 if correct says at the very least some IIB were built before the August 1941 production pause. The JS serials were mark II, not XII. Anyone able to provide evidence of Canadian 20mm gun production for aircraft, the War Production Board does not. Of course the wings could be built for fitting the guns in Britain. Next comes consulting the delivery logs, when mark is listed, some of the AG and AM entries do not give mark information, AG2XX, AG3XX are mark I or IIB AG6XX (20 serials) AG666 and AG667 IIC, otherwise IIB AM (100 serials) AM288 IIC, otherwise IIB BW/BX non sea Hurricane (150 serials) IIB but about 3 have the B replaced by a C (from a quick count.) JS (200 serials) around 70 have the B replaced by a C including most of the final 60, JS409 to JS468 PJ (150 serials, ex RCAF order) almost all have the B replaced by a C, but only a few are written as IIC The delivery logs are silent on whether the B being replaced by C are actually reporting conversions. Next we have a listing in the contract cards of Munitions and Supply contract 410A which covers almost all the final 100 JS serials, all reported as IIB. So disagreement with the delivery logs. Munitions and Supply contract 237A covers most of the 150 PJ serials and has plenty of disagreements, reporting more IIB than the delivery logs. So the delivery logs are saying almost all the deliveries to Britain to end 1942 were B wing, then maybe majority C, but almost all C could be conversions. The contract cards are reporting even late JS serials were B wing and it is only the ex RCAF order aircraft have a number of C wing versus isolated reports in earlier serial blocks. I have not seen any evidence for RCAF use of mark XII C wing Hurricanes.

PV-1, PV-2, PV-2D, Hamilton Standard Constant Speed 3 Blade 10 foot 7 inch, Blade Design Number 6477A-12 PV-3 Hamilton Standard Constant Speed 3 Blade 10 foot 6 inch, Blade Design Number 6277 I am not yet ready to declare how many were or were not built sequentially given the variations in when Taken on Strength Dates were recorded, Canada or Britain but the Sea Hurricanes must have been built before a number of the AM serial aircraft at least, given when the Sea Hurricanes entered service and the number of Hurricanes produced to then and so probably alongside some of the AM serials. Assuming AG665 stayed at the exhibition until the end then it was officially produced before leaving and probably before arrival. Claudio found the book, Hawker Hurricane Survivors By Gordon Riley which has a chapter on AM274 by the looks of it written by Eric Vormezeele of Brasschaat Belgium described as a Warbird Veteran on linkedin. Anybody have more information? Or a list of his references? His background to AM274 indicates a lot of research. AM274 is reported departing Canada on 24 May 1942, it was taken in charge 6 April 1942, it ended up being sent to Russia, to the docks on 28 December 1942, the delivery logs say Russia 12 January 1943.

The compendium reply. Thanks for finding the chart, copy taken. Now from the US War Production Board Report. Hamilton Standard System (e.g., 12B20) (Hydraulic) 1 First Revision 2 Number of Blades (2) B Blade Shank Size 20 Engine Shaft Size Hamilton Standard System (e.g., 4260) (Super Hydromatic) 4 Number of Blades (4) 2 Blade Shank Size 60 Engine Shaft Size U.S. Navy Service Airplane Characteristics and Performance Data Sheet does not give propeller model, sometimes just "constant speed" but does give blade details. So looking for those who used 6353 blades. CS = Constant Speed. PBN-1, PBY-5, PBY-5A / PBV-1A, PBY-6A Hamilton Standard 3 blade, 12 foot 1 inch, Blade Design Number 6353A-12 PB4Y-2 Hamilton Standard 3 blade 11 foot 7 inch, Blade Design Number 6353A-18 R3D-1, -2 CS 2 Blade, 11ft 7in, 6353A-18 R3D-3 CS 3 Blade, 11ft 7in, 6353A-18 R4D-1, -3 Hamilton Standard 3 blade, 11ft 7 in, design 6353A-18 R4D-5 HS 3 blade 11ft 7in, 6353A-18 or 6477A-0 If there are any more USN WWII aircraft you want the blade designations for I can check. Some RAF documents refer to CCF built mark I as mark X, so far no RAF document I have found calls a CCF built Hurricane with a US Merlin a mark X, or XI. Given the state of fighter art in 1941 most Hurricane I built that year went to the training system, the Middle East and India. The Russians did not want them. Agreed it is a reasonable idea that the 59 airframes CCF built in July and August 1941 that were retained in Canada could have been mark I. The problem is finding enough proof, like the photographs of the CCF ex AG aircraft to put against the production reports saying mark II. I think a couple of things need to be made clearer. No mention of storage in the delivery logs is not the same as they were not stored. Looking through everything I could I found one contract card says AG335 to AG339 were stored in August 1941, the delivery logs make no mention of this. The Contract cards have 560 aircraft ordered under SB6648, being built as 386 mark I and 174 mark II. These are the T, Z, AE, AF, AG, AM and AP serials. The production pause in August 1941 left 115 outstanding, AG341, AG671-684, AM270/AP138 and AM271-369. Not exactly clean breaks in terms of the serials or the change over of marks. Best to stop with the round numbers ideas, there were 485 CCF Hurricanes built to end August 1941 out of 600 to complete the first 2 orders, 59 of the Hurricanes were deliberately retained in Canada apparently to stock the training system out of a planned 100. The 100 to be stored but only 59 built is another piece of evidence that the CCF shut down was forced, probably due to a lack of key components. The mass production system of aircraft is best seen by the USAAF use of block numbers (P-47D-25 for example) and modification centres. Modifications were introduced to the production lines in a usually planned manner and in the USAAF case aircraft modifications were indicated by block numbers, it was part of dealing the trade off of production efficiency versus best aircraft performance. In the USAAF case aircraft coming off the production line not to the currently required air force standard were sent to modification centres where they were brought up to current standards. Fitting such changes after construction was usually significantly more expensive. Similarly it was rare for airframes to be reworked on the production line, that simply cost too much in terms of production capacity, best to hand any such work off to another organisation. Planning would be done for both minor changes, a new block number, or major ones, say A model to B, to stay using the USAAF system. I have no idea about how long it took to manufacture a Hurricane as such, where do you start, what is the first part and how much is done in parallel. Measurements were made of assembly time, which is what most aircraft factories really were, as an idea count the airframes in the CCF assembly hall and then note CCF could turn out 50 or more completed aircraft per month. The photographs show weeks worth of production. I think the idea the July/August airframes were mark I reworked into Sea is contradicted by the September photograph of Sea Hurricane production, too many look like they are starting assembly. We have CCF officially ending mark I production at a time just after Britain did the same, then for some reason production wound down, leaving 59 officially completed airframes in Canada. And by the way I know the CCF period is weeks but Britain for example had deliberate assembly plant shut downs for a week or so on a regular basis, (well to the standards of what paid leave was considered normal in the 1940's) the work force does need a break. The US production reports are using accepted as the definition of produced, that is passed tests and so accepted as properly built. They are reflecting Canadian figures as the US was not paying for the aircraft, US financed aircraft can have two dates, when Canada accepted it on behalf of the US and then when the US did. All the reports I have are the official production dates and by definition given the need to pass tests all aircraft were around and usually flying before that date and could have been for some time. Essentially it is best to assume all 59 airframes remaining in Canada in August 1941 were in storage unless otherwise proven, like AG665 pinching an engine and slipping out to put on a display at an exhibition CCF clearly had two lines going, one each side of the hall, and while the photographs we have do not show an obvious variation (the "oval-shaped radiator line" in the quote) it was clearly an option. Note the Sea Hurricanes were being delivered to the air force alongside mark II, which implies but does not prove the assembly hall was running two lines or interleaving different versions. As an example in November 1942 Supermarine are credited with building 2 mark VI, 2 mark VII, 6 mark VIII, 1 mark XII Spitfires and 25 Seafire IIc. Generally not the most efficient way of doing it, but that was the responsibility of Castle Bromwich. AG665 almost certainly had been officially produced and so probably British Government property (any ideas of the actual exhibition dates?). I agree the most probable explanation is it was built as a mark I, the but comes in because it needed to use a Merlin III and photographs were probably going to be published, remembering at the time there was a working Axis diplomatic system just south of the border, so it is possible the mark I was only for the exhibition and then turned into a mark II and officially produced. Yes I have heard Canada had to be quite forceful in obtaining Hurricanes at least. From the British point of view they now had another active front to cover and did not want any disruption of a major part of the training system when there was a pressing need for trained aircrew. And agreed the Merlin 28 were going to Britain, not staying in Canada, but then the Merlin 29 were a month or so behind, the propellers another month and the RCAF had its own Hurricane order. That would have looked satisfactory to 1941/42 Britain. The Hurricane was the British produced for overseas fighter, remembering hundreds lost in France in 1940, then the losses in Britain plus the 330 retained in Canada and the way aircraft that entered/left Britain as parts of units are not imports/exports, out of the fourteen and a half thousand or so Hurricanes, Britain exported 10,018 April 1940 to November 1945, Russia was sent 3,677. In 1941 official production (Britain and Canada) was 3,680 while exports were 2,491, in 1942 total production of 3,767 with exports 3,488, in 1943 Britain exported 592 more Hurricanes than total 1943 production. Where the CCF Hurricanes ended up is around the same as other producers. The mark I to II program was limited, they generally used airframes that had already seen RAF service and the mark I were still useful as trainers. With the Hurricane lines leveling out in 1941 (2,597 in 1940, 3,680 in 1941 and 3,767 in 1942), losses at home way down versus 1940 and with the new Typhoon to "soon" enable the Hurricane production wind down the conversion program resources could be used better elsewhere. There is a good chance that is what the British thought, along with the known RCAF order for mark XII. I doubt the Canadians were as relaxed. The major underestimation of Japanese abilities has swung to a major overestimation. Part of the internal USN debate over Midway was whether the Japanese were actually going for the US West Coast or even the Panama Canal The Japanese had proved much more capable in both combat terms and operational skill, the South East Asia monsoon was supposed to stop amphibious assaults, which in any case needed lots more shipping than the Japanese were using and so on. The Zero was close to the height of its reputation. AE963 801 Squadron 8-9/41(defending Scapa Flow), Hatston 8/42 (shore base for Scapa Flow), 800 Squadron 9-10/42 on HMS Biter just before operation Torch, 768 Squadron Machrihanish, 7-8/43 AF963 arrive 6/41, Yeovilton In south East England, 3/42 800 Squadron, category Z 10/42. HMS Biter. They usually do not salvage aircraft that go over the side. So yes the dates and locations certainly do not overlap/contradict before 10/42 but there are so many gaps that is not surprising. Claudio, not sure how to use the personal message system here, so in case I keep fumbling around feel free to simply make any new data public. Now to try and get into the PM system..... (crash.....)

Thanks for that. Log on first then look up profile then send message seems to be the proper sequence. Message sent. Not sure about hard won results.

Tried a reply to the FAA topic, hopefully it comes up. The Hurricane mark XII used Hamilton Standard propeller 23E50, so put that into a search engine and find lots of candidates. The US War Production Board report for example says 23E50 and 23EX were used on B-24, F6F, F4U, PV-2, PBY, TBM and C-54.

Hopefully this topic is still being monitored, not sure how to go from public to private in this forum. A quick note to find out. Did a study on pre/during/post WWII aircraft production that included looking at the RAF contract cards, an incomplete set of cards meant to be tracking aircraft orders from the 1930's to the late 1940's. Also looked at were the delivery logs, which cover K1000 to RZ499. However both largely ignore RN aircraft after the FAA returned to the RN but often make a comment if an aircraft was transferred to a non RAF user, useful given how many Hurricanes and other types were transferred, for example RN Beauforts anyone? Various other files were consulted in order to clarify things including comparing the 1st Edition Sea Hurricane list with other sources. Hence the discussion under Canadian Hurricanes. Of course the main aim was to come up with accurate production figures. For example clarifying whether Barracuda RK425 to RK428 and RK498 to RK528 were built, the answer is no. This may help in terms of noting the numbers of aircraft that were officially built for the RN.

Trying for a what we actually do know list, The AG serials in question start at AG287, the first reported as stored, then AG292 to 344 and AG665 to AG684 some 75 airframes versus 59 reported built to end August 1941. If built in serial order then airframe AG669 would be the last one built in August 1941, except the evidence is for some reason AG341 was not built until 1943, making AG670 the presumed last in August 1941. Before the August to October production pause some 59 airframes were reported as IIB by the production and RAF documentation and were all mark IIB if/when they arrived in Britain., but initially they were being placed in storage for use in the training system The AG serial mark II that made it to Britain did so generally in March/April 1942, this is consistent with time needed to be reworked or being held in Canada given the war situation or they are in storage so deal with the new aircraft first or they were awaiting their promised engines, shades of the planned mark III. Also to be considered is the AM serials started at AM271, but it was around AM297 on that were the first arrivals, in December 1941 and January 1942. Looking at CCF 1941 and 1942 production versus import months there is a minimum in round terms of 1 month and a maximum 2 between roll out from CCF and arrival in Britain. As of August 1941 officially there should be no Hurricane mark I airframes in Canada, the pre war order and all CCF built had been lost or sent to Britain. However CCF still had 50 mark I airframes on order, the Sea Hurricanes. The production line photograph shows Sea Hurricanes being built in September 1941 which is consistent with them taken into service from November, though at full pace the batch of 50 should take CCF around one month. Cross referencing to the National Geographic photograph of mark I production shows both were taken from one end of the assembly hall. Both photographs show essentially two production lines, so it is possible for example one side Sea Hurricane, one side mark I or II. The lead Sea Hurricane has the number 602 on it, which is consistent with the Sea Hurricanes being the 601st to 650th airframes ordered, but not consistent with serials or construction numbers. It is consistent with Jim reporting the first Sea Hurricane was around in July, even though it was not officially produced until probably December. Probably AM270 remained on the books until late 1941 or early 1942 before AP138 was allocated as a replacement, hence why the Dutch could use it, if both AM270 and AP138 were on the books the Sea Hurricanes would be aircraft 602 to 651. The photograph of AG665 at the exhibition in August 1941 is a Hurricane I with A wings, and the exhaust stains say it was flown at a time when Canada only had Merlin III available. Photographs of the AG serial aircraft transferred to the RCAF indicate mark I. RCAF 1351 to 1380 taken on strength dates are from late January to mid February 1942 versus Merlin 28 Hurricanes arriving in Britain in March, which would imply plenty of Merlin 28 in Canada in February, but of course they are known to have been incomplete. There would have been Merlin 29 available in February and appropriate propellers in March. The Canadian production system should have been producing spare parts, if not in 1941 then later to support the planned RCAF force of 400. The extreme cases, 1) All 59 stored airframes were mark I and 29 of them reworked to mark II 2) All 59 stored airframes were mark II and 30 of them reworked to mark I And the middle case of some were I and some were II or even hybrids as CCF made the change over. In any case a lot of extra work one way or the other. Any other points considered proven or a point above that should not be? Back to attempts at best fit evidence. Strengthening was done as part of the mark II airframe upgrade so it could handle, amongst other things, heavier armament, I presume RCAF 1351 to 80 with a Merlin III show A wing armament, admittedly like most mark XII photographs I have seen and there are plenty of reasons (starting with the initial evaluation of the idea) to remove the extra B wing machine guns. Agreed the nose extension provided better handling and there is a good chance it was known at the time. Then comes whether standard mark I was officially more worthwhile. If you want an example of this the RAAF had two Sunderland squadrons in Britain, 10 which was a regular RAAF squadron and 461, an article XV one, any Sunderland arriving at 10 was modified to make it best suited for anti submarine work over the Bay of Biscay as the aircraft was officially Australian, those at 461 had to remain in the standard RAF configuration suitable for world wide deployment. So a point would be whether RCAF 1351 to 1380 were RAF on loan or RCAF, the serials imply RCAF. In mid 1941 lots Merlin 28 were to be arriving soon and Merlin III production had ceased, against that is if Hurricanes were meant to be part of the training system then Merlin III were compatible with the Battles already in service. You can interpret the way production as seen by Britain was restarted at around the 30th AM serial ordered as indicating CCF needed to rework earlier airframes to mark II standard, but that means essentially around 90 reworks. Or the earlier serials could have been set aside to receive the ordered Merlin 28 given Hurricanes with engines started arriving in Britain in March, that is they were all mark II airframes. The delay in sending the AG serials to Britain needs to be explained, extended to the early AM serials, if it was because the AG serials needed to be reworked, does this apply to the early AM serials? Agreed AG665 could have been painted on another airframe, as noted it is a possibility, but not a probability, why not a fictional serial in that case, why pick a real serial that must have been newly built? Similarly if spare parts were being made and Sea Hurricanes were on order it would be possible to assemble a working aircraft then call it what you want. I think there would be general agreement that is highly unlikely. CCF/RCAF were asked to provide an aircraft for the August exhibit, they chose an airframe just built and made it flyable, that is the least amount of work. No pulling an airframe out of storage for example. And given they would have had notice, they could have built it to match the engine available, the Merlin III, but why do this given the extra work involved to make it a mark II later? Propaganda/censorship to allow some photographs published? So far each time I come up with a reason I can come up with a counter reason. Time to pass it over to the collective wisdom. To Sea Hurricane serials. I have no problems that some in the RAF saw the Merchant Ship Fighter Unit as RN and marked the aircraft histories accordingly. So we have AE963 in Sturtivant and agree the serial is incorrect, the converted to DR366 line confirms this, since DR366 was converted in March 1941, to Russia on 29 April 1942, lost at sea on 17 June 1942. Interesting idea that the Stutivant AE963 entry is really a repeat of AF965 but I do not think it is a good enough fit, the beginning and middle dates

A question about dating, how many of the relevant Air Britain books were available to Sturtivant, given how old his book now is? I agree downgrading a mark II aircraft back to mark I is odd but it seems the change was straightforward enough if the parts were available. It also means the RCAF are using "standard" Hurricane I with associated manuals, they do not have to take account of what flight characteristics *might* change given the shift in engine placement, nor come up with a set of parts to handle the situation. Time was clearly an important issue, which works both ways, get the aircraft working (stay at mark II), get the squadrons working (go to mark I and use the already printed manuals). AE965 is reported as going to the FAA but not in Sturtivant. AF963 is reported as going to the FAA and is already in Sturtivant. And the dates would indicate it is not AE963. NF668-703, 716-39 are the 60 Sea Hurricane IIC order serials. You would expect all of them to be listed and none converted. KW929 sent to the Middle East 11 Sep 1943, to SAAF 11 Oct 1945. Version breakdown is the listing I gave of the Sturtivant serials by mark. Z7079 Agreed ToC = Contract Date, delivery log entry has 13 MU 13 Mar 1941 crossed out. The Sea entry has what might be another date blotted out. Both it and the South Africa entries have the stamp "To Type Ledger" in the background. Hand written notes scanned from microfilm are not that clear at times. Thanks for helping to check the entry. This data is from Naval Aircraft Record of Acceptances 1935-1946, Bureau of Aeronautics, Navaer 15838 Order/letter of intent 75736 dated 5 August 1940. Original notes: 243 F4F-4 (which would be 3856 to 4098), extended for another 254 F4F-3, -3A, -4 (which would be 5030 to 5283) Production in bureau number order 3856-74 (19) F4F-3 3875-969 (95) F4F-3A 3970-4057 (88) F4F-3 4058-98 (41) F4F-4 5030-5262 (233) F4F-4 5263-83 (21) F4F-7 01991-02152 (162) F4F-4 03385-03544 (160) F4F-4 In chronological order F4F-3A Mar to May 1941, F4F-3 May to Sep 1941, F4F-4 Nov 1941 to Aug 1942, F4F-7 Jan to Dec 1942. The next set of Bureau numbers are from order/letter of intent 99340 dated 16 May 1942. 11655-12227 (573) F4F-4 112228-9 (2) XF4F-8 12230-329 (100) F4F-3, changed from F4F-7, manufactured as landplanes, converted to F4F-3 (Seaplane) by service personnel. Now the original notes for 75736 quoted above are from the 1941 page, the 1942 page notes say originally 243 F4F-4 contracted for, extended for 254 additional F4F-3, -3A and -4, 95 diverted to F4F-3A and 67 to F4F-3. (243+254-95-67 = 335.) From a total of 335 a quantity of 40 were diverted to be delivered as F4F-3; 162 were added as supplemental contract 23 June 1941; 21 were diverted to F4F-7; 160 were added by a second supplementary contract 28 July 1941.

By now it should be clear I am not the best writer going around. Plus I am certainly no expert in distinguishing mark I and II Hurricanes from photographs. So I concentrated on the A wing versus the B wing the RAF says it should be and noted it could easily be a mark I. I should have added something like "to my inexpert eyes". The main question for me is given the public exhibition and probable photographic publicity whether AG665 was a deliberately built as a mark I, or a conversion of a mark IIB airframe into a mark I or whether it was actually representative of some to all the Hurricane airframes then available/stored in Canada. All of which the RAF says were IIB. The production line was shut down probably because of a shortage of some components, now comes speculation, radiators as one of the shortages, given mark II needed bigger radiators? I think the RAF used engines to mean just that and power plant to mean engine with all accessories, like a radiator, and reported Merlin XX power plant production applied to Lancasters, not Hurricanes, so I believe CCF fitted radiators etc. meaning only an engine and propeller was needed to complete the aircraft after arrival in Britain. I apologise if this comes across as stored AG serials mark II or bust, that is not the intent, having tried to track down obscure anomalies in aircraft production I have learnt not to rule things in or out without thoroughly checking the various possibilities. Great, a chance to compare notes with someone who has really studied the subject. Yes the RN received plenty of non carrier capable Hurricanes, and I presume the 400 number comes from Sturtivant, and not things like the Air Britain Serials books. Any comments on AE963/5, AG332/22, NF702 and NF735? Or the version breakdown? Z7079 Taken on Charge 30 July 1940, 12 MU 23 March 1941, 253 Squadron 17 April 1941, South Africa 9 January 1942, to Sea Hurricane 9 September 1942, so say the delivery logs,. Other sources later state 791 squadron in July 1944. Good, the USN documentation for contract/letter of intent 68219 agrees, 54 initial order, 27 additions, with 1 of the additions being reordered as XF4F-4 (#1897) and 2 as XF4F-5 (#1846/7), no date given, on 20 November 1940 1 XF4F-6 (#7031) added to the order. Next comes 5 August 1940, order/letter of intent 75736. The notes to the F4F-3 line say 243 F4F-4 contracted for and the extended for 254 additional F4F-3, -3A and -4. Not sure how that reconciles with the entries under each type, F4F-3 initial order 67, later a supplement when 40 F4F-4 reordered as -3, F4F-3A order of 95 of which 30 to Greece (originally 80 F4F-3A and 15 F4F-4A) F4F-4 initial order 335, later supplements of another 162 on 23 June 1941 and another 160 on 28 July 1941, but 40 reordered as F4F-3, 21 as F4F-7, leaving 596. But no order date for A-1548, the 100 Martlet II. Order LL-83734 for 150, later 220 Martlet IV dated 30 June 1941. The Martlet V/FM-1 order/letter of intent 99036 on 18 April 1942 was 311 for the RN and 1,489 for the USN, so all up 1,800. The USN order had supplements of 200, 100 and 600, then cancellations of 1,265 and 285, leaving 839.

As people are no doubt aware the destruction of RN records makes it very hard to track RN aircraft. Also updated editions of the Sturtivant books are being done. Looking at Sturtivant the Hurricane list has 631 aircraft I 53 I/Trop 48 (1 uncertain) Sea Ia 16 (2 uncertain) Sea Ib 281 (5 uncertain, also AE963 in Sturtivant was probably AE965) IIA 3 IIB 26 (AG332 in Sturtivant was probably AG322) IIB/Trop 4 IIC 76 IIC/Trop 14 Sea IIb 2 Sea IIc 107 (3 uncertain) IV 1 Where uncertain means more than one other source disputes they were sent to the RN. Other sources including the delivery logs have the following having RN service, I 22 IIc 1 Sea IIc 2 (NF702 and NF735 which were built as Sea IIc) The delivery logs as the sole reference have another 3 mark I, while the Air Britain serials books have another 87 mark I to the Merchant Ship Fighter Unit. I can only stress they are *delivery* logs, the main data is arrival and the main update is final fate. The delivery logs have 1 T, 6 Z, 12 AE, 20 AF, 7 AG, 2 AM and 19 JS serials marked as going to the RN from CCF production, including T9528 and the South African Z7079. Again as is well known the first Martlets were ex French order built July to October 1940, first arrivals in Britain in August 1940 and 71 by end December, 10 more lost at sea. Folding wing Martlets did not appear until June 1941, 1 built, with a total of 12 built to end October 1941. Can you give the date of the first British Martlet II order (The first 10 of which had non folding wings)? The USN has the Greek contract for 30 (taken over by the British as Martlet III) as dated 5 August 1940 by the USN. The original USN F4F-3 order is dated 8 August 1939, the second order and the first F4F-4 order are both dated 5 August 1940. Sorry for the brevity of the notes, I have about 50 pages from the file, and was trying to read and summarise while running out of time. Explanation: Hawkers are asked can they do it, the reply is ready in five weeks starting from the order date. As noted the file is a series of drafts and timelines, with lots of had written material added, there are certainly various contradictions between the different drafts. Note the time lines above does make the CCF Sea Hurricane order date important, early in 1941 and they were probably ordered as mark I, later and they were Sea, and as the photographs show they were built as Sea. It really is a game of inches and small fasteners. Interesting the RAF says IIB and that is definitely an A wing. So at the very least it is a IIA, could easily be a IA. Now comes what allowance, if any, should be made that it is a one off exhibit meant to be seen and probably have photographs published, and to get it there probably a Merlin III had to be fitted. Early notes from contract cards, L1750 armour plating and fuel tests, L1877 metal wings,, L1909 first Merlin III, L1980 first variable pitch propeller, L2026 Rotol propeller trials, N2398 onwards fitted with TR.1133, N2426 last aircraft with fabric wings from second order. However a number of P3XXX, P8XXX, R2XXX and V7XXX serials are marked as having fabric wings, V7281 the last one so marked. P3720 to P3734, ex Iran order, plus possibly P3735 and P3736 to be completed like 35 Hurricanes modified to tropical standards, DH 2 pitch propeller. P3976 first of 200? to be delivered with Jablo propeller blades. Meantime at Glosters P2682 first production with Rotol propeller and TR.1133.

I am learning quite a bit myself. British National Archives, the AVIA 46 series are Type Biographies for aircraft, the Hurricane's is dated in the 1950's. These are effectively draft biographies consisting of timelines and double spaced text, with references and lots of added hand written notes and corrections. I do not know whether the finished product, if any, was made or where it would have ended up. It quotes things like Hawkers correspondence to one of the official historians. I only have extracts from the Hurricane biography. (DTD = Director of Technical Development.) The mark IIA proposed in February 1940, first flew in June 1940. The engine necessitated a longer engine mounting; other modifications which were brought in on the mark II were a new cooling system and a strengthened undercariage. Rotol propellers were also fitted. 19 February 1940 installation of Merlin 3 SM (Merlin XX) in Hurricane discussed with Mr Rowe when visiting Hawkers. 1 March 1940 details of proposed installation of Merlin 3 SM forwarded to Air Ministry. 21 May 1940 Mark II production start scheduled for December 1940, 8 gun wings due to shortages in gun supply. 9 June 1940 first flight of Merlin RM 45 in Hurricane G-AFKX. 11 June 1940 first flight of Hurricane II prototype P3269. August 1940 first delivery of production Hurricane II 8 February 1941 first flight of tropical Hurricane II. The Sea Hurricane, mid 1940 Hawkers submitted a proposal. "The Prime Minister himself had given instructions for the installation to procede on high priority". In November 1941 (Date is clearly a typo) two converted aircraft had been delivered to the RAE for trials. Catapult fighter, mark IA Sea Hurricane differences with Hurricane I Strengthened fuselage to withstand catapulting. Catapult launching spools fitted. Attachments for lashing down gear Pilots adjustable head rest fitted. Provision for an immersible heater in the oil tank enabling the oil to be heated before starting the engine. "Later Sea Hurricanes known as mark IB were fitted with fixed fittings for deck arrester gear which enabled the aircraft to return to the ship." 26 November 1940 Air Ministry requested an urgent examination of Hurricanes capable of being catapulted. Reply "was possible", five weeks to make an aircraft ready. 18 December 1940 D.D./R.D.A. downgraded program to an investigation. 19 January 1941 D.T.D. reported the Admiralty wanted 20 sets of catapulting parts for Hurricanes. Contract received 24 April 1941. 7 June 1941 letter received from A.D/R.D.N. Sea Hurricane satisfactory in every aspect. 31 August 1942 R.D.N. 3 informed Hawkers of a contract for conversion of Hurricane IIC for naval use, arrester hooks fitted. On another note, 26 December 1940, proposal for 2 seat Hurricane trainers, not adopted but "the design of this conversion had been completed a year previously and a prototype neared completion in the experimental shop" 5 March 1941 Merlin RM 5S (Merlin XLV) installed in Hurricane G-AFKX, first flight. 11 December 1942 report on installation of Merlin 32 in low attack Hurricane (mark IV) forwarded. Decision to trial this made on 28 December. And so on, the development of the design, the changes in endings, propellers, armament, the fitting of metal wings and drop tanks. The original prototype wings did not have provision for the 8 gun armament, when the contract was amended on 20 July 1935 a separate set of wings was to be made. First Hurricane fighter bomber was a field modification in the Middle East, 4x40 pound. Official flight trials 2x250 pound in April 1941. Hawker proposed 2x500 pound in November 1941. The low attack wing. These wings contained basic armament of 2 x 0.303 Browning machine guns and catered for the following alternative installations, which were carried under the wings, two "S" type guns (40mm) two B.H. type guns, (40mm) eight Rockets (25 or 60 pound warheads) two 250 or 500 pound bombs two SBC (small bomb containers) or SCI (smoke curtain installation) two 45 or 90 gallon drop tanks.

As far as I am aware CCF had some Merlin III engines and propellers and flight tested something like one in ten of the mark I it produced. The RAF called these engines etc. slave, the system was in place for when airframe production ran ahead of things like engine production. The aircraft would be completed with slave components, tested, then sent to a storage unit where the slave components were removed and returned to the factory, "slaved to purgatory storage" was the term. I can also throw in a second hand report that 1 of the first 3 production Merlin 28’s (that is not part of the actual engine order for Hurricanes) was sent to CCF Fort William for trial installation and flight-testing in a Hurricane II in January 1942, so a flyable engine, which leads to *speculation* about AG341 being the test aircraft and hence not officially counted or shipped until 1943. Of course it could have ended up in AM270 for testing the Dutch equipment standard which would then tally with the Dutch reports. To make it absolutely clear, the production documentation is explicit, the Sea Hurricanes were always going to be mark I airframes. Given the hand written notes in the documents the only query was whether they were meant to be Sea from the start, and the answer here is Sea. And I do not think anyone is disputing they were mark I. That the RCAF when confronted with mark II fuselages and no working Merlin 28 could choose to convert them back to mark I before fitting Merlin III is clearly possible, even if not necessary. This is not a claim they did do that, but if a kit can be assembled for a I to II the reverse must also be possible, the production system could supply what was required. Essentially how can this possibility be ruled out? The RCAF using standard mark I would help things like spare parts. (I wonder if any such parts were still available from the pre war order), plus be compatible with the Sea types available, given the mark XII were 6 or more months away from service. Since I have not seen the photographs of RCAF 1351 to 1380 I do not know how well they show the mark I airframes, so I can only present what the documents I have report. AF964 was taken on charge on 9 May 1941. Interesting about BW850. What is the evidence for the July date? It was taken on charge on 30 December 1941, thus making it the 31st Sea Hurricane on charge, lending support to the idea it was treated as a prototype and so not initially counted as officially produced. The British style production do not usually report experimental types, these are mainly the known prototypes but also include other airframes diverted on what were called CRD (Controller of Research and Development) contracts. In addition the treatment of aircraft that crashed during testing was very case specific, sometimes they were counted, at other times they were not, the decision could take quite a while and could even be reversed. If the review decided the aircraft was to be counted the cumulative totals would be adjusted but usually not the relevant monthly report. As a further complication the pre war figures mostly include the non prototype experimental aircraft and also any losses during testing, making such exclusions mainly a wartime change, which was continued, two Meteor mark IV that crashed during testing in 1946 were not counted for example. Other oddities include things like 5 Halifax III ordered from Fairey were delivered as sets of components, so not counted as produced. The reports therefore always have a margin of error in them, which is a rather long way of saying I am not about to claim them to be perfect. Thanks for that, the explanation was clear, the lengthening had to happen due to the engine, but I gathered from other references it was more than that, the initial mark IIA series i were shorter than the mark IIA series ii and all later mark II, hence the lengthening bay comment, the different ideas about the length have always puzzled me. Since this is about inches it is interesting to see the variation in references to quick hand, Lengths, mark I / II 31 ft 5 in / 32 ft 3 in, Green/Swanborough 31 ft 4 in / 32 ft 2.25 in, Mason I 31 ft 5 in / 32 ft 0 in, James 31 ft 5 in / 32 ft 0 in, Mason II 31 ft 4 in / 32 ft 2.25 in, Mason III 31 ft 5 in / 32 ft 0 in, Thetford Nice to see consistency, 7 to 10 inches more counting the longer spinner, and including what was lengthened and where, like claims the mark IIA series ii was lengthened to allow a bigger coolant header tank. There were 116 serials reserved for mark I to II conversions, of which 100 were taken up. BV155-174, DG612-651, DR339-394, (DR375-390 unused) which I would presume you know. The production documents make it clear that apart from the Sea order any Hurricanes left in Canada or to be built from mid 1941 on were mark II airframes. The engine orders make it clear they were to have Merlin 28 or 29. Also the mark III was meant to be a British built version with a US built Merlin and being talked about during the time period. Clearly a later decision was made Hurricanes would only use British built Merlins. The delivery logs are also explicit in the tracking of conversions from mark I to II and are in near complete agreement with the contract cards. The import report also states mark II from December 1941 onwards. If any CCF airframes were converted from I to II it was before they left Canada and in contradiction of the production reports. RCAF 1351 to 1380 were ex AG287 and then between AG293 and AG332, leaving 11 aircraft from this serial range reported as mark II by the RAF, if the RCAF were selecting mark I airframes it implies at least 11 mark I to II conversions needed to be done or some interweaving of mark I and II production. The RAF census as of end June 1944 (remembering some pre war production did not go to the RAF), IIB production ceased in November 1942, IID in February 1943, IV in March 1944, IIC in July 1944. Sea Hurricane, 50 ordered and delivered, 378 converted to. Sea Hurricane IIC, 60 ordered and delivered. Hurricane I, 4,158 ordered and delivered, 479 converted from. Hurricane IIA, 451 ordered and delivered 97 converted to. Hurricane IIB, 3,352 ordered, 3,350 delivered, 133 converted from Hurricane IIC, 4,801 ordered 4,732 delivered, 3034 converted from Hurricane IID, 296 ordered and delivered, 2 converted from Hurricane IIBB, 230 ordered and delivered, 66 converted to Hurricane IICB, 40 ordered and delivered, 3,132 converted to Hurricane IV, 524 ordered and delivered, 1 converted to. And yes the converted to/from totals should end up the same, they do not here. They are also NETT figures, that is converted to minus converted from. The Sea, mark I and mark II conversion figures are the same in February 1943, when the to/from totals are within 5 of each other. Also B/CB = B/C Bomber. If there were conversions of CCF mark I to II after arrival in Britain they should be tracked in the conversions numbers. The above seems to exclude 42 mark I diverted to other users pre war, the prototype mark I and V, AM270, the 250 mark XII retained by the RCAF and the 30 RAF order mark II used by the RCAF. The census has 50 Sea Hurricanes in Canada in February 1943, dropping to 49 in August, 48 in November, then 47 in January 1944 and 0 thereafter. Hurricane I are 32 as of February 1943, 31 in November then 0 from February 1944 onwards. I can see why the RCAF would decide to use standard mark I, all the documents I have though say they would have been converted from mark II airframes. If any officially mark II airframes were actually completed as mark I by CCF they had to have been made mark II before they left Canada. Does not make this conclusion certainly right though, it is supported by documents from different sources.

Given the lack of surviving CCF documentation and at least some of the RAF monitoring from afar, the transfer of 30 to the RCAF and the August exhibition aircraft there are a number of possibilities for the mark I/II change over, people continue to debate the CCF production split between mark I and II, try and find two references which agree, assuming they are not quoting each other. For me the AG665 photograph is non conclusive. The exhibition would have been a known event with planned CCF participation. CCF would be in a situation where the arrangements were to send all mark I airframes built to England then hold the first 100 mark II in Canada, so only an official mark II airframe was available in August 1941. AG665 was chosen, fitted with an engine and flown to the exhibition. The engine almost certainly had to be a Merlin III, you can make the case the exhaust marks show an engine blowing oil, from either being very new or old. Certainly CCF having the warning could have built AG665 as a mark I airframe and upon return brought it to mark II standard, or it could be a mark II with a Merlin III as AG665 just happened to be the right time right place choice An obvious query is what do RCAF 1351 to 1380 look like when fitted with Merlin III, they are ex early AG serials. Were they built as II but changed to I then back to II (XII)? Or were they left as II airframes with the 1,375 pound/624 kg Merlin III installed versus the 1,450 pound/658 kg Merlin XX? The Merlin III engine slightly further forward should not have caused significant trim issues, remembering the initial mark II did not have the extra fuselage length but the later ones did while using a heavier engine, so it comes down to whether the Merlin III required removal of the extra forward fuselage bay to be properly/safely mounted or not. CCF mark I production in finished July 1941 around 1 month after Gloster finished their production versus Hawker in January 1941, apart from 1 in February. So CCF were about keeping pace with Gloster. (Unlike Westland for example which did not start Spitfire mark I production until 3 months after Supermarine finished, and then took 6 months to build 50) Next comes the fact production is usually counted after the aircraft has passed flight tests, this clearly did not normally happen for CCF Hurricanes, it was more a fuselage roll out, so how exactly is "built as" to be defined in this situation? AG665 at the exhibition was a known commitment and very much a special one off for a short period of time The contract cards say only mark II were in Canada from August 1941 onwards, as do the delivery logs. (Ignoring the Sea Hurricanes) The British import reports also say mark II. The contract cards specifically state 100 mark II would be stored in Canada. The contract cards are important as they record what was reported built. Hence why AG341 contract card date as well as Taken on Charge date of 1 June 1943 is good evidence it was part of 1943 production. Unlike every other CCF order there are no round numbers, instead the contract total of 560 becomes 386 I and 174 II, which suggests it was amended according to when CCF could/did do the change over. It is the number CCF reports or is reported building. If CCF was building mark I they were technically in breech of the contract and production was being misreported, production had stopped in August probably due to lack of specific components, surely that would also apply if the shortage was the extra fuselage bay parts? Merlin 28 production started in August 1941 and we know they were going to Canada for Hurricanes with 144 ordered during the time period. In the delivery logs the relevant aircraft are marked to be stored for the training system, if they were to be mark I at least some could have been flying immediately. Merlin III production had ended in May 1941 and they were still needed for the Battles, Defiants, (Sea) Hurricanes and Spitfires, remembering after operational use these types would be transitioning into the training system. Why build new airframes for an out of production engine, one that has to be shipped across the Atlantic? (And yes the Sea Hurricanes did exactly that). The US built Merlins were easier to source, more powerful and there were thousands on order. In summary AG665 could have been a special case, or not, other airframes are unlikely to have been rolled out as mark I. In what is could easily a coincidence or the way the human mind tries to find patterns. Remembering 8 of the 1942 Hurricane exports were lost at sea, the 144 Merlin 28 order in 1942 resulted in 118 Hurricanes arriving in Britain with an engine fitted. Given 308 arrived without an engine if the 8 losses followed the 308:118 ratio would see 5 without and 3 with engines. Interesting if the Merlin 28 order split like the Merlin 29 order with 20% meant as spares, that is numerically 120 fitted and 24 spares, versus 118 with engine arrivals and 3 theoretically lost. The order for 141 Merlin 28 in 1943, after 3 Hurricane exports were lost at sea saw 132 Hurricanes arrive without and 116 arrive fitted with an engine (20% spares would leave either 117 or 118 engines to be fitted)

Firstly to Chris, having the information is nowhere near as useful as having it and able to find it easily. National Geographic had quite a reputation for good quality photography if I remember things correctly. Many years ago now they also published all issues (I think) to that date as part of a CD ROM set. Now a point I should have included in the previous post, Taken on Charge dates are most probably when the RAF received the aircraft, so usually after their refreshing wartime sea voyage from Canada. AF964 was number 200 in the order book, which if constructed in serial order meant it was built in March 1941. As an extreme example the photograph Claudio supplied shows AG665 was around in August 1941, its Taken on Charge date is 29 April 1942. As of mid/late 1941 100 Hurricane II were going to be retained in Canada. The storage of the mid 1941 production helps explain why the first batch of AM serials have earlier taken on charge dates, from December 1941 onwards, than the final AG serials. The exhaust stain says AG665 was flown in and probably using a Merlin III, despite the RAF claiming it was a mark IIB. The production figures require 485 aircraft built to end August 1941, AG665 is number 481 on the serials list, AG669 number 485, with AG684 number 500, then the AM serials start, noting AG341 does not seem to have been officially built until 1943. So thanks for adding to the evidence of mark II production in July/August 1941 extending into the AG6XX serials. And adding an interesting twist, maybe some were test flown with Merlin III, hence why AG665 could be sent, but of course it could simply be a special effort for the exhibition. Since the last CCF built mark I arrived in Britain in August, there were no mark I left in Canada by then to exhibit, but only Merlin III available. Also a staged shot meant for publicity, like in National Geographic, would probably remove any information that gave clues to total production, like construction numbers etc. Allied intelligence was able to make some very good estimates of axis production from equipment serial numbers. In the first half of 1941 Bomber Command was already losing Hampdens from the AD serial range. So while I understand the idea CCF used some form of "progressive number" on the assembly line, so far we can only say it was for Sea Hurricanes and they were numbers 601 to 650, (or 602 to 652 if AM270/HC3-287 is counted, the 602 on the first fuselage is maybe circumstantial evidence for AM270 the Hurricane) and they were built at least slightly out of serial order, they were around from November 1941 at least when the cumulative production total to the end of the month was 517, it was 650 by end January 1942. And I also need to add that the 900 RAF order Hurricanes built to June 1942 I originally reported was mark I and II only, it is 950 (951 serials) when you add in the Sea Hurricanes. Monthly production from the US War Production Board Report, the split between versions is my estimates, all mark I to end June 1941, mark II or Sea or mark XII from August 1941 onwards. Feb-40 1, Mar-40 4, Apr-40 4, May-40 9, Jun-40 10, Jul-40 11, Aug-40 1, Sep-40 1, Oct-40 7, Nov-40 13, Dec-40 15 Jan-41 35, Feb-41 46, Mar-41 66, Apr-41 58, May-41 72, Jun-41 59, Jul-41 62 (last 14 mark I built), Aug-41 11, Sep-41 0, Oct-41 1, Nov-41 31, Dec-41 70 (50 Sea Hurricanes in the Nov-41/Jan-42 period included in monthly figures) Jan-42 63, Feb-42 64, Mar-42 69, Apr-42 68, May-42 74, Jun-42 44 (Temporary end of RAF production, Start of RCAF mark XII order, 19 built this month), Jul-42 18, Aug-42 36, Sep-42 32, Oct-42 106, Nov-42 51, Dec-42 75 Jan-43 34, Feb-43 80 (Probably 4 RCAF, 76 RAF), Mar-43 36 (Probably 25 RAF, 11 RCAF), Apr-43 8 RCAF, May-43 6 RCAF CCF officially built its first 5 SBW Helldivers in September 1943.

Nice National Geographic photograph. Interesting where things like this turn up. Not a Merlin in sight and a good chance AF964 does not have one either. Very CCF mark I production. Clearly the same building as the Sea Hurricanes and from almost the same spot, by counting the bays on the right had side wall and noting the door through and sign on the wall. The Sea Hurricane shot slightly left, forward and one storey down. AF964 is a valid CCF Hurricane serial, taken on charge 9 May 1941, whether the serial in the shot was just for the camera is a possibility. Since this is a modelling forum I will leave it to the experts to decide what date the markings suggest.

Thanks for the photograph, very good and above all dated. A note of caution, the aircraft in the foreground is definitely a Sea Hurricane as is the one behind it, and that explains the caption, and the numbers are a good clue the left hand side ones are all Sea, but Hurricanes on the other side of the building may not be. Again I agree they probably are as mark I production had ceased well before September. The photograph definitely shows the CCF order were built as Sea. CCF construction numbers were allocated starting at number 1, in batches of 40, with 2,000 being added between batches, so the Sea Hurricanes were 30001 to 30040 and 32001 to 32010, the best fit to what the 600 series numbers relate to is the fact the Sea Hurricanes were the 601st to 650th Hurricanes ordered from CCF. Please note I am not saying the Sea Hurricanes were built with mark II fuselages, the information I have is the order was for mark I, the only query is whether they were meant to be Sea versions from the start, with the answer probably Sea. The following is from scans of microfilmed copies of handwritten documents, with all sorts of notes written over and around the original text, Original Order number 964753/38 requisition 239/38 (40 aircraft), second order SB6648 requisition 8/E1/39 (560 aircraft), the third order with its Sea Hurricanes does not have an order number (except a query whether it was also SB6648), just a requisition number 1/E1/41. The E means wartime, the last two digits the year it was issued. Given the fact the second order had been switched to mark II and the year of requisition, it is most likely the Sea Hurricanes were ordered as such. In any case the photograph is good proof they were built as, making it only a minor point what they were ordered as. What caused the drop off in production in the third quarter of 1941 is unknown to me, I have heard claims about problems with components supply. As of the end of August, there were still 115 aircraft from the second order to be built, so it was not a lack of orders. The figures I have are the official production by month, remembering aircraft are usually available before being counted as they have to pass tests before being declared acceptable quality and so become part of the official production numbers, aircraft could be rolled out of the factory days before they passed the tests. I agree CCF kept working on production during the second half of 1941 despite the lack of official output, and do not understand what the idea of a void is about, the Hurricane line was an assembly area with components arriving to be built into new aircraft, if you lack some components you cannot complete the aircraft, the factory would have kept doing what it could while waiting. Even with full supplies it still usually took weeks from start of assembly to completion of flight tests. Put it another way CCF in 1941 and early 1942 was completing around 2 aircraft per day when the line was fully working, there is a good two weeks of output in the photograph. The Hurricanes in the photograph look well advanced, with engines fitted, but something delayed their completion until November 1941 and beyond.

An attempt to make the results found clearer, plus some updating. Canadian Car and Foundry Hawker Hurricane Production. 1,451 Official Production 1,450 Number of CCF construction numbers traced As built 426 mark I, 575 mark II, 400 mark XII and 50 Sea mark I. Only a few test flights done using a Merlin 28, Merlin XX were fitted in Britain. All exported to Britain or retained in Canada, just look at the total imports versus total production, less lost at sea and retained in Canada. Many then exported from Britain after fitting with Merlin III or XX engines, thus maintaining the RAF standard, mark I Merlin III, mark II Merlin XX. For example AP138 Taken on Charge 28 February 1942, actually at 13 MU on that date, allocated to Russia 20 May 1942, lost at sea 30 December 1942. The production reports do not split the RAF marks, only RAF/RCAF aircraft, which requires use of Taken on Charge/Strength or delivery dates to an air force unit, some of which are not in the delivery logs, as the only way to obtain RAF production by mark by month, the official production totals are usually higher than the totals from these dates. The main documents consulted, Ministry of Aircraft Production Statistical Bulletins and Digests. RAF Aircraft Census, Contract Cards and Delivery Logs. US War Production Board Report, plus other unpublished monthly reports. UK Aircraft Import report Canadian Department of Munitions and Supply reports. Rolls Royce Heritage Trust replies to queries. If you want an example of the sorts of reports the allies were making and exchanging at the time, go to http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/search/ use "aircraft production Australia" as the search string, files A1695 3/101/TECH are a selection of Australian and Canadian reports and are available to look at. The orders. Different references agree on the quantities but can give different order numbers (British, Canadian, US) 1) 967453/38 for 40 mark I P5170-209 2) SB6648/BSB166 for 560 aircraft, built as 386 mark I and 174 mark II T9519-38, Z6983-7162, AE958-77, AF945-99, AG100-344, AG665-84, AM270-363, AP138 (Replacing AM270) (30 AG serial aircraft became RCAF 1351-80) 3) BSB7096 for 50 Sea mark I and BSB7097 for 150 mark II (BSB598 for all 200), BW835-84, BW885-999, BX100-34, with BW835-84 the Sea Hurricanes being retained in Canada. 4) BSB1500 for 250 mark II JS219-468 5) CD6160 for 400 mark XII RCAF 5376-5775 (150 became PJ660-95, PJ711-58, PJ782-813, PJ842-72) As of end June 1941 800 Hurricanes on order (orders 1 to 3 above) by end September 1,200, by end March 1942 1,450 on order. Finally in the Q2/1943 Munitions and Supply Quarterly Summary, New Orders, Placed in Canada: 1 Hurricane shipped in excess of order for 250 by CCF, making the total 1,451 The engines. Packard started Merlin 28 production in August 1941, 49 by end December, 32 for the RAF, 17 for the USAAF. By end May 1942 220 Merlin 28 had reached England, total production for the RAF was 185 to end March, 519 to end April. Canada imported 144 Merlin 28 in 1942 but without accessories and so could not be flown, the same situation as the early Merlin 28 arriving in England had. Of the Canadian imports 118 were fitted to exported Hurricanes that arrived in England, the rest of the engines were shipped stand alone or on Hurricanes lost at sea in 1942. Canada imported another 141 Merlin 28 for Hurricanes in 1943 (Plus another 24 for Lancasters). Of this order for Hurricanes 116 were fitted to exported Hurricanes that arrived in England, the rest of the engines were shipped stand alone or on Hurricanes lost at sea in 1943. Merlin 29 production, 2 batches of 240, February/April 1942 (only 1 in April) and July/December 1942. These engines were exported to and then remained in Canada. Which is why they were available for the Hurricanes transferred from RAF orders. The 480 Hamilton 23E50 propellers for the Merlin 29 were built March to August 1942. Canada had plenty of Merlin III from the 740 Fairey Battles it received, starting in August 1939 with only 15 sent after December 1941, plus any other engines sent as stand alone units. Engines for Hurricanes could be drawn from these stocks as needed. The AM270 duplicate serial, AM270 the Catalina, AM264 to AM270 were the serials for 7 Catalina II, the only order for Catalina II, USN says 7 built, the RAF says it received 7. Internal Memo Netherlands Purchasing Commission, March 1942 [filing order suggests either 1, 2 or 3 March 1942] about its CCF built Hurricane order, “Airplane AM270 has successfully made a test flight with all [NEI] government supplied items, including aircraft equipment, on board”. Using the Dutch allocated serial HC3-287 solved the duplicate serial problem. Using AM270 / HC3-287 and accounting for the aircraft that had both RCAF and RAF serials you end up with 1,451 unique serials issued. Marks. The RAF production documentation describes all CCF built Hurricanes as mark I, II or Sea. Mark I were all serials up to and including AG286 plus AG288 to AG291, mark II were AG287 and all serials from AG292 onwards, except for BW835 to BW884, the Sea Hurricane I. There is considerable dispute about the split between IIB and IIC. Mark X, some RAF documents refer to the CCF built mark I as the mark X. The other designation of Mark X is fitted with a Merlin 28 engine. In the Dutch documentation the Mark X subtype designation is first used in February 1942, all documents of that month no longer mention the Hurricanes on order as Mk IIBs but as Mk Xs. They were to have Merlin 28 and Hamilton Standard propellers (90 ordered for the 72 Hurricanes on order), which leaves the possibility the test flights were done with a Merlin 29 given the 28 was meant for British propellers and the 29 for American and the lack of Merlin 28 accessories at the time. Any CCF built Hurricane arriving in Britain fitted with a Merlin 28 had the engine removed and replaced by a Merlin XX, apart from a few test flights of the Merlin 28. As noted above the 1942 engines could not be flown without additional fittings. Therefore this mark X designation refers to only a couple of Hurricanes for a limited number of flights. The Merlin 28 were used in Lancasters and it meant the worldwide RAF Hurricane II standard remained as fitted with Merlin XX, it did not have to add another engine type to the overseas supply system. The Mark XI designation as Merlin 28 fitted along with Canadian equipment. The only fit to this is the 150 Hurricanes transferred from the RCAF order, which had already been built as mark XII, then exported to Britain and as noted any Merlin 28 in arriving Hurricanes were removed. Mark XII designation as Merlin 29 engine fitted. A production snapshot, US Archives, RG179 E1 B2476, Hurricane production situation as of end September 1942 533 Merlin 28 and 29 supplied for Hurricanes 245 Installed in Hurricanes 288 Spare engines or awaiting installation 144 Merlin 28 order BSB598, 120 plus 24 spares, completed 480 Merlin 29 on order or supplied, 400 plus 80 spares, orders CD6160 (400), CD6161 (80) 1450 Hurricanes on order 1055 Hurricanes built 763 Hurricanes shipped without engines or propellers 50 Sea Hurricanes with Merlin III Hurricane orders 600 BSB166, completed 200 BS598, completed 250 BSB1500 400 CD6160 CCF Hurricane production had built up to 60 to 70 per month in the period March to July 1941, production for the remainder of 1941 was 11, 0, 1, 31 and 70, it means 59 non mark I had to be built by end August 1941. Production of the RCAF order for 400 started in June 1942, even though there were still 100 RAF order aircraft outstanding. Production switched from the RCAF order back to the RAF order in the first quarter of 1942, probably February even though there were 25 RACF order aircraft outstanding, these 25 were then the last CCF Hurricanes built, March to May 1943. British imports were in four blocks, 41 mark I airframes April 1940 to August 1940 (The initial order for 40 plus the returning pattern aircraft L1848), 378 mark I airframes October 1940 to August 1941, 315 mark II airframes December 1941 to August 1942 plus 118 fitted with an engine March to May 1942 giving a total of 438 in the block, finally 132 airframes and 116 with engines fitted total 248 March to June 1943. Note the JS block serials remaining totaled 100, showing at least some of the PJ serials arrived fitted with a Merlin 28. The fact the production and imports were in blocks gives a series of sub totals which help when trying to trace the inevitable anomalies and uncertainties. The RAF order information for the Sea Hurricanes refers to them as either mark I or Sea mark I well before they were built, which is evidence they were built as sea types and were the shorter mark I airframes. This makes them the only Sea Hurricane I built as such leaving as a possibility they were built as mark I then converted to Sea mark I before delivery, or at least that is how they could be officially treated by CCF/RCAF, but the RAF says Sea. Given the way the 30 RAF order mark II airframes transferred to the RCAF were fitted with Merlin III and later upgraded to Merlin 29, the way the Sea Hurricanes were built after CCF started building mark II and also were converted to mark XII, makes concluding they were built as the longer mark II airframes understandable. According to the RAF delivery logs the 50 Sea Hurricanes were Taken on Charge between 15 November 1941 and 19 January 1942, by month 5, 26, 19. The RCAF Taken on Strength dates range between 9 December 1941 and 28 January 1942, except for BW835 22 April 1942, by month 29, 20, 0, 0, 1. The only production Sea Hurricane II were 60 built by Hawkers November 1942 to May 1943 (with none produced January and February 1943). Production for RAF orders to end June 1942 was 900 but with AM270 included there are 901 RAF serials, so 1 was not built or not counted as built. From the total of 900 built 3 were not exported or transferred to the RCAF in 1942, believed to be AM270, AM321 and AM322. No one has found any documentation to show AM321 and AM322 ever existed and examining surviving airframes indicates there are 64 construction numbers for the 65 serials AM274 to AM339. In addition the fate of AM270/HC3-287 is unknown beyond being used by CCF for testing in 1942. The final 100 RAF order aircraft include JS372 and JS373 which are reported cancelled. The 1943 exports to Britain should therefore be 98 plus the 150 from the RCAF order, total 248, in fact 248 arrived but another 3 were lost at sea. The so far best explanation for this is as follows. AG341 has no documentation before 1943 (Taken on Charge or delivery), removing it from the 1942 totals means production and allocated RAF and Dutch serials match. Adding it to 1943 exports helps there, including the report of an extra Hurricane built. Looking at CCF built mark II imports versus deliveries to the RAF finds all 1942 imports delivered but 2 undelivered in 1943, this fits with JS372 and JS373 arriving badly damaged and being removed from the contract, in other words cancelled, but no document found so far confirms this. A similar situation to Airspeed Oxfords NM532 and NM533, they were destroyed by fire at the factory and deleted from the contract, making any official production total 2 less than the number of serials issued. Another 21 mark I were reduced to spares without being delivered to the RAF at least, out of 27 mark I not delivered to the RAF after being imported into Britain. As noted the Contract Cards and the Import report have a mark I production total of 426, the conclusion is the last five mark I being AG286 plus AG288 to AG291. However the Delivery Logs have the first mark II as possibly AG292 (IIB? Ruled through, converted to IIC, to Royal Navy) or AG296 (no mark number) and, if not, definitely AG297 (IIB). The Hurricanes AG287, AG292 to AG334, some 44 aircraft, are all noted as being stored in Canada for the Empire Air Training Scheme, 40 of the entries give a storage date in July 1941. The 30 Hurricanes that became RCAF 1351 to 1380 are drawn from the stored aircraft, the rest arrived in Britain from March 1942 onwards. Given the need for this to be a homogeneous group, the likelihood they were to use US built Merlins and the fact declaring them all mark II gives 426 mark I built are the reasons for the assignments chosen, it also gives 44 mark II built to AG334 and 54 to AG344 versus 59 non mark I built to end August 1941. The final mark I serials AG286, AG288, AG289 and AG291 are reported at 13 Maintenance Unit on 2 July 1941, AG290 at 9 Maintenance Unit on 16 August 1941. The delivery logs usually (but of course not always) give a basic initial aircraft history and final fate that becomes briefer with later production, (early 15 aircraft to the page, later 100), from Canadian Production they report ACSEA + SEAAC + India received 77 mark I and 125 mark II, Middle East 53 I and 20 II, Portugal 20 II, Russia 357 II, Soudan 13 mark I, South Africa 1 mark I, along with 38 mark I and 29 mark II to the RN (Plus 2 Sea Hurricanes, BW841 and 855, the latter reported in Britain on 29 July 1943) Mark I to II conversions given new serials, P5195 to DG623, P5199 to DG632, P5204 to BV170, P5190 to, DG620 which was lost at sea 24 August 41, P5175 to BV159 and then to Russia, AE963 to DR366. The delivery logs to not have any other mark II conversions. They do note Z7079, sent to South Africa, was converted to a Sea Hurricane on 9 September 1942. On other Hurricane matters. Hurricane IIE designation, used by the Ministry of Aircraft Production for what the RAF describes as IIBB or IICB (the final B meaning bomber). Not an early designation for the mark IV. There are 168 IIE in the monthly reports, March to October 1942, later reports revise the total built to 270 and balance this by deducting 102 IIB. Mark IV production started in December 1942. Hurricane mark IV are often quoted as having Merlin 24 or 27 engines, however production of each engine began well after that of the Hurricane IV. The accident report for KX190 (the 28th mark IV in serial number terms) and the loss report for KZ607 (189th) both state the engine was a Merlin XX. In addition the RAF Museum reports the final fifteen Hurricane IV produced all had Merlin XX engines. The engine production report has sixteen Merlin 24 built to end July 1943, versus three hundred and thirteen mark IV, of which one hundred and fifty two were issued to units, sent overseas or were in transit or had been lost. The one hundred and forty one Merlin 27 began production in November 1943, after four hundred and twelve of the five hundred and twenty four mark IV had been produced, of which two hundred and seventy were issued to units, sent overseas or were in transit or had been lost. Rolls Royce reports all Merlin 27 were converted to Merlin 25 for use in Mosquitoes and that it is unlikely any Merlin 24 or 27 was installed in a Hurricane except for some trials, while Roger Foreman in his book the Hawker Hurricane notes one of the mark IV converted to a mark V prototype was tested using a Merlin 27 in July 1943. The Merlin 24 were for Lancaster mark I, production of which resumed in September 1943. The conclusion is the mark IV used Merlin XX, like the mark II. The Merlin 27 were meant for the Hurricane mark V, orders for which, according to the RAF aircraft census, totaled three hundred and eighty four as of end June 1943 with another 200 ordered in August, but all orders were cancelled in January 1944, and Merlin 27 production effectively ended in January as well. One of the mark IV converted to mark V standard trialed the Merlin 32 engine and this seems to be a source of claims the mark V was to use a Merlin 32.