Australia should have manufactured the Miles M20. It was perfect for the CBI and the Pacific.

[ktank]

In 1936, Wackett went on an exploratory mission to the UK, USA and Europe - including Germany to examine establishing manufacturing facilities and an aircraft to build. It was almost expected that the type should be British, so when the North American NA-16 was selected it caused much controversy. A contract for local manufacture was signed in 1938.

According to the commentary at Warbirds Down Under at Temora last year it was expected Australia would select the Lysander!

CAC investigated a Wirraway Fighter in November 1938, while the first Wirraway was still under construction. Design work into a concrete fighter was not begun until December 1941 however.

Didn't know that! Which makes the Boomerang even more sensible - some of the groundwork had already been done.

In the circumstances of late 1941 the only option for a locally built fighter available in a hurry was a single-seat Wirraway with a Beaufort engine.

 

[ktank]

The Boomerang was designed because it was a stop-gap emergency fighter that could be produced from Australia's capability and resources at the time. In order to build a new type with a new engine outside what Australia was producing at the time, why concentrate on what effectively was a stop-gap fighter that would be obsolescent by 1945? Why not go the whole hog and insist on the Spitfire VIII or the Mustang III, P-47 or P-38? it would take as much time to ship parts, technology and establish new capability within existing facilities.

Interesting that Australia investigated building both the Lancaster and Spitfire under license, but changed them to postwar production of the Mustang and Lincoln.

 

[Shortround6]

I don't know how much contact CAC had with North American but the NA-16 family included both fixed landing gear and retractable gear, trainers and light attack aircraft and a single seat fighter. Power for the 1938 version (as described in the 1938 Jane's) was provided by an 840hp R-1820. This NA 50 design first flew in May of 1939. If nothing else it showed the Australians that there was some stretch to the basic design even if the Boomerang differed considerably in detail.

 

[Kevin J]

I don't know how much contact CAC had with North American but the NA-16 family included both fixed landing gear and retractable gear, trainers and light attack aircraft and a single seat fighter. Power for the 1938 version (as described in the 1938 Jane's) was provided by an 840hp R-1820. This NA 50 design first flew in May of 1939. If nothing else it showed the Australians that there was some stretch to the basic design even if the Boomerang differed considerably in detail.

It's the same with the Miles Kestrel / Master / Martinet & Miles M.20/2.

 

[jetcal1]

Here ya go...

View attachment 561549

Thanks! My guess wasn't to far off! (Unless A79-1 was merely assembled and not "built" (manufactured).

 

[Shortround6]

M. 20

Miles Master.

While the square footage of the wings was within 1 sq ft the Master's wing was 39 feet in Span while the M-20 was 34 ft 7 in.
The cords and/or taper is different, the airfoil is different (the Master uses a 23% airfoil at the root) . The M 20 uses pretty much a straight wing instead of an anhedral-dihedral arrangement (gull wing intended to keep landing gear short). rear fuselage, vertical stabilizer/rudder are all different.

Empty weight (does not include guns usually) is close to 1600lbs heavier for the M.20 (the Martinet target tug is 1300lbs lighter)

Granted the Boomerang and the P-64 both used modified wings compared to the two seat trainers but I believe (could be wrong) that they either clipped the wings or attached the outer wing panels to a shorter center section. Looking at 3 view drawings it appears that the center sections were the same or close. Boomerang ailerons go out into the wing tips though.

 

[Kevin J]

View attachment 561608
M. 20

View attachment 561609
Miles Master.

While the square footage of the wings was within 1 sq ft the Master's wing was 39 feet in Span while the M-20 was 34 ft 7 in.
The cords and/or taper is different, the airfoil is different (the Master uses a 23% airfoil at the root) . The M 20 uses pretty much a straight wing instead of an anhedral-dihedral arrangement (gull wing intended to keep landing gear short). rear fuselage, vertical stabilizer/rudder are all different.

Empty weight (does not include guns usually) is close to 1600lbs heavier for the M.20 (the Martinet target tug is 1300lbs lighter)

Granted the Boomerang and the P-64 both used modified wings compared to the two seat trainers but I believe (could be wrong) that they either clipped the wings or attached the outer wing panels to a shorter center section. Looking at 3 view drawings it appears that the center sections were the same or close. Boomerang ailerons go out into the wing tips though.

What are you getting at? Yakovlev produced a whole range of fighters based on the Yak-1. Basically, the Wirraway is a good call for the Aussies, the Boomerang arrives too late to be of any real use as a fighter and needs a two stage engine. The only other potential manufacturer is Canada for export to Australia and New Zealand for use in the Pacific, maybe even India for use in the CBI.

 

[Mungo60]

Yes, the Vampire was built by Hawker de Havilland at Bankstown in Sydney, the engines were built by CAC in Melbourne, one at least is still flying at Temora in Queensland.

Sorry to butt in Wingnutts, im not trying to be a smart arse but Temora is in NSW
Temora Aviation Museum - Home of Australia's Historic Ex-military Aircraft

 

[Shortround6]

What are you getting at? Yakovlev produced a whole range of fighters based on the Yak-1.

Unfortunately some records or accounts are unclear. Some designs spawned a number of variations. Many of the Yak aircraft for example used a greater or lesser number of components of an earlier model. Longer fuselage while keeping the same wings? keeping the same wing plane form and airfoil while changing the method of construction (like the Hurricane).
Again Unfortunately, some accounts say that one aircraft was based on another. Especially if they are from the same company. In some cases that means that only some parts of the design were changed, in other cases it means that the method of construction was kept the same but all the parts (and the size and shape of the plane are different) or that some particular attributes like stalling or spin recovery where worked into the new design based on experience with older design.

In the case of the Miles Master training series and the M, 20 it appears that while they both made of wood and had similar construction there was not really any common parts between the two designs. tooling up to make the Miles Kestrel or Master gets you a shop/factory that can make wooden airplanes but no specific tooling or jigs that can help make the M 20 any faster.
It also means that trying to convert a factory set up to make wooden airplanes to one that can make metal airplanes (Beaufort and Beaufighter) or transfer workers is going to take longer.
The Wirraway used a mixed construction, it was all metal framework with some stressed skin and some fabric covering.
WiKi "The CAC Wirraway was a training and general purpose military aircraft. The fuselage comprised a welded framework composed of chrome and steel, which was construction from four separately produced sections bolted together during final assembly.[12] The sides of the fuselage featured fabric covering supported by aluminium alloy frames, while the underside and decking has metal coverings instead. The single-spar wings, which were built in five individual sections, were composed of spaced ribs and a stressed skin.[12] The control surfaces were metal-framed with fabric covering; the split-flap arrangement of early Wirraways were supplemented on later-built aircraft via the addition of dive brakes. An all-metal stressed skin construction was used for the tailplane and fin; both side of the tailplane were interchangeable "

I bolded the chrome and steel because, as far as I know, very few planes actually used chrome parts although a number of steels used chrome as an alloy and were called chrome steel, not chrome and steel. Parts of the quote may be wrong but Wackett and company were laying the ground work for future aircraft and manufacturing capability and tying to get Australia as close to world standard as they could, traditional wooden construction (as opposed to what DH used in the Mosquito) would not do that.

I just don't see what the M.20 brings to the situation. A smaller wing but heavier aircraft than the Hurricane, aside from some performance numbers that vay in the low single digits percentage wise form the Hurricane how does it change the combat capability of the Austrian forces over giving them so Hurricanes?

Once again, to build wooden airplanes in colonial situations you have to be sure the colony has the right type/s of wood available in quantity or all you have done is change shipping aluminium and steel to Australia ( and I have no idea how much of their own they could make) to shipping Canadian spruce or some other wood types to Australia if the local varieties are not almost identical substitutes.
Australian gum trees (eucalyptus) being similar to Oak for instance in properties, not a good aircraft wood as a general rule.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Here is a newsreel from 1944 showcasing Australian production of the Mosquito:

Apparently production was delayed by a series of fatal crashes traced to faulty wings constrtected by GM Holden.
De Havilland DH98 Mosquito, Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, 1941
Australian coachwood was used due to unavailability of Canadian birch.
Incidentally Rolls Royce owned Miles at the time the M20 was built.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I've always wondered how long it took to ship stuff during the war to different locations. I was thinking from the USA to world-wide. I still haven't found any info but I did find this as I mentioned shipping from England to Oz. Bear in mind that this is a 1914 map but if the ships were convoyed during WW2 the times shouldn't be much different. Looking at 30-40 days shipping...

View attachment 561215
​

If anyone has the info about WW2 shipping times I was sure like to see it. During my search I also found this book: 381 pages of WW2 Troopships with a history of each...https://history.army.mil/documents/WWII/wwii_Troopships.pdf

View attachment 561216

View attachment 561217​

This is from a WWII booklet describing the production of Avgas (attached). I found it as a part of my research on debunking Warrens Bodies bad British fuel myth. Some day I will finish that essay.

I should point out that this is specific to avgas, which would enjoy high priority. General cargo would likely be slower.
The booklet on avgas is at the end of the file well worth a read.

 

[Dimlee]

I should point out that this is specific to avgas, which would enjoy high priority. General cargo would likely be slower.

Loading/discharge of a tanker was faster of course, but were there any dedicated tanker convoys? Otherwise, all types proceed together at one speed.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Loading/discharge of a tanker was faster of course, but were there any dedicated tanker convoys? Otherwise, all types proceed together at one speed.

Yes there were CU convoys dedicated to tankers which later added fast freighters and troopships . You are however correct that many of the tankers did travel in HX convoys at a slower pace. No tanker traveled in the very slow SC convoys except for the tankers that refueled the escorts. In the other oceans tankers typically travelled alone.

 

[MiTasol]

Although it's performance isn't great for Europe. It can equal the speed of the Oscar and Zero, could out dive them, and had as much range. With individual exhaust ejectors faster. It's predecessor, the Master, was used in Turkey, Egypt and South Africa, so I assume it can withstand the Tropics. With a two speed engine able to compete at all altitudes up to 30k feet. So what do you guys think about the Aussies building this war winning plane instead of the Boomerang with first deliveries in 1941? As a replacement later in the war, the MB5.

The Boomerang was designed and built in a few weeks by modifying current production Wirraway parts and fitting a Beaufort powerplant (which in turn was a Hudson powerplant with new cowl gills and redesigned engine mount) and being built in the same CAC factory as the Wirraway and Boomerang. By choosing the Boomerang

• VERY few new jigs required.
• Minimal retraining of production staff.
• Minimal retraining of pilots as the cockpit layout is almost identical.
• No waiting for jigs and drawings from the UK and
• No danger of the jigs and tooling joining the Beaufort's original Taurus engines on the sea bed.

 

[MiTasol]

If anyone has the info about WW2 shipping times I was sure like to see it. During my search I also found this book: 381 pages of WW2 Troopships with a history of each...https://history.army.mil/documents/WWII/wwii_Troopships.pdf

This is a extract from another document I compiled. Getting accurate information is difficult as many of the ship names are spelled wrong or truncated in the original RAAF documents and some of the dates do not make sense - possibly due US vs UK dating but even that is doubtful. I think the errors were most likely because the people doing the record keeping did not give a proverbial. This list identifies some known errors.

I will read the troopship book when I get time - it might have info I am chasing as the troop ships in the convoys I am researching also carried freight including aircraft.

 

[MiTasol]

Ummm, no.

Aussies could manufacture R-1830s because...........................

"During 1937, production licences for the type were obtained from North American Aviation along with an accompanying arrangement to domestically produce the Wirraway's Wasp engine from Pratt & Whitney"

And not much later CAC got a contract to build complete (except for props) Lockheed Hudson R-1830 powerplants which is why they were able to keep the Beaufort in production after the Taurus engines were sunk.

 

[MiTasol]

A few facts about the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, the Wirraway and Boomerang. the CAC was established in 1936 as a private venture company with Lawrence Wackett as its GM, a former Great War fighter pilot with the Australian Flying Corps in WW1.

In 1936, Wackett went on an exploratory mission to the UK, USA and Europe - including Germany to examine establishing manufacturing facilities and an aircraft to build. It was almost expected that the type should be British, so when the North American NA-16 was selected it caused much controversy. A contract for local manufacture was signed in 1938.

The Wackett mission was financed by Essington Lewis.

Wackett and his RAAF officers also went to Japan and two very interesting files were in the Essington Lewis collection at the Australian Archives at Brighton (Melbourne) until 1986. The approximate titles were.

• Japanese aircraft under consideration for manufacture in Australia
• Negotiations with Sumitomo Metals for licence production of Japanese alloys

I asked for them to be declassified and the RAAF at Russell Offices, Canberra managed to "lose" them within days of receipt. My guess is either destroyed to hide the fact that the RAAF officers on the mission ignored how advanced Japan was, OR their superiors refused to believe them, OR stolen by a document collector.

Because the Wirraway was an American design the Aus government had to pay import duty to Britain for the first batch of aircraft until they were redesigned enough to be called an Australian design. Duty was paid on all the engines but the Ham Std props were licenced through de Havillands.

The Wirraway had Vickers guns so that they did not have to pay duty. The Brits themselves used Brownings because they were a better gun. Presumably the colonials were expedable.

As soon as I can find it I will post an Australian War Cabinet document on re-arming the RAAF. The interesting comment is (from memory) fighters were not required because Austalia had total control of the sea.

 

[MiTasol]

IIRC, it took 6 weeks to get from the UK to Australia by ship. So let's say 3 months during WW2 as you will need to go by convoy. Blueprints, tools, they could all be flown, so let's say 6 days.

Things like wing jigs and fuselage jigs for even a small aircraft like that weigh tons/tonnes.

 

[fubar57]

Have a look at this site Mi....| The Australian War Memorial

 

[MiTasol]

That Wackett chose US was a rebellious step at the time, but was eminently sensible. Interestingly, the Australian government was vociferous toward any opposition to its 'Buy British' credentials and interestingly, little New Zealand next door actually made arms deals and welcomed the USA's presense far sooner than the Australians. What helped was that New Zealand's Prime Minister Peter Fraser was a good friend of FDR's and he and his wife actually holidayed with the Frasers in Wellington during the war - FDR's wife making the journey on her own havng befriended Fraser's wife.

According to the DRAFT of a book on CAC I read some 30 years ago the Brits suggested to Essington Lewis and Wackett that Australia could probably produce Tiger Moths, but not the engines. Later when Wackett and his team started suggesting an American design the Brits suddenly decided that Australia could assemble (not manufacture) Fairey Battles. At no time would Britain assist in Aus producing something advanced.

The NA-16 series was chosen because it was the newest advanced trainer available anywhere and already NAA had sketches of its derivatives like the various fighters and observation aircraft etc that grew from it. The particular NA-16 derivative that the Wirraway is descended from is the NA-33 which was very similar to the NA-36 that the USAAC ordered, soon after Wackett got his licence, as the BC-1.

After the NA-33 was ordered the Brits needed to save face so immediately contracted the Aus government to built 90 examples of the latest British medium bomber - the Beaufort - for the RAF in Singapore so DAP, later GAF, was born as a direct result of Wacketts decisions.

The author died before getting the book into print but that draft is what sent me to the Brighton archives in search of more history on CAC and DAP/GAF. Unfortunately everything I wanted to read was classified and needed to go to the RAAF in Canberra for declassification. After what happened to the Japanese files I was unwilling to cause more files to disappear.

Without the Beaufort the Australians would have had major problems after Pearl Harbor.