If The Usaf Decided To Purchase The Arrow.

[elmayerle]

Peace Jack Arrow w/t HIAC-1 camera


Shas B)

Shas, I'm very interested by this damned camera (HIAC-1) so any infos ojn this recon system would be helpful... I already know that Israel had three phantoms modified to carry it, but there's no much infos on the system itself    

An Arrow with such a system would be a tremendous recon platform to say the least!

The Aerofax minigraph on the RF-4 Variants has some good pics of the camera and the pod developed for F-4 external carriage on the centerline.

[anthonyp]

Speaking of USAF Arrows, I've always thought they'd look good in 171st livery...

[philp]

Yeah, that one is pretty but I have always had a thing for the MT birds.  Might have something to do with the fact I lived in Great Falls for the better part of 15years when my Dad was stationed at Malmstrom (may also explain my love of the EB-57).
I loved the "Russian" interior blue used on their 106's.  Just adds a little color that worked well with the blue tail and tank markings.

[aerofan]

Hey anthonyp that USAF Arrow looks nice. I've heard that if the US purchased Arrows that they would have been used as attack bombers or roles of that of the Thundercheif. Be interesting to see a USAF camo scheme on the Arrow.

[Mossie]

I've found out recentley that the UK looked at Arrow for both air defence & strike.  It was intended to purchase some as an interim before the F.155T fighters were in service & was also looked at as an alternative to TSR.2.  There's every reason that the USAF could have had a strike capable Arrow, or even a dedicated strike version as well.

So SEA or Euro I maybe?  How about an Arrow aggressor?  People have been talking about near SR-71 performance for later variants, even the 'common or garden' Arrow would have been able to fly high enough for strategic recce, so how about a version in matt black with red markings & insignia?

[Lawman]

Perhaps a high-low mix of Arrows and a purely conventional P1154? If the P1154 had actually been developed as a completely conventional fighter, basically a two-seat, two-engined, agile F-4 Phantom rival, then it might have been a sensible fighter. Ironically, Sidney Camm himself was against the STOVL obsession, and if he had won out, and seen a proper fighter built instead, it might have been worthwhile. A mix of CF-105s for interceptor and strike duties, and P1154s for fighter and close support would make a lot of sense. In addition, I would have rebuilt the Hunters, with newer avionics, like the Swiss did, leaving it as a competent strike aircraft through until the early '70s - it was basically similar to the A-4 Skyhawk, which was still good for many years. If given more modern weapons, and a stronger wing, then it would allow the replacement to be deferred, and combined into a lightweight fighter project for the '70s. A mix of 20% CF-105s, 40% P-1154s and 40% Hunters should have been possible. For the RN, perhaps they would get P-1154s as their standard shipboard fighter, operating off their new CVAs, but with CF-105s as naval strike bombers, a la Russian Navy Tu-22Ms!

The only problem is the weapons capability of the CF-105, obviously being designed as an interceptor, its armament is limited to A2A missiles. If it could carry, say, four AIM-47s, then it would have real possibilities. This could, for instance, be translated into two Falcons and four Sparrows, or two nuclear missiles and four Sparrows, or two anti-ship missiles and four Sparrows. A CF-105 maritime strike bomber would have real possibilities, and it might even allow replacement of the V-force, though somewhat indirectly.

[Zen]

For the Arrow a fusilage stretch might allow larger weapons internaly carried or semi-submerged.

P1154 as a CTOL fighter/attack type?
Maybe, if you use the big wing, but I have doubts about the exhaust's likely location and its effects on the tail and rear structure and thats assuming a conventional scimitar-like arrangement. A completely new rear end could end up changing the whole plane.
Stretching the jet pipes way aft to sit phantom-like beneath the tail would add a lot of weight!

IMO its easier to produce a shortened P1125 and I suspect Camm would look to that route instead.

[Archibald]

The only problem is the weapons capability of the CF-105, obviously being designed as an interceptor, its armament is limited to A2A missiles. If it could carry, say, four AIM-47s, then it would have real possibilities. This could, for instance, be translated into two Falcons and four Sparrows, or two nuclear missiles and four Sparrows, or two anti-ship missiles and four Sparrows. A CF-105 maritime strike bomber would have real possibilities, and it might even allow replacement of the V-force, though somewhat indirectly.

It could... two on the belly, two more underwing.    

I'm a great fan of the Arrow, mine was painted as a USN aircraft (to complete Eddie USN TSR-2... what a CAG we created )
I'm frantically searching another hobbycraft kit to change into a Iranian bird with MiG-25 kill markings, F-14 canopy and others goodies...  

I can't order directly from Hannants as it seems there's a "minimum order level", Ie you need to buy at least for 30 pounds of their stuff otherwise they just can't send something per mail (too expensive for them). At least this is what I've understand...    

[elmayerle]

Speaking of USAF Arrows, I've always thought they'd look good in 171st livery...

Hmm, I've got some 1/48th 171st F-106 markings that'd go good on a 1/72 Arrow...

[anthonyp]

Speaking of USAF Arrows, I've always thought they'd look good in 171st livery...

Hmm, I've got some 1/48th 171st F-106 markings that'd go good on a 1/72 Arrow...

The tail is about the only part of the plane that'd need the 1/48 markings (the tail checkerboard and the leading edge chevrons are a bit small in 1/72, as seen above).

Now would you get a camera so we can see your builds!