Author Topic: Avro CF-100 Variants  (Read 651 times)

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Avro CF-100 Variants
« on: July 18, 2018, 11:31:47 PM »
This is a subject I had started to build. I'd built a Mk.4B and thought I would make the other variants. I was lucky when someone on The Airfix Tribute Forum was selling another Mk.4 and a Mk.5 because I was having trouble finding them on the internet.

First off I started to convert the Mk.4 back into a Mk.3, and I found CanMilAir does a couple of sheets for the Mk.3. I found a side view drawing of the different variants, and scaled the drawing to match the Mk.4 kit. To my amazement after I did that, I found all the panel lines matched. Now whether the drawing is highly accurate is not what I'm worried about, I'm just converting the Mk.4 back into the Mk.3 using it. Next was to find out what the Mk.3 wing tips looked like (because they originally didn't have the wing tanks)

Top pic shows the drawing I found on the internet. Second pic is of a drawing I found which shows the Mk.3 wing tips
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 04:06:41 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2018, 11:36:14 PM »
The Mk.3 is progressing quite well, there's a lot of cutting and shortening, but not everything is shortened the same amount, the fuselage has to shortened the most, but the engine nacelles not nearly the same amount. Then the intakes have to be reprofiled.

In this pic you can see the difference between the Mk.3 engine pod and the Mk.4 one. The fuselage gets reduced in length by the amount of the RP bay which is behind the gun bay. But you still have to move the canopy running rail differently to what is moved on the lower side.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 04:07:26 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2018, 11:51:47 PM »
I started the Mk.5 build at the same time with the plan to build OOB. The plan quickly collapsed ----

While I was building my Twin Fury I was looking for P-51H type wings and as I was building the CF-100 Mk.3 around the same time I notice the outline of the Mk.3 wing looked very familiar. It has the same outline as the P-51H, actually it's more a scaled up F-82 outer wing.

So while laying the P-51H and F-82 wings over the Mk.4 wing, one of them sort of ended up near the wing tip ---- and then I thought "whoa!" that would work for an extended wing. I had an abandoned Beechnut P-51H in the spares box (it's undersized for 1/72, more like 1/75) so after thinning the wings from it to get it down to the CF-100 thickness, I found that the outline kept getting smaller as I thinned the chord thickness. Which worked out for what I wanted to do, because it meant I could move the P-51H wing further out towards the wing tip, making the wing even more extended.

The next part was what to use for a recce nose, and couldn't find what I thought I had in the spares box. But there sitting on my work bench shelf was this recce pannier from a TSR2 conversion. Then an idea started to seed itself into my mind.

To get the pannier to fit under the fuselage meant I had to move the main gear bays further out, which would be very difficult to do because the undercarriage doesn't fit in the wing, they are all under the engine pods and fuselage. So I thought I would just move the engine pods further out, but then had another thought, I'll re-engine it with high bypass turbofans at the same time.

The Mk.5 is a good choice to do an high altitude recce bird, the tail plane is quite a bit wider than the tail planes on the other versions.

Then after I had made my fuselage changes --- I found the recce nose I knew I had. It's from an RF-101C which I've converted back into an F-101A. So I thought 'what the heck! I'll stick that on too'  >:D

So these pics show where I'm at with this one.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 12:08:06 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2018, 11:52:44 PM »
This is a pic of the three together

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2018, 12:15:47 AM »
I'm not going to put wing tip tanks on the recce bird, I'll put them on pylons which are closer to the fuselage. Like this Mk.5D below. Only I'll have two pylons under each wing. I've found some photos of the CF-100 that was trialed for ground attack, it had four pylons for carrying bombs. The drop tanks will go on the inner pylons, and the outer ones will carry jamming pods like in the photo here. You can see the type I'm going to use in the bottom pic in reply #3
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 12:22:14 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2018, 01:57:24 AM »
I've found some photos of the CF-100 that was trialed for ground attack,
I like the idea of a more dedicated ground attack CF-100.
Stronger wings with the capability of taking TERs with 3x 1000 lb Mk 83 Snakeye bombs or, late in life, a laser designator pod on one pylon and GBUs  on the outer pylons.

Replace the outdated MX radar and guidance system with a smaller target radar, an IRST ball and maybe, later a LLTV or laser designator under the nose. Replace the MGs in the under-fuselage pod with a semi-recessed M-61 Vulcan or a couple of 20mm or 30mm cannon.

Retain the tip tanks or substitute them for Sidewinders for self defence.

That's not a horrible medium strike aircraft for the later 50s through mid 70s period.

Quote
and the outer ones will carry jamming pods like in the photo here.
Technically, these aren't "jamming" pods. they are chaff pods that dispense packets of precut chaff to blind intercept radars.

A jamming pod would have at least a couple of dielectric panels for the radiating and receiving antennas and, if not using airframe power (if it was a powerful pod) probably a small turbine in front to provide power through a RAM generator.

For photo recce, a chaff pod is a perfectly good fit, though.

Actually, this gives me the alternate idea of a Clunk Wild Weasel with a couple of high powered jamming and receiving pods and a couple of Shrikes/HARMs under the wings. That'd be kinda cool.

Paul

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2018, 02:18:53 AM »
For some reason, the trials for the ground attack showed that the CF-100 wasn't up to it.

The pylons though look like early AD-1 pylons
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 02:21:44 AM by kitnut617 »

Offline pigflyer

  • If reality is real, give me whatif. Really?
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2018, 03:24:23 AM »
Cool looking work. And of course as a what if, you can't get it wrong.  Great idea.
If I don't plan it, it can't go wrong!

If it's great, I did it. If it's naff, I found it.

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2018, 03:47:38 AM »
These are awesome Robert. At some I will provide an update on my Mk.6 build.
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2018, 04:13:35 AM »
Cheers guys ---

The nose on the Mk.3 comes from an F-15  -----   slightly re-profiled   ;)

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2018, 05:27:02 AM »
For some reason, the trials for the ground attack showed that the CF-100 wasn't up to it.
The wing structure was never rated for high loads or for a lot of aerobatics. It really was supposed to fly an intercept course for a slow bomber and blast it with guns or rockets. No real manoeuverability or high G loading required.

Strike fighter bombing usually involved a level of diving and pulling out that the CF-100 was never designed for.

Paul

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2018, 07:22:55 AM »
For some reason, the trials for the ground attack showed that the CF-100 wasn't up to it.
The wing structure was never rated for high loads or for a lot of aerobatics. It really was supposed to fly an intercept course for a slow bomber and blast it with guns or rockets. No real manoeuverability or high G loading required.

Strike fighter bombing usually involved a level of diving and pulling out that the CF-100 was never designed for.

Paul

I think they should've given it another try when they built the Mk.5. That's because the wing was strengthened. The Hobbycraft kits actually have different wing structures/panel lines between their Mk.4 and the Mk.5 kits

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2018, 04:28:10 AM »
I think they should've given it another try when they built the Mk.5. That's because the wing was strengthened. The Hobbycraft kits actually have different wing structures/panel lines between their Mk.4 and the Mk.5 kits
Yeah, it was strengthened, but still not to the point where the repeated load cycles and low level aerobatics would not have caused serious fatigue issues early in its career.

Not to say that they could not have done so, but there was no need seen. The CF-100 was a dedicated subsonic interceptor and was supposed to be anything else. Modifications during production were to enhance its interceptor role, not change roles. This was the cold war. Wars of the future were going to short and nuclear, ground attack/CAS/conventional strike was not something that was envisioned on the "Nuclear Battlefield of the Future (tm)".

10 years later Vietnam and the various Arab Israeli wars showed that low level hell was still a relevant proposition, but by then the CF-100 was outdated and Canadian budgets were being slashed.

Still, a strengthened CF-100 with afterburning Orendas, or non-afterburning JT-3s (J52), some armour plate and an M-61 in the weapons bay, could have been very potent as it's low level handling was considered excellent and the straight wing would have provided ample space for weapons pylons and additional fuel tankage to extend loiter. The second crewman could be deleted from a straight up attack version with further increases in fuel tankage.

Coulda been a contenda'!

Paul

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2018, 09:25:09 AM »
Well, for night/bad weather operations, I could see the second crewman being very useful, particularly if suitable sensor fit was made.

Offline Brian da Basher

  • He has an unnatural attraction to Spats...and a growing fascination with airships!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hulk smash, Brian bash
Re: Avro CF-100 Variants
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2018, 01:00:53 AM »
This is some fascinating stuff and you've got some very well-thought out ideas, Robert!

Will watch with interest as I've got a swept-wing Clunk planned inspired by the CF-103.

Brian da Basher