Commonwealth CA-27 Sabre
The Australian military was so impressed with the capabilities of the F-86 that they built their own version under contract. The CA-27 as it was known, was similar to its American cousin with the exception of two major upgrades. The Australians chose to install the more powerful Rolls Royce Avon engine and they replaced the 6 fifty caliber machine guns with a pair of 30mm auto-cannons.

I didn't know that we made our own version. It had a couple of upgrades. Both of which solved the 'shortcomings' that most consider made the F86 slightly inferior to the MiG15.

I got this off Mike Stone's write up for his new plane. The Ca 27 - as it was called. (real simple folk we are - all the planes made by us were a CA (then the next number up). I think the P51's we made were Ca 14's or something.


Pretty nifty, eh  

This bit is interesting to me, in that it confirms what I was alluding to.

http://www.warplane.com/pages/aircraft_sabre.html

I didn't realise we made the engines here either. Very clever! 

http://www.kepl.com.au/MAAC/Wackett.HTML

That's what I meant about Australia making the Engines.

I didn't know we made RR engines of any kind.

A quick reference to the Orenda you mention used in the Canadian version @ 5200 lbs. the Avon is rated at 5400lbs (I think that's what I read).

But, after all is said and done, basically the two 'complaints', if you could call them that, about the Sabre (especially when comparing it to the Mig 15, regardless of whether it's historians, pilots or enthusiasts), the two only recurring aspects are the power (which influenced speed and climb rate - where the Mig out did the Sabre) and the powerful cannon on the MiG being more efficient than the 6 x .50's on the Sabre.
It seems that these two so called 'short comings' were addressed by both Australia and Canada (and who knows who else).

The decision to manufacture Mustangs in Australia had already been made in 1944; the first Australian C.A.C.-built CA-17 Mustang, based on the P-51D, flew in May 1945.
The CAC Mustang was built in four main variants, all based on the P-51D. These were the CA-17 Mk.20; the CA-18 Mk.22 (for tactical reconnaissance); the CA-18 Mk.21; and CA-18 Mk.23, with a Rolls-Royce, rather than the Packard-built, Merlin engine.

Yes, definitely the Sea Fury was a wonderfully powerful aircraft (we lost one in Duxford last week I think?).

The Ca-15 does have a P51 look about it, but remember it was originally to have the new  Pratt & Whitney R2800 fitted at about 2500 hp. They put the Griffon in because Pratt couldn't meet delivery for the proto-type.

With teh P&W fitted (which was never made - but there is a Sim version in the stable somewhere) it looks far less like a P51 than the one with the Griffon.  

In fact, now that I see the thumbnail. It really does look quite a bit like the P47 (until you see the wing shape).
The same style 'bubble canopy' has alot to do with it too. It seems to be in the same position and the fuselage is 'fat' and round. Even the four blade propellor probably contributes to the P47D classic look 

The fact that the thing was never actually made, makes it impossible to get the performance and flight characteristics, as there are none. But, as I said, it doesn't handle very well. It's a real dog, actually. The Griffon version he made is a very manoeuvrable plane, with quite a tight turn for that size plane. I don't know, again, whether those handling characteristics are from any 'official' design info. After all, the only one that was made was flown by only 2 or 3 people, so there wouldn't be much to go on anyway.  

Given what you have said about msot builders using, or at least starting with a 'stock' air file, and maybe, I imagine, making some possible mods to that, given known characteristics, what is your opinion about the accuracy, or lack there of, of the 1% planes? I think these are 'billed' at places like avhistory as "very close to behaving like the original plane" or words similar.
Do you think this is a realistic representation?  

Why don't you release the details of the .AIR files that define the flight characteristics for the aircraft in Flight Simulator?

The .AIR files contain proprietary data that aircraft manufacturers have provided to us. To help protect that information, we don't release the internal details of the .AIR file.
http://zone.msn.com/flightsim/FS02Readback04.asp

Would a bloke who flew one at 22 years of age, 60 years ago, be now able to give a reasonable judgement of the accuracy, by flying the Sim version at the age of 82? I very seriously doubt it!

M$ make quite a big beal in CFS2 about Joe Foss and Saburo Sakai being advisors. So maybe the ease with which the "stock' planes are flown, is a better representation.........................Dunno?

As far as M$'s answer to the AIR files question..........
Aren't all of the spec's etc for all these planes, a matter of public record these days. I mean, whats the secret?

Notes on Merlin engines and Microsoft Flight Simulator.
By Even Larsen.

All Merlins were supercharged. They produced more power at altitude than at sea level.
This is most noticeable for the variants with two-stage superchargers (61, 69, 72/76, 73/77).
Flight Sim doesn't model superchargers, so power drops off at altitude (for ordinary
engines power = sea level power - altitude * some constant, I don't know whether FS uses
this formula). This makes it impossible to create fully realistic flight models for the Mosquito
and other planes with supercharged engines.

If you use realistic drag values, as I think you should, you are left with two alternatives:
First, you can use the takeoff power of the real world engine. This will give you a realistic
flight model at low altitude, (for takeoff and landing) but the plane will have mediocre
performance at altitude.

Alternatively, you can set engine power high enough to give you realistic performance at
altitude. This will give the model much more power than the real plane at low altitude and
manoeuvers that were difficult, and dangerous, in the real plane will become much easier.

Of course there is a third alternative: You can try to find some compromise power setting that
will give acceptable performance at high altitude, while still giving you a hard time with that
single-engine landing. In the case of the Mosquito, this will work best with the marks that
used the Merlin 25 or Packard Merlin 225. http://www.home.gil.com.au/~bfillery/mossie06.htm

Not only did we have them Mark, but look into this display team and see, in what regard, they were held in their day.............