Here is what Canadair VTOL developments intended for;

ASR3-60 : CL-62
ASRI-60 : CL-73,CL-74 & CL-84
US Navy Sea Control Ship : CL-84-1A (1972),CL-84-8
OVX : CL-84-11D
AAFSS : CL-84A
STAS : CL-84E & CL-84F
SAR : CL-84G
SOR-222 : CL-84H & CL-84J
SOR-210 : CL-84K
AFAC : CL-84L
CARA : CL-84M
 
Hi;

I am very humble small designer in aviation world,but who can note with me,the main reason for falling of
CL-84 ?.
 
I'm taking a punt, so IMO, its because it wasn't all American in design or nature. I must admit, U.S. industry seems tI have an ability to lobby against Canadian aviation industry!

Regards
Pioneer
 
My dear Pioneer,

even I confess with this fact,but I meant there was a big mistake on the design itself.
 
The two cents from Wikipedia:

The end of the Vietnam War meant a scaling back on military requirements, but Canadair designer Fred Phillips had been cognizant of other factors gravitating against the "84." The first and most crucial was the “NBH” (not built here) factor; Canada had overcome it with other sales to the US military but the de Havilland Canada Beaver, Otter and Caribou loomed as exceptions to the rule. It was also "a prop job in the age of jets" and, lastly, the CL-84 "tilt-wing" concept did not have a "grand champion" who would fight for it in boardrooms and military procurement offices. Canadair had tried to sell the Dynavert to others – Germany, Holland, Italy, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom were all courted, but, in the end, the Canadair CL-84 project died in 1974 for lack of interest, not even in Canada.[11]

Source:
 
hesham said:
My dear Pioneer,

even I confess with this fact,"but I meant there was a big mistake on the design itself".

Please think about my comment.
 
I don't think there was any big flaw with the design itself. You could argue that it is in that regard, on the whole, no better nor worse than a tilt-rotor. Both configurations have pros and cons, including inherent flight envelope limitations that can be dangerous, but in the case of the V-22 were accepted by the services. I think dependent on the mission profile you can make the case for one vs. the other. The V-22 probably succeeded because of strong political support, and even with that it took decades to mature.

BTW, thanks for posting all the individual pictures. ;)
 
'Orses for courses. There's a continuum of things between fast helicopters and STOL propeller transports - tilt-wings, semi-tiltwings (SuperFrog), and blown wings/interconnected props like the Breguet 941. If you want well-controlled hover with reasonably low downwash, the tilt-rotor is not bad; tilt-wings have to watch out for control issues and wing stall, but they're faster and do STOL better than a TW.

I remember talking to a lot of Canadair guys in 1984 and they still had a "we was robbed, I tell you, robbed" attitude to the V-22, not to mention lots of numbers comparing the XV-15 to the CL-84 (both had T53s).
 
LowObservable said:
I remember talking to a lot of Canadair guys in 1984 and they still had a "we was robbed, I tell you, robbed" attitude to the V-22, not to mention lots of numbers comparing the XV-15 to the CL-84 (both had T53s).
The same T53s, or so I've heard - the CL-84s engines were the only ones qualified to run vertically and were used to build the XV-15.
 
My dears,

not the engine not tilt-wing were not suitable,but if you analysis the design itself
and account the aeronautical of the shape,you will find a serious problem,usual
I use my mind instead off computer.
 
A bit larger version of the gunship variant posted in #44 from the SDASM Archives.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • zCL-84 Gunship Variant Artwork Kemp.jpg
    zCL-84 Gunship Variant Artwork Kemp.jpg
    702 KB · Views: 453
On it's the way to the collection..... The model Circle 5 had posted another version a while back that was one I had restored and traded away, much to my regret. Now at long last, I will have one even better! The AEW version is so much more interesting than the ASW version if you ask me. A little TLC and I'll repost.
 

Attachments

  • _private_var_mobile_Containers_Data_Application_43A8AF5B-359A-42A0-BD75-E6EE5EBA0D02_tmp_6210...jpeg
    _private_var_mobile_Containers_Data_Application_43A8AF5B-359A-42A0-BD75-E6EE5EBA0D02_tmp_6210...jpeg
    992.5 KB · Views: 266
  • _private_var_mobile_Containers_Data_Application_43A8AF5B-359A-42A0-BD75-E6EE5EBA0D02_tmp_D98F...jpeg
    _private_var_mobile_Containers_Data_Application_43A8AF5B-359A-42A0-BD75-E6EE5EBA0D02_tmp_D98F...jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 189
From, Canadair The First 50 Years
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    240.8 KB · Views: 121
  • 2.png
    2.png
    429.4 KB · Views: 139
  • 3.png
    3.png
    346 KB · Views: 155
On it's the way to the collection..... The model Circle 5 had posted another version a while back that was one I had restored and traded away, much to my regret. Now at long last, I will have one even better! The AEW version is so much more interesting than the ASW version if you ask me. A little TLC and I'll repost.
Do we have any idea of the proposed/studied radar that was to be employed by the AEW variant??
On it's the way to the collection..... The model Circle 5 had posted another version a while back that was one I had restored and traded away, much to my regret. Now at long last, I will have one even better! The AEW version is so much more interesting than the ASW version if you ask me. A little TLC and I'll repost.

Is there any indication of the radar type that was to be used by the AEW variant?

Regards
Pioneer
 
A few thoughts if I may.
Impressed by the results of the tests of the first CL-84, the Canadian Departments of of Industry, Trade and Commerce and of National Defence ordered three pre-production aircraft, designated CX-84s, in February 1968. The interest of the former should be noted. Its involvement appeared to be linked to the development of civilian versions of Canadair's VTOL aircraft.

Incidentally, Canadair's engineering staff seemingly did not like the name Dynavert, which had been picked out of thin air by the PR staff.

Busy with the start of production of the Northrop F-5 and the development of the Canadair CL-215 water bomber, Canadair was unable to devote much time to the CX-84. Worse yet, interest in the Canadian Armed Forces seemed to wane over the months. As a result, the first CX-84 did not fly until February 1970. Once completed, the other two aircraft were put into storage.

The first CX-84 went to the United States in February 1972 at the request of the U.S. Navy (USN). This service was then considered ordering up to eight Sea Control Ships (SCS), a type of relatively inexpensive light aircraft carrier whose strike force consisted of VTOL aircraft and helicopters. Designed to escort amphibious forces, convoys of merchant ships, and groups of ships used for ammunition and fuel supply, the SCS did not generate widespread enthusiasm within the USN.

CX-84 demonstration flights included short, vertical take-offs and landings on the U.S.S. Guam, then used to check if the SCS concept met the needs of the USN.

The second CX-84 traveled to the United States in December 1972 for a tripartite land test program involving the USN, the Royal Air Force and the Canadian Armed Forces. Its crash in August 1973 had only a limited impact on this program. Indeed, this aircraft was quickly replaced by the first CX-84. This aircraft performed a few short, vertical takeoffs and landings from the U.S.S. Guadalcanal circa March 1974.

While all these tests were taking place, Canadair landed a development contract for an improved version of the CL-84, bigger, heavier and more powerful, intended for distant early warning, anti-submarine warfare or transport (troops , freight). The aircraft manufacturer's parent company promoted it in the United States. General Dynamics actually anticipated that its Convair Aerospace division would play an important role in a possible production program of this Convair Model 84

The retirement (on 1 July 1974?) of Admiral Elmo Russell "Bud" Zumwalt, Junior, Chief of Naval Operations and main promoter of the SCS within the USN, was a game-changer. Opponents of the project rallied their forces and managed to obtain its abandonment in July 1974, without a single ship having been started. Now with no major potential customers, Canadair phased out the CL-84 in September.
 
Last edited:
If I may, the limited financial resources of the Canadian military which had led to the acquisition of the F-5, in 1965, were further reduced in 1969 when the defence budget was cut, which led to many newly built aircraft going into storage almost immediately after delivery.

In hindsight, one could argue that a Canadian order for the McDonnell Phantom, a rather expensive machine, especially if these aircraft were the even more expensive Rolls-Royce Spey powered version, built by Canadair for the Canadian and British military, a plan mooted in 1964-65, was somewhat unrealistic.
 
Very interesting post.

Busy with the start of production of the Northrop F-5

A very unwanted aircraft procured by pure political ineptitude... http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no3/stouffer-eng.asp

Shame the CL-84 suffered because of that one. CL-215 by contrast proved an extremely successfull and useful flying machine...
Thanks for the link Archibald, I found it very interesting. I knew the Phantom II was the preference of the RCAF, but I never knew that Canada was offered to participate with Britain in developing the Spey-powered Phantom II.

Regards
Pioneer
 
The two cents from Wikipedia:

Canadair had tried to sell the Dynavert to others – Germany, Holland, Italy, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom were all courted, but, in the end, the Canadair CL-84 project died in 1974 for lack of interest, not even in Canada.[11]

Source:
Would the UK have operated the variants off of their carriers, and of which variants? I've seen proposals for Italian assault ships from the time period in the Naval section 0f this website, so would the CL-84 have been operated off of them (assuming they had been built)? Would it have given extra reason for them to build such ship? Which variants were proposed to Italy? Is it known which Scandinavian countries this was offered to? Denmark and Norway are bot NATO members, but would Sweden, owing to the way their airforce operated at this time (from austere locations), have showed any interest.


Wyvern
 
This one was driving me cra cra.... there are so many drawings and there were single side windows, small overheads, large overheads, round corners, square corners, panel lines, no panel lines...de ice boots, no deice, white or plain flight controls........ arghhhhhhhh! Make up your dad gum minds will you! So I settled on this for now. Waiting for replacement MAAD sensor, (it's here some where Mark and undoubtabley will show up when the replacement arrives) and I will call it OK - I think.. maybe........ perhaps it will look better with the white flight controls...............................
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8513.jpg
    IMG_8513.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 174
Would the UK have operated the variants off of their carriers, and of which variants? I've seen proposals for Italian assault ships from the time period in the Naval section 0f this website, so would the CL-84 have been operated off of them (assuming they had been built)? Would it have given extra reason for them to build such ship? Which variants were proposed to Italy? Is it known which Scandinavian countries this was offered to? Denmark and Norway are bot NATO members, but would Sweden, owing to the way their airforce operated at this time (from austere locations), have showed any interest.

Wyvern
I'm just guessing, but Italy and Sweden might both have been interested in an anti-submarine variant with a dipping sonar, had one been offered.
 
There's a very fuzzy photo that gives an idea of the size of the 84-8 variant even if I can't read the dimensions, but does anyone have an idea what the weights (empty, max TO) would be, or what kind of loiter time the ASW and AEW variants might have? I assume there must have been a brochure at some point or other which someone may have seen.
 
A larger version of the CL-84 with four engines, or a totally different version, which has nothing to do with the CL-84?
San Diego Air and Space Museum flickr Archives said:
23_0006545 Convair Negative Image
Piction ID:86235295--Concept art VTOL and LIT 08/19/1968-Please tag these photos so information can be recorded.---- Digitization of this image made possible by a grant from NEH: NEH and the San Diego Air and Space Museum
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRGEop
 
You mean, huge Soviet antiship missiles such as the AS-6 Kingfish ? (of Red Storm rising fame ::) )

Imagine the kind of aces that would have made: five A2A victories... flying an Helicopter against cruise missiles.
I don't think the aviators would have liked that claim, but they did give it to the gal who shot down IIRC 3x RORSATs and 2x bombers...

As to the people on the ships that didn't eat an AS-6? Good backup in the bar fight for claiming "ace" status.
:D "These 300 sailors who are still alive because I shot down five Kingfish say I'm an Ace. Take it up with them, fighterjock."


Would the UK have operated the variants off of their carriers, and of which variants? I've seen proposals for Italian assault ships from the time period in the Naval section 0f this website, so would the CL-84 have been operated off of them (assuming they had been built)? Would it have given extra reason for them to build such ship? Which variants were proposed to Italy? Is it known which Scandinavian countries this was offered to? Denmark and Norway are bot NATO members, but would Sweden, owing to the way their airforce operated at this time (from austere locations), have showed any interest.


Wyvern
I expect that the UK would have operated the AEW version for sure, and maybe the ASW (debatable, but if the AEW versions got cheaper because of the larger hull buy including ASWs I think it'd happen).

Italy and Spain both operate small carriers/LPHs, which could use an AEW and assault cargo version.

France might get sold on the AEW instead of Hawkeyes, depends on the deal they're offered.

Sweden might be interested in ASW and assault cargo versions.

I'd expect everyone else to want ASW versions more than cargo haulers, but it's hard to ignore a Super STOL cargo hauler.
 
The aircraft manufacturer's parent company promoted it in the United States. General Dynamics actually anticipated that its Convair Aerospace division would play an important role in a possible production program of this Convair Model 84

Now that's interesting. I mean - I do know that Canadair was part of GD just like Convair. But how could they exchange aircraft designs across the border ? How complicated was it for Convair to take a Canadair design and propose it to the US military ? What kind of obstacles would they face ?
The CL-84 having a breakthrough in the USA via the Canadair - Convair connection ( = GD) is a rather interesting idea...
 
Back
Top Bottom