Avro Arrow, A Realistic Evaluation
ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
With all the talk about the Avro Arrow prompted by the CBC miniseries
it would be nice if we could have some sort of "realistic" evaluation
of the aircraft. Looking at some of the posts on Usenet has made me
smile, with one person claiming it would have been more advanced than
the F22. But would the Arrow have been of use as anything but a "get
the hell up there quick" interceptor? Somehow I get the impression
that what we would have ended up with was a more sophisticated precursor
to the Mig 25, a plane useful for intercepting high speed bombers at
high altitude but not much else. The F106 is another plane that seems
to me an analog to the Arrow. Am I wrong? Would the Arrow have been
of any use as a dogfighter, or as a fighter bomber? Would Canada have
ended up having to buy Starfighters anyways when it was decided we'd
do low level nuclear strike? Hopefully someone with aeronautical engineering chops can tell us. I think a lot of the Arrow hype comes at people looking at things like sheer speed and altitude capability, and not the actual direct utility of such an aircraft.
tim gueguen ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Kristan Roberge
ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
>
> smile, with one person claiming it would have been more advanced than
> the F22.
I missed that posting... darn.
> But would the Arrow have been of use as anything but a "get
> the hell up there quick" interceptor? Somehow I get the impression
> that what we would have ended up with was a more sophisticated precursor
> to the Mig 25, a plane useful for intercepting high speed bombers at
> high altitude but not much else.
Yes, its speed, power and rate of climb, and range would have also made
it an excellent high-altitude recon plane, its large weapons bay would
have allowed a large air-to-ground payload of bombs or missiles. Its
large wings would have made it an excellent load-carrying platform.
There were many variants proposed. It would certainly have been
better suited to the ground-attack and recon roles than the CF-104s
Canada ended up using.
> The F106 is another plane that seems
> to me an analog to the Arrow. Am I wrong? Would the Arrow have been
> of any use as a dogfighter, or as a fighter bomber?
The F106 was the improved version of the F102 (which was briefly
mentioned in the miniseries) and could be considered a smaller version
of the Arrow as far as initial design role. It lacked the range and
payload of the arrow, and was a single-engine, single-seat fighter/interceptor
that matched the speed and climb of the arrow thanks to its lighter
weight and single J75 engine (a much augmented version of the J75s
used in the Arrow Mk1s). It also depended on ground-controllers to
plot its intercepts as it only carried a fire-control radar, not
a full search radar as was planned for the Arrow.
> ended up having to buy Starfighters anyways when it was decided we'd
> do low level nuclear strike?
Nope, the Arrow could have done this role as well. Putting the
bombs inside the weaponsbay cuts down on drag at low altitude. Also
the plane probably would have had room for air-to-air missiles along
with the A-bomb given the size of the bay and the size of your typical
tac-nuke in the mid 60s.
Will Chabun
Kristan Roberge wrote:
>
> ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
> >
> > the hell up there quick" interceptor? Somehow I get the impression
> > that what we would have ended up with was a more sophisticated precursor
> > to the Mig 25, a plane useful for intercepting high speed bombers at
> > high altitude but not much else.
That's a good point. An element of this whole story that seems to be
ignored is the endurance of the Arrow, using its 1950s-vintage engines.
Would the Arro have been able to indeed patrol the northlands -- or would
its short range (thanks to heavy fuel consumption) made it a terribly
expensive point defence fighter. Back in the late 1950s, the RCAF had no
air-to-air refuelling capability. I could see no hard points on the
wings for external fuel tanks. There were no RCAF bases north of N
North Bay. Where, precisely, would it have flown???
> Yes, its speed, power and rate of climb, and range would have also made
> it an excellent high-altitude recon plane, its large weapons bay would
> have allowed a large air-to-ground payload of bombs or missiles. Its
> large wings would have made it an excellent load-carrying platform.
Ah, so, but would it have had enough range to fulfill these tasks??
> There were many variants proposed. It would certainly have been
> better suited to the ground-attack and recon roles than the CF-104s
> Canada ended up using.Not so. By the late 1950s, all NATO and WarPac air forces realized the
lesson of the Second World War: that you'd have to come in at very low
altitude and high speed if you wanted to survive in that very
sophisticated combat environment on the central European front. With its
delta wing and enormous size (making it a dandy target), the CF-105
would have been an awful choice for the strike/recce role.
> > The F106 is another plane that seems
> > to me an analog to the Arrow. Am I wrong? Would the Arrow have been
> > of any use as a dogfighter, or as a fighter bomber?
Don't forget that the F-106, suitable for interception and absolutely
nothing else, entered and left USAF service in 20 years and didn't
particulary excel. Contrast that with the multirole F-4, which could do
everything well.
EGELSONE
From Kristan Roberg:
>The F106 was the improved version of the F102 (which was briefly
>mentioned in the miniseries) and could be considered a smaller version
>of the Arrow as far as initial design role. It lacked the range and
>payload of the arrow, and was a single-engine, single-seat
fighter/interceptor
>that matched the speed and climb of the arrow thanks to its lighter
>weight and single J75 engine (a much augmented version of the J75s
>used in the Arrow Mk1s). It also depended on ground-controllers to
>plot its intercepts as it only carried a fire-control radar, not
>a full search radar as was planned for the Arrow.
I think that the F-106 did not have to rely on GCI. It had a rather
sophisticated and updated (something like 50 times) Fire control system,
that flew the intercept on it's own after the target was located by it's
own radar. The thing was made by Hughes, I can't remember it's name. But
suffice it to say that the F-106 was a great deal more aircraft than you
give it credit with being.
Ed
Bill Worthy
> I think that the F-106 did not have to rely on GCI. It had a rather
> sophisticated and updated (something like 50 times) Fire control system,
> that flew the intercept on it's own after the target was located by it's
> own radar. The thing was made by Hughes, I can't remember it's name.
But
> suffice it to say that the F-106 was a great deal more aircraft than you
> give it credit with being.
>
> Ed
>
I worked a ground tour as a fighter weapons controller from about 1958
until 1962 before going onto the CF-104 in the strike role. I can assure
you that the F-106 did in fact need the support of Ground Radar. It was a
much improved fighter over the F-102 and had some very sophisticated
equipment but still needed initial control.. At our base in St Margarets
(south of Chatham NB) we controlled many F-106's from the Presque Isle area
of Maine.
With regard to the Cf-105 carrying out the strike role which was
assigned to the CF-104, I would think the wing loading and other features
would have made it less suitable. The small wings and low radar profile on
the Zip made it an ideal candidate for the high speed low level role. This
applies to the Photo Recce role as well, which was first class until SLAR
arrived. In the conventional role the 104 didn't carry much for any
great distance but was used because it was there. The F-5 without radar
wasn't much use in the European theatre and the Zip just carried the can
until the CF-18 was able to replace it. The arrow would have been more
useful in the air defence role where we used the CF-101. IMHO comparisons
should be made between those two, not the Zip.
Bill Worthy
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, Will Chabun <wch...@sk.sympatico.ca> said:
>That's a good point. An element of this whole story that seems to be
>ignored is the endurance of the Arrow, using its 1950s-vintage engines.
>Would the Arro have been able to indeed patrol the northlands -- or would
>its short range (thanks to heavy fuel consumption) made it a terribly
>expensive point defence fighter. Back in the late 1950s, the RCAF had no
Short range? The spec for the Arrow was a 1000km combat radius, which is much
higher than its contemporaries.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com), Rochester Flying Club
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/rfc.html">RFC Web Page</a>
RFC is selling one of our PA28-181 Piper Archer IIs. Contact me for details.
Gregory Putz
Will Chabun wrote:
Darrell A. Larose
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com) writes:
> In a previous article, Will Chabun <wch...@sk.sympatico.ca> said:
>>That's a good point. An element of this whole story that seems to be
>>ignored is the endurance of the Arrow, using its 1950s-vintage engines.
>>Would the Arro have been able to indeed patrol the northlands -- or would
>>its short range (thanks to heavy fuel consumption) made it a terribly
>>expensive point defence fighter. Back in the late 1950s, the RCAF had no
>
> Short range? The spec for the Arrow was a 1000km combat radius, which is much
> higher than its contemporaries.
But often real performance will fall short of the specs. Maybe the later
versions of the Arrow may have been fitted for aerial refueling. Canada's
North is really big. The engines of the 1950'-1960's were gas guzzlers. I
read somewhere that the estimated combat radius of the Arrow was closer to
500 Km with 1000 Km. being its range (not combat radius). Military a/c often
will fall short of their designed specs.
check 6
Darrell Larose dar...@cesani.newforce.ca
"Living at risk is jumping off the cliff
and building your wings on the way down" (Ray Bradbury)
Gregory Putz
Will Chabun wrote:
>
> Kristan Roberge wrote:
> >
> > ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
> > >
> > > the hell up there quick" interceptor? Somehow I get the impression
> > > that what we would have ended up with was a more sophisticated precursor
> > > to the Mig 25, a plane useful for intercepting high speed bombers at
> > > high altitude but not much else.
>
> ignored is the endurance of the Arrow, using its 1950s-vintage engines.
> Would the Arro have been able to indeed patrol the northlands -- or would
> its short range (thanks to heavy fuel consumption) made it a terribly
> expensive point defence fighter. Back in the late 1950s, the RCAF had no
> wings for external fuel tanks. There were no RCAF bases north of N
> North Bay. Where, precisely, would it have flown???
I think it has been ignored because it not really an issue in the
story. The Arrow programme was terminated for economic reasons -- not
for strategic reasons or because the Arrow might not have been able to
meet performance specifications. Of course, the way the project was
cancelled is a political story. I think enough has been written on the
subject to tell us that doubt about the Arrow's ability to perform and
the question of defence priorities were political inventions to mask the
real reasons for the project's termination.
Now, with respect to the Arrow's anticipated endurance, it should be
recalled that the original performance specification of the RCAF set
down a 200 nautical mile radius of action. It was anticipated that the
operational Arrow 2 would have managed a 620 or 650 n.m. radius of
action at subsonic cruising speed, leaving enough endurance for five
minutes of combat at Mach 1.5. Apparently Avro was working to increase
the radius of action to about 800 n.m., in anticipation of an RCAF
request to increase the Arrow's range. To put this in perspective, the
sources I have at hand state that the F/A-18C has a combat radius of 405
or 575 n.m. depending whether the aircraft is configured for attack or
fighter operations. The F-4E range increases from 155 to 660 n.m. when
tanks are carried. The F-101B tops them all with a range of 1550
miles. While the Arrow is not the superior aircraft in this comparison,
it in no way could be considered a point defence fighter! In 1963 NORAD
issued a requirement for a new generation interceptor aircraft having a
1,000 mile radius of action, top speed in vicinity of 2,000 miles per
hour and would be capable of operating in excess of 70,000 feet with
self contained radar permitting operation independent of ground
control. Such an aircraft was needed to counter the threat of the
stand-off bomber carrying an air launched missile. Well, I don't think
NORAD got the interceptor it was looking for but if nothing else the
requirement shows that the Arrow lacked neither in design concept or the
type of performance still desired nearly half a decade after it was
terminated.
Now, what about the question where would the Arrow patrol? First of
all, the Arrow was not designed to do patrols. The defence doctrine of
the day was based on the early detection of Soviet bombers by the DEW
line of radar stations and then interception. It was envisaged that
Arrows would be dispersed and operated from forward bases in the north,
from Whitehorse, Fort Nelson, Yellowknife, Churchill, Frobisher Bay etc.
From these bases, given the Arrow's radius of action, a 1,000 mile wide
defence zone from coast to coast in the north would have been the RCAF's
first line of defence. It was anticipated that Soviet bombers would
have been initially intercepted about 250 to 300 miles south of the DEW
line. The Arrow’s high speed and rate of climb would have been utilized
to ensure that those bombers that made it through this line were
intercepted before reaching the more populated areas of Canada.
Granted, the Arrow was not designed to be refueled mid-air. But the RCAF
saw no need for tankers until the 1970s, when it was decided that CF-5s
would be deployed to Norway in a time of crisis. The CF-101s purchased
in 1961 were capable of aerial refueling although by the time tankers
were purchased replacement Voodoos in service had no such capability.
For these reasons I don't think the aerial refueling notion is a valid
criticism of the Arrow design. As for the forward operating bases, well,
as far as I know, the same strategy dominated NORAD doctrine to the end
of the cold war. Undoubtedly readiness hangars would have been built in
the north for the Arrows or the whole defence strategy would not have
worked. To suggest that Arrows would have been grouped in North Bay is
just not realistic. Recall that Canada purchased CF-18s first, then set
out to prepare forward operating bases in the north. The programme of
forward bases was not brought to fruition only because the cold war
ended.
Finally, the criticism that the Arrow could not have been adapted to
other roles also should be put into historical perspective. I don't
know why the notion that the Arrow should or could have been developed
to do other missions has become such an issue in the whole debate
whether the Arrow deserved to survive. The idea of multi-role combat
aircraft was only in its infancy in the 1960s and did not really
take-off until the 1970s. It is as pointless to argue that the Arrow
could not have been adapted to other roles as it is to speculate that
AVRO could have sold the Arrow to the U.K. as a bomber, or to the RCAF
as a tactical strike/reconnaissance aircraft. It was designed strictly
as an interceptor and if the economics of the project had not been a
deciding factor I'm sure the Arrow would have gone on to serve admirably
into the 1980s in that role. The ability to perform multi-roles
certainly wasn't a factor in the purchase of the CF-101 or the CF-104.
So why should the Arrow be viewed in a different light from its
contemporaries?
ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
In article <5brabt$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose) wrote:
>
>
> Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com) writes:
> > In a previous article, Will Chabun <wch...@sk.sympatico.ca> said:
> >>ignored is the endurance of the Arrow, using its 1950s-vintage engines.
> >>Would the Arro have been able to indeed patrol the northlands -- or would
> >>its short range (thanks to heavy fuel consumption) made it a terribly
> >>expensive point defence fighter. Back in the late 1950s, the RCAF had no
> >
> > higher than its contemporaries.
>
> But often real performance will fall short of the specs. Maybe the later
> versions of the Arrow may have been fitted for aerial refueling. Canada's
> North is really big. The engines of the 1950'-1960's were gas guzzlers. I
> read somewhere that the estimated combat radius of the Arrow was closer to
> 500 Km with 1000 Km. being its range (not combat radius). Military a/c often
> will fall short of their designed specs.
>
> check 6
>
> Darrell Larose dar...@cesani.newforce.ca
Still, you never know. Who would have thought that in 1997 the French Navy would still be using F8 Crusaders, a fifties day fighter design based on the experience of the Korean War.
Kristan Roberge
Will Chabun <wch...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Kristan Roberge wrote:
> >
> > ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
> > >
> > > the hell up there quick" interceptor? Somehow I get the impression
> > > that what we would have ended up with was a more sophisticated precursor
> > > to the Mig 25, a plane useful for intercepting high speed bombers at
> > > high altitude but not much else.
>
> ignored is the endurance of the Arrow, using its 1950s-vintage engines.
> Would the Arro have been able to indeed patrol the northlands -- or would
> its short range (thanks to heavy fuel consumption) made it a terribly
> expensive point defence fighter. Back in the late 1950s, the RCAF had no
> wings for external fuel tanks. There were no RCAF bases north of N
> North Bay. Where, precisely, would it have flown???
The Mk.1 and Mk.2 carried some 2500 Imp.gallons of fuel and the Mk.2A
had over 3000 Imp. gallons. Now an Imp. gallon is about 25% larger than
an US gallon as I recall, so that works out around 18,000 Ibs of
fuel for the Mk.1/2 or 22,000 Ibs for the Mk.2A and later. That's about
as much as an F-15 with the CFTs The Iroquois engines were VERY fuel
efficient compared to most other engines available at the time and
the plane would have been capable of supercruising given the dry thrust
of the PS-13s was about 5% GREATER than the augmented thrust of the
J75s (which reached Mach 1.1 at sea level, and Mach 1.97 at altitude).
Don't assume that because american engines suffered from high fuel-consumption
that all designs in the west were equally cursed).
> > Yes, its speed, power and rate of climb, and range would have also made
> > it an excellent high-altitude recon plane, its large weapons bay would
> > have allowed a large air-to-ground payload of bombs or missiles. Its
> > large wings would have made it an excellent load-carrying platform.
>
> Ah, so, but would it have had enough range to fulfill these tasks??
The mission radius for the Mk.1 and Mk.2s with the 2500 gallons was
to be NOT less than 600 miles... Unfortunetly I haven't been able
to find a loiter time on station for the planes (still searching though).
The plane was designed as a long-range, all-weather interceptor originally.
That's all internal fuel btw, with a full weapons load in the bay.
> lesson of the Second World War: that you'd have to come in at very low
> altitude and high speed if you wanted to survive in that very
> sophisticated combat environment on the central European front. With its
> delta wing and enormous size (making it a dandy target), the CF-105
> would have been an awful choice for the strike/recce role.
Uh huh... The F-4 ended up being used for both, quite successfully,
and its also a large aircraft and was designed as the ultimate US
interceptor as I recall. Hell, the Mig-25 got used for the high-altitude
photo-recce role quite well. I never said the Arrow variant called
for a low-altitude Recce aircraft. Most Photo-Recce designs
of the time (and WWII) called for high-altitude performance. The
Mosquito, which was probably THE BEST recce aircraft in allied
service during WWII used to fly VERY high and VERY Fast compared to
the enemy fighter. If the lesson of WWII was fast and low, explain the
A-12/SR-71, U-2, etc...
> Don't forget that the F-106, suitable for interception and absolutely
> nothing else, entered and left USAF service in 20 years and didn't
> particulary excel. Contrast that with the multirole F-4, which could do
> everything well.
The F-4 was NOT designed from scratcg as a multirole aircraft. That
evolution came later. The F-106 entered service around 1958 as
I recall and stayed on in ADF squadrons until the early 80s. It had
shorter legs than the Arrow, and a smaller weapons bay and payload.
As a service life goes, 20 years is damn good for the Airforce. How
many OTHER aircraft from the 50s or 60s lasted 20 years after
the production line shutdown that particular model?!? F-4E/Fs were leaving
US service within about a decade of usage after F-15s appeared.
Kristan Roberge
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose) wrote:
>
>
> But often real performance will fall short of the specs. Maybe the later
> versions of the Arrow may have been fitted for aerial refueling. Canada's
> North is really big. The engines of the 1950'-1960's were gas guzzlers. I
> read somewhere that the estimated combat radius of the Arrow was closer to
> 500 Km with 1000 Km. being its range (not combat radius). Military a/c often
> will fall short of their designed specs.
Bzzzt... wrong. But thanks for playing.
US engines may have been gas guzzlers but the Iroquois PS-13s were
not. They also held the record for DryThrust for turbojets for several
years. The Iroquois's were tested for more than 7,000 hours by the
time the project was cancelled, and they had plenty of time to confirm
the range requirements based on testing and actual flight performance
of the aircraft with the gas-guzzling J75 Avro bought from the USA.
The combat radius (excluding loiter) was over 600 nautical miles and
that was on internal fuel with a full weapons load. The ferry range
was incredible and the production aircraft would have been capable
of supercruising at both altitude and sea level.
Kristan Roberge
Gregory Putz <gl....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Now, with respect to the Arrow's anticipated endurance, it should be
> recalled that the original performance specification of the RCAF set
> down a 200 nautical mile radius of action.
Sigh... and I quote, from the written history of the Avro Arrow, from the
Homepage of the Avro Arrow (http://sail.uwaterloo.ca/~rkschmid/Arrow/AvroArrow.html).
"It was inevitable that Avro Canada would try to design a replacement for the CF-100. Initially, these designs resembled CF-100s with swept
wings and supersonic performance. Later a number of designs with swept and delta wings were studied, but the effort began in earnest in April
1953, when the RCAF announced it requirement Air-7-3. It wanted a twin-engined, two-seat interceptor with a radius of action of at least
1000km, a ferry range of no less than 6000 nautical miles (11000km) and a maximal speed of more than Mach 1.5. It was to be equipped with a
sophisticated fire control system, and to have an all-missile armament. A need for 600 such aircraft was initially envisaged. No such aircraft
was available elsewhere, and the RCAF was unwilling to comprise by adopting a less than 100% satisfactory aircraft. So a new type would have
to be designed. In the end, the RCAF would adopt one of the alternative designs it had studied, but rejected --- the McDonnell F-101 Voodoo."
The rest of your range figures for the F-4, F/A-18, etc. seemed right
at first glance.
> Now, what about the question where would the Arrow patrol? First of
> all, the Arrow was not designed to do patrols. The defence doctrine of
> the day was based on the early detection of Soviet bombers by the DEW
> line of radar stations and then interception.
Maybe, but it was designed to find the bombers on their own. NO GROUND
CONTROL required. When did the DEW line of radars get built?!?
>
Gregory Putz
Kristan Roberge wrote:
>
> Gregory Putz <gl....@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Now, with respect to the Arrow's anticipated endurance, it should be
> > recalled that the original performance specification of the RCAF set
> > down a 200 nautical mile radius of action.
>
> Homepage of the Avro Arrow (http://sail.uwaterloo.ca/~rkschmid/Arrow/AvroArrow.html).
>
> "It was inevitable that Avro Canada would try to design a replacement for the CF-100. Initially, these designs resembled CF-100s with swept
> wings and supersonic performance. Later a number of designs with swept and delta wings were studied, but the effort began in earnest in April
> 1953, when the RCAF announced it requirement Air-7-3. It wanted a twin-engined, two-seat interceptor with a radius of action of at least
> 1000km, a ferry range of no less than 6000 nautical miles (11000km) and a maximal speed of more than Mach 1.5. It was to be equipped with a
> sophisticated fire control system, and to have an all-missile armament. A need for 600 such aircraft was initially envisaged. No such aircraft
> was available elsewhere, and the RCAF was unwilling to comprise by adopting a less than 100% satisfactory aircraft. So a new type would have
> to be designed. In the end, the RCAF would adopt one of the alternative designs it had studied, but rejected --- the McDonnell F-101 Voodoo."
>
> The rest of your range figures for the F-4, F/A-18, etc. seemed right
> at first glance.
>
> > all, the Arrow was not designed to do patrols. The defence doctrine of
> > the day was based on the early detection of Soviet bombers by the DEW
> > line of radar stations and then interception.
>
> CONTROL required. When did the DEW line of radars get built?!?
>
> >
7-3 specifications which is noted at page 155 of "Avro Arrow: The Story
of the Avro Arrow from its Evolution to its Extinction.", Boston Mills,
1980. Perhaps the specification was revised. Perhaps somebody with an
academic grounding in this story, like Russ Isinger, can clarify this
point. Are you out there Russ?
On your second point, I doubt very much the RCAF expected Arrows to find
Soviet bombers on their own given the size of the field of engagement.
Again, this goes to the heart of my point about putting this whole story
in historical perspective.
Now, to answer your question and I hope my facts are correct. The DEW
line became fully operational on 31 July 1957. The project was
initiated in 1952 by the United States, approved by Canada in 1953 and
construction began in 1954 when Western Electric Corporation was
appointed the contractor. The Mid-Canada Line was also virtually
complete in 1957. The line furthest south, the Pinetree Line, was
involved in the decision to acquire F-101Bs. These layers of lines were
used to detect violations of North American airspace. They weren't used
directly to ground control interception. The semi-automatic ground
environment (SAGE) began to replace manual automatic control in June
1958. As an aside, North Bay lodged the only Canadian based SAGE
centre. The Arrow, which I think I noted in my original posting, was
designed to be capable of operating independently of ground control. But
that is a tactical consideration. Early detection of the enemy and the
deployment of defence resources is a strategic consideration. The
Arrow, as I stated, would have easily fit into the strategic doctrine of
the day and beyond. Again, that is why I quoted the 1963 NORAD fighter
requirement.
Hope this clears up the DEW line point.
pau...@digital.net
> Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com> writes:
<big snip>
> as much as an F-15 with the CFTs The Iroquois engines were VERY fuel
> efficient compared to most other engines available at the time and
> the plane would have been capable of supercruising given the dry thrust
> of the PS-13s was about 5% GREATER than the augmented thrust of the
> J75s (which reached Mach 1.1 at sea level, and Mach 1.97 at altitude).
> Don't assume that because american engines suffered from high fuel-consumption
> that all designs in the west were equally cursed).
In what particular design aspects did the Iroquois's improve on (say) a TF30 or Spey
in terms of dry SFC? Pressure Ratio, Compressor Efficiency, Turbine Entry Temperature?
Don't assume that native genius (even if it wears hats with ear flaps) overcomes
strength of materials limitations.
Gross thrust is a function of mass flowrate as much as it is TET. It's not particularly
difficult to build an arbitrarily "powerful" engine if you can make it large enough in
diameter. Whether the damn thing lasts more than 500 hours and demonstrates an SFC
better than 5 while doing so is the real test of engine design.
Conscience is that quiet little voice that says "Someone may be watching."
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
Matthew Hamer
In article <5bomdb$g...@news.istar.ca>,
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
Snip.
>Yes, its speed, power and rate of climb, and range would have also made
>it an excellent high-altitude recon plane, its large weapons bay would
>have allowed a large air-to-ground payload of bombs or missiles. Its
>large wings would have made it an excellent load-carrying platform.
>There were many variants proposed. It would certainly have been
>better suited to the ground-attack and recon roles than the CF-104s
>Canada ended up using.
Would Mr. Worthy or any of the ex CF104 drivers out there please give us an
informed opinion as to how the big delta would have performed at 300' AGL and
600 KIAS?
Ever wonder why the 106 wasn't adapted to low level recce or air to ground?
>
>
>> The F106 is another plane that seems
>> to me an analog to the Arrow. Am I wrong? Would the Arrow have been
>> of any use as a dogfighter, or as a fighter bomber?
>
>The F106 was the improved version of the F102 (which was briefly
>mentioned in the miniseries) and could be considered a smaller version
>of the Arrow as far as initial design role. It lacked the range and
>payload of the arrow, and was a single-engine, single-seat
fighter/interceptor
>that matched the speed and climb of the arrow thanks to its lighter
>weight and single J75 engine (a much augmented version of the J75s
>used in the Arrow Mk1s). It also depended on ground-controllers to
>plot its intercepts as it only carried a fire-control radar, not
>a full search radar as was planned for the Arrow.
>
Kristan Roberge
pau...@digital.net wrote:
>
> > Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com> writes:
> <big snip>
> > as much as an F-15 with the CFTs The Iroquois engines were VERY fuel
> > efficient compared to most other engines available at the time and
> > the plane would have been capable of supercruising given the dry thrust
> > of the PS-13s was about 5% GREATER than the augmented thrust of the
> > J75s (which reached Mach 1.1 at sea level, and Mach 1.97 at altitude).
> > Don't assume that because american engines suffered from high fuel-consumption
> > that all designs in the west were equally cursed).
>
> In what particular design aspects did the Iroquois's improve on (say) a TF30 or Spey
> in terms of dry SFC? Pressure Ratio, Compressor Efficiency, Turbine Entry Temperature?
> Don't assume that native genius (even if it wears hats with ear flaps) overcomes
> strength of materials limitations.
Material limitations?!? Are you aware that when Avro folded in 1962, it
was THE premiere source of high-grade titanium alloys in the western
hemisphere, and that ALL the major US engine manufacturers depended
on Avro supplied titanium.
What's the dry thrust of a TF30? The Iroquois PS-13 has a dry thrust of
just over 19,400 Ibs (this was in 1958). Didn't the TF30, which if I
recall right is the turbofan used in the F-111 and F-14 appear about
8 years later?
> Gross thrust is a function of mass flowrate as much as it is TET. It's not particularly
> difficult to build an arbitrarily "powerful" engine if you can make it large enough in
> diameter. Whether the damn thing lasts more than 500 hours and demonstrates an SFC
> better than 5 while doing so is the real test of engine design.
Well, by the time the program ended, 13 test engines has totalled more
than 7,000 hours of operation. The spoolup time from idle thrust to Full
afterburner was 4.5 seconds. This during a timeperiod where increasing
thrust was a relatively slow process in most turbojets.
Kristan Roberge
mha...@mail.island.net (Matthew Hamer) wrote:
>
> In article <5bomdb$g...@news.istar.ca>,
> Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
> >ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
> Snip.
>
> >Yes, its speed, power and rate of climb, and range would have also made
> >it an excellent high-altitude recon plane, its large weapons bay would
> >have allowed a large air-to-ground payload of bombs or missiles. Its
> >large wings would have made it an excellent load-carrying platform.
> >There were many variants proposed. It would certainly have been
> >better suited to the ground-attack and recon roles than the CF-104s
> >Canada ended up using.
>
> Would Mr. Worthy or any of the ex CF104 drivers out there please give us an
> informed opinion as to how the big delta would have performed at 300' AGL and
> 600 KIAS?
>
> Ever wonder why the 106 wasn't adapted to low level recce or air to ground?
Minimal bay capacity and there were other aircraft available?
The -106 was purchased for ONE role only... air-defence.
Maury Markowitz
> Yes, its speed, power and rate of climb, and range would have also made
> it an excellent high-altitude recon plane,
Too short range though, something that plagued a lot of such
conversions. The succesful recce conversions were things like the RB-57,
RB-66 and RA-5, with lots of range and room for cameras (ignoring custom
jobs like the A-12 and U-2).
> its large weapons bay would
> have allowed a large air-to-ground payload of bombs or missiles.
Too far forward, this would have seriously hampered the CoG limits with
any sizable load.
> Nope, the Arrow could have done this role as well.
Balogna.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <8534737...@dejanews.com>, ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
> the F22. But would the Arrow have been of use as anything but a "get
> the hell up there quick" interceptor?
Nope. The forward weapon bay limited loads as well.
> Somehow I get the impression
> that what we would have ended up with was a more sophisticated precursor
> to the Mig 25, a plane useful for intercepting high speed bombers at
> high altitude but not much else.
I'd say it would be less advanced than the MiG, and if experiences early
in Viet Nam with the Genie were any indication, might never have worked at
all.
> The F106 is another plane that seems
> to me an analog to the Arrow. Am I wrong?
Nope. One engine rather than two and smaller, but otherwise very similar
in a lot of ways.
> Would the Arrow have been of any use as a dogfighter
Designed for 2 gees at speed. No.
> or as a fighter bomber?
Nose weapons bay. No.
> Would Canada have ended up having to buy Starfighters anyways
Yes, the Starfighter is a day fighter, the Arrow a night/all weather
fighter. The two classes had existed for some time (WWII) and had been
filled by things like the Spitfire/Mossy NF, then the Sabre/CF-100, and
then maybe the F-104/Arrow but instead the F-104/CF-100 & F-101.
> I think a lot of the Arrow hype comes at people looking at
> things like sheer speed and altitude capability, and not the
> actual direct utility of such an aircraft.
Exactly.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <32E030...@sk.sympatico.ca>, Will Chabun
<wch...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Don't forget that the F-106, suitable for interception and absolutely
> nothing else, entered and left USAF service in 20 years and didn't
> particulary excel. Contrast that with the multirole F-4, which could do
> everything well.
The later was certainly one of the best all around fighters of all time,
if not the best. Good range and loiter. A2A and A2G both not only
possible, but carried out with aplomb. Flew from CV's and ground bases.
Used by the AF _and_ the Navy. Nothing else really comes close - the
Mossy and Ju88 didn't go from the sea.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> Short range? The spec for the Arrow was a 1000km combat radius, which is much
> higher than its contemporaries.
Not than the tac buffs that were available like the Canberra. I believe
the spec for the Mk2 also fell quite short of that goal, something in the
400m range. I remember that the Mk5 was again offered up with 1000m range
much later.
Maury
Kristan Roberge
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
> In article <8534737...@dejanews.com>, ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
>
> > the F22. But would the Arrow have been of use as anything but a "get
> > the hell up there quick" interceptor?
>
> Nope. The forward weapon bay limited loads as well.
'scuse me, forward weapon bay?!? The bay was just about DEAD center on
the airframe.
> > or as a fighter bomber?
>
> Nose weapons bay. No.
Yep, your definetly an idiot if you can't tell the difference
between a plane's nose and the center of its fuselage.
Kristan Roberge
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
> In article <5bomdb$g...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, its speed, power and rate of climb, and range would have also made
> > it an excellent high-altitude recon plane,
>
> Too short range though, something that plagued a lot of such
> conversions. The succesful recce conversions were things like the RB-57,
> RB-66 and RA-5, with lots of range and room for cameras (ignoring custom
> jobs like the A-12 and U-2).
Would this be a bad time to mention the self-ferry range was over 5,000
miles?!?
> > its large weapons bay would
> > have allowed a large air-to-ground payload of bombs or missiles.
>
> Too far forward, this would have seriously hampered the CoG limits with
> any sizable load.
Uh huh... never saw the list of variants did you?!?
Kristan Roberge
You believe alot of stuff, fortunetly none of it is right as far
as the arrow is concerned.
Kristan Roberge
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
> In article <32E030...@sk.sympatico.ca>, Will Chabun
> <wch...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Don't forget that the F-106, suitable for interception and absolutely
> > nothing else, entered and left USAF service in 20 years and didn't
> > particulary excel. Contrast that with the multirole F-4, which could do
> > everything well.
>
> The later was certainly one of the best all around fighters of all time,
> if not the best. Good range and loiter.
Ahem... the F-4's loiter time was NOT good, and the plane depended
on inflight-refueling after takeoff to perform any kind of useful strike
mission.
> possible, but carried out with aplomb. Flew from CV's and ground bases.
MANY variants though, not really designed as a multirole type. The
Navy F-4A/B was a fleet Interceptor, the AF F-4C/D/E/F was able to
carry a wider mix of stores but that didn't keep the RF-4 and F-4G
specialized variants from being produced.
> Used by the AF _and_ the Navy. Nothing else really comes close
F/A-18 is being used by US Navy, US Marines, RCAF, and being considered
by alot of european countries for their airforces. Its also a TRUE
multirole aircraft and a hell of alot better than an F-4.
JLAuPage
. The later was certainly one of the best all around fighters of all time,
.if not the best. Good range and loiter. A2A and A2G both not only
.possible, but carried out with aplomb. Flew from CV's and ground bases.
.Used by the AF _and_ the Navy. Nothing else really comes close - the
.Mossy and Ju88 didn't go from the sea.
I rather think that another F-4 qualifies as the best all around fighter
aircraft, the F-4U Corsair...A better fighter than the Phantom. Later
versions had the payload of a land based mediium bomber. It was also used
as nightfighter without much degradation in performance. The Phantom
enjoys a better reputation with the Air Force than the Navy. Naval
aviators liked the aircraft but since its primary naval role was
air-to-air everybody understood its limitations. It was never really the
fighter of choice during its naval service. The F-8 was acknowledged as
the better fighter in the 1960's and everybody wanted Tomcats in the
1970s.
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Ernest D. Foote
JLAuPage wrote:
><snip> The Phantom
> enjoys a better reputation with the Air Force than the Navy. Naval
> aviators liked the aircraft but since its primary naval role was
> air-to-air everybody understood its limitations. It was never really the
> fighter of choice during its naval service. The F-8 was acknowledged as
> the better fighter in the 1960's and everybody wanted Tomcats in the
> 1970s.
>
> Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Oh please! Will you guys ever get over your feelings of inferiority?
Being almost as good as an F-4 is not really your fault.
IIRC the only reason for keeping the F-8 was because it's hook didn't
tear up the deck of the 27Cs. Check the F-4 at your six!
Ernie
Terry Cooper
Maury Markowitz wrote:
>
> In article <8534737...@dejanews.com>, ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
>
> > the F22. But would the Arrow have been of use as anything but a "get
> > the hell up there quick" interceptor?
>
> Nope. The forward weapon bay limited loads as well.
>
> Nose weapons bay. No.
>
Now I'm getting a better idea of where you are coming from, you haven't
even seen a picture of an Arrow! Nose weapons bay?
The weapons bay is a long way from the nose.
But since what the Arrow was designed to be was a get there quick
interceptor, that's probably exactly what it would have been good at in
any weather over a long range (Canada is a rather large place with a
great variation of weather after all).
Matthew Hamer
The real truth must be made clear ...
The ever gentle, soft-spoken, always respectful of the opinions of his fellow
netizens ,, yes, I mean "kroberge"...
HAS '206 HIDDEN IN HIS GARAGE.
Signed, Andrea Wood.
In article <5c40bs$s...@news.istar.ca>,
Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>>
>> In article <8534737...@dejanews.com>, ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
>>
>> > the F22. But would the Arrow have been of use as anything but a "get
>> > the hell up there quick" interceptor?
>>
>> Nope. The forward weapon bay limited loads as well.
>
Don Hatten
Terry Cooper wrote:
>
> Maury Markowitz wrote:
> >
> > In article <8534737...@dejanews.com>, ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca wrote:
> >
> > > the F22. But would the Arrow have been of use as anything but a "get
> > > the hell up there quick" interceptor?
> >
> > Nope. The forward weapon bay limited loads as well.
> >
>
> >
>
> Now I'm getting a better idea of where you are coming from, you haven't
> even seen a picture of an Arrow! Nose weapons bay?
>
> The weapons bay is a long way from the nose.
>
> But since what the Arrow was designed to be was a get there quick
> interceptor, that's probably exactly what it would have been good at in
> any weather over a long range (Canada is a rather large place with a
> great variation of weather after all).
I'm amazed that you can get so worked up over a plane and engine
combination that never flew together. Plane looks like a bastard child
of a Vulcan and an F-106.
Cheers
Don
Paul J. Adam
In article <maury-21019...@199.166.204.230>, Maury Markowitz
<ma...@softarc.com> writes
> I'd say it would be less advanced than the MiG, and if experiences early
>in Viet Nam with the Genie were any indication, might never have worked at
>all.
Could you refresh our memory on how many Genies were used in Vietnam,
Maury :)
ISTR the Falcon was used and not enormously successful, and the early
Sparrows and Sidewinders also needed crash programs to update the
designs, but nobody ever mentioned Genies even being carried, let alone
used.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Paul J. Adam
><wch...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Contrast that with the multirole F-4, which could do
>> everything well.
>
I have only one thing to say to that. F/A-18 Hornet :)
(Though I'm an ardent Rhino fan myself...)
Terry Cooper
Don Hatten wrote:
>
> I'm amazed that you can get so worked up over a plane and engine
> combination that never flew together. Plane looks like a bastard child
> of a Vulcan and an F-106.
>
Don,
I'll disregard the last comment as it really doesn't deserve a response.
However as to why we can get so worked up as you call it has a lot to do
with how things came to pass, and the natural desire to not be slaves to
the Americans (which is how we have now ended up in many areas).
The aircraft would likely have had exceptional performance with it's own
engines and it would probably far exceeded the requirements that brought
it into being, but we'll never know. The Canadian aerospace and high
tech. industries would probably have been world leaders and kept Canada
in the top of the industrialised nations.
Instead we lost most of the exceptional engineering talent from the
programme, both from Avro itself and the suppliers of components, to the
US. We became subservient to the whims of the US and spent money
supporting US industry through purchases of inferior weapons systems and
aircraft.
Canada is slowly recovering from the disaster of the Arrow distruction.
We have world leading companies in some high tech. sectors such as
telecommunications (the big country thing again). Bombardier is also
bringing back some aerospace by taking over the commuter and private jet
market (DH, Canadair, Lear, Shorts). We are however still stuck with
Diefenbaker's vision of a nation of miners, loggers, fishermen and
farmers dependant entirely on natural resources and manual labour. The
trees are gone, the fish are gone, the land is going, the nation....
Terry
JLAuPage
.Canada is slowly recovering from the disaster of the Arrow distruction.
.We have world leading companies in some high tech. sectors such as
.telecommunications (the big country thing again). Bombardier is also
.bringing back some aerospace by taking over the commuter and private jet
.market (DH, Canadair, Lear, Shorts). We are however still stuck with
.Diefenbaker's vision of a nation of miners, loggers, fishermen and
.farmers dependant entirely on natural resources and manual labour. The
.trees are gone, the fish are gone, the land is going, the nation....
Canada, like Europe, chose to create huge entitlements systems instead of
concetrating on capital formation. This siphoned off resources from
productive enterprises into transfer payments. This would have happened
with or without the Arrow. Its easy to blame your southern neighbors for
Canada's problems but its not true.
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
bbe...@primenet.com
In <32ED0F...@pwgsc.gc.ca>, Terry Cooper <coo...@pwgsc.gc.ca> writes:
>Don Hatten wrote:
>>
>> I'm amazed that you can get so worked up over a plane and engine
>> combination that never flew together. Plane looks like a bastard child
>> of a Vulcan and an F-106.
>>
>
>Don,
>
>I'll disregard the last comment as it really doesn't deserve a response.
>However as to why we can get so worked up as you call it has a lot to do
>with how things came to pass, and the natural desire to not be slaves to
>the Americans (which is how we have now ended up in many areas).
>
>The aircraft would likely have had exceptional performance with it's own
>engines and it would probably far exceeded the requirements that brought
>it into being, but we'll never know. The Canadian aerospace and high
>tech. industries would probably have been world leaders and kept Canada
>in the top of the industrialised nations.
This, based on one failed (for whatever reason) project? I mean, come on -
the Arrow was a neat looking aircraft, but to assume from specs that it
was going to be the 2nd coming of interceptors is a bit much.
My own personal opinion (so take it as such) is that the Arrow would have
been roughly a "souped-up" F-106 and would have gone down in history in
much the same way that the A-5 did : Nice looking airplane with good
performance relative to its contemporaries but without any other distinguishing
characteristics or features.
Perhaps we should rename this thread "Those pesky Canadians and
their Arrows" :-).
Cheers,
Brad
Maury Markowitz
In article <LnNLicAk...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
<pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Could you refresh our memory on how many Genies were used in Vietnam,
> Maury :)
An exact number? No. The only exact number I know for it is three for
zero, on a single mission. Overall numbers I believe were for zero hits,
although I haven't exactly researched it.
> ISTR the Falcon was used and not enormously successful, and the early
> Sparrows and Sidewinders also needed crash programs to update the
> designs, but nobody ever mentioned Genies even being carried, let alone
> used.
Someone lent me a little book on air combat once, it may have been from
a video game. The book itself was a joke, all it talked about was flat
turns inside or outside the turn radius. Anyway at the end was the
portion I read, it was about a guns kill on a MiG-19 at supersonic speed
(only one?) and the US plane mentions firing Genies if memory serves.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
> 'scuse me, forward weapon bay?!? The bay was just about DEAD center on
> the airframe.
Sigh. Way forward of the CoG as clearly stated. You do know what that
is don't you?
> Yep, your definetly an idiot if you can't tell the difference
> between a plane's nose and the center of its fuselage.
And who exactly would that be?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <5c40e9$s...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
wrote:
> You believe alot of stuff, fortunetly none of it is right as far
> as the arrow is concerned.
I'm sure you know all about it too.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <5c3v15$s...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
wrote:
> Would this be a bad time to mention the self-ferry range was over 5,000
> miles?!?
a) I don't believe that number
b) you don't often ferry on combat missions
> Uh huh... never saw the list of variants did you?!?
Yes I did.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <5c40p9$s...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
wrote:
> Ahem... the F-4's loiter time was NOT good, and the plane depended
> on inflight-refueling after takeoff to perform any kind of useful strike
> mission.
I'll then refer you to the rather large group of F-4 pilots here in this
forum. Art Day tells about loitering on BARCAP for _hours_ as well as
flying them across the ocean.
> F/A-18 is being used by US Navy, US Marines, RCAF, and being considered
> by alot of european countries for their airforces. Its also a TRUE
> multirole aircraft and a hell of alot better than an F-4.
In most ways, but not as an interceptor. It's also 20 to 25 years
later. For it's time the F-4 outperformed and "outmissioned" it's
contemporaries by more than any other fighter I can think of in history.
Fokker D.VII over the Snipes and SPAD 13's? No. Any WWII fighter over
it's contemporaries? Nope. Did any fighter prior do any many types of
missions? Nope. Looks like a good candidate to me.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970122161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jlau...@aol.com (JLAuPage) wrote:
> I rather think that another F-4 qualifies as the best all around fighter
> aircraft, the F-4U Corsair...A better fighter than the Phantom. Later
> versions had the payload of a land based mediium bomber.
Only than early war mediums.
> It was also used
> as nightfighter without much degradation in performance.
Except for the fact that it was rather poor at it's mission (you need a
radar operator back then) countered by the skill of the pilots. Compared
to the outright performance of machines like the Mossy NF which had to
_hunt_ the targets as well as intercept them, the F-4U certainly didn't
count.
More to the point the F-4U, while possessing good speed, was easily
outmatched by the same generation of European machines. Summer '43
right? That's 109F's (perhaps even early G's?) and 190A4's, Spit MK.IV's
and Tiffie's, any of which would do fine in a fight with the F-4.
> fighter of choice during its naval service. The F-8 was acknowledged as
> the better fighter in the 1960's and everybody wanted Tomcats in the
> 1970s.
The F-8 was recognized as a better _dog_fighter yes (by a good margin
too), but with that small radar opening you're limiting your detection
ranges greatly and that's something the F-4 had to do for the Navy. Sure
the F-14 is better, it's the next generation, it's not surprising.
Maury
Matthew Hamer
In article <maury-28019...@199.166.204.230>,
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>In article <5c3v15$s...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Would this be a bad time to mention the self-ferry range was over 5,000
>> miles?!?
>
>a) I don't believe that number
A good sanity check would be Arrow's fuel load in pounds, including
external tanks, versus engine thrust.
This would give an immediate idea if self ferry of 5,000 miles was plausible.
Maybe Curtis Lemay would have bought some for SAC!
Kristan Roberge
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
> In article <LnNLicAk...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
> <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Could you refresh our memory on how many Genies were used in Vietnam,
> > Maury :)
>
> An exact number? No. The only exact number I know for it is three for
> zero, on a single mission. Overall numbers I believe were for zero hits,
> although I haven't exactly researched it.
I should HOPE so... the Genie was an UNGUIDED (you didn't know this
did you?) rocket, rather large, that carried a NUCLEAR warhead and
was intended SOLELY for large bomber formations (don't need to
hit the plane when a 1 kiloton airburst warhead goes off... a mile or
so is close enough).
> Someone lent me a little book on air combat once, it may have been from
> a video game. The book itself was a joke, all it talked about was flat
> turns inside or outside the turn radius. Anyway at the end was the
> portion I read, it was about a guns kill on a MiG-19 at supersonic speed
> (only one?) and the US plane mentions firing Genies if memory serves.
Mig-19s were JUST supersonic, with a topspeed of about Mach 1.35. A
Genie would have a hard enough time hitting the broadside of the
the hoover dam, let alone a Mig-19 a Mach 1 plus.
Kristan Roberge
ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
>
> In article <5c40p9$s...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
>
> > by alot of european countries for their airforces. Its also a TRUE
> > multirole aircraft and a hell of alot better than an F-4.
>
> In most ways, but not as an interceptor. It's also 20 to 25 years
> later.
You seem to a have a real problem with math. The F-4s date back to about
1960, the F/A-18 to 1975. Gee, 15 years...
> For it's time the F-4 outperformed and "outmissioned" it's
> contemporaries by more than any other fighter I can think of in history.
> Fokker D.VII over the Snipes and SPAD 13's? No. Any WWII fighter over
> it's contemporaries? Nope. Did any fighter prior do any many types of
> missions? Nope. Looks like a good candidate to me.
P-47 Thunderbolts, Mosquitos, P-51s, P-38s all performed multiple
roles including fighter, recon, fighter-bomber, etc...
Owen Smith
bbe...@primenet.com wrote:
> This, based on one failed (for whatever reason) project? I mean, come on -
> the Arrow was a neat looking aircraft, but to assume from specs that it
> was going to be the 2nd coming of interceptors is a bit much.
The difference for us Canadians is that we had great potential and
had a large mass of technical knowledge that was thrown to the wolves
(cough) I mean the States upon the cancellation of the Arrow. Ever
since we have been watching the US dominate us in many areas.
>
> My own personal opinion (so take it as such) is that the Arrow would have
> been roughly a "souped-up" F-106 and would have gone down in history in
> much the same way that the A-5 did : Nice looking airplane with good
> performance relative to its contemporaries but without any other distinguishing
> characteristics or features.
>
As an aircraft, yes.
> Perhaps we should rename this thread "Those pesky Canadians and
> their Arrows" :-).
>
I'll attempt to take that in the spirit it was intended.
> Cheers,
> Brad
Owen Smith
JLAuPage
> Could you refresh our memory on how many Genies were used in Vietnam,
> Maury :)
No Genies were used during Vietnam. The Genie was a nuclear armed
missile. I think you may be refering to the Falcon.
Regard Jerry Goldblatt
Paul J. Adam
In article <maury-28019...@199.166.204.230>, Maury Markowitz
<ma...@softarc.com> writes
>> Maury :)
>
>zero, on a single mission. Overall numbers I believe were for zero hits,
>although I haven't exactly researched it.
Maury, you do recall that the Genie was an unguided rocket with a
nuclear warhead? Could you remind me again how many were fired? :)
Maury Markowitz
In article <5co5gb$s...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com>
wrote:
> I should HOPE so... the Genie was an UNGUIDED (you didn't know this
> did you?) rocket, rather large, that carried a NUCLEAR warhead and
> was intended SOLELY for large bomber formations (don't need to
> hit the plane when a 1 kiloton airburst warhead goes off... a mile or
> so is close enough).
Sorry, I have the name confused with the Falcon. It is the Falcon I am
referring to.
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <5co61v$s...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com>
wrote:
> P-47 Thunderbolts, Mosquitos, P-51s, P-38s all performed multiple
> roles including fighter, recon, fighter-bomber, etc...
Yes, but you ignored the point: that the F-4 did so so much better than
anything else flying while running from both ships and ground. The P-47
was indeed used for ground pounding, but only after being withdrawn from
fighter service against the German planes it was facing, the same is true
for many. At the same time the Germans were deploying the 190A, F and G
series, thus matching these examples both in terms of mission and
performance.
Maury
Michael Williamson
JLAuPage wrote:
>
> On CAS/strike aircraft performance...
> Using advice from Charles Lindburgh, the Marines started flying -4s in
> close air support with 4000lbs of bombs in early 1945. Besides the A-26,
> what WWII medium bomber flew with higher payload.
> P-38, 5200 lb (2x2000 + 4x300), but then that's not a medium bomber.
(short range missions only) More often the aircraft carried 2 1000 or
2000 lb bombs. For a bonus, how many Corsairs did level bombing
using a Norden bombsight? (Sorry, couldn't help myself)
Mike Williamson
JLAuPage
>Subject: Re: Avro Arrow, A Realistic Evaluation
>From: ma...@softarc.com (Maury Markowitz
Apologies for not including the original response...I was unable to
relocate Maury's post.
On nightfighting Corsairs....
Should have read without significant degradation to its daylight
air-to-air effectiveness
Nightfighting Corsairs were very effective when under GCI control. The
F-4U-5 produced the navy's only Korean War Ace flying a naval aircraft.
The UN command found that the two place F-94 nightfighter ineffective in
stoping night intruders coming down from North Korea. After losing
several aircraft in CFIT incidents they brought in the Corsairs. These
aircraft were very effective and terminated the problem.
On Corsair air-to-air performance...
Your Eurocentric outlook is showing here. The F-4U-1A, introduced in
late 1943 as fast as the FW-190D, could hold its own against a 190 in roll
and turn, and had a significant advantage in the vertical. The definitive
WWII Corsair, the -4 was introduced about same time as the 190D, was
faster then the 190D, could still outclimb and out dive it, and turn with
it. Since the roll rate on the 190D was lower then on previous versions,
the -4 could probably out roll as well. The only aircraft operating in the
ETO that had any signifcant advantage over the Corsair was the Griffon
engined Spit.
I don't see how an BF-109F was superior to the F-4U-1. The Navy flew
off the Corsair and the Hellcat and the Corsair had the Hellcat for lunch.
The Hellcat was much better aircraft than the 109F.
On CAS/strike aircraft performance...
Using advice from Charles Lindburgh, the Marines started flying -4s in
close air support with 4000lbs of bombs in early 1945. Besides the A-26,
what WWII medium bomber flew with higher payload.
On F-8 vs F-4 in dog fighting...
Vietnam was for the most part a daylight VID war. The better
dogfighter was the more suitable aircraft.
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970130001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jlau...@aol.com (JLAuPage) wrote:
> Should have read without significant degradation to its daylight
> air-to-air effectiveness
Oh yes, for sure. But remember this was at the cost of performance of
the radar, which was quite punny - that's what I was referring to when I
was talking about it in comparison to the European NF's of the same
generation.
> On F-8 vs F-4 in dog fighting...
> Vietnam was for the most part a daylight VID war. The better
> dogfighter was the more suitable aircraft.
Yes, for dogfighting. The F-8 was not a better aircraft at BARCAP,
interception, CAS, recce, strat strike or any of the other missions that
the F-4's carried out.
Maury
Ernest D. Foote
Maury Markowitz wrote:
<snip>
> > On F-8 vs F-4 in dog fighting...
> > Vietnam was for the most part a daylight VID war. The better
> > dogfighter was the more suitable aircraft.
>
> Yes, for dogfighting. The F-8 was not a better aircraft at BARCAP,
> interception, CAS, recce, strat strike or any of the other missions that
> the F-4's carried out.
>
> Maury
This old Phantom Phyler in not willing to ceed the dogfight either. The
USN apparently agreed since most big ships had 2 squadrons of F-4's not
one of each! BTW what was the Mig kill number for each? I really don't
know.
v/r
Ernie
JLAuPage
Yes, for dogfighting. The F-8 was not a better aircraft at BARCAP,
interception, CAS, recce, strat strike or any of the other missions that
the F-4's carried out.
Maury
Never said the F-8 was a multirole aircraft just that it was a better
fighter for Vietnam rules of engagement. Don't know of very many
interceptor missions flown in Vietnam. The navy used the A-1, A-4, A-6
and A-7 for strike. In additon the RF-8 was as good as Phantom for
photorecce. Perhaps the air force pressed the F-4 into service because
they lacked quality strike aircraft.
Regards Jerry Goldblatt
Maury Markowitz
In article <32F103...@worldnet.att.net>, "Ernest D. Foote"
<efo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> This old Phantom Phyler in not willing to ceed the dogfight either. The
> USN apparently agreed since most big ships had 2 squadrons of F-4's not
> one of each! BTW what was the Mig kill number for each? I really don't
> know.
Nor I. But what was the typical warload carried by the F-8's?
Maury
Maury Markowitz
In article <19970130225...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jlau...@aol.com (JLAuPage) wrote:
> photorecce. Perhaps the air force pressed the F-4 into service because
> they lacked quality strike aircraft.
Maybe, what were they flying in that role at the time? Their version of
the B-66 (;-) wasn't doing it at this point was it? The Viggies were all
recce by then too I think.
Maury
Dave Kohli
>My own personal opinion (so take it as such) is that the Arrow would have
>been roughly a "souped-up" F-106 and would have gone down in history in
>much the same way that the A-5 did : Nice looking airplane with good
>performance relative to its contemporaries but without any other distinguishing
>characteristics or features.
>
Sorry, the F101 in CF service outperformed the F106s as an
interceptor. The second man in the back made all the difference. I
recall reading results of "Maple Flag" exercises which bore this out.
Just like the CF100 tended to be a better interceptor than the F102
for much the same reason. Although the speed difference in that case
makes a seond pass impossible.
>Perhaps we should rename this thread "Those pesky Canadians and
>their Arrows" :-).
>
Why not? It seems to be our lot in life to be a thorn in the sides of
our neibors down south. :-).
Cheers yerself, eh.
-Dave
Mary Shafer
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:04:24 -0800, Owen Smith <osm...@gulf.uvic.ca> said:
O> bbe...@primenet.com wrote:
> This, based on one failed (for whatever reason) project? I mean,
> come on - the Arrow was a neat looking aircraft, but to assume from
> specs that it was going to be the 2nd coming of interceptors is a
> bit much.
O> The difference for us Canadians is that we had great potential and
O> had a large mass of technical knowledge that was thrown to the
O> wolves (cough) I mean the States upon the cancellation of the
O> Arrow. Ever since we have been watching the US dominate us in many
O> areas.
While I understand how hard it is to have so promising an aircraft
cancelled, I think you've got correlation and causation mixed up.
Having two things happen at about the same time doesn't prove that
either caused the other to occur.
The US "dominance" (I prefer to call it "influence", because I don't
think it was as definite as dominance) of Canada didn't start with the
cancellation of the Avro Arrow. It really started some time around
the end of World War II, when the United Kingdom had bankrupted itself
to stop the Axis and then gave up the chance to recoup by freeing its
former colonies. When the Empire turned into the Commonwealth, that's
when the US influence on Canada filled the gap left by the loss of the
UK influence. Canada was no longer a captive market for the UK,
supplying it with food and raw materials and buying manufactured goods
from it. Canada and the US very quickly saw the advantages of mutual
trade and turned into each other's best customers.
This isn't surprising; both countries have much the same heritage of
Britishness, we're close together so the shipping is cheap, and we
have in common our majority language.
Remember too that the US has no national content laws to keep the
Canadian influence out. Canada came up with those laws because her
own citizens preferred US movies and television, US magazines, and US
goods and the Canadian companies who couldn't compete got the
government to pass laws to lessen the competition. I've waited in
line at the bridge at Niagara Falls, watching all the Canadians going
home with cars filled with goods bought in the US and noticed that the
trade doesn't go the other way. Mind you, honesty requires me to
point out that some of this preference is because Canadians are too
smart to pay any more tax than they have to.
I guess I'd be more convinced if I weren't snacking on Canadian
crackers as I wrote this. I was just at the Learjet facility in
Wichita; Bombardier has designated it the company's flight research
and flight test center, even though they've got more Canadian planes
than American to test and use for research.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Maury Markowitz
In article <SHAFER.97J...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>,
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) wrote:
> The US "dominance" (I prefer to call it "influence", because I don't
> think it was as definite as dominance) of Canada didn't start with the
> cancellation of the Avro Arrow. It really started some time around
> the end of World War II, when the United Kingdom had bankrupted itself
> to stop the Axis and then gave up the chance to recoup by freeing its
> former colonies. When the Empire turned into the Commonwealth, that's
> when the US influence on Canada filled the gap left by the loss of the
> UK influence. Canada was no longer a captive market for the UK,
> supplying it with food and raw materials and buying manufactured goods
> from it. Canada and the US very quickly saw the advantages of mutual
> trade and turned into each other's best customers.
Superbly stated. Although I debate the ability of the empire to save
England's economy post-war.
> government to pass laws to lessen the competition. I've waited in
> line at the bridge at Niagara Falls, watching all the Canadians going
> home with cars filled with goods bought in the US and noticed that the
> trade doesn't go the other way. Mind you, honesty requires me to
> point out that some of this preference is because Canadians are too
> smart to pay any more tax than they have to.
You'll find this has lessened of late. When I was a kid I remember that
odd things had all sorts of tax on them, shoes were one example, a pair of
runners cost something on the order of 1/2 to 1/3rd as much in the US (we
traveled to Philly a lot). Now however the price differencial on non-sin
items (those being cigarettes and booze) is practically nil and is in some
cases reveresed.
To all you Canucks reading this, this is the direct result of GST - you
want more flat tax, not less.
Anyway the fact remains that the trade imbalance remains in Canada's favour.
> Wichita; Bombardier has designated it the company's flight research
> and flight test center, even though they've got more Canadian planes
> than American to test and use for research.
One more reason the whole Arrow thing is blown completely out of
proportion. If any plane was going to save Avro, it was the Jetliner, not
the Arrow. Regardless the RJ is now kicking the crap out of all the
mid-hop lights, notably the BAe, 146, and even their own DASH-8 to some
degree. So saying the Arrow was this great blow to the Canadian aviation
industry is just crap - it's doing far better now than ever.
Maury
Dave Kohli
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:01:48 -0500, ma...@softarc.com (Maury
Markowitz) wrote:
>Fokker D.VII over the Snipes and SPAD 13's? No. Any WWII fighter over
>it's contemporaries? Nope. Did any fighter prior do any many types of
>missions? Nope.
>
What about the Mosquito? It was used in a variety of roles. For that
matter so was the Beaufighter.
73503...@compuserve.com
On 30 Jan 1997 22:55:11 GMT, jlau...@aol.com (JLAuPage) wrote:
>
>
> Never said the F-8 was a multirole aircraft just that it was a better
> fighter for Vietnam rules of engagement. Don't know of very many
> interceptor missions flown in Vietnam. The navy used the A-1, A-4, A-6
> and A-7 for strike. In additon the RF-8 was as good as Phantom for
> they lacked quality strike aircraft.
>
The USAF did have the F-105, which at least some people liked,
at the time. But I'm pretty sure politics played a big role:
Secretary of Defense McNamara was very interested in using
common aircraft wherever possible to save money, and even
specifically authorized the TFX/F-111 program to fill a multi-
service requirement. I believe, although I'd have to check
again, that the USAF/ANG got both the F-4 and the A-7 in large
part because they worked <g> and because common aircraft
saved on long-term procurement costs and other expenditures.
The F-4 filled the multi-role mission that the TFX was designed
for, since th F-111` had so many early teething troubles.
Tim
--
Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.