MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
The Beaufort parts book lists A9-1 to A9-52 as having Lockheed Hudson engine mounts, exhausts, dishpans, cowls, gills, carb scoops, etc, etc.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"In early 1941, L4448 was converted as a trials aircraft and the combination was considered a success.. The first Australian-assembled Beaufort A9-1 flew on 5 May 1941 with the first Australian-built aircraft A9-7 coming off the production line in August. .
According to the commentary at Warbirds Down Under at Temora last year it was expected Australia would select the Lysander!
I also understand one reason for using R-1830s instead of the Taurus was the specialised maintenance required of sleeve valve engines. Of course later on we used Hercules-equipped Beaufighters, but that was after a lot more experience had been gained.
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.
Have a look at this site Mi....| The Australian War Memorial
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 Australia had total control of the sea.
The Wackett mission was financed by Essington Lewis.
They would have needed different blades so maybe deH did not have the time to design it or the ability to produce it and HS likewise.
I have never heard that but the R-1830 was already in production at CAC in Australia and exported to Lockheed as a complete powerplant minus prop so all that was needed to fit the Hudson powerplant to the Beaufort was an adapter structure to go between the front spare and landing gear at the rear and Hudson powerplant at the front.
It's possible that the reason Curtiss props were used was because the Curtiss Electric prop was constant speed, as opposed to the DH Propellers (Ham Std) counterweight bracketed prop as fitted to the Beaufort, which was not, being two-pitch controllable only. This is opposed to the Ham Std 'Hydromatic' prop, which, of course was c/s and DH did produce under licence. De Havilland Australia built the Curtiss props under licence.
I doubt blade type has anything to do with it, the Ham Std blades were usually made to a given size and cut down by hand based on their requirement.
According to Stewart Wilson, the Beaufort II with the P&W Twin Wasp engines was developed to overcome a shortage of Tauruses, because of issues they suffered in service. This decision was made to power Aussie built Beauforts with the Pratts was made in October 1939. From May 1940, the British grounded their Beauforts for two months. The first 'Aussie' Beaufort powered by Pratts was in fact British built L4448, which first flew with Pratts in May 1941.
Have you read any of Stewart Wilson's books on Australian aircraft? There are one or two inaccuracies, but by and large they bring the story of the CAC and its aircraft to life in print. They are long out of print, of course.
Because the cooling requirements (airflow) can change with intended speed and altitude of the plane. Trying to use a cowl that works on a P-36 might not work so good on a PBY. Not to mention trying to blend a standard cowling to different fuselages. P-35 and P-36?I have never understood why the power egg concept wasn't used more often in procurement. Here's the engine, design an airplane around it. No worries about things like cooling etc. That would be the responsibility of the engine manufacturer, period. Seems like it would streamline the process.
Basically yes but the basic blades also needed the twist changed in many cases and that in turn required Ham Std to determine how much. Not hard to do but you needed HS or dH to do the math on both the twist and the profile.
Ham Std had constant speed counterweight props well before WW2 but they may not have licenced the governors to dH so there would be a strong possibility you are correct there. I believe the only difference was the prop governor. The Australian Mk VAs had constant speed counterweight props but they were not popular as, like any HS bracket prop, they did not feather.
By twist I suspect you mean blade angle? The stops on the hubs determined the blade angle and its limits.
The bracketed props obviously did not have as much angle, whereas yes, in bigger aircraft you want a feathering prop, as you know, so I suspect that is why the move was made to the Curtiss prop, also I suspect that the Ham Std 'Hydromatic' might have been heavier, with its oil filled hub, whereas the Curtiss was lighter, being electrically actuated.
DH props did have a licence for the governor in the UK. And, yes, you are right, the bracketted prop did not feather, which is why the Curtiss was likely to have been chosen, see above. The bracketted prop was also not a c/s prop so didn't require a governor. Just to clarify, the prop governor is fitted to the engine, not the prop and relies on engine oil to actuate a piston, which diverts oil flow to the pitch change mechanism in the prop hub, which alters the angle of the blades to align with the engine's increasing rpm. Obviously, the bracketted two position prop's blade angle was determined by the pilot over two-positions, rather than actuating automatically in line with the changing engine rpm. The counterweights in this aid in the blade actuation. The prop governor doesn't change the blade angle - in the Curtiss prop, this is done electrically (the governor actuates relays that open and close contacts that actuate the blades electrically - it's driven by the aircraft's AC gennie), in the Ham Std Hydromatic prop, this is done with differential oil pressure against a piston in its hub, the governor actuating as described above.
More than anything I'd like the time and resources to be able to access first hand archives, but I just don't. Also, if you know an author is a good one and you can check his sources, in some cases that author might have already done the leg work for you. For me, going to the National Archive at Kew is out of the question, so getting hold of books is the next best thing, with all that that entails.
Don't know about the Hamilton Standard, but the Aeroproducts hydromatic propeller was actually 50# lighter than the Curtiss Electric props as they were installed on the P-39F and P-39D.By twist I suspect you mean blade angle? The stops on the hubs determined the blade angle and its limits. The bracketed props obviously did not have as much angle, whereas yes, in bigger aircraft you want a feathering prop, as you know, so I suspect that is why the move was made to the Curtiss prop, also I suspect that the Ham Std 'Hydromatic' might have been heavier, with its oil filled hub, whereas the Curtiss was lighter, being electrically actuated.
DH props did have a licence for the governor in the UK. And, yes, you are right, the bracketted prop did not feather, which is why the Curtiss was likely to have been chosen, see above. The bracketted prop was also not a c/s prop so didn't require a governor. Just to clarify, the prop governor is fitted to the engine, not the prop and relies on engine oil to actuate a piston, which diverts oil flow to the pitch change mechanism in the prop hub, which alters the angle of the blades to align with the engine's increasing rpm. Obviously, the bracketted two position prop's blade angle was determined by the pilot over two-positions, rather than actuating automatically in line with the changing engine rpm. The counterweights in this aid in the blade actuation. The prop governor doesn't change the blade angle - in the Curtiss prop, this is done electrically (the governor actuates relays that open and close contacts that actuate the blades electrically - it's driven by the aircraft's AC gennie), in the Ham Std Hydromatic prop, this is done with differential oil pressure against a piston in its hub, the governor actuating as described above.
More than anything I'd like the time and resources to be able to access first hand archives, but I just don't. Also, if you know an author is a good one and you can check his sources, in some cases that author might have already done the leg work for you. For me, going to the National Archive at Kew is out of the question, so getting hold of books is the next best thing, with all that that entails.
Don't know about the Hamilton Standard, but the Aeroproducts hydromatic propeller was actually 50# lighter than the Curtiss Electric props as they were installed on the P-39F and P-39D.
I have had a gut full of reading that the Allison had no supercharger, that the Merlin was more reliable than the Allison