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

[FLYBOYJ]

I think that is overstating the case quite a bit, both A6M and Ki-43 were still shooting down Corsairs, P-38s, Kittyhawks, Airacobras, etc. even Hellcats in 1943 and 44. It was nice that it was possible to dive away and extend, (or in the case of a P-38, go into a shallow high speed climb to disengage) and with some types it was certainly easier than others. But there was nothing automatic about it, and in fact the Ki-43 was not as "easy" to dive away from as a Zero since it didn't have the same stiffening of controls in a dive that the Zero did.

A couple of things -

First off, there were going to be combat losses for a number of reasons and you can't keep trying to justify points with just aircraft performance alone. Consider pilot skill which will always come into play as well as a surprise attack. It's been stated and shown many times that the majority of those shot down in aerial combat never saw their opponents.

The KI-43 DID have some diving limitations (404 mph) and the early models did shed structure when over-stressed, so consider all this.

So with this said "both A6M and Ki-43 were still shooting down Corsairs, P-38s, Kittyhawks, Airacobras, etc. even Hellcats in 1943 and 44" - sure, but no where to the point to ever gain aerial superiority or affect the allied mission. In the end that's what really mattered.

 

[Farky]

Seems like some of y'all are losing the spirit of this thread, and are just trying to find something to fight about. So I think I am 'done' discussing all this. "What if" threads seem to just make some people angry for no real reason.

I am not trying to fight and I am not angry, I am trying to get this thread back on track. If you see that as angry fighting, ok.

As for the Wildcat vs. P-40 discussion, I was treating it (and you) respectfully, even though it's pretty obvious.

I am not done with that discussion because I am angry or something, I am done because it leads nowhere, we will just agree to disagree no matter what we will wrote.

 

[Shortround6]

Seems like some of y'all are losing the spirit of this thread, and are just trying to find something to fight about. So I think I am 'done' discussing all this. "What if" threads seem to just make some people angry for no real reason.

Depends on the "what if"

Some "want if" discuses what options the Australians had in the summer to fall of 1941 to try to set up a production line for fighters in Australia, that is one discussion, or several.
We have the "political" discussion. What discussions are made in relation to "aid" from England or the US.
We have the manufacturing discussion, what can actually be built in a reasonable time frame given the state of Australian industry, and what aid might be needed for improving things?
What is the "hardware" discussion. As in what could the proposed fighter actually do performance wise.
And we can get into an evaluation discussion. Would the proposed airplane actually do anything that can't be done by something else (even if that is just occupy space in the sky) or is it going to be a substitute place holder for as long as it is exitance.

however some "what ifs" take on elements of time travel. Engines (or fuel or weapons) from the future. Aerodynamic knowledge from the future..

"Gee, we could have this really neat airplane in 1941 if we used an engine from 1943 in a cowling from 1944 and used fuel from 1944"

I an not saying that was done here but having a floating time line has too many variables.

Objections to things like certain engines availability in the time in question get brushed aside with changes in the time line to accommodate the favored engine of the hour.

Anybody who says you can't use engine X on the 3rd of July because it wouldn't get there until 15th is too strict, using engines in a "what if" that won't show up for over year ?????

A lot of engines were developed along certain lines for good reason. Engines also follow a lot of "rules" or "laws". If they do such and such at point Y and so and so at point Z then you can probably make a very good guess at to what is going to happen at point X. You do need at least two points and everything as to stay the same, no change in RPM or change in throttle opening. No change out of ordinary in temperature and pressure either.
Trying to mix up the conditions and claim they are valid isn't going to sit well.

 

[Graeme]

Bill, don't get too disheartened - no anger where I am.

But that timeline to produce a better Boomerang is a tough ask.

 

[Graeme]

Should we have even bothered?
Did we over-panic?
We had the Kittyhawks and Spitfires flowing in by then.
The Government didn't even want it by mid/late '43 and were aghast when Wackett wanted to produce another 200 just to keep the CAC factory running.
They only agreed to 50 to placate Wackett - keep the factory open and retain the skilled workers in preparation for the Mustang.
Accountants were shocked at the end of the war. The Boomerang programme was $2,900,000 over budget with a unit cost, plus spares, of around $42,500.

At that price, could we have just bought something? Or would postage/packing and availability with the World burning be the biggest issue?

 

[Shortround6]

around $42,500

I wonder what the includes or what the exchange rate was
P-40K had US cost of $42,490 in 1942 but I don't know it that was the total cost or what Curtiss was paid. The engine, prop, guns, radios etc were Government Furnished Equipment after all?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I am not trying to fight and I am not angry, I am trying to get this thread back on track. If you see that as angry fighting, ok.



I am not done with that discussion because I am angry or something, I am done because it leads nowhere, we will just agree to disagree no matter what we will wrote.

Ok fair enough, I apparently misread you. I rescind my exasperation-thread-quit.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I wasn't trying to wiggle out of a timeline, though I guess I can see why some people got that impression. I was trying to 'funnel into one'.

Like most here, I know a few things about WW2 aircraft, but neither the Boomerang, nor the Hawk are subjects I'm deeply familiar with or have a lot of sources for, nor the later models of the Wildcat. I figured this thread would be a good way to learn. Most of the other planes I mentioned in the OP I also don't know all that well, beyond the fact that they looked interesting. I figure somebody here knew various pieces though so we could all find out. Both the Hawk and the Wildcat used both the Wright R-1820 and the P&W R-1830 at different points in their development cycle (which to me was a bit confusing). The former came in a two speed version and the latter in a two stage version - I didn't know the precise details of all these variations until we opened up this thread. I'm still not certain of the precise timeline but it seems like both the two speed 1820 and the two stage 1830 were around from a fairly early date, though they didn't offer much over previous engines besides a moderate increase in operational altitude. On the other hand, it sounds like the water-injected 1820 came too late to be relevant.

The question would then be, could a two-stage 1830 or a two speed 1820 be incorporated into a hypothetical design that was better than a Boomerang, either a Wildcat or a Hawk or something else. Could it then be made combat ready vis a vis SS fuel tanks, armor, and enough guns, ammunition and fuel to be useful. Well we know that we can have a ~7,000 lb Wildcat with all that which will perform reasonably well. I suspect we can have the Hawk as well, especially if we put the same engine in it. But how would it compare to the Wildcat?

Next question is could they make some Hawks, or Wildcats, or Gloster F5s or J22 or pick your alternative, quickly enough to get some into action in early or mid 1943? Reading the Wiki on the Boomerang, I see the following about the early operational history:

"No. 83 Squadron became the first fighter unit to receive Boomerangs, when several were delivered to replace Airacobras at Strathpine Airfield in Strathpine, Queensland on 10 April 1943.[10]​ A few weeks afterward, CA-12s were also received by a frontline air defence unit, No. 84 Squadron which was stationed on Horn Island Airfield, in Torres Strait. The third Boomerang fighter unit, No. 85 Squadron, like No. 83 Squadron, was performing home defence duties, at RAAF Guildford (known later as Perth Airport); the Boomerangs replaced the squadron's Buffaloes. "

Whether an Aussie Hawk or Wildcat could be ready by mid 1943 remains to be determined. We'd have to get into the weeds on production. What would it cost? How much manpower would they need? How different would the production line be from the Wirraway etc.? What exactly would have to be sent? I know it's not the 21st Century so they didn't have the internet or 3D printers. They'd have to physically send over blueprints, tools, jigs? Probably some people might need to be sent too, I'm not sure. Whatever they needed to get something into production by late 1942 and into the field by mid 1943. Maybe that is impossible. But maybe not.

So I guess the third question is, could one of these other aircraft replace a Boomerang in the home defense role better than Buffalos at Perth or Airacobras in Strathpine? Could one do the more demanding air defense job at Horn Island, where they were much more likely to encounter Japanese aircraft.

This one is really interesting to me, and gets into the whole Wildcat vs. early P-40 debate. I think the P-40 was a better land based fighter than a Wildcat, overall, but I do think (thanks to the two stage engine, and being a bit lighter) the Wildcat, at least the F4F-3, was a better air defense fighter to defend an airfield or port when the Japanese are sending in their twin-engined bombers at maximum altitude. Better for Perth or Darwin, probably better for Henderson field, maybe better for the Horn Island job that the Boomerangs were plugged into in other words. And maybe better at escorting B-24s or B-17s. Maybe not better for the fighting at Milne Bay or low-level raids against shipping or Lae or Truk or Rabaul.

The fourth question is, would a Wildcat or Hawk have any scope for enough improvement to still be useful compared to what the British and Americans were shipping? That is a tougher one. Corsairs, Mustangs, and Spitfire Mk VIII are on the way. The Australians themselves are going to be making Mustangs.

Personally, for what it's worth, I think it was worthwhile for the Australians to develop some kind of native aviation industry, even if they made planes that were only really useful in combat for a year or so. A secondary goal compared to protecting the homeland and contributing to the war effort, but a worthy one.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And maybe they could send some to Burma well into 1944...

 

[Graeme]

I wonder what the includes or what the exchange rate was
P-40K had US cost of $42,490 in 1942 but I don't know it that was the total cost or what Curtiss was paid. The engine, prop, guns, radios etc were Government Furnished Equipment after all?

It was £21,254 in 1945 - and I was wrong (as usual) - "excluding spares."
We went decimal in 1966 - so I think the author is attempting to put that into 1945 dollars?

Regards Curtiss. Or Grumman.
Do we know if they would have agreed to allow licensed manufacturing of any of their products in Australia?
Licensed manufacturing would be a loss of income to the original firm?
I know Douglas and Boeing refused.

 

[ThomasP]

I think Curtiss might have been willing to license production of the Hawk. IIRC they were having a difficult time meeting demands for the pre-war orders of the export Hawks, so no benefit to them to deny licenses to the Australians. Plus once they had the orders for the P-40 there was no reason (historically) to continue production of the Hawk - and they had to make more and new tooling for the P-40, so maybe relatively easy to make/provide some to CAC for the Oshawk?

When were the first large P-40 orders placed?

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Australia got chance to get them (or at least try to get them) after fall of France in summer 1940. But as I wrote before, nobody in Australia wanted single seat fighters before Pearl Harbor (at least not officialy). RAAF insisted on two seat fighters, that is why they ordered Beaufighters.

When did Australia have a chance to obtain P-36 in mid or late 1940? Curtiss were building P-36 from May 1938 to July 1939, then February to August 1940, December 1940 as well as January, March and April 1941.

Given the expectation Australia would face naval raiding forces the RAAF wanted Beaufighters in 1939 and again in 1941, they were to fly escort to the Beauforts given the possibility the enemy naval forces would have an aircraft carrier, the over water distances involved mandated in RAF/RAAF eyes the need for a dedicated navigator. With logic like naval fighters were inferior to land based ones, Japanese fighters were more inferior again, so a heavy twin engined escort fighter would be quite effective.

November 1936 RAAF orders 40 Bristol type 149, this type was later cancelled, with Bristol reusing the type number for the Blenheim mark IV and Canada using the Bolingbroke name for its version of the Blenheim.

February 1938 order changed to 50 Beaufort, then to 90 in August.

March 1939 Lever mission submits report on 18th, recommends Australia build Beauforts. Australia made the announcement on the 24th, the same day as the British Government confirming general agreement with it. Bristol had actually received an instruction to proceed on 26 January. 180 Beaufort, first 90 to RAF, production of 20 per month in September 1941 under peace time single shift conditions. 250 Taurus engines to be imported to bridge the gap until locally supplied Taurus engines were produced.

June 1939 RAAF Beaufort order from Britain reduced by 10 to help pay for an order for 18 Beaufighters

October 1939 Australia decided to build Twin Wasp engines for Beauforts, assuming the first 50 Beauforts would have Taurus engines, the remaining 130 Twin Wasp. This would require Twin Wasp production from around late 1940/early 1941 on current airframe schedule.

December 1939, RAAF Beaufort order from Britain reduced by another 66 to pay for Hudson orders

April 1940 remaining 14 Beauforts on order from Britain cancelled, along with the Beaufighter order.

July 1940 the RAF agreed to accept all 90 of its Beaufort with Twin Wasp engines.

May 1941 54 Beaufighter ordered from Britain.

27 June 1941 RAF Australian built Beaufort contract has a note, decided that the engines for these aircraft will be obtained from the USA as Australian built engines are not suitable.

March 1943, report that production of Twin Wasp engines is being retarded due to the heavy demands for spare parts from both the RAAF and USAAF, demands that are increasing while machine tools on order from overseas for many months have not been delivered.

Over the course of WWII RAAF aircraft supply was roughly a third local, a third US and a third Britain.

"In December 1942, the Australian War Cabinet made arrangements for the local production of the P-51D Mustang. These arrangements were finalized in November 1943, with Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation to build 690 aircraft through kits supplied by North American Aviation (NAA).[2]​ Only the first 100 unassembled aircraft were delivered, and four reportedly had the "razorback" style canopy of the P-51B/C variant. 80 of the kits were assembled under the designation CA-17 Mustang Mk 20 with Packard V-1710-3 Merlin engines, the remainder being used for spare parts"

Wiki has problems.

In late 1942 the decision was taken to send a mission overseas to consider what aircraft to build next in Australia, War Cabinet considered the fighter part of the report of the mission in April 1943, the recommendation was to build the Mustang, with the RAAF requiring 340 by October 1945 and 690 by July 1946. The proposed plan was to order 350 complete Mustang plus spares and tooling for an estimated 8,051,000 pounds, which would grow to around 14,804,600 pounds for 690 aircraft and spares. The first part was approved, 350 aircraft were ordered.

CA-17 Mustang, as of July 1943 the order was 350, deliveries expected to begin in June 1944. 100 kits were to be sent from the US, the order was cut to 250 in February 1946, with 80 of the kits used in some way, given how many of the parts needed discarding or rework, plus similar problems with the drawings and templates. It was February 1944 when items began arriving, October 1944 before assembly of the first kit commenced.

Some "want if" discuses what options the Australians had in the summer to fall of 1941 to try to set up a production line for fighters in Australia,

Northern or southern summer or fall? It makes a 6 month difference.

The Government didn't even want it by mid/late '43 and were aghast when Wackett wanted to produce another 200 just to keep the CAC factory running.
They only agreed to 50 to placate Wackett - keep the factory open and retain the skilled workers in preparation for the Mustang.
Accountants were shocked at the end of the war. The Boomerang programme was $2,900,000 over budget with a unit cost, plus spares, of around $42,500.
At that price, could we have just bought something? Or would postage/packing and availability with the World burning be the biggest issue?

From the late 1930's and into 1943 Australia had to take less than it wanted or build its own. Requested allocation amounts were cut or delayed with little chance of appeal. P-40s lost en route were not replaced, early Spitfires en route were diverted to the Middle East.

According to the RAAF Chiefs of Staff the initial Boomerang order in March 1942 was for 100, raised 200 in October 1942 and 250 in August 1943. Note the program for 105 CAC bombers was meant to replace the Boomerang in production in September/October 1943, after 200 Boomerangs were made, in fact it took until May 1944 for Boomerang number 200. The cancellation of the CAC bomber created problems for manpower planning.

Australian Archives MP450/1 109 Department of Aircraft production costs of locally made aircraft, in pounds, but the Wirraway and Tiger Moth costs were shared with the Department of Air and the Beaufighter, Mosquito, Mustang and Tiger Moth included costs incurred for orders for aircraft that were cancelled after the end of the war while a wartime Mustang was cheaper than one built in the late 1940's. The Vampire order was just beginning. Unsure if costs include spares.

Beaufort, 700 built 39,514,089 total cost 56,449 unit cost
Beaufighter, 364 built 19,146,712 total cost 52,601 unit cost
Lincoln, 51 built 7,988,124 total cost 156,630 unit cost (total on order 73)
Wirraway, 755 built 3,951,438 total cost 5,234 unit cost
Boomerang 250 built 4,780,922 total cost 19,124 unit cost
Wackett trainer, 200 built 390,010 total cost 1,950 unit cost
Mustang, 179 built 6,910,696 total cost 38,607 unit cost (total on order 200)
Nene Engine, 13 built 1,402,169 total cost 107,859 unit cost (total on order 156)
Tiger Moth, 1070 built 586,434 total cost 548 unit cost
DH.84 Dragon, 87 built 659,728 total cost 7,583 unit cost
Mosquito, 209 built 17,376,878 total cost 83,143 unit cost (actually 212 built)
Vampire, 4 built 893,591 total cost 223,398 unit cost (total on order 50)
Glider, 8 built 32,224 total cost 4,028 unit cost

A1196 1/502/24 pages 61 and 62. Costs approved by war cabinet, Boomerang 5,017,000 pounds for 250 aircraft and 312 engines.

A detailed break down of the Beaufort cost was 44,426 pounds, including allowances for buildings, tooling and administration, noting imported engines and propellers cost more than local builds. The 1940's exchange rate was over $3 US to 1 Australian pound. Australian decimal currency change over in the 1960's , 1 pound = 2 dollars.

Butler and Hagedorn quote a typical Lend Lease cost for a P-40M as $42,275.

When were the first large P-40 orders placed?

USAAF P-40 contract AC-12414 on 26 April 1939 for 134 P-40 serials 39-156 to 289, then 390 P-40 serials 40-292 to 681. Production from May 1940. In 1939/40 France added 100 P-40 to their P-36 order, production from June 1940.

 

[Shortround6]

I wasn't trying to wiggle out of a timeline, though I guess I can see why some people got that impression. I was trying to 'funnel into one'.

Like most here, I know a few things about WW2 aircraft, but neither the Boomerang, nor the Hawk are subjects I'm deeply familiar with or have a lot of sources for, nor the later models of the Wildcat. I figured this thread would be a good way to learn. Most of the other planes I mentioned in the OP I also don't know all that well, beyond the fact that they looked interesting. I figure somebody here knew various pieces though so we could all find out. Both the Hawk and the Wildcat used both the Wright R-1820 and the P&W R-1830 at different points in their development cycle (which to me was a bit confusing). The former came in a two speed version and the latter in a two stage version - I didn't know the precise details of all these variations until we opened up this thread. I'm still not certain of the precise timeline but it seems like both the two speed 1820 and the two stage 1830 were around from a fairly early date, though they didn't offer much over previous engines besides a moderate increase in operational altitude. On the other hand, it sounds like the water-injected 1820 came too late to be relevant.

The question would then be, could a two-stage 1830 or a two speed 1820 be incorporated into a hypothetical design that was better than a Boomerang, either a Wildcat or a Hawk or something else. Could it then be made combat ready vis a vis SS fuel tanks, armor, and enough guns, ammunition and fuel to be useful. Well we know that we can have a ~7,000 lb Wildcat with all that which will perform reasonably well. I suspect we can have the Hawk as well, especially if we put the same engine in it. But how would it compare to the Wildcat?

Next question is could they make some Hawks, or Wildcats, or Gloster F5s or J22 or pick your alternative, quickly enough to get some into action in early or mid 1943? Reading the Wiki on the Boomerang, I see the following about the early operational history:

"No. 83 Squadron became the first fighter unit to receive Boomerangs, when several were delivered to replace Airacobras at Strathpine Airfield in Strathpine, Queensland on 10 April 1943.[10]​ A few weeks afterward, CA-12s were also received by a frontline air defence unit, No. 84 Squadron which was stationed on Horn Island Airfield, in Torres Strait. The third Boomerang fighter unit, No. 85 Squadron, like No. 83 Squadron, was performing home defence duties, at RAAF Guildford (known later as Perth Airport); the Boomerangs replaced the squadron's Buffaloes. "

Whether an Aussie Hawk or Wildcat could be ready by mid 1943 remains to be determined. We'd have to get into the weeds on production. What would it cost? How much manpower would they need? How different would the production line be from the Wirraway etc.? What exactly would have to be sent? I know it's not the 21st Century so they didn't have the internet or 3D printers. They'd have to physically send over blueprints, tools, jigs? Probably some people might need to be sent too, I'm not sure. Whatever they needed to get something into production by late 1942 and into the field by mid 1943. Maybe that is impossible. But maybe not.

So I guess the third question is, could one of these other aircraft replace a Boomerang in the home defense role better than Buffalos at Perth or Airacobras in Strathpine? Could one do the more demanding air defense job at Horn Island, where they were much more likely to encounter Japanese aircraft.

This one is really interesting to me, and gets into the whole Wildcat vs. early P-40 debate. I think the P-40 was a better land based fighter than a Wildcat, overall, but I do think (thanks to the two stage engine, and being a bit lighter) the Wildcat, at least the F4F-3, was a better air defense fighter to defend an airfield or port when the Japanese are sending in their twin-engined bombers at maximum altitude. Better for Perth or Darwin, probably better for Henderson field, maybe better for the Horn Island job that the Boomerangs were plugged into in other words. And maybe better at escorting B-24s or B-17s. Maybe not better for the fighting at Milne Bay or low-level raids against shipping or Lae or Truk or Rabaul.

The fourth question is, would a Wildcat or Hawk have any scope for enough improvement to still be useful compared to what the British and Americans were shipping? That is a tougher one. Corsairs, Mustangs, and Spitfire Mk VIII are on the way. The Australians themselves are going to be making Mustangs.

Personally, for what it's worth, I think it was worthwhile for the Australians to develop some kind of native aviation industry, even if they made planes that were only really useful in combat for a year or so. A secondary goal compared to protecting the homeland and contributing to the war effort, but a worthy one.

A number of people over the years have come up with an idea and then tried to force it to fit when the original time line turned out to be on the outer edges.
Plenty of real life military programs were carried on with rather than scrapping them when times/circumstances changed.

For people that are not familiar with history of aircraft engines the R-1820 vs R-1830 saga can be confusing. It can be confusing even if you are pretty familiar with engine history
The R-1820 was bit older and was a modified R-1750. The R-1750s date back into the 1920s. Wright was in competition with P & W. P & W had come up with R-1690 Hornet and then the R-1860 Hornet B. This was by 1929-1930. The Hornet B was a bit of a dud and scared P & W away from big cylinders as they were harder to cool well. These were all 9 cylinder radials. P & W starts developing the 14 cylinder R-1830 (first run in 1932) to take the place of the Hornet B and compete with the R-1820 Cyclone and the race was on. For most of the 1930s what one engine could do the other could also (or was upgraded in a few months to match/exceed it's rival) and between the two of them they came to dominate the world market for air cooled radial aircraft engines.
By 1940 both engines could make 1200hp for take-off and that is a major difference from the V-12 military engines of the day. The commercial air lines were interested in getting a transport plane off the ground (with short landing strips) and up to cruising altitudes fairly quickly. They were also interested in economy and low maintenance. Cruising altitude for an airliner without a pressurized cabin was somewhere around 8,000ft, much higher and it got harder for the passengers to breath. Supercharger performance was not priority in the 1930s for commercial engines and to tell the truth, it wasn't much of a priority for military engines either. There wasn't a lot of money for development of special engines for the military without some sort of commercial market. Fuel was changing, from 70-77 to 87 and then creeping into the 90-92 octane range, They Knew 100 octane was coming but they didn't know when or how much it was going to cost.

Maybe more than you wanted to know but for the Australians, even if we go back to 1939-40 to start thinking about Oz building fighters after just getting the CAC Wirraway started they had a choice of 3 radial engines. The Bristol Mercury, the Wright Cyclone (R-1820) and the P & W twin wasp (R-1830). The Mercury is smaller, older and with Fedden spending 90% of his time on sleeve valves, unlikely to go anywhere. Australia is unlikely to know of the problems that Fedden is having with the whole sleeve valve family.
But leaving "Buy British" aside (a political discussion) that leaves the Australians with either the P & W R-1830 or the Cyclone and a crap load of planes were built that could take either engine just about interchangeably. For Australia things are bit simpler as they had already decided to built P & W R-1340 engines. Wright had a gap in their product line with the smaller Whirlwind engines topping out at around 420-450hp and then jumping to the R-1820s.
Now in 1940 Wright had been building 2 speed superchargers for several years and P & W was just catching up, P & W having veered off to try to make two stage engines.
However, unlike the Merlin V-12 or the German V-12s where they were interested in performance at altitude (low gear was often good for around 10,000ft) the American radials were using the low supercharger gear for better take-off performance. The R-1820 and R-1830 in low gear peaked at 3500-4500ft? and then they used high gear for cruise to clear mountain ranges/bad weather.
Again a lot of explanation and while I seem to stuck in 1940 it turns out that both Wright and P & W are busy with new engines, the R-2600 and R-2800 and some experimental projects that didn't go anywhere and the R-1820 and R-1830 sort of stagnated for several years aside from being fitted with turbo chargers for bomber use. Pretty much any R-1820 or R-1830 that you had available in 1942 were the same engines that you had in 1940. That may be with the benefit of hindsight but neither company was doing a whole lot with either engine, P & W had even gone to the trouble of building the R-2000 which was sort of a one hit wonder (Used in the C-54) . And it was NOT a fighter engine.

A lot of people specified too much armament. One of the failings of the P-40 itself. And it has a knock-on effect. Once you build a wing that holds hundreds of pounds of guns and ammo you cannot easily lighten the wing back up. You can take the guns and ammo back out but the spars, ribs, stringers that gave you that load capability stay.

 

[Shortround6]

Northern or southern summer or fall? It makes a 6 month difference.

They change the calendar in Australia?

yes the seasons change but if I a take a trip to Australia in January it is considered "winter" by the calendar. Christmas in Australia doesn't change by 6 months.
They may go to the beach after opening up presents

 

[Shortround6]

When did Australia have a chance to obtain P-36 in mid or late 1940? Curtiss were building P-36 from May 1938 to July 1939, then February to August 1940, December 1940 as well as January, March and April 1941.

Well, if you count the Hawk 75s as part of the P-36 production run (or more correctly if you count the P-36 as part of the Hawk 75 production run) they may have been an opportunity sometime in 1940. That is when Curtiss supplied 54 Hawk 75A-5s to China as part of the scheme to set up assembly in China. The left overs are what wound up in India.
It make take some fancy foot work and it may depend on the numbers wanted and how much support Curtiss has to give (less than was promised?) but it is not outside the realm of possibility. How likely or how fast any results would show up are certainly questions but Curtiss was selling to anybody who could make it to the door with money in hand.
Hawk 75A-6 Norway
Hawk 75A-7 Netherlands May-June arrived in Netherlands east Indies.
Hawk 75A-8 2nd Norwegian batch.
Hawk 75A-9 Iran (the March-April 1941 production you listed earlier)

Overseas production was different but given the right connections ????

 

[Farky]

When did Australia have a chance to obtain P-36 in mid or late 1940? Curtiss were building P-36 from May 1938 to July 1939, then February to August 1940, December 1940 as well as January, March and April 1941.

Given the expectation Australia would face naval raiding forces the RAAF wanted Beaufighters in 1939 and again in 1941, they were to fly escort to the Beauforts given the possibility the enemy naval forces would have an aircraft carrier, the over water distances involved mandated in RAF/RAAF eyes the need for a dedicated navigator. With logic like naval fighters were inferior to land based ones, Japanese fighters were more inferior again, so a heavy twin engined escort fighter would be quite effective.

This is hypotetical scenario of course, I am fully aware of RAAF "two seater fighter only" policy before the war with Japan and I even mention it few times in this discusion. Let's asume for a moment that RAAF wanted single seater instead of long range two seaters.

It depends what do you exactly mean by "obtain". Australia have a chance to order P-36s for RAAF in mid or late 1940, in that case they will be delivered sometime in 1941. Summer 1940 in my post was date of fall of France and I wrote about that because Great Britain took over the French orders including Hawks75A-4 (Mohawk IV in RAF). Some of them end up in SAAF service, so I think there is pretty good chance that Australia will by able to negotiate delivery of Mohawks IV too. Another option was to negotiate an delivery of Vultee 48C (P-66) from Swedish order.

Some interesting info is in "War cabinet agendum - No 151/1940" (NAA: A2671, 151/1940), nothing about consideration of P-36 of course, but still interesting.

Regards Curtiss. Or Grumman.
Do we know if they would have agreed to allow licensed manufacturing of any of their products in Australia?
Licensed manufacturing would be a loss of income to the original firm?
I know Douglas and Boeing refused.

I don't know about Grumman, but Hawk 75 was manufactured in Argentina so Curtiss will most likely allow it in Australia too.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well, if you count the Hawk 75s as part of the P-36 production run (or more correctly if you count the P-36 as part of the Hawk 75 production run) they may have been an opportunity sometime in 1940. That is when Curtiss supplied 54 Hawk 75A-5s to China as part of the scheme to set up assembly in China. The left overs are what wound up in India.
It make take some fancy foot work and it may depend on the numbers wanted and how much support Curtiss has to give (less than was promised?) but it is not outside the realm of possibility. How likely or how fast any results would show up are certainly questions but Curtiss was selling to anybody who could make it to the door with money in hand.
Hawk 75A-6 Norway
Hawk 75A-7 Netherlands May-June arrived in Netherlands east Indies.
Hawk 75A-8 2nd Norwegian batch.
Hawk 75A-9 Iran (the March-April 1941 production you listed earlier)

Overseas production was different but given the right connections ????

What about the French Hawks that didn't get delivered?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

This is hypotetical scenario of course, I am fully aware of RAAF "two seater fighter only" policy before the war with Japan and I even mention it few times in this discusion. Let's asume for a moment that RAAF wanted single seater instead of long range two seaters.

It depends what do you exactly mean by "obtain". Australia have a chance to order P-36s for RAAF in mid or late 1940, in that case they will be delivered sometime in 1941. Summer 1940 in my post was date of fall of France and I wrote about that because Great Britain took over the French orders including Hawks75A-4 (Mohawk IV in RAF). Some of them end up in SAAF service, so I think there is pretty good chance that Australia will by able to negotiate delivery of Mohawks IV too. Another option was to negotiate an delivery of Vultee 48C (P-66) from Swedish order.

Some interesting info is in "War cabinet agendum - No 151/1940" (NAA: A2671, 151/1940), nothing about consideration of P-36 of course, but still interesting.

I think the French Hawks could have been a good start. Maybe P-66 as well though didn't they have the dreaded 'wet wing'?

I also wanted to point out, I think the decision to get Beaufighters and Beauforts was a smart one from the point of view of defending Australian shores from invasion. That is probably an effective combination. Beaufighter is definitely useful right to the end of the war, they had great range and did actually shoot down some Zeros IIRC, and Beauforts were a decent torpedo bomber as well which also had good range (certainly compared to say, a TBD or a Swordfish).

Reading between the lines a bit, it sounds like the British couldn't afford to be as generous with their aircraft (i.e. no 'lend lease') and Australia didn't have a huge budget themselves, so maybe a production license would have been a good compromise?

I gather some Beaufighters were eventually made in Australia. Any way to accelerate that?

I'm a bit torn on ordering Hawks vs. Beaufighters and Beuforts because I think those are all quite useful. Same for PBYs and Hudsons. Wirraways were good too for the often under-appreciated Army cooperation role. They seem to be have been very helpful during Milne Bay.

I don't know about Grumman, but Hawk 75 was manufactured in Argentina so Curtiss will most likely allow it in Australia too.

Not to mention they tried to make some from kits in China and then later in India (birth of HAL)

 

[EwenS]

What about the French Hawks that didn't get delivered?

In June 1940, just a few hours before the French surrender, all the aircraft orders with US companies were taken over by Britain. That included the Hawk 75s which became RAF Mohawks.

RAF Mohawk

www.joebaugher.com

The early history can be seen in the preview of this book.
Amazon product ASIN B01MTS85XH
View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01MTS85XH/

 

[Shortround6]

I think the French Hawks could have been a good start. Maybe P-66 as well though didn't they have the dreaded 'wet wing'?

The French Hawks wound up via Britain in South Africa and India.

The P-66s may have a wet wing or maybe not?

The British looked at them and decided they didn't want them, later they decided to take 100 of them as trainers in Canada but when China came looking for aircraft in the Spring of 1941 the British generously relinquished their claim (none had been delivered yet?)

With a Battle for France over by 11 months and the BoB well over 6 months old perhaps the British could be more selective.
They were also finding out a lot of the American equipment was far from being combat ready.

People were also finding out that some of the aircraft were tending to break in "normal" flying. Or some of the new pilots were training a little too hard? and over stressing things?
The US pilots in California managed to ground loop about 15 planes out of 50 in about 3 months.

Be careful of what you ask for. you just might get it.