Here we go again: my own take at a surviving CF-105 Arrow timeline

Free the fuselage for the largest possible missile bay. And they succeeded pretty well in that regard, with a bay larger than a Lancaster or B-29's !
 
Wings carry the aircraft weight, so adding main gear is only adding minor weight increases compared with fusilage main gear.
 
Archibald said:
Free the fuselage for the largest possible missile bay. And they succeeded pretty well in that regard, with a bay larger than a Lancaster or B-29's !
Click to expand...

But why outboard and retracting in?

It looks like they could be inboard and retract outwards and still give the same stability as later aircraft with fuselage mounted main undercarriage.
 
PMN1 said:
Archibald said:
Free the fuselage for the largest possible missile bay. And they succeeded pretty well in that regard, with a bay larger than a Lancaster or B-29's !
Click to expand...

But why outboard and retracting in?

It looks like they could be inboard and retract outwards and still give the same stability as later aircraft with fuselage mounted main undercarriage.
Click to expand...
One idea - outboard allows the wing structure more of role in absorbing landing impact. Inboard would negate most of the wing structure contribution, and require improved landing gear - or reinforcement/shock measures for the fuselage.
 
The Arrow had two minor crashes related to undercarriage collapse, in June and November 1958.
 
starviking said:
PMN1 said:
Archibald said:
Free the fuselage for the largest possible missile bay. And they succeeded pretty well in that regard, with a bay larger than a Lancaster or B-29's !
Click to expand...

But why outboard and retracting in?

It looks like they could be inboard and retract outwards and still give the same stability as later aircraft with fuselage mounted main undercarriage.
Click to expand...
One idea - outboard allows the wing structure more of role in absorbing landing impact. Inboard would negate most of the wing structure contribution, and require improved landing gear - or reinforcement/shock measures for the fuselage.
Click to expand...
Also, the inner portion of the wing tends to be thicker. A glance at the Arrow shows the gear folds into the thickest part of the wing, such as it was. Notice the main gear wheels are tandem, rather than abreast, keeping the landing gear narrower. If the landing gear, narrow as it was, folded into a further outboard portion of the wing, the aerodynamic shape of the wing would have to be modified considerably.
 
An extreme example of outward retracting main landing gear is Republic's F-91 Thunderceptor that had Aroww-ish landing gear retracting into enlarged wing tips. The wing root chord was maybe 2/3 of the tip chord. Republic only built a pair of F-91 prototypes before they decided that it was a dead end for development of swept supersonic wings.
 
Last edited:
Chiming in on the possibility of the Arrow vulturing Phantom sales...

Spain's a no-go, their Phantoms were ex-USAF machines bought on foreign military assistance money. The Mirages are, AFAIK, post-Franco purchases.

Australia is unlikely as well. They've shown a consistent preference for light fighters as their mainstay, and the Arrow, for all its virtues, doesn't have the range to fill the F-111 role.

Israel's tricky on timing grounds. Their first Phantom purchases happened a few years before Foxbats started operating out of Egypt and gave them a scare. And they don't share a border with the USSR.

Iran's probably your best bet, both because they border the USSR and so would be very concerned about the Foxbat, and also because of the Shah's predilection for shiny military gear. I expect the Arrow would appeal greatly to him.
 
Iran's probably your best bet, both because they border the USSR and so would be very concerned about the Foxbat, and also because of the Shah's predilection for shiny military gear. I expect the Arrow would appeal greatly to him.
Click to expand...

Mind you, back in 2007 I did a IRIAF Arrow (using Hobbycrap 1/72 kit) complete with AIM-47 missiles and a Tomcat canopy, and the green-brown livery of their OTL Tomcats, roundels and other markings.

It certainly looked the part.

I then took some pictures of my model and, using my limited MS Paint skills, I spoofed the cover of Tom Cooper & Farzad Bishop "Iranian Tomcats" monography.

Into: "Iranian Arrows in combat".

The backstory is rather straightforward. The Arrow evidently survives Diefenbaker evil grasp, back in 1959.

Then in 1960 one of them is loaned to USAF as a testbed for the canned F-108 radar& missiles: the AN/ASG-18 & AIM-47.
OTL, a B-58 with a big nose (Snoopy) took over the job before YF-12s kicked in.
The Arrow thus get the YF-12 radar and missiles and the story fast-forward to July 1967 and the "Domodedovo meeting panic" where the MiG-23 and MiG-25 send USAF in panic.

Four more years and in 1971 Soviet MiG-25R from Egypt start playing havoc with Iran and Israel Phantoms, and their AIM-7 Sparrows.

Unable to intercept them, both Israel and the Shah go hunting for Tomcats and Eagles they will get not before 1976 at best.

Looking for an interim type, the AIM-47 Arrow is hired as an interim "MiG-25 killer".
Alternately, when McNamara screw the YF-12 in '68, the Arrow is considered along the F-106X as a possible alternative.
 
Archibald said:
I would tell them to protect their own a$$ instead...
Click to expand...

You haven't accessed your Photobucket account in a while. In keeping with our security policies, we are contacting you to let you know that you must access your Photobucket account to keep it in “active” status.

If you take no action, your account will be restricted for your protection.

Their bolding....not mine, surprised they didn't italic and underline it
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom