Looking Back on the Avro Arrow
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
That right, put them on the front or backwards and you have an unstable craft. To compare them side by side they would have to be up-scaled (2 person for the X-31) or down scaled (single piloted CF-105) and given the same advantages that the years don't allow for. It boils down to the design was too good and it wasn't American and that is who was going to be the builders of fighters. It's a parameter that cannot be totally disproved without some designers using that same basic design and updating it (and even modification that allow fot moving the wing up or down and even the general size if (retractable) canards are added. Wouldn't Canada hold some sort of patent on the delta wing config that far back?
X-31
General characteristics
- Crew: one
- Length: 43ft 4 in (13.21m)
- Wingspan: 23 ft 10 in (7.26 m)
- Height: 14 ft 7in (4.44m)
- Wing area: 226.3 sq ft (21.02 m²)
- Aspect ratio: 2.51:1
- Empty weight: 11,410 lb (5,175 kg)
- Loaded weight: 14,600 lb (6,622 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 15,935 lb (7,228 kg)
- Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-400 turbofan, 16,000 lbf (71 kN)(afterburning)
- Maximum speed: Mach 1.28[8] (900 mph, 783 knots, 1,449 km/h)
- Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,200 m)
- Rate of climb: 43,000 ft/min (218 m/s)
- Wing loading: 64.5 lb/ft² (315 kg/m²)
CF-105
General characteristics
- Crew: 2
- Length: 77 ft 9 in (23.71 m)
- Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
- Height: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m)
- Wing area: 1,225 ft² (113.8 m²)
- Airfoil: NACA 0003.5 mod root, NACA 0003.8 tip
- Empty weight: 49,040 lb (22,245 kg)
- Loaded weight: 56,920 lb (25,820 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 68,605 lb (31,120 kg)
- Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney J75-P-3 turbojets
- Dry thrust: 12,500 lbf (55.6 kN) each
- Thrust with afterburner: 23,500 lbf (104.53 kN) each
- Maximum speed: Mach 1.98 (1,307 mph, 2,104 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m) max. recorded speed; Mach 2+ potential[105]
- Cruise speed: Mach 0.91 (607 mph, 977 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
- Combat radius: 360 NM (410 mi, 660 km)
- Service ceiling: 53,000 ft (16,150 m)
- Wing loading: 46.5 lb/ft² (226.9 kg/m²)
- Thrust/weight: 0.825 at loaded weight
I'm thinking on-the-ground stuff too. Compare the stats....
How many Arrow flew?
How many undercarriage failures?
How many (insert your favourite here) flew (and still fly)?
How many undercarriage failures?
A high wing and fuselage combination vectors airflow into engine nacelles - vital at high altitudes.
The biggest problem I could see - aside for crazy maintenance and inspection schedules - is: It's a great airplane ... but it's got to land....
How many Arrow flew?
How many undercarriage failures?
How many (insert your favourite here) flew (and still fly)?
How many undercarriage failures?
A high wing and fuselage combination vectors airflow into engine nacelles - vital at high altitudes.
The biggest problem I could see - aside for crazy maintenance and inspection schedules - is: It's a great airplane ... but it's got to land....
I'm no pilot, but my sons, who are the closest thing I have to one, to ask, say that a high wing is more stable and easier to fly, in principle.
Is that true Lone?
Those openings are pretty large, was it overkill in the day and would today's engines need that much of a hole? Keeping the same size you could feed two F-35 engines for a total of 80,000lbs of thrust, in their spare time they could deploy small sats.
Do you mean g00gle or gOOgle? They are all awesome machines, too bad their role is so anti life.
I was in the RCAF when the Arrow was cancelled. I was accross the field at Downsview when the Arrow was flying. It was an impressive beast.
It was more impressive when we consider that the Arrow went from drawing board to assembly to flying without a prototype. There was nothing wrong with the Arrow that a few years of development wouldn't have fixed. A single, one piece, clear, canopy would have done wonders for visibilty. High by-pass turbofan engines would have improved the range/combat radius by a large measure. The Arrow made a very visible blip in the technology. It is too bad there aren't some still around.
The article dicusses the F-86 to some degree. It is said the F-86 didn't have radar. It did. Not very good radar. But it did have radar.
It was more impressive when we consider that the Arrow went from drawing board to assembly to flying without a prototype. There was nothing wrong with the Arrow that a few years of development wouldn't have fixed. A single, one piece, clear, canopy would have done wonders for visibilty. High by-pass turbofan engines would have improved the range/combat radius by a large measure. The Arrow made a very visible blip in the technology. It is too bad there aren't some still around.
The article dicusses the F-86 to some degree. It is said the F-86 didn't have radar. It did. Not very good radar. But it did have radar.
The Arrow can be lamented to mythical proportions, however the real loss was not an aircraft but an industry. The cancelling of the plane was one thing but taken in conjunction with the shut down of the Iroquois project and scrapping of the Sparrow missile spelled the end of Canada as a military aerospace innovator & presence. The Iroquois was head & shoulders more advance than any jet engine of the time & might possibly be still in use today, the Sparrow was at least as good if not better than any armament available at the time. The end came not because one facet was better than what was out there or on design boards it was the overall package.
You know tha same thing happen a few years later to the Canadian militaery naval design industry with the cancellation of the Bras Dor cals hydrofoil.
You know tha same thing happen a few years later to the Canadian militaery naval design industry with the cancellation of the Bras Dor cals hydrofoil.
The truth is that the development of missiles did ‘kill’the Arrow design, just not in the way people think. Traditionally, everyone points to the fact that even today, men are ‘in the loop’with aircraft, and missiles didn’t replace aircraft, only complemented them. This is all true, but the original requirement for the Arrow was to intercept Soviet supersonic bombers coming over the North Pole. Everyone envisioned fleets of these things flying south to lay waste to North America, and the Arrow as the shield. The problem was, when the Soviets started building missiles, they realized that they were cheaper to operate and maintain than manned bomber fleets, and the doomsday fleet of Soviet aircraft never materialized.
This sums the intent of the article...
Unfortunately I have to agree...The Arrow had a very finite roll.....The deve;lopement of the missle system demanded for it would of been a huge undertaking too..... Still , the Arrow could of been sold to those interested . The engine too. I remember watching the TV series of it where they proposed to use it as a launch viechle for satilites .....Still the scrapping the project was a waste of money as it could of brought other developements .
The Arrow was way ahead of it's time ...... just it's roll was outdated .
This sums the intent of the article...
Unfortunately I have to agree...The Arrow had a very finite roll.....The deve;lopement of the missle system demanded for it would of been a huge undertaking too..... Still , the Arrow could of been sold to those interested . The engine too. I remember watching the TV series of it where they proposed to use it as a launch viechle for satilites .....Still the scrapping the project was a waste of money as it could of brought other developements .
The Arrow was way ahead of it's time ...... just it's roll was outdated .
The Arrow was an excellent fifties aircraft. The Russians still had hundreds of Bear bombers but the roll of the
fighter/interceptor was changing. The Arrow could have been fitted out for different rolls and it should have been.
Throwing it away was really stupid since we had paid for it. I don't believe that the Arrow was at risk at low altitude.
Maneuverability is dependent on wing loading and thrust to weight ratios. The Arrow would have been very close
to the F-15.
Diefenbaker had a better idea though.. How many hundreds of millions of dollars did Dief the thief waste on the Bomarc?
The Arrow was an excellent fifties aircraft. The Russians still had hundreds of Bear bombers but the roll of the
fighter/interceptor was changing. The Arrow could have been fitted out for different rolls and it should have been.
Throwing it away was really stupid since we had paid for it. I don't believe that the Arrow was at risk at low altitude.
Maneuverability is dependent on wing loading and thrust to weight ratios. The Arrow would have been very close
to the F-15.
Diefenbaker had a better idea though.. How many hundreds of millions of dollars did Dief the thief waste on the Bomarc?
It was average at best.
Beyong interceptor, bomber and recce, it was useless.
As an interceptor, its targets never materialized.
As a bomber, it would have had a limited role in the RCAF.
As for a recce platform, the price tag was a little steep for a flying Minolta.
You're right, we should have built hundreds, so we could watch the pretty girls rot on th ground.
Pilots that actually flew it and engineers say differently.
You know bear, I flew the F-86 so I know a little bit about jet fighters. Jan Zurakowski, the chief test
pilot didn't find the problems you keep digging up.
An Interview with Jan Zurakowski
pilot didn't find the problems you keep digging up.
An Interview with Jan Zurakowski
That's awesome for you Juan.
I really don't care, mind you. It doesn't make you an authority on aircraft, let alone the Arrow. The facts betray the myths you keep posting.
No doubt. Look how many Canadians believe all the same silliness you've put forward.
Which we know is completely false.
Interesting: http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/cf-105_avro_arrow.pl
I can't think of anything Canada could have used them for, but we might have been able to build and sell them. I also think they would have made decent bombers and interceptors.
More: http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/arrow.htm
I can't think of anything Canada could have used them for, but we might have been able to build and sell them. I also think they would have made decent bombers and interceptors.
More: http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/arrow.htm
At the time. That's no reason to ditch the entire issue. More Delta wings came out later.
lol Zurakowski flew a Arrow to Mach 1.86 at 50,000 feet and at a climb rate of 44,000+ ft/min (better than the MIG 25 and the F-15 and almost as good a rate as the F-16) and we're talking about the late '50s and one of the earlier models.
It also had a 10 ton cargo capacity.
True, but cost over runs, a menace that didn't materialize, and other aircraft that could already do the job.
And never saw a combat ready shakedown, or had a confirmed weapons system.