Avro CF-105 Arrow

[Captain Canada]

Nice find Logan ! That is awesome ! I agree, a bit cheesy, but it just looks so good......especially the opening scene when it first takes off. And the part with the JDAMs.

[Logan Hartke]

I do find it funny how the internal weapons bay doors sound like someone opening and shutting their glove compartment.

Cheers,

Logan

[Sauragnmon]

I still remember my grandfather telling me that they found one of the old Iroquois engines buried in the back rooms of the Sussex Labs in the 70s I think it was.  You know, I wonder how the 105 would have compared against a bird that was somewhat close in appearance, the Mirage 4000.  Alas, such things were not to be.  Granted, I would have ditched the Variable Intakes for Diverterless Supersonics.  I'd be willing to bet you could come up with a fair few ways to reduce the RCS of the aircraft, and comparable modern performance - we've already seen that delta birds are a viable option.  Much as a lot of people make their comments, just compare the concept beside other aircraft in similar designs - the performance is rather demonstrable.

It's just a case of getting the project off the ground, more than anything, I think.

[Captain Canada]

Ya I thought that was funny as well...you have an 80,000 pound aeroplane hurtling through the sky....and the only thing you hear is the co-pilot digging out the map ;-)

[KJ_Lesnick]

UK 75

1.) CVA-01 carrier proposal: What kind of carrier was this?  It must have been pretty incredible if it could operate the CF-105 off it

2.) CF-105 as an interceptor: It was designed for this purpose, and it was capable of considerable speed (supersonic cruise speed was equal or superior to the English Electric Lightning; maximum speed was probably similar to the Lightning) of which some of that could be achieved without afterburner; it had a modular weapons bay allowing a great degree of armament versatility and quick-changes between flights; A two-man crew reduces the workload over a single-man crew as the radar operator can compute intercept vectors for the pilot (Admittedly, this does raise questions as to the necessity of hooking the fire control system up to the flight-controls or autopilot to maneuver the plane into firing positions automatically). 

It's maneuverability was, overall, good due to it having neutral pitch stability and slight instability on yaw (which is how the FBW system was ultimately adopted: Essentially an FBW with three axis SAS integrated into the design, something that many believed was something the F-16 pioneered, which can be turned off in certain modes; a safety mode existed similar to the A-320 in damaged configurations so as to keep the plane from being overcontrolled; a conventional mechanical control method to allow the plane to fly without the FBW online).

Of course, the aircraft had no guns which would subject it to the same shortcomings the F-101B, F-102A, F-106A, and F4H/F-4 all had.  This would not pose a problem from the standpoint of interception of bombers; it would pose a problem in air-to-air combat, of which the aircraft was designed to be able to take care of.  It would have ended up in a similar boat as the F-4, and possibly worse as it didn't have the same visibility the F-4 had due to it's canopy arrangement.  I wouldn't be surprised if that could be fixed with enough money though

3.) The CF-105 as a Naval Interceptor: Theoretically a big enough carrier can operate any aircraft, the question is how big are we talking about.  Regardless, for most intents and purposes carriers require specific handling characteristics, most notably

• Good roll-authority down to landing speeds
  
• Good directional/lateral stability with the gears up or down
  
• The ability to rapidly and effectively increase and decrease the sink-rate of the aircraft
  
• An arrester hook which has to be configured to transfer it's load efficiently through the aft rear fuselage, allowing the plane to be yanked to a screeching halt in a few hundred feet
  
• A strong, yet light, overall fuselage and landing-gears to allow it to withstand the abuse of repetitive carrier landings and catapult launches (tough landing gears are not necessarily enough)
  
• Good over the nose visibility
  

The CF-105 was pretty heavy if I recall right, weighing in around 44,000 pounds empty (presuming the Orenda Iroquois) due to a number of factors including the arrangement of the landing-gear having to fit inside the wing; as for over the nose-visibility, the aircraft's nose doesn't appear terribly well suited for this, and being that delta wings tend to come in at a high alpha, I think you'd be in serious trouble there unless you did a continuous curve approach similar to that used for the F4U in WW2 except with a considerable wider curve due to the speeds involved (IIRC the Arrow came in pretty hot which puts more strain on the arrester equipment, both carrier and plane).

4.) New Arrow Variants with Air to Ground capability: The weapons package could be fitted with the means to carry 4 x 750 to 1,000 pound bombs (not much truthfully); I'm not sure how amenable the wings would be to carrying substantial load bearing capability pylons, but if you could, it might be smart to consider the means to carry either bombs or missiles depending on what you could get away with.  Strafing could be made do-able with a gun-pod; one could also develop a gun that could be fitted into the fuselage.  It could be taken out with the rest of the package.  It would allow a quick swap to all air-to-air intercept, air-superiority, air-to-ground (2 x 750-1,000 pounders with a gun in the middle), and so on.

5.) USAF Ordering Arrow: The USAF was planning to buy the F-108 at first.  While they ultimately passed, it's possible that competition with the CF-105 could lead to the design continuing along.  The CF-105 would be better off than the F-106 as an interceptor admittedly; I don't know how well it would be suited to carrying the bomb-load the F-105 had (14,000 or so); the F-111 would be out of the question as it could carry 25,000 pounds of which 12,000 or so was a routine load for missions.[/list]

[PR19_Kit]

It may be silly, but it sure is pretty.

YouTube: 5th Gen SUPERSONIC CF105 MK3

Looks all kinds of wonderful, doesn't it? 

And VERY modellable too!

[Captain Canada]

A great video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG04_Ixzhw4

Especially near the end, when they talk about how she was designed and built as a production bird.....there were scores of them finished and /or in various stages....

[kitnut617]

Came across this today, Ah 

Dual-seat configuration CF-105K

Steven L  

They were always two-seaters ---

[Librarian]

Incredible aircraft. The Soviet alternative was the TU-128 and this aircraft had a very long and somewhat successful career. Both aircraft were entirely logical if there operational theatre was over and around the Pole.

[kitnut617]

Well, even the CF-105 was a bit ""short-legged"" to go that far, librarian.  The Mk.2 with the Iroquois only had a 600 mile radius of action.  That didn't even allow it to leave Canadian airspace to the north  ---

Almost as soon as the Mk.1 started flying, the RCAF deemed it needed at least a 1000 mile radius  ------ 

[Librarian]

I really should have looked at the specs . I 'assumed' range from the size of the aircraft. Far too knackered right now to read too deeply into it but it does look rather formidable.

[kitnut617]

Well 600 mile radius at the beginning looked really good on paper (that's somewhere between 150-200 miles more than what the UK is from top to bottom).  In Alberta alone, if one took off in Calgary, it might make it to Yellowknife and back--- Yellowknife is just a bit further north than the Alberta/Northwest Territories border

[Captain Canada]

I'm sure they could have found places to put extra fuel in an airframe that big.....

[kitnut617]

I believe one of them was where the weapons bay was Todd, and then carry the missiles semi-recessed.  Evan had told me that a big wing tank idea they had would also have had the u/c in them  ----

[KJ_Lesnick]

kitnut617

[quopte]Well, even the CF-105 was a bit ""short-legged"" to go that far, librarian.  The Mk.2 with the Iroquois only had a 600 mile radius of action.[/quote]I'm surprised the range was so poor considering it was designed to cruise supersonic w/o afterburner.