Canadair CL-29, CL-31 and CL-33 ASW proposals

[frank]

Some years ago, I read, I think an article regarding the Canadair Argus maybe, that before it was decided to use the CL-44/Britannia airframe for the Argus, a design described as looking like a fat Lancaster powered by R-3350s, was considered. Sounds to me like it could look like a Shackleton powered by R-3350s, but has anyone seen any other info on this design. I think a CL # was mentioned as well, but I don't recall it.

 

[Apophenia]

Frank: that "fat Lancaster" was the CL-33 of 1953 for the RCAF's Lancaster 10MP replacement contest.

Canadair first submitted the CL-29, a stretched and re-engined North Star (with R-3350-85s, Hercules 763s, or Centaurus 661s). Both that CL-29 proposal and a Super Constellation derivative submitted by Lockheed were rejected.

The RCAF's favoured concept was a Bristol proposal to adapt the Type 175 Britannia. Other than minor concerns (like sufficient aileron control for low flying), the RCAF's major concern was the relatively-high operating costs of any Britannia derivative.

In 1953, Canadair produced the CL-33 as "a minimum cost alternative" to the Britannia-based maritime patrol aircraft. To be powered by 3,500 hp R-3350-32W (34FS) turbo-compounds, the CL-33 was to have weighed about 9,000 lbs less than the Britannia derivative.

'Canadair: the first 50 years' (Pickler/Milberry, CANAV).

 

[Stargazer]

If I'm not mistaken, this model represents the Canadair CL-33 project:

 

[hesham]

If I'm not mistaken, this model represents the Canadair CL-33 project:

Maybe,and you can send the whole caption.

 

[Stargazer]

Maybe,and you can send the whole caption.

Coming to think of it, it may be too close to the Britannia to be the CL-33. It could also be the CL-31 or the CL-32.

 

[Apophenia]

Coming to think of it, it may be too close to the Britannia to be the CL-33. It could also be the CL-31 or the CL-32.

I've seen this (somewhere?) listed as an early iteration of the CL-28 design.

I love the raised canopy! It really celebrates Canadair's connection to Convair (via General Dynamics ownership).

 

[Croatian Sailor]

A question- why didn't they continue with development of Argus, so instead of buying Orions, Argus II? ( besides money ) Better engines, avionics etc.

 

[Apophenia]

A question- why didn't they continue with development of Argus, so instead of buying Orions, Argus II? ( besides money ) Better engines, avionics etc.

It depends upon who you mean by "they".

If you mean Canadair, over the years, the firm had made various MPA proposals but none of them were taken up. By the time the Long-Range Patrol Aircraft (LRPA) competition began, the CL-28 Argus was a 20 year old design (based on an even older Britannia airframe). Meanwhile, the CL-44 (and Yukon) programme had shown that Canadair was quite capable of returning to the turboprop Britannia format - and improving upon it. But that had all happened a decade and a half before LRPA.

In the meantime, the Argus airframe had aged out in a number of ways. At a technical level, it was obsolescing - even in its turboprop CL-44 form (hence the March 1971 Yukon retirement). At a purely practical level, by the mid-'70s, the sheer size of the Argus airframe was no longer necessary to carry the desired MPA load - sensors had been miniaturised, crew sizes reduced, etc.

If "they" are the Government of Canada, procurement policy had already been skewed to ensure that Canadair would 'win' the LRPA competition regardless of which airframe was chosen. Hence the 1974 Canadair designations CL-280 and CL-281 (for the Boeing LRPA and Lockheed LRPA submissions, respectively). Thus Canadair had no incentive to embark on a redesign of an outdated airframe. Nor did the firm have the resources to do so. Owners General Dynamics had by then reduced Canadair into primarily being a components maker. So, components and offsets would be Cartierville's LRPA role - not production.

In any case, by 1975, Canadair had gone all-in on a bizjet design based on the LearStar 600. But, with General Dynamics refusing funds, the project that became the CL-600 Challenger could only be launched with the financial backing of the Canadian government. Within the year, Ottawa was forced to renationalise Canadair in order to save the Cartierville firm.

If "they" refers to DND or the Canadian Armed Forces, a new and shinier 'toy' will always be more alluring. History shows that those 'better avionics' were the Achilles' Heel of the LRPA. The Canadian government was sold on the Orion for its reduced development risk (compared with Boeing's unproven jet LRPA submission) only to then have DND replace virtually all of the P-3 sensors and avionics. The result was cost-overruns (LRPA having been underbudgeted already) and a loss of efficiency in future upgrades had sensor/avionics commonality with the global P-3C fleet been maintained.

 

[Croatian Sailor]

It depends upon who you mean by "they".

If you mean Canadair, over the years, the firm had made various MPA proposals but none of them were taken up. By the time the Long-Range Patrol Aircraft (LRPA) competition began, the CL-28 Argus was a 20 year old design (based on an even older Britannia airframe). Meanwhile, the CL-44 (and Yukon) programme had shown that Canadair was quite capable of returning to the turboprop Britannia format - and improving upon it. But that had all happened a decade and a half before LRPA.

In the meantime, the Argus airframe had aged out in a number of ways. At a technical level, it was obsolescing - even in its turboprop CL-44 form (hence the March 1971 Yukon retirement). At a purely practical level, by the mid-'70s, the sheer size of the Argus airframe was no longer necessary to carry the desired MPA load - sensors had been miniaturised, crew sizes reduced, etc.

If "they" are the Government of Canada, procurement policy had already been skewed to ensure that Canadair would 'win' the LRPA competition regardless of which airframe was chosen. Hence the 1974 Canadair designations CL-280 and CL-281 (for the Boeing LRPA and Lockheed LRPA submissions, respectively). Thus Canadair had no incentive to embark on a redesign of an outdated airframe. Nor did the firm have the resources to do so. Owners General Dynamics had by then reduced Canadair into primarily being a components maker. So, components and offsets would be Cartierville's LRPA role - not production.

In any case, by 1975, Canadair had gone all-in on a bizjet design based on the LearStar 600. But, with General Dynamics refusing funds, the project that became the CL-600 Challenger could only be launched with the financial backing of the Canadian government. Within the year, Ottawa was forced to renationalise Canadair in order to save the Cartierville firm.

If "they" refers to DND or the Canadian Armed Forces, a new and shinier 'toy' will always be more alluring. History shows that those 'better avionics' were the Achilles' Heel of the LRPA. The Canadian government was sold on the Orion for its reduced development risk (compared with Boeing's unproven jet LRPA submission) only to then have DND replace virtually all of the P-3 sensors and avionics. The result was cost-overruns (LRPA having been underbudgeted already) and a loss of efficiency in future upgrades had sensor/avionics commonality with the global P-3C fleet been maintained.

Yes, I mostly meant on DND and Armed Forces. After all, as you said, Canadian orions has very big differences with the rest, so, why not try to build something of it's own? Yes, I know, it was probably cheaper to just buy Orions then develop whole new airframe and everything...

 

[Apophenia]

Yes, I mostly meant on DND and Armed Forces. After all, as you said, Canadian orions has very big differences with the rest, so, why not try to build something of it's own? Yes, I know, it was probably cheaper to just buy Orions then develop whole new airframe and everything...

Hopefully, I have explained why a new (or revised) MPA design was beyond the capabilities of Canadair in 1974-75.

As for DND and the CAF, they seem incapable of procuring much of anything 'off-the-rack'. Lockheed saw them coming and offered the illusion of economy (in the P-3 airframe) coupled with the temptation to customise (by substituting nearly all of the sensors from Lockheed's S-3 Viking).

So, the already under-estimated LRPA budget was blown by DND 'gold-plating' that resulted in plenty of extra engineering work for Lockheed but not performance gains that warranted the extra expense. Better government oversight might have helped. But procurement officers are often pros at overwhelming non-experts with reams of techno-blather ...
----