Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes but not on merit right? Personally, i don't think that argument holds water either.
If the RAAF has access to locally made R-1830 engines then the easiest path is to license build a fighter aircraft that's already using this engine.
Now this is the problem I have because I'm away from the forum a lot these days, but suffice to say, it doesn't have to hold water to you - why should it? That particular statement about nationalism playing a part in my decision making is my opinion (!) and it simply doesn't. What you think of my opinion is irrelevant.
Look, I obviously can't persuade you otherwise, so keep your opinion. Despite having all the references in front of you, you still have not given any evidence that the Hurricane performed "poorly", yet I have provided examples that it didn't do as badly as what is commonly stated. But, okay, dude, whatever...
You are right. Here is the thing - Twin Wasps produced in Australia were variant R-1830 S1C3G, equiped with single stage single speed supercharger. Really bad engine for a fighter unless you have turbosupercharger, because it was good only in low altitude (critical altitude for S1C3G without ram was 7500 ft if I remember well). Even engines for Boomerangs (variant S3C4G) were exported from USA. I know only one fighter plane powered by S1C3G variant of Twin Wasp and that was P-43 Lancer. Maybe not a bad choice for RAAF instead of Boomerang, however RAAF will still get Lancers way more later and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks on P-43 is a issue.
Surely that's a bolt on option that could be sourced from the US until P&W Oz could make them?You are right. Here is the thing - Twin Wasps produced in Australia were variant R-1830 S1C3G, equiped with single stage single speed supercharger. Really bad engine for a fighter unless you have turbosupercharger
We can start a whole noher thread on this one, because i can show pages and pages and pages of operational data showing Hurricanes getting slaughtered in air combat and a lot of good pilots getting killed as a result. And certainly at a higher rate per sortie than any other Allied fighter type, in more than one Theater. That isn't opinion it's just fact.
How hard would it have been to produce a two speed or two stage 1830? They couldn't sort that out in a year or two?
Maybe if the Aussis had produced the P-43 it would have gotten SSFT? There really was not an over-riding reason that the P-43 could not have been fitted with SSFT, just no interest from the USAAC.
Do it, then. Prove me wrong.
I bet they would have figured out how to install SSFT if thy got the go-ahead, maybe even redesign the wing structure.
How hard would it have been to produce a two speed or two stage 1830? They couldn't sort that out in a year or two?
Surely that's a bolt on option that could be sourced from the US until P&W Oz could make them?
The RAAF ended up with 8 P-43, using them for reconnaissance. Note the persistent brake problems.
See also Australian Archives Series A11093 control symbol 452/a56, 13 pages on the P-43
13 YP-40 September 1940 to April 1941, 54 P-43 May to August 1941, 205 September 1941 to April 1942. If I understand things correctly the first 80 P-43A did not have self sealing tanks, which is production until December 1941. Australia would need to import the supercharger to make a fighter design the US had already decided to discontinue in favour of the P-47. Plus cope with any differences in the version of R-1830 fitted to the P-43 and built in Australia. It is a non starter, at best coming into production after the US version had gone out of production and asking for a scarce resource, the supercharging, and 356 mph at 20,000 feet was comparable to a Boomerang with the same arrangement.
...
The last P-43A-1s were supposed to have gotten self sealing fuel tanks.
There is nothing that could not be modified later but since you are are weeks if not several months away from US suppliers whatever shows up in Australia is going to be months behind what the US was doing. It may be better, it may not be, but it sure won't be done any sooner (squadron service) that the Boomerang.