CF-100 Canuk (The ''CLUNK'')

[Jay Laverty]

I'm thinkin' those two guys standing in front of the vertical landing are about to meet their maker!

 I think you are right Jennings! Gotta love those 50's/60's  "conceptual" illustrations!  

[Captain Canada]

Not to mention they're both going to be deaf. Kinda makes the headset on the one guy pointless.......

I've always loved that drawing. Especially the one in the background flying away. Just looks so big and tough.........




We gotta have a Clunker GB soon, I tells ya. Right byes ?

I've got a few spare kits to pass around......

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Corret me if I am wrong here but didn't the CF-100 have the same RADAR and fire control as the early F-89 Scorpion?  

What would a CF-100 look like if it were to incorporate the RADAR and fire control systems from the F-101 Voodoo? Would the wings be adapted to carry the Falcons and the fuselage be adapted to carry a pair of Genie's?  If it could carry the Falcons, then it would surely be capable of carrying the Sidewinder as well.  

[TsrJoe]

does anyone have any drawings of that impressive bird (or indeed any of the other unbuilt variants?), def a worthwhile modelling subject, could just imagine them operating outv a W.German field...cool

[John Howling Mouse]

The sound the front landing gear makes when it gets locked into position, on the mighty Avro CF 100.

The guys at Cold Lake and our local aviation museum said they were named "clunk" after the sound they made when crashing.... modeled after the way F-105's were called the "Thud."

 

[Son of Damian]

The guys at Cold Lake and our local aviation museum said they were named "clunk" after the sound they made when crashing.... modeled after the way F-105's were called the "Thud."

I've heard, though I don't know that it is true, that the USAF personnel started calling the F-105 the Thud after the noise it makes when it hits the ground, as a jab at the numbers being shot down over North Vietnam. Later this was changed to the nosie it makes on landing to be more politcally correct, the original reasoning not being great for morale.  

[jcf]

another fabulous one was the CF-100 mk8 (proposed after the Arrow disaster, in June 1959). Powerful radars and missiles such as Bendix eagle.
any drawings of this beast?
What the hell what the CF-100 mk7 ?

Seeing as the Mk.6 was the CF-100 with the Sparrows, maybe one of the other missile-armed proposals could be the Mk.7.

Howzabout the pair of Genies? Whats a couple of nukes between friends? 

Cheers, Jon

[Jschmus]

From Greg Goebel's Air Vectors site:

Following the cancellation of the Velvet Glove AAM, a few Mark 5s were used to fire Sparrow radar guided AAMs in tests and redesignated "Mark 5M". Four Sparrows were carried on the underwing pylons. There were similar trials with Canucks carrying four Hughes GAR-8 Falcon AAMs on underwing pylons, or carrying a single MB-1 Genie unguided, nuclear-armed AAM on each wingtip. Of course, no CF-100 ever carried these weapons in service.

There were several concepts for a "Mark 6", such as a machine with afterburning Orenda 11R ("reheat") engines and Sparrow armament. The "Mark 7" was to feature a thinner wing and Sparrow armament. The "Mark X" was a concept for a high-altitude machine that added a Bristol Orpheus turbojet to each wingtip; and the "CF-103" was a swept-wing version of the Canuck.

None of these machines were built. The CF-103 led, somewhat indirectly, to the development of the ultra-sophisticated Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow interceptor. The Arrow program effectively blocked development of improved Canuck variants, and unfortunately the CF-105 ended up being cancelled in 1959 in one of the great defense-procurement fiascos of all time.

Avro Canada then proposed a "CF-100 Mark 8" that would carry long-range missiles and feature improved radar and new engines, but the Canadian government had already selected the the US McDonnell F-101B Voodoo as their next-generation interceptor. The Voodoo wasn't an Arrow but it was certainly a generation ahead of the Canuck, and the F-101B would replace the Canuck in the RCAF for air defense in the early 1960s.

[dy031101]

When I read several online articles about B-57, I saw some mentions of CF-100 being evaluated for the night intruder role.

Does anyone have further info on it (such as line drawing, artist imression, details of modifications, and etc.)?

Thanks in advance.

[jcf]

When I read several online articles about B-57, I saw some mentions of CF-100 being evaluated for the night intruder role.

Does anyone have further info on it (such as line drawing, artist imression, details of modifications, and etc.)?

Thanks in advance.

The CF-100 first flew in January of 1950, the "Fly-Off" of the night intruder contenders (CF-100, B-45, XB-51, AJ-1, and Canberra) was in February of 1951.  Many consider that the CF-100, AJ-1 and B-45 being included in the fly-off was in the manner of window dressing as the decision had already been made.

The USAF team began evaluating the CF-100 a few months after the prototype flew and fairly quickly moved it down the list, mainly because of its size. The CF-100 was considered to be too small to carry the necessary bomb load without major redesign and that the necessary flue tankage to complete the intended mission profile could not be designed into the airframe. I've not seen any indication that any serious time was spent on attempting to redesign the CF-100 to fit the role. Especially as one of the linchpins of the A-26 replacement was to purchase an "off-the-shelf" aircraft. There is no mention of the night intruder project or any related design studies in Larry Milberry's book 'The Avro CF-100'.

Anyhow, based on chronology I'd say that the aircraft in the fly-off was one of the all-black Mk. 1 prototypes, 18101(FB-D) or 18102(FB-K).
Mikesh included photos of 18102 in his book 'Martin B-57 Canberra: The Complete Record' so it probably was 18102(FB-K).

To return to the world of "Whiffery" you can do anything you want to the CF-100 and call it a USAF night intruder. 

Jon

[Daryl J.]

See page 4 in the Uninhabited and Unafraid thread.   

[rallymodeller]

To return to the world of "Whiffery" you can do anything you want to the CF-100 and call it a USAF night intruder. 

Jon

Muahahaha! I have a profile for this!


First posted this back in 2006.

I'll also take this opportunity to post these three...

[Daryl J.]

What's that hanging under 59-0063?

TIA
Daryl J.

[rallymodeller]

It has TER on each outboard pylon (the CF-100 had two pylons under each wing, only used to hang chaff dispensers on the Mk.5D ECM aircraft) each with 3 LAU-3 19-shot 2.75" FFAR pods; wingtip pods in place (each with 29 FFARs), for a grand total of 286 Mighty Mouse rockets, and a 300-gallon drop tank under the inner pylons.

The CF-100 could actually sling up to 1000lbs per pylon -- Milberry's CF-100 book as some pics of Mk.2T 18105 doing bomb drop tests, and Avro apprently dropped 21 1000lb bombs. The quoted G-limit with four 1000lb bombs was 7g. I figure that the USAF would have the B-59 g-strengthened to handle higher G-loads and, as a side benefit, more pylons.

[Hman]

In my book about the Arrow, there's a couple a pictures and diagrams showing swept winged CF-100's which I might like to try an do.

About five years ago, I had cut out conceptual swept wings and tail planes to test-fit on my HC 1:72 CF-100, thinking I was sooooooo clever and original.

Then I saw a pic of the "real" static prototype...durn!

As for "ugly" well, that's all in the eye of the beholder.  To me, there is something very dependable, competent and comforting about that bird from every angle.  

It's a Canadian thing.  This is my land and that was my fighter...

Is it me or does it look like it is 'growling' - the reflection of the engines on the nose in the first picture!


"This is my land and that was my fighter..." I wish I could say that all we have is those Eurofighter JSF thingys...all microchips and no soul...