Avro CF-105 Arrow

[NARSES2]

I know what you mean mate. I've moved to the point now that when I load photo's to Photobucket I copy the link to a Word file that I then draft my backstory for the model on. Then it's simply a matter of copying the whole lot, story and photos, in one go from the Word document.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Zen

Thicker wing skins do not make a higher wing loading

No, but it makes it sturdier and able to withstand greater structural loads.

The lower the wing loading the more lift and responsiveness a aircraft have, and that means every change in air density, in pressure, every shift in wind, every thermal all effect the aircraft more.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that: There are many variables that affect gust-response (as well as maneuverability) such as aspect-ratio (wing-span squared divided by wing-area) or wetted aspect-ratio (span squared divided by wetted surface-area) and aeroelasticity

• For the same aspect ratio/wetted aspect-ratio, a higher wing-loading yields a lower gust-response
  
• For the same wing-area, a lower aspect-ratio/wetted aspect-ratio yields a lower gust-response
  

I'm not sure about the flexibility of the wing on gust, instinctively the stiffer wing would get knocked around more, but flexing can make you bounce a bit.

Making the plane rise and fall in as it passess through what would seem dependant on speed as a hump' at low speed, a 'bump' at higher speed and when going fast as a jolt. The faster you go the more 'jolts' and since you will experience more and more especialy over bumpy ground (hills and whatnot)

I should point out the issue of metal-fatigue is only one issue, another issue that should be thought of is that it can make pulling higher g-loads at low altitude more dangerous particularly if gust-response is high.

For the pilot the more severe and frequent the jolts the more damage the human body will recieve, from making life uncomfortable, to bruses, to detatched retinas and fractures in the bones, even brain damage (punch drunk like a boxer).

I've never heard of gust-response that bad, though I've heard of pilots getting bounced around pretty good and having difficulty reading the instruments.

TSR.2 had a very high wingloading that made for a smooth ride (described with autostabilisation off as like being on a train with only major bumps registering despite doing mach 0.9 and more).

I didn't know they had that feature...

In retrospect the half scale Blue Steal was probably of more importance since it could be used from a modified Buccaneer or Canberra.

Canberra sounds better as it can fly further up high and pop the missile off.

I agree with your position that would make a good recce-aircraft though...


elmayerle

There are also enough studied advanced derivatives to make for some interesting models.  The PS2 with the four ramjets, a lengthed fuselage, and canards being the most extreme (esp. in the ABM mode).

ABM mode?

I've got a file of Randall Whitcomb's art of the RAF version in Strike configuration with a scaled down Blue Steel if anyone's interested.

Sure, put it up!

Most likely France would have a Mirage IVB with two Iroquois.  They did in fact approach the Canadian government about buying some, but this was before the Arrow got cancelled and they had to settle for J75s.  That was likely part of what killed that project.

How much extra power did the Iroquois produce over the J75?

As I understand it, the initial build spec was the MG-10/Falcon simply to get aircraft operational that could go after the bombers of the period.  They'd planned to follow that as soon as possible with ASTRA/Sparrow II

I was under the impression that they hadn't really made up their mind and preferred the ASTRA. 

I can see some Firestreak/Red Top carriage externally, but for internal carriage I can see Blue Dolphin, a semi-active version of Red Top, being used initially until a full-active version could be developed.

I never heard of the Blue Dolphin but it sounds pretty cool...


Archibald

Now, just imagine the Arrow was saved in 1959. It entered service in 1962...

My theory is In 1969, when the MiG-25 entered service, only the Arrow could intercept it (because its performances were quite similar to those of the future F-15).

I thought the F-15 was significantly faster at high altitude?

What I don't understand with the CF-105 is the weapon system. Was it
- the MG-10 / Falcon of the F-106
- the ASTRA / Sparrow
- the AN/ASG-18/ AIM-47
Or another thing ?

If I recall the Saturn Astra was dependent on the AAM-N-3 Sparrow II, which had various problems due to the following

• To fit an active-homing radar inside the 8-inch diameter, they did not use an X-band radar; the radar band they used was actually affected by clouds and rain.
  
• I'm not sure if the Canadians were able to sort through the problems the Sparrow II had by either swapping out the older seeker, or using signal processing to weed out clouds, but it seems that they cancelled it ultimately
  

I do remember some proposals having forward-raked intakes and ASG-18's...

In every case, would the Falcon AIM-4 (with the MG-10) been able to catch a MiG-25?

I'm not really so sure, it was a hit-to-kill weapon, and the MiG's top-speed was very high.

The F-106's were successfully able to intercept BOMARC's in tests, and while the BOMARC's top speed was listed as being capable of doing Mach 2.8 or faster, the fact is that the MiG-25 was capable of going going faster...

• USAF and NATO appear to have listed the MiG-25 as being slower than it really was so as to possibly produce the illusion that we knew less than we did, and/or to produce the illusion that the F-15 was being designed for that speed
  
• While the Soviet Union was often technologically inferior to Western nations in terms of engine-development (as well as other things), they were able to achieve speeds in excess of Mach 2 with their engines: For the speeds they achieved, they were often restricted to pressure ratios around 2/3 to 3/4 that of ours for the same mach number (this has to do with turbine temperatures)
  
• The MiG-25's powerplant, the Tumansky R-15 had a five-stage compressor with a sea-level pressure ratio of 4.75 to 1; in comparison our J57 and J75 had pressure ratios of around 12.5, the J79 could achieve a pressure ratio of around 13.5-15, and could achieve routine operation at Mach 2.0 to 2.5, and momentary operation at Mach 2.8 to 3.2; the J93 and J58 had sea-level pressure-ratios of 8.8 and were rated for the same maximum mach number (Mach 4), though the J58's maximum mach-number at high-speed was somewhat lower than the J93 due to turbine-temperature limits.
  
• The MiG-25 used stainless steel-construction in the internal structural members, the skin was either made out of steel (or dielectric material in the case of the nose) on the stagnation points (nose, inlet lips, wing and tail leading edges), and the aft-fuselage (where the engines are) with the fuselage aft of either the canopy rim (or the rear canopy frame) to the mid-fuselage, and the mid-wing-chord using a high temperature grade of aluminum called D-19T, and a lower-temperature grade alloy on the trailing-edges of the wings: D-19T is capable of safe operation of 350^o C (662^o F) for aerospace applications provided the skin and structure were made of it (except the structural components below were steel), so I'm not exactly sure how hot it could go, but some deductions could clearly be made: The skin temperature at the canopy frame or aft cockpit frame could go at least to 350^o C or 662^o F, so the skin temperature at the nose is greatly higher; the skin even at top-speed was not at risk of buckling indicating the thermal limit for the airframe is higher than the engine to at least some extent (though I assume the airframe was designed to operate at high temperatures for obvious reasons), particularly because there was a proposed variant of the R-15 with a mach limit at least 0.3 higher (and ironically, it had a higher pressure-ratio and a six-stage compressor), and MIPCC was used sometimes during intercepts (basically a cooling medium is shot into the area in front of the compressor to lower the compressor-inlet temperature) which increased the normal top-speed considerably.  The aircraft had a nose-temperature gauge, and in some cases, unusually high temperature were recorded (I don't remember the exact numbers or source, but it most likely involved failed interception attempts against the SR-71) which likely indicates speeds that would normally only be achieved with MIPCC.
  
• The MiG-25's speed gauge was configured in increments of 0.2 going all the way around the dial up to three: Speeds over three look like 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and so on.  It's my assumption that the normal maximum mach-number is under 4.0 because there is no 4.0 on the gauge.  I'm not sure to what degree MIPCC increased the top-speed (there have been various arrangements proposed over the years that could boost maximum mach number by 0.5 to 2.5), though it's likely it would be able to go over 4.0 i such scenarios: Why they didn't modify the speed-gauge, I'm uncertain, but it's possible they just used the IAS and temperature gauge.
  

If I was to speculate on the aircraft's top-speed I would probably guesstimate a number of around 3.5 to 3.75.

I should point out that the destruction of BOMARC's might not have been with the Falcon...

I just love the AIM-47 / Arrow combo : the best fighter with the best weapon ystem, Ie the Tomcat of its time

The AN/ASG-18 and AIM-47 was a great combo.


Mossie

The wing cross-section kind of looks like some super-critical foils that would be developed later...

[zenrat]

... I've been having a lot of problems with Photobucket lately, takes ages to open and when it does, it's always crashing.  Especially when I have the forum open at the same time which makes down loading photos very difficult. So I've tried to do it differently, copied the link to an email, then copied that to here.

It's the frikkin pop up adds and clickbait page they have.  I have various ad blockers running but so far THEY are winning.

[NARSES2]

I got absolutely peed off with Photobucket taking for ever at best and normally jamming on me so a year or so ago I bit the bullet and took the cheapest paid option (wasn't much) and it's far, far better. So far I'm happy that I did.

[kitnut617]

I got absolutely peed off with Photobucket taking for ever at best and normally jamming on me so a year or so ago I bit the bullet and took the cheapest paid option (wasn't much) and it's far, far better. So far I'm happy that I did.

As I don't want to have another 3rd party website for my photos, I might just do the same Chris. I'll look into it and see what it is for a Canadian subscription

[PR19_Kit]

I got absolutely peed off with Photobucket taking for ever at best and normally jamming on me so a year or so ago I bit the bullet and took the cheapest paid option (wasn't much) and it's far, far better. So far I'm happy that I did.

Devious 'marketing' on the part of the site owners, they deliberately downgrade the 'free storage' area to make you move to the paid area, while still maintaining that it's 'free to sign up'. 

[loupgarou]

I got absolutely peed off with Photobucket taking for ever at best and normally jamming on me so a year or so ago I bit the bullet and took the cheapest paid option (wasn't much) and it's far, far better. So far I'm happy that I did.

Devious 'marketing' on the part of the site owners, they deliberately downgrade the 'free storage' area to make you move to the paid area, while still maintaining that it's 'free to sign up'. 

Yes, I hate them for their blackmail attitude. So I am - still - refusing to pay.

[kerick]

I got absolutely peed off with Photobucket taking for ever at best and normally jamming on me so a year or so ago I bit the bullet and took the cheapest paid option (wasn't much) and it's far, far better. So far I'm happy that I did.

Devious 'marketing' on the part of the site owners, they deliberately downgrade the 'free storage' area to make you move to the paid area, while still maintaining that it's 'free to sign up'. 

Yes, I hate them for their blackmail attitude. So I am - still - refusing to pay.

That's why I switched to flickr.

[Alvis 3.14159]

Airfix Vigi wings, etc fit nicely on the HobbyCraft Arrow.


Landing gear would have to be moved to the fuselage, unless a major reworking of the Vigi wing was done.

Alvis Pi

[kitbasher]

Arrow blueprints found, time for new Airfix/Eduard/Trumpeter/Tamiya kits!!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saved-avro-arrow-blueprints-ordered-destroyed-1.5416554

[Captain Canada]

Be cool if they'd publish the whole thing eh ! Cheers and thanks for sharing that.

[PR19_Kit]

Well done Mr. Barnes. 

What a  find. 

[zenrat]

Presumably they are the property of Avro Canada or their descendants...

<googles>

,,,who are currently Bombardier but might soon be Alstom.

[DogfighterZen]

As soon as i read where they're being displayed, i thought the same thing as the fisrt comment i read below the article... I guess Alanis Morissette's song title would apply... 

[jcf]

The blueprints are primarily assembly drawings, a number of which were published in the Arrowheads book decades ago. Not really anything new.


One of the drawings from the Arrow book.