Avro Arrow RL-206
- Thread starter Slim
- Start date
A
aesop081
Guest
Jammer said:
Indeed.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
George Wallace said:
Baden, Lahr, and...?
A
aesop081
Guest
N. McKay said:
He was probably thinking more of North Luffenham (initialy), Grostenquin, Zweirbrucken, Marville, Baden-Sollingen
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 208
- Points
- 710
There were four Wings as part of No. 1 Air Division, headquartered in Metz, France. Two wings were located in France, 1 Fighter Wing (RCAF Station Marville) and 2 Fighter Wing (RCAF Station Grostenquin), and two were located in West Germany 3 Fighter Wing (RCAF Station Zweibrücken) and 4 Fighter Wing (RCAF Station Baden-Soellingen).
Lahr was a French Airbase at this time.
Lahr was a French Airbase at this time.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Jammer said:
I think that had the Arrow survived, it would have been used more like an F14 than an F15 (other than the Navy part). An F15 can be used for different roles because it's a perfect size to go back and forth.
I don't see the Arrow dog fighting it out so much as using its larger size to house a massive F14-like radar and weapons suite to shoot things down from 30 miles away instead of with cannons (not saying that you can ever lose the cannons, just that it would't be its strength).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Ergo, the reason the Arrow was conceived, an interceptor.
Keep in mind in the waning years of the F-14, it was adapted to drop bombs. "The Bombcat".
Could the Arrow have been? Why not?
We'll never know for sure because the flight testing with loads were never done before cancellation. Another role it could have fulfilled might have been that performed by the F-105 in Vietnam.
Keep in mind in the waning years of the F-14, it was adapted to drop bombs. "The Bombcat".
Could the Arrow have been? Why not?
We'll never know for sure because the flight testing with loads were never done before cancellation. Another role it could have fulfilled might have been that performed by the F-105 in Vietnam.
A
aesop081
Guest
Jammer said:
A role that the F-105 performed at the cost of very, very high losses. The CF-105 was no F-105 either.......like trying to get a 2-door lada to be a Ram 3500.
All arguments that do not adress the biggest issue against the Arrow program. The development costs were so considerable that the entire CF woul have been consumed by it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Hence the moniker "Thud". Super fast and stable on the deck, but turned like a brick.CDN Aviator said:
Two engines are always better than one.
No argument that a new plane along with new engines (F-22, F-35), are crazy expensive for a sole user. Maybe Avro was hoping for sales offshore to offset costs. They had marginal success with the CF-100 being sold to Belgium.
The US failed to sell a dumbed down version of the F-16 with a less powerful engine in the early 80's to Asian nations (Singapore, and Taiwan IIRC).
They eventually held out for the USAF production model of the day "stock".
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Points
- 1,160
How would the arrow performed as long range recce aircraft if so fitted?
- The US gov't may not have wanted us to risk our defence budget on one item when we were in the process of paying for built/buiding/assuming control over things like the Pine Tree Line, Mid Canada line, Gap Filler Radars, new fighters and Nuke ground attack roles in NATO, new ships, army eqpt, etc. The USAF, on the other hand, was probably most supportive, having had the F-103 canned, and the F-108 was about to be canned twice - once before the Arrow, and again, sixonths after. The F-108 Rapier would have given the Arrow a run for the money.
- Destruction of the built aircraft? Possibly seen as the only way to keep the imbedded weapons control systems out of the wrong hands. Particularly the nuclear air-to-air stuff. Rumours that the Ruskies had a 'mole' at AVRO Canada were taken very seriously, and the Americans would not want anything floating around that they were using (or wanted to use).
- Could we have kept the project going if funded from another batch of money? Sure - by raising taxes...
- Drove down to the Reynolds Museum last week to show our son the full-scale model of the Arrow (his grandfather was an RCAF CR Clerk posted to AVRO at Downsview) that was used in the movie. Model was outside, but no longer is. It was put in 'storage' out of the elements. Another conspiracy?
- Destruction of the built aircraft? Possibly seen as the only way to keep the imbedded weapons control systems out of the wrong hands. Particularly the nuclear air-to-air stuff. Rumours that the Ruskies had a 'mole' at AVRO Canada were taken very seriously, and the Americans would not want anything floating around that they were using (or wanted to use).
- Could we have kept the project going if funded from another batch of money? Sure - by raising taxes...
- Drove down to the Reynolds Museum last week to show our son the full-scale model of the Arrow (his grandfather was an RCAF CR Clerk posted to AVRO at Downsview) that was used in the movie. Model was outside, but no longer is. It was put in 'storage' out of the elements. Another conspiracy?
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 993
- Points
- 1,160
Colin P said:
Depending on who you read, the combat radius of the Arrow was estimated to be 360 nautical miles. If you look at a comparable aircraft (at least in size) such as the A-5 Vigilante which had a combat radius of 1120 nmi, then I would say that the Arrow would have made a lousy long range recce a/c.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Points
- 1,160
I take it all the fuel was in the fuselage and not the wings? Seems like a very short range for such a large aircraft. Was the fuel capacity a protype issue or a decision based on the likely tactical deployment that these aircraft were planned for?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Colin P said:
A lot of it had to do with the rate of fuel consumption as well. Not that jets nowadays are hybrids or anything, but I believe they are far more efficient than what engines used to be (I'm sure the AF experts will know the details, but I believe turbofans like the F14 are more efficient for cruising).
Even going back to the piston/radial engines of WW2, the amount of fuel they would consume was astronomical and the first few decades of jets were no better.
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 993
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
One of the reasons the F-15 and F-16 were able to be adapted to the air to ground role has less to do with the legacy of Canadian engineers and more with the perceptions of Colonel John Boyd, who's Energy-Maneuverability theory called for aircraft with a 1:1 or higher thrust weight ratio and huge amounts of lifting surface, features which gave any airframe a lot of built in versatility. Boyd was able to assemble a "Fighter mafia" to push the project (and the Navy was able to benefit when the F-17 prototype was remodeled as the F-18).
The Arrow was designed around a single mission, and does not seem to have the adaptability to have been modified to take new missions
The Arrow was designed around a single mission, and does not seem to have the adaptability to have been modified to take new missions
- Reaction score
- 4,319
- Points
- 1,120
I recall reading a book that had a bunch of "future" visions of the Arrow.
One of them invovled a Mach 3 variant that would be used for recce.
It also had diagrams of the Vertical Launch mechanisms that would allow them to effectively take off, almost straight up. Kind of rocket powered scaffold/trapeeze thing.
There were a few other variants that were mentioned, I don't recall all of them, it's been a *LONG* time since I've read that book, and the ones I have here now in my reference collection don't include that info.
NS
One of them invovled a Mach 3 variant that would be used for recce.
It also had diagrams of the Vertical Launch mechanisms that would allow them to effectively take off, almost straight up. Kind of rocket powered scaffold/trapeeze thing.
There were a few other variants that were mentioned, I don't recall all of them, it's been a *LONG* time since I've read that book, and the ones I have here now in my reference collection don't include that info.
NS
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The iroquois engine was never flight tested in an Arrow, so no one knows what the rate of fuel consumption might have been. It was flight tested on a B-47 loaned to the RCAF.
So would the Arrow have been able to achieve a 1:1 TtW ratio? I would argue yes. The F-15 et al can only do it "clean", and then if the weights are calculated correctly.
To reiterate: The F-14 and 15 were designed around a single mission as well, but seem to have adapted well to the multi-role environment. The Arrow could have been as well.
So would the Arrow have been able to achieve a 1:1 TtW ratio? I would argue yes. The F-15 et al can only do it "clean", and then if the weights are calculated correctly.
To reiterate: The F-14 and 15 were designed around a single mission as well, but seem to have adapted well to the multi-role environment. The Arrow could have been as well.
