It would be handy to know where your bike has turned up.
You've certainly picked a difficult contract to extract information from - 1500 to RAOC Chilwell, 1500 to RASC with a different sequence of census numbers and 422 'probably for RAF Depots' according to the Chilwell records.
From the limited sequences that I've seen, it seems likely that Ariel frame and engine numbers whilst not identical, were issued consecutively. In the absence of a frame number, that is probably the best assumption. Can you see any trace of XG 21380 in the stampings ?
There are photographs of RAF W/NGs in NW Europe during 1944 without panniers or pillion equipment. DME circulars instructing modifications did not apply to the RAF. Headlamp masks would have been fitted, in Europe at least but possibly not in some other theatres.
Unfortunately, there are no records of RAF serials so we can't even tell which contract they come from. There is a good article about the impossibility of chasing service records on Rob van den Brink's WD16H site.
Is this what yours looks like ?
You've certainly picked a difficult contract to extract information from - 1500 to RAOC Chilwell, 1500 to RASC with a different sequence of census numbers and 422 'probably for RAF Depots' according to the Chilwell records.
From the limited sequences that I've seen, it seems likely that Ariel frame and engine numbers whilst not identical, were issued consecutively. In the absence of a frame number, that is probably the best assumption. Can you see any trace of XG 21380 in the stampings ?
There are photographs of RAF W/NGs in NW Europe during 1944 without panniers or pillion equipment. DME circulars instructing modifications did not apply to the RAF. Headlamp masks would have been fitted, in Europe at least but possibly not in some other theatres.
Unfortunately, there are no records of RAF serials so we can't even tell which contract they come from. There is a good article about the impossibility of chasing service records on Rob van den Brink's WD16H site.
Is this what yours looks like ?
Thanks, Rik.
1/. I have had a reply from IWM who have said that there would be no records kept for vehicles used by the RAF.
2/. There is no trace, whatsoever, of any frame number. This has been ground out, followed by filling smooth before having the following number applied: H3279..........the identity of the bike was to make it appear to be a civilian Red Hunter, when it was acquired!
3/. Have been told that, because the Contract Number C10477 relates it to Chilwell and Ashchurch, it would definitely have been for RAF use. But, reading a historical document about Ariel engine numbers (if I remember correctly!), the letters that read BH means it was for Army, RBH would be for the RAF while NBH would be for Navy use. My engine number is BH11656. This must mean it was for Army use. Doesn't it? Such ambiguity it's amazing, considering it was the most ubiquitous 'bike in WW2!
4/. Yes. The photo looks pretty bang on to mine. Mine doesn't have the head lamp mask, though.
So, any ideas in which direction I should go to put a number on the tank and how I go about 'relating' it to a regiment or division or whatever? Or, do I restore the 'bike without any of that and finish it as a tribute to my dad, when he was part of the SBS?
Regards.
email (option): angleonart@force81sx.plus.com
I've never heard or seen this about the engine number prefix being different for RN or RAF. As far as I know they were all the same (BH).
I'm also under the impression that the later petrol tanks just had the smooth indent for a simple transfer.
Here's my 43 W/NG.
Due to the lack of information regarding the history of these bikes, let alone with no frame number. I think it would be an ideal opportunity to make a tribute to your father.
Who cares even if it's proved that the SBS never used Ariel's? You'll never know who did use your bike anyway.
It's artistic licence!! Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
It is good to hear all this information from you guys. As well as being ambiguous and contradictory I'm finding all this pretty helpful!
Why has nobody ever made a website dedicated to this machine, considering the amount of knowledge that is known? Just like the M20 site or the Norton site? It is probably the reason why I have held off all these years in starting the restoration of it, to be honest!
There will be several things I will need cleared up as I progress but one of the things I've had a reply about is that this bike would never have had any rubber components (ie, gearchange/kickstart ) fitted at all!!! This really does seem wrong when all I have read about is that rubber stopped (on the Ariel) late in '42 when Burma/Japan invasion occurred. Then canvas, or nowt, was used. Can anyone help verify this argument?
Also, thanks for clearing up the pre-fix engine letters for me, Mick. I already had the information to hand about this. Considering that I'm quite new to the 'investigation' side of things I'm quite surprised that this is not common knowledge out there.
Am looking forward to more conversational ambiguousness contradictions.........I mean, detailed information! 
Meneer Vandelinde, if you think that you have enough information to fill a website on Ariels accurately then why not create one ?
It's not really completely accurate to call the W/NG 'most ubiquitous' as it was made in considerably smaller numbers than M20s or 16Hs.
Ron made the comment a short while ago that scientists can tell what a dinosaur had for breakfast 20 million years ago but we can't find out some things about motorcycles made within living memory.
The fact is that a small number of enthusiasts are trying to piece together the story of these machines but it is much less easy than we might expect and nothing can be taken for granted or taken as proven until it is corroborated by period sources.
I have little knowledge of Ariels. In fact, I'm focussed on one single 1939 Norton contract and I'm still turning up information that was obviously common knowledge seventy years ago but which has not been recorded. Ploughing through original documents and archives is a time-consuming and expensive business if it involves travel from overseas.
Chris Orchard and Steve Madden did a fantastic job back in 1995 but they were operating in the pre-digital camera era with many archives which either didn't allow or charged for copies. They also had to produce something that a publisher would accept. Since then, additional information has come to light. Some of it is contradictory.
If you have O&M, look at the photo on page 19 (1st edition)...a 1941 W/NG from the RASC part of contract C9387. It clearly has rubbers in all the usual places. However, motorcycles are made to be ridden. If you're more comfortable with or without one, use it accordingly.
It might be a good idea to clarify how motorcycles were distributed during the earlier part of the war.
Production was controlled by the Ministry of Supply (MoS). However, Britain's pre-war army still reflected organisation established during the 19th century.
Army vehicles were supplied to War Office contract.
The RAOC (Royal Army Ordnance Corps) were responsible for supplying first-line units such as armour and infantry. Their main depot was Chilwell.
The RASC (Royal Army Service Corps) were the major user of vehicles and were also responsible for second-line units. They had various depots in Middlesex, including Ashchurch.
The RAF purchased via the Air Ministry (AM)
The Royal Navy purchased via The Admiralty.
It is interesting that O&M don't mention differing numbers for RN and RAF engines but it is perhaps relevant that this prefix appears on engine and not frame numbers. RAOC records don't mention engine numbers at all. Could it be that the prefix was applied to spare engines, much as Nortons used 'AS' (Army Spares ? ) on their spare engines ? Once again, we're trying to reconstruct the past from a few surviving details. It may be (and I don't know) that the majority of W/NGs have this prefix - but all that might prove is that many were rebuilt post-war with NOS engines from Admiralty or Air Ministry stocks.
Even if the engines of machines supplied under RAF contract had a different prefix, I'm not convinced that this would have applied to the 422 machines mentioned as delivered to RAF depots under your contract. They appear to have been machines diverted to the RAF either because they were surplus to War Department requirements or because the RAF had a greater need at that time. If they were initially delivered to an Army depot then they are unlikely to have been stamped later.
There is still a lot of guesswork involved. All we can do is try to err on the side of informed opinion.
...But it's your bike, get it running and get out there on it. Don't put it off because of the lack of a web site telling you how many ribs there should be on a handlebar rubber !
I was given these pages that were photo copied from files at the Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers (REME) Arborfield (Berks)I think it's an RAF base.
I don't know how clear these images are going to be. The pages are bigger than my scanner so I've had to scan each side and photoshop them back together. If anyone wants the pages I can e-mail then to you. I've also got the same info for a Royal Enfield WD/C
email (option): horror@blueyonder.co.uk
Well I don't know about a full set? My theme is British forces and I have most of the major makes and models with a few rare ones thrown in.
It's why I could never be an expert on any particular make or model. Also I tend to forget a lot of stuff.
Someone once pointed out to me that you could have quite a large collection if you just concentrated on WD Royal Enfield. Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
It's not really completely accurate to call the W/NG 'most ubiquitous' as it was made in considerably smaller numbers than M20s or 16Hs.
Ron made the comment a short while ago that scientists can tell what a dinosaur had for breakfast 20 million years ago but we can't find out some things about motorcycles made within living memory.
The fact is that a small number of enthusiasts are trying to piece together the story of these machines but it is much less easy than we might expect and nothing can be taken for granted or taken as proven until it is corroborated by period sources.
I have little knowledge of Ariels. In fact, I'm focussed on one single 1939 Norton contract and I'm still turning up information that was obviously common knowledge seventy years ago but which has not been recorded. Ploughing through original documents and archives is a time-consuming and expensive business if it involves travel from overseas.
Chris Orchard and Steve Madden did a fantastic job back in 1995 but they were operating in the pre-digital camera era with many archives which either didn't allow or charged for copies. They also had to produce something that a publisher would accept. Since then, additional information has come to light. Some of it is contradictory.
If you have O&M, look at the photo on page 19 (1st edition)...a 1941 W/NG from the RASC part of contract C9387. It clearly has rubbers in all the usual places. However, motorcycles are made to be ridden. If you're more comfortable with or without one, use it accordingly.
It might be a good idea to clarify how motorcycles were distributed during the earlier part of the war.
Production was controlled by the Ministry of Supply (MoS). However, Britain's pre-war army still reflected organisation established during the 19th century.
Army vehicles were supplied to War Office contract.
The RAOC (Royal Army Ordnance Corps) were responsible for supplying first-line units such as armour and infantry. Their main depot was Chilwell.
The RASC (Royal Army Service Corps) were the major user of vehicles and were also responsible for second-line units. They had various depots in Middlesex, including Ashchurch.
The RAF purchased via the Air Ministry (AM)
The Royal Navy purchased via The Admiralty.
It is interesting that O&M don't mention differing numbers for RN and RAF engines but it is perhaps relevant that this prefix appears on engine and not frame numbers. RAOC records don't mention engine numbers at all. Could it be that the prefix was applied to spare engines, much as Nortons used 'AS' (Army Spares ? ) on their spare engines ? Once again, we're trying to reconstruct the past from a few surviving details. It may be (and I don't know) that the majority of W/NGs have this prefix - but all that might prove is that many were rebuilt post-war with NOS engines from Admiralty or Air Ministry stocks.
Even if the engines of machines supplied under RAF contract had a different prefix, I'm not convinced that this would have applied to the 422 machines mentioned as delivered to RAF depots under your contract. They appear to have been machines diverted to the RAF either because they were surplus to War Department requirements or because the RAF had a greater need at that time. If they were initially delivered to an Army depot then they are unlikely to have been stamped later.
There is still a lot of guesswork involved. All we can do is try to err on the side of informed opinion.
...But it's your bike, get it running and get out there on it. Don't put it off because of the lack of a web site telling you how many ribs there should be on a handlebar rubber !
Thanks, Rik. Some very interesting points made. At present, it really does look like the build will be based on educational guesswork and erring.But, whatever, don't stop any other details coming through that you hear of. All is welcome and taken on board.
Regards.
email (option): angleonart@force81sx.plus.com