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

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?
Click to expand...

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

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.



We have only two cases where Boomerangs tried to intercept something. Three if we count night mission, which is very specific kind of interception.
In first case, pair of Boomerangs was able to intercept 3 Bettys at 10 000 ft but pilots failed to shot them down (one Boomerang encounter guns malfunction).
In second case, 4 Boomerangs executed interception of big formation of bombers, but before they reach position to attack they lost them in clouds.
In both cases, there is no mention of lack of performance of Boomerang in combat reports.
Anyway, I think that we cannot judge from this very limited sample. Who knows how many enemies was able Boomerang shot down been deployed to front line in some significant numbers. And if Hawk was able intercept enemy aircrafts (in France for example), Boomerang was too.

Edit - max. speed of CA-14A corrected from 272 mph to 372 mph.
 
Last edited:
Great article on the CA-14 and CA-14A here.

Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation CA-14/A Fighter

The turbosupercharged Commonwealth CA-14 was Australia’s attempt to turn the outclassed Boomerang fighter into an aircraft that could meet the enemy on equal terms.
oldmachinepress.com

I heartily recommend the oldmachinepress website as it has quite a number of the more oddball aircraft and engines in much greater detail than Wiki.

The Article also points out the problem with the "just slap a turbo on it" school of fighter development in "what ifs"

here is a picture from the article of the CA-14.


and here is another showing some of the changes between the CA-14 and the CA-14A


The Turbo was from a B-24 and the intercooler was from a B-17. The little doors on the top of the fuselage are the exit doors for the intercooler.

Something to remember for suggestions to stick turbo-chargers on Plane XXX.
The Turbo charged plane will be faster at high altitude, it will also be slower, 20-40mph slower, at low altitude so you better make your choice carefully.

There are more photos and a lot of information on the website.

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.
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
...

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.
Click to expand...

Correct, these are indeed calculated figures for CA-14A with R-2000. Calculated by CAC company to be clear.
 
Farky said:
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
Click to expand...
Well I think this is a bit of a stretch on a couple of different levels.

According to this RAAF test, run at military power (i.e. considerably below max power) the P-40E starts at 300 mph at sea level and gets up to 350 mph. At WEP it would be much faster at sea level up to about 8 - 10,000 ft. The P-40K which they used quite a bit, was considerably faster down low. The F/L (used by 3 RAAF in the Middle East) was considerably faster up to 20,000 ft and also starts at 300+ mph at sea level as you can see in this test.

This RAAF test of a P-40N-1 at WEP gives 315 mph at Sea level up to 355 at 9500 ft (level) and a climb rate of over 3,000 fpm up to 9500 ft.

So that would be from a 30 to 45 mph speed advantage for the Kittyhawk at sea level. Hardly negligible. And since Zeros could make ~280 - 288 mph at sea level, depending on the precise version, and Oscars about 290, it was important to have that edge.

I will say this though, if Boomerang was making 348 mph at 28,200' that is pretty impressive and probably useful. Do you have a source for that? What i see quoted all over is 305 mph at more like 15,000 ft.

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.
 
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.
 

Kittyhawk II was used in the Pacific, by the 49th FG in New Guinea, though not by the Australians in the Pacific.


I'm sorry the CA-14 is listed as one of the normal Boomerang variants, so I'm a little confused. Was it making 348 mph without a turbo?

I would agree though if they could make it work with a turbo, that kind of performance at altitude would have been useful 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.?
 
Here are some points on the time line for Different P & W engines for planes people may propose being built in Australia.

1. For the R-2000 engine, the 5th production engine was accepted in Dec 1941. The early versions were rated for 1350hp. The 1450hp engines only made the higher power at very low altitudes., like 1000ft. At higher altitudes they reverted back to the 1350hp engine ratings. In high gear the R-2000 was good for 1100hp at 16,000ft.


2. For the R-1830 rated for use at 1350hp the 5th production engine was accepted Dec 1943.

For building any useable numbers of aircraft in 1941 or 1942 for non US use it was pretty much the R-1830 or nothing.
 
Wild_Bill_Kelso said:
Kittyhawk II was used in the Pacific, by the 49th FG in New Guinea, though not by the Australians in the Pacific.
Click to expand...

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.

I guess maybe they didn't bother because by the time they got it that far they had Spit VIII, Corsair etc.?
Click to expand...

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).
 
Farky said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well, you may be right, but regardless of which specific units were using them in the South Pacific (maybe 18th FG?), they were active in Theater, so they were certainly relevant as a competitor to the Boomerang. Solomons weren't that far away from New Guinea.

Farky said:
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).
Click to expand...

The kind of high altitude performance conferred by that turbo, if the estimates are accurate, I think would have been useful. It's certainly better altitude performance than any production model Kittyhawk and probably compares fairly well to a Spit VIII or a Corsair.
 
Cool guys! I was wondering what else the Aussie aviation infustry got up to after the war. Check out my little book review for some operational tidbits on the Wirraway and Aussie flown Beauforts....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Tandems (and push pulls, maybe?)
Replies
6
Views
751
AMCKen
A
A
Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?
Replies
8
Views
675
GrauGeist
W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
971
Admiral Beez
A
"Super" A-36 for CAS/ground attack and tactical recon.
Replies
14
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
M
If German have access to high ocatane fuel, how does that impact the performance of their fighters?
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Engineman
E
Menu
Log in
Register