OzMattHP,
It might be worth contacting Hooker Harness in America. When I spoke to them at Oshkosh in 2006, they mentioned that they can/do make a Sutton harness as well. They don’t publicise it because it doesn’t meet the current safety standards compared to their normal range but they showed me photos of a previous Sutton they had made.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattHi all,
This one’s certainly not a genuine Boomerang (although it reportedly contains a select few original parts), but still remains very nice. It’s probably best described as a converted T-6, as suggested by Fouga23. Both Boomerangs completed by Sanders had metal skinned rear fuselages, as opposed to the fabric covered timber shell as original. The former Zuccoli Boomerang did however have an original Boomerang rear fuselage steel tube frame internally, where I believe this replica actually still uses the T-6/Harvard aluminium monocoque rear fuselage. I’m led to believe, but have never been able to confirm, that the fuselage of this replica is a bit longer than original. If this is the case then it would likely be due to the different front fuselage framework and the all aluminium rear fuselage.
The exhaust set up appears alright to me, however it does have a representative version of the early style exhaust fitted (possibly a modified Harvard exhaust), where the specific aircraft it represents would have had the flame dampening exhaust fitted from the factory.
So no it’s not an authentic Boomerang, however it would still be a great fun machine, and as James pointed out, you could take a friend along for the experience. I must say however James, that a genuine Boomerang will actually be capable of taking along an extra within the very near future.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattG’day Tom,
Have never heard about the rounded wingtips having too much of an effect on stalling characteristics on the NA-16 family of aircraft, however I know the wing sweep back played a definite role in the less than friendly nature of the stall in the Wirraway. I believe that the Yale shared the same sweep back as the Wirraway, and this was changed in further development of the NA-16 family.
More than happy to discuss this and many other matters over a clensing drink or two in about a weeks time ;).
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattThanks for the replies gents. The connection to the 10-1 seems to make sense as during the last annual we noticed certain features that seemed more akin to the 10-2 (common in Chipmunks here in Oz) than the normal Series 1 engines. I’ve read that the 10-1 and 10-2 only differed in the 10-2 having the splined crankshaft. I actually have a splined crank in mine, and have bronze heads.
What sort of differences were made for the 10-1 from the Series 1 engines? I’m assuming the changes were made as an improvement?
Thanks again for the assistance so far.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattI’ve only ever heard of the Demoiselle (displayed in the museum here in town) and the Boxkite having made their way to Australia, and would be very interested to learn if any other MMATFM aircraft came out as well.
In terms of the MMATFM Antoinette, I’ve never heard of this one surviving, and even the previous threads about this aircraft on this forum have failed to really prove if it (or ‘they’ – if several were built, as is likely) still exists. The Owls Head Museum website doesn’t specifically say this, but other information reveals that this aircraft certainly has a ‘modern’ wing, which would confer with the later mods done to the MMATFM replica/s, however the same information suggested this replica was made by an American. Hence, it would seem unlikely to be an MMATFM aircraft.
Googling furiously hasn’t helped tracking down the MMATFM Antoinettes, but did reveal to me another surviving original aircraft – in the Polish Aviation Museum.
And the result of my round-about rambling above? Well it seems I won’t be planning a trip to England to take flight in one of Hairy’s lovely planes. Oh well.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattMark,
Interesting discovery with the identification. E-mail coming your way about this and other things.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattHi all,
Many thanks for the replies so far. There are pros and cons for both lacquer and 2 pack paints, and I’ve still got more research to do yet. I’ve just been curious as to whether ‘cellulose enamel’ was really just nitrocellulose lacuqer, since the two terms ‘cellulose’ and ‘enamel’ would seem to contradict each other. Think I’ll have to dig deeper through some of my other period references and see what they talk about.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattHi James,
A little bit more on this topic. With Papa Lima’s information as well as some other info that I was reading today, I definitely believe that the I.C.W. switch controlled morse code transmission.
The switch on the Wirraway has two-positions: I.C.W./C.W. and R/T (Radio Transmission, I’m assuming). I’m assuming that normal aircraft operations would have the switch positioned to R/T, and in the event that any morse transmission was required, then it would be switched over to I.C.W/C.W. Based on this theory, it would mean that morse transmission would be impossible when the radio system was set for normal R/T ops. Would seem to make sense – well, in my mind at least! Always interested in hearing an expert opinion from someone though.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattG’day James,
Interesting question mate, and as I knew the Wirraway also had an I.C.W. switch, I thought I’d try to find out exactly what it was as well. Pulled out some original manuals this afternoon, and eventually came across some sort of answer.
PaulR is correct that I.C.W. stands for Interrupted Continuous Wave. The definition I stumbled across describes it as “A radio frequency wave interrupted at regular intervals of an audio-frequency”. I’m far from a radio expert, so I’ll assume this is like sending morse code, as PaulR gave the example of.
There is also a Continuous Wave (C.W.), that is simply “a uniform radio-frequency wave”, as well as a Modulated Continuous Wave (M.C.W.). From the radio units described in the manuals I looked in, it seems like I.C.W. and M.C.W. aren’t possible on the same unit. I’m certainly not stating that definitively though.
Hope this is of some interest mate. If you ever feel the need to be completely confused by the topic, I can show you the relevant sections in the manuals. Thanks for raising this topic – made me learn something as well.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattHi Rocketeer,
A surprising photo to see on here, mainly due to your location. It’s surprising because of the type of grip that it is. Instantly identified by my slightly type-obsessed eyes, it’s from the Aussie made CAC Wirraway. They first rolled out of the factory in 1939, so your guess of it being 1930s is correct.
The part number for the Wirraway grip is 01-52132, so that should be enough conclusive evidence for you. Not sure what the T939 or G2CP codes mean. Nor am I sure why there is an extra ‘2’ at the end of the part number. If you’d like, PM me for an e-mail address to send some close up photos of the markings to and I’ll see if I can assist any further.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattHi Phil,
In response to your questions:
A20-652 is still airworthy as far as I know. Doesn’t seem to have done too much flying over the last few years and there have certainly been a few issues arise along the way, but I haven’t heard about her being grounded.
With A20-502, I’d be interested to learn if you’ve heard any rumours about it. That’s a very nice static aircraft that one. Also happens to be up here in Ballarat, which is handy.
A20-573 certainly did crash into a mountain to the north of Melbourne. I went to the crash site a couple of years ago and although there are remains still on site, there’s certainly nothing to really write home about.
The ‘lake’ Wirraway in the latest issue of Classic Wings isn’t A20-404, and although I do know the actual serial of the aircraft, it doesn’t seem to be being publicly disclosed at the moment, so I won’t reveal it at this time. Hopefully she’ll come out of the lake at some stage, but it just depends if a suitable home can be found. As for A20-404, well there are a bunch of parts from that aircraft floating around the place. Some might find their way into a restoration at some stage, but we’ll see what happens in time.
Hope this is of interest, and that you’re fighting your health issues mate.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattJDK,
The Swedish Wirraway doesn’t meet the ‘stationed’ criteria set by Phil, but you’re not argueing that, and it’s worth mentioning anyway. The guys over there did a brilliant job re-creating the Sk.14A. The true identity of the Wirraway that was used is another thing for me to research sometime, as I have my doubts about it being what everyone claims it to be. As an aside, the centre section and wings of this aircraft came home again and were used in the restoration of Wirraway A20-176 (painted as A20-81).
Hope everything’s going well down there mate, for both yourself and Bev.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattI should have read a bit further down the replies. Paul (oz rb fan) is correct about the numbers produced. However the Wirraway entered RAAF service in 1939, with about 5 being on line by the time the WW2 was announced. The NA-16 pattern aircraft were also called Wirraways and were in service before the production aircraft.
I can’t be certain on this one, but I believe that more than one Wirraway made it to Japan post war. I also seem to remember that one crashed over there.
I don’t mean to criticise what you wrote Paul, I’m just clarifiying things for history’s sake.
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattHi Phil,
Well I’ve given others a chance (and I haven’t bothered logging in until now), so we’ll see what we can do here.
The ‘what’, is obviously Wirraway A20-427. Can’t be certain about the ‘where’, although I’m highly leaning towards Feather’s suggestion of Williamtown. A20-427 certainly operated with 4 OTU at Williamtown. In this case, the ‘when’ is most likely between Dec 1942 and Mar 1943. The colour scheme would tend to fit this time period as well.
Would have to consult an atlas to confirm the furthest distance that Wirraways were operated away from Oz, but I think that either Rabaul or Malaya would come in as the most distant.
At least one Wirraway definitely appeared in an American colour scheme, however it seems there might have been a few operated by the Yanks. It’s on the list of things to research.
As for the years of service and the roles which the Wirraway performed, well I have to leave something for someone else!
Cheers,
Matt
OzMattG’day Phil,
I think you’ll find that the aircraft you’re talking about was Wirraway A20-652, and was the same aircraft that you saw at Pascoe Vale. I believe that this aircraft was on display first in Laverton, then Pascoe Vale and finally at Reservoir.
The image in the following link was apparently taken while it was at Pascoe Vale.
Cheers,
Matt
Sign In
