Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

1958

Back to the Virtual Aircraft Museum
  INTERCEPTORVirtual Aircraft Museum / Canada / Avro Canada  

Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

For the Canadian aviation industry, and for Avro Canada in particular, the traumatic story of the Avro Canada CF-105 was paralleled by that of the contemporary British Aircraft Corporation TSR.2 in the UK. Both were destroyed by politicians who,.in 1957, were convinced that missile technology had advanced to a stage when manned interceptor aircraft would no longer be needed. The first stages of development of a new two-seat all-weather long-range interceptor for the RCAF began in early 1953, at the time when the RCAF was busy forming its first CF-100 squadron. This was not an action that represented dissatisfaction with the capability of the CF-100, but showed an appreciation of the fact that something like a decade was needed to get a new high-performance interceptor/weapons-system into squadron service. Avro's design team tackled the new and demanding task with great enthusiasm, with the result that by April 1954 the company was involved in the manufacture of the first five Arrow 1 prototypes. The name derived from the aircraft's delta wing, set high on the fuselage. This had a sharp needle-nose, widening just aft of the cockpit, where intakes on each side of the fuselage fed air to two turbojet engines mounted side by side within the fuselage. The Arrow 1s were powered by two Pratt & Whitney J75s, but it was intended that the following Arrow 2s would have engines of indigenous design and manufacture, in the form of PS-13 Iroquois turbojets, developed by Avro's Orenda engine division, each of which promised a thrust of 12700kg with maximum reheat.

The first of the Arrow 1 prototypes made its maiden flight on 25 March 1958, and all five of this version were being used for development and testing when the entire programme was cancelled on 20 February 1959. A final bitter edict was to ensure destruction of the five Arrow 1s, one unflown Arrow 2, and four almost complete Arrow 2s. Armament of this latter version was to have comprised eight Sparrow air-to-air missiles carried in an internal weapons bay.

FACTS AND FIGURES

© The projected follow-on Mk 3 was to be fitted with Iroquois 3 engines, new intakes and nozzles.

© No fewer than 16 wind-tunnel models were used during the final design stages.

© The two underfuselage speed brakes could be held open during Mach 1 flights.

© The CF-105's advanced hydraulic system remained unique until the Rockwell B-1A strategic bomber was flown in 1974.

© For servicing, the Mk 2's engines could be slid out on special rails.

© A B-47 with a rear-mounted nacelle was used to test the Orenda Iroquois engine.

Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow on YOUTUBE

3-View 
Avro Canada CF-105 ArrowA three-view drawing (1680 x 1257)

Specification 
 CREW2
 ENGINE2 x turbo-jet Pratt & Whitney J75-P-3, 104.5kN
 WEIGHTS
  Take-off weight25855 kg57001 lb
  Empty weight22244 kg49040 lb
 DIMENSIONS
  Wingspan15.24 m50 ft 0 in
  Length23.72 m78 ft 10 in
  Height6.48 m21 ft 3 in
  Wing area113.8 m21224.93 sq ft
 PERFORMANCE
  Max. speed2.3M 2.3M
 ARMAMENT8 x AA "Sparrow"

Comments1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140
Dennis Campbell, e-mail, 08.07.2012 13:27

The COMBAT radius is listed as 408 miles; compares to the Foxbat, and had a 44,500 fpm climb rate, not matched by anything else for at least another 15 years!

So Gordon, you're right; with only 7000 lbw of fuel, the Mk2 would have had a power-to-weight ratio of greater than one. (Again, not matched by any western aircraft. (The Foxbat, five years later, could put in 7000 lb and do the same.)

(The Mk2 was projected to easily reach M 2.0, ("… it was estimated that it had a high chance of beating the world speed and altitude records held at that time by the United States.") At the time of scrapping a MK3 was on the drawing board that they planned to reach M 3.

But Murray, the skin friction is not a limiting factor until you get above M 2.5; rather the problem is that the pressure rise of the air entering the turbo-jet engine heats the air too hot. Here's a beautiful explanation of the SR-71 Blackbird's engine that illustrates my point;

"What the front half of a jet engine (the intake /diffuser, and the compressor
blades, i.e. all the stuff that happens before fuel is burned) does is; it
heats up the air until it's hot enough for fuel to ignite. First, the
intake /diffuser slows the air down, which raises its pressure, which raises
its temperature. The faster you're going, the more of a temperature rise you
get just from slowing the air down as it enters the big hole in the front of
the engine (because the air has more speed, and more energy, to convert to
heat). Then the air goes through those spinning blades that compress it (and
thus heat it) further, until it's hot enough to burn fuel. THEN, you burn
fuel, which gets the air (now with fuel and exhaust mixed in) to the hottest
temperature anywhere in the airplane. Nw we enter the rear half of the
engine. The air - at its peak temperature - goes through the turbine, which
is a bunch of blades that act like a windmill and absorb some of that energy
in order to spin the compressor. The amount of fuel you can burn in the
combustor (or, rather, the rate at which you burn fuel) is therefore limited
by your turbine's materials: The more fuel you burn (per unit time), the
hotter the turbine air becomes, so you can only burn fuel so fast before you
melt your turbine. Once your turbine temperature is as hot as it can
sustain, the only way you could burn more fuel (to get more thrust) is if
you had a bigger engine. (Or by burning fuel in the tailpipe - the
afterburner - which does not have melt able spinny parts in the middle). So
you make your turbine out of the highest-melting-point materials known to
man, and that determines how much fuel you can burn and how much thrust you
can get. (All this is true about every jet engine since the Nazis and
Whittle started experimenting with jet engines in the 1930s). But remember
that the faster you go, the hotter the air becomes just by going into the
big hole at the front. That means that, if your turbine is at the hottest
temperature it can sustain, then you're at your top speed: if you go any
faster, you won't be able to burn as much fuel in the combustor before you
exceed your turbine's critical temperature. By the time you get to MACH 3,
the air in the engine intake is already hot enough to start melting turbo
machinery. You can't burn almost ANY fuel in the combustor, or your engine
melts. This is why a conventional jet engine (read: any jet in the world
other than the Blackbird or ramjets like the D-21, X-43, X-51, etc.) just
can't get you past MACH 3.

reply

Dennis Campbell, e-mail, 08.07.2012 13:23

Weldon Wilson, www34=live.com, 04.05.2011
there isn't much out ther today with the speed and power we had almost 60 yrs ago

Gordon Lukert, glukert=cox.net, 18.01.2011
I believe the Arrow was the only western world aircraft with a power to weight ratio greater than one.

Murray B, murray.b=shaw.ca, 07.10.2010
As far as the Iroquois engine goes it was definitely static rated at 25,000 lbt. with reheat (Magellan R.O.I.). There was talk of a follow up engine with 30,000 lbt. with reheat but there is nothing to suggest that it had even proceeded to the planning stage. As it was there were two experimental prototype Iroquois engines of 25,000 lbt. with reheat fitted to one of the Arrows but one threw a blade and the aircraft could not be tested. The lighter weight and moderately increased thrust of the Iroquois engine should not have made any difference to the Arrow's speed rating since the limit was based on frictional heating.

Art Deco, 08.05.2010
Total fuel capacity 2,508 imperial gallons, 19,562 pounds.

nanook, mayfieldtx=verizon.net, 26.03.2010
The plane at best could only carry a little less then 10,000 lbs of fuel. The range of the aircraft was very limited, so much so that the RCAF built special airfields in the NWT.

Murray B, murray.b=shaw.ca, 03.03.2010


It is a matter of record that the J-75s used in the Arrow were rated at 24,000 lbs. thrust with reheat. This figure is even given in the Arrow Mk. 1 brochure. It is also a matter of record that the thrust rating of the Iroquois engine was 25,000 lbs. with reheat. Since these quantities were measured and published anyone that gives substantially different figures is altering the facts. They are 'lying weasels' as I like to call them.

Northern Expat, r.terrick=xplornet.com, 07.02.2012
The destruction of the arrow was a national tradgedy, consider that it was thirty years ahead of anything else in the skies the sales and jobs that would have been created would have lasted decades but after the Idiotic politicans got done what we did was to ship all the R&D plus the scientific talent to the USA and put a man on the moon less than 10 years later. In addition to the Diefenbaker nonsense he went on to but the Bomarck missel which turned out to be a joke in terms of both defence and protection. The Idea that we would have had to give social programs to build this magnificent aircraft is nonesence I was a pilot then and Canada would have had a leading edge aircraft to sell, develop, service and to build our avaition industry on for decades, The attitude of defeat lead to decades of decline to military support and the Liberal gutting of our armed forces. It was short sighted, fear motivated by a Prime Minister with no Vision, no Experince and no intelligence. A truly sad event in the annuals of avaition in Canada


=======================
Gentlemen; Sitting in my lap is The Arrow Pilot's Operating Instructions and RCAF testing /basing plans, Copyright 1999 by Lt Col TEJ Leversedge, ISBN 1-55046-293-8. On page 127 he provides some statistics about both the MK 1 & Mk2 Arrow, (and compares each to the F-14, (1970) F-15, (1972) and Mig-25 (1964)

Murray B, his statistics differ from yours in terms of the J-75 engine's thrust. The declassified gov't documents give the J-75s thrust as 18,500 lb thrust, NOT 24,000 as you state. And the Iroquois was rated at 26,000 lbw thrust.

Another significant factor is that "The Arrow with J-75 engines was heavier than with Iroquois and had to be ballasted for the correct centre of gravity position.. MkII with Iroquois engine did not need ballast and was about 5000lbs lighter, and had 40 to 50% more thrust."

So nano, the MK2's empty weight is listed at 45,000 lbw, and max gross at 69,000, leaving 24,000 lbw payload. The internal fuel capacity is listed at 3297 (Imp gals) which is a little over 20,000lbs. (Leaves nearly 4000 lbs for payload with full fuel. They also had a conformal belly tank holding an additional 500 gallons for ferry flights.
Start, T /O & climb to 30,000 ft required 1480 lb fuel, then flight at mach 0.92, (700 mph) burned 62.6 lbs /min /engine. So 6960 lb fuel both engines in 1 hr at M 0.92=700 miles 
23,000 lbw fuel -1480 lb for T /O climb leaves 21500lbs at craze. Divide by 6960 per hr is 3.0 hr at 700mph=FERRY RANGE OF over 2000 miles. (These are based on fuel flow for the J-75 engine; although the Iroquois was more fuel efficient, you don't get 50% more thrust for mouthing, so fuel flow would have been higher, but not 50% higher. (Probably in the range of 25-30% higher,giving a ferry endurance of probably 2.5 hrs, (at 700 mph,) probably a comfortable 1500 miles. The COMBAT radius is listed as 408 miles; compares to the Foxbat, and had a 44,500 fpm climb rate, not matched by anything else for at least another 15 years!

So Gordon, you're right; with only 7000 lbw of fuel, the Mk2 would have had a power-to-weight ratio of greater than one. (Again, not matched by a ...

reply

Joe MacQueen, e-mail, 09.05.2012 05:49

It seem's after reading comment's at army.ca site all is not right as I let myself believe the arrow was farther advanced and faster then any plane at that time and also who caneled it and why. The joint chief's of staff made the call only because the plane had less distance than the USA's Voodoo's and cost was the second reason.Destuction of everything else was quite foolish by any standard.

reply

Joe MacQueen, e-mail, 05.05.2012 06:56

There must be something I'm missing because every comment is not dealing with who else would be aloud to purchase this plane based on all the first's and how high tech. it was.I can't get past the idea that cost was the only problem as today it doesn't seem to matter. I wander if our air force will back out this time not that it the goverment would allow it.It's like apple & oranges The Arrow was a first everything else follow's and that's that.

reply

lxbfYeaa, e-mail, 14.03.2024 Joe MacQueen

20

reply

Northern Expat, e-mail, 07.02.2012 17:26

The destruction of the arrow was a national tradgedy, consider that it was thirty years ahead of anything else in the skies the sales and jobs that would have been created would have lasted decades but after the Idiotic politicans got done what we did was to ship all the R&D plus the scientific talent to the USA and put a man on the moon less than 10 years later. In addition to the Diefenbaker nonsense he went on to but the Bomarck missel which turned out to be a joke in terms of both defence and protection. The Idea that we would have had to give social programs to build this magnificent aircraft is nonesence I was a pilot then and Canada would have had a leading edge aircraft to sell, develop, service and to build our avaition industry on for decades, The attitude of defeat lead to decades of decline to military support and the Liberal gutting of our armed forces. It was short sighted, fear motivated by a Prime Minister with no Vision, no Experince and no intelligence. A truly sad event in the annuals of avaition in Canada

reply

richard.anthony, e-mail, 17.01.2012 22:17

My cousins husband worked on these planes he took 5 of us to the arrow plant and gave us a tour.There were 2 planes in the plant one in the ditch on the runway.was a awful trick to cancel building these planes the way it was handled.

reply

fred savage, e-mail, 14.01.2012 05:12

"Diefenbaker ruined it all pure and simple"

Not at all. How much of your social programs would you have given up for a show plane. National health care? What goes on the chopping block for a prestige plane, its all fine and good to dream, but when you are spending real money, you are lucky to have leadership that can see sense, not spend themselves into oblivion over paranoia, fear or pride. The avro was obsoleted the moment icbm's took over as the nuclear deterrent. All arguments from that point on justifying such a plane are irrational. Perhaps it is more about your national psych or whatever than anything else, but based on figures and facts alone, the plane had to be cancelled. Very pretty technology was cancelled on the other side of the border as well, the valkyrie supersonic bomber for one, just because it can be done doesn't mean it should, and a cancellation doesn't mean there was a grand conspiracy. The mach 3 american supersonic transport was also cancelled. Does that mean canada or the uk were behind it? No, it just means the numbers didn't add up, and for the brits and french the numbers didn't add up for their slower concorde either, they ended up spending tons of tax money on a nice ride for rich people, a very very poor use of tax money. like it or not this was during the cold war as well, spending money to compete against the soviets and americans, a fools erand. Be glad you had some decent leadership that weren't swayed by emotion, and paid for things that actually mattered to real people, like health care.

reply

Tom Dyer, e-mail, 08.10.2011 01:14

One thing this Yank doesn't understand, was WHY were the airframes destroyed? None kept as research airframes. The Delta Dart carries wing tanks that are supersonic rated. This mod would have given the Arrow more range, obviously. Also, and this is for the conspiricy buffs, have you noticed how the Arrow and F-108A Rapier (also cancelled) look eerily the same?

reply

William Pittman, e-mail, 13.05.2011 02:43

1958 was the year I was married still am and happy. This is a prime example of goverment gone amuck and they are still the same today no mater what the colour.
I have visited some of the internet sites and looked at this great machine.I was also in the machine building tradewe should not forget this project.Thanks wp

reply

Weldon Wilson, e-mail, 04.05.2011 22:47

Since this is my first time on this site which I found today i would like to add a little info as to my own experiences at AVRO I worked the first year 1956 on CF -100's as I was just discharged from the Rcaf and was an Orenda Engine tech for 5 years.working and servicing CF-100s In 1957 I was transfered to the Arrow Project and started working in the section that built the tail Cones for the Engines I was there for a short time only drilling holes in Titanium steel (Toughest thing to do at the time with the type of drill bits that were available ) I was then transfered to the expermental Flight section where I worked till AVRO closed its doors. It was a heart breaking experience as I really think everyone in that place had some kind of proud feeling about what they were doing I am 77 today and have never worked in that atmosphere since.I always felt that all around me everyone was willing to go an extra mile to see this plane fly and when we all seen it the first time I don't think it was just me that had cold chills run up my spine its was one of the best feelings I ever had about something I helped accomplish.I have read a lot here that some think it was not the government at the time who destroyed this project I beg to differ there why did our dollar go to 90 cents immediately compared to the US dollar thats just one item and there are many others Diefenbaker in my mind was a communist I lost my home due to this old son of a bitches actions. As far as the destruction of all the aircraft I have no idea who was responsible for those actions and I think to this day only those who made the decision if they are still living know for sure who it was. Too many point fingers at to many when they only assume who's responsible.The Arrow for sure had some short comings like range and armarment but that like everrything new would have been worked out to have been improved toa managable area. and we must not forget they had been offered over 20 aircraft sales to other countries before it was even completed CANADA could have one big boost to its ever failing economy.I am 77 and retired but I still have a lingering feeling what it could have become with some improvements and time there isn't much out ther today with the speed and power we had almost 60 yrs ago think about it we were like Studebaker long before our time

reply

Gordon Lukert, e-mail, 18.01.2011 04:48

I worked at Avro-Canada on the CF-105 from Jan 1956 until black friday when we were pushed out of the door. I was a design engineer on the "sparrow armament pack" & in the last few months on the "genie armament pack" Wonderful Company, wonderful aircraft. I remember getting on the roof of the engineering building to watch the first flight. I could never understand why this program was destroyed & all hardware buried. I believe the Arrow was the only western world aircraft with a power to weight ratio greater than one.

reply

John (Jack) Calvesbert, e-mail, 20.12.2010 20:59

So many stories, so many opinions, perhaps, so few facts.
The only thing I an add is my own experience of listening to F /L Jack Woodman, the only RCAF officer to fly the Arrow, as he told us about this wonderful aircraft that we would be working on in a couple of years.

reply

M Concannon, e-mail, 09.12.2010 02:33

The internal weapons pack was being redesigned for the Arrow 2 to accommodate the more advanced ''Genie'' missile, replacing the ''Sparrow'', when the end came in february 1959.
Mike Concannon, Designer

reply

Carl, e-mail, 05.12.2010 05:40

there is 201 at the Reynolds museum in Wetaskiwin, Alberta, and the Ottawa Aviation Museum at Rockcliffe has a nose and an engine, and some wings in storage., The "replica" in Wetaskiwin is made from several scrap bits of Arrow. Worth the trip to see it.

reply

Murray B, e-mail, 07.10.2010 04:30

Well, Sandal44, the Arrow program was classified and knowledge about it was probably compartmentalized. It would be unlikely for most employees to have a good grasp of the overall picture. Even if they did it would be unusual for a loyal employee to say anything bad about their employer. These people are simply not impartial when it comes to the Arrow.

Reliable records show that the Chiefs of Staff recommended cancellation for performance and cost reasons. The Arrow was a $10 million aircraft with a maximum ferry range of 1254 nm (for the longer-range Arrow 2). The Voodoo was about $2 million with a maximum ferry range exceeding 1900 nm. Since the military wanted to reach Iceland which was 1312 nm away the Arrow would not do. The maximum speed ratings of two aircraft were not all that different. The Arrow's was mach 1.9 (even though it could reach mach 1.96 for a short time just like the Bristol 188) and this was similar to the Voodoo's mach 1.8. It is odd that the Arrow just keeps on getting faster as the years go by but the Voodoo does not.

There is no link between cancelling the program and the destruction of the industry. As Diefenbaker explained in the Montreal Star Feb. 24 1959, "The Prime Minister said the company had warning of the Government decision to cancel the CF-105 Arrow supersonic interceptor and knew that $50,000,000 in public funds had been set aside in the estimate for 1959-1960 to cover winding up expenses…"I say that its attitude in letting out thousands of workers – technical workers and employees – on Friday was so cavalier, so unreasonable, that the only conclusion any fair-minded person can come to is that it was done for the purpose of embarrassing the government.""

Why Avro would choose to destroy their own company for no apparent reason and then blame it on the Government is a mystery. What would a British company like Hawker Siddeley possibly have to gain by doing such a thing? We may never know the answer since these events happened so long ago.

As far as the Iroquois engine goes it was definitely static rated at 25,000 lbt. with reheat (Magellan R.O.I.). There was talk of a follow up engine with 30,000 lbt. with reheat but there is nothing to suggest that it had even proceeded to the planning stage. As it was there were two experimental prototype Iroquois engines of 25,000 lbt. with reheat fitted to one of the Arrows but one threw a blade and the aircraft could not be tested. The lighter weight and moderately increased thrust of the Iroquois engine should not have made any difference to the Arrow's speed rating since the limit was based on frictional heating.

reply

tsunami, e-mail, 29.09.2010 09:42

Saw it fly once in Ottawa and I can tell you as somebody watching it from Uplands CEPE we were so proud and could not get enough of it. Was only there for a very short time.

What I can telll you is that a friend of mine who worked on it left Canada and went to NASA and apart from visiting relatives never came back. He was not alone and I always wondered how we contributed to NASA by cancelling this program.

The contribution that these experts could have made to Canadian aviatin I believe would have been very significant

reply

sandal44, e-mail, 25.09.2010 06:20

From 1990 until 1993 I had the privilege of meeting two men who actually worked on the Arrow. One was a much sought after tool and die maker, the other an aircraft engineer who finished his career with Boeing. I also talked to one other man who had first hand knowledge of Zurakowski's feelings on the aircraft.

All were bitter that the information given to the public was, to say the least, slanted. Their view was that politics, not genuine facts, killed the Arrow. If it was so inferior, why were all destroyed?

I flew Sabres, 1954-1956. I watched the Arrow fly over Downsview, just before it was axed.

Also, was the Iroquois not supposed to go up to 30,000 pounds thrust (without afterburner?) I flew both the Mk II Sabre with the US engine and the Orenda powered Mk V. No comparison!! Then they upgraded the Orenda for the Mk VI. thrust up again and fuel consumption down. All this knowledge and technology killed.

Somewhere around 1968 (?) Macleans had an article which showed the contribution to NASA (and other organizations) made by those who lost their jobs with the Arrow. Canada got the Bomarc!!!

Canada lost out to shortsightedness and political expediency.

reply

Jon Ambler, e-mail, 24.09.2010 18:53

No conspiracy, records show the Air Force did not want this aircraft. The F106 was already flying operations with numbers just as good as the Arrow and availability way way better. The Arrow is all part of the mythology that all nations need.

reply

mike m, e-mail, 23.09.2010 21:46

if you get past the detailing of speed, heat, etc. you will
recognize that this could have really been something if you consider the updates in technology as time went by. This company could have evolved into something Canada could be proud of, providing jobs, income, etc. No conspiracy theories or party preference......but if you consider all that could have been, Diefenbaker ruined it all pure and simple

reply

Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 13.07.2010 07:00

Art Deco, 08.05.2010
Total fuel capacity 2,508 imperial gallons, 19,562 pounds.
+ + + + + + +++
Art, there is only an 8,000 LB difference between operational take off weight & empty weight. Eight Sparrow missles weigh 4,000 lbs.

Even using the Max take off weight , (68,600), you are left with 15,000 lbs for all non missle stores( pilots, oxygen, lubricants, etc- plus fuel.)
thanks Reg

reply

1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140

Do you have any comments?

Name    E-mail


COMPANY
PROFILE


All the World's Rotorcraft


All rhe World's Rotorcraft AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com