# Canada and Australia: what would you build?



## tomo pauk (Mar 2, 2012)

I'd like to hear what would you, as a main person in charge of production of planes, get to be built in those two countries. You can decide to undertake a license production of a complete plane and/or some other design at your preference. 
The compatibility with stuff made (or about to be made) in UK and USA is important, along with suitability for mass production, simplicity, durability good performance. Since the UK would be looking for your government's support (not just for those planes), you can use that to 'extract' a right to produce any piece of military hardware needed for your plane(s). 
The task begins in 1st Jan 1938 in Canada, 1st Jan 1939 in Australia, the new plane(s) will be in combat units within 3 years. New Zealand can join down under


----------



## davebender (Mar 2, 2012)

No aluminum industry as of 1940. No aircraft engine industry either. The land of Oz must import aircraft just as happened historically.


Canada is a different story. They've got a bottomless supply of aluminum and Packard Motor Company is just across the river. So they can build almost any aircraft type as long as it's powered by Packard made Merlin engines. Build a Castle Bromwich size Spitfire plant in Windsor. This would be ILO building Hurricanes in England.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 2, 2012)

From Wikipedia:


> The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) was an Australian aircraft manufacturer. The CAC was established in 1936, to provide Australia with the capability to produce military aircraft and engines.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 2, 2012)

Ive no proof but have heard that we we`re told that the Spit (one trick pony)
was too tricky for us to make , I know lots of folks that crossed the river(border) here to build P40`s and P39`s both plants are about 10 miles away but Canada did make 
160 hampdens
625 Blenheims
1400 Hurricanes with the 12 x 303
225 Lysanders
700 Lancasters
1 Lincoln
800 Mosquitos 
1000 Curtiss Helldivers 
1200 PBYs OA 10`s Cansos or Catalina
Approx numbers 
I sure think we should have used US aircraft Like the B25 or 26 instead of Bolingbrokes and Hampdens and as for a fighter that will take some thinking , maybe an improved version of the P39

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 2, 2012)

*Bollocks to no engine production or aluminium smetlting *


The Story of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation
From "Technology in Australia (1788 - 1988)"
In the mid-thirties to the Australians took thir first steps to an independent aircraft industry with the formation of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) on 17 October 1936. 

It arose from the initiative of Essington Lewis, who was at the time the Chief General Manager of BHP, and who formed a syndicate of BHP, Broken Hill Associated Smelters and G.M.H. to undertake a study leading to the establishment of military aircraft and engine manufacturing facilities in Australia. These companies were later joined by I.C.I., Electrolytic Zinc (for aluminium smelting, set up and in production by 1941) and Orient Steam Navigation Company. 

The nucleus of the newly formed company was provided by L. J. Wackett's team, operating at the Tugan Aircraft premises in Sydney. This company was taken over by CAC and Wackett became its first manager. A factory was constructed at Fishermen's Bend in Melbourne and Wackett began to operate from the new premises in September, 1937. In order to enable rapid local production, a licenced design was adopted, both for the airframe (the North American NA33, later known as the Wirraway), and for the engine (Pratt and Whitney Single Wasp. These were being received from 1939, rated at 650 hp). 

Whilst this is a historical review, in these days of rampant Canberra bureaucracy it is interesting to note the speed with which it was possible to operate when there were no government departments set up to 'assist' industry. Thus the first order was received in January 1937, some nine months before the factory was completed (this took less than a year) and the first aircraft and its Single Wasp engine were completed in March 1939 (low rated Moth engines were qalso commenced at about that time , some 18 months after the factory started operating. A total of 755 Wirraways were built in subsequent war years. These were an off the shelf design and were used in the opening months of the Pacific war by the RAAF as frontline equipment. I believe that a light bomber variant should have been designed in 1941, using the Twin Wasp engine similar to the Boomerang, but for an airframe configured for bombing. 

In 1938 a requirement for an intermediary trainer for the R.A.A.F. arose and the Wackett team designed and built the Wackett trainer, which first flew in October 1939. It was subsequently re-engined and some 200 production trainers were built, with deliveries occurring between May 1941 and April 1942.

An interesting and innovative CAC design was the Woomera three seater reconnaissance bomber. Engineering work on this aircraft commenced in April 1940 and the first flight took place in September 1941. The Woomera had a number of ingenious features incorporated, the most interesting being the remotely controlled, power-operated gun turrets at the rear of each engine nacelle. Due to a change of government policy, this type was not ordered into production. 

In order to counteract the supremacy of the Japanese Air Force in 1942, the CAC design staff employed the most powerful engine then available, the 1200 h.p. twin Wasp to power a new design of a small fighter. To save time, many existing Wirraway components were incorporated in the new design. Twin Wasps began to be received from about July 1941.

The new aircraft, named the Boomerang, first flew at the end of May 1942, precisely 14 weeks after rough drafts had been approved. 105 aircraft of this type were ordered off the drawing board and first production aircraft were delivered to the R.A.A.F. by September 1942. Further versions of the Boomerang had supercharged engines and a total of 250 aircraft of both types were built. There is no technological reason why this aircraft could not have been built in 1940, with imported twin wasps at first, followed by the licenced built version in July 1941. Money spent on the Buffalo could instead have been diverted to this local product, which would have benn significantly better that the buffaloes used in Malaya

The design of an advanced fighter (known as the CA15) commenced in July 1942 . It was originally designed for a U.S. engine, the 2,300 h.p. Pratt and Whitney R-2800, but this engine was not made available in 1942, with the Merlin engine not delivered in Australia until 1944 and the Griffon until 1945. Consequently, this advanced aircraft had to be re-designed in 1945 to accept the Rolls Royce Griffon engine (there had been proposals to equip it with the merlin but these were abandoned in 1944). The first flight occurred in March 1946. Whilst the advent of jet fighters prevented the CA-15 to be ordered for production, it was, for its time, a remarkable performance aircraft and was a state-of-the-art development. 


We have to go back to 1939 again, to look at the third major Australian initiative in aviation. The spectre of the coming war caused the Commonwealth Government to think about setting up additional facilities specifically for the production of war planes. The Department of Aircraft Production was established and its production branch, known as the Beaufort Division, was set up at Fishermen's Bend, next to CAC. The Beaufort Division, under the control of John (later Sir John) Storey, one of the most prominent industrialists of that time, commenced operations in September, 1939 with an empty office and in May 1941 produced its first licence-built Beaufort bomber. 

The innovations needed to put this aircraft into, and maintain in production, consisted of the replacement of the unobtainable British engine, the Taurus, with the locally produced twin-row Wasp engines. This was the main reason why the two stage Wasp was built (locally) ….to get the Beaforts operational. The first locally built, locally engined Beauforts rolled off the lines in October 1941. Local sources of supply had to be arranged for many sub-components (for example the airframes depended on locally smelted and worked aluminium, specifically set up for that purpose in 1940 which were originally to be imported). By August 1944 when its production ceased, 700 aircraft of this type had been delivered, allo with locally produced Twin Wasp engines. Towards the end of 1943, the licensed production of the fighter-bomber, the Beaufighter was put in hand and the first deliveries of the latter type commenced in May 1944. I forget the engines used for these, most were imported however. .

In 1944, studies began for the licensed manufacture of the Lancaster heavy bomber. This aircraft was rapidly improved into the Lincoln version and this was the version adopted for Australia. The first Lincoln flew in March 1946. 

The most remarkable feature of the wartime history of the Australian aircraft industry was its impressive growth. From a handful of people in 1937 and without a developed base of sub-contractors, it grew to 5,000 in June 1940 and to a peak of some 44,000 people in 1944 operating in four main factories and several annexes. Sub-contractors accounted for another 10,000 people. This industry delivered some 3,500 aircraft of all types to the R.A.A.F. and, at the end of the war, was capable of designing and manufacturing aircraft equal to the best in the world.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Mar 2, 2012)

Therein lies the problem. Australia was capable of producing aluminum but that requires several years to establish. January 1939 is too late. 

Australia was part of the Imperial Preference system. Why didn't they work with Britain to establish aluminum production during the early 1930s? Australia could have filled the British shortfall in aluminum production. Aircraft such as the Mosquito and Hurricane could have been constructed of Australian produced aluminum rather then wood and fabric.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 2, 2012)

In 39 Canada had Straener flying boats Westland Wapitis and atlases backed up by a sqn of Hurricanes and some 10 Battles with a strength of 2000 men but with little percieved threat from any quarter just the US on the border , its going to take time to work up to useful military and whatever it is has to be able to get to the war or better yet patrol the vast distances here . So that eliminates any european fighter , So I'll try and get on with lockheed and the P38 and Martin and the B26 , and maybe buy the tooling to make same or be part of the production team in the US both aircraft are capable of good distance allowing them to transit the country or even cross the ocean, for ASW work I`ll keep the PBY Canso


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 2, 2012)

davebender said:


> Therein lies the problem. Australia was capable of producing aluminum but that requires several years to establish. January 1939 is too late.
> 
> Australia was part of the Imperial Preference system. Why didn't they work with Britain to establish aluminum production during the early 1930s? Australia could have filled the British shortfall in aluminum production. Aircraft such as the Mosquito and Hurricane could have been constructed of Australian produced aluminum rather then wood and fabric.



In the early 1930s there was no military threat that required the Australian production of aluminum. There was also a world wide depression which meant a low demand for aluminum and little money for capitol development. 

And will you please get off the idea that the Hurricane was built of wood and fabric? the Hurricane used wood fairing strips or former's over a steel tube frame for REAR fuselage to give it shape, the wood parts carried NO structural loads. The rear fuselage was fabric covered but again, the "skin" carried no structural loads. it may be quite possible to fly a Hurricane with NO covering on the rear fuselage (although high drag).

I notice that you tend to ignore the fact that Corsairs used fabric covered outer wings until the F4U-5 model first flown in Dec of 1945.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 2, 2012)

Australia was coming from a long way behind. The first steel was not produced until 1915. There were no motor vehicles produced (other than curiosity prototypes until 1939. the formation of the CAC in 1936 was nothing short of visionary for a country so lacking in Industrial potential. Australias industrialization was occurring in the 20's and 30's at a phenomenal rate, but defence was a fairly low priority, because ther were no threats. 

With regard to Hurricane production Hawler were approached for licence production in Sydney but refused, in prefernce for setting up a line in Canada. Spitfires were never even considered. The wing assembly was too tricky I believe. De Havvilland were the most progressive of the british companies and did assist in setting up a production line, initially for Beauforts and eventually for beafighters and Mossies. Mossies required specilist construction skills that did not exist in the Australian aero industry in 1939. not that the mosquito was even a going concern at that stage.

The Brits displayed a marked reluctance to set up engine manufacturing in the country, which I think is where you got this cockamamie idea that engines werent produced here. Wackett and his boss showed considereable ingenuity in getting P&W to set up a line in Lidcombe , that from 1939 were initially churning out single wasps and from 1941 tuned out double Wasps. not bad for a country still not producing its own motor vehicle engines. 

My opinion is that from a purely Australian self interst POV we should have moved along as we did up to 1939, then as an immediate priority in 1939 split the wirraway construction into two streamjs, one for the dedicated trainer version, and one as an armed light bomber with perhaps a twin wasp powerplant. Instead of building the De Havilland Beafort in 1941, we should have made our principal project of 1941 the Boomerang, and then Beaufort construction in 1942. This would have delayed Beaufort production by a year, but given us access to a good fighter in 1942, with a stop gap light bomber to support. In 1943, instead of mucking around with the Mustang , we should have gone all out and produced the CAC-15, with the Mosquito our principal bomber and fighter bomber. We would have ended the war with the most tactical advanced air force in the pacific on that basis, with only the B-29 a more sophisticated type.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 3, 2012)

For Canada, Mustangs. When the RAF brockered the deal with North American, a plant in Canada could have been part of the deal.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 3, 2012)

For Canada, my choice would be Catalina, Hurricane, maybe Hampden (preferably with Twin Wasp). For second half of war, Mosquito and Mustang. The priority being a good trainer  Merlin license production is a must.
For Australia, Wirraway, Hurricane, a good twin-engined bomber with decent range (B-25 preferably, but Hampden w/ Twin Wasp can go to), later Mossie Mustang. 
For both countries I'd like to see Gloster F.9/37, with T.W, able to carry a torpedo or bombs.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 3, 2012)

Not sure of all the assumptions in this thread but I'll take a shot:

For Canada: Mossies, Hurricanes, Mustangs, B-25 Mitchells and Lancs

For Australia: What Parsifal said.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 3, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> For Canada, my choice would be Catalina, Hurricane, maybe Hampden (preferably with Twin Wasp). For second half of war, Mosquito and Mustang. The priority being a good trainer  Merlin license production is a must.
> .


The Chipmunk was a fair trainer , we're already making Harvards , Tiger Moths, Finches, Cornells . I would opt for US engines . The Merlin was used in Canada post war for the North Star a Merlin powered DC4 . I would hope to be closer to the US in military equipment can't think of too many post war Brit aircraft save the Bristol Freighter. Remember that the RCAF wanted to work with USAAF post VE day as opposed to RAF


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 3, 2012)

Part of the problem for Australia was the relatively low expenditure of GDP on defense, in effect they relied on Britain (1% v 4%) I believe. There was less interest in fighting far away wars and a disrespect for the bumbling incompetance of upper class twit officers that still inhabited the British Army at the begining of WW1 that had begun to develop after Gallipoli (sort of like Dieppe for the Canadians). Don't get me wrong, the Australians that volunteered to fight in WW1 were very English in character and probably most had been born there. (All Australians in WW1 were vulunteers and in WW2 a limited draft was only reluctantly started) but it is clear some differences had started to develop. Overall there was probably an element of irresponsibillity in the low defense expenditures and over reliance on mother england. More defense expenditure would have kicked of industrilisation a little earlier.

Here are a number of Australian aircraft designs:


















In order
CAC-15 "Kangaroo" (originally to be PW-2800 powered but ended up with a Griffon due to supply issues)
Bommerang
Wirraway (modified NA-16)
AA-107 supersonic fighter bomber
CAC-31 supersonic trainer.

I wish Australia had off followed a Swedish style neutralist policy and developed its weapons independantly.
Building you own disciplines and builds your economy as well as allowing a free and independant foreigh policy.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 3, 2012)

Lawrence Wackett, the mover and shaker of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation made some pretty astute decisions coming from a nation with no aircraft building experience. The NA-16, from which the Wirraway and to an extent the Boomerang were built, the Mustang, Sabre and Mirage. All excellent choices for the country. As for the Department of Aircraft Production, the decision to build the Fairey Battle was a little wayward, but the Beaufighter was an excellent choice and this would be in my list. Although the RAAF operated the B-24, perhaps Australia should have built them instead of the Avro Lincoln. Post war, the Canberra was a natural choice.

As for Canada, turning to the USA for aircraft was a sensible decision, not least for geographical reasons. Post war, would like to have seen more Arrows though, shame about them. Fine looking aeroplane.

New Zealand didn't have any heavy industry experience at the time, but Peter Fraser's decision to militarily align the nation with the United States prior to the outbreak of war with Japan was the right thing to do and the RNZAF relied on US built types until after the end of the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 3, 2012)

A possible wartime tactical bomber that ended up being still born was the Woomera. Attached is a link that gives a reasonable summary of its abilities and fate

http://austradesecure.com/radschool/Vol27/Pdf/Page14.pdf


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 3, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> ... would like to have seen more _*Arrows *_though, shame about them. Fine looking aeroplane.



Diefenbaker did the USA, NASA and its Apollo program a huge favor when he canceled what was probably the world's most advanced interceptor. NASA got all those good aerospace engineers and made good use of them. If we dredge Lake Ontario maybe we'll find one that Diefenbaker had hid. or maybe just the models.


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 4, 2012)

parsifal said:


> A possible wartime tactical bomber that ended up being still born was the Woomera. Attached is a link that gives a reasonable summary of its abilities and fate
> 
> http://austradesecure.com/radschool/Vol27/Pdf/Page14.pdf



What is hilarious about this article is the belief that 'swarf' in the hydraulics system was an act of sobotage rather than an act of slack ass stupidity stemming from lack of training and quality control.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 4, 2012)

Yes, I agree, It led to a fatal accident. Still the design is intersting, and is one of those what ifs. It could have been ready by early 1943 if the need was there. 

In some ways we had far too easy a war.....we could sit back and rely on Leend Lease Equipment and not worry about domestic production. it left our post war aircraft industry in serious trouble


----------



## parsifal (Mar 5, 2012)

> Ive no proof but have heard that we we`re told that the Spit (one trick pony)



A comment no doubt designed to insult an inflame...right up there with todays news of the desecration of war graves in Libya, and every bit as senseless. anybody describing the spit in those terms has the same either wants to be controversial or doesnt know the true value of the spit on its multipple roles and marks. Go and do some real reseaarch, and try to be a little less offensive


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 5, 2012)

parsifal said:


> A comment no doubt designed to insult an inflame...right up there with todays news of the desecration of war graves in Libya, and every bit as senseless. anybody describing the spit in those terms has the same either wants to be controversial or doesnt know the true value of the spit on its multipple roles and marks. Go and do some real reseaarch, and try to be a little less offensive


Please illuminate me into the many outstanding facets of the Spitfire other then the fact it was a superb short ranged interceptor and a very good recce bird . Could it do what it needed to do from late 40 to mid 44 take the fight to the enemy and hold its own .


----------



## Milosh (Mar 5, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> Please illuminate me into the many outstanding facets of the Spitfire other then the fact it was a superb short ranged interceptor and a very good recce bird . Could it do what it needed to do from late 40 to mid 44 take the fight to the enemy and hold its own .



So those Fw190s and Bf109s in France Belgium and Holland were shot down by American fighters then?


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 5, 2012)

Milosh said:


> So those Fw190s and Bf109s in France Belgium and Holland were shot down by American fighters then?


not at all but the numbers certainly favoured the AXIS , Dieppe being a prime example late 42 
from wiki

The Allied air operations supporting Operation Jubilee resulted in some of the fiercest air battles since 1940. The RAF's main objectives were to throw a protective umbrella over the amphibious force and beach heads and also to force the Luftwaffe forces into a battle of attrition on the Allies's own terms. Some 51 fighter squadrons of Spitfires were committed, with eight squadrons of Hurricane fighter-bombers, four squadrons of reconnaissance Mustang Mk Is and seven squadrons of No. 2 Group light bombers involved. Opposing these forces were some 120 operational fighters of Jagdgeschwadern 2 and 26 (JG 2 and JG 26), the Dornier Do 217s of Kampfgeschwader 2 and various anti-shipping bomber elements of III./KG 53, II./KG 40 and I./KG 77.

Although initially slow to respond to the raid, the German fighters soon made their presence felt over the port as the day wore on. While the Allied fighters were moderately successful in protecting the ground and sea forces from aerial bombing, the RAF came off second best versus the experienced and well-equipped Jagdgeschwaders.

While Fighter Command claimed to have inflicted heavy casualties on the Luftwaffe the ultimate balance sheet showed Allied aircraft losses amounted to 106, including 88 RAF fighters destroyed or damaged. Of this number, 44 Spitfires were lost in aerial combat and a further three were destroyed by Flak. A further 23 were destroyed or damaged by Flak, or in accidents. The overall figure for destroyed and damaged Spitfires is 70.[2] Around 18 bombers were also lost. Against this, 48 Luftwaffe aircraft were lost. Included in that total were 28 bombers, half of them Dornier Do 217s from KG2. One of the two Jagdgeschwadern, JG 2, lost 14 Fw 190s and eight pilots killed. JG26 lost six Fw 190s with their pilots.[25


----------



## parsifal (Mar 5, 2012)

Spits appeared in over twenty different marks and served in just about every role possible for an SE fighter. They were used by over twenty differnt countries at one time or another, and were in front line service for the best part of 20 years. 

My particular pet area is in the fleet air arm. seafires were often labelled as having a high accident rate, which in 1943, operating off escort carriers, with crews not trained for the purpose and in weather conditions not suited to the type they certainly did. In 1945, whilst operating off japan they had reversed that situation such that they had the lowest loss rate of any type in the allied navies. and they were considered the best point defence inteceptor by the BPf who were also operating corsairs and Hellcats at that time.

Spits, despite their short range carried the fight to the germans in 1941-2 to the point that they wer able to achieve air superiority eventually over britain, the channel and many parts of th coast. that was a critical achievement that permitted freedom of action in a wide range of roles and mission types for other aircraft.

Spitfires, moreover, did this with virtually no help from other fighter types, except hurricanes, but hurricanes were pretty badly outclassed by 1942 . I am not saying the spits did this with resounding one sided loss sheets. but they were there, at a time when the later, more capable Us types were simply dreams on a drawing board. without the sustained pressure maintained by mstly spitfires 1940-42, the Germans would not have suffered the constant attrition that made the later victories possible, would not have been distracted to the extent they were during the first two years of the great war in the east. There were no substantial american fighter operations until july 1942,and even then, for the best part of a year, their efforts in fighters were minisculee. The americans used the Spitfire themselves for a considerable time, because of the performance shortcomings of their own types. US types did overtake the spit eventually, but from 1941 through to 1943 (the first half) spittfires were virtually the only type in the allied inventory with the performance to take on the germans with equivalent performance.

that is not a one trick pony. thats being there when your needed, and filling a critical gap in many roles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2012)

The Spitfire is cursed by many "what might have Beens". While it would never have the range of a Mustang, it was often seen by "planners" as a "last generation" aircraft that needed replacing. Joe Smith being responsible for pulling a number of rabbits out of the hat to keep the Spitfire competitive. As a result many of the most produced Spitfires were "interim" models that did not actually reflect the true potential of the design. Perhaps because of the losses in 1942 or perhaps because of the failure of one or more successors (the Typhoon, while good at low altitude, turned out to be a big disappointment as an interceptor/fighter because of the thick wing and lack of altitude performance of the Sabre) there was an obsession with numbers that did not allow the large shift of production to only slightly more advanced versions rather than the MK V and MK IX. Combine that with several anticipated threats not materializing ( more high altitude raids by the Germans) and the planners kept thinking that what was in production was " good enough". 
It was entirely possible to build a Spitfire with internal tankage for 140-150imp gallons. 95gal main tanks, 28 gallons in the wings and a rear tank of just 17-27 gallons. This would have allowed for a combat radius of 200-250 miles more than a standard MK IX. Certainly not a Berlin escort but a quite useful ability In bringing the fight to the enemy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2012)

How big was the biggest drop tank for Spitfire, discounting the ferry-only tanks here? Was it possible to use the 90 imp gals tank in that role?


----------



## parsifal (Mar 5, 2012)

Seafires in 1945 could operate out to just under 200 miles. The combat radius of the Hellcats operating alongside them was 220 miles, the corsair was about 240 miles.

There was not nearly the difference in range that is so often given to the Seafire. What they couldnt do was carry as useful a bombload


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 5, 2012)

We're straying a little off topic here. Start a thread on the merits/vices of the Spitfire somewhere else, please.

The Woomera was an interesting 'What if', but I guess with aircraft like the B-25 and Boston in RAAF service - not to forget the Mosquito and Beaufighter, was it necessary? (I just love the adverts in that piece!  )

I remember when I was doing my apprenticeship on the UH-1, underneath the floor were wires going between the cockpit and rear avionics bay and during major servicings these cable looms always got filled with swarf, so we had to get it all out very carefully because some of the cables were fibre optic and broke real easily. Wires everywhere in the Huey. We had to do a 'course' on wire loom safety because a P-3 caught fire somewhere because of swarf in the wire looms.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 5, 2012)

We need a little more performance data on the woomera so that we can compare it to the appropriate US type. I dont think the woomera was in the same weifgt/capability class at a glance. It was a jack of all trades really, similar in concept really to the German Ju88....divebombing, torpedo bombing, level bombing, recon. Its bombload appears more in line with a beaufort rather than a B-25.

it would be neat to do a model of this prototype if it was at all available


----------



## Wildcat (Mar 6, 2012)

The Woomera was definately an interesting aircraft. One can only wonder if it would have had more success in the torpedo role than the Beaufort, with is two torpedoes and heavier fire power.


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 6, 2012)

parsifal said:


> We need a little more performance data on the woomera so that we can compare it to the appropriate US type. I dont think the woomera was in the same weifgt/capability class at a glance. It was a jack of all trades really, similar in concept really to the German Ju88....divebombing, torpedo bombing, level bombing, recon. Its bombload appears more in line with a beaufort rather than a B-25.
> 
> it would be neat to do a model of this prototype if it was at all available


 
The problem with the Woomera was clearly the weak R-1830 engines.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 6, 2012)

That was a problem but not the only one. It had vibration issues in the rear fuselage and unresponsive elevators and rudder i think. All of these issues were quite solvable, including the engine issue. R 1830s were not ideal, but they were used in the Beaufort which actually mproved performance compared to the Taurus engined Beauforts. RAAF Beauforts were survivable, effective bombers, there is not reason to not draw the same conclusion about the Woomera. Its probably more accurate to describe the use of the low powered engines as unlikley to bring out the full potential of the airframe, not that the thing would not fly (or not fly operationally).

I think it was a mistake not to prioritise the Woomera. Not so much from a war winning strategic sense, so much as a narrow national self interest point of view. If we had pressed ahead with the CA-15 and the woomera, we would havehad the makings of a very competitive post war aero industry. government support would have been needed for a number of year, in much the same way they subsidised our motor vehicle industry, but if we had, we may well have established a competitive hi-tech, high quality aircraft manufacturing base in this country. I see these two aircraft as major missed opportunities


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 6, 2012)

Based on what you're saying Parsifal, it appears to be more akin to the Beaufighter, perhaps? After all, it was designed to replace the Beaufort.

On second thoughts, I have my doubts about this aeroplane. I don't believe it could have offered any advantage over existing types in the same roles, nor any that appeared later. It was too clever by half, but not in the right areas and (in my opinion) had too many people on board. Even if the engine issues had been solved, it would have been obsolete by 1943. The standard by which such aircraft were measured was the Mosquito and it is hard to believe that the Woomera could have bettered that aircraft.

You might be right about the Australian aircraft industry, but I don't believe the Woomera was the right choice of aircraft by which to achieve what you hoped might have happened (if that makes sense). The CA-15 was a worthy demostration of what could be done in Australia, but even then, it was considered obsolescent because of the rise of the jet.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 6, 2012)

Canada was moving into larger realm , they shifted from the PBY Canso/OA10 and were undertaking manufacture of DC4/DC6 hybrid with merlin power which was according to wiki 35mph faster then C54, called the North Star used a fair piece crossing N pacific in Korean war doing it approx 600 times , this was closely followed on by the Iconic Chipmunk , even if they uglied it up with the canopy over in the UK. Tough little trainer pretty spry also can remember Art Scholl used it pretty well.


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 7, 2012)

parsifal said:


> I think it was a mistake not to prioritise the Woomera. Not so much from a war winning strategic sense, so much as a narrow national self interest point of view. If we had pressed ahead with the CA-15 and the woomera, we would havehad the makings of a very competitive post war aero industry. government support would have been needed for a number of year, in much the same way they subsidised our motor vehicle industry, but if we had, we may well have established a competitive hi-tech, high quality aircraft manufacturing base in this country. I see these two aircraft as major missed opportunities



The quandry for Australia is the mineral and agricultural wealth, it drives up the international value of our currency to the point that it is cheap to import but expensive to export. The Aussie dollar is riding high and I am having fun buying books. Our engineering tends to be based around the minning and construction sectors, specialist high tech work, systems work etc.

Building military equipement is never really going to be profitable unless one can export building our own will be more expensive than buying in but has the knock on effect of building our capabillities.

One problem is that the military types want the best equipment and are intollerant of delays and less than the best equipment that comes out of the risk of building locally.
It takes serious and consistant commitment. The usual solution is to take an existing design, modify it and build locally. This has backfired somewhat with Collins class subs which despite their advanced nature were an unproven Sweddish design compared to the more experience alterantive design offered by a German consortium. Another problem was the Seasprite program which collapsed. Insider tells me it was all over a fly by wire rotor hub control system the pilot types didn't like. It degenerated into personality issues. When safety is at stake you know what we are like, rather officious, due to the laws in this country.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2012)

I've therefore suggested that both countries build design that is either simple (trainer) or based on a proven thing from another friendly/allied country. The looming of a war that is bound to involve both countries makes perfect sense to produce the military stuff to equip it's forces, and, if/when a surplus can be produced, to equip Allies with that - pretty much that was made historically. 

The Womera with 2 torpedoes is really pushing things, though


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 7, 2012)

".... The quandary for Australia is the mineral and agricultural wealth, it drives up the international value of our currency to the point that it is cheap to import but expensive to export. The Aussie dollar is riding high and I am having fun ... Building military equipement is never really going to be profitable unless one can export ... It takes serious and consistant commitment. The usual solution is to take an existing design, modify it and build locally. This has backfired somewhat ..."

Very true. Describes Canada's situation more or less. Australia - thankfully - has been more honest with itself about how much it should be spending (% GDP) on Defense. Canada, until the current Government, has been happy to exist in soma-land. 

".. serious and consistant commitment .." are the key words.

Great post, Siegfried 

MM


----------



## Wildcat (Mar 7, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The Womera with 2 torpedoes is really pushing things, though



What do you mean Tomo?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 7, 2012)

I mean that a plane that is basically a 'better Beaufort' would've been okay if the intended target has close to none defence and it's near to Woomera's airbase (assuming a 2 torpedo payload). A target that has some defence, or that is in some distance cancels out the feasible attack by Woomeras that are carrying 2 torpedoes.
Far more potent torpedo bomber, the Beaufighter (Torbeau), was using a single torpedo; the SM-79 rarely carried more than one.


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 7, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Based on what you're saying Parsifal, it appears to be more akin to the Beaufighter, perhaps? After all, it was designed to replace the Beaufort.
> 
> On second thoughts, I have my doubts about this aeroplane. I don't believe it could have offered any advantage over existing types in the same roles,.



It had exceptional range, with internal armament and it offered remote controlled guns in the rear of the engine nacelles, these were able to protect the rear of the aircraft without the need of a tail gunner and all the weight and drag that entails.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 7, 2012)

> It had exceptional range, with internal armament and it offered remote controlled guns in the rear of the engine nacelles, these were able to protect the rear of the aircraft without the need of a tail gunner and all the weight and drag that entails.



Why would such a small aeroplane need remotely operated guns? At that size you're just adding needless complexity and bodies aboard. The best bet for a multi role aircraft was to go for fast and powerful, not heavy defensive armament. Also, was its range proven with a useful warload? PW1830s were a good engine on an airliner or trainer, but a multi role combat aircraft? I sincerely doubt it. They would have been better off fitting the thing with Hercs or Griffons, Merlins even and cleaning it up and getting rid of all the passengers aboard.

Its fundamental problem was that it was neither a medium bomber of the B-25 and B-26 class because it was too small and it was not a fast bomber/attack aircraft like the Mosquito or Beaufighter, because it was too slow and cumbersome. It was obsolete before it entered service.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The quandry for Australia is the mineral and agricultural wealth, it drives up the international value of our currency to the point that it is cheap to import but expensive to export. The Aussie dollar is riding high and I am having fun buying books. Our engineering tends to be based around the minning and construction sectors, specialist high tech work, systems work etc.
> 
> Building military equipement is never really going to be profitable unless one can export building our own will be more expensive than buying in but has the knock on effect of building our capabillities.
> 
> ...



Great post Siegfried, and pretty much encapsulates most of the problems we have in the manufacturing sector today.

However, if we had developed a viable competitive aero industry post war, even though our unit costs may have been the same or more than those of say the americans, we may still have captured at least some of the emrging post war market. For many of the new nations in the far east purchasing military equipment from their former colonial masters was unnacceptable. In the finish they mostly turned to the Soviets for their equipment, some of which was bought, and some of which was supplied free. but many nations also found dealing with the communists ideologically unnacceptable, such as the malaysians for instance. I can see our products as filling a niche market so to speak.

We never attempted this because we never had product to sell. We did make a number of deals where we sold second hand gear to various nations, but we never seriously sold much new stuff. i think we sold a few Nomads to the filpinos and almost sold some frigates to the Kiwis....but thats about it


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Why would such a small aeroplane need remotely operated guns? At that size you're just adding needless complexity and bodies aboard. The best bet for a multi role aircraft was to go for fast and powerful, not heavy defensive armament. Also, was its range proven with a useful warload? PW1830s were a good engine on an airliner or trainer, but a multi role combat aircraft? I sincerely doubt it. They would have been better off fitting the thing with Hercs or Griffons, Merlins even and cleaning it up and getting rid of all the passengers aboard.
> 
> Its fundamental problem was that it was neither a medium bomber of the B-25 and B-26 class because it was too small and it was not a fast bomber/attack aircraft like the Mosquito or Beaufighter, because it was too slow and cumbersome. It was obsolete before it entered service.




With regard to the points raised, the remotely operated turrets were there to reduce the weight of the defensive armement and decrease drag as well . The type was intended to be a replacement for the beaufort, but amy improvement in performance was saddled by the fact that the engines were the same. Improved performance would only come via two avenues if the engines were the same....improved aerodynamics and/or reduced weight. The remote turrets helped in both areas.

With regard to the unarmed option, that did prove to be the best bet for light bombers in the finish, but in 1940 it was not known. This aircraft in the finish would very much have been in the mold of the blenheim in terms of its design philosophy

with regard to:


> Also, was its range proven with a useful warload? PW1830s were a good engine on an airliner or trainer, but a multi role combat aircraft? I sincerely doubt it. They would have been better off fitting the thing with Hercs or Griffons, Merlins even and cleaning it up and getting rid of all the passengers aboard



I dont know if the range was proven, but I presume that it was. The contract signed bettween CAC for the initial orders placed just prior to the japanese attack in 1941 incorporated the following specifications:
Performance

Maximum speed: 282 mph (454 km/h, 247 knots)
Range: 2,225 mi (3,580 km, 1,950 nm) (with external tank and one torpedo)
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (7,165 m)
Rate of climb: 2,090 ft/min (10.6 m/s)

Your criticisms of the Double Wasp I dont agree with. They were fitted to the DAP Beauforts and actually improved the performance considerably over the Taurus engined versions. PW 1830s were also used quite successfully in the Ca-12s and were turbocharged for the next subtype of the Boomerang the CA-13. The problem for the Australians was that the Double Wasp was at that time (1941-3) the only high performance engine they had access to, so they simply had to make do with it. 

Hercs, Merlins or Griffins were undoubtedly better, but were simply unavailable to the australians at the time of the types initial development. Merlins were not produced in Australia until 1944 whilst Griffins were never produced ( a line was set up, but cancelled at the end of the war). If the woomera had been produced in 1941, and had become a major type in the RAAF inventory, no doubt the the design would have been "stretched in subsequent years by better engines. One wonders what would have happened to the performance with a 1600 HP merlin or a 2400HP Griffin installed, instead of a 1200 HP Double Wasp. I suspect....a lot 

With regard to this




> Its fundamental problem was that it was neither a medium bomber of the B-25 and B-26 class because it was too small and it was not a fast bomber/attack aircraft like the Mosquito or Beaufighter, because it was too slow and cumbersome. It was obsolete before it entered service



In 1940 when the bomber was designed, neither the B-25 or B-26 were fully operational. neither was the the mosquito. The Mosquito was entering service by the time the Woomera was contracted to enter service (December 1941), but not in the TOs that Australia was fighting in. For the pacific, the type was the fastest bomber available, and the longest ranged. Once theengines of higher power were made available, it would have shone almost as well as the mossie, but with armement. i have read design speeds of 350 mph were expected with the higher rated engines. thats plenty fast enough. Plus it has the added advantage of divebombing capability. Something never tested and ultimately deleted in 1944, but in 1941-2 a very useful capability IMO.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 8, 2012)

Parsifal,

Although you are putting up a valid set of points about the aircraft/engines, I just don't see how it would have been anything but obsolete by the time the problems with it were sorted out. Yes, you are right about the designers not having any real idea about how fast bombers were evolving, but I still think that fitting remotely operated turrets to an aircraft that small was a waste. I still believe there were too many people aboard and it could have been better designed than it was, even without the benefit of hindsight. The Beaufighter was already in service with the RAF and was a known quantity in Australia and it proved that two crew could to the job in a heavily armed multi role combat aircraft. The unfortunate thing about the Woomera was that even though its designers were unaware of the concept of a fast bomber as the Mossie exemplified, that aircraft rendered the concept of the Woomera obsolete, remotely operated turrets or not.

Regarding the engines, yes, I know about the Beaufort and the Double Wasp, but the Beaufort itself was verging on obsolescence by the time the Pacific war started. I guess I should have made it clearer in stating that by that time the Double Wasp just wasn't going to be powerful enough for a heavily armed combat aircraft. I refer you to the Beaufighter compared to the Beaufort. 



> Once the engines of higher power were made available, it would have shone almost as well as the mossie, but with armament. i have read design speeds of 350 mph were expected with the higher rated engines. thats plenty fast enough. Plus it has the added advantage of dive bombing capability.



I find this a bit hard to swallow. I sincerely doubt that it would have been as effective as the Mosquito, yes, no doubt it would have proven a useful and versatile aircraft (had its issues been sorted by the time the war in the Pacific had begun), but I cannot see it being any better than what was already available by the time it might have been fitted with bigger engines. Why would it have been needed in 1944? There were Bostons, Beaufighters, Mitchells and Liberators available to the RAAF by then, with Mosquitos in production. I also doubt that it could achieve 350 mph, even with bigger engines. Perhaps if they removed the extra bodies and armament, because the airframe was too draggy as it was. Add extra structural weight required for the dive bombing role and you've got yourself a slow twin engine bomber of limited usefulness. I'm no aerodynamicist, but it was never going to be a high speed aircraft. Look at the Ki-46, the Mosquito, the F7F for examples of a high speed, low drag airframe.

Sorry, Parsifal, you haven't convinced me.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2012)

> I just don't see how it would have been anything but obsolete by the time the problems with it were sorted out. Yes, you are right about the designers not having any real idea about how fast bombers were evolving, but I still think that fitting remotely operated turrets to an aircraft that small was a waste


.

With the engines available the woomera was never going to an aircraft that could outrun completely its opponents (the japanese fighters). There was no choice but to fit rear firing armament ir face the prospect of fielding a bomber completely defenceless AND vulnerable. It achieved its great range by using the wing as a fuel tank. that is a trade off with inherent risks attached. 

If engines of greater power were available I would agree with you, but there werent. the type began its design processes in mid 1939, and would have begun service entry around early 1941, except for the embargo placed by the british on engine exports in june 1940. That led to massive delays and massive detours for the CAC (and DAP) as they struggled to rush forward the new plant at Lidcombe to turn out the only engine that could be accessed at that time.....the home produced double wasp. That caused a massive delay for all new programs and a massive delay in aircraft deliveries.

an aircraft of the performance of the woomera available from the beginning of 1941 right through to about 1944 would have been a massive asset for the Australians, as the beaufort (an aircraft of lower performancce and range) proved to be in the PTO 



> I still believe there were too many people aboard and it could have been better designed than it was, even without the benefit of hindsight. The Beaufighter was already in service with the RAF and was a known quantity in Australia and it proved that two crew could to the job in a heavily armed multi role combat aircraft.



The type began its design and development in 1939, at a time when the Beaufighter had not even flown. If it had not been delayed and stunted by the british embargo, it would have entered squadron service just after the beaufighter, but with much greater wepons capability, the ability to divebomb, far greater range, greater top speed when bombed up. with more modern engines, it would have had superior performance in all areas, plus its defensive armement was superior. it is also worth noting that the early marks of beaufighter did not carry heavy ofensive warloads....that came later (roughly 1943) and also in the early marks had a rear firing gun. In that configuration i believe the beaufighter had the same numbers of crew 



> The unfortunate thing about the Woomera was that even though its designers were unaware of the concept of a fast bomber as the Mossie exemplified, that aircraft rendered the concept of the Woomera obsolete, remotely operated turrets or not.



It made the woomera obsolete in 1944, with the PW1830s fitted. in 1941-3 it would have been state of the art, cutting edge gear, with some very neat niche capabilities like range that made it superior to the mossie. If the engines were of a higher rating, its anyone guess as to what the airframe could do. if my guesstimate of 350 mph fully loade in level flight is near correct, it is not a concept made obsolete by the mossie. its the other way round actually




> Regarding the engines, yes, I know about the Beaufort and the Double Wasp, but the Beaufort itself was verging on obsolescence by the time the Pacific war started. I guess I should have made it clearer in stating that by that time the Double Wasp just wasn't going to be powerful enough for a heavily armed combat aircraft. I refer you to the Beaufighter compared to the Beaufort


. 

err no, most people in the RAAF would not have agreed with that summation of the beauforts capabilities in 1942-44. it was considered a highly effective bomber very survivavble with suffeicient range to get the job done. the beafighter did not have the range to do the same things as the beaufort. Thats why the beauforts were the main strike bomber against rabaul in the RAAF inventory, and were the lead bomber for the RAAF at bismarck sea. both these campaigns are not the mark of an aircraft bordering on obsolescence. They are in fact the mark of an aircraft that was very potent and very survivable in the pacific, with the range and payload to be effective. The woomera would have done it even better, and a woomer with a better engine would have been virtually unstoppable in the pacific for the japanese



> I find this a bit hard to swallow. I sincerely doubt that it would have been as effective as the Mosquito, yes, no doubt it would have proven a useful and versatile aircraft (had its issues been sorted by the time the war in the Pacific had begun), but I cannot see it being any better than what was already available by the time it might have been fitted with bigger engines


.

It would have been as effecive or more effective than the mosquito because of its range and defensive armament. At the estimated 350mph it is not as fast as the later mosquitoes, but against the early marks which are its contempoaries in this 'what if discussion" it is considerably more capable. In 1941, the bomber versions of the mosquito were unarmed and carried a bombload of 2000lb to a range of 1500 miles (one way). The woomera, is credited with a range of 2250mi carrying a bombload of just under 2000lb, compare to the BIvs 1500lb at 1650 mi




> Why would it have been needed in 1944? There were Bostons, Beaufighters, Mitchells and Liberators available to the RAAF by then, with Mosquitos in production.



it wasnt needed in 1944, for precisely the reason you are suggesting. by then there were heavoer and cheaper options available. but in 1940-3, the types you are metioning were not at all available in most cases, or in a few cases were available but in very limited numbers. if the type had been available with the wrinkles ironed out in 1941 as it could have been except for the 1940 embargo, it would have made a big difference to allied fortunes in the SWPA 




> I also doubt that it could achieve 350 mph, even with bigger engines. Perhaps if they removed the extra bodies and armament, because the airframe was too draggy as it was. Add extra structural weight required for the dive bombing role and you've got yourself a slow twin engine bomber of limited usefulness. I'm no aerodynamicist, but it was never going to be a high speed aircraft. Look at the Ki-46, the Mosquito, the F7F for examples of a high speed, low drag airframe.



Im no aerodynamic expert either, but i actually think it look like a fairly clean design especially for a 1939 design. 




> Sorry, Parsifal, you haven't convinced me.



Ah the joys of disagreement I can live with it....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 8, 2012)

If you use the cube law the power required to make a Woomara do 350mph is 4587hp. That is assuming the _TWIN_ Wasps were delivering 1200hp at the altitude the the Woomara did 282mph. they may very well have been supplying 1100 or even 1000hp at altitude which would drop the power requirement to 4000hp. 

This is if there is absolutely no increase in drag. Maybe if you can figure out how to put in a _DOUBLE_ Wasp for the drag of the _TWIN_ Wasp 

The Woomara was a tremendous achievement for an aircraft industry just starting out, but believing it would turn out to be a better plane than things like the B-25 takes a lot of belief. 
The Australians probably did more with less than practically any other Allied country when it came to war production vs industrial base. But it was a country of just over 7 million people in 1940 that was predominately agricultural. It had many talented people but little experience and little back up for design or research. 

The US started the war with something like a dozen wind tunnels and ended with about 40. Building 300+mph aircraft could not be done with just some ideas and paper and pencils anymore.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2012)

> If you use the cube law the power required to make a Woomara do 350mph is 4587hp. That is assuming the _TWIN_ Wasps were delivering 1200hp at the altitude the the Woomara did 282mph. they may very well have been supplying 1100 or even 1000hp at altitude which would drop the power requirement to 4000hp.



The only engines available in australia or likely to be available with a rating above 2000hp were the griffins, which were intended to be built from 1945. Rememember, however, that engines of British origin in Australia were badly delayed by the british Governments decision in 1940 to ban the export or sharing of engines and engine technology. This hypothetical assumes access to such technology, which means the Australians would have had access to to much higher powered engines from about early 1943. This is a hypothertical, with certain givens. With those givens applied as a logical extrapolation of the actual situation. The actual situation meant the griffin was not available until 1945. The hypothetical (applied or achieved by assuming the British embargo was not applied) would mean such engine availability from the time of their introduction. 



> This is if there is absolutely no increase in drag. Maybe if you can figure out how to put in a _DOUBLE_ Wasp for the drag of the _TWIN_ Wasp



I would assume a decreae in Drag if the griffin was used, and also if the remote powered rear turreats were removed. With that HP, the need for such turets become superfluous. The Griffin as an inline I assume to have less drag in its cowling than any radial engine. 



> The Woomara was a tremendous achievement for an aircraft industry just starting out, but believing it would turn out to be a better plane than things like the B-25 takes a lot of belief.



I never said that or claimed that for the historical aircraft. I would point out, however that the Woomera would have entered squadron service in early to mid 1941 if the engine availability had not been delayed. Thats a service delivery well ahead of the B-25, or at a time when only the B25-A was available. If you want to compare apples to apples, you need to compare something like the B-25H to an aircraft that was never developed....a hypothetical aircraft.....a turretless griffin powered woomera or similar. That does make the woomera a competitive design, and comparable to the B-25 (later marks). 



> The Australians probably did more with less than practically any other Allied country when it came to war production vs industrial base. But it was a country of just over 7 million people in 1940 that was predominately agricultural. It had many talented people but little experience and little back up for design or research.
> 
> The US started the war with something like a dozen wind tunnels and ended with about 40. Building 300+mph aircraft could not be done with just some ideas and paper and pencils anymore.



I have a lot of faith in Wackett and his design teams, and even though in the finish their late war efforts did not amount to "boots on the ground," as pieces of design they represented some very superior efforts, wind tunnel or no. It seems that you are besotted with the infrastructure, without looking at the products that each of the design teams were turning out (US v Australians). Have a look at the CA-15. An aircraft designed in the "agricultural backwater" of Australia, as you so quaintly put it (i bet you believe there are kangaroos bounding up the main street of Sydney as well), yet one that can be argued quite strongly as vastly superior to its contemporary, the p-51B/D. You dont need to "make allowances" for the australians. Their designs were as good or better than any comparable aircraft coming out of the US at that time. The only thing that stopped their timely introduction was a shortage of engines (brought on by the british embargo) and the savings that could be deried by buying existing types off the shelf rather than building our own. 

Saying that we cant builod competitive aircraft designs because we are nothing but a lot of backwater hicks, is about as insulting as it can get (regardless of the proviso you put in front of it). And about as logical as saying its impossible for a nation with such limited population will have no chance of securing much in the upcoming Olymopics because our genetic pool is so limited. Good design DOES depend at least in part on the quality of the personnel involved. The gadgets....the wind tunnels etc are design aids, but they are not the designers...that still gets down to the very thing you disdain...putting ideas on paper, using the resources available, or potentially available. Wackett was a genius in that regard, and as a designer you will be hard pressed to find anyone his equal at the time in the US. 

We will see if the sporting version equivalent of your "Australia cannot design good aircraft because they dont have a wind tunnel and is too small to be competitive" equivalent in the sporting world will play out in the upcoming Olympics, and see how true the 'country hick" theory stands up in that arena as well i guess.......


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 8, 2012)

Geez, lighten up would you.

I have been Australia 3 times about 20 years ago. All I know of Sydney is the airport but I have been to Adelaide, Brisbane and even Coober Pedy. 

The Australians I had the good fortune to meet were anything _BUT_ hicks. Even some of the ones who came in from the sticks/outback ( I think that 10 hours drive from Brisbane qualifies as the sticks/outback) were a technically sophisticated bunch, at least in their chosen sport of small bore rifle. 

In your rush to defend your country/countrymen do not put words in my mouth, you don't like when others do it to you. 

Care to offer some proof that Australia was NOT predominantly agricultural in 1940 which is 50 years from when I visited let alone the 70 years to now? Predominately agricultural is not the same as "agricultural backwater" and you know it. 

Infrastructure is necessary to building modern (even by 1940 standards) weapons of war. The Sentinel tank is a good illustration. While Australia's railroad shops and foundries did an excellent job of designing and making the largest cast tank hull in the world at the time, the lack of suitable machine tools (which may have been being used for other purposes at the time) caused the transmission (copied from the American M-3 Medium tank) to be redesigned _without_ sychronizers on the gears. This may have been changed on later models? 
And please don't get into an uproar about my use of "Australia's railroad shops" as in 1940-41 the vast majority of American tanks came from US railroad shops or railroad steam engine makers as they were the _ONLY_ factories with necessary foundries, cranes and machine tools of the size needed to make tanks until new factories could be built.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2012)

apologies for the over zealous respopnse. Its all good from my perspective, but the assumptions you are making about how Australia operates and the make up of its society is very far from the actual situation, it goes a long way to explaining why you are reaching the wrong conclusions that you are. 

One of the common misconceptions that exist with our overseas friends , is that Australia in the 20th century is a preodominantly agricultutral society. in fact is one of the most urbanized socities in the world, with something like 70% (from memory) of the population concentrated in the six capitals. Its national income was linked intrinsically to agriculture, that much is true, but even in 1940, it was the mining sector that was economically more important. 90% of our national wealth comes from these two sectors, generated by less than 20% of the work force. So, you have a point with regard to national income, but you are completely off the mark with regard to social structure. 

With that concentrated, lop sided population demographic, we have an inherent abaility way beyond our weight to pool resources and exercise cultural excellence or new innovation. There are reasons why Australians produce a disproportionate numbesr of sporting greats, and a disproportionate number of inventions and exceptional design. It has to do with the disproportionate urbanization in the country. With narrowly concentrated populations comes the ability to build things like better universities, better design bureaus (concentrating the best minds in the one place) and the like. 

In the case of my state (NSW) the city of Greater Sydney (city of Sydney, the Blue Mountains, Gosford, Newcastle and Wollongong) contains 6.2 million people (at last count). the rest of the state , representing over 90% of the land area of the state has less than a million people in it. If you conglomerate those cities i mentioned as a single urban conglomeratioon (thats not a construct of mine, that is the way these cities do work....as a single metropolis) the next biggest city is just over 50000 in size. Thats my city. Its a local Government area of well over 150 square kms, but more that 90% of the population is placed within 10% of that land area You are right about Australia being a predominantly agricultural society, but only in the sense that it views itself, and from the perspective of where its national image comes from. We like to think we are all bushmen from the land, in rerality we are mostly city dwellers working in a highly concentrated society centred around a few big cities. There is a massive gulf between image and reality i am afraid. 

Having said all that, our industrial index in 1940 was low. We were coming from a very long way behind. Which explains why the Sentinel was still born. it also explains why we couldnt really stretch our design abilities to such high end items like engine or transmission development. The best we could do at the time was to use off the shelf techs to achieve the best that we could. Design is not always about developing new technologies....sometimes as in the case of Austral;ia, its about using the resources already available or obtainable

thats not the issue here right now however. the issue was whether the Woomera (or as of now the Sentinel), had the inherent design capability to be competitive. I think in both cases they were very good designs. The gearbox was revised, from memory in 1943 for the sentinel incidentally.

I have no problem with the fact that Australias war industries were very much a series of adaptations of civilian industries.....railway shops and the like, or that our designs were adaptations of off the shelf items. I would be meglomaniacal about it if i did. But our ability to match resources to outcomes was still pretty good, and that comes out in the Woomera design. I view that 9our use of civilain infrastructure) with some pride actually, as the Americans should as well. it shows the good planning in the mobilization plans of both country's actually


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 8, 2012)

I don't believe my conclusions are wrong. Perhaps not as clearly expressed as they might have been leading to some misinterpretation. 

I Spent 6-7 weeks total in Australia which certainly does not make me an expert but it should have given me a feel for Australian society. Much of that time was spent at certain sporting venues that would be the envy of American athletes competing in those sports. For about 1/2 the time we were put up by host families in Adelaide instead of staying in hotels (which is where we stayed in Brisbane) I was hosted by a different family on each trip and interacted with some of the other hosts. Hosts included a vice president of the Bank of South Australia and a superintendent of schools. Other hosts included a firearms importer and a Railway worker. I Spent a couple of hours talking with an assistant chief of the Adelaide Fire dept one afternoon ( I had driven him around Connecticut for several days when he had visited the US a year before) which included dept finances, town and metropolitan structure and some tax billing issues. Which could change considerably when you get to the next state in Australia. We also meet a couple of opal miners and traded a few favors. We loaned them equipment and coaching for a competition and they arranged for a tour guide when we went to Coober Pedy. 

Adelaide is even more urbanized in relation to South Australia than the way you describe Sydney (almost a million people at the time living in an area about 100x 30 miles?) out of 1.1 million people in all of South Australia (next largest city 10,000?). 
We were a bit more on our own on the two visits to Brisbane but again benefited from the excellent support from the government on the sports venue. The lady who did some of the driving for us was part owner (with her Husband) of a small rifle factory making the Omark Model 44 target rifle at the time. We did a tour of the factory/shop. Sight seeing included a trip to Toowoomba (about 60 miles inland) in addition to obligatory Gold and Sunshine coasts. 

The Superintendent of schools and I came up with a mutual definition of the difference between the country and the outback. If you live in the country you can still walk to your neighbor's for help  

I come from a very highly industrialized part of the United States. Connecticut is small in size but fairly well populated even in 1940. You can drive across on today's highways in about 2 hours. In 1940 it has home to P&W aircraft engines, Sikorsky aircraft, Chance Vought, Hamilton Standard and a few smaller aviation related companies. It was and is the home of Electric boat, major builder of submarines. And was home to the Colt, Winchester, Marlin, High Standard, Mossberg and other smaller gun companies, The Remington ammunition plant. And a host of machine tool manufactures at the time. I think Connecticut could pull it's own weight in the industrial sector of the time. We probably couldn't feed ourselves though  

You can have great talents from a small population, the problem when undertaking large and complicated projects is the lack of back up or depth which can cause projects to run over time limits or not progress in as quick a fashion as maybe desired. It is not enough to have a skilled or inspired designer. you need large numbers of draftsmen and ordinary engineers to turn out the tens of thousands of drawings and do the thousands of calculations needed to turn a good or great basic design into a production item. You need draftsmen and engineers who don't work an a single airplane part but design and draw the jigs and fixtures that allow the aircraft design to be built in large numbers and not by the handful with each one a bit different than the next. many American companies suffered from the same problems. We have noted many times that Allison saw the need for a better or even two stage supercharger in 1938, they simple did not have the engineering resources to work on the supercharger, improve the basic engine _AND_ go from basically a tool room operation to a mass producer all at the same time even with the help of General Motors. 

part of the reason the British aircraft industry failed in the 1950s wasn't really due to a lack of talent or good ideas, it was because the Americans in part,just overwhelmed them. Somebody once claimed, When the British were working on the three "V" bombers at the same time that Boeing had more engineers working in the landing gear dept than the British had working on all the planes put together. I don't know if that is true but it does point out that _how_ the american company might be able to get a design done faster or overcome a problem in the middle of a program. 

As Oldcrowcv63 signature says "None of us is as smart as all of us..."

Ed Heinemann may or may not have been a better designer than Wackett but it is a sure bet that he had more staff to back him up and turn his ideas into hardware in a timely fashion.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 9, 2012)

> a DOUBLE Wasp for the drag of the TWIN Wasp


 Oops, my bad too 

My, how this discussion has evolved! I'm not even going to go down the 'Welcome to Hicksville' argument, being from New Zealand! 

Based on what I've read about it, your claim that the CA-4 would have been as effective as the Mossie in 1939 or 1940 is just too much a stretch of your own imagination. To give you an idea of what the CA-4 - and indeed the CA-11, which did not fly until June 1944 were up against, the following is a quote from a handling report dated 3 March 1941 written by test pilots of the Mosquito prototype with the A&AEE at Boscome Down:

"Aileron control light and effective. Take offs and landings are straight forward. The aircraft stalls at 105 mph IAS with flaps up, 90 with flaps down and was flown at up to 320 IAS. The best rate of climb in MS blower was 2,880 ft per minute at 11,400 ft, and 2,240 ft per minute in FS gear at 18,100 ft. Top speed in FS gear was found to be 388 mph at 22,000 ft. Estimated service ceiling was 33,900 ft, the greatest height reached being 29,700 ft. Tests were conducted at 16,767 lb."

The CA-4 was designed as a light bomber, torpedo bomber and reconnaissance platform, a role there's no doubt it would have been able to achieve effectively had it been put into service after its first flight in September 1941, but, that, "it would have shone almost as well as the mossie, but with armament" was not going to happen, not in 1940 even without a British embargo nor with more powerful engines. You also forget that the Mossie FB.VI was armed with four 20mm cannon and four .303s and managed a respectable maximum speed of 378 mph and a cruise speed of 255 mph, with a maximum range of 1,855 miles.

As for the integral fuel tanks, they didn't work very well on the Woomera from what I've read, which in operational conditions without self sealing would have made the thing a bit of a flamer. I'm impressed with the 2,000 mile plus range with a torpedo and an external tank, although whether that was actually carried out with everything it would have needed to go to war with is not stated - probably not. 

Having read a bit more about it, methinks you are exaggerating its capabilities a mite. It was not designed as a multi role combat aircraft; the CA-4 was a torpedo bomber, light bomber with dive bombing capability (which was, by 1944 deleted in the CA-11) and reconnaissance type and most certainly would have been a great asset to the Australians in the Pacific, but to think it had a patch on the Mossie, nay chance, mate.

As for the Beaufighter, it was a true multi role combat aircraft; night fighter, ground attack, anti shipping strike, torpedo bomber. Although the TF.X torpedo fighter variant's performance was less than the Woomera's was (bearing in mind the Woomera's figures were unproven in real conditions), apart from its maximum speed (303 mph at 1,300 ft), the Beaufighter TF.X was fitted with wartime equipment and its speeds were measured under combat conditions. If you were to compare the two prototypes in 1939, you'll learn that the Beaufighter achieved the not too shabby estimated maximum speed of 355 mph in trials that year, although this was without operational equipment. Considerably faster than the CA-4. The Beaufighter was undoubtedly the more capable of the two. 

I still think it could have been even better if they removed the turrets and had only forward firing guns and streamlined the fuselage and gotten rid of all but a pilot and navigator. By 1944 you'd think they would have known better.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 9, 2012)

"My, how this discussion has evolved! I'm not even going to go down the 'Welcome to Hicksville' argument, being from New Zealand!"

A large part of the US "advantage" is due to it's sheer size. In 1940 New York state alone had almost twice the population of Australia. However I am certain that you could pick out and combine number of western and mid-western states whose population totaled that of Australia at the time and and find fewer large metropolitan districts and mining aside, less industry than Australia had. In fact I found 11 states who population, put together, did not equal Australia's and they stretch from Canada to Mexico and from the Mississippi river to the Seirra mountains. Quite an an area of "Hicksville" 

Being under Industrialized does not = Hicksville. In fact being over Industrialized for the customer base can be just as bad. 

By the way, The few days I have spent in NZ were very pleasant and show that both NZ and Australia care more about the quality of life of their citizens than the so called more advanced United States.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 9, 2012)

FWIW, if I was to choose any other country to live there with my family, that would be New Zealand. Think about Germany, or Sweden, but as much sun as here in Dalmatia.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 9, 2012)

Hope you like sheep tomo


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 9, 2012)

... in curry or with mint sauce. 

In Canada, we call it 'lamb'.

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 9, 2012)

Nah, this is how the real men prepare the lambs (at least until we become the members of the EU):

Osam tisu?lje?a pe?ene janjetine - Zadarski list

Served with young onions, of course.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 9, 2012)

... that too.



MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 9, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> ... in curry or with mint sauce.
> 
> In Canada, we call it 'lamb'.
> 
> MM



Thats because in canada when "sheep" is mentioned, you guys think "food". In NZ sheep can be so much more.......

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 9, 2012)

Rugs to sell to the tourists???


----------



## wuzak (Mar 9, 2012)

How does that old saying go?

"New Zealand, where the men are men and the sheep are nervous...."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 9, 2012)

So now the Aussies are making fun with Zealanders, because the later have the sheep? As if the Bulgarians making fun of Greeks for being on Balkans? Good lord


----------



## Siegfried (Mar 9, 2012)

parsifal said:


> Thats because in canada when "sheep" is mentioned, you guys think "food". In NZ sheep can be so much more.......




You know that in the Australian constitution there is specific provision to incorporate New Zealand as a State should they wish to do so. (I wish they would so we can fix their cutomes and immigration ) I wouldn't make too many sheep shagger jokes. There are plenty of sheep opportunities here as well and the shaggers are running a lot of our companies these days.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 9, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> So now the Aussies are making fun with Zealanders, because the later have the sheep? As if the Bulgarians making fun of Greeks for being on Balkans? Good lord



Don't worry, they enjoy taking the piss out of Aussies too.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 9, 2012)

Canda could have stated off with the idigenous Gregor fighter 
The Gregor FDB-1 was a Canadian biplane fighter, designed in 1938 by Michael Gregor and manufactured by Canadian Car and Foundry. Despite being an advanced and innovative design, incorporating all-metal construction with flush riveting, retractable undercarriage and a sleek shape, the FDB-I was overtaken by events and, after being unable to find a buyer, was lost in a fire in 1945
Crew: 1 
Length: 21 ft 8 in (6.604 m) 
Wingspan: 51 ft (16 m) (15.798 8 m) 
Height: 6 ft (2 m) (2.86 m (9 ft 5 in)) 
Empty weight: 2,880 lb (1,306 kg) 
Loaded weight: 4,100 lb (1,859.7 kg) 
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt and WhitneyR-1535-72 9-cylinder radial engine, 700 hp (521.9 kW) 
Performance

Maximum speed: 261 mph at 13100 ft (420 km/h (261 mph) at 4,000 m) 
Range: 985 mi (1,585 km) 
Service ceiling: 32,000 ft (estimated) (9,906 m) 
Rate of climb: 3,500 ft/min at sea level (1,066.8 m m/min at sea level) 
Armament


2×0.50 mm machine guns 
2X 116 lb (kg ) of bombs under wings 


which was higher faster and longer then the other Biplanes of the same period unfortunatly Biplanes were passe


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 10, 2012)

> The Gregor FDB-1 was a Canadian biplane fighter, designed in 1938 by Michael Gregor and manufactured by Canadian Car and Foundry.



Just looked it up on wikigoogle; that's a slick looking little plane; that kind of undercarriage always looks a little awkward.



> Don't worry, they enjoy taking the piss out of Aussies too.



Oh yeah! The Kiwis and Aussies have always had this love/hate thing going on, especially with regards to sports!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 10, 2012)

The Gregor .... the LG is no more awkward than than the last Grumman bi-plane fighter, or the Curtis Helldiver I .... IMHO

MM


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 10, 2012)

Seems very competitive with the contemporary Grumman F3F-3 with some resemblance as well:

General characteristics

Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 23 ft 2 in (7.06 m)
Wingspan: 32 ft 0 in (9.75 m)
Height: 9 ft 4 in (2.84 m)
Wing area: 260 ft² (24.15 m²)
Empty weight: 3,285 lb (1,490 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 4,795 lb (2,175 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820-22 "Cyclone" 9-cylinder radial engine, 950 hp (710 kW)
Performance

Maximum speed: 264 mph (229 kn, 425 km/h) at 15,250 ft (4,658 m)
Cruise speed: 150 mph (130 kn, 240 km/h)
Range: 980 mi (850 nmi, 1,600 km)
Service ceiling: 33,200 ft (10,120 m)
Rate of climb: 2,800 ft/min (14 m/s) at sea level

Guns:
1× 0.30 in (7.62 mm) M1919 machine gun, 500 rounds (left)
1× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 machine gun, 200 rounds (right)
Bombs: 2× 116 lb (52.6 kg) Mk IV bombs, one under each wing


----------



## merlin (Mar 23, 2012)

Well I'll go for the Gloster F.5/34 for the Australians instead of the Wirraway - gives them a more capable aircraft which could be adapted to carry bombs, and no need to go for the Boomerrang. And instead of the Beaufort, the can also have the Bristol P.13/36 - bigger bomb load, and longer range.Moreover due to problems with the Hercules - not given enough power - the Aussie version uses 1600 hp Wright D/R Cyclone engines.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2012)

In 1941 the Hercules delivers 1600 HP.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 23, 2012)

Perhaps we could return to the original question. The key thing is what was actually available in 1937? Not B25, B26 Beaufort, Beaufighter or any CAC proposal. Canada had the ability to make engines, Australia did not unless resources were spent on creating from scratch and they would be far more expensive than making some more of the same in the UK and exporting them. The starting point has to be 1. the purpose and 2 what engines can be made. After that you can look at the aircraft. Best US fighter on offer is P36, once you have paid out for the rolling machines and arranging the steel strip to suit the Hurricane is easiest to build (as shown by the licence built ones). For bombers x2 of the same engines as the fighters. Again (sorry Australians) Canada has the means to do the more complex parts like powered turrets and both could settle on guns more powerful that the .303" the UK was committed to by industrial inertia. This is a more difficult decision than the fighters and I suggest that Australia should have looked to a smaller, lighter type the the Canadians. So we would be looking for a twin engined light bomber/torpedo for Australian production and a twin engined heavy bomber for the Canadians with the range to command the western North Atlantic and the Pacific coastline.

My own choice would be Merlins in both cases and Hurricanes for both fighters but the Merlin engined bombers are more difficult to choose. What would people choose for these? Remember you are choosing in 1937 and need to work in Imperial units (or American ones as they are now called) and for governments who don't want to spend money on defence as they expect UK or US to support them if attacked.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 23, 2012)

Australia did OK with making the Wasp under license and that lead to the Twin Wasp. Any other engine path offers may more difficulties. The sleeve valve engines are out. Merlin may require more ability than the Australians have in 1937/38 even though it has more potential. 

A twin engine medium bomber may do OK for a good part of the war but a twin engine heavy is a waste of time for the Australians in 1937-41. The only British designs are the Whitley and the Wellington. With just 2400hp on tap from two engines any heavy bomber is going to be a sitting duck for ANY Japanese fighter in daylight and No twin engine bomber flying from Australian bases is going to find any worthwhile Japanese targets by night. If the RAAf can't find large German cities at night the RAAF isn't going to find small coastal bases, jungle airstrips or anchorages for small groups of ships.


----------



## yulzari (Mar 23, 2012)

If one considers Canadian and Australian Merlin production as a sort of remote shadow factory then the Merlin is quite feasible for both (ie don't be clever, just make it like the existing ones). 

I agree accurate night attacks are beyond either side at the time but again I have to return to the alternatives available at the time, not what we might have preferred to be available. 

For the Canadian option the Whitley would be my choice. A reasonable range to cover Canadian shores, a good bomb load and useful for Canadian use in Europe. Wellington has too weirdly specialised a construction system and only remained in production into 1945 as Vickers could make bugger all else without razing the factories to the ground and beginning again. 

For the Australians a smaller faster torpedo and bomb armed airframe is necessary for daylight attacks on shipping and ground targets. Now we know how vulnerable such aircraft can be without fighter cover but this was not so obvious in the given time frame. A Merlin Beaufighter would be nice but is it available in this timescale? I am tempted by the Gloster 'Reaper'. For those unconvinced of the desireability of Merlins for Australia perhaps a Twin Wasp Gloster as a torpedo and light bomber? A Merlin Gloster would be an impressive beast if Australians can live with a limited bomb load. If the Australians went to Twin Wasp engines we are looking to some sort of Twin Wasp Hurricane (although the Swedish FVSS J22 shows what could be done with a Twin Wasp fighter but again out of our period.) If it doesn't exist in 1937 you can't have it to make in 1938/39. As a possibility at least the Hampden was designed to act as a torpedo bomber.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 23, 2012)

The Merlin was built in Australia later, the problem is building them in 1937-41. There are hundreds of little pieces that go into an aircraft engine that the main plant does not make, like bolts, nuts, fittings, studs and in some cases even valves and valve springs and such are supplied by outside companies. It is a lot easier to manufacture a 2nd or third type of aircraft engine when some of the suppliers have gotten some experience with one or two contracts already.

Aircraft engine bolts are not usually the same as car engine bolts. Different torque specifications, different allowable stretch, different quality control and so on. 

Once you figure out how to make sodium cooled valves for one engine making them for the 2nd and 3rd engine gets easier. 

Even bearings were often contracted out to specialty bearing manufacturers. 

It is not a question of being clever and making something the home factory was not. It is a question of being able to find the needed hundreds of subcontractors that the home home factory took for granted, or taking several years to build up the needed subcontractor network.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 24, 2012)

The problem for australia with regard to engine technology was that we were denied all access to any british enegine tech from the beginning of the war until well into 1943. the British adopted an incredibly short sighted approach, particularly after the fall of france. This included any completed engines, any technical drawings and jigs or dies. Canada was slightly better off than us, because they had some existing licences and production capability which the British govt could hardly revoke or do anything about, but for Australia it meant many of our prewar or early war projects, like the CA-4 were still borne. We had no access to any engine tecnology with anything like adequate HP until September 1941, and then only 1200HP of the twin Wasp. We did not produce Merlins until 1944, and never produced Griffins, though they were planned and allowed for (to the extent of tooling up) for 1945.

Australia did not have the technical skills to design their own engines, and was denied accews to modern technology for the critical early years of the war. It was to Wacketts credit that he was able to recover from this setback as quickly as he did. The decision to produce the twin wasp was made in June 1940, the first engines were delivered in September 1941.....thats pretty efficient by any standard

If the British had not been so one eyed about their engine techs, Australia mobilzation in the sero industry would have been 1.5-2 years ahead of what it was. We would have gone to war (in the Pacific) with about 1500 a/c instead of the 425 that we had. Malaya would have been defended by CA-12 instead of Buffaloes, and Beauforts instead of Hudsons and Blenheims. We would have had a number of CA-4 squadrons, and probably a re-worked Light Bomber version of the Wirraway (though thats just opinion) 

Unit costs for Australian produced aircraft were not, as far as I can tell any more expensive than the foreign products being imported at that time. imprts under wartime conditions, when they were available, were made more expensive due to the worldwide shortages in shipping. anything domestically produced had that advantage in its favour, which was considerable. Our problem wasnt unit costs, it was that outputs were insufficient and engine outputs in particular were too limited to keep up with demand. In 1945, Australia had the 4th biggest air force in the world.....bigger by some hundreds over the RCAF and nearly a 1000 more than the LW. Domestic production only accounted for a fraction of that strength, however. We relied far too heavily on sometimes difficult to get imports, and often types that foreign air forces had tried and found unsatisfactory....


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 24, 2012)

Regarding your thoughts on British twin engined bombers, Shortround; I agree. The RNZAF actually ordered 30 Wellingtons that were being readied for ferrying back to NZ when the war broke out. What use they would have been in NZ is debateable. They remained in the UK and became the basis of 75 (New Zealand) Sqn, RAF. The first 'modern' a/c that both Australia and NZ received were Lockheed Hudsons.

Parsifal, I'm curious as to why it's Britain's fault that Australia did not build engines sooner because of the embargo, as you put it. I find it a bit of a cop out that Australians blame the British for their lack of technical progress, after all, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation was formed in 1936 and the first Wirraway flew in March 1939, so how did an embargo by the British from the beginning of the war stifle Australia's growth? That had already begun by then. Starting with the NA-16 powered by the P&W R-1340 was a pretty good first step for a fledgling Australian aviation industry. I'm aware there was pressure to 'Buy British', but Wackett got around it - as is plainly evident - before the war started.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 24, 2012)

> Parsifal, I'm curious as to why it's Britain's fault that Australia did not build engines sooner because of the embargo, as you put it. I find it a bit of a cop out that Australians blame the British for their lack of technical progress, after all, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation was formed in 1936 and the first Wirraway flew in March 1939, so how did an embargo by the British from the beginning of the war stifle Australia's growth? That had already begun by then. Starting with the NA-16 powered by the P&W R-1340 was a pretty good first step for a fledgling Australian aviation industry. I'm aware there was pressure to 'Buy British', but Wackett got around it - as is plainly evident - before the war started


.


Australias progress in its aeronautical industru was actually fairly impressive. We had progressed a long way in the period 1915-35. 1915 was the first year that stell was produced in commericial quantities. the first aluminium smelters were not put into place until either 1939 or 1940. Our industry was progreessing pretty rapidly, but overwhelmingly the biggest limit was investment. then, as now Australia was very heavily dependant on foreign finance for growth. There was some government money, but much of this foreign investment came from foreign companies investing in local companies to a greater or lesser extent. And whilst british money continued to dominate in the traditional areas....railways, roads, bridges and the like, money for new technology based industries, like automotive and aer industries, came more from the US. What automotive industry that was developed (mostly franchises to sell cars, but some local manufacturing content) came from US companies like Ford and GM. 

When it came to setting up an aeronautical industry, both the private sector and Government, preferred the British industry to American. the best engines, the best designs, were both considered to be from England. I dont know how true that was as a fact, but the perception was there. So much effort was expended prewar trying to entice companies like Hawker, Gloster, and De Havilland to set up component manufacture in this country. I think through a mix of distance and lack of depth in the British industry, all this courting and fancy footwork was never going to work. The British did not want to let the Americans in on what they saw as their turf, but neither did they have the means, or the real motivation, to do so themselves. There was an exception (isnt there always)....Dehavilland were prepared to make the investment, grant the production licences, and provide the specialist technicians to set up the local industry in a way that none of the other British companies were prepred to do.

Despite the lack of tangible progress with the British companies investing in Australia, ther were pleanty of promises given. Thats why wackett expected that once war broke out, the Brits would be clamouring to set u0p factories in Australia similar to the way they had done in Canada. I can only imagine his bitter disappointment when, in 1939, a total embargo on such investment and export of technology was imposed by the british Government. All the promises, all the designs waiting for engines were stifled in one blow. It must have seem by some as a betrayal no less devastating than that which occurred two years later with the fall of Singapore, and the failure of the British to drop everything in the med(particulalry) and come running....the fact that such a move was harmful to the overall war effeort, and totally out of touch with reality is bedide the point, it was a promise given, one held very deeply by Australians, and not honoured. For those in the fledgling Australian aer industry, the "betrayal" by ther British in 1939-40 was 9in my opinion) no less devastating.

Australia was able to find ways to get around this otherwise mortal blow, but it was never plannied that way. Single wasps were being produced to fit into the NA-16 (the Wirraway) being built here. The NA-16 had been adopted because the Brits had been so slow, and so relauctant to set up a line to produce one of their own....

That whole periood....1938-42 was a time of radical realignment for Australia. Australia didnt just wake up Feb 16 1942 and decide it was time to throw their lot in with the Americans and ditch the Brits on that day. The split with the brits had been coming for some time and a small part of that schism was the failures by the British to lend proper assistance in a timely manner, but worse, to make promises that they would, and not really have any intention of honouring them. It was a tawdry episode in British relations I can tell you.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 24, 2012)

Parsifal, interesting information and since I'm not Australian, I can perhaps look at this delicate situation with more objectivity that yourself. I find it quite incredible that Aussies claim they were deserted by Britain and to this day continue to blame Britain for what Aussies consider its failure to protect them in the war. The blaming of the British for Australia's lack of technical development is extraordinarily self centred and narrow minded, driven by a not so cordial relationship between Britain's and Australia's Prime Ministers.

Lets look at the facts. Firstly and foremost, from September 1939 Great Britain was at war. The lack of supply of industry to Australia can easily - and should be under the circumstances, despite promises to the contrary - be forgiven, because as we know, the perception from mid 1940 in Britain and elsewhere was that Germany was going to invade and the war was going to be lost. A bit much for Australia to expect the creation of an industry from scratch by Britain under the circumstances.

To add to this, Britain _was_ supplying Australia with aircraft and the development of an aviation industry throught 1939, 1940 and 1941 and had been in favour of such an undertaking since a few years before the war. The decision to buy the Beaufort for the RAAF took place in August 1938, after which an order for 180 Beauforts in July 1939 that were to be divided equally between the RAF and RAAF. The reason for the length of time between commitment and the first Beaufort flying in Australia (August 1941)_might_ be construed as a lack of effort by Britain, but is better explained by the fact that Australia was undertaking production of a modern combat aircraft out of nothing. A vast undertaking.

Lets also add to that by stating that by the outbreak of war Britain had begun supplying the first of over 1,000 Avro Ansons to Australia; the bulk of these between 1940 and 1943 to bolster the Empire Air Training Scheme. Whilst the Anson was not a particularly modern type, 1,000 of them is a lot of metal (and fabric) that Britain could have invested in its own interests. Not only that, but the Fairey Battle was being assembled (but not produced) in Australia; the first of 350 (again, a lot of metal) completed in mid 1940. Furthermore, Short Sunderlands that never reached Australia because of the outbreak of war had been ordered and squadrons established to operate them in Aussie.

To add to this, we can also include mass production of the Tiger Moth by DHA after the outbreak of war in support of the EATS; the proposition that DHA could have built anything more sophisticated than the D.H.84 Dragon at that time is ludicrous, however. What we can add is that interest in Australia building the Mosquito was shared by both countries as early as September 1941.

The other type under consideration at the time for manufacture in Australia was the Beaufighter, interest in the type by the RAAF came about in June 1939 when 18 were ordered. Obviously production did not happen for a few years, but the Beaufighter was very much under consideration to suplement and replace the Beaufort in Australia. In fact, Britain supplied Beaufighters to Australia in October 1942 before it had sent any to the RAF in the Far East. This was, of course before the first Aussie Beau had been built.

Perhaps the British might have been keen to place an embargo on Australia out of spite for ordering Lockheed Hudsons in November 1938, which the British were opposed to and for Wackett putting an American type into production, but clearly, this was not the case.

Your claims about the Med and the Fall of Singapore are also not well considered. The Mediterranean was vital to Britain's interests and it was of utmost importance to eject the Germans and Italians from North Africa, without control of the Med would have been a whole lot harder.

As for Singapore, in hindsight there's nothing that Britain could have done to bring about a different outcome. A handful of aircraft built in Australia was not going to make a lick of difference. By mid 1941 Britain was on the backfoot on almost every front of the war. Her cities were being bombed, not least disrupting industry, merchant shipping, Britain's lifeline to the outside world was being severely mauled by the German U-boats, the British army was retreating in North Africa and was rebuilding after Dunkirk, the RAF was committed building for an enormous strategic bombing campaign and rebuilding after the Battle of Britain and the Royal Navy suffered high losses in the Med and the Atlantic. Then Japan invades Singapore to top off a pretty lousy year all round.

Exactly how Australia expected Britain to come to the rescue is a bit of a mystery, but what I don't understand is why Australia did not turn to the United States sooner. Although aircraft had been ordered, why was so much expectation put on Britain when clearly the USA was in a better position to re arm Australia? New Zealand Prime Minister Peter Fraser chose to align his country militarily to the USA prior to Japan's entry into the war, necessary because New Zealand was probably more vulnerable to invasion than Australia. Although the Japanese could have invaded Aussie in the north, let's face it, they would have died of thirst and starvation before they got anywhere near Brisbane.

Parsifal, don't take this rebuttal personally; I find your posts in general informative and interesting, even if I don't always agree with them. I have always considered this attitude by Australia as suspect and unrealistic.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 25, 2012)

Part I of II



> I find it quite incredible that Aussies claim they were deserted by Britain and to this day continue to blame Britain for what Aussies consider its failure to protect them in the war.



Its not so much that the British failed the Australians in their hour of need. More, it was that Australians made plans to prepre for their own defence in 1939, were asked in a number of ways to lend assistance to the british in their 9the British) hour of need, in excahnge for promises about Imperial defence. The australians accepted those promises at face value, and we "foregoed" our defence plans in exchamge for those promises. the promises given were wide ranging, but included this more relevant stuff bout aircraft numbers, and that was supposed to come, in part, from domestic production. Domesitic production was supposed to be facilitated by the setting up of local production (principally engine manufacture) by the British in Australia. in the finish, the british failed to honour most of the promises they gave, whilst still accepting the help we had offered (and largely gave) in that period 1942. australias displaeasure and eventual abdonment of the british in favour of the US was more than just a dislike at Prime Ministerial level. It ran very deep was part of the national mood in 1941 and led directly to the defeat of Menzies who was seen to be far too much of an Anglophile. 



> The blaming of the British for Australia's lack of technical development is extraordinarily self centred and narrow minded, driven by a not so cordial relationship between Britain's and Australia's Prime Ministers



Half true, but half wrong as well. In the lead up to war, Australia drew up defence plans that relied very little on british support. Or at least far less than they actually did. For example, in 1939, the Australians drew plans to train and equip an air force with over 60 squadrons (ie about 1500 a/c) to defend the literal teritories of Australia. Our plans in 1939 were far different to those of 1914. We changed those plans at the requst of the british. They wanted a far greater committment of manpower and trained aircrew than we were prepred to give in our initial planning. In exchange they offered to come to ours (and the regions) defence if the Japanese got aggressive.they also agreed to certain manning levels in the far east, that in particular meant certain aircraft deployments, raised from local production. They never honoured that, worse, there is strong evidence that they deliberately misled the Australians to get what they wanted without paying for it.

This is all evidence of a maturing relationship with the British, and the Americans and the Australians, not a souring one. In 1938 Australians still hung onto the coat tails of the british. The Brits responded by giving the Australians a good kick in the guts (not becuse they wanted to, but because they had to). We eventually responded by realigning ourselves to the people who had not lied to us and who had the resources to help us defend ourselves 



> Lets look at the facts. Firstly and foremost, from September 1939 Great Britain was at war. The lack of supply of industry to Australia can easily - and should be under the circumstances, despite promises to the contrary - be forgiven, because as we know, the perception from mid 1940 in Britain and elsewhere was that Germany was going to invade and the war was going to be lost. A bit much for Australia to expect the creation of an industry from scratch by Britain under the circumstances


.

And you dont think our concerns about Japanese invasion were any less real. We did not lie to the british, but they lied to us. If they had been honest, Australia would have made arrangements far earlier than they did with the Americans. Deliberatly lying to your allies is not theway you should treat your friends, especially when each nation is facing dire threats to their very survival. And in the end, British duplicity did not help their own situation, it made it worse. Our continued belief in their promises, long after we should have realized what was really happening cost us about 1500 much needed aircraft, and about 4 divisions of experienced troops and about 20-40000 aircrew (a guesstimate).

These are the facts from the Australian perspective 




> To add to this, Britain _was_ supplying Australia with aircraft and the development of an aviation industry throught 1939, 1940 and 1941 and had been in favour of such an undertaking since a few years before the war. The decision to buy the Beaufort for the RAAF took place in August 1938, after which an order for 180 Beauforts in July 1939 that were to be divided equally between the RAF and RAAF. The reason for the length of time between commitment and the first Beaufort flying in Australia (August 1941)_might_ be construed as a lack of effort by Britain, but is better explained by the fact that Australia was undertaking production of a modern combat aircraft out of nothing. A vast undertaking.



Ah kind of true, but not at a government level. most of the initiative for the Beafort contract came from the company itself. Very little help came from the british government itself. In fact the British Government acted more like a drag chute on the whole project. The Australians were always aware that engines for these aircraft would be needed. Approaches were made to P&W from 1938 to build the double Wasp 9or similar) but the British repeatedly stepped in to thwart those negotiations. They promised from that time until 1940 to provide locally manufactured engines to power the beaforts. That greatly slowed the realization of the Beafort program. We could have had completed aircraft coming off the lines from late 39 or 1940. Instead, we had to wait until the British finalised their embargo to find alternative sources of engines, delaying first delivery by more than 18 months, and killing off a number of critical project at the same time, like the CA4. Far from assisting the Australians, the british government, despite its promises appears to have done all that it could to stifle the young industry. 




> Lets also add to that by stating that by the outbreak of war Britain had begun supplying the first of over 1,000 Avro Ansons to Australia; the bulk of these between 1940 and 1943 to bolster the Empire Air Training Scheme.



There were undoubted local beneifits arising from EATS, but the majority of benefit (about 80%) went straight back to the home country in the form of "exported" air crew, or local aircrew that ended up serving in Europe anyway. Relatively litle of EATS found its way assisting the Australians in their fight for survival in the Pacific. 





> To add to this, we can also include mass production of the Tiger Moth by DHA after the outbreak of war in support of the EATS; the proposition that DHA could have built anything more sophisticated than the D.H.84 Dragon at that time is ludicrous,



I disagree. Australia had designed an built a superior training a/c to all these prewar, the Wackett trainer, plus we had modified and were building the Wirraway, which had nothing to do with british aer industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Mar 25, 2012)

Part II of II



> The other type under consideration at the time for manufacture in Australia was the Beaufighter, interest in the type by the RAAF came about in June 1939 when 18 were ordered. Obviously production did not happen for a few years, but the Beaufighter was very much under consideration to suplement and replace the Beaufort in Australia.



All true, but missing is the reason it was delayed "for a few year". Originally it had been intended to produce the Beafighter, from locally produced Hercules engines (it might have been Taurus, I would have to look it up). When the British slapped on their embargo, this project, like all the others affected by British duplicitious promised were still borne. Beaufighters were not produced locally until 1944, and I dont think any were locally engined



> In fact, Britain supplied Beaufighters to Australia in October 1942 before it had sent any to the RAF in the Far East. This was, of course before the first Aussie Beau had been built.



I see this as an attempt to mend a bridge that was already broken. by then, Curtin had already changed allegiances and the british realized just how much damage they had caused to the relationship. 



> Perhaps the British might have been keen to place an embargo on Australia out of spite for ordering Lockheed Hudsons in November 1938, which the British were opposed to and for Wackett putting an American type into production, but clearly, this was not the case.



I think your reasoning is correct, but it is not clear that it was "clearly not the case". The British I believe intended to "eventually" produce aircraft in Australi, at a time that suited them, not at a time that suited us, or the situation we were facing. The Hudson, PBY and Wirraway deals were all in stark contrast to the way the british were treating us at the time. These three aircraft were all delivered ahead of shcedule, amnd represented the best the Americans could produce at the time. By comparison, the British assistance packages were either late, inadequate or never arrived at all 



> Your claims about the Med and the Fall of Singapore are also not well considered. The Mediterranean was vital to Britain's interests and it was of utmost importance to eject the Germans and Italians from North Africa, without control of the Med would have been a whole lot harder


.

Im not saying the promises given were sound from a military point of view. But whilst we asked for such undertakings, it was the british perrogative to either give them, or mot. They were asked this very question AFTER the entry of Italy...."what will you do if the Japanese attack whilst you are at war with italy and Germany?" Their answer was unequivocal, and as it turned out, a complete lie "we will of course abandon the med, abandon North Africa and divert maximum resources to the far east. They did no such thing. They sent an ll considered unbalanced Task Force to be promtly sunk and diverted virtually none of their air reserves to the TO 



> As for Singapore, in hindsight there's nothing that Britain could have done to bring about a different outcome. A handful of aircraft built in Australia was not going to make a lick of difference.



Disagree. Instead of 180, ther might have been 5 or 600. Instead of inadequate types, like the Blenheim, there would have been types like the CA-12 and CA-4. Instead of relatively inexperienced air crews, we might have had aircrew with two or three years of experience. instead of just 2 Brigades of Australian, we might have had 5 or 6 divisions. Instead of 2 battleships, we might have had 3 battleshipe, 7 cruisers and about 12 DDs ( looking at the cancelled local projects) . That may well have made a difference



> By mid 1941 Britain was on the backfoot on almost every front of the war. Her cities were being bombed, not least disrupting industry, merchant shipping, Britain's lifeline to the outside world was being severely mauled by the German U-boats, the British army was retreating in North Africa and was rebuilding after Dunkirk, the RAF was committed building for an enormous strategic bombing campaign and rebuilding after the Battle of Britain and the Royal Navy suffered high losses in the Med and the Atlantic. Then Japan invades Singapore to top off a pretty lousy year all round


.

I accept all that, but it is still inexcusable for them to lie to us, to the extent of placing our country in exactly the same position as them except that our enemy was the Japanese, not the Germans. friends are not supposed to do that. Evidently the british did not consider the Australian worthy of the term "friends. There were elements of the British Government, beginning with Churchill that viewed us as "colonials" a resource to be exploited, and not worth the trouble of an honest answer. 




> Exactly how Australia expected Britain to come to the rescue is a bit of a mystery, but what I don't understand is why Australia did not turn to the United States sooner.



Because whereas the US was viewed as a strnaager in 1938, friendly, but not family, the British were seen as family ("mother England" etc). You dont expect your own mother to lie to you, or act in a way not in your own best interest 



> Although aircraft had been ordered, why was so much expectation put on Britain when clearly the USA was in a better position to re arm Australia?



Wackett had wanted to do that from 1938. he had some wins, but the British kept making promises which were believed by Menzies. In hindsight we should have done exactly what you are saying, but the failure of the earlier development of the Australian aircraft industry can be traced to two things....the imatutity of our industry and the government, on the one hand, and on the other, the near malevolent behaviour of the British governmtn in thwarting that development. 



> New Zealand Prime Minister Peter Fraser chose to align his country militarily to the USA prior to Japan's entry into the war, necessary because New Zealand was probably more vulnerable to invasion than Australia. Although the Japanese could have invaded Aussie in the north, let's face it, they would have died of thirst and starvation before they got anywhere near Brisbane.



Logistically it proved impossible to invade because of the victories at Coral Sea and Midway. Lets assume that Coral Sea and Midway were Japanese overwhelming victories....what stops the Japanese from landing down the eastern seaboard , which is in fact one of the options they considered. nobody in their right mind invades Australia from the North. They do it by controlling the seas and invading where they need to 



> Parsifal, don't take this rebuttal personally; I find your posts in general informative and interesting, even if I don't always agree with them. I have always considered this attitude by Australia as suspect and unrealistic.



No need to apologise and we are still friends (I hope. Its an engaging debate. Tell me if you want time out. it aint worth a divorce my friend


----------



## yulzari (Mar 25, 2012)

Parcival, I don't want to get too involved in a matter that strays from the original question, but I do want to point out that, at the time of the entry of Italy into the war, France was Britain's partner. Once the German advance was coped with (as they expected to) France was willing to undertake naval control of the Mediterranean and use it's North African army to cope with Italy in Libya and the Middle East to thus allow Britain to meet any Japanese attack in the Far East and that then included covering India, Burma, Malaya, French Indo-China, supporting the Dutch East Indies, as well as Australia and New Zealand. 

By 1941 Britain was without French assistance (touchy subject there) and expected a German invasion. I can tell you to within 2 square metres where my grandfather would have died in the Home Guard if they had invaded in 1941 and he was an ex-RSM who had fought in South Africa and from 1914 to 1918 in France so knew he would die if an invasion came.

To return to the subject, I was wondering if the Martin Maryland might not be suitable for the Australian twin engined Twin Wasp role? Fast and proved capable of attacking it's Italian peers with sucess using the front 4x.7.7mm fixed guns.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 25, 2012)

Whilst I have already broadly summarised what happened to the Australians 1939-41, it might be useful to provide a little further detail, to answer the abive question. 

In September 1939, Australias initial position was to resist any significant foreign deployments of its armed forces until home production and training allowed for safe deployment of such forces. moreover, such forces as could be spared were to concentrate on the defence of Singapore, with just one division and 3 squadrons of aircraft proposed to be sent to the middle east, to guard the Suez Canal. No troops or aircraft were to be sent to the western front. 

Menzies summarised the Australian position to the London High Commissioner, SM Bruce....""until japans position was established, it was imprudent to sending an expeditionary force". Similar conclusions were drawn about the Navy and air force

The British responded to this assessment on the 9 September. They again restated their 1937 committment to sending a strong battlefleet and maximum air and land resources to defend Singapore within 70 days of a Japanese DoW. Amongst their other statements, they reiterated their promise to assist the Australians in setting up their home based war industries. On the basis of that promise, the Australians were asked to increase their committment to the Far East, With regard to aircraft industry, the Australians made some faeful decisions. They deferred development of any locally designed and engined fighter as they had been promised the setting up, and or supply of British supplied aircraft. Out of this came the Buffaloes, that were promptly diverted to Malaya, and not a one to Australia. The Australians continued to make arrangements for Beafort production, in the belief that the required engine assmbly plants would be set up by the middle of 1940 at the latest. They deferred any detailed negotiations with the Americans at that point, all on the basis of the British promise of urgent and substantial reinforcement if the Japanese sirred. 

That agreemenht continued until November 1940, when the Imperial Confernece on Imperial Defence took place. That was well after the fall of france, and well after the Australians had begun to get cold feet, because none of the promises about assistance by the British had as yet turned into anything tangible. It was still all one way traffic. We were training 1120 aircrew per month by that stage and retaining just 60 of those for local (including Malayan) defences). The rest were being sent to England and the Middle East. 

Australia by the time of that Imperial Conference in late 1940 was thoruoughly alarmed and very disgruntled with the British 

Between June and December, the British made further misrepresentations of their true intentions and made further requests on the Australian Government that placed us in even deeper trouble. We had in June indicated that we did not wish to send 4 divisions of toops to the middle East, as this would leave Malaya seriously weakened in our estimation. We wanted to leave one division in Australia, to help train the AMF cadres and deploy the 8th and 7th Divisions to Malaya. It was calculated that by June 1941 we could have a further 2 divisions fuly trained and deployed into Malaya. With regard to air strength, the Australians calculated that if the embargo by the british were lifted, they could have about 580 first line aircraft ready and deployed in Malaya and a further 900 or so in continental Ausrtralia by Septemeber '41.

It was at that conference in Novemeber that the british were asked a direct question. They answered that they would of course drop everything and come to the regions defence if the Jpanese attacked. It proved to be a promise they could not keep, I believe they never intended to honour that committment 

The general conclusion of the Australian delegation was that, in the absence of a main fleet in the Far East, the forces and equipment available for the defence of Malaya were totally inadequate to meet a major attack by Japan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 25, 2012)

Perhaps Australia should have stood up to the UK


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 25, 2012)

Parsifal, I haven't yet had time to read through your ample response and I'm looking forward to doing so. It's just that I'm a little pressed for time right now.



> Perhaps Australia should have stood up to the UK?


 I've actually thought the same thing myself and I hinted at it in my post; New Zealand turned to the US for military aid, which upset the Brits considerably. Once a New Zealand delegation was sent to the USA, Peter Fraser and Roosevelt actually became friends, which must have helped relations enormously. Roosevelt's wife even travelled to NZ during the war for some r 'n r and stayed with the Frasers' in Wellington. Mind you, Fraser also got on well with Churchill. If I can remember, John Curtin, the Aussie PM didn't, which explains some of the hostility.

I do realise also that we are straying a little off topic here too!

As for the suggestion of the Maryland, perhaps the A-20 Havoc would have been more suitable; the RAAF used them in any case.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 25, 2012)

As for a possible aircraft to build the Catalina would have been a good choice


i


----------



## parsifal (Mar 26, 2012)

A few things I should say. From a purely self interest standpoint Australia should have been more independant than it was, moreover, from the british perspective, indeed from a general; Allied perspective it made sense not to strip out ther med front, and for Australia to concentrate on the emergency at hand rather than the emergency they most feared but not upon them. all that is conceded. This is not a blaming session, but its understanding why the Australians were not in a good position to undertake a more vigorous domestic production program in 1939 and 1940. 

You cant have it both ways. if Australia had opted for a more independant stance, we would have told the british to shove off in 1939 and refused to send the AIF, parts of the navy and 6 squadrons of aircraft (2/3 of our air strength at the time) off to the ME. This would have scr*wed the Brits in the med in a big way in 1940-1, and probably have led to the loss of Suez in April or May 1941, but it also would have meant a much stronger and effective supply of aircraft, a better trained home defence army and probably would have dealt the Japanese a stiff bloody nose in Malaya in 1941-2. The outcome would, in the finish have been the same. I am not that presumptuous to claim the Australians had the ability to produce war winning effects, just that the cause of the war would have been different in that situation 

But its unrealistic to expect the Australians would act any different to the way they did. We had only theoretically gained control of our foreign relations in 1931, but that was more theoretical than actual. in relaity, right up to 1942, the British continued to hold great sway over our foreign poliocy, and that included foreign investment. It was just never going to happen for Australia to follow its own consciousness in terms of foreign relations/foreign poliicy in the 1930s. we were not yet a fully independant nation at that point.


----------



## Wildcat (Mar 26, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> . I find it quite incredible that Aussies claim they were deserted by Britain and to this day continue to blame Britain for what Aussies consider its failure to protect them in the war.



Its understandable (rightly or wrongly) when you think of the forces Britain sent to help defend Australia in 1942, our darkest hour. When our backs were against the wall, RAAF airmen were still being sent to England and the Desert, RAN naval assets still fought in the Med and Indian Ocean and the 9th division still fought at El Alamein. But what in return, three squadrons of Spitfires - two of which were Australian anyway, and in so small numbers that they weren't operational until 1943. As for aircraft deliveries, apart from a handfull of Beaufighters, the vast majority of aircraft supplied in 1942 were training types. You can't wage battle against the Japanese with Ansons, Oxfords, Battles and Tiger Moths - good for training men to serve overseas in the RAF, no good in defending Darwin on Port Moresby.
This is why some have the attitude that we were "let down".


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 26, 2012)

I wanted to interject the thought that whatever the choices made by Australia and Canada, one can't ignore the influence and presence of the elephant in both their houses.

Seems to me Australia's apparent and actual vulnerablity suffered initially from a horribly disorganized USAAF (Thanks to Big Mac and his yes-man Sutherland). It is my impression (perhaps incorrect due to my profound ignorance of the subject) that the chaotic USAAF situation, aggravating Australia's vulnerability to air attack, existed until the arrival of Kenny, July 28, 1942, and was due in part because maintaining the Australian political status quo was considered at least as important as fighting the Japanese? I have to wonder if there wasn't some local political counter-pressure to Australia's reliance on the leadership of a man who had just lost his entire air force and the PI, and who ultimately abandoned his army to their ultimate fate at the hands of their Japanese conquerers? Surely there was some degree of dissent?

I don't quite understand the rift between Brett, and Curtain Mac but suspect he may have been trying to open a political flank to gain leverage on Mac/Sutherland to gain control of his own AF. Control of which may have been initially (November-December 1941) preempted by Sutherland, using Mac's authority. My admitedly tenuous understanding of these events procedes from Kenney's arrival and confrontation with Sutherland over control of his AF and thereafter becoming a staunch political supporter of Mac. Evidently, Mac burned through General's Brereton and Brett before finding his ultimate air czar in Kenney. It appears fotuitous that Marshall gave Mac only one other choice: Doolittle, a man whose fame ecipsed even that of Mac's. The choice then was obvious. 

How many of the large amount of P-40's sent to Oz, intended to reinforce FEAF in the PI, ended up based in Australia, operating from Darwin, Batchelor or Port Moresby? It seems to me USAAF defense of Australia was not considered a priority until after the fall of Java. I don't know how Curtin is actually regarded in Australia but Wikipedia's favorable profile contained the following quote by Big Mac. 

General Douglas MacArthur said that Curtin was "one of the greatest of the wartime statesmen".

I have to wonder if his good reputation in Oz is based upon media savvy and theatrics similar to those employed by Mac and were they birds of a feather?

I should add that US histories of the war in 1942 seem to recognize the fall of the PI, the USN's early carrier raids, the defense of Bataan and Coorregidor quickly followed by the Coral Sea and Midway Battles. I have read of a few, minor, land-based air-actions during the early (pre-July 1942) New Guinea Campaign but it appears that the Japanese spent the time after the fall of Java and Rabaul largely reconsituting its strength and consolidating its early gains.

What's the point (Pint?), you might ask? Canada wasn't in the immediate danger that Australia faced. Moreover, Canada's need for an indigenous aviation industry had been met years earlier. It had the best of all worlds: including: 

1. A relatively mature aircraft industry including aircraft and engine manufacturing
2. Available natural resources
3. Distant enemies with no immediate invasion threat
4. A 500 pound gorilla living next door who would be deeply offended if anyone else decided to give its neighbor a wedgie
5. A climate so cold no one was interested in invading
6. few sheep.

In the meantime, the Australians had to settle for the intermittent defensive shield provided by the USN while awaiting the real security only an embedded large air force could provide: The national security the US had promised to provide and therefore the Australians had a right to expect. Is it possible the USA overestimated and oversold what security it could provide simply to obtain the contracts for future sales... No, that would be unallylike. 

Compared to Canada, the Australian's world appears far from optimum. It found itself with:

1. An aircraft industry in its infancy
2. Available natural resources
3. A nearby enemy who _appeared_ to be ready and fully capable of invading in the forseeable future (regardless of its advisabilty).
4. No large, relatively powerful nearby neighbor to aid in its defense
5. a benign and inviting climate.
6. plenty of sheep?

And dare I say it, these factors were not apparent to its enlightened leadership? I know about this kind of leadership. I live in the USA. 

Well 2 out of 6 isn't too bad.


----------



## Wildcat (Mar 26, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I should add that US histories of the war in 1942 seem to recognize the fall of the PI, the USN's early carrier raids, the defense of Bataan and Coorregidor quickly followed by the Coral Sea and Midway Battles. I have read of a few, minor, land-based air-actions during the early (pre-July 1942) New Guinea Campaign but it appears that the Japanese spent the time after the fall of Java and Rabaul largely reconsituting its strength and consolidating its early gains.



Hi Oldcrow. 1942 was the crucial year of the war for Australia. The North of the country came under aerial attack many times (Darwin defended by the 49th FG USAAF), a limited submarine offensive was undertaken by the Japanese off the East Coast of Australia, including a midget sub attack on Sydney Harbour. The aerial defence of Port Moresby was initially undertaken by a single RAAF P-40 squadron (the only allied fighter squadron in New Guniea at the time). Australian soldiers were fighting a gruelling campaign over the owen stanley mountains (google Kokoda), later at Milne Bay, Australian soldiers and airmen successfully defeated a Japanese amphibious landing until finally in late '42 Australian and American ground forces went on the offensive at the very costly battles of Buna, Gona and Sanananda.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 26, 2012)

Wildcat said:


> Hi Oldcrow. 1942 was the crucial year of the war for Australia. The North of the country came under aerial attack many times (Darwin defended by the 49th FG USAAF), a limited submarine offensive was undertaken by the Japanese off the East Coast of Australia, including a midget sub attack on Sydney Harbour. The aerial defence of Port Moresby was initially undertaken by a single RAAF P-40 squadron (the only allied fighter squadron in New Guniea at the time). Australian soldiers were fighting a gruelling campaign over the owen stanley mountains (google Kokoda), later at Milne Bay, Australian soldiers and airmen successfully defeated a Japanese amphibious landing until finally in late '42 Australian and American ground forces went on the offensive at the very costly battles of Buna, Gona and Sanananda.



Thanks Wildcat,

Your reference to the 49th was exactly what I was hoping to see. I actually had a biography of George Preddy I hadn't yet read  and it records some of the events you've described. Much of what you listed above was post-July 1942 and that has received somewhat better historical coverage in the states; I am sure because of the proximity and involvement of US forces. However, I believe the activities of he 49th FG are perhaps not quite as well known. Perhaps I misspoke and the USAAF did provide some solid, well organized aerial defensive capability to Northern Australia. I am glad to learn of it, but was shocked to find that Darwin was bombed not once or twice but dozens of times. the following web site described some of Preddy's experience in the 49th FG:

Darwin's Few

This same web site contains the following quote: 

"Darwin endured 46 raids during the war with a total of 64 in the top end."

Wikipedia has the following shocking (to me, at least) quote:

"Between February 1942 and November 1943, during the Pacific War, the Australian mainland, domestic airspace, offshore islands and coastal shipping were attacked at least 97 times by aircraft from the Imperial Japanese Navy and Imperial Japanese Army Air Force. These attacks came in various forms; from large-scale raids by medium bombers, to torpedo attacks on ships, and to strafing runs by fighters."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Darwin

I expect some of my bias toward Big Mac was derived from a quote I heard as a pup: "Mac was willing to fight the Japanese to the last Australian."

another late note: I meant bias _*against*_ Big Mac


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 28, 2012)

Hello Parsifal and co. Well, as I expected, a reasonable and well thought out set of answers to my query.

While I understand that Britain made promises and sure, they did not honour them, I still find it hard to accept that the Australians accused them of lying under the circumstances. Two of you hint at the suggestion that Britain might have pulled its forces out of the Med and North Africa to defend Australia. Are you kidding me? I cannot believe that, even if Britain promised it, that it would actually happen - so Britain couldn't live up to its promises; there was a war on. British and Australian troops were involved and if I can recall, Australia declared war on Germany as well. Aussies who committed themselves to the British armed forces could not by contract extract themselves from the war if they wanted to, which I'm sure they wouldn't have wanted to in any rate. As for Aussie units; it's foolhardy to have expected them to do this in the middle of a war zone. To me, your argument of "But what in return" is petty minded tit-for-tat under the circumstances.

As for the threat of Japan, no one was prepared for it. Not the Americans, not the British and considering what happened, its easy to say that Britain should have done more with the considerable benefit of hindsight, but at the time, despite what actions Japan carried out in China, none of the major world powers did more at the time. Your claim that 500 or more Australian built aircraft could have made a difference. Not likely. Not at all, in fact. Firstly, there's no way that even with an embargo not in place Australia could have had such numbers of aircraft available to them from their own manufacture, secondly, if the British were to send aircraft and ships to the Far East, from where were they going to get them? In 1939, the RAF was still partially equipped with obsolete biplanes, the Spit, Hurricane, Blenheim, Battle numbers were barely adequate to cover Britain's own needs, let alone bolster the Far East, similarly with warships. 

The simple fact was that nothing any of the powers could have done at that time could have stopped the Japanese invasion of the Far East. Only the United States with its superior numbers of equipment _might_ have (and that's a heavily loaded _might_, too), there's no way the British could have at all with a war raging in Europe. Not without severely compromising its home forces, which would have left Britain high and dry and would have done no use to Australia at all. 

It is unrealistic to expect Britain to have been able to give more assistance to Australia at the time, despite promises to the contrary. Claims of lying serve only to invoke hostility between the two parties and instead of realising the situation was hopeless, in typical Australian style, the Australian government sought to blame the British. I still find this utterly incomprehensible under the circumstances. It certainly did nothing to assist relations between the two nations.

Surely you have to realise that with Britain's declaration of war against Germany in 1939 changed everything (how can you not?!). It was far more important and necessary for Britain to have carried out things the way it did than to denude its home defences to supply a nation that was not at that time directly under threat. Any thoughts to the contrary are just ridiculous, guys. The British did not lie about the supply of aircraft and assistance to Australia; as I have pointed out, a large amount of support was given - sure, it had conditions (why wouldn't the British insist that the Beufort be built for the RAF also? It's a British aircraft!), but it was delayed by war. Australia did receive the supply of aircraft and equipment. Sure it was late as you claim, but I'll say it again; there was a war on and Australia's ability to produce aircraft was truely in its infancy.

Yes, the majority of aircraft the Aussies had were training types, but that was by agreement with the Australian government. Not only that, advanced aircrew training was something that was needed by both parties, not just Britain. (Parsifal, you also misread my stement about De Havilland Australia - you need to re-read what I wrote). When the decision to build the Beaufort in Australia was made, it had only just flown in Britain, so was considered an advanced combat type. 

As for the embargo; although I can't verify it, it was probably done to prevent a loss of supply to factories in Britain, sensibly needed in 1940. There was a little thing we now call the Battle of Britain raging. Any thoughts of Britain witholding equipment to delibrately stifle Australia's growth is just ludicrous and unecessarily antagonistic. Getting production lines running in Australia was entirely to the benefit of British armed forces, but with Aussie so far away and merchant shipping being torpedoed on a regular basis meant that such a supply was unreliable, to say the least.

One thing that stands as a criticism of Britain is its 'Buy British' policy, and this alone stands as an argument against what you are claiming as official reluctance to allow Australia to stand on her own two feet. It doesn't make sense that the British would only approve of British types, then deliberately scupper any chances Australia would have of acquiring British equipment. It doesn't add up. This is why I don't believe Britain had much choice in not honouring her promises to Australia. Britain was opposed to the sale of American military aircraft to her colonies, but during wartime there was no other immediate alternative; even Britain herself had to turn to the USA for equipment. 

Here is something that Britain was guilty of, not supporting and going to the defence of Czechoslovakia in 1938. The Munich Crisis was a shameful event in history and had Britain gone to the aid of the Czechs against the Nazis, perhaps world events might have been different, but their policy of peace reigned over their foreign policy, at any cost, as it was. To Chamberlian's credit however, it was he who ordered an increase in production of military types and a more 'warlike' stance at the time, so he did something right. It was he who recommended the increase in production of fighters, which led to the building of the Langley plant for Hawker and the decision of Gloster to build Hurricanes and not Wellingtons, as the C-in-C RAF Cyril Newall wanted. The Munich Crisis goes some way to explain British attitudes to defence at the time. 

So, once again, I cannot understand that under the circumstances the Australians still blame the British. None of your arguments actually stand up in the light of the events at the time. All they do is serve to cause unnecessary aggravation between allies, which was really not needed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Sure, Britain did not live up to all its promises, but to accuse them of blatantly lying is foolhardy and as I said earlier, extremely self serving.

Old Crow, you seem to have summed the situation up quite well here!



> What's the point (Pint?), you might ask? Canada wasn't in the immediate danger that Australia faced. Moreover, Canada's need for an indigenous aviation industry had been met years earlier. It had the best of all worlds: including:
> 
> 1. A relatively mature aircraft industry including aircraft and engine manufacturing
> 2. Available natural resources
> ...



Until next time...


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 2, 2012)

Stolen from Canadian Aviation Historical Society - Preserving Canada's Flying Heritage
The Bell P-39 Airacobra in the RCAF (Updated)
By Jerry Vernon
Quite by chance I stumbled across the article on the CAHS website recently,
about the Bell Airacobra and the RCAF.
During one of my visits to the Directorate of History in 1983, I was given a copy of
a couple of research papers by Dr. Steve Harris on the procurement of fighter
and other aircraft for the RCAF early in the Second World War. Most of this
information was later incorporated in the appropriate places in the 3-volume
official RCAF history, and can be read there in more detail.
The papers are titled "Research Note 7 - Canada, Britain and the Home War
Establishment" and "Research Note 1 - Canada and American Fighters - the P-
39 and the P-40"
Several years later, while I was poking through RCAF Record Cards and RCAF
Accident Cards at DHist, I stumbled by chance upon the accident card for a P-39
that was written off by an RCAF pilot near Rockcliffe, while the RCAF were
evaluating the type.
My Comments on Research Note 7:
In late 1940/early 1941, the Canadian view of the need for the Home War
Establishment (HWE) was the following:
151 Bolingbrokes
?? Stranraers
50+ PBYs(to be built in Canada)
144 Airacobras(to be built in Canada)
200 Martin Marauders(to be built in Canada)
Britain wanted Canada to build heavy bombers, and proposed that Canada get
the P-39s and B-26s from British contracts in the US instead. Later, the B-26s
became Lancasters and the P-39s became P-40s. There was also a proposal to
built the obsolete Short Stirling in Canada, before the plan was switched to
Lancasters. The 160 obsolete Hampdens were built as an "educational
exercise", in order to built up expertise in large all-metal aircraft in the Canadian
aircraft industry.
In order to keep the CanCar plant in operation, C. D. Howe ordered 400
additional Hurricanes and 300 Harvards, with no definite RCAF or RAF need for
the Hurricanes.... they were for foreign sale to Holland, China or whoever. This
posed another problem, to get 400 Rolls Royce or Packard Merlins for the
Hurricanes.
A deal was struck to trade 50 PBYs to the UK for 240 Merlins, and later the UK
agreed to take 200 of the Hurricanes (they are listed in Griffin's book as "Free
Issue"), which were shipped to Russia, India, etc., using older Merlins from UK
stocks. In Sep 42, the RCAF agreed to give up 200 Hurricanes, if replacements
were made available by Mar 43.
In August 1942, the RCAF was looking at a HWE of 35 squadrons, vs. an earlier
view of 49 squadrons, which included five Kittyhawk and/or Mosquito units … at
total of 575 aircraft.
In more recent years, I have found documentation that a later allotment was
made to supply the RCAF with P-51D and P-51K Mustangs in 1945 for the HWE,
but the war wound down and this never happened. Pity!! We later bought
Mustangs in 1947 and 1950.
My comments on Research Note 1:
In 1939, Canada were looking into obtaining Seversky or Curtiss fighters off US
contracts, since the supply of British aircraft did not look promising at that time.
They stopped looking in January 40. After No. 1(F) Sqn. went overseas with its
Hurricanes in mid-1940, we started looking again, this time at the Vultee Model
48 (P-66) Vanguard or at manufacturing the Lockheed P-38 in Canada.
However, the "most available" fighters were the P-39 Airacobra and P-40
Kittyhawk
In November 1940, the USAAC advised Canada that the P-40(modified) would
be superior to the P-39. … however, W/C Larry Dunlap(postwar Chief of Air
Staff) advised that the P-40 was "very poor" compared to the P-39!!! Dunlap was
the RCAF's Director of Armament from 1939 to 1942, and his opinions were
generally accepted. Based on Dunlap's recommendation, Canada decided in
Dec 40 to seek a production agreement to build P-39s in Canada, using
American engines. C. D. Howe opposed this, and preferred to obtain aircraft
transferred off British orders instead.
Also touted about and available in the 1940–41 period were the Vultee P-
48 Vanguard, Vultee A-31 Vengeance, Grumman G-36A Wildcat and G-45A (the
land-based XP-50 version of the twin-engined XF5F Skyrocket).
A total of 144 P-39s were needed. If obtained off British orders, this would be
okay … this was before the RAF decided that the P-39 was a dud. If obtained
after the British and US production orders were completed, as a separate RCAF
order, this would be too late for the RCAF's projected need.
In March 1941, Canada was advised that they could not get P-39s until 1943,
and that they should look at Canadian-built Hurricanes instead. That same
month, Canada asked for 50 Hurricanes and 144 Airacobras, later reduced to
110 Airacobras in April 1941.
In April 1941, it had become apparent that P-39 production was delayed, due to
Allison engine problems, and also it became clear that British and US needs
would use up all production capacity until 1943. However, the RAF did offer 72
of their P-39s to Canada, for delivery before 1943.
Within a few days, it became apparent that the supply of 50 Hurricanes was also
in doubt, and it was suggested that Canada take 50 early model P-40
Tomahawks instead. Canada counter-offered to take 50 more P-39s, which was
what we really wanted.
By June 1941, the total P-39 program was back up to 144, but no Hurricanes.
However, the UK advised that we could have none of these until late 1942, and
should consider taking the P-40 instead.
In August 1941, Canada advised that they would take 72 P-40s, but only if they
could be traded for 72 P-39s later, plus a further 72 P-39s to come later. This
was about the time that the RAF concluded that the P-39 wasn't such a great
performer after all.
In September 1941, the RCAF negotiated to get 12 P-40s per month, starting
immediately. The total number to come would depend on the P-39 situation, and
the Brits did agree to replace P-40s with P-39s as they came available.
In November 1941, RCAF staff advised the Chief of Air Staff that Canada should
take the additional 72 P-40s as well, and not wait for P-39 production to catch
up. If we didn't take them, the US would, and we would get nothing more. At the
time, the decision was deferred, since the RCAF lacked the aircrew and ground
crew to handle them.
By April 1942, the RCAF had taken delivery of all 72 P-40s, and by May 1942, we
had dropped the bid for 144 P-39s and asked for the full 144 to be P-40s
instead. By that time, we had taken delivery of 72 Kittyhawk Mk. I aircraft plus 12
Mk. IA(P-40E-1) aircraft.
That's the end of my summary of my notes on Steve Harris' Research Notes, so
it has been summarized twice!!
Just the digress for a moment, the Kittyhawk Mk. I(Model H87A-2) was not strictly
a P-40E …it was a bit of a hybrid between the 4-gun P-40D(Model H87A-1) and
the 6-gun P-40E (Model H-87A-3). In fact, the first 20 had been delivered with
only 4 wing guns, but the rest had 6 guns when the RAF modified their order to
take advantage of the P-40E improvements. These aircraft were part of an RAF
order for 560 Kittyhawk Mk. I aircraft… they were not Lend Lease (or Lease
Lend, depending on which end of the pipe you were at). The Kittyhawk Mk. IA
was a P-40E-1 and they were Lend Lease aircraft, with both a USAAC s/n and a
RAF s/n. The Mk. I Kittyhawks had only an RAF s/n and were later given RCAF
s/ns when they became part of the HWE. The later Kittyhawk Mk. III and Mk. IV
aircraft were also from Lend Lease orders, and had USAAC, RAF and eventually
RCAF s/ns assigned.
In a way, this looks like a bit of a beancounter's exercise … and it is amazing
how much the beancounters influenced the action on aircraft deliveries, etc. … I
have often wondered if they realized that there was a war going on!!
A total of 144 Airacobras became 72 Kittyhawks, with a promise of 72 more to
come later. Later deliveries, as you have noted, were 15 Kittyhawk Mk. III (P-
40M) and 35 Kittyhawk Mk. IV (P-40N) aircraft, for a total of 134. Thinking like a
beancounter, this is how I have rationalized it … 134 were delivered to the RCAF
+ 9 borrowed from the US in the Aleutians (some of which we destroyed) + the
one P-39 that the RCAF destroyed at Rockcliffe = 144 aircraft, so we got our full
amount!
Caption: Bell Aircraft publicity photograph of RAF AH621.
What about the one RCAF Airacobra?? It was RAF s/n AH621 and it was being
tested at Rockcliffe in 1941. The RCAF Accident Card shows that the aircraft
crashed at 1100 hrs, 26 November 1941, 2 1/2 miles from Rockcliffe. The pilot
was F/L R. B. Middleton of 12 Comm Sqn., slightly injured. The card says that
the aircraft suffered a forced landing in a field, with the undercarriage up,
following "engine failure due to gasoline stoppage". Category A (writeoff)
I have not looked for a Court of Inquiry file on AH621, but there may be one. The
Finding Aid does not indicate that there is a C of I file, but it does indicate a
couple of RCAF correspondence files on the Airacobra, one on Policy and one on
Technical Aspects.
Caption: Bell Airacobra I RAF AH621 (Stan Piet Collection)
Referring directly to statements in the article, The Bell P-39 Airacobra in the
RCAF…
The substitution of Kittyhawks for P-39s appears to have been mainly a result of
delayed P-39 production and deliveries coupled with the availability of Kittyhawks
that could be diverted to the RCAF from the RAF's order. One of the RCAF's
senior technical officers had recommended that the P-39 was superior to the
Kittyhawk, but we had to take what was available. It was not what we wanted,
but I think it worked out better in the end!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## merlin (Aug 26, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> A twin engine medium bomber may do OK for a good part of the war but a twin engine heavy is a waste of time for the Australians in 1937-41. The only British designs are the Whitley and the Wellington. With just 2400hp on tap from two engines any heavy bomber is going to be a sitting duck for ANY Japanese fighter in daylight and No twin engine bomber flying from Australian bases is going to find any worthwhile Japanese targets by night. If the RAAf can't find large German cities at night the RAAF isn't going to find small coastal bases, jungle airstrips or anchorages for small groups of ships.



Not sure where you get the 2400 hp!? True the Whitley Wellington, were twin engined aircraft - but they were produced - the one I refered to wasn't, and I mentioned that it was spec'd with Hercules engines. Incidentally the same spec produced the Manchester - granted not a success as a 'twin' but it did have a hp of circa 3500, of course later became the Lancaster. Whilst you may be thinking that Australia in this time period wouldn't want/need/ or make an aircraft this big - the Bristol design - Buckfast (?) - wasn't!! The Beaufort spanned 57' 10", max speed 268 mph range 1,450 mls, bombload 6 x 250lb; the Buckfast spanned 79', max speed 315 mph, range 2,000 to 3,000 mls, bmax bombload 16 x 250 lb. Seems to me that gives a lot flexibilty re: recon., and capacity to saturate the target - port installations, airstrips, etc., moreover rather than one, it would be able to carry two torpedos!


----------



## Elvis (Feb 5, 2017)

Hi guys,

Was just playing with my new excavator and dug up this old thread.
Interesting question and something I was just musing on the other day.
In my case, I sometimes think about a _modular air force_ that the USA could sell to allied country's who may be a bit more challenged, monetarily, and not afford separate viable, but somewhat obsolete aircraft that are more up-to-date than the WWI aircraft they may very well have had in stock (if any aircraft at all).
Thinking about this the other day, I hit on the idea of resurrecting the Boeing 247.
Still a viable airliner, and not all that old during the WWII years, but not the carrier the DC2/3/C-47 was.
So you double the passenger entrance doors into a barn door-type arrangement and pull all the seats and interior appointment, weld in some hold downs and you have your transport.
Good for about 5000 lbs. payload.
Make a version with no doors in the side but a couple of long trap doors in the bottom, mount some bomb racks inside....instant bomber. Capable of carrying up to 20 250 pounders.
,,,now here's the tricky part...Part of the idea here is to take one aircraft and make a whole air force out of it, so what do you about a fighter?
The 247 itself isn't suited for the aerial gymnastics that a fighter would be expected of (I imagine it would be something just a little less than an Me 110), so....what to do.
What if you took one of the engine nacelles and removed it from the plane and used that as the basis for a small single engine aircraft?
The prop might have to be shortened a bit (in fact that's an idea - longer blades for the bomber, shorter blades for the fighter, but otherwise, the same prop).
Arm it with four .30 cal machine guns (or whatever caliber the particular government has deemed their standard round) in the wings ans a hard point under the fuselage that could hold a single 250 lb. bomb or the equivalent in fuel (according to my calculations, that would be about 30-35 gallons).
...and so, the "Air-Force-in-a-box".
While I would offer this package to anyone interested, its really aimed at "lesser" countries, like those in South and Central America.
Would Canada and/or Australia go for this?
...maybe...
As someone mentioned towards the beginning of this thread, there wasn't much of an airforce in Australia in those days, so a ready made "package" might seem appealing...especially at that price!
While Canada had a little more going on in those days, the idea of grabbing some..._munitions_ from across the border, rather than across the ocean would be very appealing to them, for obvious reasons (and history has actually shown that to be the case, several times).
I would think both countries could afford something a little more competitive, but I would still make it available to them.
Anyway, maybe not exactly the answer the OP was looking for, but those are my thoughts on the idea.


Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2017)

A lot depends on timing. Remember that the Lockheed 14 flew in the summer of 1937 and the DC-2 had flown in 1934. The newer planes aren't that much more expensive to build on a per pound or per sq ft of wing basis. The big thing would be the engines and here you have a stumbling block. The 550-600hp Wasp is just too small to power effective combat planes in the mid to late 30s. Yes the Australians used Wasp powered Wirraways in combat but they were far from ideal.
I would imagine that this scenario is supposed to provide better aircraft than the historical options and to do that you need better engines. From the US that means P&W Hornets or Twin Wasps or Wright Cyclones. 
If you put 20 250lb bombs in a Boeing 247 you are down to a one man crew and enough fuel to fly around the perimeter of the airfield.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Feb 6, 2017)

The Boeing 247 first flew in early 1933. It is accredited with being the first successful streamlined all-metal, monoplane passenger liner.
Everything else that's come down the road since then is based on that plane.
Twenty 250 lb. bombs total out to 5000 lbs (20 X 250 = 5000).
That's the payload capacity of the Boeing 247.
It should work just fine with a proper crew.
Maybe you were thinking of 500 lb. bombs?
THAT would be a problem.
My point of that exercise was not create the most competitive air force in the sky, but instead, a _more_ competitive package, at an economical price, compared to an Air Force whose inventory would have consisted of planes from WWI or just after....if that country even had an "Air Force".
Part of the exercise was to use items that weren't in high demand at the time.
It seems we threw either Twin Wasps or 9 cylinder Cyclones in just about everything that flew, that could hold them.
That puts a lot of stress on the assembly lines to create them.
However, this leaves several slightly less competitive, but still completely viable, engines out there that could be used for this package without putting further stress on manufacturers for more high demand engines, because they would be built at a different factory.
Same goes for the aircraft itself. Not a high demand airframe, militarily.
As for actual historical fact, as it actually happened, the Aussie's did have the R-1830 at their disposal.
This is the engine that was used in the Boomerang.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2017)

Not sure whether it was proposed earlier, but something like the Romanian IAR-80 might've been a good use of Twin Wasps. Aim for a decent fuel tankage, tough, even on account of firepower (ie. no cannon, but multiple MGs).


----------



## Graeme (Feb 6, 2017)

nuuumannn said:


> . Mind you, Fraser also got on well with Churchill. If I can remember, John Curtin, the Aussie PM didn't, which explains some of the hostility.



There was a LOT of hostility - Curtin and Churchill hated each others guts. Since this thread started, Wurth's book has been published...

Books and Essays by Bob Wurth on the Asia/Pacific Region: The battle for Australia


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2017)

I keep repeating this, if it seems to good to be true it probably is.
The 5000 lb payload of the 247 includes the fuel, oil and quite possibly at least one of the crew. The gross weight of 16000lbs plus *may *be that for àn impressed 247 in military service during the war in max overload. Normal gross weight was under 14000lbs. 
Australia did build R-1340 Wasps under Iicence. This made it fairly easy to transition to building R-1830s. But they may have been running late for your time line. 
The " flight of the Phoenix" movie aside, the engine nacelle of a twin engine plane is NOT a mini fuselage without a tail. It is a an aerodynamic covering for the engine, engine mount, landing gear and whatever struts/braces were needed to attach these parts to the wing structure. The fuselage of a single engine plane has to stand up to the forces of the tail serfaces. That is the twisting or bending forces imparted by the tail to change the angle of attack of the wing. 
Now throw in that a fighter needs to pull somewhere between 2-3 times the number of "G"s of bomber let alone an airline and there is no savings in trying to use airliner bits and pieces on a fighter. 
I would also note that next to nobody was using WW I or even early 20s aircraft in the early 1930s. They may look like the old planes but even small countries were using mid to late 20s engines and airframes. The older aircraft/engines had worn-out.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 6, 2017)

You know, you bring up a good point....what exactly IS the timeline here?
I assumed "WWII era", which I define as 1938-1945, but are we being more specific here?
...Early WWII era?
...mid WWII era?
...Late WWII era?
What do you know?
As for the weight stats of the 247, I do have to issue an apology.
I read MTOW thinking it was NTOW.
...however, I just now ran across THIS and it lists both the loaded and maximum TO weights, which aren't that much different.
....they're also about 3000 lbs. + higher than THIS, which were the stats I misread and were basing my other post off of.
...Sheesh, Wiki can't even agree with itself!
Anyway, at the higher weight listing, the 20 bomb load would be a cinch for the airplane, but the lower one would create a situation like what you described earlier.
...I think I need to look into this a little more deeply....


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 10, 2017)

Boeing 247, these figures are from "U.S. Civil Aircraft" by Joseph Juptner.

247, empty weight 8370lbs, Useful weight 4280lbs,Payload with 250 gallons of fuel 2155lbs. (10 pass, and 455lbs mail-baggage) gross weight 12,650lbs. Cruising speed at 5000ft 161mph, gas capacity max 265 gallons, normal, 203 gallons, range at 60 gal per hour 600 miles. 
247D, empty weight 8940lbs, Useful weight 4710lbs,Payload with 273 gallons of fuel 2 pilots and stewardess 2477lbs. (10 pass, and 747lbs mail-baggage) gross weight 13,650lbs. Cruising speed at 8000ft 184mph, gas capacity max 273 gallons, range at 66 gal per hour 800 miles. 

Some of the numbers may not total up correctly. The 247D had slightly different model engines. New cowls, 3 blade controllable pitch propellers instead of 2 blade propellers a rearward sloping windshield instead of forward sloping and other improvements both in passenger accommodations and exterior. Many 247s were reworked to bring them up to or close to 247D standards. 
Auto pilot and de-icer boots were optional equipment but would be deducted from payload. 
There are reasons the 247 was dropped from production after about 80 made, it was no longer a competitive airplane on the airliner market.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 10, 2017)

Hey thanks!
That explains a lot.
Hey, when you're selling to 3rd world countries who's air force are cloth covered biplanes, 2000-2500 lb. payload at 160-180 mph for 600-800 miles probably sounds absolutely delightful.
I agree about the 247's short life span as a commercial airliner.
I think that one's pretty well documented many times over.
Lastly, turns out there was a military version of the 247.
The C-73.
Apparently used for training and liaison flights.
According to Wiki, there were 27 of them.
I gotta admit, that designation rings a distant bell in my mind.
Must've been one that slipped through the cracks of my ever crumbling memory.



Elvis


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 11, 2017)

The Military C-73s were used aircraft impressed by the Army during the war, not new aircraft or even aircraft ordered by the military during the 30s. 
Competition for the Boeing 247 came in the form of the Lockheed 10 Electra which, in one form, did use pretty much the same engines in 1934/35 and could carry a useful load of of around 3600lbs at slightly higher speeds (192mph cruise) over similar distances. The was a Military bomber version proposed but not built. 
Other contenders include the Northrop Delta. 





Northrop Delta - Wikipedia
20 used by the RCAF with 19 of them built in Canada. 
Canada also built 52 Grumman FFs




37 went to Spain, 1 went to Nicaragua and one went to Mexico to serve as a pattern aircraft for production which did not happen. 
Many minor countries were buying small numbers of relatively modern aircraft. The ones that couldn't afford even a 1/2 dozen biplane fighters like the Hawker Fury ( sold to 5 foreign countries) weren't in any position to buy all metal monoplane twin engine bombers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Feb 11, 2017)




----------



## Graeme (Feb 12, 2017)

Elvis said:


> My point of that exercise was not create the most competitive air force in the sky, but instead, a _more_ competitive package, at an economical price.



OK Mr Presley.

Lets say It's 1938 and I want 50 of your Boeing 247 bombers (how ya manage to make to make a bomb-bay with the wing spars running through the fuselage is beyond me), how much per aeroplane are you asking for?

I'm looking at the Wiki article on the 247 and they mention $65,000 per unit.
Obviously your improvements/renovations are gonna increase the unit cost?

_*"an unprecedented $3.5 million order, to its affiliated airline, Boeing Air Transport (part of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, UATC), at a unit price of $65,000."*_


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2017)

It is no great trick to make a bomb bay in a fuselage with spars running through it. It Just limits the size of the bombs you can use ( He 111 had spars running through fuselage for example). Of course with a pair of 550hp engines the size of the bombs and bomb load is going to be rather restricted in any case.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 13, 2017)

Graeme said:


> OK Mr Presley.
> 
> Lets say It's 1938 and I want 50 of your Boeing 247 bombers (how ya manage to make to make a bomb-bay with the wing spars running through the fuselage is beyond me), how much per aeroplane are you asking for?
> 
> ...


Beats me, I'm not a bean counter.
Let me know what you figure out. =)


Elvis


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 13, 2017)

I don't think the transport-bomber conversion ever produced a particularly capable bomber, although it has produced at least one decent MPA. (Don't bring up Dorniers; their air transport ancestry is likely illusory).


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 13, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I don't think the transport-bomber conversion ever produced a particularly capable bomber, although it has produced at least one decent MPA. (Don't bring up Dorniers; their air transport ancestry is likely illusory).



Well, you do have the Lockheed Hudson and the Ventura/Harpoon. But that is probably as good as gets. It also shows something else. 
They never converted the passenger "Payload" completely to bomb payload. The Lockheed 14 could carry 14 passengers and 170lbs each plus baggage and a Stewardess. Yet the Hudson carried a much lower bomb load. The Lockheed 18/Loadstar carried 18 passengers plus baggage yet the bomb load even with more powerful engines rarely came close. 
Guns/extra crewmen/more fuel and other "operational" equipment often sucked up a fair amount of the load.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 13, 2017)

A little apples to oranges, but Wiki says DC-2 has a load capacity of 6105 lbs., while its B-18 bomber counterpart has a load capacity of 7680 lbs.
Although the bomb load itself is only listed at 4400 lbs., the fact that this plane's total capacity increased shows that, at least in some cases, the conversion to bomber does yield an increase in payload.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 13, 2017)

Kind of depends on the conversion.




85 ft wingspan, 939sq ft of wing, 62ft long and an empty weight of around 12,000-12,200lbs (depends of exact model), 720hp engines




89.5ft wingspan, 959 sqft of wing, 56ft long and empty weight of 15,700lbs and 930hp engines on production models. 

One would be _VERY _hard pressed to take an existing DC-2 and turn it into a B-18. 
One would also imagine that the landing gear/tires were considerably up-graded to take the higher gross weight, 18,560lbs to 21,130lbs (and 27,087 pounds max gross)


----------



## Elvis (Feb 13, 2017)

My info came from Wiki...

DC-2 - Loaded 18,560 lbs. / Empty 12,455 lbs. / Payload 6105 lbs.
B-18A - Loaded 24,000 lbs. / Empty 16,320 lbs. / Payload 7,680 lbs.


Elvis


----------



## Graeme (Feb 13, 2017)

Elvis said:


> Beats me, I'm not a bean counter.
> Let me know what you figure out. =)Elvis



So far I've found contracts for the RAAF showing a unit price for the Beaufort at $52,000 and the Hudson at $48,000 for 1938.

So we'll pass on your ad-hock 247 military version at $65,000 plus whatever costs are required to convert it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Feb 14, 2017)

Will China please pick up the white courtesy phone. We have a _really good deal_ on a bunch of surplus (but still flyable!) Boeing 247's.
...


----------



## parsifal (Feb 14, 2017)

It might be useful to note the defence spending budget for Australia 9expressed in real adjusted terms for comparability since Federation.

In 1938, Australian defence spending for capital acquisition was at a very low level

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 14, 2017)

Elvis said:


> My info came from Wiki...
> 
> DC-2 - Loaded 18,560 lbs. / Empty 12,455 lbs. / Payload 6105 lbs.
> B-18A - Loaded 24,000 lbs. / Empty 16,320 lbs. / Payload 7,680 lbs.
> ...


As shown, the B-18 was developed from and used _some _DC-2 parts. but it was NOT a converted DC-2.
Problem with the 247 is that while it was advanced in 1933/34 it was old news in in 1938. And the 800 mile _range _is too short.
It would have more like a 300-320 mile radius which is way too little for Australian or Canadian requirements. And even China would find it lacking. China had bought several hundred fighters during the 30s and was not adverse to spending money. The Japanese bomers in use in 1937/38 could easily out range the 247 or any likely version of it.
China had received 52 Curtiss Hawk II Biplanes with fixed landing gear and Cyclone 9F engines. They received 102 Curtiss Hawk III biplanes with retractable landing gear. They got 11 P-26C fighters. They also got six Martin B-10s. 20 Curtiss A-12 attack planes, and 30 Vultee V-11/A-19s which were assembled in China from kits. total of 52 of all V-11 models to china.

Martin B-10s, or versions of it, were sold to Argentina, Turkey, Siam and the Dutch East Indies.
The Vultee V-11 also enjoyed considerable export success. 

The Chinese also received considerable aid from the Russians after 1937.

Used airliners were pretty low on the list of desired aircraft for most countries air forces. The major exception being Spain during the civil war when most anything that could fly was used.


----------



## ChrisMcD (Feb 14, 2017)

In all fairness to the Brits they did help set up a Bristol Beaufort (and then Beaufighter) production line at Fishermans Bend. Rather sensibly the Aussies chose to use the Twin Wasp, so all the hassles with the Taurus were avoided.

Bristol Beaufort - Wikipedia

Maybe not the greatest bomber (apparently it "hunted" and made a poor bombing platform), but a good torpedo bomber and subsequently a fast transport. A production run of 700 is quite serious.

OK, the timing is not great, but it would probably take longer to modify the 247 and has been pointed out cost more.

As for the lack of Spitfires, that is indefensible - not just for Australia, but Malta, North Africa etc.


----------



## Graeme (Feb 14, 2017)

Great graph up above Parsifal.

I read in Henderson's book that when Menzies visited the UK in early '41 - one of his objectives was to promote the production of 4-engine British bombers in Australia - out of harms way from the Germans. The graph seems to indicate we had the cash for it then?


----------



## parsifal (Feb 14, 2017)

I can see that attributes of the Australian aero industry are being willed into the discussion, when in truth no such capability existed in Australia for most of the war. 

_Australian aero industry received vast amount of support from the British _
Nice thought, but completely wide of the mark. Initially there was was support from Britain, but that rapidly soured to outright hostility really, and im convinced that the reasons for this were not solely war related. My own theory is that the British wanted Australia as dependent on British manufacture as possible, and when Wackett defied the odds and started to make impressive and real progress towards setting up an indigenous and meaningful home based aircraft manufacturing base, after 1938, as evidenced by the Wirraway production 9to date far and away the most ambitious production undertaken in Australia, the British rapidly soured in their avowed support for our industry. From June 1939 onward, the British were more than just being cautious with the export of technology, particularly engine technologies, but extending right across the whole gammit of manufactures. For example in 1939, there was no ball bearing manufactures in Australia, and we had expected such supplies to come from our traditional suppliers in the UK. Before there was ANY hint even of shortages, the UK Air Ministry slapped embargoes on the export of such technologies to Australia, whilst (I think) allowing such manufactures to continue to other countries, like Canada. The British did their best from the beginning of the war to kill off our local industry and not solely for military reasons

On that basis there was never the slightest chance we would ever be allowed to build the latest technologies like the Lancaster or the Spitfire. Later in the war there was a relaxing of that crushing resistance and we did receive help from the british, but in the dark days of 1939-41 such help was rare indeed. , and t

_Australia should produce 4 engined bombers like the lancaster from about 1941_
Not a chance. We lacked the technological and industrial base at the time to even contemplate such a move, and moreover the British were never going to agree to the export of that technology to us.


_Australia should produce the spitfire locally_
Again nice thought, but never going to happen. The British would never have allowed under the embargo proclamations and moreover we lacked the industrial base expertise in such techniques as stressed skin to even contemplate such production. We might have been able to build hurricanes with a lot of luck and goodwill from the british, though the engine techs would have been a huge ask for us in 1939-40


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 14, 2017)

Going by an entry in the 1938 Jane's "All the Worlds Aircraft" (which is not exactly infallible.) at time of going to press the Australians had signed the contracts for the NA-16 and an example/s had been supplied by North American. Redesign had been accomplished and production had been _started._1st production planes would not be delivered until July of 1939 and only 6 by Sept. But in 1938 the initial order of 40 had already been expanded to 100. 
There was no other production of aircraft in Australia although the "Aircraft Development Pty. Ltd" had been formed in 1936 to represent Airspeed and later Phillips & Powis Aircraft limited. In 1938 it had established an organization "Available for the erection of an aircraft factory in Sydney when the Commonwealth Government desires a second factory in Australia. 
De Havilland was the only other company listed and was primarily and repair, service and erection organization for De Havilland of England. Some limited production of DH types may have been undertaken (Tiger Months?) .

The deal for the licence of Wasp engine had been signed and and a a set of fully finished parts for one engine had been supplied and several engines in various stages of completion had been supplied for machining, finishing, and assembly in Australia. 
"Ultimately it is planned that engines will be completely manufactured by Australian personnel from material procured entirely from within the Commonwealth." 

This was pretty much the state of the Australian Aero industry in 1938. 

A Suitable network of subcontractors/suppliers would have to be built up. Even large engine makers in the US often relied on outside suppliers for basic forgings and castings. Valve springs and even valves were sometimes from outside suppliers. ALL US makers used outside carburetors and magnetos. Let alone suppliers for all the hardware (nuts-bolts- washers-gaskets, etc) 
The lathes needed for radial engine crankshafts are much shorter than the lathes needed for V-12 crankshafts. 

The Australians did it but it took a while and the actual ability of the Australians to do much more than they did requires more than just will or even money. It requires more trained people (draftsmen/engineers) that take time to train. it requires more machine tools that are not tied up doing other things (other war production) and it requires them to be either in one location or face delays in transport. Australia's metropolitan areas being hundreds of miles (not counting Perth which is thousands) apart with pretty much rail transport (or ship) available in the 1930s and the rail network used several different gauges. 
The Australians did a tremendous job doing what they did but expecting much in the way of increased production early on is like getting blood from a stone.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 15, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Going by an entry in the 1938 Jane's "All the Worlds Aircraft" (which is not exactly infallible.) "Available for the erection of an aircraft factory in Sydney when the Commonwealth Government desires a second factory in Australia.
> De Havilland was the only other company listed and was primarily and repair, service and erection organization for De Havilland of England. Some limited production of DH types may have been undertaken (Tiger Months?) .


Correct. De Havilland Australia built 1070 DH 82 Tiger Moths, 87 DH 84 Dragons, 8 DHA G1's & G2's and 212 DH 98 Mosquitoes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2017)

Wildcat said:


> Correct. De Havilland Australia built 1070 DH 82 Tiger Moths, 87 DH 84 Dragons, 8 DHA G1's & G2's and 212 DH 98 Mosquitoes.



Those are very commendable totals but according to Wiki;
"Additional overseas manufacturing activity also occurred, most of which took place during wartime. de Havilland Australia assembled an initial batch of 20 aircraft from parts sent from the United Kingdom prior to embarking on a major production campaign of their own of the DH.82A, which resulted in a total of 1,070 Tiger Moths being constructed locally in Australia.[17] In late 1940, the *first Australian-assembled* Tiger Moth conducted ins first flight at Bankstown, Sydney"

Bolding by me. Wiki may be wrong and obviously DH of Australia had a hand in assembling or erecting DH aircraft sent from England in the 30s, I doubt they were shipped fully assembled. But actual manufacturing capability of of the Australian DH organization in the 1930s was minimal. 
It is all very well to talk about building 4 engine bombers in Australia in 1940 but when the extent of the local industry is building a few Wirraways a month and assembling Tiger Moths from parts kits sent from England the practicality of the situation is far different. 

What the Australians accomplished in 1942-45 is far different, but you have to walk before you can run.


----------



## Graeme (Feb 16, 2017)

Tiger Moth production in Australia - trivia....

According to one author - de Havilland supplied the blueprints/drawings/specifications for the Gipsy Major in metric. It took 42,000 calculations to convert them to imperial.


----------



## Graeme (Feb 16, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> it may be quite possible to fly a Hurricane with NO covering on the rear fuselage (although high drag).
> .



I saw this yesterday - a semi-naked Tiger Moth crop-duster. Linen removed to reduce corrosion problems.

Note the rego.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Feb 16, 2017)

In the early years of WW2 Canada built 17 Blackburn Shark IIIs. I would have added a couple of zeros to the order, as these aircraft would have been very useful for ASW, Recon and ASR and for flight training.


----------



## rednev (Feb 17, 2017)

Graeme said:


> Tiger Moth production in Australia - trivia....
> 
> According to one author - de Havilland supplied the blueprints/drawings/specifications for the Gipsy Major in metric. It took 42,000 calculations to convert them to imperial.


 england used imperial measurements why would the drawings be in metric ?


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 17, 2017)

rednev said:


> england used imperial measurements why would the drawings be in metric ?



This sounds very much like an urban legend. Dehavilland may have worked in metric, but if the drawings were in metric, it may have been both cheaper and less error-prone to get metric tooling.

As an aside, the US and Commonwealth used different drawing standards, so it was non-trivial to get Imperial-unit Merlins built in the Imperial-unit United States. Add in that the US inch was not the same as the Commonwealth inch, getting P&WA Wasps built under license in Australia or British 6# anti-tank guns in the US was probably more challenging than it first looked.


----------



## Graeme (Feb 17, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> This sounds very much like an urban legend.



Could be - here's how it appeared in print...


----------



## ChrisMcD (Feb 17, 2017)

rednev said:


> england used imperial measurements why would the drawings be in metric ?



The answer it that the Gypsy engine was created when Frank Halford sawed a WWI Renault V8 in half and then turned it upside down. He did it to use up the huge stock of Renault engines that were being sold off cheap in the 20's. 

So if you start with half a French engine you might as well keep it metric!

de Havilland Gipsy - Wikipedia

That's Frank Halford for you. Why be straightforward when you can add extra complexity.

After all this is the man who thought 24 cylinders was a good idea for 1,000 hp. The Dagger deafened aircrews and drove mechanics mad - fancy changing 48 plugs? 

Napier Dagger - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 17, 2017)

Graeme said:


> Could be - here's how it appeared in print...
> 
> View attachment 365977


Well, some urban legends are true 
Overall, it may well have been cheaper and easier for the licensees in Australia to buy metric tooling and gauges.


----------



## yulzari (Feb 19, 2017)

ChrisMcD said:


> The answer it that the Gypsy engine was created when Frank Halford sawed a WWI Renault V8 in half and then turned it upside down. He did it to use up the huge stock of Renault engines that were being sold off cheap in the 20's.
> 
> So if you start with half a French engine you might as well keep it metric!
> 
> ...


Re Gipsy. The Renault drawings would have been metric. Perhaps De Havilland took the metric tooling route? UK Gipsy mechanics may illuminate the question?

Re the Dagger. Halford's reasoning. Simplified. Is that doubling the power comes from doubling the capacity or doubling the speed. To quote from the late great Keith Duckworth: '_power is the size of the bang times the number of bangs per minute_'. The smaller cylinders should have reduced the stresses of high speed running and made the combustion better as well. It worked well enough to dive bomb Calais in 1940 but the failure was in Napier not getting the cooling ducting right and concentrating on stuffing as much air as possible into it rather than getting as much hot air as possible out of it. De Havilland showed the way with reverse flow cooling for their air cooled Gipsy 12s which were heavy for the power.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2017)

Sometimes the complication was needed and sometimes it wasn't. The earlier Rapier being a case point. 340hp from 16 cylinders and 720lbs of engine weight was hardly state of the art in the early 30s. 
And Daggers being used in Hawker Hectors to dive bomb Calais in 1940 is more desperation than indication of ability. 
The Dagger powered Hectors would have achieved just as much (or as little) if they had been powered by Bristol Mercury's.


----------



## ChrisMcD (Feb 19, 2017)

yulzari said:


> Re the Dagger. Halford's reasoning. Simplified. Is that doubling the power comes from doubling the capacity or doubling the speed. To quote from the late great Keith Duckworth: '_power is the size of the bang times the number of bangs per minute_'. The smaller cylinders should have reduced the stresses of high speed running and made the combustion better as well. It worked well enough to dive bomb Calais in 1940 but the failure was in Napier not getting the cooling ducting right and concentrating on stuffing as much air as possible into it rather than getting as much hot air as possible out of it. De Havilland showed the way with reverse flow cooling for their air cooled Gipsy 12s which were heavy for the power.



I agree completely. In all fairness to Halford - who at least was not afraid to try and turn theory into practice - there was a cunning plan. According to Setright (The Power to Fly Pg 130)

"Napier and Halford set about the design and production of the Dagger, as a scaled up Rapier but much more refined, larger and with more cylinders. The idea was that this should start out producing at least 1000 h.p. (it was developed to give 1500 on the bench, though it is not believed to have flown in this form) and to power a tiny and very highly streamlined 
fighter aircraft whose fuselage would be no bigger than the body of a single-seater racing car of the period. This was why it was air cooled, for there was simply no room for a liquid-cooled system's plumbing, and this was why the built-in ducting for the cooling  was so exquisitely perfected, for drag had to be minimized by all possible means. It was an attractive project, but an unsuccessful one: for the function of the fighter was beginning to change, and the new heavier generation of single-seaters could afford to carry more weight and bulk. it never was kept in the style to which it should have become accustomed: some scavenging busybody with no mechanical sympathy earmarked it for bomber service, for which it was never intended and for which it was not unnaturally never successful"


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 19, 2017)

r power is proportional to piston area for engines of a give technological level, and weight is proportional to displacement, so increasing the number of cylinders _should _give a lighter engine for a given output. Whether it does depends on details of the design. 

Napier, however, did not seem to have its engineering act together, with too little attention paid to production cost, serviceability, off-design operation, and broad application. If they were targeting the lightweight fighter market, they should have noticed its non-existence.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 19, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> r power is proportional to piston area for engines of a give technological level, and weight is proportional to displacement, so increasing the number of cylinders _should _give a lighter engine for a given output. Whether it does depends on details of the design.



This seems wrong? can you give examples? 
Going the opposite way the Rapier weighed a bit over 700lbs for all but the MK I version and this was for 589 cu in (8.55 ) liter engine. 
I believe _Weight _is proportional to displacement _IF _similar arrangements of cylinders are made. Comparing radials to inlines gives an advantage to the Radial. 6 cylinder inlines don't show up well against V-8s due to the longer block and crankshaft. The Napier Lion was lighter than _some _equivalent V-12s due to the shorter blocks/ crankshaft. The Napier engines (Rapier, Dagger and Sabre) all used two crankshafts which added to the weight over an equivalent displacement V-8-V-12 or even inline 6. 



> Napier, however, did not seem to have its engineering act together, with too little attention paid to production cost, serviceability, off-design operation, and broad application. If they were targeting the lightweight fighter market, they should have noticed its non-existence.



The Rapier _may _have been intended for the light fighter market with the DH 77 but it is a bit harder to swallow the Dagger. The engine went around 1300lbs for the MK I and just got heavier. Granted it had no liquid cooling system but it was about 45 in tall and had only slightly less frontal area than a Merlin. The weight of the Dagger is heavier than the equivalent year Wright Cyclone 9, several hundred pounds heavier than the Bristol Mercury, 300lbs heavier than a Kestrel and 200lbs heavier than a Peregrine which should take care of the cooling system pretty well. 
In the international Market the Dagger was about 200lbs heavier than the air cooled Isotta-Fraschini Delta of 1630 cu in (26.7 liters) 
and while the Delta ran much slower it's bigger cylinders (bangs) pretty much made up for the Delta's lower RPM. Plug changes and valve adjustment on the Delta would take about 1/2 the time as the Dagger even assuming equal accessibility.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 20, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> This seems wrong? can you give examples?
> Going the opposite way the Rapier weighed a bit over 700lbs for all but the MK I version and this was for 589 cu in (8.55 ) liter engine.
> I believe _Weight _is proportional to displacement _IF _similar arrangements of cylinders are made. Comparing radials to inlines gives an advantage to the Radial. 6 cylinder inlines don't show up well against V-8s due to the longer block and crankshaft. The Napier Lion was lighter than _some _equivalent V-12s due to the shorter blocks/ crankshaft. The Napier engines (Rapier, Dagger and Sabre) all used two crankshafts which added to the weight over an equivalent displacement V-8-V-12 or even inline 6.
> 
> ...




I was generalizing regarding weight.


----------



## ChrisMcD (Feb 20, 2017)

Hi Gents, The Martin Baker MB2 rather shows that you are right, the Dagger just did not deliver.

Martin-Baker MB 2 - Wikipedia

And I rather think Frank Halford agreed with you - hence the Sabre!


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 20, 2017)

I would be very interested in seeing any details of the "light" fighter the Dagger was _supposed_ to go in because the MB 2 sure wasn't it. 
Spitfire Prototype..............5332 lb
MB 2 Prototype.................5537 lb
Spitfire MK I 2 Bld prop.....5819 lb

First flight of the MB 2 _may _have been 4 years after the the Dagger was first run let alone design work started.


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 10, 2017)

Graeme said:


> Could be - here's how it appeared in print...
> 
> View attachment 365977



I only just found this thread by accident and will comment in a while on some older posts

Ah, Graeme, aint that typically Australian.

Having worked on Gypsy Major engines I do know that the Australian nuts, bolts and studs are all metric exactly like the British built parts of the same part number.

Only an Australian company would waste time converting the measurements (probably using 64ths of an inch rather than decimals) instead of simply training the production staff to use metric micrometres, etc -- or giving them simple go-nogo gauges.

Then again Australia still has Whitworth as a formal primary thread system even though the Brits declared it _*obsolete for new design*_ in *November 1946* and replaced it with Unified. The last mass produced British products to use Whitworth were very early 1950's cars. 

Australia still produces and uses Whitworth.

Australia's latest version of metric recently introduced the 13mm bolt and if google is right no other country uses a 13mm bolt. Not surprisingly the 13mm bolt is actually a 1/2 Whitworth bolt renamed to pretend it is metric.

Mi

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 10, 2017)

parsifal said:


> *Bollocks to no engine production or aluminium smetlting *
> 
> 
> The Story of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation From "Technology in Australia (1788 - 1988)"
> ...



Right on Parsifal

Essington Lewis is a much underrated person in this history. Much of the glory for CAC goes to Wackett but it was Lewis who led and financed the world wide search for what aircraft and engines were to be produced by CAC (more below on that search in the last four paragraphs). The whole team, Lewis, Wackett and a group of RAAF officers was lead and financed by Lewis.

One of the many things that Lewis and Wackett contracted prior to the outbreak of war in 1939 was the manufacture by CAC of Lockheed Hudson powerplants, complete except for propellers.

While insignificant in the short term this contract was to not only save the Australian Beaufort program but to also provide the powerplant for the Boomerang. The first 52 Australian Beaufort's actually used Hudson powerplants bolted to an adaptor structure which attached to the same wing fittings as the normal Taurus powerplant. Number 53 and subsequent were fitted with Australian designed mounts and Australian designed cowls and gills though these, like the earlier ones, used the same adaptor structure.
The Boomerang used the Australian Beaufort powerplant with minimal changes other than the mount which was technically a mixture of Wirraway and Hudson.

The British government fought bitterly to prevent the Wirraway being produced and suggested CAC assemble Tiger Moths, then build Tiger Moths, then build other obsolescent designs such as the Fairey Battle.

One major "ace" the Brits had in their pocket was that the Australian Government had to pay import duties to the UK government for any non British aircraft and components.

This resulted in many Wirraway parts being redesigned unnecessarily to avoid the import duty (by maximising "British" content), the installation of Vickers Mk V machine guns rather than the Browning's that even the RAF admitted were a far superior weapon, plus the installation of British radios, gunsights, bomb-shackles etc, etc. The Hamilton Standard prop was replaced by the dH propeller which was nothing more than the HS built under licence by dH but did make it duty free.

Much of the redesign was what could best be called cosmetic - the CA-1 hydraulic shelf for instance is almost identical to the BC-1 shelf except for the width and the changes that causes. Many castings are identical except they use British specification materials, some skins and frames are identical except for using British specification alloy, every non special bolt is the standard SBAC British specification, etc.

It is also highly probably that the British Governments decision to ask the Australian Government to create DAP and produce 90 Beaufort's for RAF Singapore was purely a face saving exercise coming as it did so soon after Lewis and his team decided to manufacture the Wirraway (even without an official order).
*
The remaining Essington Lewis papers are held by Australian Archives,* probably still in Melbourne. I spent some time in the mid 80's scouring the index of Lewis papers in Melbourne and found many gems there however all the Lewis papers (other than indexes) were still classified at that time. Two, of many, that caught my interest were approximately titled _*Japanese aircraft under consideration for manufacture in Australia*_ and _*Negotiations with Sumitomo metals for the licensed manufacture of aircraft aluminium in Australia.
*_
Naturally I applied for access to these two documents (the limit for requests at that time) and the very helpful Archives staff assisted me in raising the relevant documentation to ensure the greatest possible chance to have these two files declassified.

Several months later I received a letter informing me that those documents had been sent to the RAAF at Russell Offices in Canberra, that they had been lost, and that I could appeal to have the documents traced. When I discussed this with the Archives staff their first question was _Could the contents of these files embarrass the RAAF. _When I replied to the effect _Very much so because this would likely prove that the Japanese had advanced aircraft and that this was known to Lewis and Wackett and the RAAF officers on his team long before Pearl Harbor. _The immediate response from the archives staff was that there was no sense in appealing because the RAAF always destroyed any classified document that could possibly embarrass them.

Needless to say I did not request the declassification of any other Lewis papers.

Mi

CONTINUED

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 10, 2017)

Once the Pacific war broke out it seems that all British constraints on CAC, DAP, GMH and other Australian manufacturers were thrown out the door.

CAC and the RAAF started fitting many American components to the Wirraway and Boomerang, DAP started some severe modification to the Beaufort such as the big fin to fix the directional stability, flush riveting the wings, ditching the nose turret, adding nose guns, adding up to 3 waist guns, replacing the single wing mounted 303 with a 50cal in each wing, the far better (and earlier designed) Blenhiem turret fitted with two continuous feed Brownings (the Beaufort turret had a single Vickers gas operated with drum feed - supposedly the attacking Jap was supposed to stop his attack while you changed drums), etc.

GMH did considerable redesign of individual parts on several aircraft, starting with the Beaufort engine mount, cowls and cowl gills. On the Beaufighter they redesigned the gear doors using American production practices (which for possibly political, or just plain PR reasons, they called automotive practices).

The picture will not attach so I will try later

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 10, 2017)




----------



## MiTasol (Mar 10, 2017)

A quick question for all the brits and yanks out there

Which company designed, built and flew the second jet airliner?

If flew only 13 days after the first.


----------



## Graeme (Mar 10, 2017)

MiTasol said:


> Which company designed, built and flew the second jet airliner?



Love a pop-quiz. Gotta be the Jetliner...

Avro Canada C102 Jetliner - Wikipedia


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 10, 2017)

Graeme said:


> Love a pop-quiz. Gotta be the Jetliner...
> 
> Avro Canada C102 Jetliner - Wikipedia



Yep, bloody colonials nearly beat the Brits and truly thrashed the Yanks.

If Rolls had got the Avon out on time the bloody colonials would have thoroughly beat the Brits too


----------



## Graeme (Mar 10, 2017)

MiTasol said:


> Australia still produces and uses Whitworth.
> 
> Mi



Absolutely mate. I remember buying my first SAE tap and die set and was gutted after using the 1/2 inch tap to find none of my bolts would fit the cut thread.
Turns out they were Whitworth bolts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Mar 11, 2017)

Speaking of Colonial power - were we really gonna build atomic bombs??
Can't find any evidence to support this claim...


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 25, 2017)

MiTasol said:


> Australia's latest version of metric recently introduced the 13mm bolt



Been around for some time on Holden Commodores; anyone who has done an oil change on an LS1 engined Commodore will know that the big iron plate protecting the oil sump is fitted with 13mm bolts!


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 26, 2017)

nuuumannn said:


> Been around for some time on Holden Commodores; anyone who has done an oil change on an LS1 engined Commodore will know that the big iron plate protecting the oil sump is fitted with 13mm bolts!



Thanks, I was not aware of that. Only Australia would bastardise metric that way by calling a thread (that even the originating countries standards institute formally declared inactive for new design 60+ years earlier) a new "metric" bolt.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 26, 2017)

Graeme said:


> Absolutely mate. I remember buying my first SAE tap and die set and was gutted after using the 1/2 inch tap to find none of my bolts would fit the cut thread.
> Turns out they were Whitworth bolts.



Arguably (I speak as a US engineer who has done fatigue testing of bolts...) the Whitworth thread form was better, as contemporary US thread had a very sharp angle in the root, vs the radiused one in the Whitworths.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 26, 2017)

MiTasol said:


> Thanks, I was not aware of that.



No worries, MiTasol, As you probably know, there are things about Commodores that are positively agricultural (Falcons as well, for that matter), but they are tough and great to drive.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 26, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Arguably (I speak as a US engineer who has done fatigue testing of bolts...) the Whitworth thread form was better, as contemporary US thread had a very sharp angle in the root, vs the radiused one in the Whitworths.



Agreed however the physical strength of the old American National Coarse thread was greater due to the 60 degree thread angle.

Whitworth was replaced in the UK, and ANC in the US, by the Unified National Coarse thread which used the best of both Whitworth and ANC by incorporating the ANC angles with the British radius at the base of the thread. UNC retains the ANC square top to the thread to allow for better lubrication. Likewise BSF and ANF were replaced by UNF.

Historically the USA used Whitworth for a time before changing to ANC in about 1860/70. Originally ANC had another name but I do not remember it. Because ANC was essentially derived from BSW many of the treads used the same number of threads per inch so in low tolerance hardware most British nuts will fit most American bolts and vice versa. In higher tolerance hardware the differing angles, rounded thread bases of whitworth and sharp tops on ANC threads prevent this interchangeability.


----------



## Kevin J (May 15, 2018)

davebender said:


> No aluminum industry as of 1940. No aircraft engine industry either. The land of Oz must import aircraft just as happened historically.
> 
> Canada is a different story. They've got a bottomless supply of aluminum and Packard Motor Company is just across the river. So they can build almost any aircraft type as long as it's powered by Packard made Merlin engines. Build a Castle Bromwich size Spitfire plant in Windsor. This would be ILO building Hurricanes in England.



I'd still go with the Hurricane as the Spitfire has still not entered RAF service and is proving difficult to make in large numbers. In 1939, Air Ministry even considered cancelling the Spitfire on account of production problems. A P-40 with a Merlin III would be better than the Hurricane but the P-40 with the Allison doesn't fly until October 1938 so its a non-starter.


----------



## Kevin J (May 15, 2018)

davebender said:


> No aluminum industry as of 1940. No aircraft engine industry either. The land of Oz must import aircraft just as happened historically.
> 
> 
> Canada is a different story. They've got a bottomless supply of aluminum and Packard Motor Company is just across the river. So they can build almost any aircraft type as long as it's powered by Packard made Merlin engines. Build a Castle Bromwich size Spitfire plant in Windsor. This would be ILO building Hurricanes in England.


----------



## Kevin J (May 15, 2018)

davebender said:


> No aluminum industry as of 1940. No aircraft engine industry either. The land of Oz must import aircraft just as happened historically.
> 
> 
> Canada is a different story. They've got a bottomless supply of aluminum and Packard Motor Company is just across the river. So they can build almost any aircraft type as long as it's powered by Packard made Merlin engines. Build a Castle Bromwich size Spitfire plant in Windsor. This would be ILO building Hurricanes in England.



For Australia, I'd start the design of the Boomerang in 1939, the year the Wirraway entered service, not late 1941. The Boomerang was based on the Wirraway and first flew six months after the initial design discussions; it was in service six months later. So the Boomerang would enter service around the same time as the Reisen and one whole year before the Hayabusa. Performance wise its comparable with the Ki-43-I Hayabusa, slightly slower than the A6M2 Reisen. Then develop it. The CA-14A variant with a GE B-2 turbo flew in 1943, top speed was 375-390 mph. So this would now be flown in 1940 and broadly competitive with the Ki-44 Shoki and better than the P-47 Lancer speed wise. One problem with all this, the Buffalo has a better performance than the Boomerang as produced. So, I think you will all agree its only going to happen if the Boomerang is only produced with the GE B-2 turbo added. A 1942 service intro is feasible as the Lancer is in service with a turbo by that date. This would give the RAAF a decent fighter to defend the skies over Darwin and Port Moresby when they were needed.


----------



## taly01 (May 15, 2018)

I was amazed to read that the Boomerang had 0 air to air kills!


> One problem with all this, the Buffalo has a better performance than the Boomerang as produced.


that may explain it.

Given Australia only had the twin Wasp 1200hp made locally they may have been better off making Wildcat F4F-3. Although the Hurricane airframe should be easiest to make, Here is someones mock up of a twin wasp powered Hurricane!


_View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dizzyfugu/6847225752/in/photostream/_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (May 15, 2018)

Very cool, looks like a P-36!


----------



## Kevin J (May 15, 2018)

taly01 said:


> I was amazed to read that the Boomerang had 0 air to air kills!
> that may explain it.
> 
> Given Australia only had the twin Wasp 1200hp made locally they may have been better off making Wildcat F4F-3. Although the Hurricane airframe should be easiest to make, Here is someones mock up of a twin wasp powered Hurricane!
> ...



Given that Curtiss were setting up production lines for the P-36 in both India and China then perhaps they should have set one up in Australia too.


----------



## Kevin J (May 16, 2018)

taly01 said:


> I was amazed to read that the Boomerang had 0 air to air kills!
> that may explain it.
> 
> Given Australia only had the twin Wasp 1200hp made locally they may have been better off making Wildcat F4F-3. Although the Hurricane airframe should be easiest to make, Here is someones mock up of a twin wasp powered Hurricane!
> ...


6M2
I've had a look at the CAC Woomera. The earliest date the Twin Wasp would have been available for a Boomerangs first flight would have been September 1941 as opposed to May 1942, so the Aussies would still not have been able to get it into service until early-mid 1942 and opposing the Jap Zero's I think they would have been slaughtered. As for a Twin Wasp powered Hurricane, I think that would have been under-powered so I guess the only option is the Twin Wasp powered Mohawk IV and this would have been competitive with the A6M2. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf


----------

