F-35 vs Cf-105....wait...the CF-105 Arrow?!!?!?!?

[wifesaysno]

Yep, you read that right. Some crazy loon has the bright idea to bring the CF-105 back to replace the F-35 JSF...now as I say in the thread below, after working on bringing a MUCH simpler plane back into production WITH jigs, tooling, drawings, and complete airframes available, the thought of bringing a plane that was almost wiped from history back almost gives me a heart attack!

[expat]

Faced with crushing development costs and the appealing alternative of a relatively inexpensive ramjet nuclear anti-aircraft missile known as the Bomarc, the government of the time canceled the program and ordered five test aircraft cut apart for scrap. More than 14,000 workers were terminated and many of the leading engineers went to work for NASA. One intact cockpit survives at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa. Rumours persist that one of the test aircraft escaped the cutting torches and is hidden somewhere, a theory that was revived in 2011 with the discovery of an Arrow ejection seat in England.

Canadian Black Friday, sounds like your version of our TSR2 story.......

Matt

[RAFSB]

That out of date design could out fly any aircraft today. Airspeed was +2x mach and the alt was over 80,000 ft. That was then. With todays technoligy who knows.
I'm a Canadian. I was around when the Arrow flew. The only reason it was scrapped was because of the US Government.

[wifesaysno]

That out of date design could out fly any aircraft today. Airspeed was +2x mach and the alt was over 80,000 ft. That was then. With todays technoligy who knows.
I'm a Canadian. I was around when the Arrow flew. The only reason it was scrapped was because of the US Government.

Im sorry but that is a highly generalized statement. Top speed yes is faster than the F-35 but that is because the design requirements of the F-35 did NOT state Mach 2 capability. Designing a plane for that regime is extremely demanding not to mention that it has been realized that there is no useful purpose for a fighter to go Mach 2+ today. You cannot maneuver at that speed because your turn rate is the size of Texas and you burn a huge amount of fuel getting there. However, there is no way a CF-105 could out fly a F-16, Mig-29, Su-27, F/A-18, Mirage 2000, etc...Im not even going to mention the 4.5 and 5gen fighters! The CF-105 was NOT designed for manueverability and it shows. It was an extremely large fighter which would have been a giant turkey in a dogfight. Its control system too was not as advanced as some say it was. The F-106/F-102 family had a sophisticated system and even the F-94s had the ability to be remotely controlled by GCI.

Now about the US gov't involvement. I would say the cancellation had more to do with the fact that the Soviets had infiltrated the CF-105 program and was siphoning data and specs from it to the Kremlin. In other words, development of the CF-105 at the time was not only advancing Canadian/Western fighter design but it also was advancing Soviet design technology as well. The US gov't involvement stems more from the REPLACEMENT of the canceled CF-105 program via the CF-101 Voodoo.

I should mention on the topic of speed that there is a wide variety of aircraft from the CF-105's era that were faster than most fighters today...but again, that stems from design requirements. Back then it was all about intercepting large formations of large bombers. Today it is about multi-role capability, efficiency, low-observability, and maneuvering capability, and serviceability. On almost all accounts the CF-105 is inferior to modern fighters. But again, that should be expected, the design is 60years old after all and is done around a 60 year old mission that does not exist any more.

In short this proposal is completely useless except say for giving the CF-105 a shot at military service for those die-hard fans of it. (which Im guessing you are)

Tailwinds,
Adam

[Steve M]

Many modern fighters seem to mimic the Arrow look. A design that was made many years ago.  8-)

[expat]

That out of date design could out fly any aircraft today. Airspeed was +2x mach and the alt was over 80,000 ft. That was then. With todays technoligy who knows.
I'm a Canadian. I was around when the Arrow flew. The only reason it was scrapped was because of the US Government.

The election of a new government 1965, the TSR-2 was cancelled due to rising costs, in favour of purchasing the General Dynamics F-111, an "off-the-shelf" decision that itself was later rescinded as costs and development times skyrocketed. The irony of the whole thing was the replacements included the Blackburn Buccaneer and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, both types being previously considered and rejected early in the TSR-2 procurement process. Eventually, the smaller swing-wing Panavia Tornado was developed and adopted by a European consortium to fulfil similar requirements to the TSR-2....................Now there are those who also believe that

[BlackAce]

Well... the Arrow is my favourite plane ever... and my Great Great uncle worked for Orenda. The Arrow was a HUGE technological achievement. And don't forget, half of Avro's engineers went to NASA to help get them to the moon... Jim Chamberlain designed the Arrow, and also the LEM.  I have two original blue-print drawings of the Arrow, one is Data, one is hand-drawn. I'll upload them if you want.   

[BlackAce]

[quote]Many modern fighters seem to mimic the Arrow look. A design that was made many years ago.

[wifesaysno]

[quote][quote]Many modern fighters seem to mimic the Arrow look. A design that was made many years ago.

[wifesaysno]

That out of date design could out fly any aircraft today. Airspeed was +2x mach and the alt was over 80,000 ft. That was then. With todays technoligy who knows.
I'm a Canadian. I was around when the Arrow flew. The only reason it was scrapped was because of the US Government.

The election of a new government 1965, the TSR-2 was cancelled due to rising costs, in favour of purchasing the General Dynamics F-111, an "off-the-shelf" decision that itself was later rescinded as costs and development times skyrocketed. The irony of the whole thing was the replacements included the Blackburn Buccaneer and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, both types being previously considered and rejected early in the TSR-2 procurement process. Eventually, the smaller swing-wing Panavia Tornado was developed and adopted by a European consortium to fulfil similar requirements to the TSR-2....................Now there are those who also believe that

[Steve M]

[quote][quote][quote]Many modern fighters seem to mimic the Arrow look. A design that was made many years ago.

[wifesaysno]

[quote][quote][quote][quote]Many modern fighters seem to mimic the Arrow look. A design that was made many years ago.

[BlackAce]

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Many modern fighters seem to mimic the Arrow look. A design that was made many years ago.

[Steve M]

Some perspective, Black ace is right about the size difference, this being the arrow reproduction.

[wifesaysno]

[quote]Some perspective, Black ace is right about the size difference, this being the arrow reproduction.
While the F-104 looked more like a dart with wing mounted engines, the Arrow air induction and the basic design is much more like todays fighters look.