Boomerang restoration photos
Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:47 am
Hello,
Here is a link to photos of my CA-13 Boomerang restoration project A46-147: http://community.webshots.com/user/boomerang147
Nick
Here is a link to photos of my CA-13 Boomerang restoration project A46-147: http://community.webshots.com/user/boomerang147
Nick
Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:31 am
Great to see you here Nick, and many congratulations on your project. Keep the photos coming as you progress... we're all intersted in keeping track of this exciting project! Do you know any details of the aircraft, or her service history?
Cheers,
Richard
Cheers,
Richard
Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:32 pm
Yes, great shots.
please do give us more info on your project, the found in a field behind a shed stories are some of the most interesting areas of modern warbird restoration, keep up the good work!
please do give us more info on your project, the found in a field behind a shed stories are some of the most interesting areas of modern warbird restoration, keep up the good work!
Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:29 pm
Hi guys,
Thank's for the comments. There are some details of the history of A46-147, on the Warbirds Resource group site, as well as a photo of when it was recovered in 1964.
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/boomeran ... 46147.html
Nick
Thank's for the comments. There are some details of the history of A46-147, on the Warbirds Resource group site, as well as a photo of when it was recovered in 1964.
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/boomeran ... 46147.html
Nick
Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Hi Nick:
It looks good, a lot of parts look the same as T-6.
It looks good, a lot of parts look the same as T-6.
Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:09 am
Hi Chris,
Yeah; thats the CAC dilemma; the bits LOOK like T-6, but the Wirraway was essentially a NA-16, and the Boomerang another diversion further away - so often they aren't. So, sourcing, cost, fit, comprimise, etc... Not an 'off the shelf' parts aircraft at all!
Cheers
Yeah; thats the CAC dilemma; the bits LOOK like T-6, but the Wirraway was essentially a NA-16, and the Boomerang another diversion further away - so often they aren't. So, sourcing, cost, fit, comprimise, etc... Not an 'off the shelf' parts aircraft at all!
Cheers
Last edited by JDK on Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Question about wing center section and wing outer panels
Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:44 am
Are they same or just lookalikes for T6? Can T6 be adapted for them? Are you planning to fly this one?
Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:17 am
No, no, no and (answering for Nick from the notes in the WIX Dir) no.
The CAC Wirraway was an Australian built varant of the NA-16, which came before, and was thus different to, the T-6 Harvard.
It's not as different as a Yale, but it aint the same as a T-6
The Boomerang is an Australian designed and built indiginous fighter, using various CAC facilities, including jigs, but very few Wirraway parts as such.
It's a static rebuild.
The CAC Wirraway was an Australian built varant of the NA-16, which came before, and was thus different to, the T-6 Harvard.
It's not as different as a Yale, but it aint the same as a T-6
The Boomerang is an Australian designed and built indiginous fighter, using various CAC facilities, including jigs, but very few Wirraway parts as such.
It's a static rebuild.
Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:20 pm
JDK:
I believe the Harvard I and Wirraway are the same except different engine.
I believe the Harvard I and Wirraway are the same except different engine.
Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:16 pm
Hi Chris,
No, they weren't. Certainly the LOOK very similar, but I understand that they come from different 'branches' of the NA trainer family. I won't try to go into the details here, a) because I'm not 100% on them myself, and b) because (as you well know, I'm sure!) the NA trainer family tree is v.v. confusing and c) because there's quite a few more expert folk here - c'mon chaps!
Certainly the Australians took licence production rights to the NA-16 before the British ordered NA built Harvard Mk.I (NA-49) HOW different these two were in the fundimentals, I don't know, but the requirements of the two countries were different. How much the Harvard I relates to the Harvard III and thus the T-6, I don't know, but the peripherals (rudder, fuselage covering, gun provision, canopy etc) are different.
I'm sure you'll have the chapter & verse in your books on the T-6.
Anyone else care to comment?
No, they weren't. Certainly the LOOK very similar, but I understand that they come from different 'branches' of the NA trainer family. I won't try to go into the details here, a) because I'm not 100% on them myself, and b) because (as you well know, I'm sure!) the NA trainer family tree is v.v. confusing and c) because there's quite a few more expert folk here - c'mon chaps!
Certainly the Australians took licence production rights to the NA-16 before the British ordered NA built Harvard Mk.I (NA-49) HOW different these two were in the fundimentals, I don't know, but the requirements of the two countries were different. How much the Harvard I relates to the Harvard III and thus the T-6, I don't know, but the peripherals (rudder, fuselage covering, gun provision, canopy etc) are different.
I'm sure you'll have the chapter & verse in your books on the T-6.
Anyone else care to comment?
Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:35 pm
The Wirraway is closed to the AT-9 Jeep that the RCAF used at one point.
There was only one of those.
There was only one of those.
Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:27 pm
fabric covered tail+same basic shape=close enough.
Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:35 pm
Ok Chris et al
James (JDK) is exactly correct on what he says - they look similar but the aren't.
Things are very different from one end to the other and Harvard structural parts won't fit etc. The Centre section of a Wirraway wing is much stronger and stronger again on a Boomerang. The angle of dihedral on the wing panel Pickup points is different as is the sweepback of the leading edge as is the airfoil section and strengthening etc etc. Remember a Wirraway was a Fighter / Trainer /Bomber and had a different role so was built to different purposes and a Boomerang is a trainer. An awful lot of people have learn't to their displeasure that the types are much different.
Glib throwaways such as "close enough" confuse the issue unecessarily - the task is hard enough in restoring these and finding parts etc. It is true that some minor systems parts are interchangeable but then again some of these parts fit Mustangs and P40s too so thats no great advantage.
Regards
John P
James (JDK) is exactly correct on what he says - they look similar but the aren't.
Things are very different from one end to the other and Harvard structural parts won't fit etc. The Centre section of a Wirraway wing is much stronger and stronger again on a Boomerang. The angle of dihedral on the wing panel Pickup points is different as is the sweepback of the leading edge as is the airfoil section and strengthening etc etc. Remember a Wirraway was a Fighter / Trainer /Bomber and had a different role so was built to different purposes and a Boomerang is a trainer. An awful lot of people have learn't to their displeasure that the types are much different.
Glib throwaways such as "close enough" confuse the issue unecessarily - the task is hard enough in restoring these and finding parts etc. It is true that some minor systems parts are interchangeable but then again some of these parts fit Mustangs and P40s too so thats no great advantage.
Regards
John P
Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:38 am
Ok Setter:
Well put. So it sounds like the Wirraway is a totally different design than the NA-16. Gee isn't it a shame we don't know everything
Chris
Well put. So it sounds like the Wirraway is a totally different design than the NA-16. Gee isn't it a shame we don't know everything
Chris
Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:29 am
Just to clarify what I'm doing:
I am restoring my stuffed Boomerang parts to eventually put together a complete static Boomerang. Most parts that are potentially airworthy are set aside for swapping. I am also manufacturing new parts and structures (ie: rear windows and monocoque etc) for other restorers.
The reason that I'm doing this, is to help contribute in getting other Boomerang's airworthy, whilst restoring my own as originally as possible.
As previously stated, a lot of parts look the same as Wirraway or T6, but aren't. On the other hand, with modification, some major components can be used such as the centre section, undercarriage and empennage. The structures wont be 100% correct, but at least it will get the aircraft back in the air faster. (I prefer 100% correct though!!)
Nick
I am restoring my stuffed Boomerang parts to eventually put together a complete static Boomerang. Most parts that are potentially airworthy are set aside for swapping. I am also manufacturing new parts and structures (ie: rear windows and monocoque etc) for other restorers.
The reason that I'm doing this, is to help contribute in getting other Boomerang's airworthy, whilst restoring my own as originally as possible.
As previously stated, a lot of parts look the same as Wirraway or T6, but aren't. On the other hand, with modification, some major components can be used such as the centre section, undercarriage and empennage. The structures wont be 100% correct, but at least it will get the aircraft back in the air faster. (I prefer 100% correct though!!)
Nick