Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck

[GTX_Admin]

Hi folks,

A thread for your Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck Ideas and Inspiration.

To start off, what about a carrier based version?

Regards,

Greg

[Weaver]

Carrier-based is good, although it's a bit on the big side for any carrier that Canada operated.

The vision I had was of one operating in support of Canada's contribution to the Vietnam War, with it's radar replaced by a big early EO turret, the 8 x .50cal pack re-instated and Paveway Mk.1s under the wings. Effectively, it would be a small,  Canadian B-57G.

Other things you could do:

RAF version with Avons and ADENs and/or Firestreaks in place of some or all of those Meteor/Venom NFs..... not so much a What If as a Should Have Been.....

Swept wing version: Avro Canada designed a CF-103 that was pretty much that.

Easy Whiff: upgraded version with Falcons and Genies. Maybe it could have the Falcon-plus-rocket tip pods from the late F-89....

[AGRA]

The vision I had was of one operating in support of Canada's contribution to the Vietnam War, with it's radar replaced by a big early EO turret, the 8 x .50cal pack re-instated and Paveway Mk.1s under the wings. Effectively, it would be a small,  Canadian B-57G.

I had similar thoughts for a RAAF night strike Clunk but kept the radar. The first generation EO turret goes in place of the gun pack. On the B-57G the radar and the EO capability were integrated and the radar very important for navigation (finding where you are via terrain referencing) and avoiding flying into hills at night. A conformal nose turret would not be able to see to the rear of the plane severally hampering its ability to drop LGBs. It would have to be for laser guided missiles (AS.30L) only.

The nose optics turret sounds pretty cool but perhaps it could be an option for a high altitude, long range, oblique photography version? Like the Israeli F-4E(S) PEACE JACK Phantom.

[GTX_Admin]

An extended wing, high altitude U2 style PR.100 sounds enticing.

[kitnut617]

I thought I read it on this forum but it's probably on the 'other' one, but someone is going to attach Buccaneer wings, fin and tailplanes onto a Clunk.

[upnorth]

I always felt that with those big wings and rugged construction that the CF-100 would be great in the COIN role.

You could pull the radar out and put a quad of 20 mm or pair of 30 mm cannons in the nose. Redesign the wing with a bunch of hardpoints and load her up with all manner of rockets and bombs.

The freed up space in the nose could also make room for a laser designator.

[Silver Fox]

There's no reason to pull anything to make room for an EO/IR fit, there is more than enough room to fit the equipment into the aft avionics bay. We used to regularly crawl right inside to pull the inverters during maintenance.
 
I'd go with swappable gun packs, 8x50 for hunting VC, 4x20mm when hunting NVA with heavier equipment/armour. A COIN bird needs endurance, so I would stay with the tiptanks... despite the temptation to fit the rocket pods from earlier Marks. It's going to need a good terrain avoidance radar, what donor bird has a radar that fits? I'm not really that up on birds other than the A-6 from that era, nothing comes to mind. Would the A-6 radar fit the Clunk nose?

[jcf]

Real world stuff I've posted in other places.

[Weaver]

Wonder why they chose to put heavy Genies on the wingtips, where firing one would create severe asymetry, when inboard underwing pylons were obviously possible as per the Falcon proposal? Mind you, if firing one Genie flipped you into a hard turn, that might be a good thing.....

Random idea, looking at the big flat area formed by the engines & fuselage: how about an amphibious Clunk (a Glugg?) using a hover-cushion in the manner of the XC-8A Buffalo? Bleed air's probably not enough, so it would have engine-driven blowers in the centre fuseage to maintain the hover cushion, and MiG-29-style defectors in the intakes so that they fed from above rather then the front when it was on the water. No idea what it would be for, but it would certainly look cool.....

[AGRA]

There's no reason to pull anything to make room for an EO/IR fit, there is more than enough room to fit the equipment into the aft avionics bay. We used to regularly crawl right inside to pull the inverters during maintenance.

That’s very interesting but what about the weight? Those early EO fits were huge and required a lot of cooling so to fit such into the aft bay would have made the Clunk tail heavy. Unless you balanced it with cockpit armour! With the radar in the nose, EO turret in the tail you can keep the gun pack. Or even replace it with a gun turret and have a Canuck PAVE GAT.
 

I'd go with swappable gun packs, 8x50 for hunting VC, 4x20mm when hunting NVA with heavier equipment/armour. A COIN bird needs endurance, so I would stay with the tiptanks... despite the temptation to fit the rocket pods from earlier Marks.

I did a rough sizing and weight on the gun pack and you could easily fit a Hunter style 4x30mm Aden gun pack in there with up to 150 rounds per gun. Because of the frag benefit of the 30mm shell this would be more lethal than eight 12.7mm against infantry.

It's going to need a good terrain avoidance radar, what donor bird has a radar that fits? I'm not really that up on birds other than the A-6 from that era, nothing comes to mind. Would the A-6 radar fit the Clunk nose?

Terrain avoidance could be integrated with the legacy dish antenna and not need an extensive change to a system like that on the Intruder which was actually two radars. The target tracking radar on the A-6 also provided ground vertical information for the terrain following function and the search radar horizontal info. The big Hughes MG-2 intercept control computer for the radar could be replaced by a terrain following system if you needed it. But I’m not sure if you would want to fly a Clunk down at 200 feet AGL over hills and valleys. I can’t imagine gust response would be very good with the big wings and big flat fuselage bottom. If you kept it as a medium altitude air to ground aircraft like the B-57G then the terrain mapping feature of the nose radar would be enough to avoid running into hills at night.

[apophenia]

And, of course, there's always the CU-100 drone conversion 
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg7297#msg7297

Didn't someone suggest a Thrust SSC-style Clunk? I can't find that now 

[Daryl J.]

Phoenix missile capable and retractable skis during winter.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

CF-100 with IFR probe.  Where to put it?  Retractable or fixed? 

I know the CF-100 had incredible range as designed and produced.  The IFR equipment might be handy if your CF-100 was carrying a heavy weapons load so a reduced fuel load to allow take off at that weight would allow the CF-100 to fill up after departure. 

[upnorth]

CF-100 with IFR probe.  Where to put it?  Retractable or fixed? 

I know the CF-100 had incredible range as designed and produced.  The IFR equipment might be handy if your CF-100 was carrying a heavy weapons load so a reduced fuel load to allow take off at that weight would allow the CF-100 to fill up after departure.

Given the era and the fact that the Clunk was subsonic, I'd imagine it would have a fixed probe in front of the cockpit in the manner of the Buccaneer or Intruder.

An underwing bolt on type, such as the F-100 and EE Lightning had could also be a possibility.

[elmayerle]

Given the engine locations, I'd reckon that a fixed probe in front of the cockpit would work better from a standpoint of having a stable drogue to connect to.

[The Big Gimper]

I always liked the bent F-100 probe. So I'll use one of those. 

[Gingie]

Some CF-100 pics to add...

Loading Sparrow missile at CFB Cold Lake:



In flight fitted with 4 x Sparrows:


Loading rockets & rocket pods:



Firing unguided rockets:


in flight


Not sure what the story is with this - no radar? Looks like a roll-out scheme?

[Logan Hartke]

Great shots of what I've always felt is a lovely, classic airplane.

Cheers,

Logan

[GTX_Admin]

Great photos indeed. :)

[jcf]

FB D, 18101 in all-black is the original Avon powered CF-100 Mk.1 prototype.

The nose profile was basically the same on the Mk.2 and Mk.3(the first full production variant),
the 'thimble' nose was introduced on the Mk.4.

[Rickshaw]

Interesting picture for several reasons.  The dispersion on the rockets is rather extreme, The left pod seems to have been blown off by the launching of it's rockets while the right one seems to have disappeared (although that just might be the exhaust plumes hiding it).   Obviously those rockets around terribly accurate weapons.

[jcf]

The pods were separated from the aircraft after firing, the photo has caught the port pod in the
process of falling away.

[Gingie]

Looks like the port pod fired first, and the s/b pod is just giving up its last rocket. An area weapon for sure! Were these meant for air-to-air? IE shoot into the middle of a mass Soviet bomber formation a-la Genie missile?

[upnorth]

Were these meant for air-to-air? IE shoot into the middle of a mass Soviet bomber formation a-la Genie missile?

Exactly that.

It was an area saturation weapon designed to be fired into the midst of bomber formations.

[Rickshaw]

Were these meant for air-to-air? IE shoot into the middle of a mass Soviet bomber formation a-la Genie missile?

Exactly that.

It was an area saturation weapon designed to be fired into the midst of bomber formations.

Of course, it was based on the assumption that the Soviets would fly bomber formations.  "Armies always prepare to fight the last war" and the thinking behind that rather proves it.   What was more likely were small formations of 3 or 4 aircraft than mass bomber streams or box formations.

[upnorth]

Were these meant for air-to-air? IE shoot into the middle of a mass Soviet bomber formation a-la Genie missile?

Exactly that.

It was an area saturation weapon designed to be fired into the midst of bomber formations.

Of course, it was based on the assumption that the Soviets would fly bomber formations.  "Armies always prepare to fight the last war" and the thinking behind that rather proves it.   What was more likely were small formations of 3 or 4 aircraft than mass bomber streams or box formations.

True that.

Even before WWII was done, combatants were learning that streams and box formations weren't the best way to fly bombers to their targets and area bombing was wasteful and inaccurate.

Suffice it to say, the development of more accurate bombs able to deliver more bang in fewer numbers and strategies of making smaller bomber formations rather than putting all the eggs into one basket with Box formations and streams should have put paid to ideas like area saturation with unguided rockets.

I do really wonder how the CF-100 would have worked with Firestreak or Red Top missiles and a quad of 20 or 30 mm cannons.

[jcf]

A quad 20mm gunpack was built and ground and air tested using the T160 20mm revolver cannon.
The program started November of 1952 and ended April 22, 1955. There were too many problems
with the T160 so the project was dropped. On one flight it wasn't the issues with the gun construction
that caused problems, during the firing test parts of the engine cowlings came loose and departed the airframe.

Above from Larry Milberry, The Avro CF-100

The T160 was developed into the M39 cannon and is still in use, so I have to wonder if, rather than
the official line Milberry quotes that the problem was the gun, the real problem was in the structure of
the Clunk? Perhaps it simply couldn't take the vibration and pounding of firing a multi-cannon
armament? The Clunk had structural problems right from the beginning, so I wonder if the fixes
were not as complete as claimed? Also they had some serious difficulties in getting the eight .50-cal
gun pack to work properly.

BTW in the book Milberry reproduces sections of a January 1956 Avro document that discusses
why the collision course unguided rocket attack was better than a gun attack. The upshot was
that the rockets could be used for automatic, all-around blind attacks, whereas a guns only blind
attack could only be made from astern where the attacking aircraft was in the most danger from
the bomber's defensive radar and guns. Plus you have the big negative of being in a stern chase.
It also states that the clustered rockets were only a temporary solution while awaiting development
of functional guided missiles.

[Gingie]

not as much dispersion with these rockets...

[The Big Gimper]

What If' CF-100 counter-invader in USAF markings.

Source: Facebook - AVRO Canada CF-100 Canuck Group

[Volkodav]

not as much dispersion with these rockets...

Makes you wonder what, if any, effect the development of guided rockets, for air to ground operations, will have on future air to air applications?

[finsrin]

What If' CF-100 counter-invader in USAF markings.

Source: Facebook - AVRO Canada CF-100 Canuck Group

Soooo nice, never woulda thought of such a build. :)

[The Big Gimper]

CF-100 Egg plane:



Source: AVRO Canada CF-100 Canuck.  Credit Blackheart Art 2011

Lots more at his website.

[kitnut617]

What If' CF-100 counter-invader in USAF markings.

Source: Facebook - AVRO Canada CF-100 Canuck Group

Soooo nice, never woulda thought of such a build. :)

There were tests done for a ground attack CF-100, it had four pylons (two under each inner end of the wing). It was found to be not very good in the roll so wasn't proceeded with.  However, the two inner pylons found their way onto the CF-100 Mk5D Electronic Warfare variant.