It's not the fact that it never reached production that I find illustrates the lack of vision in our country, it is the fact that the one and only prototype was scrapped! If there'd been hundreds produced, I could understand the economics of scrapping them, but scrapping a unique aircraft is an act of criminal myopia.
Understandable. It was a unique part of your countries engineering history and as a one of a kind model, it should have been preserved ‘for the nation’, as they say.
@@pdxyyz The very first thing I thought of, when reading Mr. Stanmore's comments, was the Avro Arrow but you beat me to it. A shameful episode in Canadian History. The Australians who recall the Ca-15 must feel much the same. The aircraft does look like a griffon powered Mustang (a bit beefier than the Mustang but obviously inspired by it).
Loved this presentation, two of my sentimental favourites featured, the Aussie Boomerang, and the Kangaroo. Australia had another groundbreaker, a jet fighter/interceptor that was streets ahead of British and American fighters. There was some dirty pool involved, and our innovative jet was torn asunder; funny enough though some of it's features appeared on the English Electric Lightning and America's F 111.
Thank you 👍✈️ I am hoping to get around to doing an updated video on the Kangaroo, as I have uncovered a few extra details and I would like to revise some of the comments I made. But it was quite an impressive aircraft. The Boomerang is also one of my favourite aircraft, a cracking little design if you ask me. That seems very interesting, and while I'm aware of the project I know very little about it. I'll have to investigate it further.
@TomatoEins Here you go, I watched this only a few weeks ago. I've just discovered your channel last night, or the night before, and am thoroughly enjoying your posts. In any case, here's the link about our Aussie designed Jet; th-cam.com/video/OjiqdSwMxT8/w-d-xo.html
@@carlosallende2595 perfect thanks for sending that through. I'll take a look, I'm quite intrigued. Thanks, glad you're enjoying it 👍✈ (p.s. sorry for the delayed reply).
Me too!..Am ashamed to admit I'd never heard of this high potential fighter!!..Resembles the the P51 Mustang but spookily closer to it UK cousin the Martin Baker MB5!!..
4vep vik it’s one that doesn’t get much recognition at all. Yeah it does look very similar to the MB5. I believe they had very little/if no relation what so ever which is interesting. That design for aircraft must of been extremely good then 👍✈️✈️
No problem. I love historical aviation and it is great being able to find these unique aircraft that get virtually no attention and showcase them to a much larger audience. It is a shame, but that is where most aircraft ended up during that time period.
Thank you👍✈ By the end of the war, Australia's aviation industry was quite advance and it only continued to grow after the war. I love that you've recognized where the channel name came from 👍✈
@@AntiqueAirshow I can’t tell you how many times I have watched “Battle of Britain.” It’s one of my favorite movies. And two years of studying German in college has finally paid off!
@@randallisaeff1876 I'm the exact same, and is my favourite film. Watch it regularly, love the dialogue and the soundtrack. Hahaha yeah that is so cool 👍✈
I Knew something like that was coming! I was trying to figure out whether this was the Australian version of the P-51, or some kind of Hybrid thing. Whatever it was, it was Hideous!
It is. Would of been interesting to see how it compared in combat. I think it is fair to say that those Rolls Royce engines were some of if not the best engine of the war.
It didn't need to come so late it could have been flying in 43 but licence building the p51 took priority which proved to be an inferior plane once the CAC15 finally got to fly in 46 3 yrs after it could have!
Yeah it is. Really highlights how far they had come in a short period of time. I'm too sure how it would against the zero or the jack. seeing it was on similar terms if not better than the P-51D, I would say it would hold its own.
That is really fascinating. I would love to see those photos. As mentioned in the other comment, there is barely any photos on this aircraft. Would be great if you could scan them and upload them. If you ever needed help with it as well, I would be more than happy to help. It would be wonderful too see them 👍✈
Blister canopy and a Griffon mill are the go-to mods for a Mustang unlimited racer today. Shame the 'Roo came and went before it had a chance to compete.
@@AntiqueAirshow The designers didn't see the Mustang as a benchmark, but rather a starting point. First time I ever heard about this type, but the unrealized potential reminds me of the Avro Arrow and Canadair Dynavert. It's almost as if members of the Commonwealth don't want to field an aircraft that shows up mother England in an embarrassing fashion, and so leave that job to their rebellious prodigal sibling.
Yeah true. I know little about the Avro Arrow and Canadair Dynavert, but it does seem similar. Yeah maybe, but interestingly England seemed more than happy to give us the Griffon and even an upgraded version of it. I think honestly the age of the jet was the real reason why the CA-15 didn't progress any further.
CAC also built the Beaufort and it's greatly successful fighter derivitave, the Beaufighter. The Mosquito and the biplane Tigermoth. Radial engines were built too.
The Beaufort and the Beaufighter was actually produced by DAP (Department of Aircraft Production). Very similar and both CAC and DAP built components for each other, but considered separate entities. Australian built quite a few aircraft throughout the war and after. A really good read on the politics behind DAP and CAC is this document airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/media/PDF-Files/Working%20Papers/WP12-The-Australian-Aviation-Industry.pdf
@@borisjohnson1944 CAC did assemble the Macchi but GAF built the Mirage and Ikara (as well as Jindivik, Nomad, Canberra and F/A18. CAC and GAF were next door to each other in Port Melbourne. GAF became ASTA which was bought by Rockwell who were bought by Boeing. Boeing still have a factory in Port Melbourne.
Thank you, the support is greatly appreciated👍✈ Yeah by the end of the war, the industry had really come a long way. To think only 8 years or so before it was not even a thing. Australia also built a few Merlin's under license and after the war aircraft such as the Sabre jet, but powered by the Avon engine (and different armament) which made it in many ways superior to the America Sabre's.
@@eddieoreilly9391 It was quite the task to build the mossie, due to our inexperience workforce , the climate as well as a lot of sub assemblies being used. Quite the achievement.
@@gunner678 Possibly the Wyvern. Often though it gets compared to the Martin Baker MB.5 which was produced around a similar time and had a similar story to the CA-15. My newest video covers the Martin Baker fighters including the MB.5
It does. My understanding is that the MB.5 had a more powerful version of the Rolls Royce Griffon, which was the planned powerplant for the CA-15 is it continued development. I've just released a video on the Martin Baker series of prototypes including the MB.5 th-cam.com/video/y9fdvmW-uSU/w-d-xo.html
What a beaut if only this had been available 2 years earlier it could have made a massive impact against the Japanese. It outperformed the both Japanese and American carrier aircraft. It was the fate of many late piston engined aircraft designs to be cancelled or abandoned at wars end, costs and the new emphasis of jet power making them superfluous. A shame they scrapped the prototype that would have had pride of place in the RAAF museum at Point Cook. Best wishes to you Aussies from an admirer in the UK.
Yeah, you do wonder the impact it could of had, but like you said it just came too late. Like your British MB5. It would of been an amazing piece at the RAAF museum at Point Cook or even at the National Aviation Museum at Moorabbin. 👍👍✈
Yeah he knew would know what an amazing aircraft it was. Just for a fun comparison here is a quote from Australian test pilot John Miles. Miles flew everything from Beaufighters, Mustangs, Kittyhawks, Spitfires and Lightings to name a few. He also flew the CA-15 and wrote “I must say that it is the finest fighter aircraft with piston type engine I have ever flown. This includes the Spitfire up to mk 8 (I later flew the Spitfire MK 35), the Typhoon, the Tempest, the Kittyhawk types E and N, the Thunderbolt, the Lightning and the Mustang. The CA-15 had a top speed in level flight of 450 MPH and a range of over 2500 miles. Its handling characteristics were delightful and the performance exceeded that of the Mustang.” Page 116, TESTING TIME, John Miles & John Pescott, 1979, Rowick Printers Seems that both Wincle Brown and John Miles saw the potential and how great their respective aircraft were. This illustrates that both designs were exceptional.
Nope, he got given 'the message' by the US gov that they would be the world wide aircraft manufacturer...and all the rest would have to capitulate. We had both CAC and GAF at Fishermen's Bend. GMH as well....All gone now.
@@geoffheard5768 Nonsense, he wanted to go with the best fighter, the Mustang. How he knew at that time it was the best fighter i am not sure? Like i said, smart guy. The only reason all the Australian manufacturing plants disappeared (any product) is because the Australian government both then and now spends all its time thinking up new compliance costs/taxes etc without giving a shit about competitiveness. I mean, if the Australian government wanted too subsidize an Australian industry, in the event they somehow managed to actually give a damn for some reason, they wouldn't have too! All they would have to do is cover all the compliance costs they themselves caused!!
When my Dad was a RAAF pilot he had some involvement in the AAC Wamira which was supposed to replace both the Macchi and CT-4 but it was just an absolute mess of a program and design. He and his colleagues wrote it off early but the Hawke government kept pressing on with the program with impossible conditions. They really thought they had saved a fortune with an all in one basic trainer, intermediate trainer and lead in fighter trainer packaged in a fixed gear side by side turbo prop that couldn't meet the requirements for any role. Basically it was a larger CT-4 with a turboprop that had to outperform the Macchi jet but without ejection seats to save weight. So someone came up with a rocket fired weight attached to the pilot via bungee rope to eject them. The mock up looks cartoonish and the RAAF were pretty well stunned at how ludicrous the suggestion was but the powers to be pressed on until the RAAF brass intervened and the PC-9 and Hawk procurement programs became reality.
That is very interesting to read. I admittedly don't know a lot about the Wamira program, but they are quite stiff requirements to make an aircraft capable of doing all that. It just doesn't seem practical or realistically. At least it was cut off before it ever went into production, although by the sounds of it it should have been cut off much earlier
@@AntiqueAirshow he was one of the CFS instructors sent to advise AAC on the program and from day one they knew it was a farce. Even the AAC team knew it was a joke but after the mock up the politicians kept pressing hard for the prototype to be built and the RAAF to come up with a test program. I'd hate to think how much time and money was wasted on it.
@@goodshipkaraboudjan That is quite interesting. Yes I would hate to think, and would then hate to thin how much time has been wasted on similar projects
If the Boomerang had been upgraded to a Pratt& Whitney R 2800 it would have been one little kick ass fighter in the class of the Vought Corsair for speed and performance.
Yeah it would of been incredible. I was flickering through the National Archives a while back and came across a set of documents that covered testing of the Boomerang against a P-40 and a Airacobra and while it lacked speed it could outturn both aircraft and against the P-40 win as the P-40 didn't have enough speed to escape, however the Airacobra could. If only it had a better engine. Ultimately though it would require way to much structural change and work began on the CA-15 instead.
@@AntiqueAirshow - The video says it was not practical to install the Wright R-2600 in the boomerang without extensively redesigning the airframe. How could the larger P&W R-2800 have been feasible?
@@scootergeorge9576 The Boomerang with the larger P&W R-2800 would not have been feasible. However the CA-15 was a complete a new design from the ground up that allowed for the accommodation of a larger engine and thus made the P&W R-2800 a feasible option for the design. Though Washington blocked our requests to gain a R-2800.
@@AntiqueAirshow - I suppose that there was little in the way of production to export the 2800. Being used in the F6F, F4U, P-47 and perhaps others. The SB-2C was underpowered with the 2600 and could have used the P&W engine. The F6F was meant to use the 2600 but the Zero captured after Midway convinced Grumman and the USN to upgrade to the larger engine. An indication of how large the F4U was is that Goodyear went with a larger engine; 2 steps larger passing up the 3350 and going with the 4360!
The Martin Baker MB5 shared the same fate . Very similar in performance and appearence with Merlin power. Our renowned test pilot Eric "wrinkle "Brown said in his opinion it was the best performing and flying aircraft of the war. But like the Kangaroo was doomed not to be. And the only example was unceremoniously scrapped. Thanks
Yeah they do seem to have very similar storylines and share some resemblance. Both powered by the Griffon as will. Interesting, it sure seems to have been a considerable aircraft. Just for a fun comparison here is a quote from Australian test pilot John Miles about the CA-15. Miles flew everything from Beaufighters, Mustangs, Kittyhawks, Spitfires and Lightings to name a few. He also flew the CA-15 and wrote “I must say that it is the finest fighter aircraft with piston type engine I have ever flown. This includes the Spitfire up to mk 8 (I later flew the Spitfire MK 35), the Typhoon, the Tempest, the Kittyhawk types E and N, the Thunderbolt, the Lightning and the Mustang. The CA-15 had a top speed in level flight of 450 MPH and a range of over 2500 miles. Its handling characteristics were delightful and the performance exceeded that of the Mustang.” Page 116, TESTING TIME, John Miles & John Pescott, 1979, Rowick Printers Seems that both Eric and John had similar thoughts about their respective aircraft illustrating how they were both very good planes. I find it interesting that they had similar thoughts.✈👍
An enormous industry which had produced almost 6,000 aircraft from various manufacturers during ww2 when we did not even have an auto industry. But the great visionarys were sabotaged by their own governments which remained in a ‘colonial’ mindset of not troubling their masters in Washington or Whitehall and currying favour by abandoning independent production by buying foreign a/c. Just look at how Canada and Brazil have developed viable jet and prop liners and know that we could have been amongst it. Treason ! Today we ar further bankrupting ourselves with million dollar ordnance, surgical grade a/c and machinery that require billion dollar facilities and constant aerial refueling with fuel from where?
If they'd re-designed it for air-support/ground-attack it probably would be remembered with aircraft like the Skyraider and the late (F4U-7/AU-1) Corsairs.
Yes that would of been quite possible. I was reading through the archive documents about this aircraft a few months ago, and I believe that there was discussions as using the CA-15 as an air-support aircraft, and the P-51 Mustang as a high altitude fighter, but that idea was eventually scrapped.
Come on guys surely it has do with the fact the writing was on the wall for piston engined fighter aircraft. And the jet engines were starting to make such a big impact.
Yep that definitely influenced the scrapping of this project. A big reason they kept it on after the War was too qualify the large amount of data they had collected in the design of it. The more archival documents I read in regards to this plane, it seems clear that by 1945 a production run of this aircraft was unlikely due to the jet age.
The kangaroo was one of the many second to last generation of pistoned engined fighters canceled. The last generation of piston engine fighters had performance equal to early Jets but the preliminary designs had just started when they were canceled
It was or could have been flying in 43 mate well before piston engines were outdated it was put on the back burner to build p51 under licence which proved to be inferior to the cac15
I’m an Australian manufacturer. We sell worldwide, including to China. We used to make everything in Australia. Governments need to change their colonial attitude and set the ground work for manufacturers. I’m easy to do. Most politicians are either lawyers or career politicians and have no idea how to do it.
@@thethirdman225 It's changing here in America we always paid unreasonable heavily tariffs to import our products to China. Trump put a stop to it by raising our tariffs on goods sent there. Plus he's given business incentives to move back here to make its products.
US allies and India and Vietnam should coordinate a graduated increase in tariffs against CCP-China. To repatriate and reorient our trade and production, weaken China, and put pressure on Xi Xinping. Free trade is a privilege not a right, and the CCP has been abusing the privilege for too long.
i wish we would focus on more homemade defence systems rather than constantly selling out to our allies. wish we had more on our boomerangs as well, keep up the content
Agree. We produced some really good designs, but they never get the proper recognition they deserve. The Boomerang is such a lovely aircraft. I’m currently working on a Boomerang documentary, but don’t know how long it will be before it’s done. Stay tuned and thanks for the support👍✈️
Yeah we did. It was designed by Boeing for the Royal Australian Air Force. While the first two examples where built and assembled in America, the rest were assembled by Boeing Australia. So, the Royal Australian Air Force did play a key role in the development of the Wedgetail.
I had never heard of this model aircraft. I will look down on the Fishermans Bend factory site, now occupied by Boeing, as I cross over the Yarra river via the Westgate Bridge.
The Boeing plant ain't where the CAC factory was, try more where the Holden plant was, with more remains on the government site next to it. Also parts of the freeway is where the runways used to be.
@@rod.h8064 I have some news for you. the Boeing factory is exactly where CAC and GAF were and incorporates some of their buildings. CAC used to start at Todd Road and finished against GAFs border which is close to Sabre Drive on a map. Holden were in Salmon Street and between Holden and Todd Road was the Aeronautical Research Laboratories - it became AMRL but it probably just known as DSTG (Defence Science and Technology Group)
Australia really NEEDS TO CLIMB OUT OF THE DEEP BUCKET AND DO THEIR OWN DEAL. That country is more than capable. Never heard of this one. Exceptional and do love the Boomerangs.
Thanks. I make these videos, so that some of the lesser known aircraft can be discovered. Something about the Boomerang is coming in the future. Hopefully soon ✈✈👍
At the time of ww2 in Australia, designing a fighter was never the issue, the problem was designing the engine! Because Australia was never in a position to build superior fighters, because they were never in a position to manufacture superior engines..... therefore Australia was never going to be able to build superior fighters, no matter how well they can "climb out of the deep bucket" Frankly, Australia should have just license produced the Spitfire from the start. At least Lawrence Wackett eventually had the good sense to license produce the Mustang.
@@mystikmind2005 true, Australia did struggle to produce a high performance fighter due to a lack of available engines. The CA-15 was the prime example that the original designers wanted a more powerful engine, but Pratt & Whitney stopped producing the model CAC wanted. However, it doesn't mean Australia couldn't of produced more powerful engines. CAC were already building their own Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engines and we did after the war produce jet engines for F-86 Sabres. It was a matter that we didn't acquire bigger engines to build. In 1936, when Australia started looking for their first plane to manufacture, high performances planes such as the Spitfire were ruled out due to them being to big a liability that could collapse the industry. They wanted a more reliable general purpose aircraft with plans to build up to high performance fighters. Due to this, Spitfires would never be manufactured as once war arrived, Britain were in no position to send supplies down under. However while we couldn't build Spitfires, it did open doors for us to build the Mustang later in the war as the Wirraway connected us with North American Aviation. Mustangs gave great service to the RAAF long after the Second World War.
@@AntiqueAirshow - Interesting, but regarding the spitfire, could Australia not build the necessary tooling to build the engines with instruction from England? Therefore England does not have to send anything other than technical data? I suppose at that time Australia did not realize they needed the turning and dog fighting capacity of the Spitfire to meet the challenge of the Japanese Zero. I am aware some old model Spitfires and Hurricanes saw service in the Pacific region, but never the top level Spitfires, a shame.
G'day, Well done. Constructive Criticism follows.....(!). For future reference, the Numbers incorporated in the Names of (US) Aero Engines - pretty much universally refer to the Swept Cylinder Displacement, given in Cubic Inches...; and the convention is that the Number is pronounced in HUNDREDS..., ie "R -1,830" is spoken as "R - Eighteen-Thirty..." rather than, "R - One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty..." & the "R - 2,800" is spoken as "R - Twenty-Eight Hundred...". The "R" in there refers to the Engine being a Radial. When you see something like an "O -360" that's spoken as, "Oh - Three Sixty" and the "O" refers to it being a "(Horizontally) Opposed" layout. You'll probably have to LISTEN to a bunch of old Aeroplanologists talking, rather than simply relying on reading written accounts..., & making up the Soundtrack as you go along (!). Just(ifiably ?) sayin'. Such is Life... Have a good one, ;-p Ciao !
Thanks for the feedback. I have always wondered the correct pronunciation and I think throughout my videos have used a variety of different ones, so it is great to learn the proper way. I usually use google translate if I get stuck with pronunciation of a word, in particular names and places, but unfortunately it isn't very helpful for this one. Thanks again, it is much appreciated👍👍✈
@@AntiqueAirshow No worries mate. I was lucky, in that when I started hanging around Aerodromes there were still a few old blokes around to listen to... Most of my doings were around the Ultralight end of the Spectrum, but in 1978 I did get to learn how to Hand-Prop start both the Fokker Dr-1 & Sopwith Pup Replicas which today are in the Australian War Memorial... (185 Hp Warner Scarab, & 150 Hp Armstrong Siddley Gennet Major, respectively...). To see that backstory, either dig into my "Personal Aeroplanology..." Playlist, or title-search YT for, "The 8-Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft". When I was 17, it was my first Aeroplane, and I was it's 3rd owner...; in 1995 it's 4th owner put it in the Inverell Transport Museum, and he never got it off the Ground, so apparently I'm the last person to have ever flown it - which is a bit of a weirdly obscure claim to "greatness and fame", but the Wright Brothers had a better Aeroplane in 1903 than what took me for my first Solo in '78..., and it is hanging in a Transport Museum. So, I try to share what little snippets I know , with anybody who seems likely to be interested... And little things like saying Engine Designations "correctly" can make a big difference in how a Doccumentary goes over (even the greatly prolific Simon Whistler & his emulators regularly "ping themselves" with mispronunciations). And with Aero Engines..., having an idea of what the Alpha-Numerics refer to makes it easier to use them in conversation, kinda thing. So, you're welcome ; enjoy ! Have a good one. ;-p Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot Fascinating story, and I've checked up the video and it was very interesting to learn about the Skycraft. What an aircraft to fly at such a young age! Good little bit of local history. That would be special to see it in a museum now, knowing you were the last to fly it. Yeah it can make a big difference. Pronunciation and audio are two key factors that must be correct in a video. It can really put people off otherwise. Some shots can take me a while to get right due to a mispronunciation of word, in particular a name of something. I'm deliberately trying to keep away from Japanese and Russian aircraft, even German aircraft partly due to the fact I know I'll butcher half of the video and it will sound awful. One day I might be brave enough to pick it up.
Pre,tty much. The whole story of manufacturing in this country We have great minds and and talented workers and we can build some incredible stuff And what a plane this was but all too late and then we just get another countries crap What a beautiful plane that was yes it did look like the mustang only sleeker and better
Along with the rest of our manufacturing we've trashed our aero industry in Australia. The reason we had an automotive industry in this country was as an incubator and training ground for labour and light-engineering expertise if we needed to rapidly expand our aero industry. Like in a war. It was a matter of national interest, and we got cars too. It's not an accident that GM was one of the initial investors in CAC.
@@ianmontgomery7213 It's incredible to think we had an industry here that produced the Avon Sabre and built our fleets of Mirage III and F/A-18 fighters, and we pissed it all away.
@@Splattle101 having been a contract administrator on F/A18 I can only agree. The RAAF destroyed the possibility of the Wamira trainer which i saw as the future of the industry.
Maybe this might have had some future if it was reimagined as per the the twin boom P-82. It would be some time before jets had range and suitability for fighter recon or night fighting.
Yeah maybe, but it would of required a lot more work, and by 1946-50 the RAAF seemed to have had enough with the design and was just using it for testing and data gathering purposes. I guess the P-82 worked well as the Mustang was already a reliable, mass produce aircraft where the CA-15 was still just a single prototype.
@@AntiqueAirshow According to NAA the P82 shared little in common with the P51 despite the outer resemblances. So yes there would have been significant redesign necessary to go that direction. The CA15 had a design team who had survived multiple engine changes while waiting for anything to be supplied. In the end they had to work with an engine that was borrowed and had to be returned. This seems curious in a time when aero engine production could spare resources for supplying tank engines. Despite the jet age this design had further to go. Naval use would have been a simpler direction. Had it been an American design I’m sure it would have seen some production. Obviously post war competition was already a concern and neither the US or UK wanted to lose orders to a better designed airframe. Licence production, fine, just pay the royalties. The Australian governments short term thinking was also keen to return to its position in the Empire. I expect they wasted no time giving away CACs research data.
@@BC-op7rj Interesting, I didn't know that the P-51 differed so much. The reason the R-2800 engine had to be changed was due to America saying "no". They didn't want to give any to Australia (it was being used in many American designs), so another engine had to be sought. The Griffon engine supplied by Britain would of been upgraded pending further development and it was planned that with this upgraded engine the CA-15 would have counter-rotating props. Would of been very cool to see. The Australian Navy did use Hawker Sea Fury's I believe, so probably not much interest in something with similar performance still in development. "Had it been an American design I’m sure it would have seen some production" quite possibly and definitely more likely, in particular as I'm sure there would of been limited delays in 1943/44 that CAC encountered.
Tomato Eins Nothing changes. A year or two before this a very promising cruiser tank design was ended due to an abundance of British and American tanks. Today we can’t even produce a Commodore or Falcon, because foreign manufacture is good enough to take their place. If ever there is a book was written on Australian industrial failures it must be called “politics was my co-pilot. Summary of aborted takeoffs”.
@@BC-op7rj Very true. The CA-11 Woomera is another example of a World War Two Australian prototype being scrapped due to the enough other allied aircraft. I guess the list just goes on.
This aircraft shouldn't be gauged against the Mustang. It's performance should be compared to the post-war Hawker Sea Fury or Grumman Bearcat, which are considered the pinnacle of propeller driven fighters.
Yeah maybe. I guess it looks like the Mustang and many believe the Mustang was the pinnacle of aircraft designs so it naturally gets compared to it. In Australia though it was considered to replace the RAAF P-51Ds so in some ways it would be fair to compare the two.
I presume you are talking about the CAC Boomerang? It was indeed a very good achievement. Many critics believed that building a fighter was not even possible in Australia let alone in three months. I personally think that this achievement is even greater considering there were very few flaws in the Boomerang design when it first flew. A part from a lack of speed, initial testing highlighted that the Boomerang was easy to fly, highly manoeuvarable and sturdy. The only main problem was that the engine was prone to overheating. A design can take years to design and be littered with problems.
Except it wasn't exactly on par with the Buffalo. I would say that it was a better aircraft than the Buffalo. Sure the Boomerang didn't see much action as a fighter and had its limitations, but in combat trials against a P-40 it held its own. Also, its role as an army co-operation aircraft can't be underestimated. For Australia, considering the state of affairs at the end of 1941 start of 1942, I believe that Boomerang can be considered an ingenious design.
This thing could have been a contender with the Martin Baker MB-5. Too late and I guess we’ll never know, but by then good minds in aviation led to similar conclusions.
Yeah it would of been. The two aircraft seem to share similar storylines. Exactly. For example the air intake was put under the cockpit not because it was copying the P-51, but because it was the most efficient place to put it.
@@AntiqueAirshow It wasn't the air intake, it was the radiator. It is interesting that the P-51, MB-5, and CA-15 all used that configuration for cooling. I wonder if the MB-5 and CA-15 were also designed to take advantage of the Meredith Effect.
Saw my apologies you are correct. I would believe that the P-51, MB-5 and CA-15 were all trying to take advantage of the Meredith Effect. It would make sense as it allowed them to find additional thrust. It was the most efficient place to put the radiator.
While it is interesting, and I do understand how the Aussie's want to have a sense of pride about it, not sure how any of the claims are substantiated about it being anywhere near the performance of the 51s coming out at the time. I mean are we comparing it to the P-51H that was in production at this time? Or is it being compared with the hand me downs of 42? Why would they have built it around a 2600 when the 2800 was in full blown production for a while at that point, quite a bit later in its development? What is the use? I mean generally the break through that the griffon gave was in support to the higher altitude bomber formations. Is that a task they were trying to match or improve on? by that time the Allyson power plant had caught up in that area but still had outperformed the Griff at much lower alt. The Prop in the pic also shows much less efficient earlier design, issues they had already addressed by that point. Too bad that we didn't live in more of an age of information. technology incremental improvement looks clear in hindsight but back then especially due to issues with lend lease with Russia being copied we always had a huge jump up from what we we handing to others, naturally. I like it though, it had to keep at it to be self sufficient and while they wouldn't have had it right then, it is possible in time they could have been close to at least defending themselves with numerical superiority. Truth is, as we know now the technology was well ahead of this already albeit it had to be made efficient and the amount of time money and flesh paid into where it went, it is for the best that most countries stopped what they were doing at any given point, I am not even sure the US should have so insanely persued like it did, the apex of technologies alone. Glad that we have tried working together moreso these days albeit we wont really ever know what is top secret. Hard to compare it though.
I look back on this video, and there a definitely claims that I perhaps lacked the research to support. Since then I have looked at a lot more resources and even archival documents about the CA-15. I hope to make a revised video soon. It definitely struggles to compare to the P-51H. However for Australia they were using the P-51D as well as manufacturing it. So the best comparison for the RAAF would be between a P-51D it was designed on replacing. Australia as far as I'm aware never got P-51Hs. Here it seems to have improved performance. I'm not sure why the Griffon was chosen. I have read documents saying why, but don't have them on hand and can't remember. Possibly had to do with the R-2800 not being readily available or the Americans not giving Australia access. In terms of the role it was meant to play the government didn't even really seem to know. Again I can't quite remember the documents, but there was a bit of discussion around whether it should be a medium altitude fighter or a long range escort plane or a ground attack aircraft. I hope this clear things up, although apologies about the lack of clarification on some points. It has been a while since I've done any serious reading on the CA-15. I hope to clear much of this up in my revised video. I think the design is quite an achievement for Australia. It is hard to think only a decade earlier Australia's aircraft manufacturing industry essentially didn't exist. Even though it may not have been top of line, it showed what Australia was capable of. 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow I agree, quite the accomplishment, and rather important for the country, glad to see what was accomplished! I look forward to the next video, thanks! Given the situations really something had to be done, which had the war turned for the worse I am sure it would have been alot further than it was, with whatever engine you could muster. Kind of like the AC tank, it is still on a M1 chassis, with no more than a Matilda gun, not sure why it would be compared to anything that it would have had to face at that point as it was old technology at that time, but certainly quite an achievement nonetheless. What is best about these kinds of things the different perspective solving issues a lot of times made even the top of the line vehicles even better in little ways. A lot of brilliance in the land down under for sure!
So many brilliant designs in aviation, car industry, medicine and the film industry seem to have been scuttled by our own people and various guv’ments. Australia, may be a small country but we are giants in design and doing what the world needs but .....?
It is, but that is way many of these type of programs went. CAC's history is an interesting one. Post-war it continued manufacturing aircraft, including the F-86 Sabre (however powered by the Rolls Royce Avon engine), the CAC Winjeel (designed and built by CAC), components of the Mirage III, and the Aermacchi MB-326. The Bell Kiowa was also built under license. Eventually though the CAC was bought out by Hawker de Havilland in 1985 and renamed Hawker de Havilland Victoria. This company was then bought by Boeing in 2000.
It clearly took a number of design cues from the P-51, but the mating of the Griffin engine was actually a stroke of genius. Too bad that development was delayed for so long. This would have been a very good fighter, especially against the Japanese in the latter half of the Pacific war, depending of course on the range it could operate in. Pretty good high altitude performance and incredible range is what made the P-51 the success it was. And that was due to the Packard built Merlin engine.
It had influence from a number of aircraft including the P-51 and the Focke Wulf Fw 190. It was specifically designed to fight in the Pacific War, and the RAAF website states that it had a range of about 1,000nm without drop tanks. With design and development, I believe it would of been a very capable fighter. Here's something interesting in regards to the high-altitude performance. In the last few weeks I've been reading archival documents on the CA-15 and it seems that in around 1943/44/45 there was a lot of debate whether it should be a medium-high altitude fighter or a medium-low altitude fighter. By what I've read, it seems that it was recognised with the specific example of the P-40 that altitude performance above 25,000 was critical to fighting the Japanese.
Around 25 years ago I was told by a close (retired SQLDR) friend of my old man that he witnessed two(2) CA-15 airframes being scrapped. I was also told the year & location ...but I'm afraid I don't remember the details. Sadly, both my old man's and his friend's birth certificates expired long ago ...so phoning them is a little tricky. Does anyone have any knowledge of a second airframe and it's fate?
That is a really interesting story. I've conducted some research and unfortunately so far have found no record of a second air frame. The original prototype was scrapped at No. 1 Aircraft Depot (RAAF) at Laverton, so my best guess would be that was were the second air frame went as well. If I find anything I will let you know 👍✈✈
In the early 90s, I did my atpl with Noel Lamont, in Victoria. The course was worth it for the war stories. However I recall his story on the CA-15. There were two prototypes . One was severely damaged with a supercharger failure and gear up at Laverton ( the then hq of test and ferry sqn). The second was put into storage at RAAF Tottenham until several years later it was moved to RAAF Sale as an instructional airframe. Apparently it got as far as around Bunip, because the low loader couldn’t get up the incline on the princes hwy and a second truck as sent to push. The plane never arrived and the story was that the driver of the original RAAF truck was de mobbed shortly later with family around the Heyfield area.
You would think? I mean it is in many regards the pinnacle of aircraft designs in Australia. It is worth saving, but oh well after World War Two scrapping seemed to be very popular with aircraft. The original drawings are still around in the archives which means it isn't impossible for a flying example to appear again.
Yep it was going to be. Its performance was superior to that of the P-51D Mustangs. Also with the intended upgraded Rolls Royce Griffon, who knows how much better it would been.
Believe it or not you wouldn't need to modify a Mustang. All the original drawings of the aircraft are around, along with a Griffon engine meaning it would probably be more practicable to build one from scratch and the original drawings. There are a few groups trying to do this, including one that I've set up which is currently just a Facebook group and still very early on in the process and might not go anywhere, but it is a start: facebook.com/groups/ca15restorationrebuild
Wirraway A20-103 found itself in real action on 26th December 1942 at Buna PNG whilst flying on a reconnaissance and artillery spotting mission flown by Pilot Officer (PO) J S Archer and Sergeant Coulston as observer/ rear gunner when it was able to position itself into a suitable front quarter attack position on a Japanese aircraft (at first reported as a Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero but later confirmed to be a Nakajima Ki-43-II Hayabusa ‘Oscar’ of the 11th Sentai). Given that the Wirraway was in the right place and at the right time Archer fired a relatively long 5 second burst from the aircrafts two forward firing 0.303 in. Vickers Mk V machine guns which proved sufficient to shoot down the Japanese fighter which crashed into the sea in flames - the “kill” confirmed by Sergeant Coulston Douglas MacArthur relegated the Australian Air Force to mop up duties so that the Yanks could take all the glory of the win over Japan. So R.A.A.F. pilots didn't get a hell of a lot of opportunities to engage in airiel battles. Clive Caldwell is our highest scoring ace being the most successful pilot in a P-40 Thomahawk in the World with 13.5 victories but when he returned to Australia he flew Mk.V and Mk.VIII Spitfires to 28.5 victories
That particular Wirraway I believe is/was on display at the Australian War Memorial. Of all aircraft to shoot down a Japanese fighter, hard to believe it was the Wirraway. The boomerang saw one or two little bits of action against Japanese bombers, but never did much damage due to guns jamming or not having enough speed.
Czech Master Resins make a 1/72 kit according to Prof Google, but I can't find one anywhere. It's a pity as the kit looks very good. www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Rev6/5401-5500/rev5465-CMR-5070/00.shtm
Thanks and my apologies. I try my best to get the correct images, but sometimes little things like this sneak through. Thanks for pointing it out and I'll try to ensure it doesn't happen again.
I don't believe for one minute that P&W had any intention of providing Australia with any engine, just stall tactics to kill off any possible competition. The P&W R2800 Double wasp was the same as in the Corsair which we had, should have just grabbed an engine out of that and cloned it.
To be honest I'm not too sure. The first examples from CAC were imported P-51Ds and the first models built by CAC were P51-Ds, thus they would of been of the same quality and performance. Later CAC models with improved engines may of been better, however I am unsure.
@@AntiqueAirshow Thanks mate, I do recall just before we changed to the F86, the CAC P51s were at the top of the game before they were discontinued, pitty we don't have any flying now. keep up the good work.
@@kevinwilliams287 Yeah, I've heard similar. We actually have quite a few CAC Mustangs flying around Australia appearing at various airshows. Thanks👍👍✈
What a shame the RAAF did not have them over New Guinea and Darwin in 1942. On the issue of 'scrapping' experimental aircraft like the CA-15 or the MB5, it must be remembered that Australia, UK and USA etc were entering into the Cold War and there was 'a red under every bed'. Scrapping experimental aircraft was a means of keeping the designs and technology out of the hands of potential enemies.
The Woomera was a different aircraft. It was a prototype bomber designed during the war. Again though, like the CA-15 it didn't go into service. The history of Woomera Bomber can be found here: th-cam.com/video/CzHtrCxYWws/w-d-xo.html
We've so many good Australian aircraft killed off or simply forgotten. The Wamira was scrapped after $79M and never even got to fly! Then there's the Southern Cross 1 up at Toowoomba..... a few mods and the basic design could have been used instead of developing the Wamira?
@@AntiqueAirshow A beautiful little plane, I was the expediter looking after the main and nose undercarriage components at Hawker de havilland (Aust) at Bankstown. Specs kept changing and so costs went through the roof so we bought the Pilatus which then had to be modified!
To be honest, from what you've said in the video I can't find anything that would make it the "Pinnacle of the piston engine aircraft" by the 1946, about 450mph top speed at ehhhh, no altitude given. 450mph speed is comparable to P-51D series that started service in the 1944 and there was a lot of aircraft much faster than 51D, like the Ta-152H with about 470 mph top speed, the P-51H with it's 487mph top speed or XP-47J with outstanding 505mph top speed. Pleasant and uncomplicated to fly? Please Armament of 6 .50 cals and payload of two bombs or ten rockets, hmm where have I heard that before? Oh, right THE MUSTANG, aircraft it was supposed to replace.
450mph was achieved at roughly 26,500ft. In a dive from 9,000ft , levelling out 4,000ft in managed to even reach 502.2 mph. Yes this wasn't necessarily the fastest of its time, but then it never got pass prototype stage. The Rolls Royce engine it flew with was also never the engine it was intended to fly with. A more powerful Rolls Royce Griffon was wanted, but never ended up being developed by R.R. Australia manufactured P-51Ds, so by the end of the war when the objective of the CA-15 program became to replace Mustangs in RAAF service, it had better performance than the RAAF P-51s. How was it to fly? This is a quote from Australian test pilot John Miles. Miles flew everything from Beaufighters, Mustangs, Kittyhawks, Spitfires and Lightings to name a few. He also flew the CA-15 and wrote “I must say that it is the finest fighter aircraft with piston type engine I have ever flown. This includes the Spitfire up to mk 8 (I later flew the Spitfire MK 35), the Typhoon, the Tempest, the Kittyhawk types E and N, the Thunderbolt, the Lightning and the Mustang. The CA-15 had a top speed in level flight of 450 MPH and a range of over 2500 miles. Its handling characteristics were delightful and the performance exceeded that of the Mustang.” Page 116, TESTING TIME, John Miles & John Pescott, 1979, Rowick Printers It wasn't necessarily the best aircraft, but one of the few aircraft that made up the pinnacle of the piston aircraft. Also important to note that it was a completely different design to the Mustang and it is coincidence that they look alike. The CA-15 looked very different at first, until the engine was changed multiply times.
@@AntiqueAirshow P-51D and P-51B performance relied heavily on the fuel they were using. Top speed could vary from 708kph for P-51D-5 running 67hg of manifold pressure, to over 730kph for RAF Mustang III running 81hg. I don't know anything about engine settings of Australian P-51s so it could be that they were in fact slower. But I doubt that CA-15 would beat RAF Mk IIIs and IVs or that it could go as far as any P-51. And still in my book CA-15 is a curiosity at best. Sorry but I think you might be a bit biased towards it, because as for an aircraft that came out in 1946 it really wasn't anything special. It could be an achievement for Australia, but it's not some forgotten gem of aircraft design.
The RAAF technical data of Australian built Mustangs and the CA-15 has the CA-15 with a greater airspeed. Anyway max speed is not the only important comparison point. The CA-15 had a far greater rate of climb at 4900ft/min than the Mustang. The P-51D could only achieve 3,200ft/min. For Australia this was the most advance design of our homemade designs. CAC were formed in late 1930s and thus for us to be designing and building an aircraft that was very comparable to contemporary fighters was an achievement in itself. It came out in 1946, but design had started from 1943. Only one prototype was ever built, but its potential as a combat aircraft was high. The P-51 was developed to its maximum, the CA-15 never got this chance to prove itself.
@@AntiqueAirshow "The CA-15 had a far greater rate of climb at 4900ft/min than the Mustang" That's a good rate of climb, but still it's not a showstealer. Again P-51H, beats it with 5350ft/min climb and I'm sure that P-51 was not the best climber that came before CA-15. "The P-51 was developed to its maximum, the CA-15 never got this chance to prove itself." Yes and no, you could say that about P-51D series, even though it could be still improved by giving it the Packard 1650-9 that P-51H recieved. But only one P-51M (basically P-51D-30 with Packard 1650-9) was ever built and I have no data on it. But P-51H was a new aircraft, sure it resembled the P-51D, but they shared almost no parts. That was a new lighter airframe with more potential. But then jet age ruined everything. "For Australia this was the most advance design of our homemade designs. CAC were formed in late 1930s and thus for us to be designing and building an aircraft that was very comparable to contemporary fighters was an achievement in itself. [...] Only one prototype was ever built, but its potential as a combat aircraft was high" Like I said, sure it could be an achievement for Australia, but as a successor to the P-51D, P-51H was much better choice. And I think that's going to be my conclusion on the subject.
Aa constant story of australian ingenuity coupled with pure laziness and lack of vision. I wonder what its going to take to learn that we need to be indipendant and not be dictated to.
@@AntiqueAirshow Until the next generation of politicians and bean counters come along saying we can't afford to subsidise Australian jobs and industry and then start cutting. Sound familiar?
You would have to convince the 95% of political non-thinkers to get rid of the 2 party system. Liberal and Labor are just puppets to the UN, who's main objective is to undermine self-reliant countries.
It bears more than a passing resemblance, but it would've been outrageously stupid if it hadn't. Not only was the P-51 an excellent plane, CAC were already building it. They'd have beem mad if they didn't use the existing tooling where possible.
![The Fighter That Tried To Replace The Spitfire | Martin-Baker MB.5 [Aircraft Overview #82]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1CJWEc_sQkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
My heart always sinks when I hear the word 'scrapped'.
Very interesting dihedral in that tail.
Yeah likewise. It is indeed. Very different to the Mustang it gets compared to often.
F 111 ? F18 a ,
@@georgepantazis141 F111s had to be scrapped because of the toxic materials they contained. F/A18As were sold to Canada i think.
In my opinion, an extremely well looking and powerful fighter plane. It just came some years too late. Greetings from Germany!
Very true, and I agree with you. 👍 ✈
Awesome mate, giving thanks to Australian aviation🇦🇺
Thanks👍✈
It's not the fact that it never reached production that I find illustrates the lack of vision in our country, it is the fact that the one and only prototype was scrapped! If there'd been hundreds produced, I could understand the economics of scrapping them, but scrapping a unique aircraft is an act of criminal myopia.
We Canadians feel the same way about the Avro Arrow.
@@pdxyyz And rightly so!
Had to look Myopia up. Never seen criminal myopia used before but now I understand.
Understandable. It was a unique part of your countries engineering history and as a one of a kind model, it should have been preserved ‘for the nation’, as they say.
@@pdxyyz The very first thing I thought of, when reading Mr. Stanmore's comments, was the Avro Arrow but you beat me to it. A shameful episode in Canadian History. The Australians who recall the Ca-15 must feel much the same. The aircraft does look like a griffon powered Mustang (a bit beefier than the Mustang but obviously inspired by it).
Loved this presentation, two of my sentimental favourites featured, the Aussie Boomerang, and the Kangaroo. Australia had another groundbreaker, a jet fighter/interceptor that was streets ahead of British and American fighters. There was some dirty pool involved, and our innovative jet was torn asunder; funny enough though some of it's features appeared on the English Electric Lightning and America's F 111.
Thank you 👍✈️ I am hoping to get around to doing an updated video on the Kangaroo, as I have uncovered a few extra details and I would like to revise some of the comments I made. But it was quite an impressive aircraft. The Boomerang is also one of my favourite aircraft, a cracking little design if you ask me. That seems very interesting, and while I'm aware of the project I know very little about it. I'll have to investigate it further.
@TomatoEins Here you go, I watched this only a few weeks ago. I've just discovered your channel last night, or the night before, and am thoroughly enjoying your posts. In any case, here's the link about our Aussie designed Jet; th-cam.com/video/OjiqdSwMxT8/w-d-xo.html
@@carlosallende2595 perfect thanks for sending that through. I'll take a look, I'm quite intrigued. Thanks, glad you're enjoying it 👍✈ (p.s. sorry for the delayed reply).
Me too!..Am ashamed to admit I'd never heard of this high potential fighter!!..Resembles the the P51 Mustang but spookily closer to it UK cousin the Martin Baker MB5!!..
4vep vik it’s one that doesn’t get much recognition at all. Yeah it does look very similar to the MB5. I believe they had very little/if no relation what so ever which is interesting. That design for aircraft must of been extremely good then 👍✈️✈️
Thanks for turning us on to this beautiful aircraft. Such a terrible waste to scrap it!
No problem. I love historical aviation and it is great being able to find these unique aircraft that get virtually no attention and showcase them to a much larger audience.
It is a shame, but that is where most aircraft ended up during that time period.
Tomato Eins, nach alles! Great job on the video. I had no idea there was aircraft design and production in Australia during WW2.
Thank you👍✈ By the end of the war, Australia's aviation industry was quite advance and it only continued to grow after the war.
I love that you've recognized where the channel name came from 👍✈
@@AntiqueAirshow I can’t tell you how many times I have watched “Battle of Britain.” It’s one of my favorite movies. And two years of studying German in college has finally paid off!
@@randallisaeff1876 I'm the exact same, and is my favourite film. Watch it regularly, love the dialogue and the soundtrack. Hahaha yeah that is so cool 👍✈
@MichaelKingsfordGray That is really interesting and fascinating👍✈
Looks like a mustang got drunk one night and had relations with a bearcat.
😂 Indeed!
Couldn't have said it better!!!!!!
“ relations” 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Takes me back to that Eddie Murphy movie.
Sounds about right.
I Knew something like that was coming! I was trying to figure out whether this was the Australian version of the P-51, or some kind of Hybrid thing. Whatever it was, it was Hideous!
A pity the aircraft came so late. Just from the lines and knowing it had an RR engine makes you know it would kick serious arse.
It is. Would of been interesting to see how it compared in combat. I think it is fair to say that those Rolls Royce engines were some of if not the best engine of the war.
It didn't need to come so late it could have been flying in 43 but licence building the p51 took priority which proved to be an inferior plane once the CAC15 finally got to fly in 46 3 yrs after it could have!
@@k3D4rsi554maq With that drivel I'd say you are pist.
Brilliantly narrated. Well done. Never knew about this aircraft. It looks terrific.
Thank you 👍✈ It would be great to see one fly
Thanks again. Magnificent plane. Hoping it gets added to War Thunder as well.
No probs👍 It is a great plane and its story barely gets told. It would be good. Who knows, maybe one day ✈️✈️
It would definitely be under the British Tech tree.
Yeah I can't wait to use this American Premium.
God it's such a good looking aircraft
Agree, it is a very nice looking aircraft
Nice to know that CAC produced something with this much potential. I wonder how it would have faired against the zero and the jack?
Yeah it is. Really highlights how far they had come in a short period of time. I'm too sure how it would against the zero or the jack. seeing it was on similar terms if not better than the P-51D, I would say it would hold its own.
@@AntiqueAirshow i agree...😊
My father took a lot of the photos of the CA 15 during and after the war. He always said it was fast and ahead of the time when watching it in flight
You should try and scan them and upload them to the internet because all know pictures of it have been featured in this video
That is really fascinating. I would love to see those photos. As mentioned in the other comment, there is barely any photos on this aircraft. Would be great if you could scan them and upload them. If you ever needed help with it as well, I would be more than happy to help. It would be wonderful too see them 👍✈
Thanks for the positive comments! I will upload them ASAP, but I have an operation coming up. I’ll try to get them done as soon as I’m able
@@kimkeam2094 All the best with the operation. I look forward to seeing the images
Nicely done sir well put together.
Thanks ✈️👍
I would've loved to see the Griffon engine mated to the P-38J/L airframe and eliminate the turbos.
It would be great to see. 👍✈
Blister canopy and a Griffon mill are the go-to mods for a Mustang unlimited racer today.
Shame the 'Roo came and went before it had a chance to compete.
Interesting and true. Yeah it is, would be interesting to see what performance the aircraft could have achieved
@@AntiqueAirshow The designers didn't see the Mustang as a benchmark, but rather a starting point.
First time I ever heard about this type, but the unrealized potential reminds me of the Avro Arrow and Canadair Dynavert.
It's almost as if members of the Commonwealth don't want to field an aircraft that shows up mother England in an embarrassing fashion, and so leave that job to their rebellious prodigal sibling.
Yeah true. I know little about the Avro Arrow and Canadair Dynavert, but it does seem similar.
Yeah maybe, but interestingly England seemed more than happy to give us the Griffon and even an upgraded version of it. I think honestly the age of the jet was the real reason why the CA-15 didn't progress any further.
CAC also built the Beaufort and it's greatly successful fighter derivitave, the Beaufighter. The Mosquito and the biplane Tigermoth. Radial engines were built too.
The Beaufort and the Beaufighter was actually produced by DAP (Department of Aircraft Production). Very similar and both CAC and DAP built components for each other, but considered separate entities. Australian built quite a few aircraft throughout the war and after. A really good read on the politics behind DAP and CAC is this document airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/media/PDF-Files/Working%20Papers/WP12-The-Australian-Aviation-Industry.pdf
Also the Mirage and Macchi. Plus the Ikara.
@@borisjohnson1944 CAC did assemble the Macchi but GAF built the Mirage and Ikara (as well as Jindivik, Nomad, Canberra and F/A18. CAC and GAF were next door to each other in Port Melbourne.
GAF became ASTA which was bought by Rockwell who were bought by Boeing. Boeing still have a factory in Port Melbourne.
Great video! I had no idea of the Australian aircraft industry’s size nor that they built P-51s under license.
Thank you, the support is greatly appreciated👍✈ Yeah by the end of the war, the industry had really come a long way. To think only 8 years or so before it was not even a thing. Australia also built a few Merlin's under license and after the war aircraft such as the Sabre jet, but powered by the Avon engine (and different armament) which made it in many ways superior to the America Sabre's.
We built a few hundred Mosquitoes under license as well.
@@eddieoreilly9391 It was quite the task to build the mossie, due to our inexperience workforce , the climate as well as a lot of sub assemblies being used. Quite the achievement.
A handsome looking fighter. Well done Aus! Good video!
It is a great looking machine. Would love to see one fly again one day. Thank you👍✈
@@AntiqueAirshow it reminds me a little of a similar British fighter, but the name escapes me. I think it begins with W. Wyvern possibly.
@@gunner678 Possibly the Wyvern. Often though it gets compared to the Martin Baker MB.5 which was produced around a similar time and had a similar story to the CA-15. My newest video covers the Martin Baker fighters including the MB.5
Mum can we have P-51?
No we have P-51 at home.
P-51 at home:
It looks a lot like the Martin Baker MB5, except it has only got 1 propeller, using the same engine
It does. My understanding is that the MB.5 had a more powerful version of the Rolls Royce Griffon, which was the planned powerplant for the CA-15 is it continued development.
I've just released a video on the Martin Baker series of prototypes including the MB.5 th-cam.com/video/y9fdvmW-uSU/w-d-xo.html
What a beaut if only this had been available 2 years earlier it could have made a massive impact against the Japanese. It outperformed the both Japanese and American carrier aircraft. It was the fate of many late piston engined aircraft designs to be cancelled or abandoned at wars end, costs and the new emphasis of jet power making them superfluous. A shame they scrapped the prototype that would have had pride of place in the RAAF museum at Point Cook. Best wishes to you Aussies from an admirer in the UK.
Yeah, you do wonder the impact it could of had, but like you said it just came too late. Like your British MB5.
It would of been an amazing piece at the RAAF museum at Point Cook or even at the National Aviation Museum at Moorabbin. 👍👍✈
@@AntiqueAirshow You are right in fact "Wincle Brown" though it to have been an outstanding aircraft and if he thought that it must have been.
Yeah he knew would know what an amazing aircraft it was.
Just for a fun comparison here is a quote from Australian test pilot John Miles. Miles flew everything from Beaufighters, Mustangs, Kittyhawks, Spitfires and Lightings to name a few. He also flew the CA-15 and wrote “I must say that it is the finest fighter aircraft with piston type engine I have ever flown. This includes the Spitfire up to mk 8 (I later flew the Spitfire MK 35), the Typhoon, the Tempest, the Kittyhawk types E and N, the Thunderbolt, the Lightning and the Mustang. The CA-15 had a top speed in level flight of 450 MPH and a range of over 2500 miles. Its handling characteristics were delightful and the performance exceeded that of the Mustang.” Page 116, TESTING TIME, John Miles & John Pescott, 1979, Rowick Printers
Seems that both Wincle Brown and John Miles saw the potential and how great their respective aircraft were. This illustrates that both designs were exceptional.
Lawrence Wackett decided to focus on the Mustang - Smart guy!
Nope, he got given 'the message' by the US gov that they would be the world wide aircraft manufacturer...and all the rest would have to capitulate. We had both CAC and GAF at Fishermen's Bend. GMH as well....All gone now.
@@geoffheard5768 Nonsense, he wanted to go with the best fighter, the Mustang.
How he knew at that time it was the best fighter i am not sure? Like i said, smart guy.
The only reason all the Australian manufacturing plants disappeared (any product) is because the Australian government both then and now spends all its time thinking up new compliance costs/taxes etc without giving a shit about competitiveness.
I mean, if the Australian government wanted too subsidize an Australian industry, in the event they somehow managed to actually give a damn for some reason, they wouldn't have too! All they would have to do is cover all the compliance costs they themselves caused!!
Just as well, because Australia’s Mustangs were the best of the lot, and for a while were the only allied planes fighting the North Koreans.
On first glance I thought it was a basic P51 but no this is something else very cool
Yeah it does share a resemblance to the P-51. Indeed a very cool aircraft
When my Dad was a RAAF pilot he had some involvement in the AAC Wamira which was supposed to replace both the Macchi and CT-4 but it was just an absolute mess of a program and design. He and his colleagues wrote it off early but the Hawke government kept pressing on with the program with impossible conditions. They really thought they had saved a fortune with an all in one basic trainer, intermediate trainer and lead in fighter trainer packaged in a fixed gear side by side turbo prop that couldn't meet the requirements for any role.
Basically it was a larger CT-4 with a turboprop that had to outperform the Macchi jet but without ejection seats to save weight. So someone came up with a rocket fired weight attached to the pilot via bungee rope to eject them. The mock up looks cartoonish and the RAAF were pretty well stunned at how ludicrous the suggestion was but the powers to be pressed on until the RAAF brass intervened and the PC-9 and Hawk procurement programs became reality.
That is very interesting to read. I admittedly don't know a lot about the Wamira program, but they are quite stiff requirements to make an aircraft capable of doing all that. It just doesn't seem practical or realistically. At least it was cut off before it ever went into production, although by the sounds of it it should have been cut off much earlier
@@AntiqueAirshow he was one of the CFS instructors sent to advise AAC on the program and from day one they knew it was a farce. Even the AAC team knew it was a joke but after the mock up the politicians kept pressing hard for the prototype to be built and the RAAF to come up with a test program. I'd hate to think how much time and money was wasted on it.
@@goodshipkaraboudjan That is quite interesting. Yes I would hate to think, and would then hate to thin how much time has been wasted on similar projects
If the Boomerang had been upgraded to a Pratt& Whitney R 2800 it would have been one little kick ass fighter in the class of the Vought Corsair for speed and performance.
Yeah it would of been incredible. I was flickering through the National Archives a while back and came across a set of documents that covered testing of the Boomerang against a P-40 and a Airacobra and while it lacked speed it could outturn both aircraft and against the P-40 win as the P-40 didn't have enough speed to escape, however the Airacobra could. If only it had a better engine. Ultimately though it would require way to much structural change and work began on the CA-15 instead.
@@AntiqueAirshow - The video says it was not practical to install the Wright R-2600 in the boomerang without extensively redesigning the airframe. How could the larger P&W R-2800 have been feasible?
@@scootergeorge9576 The Boomerang with the larger P&W R-2800 would not have been feasible. However the CA-15 was a complete a new design from the ground up that allowed for the accommodation of a larger engine and thus made the P&W R-2800 a feasible option for the design. Though Washington blocked our requests to gain a R-2800.
@@AntiqueAirshow - I suppose that there was little in the way of production to export the 2800. Being used in the F6F, F4U, P-47 and perhaps others. The SB-2C was underpowered with the 2600 and could have used the P&W engine. The F6F was meant to use the 2600 but the Zero captured after Midway convinced Grumman and the USN to upgrade to the larger engine.
An indication of how large the F4U was is that Goodyear went with a larger engine; 2 steps larger passing up the 3350 and going with the 4360!
Interesting, I didn't realise how utilised the 2800 was. The F4U is a beast to say the least
The Martin Baker MB5 shared the same fate . Very similar in performance and appearence with Merlin power. Our renowned test pilot Eric "wrinkle "Brown said in his opinion it was the best performing and flying aircraft of the war. But like the Kangaroo was doomed not to be. And the only example was unceremoniously scrapped. Thanks
Yeah they do seem to have very similar storylines and share some resemblance. Both powered by the Griffon as will.
Interesting, it sure seems to have been a considerable aircraft. Just for a fun comparison here is a quote from Australian test pilot John Miles about the CA-15. Miles flew everything from Beaufighters, Mustangs, Kittyhawks, Spitfires and Lightings to name a few. He also flew the CA-15 and wrote “I must say that it is the finest fighter aircraft with piston type engine I have ever flown. This includes the Spitfire up to mk 8 (I later flew the Spitfire MK 35), the Typhoon, the Tempest, the Kittyhawk types E and N, the Thunderbolt, the Lightning and the Mustang. The CA-15 had a top speed in level flight of 450 MPH and a range of over 2500 miles. Its handling characteristics were delightful and the performance exceeded that of the Mustang.” Page 116, TESTING TIME, John Miles & John Pescott, 1979, Rowick Printers
Seems that both Eric and John had similar thoughts about their respective aircraft illustrating how they were both very good planes. I find it interesting that they had similar thoughts.✈👍
An enormous industry which had produced almost 6,000 aircraft from various manufacturers during ww2 when we did not even have an auto industry. But the great visionarys were sabotaged by their own governments which remained in a ‘colonial’ mindset of not troubling their masters in Washington or Whitehall and currying favour by abandoning independent production by buying foreign a/c. Just look at how Canada and Brazil have developed viable jet and prop liners and know that we could have been amongst it. Treason ! Today we ar further bankrupting ourselves with million dollar ordnance, surgical grade a/c and machinery that require billion dollar facilities and constant aerial refueling with fuel from where?
Not to mention pandering to the 'Rona!!😆
If they'd re-designed it for air-support/ground-attack it probably would be remembered with aircraft like the Skyraider and the late (F4U-7/AU-1) Corsairs.
Yes that would of been quite possible. I was reading through the archive documents about this aircraft a few months ago, and I believe that there was discussions as using the CA-15 as an air-support aircraft, and the P-51 Mustang as a high altitude fighter, but that idea was eventually scrapped.
not with a water-cooled engine
@@spenner3529 That didn't seem to be a problem for the later Hurricane marks. They simply up-armored the radiator and coolant lines.
Come on guys surely it has do with the fact the writing was on the wall for piston engined fighter aircraft.
And the jet engines were starting to make such a big impact.
Yep that definitely influenced the scrapping of this project. A big reason they kept it on after the War was too qualify the large amount of data they had collected in the design of it. The more archival documents I read in regards to this plane, it seems clear that by 1945 a production run of this aircraft was unlikely due to the jet age.
The kangaroo was one of the many second to last generation of pistoned engined fighters canceled.
The last generation of piston engine fighters had performance equal to early Jets but the preliminary designs had just started when they were canceled
It was or could have been flying in 43 mate well before piston engines were outdated it was put on the back burner to build p51 under licence which proved to be inferior to the cac15
There were plenty of air forces that could not afford to buy jets who could have bought it.
Great aircraft, one of the many ultimate piston engine fighters that will canceled by the end of the war and the jet engine.
yep. MB5 another classic example
I’m an Australian manufacturer.
We sell worldwide, including to China.
We used to make everything in Australia.
Governments need to change their colonial attitude and set the ground work for manufacturers.
I’m easy to do.
Most politicians are either lawyers or career politicians and have no idea how to do it.
I hope you meant to say "It’s easy to do."
@@ianakagongz4573
Yes .
The predictive text changed it.
Computers are starting to think that they know better.
Except that companies always outsource their production to China.
@@thethirdman225 It's changing here in America we always paid unreasonable heavily tariffs to import our products to China. Trump put a stop to it by raising our tariffs on goods sent there. Plus he's given business incentives to move back here to make its products.
US allies and India and Vietnam should coordinate a graduated increase in tariffs against CCP-China. To repatriate and reorient our trade and production, weaken China, and put pressure on Xi Xinping. Free trade is a privilege not a right, and the CCP has been abusing the privilege for too long.
Thats incredible
Well done mate.
Thank you 👍
Need that kind of of innovation in Australia right now,we have some of the best ship designer's why can't we design and build our own subs ?
Yes, I agree 100% Ships,subs,planes,look at Loyal Wingman.
i wish we would focus on more homemade defence systems rather than constantly selling out to our allies. wish we had more on our boomerangs as well, keep up the content
Agree. We produced some really good designs, but they never get the proper recognition they deserve. The Boomerang is such a lovely aircraft. I’m currently working on a Boomerang documentary, but don’t know how long it will be before it’s done. Stay tuned and thanks for the support👍✈️
Didn't we have alot to do with the Wedgetail ?
Yeah we did. It was designed by Boeing for the Royal Australian Air Force. While the first two examples where built and assembled in America, the rest were assembled by Boeing Australia. So, the Royal Australian Air Force did play a key role in the development of the Wedgetail.
@@AntiqueAirshow yeah but they did a great job of Torpedoing the Wamira trainer (no overseas trips so they canned it for the Pilatus PC9)
@@AntiqueAirshow The whole idea behind the Wedgetail was Australian. We just needed American cooperation. Now they’re selling like hot cakes.
I had never heard of this model aircraft. I will look down on the Fishermans Bend factory site, now occupied by Boeing, as I cross over the Yarra river via the Westgate Bridge.
The Boeing plant ain't where the CAC factory was, try more where the Holden plant was, with more remains on the government site next to it. Also parts of the freeway is where the runways used to be.
I worked at the CAC Factory in the early 70s. The lights on the Westgate Bridge, that look like flying saucers, were made there.
@@rod.h8064 I have some news for you. the Boeing factory is exactly where CAC and GAF were and incorporates some of their buildings. CAC used to start at Todd Road and finished against GAFs border which is close to Sabre Drive on a map. Holden were in Salmon Street and between Holden and Todd Road was the Aeronautical Research Laboratories - it became AMRL but it probably just known as DSTG (Defence Science and Technology Group)
Well that showed up just in time!
Alas, one of the many brilliant late-war aircraft that just missed its window of relevance.
Yep, one of those 'what-if' aircraft.
Brilliant info
Thank you👍✈️
Good onya mate. Great job.
Thank you👍✈️
Australia really NEEDS TO CLIMB OUT OF THE DEEP BUCKET AND DO THEIR OWN DEAL. That country is more than capable. Never heard of this one. Exceptional and do love the Boomerangs.
Thanks. I make these videos, so that some of the lesser known aircraft can be discovered. Something about the Boomerang is coming in the future. Hopefully soon ✈✈👍
@@AntiqueAirshow Thanks for the thumbs up and keep on doing what you're doing cause the classrooms aren't.
At the time of ww2 in Australia, designing a fighter was never the issue, the problem was designing the engine! Because Australia was never in a position to build superior fighters, because they were never in a position to manufacture superior engines..... therefore Australia was never going to be able to build superior fighters, no matter how well they can "climb out of the deep bucket" Frankly, Australia should have just license produced the Spitfire from the start. At least Lawrence Wackett eventually had the good sense to license produce the Mustang.
@@mystikmind2005 true, Australia did struggle to produce a high performance fighter due to a lack of available engines. The CA-15 was the prime example that the original designers wanted a more powerful engine, but Pratt & Whitney stopped producing the model CAC wanted. However, it doesn't mean Australia couldn't of produced more powerful engines. CAC were already building their own Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engines and we did after the war produce jet engines for F-86 Sabres. It was a matter that we didn't acquire bigger engines to build.
In 1936, when Australia started looking for their first plane to manufacture, high performances planes such as the Spitfire were ruled out due to them being to big a liability that could collapse the industry. They wanted a more reliable general purpose aircraft with plans to build up to high performance fighters. Due to this, Spitfires would never be manufactured as once war arrived, Britain were in no position to send supplies down under. However while we couldn't build Spitfires, it did open doors for us to build the Mustang later in the war as the Wirraway connected us with North American Aviation. Mustangs gave great service to the RAAF long after the Second World War.
@@AntiqueAirshow - Interesting, but regarding the spitfire, could Australia not build the necessary tooling to build the engines with instruction from England? Therefore England does not have to send anything other than technical data? I suppose at that time Australia did not realize they needed the turning and dog fighting capacity of the Spitfire to meet the challenge of the Japanese Zero. I am aware some old model Spitfires and Hurricanes saw service in the Pacific region, but never the top level Spitfires, a shame.
G'day,
Well done.
Constructive Criticism follows.....(!).
For future reference, the Numbers incorporated in the Names of (US) Aero Engines - pretty much universally refer to the Swept Cylinder Displacement, given in Cubic Inches...; and the convention is that the Number is pronounced in HUNDREDS..., ie
"R -1,830"
is spoken as
"R - Eighteen-Thirty..."
rather than,
"R - One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty..."
& the
"R - 2,800"
is spoken as
"R - Twenty-Eight Hundred...".
The "R" in there refers to the Engine being a Radial.
When you see something like an
"O -360"
that's spoken as,
"Oh - Three Sixty"
and the "O" refers to it being a
"(Horizontally) Opposed"
layout.
You'll probably have to LISTEN to a bunch of old Aeroplanologists talking, rather than simply relying on reading written accounts..., & making up the Soundtrack as you go along (!).
Just(ifiably ?) sayin'.
Such is Life...
Have a good one,
;-p
Ciao !
Thanks for the feedback. I have always wondered the correct pronunciation and I think throughout my videos have used a variety of different ones, so it is great to learn the proper way. I usually use google translate if I get stuck with pronunciation of a word, in particular names and places, but unfortunately it isn't very helpful for this one. Thanks again, it is much appreciated👍👍✈
@@AntiqueAirshow
No worries mate.
I was lucky, in that when I started hanging around Aerodromes there were still a few old blokes around to listen to...
Most of my doings were around the Ultralight end of the Spectrum, but in 1978 I did get to learn how to Hand-Prop start both the Fokker Dr-1 & Sopwith Pup Replicas which today are in the Australian War Memorial... (185 Hp Warner Scarab, & 150 Hp Armstrong Siddley Gennet Major, respectively...).
To see that backstory, either dig into my "Personal Aeroplanology..." Playlist, or title-search YT for,
"The 8-Hp, 1975, Red Baron Skycraft Scout ; World's 1st Legal Minimum Aircraft".
When I was 17, it was my first Aeroplane, and I was it's 3rd owner...; in 1995 it's 4th owner put it in the Inverell Transport Museum, and he never got it off the Ground, so apparently I'm the last person to have ever flown it - which is a bit of a weirdly obscure claim to "greatness and fame", but the Wright Brothers had a better Aeroplane in 1903 than what took me for my first Solo in '78..., and it is hanging in a Transport Museum.
So, I try to share what little snippets I know , with anybody who seems likely to be interested...
And little things like saying Engine Designations "correctly" can make a big difference in how a Doccumentary goes over (even the greatly prolific Simon Whistler & his emulators regularly "ping themselves" with mispronunciations).
And with Aero Engines..., having an idea of what the Alpha-Numerics refer to makes it easier to use them in conversation, kinda thing.
So, you're welcome ; enjoy !
Have a good one.
;-p
Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot Fascinating story, and I've checked up the video and it was very interesting to learn about the Skycraft. What an aircraft to fly at such a young age! Good little bit of local history. That would be special to see it in a museum now, knowing you were the last to fly it.
Yeah it can make a big difference. Pronunciation and audio are two key factors that must be correct in a video. It can really put people off otherwise. Some shots can take me a while to get right due to a mispronunciation of word, in particular a name of something. I'm deliberately trying to keep away from Japanese and Russian aircraft, even German aircraft partly due to the fact I know I'll butcher half of the video and it will sound awful. One day I might be brave enough to pick it up.
Badass looking planes.
It is indeed. Big and powerful
Pre,tty much. The whole story of manufacturing in this country
We have great minds and and talented workers and we can build some incredible stuff
And what a plane this was but all too late and then we just get another countries crap
What a beautiful plane that was yes it did look like the mustang only sleeker and better
Bullshit! The P-51, as it's stated in the movies, was then, and is now, "the Cadillac of the skies".
Yeah well I think your info is best suited to movies.
@@stevend166 Oh thank you Mr. Expert, and what are you using as a basis for your conclusion?
@@jimmyd7369 Hi Jimmy sorry about the reply. It was actually meant as a reply to someone else comment.
@@stevend166 No worries, have a good rest of your life (seriously).
Only ONE built!?!? No wonder I've never heard of it.
Yep, most likely why. It seems to be quite forgotten
Good looking airplane. Curious, what was Australia’s ~1944 population?
It is. A quick google seems to put it around 7.3 million
Thanks. That was interesting.
.
👍✈
Well done!
Thank you
Along with the rest of our manufacturing we've trashed our aero industry in Australia. The reason we had an automotive industry in this country was as an incubator and training ground for labour and light-engineering expertise if we needed to rapidly expand our aero industry. Like in a war. It was a matter of national interest, and we got cars too. It's not an accident that GM was one of the initial investors in CAC.
the aero industry in Australia is now basically Boeing in Melbourne and Brisbane. At least the Australian designed drone will be built here.
@@ianmontgomery7213 It's incredible to think we had an industry here that produced the Avon Sabre and built our fleets of Mirage III and F/A-18 fighters, and we pissed it all away.
@@Splattle101 having been a contract administrator on F/A18 I can only agree. The RAAF destroyed the possibility of the Wamira trainer which i saw as the future of the industry.
Looks like a cross between a P-51 and a FW 190.
It does indeed. Supposedly the designer Fred David was inspired by the FW 190 when initially developing the plane.
@@AntiqueAirshow Well with the radial engine it would have been very similar to the FW 190.
Had piston engined fighters continued this looks to me to be what the P-51 would have come to be.
I wonder where the design for the mustang came from?
looks like a cross between a Mustang and a Martin-Baker MB5. Might have bee n a world-beater.
It does. You never know. With continued development and the improve Griffon engine, I guess anything was possible.
Maybe this might have had some future if it was reimagined as per the the twin boom P-82.
It would be some time before jets had range and suitability for fighter recon or night fighting.
Yeah maybe, but it would of required a lot more work, and by 1946-50 the RAAF seemed to have had enough with the design and was just using it for testing and data gathering purposes. I guess the P-82 worked well as the Mustang was already a reliable, mass produce aircraft where the CA-15 was still just a single prototype.
@@AntiqueAirshow According to NAA the P82 shared little in common with the P51 despite the outer resemblances. So yes there would have been significant redesign necessary to go that direction.
The CA15 had a design team who had survived multiple engine changes while waiting for anything to be supplied. In the end they had to work with an engine that was borrowed and had to be returned. This seems curious in a time when aero engine production could spare resources for supplying tank engines.
Despite the jet age this design had further to go. Naval use would have been a simpler direction.
Had it been an American design I’m sure it would have seen some production. Obviously post war competition was already a concern and neither the US or UK wanted to lose orders to a better designed airframe. Licence production, fine, just pay the royalties. The Australian governments short term thinking was also keen to return to its position in the Empire. I expect they wasted no time giving away CACs research data.
@@BC-op7rj Interesting, I didn't know that the P-51 differed so much.
The reason the R-2800 engine had to be changed was due to America saying "no". They didn't want to give any to Australia (it was being used in many American designs), so another engine had to be sought. The Griffon engine supplied by Britain would of been upgraded pending further development and it was planned that with this upgraded engine the CA-15 would have counter-rotating props. Would of been very cool to see.
The Australian Navy did use Hawker Sea Fury's I believe, so probably not much interest in something with similar performance still in development.
"Had it been an American design I’m sure it would have seen some production" quite possibly and definitely more likely, in particular as I'm sure there would of been limited delays in 1943/44 that CAC encountered.
Tomato Eins Nothing changes. A year or two before this a very promising cruiser tank design was ended due to an abundance of British and American tanks. Today we can’t even produce a Commodore or Falcon, because foreign manufacture is good enough to take their place. If ever there is a book was written on Australian industrial failures it must be called “politics was my co-pilot. Summary of aborted takeoffs”.
@@BC-op7rj Very true. The CA-11 Woomera is another example of a World War Two Australian prototype being scrapped due to the enough other allied aircraft. I guess the list just goes on.
Craig Lowndes in the background at 2.51.
This aircraft shouldn't be gauged against the Mustang. It's performance should be compared to the post-war Hawker Sea Fury or Grumman Bearcat, which are considered the pinnacle of propeller driven fighters.
Yeah maybe. I guess it looks like the Mustang and many believe the Mustang was the pinnacle of aircraft designs so it naturally gets compared to it. In Australia though it was considered to replace the RAAF P-51Ds so in some ways it would be fair to compare the two.
From drawing to manufacture in six months. Pretty good considering we didn't have car manufacturing.
I presume you are talking about the CAC Boomerang? It was indeed a very good achievement. Many critics believed that building a fighter was not even possible in Australia let alone in three months. I personally think that this achievement is even greater considering there were very few flaws in the Boomerang design when it first flew. A part from a lack of speed, initial testing highlighted that the Boomerang was easy to fly, highly manoeuvarable and sturdy. The only main problem was that the engine was prone to overheating. A design can take years to design and be littered with problems.
If the Boomerang was on a par with the Buffalo, it could hardly be described as an ingenious design!
Except it wasn't exactly on par with the Buffalo. I would say that it was a better aircraft than the Buffalo. Sure the Boomerang didn't see much action as a fighter and had its limitations, but in combat trials against a P-40 it held its own. Also, its role as an army co-operation aircraft can't be underestimated. For Australia, considering the state of affairs at the end of 1941 start of 1942, I believe that Boomerang can be considered an ingenious design.
This thing could have been a contender with the Martin Baker MB-5. Too late and I guess we’ll never know, but by then good minds in aviation led to similar conclusions.
Yeah it would of been. The two aircraft seem to share similar storylines. Exactly. For example the air intake was put under the cockpit not because it was copying the P-51, but because it was the most efficient place to put it.
@@AntiqueAirshow It wasn't the air intake, it was the radiator. It is interesting that the P-51, MB-5, and CA-15 all used that configuration for cooling. I wonder if the MB-5 and CA-15 were also designed to take advantage of the Meredith Effect.
Saw my apologies you are correct. I would believe that the P-51, MB-5 and CA-15 were all trying to take advantage of the Meredith Effect. It would make sense as it allowed them to find additional thrust. It was the most efficient place to put the radiator.
While it is interesting, and I do understand how the Aussie's want to have a sense of pride about it, not sure how any of the claims are substantiated about it being anywhere near the performance of the 51s coming out at the time. I mean are we comparing it to the P-51H that was in production at this time? Or is it being compared with the hand me downs of 42? Why would they have built it around a 2600 when the 2800 was in full blown production for a while at that point, quite a bit later in its development? What is the use? I mean generally the break through that the griffon gave was in support to the higher altitude bomber formations. Is that a task they were trying to match or improve on? by that time the Allyson power plant had caught up in that area but still had outperformed the Griff at much lower alt. The Prop in the pic also shows much less efficient earlier design, issues they had already addressed by that point. Too bad that we didn't live in more of an age of information. technology incremental improvement looks clear in hindsight but back then especially due to issues with lend lease with Russia being copied we always had a huge jump up from what we we handing to others, naturally.
I like it though, it had to keep at it to be self sufficient and while they wouldn't have had it right then, it is possible in time they could have been close to at least defending themselves with numerical superiority. Truth is, as we know now the technology was well ahead of this already albeit it had to be made efficient and the amount of time money and flesh paid into where it went, it is for the best that most countries stopped what they were doing at any given point, I am not even sure the US should have so insanely persued like it did, the apex of technologies alone. Glad that we have tried working together moreso these days albeit we wont really ever know what is top secret. Hard to compare it though.
I look back on this video, and there a definitely claims that I perhaps lacked the research to support. Since then I have looked at a lot more resources and even archival documents about the CA-15. I hope to make a revised video soon.
It definitely struggles to compare to the P-51H. However for Australia they were using the P-51D as well as manufacturing it. So the best comparison for the RAAF would be between a P-51D it was designed on replacing. Australia as far as I'm aware never got P-51Hs. Here it seems to have improved performance. I'm not sure why the Griffon was chosen. I have read documents saying why, but don't have them on hand and can't remember. Possibly had to do with the R-2800 not being readily available or the Americans not giving Australia access.
In terms of the role it was meant to play the government didn't even really seem to know. Again I can't quite remember the documents, but there was a bit of discussion around whether it should be a medium altitude fighter or a long range escort plane or a ground attack aircraft.
I hope this clear things up, although apologies about the lack of clarification on some points. It has been a while since I've done any serious reading on the CA-15. I hope to clear much of this up in my revised video.
I think the design is quite an achievement for Australia. It is hard to think only a decade earlier Australia's aircraft manufacturing industry essentially didn't exist. Even though it may not have been top of line, it showed what Australia was capable of. 👍✈️
@@AntiqueAirshow I agree, quite the accomplishment, and rather important for the country, glad to see what was accomplished! I look forward to the next video, thanks!
Given the situations really something had to be done, which had the war turned for the worse I am sure it would have been alot further than it was, with whatever engine you could muster.
Kind of like the AC tank, it is still on a M1 chassis, with no more than a Matilda gun, not sure why it would be compared to anything that it would have had to face at that point as it was old technology at that time, but certainly quite an achievement nonetheless. What is best about these kinds of things the different perspective solving issues a lot of times made even the top of the line vehicles even better in little ways.
A lot of brilliance in the land down under for sure!
So many brilliant designs in aviation, car industry, medicine and the film industry seem to have been scuttled by our own people and various guv’ments. Australia, may be a small country but we are giants in design and doing what the world needs but .....?
Well, well: I had never heard of this apparently excellent plane. A great shame a unique example was scrapped.
Big question: what happened to CAC?
It is, but that is way many of these type of programs went. CAC's history is an interesting one. Post-war it continued manufacturing aircraft, including the F-86 Sabre (however powered by the Rolls Royce Avon engine), the CAC Winjeel (designed and built by CAC), components of the Mirage III, and the Aermacchi MB-326. The Bell Kiowa was also built under license. Eventually though the CAC was bought out by Hawker de Havilland in 1985 and renamed Hawker de Havilland Victoria. This company was then bought by Boeing in 2000.
It clearly took a number of design cues from the P-51, but the mating of the Griffin engine was actually a stroke of genius.
Too bad that development was delayed for so long. This would have been a very good fighter, especially against the Japanese in the latter half of the Pacific war, depending of course on the range it could operate in.
Pretty good high altitude performance and incredible range is what made the P-51 the success it was. And that was due to the Packard built Merlin engine.
It had influence from a number of aircraft including the P-51 and the Focke Wulf Fw 190. It was specifically designed to fight in the Pacific War, and the RAAF website states that it had a range of about 1,000nm without drop tanks. With design and development, I believe it would of been a very capable fighter.
Here's something interesting in regards to the high-altitude performance. In the last few weeks I've been reading archival documents on the CA-15 and it seems that in around 1943/44/45 there was a lot of debate whether it should be a medium-high altitude fighter or a medium-low altitude fighter. By what I've read, it seems that it was recognised with the specific example of the P-40 that altitude performance above 25,000 was critical to fighting the Japanese.
Yellow P in a yellow circle. I have never seen one in the flesh.
The last aircraft to have one in Australia was the Sabre.
It's at Point Cook museum
It's sexy plane no doubt (sounds like engine games played)?
Around 25 years ago I was told by a close (retired SQLDR) friend of my old man that he witnessed two(2) CA-15 airframes being scrapped. I was also told the year & location ...but I'm afraid I don't remember the details. Sadly, both my old man's and his friend's birth certificates expired long ago ...so phoning them is a little tricky.
Does anyone have any knowledge of a second airframe and it's fate?
That is a really interesting story.
I've conducted some research and unfortunately so far have found no record of a second air frame. The original prototype was scrapped at No. 1 Aircraft Depot (RAAF) at Laverton, so my best guess would be that was were the second air frame went as well. If I find anything I will let you know
👍✈✈
@@AntiqueAirshow It's sitting in Wagga.
Interesting
@@PatrickJWenzel Thanks Patrick. Is it on the base?
In the early 90s, I did my atpl with Noel Lamont, in Victoria. The course was worth it for the war stories. However I recall his story on the CA-15. There were two prototypes . One was severely damaged with a supercharger failure and gear up at Laverton ( the then hq of test and ferry sqn). The second was put into storage at RAAF Tottenham until several years later it was moved to RAAF Sale as an instructional airframe. Apparently it got as far as around Bunip, because the low loader couldn’t get up the incline on the princes hwy and a second truck as sent to push. The plane never arrived and the story was that the driver of the original RAAF truck was de mobbed shortly later with family around the Heyfield area.
you dont scrap a plane like that you put it in a museum
You would think? I mean it is in many regards the pinnacle of aircraft designs in Australia. It is worth saving, but oh well after World War Two scrapping seemed to be very popular with aircraft. The original drawings are still around in the archives which means it isn't impossible for a flying example to appear again.
Cool plane, I’m guessing production could not meet demand
Yep pretty much. In 1943 it was easier, more efficient and cheaper to build P-51s rather than develop the CA-15
Need this in warthunder
Reminds me of a Westland Wyvern....
I've never heard about the Wyvern, but a quick google and I can see what you mean
It has a sort of Mustang and Thunderbolt bastard love child look to it.
This plane was going to be better then the p51 in 1943 and better then the meteor and me262 in 1946 testing
Yep it was going to be. Its performance was superior to that of the P-51D Mustangs. Also with the intended upgraded Rolls Royce Griffon, who knows how much better it would been.
@@AntiqueAirshow i hate my countries politicians and gutless staff officers that don't push our politicians for self reliance in defence!
They only built one prototype and it was defeated by the up coming jets like the Vampire and Meteor
yep, just like most piston engine fighters
Wouldn't it be great if someone with a Mustang had it rebuilt to look like that?
Believe it or not you wouldn't need to modify a Mustang. All the original drawings of the aircraft are around, along with a Griffon engine meaning it would probably be more practicable to build one from scratch and the original drawings. There are a few groups trying to do this, including one that I've set up which is currently just a Facebook group and still very early on in the process and might not go anywhere, but it is a start: facebook.com/groups/ca15restorationrebuild
Did any CAC designed aircraft during WWII record any enemy kills?
Wirraway A20-103 found itself in real action on 26th December 1942 at Buna PNG whilst flying on a reconnaissance and artillery spotting mission flown by Pilot Officer (PO) J S Archer and Sergeant Coulston as observer/ rear gunner when it was able to position itself into a suitable front quarter attack position on a Japanese aircraft (at first reported as a Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero but later confirmed to be a Nakajima Ki-43-II Hayabusa ‘Oscar’ of the 11th Sentai). Given that the Wirraway was in the right place and at the right time Archer fired a relatively long 5 second burst from the aircrafts two forward firing 0.303 in. Vickers Mk V machine guns which proved sufficient to shoot down the Japanese fighter which crashed into the sea in flames - the “kill” confirmed by Sergeant Coulston
Douglas MacArthur relegated the Australian Air Force to mop up duties so that the Yanks could take all the glory of the win over Japan.
So R.A.A.F. pilots didn't get a hell of a lot of opportunities to engage in airiel battles.
Clive Caldwell is our highest scoring ace being the most successful pilot in a P-40 Thomahawk in the World with 13.5 victories but when he returned to Australia he flew Mk.V and Mk.VIII Spitfires to 28.5 victories
That particular Wirraway I believe is/was on display at the Australian War Memorial. Of all aircraft to shoot down a Japanese fighter, hard to believe it was the Wirraway.
The boomerang saw one or two little bits of action against Japanese bombers, but never did much damage due to guns jamming or not having enough speed.
@@AntiqueAirshow . Yes, it's at the War Memorial
@@AntiqueAirshow Thank you for the info.
Can we get one in 1/72 scale please??? thanks......
I have seen a resin kit 1:72 for sale at a model show but can’t remember the brand. So there is one around.
Czech Master Resins make a 1/72 kit according to Prof Google, but I can't find one anywhere. It's a pity as the kit looks very good. www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Rev6/5401-5500/rev5465-CMR-5070/00.shtm
Shame it was scraped
Yeah it is, but like all piston aircraft the jet age took over and ended their career. ✈️✈️
mum worked there!
That's really interesting 👍✈
Has a touch of the Martin Baker about it.
Yeah it does. Don't know much about the Martin Baker, but seems these two shared many similarities in their storyline
So sad it was so good looking
Yeah agree. Would be great to see one
Nice video, but you are showing pictures of a Merlin engine @2:38 and not a Griffon.
Thanks and my apologies. I try my best to get the correct images, but sometimes little things like this sneak through. Thanks for pointing it out and I'll try to ensure it doesn't happen again.
By the end of the war, the RAAF was the 4th-largest air force in the world.
Highlights just how far Australia and its aviation industry had come in such a short time.
I don't believe for one minute that P&W had any intention of providing Australia with any engine, just stall tactics to kill off any possible competition. The P&W R2800 Double wasp was the same as in the Corsair which we had, should have just grabbed an engine out of that and cloned it.
weren't our home made P51s of a better quality and performance to that of the US made versions? or was the the C5?
To be honest I'm not too sure. The first examples from CAC were imported P-51Ds and the first models built by CAC were P51-Ds, thus they would of been of the same quality and performance. Later CAC models with improved engines may of been better, however I am unsure.
@@AntiqueAirshow Thanks mate, I do recall just before we changed to the F86, the CAC P51s were at the top of the game before they were discontinued, pitty we don't have any flying now. keep up the good work.
@@kevinwilliams287 Yeah, I've heard similar. We actually have quite a few CAC Mustangs flying around Australia appearing at various airshows. Thanks👍👍✈
No, they were of similar performance but our Sabre was far superior to what the Yanks had because of the larger Rolls Royce Avon engine
They could have used the RR Crecy . UUUUÄÄÄÄHH!!
Looks like someone stole the plans for the P-51 Mustang
What a shame the RAAF did not have them over New Guinea and Darwin in 1942. On the issue of 'scrapping' experimental aircraft like the CA-15 or the MB5, it must be remembered that Australia, UK and USA etc were entering into the Cold War and there was 'a red under every bed'. Scrapping experimental aircraft was a means of keeping the designs and technology out of the hands of potential enemies.
The Woomera?
The Woomera was a different aircraft. It was a prototype bomber designed during the war. Again though, like the CA-15 it didn't go into service.
The history of Woomera Bomber can be found here: th-cam.com/video/CzHtrCxYWws/w-d-xo.html
What a shame that they scrapped it.
Indeed it is
Add to Warthunder!!!!
We've so many good Australian aircraft killed off or simply forgotten. The Wamira was scrapped after $79M and never even got to fly! Then there's the Southern Cross 1 up at Toowoomba..... a few mods and the basic design could have been used instead of developing the Wamira?
Oh no. I've near heard of the Wamira, but I'll definitely read up on it. Seems a waste.
@@AntiqueAirshow A beautiful little plane, I was the expediter looking after the main and nose undercarriage components at Hawker de havilland (Aust) at Bankstown. Specs kept changing and so costs went through the roof so we bought the Pilatus which then had to be modified!
@@JohnWilliams-iw6oq very interesting. Yeah ok, that's unfortunate.
To be honest, from what you've said in the video I can't find anything that would make it the "Pinnacle of the piston engine aircraft" by the 1946, about 450mph top speed at ehhhh, no altitude given. 450mph speed is comparable to P-51D series that started service in the 1944 and there was a lot of aircraft much faster than 51D, like the Ta-152H with about 470 mph top speed, the P-51H with it's 487mph top speed or XP-47J with outstanding 505mph top speed.
Pleasant and uncomplicated to fly? Please
Armament of 6 .50 cals and payload of two bombs or ten rockets, hmm where have I heard that before? Oh, right THE MUSTANG, aircraft it was supposed to replace.
450mph was achieved at roughly 26,500ft. In a dive from 9,000ft , levelling out 4,000ft in managed to even reach 502.2 mph. Yes this wasn't necessarily the fastest of its time, but then it never got pass prototype stage. The Rolls Royce engine it flew with was also never the engine it was intended to fly with. A more powerful Rolls Royce Griffon was wanted, but never ended up being developed by R.R. Australia manufactured P-51Ds, so by the end of the war when the objective of the CA-15 program became to replace Mustangs in RAAF service, it had better performance than the RAAF P-51s.
How was it to fly? This is a quote from Australian test pilot John Miles. Miles flew everything from Beaufighters, Mustangs, Kittyhawks, Spitfires and Lightings to name a few. He also flew the CA-15 and wrote “I must say that it is the finest fighter aircraft with piston type engine I have ever flown. This includes the Spitfire up to mk 8 (I later flew the Spitfire MK 35), the Typhoon, the Tempest, the Kittyhawk types E and N, the Thunderbolt, the Lightning and the Mustang. The CA-15 had a top speed in level flight of 450 MPH and a range of over 2500 miles. Its handling characteristics were delightful and the performance exceeded that of the Mustang.” Page 116, TESTING TIME, John Miles & John Pescott, 1979, Rowick Printers
It wasn't necessarily the best aircraft, but one of the few aircraft that made up the pinnacle of the piston aircraft. Also important to note that it was a completely different design to the Mustang and it is coincidence that they look alike. The CA-15 looked very different at first, until the engine was changed multiply times.
apologies for the long reply. I hope it was helpful though in answering the question.
@@AntiqueAirshow P-51D and P-51B performance relied heavily on the fuel they were using. Top speed could vary from 708kph for P-51D-5 running 67hg of manifold pressure, to over 730kph for RAF Mustang III running 81hg. I don't know anything about engine settings of Australian P-51s so it could be that they were in fact slower. But I doubt that CA-15 would beat RAF Mk IIIs and IVs or that it could go as far as any P-51.
And still in my book CA-15 is a curiosity at best. Sorry but I think you might be a bit biased towards it, because as for an aircraft that came out in 1946 it really wasn't anything special. It could be an achievement for Australia, but it's not some forgotten gem of aircraft design.
The RAAF technical data of Australian built Mustangs and the CA-15 has the CA-15 with a greater airspeed. Anyway max speed is not the only important comparison point. The CA-15 had a far greater rate of climb at 4900ft/min than the Mustang. The P-51D could only achieve 3,200ft/min.
For Australia this was the most advance design of our homemade designs. CAC were formed in late 1930s and thus for us to be designing and building an aircraft that was very comparable to contemporary fighters was an achievement in itself. It came out in 1946, but design had started from 1943. Only one prototype was ever built, but its potential as a combat aircraft was high. The P-51 was developed to its maximum, the CA-15 never got this chance to prove itself.
@@AntiqueAirshow
"The CA-15 had a far greater rate of climb at 4900ft/min than the Mustang" That's a good rate of climb, but still it's not a showstealer. Again P-51H, beats it with 5350ft/min climb and I'm sure that P-51 was not the best climber that came before CA-15.
"The P-51 was developed to its maximum, the CA-15 never got this chance to prove itself."
Yes and no, you could say that about P-51D series, even though it could be still improved by giving it the Packard 1650-9 that P-51H recieved. But only one P-51M (basically P-51D-30 with Packard 1650-9) was ever built and I have no data on it. But P-51H was a new aircraft, sure it resembled the P-51D, but they shared almost no parts. That was a new lighter airframe with more potential. But then jet age ruined everything.
"For Australia this was the most advance design of our homemade designs. CAC were formed in late 1930s and thus for us to be designing and building an aircraft that was very comparable to contemporary fighters was an achievement in itself. [...] Only one prototype was ever built, but its potential as a combat aircraft was high"
Like I said, sure it could be an achievement for Australia, but as a successor to the P-51D, P-51H was much better choice. And I think that's going to be my conclusion on the subject.
Aa constant story of australian ingenuity coupled with pure laziness and lack of vision. I wonder what its going to take to learn that we need to be indipendant and not be dictated to.
Very true.
The current globe situation has further highlighted the need to be self reliant and independent
@@AntiqueAirshow Until the next generation of politicians and bean counters come along saying we can't afford to subsidise Australian jobs and industry and then start cutting. Sound familiar?
You would have to convince the 95% of political non-thinkers to get rid of the 2 party system.
Liberal and Labor are just puppets to the UN, who's main objective is to undermine self-reliant countries.
@@turbofan67 i tend to agree. I think our biggest mistake was floating ouf dollar under the hawke government.
That sums up the story of Australia, build something up to a global standard then trash it.
CAC = Loyal Wingman ?
Looking at it I thought it look like somebody had stuffed a Griffin in a Mustang and then change the duct underneath
Tailplane is also different and unique. They do look similar, but they are different aircraft with different stories. All scaled up a bit
Not that the P51 influenced this design
It bears more than a passing resemblance, but it would've been outrageously stupid if it hadn't. Not only was the P-51 an excellent plane, CAC were already building it. They'd have beem mad if they didn't use the existing tooling where possible.