Jump to content

Canadian Hurricanes


ClaudioN

Recommended Posts

The Sea Hurricane Mk.II suffixes followed the RAF use, on their Mk.IIs, of B for the 12 gun wing and C for the four cannon.  Similarly the Seafires followed RAF practice in this respect, as by then some kind of standardisation had been achieved by the consistent use of accepted role prefixes.  No doubt exceptions can be found.  (For example, the FAA's preference for L over LF.)  The capital is often seen in official documentation but not, I believe, universally so.  I admit to preferring the lower case on aesthetic grounds, but wouldn't suggest this as a general guide.  I suspect it is a case where the Ministry never issued a specific "though shalt..." ruling, as there was no possibility of confusion.

 

I was told some years ago that many of the WW2 reports were missing from the Boscombe files.  In the case of naval ones, it may be that copies will emerge from "Winkle" Brown's personal papers now that they have been saved for study.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 3: deliveries to RAF orders, December 1941 to September 1942.

 

I repeat, as a disclaimer, that having no access to primary sources, I work strictly on reported evidence. As long as I feel I can trust it, I try to put it all in perspective and add some speculation. I hope somebody may find this interesting, however any rubbish is entirely my own fault.

 

Summarising so far:

1) at the end of 1941 Hurricane orders stood at 800 for the RAF, 400 for the RCAF and "some" (?) for the KNIL-ML;

2) between May 1940 and the end of August 1941 a total of 418 Hurricane Mk. I airframes arrived in Britain. They had no engine, the Rolls-Royce Merlin III and the propeller being fitted in the UK;

3) CCF built 50 Sea Hurricanes (BW835-BW884), around September-October 1941. These received Rolls-Royce Merlin III engines and de Havilland propellers imported from Britain;

4) the split between Hurricane Mk. I and Mk. II took place around this time. For convenience, it can be located around the end of the AF945-AG344 batch;

5) 30 aircraft drawn from the end of the AF945-AG344 batch were handed over to the RCAF and fitted with Merlin engines and propellers taken from Fairey Battles (thank you Tony and Jim!);

6) around 20 aircraft, also drawn from the end of the AF945-AG344 batch, were converted into Mk.IIb in Britain. Of these, 12 were shipped to the USSR, 5 went to the Fleet Air Arm.

 

I am not assuming that aircraft were produced in strict sequential order as far as serials are concerned, and the further assumption that the changeover to Mk. II production took place exactly after AG344 is an oversimplification, but it does give an idea. Somehow, numbers can be made to match as far as arrivals of airframes in Britain are concerned.

Based on these assumptions alone, it could be likely as well that the following batch of 20 aircraft (AG665-AG684) was still built as Mk. I airframes and converted to Mk. II at CCF before shipping. Reported conversions of Mk. I airframes to Mk. II involved limited numbers of aircraft in small batches, so I would not expect that the process extended to all the 120 airframes of the "Mk. X" order. 

 

Whatever, it seems reasonable to assume that, around this time, the production contract was amended for production or conversion to the newer variant. I will take the start of Mk. II airframe production to be AG665-AG684 for convenience. 

Mason still gives all these as Hurricane Mk. X's, initially built with eight-gun wings. If they were built with the 4-inch fuselage extension, technically their designation could be (Canadian) Hurricane Mk. IIA Series 1 and the fitting of twelve-gun outer wings would make them (Canadian) Hurricane Mk. IIA Series 2. In his book "The Hawker Hurricane", Mason mentions Hurricane Mk. IIB's without bombing modifications (i.e., without the provision for underwing bomb racks), which to me makes the difference very slight. I assume it mostly referred to armament wiring and internal fittings. Anyway, conversion of a "late Mk. X" to a Mk. IIB mainly required the fitting of twelve-gun outer wings, an operation that required no structural modifications, I'd guess.

 

The photo found by Trevor (thank you very much - a beautiful picture) seems to confirm that production of the Sea Hurricanes, based on the Mk. I airframe, preceded that of the Mk. II's. At least some of them were definitely fitted with hooks during production.

The first six aircraft were delivered to RCAF Dartmouth in two groups of three at the end of November 1941. Three RAF pilots of the MFSU Pool made direct flights to Dartmouth, but in the second they became disoriented and one pilot was lost after ditching BW840 and the other two force-landed on a beach. Afterwards, deliveries were made by rail.

 

December 1941 saw the start of Packard engine production in the USA and, of course, the involvement in the war of that country and the need for Canada to reinforce defences on the Pacific coast. This is significant for CCF-built Sea Hurricanes, that were transferred to the RCAF. Only one aircraft ever sailed on a CAM-ship, but BW841 was actually exchanged for V7402, an arriving Sea Hurricane in damaged conditions that was repaired and taken on charge by the RCAF. One more Sea Hurricane, BW855, was transferred to the British Admiralty in February 1943 on indefinite loan and served with No 768 Squadron, FAA, suggesting it must have been one of the hook-equipped SH's.

 

With deliveries of Packard engines still lagging behind CCF production, it seems that most Hurricanes then on production were still delivered without engines. The final RAF order was placed in March 1942 for 250 aircraft to which serials JS219-JS468 were allocated. Like for the "Mk. X's" before, these serials were drawn from a large batch assigned for lend-lease procurement. Reportedly, production was split in two, with the first 150 aircraft coming before the start of the Canadian order in June 1942.

This allows one more very convenient split, that helps summarise production for Britain, that is: 120 former Mk. X's, 150 aircraft with serials BW885-BX134 and 150 aircraft with serials JS219-JS368. Total: 420 aircraft.

 

Statistics reported in the Canadian Hurricane Production posts recorded the arrival in Britain of 315 airframes, less engine and propeller, between December 1941 and August 1942. Furthermore, 118 aircraft arrived with Packard Merlin 28 engines fitted, for a total of 433 aircraft. The RAF recorded 8 Mk. II (JS275-JS278, JS282-JS285 – with engines?) lost at sea in May 42 which sum up to give 441 aircraft shipped to Britain.

This number is 21 aircraft larger than the whole production.

This strongly suggests to me that the 21 AG-serialled airframes left behind from Mk. I production and not shipped in 1941 were actually under conversion to Mk. II at CCF and were shipped with later airframes.

 

A satisfactory match of numbers that can be disproved by documentation. Just my two pence.

 

Then:

  • of the 120 aircraft in the AG665-AG684 and AM270-AM369 range, around 100 were shipped to the USSR after conversion to Mk. IIB. About 20 were retained and 5 of these (AG666, AG667, AG669, AM277, AM288) went to the FAA.
  • from the following batch of 150, most were shipped to the USSR. At least 12 aircraft are recorded with the RAF (Mason) and 8 aircraft (BW886, BW900, BW911, BW921, BW929, BW991, BX126, BX133), all Mk. II's, were taken on charge by the FAA in September 1942 and served with naval units. (Sturtivant). Five of these are recorded as Sea Hurricanes (Sturtivant): BW886, BW900, BW911, BW921, BX126.
  • from the final batch of 150 some went to RAF units and a comparatively large number, 46 aircraft, were taken on charge by the FAA, the last ones arriving as late as October 1942.

The bulk of Canadian Hurricane deliveries between December 1941 and August 1942 went to the USSR, a small number were used by the RAF either at home or overseas.

The Fleet Air Arm received a total of 64 Hurricane Mk. II's. that were to provide part of the embarked fighter force for the North African landings (Operation Torch) in November 1942.

I do not know whether these were already built as Sea Hurricanes (CCF were indeed able to do that) or they had to be converted on arrival to Britain. I strongly suspect the latter, suggesting that the time available for re-equipment of FAA fighter units must have been rather tight. No Hawker-built Sea Hurricane Mk. IIc's were taken on charge by the FAA before December 1942 (Sturtivant).

 

End of Part 3, I hope you enjoy.

 

Claudio

 

 


 

Edited by ClaudioN
Title added
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mini-part 4: the Dutch Hurricane?

This short post is concerned with the Dutch KNIL-ML order, of which I had no idea until I saw it mentioned in the web posts on Canadian Hurricane Production (see my first post). Whenever I search for Dutch Hurricanes on the web, I invariably find mention of those handed over by the RAF during the battle for Java, but nothing about the KNIL-ML (or was it the MLD?) order to CCF.

It seems that a single Hurricane from the Dutch order flew for the first time in March 1942. It is reported that the Dutch registration was HC-3287 and that it included US-supplied equipment specified by the Dutch. Clearly a bit too late to be of any help in the struggle for NEI, the order was cancelled.

I found a rather long discussion about the possibility that it had the British serial AM270 and that this serial was also assigned to a Catalina, inducing some confusion in the total of serial allocations. Checking my references, Robertson's "British Aircraft Serials" does not support the idea of a double allocation: 6 Catalina Mk. II were AM264-AM269. Rather, at some point a batch of 26 serial numbers, also drawn from the allocation for the British Purchasing Commission, was issued: these are AP138-AP163, of which only one, AP138, was flown and delivered direct from Canada to the USSR as a Mk. IIb, being lost on transit.

 

Immediately following this serial batch were the last 100 North American NA-83 Mustang Mk. I of the second RAF order for 300, that we know was placed in September 1940. This more or less defines the time frame, and it is tempting to think of these 26 serials as representing at least a part of the cancelled Dutch order, of which AP138 might have been the prototype.

Of course, this is what I'm conjecturing in my flight of fancy. Again, it can be easily disproved by anybody who really knows.

 

Happy weekend, y'all!

 

Claudio

 

 

Edited by ClaudioN
Introduced Part 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 5: RCAF Hurricanes

This is going to be the final part of my post, at least for some time. Getting at last to RCAF Hurricanes!

 

Apart from the inital pre-war order (serials 310-329), at the beginning of 1942 the RCAF had received:

  • 30 Hurricane Mk.Is taken from a British order for 440, delivered to RCAF units at the end of April 1942. These had former Fairey Battle engines and propellers fitted;
  • 50 Sea Hurricanes (actually 49, as one had been lost on delivery), initially ordered to form a MSFU aircraft pool at Halifax. These were fitted with new Rolls-Royce Merlin III and de Havilland propellers

The RCAF order for 400 Hurricane Mk. XIIs (5376-5775) was placed in late 1941 and production started in mid-1942 (around May-June), with the first aicraft taken on strength by the RCAF on 16 June 1942. On October, 1 1942 it is reported that 1055 Hurricanes had been built by CCF, that should approximately correspond to 950 for the RAF and 105 for the RCAF. From R. W. R. Walker's Canadian Military Aircraft Serial Numbers web pages, it appears that 96 Hurricane Mk. XIIs had been taken on strength by the RCAF by the end of September 1942, which seems to me a fairly good agreement.

Again compiled from R. W. R. Walker's pages, initial RCAF units receiving Hurricane XIIs were:

  • No. 133 (F) Squadron at Lethbridge, Alberta
  • No. 135 (F) Squadron at Mossbank, Saskatchewan
  • No. 1 (F) Operational Training Unit at RCAF Station Bagotville, PQ
  • then several other units (e.g., Nos. 125, 126, 127, 129, 130 (F) Squadrons)

Production for the RCAF order continued until 375 aircraft had been produced, before switching to the last 100 aircraft of the final RAF order, followed by the last 25 RCAF Hurricanes (according to the Canadian Hurricane Production web posts - links in my first post).

 

Towards the end of October 1942, after about 130 Hurricane XIIs had been issued to RCAF units, an increasing number of aircraft are recorded as being initially placed on long-term storage. From around January 1943, Hurricane XIIs taken on strentgh 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.

I think the situation might be related to the eventual transfer of 150 aircraft from the RCAF order to the RAF, since many of these aircraft progressed directly from storage to CCF for modification and then the RAF.

 

All airframes going to the RAF were recorded as “free issue to CC&F” on 3 July 1943. They took the new serials: PJ660-PJ695 (36), PJ711-PJ758 (48), PJ779-PJ813 (35), PJ842-PJ872 (31) and were probably delivered as engineless airframes. The final 25 RCAF aircraft (5751-5775) were all taken on strength (by RCAF No. 15 Aircraft Inspection Detachment, Winnipeg) and returned to CCF as "free issue" on the same date of July 3, 1943.

I think it is likely to be a paper date, as Hurricane arrivals from Canada in 1943 pre-date this.

 

Statistics on Hurricanes arriving in Britain during 1943 (posts on Canadian Hurricane Production) give:

  • some 132 Mk. II airframes arrived without engines (5 in March, the rest in May and June)

  • 116 Mk. II aircraft fitted with engines arrived in the period March to May 1943
  • three more aircraft (JS462, JS463, JS466) lost at sea and a further two serials, JS372, JS373 cancelled (reportedly after arrival in Britain, possibly damaged)

Therefore, between 1942 and 1943 a total of 234 Mk. II aircraft fitted with engines (Merlin 28) arrived in Britain, that is, 90 aircraft more than the original number of Merlin 28 engines ordered by the RAF (including spares). It has been suggested either that further Merlin 28s were ordered to cover for the greater number of deliveries, or that engines were diverted from other production lines. A more likely hypothesis, IMHO, is that the balance between Merlin 28 and Merlin 29 engines was changed (a reasonably simple thing if, as it seems, the main difference was just propeller shaft splining).

 

I think the shipment of Mk. IIs fitted with engines during 1942 had taken up most (if not all) of the RAF order for 144 Merlin 28s. However, with the transfer to the RAF of a final 150 airframes, RCAF engine supplies needed to account for 150 Hurricanes less. This may have freed up nearly 200 engines, probably enough to cover both the number of aircraft fitted with engines shipped to Britain in 1943 and the needs of the conversion programme to bring older Hurricane Mk. Is into the Mk. XIIA configuration. My thought is that in 1943 Lancaster Mk. III production was absorbing a large part of Packard Merlin 28 production. I would think diversion of further engines to Hurricane production was not an option at that stage of the war.

 

In this light, the Mk. XIIA conversion programme appears justified: in 1943 the RCAF had some surplus Packard Merlin 29 engines (and even more Hamilton Hydromatic propellers) and a number of airframes that could be upgraded to standardise on that engine. Since by that time Hurricane users were mostly training units, keeping the eight-gun armament probably mattered less. CCF thus just needed to add the 4-inch fuselage extension that allowed fitting the Merlin 29.

In fact, at the end of January 1943 a few Sea Hurricanes had been returned to CCF at Fort William for conversion to Mk. IIB standard, but the plan was probably dropped and no more aircraft arrived for a few months. The 7 aircraft received became part of the conversion programme to re-engine the older RCAF Hurricanes with the Packard Merlin 29. During 1943, CCF upgraded 43 Sea Hurricane survivors, as well as 24 of the original AG-serialled Hurricane Mk. Is to the Merlin 29 engine, making them Mk. XIIA, for a total of 67 aircraft.

 

This ends my story, so far.

I was glad to learn about some facts in Hurricane history and enjoyed making some "educated guesses" to try and place them in perspective.

For me, this is an essential (arguably, overwhelming) part of modelling: I hope it was also entertaining for some of you.

 

All the best

 

Claudio

 

Edited by ClaudioN
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

An attempt to make the results found clearer, plus some updating.

Geoffrey,

thank you very much for taking the time and effort to provide such extensive report.

I am reading it carefully and hopefully will get back to this thread if your information triggers some new ideas.

 

May I comment right now on one of your sentences:

"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."

 

This is quite reasonable: backdating of an aircraft structure to an earlier version sounds perhaps odd, but not necessarily impossible in case of necessity. Here however we have a picture that possibly proves otherwise. The picture comes from the Archives of Ontario and shows the final assembly line at Fort Williams on 18 September 1941, clearly captioned as 'Sea Hurricanes'. First in the line is c/n (?) 602, whose tail is trestled as it lacks a tailwheel. It is fitted with catapult spools and the characteristic padded pilot headrest. Next in line (c/n 603 ?) is a Sea Hurricane fitted with both arrester hook and pilot headrest.

Considering the typical spacing of the panel fasteners on the forward fuselage structure and the oval shape of the radiator intake under the fuselage, I'd say airframes in the picture are Mk. Is. You report that CCF Hurricane production after July 1941 was:

  • August 11
  • September 0
  • October 1
  • November 31 and
  • December 70

This is why I am suggesting that the void might have been filled, at least in part, by the Sea Hurricane production run, and we also have a date (18 September 1941) that might support this idea.

 

Thank you again for your post!

 

Claudio

 

 

Edited by ClaudioN
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have every National Geographic from 1922 up to 1956 that had a picture of an airplane in it. After my uncle died when I was a kid, my aunt moved in with an older widowed friend. She had these old NG mags that I would read when we would visit. When the older friend passed on and left everything to my aunt, my aunt said I could have all those magazines. When I moved west, I had all the ones with aircraft in them, including advertisements, shipped out to me. I still have them. I have also gone through them all and have a list of which issue has what aircraft and the page it's on. A bit anal-retentive, as my wife likes to say, but very useful when searching for something specific.

 

Chris

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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.

Except the nearest ones, that appear to be closer to completion and are in full camouflage, the others seemingly carry, on the same fuselage panel as the Sea Hurricanes, the same card bearing a kind of progressive manufacturing number (not c/n, thanks for the explanation).

It would be nice to be able to read those cards: if the serial is 'true', numbers might be slightly above '200' and, given the "taken on charge" date of 9 May 1941, what we see could be early to mid-April. Slightly over five months to mid-September (the date for Sea Hurricanes) means slightly less than 400 aircraft produced and, given the wild guesses I'm making, this is not a bad match for the 60-70 aircraft per month production rate given by Geoffrey.

Just to check timing...

17 hours ago, dogsbody said:

I have every National Geographic from 1922 up to 1956 that had a picture of an airplane in it. After my uncle died when I was a kid, my aunt moved in with an older widowed friend. She had these old NG mags that I would read when we would visit. When the older friend passed on and left everything to my aunt, my aunt said I could have all those magazines. When I moved west, I had all the ones with aircraft in them, including advertisements, shipped out to me. I still have them. I have also gone through them all and have a list of which issue has what aircraft and the page it's on. A bit anal-retentive, as my wife likes to say, but very useful when searching for something specific.

 

Chris

Could you tell us which date is this?

Wartime pictures usually had some weeks delay before publishing, I might guess this to be around June-July 1941?

 

Another check on CCF production timing: AG665 was on show at the Toronto Exhibition in August 1941. Might possibly have been progressive no. 481 ?

 

Edited by ClaudioN
Added note on AG665 and link to picture.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Geoffrey Sinclair
URL problem
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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.

Hello Geoffrey,

 

thank you for your comments and additional information. I am nearly certain that AG665 is truly a Mk. I (that is, it has the original, 4-inch shorter engine mounting, where a Merlin III fits, but a Merlin XX/28 wouldn't).

And I am surprised, since I expected aircraft in that serial range would be Mk. IIs.

Seemingly things mix up here, but would it be possible that some aircraft were converted into Mk. IIs in Canada before delivery to the RAF?

If the Taken on Charge date for AG665 was 29 April 1942, time for its conversion before delivery was probably available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

thank you for your comments and additional information. I am nearly certain that AG665 is truly a Mk. I (that is, it has the original, 4-inch shorter engine mounting, where a Merlin III fits, but a Merlin XX/28 wouldn't).

And I am surprised, since I expected aircraft in that serial range would be Mk. IIs.

Seemingly things mix up here, but would it be possible that some aircraft were converted into Mk. IIs in Canada before delivery to the RAF?

If the Taken on Charge date for AG665 was 29 April 1942, time for its conversion before delivery was probably available.

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clear one point, an RAF Mk.II was converted to a Sea Hurricane with a Merlin III without changing the fuselage and nose shape.  The difference between the two engines was that the Merlin XX had an additional gear, thus a longer gearbox requiring a longer nose.  Put a Merlin III in and there would be a couple of inches of open space.  The carburettor intake would need moving, and the more powerful engine required a larger radiator.  There would be no need to change the latter on AG665, but the position of the intake might be interesting.  But a short stretch of internal ducting might do the job instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is much here to digest, and I will do so and report back soon.

 

I am 100% in the camp that something is amis with the idea that either the RCAF "Battle" Hurricanes or the Sea Hurricanes had Mk. II airframes.  They clearly had Mk. I airframes and this is confirmed by photographic evidence. 

 

It is also interesting to note that Sea Hurricane BW850 (the "Gary Madore" Hurricane) was flying in July 1941. 

 

I've only started to dig into AG665, but clearly it was flying in Canada. 

 

The only other Hurricane in the early batches I can confirm was flying in Canada after the prototype was AF964.  However, there was at least one Hurricane that was complete and airworthy in July 1941 (the "Philip Taylor" Hurricane), but even though many pictures exist, I haven't been able to confirm the serial.

 

More soon,

 

Jim

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

spacer.png

The drawing above comes from post #2 in this  topic on the Hurricane, but it can also be found elsewhere. It is taken from Scale Aircraft Modelling, vol. 21, issue no. 8.

Comparison between the 41-inch fuselage panels of the Mk. I and the 45-inch panels of the Mk. II shows a difference that can be very useful to distinguish the two marks, although it is in fact quite minor:

  • panels on the Mk. I are fixed by four fasteners that are aligned between the top and bottom panel;
  • on the Mk. II the lower panel is fixed by five evenly spaced fasteners, while the upper one still has four and the rearmost two are in the same position as in the Mk. I

Tiny dots on the drawing show that the two arrangements create distinctive patterns, that under some conditions are quite easy to see, once you know where to look at. This way, it may be possible to tell a Mk. I from a Mk. II, given a suitable lighting and a clear picture. The "Mk. I pattern" can be seen both on AF964 and on the Sea Hurricanes in the pictures taken at Fort Williams.

 

It is also visible on RCAF 1359, formerly AG325, and I think I can see it as well on AG 665, although the picture is slightly more blurred, so anybody can make his own guess.

 

Information provided by Geoffrey about the 44 aircraft allocated to the Empire Air Training Scheme is very useful: between AF945 and AG291, not counting AG287 that went into storage for the EATS, there are exactly 246 Mk. I airframes, that is what is expected for the batch AF945-AG344. The last serial delivered to the RAF, then, is probably AG291 that, according to Geoffrey, was taken on charge by No. 13 MU at Henlow on 2 July 1941. 13 MU was in charge of reassembling the CCF-built airframes, fitting the engine, etc. and, I believe, it was usually the unit where CCF-built Hurricanes were taken on charge by the RAF. 

 

After AG291, there is still much for me to digest, as Jim said.

 

Claudio

 

 

 

Edited by ClaudioN
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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

Geoffrey,

this issue has been throughly discussed on BM. The conclusion is that a Mk. II needs to have the 4-inch extension, otherwise the Merlin XX would not fit (see also post #43 by Graham Boak).

Compare these pictures taken from Britmodeller Walkarounds.

Here is a Mk. II/Mk. XII:

spacer.png

...and here is a Sea Hurricane/Mk. I:

spacer.png

 

Lengthening does not involve an additional "bay", just some longer "tubes" within the engine mounting frame. Note there are five "eyes" to secure the lower side panel on the Mk. II and just four "eyes" on the Mk. I. The longer bar on the Mk. II is just the part ahead of the firewall (note that on the Mk.II there are two "eyes" ahead of the firewall instead of just one).

Some other parts of the engine frame are also slightly longer as a consequence and some angles are different. This also explains the more extended fuselage-to-wing fairing on the Mk. II, resulting in slightly increased sweep that is a consequence of the need for longer arms to link the forward wing longeron to the engine frame, as their attachment points are also moved forward.

 

(I hope this is clear enough, finding the right words is a bit hard for me)

 

As has been said in posts on BM, here is literally no space to fit a Merlin XX in a Mk. I engine frame, since the Merlin III is already resting against the firewall.

Summarizing:

  • a Mk. I can be converted into a Mk. II with not much difficulty, and this has been done in Britain with around 100 Mk. Is
  • what is needed are some modifications to the engine frame, that I assume could be realized by a "conversion kit", and a larger radiator, plus some further adjustments

On the other hand, as Graham said (post #43), fitting a Merlin III into a Mk. II/XII airframe is simpler and leaves some free space behind the engine.

 

Looking again through your data, I see that from October 1941 to June 1942 production sums up to 465 airframes, that covers 50 (BW835-BW884) + 100 (AM270-AM369) + 150 (BW885-BX134) + 150 (JS219-JS368) plus 15 from the serial range AG665-AG684. In my view, there seems to be hardly any doubt that, besides the Sea Hurricanes, all these were Mk. IIs.

There remain 59 airframes in the AGxxx serial range (AG287 and AG292-AG344, excluding AG341) whose mark number "at birth" (July-August 1941) I'd consider so far indefinite, although I do lean towards Mk. Is that, at some later stage, were mostly converted into Mk. II/XIIs, either in Britain or in Canada.

Edited by ClaudioN
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, airjiml2 said:

I am 100% in the camp that something is amis with the idea that either the RCAF "Battle" Hurricanes or the Sea Hurricanes had Mk. II airframes.  They clearly had Mk. I airframes and this is confirmed by photographic evidence. 

It is also interesting to note that Sea Hurricane BW850 (the "Gary Madore" Hurricane) was flying in July 1941. 

I've only started to dig into AG665, but clearly it was flying in Canada. 

The only other Hurricane in the early batches I can confirm was flying in Canada after the prototype was AF964.  However, there was at least one Hurricane that was complete and airworthy in July 1941 (the "Philip Taylor" Hurricane), but even though many pictures exist, I haven't been able to confirm the serial.

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.

 

8 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

this issue has been throughly discussed on BM. The conclusion is that a Mk. II needs to have the 4-inch extension, otherwise the Merlin XX would not fit (see also post #43 by Graham Boak).

Compare these pictures taken from Britmodeller Walkarounds.

 

Lengthening does not involve an additional "bay", just some longer "tubes" within the engine mounting frame. Note there are five "eyes" to secure the lower side panel on the Mk. II and just four "eyes" on the Mk. I. The longer bar on the Mk. II is just the part ahead of the firewall (note that on the Mk.II there are two "eyes" ahead of the firewall instead of just one).

Some other parts of the engine frame are also slightly longer as a consequence and some angles are different. This also explains the more extended fuselage-to-wing fairing on the Mk. II, resulting in slightly increased sweep that is a consequence of the need for longer arms to link the forward wing longeron to the engine frame, as their attachment points are also moved forward.

 

(I hope this is clear enough, finding the right words is a bit hard for me)

 

As has been said in posts on BM, here is literally no space to fit a Merlin XX in a Mk. I engine frame, since the Merlin III is already resting against the firewall.

Summarizing:

  • a Mk. I can be converted into a Mk. II with not much difficulty, and this has been done in Britain with around 100 Mk. Is
  • what is needed are some modifications to the engine frame, that I assume could be realized by a "conversion kit", and a larger radiator, plus some further adjustments

On the other hand, as Graham said (post #43), fitting a Merlin III into a Mk. II/XII airframe is simpler and leaves some free space behind the engine.

 

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.

 

8 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Looking again through your data, I see that from October 1941 to June 1942 production sums up to 465 airframes, that covers 50 (BW835-BW884) + 100 (AM270-AM369) + 150 (BW885-BX134) + 150 (JS219-JS368) plus 15 from the serial range AG665-AG684. In my view, there seems to be hardly any doubt that, besides the Sea Hurricanes, all these were Mk. IIs.

There remain 59 airframes in the AGxxx serial range (AG287 and AG292-AG344, excluding AG341) whose mark number "at birth" (July-August 1941) I'd consider so far indefinite, although I do lean towards Mk. Is that, at some later stage, were mostly converted into Mk. II/XIIs, either in Britain or in Canada.

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Geoffrey Sinclair said:

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,

this is an enduring Hurricane myth, most likely stemming from the work of Francis K Mason,  thus becoming 'FACT' and repeated ever since.

As has been noted by various members here (eg @Graham Boak and @Work In Progress spring to mind) the Hurricane still is a bit of cinderella case. 

The great example of a Hurricane myth is the Sea Hurricane IC,  Mason says that there were 100, and they were used in Operation Pedestal.... except... 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235031375-sea-hurricane-mk-ic-markings/

 

Quote

On 30/07/2016 at 10:02, Graham Boak said:

There were no operational Sea Hurricane Mk.Ic. Only two aircraft were fitted with cannon wings (some sources say only one) for test purposes, and one of these is recorded later with standard wings. There were no 100 production aircraft as claimed by Francis Mason, being missing from Hawker production records and Sturtivant's history of all WW2 FAA aircraft.. Despite the statement in HMSO's wartime "Fleet Air Arm" booklet, there was no cannon-armed Sea Hurricane Mk.1 on HMS Indomitable during Operation Pedestal, This was confirmed by ex-members of 881 Sq including an armourer, during research for the restoration of Shuttleworth's Sea Hurricane.

 

So, you input on the Canadian production is a very valuable addition to the actual history.

thank you

T

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

So, you input on the Canadian production is a very valuable addition to the actual history.

thank you

T

Indeed!

Geoffrey is generously sharing information that must have taken him much time and work to collect.

In most regards, Mason's work is still authoritative, but the points you mention have become two long-standing myths that, unfortunately, are reported time and again.

 

The exchange of ideas in this thread is great! Thank you all from an established armchair researcher. 🙂

 

Claudio

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...