Thoughts on the new 48th Airfix Chipmunk T.10 kit

[Rod Blievers]

 

I really had hoped to see this kit already reviewed. Seeing as I'm now seeing some lovely completed models, I thought it best to post these before more kits are started.

 

Overall I'm very, very impressed - at last a decent Chipmunk kit! The kit mouldings are really well detailed and have captured most of the odd protrusions and lumps well. The fabric covering is subtlety done (most kit manufacturers exaggerate this). I applaud the inclusion of separate strakes, both styles of rudder and the additional canopy sides with the oblique rails for the amber/blue blind-flying screens - it should then be fairly easy to depict the RAF Chipmunk from its introduction way back in 1949 through to the present day use by the BBMF (how's that for length of time in service?). The cockpit and engine area seem very well done indeed, perhaps the engine frames are a little thick while the firewall detail (instantly recognizable to anyone associated with the Chipmunk) takes my breath away!

 

As a Chipmunk aficionado and a self-confessed "nit-picker" though, I do have some niggles.

 

Airfix depict an insert/pipe on the lower starboard side of the front cowl - while this is correct for the later "Canadian" exhaust/heater the cowling should be smooth with the earlier sloped exhaust (as supplied). Although it appeared in some initial photos of the kit's CAD development, the prominent longeron re-enforcing panels (think of a "T" lying on its side) immediately aft of the firewall are missing - yet these were present on all Chipmunks after 1983. Continuing the cowl theme, the cartridge starter exhaust port (aft end of the RHS cowl) has been overlooked, which is rather odd as the priming hole and slot on the port cowl are included.

 

The wing underside/centre section is brilliant (part A1) - it not only displays the "gull wing" effect evident on the Chipmunk (if you know where to look) but also has the often overlooked triangular  NACA-type scoop too! Keep in mind that this scoop was a retrofit item installed after production was completed, i.e. a similar situation to the rudder change occurring after 1953 - as a broad guide, if you model a Chipmunk with the narrow-chord rudder then it won't have that intake. But just to offset my joy at this part - what's with that semi-circular strip immediately aft supposed to represent? It's not a standard Chipmunk fitting.

 

The trapezoid-shaped panel (a battery access hatch) Airfix depict on the upper port fuselage side immediately aft of the canopy is only correct for post-1972 aircraft, prior to this the panel was a much smaller rectangular shape, identical to the one on the opposite side.

 

One surprising omission is that, other than the lower RHS nose cowl intake, Airfix make no provision for the "Canadian" heater/exhaust system, fitted in 1979. This featured a solid lower cowl panel and a near vertical exhaust stack exiting at the rear of this. An after-market kit, anyone?

 

One each of the two different styles of UHF antennae are included - the parallel-sided blade was by far the most common, only a few aircraft carried the pointy version. A Chipmunk sporting one of each as Airfix imply would be very unusual, though not impossible (I've just located just one photo of this!). The instructions err here too in showing the lower antenna as being vertical; as both antennae were mounted perpendicular to the skin and offset from the centreline, thus neither antenna was  vertical.

 

On the subject of aerial fit - Chipmunks left the factory with a VHF radio and a whip antenna under the starboard wing. In 1963 these radios were replaced by UHF sets; the underwing whip aerial was removed and the two prominent rear fuselage blades were fitted. Because this was unsatisfactory when operating from civil controlled airfields (which used VHF) some units subsequently re-installed the VHF radios with either a whip aerial again under the starboard wing or a whip or a white rod antenna at a raked angle atop the tailcone (i.e. behind the rudder). Despite removal of the UHF radio, sometimes the blade antennae remained (i.e. three aerials present) - check your reference photos!

 

Airfix have used a restored Chipmunk, G-AOSY, as both the boxtop art subject and one of the decal choices. No complaints here if you're modelling this particular aircraft (I've seen/touched/fondled this aircraft and it's simply stunning - indeed, if ever I was to have a Chipmunk restored in the UK then I'd be beating a path to Vintage Fabrics) but if you wish to model a 2 FTS aircraft in the 1971 to 1974 period in that gorgeous "Blue Chips" scheme then the presentation will have to be slightly different:

1). "28" with the "Blue Chips" was WG348 not WB585,

2) the black/white spinner/propeller depicted on the box top is chronologically impossible - 2 FTS disbanded in 1974 while that propeller scheme appeared in 1977,

3) all 2 FTS Chipmunks carried underwing serials

4) all 2 FTS Chipmunks carried the prominent two UHF antennae "blades" on the aft fuselage and lastly

5) some 2 FTS Chipmunks had their wing roundels positioned further aft so that they ended at the flap/wing line which then alters the relationship between the roundel and the Red/Grey division.

 

The decal sheet is impressive, including lots of stencils, the wing walks and even those black/white striped propeller blades. Also included are the instruments; while these look fine on the sheet once transferred onto the instrument panels it becomes obvious that they're "overdone" with overly thick bright markings. In the absence of a finer after-market decal I think you'd be better off dry-brushing the panels to bring out the moulded detail for a more realistic appearance.

 

228442745_10158310012368123_7427968296585233670_n by Rod Blievers, on Flickr

 

The kit's nether regions - great to see the NACA-type scoop, but what's that circular strip supposed to represent?

 

WG431 GUAS (Dave Harris) by Rod Blievers, on Flickr

 

A lovely photo of a Glasgow UAS Chipmunk - note the smooth starboard lower cowl front which was standard when the first "sloped" exhaust was fitted.

WK518 BBMF posing as Hull UAS by Rod Blievers, on Flickr

 

The BBMF's WG486 fitted with the "Canadian" heater/exhaust, evident by the intake tube on the lower starboard front cowl, the "solid" bottom cowl and the steeply raked exhaust exiting at the rear. This is the normal configuration for all post 1979 RAF Chipmunks.

 

WB653 1 RFS Pashanger 30.6.1952 by Rod Blievers, on Flickr

 

It's rare to see the undersides - here's WB564 c.1951 without the triangular NACA-type scoop.

P1000526

 

The earlier (pre 1972) battery access panel configuration - identical rectangular panels.

 

 

Usually half hidden on the black anti-dazzle panel, here's the longeron bracing plates, mandatory for ALL U.K.-built Chipmunks after 1983, yet omitted from the kit.

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Rod Blievers
captions

[Magpie22]

Hi 'Chippy',

 

Thanks for that info. I never  realised that the Chipmunk had so many variations.  Then again, considering my background, I should have realised that nothing is simple in the aviation world.    'Bout time you wrote a book on Chipmunks! I can see that my Chipmunk model is going to take a long time.

 

Any thoughts on a Sasin Spraymaster conversion? I would love to lay my hands on some drawings of that beastie.

 

 

 

BTW, I still remember counting 'bogies' in the stack over Sydney!

 

Cheers,

Peter M

[MikeC]

Thanks, that's very detailed  indeed.  However, there is one thing I'd query: you say

3 hours ago, Rod Blievers said:

 ... the additional canopy sides with the oblique rails for the amber/blue blind-flying screens ...

If memory serves, these rails were simply a sliding portion of the front cockpit's side panel.  I'm not sure when they were deleted, but were certainly not present by the time of my asscoiation with the aircraft.

 

As I've yet to get my hands on one, am I right in thinking the kit depicts a 5-point harness, as I've seen in some of the early CAD images?  This was only fitted during the fleet refurbishment in the 1970s, prior to that a 4-point Q-type harness (two lap belts + two shoulder belts coloured blue or black) was used.   How do you tell?  Well that refurb was when the red/white/grey was applied, so for any scheme earlier then that, 4-point harness.   That was also when a g-meter was fitted - a small instrument dial fitted above the coaming on the left.

 

The 5 AEF Chipmunks used VHF radio, and Pilot's Notes covered both types.  Again if memory serves, the UHF radio fit also involved a smaller radio control box located centrally on the coaming.

 

Thanks again for an interesting review.

[Rod Blievers]

Hi Mike:

 

Thanks for the input. Of course I've never actually seen the sliding panels, possibly they had a metal edge. In this 1951 photo you can see that the aft panel is coloured, while the forward panel is slid back. These panels were removed as per DH's Mod H.258 in August 1952.

If you complete the model without the pilot figures, then they only provide lap straps moulded with the seat cushion. If you wish to model a service version (i.e. no seat cushion here mate) then you're entirely on your own. The seatbelt change was promulgated as  Mod H.292 in 1969, but given that three 1974 retirees that arrived here in this country all still had 4-point harnesses then obviously there was no great urgency attached to this change. My Chipmunk (WG478) was a 1994 retiree and had a 5-point harness, as an aside identical to that the RAAF fitted to the CT-4. This had black straps, bright blue shoulder strap adjustment buckles with the shoulder straps in a dirty brown sheath.

 

Lastly, the "G"-meter (Mod H.319 of August 1973) installation never seemed to be a universal fitting.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Rod Blievers
Text

[Rod Blievers]

Quote

Any thoughts on a Sasin Spraymaster conversion? I would love to lay my hands on some drawings of that beastie.

Always with an eye for the esoteric, Peter! Did you get my email earlier?

[alt-92]

6 hours ago, Rod Blievers said:

 

228442745_10158310012368123_7427968296585233670_n by Rod Blievers, on Flickr

 

The kit's nether regions - great to see the NACA-type scoop, but what's that circular strip supposed to represent?

 

Just a guess from my end, but those look like observation windows  - they appear to be aligned with the seating positions, and the semi-circular feature might be an air dam to deflect gunk away from the window?

[Seahawk]

My interest in 1/48 sometimes staggers up to zero but I hope I can recognise an excellent kit review when I see one.  Knowledgeable, enthusiastic, thorough, balanced, constructively nit-picking, assertions backed up with evidence… it ticks all the boxes for me.  Well done.

 

Mind you, having your own Chipmunk must be a help.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Seahawk

[MikeC]

Thanks for the clarification Rod. Regarding the harness, I only know that at Cambridge our old Chipmuks in the grey/dayglo scheme left one by one, to be replaced by different Chippies, all in the new scheme with new harnesses and g-meters. I didn't realise that not all aircraft had them, certaonly every RAF (Air Cadets) Chipmunk I encountered from then on did.

 

As part of the changeover we acquired WP970 with the code letter T  which had the glider tug fit. I don't suppose that's in the kit?

[Whitewolf]

Is there a decal sheet out there that includes the BBMF aircraft?

 

[Admiral Puff]

12 hours ago, MikeC said:

As part of the changeover we acquired WP970 with the code letter T  which had the glider tug fit. I don't suppose that's in the kit?

it's not.

[T-21]

Has anybody a good photograph of the rear glider towing hook please ?  When attaching the aero-tow rope  from the rear we lifted the elevators to signal to the pilot to open the release to attach the rope then gently lower the elevators after the rope was attached.  Due to prop wash and engine noise it was the only way apart from using a handheld radio.

[Fritag]

Authoritative (obvs. )  review Rod.  Thanks - one to bookmark.

 

It’s curious that the “Canadian” exhaust/heater isn’t an option given how common it is; but if there weren’t little bits and bobs like this and the absent longeron reinforcing panels what would we have left to do?

 

Steve

 

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Fritag
typo

[MikeC]

7 hours ago, T-21 said:

Has anybody a good photograph of the rear glider towing hook please ?  When attaching the aero-tow rope  from the rear we lifted the elevators to signal to the pilot to open the release to attach the rope then gently lower the elevators after the rope was attached.  Due to prop wash and engine noise it was the only way apart from using a handheld radio.

There's one in the rumourmonger Chippie thread: not particularly close-up, but hopefully you can get an idea of the structure, hopefully enough to trigger the memories you clearly have.  [Edit:] @T-21I've just spotted that this particular tug does not have the mirror on top of the windscreen arch, which was also a feature of the tug fit.

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by MikeC

[John B (Sc)]

Some very useful pointers Mr Blievers, thank you.  What do you think of the rivet detail on the wings?  I thought it a bit too prominent; a little gentle sanding seemed enough.

 

John B

 

[Terry1954]

Great review Rod, and very helpful indeed. 

 

Terry

[ianwau]

Thanks for a great review Rod!  I have mine progressing nicely (for a VH-RSP scheme RAC NSW) - and your pointers are very timely indeed.

 

[Rod Blievers]

Since there's been some discussion of underwing serails, here goes: up until 1983 all RAF Chipmunks carried underwing serials. However on 10.10.1983 DH issued a modification (H.361) to "withdraw" all underwing serials, this effectively meant that as a "new" wing was fitted it no longer had to have the new serial applied - the old one was simply removed. This was introduced to simplify any wing-swapping (as opposed to wife-swapping) needed. Eventually all underwing serials were removed. It also led to the odd aircraft being seen with only one underwing serial - WG478 seen here was only issued to EFTS in September 1987 which is an indication of the timeframe. There are several photos of this formation - the other two aircraft do not carry

underwing serials.

 

 

There was also some variation apparent in the positioning of the wing roundels. The drawings called for a 36" diameter roundel positioned with the centre 5 feet from the wingtip panel line, with the distance between the wing leading edge and the mainplane/aileron join being "equal" - this works out as 3.5 inches on the real thing. On aircraft with the first variation of the R/W/LAG scheme the red/grey division passed through the leading edge of the roundel's central red dot. However, on some aircraft at least the wing roundel was positioned aft, so that the roundel effectively abutted the mainplane/aileron line. This altered the relationship of where the red/grey division crossed the roundel. Note the attached photos of WG470/32 of 2 FTS (one of the aircraft on Xtradecal X48221); the upper roundel is displaced aft (there's certainly not 3.5 inches between the roundel and the aileron, while the red/grey division crosses the outer roundel blue ring) while the underwing roundel is correctly positioned. It certainly pays here to check your reference photos!

 

 

One of the few 2 FTS photos that shows the uppersurfaces - no way is there 3.5/4 inches here between the roundel and the aileron leading edge. Note too where the red/grey division passes through the roundel.

 

 

Underneath there is a space between the roundel and the aileron leading edge, and now the red/grey division passes through the leading edge of the roundel's centre red dot.

 

!cid_

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Rod Blievers

[Filler]

On 9/21/2021 at 7:54 AM, Fritag said:

Authoritative (obvs. )  review Rod.  Thanks - one to bookmark.

 

It’s curious that the “Canadian” exhaust/heater isn’t an option given how common it is; but if there weren’t little bits and bobs like this and the absent longeron reinforcing panels what would we have left to do?

 

Steve

 

 

It does look a fairly simple thing to scratch, but I am a bit surprised that Airfix didn't include it as an option. Quite a lot of the options on Xtradecals sheets state 'Modellers Note: This option had the later Canadian Heater/Exhaust arrangement fitted' and it is on all the options I'd choose due to my era of interest.

[Paul J]

On 21/09/2021 at 19:03, John B (Sc) said:

Some very useful pointers Mr Blievers, thank you.  What do you think of the rivet detail on the wings?  I thought it a bit too prominent; a little gentle sanding seemed enough.

 

John B

 

Just remember and a study of close up pics, will show, that the Chipmunk does not have flush rivetting anywhere.

[Rod Blievers]

Quote

Quite a lot of the options on Xtradecals sheets state 'Modellers Note: This option had the later Canadian Heater/Exhaust arrangement fitted'

When the artwork for these sheets first appeared on the Hannants website, I did write to them pointing out various errors and omissions (including that many of their subjects had in fact the "Canadian" heater/exhaust arrangement) and received a very nice reply stating that they would amend the instruction sheets before they started selling the sheets. I've yet to see the sheets (my order hasn't yet arrived here in Australia) but it appears from their website that they've incorporated most (if not all) of my comments. You can't ask for better than that!

 

Quote

he Chipmunk does not have flush rivetting anywhere.

No, when you look closely it's festooned with rivets!

[Paul J]

Going back to detail differences, It would need a fair bit of work to make a Canadian Chippy. Mostly around the cockpit in particular the coaming between the two cockpits and the lower straighter line at base of the windscreen, as can be seen on G-AKDN and now a pure RCAF one here in the UK which I have yet to see,  let alone the bubble hood. Also the undercarriage legs would need to be replaced. Maybe aftermarket sets in the pipeline with decals of course. I am sure there are a few more differences.

[Rod Blievers]

Quote

Going back to detail differences, It would need a fair bit of work to make a Canadian Chippy.

Effectively a complete new set of mouldings, Paul! I'm sorry to bang on about this but it's a largely mis-understoofd topic..

 

Many seem the to think that overall yellow RCAF Chipmunks are identical to the UK-built T.10, but with a bubble canopy. This is simply NOT TRUE; they are very different airframes.

 

 Bubble canopied Canadian Chipmunks comprise two versions. The first was the DHC-1B-2-S3, which was ordered by the Canadian Dept of Defence for distribution to Canadian aero clubs and hence only much later some wore the overall yellow scheme. Subsequently the RCAF ordered the DHC-1B-2-S5; this was specifically intended for service use. They differ considerably from the UK (or Portuguese) built T.10/Mk.20/Mk.21/Mk.22 series; they are structurally different and use different sub-systems to the extent that many components are not even interchangeable. As an example (and alluding to the popular myth), the Canadian bubble canopy cannot be fitted to a T.10 (due to the different windscreen cross-section and lower mounting rails).

 

Please note the correct Manufacturer's designations; despite what's been written earlier the RCAF did NOT call them "Chipmunk T.30's" - they were CT-120's. The "T.30" nomenclature grew out of an article in a  certain UK modelling magazine many years ago. This myth has been repeated by many ever since (and, I'm ashamed to say, by me also).

 

Keep in mind that Chipmunks built in the UK, Portugal and Canadian DHC-1B were parallel developments of the earlier Canadian-built DHC-1A, the changes intended to produce a more practical military primary trainer. Both used the beefed-up centre section (permitting the aircraft to be fully aerobatic) and both used higher powered (although different versions) of the Gipsy-Major engine. Both of these engines supported a generator and vacuum pump, allowing a full electrical system and a complete sets of blind-flying instruments to be fitted. The earlier criticisms of the narrow canopy and lack of headroom were also addressed, although rectified on either side of the Atlantic in starkly different fashions.

 

The subject is further confused in that while there are some small differences between the -S3 and the -S5, private owners have subsequently painted both types in that attractive overall yellow RCAF scheme. Further, there are now Chipmunks painted and fitted with the bubble canopy so as to represent the Canadian-built aircraft; closer examination reveals their true identity as T.10's.

 

 However, as this is intended for modellers, I'll limit myself to how this affected the external appearance of the aircraft and to how the DHC-1B differed from the T.10.

 

Engine area.

 

1. Identical profile props and spinners, although the -1B spinner had a two piece assembly with a prominent join line.

2. The cowl front of the -1B lacked the cupped intake on the lower LHS but had a vertical "slot" intake directly under the spinner. Note that all -B's left the factory with the heater intake (lower RHS) and the short, almost vertical exhaust stack, whereas these only started appearing on the T.10 in 1979.

3. The LH cowl front is re-profiled with the effect of "pushing" the lower outboard side of the large intake forward, so that when viewed from the side/front quarter the lips of the intake appear parallel (on the T.10 the outboard edge sweeps down/aft).

4. To accommodate a shrouded (and thus dimensionally larger) oil tank, the Canadian cowling is deeper, producing a distinct "step" where it joins the lower fuselage (as viewed from the side) and carries another intake low down on the LHS.

5. Scoop on top (slightly RHS) of cowl not fitted (replaced by the lower LHS one).

6. No hole/slot (for engine priming) on the LH cowl, no cartridge starter exhaust (aft edge of cowl on RHS).

 

Centre fuselage/cockpit.

 

7.  The tiny cockpit air cooling flap, upper RHS, immediately ahead of the windscreen, was not fitted.

8.  Canadian Chipmunks were never fitted with the longeron bracing plates (a prominent horizontal "T"-shaped plate on the upper fuselage sides immediately behind the firewall) which featured on all UK-built Chipmunks after 1983.

9.   Circular black ground power plug (lower fwd LHS) not fitted, replaced by a hatch on the LHS immediately ahead of the doubler frame.

10.   Prominent air scoop on RHS, below rear cockpit (a 1962 retrofit item applicable mainly, but not exclusively, to the -S5).

11.  Doubler frame has a small horizontal frame mounted over (upper fuselage).

12.  Windscreen has narrower "pointier" profile at the top (when viewed in cross-section), while the glazing meets the fuselage in a straight horizontal line, not curved (as viewed from the side).

13.  Cockpits differ in many details,

            - electrical switch panel mounted on coaming, not the LHS front cockpit wall,  i.e. where the pilot can actually see it.

            - the magneto switches are also on the LHS of the coaming, i.e. where the ground crew can actually see them.

            - coaming glare shields overlap the instrument panels, but remain parallel to the panel and do not taper aft as they meet the cockpit sill.

            - instruments are rather more modern, have prominent eyebrow lighting, while the layout is subtly different.

            -control column has a pistol grip while the throttle/mixture assembly is much bulkier

            -shoulder harnesses mount to a prominent lateral rail behind the seats.

            -the general appearance is less cluttered/claustrophobic (possibly helped by being painted yellow/silver).

14. That gorgeous "blown" bubble canopy - note the first aid kit is carried on the rear fuselage decking immediately aft of the rear cockpit.

 

Rear fuselage/tail group

 

15. Lacks the two battery compartment access panels (upper rear fuselage). The batteries are located where the UK version has a baggage compartment (directly behind the rear seat).

16. Lacks the UHF "blade" antennae.

17. Lacks the oval shaped inspection panels immediately aft of the upper antenna, (both sides).

18. The lifting rod hole is now installed immediately aft of the vertical panel line (rear fuselage).

19. Prominent mounting base for VHF whip antenna on the dorsal spine.

20. Spin recovery strakes never fitted.

21  Small access panel under LH tailplane not fitted.

22. Upper surface of tailcone incorporates longitudinal bracing corrugations (-S5 only).

23. Tail light mounted directly on cone, lacks the fairing piece resulting in a subtly "blunter" appearance (i.e. the fuselage length is thus marginally shorter).

24. Elevator horns are much angular (pointed) and effectively increase the tailplane span.

25. Fitted on production with the broad-chord rudder (easily recognized by the "kink" at the lower trailing edge), whereas this was retrofitted to RAF T.10's in the period 1953-1956.

 

Wings/undercarriage.

 

26 Stalling strips are reduced to about 1/3rd the length (inboard leading edge of wing).

27. Undercarriage legs are not faired, and are mounted slightly further aft and raked more vertically (in full size, the ground contact point is 4 inches aft - it sounds miniscule but the different stance is obvious, particularly when you see both types parked together.

28. Landing light is a retractable unit mounted outboard/aft of the undercarriage (left wing).

29. Navigation lights fitted on the outboard of the wingtips, at about 1/4 chord.

30. Slightly longer, "L"-shaped pitot mast.

31 Downward identification lamp (under inboard RH wing) not fitted.

32. First aid kit  with access strap (upper LH wing) not fitted.

33. NACA vent under centre-section not fitted (Canadian Chipmunks have a L/R/Off fuel selector).

34. Fuel caps/gauge assembly sits flush with the wing uppersurface (i.e. not on the T.10's rather clumpy plate), fuel gauges are now inboard of the caps while the tank vent mast is mounted further outboard.

 

Feast your eyes on this recent comparison photo, Paul, particularly with reference to the differences I've listed.

Cheers,

Rod.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Rod Blievers

[Rod Blievers]

But wait, there's yet more differences!

 

The Canadian-built Chipmunks don't have the two Datum Point "knobs" on the forward fuselage LHS (one is immediately above and aft of the ground power receptacle - see the photo below - while the second is below the windscreen arch). The small object forward of the windscreen on the DHC-1B is actually illumination for the fuel gauges (thinks: they're hard enough to read in daylight!).

 

 

I mentioned earlier the different mounting of the bubble canopy; on Canadian-built Chipmunks (all versions) this leaves a few inches of the aft end of the rail slot exposed when the canopy is closed. This is evident on the photo I posted earlier.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Rod Blievers

[ColinChipmunkfan]

Thank you Rod for your excellent and detailed information.  Your post has also inspired other modellers to provide useful information for any fan of the Chipmunk.

Colin

[noelh]

Some  great information Rod. As it happens I  was looking over one of my Chipmunk kits and noticed the issue with the front of the cowling compared to a photo I  have. 

 

I agree it's an excellent kit. There are some fit issues but easily resolved with good old dry fitting and sanding.

 

Mention was made of the canopy sliding panels for use a blind flying screen. Here's an example with amber screens in situ. For some reason I  can't post the picture itself.

 

http://irishhistoricflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/phocathumblchipmunk166.jpeg

 

More pictures here of Irish Air Corps Chipmunks in service and  preserved.

 

 

http://irishhistoricflight.com/photo-gallery/

Edited September 28, 2021 by noelh