Author Topic: There Never Was an Arrow  (Read 1953 times)

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
There Never Was an Arrow
« on: August 12, 2025, 08:09:28 AM »
1950s - There Never Was an Arrow (Part 1)

In Nov 1952, the RCAF brass issued OR 1/1-63 - an Operational Requirement for a new 'Supersonic All-Weather Interceptor Aircraft' to replace the Avro Canada CF-100 in its NORAD roles. The winning design for this competition was Avro Canada's C.105/1200 concept - an extremely advanced delta-winged fighter submitted on 04 Jan 1953. Three months later, the RCAF issued Specification AIR 7-3 for 'Design Studies of Prototype Supersonic, All-weather, Interceptor Aircraft'. Once refinements were made, Specification AIR 7-4 was anticipated for the procurement of Avro Canada's delta-winged design. But that was not to be.

Under Louis St. Laurent, another Liberal majority had been won in the 1953 federal election. Once again, Progressive Conservative leader George Drew had been defeated - but, this time, with a reduced majority. In 1954 St. Laurent's prized St. Lawrence Seaway was completed. But the Trans-Canada Pipeline was proving more divisive. The Canadian political landscape was also changing. US oil interests were lobbying hard to oppose St. Laurent's favour pipeline route entirely through Canadian territory. To fund this more expensive route, government loans would be required. Such loans would open the GoC up to criticism by the opposition Progressive Conservative Party. And the PCP was turning into a more aggressive opposition as it began to look certain that a sickly George Drew would be replaced by the younger John Diefenbaker.

With the Liberal Party of Canada slipping further in the polls, 'Uncle Louis' decided to cut GoC spending to fund more of the Trans-Canada Pipeline without requiring politically-sensitive loans. Unwilling to cut defence spending for NATO, the axe fell on DND plans to procure a 'Supersonic, All-weather, Interceptor Aircraft' for NORAD. In Sept 1953, DND was informed that the GoC found RCAF Specification AIR 7-3 to be extravagant and funding would not be forthcoming for that aircraft. Instead, DND was directed to find a more cost-effective means of defending Canadian airspace.

New Plans

Responding quickly, Avro Canada dusted off the plans for its C.103 - a modest swept-winged development of the old CF-100. Compared with the now-cancelled C.105/1200, the C.103 had shorter range and only transonic performance. But Avro Canada believed that these limitations could be overcome if C.103 interceptors were based in Canada's North instead of along the 49th Parallel. Intercept distances would be reduced as would transit times, in theory eliminating the need for Mach 2 performance. But the proposed C.103 would be faster than the straight-winged CF-100 series.

Beyond swept flying surfaces the C.103 differed from the Canucks in replacing the CF-100 Mk4's Orenda 9 powerplant with the more powerful Orenda TR.9 Waconda turbojet. The TR.9 produced an additional 2,500 lbf dry compared with the Orenda 9 but the Waconda generated a further 3,000 lbs thrust in reheat. With this extra power available, C.103 top speeds of Mach 1.2 were expected at altitude. As a further boost for take-off and climb, the C.103 was equipped to accept a British ASSn.1 Snarler rocket motor capable of producing a further 2,000 lbs of thrust.

Avro Canada C.103 - The Evolution of the 'Super Clunk'

Although the C.103 was not the aircraft desired by DND - even in its updated form - RCAF Specification AIR 12-1 was quickly draughted in August 1953. Costing approximately one-third that of AIR-7-3, this was quickly approved for the creation of a prototype aircraft to be followed by a pre-production batch to AIR 12-3. The latter specification was to introduce any changes dictated by the initial test programme. Those changes were to mainly consist of a dramatic increase in armament which had a secondary effect upon the main undercarriage.

The prototype C.103 (confidently marked as a 'CF-103') retained much of its donor CF-100 Mk4 airframe. That included the long, stalky main undercarriage. However, it was clear that increased armament would also mean greater weight. When the RCAF included GAR-1 Falcon missiles in that armament mix, the Advanced Projects Team at Malton had to choose between multiple wing pylons or dedicated armaments pods. Inspired by the US Northrop F-89 Scorpion (with which the CF-100 and C.103 shared a Hughes MA-2 FCS), the added armament was placed in integrated wing pods.

The new wing pods held both unguided 70 mm anti-aircraft rockets as well as GAR-1 missiles retracted into tailored bays. The opportunity was taken to incorporate a new and much stronger main undercarriage into the centre of those pods. To the rear was carried additional fuel. Fuel carriage was also increased in the rationalised inner wings where single tanks could now be placed (without needing to accommodate the retracted main gear).

These result was a chunky interceptor combining the CF-100's original, ventral gun pack flanked by rocket and missile pods under each wing. This trio of armament points prompted the aircraft's popular name - the CF-103 Trident.

Third Time Lucky - the CF-103 into Service

The first true production contract for what became the CF-103 long-range interceptor was modified from a previously existing order for the now-cancelled high-altitude CF-100 Mk5. These differed from the pre-production types mainly in abandoning fittings for the Snarler boost rocket motor (now deemed surplus to requirements).

In RCAF service, the long-range CF-103s would primarily be based at Forward Operating Locations in the Canadian North. However, detachments of CF-103s would also be dispatched to RCAF Station Keflavik on Iceland to fulfil Canada's commitment to NATO in trying to close the GIUK Gap. No CF-103s were deployed to France (or later West Germany) however. There, CF-100s soldiered on before the surviving 'Clunks' were repurposed as heavy attack aircraft.

The limitations of the CF-103 were well-known long before the Tridents ever became operational. The CF-103s were big, fairly unwieldy, slow for their era, and not especially long-ranged. But they reached RCAF squadron service precisely when they were needed. Their comparative lack of range had also forced the RCAF to take northern basing for interceptors seriously for the first time. Thus, the CF-103 Trident fleet formed the first line of aerial defence in Canada's north. Plans were in the works for a missile defence of Canadian cities (and military bases) in the south. But an interim manned aircraft would also be needed.

[To be continued ...]

_______________________________________
« Last Edit: August 12, 2025, 08:16:34 AM by apophenia »
15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2025, 08:10:15 AM »
1950s - There Never Was an Arrow (Part 2)

The Avro Canada CF-103 may have been somthing of a disappointment to pilots but it served well as an interim long-range interceptor. RCAF pilots, by contrast, loved the Canadair Sabre. Despite this, the Sabre had come under a sustained attack from Progressive Conservative defence critic, MGen (Ret'd) George Pearkes. The Sabre was a pilot's aircraft and played a vital role with the RCAF in Europe. But Pearkes judged this smaller fighter as being essentially useless for the defence of Canada and in fufilling the RCAF's NORAD role. Opinion was clearly divided but Pearkes - as one of 99 Canadians to be awarded the Victoria Cross - held sway. Other than as an RCAF Auxilliary type, the Canadair Sabre's day were numbered.

To critics, the replacement for the Sabre in protecting the populated areas of southern Canada must be an interceptor missile. For NORAD integration, the obvious candidate was the US IM-99B Bomarc but that missile's nuclear warhead came with political problems. As a result, conventionally-armed British alternatives were also examined - including the EE Thunderbird, Bristol Bloodhound, and Blue Envoy. The latter made the most favourable impression on DND but this longer-ranged missile was cancelled in 1957. As a result, DND pressed on with Bomarc while also looking for interim manned interceptor solutions.

Canadair was quick to propose a solution to the RCAF's shorter-ranged interceptor requirement. Through its sister firm, Canadair became aware that advanced Convair F-106A Delta Dart interceptors would soon be eclipsing the older F-102A Delta Dagger fighters in USAF service. A plan was submitted whereby ex-USAF F-102As would be refurbished by Convair (following US sales rules) before being kitted out with any RCAF-specific equipment by Canadair. Negotiations were begun to ensure access to these interceptors at times and prices agreeable to both parties. Once properly re-equipped, the RCAF would collect its 'new' CF-102C Daggers from Cartierville.

Top: A Convair/Canadair CF-102C Dagger interceptor of No. 441 Squadron. This CF-102C is in the standard natural metal scheme but has large day-glo orange panels applied for 441 detachments which deployed to RCAF Station Frobisher Bay on occasion. The chequerboard markings surrounding the nose and on the tip of the tail are for No. 441 Squadron.

The Convair fighter was equipped with the same GAR-1 Falcon missiles which armed the CF-103s. [1] That commonality seemed to be an advantage although these Hughes missiles were proving somewhat troublesome in RCAF service. However, at the time, the unreliability of the Falcon missile was a strictly held secret within the service. In any case, these Convair fighters were available and fully compatible with NORAD systems. And the purchase agreement terms also gave credit for ex-RCAF Sabres being provided as aid to allies under the US Military Assistance Program.

Interim Solutions and Improving the Breed

As noted, USAF NORAD squadrons were re-equipping with more advanced F-106A Delta Dart interceptors. Begun as F-102Bs - derivatives of the Delta Dagger - so many changes and improvements were introduced that a new designation and name were warranted. Like the F-102A, the F-106A operated in conjunction with the SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) network linked via the Hughes MA-1 fire-control system. [2] Convair would build 277 x F-106As and 63 x F-106B 2-seaters before production in San Diego ended in late 1960. The sales team at Canadair sensed another opportunity.

In 1961, Canadair made an offer through its common parent firm, General Dynamics, to procure all F-106 tooling from Convair. The US government approved this plan with the proviso that - under the new Canada-U.S. Defence Production Sharing Agreement - Canadair would take over responsibility for producing any F-106 airframe spares required by the USAF. With the deal cinched, tooling was shipped from San Diego to the Port de Montréal for the short road or barge trips to Canadair's Cartierville plant on the north shore of the Île de Montréal.

Canadair had already taken delivery of a sample airframe - ex-USAF Convair YF-106A (56-0452). After some flight trials (by both Canadair and RCAF test pilots), this aircraft's Pratt & Whitney YJ75-P-1 turbojet was removed. This engine was then replaced by a Rolls-Royce RB.80 Conway RCo.11R low-bypass turbofan. [3] The Conway was to be built under license by Orenda - this turbofan having already been chosen to power the Avro Canada C.108 - a proposed replacement for the CF-103 Trident. [4] The Conway was slightly smaller and lighter than the US J75 which simplified installation of the alternative engine.

Armament was also to differ from USAF F-106As. American aircraft were armed with later variants of the GAR-3 Falcon missile and AIR-2 Genie rocket. However, disappointment with the performance of the Falcons and political issues with the nuclear-armed Genie prompted a search for alternatives. [5] Development of the AAM-N-3 Sparrow II missile which was to have armed the C.105 had been ended by Douglas (although Canadair persisted on its own until the C.105 was itself cancelled). However, since then, Raytheon had been working on a semi-active radar-homing derivative - designated AAM-N-6a Sparrow III by the US Navy and AIM-101 by the USAF. As the USAF was Canada's key NORAD partner, that organisation's designation was adopted by the RCAF (as the AIM-101C). [6]

Accepted by the RCAF, the first aircraft delivered were pre-production CF-106C Mk1s. These airframes were composed of Convair-supplied wings and tails combined with Canadair-assembled fuselages. The latter had, of course, been altered to accept the new engine - the Orenda PS.21 Ojibwe which produced 17,500 lbf dry and 24,000 lbf in full reheat. The Canadiar-built fuselages also differed in the arrangement of their bays - now altered to hold (and deploy) six of the chosen Canadair-built AIM-101C Sparrow SARH missiles. After a short run, the CF-106C Mk2 - created entirely from Canadair produced parts began to come down the line at Cartierville. The Mk2s would make up the majority of RCAF deliveries but both types would be upgraded to common CF-106C Mk3 standards by the late 1960s.

Bottom: A Canadair CF-106C Mk1 Dart interceptor which replaced CF-102Cs in No.441 Squadron service. Finish is all-over Aircraft Grey (FS 16473) - which obviated the need for constant polishing of unpainted surfaces. The assignment of '849' to No.441 is made obvious by its chequerboard tail band, unit crest on the fin, and a '441 shield' on the nose. (NB: this image is based on a USAF F-106A profile by Michel DeBarre.)

Although a product of the 1950s, the Canadair CF-106C did not enter RCAF squadron service until 1961. As such, the CF-106C falls slightly outside the scope of this essay. The same is true for the CF-106C's future stablemate, the twin-Ojibwe Avro Canada CF-108 Arrow long-range interceptor. So that, as they say, is a story for another day ...

[Fin]

_______________________________________________


[1] These missiles were connected to the F-102A's Hughes MG-3 fire control system, maintaining a corporate connection with the CF-103's MA-1 FCS.

[2] For unknown reasons, the MA-1 designation belonged to a newer replacement fire-control system than the numerically higher, but older Hughes MA-2 FCS which it replaced. No idea why why.

[3] This somewhat mirrors the development of the F-102. The Convair Model 8-80 leading to the YF-102 was powered by a Westinghouse J40-WE-8 but this was due to be replaced by a license-built Bristol Olympus - the Wright J67. (Although, in the end, the F-102A received a domestic P&W J57 turbojet.)

[4] In the UK, Orenda's PS.21 Ojibwe was known as the Rolls-Royce Conway RCo.11 Mk.103RC. The PS.21 Ojibwe produced slightly less power than the proposed PS.13 Iroquois but Orenda management had now concluded that the turbofan was the future - for both military and civilian aircraft.

[5] Two British AAMs were examined as potential replacements for the fault-prone US missiles - the de Havilland Firestreak and the pending Hawker Siddeley Red Top. Both featured powerful IR sensors and were specifically designed to counter Soviet bombers. However, after cancelling Blue Vesta, there was no sign of a SARH seeker in the offing soon for either British type.

[6]  Ironically, within the year, the US designation was changed to a uniform AIM-7 (AIM-7D being the direct US equivalent to the Canadair-made AIM-101C).
« Last Edit: August 12, 2025, 08:28:50 AM by apophenia »
15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"

Offline The Rat

  • Certified polystyrene indignities inflicter
  • Need a divorce so that I can marry my airbrush
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2025, 10:16:18 AM »
Well done!  ;)
"Man, if you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know!" - Louis Armstrong, when asked "What is jazz?

YouTube channel, The Simple Skeptic:
https://www.youtube.com/@thesimpleskeptic5240/videos

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2025, 02:37:49 AM »
 :smiley:
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2025, 02:38:55 AM »
That weapons bay is going to be tight with 6 AIM-7s.  Would these be clipped winged versions?

I also like the idea of an early version of the IR guided RIM/AIM-7R variant so as to give the IR/SARH combo...but that's probably another story.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2025, 02:43:06 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2025, 03:37:43 AM »
Thanks folks. Writing out the CF-105 is near-blasphemy in these parts ... but there's something about that ugly mutt C.103 that appealed to me  ;)

That weapons bay is going to be tight with 6 AIM-7s.  Would these be clipped winged versions?

Agreed. The Sparrows are skinny but spanny (should be word if it isn't one!). Even staggered, the length should be a problem. One thought that I had was more compact, shorter-expansion trapezes with ejectors built in. Since the original bay was deep enough to contain the tubby Genie, I reckoned that it would accommodate the AIM-7 fins. Such are the perils of guesstimating sizes!

I also like the idea of an early version of the IR guided RIM/AIM-7R variant so as to give the IR/SARH combo...but that's probably another story.

Yes, the IR/SARH combo is very appealing. Makes you wonder how difficult it would be to shave some size off of the Red Top seeker?

But, as you say, "that's probably another story" ... perhaps for the CF-108 Arrow when we have a 'Sexy 60s' GB?
15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2025, 04:12:50 AM »
I recall reading some article on-line several (ok, many) years ago that included illustrations and images of proposed weapons load out for the CF-105 that incorporated the AIM-7 Sparrow into the CF-105 in a staggered fashion and in a "+" position to the fuselage.  The bottom fin protruded from the weapons bay doors via an opening for each of the "offending" fins.  Not sure how that would have worked if it had been implemented but it was an interesting solution to the available space issue within the CF-105 weapons bay. 
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

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: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2025, 06:23:35 AM »
I like this topic.

Same vein from a few years ago ....

https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5632.msg93811#msg93811
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 GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2025, 01:09:19 AM »
Real world fuel for this scenario:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2025, 03:09:41 AM »
Thanks Jeff. AFAIK, there was not much if any size difference between the Sparrow IIs for the CF-105 and the more useful Sparrow IIIs

... Same vein from a few years ago ....

https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5632.msg93811#msg93811

Yes, I remember that beauty Carl! The CF-101 decals look great on the Convair. I considered the lightning stripes ... and now I'm kinda wishing I'd gone that route.

Real world fuel for this scenario:

Whoa! That is spooky  :o  I had no idea that the Conway - let alone the RCo.11 specifically - had been considered for the F-106!

Reality can be very disrespectful of whiffery at times! Its either that or I'm nowhere near as clever as I think I am ... but I'm leaning strongly in favour of my first proposition.  ;)
15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"

Offline Dr. YoKai

  • Was in High School when mastadons roamed the plains...
  • A notorious curmudgeon who is partial to...hemp!
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2025, 07:19:56 AM »
Reality a large part of the reason I became attracted to whiffery in the first place. My takes tend to be a bit less plausible.  ;)
The profiles and the backstory are both top notch. I wouldn't mind seeing what the swept wing planform for the CF-103 would have been.

Offline kim margosein

  • Can only think of the world's largest ramen cup
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2025, 10:31:26 AM »
Here's an idea=  I know you don't have a "universe" as such, but you have done a few Canadian built Supermarines.  Instead of buying American, how about a Supermarine 576 or 577?   They were sort of "thin wing" Scimitars.

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2025, 11:21:13 AM »
That's astoundingly believable!
Now were there only a kit of the Trident.

Alvis

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2025, 01:46:27 AM »
I was thinking more about the idea of fitting Sparrows to the F-106.  Perhaps one way to do this would be to adopt the Evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM) approach of replacing the standard wings with long fins (see below).  This would help reduce the size.  I think a major redesign of the weapons bay would still be needed but this would go a long way towards making it doable.



I wouldn't bother with the missile diameter increase, just the wing change.

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2025, 10:18:16 AM »
Reality a large part of the reason I became attracted to whiffery in the first place. My takes tend to be a bit less plausible.  ;) ...

Doc: I really try to achieve implausibility but, instead, end up reinventing the RW.  :P

... I wouldn't mind seeing what the swept wing planform for the CF-103 would have been.

The Wiki page on the RW CF-103 has a photo of the mockup viewed from above. It gives a sense of the planform (as well as its relatively thick profile).

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-103
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CF_103_Mockup.jpg

Attached are some small sketch views of Avro Canada fighter concepts with swept wings. The top trio are in the C100/TR9 through C103/TR9 sequence. As you can see, there is quite alot of variation in profiles. Taht becomes even more extreme in the lower trio - C104s and a very early C105 concept.


15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2025, 10:40:52 AM »
Here's an idea=  I know you don't have a "universe" as such, but you have done a few Canadian built Supermarines...

Maybe you're thinking of the British Columbia-made Scimitar's from Litvyak's AltBC universe"

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg21920;topicseen#msg21920

...  Instead of buying American, how about a Supermarine 576 or 577?   They were sort of "thin wing" Scimitars.

Kim: The buying American bit is partly Canada's traditional sop to DC (which is now fading fast!). One advantage of Buy US, back in the day, was their kit's built-in compatibility with SAGE, NORAD comms, etc. Were it not for that, any supersonic Scimitar development would be dead sexy  :-*
15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2025, 10:48:16 AM »
That's astoundingly believable!
Now were there only a kit of the Trident.

Cheers, Alvis!  There are already some seriously esoteric subjects being done in resin or 3D printed. So, never say never   ;)

Actually, I'm thinking the best way of prompting a Trident kit would be to embark upon a major mod/scratch-building project. Would you be willing to take one for the team?

I'm thinking start with a Hobbycraft CF-100 fuselage, add some flattened F-4 wings. You probably won't have to worry about the tailplane. By the end of the week, somebody in the Czech Republic will be announcing their new 3D print  Trident kit   ;D
15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2025, 10:51:46 AM »
I was thinking more about the idea of fitting Sparrows to the F-106.  Perhaps one way to do this would be to adopt the Evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM) approach of replacing the standard wings with long fins (see below).  This would help reduce the size.  I think a major redesign of the weapons bay would still be needed but this would go a long way towards making it doable...

I wouldn't bother with the missile diameter increase, just the wing change.

That's brilliant, Greg! Even with those strake/fins, the missiles' diameters would be much reduced (compared to the Falcons). As for the weapons bay, well, these things are always going to be so much easier in the imagination than in real life  :o
15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"

Offline Alvis 3.1

  • Self acknowledged "Bad Influence"…but probably less attractive than Pink
  • The high priest of whiffing
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2025, 12:47:59 PM »
That's astoundingly believable!
Now were there only a kit of the Trident.

Cheers, Alvis!  There are already some seriously esoteric subjects being done in resin or 3D printed. So, never say never   ;)

Actually, I'm thinking the best way of prompting a Trident kit would be to embark upon a major mod/scratch-building project. Would you be willing to take one for the team?

I'm thinking start with a Hobbycraft CF-100 fuselage, add some flattened F-4 wings. You probably won't have to worry about the tailplane. By the end of the week, somebody in the Czech Republic will be announcing their new 3D print  Trident kit   ;D


Like many many many many many ideas, the C-103 has percolated near the mid range. And I do have several CF-100s. Then again, I made the VTOL version 35 years ago and got as far as camo paint, and never completed it. Where is it? Oh, it's *somewhere* in a box, unlikely to be found this year.
Sigh

Alvis

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2025, 04:58:47 AM »
Like many many many many many ideas, the C-103 has percolated near the mid range. And I do have several CF-100s. Then again, I made the VTOL version 35 years ago and got as far as camo paint, and never completed it. Where is it? Oh, it's *somewhere* in a box, unlikely to be found this year.
Sigh

Alvis

Oooo ... I do like that VTOL CF-100 concept with its 'eyelid' diverters - shades of Avro Canada's VTOL Visual Fighter (to US Navy spec TS-140)!  :smiley:
15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"

Offline kim margosein

  • Can only think of the world's largest ramen cup
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2025, 12:17:03 PM »
Apophenia, didn't you also do a Canadian Attacker?

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2025, 04:19:14 AM »
Apophenia, didn't you also do a Canadian Attacker?

Not that I recall, Kim. I have done some variations on the Attacker ... but all Royal Navy IIRC.

I did do an RN Attacker with Me 262-inspired modestly-swept wings
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg196493#msg196493

And there was tricycle-gear Attacker (based on a mention by KiwiZac
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg109719#msg109719

15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"

Offline kim margosein

  • Can only think of the world's largest ramen cup
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2025, 11:12:22 AM »
Damn I vaguely remember some Canadian re-engined Attacker.  I got into a discussion on fuselage length and c/g.  I dunno, maybe Litvak, maybe a fever dream.  Thanks for rummaging through your entries.  I enjoy your work although I sweat a bit on your Supermarine what ifs.  They are too plausible to be whiffy.

Offline kim margosein

  • Can only think of the world's largest ramen cup
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2025, 11:22:24 AM »
D'oh!  It was right there in Apophenia's Offerings p.119.   For some reason I thought it was RCN.   My fault.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: There Never Was an Arrow
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2025, 04:12:38 AM »
... I sweat a bit on your Supermarine what ifs.  They are too plausible to be whiffy.

Thanks Kim. In future, I shall endeavour to up my whifitude ratio  :smiley:
15 Aug 2025: "We are now half-stupid! Soon we shall be completely stupid!"