RAF Arrow F.Mk1

[MartG]

While working on the CF-100 I decided to throw this together too - its the early release Hobbycraft kit, so has a number of issues ( like the actuator bumps on top of the wings ), but turned out not too bad ( at least my young son went "wow" when he first saw it  )

In sticking a quartet of Red Tops under the wings I'm assuming the belly weapons pack is full of either AIM-7s or fuel

[bobbo]

Can you imagine four sitting next to a pair of Vulcans?

Or, better yet, in formation together with a pair of Vulcans??



Bobbo

[kitnut617]

Oooo !  I like that.  Out of interest, how many kits were produced with the actuators on top of the wing, I've four or five of these and they're not like that.  I wonder if the Firestreak/Red Top would fit inside the weapons bay, hmm! (sounds of gears turning )

[MartG]

I wonder if the Firestreak/Red Top would fit inside the weapons bay, hmm! (sounds of gears turning )

Probably - it could take 8 Falcons in two rows of 4, or 4 Sparrow II - so 4 Red Tops would probably fit OK

[The Rat]

This Canuck says me likey!

[kitnut617]

Probably - it could take 8 Falcons in two rows of 4, or 4 Sparrow II - so 4 Red Tops would probably fit OK

According to the Arrowhead book and drawings in the book, the Arrow came up short on what it could carry internally.  Max was three Sparrows or four Falcons.  When the Sparrows were to be carried, the fin tips of the missile had to protude through the bay doors as there wasn't enough room height wise.  I will have a look at my Firestreaks/Red Tops and see if they would fit.  Here's a pic of my attempt to replicate what the book shows for the Sparrow installation.

[kitnut617]

The white boxing had the actuators on the top, the black boxing underneath.  The decals in the latter later one are also far superior.

The 48th one has the same error.

Thanks for that Lee, mine are all the black boxing.  Mind you I have a number of Victoria Products vacuform Arrows to sell as I now own the moulds for this kit.  There's no u/c legs or decals though, something I'm looking into before I re-introduce the kit (that's the plan anyway  )

[ysi_maniac]

Well conceived and superbly executed! 

[MartG]

Max was three Sparrows or four Falcons. 

I stand corrected on the number of Sparrows - the pic does show just 3. The other diagram shows how 8 Falcons were meant to fit

[Weaver]

I brought the number-of-Sparrows issue up on Secret Projects a while ago, because I have the same diagram that MartG posted, showing three Sparrows, but I also had a head-on photo of a wind-tunnel model showing four.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4166.0/highlight,arrow.html

It turns out that, as far as I can tell, both were right:

1. The initial scheme had 3 x Sparrow II missiles, entirely internally and side-by-side, wingtip to wingtip.

2. Sparrow II was then cancelled and replaced by Sparrow III. The latter is almost 12 inches shorter and has 1.5 inchs less span than the Sparrow II, which allowed a scheme where four missiles could be carried with their fins staggered and overlapping. This is why, in the 4 x Sparrow pictures, two missiles are on long launch arms and two on short ones.

Mention has also been made of a scheme with 4 x Falcon and one or two Genies, all in the bay, but I've never seen a diagram of that.

My preference would be for a scheme where the bay was filled with fuel and 4 x Sparrow IIIs carried in tandem pairs on the corners on the fuselage, F-15-style.

[kitnut617]

You're right Martg, it does show eight, but now when I think about it , when I tried to put eight into the bay they just wouldn't fit, the Hasegawa Falcons I used were too long for what the kit has as a bay.

Weaver:  on my Super Arrow I came to the same conclusion, forget about the weapons bay and use the space for fuel, I then place five Sparrows semi-conformally across the bottom of the fuselage, placing one on each corner as you say, and then the other three which would be staggered for and aft.  On the Arrow Mk.1/2, there could be another two Sparrows on the corners behind the wheel bays to bring the total to seven carried. Might still be possible to do that on my Super Arrow

[MartG]

You're right Martg, it does show eight, but now when I think about it , when I tried to put eight into the bay they just wouldn't fit, the Hasegawa Falcons I used were too long for what the kit has as a bay.

Could just be you had the wrong version of Falcon - the AIM-4A was the shortest version at 77.8" ( 1.97m ) but the longest ones were the AIM-4E/4F at 86" ( 2.18m ) - except for the AIM-47 version which was 3.2m long. The 4E arrived in 1958 on the F-106, while the earlier shorter ones were around from 1955 on the F-102 and F-89H. Given when the Arrow was being designed they probably based the bay on the early Falcons.

[kitnut617]

The ones I was going to use went eventually into my F-102 so I'm assuming these are the ones for the Arrow.

[Sauragnmon]

You know... I saw that arrow and my jaw dropped.  That is a beautifully done and executed Arrow.  I swear to god I have to get another one (I had one when I was just starting, I lost it now, but I did it up stock in the original scheme, rather bland) and do a beautiful job on it.  That just looks too damn sweet.

Aside - Another thought to increase payload positions, would be to mount two pylons on the inside of the gear, aftward.  Mount points forward of the flaps, perhaps angled back under the flap angle, so the missile does not get in the way of the gears.  You could carry two or three missiles in that position, if set properly.  I proposed, for Kendra, a combination internal tank and recessed missile carriage for the F-14/15 concept, that could also be used for the Arrow, in principle, as you suggested, with the two missiles carried on the forward fuse, right under the intakes, and with three recessed under the fuselage for long range intercept.

Secondary aside thought - Arrow + Harpoon - thoughts?  Would make for a rather high speed anti-shipping boat, I say.  Could carry a decent number per bird in the bay alone.

[Weaver]

Since the Falcons in the diagram are labelled GAR-1, which was the original designation before AIM was coined, it's seems they must be A/Bs. They look like them too: the E/Fs had strakes ahead of the rear fins.


By the way MartG, forgot to say: damn fine model! 

Your CF-100 & CF-105 for the RAF is my preferred alternative history (and I'm sure many others) too: it could even have lead to a Commonwealth-based aircraft industry, rather than, or in addition to, a UK/US & UK/EU one.