mark_pilkingtonElliot/Dave
This information regarding CAC part numbers is not correct
01 to 02 CAC Wirraway
03 CAC Wackett
12 to 13 CAC Boomerang
126 DAP Beaufort
The Wirraway has a number of models built from CA-1 through to CA-16 and carries part numbers originating from the NA-16 as well, resulting in part numbers of:
19- (NA-16)
01- CA-1 Wirraway mark 1
03- CA-3 ” “
05- CA-5 ” “
07- CA-7 Wirraway mark 11
08- CA-8 ” “
09- CA-9 ” “
16- CA-16 Wirraway mark 111
All subsequent Wirraways carry a mixture of parts inherited from the earlier models where parts have been upgraded or added, ie a CA-16 may still carry many CA-1 parts etc if they have not subsequently been upgraded in design.
The 02- part numbers do not relate Wirraways at all as the CA-2 is the Wackett Trainer prototypes.
The 03- paer numbers do not relate to Wacketts at all as the CA-3 is a Wirraway model, and the production Wacketts are the CA-6.
02- Wackett Trainer Prototype
06- Wackett Trainer production trainer (which carry the odd 02- part)
12- and 13- are Boomerang parts relating to the CA-12 and CA-13 Boomerang, as well as the CA-19 Boomerang, the latter two types had many CA-12 parts as the 13- and 19- part numbers only related to those parts that changed between the models.
12- CA-12 Boomerang production fighter
13- CA-13 Boomerang production fighter
14- CA-14 and CA-14A Boomerang turbocharged Prototype
19- CA-19 Boomerang production fighter
Note that the 19- Boomerang parts are drawn as CAC drawings and are not with 19- parts in the early Wirraways based on NA drawings from NA-16, the parts do not identify themselves as CAC or NA, however the historical drawing sets previously held by CAC/HdeHV clearly contained North American drawings for the Wirraways 19- parts ,and these are identical to the equivalent parts in many of the later NA products including the T-6 and SNJ deriviatives, despite carrying later 88- etc numbers in the NA number blocks.
obviously other CAC parts numbers are:
04- CA-4 Woomera prototype
11- CA-11 Wommera production Bomber
15- CA-15 “Kangaroo”? prototype
22- CA-22 Winjeel Prototype
25- CA-25 Winjeel Production Trainer
26- CA-26 Avon Sabre Prototype
27- CA-27 Avon Sabre production fighter
28- CA-28 Ceres Cropduster
This CAC model number information is all largely available in books such as the Stewart Wilson series on the CAC aircraft in RAAF service and there is a strong correlation between aircraft model and part number prefix, it is a pity that poorly researched information can be posted here and become googled reference data for others. 😡
CAC largely duplicated the North American numbering system with the initial number 01-, 16- indicating the model of aircraft (or more correctly production run block) while the next numbers formed a group of parts all related to the same elements of structure:
ie
xx-10xxx in General Assembly drawings
xx-13xxx is wing Centre Section
xx-14xxx is wing outer panel
xx-21xxx is horizontal stabiliser
xx-22xxx is elevator
xx-23xxx is fin (vertical stabiliser)
xx-24xxx is rudder
xx-33xxx landing gear
xx-40xxx power plant
xx-51xxx Instrumentation
This is consistant across Wirraway, Boomerang and Wackett drawing indexes that I hold and referenced for this post
It is also consistant within the North American T6G drawing index that I also hold, which is full of earlier T6 production run parts such as:
36-
49-
52-
55-
66-
77-
88-
121-
168-
182-
as well as very early parts inherited from the NA-16 design including
19-
23-
25-
which are all North American drawing parts which should not be confused with the similar CAC numbered parts above for Boomerangs or Winjeels but in the 19- series may be the identical part and drawing to that carried in the Wirraway.
I hope this is of some value, although I am not sure many CAC parts will be tripped over in the UK or USA? 😉
In regard to North American products the type/drawing/part numbers and aircraft type production numbers for the T6 family are:
16- NA-16 series
19- BT-9
28- NJ-1
36- BC-1
49- Harvard I
54- BC-2
55- BC-1A
58- BT-14
59- AT-6
64- NA-64
65- SNJ-2
66- Harvard II
68- NA-50A (P64)
74- Harvard II
76- Harvard II
85- SNJ-3
88 – T6C, T6D, SNJ-4 SNJ-5
119- T6D
121- T6D, T6F
168 – T6G
182- T6G
186- T6J
As with the CAC Wirraway the “T6” derivitives all subsequent models maycarry a mixture of parts inherited from the earlier models if they have not subsequently been upgraded in design.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonAndy
I disagree with your comment:
It worries me that that many of you seem to need to be told what’s good and what you need to see instead of making your own minds up.
I am influenced to see movies by word of mouth, the advertised trailers that take my interest, or the element of story line, or participant actors that may peak my interest.
My judgement of what is good or is not however is ALWAYS mine alone, and often I will rave (or bag) a movie in contraction to the general popular view or that of my friends, because that was the impact of the movie on me.
Some are light weight comedies, science “fantasies” while others or tragic and emotional dramas, all of the them are usually aiming to entertain and some may be trying to provoke debate, but the judgement of their impact and performance for me, remains mine to make, when I see them.
I therefore DO NOT need to be told what is good, or what I need to see!
What worries me the most is that you are continuing to believe YOU need to tell us what is GOOD, and what WE need to see, WITHOUT letting US make up our own minds? and all of this before the movie is FILMED and neither you or we have seen it?
I feel this thread is getting well of the theme of this “Historic Aviation forum” it is not a film buff and film review forum???
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonLike many others I tend to enjoy the originals of many things, movies, songs, even “Spitfires” etc rather than re-makes, but I think this thread is starting to get a bit bizzare.
are your guys serious?? I assume we all “know” this movie hasnt actually been filmed yet?
I do not have a good feeling about this film. Not a good feeling at all.
In my opinion it shows the level of indolence, that the modern film industry has descended to, in that they can only do poor remakes of old films.
hence my agreement with Andy in Beds quote; why don’t you go away & do some original thinking ? unquote…….. to which I would put……” before you cause more damage “.
If I didnt know better I could swear I was listening to a bunch of “fundamentalist religious zealots” demanding some book be banned, (that they havent personally read), but take great offence at, because “someone” told them it “blasthemes” their faith??
Surely we are talking about a movie that is being made for “Entertainment” and in part hopefully for the education of the next generation?
Can any of you get your teenage kids to sit down with you and watch the (B&W??) original version??? I am sure I cant!
If you dont like it – change the channel, look the other way, dont buy a ticket, get a video of the old one, go read a good book, but lets calm down and stop critising something that doesnt even exist yet? at least wait until its filmed, let alone released?? before we get all alarmed and pass judgement??
I enjoy any effort to promote aviation heritage, I also enjoy meaningful debate.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI am sure this is the view of those at the Woomera site, but I have seen modern pictures of at least 2 Swifts surviving at one of the test sites in the Melbourne offices of a Federal Government department, it is a big area and I am not sure current staff would know or visit every inch of the site?
Interestingly I understand 16 RAF Lincolns were brought to Woomera and only 1 ever returned to the UK, with 1 scrapped at Tocumwal and the remander all scrapped at Woomera? I have never seen any details of these remains in Adelaide scrap yards etc?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThe L4 is a project that has interested me a number of times, the options are:
keep an eye on Barnstormers.com in the warbirds or antique/classic areas under Piper or projects
join the cub club http://www.cubclub.org/ they have classified ads for members
or build a new one via Cuby plans from wag-aero http://www.wagaero.com/
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI believe this airframe has a complete cockpit and engine, and would seem an excellent static display project for someone to use as an entry level project, or a museum project?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonJohn,
what ever the Gamecock really is? I dont think the photo is taken on any of the RAAF bases in Australia?
The hangars behind it are of a type only similar to the Point Cook 1917 Battleplane Hangars and both of those did not have buildings located behind them as these do?, I dont believe this form of hangar was used at any other Australian base including Richmond?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThe flat windscreen was a standard pre-war Percival feature until the later Vega Gulls when the round windscreen was introduced and then it was I understand “customers choice”.
The Proctor marks 1 to 3 were all Military order aircraft derived from the Vega Gull design but with structural differences, for service in WW2, and all were delivered with the curved or round windscreen with some having small clear vision windows fitted into the windscreen, I am not aware of any Proctors being built by Percival with the earlier flat windsceen.
The Proctor mark 4 and 5 were primarily post war civil market designs although a number of these also flew with Military services, again I am not aware of any being delivered with the pre-war flat windscreen or offered with such?
(I was a partner with Leigh Giles in “our” Wackett Trainer project, and was involved in his Percival collecting from the outset, so I have had a great exposure to, education of, Percival and Proctor details – smiles)
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonThe early windscreen was fitted as part of this current restoration, and while I enjoy the Proctor in its original form we have a suitable number of these mk1 – mk 3 Proctors preserved as statics in Australia as well as a mark 1 under long term restoration to fly so I cant complain too much about this conversion.
I suspect the original “round” windscreen has been retained and could be refitted through a subsequent restoration? should a future owner wish to do so?
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonhttp://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2006/September/09-14-19.htm
RECOVERY OF U.S. WWII AIRCRAFT IN PNG QUESTIONED
By Isaac Nicholas
PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea (The National, Sept. 13) – An aircraft war wreck was salvaged and shipped out of the country, allegedly using forged documents engineered by the acting director of the National Museum and Art Gallery, Simon Poraituk.
The wreck was believed to have been removed around July despite the National Museum Board of Trustee’s “black ban” on any dealings with salvaging company 75th Squadron Museum.
[PIR editor’s note: According to PIR archives, The World War II bomber aircraft nicknamed the “Swamp Ghost” was to be sent to the United States to be reconstructed and restored to its original form. Under an agreement reached in June, the aircraft was to be returned “when Papua New Guinea finally has the capacity to house and care for all its war materials.”]
Board member Andrew Abel made the allegations during the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the National Museum and Art Gallery yesterday.
Mr. Abel said the board meeting on July 6 had banned all dealings with salvaging companies, including the 75th Squadron.
He also alleged that a lot of board documents, including memorandum of agreements, have been going out without the board’s approval or knowledge.
“Poraituk engineered a MOA and, after this was rectified by the board chairman, he concocted to fraudulent MOA,” Abel claimed.
He said with the fraud document in hand, the 75th Squadron Museum went to Wewak and salvaged an aircraft at St. John in Siring.
He said this angered local landowners who signed a letter and sent it through to the National Museum Board of Trustees. He claimed that Poraituk and his management team had worked in isolation with the Board of Trustees.
Abel said the management had sidelined himself, and two other board members Peter Loko and Maria Kopkop.
The accusations brought the ire of Poraituk, who accused Mr. Abal and certain board members of collaborating to discredit him and his management.
“Andrew Abel is working against my management.”
Poraituk also attacked the creation of sub-committees within the board, claiming it was illegal and should get a full 13-member board approval.
Another museum officer Mark Katakum, curator of modern history, claimed that he was threatened and forced to sign documents.
Mr. Katakum alleged that a consultant and agent of Aero Archeology Museum, Robert Greinert, had accused him of receiving bribes and forging an export permit for the 75th Squadron.
Acting PAC chairman Dr. Bob Danaya said there was a “web of influence wielded by the 75th Squadron, Greinert and Fred Hagan.
“War surplus is clearly a big business, and how these people were ever allowed to plunder State property is beyond comprehension. It’s a disgrace,” Danaya said.
It also emerged that the salvaging companies involved were operating illegally, and were not registered with the Investment Promotion Authority (IPA).
IPA chief executive officer Ivan Pomaleu also gave evidence and confirmed that none of the companies involved in salvaging wartime wreckage have registered with the authority.
September 14, 2006
The National: http://www.thenational.com.pg/
Copyright © 2004 The National Online. All Rights Reserved
http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2006/September/09-15-12.htm
PNG STOPS SALE OF WWII ‘SWAMP GHOST’
PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea (PNG Post Courier, September 14) – The Papua New Guinea Public Accounts Committee has disallowed the contract for the sale, salvage or export of the controversial Swamp Ghost aircraft.
The Committee yesterday, in its interim findings, emphasized the Swamp Ghost is still the property of the State of Papua New Guinea and the National Museum and Arts Gallery is not an agent or a representative of the state to sell, salvage, remove or export state-owned property as the museum has no power to sell the Swamp Ghost or War Surplus material. The committee found the actions of the museum in selling the Swamp ghost as unlawful and identified about 82 other aircraft or aircraft parts that have been exported from PNG.
A large number of aircraft have been traced to private hands, museums and collectors and the committee found there has been an ongoing international trade in war surplus material illegally obtained and exported from PNG. The committee intends to refer transactions and salvagers and their agents or vendors who sell materials on the open market to the Royal Papua New Guinea Police Force, Foreign Police Forces and International Law Enforcement Agencies.
Some of those materials have been sold on the open market by salvagers The committee also found there were four major salvages that had been operating in the country with the assistance of the National Museum, although the museum had no power at all to action or permit salvage, removal or export of war surplus materials pursuant to the War Surplus Materials Act.
The committee added that there were two and possibly three salvors operating in the country that have engaged in unlawful conduct while dealing with state property or selling it for their own profit.
September 15, 2006
PNG Post Courier Online: http://www.postcourier.com.pg/
Copyright © 2006 The PNG Post Courier. All Rights Reserved
mark_pilkingtonThese are some pictures I found on the web of the Canadian Lincoln wreck, I under stand the centre fuselage and wing centre-section is on dry land with one wing, the tail and rear fuselage still in the lake.
1 Person was killed in the crash of this aircraft the remainder survived due to the shallow water, it appears the cockpit took the brunt of the impact, as apparantly little survived of that section.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonI understand this aircraft may have already flown, but it is certainly a airworthy restoration that is now very recently completed!
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonHere is some further pics I found of the Argentine Lincolns, but not the ones I found last week!!
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonGrrrrr,
I found a website in the last week with pics of Both Lincolns in Argentina, B-004 on a pole in a park, and B-010 on its legs in the museum, thought I had saved the site in favourites and saved the pics to hard-drive, looked on all three PC’s I sit on, cant find the pics??, cant find the site???
Does anyone else know this site or have pics of the two Lincolns in Argentina, I assume both are listed in the new Flypast article?
regards
Mark P
mark_pilkingtonThis is former Australian registered Proctor mark I VH-BCX, fitted with the pre-war sloping flat panel windscreen of the Vega Gull series.
I have had a good log chat with Leigh (Giles, and he is doing well for any who know him) and confirmed the Mark I is essentially a dual control evolution of the pre-war vega gull (the last of which had round windscreens) but with different fuselage frame positions and a slightly wider and longer fuselage.
The Mark II Proctor differed from the Mark I primarily in removing the dual control and placing the radio equipment in the rear set with the operator facing it, while the Mark III Proctor repositioned the radio gear on to the top of the centresection @ where the front passenger seat is with the operator in the back facing it.
All three are the same airframe with minor differences of engine generator bumps on the cowls, or inspection panels underneath for dual control or single control systems or for naval Mk II’s the location of the dinghy.
As he pointed out once a Proctor I, II or III is civilianised back to 4 passenger seats they are all really identical and it simply becomes a weight and loading issue to utilise the mark III pilots notes for any of them.
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
