Did Australia invent the world's best fighter jet?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 січ 2025
- Need a new website? Help the channel and get
10% off the first site and domain with Square Space
www.squarespac...
NEW CHANNEL:
• Launched from the bigg...
Discord: / discord
My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Patreon:
/ foundandexplained
In this video, we'll take you on a journey through the CA-23's development process, showcasing its sleek design, powerful engine, and impressive capabilities that made it a force to be reckoned with in the skies. From its maiden flight to its operational history, we'll uncover the pivotal role the CA-23 played in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and its impact on aviation enthusiasts worldwide.
Join us as we explore the technical specifications and armament of this legendary aircraft, learning about the dedicated engineers and skilled pilots who brought the CA-23 to life and maneuvered it in aerial combat. We'll share thrilling anecdotes and heroic stories that demonstrate the aircraft's prowess in defending the skies and its importance in Australia's aviation heritage.
In addition to its military significance, we'll also delve into the CA-23's post-war contributions, including its role in the civilian aviation sector. Discover how this remarkable aircraft became a symbol of ingenuity and engineering excellence, captivating aviation enthusiasts and collectors alike.
Whether you're an aviation enthusiast, a history buff, or just curious about groundbreaking engineering feats, this video is sure to leave you inspired and in awe of the CAC CA-23's enduring legacy.
Don't forget to hit the like button if you enjoyed the video and subscribe to our channel for more captivating content on aviation history, aircraft profiles, and incredible engineering achievements. Join our community of aviation enthusiasts as we celebrate the triumphs and innovations that have shaped the skies throughout history.
#CACCA23 #Mustang60 #AviationHistory #AircraftProfiles #AviationEnthusiasts
Canadian here. We had similar experience here in late 1950's with the AVRO Canada CF-105 Arrow. Home-designed & built, it was one of the most advanced interceptors in the world at the time, with a speed of mach 2.3 or higher and a lot of advanced innovative features. So thoroughly researched and designed it skipped the prototype stage and went straight to production. 5 were built, when a change of government mysteriously and abruptly pulled the plug on the whole project, claiming it was too expensive, laid off all the expert design & build teams, and actually tore up the 5 working aircraft already built. Britain had a similar story with the TSR 2. And only now I am learning of this superb Australian design which should have served the Anglo-alliance well in its theater of operation. Apparent stupidity in all cases. All three of those planes should have been built, and our respective aircraft industries would still be thriving. For every doubter and naysayer out there, I say look to the example of the Swedish Air Force designs by SAAB, which kept producing local autonomous and independent aircraft designs that kept their Air Force in an advanced state of defense, and they are a much smaller country than Australia, Canada or Britain. We each should have kept our own independent aircraft industries, and then cooperatively bought all 3 designs and shared them throughout the Commonwealth for savings of money in larger production orders, to compete with US, Soviet, and Chinese aircraft industries. Short-sighted thinking by all governments of the day!
All of the nations should have collaborated better and would have turned out some amazing kit
I agree with you and your comment is spot on. Problem in Australia was lot of people considered themselves English first. Growing up, I met heaps of people who stated they were English Australians, not just Australians. So those people put England first. Even when we had a referendum to remove the Monarchy from Australian life, it was defeated. Many Australians still suck up to the UK.
@@johnpapworth433 this is why I think CANZUK would be a benefit for our four nations.
Gotta listen to big daddy USA hehe
This smacks of interference by the Americans to force Australia & Canada to buy their aircraft. Australia had a promising space & missile industry in the '50's & '60's, but our ever British-loving prime minister at the time, Robert Menzies caved in to pressure from the British government to curtail our space & missile research because they were embarrassed that the "colonials" were ahead of them. As compensation in return, the British tested their nuclear weapons at the Montebello islands off NW Western Australia & at Maralinga in remote South Australia, which necessitated the forced removal of indigenous communities from the Maralinga region. Menzies never really cared much for anywhere outside of Melbourne.
And whoever thought it would be a good idea to appoint a Brit as head of the RAAF? I always thought you had to have single citizenship of a country to be a member of that country's military. No wonder our aircraft industry was scuppered.
I'm an old F-4 pilot and I can see similarities between the two. If the intake had been cut back to just behind the cockpit area, the nose cone could have been enlarged to house a radar that was sorely needed. A bad design that plagued the Phantom also was the embedded canopy that became part of the fuselage. After the WWII advancement of the bubble canopy, it still amazes me that the F-8 Crusader, A-5 Vigilante, F-105, F-106, and the F-4 all had this terrible canopy ignoring all that was learned during the war. I do know that the advancement of jets in the fifties and early sixties required huge amounts of money and talent to overcome things that were encountered as progress was made. I am not sure Australia had the manpower or the money at that time. When I was in Vietnam, I had to evacuate to Ubon Thailand and was billeted with an Aussie F-86 squadron that shared the airbase with the US Air Force. Being a Marine, the Air Force didn't want to handle us so they sent us to the Aussies. Never been treated better in my life by any group of men. However, they did trick us into giving up our tiger flight suits in dart games that they played us for fools. After many pints of really good Aussie beer, they conned us into dart games for fun. They let us win many games and then said why not play for something of value. They suggested our cool flight suits for their huge blossomy tan WWII suits. We laughed and an hour later we were all wearing their bloomy suits and they had on our tiger suits! Also, inside of every panel of our F-4s, there was a little Roo staring back at us!
The bug bare is. That that this design was in an advanced stage of development before the decision to build the f86 was made, UK RAE was slow walking high speed wind tunnel testing. So we built a less capable f86 which had a lower to speed, less ordinance to carry and no capacity for a radar. The cac ca23 platform would have greater scope for growth and development. The Avon sabre was about as far as you could push that design.
I agree with you about the canopies on the F4 and other planes you mentioned. If a man is going to be shot out of the sky it will be from behind. The F4 needed a bubble canopy and I would go as far as turning the back seat around so the men are back to back. Talk about situational awareness.
@@foilist1I think having someone facing backwards is a great idea especially for situational awareness but that only works in 3 seaters, in a two seater if you have one facing backwards they wouldn’t experience G force the same way as the pilot, that also brings up the concern about if the pilot blacks out or is injured/ killed, how will the 2nd pilot be able to operate the aircraft? Just pointing it out, back to back seating would be pretty cool but if you have two people the other person needs to be able to fly in case of an emergency.
@@AstatineOfficial The engineers would figure out the G forces for the back seater facing the tail of the aircraft. In the F4 the navy back seater was the RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) and he had no flight controls. He handled the missiles and radar. The Air Force F4 had the WSO (Weapons Systems Officer) and he did athe same thing as the RIO but the Air Force did include a control stick and pedals. So the WSO could fly the plane but the back seater hated that part of the job because he had difficulty seeing in front, the front seat and pilot blocking his view. And I remember many years ago that I read about an F4 had a bird strike in the front cockpit either killing or seriously injuring the pilot. The back seater could fly the plane but he did not have the switches to lower the landing gear. So the back seater couldn’t completely fly the plane. The F14, the back seater handles the weapons and not flying the plane. The F15E strike Eagle the back seater can’t fly the plane. So it’s an idea I had b/c sometimes the best missile or fighter plane detector are the two eyes of the pilot and his back seater.
@@foilist1 that’s true, there are plenty of 2 seaters that don’t have a set of controls or full controls for the back seater but I still don’t think we are considering all the potential problems with a back facing 2nd seat.
Greetings from America! I'm 63, and I have been building plastic model kits since I was six. As an amateur aviation enthusiast, (kind of comes with the territory,) this is the FIRST I've ever heard of the CAC CA-23, from ANY source.
This is a fascinating aircraft. I hope that some day, there will be a 1/72nd scale injection molded styrene kit of this fascinating Cold War Era aircraft. (All I could find online is a limited run resin kit.) Along with the Canadian CF-105, the British TSR.2, Argentina's Pulqui 2, and our own XF-103, XF-107, XF-108, and F-20; the CA-23 was a aircraft that we should have gotten.
I hope that the CEOs at Airfix or MikroMir see this video.
Its not the prettiest looking bird by any means, but the fact its Aussie would have made my pride for it more than any other Jet Fighter, sad it never worked out
“Not the prettiest”… That’s an interesting way of putting it.
This thing puts Boeing X-32 to shame…
@@tonamg53 It's the Owen submachine gun of the skies.
@@tonamg53it’s not even bad, I’d proudly fly that thing for my Air Force
honestly its not that bad visually its just like a wider... MiG-21
It's terrible. It would be able to turn.
imagine seeing an overweight sabre coming at you at supersonic speeds
Lol
An overweight mig 21 i suppose
@@s.kirtivasen15699 Or an horiziontal EE Lightining
F100 Super Sabre moment
thats one way to describe it
Holy crap, as an Australian I’m incredibly surprised that I haven’t heard about this iconic sounding jet.
yes we had a lot of people with the"right stuff" then.But no reason we cant do the same today ,all we need to do id "boot out the backward thinking socialists.
yeah because it's not nearly as iconic or prolific as the author makes it out to be
@@eneffay Yes , I suspect it was much more in the "dreaming" stage than the Canadian and UK planes that got canned .
@@grosvenorclub yeah, makes a good story though lol. and i say this as an aussie, even if it came to fruition it probably would have been shit considering that we were never actually any good at designing aircraft back then.
@@eneffay the CA-15 wasn't nothing. For having a limited aerospace industry, rather impressive. And now working with the US on unmanned aircraft.
As an American, I have great respect for the military legacy of the Australians during the World Wars. It would have been really cool to see this aircraft in service.
So what about their legacies in Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq and..?
@@exF3-86he's american, the only thing they respect is their allies when it comes to technology as what i mostly see in other videos as well. But i think they support south korea as well. Just my opinion.
@@exF3-86 What does that have to do with the comment?
@@Megatronus_TheFallen Can't believe I have to say this but it's "he's" not "his"
Thanks mate. We''ve always felt (as a whole I feel) the same about the USA's legacy and contribution :) We field a lot of US aircraft! One of my favs is the F-111!
Even as a Kiwi, I am happy to acknowledge you Aussies were on to a winner! Beautiful design. The mere fact the UK killed it, proves it was superior to anything they had overall. Cheers NZCH
Same here
As a scot 🏴 (don't call myself British) I completely agree the English sense of self importance and this notion of "empire" rebadged as common wealth is enough to nake you puke , if it didn't suit their ideals or business dealings they ki-bosched it
Yum i eat kiwi in Aus
New Zeeland War Minister puts tin shed on crop duster, proceeds to drive Bear bombers back to Vadisvostok in fear. New Zeeland never invaded by USSR.
Can’t have the Colonials having the better gear
One thing I'd note that would have been a hindrance in the core design is the lack of an area-ruled fuselage. This severely restricts supersonic flight, but at the time of design this was not known about (it was only realised that giving the aircraft a 'coke-bottle waist' improved performance in the early/mid 1950s). It would have been interesting to see the design go to flight testing though, and maybe even see a revised version take flight with features like an intercept radar, the above modifications to the fuselage etc. I'm not saying it would have been a game-changer, but certainly an interesting design to see.
i also noted this! the fuselage should have had a 'waist' at the wing roots in order for mach+
That was noticed in the graphics, but one wonders if somewhere in the wind tunnel stage, maybe some Aussie boffin may have woken up to this point before that American guy at Convair did?
Northrop F5 proves your point.
In Canada we made the same mistake with the Avro arrow. The Arrow could fly at mock 2 at 50000 ft and had the first fly by wire in any plane
That was my initial thought too. The Arrow but Australia.
The arrow was a little different in that it was designed as an interceptor and interceptors were less useful after nuclear strategy shifted away from bombers to ICBMS. It was a hell of a plane, but its role was no longer needed after nuclear first strikes shifted to missiles. They still should have done something with it. It was an impressive plane and killing the project basically destroyed Canada's aviation industry for decades.
Mach 2
@@neildavies4674 smoosh too
Only in production aircraft. There were fly by wire planes in the 40ies. Yes, fully electronically controlled.
Mate, as an Aussie and an aviation lover, I'd never heard this fascinating story, thanks for sharing it. My Dad used to work for CAC back in the day.
My Dad worked at GAF next door
Pretty cool I currently work for BAA (CAC's successor)
11:47 The Royal Aircraft Establishment actually did question the Lightning's design for the very same reasons, but the design was proven to be ideal with the Short SB.5 test aircraft.
You gotta give credit to Australia for designing the first UAV with automatic "return to base" capabilities
A swept wing design with asymmetrical lift and both rotating and translational wings that we know as...
The boomerang
(Boomerang enthusiast here)
LOL
The Boomerang is a neat plane, but the KA-15 is teh Australian aircraft of most interest to me personally.
also doubles as a ucav, using kinetic energy and state-of-the-art homing tech to effectively uoset the target
plus its combat proven and still in service after 20K years
@@AviationHour1 there is controversy about the attack role, but sure it is an interceptor
I am so glad you brouught this Aussie design to light. These CGI animations breathe life into it! Our imaginations into what could have been are more vivid as a result!
I'd love to have a DCS mod to fly.
@@robertmansfield7656 YES! Or Microsoft Flight Simulator, I'd so fly that!
Lovely comment
How do we make this happen
@@FoundAndExplained I'm not sure. But there's definitely a way or two.
Lawrnece Wackett was an Aussie. Born in Queensland, died in New South Wales, flew with the Australian Flying Corps in WW1 worked in Victoria. He was knighted for his services to Australian aviation running the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (who designed this) designing the Wackett Trainer prior to WW2, overseeing the design and production of the Wirraway trainer/fighter-bomber, the design and production of the Boomerang fighter evolved from the Wirraway, In dealing with the BS reports about the CA23 he wasn't a member of the British government, he was the ultimate boss of the CA23 programme, as he had been for the cancelled Kangaroo fighter.
As an Aussie and aerospace enthusiast I don't know why I've not heard even a whisper about this project before! Huge missed opportunity, but thanks for sharing the story
probably because it was purely a concept and speculation more than anything else. The XF-108 saw more development effort than this particular airplane. And neither were ever built.
At 10.15: Lawrence Wackett was one of the founding designers and technological pioneers of Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation. He was an aussie, not a member of the UK govt. He was responsible for selecting the North American trainer designs that became the CAC Wirraway & Boomerang, the Pratt & Whitney air cooled radials produced by CAC for the Beaufort, Beaufighter, Boomerang, etc, for selecting the Mustang as the next fighter for the RAAF, then selecting both the F-86 and then the Mirage III! He's about as central to Australian aviation as it's possible to be.
Wasn't the other founding designer an Austrian?
@@jaymorris3468Fred David?
Australia has many military breakthroughs, like explosive reactive armor was pioneered in Australia.
What do you mean by pioneered my friend as in invented? I thought the Soviets invented that?
@@anothernamlesscommenter352One of the first into service maybe.
The Aussies toyed with it in the later stages of WW2. Brits werent interested in it so it was dropped....
Not just military. Our computing was also in the world forefront, with Sydney University's Silliac being more powerful than any other computer worldwide at time of completion - as was related to me, the long-serving conservative government decided a tech industry wasn't a national core strength and that we'd be better leaving that to the mother country. Not the only field that happened in.
We had the Ikara anti-submarine missile-launched torpedo (like ASROC), the Malkara ATGM, etc. The quality of our ideas was second to none but once things moved on from solid-state electronics and so on, we couldn't really compete (but ... Metal Storm)
@@thosdot6497not to forget the CAC kangaroo. Also Australia was the third nation to successfully launch a satellite
@@tonybarnes3658 - ah yes, Space! That was another major area that Britain said we didn't need to be in, and Bloody Menzies gave it all away.
This fighter could be very useful similar situation like "The Great Australian Emu War".
Yep. Especially since emus can't fly! Though by this point Australia had made peace with the emus and began farming them.
It still would have been too late for that particular War. The Emu's had won, and we just had to lick our wounds. But then we conned them by telling them if they stayed in these paddocks, we would feed them and look after them. They didn't realise they were concentration camps.
@@angrysausage-qj9eg They got them from Kangaroos.
@@angrysausage-qj9eg When people asked the soldiers of the 10th, they replied they got them from Kangaroos, just to screw with them. Aussie humour.
@@angrysausage-qj9eg Hahaha, like it. I only knew about it as I was in the Aussie Army. Cheers
Also in 1953, Britain cancelled the supersonic variant of the Hawker Hunter. The P1083 would have had a 50 degree swept wing & a RR Avon jet with reheat. That gave the market for single engine supersonic Western fighter to the French Mirage, which Australia, among many others, bought.
I think you're summary at the end of the video is about right. English Electric had completed its general arrangement drawings for a supersonic research fighter that would become the Lightning, in 1948 - so I don't think there was much in the way of influence when the CAC plans were circulated in 1953
It doesn’t appear that the Australian designers understood the Whitcomb area rule. So there is no way it would have reached Mach 1.5 (It probably wouldn’t have even past Mach 1) The Convair F102 Delta Dagger had to be redesigned using that area rule, as it had been unable to reach Mach 1 although its design speed was Mach 1.2.
The F100 Super Sabre was designed in the late-'40s and first flew in 1953, it made Mach 1.4 with a shape that looks a lot like the Whaleshark.
Never underestimate plane by it's looking alone, let the speed's and manuver decided your opinions 😂
@@aaronleverton4221perhaps it made Mach just by brute force?
@@Cooldude-ko7ps Perhaps. It was also single-engined, while this was designed to carry two Rolls Royce Avons. I think the power would have pushed it straight through the transonic drag the Delta Dagger was hampered by.
F102 was equipped with a 'temp' engine that was drastically lower in power than the airframe design called for. The 'coke bottle' shape is a complicated formula, and often doesn't remotely resemble a coke bottle shape.
It is a real pity this aircraft never came to fruition, I reckon it would have been much like the colins class sub, a few tweaks here and there and then formidable aircraft is born. Thanks for bringing this to light mate.
You're extremely talented in multiple ways, cheers for the high quality entertainment mate.
Yebbut the Lightning had been on the drawing board a lot longer (1948) and P1 prototype first flew in 1954. It had a much deeper 60° sweep to the wings and a thinner profile, and the very low all moving tail plane. I suspect CAC drew on the English Electric and Short Bros plans more than the other way around. Its first flight was later found to have exceeded Mach 1. It's actual performance was shrouded in secrecy for a long time, climb rate, max altitude, etc.
The cac was on the drawing board at the same time. What gets my goat is that firsts the RAE slanders the CAC ca23, with an "appreciation document which they increase the weights by 2500 lb above " weight decrease the sewage area of the design they were comparing it to the Dh109 and then after the program is cancelled very politely ask if they can farm the data out to British companies. Screwed by the Brits. As well ask the UK RAE slow walking the high speed wind tunnel testing until after the cancellation. Yes the RAE were out for UK aircraft industry interests.
Design studies of the CAC ca23 began in 48, and initial prototyping was delayed in 51 after the RAE slow walked the testing until 53 after it was cancelled, the Brits then had the gall that the information gained could be spread amongst the UK aviation industry. The letter for that is on file in the national archives, it is accessible digitally. Before you ask for proof. The low tail of lightning wasn't settled until later.
@@robertmansfield7656 The independent all moving low level tailplane of the lightning was almost below the fuselage. The Lightning started as a private venture Teddy Petter design (by May 1947 and for at least a year before, the original requirement being E.24/43 (which led to the Miles M.42 and Bell X-1) dated from 1942 but that got cancelled) and that tailplane was there from the very start and gave it a roll rate and turn that nothing else could match, most still cannot. The Lightning is also unusual in having ventral fins. Watching a Lightning playing with a Mirage or Starfighter was like watching a hawk taking a pigeon. The ill fated experimental Short SB.5 with the high or low (nb) tailplane is far more like the CA.23 but flew in 1952. The SB.5 was used to test the new aerodynamics for the Lightning and probably the CA.23 too. The RAF and especially RAE did not trust the new concept of a low tailplane until tested, so RAE ordered the SB.5 up. Then the gov dragged their heels as usual and delayed the Lightning entering service until 1960.
Congrats mate you've made the Horizontal EEL
As an Aussie it definitely pains me to see the Ca-23 receive a fate like this, would've been one hell of a fighter
So happy you did my suggestion!
Very interesting project that seems at least on par with other contemporary jets, if not more advanced. The problems were it was severely underarmed and didn't even have a radar gunsight let alone full radar. Adding the weight and altered aerodynamics of canons or at least more machine guns and radar would likely counter the any advantages it had.
As an Aussie with a keen interest in both history and aviation, I am shocked that I did not previously know of this.
The thin swept wing went right back to Power Jets, Rugby, Warwickshire, UK, cerca1940, and the British Fairey Delta (wing) in 1956, was the first aircraft to reach 1132 mph. It's hard to see how the UK took ideas from an unrealised aircraft.
Absolutely right.
God bless those aussies! Being a Canidian, I love my neighbors from the other hemisphere...while we were playing around with our aircraft procurement nightmare, those loveable Australians hooked us up with surplus jets we badly needed while my government was doing....whatever nonsense it does to get us exactly what we said we couldn't afford.
Another excellent video! Thank you for excellent entertainment, and detailed information! Cheers!
F18’s?
One Of The Coolest Fighters I Have Ever Seen.
There we go. We Aussies were quick off the mark. Thanks for this. I served in the RAAF between 61-7- and have never heard of this before. In 66 I visited CAC in an a upper room there was a mockup of a CA31 delta wing super sonic trainer as a leadin to the Mirage that was coming on strength at the time. Thanks for the great viodeo. Keep it up. You could well do on on the CA31 another Aussie aircraft that never was.
5:45 i think you will find the avons (100 series) were at least 7,500 lbs thrust each for a total of 15,000 lbs. the EE lightening had the 300 series which had 16,000 lbs per engine for a total of 32,000 lbs with reheat :) the EE lightening has its roots in the late 1940s with teddy petter getting requirements for his ideas in 1948 with ER103 and subsequently with the short SB5 of 1950.
this does not diminish the brilliance of the aussie engineers or even sir hardman wishing a low risk & commonality of airframes across the empire.
The CAC ca23 was going to use an afterburner. 9500 lb thrust. Although the RA 9 was available by 56 the expected production date with 9000 lb dry thrust . Honestly compared to the Avon sabre it is a quantum leap. We could have built, not last wars plane but for the next war.
Thanks for telling this story! The draw designs were especially awesome!
To note, English Electric did multiple studies on the exact configuration of the swept-wing (30%, 45%, 65%) and where the tail would go - annoying the bureaucrats in the process - before it completed the design of the Electric. I don't think it's a conspiracy.
As an aussie you should make a video on the CAC SABRE.
To be honest the design kinda reminds me of a vougth F-8 crusader but with the Wings slightly lower even though they were developed year's away from each other I love that physics just say will "be like him"
That spine down the back and the near 90° angle where it meets the main fuselage would have made the plane look like a bright spotlight on radar by forming a near perfect retro-reflector. The B-1A bomber had a smaller spine that was removed on the B-1B as well as receiving special intakes to make it less observable.
Looks like a twin engine MiG-21.
The lightning ticks that box
@@Torth121 You should take a deeper look.
@Torth121 does it tho?
MiG copied CAC through espionage
Yes, It looks surprisingly like the Chinese J-8 jet fighter. But with a slightly flatter fuselage.
In many ways, the criteria were similar to those of the Canadian Avro Arrow, but more realistic. It actually had weapons, and avoided the design baggage that came with Mach 2.2.
The longer and longer I live the more I realize Canada and Australia are mirror reflections of each other. And today I now have found out that our Aussie brothers have even had their own Avro Arrow. This just adds to the long list of similarities we both have in my opinion I believe that there is no other nation to Canada that is more of the same as us other than Australia. We both are common wealth country's ,we both have vast land that's underpopulated ,we both were founded by English people, we both punched above our weight class in WW2, Australia is a country known for extreme heat and Canada is known for it's extreme cold, Australia is mostly hard for big city's to exist in due to large amounts of desert and so is Canada except due to Artic tundra, We both were used as shock troopers in both world wars, have many famous talented celebrities and singers that come from our small country's, have many immigrants, are similar in military power and GDP. I could go on longer but basically we're so similar we're almost twins
Nicely said and I believe that you are quite correct. There are many similarities between Australia and Canada in population size vs land mass, history, culture, GDP
and many connections were formed by the many Australian Air Crew training in Canada during WWII.
Mark from Melbourne Australia
@@markfryer9880 People will do what I'm about to do with just about any country but factually speaking and sentimentally 🇨🇦🤝🇦🇺
@@Rodney_1984 Thanks I'm glad to see Aussies feel the same about us Cunucks as I do your people
never been to canada, but in my opinion australia is so close to north america in general that visiting there feels just like going to another state or something.
Don't forget the UK's BAC TSR-2 fighter project that went through a similar set of circumstances that beset this and the Avro Canadian jet planes. Life is full of these "whatif" stories that normally turn out to have complicated reasons for ultimate failure. I found the video very interesting to watch but will not be looking back with regret at what might have been.
The Argentinian IA-33 Pulqui II suffered a simmilar destiny. I understand the pain of seeing your national production aircraft cancelled when was one of the top fighters of the age.
Surprised it didn't use the Hispano MK5 instead of the browning .50 cal. Sad that the plane didn't make it to production but at least we got the CAC Saber
The real crime is that no one thought to call it the Chunderjet
Therapist: Mig Chungus isn’t real, Mig Chungus can’t hurt you
*MIG CHUNGUS:*
There ls a rule in aviation that if aircraft has more than 50% innovations in compare to previous model it's doomed to fail. This plane has like 200% comparing to preveous Australian planes
So the B-2 Stealth Bomber averts this by being the first of it's kind?
@@Edax_Royeauxthe B-2 wasn’t exactly a unique design - as it was built based on the design of the preceding XB-35/YB-49 which itself was unable to complete development.
The Aussie version of the Avro Canada Arrow, similar result
Hi, mate.
More top quality content as usual.
It's pronounced Ayvon. It's named after a British river, as are a lot of RR engines.
Actually, it IS pronounced 'Affon' (which is Welsh for River; imaginative of the poms: River River); 'Ayvon' is an American brand of cosmetics.
He went the Western Australian pronunciation lol
This author doesn’t give a rats arse about correct pronunciation. He has been told repeatedly. There’s even apps to get it right. Yet he still cocks it up.
Had never heard of it. Very interesting.
Though "The year is 1955." 1956, the Mirage III was making its first flight...
Looks like a Mikoyan-Gurevich Ye-152A or a Shenyang J-8A.
I love the "Wait don't skip..." as you click skip, LOL!
After watching this I’m convinced now. Australia really is the world’s penal colony.
Always has been! Just ask the Aussie State and Federal Police that monitor these comments 24/7!
The EE Lightnings tail plane was proven to be the correct design after a separate test aircraft was made to test both the official T-tail and the low mounted tail plane, the T-tail was a potential disaster due to wash out, the CA-23 models used in the vid had no area ruling ,no wing fences or dogtooth notches, and the tail plane is mid fuselage mounted not low mounted. 4x 50 cals is pretty poor, when most were shifting to 20/30mm cannons, and if the UK pinched the design ,how come the EE lightning put the Avons (pronounced ay-von, not Aa-von BTW) one above the other. The design needed side (a la F104) or chin intakes (a la P1103) to accommodate the radar .
Imagine if this happened, the future might have been a whole different future 😕
I see similarities with the Canadian Arrow.
The plane design seems to have influenced the EE Lightening and Soviet planes like the Su-7 & Mig-21.
The plane looks too big for that era when dog fighting was still on.
Read about the HF-24 Marut to see problems faced by first time fighter producers. Engine, radar etc.
On top of it, there will be no export market. The Big Brothers ensure that.
Just like with Avro Arrow, count on the U.S. to just come in and-wait, what?
I'd never heard of this plane before this video, and all I can do is agree with the various comments below on how Australia, Canada, and ultimately the UK, all ended up 'abandoning' world leading designs of the day and wonder at what could have been with a bit more collaboration. You only have to look at Airbus today to see how that can play out . . . .
I am a bit confused by your time line, English Electric had pretty much settled on the basic design of the Lighting by 1949 including the wing shape and low set tail plane, this was the same year that Australia was in talks about buying Panthers from the US, so it must have been after this that the layout of the CA23 was decided, so how did EE steal the ideas you mentioned when they had already submitted their design. There are too many Videos saying that this plane was the best in the world but never flew, the main reason these projects didn't make it to production is always that there was another option that was, better, cheaper or already proven.
5:55 is when the video starts
I think the mig-19 is closer to the ca-23 than the su-7
With that intake, I might have called it a basking shark. Funny how if you watch the PBS documentary on battle of the X planes, it seems a major factor for Lockheed being awarded the contract for the F-35 was that it looked good (and the Boeing looked pretty ugly). Very interesting how focus on function over form can lead to impressive specs.
Im getting serious Avro Arrow vibes from this project. Poor commonwealth defense projects :(
Amazing Video! I would love to see you make a video on the CA-15 Kangaroo
The Arrow, the TSR-2 and this amazing Australian jet, join the ranks of legendary designs that all met undeserved, disheartening fates.
When the TSR-2 was showing promise......some visitors arrived in England, politely 'suggesting' they buy the amazing, the astounding, the totally-not-a-lame-duck F-111 !!
The Aussie's had a hit or their hands and........so odd, they too receive a visit from some friends, this time politely 'suggesting' they buy the F100. No need to pursue your own national achievements and contribute to our collective understanding, nope. Just buy from your (ahem) 'friends'.
"Oh, while we're here, we'll just go ahead and leave this brochure - don't worry, we'll give you time to save up. It'll be called the F-35 and I'm telling you folks, it'll be a bargain" 🤤
Id tlike to that same “swatting the flys away from my tinny” attitude brought back. We are a country super rich in resources, extremely rich in talent, full to the brim in pride and I believe that’s there’s nothing Australian/Australians should be buying from overseas. Unfortunately that ship has long sailed but doesn’t mean that some things can be taken back and made our own again.
Aussie Aussie Aussie.
Thanks for the share F&E 🙏🏻
Hey guys, I know nothing about the market and I'm looking to invest, any help? As well who can I reach out to?
Making touch with financial advisors like Julio Castillo he can assist you restructure your portfolio, would be a very creative option. Personal financial management will be crucial to navigating the next difficult times.
That's true. Its really needful for beginners not to settle for videos alone or they will see themselves losing all their money just like me when I newly started trading with this videos here on UA-cam
He's awesome he has managed my investment so well and my weekly returns are mind blowing.
Could someone kindly leave his details here?
HE'S ALWAYS ACTIVE ON HIS TELEGRAMS APP WITH THE PROVIDED NAME 👇
.
As presented here it misses area ruling. In short: the shape including the wings and tailplanes should have no sudden changes in it’s cross section area because this massively increases supersonic drag. Thats’s why the “cola bottle” style later became fashionable. The US learned this the hard and VERY expensive way when designing the Delta Dart / Delta Dagger line. Accepting the rest of the story it is very improbable the designers would have avoided this problem. A design without windtunnel testing is always speculative to a degree.
That tunnel along the top of the fuselage narrows as the wings go out, like the Lightning, which could definitely break the sound barrier.
The Su-7 wasnt a copy, it was a competing design to the MiG-21, which had just taken the MiG-19 airframe and reworked the wings, which took from the MiG-17, which took from the MiG-15..... either way the Su-7 got its design from MiG, not the Australians. There was also the Su-9, which was closer to the actual MiG-21.
What an incredible looking combat aircraft , I respect your passion for your area of study.
Australia is interesting, the more migrants who make it their home, the less it manufactures, and also the less influence and power it has in the world.
Proves the point that smaller more unified countries like Sweden for example have a social philosophy of cohesion that achieved far more.
@@angrysausage-qj9eg Not necessarily correct. Again the example is Sweden where labour is also expensive but as it’s partnered with government, Sweden is as a consequence one of the worlds most industrialised societies. That was also the Australian model. Then the population was tripled but industry has been reduced, to almost an irrelevance, so the question becomes, why have all those additional people?
You are comparing apples and oranges. Australia has the 13th largest GDP in the world comparable with countries with much larger populations in Russia, South Korea, Mexico and Spain. Sweden has the 25th.
Australia has considerable influence in the Indo-Pacific by virtue of its GDP, military strength and strategic location between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. On the other hand, Sweden is a small country in Europe with limited influence in the Indo-Pacific.
Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda. Welcome to Australia.
Often wondered why the only pictures of the CA-23 were to be found from Russian sources
The Russian one come from older web pages which you can find on way back machine. Their are other images from the national archives and more original photos from the cac program at Moorabbin airport museum. boxes of designs and calculations their. I have too get back to Moorabbin on day.
"You call that a knife, THIS is a knife" nice Crocodile Dundee quote.
Imagine having the whale shark as a name for a plane and it actually looks the part of the name. It is said that there are so many cool and innovative plane designs throughout history that were never given a chance to ever fly, but then again look at what the lightning went through in its development. Basically going from pre-production model to the runway without having all the kinks worked out. But every airplane goes through that process of fixing the bugs that they didn't know would be there in reality.
In electronics we have a concept called polarization (horizontally / vertically) - EE Lightning - Vertically polarized V/s the CA-23 - Horizontally polarized that is in terms of engine layout in fuselage.
There was no "empire" at that stage . Australia had already realised after the fall of Singapore early in WW2 that the Brits were in no position to assist Australia . Thereafter it always looked to the USA and still does ( for good or bad ) @intercommerce is though absolutely right in that the UK , Canada and Australia would have been better of pursueing their own aircraft singularly or even jointly . If Sweden could do it then the Commonwealth should have been able to , whereas now they are dependent ( subservient ?) to the USA for any high tech fighter planes .
An absolute gem of a YT channel.
Could you please make a video about the EFW N-20?
Dude, watching this video on this Australian aircraft and you mentioning you were Austraian (duh) along with your distinctive voice, I only just made the connection to your other UA-cam videos on space that I've seen!! Anyway I'v really enjoyed it, and I hope to bump into you here down under! Until next time... Marcus ;)
Now, I am not an aviation expert by any stretch of the imagination. Just a novice enthusiast. However, I do know a little bit about air defense, having worked in that role in the service. The lack of an on-board radar was seen as a liability by this aircraft's detractors. If I understood the narration correctly it received radar data from ground-based systems. Would that have not been a significant advantage in that it had a lack of radar emissions for enemy anti-radiation missiles to operate properly? Off the top of my head I do not recall the development timeline of anti-radiation missiles to know if this would have been a factor at the time the CA-23 was being developed. I just did a simple Google search, and it seems that would not have been a factor for almost two decades. Perhaps it was accidentally ahead of its time in that regard. Again, I am no expert, but just some fascinating woolgathering.
I love the looks of the CA-23 in your video. I wonder what wind tunnel testing would have revealed. The body design reminds me of the F-102 and that had issues going super sonic. It wasn't until the F-106 and "Area Rule" the the Ultimate Interceptor came into its own.
Actually, it was just the YF-102 prototype that was not area ruled: the second prototype, the YF-102A, was so altered and could fly supersonically, at mach 1.22.
I'd love to see you take on Flyout, if you can get early access or when the game comes out, it would be awesome to see you make some of these weird planes in Flyout and see how they handle
I’m seeing less of a Su-7 and more of a MIG-19 here
Requesting videos on the following:
-switchblade aircraft designs such as the FA-37 Talon from the ‘05 movie “Stealth” or the X-02 Wyvern from the Ace Combat franchise (the concept, not the actual fighters I mentioned)
-Super Tomcat-21 and ASF-14
-the NATF program as a whole
-early ATF proposals/McDonnell Douglas’ ATF proposal
-Sea Apache
-F-20 Tigershark
-Bae SABA
-Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Bomber proposal
-Northrop’s proposal for what would become the F-117 Nighthawk
-Interstate TDR
-JSF proposals OTHER THAN the X-32 and X-35
-XFV-12
-Gloster Meteor
-the proposals that didn’t win the F-X program that spawned the F-15 Eagle
-Erado E.555
-model 853 quiet bird
-the USSR’s Project P-2 submarine
at the end of the video... isn't the Boeing program called "Loyal Wingman" not just "project wingman"? Great video once again. I had never heard of this fighter jet. Sad that once again bureaucracy won out over innovation!
Correct. Loyal Wingman
Out of curiosity would you possibly consider doing a Bell/Boeing Quad TiltRotor video, I've always found it to be quite the interesting idea despite it never getting off the drawing board.
The biggest problem with trying to create a complex aircraft is that you have to have an export market. Few countries at the time or even today can claim this. Even the armament on this aircraft was out of date. The Avon engines CA-27-32 Sabres (the best of the breed) had 30mm ADEN cannon and Sidewinders. This and increasing complexity and cost of development, is what sank the Avro Arrow and BAC TSR2.
14:49 /// PROJECT WINGMAN IS AWAY ///
Excellent stuff bro
NIce comic themed art work mate. I lik that .
For all the "area rule" commenters, listen up. Area ruling is the process by which you control the cross-sectional area distribution of the airplane. At Mach 1 it involves taking slices through the aircraft perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. At higher Mach numbers it is more complicated. The cutting planes are swept back along a Mach line. At each longitudinal station, this cutting plane is rolled around the longitudinal axis. To clarify, let's look at cutting planes at the station midwing. When the planes are roughly parallel to the sweep, they cut through the fuselage and wing from root to tip. When the planes are 90 degrees to that, they cut through the fuselage and wing but just a small portion of the wing. These areas, at each longitudinal location get added and an average produced. The desired area distribution for minimum wave drag is a shape known as a Sears-Hacke body. There are a lot of ways to distribute the cross-sectional area to arrive at this shape - and it doesn't have to look like a wasp-waisted coke bottle (but often does). The inventor of the area rule, Richard "Dick" Whitcomb, was a truly amazing engineer. In addition to creating the area rule, he also developed winglet concept and the supercritical airfoil. The story of the supercritical airfoil is a fascinating one - and one best left for another day. (I got to hear it directly from Dick)
Speaking as a Brit, We even screwed our selves over.
TSR 2 anybody?
from this Australian plane i remember the Indian plane the MARUT , i want to see its history and how it was build will you make a video on it sometime
Always enjoy the content
This is strongest Aussie video I've seen all year
Bruh, what's the @ of the lady model at the beginning of the Square Space ad? 😍
I do like many of these cold war designs, both the ones that happened and didn't happen. this one is a real cool looking one.
"Strikingly similar SU-7" er, that's stretching things a little isn't it mate?! Apart from being nothing like it (Single-seat, single-engine, swept-wings etc) nose intakes were very common options for trans-sonic & early supersonic jets fighters, especially for Soviet designs. As for the lightning, that was a test-bed turned into a fighter: it's lineage can be traced back even further than this thing. That video relay system sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, & the armament seriously deficient, even against, earlier machines, like the Mig-17, Mig-19 etc (which is waaay closer to this beast, but no way a copy) . I think you're letting your Ozzie pride cloud your judgement, mate.