- Thread starter
-
- #21
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Australians were hampered with the fact that they had to work with what they had and the Wirraway airframe as the basis of the Boomerang was not as much a hindrance as the power output of available engines. If Aussie needed a more advanced fighter it would have had to import something, as construction would have taken too long. The P-36 as Tomo mentioned is a very good option, as is the Hawker Hurricane, but the P-40 is essentially what Australia got by negotiating with the US. It's first P-40Es were transferred from USAAF stocks and arrived in March 1942, before the first Boomerang had been completed - it made its first flight in May 1942. Over the next month into April and May these P-40s were already in squadron service and went into action at Port Moresby, so whatever choice is made has to be done fast, because the RAAF already has orders for more P-40s diverted from RAF Lend-Lease.
The other alternative is getting single-seat fighters before the fighting begins, at which point that options for building a panic fighter are restricted to being a type based off the Wirraway as it was traditionally done, but the RAAF is looking long term, which means something off the shelf, which either the P-36, P-40 or Hurricane make better long-term choices given what was going to happen, rather than a panic fighter.
The Australians were hampered with the fact that they had to work with what they had and the Wirraway airframe as the basis of the Boomerang was not as much a hindrance as the power output of available engines. If Aussie needed a more advanced fighter it would have had to import something, as construction would have taken too long. The P-36 as Tomo mentioned is a very good option, as is the Hawker Hurricane, but the P-40 is essentially what Australia got by negotiating with the US. It's first P-40Es were transferred from USAAF stocks and arrived in March 1942, before the first Boomerang had been completed - it made its first flight in May 1942. Over the next month into April and May these P-40s were already in squadron service and went into action at Port Moresby, so whatever choice is made has to be done fast, because the RAAF already has orders for more P-40s diverted from RAF Lend-Lease.
The other alternative is getting single-seat fighters before the fighting begins, at which point that options for building a panic fighter are restricted to being a type based off the Wirraway as it was traditionally done, but the RAAF is looking long term, which means something off the shelf, which either the P-36, P-40 or Hurricane make better long-term choices given what was going to happen, rather than a panic fighter.
That might be a reason to go with one of the other ones...
There wound up being fair number. But they didn't show up until 1940. I haven't read about any being used in 1939.Are there any 2 speed R-1830 engines that aren't 2 stage? I thought the Twin Wasp was like the Double Wasp and the "multi" speed was only in the 2nd stage. Which is going to limit your radial engined fighter right out of the box. (I need an answer on that before building the rest of the plane).
I don't think the Hurricane was a good candidate as it did very poorly against Japanese fighters, at least from what I've read, especially in the China / Burma zone.
I have spent a lot of time looking at the Aus Archives and I am yet to find an order for P-40 aircraft prior to late 42. Likewise in US documents.
This suggests that the first P-40s were actually just given to the RAAF by the US.
The basic problem is the 30litre R-1830 engine. The successful WWII radial engines were big, with the prime example being the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 at 46litres. The 28litre Nakajima Sakae engine got the later Mitsubishi Zeros up to around 350mph, but they sacrificed protection to do it.Reading about the Boomerang and the Wirraway, it's clear that the nascent Australian aircraft industry had some capability, and they were eager to produce some aircraft with which to contribute to the war effort and to their own regional defense, instead of just waiting for aircraft to arrive from England or the US.
The problem with the Boomerang of course is that it was based on a trainer, so no matter how much they improved the design around the margins, they still had an aircraft that wasn't going to be able to tangle with Japanese fighters, or for that matter chase down and intercept most Japanese bombers.
So what if we pick another airframe and equip it with an Aussie made R-1830 engine. Which would would be in the sweet spot of easy to adapt, relatively easy to produce, capable enough as a fighter, and have the potential to be improved into a better fighter.
Maybe a little far-fetched (conversions from in-line) but still maybe worth considering
Avia B.35
Westland Whirlwind
Hawker Henley
Dewoitine D.520
So what if we pick another airframe and equip it with an Aussie made R-1830 engine. Which would would be in the sweet spot of easy to adapt, relatively easy to produce, capable enough as a fighter, and have the potential to be improved into a better fighter.
Some possible candidates:
Brewster B.239 / Buffalo
Bristol Beaufighter*
Fiat G.50**
Fokker D.XXI
Gloster F-5/34
Gloster F9
P-36 / Hawk 75
Re 2000**
Seversky P-35
* I think (?) they did eventually make some of these but what if they got the ball rolling on this earlier? The Beauforts were certainly worth producing.
** Assuming they could have gotten the License from Italy before the war started
Any of these seem like they could have been feasible? It seems like a slightly improved Gloster F-5, Fokker D.XXI or P-36 could have been within the capabilities of CAC and may have been somewhat useful for Australia's emergency needs and some of the other regional allies.
Agreed. Really this discussion should be trying to justify why not the P-36, since it's the obvious choice.P-36 all the way.
Isn't that the engine that powered the Wildcat at Midway in June 1942? It seemed up to the task.The R-1830 is really not powerful enough for a front line 1942 fighter unless some compromises are made on protection.
The F4F Wildcat entered service in mid-1940. June 1942 saw production of the 2,000hp R-2800 powered Vought F4U Corsair starting, followed by the similarly powered Grumman F6F Hellcat in July. While the F4F may have been "up to the task" at Midway it was clearly aready seen as past it.Isn't that the engine that powered the Wildcat at Midway in June 1942? It seemed up to the task.
I have spent a lot of time looking at the Aus Archives and I am yet to find an order for P-40 aircraft prior to late 42. Likewise in US documents.
This suggests that the first P-40s were actually just given to the RAAF by the US. Supporting this is the fact that there are documents that show the US was looking at giving the 49th Fighter Group - complete - to the RAAF and later, after that plan was discarded, other documents from the US asking where the hell are the RAAF P-40s when they considered more than enough time had passed for the first squadrons to be operational.
For all the people that think the P-36/Hawk 75 was the greatest thing since sliced bread the Americans figured that the P-36 had 22% more drag than the early P-40. This may or may not include exhaust thrust.
On the WWII Aircraft Performance website there are some tests that give cruising speeds for the P-36 and the early P-40 at different power levels. Look them up and see what the difference was.
I would also note that the Americans were doing a pretty good job of putting cowlings on radial engines at the time (1939-1941) the FW 190 was sneaking in near the end but a lot of people were using some pretty dismal radial engine cowlings in the late 30s.
P & W did get the drag down to about 8% on their P-40 test hack with the two stage R-1830 engine developed from the engine in the F4F wildcat. Of course it took about 2 years to do it (flying around in mid or late 1942) and the fact that the two stage engine allowed it to fly in the thin air at over 20,000ft while still making decent power made it the 4th fastest P-40 to fly in WW II (the fact it had no armor, no self sealing tanks and no guns didn't hurt either).
And if you want the P-35/ Hawk 75 performance as built you have to put up with the light armament (six .30 cal guns at best) and the sketchy protection. Adding a few hundred pounds of SS tanks and BP glass etc (some did have armored seat backs) starts affecting the performance.
A P & W R-1830 with two speed supercharger weighed close to 150lbs more than an Allison which cancels some of the weight saving of ditching the radiator. It will burn more fuel giving shorter range on combat missions.
I agree this is all based on the benefit of hindsight, and I also agree that little could probably have been done about Singapore, a similar thing happened with the P-40s and Buffaloes a Java and Malaya, and P-40s in the Philippines (and Pearl Harbor). But with the Hurricane they never did seem to work out how to use it effectively against the Japanese. They didn't do so well in Ceylon or later on in Burma, comparatively.Said with the hindsight of knowing what had happened. They would not have known that at the time an order would have been put. The Hurricane was a plenty good fighter in the right hands in the right conditions in 1940/1941. British losses in Singapore were down to a lot of mitigating factors, the performance aspect of the type wasn't necessarily a factor in its failure as a fighter in theatre. The British were up against superior numbers, they had little support, no radar warning etc etc. Even the best fighters in the world would have suffered losses in theatre and would not have prevented Japan's subjugation of Singapore.
They were, but not all of them, some were from British lots and had British serials. From March 1942 the RAAF received a stream of them through every month that year. According to the books, 153 aircraft from the British Defence Aid DA-3 contract were shipped to Australia from San Francisco beginning in March 1942, of which 14 were sunk on route and were not replaced.
Well, from my point of view only with an eye toward making them in Australia, since they had the R-1830s there.I don't know what the fascination about a radial engine Whirlwind is.
In this context it would be a very poor choice, since it would have to be re-engineered for the R-1830s, which would set back production significantly.
I think this could have had enormous potential since after all, they were making the Beauforts right? Assuming they got lucky with teething issues.The Glosters were never put into production and are often referred to by the Air Ministry specification number. So they are the Glost F.5/34 and F.9/37.
In your list the only really viable option, IMO, is the P-36/Hawk 75.
The Gloster F.9/37 used the Taurus, just as the Beaufort did. Converting to R-1830s would be OK, but the aircraft was not production ready.
The Gloster F.5/34 was probably passed its time.
The Brewster Buffalo? Possible as an alternative, but would you want a Buffalo over a P-36?
Seems like if they could make Beauforts they may have been able to make Beaufighters, and Beaufighters were certainly very useful in the PacificThe Beaufighter started out as a fighter based on Beaufort bits, but really only retained the wing? It also had the larger, more powerful Hercules, so fitting them with R-1830s would not have resulted in a very good aircraft.
It's almost exactly the same size and shape as a P-36, and partly wood and stretched fabric construction. The only downside of those is fixed undercarriage. It did 290 mph with an 830 hp Mercury engine so presumably, it would be a bit faster with the 1830. They were actually designed for the Far East and the export market, so they were made to be simple to maintain. This is another one that the Finns did pretty well with, even against the Germans. It also apparently had the capacity for 20mm guns though they were not fitted.Don't know much about the Fokker D.XXI. Its performance seems lower, and it was designed around a less powerful engine. How much extra work needed to get the R-1830 to fit and work with the airframe?
yes it also had the issue with the 'wet wings'The Seversky P-35 was a bit down on performance compared to the P-36A (R-1830). It had better armament, though.
The Italians I also do not know much about.
The Re 2000 first flew in 1939, giving about a year to get it into production and a licence deal done with Australia. Probably not going to happen, since the prototype had some issues.
The FIAT G.50 was in production, and service, before WW2. From that point of view it was possible. It was another light aircraft with a small engine, though a prototype was made with an engine of similar power to the R-1830.
I'm not sure which in the list have much in the way of development potential.
Agreed. Really this discussion should be trying to justify why not the P-36, since it's the obvious choice.
And once the Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp R-1830-76, featuring a two-stage supercharger is available the RAAF can field a P-36 Super Hawk, the best P-36 variant never made.
Isn't that the engine that powered the Wildcat at Midway in June 1942? It seemed up to the task.
The F4F Wildcat entered service in mid-1940. June 1942 saw production of the 2,000hp R-2800 powered Vought F4U Corsair starting, followed by the similarly powered Grumman F6F Hellcat in July. While the F4F may have been "up to the task" at Midway it was clearly aready seen as past it.
This or the P-36 are the best picks. What we don't have is the start date for this project. If it's 1938-39 then P-36, but 1939-1940 the Martlet.This might in fact be another option for the Australians in this 'what if' scenario, how about an Aussie Martlet?