Talk:Orenda Iroquois

Fair use rationale for Image:Orendalogo.jpg

Image:Orendalogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed installation on the F-105 Thunderchief

Apparently before Canada picked the F-104 for its commitment to NATO strike capabilities, there was a contest held for the role and among the choices was the F-105 Thunderchief partnered with the Iroquois engine. The timeframe was in the mid-late 50s, just before the Phantom came online, and the engine wasn't in the rubbish bin yet. Would've been nice to see something come out of the entire program, but apparently, Canada dropped the choice due to cost -though depending on the timeframe, it could've been Diefenbaker trying to close the back door on Avro and make a clean cancel-away. Could've been a good choice, since the F-105 was a better fit for the role and the F-104 was more dangerous to the pilot than the enemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalbunosky (talk • contribs) 08:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Dalbunosky, the safety and operating issues with F-104 were mostly with the German version, the F-104G, in which the fatalities had not one thing to do with the engine, but were almost all "controlled flight into terrain" - largely due to the postwar Luftwaffe jet pilot base being new and relatively inexperienced and untrained, and the inertial navigational device in the cockpit demanding too much pilot attention from flying the aircraft. Once the Luftwaffe grounded the F-104G fleet, retrained their pilots, and addressed the issues with the inertial nav system, fatalities dropped to the level USAF was seeing both with F-104s and F-105s. Italy's version, the F-104I, flew until the late 1990s with remarkably few fatalities (theirs were the safest F-104s made, and made in Italy). Canada flew the CF-104 with a lower fatality rate than Germany's as well.

As part of NORAD, Canada DID have the high-altitude, high-speed interceptor mission the CF-104 was uniquely suited to (and which the West Germans did not). F-105 Thunderchiefs weren't suited to the high-altitude/high speed intercepts the CF-104 could make, while CF-104s could operate in almost all of the F-105's operational range - just not with as much safety or maneuveability. At the time air defense loomed large (although even then, BOMARC and other air defense missiles were a large part of NORAD's air defense umbrella), addressing Avro Arrow's proposed mission much less expensively and without the need for the scarce and expensive titanium needed for the Orenda Iroquois. loupgarous (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

SFC

The SFC number of 0.85 seemed suspicious to me. This engine had an OPR of 8:1, typical of an engine like the Avon with an SFC of about .93, as compared to a J79 with an OPR of 13 and a SFC of .85. I would assume that improved OPR would result in improved SFC?

So I googled about a bit and found this document of ARDC testing in the US which lists the SFC on page 42, figure 15, as varying only slightly over altitude from about 1.3 to 1.4. Now that seems on the high side. With AB on it varies between 1.6 and 2.2 depending on altitude.

The units are odd though, can someone confirm they are the same as the one used in the table?

In any event, is my smell detector malfunctioning here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)