Talk:CAC Boomerang

Comparison table
I have removed it pending discussion at WT:Air. It is reproduced below: Ingoolemo talk 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft indicates that no one supports having these tables in individual articles. If they exist at all—and several users opposed their inclusion—they should be placed in a central location.  Please do not reinsert this table into the article.  Ingoolemo talk 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pages in other languages DO publish tables like this. It gives a nice comparison of contemporary aircraft. Even books about aircraft will publish a table with comperative performance figures, or air-to-air combat figures (faster than x below 10.000 feet; slower rate of roll than, etc.) Dirk P Broer 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracate statements
From the article "The twin-engined Beaufort was unsuitable as the basis of a fighter, but it did have reasonably powerful 1,200 horsepower (890 kW) Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp engines, which were being made under license in Sydney. While these engines were not particularly suited for use in fighter aircraft due to their high frontal area, they were the only high-performance engines available at the time."

Both statements are inaccurate, as other articles here within Wikipedia itself readily confirm. The Beaufort was developed into the very successful Beaufighter. Furthermore, the Twin Wasp was also used with good results in the in the F4F Wildcat. It should probably say that CAC officials did not feel they could develop a fighter from the Beaufort within the constraints of available time and resources. In the case of the latter sentence, Throughout the 30's and 40's there were debates about radial versus inline or V engines for fighters, but the fact is both configurations were considered "particularly suitable" at various times for various designs. 76.28.70.173 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Grant |  Talk  10:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Readily available material from the RAAF museum shows the CA12 design was intended for use as an interceptor, based at Australian airfields. Large scale attacks on Australia did not eventuate, and the small number of CA12s ended up being used for ground attacks in the Pacific area. The sole CA14 prototype was considered an effective high altitude interceptor, but did not go into production as it just wasn't needed. I've heard that it only took 6 weeks from the time of order to the first CA12 prototype being flown.220.244.236.107 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The first Australian designed war machine was the CA-4/11 Woomera. Two prototypes but never went into production. It was entirely local, unlike the CA-12 and CA-16.27.33.81.127 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Similar aircraft
I'm not sure that the Zero and Ki-43 really should be considered similar to the Boomerang. These aircraft were dedicated high-performance fighters while the Boomerang was a poor-performing emergency fighter. I'm rather fond of the Boomerang and think that it should be regarded as a successful aircraft, but it was anything but comparable to Japan's better fighters. --Nick Dowling 07:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you're saying Nick, but what you have to remember is that the Zero, the Ki-43 and Japanese air power in general, were not taken seriously by the Allies before the war either. (IMO, had the Zero adn Ki-43 been given the respect they deserved, the RAF would have sent a Spitfire wing to Malaya and Singapore, instead of Buffalos.) The commonality is that all of the "Similar aircaft" are small, radial-engined fighters.


 * If I can digress a bit, history has been unkind to most of them. For example, the Curtiss-Wright CW-21, which was also manufactured as a cheap, stop-gap lightweight fighter for the export market, was never even given a designation by the USAAF, USN or USMC, let alone used by them. All the same, it had a far better rate of climb than the Zero(!!!) and was equal to the Ki-43 in level speed. The CW-21 is not well-remembered because the ML-KNIL was the only air force to use them in combat, and the 17 that they had were hopelessly outnumbered. Grant  |  Talk  02:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Further to this, I discovered recently that my sister-in-law's grandfather was an RAAF mechanic with a Boomerang squadron in New Guinea. He has no doubt that it would have been a formidable fighter if the intended engine, the Wright R-2600, had been delivered on time. Grant  |  Talk  07:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wing loadings tell you much about an aircraft. Generally wing loadings increased from 20lb/sqft during the 1930s, to 65lbs/sqft by 1945. The Fw 190 proved dogfighting was a waste of time. One Fw 190 downed seven spitfires in one day using hit-and-run. The zero floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee, if you bothered to dogfight it. It had little in the way of munitions. In fact, it made a much better observation craft considering its range and altitude. These are some wind loadings. 27.33.81.127 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * CA-13          34lbs/sqft.   A hit-and-run, bomber. Poorish dogfighter.
 * Zero           22lbs/sqft            A light interceptor dogfighter.
 * CW-21          28lbs/sqft            "               "
 * Spitfire-MK2   25lbs/sqft            "               "
 * P-51D          41lbs/sqft            Long range, high speed, attacker, bomber. Very poor dogfighter.
 * Fw 190         49lbs/sqft            Goes like a rocket, very fast but only in a straight line.

Notes section
How does one alter the "Notes" section? I have an updated link for the article by Gary Sunderland referring to Fred David, but I can't see the "Notes" section if I try to edit the page. Derek B 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Derek. IOT edit the notes you need to click on the 'edit' link of the section that the note appears in. This is because notes, like inline citations, are coded as part of the prose. I hope this makes sense. Anyway let me know if you need further clarification. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Anotherclown (Mr. Clown?). I had to think very hard about that for several minutes, then it dawned on me! So I was able to correct the link (by editing the 'Development' section, where the reference was cited). Thanks for the tip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekbu (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CAC Boomerang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130429024527/http://www.anzac.dpc.wa.gov.au/TellUsYourStory/Pages/JohnCBailey.aspx to http://www.anzac.dpc.wa.gov.au/TellUsYourStory/Pages/JohnCBailey.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090914233102/http://aarg.com.au/boomerang.htm to http://www.aarg.com.au/boomerang.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)