@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I stand corrected, I checked on the Australian War Memorial site and on 26/12/42 P/O John S (jack) Archer shot down a Japanese Nakajima KI43 Hyabusa (Oscar) in his Wirraway while on patrol. Post war inquiry found the Japanese pilot had been shot through the head. Very interesting channel, keep up the good work.
What a great name for a bomber. At the end of a briefing, the C.O. could turn to his pilots and say " So, there's your target, gentlemen - go out and whack it ".
It is definitely and intriguing design, actually quite attractive from most angles, looks more like an attack aircraft as opposed to a bomber with it's tandem canopy and nose armaments/
Yes, very much an attacker and even more versatile than the beloved Beau. Note that - unlike the USAAF or Luftwaffe - there was officially no separate "attack" designation in the Commonwealth air forces at the time, i.e. such types were generally regarded as light bombers and/or heavy fighters. In fact, I believe the very first conception of the CA-4 was "twin engine dive bomber"; as such it was perhaps most similar to the Ju 88 and Pe 2, and had similar specs.
I never knew that the CA-4 was completely developed in Australia. A lot of surprising development for a nation with a limited history of aviation development. Ed thank you once again for your excellent video.
For a nation that had little industry, it is surprising that Australia managed to build military vehicles that could theoretically hold off a Japanese invasion.
@@ABrit-bt6ce Yes, interrupter cams ..but did you see where the guns were in relation to the tail .. any Zero attacking at 6 High would mean the barbet guns would be silent, with the tail in the way.. Not a good design - cursed by design.
Credit to the Aussies for effort on this. [And, a lot of other classic flying types, including even the P-51, went through some birthing pains, even under the hands of more extensive aeronautical staff and facilities.]
Hi, I live in Laverton Victoria. An outer suburb of Melbourne, and originally the regional area for a number of wartime air bases. The nearest to me is Laverton RAAF base, Which although no longer in use as an airport, remains an RAAF base for personnel. The reason mention this at all is that that the network of streets that surround the region are all named for Australian aviation legends or luminaries. Such as Wackett and Ulm etc. Regionally, the suburbs of Laverton, Werribee and Point Cook in particular were the training and testing grounds for both pilots and aircraft. As your likely aware, Australia has played an outsized historical role in the history of aircraft development etc. This is due to the immense distances of our land. An equivalent to the contiguous USA. ( not made apparent on a Mercator projection on a map or a globe.) A very large area with a miniscule and disparate population, meant that for the purposes of communication and royal mail, plus medical support caused many aircraft based services to be established. Indeed the origins of QANTAS itself, from a small aircraft shed in the middle of nowhere. I.E. Longreach Queensland; and the founding of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. RFDS.) which curiously enough even have inner city ambulance services. The development of short wave radio services were also key, and i would presume have placed us firmly in the camp of those who considered the inexorable link between aircraft and radios as a natural ideal.
I have a Vultee Valiant. I still have all the same fuel leakage problems with the wet wing. Half the 1942 military manual is how to manage the leaking fuel.
Tecnam, an Italian company that makes microlight aircraft, have had similar problems with thei 'wet wing' fuel tanks even with modern sealants and finishes. One thing not to do is use ethanol enhanced fuels like E10, the ethanol attacks the sealants and the aluminium.
One wonders if they had reigned in some of the more unusual features they would have had a winner on their hands. Surely it could have been comparable to the Russian Pe-2 or the early Beaufighter.
The problem was that the Australian aircraft industry was very small and lead times were long. Unlike Britain or the United States, it simply could not respond quickly enough to demands and the variety of engine options was simply not there. While we successfully built aircraft like the Wirraway, the Boomerang, the Beaufort, the Beaufighter and the Mosquito, we were still very reliant on supplies from our allies. While Australia was not short of talent in any department - show me a contemporary aircraft with remotely controlled barbettes - realising these ideas was by far the greatest challenge.
@@thethirdman225 My grandfather worked on those mountings and he always believed that they were an achilles heel of the design - along with the wet wing. CAC gun turret (the department he worked in) to use his words 'sweated bloody blood' to get them working and it would have been easier to design it around a normal gun turret. I think that the CA-4/11 family was a case of a nascent industry trying to do too much with too limited an experience base. It's a pity because otherwise I think we were onto a winner with that type.
They should've avoided the remote turrets, perhaps they could've choose DH's choice with the Mosquito, no defensive armament, and only two crewmemnbers, with a sostantial weight's saving. After all nose's guns were more than apt to the mission's role.
There was nothing wrong with the Sentinel; it just arrived too late. By the time it was good for production, the US was spiting out cheap & quick Shermans by the thousands, so there was no point in it.
Nice to see a photo of Fisherman's Bend, Melbourne from the war years. My Maternal Grandfather would have driven past there, daily except Sunday, on his way to catch the car ferry across the river to Spotswood and the factory of W.G.Goetz and Son's (established in West Melbourne in 1875 by my Great, Great Grandfather W.G.Goetz). They were Toolmakers and Engineers who made machinery like presses, brake presses, and sheet metal machines, all very vital equipment for a modern technological war.
The photo shown at 0:52 shows BOTH aircraft factories, at Fishermans Bend, Port Melbourne, Victoria. Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) is the lower set of buildings (slanted slightly right), while GAF (then Defence Aircraft Production, later Government Aircraft Factories) is the top set of buildings (slanted slightly left). GAF also then had a Sydney-based factory, although in the 50s all production moved to Melbourne. Both factories used the airfield behind, which today is largely covered by the Westgate bridge and its access roads. GAF is now part of Boeing Australia.
Wow! Brilliant! Fantastic! Thanks shiploads for giving this intriguing aircraft a gong. Packed quite a punch, didn't it? And all kudos to you Mr. Nash for treating CA-4 and CA-11(A23-1) to separate analysis. These airframes must really press your esoteric buttons.
Greetings from the Blue Mountains outside Sydney Australia. Thanks for another highly informative video. I was not aware of this aircraft. I am now. It was a very sleek design but time constraints seem to have pushed the development past what was technically possible for what was a embryonic indigenous aircraft industry. I do enjoy your videos immensely
This aircraft had some rather advanced features for its time. The remotely operated gun barbettes were not seen elsewhere until the mid to late war and the twin wheel undercarriage was also unusual. I've not heard of another aircraft carrying ordnance in the engine nacelles (do I stand corrected?). All this from CAC, a company that was barely 5 years old at the time. Pity about the performance issues. Anyone know if there had existed a decent Australian wind-tunnel in which this aircraft could have been tested before discovering these problems in test flights? I believe one may have been built at the time. I know that a very old, low speed wind tunnel existed in the Wooley Building at the University of Sydney when I was there in the 1970s, but CAC was based in Melbourne. Thanks for discussing this forgotten aircraft.
Looks good on paper. Doesn't quite hack it when built. Happens often, but was a good effort. Nice bit of history, thanks for the video. Looking forward to the next one.
RAAF was the FORTH LARGEST airforce in the World by 1945, and unlike all other Allies, flew aircraft entirely Australian Built. Wackett actually was first to design the ‘Wet Wing’, but sealants were not up to the Job. This aircraft is reported in Australia by the Woomera name.
Another good video Ed. Wackett had designed the Tugan Gannet small airliner before the war (the Gannets served in the RAAF throughout the war) and he had a long history of producing one-off designs for the RAAF experimental section, dating back to 1924. There was a lot of opposition in Britain to Australia setting up its own aircraft production - Led by the editorials in "The Aeroplane" magazine by the odious CG Grey, who thought the "colonies" should stick to producing agricultural goods and leave manufacturing to the "mother country". When the Wirraway was ordered, based on a US design and with a US engine, Grey's editorials were purple with rage! History was to show the Aussie's made the right choice, the "mother country" could not supply Australia in its hour of need and the Beaufort only made it into production in Australia because the Aussie's had access to American engines to power it.
Yes like throwing money at trying upgrade tiny little obsolete 60s helicopters when was was clearly required was a much larger and more modern machine........or starting with a proven French atomic submarine design but wasting years and $$$$, totally redesigning it not to be nuclear powered...... ......😀🤐what too soon?!😈😏
I know the 2nd World War brought us jet engines, portable radar and the first guided missiles, but for some reason I always see remote controlled gun turrets as the epitomy of wartime aviation development. So futuristic!
The first one at 1:36 looks so strange. It’s like they started making a large 2 engine bomber and ran out of money shortly after the wing construction but to be denied, they welded a cut down tail from a Ford Trimotor for the rest of the plane.
That's probably down to the rapid evolution of wing section profiles from WWI designs. When you use a less efficient wing, you need more of it, but you can't know it's less efficient if you have nothing to compare with, and wing designs were jealously guarded by designers and manufacturers during that period. Look at all the effort taken in examining and reverse-engineering captured planes on all sides.
@@markfergerson2145 As the video says this wing just strikes me as having a priority as fuel storage rather than flight characteristics. The root to the engine is like a brick (and a very long one at that). It's a shame they were so focused on a problem that they barely missed having a really fun plane.
Interesting question. Remotely controlled guns in the engine nacelles were also a feature of the big Vickers Windsor bomber. Other bombers have had manned turrets in the engine nacelles, for example, the Russian Petlyakov Pe-8. Bombs could be carried in the nacelles of the Martin Mariner and Marlin flying boats and some sources say there was provision for a bomb at the rear of each nacelle of the Russian Pe-2 bomber. I can't think of any other design that had both barbettes/turrets and bombs in the engine nacelles.
Another really good video! The CAC was established not just in the face of government indifference, but in spite of active discouragement. Our governments were aggressively Anglophile (British Empire and all that), and CAC was suspect because of its American connections. CAC was established with seed investment from BHP, ICI and General Motors. Australia had no auto manufacture back then, but General Motors had a presence, providing support, parts, maintenance etc for imported cars. Their presence at the inception of CAC gave it the American 'taint' our governments mistrusted. Consequently, their expertise and capacity was criminally under utilized until after Pearl Harbour.
General Motors' involvement was more than just financial. It also provided the light engineering expertise that's critical to aero manufacture. Australia had some heavy industry but we were particularly weak in light engineering. We smacked into that limitation when the Beaufort work was stupidly assigned to the new Government Aircraft Factory, an organisation drawing heavily on the resources of the New South Wales rail workshops. Because stressed skin planes are just like trains, right?
The entire Beaufort story is a case study of the deep stupidity of Australian governments in the pre-war and early-war periods. The deal relied on Britain (Bristol) providing a large proportion of parts (such as engines and undercarriage) to be assembled in Australia with other locally manufactured parts (such as the bulk of the airframe). This was bug-fucking mad, considering the whole point of building them in Oz was because we expected supply from Britain to be difficult! Of course, when the war started, Bristol were prohibited from exporting the engines and other parts (presuming they had the capacity to fill the order anyway, which is open to question), and the aussie-made Beauforts had to look elsewhere for engines. They ended up using P&W R-1830s, made under license by CAC. Strike a friggin' light!
@@Splattle101 Actually the government was very forward looking in establishing defence industries well before conflict began. But of course establishing and getting such industries productive would have been easy had we been blessed with genius' like you.
The airplane itself had good potential , but the Aussies had little experience in debugging new designs which was true of all aircraft . In the US the P-38 required 3 years to get operational the P-51 2.5 years the F4U Corsair 3.0 years and this was by more experienced manufactures . Getting the bugs out is harder than it seems .
Current experience building one training aircraft under licence. OK, lets invent a new type of bomber with several unique features. Mmm, I don't think this is going to end well...
@@IntrospectorGeneral The alternative was mentioned in this video. Namely producing a pre-existing capable design, under licence. As they were expecting war, this seems the more sensible option to me.
@@Temp0raryName That would be the Bristol Beaufort, produced by GAF which was the competitor of Wackett's CAC. Early Australian Beaufort production was seriously disrupted due to problems getting key components from the UK and that pushed the CA-4 through to prototype stage as a potential backup. I don't know that anyone apart from CAC was particularly enthusiastic about the CA-4 and the approvals to proceed occured without much reference to the RAAF.
I think more could be said about the supposed sabotage of the hydraulics. Im kind of assuming it was BS to cover engineering failures but was the sabotage ever confirmed?
Seems to me it was more of a "hurry up and get it into the air" issue. Normal precautions like blowing out the lines before installing them were skipped.
This was not a bad design, and given the necessary development time, might just have proven its worth. Timing was against this AND the Beaufort (a damned fine aircraft in its own right) was further along in development ...so...! It reminds me, in a way, of the Westland Whirlwind. Not in any similarity of design but because the timing of its development ran afoul of other more advanced developments.
Re the map of Australia - Interesting - Hergott Springs, just as one example, was renamed Maree (Indigenous language _ place of many possums ?) in 1883. Although this was the official name; Hergott Springs was used until World War I, when it was dropped in 1918 as a result of the ill feeling towards Germany and German migrants in South Australia. Many of the other Outback sites on the map are now ghost towns. Where did you find it? Great video BTW ! PS Wirraway - (an Aboriginal word meaning "challenge")
My first question was: engine availability. If those Wasp engines were not being built in Australia, then that means they were being imported, presumably from the US or UK. If that was true, then the rational behind a unique homegrown aircraft loses a lot of its validity.
Ok, I have listened repeatedly, and I still can't understand this. The landing gear would not come down due to sabotage, because large amounts of "swolf" (?) were in the hydraulic lines. What the hell is "swolf"? Or can somebody tell me what that word actually is, if it is something different?
@@toolmaker9411 Aaaaahhh, thank you! And if it is material left over from machining, I wonder what evidenced that to be sabotage rather than a manufacturing error? I must assume there was some sort of quality control process that made it not possible to be there unless it was intentionally placed.
I thought Ed has bitten on his tongue while saying "whool". As I understand by the answer of Tool Maker, the word is "swarf" (and I've never heard of that one either ...). Would this be metal flakes or chips ?
'Swarf' - fine metal particles produced during machining operations. Depending on material and operation it can vary from fine dust to corkscrew like curls. It would certainly destroy any seals in a hydraulic system and score or scratch moving parts.
Only in Australia, Woomera is an Aboriginal word loosely translated as weapon launcher. I worked in an office that, pre-war, was where Wing Commander Wackett built the Codock plane for Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith.
A great little video unfortunately these Australia aircraft were rubbish no match for the mighty Japanese airforce better of with the great aircraft from the USA.
Whilst I can understand each and every nation trying to build up their own aviation manufacturing capacity, alas it seems Australia and so many others reached too far. They also spent/wasted to much money in trying and failing to duplicate the tech and industrial capacity of much larger nations. Lesson learned, ignore purely emotional nationalistic impulses and buy good proven aircraft from friendly nation states.
More complicated than you think. We'd have needed a new production line for the Merlin engine, complete with all the machinery, tooling and skilled machinists/technicians to do so; and they'd have to be sourced and trained. And we don't have the types of timber used in the airframe, so that would have to be imported as well; assuming again that we had enough people with the right skills to build it. Local timber alternatives would require extensive testing for suitability.
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6lZ6b3_7Vo/mqdefault.jpg)
7.20 is a CA-11. My bad.
Super thanks Ed
would like to see a video for the CAC Wirraway, shot down a Zero I believe.
@@johnstirling6597 Ki 43 i think it was. And yes, will do one day.
No worries many channels make mistakes with images like its perfectly ok
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I stand corrected, I checked on the Australian War Memorial site and on 26/12/42 P/O John S (jack) Archer shot down a Japanese Nakajima KI43 Hyabusa (Oscar) in his Wirraway while on patrol. Post war inquiry found the Japanese pilot had been shot through the head. Very interesting channel, keep up the good work.
What a great name for a bomber. At the end of a briefing, the C.O. could turn to his pilots and say " So, there's your target, gentlemen - go out and whack it ".
LOVE that you cover all these rarer aircraft. This channel is a must watch for me now.
You deserve more subs!
;) thanks
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I have an set of aircraft encyclopedia, 18 books in total and even I haven't heard of some of these.
Good work Sir!
These 'niche' equipment videos are mind-expanding! 👍
Ed Nash is the Gun Jesus of military aircraft.
It is definitely and intriguing design, actually quite attractive from most angles, looks more like an attack aircraft as opposed to a bomber with it's tandem canopy and nose armaments/
Yes, very much an attacker and even more versatile than the beloved Beau. Note that - unlike the USAAF or Luftwaffe - there was officially no separate "attack" designation in the Commonwealth air forces at the time, i.e. such types were generally regarded as light bombers and/or heavy fighters. In fact, I believe the very first conception of the CA-4 was "twin engine dive bomber"; as such it was perhaps most similar to the Ju 88 and Pe 2, and had similar specs.
As an Australian, I love when you cover our history. And all others
I never knew that the CA-4 was completely developed in Australia. A lot of surprising development for a nation with a limited history of aviation development. Ed thank you once again for your
excellent video.
For a nation that had little industry, it is surprising that Australia managed to build military vehicles that could theoretically hold off a Japanese invasion.
I could see those rear facing guns shooting off the tail in quick order .. public servants in action.
@@RemusKingOfRome Cams and stuff to make arcs of fire out of bounds.
@@ABrit-bt6ce Yes, interrupter cams ..but did you see where the guns were in relation to the tail .. any Zero attacking at 6 High would mean the barbet guns would be silent, with the tail in the way.. Not a good design - cursed by design.
Credit to the Aussies for effort on this. [And, a lot of other classic flying types, including even the P-51, went through some birthing pains, even under the hands of more extensive aeronautical staff and facilities.]
Love how you find all these forgotten War Birds.
Hi, I live in Laverton Victoria. An outer suburb of Melbourne, and originally the regional area for a number of wartime air bases. The nearest to me is Laverton RAAF base, Which although no longer in use as an airport, remains an RAAF base for personnel. The reason mention this at all is that that the network of streets that surround the region are all named for Australian aviation legends or luminaries. Such as Wackett and Ulm etc. Regionally, the suburbs of Laverton, Werribee and Point Cook in particular were the training and testing grounds for both pilots and aircraft. As your likely aware, Australia has played an outsized historical role in the history of aircraft development etc. This is due to the immense distances of our land. An equivalent to the contiguous USA. ( not made apparent on a Mercator projection on a map or a globe.) A very large area with a miniscule and disparate population, meant that for the purposes of communication and royal mail, plus medical support caused many aircraft based services to be established. Indeed the origins of QANTAS itself, from a small aircraft shed in the middle of nowhere. I.E. Longreach Queensland; and the founding of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. RFDS.) which curiously enough even have inner city ambulance services. The development of short wave radio services were also key, and i would presume have placed us firmly in the camp of those who considered the inexorable link between aircraft and radios as a natural ideal.
I think a video on the Akron class airships would be interesting
Great to hear about aircraft that are not "mainstream". Very informative - thank you, Ed.
I have a Vultee Valiant. I still have all the same fuel leakage problems with the wet wing. Half the 1942 military manual is how to manage the leaking fuel.
Tecnam, an Italian company that makes microlight aircraft, have had similar problems with thei 'wet wing' fuel tanks even with modern sealants and finishes. One thing not to do is use ethanol enhanced fuels like E10, the ethanol attacks the sealants and the aluminium.
One wonders if they had reigned in some of the more unusual features they would have had a winner on their hands. Surely it could have been comparable to the Russian Pe-2 or the early Beaufighter.
The problem was that the Australian aircraft industry was very small and lead times were long. Unlike Britain or the United States, it simply could not respond quickly enough to demands and the variety of engine options was simply not there. While we successfully built aircraft like the Wirraway, the Boomerang, the Beaufort, the Beaufighter and the Mosquito, we were still very reliant on supplies from our allies. While Australia was not short of talent in any department - show me a contemporary aircraft with remotely controlled barbettes - realising these ideas was by far the greatest challenge.
@@thethirdman225 My grandfather worked on those mountings and he always believed that they were an achilles heel of the design - along with the wet wing. CAC gun turret (the department he worked in) to use his words 'sweated bloody blood' to get them working and it would have been easier to design it around a normal gun turret. I think that the CA-4/11 family was a case of a nascent industry trying to do too much with too limited an experience base. It's a pity because otherwise I think we were onto a winner with that type.
@@thethirdman225 The design team at CAC could give Germany's Wunderwaffe teams a real run for their money.
They should've avoided the remote turrets, perhaps they could've choose DH's choice with the Mosquito, no defensive armament, and only two crewmemnbers, with a sostantial weight's saving. After all nose's guns were more than apt to the mission's role.
@@alessiodecarolis That's easy to say with hindsight.
Ed Nash and Armoured archives uploading within an hour of each other is always a treat.
I'm in good company apparantly :)
Ok it did not work out as well as planed,
but it's still more successfull then the Kiwis tank programm
There was nothing wrong with the Sentinel; it just arrived too late. By the time it was good for production, the US was spiting out cheap & quick Shermans by the thousands, so there was no point in it.
@@jlvfr Kiwis refers to New Zealanders
@@haroldgodwinson832 I confess, i'm evil
@@comentedonakeyboard ooh crud! I completely misread that, lol! Still, "Bob Semple" ftw!
@@jlvfr Bingo!
Nice to see a photo of Fisherman's Bend, Melbourne from the war years. My Maternal Grandfather would have driven past there, daily except Sunday, on his way to catch the car ferry across the river to Spotswood and the factory of W.G.Goetz and Son's (established in West Melbourne in 1875 by my Great, Great Grandfather W.G.Goetz). They were Toolmakers and Engineers who made machinery like presses, brake presses, and sheet metal machines, all very vital equipment for a modern technological war.
The photo shown at 0:52 shows BOTH aircraft factories, at Fishermans Bend, Port Melbourne, Victoria. Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) is the lower set of buildings (slanted slightly right), while GAF (then Defence Aircraft Production, later Government Aircraft Factories) is the top set of buildings (slanted slightly left). GAF also then had a Sydney-based factory, although in the 50s all production moved to Melbourne. Both factories used the airfield behind, which today is largely covered by the Westgate bridge and its access roads. GAF is now part of Boeing Australia.
Good on the Aussies, designed and built some lovely aircraft. Fair play sport.
I feel this airplane had lots of potential but the designers didn't have he latitude to work out the bugs.
I would so very love to see the Wackett and Woomera in War Thunder.
I would love to see them in IL2 Sturmovik .... but .. next hope, FS2020.
Wow! Brilliant! Fantastic! Thanks shiploads for giving this intriguing aircraft a gong. Packed quite a punch, didn't it? And all kudos to you Mr. Nash for treating CA-4 and CA-11(A23-1) to separate analysis. These airframes must really press your esoteric buttons.
Greetings from the Blue Mountains outside Sydney Australia. Thanks for another highly informative video. I was not aware of this aircraft. I am now. It was a very sleek design but time constraints seem to have pushed the development past what was technically possible for what was a embryonic indigenous aircraft industry. I do enjoy your videos immensely
I've been really hoping you would cover this - thanks so ever much.
Great idea covering this aircraft. I like very much the look :)
This aircraft had some rather advanced features for its time. The remotely operated gun barbettes were not seen elsewhere until the mid to late war and the twin wheel undercarriage was also unusual. I've not heard of another aircraft carrying ordnance in the engine nacelles (do I stand corrected?). All this from CAC, a company that was barely 5 years old at the time. Pity about the performance issues. Anyone know if there had existed a decent Australian wind-tunnel in which this aircraft could have been tested before discovering these problems in test flights? I believe one may have been built at the time. I know that a very old, low speed wind tunnel existed in the Wooley Building at the University of Sydney when I was there in the 1970s, but CAC was based in Melbourne.
Thanks for discussing this forgotten aircraft.
Another gem - looking forward to the next episode!
Looks good on paper. Doesn't quite hack it when built. Happens often, but was a good effort.
Nice bit of history, thanks for the video. Looking forward to the next one.
RAAF was the FORTH LARGEST airforce in the World by 1945, and unlike all other Allies, flew aircraft entirely Australian Built.
Wackett actually was first to design the ‘Wet Wing’, but sealants were not up to the Job. This aircraft is reported in Australia by the Woomera name.
Excluding the Catalina.
Another good video Ed. Wackett had designed the Tugan Gannet small airliner before the war (the Gannets served in the RAAF throughout the war) and he had a long history of producing one-off designs for the RAAF experimental section, dating back to 1924. There was a lot of opposition in Britain to Australia setting up its own aircraft production - Led by the editorials in "The Aeroplane" magazine by the odious CG Grey, who thought the "colonies" should stick to producing agricultural goods and leave manufacturing to the "mother country". When the Wirraway was ordered, based on a US design and with a US engine, Grey's editorials were purple with rage! History was to show the Aussie's made the right choice, the "mother country" could not supply Australia in its hour of need and the Beaufort only made it into production in Australia because the Aussie's had access to American engines to power it.
Turgan Gannet! - One of the few airliners to have a cocktail named after it!
Yes but those nominally American engines were built here in Australia.
@@thethirdman225 Yes, good point.
The Americans weren't too keen on Australia developing it's defence industries too. The Sentinel tank is an excellent example of that.
I see a Bristol beaufighter tail there.
“For Australian Conditions” is a common excuse for a lot of off the wall projects.
This. And it goes on and on even today.
Yes like throwing money at trying upgrade tiny little obsolete 60s helicopters when was was clearly required was a much larger and more modern machine........or starting with a proven French atomic submarine design but wasting years and $$$$, totally redesigning it not to be nuclear powered......
......😀🤐what too soon?!😈😏
That's what happens when you're literally a world away from all other designers, plus the "let's go with home-made designs" mentality.
Interesting. Love your videos.
Sir Lawrence Wackett was an incredible chap . His innovations during WW1 earned him a DFC .
Sir Lawrence Whackett. Is that an order?
The Wackett and Woomera fuselage looked like the Nakajima Ki48-II "Lily" bomber.
Good to see you down here again, Ed. Liked and commented.
I know the 2nd World War brought us jet engines, portable radar and the first guided missiles, but for some reason I always see remote controlled gun turrets as the epitomy of wartime aviation development. So futuristic!
IIRC they were done in Naval applications at the time, so why not on airplanes too? Might have been a technical overreach but still not a bad idea.
Great to have you covering the interesting and sometimes unusual designs produced in Australia Ed. Top video, as always.
Brilliant show and very accurate Ed. 🇦🇺
A late discovery. Much appreciated.
At least these aircrafts give to the Aussies some experience in advanced factory's technology.
Love this stuff,keep it coming.
The first one at 1:36 looks so strange. It’s like they started making a large 2 engine bomber and ran out of money shortly after the wing construction but to be denied, they welded a cut down tail from a Ford Trimotor for the rest of the plane.
80 year memorial of this very crash is being held in Kilmore Victoria on May 13th, little was known of the crash at the time due wartime secrecy.
Beautiful bird.
The wingspan seems very long considering the payload and twin Wasps.
That's probably down to the rapid evolution of wing section profiles from WWI designs. When you use a less efficient wing, you need more of it, but you can't know it's less efficient if you have nothing to compare with, and wing designs were jealously guarded by designers and manufacturers during that period. Look at all the effort taken in examining and reverse-engineering captured planes on all sides.
@@markfergerson2145 As the video says this wing just strikes me as having a priority as fuel storage rather than flight characteristics. The root to the engine is like a brick (and a very long one at that). It's a shame they were so focused on a problem that they barely missed having a really fun plane.
Nice looking aircraft.
fascinating plane! Bombs and guns in the nacelles, never seen that before....Wackett the only to ever do that?
Interesting question. Remotely controlled guns in the engine nacelles were also a feature of the big Vickers Windsor bomber. Other bombers have had manned turrets in the engine nacelles, for example, the Russian Petlyakov Pe-8. Bombs could be carried in the nacelles of the Martin Mariner and Marlin flying boats and some sources say there was provision for a bomb at the rear of each nacelle of the Russian Pe-2 bomber. I can't think of any other design that had both barbettes/turrets and bombs in the engine nacelles.
@@johndell3642 thanks John, great reply & will take a gander at those. And as soon as I began reading it the Bell Airacuda came to mind too. cheers
Another really good video! The CAC was established not just in the face of government indifference, but in spite of active discouragement. Our governments were aggressively Anglophile (British Empire and all that), and CAC was suspect because of its American connections. CAC was established with seed investment from BHP, ICI and General Motors. Australia had no auto manufacture back then, but General Motors had a presence, providing support, parts, maintenance etc for imported cars. Their presence at the inception of CAC gave it the American 'taint' our governments mistrusted. Consequently, their expertise and capacity was criminally under utilized until after Pearl Harbour.
General Motors' involvement was more than just financial. It also provided the light engineering expertise that's critical to aero manufacture. Australia had some heavy industry but we were particularly weak in light engineering. We smacked into that limitation when the Beaufort work was stupidly assigned to the new Government Aircraft Factory, an organisation drawing heavily on the resources of the New South Wales rail workshops. Because stressed skin planes are just like trains, right?
The entire Beaufort story is a case study of the deep stupidity of Australian governments in the pre-war and early-war periods. The deal relied on Britain (Bristol) providing a large proportion of parts (such as engines and undercarriage) to be assembled in Australia with other locally manufactured parts (such as the bulk of the airframe). This was bug-fucking mad, considering the whole point of building them in Oz was because we expected supply from Britain to be difficult! Of course, when the war started, Bristol were prohibited from exporting the engines and other parts (presuming they had the capacity to fill the order anyway, which is open to question), and the aussie-made Beauforts had to look elsewhere for engines. They ended up using P&W R-1830s, made under license by CAC. Strike a friggin' light!
@@Splattle101 Actually the government was very forward looking in establishing defence industries well before conflict began. But of course establishing and getting such industries productive would have been easy had we been blessed with genius' like you.
@@FairladyS130 Well, that's me told, then.
It's good that you realise your limitations.
I wish we had an example here in Australia we don't have any airworthy mirage 3 nor do we have a Beaufort or beaufighter any where
Excellent!
The airplane itself had good potential , but the Aussies had little experience in debugging new designs which was true of all aircraft . In the US the P-38 required 3 years to get operational the P-51 2.5 years the F4U Corsair 3.0 years and this was by more experienced manufactures . Getting the bugs out is harder than it seems .
Current experience building one training aircraft under licence. OK, lets invent a new type of bomber with several unique features. Mmm, I don't think this is going to end well...
Given that the alternative was having to fight the Japanese with pointy sticks they were strongly motivated to take a crack at it.
@@IntrospectorGeneral The alternative was mentioned in this video. Namely producing a pre-existing capable design, under licence. As they were expecting war, this seems the more sensible option to me.
@@Temp0raryName That would be the Bristol Beaufort, produced by GAF which was the competitor of Wackett's CAC. Early Australian Beaufort production was seriously disrupted due to problems getting key components from the UK and that pushed the CA-4 through to prototype stage as a potential backup. I don't know that anyone apart from CAC was particularly enthusiastic about the CA-4 and the approvals to proceed occured without much reference to the RAAF.
it kinda looks like the baby of the Beaufort and the Potez 630
Somehow it looks like a disfigured birth of two CA-2 Wackett Trainers.
And now Australia is scrambling to get submarines...
@@k3D4rsi554maq no, previous Aussie PM was a Frenchophile .. progressive Frenchophile.
I was pointing more towards desperation to acquire weapons in the face of looming war.
@@k3D4rsi554maq nope, the Aussies had been pissed off with the lack of progress and French security failures for a long time. Easy enough to research.
@@xRepoUKx No excuse for appalling behaviour. Cancel the project. Get another spec and call for tenders.
All and all not a bad looking kite.
Where's the fridge? Can't go into combat without cool beer.
Reckon that's what the big windows were for :)
Lawrence Wackett looks more than a little bit like one of the Kray twins!
Interesting video
Anyone else feel that this would work in War Thunder as a British Premium aircraft?
EDIT: Well, either the CA-4 and/or the CA-11, I mean.
I think more could be said about the supposed sabotage of the hydraulics. Im kind of assuming it was BS to cover engineering failures but was the sabotage ever confirmed?
Seems to me it was more of a "hurry up and get it into the air" issue. Normal precautions like blowing out the lines before installing them were skipped.
I didnt onow of this one, just the 11, the Woomera. Australia designed some jets before the downfall of CAC, have you seen them?
The “ Wackett “ just sounds completely Australian !
They built Beaufort and Beaufighters at the railway workshops at chullora also a really bad tank it wins the award every time lol
Similarly at the Victorian Railways workshops at Newport and the International Harvester plant at Geelong.
@@davidmann8504 And the old CSIRO site in Highett.
Is "swarf" frequently used to sabotage hydraulic lines in Australia?
This was not a bad design, and given the necessary development time, might just have proven its worth. Timing was against this AND the Beaufort (a damned fine aircraft in its own right) was further along in development ...so...! It reminds me, in a way, of the Westland Whirlwind. Not in any similarity of design but because the timing of its development ran afoul of other more advanced developments.
Ohhhh nice
Re the map of Australia - Interesting - Hergott Springs, just as one example, was renamed Maree (Indigenous language _ place of many possums ?) in 1883. Although this was the official name; Hergott Springs was used until World War I, when it was dropped in 1918 as a result of the ill feeling towards Germany and German migrants in South Australia. Many of the other Outback sites on the map are now ghost towns. Where did you find it? Great video BTW !
PS Wirraway - (an Aboriginal word meaning "challenge")
Isn't that thumbnail a Woomera?
My first question was: engine availability. If those Wasp engines were not being built in Australia, then that means they were being imported, presumably from the US or UK. If that was true, then the rational behind a unique homegrown aircraft loses a lot of its validity.
It was licence-built in Australia during World War Two. In the video
@@benwilson6145 Must have missed it, thnx.
Do the fw190 dora
Ok, I have listened repeatedly, and I still can't understand this.
The landing gear would not come down due to sabotage, because large amounts of "swolf" (?) were in the hydraulic lines. What the hell is "swolf"? Or can somebody tell me what that word actually is, if it is something different?
The word is " Swarf" , which are particles of materials left behind from the machining process.
@@toolmaker9411
Aaaaahhh, thank you!
And if it is material left over from machining, I wonder what evidenced that to be sabotage rather than a manufacturing error? I must assume there was some sort of quality control process that made it not possible to be there unless it was intentionally placed.
I guess if one wanted to sabotage the hydraulics the best way would be to add detritus to the hydraulics reservoir.
I thought Ed has bitten on his tongue while saying "whool". As I understand by the answer of Tool Maker, the word is "swarf" (and I've never heard of that one either ...). Would this be metal flakes or chips ?
@@toolmaker9411 What ? Swarf and detritus ? For God's sake, get to a doctor, before the thing falls off ! Really, you Brits speak in tongues ...
Large amounts of what in the hydraulic lines?
Swarf - metal shavings
@@farangkinok 👍🏻 thanks
So the ca-4 was a aussie version of the betty bomber?
No.
@@JohnyG29
I think he was sarcastically referring to the fuel leak issues, and the Betty's reputation as a "one shot lighter".
"Swoff" in the fuel line? What is that?
'Swarf' - fine metal particles produced during machining operations. Depending on material and operation it can vary from fine dust to corkscrew like curls. It would certainly destroy any seals in a hydraulic system and score or scratch moving parts.
@@michaelmclachlan1650 Oh, swarf, right - got it. I do wish these Brits would learn how to speak the King's English.
Whacket and bodget
Only in Australia could one find a bomber called Whackett.
The official name was ''Woomera'' according to Wikipedia,
@@HootOwl513 Only in Australia could one find a bomber named Woomera.
Only in Australia, Woomera is an Aboriginal word loosely translated as weapon launcher.
I worked in an office that, pre-war, was where Wing Commander Wackett built the Codock plane for Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith.
@@michaelwise1224 Yes, it’s like a sling for launching a spear. Gives much increased range.
Why didn't Britain just tell them how to build a Spitfire.
At the time Australia had a very limited capacity to build anything. Britain delayed selling them the spit for a couple of years.
Litewally dwopping caca wokets :D
Do one on how you Poms stole the design from the English Electric Lightning from Australia...
Keep It Simple Stupid would have been a helpful concept.
CAC wasn’t the best acronym!
Pye Wacket > Wackett
Dose wascally wabbits cauwsing a Wackett!
"WOTA WAKKA" !! :D Some good ideas and alot of bad warped ideas, all too late .. - Public servants in action.
Private companies would have just taken the money and run.
Doesn't look better than a Beaufort.
A great little video unfortunately these Australia aircraft were rubbish no match for the mighty Japanese airforce better of with the great aircraft from the USA.
Looks like we are heading into a similar situation right now. Different leadership this time, so will probably open up a rainbow flag factory.
Too little, to late.
How to ruin your door gaskets…. Dummies
Unfortunate name for an aircraft.
Whilst I can understand each and every nation trying to build up their own aviation manufacturing capacity, alas it seems Australia and so many others reached too far. They also spent/wasted to much money in trying and failing to duplicate the tech and industrial capacity of much larger nations. Lesson learned, ignore purely emotional nationalistic impulses and buy good proven aircraft from friendly nation states.
:)
pratt and witney engines were useless
If the Aussies had the designes for the mosquito, they would have shortened the war by a year.
More complicated than you think. We'd have needed a new production line for the Merlin engine, complete with all the machinery, tooling and skilled machinists/technicians to do so; and they'd have to be sourced and trained. And we don't have the types of timber used in the airframe, so that would have to be imported as well; assuming again that we had enough people with the right skills to build it. Local timber alternatives would require extensive testing for suitability.
@@michaelmclachlan1650 indeed. Much more complicated.