A Radial Engined Fighter for the Australians to build (and maybe the Chinese and Indians)

[FLYBOYJ]

Yeah I never said he had any claims in the P-40. As for 'in combat' I guess that depends what you mean, but I think you may be right. He flew them in a combat unit in a combat zone for a couple of months, but that didn't necessarily mean he encountered any enemy aircraft. So is that combat? I'm not sure. There were several (16) Japanese raids against Darwin during the time he was active there, but I think by then many if not most of them were at night? And P-40 isn't a night fighter.

The passage you quoted has pretty much the same timeline as the wiki.

I'm not sure he even did that. From all references I've seen, Bong didn't do much upon his arrival in the SWP until he went TDY with 39th. I think had he seen any combat in the P-40, be it training in a combat zone or during normal operations, it would have been well documented.

McGuire, on the other hand, had his "pre P-38" career mentioned in many publications.

And yes - it looks like the reference I posted jives with Wiki (or visa versa)

Anyway I wasn't trying to argue that Bong or McGuire were mainly P-40 or P-39 drivers...? Whatever their early experiences, their famous combat success was in the P-38.

And I wasn't taking it that way. My point was despite Bong being assigned to a P-40 unit, most evidence shows he never flew a P-40 within that unit at least during a combat or training sortie. Bong was hand picked by General Kenny and I believe (based on the many books I've read on this) Kenny wanted to make sure that Bong was going to utilize his talents in the combat aircraft he began his career with - that being the P-38.

 

[DarrenW]

And the decision to outsource the F4F was made in early 1942?
Eastern Aircraft was born on Jan 21st 1942.
Preliminary talks had started with Republic and then talks shifted to Grumman and the Avenger. With the start of Eastern Aircraft they had two different planes they would be responsible for and instead of securing work for 3,000-4,000 workers at Linden NJ they wound up planning to use 5 different factories. 3 in New Jersey, one in New York and one in Maryland,

Letters of intent were filed on Feb 5 for the Avenger and Feb 9th for the WIldcat.

When they decided for Grumman to only build the F6F may have come later. The F6F was several months away from flying.

Ah, we've been talking about the year 1943 for quite some time now Sortround, NOT 1942 lol!

By "eventually" I meant at some point in 1943 of course

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And the decision to outsource the F4F was made in early 1942?
Eastern Aircraft was born on Jan 21st 1942.
Preliminary talks had started with Republic and then talks shifted to Grumman and the Avenger. With the start of Eastern Aircraft they had two different planes they would be responsible for and instead of securing work for 3,000-4,000 workers at Linden NJ they wound up planning to use 5 different factories. 3 in New Jersey, one in New York and one in Maryland,

Letters of intent were filed on Feb 5 for the Avenger and Feb 9th for the WIldcat.

When they decided for Grumman to only build the F6F may have come later. The F6F was several months away from flying.

They should have outsourced it to Australia as well!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It also depends if we are talking about same timeline. If this is the case, there is no way that different airplane can be with operational units in 12-ish months from decision to produce it like it was with Boomerang. Different airplane will be with units lets say at the beginning of 1944 and even that is IMO optimistic.

Hawk was probably slightly better than Boomerang, by a narrow margin. But, you still get second line fighter at best in Hawk and you get them way more later than Boomerangs. I don't see the benefits.

Glosters could have been in theory produced, however both of them needed more developement and conversion to Twin Wasp (which Beaufigher needed too to be fair). Which means RAAF will get them even more later than Hawk.

Sounds like in a way, this is closer to reality than I had realized. Maybe the "what if" most profitably centers on "how could they have gotten Beaufighters into production sooner"?

Beaufighters are one of those aircraft which always seemed to be in short supply, but also always quite useful in action against the enemy. In the Pacific, Beaufighters seemed to often be able to evade destruction by Japanese fighters while wreaking havoc on merchant shipping and smaller military craft, and against troops etc. With room for the navigator, they were quite good maritime patrol aircraft, it seems, and as we know they did also have torpedo armed versions (not sure when precisely?). I think Beaufighters could also be pretty effective against the unescorted, low-flying enemy recon planes, seaplanes and bombers which were often found in the skies around New Guinea and Solomons areas.

Another type which seemed to be very useful in Theater and in particular in Australian hands was the Hudson. This is the kind of plane you often overlook (or I used to) since it's performance wasn't that great, but when you read the day to day operational histories they seemed to be particularly good in Theater. They could bomb and strafe small shipping, attack submarines, do coastal patrol and recon, and like the Beaufighter, seemed to be fairly resilient against attacks by enemy fighter aircraft. They were often used as navigator or pathfinder aircraft which would lead fighters or bombers on raids to enemy targets, and as pretty reliable fast transports. I wonder if they could have made these in Australian factories?

My biggest fault with the boomerang is that it just didn't seem to have the potential to be a really good, or even moderately good fighter. It seems to have made a decent ground attack aircraft, and on paper it looks like it could have been competitive as a fighter in this Theater, but it didn't seem to pan out that way (admittedly, I'm not an expert on it's operational history).

The Hawk had potential and may have ended up being made into it's own branch of the family so to speak, with better radial engines being introduced.

Wildcat I think also had a lot of potential.

The Gloster is more of a crap shoot but it looks very nice to me. If they could have gotten it working, and into production on some kind of accelerated timetable, it seems like it should have been worth having on the front lines!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not to beat this to death or to hijack this thread, but one more post about Dick Bong and the P-40.

I don't believe he ever flew the P-40 while arriving in Australia in August 1942. Several sources state he was initially assigned to the 9th FS, 49th Fighter Group which was a P-40 unit when it seems he actually first served with the 17th Fighter Squadron (Provisional).

During May 1942 redesigned the 17th Fighter Squadron (Provisional). Also known as the 17th Provisional Fighter Squadron and was equipped with Lockheed P-38 Lightnings and assigned new pilots including 2nd Lt. Richard I. Bong and 2nd Lt. Carl G. Planck, Jr. By November 1942 these pilots were transfered to the 49th Fighter Group (49th FG), 9th Fighter Squadron (9th FS) "The Flying Knights".

Pacific Wrecks - 24th Pursuit Group (24th PG) U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF), Far East Air Force (FEAF)

The 24th Pursuit Group (24th PG) was assigned to the Far East Air Force (FEAF) in the Philippines, Java and Australia.

pacificwrecks.com

Bong was then flown overseas as a passenger aboard a B-24 Liberator from the west coast via Hickam Field to Australia. Four P-38 pilots were crammed into the nose: Carl G. Planck, Jr., Norman D. "Sneezy" Hyland, Walter Markey and Richard Ira "Dick" Bong. Upon arrival Bong and Planck were assigned to a newly formed P-38 fighter unit, the 17th Fighter Squadron (Provisional).

By November 1942 both were transferred to the 49th Fighter Group (49th FG), 9th Fighter Squadron (9th FS) "The Flying Knights" operating the P-40 Warhawk who were famous from their aerial defense of Darwin between March 1942 until August 1942. Afterwards, the 9th Fighter Squadron was one of two units in the 5th Air Force selected for conversion to the P-38 Lightning. Planck and Bong were among a group of new pilots in the South-West Pacific Area (SWPA) with experience flying the new twin engine fighter. They began helping American fighter pilots convert from the P-40 Warhawk and P-39 Airacobra to the P-38 Lightning.

As mentioned earlier, sometime late November (Possibly early December) Bong went TDY with the 39th FS, 35th FG where he first saw combat and achieved his first aerial victories. Bong returned to 9th FS in January, 1943.

Pacific Wrecks - Major Richard I. Bong, P-38 Lightning pilot Highest Scoring American Ace

Bong was credited with 40 aerial victories and was America's highest scoring fighter pilot of World War II. All of his aerial victory claims were flying the P-38 Lightning in the South West Pacific Area (SWPA).

pacificwrecks.com

This site has some very detailed information about Bong (with references) to include a list of his claims and the aircraft that were assigned to him

 

[Graeme]

My biggest fault with the boomerang is that it just didn't seem to have the potential to be a really good, or even moderately good fighter.

Maybe if the design engineer didn't doodle on the back of envelopes and the chief design engineer didn't have to report to the police every week - we coulda designed a better aircraft?

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Beaufighters are one of those aircraft which always seemed to be in short supply, but also always quite useful in action against the enemy. In the Pacific, Beaufighters seemed to often be able to evade destruction by Japanese fighters while wreaking havoc on merchant shipping and smaller military craft, and against troops etc. With room for the navigator, they were quite good maritime patrol aircraft, it seems, and as we know they did also have torpedo armed versions (not sure when precisely?).

The Torpedo carrying Beaufighter versions began production in December 1942, the TF.X, though the first 60 are often called mark VI ITF (Intermediate Torpedo Fighter) the RAAF received some July/August 1943.

Another type which seemed to be very useful in Theater and in particular in Australian hands was the Hudson. This is the kind of plane you often overlook (or I used to) since it's performance wasn't that great, but when you read the day to day operational histories they seemed to be particularly good in Theater. They could bomb and strafe small shipping, attack submarines, do coastal patrol and recon, and like the Beaufighter, seemed to be fairly resilient against attacks by enemy fighter aircraft. They were often used as navigator or pathfinder aircraft which would lead fighters or bombers on raids to enemy targets, and as pretty reliable fast transports. I wonder if they could have made these in Australian factories?

In terms of combat units, Hudson
1 and 8 Sqn, disbanded after Malaya
2 Sqn Hudson until April 1944, considered a GR/B squadron, operating out of Darwin area.
6 Sqn Hudson until September 1943, considered a GR/B squadron, to New Guinea in October 1942.
7 Sqn Hudson until October 1942, doing sea patrols, switched to Beauforts
13 Sqn Hudson until April 1943, considered a GR/B squadron, operating out of Darwin area.
14 Sqn Hudson until January 1943, operated out of Perth.
32 Sqn Hudson until May 1943, formed in New Guinea in February 1942, to Horn Island (north Queensland) in April, to Camden, NSW September 1942.

The above ignoring the General Purpose Hudson/Wirraway squadrons. Last Hudson imports were in May 1942. With things like the Malaya operations by the end of the May, out of the 247 delivered 86 had been lost, by the end of the year losses were 137. The Hudson was a derivation from an airliner, with the aim of maritime patrol, minimal exposure to enemy aircraft, the Beaufort was a better combat aircraft and could carry a torpedo. In 1942 the Japanese had few to no ground based radars and had difficulty intercepting allied raids, the RAAF Hudsons were pressed into service as bombers but their main use was maritime patrol. One of the first IJN submarines sunk in WWII was off Darwin and there were operations off the Australian east coast. Building Hudsons in Australia would mean no local Beauforts.

My biggest fault with the boomerang is that it just didn't seem to have the potential to be a really good, or even moderately good fighter.

The Australian industry was too small to keep up with the latest in design and production. The Boomerang with a 1,500+ HP class engine and supercharger would perform much better but the improvements could not be manufactured in Australia.

Also remember if the allies were having lots of trouble providing supplies to the front line air force, the Japanese were having a worse time, it was hard to be a high intensity combat zone. It took until 1943 before the USAAF generated over 2,000 sorties a month stretching from the Darwin area to the Solomons. Including the islands in the Torres Strait, strafing attacks and a few bombers at night, Australia logged about 100 air raids in WWII, 19 February 1942 to 12 November 1943, about two thirds of the raids were in the Darwin area.

 

[Farky]

...

Another type which seemed to be very useful in Theater and in particular in Australian hands was the Hudson. This is the kind of plane you often overlook (or I used to) since it's performance wasn't that great, but when you read the day to day operational histories they seemed to be particularly good in Theater. They could bomb and strafe small shipping, attack submarines, do coastal patrol and recon, and like the Beaufighter, seemed to be fairly resilient against attacks by enemy fighter aircraft. They were often used as navigator or pathfinder aircraft which would lead fighters or bombers on raids to enemy targets, and as pretty reliable fast transports. I wonder if they could have made these in Australian factories?

My biggest fault with the boomerang is that it just didn't seem to have the potential to be a really good, or even moderately good fighter. It seems to have made a decent ground attack aircraft, and on paper it looks like it could have been competitive as a fighter in this Theater, but it didn't seem to pan out that way (admittedly, I'm not an expert on it's operational history).

The Hawk had potential and may have ended up being made into it's own branch of the family so to speak, with better radial engines being introduced.

Wildcat I think also had a lot of potential.

The Gloster is more of a crap shoot but it looks very nice to me. If they could have gotten it working, and into production on some kind of accelerated timetable, it seems like it should have been worth having on the front lines!

Role of Hudson was already covered with production of Beauforts.

Boomerang got some potential, take a look at CA-14/A. Boomerang was indeed decent aircraft, very good TacRec platform. As a fighter, it was second line material. To be honest, Boomerangs were produced mainly for reason keeping CAC company busy until better aircrafts were ready for them to build. Don't get me wrong, Boomerangs were useful for RAAF for tactical recon, OTU training and with fighter units in mainland Australia (because this alowed units with better fighters to be moved to "front line"). But, were they necessary? Not really. RAAF got enough Kittyhawks and Spitfires and they were clearly better then Boomerangs.

Hawk had same potential as Boomerang, it seems that CA-14/A performance was on par with Kittyhawk. And again, first Australia made Hawks can hit units way more later than Boomerangs, we are talking at least about year or more later (spring 1944?). Not worth it.

Wildcat - not a lot of potential there IMO. Wildcat did not lead to some Super Wildcat, Hellcat was completely different animal. And Wildcat alone did not outperform Boomerang that much, contrary to popular believe Wildcat wasn't fighter with good performance, far from it.

Gloster looks nice, I agree. However, it was prototype and no kind od accelerated timetable can change it. It still needed lot of time for development so in time it can start production it will be already obsolete.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

What is the performance of the CA-14/A? Speed, altitude, climb? What version of the Kittyhawk are you comparing it to?

The Wildcat had the significant advantage that it had that two stage supercharger and could perform pretty well up to 20-25,000 ft or so.

Both the Wildcat and the Kittyhawk, and even the Hawk, had something in that when they were sent up against enemy aircraft, at least some of the enemy aircraft tended to get shot down. From what I'm reading about the Boomerang they seemed to have a tough time intercepting enemy planes with them.

The Boomerang seems like a stout, somewhat draggy design, the wing shape is a bit weird as well I'm not sure how that contributes the speed.

I'll agree Beaufort is a better bomber than the Hudson, I just notice the Hudson seemed to be far more useful and effective in combat than it had any right to be (including surviving attacks by zeros and ki-43s frequently.) But carrying torpedoes the Beaufort is better. Does a Beaufort offer any advantage over a Beaufighter TF.X?

Ventura is another option as an "evolutionary" step from the Hudson.

 

[Shortround6]

Type..................................................................engine/power/weight....................wing area.................................light weight..............................Gross weight.................guns
Brewster B.239 / Buffalo.........................R-1820/1000/1100lbs..........................208............................................3744lb.......................................5276lb...............4 X 12.7mm
Bristol Beaufighter*.................................twin engine fighter
Fiat G.50**...................................................Fiat 14cy/890hp/1257lbs......................196...........................................4,328 lb.....................................5,296 lb..............2 X 12.7mm (short)
Fokker D.XXI...............................................B. Merc/840hp/1010lbs.........................174..........................................3,514 lb.......................................4,343 lb.............4 X 7.9mm
Gloster F-5/34............................................B. Merc/840hp/1010lbs........................230...........................................4,190 lb......................................5,400 lb..............8 X .303/7.7mm
Gloster F9......................................................Twin engine fighter
P-36 / Hawk 75...........................................R-1830/1200hp/1450lbs......................232..........................................4,628 lb......................................5,840 lb.............1 X 12.7 + 3 X 7.62
Re 2000..........................................................P.XI-RC40?1000hp/1433lbs................220...........................................4,608 lb......................................6,259 lb.............2 X 12.7mm (short)
Seversky P-35................................................R-1830/1200hp/1450lbs....................220...........................................4,575 lb......................................6,118 lb.............2 X 12.7 + 2 X 7.62
Boomerang..................................................R-1830/1200hp/1450lbs.....................225...........................................5,373 lb......................................7,699 lb.............2 X 20mm + 4 X .303/7.7mm


A few notes. The Boomerang had armor and self sealing fuel tanks. None of the aircraft as listed did, except occasional some seat back armor.
Please note the difference between light weight and gross weight as this includes abut 200lbs for pilot and gear, fuel/oil, guns/ammo and sometimes a few other things, radio might or might not be included for example.
The Brewster B.239 is as the Finns used them, everybody else got planes that were around 1000lb empty if not heavier. You can't leave out the "extra stuff" and get back to the weight of the Finnish plans because everybody else got engines that reduction gears instead of direct drive and everybody else got 3 blade propellers instead of 2 blade propellers and everybody else got heavier duty landing gear.
look at the Fokker XXI. You have barely 800lbs to fit in the 200lb pilot (with 20lb parachute) and the guns and the ammo and the fuel, fortunately the 840hp engine doesn't use as much fuel as the planes with bigger engines but as a basis for up engining to an R-1830????

The Boomerang may not have been the ideal choice but they only way you are going to get a significant increase in performance is to use less armament, Less protection and quite possible less fuel/range.

Figures for the P-36 are from the US army Manual for the P-36C and include only 105 US gallons of fuel and only 10 gallons of oil.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Great list, thanks for posting that. I'll add a couple more:

F4F-3---------------------R-1830/1,200 hp/1450 lbs?---------260 ------------------------4,907-------------------------7,433 lb -----4 x 12.7mm
D.520--------------------HS 12Y/ ?? --------------------------170 ------------------------4,680-------------------------5,902 lb ------1 x 20mm + 4 x 7.5mm

I do agree some of these aircraft had more potential for development than others. And I think it's obvious that weight of 1939-1940 vintage types would certainly increase by the time you are in 1941-42 production, and will continue to increase at least somewhat after that, mainly due to more and bigger guns and ammunition, more fuel, armor and SS tanks and so on.

Some of these airframes could clearly handle more weight - the P-36 obviously is a good example.

I include the D.520 in the list as an example of a small aircraft with a small wing area which did have armor and a self sealing fuel tank (and still carried 168 gallons, giving it a pretty good range compared to many contemporaries). Not sure if you could make a viable D.520 with an R- 1830 but I also wouldn't rule out Australian making a Hispano 12Y. Those seemed to be made in many places.

But the main point is that with a clever design, even a small aircraft like the D.520 with it's 950 hp engine could be viable and include sufficient armament to be dangerous. I'm not sure a D.XXI with retractable wheels, a couple of HMG, armor and SS tanks is impossible.

I included the F4F-3 because it's an effective package in terms of weight vs. guns carried (compared to most of the others) had good range, higher altitude performance, and I think the weight you see there is increased by the naval equipment. If you get rid of all the naval gear I think the weight goes down a bit. (you tell me). Even in the naval format it's lighter than the Boomerang and seems a bit faster, plus can fly and fight at higher altitude.

I assume the engine on the F4F-3 weighs a bit more due to supercharger differences?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Here is another one -Tomahawk vs. Hawk

P-36 / Hawk 75...............R-1830/1200hp/1450lbs................232..........................................4,628 lb......................................5,840 lb.............1 X 12.7 + 3 X 7.62
P-40C----------------- V-1710-33/1040 hp/1345 lbs---236 --------------------5,812 lb-------------------7,459 lb-------2 x 12.7mm / 4 x.7.62 mm

And we know that Tomahawk type P-40s did have a pretty good operational history in combat, pretty much everywhere they were used. So Hawk / Mohawk did have room to grow in terms of the airframe, though it's a matter of whether you could get an R-1830 to push it enough to give it sufficient power. I think a Hawk with an R-1830-76 would be interesting.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

here is an even more radical idea for Australian production. How about Northrop NP3? I think a Seaplane fighter could have had a lot of uses. It was heavily armed and could apparently even carry a torpedo! It was a little bit too slow with the R-1820, but I think a bit more power could improve that.

The Japanese certainly got some mileage out of their Rufe's. A good floatplane fighter could have been deployed in many areas that other land based fighters couldn't reach, and could be based with PBYs, Sunderlands and Martin PBMs.

Northrop N-3PB Nomad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Shortround6]

The Australian's were sort of stuck with the R-1830 engine because they were already making or in the process of making the R-1340 9 cylinder WASP engine.
The R-1340 used 5.75 bore by 5.75 stroke cylinders and the R-1830 engines used 5.50 X 5.50 cylinders. Which meant that a lot of machinery could be used on either engine and a lot of the manufacturing processes were the same.

Making V-12 engines need a whole bunch of stuff changed in the factory and/or the sub contactors. Some of these projects were not roll the raw material in one end and roll the engine or airplane out the other end of the factory. You could have hundreds of sub contractors making anything from washers to crankcase castings or forgings. Even Allison with GM behind them used around 800 sub contractors, some of which were just duplicates of the same part to ensure supply.

For Australia to branch out to try to make a different engine may have been too much. A lot of it depends on timing. Trying to make Merlin's in 1945/46 is a lot different that trying to make Merlin's in 1942.
The Hispano was also a crappy engine in 1940 with very little growth potential without serious reworking.

The Australians can't be swapping around which version of the R-1830 they are going to make.

and take a look at the P-40C, it used 93 lbs of armor, it used bullet proof glass. It used almost 250lbs of self sealing material in the fuel tanks. Because of the increase in gross weight (and the extra wing guns and ???) the wing structure itself went up by over 100lbs. You can convert a factory from making P-36s but you can't used stock piled P-36 parts to make P-40 airframes.

As far as the R-1830 goes for power, there is no push. 1200hp at sea level ( or a few thousand feet) was as it good as it got.
The two stage engines in the Wildcat were limited. Instead of running at 2700rpm for take-off or even in low supercharger gear when they were in high gear the engine was restricted to 2550rpm.
In 1944/45 some 1350hp engines did become available. They also gained over 50lbs of weight, they got new cylinder barrels with improved cooling (there is hint as to why they stayed at the older ratings) and there were other structural changes.

 

[Shortround6]

good floatplane fighter

The Northrop NP3 isn't anymore of a fighter than a Grumman Avenger or Fairley Barracuda is.

I have a few doubts as to how accurate that wiki entry is.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The Northrop NP3 isn't anymore of a fighter than a Grumman Avenger or Fairley Barracuda is.

I have a few doubts as to how accurate that wiki entry is.

You may be right, as the operational history isn't so great -though it's in a 'low density' area and very small numbers flying. It would help a lot to have an engine rated for slightly more power higher up, even a two speed engine would be good. But it had four .50 cal guns in the wings, and that means at least in theory it can shoot enemy aircraft down if it can catch them.

I think seaplane fighters and smaller armed seaplanes, even kinda slow ones, seemed to be quite useful. The Ar-196, the F1M, the He 115, that strange BV 138, all seemed to be able to cause a fair bit of mischief for their enemy. Certainly the A6M2-N was a bit of a menace for the Allies.

I don't disagree that making a liquid-cooled engine might have been a bit too much of a challenge. And maybe a Merlin or an Allison would have been a better choice anyway! But the 12Y did seem to be popular (aside from French and other European aircraft, it was the basis for the Klimov 105 of course). You seem to disparage the Hispano 12Y a lot but from reading about French aircraft they had some in the pipeline which were quite powerful for the time, the 12Y-77 was supposed to be ~1,200 hp. All 12Y were light at ~1,080 lbs and had the (IMO very useful) trait of being fitted for a hub mounted 20mm cannon.

The next version, the 12Z was supposed to make 1,500 or 1,600 hp. They didn't have time to complete development though so it was still in the teething process when the war started.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hispano-Suiza_12Z

Apparently these were sorted out used in the postwar Yugoslav Ikarus S-49C (rated at 1,480 hp). If Yugoslavia could make them I think Australia maybe could? But I'm not sure if they could have sorted it out quickly. Conceivably if you had an aircraft flying with 12Y there was at least a development path to a much more powerful version.

 

[Shortround6]

As far as the Northrop goes think about it.
You have a 3 seat torpedo bomber powered by a 1200hp engine and it has a 377ft wing and weighs 10,600lbs with the floats to match. It is supposed to go 257mph at sea level.

One source says that a ML V Spitfire with floats only did 248mph at sea level.

One of those listing has got to be off.

But the 12Y did seem to be popular (aside from French and other European aircraft, it was the basis for the Klimov 105 of course). You seem to disparage the Hispano 12Y a lot but from reading about French aircraft they had some in the pipeline which were quite powerful for the time, the 12Y-77 was supposed to be ~1,200 hp. All 12Y were light at ~1,080 lbs and had the (IMO very useful) trait of being fitted for a hub mounted 20mm cannon.

And here we get to the heart of the matter.
All of the later versions of the Hispano gained weight, some got new cylinder heads with more valves in each cylinder, many had reinforced crankshafts, the Klimov M-105 even reduced the bore size by 2 mm to reinforce the cylinder walls.
So you have some real problems trying to use them for "what if" scenarios, especially in countries that are just starting out building aircraft and engines in 1938-40.

"teething process" should not include needing new crankshafts, new cylinder heads, completely new superchargers and other modifications. If it needs that much work just start with a new engine.
The Russians licensed the Hispano in 1933 or so and had built thousands of them during the 1930s so they had a large factory tooled up for mass production. in other words, they were stuck with it. The Swiss got roped into it the very early 40s and it took several years to get the engines to run right and or last for very long and they would up weighing hundreds of pounds more than the Hispano engines in production in 1940. Yes they made more power.
The Hispano may have been a good engine in 1933. In 1940 it had reached the end of the line and they were grasping at straws. Instead of tossing the whole thing aside and starting fresh they were trying to keep as much of the old tooling as they could. Like keeping the old bore spacing in the cylinder blocks.

Only suggest this option to the Australians if you hate them and are trying to get the Japanese to succeed

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ok I like the Aussies so lets scratch the Hispano lol.... can we make a D.520 fly with an R-1830?

 

[Graeme]

I strongly suggest a read of Sir Lawrence Wackett's autobiography "Aircraft Pioneer: an Autobiography" for the background into why the North American NA-16 was the basis for CAC's aircraft production/development.

G'day Greg.

Does Wackett's book go into detail about his reception in the UK and what aircraft the group looked at?
I keep reading that prior to hostilities no British aircraft firm would allow a manufacturing license to be granted to CAC until they rid themselves of GMH.
I think at the time it had a 30% shareholding in CAC which was whittled down to 10% to placate the British and then it was even offered to Hawker - but they declined.
Once the decision to go with North American was made there was talk of also producing the Miles Magister - until Miles made it perfectly clear they refused to have the Magister even in the same building as the Wirraway let alone provide a manufacturing license. Of course attitudes changed once hostilities commenced.

Musta been a short stay for Wackett and his team in the UK?
Any info you can find would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Very interesting that they were looking at the Magister, would have been cool if they had snatched a contract for the M.20!