This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CAC Boomerang article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed it pending discussion at WT:Air. It is reproduced below:
Aircraft | Span | Length | Weight | Engine | Speed | Climb | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(m) | (m) | (kg) | (hp) | (kW) | (knot) | (km/h) | (ft/min) | (m/min) | ||
Boomerang | 11 | 7.8 | 2,436 | 1,200 | 890 | radial | 265 | 491 | 2,940 | 896 |
Grumman Wildcat | 11.6 | 8.8 | 2,674 | 1,200 | 890 | radial | 278 | 515 | 1,950 | 524 |
Mitsubishi Zero | 12 | 9 | 1,710 | 950 | 710 | radial | 288 | 533 | 3,150 | 960 |
Curtiss Kittyhawk | 11.4 | 9.7 | 2,858 | 1,150 | 860 | in-line | 314 | 582 | 2,050 | 624 |
Spitfire V | 11.2 | 9.1 | 2,313 | 1470 | 1,100 | in-line | 325 | 602 | 3,250 | 991 |
Messerschmitt 109F | 9.9 | 8.9 | 2,353 | 1,270 | 950 | in-line | 337 | 624 | 4,290 | 1,308 |
Ingoolemo talk 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
From the article "The twin-engined Beaufort was unsuitable as the basis of a fighter, but it did have reasonably powerful 1,200 horsepower (890 kW) Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp engines, which were being made under license in Sydney. While these engines were not particularly suited for use in fighter aircraft due to their high frontal area, they were the only high-performance engines available at the time."
Both statements are inaccurate, as other articles here within Wikipedia itself readily confirm. The Beaufort was developed into the very successful Beaufighter. Furthermore, the Twin Wasp was also used with good results in the in the F4F Wildcat. It should probably say that CAC officials did not feel they could develop a fighter from the Beaufort within the constraints of available time and resources. In the case of the latter sentence, Throughout the 30's and 40's there were debates about radial versus inline or V engines for fighters, but the fact is both configurations were considered "particularly suitable" at various times for various designs. 76.28.70.173 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Grant | Talk 10:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Readily available material from the RAAF museum shows the CA12 design was intended for use as an interceptor, based at Australian airfields. Large scale attacks on Australia did not eventuate, and the small number of CA12s ended up being used for ground attacks in the Pacific area. The sole CA14 prototype was considered an effective high altitude interceptor, but did not go into production as it just wasn't needed. I've heard that it only took 6 weeks from the time of order to the first CA12 prototype being flown.220.244.236.107 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The first Australian designed war machine was the CA-4/11 Woomera. Two prototypes but never went into production. It was entirely local, unlike the CA-12 and CA-16.27.33.81.127 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Zero and Ki-43 really should be considered similar to the Boomerang. These aircraft were dedicated high-performance fighters while the Boomerang was a poor-performing emergency fighter. I'm rather fond of the Boomerang and think that it should be regarded as a successful aircraft, but it was anything but comparable to Japan's better fighters. --Nick Dowling 07:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Wing loadings tell you much about an aircraft. Generally wing loadings increased from 20lb/sqft during the 1930s, to 65lbs/sqft by 1945. The Fw 190 proved dogfighting was a waste of time. One Fw 190 downed seven spitfires in one day using hit-and-run. The zero floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee, if you bothered to dogfight it. It had little in the way of munitions. In fact, it made a much better observation craft considering its range and altitude. These are some wind loadings.
27.33.81.127 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
How does one alter the "Notes" section? I have an updated link for the article by Gary Sunderland referring to Fred David, but I can't see the "Notes" section if I try to edit the page. Derek B 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on CAC Boomerang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)