FLYBOYJ
I've been wanting to put this out there for some time, I'm sure all of our Canadian friends will enjoy this one.
I think most aviation buffs would be interested regardless of nationality...
I think an aircraft like an F-5 would of flown rings around her in a dogfight
From what I remember the F-5E had similar performance characteristics to the MiG-21 from around 300-400 knots, better performance below (higher aspect wing, the leading-edge root extension, and LED's), with the exception of a slightly lower climb-rate, and a possibly superior roll-rate.
The F-102 & F-106's were similar in turn-rate and roll-rate if I recall, and comparable to some MiG-21 variants, and slightly inferior to others; the F-106 would appear faster than the MiG-21 in an all out dash. I'm not sure how the F-5A compared to the F-5E though it might have had a lower T/W ratio.
The F-5's were smaller and might have had better overall pilot visibility, smaller and harder to see, and would have been useful in this regard.
PM Diefenbaker killed 90% of the Canadian aircraft industry with his decision, but let's imagine things were different. If built, how do you think her mission would of changed?
I have a feeling UCAV's would have come earlier...
Would a gun been installed like on the F-106?
It would have been easier than the F-106 due to the package.
Although the B-47 looked fragile I am told it was quite maneuvable and could be looped and rolled.
It's maximum g-load was 3.5 x 1.5 right?
BTW Look at the range!!!! I'm sorry but I don't care how good the Iroquois "would of" been, it ain't helping the range situation much!!!!
Firstly, those figures might have been based on a supersonic radius.
Otherwise, those numbers look wrong, in a number of ways actually
- The aircraft had a 2800 gallon fuel capacity, at 6.55 to 6.6 pounds a gallon that would produce a weight of 67380-67520
- Falcon armament would yield a weight of 1016 to 1180 pounds, bringing up the weight to 68396 to 68700
These numbers would get a fuel fraction of 26.8% to 26.9%
If the aircraft was fitted with the Iroquois, they'd be 4,000 pounds lighter in total producing a weight of 45,040, a weight of 63380-63520 pounds with fuel, and 64396 to 64700 in an air to air load. With the fuel load the same 28.5% to 28.6%
These figures seem on par or better than the F-106.
Glider
Zurakowski declared that the Arrow was easier to fly than the F-102 or the Gloster Javelin, two other delta-winged fighters.
Easier doesn't actually mean better handling... it just means it has less quirks that can get you killed.
Zurakoski complained about the high workload in the cockpit, despite the sophisticated AFCS (Automatic Flight Control System)
That's a surprise with a two-man crew: In fact, I'm surprised they'd even need such automation to get the A/C into position for a missile shot: The F-4's didn't require it.
the reliability of the electronic systems was better than expected
Now that is impressive for that time frame.
plan_D
Being that the CF-105 was primarily an interceptor it's handling wouldn't need to be amazing.
In theory, yes. In actual fact, not necessarily: The larger wing is good for high altitude maneuverability, particularly depending on mach number.
When supersonic, you could do just fine with a plane like the F-101B and F-104A: Neither had a light-wing loading but a higher mach number correlates to a higher IAS and that still puts you on top if your L/D ratio is decent (both were), and control power was high enough (both were), particularly if radar equipped with GCI.
The EE Lightning didn't have a very good turning circle but it was quite manuverable in other areas due to the whole tail-plane moving instead of just elevators at the back.
I was under the impression that it's corner velocity was lower than the F-104?
Nonskimmer
Bang on. It was just far more expensive than it would have been worth, so it was cancelled.
How much would the plane have been worth?
If I recall, the F-102 was $1.9 million; the F-106 around $4.5-5.0 million; the F-4 around $2.4 million
pbfoot
First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel).
It was the first FBW equipped aircraft with SAS integrated. Much like the F-16 of the 1974.
First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory.
I would have never thought of that as it's not as evident as the F-15 and F-16. The top of the fuselage/wing seem to fit the bill though I guess.
First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance.
First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance.
As I recall, they originally planned to make the tail larger, and from that they decided instead to use with neutral directional stability with FBW & SAS.
Relaxed stability means less trim-inputs, which makes the delta-wing much more effective than otherwise possible.
First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground
I did not know the plane was designed with this feature from the outset (if I read you right). If I recall right, the F-102A could use a data-link to coordinate intercepts in 1957.
First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain.
Firstly, I thought home-on-jam and ECCM are basically the same?
The integration of the radar, navigation, IRST, ECM, ECCM, looks a lot like the F-15's systems: It had integrated jamming, radar, and ECM at least. I don't know about nav and IRST.
First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now.
First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines).
First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow.
I don't remember the PS-13 being a turbofan, if I recall it was a turbojet.
If you're talking about the inlet being oversized with excess air going around the engine to provide engine and afterburner cooling: That sounds a lot like the F-104 and F-4. As for the use of the exhaust to pump the duct, that sounds possibly like the F-104, and the L-133 concept (though that was for boundary layer control, it never flew though).
The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe.
Now that's not true: I asked on the a website dedicated to the F-106, and despite them being a bunch of seriously moody people, they did explain this one to me.
The nozzle of the F-106 is just like any other convergent divergent nozzle: It has a cooling shroud located around and behind it, and this also serves to disperse the exhaust at lower power settings when taxiing. The purpose of this is to avoid blowing around unsecured objects.
Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine.
Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones).
I already knew the engine had composites in it; I did not know the airframe did. As for composites, I had no idea.
Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing.
The B-58 had a conically cambered wing and flew earlier. The use of inverse cambered sections is interesting though (wing-root).
Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles.
Wait, I thought the missiles to be carried included provisions for the following (at different times)
8 x Falcon
8 x Velvet Glove
4 x Sparrow II
4 x Genie
Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role.
Sounds like a terrain-folowing AP
First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that.
Wait, I thought the engine was more powerful than the J75...
First oxygen-injection re-light system.
Which would allow a relight at all speeds?
First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine.
First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine.
First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition.
I'm not sure what a hot-streak afterburner is, but I know what all the rest is.
What he is referring to is the next one off the production line that was powered by 2 of the indiginous Orenda Iroquois with 20000,lbs thrust tests up to 30000lbs in burner mode.
I'm surprised about that, especially with the J75 being 1.5 x J57 thrust
- J57: 12,500 to 13,500
- J75: 18,750 to 20,250
And from what I remember thrust boost was around 1.5 to 1.66666... on burner for the J57, so provided the proportion holds
- J57: 18,750 to 22,500
- J75: 28,125 to 33,750
I'd have figured the the Iroquois would have been able to do somewhere between 22,000 to 25,000 pounds of thrust.
Murray_B
It probably was not area ruled at the time but became so years after the fact through the miracle of historical revision.
I do remember something about the aircraft's spine conforming to it, but it could be bullshit.
The only impartial and reliable information I have on the maximum speed is from RCAF tests which indicates Mach 1.4.
Understood
The cancellation did create some problems for the US since we had already agreed on how to finance North American defense. By canceling the Arrow and buying Voodoos we forced the US government to cancel US contracts and move the same value of work to Canada. That must have cost them plenty but they did not complain about it much as far as I can tell.
Could the plane have made compatible with SAGE?