Deleted
Currently: Offline
Posts: 0
Location:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2005 16:59:00 GMT 9
This is just quick research for fun. The F-106 and the CF-105 were essentially developed around the same time. (The first flight of the Arrow occurred just a year and three months after the first F-106 took to the air) Some design features, such as the delta wing, and the notch in the wing are easily identifiable. (Heck the CF-105 Mk. 1 had the same engines as the Dart (J-75)) Here were some of the requrements of the CF-105 that the Canadian Forces put forth: - Operate from a 6000' Runway
- Range (Combat Radius?) or 600 nautical miles
- Capable of Mach 1.5
- Control system capable of operating in Canada's harsh environments..
- Able to manoeuvre at 50,000 pulling 2G (not exaclty sure what this means)
The only requirement that I know the Dart doesn't meet is that it must have two engines. What I am asking is was the Dart Capable of those requirements. There are people up here (in Canada) that are convinced that the Arrow was the ultimate interceptor. I'm not so sure that it is true. It was advanced for its time, but so was the Dart. According to Pat's World info on the Dart it was presented to Canada as an option for both an interceptor and a strike roll. Wouldn't that have been nice? I want to be able to say that there was a viable alternative to the Arrow when I'm in a debate (argument) about the greatness of the Arrow. (I already have some ammo to use.) Stirling Millar
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 31, 2005 1:39:47 GMT 9
OKAY COL ROSS, IT HAS BEEN A LONG, LONG TIME SINCE YOU HAVE MADE ANY COMMENTS ON THE FORUM... YE, WHO BE A LIKIN TO FLY WITH CERTAIN "YELLOW LIGHTS" A BEIN ILLUMINATED THE OLD SARGE
|
|
LtCol M Ross Shulmister Ret
Guest
|
Post by LtCol M Ross Shulmister Ret on Jan 31, 2005 3:12:07 GMT 9
* Operate from a 6000' Runway
Clearly not a problem, assuming the drag chute deployed as designed. Even without a drag chute, the Dart could handle that short a runway, but there would have to be some heavy-duty brake cooling.
* Range (Combat Radius?) or 600 nautical miles
In 1979 I led a flight of two that intercepted a squadron of Russian Bears about 250-300 miles east of Gander - we took off from Goose Bay, flew supersonic at Mach 1.3 (minimum afterburner) for about 15 minutes to intercept, and played around after intercept for about 15 minutes, traveling eastward toward Iceland. With the fuel we landed with, I estimated we could have played around another 15 minutes without getting into a low fuel situation. While we were playing, the Bears were doing about 300 kts indicated - forgot the altitude, but probably around 25,000 - 30,000 feet. You can do the math and figure out the combat radius with afterburner - without after burner it's considerably greater. Naturally we came back subsonic.
As for range, the Dart had an endurance of 3:20 under normal operating conditions at 39,000 - 41,000 feet. A careful pilot could milk another 15 minutes. At that altitude, you fly at Mach 0.91 - indicated and true airspeed have no particular flight envelope function, except that you have to indicate enough airspeed to keep the bird flying. At lower altitudes, the endurance and range are obviously lower.
* Capable of Mach 1.5
The F-106 could do Mach 2, but it ran out of fuel after 15 minutes of that.
* Control system capable of operating in Canada's harsh environments..
Canada's worse than Maine or Fairbanks, Alaska?
* Able to manoeuvre at 50,000 pulling 2G (not exaclty sure what this means)
That wasn't going to happen. At 50,000 feet you are supersonic or you're not flying anything with the wing loading that a fighter has to carry. I took a '6 once past that altitude, just to see how high it would go. I had the afterburner going to pick up speed, and pulled the nose up. The afterburner blew out about 48,000 feet, and I pretty much coasted up to around 52,000 - 53,000. I didn't dare pull even 1 G, lest I leave the flight envelope. I hazard a guess that I was pulling 0.7 - 0.8 G's (let it coast and fall - otherwise you risked a spin, and F-106's weren't very good at recovering from spins).
|
|
Deleted
Currently: Offline
Posts: 0
Location:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2005 4:20:40 GMT 9
Thanks,
That's just what I was looking for. Flying out of Goose Bay clearly answers the question of whether it can handle Canada's weather. (and Fairbanks I imagine is probably pretty rough as well.)
Now when I get into a discussion about how the Arrow was the be all and end all of the inteceptor world I have some more ammo.
Stirling Millar
|
|
|
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Feb 3, 2005 0:38:25 GMT 9
The CF-105 is an interesting A/C, that would have had the same growing problems as the Six. Heck it was to fly with the MA-1 then the RCA ASTRA reverting back to the MA-1.
The Flight Spec in Question is "With the Iriquois engines could it SUSTAIN a 2G turn at 50k ft without loosing a knot."?
That will never be known, but then as with the Six, it's life would not have revolved around the Spec.
What was with that canopy anyway? How could it be secured?
Don't blame us, we had our hands full.
The CF-105 AVRO ARROW Interactive CD is worth the cost. All proceeds go to building a full size model for the museum in Toronto.
They are still smarting over it's cancellation and loss.
Engineers came south and went to work at the Skunk Works, Mercury Program, Gemini, Appolo and the Shuttle. A great loss of brain power.
|
|