Canada and Australia: what would you build?

It had exceptional range, with internal armament and it offered remote controlled guns in the rear of the engine nacelles, these were able to protect the rear of the aircraft without the need of a tail gunner and all the weight and drag that entails.

Click to expand...

Why would such a small aeroplane need remotely operated guns? At that size you're just adding needless complexity and bodies aboard. The best bet for a multi role aircraft was to go for fast and powerful, not heavy defensive armament. Also, was its range proven with a useful warload? PW1830s were a good engine on an airliner or trainer, but a multi role combat aircraft? I sincerely doubt it. They would have been better off fitting the thing with Hercs or Griffons, Merlins even and cleaning it up and getting rid of all the passengers aboard.

Its fundamental problem was that it was neither a medium bomber of the B-25 and B-26 class because it was too small and it was not a fast bomber/attack aircraft like the Mosquito or Beaufighter, because it was too slow and cumbersome. It was obsolete before it entered service.

Siegfried said:

The quandry for Australia is the mineral and agricultural wealth, it drives up the international value of our currency to the point that it is cheap to import but expensive to export. The Aussie dollar is riding high and I am having fun buying books. Our engineering tends to be based around the minning and construction sectors, specialist high tech work, systems work etc.

Building military equipement is never really going to be profitable unless one can export building our own will be more expensive than buying in but has the knock on effect of building our capabillities.

One problem is that the military types want the best equipment and are intollerant of delays and less than the best equipment that comes out of the risk of building locally.
It takes serious and consistant commitment. The usual solution is to take an existing design, modify it and build locally. This has backfired somewhat with Collins class subs which despite their advanced nature were an unproven Sweddish design compared to the more experience alterantive design offered by a German consortium. Another problem was the Seasprite program which collapsed. Insider tells me it was all over a fly by wire rotor hub control system the pilot types didn't like. It degenerated into personality issues. When safety is at stake you know what we are like, rather officious, due to the laws in this country.

Click to expand...

Great post Siegfried, and pretty much encapsulates most of the problems we have in the manufacturing sector today.

However, if we had developed a viable competitive aero industry post war, even though our unit costs may have been the same or more than those of say the americans, we may still have captured at least some of the emrging post war market. For many of the new nations in the far east purchasing military equipment from their former colonial masters was unnacceptable. In the finish they mostly turned to the Soviets for their equipment, some of which was bought, and some of which was supplied free. but many nations also found dealing with the communists ideologically unnacceptable, such as the malaysians for instance. I can see our products as filling a niche market so to speak.

We never attempted this because we never had product to sell. We did make a number of deals where we sold second hand gear to various nations, but we never seriously sold much new stuff. i think we sold a few Nomads to the filpinos and almost sold some frigates to the Kiwis....but thats about it

nuuumannn said:

Why would such a small aeroplane need remotely operated guns? At that size you're just adding needless complexity and bodies aboard. The best bet for a multi role aircraft was to go for fast and powerful, not heavy defensive armament. Also, was its range proven with a useful warload? PW1830s were a good engine on an airliner or trainer, but a multi role combat aircraft? I sincerely doubt it. They would have been better off fitting the thing with Hercs or Griffons, Merlins even and cleaning it up and getting rid of all the passengers aboard.

Its fundamental problem was that it was neither a medium bomber of the B-25 and B-26 class because it was too small and it was not a fast bomber/attack aircraft like the Mosquito or Beaufighter, because it was too slow and cumbersome. It was obsolete before it entered service.

Click to expand...

With regard to the points raised, the remotely operated turrets were there to reduce the weight of the defensive armement and decrease drag as well . The type was intended to be a replacement for the beaufort, but amy improvement in performance was saddled by the fact that the engines were the same. Improved performance would only come via two avenues if the engines were the same....improved aerodynamics and/or reduced weight. The remote turrets helped in both areas.

With regard to the unarmed option, that did prove to be the best bet for light bombers in the finish, but in 1940 it was not known. This aircraft in the finish would very much have been in the mold of the blenheim in terms of its design philosophy

with regard to:

Also, was its range proven with a useful warload? PW1830s were a good engine on an airliner or trainer, but a multi role combat aircraft? I sincerely doubt it. They would have been better off fitting the thing with Hercs or Griffons, Merlins even and cleaning it up and getting rid of all the passengers aboard

Click to expand...

I dont know if the range was proven, but I presume that it was. The contract signed bettween CAC for the initial orders placed just prior to the japanese attack in 1941 incorporated the following specifications:
Performance

Maximum speed: 282 mph (454 km/h, 247 knots)
Range: 2,225 mi (3,580 km, 1,950 nm) (with external tank and one torpedo)
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (7,165 m)
Rate of climb: 2,090 ft/min (10.6 m/s)

Your criticisms of the Double Wasp I dont agree with. They were fitted to the DAP Beauforts and actually improved the performance considerably over the Taurus engined versions. PW 1830s were also used quite successfully in the Ca-12s and were turbocharged for the next subtype of the Boomerang the CA-13. The problem for the Australians was that the Double Wasp was at that time (1941-3) the only high performance engine they had access to, so they simply had to make do with it.

Hercs, Merlins or Griffins were undoubtedly better, but were simply unavailable to the australians at the time of the types initial development. Merlins were not produced in Australia until 1944 whilst Griffins were never produced ( a line was set up, but cancelled at the end of the war). If the woomera had been produced in 1941, and had become a major type in the RAAF inventory, no doubt the the design would have been "stretched in subsequent years by better engines. One wonders what would have happened to the performance with a 1600 HP merlin or a 2400HP Griffin installed, instead of a 1200 HP Double Wasp. I suspect....a lot

With regard to this

Its fundamental problem was that it was neither a medium bomber of the B-25 and B-26 class because it was too small and it was not a fast bomber/attack aircraft like the Mosquito or Beaufighter, because it was too slow and cumbersome. It was obsolete before it entered service

Click to expand...

In 1940 when the bomber was designed, neither the B-25 or B-26 were fully operational. neither was the the mosquito. The Mosquito was entering service by the time the Woomera was contracted to enter service (December 1941), but not in the TOs that Australia was fighting in. For the pacific, the type was the fastest bomber available, and the longest ranged. Once theengines of higher power were made available, it would have shone almost as well as the mossie, but with armement. i have read design speeds of 350 mph were expected with the higher rated engines. thats plenty fast enough. Plus it has the added advantage of divebombing capability. Something never tested and ultimately deleted in 1944, but in 1941-2 a very useful capability IMO.

Parsifal,

Although you are putting up a valid set of points about the aircraft/engines, I just don't see how it would have been anything but obsolete by the time the problems with it were sorted out. Yes, you are right about the designers not having any real idea about how fast bombers were evolving, but I still think that fitting remotely operated turrets to an aircraft that small was a waste. I still believe there were too many people aboard and it could have been better designed than it was, even without the benefit of hindsight. The Beaufighter was already in service with the RAF and was a known quantity in Australia and it proved that two crew could to the job in a heavily armed multi role combat aircraft. The unfortunate thing about the Woomera was that even though its designers were unaware of the concept of a fast bomber as the Mossie exemplified, that aircraft rendered the concept of the Woomera obsolete, remotely operated turrets or not.

Regarding the engines, yes, I know about the Beaufort and the Double Wasp, but the Beaufort itself was verging on obsolescence by the time the Pacific war started. I guess I should have made it clearer in stating that by that time the Double Wasp just wasn't going to be powerful enough for a heavily armed combat aircraft. I refer you to the Beaufighter compared to the Beaufort.

Once the engines of higher power were made available, it would have shone almost as well as the mossie, but with armament. i have read design speeds of 350 mph were expected with the higher rated engines. thats plenty fast enough. Plus it has the added advantage of dive bombing capability.

Click to expand...

I find this a bit hard to swallow. I sincerely doubt that it would have been as effective as the Mosquito, yes, no doubt it would have proven a useful and versatile aircraft (had its issues been sorted by the time the war in the Pacific had begun), but I cannot see it being any better than what was already available by the time it might have been fitted with bigger engines. Why would it have been needed in 1944? There were Bostons, Beaufighters, Mitchells and Liberators available to the RAAF by then, with Mosquitos in production. I also doubt that it could achieve 350 mph, even with bigger engines. Perhaps if they removed the extra bodies and armament, because the airframe was too draggy as it was. Add extra structural weight required for the dive bombing role and you've got yourself a slow twin engine bomber of limited usefulness. I'm no aerodynamicist, but it was never going to be a high speed aircraft. Look at the Ki-46, the Mosquito, the F7F for examples of a high speed, low drag airframe.

Sorry, Parsifal, you haven't convinced me.

I just don't see how it would have been anything but obsolete by the time the problems with it were sorted out. Yes, you are right about the designers not having any real idea about how fast bombers were evolving, but I still think that fitting remotely operated turrets to an aircraft that small was a waste

Click to expand...

.

With the engines available the woomera was never going to an aircraft that could outrun completely its opponents (the japanese fighters). There was no choice but to fit rear firing armament ir face the prospect of fielding a bomber completely defenceless AND vulnerable. It achieved its great range by using the wing as a fuel tank. that is a trade off with inherent risks attached.

If engines of greater power were available I would agree with you, but there werent. the type began its design processes in mid 1939, and would have begun service entry around early 1941, except for the embargo placed by the british on engine exports in june 1940. That led to massive delays and massive detours for the CAC (and DAP) as they struggled to rush forward the new plant at Lidcombe to turn out the only engine that could be accessed at that time.....the home produced double wasp. That caused a massive delay for all new programs and a massive delay in aircraft deliveries.

an aircraft of the performance of the woomera available from the beginning of 1941 right through to about 1944 would have been a massive asset for the Australians, as the beaufort (an aircraft of lower performancce and range) proved to be in the PTO

I still believe there were too many people aboard and it could have been better designed than it was, even without the benefit of hindsight. The Beaufighter was already in service with the RAF and was a known quantity in Australia and it proved that two crew could to the job in a heavily armed multi role combat aircraft.

Click to expand...

The type began its design and development in 1939, at a time when the Beaufighter had not even flown. If it had not been delayed and stunted by the british embargo, it would have entered squadron service just after the beaufighter, but with much greater wepons capability, the ability to divebomb, far greater range, greater top speed when bombed up. with more modern engines, it would have had superior performance in all areas, plus its defensive armement was superior. it is also worth noting that the early marks of beaufighter did not carry heavy ofensive warloads....that came later (roughly 1943) and also in the early marks had a rear firing gun. In that configuration i believe the beaufighter had the same numbers of crew

The unfortunate thing about the Woomera was that even though its designers were unaware of the concept of a fast bomber as the Mossie exemplified, that aircraft rendered the concept of the Woomera obsolete, remotely operated turrets or not.

Click to expand...

It made the woomera obsolete in 1944, with the PW1830s fitted. in 1941-3 it would have been state of the art, cutting edge gear, with some very neat niche capabilities like range that made it superior to the mossie. If the engines were of a higher rating, its anyone guess as to what the airframe could do. if my guesstimate of 350 mph fully loade in level flight is near correct, it is not a concept made obsolete by the mossie. its the other way round actually

Regarding the engines, yes, I know about the Beaufort and the Double Wasp, but the Beaufort itself was verging on obsolescence by the time the Pacific war started. I guess I should have made it clearer in stating that by that time the Double Wasp just wasn't going to be powerful enough for a heavily armed combat aircraft. I refer you to the Beaufighter compared to the Beaufort

Click to expand...

.

err no, most people in the RAAF would not have agreed with that summation of the beauforts capabilities in 1942-44. it was considered a highly effective bomber very survivavble with suffeicient range to get the job done. the beafighter did not have the range to do the same things as the beaufort. Thats why the beauforts were the main strike bomber against rabaul in the RAAF inventory, and were the lead bomber for the RAAF at bismarck sea. both these campaigns are not the mark of an aircraft bordering on obsolescence. They are in fact the mark of an aircraft that was very potent and very survivable in the pacific, with the range and payload to be effective. The woomera would have done it even better, and a woomer with a better engine would have been virtually unstoppable in the pacific for the japanese

I find this a bit hard to swallow. I sincerely doubt that it would have been as effective as the Mosquito, yes, no doubt it would have proven a useful and versatile aircraft (had its issues been sorted by the time the war in the Pacific had begun), but I cannot see it being any better than what was already available by the time it might have been fitted with bigger engines

Click to expand...

.

It would have been as effecive or more effective than the mosquito because of its range and defensive armament. At the estimated 350mph it is not as fast as the later mosquitoes, but against the early marks which are its contempoaries in this 'what if discussion" it is considerably more capable. In 1941, the bomber versions of the mosquito were unarmed and carried a bombload of 2000lb to a range of 1500 miles (one way). The woomera, is credited with a range of 2250mi carrying a bombload of just under 2000lb, compare to the BIvs 1500lb at 1650 mi

Why would it have been needed in 1944? There were Bostons, Beaufighters, Mitchells and Liberators available to the RAAF by then, with Mosquitos in production.

Click to expand...

it wasnt needed in 1944, for precisely the reason you are suggesting. by then there were heavoer and cheaper options available. but in 1940-3, the types you are metioning were not at all available in most cases, or in a few cases were available but in very limited numbers. if the type had been available with the wrinkles ironed out in 1941 as it could have been except for the 1940 embargo, it would have made a big difference to allied fortunes in the SWPA

I also doubt that it could achieve 350 mph, even with bigger engines. Perhaps if they removed the extra bodies and armament, because the airframe was too draggy as it was. Add extra structural weight required for the dive bombing role and you've got yourself a slow twin engine bomber of limited usefulness. I'm no aerodynamicist, but it was never going to be a high speed aircraft. Look at the Ki-46, the Mosquito, the F7F for examples of a high speed, low drag airframe.

Click to expand...

Im no aerodynamic expert either, but i actually think it look like a fairly clean design especially for a 1939 design.

Sorry, Parsifal, you haven't convinced me.

Click to expand...

Ah the joys of disagreement I can live with it....

If you use the cube law the power required to make a Woomara do 350mph is 4587hp. That is assuming the TWIN Wasps were delivering 1200hp at the altitude the the Woomara did 282mph. they may very well have been supplying 1100 or even 1000hp at altitude which would drop the power requirement to 4000hp.

This is if there is absolutely no increase in drag. Maybe if you can figure out how to put in a DOUBLE Wasp for the drag of the TWIN Wasp

The Woomara was a tremendous achievement for an aircraft industry just starting out, but believing it would turn out to be a better plane than things like the B-25 takes a lot of belief.
The Australians probably did more with less than practically any other Allied country when it came to war production vs industrial base. But it was a country of just over 7 million people in 1940 that was predominately agricultural. It had many talented people but little experience and little back up for design or research.

The US started the war with something like a dozen wind tunnels and ended with about 40. Building 300+mph aircraft could not be done with just some ideas and paper and pencils anymore.

If you use the cube law the power required to make a Woomara do 350mph is 4587hp. That is assuming the TWIN Wasps were delivering 1200hp at the altitude the the Woomara did 282mph. they may very well have been supplying 1100 or even 1000hp at altitude which would drop the power requirement to 4000hp.

Click to expand...

The only engines available in australia or likely to be available with a rating above 2000hp were the griffins, which were intended to be built from 1945. Rememember, however, that engines of British origin in Australia were badly delayed by the british Governments decision in 1940 to ban the export or sharing of engines and engine technology. This hypothetical assumes access to such technology, which means the Australians would have had access to to much higher powered engines from about early 1943. This is a hypothertical, with certain givens. With those givens applied as a logical extrapolation of the actual situation. The actual situation meant the griffin was not available until 1945. The hypothetical (applied or achieved by assuming the British embargo was not applied) would mean such engine availability from the time of their introduction.

This is if there is absolutely no increase in drag. Maybe if you can figure out how to put in a DOUBLE Wasp for the drag of the TWIN Wasp

Click to expand...

I would assume a decreae in Drag if the griffin was used, and also if the remote powered rear turreats were removed. With that HP, the need for such turets become superfluous. The Griffin as an inline I assume to have less drag in its cowling than any radial engine.

The Woomara was a tremendous achievement for an aircraft industry just starting out, but believing it would turn out to be a better plane than things like the B-25 takes a lot of belief.

Click to expand...

I never said that or claimed that for the historical aircraft. I would point out, however that the Woomera would have entered squadron service in early to mid 1941 if the engine availability had not been delayed. Thats a service delivery well ahead of the B-25, or at a time when only the B25-A was available. If you want to compare apples to apples, you need to compare something like the B-25H to an aircraft that was never developed....a hypothetical aircraft.....a turretless griffin powered woomera or similar. That does make the woomera a competitive design, and comparable to the B-25 (later marks).

The Australians probably did more with less than practically any other Allied country when it came to war production vs industrial base. But it was a country of just over 7 million people in 1940 that was predominately agricultural. It had many talented people but little experience and little back up for design or research.

The US started the war with something like a dozen wind tunnels and ended with about 40. Building 300+mph aircraft could not be done with just some ideas and paper and pencils anymore.

Click to expand...

I have a lot of faith in Wackett and his design teams, and even though in the finish their late war efforts did not amount to "boots on the ground," as pieces of design they represented some very superior efforts, wind tunnel or no. It seems that you are besotted with the infrastructure, without looking at the products that each of the design teams were turning out (US v Australians). Have a look at the CA-15. An aircraft designed in the "agricultural backwater" of Australia, as you so quaintly put it (i bet you believe there are kangaroos bounding up the main street of Sydney as well), yet one that can be argued quite strongly as vastly superior to its contemporary, the p-51B/D. You dont need to "make allowances" for the australians. Their designs were as good or better than any comparable aircraft coming out of the US at that time. The only thing that stopped their timely introduction was a shortage of engines (brought on by the british embargo) and the savings that could be deried by buying existing types off the shelf rather than building our own.

Saying that we cant builod competitive aircraft designs because we are nothing but a lot of backwater hicks, is about as insulting as it can get (regardless of the proviso you put in front of it). And about as logical as saying its impossible for a nation with such limited population will have no chance of securing much in the upcoming Olymopics because our genetic pool is so limited. Good design DOES depend at least in part on the quality of the personnel involved. The gadgets....the wind tunnels etc are design aids, but they are not the designers...that still gets down to the very thing you disdain...putting ideas on paper, using the resources available, or potentially available. Wackett was a genius in that regard, and as a designer you will be hard pressed to find anyone his equal at the time in the US.

We will see if the sporting version equivalent of your "Australia cannot design good aircraft because they dont have a wind tunnel and is too small to be competitive" equivalent in the sporting world will play out in the upcoming Olympics, and see how true the 'country hick" theory stands up in that arena as well i guess.......

Geez, lighten up would you.

I have been Australia 3 times about 20 years ago. All I know of Sydney is the airport but I have been to Adelaide, Brisbane and even Coober Pedy.

The Australians I had the good fortune to meet were anything BUT hicks. Even some of the ones who came in from the sticks/outback ( I think that 10 hours drive from Brisbane qualifies as the sticks/outback) were a technically sophisticated bunch, at least in their chosen sport of small bore rifle.

In your rush to defend your country/countrymen do not put words in my mouth, you don't like when others do it to you.

Care to offer some proof that Australia was NOT predominantly agricultural in 1940 which is 50 years from when I visited let alone the 70 years to now? Predominately agricultural is not the same as "agricultural backwater" and you know it.

Infrastructure is necessary to building modern (even by 1940 standards) weapons of war. The Sentinel tank is a good illustration. While Australia's railroad shops and foundries did an excellent job of designing and making the largest cast tank hull in the world at the time, the lack of suitable machine tools (which may have been being used for other purposes at the time) caused the transmission (copied from the American M-3 Medium tank) to be redesigned without sychronizers on the gears. This may have been changed on later models?
And please don't get into an uproar about my use of "Australia's railroad shops" as in 1940-41 the vast majority of American tanks came from US railroad shops or railroad steam engine makers as they were the ONLY factories with necessary foundries, cranes and machine tools of the size needed to make tanks until new factories could be built.

apologies for the over zealous respopnse. Its all good from my perspective, but the assumptions you are making about how Australia operates and the make up of its society is very far from the actual situation, it goes a long way to explaining why you are reaching the wrong conclusions that you are.

One of the common misconceptions that exist with our overseas friends , is that Australia in the 20th century is a preodominantly agricultutral society. in fact is one of the most urbanized socities in the world, with something like 70% (from memory) of the population concentrated in the six capitals. Its national income was linked intrinsically to agriculture, that much is true, but even in 1940, it was the mining sector that was economically more important. 90% of our national wealth comes from these two sectors, generated by less than 20% of the work force. So, you have a point with regard to national income, but you are completely off the mark with regard to social structure.

With that concentrated, lop sided population demographic, we have an inherent abaility way beyond our weight to pool resources and exercise cultural excellence or new innovation. There are reasons why Australians produce a disproportionate numbesr of sporting greats, and a disproportionate number of inventions and exceptional design. It has to do with the disproportionate urbanization in the country. With narrowly concentrated populations comes the ability to build things like better universities, better design bureaus (concentrating the best minds in the one place) and the like.

In the case of my state (NSW) the city of Greater Sydney (city of Sydney, the Blue Mountains, Gosford, Newcastle and Wollongong) contains 6.2 million people (at last count). the rest of the state , representing over 90% of the land area of the state has less than a million people in it. If you conglomerate those cities i mentioned as a single urban conglomeratioon (thats not a construct of mine, that is the way these cities do work....as a single metropolis) the next biggest city is just over 50000 in size. Thats my city. Its a local Government area of well over 150 square kms, but more that 90% of the population is placed within 10% of that land area You are right about Australia being a predominantly agricultural society, but only in the sense that it views itself, and from the perspective of where its national image comes from. We like to think we are all bushmen from the land, in rerality we are mostly city dwellers working in a highly concentrated society centred around a few big cities. There is a massive gulf between image and reality i am afraid.

Having said all that, our industrial index in 1940 was low. We were coming from a very long way behind. Which explains why the Sentinel was still born. it also explains why we couldnt really stretch our design abilities to such high end items like engine or transmission development. The best we could do at the time was to use off the shelf techs to achieve the best that we could. Design is not always about developing new technologies....sometimes as in the case of Austral;ia, its about using the resources already available or obtainable

thats not the issue here right now however. the issue was whether the Woomera (or as of now the Sentinel), had the inherent design capability to be competitive. I think in both cases they were very good designs. The gearbox was revised, from memory in 1943 for the sentinel incidentally.

I have no problem with the fact that Australias war industries were very much a series of adaptations of civilian industries.....railway shops and the like, or that our designs were adaptations of off the shelf items. I would be meglomaniacal about it if i did. But our ability to match resources to outcomes was still pretty good, and that comes out in the Woomera design. I view that 9our use of civilain infrastructure) with some pride actually, as the Americans should as well. it shows the good planning in the mobilization plans of both country's actually

I don't believe my conclusions are wrong. Perhaps not as clearly expressed as they might have been leading to some misinterpretation.

I Spent 6-7 weeks total in Australia which certainly does not make me an expert but it should have given me a feel for Australian society. Much of that time was spent at certain sporting venues that would be the envy of American athletes competing in those sports. For about 1/2 the time we were put up by host families in Adelaide instead of staying in hotels (which is where we stayed in Brisbane) I was hosted by a different family on each trip and interacted with some of the other hosts. Hosts included a vice president of the Bank of South Australia and a superintendent of schools. Other hosts included a firearms importer and a Railway worker. I Spent a couple of hours talking with an assistant chief of the Adelaide Fire dept one afternoon ( I had driven him around Connecticut for several days when he had visited the US a year before) which included dept finances, town and metropolitan structure and some tax billing issues. Which could change considerably when you get to the next state in Australia. We also meet a couple of opal miners and traded a few favors. We loaned them equipment and coaching for a competition and they arranged for a tour guide when we went to Coober Pedy.

Adelaide is even more urbanized in relation to South Australia than the way you describe Sydney (almost a million people at the time living in an area about 100x 30 miles?) out of 1.1 million people in all of South Australia (next largest city 10,000?).
We were a bit more on our own on the two visits to Brisbane but again benefited from the excellent support from the government on the sports venue. The lady who did some of the driving for us was part owner (with her Husband) of a small rifle factory making the Omark Model 44 target rifle at the time. We did a tour of the factory/shop. Sight seeing included a trip to Toowoomba (about 60 miles inland) in addition to obligatory Gold and Sunshine coasts.

The Superintendent of schools and I came up with a mutual definition of the difference between the country and the outback. If you live in the country you can still walk to your neighbor's for help

I come from a very highly industrialized part of the United States. Connecticut is small in size but fairly well populated even in 1940. You can drive across on today's highways in about 2 hours. In 1940 it has home to P&W aircraft engines, Sikorsky aircraft, Chance Vought, Hamilton Standard and a few smaller aviation related companies. It was and is the home of Electric boat, major builder of submarines. And was home to the Colt, Winchester, Marlin, High Standard, Mossberg and other smaller gun companies, The Remington ammunition plant. And a host of machine tool manufactures at the time. I think Connecticut could pull it's own weight in the industrial sector of the time. We probably couldn't feed ourselves though

You can have great talents from a small population, the problem when undertaking large and complicated projects is the lack of back up or depth which can cause projects to run over time limits or not progress in as quick a fashion as maybe desired. It is not enough to have a skilled or inspired designer. you need large numbers of draftsmen and ordinary engineers to turn out the tens of thousands of drawings and do the thousands of calculations needed to turn a good or great basic design into a production item. You need draftsmen and engineers who don't work an a single airplane part but design and draw the jigs and fixtures that allow the aircraft design to be built in large numbers and not by the handful with each one a bit different than the next. many American companies suffered from the same problems. We have noted many times that Allison saw the need for a better or even two stage supercharger in 1938, they simple did not have the engineering resources to work on the supercharger, improve the basic engine AND go from basically a tool room operation to a mass producer all at the same time even with the help of General Motors.

part of the reason the British aircraft industry failed in the 1950s wasn't really due to a lack of talent or good ideas, it was because the Americans in part,just overwhelmed them. Somebody once claimed, When the British were working on the three "V" bombers at the same time that Boeing had more engineers working in the landing gear dept than the British had working on all the planes put together. I don't know if that is true but it does point out that how the american company might be able to get a design done faster or overcome a problem in the middle of a program.

As Oldcrowcv63 signature says "None of us is as smart as all of us..."

Ed Heinemann may or may not have been a better designer than Wackett but it is a sure bet that he had more staff to back him up and turn his ideas into hardware in a timely fashion.

a DOUBLE Wasp for the drag of the TWIN Wasp

Click to expand...

Oops, my bad too

My, how this discussion has evolved! I'm not even going to go down the 'Welcome to Hicksville' argument, being from New Zealand!

Based on what I've read about it, your claim that the CA-4 would have been as effective as the Mossie in 1939 or 1940 is just too much a stretch of your own imagination. To give you an idea of what the CA-4 - and indeed the CA-11, which did not fly until June 1944 were up against, the following is a quote from a handling report dated 3 March 1941 written by test pilots of the Mosquito prototype with the A&AEE at Boscome Down:

"Aileron control light and effective. Take offs and landings are straight forward. The aircraft stalls at 105 mph IAS with flaps up, 90 with flaps down and was flown at up to 320 IAS. The best rate of climb in MS blower was 2,880 ft per minute at 11,400 ft, and 2,240 ft per minute in FS gear at 18,100 ft. Top speed in FS gear was found to be 388 mph at 22,000 ft. Estimated service ceiling was 33,900 ft, the greatest height reached being 29,700 ft. Tests were conducted at 16,767 lb."

The CA-4 was designed as a light bomber, torpedo bomber and reconnaissance platform, a role there's no doubt it would have been able to achieve effectively had it been put into service after its first flight in September 1941, but, that, "it would have shone almost as well as the mossie, but with armament" was not going to happen, not in 1940 even without a British embargo nor with more powerful engines. You also forget that the Mossie FB.VI was armed with four 20mm cannon and four .303s and managed a respectable maximum speed of 378 mph and a cruise speed of 255 mph, with a maximum range of 1,855 miles.

As for the integral fuel tanks, they didn't work very well on the Woomera from what I've read, which in operational conditions without self sealing would have made the thing a bit of a flamer. I'm impressed with the 2,000 mile plus range with a torpedo and an external tank, although whether that was actually carried out with everything it would have needed to go to war with is not stated - probably not.

Having read a bit more about it, methinks you are exaggerating its capabilities a mite. It was not designed as a multi role combat aircraft; the CA-4 was a torpedo bomber, light bomber with dive bombing capability (which was, by 1944 deleted in the CA-11) and reconnaissance type and most certainly would have been a great asset to the Australians in the Pacific, but to think it had a patch on the Mossie, nay chance, mate.

As for the Beaufighter, it was a true multi role combat aircraft; night fighter, ground attack, anti shipping strike, torpedo bomber. Although the TF.X torpedo fighter variant's performance was less than the Woomera's was (bearing in mind the Woomera's figures were unproven in real conditions), apart from its maximum speed (303 mph at 1,300 ft), the Beaufighter TF.X was fitted with wartime equipment and its speeds were measured under combat conditions. If you were to compare the two prototypes in 1939, you'll learn that the Beaufighter achieved the not too shabby estimated maximum speed of 355 mph in trials that year, although this was without operational equipment. Considerably faster than the CA-4. The Beaufighter was undoubtedly the more capable of the two.

I still think it could have been even better if they removed the turrets and had only forward firing guns and streamlined the fuselage and gotten rid of all but a pilot and navigator. By 1944 you'd think they would have known better.

"My, how this discussion has evolved! I'm not even going to go down the 'Welcome to Hicksville' argument, being from New Zealand!"

A large part of the US "advantage" is due to it's sheer size. In 1940 New York state alone had almost twice the population of Australia. However I am certain that you could pick out and combine number of western and mid-western states whose population totaled that of Australia at the time and and find fewer large metropolitan districts and mining aside, less industry than Australia had. In fact I found 11 states who population, put together, did not equal Australia's and they stretch from Canada to Mexico and from the Mississippi river to the Seirra mountains. Quite an an area of "Hicksville"

Being under Industrialized does not = Hicksville. In fact being over Industrialized for the customer base can be just as bad.

By the way, The few days I have spent in NZ were very pleasant and show that both NZ and Australia care more about the quality of life of their citizens than the so called more advanced United States.

FWIW, if I was to choose any other country to live there with my family, that would be New Zealand. Think about Germany, or Sweden, but as much sun as here in Dalmatia.

Hope you like sheep tomo

... in curry or with mint sauce.

In Canada, we call it 'lamb'.

MM

Nah, this is how the real men prepare the lambs (at least until we become the members of the EU):

Osam tisu?lje?a pe?ene janjetine - Zadarski list

Served with young onions, of course.

... that too.



MM

michaelmaltby said:

... in curry or with mint sauce.

In Canada, we call it 'lamb'.

MM

Click to expand...

Thats because in canada when "sheep" is mentioned, you guys think "food". In NZ sheep can be so much more.......

Rugs to sell to the tourists???

How does that old saying go?

"New Zealand, where the men are men and the sheep are nervous...."