Talk:Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

message: This is not the first time this has hapend, a proposal was put forth in 2010 and was later rejected. Further, the intro seems an inapropreate place for this information. If it truley is of relevance a seperate section would seem warranted. 70.75.81.177 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved down to variants, as nobody (AFIK) was suggesting building an exact copy of the 1950's fighter. Hcobb (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avro Arrow supporters lobbying for consideration 

message: According to this seemingly credible author, the famed RL-206 nose cone was not smuggled out of Avro, as the page currently suggest, but deliberately moved in order to perform pressurization testing. He refers to two letters, one suggesting it was smuggled, but another from Pearkes granting them use of the nose section. Does anyone have additional information or sources? I'm inclined to believe that Pearkes trumps in this case, and the article should be updated. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not smuggled? 

message: This reference source is one of the truly invaluable tertiary sources that deal with the inner workings of the Avro Canada company especially at the time of the cancellation of the Avro Arrow. The original but revised bibliographic notation in the article indicated: 
:Smye, Fred. Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow. Oakville, Ontario: Randy Smye (self-published at CreateSpace: Amazon paperback (122 pp.) and Kindle ebook), August 2014. ISBN-10: 1500545996. ISBN-13: 9781500545994. 
::Fred Smye, did write this book as an "insider's view" and it was published in small numbers for just the senior staff, friends and family. Fred's son, Randy, made a copy available to the National Archives, I believe, so that notice of the book was recognized. Randy is a retired academic and had reserves about the use of a "self-publishsd" source, so he arbitrarily removed all the original self-published copies and instead created an E-book that was recently published via Amazon as a Kindle version. There must be a case for retaining a valuable resource, and I await a further discussion on this topic before any final determination is made about the use of material from Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow''

message: Mach 1.5 cruising speed
Can anyone source this exact statement from the original source? I don't have Dow and I can't find any statement like this anywhere else. Other sources state Mach 1.5 as the operational speed, not the cruising speed, and there is a world of difference between those statements. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruising speed claim

message: ===Operators===
;
* Royal Canadian Air Force – Arrow was cancelled before entering service.
The RCAF was never an operator. With the XB-70 and A-12 Avenger II, the USAF or US Navy are rightfully not listed as operators. In fact, there is no such section.
I believe the Canadian government paid for 5 prototypes but there were operated by Avro.
Possible improvements in the accuracy of this article could be:
--Operators-- (section deleted)
===Operators===
None
===Operators===
None
*  The Royal Canadian Air Force was an intended user but did not order the aircraft
===Proposed Operator===
;
* Royal Canadian Air Force
===Operators===
Avro Canada (prototypes)
These are 5 possibilities that are more accurate than the current version. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operators 

message: Avro Canada (prototypes)
These are 5 possibilities that are more accurate than the current version. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Operators

message: There are many Arrow books that talk about the much lower thrust of the J75 engine compared to the Iroquois. This appears to trace its way to a mistake made in one popular book, which listed the thrust of the J57, the J75's smaller sibling (I found the exact mention once, but that was almost two decades ago).
This article currently states the J75-P-3 used in the Mk.1 was 12,500 lbf. The Pratt & Whitney J75 article states this same engine produces 16,500 lbf. One might compare that to the early models of the Pratt & Whitney J57, which produced ~11,500 lbf. One might also note the obvious problem that the thrust in AB, 23,500, is far more than the 50% one normally achieves, whereas it is more in line with an engine of the ~16,500 range.
There are many reliable sources that state the thrust of the J75 was in the 16,000 to 18,000 lbf range, including the Smithsonian, which has a relatively complete collection. Here for instance is the P-2 model, which has 17,000, while this source mentions the replacement of the F-105's P-5 with the improved but otherwise similar P-19 of 16,200.
We need to pick a single good reference and fix this.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The error is appears to be from The Great Book of Fighters, which lists 12,500 lbf dry and 18,000 w/a-b, not that its the only source with that error. The Engines of Pratt & Whitney: A Technical History  lists the figures for several models of the J75/JT4D, including the -P-3. I don't have it in front of me at the moment, but the dry thrust is 15,500 lbf. (I forget what the afterburner thrust was, but it's within a 1,000 lbf of 23,500.) I can add it when I'm back where the book is later tonight, but I'd like to see if others have a better source on the whole aircraft's specs. - BilCat (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Most excellent. I think we should put a note on the figure for future readers, noting this common discrepancy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  J75 thrust 

message: "This resulted in a lack of control feel; because the control stick input was not mechanically connected to 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 triggered actuators in the stick, making it move slightly;" this system, called "artificial feel"
I strongly suspect this description is not technically correct or at least misleading. The stick does not require dedicated actuators to move it specifically. The flight controls operate as analog fbw in normal mode, and has a mechanical backup mode akin to many other pre-fbw-aircraft, the latter will incorporate mechanical feedback linkages at the control surface pcu´s. In the normal, fbw-mode, the feedback linkages are most likely mechanically locked (to control surface movement, to be precise). This will mean that the stick will be forced to move according to control surface movement since it is still mecanically slaved to them by the locked feedback linkages. So: stick signals fbw-system -> fbw-system moves control surfaces -> stick mechanically follows control surface movement. This would make more sense with pictures honestly. Artificial feel will then be effected simply by the fact that the electronic flight control system senses the forces on the stick and only provides the corresponding movement, no more, no less. No more artifical feel device will be neccesary in this mode since it is by definition provided by the force-respone scheduling of the fbw-system. Such devices will be neccesary in the mechanical backup mode however, and may be provided by simple spring bungees or the like. 
I believe i have read descriptions to this effect, but i thought i´d just put it up here for the time being if anyone thinks it is warranted to delve deeper into the matter. 90.224.29.203 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight control design concept features, possibly misleading paragraphs?