The CAC Wirraway scale drawings saga

CAC Wirraway

In my research for the drawings of the Wirraway shown on this site, I collected a range of scale drawings created by other draftsmen. My hope was that I would be able to find some accurate and detailed drawings which I could use as the basis for plans for a flying scale model. But although I discovered many 3-view drawings of the CAC Wirraway, none of them matched measurements which I had taken from A20-10 at the Australian National Aviation Museum at Moorabbin Airport.

So I eventually created my own drawings from scratch, using my measurements plus CAC factory drawings as the source material.

The list below provides some details and comments about the drawings which I collected, based on my analysis and comparison with CAC factory drawings and accurate measurements. The drawings are listed below by publication date, with the earliest at the top.

Drawing by: F.D. Rogers

Date published: c1957

Source: CAC archives

Comments: This drawing was one of a series of 3-view drawings of CAC aircraft by the CAC draftsman Fred Rogers. The original drawing shows several different views and several different versions of the Wirraway.

Surprisingly for drawings by a factory draftsman, they are not entirely accurate.

When compared with aircraft dimensions and factory drawings, the following inaccuracies are apparent:

  • The engine mount is drawn 3″ too short, so the cowl and propeller are 3″ too close to the firewall. The chord-length of the cowl is correct.
  • The windscreen angle is too raked
  • The antenna mast is drawn 5″ too far forward
  • The fairing over the fixed forward guns does not rise sufficiently to the windscreen, so the lower edge of the windscreen is 1.75″ too low

Drawing by: Chuck Graham

Date published: 1966

Source: IPMS Newsletter

Comments: This drawing shows details for a Wirraway Mk II (produced under the CA-5 contract), in the markings of A20-103 (the aircraft now held at the Australian War Memorial collection).

This drawing was primarily intended to display the colours and markings of A20-103 for scale modelling purposes, but when checked against aircraft measurements, several dimensional inaccuracies are readily apparent:

  • Most noticeably, the engine cowl is drawn too long by 10.5″
  • The wing chord is drawn 2″ too long and the wing is shown 5″ too far forward
  • The wing is drawn around 3.5″ lower than it’s actual location
  • In the plan view the fairing between the wing and fuselage is shown becoming wider in a curve towards the trailing edge. The actual fairing follows a straight line parallel to the centre of the aircraft along the top skin of the wing centre section. The curved front section of this fairing is also drawn incorrectly where it meets the wheel housing.
  • In the plan view the walk-ways on the wing centre-section are shown as panel lines, but this is incorrect.

Drawing by: F. Pawlowicz

Date published: December 1973

Source: Aeromodeller magazine

Comments: This drawing shows details for a CA-1 Wirraway Mk I, in the markings of A20-10 (the aircraft now held at the Australian National Aviation Museum in Moorabbin).

At first glance, this drawing looks highly accurate and detailed, with a great deal of surface and panel detail, scrap views and cross-sections. However when compared with factory drawings a large number of inaccuracies become apparent (see the list below).

Also, the drawing shows A20-10 following an upgrade to the late-style oil cooler and carburettor air intake below the cowl (which was introduced by Wirraway Technical Order no. 108 of 26/03/1943, and was standard on the Mk III), so the drawing does not represent an “as-built” CA-1, and this is not explained on the drawing.

The drawing was originally drafted at 1:24 scale (copies can still be purchased from Model Activity Press) and was reproduced in the magazine at 1:48 scale.

When checked against aircraft measurements, several inaccuracies appear on this drawing:

  • The tail-plane is drawn about 4″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The wing is drawn around 3″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The canopy rail is drawn around 3″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The angle of the windscreen is too “raked”, at 50° from vertical, wheras it should actually be 44.7° from vertical
  • The plan-view shows the fuselage bulging outwards between stations 1 and 6, but in reality the fuselage width is constant between these stations
  • The antenna mast is drawn 8″ too far forward
  • The fairing between the wing and fuselage is shown becoming wider in a curve towards the trailing edge. The actual fairing follows a straight line parallel to the centre of the aircraft along the top skin of the wing centre section, it does not become wider at the trailing edge. The curved front section of this fairing is also drawn incorrectly where it meets the wheel housing.
  • The panel lines on the upper surface of the wing centre-section are incorrect.
  • The walk-ways on the wing centre-section are shown as panel lines, but this is incorrect.
  • The propeller is listed as a “3 bladed controllable speed metal propeller” but the propeller is in fact “controllable pitch” for “constant speed” operation.
  • The configuration of bombs indicated in the scrap-view is incorrect. The larger bombs (500lb Semi Armour Piercing bombs) could only be mounted on the inner universal carriers on the outer wing panels (whereas they are shown mounted on the outer carrier positions).

Given that many of the later drawings listed below feature identical inaccuracies, this drawing was obviously used as a source and traced by later draftsmen without any checking for dimensional accuracy and the errors in this drawing have been propagated across many publications.

Drawing by: Zbigniew Luranc

Date published: 1987

Source: Unknown

Comments: This drawing also shows the aircraft A20-10 following its cowling changes but lists this as a CA-1, which is a little confusing. The drawings were published at 1:50 scale.

When checked against aircraft measurements, several inaccuracies can be seen on this drawing:

  • The tail-plane is drawn about 4″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The wing is drawn around 3″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The canopy rail is drawn around 3″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The plan-view shows the fuselage bulging outwards between stations 1 and 6, but in reality the fuselage width is constant between these stations
  • The antenna mast is drawn 8″ too far forward
  • The panel lines on the upper surface of the wing centre-section are incorrect.
  • The configuration of bombs is incorrect. The larger bombs (500 lb Semi Armour Piercing bombs) could only be mounted on the inner universal carriers on the outer wing panels (wheras they are shown mounted on the outer carrier positions)

Drawing by: Perry Manley

Date published: 1989

Source: T-6 Texan In Action by Larry Davis; Squadron/Signal Publications, Carrollton Texas, 1989

Comments: A port elevation is included in this book accompanying the chapter on the Wirraway and Boomerang.

When checked against aircraft measurements, several inaccuracies are obvious on this drawing:

  • The tail-plane is drawn about 4″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The wing is drawn around 3″ lower than it’s actual location, and the outer wing trailing edge is swept forward while the Wirraway trailing edge has no sweep
  • The canopy rail is drawn around 3″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The antenna mast is too tall
  • The engine cowl is drawn around 2″ too far forward, and the air intake is not the correct shape
  • The fixed forward machine guns are too high
  • The rear flexible machine gun appears to be a Browning gun, on the actual aircraft this was a Vickers GO gun.
  • The drawing appears to show a 2-bladed propellor, the diameter of which is too small


Drawing by: Alex Pedashenko

Date published: 1991

Source: Wirraway, Boomerang and CA-15 In Australian Service by Stewart Wilson, Sydney, 1991

Comments: This 3-view drawing appears in Stewart Wilson’s book, but no draftsman is noted on the drawing. The drawing features the “signature” style of Alex Pedashenko (particularly the tufts of grass on the ground-planes), and Stewart indicated that he had received several drawings from Alex, hence it makes sense that Alex was the draftsman. The drawing is listed as depicting the CA-3 and CA-9 aircraft (Mk II) and correctly shows the CA-9 twin air intake on the lower cowl. However it incorrectly shows corrugated skin on the vertical fin, which was only fitted to Mk I aircraft produced under the CA-1 contract.

When checked against aircraft measurements, several inaccuracies appear on this drawing:

  • The tail-plane is drawn about 3″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The thrust-line is drawn around 4″ higher than it’s actual location – this results in the entire cowling being around 4″ higher than it should be
  • The plan-view shows the fuselage bulging outwards between stations 1 and 6, but in reality the fuselage width is constant between these stations
  • The panel lines on the upper surface of the wing centre-section are incorrect
  • The antenna mast is drawn 8″ too far forward

Drawing by: Colin Owers

Date published: 1992

Source: Aviation News magazine, September-October 1992

Comments: This drawing shows details for several different versions of the Wirraway, however the views are not labelled. The drawings were published in the magazine at 1:72 scale.

The same drawings were published in Air Enthusiast 50, alongside Owers’ article about the Wirraway.

When checked against aircraft measurements, several inaccuracies appear on this drawing (many of which are the same as for the Pawlowicz drawing, leading to the conclusion that these drawings may have been traced from the Pawlowicz drawing):

  • The tail-plane is drawn about 4″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The wing is drawn around 3″ higher than it’s actual location
  • The canopy rail is drawn around 4″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The plan-view shows the fuselage bulging outwards between stations 1 and 6, but in reality the fuselage width is constant between these stations
  • Several features are shown on the starboard side of the fuselage which are not actually there (the fuselage side panels are not symmetrical)
  • The panel lines on the upper surface of the wing centre-section are incorrect
  • The underside view of the centre section and rear fuselage is not accurate
  • The antenna mast is drawn 8″ too far forward

Drawing by: Joe Vella

Date published: 1995

Source: Air Enthusiast magazine No. 61 Jan-Feb 1996

Comments: A small 3-view drawing by Joe Vella appeared alongside his article about the aircraft of CAC. The drawing depicts the CA-16 aircraft (Mk III) including the dive brakes on the upper surfaces of the outer wings.

When checked against aircraft measurements, several inaccuracies appear on this drawing:

  • The tail-plane is drawn about 3″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The wing is drawn around 3″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The canopy rail is drawn around 3″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The angle of the windscreen is too “raked”, at 50° from vertical, wheras it should actually be 44.7° from vertical.
  • The antenna mast is drawn 8″ too far forward
  • The panel lines on the upper surface of the wing centre-section are incorrect.

Drawing by: Unknown

Date published: 1997

Source: CAC Boomerang CAC Wirraway by Andre Zbigniewski and Jacek Nowicki; Wydawnictwo Militaria, Warsaw, 1997 (published in Polish)

Comments: This drawing (perhaps drafted by Zbigniew Luranc, or based on his drawing) shows the CA-1 ribbed fin skin, but the later style carburetor and oil cooler air intake below the cowl on the same profile, which is confusing. The drawing does however correctly show the different access panels and covers on the port fuselage side compared to the starboard side.

When checked against aircraft measurements, several inaccuracies appear on this drawing:

  • The engine, cowl and propeller have been drawn 4″ above their correct location; it appears the draftsman has laid the thrust-line over the fuselage centre-line (or reference line) when in fact the thrust-line is 4″ below the fuselage centre-line
  • The plan-view shows the fuselage bulging outwards between stations 1 and 6, but the actual fuselage width is constant between these stations
  • The antenna mast is drawn 8″ too far forward
  • The panel lines on the upper surface of the wing centre-section are incorrect.
  • The configuration of bombs is incorrect. The larger bombs (500 lb Semi Armour Piercing bombs) could only be mounted on the inner universal carriers on the outer wing panels (wheras they are shown mounted on the outer universal carrier positions)
  • The starboard fuselage side panel is shown as one long panel, whereas the actual panel was split into two
  • The instument panel layout shown on the drawing is for the CAC Boomerang, not the Wirraway

Drawing by: Richard J. Caruana

Date published: November 2003

Source: Scale Aviation Modeller International magazine, Volume 9 Issue 11 November 2003

Comments: This drawing also shows details for several different versions of the Wirraway (Mk I, Mk II and Mk III) but the views labelled only as “Early production”, “Standard production” and “Later production”.

The drawings were published in the magazine at 1:48 scale.

When checked against aircraft measurements, several inaccuracies appear on this drawing:

  • The tail-plane is drawn about 4″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The wing is drawn about 2″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The canopy rail is drawn around 3″ lower than it’s actual location
  • The angle of the windscreen is too “raked”, at 50° from vertical, wheras it should actually be 44.7° from vertical.
  • The plan-view shows the fuselage bulging outwards between stations 1 and 6, but in reality the fuselage width is constant between these stations
  • The panel lines on the upper surface of the wing centre-section are incorrect
  • Several features are shown on the starboard side of the fuselage which are not actually there (the fuselage is not symmetrical)
  • The underside view is not accurate around the tail wheel, rear fuselage and engine oil cooler
  • The antenna mast is drawn 4″ too far forward