Long torturous story… the CF-105 was cancelled by the govenment in 1959. General concensus in air-defence circles was it was the age of the missile and so Canada ended up with the BOMARC air defence missile (I’m not going to entertain any of the conspiracy theories). Eventually we ended up with the CF-104 which ended up fulfilling our tactical (including nuclear) strike and reconnaisance role in NATO. Air defence at home was eventually filled with the CF-101 Voodoo along side the venerable CF-100 Canuck both of which soldiered on into the 80s when finally replaced by the Hornet. Hornet officially replaced the CF-101, CF-104 and CF-116 (F-5). By that point the CF-100 was flying in more of a combat support role as an electronic warfare airframe (as well as our last Voodoo.
The last time I was at the Canada Aviation Museum, (before the new hangar and layout) hiding along the south wall were stacked the outer wing panels of one of the CF-105s. That nose is from the only completed Mk2 – RL206 (which never flew). There are a few other pieces on display, now including the only intact Iroquois engine. Also on display previously had been some solid metal aerodynamic models.
The Toronto Aerospace Museum http://www.torontoaerospacemuseum.com/ at Downsview has a full-scale replica of the Arrow in their collection.
Great Arrow reading… ‘Storms of Controversy’, Palmiro Campagna ISBN 0-7737-5861-5
Great Arrow reference (a MUST have)… ‘Arrow’, Boston Mills Press, ISBN 1-55046-0471
Canada Aviation Museum (Arrow)
http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/collections/artifacts/aircraft/AvroCanadaCF-105Arrow.shtml
James
I thought this was going to happen, but last week I received a letter from IAC Public Relations stating ‘they have no plans to reform an aerobatic team with PC-9s in the foreseeable future’ 🙁
A shame really, while I can see the present day argument over expending airframe life and overall costs, an air force’s aerobatic or display team is more than a few ‘jocks’ showing off. The milage that any nation’s military gets out of such team is almost immeasurable. As a public relations tool, these teams elevate the stature of the nation’s forces, increasing their appeal for career oriented youth and generally helping tug at the heart strings (and wallets) of John and Jane taxpayer.
Our own Snowbirds tour North America every year in 40 year-old jets and without a support aircraft in tow. Even now the debate still goes on… “new jets for the Snowbirds”… with the Tutor completely out of service (except for the 16 – I believe – for the Snowbirds). Meanwhile NATO flight training in Canada has a fleet of Hawks and Harvard IIs – but those are privately leased. The aircrew who make up the flying team come from diverse operational roles within the Canadian Forces – from Tactical Helicopter, through Shipboard Helicopter, Fighters, trainers, Transport and Maritime Patrol.
Oh I could go on and on…
oh yes!! not much opportunity to see that much over here
Just a wild guess here – but judging by the doped fabric in photo one… she’s got the six-gun wing… my money’s on her being an old CCF-built Hurri… there were a handful that went as surplus in the Canadian Prairies… one or two could have eventually made their way south in the post-war years
Peter,
Any idea as to how many are in use by the snowbird team at this moment…they must have at least one or two reserve aircraft for the team.
The last I understood, they had kept 16 Tutors dedicated for Snowbirds use when they were finally withdrawn… I did see a couple shots last season with one carrying a ’15’ on the tail. (In 1996 they kept 12 airworthy – 9 plus 3 for coordinators)
Nice shots Canuck, I live an hour from the CAM and haven’t been through since 2003. Its great to see what they’ve done to the place. Just curious about that CF-100 – was that the one previously painted as the Prototype? Last word I had (from inside) was that another CF-100 was to be mounted outside the entrance. That aircraft had been sitting on the north side of the building in pieces – it may have been the one formerly plinth-mounted at ex-CFB Uplands.
Its the same stuff – only industrial grade (large crystals I believe)… its then sprayed with a gun (like sand blasting) only you don’t need all the heavy protective gear)
http://www.socleanblasting.com/automotive.html
http://www.universalminerals.com/
These are just a couple examples (no client plugs here)
In a lot of cases, these dry blasting or soda blasting companies have portable equipment which can be brought to your location for larger and/or permanent objects.
WOW! I want to live there instead
Peter,
A much better alternative to sandblasting – perfect for almost all your purposes – Soda blasting. One of my clients uses it for masonry and fine stone work restoration… it can also be used on products as thin as soda cans (removing only the printed image…. and its environmentally friendly (its basically baking soda) simply washes away (but dont wash your paint chips away).
James
K-8
From what I’ve been reading/finding…
JL-8 Chinese domestic
K-8 export
K-8E Egyptian licence-production
K-8TDA Chinese research with fly-by-wire
Deliveries (orders)
PR China – 30
Pakistan – 8 (74)
Egypt – 80 – Licence production K-8E
Morocco – 20
Myanmar – 12
Sri Lanka – 6
Zambia – 8
Namibia – 4
Zimbabwe – 6
Kenya – ??
Plus a few pics
People’s Liberation Army Air Force, Pakistan, Zambia, Myanmar, Egypt (training), Egypt (Silver Eagles aerobatic team), Sri Lanka
2 that ‘crossed the pond’ back in the 80s (flew right over my house – what a site) One to Kermit Weeks, the other to USAF museum. I think the USAF museum example is still airworthy, just not flown.
Didn’t the RAAF get one of the Luftwaffe’s A300 tankers?? (converted at the same time as the Can Force ones I think)
and just cuz he asked… for djnik… top and bottom of the Yugoslav Sabre team
Website update: 4 Hawks added
Coming soon: L-39s, more Meteors
And also here’s a sample of the Finalized print layout. After toying with a few ideas, I’ve settled on this. Patches/emblems can be added as requested.
mmmm, verrrry nice indeed
I remember a Luftwaffe Tu154 crashing, but I thought it was another one (they only had 2 I believe) and the one that crashed had red trim. (again if memory serves me correctly)
Only the Tu-95? If so, why?
All Soviet aircraft we built like that… call it wishful thinking or forward planning – in the eventuality of conflict with the West, any quickly over-run/occupied territory and hence equipent could be used to service the Soviet aircraft… Fuel, Oxygen, tow-bars etc
Apologies for the off-topic pics – they’re just to illustrate…
Russian Il-76, Ottawa 1990… Canadian Forces cart – hiding under wing (although they did bring their own tow-bars for the MiGs)
Ukraine MiG-29, Trenton 1992…. Canadian Forces cart