Quote from: Archibald on January 04, 2009, 06:25:38 AM
I love this bird! Looks much better than the fatty F-89!

I second that!!!!

M.A.D

Looks good like that ---  I'm thinking of using some Scimitar wings on one of the CF-100's I have.

Here's something interesting, there were two Meteors (RA435 and VT196) that were used for afterburner testing and VT196 was sent to Canada and then loaned to Orenda so they could test afterburners for the Clunk.  It looked a lot like this in the pic below.

Quote from: Daryl J. on March 04, 2010, 05:47:43 PM
What is the difference between the Mk.IV and Mk.V kits in 1/72?

The V has the long tailplanes and wings, and the gun pod belly instead of the rockets, I think.....the wings for sure but maybe the gun pod/ rockets are the other way around !

Quote from: Captain Canada on March 05, 2010, 07:14:01 AM
the wings for sure but maybe the gun pod/ rockets are the other way around !

It's the other way around, the Mk.IV has the gun pack.

BTW I've got a very nice 1/48 Clunk vacuform surplus to requirement ---

Reviving thread.

Was looking at the 5D ECM conversion I did and suddenly thought: The Sabreliner used the wings and tail from the Sabrejet. The Learjet used the wings form a Swiss fighter prototype. What if Avro decided to make a Clunk-based light transport jet?

Wings, empennage, gear from standard CF-100; have to scratch or bash the fuselage and engines...

Nice concept Jeremy! A competitor to Canadair's CL-206 Sabreliner 

BTW: one of NA's original Sabreliner concepts (which I can't attach  ) had wingroot engines. So, you don't necessarily have to scratch rear-fuselage engines.

I think that with the "Clunkliner" I would stick with rear-engines; the timeframe of the idea (1958-59) has the Caravelle and other rear-engine aircraft already proving the superiority of the idea.

As I refine the idea in my head it begins to look something like a straight-winged L-1329 Jetstar, complete with paired engines on the rear fuselage. The Clunk itself was pretty big, so any bizjet based on is gonna be big as well. The wings would come from the Mk 5 (with tiptanks) as would the tail (vert. tail a little taller) and P&W JT12 engines. It wouldn't be as fast as a Jetstar (say, M0.7 - M0.75, the original CF-100's critical Mach was 0.84) but would probably have a service ceiling around 50,000ft (Mk 5's combat ceiling was 54,000 feet).

Now, I have a couple of CF-100 kits in both 1/48 and 1/72; all I have to find is a suitable fuselage.

And don't forget the Hawker Huntsman "business jet" proposal too.

These sort of things could fit well into the Swords-into-Plowshares GB that was proposed a while ago.

I keep staring at the Clunk, especially that "tipless" photo at the start of the thread, and wondering.  Lose the rocket system, pull the combat radar for a basic navigational set only, and add a Grumman-style rotating-folding wing just outboard of the engines for a carrier-based early 1960s-era ASW plane.  Or even keep the combat radar and carry a pair of Penguins for a ship-strike.

Or have I just committed blasphemy...

Quote from: Daryl J. on January 21, 2009, 10:30:04 PM
A Buccanuk!   I love it!!!!   (at risk of sounding like a gushing young lady).     This is seriously to-scale?



Daryl J., who has a couple Buccaneers left unbuilt from the HS Bucc-Off of 1999 (or Y2K)

Is there a foundry (or even a quarry) somewhere in Canada or UK that could supply the  solid lump from which this full sized aircraft would need to be machined?  A pair of Speys, Olympuses (Olympi) or Orenda Iroquios  would move it along   nicely.

"Canukaneer-----we don't launch missiles, we look for things to ram!"

Quote from: Rheged on May 04, 2011, 08:30:19 AM
Is there a foundry (or even a quarry) somewhere in Canada or UK that could supply the  solid lump from which this full sized aircraft would need to be machined? 

"The Canuckaneer. A weapons system hewn from the very living granite of the Canadian Shield!" -- Avro Canada-Blackburn brochure

Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on March 04, 2023, 10:30:21 AMCaptain is bang on there mate..she's a biggin which gives a heap of leeway ..weight is not much of a issue.
Missiles on the tips because rocket pods on wing tips never looks good..it's like they had to find a place to put them at the last minute..pods under wings with another set of Genies beside that...you've got planety of space to play with matey 
As the old saying goes ..some is good..more is better 

The AIR-2(MB-1) weighed 822 lbs (372.9 kg); four = 3,288 lbs. 

CF-100 Mk 5: 23,100 lbs empty; 33,450 lbs gross; 36,000 lbs MTOW; 29,000 lbs max landing weight.

MTOW is with full internal fuel which weighs ~ 10,500 lbs, which only leaves 2,400 lbs for crew, oil +
other consumables and  armament. If you go for fuselage tanks only you "save" 5,000 lbs, which ups
your load capability at the expense of halving the range. In that condition you'd be able to carry four
Genies, and safely land again after a patrol. Provided you're bringing them home with you, if not it'd
probably be moot.


JATO tests were done, including a series using six units, fuselage tanks only, wingtip pods and a 1,000
pound bomb under each wing. The pods each contained 29 missiles @ 18.5 lbs each = 536.5 lbs, add
in the weight of the frangible fibreglass nose and tail fairings, cardboard center body and hardware and
the weight is probably up around ~570 or so, times two = 1,140 lbs. Plus 2,000 lbs for the two bombs
and you're under the weight of the four Genies, but now with a limited range meaning the Genie Clunk
becomes a point defense interceptor. Hope you've got yer thermal skivvies 'cause you'll be based way
up north.


You cannot view this attachment. 

Hmmm, Canuck ZEL?

There were various proposals for missile equipped CF-100 interceptors, including with Genies.

The Mk.8 was the most elaborate, the drawing states it was to use the big Bendix Eagle, but
the missiles shown look like giant Sparrows. The pic of a Mk.V with four Sparrow Shows the
size discrepancy. The Eagle drawing shows what it looked like as of September 1959 and it's
completely different from what's shown on the Mk.8 drawing. The mock-up photo shows the
size.

I suppose one could scale-o-rama a Sparrow missile to somewhat match the Mk.8 drawing.
In 1/72nd an AIM-7 is 2" long, in 1/48th it's 3" long and in 1/32 it's 4.5" long. Of course it
would then bring up the issue of what name to bestow upon the monster Sparrow.


You cannot view this attachment.
You cannot view this attachment.
You cannot view this attachment.
You cannot view this attachment.

Jon I got the problem solved..big arse engines    .
One things is air itself..the further north ya go the colder it gets..yeah I think much more hrspurs would help a ton ..I normally does 🤗😁👿

There's an easy way out of this problem, fit longer wings!