Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What is the performance of the CA-14/A? Speed, altitude, climb? What version of the Kittyhawk are you comparing it to?
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.
...
Edit. the Performance figures on the CA-14A may be a proposed version using the P & W R-2000 engine and possibly changing from the B-2 turbo to the B-13 turbo.
Well I think this is a bit of a stretch on a couple of different levels.CA-14.
Maximum speed -
S.L - 269 mph
28 200 ft (critical altitude) - 348 mph
Climb-
S.L. - 2150 ft/min
28 200 ft - 1180 ft/min
Time to 28 200 ft - 17.2 min
372 mph would be roughly equivalent to a Kittyhawk II, but again... what is the source for that? If you have a Boomerang making 372 mph at 27,000 ft then I am sold on it. Lets build more of those! Or is this like an experimental turbo version or something? Even then maybe it's doable.CA-14A (calculated by CAC).
Maximum speed -
S.L. - 286 mph
27 000 ft (critical altitude) - 372 mph
Climb -
S.L. - 2100 ft/min
27 000 ft - 1770 ft/min
Time to 27 000 ft - 15.2 min
You can compare it with all versions of Kittyhawk in RAAF service. There is no significant difference in performance between Kittyhawks, well, some versions climb better while speed remain basically the same around 350-360 mph. Kittyhawk will be better in lower altitude than CA-14/A, no doubt. On the other hand, "Super Boomerang" will be better at high altitude, just because she got turbosupercharger.
Can you please at least read the article linked by Shortround6 ? Of course I am talking about prototypes with turbosupercharger, remember - my point was that Boomerang got some potential.
And one more thing - we are talking about Pacific, so no Kittyhawk II. I know i just wrote Kittyhawks in RAAF service, but common ...
Source for performance numbers of CA-14/A are CAC trials of CA-14, National Archives of Australia catalog number NAA: A705, 9/49/34 .
Like I said, Kittyhawk will be better than CA-14/A in low altitude, no reason to show me numbers for P-40, i know them, all of them. Still, CA-14/A performance was in my opinion on par with Kittyhawk. But if it makes you happy than ok, Kittyhawk was better.
No, the CA-14 was a one off and it was rebuilt into the CA-14A using the same airframe.I'm sorry the CA-14 is listed as one of the normal Boomerang variants
And overtaken by CA-15 developmentNo, the CA-14 was a one off and it was rebuilt into the CA-14A using the same airframe.
Kittyhawk II was used in the Pacific, by the 49th FG in New Guinea, though not by the Australians in the Pacific.
I guess maybe they didn't bother because by the time they got it that far they had Spit VIII, Corsair etc.?
49th FG never used Merlin powered P-40s. Three USAAF squadrons were using P-40Fs on Cactus. However, Boomerang in any shape or form will be hardly shiped to USAAF units, so let's not talk about Kittyhawk II.
Right guess, why bother with airplane which still needed development if you have enough Spitfires and Kittyhawks (in case of RAAF). Story about decision to not produce CA-14 is little bit more complicated of course (it always is).
And overtaken by CA-15 development
Cool guys! I was wondering what else the Aussie aviation infustry got up to after the war.