Talk:CF-105 Arrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article CF-105 Arrow was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 22, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Up to 21 August 2007


This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Contents

[edit] 50th anniversary

YAY! The Arrow is 50. Celebrate,dude. 209.121.8.96 13:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The whole "most advanced fighter" claim

I have softened the sentence in the opening paragrapg about the Arrow being "the most advanced of all" fighters at the time. Specs don't bear that out, the design is derivative of Delta models, and so on. It's fine to claim, and the quote supports, that "some" have this opinion, but putting a blanket statement that implies everyone believes the traditional Canadian viewpoint of it being a quantum leap over current fighters doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.84.2 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of personal beliefs of "Canadian bolsterism," the use of weasel words is discouraged especially when a direct quote is involved from a UK contemporary and current aviation historian and writer, Bill Gunston. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC) .
I'd still prefer to remove this sort of thing entirely. Advanced, yes, but "most" implies something else entirely and is difficult to demonstrate in light of designs like the F-103. I'd really like to see this replaced by a direct in-era quote -- something like the one in the Mossy article would do it justice! Maury (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point, the original history of why this edit was put in place along with the quote stems from an attack by OpusC who had flavoured the lead in a wholly different direction. Check the revision. Bzuk (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC).

I don't know what a "weasel word" is, or what part of my edit you felt constituted one, but a quote from one proponent is hardly enough to make the claim. It's a big stretch from "one author claimed" to "most believe". Unless you're on talk radio, which we aren't. I'm fine with the line removed entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.69 (talk • contribs)

Then read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, and be enlightened. - BillCJ (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To make sure we're talking about the same thing, you're considering the addition of "by some" to be weasely? If it helps, I meant "by some" to be a limitation in quantity (ie: not everyone thinks it) rather than implying that those that constituted the "some" were wrong. If that makes sense... In other words, I was trying to make an extraordinary claim less extraordinary, not imply it was wrong. If that's weasely, then either I'm a weasel or you misunderstood the intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.69 (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I didn't write it, I can only assume what BZuk meant. As "weasel word" is usually defined, it means you can't just say "some" believe whatever. You have to cite sources that say WHO believes something. Your intentions appear good, but the use of "by some" is not recommended, because it doesn't say who thinks this. On Wikipedia, that is considered a "weasel word" because it doesn't specify who said something. It's like when kids tell their parents they have to do/buy/whatever becuase "they" do it. The wise parent immediately asks "Well who are they?" Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. Now that I'm learning the lingo, I apparently tried to soften a peacock statement with a weasel word! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.69 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the article has been revisited and revised, thanks for your contributions. Bzuk (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC) FWIW, maybe time to get a userid and join the "gang."
The current claim of "fastest military jet of its time" might want to be compared with English Electric Lightning#Performance - the Lightning went into service in 1959, and AIUI all but the first prototypes had pretty similar top speeds of around Mach 2.2-2.3. FlagSteward (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting/editing the posts of others

70.73.172.15, please do not remove or redact the posts of others. This is a talk page, not an article, and so is not subject to OR or NPOV concerns. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nominee

At the top of this page it says: "CF-105 Arrow was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. "

Does anyone know where the "suggestions" are?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Happened to CF-206

Many people believe that one Arrow escaped the scrap yard and flew to an unknown destination. Many people swear to seeing or hearing the plane fly somewhere. I believe this and I hope that it stays a legend of canada.

I removed the above paragraph from the article because this legend of one missing Arrow is already covered in the "Aftermath" section. I'm putting the paragraph on Talk page so it is available for discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really need discussion - what was added is just unverifiable commentary that doesn't belong in the text. All you need to do next time is delete it, and leave an explanation in the edit summary like you did this time. As you said, it is covered elsewhere in the text, and properly. - BillCJ (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In any event, there was no such aircraft as 'CF-206'. Presumably, RL-206 was what was actually meant. As 206 wasn't flyable at the time of the cancellation, there isn't any doubt about what happened to it.--Voodude (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
...and the actual story that involved its demise is now traced to the "death row" reprieve that allowed portions of the aircraft to be salvaged, first for use in an aeromedical centre and later to be stored at CFB Trenton before being transported to Ottawa to first reside at the Canada Science And Technology Museum and later as part of the collection of the Canada Aviation Museum. FWIW, don't forget that Toronto will be hosting the "Golden Arrow Dinner" on March 28, 2008 at the TAM. Bzuk (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] specs

Moved these hidden notes from main article. They may get missed there. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Specs do not aggree with production values of RL-201 through RL-205 or RCAF specs for all weather fighter interceptor. I suggest checking with Arrow Recovery web site to obtain specs from plans and tender. 6 Aircraft were completed only 5 flew, RL-206 was due for flight 1 week after cancellation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.217.14 (talk • contribs)

NOTE ------ Incorrect plane specs indicated on website. --------------

http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/AvroArrowSpecs.html Shows the true specs of the arrow Mk1 as tested up to 90% power of the J-75 engines and the ceilings as flown in test flights recalled from the flight test logs of the arrow pilots. ALL of the arrow specs on the above sight come from actual test flight data as recorded on the ground and in the air. The data used in american books comes from the modified statistics released from U.S. concerns to convince Pearkes and Deifenbaker the plane was not up to the DND flight spec; which the Arrow surpassed with the J-75 Engine and would exceed by approximately 25% as estimated from the flight tests of the Iroquois' test on the B-47 and in test rigs on ground. The flight tests of the B-47 never used full power as the plane could not survive max thrust of the jet engine and barely handled the 50% power tests it did complete. MAX speed as tested in the J-75 engine was Mach 1.98 and on the Iroquois would have been Mach 2.2 to 2.6 as the engine was 5,000 lbs lighter with slightly more thrust available with and without afterburners.

I strongly suggest you either add a caveate that the data used is not as proven from actual flight testing data or edit the data to show the proven stats for the arrow as tested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.217.14 (talk • contribs)

  • Specs don't have to be "proven" by flight tests to be listed. They may not be able to or need to verify all of them in testing. The only major difference I see is the service ceiling (53K ft here vs. 58.5K/75K ft on web page). The weights listed in the article now a little different than Avro page too. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an aeronautical engineer (interpret the following in this light), but it is my understanding that the speed limitation for an design like the CF-105 would have been more due to engine inlet configuration and airframe heating than available power from the engines. The Arrow was designed mostly with aluminum, and without the kind of variable inlet ramps that would really be needed on a Mach 2 design. (The Arrow was originally intended to be a Mach 1.5 design, hence the inlet configuration). The Arrow 1 did demonstrate Mach 1.98 performance, and this was probably pushing the limits of the airframe. Note that the information in Page et. al. (Avro Canada internal information, as far as I know) cites Mach 2.0 as the maximum speed of the Arrow 2, and even discussed an later model with the necessary upgrades (fully variable inlet ramps, use of titanium/stainless steel, etc) to create Mach 2.5 performance. A much more hypothetical Mach 3 version is also referred to -- this would have been a much more significant redesign, likely verging on an entirely new aircraft.
If I had to guess, I would figure that the Arrow 2 would have been capable of Mach 2.2 - 2.3 in a dash, and would probably have had an in-service maximum speed of Mach 2.0. I suspect that the main advantage of the Iroquois powered Arrow vs. the J-75 version would have been faster climb and better manouverabily, rather than higher maximum speed.--Voodude (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Different image

I was trying to find the main image of this article on airforce.forces.gc.ca since the link listed is dead. I came across this one: CF-105 Arrow Mk.1, on its first flight, 1958 (side view) Somebody might want to upload and do the fair use rationale stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is an example of a publisher's fanciful idea of a cover. It is an airbrushed, altered image of an earlier aircraft, resplendent in the wrong markings. I met the artist who concocted this image for the publisher and it was used in the book, Arrow by Boston Mills Press; it has now entered the realm of fiction better than fact. Please read the note accompanying it: "RL-201 on its first flight", while the aircraft clearly shows RL-205 markings. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC).