Derk 265 Posted September 12, 2012 http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/Avro_Arrow_F35_Replacement_207331-1.html .... well, this opens up a completely new discussion I guess....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WACO 2 Posted September 12, 2012 I spend my work days trying to resurrect the Great Lakes 2T-1A-2 Aerobatic Biplane at WACO Classic...we previously brought the WACO YMF-5 back into production....I can tell you this beyond a shadow of doubt, bring a vintage design back into production even with most of the original tooling and drawings can be a monumental task and we just build 2 seat single engine biplanes! So bring the CF-105 back into production with all of its tooling and drawings gone and given the complexity means it would be decades of work to come up with a plane with 60 yr old design problems like materials, avionics/weapons growth, engines, hydraulics, etc. not to mention the low-observability issue. In short, no one should have taken this idea seriously and no one SHOULD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
B52STRATO 215 Posted September 12, 2012 Had a similar case not occurred at the time of the Apache testing, some calling the relaunch of the Cheyenne program ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WACO 2 Posted September 12, 2012 Had a similar case not occurred at the time of the Apache testing, some calling the relaunch of the Cheyenne program ? I believe it did, but the bigger points with the Arrow resurrection is how much time has passed and that so much of the Arrow program was destroyed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derk 265 Posted September 12, 2012 There was a discussion about relaunching old designs a long time ago over here and FC said the same. It is like a complete redesingn especially concerning the tools and the production line...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted September 12, 2012 That's just hilarious - all that work to end up with a massive high observable interceptor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WACO 2 Posted September 12, 2012 There was a discussion about relaunching old designs a long time ago over here and FC said the same. It is like a complete redesingn especially concerning the tools and the production line...... Yes in deed. That is why I laugh when people think what we do is easy. Speaking of which, over the summer I was working on re-drawing the Great Lakes' seats, turns out if you follow the dimensions on the drawing the seat comes out wrong! So I had to spend a painfully large amount of time measuring an actual seat from a vintage one, measure the dies and templates for the parts, and fudging the seat model to make it work....OH, one more thing, the seat I measured did not match the templates and dies or drawing and the dies/templates did not match the drawing...nothing matched anything lol, but my re-drawn seats fit beautifully together even though I had to pull the dimensions out of a dark place. In short, dear Lord yes it is a difficult process! But rewarding. Checkout our progress here: http://wacoclassic.blogspot.com/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted September 13, 2012 That's just hilarious - all that work to end up with a massive high observable interceptor. Yeah, if they choose to build it exactly as it was designed 50 years ago... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted September 13, 2012 Yeah, if they choose to build it exactly as it was designed 50 years ago... And if you don't build it like they designed it 50 years ago, then research and development costs go up...in which case, better to start with a clean sheet aircraft. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ezlead 42 Posted September 13, 2012 It would be a GREAT aircraft! But,like FC says, it would be tremendously cost prohibitive. You would have to retool for the entire aircraft. With new composites,hydraulics,flight controls,computers,etc. it would take 100's of millions maybe billions to just start the project. I'm not a big fan of the F-35,but "Money Talks" when it comes to politicians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gepard 11,357 Posted September 13, 2012 Its a joke, isn't it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted September 13, 2012 It might be easier to take another plane and hook up holographic projectors to make it LOOK like a 105. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gunrunner 314 Posted September 14, 2012 Now that's a clever trick to make F-35 acquisition sound like a reasonable proposition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted September 16, 2012 It still ends up with a larger perspective question, what is the best answer for Canadian national needs? In my opinion, the question was badly answered in the era of the CF-105 when Canada took a seat on the sidelines of the world aviation community and hasn't come off the bench yet. So what would be best for Canadian citizens, the academic and research community of Canada, and the national independence of Canada? As it is, they would be better off coming in as new states in the United States and be done with it. Just one old man's opinion.............. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted September 17, 2012 The problem is with modern jets SO expensive to develop let alone buy, how many countries can afford to do it anymore? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
