info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hurricane mark IV engines.
101 views
Skip to first unread message
Geoffrey Sinclair
Apr 27, 2017, 11:30:07 AM4/27/17
to
As you tour the web and references you find the engine of the
Hawker Hurricane mark IV is often given as a Merlin 24 or 27.
However,
http://www.rafcommands.com/archive/18854.php
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, with KZ607 lost in February 1944.
There were 524 Hurricane IV produced, starting in December 1942.
Cumulative official production of Hurricane IV \ Merlin 24 \ Merlin 27,
to end of month,
Jul-43 \ 313 \ 16 \ 0
Aug-43 \ 349 \ 81 \ 0
Sep-43 \ 384 \ 349 \ 0
Oct-43 \ 412 \ 514 \ 0
Nov-43 \ 448 \ 719 \ 69
Dec-43 \ 464 \ 1296 \ 139
Jan-44 \ 474 \ 1661 \ 141
Feb-44 \ 523 \ 2028 \ 141
Mar-44 \ 524 \ 2315 \ 141
Of course the Merlin 24 was the engine of choice for Lancaster I
being built at the time. Strangely enough Lancaster I production had
halted in April 1943, 5 were built in July, then production resumed with
18 in September, rising to 103 in March, all up 362 Lancasters
requiring 1,448 engines plus spares September 1943 to March 1944.
In January 1944 the RAF offered to hand over 30 mark IV to the Russians
at Basra, which was accepted, as the Russians had accepted nearly
3,000 Hurricane mark II with Merlin XX engines it seems unlikely the mark
IV were any different engine wise.
It is probable most mark IV came off the production line with a Merlin XX
installed, short of plenty of them in storage awaiting engines. Also any
mark IV sent overseas would be the only types with a Merlin 24 and
especially 27 if that was fitted. Given the nature of the Merlin 27 run and
the fact no other aircraft seems to be listed as using it, there must have
been some mark IV fitted with it, and possibly others with Merlin 24.
Anybody with evidence either way?
Hurricane IV squadrons,
England,
137 sqn Jun-43 to Jan-44,
164 sqn Feb-43 to Feb-44,
184 sqn May-43 to Mar-44,
186 sqn Aug-43 to Jan-44 (Typhoon as well from Nov-43),
438 sqn Nov-43 to May-44 (Typhoon as well from Jan-44),
439 sqn Jan to Apr 44 (Typhoon as well from Feb-44),
plus almost all the target towing squadrons from late 1943 or early
1944 to around the end of the war.
Middle East/Mediterranean,
6 sqn from June 1943 to post war.
351 sqn Sep-44 to Jun-45,
Burma/India
20 sqn Dec-44 to Sep-45 (Along with mark II),
42 sqn Oct-43 to Jun-45 (Plus some mark II for 7 of these months).
Plus a few more squadrons that had mark IV for around a month
in all three theatres.
One final point, the Ministry of Aircraft Production thinks there were
270 Hurricane IIe built, 168 of which were between March and
September 1942. Many references say these were essentially
mark IV, the RAF in its aircraft census says they were mark IIB
factory fitted with wing racks or IIBB in RAF terms. The RAF
Contract Cards and Delivery Logs do not have any IIe
A memo dated 30 August 1942, notes the IIe is the Hurribomber,
with 60 built to the end of June 1942. The production reports
have 5 IIe in March, 15 in April, 19 in May and 21 in June 1942.
The 524 mark IV figure above excludes the 270 IIe.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Hawker Hurricane mark IV is often given as a Merlin 24 or 27.
However,
http://www.rafcommands.com/archive/18854.php
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, with KZ607 lost in February 1944.
There were 524 Hurricane IV produced, starting in December 1942.
Cumulative official production of Hurricane IV \ Merlin 24 \ Merlin 27,
to end of month,
Jul-43 \ 313 \ 16 \ 0
Aug-43 \ 349 \ 81 \ 0
Sep-43 \ 384 \ 349 \ 0
Oct-43 \ 412 \ 514 \ 0
Nov-43 \ 448 \ 719 \ 69
Dec-43 \ 464 \ 1296 \ 139
Jan-44 \ 474 \ 1661 \ 141
Feb-44 \ 523 \ 2028 \ 141
Mar-44 \ 524 \ 2315 \ 141
Of course the Merlin 24 was the engine of choice for Lancaster I
being built at the time. Strangely enough Lancaster I production had
halted in April 1943, 5 were built in July, then production resumed with
18 in September, rising to 103 in March, all up 362 Lancasters
requiring 1,448 engines plus spares September 1943 to March 1944.
In January 1944 the RAF offered to hand over 30 mark IV to the Russians
at Basra, which was accepted, as the Russians had accepted nearly
3,000 Hurricane mark II with Merlin XX engines it seems unlikely the mark
IV were any different engine wise.
It is probable most mark IV came off the production line with a Merlin XX
installed, short of plenty of them in storage awaiting engines. Also any
mark IV sent overseas would be the only types with a Merlin 24 and
especially 27 if that was fitted. Given the nature of the Merlin 27 run and
the fact no other aircraft seems to be listed as using it, there must have
been some mark IV fitted with it, and possibly others with Merlin 24.
Anybody with evidence either way?
Hurricane IV squadrons,
England,
137 sqn Jun-43 to Jan-44,
164 sqn Feb-43 to Feb-44,
184 sqn May-43 to Mar-44,
186 sqn Aug-43 to Jan-44 (Typhoon as well from Nov-43),
438 sqn Nov-43 to May-44 (Typhoon as well from Jan-44),
439 sqn Jan to Apr 44 (Typhoon as well from Feb-44),
plus almost all the target towing squadrons from late 1943 or early
1944 to around the end of the war.
Middle East/Mediterranean,
6 sqn from June 1943 to post war.
351 sqn Sep-44 to Jun-45,
Burma/India
20 sqn Dec-44 to Sep-45 (Along with mark II),
42 sqn Oct-43 to Jun-45 (Plus some mark II for 7 of these months).
Plus a few more squadrons that had mark IV for around a month
in all three theatres.
One final point, the Ministry of Aircraft Production thinks there were
270 Hurricane IIe built, 168 of which were between March and
September 1942. Many references say these were essentially
mark IV, the RAF in its aircraft census says they were mark IIB
factory fitted with wing racks or IIBB in RAF terms. The RAF
Contract Cards and Delivery Logs do not have any IIe
A memo dated 30 August 1942, notes the IIe is the Hurribomber,
with 60 built to the end of June 1942. The production reports
have 5 IIe in March, 15 in April, 19 in May and 21 in June 1942.
The 524 mark IV figure above excludes the 270 IIe.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Stephen Graham
Apr 27, 2017, 2:18:14 PM4/27/17
to
On 4/27/2017 8:30 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> Plus a few more squadrons that had mark IV for around a month
> in all three theatres.
There were squadrons that only had Hurricane Mark IVs for a month? That
> Plus a few more squadrons that had mark IV for around a month
> in all three theatres.
seems unusually inefficient.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Apr 28, 2017, 9:10:09 AM4/28/17
to
"Stephen Graham" <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:emequq...@mid.individual.net...
Depends, for example whether a few were there for training
or evaluation or some added for a particular mission.
The ones in Europe were generally were awaiting Typhoons,
440 sqn ex 111 RCAF, formed in Feb-44 with Hurricane IV,
in March Typhoons replaced the Hurricanes.
But not all, 63 sqn, had Mustang I so a tactical reconnaissance
unit, Hurricane IV added in April, Spitfire Vb in May, replacing
the last of the Mustang I, then the Hurricanes left in June.
309 sqn, Hurricane IV replaced Mustang I in Feb-44 in turn
replaced by Hurricane IIC in April, in turn replaced by Mustang
I in September in turn replaced by Mustang II in October. Looks
like a reserve tactical reconnaissance squadron given a new
mission.
In India for example 28 sqn had some Hurricane IV added to
its Hurricane IIc May/Jun-45. Spitfire XI, the reconnaissance
version arrived in July, left in September, Spitfire VIII and XIV
replaced the Hurricane IIC in October.
To correct my initial statement, the front line short term
Hurricane IV assignments were in Europe and India.
On another point all 349 Hurricane IV reported produced to
end August 1943 had been delivered to the RAF, along with
1 conversion. So as of end August 1943,
Fighter Command had 44 in operational units and 22 in
miscellaneous units, 14 were with 2nd TAF, 1 was in Technical
Training, 128 at Maintenance Units (and maybe some of these
lacked engines), another 28 at various places being modified,
repaired or being prepared for shipment, 75 were en route to
overseas destinations, 19 were in the Mediterranean, 4 in India.
11 had been lost in England, 3 in transit and 1 was with the
Admiralty.
news:emequq...@mid.individual.net...
or evaluation or some added for a particular mission.
The ones in Europe were generally were awaiting Typhoons,
440 sqn ex 111 RCAF, formed in Feb-44 with Hurricane IV,
in March Typhoons replaced the Hurricanes.
But not all, 63 sqn, had Mustang I so a tactical reconnaissance
unit, Hurricane IV added in April, Spitfire Vb in May, replacing
the last of the Mustang I, then the Hurricanes left in June.
309 sqn, Hurricane IV replaced Mustang I in Feb-44 in turn
replaced by Hurricane IIC in April, in turn replaced by Mustang
I in September in turn replaced by Mustang II in October. Looks
like a reserve tactical reconnaissance squadron given a new
mission.
In India for example 28 sqn had some Hurricane IV added to
its Hurricane IIc May/Jun-45. Spitfire XI, the reconnaissance
version arrived in July, left in September, Spitfire VIII and XIV
replaced the Hurricane IIC in October.
To correct my initial statement, the front line short term
Hurricane IV assignments were in Europe and India.
On another point all 349 Hurricane IV reported produced to
end August 1943 had been delivered to the RAF, along with
1 conversion. So as of end August 1943,
Fighter Command had 44 in operational units and 22 in
miscellaneous units, 14 were with 2nd TAF, 1 was in Technical
Training, 128 at Maintenance Units (and maybe some of these
lacked engines), another 28 at various places being modified,
repaired or being prepared for shipment, 75 were en route to
overseas destinations, 19 were in the Mediterranean, 4 in India.
11 had been lost in England, 3 in transit and 1 was with the
Admiralty.
Geoffrey Sinclair
May 2, 2017, 9:58:53 AM5/2/17
to
"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
news:AP-dnWuWbe3QkJ_E...@westnet.com.au...
a Merlin 24 or 27 and then for test purposes only.
The Merlin 27 built were converted to Merlin 25, which had reverse
flow cooling for the Mosquito.
The mark IV used the Merlin XX like the mark II.
Conclusion, the Hurricane mark IV used the Merlin XX engine, like
the mark II.
Post war some Hurricanes sold to Portugal used Merlin 22.
news:AP-dnWuWbe3QkJ_E...@westnet.com.au...
> As you tour the web and references you find the engine of the
> Hawker Hurricane mark IV is often given as a Merlin 24 or 27.
Rolls Royce report only a possibility that a Hurricane flew with
> Hawker Hurricane mark IV is often given as a Merlin 24 or 27.
a Merlin 24 or 27 and then for test purposes only.
The Merlin 27 built were converted to Merlin 25, which had reverse
flow cooling for the Mosquito.
The mark IV used the Merlin XX like the mark II.
Conclusion, the Hurricane mark IV used the Merlin XX engine, like
the mark II.
Post war some Hurricanes sold to Portugal used Merlin 22.
Mario
May 2, 2017, 11:24:14 AM5/2/17
to
Geoffrey Sinclair 15:58, martedģ 2 maggio 2017:
> "Geoffrey Sinclair"
engines have only 5 exhaust gas "pipes".
Where is the 6th one?
--
oiram
> "Geoffrey Sinclair"
>
>> As you tour the web and references you find
>> the engine of the Hawker Hurricane mark IV is
>> often given as a Merlin 24 or 27.
>
> Rolls Royce report only a possibility that a
> Hurricane flew with a Merlin 24 or 27 and then
> for test purposes only.
>
> The Merlin 27 built were converted to Merlin
> 25, which had reverse flow cooling for the
> Mosquito.
I noted in many photos of the Mosquito that
>> As you tour the web and references you find
>> the engine of the Hawker Hurricane mark IV is
>> often given as a Merlin 24 or 27.
>
> Rolls Royce report only a possibility that a
> Hurricane flew with a Merlin 24 or 27 and then
> for test purposes only.
>
> The Merlin 27 built were converted to Merlin
> 25, which had reverse flow cooling for the
> Mosquito.
engines have only 5 exhaust gas "pipes".
Where is the 6th one?
--
oiram
Bill Shatzer
May 2, 2017, 3:17:07 PM5/2/17
to
Mario wrote:
> Geoffrey Sinclair 15:58, martedì 2 maggio 2017:
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/mosquitocowlingsjh_1.htm
"Due to the geometry of the wing, engine cowlings, and the leading edge
of the radiators on the inboard side of the nacelles, it was not
possible to fit six individual exhaust stubs on both sides. To allow for
a standard setup on each side, the #6 exhaust was routed forward to join
with the #5 stub. While this allowed the exhausts to fit into the
physical space available on the inboard side, it was less than ideal
from a performance standpoint."
> Geoffrey Sinclair 15:58, martedì 2 maggio 2017:
"Due to the geometry of the wing, engine cowlings, and the leading edge
of the radiators on the inboard side of the nacelles, it was not
possible to fit six individual exhaust stubs on both sides. To allow for
a standard setup on each side, the #6 exhaust was routed forward to join
with the #5 stub. While this allowed the exhausts to fit into the
physical space available on the inboard side, it was less than ideal
from a performance standpoint."
Mario
May 3, 2017, 8:01:04 PM5/3/17
to
Bill Shatzer 21:17, martedě 2 maggio 2017:
--
oiram
> Mario wrote:
>
>> I noted in many photos of the Mosquito that
>> engines have only 5 exhaust gas "pipes".
>> Where is the 6th one?
>
> http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/mosquitocowlingsjh_1.htm
>
> "Due to the geometry of the wing, engine cowlings, and the
> leading edge of the radiators on the inboard side of the
> nacelles, it was not possible to fit six individual exhaust
> stubs on both sides. To allow for a standard setup on each
> side, the #6 exhaust was routed forward to join with the #5
> stub. While this allowed the exhausts to fit into the
> physical space available on the inboard side, it was less
> than ideal from a performance standpoint."
Thanks!
>
>> I noted in many photos of the Mosquito that
>> engines have only 5 exhaust gas "pipes".
>> Where is the 6th one?
>
> http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/mosquitocowlingsjh_1.htm
>
> "Due to the geometry of the wing, engine cowlings, and the
> leading edge of the radiators on the inboard side of the
> nacelles, it was not possible to fit six individual exhaust
> stubs on both sides. To allow for a standard setup on each
> side, the #6 exhaust was routed forward to join with the #5
> stub. While this allowed the exhausts to fit into the
> physical space available on the inboard side, it was less
> than ideal from a performance standpoint."
--
oiram
0 new messages