RAN carrier program and earlier RAAF expansion

[Shortround6]

What were they doing? Figuring out their bid

Most accounts don't say. The Contract, signed in Sept 1940 was for 9000 engines. It might be kind of nice for Packard to figure out if they were going to make money or loose money on contract
And to do that they had to figure out available floor space, needed machine tools, labor, raw materials and so on.
Britain was promising to pay $130 million for 6000 engines and pay/supply the needed tooling. The extra 3000 engines for the US was soon added.
Also look at some of the contracts the British had placed with some of the American companies. Lockheed initial contract for Hudsons that if they completed the first 100 planes within a certain time period they would get a further contract for another 150 planes (or something close). Contracts are going to have at least suggested delivery dates and bonuses for superior performance and penalties for poor performance. Countries were not handing out cost + contracts at this time.
Curtiss lost around $16,000 on the XP-46 because it did not meet the promised performance numbers.
There was a lot of money to be made, there was a lot of money to be lost if their pencils were dull

 

[MiTasol]

Packard was looking at the sample engine and some drawings about 2-3 weeks after Ford refused. The actual contract with Packard was not signed for about 2-3 more months.
Was Packard simply sitting on their hands or were they coming up with a estimate of what they would need to do and what a suitable time line for delivery would be?

That makes sense as they would have needed to plan building the factory, what machinery they would use (they would not have imported that from Britain, what subcontractors could provide what and when, training the staff and all those other details you must know before you sign such a contract.

 

[swampyankee]

That makes sense as they would have needed to plan building the factory, what machinery they would use (they would not have imported that from Britain, what subcontractors could provide what and when, training the staff and all those other details you must know before you sign such a contract.

To give a vague idea: the UK used different (and arguably superior) threads, different drawing standards, different material standards, and different machinery nomenclature.

 

[MiTasol]

Among many other things.

While the British threads with their round bottoms were less likely to crack their narrower thread angles made them more likely to strip so there was not a lot in it. In Nov 46 both the US and UK moved to Unified threads that took the best featured of the US (thread angle and square tops to the threads plus sensible spanner sizes) and combined that with the best of the British (the round bottoms to the threads).

78 years later the only country that uses Whitworth is Australia and with the Australian metric bolts the thread is the same as the ISO (International Standards Org) but the tool sizes are Whitworth. Aus is also the only country that has a 13mm bolt that, naturally, is dimensionally identical to the 1/2" Whitless bolts.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Here's quite an extensive history of CCF Hurricanes

Canadian Warplanes 3: Hawker Hurricane

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

Nice to see someone quoting my words then trying to fit reports my words contradict into the text, makes for confusing reading. No comment about RCAF and other operations but I would be wary, seems a fair amount of cut and paste from various references involved, I wonder how copyright works in this case.

The contract with CCF for Hurricanes is dated during 1938.

Hurricane mark X was used at times by the RAF for Canadian built mark I, otherwise no such thing as mark X, no such thing as mark XI either.

Mark XII the 400 built for the RCAF with B wings 12x0.303 inch mg, 150 sent to Britain, mark XIIA were the survivors of the 50 CCF built Sea Hurricanes retained in Canada and 30 mark I from CCF orders for Britain transferred to the RCAF when upgraded from Merlin III to Merlin 29, A wings 8x0.303 inch mg.

RCAF 9426 is a post war serial for a recovered Hurricane of unknown serial.

RCAF 1351 to 1380 were mark I.

What the page calls mark XIIA are the 50 Sea Hurricane I built by CCF and one that arrived, V7402, total 51.

V7402 I>Sea I, 15MU 22-8-40 501Sq 31-8-40 Crashed Gravesend CB 2-9-40 49MU salvaged 13-9-40 13MU 15-9-40 51MU 15-10-40 GAL MSFU 25-6-41 13MU 3-9-41 MSFU 14-9-41 CAM ship 'Empire Spray' 18-10-41 13MU 14-12-41 MSFU 18-3-42 CAM ship 'Empire Foam' 3-4-42 RCAF Dartmouth Canada 4-6-42.

HV961 IIc, 5MU 15-9-42 52MU 24-9-42 Birkenhead Hull 'Nurani' 3-10-42 Karachi AC 3-2-42 1OTU Canada 3-2-43 damaged en route rtp, one of a small number of aircraft damaged being shipped across the Atlantic, sent to the RCAF for disposal. Not sure this qualifies as operated by the RCAF

"The Canadian Car and Foundry Company, in Fort William Ontario (now Thunder Bay) flew the first Canadian-built Hurricane on 9 January 1940. It differed from the British-built Mk. I Hurricane by having a Packard-built Merlin engine." No, Packard took until August 1941 for first official production.

"The introduction of the Packard-built Merlin 28 engine brought a designation change to Hurricane Mk. X, " No

"which was similar to the British-built Mk. IIB with eight machine guns." No, try B wing, 12 machine guns.

"The Hurricane Mk. XI, which followed, was the first built specifically for RCAF requirements." No and No.

"The major production version, the Hurricane Mk. XII with the Packard-built Merlin 29 engine, had a 12-gun wing." 486 mark I, 515 mark II, 400 mark XII, 50 Sea, so 400 is major production version?

"later production Mk. XIIs were equipped with four cannons and a universal wing." The universal wing had no provision for cannon, a number of the CCF Hurricanes arriving in Britain in 1943 were fitted with C wings before delivery to the RAF (IIB production in Britain had ceased in October 1942, Canada only built A and B wing versions)

"The Hurricane Mk .IV had the "universal wing", able to mount different variations as needed, including four 20-mm cannon," No cannon.

"The Mk. IIE version was fitted with a 'universal' wing, permitting a variety of armament and stores to be carried without the necessity of modifying control systems and electrical circuits." No. And no when it comes to the IIE as a mark despite the alternating efforts of first the RAF then the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

CAM ships (Sea Hurricanes) were quite useful on the Gibraltar/Africa run, heading to the US quickly put the Fw200 out of range.

"Aircraft built by Canadian Car and Foundry: North American Harvard Mk.IIB/AT-16 (1,798 built under license)" Noorduyn built 1,500 AT-16 paid for by the US, 1,200 Harvard IIB and 100 IIB TT paid for by Canada during WWII.

 

[tomo pauk]

Nice to see someone quoting my words

Were you credited for that?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Most accounts don't say. The Contract, signed in Sept 1940 was for 9000 engines. It might be kind of nice for Packard to figure out if they were going to make money or loose money on contract
And to do that they had to figure out available floor space, needed machine tools, labor, raw materials and so on.
Britain was promising to pay $130 million for 6000 engines and pay/supply the needed tooling. The extra 3000 engines for the US was soon added.
Also look at some of the contracts the British had placed with some of the American companies. Lockheed initial contract for Hudsons that if they completed the first 100 planes within a certain time period they would get a further contract for another 150 planes (or something close). Contracts are going to have at least suggested delivery dates and bonuses for superior performance and penalties for poor performance. Countries were not handing out cost + contracts at this time.
Curtiss lost around $16,000 on the XP-46 because it did not meet the promised performance numbers.
There was a lot of money to be made, there was a lot of money to be lost if their pencils were dull

More than just the pencils were dull at Curtiss.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Were you credited for that?

No. I sent a milder version pf the public message to the provided email address, the article has been updated to an extent, my name now gets mentioned for some data I provided, I am asking for it to be removed given the article quality. The author approach can probably be best seen right near the end, I pointed out CCF did not built Harvard/AT-16 during WWII, my figures for Noorduyn production are simply added onto the incorrect claim for CCF production, it seems similar action has been done with other statements while contradictions between what I sent and what the article says are ignored.

The article comes across as a pastiche, as new information comes in it is simply added, leaving the contradictions in place, makes for a confusing read.