Seeing the wonderful Arrow pictures flagged up by TSR Joe reminded me that I had intended to pass on some thoughts based on recent books about UK what-if planes and also a book on the postwar RN.
It appears that the RAN were seriously considering an order for a UK CVA 01 carrier. Had the RCN followed suit, such a ship could easily have operated Arrows.
Tony Buttler charts how the UK did consider the Arrow for its post-Lightning fighter but cost and timings with UK projects ruled it out. Just imagine the situation if the UK and Canada had co-operated on a fighter Arrow.
RAF
Instead of Phantoms, the Arrow joins both the RN and RAF in the 60s as the standard fighter. As TSR2 costs soar, the type is reserved as a medium strategic bomber and an updated Arrow is developed as a Buccaneer replacement. By the 70s this plane is the "fighter-striker" envisaged in 1962. It operates from three new carriers in the RN.
Canada
The Arrow provides Canada with a fighter and later NATO strike aircraft. Canada joins Australia in ordering a new carrier from the UK. This encourages velopment of Arrow versions which operate from the ship (name anyone?)
NATO
The Germans adopt the Arrow, but ask for a special short take off and landing version to be developed in the 60s. It is in Luftwaffe service from the 60s to the present (no Starfighters, no Phantoms, no Tornados)
Other NATO countries follow Germany's lead.
USAF
Faced with problems with its F105 and F111 aircraft, and the failure of the F4 and F104 to win overseas orders, the USAF orders Arrows.
Warsaw Pact
Faced with a sudden NATO standardisation on the Arrow family, the USSR are not slow to commission its own Mikoyan and Sukhoi aircraft imitating the Arrow.
Would have been fun!
UK 75
The RAF did seriously consider an Arrow derivative for GOR.339 also, using a half-scale Blue Steel. The main difference with the interceptor Arrow was a thickening of the inner wing skins according to write-ups I've seen. Randall Whitcomb's book, Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation, has a nice artist's conception of this "Strike Arrow". I can repost a copy of this if desired.
Beign how similar in size weight and performance the Arrow and the Vigilante (RA-5) were, I would not forsee inordinate difficulties in getting a plane of that SIZE onto a carrier...the big drawback is the naturally high nose attitude upon landing a delta winged plane seems to have. However, if you take the wings and horizontal tail surfaces of the Viggie and atche to the Arrow, you would have both a viable carrier plane AND a decent strike (IE low level) plane. I did it using the HobbyCraft 1/72 Arrow and the Airfix 1/72 Vigilante, and darn if it didn't look right! You DO need to move the gear to the fuselage, but it's not a tough alteration. Trust me, I'm lazy...and it was easy!
Alvis 3.1
QuoteRandall Whitcomb's book, Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation, has a nice artist's conception of this "Strike Arrow". I can repost a copy of this if desired.
C'mon Evan, you ought to know that such a picture is
highly desired around here! ^_^
Arrows !
:wub:
I had a USAF F-105 Arrow about half-way done, with about 16,000 lbs. of iron to drop, as UK75 said, to fill the gap where the 'real' 105 fell short in Vietnam. Someday I'll finish her !
Also, an SR-105.......my Navy bird is done. And like Alvis sez, if you could land a Vigilante, I'm sure you could mod an Arrow to do the same.
Cheers !
QuoteThe RAF did seriously consider an Arrow derivative for GOR.339 also, using a half-scale Blue Steel. The main difference with the interceptor Arrow was a thickening of the inner wing skins according to write-ups I've seen. Randall Whitcomb's book, Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation, has a nice artist's conception of this "Strike Arrow". I can repost a copy of this if desired.
Thicker wing skins do not make a higher wing loading, and its a high wingloading that makes for a smooth ride at high speed at low level.
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.
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) this will effect both the plane and the pilot. In the planes case stressing the airframe with small bending moments....lots of them, which eats into the airframe life as the continual bending fatigues the metal until it fails (rather like when you bend a paperclip a lot it will break). 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).
Thats why when you want to go fast a low level a high wing loading that makes your plane less responsive to all the atmospheric conditions is a necessity.
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). Avro Canada's Arrow would be more like an instrument of torture and for pilot and aircraft safty be limited to slower than mach 0.8 or less.
IF armed with a half scale Blue Steal it would no better than a cheap Vulcan, with less range at altitude and a lower maximum warload.
It would be useful I don't doubt but it is not in the same league as the TSR.2 at low level for the strike mission.
And on Vigilantes.....they operated off of US CV's..the large ones with the longest of catapults, along with the longest of angled decks. Operation might have been possible on CVA-01 but I suspect it would be at the upper limit of the ships equipment to do so if at all.
In retrospect the half scale Blue Steal was probably of more importance since it could be used from a modified Buccaneer or Canberra.
Now don't get me wrong I like the Arrow but its not built for the TSR.2's mission. AS a recce fighter and high altitude bomber armed with stand off missiles it would ahve been better than the F4.
There may have been more than just a thicker wingskin involved, it's been a while since I looked at the write-up, but there was a definite structural beefup involved. The nice thing about an Arrow is that the weapons pod concept wold make re-arming as quick as possible on hot turns. The scaled Blue Steel was the weapon the RAF asked Avro Canada about, not necessarily the only weapon it could carry for that role. IMHO, the ideal force would have a mix of the two to truly compound problems for The Other Guy ("TOG" ™). Now, a commonality of systems adn equipment could go a long way toward reducing the cost of both. For that matter, the production standard Iroquois was 100 in. shorter than the Olympus 320R in the TSR.2, but developed the same thrust; which would yield a weight savings in commonality right there.
Thicker skins and a generaly stronger structure are all to the good and do increase wing loading somewhat, but the size of the wing, its huge area that makes for such good lift and control at high altitudes is not ideal for low level flight.
The Arrow would be definately slower than a TSR.2 at low level, not because of a lack of thrust but because of the wing, and the needs of the pilot even if the structure could take it.
Iraquois...if I reccal correctly it used technology similar to Roll's RB106 and its bigger cousin the RB122, even related to them I think. However engine weight is not the be all and end all, s.f.c is far more interesting and it would be nice tohave some figures for the engine to compare with other engines.
It would certainly have been a potentialy quite flexible asset, at high speed and altitude only the biggest of SAM's would stand a chance of intercepting it.
In that kind of contition with stand off missiles it would make a potent strike asset, maybe with a focus of SEAD/DEAD punching out radar and SAM sites, making a safe corridor for slower aircraft to do the heavyweight work.
As a replacement for the PR Canberra's for example maybe with SLAR or optics.
As a CAP fighter out over the GIUK gap it would bear some compasion with the Mig31 and would have been so useful that its upgrade would be assured.
It would certainly have been better than the F4!
And it would have sold to quite a few nations.....if only in the recce configuration rather like the Mig25 did, as it makes a natural Canberra replacement.
I can see the likes of Australia maybe going for it, maybe India.
But it is not the TSR.2, not even close.
There was a conversion set in 1/72, and a similar one in 1/48, made for the RF-111C. Mine's going to find its way onto an Arrow. I don't know if the 1/72 one is still available, but I believe there's still a 1/48 one available.
I definitely intend to do at least one Arrow as an ADC bird bought after the F-108 was cancelled and fitted with a lot of the F-108's systems (that would take care of the radar/fire control/missiles concerns most handily).
Everybody should use Arrows !
After the TSR.2 build, we should follow it up with the other great white protoype.......
Once we get our new shack, moving it's way significantly up the que ( hey, no line jumping ! ) will be my new tool HC Arrow ( thanks again, baz ! ) with all of jays bits. It'll be in camo ala CF-104 and Clunk, as a 1 AIR DIV bird.
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). 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.
IMNSHO the Arrow probably would have eventually found its way into the same roles as the F-111 and TSR.2, namely recon and attack. I could see one with a canoe fairing off a Vigilante or with MER's on the wing pylons hauling Mk. 82's. The only thing that would need adaptation is the windscreen which is more suited for high-speed flight than attack.
Wooksta,
As I remember it, the "Strike capable" Arrow had some design changes to make it more suitable/survivable in the strike role. From what I've seen, these include a small deepening of the wing at the root and a thicker gauge of material in the skin.
I'm sure there were more but those are the main ones that stuck in my mind from when I read the data.
QuoteGermany, Australia, Saudi Arabia, probably France, and a few others.
I think that India (and why not Argentina?? ;)) could be add to this list, to replace old Canberra...
As you said, Australia, Germany but also, in my point of view, Iran, Egypte and Iraq could also be interrested by a big twin engine intereptor, instead of the F-4 or the Mig-25...
But I'm quite sure that France couldn't have chose the Arrow... The Mirage IV was going to enter in service and if French Air Force had some money to spend in a heavy interceptor, they probably go for a bigger version of the Mirage IV: I saw years ago the old 3-views plans of a Mirage IVB, a 50% bigger Mirage IV with two J-75 engines... A real monster with more than 50 tons of weight!!
A lighter interceptor version and a naval strike bird were also imagined based on the Mirage IV...
I always like those big twin-engine supersonic planes!! And "what-if" all those aircraft, the TR-2, the Mirage IVB, the Vigilante, the Arrow, this bigger version of F-111 etc. had had a real long life and some export market??
It could be interresting to see the Arrow in an internationnal contest against those aircraft ;)
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. That purchase had some other interesting effects, including P&W taking a minority interest in SNECMA for a while and SNECMA getting info on the TF30 which they developed in the TF104/304/306 family of engines.
QuoteFrance might not have the Arrow but Belgium might have been intrested to replace it's Canucks. Thos days where the big spender days annyways.
I thought about that, but I think the Arrow is a too big fighter for such a little country...
Hey!!! What if a common NATO interceptor!!??? B)
The first fighter to operate with NATO roundels instead of nationals markings: Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherland and why not Denmark and/or West Germany could have join their airspace for the interception missions.
With Arrow based in Canada, Greenland, Belgium, Netherland, Iceland, Denmark and Italy, with authorization of overflight France, Germany, United Kingdom, USA and west Austria, NATO could do a real air barrier.
Something like what the Mig-31 will do 20 years later...
And with the AWACS roundels available, such a whif model cold be, I think, easily done ;)
QuoteWhat if the CF-105 hadn't been cancelled?! Why, then we would be running the world of course! Back bacon for everybody!
If you want to see what's already been done, look no further than Alvis' page here. (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Fea1/201-300/Fea265_Arrow_Petrie/Fea265vsm.htm)
Thanks for the mention!!
The idea of building a large number of HobbyCraft Arrows STILL gives me the twitching willies!!!
The Turkish one actually got into their IPMS Magazine, according to the contact guy, their "real" modellers got in a snit about it...frankly, considering how tatty it looked I was surprised how nobody got offended! (And considering the roundels were the wrong style and nobody noticed...lol)
As for who would have looked at it..assuming a government with guts to try to sell it and all the other variations that would have killed it in the end anyhow...
Germany
Japan
UK (Test a/c if nothing else for the Concorde program)
South Africa
Iran (For MiG 25 intercepts)
You know, I could see France buying some just to annoy the US/UK! As well, it could tie in with a Canadian buy of something like, oh say, Dassault Falcons? Atlantics for ASW role? DeGaulle and Trudeau, between those two doofii, ANYTHING would be possible!
Don't forget the Electronic Jamming variant, ya, I know it wasn't conceived except possibly outside of my deranged mind, but that swap-out rocket pack WAS designed for various capability..why not jamming?
Once again, I would like to bring up my "White Elephant" theory of aircraft cancellation. Ever notice an expensive aircraft program that gets the axe invariably involves an all white aircraft? Arrow, TSR-2, B-70, Lavi, with Concorde only hanging on because it was a signed contract with France...
My theory goes like this...When it come time for some faceless bean counter to decide whether to continue a program or not...if it is a white aircraft, and expensive, the expression "White Elephant" pops up, and since THAT has a negative connotation, the program is subconsciously given a death sentence, deserving or not...
The B-1 was cancelled when most of the prototypes WERE white, and oddly, after camouflaging one, the program was revived! Lesson here..if you have a plane that may be about to be cancelled, slap on some camo and/or patriotic flags..and presto! Instant contract!!
Alvis 3.1
QuoteOnce again, I would like to bring up my "White Elephant" theory of aircraft cancellation.
Sheer genius! The only trouble is, we don't know whether we want you as Prime Minister or Defence Minister. :P
QuoteI thought about that, but I think the Arrow is a too big fighter for such a little country...
That's true but the Canuck was a big and expensive aircraft also. Back then there where no budget limitations so it could have happened, how unlikely it might have been.
:cheers:
patrick
QuoteQuoteOnce again, I would like to bring up my "White Elephant" theory of aircraft cancellation.
Sheer genius! The only trouble is, we don't know whether we want you as Prime Minister or Defence Minister. :P
Oh, definitely Pee Emm for me, I could wreak WAY more havoc that way..and besides, I'd get to redecorate the PM's residence..anyone up for a model room at Sussex Drive???
I'd fill it with Arrow WHat-Ifs of course :D
Alvis 3.1
When Supertom was bandying the idea for a Soviet "Copycat" build, I had an idea to build one up as a VVS interceptor using the AAMs from my PM Su-21. I intend for it to be a Polikarpov design (from a timeline where Stalin didn't take away Nikolai Nikolaevich's toys and give them to Mikoyan).
Mirage IV heavy interceptor? Oh yeah!
.....back to the Arrow....
Since it wasn't supposed to be a low level attack aircraft, that's exactly what the US government would have turned it into....a Strike Arrow. Strengthen the wings, landing gear, and fuselage, tuck some JDAM's along the side and paint it gunship gray! :lol:
Or----
High speed antisubmarine aircraft......Moose Jaw to the Pacific, drop the nuke-tipped torpedo, refuel again, and back to Sask. Not bad for a morning's work prior to coffee break!
How about a record setter breaking Streak Eagle's time?
OK....off to bed...it's late.
Gentlemen, :cheers:
Daryl J.
I dont see france, germany, US, Saudi arabia or Australia buying it. France, well, they had dassault, and they hardly ever buy aircraft from other countries if they can make one themselves. Germany, well they seemed to follow the US. The US stopped the arrow, so why would they buy them? Saudi Arabia seems just a bit too pro-US to me. Australia wouldnt possibly need such a plane. They had Phantoms until they got F111s, and had some Mirage 3s so i dont see why they should need the arrow.
B777LR,
Remember, the majority of Saudi Arabia's combat aircraft over the years haven't been US sourced, they've actually been UK sourced - Lightning Mk53, Tornado IDS & ADV, Hawk, and now apparently Typhoon (yes I know one could say that the Tornado and Typhoon are European, but they dealt with the UK when buying). So it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to have them buy Canadian (possibly via the UK again).
In the case of Australia, the F-4s were really only a stop gap awaiting the F-111 - so they weren't really used as fighters per sae. Though if a fully developed Arrow was available it may well have been an option for the RAAF instead of the Mirage III or purchased in conjunction as a long range interceptor - Australia's a big country remember. Also remember that Australia has been (and still is often) scared of it's asian neighboors - always good fuel for defence purchases!
Regards,
Greg
In fact when australia bought its F-111 in the 60's they also studied the TSR-2. Before that, the Vigilante had been elected as Canberra replacement, only because it was available quickly! The Mirage IV and Phantom were also tried by general Hancock in may 1963.
The Arrow was quite similar to the Mirage IV and Vigilante (albeit much powerfull and with an internal weapon bay) so Australia woud have probably studied it in 1963... had it been available!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg218.imageshack.us%2Fimg218%2F824%2Fsvsmcf105drfreconarrow1de.jpg&hash=3056801ace7b19e95e4eebf26e6c42bf3e2a2793)
Mine! Circa DESERT STORM.
CF-105D RF "Recon Arrow". Up engined, canards, and photo capability. "Retired" after DESERT STORM, however some were seen at NATO airbases during the Balkan Peacekeeping operations.
On the subject of the Great White Bird from the Great White North, anyone got some spare SAAF decals? Preferably lo-viz......
Well I resurected this thread because of an old idea turning in my head...
We all know that the MiG-25 flew in 1964, the recon version entred service in 1969 and the fighter, in 1971. At the time, no fighter in the western world could intercept the MiG. Iran and Isreal tried with Phantom, in vain. that's why the F-14 and F-15 were made...
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).
So Iran and Israel quickly bought a batch of CF-105 to Canada. The Arrow become THE solution against the MiG-25, and orders started to grow for Avro Canada...
What do you think about that?
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 ?
In every case, would the Falcon AIM-4 (with the MG-10) been able to catch a MiG-25?
I just love the AIM-47 / Arrow combo : the best fighter with the best weapon ystem, Ie the Tomcat of its time :)
The 318th FIS was based in Mc Chord AFB near Seattle (not very sure of that)
On the other side of the frontier was Comox RCAF base... just imagine F-15 and Arrow facing each others...
Hello all. Firstly, can I say how impressed I am by this discussion group. I have been 'solo what-iffing' for years (probably since I moved straight from reading Thomas the Tank Engine onto the RAF Yearbook) and it is great to find a website with fellow sufferers to share my affliction! I have even picked up a new tube of Squadron Putty after 'X' years away from plastic aircraft modelling - it cures a lot faster than 'green stuff' epoxy on 28mm figures!
On to detail then - I was considering what weapons system an RAF Arrow would have used this lunchtime so Archibald's post is very timely. Assuming the Arrow replaced the Lightning in RAF service and given the investment in Firestreak and Red Top, would we have seen the weapons and their associated AI23/23B radars on Wattisham and Binbrook Arrows? I note the Wooksta's lovely 'Treble One' Arrow has wing mounted Red Tops. Shame these IR missiles can't take advantage of the weapons bay.
Regards
GeorgeC
QuoteThanks backing my idea...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 ?
In every case, would the Falcon AIM-4 (with the MG-10) been able to catch a MiG-25?
I just love the AIM-47 / Arrow combo : the best fighter with the best weapon ystem, Ie the Tomcat of its time :)
The 318th FIS was based in Mc Chord AFB near Seattle (not very sure of that)
On the other side of the frontier was Comox RCAF base... just imagine F-15 and Arrow facing each others...
I don't know what the electronics were, but according to a book I have it would have carried 3 Sparrows and 8 Falcons (4 each ir and radar). I very much doubt, that the Falcon would have been able to intercept a Foxbat.
:cheers:
QuoteThanks backing my idea...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 ?
In every case, would the Falcon AIM-4 (with the MG-10) been able to catch a MiG-25?
I just love the AIM-47 / Arrow combo : the best fighter with the best weapon ystem, Ie the Tomcat of its time :)
The 318th FIS was based in Mc Chord AFB near Seattle (not very sure of that)
On the other side of the frontier was Comox RCAF base... just imagine F-15 and Arrow facing each others...
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 but that came a cropper (based on Randall Whitcomb's work, I'd say the problems were more with Sparrow II - note that 20 years later, a similar-sized and tasked missile, AMRAAM took a good while to bring to a full service standard even with all the tech improvements over that time). I could easily see that being replaced with AN/ASG-18/AIM-47B or a derivative of the equipment fit on the F6D-1 and single-stage missile derived from the final stage of the AA-N-10 Eagle (basically the AWG-9/AIM-54 fit of the F-111B/F-14).
As to bring back, with that internal weapons bay, I'd expect that it could bring back what it could carry. Also, given that the Sparrow II, AIM-47B, and AIM-54 have very similar overall volume envelope sizes, I'd imagine it could carry and return with three of any of them.
George C, my guess is that any initial British build might use AI-23/23B radars to get some aircraft operational, but the full-up version would likely need either what the Canadian-built ones used for radar/fire control or they'd need an equivalent development of the AI-23. 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.
Now, developed aircraft might could carry missiles underwing, too. The Mk.4 wouldn't always need its underwing drop tanks. *chuckle* Imagine a couple, or more, AIM-47 or AIM-54 derived equivalents of the AA-N-10 in addition to what was in the weapons bay.
I have been doing a little more reading into this - I didn't know a lot about internally-carried AAMs! It would seem that the carriage systems of the F102 and 106 allowed IR missiles to be 'protruded' out of the bay until the seeker heads acquired their targets so I assume that the Arrow could do the same with Falcon IR / Firestreak / Red Top.
I imagine the Canadians would have continued Arrow development with MG10/Falcon system and had as much problem with its operation as the F106 had. RAF versions might well have carried Firestreak then Red Top internally, with Blue Dolphin to be added when available.
No doubt both air forces would have been unimpressed by their weapons systems serviceability and perhaps a common solution for a late 60s upgrade would have been based on the AN/AWG11/12 of the F4, with 4 Sparrow and 2 Sidewinder carried internally (it works for the F22!).
Regards
GeorgeC
Very interesting infos!!!
QuoteAN/AWG11/12 of the F4, with 4 Sparrow and 2 Sidewinder carried internally
I thought, too about a Phantom weapon system, to change the Arrow into a multirole plane...
F-102/F-106 internal carriage relies on "snap-on" doors that allow just enough time to extend the missile, get lock-on, and fire. The weapons bay pallets of the CF-105 used a bit more sophisticated approach to do much the same thing. As, for that matter, the F-22 and F-35 do for their IR-AAMs.
If memory serves me correctly, the MG-10 would've been debugged by the time the first Mk.2 Arrows would've been operational but I can it perhaps being replaced by the AN/AWG-11/12 in the late 60s for multi-role aircraft (there were studies of an Arrow variant for at least the high-altitude strike portion of the RAF's needs so something like that may already have been considered by Avro-Canada).
For straight-out interceptors, the AN/ASG-18 & AIM-47B combo would be hard to beat in the time frame (I keep wanting to see a rendering of NORAD-assigned Arrows and F-108s flying in formation) with subsequent upgrading along the lines of the AWG-9 & AIM-54. There might be another "Go To War" role here as a strike version of the AIM-47, the AGM-76 (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-76.html), was carried to at least the flight test stage and suitable air-to-ground modes added to the AN/ASG-18.
The adoption of the AWG-9 would likely offer multi-role capability since an air-to-ground capability was demonstrated by the prototype F-14s during their flight test career.
To my mind, the Arrow had no rivals until the F-14 and F-15. Maybe the Tu-128 or the Su-15 could have threatened it? what do you think about that?
QuoteThe adoption of the AWG-9 would likely offer multi-role capability since an air-to-ground capability was demonstrated by the prototype F-14s during their flight test career.
Would there have been room in the Arrow for the AWG-9 - from what I remember it used up an awful lot of volume, not to mention the large diameter nose needed to house the scanner dish. Maybe the Arrow would have had to wait for the APG-71 to get Phoenix capability
The mention of multi-role capability is interesting. Leaving aside the 'Marylin Monroe' factor - it's better to go when you are young, beautiful and still full of promise and before the going gets tough - the Arrow certainly seemed to be and outstanding aircraft. No doubt its performance was paid for in size (its huge!) and in complexity (no doubt the linies would have been working long into the night to keep it flying).
However, unlike other 60s super jets, it also had a reasonable wing and might have been a bit more amenable to roles other than a straight line intercept or high-level bombing run? Would it have made a reasonable air superiority fighter (Mirage/F4 standard) rather than just an interceptor (F104/106)? Could you hang lots of MERs and bombs off it without it becoming a brick (F105)? I have seen its low wing loading (sounds good for air combat manouvering) cited as a problem in the low-level strike role but it doesn't seem to hurt the F15E, although i am told the ride in a low-level Strike Eagle is a bit 'sporty'.
Grateful for your always well-informed views
Regards
GeorgeC
QuoteQuoteThe adoption of the AWG-9 would likely offer multi-role capability since an air-to-ground capability was demonstrated by the prototype F-14s during their flight test career.
Would there have been room in the Arrow for the AWG-9 - from what I remember it used up an awful lot of volume, not to mention the large diameter nose needed to house the scanner dish. Maybe the Arrow would have had to wait for the APG-71 to get Phoenix capability
Have you seen the revised nose contours planned for the ASTRA installation? There's room for the AWG-9's antenna there and I seriously doubt that the AWG-9 requires any more volume than they would've had to set aside for ASTRA or for the AN/ASG-18.
Archibald, all things considered, I'd rate the Arrow a bit above the Tu-28 and Su-15 simply because the enclosed weapons carriage allows better performance while it still was a long-range interceptor.
In my book, one of the multirole advantages of the Arrow is that interchangeable weapons bay pod that would allow you to change tasking fairly simply. I intend to model at least one Arrow as a recce bird using a clone of the RF-111 recce pod blended into one of those interchangeable pods. One strike option for the RAF used a scaled-down, ramjet-powered version of Blue Steel. I'm sure the wing could take some stores, the proposed Mk.4 primarily differed from the proposed Mk.3 in that it had provisions for 1000-gallon under-wing tanks and these could likely be adapted to carry other items. I will have to post some suitable images by Randall Whitcomb.
RAF looked at a UK Arrow with Gyron or RB.106 engines, AI.18 radar and Red Hebe.
QuoteI intend to model at least one Arrow as a recce bird using a clone of the RF-111 recce pod blended into one of those interchangeable pods.
Dang it, I had the Viggie reccie pod saved for the next one I get. I was also gonna do a set of conformal tanks on the after belly, similar but smoother than the Javelin's.
QuoteQuoteI intend to model at least one Arrow as a recce bird using a clone of the RF-111 recce pod blended into one of those interchangeable pods.
Dang it, I had the Viggie reccie pod saved for the next one I get. I was also gonna do a set of conformal tanks on the after belly, similar but smoother than the Javelin's.
Think bigger, gentlemen!
A clear candidate to replace the Canberra PR9, a strat recce version should be fitted with something like the HIAC-1 camera system - essentially a spy satellite camera. A similar arrangement was intended for the F4
(see http://www.vogue-web.ch/f4/f4_29.html) (http://www.vogue-web.ch/f4/f4_29.html))
and the developing series of cameras fitted to RB57, Canberra and U2 platforms.
This could have been installed in a nose mounting, in place of the radar systems, leaving the weapons bay for a panoramic camera suite or sideway looking radar. Best, perhaps to mount it on the starboard side to get the pictures on the ingress to target up the Baltic or along the the Kola Peninsula before the PVO arrive! An air refuelling probe and some drop tanks should complete the mark. No doubt this mark would have been as popular and long lasting as the PR9, which only now has 'days to do' in service.
Regards
GeorgeC
Nose installation would be one way, but I prefer to preserve the multi-role capability and use it as part of a new weapons bay pod with a bulge on the centerline like the HIAC-1 pod that was developed for use on the RF-4 for the USAF.
I would see the CF-105 like this
- a big, internal bomb bay ala F-111 (allowing extraodinary multirole capabilities just by changing the packs)
- a powerfull weapon system ala F-14
- performances quite similar to the F-15
- FBW system roughly similat to the F-16
This plane is a kind of synthesis of "what-is-good" in other planes...
In an era (spring 1958) when the best fighter was the Phantom...
Other think : Avro Canada created this plane in only five years, whithout "serious" flaws or flight test problems, whithout a single cost overrun (!). Experience of the company just lied on the CF-100, quite different from the Arrow!!
This was an oustanding achievement!!
concerning the Camberra PR-9 : the last Mirage IVP was withdrawn only in june 2005...it had flew in June 1959, 15 month after the CF-105, and the planes have interesting similarities...
so yes, long life to the CF-105 (RF-105 over Afghanistan in march 2002 )
Are there any major pitfalls with the new tool kit from a whiffers point of view? Which engine suite is kitted?
TIA,
Daryl J.
Here is a site that has loads of aftermarket goodies just for the Hobbycraft kit:
http://www.mastercasters.co.uk/ (http://www.mastercasters.co.uk/)
No complaints from me ! I'm pretty sure it's the Yankee engine as per the prototypes.
:cheers:
As Todd said, pretty much a good starting point for an Arrow, it has the overall shape and you just need to spend lots of time and money to get it right. I have both releases of the 1/48th scale Hobbycraft CF-105 Arrow kit in protective custody. Aside from the change in the way the wings were attached to the fuselage, it is pretty much the same kit complete with exhaust parts that have no real definition and at least in the later release the funny shaped fuel tank was deleted.
The missile shapes provided in the kit represent nothing in real life so you will need to source some AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-4 Falcon shapes from another kit. Let me know if you need any of these. Other options to consider if you are going to WHIF-it would be to look at the AIM-47 and AIM-54 if you are interested in building an interceptor.
Good luck!
Chances this one will be built clean, thanks however. Being tossed about the mix is a display where the weaponry is out front like often pictured by manufacturers; so there would be rocket/scramjet based air-to-ground strike capability.
One scenario:
Avro Arrow leaves Regina heading north to counter the stike on Minot AFB, drops a rocket with a scramjet nuke just inside Canada's northernmost airspace and begins a wide turn back to the Queen City whilst the rocket heads north over the pole,burns out, the scramjet zips into Russia.........k'blam. Colors would still be White/Red/Black but some tribute markings to the prairie provinces in some way. Scratchbuilt misselry
Or: RAF used in conjunction with the TSR.2 and RN Vigilantes (see Jennings profile).
Or....Something USAF...
Or.... :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Daryl J.
Additional external fuel tankage for starters, added bumps and barbs for electronic upgrades.
Daryl J., oh what might have been.
Mk.3 was supposed to have Fieri inlets and revised structure for higher speeds. Mk.4 was, ISTR, the Mk.3 with underwing tank provisions. Beyond that, there were studies of a high-speed/high-altitude version with an extended nose mounting canards and dual-ramjet/fuel pods under each with with the main gear retracting into them.
This aircraft is my favorite of all times, but we already discussed it so much times (sigh...)
So what's new ?
Arrow with F-15 nose and engines (F-110 GE-129 of late Eagles) eventually F-15 intakes.
Arrow with F-6D, F-12 or F-14 AAMs (Eagle, Falcon or Phoenix). Anigrand Missileer could give its AAMs.
CEV Arrow (testbed for the Mirage IVB engines, the Iroquois was on the list but lost to the J-75 before the Mirage IVB itself was scrapped).
Raspberry ripple Arrow :wub:
Scaled-down CF-105 with a pair of J-79 or Avon, no weapon bay.
Arrow with recessed AN-52, french nuclear bomber.
CF-105 with recessed Skybolt under the belly, SRAMs, or every cruise missile you can think about.
QuoteArrow with recessed AN-52, french nuclear bomber.
CF-105 with recessed Skybolt under the belly, SRAMs, or every cruise missile you can think about.
Strike Arrow proposal for the RAF included the capability to carry an advanced, scaled-dwon variatn of Blue Steel semi-submerged in the weapons bay.
I could see a recce pallet for the Arrow ith a modular eqipment fit like that fitted to some F-111s.
QuoteMk.4 was, ISTR, the Mk.3 with underwing tank provisions. Beyond that, there were studies of a high-speed/high-altitude version with an extended nose mounting canards and dual-ramjet/fuel pods under each with with the main gear retracting into them.
According to "Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation" by Randall Whitcomb, Mk.4 was the low-cost alternative to the very-high-speed/high-altitude version (which was called Arrow PS-2) by combining Mk.3 airframe with the dual-ramjet/fuel pod.
EDIT: It's PS-2 not JS-2. And I made the typo right after I read the book again...... how embarassing.
I think the Mk.4 was not fully defined when the program was cancelled as I've also seen it depicted as I described; much the same configuration as was proposed to the RAF for a Javelin replacement.
I know Randall's picture (yes, I know him - take a look at the acknowledgements to Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation - my copy is autographed by both Rnadall and Jim Floyd and my copy of his "Thunder Before the Storm" print is autographed by him and Zura) but I've also seen the Mk.4 depicted by other artists as a Mk.3 with underwing tanks.
Anti-ship CF-105: fit it out with Exocet Missiles
Anti-Satellite CF-105
I don't know how maneuverable this beast would have been with canards....Maybe a "Wild Weasel" (or some other moniker- suitably Canadian of course) variant.
Maybe a "poor man's" SR-71 recon type? Flat Black, of course! B)
Quote
Maybe a "poor man's" SR-71 recon type? Flat Black, of course! B)
I have a book which says that the whole program for the arrow was not cancelled but went black as a recon strike fighter and was its self replaced by the blackbird.
in the book it describes the aircraft as a single pilot with the rear cockpit replaced by a recon suite and panted dark green on top and sky blue undersides
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi116.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo1%2Flenny100%2Fone%2520week%2520group%2520build%2Farrow.jpg&hash=ce2fd30f47e220d694713c81e52c63dfb21302a3)
QuoteBeyond that, there were studies of a high-speed/high-altitude version with an extended nose mounting canards and dual-ramjet/fuel pods under each with with the main gear retracting into them.
One of the original concept models of that:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv474%2FDaveBailey%2FArrowwhiff1.jpg&hash=23dab405ab76156e2cf3f0fc82fd2ee4a8d4698c)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv474%2FDaveBailey%2FArrowwhiff2.jpg&hash=41be260d17a666937a45435129430dbcd9d99ca5)
Respectfully said that concept uglified the aircraft significantly. :ill:
Are there any handy links to other threads involving the Arrow. I was unawares as to previous discussion.
FWIW, it would be fun to see a whiffed Arrow, TSR.2, and Vigilante all in the same squadron together. B)
Daryl J., fascinated w/ the above info.
QuoteAre there any handy links to other threads involving the Arrow.
Just go to the 'search' button at the top and punch in arrow. Then surf through about a billion returns. :P
You're right, it ain't pretty. But I would love to strap myself in and go balls to the wall! :ar:
I was reading my Air-Britain book about the CC-106/CL-44 when I came across an interesting snippet of information. It said that the CF-101 Voodoo purchase was connected to a sale of CL-44's to the States, this was to counter some Senator who had run a bill though congress that was to have prohibited any US airline from buying CL-44's (or other foreign airplanes for that matter but was aimed specifically at the CL-44) while US aircraft manufacturers were idle. Apparently there was a lot of interest in the CL-44 from MATS at the time too.
Now for some reason I had thought that the CF-101 deal was connected to the Bomarc and the Arrow' demise.
Robert
I did that too Lee, I found the canopy fitted amazingly well with very little to do:
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on May 09, 2008, 01:52:11 PM
Has anyone attempted to do a lash-up of parts from the CF-105 with a Tornado? Reason for asking is that both seem to have a very box-shaped fuselage and the Tornado cockpit and canopy would be a real upgrade to that strange Vee-shaped windscreen and clam-shell contraption that is provided in the kit. If you have enough dead Tornado kits on hand, you can also consider adding a pair of Tonka tails and use the wheels as direct replacements for what is provided in the Hobbycraft kit.
Jeff, I had a look at using Tornado intakes etc. but found they're a bit small. A better option is to use a Mig 25/31 fuselage, they have even more similarities to the Arrow I found, especially if you're going to upgrade the engines to something a bit bigger :wacko:
Quote from: kitnut617 on May 10, 2008, 02:16:16 PMI had a look at using Tornado intakes etc. but found they're a bit small.
I wandered down that path as well and realized that the only way it would work is to source a 1/32nd scale Tornado for the intake parts. Something I am not willing to pursue due to the price and the fact that I have way too many kits in protective custody already to really want another project like this. Still it may be food for thought for one of the other members that had reached an impasse with a WHIF CF-105.
Quote from: kitnut617 on May 10, 2008, 02:16:16 PMA better option is to use a Mig 25/31 fuselage, they have even more similarities to the Arrow I found, especially if you're going to upgrade the engines to something a bit bigger
I have a Revell MiG-25 and the Lindberg MiG-31 in the stash, never even considered the fuselage from either kit as a candidate for a kit bashing but that might work for someone. I think I will have to get a spare F-4 canopy and do a check-fit to see if that would work in 1/48th scale. I did perform a similar check-fit of the F-4 canopy parts to the Mirage IV and discovered that was not the path to take.
Hi Jeff,
I've already started one using a Mig 31 fuselage, it's for my idea of what a Mach 3 Arrow would have been like, here's a couple of photos of it but it's not complete and I've had to pack it away this last year because of our recent house move. As soon as I get the new house sorted out I'll dig it out and take some better photos of it. In the top photo you can see it just above the Lightning minus it's forward fuselage. In the second photo it's just below the Concorde behind the box.
*digs up the thread as he gets annoyed with the search feature and wants to sound off ideas for his insanity*
Alright, I have a few Arrow-based concepts bouncing around in my head - like Most of the crazy canucks on this board. I got one HC 1/72 arrow under the tree, plan on another for bash-bits, and have a third lurking around for additional parts considerations. Here are my following ideas, in all their glory:
1) The oft-rumored Last Arrow crew hides it, finishes it up, and when the prospect of it never being used by any Western force comes out, the crew decides Better Red than Dead, rigs it up with long range tanks and Defects with it. Soviets take the Arrow, paint it up, and do some tests with the aircraft. Now entertaining Soviet Colour Ideas for current project - One problem, I can't find the images of the damn weapons bay, I KNOW they were posted on the forum Somewhere, but I can't find them. Anybody got them on hand and can share? I'm wanting to hang an Alamo in the bay and have it shown open, possibly in flight.
2) The Soviets take advantage of the Arrow's tech in some places, and decide to make a few improvements to the MiG-25, like a large delta wing and tail config, somewhat like a Fishbed on steroids. They also go about mounting a small internal weapons bay for a couple of extra missiles or other such things.
3) The Canadians get in on the Phantom, and when they realize just how horrible the thing's wing loading is, they decide to get personal and fix it, using some of the Phantom's competition - bigger dog-toothed delta wings anybody? To offset the extra weight, they mount slightly larger intakes, and akin to the Spey Phantoms, mount in the Iroquois. If you can't beat them, join them.
4) The Arrow actually succeeds in managing the fourth dimension, Politics, when the Americans get involved, a collaboration between North American and Avro Canada insues, as the Arrow gets a slight resurrection with input from the XF-108. New engine mountings of the TF-30, and the use of the AWG-9 radar system, supporting the AIM-54 Phoenix in the Arrow II provides a high altitude, high speed, high efficiency bomber-destroyer for the northern lines.
Hay Kitnut617, is that a Convair B-58 Hustler's tail gun on the rear of the Concorde in the photo?
If so does that mean you have put together a 'What If' strategic bomber version of the Concorde?
If so can we see more????
M.A.D
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 31, 2008, 04:26:19 PM
I like that Arrow design that had the raked intakes...
See here Kendra, something I've been working off & on for the last five, six years:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20873.0/highlight,super+arrow.html
Quote from: MAD on December 31, 2008, 07:57:03 PM
Hay Kitnut617, is that a Convair B-58 Hustler's tail gun on the rear of the Concorde in the photo?
If so does that mean you have put together a 'What If' strategic bomber version of the Concorde?
If so can we see more????
M.A.D
;D ;D
I had a link to my build but do you think I can find it and I've even done a search >:(
kitnut617,
I still like the raked intake version more
Alright, here's the Red Arrow I've been working on - nobody gave me any input, so I figured I'd just go about doing it in Interceptor Grays modelled off a MiG-25 Foxbat over on ARC. I've been operating on this in the dark, carving out sections, building a weapons bay section. Essentially this is a later-fit model Arrow, with little structural rebuild - I plan to have two AA-8's on small rails hanging off the fuselage. The majority of the aircraft is untouched - the forward pilot fig I decided to jack from an old MiG-29 model, one of my two Salvage Fulcrums - something to spruce up the cockpit, I was also going to replace the seats with the seats from my Fulcrums, but that fell through as the surgery to try and extract one seat failed. Alright, enough blabbing, here she is, with the majority of her light gray, the dark gray nose and the black antiglare. I'm going to add the metal paint sections soon, and the intakes.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe58%2FSauragnmon%2FMiG-105Nose.jpg&hash=470d4ce921bcbc11a0f8194dc4ef00c6bbb827fa)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe58%2FSauragnmon%2FMiG-105Body.jpg&hash=af2159734527c4d44f3b545a6d813fceacde40fe)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe58%2FSauragnmon%2FMiG-105Underside.jpg&hash=813dbb499f7ea508dda28b35ef618c1cf9829e30)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe58%2FSauragnmon%2FMiG-105Missile.jpg&hash=8af1ba59ce457d1ad321d3fec24e9b73c307192d)
The missile in the bay is an R-27T1 "Alamo" yeah I know, it's something you'd have to see refitted systems to support, and they've done some internal work on this bird to keep it up to spec - maybe even operating a high speed interceptor unit - AL-31's might fit into the engine mounts, I'll compare them tomorrow. I Might have an IRST ball I could put on it I wanted.
Been doing some quick reading on the Arrow and was wondering what it could/would have carried. Somewhere it mentioned AIM-4 Falcons then the (AIM-7) Sparrow. These would be carried in the weapons bay. Does anybody have any better info? And more importantly, maybe pics of the bays?
TIA chaps!
Hmmm ... I have some scans of it at home (so maybe just PM me) ... othewise I think at the Secret-Projects-Forum is a tread for it:
Correction: Here is it ...
http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/arrowtechdrawings2.html
http://www.avroarrow.org/interactive/weapac.asp
Deino
There's a lot of confusion about the Arrow weapon pack, much of it caused by journalists swapping one missile name for another without thinking it through (hence the "eight sparrows" nonsense you sometimes see).
As I understand it, there were three versions of the weapon pack:
First version: eight Falcons in four tandem bays.
Second version: three semi-exposed Sparrow IIs side-by-side with fin tips level with each other.
Third version: four Sparrow IIIs (or late Sparrow IIs ) side-by-side but staggered with fins overlapping.
Here's the discussion on Secret Projects:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4166.0/highlight,arrows.html
OK, so I think my Arrowski's weapons bay was a little too big - my own bad, I didn't really know how Deep it was supposed to be, and just built the roof of the bay onto the upper strengthening walls. I think it's .75" instead of .5", end result being that it's a foot and a half too deep. Oops. Ah well, crap happens. It still looks cool.
I'll have to keep the bay in mind when I do the Arrowcat build, I think the Phoenixes will have to be semi-recessed, and partially stacked over each other resulting in the armament system set to launch the center one first at all times. Of course I think the TF-30's might afford me some additional width overall, but I'm not sure about that.
Quote from: Sauragnmon on January 14, 2009, 06:07:14 AM
OK, so I think my Arrowski's weapons bay was a little too big - my own bad, I didn't really know how Deep it was supposed to be, and just built the roof of the bay onto the upper strengthening walls. I think it's .75" instead of .5", end result being that it's a foot and a half too deep. Oops. Ah well, crap happens. It still looks cool.
I'll have to keep the bay in mind when I do the Arrowcat build, I think the Phoenixes will have to be semi-recessed, and partially stacked over each other resulting in the armament system set to launch the center one first at all times. Of course I think the TF-30's might afford me some additional width overall, but I'm not sure about that.
You could always say that the centre bay is deeper at the expense of some fuel, but the left and right bays are shallower with different missiles in them. IIRC, the structure between the weapon pack and the "ceiling" of it's bay consists of a series of bolt-on cross-ways tie-rods, so they could be replaced with a "cranked" structure that cuts into the fuel tank space between the intakes.
Bear in mind that although the weapon bay doors in the pack are 16' long, the actual detachable pack is 2' longer due to the missile avionics crates at the front end. Relocate and/or miniaturise those electronics and you get an extra two feet of length to play with.
Quote from: Weaver on January 14, 2009, 06:29:58 AM
You could always say that the centre bay is deeper at the expense of some fuel, but the left and right bays are shallower with different missiles in them. IIRC, the structure between the weapon pack and the "ceiling" of it's bay consists of a series of bolt-on cross-ways tie-rods, so they could be replaced with a "cranked" structure that cuts into the fuel tank space between the intakes.
Bear in mind that although the weapon bay doors in the pack are 16' long, the actual detachable pack is 2' longer due to the missile avionics crates at the front end. Relocate and/or miniaturise those electronics and you get an extra two feet of length to play with.
Just above the weapons bay are the two air intake ducts. It's the reason why the Sparrows had their fin tips protruding through small slots in the bay doors, they couldn't go any further upwards. I made my weapons bay following the drawings posted below which are in the Arrowhead book.
Quote from: Deino on January 14, 2009, 12:46:55 AM
Hmmm ... I have some scans of it at home (so maybe just PM me) ... othewise I think at the Secret-Projects-Forum is a tread for it:
Correction: Here is it ...
http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/arrowtechdrawings2.html
http://www.avroarrow.org/interactive/weapac.asp
Deino
In one of the links here it says the weapons bay was bigger than a B-29's bay. Here's a good example of mis-information. You can actually stack about twenty Sparrows in just the forward bay of a B-29, the rear bay holding the same. When I built my bay I tried to get four Sparrows in there, they will --- just. But the problem is they can't be deployed, the higher ones just don't have the clearance when the mounting frames are extended. Also with the mounting frame style, negates being able to lie the fins flat. I also tried to place eight Falcons using the Falcons from an F-89 which are the earlier ones, they don't fit as shown in the drawing. I haven't been able to make it work at all, I think the drawing has the missiles underscale to what they actually are.
Hi ... just found this !
http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=174564&st=0&gopid=1628561&#entry1628561
Deino
Well I think the vertical size of the R-27T that I hung in the bay is actually big enough to fit inside the bay's clearance itself, the only reason the pack is bigger, was simply for ease of construction on my part, and to accomodate the pylon that the missile is suspended on - in the real aircraft, it would likely be hung on a pair of swing arms to drop it out the bay.
I don't really need more lengthwise clearance in the bay, I'm just not sure if I can get the missiles into position with the doors closed - if I can get them in and closed inside 3" with the missiles sitting with their fins at standard 45 degree angle, it's all kosher - I'm rather sure I can get them in three widthwise, it's the height question that stands at my problem. If not, I have to recess them into the bay, which I can also then claim other benefits for it, but I'm not 100% sure at this exact moment. Cooling systems for the missiles would also be able to be placed if I had them semirecessed. Just ran the numbers, the wingspan on the Phoenix is 3' wide, the lateral and vertical dimensions are then 2.121' and change, so there would be plenty of space in the pack to fit them fully internal. Seats Four Phoenixes, if it's a little widened, with the 8' wide design. I'm not sure if I'll have to, to fit the TF30's in place. I'll deal with that when I get there. I could always recess two and hang two as well. Sit the outer pair recessed and the inner two internal, relying on the smaller diameter of the missile body itself at 15" to create space inside the bay.
Kitnut, as to your commentary on the bay on the model, it could also be Hobbycraft screwing with the actual dimensions - did you measure it out, the missiles as well, and test the numbers 100% to get it right?
A quick comment to Deino's link to the ARC build. he's doing a very nice job on that but I notice that he is building his weapons bay straight into the fuselage and not into the removable bay.
Sauragnmon--
I have a number of 1/72 Arrow kits, three (or four) of the Hobbycraft kit (second issue with the corrected wing orientation) and I also have a box full of the Victoria Productions vacuform kits. That's because I own the moulds to this kit and it is renown for being one of the two really good kits of the Arrow (not me trying to sell it but what's written on the internet) One of the first things I did was to compare the VP kit to the Hobbycraft kit and in most respects they are very close to being the same, the VP kit has way better 'engraved' detail though (once again, not me trying to sell the kit but ask JHM of his opinion of it as he has one now) The weapons bay was one area I looked at closely because I'm toying with the idea of enhancing the VP kit with some resin and this is one area I'm looking at, so everything I find about the subject is of great interest to me.
I've read the thread on Secret Projects and for the most part it's written by people who 'think' they know all about it, there are some knowledgeable people there but for the most part I don't think so. Almost all info is of speculation as most of the relevant info was destroyed when the project was cancelled and all people have to go by is the few items saved so finding true info is very difficult. I've also read the threads on ARC and for now I'll keep my comments to myself.
Back to the weapons bay, on both kits they are about the same dimensions and they are about correct compared to the station drawing in the Arrowhead book, if you notice on mine the front and back have a sloping part, this is to avoid the structural stays that Weaver mentions and actually should be much shallower than how I've done mine, I did it this way because the missiles wouldn't fit in (BTW I shortened the Sparrows as the earlier version was a shorter missile), I suspect, studying the drawings, that the top of the bay would have has slots in the roof just like the doors do. There is mention somewhere that the designer goofed on the weapons bay design size.
Quote from: kitnut617 on January 14, 2009, 07:59:52 AM
I've read the thread on Secret Projects and for the most part it's written by people who 'think' they know all about it, there are some knowledgeable people there but for the most part I don't think so. Almost all info is of speculation as most of the relevant info was destroyed when the project was cancelled and all people have to go by is the few items saved so finding true info is very difficult. I've also read the threads on ARC and for now I'll keep my comments to myself.
Well I originated the thread on Secret Projects and I certainly don't claim to know all about it, inded I started it to see if anyone knew better than me, and was rather surprised to get little response. Everything I've posted on there are back-of-a-fag-packet guesstimates but
based on available evidence.
Regarding the 4 x Sparrow fit, there exists a photograph of a wind-tunnel model with four Sparrow-shapes underneath it on alternate short and long carriers, which implies that they're staggered in the stowed position. There are also the diagrams that Deino linked to, who's provenance I don't know. The information I could find suggested that Sparrow III was nearly a foot shorter than Sparrow II and had an inch and a half less span, which may be what made this arrangement possible with Sparrow III when it wasn't with Sparrow II.
Slots in the roof of the bay are interesting, since the shapes above them are the two oval section intake ducts and the oval section (as far as I can tell) fuel tank, which implies that there might be space for such slots between them, at least for the 3 x Sparrow fit.
Regarding my semi-serious suggestion that the centre station of the bay
on Saur's model (i.e. the middle third) could be deeper at the expense of the fuel tank, I stand by this in principle. By the time they passed over the weapon bay, the intake ducts had morphed into tall ovals with a fuel tank between them, so the ducts would only have set a hard limit on the depth of the outer thirds of the pack, not the middle third. Now to make that middle third deeper, and the tank shallower, would involve replacing the bracing struts with some kind of arched structure which would probably be heavier, but it could, inprinciple, be done. Whether it would be
wise is another matter entirely, however..... ;D
Saur: I made the box around a Sparrow's fins to be 2' 4" square, so your missiles should fit inside that. However, they wern't fully inside the bay on the Arrow, so it's hard to say: maybe yours could have exposed fins too?
My thoughts Weaver are that everything is very subjective. The Arrow head book is probably as close as you will get with details, it is supposedly written on info provided through interviews with key people who were there at the time. In Calgary there's an RC model shop which specializes in aircraft, the owner has a dedicated area sectioned of to all things Avro Canada. He was also the guy who built the 1/8 scale flying model (powered by ducted fans BTW) which appeared in the TV mini-series starring Dan Ackroyd, this movie had supposedly technical help from the same key people, and the shop owner used the drawings in the book to build his model. At the moment this guy, Dan Hyslop, and some other people have a project of building a real half scale flying Arrow using the same plans. Here's a link to his shop:
http://www.actionhobby.ca/index.php
Some notes on the weapons pack, with examples and coming from decades of studying the drawings in the Arrowheads book (I have two copies, my original edition purchased in 1981 suffered a binding failure and was consequently taken apart and placed in my loose files, making it perfect for scanning ;D ).
1) the detachable weapons pack fits from Sta. 292 to Sta. 485, a space of 193 inches making the pack approximately 16 feet long.
2) the avionics visible in the weapons drawings posted by apophenia (from the Arrowheads book) are not part of the of the detachable pack,
they are in an avionics bay forward of the pack between Sta. 255 and Sta. 292. (note the lettering just visible in the upper left hand corner of the pack photo)
3) on page 27 of the book there is a reproduction of an Avro drawing of the pack showing four Sparrows, with doors (the drawing is white line on black, I've inverted the scan for clarity)
I measured the Falcon missiles in the Revell 1/72nd F-89 kit, using a 1/72nd scale rule, and they come out a scale foot too long, measuring 7.5' instead of 6.5'... they definitely would not fit, especially as the weapons bay on the 1/72 Hobbycraft Arrow is three feet short, as is the whole airframe going by the measurements on the Avro datum and 3-view GA drawings in the Arrowheads book. I don't have the 1/48th Arrow kits so I can't check them against the data.
BTW the Falcons in the Monogram/Revell 1/48th F-102A kit are within a hair of being bang-on an exactly scale 6.5' long.
Jon
Jon, that is very revealing, I just measured the bay from the Hobbycraft kit and it scales to 13 feet :o So I went and got one of the VP kits and measured that, well it measures out at 15 feet.
Has anyone been following Pete Malaguti (K2Pete) and his attempt to build the HobbyCraft CF-105? Not just one CF-105 mind you but two of them.
He certainly has done wonders with those kits. Here are the links:
HobbyCraft (original mold) CF-105 WIP by Pete Malaguti (K2Pete) (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=174564)
Darn nice job on opening up the weapons bay and incorporating some Sparrow missiles on launch rails with this kit.
HobbyCraft (new mold) CF-105 WIP by Pete Malaguti (K2Pete) (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=175225)
He is really going out of his way on this project with the addition of the RADAR, weapons pallet, and an Iroquois engine on a maintenance dolly.
I saw his extra-detailed build the other day, interesting thread that. Quite nicely detailed stuff.
I would surmise the 16' long weapons bay would be theoretically able to support a small set of AIM-54's at that point, with some widening of the fuselage to accomodate AWG-9 radar in the nose. Random thought.
If the arrow pack is 3' short on the Hobbycraft kit, as is the rest of the fuselage, I would be tempted, when I build my Super Arrow, to build in a plug in the bay area to fit this new adjusted length. Again, a random thought.
Those are both simply awesome.
:wub:
http://www.juniorgeneral.org/donated/2009/aug14/arrow.png (http://www.juniorgeneral.org/donated/2009/aug14/arrow.png)
Instant Arrows ! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on August 18, 2009, 08:10:26 PM
Has anyone been following Pete Malaguti (K2Pete) and his attempt to build the HobbyCraft CF-105? Not just one CF-105 mind you but two of them.
He certainly has done wonders with those kits. Here are the links:
HobbyCraft (original mold) CF-105 WIP by Pete Malaguti (K2Pete) (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=174564)
Darn nice job on opening up the weapons bay and incorporating some Sparrow missiles on launch rails with this kit.
HobbyCraft (new mold) CF-105 WIP by Pete Malaguti (K2Pete) (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=175225)
He is really going out of his way on this project with the addition of the RADAR, weapons pallet, and an Iroquois engine on a maintenance dolly.
Looks like Pete Malaguti (K2Pete) has finished his CF-105 Arrow project (http://www.arcair.com/Gal10/9101-9200/gal9136-Arrow-Malaguti/00.shtm) as it is now a front page article on ARC (http://www.arcair.com/)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcair.com%2FGal10%2F9101-9200%2Fgal9136-Arrow-Malaguti%2F01m.jpg&hash=c14a420a5b401729910ef582477e6361390afb23)
I found a 3D model of the Avro CF-105 Arrow (http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=ce301c5e3473c93aae91bf2420d69fb4) while searching through the Google SketchUp 3D Warehouse (http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/) today. There are a number of other modern airccraft available as well for download and manipulation but I figured this one was worth sharing. You can download the file for viewing on the Google SketchUp viewer if you don't want to be bothered with installing the full SketchUp application.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsketchup.google.com%2F3dwarehouse%2Fdownload%3Fmid%3Dce301c5e3473c93aae91bf2420d69fb4%26amp%3Brtyp%3Dlt%26amp%3Bctyp%3Dother%26amp%3Bts%3D1202488299000&hash=e794c441559e7e525744510d054c40768322617f)
(image source: WilliamT/google.com (http://sketchup.google.com/))
Thought I'd add these that I posted in RP1's F.155T profile thread many moons ago, since the new tool Hobbycraft kit is due out.
Mark 1, J-75 engined prototypes (RL201-205)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FAvroArrowIJ-753-view.gif&hash=a694f56f03209f6c58c74136a5e46ddd8c6c819a)
Mark 2, Orenda Iroquois engined protoytpe (RL206)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FAvroArrowIIIroquois3-view.gif&hash=60b24036c0c9ce0dff2c55e94997a5ae10c5a856)
Anyone want a seat?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/L-K-Avro-Arrow-CF-105-Aircraft-Pilots-Ejection-Seat-Canadian-Air-Force-CAF-/130785408643?pt=Motors_Aviation_Parts_Gear&hash=item1e736af683
The description is worth reading
The guy shoulda been a carnie barker. :rolleyes:
Gees, whatta load. :banghead: :banghead:
Pretty neat !
No wonder the previous purchaser failed to come up with the funds. You'd have to sell several major organs to make that amount. IMHO it won't sell at that price.
And speaking of CF-105s and prices, anybody else noticed how much the old and the new kits are selling for? Ridiculous!
Selling where ? I saw on kijiji some clown around here asking $100 for the old Hobbycraft 48th scale kit, claiming it to be 'rare', while another seller had the new-tool 48th scale kit for only $15 ! Which one would you take ?
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Captain Canada on January 27, 2013, 05:56:47 PM
Selling where ? I saw on kijiji some clown around here asking $100 for the old Hobbycraft 48th scale kit, claiming it to be 'rare', while another seller had the new-tool 48th scale kit for only $15 ! Which one would you take ?
:thumbsup:
Neither are God's own scale - 72. ;D
I'm talking about Evilbay. The prices are high and the postage from Canadia to downunder is even more ruinous than the US for some reason. :wacko:
All the new mouldings go for about $C35+ and the postage for about $C40+. :o
Israeli
Israeli what?
Came across this today, Ah :o
Dual-seat configuration CF-105K
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkaap.purpleglen.com%2Fimages%2FPROFILE%2520-%2520105925-arrow9.jpg&hash=4d7caa73f31e03f7e06751fe369848c74c8c125c)
More here... http://kaap.purpleglen.com/arrow_mk9.html There are 3 more profile links on the bottom of that page. On the left side of the page there are more Marks of Arrow to look at.
Even a Royal Austrailian Air Force Tanker Variant
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkaap.purpleglen.com%2Fimages%2FPROFILE%2520-%252015189-arrow7.jpg&hash=b236a1ce694f7363703e3766d8ad90f3a088fd30)
Steven L :wub:
Lots of cool Arrows in there ! Not a big fan of the nose in the later ones tho, just looks funny.
:cheers:
Love the RAAF one. Interesting, atypical paint job though. I like the new nose and cockpit. :wub:
Quote from: FAR148 on February 01, 2013, 08:54:02 AM
Came across this today, Ah :o
Dual-seat configuration CF-105K
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkaap.purpleglen.com%2Fimages%2FPROFILE%2520-%2520105925-arrow9.jpg&hash=4d7caa73f31e03f7e06751fe369848c74c8c125c)
More here... http://kaap.purpleglen.com/arrow_mk9.html There are 3 more profile links on the bottom of that page. On the left side of the page there are more Marks of Arrow to look at.
Even a Royal Austrailian Air Force Tanker Variant
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkaap.purpleglen.com%2Fimages%2FPROFILE%2520-%252015189-arrow7.jpg&hash=b236a1ce694f7363703e3766d8ad90f3a088fd30)
Steven L :wub:
that is a beautiful airplane!
It may be silly, but it sure is pretty.
YouTube: 5th Gen SUPERSONIC CF105 MK3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UmDYc8s3YY)
Cheers,
Logan
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.
:cheers:
I do find it funny how the internal weapons bay doors sound like someone opening and shutting their glove compartment.
Cheers,
Logan
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.
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 ;-)
:tornado:
UK 751.) 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]
Quote from: Logan Hartke on December 18, 2013, 06:20:59 PM
It may be silly, but it sure is pretty.
YouTube: 5th Gen SUPERSONIC CF105 MK3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UmDYc8s3YY)
Looks all kinds of wonderful, doesn't it? :thumbsup:
And VERY modellable too!
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....
:banghead: :tornado: :unsure:
Quote from: FAR148 on February 01, 2013, 08:54:02 AM
Came across this today, Ah :o
Dual-seat configuration CF-105K
Steven L :wub:
They were always two-seaters ---
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.
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 ------
I really should have looked at the specs ;D. 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.
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
I'm sure they could have found places to put extra fuel in an airframe that big..... :thumbsup:
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 ----
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.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 19, 2013, 01:02:08 PM
kitnut617
QuoteWell, 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.
I'm surprised the range was so poor considering it was designed to cruise supersonic w/o afterburner.
Erm --- NOT!
http://va3kgb.ve3kbr.com/cf105/specifications.htm
An Arrow looks great no matter HOW short the range. ;D
I see at least one RAF one in my future. Do SAC do white metal wheels for a 1/72 Arrow? If not they ought to.
The original 1/72 Hobbycraft kit's main gear are a bit grim and way off the mark as to what they really looked like. I don't know if the ""new tool"" 1/72 kit's are any better as I've not seen the kit. On my first Hobbycraft CF-105 build (the corrected wing kit that is), I scratch-built some main gear to represent what appears in the Arrowhead book, someday I'll revisit it and try to do a much better job at it so I can include it in the VP kit that I now own the moulds too (which one day I'll put back into production)
Well now, seeing as the Cold War is heating up again with Canada claiming the Arctic as sovereign territory and Russia declaring "Niet", maybe its time to dust off those blueprints.
Cold War heating up again? Mm, not that is an era that is as dead as the Norwegian Blue.
Any new bickering between Russia and the "West" is more a reset to the 19th century Great Game
than it is the 20th century conflict of economic ideologies.
Anyhow, whatever the case a warmed-over 1950s aircraft design aint' the answer for supposed defense needs. :banghead:
Peter Hopkirk used to be a customer of mine and he fascinated me with his incredible knowledge of the Great Game. So much to know and so little time.
am i right in thinking the f18 is canadas front line fighter/interceptor?
whats the range on them?
Quote from: Librarian on December 20, 2013, 01:54:55 PM
Peter Hopkirk used to be a customer of mine and he fascinated me with his incredible knowledge of the Great Game. So much to know and so little time.
I have several of Hopkirk's books. They are excellent. However, the "Great Game" referred to a specific geographic area - the North-West Frontier and Central Asia. It also ended when the Afghans at British behest annexed the Wakhan region to form a buffer zone between the Russian and British Empires in the Hindu Kush. While many American commentators (usually right-wing) have attempted to take the name for their machinations in Central Asia, it really isn't appropriate.
kitnut617QuoteErm --- NOT!
http://va3kgb.ve3kbr.com/cf105/specifications.htm
I'm confused...
Been following this discussion with interest and would like to build one in 1/72, but where would I get one?
Gondor
The whole idea of the Arrow having short range kind of gave me an idea based on one conceptual variant of the Arrow. There was one that had forward swept ferri-intakes and drop tanks that had the gears tucked into them.
I don't like the idea truthfully of the landing-gear drop-tank idea, but the ferri-intake brings up a lot of interesting possibilities
- The Skyray, Skylancer, Voodoo, and Thud all had intakes that were fairly flat to their depth
- The Skyray, Thud, and Skylancer also had some blending of the wing and some of the outer-wall/nacelle to it.
- This could be elaborated into an area ruling of sorts with the wing put in a mid position rather than a top position
- This could make the fuselage stronger or lighter, and also free up room for fuel
- Furthermore it could also allow for a shorter landing-gear which caused a lot of weight problems in the aircraft
- The gears could also be repositioned
Conversely you could alter the model so that it's got a Low-mount wing, much like the Phantom - that would cut gear length significantly, you could still retain the in-wing gear folds, the only question might be how the airframe modification would affect the payload bay, as the wing starts about a quarter to a third of the way into the weapon bay's start position.
Quote from: Gondor on December 21, 2013, 11:46:04 AM
Been following this discussion with interest and would like to build one in 1/72, but where would I get one?
Gondor
Some here:
http://www.kingkit.co.uk/search.php?pager=1&searchword=arrow
Quote from: Librarian on December 22, 2013, 01:38:23 AM
Quote from: Gondor on December 21, 2013, 11:46:04 AM
Been following this discussion with interest and would like to build one in 1/72, but where would I get one?
Gondor
Some here:
http://www.kingkit.co.uk/search.php?pager=1&searchword=arrow
Yikes at the price!
Gondor
Quote from: Gondor on December 22, 2013, 01:49:44 AM
Quote from: Librarian on December 22, 2013, 01:38:23 AM
Quote from: Gondor on December 21, 2013, 11:46:04 AM
Been following this discussion with interest and would like to build one in 1/72, but where would I get one?
Gondor
Some here:
http://www.kingkit.co.uk/search.php?pager=1&searchword=arrow
Yikes at the price!
Gondor
And the 1/48 one is even worse, it's 'only' £54..... :o
....and I recall that both kits need some serious update parts to correct them ;D.
Quote from: Librarian on December 22, 2013, 05:07:27 AM
....and I recall that both kits need some serious update parts to correct them ;D.
The first releases do, but both scales have been ""re-tooled"". I've not seen a kit of those personally. I know where I can get a 1/72 Hobbycraft one for C$38.00 (which might be the re-tooled release) and the 1/48 one is C$60. I've got four of the 1/72 early release too -- plus a couple of Mastercaster's excellent forward fuselage replacements.
BTW, I didn't say the Arrow was short-ranged, I said the range radius was too short to leave Canadian airspace. At the time of it's conception it had very long range for an interceptor, and they wanted to make the range radius even greater, 1000-1200 miles (so a one-way flight they were looking at 2000-2400 miles). This was before in-flight refueling ---
Folks:
I am very privileged to come across some very rare Avro Arrow Memorabilia.
The two pictures below are scans from what I consider authentic photos borrowed from an ex-Avro employee who was employed as an Executive Assistant.
She worked first as an EA first for a RCAF Air Commodore (I am guessing the rank. Waiting for details. Her memory is not that good anymore) and later in the Avro Sales organization. It was in the sales department where she came to acquire these photos. The story as told to me by her son is that when visitors would come to the factory, they would layout a large number of photos as gifts and the pilots would go and pre-sign all of them. There sometimes would be leftovers which would be destroyed. She had the good frame of mind to take these as well as other now precious memorabilia.
The signatures are from Janusz Żurakowski and Wladyslaw Potocki ("Spud"). Note he signed it as "Spud".
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn547%2FCF-101B%2FAircraft-Special%2FRL-201-1-Copyright.jpg&hash=57c9a433ec6c22a5243dbb63e215d2faea92f737)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn547%2FCF-101B%2FAircraft-Special%2FRL-201-2-Copyright.jpg&hash=e76bfb8c72aecae6d386c13f148c4245660d1e69)
Enjoy.
Super pics, and great to see Zura's signature on there. I saw him do his amazing 'cartwheel' in the Gloster 'Reaper' at Farnborough. :thumbsup:
The only thing missing is the Rot. Hon. Deifenbacker impaled on the nose spike.............. :wacko:
That is too cool ! You are lucky indeed. Love these old colour shots...what a gorgeous aeroplane. Thanks you so much for sharing !
:cheers:
That's an interesting pair of pictures. I see from the second one that the canopy looks as if it splits down the middle and opens up like a clam shell. :blink:
Or is my interpretation of the picture wrong?
Gondor
Quote from: Gondor on September 21, 2015, 03:22:06 AM
That's an interesting pair of pictures. I see from the second one that the canopy looks as if it splits down the middle and opens up like a clam shell. :blink:
Or is my interpretation of the picture wrong?
Gondor
That is how it worked Alastair. The VP moulds I have, have the canopy in two halves like that. I should try and get it back into production, but it isn't competitive at the moment (price wise that is although it's a better kit than what else is on the market)
http://i877.photobucket.com/albums/ab340/ACpilot1/AvroNews.jpg
IMO, not the best way to get in and out of a cockpit
Were production Arrows intended to have a different canopy opening?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 21, 2015, 04:11:58 AM
Were production Arrows intended to have a different canopy opening?
Probably not as cancelled before common sense could come into effect, its one of those design features for adopted for Mach2+ aircraft when they felt the more conventional designs couldn't possibly cope with the speed and the air friction or to safely jettison when Ejecting.
Thanks, I was wondering how the "£#@&" the pilot got in and out.
Gondor
Long legs and lots of hand holding :thumbsup:
Good photos. Agree the spilt canopy leaves a bit to be desired for ease of access. I put the F-103 as the worst windscreen and ingress/egress system proposed with not only a periscope for forward viz, a downward ejection seat, plus but the entire seat/capsule lowering downwards on rails for the pilot to climb into. :o I guess it did get away from those pesky ladders...
a few more that I scratch my head regarding windscreen, access and emergency escape:
-Tu-22
-CONVAIR SeaDart
-X-3
-Vulcan- seems they could have added a little more glass to the jettisonable canopy as things matured and high altitude pressurization was less of a concern. And putting the nose landing gear right behind the emergency bail out hatch (not to mention the three rear seaters having no ejection seats...)
-Victor
-Canberra. As just mentioned in an different thread- really awkward seating in a few versions.
Marc-André Valiquette will be doing a talk this weekend at the Jet Aircraft Museum in London, Ontario. I might pop in, be an excuse to buy one or two of his books and check out the jets. He will also have a few bits from the real Arrow there, a gear door actuator and a drag cute.
https://www.facebook.com/marcandre.valiquette/posts/1641969422718037
experimenting ---
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FAvro%2520Arrow%2FAvroArrowMkII005.jpg&hash=d280955a7758ed172f7b740ef6c4ad461ede6b35) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Avro%20Arrow/AvroArrowMkII005.jpg.html)
OK, it works. 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.
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.
ZenQuoteThicker wing skins do not make a higher wing loading
No, but it makes it sturdier and able to withstand greater structural loads.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteMaking 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.
QuoteFor 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.
QuoteTSR.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...
QuoteIn 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...
elmayerleQuoteThere 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?
QuoteI'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!
QuoteMost 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?
QuoteAs 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.
QuoteI 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...
ArchibaldQuoteNow, 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?
QuoteWhat 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...
QuoteIn 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 350o C (662o 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 350o C or 662o 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...
QuoteI 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.
MossieQuote(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FAvroArrowIIIroquois3-view.gif&hash=60b24036c0c9ce0dff2c55e94997a5ae10c5a856)
The wing cross-section kind of looks like some super-critical foils that would be developed later...
Quote from: kitnut617 on December 18, 2016, 09:15:23 AM
... 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.
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.
Quote from: NARSES2 on December 26, 2016, 05:17:18 AM
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
Quote from: NARSES2 on December 26, 2016, 05:17:18 AM
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'. :banghead:
Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 27, 2016, 02:48:08 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on December 26, 2016, 05:17:18 AM
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'. :banghead:
Yes, I hate them for their blackmail attitude. So I am - still - refusing to pay.
Quote from: loupgarou on December 31, 2016, 12:19:09 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 27, 2016, 02:48:08 AM
Quote from: NARSES2 on December 26, 2016, 05:17:18 AM
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'. :banghead:
Yes, I hate them for their blackmail attitude. So I am - still - refusing to pay.
That's why I switched to flickr.
Airfix Vigi wings, etc fit nicely on the HobbyCraft Arrow.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg102%2FAlvis3_1%2FArrow%2520Vigi_zps1xkiwtsz.jpg&hash=a3862ebb944ce3b1c1bae8192425417944e9de72) (http://s54.photobucket.com/user/Alvis3_1/media/Arrow%20Vigi_zps1xkiwtsz.jpg.html)
Landing gear would have to be moved to the fuselage, unless a major reworking of the Vigi wing was done.
Alvis Pi
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
Be cool if they'd publish the whole thing eh ! Cheers and thanks for sharing that.
Well done Mr. Barnes. :thumbsup:
What a find. ;D
Presumably they are the property of Avro Canada or their descendants...
<googles>
,,,who are currently Bombardier but might soon be Alstom.
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... ;D ;D ;D
The blueprints are primarily assembly drawings, a number of which were published in the Arrowheads book decades ago. Not really anything new.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-Gnh7xbv/0/7cb99113/O/CF105_DATUM_MK2_01.png)
One of the drawings from the Arrow book.
More stuff from the Arrowheads book.
Reconnaissance version description (Kit note the highlighted text ;D )
CF105_RECC_01.png
Mach 3 Arrow
CF105_MACH3_01.png
ZELL
CF105_ZELL_01.png
CF105_ZELL_02.png
CF105_ZELL_03.png
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on April 16, 2020, 07:07:04 PM
(Kit note the highlighted text ;D )
I did, I did! :thumbsup:
That's very interesting, I've never hard of that proposal before. That's one SERIOUSLY large fin they've applied there, and I wonder why? Those intakes shouldn't have unbalanced it that much should they? Or am I missing something else?
CFB-111
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/CFB-111.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/CFB-111.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
Quote from: ysi_maniac on February 11, 2024, 11:11:13 AMCFB-111
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/CFB-111.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/CFB-111.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds")
This is cool! Another for the to do list!
Recently I got to wondering about potential upgrades for the Arrow, particularly in the form of missiles and radars. If it had stayed in service for roughly the same time as the F-101s that Canada ended up with, it could have been retrofitted with the AWG-10 or APG-63 radar. Heck, you might could even fit an ASG-18 in there. Then carry either AIM-7 or AIM-47 semi-conformally. That would have been a rather impressive combination compared to what the other interceptors of the day had, other than the F-14.
Why not carry some Phoenixes too?
Well I imagine if you can carry AIM-47 then AIM-54 is no problem either. That would be an interesting airplane for sure! Far and away more powerful than anything USAF ADC had to offer, they would have been jealous!
The Belgians armed them with LGBs.
Oh yes, I LIKE that! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Captain Canada on October 03, 2024, 04:18:16 AMThe Belgians armed them with LGBs.
The French made their Pilots wear a LBD :wacko: