THE AVRO CF-105 ARROW - WAS IT REALLY THAT GOOD?!?

Waynos · Feb 4, 2009

I think the F-104 was more of a straight liner, maybe the Lightning, if anything, but not sure about 2g at that speed?

SoD Stitch · Feb 4, 2009

Murray B said:
Orenda made other engines and the Arrow was supposed to use the Iroquois. It gave 30,000 lbs. of thrust which seems pretty good but it was 42" in diameter and 19.25 feet long. Isn't a normal non-bomber engine more like 32" in diameter? They could have used it for the Blackbird I suppose but Lockheed wanted it to have those sexy bumperettes and the Iroquois didn't have any. The SR-71 was the second sexiest aircraft ever made in the history of the world and needed those Madonna cones. [Maybe there were technical reasons like Mach 3 flight too.]

Okay, this is one I can answer! The cones on the SR-71 are actually used to position the shockwave just outside of the "throat" of the engine. The whole cone actually moves back and forth up to 26", depending on the speed of the a/c; the air on the "outside" (front) of the shockwave is supersonic, and the air on the "inside" (back) of the shockwave is subsonic, so that the engine can ingest it without causing a compressor stall.

From Wiki:

Graeme · Feb 4, 2009

Murray B said:
Do you also know why the U.S. government quit funding the only aircraft ever made with 36" ceiling? It seems the perfect thing for pilots that are afraid of heights, Eh?

FLYBOYJ said:
Of who have a clostophobic fetish!

He's probably not very happy but at least he's waving...

Murray B · Feb 5, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
The only thing close would of been a -104 or a sidewinder missile!

Great info, thanks.

FLYBOYJ said:
Of who have a clostophobic fetish!

If they would have incorporated the secret rubber technology into the aircraft and limited the speed to 10 milliMach it would have been the world's first perfectly safe aeroplane. No exploding bolts, no ejection seats, just bounce out of trouble. There has got to be big government money to develop something as politically correct as that.

Waynos said:
I think the F-104 was more of a straight liner, maybe the Lightning, if anything, but not sure about 2g at that speed?

I'm not that familiar with the Starfighter but the wing looks far enough forward for it to turn well. If it were any further forward I expect it would not want to go in a straight line at all.

Is this Lightning you speak of the one by English Electric? That aircraft seems pretty unusual to me. Over and under instead of side by side engines with one inlet with a unique wing planform. It is a very interesting aircraft.

The pressure at 50,000 feet is about 1/10 of an atmosphere so I guess it would be about catching enough air to turn the thing.

SoD Stitch said:
Okay, this is one I can answer! The cones on the SR-71 are actually used to position the shockwave just outside of the "throat" of the engine. The whole cone actually moves back and forth up to 26", depending on the speed of the a/c; the air on the "outside" (front) of the shockwave is supersonic, and the air on the "inside" (back) of the shockwave is subsonic, so that the engine can ingest it without causing a compressor stall.

As much as I do not like the wiki this information is in agreement with what I have read about the J-58 in books. Don't tell anybody but in my opinion the J-58 is the world's most advanced engine in the late fifties and early sixties and maybe even later. The cone seems to work but I expect they could have done the same thing by putting a small disk on a movable stick like they did for that I.C.B.M. Of course if they didn't have the cone then then the SR-71 would not be one the most beautiful aircraft in the history of the whole world. The Blackbird is also a little bit scary with those huge engines, sharp chines, and extreme pointiness everywhere. And what the heck is that on the ground underneath it?

Graeme said:
He's probably not very happy but at least he's waving...

Yes, thanks for the photo and I would like to point out that this aircraft set a record for low ceiling that has not been equalled or bettered for almost fifty years. How many aerospace records stand for half a century? That has to be a record record. It might even be a record record record.

Now my brain hurts so I'm going to bed.

Waynos · Feb 5, 2009

Yes, it is the English Electric Lightnng. Apparently the vertical mounted engines allowed a smaller frontal area (don't know why) and the long highly swept wings with ailerons mounted perpendicular to the fuselage instead of on the swept trailing edge were excellent for manouvering, which sort of begs the question why it was never copied?

BombTaxi · Feb 5, 2009

I would imagine that smaller frontal area means less drag, and therefore faster climb. After all, the sole purpose of the Lightning was to get those missiles up to Soviet bomber altitude in the shortest possible time. If it wasn't for the fact that someone had to steer the thing, they probably would have left the pilot behind to save weight...

SoD Stitch · Feb 5, 2009

Murray B said:
And what the heck is that on the ground underneath it?

Do you mean that liquidy looking stuff? That's actually the JP-7 fuel the Blackbird uses that has leaked out of the wings when it sits on the ground; the wing tanks don't actually get sealed until the airframe is at operating temperature (about 500F/250C) and the wing panels expand, sealing the gaps.

Murray B said:
Yes, thanks for the photo and I would like to point out that this aircraft set a record for low ceiling that has not been equalled or bettered for almost fifty years. How many aerospace records stand for half a century? That has to be a record record. It might even be a record record record.

Now my brain hurts so I'm going to bed.

LOL!

pbfoot · Feb 5, 2009

I think hovercraft would hold the low ceiling record , they are issued with aircraft registration they used to call the tower while transiting the control zone when I was on the west coast

Murray B · Feb 6, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
The only thing close would of been a -104 or a sidewinder missile!

Waynos said:
I think the F-104 was more of a straight liner, maybe the Lightning, if anything, but not sure about 2g at that speed?

Waynos said:
Yes, it is the English Electric Lightnng. Apparently the vertical mounted engines allowed a smaller frontal area (don't know why) and the long highly swept wings with ailerons mounted perpendicular to the fuselage instead of on the swept trailing edge were excellent for manouvering, which sort of begs the question why it was never copied?

Mentioning the F-104 and Lightning reminds me of a question about the Arrow that has been nagging me for some time. After Avro fails to meet the specifications and the program is cancelled the first time where are the other bids? Why didn't Lockheed or English Electric bid on a contract to supply 100 interceptors?

SoD Stitch said:
Do you mean that liquidy looking stuff? That's actually the JP-7 fuel the Blackbird uses that has leaked out of the wings when it sits on the ground; the wing tanks don't actually get sealed until the airframe is at operating temperature (about 500F/250C) and the wing panels expand, sealing the gaps.

If I were supposed to fly the plane I would not find that explanation the least bit reassuring since paper starts to burn at 451 F. Those pilots must have had great courage to fly something like that.

pbfoot said:
I think hovercraft would hold the low ceiling record , they are issued with aircraft registration they used to call the tower while transiting the control zone when I was on the west coast

Darn, another claim to fame shot to heck. Are you sure that a hovercraft is an aircraft? Okay, how about this then, the VZ-9A still holds the lowest ceiling record for circular aircraft?

FLYBOYJ · Feb 6, 2009

Murray B said:
After Avro fails to meet the specifications and the program is cancelled the first time where are the other bids? Why didn't Lockheed or English Electric bid on a contract to supply 100 interceptors?

Did DND put out an RFP on the "defaulted" contract?

pbfoot · Feb 6, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
Did DND put out an RFP on the "defaulted" contract?

The Lightning was of no use as an interceptor in north America I think the range was seriously lacking for operations in Canada

Murray B · Feb 7, 2009

pbfoot said:
The Lightning was of no use as an interceptor in north America I think the range was seriously lacking for operations in Canada

The spec. was only for 200nm at speed and 300nm max on internal fuel. One interesting thing I found about the Lightning was that it could exceed the speed of sound without reheat. That sounds like it was fairly easy on fuel but it would be nice to have that confirmed by an old Lightning jockey.

FLYBOYJ said:
Did DND put out an RFP on the "defaulted" contract?

There is a detailed timeline posted at:CF105 Avro Arrow: Timeline

It is not very readable so I generally use the "Arrow Scrapbook" by Peter Zuuring.

Strangely the whole thing seems to begin with a proposal by Avro in 1951. The RCAF responds in '52 with an Operational Requirement for a design study.

Avro then proposes making a delta. RCAF responds to that with an Aircraft specification AIR 7/3 in April '53. It seems to eliminate delta wing planforms from the start because they want the aircraft to perform a 2g turn at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet without loss of height or speed. [In RCAF Flight test 2 in September '58 the Arrow managed a "1.25G" turn at that altitude with speed dropping from 1.5 to "Mach 1.4" and the altitude "did vary somewhat"]

Both the NAE and DRB [both DND advisors] report the proposed aircraft has too much drag and the project is stopped in October '53.

Not much money has been spent at this point and it seems a good time for an RFP on AIR 7/3 if they still want some interceptors.

This does not seem to be what happened. Instead Avro says they will fix things and is given the go ahead in spring '54 to produce the first two aircraft and a test airframe.

Someone asks for a third opinion from NACA which confirms in 19 November '54 that the "Avro CF-105 Aircraft" has "high drag", "poor planform" and the design lacks "proper application of the area rule."

It is not clear exactly when they are authorized to go into production but it is on a cost-plus basis and the initial cost analysis for the first forty aircraft comes in September '54.

Is it just me, or is it odd that they would procure aircraft without competitive bids or even a firm price?

FLYBOYJ · Feb 7, 2009

Murray B said:
Is it just me, or is it odd that they would procure aircraft without competitive bids or even a firm price?

In today's world that almost wouldn't happen - it seems like a "put your eggs all in one basket" scenario.

Glider · Feb 7, 2009

I always wondered why the Canadians didn't buy the F4 once the CF105 had been cancelled. It had the range, performance and payload, as well as being affordable once it was in mass production for the USN. The F104 was a dead end in many ways with its limited range and payload.
A similar thought went for the Australia as an alternative for the F111. I kow they were lent some F4's due to delays with the F111 and a strong case was put for keeping them and buying more instead of the F111. No one is denying the F111 was an exceptional aircraft but you could have had a lot more F4's for your money and it was no slouch.

johnbr · Feb 7, 2009

Because it was a good plane.

FLYBOYJ · Feb 7, 2009

I was once told by an old DND chap that they did look at the F-4 and for some reason it was decided to go with the F-101/ F-104 and CF-5 Combo in order to afford the defense of Canada and for Canada to be able to meet its NATO commitment.

Murray B · Feb 7, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
In today's world that almost wouldn't happen - it seems like a "put your eggs all in one basket" scenario.

More of putting a single egg in one basket but it probably should not have happened back then either. It seems to echo of procurement in the days of the Ross rifle. It was our MBR in WWI and jammed when dirty and/or hot. It was approved for service by a parliamentary committee that decided that even thought it jammed several times in testing it was okay to use. Many Canadians died unnecessarily until the MBRs were replaced.

The Arrow program looks similar to me. Somebody on the government side is pushing for it but it is not the DND who is actually quite cheeky with their AIR-7/3 turn performance requirement. This requirement is not likely to be possible for anything with a delta-wing planform including the aircraft that was proposed by Avro.

Glider said:
I always wondered why the Canadians didn't buy the F4

Because of several American conspiracies. First of all the McDonnel people intentionally conspired to build a better aircraft. No amount of denial will convince me otherwise. Then there was a conspiracy of the various U.S. armed services to buy the aircraft because they knew it was better. This meant the thing was so much in demand it was backordered. It would be like trying to get a cabbage patch doll when they were so hot.

On the other hand the Voodoos that were purchased were fine aircraft that served well for many years. They were capable of Mach 1.5+ and had fairly good range. The F4 spec. indicates Mach 2+ but I can find nothing about its radius at that speed. I might be interesting to compare the speeds of both aircraft at the same mission radius. To compare apples to apples, though, was there ever a Phantom with SAGE autopilot and the ability to carry the AIR-2A?

FLYBOYJ said:
I was once told by an old DND chap that they did look at the F-4 and for some reason it was decided to go with the F-101/ F-104 and CF-5 Combo in order to afford the defense of Canada and for Canada to be able to meet its NATO commitment.

$2 million for each Voodo complete with SAGE but without AIR-2A, of course, since we never operated nuclear weapons in Canada. How much for a SAGE compatible F-4 equipped to carry the Genie? What would the delivery delay have been?

FLYBOYJ · Feb 7, 2009

$2 million for each Voodo complete with SAGE but without AIR-2A, of course, since we never operated nuclear weapons in Canada.

Depends who you ask...

How much for a SAGE compatible F-4 equipped to carry the Genie? What would the delivery delay have been?

The same DND guy who told me about the F-4 also said that Trudeau wanted F-4s.

Murray B · Feb 7, 2009

FLYBOYJ said:
Depends who you ask...

My research indicates a base price of $1.5 million so that is consistent with Foulkes' figure of $2 million. What figures have you heard?

FLYBOYJ said:
The same DND guy who told me about the F-4 also said that Trudeau wanted F-4s.

I have no reason to doubt what he told you but I Trust Mr. Trudeau's judgement on a technical matter as much as any lawyer. I expect that it was lawyers that chose the Ross rifle too. What was the base price of the Phantom II when it was introduced?

pbfoot · Feb 8, 2009

Murray B said:
The spec. was only for 200nm at speed and 300nm max on internal fuel.

200 nm range at speed ?if you mean full power that is really pretty good I know for a fact the 101 couldn't achieve it and doubt the F4 could That is one pile of fuel you are using I would guess about 150 gals/600l a minute . I had many an anxious moment turning a 101/F4/106 onto a 4 mile final because of low fuel,

THE AVRO CF-105 ARROW - WAS IT REALLY THAT GOOD?!?

Staff Sergeant

Banned

1st Sergeant

Airman

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Banned

1st Lieutenant

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

2nd Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads