Warbird Information Exchange

53 years ago today, the recently elected Canadian government of John Diefenbacker cancelled the CF-105 ARROW project under development @ AVRO Canada. The ARROW was a spectacular tour de force in design and engineering. It was designed as a 'fly by wire' airplane in an era (1955) of cables and hydraulic tubes. It was designed to hold a 2 G turn @ 50000 ft @ MACH 1.5 and not lose a foot of altitude in an era when the best closest competitor was the F-106 which could pull 1.3 G. The airplane was designed to have a 700 mi range with the capability of MACH 1.5 for 5 minutes and a top speed of MACH 2. (and they nearly achieved that using the lower thrust J-75's)

While the AVRO PS-13 IROQUOIS engine was being developed the first CF-105 used J-75 engines and on Nov. 11,1958 ARROW #202 went into a climb @ 50000 ft and accelerated to MACH 1.98 when flight test control stopped the climb. The PS-13 IROQUOIS engine produced 26000 lb/thrust and two engines would have given the CF-105 a thrust to weight ratio of 1:1. The flight test engine was attached to the aft fuselage of a borrowed B-47, and on it's first flight the 6 J-47's were pulled back to idle to keep the B-47 from going supersonic.

Say what you will, boon or bondoggle if it had been put into service even today it would be a fierce and worthy opponent having a weapons bay about the size of a B-29 and adaptable for any configuration from missiles to atomic bombs.

The Diefenbacker government, to stave off a pricing crisis with Canadian farmers cancelled the CF-105 and instead opted for BOMARC IM-99 interceptor systems and 66 rebuilt F-101B VOODOOS and we're left to wonder 'what if....'

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

What ever happened to the B-47?

Rgds Cking

The 'CL-52' (TB-47B 51-2059, RCAF 'X-059') went back to the USAF in 1959 and was scrapped shortly thereafter.

And regarding that Mach 1.98 flight, no one ever records that the radar stations tracking the Arrow that day measured a speed of approximately Mach 2.2.

_________________

The Arrow story highlights both pride and shame in Canadian history. The regret of what could have been.

Mike

_________________
Mike R. Henniger
Aviation Enthusiast & Photographer
http://www.AerialVisuals.ca
http://www.facebook.com/AerialVisuals

Do you want to find locations of displayed, stored or active aircraft? Then start with the The Locator.
Do you want to find or contribute to the documented history of an aircraft? If so then start with the Airframes Database.

Along with the C-102, another 'coulda been....'

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Cancellation (by neglect, almost) of the Avro C102 was a far greater error than cancellation half a decade later of the Arrow. The C102, unlike the CF-105, had a substantial ready market beyond the RCAF, and of course had Avro been able to maintain a dual focus on civilian and military designs rather than putting all their eggs in the air force basket, the firm would have lasted a good while longer (perhaps being with us still as a division of Bombardier!).

The C102 did leave one legacy besides the frustration of so much wasted effort (and a hacked-off cockpit section in storage at Rockcliffe): the generic use of the word "jetliner" to describe a turbojet- or turbofan-powered airliner. "Jetliner" with a capital "J" was a proprietary Avro name for the C102, and the first use of the word.

Splendid state-of-the-art aircraft though it was, cancelling the Arrow may not have been a mistake at all (though the wholesale destruction of all airframes, tooling, et cetera, was inexcusable); the real gaffe--in my view even worse than the abandonment of the C102--was the concurrent cancellation of the Iroquois engine. Why? Unlike the Arrow itself, the Iroquois would have found a ready market, as an alternative powerplant for any number of Western military types, whether licence-built or supplied directly by Orenda. Canada itself could in theory have ordered a fleet of F4H Phantom IIs (the type had first flown exactly two months after the Arrow, in May 1958) with Iroquois for power instead of J79s. I recall especially, for instance, the Spey-powered Phantoms for Britain, or Israel's J79-engined Mirage variants. And of course there would have been developments derived from the initial PS13 series engines, perhaps for civil as well as military applications. (Iroquois-engined Concorde, maybe...?)

In any case, the whole story of Avro Canada and Orenda is such a series of what-ifs...

S.

Would it really be viable today..or 20 years ago?
Was the delta wing airframe stressed for the low-level ops required of a strike aircraft? Did it have "growth potential"?

On the UK forum I 've asked the same about the much lamented TSR.2, and have never received a good answer....so I assume the answer is no.

BTW: Who was doing the interception avionics and missiles?

Pity, I always liked the Arrow and Jetliner.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Having know Randy Whitcomb (http://www.avroarrow.org/Randy.html), Author of a number of books on the Arrow including AVRO aircraft and the Cold War, I did get the opportunity to see some of his reference material.

I can't say and wouldn't guess if in it's original configuration it would still be viable, but lets be honest, not likely. Would a development of the Arrow still be with us...that is far more likely.

According to reference material Randy had, attributed to "Jim Floyd", but I couldn't swear to its authenticity, it was indeed stressed for low level high speed missions. IIRC in the order of +9/-5...but I am going by memory.

As far as the fire control system and missiles:
Fire control (ASTRA) was apparently being developed by Hughes for the RCAF, however when they took the AVRO Jetliner away from him and refused to let him license build the Jetliner Hughes refused to continue the development...so it was put in AVRO's hands and close to operational as the aircraft were coming off the production line.

The missiles were a development of the original Sparrow that the RCAF and I believe the USN (?) were partnering on. The USN backed out and the US forces went on to develop the Sparrow II, AVRO was given the Sparrow and completed the development for the Arrow.

Even the engines went through a similar process as RR had been selected to provide the engine (can't remember which one) but then pulled back so AVRO's Orenda Division moved the Iroquois to the front burner.

So there you go from what I have read, seen and the limits of my memory.

Tom

_________________
Alberta Aviation Museum
Edmonton Aviation Heritage Society

You never will. The TSR2 had its faults, many were obvious, i.e. Two HUGE engines, two small wings, where the hell were they going to put the fuel or the bombs? The only "good" thing that the TSR2 did was to keep aviation writers in work. More lines of type have been dedicated to the TSR2 per airframe than any other aircraft!
I have worked withe guys who built the TSR2 and they all say it was flawed.

Rgds Cking