No but he was an air traffic controller.
THE AVRO CF-105 ARROW - WAS IT REALLY THAT GOOD?!?
- Thread starter FLYBOYJ
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No but he was an air traffic controller.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I worked in the Air Defence realm as an AirTCon for about 10yrs I've sure I've talked to every 101 in the 2nd batch many times , I'm sure I got to see or talk to every CF 116 the most useless aircraft ever purchased by Canada , I know how fast they go and how fast they climb its easy to figure out on radar ,and better yet I know the range limitations . I know guys that worked the Arrow and on it , I've listened as pilots talked to Zura he was a test pilot not a salesman and I believe with his professionialism he would not lie about it . The aircraft was IMHO a viable aircraft not the be all to end all but a good aircraft it certainly would have been better then the 101 and Bomarc combination .
Please tell me you don't think the pilot would not know the parameters of his aircraft
cuz if he didn't he would not be much of test pilot or a fool
Please tell me you don't think the pilot would not know the parameters of his aircraft
cuz if he didn't he would not be much of test pilot or a fool
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Keep it civil, Murray. It's all good.
Excellent. I was wondering why you did not think the Canadian Air Force's "mach 1.96 = 1650 mph" was so funny. If you look at an airspeed vs mach vs altitude chart the problem becomes obvious because it is not on the chart. I had to crunch the equations and mach 1.96 = 1650 mph at about 31,000 ft BELOW sea level. That is well into the magma would require an "oscillation overthruster" for sure. That is what our military is posting for the world to see.
As an 'ATC guy' do you agree with the Joint Chief's assessment back then that the interceptor had to be SAGE capable?
A great source of information is Peter Zuuring's "The Arrow Scrapbook" that I picked up at Chapters. He reprints the Cabinet minutes of August 28, 1958 where the Chiefs of Staff recommend cancellation because, "...it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S."
If the C.I.A. is involved then it is with the Joint Chiefs and not the government.
Now, I want you to understand that many people have been lying about the Arrow for many decades. The thrust rating of the Iroquois was always 25,000lb and never 30,000lb or even 26,500lb. The maximum thrust of the J75-P-3 has always been 24,000lb and not 16,800 lb as many Arrow fans say. The cost of the aircraft as presented to Cabinet on Jan 10, 1959 was originally $12.86 million but dropped to 7.02 million plus unspecified Astra/Sparrow cancellation charges. This is not out of line with the $8 million cost given by Gen. Foulkes given to the Montreal Star in 1963.
The $3.75 million amount often quoted is a misrepresentation of an October 21, 1958 letter to George Pearkes from Fred Smye of Avro.
Here is the relevant text, "...it is now estimated that we can produce and deliver 100 operational Arrow aircraft, complete in all respects including the Iroquois engine and MA1 fire control system for approximately $3.500,000 each. This excludes the development and tooling , which it is assumed would continue In accordance with existing contracts."
Note that at the time of the letter the cost for development, tooling and six airframes was about $308 million. That means the cost per aircraft was no where near $3.5 million and was, in fact, closer to $8 million as Gen. Foulkes said it was.
Please tell me you don't think the pilot would not know the parameters of his aircraft
He probably did know the parameters but I cannot find out what they were. What I do know is that the RCAF pilot managed a top speed in a stock aircraft of about mach 1.75 at 50,000 feet at 100% throttle and full afterburners. How does the Avro pilot manage mach 1.96 (1.98 from some sources) from the same aircraft? This is not a simple thing since it takes a lot more thrust to travel a little bit faster. It is easy to estimate how much additional thrust is required for the higher speed. The high speed is equal to the square root of the high thrust over the square root of the low thrust times the lower speed. So if 48,000 pounds thrust gives mach 1.75 then mach 1.96 should require about 60,000 pounds or 30,000 lb per engine. That seems to be a little high for a J75 so we need to know more about the aircraft and engines. Do you know the aircraft's weight and engine thrust for the mach 1.96 run?
Sorry Matt308 if a get a little excited but it ain't really all that good.
When I discovered that they were teaching the young ones in the schools that the evil Americans with their great hairy teeth and adamantium claws butchered our Avro 'unicorn' it was enough for me. What really happened was a defence contractor ripped off the Canadian taxpayers for $308 million. Too bad, so sad, our bad, but what's it got to do with America?
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I do believe you are a closet US xenophobe , I really wish that you would stop considering classroom crap as I don't believe the thing is on any curriculum and I'll wager 80% of Canadians would not know the difference between an Arrow and a Datsun B210
As for the posting on the website do you really think they had some aerospace guy do that its a typograpical or error by some guy that is an computer guy who made a mistake , I really doubt if the entry was vetted at AETE or at the highest levels af DNDHQ
Last edited:
No, I had to come out of the closet because my flashlight batteries went dead. Are you saying I am a pro-US racist or an anti-US one.
You would lose but I won't take your money. According to IMDB about the mini-series " The Arrow's first airing it gathered the second largest viewing audience in Canadian television's history"
That means the Arrow is probably just as well known in Canada as J.R. Ewing and who killed the Arrow is about as well known as "who shot J.R.". For some strange reason the program also aired in some U.S. states which is surprising considering the content is blatant anti-U.S. propaganda. Because of lies like this John Diefenbaker is reviled the world over for killing our precious 'unicorn'. Too bad it was the Chiefs of Staff that did the deed.
The buck has to stop somewhere and they should have fixed it six weeks ago when I contacted them about it. They have no excuse for the errors since the DND has always had complete information about the aircraft even when the material was classified. They are obliged to use my tax dollars to provide correct and complete historical information that is free of political spin.
- Thread starter
- #267
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
2nd highest rated TV ratings is pretty lofty that puts it ahead of Olympic hockey medal games , the 1972 Summit Series... I think not >
Will you admit that the Chief of Staff(army guy) was very worried that money for the Arrow would deprive the army of funding for some of its projects, the Minister of National Defence was also an army guy (Gen Pearkes )
I believe you are selectively taking only facts that back your arguement rather then looking at the overall picture, you've brought up some good points but neglect others that counter your arguement such as the Chief of the air staffs opinion prior to cancellation . You should also point out that the they were ordered not to comment on the cancellation
I hope you have success with your endeavour to get them to change the blurb on the MND website.
Will you admit that the Chief of Staff(army guy) was very worried that money for the Arrow would deprive the army of funding for some of its projects, the Minister of National Defence was also an army guy (Gen Pearkes )
I believe you are selectively taking only facts that back your arguement rather then looking at the overall picture, you've brought up some good points but neglect others that counter your arguement such as the Chief of the air staffs opinion prior to cancellation . You should also point out that the they were ordered not to comment on the cancellation
I hope you have success with your endeavour to get them to change the blurb on the MND website.
Last edited:
Sorry, but I no control over what the IMBD writes so you will have to take it up with them. The stuff is posted at: The Arrow (1997) (TV)I have heard some people in the U.S. trashing Diefenbaker so I know the propaganda has been effective outside of Canada.
Nope, because this is supposed to be about the aircraft. I will leave to the historians to explain things in terms of personality conflicts, who is sleeping with whom, and sociological impacts.
I pretty much select only the facts and not Arrowhead propaganda. The Orenda Iroquois engine gave 25,000lb thrust with reheat. The Iroquois 2 was to have 30,000 but was never built. Since the second version was never built it gave no thrust to measure and could not be rated at all. Why does every Arrow zealot quote the specifications of an engine that never existed? At some level some of these people must know they are lying to us.
To show you how much the RCAF wanted the aircraft you need look no further than the AIR-7-3 specification. It required a 2g turn at 50,000 ft. without loss of speed or altitude. The Arrow could not manage more than 1.25g and was already losing speed and altitude.
Ask a jet jockey why the specification is so special. There was no aeroplane anywhere in the world by 1960 that could turn like this, not even the Phantom. The military does not make this kind of mistake. The RCAF is very clearly telling Avro and their government friends to take their great white Arrow on a long run down a short runway.
Besides that, do you really expect me to believe that the RCAF wanted to blow their entire aircraft procurement budget on 100 interceptors and then be forced to rely on the old Sabres and Canucks to do every other job? [Hmm, maybe they could have used Mosquitos for ground attack. Didn't he U.S. use Skyraiders in Vietnam? I'm such a genius! They don't need F-35s today but good old deHavilland Mosquitos. WE HAVE THE PLYWOOD...UPWARDS TO VICTORY! Umm...does anybody know where to get a couple hundred Merlins? Packards would be okay too.]
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Good luck on your crusade Don Quixote
People in the US that have heard of Diefenbaker have every right to trash the moron isn'y he the clown that wanted to restrict trade with the US and increase it with the UK
Isn't he the one who wouldn't upgrade the defence status during the Cuban missle crisis
People in the US that have heard of Diefenbaker have every right to trash the moron isn'y he the clown that wanted to restrict trade with the US and increase it with the UK
Isn't he the one who wouldn't upgrade the defence status during the Cuban missle crisis
Last edited:
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Good stuff guys...
Hey Murray, I'm not an aero engineer, but can you tell me or cite where this equation comes from? And what "lower speed" are we using here? I'll even take an aerospace for dummies URL.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
I don't care if you have a beef with our northern neighbors. But your tone was becoming insulting. And it won't be tolerated. We have many international members on this forum. And they all deserve respect. I know I do. And I know that Pbfoot does also. You don't have to agree with him, many times I don't either. But he does deserve respect.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
And both Murray and Pb... be careful guys. It's getting a little heated and the political tangents are getting off topic.
We are only a couple hundred engines away from building a whole herd of Mosquitos. Waynos has practically admitted that the F-22 was copied from it. Both made of radar absorbant material. Both with internal weapons bay. One fly-by-wire and the other fly-by-cable which is practically the same thing. In every important respect they are almost identical. Canada can save a lot of money by buying Mosquitos.
I am neither Conservative or Lieberal. To me they are tweedle-dum and tweedle-even-dumber but this is not about political leanings. It is about lying internationally using Canadian tax dollars. Every thing you mention is a legitimate criticism of Diefenbaker and if that is what is said then so be it. What makes me angry is when he is blamed for killing the Arrow, which is a lie. The taxpayer funded CBC program is mostly responsible but now the corruption has spread to the taxpayer funded Canadian Forces official website. This is what I find intolerable.
The equations are horribly complex if you want to calculate the drag of an aircraft mathematically but this is not necessary for estimating speed differences for the same aircraft. There is a good illustration of posted by NASA (NACA in the days of the Arrow) at Momentum Effects on Aerodynamic Forces
Thankfully everything cancels out. Since rho is constant and so is the constant so both are constant and cancel. You wind up with force proportional to Velocity squared. Since maximum level speed occurs where the thrust force equals intersects the drag curve we can estimate speed increase as I wrote before as long as the change is not transonic. Now you see if you can tell me how much thrust would an Arrow need to reach mach 2.5 if it travels at mach 1.98 with 48,000lb of thrust.
Um, I am your northern neighbour, Alberta born and raised and a Canadian taxpayer. The lieberals spent 308 million taxpayers dollars developing an aircraft that was every bit as good as a $2 million Voodoo and then chose to blame the whole thing on the Americans and the C.I.A. Diefenbaker was merely the lackey of the Americans. I'm sorry but the fifty some years this lie has been repeated is long enough. It has had a good run but it is time for the facts now.
The Ontarian is the one that keeps ragging on Diefenbaker who was from the west as I am. All I want to show is the true performance of the CF-105 Arrow and why the Chiefs of Staff cancelled it. What's Dief got to do with it, got to do with it. What's Dief got to do with it? [Why do I see Tina Turner's face when I sing that?]
Last edited:
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
My final reply on this topic with MurrayB maybe your right about it not being Diefenbakers fault but maybe he should have taken apage from Truman with "the buck stops here"
The Mosquito was not stealthy those props make one hell of a radar reflector and as much as I like the Voodoo it was well past its best buy day in the late 60's
We got the 101 because they wanted a 2 holer which eliminated the 106 , the USAF later returned to the 2 seater in the Phantom and the USN also with the F14. That is one requirement you omit .
The F104's were great aircraft , the F5's were useless for the CAF.
The Mosquito was not stealthy those props make one hell of a radar reflector and as much as I like the Voodoo it was well past its best buy day in the late 60's
We got the 101 because they wanted a 2 holer which eliminated the 106 , the USAF later returned to the 2 seater in the Phantom and the USN also with the F14. That is one requirement you omit .
The F104's were great aircraft , the F5's were useless for the CAF.
Last edited:
It was good talking to you. To understand more about Diefenbaker please read the '63 Time Magazine article at: Storm over Diefenbaker - TIME. The last paragraph on the first page indicates who conspired with whom against whom.
Well, I did not say that the Mosquito had a low radar cross-section just that it was made of radar absorbent material. Nevertheless, it is possible through the miracle of historical revision to reduce the cross-section to any desired value. Any specification can be altered in this way. All you need is a zealous group of revisionists, let's call them Mosquitoheads, and a little bit of time. It should not take long to have the thing going mach 5 at sea-level with 150,000 ft. ceiling and half the radar cross-section of an F-22. A Voodoo revised in this way should be even better than the Mosquito.
Personally, I was never a fan of the F-106 and I think that deltas were a mistake. They got the idea from that German guy that designed the world's shortest-range interceptor. It makes no sense to copy the mistakes of others.
It was not my intention to omit anything but I do believe that the Voodoo had performance "comparable" to the stock Arrow. There was a faster version of the Arrow that flew after cancellation but it is hard to find out much about it but I will guesstimate its parameters for this comparison (note all values rounded to three significant digits):
F-101B Arrow (stock) Streak-Arrow
Maker McDonnell Avro Canada Avro Canada
Empty weight 28,000 lb 49,000 lb 44,000 lb
Engines 2 X J57 2 X J75-P-3 2 X J75 (modified ?)
Max thrust 30,000 lb 48,000 lb 52,000 lb
Top Speed mach 1.85 mach 1.76 mach 1.98
Combat radius 550 nm 347 nm unknown
Ferry Range 1930 nm 1260 nm unknown
Records indicate that the Arrow tested by the RCAF maxed out at mach 1.76 with the J75-P-3 at 100% thrust. Other records indicate that the top speed was mach 1.98 (1.96 from some sources). If the Arrow managed mach 1.76 on 48,000 lb rated thrust then mach 1.98 should require about a 60,800 lb rating. At the time about the only engine about the size of a J75 that can put out that kind of thrust is the J58 and there is nothing to suggest it was ever fitted to the Arrow. The J75 series was capable of over 26,000 pounds of thrust with water injection to keep the combustor thingy from burning out and the blades in the hot section from getting all melty. Lightening the aircraft to reduce drag and maybe even boosting the engine output a little is the only way I can see for the Arrow to make it to mach 1.98.
Code:
[CODE]
Last edited:
Butters
Senior Airman
Geez...at first I thought that this was about the Arrow, but it turns out that it's really about mean people badmouthing a long-dead Ontarian.
Oh well.
JL
Oh well.
JL
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
who is the long dead Ontarian?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Thread starter
- #279
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Rene Levesque? 
Butters
Senior Airman
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
