- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The CF-105 program and resources should have been directed at the same multi-purpose market as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II, which first flew in 1958, the very same year as the CF-105.Well the CF-105's demise had a lot of politics involved and the program was in the bulls-eye of its opponents years before the first one was built. In it's day, the CF-105 was one of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world, so when the Diefenbaker Government killed it, many people were upset. When the F-108 program was cancelled, there was hardly a peep.
I think you'll find that many folks who worked at AVRO crossed the border to gain employment in the US during that period. When I worked at Lockheed I knew several people who were former AVRO employees. I've met a few engineers and tooling folks who migrated south, I'd bet dollars to donuts that McDonnell has their share as well.The CF-105 program and resources should have been directed at the same multi-purpose market as the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II, which first flew in 1958, the very same year as the CF-105.
It's common knowledge that Canada's aeronautics experts moved to the US after the Arrow program was canceled, but are you suggesting AVRO folks moved to the US during the period it was developed?I think you'll find that many folks who worked at AVRO crossed the border to gain employment in the US during that period.
No after it was cancelled. An ex's stepdad worked for a company in Montreal that was a vendor for AVRO. He was laid off when the Arrow was cancelled but was offered a job in SoCal.It's common knowledge that Canada's aeronautics experts moved to the US after the Arrow program was canceled, but are you suggesting AVRO folks moved to the US during the period it was developed?
Simple - 2 different countries, two different contracts. Manufacturers will sometimes "share" work (even if they are under the same corporate umbrella) depending on the program and if there's a technology offset program in place. I'm sure there were plenty of "corporate-wide expertise and resources" to go around, especially during the 50s.Why was Hawker Siddeley working on both the Arrow and P.1125? This seems a ridiculously inefficient use of corporate-wide expertise and resources.
When I read the below extracted from Hawker P.1121 - Wikipedia, I ask myself if the HS Board had any idea what its Canadian subsidiary was working on.
"In May 1957, Camm produced a rough draft of a twin-engined version of the aircraft, designated as the P.1125, which was to have been powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce RB.133 engines."
Was Camm aware that his company owned the Orenda Iroquois?
The F-12 definitely came from the A-12, the B-70 and F-108 came from two entirely specifications. They may have had some company "cross-pollination" but the F-108 come from a whole different placeBoth the F-108 (based on B-70 technology in the NAA version) and the F-12 (based on A-12 Oxcart technology) were attractive mainly because they were fast enough to intercept Soviet bombers away from their US targets and then, if they missed with their first AAM's, then turn around and have another try.
Just because they look similar it doesn't mean the F-108 was based on "B-70 technology." (Your quote). The F-108 began development as a replacement for the F-102/ F-106. The USAF put a procurement spec out in 1955 but morphed that requirement into a contract that NAA won in 1957. The contract called for 2 prototypes.Take a look at the F-108 and you can see it has a lot of B-70 DNA. Note the downturned tips.
I always liked the first design better... When they did the second design they made it longitudianally (sp?) unstable, so they had to throw in a forest of underwing stabilizers. These drawings show only two of four...The B-70 overcame that problem by drooping the wingtips. That also kept the shockwave bubble in place under the intake module. Wave rider...the most advanced aerodynamic design of its day. Nobody touched those guys at NA for Mach 3 design....until Kelly Johnson at Lockheed and the YF-12/SR-71....years later... I have written a short book called The Triple Sonics...
Look! It's scaled from official "plints"!I think that both the F-108 and F-12 were based on not only trying to intercept the enemy bombers as far out as possible but also to have a second pass capability in case they missed the first time. It takes a very fast airplane to be going supersonic and then turn around and tail chase the bomber it failed to kill on the first try.
The F-12 would have used AIM-47 AAMs which were more or less an early Phoenix.
The F-108 was based on B-70 technology. The Revell kit of it was quite popular for a limited time but they only made one production run due to the cancellation. In those days Revell was located not too far from NAA.
View attachment 677607
Both aircraft were designed against a threat, which was later found out, did not exist, that being a large Soviet Bomber force.
one exceptionBoth the F-16(first) then follow up F-15 arose from John Boyd inspired crusade demonstratng poor energy manueverabilty of Century series fighters (and F-4) in comparison to Soviet fighters. The Pentagon hated Boyd but capitulated to the facts. The primary difference between F-15 and F-16 was size dictated by Radar, as well as mission growth capability of F-15 over F-16
1960Having spent a lot of time at The National Archives, I can vouch for the prevalence of "Type 37" scaremongering in various documents during the mid-50s. The Type 37 (NATO reporting name "Bison") saw a production run of just 123 examples but spawned hundreds of Victors, Vulcans, Valiants, B-47s and B-52s in response. I suspect that many in the West knew the Bison threat to be spurious but the Soviets must have been laughing all the way to the gulags.