Brewster Buffalo vs. CAC Boomerang

[Clay_Allison]

One can only speculate how the Boomer would have faired against the Japanese if it they had of been in a position to engage the Japanese on a regular basis, mind you I wouldn't want to be going up against Zero's! I always thought a good role would have been to use the Boomerang against the Japanese bombers at Darwin while the Spitfires took on the Zero's, certainly would've made interesting reading!

Like the way Hawker Hurricanes attacked German Bombers while the Spits took on the escort fighters?

 

[Wildcat]

Exactly.

 

[Juha]

Hello Graeme
Quote:" The Boomerang was outmanoeuvred by the Buffalo.
Quote:
At no time was the Boomerang able to gain the initiative in the combat.

And
Quote: "The Buffalo used in the trials was ex-Dutch (A51-6). They loaded it to what they thought at the time matched the Zero's wing loading-24lb/sq.ft. Combat was staged around 8,000ft."

That is very interesting indeed. If I have understood correctly A51-6 was Model 339-23, and so had the same engine as the Finnish Model 239s and if it was lightened to 24lb/sq.ft wingload, as the wing area was 209sq.ft that means 5016lb. Now the max T/O weight of the Finnish Brewsters (sans naval equipment but with pilot armour etc Finnish mods) was 2415kg (appr 5325lb), so after using some fuel FAF Brewster was rather near the Australian test plane. Now neither the Australia in the War of 1939-1945, The Role of Science and Industry nor the Profile on Boomerang gave no info on A51-6 vs Boomerang tests. Are the more on Stewart Wilson's "Wirraway, Boomerang and CA-15"?

On armament, 4 .5mgs was powerful enough armament against Japanese planes in 1942

Juha

 

[Marcel]

Hello Graeme

That is very interesting indeed. If I have understood correctly A51-6 was Model 339-23

That's correct, A51-6 was Brewster B-3186, a 339-23 indeed. It had an old R-1820-G2 engine, modified to a G5B (1000 hp)

 

[Juha]

Hello Wildcat
thanks for info on Boomerang combat activities

Hello Marcel
thanks for the info on A51-6.

Juha

 

[davebender]

use the Boomerang against the Japanese bombers at Darwin while the Spitfires took on the Zero's

They only built 250 Boomerangs vs 20,000 Spitfires. So why bother? Just use an all Spitfire fighter force.

If you intend to further develop the Boomerang and place it into mass production then the situation would be different.

 

[parsifal]

The Boomerang was developed and built, on the basis that Australia had no access to modern fighters from overseas. There were no fighters at all in Australia at the outbreak of the war, whilst those in Malaya (the Buffalo) were found to be inadequate. With the limited resources available to the country at the time, came the Boomerang.
After the defeat of the Japanese at Coral Sea and Midway, the need for an indigenous design did recede. However development of the Boomernag did continue, the ultimate development, the CA-15 was comparable or superior to the later model P-51s.

 

[Graeme]

Are the more on Stewart Wilson's "Wirraway, Boomerang and CA-15"?

Hi Juha. Most of the reports deal with the Kittyhawk and Airacobra. This is the paragraph pertaining to the Buffalo...

On armament, 4 .5mgs was powerful enough armament against Japanese planes in 1942

A British magazine tells the story of how CAC wanted to manufacture the Hispano 20mm cannon locally. They had the handbooks but no pattern gun was available in Australia. Then, "quite by chance" one was located from a RAAF sergeant who had brought one back from North Africa where he had it mounted on the back of his truck in the Western Desert.
Using this and the handbooks CAC prepared production drawings to enable a local sub-contractor (Harland Engineering), to manufacture the cannon, simultaneously designing a spring-feed magazine and recoil-driven belt-fed booster. Myth? Makes for a good story anyway!

One of the many problems found with the the 'Boomer' was the canopy layout and excessive heat in the cockpit...



I wonder if this is why so many aerial photographs show it with the canopy open?

 

[parsifal]

Hi graeme

That reads to me that the Buffalo was mocked up to approximate the qualities of the Zero, and that surprise surprise, the Boomerang could not compete in a turning fight with an aircraft configured in that way. The same conclusions could be drawn about the Kittyhawk, and just about every allied aircraft of that time. The answer was the boom and zoom tactics worked out from October 1942, and which worked so well for the allies from that point forward. The report tellingly says that this was open to the boomerang as well.

Like the Kittyhawk, the Boomerang was a poor performer at altitude, but so too was the Zero. If the height advantage was achieved, the boomernag had to dive and then get the hell out. Trouble for the Boomerang was that its spped was limited. It might have been possible to keep the airspeed up as high as possible, as it was known that Zeroes were heavy on the controls above 250 mph. A Zero would undoubtedly be a a handful for the Boomerang, however I still think it would be a better proposition than a Buffalo vs a Zero. It had a slight advantage of speed (about 20 mph) a better climb rate, and much heavier armament. Dive, run, climb, the three importamnnt lessons to learn .

 

[Juha]

Hello Graeme
thanks a lot. Very much appreciated!
Brewster F2A in its original form wasn't a bad plane. But in the end too much was crammed into a small plane with a rather small wing.
Thanks again for the info!

Hello Parsifal
Difficult to say. At least B-239 had light controls also at rather high speeds and was according to the test better zoomer than Boomerang. Buffalo with 1200hp engine, with smaller tankage and after some other mods to lighten the a/c could have been passable plane. It would have been faster with more powerful engine and with mods mentioned also would have climbed better than A51-6 used in the test.

IIRC Zero wasn't so bad higher up and the max speed of it is still a bit hazy to me. Some experts say that the official Japanese max speed was the max speed guaranteed by Mitsubishi, and on average Zeros were faster.

Juha

 

[FLYBOYJ]

One of the many problems found with the the 'Boomer' was the canopy layout and excessive heat in the cockpit...

That was a typical complaint of many pilots of the 1930s who went from flying open cockpit aircraft to aircraft with an enclosed canopy. I could tell you that this is the case for many WW2 aircraft and postwar jets.

 

[Clay_Allison]

The Boomerang was developed and built, on the basis that Australia had no access to modern fighters from overseas. There were no fighters at all in Australia at the outbreak of the war, whilst those in Malaya (the Buffalo) were found to be inadequate. With the limited resources available to the country at the time, came the Boomerang.
After the defeat of the Japanese at Coral Sea and Midway, the need for an indigenous design did recede. However development of the Boomernag did continue, the ultimate development, the CA-15 was comparable or superior to the later model P-51s.

The Kangaroo was a totally different and unrelated design to the Boomerang.

 

[parsifal]

Yes I know, but it was designed by virtually the same team as had been used for the Boomerang, and it drew its inspiration from the success achieved with the earlier fighter. Its an interesting what if, if the government had opted for an indigenous design rather than adopt Wacketts recommendation to build P-51s in prefernce, and treat the Kangaroo a a low order design excercise.

 

[davebender]

The Boomerang was developed and built, on the basis that Australia had no access to modern fighters from overseas.

That basis is wrong. The below web site details what aircraft were in Australia and when they became available.
Welcome to ADF Serials

Boomerang fighter aircraft did not reach operational status until 1943. By then there were plenty of P-40s and Spitfires available. Not a bad looking aircraft though.

 

[timshatz]

That was a typical complaint of many pilots of the 1930s who went from flying open cockpit aircraft to aircraft with an enclosed canopy. I could tell you that this is the case for many WW2 aircraft and postwar jets.

It's all that friggin' glass and no AC. Sitting around on the ground is murder. Gotta keep the cockpit open or you'll just roast in there. Even then, you still drop sweat. Have to get airborne to cool off.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's all that friggin' glass and no AC. Sitting around on the ground is murder. Gotta keep the cockpit open or you'll just roast in there. Even then, you still drop sweat. Have to get airborne to cool off.

I used to soak my skull cap in ice water and then put my helmet on over it - just a little relief. I'm sure you remember those days where you could loose 5 pounds just sitting there until the AC is turned on!

 

[Waynos]

Does anyone know how the Boomerang compares with NAA's own fighter conversion of the T-6, the NA-50? I would be interested if anyone has done a comparison. What things were done the same, what things were done differently by the two separate design teams to turn this legendary trainer into a makeshift fighter?

 

[timshatz]

I used to soak my skull cap in ice water and then put my helmet on over it - just a little relief. I'm sure you remember those days where you could loose 5 pounds just sitting there until the AC is turned on!

Yeah man, brutal. I used to think the line about "persperation dripping off" was supposed to refer to high stress of combat, not the heat of sitting on the ground in summer!

 

[parsifal]

That basis is wrong. The below web site details what aircraft were in Australia and when they became available.
Welcome to ADF Serials

Boomerang fighter aircraft did not reach operational status until 1943. By then there were plenty of P-40s and Spitfires available. Not a bad looking aircraft though.

At the time of its design ther were no fighter aircraft at all in Australi. I can supply you with the complements of each squadron if you like, fully referenced but I can assure you ther were no fighters at that time. Moreover, as the months rolled by there was a gradual reinforcemet of fighters to Australia, but at no time were there sufficient numbers, and moreover, if the US had lost any of the battles up until October, Australia could well have found itself without an adequate supply of aircraft. In anybody's book, under these circumstances, it made a lot of sense to continue with the program.

The Boomerang first entered operational units in October 1942. Admittedly OTUs, but if the need had been there the aircraft was ready at that time. The first combat squadron equipped with the type was number 84, formed 5 February 1943 and receiving Boomerangs soon thereafter. It had completed re-equipment by March, and was in action late march/early April. By April its engaging enmy forces. Two further Squadrons entered service soon thereafter.

 

[davebender]

under these circumstances, it made a lot of sense to continue with the program.

The British program to purchase Mustang fighter aircraft from North American Aviation was operational during 1940. Did the government of Australia consider buying into this existing program rather then building an aircraft from scratch?