Canadian Hurricanes

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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.

[airjiml2]

Here is a better shot of AG665 from the Ken Molson Colleciton.  I think that is a Mk. I airframe.  Notice the very early style pitot.

 

Jim

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by airjiml2

[ClaudioN]

Hello Geoffrey,

thank for some very interesting details concerning Sea Hurricanes. Going through your posts I may possibly add something:

 

1)

On 6/29/2019 at 8:13 PM, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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)

In Sturtivant, "Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939 to 1945", I found about 70 Sea Hurricane Mk. I and about 60 Sea Hurricane Mk. II serving with the FAA and built by CCF.

38 Mk. Is seem to correspond to reported conversions in the Zxxxx serial range:

Z6987, Z6997, Z7008, Z7015, Z7016,

Z7050, Z7055, Z7057, Z7061, Z7064-Z7065, Z7067-Z7069, Z7071, Z7078, Z7080, Z7082, Z7085-Z7091, Z7093,

Z7144, Z7147-Z7149, Z7151-Z7155, Z7160-Z7162.

If so, remaining Mk. I aircraft in the AExxx and AFxxx serial ranges are unaccounted for in the logs.

So far, I am unable to make any hypothesis about the serials of 29 Mk. IIs

 

2)

On 7/4/2019 at 7:32 PM, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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.

This gives the total number of conversions from Mk. I to Sea Hurricane Mk. I as 378. Note that the total includes Sea Hurricane Mk. IAs and Mk. IBs. I believe the proportion is roughly two-thirds Mk. IA, one-third Mk. IB.

As a check, the sum of 97 conversions to Mk. IIA and 378 conversions to SH Mk. I yields 475 aircraft, not a bad match with 479.

 

3)

6 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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. 

This looks like a very sketchy summary. A proposal by Hawkers in mid-1940 seems likely, as folding-wing Martlets were on order (and eventually much delayed) for the first three armoured carriers, while Indomitable was being completed with an enlarged forward lift. Churchill asked for high priority around March 1941, when he proclaimed the Battle of the Atlantic. November 1941 may be a typo, but November 1940 would be impossible, see below. Actually, P5187 (a converted CCF-built Hurricane, by the way) was indeed with the RAE around November 1941. I see this as a sequence of unrelated sentences in chronological order.

 

4)

6 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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."

At last, a detailed account of modifications.

 

5)

6 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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.

As an example of the confusion that can be generated by partial or summarised accounts, I read the sentence "ready in five weeks" reported without any date. What could be understood from that?

Here at last, things are clear:

• the "catapult fighter" idea was put forward at an Air Ministry meeting on 12 November 1940 - two week before the "urgent request" to Hawker
• I take "five weeks to make an aircraft ready" to mean: one prototype available by mid-January 1941
• program "downgraded to investigation" may be related to difficulties with catapults - until the rocket catapult was devised. Then, the Sea Hurricane programme was given the go-ahead on 19 January 1941.
• the first deployment of of a RAF Sea Hurricane of the Merchant Ship Fighter Unit began on 8 June 1941. It would seem official clearance was given just the day before. More likely, in my opinion, the letter follows a brief investigation into the first test launch by an MSFU pilot on 31 May.

 

Cheers

Claudio

[ClaudioN]

On 7/4/2019 at 7:49 PM, Graham Boak said:

I would treat the increase in length due to an larger coolant tank as an error introduced because Mason did not realise the extra length of the Merlin XX, and in his various writings produced a number of different explanations for the longer length of the Mk.II.  Which muddied the water considerably.  I would also doubt that the Mk.IIA ser.i had a short nose.  Basically the AM approach to Mark numbers was much more biased towards the engine, because the operator was interested in the different performances and spares required.  A Hurricane with any length of fuselage and a Merlin III would be a Mk.I not any kind of Mk.II.

 

So far, from all the different explanations, I'm most convinced by the unstrengthened wing/fuselage on the series i.

I found the relevant text in Mason's book, 1990 edition. Reading carefully, he had not been entirely clear, but not totally in error.

Here are the sentences.

 

1) "... Hawker was asked to incorporate a universal wing centre section which would be capable of accommodating outer wings with provision for external fuel tanks and with either eight or 12 machine guns. This version was termed the Hurricane Mark II Series 2 and, unless fitted with the 12-gun wings, was almost indistinguishable from the series 1."

 

2) "... a new production line was being planned at the Longbridge factory of the Austin Motor Company, with a contract calling for 300 Hurricane IIs; the Standard of Preparation, which was issued by DTD on 18 January, 1941, showed the aircraft to be termed as "tropically-equipped Mark IIA Series 2 aircraft with eight Browning guns and enlarged coolant header tank necessitating the inclusion of additional fuselage nose bay, thus lengthening the aircraft by 6.5 inches". This has always been understood to indicate that all Series 2 aircraft possessed a greater overall length, but it is now known that only the first dozen or so aircraft included the enlarged header tank: flight trials of the first Austin aircraft at Langley showed that the aircraft with lengthened nose and Vokes filter suffered from loss of handling crispness and the modification was cancelled."

 

Unfortunately, nowhere in his book does Mason mention the 4-inch fuselage extension of standard Mk. IIs, so the (wrong) conclusion is almost obvious.

 

Claudio

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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.

15 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

In Sturtivant, "Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939 to 1945", I found about 70 Sea Hurricane Mk. I and about 60 Sea Hurricane Mk. II serving with the FAA and built by CCF.

38 Mk. Is seem to correspond to reported conversions in the Zxxxx serial range:

Z6987, Z6997, Z7008, Z7015, Z7016,

Z7050, Z7055, Z7057, Z7061, Z7064-Z7065, Z7067-Z7069, Z7071, Z7078, Z7080, Z7082, Z7085-Z7091, Z7093,

Z7144, Z7147-Z7149, Z7151-Z7155, Z7160-Z7162.

If so, remaining Mk. I aircraft in the AExxx and AFxxx serial ranges are unaccounted for in the logs.

So far, I am unable to make any hypothesis about the serials of 29 Mk. IIs

 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.

 

15 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

A proposal by Hawkers in mid-1940 seems likely, as folding-wing Martlets were on order (and eventually much delayed) for the first three armoured carriers, while Indomitable was being completed with an enlarged forward lift.

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.

 

15 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

 

As an example of the confusion that can be generated by partial or summarised accounts, I read the sentence "ready in five weeks" reported without any date. What could be understood from that?

Here at last, things are clear:

• the "catapult fighter" idea was put forward at an Air Ministry meeting on 12 November 1940 - two week before the "urgent request" to Hawker
• I take "five weeks to make an aircraft ready" to mean: one prototype available by mid-January 1941
• program "downgraded to investigation" may be related to difficulties with catapults - until the rocket catapult was devised. Then, the Sea Hurricane programme was given the go-ahead on 19 January 1941.
• the first deployment of of a RAF Sea Hurricane of the Merchant Ship Fighter Unit began on 8 June 1941. It would seem official clearance was given just the day before. More likely, in my opinion, the letter follows a brief investigation into the first test launch by an MSFU pilot on 31 May.

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.

19 hours ago, airjiml2 said:

Here is a better shot of AG665 from the Ken Molson Colleciton.  I think that is a Mk. I airframe.  Notice the very early style pitot.

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.

[Graham Boak]

Re AG665:  It is clearly a Mk.I airframe - look at the wing root, tailwheel, radiator and DH prop which all indicate that.  Granted that the prop could have been fitted with the Merlin III, but a change of radiator is much less likely.  The tailwheel may be unimportant, but the design of the wing root fairing shows that this is the shorter Mk.I fuselage.

 

 

[ClaudioN]

2 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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've been going through Sturtivant for several years. The Hurricane list includes some 120 Sea Hurricane Mk. IIs (the "official" Hawker-produced Mk. IICs and the converted CCF-built Mk. IIB/C), around 50 Hurricane Mk. Is that were issued to the Royal Navy Fighter Squadron in the Western Desert and a number of other Mk. IIs used in training units from 1943 on.

Mk. Is of all types are around 400.

About half of them are plain Hurricane Mk. Is issued as trainers to second-line units as well as first-line fighter squadrons during work-up.

The 50 CCF aircraft BW835-BW884 are the only Sea Hurricane Mk. Is built as such. By the way, they were RAF machines intended for the MSFU. Royal Navy Mk. IAs and Mk. IBs were all conversions, either from new-build CCF and, I believe, Gloster-built machines, or from ex-RAF machines. Hopefully, the updated edition of Sturtivant book will clarify some things. At present, I'd say mark version indications, i.e., Mk. I, Mk. IA and Mk. IB are rather unreliable.

 

2 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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.

Thank your for this breakdown, that's quite helpful.

Sturtivant gives T9528 with No. 804 Sqn., then with No. 759 Sqn.. , Possibly a Sea Hurricane Mk. IA, or an unconverted Hurricane Mk. I.

You mentioned Z7079 was delivered (?) on 9 September 1941 after conversion to Sea Hurricane Mk. I. It is reported seving with No. 800 Squadron on Indomitable in 1942 and I believe it is one of the aircraft that were ferried to Capetown aboard HMS Engadine and issued to the carrier fighter squadrons.

 

2 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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.

First USN F4F-3 order for 54 aircraft 8 August 1939, follow-up order for 27 more (the equipment and reserves for three squadrons).

Large USN order for 243 aircraft 5 August 1940, after US approval of the Naval Expansion Act. It included 19 F4F-3s (Bu.Nos. 3856-3874 c/n 738-756), 95 F4F-3As (Bu.Nos. 3875-3969 c/n 757-851), 88 F4F-3s (Bu.Nos. 3970-4057 c/n 852-939) and the first 41 F4F-4s (Bu.Nos. 4058-4098 c/n 940-980). Greek aircraft were diverted from the 95 F4F-3As.

First indications that a British order existed are around July 1940, when 181 aircraft were listed "on order", with a proportion that "will be fitted to fold" - clearly, 81 ex-French G-36As and 100 G-36Bs. Official G-36B order (according to Air Enthusiast) on 7 October 1940, assumed preceded by a letter of intent.

 

2 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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.

My comment did not refer to your notes, I apologise if I gave that impression. I was simply noting that some published accounts are based on partial citations that are often misleading.

 

2 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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.

As far as I know, BW835-BW884 were ordered as Sea Hurricane (Mk. I) for the Halifax pool of the MSFU and were turned over to the RCAF after the start of hostilities with Japan.

 

2 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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.

My guess is that AG665 was reworked and converted into a Mk. IIB, possibly by CCF, before delivery to the RAF and after the National Exhibition.

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by ClaudioN

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Re AG665:  It is clearly a Mk.I airframe - look at the wing root, tailwheel, radiator and DH prop which all indicate that.  Granted that the prop could have been fitted with the Merlin III, but a change of radiator is much less likely.  The tailwheel may be unimportant, but the design of the wing root fairing shows that this is the shorter Mk.I fuselage.

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, ClaudioN said:

I've been going through Sturtivant for several years. The Hurricane list includes some 120 Sea Hurricane Mk. IIs (the "official" Hawker-produced Mk. IICs and the converted CCF-built Mk. IIB/C), around 50 Hurricane Mk. Is that were issued to the Royal Navy Fighter Squadron in the Western Desert and a number of other Mk. IIs used in training units from 1943 on.  Mk. Is of all types are around 400.

About half of them are plain Hurricane Mk. Is issued as trainers to second-line units as well as first-line fighter squadrons during work-up.

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?

 

1 hour ago, ClaudioN said:

You mentioned Z7079 was delivered (?) on 9 September 1941 after conversion to Sea Hurricane Mk. I. It is reported seving with No. 800 Squadron on Indomitable in 1942 and I believe it is one of the aircraft that were ferried to Capetown aboard HMS Engadine and issued to the carrier fighter squadrons.

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. 

 

1 hour ago, ClaudioN said:

First USN F4F-3 order for 54 aircraft 8 August 1939, follow-up order for 27 more (the equipment and reserves for three squadrons).  Large USN order for 243 aircraft 5 August 1940, after US approval of the Naval Expansion Act. The order included 95 F4F-3As, from where the Greek aircraft were diverted.

First indications that a British order existed are around July 1940, when 181 aircraft were listed "on order", with a proportion that "will be fitted to fold" - clearly, 81 ex-French G-36As and 100 G-36Bs. Official G-36B order (from Air Enthusiast) on 7 October 1940, assumed preceded by a letter of intent.

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.

[Graham Boak]

As Ray Sturtivant was a keen member and supporter of Air Britain, I would expect his book and the Air Britain serial books to agree on the identity of the aircraft transferred from the RAF to the Navy.  Give or take the odd errors and omissions that might be expected from the state of the records, and the problems with producing such tomes.  Yes, like many others, I await the revised edition of Fleet Air Arm aircraft with great anticipation, not least because my copy of the first edition is beginning to suffer from overuse.

 

As for Canadian-built airframes, there must be some doubt as to whether all the changes adopted during Mk.I production, and between the Mk.I and Mk.II, in British production apply in the same manner to Canadian ones.  Hence the comment about the tailwheel - the straight leg is characteristic of Mk.Is with the knuckled leg characteristic of Mk.IIs.  However, this does not seem to have been an absolute rule when it comes to late Mk.Is in the UK, which to me raises some doubt as to early Mk.IIs too although I don't recall seeing any with the straight tailwheel leg.   As to when the changeover occurred on Canadian production I have no idea.  I suspect it was simply a mod introduced during late Mk.I production and meant to apply to all subsequent Hurricanes.  The Rotol "bullet" spinner and propeller is also characteristic on the Mk.II - I don't know a single one without it - but it was seen on late Mk.Is too.  However, it is reasonable to expect this to be different in Canada because of the supply problem with Rotols and the availability of the Hamilton spinner/propeller as an alternative.  However the Merlin XX engine and any changes associated with it - longer fuselage frames, revised wing root fillet, larger radiator - have to go together as a package. 

 

There is at least one other (fortunately non-visible) feature to consider.  The early Mk.IIA ser.i used the centre-section from the Mk.I.  The Mk.IIA ser.ii had a strengthened centre-section (and fuselage frames?) designed to permit the carriage of the 12-gun wing but retained the 8-gun wing.  I am not sure whether or not there was later another redesign for the 10-gun fighter-bomber wing with jettisonable tanks, but apparently these were initially referred to as Mk.IIE, then later as Mk.IIBB (or CB) but these designations were never officially adopted.  How this fuselage/centre-section strengthening was carried over to Canadian production I don't know, but presumably it was.

 

Incidentally, I have also recently seen (thanks to Dave Wadman) a memo instructing people that the Hurricane with the Merlin XX was to be the Mk.II, and would people please stop calling it the Mk.IA.  It occurs to me that people seeing reference to the Mk.IA in period documentation might not realise this applied to anything other than standard Mk.Is, but the Mk.I production preceded all armament or role related suffices.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Graham Boak

[ClaudioN]

17 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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?

Apologies for citing myself, but it's actually other people's work, as my post "Canadian Hurricanes Part 5" relied on material taken from R. W. R. Walker's Canadian Military Aircraft Serial Numbers web pages. "From around January 1943, Hurricane XIIs taken on strength by the RCAF (all but six, from serial 5672 onwards) are recorded as going into long-term storage “pending delivery of radiators”, that were supplied by sea from the UK".

Just an assumption, this might have happened in mid-1941 as well.

 

17 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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.

I agree with you. I usually try to cross check as much as possible with photos whose date can be known, unit movements, production history, historical background, etc.

In the case of AG-serialled Hurricanes, I'd keep in mind that, after 22 June 1941, Britain supplied large numbers of Hurricanes to the USSR, some coming from the CCF production line. Amendments in production plans and allocations can be expected and further changes may have occurred, after Japan entered the war on 7 December 1941, when Hurricanes built for the RAF were transferred to the RCAF. 

 

Although feasible in principle, downgrading a Mk. II airframe to a Mk. I seems unsound, whereas upgrading a Mk. I to Mk. II configuration appears a much more reasonable engineering practice.

 

17 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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?

Did you consider the possibility that AE963 is actually AF963?

AG332 is most likely AG322 in my opinion. With Hawker 2.9.42 for "mods", possibly meaning conversion to Sea Hurricane Mk. II.

Mason gives Sea Hurricane Mk. IIC NF702 converted from KW929. No information on NF735.

 

I don't understand what you are referring to by "version breakdown", sorry...

 

17 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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. 

30 July 1940 is probably the contract date. CCF aircraft in the Zxxxx serial range were built between November 1940 and April 1941, according to Mason.

12 MU is possibly an error, 13 MU at RAF Henlow might be more likely, as they were tasked with uncrating, assembling and fitting out the CCF Hurricanes.

Surtivant reports Z7079 to RN on 23 November 1941, this would mean after conversion to Sea Hurricane. "to Sea Hurricane 9 September 1942" is nonsense, as Z7079 was involved in a deck-landing accident a month before, on 3 August 1942. "to Sea Hurricane 9 September 1941" may be reasonable.

HMS Engadine departed Britain in early December 1941 with convoy WS.14A, arriving in Capetown on New Year's eve, so South Africa 9 January 1942 seems to agree.

 

Mostly conjectural, I know.

 

17 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

 

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.

Here's what I have found, searching the web and some books, about orders following Contract Order No. 75736:

• 254 F4F's (Bu. Nos. 5030 to 5283, of which 233, initially ordered as F4F-3's, were completed as F4F-4's; the final 21 were reconnaissance F4F-7's);
• 162 F4F-4's (Bu. Nos. 01991 to 02152);
• 160 F4F-4's (Bu. Nos. 03385 to 03544);
• finally, a total of 675 was divided into 573 F4F-4's (Bu. Nos. 11655 to 12227), two XF4F-8's (Bu. Nos. 12228 and 12229) and 100 F4F-3's (Bu. Nos. 12230 to 12329) which were eventually used for training purposes, although they may have been initially intended to be F4F-3S floatplane fighters.

Edited July 7, 2019 by ClaudioN

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

A question about dating, how many of the relevant Air Britain books were available to Sturtivant, given how old his book now is?

14 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Although feasible in principle, downgrading a Mk. II airframe to a Mk. I seems unsound, whereas upgrading a Mk. I to Mk. II configuration appears a much more reasonable engineering practice.

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).

 

14 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Did you consider the possibility that AE963 is actually AF963?

AG332 is most likely AG322 in my opinion. With Hawker 2.9.42 for "mods", possibly meaning conversion to Sea Hurricane Mk. II.

Mason gives Sea Hurricane Mk. IIC NF702 converted from KW929. No information on NF735.

I don't understand what you are referring to by "version breakdown", sorry...

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.

 

14 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

30 July 1940 is probably the contract date. CCF aircraft in the Zxxxx serial range were built between November 1940 and April 1941, according to Mason.

12 MU is possibly an error, 13 MU at RAF Henlow might be more likely, as they were tasked with uncrating, assembling and fitting out the CCF Hurricanes.

Surtivant reports Z7079 to RN on 23 November 1941, this would mean after conversion to Sea Hurricane. "to Sea Hurricane 9 September 1942" is nonsense, as Z7079 was involved in a deck-landing accident a month before, on 3 August 1942. "to Sea Hurricane 9 September 1941" may be reasonable.

HMS Engadine departed Britain in early December 1941 with convoy WS.14A, arriving in Capetown on New Year's eve, so South Africa 9 January 1942 seems to agree.

Mostly conjectural, I know.

 

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.

 

14 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Here's what I have found, searching the web and some books, about orders following Contract Order No. 75736:

• 254 F4F's (Bu. Nos. 5030 to 5283, of which 233, initially ordered as F4F-3's, were completed as F4F-4's; the final 21 were reconnaissance F4F-7's);
• 162 F4F-4's (Bu. Nos. 01991 to 02152);
• 160 F4F-4's (Bu. Nos. 03385 to 03544);
• finally, a total of 675 was divided into 573 F4F-4's (Bu. Nos. 11655 to 12227), two XF4F-8's (Bu. Nos. 12228 and 12229) and 100 F4F-3's (Bu. Nos. 12230 to 12329) which were eventually used for training purposes, although they may have been initially intended to be F4F-3S floatplane fighters.

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.

[ClaudioN]

35 minutes ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

A question about dating, how many of the relevant Air Britain books were available to Sturtivant, given how old his book now is?

Well, as far as I know, Sturtivant was one of the leading members (and researchers) of Air Britain.

As a non-UK member I can just wait for my copy of Aeromilitaria, but I'd guess for the UK members there's much more in the way of meetings and friendly collaborations among like-minded people.

I'd expect Ray Sturtivant would be able to cross-check several of his data with the eventual authors of the Air Britain books well in advance of those books being printed or the lists published in Air Britain journals.

 

Claudio

[ClaudioN]

3 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

AE965 is reported as going to the FAA but not in Sturtivant.

From Mason:

AE965

Merchant Ship Fighter Unit, No. 55 OTU, No. 41 OTU, SOC 29-12-44.

According to Mason, AE965 went to the MSFU. I take this as indicating a Sea Hurricane Mark IA. By the way, AF965 was also a Sea Hurricane that initially went to the MSFU.

I suspect that the use of Sea Hurricanes by the RAF, using Fleet Air Arm sea camouflage, generated considerable confusion. Many Canadian Sea Hurricanes were marked 'Royal Navy' although they were not intended for the FAA. There were also exchanges between the two catapult fighter units, MSFU (RAF) and No. 804 Sqn. (FAA). If these ambiguities carried on to archived records, I should not be surprised.

In the case of AE965 my assumption is, it just went to the MSFU.

 

3 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

AF963 is reported as going to the FAA and is already in Sturtivant.   And the dates would indicate it is not AE963.

This is all I have:

From Mason:

AE963

No. 401 Sqn., No. 615 Sqn., No. 331 (Norwegian) Sqn. 7-41

Since AE963 became DR366 on conversion to Mark IIA then went to the USSR, it can't be with the FAA.

 

From Sturtivant:

AE963 (Sea Hurricane Ib)

801 Sqn from 8.41 - 9.41; Tested ARS Hatston 25.8.42; 800 Sqn 9.42 - 10.42; 768 Sqn Macrihanish 7.43 - 8.43; Cv to DR366

AF963 (Sea Hurricane Ib)

To RN 6.41; Yeovilton 3.42; 800 Sqn, waved round again too late, went over deck of flight deck Biter, Cat Z 7.10.42 (S/L MJ Banister OK)
 

I can easily mix the two records of AE963 and AF963, up to a point:

To RN 6.41; 801 Sqn from 8.41 - 9.41; (Note: 801 Sqn. was at Skeabrae (air defence?) from November 1941 to February 1942)

Yeovilton 3.42;

Tested ARS Hatston 25.8.42; 800 Sqn 9.42 - 10.42; 800 Sqn, waved round again too late, went over deck of flight deck Biter, Cat Z 7.10.42 (S/L MJ Banister OK) (probably issued as a trainer to 800 Sqn. after Operation Pedestal during work-up to Operation Torch -- note that 800 Sqn. was receiving converted CCF-built Sea Hurricane Mk. II)

 

Of course, if AF963 was Cat Z in 1942 it can't fly in 1943 (unless it was actually salvaged and repaired, that is). However:

AF965 (Sea Hurricane Ib)

To MSFU 8.41; 804 Sqn 11.41; 768 Sqn Macrihanish 7.43 Stalled heavily landing, Cat Y 7.8.43 (Lt RIM Scott); RNAS Macrihanish 30.8.43; Yeovilton 11.43

 

Curiously, AF965 was with 768 Sqn at the same time. Coincidence? A very tempting one, I'd say.

 

Claudio

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by ClaudioN

[brewerjerry]

On 7/5/2019 at 11:06 AM, airjiml2 said:

Here is a better shot of AG665 from the Ken Molson Colleciton.  I think that is a Mk. I airframe.  Notice the very early style pitot.

 

Jim

 

Hi

    just a random thought, but could the serial a four digit rcaf number ? 5665 and not AG665

  or does another photo show the serial clearly 

   cheers J 

[Troy Smith]

58 minutes ago, brewerjerry said:

just a random thought, but could the serial a four digit rcaf number ? 5665 and not AG665

good idea, but ...

a look here says it's not a Mk.I 

http://www.rwrwalker.ca/RCAF_5650_5699_detailed.html

Quote

5665

Hawker

Canada Car & Foundry, FortWilliam

Hurricane

Mk. XII

 

1090

 

first date: 3 February 1943 - Taken on strength by Eastern Air Command

 

Served with No. 126 (F) Squadron at RCAF Stations Dartmouth, NS and/or Gander Newfoundland.  Coded "BV*M".  With No. 129 (F) Squadron in Newfoundland when it crashed.  Suffered loss of power during practice dog fight on 19 August 1944, crash landed 32 miles north of Gander.  Investigation found failed camshaft on B cylinder bank.  Classified Category A, allocated to No. 4 Repair Depot at Scoudouc, NB on 13 November 1944.

 

last date: 29 November 1944 - Struck off

 

[ClaudioN]

1 hour ago, brewerjerry said:

Hi

    just a random thought, but could the serial a four digit rcaf number ? 5665 and not AG665

  or does another photo show the serial clearly 

   cheers J 

Hello brewerjerry,

good idea, fortunately there is a second photo here: AG665 that shows the same aircraft from the rear.

The serial can be read.

Cheers

Claudio

[Graham Boak]

The Air Britain serial books have gone through a number of editions, a revision being currently in progress.  My copy of FAA Aircraft says 1995.  a quick look finds my edition of Lxxxx is 1993 (apparently the first) and my edition of AA,,, is a second edition dated 2000.  And yes, it does refer to AG665 as a Mk.IIb - but then possibly it was when it was taken on charge by the RAF.  As such it is entirely consistent with AG666, 667 and 669 in Sturtivant's book.  Which I don't suppose comes as any surprise.

 

The change in flight characteristics that came with the fitting of the Mk.II was actually beneficial.  The Mk.I Hurricane suffered from an aft cg which restrained the equipment that could be fitted - part of the reason for the delay in fitting pilot armour despite it being ordered prewar.  This is also the reason why the Mk.Ib Sea Hurricane could only be fitted with the metal DH propeller.  Fitting the lighter Rotol prop would have left the cg unacceptably aft after the fitting of the arrester hook, the aircraft being unstable (or at least too near instability for ordinary service use).  Should Canada have found itself with Mk.II airframes but no Merlin XXs (also no radiators), then putting the Merlin III in a Mk.II airframe would not have introduced a problem but resulted in a small gain in handling.  There is no engineering reason why a perfectly good new airframe should have been reworked at fairly considerable expense to produce an inferior aircraft.  I don't see any operational reason either - it seems much more likely that this aircraft was built as a Mk.I and converted to a Mk.II later.

 

One possibility not so far discussed is that for some reason the serial was repainted to stand in for a later aircraft?

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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

[Wm Blecky]

Not sure if I overlooked this, but could someone tell me what would be a suitable propeller to reproduce a Hurricane like this one in 1/72:

[airjiml2]

3 minutes ago, Wm Blecky said:

Not sure if I overlooked this, but could someone tell me what would be a suitable propeller to reproduce a Hurricane like this one in 1/72:

The were Canso props, so use a PBY prop.  This is an easy option:

 

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/QB72006

 

Jim

 

 

[dogsbody]

I'd go for most any 1/72 Hamilton Standard 3-blader. You may have to shorten the blade length, but a Canso prop would be historically accurate.

 

 

Chris

[Wm Blecky]

10 hours ago, airjiml2 said:

The were Canso props, so use a PBY prop.  This is an easy option:

 

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/QB72006

 

Jim

 

 

Thanks Jim!

[Graham Boak]

Geoffrey, the authors of the second edition of FAA Aircraft of WW2 are asking for any information on errors, omissions or just of interest.  Can I suggest that you get in touch?  Sorry, I've lost sight of the specific posting, this was probably on Key Publishing's Historic forum, or possibly  on RAF Commands.

[Seahawk]

55 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Geoffrey, the authors of the second edition of FAA Aircraft of WW2 are asking for any information on errors, omissions or just of interest.  Can I suggest that you get in touch?  Sorry, I've lost sight of the specific posting, this was probably on Key Publishing's Historic forum, or possibly  on RAF Commands.

A request repeated on here:

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235041635-fleet-air-arm-aircraft-1939-to-1945-2nd-edition/&tab=comments#comment-3101241

 

Lee says it's unlikely they will get round to a 3rd edition so they are looking for all the help they can get to try and make the 2nd ed as definitive as possible.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Tried a reply to the FAA topic, hopefully it comes up.

 

18 hours ago, Wm Blecky said:

Not sure if I overlooked this, but could someone tell me what would be a suitable propeller to reproduce a Hurricane like this one in 1/72:

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.