Simviation Forum - F-35 vs Cf-105....wait...the CF-105 Arrow?!!?!?!?

Reply #15 - Sep 15^th, 2012 at 7:55pm

BlackAce Offline
Colonel
If it's not Boeing, I'm
not going.
KBOI; Boise, Idaho

Gender:
Posts: 1203

wahubna wrote on Sep 15^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

Steve M wrote on Sep 15^th, 2012 at 6:18pm:

Some perspective, Black ace is right about the size difference, this being the arrow reproduction.
While the F-104 looked more like a dart with wing mounted engines, the Arrow air induction and the basic design is much more like todays fighters look.

The size of the Arrow means it would have been an absolute turkey in a dogfight. According to a RCAF F-104 pilot the F-104 was actually as maneuverable if not better than the F-4 which is remarkable considering its wing (or lack there-of).

Still, there is not a whole lot that one can say the Arrow directly influenced design wise. I would argue too that it looks absolutely nothing like fighters today.

Most fighters today are not straight delta winged. Those that are straight deltas with no canards have a very different trailing edge.. Either they are close-coupled canard deltas or taper winged/trapezoidal with twin fins. Also the cockpit visibility of the Arrow is heavily framed which most certainly is nothing like today. About the most crucial leap made with the Arrow is the control system which was one of the predecessors to the modern fly-by-wire systems. Other than that, the Arrow is extremely different from modern fighters.

Only 1 RCAF pilot flew it. Flight Lieutenant Jack Woodman. He also flew the CF-104 (http://va3kgb.ve3kbr.com/cf105/players/jack_woodman_bio.htm) Yes, it might have been, however, it was an interceptor, not a dog-fighter, like the CF-86 or the CF-100 Canuk at the time. Also, the Voodoo didn't replace the Arrow. The Bomarc missile replaced it. Oh, and don't look at military... Concorde anyone Wink

Lenovo Y570: Intel Core i7-2670QM Processor( 2.2GHz 1333MHz 6MB) Nvidia 555M graphics, 8GB Memory/RAM 1TB of space

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Sep 16^th, 2012 at 5:16pm

Steve M Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender:
Posts: 4097

Ok,

I give up.. The F-104 was better if you wish Adam!
Coast to coast from the east to the west and the south to the north during the cold war Canada had a need for an aircraft that can cover some ground in a hurry. Being a massive area that Canada is.. Getting to the point of engagement faster was decidedly more of an issue than flying circles around other craft.

Flying with twins is a lot of fun..

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Sep 16^th, 2012 at 7:35pm

wahubna Offline
Colonel
WMU Bronco
Michigan

Gender:
Posts: 1064

Steve M wrote on Sep 16^th, 2012 at 5:16pm:

Ok,

I give up.. The F-104 was better if you wish Adam!
Coast to coast from the east to the west and the south to the north during the cold war Canada had a need for an aircraft that can cover some ground in a hurry. Being a massive area that Canada is.. Getting to the point of engagement faster was decidedly more of an issue than flying circles around other craft.

Oh no, the F-104 was a clear weather POINT defense interceptor. The Arrow would have been the best interceptor had it entered service because it had dash speed, cruise speed, rate of climb, weapons load, weapons system, AND range all due to its size.

Unlike the F-104, I bet the Arrow would have been a long-term success in many roles. The F-104 was a controversial airplane and Ill leave it at that for now. I see a ton of potential in the Arrow: recon, interdiction, Elint, ECM, strike, and of course it could have stayed in the air defense game a while. It had a ton of growth potential. Lots of room for avionics and weapons system growth!

‎"At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation."- Igor Sikorsky

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Sep 17^th, 2012 at 5:38pm

Steve M Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender:
Posts: 4097

wahubna wrote on Sep 16^th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

Steve M wrote on Sep 16^th, 2012 at 5:16pm:

Ok,

I give up.. The F-104 was better if you wish Adam!
Coast to coast from the east to the west and the south to the north during the cold war Canada had a need for an aircraft that can cover some ground in a hurry. Being a massive area that Canada is.. Getting to the point of engagement faster was decidedly more of an issue than flying circles around other craft.

Oh no, the F-104 was a clear weather POINT defense interceptor. The Arrow would have been the best interceptor had it entered service because it had dash speed, cruise speed, rate of climb, weapons load, weapons system, AND range all due to its size.

Unlike the F-104, I bet the Arrow would have been a long-term success in many roles. The F-104 was a controversial airplane and Ill leave it at that for now. I see a ton of potential in the Arrow: recon, interdiction, Elint, ECM, strike, and of course it could have stayed in the air defense game a while. It had a ton of growth potential. Lots of room for avionics and weapons system growth!

Thanks for the reply, So if we digress back to the day.. Canada had a population of around 16 million folks that thought federal income taxes were temporary. Hardly enough money to build roads, let alone build state of the art long range interceptors. So A lot of resistance from the voting public, some of which didn't see the need for such Tomfoolery, and the lack of allied support for the project may well have been the demise of the Arrow program. Long live the memories, because thats all that's left now!

Flying with twins is a lot of fun..

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Sep 17^th, 2012 at 6:06pm

wahubna Offline
Colonel
WMU Bronco
Michigan

Gender:
Posts: 1064

Steve M wrote on Sep 17^th, 2012 at 5:38pm:

wahubna wrote on Sep 16^th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

Steve M wrote on Sep 16^th, 2012 at 5:16pm:

Ok,

I give up.. The F-104 was better if you wish Adam!
Coast to coast from the east to the west and the south to the north during the cold war Canada had a need for an aircraft that can cover some ground in a hurry. Being a massive area that Canada is.. Getting to the point of engagement faster was decidedly more of an issue than flying circles around other craft.

Oh no, the F-104 was a clear weather POINT defense interceptor. The Arrow would have been the best interceptor had it entered service because it had dash speed, cruise speed, rate of climb, weapons load, weapons system, AND range all due to its size.

Unlike the F-104, I bet the Arrow would have been a long-term success in many roles. The F-104 was a controversial airplane and Ill leave it at that for now. I see a ton of potential in the Arrow: recon, interdiction, Elint, ECM, strike, and of course it could have stayed in the air defense game a while. It had a ton of growth potential. Lots of room for avionics and weapons system growth!

Thanks for the reply, So if we digress back to the day.. Canada had a population of around 16 million folks that thought federal income taxes were temporary. Hardly enough money to build roads, let alone build state of the art long range interceptors. So A lot of resistance from the voting public, some of which didn't see the need for such Tomfoolery, and the lack of allied support for the project may well have been the demise of the Arrow program. Long live the memories, because thats all that's left now!

That would be the "death spiral" of fighter design: you can afford only so many fighters so you make each one advanced...each fighter becomes expensive & complex, fewer qualified pilots...so you make even more advanced fighters...buy fewer...make them more advanced..and so on.

The theory goes that in a couple of decades an air war will consist of our 1 fighter taking off to meet 'their' 1 fighter in an epic dogfight to decide the war. The F-35 and F-22 vividly illustrate how real this is. So does the Arrow in that regard, never thought about the $ side of the Arrow to be honest.. Roll Eyes

..money, the ever present enemy of aviation die-hards! Grin

Thank the heavens for flight sims! (now off to fly the ALPHAsim CF-105 Cool

)
http://www.virtavia.com/Freeware/index.php

‎"At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation."- Igor Sikorsky

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Sep 17^th, 2012 at 7:07pm

Steve M Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender:
Posts: 4097

Flying with twins is a lot of fun..

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Sep 17^th, 2012 at 8:23pm

BlackAce Offline
Colonel
If it's not Boeing, I'm
not going.
KBOI; Boise, Idaho

Gender:
Posts: 1203

Quote:

Thank the heavens for flight sims! (now off to fly the ALPHAsim CF-105 Cool

)
http://www.virtavia.com/Freeware/index.php

Extreme Prototypes Arrow Cool

everyting on it works. $15 USD Cool

Lenovo Y570: Intel Core i7-2670QM Processor( 2.2GHz 1333MHz 6MB) Nvidia 555M graphics, 8GB Memory/RAM 1TB of space

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Sep 18^th, 2012 at 2:00pm

wahubna Offline
Colonel
WMU Bronco
Michigan

Gender:
Posts: 1064

BlackAce wrote on Sep 17^th, 2012 at 8:23pm:

Quote:

Thank the heavens for flight sims! (now off to fly the ALPHAsim CF-105 Cool

)
http://www.virtavia.com/Freeware/index.php

Extreme Prototypes Arrow Cool

everyting on it works. $15 USD Cool

Okay...Im going to say it...man that is a sexy airplane! Grin

‎"At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation."- Igor Sikorsky

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Sep 18^th, 2012 at 3:10pm

Steve M Offline
Colonel
Cambridge On.

Gender:
Posts: 4097

Extreme prototypes arrow looks fantastic, this isn't the payware board but here is a proper link.. Thanks Black Ace

http://arrow.xtremeprototypes.com/en/

Flying with twins is a lot of fun..

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Sep 18^th, 2012 at 5:10pm

wahubna Offline
Colonel
WMU Bronco
Michigan

Gender:
Posts: 1064

http://www.globalnews.ca/a+little+more+on+resurrecting+the+arrow/6442712982/stor...

I want to bring special attention to the requested funds Bourdeau Industries wants and their expectations with those funds...I am here to tell you that there is no way 1) they will stay under $50mil and 2) there is no way they will make useful progress by the end of that 1 year grant. 3) So far it is taking us about 3 years to bring the Great Lakes back and we changed far less and are building it by hand, so we can get away with many many things that Bourdeau will have to face...in other words, the guys at Bourdeau are sorely misunderstanding how much work they are in for.

It took 5 YEARS for 15+ highly dedicated men to start cranking out WACOs in 1986. That was with all drawings, jigs, tooling, etc available and minimal changes. Also, they did not setup for production, the first YMFs were 100% hand built. Plus the FAA let them get away with stuff that no other manufacture can dream of, the FAA held them and holds us to the original standards of the original aircraft (which are very VERY loose). Just to put it in perspective.

‎"At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation."- Igor Sikorsky

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Sep 18^th, 2012 at 5:24pm