I truly believe that the USAF/GD F-106A/B Darts were the equal-to/superior-to the CF-105 Arrow... as an interceptor... at about the very same time.

Discosure... Yes I supported the 106 in the early-to-mid 1980s at Kelly AFB [SA-ALC]. Then it was summarily retired [except for research]. What an elegant design... to be replaced by the MDC F-15s and the GD F-16s...


For this reason the CF-105 was simply 'not good enough'. What really bothers me is how secretive, stealthy and cold the Canadian Govt was in shutting-down the program and destroying the CF-105 assets and technical info. With rare exceptions... little is known to exist of the CF-105.. not even a museum/display aircraft, as I recall.

At least the US places it's 1-2-3-off test aircraft/data in museums and/or on displays. For instance the ONLY YA-10B 2-seater is on display at Edwards AFB... along with the prototype T-46's. Too bad that The USAF decided against any production A-10B Tubs. I was really impressed when I saw the prototype [being modified from an early pre-production flight-test airframe] at Fairchild Republic in the Mid 1980s. At that time it was a 'low-key hush-hush' demo-program primarily funded by FRC.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

Dik,
Thank you for the link to the article. I have been meaning to read it but only got as far as a brief summary.

Wil,
I could nitpick by saying that a comparison isn't fair between a twin-engine interceptor and a single, or one that entered service and the other didn't, meaning the performance specs of the F-106 are well known and the CF-105 are uncertain.

There's a bit too much romance and nostalgia around the Arrow for many aviation fans (in Canada at least) to be objective about it. It's the first plane whose specifications I memorized as a kid. When the standard in my mind against which all of the other planes are compared is a plane that never really was... well... I'm going to love the Arrow forever no matter what anyone says.

One thing that always stands out is that the Arrow was HUGE. It carries twice as much armament as the Dart, but burns twice the fuel, so which plane is the best bang for the buck?

Look at the present tense sneaking into my sentences - "was", eh?

I'm not certain, but I understand that at the time, it was quite a formidable interceptor with many new features in aircraft design.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200615-the-re...

What's really disappointing and really suspect, the government decided to destroy all records of it... and only a few items remain... that includes drawings, design, etc.

In addition... to reiterate, it was the beginning of Canada's decline. “that f------ prick in Ottawa” people didn't talk like that back then... Dief must have been exceptional.

"The advert for Avro Aircraft celebrating the “first 50 years of powered flight in Canada 1909–1959” had only just been printed when on “Black Friday”, 20 February 1959, the loudspeaker of the Avro Aircraft factory on the outskirts of Toronto crackled to life. Thousands of workers heard the company president announce “that f------ prick in Ottawa” (the newly elected Canadian prime minister John Diefenbaker) had cancelled the entire Arrow programme. Later that day, 14,500 skilled men and women lost their jobs. Many of these engineers joined the brain-drain to the United States. The "Avro group" of 32 engineers playing critical roles in Nasa's Apollo programme, which – ironically – beat the Soviets in the race to land a man on the moon."

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

...and another article... not too shabby for an aircraft at the time.

"The CF-105 was designed as a twin-engine, long-range, high-wing delta, all-weather supersonic interceptor. Its key mission in war time was to prevent attack from incoming enemy aircraft from across the North Pole and south into Canadian skies and into the United States. Likewise, it was designed to prevent the intrusion of North American airspace by high flying enemy reconnaissance aircraft similar to the U-2. In peacetime, it would expose any violations of Canadian airspace, while bringing human judgement to bear, a role that could not be fulfilled by missiles, which once launched were unable to be recalled. The aircraft was built to fly at Mach 2 and reach altitudes of 60,000 feet. In flight tests, using underpowered engines, it climbed to 58,000 feet and topped out at Mach 1.9 in level flight and Mach 1.95 in a slight dive. With its proper Iroquois engines, it was said it would break all speed records."

https://militaryhistorynow.com/2019/02/14/the-avro...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

The 105 and the TSR-2 are somewhat in the same basket, they were just too far ahead of what was mature technology for the budget available, a few of years later they would have likely been fine. Just for example look at the size of the avionics on the TRS-2, ten years later and it would have been micro chips instead of valves.

Edit that should have been "look at the size of the avionics bay on the TRS-2" that thing is massive.

the Arrow is like the girl friend you never met ... mostly imagined and flawless.

At least we met the TSR2 ... and liked what we saw, but then facelifts can be expensive.

Undeniably, both projects cost far more then either government could afford. Both failed to achieve the political dimension of the project.
As noted above, both would have been outpaced by technical advancements.

I wonder if they'd been more successful if they had a US partner ... but that's not what we did back then.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

When the Arrow program was cancelled, many of those engineers went south to the US. The space race had started and NASA was being organized. These engineers contributed to the Mercury, Gemini, and Saturn programs.

Quote (I wonder if they'd been more successful if they had a US partner ... but that's not what we did back then.)

Funny... at the time, it was thought the project was scuttled because of American pressure on our government.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Perhaps contributing to all of this mess was the [still top secret, in design] Lockheed A-12 [Oxcart] and YF-12A... leading to the SR-71???

From my perspective, the SR-71 was truly successful, primarily due to [3] factors: (A) Lockheed Skunk Works [designers/builders]; (B) the [best-of-the-best] air/ground-crews; and (C) high reliability engines.

As with MOST of these extreme-high-speed aircraft, the engines have always been the 'long-pole in the tent'... lagging way behind the airframes and systems.

RE the engines: they were able to throttle full-up for climb/re-fuel/climb-to-mission cruise... then throttle back-down for descent/re-fuel... then throttle-back-up for climb-to mission-cruise... then throttle back-down for descent/re-fuel... etc... several times per mission. In this is a fairly abusive regimen for the engines, few catastrophic failures ever occurred that were 'non-recoverable'. Thank God.

As I understand it, the MiG 25 FoxBat was able to fly close to SR-71 speeds for a few minutes at a time... then the engines had to be throttled-back to prevent inevitable catastrophic failures.... and usually had to be replaced after every mission.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

RB1957: "As noted above, both would have been outpaced by technical advancements."

Politicians make this mistake all the time, then and now. Like most people they are very bad at seeing the future.
Even the supposedly smart analysts who wrote the 1958 paper that DIK linked to couldn't see the future well enough to realize that strategic bombers would be a long-term threat that Canada needed interceptors for, and that intercepting an aircraft with a crappy Bomarc won't work.
Every article of war will be outpaced by the adversary, just give them time.
Your own engineers may obsolete your own technology when novel inventions revolutionize how things are done (eg. transistors).
There is no competition if there is no obsolescence.

Consider...
There will be a day when the F-35 is outperformed by a better aircraft.
(And beware that better aircraft might be made in China sooner than you think.)

Concur Spar... I was in Grade school when it was cancelled... don't think I was even a teenager... and was heartbroken about the decision. Knew little about aircraft other than this was an 'exceptional' one...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

"Funny... at the time, it was thought the project was scuttled because of American pressure on our government."

of course it was. The yanks (forgive me Will) were acting like bullies. They killed off the Arrow (offered Canada Bomarcs), and effectively killed the TSR2 (ok, contributed to the death of the TSR2) by offering Australia the wonderful F111. I think they offered the Aardvark to the UK but they went with F4s (after they reengined them ... for lower performance as I recall). They wanted to dominate the military aerospace, instead of thinking ... "hey, maybe these guys have some good ideas. Maybe we should work together ?" ... nah, we'll steal their lunch money, and drink their milkshakes. Yes, the engineers contributed to other programs, but that was an unintended consequence.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

WKTaylor,

In concept, the Avro Arrow was very much closer to the McDonnell Douglas F4 Phantom. It was a big aircraft with two big engines, a pilot and a radar operator. Unlike the Phantom, the radar operator is hard to see because he has only two tiny windows. In Vietnam, when radar operators were not radar operating, they often kept a watch out to the rear to see what mischief the Vietnamese air force was getting into. The Arrow was a typical fifties fighter aircraft that was going to detect the enemy on its radar, someone would push a button, and a missile would be launched. Judging from FlightGear's model, the Arrow pilot has no view to the rear, or up above.

Typhoon and Tempest at War by Arthur Reed & Roland Beamont is a fun read. In the late thirties, it was assumed that 400mph aircraft were too fast to get into dogfights, so they did not need a good view out of the cockpit. Writing in the mid-seventies, Beamont remarked on how air forces now were "buying simple, unsophisticated fighters with one overriding attribute, an ability to hold their own in dogfights." Now look at any photo of an F35.

--
JHG

The sad part is that the Arrow was the apex of Canada... been downhill since...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

WKTaylor,

I forgot to mention that the Avro Arrow McDonnell Douglas F4 makes sense for the Canadian military. Canada is a very large place with a low population. Relatively few aircraft must fly long distances to carry out any sort of mission. If you are a crowded country, your aircraft can be smaller and shorter ranged.

I don't know if Phantoms ever were considered for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). It might have been politically messy.

The factoid we keep hearing about the Arrow is that it did Mach 2+, and that modern fighters could not catch it. Actually, a bunch of late fifties aircraft exceeded Mach 2. Turbojet technology has plateaued, and tactical experience has showed us the importance of things other than top speed.

--
JHG

What I find fascinating is that there were no "experts" at the time. Supersonic flight was new and everyone was winging it. Without experts the developed designs that will never be succeeded.

Interesting that the CF-105 engine intakes appear to exactly match those on the F4.

TugboatEng,

They were solving the exact same problem. Convergent technology has to happen sooner or later.

--
JHG

Or maybe the expert who designed the Arrow inlet was hired by McD and designed the F4 inlet.

That was my thought. That was a really special generation of engineers. Their problem solving was unique.

I once had the interesting job of seeing if I could stiffen up the chassis of a 1955 Ford Thunderbird, using FEA. I could, by making it heavier, which was not the intent. I commented on this to my then boss, and he said "Well what do you expect, the engineers on that were designing fighter planes 10 years earlier".

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

About the F-35...
Some lingering bitterness, I admit...
It wasn't long ago that Canada revisited the fighter/interceptor jet order with Lockheed for the F-35's. It was a political game from the start because the Conservatives placed the order without bidding, then the Liberals formed government and wanted to show off how transparent they are. They opened a competitive bid process for the jets. SAAB and Dassault proposed their top jets (Gripen and Rafale, respectively) and they did very well in the competition against Lockheed. Then Canada changed the rules, then Dassault gave up, later SAAB threw up their hands. The F-35 "won".

Quote (Dassault CEO Eric Trappier)

“It is impossible to sell the Rafale to the Five Eyes member countries [Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States – ed. note], not because it is not interoperable […] but because this network has set rules that they refuse to communicate to us and that aim to have their members work together,”

Quote (CEO of Saab Canada, Simon Carroll)

“Recent statements by the government indicated Canada is negotiating cost, delivery schedule, and economic benefits with our competitor. There should be no negotiation on these critical elements. These elements of the bidders’ response were to be committed to and then evaluated as part of the competitive process.”

This supposedly competitive bidding process is the kind of game that was born in the short-sighted attitude that was seen in the Arrow cancellation. The show is more important than the defense of the nation.

Sparweb,

From the Times Colonist of Victoria BC — Commentary: Bring back the Avro Arrow, by Lewis MacKenzie. As you may be guessing, MacKenzie is/was an army general, not an air force general.

--
JHG

oh, for goshes sake, please don't bring back the arrow. what a ridiculous concept. The design is something like 70 years old now. the F35 is designed for stealth (whether we need it or not is a different discussion); the arrow is probably as bright as a searchlight. And not much visibility from the rear. Internal weapons stowage ??

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

I wasn't advocating in bringing it back. The recent article just reminded me of a sad day in Canadian history.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

no, but drawoh's posts were ...

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

Hope this makes sense... Evolution moved away from CF-105 type aircraft due to the following 'factors' [a just a glimpse]...

I think the 'simplifying secret' for USAF was 'fielding' jet air-refueling aircraft... KC-135A, replacing piston engine KC-97, with an AR Boom and nozzle/receiver system for forced-pressure high-rate refueling... and large capacity external/jettisonable [drop] tanks for added range-extension in-between AR.

This combination [and other factors**] reduced the need for USAF Fighter-interceptors to carry a massive internal fuel load for scramble/dash/fight/land... Simply AR-top-off prior to the intercept run.... and AR-top-off for loiter... and AR-top-off on the long-return to base...

Air refueling tankers... KC-97 'piston-birds' [AvGas and 'kerosene'] early... and KC-135 'pure-jet' ['kerosene']... evolved to be a mainstay for USAF air warfare during the VN war... range/endurance extended 'indefinitely'. The limiting factors are aircrew fatigue and weapons.

** Likewise, in 'theaters'... not suitable for USAF 'global reach'... the USN has evolved forward deployed carriers with fighter-interceptors and high internal/external fuel capacity... and somewhat limited AR refueling [from specially designated fighter or attack jets]... using hose/probe system for lighter/compact deployment from ships. And these carriers... fighting relatively closer to adversaries... are accompanied by an awesome defensive array of surface combat ships, stealthy attack submarines, land/sea-based airborne ISR... etc... AND a little heralded re-supply and maintenance fleet to keep oceanic air-ops going indefinitely.

Interestingly, Israeli Fighters are modified with 'special-large/fixed' external tanks... and largest possible jettisonable tanks... and fly with with AR tanker support everywhere [not exactly provided/approved by US]. This combination assures extended combat range deep over surrounding Arab countries... flying/fighting at immense distance from their territorial boundaries. This 'long-range airpower' provide a 'force-multiplier' [and psychological] advantage for Israel

Enough, for now.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

yes, the conformal tanks on the F16 are stunning.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

WKTaylor,

I can see aerial refuelling working when you are bombing some tinput third world country. Would they be able to survive up against a determined, ferocious and dangerous enemy? If the tanker is close enough to support your high performance, short ranged aircraft, the enemy's high performance, short ranged aircraft can reach back. I would not want to flying in a tanker and learning that the enemy has slid into my six o'clock.

--
JHG

sure there is some short range that would place these refueling assets in danger but at least your fighters don't need to lug around all the fuel they need (even to return to base).

And of course there's refueling after take-off, so you can take-off at low weight (like VTOL of short TO from a carrier) and add fuel later.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.