Fighter plane that couldn't fight, the CAC boomerang [AH008]
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- The Commonwealth Boomerang was designed and built in Australia in response to the impending Japanese invasion of the Australian mainland. It's main issue was that it sucked as a fighter! But it could attack the ground, and found a use in the war.
- ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
I knew an Australian Soldier who served in New Guinea during the War. He said he saw Boomerangs in action in the ground attack role and said he was glad they were on our side. 🇦🇺
Proving that the aircraft could fight.
Agree, the Boomerang was not a great fighter aircraft, but as a ground or sea attack frame it was up there with the Beaufighter.
The Beaufighter’s pugnacious little bro !
Why did you guys not have it on hand at the Bismarck Sea?
@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe The Boomerang was still in production stage, also its limited range would have negated its ability. Australian Beaufighters, and U.S. P -38 Lightenings were the only suitable long distance attack/light bomber airframes available in February/ March 1943. B-17’s Havock’s , plus B-24’s were the main bomb carriers.
Easy to handle,pretty to look at,better than nothing! A real sweet little ship.
Great, this was unknown to me. I have been at CAC in Melbourne many times. At the time of my visit, Mirage was assembled there under licence.
Not bad for a rush job. Imagine how great it could have been if the designers had more time to develop it.
with that wing.... no.
@@bensmith7536 Seems like the Plane Expert has arrived.
that whistle from her wings 😍
A wide track undercarriage, a tough airframe, a simple reliable engine and basic systems are what keeps a plane flying from rutted airstrips among the kunai grass. This was a tough tight little design that was ideal for the theatre it fought in.
My father was in PNG during WW2, he has fond memories of the Boomerang. We were at an air show one day and there was a boomerang flying, dad could barely take his eye's off it. He said to my brother "If it wasn't for them I'd be dead". No record of the Boomerang shooting down an enemy plan, interestingly, if my memory serves, no record of an enemy plane shooting down a Boomerang. Would have loved to see a Boomerang 2, with the Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp that was in the P-47 Thunderbolt.
A good little plane....IMHO I think that it was operating in the areas that had no aereal opposition to worry but with that heavy armament it was a great ground support aircraft.....
They built This and the Sentinel tank with very limited local resources. It's an impressive feat!
The Sentinel Tank history, the Owen Sub machine Gun, one of the first working computers CSIRAC, The third satellite in orbit WRESAT by any country and WIFI would also be great stories in Australia's boulevard of broken dreams history...
Only reason the 66 Sentinel tanks made in Aussie were not adopted by Aussie Army is lots of M3 Grant tanks became available from the US once the US realised they were not battleworthy and adopted the M4 Sherman. From a retired Aussie armoured corps soldier.
Nice vid! More Aussie aviation history, please.
we're a broad-based history channel, but there will be more aviation content coming :)
An under-powered fighter is still better than no fighter. It freed up better aircraft for dogfighting and took up ground-attack, recon and base defence duties which are roles it could do even with a less powerful engine.
Always wondered what the Boomerang could have achieved if the Pratt and Whitney R2800 Double Wasp was made available for local production and was fitted to it. But then the engine might have been so powerful it could have flipped the little thing LOL.
Given that it was hurriedly cut and pasted out of existing component designs, it's not surprising that it had less than ideal performance compared to a completely new design. That also must have accounted for the first prototype being ready after the go-ahead, an exceptionally fast turnaround. At least it was useful for ground attack.
I don't know how many people would understand how worried Canberra must have been about defending Australia, given the devastating Pearl Harbour attack and the rapid conquest of the South Pacific by Japan. Given how low Australia figured on the wartime priorities of Britain and the US (check out the way they jerked around CAC by them regarding engines for the CAC-15, ultimately preventing it from entering wartime service), it was understandable that they needed the guarantee of some sort of available fighter aircraft and the Boomerang looks to have been a solid little fighter and was certainly better than nothing.
I wonder if you might be able to make a TH-cam documentary on Fred David (Friedrich Dawid)?
I had thought the Boomerang was entirely Wackett's creation and I only recently discovered David. What a remarkable story he must have had, Austrian Jew trained in Germany, worked at Heinkel under the Gunther twins on the He-70. I guess Ernst Heinkel was so impressed with him that when the Nazis started persecuting Jews in Germany he used his personal connections to find him employment at Mitsubishi and Aichi in Japan, where he apparently contributed to the Aichi 'Val' naval bombers that attacked Pearl Harbor and (I believe) Darwin. When CAC offered him a job in Australia, he was regarded as an 'enemy alien' even as he contributed to the Australian war effort and had to report to the police regularly. He was later involved in the Ikara missile project. His story might make a great video. So far the only picture I've seen of him is the one you showed in this video.
The poor old Boomerang has too long been forgotten. Thanks for this video.
The Boomerang makes an interesting comparison with the P-64 as both are derived from trainers.
Where to start. Firstly, The Wirraway was the NAA AT6 Texan, and CAC was majority owned by General Motors, as was Norht American Aviation, which is why CAC also built the P51 Mustang. There was no prototype of the Boomarang, the second machine taking to the air twenty five minutes after the first. The design was in the air just sixty days after conception, a world record, at the expense of many cut corners. Testing showed the Boomarang could outclimb and out turn the two American supplied fighter types, the Bell Cobra and the Warhawk, as well as almost doubling the range of both.
The preference of the RAAF using the Boomerang as ground attack was because of better underwing hard points, lacking in earlier foreign fighters, as well as much extended patrol and linger times. It was true that preformance dropped off over twenty thousand feet, but this was nothing unusual in fighters of this generation. Spitfire gained a new supercharger, and Hurricane got a new wing to preform above FL20.
Finally, Boomerang was deliberately designed to operate from rough forward airstrips, suiting the tactical requirements of ground support operations.
The incredible determination of Australia to manufacture and deploy locally built weapons during The Pacific War was intense and, frankly, admirable. Australia and New Zealand trained some six US Army Divisions, used under McArthur, using Australian armoured vehicles and weapons, until US production caught up. Australia retrained thousands of US Army officers once their deficiencies in command in combat became glaring. Australia and New Zealand were the only two nations in WW2 who were in credit, not debit to The US under Lend Lease.
For a largely unindustralised economy, and a population of just 7.5 million, Australia punched well above it’s weight.
Finally, at the end of WW2, The RAAF was the FORTH LARGEST AIRFORCE in the world, behind The US, UK and Soviet Union.
The Wirraway was not the NAA Texan. The Wirraway was a license built and locally modified version of the NA- 16 / NA-33 aircraft. The first two examples imported in to Australia by the fledgling CAC as pattern aircraft for the Wirraway were a NA-16 [North American's version for sale and export to other countries] and a NA-33 aircraft. The NA-16 having a fixed spatted undercarriage and NA-33 having a retractable undercarriage The Texan [Model NA-26] is a development of the NA-16 by way of the NA-18 which followed the NA-16 . And although the Texan resembles the Wirraway [or vice versa] the two aircraft under the skin very different aircraft.
General Motors was not as you claim majority owner of CAC, General Motors indeed, did have part ownership of CAC, but it was Broken Hill Proprietary Co [BHP] who were part of the original group of companies that formed CAC who had majority ownership.
CAC choosing to build the Mustang was not due to any influence that may have been exerted by General Motors. In 1943 a delegation was dispatched by the Australian Government overseas to Britain, tasked with finding a suitable more advanced design that could be built by CAC as a new fighter for the RAAF The Spitfire and Mustang designs were both examined, with the delegation determining the Mustang being the better aircraft and easier to construct. Subsequently a license was obtained from NAA for manufacture of the Mustang by CAC in Australia. The first 80 Mustangs being built from components supplied by NAA.
The RAAF choosing to use the Boomerang as a ground attack aircraft was due to the fact that its wing inherited from the Wirraway was too thick which restricted its agility and maneuverability in air to air combat. CAC experimented with a highly modified Boomerang which had squared off wing and tail surfaces and a supercharger in an effort to improve the the aircraft's fighter capabilities And while there was a marked improvement in the performance over the standard Boomerang, the improvements were not sufficient to warrant it being placed in production.
@@EVISEH why should a thick wing restrict agility and manouverability in air to air combat? A thick airfoil would help with tight turns at low speeds while not being ideal in high speed dives, creating too much drag and thus bleeding too much energy. But as there were no FW-190's around over the skies of Papua New Guinea I don't see them falling out of the spectrum there. The Hurricane had an even thicker wing if I am not mistaken. The Boomerang's wing airfoil might not be comparable with a P-51 or a Spitfire wing, but compared to other planes of the time and aera like the P-40 or F4F I think its within the same range I'd say. If the Wildcat could hold its own in 1943, I don't see why the Boomerang couldn't? ... exept for the engine taken from an torpedo bomber with no real mid to high level performance of course.
Many aircraft evolved from their design purpose, it was a great ground attack aircraft.
Turned out to be the most nimble ground attack single seater of the war. To compare to to the enemy: the Germans had the Stuka which was designed to shoot up civilians, and the Italians had the Breda BA65 which was designed for pilot suicide while Japan couldn’t put together anything to compare as it relied on fighters as a dual role with very limited range. The success of the Boomerang was shown by how few were shot down by the Japanese (although the Americans shot down two).
The Henschel Hs 123 would like a word... and your description of the Stuka dive bomber's purpose is complete tosh.
This is a plane that did an awful lot of fighting for a plane you labelled as " Couldn't fight". Do you mean "couldn't dog fight"?
Very interesting you mention Mr David. To tell his story during the war would get me lynched.[By the general population and hanged for disclose secret information]But he desigined the eliptical wing that Mitchell used on the Spitfire.The first plane with the wing the HE70 Blitz was bought by England in a deal to let the Germans make the Kestrel engine.He was friends with Heinkel who sent him to Japan to help Aichi build a dive bomber the Val note its eliptical wing.When he finished the Val Heinkel told him to go work in a country that will be an enemy in the coming war as things are getting bad for Jews in Germany.{Like Nuremburg Race Laws] So he ended up in Australia.After the Boomerang He worked on a top of the line Piston engined fighter that lost out in RAAF service to the P51. He was not able to get citizenship As it was war time and was in the amusing position of have to report to the police weekly as an enemy alien.If he was asked what he did he had to say it was classified.I see a thumb nail about the CAC 15 Kangaroo. Also note the He 111 has his wings. It is harder to make out having two engines. I have never seen a seagull with an elipical wing they make me think of a Stuka or Corsair.There was also a fighter with his wing that was slightly better than the ME/BF109.But it was not a big an advantage to put into mass production.Also Heinkel was deep into develope Jets and buld bombers.
reminds me of the brewster buffalo
Its a mix of a Heinkel, a Mitsubishi (A5M) and a Wirraway (The designer was a german jew who worked for Heinkel, Mitsubishi and later for CAC.
Australia made the best fighter and bomber of the war. The de Havilland Mosquito.
So did Canada and Great Britain.
This plane was shot out of the skies by the Japanese airforce.
It just lacked the availability at time of a more powerful engine with a high altitude supercharger to increase is speed and altitude performance
Aus History,
Can you make a video about
Australia 🇦🇺 ‘s naval & air contribution in Korea ?
There’s a book by an Australian
author McDonnell or McConnell
on an Australian carrier off the
coasts off Korea. I know only its
French edition
« Les éperviers de la mer-The sea hawks «
The French ww2 fighter pilot
Pierre Clostermann (« The Big Show ») found this book on a trip & after reading, decided to get it translated into French.
The Commonwealth’s contribution to the Saving Of
The Republic Of Korea 🇰🇷 was not confined on Land.
Thank you for your research & confirmation.
Learn from history...
Hmm lets frankenplane something from a bomber and a trainer..... WTF??? It cant fight???? How could this happen???? EDIT: Hey look at that! Saburo !
Al tempo, le forze armate australiane o usavano il Boomerang o nulla
And folks to this day we don't have any flying examples of a Beaufort Lincoln beaufighter aircraft thanks to the stupid Australian Government who waste their resources on other useless crap !!! Thanks very much!!!!
Perhaps one day someone will recover the near complete Beaufighter from the now defunct Camden Air Museum and restore it to Airworthy status. The 5 Boomerangs being restored are at a facility in Queensland and belong to Kermit Weekes of Florida Fantasy of Flight Museum. There is also a complete new cockpit for a Beaufort at Camden that was found in NSWGR storage years ago. That may one day be the start of a complete Beaufort.
No one else has flying examples of those types either (and the Lincoln is highly unlikely to reappear in the air, as only three survive). But Aussie collectors are to be thanked for the survival of every remaining Beaufort and all but a couple of the extant Beaufighters. Hat tip to Oz from Canada...
@@coolhand1964 The ex Camden Firefly AS.6 is based at my local airport here in Canada. It is back in flying trim after a long spell of very indepth maintenance.
@@stevetournay6103 What was apparently the only remaining Vaultee Vengeance in the world existed at Camden. It was not airworthy but in very complete original condition. I saw it there thirty years ago. Now that the Museum is closed, as the original owner and then his son have long since passed away. I believe that the granddaughter now has the keys to the hanger, hopefully everything that remains will eventually find it's way back into restoration and be flying for everyone to see. The interweb and YT now makes this all possible.
Edit: The AS.6 that crashed at Camden was written off. The owner purchased WB815 from Griffith, Australia where it was mounted on a pole for display. As well as WD828, which was written off. The aircraft in Canada was built using parts salvaged from WD828, but the main airframe is WB815. A different aircraft that was not airworthy was swapped to replace the one in Griffith (someone else will probably buy that one eventually also).
If you read the ATSB report on the Camden crash, the engine had just undergone major maintenance and there existed external oil lines that fed the crankshaft and the camshaft. Some brainiac decided to remove the T-joints and block off the oil feed to the head. Resulting in the engine cooking it's camshaft bearings shortly after take-off and complete engine failure as it tried to return to the airfield to land. I wonder whose idea that modification was ?