# CF-105 Arrow Information



## Zipper730 (Jul 28, 2022)

I found some interesting information on the CF-105 here.

I was surprised the g-load figures. I would have thought they would have been higher.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> I found some interesting information on the CF-105 here.
> 
> I was surprised the g-load figures. I would have thought they would have been higher.


Remember, this beast was an interceptor, it was meant to fly fast and blast Soviet bombers out of the sky, it didn't have to pull high Gs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 30, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Remember, this beast was an interceptor, it was meant to fly fast and blast Soviet bombers out of the sky, it didn't have to pull high Gs.


While I'm aware of the role of the aircraft, the USAF usually required a g-load of 5.33 @ 80% fuel load. The CF-105 Arrow is below that figure.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> While I'm aware of the role of the aircraft, the USAF usually required a g-load of 5.33 @ 80% fuel load. The CF-105 Arrow is below that figure.


Well for some reason the folks at AVRO or the RCAF didn't see the need for high maneuverability, now had the Arrow been built, who knows if the G load would have been expanded.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 31, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well for some reason the folks at AVRO or the RCAF didn't see the need for high maneuverability


Also, to clarify, there's a bunch of things actually regarding the g-load figures being a surprise

Airframe Weight
I'd almost swear I remember seeing weight figures around 49040 lb. empty for the prototype: Upon looking at the weight-figures in the flight-manual, this is almost certainly an error, considering the following loads, I would get 44124 to 44169 lb.
MTOW: 69000 lb.
Fully-Loaded: 68765 lb.
Fuel: 19561 lb.
Armament
Air-to-Air: 1180 lb.
Based on the AIM-4G/F as used on the F-106A (they were roughly contemporaries) in SARH & IR pairs

Air-to-Ground: 4000 lb.
From what I recall they did include that provision in the design.


Ferry Provisions: 3900 lb. tank

MLW: 65000 lb.

This is a pretty hefty weight for a fighter-plane, though it is quite large. Regardless, the F-108A Rapier was generally larger, and weighed as follows
MTOW: 102533 lb. / 104320 lb.
Fully-Loaded: 101697 lb. / 103484 lb.
Fuel: 47632 lb.
Armament: 2439 lb.

Basic: 51626 lb. / 52694 lb.
Normally Rated L/F: 5.33g @ 76118 lb.
Note: The last SAC published listed 102533 lb., though the aircraft prior to cancellation saw an increase in weight from 102533 to 104320 lb. (Source: Valkyrie: North American's Mach 3 Superbomber by Dennis R. Jenkins & Tony R. Landis, ISBN: 1-58007-072-8). Given the increase in weight, I just figured the increase would probably be in the airframe, so I simply added the weight onto that, which is why I listed two weights for MTOW, Fully-Loaded, and Basic weights -- the normally rated L/F was not based on any increase but the last published SAC. 


Flight Controls: Generally FBW reduces weight quite a lot and the hydraulics were also very high pressure which tends to also reduce the weight of the lines, and by extension, the overall weight added to the aircraft.
While I can't say if the g-load envelope would have been increased or not (I just don't have enough information), the aircraft did seem to be built to lower limits than ADC's aircraft from the outset, it would appear.

The listed range seems also quite low as well. The fuel fraction doesn't seem bad, and seems similar to the F-4 Phantom without drop-tanks. I would have figured it'd be able to do about the same as the F-4 when subsonic in the same configuration.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> While I can't say if the g-load envelope would have been increased or not (I just don't have enough information), the aircraft did seem to be built to lower limits than ADC's aircraft from the outset, it would appear.
> 
> The listed range seems also quite low as well. The fuel fraction doesn't seem bad, and seems similar to the F-4 Phantom without drop-tanks. *I would have figured it'd be able to do about the same as the F-4 when subsonic in the same configuration.*


And I think if you really look into some of the Arrow's specifications, it was a great leap forward at the time it was first flown (when compared to what was operational at the time) but on it's heels were many aircraft that caught up and eventually exceeded it's capabilities. In reality, as designed, we were looking at the West's MiG-25 in many respects. Huge, powerful, heavily armed with a tremendous radar, it would have been perfect to shoot down hordes of Soviet bombers (which didn't exists)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 31, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And I think if you really look into some of the Arrow's specifications, it was a great leap forward at the time it was first flown


I get what you're saying.

To be honest, the range is even more of a surprise than the g-load: The variables that generally affect a plane's performance (far as I know) are L/D, T/W, SFC, and fuel-fraction (more accurately, the change in weight over the course of the flight). The PS-13 was more powerful than the J75 which yielded a higher T/W ratio for the overall aircraft (I'm not sure about SFC), fuel fraction was around the same as the F-4B without drop-tanks (and armament).

While I don't have L/D figures: It _looks_ like it'd be cleaner aerodynamically than the F-4B.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 1, 2022)

Actually, on that note: Does anybody have any data on the CF-105's lift/drag figures?


A
 Admiral Beez
, 

 drgondog
, 

 fubar57
, 
G
 Glider
, 

 GreenKnight121
, 

 GTX
, johnbr, 
M
 MIflyer
,


 Motocar
, 

 SaparotRob
, 
X
 XBe02Drvr


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 1, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Huge, powerful, heavily armed with a tremendous radar, it would have been perfect to shoot down hordes of Soviet bombers (which didn't exists)


Had Avro Canada instead made a fighter with multirole potential like the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II, which like the Arrow first flew in 1958, the Canadian division of Britain’s Hawker-Siddeley might have remained a viable enterprise into the 1980s and beyond.

I still think it’s nutty that the home firm was working on the Hawker P.1121 while at the same time their Canadian division was working on the Arrow, but that there appears to be no sharing of expertise or specs. Well, there was this….









Hawker P.1121 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





_On 25 June 1959, the Defence Research Policy Committee approved funds for OR.339, at which point Hawker Siddeley's management directed that a re-submission be made. Accordingly, Camm produced a modified P.1129 proposal, which drew on improvements featured on a competing design by Avro._

But Avro was not a competitor, it’s their own house, and the two branches of Hawker-Siddeley should have been working together to make one global fighter aircaft to meet UK, Canadian and other NATO needs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Had Avro Canada instead made a fighter with multirole potential like the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II, which like the Arrow first flew in 1958, the Canadian division of Britain’s Hawker-Siddeley might have remained a viable enterprise into the 1980s and beyond.


It would have been a matter of convincing the rest of NATO that was the aircraft needed, instead, everyone was looking at high speed interceptors armed with missiles only.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 2, 2022)




----------

