# Brewster Buffalo vs. CAC Boomerang



## Clay_Allison (Aug 28, 2009)

Perhaps the most maligned fighter in the U.S. inventory, the Buffalo rose from dismal failure in the South Pacific to shocking success in Finland.

The least pedigreed fighter in the Allied inventory, the Boomerang was a trainer-based emergency fighter designed and built on the spur of the moment to defend Australia from the Japanese until Curtiss P-40s arrived from the USA. Later it found its niche as a ground pounder operating from unimproved forward airstrips in close air support.


My question is: If you needed to fight the Japanese in 1942 and had these two to pick from, which would you prefer?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2009)

Interesting camparison.

One thing about the comment "the Buffalo rose from dismal failure in the South Pacific to shocking success in Finland." We know what happened at Midway, not only out performed but tactics played a major part as well. Read Bloody SHambles" and some posts by JoeB. The RAF and Dutch Buffalos really didn't do that bad considering what they were up against.

Anyway on with the comparison. From Wiki

Data from The Great Book of Fighters

CAC Boomerang 
General characteristics

Crew: 1 
Length: 25 ft 6 in (7.77 m) 
Wingspan: 36 ft 0 in (10.97 m) 
Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m) 
Wing area: 225 ft² (20.9 m²) 
Empty weight: 5,373 lb (2,437 kg) 
Loaded weight: 7,699 lb (3,492 kg) 
Powerplant: 1× Pratt Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW) 
Performance

Maximum speed: 305 mph (265 knots, 491 km/h) at 15,500 ft (4,730 m) 
Range: 930 mi (810 nm, 1,500 km) 
Service ceiling: 29,000 ft (8,800 m) 
Rate of climb: 2,940 ft/min (14.9 m/s) 
Wing loading: 34.2 lb/ft² (167.1 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (256 W/kg) 
Armament

Guns:

2× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano or CAC cannons 
4× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns 
Bombs: Could be fitted when the large drop tank was not carried 

Specifications (F2A-3)
General characteristics

Crew: One, pilot 
Length: 26 ft 4 in (8.03 m) 
Wingspan: 35 ft (10.7 m) 
Height: 12 ft 1 in (3.68 m) 
Wing area: 208.9 ft² (19.408 m²) 
Empty weight: 4,732 lb (2,146 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 6,321 lb (2,867 kg) 
Performance

Maximum speed: 284 mph at sea level, 321 mph at 16,500 ft (457 km/h, 516 km/h) 
Cruise speed: 171 mph (275 km/h) 
Range: 1,680 mi (2,703 km) 
Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,144 m) 
Rate of climb: 2,440 ft/min[5] The initial rate of climb would be further reduced with completely full petrol tanks.</ref> (744 m/min) 

Armament
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 machine guns 
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 machine guns 
2 × 100 lb (45 kg) underwing bombs


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2009)

_"In early 1940, the British Purchasing Commission ordered a total of 170 Model 339Es in two separate contracts under the British designation Buffalo Mk. I. This was a major turnaround, since as recently as October of 1939 the British Air Ministry had declared the Brewster fighter as unsuitable for RAF use. However, they were deemed suitable for use in the Far East. 

The 339E was basically a denavalized variant of the F2A-2, powered by an export-approved Wright R-1820-G105 Cyclone engine of 1100 hp. A number of changes were made to bring the aircraft up to current European combat standards: a British-built Mark III reflector gunsight replaced the ring-and-bead arrangement, armor plate was provided for the pilot, and armored glass was added to the wind screen. The Curtiss Electric cuffed propeller was replaced with a 10-foot one-inch Hamilton Standard propeller. The 339E was the only Buffalo variant to feature an internal gun camera. The small retractable naval-type tail wheel was replaced by a larger fixed tail wheel. 

These changes brought the gross weight to 6500 pounds, almost a thousand pounds heavier than the standard F2A-2. The maximum speed was lowered to 330 mph and the rate of climb was lowered to only 2600 feet per minute. In addition, this increased weight raised the wing loading, increased the landing speed, and adversely affected the maneuverability. Another problem was that the Buffalo Mk. I did not use the same fuel line pressurization system as the F2A-2, and fuel starvation problems were often experienced above 18,000 feet. 

The Wright Cyclone R-1820-G105 engine installed in the Buffalo Mk. I had been selected in part because there were sufficient numbers of this engine available at the time to meet the first British contract. However, when the second contract was issued, there were not enough new Cyclone engines available, and Brewster was forced to purchase used Cyclone engines from commercial airlines which had been using them to power their Douglas DC-3 airliners. These used engines were returned to Wright, which remanufactured them to -G105 standards. 

The first three production Model 339Es were sent to Great Britain in April of 1941 for trials. The remaining Buffalos of the British order were shipped directly to the Far East to serve with units in Malaya, Singapore and Burma. The first Buffalos arrived in Singapore in the spring of 1941. 

Five Commonwealth squadrons were formed around the Buffalo -- Nos. 67 and 243 Squadrons, RAF; Nos. 21 and 43 Squadrons of the RAAF; and No. 488 Squadron of the RNZAF. No. 67 Squadron was based in Burma and the other four were stationed at bases near Singapore. Each squadron was issued with 15 aircraft. A shortage of pilots prevented the formation of additional squadrons, and many Buffalos were placed in storage. Many of the pilots in the Commonwealth Buffalo squadrons were relatively new and inexperienced, and some 20 Buffalos were lost in training accidents during the autumn of 1941. 

War in the Burma/Malaya theater began on December 8, 1941 with a Japanese landing on the Malayan coast. The Brewsters did experience some initial successes against Japanese Army Air Force Ki-27s and Ki-43s, and there were at least three Commonwealth pilots who became aces during this period. However, when the Japanese Navy A6M Reisen (Zero Fighter) appeared, the Buffalo was completely outclassed. The Zero was faster, more maneuverable and had a heavier armament. In an attempt to improve the Buffalo's performance, ground crews removed all unnecessary equipment to lower the weight, sometimes replacing the 0.50-inch machine guns with lighter 0.303-inch guns and reducing the ammunition and fuel load. However, these modifications did not even come close to closing the performance gap between the Buffalo and the Zero. 

The situation in Malaya rapidly deteriorated as the Japanese advance gained momentum, and Commonwealth squadrons were forced to withdraw to Singapore Island. Attrition and combat losses took their toll, and by February of 1942 there were only a few airworthy Buffalos left. These were withdrawn to the nearby islands of the Netherlands East Indies. When the British evacuated the aircrews to Australis, at least four Buffalos were turned over to Dutch squadrons. 

In Burma, No. 67 Squadron flew alongside the 3rd Squadron, American Volunteer Group (the famous 'Flying Tigers') in the defense of Rangoon. No. 67 Squadron had some initial successes against attacking Japanese bomber formations. However, attrition and the lack of spare parts steadily eroded the squadron's strength, and by the time that Rangoon fell, only six Buffalos were still airworthy. The surviving No. 67 Squadron Buffalos were evacuated to India, along with a few Hawker Hurricanes that had been rushed to Rangoon's defense. Some of the Buffalos that made it to India were taken on strength by No. 146 Squadron, RAF. There are even reports that at least one Buffalo was transferred to the Indian Air Force. 

Many official British historical sources blame the loss of Malaya and Singapore largely on the Buffalo's poor performance. However, the picture is not entirely that of an unmitigated disaster, and many Buffalo-equipped units gave a good account of themselves before they were overwhelmed by superior Japanese numbers. Accurate figures on the combat losses of British Buffalos are difficult to come by. Approximately 60 to 70 Buffalos were lost in air combat, 40 were destroyed on the ground, twenty were lost in various non-combat related accidents, four were transferred to the Dutch, and six were evacuated to India. *Commonwealth Buffalo squadrons claimed at least 80 kills, and some units may have achieved a 2-to-1 kill ratio*." _

Brewster Buffalo Mk I


----------



## timshatz (Aug 28, 2009)

Of the two, I'd lean towards the Boomerang. 

While, on paper, they are about the same with a slightly higher climb speed for the Boomerang, in actuality they were probably almost identical when it came to their abilitiy to deal with the competition, which was probably not real good one on one. 

Like the Boomerang because of the two 20MMs cannons. If they adapted tactics similar to that of the Wildcat, that firepower would be a game changer. Granted, the Buffalo has the same situation with regards to tactics but not firepower. It was adequately armed, but not well armed. The Boomerang is well armed.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 28, 2009)

Joe

Several sources give slightly different figures on performance. This site for example:

CAC Boomerang'

gives the range as 1600 miles. Other sources give the maximum speed of the CA-12 (the dominant type) as only 300 mph.

Boomerangs were3 poor performers above 15000 feet, but I believe so too were the Buffaloes. 

I have an obvious parochial bias here, but I honestly believe the Boomerang was the superior ride. I would even go so far as to challenge the early F4f with the Boomerang performance. 

To be fair, the Boomerang, despite the speed of its development, had the benefit of being four years younger than the Buffalo, and 6 years younger than the Wildcat. This gave it a lots of detail advantages IMO, like armour distribution, armament, and comms. I have heard bad stories about the fuel pumps in the buffaloes, but nothing comparable about the Boomernag. I recal some story about pilots having to use a hand pump in the Buffalo to keep the fuel up to it, and stoies about RAAF pilots ripping out guns and armour to get the performace up to some decent level. AFAIK, none of that occurred with the Boomerang. However, I dont believe the Boomerang shot down even a single enemy fighter during its career......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2009)

parsifal said:


> To be fair, the Boomerang, despite the speed of its development, had the benefit of being four years younger than the Buffalo, and 6 years younger than the Wildcat. This gave it a lots of detail advantages IMO, like armour distribution, armament, and comms. I have heard bad stories about the fuel pumps in the buffaloes, but nothing comparable about the Boomernag. I recal some story about pilots having to use a hand pump in the Buffalo to keep the fuel up to it, and stoies about RAAF pilots ripping out guns and armour to get the performace up to some decent level. AFAIK, none of that occurred with the Boomerang. However, I dont believe the Boomerang shot down even a single enemy fighter during its career......


Agree and I too would have to go with the Boomerang. There seems to have been a lot of engineering issues with the Buffalo, probably because of Brewster's lack of foresight and inexperience in producing modern fighters of the period.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 28, 2009)

There seemed to be something really really broken about Brewster's quality control. At least with a Boomerang you probably know what you are getting.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> There seemed to be something really really broken about Brewster's quality control. At least with a Boomerang you probably know what you are getting.



From reading Bloody Shambles it wasn't so much quality, but the way the aircraft was engineered and operated. Ammo feeds were poorly designed along with other systems. The aircraft was actually "built" well, designed poorly.

Now when Brewster built Corsairs, entirely different story. I read the quality of workmanship was poor and it seemed some of the assemblers were poorly trained and managed.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 28, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From reading Bloody Shambles it wasn't so much quality, but the way the aircraft was engineered and operated. Ammo feeds were poorly designed along with other systems. The aircraft was actually "built" well, designed poorly.
> 
> Now when Brewster built Corsairs, entirely different story. I read the quality of workmanship was poor and it seemed some of the assemblers were poorly trained and managed.


Doesn't installing the wrong fuel pumps speak to poor quality?


----------



## Graeme (Aug 28, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I have an obvious parochial bias here, but I honestly believe the Boomerang was the superior ride.



Parsifal, do you have a copy of Stewart Wilson’s “Wirraway, Boomerang and CA-15?” There’s a good summary of comparative handling trials between the Boomerang, Kittyhawk, Airacobra and the Buffalo on pages 114 to 119. The trials were conducted at Mildura late 1942 by the No.2 Operational Training Unit. 
The Boomerang was outmanoeuvred by the Buffalo.


> At no time was the Boomerang able to gain the initiative in the combat.


Wing Commander Peter Jeffery, who with others, flew approximately 400 hours in the Boomerang during the trials had this to say…


> “It is considered by this Unit, that the Boomerang, as an operational fighter, has no feature to recommend.”


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Doesn't installing the wrong fuel pumps speak to poor quality?


Not really - "production quality" involves how the aircraft is built - how the rivets look after installation, how the fabric surfaces are finished, how the paint looks (runs), if the aircraft is built per the blueprints developed by engineers, how many repairs had to be undertaken because of mistakes by assembly personnel - for examples. Equipment that is to design but don't function with the rest of the aircraft "system" is an engineering problem - poor design. The assembly folks and mechanics who install these components just follow a blue print - the folks who dictate things like pumps and electric motors are engineers.

The overall quality of the aircraft is affected by poor design, but the aircraft could be built perfectly - 100% per the engineering drawings. At the same time you could have a top fighter built like crap, poor workmanship.

Engineering Quality

Production Quality

See the difference?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 28, 2009)

I think the variance between the Buffalo models was pretty wide.

IMHO I would pick the Buffalo Model 239 (Finnish) over the Boomerang, but would pick the Boomerang over the US Navy F2A-3. The Buffalo also had the advantage of carrying a small bomb load.


Interestingly, according to _ Australia in the War of 1939-1945, The Role of Science and Industry_:

"At 10,000 ft, the Boomerang was more maneuverable then the Kittyhawk and could turn inside of it."

It is correct however, the the Boomerang never scored an aerial victory.



For those interested in reading more onthe Boomerang: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4665212/Aircraft-Profile-178-Commonwealth-Boomerang


----------



## Graeme (Aug 28, 2009)

G'day VB!



vikingBerserker said:


> I think the variance between the Buffalo models was pretty wide.



The Buffalo used in the trials was ex-Dutch (A51-6). They loaded it to what they thought at the time matched the Zero's wing loading-24lb/sq.ft. Combat was staged around 8,000ft. 



vikingBerserker said:


> Interestingly, according to _ Australia in the War of 1939-1945, The Role of Science and Industry_:
> "At 10,000 ft, the Boomerang was more maneuverable then the Kittyhawk and could turn inside of it."
> It is correct however, the the Boomerang never scored an aerial victory.



All true. According to the reports it was more manoeuverable than the Kittyhawk (A29-129) from 10,000 to 25,000ft. The trials between the Airacobra and Kittyhawk showed the advantage was with the former.


----------



## davebender (Aug 28, 2009)

It appears to me the P-40s need to arrive from Britain. They received over 2,500 P-40 aircraft produced during 1940 and 1941. Compared to 250 x CAC Boomerangs produced beginning in late 1942.

*P-40 deliveries to Britain.*
US Warplanes
1940 140 x Tomahawk Mk I.
1941 86 x Tomahawk Mk IIA. (the 24 sent to Canada and Russia have been subtracted from the total)
1941 635 x Tomahawk Mk IIB (the 295 sent to China and Russia have been subtracted from total)
1941 560 x Kittyhawk Mk I
1941 1,500 x Kittyhawk Mk IA


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 28, 2009)

Graeme said:


> All true. According to the reports it was more maneuverable than the Kittyhawk (A29-129) from 10,000 to 25,000ft. The trials between the Airacobra and Kittyhawk showed the advantage was with the former.



Hiya Graeme!

Never having studied a whole lot beyond the basics of it, I have to admit in the amount of time it took to design and build the prototype (something like 16 weeks) and what resulted is pretty dam impressive. It's a shame it did not score any aerial victories.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 28, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Parsifal, do you have a copy of Stewart Wilson’s “Wirraway, Boomerang and CA-15?” There’s a good summary of comparative handling trials between the Boomerang, Kittyhawk, Airacobra and the Buffalo on pages 114 to 119. The trials were conducted at Mildura late 1942 by the No.2 Operational Training Unit.
> The Boomerang was outmanoeuvred by the Buffalo.



Hi Graeme

I havent see that publicatiuon, but I have seen secondary sources that make reference to it. This one by Francillon for example:

Aircraft Profile #178. Commonwealth Boomerang

Relevantly it says this

_Flight tests proved that the aircraft had remarkable performances and, in particular, a rate of climb of 900m per minute was demonstrated. However, since the maximum speed of the aircraft was only slightly superior to that of the Buffalo, an aircraft which had not achieved much success against Japanese fighter aircraft in Malaya, there was naturally some hesitation on the part of the Government and comparative trials between the first Boomerang, a Kittyhawk (Curtiss P-40E) and an Airacobra (Bell P-39D) were arranged by the Department of Air. Comparative performance figures and an excerpt of the trial report, published in "Australia in the War of 1939-1945, The Role of Science and Industry" edited by the Australian War Memorial are quoted:

"At 10,000 feet, the Boomerang is more manoeuvrable than the Kittyhawk and can turn inside it. The Kittyhawk's speed advantage is not sufficient for it to dictate the type of combat and, although it gains more in a dive, the Boomerang's greater manoeuvrability with pull out and superior climb finds it level with the Kittyhawk at the top of the ensuing zoom. The Kittyhawk's only manoeuvre is to dive through a great height and break off the combat; the speed advantage is not sufficient for it to fly away at the same height without becoming vulnerable once combat is joined with the Boomerang.

The Airacobra has a greater speed advantage over the Boomerang than has the Kittyhawk but is outmanoeuvred at the same height in concentric attack (turning circles). When first attempted the Airacobra was able to dictate terms of combat to the Boomerang by its superiority in dive and zoom which allowed it to gain the extra 
_

Though the Boomerang was not successful as a fighter (in the sense that there were no aircraft in the locality that it was deployed), it did find a niche as a close support aircraft, where its relatively heavy armemnt (it could carry a bomb incidentally....its incorrect to say that Boomerangs could not carry bombs....just a bit rare). According to that Link I posted its trainer roots stood it in good service, because of its high manouverability due to its trainer origins. 

Finally, the poor performance of the type at altitude was due, I think to its lack of a turbocharger, but this was rectified in the next mark, the CA-14, of which only one was built. By the time the type was ready, superior supercharged US British types were available, and ther simply was no need to produce this otherwise successful aircraft.


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 29, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Hi
> Though the Boomerang was not successful as a fighter (in the sense that there were no aircraft in the locality that it was deployed).



Just to expand on this, there were three Boomerang squadrons deployed in the interceptor role, 83, 84 and 85 squadrons. Of these squadrons 83 never came into contact with enemy aircraft and the other two had a total of four engagements, all inconclusive:-

16 May 43 - 2 Boomerangs of 84sqn intercept 3 Betty bombers over Merauke. One boomerangs guns fail to fire and the second only gets off a short burst before the Betty's find cloud cover.

20 May 43 - 2 Boomerangs of 85sqn attempt a night interception with nil sightings.

21 May 43 - 2 Boomerangs of 85sqn are scrambled to intercept a night raid. One Boomerang is able to find an enemy bomber but just as he is in position to open fire his starboard fuel tank cuts out. On switching to the fuselage tank the engine fails to pick up. After rectifying the problem, the pilot just manages to reach base after gliding and using lean fuel settings.

9 Sep 43 - 4 Boomerangs of 84sqn attempt to intercept 17 Betty's and 15 Zero's, however the Boomerangs are unable to close with the enemy.

As you can see, luck was against the Boomerang in most of these cases! As for the other two squadrons to fly the Boomerang, No's 4 and 5 squadrons were Army co-op units and I only know of two occasions when Boomerangs met enemy aircraft.

6 Sep 43 - A46-112 went missing after it was last seen engaging enemy fighters in New Guinea.

26 Nov 43 - two Boomerangs on a TAC-R mission are shot down after being engaged by seven Zero's.

One can only speculate how the Boomer would have faired against the Japanese if it they had of been in a position to engage the Japanese on a regular basis, mind you I wouldn't want to be going up against Zero's! I always thought a good role would have been to use the Boomerang against the Japanese bombers at Darwin while the Spitfires took on the Zero's, certainly would've made interesting reading!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 29, 2009)

Thanks wildcat. You guys sure have knowledge i can only dream about


----------



## fibus (Aug 29, 2009)

I knew a US Naval aviator that flew both the earliest models Buffalo and Wildcat. Earliest meaning not developed and the lightest.
He said the Buffalo was superior in speed and manueverability.
Ultimate conclusions seem to suffer in comparison.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 30, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really - "production quality" involves how the aircraft is built - how the rivets look after installation, how the fabric surfaces are finished, how the paint looks (runs), if the aircraft is built per the blueprints developed by engineers, how many repairs had to be undertaken because of mistakes by assembly personnel - for examples. Equipment that is to design but don't function with the rest of the aircraft "system" is an engineering problem - poor design. The assembly folks and mechanics who install these components just follow a blue print - the folks who dictate things like pumps and electric motors are engineers.
> 
> The overall quality of the aircraft is affected by poor design, but the aircraft could be built perfectly - 100% per the engineering drawings. At the same time you could have a top fighter built like crap, poor workmanship.
> 
> ...


I see the difference, but it seemed like from at least one account I read that it wasn't the airframe design but the use of a ton of substandard parts (remanufactured airliner engines, wrong fuel pumps) that made a lot of them perform way below expectations. Seems like it isn't the design's fault when it was designed to use good parts and gets built with bad ones.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 30, 2009)

Wildcat said:


> One can only speculate how the Boomer would have faired against the Japanese if it they had of been in a position to engage the Japanese on a regular basis, mind you I wouldn't want to be going up against Zero's! I always thought a good role would have been to use the Boomerang against the Japanese bombers at Darwin while the Spitfires took on the Zero's, certainly would've made interesting reading!



Like the way Hawker Hurricanes attacked German Bombers while the Spits took on the escort fighters?


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 30, 2009)

Exactly.


----------



## Juha (Aug 30, 2009)

Hello Graeme
Quote:” The Boomerang was outmanoeuvred by the Buffalo.
Quote:
At no time was the Boomerang able to gain the initiative in the combat. 

And
Quote: “The Buffalo used in the trials was ex-Dutch (A51-6). They loaded it to what they thought at the time matched the Zero's wing loading-24lb/sq.ft. Combat was staged around 8,000ft.”

That is very interesting indeed. If I have understood correctly A51-6 was Model 339-23, and so had the same engine as the Finnish Model 239s and if it was lightened to 24lb/sq.ft wingload, as the wing area was 209sq.ft that means 5016lb. Now the max T/O weight of the Finnish Brewsters (sans naval equipment but with pilot armour etc Finnish mods) was 2415kg (appr 5325lb), so after using some fuel FAF Brewster was rather near the Australian test plane. Now neither the Australia in the War of 1939-1945, The Role of Science and Industry nor the Profile on Boomerang gave no info on A51-6 vs Boomerang tests. Are the more on Stewart Wilson’s “Wirraway, Boomerang and CA-15”?

On armament, 4 .5mgs was powerful enough armament against Japanese planes in 1942

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Aug 30, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Graeme
> 
> That is very interesting indeed. If I have understood correctly A51-6 was Model 339-23


That's correct, A51-6 was Brewster B-3186, a 339-23 indeed. It had an old R-1820-G2 engine, modified to a G5B (1000 hp)


----------



## Juha (Aug 30, 2009)

Hello Wildcat
thanks for info on Boomerang combat activities

Hello Marcel
thanks for the info on A51-6.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Aug 30, 2009)

> use the Boomerang against the Japanese bombers at Darwin while the Spitfires took on the Zero's


They only built 250 Boomerangs vs 20,000 Spitfires. So why bother? Just use an all Spitfire fighter force.

If you intend to further develop the Boomerang and place it into mass production then the situation would be different.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 30, 2009)

The Boomerang was developed and built, on the basis that Australia had no access to modern fighters from overseas. There were no fighters at all in Australia at the outbreak of the war, whilst those in Malaya (the Buffalo) were found to be inadequate. With the limited resources available to the country at the time, came the Boomerang. 
After the defeat of the Japanese at Coral Sea and Midway, the need for an indigenous design did recede. However development of the Boomernag did continue, the ultimate development, the CA-15 was comparable or superior to the later model P-51s.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 30, 2009)

Juha said:


> Are the more on Stewart Wilson’s “Wirraway, Boomerang and CA-15”?



Hi Juha. Most of the reports deal with the Kittyhawk and Airacobra. This is the paragraph pertaining to the Buffalo...







Juha said:


> On armament, 4 .5mgs was powerful enough armament against Japanese planes in 1942



A British magazine tells the story of how CAC wanted to manufacture the Hispano 20mm cannon locally. They had the handbooks but no pattern gun was available in Australia. Then, "quite by chance" one was located from a RAAF sergeant who had brought one back from North Africa where he had it mounted on the back of his truck in the Western Desert.
Using this and the handbooks CAC prepared production drawings to enable a local sub-contractor (Harland Engineering), to manufacture the cannon, simultaneously designing a spring-feed magazine and recoil-driven belt-fed booster. Myth? Makes for a good story anyway!

One of the many problems found with the the 'Boomer' was the canopy layout and excessive heat in the cockpit...





I wonder if this is why so many aerial photographs show it with the canopy open?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2009)

Hi graeme

That reads to me that the Buffalo was mocked up to approximate the qualities of the Zero, and that surprise surprise, the Boomerang could not compete in a turning fight with an aircraft configured in that way. The same conclusions could be drawn about the Kittyhawk, and just about every allied aircraft of that time. The answer was the boom and zoom tactics worked out from October 1942, and which worked so well for the allies from that point forward. The report tellingly says that this was open to the boomerang as well.

Like the Kittyhawk, the Boomerang was a poor performer at altitude, but so too was the Zero. If the height advantage was achieved, the boomernag had to dive and then get the hell out. Trouble for the Boomerang was that its spped was limited. It might have been possible to keep the airspeed up as high as possible, as it was known that Zeroes were heavy on the controls above 250 mph. A Zero would undoubtedly be a a handful for the Boomerang, however I still think it would be a better proposition than a Buffalo vs a Zero. It had a slight advantage of speed (about 20 mph) a better climb rate, and much heavier armament. Dive, run, climb, the three importamnnt lessons to learn .


----------



## Juha (Aug 31, 2009)

Hello Graeme
thanks a lot. Very much appreciated!
Brewster F2A in its original form wasn’t a bad plane. But in the end too much was crammed into a small plane with a rather small wing.
Thanks again for the info!

Hello Parsifal
Difficult to say. At least B-239 had light controls also at rather high speeds and was according to the test better zoomer than Boomerang. Buffalo with 1200hp engine, with smaller tankage and after some other mods to lighten the a/c could have been passable plane. It would have been faster with more powerful engine and with mods mentioned also would have climbed better than A51-6 used in the test.

IIRC Zero wasn’t so bad higher up and the max speed of it is still a bit hazy to me. Some experts say that the official Japanese max speed was the max speed guaranteed by Mitsubishi, and on average Zeros were faster. 

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2009)

Graeme said:


> One of the many problems found with the the 'Boomer' was the canopy layout and excessive heat in the cockpit...


That was a typical complaint of many pilots of the 1930s who went from flying open cockpit aircraft to aircraft with an enclosed canopy. I could tell you that this is the case for many WW2 aircraft and postwar jets.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 31, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The Boomerang was developed and built, on the basis that Australia had no access to modern fighters from overseas. There were no fighters at all in Australia at the outbreak of the war, whilst those in Malaya (the Buffalo) were found to be inadequate. With the limited resources available to the country at the time, came the Boomerang.
> After the defeat of the Japanese at Coral Sea and Midway, the need for an indigenous design did recede. However development of the Boomernag did continue, the ultimate development, the CA-15 was comparable or superior to the later model P-51s.


The Kangaroo was a totally different and unrelated design to the Boomerang.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2009)

Yes I know, but it was designed by virtually the same team as had been used for the Boomerang, and it drew its inspiration from the success achieved with the earlier fighter. Its an interesting what if, if the government had opted for an indigenous design rather than adopt Wacketts recommendation to build P-51s in prefernce, and treat the Kangaroo a a low order design excercise.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2009)

> The Boomerang was developed and built, on the basis that Australia had no access to modern fighters from overseas.


That basis is wrong. The below web site details what aircraft were in Australia and when they became available.
Welcome to ADF Serials

Boomerang fighter aircraft did not reach operational status until 1943. By then there were plenty of P-40s and Spitfires available. Not a bad looking aircraft though.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That was a typical complaint of many pilots of the 1930s who went from flying open cockpit aircraft to aircraft with an enclosed canopy. I could tell you that this is the case for many WW2 aircraft and postwar jets.



It's all that friggin' glass and no AC. Sitting around on the ground is murder. Gotta keep the cockpit open or you'll just roast in there. Even then, you still drop sweat. Have to get airborne to cool off.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2009)

timshatz said:


> It's all that friggin' glass and no AC. Sitting around on the ground is murder. Gotta keep the cockpit open or you'll just roast in there. Even then, you still drop sweat. Have to get airborne to cool off.


I used to soak my skull cap in ice water and then put my helmet on over it - just a little relief. I'm sure you remember those days where you could loose 5 pounds just sitting there until the AC is turned on!


----------



## Waynos (Aug 31, 2009)

Does anyone know how the Boomerang compares with NAA's own fighter conversion of the T-6, the NA-50? I would be interested if anyone has done a comparison. What things were done the same, what things were done differently by the two separate design teams to turn this legendary trainer into a makeshift fighter?


----------



## timshatz (Aug 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I used to soak my skull cap in ice water and then put my helmet on over it - just a little relief. I'm sure you remember those days where you could loose 5 pounds just sitting there until the AC is turned on!



Yeah man, brutal. I used to think the line about "persperation dripping off" was supposed to refer to high stress of combat, not the heat of sitting on the ground in summer!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2009)

davebender said:


> That basis is wrong. The below web site details what aircraft were in Australia and when they became available.
> Welcome to ADF Serials
> 
> Boomerang fighter aircraft did not reach operational status until 1943. By then there were plenty of P-40s and Spitfires available. Not a bad looking aircraft though.





At the time of its design ther were no fighter aircraft at all in Australi. I can supply you with the complements of each squadron if you like, fully referenced but I can assure you ther were no fighters at that time. Moreover, as the months rolled by there was a gradual reinforcemet of fighters to Australia, but at no time were there sufficient numbers, and moreover, if the US had lost any of the battles up until October, Australia could well have found itself without an adequate supply of aircraft. In anybody's book, under these circumstances, it made a lot of sense to continue with the program.

The Boomerang first entered operational units in October 1942. Admittedly OTUs, but if the need had been there the aircraft was ready at that time. The first combat squadron equipped with the type was number 84, formed 5 February 1943 and receiving Boomerangs soon thereafter. It had completed re-equipment by March, and was in action late march/early April. By April its engaging enmy forces. Two further Squadrons entered service soon thereafter.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2009)

> under these circumstances, it made a lot of sense to continue with the program.


The British program to purchase Mustang fighter aircraft from North American Aviation was operational during 1940. Did the government of Australia consider buying into this existing program rather then building an aircraft from scratch?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2009)

Even if they could buy the fighters the problem would be getting them delivered.

Australians were worried about being cut off from sea deliveries. Mustangs had long range but not that long a range.

They might also be worried about THEIR fighters being "Requisitioned" by somebody with a greater need just before delievery. 

Austrailains also came up with the Sentinal tank for much the same reasons. 

Sentinel tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember that the Japanese had been fighting in China for a number of years by 1940.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2009)

> Australians were worried about being cut off from sea deliveries.


If Australia was that worried about defending the homeland then why were the best units of their armed forces deployed to Europe, North Africa and Malaya?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 31, 2009)

just maybe they were honoring their commitments.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 31, 2009)

davebender said:


> If Australia was that worried about defending the homeland then why were the best units of their armed forces deployed to Europe, North Africa and Malaya?


Their armed forces were not totally independent of the UK. I don't think they could say no.


----------



## merlin (Aug 31, 2009)

Reading recently the autobiography of Tim Vigors, who after serving in 222 Squadron in the Battle of Britain was posted to Singapore. He did of course fly Buffalos they - he after much 'at ready' time flew over the Repulse as it sank - pity the RN didn't notify the Squadron they had gone to sea, or even later - Phillips it seems didn't want to break radio silence!
But that is not the main point of the post.

When having assembled the crated aircraft, there were flight tested - by the experienced pilots, either the engine became rough, or else it cut out - resulting in a couple of dicey landings. 
The conclusion was that there was a problem with the air filters - not being designed for the damp, humid climate. What was to be done? It seems th engineering officer of 243 Squadron, came up with the temporary expedient of fitting some of his wife's sanitary towels (no comments please about used or unused), at the front of the air filter.
Result being that in the air the aircraft engine behaved perfectlly.
The next problem - was how were they going to get a gross of sanitay towels, and who was going to get them!?
Lots were drawn, with the unlucky winner having the task of going into the chemist and asking for them!
The 'fresh-faced young man' was armed with the nesessary money, and taken to a large chemist in Singapore.
" He approached the girl behind the counter.
'Can I help you sir?' she asked.
'Well,' blushing. 'Yes' please miss. I want some sanitary towels,' said our man.
'How many would you like?' asked the girl looking only slightly surprised.
'One gross please miss,' came th hushed reply, accompanied by an even deeper blush.
'What size do you want, sir?' The girl was now looking definitely amused.
'I don't know miss. They're for Buffalos.'
At which point Tim Vigors came to his rescue and explained what it was all about. But once used - no more problems with the air filters.


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 31, 2009)

davebender said:


> That basis is wrong. The below web site details what aircraft were in Australia and when they became available.



Dave at the beginning of the Pacific war the entire RAAF fighter force comprised two squadrons of Buffaloes (at Singapore) and a handful of Wirraway units. Both aircraft were completely outclassed by the Japanese once hostilities started, this is why the panic fighter went into production.
Throughout 1942 the RAAF were forming squadrons with whatever aircraft they could lay their hands on, more Buffaloes, P-39's and more importantly P-40's. Spitfires didn't become operational until early 1943. The US and Britain were simply unable to supply both Australia and its own forces in the Pacific area at this time, hence the Boomerang.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I could tell you that this is the case for many WW2 aircraft



Hi Joe. I've also read (Boscombe Down reports) that carbon monoxide poisoning was a big problem with many WWII aircraft and elaborate exhaust changes were made to hopefully eliminate it. Having heard that the average family car interior is prone to CO2 accumulation if you drive with the boot open I wonder if the same would occur if the cockpit is open? 



Waynos said:


> Does anyone know how the Boomerang compares with NAA's own fighter conversion of the T-6, the NA-50? I would be interested if anyone has done a comparison. What things were done the same, what things were done differently by the two separate design teams to turn this legendary trainer into a makeshift fighter?



Hi Wayne. We staunchly claim the Boomer is ALL OURS!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Hi Joe. I've also read (Boscombe Down reports) that carbon monoxide poisoning was a big problem with many WWII aircraft and elaborate exhaust changes were made to hopefully eliminate it. Having heard that the average family car interior is prone to CO2 accumulation if you drive with the boot open I wonder if the same would occur if the cockpit is open?


This is still a problem today and modern recip aircraft actually have carbon monoxide detectors that are available for this. When you fly with the canopy opened it would seem the CO2 would just vent rearward. I've only flown a T-34 with the canopy opened, I had no problems.


----------



## Terry McGrady (Sep 3, 2009)

davebender said:


> It appears to me the P-40s need to arrive from Britain. They received over 2,500 P-40 aircraft produced during 1940 and 1941. Compared to 250 x CAC Boomerangs produced beginning in late 1942.
> 
> *P-40 deliveries to Britain.*
> US Warplanes
> ...


 Hi Mate, 
Of the 1500 Kittyhawk MKIA the RAF actually received 444 Airframes under Lend -Lease requirement BSC322 r contact DA-3
Of this total of 444 airframes , after diversions to other Commonwealth Airforces ie , RAAF , RCAF , RNZAF, 
and losses in transit the RAF actually used 200.
THe easiest way to identify L-L Kittyhawk IA is by serial number . They were in the ET*** and EV*** ranges.
From EV315 onwards all A/C the resembled P40K , having the fin -fillet,
Cheers 
Terry McGrady


----------



## vanir (Sep 5, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This is still a problem today and modern recip aircraft actually have carbon monoxide detectors that are available for this. When you fly with the canopy opened it would seem the CO2 would just vent rearward. I've only flown a T-34 with the canopy opened, I had no problems.



I know nothing about this personally but I did read an interesting note about the early cockpit pressurisation used in the Ta152 projects, that although the system was somewhat less than reliable at altitudes beyond 12km one thing it did provide of note was in preventing exhaust gases from entering the cockpit. I don't know if that has something to do with high altitude pressure differences between ambient outside air and a closed cockpit but apparently exhaust gases entering the cockpit was a serious problem with very high altitude flight in general at the time, so the pressuration system was of benefit for this reason alone, if not for its intended purpose to the full.


----------

