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

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

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...

Click to expand...

The absurd comparison is what makes the material so funny. I almost wet my pants laughing when I read it. It makes every Canadian, not just our military, look blind and stupid, as you point out, and yet it is posted on the official site. What is not posted is the actual specifications of the CF-101 and Avro Arrow for purposes of comparison. As far as I know the material is declassified and can be posted now.

FLYBOYJ said:

...the "myths" about this aircraft...

Click to expand...

The greatest myth about the Arrow is that it was a beautiful 'unicorn' that was murdered by Diefenbaker and the evil Amercans. This myth seems to have been contrived for political purposes.

First problem with the tall tale is that Diefenbaker does not kill the program out of spite. All he does is take the advice of the Joint Chiefs. From cabinet minutes Aug 28 /58 page 7, "The chiefs of Staff had undertaken such a review. The main points that were considered were the following: The assessment of the threat had changed...main threat would probably be from ballistic missiles with the manned bomber decreasing in importance...Finally, the cost of the CF-105 programme as a whole was now of such a magnitude that the Chiefs of Staff felt that, to meet the modest requirement of manned aircraft presently considered advisable, it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S." [page 242, "The Arrow Scrapbook"]

So, it is really the Joint Chiefs that should be "blamed" for killing the Arrow and no one else. Note that they mentioned "comparable performance" which by itself indicates that the Arrow's abilities are not that exceptional.

It is interesting to note in the CAE Memorandum of 17 Jan 58 that states, "A reduction in ferry range to 1254 nm is not acceptable." also states "...the possible advantages to range and radius of action if the engines are optimised at M 1.5 [instead of M 2]. This seems to be strong evidence for excessive drag.

If the Arrow had too much drag and could not go the distance then there was never a 'unicorn' to murder. It follows that the Joint Chiefs and/or the Americans are innocent of the crime.

The big question that remains is why it cost $308 million to develop aircraft with performance "comparable" to $2 million dollar aircraft. Sadly, we will probably never know what really happened because the company's records were destroyed.

How do you know what the range was or if there was too much drag , the thing never flew with it's proper engines , and as for the DND thing I'm quite sure they had the best minds make up the website its a non issue

pbfoot said:

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

Click to expand...

Definitely; the Canadians actually wanted to use the Sparrow II missle, a follow-on to the relaitively unsuccessful Sparrow I, which the US Navy had already cancelled. As stated above, the Sparrow II was supposed to have an active radar seeker (as opposed to the semi-active radar seeker found in the Sparrow I) in an airframe the same size as the Sparrow I; the only missle in the world at that time which carried an active radar seeker was the AIM-47, which weighed twice as much as a Sparrow I/II. Only with modern digital technology have we been able to package a missle with the radar power of the AIM-47/54 into a Sparrow-size airframe, so clearly this was not going to work using 50's-era technology.

Also, AFAIK, they never intended to use the Curtis-Wright J-67 in the Arrow; the first flying examples of the Arrow used the P&W J-75, with the Iriquois to be installed at a later date after they had all of the bugs worked out of it (which, of course, never happened).

Murray B said:

The absurd comparison is what makes the material so funny. I almost wet my pants laughing when I read it. It makes every Canadian, not just our military, look blind and stupid, as you point out, and yet it is posted on the official site. What is not posted is the actual specifications of the CF-101 and Avro Arrow for purposes of comparison. As far as I know the material is declassified and can be posted now.

Click to expand...

Ah I misunderstood your post then.

pbfoot said:

I had many an anxious moment turning a 101/F4/106 onto a 4 mile final because of low fuel,

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I do not know what you mean by this. I'm a 'computer guy' and not an 'aircraft guy' and this makes no sense to me.

pbfoot said:

How do you know what the range was or if there was too much drag...

Click to expand...

The ferry range is from a CAE Memorandum regarding Aircraft performance by WW Bean dated 17 Jan 58. He writes, "A reduction in ferry range to 1254 nm is not acceptable." [Reprinted in The Arrow Scrapbook page 76]

The combat radii are given as 238 nm and 347 nm on page 121 of "Storms of Controversy" by Palmiro Campagna. It should be noted that Avro was trying to increase the range.

For the Voodoo all I can find is a post at F-101 Voodoo Range Question — Military Forum | Airliners.net by a fellow called Hunterson, "The F-101 was a large aircraft, even when compared to other same-generation types such as the F-106 and the F-4. It was able to carry a large amount of internal fuel, as well as 3 external fuel tanks, hence its relatively long ferry range of some 2200 miles [1930nm?], and corresponding combat radius typically quoted at 550-600 nm."

The only thing I can think of that would cause the Avro to have much shorter range than the Voodoo is drag.

pbfoot said:

...the thing never flew with it's proper engines...

Click to expand...

I can find no SFC for the Iroquois but there is something on page 41 of The Arrow Scrapbook regarding the Iroquois 2. The SFC is listed at 0.85 lb/lbt/hr.

So far I cannot find the SFC for The J75-P-3 but there is a site that gives some engine data at Military Turbojet/Turbofan Specifications. There is no SFC for the J75-P-3 but 0.85 seems typical. So, given the same SFC why would more thrust make the Arrow travel further? [Remember that I am a 'computer guy' and do not understand all of these things.]

pbfoot said:

...and as for the DND thing I'm quite sure they had the best minds make up the website its a non issue..."

Click to expand...

I know that as a Canadian I am supposed to have complete trust in my government. The DND is a branch of government and so must also be trustworthy. It is probably my fault but I am still confused. At what altitude does "mach 1.96" = "1,650 mph"?

Stitch said:

Definitely; the Canadians actually wanted to use the Sparrow II missle...

Click to expand...

Not hardly [as John Wayne used to say]. By the late fifties such missiles are obsolete and here is why. Soviet technology was probably not advanced enough for deception jamming but they could certainly use noise jamming. Even a simple spark-gap transmitter and crude antenna would white out the entire sector of an interceptor's radar. They would have crude azimuth data but nothing on range and nothing for an active or passive seeker in a missile to lock on to. Our military fully understood that the only thing that would work was SAGE and missiles with nuclear warheads.

SAGE had a giant IBM mainframe that coordinated inputs from multiple radars [that would also be jammed by noise] and then process the azimuth data from mulitiple stations statistically to estimate the target location. The computer would then direct the interceptor to fly within range of that estimate and launch a nuclear AAM towards the area. The weapon had to be nuclear since the location data was imprecise. Whatever solution the DND chose it had to include SAGE so the military did not want to use the Sparrow for the interceptor.

Again I'll state we in Canada bit off more then we can chew but this little piece by Jan Zurakowski the test pilot is interesting

"Performance results were collected on flights of five Arrow MK One aircraft fitted with Pratt and Whitney J 75 engines was used to estimate the performance of the MK 11 Arrcw fitted with Iroquois engines.
The Arrow with J 75 engines was heavier than with the Iroquois and had to be ballasted for a correct center of gravity position. Mark II with Iroquois engines did not need a ballast and was about 5000 lbs.
Lighter and had more thrust".


I believe the 5000lbs should probably read 500lbs but can't confirm
Another thing to consider was that at the time the CF100 was probably the best long range interceptor in the west certianly much better then the F89 and leaps ahead of the Meteor i can't comment on the Eastern block interceptors but it is a comment on the standards of Canadian technology.

pbfoot said:

Again I'll state we in Canada bit off more then we can chew but this little piece by Jan Zurakowski the test pilot is interesting

"Performance results were collected on flights of five Arrow MK One aircraft fitted with Pratt and Whitney J 75 engines was used to estimate the performance of the MK 11 Arrcw fitted with Iroquois engines.
The Arrow with J 75 engines was heavier than with the Iroquois and had to be ballasted for a correct center of gravity position. Mark II with Iroquois engines did not need a ballast and was about 5000 lbs.
Lighter and had more thrust".


I believe the 5000lbs should probably read 500lbs but can't confirm
Another thing to consider was that at the time the CF100 was probably the best long range interceptor in the west certianly much better then the F89 and leaps ahead of the Meteor i can't comment on the Eastern block interceptors but it is a comment on the standards of Canadian technology.

Click to expand...

The F-94C had a range of 800 miles, I show the CF-100 at 650. The F-94C and the CF-100 MK V had about the same speed and armament.

FLYBOYJ said:

The F-94C had a range of 800 miles, I show the CF-100 at 650. The F-94C and the CF-100 MK V had about the same speed and armament.

Click to expand...

everything I find indicates 2000nm and it held a few more of the unguided missles and 4 more 50 cal I as always stand to be corrected

pbfoot said:

everything I find indicates 2000nm and it held a few more of the unguided missles and 4 more 50 cal I as always stand to be corrected

Click to expand...

CF-100 Mk 5 Specifications:

Maximum Speed: 649 m.p.h. at 10,000ft.
Service Ceiling: 54,000ft.
Combat Radius: 650 miles
Range: 2,000 miles
Weight: Empty 23,052 lb.
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 36,923 lb.
Span: 58 feet
Length: 54 feet 1 inch
Height: 15 feet 6 inches
Wing area: 591 square feet
Weapons: 2 pods of 29 70-mm folding fin aircraft rockets (FFAR)

http://www.atlanticcanadaaviation.com/cf100/cf100.htm

SPECIFICATIONS (F-94C):
Span: 37 ft. 4 in.
Length: 44 ft. 4 in.
Height: 14 ft. 11 in.
Weight: 24,000 lbs. maximum
Armament: 24 2.75 in. Folding Fin Aerial Rockets in nose and 24 FFARs in two wing pods
Engines: Pratt Whitney J48-P-5 or -5A of 8,750 lbs. thrust with afterburner (early -C models had J48-P-3, and late models were field upgraded to J48-P-7)


PERFORMANCE:
Maximum speed: 640 mph
Cruising speed: 476 mph
Range: 1,275 miles
Service ceiling: 51,800 ft.

FLYBOYJ said:

CF-100 Mk 5 Specifications:

Maximum Speed: 649 m.p.h. at 10,000ft.
Service Ceiling: 54,000ft.
Combat Radius: 650 miles
Range: 2,000 miles
Weight: Empty 23,052 lb.
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 36,923 lb.
Span: 58 feet
Length: 54 feet 1 inch
Height: 15 feet 6 inches
Wing area: 591 square feet
Weapons: 2 pods of 29 70-mm folding fin aircraft rockets (FFAR)

CF-100 (18747)

Click to expand...

Tjats 650 nm on internal fuel don't forget those humoungpus tip tanks which were almost standard

Illustrated Anatomy of the World's ... - Google Book Search
this seems a little more encompassing with facts

Would this be with or without all that fuel?...

pbfoot said:

I believe the 5000lbs should probably read 500lbs but can't confirm

Click to expand...

According to the Arrow Scrapbook page 15 the J-75's weight is given by Avro as "about 7,000lb".

On page 33 they give the weight of the Iroquois at 4500 pounds. Note that they also overrate the thrust at 26,000 pounds when it was actually rated at 25,000.

This is a 5,000 pound difference but it should be noted that some of the JT4/J75 series weighed as little as 4200 pounds and gave up to 26,500 lbs thrust with reheat. The tradeoffs appear to be cost, with lighter engines costing more, and engine life, where higher thrust reduces life expectancy.

There is a lot to suggest that the Arrow actually flew with 26,000 pound thrust engines but since no Arrow flew with Orendas the engines must have been J-75s. It is my understanding that the J-75 could put out more than 26,000 pounds of thrust with water injection. This seems to be the only way for an Arrow to fly with 52,000 pounds total thrust. There is nothing I have found so far to explain why a stock CF-105 maxed out at about mach 1.75 for the RCAF but went mach 1.96 for an Avro test pilot. The only thing that makes sense is a stripped down aircraft with modified engines for the higher speed run. Sort of a streak-Arrow if you catch my meaning. Whatever the reason, it is irrelevent because the aircraft was not rejected for lack of speed. Mach 1.5 was good enough.

pbfoot said:

Another thing to consider was that at the time the CF100 was probably the best long range interceptor in the west...

Click to expand...

What has this got to do with the CF-105?

Murray B said:

What has this got to do with the CF-105?

Click to expand...

They're both from Canada?

Nice to see ya around Murray....

Murray B said:

According to the Arrow Scrapbook page 15 the J-75's weight is given by Avro as "about 7,000lb".

On page 33 they give the weight of the Iroquois at 4500 pounds. Note that they also overrate the thrust at 26,000 pounds when it was actually rated at 25,000.

This is a 5,000 pound difference but it should be noted that some of the JT4/J75 series weighed as little as 4200 pounds and gave up to 26,500 lbs thrust with reheat. The tradeoffs appear to be cost, with lighter engines costing more, and engine life, where higher thrust reduces life expectancy.

There is a lot to suggest that the Arrow actually flew with 26,000 pound thrust engines but since no Arrow flew with Orendas the engines must have been J-75s. It is my understanding that the J-75 could put out more than 26,000 pounds of thrust with water injection. This seems to be the only way for an Arrow to fly with 52,000 pounds total thrust. There is nothing I have found so far to explain why a stock CF-105 maxed out at about mach 1.75 for the RCAF but went mach 1.96 for an Avro test pilot. The only thing that makes sense is a stripped down aircraft with modified engines for the higher speed run. Sort of a streak-Arrow if you catch my meaning. Whatever the reason, it is irrelevent because the aircraft was not rejected for lack of speed. Mach 1.5 was good enough.



What has this got to do with the CF-105?

Click to expand...

did you read the article by the guy that worked in the test cell that I posted ....no..,

The range for the CF-100 was 2000 NM, or 2,272 M compared to 1275 M for the F-94. The 650 NM combat radius included warmup, takeoff, climb to 40,000ft, cruise at 450 Knots to a range of 650 NM, 15 minutes of combat and then rtb. All on internal fuel. The Cf- 100 had pretty long legs.

Slaterat

FLYBOYJ said:

They're both from Canada?

Nice to see ya around Murray....

Click to expand...

They are both Avro products too. Many British companies including Avro had problems building low-drag bisonic aircraft. The U.S. companies were more successful and I think this was partly because they had lower drag than their competition. The Phantom II is big and powerful but it also slides through the air easier than most other aircraft of its day.

Are you starting to see that the Arrow 'unicorn' myth is a complete fabrication of the liberal media? The Canadian Joint Chiefs recommended cancellation because aircraft of "comparable performance" were already available for far less money. The DND was happy to see the project cancelled but the government wanted to cancel it without replacement and that started a fight. The RCAF still wanted the 900 million remaining in the budget for other aircraft. They eventually got a big chunk of that money and bought a bunch of CF-101s, CF-104s, and CF-5s with it. Diefenbaker must have been absolutely shocked when the media started to accuse him of murdering a 'unicorn' that never existed. Especially considering how his government's involvement with the Arrow was only to accept the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs.

The Arrow is the world's most overrated aircraft and the Avro 'unicorn' myth is one the longest running cons in history.
Fifty years, still going strong and, still complete nonsense.

Its nice to see you around too, FlyboyJ.

pbfoot said:

did you read the article by the guy that worked in the test cell that I posted ....no..,

Click to expand...

Nope, but let me guess that he says they got more than 25,000 pounds of thrust out of the engine. That is not surprising since practically every jet engine ever made could produce more than 100% of its rated thrust. Surely, you already know this.

The problem with the higher thrust is that it overheats the combustor thingy [computer guy technical term] and erodes the blades in the hot part.of the engine. Not good because engine life can be reduced dramatically depending on how much over the rating they go. The 25,000 pound thrust rating given by Magellan (Orenda) is correct and 26,500 pounds measured on a test is interesting but not that useful.

Sorry I'm more prone to believe the test pilot then some guy on the internet , the fact that all evidence of the bird was destroyed means both of our opinions mean nothing.

pbfoot said:

Sorry I'm more prone to believe the test pilot then some guy on the internet , the fact that all evidence of the bird was destroyed means both of our opinions mean nothing.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that you are a jockey? You wrote:

pbfoot said:

I had many an anxious moment turning a 101/F4/106 onto a 4 mile final because of low fuel...

Click to expand...

Since the F-106 was a single-seater this sounds like you were the jockey.

The Arrow program was top secret and the information about it would have been compartmentalised. There is no reason to assume that the test pilots knew that the aircraft was failing to meet specifications.

Orenda did not go out of business but became Magellan ROI. They posted the Iroquois rating and they might as well because the thrust rating of the engine is a matter of record.

The only evidence that was destroyed was Avro's and there is plenty of RCAF documentation on the aircraft. Pretty much all of it is declassified now and it is possible to determine the Aircraft's actual performance. What we may never know is how they managed to spend $308 million to develop an aircraft with performance "comparable" to an existing $2 million dollar aircraft.

Arrow specifications as compiled by Murray B [in Gunston format]:

[Note: TAS=The Arrow Scrapbook by Zuuring, SOC = Storms of Controversy by Campagna, IDF = The Illustrated Directory of Fighters by Spick]

Avro CF-105 Arrow

Origin: Avro Aircraft Limited, Malton, Ont. [Canada]

Type: Two-seat all-weather interceptor.

Engines: Two Pratt and Whitney J75-P-3 two-spool afterburning turbojets. "Maximum rating, 16,500 lb dry, or 24,000 lb with reheat." [TAS p 15]

Dimensions: Span 50 ft; length 83 ft 2in; height 21ft 3in. [TAS p 15]

Weights: Empty 49,040lb; Maximum takeoff 68,602lb. [IDF p 28]

Performance: Mach 1.75 to mach 1.98 [varies with source] Service ceiling, greater than 50,000ft and up to 70.000ft. [varies with source] Combat radius (low speed) 358nm [SOC p 121], combat radius (high speed) 238 nm [SOC p 121]. Ferry range 1254nm. [TAS p 76]

Armament: "Typically three AIM-7 Sparrow 2 and eight AIM-4 Falcon homing missiles in an internal weapons bay." [IDF p 28]

History: First flight March 25, 1958. Cancelled February 20, 1959. [IDF p 28]

The Arrow was a large fighter that was capable of near bisonic speeds. It was cancelled in early 1959 following the recommendation of the Canadian Chiefs of Staff. Less expensive aircraft of comparable performance were purchased instead.

What makes me most angry about the 'unicorn' myth is that this politically motivated fiction is now being taught in our schools as fact. The schools should be teaching the three Rs and not indoctrinating students to hate Americans for murdering our beautiful 'unicorn'. There never was a 'unicorn'.