All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Plastic Hacker said:

On RDM2 Hurricanes, painted at the factory or MU,

MU, maybe even unit level, the photo of VZ-J of 96 sq shows fairly rough application of the black.

2 hours ago, Plastic Hacker said:

what colour would the stencilling (if any) have been?

I don't know there would have been any,  thought there are not many photos of RDM2 Hurricanes,  (I can think of 85Sq, 87  and 96 sq images, and none are very close so stencilling is not visible. Of note the images I'm thinking, of VY-X, LK-A and VZ-J,  all show 6 stub exhausts,  let me know if you want the images found. 

At this point I'll @AndyL  whose our Defiant specialist,  but may know the details on early night fighter camo and stencilling, or lack of, as I presume this is likely to be the same answer.

2 hours ago, Plastic Hacker said:

On RDM2 Hurricanes, painted at the factory or MU,

MU, maybe even unit level, the photo of VZ-J of 96 sq shows fairly rough application of the black.

2 hours ago, Plastic Hacker said:

what colour would the stencilling (if any) have been?

I don't know there would have been any,  thought there are not many photos of RDM2 Hurricanes,  (I can think of 85Sq, 87  and 96 sq images, and none are very close so stencilling is not visible. Of note the images I'm thinking, of VY-X, LK-A and VZ-J,  all show 6 stub exhausts,  let me know if you want the images found. 

At this point I'll @AndyL  whose our Defiant specialist,  but may know the details on early night fighter camo and stencilling, or lack of, as I presume this is likely to be the same answer.

[Max Headroom]

This is a close-up of the well known photo of BE500 LK*A of 87 Squadron.

 

 

Obviously a repaint once in service. Note the Dark Green under the canopy. It must have been repainted when the canopy was closed. Note also that only the base of the aerial has had an application of Night.

 

Trevor

[Broadway]

On 1/24/2019 at 9:40 PM, Warbird78 said:

Hello,

 

I'm looking for photos of Hurricane Mk IIc JX-W Z3899 (1st squadron, Tangmere). I could only find the below image, which is a screenshot of a movie. Nothing else in my references.

I'm more specifically interested in a photo of this machine engine off as I'd like to identify the propeller type.

Many thanks for your help!

 

 

I don't suppose the OP is interested, but @Troy Smith said that the screenshot was from a movie available on youtube, while watching it I noticed that the unit code on the starboard side is further forward finishing under the cockpit (00:14-0019) instead of under the dog kennel which is where it is shown on ARMA's instructions.

 

 

[Dave Swindell]

12 hours ago, Broadway said:

I noticed that the unit code on the starboard side is further forward finishing under the cockpit (00:14-0019) instead of under the dog kennel which is where it is shown on ARMA's instructions.

 

Whilst the film does show JX*W Z3899 as per the still above, the stbd side shots showing the squadron code further forward under the cockpit are of JX*N / Z3897 (which has an interesting shamrock & hand motif on the port engine panel). Whilst it is possible (likely?) that JX*W Z3899 was similarly marked on the stbd side, it's not conclusive proof.

[MarkoZG]

Where better to ask this than in this marvelous thread:)

I was looking everywhere but couldn't find any data about how the Hurricane prototype ended.

When was it last flown? What was the final configuration? Did it receive any camouflage or markings?

Hope someone here might know.

Thanks!

[Procopius]

On 10/18/2022 at 4:35 PM, MarkoZG said:

Where better to ask this than in this marvelous thread:)

I was looking everywhere but couldn't find any data about how the Hurricane prototype ended.

When was it last flown? What was the final configuration? Did it receive any camouflage or markings?

Hope someone here might know.

Thanks!

 

As of May 1939, allocated to ground instructional duties with the serial 1211M.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

21-Feb-35 Contract from Air Ministry for one High Speed Monoplane, K5083, to design submitted 4th September 1934, known as F.36.34 Single Seat Fighter.  As it was a P.V. machine it was not built to any specifications, but machine corresponds closely to F.5.34 and F.10/35 day and night fighters.

 

6-Nov-35 First flight of prototype K5083 at Brooklands.  Watts two-bladed, fixed pitch (wood) airscrew fitted.
7-Feb-36 Prototype K5083 delivered to R.A.F. at Martlesham Heath.  All-up weight now 5,670 pounds.
Mar-36 Production Drawings commenced.
Apr-36 Performance and handling trials completed.
Jun-36 Spare set of wings with 8 guns sent to Brooklands for armament trials and R.A.F. display.
8-Jun-36 Production Drawings for fuselage issued to shops.
Jul-36 Hurricane K5083 exhibited at R.A.F. Air Pageant at Hendon.
20-Jul-36 Air Ministry Specification No. 15/36 issued, covering above production contract.
Aug-36 Eight gun wing trials.
Dec-36 It was decided to install the "Merlin II" engine since the "Merlin I" was not being put into production.  Owing to difference in the cylinder blocks, the cowling shape and fairing lines were considerably altered.  Other units affected were the air intake, airscrew, engine controls, engine mounting, hand starter gear, header tank and header tank mounting.  Note - There is no doubt that this engine change slowed up production contract very much more than was at first anticipated.

 

2-Feb-37 Air Ministry conference held on production and prototype fuselages to decide on variations in production from experimental aircraft.
19-Apr-37 The first Merlin II was installed on the first production Hurricane L1547.
8-Sep-37 First production Hurricane L1547 was transported to Brooklands.  Dry weight of engine 1,355 pounds.
12-Oct-37 First flight of first production Hurricane I L1547.

 

K5083, apart from the various test flights,
29-May-37 Empire air Day aerobatics display.
August to October 1937, photography for "Shadow of the Wing", later "Test Pilot", movie.

 

RAF card.
10-Dec-37 taken on charge at A&AEE, Merlin C number 17.
23-Dec-37 at RAE
1-Mar-38 taken on charge of RAE.
4-May-38 Air Member for Research and Development at Hawkers.
14-Jan-39 2 School of Technical Training.

Notes, armament work, research handling trials, Modification and repair to radiator.

 

RAF Serial Registers, Became 1211M, officially Struck off Charge 15 May 1939.

[MarkoZG]

Thank you sooooo much!

[modelldoc]

The Hawker Hurricane "Dodo" is a nice option for a surplus of models, so I do that:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21603181@N08/52422696618/in/dateposted/

 

modelldoc

[PhantomBigStu]

Just put the decals on a hurricane as baders v7467, the code letters are white, before I potentially waste time repainting them medium sea grey, which is correct, I have seen a photo of Bader with a white LE visible? 

[Troy Smith]

48 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said:

Just put the decals on a hurricane as baders v7467, the code letters are white, before I potentially waste time repainting them medium sea grey, which is correct, I have seen a photo of Bader with a white LE visible? 

They should be MSG, FWIW I have never anything else used on BoB era planes,  you might want to post the photo, this maybe  V7467

With MSG codes.   There have been in depth discussions on Bader's Hurricanes on here in the past. 

[PhantomBigStu]

Should have said "looks" white, here's the photo, dated september 1940  which is probably  taken the same time as yours  @Troy Smith

Edited November 13, 2022 by PhantomBigStu

[Graham Boak]

Probably because the film/filter treats the blue in MSG as a light colour.  There are b&w photos that make EDSG look very light.

[Dave Fleming]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Probably because the film/filter treats the blue in MSG as a light colour.  There are b&w photos that make EDSG look very light.

And Ocean grey in some film/filter combinations

[PhantomBigStu]

Guess I’ll have to get the cocktail sticks out tomorrow then…..

[Graham Boak]

15 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

And Ocean grey in some film/filter combinations

However there are photos showing Ocean Grey areas of the camouflage as both light and dark(er) on the same aircraft in the same photo.  I recall Paul Lucas getting a lot of flak in MAM(?) when he brought up this subject.  So many people who "knew" better.  Better to move on until some more convincing evidence appears.

[JackG]

It requires some manipulation with software, but can achieve near tonal values with the 242 Sqn Hurricane images.   With Panchromatic film setting, an 85% blue filter does shift the MSG codes to be lighter than the yellow of the roundel, but overall the greys are dark:

 

 

 

Dialing up brightness 25% and contrast 75%. now we have something. but note too the Sky undersides if visible would be bleached white:

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by JackG

[PhantomBigStu]

Thanks for the help, have repainted the codes   

[Kallisti]

On 11/14/2022 at 3:12 PM, JackG said:

It requires some manipulation with software, but can achieve near tonal values with the 242 Sqn Hurricane images.   With Panchromatic film setting, an 85% blue filter does shift the MSG codes to be lighter than the yellow of the roundel, but overall the greys are dark:

 

Dialing up brightness 25% and contrast 75%. now we have something. but note too the Sky undersides if visible would be bleached white:

 

 

 

I'm afraid this sort of analysis is very misleading as you cannot attribute colours to greyscale like this. All you have is a relative light/dark measure in a greyscale image. Different colours could end up having the same greyscale representation - there is NO colour information in a greyscale image.

[JackG]

 

Actually, quite the opposite was done.   The analysis began with colour digital samples provided by Nick Millman, followed by assigning grey values via software that emulates b/w film.  The purpose was to show that it is possible to have present the known official colours an RAF Hurricane would carry during this period in the way they were displayed by the photo in question - or more specifically that the grey tone of the MSG codes appear lighter than that of the outer roundel.   Of course, if one does not trust the photospectometry readings by Nick Millman, and consider unreliable the software created by a programmer that also studies colour for a living, ( https://powerretouche.com/  ),  then yes what I posted should be ignored.

Edited November 21, 2022 by JackG

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Hurricane mark IIE, this is an update based on looking at the form 78 aircraft cards, it corrects an assumption made in the original report, that the IIE missing from the monthly production reports were built after September 1942, in fact they were built in or before March 1942. The IIE was NOT an early mark IV, it was a factory delivered fighter bomber version of the IIB and IIC, called IIBB and IIBC by the RAF.

 

A memo in AIR 20/4572 dated 30 August 1942 notes the mark IIE is the Hurribomber with sixty built to end June 1942, but a signal to the Middle East dated 31 October 1942 states the IIE is not an official designation, but had been used at times for IIB and IIC fighter bombers. There are one hundred and sixty eight mark IIE in the monthly production reports from March to October 1942, with mark IV production starting in December. In October 1943 the cumulative mark IIE total is adjusted from one hundred and sixty eight to two hundred and seventy.

 

The designation mark IIE does not appear in the RAF aircraft census, instead in February 1943 it reports two hundred and sixty eight mark IIBB (the second B is for bomber) had been ordered with two hundred and twenty nine delivered, plus others that had been converted. Then in June 1943 the census is amended to one hundred and sixty eight IIBB ordered and delivered, agreeing with the monthly production reports. In November 1943 the census adjusts the figures to two hundred and thirty IIBB and forty IICB ordered and delivered, agreeing with the production reports adjusted mark IIE total.

 

As can be seen from the above it took a while before an official IIE production total was settled.

 

Looking at the Form 78 Aircraft Cards there are one hundred and five Hurricanes listed as IIE between BE221 and BP320, with the first ninety eight having Taken On Charge dates of September to early December 1941, the final seven, all BP serials, in March and April 1942. This means the RAF reports IIE production finished at the time the Ministry of Aircraft Production reports it began. It also means the IIE production started four months before the mark IID, around the time the mark IID prototype was undergoing initial tests. The aircraft census as of June 1944 reports a nett (that is conversions to less conversions from) sixty six Hurricanes converted to IIBB. The Aircraft Cards have two hundred and ninety two Hawker IIE or IIBB and four Austin IIBB, all of these listed as IIBB in the Serial Registers. The comments on the Aircraft Cards give sixty eight conversions to IIBB. To agree with the official figures two of those marked conversions were actually built as.

 

The June 1944 census has forty Hurricanes built as and a nett three thousand one hundred and thirty two conversions to IICB. The Aircraft Cards have forty Hurricanes marked as being built as IICB, in four groups of 10 serials, 1) HW238 to 247, 2) HW551 to 560, 3) HW571, HW572, (blackout block), HW596 to 603, 4) HW614 to 623, Taken on Charge in September and October 1942, the official end of IIE production. This means the one hundred and sixty eight IIE in the monthly production reports are actually one hundred and twenty eight IIB and forty IIC, making the Hawker built totals two thousand and eleven IIB and four thousand seven hundred and fifty one IIC.

 

The ninety eight IIE from the aircraft cards to early December 1941, the seven in March and April 1942 and the one hundred and sixty eight March to October 1942 in the production reports total two hundred and seventy three, indicating three of the seven March and April 1942 IIE from the aircraft cards are counted in the production reports.

[Graham Boak]

This does answer some inconsistencies that have been floating around but raised other questions.  One is the reference to the Mk.IIE as the equipment of the RAF's first Hurricane fighter-bomber unit (607 Sq.)  despite the later (chronological) comments that the E wing was an attempt at a fully multi-role wing design which failed, to be replaced by the less-ambitious Mk.IV.  Similarly, why was the B variant with the strengthened wing for store carriage not given a new designation?  Questions remain as to why this BB and BC designation has not been more widely recognised?  Why such researchers as James Halley didn't refer to this in his RAF Serials books, taken from the aircraft record cards?  Or Francis Mason in his books, supposedly taken from Hawker records (although notably weak in other areas...)  Sadly neither are still around to answer these questions.  It does seem that there was some mismatch between these RAF records and the outer world, including the manufacturer.  Or, indeed the RAF's own technical manuals. 

 

The BB and BC terminology appears to be unique in using a double letter.  Shortly after this the system of prefix letters for roles was introduced offering the possibility of F Mk.IIB and FB Mk.IIB for the (or C) for these aircraft, although that the E/BB wing completely replaced the B and the BC wing the C may well have influenced matters.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

It is BB and CB, Citizen Band, not Before Christ. 🙂 As far as the Ministry of Aircraft Production is concerned IIE production ended in October 1942, the final 14 IIB production in November 1942 (ignoring the imports from Canada, many to most of the 1942 and 1943 imports were converted to IIC.), mark IV production began in December.

 

The RAF recorded the version/mark number information in 3 different locations, the contract cards, the form 622 Serial Registers, both dealing with the aircraft as built, then the form 78 Aircraft Card for the individual aircraft, which could be later modified.  The only place the Hurricane IIE appears is on the form 78.  Indicating Hawker was probably not aware.  If researchers like Halley were aware the IIE designation was not official it would be a simple decision to list the aircraft as IIB.  Add the Ministry of Aircraft Production was not aware of the 1941 production marked IIE and then decided to use the designation just as the RAF decided to stop. 

 

In 1941 Langley built all except the final 7 IIE Hurricanes, which come from the Brooklands batch of 10 in late March/early April 1941 of BP295, BP297, BP299, BP301, BP316, BP318, BP320, marked as IIE, then BP322, BP324 and BP326 marked as IIB (Bomber).  BP320 is the end of use for IIE.  The next IIB (Bomber) batch is BP437 to BP446 at Langley in late April/early May.  Brooklands takes until late July/early August to build HV362 to HV369.  In the end Langley built 103 IIBB and 98 IIE, Brooklands 20 IIBB and 7 IIE according to the form 78 cards.

 

The IICB split is 10 Brooklands, 30 Langley, and that is probably due to in early September Brooklands was building its last IIBB, HW193, HW194, HW195, HW205, HW206, HW207, HW232, HW233, HW234, leading straight into the IICB batch HW238 to HW247. Langley then built a final 30 IIBB mid September to mid October 1942, plus 30 IICB mid to late October.

 

If the RAF census is correct only 270 Hurricanes left the factory with wing racks, the rest were added by the RAF, while the extra B for aircraft fitted with wing racks is unique to the Hurricane but so far it only appears on the RAF census, the aircraft cards noting the conversion to bomber.  At face value it implies the Spitfires and Typhoons at least had factory fitted racks but any such fittings or conversions were not considered noteworthy, while the 1941/42 Hurricane designations continued to be used.  The Hurricane aircraft cards are generally marked as bomber, not just another B added and the census could be an abbreviation, the question for me is why the RAF decided to differentiate the Hurricane like this but not other types.  Agreed in 1940/42 the RAF felt the need to come up with more complex descriptions for the various versions of different aircraft, the series I and II for Hurricanes and Halifaxes for example, before settling on the prefix designations, but then there is no differentiation between the Spitfire IX and XIV C versus E wing versions in the production reports.

 

As an aside 21 of the IIBB conversions were part of a special shipment for Mombasa, 19 later transferred to the Admiralty.

 

When it comes to Francis Mason the impression I gain is he did not have a full understanding of production, the comments in his 2001 edition includes the statement that over 400 Hurricanes Struck off Charge during the Battle of Britain were in fact repaired, while Hawker is supposed to have produced over 150 Hurricanes from spare and cannibalised parts, Gloster a similar number.  His Canadian production information is way off.  His individual aircraft listings do include some listed as "IIE (sic)", without an explanation of what the IIE is.

[Graham Boak]

CB corrected, thanks.  Mason wrote a lot on Hurricanes but did have a number of blind spots.  I did find "IIE" with no "sic" in an older list, at least.  This kind of comment "aircraft produced from spares and cannibalised parts" is a misunderstanding of how the Ministry recorded aircraft - the fuselage had a serial and everything else was spares.  There were no spare fuselages.  Such aircraft "produced" were simply rebuilds.  Very valuable too, but not additional to contracts.  Perhaps that's what he meant to say.

[Troy Smith]

On 03/12/2022 at 06:55, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

A memo in AIR 20/4572 dated 30 August 1942 notes the mark IIE is the Hurribomber with sixty built to end June 1942, but a signal to the Middle East dated 31 October 1942 states the IIE is not an official designation, but had been used at times for IIB and IIC fighter bombers. There are one hundred and sixty eight mark IIE in the monthly production reports from March to October 1942, with mark IV production starting in December. In October 1943 the cumulative mark IIE total is adjusted from one hundred and sixty eight to two hundred and seventy.

I was sent this to post by Dave Wadman @tango98

, I'll @Graham Boak @StevSmar

No IIe by losethekibble, on Flickr