Canada and Australia: what would you build?

Hey thanks!
That explains a lot.
Hey, when you're selling to 3rd world countries who's air force are cloth covered biplanes, 2000-2500 lb. payload at 160-180 mph for 600-800 miles probably sounds absolutely delightful.
I agree about the 247's short life span as a commercial airliner.
I think that one's pretty well documented many times over.
Lastly, turns out there was a military version of the 247.
The C-73.
Apparently used for training and liaison flights.
According to Wiki, there were 27 of them.
I gotta admit, that designation rings a distant bell in my mind.
Must've been one that slipped through the cracks of my ever crumbling memory.



Elvis

The Military C-73s were used aircraft impressed by the Army during the war, not new aircraft or even aircraft ordered by the military during the 30s.
Competition for the Boeing 247 came in the form of the Lockheed 10 Electra which, in one form, did use pretty much the same engines in 1934/35 and could carry a useful load of of around 3600lbs at slightly higher speeds (192mph cruise) over similar distances. The was a Military bomber version proposed but not built.
Other contenders include the Northrop Delta.

Northrop Delta - Wikipedia
20 used by the RCAF with 19 of them built in Canada.
Canada also built 52 Grumman FFs

37 went to Spain, 1 went to Nicaragua and one went to Mexico to serve as a pattern aircraft for production which did not happen.
Many minor countries were buying small numbers of relatively modern aircraft. The ones that couldn't afford even a 1/2 dozen biplane fighters like the Hawker Fury ( sold to 5 foreign countries) weren't in any position to buy all metal monoplane twin engine bombers.

Elvis said:

My point of that exercise was not create the most competitive air force in the sky, but instead, a more competitive package, at an economical price.

Click to expand...

OK Mr Presley.

Lets say It's 1938 and I want 50 of your Boeing 247 bombers (how ya manage to make to make a bomb-bay with the wing spars running through the fuselage is beyond me), how much per aeroplane are you asking for?

I'm looking at the Wiki article on the 247 and they mention $65,000 per unit.
Obviously your improvements/renovations are gonna increase the unit cost?

"an unprecedented $3.5 million order, to its affiliated airline, Boeing Air Transport (part of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, UATC), at a unit price of $65,000."

It is no great trick to make a bomb bay in a fuselage with spars running through it. It Just limits the size of the bombs you can use ( He 111 had spars running through fuselage for example). Of course with a pair of 550hp engines the size of the bombs and bomb load is going to be rather restricted in any case.

Graeme said:

OK Mr Presley.

Lets say It's 1938 and I want 50 of your Boeing 247 bombers (how ya manage to make to make a bomb-bay with the wing spars running through the fuselage is beyond me), how much per aeroplane are you asking for?

I'm looking at the Wiki article on the 247 and they mention $65,000 per unit.
Obviously your improvements/renovations are gonna increase the unit cost?

"an unprecedented $3.5 million order, to its affiliated airline, Boeing Air Transport (part of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, UATC), at a unit price of $65,000."

Click to expand...

Beats me, I'm not a bean counter.
Let me know what you figure out. =)


Elvis

I don't think the transport-bomber conversion ever produced a particularly capable bomber, although it has produced at least one decent MPA. (Don't bring up Dorniers; their air transport ancestry is likely illusory).

swampyankee said:

I don't think the transport-bomber conversion ever produced a particularly capable bomber, although it has produced at least one decent MPA. (Don't bring up Dorniers; their air transport ancestry is likely illusory).

Click to expand...

Well, you do have the Lockheed Hudson and the Ventura/Harpoon. But that is probably as good as gets. It also shows something else.
They never converted the passenger "Payload" completely to bomb payload. The Lockheed 14 could carry 14 passengers and 170lbs each plus baggage and a Stewardess. Yet the Hudson carried a much lower bomb load. The Lockheed 18/Loadstar carried 18 passengers plus baggage yet the bomb load even with more powerful engines rarely came close.
Guns/extra crewmen/more fuel and other "operational" equipment often sucked up a fair amount of the load.

A little apples to oranges, but Wiki says DC-2 has a load capacity of 6105 lbs., while its B-18 bomber counterpart has a load capacity of 7680 lbs.
Although the bomb load itself is only listed at 4400 lbs., the fact that this plane's total capacity increased shows that, at least in some cases, the conversion to bomber does yield an increase in payload.

Kind of depends on the conversion.

85 ft wingspan, 939sq ft of wing, 62ft long and an empty weight of around 12,000-12,200lbs (depends of exact model), 720hp engines

89.5ft wingspan, 959 sqft of wing, 56ft long and empty weight of 15,700lbs and 930hp engines on production models.

One would be VERY hard pressed to take an existing DC-2 and turn it into a B-18.
One would also imagine that the landing gear/tires were considerably up-graded to take the higher gross weight, 18,560lbs to 21,130lbs (and 27,087 pounds max gross)

My info came from Wiki...

DC-2 - Loaded 18,560 lbs. / Empty 12,455 lbs. / Payload 6105 lbs.
B-18A - Loaded 24,000 lbs. / Empty 16,320 lbs. / Payload 7,680 lbs.


Elvis

Elvis said:

Beats me, I'm not a bean counter.
Let me know what you figure out. =)Elvis

Click to expand...

So far I've found contracts for the RAAF showing a unit price for the Beaufort at $52,000 and the Hudson at $48,000 for 1938.

So we'll pass on your ad-hock 247 military version at $65,000 plus whatever costs are required to convert it.

Will China please pick up the white courtesy phone. We have a really good deal on a bunch of surplus (but still flyable!) Boeing 247's.
...

It might be useful to note the defence spending budget for Australia 9expressed in real adjusted terms for comparability since Federation.

In 1938, Australian defence spending for capital acquisition was at a very low level

Elvis said:

My info came from Wiki...

DC-2 - Loaded 18,560 lbs. / Empty 12,455 lbs. / Payload 6105 lbs.
B-18A - Loaded 24,000 lbs. / Empty 16,320 lbs. / Payload 7,680 lbs.


Elvis

Click to expand...

As shown, the B-18 was developed from and used some DC-2 parts. but it was NOT a converted DC-2.
Problem with the 247 is that while it was advanced in 1933/34 it was old news in in 1938. And the 800 mile range is too short.
It would have more like a 300-320 mile radius which is way too little for Australian or Canadian requirements. And even China would find it lacking. China had bought several hundred fighters during the 30s and was not adverse to spending money. The Japanese bomers in use in 1937/38 could easily out range the 247 or any likely version of it.
China had received 52 Curtiss Hawk II Biplanes with fixed landing gear and Cyclone 9F engines. They received 102 Curtiss Hawk III biplanes with retractable landing gear. They got 11 P-26C fighters. They also got six Martin B-10s. 20 Curtiss A-12 attack planes, and 30 Vultee V-11/A-19s which were assembled in China from kits. total of 52 of all V-11 models to china.

Martin B-10s, or versions of it, were sold to Argentina, Turkey, Siam and the Dutch East Indies.
The Vultee V-11 also enjoyed considerable export success.

The Chinese also received considerable aid from the Russians after 1937.

Used airliners were pretty low on the list of desired aircraft for most countries air forces. The major exception being Spain during the civil war when most anything that could fly was used.

In all fairness to the Brits they did help set up a Bristol Beaufort (and then Beaufighter) production line at Fishermans Bend. Rather sensibly the Aussies chose to use the Twin Wasp, so all the hassles with the Taurus were avoided.

Bristol Beaufort - Wikipedia

Maybe not the greatest bomber (apparently it "hunted" and made a poor bombing platform), but a good torpedo bomber and subsequently a fast transport. A production run of 700 is quite serious.

OK, the timing is not great, but it would probably take longer to modify the 247 and has been pointed out cost more.

As for the lack of Spitfires, that is indefensible - not just for Australia, but Malta, North Africa etc.

Great graph up above Parsifal.

I read in Henderson's book that when Menzies visited the UK in early '41 - one of his objectives was to promote the production of 4-engine British bombers in Australia - out of harms way from the Germans. The graph seems to indicate we had the cash for it then?

I can see that attributes of the Australian aero industry are being willed into the discussion, when in truth no such capability existed in Australia for most of the war.

Australian aero industry received vast amount of support from the British
Nice thought, but completely wide of the mark. Initially there was was support from Britain, but that rapidly soured to outright hostility really, and im convinced that the reasons for this were not solely war related. My own theory is that the British wanted Australia as dependent on British manufacture as possible, and when Wackett defied the odds and started to make impressive and real progress towards setting up an indigenous and meaningful home based aircraft manufacturing base, after 1938, as evidenced by the Wirraway production 9to date far and away the most ambitious production undertaken in Australia, the British rapidly soured in their avowed support for our industry. From June 1939 onward, the British were more than just being cautious with the export of technology, particularly engine technologies, but extending right across the whole gammit of manufactures. For example in 1939, there was no ball bearing manufactures in Australia, and we had expected such supplies to come from our traditional suppliers in the UK. Before there was ANY hint even of shortages, the UK Air Ministry slapped embargoes on the export of such technologies to Australia, whilst (I think) allowing such manufactures to continue to other countries, like Canada. The British did their best from the beginning of the war to kill off our local industry and not solely for military reasons

On that basis there was never the slightest chance we would ever be allowed to build the latest technologies like the Lancaster or the Spitfire. Later in the war there was a relaxing of that crushing resistance and we did receive help from the british, but in the dark days of 1939-41 such help was rare indeed. , and t

Australia should produce 4 engined bombers like the lancaster from about 1941
Not a chance. We lacked the technological and industrial base at the time to even contemplate such a move, and moreover the British were never going to agree to the export of that technology to us.


Australia should produce the spitfire locally
Again nice thought, but never going to happen. The British would never have allowed under the embargo proclamations and moreover we lacked the industrial base expertise in such techniques as stressed skin to even contemplate such production. We might have been able to build hurricanes with a lot of luck and goodwill from the british, though the engine techs would have been a huge ask for us in 1939-40

Going by an entry in the 1938 Jane's "All the Worlds Aircraft" (which is not exactly infallible.) at time of going to press the Australians had signed the contracts for the NA-16 and an example/s had been supplied by North American. Redesign had been accomplished and production had been started.1st production planes would not be delivered until July of 1939 and only 6 by Sept. But in 1938 the initial order of 40 had already been expanded to 100.
There was no other production of aircraft in Australia although the "Aircraft Development Pty. Ltd" had been formed in 1936 to represent Airspeed and later Phillips & Powis Aircraft limited. In 1938 it had established an organization "Available for the erection of an aircraft factory in Sydney when the Commonwealth Government desires a second factory in Australia.
De Havilland was the only other company listed and was primarily and repair, service and erection organization for De Havilland of England. Some limited production of DH types may have been undertaken (Tiger Months?) .

The deal for the licence of Wasp engine had been signed and and a a set of fully finished parts for one engine had been supplied and several engines in various stages of completion had been supplied for machining, finishing, and assembly in Australia.
"Ultimately it is planned that engines will be completely manufactured by Australian personnel from material procured entirely from within the Commonwealth."

This was pretty much the state of the Australian Aero industry in 1938.

A Suitable network of subcontractors/suppliers would have to be built up. Even large engine makers in the US often relied on outside suppliers for basic forgings and castings. Valve springs and even valves were sometimes from outside suppliers. ALL US makers used outside carburetors and magnetos. Let alone suppliers for all the hardware (nuts-bolts- washers-gaskets, etc)
The lathes needed for radial engine crankshafts are much shorter than the lathes needed for V-12 crankshafts.

The Australians did it but it took a while and the actual ability of the Australians to do much more than they did requires more than just will or even money. It requires more trained people (draftsmen/engineers) that take time to train. it requires more machine tools that are not tied up doing other things (other war production) and it requires them to be either in one location or face delays in transport. Australia's metropolitan areas being hundreds of miles (not counting Perth which is thousands) apart with pretty much rail transport (or ship) available in the 1930s and the rail network used several different gauges.
The Australians did a tremendous job doing what they did but expecting much in the way of increased production early on is like getting blood from a stone.

Shortround6 said:

Going by an entry in the 1938 Jane's "All the Worlds Aircraft" (which is not exactly infallible.) "Available for the erection of an aircraft factory in Sydney when the Commonwealth Government desires a second factory in Australia.
De Havilland was the only other company listed and was primarily and repair, service and erection organization for De Havilland of England. Some limited production of DH types may have been undertaken (Tiger Months?) .

Click to expand...

Correct. De Havilland Australia built 1070 DH 82 Tiger Moths, 87 DH 84 Dragons, 8 DHA G1's & G2's and 212 DH 98 Mosquitoes.