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

Murray B said:

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?

Click to expand...

Actually I was talking about nukes on Canadian soil. I heard of Genies and Nuclear Depth Charges "passing through" during times of crisis.

Murray B said:

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?

Click to expand...

Wiki tells me 2.4 million which sounds about right. (F-4E)

FLYBOYJ said:

Actually I was talking about nukes on Canadian soil. I heard of Genies and Nuclear Depth Charges "passing through" during times of crisis.

Wiki tells me 2.4 million which sounds about right. (F-4E)

Click to expand...

The Genies were always available up until 78/79 but were under US custody , the USAF had there own weapons bunkers and security staff , the Q aircraft (101's)were always nuke armed

pbfoot said:

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,

Click to expand...

Actually I was not involved with the purchase at all and just read that from a facimile of part of the specificaton. Perhaps THEY meant Mach 1.5 since that figure is often mentioned.

Do you know the actual measured specific fuel consumption of the Iroquois? All I have is the stuff from the marketing department.

FLYBOYJ said:

Actually I was talking about nukes on Canadian soil. I heard of Genies and Nuclear Depth Charges "passing through" during times of crisis.

Click to expand...

Nope, they were actually stationed here but were never "here" technically.

This is from the wiki on the CF-101:

"The succeeding Pearson government finally signed an agreement with the United States concerning nuclear arms for Canada on 16 August 1963...The agreement specifically stated that the AIR-2A Genie rockets were the property of the United States, and would only be released to Canada for actual use with the joint agreement of Canada and the United States through NORAD...The Genies were kept in the custody of theUSAF, with detachments of the 425th Munitions Support Squadron located at each of the Canadian bases."

This is too funny. Diefenbaker is defeated for suggesting we have nukes on our soil and the other guys solve the problem by doing it and then intentionally disinforming the Canadian public. We are all just so nice up here, Eh?

FLYBOYJ said:

Wiki tells me 2.4 million which sounds about right. (F-4E)

Click to expand...

Okay so the F-4 is wait listed because of demand and McDonnell has excess capacity to produce "one oh wonders". Are they going to give a discount on an F-4 made to a new specification that includes SAGE and the Genie? Even if they do give a good price, how long will it be before the contract can be fulfilled? Wouldn't that be like trying to find a dozen of those Nintendo Wee Wees at Christmas time?

Of course our frugal DND missed a real opportunity to spend public money here. Forget the F-105 and F-4. We coulda had the F-12B for a miserly $16 million per copy. It was by far the cheapest Mach 3+ interceptor available in the west and the airframes were already in production for other purposes. It was also the SEXIEST INTERCEPTOR IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE WORLD! As Admiral Flintstone once said, "Damn the budget restrictions, CHARGE IT!"

Matt308 said:

I don't know anything about this experimental engine, but suspect that the hot section lifespan was SEVERELY limited due to the metallurgy of the day. And most likely of such grave limitations as to not be of production quality. Zoom fast. Throw it away.

Click to expand...

Magellan (Orenda) has posted the thrust rating of the Iroquios at Magellan Repair, Overhaul Industrial - About Us - History

The interesting part is, "In 1953, the design of a much more advanced engine, proposed for the Avro CF-105 (Arrow), was initiated. The engine, ultimately to be named the Iroquois, was rated at 19,250 lbs dry, 25,000 lbs afterburning."

The already in production J75 rating is given in "The Arrow Scrapbook" by Peter Zuuring page 15, "Engine data: Pratt and Whitney J75...maximum rating, 16,500 lb dry, or 24,000 lb with reaheat." This source appears to be Avro.

It is interesting that the Canadian Forces have 'clarified' a few things on their official site at Canada's Air Force, Aircraft, Historical Aircraft, Avro CF-105 Arrow Mk.1

Note the following:

"The Arrow program was unique in that the prototype was built using the same tools and rigs that were to be used on production Aircraft..." this word "unique" means that Canadians invented the Cook Craigie Plan.

"During the test flights, the Arrow had flown at mach 1.96 and up to 50,000 feet..." and " the Arrow proved to be the fastest, most sophisticated fighter in the world at the time, with a top speed of 1,650 mph."

They do not mention the altitude but I calculate (check my math) that the speed of sound is correct at 31,300 ft below sea level. The Arrow must have had the equivalent of an Oscillation Overthruster to fly at that altitude. The overthruster techniqe is desribed in the docu-drama, "...Across the 8th Dimension." but the program wrongly credits B. Banzai with inventing the device. Obviously, the device is of Canadian origin and the Avro Arrow had the potential to use it many years before the documentary was made.

If that is not funny enough, check this, " The Arrow was a very clean design and many of its features were copied on other North American-made fighters, including today's F-22 Raptor." It is strange that the Canadian Air Force wants to buy F-35s which are a low cost development of an F-22 which is a copy of an Arrow. Why would they want a copy once removed when they could have the original Arrow because we have the technology to rebuid the CF-105?

Does the U.S.A.F or U.S.M.C. have anything as funny as this material from the "official" Canadian Forces site?

Murray B said:

If that is not funny enough, check this, " The Arrow was a very clean design and many of its features were copied on other North American-made fighters, including today's F-22 Raptor." It is strange that the Canadian Air Force wants to buy F-35s which are a low cost development of an F-22 which is a copy of an Arrow. Why would they want a copy once removed when they could have the original Arrow because we have the technology to rebuid the CF-105?

Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks the F-22 is a copy of the Arrow is blind or stupid. Probably both, I don't care if it comes from the Canadian military's official site. I hope not, because that would make the Canadian Military, well...(just read the sentence above about blind or stupid...), and up until now I have had nothing but good things to say about the Canadian military.

Lets see:

CF 105 Arrow




F-22





Please show me now how it is a copy of the CF 105? You keep grasping for air my friend.

If the Raptor copied its internal bay from the Arrow, where did the F-106 get its own from? Ah, I know, they both copied the DH Mosquito, or something.

Adler, I think you are attacking Murray unnecessarily, he is mocking the comparison, not promoting it. I have seen this comment before and it relates to the internal weapon bay, not the overall design, hence my first line.

Good point there Waynos. I was not even thinking of the eternal bay? If that is what he is saying is the copies feature, well that is wrong as well, since the 105 was not the first aircraft to have an eternal bay.

The F-22 has eternal bay because of stealth, not because of the Cf-105.

So all in all that argument is batted out of the park like a baseball.

Oh and Waynos this last part is not an attack on him either. Shall I send him a PM telling him so?

Waynos said:

Adler, I think you are attacking Murray unnecessarily, he is mocking the comparison, not promoting it. I have seen this comment before and it relates to the internal weapon bay, not the overall design, hence my first line.

Click to expand...

I am not attacking anyone. There were no insults to him in my post.

Any other complaints?

Maybe 'attack' was too strong a word, but the line "Please show me now how it is a copy of the CF 105? You keep grasping for air my friend" reads like it is directed at Murray as if he believes the comparison to be true when the tone of his post shows me he does not.

Thats what I meant to say.

I'll stae it again in 1939 the Brits said we could not produce the Spitfire as it was to complicated for us but they would let us build the Hurricane in 15 short years we were designing top of the line aircraft , the worlds second JetAirliner, the CF100 and the Arrow
MurrayB has an agenda , I believe he is an apologist for the PM Diefenbaker it would be akin to being an apologist for Pres Carter in the US or so his posts on other sites would indicate.
I found an article on the guy who flew the B47 with the Iroqouis tacked tacked on which whem I have time will post later

Interesting point. At the time the C-102 was being built Boeing were openly stating that jet engines did not belong on transport aircraft. It was only the appearance of the Comet that made them have a rethink. Ironic how they became the global leaders in jet transports isn't it

heres the article
This is a love story, from the first tentative contacts to the crescendo of violins,the flood of bright colours and the shaking of the earth at its climax. Anyone who has felt the passion of deep a commitment will understand it Passion is rarely understood by rationalists either. the people who are so preoccupied with analysis that they will disect a canary to see how, or why, it sings, and then are baffled when It no longer sings when they try to re-assemble it. Something ethereal has been lost, the whole is more than the sum of the parts, so it was In the story which follows.
This love affair was between a young engineer and a machine, specifically the Iroquois jet engine.
Our first meeting occurred In heady, perilous, at
somewhat hopeful times heady because our previous designs had been successful; perilous because in Ottawa our military establishment was laying . down the contingency plans for WW 111, and hopeful in that preparedness might avert another tragedy.
The gestation period for an engine is four to five years, and the birth pains are severe. However, by 1958 the beast had been born.
Before at could be flown the engine had to pass a preflight rotary test in the test house to demonstrate that It could meet its guarantees and stay together m the process. One of the pioneers an jet engine design said that engines should be designed to run one rpm below the speed at which they would explode, and one degree centigrade below the temperature at which they would melt Wlule I this advice wasn't followed internally lt was necessary to wring the last ounce out of the materials and the aerodynamics. So it was far from a foregone conclusion that the engine would survive the grueling 25 hours of the test cycle In August we looked through the heavy glass port at our sleeping genie, sleek, silvery, and silent, conscious that the guarantee required lt to be a angled to maximum power all under 40 seconds by simply pushing the pilots control lever from "OFF" to "Mil" On the nod from the crew chief, I shoved the lever fully forward and started to pray under my breath As the precious seconds tracked by, we
watched the tachometer creep up with agonizing slowness - 500. 1000 1500 2000 rpm, after 22 seconds there was a satisfying whoompf as the fuel and ignition came on. Now the critical factor was how fast the fuel control could ''pour on the coal By 30 seconds the tachometer was a blur. and at 36 seconds the final nozzle flew open and the afterburner blazed brightly. We made it! Thirty-eight seconds and 37.000
lbs of thrust. When the cheering and handshaking subsided.
the assorted midwives settled down to the rest of the 25 hours of testing.
The next important milestone was the flight test program in a B47 bomber that was loaned by the USAF The Iroquois had been mounted on the right side of the fuselage about mid- way between the wing and the tail. The first flights were to test the integrity of the installation and give the test pilots the ''feel'' of the aircraft.
Finally the day came to teat the Iroquois in its element. the high, thin, cold and unforgiving stratospheric air. As we increased the power setting on the Iroquois. the pilot reduced power on the other the six jet engines that normally power the aircraft. Eventually these six engines were at idle, contributing nothing to the flight of the aircraft. As we advanced the power setting on the Iroquois. we got the B47 to the maximum speed at which it was safe to fly. and we still had ''money" in the bank A great sense of pride welled up. Why should we be "hewers of wood and drawers of water"?

We'd just taken on the best in the world and beaten them. The teast crew was walking a foot off the groundwhen the plane landed at Malton.
On feb 20 1959 the government cancelled the program and my best year ended on a note of having been betrayed .
Pardon me Sir but where do they keep the pails and the axe

Murray B said:

" The Arrow was a very clean design and many of its features were copied on other North American-made fighters, including today's F-22 Raptor." It is strange that the Canadian Air Force wants to buy F-35s which are a low cost development of an F-22 which is a copy of an Arrow. Why would they want a copy once removed when they could have the original Arrow because we have the technology to rebuid the CF-105?

Does the U.S.A.F or U.S.M.C. have anything as funny as this material from the "official" Canadian Forces site?

Click to expand...

Good post Murry - more delusional BS in an attempt to show the Arrow was this super plane, when, as discussed before, was ahead of its time but still was contemporary with what was coming off the drawing board 50 years ago.

I sent this to the folks who run that site.

"In your article about the AVRO Arrow under Canada's Air Force, you make many references to things that are just plain silly. In its day the Arrow was quite an advanced aircraft, but for years Canadian pride and disappointment has evolved stories about the Arrow into high-fetched myths and propaganda. To say there are items "copied" from the Arrow that are found on the F-22 is absurd.

Gentlemen, the Arrow "could have" been a fine combat aircraft, but due to politics its days were numbered. To make more of the aircraft of what it really was is actually taking away from its rightful place in history.

Here is a link to a website that has an on going discussion about the Arrow, you are welcomed to make comments."

FLYBOYJ said:

Good post Murry - more delusional BS in an attempt to show the Arrow was this super plane, when, as discussed before, was ahead of its time but still was contemporary with what was coming off the drawing board 50 years ago.

Click to expand...

I don't pretend to know all the technical things but what that moron of a PM Diefenbaker did was almost kill the aviation industry in Canada , if you look around on the net you'll see MurrayB's sole purpose in life is to save the Legacy of Diefenbaker , who if you guys can remember was not very friendly to the US if anything he was anti american. In fact during the Cuban missile crisis refused to upgrade to Defcon 3. If this is considered political please do not hesitate to delete .
My position on the Arrow is that we could not afford it not that it was bad

pbfoot said:

I don't pretend to know all the technical things but what that moron of a PM Diefenbaker did was almost kill the aviation industry in Canada , if you look around on the net you'll see MurrayB's sole purpose in life is to save the Legacy of Diefenbaker , who if you guys can remember was not very friendly to the US if anything he was anti american. In fact during the Cuban missile crisis refused to upgrade to Defcon 3. If this is considered political please do not hesitate to delete .
My position on the Arrow is that we could not afford it not that it was bad

Click to expand...

I remember Diefenbaker's position with regards to the US - cold is a good description.

Despite what you think of Murry's agenda, he brings up many points about the limitations of the aircraft and has call many on the "myths" about this aircraft, just like the one from an official DND website. I think the history of the aircraft is better served with one understanding that it was a very good aircraft with promising capability but at the same time did have limitations. Additionally, the manufacturer was not exactly doing a great job meeting schedule and keeping its operating budget down. It "could have" served well within NORAD and NATO. It "would have" been quickly eclipsed by the technology of the day - The North American F-108 for example was just a few years in development behind the Arrow and offered the same performance. Because of cost and a changing mission, it too was canceled.

I have yet to see him bring up a single good point hence I find his view as not impartial ,but I do commend his impartial stance on the former pinhead PM Diefenbaker

pbfoot said:

I have yet to see him bring up a single good point hence I find his view as not impartial ,but I do commend his impartial stance on the former pinhead PM Diefenbaker

Click to expand...

He does on post 195.

Aside the political ramblings about the program, it was overbudget and behind schedule. DND also knew about some issues and well and all this has been well documented.

It "would have" been quickly eclipsed by the technology of the day - The North American F-108 for example was just a few years in development behind the Arrow and offered the same performance.

Click to expand...

The F-108 offered considerably better performance. Well, probably a generation ahead if it ended up in service in the mid 60s with something like the AIM-47/54.

As I've said before, the problem with the Arrow was the weapons system. Avro tried to develop a missile system with the capability of the AIM-120 and strangely found that this wasn't possible with the available technology. As a result, there was a choice of AIM-4 or Genie missiles (maybe 2xRed Dean in conformal stowage) which restricts capability. In an all out nuclear war, Genie is fine. In other scenarios the offensive power is extremely limited.

The Arrow itself is far from the superplane its made out to be. The UK had a similar requirement from the same period with the Fairey "Delta III" being the most likely design to go into production. It shared a similar layout to the Arrow with a large Delta wing, but had much greater performance, especially at altitude. The Arrow has a ceiling of around 55-60,000ft whilst this has a 70,000ft ceiling and is able to climb to that altitude in 1.5minutes. Speed for both designs is limited by engine temperatures to about M2.2 yet the Fairey design has so much more power available its calculated able to do M1.9 without reheat and with external stores. Comparison with the F-108 projects show a similar story.

Canada bit off more them it could chew , the origibnal plan was to use an offshore engine either the Olympus or its American sister the J67 and it was to use an American fire control system from Hughes neither were ready or up to the standards demanded so they had to go it alone .Hence the Iroquois and Velvet Glove