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

Nonskimmer · Sep 7, 2005

Whatever.
Although I'll admit, that last one makes a bit of sense to me. The pattern of appeasing Québec at the expense of everyone and everything else continues to this day.

Dac · Sep 19, 2005

FLYBOYJ said:
Agree - as I mentioned before, the F-5s I seen in Botswana were beautiful, sad to see them given up so soon.

What I thought was the silliest thing of them all was the destructin of all the Arrows. What did that prove?!?

AFAIK they destoyed the aircraft, jigs, tools and most of the blueprints to make sure the CF-105 program couldn't be revived under a new government.

Nonskimmer · Sep 19, 2005

So again, what did that prove? Even if that were true, it still doesn't make a lot of sense.

FLYBOYJ · Sep 19, 2005

Childish!

Nonskimmer · Sep 19, 2005

O Canada.

If in fact that was the case that is.

Dac · Sep 20, 2005

I agree it made no sense.

There were plans for Arrow versions that included bomber, recon and a Mach 3 interceptor. Avro would probably have been building Arrows into the 1970s with modern avionics and weapons systems, not to mention other projects they had planned. They didn't even put the nuke warheads on the Bomarcs until 1963 and then removed them again permantly in 1969. It was a usless system for most of its deployment.
Not one of Canadas finer moments.

Nonskimmer · Sep 20, 2005

Ah that's right, I'd forgotten about the planned bomber variant. I had a good book on the Arrow, but I haven't been able to find it. I'm thinking my nephew "borrowed" it. I'll have to track him down and interrogate him.

It's really too bad they never got to at least test it with the Iroquois. I'd like to know how well it would've actually performed.

FLYBOYJ · Sep 20, 2005

I think you would of got this super-fast interceptor, not to maneuvable, but a very capable fighter that might of been around for many years...

Kind of Interesting - Jimmie Carter cancelled the B-1 - Imagine if he ordered all the drawings and tooling destroyed?!?!

evangilder · Sep 20, 2005

FLYBOYJ said:
Kind of Interesting - Jimmie Carter cancelled the B-1 - Imagine if he ordered all the drawings and tooling destroyed?!?!

Scary thought, considering how well it has done for us now.

FLYBOYJ · Sep 20, 2005

Yep - it actually had done well now that all the bugs are worked out.....

Still trying to find information on Arrow maneuvability....?!?!

Dac · Sep 20, 2005

Nonskimmer said:
Ah that's right, I'd forgotten about the planned bomber variant. I had a good book on the Arrow, but I haven't been able to find it. I'm thinking my nephew "borrowed" it. I'll have to track him down and interrogate him.

It's really too bad they never got to at least test it with the Iroquois. I'd like to know how well it would've actually performed.

With 19,350lbs. thrust at military power and 25,600 lbs. with afterburner it would have taken the Arrow over Mach 2 with ease.

How would you like to fly this?

FLYBOYJ · Sep 20, 2005

I heard about this but never seen pictures of it - interesting!

That must of been a blast to fly. Although the B-47 looked fragile I am told it was quite maneuvable and could be looped and rolled. Would of been fun to do with an extra 19,000 pounds of thrust behind you!

Nonskimmer · Sep 20, 2005

I'm thinking it's pretty safe to assume that it wouldn't have been the most manoeuvrable plane in the sky, but then it wouldn't have had to be for it's intended role(s).

What book is that from, Dac?

Dac · Sep 20, 2005

The book is just titled "Arrow" and was put together by the Arrowheads. The publisher is Boston Mills Press.

Its got a lot of technical data, pictures and schematics I haven't seen anywhere else.

Nonskimmer · Sep 20, 2005

I thought so. That's the same book I've got. I'm sure my nephew scooped it, the little thief. I'll call him up later tonight about it. He'd better not have destroyed or lost it.

Dac · Sep 20, 2005

FLYBOYJ said:
I heard about this but never seen pictures of it - interesting!

That must of been a blast to fly. Although the B-47 looked fragile I am told it was quite maneuvable and could be looped and rolled. Would of been fun to do with an extra 19,000 pounds of thrust behind you!

I've read that the B-47 fooled some pilots into thinking it was a fighter. Unfortunately it couldn't handle the Gs like a fighter and could shed its wings in a high-G maneuver.

Dac · Sep 20, 2005

Nonskimmer said:
I thought so. That's the same book I've got. I'm sure my nephew scooped it, the little thief. I'll call him up later tonight about it. He'd better not have destroyed or lost it.

It might be hard to replace, I don't think they printed very many.

evangilder · Sep 20, 2005

That added engine sure would effect the balance when landing and taking off, I would assume. I have a picture of the B-47 at KI Sawyer taken in about 1958 somewhere. I will see if I can dig that out and post it.

Dac · Sep 21, 2005

The thrust was also off-center causing handling problems.

FLYBOYJ · Sep 21, 2005

Dac said:
The thrust was also off-center causing handling problems.

I would think so. Any information on the pilots who flew it?

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

Captain

Airman 1st Class

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Airman 1st Class

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"Shooter"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman 1st Class

Attachments

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Airman 1st Class

Captain

Airman 1st Class

Airman 1st Class

"Shooter"

Airman 1st Class

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads