THE AVRO CF-105 ARROW - WAS IT REALLY THAT GOOD?!?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Instal

Allow me to try to explain what must seem to some as a fanatical passion for the Arrow. Whether or not it was a world beater (which it was IMHO, cough cough, clear throat and giggle) is not the only reason why we are so passionate about it. We as Canadians sit between an elephant and a lion. ie the US and Great Britain. During the course of our short history one of these two behemoths has influenced our destiny. The Arrow was the first attempt by Canada to do a very difficult and high profile project without the influence of either of our big brothers. And we did it. No matter how you look at it the Arrow was an astounding achievment for a country the size of Canada. There was a great feeling of pride in the nation that we have not seen since. We finally did something without the US or UK and then our own government commits the heanous act of destroying that accomplishment. We will never "get over it" and rightly so because what ever the reason for it's death it sends a message to current politicians that such lack of forsight will not be forgotten or forgiven.

Very well said!!!!

[Matt308]

Well said Instal. Welcome to the forum.

[arrowrec]

Ok, the latest Arrow literature,
1) "Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation" by Randall Whitcomb. This book was called the definitive Avro book by Jim Floyd vp Avro Canada (Engineering) and the only book that Jim has ever endorsed.
2)"Storms of Controversy" by Palmiro Campagna. DND scientist and engineer that studied the Arrow for over 30 years.
3) "Requiem for a Giant" Campagna's latest book contains the latest information derived from the latest documents to be declassified. This is where I found the Jetliner info that I mentioned in a earlier post.

The history of the Arrow changed when the latest files were declassified, infact so, it made any book published even 7 years ago out of date, and in error. Allong with the published government dogma.
Palmiro was kind enought to host our "Ask the Expert" pages on the website
they are here;
ATE1

There are many many Arrow books some good some very bad, read them all with an open mind.

We also have some secret documents, the "Shaw Report" that was written at the time of the closure. We compiled the 74 page report onto a "Interactive CD" that we use for fundraising, has pictures and a lot of stuff. That's here;
Avro Arrow Online Store-MULTIMEDIA
If your interested.

I think Palmiro said it perfectly :
The Arrow is still being debated because it affected so many people and impacted all our lives over the last 40 years. It is being debated because of the way the decision was taken, with little or no explanation to Canadians. It is being debated because of all the rumors that sprang up about poor engineering, political interference, soviet moles etc. It is still being debated because there remains more truth to be told. It is still being debated because those who were maligned unnecessarily over the years will not forget. It is still being debated because the historians have only partially admitted they have been wrong over all these years. (Some of them finally conceded the Arrow was technically superior but they still erroneously claim it was costing too much.) There are many more reasons than this.

I hope you all enjoy the Arrow talk, I think it's great, even the bad stuff LOL.
Cheers and Best Regards
Scott McArthur
Research/Technical Director
Arrow Recovery Canada Inc.

Oh yes, for the Jetliner fans, Jim Floyds "Avro Canada C102 Jetliner" book has some Arrow info. It's been out of print for many years. I found mine on Ebay and was lucky enough to have Jim sign it!

PER ARDUE AD ASTRA

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by arrowrec

I hope you all enjoy the Arrow talk, I think it's great, even the bad stuff LOL.
Cheers and Best Regards
Scott McArthur
Research/Technical Director
Arrow Recovery Canada Inc.

Likewise Scott - BTW I lived in Canada for 5 years and if things were a little different i might of still been there. I hope you continue to join us...

PS - I'll be in Toronto tomorrow night - LOL!!!

[Instal]

One last note about the Arrow. There is one that survived and it is flown by Elvis but he flew into the Bermuda triangle and neither have been seen again.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Instal

One last note about the Arrow. There is one that survived and it is flown by Elvis but he flew into the Bermuda triangle and neither have been seen again.

Oh I don't know - I heard it was seen on the runway at Area 51!!!

[plan_D]

"20) First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that."

The F-104 had between a .56 to a .75 depending how much fuel it carried and how it was armed. The Arrow had a Thrust/weight: Dry: 0.439 With afterburner: 0.650 - it also had two engines...

The F-4 had a thrust to weight ration of .86!

I don't know the exact thrust:weight ratio of a Lightning - but I do know that at one point during its flight it reached 1:1 when fuel had been burnt off. At that time it should get back to base pretty sharpish - but still.

And I don't if the P.1B was the first to supercruise in the world, but it's pretty damn close to the first.

[Matt308]

What?? Really?? Almost 1:1? That defies physics for this airframe.

Specifications (Arrow Mk 1)
Data from The Great Book of Fighters[21]

General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 77 ft 9 in (23.71 m)
Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
Height: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m)
Wing area: 1,225 ft² (113.8 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 0003.5 mod root, NACA 0003.8 tip
Empty weight: 49,040 lb (22,245 kg)
Loaded weight: 56,920 lb (25,820 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 68,605 lb (31,120 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney J75-P-3 turbojets
Dry thrust: 12,500 lbf (55.6 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 23,500 lbf (104.53 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (1,307 mph, 2,104 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Cruise speed: Mach 0.91 (607 mph, 977 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
Range: 360 NM (410 mi, 660 km)
Service ceiling: 53,000 ft (16,150 m)
Wing loading: 46.5 lb/ft² (226.9 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight:
Dry: 0.439
With afterburner: 0.650

Even if you don't trust the T/W ratio quoted, just do the math.

T/W (empty)= 0.96
T/W (loaded) = 0.82 [I assume loaded means max internal fuel/no weapon loadout]
T/W (MToW) = 0.68

[pbfoot]

What he is referring to is the next one off the production line that was powered by 2 of the indiginous Orenda Iroquois with 20000,lbs thrust tests up to 30000lbs in burner mode. It was was test flown on the B47 they were able to shut down all the 47 engines and fly it solely with the Iroquis it supposedly bent the 47. The engine is visible on the aft starboard

[Matt308]

I don't know anything about this experimental engine, but suspect that the hot section lifespan was SEVERELY limited due to the metallurgy of the day. And most likely of such grave limitations as to not be of production quality. Zoom fast. Throw it away.

[FLYBOYJ]

There is no doubt the Arrow "would of" been a lot hotter with the Orenda Iroquois, but again we're looking at a "would of should of." As Matt pointed out I think there might of been some engine life limitations and again the fuel consumption of this beast was also something to consider.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Matt308

I don't know anything about this experimental engine, but suspect that the hot section lifespan was SEVERELY limited due to the metallurgy of the day. And most likely of such grave limitations as to not be of production quality. Zoom fast. Throw it away.

I don't have the knowledge of metals and stress and fatique to talk about this on your level but maybe this link I'll provide can clear up any of the questions or doubts you or I might have as it tells what is what in retrospect to the metals. But it did complete 5000hrs of ground running

[Instal]

Originally Posted by Matt308

I don't know anything about this experimental engine, but suspect that the hot section lifespan was SEVERELY limited due to the metallurgy of the day. And most likely of such grave limitations as to not be of production quality. Zoom fast. Throw it away.

Those of us that are passionate about the Arrow have been accused of stating how good it is without facts. Is this statement not going out of your way to say that it is a bad performer without facts?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Instal

Those of us that are passionate about the Arrow have been accused of stating how good it is without facts. Is this statement not going out of your way to say that it is a bad performer without facts?

You are correct and the only thing I could say about that is the across the board hot section and TBO increase seen on military turbine engines of the period as the continued into service. I know there are dozens of J-79 TCTOs that replaced many internal parts, bearings etc that increased engine life, I would think the Iroquois would of fell into the same situation.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Instal

Those of us that are passionate about the Arrow have been accused of stating how good it is without facts. Is this statement not going out of your way to say that it is a bad performer without facts?

It is a statement of fact for the technology of the day. One must assume that engines of Canadian design were no different then the rest of the world's technical prowess. Don't take it personally.