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.
I was surprised the g-load figures. I would have thought they would have been higher.
CF-105 Arrow Information
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
- Thread starter
- #3
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
- Thread starter
- #5
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.
- Air-to-Air: 1180 lb.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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)
- Thread starter
- #7
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.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #8
Admiral Beez
Major
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
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.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Long-secret Canadian intelligence sealed Avro Arrow's cancellation, new paper says
OTTAWA - The Diefenbaker government's 1959 decision to scrap the fabled Avro Arrow was significantly influenced by Canadian intelligence that pointed to a diminishing need for the costly aircraft in
Admiral Beez
Major
We made the wrong aircraft for Canada's needs. Have Avro Canada make a Phantom-like multirole fighter to meet the requirements of the CF-101, CF-104 and CF-116 and even Diefenbaker might have given it the green light.
- Thread starter
- #14
Actually the design spec did include the ability to carry 4000 lb. of bombs. That said, the Phantom could carry a shitload more than that.
Admiral Beez
Major
I didn't know that about the Arrow. If in the global market where the USA and USSR dominate, France could find success with its Mirage series, Canada should have have success with the RIGHT product at the right time and cost.
In 1958, the same year the Arrow and Phantom first flew, Avro Canada's UK head office at Hawker-Siddeley had submitted the P.1129, powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce RB.141 engines. This aircraft would have fulfilled both Canada and Britain's needs for distant patrol and strike roles, and maybe kept Avro Canada in business.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Looks like it would have been a beautiful aircraft.
Admiral Beez
Major
Agreed. And for Canada swap in Orenda Iroquois engines and add an interceptor role.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
