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
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 16.07.2010 17:12

Leo Rudnicki & Murray b write:
+ + + + ++++++
Leo Rudnicki, 28.02.2010
Tax dollars? Conspiracy? We do it for free and in the open.

Murray B, murray.b=shaw.ca, 28.02.2010
Why create a zombie from the carcass of this white elephant? It would have been far better to let this one sleep and how many tax dollars have been spent on this anti-conservative propaganda over the last half-century?

+ + + + + + +
Gentlemen:
Both of you are correct, since the Arrow story is a 'mixed saga' on both sides.

During my research ( for an abandoned book on Government procurement) I concluded that the program had spun out of control- however, a case could be made for a 'Bare bones, off the shelf ' Arrow program, with production to terminate by the mid sixties.
The termination, was, Murray, a public relations disaster. The completed aircraft, tooling,& plans should have been mothballed.
Avro Canada s project managemenet, Leo, was out of control. Brilliant engineering with horrid execution.

I do thank you both for courteous dissent. We appear to have lost the unfortunate Barry Fortier, who appears to spend his waking hours insult trolling the internet.
Thank heaven for small mercies, as some of his Barry F debates are simply too obscene to repeat.

reply

Roy, e-mail, 14.08.2010 22:37

The truly sad part was the loss of Canada's "cutting-edge" position in r&d of high performance aircraft.

The accumulation of knowledge that was shredded & destroyed was shameful.

reply

Mike, e-mail, 16.08.2010 05:05

Don't compare the Avro Arrow to the Vodoo!

The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow first flew on 25 March 1958.

The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom first flew 27 May 1958.

This is only a few short months later. Forget all the conspiracy theories. The Avro Arrow was canceled because it was not a viable aircraft.

The Phantom continued into production because it was a very formidable aircraft.

End of story.

reply

Dave, e-mail, 19.08.2010 23:30

Cool plane. Where can I get one ?

reply

Chris, e-mail, 19.05.2010 02:09

Just for anybody who cares; they have the nose and landing gear of #206 in Toronto and the throttle piece of #201 in Wetaskiwin Alberta. And yes, flash-photography is allowed.

reply

Art Deco, 08.05.2010 20:28

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

reply

nanook, e-mail, 26.03.2010 01:10

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. Flying out of Cold Lake Alberta to engage a Russian attack was a one-way trip, there was no possibility of returning to Cold Lake, the plane would have to be put down at one of the special airfields. Yes it was an expensive endeavor, yes it had a technology leg up in many ways, yes the USAF and its politician patrons did not want it to see the light of day, yes Boeing had connections, BUT ---- the dam thing had no operational reality associated with it due to the limited range. Period. It may have been canceled for many public perceived poor reasons, but it had no useful operational range - bottom line.

reply

Murray B, e-mail, 03.03.2010 02:41

Tax dollars, Mr. Rudnicki, of course there were. For example the CBC film was partially paid for with tax dollars. Also take a look at the copyright page of an Arrow zealot's 'bible', "[blank] Publishing gratefully acknowledges the support of the Canada Council and the Ontario Arts Council in the development of writing and publishing in Canada." Museums also receive tax dollars. Over the years I expect that millions of tax dollars have been spent to broadcast anti-conservative propaganda like the Arrow myth.

Conspiracy? Sure. Here is a good working definition of "conspiracy" from www.askoxford.com /concise_oed /conspiracy?view=uk

"
conspiracy • noun (pl. conspiracies)
1 a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
2 the action of conspiring.
"
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.
The aircraft's top speed was also measured and as near as I can tell the Arrow never flew faster than Mach 1.89. It may have gone faster with the Iroquois but it also might not have. At any rate, speculation by the technically challenged should never be printed as fact. The top speed of any aircraft with more powerful engines is something that an aeronautical engineer would need to calculate. It is not simple because things like skin temperature are a factor. In the case of the Arrow program, though, the speed is a "red herring" since the specification was reduced to Mach 1.5 and the Arrow easily met that requirement.
There are people that repeat political lies for free. These people have often been referred to as "useful idiots" in the press. Such people generally don't know if they are lying or not. The root source of the political propaganda, however, the 'lying weasels' must know that they are lying. They must also be fairly well funded to keep promoting their lies widely and for decades.
So, here we have a secret plan where 'lying weasels' intentionally misrepresent the facts about an aircraft to harm conservatives. These lies have been used effectively for years. Not that long ago my nephew came home from school and announced to everyone that he was never going to vote for Stephen Harper because Mr. Harper was a Conservative. His teacher had said that Conservatives had killed the wonderful Arrow program and this somehow prevented Canada from ruling the world. This lie was too much for me because schools should not be programming kids on how to vote. [Google Harper and Avro Arrow to see how the Avro myth is being used to harm conservatives today.]
Now, is a "useful idiot" a conspirator when they repeat lies even if they believe the information to be true? From the definition I gave it is not clear if all members of the group have to be in on the "secret" or just some of them.
So you do "it" openly and for free. That's nice, but what exactly do you mean by "it"?

reply

Leo Rudnicki, 28.02.2010 03:42

Tax dollars? Conspiracy? We do it for free and in the open.

reply

Murray B, e-mail, 28.02.2010 01:09

Why create a zombie from the carcass of this white elephant? It would have been far better to let this one sleep and how many tax dollars have been spent on this anti-conservative propaganda over the last half-century?

If the Arrow was a great aircraft and a good value then cabinet was not told about it. The relevant minutes are posted at www.international.gc.ca /department /history-histoire /dcer /details-en.asp?intRefid=8169

Note the total cost per aircraft is given as about $10 million, "The R.C.A.F. now had nine all-weather squadrons and the present programme called for their re-equipment with the CF-105, requiring a production order of 169 in number. These, together with aircraft recovered from the development and pre-production order for 37, would provide sufficient aircraft for nine squadrons. The total cost would be $2 billion spread from 1959-60 to 1963-64."

Competing aircraft ranged from $2 million to $3.75 million for a Delta Dart.

Note also the real reason for cancellation, "Finally, the cost of the CF-105 programme as a whole was now of such a magnitude that the Chiefs of Staff felt that, to meet the modest requirement of manned aircraft presently considered advisable, it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S."

The Chiefs of Staff recommend cancellation and advised the Arrow was "comparable" to U.S. aircraft. Cabinet is not told that the Arrow can fly higher, go faster, or further, than anything else. The aircraft set no international records except, maybe, for cost overruns.

If there was a conspiracy to kill the Arrow then it involved the military and not Diefenbaker's government.

To repeat this lie is to become part of an anti-conservative conspiracy that has been going on for decades. How many of our tax dollars have already been wasted promoting this nonsense?

reply

Dave, e-mail, 24.02.2010 02:01

I can't believe it. I watched 'RU smarter than a 5th grader". The "CANADIAN Public" should start bringing the US down to reality. They are teaching their kids that the US were the first to break the sound barrier; thats such a lie its unreal. Someone should start putting the BS back at them. WE, CANADA, were the first to accomplish that; "Avero Airspace", North Bay, Otario, CANADA. After we broke the sound barrier the US government forced the Canadian Military to close it down. They didn't want anyone to be better than them. Their teaching their children this Bull Shit. How r the US kids going to handle it when they learn the history they were given was crap, only because their parents wanted to make themselves look good. When in reality they had the greed to pay someone off to keep their mouths shut and, tell their kids a LIE. Lets start teaching the next generation the truth, instead of the truth money can buy. They need to know the "REAL" history.

reply

Dave, e-mail, 05.02.2010 21:01

I just cannot beleive that they named an airport after Deifenbaker... an airport!!!... jeezz, talk about irony.

reply

Jason Mac Neil, e-mail, 31.12.2009 05:11

Oh Glen Gill...... my my my.... how incredibly short sighted of you! Expensive eh? right! Do you have any idea how far ahead of the world Canada would have been in aerospace technology and the like had we kept the Arrow? The engine and airframe were ours to sell to everyone. And in time....we would have. And we spent more taxpayers dollars on the "Bomark" missile defense system bought from the Americans THAT WAS A COMPLETE WASTE!!!! At least with the Arrow, we would have seen a return in sales. DID you hear of anyone wanting our slightly used CF104's or Bomark missiles. Diefenbaker was a "DOLT!" And he, with that decision....wasted a GREAT deal of taxpayer money!!!! He was a "Dufous".

reply

Glenn Gill, e-mail, 29.12.2009 06:58

Despite the fact that I grew up 'Air Force' I feel that scrapping the Arrow was a good thing, an expensive mistake narrowly avoided. You only have to look at that big delta slab-sided bugger to realize two things: it had 'High Altitude Intercepter' written all over it, and it must've had a radar signature like the 'Hit Me' sign from Hell. With 20-20 hindsight we now know that the Bomber Gap was a hoax, not a threat that we needed to break the bank responding to. In the end we bought the CF-104 for HAI and almost immediately scrapped the role out from underneath it, reassigning it to a low altitude role. Where it killed far too many pilots. (How do you get a '104' cheap? Buy an acre of German land and wait...)(authentic CAF humour).

We could've spent far far too much money to travel the same sad road with the Arrow.

For all those conspiracy theorists out there, kick this one around the park instead: How much did Dief know about the Bomber Gap? Did he have the straight goods (and if so, how?) Or was it just a lucky fluke, him making the right call? I think that's a much more interesting and fertile area of speculation, speaking as it does to just who knew what and when in that grand flim-flam.

reply

DarkPhoenix, e-mail, 25.12.2009 03:35

I wish to know if the Tale about the americans recieving a CF-105 Canadian Arrow Before Termination Is True Or False

reply

tightgroup@gmail.com, 14.11.2009 07:59

To Julius, the so called professor at Carleton,

The max M was at 1.72 and that was more wishful thinking that reality! The CF 101 was in not in the same class, as the Cf 105, not even close.

One-o-wonder

reply

reg Saretsky, e-mail, 23.10.2009 17:03

www.gibsongallery.com /artists_pages /thorneycroft /picpages /avroarrow.html

Thorneycrofts photo of the escaped Avro Arrow

reply

paul scott, e-mail, 17.08.2009 18:38

Another fine, ultimately betrayed aircraft by its government - I only thought our (UK) government was guilty of that. an exceptionall well-designed piece of aviation history which would've boosted Canada's air force and prestige, like 'smaller' countries in the field Sweden /Saab's Draken, Viggen etc.

reply

Keith Leal, e-mail, 01.08.2009 06:07

I was a 27-year-old young father of three when the first Arrow flew. I had doted on the project ever since first hearing of it and was thrilled by every good report that came from the project. I literally "lived" for the day the aircraft would go into RCAF squadron service. So you can imagine how devastated I was when our rotten, foot-licking conservative government bowed to the wishes of it's master to the south. (Read what Mike Green has to say 22.07.09. Those six lines sum it up nicely). In any case, that's about the time in my life that I came up with my new name for Canastians. It's "yanksimp" or "yanksymp" - take your pick.

reply

Mike Green, 22.07.2009 07:50

With techno-advances and updates the "Arrow" would easily have served for 30 years or more with little re-design necessary. It's cancellation will forever be "Canada's saddest moment in aviation history". Instead, Canada now uses American military aircraft with obsolete redundancy designed in on the drawing board. (Just like their automobiles).

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