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

SoD Stitch said:
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.
Click to expand...

It probably was not area ruled at the time but became so years after the fact through the miracle of historical revision. Of course us old timers have erred by telling the youngsters that it was "coke bottle shaped" when the bottles are now straight sided. The Arrow's fuselage was as straight as a modern Coke bottle.


Sorry, I did not mean any insult to Lincoln's mother. Army boots are generally pretty good footwear and a lot better then those chinese runners I bought a couple of years ago.

I misspoke about my cat's head and the cockpit. What I meant to say was that it is the exact same shape as the canopy as shown by this photo:



Sadly, I was unable to post a picture of our cat because he bit me when I tried to take his picture. His head is round just like the Avro canopy.

johnbr said:
The Arrow pilots had very strict orders not to go over Mk 2.One pilot in order not to go over Mk 2 in one flight he put the plane in a 1.8mk clime.
Click to expand...

The only impartial and reliable information I have on the maximum speed is from RCAF tests which indicates Mach 1.4. There is a mention of Mach 1.98 in a Avro brochure but that does not really prove much since I have also seen a technical manual for the Enterprise that indicates a maximum speed of Warp 9.9.

Which Arrow pilots were ordered by who not to exceed Mach 2, and why? Since Avro claimed a maximum of Mach 1.98 with the J-75s which engines were used for the Mach 1.8 climb?

Today with supercomputers available for $10,000 [Nvidia Tesla with 1 Teraflop capacity] it should be possible to accurately flight test a digital model of an aircraft. Do you know if any accurate dimensioned drawings of the aircraft still exist?

Honestly, as a Canadian, I wish you were right but even if the Arrow was a great Mach 2.5 interceptor that would not have been any worry for the US companies since it was so expensive as to be completely uncompetitive.

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.

Also regardless of the performance of the Arrow it could never have outsold the F-110. That one was so good that all US services wanted it and they never agree on anything. To me, this proves that the F-110 is one of the greatest, if not the absolute greatest, aircraft of the twentieth century. There is no doubt that it was produced by a conspiracy of McDonnell employees who were clearly determined to build a better aircraft. There is no denying it.
 
While the Phantom II is truly one of the all time great aircraft, in design terms it was bit of a mess. They didn't droop the tailplanes and turn the tips up because it looked good

Regarding the CF-105, if things had panned out a little differently the aircraft would not have had to be built solely for the RCAF. In 1955 the aircraft was being seriously considered by the USAF and, while on a visit to Washington at this time, the British MoS was shown the details of the project which greatly impressed him. As a result of this a British delegation visited Canada in early 1956 to look more closely at the project.

As a result of this visit the Gloster P.376 was cancelled with the prototype about 60% complete and a British order for the Arrow looked nailed on.

It never happened because it was decided instead to accelerate the F.155T requirement which the Arrow did not meet and for which the Fairey Delta III had been selected and which was supposed to enter service only a year or so behind the Arrow anyway. Needless to say this did not materialise either because of the 1957 whiter paper but the closest 'real world' equivalent to the F.155T/Delta III was the MiG 25, which suggests the requirement may have been a little unrealistic anyway. Therefore a UK/Canada F-105 might have happened if a more pragmatic view had been taken (and of course not forgetting THAT document from 1957)

All ifs and buts of course, but an angle I have not seen covered on the thread.
 
Waynos said:
They didn't droop the tailplanes and turn the tips up because it looked good
Click to expand...

These appear to be corrective measures that worked extremely well.

Waynos said:
Regarding the CF-105...the aircraft would not have had to be built solely for the RCAF. In 1955 the aircraft was being seriously considered by the USAF and...a British delegation visited Canada in early 1956 to look more closely at the project.
Click to expand...

The first flight of the Arrow was in late 1956 so the interest was based solely on the manufacturer's claims. The US was so interested in the project that NACA (early NASA) even provided trade secrets to Avro in November 1954 for no charge. Part of the text read, "The Company's estimate of zero lift drag at subsonic speeds should be increased by 50 percent or more...Substantial reductions in drag throughout the supersonic speed range should be possible by proper application of the area rule."

This was the secret of mach 2+ flight that the US spent millions of dollars to discover and yet they gave it to Avro for free. Obviously they were trying to help the program.

I'm no expert on "the proper application of the area rule" but I can see that the shape of many early fifties aircraft series changed noticably before they could fly faster than Mach 2. The shape of the Arrow changed little over this same period and I expect the drag remained too high for sustained Mach 2 speeds.

The US government was interested but only if the aircraft performed according to specification. They must have been from Missouri. There is nothing I can find to suggest that the Arrow or the Orenda engine actually met specifications so sales did not materialize. That is no way the fault of the customers and Canadians should not blame them because we were conned.

Waynos said:
Therefore a UK/Canada F-105 might have happened if a more pragmatic view had been taken (and of course not forgetting THAT document from 1957)
Click to expand...

Didn't they declare manned aircraft obsolete or something in that White Paper? Even if they had not, you are assuming that the Arrow could actually meet the specifications. After five years and $308 million or $51M per plane[today it would be about $2.2 billion or $370M per plane] the aircraft still could not be shown to perform as advertised.

Once the jig was up they tried to destroy all traces of the aircraft for obvious reasons. Perhaps now enough data has been found to actually test the machine. That would be great but even if it does perform well that does not justify the many accusations made by some Canadians against our friends in the US. The Arrow zealots are a source of national shame and I am sorry that they have falsely accused our friends and allies in the south.

Trudeau said that living next to the USA was like sleeping with an elephant. Amusing analogy, but an elephant can keep you warm and safe just as long as you don't do something stupid like biting it in the ass. Why the little liberal dweebs here in Canada keep biting is completely beyond my understanding.
 
The MK"2 orders was told to my dad by one of the test pilots.He also is the one how told of the Mk'1.8 clime.The best story he told to me is they would take the plane up to very high altitude over James bay and throttle back and glide back to Toronto.
 
I bring this topic into a little different perspective In 1940 the Brits told us we weren't capable of building technical aircraft hence were building the Blenheim , Hurri and Lysander all rag and tube
and 14 years later with a very small population we attempted to build an air force from the ground up with its own equipment

DHC 1 Chipmunk ....pretty fair little trainer
DHC 2 Beaver .... best utility aircraft ever made possibly
DHC 3 Otter..... the first flying pick up truck
DHC 4 Caribou I think the Aussies are stiil using this aircraft the US liked it in Viet nam
DHC 5 Buffalo
CL 41 Tutor still flying with Snowbirds
CF 100 the Clunk still flying in the 80's as a EW aircraft
CP107 nothing could match it for its time on station nor weapons load in the patrol aircraft
CC106 Yukon long range transport

thats a complete air force the only thing missing is the 130 type hauler and the fabled Arrow
It was a gallant try by a smaller power its really to bad most Canadians are not aware of what a giant leap was made by this country in the field of aviation in the 40's 50's and 60's
 
I'm so mad I dont know where to start. I tempted to call most of whats posted in this thread as outright lies but for now I'll assume its just born of ignorance.

Lets see where to start

Murrray B wrote


With a little bit of effort you can find a book with the complete log of all the Arrow test flights, just like I have. Jan Zurakowski took the Arrow up to mach 1.89, Spud Potoki took it up to 1.98, Peter Cope and Jack Woodman (an RCAF pilot) both took her to 1.7. Spud's 1.98 run was at 50,000 ft and he specifically stated that he was forribidden to exceed mach 2.0.

So Murray are you calling all four test pilots liars? Der Adler, do you think that Murrays quote is so funny now? Zurakowski was a WW II Spitfire ace and a Meteor test pilot and had superb reputation. The other three weren't slouches either.


Of course the Arrows fuselage was area ruled, not as obvious as say an
F-105, but it does taper in the middle. This was learned from the earlier F-102 and was incorporated into the Arrow.

Today with supercomputers available for $10,000 [Nvidia Tesla with 1 Teraflop capacity] it should be possible to accurately flight test a digital model of an aircraft. Do you know if any accurate dimensioned drawings of the aircraft still exist?
Click to expand...

If you're really interested pick up a copy of Microsoft FSX, then go to Alpha sim and order the Avro Arrow addon. You can take her up to 60,000 ft and exceed mach 2.0 easily, thats with the Iroquois engines.


The Arrow was manufactured using the "Cook Craige" method of manufacture, meaning that although only the 6 prototype aircraft were totally completed there was a complete assembly line ready to go with several aircraft already on the line. The 51 million per plane is a completely misleading figure as any future orders would be built on the same production line. When you consider what the Canadian government spent on fighters after the termination of the Arrow program $420 million for F-104s, not including weapons system or fire control, plus the F-101 purchase( a plane originally rejected by the RCAF) the Arrow doesn't seem so expensive: Avroe's last offer being 3.75 million per plane complete with weapons systems, firing control and spares.


Here you make it sound as though Avroe destroyed eveything as part of a coverup. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everything that has been saved concerning the Arrow was smuggled out by Avroe employees. It was the Canadian military that was destroying everything.


Being born shortly after the cancellation of the Arrow I grew up in its legend and myth. I have found that there are three types of thought regarding the Arrow. First there's the debunkers, those who trash the Arrow to destroy the "myth "as they see it. Then there's the fanatics , the somewhat conspiracy minded people who believe and pursue the legend. Then there's the third group those who just want the truth. I belong to the third group.

So what are the truths?

-The Arrow was a mach 2 interceptor with the J 75s
- it would of been faster with the Iroquois, but the airframe and air intake
would of limited speed to mach 2.2-2.3
- the airframe was comparable to the best the world had to offer
-the Iroquois broke more new ground than the Arrow, one was secretly
smuggled to Great Britain and only returned a few years ago
-the flight test program although proceeding slow was proving the
the aircrafts potential and found no serious flaws. One area of concern
was high speed at low levels.

Why was it cancelled?

Probably a combination of factors. Cost over runs, inter service rivalry, personality conflicts, percieved obselence of manned fighters.

Why is it so controversial ?

Probably because of the way it was destroyed. The Canadian military came in like the Gestapo/KGB. They seized and destroyed everthing. Drawings, test results, tools, jigs parts. They cut the planes up with torches on the runway. They acted like they owned it and they were going to bury it where it would be forgotten. It was a complete waste of all the work and effort done so far. It was something one might expect from a Stalinist purge, not something that would occur in law abiding Canada. It was the Canadian taxpayers that owned the Arrow and something should of been saved. RCAF test pilot Jack Woodman wanted to take one up and ditch it in Lake Ontario to save it.

Its late now I'll be back tomorrow with more thoughts.

Slaterat
 
Interestingly the RAF version was to be powered by either the DH Gyron or Bristol Olympus engine, I would be interested to see a comparison between these engines and the Iroquois if anyone has one. The choice to re-engine the Arrow does not necessarily indicate any failing on the Canadian engine, we also re-engined the F-4 with RR Speys and ruined it.


Yes, they did declare that, and that was why the Delta III, Saro 177 et al were cancelled. However it does not automatically follow that the UK Arrow would also have been cancelled as it was decided that the EE Lightning had progressed too far to cancel, the same may have been said of the Arrow as the first Lightning flew in April 1957, the first Arrow in March 1958 (not '56).

Your comment about area rule is without foundation. While the very first area rule applications were very obvious like the F-102 and Buccaneer, the art was quickly refined to the point where you could hardly tell. The slab sided Arrow is no different in that respect to the TSR 2 (a mach 3 airframe that was speed limited by the materials used) A-5 Vigilante, Mirage IV or even the F-4 Phantom that you seem to like. Area rule is present on every successful supersonic airframe, but it is not always openly visible (Concorde?).

Your choice to divide the programme costs by the number of aircraft flown is also deliberately misleading. R&D costs are always massive and spent up front. How much would the F-4 come out at with the sdame number of aircraft built as the Arrow?

I am not picking on the F-4, as I said before it is an all time great, but you seem to like to use it as an example of 'a good aeroplane'.

I find the total destruction of everything to do with the Arrow after cancellation a disturbing parrallel to what happened in the UK when the TSR 2 was also axed. There is no wonder the conspiracy theorists leap upon such coincidences.
 
...I believe I heard not too long ago, by his own admission, famed test pilot Jan Zurakowski never had a pilots license. Sounded like a cool little tid-bit (or Tim-bit for our Tim Horton's eating Canadian friends) so I thought I would pass it on. Can anyone confirm?
 
Yeah actually I do. It was a funny quote. Do you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. I dont think its funny to call the Arrow test pilots liars. Thats exactly what that quote is saying and thats what got me going Der Adler. Thats a huge insult to throw at men who served their country(s) well and with integrity. All done nice and neat behind the sheild of the internet.

Would you think its just as funny to say the Bell X-1 never broke the sound barrier? Thereby calling Chuck Yeager a liar.

It brings to mind the video of 70 year old Buzz Aldrin decking that idiot that called him a liar regarding the moon landings. Seemed fair to me.

Waynos

I have read other references comparing the Arrow to the TSR 2, I'll have too read up on it.

Re Diefenbakers role in the Arrow debacle.

In his memoirs the "Chief "stated that he never ordered the scraping of the Arrow. Sounds like a pathetic statement coming from the PM. He had the power to forbid it and he failed. That was Canadian tax payers property that was destroyed.

Re The USA and its role

There seems little doubt that the Arrow wouldn't of existed without the help that was obtained from U.S. sources. Many components of the Arrow were made in the USA and the American Airforce was overall very helpful and positive. Did Eisenhower convince Dief to dump the Arrow and buy the useless Bomarc missile defence to protect the secret U2 program? Maybe. One thing is certain Diefs relationship with the US really soured after the Arrow cancellation and after the U2 incident involving francis Garry powers.
In the end though you have to say "we did it to ourselves"

Should the Arrow have been canceled

IMHO no. The program had already passed the point of no return the money was already spent. There was a fine airframe, probably the best jet engine in the world , both very soon to be merged. The need for the plane still existed and the iroquois had great export potential.

Slaterat
 

I agree with you Slaterat, I think the Arrow "would of" fulfilled its role with no problem but it seems the Diefenbaker Government had a different agenda. From my understanding there was friction between Ottawa and Washington way before the Arrow was canceled.

Back to the original point - I think the Arrow would of made a fine interceptor but at the same time I think the CF-101s, F-106s and F-4s of the day fulfilled the role. Was the Arrow this super fighter I've heard many Canadians tout? No - if an aircraft even as simple as an F-5 got in close quarters with it, the Arrow would of been toast. There was a lot of potential there, and it was a waste just to throw it all away.
 

No, you are jumping the gun here. I thought the quote about the Enterprise and Warp 9.9 was funny. That is why I put that part in quotes and laughed.

You might want to ask questions before jumping the gun. It will keep you out of trouble. You are getting pissed off about something that you have no clue about, or can you read my mind and know what exactly it was that I thought was funny?

1. I was not questioning the integrity of anyone, I thought a quote was funny.

2. You do not have to explain the integrity of someone who served their country. I know all about it, I served mine as well...

3. So your claim of hiding behind the internet is foolish as well.

So again, I ask you. Are you the authority of what I am allowed to find funny or not?

Would you like to me to send you an email requesting if I am allowed to find something funny before I do?



slaterat said:
Would you think its just as funny to say the Bell X-1 never broke the sound barrier? Thereby calling Chuck Yeager a liar.
Click to expand...

Well if you said something like that, I would call you a liar. It did break the sound barrier.

That however is meaningless to this discussion. Why? Because I was not disputing any claims about the Avro. I thought a quote about the Enterprise and Warp 9.9 was funny.

You jump all over me because I find a quote funny? Where did I dispute anything.

Again I tell you this: You might want to ask questions before making such posts. It only makes you look like a fool, because you are getting bent out of shape about something that I did not do.

Actually what you are doing is pretty funny as well!

slaterat said:
It brings to mind the video of 70 year old Buzz Aldrin decking that idiot that called him a liar regarding the moon landings. Seemed fair to me.
Click to expand...

So based off of the fact that you think I am calling these men a liar (which I never did, I thought a quote about the Enterprise was funny for crying out loud! ), you think it would be fair to "deck" me?

It seams fair to you to "deck" me because I thought a quote was funny????

Who is hiding behind the shield of the internet now????



Seriously man, you need to calm down. You are getting bent out of shape over nothing.

I think an apology is in order, after that I suggest you move on.

And based off of what started this whole discussion. This must be how Warf would feel after reading what you just wrote:

 
If you're really interested pick up a copy of Microsoft FSX, then go to Alpha sim and order the Avro Arrow addon. You can take her up to 60,000 ft and exceed mach 2.0 easily, thats with the Iroquois engines.
Click to expand...

You cannot base anything about an aircraft's performance on a flight sim. Period. I have flown air combat on a flight sim AND flown aerial combat at Air Combat USA. They are completely different. How do you know that the sim programmer had any idea about the flight characteristics of the Arrow?
 

Oh come on Eric. We all know that video games are perfect representations of reality. Hell you can even feel the vibrations in your ass, the G Forces pushing you into the seat....
 
slaterat said:
Yes I do. I dont think its funny to call the Arrow test pilots liars.
Click to expand...

Some pilots during WWII claim to have broken the sound barrier and I do not have any idea why they made that claim. Avro employees are not an impartial source of information and no one else confirms that the aircraft met specifications. Do not forget that it must have, at least, a "...mission radii 200nm high speed and 300 nm maximum range..."

Now, about the aircraft itself. A delta is the wrong configuration for good turning. This is not political but governed by the laws of Physics.

Every other aircraft series was changed visibly when redesigned for Mach 2+. Many even managed to do this without extensive use of titanium or special steel alloys. If you push a brick hard enough then I expect is can exceed mach 2 if it does not burn up first. That does not mean it can meet the mission radius specification.

RCAF data indicates mach 1.4 and Robert MacMillan writes in a May 8, 1959 letter to Diefenbaker, "I believe that this Arrow should be kept for historical purposes. It was the first Canadian aircraft to exceed 1000 miles per hour..."

Even if the aircraft could exceed Mach 2 that does not mean it would have a useful mission radius. The specification is more than just about the speed. The aircraft must meet all of the specifications.

It seems to me that Avro's use of titanium shows that there is considerable heating due to drag.

Now compare the two Convair deltas, the Dagger and the Dart. See how the Dart has that ooh la la hourglass figure? All Avro did was tinker with the nose, inlets and tail a little. That does not sound like proper application of the area rule to me.

After fifty years this matter should be laid to rest once and for all. How can we get the aircraft tested by impartial (not Canadian, American or British) evaluators?
 
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
646
Gnomey
A
CF-100 Canuck
Replies
4
Views
940
Elvis
Menu
Log in
Register