Avro CF/B -105 Arrow

[chrisonord]

Yet another  random  thought,  what  if the Avro  Arrow  was built to carry a  freefall nuclear weapon  at super sonic speed to a designated  Soviet target during  the 1950's.  If the aircraft   could as i have  read ,do over  mach 2.5 at high altitude , and over quite a  distance  it should theoretically  be a nuclear weapon carrier.
Any thoughts?
Chris

[The Wooksta!]

The missile bay isn't deep enough to carry a 50s nuke completely enclosed.  Semi recessed, possibly.

[Captain Canada]

I like that idea.

[jcf]

The Mach 2.5+ speed was the potential speed of the Arrow Mk.3, which was never built.
The max. speed of the Iroquois engined Arrow Mk.2 was to be Mach 2, combat speed Mach 1.5,
cruise speed Mach 0.92, combat radius 274 mi, max range 408 mi.

As designed it was not a long-range aircraft.

[Scotaidh]

The Mach 2.5+ speed was the potential speed of the Arrow Mk.3, which was never built.
The max. speed of the Iroquois engined Arrow Mk.2 was to be Mach 2, combat speed Mach 1.5,
cruise speed Mach 0.92, combat radius 274 mi, max range 408 mi.

As designed it was not a long-range aircraft.

It was really that short-legged?  Wow ... such a huge airframe for combat radius little more than that of a Spitfire (~250) ... What was in all that real-estate?  Was it all engine?

[chrisonord]

I am reall surprised at that too as rhat sort of mileage  would be done  pretty quickly too.

[PR19_Kit]

The Iroquois was a really big engine, yes, and the CF-105 had very thing wings, but I'm amazed they spec'd it with such a short range. 

Canada's a BIG place after all!

[chrisonord]

My thoughts too Kit. I suppose if it did make it into service, drop tanks  would  have  been an option for it.

[NARSES2]

The Iroquois was a really big engine, yes, and the CF-105 had very thin wings, but I'm amazed they spec'd it with such a short range. 

Canada's a BIG place after all!

Maybe it was simply a case of the airframe being all engine with not much room for fuel ? That and at the time a lot was being expected of missile technology to defend airspace ?

If you built an Arrow with "modern" engines it would probably be all fuel in comparison to back in the day.

[PR19_Kit]

If you built an Arrow with "modern" engines it would probably be all fuel in comparison to back in the day.

That caused me to look up some figures, with interesting results.

The Iroquois (it's the very devil of a word to spell!  ) was pretty powerful for its day, 19350 lbs thrust dry and 25600 in burner. It was 231 ins long, 42" dia and weighed 4650 lbs.

The current Typhoon engine, the EJ200, gives 13500 lbs thrust dry, 20200 lbs in burner , is 157" long, 29" dia. and weighs 2180 lbs!

That's almost the same performance from less than half the weight. 

Some technology increase! 

[PR19_Kit]

It certainly had enough ground clearance for that! 

[chrisonord]

I am sure with constant  development  of the aircraft  during  its service  life  it could carry  various  offensive weapons.  I have  just  seen a computer generated picture of an RAF Arrow  carrying freefall bombs and  rocket pods.  I couldn't get it to copy or link  otherwise I would have  posted it.
Chris

[jcf]

There were some notions, from the Arrowheads book (I'm posting some other stuff in the main Arrow topic
including a description of a reconnaissance version):

[chrisonord]

Nice info Jon, its just a pity  the kits are thin on the ground  now as I  would  like to do a bomber version.

[kerick]

The F-104 had the same basic problem. Getting up to top speed used up most of the fuel on board.