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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

"20) 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."

The F-104 had between a .56 to a .75 depending how much fuel it carried and how it was armed. The Arrow had a Thrust/weight: Dry: 0.439 With afterburner: 0.650 - it also had two engines...

The F-4 had a thrust to weight ration of .86!

I don't know the exact thrust:weight ratio of a Lightning - but I do know that at one point during its flight it reached 1:1 when fuel had been burnt off. At that time it should get back to base pretty sharpish - but still.

And I don't if the P.1B was the first to supercruise in the world, but it's pretty damn close to the first.
 
What?? Really?? Almost 1:1? That defies physics for this airframe.

Specifications (Arrow Mk 1)
Data from The Great Book of Fighters[21]

General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 77 ft 9 in (23.71 m)
Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
Height: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m)
Wing area: 1,225 ft² (113.8 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 0003.5 mod root, NACA 0003.8 tip
Empty weight: 49,040 lb (22,245 kg)
Loaded weight: 56,920 lb (25,820 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 68,605 lb (31,120 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt Whitney J75-P-3 turbojets
Dry thrust: 12,500 lbf (55.6 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 23,500 lbf (104.53 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (1,307 mph, 2,104 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Cruise speed: Mach 0.91 (607 mph, 977 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
Range: 360 NM (410 mi, 660 km)
Service ceiling: 53,000 ft (16,150 m)
Wing loading: 46.5 lb/ft² (226.9 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight:
Dry: 0.439
With afterburner: 0.650

Even if you don't trust the T/W ratio quoted, just do the math.

T/W (empty)= 0.96
T/W (loaded) = 0.82 [I assume loaded means max internal fuel/no weapon loadout]
T/W (MToW) = 0.68
 
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. It was was test flown on the B47 they were able to shut down all the 47 engines and fly it solely with the Iroquis it supposedly bent the 47. The engine is visible on the aft starboard
 

Attachments

  • b47.jpg
    13.9 KB · Views: 232
I don't know anything about this experimental engine, but suspect that the hot section lifespan was SEVERELY limited due to the metallurgy of the day. And most likely of such grave limitations as to not be of production quality. Zoom fast. Throw it away.
 
There is no doubt the Arrow "would of" been a lot hotter with the Orenda Iroquois, but again we're looking at a "would of should of." As Matt pointed out I think there might of been some engine life limitations and again the fuel consumption of this beast was also something to consider.
 
I don't have the knowledge of metals and stress and fatique to talk about this on your level but maybe this link I'll provide can clear up any of the questions or doubts you or I might have as it tells what is what in retrospect to the metals. But it did complete 5000hrs of ground running
 

Those of us that are passionate about the Arrow have been accused of stating how good it is without facts. Is this statement not going out of your way to say that it is a bad performer without facts?
 
Instal said:
Those of us that are passionate about the Arrow have been accused of stating how good it is without facts. Is this statement not going out of your way to say that it is a bad performer without facts?
Click to expand...
You are correct and the only thing I could say about that is the across the board hot section and TBO increase seen on military turbine engines of the period as the continued into service. I know there are dozens of J-79 TCTOs that replaced many internal parts, bearings etc that increased engine life, I would think the Iroquois would of fell into the same situation.
 
Instal said:
Those of us that are passionate about the Arrow have been accused of stating how good it is without facts. Is this statement not going out of your way to say that it is a bad performer without facts?
Click to expand...

It is a statement of fact for the technology of the day. One must assume that engines of Canadian design were no different then the rest of the world's technical prowess. Don't take it personally.
 
No problem, I am not taking it personally. The whole point of the Arrow including the Iroquois engine is that is was anything but "technology of the day". I can't speak directly to the "hot section lifespan" as I have never heard the phrase before but it seems people like to assume the Arrow was no better than existing aircraft when evidence supports a different conclusion. Now don't get me wrong here there are many other people who are much better educated about the Arrows specifications compared to other aircraft but I have done some research (not just the movie LOL) and engineers in particular seem to agree that it had no peers.
 
Personally I think the F-106 was just as good, the BAe Lightning even better. Look at the performance numbers of all 3 aircraft and it clearly shows the Arrow was not in a legaue of its own. The Arrow carried a lot of "what ifs" and "maybe."

Aside from its designed interceptor role I don't think you "would of" seen the Arrow dogfighting much for reasons already explained...
 
Instal said:
I can't speak directly to the "hot section lifespan" as I have never heard the phrase before
Click to expand...

Aircraft and engines have parts that have TBO's and have to be replaced after a certain about of time.

The Lifespan of the Hot Section is the TBO of the hot section of the engine. You do know the different sections of a jet engine correct?

Instal said:
but it seems people like to assume the Arrow was no better than existing aircraft when evidence supports a different conclusion.
Click to expand...

That is because there are plenty of people that assume that the Arrow was teh greatest thing since bread and butter when they can not prove that. It was a would have, could have, should have, was not...

There is evidence to show that there were plenty of aircraft that were just as good and possibly better. The difference is those aircraft had a chance the Arrow did not.

Would it have been a great aircraft? Yes

Would it have been the greatest thing since bread and butter no?
 
Never have so many been mislead by so few for so long. [gee that sounds familiar for some reason.]

Greetings from western Canada.

It is not surprising that the guilty would destroy all evidence of a crime. In the case of the Arrow that did not include John Diefenbaker or his party.

All he did was inherit a failed aircraft program that had cost $308 million CDN for six aircraft, some of which were incomplete.

The Arrow was supposed to be a Mach 2+ interceptor that could pull 2G turns at 50,000 feet wouthout loss of speed or altitude. What was delivered after five years could not exceed Mach 2 and was unable to meet the turn specification.

The first problem is obviously due to its tailess-delta configuration. Without canards it is unlikely to turn well. The second obvious problem is the lack of a wasp-waist as seen on most other Mach 2+ aircraft. This should have increased drag and would have limited speed and endurance.

There is also an obvious problem with the landing gear:

Look at how the centreline of the wheels is offset from the centre of the lower cylinder. Braking should cause a torque that will rotate the wheel assemblies outward and cause the gear to splay outwards. The gear folded inwards and this should cause problems when landing the aircraft. The Arrow did crash at least once when the gear collapsed.
Code:



Avro Arrow gear

The aircraft and all related materials was ordered destroyed by Air Marshal Hugh Campbell to avoid "susequent ebarassment". This did not involve Diefenbaker or anyone else in his party.

The PM's choice was to cancel the program or proceed with purchasing an underperforming aircraft at over $12 million per unit. [that would by about 8 F-101 at $1.5M each or 6 F-104's at $2M. Don't know how many F-110s but it would have been several.]

Diefenbaker did the best thing for the Canadian taxpayer and I do not like you folks in the US saying bad things about him for it. How would you like it if I said Lincoln's mother wore army boots, Eh?

Anyway the Avro's cockpit is exactly the same shape as my cat's head. He bites and so did the Arrow.
 

I believe what you are referring to is called "area ruling"; you're right, the Arrow does not look like it was "area ruled" at all. I'm surprised it was able to exceed M1, let alone M2.
 

Murray, you've brought up good points about this mystical aircraft, at least in the eyes of some Canadians and I have to agree with a lot of what you have to say - but you know, Lincoln's mother DID wear army boots!

I never realized that Arrow's cockpit looked like a cat's head. But then again I'm glad we're not talking about the F-94's nose...
 

Attachments

  • untitled.bmp
    11.6 KB · Views: 84
Do you know where I can find the "What if" image? The one "painting that showed a pair of Arrows intercepting a Backfire. The Arrows were painted up in a low vis camouflage - the title - "What If"". FLYBOYJ mentioned it.
Google isn't any help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

XF-108 Rapier: The North American Ultimate Weapon That Never Was And Other Experimental Aircraft
Replies
1
Views
408
Gnomey
My shipmate, Lt. Cmdr. Larry R. Kilpatrick, VA-105 is home
Replies
3
Views
464
Airframes
CF-105 Arrow Information
Replies
16
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
Rare color footage Of The F-105 "Thud" Thunderchief Development Program
Replies
1
Views
645
Gnomey
A
CF-100 Canuck
Replies
4
Views
940
Elvis
Menu
Log in
Register