Brewster Buffalo vs. CAC Boomerang

Even if they could buy the fighters the problem would be getting them delivered.

Australians were worried about being cut off from sea deliveries. Mustangs had long range but not that long a range.

They might also be worried about THEIR fighters being "Requisitioned" by somebody with a greater need just before delievery.

Austrailains also came up with the Sentinal tank for much the same reasons.

Sentinel tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember that the Japanese had been fighting in China for a number of years by 1940.

Australians were worried about being cut off from sea deliveries.

Click to expand...

If Australia was that worried about defending the homeland then why were the best units of their armed forces deployed to Europe, North Africa and Malaya?

just maybe they were honoring their commitments.

davebender said:

If Australia was that worried about defending the homeland then why were the best units of their armed forces deployed to Europe, North Africa and Malaya?

Click to expand...

Their armed forces were not totally independent of the UK. I don't think they could say no.

Reading recently the autobiography of Tim Vigors, who after serving in 222 Squadron in the Battle of Britain was posted to Singapore. He did of course fly Buffalos they - he after much 'at ready' time flew over the Repulse as it sank - pity the RN didn't notify the Squadron they had gone to sea, or even later - Phillips it seems didn't want to break radio silence!
But that is not the main point of the post.

When having assembled the crated aircraft, there were flight tested - by the experienced pilots, either the engine became rough, or else it cut out - resulting in a couple of dicey landings.
The conclusion was that there was a problem with the air filters - not being designed for the damp, humid climate. What was to be done? It seems th engineering officer of 243 Squadron, came up with the temporary expedient of fitting some of his wife's sanitary towels (no comments please about used or unused), at the front of the air filter.
Result being that in the air the aircraft engine behaved perfectlly.
The next problem - was how were they going to get a gross of sanitay towels, and who was going to get them!?
Lots were drawn, with the unlucky winner having the task of going into the chemist and asking for them!
The 'fresh-faced young man' was armed with the nesessary money, and taken to a large chemist in Singapore.
" He approached the girl behind the counter.
'Can I help you sir?' she asked.
'Well,' blushing. 'Yes' please miss. I want some sanitary towels,' said our man.
'How many would you like?' asked the girl looking only slightly surprised.
'One gross please miss,' came th hushed reply, accompanied by an even deeper blush.
'What size do you want, sir?' The girl was now looking definitely amused.
'I don't know miss. They're for Buffalos.'
At which point Tim Vigors came to his rescue and explained what it was all about. But once used - no more problems with the air filters.

davebender said:

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

Click to expand...

Dave at the beginning of the Pacific war the entire RAAF fighter force comprised two squadrons of Buffaloes (at Singapore) and a handful of Wirraway units. Both aircraft were completely outclassed by the Japanese once hostilities started, this is why the panic fighter went into production.
Throughout 1942 the RAAF were forming squadrons with whatever aircraft they could lay their hands on, more Buffaloes, P-39's and more importantly P-40's. Spitfires didn't become operational until early 1943. The US and Britain were simply unable to supply both Australia and its own forces in the Pacific area at this time, hence the Boomerang.

FLYBOYJ said:

I could tell you that this is the case for many WW2 aircraft

Click to expand...

Hi Joe. I've also read (Boscombe Down reports) that carbon monoxide poisoning was a big problem with many WWII aircraft and elaborate exhaust changes were made to hopefully eliminate it. Having heard that the average family car interior is prone to CO2 accumulation if you drive with the boot open I wonder if the same would occur if the cockpit is open?

Waynos said:

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?

Click to expand...

Hi Wayne. We staunchly claim the Boomer is ALL OURS!

Graeme said:

Hi Joe. I've also read (Boscombe Down reports) that carbon monoxide poisoning was a big problem with many WWII aircraft and elaborate exhaust changes were made to hopefully eliminate it. Having heard that the average family car interior is prone to CO2 accumulation if you drive with the boot open I wonder if the same would occur if the cockpit is open?

Click to expand...

This is still a problem today and modern recip aircraft actually have carbon monoxide detectors that are available for this. When you fly with the canopy opened it would seem the CO2 would just vent rearward. I've only flown a T-34 with the canopy opened, I had no problems.

davebender said:

It appears to me the P-40s need to arrive from Britain. They received over 2,500 P-40 aircraft produced during 1940 and 1941. Compared to 250 x CAC Boomerangs produced beginning in late 1942.

P-40 deliveries to Britain.
US Warplanes
1940 140 x Tomahawk Mk I.
1941 86 x Tomahawk Mk IIA. (the 24 sent to Canada and Russia have been subtracted from the total)
1941 635 x Tomahawk Mk IIB (the 295 sent to China and Russia have been subtracted from total)
1941 560 x Kittyhawk Mk I
1941 1,500 x Kittyhawk Mk IA

Click to expand...

Hi Mate,
Of the 1500 Kittyhawk MKIA the RAF actually received 444 Airframes under Lend -Lease requirement BSC322 r contact DA-3
Of this total of 444 airframes , after diversions to other Commonwealth Airforces ie , RAAF , RCAF , RNZAF,
and losses in transit the RAF actually used 200.
THe easiest way to identify L-L Kittyhawk IA is by serial number . They were in the ET*** and EV*** ranges.
From EV315 onwards all A/C the resembled P40K , having the fin -fillet,
Cheers
Terry McGrady

FLYBOYJ said:

This is still a problem today and modern recip aircraft actually have carbon monoxide detectors that are available for this. When you fly with the canopy opened it would seem the CO2 would just vent rearward. I've only flown a T-34 with the canopy opened, I had no problems.

Click to expand...

I know nothing about this personally but I did read an interesting note about the early cockpit pressurisation used in the Ta152 projects, that although the system was somewhat less than reliable at altitudes beyond 12km one thing it did provide of note was in preventing exhaust gases from entering the cockpit. I don't know if that has something to do with high altitude pressure differences between ambient outside air and a closed cockpit but apparently exhaust gases entering the cockpit was a serious problem with very high altitude flight in general at the time, so the pressuration system was of benefit for this reason alone, if not for its intended purpose to the full.