THE AVRO CF-105 ARROW - WAS IT REALLY THAT GOOD?!? (1 Viewer)

[Matt308]

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

For us guys down south without gov't healthcare, what the hell is an "Ontarian"? Is that someone 1000 years old?

 

[Matt308]

Nevermind... I just read Genesis.

 

[Murray B]

For us guys down south without gov't healthcare, what the hell is an "Ontarian"? Is that someone 1000 years old?

An Ontarian is someone from the province of Ontario, Canada. Ontario was the location of Avro Canada with head office in Toronto and factory in Malton. It is also where $308 million taxpayers' dollars were given to Avro to develop a super aircraft that wound up being average. In the late fifties there is nothing exceptional about an interceptor with a mach 1.76 top speed and a 347nm low speed combat radius.

Ontario is also the home of most Arrow zealots who continually revise the aircraft's capabilities. First it was mach 2+ then it was mach 3+ and now one article even claims the airframe was good to mach 5+. Of course the C.I.A. had to kill the aircraft because it was capable of shooting down any U-2s flying over Canada. [Even if Canada could shoot down U.S. aircraft that does not mean it is a good idea. That would be no way to treat a friend and ally. Besides any such flights could be stopped with a simple phone call or two].

The health care insurance up here is public but it is the taxpayers that pay for it and not the government. Before the recent economic problems average people in the eastern provinces were taxed for about half their total income. Now, as increasingly desperate governments try to make up for revenue shortfalls by raising taxes, the problems are worsening. "Free" health care ain't free if it costs you 50% or 80% or even more of your income. The truth is that our system is second worst in the world as far as the high cost of health care goes. There is only one country where it costs more and they shall remain nameless, but it ain't Switzerland.

 

[pbfoot]

I'd love to reply but its politics

 

[Butters]

I'd love to reply but its politics

Yep.That and some really confused math...

JL

 

[Butters]

Anyway, to get back on topic...

The Arrow may or may not have matured into what the Brits love call a 'world-beater', but it's all really moot. The AC would have been retired without ever having fired a shot in anger, and as to whether or not the production of the Arrow would have led to a viable military aerospace industry with home designed products able to compete on the world market is pointless speculation. Canada could neither afford, nor did it need such an ariel Cadillac. Those things are a tough sell even in the richest of nations. Just look at the B-2 and the F-22... How much can you spend on an individual combat aircraft before your air force is so reduced in numbers that it cannot adequately perform its mission? You might be able to build something so sophisticated it can do almost everything, but you're gonna have to make some momentous scientific breakthroughs if you want it to do everything in two places at the same time...

JL

 

[Coors9]

I always compared it to the Mig 25 role, Fast ,High, Fire Missile's at Bombers and go home. Forget the dogfighting.

 

[Murray B]

Yep.That and some really confused math...

So, rather than arguing ad hominem why don't you show us how to calculate the thrust? Some formulae are posted at NASA as I have indicated but you can use any source you like. The problem is this: If an aircraft achieves mach 1.76 with 48,000 lbs thrust then approximately how much thrust is needed to increase the speed to mach 1.96? The answer can be in absolute thrust or the delta but specify which and show your work.

I always compared it to the Mig 25 role, Fast ,High, Fire Missile's at Bombers and go home. Forget the dogfighting.

What about the Arrow reminds you of the Mig 25? The role of that aircraft was orignally to intercept B-70 bombers, which McNamara cancelled. The E-266 was later used for photo-recon because of its high ceiling and great speed.

 

[Butters]

So, rather than arguing ad hominem why don't you show us how to calculate the thrust? Some formulae are posted at NASA as I have indicated but you can use any source you like. The problem is this: If an aircraft achieves mach 1.76 with 48,000 lbs thrust then approximately how much thrust is needed to increase the speed to mach 1.96? The answer can be in absolute thrust or the delta but specify which and show your work."

You're still confused, Murray. My 'ad hominem' was in reference to your non sequiter digression/rant about how 50-80% of the Canadian taxpayer's income was expropriated to pay for health care. A straw man...You know as well as I do that the total tax load (whatever the actual percentage may be...) covers ALL government services, not just health care costs.

As for how the Arrow performed, or later Iroquois engined models could have performed, well, the information is so contradictory that I just can't tell ya. It's pretty confusing...One set of specs says that the J-75-3 model made approx 18,000lb thrust/AB (for a total of approx 36,000)and still other specs show that the engines in the Arrow made 48,000lb thrust/AB. Which was it? All that aside, flight tests show that the Arrow did not suffer the airframe limitations of the earlier F-102 in regards to exceeding Mach, and if the the Iroquois had achieved their designed combined thrust of approx 50,000 lb thrust/AB, why shouldn't the lighter and more powerful Arrow II be capable of exceeding Mach II? Paper calculations are all very nice, but are inherently susceptible to GIGO..It's real testing that counts.

Anyway, my beef is not about what the Arrow could or could not do, but rather, what was done with those that existed. The total destruction of the Arrows was a political ploy, plain and simple. And trying to foist responsibility for that onto the DOD is a red herring. The civilian govt has the final say in such matters, and you know that also. And that's the real reason for all your Arrow polemics...it's clearly just a parochial Western screed to salvage the reputation of your beloved transplanted Ontarian, ie; Diefenbaker...

BTW, I made no 'ad hominem', as I was not making an argument. It was a comment.

Chill, dude.

JL

 

[Flyboy2]

What about the Arrow reminds you of the Mig 25? The role of that aircraft was orignally to intercept B-70 bombers, which McNamara cancelled. The E-266 was later used for photo-recon because of its high ceiling and great speed.

I think what he's saying is that in its original non-recon role, the MiG-25 wasn't designed to dogfight, just to zoom off and intercept bombers like the Arrow was designed for. In that regards I would agree with you Coors

 

[Coors9]

Some glad I didn't spell something wrong.....

 

[Murray B]

You're still confused, Murray. My 'ad hominem' was in reference to your non sequiter digression/rant...

You make another while denying the first. Are you a lawyer? My response was to our friend in U.S.A. who apparently thinks we have government run health care. We do not. We have government run health care insurance where the premiums are hidden in our taxes. Last I heard, before recent tax hikes, the average Ontario family was already paying over 50% of their income to tax. Health care in North America has become unaffordable and changing the type of insurance probably won't help things much.

As for how the Arrow performed, or later Iroquois engined models could have performed, well, the information is so contradictory that I just can't tell ya. It's pretty confusing...One set of specs says that the J-75-3 model made approx 18,000lb thrust/AB (for a total of approx 36,000)...

Which lying weasel's arse did you pull the 18,000 lb figure from? It is a brown and stinky number and does not belong here. The 24,000 lb rating I used is from Avro as given in the Mk I brochure and it it good enough the estimate the thrust necessary to achieve mach 1.96.

...flight tests show that the Arrow did not suffer the airframe limitations of the earlier F-102 in regards to exceeding Mach..."

No, it looks like it suffered from aerodynamic instability like the Douglas Stiletto. From "Joint Report on an RCAF-DRB-NAE Visit..." dated 19 November 1954, "The directional stability characteristics of the CF-105 are poorer than had been experienced in the United States." From "Meeting to Discuss CF-105 Problems Held December 20 and 21, 1954" on page 3, "It is agreed that while artificial lateral stabilization is undesirable in itself, the obvious aerodynamic cures such as a large increase in fin area could be unacceptable as far as performance is concerned."

Avro chose to correct for the instability by using a "black box" instead of cancelling the program as Douglas did. [I wonder if Douglas blamed Canada for the cancellation.] It would be interesting to re-create Avro's vacuum tube/transistor hybrid analogue fly-by-wire computer to see if could withstand the EMP from a nuclear detonation. A hundred Arrows all falling from the sky at the same time would have been spectacular.

...and if the the Iroquois had achieved their designed combined thrust of approx 50,000 lb thrust/AB, why shouldn't the lighter and more powerful Arrow II be capable of exceeding Mach II?

This thread is about the Arrow I which was actually built, flown, and its performance measured. I cannot find anything about a mach 2+ Arrow 2 ever being flown. Although the Arrow's performance, or lack thereof, was classified at the time any records set would have been recorded and eventually published.

... "Paper calculations are all very nice, but are inherently susceptible to GIGO..It's real testing that counts."

Exactly, and that is why I object to arse numbers of uncertain origin constantly being quoted by Arrow zealots. This embarrasses the whole nation. Do you really think that there is an aviation enthusiast anywhere outside of Canada that will believe that the J75-P-3 had 18,000lb of thrust with reheat when every reliable source in the world gives it as between 23,500lb and 24,500lb?

"...it's clearly just a parochial Western screed to salvage the reputation of your beloved transplanted Ontarian, ie; Diefenbaker...

There you go with the ad hominem arguments again. Diefenbaker is just a red herring that Arrow zealots throw out to shift the focus away from their lacklustre aircraft. As I have already shown, the Joint Chiefs made the decision to cancel the aircraft and Diefenbaker just took their advice. The cabinet minutes are declassified now. Go look it up.

So, what's your connection to Avro? Was it your dad, or grandad, or uncle? The zealous defence of this contractor usually doesn't come from ordinary taxpaying citizens.

 

[Coors9]

Anger management classes could help....

 

[Butters]

Re: "Which lying weasel's arse did you pull the 18,000 lb figure from?"

From one of the myriad Arrow sites: (I'll scrounge up the link if you wish...)

Engine P&W J75-P-3 (RL201)
Dry Thrust 12 500lb (55.6 kN) static
Wet Thrust 18 500lb (82.3 kN) static

And from Wik:

J75-P-3: 16,470 lbf (73.3 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-5: 17,200 lbf (76.5 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-13B: 17,000 lbf (75.6 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-15W: 24,500 lbf (109 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-17: 24,500 lbf (109 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-19W: 17,200 lbf (76.5 kN) afterburning thrust

Your eloquent riposte prompted me to search for some cold, hard facts on the P&W J75-P-3, but they're hard to come by. As I am not an Arrowhead( Or 'Arrow zealot' if you prefer...),this will just have to do. Maybe you can come up with something more authoritative on the subject.

The 'lateral stability/EMP-induced shower of Arrows' bit is a drama queen strawman. No fighter of the '60's would be likely to be capable of performing its mission ion the event of a total electronics failure.

As for the 'Health care' vs 'Health insurance' bit, have it your way. I unfortunately lack your zeal for semantic precision. OCD is not my thing, man...

And no, I have no family connection to either AVRO or the Diefenbaker administration. Nor am I such a patriot as to be horror-stricken at the thought that some Arrow fans may be besmirching our national, ie; Dief's, honour by exaggerating the abilities of the Arrow.. I do appreciate that you feel otherwise, so if you give me your address, I'll have your local florist bring you a rose for ol' Dief's grave. Just make sure you don't plant one of those new-fangled Liberal Canadian flags on it. I hear that the Chief only liked HRM's Red Ensign

I'm done

JL

 

[Murray B]

Re: "Which lying weasel's arse did you pull the 18,000 lb figure from?"

From one of the myriad Arrow sites: (I'll scrounge up the link if you wish...)

Engine P&W J75-P-3 (RL201)
Dry Thrust 12 500lb (55.6 kN) static
Wet Thrust 18 500lb (82.3 kN) static

Is that the site that wrote that the Avrocar was actually secret alien technology being developed in Canada by the U.S. military? Anyway, whoever they are they are the lying weasels that I am talking about since the accurate thrust is given in the 1957 Avro MK I brochure which every one of them should be aware of. Let me quote it for you, "maximum rating, 16,500 lb dry, or 24,000 lb with reheat." [The brochure is Reprinted in Peter Zuuring's, "The Avro Scrapbook" on page 15.]

And from Wik:

J75-P-3: 16,470 lbf (73.3 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-5: 17,200 lbf (76.5 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-13B: 17,000 lbf (75.6 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-15W: 24,500 lbf (109 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-17: 24,500 lbf (109 kN) afterburning thrust
J75-P-19W: 17,200 lbf (76.5 kN) afterburning thrust

Maybe you can come up with something more authoritative on the subject.

Normally I prefer books to online sources that can change over time, or hourly, as is the case of the wiki wasteland.

Avro's J75 rating is good enough for me since I already knew it was around 23,500 lb but if you need more proof then try the library. At least books won't change the next time you look at them.

The 'lateral stability/EMP-induced shower of Arrows' bit is a drama queen strawman. No fighter of the '60's would be likely to be capable of performing its mission ion the event of a total electronics failure.

I'll bet you have never even seen a germanium transistor let alone worked with them. I still have a few that are probably older than you are. Anyway in the late fifities they were delicate $35 parts that were unlikely to survive even a small EMP pulse. Since the Arrow was apparently completely fly-by-wire and the computer was hybrid and not hardened the outcome I mentioned is far more likely than you think. If they had made the computer all vacuum tube then EMP should not have been a problem.

The Arrow is a product of the fifties and not the sixties. In fact its heavily ribbed canopy and slab sides date it to the early fifties and not even the middle or late fifties.

As far as I know the first operational fighter that could not fly without a computer was the F-16 which went into service in the late '70s, if memory serves. I expect its digital computer system was made from ICs with some LSI. If it had microprocessors then they were multi-chip and I expect bit-slice to give the necessary speed. Maybe it had magnetic Bubble Memory too since TI was working on it at around the same time. Of course I am just guessing since I am not a 'military guy' and have never seen the electronics in an F-16. [Note: Integrated circuit electronics are very sensitive to EMP but I imagine they are well protected in a modern fighter with faraday cages, clamping diodes and the like.]

I'm done

JL

Okay, and do try the library. You will find it is a different world.

 

[Flyboy2]

Wow man.... Chill out.... Just a friendly discussion

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Gentlemen, although I find this highly entertaining please refrain from the personal insults.

 

[Stitch]

As far as I know the first operational fighter that could not fly without a computer was the F-16 which went into service in the late '70s, if memory serves. I expect its digital computer system was made from ICs with some LSI. If it had microprocessors then they were multi-chip and I expect bit-slice to give the necessary speed. Maybe it had magnetic Bubble Memory too since TI was working on it at around the same time. Of course I am just guessing since I am not a 'military guy' and have never seen the electronics in an F-16. [Note: Integrated circuit electronics are very sensitive to EMP but I imagine they are well protected in a modern fighter with faraday cages, clamping diodes and the like.

Actually, the military tends to be a few years behind the curve as far as IT goes, believe it or not; they've gotten better recently, but you have to remember that defense contractors usually use a PROVEN technology at the time they design a weapons system, which means that by the time the weapons system finally gets built, it's 5-10 year old technology. IIRC, the F-16's AN/APG-66(V)1 radar did use solid-state technology, but it was transistorized, no micrprocessors; if I had to guess, I'd say the first models of the F-16 used late '60's electronics.

Recently, however, the military has finally caught up with the private sector and, in the latest weapons systems (B-2, F-22, F-35, etc.), they've designed much more flexible IT architectures, both in the hardware and the software, so that the avionics can more easily be upgraded to state-of-the-art levels. The biggest advances recently have been in the area of the software, which is also the easiest to upgrade.

 

[Matt308]

Murray, this is the second time I'm gonna tell you tone it down. There won't be a third.

 

[Murray B]

Actually, the military tends to be a few years behind the curve as far as IT goes, believe it or not; they've gotten better recently, but you have to remember that defense contractors usually use a PROVEN technology at the time they design a weapons system, which means that by the time the weapons system finally gets built, it's 5-10 year old technology. IIRC, the F-16's AN/APG-66(V)1 radar did use solid-state technology, but it was transistorized, no micrprocessors; if I had to guess, I'd say the first models of the F-16 used late '60's electronics.

There is a paper posted at http://firstmicroprocessor.com/documents/ap1-26-97.doc that indicates the F-14 had the first mutli-chip microprocessor so I expect that the F-16 didn't have one. It does need something though because the wing is way to far forward to be flown manually.

Recently, however, the military has finally caught up with the private sector and, in the latest weapons systems (B-2, F-22, F-35, etc.), they've designed much more flexible IT architectures, both in the hardware and the software, so that the avionics can more easily be upgraded to state-of-the-art levels. The biggest advances recently have been in the area of the software, which is also the easiest to upgrade.

It is going to be a long time before us civilians know much about those aircraft. I was down at Whidbey Island a while back and they kept covering up all the electronicals of the Prowlers. Did you know that the Prowler is the second most expensive aircraft on a carrier after that baby AWACs plane? Cool stuff but I did not get the T-shirt. That's okay though because I did get the hat.

Murray, this is the second time I'm gonna tell you tone it down. There won't be a third.

You are right because life is just too short for this. I'm outta here.