Hi Guys, Check out my "I Identify as" merch. I have ordered a Typhoon mug for my workplace... I look forward to the HR chat 🙂 Let me know if i haven't included your favourite. Also as we edge towards 1000 subscriptions, a huge thank you too you all. I'm loving researching these aircraft i built models of as a kid, and gaining a deeper appreciation of our fathers and grandfathers who served. Remember, like, share, and if i missed or messed anything pop it in the chat. Cheers.
I built models as a kid too. In fact I built the Airfix Fairey Firefly, side number 245 (this marking since deleted) with a "K" on the tail, denoting it was part of the 20th CAG operating from HMAS Sydney during the Korean War. I was aircraft mad, so I joined the RAN under their apprenticeship scheme in 1975. Graduated and for a short time worked in our Fleet Air Arm museum, doing instrument and electrical tasks on their Firefly, side number 245, K on the tail. The sound of that 40 litre RR Griffon was AMAZING
@@TheWombat40 The motorcycle in my thumbnail photo is called a Wombat My father was a WWII veteran I remember driving with him past HMAS Nirimba naval airfield at Quackers Hill and him pointing out what I believe were a line Fireflys and him saying they were warplanes I suppose it was in the early 1970's and they would've been retired from HMAS Melbourne There could've been 8 to 10 of them there were also a couple of other types parked with them
I feel for you. We almost lost our aviation industry here in Canada as well when Deif the Cheif axed the Avro Arrow programme. Hell, Avro also built the world 2nd flying jet power airliner in 1949. It could of been the first, but the de Havilland Comet beat it into the air by a few weeks. Even though there was interest shown in the aircraft by US based regional airlines, the programme was ultimately cancelled, this time due to Korean War commitments. But our areospace industries never completely died, aircraft like the Beaver, the Otter, the twin Otter and the Dash series of turboprop commuter planes kept us in the game and now Airbus Industries is building the A-220 here, which is actually the CS-100 that was designed and built by Bombardier under their C-Series programme.
@@gumpyoldbugger6944 We can't even make cars in Australia anymore, we tried submarines, but they leaked, we can build ships, sometimes at huge cost pretty much everything else is imported.
Couple of points. You could have pointed out that when it first flew in 1942 it was the fastest aircraft in the world to 10,000 feet. As the only available engine was the Pratt and Whitney twin row Wasp (intended for the Beaufort) it lacked a 2 stage supercharger. The photo you show as a CA-14 is in fact the 14A. There were several reasons why the project never went ahead and one was the demand by the US that the GE turbocharger be returned. With the turbocharger the 14A had a performance similar to the Mk V Spitfire and a request was made to the US to manufacture the turbocharger under licence. This was refused and the return of the item demanded. As you probably know, the first Lockheed lightnings sent to Britain also lacked the turbos, which made then useless. The turbos were removed by order of the US govt which was keen to guard this new technology. I do know that a CA 12 or 13 got close enough to a Japanese bomber to have a shot but the guns would not fire. Down low (like really low) it could out turn any allied aircraft in use at the time. Edwards Park, in his book "Nannette" states that in play dogfights with Boomerangs it was impossible to out turn them in a P-39. Two more points - at the time Archer was believed to have shot down a Zeke but it has since been revealed that he shot down an Oscar (Nakajima Ki-43). Archer and Coulson (his observer) found themselves above and behind a pair of Oscars and launched a diving attack. They destroyed one and then got the hell out of there. It was a victory based entirely on good fortune. Fred David was considered an enemy alien and was required to report to police on a regular basis (once a week I think). He proposed designing the Boomerang on the day that news filtered through that the Repulse and Prince of Wales had been sunk off the coast of Malaya. Sending 2 ships to intercept an invasion fleet without air cover was not a very clever move and demonstrates the desperation of the time
Great into thanks. Did not know about the GE refusal. I did know about the check-in requirements (including security on site daily) but that section was running long. I will definitely read Nannette, and surprised it didn't hit my radar,. The climb rate was amazing, i should have emphasised it more. Thanks,
@@Aircraft_Files Might I humbly suggest you do a video on the abandoned CA-15 project? Shows what can be done when there is no panic. The 15 looked like a P-51 on steroids. BTW licence built P 51 was called the CA-17, just a bit of FYI there
You most certainly may, I ran across the CA-15 Kangaroo when researching Fred David. Looks like a beast, Do you have any insight why the RAAF selected the Mustang instead? To me it seemed to be a manufacture capacity issue on the engine.
@@Aircraft_Files Just don't call it the Kangaroo. Despite modern overseas modellers calling it that because it was Australian, it was never called that.
Wow !!_That is extremely interesting--my Mother used to work,at G.M.-matraville Sydney,-during the War,-she made Aircraft "drop-tanks''-& in the ''50's--Holden cars,--now-we make "eff-all"-
Well researched video. I'm a military history and aviation enthusiast (and Army pilot and historian) and I thoroughly enjoyed learning more about an aircraft of which I was always fond. Thank you for going to the trouble to make this video. I shall seek out others made by you. Cheers.
you could also look into what became known as the "Brisbane Line". A plan to withdraw back to a line passing east to west across the country through Brisbane and letting the Japanese have that. Then when the war in Europe was finished the allies would clear them out. Kind of makes sense in a pragmatic way, as all the industry etc was in the south. Defending the entire country was considered defending everything with nothing.
@@郑颍 At Boobera Lagoon, south East of Goondiwindi are the concrete footings from where a border crossing was built, further east around Tabulam you can still see the concrete anti tank crosses that were placed to stop Japanese tanks getting through, have visited Boobera many times as it used to be Goondiwindi's ski gardens with a clubhouse built on the old footings and pads. This was all removed when it became a sacred site around 2000 but concrete pads are still there apparently. Have ridden around Tabulam many times, anti tank crosses there to this day, some look more like pyramids. The old timers reakoned the line was further south, more the "Tweed Line" as that lines up with Tabulam and Boobera better and was easier to secure due to being a lot more mountainous.
Australia was fortunate that around 500 American P-40s and P-39s assembled here to ferry to the Netherlands East Indies in early 1942 ended up staying after the fall of Java. Most of them were allocated to the USAAF but some were given to the RAAF under Lend Lease. These aircraft were crucial to the defence of Darwin and New Guinea in the hands of American and Australian pilots from March 1942 onward. The availability of the P-40, in particular, made the Boomerang redundant as a fighter. Worn out Spitfires, initially promised by Churchill after the destruction of Darwin, arrived in 1943 after their diversion to North Africa but did not prove to be any more effective than the P-40.
Spitfires arriving in 1943, when the Japanese air force was basically a spent force that was incapable of defending its ships at the battle of the Bismark sea, were somehow no more effective than a P-40?? Any aircraft starts to become effective when the Japanese pilot expertise level starts to steeply decline (except for certain useless aircraft that are to slow to catch up to these less experienced Japanese pilots)
Great history of a not so successful fighter that nonetheless provided helpful air support for ground troops... The Boomerang was not a world-beater but it deserves the respect of aviation enthusiasts, for it was a substandard fighter that was pressed into service in an hour of great danger, did the job and survived.
I think you need to take another look at spitfires in Australia. Spitfires in North Australia had a number of problems with the undercarriage being too weak and narrow for dirt landing strips and did not carry enough fuel for the Pacific (a lot were lost because they ran out of fuel) and were replaced by Kittyhawks in 1942. The Supermarine Spitfire Mk VIII did not arrive in Australia until the end of the war and remained in storage {better aircraft were available by this time).
The Spitfire is a huge subject. Not sure how to approach them to be honest. I take your points, on the decision not to produce the CA-14, but i think that was more due to the decision to go to with production of the Mustang, and i should refrain from "superb" when that is a subjective opinion, and could be very situational. Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.
CAC CA15 Kangaroo, now it was rumoured that that aircraft would have been the best fighter of WW2 if it hadn't of been screwed around with it's engines. Please cover this aircraft.
@@captainsensiblejr. Test flights clocked top speeds of 495 miles per hour, and just over 500 in a shallow dive, and with a climb rate of 5570 feet per minute, the single prototype was a beast.
Thankyou that was a thorough well made video. I might add that Australia at the time did not have the industrial capacity of the UK 🇬🇧 or America 🇺🇸 but imho did the best they could with a fledgling aircraft industry.
@@navelriver I had one when I was a kid in the 1960's and I built another one about twenty five years ago but after that second one I've always said it's the most inaccurate kit Airfix ever made I could wrong about that but I think I'm right I borrowed an excellent video about Boomerangs from my local library ten or more times so I could understand what was wrong with it and the way a Boomerang actually should look and made a lot of modification under the cowling to correct that problem I also made it a pilot's seat and floor and controls and an intricate instrument panel and internal framing in the cockpit and reshape the rigid looking pilot to make him look more lively and made it a round clear disc and spinner that made it look like it had a spinning propeller that could be interchanged with the kit's static propeller and spinner But the problem I didn't notice until after I had done all that and fitted the very poorly fitting wings was the angle of the wings (the dihedral) should be much flatter than on the model and because of the way the kit is designed it would be difficult to correct You can or could get better more accurate Boomerang kits from other manufacturers in 1/72 and 1/48 scales I think one was Australian and the other might have been from Czechoslavarcia But the Airfix boxart is very nice 🤗
@@navelriver Yeah by the end it wasn't that bad I also opened up or actually added those little ventilator flaps at the back of the cowling I gave it to an old fella who was into model planes
my research shows Fred David was chief engineer on the Wackett bomber project, later known as the CA-4 Woomera. I think you are referring to the Wirraway which was the 2 seater trainer. :-)
@@Aircraft_Files CAC Wackett Trainer was the first aircraft type designed in-house by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation of Australia. The name was derived from its designer Lawrence Wackett. "In acknowledgement of the CAC Manager's enormous contribution, the RAAF were to call the aircraft the Wackett Trainer" (although often referred to as simply the Wackett)
@@Aircraft_Files The type was designed to meet RAAF Specification 3/38 for an ab initio training aircraft. It was a tandem seat fixed tailwheel-undercarriage monoplane aircraft with a fuselage of steel tube and fabric construction and wings and tail made of wood. Despite the simplicity of the design, construction of the first of two CA-2 prototypes, begun in October 1938, was not completed until September 1939 (this was partly because CAC was still building its factory during this time period). The first prototype flew for the first time on 19 September 1939 fitted with a Gipsy Major series II engine, fitted with a metal DH variable pitch propeller. The aircraft proved to be underpowered with this engine so the second prototype was fitted with a Gipsy Six, removed from a Tugan Gannet, along with its wooden propeller, prior to its first flight in early November the same year (the first prototype was subsequently also re-engined with a Gypsy Six from a Tugan Gannet).[3] Although in-flight performance was improved, the heavier engine negated any benefits to take-off performance obtained from the increased power, so the decision was made to install a 165D Warner Scarab radial engine driving a Hamilton Standard 2B20 two-bladed propeller. The two prototypes were fitted with Scarabs in mid-1940
@@MartintheTinman Ahh i see the confusion, when researching Fred David, he was working on the Wackett bomber. www.pmhps.org.au/2022/05/fred-david-designing-planes-on-the-bend/ Apologies.
An interesting Aussie aircraft, not many people know about her. If and when you move into the early jet age, can you do a bit on the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck? At one time she was the only jet powered all weather night fighter NATO had.
@@Aircraft_Files You do you mate....LOL But no, you're doing great work, tho still looking forward to hearing you voice your own narration sometime. But keep up the standards and if that means slowing down production due to research demands, then so be it. I think I can speak for most of us here that we much perfer quality over quanitity, though quantity is good too.
The main problem was, that after the Battle of Britain the UK was reluctant in releasing any more Spitfires and Hurricanes to the RAAF as they needed to rebuild and resupply the RAF as soon as it could. The RAAF already had quite a few of the U.S manufacturerd Kittyhawks/Warhawks which were quite useful at the time. The unfortunate thing with the Boomerang is that it was under powered and under gunned. It would have been more beneficial to have installed six .50 calibre machine guns instead of the four .303 guns and the near useless two hispanic guns. Just like the Kittyhawks, they were under powered and under gunned. That aircraft was a fantastic platform, it just needed a better power plant and six .50 calibre machine guns instead of the .30 calibre.
Menzies specifically told Britain that the spits which had ben ordered could be kept for British use. There are two schools of thought as toy why he did that; realistically it was more important for Britain, and secondly that Menzies had a fantasy that the Brits would toss out Churchill and appoint him, Menzies, as British PM.
Menzies did have some aspirations of being appointed to the British War Cabinet. There was reference to this in the book "Menzies and Churchill" which I read some years ago.
Not really. Unsurprising its types could not go head to head with those of mature aircraft industries in economies many times Australia's size but the aircraft it produced played an important role in training, recon, CAS, comms and logistics for Australia's armed forces. P-51 Mustangs which were a front line fighter were assembled by CAC.
I went to Toowoomba Airport to pick up a friend flying in back late 80s or 90s I think and it started raining really heavily so I ducked into a hanger which door was open and inside was a boomerang. Just sitting there…. think it was Mullumbimby ghost? Went over to it and had a good look and some girl told me not to climb on it and I asked her to marry me so all this could be hers I think she was the daughter of Guido zacolli Who owned it
I can't understand it, like with all things Australian, why this plan did not get some kind of wacky advanced prototype, ya know, they took the Sentinel tank and put a 25mm howitzer in it, this plane deserved a r2800 Pratt and Whitney turbosupercharged motor like the p47/corsairs.
A little known about Laurence Whackett was that before the war he went into partnership maintaining rest rooms in luxury hotels. Guys in monkey suits with towels over their arms sort of thing. And the companies name? Crapp and Whackett.
Yes, Boeing Ghost Bat MQ-28, a loyal wingman drone to pair with crewed fighters (F35s, maybe Hornets). First military aircraft to be built in Australia for decades.
Also with the EA-18G Growlers, P8 Poseidons and E7 Wedgetails. Pairing MQ-28s with networked aircraft with good sensor suites like F35, P8 and E7 makes sense. Those aircraft managing groups of drone fighters for escort and intercept. Conroy recently said they are interested in acquiring strike capability for the MQ-28s.
Fabulous little history of what is basically an engineering win, given the time it took to develop... Anyway, I'm off to giggle at more of the cranky coments by boomers who got exactly what they voted for. So salty! ~laughs~
A fighter what never ever shot down another aircraft. A fighter what was shot down by a friendly allied aircraft once (P-38 Lightning shot down a Boomerang by accident). An attacker/army cooperation aircraft what never had any bombs, rockets only guns. What a great success story....😂
Actually, it wasn't a P-38 but a P-39. It's mentioned in the book "Nannette" by Edwards Park. He flew P-39s in New Guinea. The pilot who did the damage also shot down a couple of Wirraways and was given the nickname "Japanese Ace" by the squadron. Sure it did not work in the intended role but then neither did the Hawker Typhoon. When your country is in danger of being invaded you do what you can. Beats sitting on your arse crying doesn't it? Don't forget nearly all our army, our navy and our aircrews were fighting in North Africa and Europe, Australia had a real struggle bringing our servicemen back to protect THEIR country. Churchill was absolutely against their return and used any measure, some rather devious, to prevent this. Nice chap, yes?
Great point on doing what you can with resources at hand, I almost included the diversion of the AIF to Burma as part of the tensions, but the timeline was not right for the video. This was interesting ( www.naa.gov.au/students-and-teachers/learning-resources/learning-resource-themes/war/world-war-ii/diversion-australian-troops-burma-draft-cablegram-prime-minister-john-curtin-winston-churchill) noticing Curtin's mention of lack of air support in Greece.
@@Aircraft_Files Indeed. Had the troops been diverted to Burma they would have landed in Rangoon just in time to surrender. Curtin also committed more troops to Singapore before the invasion. In retrospect not a wise move.
It also helps to remember in December 1941, Australia had three submachine guns - not three types, three guns. By the end of 1942, Australia had a home built equivalent to the Sherman tank armed with a 17 pounder gun (fitted 18 months later to the Sherman) and a locally redesigned version the Sten (with diecast bolt) and the Owen submachine gun in service…
Today’s political parties have killed off many industries, we will struggle to get up and running if war was to break out. No vehicle manufacturers in Australia. Do we even still have a steel industry? 😂
Yes, but generally globalisation and accountants have made us strategically vulnerable. Never mind, we’ll always be able to access our strategic petroleum reserve in the USA, won’t we? 🤦♂️
Hi Guys, Check out my "I Identify as" merch. I have ordered a Typhoon mug for my workplace... I look forward to the HR chat 🙂 Let me know if i haven't included your favourite.
Also as we edge towards 1000 subscriptions, a huge thank you too you all. I'm loving researching these aircraft i built models of as a kid, and gaining a deeper appreciation of our fathers and grandfathers who served. Remember, like, share, and if i missed or messed anything pop it in the chat.
Cheers.
I built models as a kid too. In fact I built the Airfix Fairey Firefly, side number 245 (this marking since deleted) with a "K" on the tail, denoting it was part of the 20th CAG operating from HMAS Sydney during the Korean War. I was aircraft mad, so I joined the RAN under their apprenticeship scheme in 1975. Graduated and for a short time worked in our Fleet Air Arm museum, doing instrument and electrical tasks on their Firefly, side number 245, K on the tail. The sound of that 40 litre RR Griffon was AMAZING
@@TheWombat40
The motorcycle in my thumbnail photo is called a Wombat
My father was a WWII veteran I remember driving with him past HMAS Nirimba naval airfield at Quackers Hill and him pointing out what I believe were a line Fireflys and him saying they were warplanes
I suppose it was in the early 1970's and they would've been retired from HMAS Melbourne
There could've been 8 to 10 of them there were also a couple of other types parked with them
Of course you would. Slime
Also I hope I'm wrong bc history needs to be remembered without influence. They say history is won by the victor.
And 80 years later, the lessons of the past forgotten, we have NO industry.
I feel for you. We almost lost our aviation industry here in Canada as well when Deif the Cheif axed the Avro Arrow programme.
Hell, Avro also built the world 2nd flying jet power airliner in 1949. It could of been the first, but the de Havilland Comet beat it into the air by a few weeks. Even though there was interest shown in the aircraft by US based regional airlines, the programme was ultimately cancelled, this time due to Korean War commitments.
But our areospace industries never completely died, aircraft like the Beaver, the Otter, the twin Otter and the Dash series of turboprop commuter planes kept us in the game and now Airbus Industries is building the A-220 here, which is actually the CS-100 that was designed and built by Bombardier under their C-Series programme.
Thank you "polititions,"-now we cant even make a bloody "FRYING_PAN"
@@johncaldwell-wq1hp how about a FLYING PAN?????.....😁😁😁
thank-you, thank-you....you're all too kind....I'll get me coat now and see me way out......
and we still sell iron ore etc... to our future enemy
@@gumpyoldbugger6944 We can't even make cars in Australia anymore, we tried submarines, but they leaked, we can build ships, sometimes at huge cost pretty much everything else is imported.
Couple of points. You could have pointed out that when it first flew in 1942 it was the fastest aircraft in the world to 10,000 feet. As the only available engine was the Pratt and Whitney twin row Wasp (intended for the Beaufort) it lacked a 2 stage supercharger. The photo you show as a CA-14 is in fact the 14A. There were several reasons why the project never went ahead and one was the demand by the US that the GE turbocharger be returned. With the turbocharger the 14A had a performance similar to the Mk V Spitfire and a request was made to the US to manufacture the turbocharger under licence. This was refused and the return of the item demanded. As you probably know, the first Lockheed lightnings sent to Britain also lacked the turbos, which made then useless. The turbos were removed by order of the US govt which was keen to guard this new technology. I do know that a CA 12 or 13 got close enough to a Japanese bomber to have a shot but the guns would not fire. Down low (like really low) it could out turn any allied aircraft in use at the time. Edwards Park, in his book "Nannette" states that in play dogfights with Boomerangs it was impossible to out turn them in a P-39.
Two more points - at the time Archer was believed to have shot down a Zeke but it has since been revealed that he shot down an Oscar (Nakajima Ki-43). Archer and Coulson (his observer) found themselves above and behind a pair of Oscars and launched a diving attack. They destroyed one and then got the hell out of there. It was a victory based entirely on good fortune.
Fred David was considered an enemy alien and was required to report to police on a regular basis (once a week I think). He proposed designing the Boomerang on the day that news filtered through that the Repulse and Prince of Wales had been sunk off the coast of Malaya. Sending 2 ships to intercept an invasion fleet without air cover was not a very clever move and demonstrates the desperation of the time
Great into thanks. Did not know about the GE refusal. I did know about the check-in requirements (including security on site daily) but that section was running long. I will definitely read Nannette, and surprised it didn't hit my radar,. The climb rate was amazing, i should have emphasised it more. Thanks,
@@Aircraft_Files Might I humbly suggest you do a video on the abandoned CA-15 project? Shows what can be done when there is no panic. The 15 looked like a P-51 on steroids. BTW licence built P 51 was called the CA-17, just a bit of FYI there
You most certainly may, I ran across the CA-15 Kangaroo when researching Fred David. Looks like a beast, Do you have any insight why the RAAF selected the Mustang instead? To me it seemed to be a manufacture capacity issue on the engine.
@@Aircraft_Files Just don't call it the Kangaroo. Despite modern overseas modellers calling it that because it was Australian, it was never called that.
Wow !!_That is extremely interesting--my Mother used to work,at G.M.-matraville Sydney,-during the War,-she made Aircraft "drop-tanks''-& in the ''50's--Holden cars,--now-we make "eff-all"-
Always liked the Boomerang. To my eyes a very handsome no nonsense aircraft.
CRAP!!!
"Kermit Weeks"-U.S.Plane museum thinks so too,-& has one being restored,-here in Aussie.!!
Boomerang, a beautiful and useful aircraft.
Well researched video. I'm a military history and aviation enthusiast (and Army pilot and historian) and I thoroughly enjoyed learning more about an aircraft of which I was always fond. Thank you for going to the trouble to make this video. I shall seek out others made by you. Cheers.
High praise. Thank you. I'm only just starting out, but its a labour of love
Fascinating History... my Dad flew Hurri's in Burma in a ground attack role out of Imphal
An excellent precis. I do also enjoy your measured commentary. Thank you.
Thanks Martin. A labour of love. Remember: Like early. Like often. :-)
Hmmm,did you partition the government or perhaps petition the government, think the government was whole at the time
Around 3,32
Already pinged on that fopar. 😁
Loved the pictures of the turbo version
Another great video. 3 months is an amazing turn around... Plus, Wow, never heard of the "Germany first" policy.
Glad you enjoyed it.
you could also look into what became known as the "Brisbane Line". A plan to withdraw back to a line passing east to west across the country through Brisbane and letting the Japanese have that. Then when the war in Europe was finished the allies would clear them out. Kind of makes sense in a pragmatic way, as all the industry etc was in the south. Defending the entire country was considered defending everything with nothing.
@@TheWombat40 The Brisbane line was never, repeat, never formal policy and no attempt was ever made to set it up.
@@郑颍
At Boobera Lagoon, south East of Goondiwindi are the concrete footings from where a border crossing was built, further east around Tabulam you can still see the concrete anti tank crosses that were placed to stop Japanese tanks getting through, have visited Boobera many times as it used to be Goondiwindi's ski gardens with a clubhouse built on the old footings and pads. This was all removed when it became a sacred site around 2000 but concrete pads are still there apparently. Have ridden around Tabulam many times, anti tank crosses there to this day, some look more like pyramids. The old timers reakoned the line was further south, more the "Tweed Line" as that lines up with Tabulam and Boobera better and was easier to secure due to being a lot more mountainous.
@@郑颍yea well I saw the maps as a kid.
Well informed video. Much appreciated.
Thanks for watching!
Pretty decent emergency fighter. Cheers from Canberra 🇦🇺
Australia was fortunate that around 500 American P-40s and P-39s assembled here to ferry to the Netherlands East Indies in early 1942 ended up staying after the fall of Java. Most of them were allocated to the USAAF but some were given to the RAAF under Lend Lease. These aircraft were crucial to the defence of Darwin and New Guinea in the hands of American and Australian pilots from March 1942 onward.
The availability of the P-40, in particular, made the Boomerang redundant as a fighter. Worn out Spitfires, initially promised by Churchill after the destruction of Darwin, arrived in 1943 after their diversion to North Africa but did not prove to be any more effective than the P-40.
Spitfires arriving in 1943, when the Japanese air force was basically a spent force that was incapable of defending its ships at the battle of the Bismark sea, were somehow no more effective than a P-40?? Any aircraft starts to become effective when the Japanese pilot expertise level starts to steeply decline (except for certain useless aircraft that are to slow to catch up to these less experienced Japanese pilots)
Great history of a not so successful fighter that nonetheless provided helpful air support for ground troops... The Boomerang was not a world-beater but it deserves the respect of aviation enthusiasts, for it was a substandard fighter that was pressed into service in an hour of great danger, did the job and survived.
Brilliant video. Great job.
Thank you very much!
Excellent work again!
Thanks. i can only hope to do justice to these aircraft and those behind them.
Enjoyable video, thanks.
You are most welcome.
I think you need to take another look at spitfires in Australia. Spitfires in North Australia had a number of problems with the undercarriage being too weak and narrow for dirt landing strips and did not carry enough fuel for the Pacific (a lot were lost because they ran out of fuel) and were replaced by Kittyhawks in 1942. The Supermarine Spitfire Mk VIII did not arrive in Australia until the end of the war and remained in storage {better aircraft were available by this time).
The Spitfire is a huge subject. Not sure how to approach them to be honest. I take your points, on the decision not to produce the CA-14, but i think that was more due to the decision to go to with production of the Mustang, and i should refrain from "superb" when that is a subjective opinion, and could be very situational. Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.
They are all pilot failings.
CAC CA15 Kangaroo, now it was rumoured that that aircraft would have been the best fighter of WW2 if it hadn't of been screwed around with it's engines. Please cover this aircraft.
Will add to list. Got a few requests for that today :-)
"Rumoured" is as useful as "said to be".
By whom ? Back it up with actual evidence.
@@captainsensiblejr. Test flights clocked top speeds of 495 miles per hour, and just over 500 in a shallow dive, and with a climb rate of 5570 feet per minute, the single prototype was a beast.
Excellent
Glad you enjoyed it.
Thankyou that was a thorough well made video. I might add that Australia at the time did not have the industrial capacity of the UK 🇬🇧 or America 🇺🇸 but imho did the best they could with a fledgling aircraft industry.
Glad you enjoyed it.
The historic aircraft enthusiasts have a lot to thank Airfix boxart for 🤔
Back in the late '60s I saw this Airfix plane and thought how cool it looked! I bought it as a birthday gift for a friend!
@@navelriver
I had one when I was a kid in the 1960's and I built another one about twenty five years ago but after that second one I've always said it's the most inaccurate kit Airfix ever made
I could wrong about that but I think I'm right
I borrowed an excellent video about Boomerangs from my local library ten or more times so I could understand what was wrong with it and the way a Boomerang actually should look and made a lot of modification under the cowling to correct that problem I also made it a pilot's seat and floor and controls and an intricate instrument panel and internal framing in the cockpit and reshape the rigid looking pilot to make him look more lively and made it a round clear disc and spinner that made it look like it had a spinning propeller that could be interchanged with the kit's static propeller and spinner
But the problem I didn't notice until after I had done all that and fitted the very poorly fitting wings was the angle of the wings (the dihedral) should be much flatter than on the model and because of the way the kit is designed it would be difficult to correct
You can or could get better more accurate Boomerang kits from other manufacturers in 1/72 and 1/48 scales I think one was Australian and the other might have been from Czechoslavarcia
But the Airfix boxart is very nice 🤗
@@hodaka1000 Good work!
@@navelriver
Yeah by the end it wasn't that bad I also opened up or actually added those little ventilator flaps at the back of the cowling
I gave it to an old fella who was into model planes
My husband was just published the book here in Australia via Avonmore books.
Oh post a link and I'll pin it up top.
The Bomber was the Woomera.
The Wackett was a two seat Trainer
my research shows Fred David was chief engineer on the Wackett bomber project, later known as the CA-4 Woomera. I think you are referring to the Wirraway which was the 2 seater trainer. :-)
@@Aircraft_Files CAC Wackett Trainer was the first aircraft type designed in-house by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation of Australia. The name was derived from its designer Lawrence Wackett. "In acknowledgement of the CAC Manager's enormous contribution, the RAAF were to call the aircraft the Wackett Trainer" (although often referred to as simply the Wackett)
@@Aircraft_Files The type was designed to meet RAAF Specification 3/38 for an ab initio training aircraft. It was a tandem seat fixed tailwheel-undercarriage monoplane aircraft with a fuselage of steel tube and fabric construction and wings and tail made of wood. Despite the simplicity of the design, construction of the first of two CA-2 prototypes, begun in October 1938, was not completed until September 1939 (this was partly because CAC was still building its factory during this time period). The first prototype flew for the first time on 19 September 1939 fitted with a Gipsy Major series II engine, fitted with a metal DH variable pitch propeller. The aircraft proved to be underpowered with this engine so the second prototype was fitted with a Gipsy Six, removed from a Tugan Gannet, along with its wooden propeller, prior to its first flight in early November the same year (the first prototype was subsequently also re-engined with a Gypsy Six from a Tugan Gannet).[3] Although in-flight performance was improved, the heavier engine negated any benefits to take-off performance obtained from the increased power, so the decision was made to install a 165D Warner Scarab radial engine driving a Hamilton Standard 2B20 two-bladed propeller. The two prototypes were fitted with Scarabs in mid-1940
@@MartintheTinman Ahh i see the confusion, when researching Fred David, he was working on the Wackett bomber. www.pmhps.org.au/2022/05/fred-david-designing-planes-on-the-bend/ Apologies.
This was a very interesting aircraft. I think all the 'panic fighters' are. It's a shame the CA-14 Boomerang wasn't built.
Agreed on both points.
They got turned on by the high altitude performance of the P43 lancer, but less enthusiastic about the fuel system
An interesting Aussie aircraft, not many people know about her. If and when you move into the early jet age, can you do a bit on the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck? At one time she was the only jet powered all weather night fighter NATO had.
Will do Grumpy. I will stray back into WW1 too. hang tight, it's just me and i don't want to skimp on the research.
@@Aircraft_Files You do you mate....LOL
But no, you're doing great work, tho still looking forward to hearing you voice your own narration sometime.
But keep up the standards and if that means slowing down production due to research demands, then so be it.
I think I can speak for most of us here that we much perfer quality over quanitity, though quantity is good too.
Ha.... I never knew the CAC reverse-engineered & manufactured their own cannon !
Necessity and invention and some such ;-)
Sort of reminds me of an A9X.
The main problem was, that after the Battle of Britain the UK was reluctant in releasing any more Spitfires and Hurricanes to the RAAF as they needed to rebuild and resupply the RAF as soon as it could.
The RAAF already had quite a few of the U.S manufacturerd Kittyhawks/Warhawks which were quite useful at the time. The unfortunate thing with the Boomerang is that it was under powered and under gunned. It would have been more beneficial to have installed six .50 calibre machine guns instead of the four .303 guns and the near useless two hispanic guns. Just like the Kittyhawks, they were under powered and under gunned. That aircraft was a fantastic platform, it just needed a better power plant and six .50 calibre machine guns instead of the .30 calibre.
Menzies specifically told Britain that the spits which had ben ordered could be kept for British use. There are two schools of thought as toy why he did that; realistically it was more important for Britain, and secondly that Menzies had a fantasy that the Brits would toss out Churchill and appoint him, Menzies, as British PM.
@@郑颍 yes, agree with you in the first part of your comment. But as Menzies as British PM. Hmmm, I don't think so. 🤔😖
Menzies did have some aspirations of being appointed to the British War Cabinet. There was reference to this in the book "Menzies and Churchill" which I read some years ago.
Wing was way too fat for speed. The zero made do with similar power
Are you sure about the origin of the engine for the Boomerang ? maybe the Dakota/C47 was the donor ?
Can't say I found any reference to Dakotas being cannibalised for engines. Did they?
@@Aircraft_Files Not canabalised,spare engines from stores
maybe, the only ref i could find was that they used the DAP engines.
DAP was building Beauforts, airframe, engines and props
CAC was an unfortunate sounding yet ultimately accurate acronym.
Not really. Unsurprising its types could not go head to head with those of mature aircraft industries in economies many times Australia's size but the aircraft it produced played an important role in training, recon, CAS, comms and logistics for Australia's armed forces. P-51 Mustangs which were a front line fighter were assembled by CAC.
@@overworlder and the awesome Avon sabre . Ultimately sabotaged by politics
Are any of these aircraft still in existence?
Im pretty sure there is an operational one at Temora NSW. aviationmuseum.com.au/
Suzie Q and Mullimbimby Ghost
I went to Toowoomba Airport to pick up a friend flying in back late 80s or 90s I think and it started raining really heavily so I ducked into a hanger which door was open and inside was a boomerang. Just sitting there…. think it was Mullumbimby ghost? Went over to it and had a good look and some girl told me not to climb on it and I asked her to marry me so all this could be hers I think she was the daughter of Guido zacolli Who owned it
Millingimbi Ghost. Now on static display in the RAAF Heritage Centre, Amberley, QLD after a stint in Army Aviation Museum at Oakey, QLD
I can't understand it, like with all things Australian, why this plan did not get some kind of wacky advanced prototype, ya know, they took the Sentinel tank and put a 25mm howitzer in it, this plane deserved a r2800 Pratt and Whitney turbosupercharged motor like the p47/corsairs.
They were working on the assumption that they would only have the materials already at hand. So very constrained.
Not a 25mm howitzer but a 25 pounder field gun, calibre 3.45 in (87.63 mm). This was for the AC3 variant.
A little known about Laurence Whackett was that before the war he went into partnership maintaining rest rooms in luxury hotels. Guys in monkey suits with towels over their arms sort of thing. And the companies name? Crapp and Whackett.
Fits perfectly with CAC.
The cac "kangaroo " would have been a game changer....but alas to late.
I have one request to cover it already. So on "the List" (along with everything else) 🙂
Does Australia build aircraft now?
None. In terms of fighter aircraft.
Yes, Boeing Ghost Bat MQ-28, a loyal wingman drone to pair with crewed fighters (F35s, maybe Hornets). First military aircraft to be built in Australia for decades.
Also with the EA-18G Growlers, P8 Poseidons and E7 Wedgetails. Pairing MQ-28s with networked aircraft with good sensor suites like F35, P8 and E7 makes sense. Those aircraft managing groups of drone fighters for escort and intercept.
Conroy recently said they are interested in acquiring strike capability for the MQ-28s.
Parts for the F35
they had to reverse engineer cannons after one was brought back from england to Australia
Fabulous little history of what is basically an engineering win, given the time it took to develop...
Anyway, I'm off to giggle at more of the cranky coments by boomers who got exactly what they voted for. So salty!
~laughs~
Panic is a great motivator. :-)
The Magaitinana "fighter".
4:00 NO MASK
It was a different era, most likely lead paint.
If it had a better engine, it could have been one of the great fighters of ww2
A fighter what never ever shot down another aircraft.
A fighter what was shot down by a friendly allied aircraft once (P-38 Lightning shot down a Boomerang by accident).
An attacker/army cooperation aircraft what never had any bombs, rockets only guns.
What a great success story....😂
My research showed it could\was fitted with a bomb. But could not find a record of use.
Actually, it wasn't a P-38 but a P-39. It's mentioned in the book "Nannette" by Edwards Park. He flew P-39s in New Guinea. The pilot who did the damage also shot down a couple of Wirraways and was given the nickname "Japanese Ace" by the squadron. Sure it did not work in the intended role but then neither did the Hawker Typhoon. When your country is in danger of being invaded you do what you can. Beats sitting on your arse crying doesn't it? Don't forget nearly all our army, our navy and our aircrews were fighting in North Africa and Europe, Australia had a real struggle bringing our servicemen back to protect THEIR country. Churchill was absolutely against their return and used any measure, some rather devious, to prevent this. Nice chap, yes?
Great point on doing what you can with resources at hand, I almost included the diversion of the AIF to Burma as part of the tensions, but the timeline was not right for the video. This was interesting ( www.naa.gov.au/students-and-teachers/learning-resources/learning-resource-themes/war/world-war-ii/diversion-australian-troops-burma-draft-cablegram-prime-minister-john-curtin-winston-churchill) noticing Curtin's mention of lack of air support in Greece.
@@Aircraft_Files Indeed. Had the troops been diverted to Burma they would have landed in Rangoon just in time to surrender. Curtin also committed more troops to Singapore before the invasion. In retrospect not a wise move.
It also helps to remember in December 1941, Australia had three submachine guns - not three types, three guns.
By the end of 1942, Australia had a home built equivalent to the Sherman tank armed with a 17 pounder gun (fitted 18 months later to the Sherman) and a locally redesigned version the Sten (with diecast bolt) and the Owen submachine gun in service…
Partitioned the Government, did he
LOL. As if they were not divided enough :-)
Today’s political parties have killed off many industries, we will struggle to get up and running if war was to break out.
No vehicle manufacturers in Australia.
Do we even still have a steel industry? 😂
Yes, but generally globalisation and accountants have made us strategically vulnerable. Never mind, we’ll always be able to access our strategic petroleum reserve in the USA, won’t we? 🤦♂️
@@Bakes-z4c I guess that would depend on how China blockades Australia, in hopes to stop the US.
@@Bakes-z4c That would probably depend on how China blockades Australia, to stop the US.
Just as the Americans couldn't supply us with aircraft so it will be with the submarines.