name= CF-105 Arrow
manufacturer= Avro Aircraft Limited (Canada)
caption= Photo from the Canadian Department of National Defence
first flight= 25 March 1958
status= Cancelled 20 February 1959
Royal Canadian Air Force
number built= 5
variants with their own articles=
The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a
delta-wing interceptor aircraft, designed and built by Avro Aircraft Limited (Canada) in Malton, Ontario, Canada, as the culmination of a design study that began in 1953. Considered to be both an advanced technical and aerodynamic achievement for the Canadian aviation industry, the CF-105 held the promise of Mach 2 speeds at 50,000 ft+ altitude, and was intended to serve as the Royal Canadian Air Force's interceptor for the 1960s and beyond.
Following the start of its flight test program in 1958, the Arrow, and its accompanying
Orenda Iroquoisjet engine program, were abruptly cancelled in 1959, [Dow 1979, p. 127. Quote: "In February, Diefenbaker was urged by members of his cabinet to make an early decision on the Arrow." The actual project review was not due until 31 March 1959.] [ [http://www.magellanroi.com/ComponentManufacturing/OCM_Overview/ocm_overview.html Orenda] ] sparking a long and bitter political debate. The Arrow is still the subject of controversy, almost 50 years after it was cancelled.
In the post-Second World War period, the
Soviet Unionbegan developing a fleet of long-range bomberscapable of delivering nuclear weaponsto North Americaand Europe. To counter this threat, Western countries developed interceptor aircraft that could engage and destroy these bombers before they reached their targets. Gunston 1981, p. 18. ]
A. V. Roe Canada Limited had been set up as a subsidiary of the
Hawker SiddeleyGroup in 1945, initially handling repair and maintenance work for aircraft at Malton, Ontario Airport (today known as Pearson International Airport, Toronto's main airport). The next year the company began the design of Canada's first jet fighter for the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Avro CF-100"Canuck" all-weather interceptor. The Canuck underwent a lengthy prototype period before entering service seven years later in 1953. It would nevertheless go on to become one of the most enduring aircraft of its class, serving into the 1980s in a variety of roles.
Recognizing that the delays that impacted the development and deployment of the CF-100 could also impact its successor, and the fact that the Soviets were working on newer jet-powered bombers that would render the CF-100 ineffective, the RCAF began looking for a supersonic, missile-armed replacement for the Canuck even before it had entered service. In March 1952, the RCAF's "Final Report of the All-Weather Interceptor Requirements Team" was submitted to Avro Canada.
Design and development
Avro engineering had been considering supersonic developments for some time at this point. German research during the Second World War had identified a number of solutions to the problems associated with supersonic flight. It was known that the onset of
wave dragwas greatly reduced by using thinner airfoils with much longer chord, but these airfoils were impractical because they left little internal room in the wing for armament or fuel.
Instead, aerodynamicists employed a
swept-wingdesign to "trick" the airflow into behaving as though it was flowing over a long, thin wing. Almost every fighter project in the postwar era immediately applied the concept, which started appearing on production fighters in the late 1940s. Avro engineers had previously explored swept-wing and tail modification to the CF-100 known as the C103, which had proceeded to wooden mock-up stage, and offered transonic performance with supersonic abilities in a dive. However, the basic CF-100 continued to improve through this period, and the advantages were eroded. When Janusz Żurakowskibroke the sound barrierin a dive, interest in the C103 waned.
Another solution, picked up by the Avro engineers, was the
delta-wingdesign. The delta-wing had many of the same advantages of the swept wing in terms of transonic performance, but offered much more internal room and overall area. This providing more room for fuel, an important consideration given the thirsty engines of the era, and the large wing area provided lift at high altitudes. The disadvantages of the design were increased drag at lower speeds and altitudes, and especially higher drag while maneuvering. For the interceptor role these were minor concerns, as the aircraft would be spending most of its time flying in straight lines at high altitudes and speeds, mitigating these disadvantages.
In the words of designer
James C. Floyd, :"At the time we laid down the design of the CF-105, there was a somewhat emotional controversy going on in the United States on the relative merits of the delta plan form versus the straight wing for supersonic aircraft… our choice of a tailless delta was based mainly on the compromise of attempting to achieve structural and aeroelastic efficiency, with a very thin wing, and yet, at the same time, achieving the large internal fuel capacity required for the specified range".Floyd, James, Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, December 1958.]
Further proposals resulted in two versions of the design known as C104: the single engine C104/1, and twin-engined C104/2. The designs were otherwise similar, using a low-mounted delta-wing and powered by the new Orenda TR.9 engines. Armament featured a battery of
Velvet Glove missiles, (a Canadair Aircraft product based on CARDEdesign work), stored in an internal bay. It would be crewed by a single pilot guided by a completely automatic weapons control system to track and attack the target, similar to the system utilized in the F-86D. The primary advantages of the twin-engine C104/2 version was that it was larger overall, with a much larger weapons bay, and that it provided twin-engine reliability. The proposals were submitted to the RCAF in June 1952.
Intensive discussions between Avro and the RCAF examined a wide range of alternative sizes and configurations for a supersonic interceptor, culminating in RCAF "Specification AIR 7-3" in April 1953.
AIR 7-3 called specifically for:
* Crew of two (It was considered unlikely even a fully automated system would reduce workload enough to allow a lone crewman).
* Twin engines (no single engine then available could lift the fuel load needed for the long-range missions the RCAF demanded).
* Range of 300 nautical miles (556 km) for a normal low-speed mission, and 200 nautical miles (370 km) for a high-speed interception mission.
* Operation from a 6,000 foot (1830m) runway.
* Mach 1.5 cruise at an altitude of 50,000 feet (15,000 m).
* Maneuverability (2 "g" turns with no loss of speed or altitude at Mach 1.5 and 50,000 feet).
* The time from a signal to start the engines to the aircraft's reaching 50,000 feet and Mach 1.5 to be less than five minutes.
*Turn-around time on the ground was to be less than ten minutes.
An RCAF team led by
Ray Footitvisited U.S. aircraft producers and surveyed British and French manufacturers before concluding that no existing or planned aircraft could fulfill these requirements.
Avro submitted their modified C105 design in May 1953, essentially a two-man version of the C104/2. A change to a "shoulder-mounted" wing allowed rapid access to the plane's internals, weapons bay, and engines. The new design also allowed the wing to be built as a single structure sitting on the upper fuselage, simplifying construction and improving strength. The wing design required a long main landing gear that still had to fit within the thin delta wing, presenting an engineering challenge. Five different wing sizes were outlined in the report, from 1,000 to 1,400 square feet (93 to 130 m²). The 1,200 square-foot (111 m²) version was eventually selected. Three engines were considered as well: the
Rolls-Royce RB.106, the Bristol B.0L.4 "Olympus", and the Curtiss-WrightJ67 (a license-built version of the Olympus). The RB-106 was selected, with the J67 as backup.
The weapons bay design was larger than the original C104/2 design, situated in a large thin box on the bottom fuselage, running from a point adjacent to the front of the wing to the middle of the fuselage. The weapon system originally selected was the Hughes MX-1179, which was a pairing of the existing MA-1 fire-control system with the
AIM-4 Falcon missileof both radar-guided and heat-seekingvariants. This system was already under development for proposed use in the USAF's WS-201 1954 interceptor(dating from 1949, which would lead to the F-102 Delta Dagger). The Velvet Gloveradar-guided missile had been under development with the RCAF for some time, but was considered unsuitable for supersonic launch, and further work on that project was eventually cancelled in 1956.
In July 1953, the proposal was accepted and Avro was given the go-ahead to start a full design study. In December, $27 million was provided to start flight modeling. At first, the project was limited in scope, but the introduction of the Soviet
Myasishchev M-4"Bison" jet bomberand the Soviet Union's testing of a hydrogen bombdramatically changed Cold Warpriorities. In March 1955, the contract was upgraded to $260 million for five Arrow Mark 1 flight-test aircraft, to be followed by 35 Arrow Mark 2s with production engines and fire-control systems.
Most aircraft designs start with the construction of a small number of hand-built prototypes that are test flown and modified, if required, before being committed to a set of "jigs" for production. This requires extra time to move from testing to manufacturing. The Arrow program instead adopted the
Cook-Craigie plan. Developed in the 1940s, Cook-Craigie eliminated the prototype phase, with the first test airframes constructed on production jigs. Any changes would be incorporated into the jigs while testing continued, with full production starting when the test program was complete. As Jim Floyd noted at the time, this was a risky approach, but together with the RCAF, "...it was decided to take the technical risks involved to save time on the programme… I will not pretend that this philosophy of production type build from the outset did not cause us a lot of problems in Engineering. However, it did achieve its objective."
In order to mitigate risks, a massive testing program was started. By mid-1954, the first production drawings were issued and wind tunnel work began. In a related program, nine instrumented free-flight models were mounted on solid fuel Nike rocket boosters and launched over Lake Ontario while two additional models were launched from Wallops Island, USA, over the Atlantic Ocean. These models were for aerodynamic drag and stability testing, flown to a maximum speed of Mach 1.7+ before intentionally crashing into the water. Ongoing efforts have been made to search for the models in Lake Ontario, and, to date, two have reputedly been found, along with one Nike booster and another for a Velvet Glove.
Experiments showed the need for only a small number of design changes, mainly involving the wing profile and positioning. To improve high-alpha performance, the leading edge of the wing was drooped, especially on outer sections, a dog-tooth was introduced to control spanwise flow, and the entire wing given a slight negative camber which helped control trim drag and pitch-up.
area ruleprinciple, made public in 1952, was also applied to the design. This resulted in several changes including the addition of a tailcone, sharpening the radar nose profile, thinning the intake lips, and reducing the cross-sectional area of the fuselage below the canopy.
The aircraft used a measure of
magnesiumand titaniumin the fuselage, the latter limited largely to the area around the engines and to fasteners. Titanium was still expensive and not widely used because it was difficult to machine. The construction of the airframe itself was fairly conventional, however, with a semi- monocoqueframe and multi-spar wing.
The Arrow's thin wing required aviation's first 4,000 pounds per square inch (28 MPa) hydraulic system to supply enough force while using small actuators and piping. A rudimentary
fly-by-wiresystem was employed, in which the pilot's input was detected by a series of pressure-sensitve transducers in the stick, and their signal was sent to an electronic control servo that operated the valves in the hydraulic system to move the various flight controls. This resulted in a lack of control "feel", since, because the control stick input was "disconnected" from the hydraulic system, the variations in back-pressure from the flight control surfaces that would normally be felt by the pilot could no longer be transmitted back into the stick. To re-create a sense of "feel", the same electronic control box rapidly responded to the hydraulic back-pressure fluctuations and motivated actuators in the stick, making it move; this "artificial feel" was also a first. An advanced stability augmentation system was added as well, recognizing long, "thin" aircraft have a number of coupling modesthat can lead to departure from controlled flight if not damped out quickly. Since the center of lift moved with speed, the flight control system also assisted stability and manoeuvre.
In 1954, the RB.106 program was cancelled, necessitating the use of the backup J67 instead. In 1955, this engine was also cancelled, leaving the design with no engine. At this point, the
Pratt & Whitney J75was selected for the initial test-flight models, while the new TR 13 (soon PS-13 "Iroquois") engine was developed at Orendafor the production Mk 2s. Ultimately, only the rejected Bristol Olympusengine would actually go into production.
In 1956, the RCAF demanded additional changes, selecting the advanced RCA-Victor "Astra" fire-control system firing the equally advanced
US NavySparrow II in place of the MX-1179 and Falcon combination. Avro objected on the grounds that neither of these were even in testing at that point, whereas both the MX-1179 and Falcon were almost ready for production. RCAF planners felt the greatly improved performance of the Sparrow was worth the gamble.
The Astra proved to be problematic as the system ran into a lengthy period of delays, and when the USN cancelled the Sparrow II in 1956,
Canadairwas quickly brought in to continue the Sparrow program in Canada, although they expressed grave concerns about the project as well.
In June 1957, the Liberals lost the election, and a Progressive Conservative government under
John Diefenbakertook power. Diefenbaker, from the Canadian west, had campaigned on a platform of reining in what they claimed was "rampant Liberal spending." The debate was politically presented as an east versus west divide, with the Conservatives campaigning on a platform of eastern Canada using money from across the country to fund their "industrial welfare" projects. The Arrow was not the only major industrial project targeted during the campaign, others such as the "million dollar monster" postal sorting computer from Ferranti Canadawere singled out for additional political scorn.
In August 1957, the Conservative Diefenbaker government signed the
NORAD("North American Air Defense" [ [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/norad-overview.htm NORAD at 40 Historical Overview] The designation was changed in 1981 to North American Aerospace Defense.] ) Agreement with the United States, which required the subordination of the RCAF Air Defence Command to American command and control. The USAF was in the process of completely automating their air defense system with the SAGE project, and insisted that the RCAF had to use it as well. One aspect of the SAGE system was the BOMARCnuclear-tipped anti-aircraft missile, which when intercepting bombers over Ontarioand Quebecwould be exploding over major Canadian cities. This led to studies on basing BOMARCs in Canada in order to push the line further north, away from the cities.
"Storms of Controversy" revealed a top secret brief prepared for
George Pearkes, then Minister of National Defence, for his July 1958 meeting with U.S. officials. The brief states,
"The introduction of SAGE in Canada will cost in the neighborhood of $107 million. Further improvements are required in the radar… NORAD has also recommended the introduction of the BOMARC missile… will be a further commitment of $164 million… All these commitments coming at this particular time… will tend to increase our defence budget by as much as 25 to 30%…"
Pearkes was also concerned about funding defence against ballistic missiles. The existence of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space, and, as the year progressed, word of a "missile gap" began spreading. An American brief of the meeting with Pearkes reported Pearkes "stated that the problem of developing a defence against missiles while at the same time completing and rounding out defence measures against manned bombers posed a serious problem for Canada from the point of view of expense…" [Eisenhower Library, File: DDE Trip to Canada, Memcons, 8 -11, July 1958, Canada-U.S. Defence Problems.] In a document written after the cancellation, Pearkes noted, "We did not cancel the CF-105 because there was no bomber threat, but because there was a lesser threat and we got the Bomarc in lieu of more airplanes to look after this" [Department of National Defence, Directorate of History, File 79/469 Folder 19.] It is also said Canada could afford the Arrow or Bomarc/SAGE, but not both. [Campagna 1988, p. 88. Quote: "Could Canada afford both SAGE and the Arrow? Was the system even needed for defence? As it turned out, the answer to both questions was no."] .
In a later interview in the 1990s, Pearkes discussed these problems and revealed he was advised by an American official, while "en route" to Colorado, Canada did not need to build aircraft because the US had plenty and could make them available at any time. Pearkes states this is when he made his decision to cancel the Arrow. His dilemma was how to fill in the defence gap from cancellation of the Arrow to the time when Bomarc bases would be operational. He revealed he struck a deal to allow American training in Goose Bay (Labrador) and Cold Lake (Alberta) in exchange for protection.
By 11 August 1958, Pearkes requested cancellation of the Arrow, but the Cabinet Defence Committee refused. He tabled it again in September, and recommended installation of the Bomarc missile system. The latter was accepted but, again, the CDC refused to cancel the entire Arrow program. The CDC wanted to wait until a major review in 31 March 1959, to better examine world conditions. They did, however, cancel the Sparrow/Astra system in September 1958. Efforts to continue the program through cost-sharing with other countries were then explored.
Worldwide, the Arrow was not the only heavy high-speed interceptor design cancelled at that time; the
Republic AircraftXF-103 and the North American Aviation XF-108 Rapier, designed to have higher performance specifications than the Arrow, were cancelled in the mock-up stage of development at approximately the same time. [ [http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/xf108/xf108_en.htm North American XF-108 Rapier] ] [ [http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f103.html Republic XF-103] ] Even the Convair F-106 Delta Dartwas very nearly terminated. In the UK, the ramifications of the 1957 Defence White Paperled to the cancellation of almost all manned fighter aircraft development.
Canada tried to sell the Arrow aircraft to the U.S. and Britain, but had no takers. The aircraft industry in both countries was and still is considered a national interest and purchasing foreign designs, despite some notable exceptions, was rare. [ Peden 1987, p. 72.]
From 1955 onwards, the UK had shown considerable interest in the Arrow; in April 1956, the UK's Air Council [The senior body for the organization of the RAF] recommended a purchase of 144 Arrows for the RAF to serve alongside the
Saunders-Roe SR.177 mixed powerinterceptor, instead of the "thin-wing" Gloster Javelinthen under study. The CF-105 would serve as a stopgap until the UK's F.155 project came to fruition. However with the F.155 due in 1963 and the Arrow not likely to reach the RAF before 1962, there was little point in proceeding, even if the costs of acquisition had not been so high. The infamous 1957 Defence White Paper, prompted by a general lack of funds, foretold an end to manned fighters and completely curtailed any likelihood of a purchase. In January 1959, the UK's final answer was no – with an offer to sell Canada the English Electric P.1 (the aircraft that would become the English Electric Lightning). The French government was prepared to buy some 200 Iroquois engines, but cancelled their order in 1958, being advised by persons unknown that the Arrow was going to be cancelled.
US Air Forcehad already developed three aircraft with performance intended to be broadly similar to the Arrow, originally as part of their "1954 Interceptor" project -- the McDonnell F-101B Voodoo, Convair F-102 Delta Dagger and Convair F-102B (later Convair F-106 Delta Dart). Additionally, two more advanced interceptors (the Republic XF-103and North American XF-108) were under development, although both would ultimately be cancelled in the early design and mock-up phases. [ Whitcomb 2002, p. 80, 181-182.] Nevertheless it appears the USAF was concerned about the effect the cancellation would have on Canada's defence industry. In 1958, Avro Aircraft Limited President and General Manager Fred Smye had elicited a promise from the USAF to "supply, free, the fire control system and missiles and if they would allow the free use of their flight test center at Muroc Lake in California (now known as Edwards AFB)". [ Smye 1985, p. 87.]
Declassified records show Avro management was caught unprepared by the suddenness of the announcement by the government. While executives were aware that the program was in jeopardy, they expected it to continue at least until the March review. It was widely believed that during this lead-up to the review, the first Arrow Mk 2, RL-206, would be prepared for an attempt at both world speed and altitude records.
An attempt was made to provide the completed Arrows to the
National Research Council of Canadaas high-speed test aircraft. The NRC refused, noting that without sufficient spare parts and maintenance, as well as qualified pilots, the NRC could make no use of them. A similar project initiated by the Royal Aircraft Establishment(Boscombe Down) had resulted in Avro Vice-President (Engineering) Jim Floyd, preparing a transatlantic ferry operation. This proposal, like others from the United States, was never realized.
The cancellation immediately put over 50,000 people out of work at the plants and outside suppliers. Within two months, all aircraft, engines, production tooling and technical data were ordered scrapped. This was partly in response to
Royal Canadian Mounted Policefears that a Soviet "mole" had infiltrated Avro, later confirmed to some degree in the Mitrokhin archives. Officially, the reason given for the destruction order from Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff was to destroy classified and "secret" materials utilized in the Arrow/Iroquois programs. [Stewart 1998, p. 274-276.]
Along with the five flying test models and production aircraft, blueprints and other materials were destroyed leading to the creation of a piece of Canadian mythology. The rushed destruction incited a number of conspiracy theories alleging American culpability for the Arrow's demise. There remains an enduring but fanciful legend that one of the prototypes was spirited away after the cancellation and remains intact, but continues to be the basis of an urban legend. [Bliss, Michael. "Arrow That Doesn't Fly." "
Time Magazine" (Canada edition), 20 January 1997.]
Following the Canadian government's cancellation of the Avro Arrow project in 1959, CF-105 Chief Aerodynamicist
Jim Chamberlinled a team of 25 engineers to NASA's Space Task Groupto become lead engineers, program managers, and heads of engineering in NASA's manned space programs—Projects Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. This team would eventually grow to 32 Avro engineers and technicians, and become emblematic of what many Canadians viewed as a " brain drain" to the US. Many other engineers, including Jim Floyd (whose design studies at Hawker Siddeley(Avro Aircraft's UK parent) on the HSA.1000 SST design studies were ultimately influential in the design of the Concorde[ Whitcomb 1999, p. 251-259. Note: An entire chapter, "The SST Saga: Canadian Contributions Exposed" is devoted to the work of Floyd in the UK. His role in SST development is fully detailed.] ) found work abroad in either the UK or the United States.
In 1961, the RCAF obtained 66
CF-101 Voodooaircraft, one of the American designs the RCAF originally rejected, [ Page et al 1980, p. 13. Note: Although the source indicates it was the F-101 that was evaluated, it was the XF-88 Voodoo that was flying at the time while the F-101 was a revised and upgraded variant that was only in the development stage in 1953.] to serve in the role originally intended for the Avro Arrow. The controversy surrounding this acquisition, and Canada's acquiring nuclear weapons for the Voodoos and Bomarcs eventually contributed to the collapse of the Diefenbaker government in 1963. [Stursberg 1975, p. 122.]
Although nearly everything connected to the CF-105 and Orenda Iroquois programs was destroyed, the cockpit and nose gear of RL-206, the first Mk 2 Arrow, and two outer panels of RL-203's wings were saved and are on display at the
Canada Aviation Museumin Ottawa, alongside an Iroquois engine.
With specifications comparable to then-current offerings from American and Soviet design bureaus, at the time of its cancellation, the Arrow was considered by one aviation industry observer to be one of the most advanced aircraft in the world. Gunston 1981, p. 18.]
cquote2|quotetext=In its planning, design and flight-test programme, this fighter, in almost every way the most advanced of all the fighters of the 1950s, was as impressive, and successful as any aircraft in history.|personquoted=Bill Gunston, 1981|quotesource= Gunston 1981, p. 18.]
In 1997, the CBC broadcast the two-part mini-series, "
The Arrow" about the Arrow program, which remains one of the most-watched CBC English-language television programs. [http://www.ggower.com/dief/text/sun1.shtml] The production used a combination of archival film, remote-control flying models and computer animation for the flying and sequences. The flying models were built by Doug Hyslipof Calgary, but a full-scale replica of the Arrow was used in ground scenes. The mini-series' lack of historical accuracy forced the CBC to reclassify it as a "docu-drama", " The Arrow" [http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-75-275-1410/science_technology/avro_arrow/clip12] and it was subsequently advertised as entertainment rather than literal history.Fact|date=June 2008
Go-ahead on the production was given in 1955, with series production taking place in Assembly Bay One. The rollout of the first CF-105, marked as RL-201, took place 4 October 1957. The company had planned to capitalize on the event, inviting more than 13,000 guests to the formal occasion. [ Gainor 2001, p. 15.] Unfortunately, the media and public attention for the Arrow rollout was dwarfed by the launch of
Sputnikthe same day. [ Gainor 2001, p. 18.]
The J75 engine was slightly heavier than the PS-13, and therefore required ballast to be placed in the nose to return the
center of gravityto the correct position. In addition, the Astra fire-control system was not ready, and it too, was replaced by ballast. The otherwise unused weapons bay was loaded with test equipment.
RL-201 first flew on 25 March 1958 with Chief Development Test Pilot S/L
Janusz Żurakowskiat the controls. Four more J75-powered Mk 1s were delivered in the next 18 months. The test flights went surprisingly well; the aircraft demonstrated excellent handling throughout the flight envelope. Much of this was due to the natural qualities of the delta-wing, but an equal amount can be attributed to the Arrow's stability augmentation system. The aircraft went supersonic on only its third flight and, on the seventh, broke 1,000 miles "per" hour (1600 km/h) at 50,000 feet, while climbing and still accelerating. A top speed of Mach 1.98 was eventually reached at three quarters throttle, even with these lower-powered engines.
No major problems were encountered during the testing phase, though some minor issues found with the landing gear, flight control system, and the stability augmentation system needed considerable tuning.
The former problem was partly due to the tandem main landing gear (two wheels and tires: one in front of and one behind the gear leg) being very narrow, in order to fit into the wings. The leg shortened in length and rotated as it was stowed. During one landing incident, the chain mechanism (used to shorten the gear) in the Mark 1 gear jammed, resulting in incomplete rotation. In a second incident with Arrow 202 on 11 November 1958, the flight control system commanded
elevons full down at landing. The resulting reduction in weight on the gears reduced the effective tire friction, ultimately resulting in brake lockup and subsequent gear collapse. A photograph taken of the incident proved inadvertent flight control activation had caused the accident. [ [http://www.avromuseum.ca/index.php?q=node/45 Avro Museum] ]
The stability augmentation system was a matter of tuning, tuning and more tuning. Although the CF-105 was not the first aircraft to use such a system – the Arrow used this system for all three axes, other aircraft did not – it was one of the first of its kind, and was consequently problematic. By February 1959, the five aircraft had completed the majority of the company test program and were progressing to the RCAF acceptance trials.
The Mk 2 version was to be fitted with the Iroquois engine. The Astra/Sparrow fire control system had been terminated by the government in September 1958 with all aircraft to employ the Hughes/Falcon combination. At the time of cancellation of the entire program, the first Arrow Mk 2, RL-206, was nearly complete. It was expected to break the world speed record but never had the chance.
Top speed would have been limited by frictional heating but, “The aluminum alloy structure which we favoured was good for speeds greater than a Mach number of 2." [ Floyd 1958]
Avro Canada had a wide range of Arrow derivatives under development at the time of project cancellation. Frequent mention is made of an Arrow that could have been capable of Mach 3, similar to the
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25. This was not the production version, but one of the design studies, and would have been a greatly modified version of the Arrow Mk 2, featuring revised engine inlets and extensive use of stainless steelor titaniumto withstand airframe heating.
Avro Arrow replicas
Allan Jacksonof Wetaskiwin, Albertawas the original designer of the replica used in the CBC docu-drama. As a hobby, he began building a full-scale replica of the Arrow in 1989. Years later, in 1996, when the producers of the Arrow miniseries learned of Jackson's replica, then about 70% complete, an offer was made to complete the construction if the replica could be used for the production. After use on the mini-series, and several public appearances at air shows, the Jackson replica was donated to the Reynolds-Alberta Museumin Wetaskiwin. While on display in a temporary outdoor collection, the replica was damaged in a wind storm. It is presently being stored after a recent repair, and readied for future display.
The Avro Museum of Calgary began a [http://www.avromuseum.ca/replica/about Replica Arrow Project] . Theirs is a 0.6-scale piloted replica aircraft being built for public flight demonstration — construction started in September 2000 following eight years of research. Built of modern-day
composite materials under Canadian Recreational Aircraft Legislation, construction is expected to take five years of volunteer labour and cost a half-million dollars in materials and parts.
The [http://torontoaerospacemuseum.com Toronto Aerospace Museum] , located at the former
CFB Downsviewfeatures a full-size replica Arrow built by volunteers with assistance from local aerospace firms. With a metal structure, the replica features many authentic-looking components including landing gear constructed by Messier-Dowty(the original Arrow main landing gear sub-contractor). Painted in the colours of Arrow 25203, the Arrow replica was rolled out for a media event on 28 September 2006 and was on [http://torontoaerospacemuseum.com/arrowrollout/PublicViewing.html public display] on 8-9 October 2006 to commemorate the original aircraft's rollout in 1957. It will be permanently displayed beside an Avro Lancasterbomber (currently under restoration) built at the same Malton plant that produced the Arrow. The museum ultimately hopes to acquire an Avro CF-100 and obtain the first Avro VZ-9-AV Avrocar (the company's last aviation project) on a long-term loan from the National Air and Space Museum, in Washington, D.C., to be exhibited alongside the Arrow replica and Avro Lancaster.
Royal Canadian Air Force(Never went into squadron service)
pecifications (Arrow Mk 1)
plane or copter?=plane
jet or prop?=jet
ref=The Great Book of Fighters [Green, William and Swanborough, Gordon. "The Great Book of Fighters". St. Paul, Minnesota: MBI Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0-7603-1194-3.]
length main=77 ft 9 in
length alt=23.71 m
span main=50 ft 0 in
span alt=15.24 m
height main=20 ft 6 in
height alt=6.25 m
area main=1,225 ft²
area alt=113.8 m²
airfoil=NACA 0003.5 mod root, NACA 0003.8 tip
empty weight main=49,040 lb
empty weight alt=22,245 kg
loaded weight main=56,920 lb
loaded weight alt=25,820 kg
max takeoff weight main=68,605 lb
max takeoff weight alt=31,120 kg
Pratt & Whitney J75-P-3
type of jet=
number of jets=2
thrust main=12,500 lbf
thrust alt=55.6 kN
afterburning thrust main=23,500 lbf
afterburning thrust alt=104.53 kN
max speed main=Mach 2
max speed alt=1,307
mph, 2,104 km/h
max speed more=at 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
cruise speed main=Mach 0.91
cruise speed alt=607 mph, 977 km/h
cruise speed more=at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
stall speed main=
stall speed alt=
never exceed speed main=
never exceed speed alt=
range main=360 NM
range alt=410 mi, 660 km
ceiling main=53,000 ft
ceiling alt=16,150 m
climb rate main=
climb rate alt=
loading main=46.5 lb/ft²
loading alt=226.9 kg/m²
* Hughes MX-1179 fire control system
armament header=Armament (projected)
AIM-4 Falcon, Canadair Velvet Glove(cancelled 1956), 2 AIM-7 SparrowII 2D active guidance missiles (cancelled)
AIR-2 Genieunguided nuclear rockets
F-106 Delta Dart
English Electric Lightning
* F.155 Project (UK)
Saab 35 Draken
List of aircraft of the Canadian Air Force
List of fighter aircraft
* Crawford Gordon Jr.
* Campagna, Palmiro. "Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed, Third Paperback Edition." Toronto: Stoddart, 1998. ISBN 0-7737-5990-5.
* Campagna, Palmiro. "Requiem for a Giant: A.V. Roe Canada and the Avro Arrow." Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2003. ISBN 1-55002-438-8.
* Dow, James. "The Arrow." Toronto: James Lorimer and Company Publishers, 1979. ISBN 0-88862-282-1.
* Floyd, James. "The Canadian Approach to All-Weather Interceptor Development." "The Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, December 1958."
* Gainor, Chris. "Arrows to the Moon: Avro's Engineers and the Space Race." Burlington, Ontario: Apogee, 2001. ISBN 1-896522-83-1.
* Gunston, Bill. "Fighters of the Fifties". Oscela, Wisconsin: Speciality Press, 1981. ISBN 0-93342-432-9..
* Page, Ron, Organ, Richard, Watson, Don and Wilkinson, Les. "Avro Arrow: The Story of the Avro Arrow from its Evolution to its Extinction." Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press, 1979, reprinted Stoddart, 2004. ISBN 1-55046-047-1.
* Peden, Murray. "Fall of an Arrow." Toronto: Stoddart Publishing, 1987. ISBN 0-7737-5105-X.
* Shaw, E.K. "There Never was an Arrow."Toronto: Steel Rail Educational Publishing, 1979.
* Smye, Fred. "Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow"(Limited publication). Oakville, Ontario: Randy Smye, 1985.
* Stewart, Greig. "Arrow Through the Heart: The Life and Times of Crawford Gordon and the Avro Arrow." Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson, 1998. ISBN 0-07-560102-8.
* Stewart, Greig. "Shutting Down the National Dream: A.V. Roe and the Tragedy of the Avro Arrow." Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson, 1991. ISBN 0-07-551119-3.
* Stursberg, Peter. "Diefenbaker: Leadership Gained: 1956-62". Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975. ISBN 0-8020-2130-1.
* "Supersonic Sentinel." Rare Avro Arrow film footage. Available from [http://www.avroarrow.org Arrow Digital Archives] (ARC); also includes extra footage of the Arrow in flight and some footage of the
* Whitcomb, Randall."Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation." St. Catharine's, Ontario: Vanwell, 2002. ISBN 1-55125-082-9.
* Zuk, Bill. "The Avro Arrow Story: The Impossible Dream." Calgary: Altitude Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1-55439-703-0.
* Zuk, Bill. "The Avro Arrow Story: The Revolutionary Airplane and its Courageous Test Pilots." Calgary: Altitude Publishing, 2005. ISBN 1-55153-978-0.;Further reading
* Zuk, Bill. "Janusz Zurakowski: Legends in the Sky". St. Catharine's, Ontario: Vanwell, 2004. ISBN 1-55125-083-7.
* Zuuring, Peter. "Arrow Countdown." Kingston, Ontario: Arrow Alliance Press, 2001. ISBN 1-55056-866-3.
* Zuuring, Peter. "Arrow First Flight." Kingston, Ontario: Arrow Alliance Press, 2002. ISBN 1-55056-903-1.
* Zuuring, Peter. "Arrow Rollout." Kingston, Ontario: Arrow Alliance Press, 2002. ISBN 1-55056-902-3.
* Zuuring, Peter. "The Arrow Scrapbook." Kingston, Ontario: Arrow Alliance Press, 1999. ISBN 1-55056-690-3.
* Zuuring, Peter. "Iroquois Rollout." Kingston, Ontario: Arrow Alliance Press, 2002. ISBN 1-55056-906-6.;Additional resources
* Library and Archives Canada - this is the official repository of all government documents relating to the Avro CF-105 Arrow projects. Not all Avro Arrow documents have been declassified, only some and it is expected that all documents held on the Arrow will not become public until 2067.
* "There Never Was an Arrow" broadcast on the CBC in March 1980 (Available as an extra on the Arrow Docu-Drama DVD). [Clips from the program can be seen at [http://archives.cbc.ca/500f.asp?id=1-75-275-1416&wm6=1] .)
* [http://www.avromuseum.ca Avro Museum's Replica Arrow Project]
* [http://www.avro-arrow.org Homage to the Avro Arrow - the longest running Arrow website]
* [http://www.avroarrow.org The Largest Archive of Factual Arrow Information]
* [http://www.exn.ca/flightdeck/arrow/images.cfm Avro Arrow pictures on Discovery Channel Canada site]
* [http://www.avroland.ca A site dedicated to the people and projects of Avro Canada and Orenda Engines Limited]
* [http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/historical/arrowlst_e.asp Avro CF-105 Arrow Mk.1] (
Department of National Defence, Government of Canada)
* [http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-75-275/science_technology/avro_arrow/ CBC Digital Archives - The Avro Arrow: Canada's Broken Dream]
* [http://aa.domaindlx.com/ModelPaperEngine/AVRO%20ARROW.html Mechanical Paper Machines A Paper Model]
* [http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis3.htm The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow Programme: Decisions and Determinants]
*cite web | title=Avro Arrow | work=Historica Minute
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
CF-105 Arrow — Avro Canada CF 105 Arrow … Deutsch Wikipedia
CF-105 Arrow — … Википедия
Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow — CF 105 Arrow Photo from the Canadian Department of National Defence Role Interceptor … Wikipedia
Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow — CF 105 Arrow Тип истребитель перехватчик Разработчик Avro Canada … Википедия
Avro CF-105 ARROW — (Mk.I) … Wikipédia en Français
Avro CF-105 Arrow — (Mk.I) Vue de l’avion … Wikipédia en Français
Arrow — Cette page d’homonymie répertorie les différents sujets et articles partageant un même nom. Sur les autres projets Wikimedia : « Arrow », sur le Wiktionnaire (dictionnaire universel) Personnalités Kenneth Arrow, économiste… … Wikipédia en Français
Arrow — (engl. „Pfeil“) steht für: ein israelisches Raketenabwehrsystem, siehe Arrow Rakete das Militärflugzeug Avro Canada CF 105 eine Version des Flugzeugs Piper PA 28 als AA 13 Arrow die NATO Codebezeichnung der russischen Rakete Wympel R 37 den… … Deutsch Wikipedia
Arrow of God — Infobox Book name = Arrow of God title orig = translator = image caption = author = Chinua Achebe illustrator = cover artist = country = United States language = English series = genre = Novel publisher = Heinemann London release date = 1964… … Wikipedia
Arrow Sport — NOTOC Infobox Aircraft name=Sport caption= type=Sports plane manufacturer=Arrow Aircraft and Motors designer=Sven Swanson first flight=1926 introduced= retired= status= primary user= more users= produced= number built=ca. 100 variants with their… … Wikipedia