CAC Wirraway Drawings

Plate 1b. Wirraway fuselage framework

This drawing shows the geometry and dimensions of the Wirraway's welded chrome-molybdenum steel tube fuselage framework. Click on the thumbnail to open a PDF file formatted for printing on A4 paper (approximately 37 KB in size).

Plate 4d. CA-1 Wirraway front and rear views

This drawing shows front and rear views of the CA-1 Wirraway, including details of the Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp engine. Click on the thumbnail to open a PDF file formatted for printing on A4 paper (approximately 17 KB in size). 

Date published: 1966

Source: IPMS Newsletter

Comments: This drawing shows details for a Wirraway Mk II (produced under contract CA-5), 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, 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.

Date published: December 1973

Source: Aeromodeller magazine

Comments: This drawing shows details for the CA-1 Wirraway Mk I, in the markings of A20-10 (the aircraft now held at the Australian National Aviation Museum in Moorabbin). However the drawing shows A20-10 following an upgrade to the late-style oil cooler and carburettor air intake below the cowl (which became standard on the Mk III), so the drawing does not represent an "as-built" CA-1. The drawing was originally drafted at 1:24 scale (copies can still be purchased from Model Activity Press) and 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 27 and 106, 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. The curved front section of this fairing is also drawn incorrectly where it meets the wheel housing.
• 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 (wheras they are shown mounted on the outer carrier positions).

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 misleading. The drawings were published in the magazine 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 27 and 106, but in reality the fuselage width is constant between these stations
• The antenna mast is drawn 8" too far forward
• The configuration of bombs is incorrect. The larger bombs (227 kg / 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)

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 drawing appears to show a 2-bladed propellor, the diameter of which is too small

Date published: 1991

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

Comments: A 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).

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 27 and 106, but in reality the fuselage width is constant between these stations
• The antenna mast is drawn 8" too far forward

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 27 and 106, 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 is not symmetrical)
• The underside view of the centre section and rear fuselage is not accurate
• The antenna mast is drawn 8" too far forward

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) and shows the differences to other versions.

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 antenna mast is drawn 8" too far forward

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 misleading. 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 27 and 106, but the actual fuselage width is constant between these stations
• The antenna mast is drawn 8" too far forward
• The configuration of bombs is incorrect. The larger bombs (227 kg / 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)
• The instument panel layout shown on the drawing is for the CAC Boomerang, not the Wirraway

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 again the views are not labelled. 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 plan-view shows the fuselage bulging outwards between stations 27 and 106, 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 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