Xilon_x Posted February 18, 2021 Posted February 18, 2021 during the cold war this plane was really scary. The real reasons for the cancellation of the Arrow program remained shrouded in mystery until September 1976, when Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko defected with his powerful Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 fighter and landed in Japan. After the disappearance of the Arrow, the MiG-25 was in fact the only interceptor in the world capable of flying at speeds of over Mach 2. Western military experts examined the deserter's MiG-25 and found striking similarities to the Avro Arrow (prior to the MiG-25 by a few years), both in terms of performance and dimensions and technical solutions, such as the use of titanium. It then emerged that in the distant 1959 the Canadian Police had discovered that the Soviet secret service KGB had infiltrated the Arrow program with its agents and had obtained first-hand technical information: for this reason Canada decided the immediate destruction of all specimens without explanation. of the new supersonic fighter and the dismantling of production lines, before the KGB could steal more information.
Evoman Posted February 22, 2021 Posted February 22, 2021 A simple search turned up this other thread on this very same aircraft that was last updated not too long ago. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/191856-cf-105-avro-quotarrowquot/?tab=comments#comment-191907
Rudel_chw Posted February 22, 2021 Posted February 22, 2021 I have no interest in seeing prototype, experimental or fictional aircrafts in DCS, would surely not purchase them. 4 For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia RTX2080 - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB
statrekmike Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 As a sort of legend in aircraft enthusiast community circles, the Arrow's popularity makes it a inevitable request for DCS wishlists. Heck, I would love it if we lived in a timeline where enough data could be gathered to make a worthwhile Arrow sim. Sadly. We don't live in that timeline. There simply isn't enough left of the Arrow as a overall project to make a convincing, worthwhile DCS module that would match the standards set by existing modules already. There are so many aspects to DCS module development that are simply impossible because there are no examples of the aircraft, not enough SME's who can meaningfully chime in, and not enough operational data to even begin. It sucks. I really love the Arrow but it isn't something we will see in DCS for a lot of reasons. 3
Evoman Posted February 26, 2021 Posted February 26, 2021 55 minutes ago, statrekmike said: As a sort of legend in aircraft enthusiast community circles, the Arrow's popularity makes it a inevitable request for DCS wishlists. Heck, I would love it if we lived in a timeline where enough data could be gathered to make a worthwhile Arrow sim. Sadly. We don't live in that timeline. There simply isn't enough left of the Arrow as a overall project to make a convincing, worthwhile DCS module that would match the standards set by existing modules already. There are so many aspects to DCS module development that are simply impossible because there are no examples of the aircraft, not enough SME's who can meaningfully chime in, and not enough operational data to even begin. It sucks. I really love the Arrow but it isn't something we will see in DCS for a lot of reasons. Glad to see that there are more people that truly understand the requirements and complexities to realistically bring an aircraft simulation to DCS level quality. I would also add as an example the development of the P-47. There was a big challenge to do it due to the lack of data that was available for the P-47. "Following the war, all wind tunnel and needed flight dynamics data was destroyed. To overcome this, ED used Flow Vision to recreate the needed data. This has proven a long and expensive endeavor. However, to create the detailed flight dynamics that DCS requires, we consider it mandatory."
jianning Posted April 18, 2021 Posted April 18, 2021 (edited) I understand that it takes enough authentic data to recreate a fighter jet in DCS. Yet I still think it worthwhile to introduce CF-105 into DCS for the following reason: The meaning/merit of DCS. Even though DCS stands for Digital Combat Simulator, however, in my opinion, DCS is also a Digital Combat plane muSeum. In DCS, those legendary fighter jets or propeller aircrafts are not sunk into the past old aviation history, but revive as fully functional alive flying planes. The F-14 Tomcat is not just static cold metal pieces in museums, but can still serve in the DCS army, achieving the dreams of tens of thousands of people to become the Top Gun. For those propeller aircrafts, no matter it is I-16, or Mustang, or Spitfire, or FW-190, etc. Those legendary 80 years old fighters are not just for some demonstration flights in some air show, but really open the door for everyone to become an ACE pilot. Therefore, DCS is a digital museum in which those aviation relics are not relics anymore, but are lively creatures recording and making people experience by themselves the miracle and legendary flybirds and campaigns in human aviation history. Thus, no matter it is a WWII aircraft or a jet aircraft, no matter it is a 1st generation fighter or 3rd generation fighter, the core spirit, delicacy and craftness in the design of the aircrafts are preserved in DCS, and I personally think those points are equally important or could be more important than the aim of depicting and restoring real authentic airplanes for combat. Thus, even though some sub systems of the CF-105 Arrow are not fully developed before its cancellation (for example, its intended weapon system of its radar and the AIM-7B active radar homing air to air missiles were not developed before its cancellation), I think it is still OK to revive CF-105 Arrow without some of the non-critical systems (like the radar and the missiles). Indeed, only for flying this big bird at nearly Mach 2.5 with afterburner on in the nearly 70000 feet dark blue sky with the 1950s' technologies is already astonishing and tempting to many many fly-sim fans. Or I think maybe it is even OK for ED to just develop an official module of CF-105 based on the as available data as possible. This official module may not have full completed functions, yet it enables community members to develop fully functional community CF-105 modules based on it. After all, since it is OK to develop community modules of F-22, Su-57, Rafale, Su-35, etc. in DCS which are far from being authentic, then it should also be OK to provide DCS players with the opportunity to develop community-level CF-105. Or I think ED (or some community players) may just use some reasonable alternatives, like the Hughes' MA-1 fire control system and AIM-4 missiles from F-106 Delta Dart or the AIM-7C/D/E semi-active radar homing missiles (who must have enough correct data to model) from F-4 Phantom II in the early 1960s to replace the AIM-7B to fill in the combat part of the legendary interceptor, and set up and put it in a sub-series of DCS modules called Fantasy DCS module series which is specially for realizing (still based on as authentic as possible data) some of the legendary but cancelled projects, like Mikoyan's Ye-152, Ye-8, BA-349 in WWII, Convair's F2Y, Israel Lavi, Northrop's F-20 Tigershark, A-9 attacker, etc. Those cancelled planes should not be forgotten, they deserve respect and memory. And DCS is such a great platform to recreate them, since it is really meaningful to build a digital memorial museum that lively records, preserves and revives those legendary aircrafts in the long aviation history. Therefore, I think there are lots of reasons to develop CF-105 in DCS world without violating ED's principle of using authentic data. Edited April 19, 2021 by jianning
Recommended Posts