The Hudson’s unique place in World War II

If I have my facts and timing correct, the Hudson was the first Allied aircraft to engage the Japanese in world war II.

Whilst our American friends may claim that the war in the Pacific commenced around 7am on the 7th of December 1941, it is not so well known that RAAF Hudsons attacked Japanese invasion barges off the north eastern coast of Malaya very late in the evening of the 6th December 1941 (US time, but actually the 7th in Malaya). At the time, the RAAF was based at or near Khota Bharu and the invasion barges were approaching the Malayan coast in the vicinity. Whilst the Japs had not actually landed or attacked at that time, their intentions were clear and the RAAF attacked with some success, although some aircraft may have been lost.

I don’t remember all the facts to this event, and hope that I have my few facts correct. If I’m right, this is a little-known fact about the war in the Pacific – can any other members help out with this one?

Regards

Wombat

Why did they use 2 blade props anyway?

I realise this is a bit off-thread, but, by the mid 30’s, the advantages of 3 or even four-bladed props would have been recognised, so why did the early Spits and Hurris only have two bladers? I understand that variable pitch was still a reasonably new and untried development in 1936, but the manufacturers must have known that a 2 bladed prop was going to limit the new aircrafts’ performance, so why fit them?

Regards

Wombat

That’s bloody ugly

That thing looks like the result of an illicit meeting between a Spitfire and a Curtis Hawk.

What if the Spitfire got it on with a Sea Fury or a Tigercat – that might have looked more like a fighter than a trainer!

Maybe somebody else has the ability to draw the graphics for everybody – I sure don’t!

Regards

Wombat.

S’me, late again (as usual)

Yep, another Aussie (well, what else could I be with a monicker like Wombat?)

Aussie born, Brit father, Aussie mum, sometimes suffer an ID crisis when I don’t know who to support in the cricket.

Fiercely supportive of things Oz, just wish there were more of them (especially aviative).

Don’t know about bringing some clapped out old pommy shed back home – probably wouldn’t get through quarantine anyway! 😀

Regards

Wombat

Well, it certainly looks as though there are a few of us “CAC nuts” around, and a common thread seems to be our lament for CAC’s demise.

I have always felt angry at the loss of this company and the destruction of any real chance we had as a nation of developing a truly independent, strong and effective air defence industry. I don’t subscribe to the idea of “letting everything be perfected overseas, then buy it” – who says that this country won’t ever be placed in the same position it was in in February ’42?

Obviously, the lessons learnt from those days have been long forgotten. CAC was established to provide Australia with an independent manufacturer and proved its worth during our darkest hours. Unfortunately, until the Sabre, none of CAC’s manufacture was sufficiently “advanced” to prove the companys capabilities (I don’t count the Mustang as it was simply a license-build – the Sabre was considerably more “Australian by comparison and was a very effective aircraft for its time. The experience gained during its manufacture should never have been lost, rather, it should have led to much more indigenous development and design.

Wirraway to Hornet has opened my eyes to the later developments within CAC, although I still haven’t finished the book. I had never heard of the Wamira, or seen photos of the jet designs the company made.

What a damned shame that all this has been lost.

Regards

Wombat

OzMatt

I already have Wackett’s book – bought it about 20 years ago and it was what invoked my very strong interest in CAC. I am really enjoying Wirraway to Hornet – didn’t even know it existed until I spotted it in the bookshop at the War Memorial in Canberra a few months back. Expensive, but worth every cent.

I hadn’t heard about the books you mention by Meggs, but they sound as though they will be added to my shopping list regardless of cost, too.

I also have two other books which deal with our aviation industry during the pre and war years. The first is Armed and Ready, written in 1995 by AT Ross. ISBN is 0 908031 63 7. This covers the entire Australian military industry during the war, but has an excellent section on all aviation production, not just CAC. Recommend it.

The second is not so interesting, but worth it if you can find it. Australia and Imperial Defence, 1918-1939, by John McCarthy. ISBN 355 033 094. Gives an interesting insight into defence thinking (or lack of it!) during the 30’s.

Great to see a couple of other CAC nuts in this forum. Australia may not have produced any indigenous world-beaters, (and with current policy, is highly unlikely ever to do so), but CAC is a good example of Australians putting their noses to the wheel when the odds were against them. I am genuinely sorry that the Woomera and CA-15 (the name Kangaroo was never officially adopted to my knowledge) failed to make production.

Allan

I think you’re being a bit harsh on CAC’s achievement with the CA-15. You say you “worked there for 9 years”, so I assume you mean CAC, but unless you’re about 80 years of age, I doubt it was during the time of the CA-15’s development.

Why shouldn’t their achievement be acknowledged? There was no incentive for CAC to build the CA-15 as good as it was, it could have been a lesser aircraft and still been highly effective if it had been available around 1943. It’s true that its performance was probably no greater than the Tempest, late P-51’s, Ta-152, MB-5 (now that’s one square-off I would like to have seen), but each of those aircraft was built by companies with many years of experience of building fighter aircraft behind them. CAC’s experience was miniscule by comparison, yet they set out to develop an aircraft which was as good as a piston engined fighter could be, and succeeded.

Their later effort with the Sabre is again proof that this company was prepared to be innovative and take on the latest technology of the day. If I have my facts correct, the CA-27 was the best performing variant of the Sabre in the world when it was first taken into service by the RAAF. I don’t think that was an insignificant achievement either.

I’m sticking to my guns here. I’m proud of what CAC achieved and lament the fact that we don’t have any modern day Lawrence Wacketts and CAC’s developing a truly indigenous and innovative Australian aviation industry today.

Regards

Wombat

Dave

The Riddle of the Stinson was based on fact. From what I can remember, a Stinson was lost in extremely rugged bush country during the 50’s ( I think) and an extensive air and ground search failed to locate it.

A local farmer with very extensive experience in the bush decided to take the search on for himself. Basing his search on what he knew of local weather conditions at the time of the plane’s disappearance, allied with his excellent knowledge of the local terrain, he commenced searching though the mountains until he came to a ridge which overlooked hills some distance away. He noticed a small area where the colour of the trees varied from those around them, as if they had been burnt.

He worked his way to the site, which was a considerable distance from where he had first seen the discoloured trees, and came across the crash site. Two or three of the passengers had survived with serious injuries and had crawled to a nearby creek bed to obtain water. The farmer found them there and was able to save some or all of them.

I wish I could remember the story better, but it was an outstanding story of personal bravery and determination by the farmer, allied with terrible suffering by the crash victims. I think it was quite a few days before they were found and they were close to death from their injuries, burns and exposure.

Regards

Wombat