NAA P-64 Compared to Commonwealth CA-12 Boomerang

[MIflyer]

Both the P-64 and the CA-12 were based on North American Aviation's 1930's NA-16 trainer aircraft which had matured into the Wirraway (or NA-33) and T-6. Multiple US companies, including NAA, Curtiis, and Vultee had envisioned families of aircraft that could use at least some common components and engines of different power levels and perform roles of training, recon, light attack, and fighters, especially for smaller nations, an approach that is still quite popular today.

The NAA NA-50A was a single seat fighter origianlly built for the Peruvian Air Force, which bought seven, where they saw action in that country's 1941 war with Ecuador. Six more NA-68 fighters, similar to the NA-50A were ordered for the Royal Thai Air Force, but were seized by the US and returned to after the Japanese invaded Thailand. The NA-68's were designated P-64 and used as trainers; one was flown for many years by Paul Proberzeny.

Facing the Japanese threat, in 1942 the Australians emulated the P-64 and built 250 Boomerang fighters. Here are the specs on each type. Note that they used different engines with different power levels, although the armament used was pretty similar. Illustrations are from the William Green Fighters series.

 

[GregP]

Here is a replica P-64 made from an AT-6.

I like its lines better than the factory-fresh P-64's lines, but that's just personal opinion. It's engine also put out more than 870 hp ... but, I don't have any performance specs for it. I've known two people who had them and have seen one up close in SoCal, U.S.A., but, again, no performance specs. I doubt anyone who had one in modern times ever went full speed anyway.

The Boomerang below is not a replica; it is a restoration. So, it's lines match the drawings:

Not quite as pretty, at least to me. But, in wartime, if you didn't have any other means for fighter or air cover, either one would have been a very welcome sight.

 

[SaparotRob]

That P-64 shook me up. "Matching numbers" or not, that plane is stunning.
I spent a long time looking at it.

EDIT: Is that a kill below the cockpit?

 

[MIflyer]

The A-27 was the other NAA design built in small numbers, diverted from Thailand and sent to the PI, where some may even not have been wrecked yet when the Japanese attacked. It was also equipped with the R-1820.

 

[GregP]

That P-64 shook me up. "Matching numbers" or not, that plane is stunning.
I spent a long time looking at it.

EDIT: Is that a kill below the cockpit?

Not too sure. This is not one of the ones I have seen personally, and I don't know who owns it. Good-looking airplane, though. Heard through the grapevine that it has a 1,200 hp R-1820 in it, but don't know for sure. I have heard it bandied about that the "new build" P-64s can hit 315 - 320 mph since they KNOW what to do to an AT-6 to make it go fast due to AT-6 class racing at the Reno air races. But, I have never confirmed that by talking with a current pilot of a P-64.

I have heard from multiple sources, including an active P-64 pilot, that the P-64s cruise just fine with the other warbirds at 250 mph or so.

In any case, nice-looking bird!

Here's one where they fudged a bit and left it as a two-seater!

If I were building one, this is what I'd do since I could then take a friend along on a flight. Not really sure if this one is an NAA original or a "new build" unit. To me, the picture looks "vintage." However, it DOES have "Experimental" stenciled below the pilot's canopy, making me think it is a more modern conversion.

Note the rounded wing tips as opposed to the more squared AT-6 stock wing tips.

 

[SaparotRob]

Not too sure. This is not one of the ones I have seen personally, and I don't know who owns it. Good-looking airplane, though. Heard through the grapevine that it has a 1,200 hp R-1820 in it, but don't know for sure. I have heard it bandied about that the "new build" P-64s can hit 315 - 320 mph since they KNOW what to do to an AT-6 to make it go fast due to AT-6 class racing at the Reno air races. But, I have never confirmed that by talking with a current pilot of a P-64.

I have heard from multiple sources, including an active P-64 pilot, that the P-64s cruise just fine with the other warbirds at 250 mph or so.

In any case, nice-looking bird!

Here's one where they fudged a bit and left it as a two-seater!
View attachment 736127

If I were building one, this is what I'd do since I could then take a friend along on a flight. Not really sure if this one is an NAA original or a "new build" unit. To me, the picture looks "vintage." However, it DOES have "Experimental" stenciled below the pilot's canopy, making me think it is a more modern conversion.

Note the rounded wing tips as opposed to the more squared AT-6 stock wing tips.

SWEET!

 

[MIflyer]

It does not look like that they even shortened the fuselage on the new build "fighter" T-6's. I recall reading an article, I think in Sport Aviation, quite a few years ago about a team who decided to convert a T-6 into a P-64 thinking it looked pretty easy at first and then finding out that it certainly was not easy when they got into it. You probably could use a T-6 wing and center section but have to build everything else new.

 

[GregP]

The guy I knew who made one was Carl Schmieder who flew out of Deer Valley airport in Phoenix, AZ. He (his team) built one from an AT-6, painted it Navy blue, and flew it around the Phoenix area for some time doing a lot of AT-6 formation flying. This was back in the early 1990s.

I was hanging around Deer Valley with Curtis Earle, who owned many aircraft in the area (17, I believe). His two favorites were an AT-6D and a pristine 1950 Cessna 180 with the rear seats removed. It was green and yellow and was a fun aircraft to fly. He landed all over southern Arizona, including friends' ranches, abandoned roads, etc. We landed once on a dirt trail near Wickenburg, AZ that I wasn't so sure we'd get back out of. We did.

 

[Antarctica]

One Boomerang restoration has been modified to take two people - albeit partially buried. I suspect that many P-64's would have been written off in landing accidents like the Boomerang. Very short wheel-base & grass runways don't mix well - just ask Matt Denning (nearly pooped my pants icon !)

 

[MIflyer]

I suspect that many P-64's would have been written off in landing accidents like the Boomerang

The EAA had the only surviving P-64 and wrecked it, too.