Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
It's the same with the Miles Kestrel / Master / Martinet & Miles M.20/2.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.
Thanks! My guess wasn't to far off! (Unless A79-1 was merely assembled and not "built" (manufactured).
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.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.
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.
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).What are you getting at? Yakovlev produced a whole range of fighters based on the Yak-1.
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...
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
Loading/discharge of a tanker was faster of course, but were there any dedicated tanker convoys? Otherwise, all types proceed together at one speed.I should point out that this is specific to avgas, which would enjoy high priority. General cargo would likely be slower.
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.Loading/discharge of a tanker was faster of course, but were there any dedicated tanker convoys? Otherwise, all types proceed together at one speed.
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.
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
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"
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.
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.
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.