Arrow cannon options?

[kitnut617]

Right, same year.

The F-4 was really the main reason the Arrow was cancelled.  Avro wanted to sell the Arrow to the US, but they were developing the F-4.  So when no order came as the US policy is to buy home grown products, all the Arrow development was left to Canada, at tremendous cost.  Britain didn't really want it either as they wanted point defence fighters (Lightnings, and their own home grown product), not long range intercepters

[Ollie]

Also remember that the Arrow had so much on its shoulder it was crazy.  And that Avro Canada had a story of poorly managing programs (CF-100).  

I think the Arrow, even with Iroquois, would have had a tough time to best the F-4, and the Arrow was a rather touchy bird to fly (if you check Zurakowski's pilot notes).

 

[rallymodeller]

F4H flew on May 27th, 1955 and CF-105 Mars 25th, 1958.

Not 1955, 1958... 27th May 1958.

same engines (at the beginning)

I don't understand this statement... the Phantom always used J-79 (to my knowledge) whereas the Arrow prototypes all used J-75 waiting for the Iroquois (on the RL-206, they were mounted on the plane on 20th February 1959, the day of the cancellation...)

The Arrow had 40% more power than the Phantom , had much better aerodynamics, internal weapon carriage which reduced drag, nearly 3 times more wing area which improved drastically agility at height.. climb was also vastly superior (10 000 m/mn for the Phantom, 13500 m/mn for the Arrow)

In fact the plane was more in the class of the F-108 (as interceptor) or F-111 (had it been developed into a strike aircraft).

Nope. The Arrow was in the same class as the F-106. Always was, and was designed to be. The F-108 (had it been built) had a huge speed and range advantage over the Arrow - in it's projected final configuration the Rapier would have had a maximum speed of M3.2 and a range of 1000-1500 miles.  The F-106 was an exact contemporary of the Arrow and matched it (or exceeded it) in just about every way with the exception of rate -of-climb, where the Arrow was better. But then, there were a few aircraft that were better than the Arrow in that department (like the Lightning and F-104).

[rallymodeller]

The F-4 was really the main reason the Arrow was cancelled. Avro wanted to sell the Arrow to the US, but they were developing the F-4. So when no order came as the US policy is to buy home grown products, all the Arrow development was left to Canada, at tremendous cost. Britain didn't really want it either as they wanted point defence fighters (Lightnings, and their own home grown product), not long range intercepters

Actually, the USAF was really concerned about the gap a cancelled Arrow would leave in Air Defence Command -- so much so tha US Secretary of Defence John Foster Dulles tried to get the US government to bail out the Arrow program.

And Ollie -- the CF-100 was actually not that badly managed. The development time on the Canuck was no more than any other aircraft of the time, and shorter than some...

[kitnut617]

Actually, the USAF was really concerned about the gap a cancelled Arrow would leave in Air Defence Command -- so much so tha US Secretary of Defence John Foster Dulles tried to get the US government to bail out the Arrow program.

Yes, but only when it was announced that the Arrow was cancelled.  Up to that point it was the competition

[jcf]

Actually, the USAF was really concerned about the gap a cancelled Arrow would leave in Air Defence Command -- so much so tha US Secretary of Defence John Foster Dulles tried to get the US government to bail out the Arrow program.

Yes, but only when it was announced that the Arrow was cancelled.  Up to that point it was the competition

The Arrow was never a viable competitor for any USAF requirement for a very simple reason...even if it had been ordered, AVRO would not have been able to deliver the required numbers in the required time.

I've always loved the Arrow (what Canuck dosen't?) but it was not  the Golden Wunder-machine as is so often claimed. Ditto some of the US fantasies about the F-108 that never was.

Oh and Randall Whitcomb's book?...I have it and it is full of howlers and basic historical errors. Some good info but way too much blind flag-waving and simply poor research.

[elmayerle]

I'm a bit puzzled with the time line here.  Why would an Arrow be replacing an F-4, they were designed and built at the same time, the Arrow's first flight being a month before the F-4's first flight.  They both used the same technology, engines (at the beginning) air intake system, (edit) same weapons etc. flew at about the same speed and were designed for the same market in mind.

The Arrow was supposed to be a long range intercepter, but I don't consider 600 miles as being very far.  The book I have on the Arrow (for those who know the Arrow books, it's the one with the bright blue sky and the Arrow pointing straight up on the front) goes to great length to explain how Avro was trying even before the first flight, to extend the range to a 1000 miles or even 1500 miles.

In the book it has some maps on where the Arrow's would have been stationed and how they overlapped. Well, with the range it had at the beginning it couldn't even leave Canadian airspace.   To put it in perspective, if one was stationed in Calgary, it's range would be a couple of hundred miles north of Fort Mcmurray (which is almost to the mile 400 miles from Calgary, I know I drove it),
or if in Britain, and one was stationed at Hurn, it could get to the Orkeneys and back.  Not very far in my view.

For the Mk.3 the book goes on to say that they considering carrying 4 large fuel pods (the books words) under the wings, two under each with the undercarriage folding away between them, which meant that the undercarriage system would have to be totally redesigned.  Having six models of the Arrow and studied them quite a bit, I don't think that would have been possible.

Using the info from the book, I'm building a Mk.3 What-If and the only solution I have come up with for the undercarriage, as I've gone with using four 600 gal drop tanks, is to move them to the fuselage.  I've also done away with the weapons bay and this space would be used for fuel, the weapons being mounted semi-conformal along the bottom and fuselage corners.  The weapons I'm using are those which were developed for the YF-12, AIM-49's I think, which were a smaller (and pre-) Phoenix.  I've done a number of other changes to the airframe but the story behind that will have to be told elsewhere.

Robert

From what I've read, the Mk.3 would've had improved Iroquois and higher performance Fieri inlets, but the main gear would've been in the same location.  Now, the Mk.4 and later variants (esp. the ramjet-augmented, cranked wing, high-speed/high-altitude Arrow) might well have had the main gear retracting into underwing pods that, depending on variant, would either be fuel tanks or combination fuel tanks and ramjet pods.

Mmm, the J79 used in the original F4H-1 had a max. afterburning thrust of about 15,000 lbs where as the J75 version used in the Arrow Mk.1 had some 25,000 lbs thrust in full afterburner.

The Arrow would've been quite capable of taking the same radar/fire control system and weapons as the F-108 (actually, they'd've made an excellent match).

I won't claim the Arrow was perfect, that rather stalky main landing gear bothers me, but it had loads of potential.  I'm definitely doing one in ADC markings.

[Phnx28]

Kitnut617,

Your confusion is understandable , but the Arrow isn't replacing all Phantoms in my version of this scenario by any means; simply the British F-4M/Phantom FGR.2 order and maybe other orders for Commonwealth countries in the same general class. The POD idea for getting the Arrow to survive that I prefer has whatever spy the KGB (and the Lavochkin OKB?) planted in the Avro Canada plant get caught, hence the prototypes aren't destroyed quite so ruthlessly since the main motivation for such IIRC is no longer in play (as much at least). Thus, pattern aircraft exist in museums or on test ranges and such so that once Bombarc proves a disappointment, as in OTL, a new (Liberal?) gov't simply resurrects the cancelled Arrow program like Reagan would do later with the B-1. Britain even had four Mk.2s on order for testing when the axe fell in OTL, probably for possible adoption as the long-range stablemates which the Lightnings so badly needed. The Royal Navy is still getting it's F-4K/Phantom FG.1s since a navalized Arrow, cool though that would of course be, would probably only be usable on the latter-day HMCS Habbakuk or suchlike titans due to its sheer size.
Hence, following a larger RAF order (which seals the Arrow's salvation, since even Canada's orders might not be enough to justify the pricier later marks) and the equally regrettable (re: Arrow's cancellation OTL) cancellation of the F.155T program due to overlap with the later Arrow marks, the way is paved for a sort of "Unified Commonwealth Defence Procurement" or suchlike treaty; binding Canada, Britain, maybe India if the USSR can be kept out (see Glanini's superb "Wilson's Folly" thread in Alternate History for more possibilities there... ), and others to pool defense costs and standardize equipment and training as much as possible. The US is still predominant and the Phantoms get nearly all of their export orders, but the Commonwealth begins acting as a serious defense industry competitor in its own right from the resurrected Arrow program onward. (Maybe Italy substitutes for Britain's Phantom order, since IIRC they were looking at the F-4E pretty hard before going with the F-104S Super Starfighter.)

[kitnut617]

From what I've read, the Mk.3 would've had improved Iroquois and higher performance Fieri inlets, but the main gear would've been in the same location.  Now, the Mk.4 and later variants (esp. the ramjet-augmented, cranked wing, high-speed/high-altitude Arrow) might well have had the main gear retracting into underwing pods that, depending on variant, would either be fuel tanks or combination fuel tanks and ramjet pods.

Mmm, the J79 used in the original F4H-1 had a max. afterburning thrust of about 15,000 lbs where as the J75 version used in the Arrow Mk.1 had some 25,000 lbs thrust in full afterburner.

The Arrow would've been quite capable of taking the same radar/fire control system and weapons as the F-108 (actually, they'd've made an excellent match).

I won't claim the Arrow was perfect, that rather stalky main landing gear bothers me, but it had loads of potential.  I'm definitely doing one in ADC markings.

Apologies Evan, I'm trying to remember what I read but my books are all packed away so I can't go and refresh my memory.  It's the Mk.4 that I'm building a What-If off not the Mk.3, but with some thought as to what it might have ended up as, not as the few sketches that are in the book show.  When I get it built I'll explain my thinking better.

I have made one of my Arrows as maybe a Mk.3, I've added tailpipes that would resemble the Iroquois and also wing drop tanks just outboard the main undercarriage.  I also gave it a clear view canopy.

One of the models will be 204, which IIRC was the one that flew the fastest up to the time of cancellation. Another will be a Mk.2 used for weapons evaluation.  I've built a weapons bay following the drawings in my book.

Robert  

[Archibald]

that rather stalky main landing gear bothers me

Yep, it collapsed two times (june and november 1958).

something interesting is to watch the first mach 2 of various "countries" at the time...(behind the USA and the F-104 of course which had broke mach 2 in february 1956)
The Mirage III reached mach 2 on 24th October 1958,
the Griffon II followed on 27th October,
the Lightning made it on 17th november,
and the Arrow RL.204 mach 1.96 was on 25th November...

anyone know what was the first soviet aircraft to reach mach2 without rocket ? Was it one of the numerous MiG-21 ancestor ?