CAC Boomerang request thread #1 of 1000

[SEseph]

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.

[gyrene81]

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

[MachFly]

base defense...that's where it would be great

Smoke for base defense?
How much real ordnance can it carry?

[gyrene81]

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.

[MachFly]

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.

[lyric1]

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.

[gyrene81]

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.

[MachFly]

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?

[gyrene81]

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.

[MachFly]

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

[waystin2]

+1 to the Boomerang!

[Ack-Ack]

The Finns got their Brewster so it stands to reason the convicts from Down Under should get their Boomerang.

ack-ack

[caldera]

(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

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. 

[Raphael]

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.

[B4Buster]

A sexy little airframe to boot.