Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: caldera on October 03, 2011, 07:43:09 PM
-
It worked for the M-18, didn't it? :D
We could always use some different airframes - especially from unrepresented countries. So it's not uber, maybe even not quite mediocre.
It sure looks like a fun little bugger. Crikey, the Finns got their little fidget, now I want mine.
(Herman Munster voice) "Gimme, gimme, gimme! I want it, I want it, I want it!" :x
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/CACBoomerang.jpg)
-
What makes it more interesting is, you may end up killing BAR in his M-18 with it. :devil
-
It worked for the M-18, didn't it? :D
Maybe it worked because Bar has some special connections :noid
-
It worked for the M-18, didn't it? :D
We could always use some different airframes - especially from unrepresented countries. So it's not uber, maybe even not quite mediocre.
It sure looks like a fun little bugger. Crikey, the Finns got their little fidget, now I want mine.
(Herman Munster voice) "Gimme, gimme, gimme! I want it, I want it, I want it!" :x
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/CACBoomerang.jpg)
Wouldnt it just be a Brewster with cannons?
If it is, then -1. sorry.
-
I wonder how many pilots burned their legs on that exhaust pipe while climbing out of the planes? :rofl
-
The only thing I know about this plane is that it's Australian and was replaced by Spit 5 (could someone confirm that 2nd part). Could you tell us something about it, not numbers what what it actually did. Did the Boomerang see any major combat? I don't mean a fight or two for HTC's requirements I mean large battles.
-
The only thing I know about this plane is that it's Australian and was replaced by Spit 5 (could someone confirm that 2nd part). Could you tell us something about it, not numbers what what it actually did. Did the Boomerang see any major combat? I don't mean a fight or two for HTC's requirements I mean large battles.
It was a stop gap measure until better airframes arrived. Any airframes for that matter Australia was looking down the barrel of a big Japanese gun. The best of Australia's military was in in Europe.
England was not really giving up any of it's top aircraft with it's battle with Germany so out of necessity Australia started making their own aircraft.
It was used in combat & was some what of a decent ground attack vehicle.
It never shot down any enemy planes for a number of reasons to slow could not climb fast enough to intercept high Japanese aircraft & system warning devices were not good enough to have advance warning to get them to altitude.
Then factor in that the Japanese lost a lot of aircraft so not a lot for this aircraft to shoot at.
A solid ground attack vehicle that was used quite a bit in the Pacific is it's claim to fame.
-
It was a stop gap measure until better airframes arrived. Any airframes for that matter Australia was looking down the barrel of a big Japanese gun. The best of Australia's military was in in Europe.
England was not really giving up any of it's top aircraft with it's battle with Germany so out of necessity Australia started making their own aircraft.
It was used in combat & was some what of a decent ground attack vehicle.
It never shot down any enemy planes for a number of reasons to slow could not climb fast enough to intercept high Japanese aircraft & system warning devices were not good enough to have advance warning to get them to altitude.
Then factor in that the Japanese lost a lot of aircraft so not a lot for this aircraft to shoot at.
A solid ground attack vehicle that was used quite a bit in the Pacific is it's claim to fame.
Thanks
In this case I'm going to have to give it a -1.
As far as you understand the Boomerang would not do very well in LW arena and we don't really need a specific air to ground only airplane especially when we have a whole bunch of fighters that can carry more ordnance. It would be a good plane to have for the EW but looking at the amount of people actually playing there I think HTC should stay focused on the LW (or at least later war airplanes than the Boomerang). Normally I say "+1 for scenarios and FSOs" but in this case this airplane would require such a specific scenario that even in special events it would almost never be used.
-
Thanks
In this case I'm going to have to give it a -1.
As far as you understand the Boomerang would not do very well in LW arena and we don't really need a specific air to ground only airplane especially when we have a whole bunch of fighters that can carry more ordnance. It would be a good plane to have for the EW but looking at the amount of people actually playing there I think HTC should stay focused on the LW (or at least later war airplanes than the Boomerang). Normally I say "+1 for scenarios and FSOs" but in this case this airplane would require such a specific scenario that even in special events it would almost never be used.
Its that king of attitude that keeps EW empty in the first place.
Its been rather filled lately. granted not the LW's 200+, but its had a steady stream of 15+ players the past few days. thats alot for EW standards.
-
Its that king of attitude that keeps EW empty in the first place.
Its been rather filled lately. granted not the LW's 200+, but its had a steady stream of 15+ players the past few days. thats alot for EW standards.
Perhaps, but if well all change out minds right now it would take a few years to have a large amount of EW planes. I don't see HTC making such a big investment towards EW.
I think the reason why we have such a large collection of LW planes right now is because 10 years ago (or when ever, was before me) majority of the people were flying LW planes. I personally like piston engines and 1940s technology, but I almost like those piston engines to be powerful and for the 1940s technology to be as "modern" as it can possibly be. That's why I stick to LW, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
-
(http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/museums/414temora/boomerang/boomerangfly2.jpg)
(http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/museums/414temora/boomerang/boomerang.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1WL-jujBg4
Flight tests proved that the aircraft had remarkable performances and, in particular, a rate of climb of 900m per minute was demonstrated. However, since the maximum speed of the aircraft was only slightly superior to that of the Buffalo, an aircraft which had not achieved much success against Japanese fighter aircraft in Malaya, there was naturally some hesitation on the part of the Government and comparative trials between the first Boomerang, a Kittyhawk (Curtiss P-40E) and an Airacobra (Bell P-39D) were arranged by the Department of Air. Comparative performance figures and an excerpt of the trial report, published in "Australia in the War of 1939-1945, The Role of Science and Industry" edited by the Australian War Memorial are quoted:
"At 10,000 feet, the Boomerang is more manoeuvrable than the Kittyhawk and can turn inside it. The Kittyhawk's speed advantage is not sufficient for it to dictate the type of combat and, although it gains more in a dive, the Boomerang's greater manoeuvrability with pull out and superior climb finds it level with the Kittyhawk at the top of the ensuing zoom. The Kittyhawk's only manoeuvre is to dive through a great height and break off the combat; the speed advantage is not sufficient for it to fly away at the same height without becoming vulnerable once combat is joined with the Boomerang.
The Airacobra has a greater speed advantage over the Boomerang than has the Kittyhawk but is outmanoeuvred at the same height in concentric attack (turning circles). When first attempted the Airacobra was able to dictate terms of combat to the Boomerang by its superiority in dive and zoom which allowed it to gain the extra height necessary to deliver an attack from above. Later this advantage was not so apparent and this was thought to be due to the pilot becoming more familiar with the Boomerang."
The performances of the CA-12 appeared even more impressive when compared to that of the NA-68, a similar - but unrelated - single-seat fighter aircraft developed by North American Aviation Inc. from their two-seat advanced trainer series. Powered by a 875hp Wright R-1820-77 and armed with two 20 mm cannons and two 7.7mm machine guns, the NA-68 had a maximum speed of only 435km/h at 2650m.
All in all, it would be a fun AC to fly in the MA. But so many want their Uber rides.
-
It would be the only plane in the game that could drop smoke and a great base defender. I bet it can fight like crazy as well. Not to mention adding another country's plane which I think is the most important aspect.
Love to have it,
-
+1 to this. the game is not all about having the best plane at all.
I would love to use those lil smoke bombs they could carry :aok
-
It would be the only plane in the game that could drop smoke and a great base defender. I bet it can fight like crazy as well. Not to mention adding another country's plane which I think is the most important aspect.
Love to have it,
Agree 100%
+1
I wonder how well dropping smoke on an enemy would work... :devil
-
All of you who are saying "+1" because it can drop smoke, would you really take off & fly for a sector (or two) just so you can drop a couple of smoke bombs and fly back? Why not just take a P-47 or something and drop a few real bombs? That way the smoke will not be needed and you'll get some kills.
-
All of you who are saying "+1" because it can drop smoke, would you really take off & fly for a sector (or two) just so you can drop a couple of smoke bombs and fly back? Why not just take a P-47 or something and drop a few real bombs? That way the smoke will not be needed and you'll get some kills.
I said it for alot more reasons than smoke, that is just the most fun reason.
-
All of you who are saying "+1" because it can drop smoke, would you really take off & fly for a sector (or two) just so you can drop a couple of smoke bombs and fly back? Why not just take a P-47 or something and drop a few real bombs? That way the smoke will not be needed and you'll get some kills.
base defense...that's where it would be great
-
base defense...that's where it would be great
Smoke for base defense?
How much real ordnance can it carry?
-
come on machfly, you didn't just fall off a turnip truck. never had any gv's running around during a base attack?
supposedly it could carry a bomb in place of a drop tank, i think 250kg. with a top speed of 305mph and decent turn performance, it could hang with early war aircraft.
-
come on machfly, you didn't just fall off a turnip truck. never had any gv's running around during a base attack?
supposedly it could carry a bomb in place of a drop tank, i think 250kg. with a top speed of 305mph and decent turn performance, it could hang with early war aircraft.
That's the point it would hang with early war aircraft. In the LW we have Il-2, P-47, B-25, Bf 110, and a whole bunch of other planes that are are significantly better for destroying tanks. I just don't see this plane being used.
I don't really GV so maybe I just don't know, but the way I understand it is that smoke only blocks visibility when it's right next to you and in order to completely blind your enemy you need a significant amount of smoke grenades. Bombs and Canons are a lot more effective.
-
It would be a good plane to have for the EW
This would be a Mid war aircraft not early war.
It did not see use until 1943.
-
smoke from an airplane is for marking ground target locations, not hiding friendlies.
when you're defending a base you want something that is nimble not always the most uber...hence the reason when things get really hot on a base attack you start seeing zekes, fm2s, ki-84s, brewsters. the boomerang has the armament and maneuverability to just as well as any of them, and take some punishment in the process.
-
smoke from an airplane is for marking ground target locations, not hiding friendlies.
When your driving a tank is it easier to spot smoke or tracers?
-
smoke unless there is elevation involved where you or the enemy vehicle is higher and you can clearly see where the tracers are landing. smoke does last longer than tracers.
-
smoke unless there is elevation involved where you or the enemy vehicle is higher than you and you can clearly see where the tracers are landing. smoke does last longer than tracers.
In that case I see how it would be used.
+1
-
+1 to the Boomerang! :aok
-
The Finns got their Brewster so it stands to reason the convicts from Down Under should get their Boomerang.
ack-ack
-
(http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/museums/414temora/boomerang/boomerangfly2.jpg)
(http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/museums/414temora/boomerang/boomerang.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1WL-jujBg4
Flight tests proved that the aircraft had remarkable performances and, in particular, a rate of climb of 900m per minute was demonstrated. However, since the maximum speed of the aircraft was only slightly superior to that of the Buffalo, an aircraft which had not achieved much success against Japanese fighter aircraft in Malaya, there was naturally some hesitation on the part of the Government and comparative trials between the first Boomerang, a Kittyhawk (Curtiss P-40E) and an Airacobra (Bell P-39D) were arranged by the Department of Air. Comparative performance figures and an excerpt of the trial report, published in "Australia in the War of 1939-1945, The Role of Science and Industry" edited by the Australian War Memorial are quoted:
"At 10,000 feet, the Boomerang is more manoeuvrable than the Kittyhawk and can turn inside it. The Kittyhawk's speed advantage is not sufficient for it to dictate the type of combat and, although it gains more in a dive, the Boomerang's greater manoeuvrability with pull out and superior climb finds it level with the Kittyhawk at the top of the ensuing zoom. The Kittyhawk's only manoeuvre is to dive through a great height and break off the combat; the speed advantage is not sufficient for it to fly away at the same height without becoming vulnerable once combat is joined with the Boomerang.
The Airacobra has a greater speed advantage over the Boomerang than has the Kittyhawk but is outmanoeuvred at the same height in concentric attack (turning circles). When first attempted the Airacobra was able to dictate terms of combat to the Boomerang by its superiority in dive and zoom which allowed it to gain the extra height necessary to deliver an attack from above. Later this advantage was not so apparent and this was thought to be due to the pilot becoming more familiar with the Boomerang."
The performances of the CA-12 appeared even more impressive when compared to that of the NA-68, a similar - but unrelated - single-seat fighter aircraft developed by North American Aviation Inc. from their two-seat advanced trainer series. Powered by a 875hp Wright R-1820-77 and armed with two 20 mm cannons and two 7.7mm machine guns, the NA-68 had a maximum speed of only 435km/h at 2650m.
All in all, it would be a fun AC to fly in the MA. But so many want their Uber rides.
Nice post, Fish.
As for the people that say "it can't compete in LW", I say bollocks! I'm a mediocre pilot and have killed plenty of late war machines in low end stuff like the P-39D, I-16 and 109-E4. If the requirement for inclusion is performance on par with the La-7, P-51D, Spit XVI and UFO-4; there will be no more planes added from here on out. This plane packs a Hispano punch, is a small target and is more maneuverable than the P-51D - I promise you that. It was produced in greater numbers (250) than the Ta-152, P-47M, F4U-1C and almost as many as the C.205. It did serve in squadron strength from 1943 on.
-
All of you who are saying "+1" because it can drop smoke, would you really take off & fly for a sector (or two) just so you can drop a couple of smoke bombs and fly back? Why not just take a P-47 or something and drop a few real bombs? That way the smoke will not be needed and you'll get some kills.
Is for the role play aspect in my case. I love role playing in MMO's.
Is not only about the kills.
-
A sexy little airframe to boot.
-
Smoke for base defense?
How much real ordnance can it carry?
"The sparkling low level performance of the Boomerang combined with a tough structure was ideal for this alternate role. 4 and 5 Squadrons operated the Boomerang in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. In the tactical role, as well as strafing (armament being four .303 machine guns and two 20mm cannon) the aircraft were also used for artillery spotting and close support, and 'FAC' type work marking targets. It is in this later role that the type became well known to some New Zealand pilots. The 'Smokey Joes' used four 9kg (20lb) smoke bombs carried under the centre section to mark targets for RNZAF Corsair fighter-bombers. The aircraft could also carry up to a 227kg (500lb) bomb on the center line"
CA13 Boomerang:
Role: Fighter aircraft
Manufacturer: Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation
First flight: 29 May 1942
Introduced: 1943
Status: Retired
Primary user: Royal Australian Air Force
Produced: 1942–1945
Number built: 250
General characteristics Crew: 1
Length: 25 ft 6 in (7.77 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 0 in (10.97 m)
Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m)
Wing area: 225 ft² (20.9 m²)
Empty weight: 5,373 lb (2,437 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,699 lb (3,492 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW)
Performance Maximum speed: 305 mph (265 knots, 491 km/h) at 15,500 ft (4,730 m)
Range: 930 mi (810 nm, 1,500 km)
Service ceiling: 29,000 ft (8,800 m)
Rate of climb: 2,940 ft/min (14.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 34.2 lb/ft² (167.1 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (256 W/kg)
Armament
Guns:
2× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano or CAC cannons
4× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns
Bombs: up to 500lb on the center line could be fitted when the large drop tank was not carried or four 9kg (20lb) smoke bombs.
Here is a good site on the history.
http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/boomerang.html
:cheers:
-
The Finns got their Brewster so it stands to reason the convicts from Down Under should get their Boomerang.
ack-ack
That should work out good for HT then by the monetary formula of population.
#55 Australia 21,766,711 #114 Finland 5,259,250
#21,
-
"The sparkling low level performance of the Boomerang combined with a tough structure was ideal for this alternate role. 4 and 5 Squadrons operated the Boomerang in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. In the tactical role, as well as strafing (armament being four .303 machine guns and two 20mm cannon) the aircraft were also used for artillery spotting and close support, and 'FAC' type work marking targets. It is in this later role that the type became well known to some New Zealand pilots. The 'Smokey Joes' used four 9kg (20lb) smoke bombs carried under the centre section to mark targets for RNZAF Corsair fighter-bombers. The aircraft could also carry up to a 227kg (500lb) bomb on the center line"
CA13 Boomerang:
Role: Fighter aircraft
Manufacturer: Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation
First flight: 29 May 1942
Introduced: 1943
Status: Retired
Primary user: Royal Australian Air Force
Produced: 1942–1945
Number built: 250
General characteristics Crew: 1
Length: 25 ft 6 in (7.77 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 0 in (10.97 m)
Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m)
Wing area: 225 ft² (20.9 m²)
Empty weight: 5,373 lb (2,437 kg)
Loaded weight: 7,699 lb (3,492 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radial engine, 1,200 hp (895 kW)
Performance Maximum speed: 305 mph (265 knots, 491 km/h) at 15,500 ft (4,730 m)
Range: 930 mi (810 nm, 1,500 km)
Service ceiling: 29,000 ft (8,800 m)
Rate of climb: 2,940 ft/min (14.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 34.2 lb/ft² (167.1 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (256 W/kg)
Armament
Guns:
2× 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano or CAC cannons
4× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns
Bombs: up to 500lb on the center line could be fitted when the large drop tank was not carried or four 9kg (20lb) smoke bombs.
Thanks for posting the numbers
Here is a good site on the history.
http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/boomerang.html
:cheers:
I don't like the plane enough to real all that. :D :bolt:
Seriously though, the link is a little too specific.
-
I don't like the plane enough to real all that. :D :bolt:
Seriously though, the link is a little too specific.
I'm sorry here is the picture page :t
http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/foto.php?dir=boomerang (http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/foto.php?dir=boomerang)
-
I'm sorry here is the picture page :t
http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/foto.php?dir=boomerang (http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/foto.php?dir=boomerang)
:rofl
-
The Finns got their Brewster so it stands to reason the convicts from Down Under should get their Boomerang.
ack-ack
and most of us convicts would fly it often.
-
:salute i think the aussie need a plane from there contry. nice looking plane. also i think the french need a couple planes aswell. sorry cant think of what they are atm. dont know if i missed it, which i most likly did. whats the combat history of he boomerang?
-
Thought I would just make these pictures more authentic to show what the plane really looks like in Australia.
(http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy355/greencurrycamo/CACBoomerang.jpg)
(http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy355/greencurrycamo/boomerangfly2.jpg)
(http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy355/greencurrycamo/boomerang.jpg)
Carry on.
-
:rofl
-
Thought I would just make these pictures more authentic to show what the plane really looks like in Australia.
(http://)
()
()
Carry on.
Looks about right.
-
+1.........000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
-
+1 That is, if I'm allowed to +1 my own thread.
-
looks like a fat D3 :neener:
-
Come on, everyone likes to ride the fat ones as long as they don't get seen. :D
As much as I look forward to the new P-40s, we haven't had a totally new fighter since the I-16 and B-239. That was a while back.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mCGj2DTs_w
A short interview with a Boomerang pilot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng3EWIDaJ-Q&feature=related
This video has somegreat closeup shots, and a pretty clear engine start with sound recorded from side and under the aircraft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTULWOfbXwQ&feature=related
-
Thanks for posting that, Fish. That sucker sounds really good. :aok
Feel free to vote for this fun little fidget in the new plane poll.
-
Feel free to vote for this fun little fidget in the new plane poll.
And this would be ??
-
Um, I guess that would probably be the plane in the title header. You know, the one that was mentioned once or twice in this thread. The name escapes me... Think it starts with a "B".
-
looks like a fat D3 :neener:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/2921374132_94c029c1ae.jpg?v=0)
-
Probably slower than one. Remember, it couldn't catch and shoot down BOMBERs.... EARLY bombers.... Not even ones running full throttle like in Aces High. I don't think it ever scored a kill on any other plane. It was limited to strafing troops in trenches and dropping smoke bombs for the corsairs flying in formation with it.
The only reason to want this plane is national pride, and that's even slightly misplaced because while it was built in Australia the design was decidedly... shall we say... "borrowed".... from another plane already in existence.
Not that I need to remind you... But I will.
-
Oh, pshaw, Krusty! The former P-40B couldn't catch bombers either, but I've shot down B-17s above the cloud layer (running the same unrealistic full throttle you mentioned) in AH. Was a long chase, but it can be done. Same goes for the A6M2. The Boomerang has a semi-decent climb rate (compared to the P-40) and much better firepower. It did shoot down just as many planes as the uber Ta 152, as well as the uber Meteor the squeakers are probably voting for.
People want this plane because it looks like it would be fun to fly. Small, turny and packing lethal firepower. Plus, it's an airframe from a country not yet represented in the game. Who cares about historical significance in here anyway? The historic early Spits, Hurris and 109s from "the Battle of Britain", as well as the early P-40s of "Flying Tigers" fame are rare birds; compared to the uber Rainbow XVI, 109-Gay4 and Pee 51D. Most sorties are in late war monsters anyway, so whatever is added will likely be seldom seen. Compared to the Ki-43's anemic firepower and legendary fragility, I'd rather take my chances in the Boomerang and would bet most others would too.
-
+Eleventy Billion on the boomerang
Who gives a damm if it shot down more than a couple of enemy aircraft, it served in squadron strength and saw combat. AH MA fighting is not WWII - aircraft and vehicles are used in this game in roles they were never intended for in actual service.
Think of the Boomerang as a B239 with hispanos. That's all I need!
And, Krusty, please can it, with all due respect. I love ya man, but if you had your way with every aircraft in-game and what were allowed, this place would be pretty boring I think. :aok
-
Caldera... Name ONE confirmed kill the boomerang ever made. Ever. If you want "fun" we have plenty of fun planes already that nobody thinks twice about. There was a time I was the only one flying C202s, for example. Quite fun! I liked Ta152s before they became "hip" and gathered some attention, and it was quite a fun ride. I also recall enjoying flying the Ki61 before moot popularized it for the masses, and had quite a bit of fun.
So yes, I'm all for "fun" rides, but rides that nonetheless contribute something. The Boomerang is... in a word... useless. Absolutely useless. It has no redeeming qualities for a fighter, it provides absolutely nothing to AH's main arenas, nothing to AH's scenarios, nothing at all. Your example of A6M2 and P-40C aren't good ones, as they are 30 adn 50mph faster than the Boomerang, respectively. Let's put it this way, the F4F4 is 20mph faster than the Boomerang. It's as slow as the I-16, which already has cannons and rockets. It also turns pretty tightly.
It's also fun to fly, FYI. Feel free to try it out.
The only reason to request it is national pride, and that's a fairly weak and much-derided reason for requesting aircraft on these forums.
And, Krusty, please can it, with all due respect. I love ya man, but if you had your way with every aircraft in-game and what were allowed, this place would be pretty boring I think. :aok
You're entitled to an opinion no matter how wrong it is. I think you know me better than to believe what you've typed there.
-
The only reason to request it is national pride, and that's a fairly weak and much-derided reason for requesting aircraft on these forums.
:O Really.
OK Australia only came up with three Australian manufactured designs that were used in combat during WWII that were all based off of other aircraft made in other country's.
First off the Wirraway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Wirraway
This would be near useless in scenarios or early war. As cannon fodder it will be great for any aircraft in AHII.
It did get a few kills though.
Next the Boomerang.
Wiki says it just about as it is for the Boomerang.
What can it do in a turn fight in AHII? Remains to be seen.
It would be a Mid war aircraft NOT early war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Boomerang
Last but not least.
DAP MK 21 Beaufighter.
A British design that found it's way to Australia & with a few design changes & since the RAAF was the only country to use them. I think you can say it is about as close as you can get to an Australian design that served in WWII with the exception of the above two.
http://www.aarg.com.au/beaufighter.htm
So in summery if some people want to choose an Australian aircraft to put in AHII & there choice is national pride so be it. Let them have the Boomerang we only have three choices.
Will you disqualify the other two if national pride comes in to play?
Or do Australians just never get a plane in game?
-
Caldera... Name ONE confirmed kill the boomerang ever made. Ever. If you want "fun" we have plenty of fun planes already that nobody thinks twice about. There was a time I was the only one flying C202s, for example. Quite fun! I liked Ta152s before they became "hip" and gathered some attention, and it was quite a fun ride. I also recall enjoying flying the Ki61 before moot popularized it for the masses, and had quite a bit of fun.
So yes, I'm all for "fun" rides, but rides that nonetheless contribute something. The Boomerang is... in a word... useless. Absolutely useless. It has no redeeming qualities for a fighter, it provides absolutely nothing to AH's main arenas, nothing to AH's scenarios, nothing at all. Your example of A6M2 and P-40C aren't good ones, as they are 30 adn 50mph faster than the Boomerang, respectively. Let's put it this way, the F4F4 is 20mph faster than the Boomerang. It's as slow as the I-16, which already has cannons and rockets. It also turns pretty tightly.
It's also fun to fly, FYI. Feel free to try it out.
The only reason to request it is national pride, and that's a fairly weak and much-derided reason for requesting aircraft on these forums.
You're entitled to an opinion no matter how wrong it is. I think you know me better than to believe what you've typed there.
Useless? There's that hyperbole again! :lol Not expecting to get it in-game anytime soon (if ever) but were that to happen, I would be happy to demonstrate its usefulness on whatever you want to fly.
As for the A6M2, C.202, F4F, I-16 and Ki-61; I have at a minimum, double the kills that I have in the F4U-1A, P-51D, Spit XVI, 109-K4 and most every other "popular" ride - save the F6F and Ki-84. So there. :neener:
edit: And more kills in the P-40B than those uber planes as well FYI.
-
The Boomerang replaced the Buffalo!
Nuff Said,
-
I love the boomerang!
-
The Boomerang replaced the Buffalo!
Nuff Said,
That is, in fact, not enough said. It leaves the impression that the Boomerang replaced the B-239 we have in AH when it replaced the substantially inferior B-339E.
-
That is, in fact, not enough said. It leaves the impression that the Boomerang replaced the B-239 we have in AH when it replaced the substantially inferior B-339E.
I said it replaced the Buffalo, which is fact.
A UFO couldn't replace that sweet little thing we have in the game. :aok
-
So in summery if some people want to choose an Australian aircraft to put in AHII & there choice is national pride so be it. Let them have the Boomerang we only have three choices.
Will you disqualify the other two if national pride comes in to play?
Or do Australians just never get a plane in game?
I understand this whole nation pride thing going on, but why do the rest of us have to suffer so a handful can have their ego boosted by adding the CAC Boomerang?
I would vote on the Beaufighter, but why on earth something so useless it shouldn't even be debated?
-
I understand this whole nation pride thing going on, but why do the rest of us have to suffer so a handful can have their ego boosted by adding the CAC Boomerang?
Exactly why would you suffer?
-
but why on earth something so useless it shouldn't even be debated?
I seem to recall a lot said along the same lines when the Brewster was announced.
That aside I still would pick the DAP MK21 Beaufighter every time over the Boomerang.
-
Or do Australians just never get a plane in game?
For now I guess we get none. :cry
-
Guess we shall just have to listen to the real thing.
http://www.oldcmp.net/Aircraft_sounds.html
-
+1
-
Guess we shall just have to listen to the real thing.
http://www.oldcmp.net/Aircraft_sounds.html
That flyby sounds awesome. Some cool pics on that website too. This one is my new background:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/otu_boomers.jpg)
-
That flyby sounds awesome. Some cool pics on that website too. This one is my new background:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/otu_boomers.jpg)
Me too
-
Exactly why would you suffer?
Because limited development rescourses would be used to something that isn't really even a footnote in the overall scheme of WWII aireal warfare.
-
Because dlimited evelopment rescourses would be used to something that isn't really even a footnote in the overall scheme of WWII aireal warfare.
But we wouldn't really know we? We never see or hear anything in reality until it appears in a poll, if we're lucky. It could be a side job, that may take years. Dont get me wrong, I have said in the past that it is a low priority, and it continues to be so, however I dont see it making anyone suffer if it were introduced into the game, it may not make footnote status, but it is important in some measure to us antipodean aviation enthusiasts, and after all this is a wishlist. Some wishes never come true. :(
-
+1
-
Footnote or not at least they made there own plane. You have a Super plane in the game and there were only what 46? and made by another country.
The Australians more than deserve there Boomerang, they made it.
Finnish Brewster, somewhere in the credits in the back of the book,
-
Footnote or not at least they made there own plane.
Finland also had a domestically built fighter but for the exact same reasons as I don't see the point of the Boomerang I don't see the point of adding VL Myrsky either.
You have a Super plane in the game and there were only what 46? and made by another country.
Anyone calling Brewster a super plane should have serious look at their tactics in the game. There were 44 B239s delivered which scored almost 500 kills which is almost 500 more than the Boomerang. The country of origin is utterly and totally irrelevant in general. As said, comparing Boomerang and Brewster is totally apples to oranges, if there is some "weird need" to compare it to something that FiAF flew, the Myrsky makes for much more appropriate comparison. And like I also said, there's not much point of adding Myrsky, just like there's not much point in adding Boomerang at this stage of the development of the AH planeset.
The Australians more than deserve there Boomerang, they made it.
Again, implementing planes to AH has very little to do with "deserving" or "who made the planes".
Finnish Brewster, somewhere in the credits in the back of the book,
Hmm...no idea what you mean by this.
-
Finland also had a domestically built fighter but for the exact same reasons as I don't see the point of the Boomerang I don't see the point of adding VL Myrsky either.
Anyone calling Brewster a super plane should have serious look at their tactics in the game. There were 44 B239s delivered which scored almost 500 kills which is almost 500 more than the Boomerang. The country of origin is utterly and totally irrelevant in general. As said, comparing Boomerang and Brewster is totally apples to oranges, if there is some "weird need" to compare it to something that FiAF flew, the Myrsky makes for much more appropriate comparison. And like I also said, there's not much point of adding Myrsky, just like there's not much point in adding Boomerang at this stage of the development of the AH planeset.
Again, implementing planes to AH has very little to do with "deserving" or "who made the planes".
Hmm...no idea what you mean by this.
I dont think the Brewster is a super plane, mater fact I don't think much of it at all.
In Austrailia the Boomerang replaced the real Brewster Buffallo.
In this game its a super plane because of some super facts. I can show you where the RAAF did experiments on the P40 <overreving> that became the norm for most early pilots, does HT model the super facts for the V-1710/39 P-40? NO
Between the myrsky and the Finnish brewster you have just over 1/3 of the Boomerangs made.
I would think that some1 who got his tiny little plane for his country <that wasn't theres> would want for others to get the same for their country <that they made>.
The Boomerang would add to the game and it would most likly add more memberships than the Brewster did :aok
You just don't want any competition for the Brewster?
If I were the Austrailians I would be out scavaging some super facts for the Boomer.
Just sayin,
Edit: It means to me the Brewster is less than a footnote
BTW you have a record of those 500 kills? I would like to see it
-
In this game its a super plane because of some super facts.
Complete nonsense, nor is it a super plane in the game and its flight model isn't based on any "super facts". The performance in game matches Brewster Corp's manufacturers data and specification.
I can show you where the RAAF did experiments on the P40 <overreving> that became the norm for most early pilots, does HT model the super facts for the V-1710/39 P-40? NO
I'm well aware of the overboosting done by the RAAF. HTC usually models the aircraft based on "official" manufacturers or air service's data. HTC's P-40 models match manufacturers data just like the Brewster does.
Between the myrsky and the Finnish brewster you have just over 1/3 of the Boomerangs made.
Hardly surprising given the population/rescources of the given countries. But the fact itself is totally irrelevant.
I would think that some1 who got his tiny little plane for his country <that wasn't theres> would want for others to get the same for their country <that they made>.
Again, totally incoherent and irrelevant.
The Boomerang would add to the game and it would most likly add more memberships than the Brewster did :aok
Seriously doubt that Brewster had a major impact on subscribtions and very much doubts that Boomerang would have much effect either.
You just don't want any competition for the Brewster?
Competition? In what way? I think there are far more dangerous planes in the game already. :) In fact, given the specs, Boomerang would probably be one of the easiest planes for the Brewster to shoot down in normal LWMA aircombat.
If I were the Austrailians I would be out scavaging some super facts for the Boomer.
:rolleyes:
BTW you have a record of those 500 kills? I would like to see it
They are recorded very accurately in fact but given the way you come across I don't think I'm going to bother to post much regarding them.
-
+1 on Boomerang
Now Cal has a mission ...(Get the Boomerang)
-
I know a few of you guys go here
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/brewster-buffalo-vs-cac-boomerang-20394.html
a few pages of Brewster v Boomerang
-
Sinbad II
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Boomerangsinbadtop-1.jpg)
Ubeut2
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Boomerangubeut2bottom-1.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Boomerangdeployment.jpg)
-
I know a few of you guys go here
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/brewster-buffalo-vs-cac-boomerang-20394.html
a few pages of Brewster v Boomerang
Interesting info there. :aok
-
Exactly why would you suffer?
Well there are a dozen other aircraft's ultimately need to be added to the game first, Brewster served in more then enough Scenarios which is why it should of been added. CAC Boomerang served in such a limited capacity I would even argue the Ta-152 seen more action with its limited numbers, same for the ME-163.
Now saying that, I would agree on adding the CAC Boomerang only when other aircraft's filled the roll that seen more action. For example the Dewoitine D.520, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3, Lavochkin LaGG-3, I-153, SB-2, PE-3, Bloch MB.150, IAR 80, Macchi MC.200, Ki-43, Ki-45, Ki-44, Reggiane Re.2000, He-111, Do-17, Macchi C.200, Curtiss-Wright CW-21, Yak-1, Ilyushin Il-4, SM.81, and Beaufighter.
Take your pick, I'd gladly vote for these first.
-
Boomerang pwns all those heaps.
-
Boomerang pwns all those heaps.
If you can upgrade Fosters beer so its drinkable, then I will vote the CAC Boomerang.
-
If you can upgrade Fosters beer so its drinkable, then I will vote the CAC Boomerang.
It's called Tooheys New
(http://www.beveragewarehouse.com/images/products/4453.gif)
I may have just started a beer war.
-
If you can upgrade Fosters beer so its drinkable, then I will vote the CAC Boomerang.
Firstly Fosters you get here in the USA comes from Canada under licence. Not really the same thing. Second most Australian's don't drink Fosters lager. Fosters is the crap that is left over from the beers we do like that is sent over seas.
-
Well there are a dozen other aircraft's ultimately need to be added to the game first, Brewster served in more then enough Scenarios which is why it should of been added. CAC Boomerang served in such a limited capacity I would even argue the Ta-152 seen more action with its limited numbers, same for the ME-163.
Now saying that, I would agree on adding the CAC Boomerang only when other aircraft's filled the roll that seen more action. For example the Dewoitine D.520, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3, Lavochkin LaGG-3, I-153, SB-2, PE-3, Bloch MB.150, IAR 80, Macchi MC.200, Ki-43, Ki-45, Ki-44, Reggiane Re.2000, He-111, Do-17, Macchi C.200, Curtiss-Wright CW-21, Yak-1, Ilyushin Il-4, SM.81, and Beaufighter.
Take your pick, I'd gladly vote for these first.
I've always agreed that there are other aeroplanes to added first, but stress that the Boomerang meets the critera, where it comes on the list is noones but HTC's decision.
Im sorry but if you're drinking Fosters, you've been had mate.
:salute
-
Complete nonsense, nor is it a super plane in the game and its flight model isn't based on any "super facts". The performance in game matches Brewster Corp's manufacturers data and specification.
I'm well aware of the overboosting done by the RAAF. HTC usually models the aircraft based on "official" manufacturers or air service's data. HTC's P-40 models match manufacturers data just like the Brewster does.
Hardly surprising given the population/rescources of the given countries. But the fact itself is totally irrelevant.
Again, totally incoherent and irrelevant.
Seriously doubt that Brewster had a major impact on subscribtions and very much doubts that Boomerang would have much effect either.
Competition? In what way? I think there are far more dangerous planes in the game already. :) In fact, given the specs, Boomerang would probably be one of the easiest planes for the Brewster to shoot down in normal LWMA aircombat.
:rolleyes:
They are recorded very accurately in fact but given the way you come across I don't think I'm going to bother to post much regarding them.
HAHAHA the way I come across?
If that was the case then it would fly like an F2a2, and you would have been satisfied with the original version put out by HTC right?
You have gotten your 46 or whatever planes for your country that have this miraculous kill total. <not that the Fin's boast or anything>
I would love to have the Boomer just to fight you in alone :) not to mention all the other reasons. <Base defence, bombs, smoke, does the Brewster have these?
Fine,.... then the RAAF wants there own P-40E that is there specs and manipulated to there preference by them and flown at tolerances they like.
Let the country 5x the size, and contributed way more to the war effort, have there 250 planes and you help with the research you hear me.
The only incoherency going on here is your attitude towards the Australian's and there plane. They deserve it just as much as the Fins did/do.
Look at the way your coming across.... tell a fellow AH country that, that made there own plane, flew it in squadron strength in WWII for
2 years to suck eggs. :rolleyes:
The reason they didn't have 500 kills... the opportunity never presented itself. Does that make them less worthy? .....the answer is NO!
Should they have had the opportunity, the would have had to fight better planes and more experienced pilots.
I'm sure their nads are just as big if not bigger than the Fin's.
:cheers:
-
More line drawings
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/BoomerangIlls-1.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/49102d1299774977t-help-info-boomerang-cac-boomerang-04.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/49101d1299774977t-help-info-boomerang-cac-boomerang-03.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/49100d1299774977t-help-info-boomerang-cac-boomerang-02.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aviation/49105d1299774977t-help-info-boomerang-cac-boomerang-07.jpg)
-
+1, It wouldn't be a bad idea to have an Australian designed-and-made aircraft. Who cares about the performance? There may be better aircraft in the game, but there is also worse.
:salute
-
Megaladon, You may have underestimated the size of our country. I figure it to be 225 times the size of Finland.
-
Megaladon, You may have underestimated the size of our country. I figure it to be 225 times the size of Finland.
Makes it a little hard to find things in that space at times. :D
Just to put some perspective on it.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ozmap-1.jpg)
For our Euro Friends.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ozmap2-1.jpg)
-
Megaladon, You may have underestimated the size of our country. I figure it to be 225 times the size of Finland.
Not in population :)
Roughly 26 million in Australia, 5 mil in Finland :headscratch: ...and you guys can't have your plane? How does that work out subscription wise? :headscratch:
But.. they got a Plane,
-
I sort of figured that's what you meant but just in case. :cheers:
-
Makes it a little hard to find things in that space at times. :D
Just to put some perspective on it.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ozmap-1.jpg)
For our Euro Friends.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ozmap2-1.jpg)
What are you tryin to say :t
If you would like me to stop rallying for the Boomerang say so :) ...I am fully aware of the size of you country thanks :neener:.....Matter fact I bought some Land Cruiser parts from there last week :aok :lol
I would really like to see the Boomer in the game .......I mean look at that exhaust...
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Boomerang-A46-47/Boomerang_A46_47a.jpg)
... reminds me of an ole 2 into 1 Shovel I used to have <G>
Grrrrrrrrrooowwwllll,
-
I sort of figured that's what you meant but just in case. :cheers:
:cheers:
-
What are you tryin to say :t
If you would like me to stop rallying for the Boomerang say so :) ...I am fully aware of the size of you country thanks :neener:.....Matter fact I bought some Land Cruiser parts from there last week :aok :lol
The maps were not meant for you. :aok :D Please do campaign for it. Australia only has three aircraft for WWII that we can lobby for.
-
The maps were not meant for you. :aok :D Please do campaign for it. Australia only has three aircraft for WWII that we can lobby for.
What is the third one?
-
What is the third one?
wirraway, boomerang and Dap 21 beau
-
You could probably add the P51d to that list too.
-
The maps were not meant for you. :aok :D Please do campaign for it. Australia only has three aircraft for WWII that we can lobby for.
And all three should be added, even the Wirraway. :aok I'm campaigning.
:salute
-
You could probably add the P51d to that list too.
Under the had to see combat thinking? I think it just falls short. :(
-
And all three should be added, even the Wirraway. :aok I'm campaigning.
:salute
Thank you. :aok
-
What is the third one?
You can help if you like
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,322505.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,322505.0.html)
Lamb... Really?,
Thanx
:salute
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Boomeranglineart1-1.jpg)
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Boomeranglineart1-1.jpg)
:aok
-
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45970d1185675946-boomerang-performance-thread-boomerang-engine-cooling-trials.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45971d1185675946-boomerang-performance-thread-boomerang-stats-handing.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45972d1185675946-boomerang-performance-thread-boomerang-twin-wasp-operating-figures.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45973d1185675946-boomerang-performance-thread-durability-tests-boomerang.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45974d1185675946-boomerang-performance-thread-emergency-power-performance-boomerang.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45976d1185676281-boomerang-performance-thread-modified-pressure-head-boomerang.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45977d1185676281-boomerang-performance-thread-performance-data-boomerang.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45978d1185676281-boomerang-performance-thread-performance-handling-boomerang.pdf
-
http://dbdesignbureau.buckmasterfamily.id.au/cac_boomerang.htm
-
http://dbdesignbureau.buckmasterfamily.id.au/cac_boomerang.htm
You continue to find this stuff, amazing.
P.s did you get that link?
-
You continue to find this stuff, amazing.
P.s did you get that link?
Not yet.
-
Not yet.
Very Strange, resent. via email.
-
Great looking bird! +1
-
Simple.
Besides the US and UK. One of the largest contingents of AH2 players is Australia....
including myself, Lyric, Phatty, FTJR and alot of quite notable players. Who tear it up in the MA quite often.
We would LOVE, our only native fighter, just so we can blast about in something we can be patriotic about..
plus, just look at it. Its sexy AND cute... with 20mms...
-
Secret spy photo of the HTC crew, hard at work on our Boomerangs:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/air_boomerang5.jpg)
Only two weeks away! :x
-
Interesting to see that it could rest on its wheels without the wings, similar to the 109, but of course its wheel base is wider, more stable.
-
+1 to the Boomerang!
-
+1 :pray
-
Now we are getting the Storch, it completely invalidates the "didn't shoot down any planes" theory. So I guess there is now one less reason not to have it.
:D
-
As well as the ability to mark enemy ground forces with smoke.
-
Now we are getting the Storch, it completely invalidates the "didn't shoot down any planes" theory. So I guess there is now one less reason not to have it.
:D
There has never been a "didn't shoot down any planes" theory. AH v1.00 had the C-47A in it.
-
There has never been a "didn't shoot down any planes" theory. AH v1.00 had the C-47A in it.
Actually I forgot the C47, but many people have used the "theory" (actually not a good description, reason would be better) as to why the Boomerang doesn't warrant inclusion.
I am just stirring the pot Karnak.
-
http://www.aviastar.org/gallery/boomerang.html
Pretty good write up for the Boomerang.
20mm cannons only had 60 rpg and 7.7mm had 1,000 rpg. Still would be good for multiple kills.
Also mentions at 10,000 ft, the Boomerang outperformed the P-39D and P-40E in maneuvering tests.
-
The PBY would be more useful.
-
The PBY would be more useful.
For whom? Like you would fly either one. Go post in the PBY thread and espouse its virtues.
-
For whom? Like you would fly either one. Go post in the PBY thread and espouse its virtues.
Explain what good a CAC Boomerang would do in the late war arena of Aces high?
-
Explain what good a CAC Boomerang would do in the late war arena of Aces high?
About the same as the Storch,B5N & so on & so on.
-
About the same as the Storch,B5N & so on & so on.
lol how many B5n's do you see? :D
-
It would be an excellent low level medium speed dogfighter. It would keep up with Zekes and remove our brewster problem.
And it could do much the same as the Storch, it could drop small bombs and smoke charges
plus as a recon aircraft.... it could hold its own.
-
It would be an excellent low level medium speed dogfighter. It would keep up with Zekes and remove our brewster problem.
And it could do much the same as the Storch, it could drop small bombs and smoke charges
plus as a recon aircraft.... it could hold its own.
It wouldn't be a recon plane, although it would be an armed Storch if added in game, the option to drop smoke bombs, but then it would eliminate the use of the storch.
-
Explain what good a CAC Boomerang would do in the late war arena of Aces high?
Maybe we should all just fly the F4U-4, P-51D, Tempest and Spit XVI and just get rid of the rest of the plane set.
If players can get kills in an I-16 in Late war, then they can in the Boomerang as well. The lowly pilot Snuggie has 124 kills/51 deaths in the I-16, for instance (all in Late War).
The Boomerang won't be much good for a "text bar glory"-oriented person, so I can see why you wouldn't like it. Why not petition HTC to remove all those superfluous planes from the Late War hangar, while you're at it?
-
http://dbdesignbureau.buckmasterfamily.id.au/images/cac_boomerang_3-view_AX-00002_3.jpg
-
HAHAHA the way I come across?
Yes, exactly how you come across. By talking about these "super facts" you imply that there was something dishonest going on in the process of modelling the Brewster, and therefore I don't really see any reason to go trhough the trouble of sending you with any info.
If that was the case then it would fly like an F2a2, and you would have been satisfied with the original version put out by HTC right?
I don't really understand what you are getting at with this. Why should a B239 perform like a F2A-2?
You have gotten your 46 or whatever planes for your country that have this miraculous kill total. <not that the Fin's boast or anything>
I would love to have the Boomer just to fight you in alone :) not to mention all the other reasons. <Base defence, bombs, smoke, does the Brewster have these?
Boast? I'm not boasting at all. I'm just stating a fact. The kill total just happens to be a quick and compact way to make a point that dispite their small numbers, they saw heavy combat. That is all.
Don't take this the wrong way but I think Brewster vs. Boomerang fights would get vey boring very quickly for the Brewster pilot. :)
Fine,.... then the RAAF wants there own P-40E that is there specs and manipulated to there preference by them and flown at tolerances they like.
We've already gone through this. HTC models the aircraft with standard, original power settings specified by the manufacturer.
Let the country 5x the size, and contributed way more to the war effort, have there 250 planes and you help with the research you hear me.
What does the countries' contribution to the war effort have anything to do with the "war effort" of individual aircraft types? Not a very logical argument. Why should I help with any research, because you say so?
The only incoherency going on here is your attitude towards the Australian's and there plane.
Ehh... :headscratch: My attitude against Australians? Right. My stance regarding any plane to be added has nothing to do with the nation itself (any nation) but the significance of that particular aircraft compared to the others which could be added.
They deserve it just as much as the Fins did/do.
It has nothing to do with who "deserves" what.
Look at the way your coming across.... tell a fellow AH country that, that made there own plane, flew it in squadron strength in WWII for
2 years to suck eggs. :rolleyes:
That's not what I'm saying or how I come across, that's the way you want to take it.
I'm sure their nads are just as big if not bigger than the Fin's.
Heh, very coherent right there. :lol Yeh, that makes you look very smart. :)
It would keep up with Zekes and remove our brewster problem.
Keep up with Zekes? What Brewster problem? :headscratch:
I don't see any Brewster problem. Brewster's usage alone is too small for it to be any sort of "problem".
Very basic numbers on these planes show that Boomerang is far behind both the Zeros and Brewster in powerloading and wingloading for example. While Brewster's powerloading is roughly average for a WWII fighter, Boomerang's is down right poor. While the airfoils are similar, the wing loading of the Boomerang is significantly higher. It would be quite a dog in comparison. You can't bend physics no matter how big of a fan of the Boomerang you are.
And for the record, I would gladly welcome a DAP Beaufighter to the game even if it would come in the next version.
-
Yes, exactly how you come across. By talking about these "super facts" you imply that there was something dishonest going on in the process of modelling the Brewster, and therefore I don't really see any reason to go trhough the trouble of sending you with any info.
I don't really understand what you are getting at with this. Why should a B239 perform like a F2A-2?
Boast? I'm not boasting at all. I'm just stating a fact. The kill total just happens to be a quick and compact way to make a point that dispite their small numbers, they saw heavy combat. That is all.
Don't take this the wrong way but I think Brewster vs. Boomerang fights would get vey boring very quickly for the Brewster pilot. :)
We've already gone through this. HTC models the aircraft with standard, original power settings specified by the manufacturer.
What does the countries' contribution to the war effort have anything to do with the "war effort" of individual aircraft types? Not a very logical argument. Why should I help with any research, because you say so?
Ehh... :headscratch: My attitude against Australians? Right. My stance regarding any plane to be added has nothing to do with the nation itself (any nation) but the significance of that particular aircraft compared to the others which could be added.
It has nothing to do with who "deserves" what.
That's not what I'm saying or how I come across, that's the way you want to take it.
Heh, very coherent right there. :lol Yeh, that makes you look very smart. :)
Keep up with Zekes? What Brewster problem? :headscratch:
I don't see any Brewster problem. Brewster's usage alone is too small for it to be any sort of "problem".
Very basic numbers on these planes show that Boomerang is far behind both the Zeros and Brewster in powerloading and wingloading for example. While Brewster's powerloading is roughly average for a WWII fighter, Boomerang's is down right poor. While the airfoils are similar, the wing loading of the Boomerang is significantly higher. It would be quite a dog in comparison. You can't bend physics no matter how big of a fan of the Boomerang you are.
And for the record, I would gladly welcome a DAP Beaufighter to the game even if it would come in the next version.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
when shall we make "CAC Boomerang request thread #2 of 1000" :D
-
http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P00001.030
-
when shall we make "CAC Boomerang request thread #2 of 1000" :D
As soon as WMaker's protestations get it locked. If the plane is so worthless as he suggests - why does he invest so much time opposing it, when he should welcome another easy target for his EZB-239. Must be the fear that the Boomerang could hang in long enough to torch his pride and joy.
-
As soon as WMaker's protestations get it locked.
I have a right for my opinion as does everyone else. Nothing I've said is against the forum rules. The Ad Hominem type of comments in this thread has mainly been directed at me, not the other way around. I think that Boomerang would be waste of art rescourses in the current state of AH's planeset. And as said, I have a right for that opinion and I've provided solid arguments supporting my position.
If the plane is so worthless as he suggests - why does he invest so much time opposing it, when he should welcome another easy target for his EZB-239. Must be the fear that the Boomerang could hang in long enough to torch his pride and joy.
Performance of the Boomerang has nothing to do with my stance, the rescourses (time) it takes to develope it, does. Ki-43 for example would be so much more useful addition and long overdue.
So considering the above, an idea that someone (me) would be"fearing" a certain plane is quite silly in itself. AH already contains far far more dangerous opponents than Boomerang would ever be and Ki-43 I'd like to see would be especially dangerous opponent for Brewster. So in short, you really don't have a point.
-
I have a right for my opinion as does everyone else. Nothing I've said is against the forum rules. The Ad Hominem type of comments in this thread has mainly been directed at me, not the other way around. I think that Boomerang would be waste of art rescourses in the current state of AH's planeset. And as said, I have a right for that opinion and I've provided solid arguments supporting my position.
Performance of the Boomerang has nothing to do with my stance, the rescourses (time) it takes to develope it, does. Ki-43 for example would be so much more useful addition and long overdue.
So considering the above, an idea that someone (me) would be"fearing" a certain plane is quite silly in itself. AH already contains far far more dangerous opponents than Boomerang would ever be and Ki-43 I'd like to see would be especially dangerous opponent for Brewster. So in short, you really don't have a point.
I agree as well, I would much rather vote on the Ki-43 /Beaufighter then I would a CAC Boomerang, although the Me-410 was already pushed into production, the likely hood of a Beaufighter right now is likely limited, Ki-43 possibly could be thrown into queue sometime in the future.
I'm willing to gamble there is likely a Bomber in the queue coming up, not sure which either, but since the B-29 was unfavorably added I think its time.
To many aircraft that deserve a queue spot before a CAC Boomerang, I'd vote a Beaufighter over it any day. Not because I fear something that doesn't even fly 300 mph, its as Widow says - a waste of resources when its roll is so extremely limited to nothing more then doing circles in ack.
Bring back the Beau and i'd vote on it, far more useful for Aces high :)
-
I think that Boomerang would be an excellent use of art rescourses in the current state of AH's planeset. I have a right for that opinion and I've provided solid arguments supporting my position.
I would like to see the Boomerang added before any other planes are added.
Not many aircraft that deserve a queue spot before a CAC Boomerang, It can do more than the Brewster and I would not be afraid to say it's a better plane for AH, with the Brewster being so limited.
-
I think that Boomerang would be an excellent use of art rescourses in the current state of AH's planeset. I have a right for that opinion and I've provided solid arguments supporting my position.
I would like to see the Boomerang added before any other planes are added.
Not many aircraft that deserve a queue spot before a CAC Boomerang, It can do more than the Brewster and I would not be afraid to say it's a better plane for AH, with the Brewster being so limited.
Can you show me the theaters the Boomerang was deployed? and locations?
-
I think that Boomerang would be an excellent use of art rescourses in the current state of AH's planeset. I have a right for that opinion and I've provided solid arguments supporting my position.
I would like to see the Boomerang added before any other planes are added.
Not many aircraft that deserve a queue spot before a CAC Boomerang, It can do more than the Brewster and I would not be afraid to say it's a better plane for AH, with the Brewster being so limited.
What he said.
One man's "waste of resources" is another's fun plane to fly. Anything added, other than another late war monster will be considered a "waste of resources" to all those that spend all their time in top tier aircraft. The Ki-43 will be a hangar queen after the first month as would the Boomerang.
Look at the P-40E's usage lately. Maybe we should just get rid of it. Oh, and the 109-E, Spit1, Hurri1, etc. They are a "waste of resources".
HTC did add the Boomerang as eligible for the recent plane vote, like the Ki-43. The Ki-43 didn't win either. Both would be a fun change of pace for those that want one. Why is that so objectionable? The Boomerang was produced and flew in combat strength during the war. It has the firepower that other small turny birds lack. It will be flown if added.
-
What he said.
One man's "waste of resources" is another's fun plane to fly. Anything added, other than another late war monster will be considered a "waste of resources" to all those that spend all their time in top tier aircraft. The Ki-43 will be a hangar queen after the first month as would the Boomerang.
Look at the P-40E's usage lately. Maybe we should just get rid of it. Oh, and the 109-E, Spit1, Hurri1, etc. They are a "waste of resources".
Like the Brewster, the P-40 would fill quite a few more theaters for FSO and Snapshot then the Boomerang would, which would be extremely limited to Late 42-Early 43 time periods around Moresby.
109-E
Ki-43
Brewster
P-40e
all fill in more then 2 Theaters (minimum) let alone the Brewster that fills in at least 5.
This is my only issue with voting on it, one theater - and in a time period where the P-47D-11, P-38G, Spit V all are in production and being flown.
If I can get more information on what squadrons were deployed, it might be added to other theaters, but I highly doubt it.
-
If I can get more information on what squadrons were deployed, it might be added to other theaters, but I highly doubt it.
Try reading the thread :aok
Edit: you have posted 2 posts down from the info. :rolleyes:
-
Can you show me the theaters the Boomerang was deployed? and locations?
When did theatres become a prerequisite ?
I am away traveling ATM, I can supply the locations when I get back. (this weekend)
-
At the end of Hostilities,
4 Squadron was in Labuan, North Borneo. Its sister Squadron, 5, was in Bougainville, a distance of 2800 NM's
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=BUA-lbu&MS=wls&DU=mi
By comparision, London to Rome to Cairo is a distance of 2200 NM's
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-rom-cai&MS=wls&DU=mi
Which, correct me if I am wrong, covers the European, Mediterranean, and North African Theatres. With room to spare.
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Boomerang_comparison.jpg)
-
At the end of Hostilities,
4 Squadron was in Labuan, North Borneo. Its sister Squadron, 5, was in Bougainville, a distance of 2800 NM's
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=BUA-lbu&MS=wls&DU=mi
By comparision, London to Rome to Cairo is a distance of 2200 NM's
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-rom-cai&MS=wls&DU=mi
Which, correct me if I am wrong, covers the European, Mediterranean, and North African Theatres. With room to spare.
I suppose it would make a good observation spotter, I did some checking it served in three theaters New Guinea, the Solomon Islands Campaign and Borneo Campaign - which is a plus in my book, I really am dis-interested in aircraft that flew in limited engagements - I suppose it would certainly help the plane sets.
My reason is simply an opinion, something that flew in very limited theaters, loses a vote vs something that flew in multiple campaigns like a Ki-43 (which deserves its spot someday), something like a Ta-152 is limited to one theater, and only late war, I would of never voted on it.
I did find 4 manuals in my storage with all the information you need on the Boomerang, from squadron markings, operational theaters, pilot logs, production numbers etc.
Only problem is one of the manuals is in polish.
However I do have all the profiles, specifications from the factory itself on the production.
Let me know if any of it can be of help to the cause :)
-
Butcher (and Wmaker), from my point of view, this is just like a high school discussion, one side gets to argue for, and the other the against. Its been a rather interesting conversation for me, you both make good points, and hopefully i've been able to counter argue with a degree of success.
As we all know HTC makes the final call.
<S>
-
Butcher (and Wmaker), from my point of view, this is just like a high school discussion, one side gets to argue for, and the other the against. Its been a rather interesting conversation for me, you both make good points, and hopefully i've been able to counter argue with a degree of success.
As we all know HTC makes the final call.
<S>
I am one to make sure everyone knows what they are getting, before jumping to conclusions, for example I was totally against the B-29 - highly perked, and by the time you see it - its beyond 30k - total waste of time, honestly my vote was for the Aussies getting the Beaufighter.
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Boomerang_comparison.jpg)
How it was delivered from the factory to Finland - minus the navy stuff but you added pilot armor and other things and it had no self sealing tanks. In the deal you got 10 motors and 20 props and a few other parts for 20 mil.
Brewster F2A-1 Buffalo (June 1938 to November 1939)
3 x .50 Brownings, 1 x .30 Brownings
940 hp Wright R-1820-34<--- is this what is in the game?
301 MPH @ 17000
-
let alone the Brewster that fills in at least 5.
The brewster we have in the game (239) really only covers, from what I understand the finnish theater of war. Its a very different plane from the ones used in the other theaters.
-
The brewster we have in the game (239) really only covers, from what I understand the finnish theater of war. Its a very different plane from the ones used in the other theaters.
I think the US used a few similar ones but not the same.
-
940 hp Wright R-1820-34<--- is this what is in the game?
No it isnt. AH has the export model of the F2A-1 (Model 239). There was a ban in US on exporting engines designated for the military and thus Model 239 was equipped with R-1820G5, a civillian model of the Cyclone 9.
-
No it isnt. AH has the export model of the F2A-1 (Model 239). There was a ban in US on exporting engines designated for the military and thus Model 239 was equipped with R-1820G5, a civillian model of the Cyclone 9.
950hp Wright R-1820-G5
how did you get to 1000hp in your chart... rounding? Or Finnish improvements?
-
The rule of thumb (from what I'm told) is all planes in the game are configured as they left the factory.
No field mods allowed, except for that one plane of course.
-
950hp Wright R-1820-G5
how did you get to 1000hp in your chart... rounding? Or Finnish improvements?
No rounding. It produces 1000hp with its take off setting.
Source: Brewster Aeronautical Corporation Report 350: Detail Specification for Model 239 Airplane Class VF
-
No rounding. It produces 1000hp with its take off setting.
Source: Brewster Aeronautical Corporation Report 350: Detail Specification for Model 239 Airplane Class VF
850hp at 6k and 750hp at 15k <2100rpm>
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/4Boomers.jpg)
-
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/jackfrost_011/BoomerRecon.jpg)
-
850hp at 6k and 750hp at 15k <2100rpm>
That's the max. continuous power setting. It develops more on max. military setting.
The power outputs in my table are maximum sea level outputs for all planes.
-
HTC should definitely put this plane on their to do list.
However, I think it belongs near the bottom. There are many more aircraft and vehicles that played a much bigger part in the war.
B-17E/F, Stuart, PNZR III, He-111, Ki-43, Ju-87G(tank killer I think), etc.
I'm not really sure how the Brewster got dragged into this, but I do know that it played a significant part in one theater of war and a minor part in another (as a different model, but the same plane nonetheless).
-
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/jackfrost_011/065184.jpg)
PORT DOUGLAS, QLD. 1944-03-16. A BOOMERANG AIRCRAFT OF NO. 5 SQUADRON RAAF LAYING A SMOKE SCREEN OVER THE BEACH
TO SHIELD THE INVASION EXERCISE (DOUGLAS EXERCISE) OF THE 6TH DIVISION.
-
RAAF Boomer ready to escort RNZAF corsairs
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomerangleadscosair1.jpg)
Come on Boys lets GO!!
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomerangleadscosair2.jpg)
-
From Australia's performance testing of the Boomerang:
Performance in level speed:
Sea level - 260mph
5000ft - 280mph
10000ft - 295mph
15000ft - 295mph
20000ft - 300mph
25000ft - 285mph
30000ft - 260mph
-
RAAF Boomer ready to escort RNZAF corsairs
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomerangleadscosair1.jpg)
Come on Boys lets GO!!
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomerangleadscosair2.jpg)
That second pic is great. Those big bombers do need an escort. :D
-
From Australia's performance testing of the Boomerang:
Performance in level speed:
Sea level - 260mph
5000ft - 280mph
10000ft - 295mph
15000ft - 295mph
20000ft - 300mph
25000ft - 285mph
30000ft - 260mph
Lyric already posted the Australian figures in this thread and you can see the complete documents.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45970d1185675946-boomerang-performance-thread-boomerang-engine-cooling-trials.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45971d1185675946-boomerang-performance-thread-boomerang-stats-handing.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45972d1185675946-boomerang-performance-thread-boomerang-twin-wasp-operating-figures.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45973d1185675946-boomerang-performance-thread-durability-tests-boomerang.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45974d1185675946-boomerang-performance-thread-emergency-power-performance-boomerang.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45976d1185676281-boomerang-performance-thread-modified-pressure-head-boomerang.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45977d1185676281-boomerang-performance-thread-performance-data-boomerang.pdf
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/45978d1185676281-boomerang-performance-thread-performance-handling-boomerang.pdf
:cheers:
-
That second pic is great. Those big bombers do need an escort. :D
Yup, and I was holding onto it to put in a week or so as well :rolleyes:
Now I will have to find something else to post, which, hopefully wont be too long. One of my squaddies is going to work on a restoration project, and in some pictures he posted I spied a Boomerang in the back of a hangar, at the moment it doesn't have the engine attached, when it does I'll ask him to take a photo or two.
-
Yup, and I was holding onto it to put in a week or so as well :rolleyes:
Now I will have to find something else to post, which, hopefully wont be too long. One of my squaddies is going to work on a restoration project, and in some pictures he posted I spied a Boomerang in the back of a hangar, at the moment it doesn't have the engine attached, when it does I'll ask him to take a photo or two.
Ahhhh I'm sorry bout that,
I had also been waiting a few months to post it myself ;) Great Pic!
:cheers:
-
From Australia's performance testing of the Boomerang:
Performance in level speed:
Sea level - 260mph
5000ft - 280mph
10000ft - 295mph
15000ft - 295mph
20000ft - 300mph
25000ft - 285mph
30000ft - 260mph
Wow, that's slow!
Based on what I've seen here, I think I'd rather fly a Brewster.
The Boomerang sure does look cool though.
-
(http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/main/01_omaka/01OMK034.JPG)(http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/main/01_omaka/01OMK036.JPG)
-
Yah Fish, recent photo's mate?
I wonder if that is how they dispensed the smoke in RL? I cant find any references to how it was down, I presumed it was smoke markers like the Storch has.
-
That not how they maked, they carried small smoke bombs on the central hardpoint for that.
http://www.gunsofmuschu.com/boomerang.html
Featuring in one segment in "The Guns of Muschu" the CAC Boomerang gave valuable service to the Australian campaign in New Guinea.
Opening the throttle, speed built quickly and soon passed three hundred knots. Altimeter unwinding, Martin aimed at the western end of the island. At a thousand feet, he began pulling back on the stick. He felt the G forces coming on as he leveled from the dive one hundred feet above the trees. At over three hundred knots he streaked along the middle of the island, engine howling and supercharger whistling. Flashing over the hills at the eastern end, he hauled back the stick and climbed vertically. He snap rolled the little aircraft, counted one, two, three clockwise rotations, paused, then reversed it. One, two, three.
Passing three thousand feet, he flipped inverted, pulled through, tucked back down into another dive, this time at half throttle. Again he howled low over the trees, then allowing speed to wash off, began a wide circuit out over the southern coast.
Martin was thoroughly enjoying himself. For an aircraft someone once described as being built from spare parts, baling wire and Golden Syrup tins, the Boomerang was a bloody marvel. It might not be the world’s greatest fighter, but it was maneuverable, strong and very, very noisy. By now every Jap on the island would be aware that he was around...
-
Thanks Fish
-
http://www.dropbears.com/f/felix_noble/boomerang.htm
The next problem was the cannon. A source was not found in the country, and there did not seem to be a firm that was able to manufacture a weapon in time without a sample. Fortunately an RAAF sergeant who had served in the middle east had brought an Hispano cannon home as a souvenir, and offered it as a pattern. Then it was discovered that we had no source of 20 mm ammunition. This was solved by deciding that the first of the new fighters would be armed with rifle calibre machine guns while the production of cannon and ammunition got under way.
Four and five squadrons had the most notable success with the type. Its excellent manoeuvrability and rate of climb, combined with its unequalled pilot protection made it the perfect machine for army co-operation. With dazzling ability at low level, four and five squadron "Boomer boys" and their Wirraway counterparts became the bane of Japanese patrols. In radio contact with ground forces it was possible for a Boomerang with its engine throttled back to sneak up on the enemy, strafe them and disappear without the enemy having time to take a bead on them.
If the opposing forces were very close, not uncommon in New Guinea, the pilots would get close enough to identify uniforms before opening fire. If a ground force radio was out, a wire with a message attached to it would be strung between two trees, and the Boomer pilot would retrieve it with a hook. In one instance a detachment was under heavy fire from a tree top sniper nest. A Boomerang was seen nearby, and one digger put his slouch hat onto the end of his Owen gun and waved it over his head. The pilot noticed this, appraised the situation and obligingly cut the top of the tree off with his cannon.
Another role in which these nimble aircraft excelled was artillery spotting. After a recce they would inform the local artillery battery of the target and then fly around it as the bombardment came in, and direct the fire until the target was destroyed. If the target was out of range of the artillery, an RNZAF Corsair squadron would be led to the spot, and the Boomerang pilot would mark the target for them with a smoke bomb. In this way, to the Kiwis the Boomer boys became known as "Smokey Joes". Indeed 20 Sqn. RNZAF attributed the most effective strikes of their tour to Smokey Joes leading them to targets. Even the local American fighter squadrons liked the Boomerang, though for different reasons. The artillery missions were so annoying to the Japanese that they would always send fighters to intercept them, giving the P38 jockeys plenty of trade!
-
(http://www.redroomodels.com/images/products/main/boomer.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2608/4040235939_e410225243.jpg)
(http://www.hsgalleries.com/gallery04/images/boomerangnb_1.jpg)
-
Golden Syrup :aok
-
Haven't seen the Boomerang on the AH home page yet. You guys need to get it in gear or no case of Cragganmore. :bolt:
-
Haven't seen the Boomerang on the AH home page yet. You guys need to get it in gear or no case of Cragganmore. :bolt:
Take a Spitfire Mk V and limit the throttle to 75% or so. :p
-
Take a Spitfire Mk V and limit the throttle to 75% or so. :p
The Spit V is a mean machine but rather delicate compared to the Boomerang (at least by it's reputation). If I'm going to get BnZ-ed all day, I would rather have the plane that is slow and can take some punishment.
-
The Spit V is a mean machine but rather delicate compared to the Boomerang (at least by it's reputation). If I'm going to get BnZ-ed all day, I would rather have the plane that is slow and can take some punishment.
Yeah, I know. It was a joke based on them having the same armament. I've also jokingly razzed the pro-Beaufighter guys the same way by telling them to take a Mossie and fly it on 75% power.
-
Seeing as we have smoke bombs in AH2 now.....
We can give this plane life. Class it as an observer (Don't Enable it at GV Bases) and give it GV sight ability.
The Boomerang would be an armed Recon Aircraft....
It wouldn't just see use... it would see EXCESSIVE use.
-
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/CA_Boomerang.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Commonwealth_CA-12_Boomerang.jpg)
-
Where is that from Lyric? Nice to see.
-
Where is that from Lyric? Nice to see.
From this site.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/
Some more info from the same site.
http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/ca12bg_1.htm
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/help-info-boomerang-7839.html
-
Thanks Mate :aok
-
I'm glad that HTC isn't stupid enough that it would add any aircraft with cannons/forward firing armament to V-bases.
-
Hey Lyric you're underselling the local manufacturing a bit:
700 GAF Beauforts
365 GAF Beaufighters
755 Wirraways
200 Wacketts
100 (ish) P51Ds assembled locally from imported parts in 44/45 followed by about 250? manufactured fully from local resources (mainly through 1946 though)
1070 Tiger Moths
200 + Mosquitoes
and without the time to go checking, I recall a bunch of Ansons and maybe some Oxfords as well?
Oh yeah, nearly forgot - 250 Boomerangs!! :)
Here's a bit of video on the Aussie Mossie manufacture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7cVvYdLeek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7cVvYdLeek)
Nice little primer from the Kiwis on the Boomer here http://vidgrids.com/boomerang-sale (http://vidgrids.com/boomerang-sale)
The late and very great Guido Zuccoli restored that one.
Just to go off topic - here is a picture of Guido's Fiat G59-4B, which is of course the later Rolls Royce powered version of the much wished for G55.
(http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/4/7/6/1/40664_1329959167.jpg)
rgds
-
Some great footage of a Boomerage in flight here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1WL-jujBg4
And a nice little film from an air show in NZ. High quility sound, LISTEN TO HER HOWL!
http://www.myvido1.com/AVYRGaNVkWGVVRGpXTEdWP_cac-19-boomerang-ww2-fight
-
I never knew where Guido got his money, but I liked the way he spent it. Its been some time now, is there still a Boomer at Archerfield these days?
Anyone know?
-
Get cracking, HTC. The sooner you finish updating the old AH1 models, the sooner you can get to working on the Boomerang.
Chop chop! :)
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomerangpilots.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Boomunder.jpg)
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boom2.jpg)
-
Hey Lyric you're underselling the local manufacturing a bit:
700 GAF Beauforts
365 GAF Beaufighters
755 Wirraways
200 Wacketts
100 (ish) P51Ds assembled locally from imported parts in 44/45 followed by about 250? manufactured fully from local resources (mainly through 1946 though)
1070 Tiger Moths
200 + Mosquitoes
and without the time to go checking, I recall a bunch of Ansons and maybe some Oxfords as well?
Oh yeah, nearly forgot - 250 Boomerangs!! :)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomplant.jpg)
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomplant.jpg)
Know it well.
-
Some great footage of a Boomerang in flight here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1WL-jujBg4
Wow!! Cool!! I thought this would be in more modern times.
Great!! thank you for posting :)
-
Some Boomerang on the Ramu:
http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/pushingback/boomerang.html (http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/pushingback/boomerang.html)
-
(http://www.airlinepictures.net/photopost/data/526/medium/2116COMMONWEALTH_CA-13_-BOOMERANG-.jpg)
(http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/149/69d2c712f09649d5a3a6772aadf5b8b4/l.jpg)
(http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AE/AE72-2/91-1.jpg)
-
For the skinners,
The second production CA-12 Boomerang (A46-2).
(http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AE/AE72-2/97-1.jpg)
(http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AV/AV11-1/o3-1.jpg)
The 10th CA-12 Boomerang (A46-10) as flown at No 2 OTU, Mildura, NSW, in 1943..
(http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AE/AE72-2/97-2.jpg)
A CA-13 Boomerang (A46-117) of No 4 Sqdn, New Guinea, early 1944.
(http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AE/AE72-2/97-5.jpg)
(http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AV/AV11-1/o3-3.jpg)
A CA-13 Boomerang (A46-126) of No 5 Sqdn, Bougainville, 1944.
(http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AE/AE72-2/97-3.jpg)
A CA-13 Boomerang (A46-195) of No 4 Sqdn, New Guinea, late 1943.
(http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AE/AE72-2/97-4.jpg)
(http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AV/AV11-1/o3-2.jpg)
(http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AV/AV11-1/o3-5.jpg)
From this site, if anyone can read it. http://crimso.msk.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft21574.htm (http://crimso.msk.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft21574.htm)
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomerfrontview.jpg)
nose art
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomernoseart.jpg)
skins
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomerskins.jpg)
-
very nice
-
Great little airplane, based on the NA T-6 linage, but at the end of it's developement capability by the start of the war. Held the line until newer designs could be brough online.
-
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_01.jpg)
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_02.jpg)
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_03.jpg)
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_04.jpg)
I have many, many pages left to add. But I will add them day by day and at the end of each book I will upload the PDF of the full item in all its high detail. Its how I will keep you checking in :bolt:
-
Thanks, Fish. :aok
Did the Boomerang handle negative Gs well, or did it conk out like the Spit I?
-
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_05.jpg)
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_06.jpg)
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_07.jpg)
-
Thanks, Fish. :aok
Did the Boomerang handle negative Gs well, or did it conk out like the Spit I?
No problem :salute
As to the fuel starvation in -G's, I dont remember reading about it anywhere.
-
Sounds like a nifty feild defence fighter or de-acker. Or worse, competition for the Brewster as the most irritating sneeky littel peice of so and so in the game.
Australian War Memorial Collection of Photos.
http://www.awm.gov.au/search/collections/?mode=advanced&q=Boomerang+aircraft&terms=phrase&field=related_subjects_text
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: CAC Boomerange Home Page - http://cacboomerang.com.au/
Fred David worked in Germany with Heinkle and then in Japan with Mitsubishi and Aichi in so he had an intimate knowledge of then current cutting edge technology. The Boomerang was designed and flew inside 16 week and 4 days (first flight 29 May 1942) this is a record. The fighter was an exceptionally tough and maneuverable aircraft at low level, well-armed with 2 cannon and 4 machine guns and was easy to maintain. Although its performance over 15,000 feet was only average the fighter was a match for most contemporary fighters under that height. The Boomerang was in the event not required to perform its designed task of interceptor due to the large scale availability of the Curtiss P40 and Supermarine Spitfire. The rugged structure of the Boomerang , its ease of maintenance, low level maneuverability and good armament however assured it of a pre-eminent role as a ground attack and Army support aircraft and it went on to serve with distinction with 7 RAAF Squadrons (2,4.5,83,84,85 and 8 Sqns) throughout the War. It was not required to tackle enemy aircraft but the RAAF took a heavy toll of Japanese ground forces. Ground crews were very impressed with the aircraft and serviceability was high. The pilots had a very high respect for the Boomerang and its ability to absorb damage and bring them home.
And HTC is halfway there. Look we already have that gunsight in the game......
(http://cacboomerang.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mail4.jpg)
From a New Zealand sight with great pictures of a restored Boomerang. Check out the photo gallery on the WEB page.
http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/boomer.html
Like many aircraft initially considered less than successful, the Boomerang found its niche in another roles - particularly army cooperation and ground attack. The sparkling low level performance of the Boomerang combined with a tough structure was ideal for this alternate role. 4 and 5 Squadrons operated the Boomerang in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. In the tactical role, as well as strafing (armament being four .303 machine guns and two 20mm cannon) the aircraft were also used for artillery spotting and close support, and 'FAC' type work marking targets. It is in this later role that the type became well known to some New Zealand pilots. The 'Smokey Joes' used four 9kg (20lb) smoke bombs carried under the centre section to mark targets for RNZAF Corsair fighter-bombers. The aircraft could also carry up to a 227kg (500lb) bomb on the centreline. Other operations, like convoy patrol were common. A number of aircraft were written off in training and many operational losses were in crashes and landing incidents. The latter reflect the nature of the airstrips being used. The aircraft were often stripped of parts and subsequently dumped. One (A46-88) was shot down by US ground fire, and another (A46-136) was damaged in an attack by a P-38 flown by Lt G.R. Johnson. One aircraft from 5 Squadron RAAF (A46-189) was lost when it crashed on the target while marking it during an operation with 24 Squadron RNZAF Corsairs .
(http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/main/01_omaka/01OMK035.JPG)
(http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/main/01_omaka/01OMK010.JPG)
The Pilots Manual - http://www.avialogs.com/list/item/883-raaf-257-the-boomerang-interceptor-aircraft-operating-instructions
From the Manual.
Reading from the manual seems the Aussies used the MkII gunsight but, had their own twist on the reticle.
1. 100Mil main ring.
2. 50Mil secondary to range 30-40 ft wingspan at 300 yards. Wow sounds like a Mk9 reticle.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img163/7362/boomcokp2.gif)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img443/9209/boomcokp.gif)
-
No problem :salute
As to the fuel starvation in -G's, I dont remember reading about it anywhere.
R-1830 Twin-Wasp - Shouldn't of been an issue... however, what may of been an isue with it like others in the series (but needs to be researched further for verification), applying constant negative Gs for ~20-30 seconds may of led to oil starvation/scavaging issues (an issue much much worse than simpley fuel starving it).
It would probabley mention something definitive about it in the documentation a lot of you guys already have.
-
With all the info you guys posted, the Boomerang should be a cinch to include in the next game update. :D
-
The aircraft were often stripped of parts and subsequently dumped. One (A46-88) was shot down by US ground fire, and another (A46-136) was damaged in an attack by a P-38 flown by Lt G.R. Johnson.
These are from my notes
"Bio_Jungle Ace"
http://www.boomerangbooks.com.au/Jungle-Ace/John-R-Bruning/book_9781574886948.htm (http://www.boomerangbooks.com.au/Jungle-Ace/John-R-Bruning/book_9781574886948.htm)
adf serial:\ A46-136 CA-13 959 09/43
http://www.adf-serials.com/2a46.shtml
The Boomerang pilot was F/O Robert McColl Stewart, 408505
Shot Down November 15, 1943
Served with 4 Sqn; on 15/11/43 it was flying back to base when a USAAF P-38 Lightning piloted by Lt Gerald R Johnson of 9 FS (who became the 5th Air Force's 4th highest scoring ace with 22 victories) fired a burst into the port side hitting mainplane and port tailplane with the aircraft lurching to starboard and lost height finally recovering at 500ft but with the port mainplane on fire and cannon ammunition exploding it was travelling too fast to land so F/O Robert McColl Stewart (408505) lifted the a/c over the river at the strip end belly landed into scrub whereupon it burst into flames and was totally destroyed and all this happened even though it was accompanied by A46-132 and two P-40s; it was converted to components and Lt Johnson had an Australian flag painted on the nose of his P-38 along with his Japanese victories.
These photos are on p. 331 of Protect and Avenge and, p. 43 of 49th Fighter Group. They show only the victory board on the nose.
(http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/uploads/monthly_05_2009/post-39-1241556011.jpg)
http://www.network54.com/Forum/219149/thread/1222516772/1222866819/Kangaroo+%26quot%3Bkill%26quot%3B+marking+on+a+US+Aircraft+in+PNG+WW2 (http://www.network54.com/Forum/219149/thread/1222516772/1222866819/Kangaroo+%26quot%3Bkill%26quot%3B+marking+on+a+US+Aircraft+in+PNG+WW2)
-
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_08.jpg)
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_09.jpg)
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_10.jpg)
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_11.jpg)
(http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z460/queenslander2/Boomerang%20Profile%20178/Profile178_Boomerang_page_12.jpg)
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/BoomerangSight_zps4cf8b0b1.jpg)(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomerflightControls_zpsf084e253.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomercockpitIns_zpscdee173c.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Boomeranglinedrawing_zpsc57bd80f.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/Boomeranglinedrawing1_zpsc78ba216.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/boomerpilotchart_zps9573b105.jpg)
-
Odd lookink but sexy +1. I'd love to fly her.
-
"Can we have our Boomerang"
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/BoomerCanWe_zpse2b88606.jpg)
Please,
-
And I've got your CAC J178 reticle.
Boomerang hisso were set for 300 yards. The center ring of the J178 is a 40 foot wingspan at 300 yards. Outer ring is a 100m.p.h. ring or a 2rad gunnery ring. 70Mil.
CAC J178
(http://imageshack.us/a/img541/6195/aussj178.gif)
-
And I've got your CAC J178 reticle.
Boomerang hisso were set for 300 yards. The center ring of the J178 is a 40 foot wingspan at 300 yards. Outer ring is a 100m.p.h. ring or a 2rad gunnery ring. 70Mil.
CAC J178
(http://imageshack.us/a/img541/6195/aussj178.gif)
what is a 100mph ring or 2rad ring?
-
Always good to see more information crop up.
-
Helped with replacing a R-1830 jug this weekend, reminded me of this thread.
-
what is a 100mph ring or 2rad ring?
Allied Aircraft gunnery unit of measurement for hold off or lead by the radius of the ring sight.
1 rad = 35Mil ring and the lead amount is the radius or 17.5.
2 rad = 70Mil ring and the lead amount is the radius or 35.
3 rad = 105Mil ring and the lead amount is the radius or 52.5.
The British 100mph ring concept is a 2rad ring. As fighters got faster and cannon rounds were slower the British changed to the 3 rad ring. Bullet time of travel to 200-300 yards (600-900 feet) in relation to the con's time of travel.
The Germans used a 100Mil ring and their units of lead were based on radii fractions of the 100Mil ring. The tick marks were there to help with visual fractions. They divided the 100Mil ring into 6ths.
With all of this the best shots were naturals or got so close you didn't need a slide rule. The rest did their best. Overall, anything more than a ring and dot was wasted on air to air fighter gunnery. That was the reason behind the K14. But you still needed some reference marks to fire rockets. That was the K14A. Even the B25H got an update to the manual ranging on its N-3C gunsight A1 sight head visa radar because most 75mm rounds were a miss. That's when the Falcon radar (and the C-1 sight head) came in making the B25H very accurate with the 75mm.
Very few of us are very good at shooting moving objects from a moving object.
-
COME ON HTC
WE HAVE THE HEINKEL.
NOW GIVE US AN ANTI-BREWSTER AUSTRALIAN BEAST MACHINE! :rock
-
New paperback coming out on the Boomerang.
http://www.valiant-wings.co.uk/pre-order-airframe-album-no3-38-p.asp
(http://www.valiant-wings.co.uk/ekmps/shops/valiantwings/images/pre-order-airframe-album-no.3-38-p.jpg)
Thinking about ordering it.
-
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8391/8536545518_a5ecb88467_o.jpg)
(http://hdwallpapers4desktop.com/wallpaper/cac_boomerang_australian_wwii_temora_raaf-hd-wallpaper-526383.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/603837_600555816630999_995828563_n.jpg)
-
And now the best find from my last look.
LISTEN TO HER SCREAM!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvdMX2SrP0
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/No._5_Sqn_Boomerang_%28AWM_OG3258%29.jpg)
-
And now the best find from my last look.
LISTEN TO HER SCREAM!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvdMX2SrP0
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/No._5_Sqn_Boomerang_%28AWM_OG3258%29.jpg)
That scream is AWESOME! G-damn that sounds good! Great pictures too, thanks. :aok
Must have Boomerang. :x
-
That scream is AWESOME! G-damn that sounds good! Great pictures too, thanks. :aok
Must have Boomerang. :x
Great shot off the take off sounds awesome.
Preordered,
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/861081_646876452008680_1266045500_o.jpg)
-
It's faster than jets! What is HTC waiting for? :D
-
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s497/Coprhead/A3CA9223-FC5E-48E9-B322-E4D2129F1CF6-1113-000000B69F602EA9_zps332cae2d.jpg)
Much cooler and was in all theaters!
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_P-61_Black_Widow
"Vladimir H. Pavlecka, Northrop Chief of Research, was present on unrelated business at Wright Field. On 21 October 1940, Colonel Laurence Craigie of the ATSC phoned Pavlecka, explaining the USAAC's specifications, but told him to "not take any notes, 'Just try and keep this in your memory!'"[5] What Pavlecka did not learn was radar's part in the aircraft; Craigie described the then super-secret radar as a "device which would locate enemy aircraft in the dark" and which had the capability to "see and distinguish other airplanes." The mission, Craigie explained, was "the interception and destruction of hostile aircraft in flight during periods of darkness or under conditions of poor visibility."
Wouldn't it make sense to wish for night to return first and to add night fighter radar to be run by a second player that would help line up the kill for the pilot? Like it would make sense to ask for water landings to be coded in before we add seaplanes. :aok
-
I didn't see where it's a requirement for night to be added in AH, could you point that link out to me? Not to mention they completed many daytime sorties as well. As far as radar abilities the P-61 could use settings like the FI uses. Instead of seeing a con at 6k maybe 8k icon range.
-
You're drooling over a night-fighter to be added. As a day fighter, it brings nothing to the game for the MAers. As far as plugging event gaps, it really doesn't. You want it because you think it's 'cool.' :D
-
How does it bring nothing to the game?? Please explain how you know the exact reasons I'd like to see something added to AH?
-
How does it bring nothing to the game?? Please explain how you know the exact reasons I'd like to see something added to AH?
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s497/Coprhead/A3CA9223-FC5E-48E9-B322-E4D2129F1CF6-1113-000000B69F602EA9_zps332cae2d.jpg)
Much cooler and was in all theaters!
-
That was more of a joke in response to the Meteor picture, but you have your panties in a knot again...and I'm not going to get in to it in Snuggies thread. You have a problem, pm me about or ignore my post.
-
It took 3, 2, 100 years though.
It worked for the M-18, didn't it? :D
-
That was more of a joke in response to the Meteor picture, but you have your panties in a knot again...and I'm not going to get in to it in Snuggies thread. You have a problem, pm me about or ignore my post.
You're giving yourself way to much credit and taking yourself way too seriously. Do what I do. Don't. :)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3IcxCXpW6Y
:salute
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3IcxCXpW6Y
:salute
:salute Jack Hearn
-
In order to really get the most out of the upcoming terrain updates, we really need this:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/CB_1.jpg~original) (http://s343.photobucket.com/user/caldera_08/media/CB_1.jpg.html)
-
The 'second string' of close support aircraft and a trainer. Pretty but not much functionality past that.
If you tink the masses whine that the He-111 is a hangar queen .....
;)
-
The 'second string' of close support aircraft and a trainer. Pretty but not much functionality past that.
If you tink the masses whine that the He-111 is a hangar queen .....
;)
I don't think it will be a hangar queen, 20mm cannons on a small agile aircraft. The only reason it was a close support aircraft is because the yanks hubris caused them to give us crappy jobs. Here's a photo taken by an AH player Breadrol.
(http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt118/phatzo/boom_zps09af5737.jpg) (http://s603.photobucket.com/user/phatzo/media/boom_zps09af5737.jpg.html)
-
I don't think it will be a hangar queen, 20mm cannons on a small agile aircraft. The only reason it was a close support aircraft is because the yanks hubris caused them to give us crappy jobs. Here's a photo taken by an AH player Breadrol.
Perhaps, but it still didn't even have a single combat kill during the war, not that it would of. I understand the Aussie frustration as to taking a back seat, but still the Boomerang was not exactly a top line fighter, unless it comes from great alt in aces high - it won't stand any chance other then Ho'ing if someone gets that close to it.
I would say 500 pages and the beaufighter which would serve more of a purpose just keeps getting backseated.
-
The 'second string' of close support aircraft and a trainer. Pretty but not much functionality past that.
If you tink the masses whine that the He-111 is a hangar queen .....
;)
It's function would be to dodge late war monsters and watch them impact on the landscape.
I don't think it will be a hangar queen, 20mm cannons on a small agile aircraft. The only reason it was a close support aircraft is because the yanks hubris caused them to give us crappy jobs. Here's a photo taken by an AH player Breadrol.
(http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt118/phatzo/boom_zps09af5737.jpg) (http://s603.photobucket.com/user/phatzo/media/boom_zps09af5737.jpg.html)
:aok
Perhaps, but it still didn't even have a single combat kill during the war, not that it would of.
How many kills did the Ta-152 have? What about the Meteor? It flew in the war, nuff said.
If it comes to pass, you can bring out your 109gay4 or whatever easy mode plane you like and enjoy dispatching my Boomerang - if you can.
Either way, it's a win-win.
-
How many kills did the Ta-152 have? What about the Meteor? It flew in the war, nuff said.
If it comes to pass, you can bring out your 109gay4 or whatever easy mode plane you like and enjoy dispatching my Boomerang - if you can.
Either way, it's a win-win.
Yeah I love my easy mode rides like the P-51 and Spit 16 and Gay4.
-
The only reason it was a close support aircraft is because the yanks hubris caused them to give us crappy jobs. Here's a photo taken by an AH player Breadrol.
The reason it was a support aircraft was because it was slow.
"The Boomerang's low top speed and poor high altitude performance meant that No. 84 could drive off enemy attacks but rarely get close enough to Japanese aircraft to bring their guns to bear. On the only occasion that a Boomerang did close on a Japanese aircraft, its guns jammed. There were not many air raids in this area, and after using Boomerangs for eight months No. 84 Sqn upgraded to the Kittyhawk.
The Boomerang found its niche as a light ground attack aircraft, a vital role as the ground war in the jungles of the South West Pacific theatre was often characterised by widely dispersed, small unit actions, fought at close quarters, with uncertain front lines. The Boomerang was ideal in this role because it: had the range to go wherever it was needed when it was based close to ground operations; had heavy armament; was agile and easy to fly, meaning that pilots could get close to ground targets, avoid ground fire and rough terrain and; featured extensive armour plating and a wood and aluminium airframe, that could withstand significant battle damage."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Boomerang
-
The reason it was a support aircraft was because it was slow.
No, actually it was because in very late 1942 when it was a new fighter introduced - it was already obsolete by many years, it should of been a trainer then a front line fighter. What Phatzo doesn't know is the Boomerang was already being removed from service well before the Yanks took over the show Thus is why P-40s and Beaufighters were being used and later Spitfires instead. You know planes with speed, range, bomb capability. Unfortunately he wants to blame MacArthur and the 5th Airforce, and rightly so - except there were no boomerangs this time of the war.
I think it was the 84th squadron who attempted to intercept some japanese planes and were upgraded to "superior P-40s" due to the Boomerang's shortcomings and not the only squadron who upgraded. I think 85th was doing combat air patrol around Derby looking for Japanese Submarine recon planes since they were fast enough to catch submarine recon aircraft.
Again I think they upgraded to Spit 5's as well.
-
No, actually it was because in very late 1942 when it was a new fighter introduced - it was already obsolete by many years, it should of been a trainer then a front line fighter. What Phatzo doesn't know is the Boomerang was already being removed from service well before the Yanks took over the show Thus is why P-40s and Beaufighters were being used and later Spitfires instead. You know planes with speed, range, bomb capability. Unfortunately he wants to blame MacArthur and the 5th Airforce, and rightly so - except there were no boomerangs this time of the war.
I think it was the 84th squadron who attempted to intercept some japanese planes and were upgraded to "superior P-40s" due to the Boomerang's shortcomings and not the only squadron who upgraded. I think 85th was doing combat air patrol around Derby looking for Japanese Submarine recon planes since they were fast enough to catch submarine recon aircraft.
Again I think they upgraded to Spit 5's as well.
This little bird will get plenty of play time with its 20mm's and ability to drop smoke. Mark tanks ..shoot flaks ...perfect.
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t232/wabrown33/BoomerangA46-199.jpg)
Not to mention adding another country's plane to the plane set.
There are 30 million people in Australia?... I bet more than a few would like to fly this plane over the internet, designed by the "best in the business" plane simmer extraordinaire.
In this time of shrinkage don't you think it would be good idea to market other country's that were in the war as possible accounts.
Better then adding an h8k or whatever............ France.... a mir 75 million folks I bet quit a few would like to fly there Dewoitine.. No?.
Paasha,
-
Adding another please :pray HTC with a big +1 for my buddy Fish! :aok
-
This little bird will get plenty of play time with its 20mm's and ability to drop smoke. Mark tanks ..shoot flaks ...perfect.
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t232/wabrown33/BoomerangA46-199.jpg)
Not to mention adding another country's plane to the plane set.
There are 30 million people in Australia?... I bet more than a few would like to fly this plane over the internet, designed by the "best in the business" plane simmer extraordinaire.
In this time of shrinkage don't you think it would be good idea to market other country's that were in the war as possible accounts.
Better then adding an h8k or whatever............ France.... a mir 75 million folks I bet quit a few would like to fly there Dewoitine.. No?.
Paasha,
You've got a very weird fixation over expanding the Aces High 'league of nations' and attempting to promote it as a potential revenue builder.
Here's the would-be Yugo of Ace's High to make your day:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Rogozarski_R-100.JPG) :aok
P.S. British Commonwealth planes can still fly under one banner (it's one already in the game). ;)
-
Snip
Go crash some where else!
-
Go crash some where else!
Wah? :aok
-
I will be all for the Boomerang after we get the new terrain engine, the Ki-100, P-61, Tu-2, Meteor, an updated 110 model, the Beaufighter, and an updated Ju 88 model with the Ju 88C variant added.
-
I will be all for the Boomerang after we get the new terrain engine, the Ki-100, P-61, Tu-2, Meteor, an updated 110 model, the Beaufighter, and an updated Ju 88 model with the Ju 88C variant added.
No Ju88P? Boomer will see more use than all of those combined... save maybe ... nope all of em :aok
-
No Ju88P? Boomer will see more use than all of those combined... save maybe ... nope all of em :aok
Everybody will be lining up to fly a plane that was replaced by the "Superior" P40 :lol
-
Everybody will be lining up to fly a plane that was replaced by the "Superior" P40 :lol
HTC should just model more Late War perk planes, because nothing else will ever be good enough.
-
HTC should just model more Late War perk planes, because nothing else will ever be good enough.
Because that is exactly what I meant. :rolleyes:
-
Because that is exactly what I meant. :rolleyes:
Tell us what are the other possible plane inclusions everyone will be lining up for.
-
No Ju88P? Boomer will see more use than all of those combined... save maybe ... nope all of em :aok
On that list the Tu-2, Ki-100, P-61 and Meteor would all see much, much larger usage than the Boomerang.
The Boomerang is simply a slow, poor climbing Spitfire Mk V. How much use does the Spitfire Mk V get?
If you're envisioning a massive influx of Aussies who have just been waiting in the wings to fly the Boomerang you're sadly mistaken.
-
http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/cac-boomerang.html
-
If you're envisioning a massive influx of Aussies who have just been waiting in the wings to fly the Boomerang you're sadly mistaken.
Some one has to find targets for those blind Kiwis in their F4U's. :rock
-
I wonder how many pilots burned their legs on that exhaust pipe while climbing out of the planes? :rofl
I believe entry/exit of single seat or tandem fixed wing aircraft is almost exclusively from the port side :old:
-
http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/cac-boomerang.html
Cool I've been looking for a pic w/egg :aok
-
If you're envisioning a massive influx of Aussies who have just been waiting in the wings to fly the Boomerang you're sadly mistaken.
Not a massive 1 but an influx ..Yes!
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/362e5533-1e17-4e51-9233-6e4f7626a839_zps2eb3b2be.png)
Common HT How bout our Boomerang!
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/e633b6c9-7148-4a69-8e3d-4490ce249932_zps5c5b5501.png)
-
And Remember!
-
Waffle please note:
The Aussi's built their own version of the British Barr&Stroud MKII gunsight called the J178. It had the wingspan and range dials removed in favor of a dual light bulb holder. The bulb holder allowed rotating the base to the second bulb if the first burnt out. The sun screen round was often rotated down and never used. You will see this in the following pictures.
(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee508/KDavis6030/76125_388088647935500_945269382_n.jpg)
(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee508/KDavis6030/Auss2J178.jpg)
(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee508/KDavis6030/au2J178.jpg)
(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee508/KDavis6030/au1J178.jpg)
(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee508/KDavis6030/BoomJ178.jpg)
Pictures of the bomb shackles.
(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee508/KDavis6030/CAC_Boomerang_bomb_installation_01_NAA_via_the_Phantom_Brendan_Cowan_sized.jpg)
(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee508/KDavis6030/CAC_Boomerang_bomb_installation_03_NAA_via_the_Phantom_Brendan_Cowan_sized.jpg)
(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee508/KDavis6030/CAC_Boomerang_bomb_installation_02_NAA_via_the_Phantom_Brendan_Cowan.jpg)
-
And Australia was still part of the British commonwealth ..... still even .... even still (RAAF/ANZACs are represented in AH just fine). :aok
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/aussie_planes_in_AH_zpsd7441cd7.png)
As you see.
Meg, you can surely make a better argument for the Dewoitine D.520 than attempting to tie it to Australia's coat tails (or project a need to include every nation that had an airplane in WWII). :D
-
And Australia was still part of the British commonwealth ..... still even .... even still (RAAF/ANZACs are represented in AH just fine). :aok
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/aussie_planes_in_AH_zpsd7441cd7.png)
As you see.
Meg, you can surely make a better argument for the Dewoitine D.520 than attempting to tie it to Australia's coat tails (or project a need to include every nation that had an airplane in WWII). :D
You missed a few.
-
You missed a few.
That's ok.
-
And Australia was still part of the British commonwealth ..... still even .... even still (RAAF/ANZACs are represented in AH just fine). :aok
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/aussie_planes_in_AH_zpsd7441cd7.png)
As you see.
Meg, you can surely make a better argument for the Dewoitine D.520 than attempting to tie it to Australia's coat tails (or project a need to include every nation that had an airplane in WWII). :D
You can sit there and be a punk/jackrear all you like arlo no one thinks your funnny ..........it wont make these country's go away or the want of there planes in the game
Move on dude your game is old,
-
You can sit there and be a punk/jackrear all you like arlo no one thinks your funnny ..........it wont make these country's go away or the want of there planes in the game
Move on dude your game is old,
Hi, Meg. Your post is bizarre poo. :)
-
Arlo is funny. :old:
Zach likes pie. :old:
-
Arlo likes pie, as well. :old:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Pumpkin-Pie-Whole-Slice.jpg)
-
Pi is the answer to every thing. :old:
-
Found a new picture :
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n258/jbsaccount/boomer_zps0d4d685a.jpg)
Still holding out for a Boomerang!
-
oh and this
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n258/jbsaccount/boom_zps6bb325f8.jpg)
-
Add that midget bipe-boat! :D :cheers:
-
Figured you guys would at least be on thread #2 of 1000 by now. :bolt:
-
Add that midget bipe-boat! :D :cheers:
(http://www.airpages.ru/ot/raaf_04.jpg)
Supermarine Seagull V
+1 its a long way down the list... very long way, but why not!
Might be a little under armed and did not carry bombs. But it sets a cracking pace at over 70MPH!
-
Figured you guys would at least be on thread #2 of 1000 by now. :bolt:
As soon as this one reaches 100 pages. :old:
-
(http://www.airpages.ru/ot/raaf_109.jpg)
A46-14, a CA-12 Boomerang from No. 83 Squadron, after running off the strip and ending in a drainage ditch at Coomalie, N.T. (Northern Territory)
(via Frank Smith).
(http://www.airpages.ru/ot/raaf_110.jpg)
Formation of CA-13 Boomerangs from No. 5 Squadron over Northern Queensland in 1944.
(via Frank Smith).
-
Bet the first week after this is introduced, everyone will defend bases with it using the HO. And that will be the only thing anyone will remember. Bomr = HOer = Hurri IIc.
Then everyone will be merge shy with like against the Hurri.
-
(http://www.airpages.ru/ot/raaf_04.jpg)
Supermarine Seagull V
+1 its a long way down the list... very long way, but why not!
Might be a little under armed and did not carry bombs. But it sets a cracking pace at over 70MPH!
Seagull or Walrus Fish?
-
I think we need some Whirraways to go with it.
-
I'm all for it. I think we need to do whatever we can to get more Aussies into the game.
-
Bet the first week after this is introduced, everyone will defend bases with it using the HO. And that will be the only thing anyone will remember. Bomr = HOer = Hurri IIc.
Then everyone will be merge shy with like against the Hurri.
How is that different from planes like the P-51, F4U or La-7 HOing everything in sight?
-
Seagull or Walrus Fish?
Just what I was thinking JR, it looks like a Walrus to me.
-
Just what I was thinking JR, it looks like a Walrus to me.
Hey Phatz, you just spurred me to look it up on adf serials, it is a Seagull.
Look at the serial on the tail a2-18 and check it.
http://www.adf-serials.com.au/2a2.htm