Results 1 to 57 of 57

Thread: Avro Arrow found?

  1. #1

    Default Avro Arrow found?

    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  2. #2

    Default

    ^Its not the arrow, its just a model they fired with rockets to test aerodynamics (i.e. what they used to do before we had proper computer power).

  3. #3

    Default

    I'm aware. Would still be a good find as it's part of Canada's aviation history.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,262

    Default

    Wow, just when I thought I'd never have to endure another drunk guy in a bar telling me how "...that SOB killed the greatest plane that was ever made and Canada has been in the crapper ever since!", the story gets a whole new lease on life.

  5. #5

    Default

    C'mon, get real. I don't have to be in a bar.

  6. #6
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    C'mon, get real. I don't have to be in a bar.
    You know, after I posted, I actually thought about changing it to "at a bus stop" to sound even more pathetic.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Wow, just when I thought I'd never have to endure another drunk guy in a bar telling me how "...that SOB killed the greatest plane that was ever made and Canada has been in the crapper ever since!", the story gets a whole new lease on life.
    Yup - the American's built the Arrow, the Convair F106, almost exactly the same performance (single engine instead of two, but terrific reliability aside from lots of people dying in the ejector seat), but a lot cheaper. It was a design dead-end, at most the arrow would have had just a few minutes at the time of interception given its short range- its basically just a plane to shoot down stupidly big bombers.



    The Arrow doesn’t lead the pack. It has good top speed and an acceptable service ceiling, but a thoroughly mediocre radius of action. Radius of action being the distance an aircraft can travel from its base and return, without refueling (this figure also includes a measly five minutes of combat engagement). The Arrow would have been the last to achieve IOC—whereas the very similar Convair F-106 had comparable speed, a slightly higher service ceiling, almost twice the radius of action, was available four years earlier, and was several times cheaper ($2 million per F-106 versus $8-10 million per CF-105.)
    http://taylorempireairways.com/2010/...private-myths/

    In some sense, the Arrow would have been a Foxbat before the Foxbat — a super high-performance interceptor with some glaring flaws as an air superiority fighter.

    Advances in technology could have increased the Arrow’s speed (although not to that of the Foxbat), but the design had many problems common to second- and third-generation fighters. Like the Foxbat (or the F-106), the Arrow could have served in an attack role only with great difficulty.

    Given the sharp turn towards multirole fighter-bombers that would ensue in the 1970s, the Arrow would have likely begun to resemble a white-and-orange elephant.
    https://warisboring.com/the-avro-arr...s-jet-fighter/
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-09-2017 at 02:41 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Oh fer ...

    I need a drink in a bar.

  9. #9

    Default

    ^done my public service for today then

  10. #10

    Default

    Wrong thread title.

    These were aerodynamic scale test models.

    I actually spoke to Jan Żurakowski, the Chief Test Pilot, back in 1987. He had flown many types of aircraft, even after the Arrow's cancellation and he was astounded by the performance of the Arrow. He said it would have been even greater once the Canadian built Iroquois engines installed with 50 percent greater performance.

    He stated that the real reason why the aircraft was canceled was because of American pressure. The aircraft was the first fly by wire fighter with huge development potential and even the engines were suitable in derated version, for civilian airliners.

    It was canceled because the US government told Canada that they would not allow France, England, Italy, Germany or other countries who received American lend-lease money to buy Canadian military equipment. The US also said they would not buy the plane for he same reason as they supported American aircraft production. The tiny market for fighters in Canada would never cover development costs.

    Instead we were offered the useless Bomarc missiles, Cf101 Voodoo' s (remember those) and F-104 start fighters to be built in Canada.

    Canada acquiesced and killed the program.

    And to moahunter, your comparison of the F-106 to the Arrow is utterly silly. The F-106 is a single engine, single seat light weight interceptor more comparison to the CF-104 Starfighter. The Arrow was twice the size, weight and power than the F-106. The Arrow was more a comparison to the F4 Phantom or the F-15 Eagle.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 21-09-2017 at 09:38 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #11

    Default

    Wow

    Yes the Arrow test models are a great find and very important to our aviation heritage

    Yes the Arrow was a very important aircraft of the time both technologically leading and, for an under powered prototype, very high performance.

    Now to dispel some myths.

    The 106 was no where comparable to the Arrow, different aircraft different jobs. Comparing the Mk1 with the J-57 (which and exceptional performance for the day) is also unfair ... try comparing it to the F-102 which was a contemporary, has several redesigns for aerodynamic flaws which eventually led to the F-106.

    The Mk2 Arrow the production version, which would have been a comparable to the F-106 and later aircraft, was a different aircraft. Much higher thrust, improved aerodynamics, increased fuel capacity and much, much higher performance.

    But people really enjoying trying to tear down legends ... what can I say it seems in our modern nature.

    The real loss to Canada was industrial, technological and people. It put the aerospace industry so far back we are just starting to recover.

    Today they are all old airplanes that tell a story of political failure that we seem doomed to continue to repeat over and over. As well it demonstrates a lack of confidence by a country...shame.

    IMO

  12. #12

    Default

    BTW EPRT

    Your comments are on target and accurate, I agree completely.

    You're lucky to have met Jan, amazing pilot/engineer/person.

    Had the same privilege when I was in my teens.

    EPRT, did you know Jan never flew again after the Arrow cancellation? Apparently he was so DISGUSTED walked away from flying.

    Shame

    IMO

  13. #13

    Default

    Yes. He did fly again but only for pleasure.


    FYI, JFU, SMIYHTOB
    When I lived in Brampton in 1985 to 89, my desk came out of the Avro factory with a CF-100 decal on it and three of my long term coworkers had their previous job at Avro.
    One Saturday I was driving by Pearson airport just after a F-15 took off for the airshow and followed by a CF-18 who upped the mark and used half the runway and went ballistic, barrel rolling out of sight.

    I saw all the fence hangers and stopped on the north end of the runway where the Avro plant remains stood. The Concord was on the tarmac. I never liked the design. It took off over our heads and a couple of old guys remarked, that could have been the Arrow with tears welling up...

    Well the Concord was impressive and then did a few fly passes down at the harbor front where the airshow was. It then returned to the airport and we listened to.the air traffic radios several people had and the pilot requested a tower fly past. So it came over the north runway with a slow high angle attack and the nose pivoted down. Real freaky to watch and then picked up the nose and did a huge circle pass around Toronto at the edge of the horizon. It requested a landing and made its final apprpach but I noticed a 737 approaching to land fromy the east just as the tower told the Concord to ABORT THEIR LANDING! The pilot pivoted the nose and hit the afterburner is a terrific show it power as it blasted over our heads. But the pilot was furious as he was running out of fuel and said he had only one chance to land and demanded immediate clearance. He cut a very tight circle just on the edge of the west field and landed on the north runway safely. I bet he blasted the tower after that...

    I wish we had cell phone video back then...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    But people really enjoying trying to tear down legends ... what can I say it seems in our modern nature.
    If Canada had not bailed out Bombardier we would be hearing for the next 50 years from left wingers how the CS would have been the best plane ever as well. Harsh reality is that the Arrow had one design purpose, to quickly intercept, and with the five minutes of fuel it had left remaining, shoot down large slow nuclear bombers. Like other interceptors, they were a design dead end. Multi-role fighters like our CF18's were every bit as capable at that role, but also performed in far more combat environments.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    But people really enjoying trying to tear down legends ... what can I say it seems in our modern nature.
    If Canada had not bailed out Bombardier we would be hearing for the next 50 years from left wingers how the CS would have been the best plane ever as well. Harsh reality is that the Arrow had one design purpose, to quickly intercept, and with the five minutes of fuel it had left remaining, shoot down large slow nuclear bombers. Like other interceptors, they were a design dead end. Multi-role fighters like our CF18's were every bit as capable at that role, but also performed in far more combat environments.
    Hilarious! You can only see left vs right wherever you look.

    The old left-wing defence establishment.

    Also military contractors being “bailed out” is interesting perspective on a production sector who’s only customers are governments. I’d always thought that when it came to any country’s defence sector, “bailing out” was essentially a daily process likely starting long before procurement.
    Last edited by KC; 22-09-2017 at 09:12 AM.

  16. #16

    Default

    ^as a comparative in todays dollars, it would be as if we chose to instead of purchase the Superhornet or F35 for about 100m per plane, built our own plane today for 400-500m. That's a bail out, which the government of the time, and analysis post the time shows re what happened to other interceptor aircraft and how often they have been used, would have been a total waste.

    The Arrow would have been the last to achieve IOC—whereas the very similar Convair F-106 had comparable speed, a slightly higher service ceiling, almost twice the radius of action, was available four years earlier, and was several times cheaper ($2 million per F-106 versus $8-10 million per CF-105.)

  17. #17

    Default

    Blame this left-wing defence establishment conspirators:

    Americans Have Spent Enough Money On A Broken Plane To Buy Every Homeless Person A Mansion – ThinkProgress

    https://thinkprogress.org/americans-...-4ed46f23c29e/

  18. #18

    Default

    ^a 2014 article? Here is the F35 flying over South Korea - it may be in action soon, taking out the SAMs around the missile sites to provide access for the B-1. Doesn't look that broken to me, but heck, even by your logic, if the Americans want to waste billions on developing aircraft, why does that mean we should have done the same?



    The conservatives made the right decision to scrap an expensive plane development (Arrow) that relied on the mythical performance of an expensive titanium based engine that was never completed. They could easily, if they had wanted to, have acquired the equivalent US plane that had better performance, and was proven over its lifecycle to be very reliable. Problem of course, is that type of plane really doesn't have a purpose today, the whole design goal was exclusively to knock out slow Russian bombers, something not one Canadian plane has ever actually done (Canadian planes have performed useful combat duties in other roles though, which the Arrow would never have been capable of, while still being able to intercept those bombers that have never been shot down).

    “The Air Force is preparing to station the F-35As of the 34th Fighter Squadron out of Hill AFB, Utah, in the Pacific region in the coming months,” Kyle Mizokami at Popular Mechanics smartly observes. “Japan will receive 38 of its 42 planned F-35s starting this year, and F-35 deliveries to South Korea will begin next year, as the first South Korean aircraft just hit the Lockheed Martin assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas.”

    ...

    “North Korea can’t take those [F-35] aircraft on in the air,” Bruce Bennett, a Rand Corporation expert on the Pacific theater, told Aviation Week. “They can’t take them on with surface-to-air capabilities, so it pushes them to say, ‘We’ve got to take those aircraft on when they’re on the ground. That drives them to think about the use of missiles and potentially nuclear weapons or other payloads against key airfields to try to neutralize that threat. Both sides have an incentive to go first.”

    Over the next four years, the U.S. military intends to station at least 100 F-35s in the region, according to Popular Mechanics. Maybe the fear of the F-35’s Mach 1.6 power is just enough to make North Korean leader Kim Jong Un shake in his boots.
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...near-you-22140
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-09-2017 at 10:18 AM.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^a 2014 article? Here is the F35 flying over South Korea - it may be in action soon, taking out the SAMs around the missile sites to provide access for the B-1. Doesn't look that broken to me, but heck, even by your logic, if the Americans want to waste billions on developing aircraft, why does that mean we should have done the same?



    The conservatives made the right decision to scrap an expensive plane development (Arrow) that relied on the mythical performance of an expensive titanium based engine that was never completed. They could easily, if they had wanted to, have acquired the equivalent US plane that had better performance, and was proven over its lifecycle to be very reliable. Problem of course, is that type of plane really doesn't have a purpose today, the whole design goal was exclusively to knock out slow Russian bombers, something not one Canadian plane has ever actually done (Canadian planes have performed useful combat duties in other roles though, which the Arrow would never have been capable of, while still being able to intercept those bombers that have never been shot down).

    “The Air Force is preparing to station the F-35As of the 34th Fighter Squadron out of Hill AFB, Utah, in the Pacific region in the coming months,” Kyle Mizokami at Popular Mechanics smartly observes. “Japan will receive 38 of its 42 planned F-35s starting this year, and F-35 deliveries to South Korea will begin next year, as the first South Korean aircraft just hit the Lockheed Martin assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas.”

    ...

    “North Korea can’t take those [F-35] aircraft on in the air,” Bruce Bennett, a Rand Corporation expert on the Pacific theater, told Aviation Week. “They can’t take them on with surface-to-air capabilities, so it pushes them to say, ‘We’ve got to take those aircraft on when they’re on the ground. That drives them to think about the use of missiles and potentially nuclear weapons or other payloads against key airfields to try to neutralize that threat. Both sides have an incentive to go first.”

    Over the next four years, the U.S. military intends to station at least 100 F-35s in the region, according to Popular Mechanics. Maybe the fear of the F-35’s Mach 1.6 power is just enough to make North Korean leader Kim Jong Un shake in his boots.
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...near-you-22140
    Hey, with all the military equipment in use around the world I can’t even understand why we would ever even buy any large mobile capital asset new. The savings could be used to fund a lot of other important needs, military and otherwise. Nonetheless, government spending is always sought out by both those pro-defence people on the right or as you say, left. It comes down to getting money, or business and/or jobs for oneself and ones deemed constituency. Moreover government spending, subsidies and regulations have variously enabled the formation of many, many private sector business and industrial sectors (rail, road and bridge construction, oil sands, shale, semiconductor, much of legal, accounting and even finance ...)

    As for any intimidation factor for North Korea, I think subs, ships and ballistic missles are the deterrents. If anything, within minutes of any escalation the jets might need to be immediately pulled back to save them. They’d then be brought back in as the dust clears and undetected/still operational facilities are identified. The NK leadership at that point would likely be hiding and regrouping, well after the value of intimidation has diminished.
    Last edited by KC; 22-09-2017 at 10:59 AM.

  20. #20

    Default

    Moahunter, you are so full of hot air you don't even need an afterburner.

    Left wing defence establishment conspirators...

    You mean like Eisenhower.

    You are so full of yourself.

    Comparing the F-106 to the CF-105 is not just a difference of one. The F-106 was more comparable to another interceptor, the CF-104 Starfighter. Both inexpensive single seat, single engine, single purpose types. The Starlight error was then used as a strike attack fighter with a 46 percent loss rate.

    The CF-105 Arrow was twice the plane as the F-106 and had a huge development potential. It only had 71 flying hours and the lighter, higher performance Iroquois engines had not even been test flown on the Arrow.

    In Canadian pilot''s hands, it would have been an excellent air superiority fighter. It had a huge weapons bay and with auxiliary on board fuel tanks and/or drop tanks, had greater capabilities than the F-4 Phantom.

    Please keep exposing your ignorance on fighter technology.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Moahunter, you are so full of hot air you don't even need an afterburner.

    Left wing defence establishment conspirators...

    You mean like Eisenhower.

    You are so full of yourself.

    Comparing the F-106 to the CF-105 is not just a difference of one. The F-106 was more comparable to another interceptor, the CF-104 Starfighter. Both inexpensive single seat, single engine, single purpose types. The Starlight error was then used as a strike attack fighter with a 46 percent loss rate.

    The CF-105 Arrow was twice the plane as the F-106 and had a huge development potential. It only had 71 flying hours and the lighter, higher performance Iroquois engines had not even been test flown on the Arrow.

    In Canadian pilot''s hands, it would have been an excellent air superiority fighter. It had a huge weapons bay and with auxiliary on board fuel tanks and/or drop tanks, had greater capabilities than the F-4 Phantom.

    Please keep exposing your ignorance on fighter technology.
    EPRT

    You and I may differ on some opinions but on this you nailed it.

    It is amazingly obvious our friend has never cracked a book on the subject of the Arrow (as most haven't) and is relying on the internet where mis information is often king.

    Our friend could start with Canadian Randall Whitcombe's book "AVRO Aircraft and Cold War Aviation" considered one of the best books on the topic but not available on line. You can buy it on Amazon though.

    I'm lucky enough to have a signed copy, Randall passed away here in Alberta while working on his next book. Real shame as he was just into his 40s.

    Thanks for being bang on target EPRT, saves me having to adding anything to your response.

  22. #22

    Default

    Oh btw

    expensive titanium based engine that was never completed.


    Wrong, completed and tested hitting all targets and weights.

    A version of the Iroquois (along with the AVRO Orenda) have been used in generating stations for decades.

    One of the orignal Iroquois, loaned to Bristol after the closure for testing (take a close look at a Bristol Olympus sometime), is now being overhauled at a company in Fort St. John, may even be on the running stand by now.

    T


  23. #23

    Default

    Avro Arrow fast facts:


    * **First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more).
    First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine.
    First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory.
    First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance.
    First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance.
    First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c.
    First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this.
    First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground.
    First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain.
    First high wing jet fighter that made the entire upper surface a lifting body. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., MiG-29, MiG 25 and others certainly used that idea.
    First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now.
    First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines).
    First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow. The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe.
    Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine.
    Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones).
    Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing.
    Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that.
    Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really)Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role.
    The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.)
    First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that.
    First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components.
    First oxygen-injection re-light system.
    First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design.
    First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine.
    First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine.
    First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition.
    First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!)

    The Avro Arrow was one of Canada's finest aviation achievements, even though it never entered service.
    Credits: www.AvroArrow.org
    Moa, what did the F-106 Delta Dagger accomplish? Other than fix all the problems with the F-102 Delta Dart?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 22-09-2017 at 01:18 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  24. #24

    Default The Avro Arrow Was Canada’s Awesome, Pointless Jet Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Moa, what did the F-106 Delta Dagger accomplish? Other than fix all the problems with the F-102 Delta Dart?
    Like other interceptor jets, basically nothing (other than various pointless performance records), it sat idle most of the time, being an outdated concept (get to big nuclear bombers fast when needed), like the Arrow would have. It was a much cheaper idle though.

    Given the sharp turn towards multirole fighter-bombers that would ensue in the 1970s, the Arrow would have likely begun to resemble a white-and-orange elephant.
    https://warisboring.com/the-avro-arr...s-jet-fighter/

    Last edited by moahunter; 22-09-2017 at 02:35 PM.

  25. #25

    Default

    Another pointless parroting by moahunter. Unable to study the facts that the Avro Arrow was cuthing edge technology on par with Lockheed's Skunkworks.

    Moa, maybe you sit this one out on the bench until you read up on the subject rather than just cutting and pasting from uninformed blogs.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  26. #26

    Default

    ^no, the useless parroting is of cbc imagination of what the arrow might have been. I provided sources, and an equivalent aircraft which was also designed for interception, broke various speed records, and cost less. Or take the Foxbat, twin engine just like the Arrow, but also virtually useless in most combat situations in the real world, because the role it was designed for (shooting down big slow bombers before they could fire their cruise missiles), was eliminated by the advent of ICBM's.

    The only modern place where an interceptor sort of made sense is with the Navy for carriers (e.g. the F14, which at least had swing wing for different speeds), but even there, multi-role fighters (Superhornet) now do that. The Russians also use the Mig31 for cruise missile interception - its a vastly superior design to the arrow though, as it has some maneuverability.

    This almost exactly explains why the second generation planes, the Arrow, F106 and the Foxbat all look great on paper, but in practice, were pretty useless:

    The interceptor mission is, by its nature, a difficult one. Consider the desire to protect a single target from attack by long-range bombers. The bombers have the advantage of being able to select the parameters of the mission – attack vector, speed and altitude. This results in an enormous area from which the attack can originate. In the time it takes for the bombers to cross the distance from first detection to being on their targets, the interceptor must be able to start, take off, climb to altitude, maneuver for attack and then attack the bomber.

    A dedicated interceptor aircraft sacrifices the capabilities of the air superiority fighter and multirole fighter (i.e., countering enemy fighter aircraft in Air combat manoeuvring), by tuning their performance for either fast climbs and/or high speeds. The result is that interceptors often look very impressive on paper, typically outrunning, outclimbing and outgunning slower fighter designs. However, pure interceptors fare poorly in fighter-to-fighter combat against the same "less capable" designs due to limited maneuverability especially at low altitudes.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_aircraft
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-09-2017 at 03:04 PM.

  27. #27

    Default

    The huge wing of the Arrow and light wing loading let it out manoeuvre aircraft like the F-4 Phantom which itself became a significant fighter once the correct tactics to performance were trained to pilots, you know, Top Gun.

    If Canadian pilots could turn a Starfighter into a stike attack fighter bomber, they certainly could have helped turn the Arrow into an effective air superiority fighter.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 22-09-2017 at 03:07 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  28. #28

    Default

    ^It might have eventually have almost been as good as a Foxbat.
    Advances in technology could have increased the Arrow’s speed (although not to that of the Foxbat), but the design had many problems common to second- and third-generation fighters. Like the Foxbat (or the F-106), the Arrow could have served in an attack role only with great difficulty.

  29. #29

    Default

    Wrong, wrong and more wrong.

    The Foxbat had half the wing area of the Arrow and weighed more. Wing area is critical to manoeuvrability and the Foxbat had a wing loading of 122lbs/ft2 vs 46lbs/ft2 on the Arrow. 2.6 times less loading on the wings and fly by wire controls. The 21 foot wingspan of the Starfighter was less loaded than the Foxbat.

    You are going from on irrelevant comparison like the F-106 to the other extreme with the MiG-25.

    You are grasping at straws.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 22-09-2017 at 03:38 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  30. #30

    Default

    ^the Arrow was 1950's full delta wing design (high induced drag, which is why they are now obsolete) - it was intended for one thing, and one thing only, intercepting bombers. It would have been obsolete by the 1970's. It would have also been useless flying at high altitude in the roles the CF18 and modern jets excel in, and are mostly used in (dropping munitions). It would have just sat around on airfields waiting for bombers to approach Canada's borders. But carry on imaging otherwise.
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-09-2017 at 03:46 PM.

  31. #31

    Default

    Switching horses again are we???
    The limitatons of a delta wing were known in the late 50's so Avro was already working on versions with canard wings.

    You know, like the F-18 and the F-35

    God you are daft...
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 22-09-2017 at 03:52 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  32. #32

    Default

    A quick google dispels much of what you claim on the F-106

    Introduced 1959, not 4 years before the Arrow
    Introduction 1959 - Retired 1988, seems it had a very long service history ... not sat around

    Things I knew already, but seems you need google.

    As to the "obsolete by the 1970's". Most 60s aircraft were with the changing roles. That said reading Whitcombe's book demonstrates from primary data that AVRO was already seeing the changes needed for post cold was and adapting ... the cancellation means we will never know.

    Delta's ... obsolete, really. Typhoon, Rafel, X32, Mirage and many other 4th and 5th used and/or continue to use the Delta ... some in air superiority fighters.

    Try some real research rather than scouring the net to defend the path you have chosen.

    IMO

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Delta's ... obsolete, really. Typhoon, Rafel, X32, Mirage and many other 4th and 5th used and/or continue to use the Delta ... some in air superiority fighters.
    Those aren't full delta wings, they are canard Delta wings. But yeah, I guess if Canada had spent hundreds billions of dollars continuing to upgrade and update the Arrow (i.e. had completely re-designed it to look like a modern jet with a small delta wing and canards), it might be sufficiently useful today - although nobody would have a reason to buy it ahead of the Typhoon or the Rafale or ...
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-09-2017 at 03:59 PM.

  34. #34

    Default

    What folks really do need to get a grip on is that most of the reference aircraft are much newer than the Arrow.

    But like the reference aircraft the Arrow is now no more than an old aircraft.

    The loss to Canada was long term ... the people, the technology, the industrial capability and the confidence Canada had built.

    AVRO was more than the Arrow

    The AVRO Jetliner was the first commercially viable aircraft, it took the Government of Canada blocking Trans World to keep sales from happening. Trans Canada Airlines also did their best by changing demands and specifications while refusing to order.

    The CF-100, worlds first jet day/night all weather fighter interceptor that went on to fill many other roles flying from the early 50s to late 80s. Canada and Belgium using.

    Engines ... the AVRO Orenda, thousands built for the Sabre and CF-100, many still in use in power generation, the Iroquois whose design legacy continues, the leadership in titanium fabrication and more such as the noted advances in hydraulics and electronic technologies.

    But most import the people who left Canada and provided others with the talent needed to put men on the moon and solve the problems of many legacy aircraft.

    It wasn't an aircraft lost ... it was the people and a proven industry.

    In history and my opinion

  35. #35

    Default

    Well said Thomas.

    In moahunter's narrow vision, he cannot understand that military aircraft rapidly changed in the 1950's and 60''s and Canada had some leading edge technology, the skilled trades people and the engineers who could make it happen. We proved we could make world class civilan and military jets. The Arrow was just a start but shocked the US and they had to act fast to kill our country's aspersions and a confluence of the Sputnik launch on the same day as the rollout and the thought that all wars would be fought with pilotless aircraft was a real concern.

    The US military/industrial complex decided that Canada would become a US customer, not a supplier or competitor. They forced Canada's hand to be a resource supplier to America's manufacturing needs and allowed us to make copies of their products; be it airplanes, automobiles, or TV shows.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well said Thomas.

    In moahunter's narrow vision, he cannot understand that military aircraft rapidly changed in the 1950's and 60''s and Canada had some leading edge technology, the skilled trades people and the engineers who could make it happen. We proved we could make world class civilan and military jets. The Arrow was just a start but shocked the US and they had to act fast to kill our country's aspersions and a confluence of the Sputnik launch on the same day as the rollout and the thought that all wars would be fought with pilotless aircraft was a real concern.

    The US military/industrial complex decided that Canada would become a US customer, not a supplier or competitor. They forced Canada's hand to be a resource supplier to America's manufacturing needs and allowed us to make copies of their products; be it airplanes, automobiles, or TV shows.
    They needed a market broader than their own country. Whatever they did in terms of potential competitors here like the Avro, if they did anything, they pretty much succeeded at catching up with Europe’s government sponsored advances didn’t they?

    We caved.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well said Thomas.

    In moahunter's narrow vision, he cannot understand that military aircraft rapidly changed in the 1950's and 60''s and Canada had some leading edge technology, the skilled trades people and the engineers who could make it happen. We proved we could make world class civilan and military jets. The Arrow was just a start but shocked the US and they had to act fast to kill our country's aspersions and a confluence of the Sputnik launch on the same day as the rollout and the thought that all wars would be fought with pilotless aircraft was a real concern.

    The US military/industrial complex decided that Canada would become a US customer, not a supplier or competitor. They forced Canada's hand to be a resource supplier to America's manufacturing needs and allowed us to make copies of their products; be it airplanes, automobiles, or TV shows.
    Yes EPRT

    All that and ... the government of the day did not want Canadians to become confident in what we COULD do ... they would loose negotiating power with the USA and a confident population is dangerous for any government.

    KC

    I take your comment and understand your point, but ... a country with far less resources produces their own fighters and other aircraft, Sweden, with almost no outside sales. The Typhoon is another example (as well as the Rafel) where there are next to no outside sales but they are being produced for their own use.

    When you considering purchasing for outside of country ... the loss of taxes, employment, skill etc. vs building domestically there are serious advantages to building our own. But the governments in power and the Canadian public no longer have the kind of confidence needed to make it happen today. Shame really because it is not about fighters, it is about building confidence in Country, Nation building and building an industry that goes beyond fighters and beyond our borders.

    So long as we believe we can't do it we are right. When we believe we can do it ... we will. That thought goes long past aerospace and across many other facets.

    IMO

  38. #38

    Default

    But the USA did give us McDonald's, Walmart and reruns of Giligan's Island.

    So I guess we got something out of giving up our sovereignty...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    KC

    I take your comment and understand your point, but ... a country with far less resources produces their own fighters and other aircraft, Sweden, with almost no outside sales. The Typhoon is another example (as well as the Rafel) where there are next to no outside sales but they are being produced for their own use.
    But that's where it gets silly. To recover the development cost of modern fighter jet which costs billions (software demands alone are enormous for a unique design), you need thousands of sales, not hundreds of sales. The Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen are all points of national pride, but financial disasters for their respective countries (the Gripen least so, but that's because they did the opposite of Arrow, they don't try to do anything revolutionary - use off the shelf technology / jet engines / NATO standard weapons connections / hardware). The idea that Canada could produce a handful of fighters today economically and have them compete with the F35, let alone the Eurofighter, or the Su27, or the Gripen, is just silly. No country makes money making fighter jets, but some countries lose a lot more money than others. It makes a ton more sense for Canadian aerospace to be part of a US project supporting the sale of over a thousand fighters, than tying to develop something unique for a few dozen. You never get the manufacturing scale, and you never get the development cost recovery. We see the exact same thing with the CS100/CS300 - no matter how good it is, unless it sells in the thousands (maybe it will? its looking unlikely though), it will never turn a profit. Canadian part suppliers have the opportunity to make more money supplying Boeing or Airbus than they ever will supplying Bombardier, and its the same with military technology - build standard components and sell them to multiple manufactures, but most importantly, the high volume ones.
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-09-2017 at 08:26 AM.

  40. #40

    Default

    Security issues aside...

    When it comes down to it, all military spending is a complete economic loss. In peace time there is no reason to have an army, airforce or navy is not needed. If you get involved in a war, you can expect to lose men and machines, civilians and infrastructure let alone territory. The only win if you gain territory and resources.

    In the end, Canada would probably have been better off spending the investment to have a military industry on a selected scope such as aircraft for military and civilIan use and shown some independence. Instead we built copies of American fighters and most of which was crap. The CF-5, the CF-101 and CF-104 are examples.

    Companies like Boeing used their lucrative military contracts, at taxpayer expense to develop their hugely profitable airliners. They could never have made it work as economically if they did not have the defense spending contracts.

    Now the Government of Canada pushes the economic benefits of the F-35 that has exorbitant costs and we get just a sliver of manufacturing.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 23-09-2017 at 10:10 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well said Thomas.

    In moahunter's narrow vision, he cannot understand that military aircraft rapidly changed in the 1950's and 60''s and Canada had some leading edge technology, the skilled trades people and the engineers who could make it happen. We proved we could make world class civilan and military jets. The Arrow was just a start but shocked the US and they had to act fast to kill our country's aspersions and a confluence of the Sputnik launch on the same day as the rollout and the thought that all wars would be fought with pilotless aircraft was a real concern.

    The US military/industrial complex decided that Canada would become a US customer, not a supplier or competitor. They forced Canada's hand to be a resource supplier to America's manufacturing needs and allowed us to make copies of their products; be it airplanes, automobiles, or TV shows.
    They needed a market broader than their own country. Whatever they did in terms of potential competitors here like the Avro, if they did anything, they pretty much succeeded at catching up with Europe’s government sponsored advances didn’t they?

    We caved.
    Yes KC we caved but if you read all the info it wasn't as simple as just the military aerospace industry. There were other wider commercial trade deals that came under implied threat. As well as International, Trans-border and Domestic politics.

    The USA was not alone in not wanting another aerospace competitor. England was also threatened, there series of 50s/60s aircraft were plagued by design, production and performance problems and they never rose back to their wartime level of success...then along comes AVRO Canada.

    Isn't it funny that so many of the remaining hard artifacts of the Arrow come from England, like several ejection seats/parts of control systems and the Iroquois engine that Bristol sat on for decades. (take a look at a cross section of the Iroquois and then the Bristol Olympus, similarities are amazing).

    Caving cost us much more than just an aircraft.

    IMO

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    But that's where it gets silly. To recover the development cost of modern fighter jet which costs billions (software demands alone are enormous for a unique design), you need thousands of sales, not hundreds of sales. The Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen are all points of national pride, but financial disasters for their respective countries (the Gripen least so, but that's because they did the opposite of Arrow, they don't try to do anything revolutionary - use off the shelf technology / jet engines / NATO standard weapons connections / hardware). The idea that Canada could produce a handful of fighters today economically and have them compete with the F35, let alone the Eurofighter, or the Su27, or the Gripen, is just silly. No country makes money making fighter jets, but some countries lose a lot more money than others. It makes a ton more sense for Canadian aerospace to be part of a US project supporting the sale of over a thousand fighters, than tying to develop something unique for a few dozen. You never get the manufacturing scale, and you never get the development cost recovery. We see the exact same thing with the CS100/CS300 - no matter how good it is, unless it sells in the thousands (maybe it will? its looking unlikely though), it will never turn a profit. Canadian part suppliers have the opportunity to make more money supplying Boeing or Airbus than they ever will supplying Bombardier, and its the same with military technology - build standard components and sell them to multiple manufactures, but most importantly, the high volume ones.
    What a horribly short sighted view...

    Example:
    Boeing leveraged the development of the B-17 into the 307 presurized passenger aircraft (both privately funded by Boeing), development of the B-29 and KC 97 was leveraged into the Boeing 377 Strato Cruiser which was one of the leaders of the post war commercial passenger market and then again the development of the KC 135 was leveraged into the Boeing 707 (again both privately funded by Boeing). In the end the military techwas leveraged into what became a world industry dominating company creating a massive tax income to the USA, tens of thousands of employment (more tax income) and much more when the engine and systems contractors are considered.

    AVRO was playing a similar tactic, the AVRO Jetliner (blocked by government and Trans Canada Airlines), The Arrow and it's developments and so much more covered in Whitcombe's book.

    Sweden has proven your position wrong with the Gripen and developments of the commercial SAAB aircraft lines as has Dassault now set to launch a SST Business Aircraft using technology developed from it's military contracts.

    AVRO and the many contractors associated with had the opportunity to both produce aircraft, world leading engines/hydraulics/fuel systems/titanium production components/electronics ... politics and lack of confidence decimated the industry and with the collapse of AVRO we even lost the intellectual property rights. Dumb.

    IMO

  43. #43

    Default

    I was just reading about how the US government forced Germany to increase military spending in the mid-70's (sort of what Trump is demanding now) and they cut funding of a successful German people mover development project undertaken by Demag and Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm with funding and support from the Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT, the German Ministry of Research and Development).

    It killed a Kennedy inspired initiative to improve public transportation.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I was just reading about how the US government forced Germany to increase military spending in the mid-70's (sort of what Trump is demanding now) and they cut funding of a successful German people mover development project undertaken by Demag and Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm with funding and support from the Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT, the German Ministry of Research and Development).

    It killed a Kennedy inspired initiative to improve public transportation.
    As a counterpoint ....Eisenhower pushed forward the Interstate highways system as a public works project, when in fact much of it was a defence project designed for the fast moving of military equipment, personnel and other assets (as well as movement of aircraft and their use as runways as well as shelters). The net result was and is one of the best highway systems nationally connecting a country.

    Military spending can be (like all things) a very good thing or a problem depending on implementation.

    Another example is GPS, a military initiative (and spending) that not only made much of the military of today technologically possible, but also made our world as a whole a more connected place.

    IMO

  45. #45

    Default

    The interstate highways are a good example. Just like cities sometimes have to expropriate to kick start projects, military and defence projects can be used for duel purposes. Other wide ranging projects like the space program or work by the Army Corps of Engineers for massive dam and river levee projects just would not have happened. They created a huge economic gain from the spinoffs.

    Like our huge merchant marine fleet after WWII, Canada's self inflicted inferiority complex killed the Arrow and the entire industry.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I was just reading about how the US government forced Germany to increase military spending in the mid-70's (sort of what Trump is demanding now) and they cut funding of a successful German people mover development project undertaken by Demag and Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm with funding and support from the Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT, the German Ministry of Research and Development).

    It killed a Kennedy inspired initiative to improve public transportation.
    As a counterpoint ....Eisenhower pushed forward the Interstate highways system as a public works project, when in fact much of it was a defence project designed for the fast moving of military equipment, personnel and other assets (as well as movement of aircraft and their use as runways as well as shelters). The net result was and is one of the best highway systems nationally connecting a country.

    Military spending can be (like all things) a very good thing or a problem depending on implementation.

    Another example is GPS, a military initiative (and spending) that not only made much of the military of today technologically possible, but also made our world as a whole a more connected place.

    IMO
    How a NASA Engineer Created the Modern Airplane Wing | NASA

    https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/fea...-airplane-wing

    Ubiquitous Supercritical Wing Design Cuts Billions in Fuel Costs
    https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2015/t_2.html

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post

    How a NASA Engineer Created the Modern Airplane Wing | NASA

    https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/fea...-airplane-wing

    Ubiquitous Supercritical Wing Design Cuts Billions in Fuel Costs
    https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2015/t_2.html
    Good artical

    And another good example how military tech has come back to benefit the day to day world.

    T

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    AVRO and the many contractors associated with had the opportunity to both produce aircraft, world leading engines/hydraulics/fuel systems/titanium production components/electronics ... politics and lack of confidence decimated the industry and with the collapse of AVRO we even lost the intellectual property rights. Dumb.

    IMO
    If anything was DUMB it was the Avro, both in cost (4 times an equivalent US plane, short range, only 5 minutes of combat time), and performance (designed for the sole purpose of quickly getting to and shooting down slow bombers). The "ideas" for future expansion were beyond fanciful, they were STUPID dead ends - for example, putting Ramjets on the aircraft (how many ramjets fly today in the worlds militaries? all this would have done is increase speed, increase need for heat mitigation, reduce even further the ability to perform at low speeds / altitude) - the problem with the plane wasn't high speed performance, it was what is needed for modern jets, low speed / ground attack performance. No amount of tweaking can make a pure interceptor suited to that role, it has to be designed in from the outset (e.g. the swing wings on the F14, which enabled it to be operated effectively at different speeds - swing wings themselves later becoming redundant by later technology). It was a 1950's aircraft with no market based on a design philosophy that the worlds militaries were realizing was a dead end, before it even went into production - it offered too little too late and too expensive. But heck, it was pretty, and a conservative government cancelled it (to the delight of western Canada) - so yeah, it must have had the potential to be the greatest plane ever per Cbc eastern media hacks, mustn't it?
    Last edited by moahunter; Yesterday at 09:48 AM.

  49. #49

    Default

    So says the Royal New Zealand Lead Zeppelin Air Martial and Paper Mache U-Boat Rear Admiral...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    AVRO and the many contractors associated with had the opportunity to both produce aircraft, world leading engines/hydraulics/fuel systems/titanium production components/electronics ... politics and lack of confidence decimated the industry and with the collapse of AVRO we even lost the intellectual property rights. Dumb.

    IMO
    Moa

    You know the CBC movie "The Arrow" was a docudrama right? You know points of some fact surrounded by a mostly fictional story in case you're not familiar with the
    If anything was DUMB it was the Avro, both in cost (4 times an equivalent US plane, short range, only 5 minutes of combat time), and performance (designed for the sole purpose of quickly getting to and shooting down slow bombers). The "ideas" for future expansion were beyond fanciful, they were STUPID dead ends - for example, putting Ramjets on the aircraft (how many ramjets fly today in the worlds militaries? all this would have done is increase speed, increase need for heat mitigation, reduce even further the ability to perform at low speeds / altitude) - the problem with the plane wasn't high speed performance, it was what is needed for modern jets, low speed / ground attack performance. No amount of tweaking can make a pure interceptor suited to that role, it has to be designed in from the outset (e.g. the swing wings on the F14, which enabled it to be operated effectively at different speeds - swing wings themselves later becoming redundant by later technology). It was a 1950's aircraft with no market based on a design philosophy that the worlds militaries were realizing was a dead end, before it even went into production - it offered too little too late and too expensive. But heck, it was pretty, and a conservative government cancelled it (to the delight of western Canada) - so yeah, it must have had the potential to be the greatest plane ever per Cbc eastern media hacks, mustn't it?
    Moa

    You know the movie "The Arrow" was a docudrama right? In case your not familiar with the term ... the basis of a true story but altered with fictional information to make it more marketable.

    Every point you've made has been discredited, little wonder you keep referring to the docudrama as a resource.

    IMO

  51. #51

    Default

    ^I do, but people who think it was a lost opportunity, don't, I'm the one who has provided sources in this thread, you guys have bought hook line and sinker into the Ontario driven "lost opportunity" crap, for what was actually, a plane with no purpose, but a ridiculously expensive price tag. Even the idea the US were trying to shut it down, is nonsense:

    “We probably did have the world’s best supersonic fighter jet in principle,” said Randall Wakelam, a historian at Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, an hour or so to the east of Prince Edward County. “In practice, however, we had all these problems.”

    Even by the standards of military programs, the Arrow’s cost spiraled out of control as the manufacturer, the British-owned A.V. Roe Canada, struggled with creating an entirely new aircraft design and new engines while also pioneering electronic flight controls and weapons guidance systems. Then came the launch by the Soviet Union of Sputnik, the first satellite.

    From that point on, it was assumed that any nuclear Armageddon would be delivered by missiles. Just as its production was ramping up, the Arrow had no more reason for being.


    The Arrow’s cost and its capabilities doomed its future for any other role or for sales in other markets, said Erin Gregory, an assistant curator at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa who is working with Mr. Burzynski’s group.

    “The project was overly ambitious,” she said. “It was way too much airplane. The only other country that could have used it would have been Russia.”

    ...

    While most historians agree that even a Liberal government would have made the same move, Mr. Diefenbaker’s decision was highly unpopular in Ontario. Various theories aside, government documents from the time indicate that the United States tried to help Canada fund the project in 1958 but was rebuffed.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/w...rrow-jet-.html
    Last edited by moahunter; Yesterday at 03:41 PM.

  52. #52

    Default

    Ah yes you would fall for that line wouldn't you ...

    Suggest you find a copy of Arrow, can't remember the author off hand sorry.

    What made this book particularly notable was the documentation acquired under freedom of information that backed up all of his work with copies all contained in the appendices at the end of the book. Should still be available at Edmonton Public Library, I don't lend my copy.

    The contract as let to AVRO was for airframe only. Engines to be supplied by Rolls Royce (RB106). Radar and guidance systems to be supplied by Hughes Aerospace (owned by Howard Hughes). Missile system to be jointly developed by RCAF and US Navy (Falcon I IIRC).

    - AVRO was on budget (or a tad below) for the airframes as contracted.

    - The Rolls RB106 failed and Rolls could not supply so the Government and RCAF added it to AVRO on a separate contract, fortunately the Iroquois was already in development.

    - Hughes pulled out after a licencing agreement between AVRO and Howard Hughes for production of the AVRO Jetliner for Trans World was blocked by the
    Government. So AVRO was tasked with completing development and producing the ASTRA fire control system on a separate contract.

    - As development was being completed on the Falcon I missile system the US Navy pulled out of the project (the US eventually produced the Falcon II system based on the RCAF/US Navy research) and AVRO had a contract to find a suitable replacement added to them.

    What is lovely about this book is it is all beautifully documented using government documentation through out.

    So in the end AVRO met target on the airframe. But when you add the other contracts in that were dumped on them it creates the illusion that the total project was over budget ... it wasn't as the engines, fire control guidance and missile systems were to be provided by the RCAF.

    See everything is not on the internet, which is why the library is such a wonderful resource.

    Now, roughly 60 years later, the Arrow would just be another old (but cool) aircraft. But the industry that created all those technologies would likely still be here and the money would have been spent in Canada, taxed in Canada and quite possibly be bringing foreign dollars into Canada.

    Problem with the Arrow discussion today is most, like the quoted RMC offical, don't look at the primary source documents only the gross numbers.

    Have a nice day.

    IMO
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; Yesterday at 04:24 PM. Reason: spelling

  53. #53

    Default

    Moa

    This is the direct link to the thesis linked to in the New York times article http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm

    Did you read the thesis? There is no new or earth shattering information within it. As a matter of fact it supports most of what EPRT and I have been saying (thanks for that BTW)

    As far as the US offering to fund ... read the thesis ... an unoffical offer of "we may be able to" was outright rejected by the Diefenbaker government without consideration.

    Other points throughout show the highly flawed political process that led to the cancellation.

    Also, this is a thesis and as such not an official document, but a students opinion of events.

    Might wanna read those links before you post. Interesting read though.

  54. #54

    Default

    And I will state that I had a first hand account from the actual test pilot who was deeply involved with the project who knew the reasons why the political decisions that were made at the time. Yes, Sputnik and ICBM technology had an effect on the project but no one really believed that all the bombers and fighters, let alone armies of tanks, men and the navy were all obsolete. They learn that in WWII that even if you anilated a country by aerial bombardment, did not mean you could stop them from fighting on.

    The nuclear option was available in Korea in 1950, and all through various events like the Berlin Airlift but it was well known that ICBM's could not be used as the only means of defence and a balanced military response was a necessity.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; Today at 02:27 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    AVRO and the many contractors associated with had the opportunity to both produce aircraft, world leading engines/hydraulics/fuel systems/titanium production components/electronics ... politics and lack of confidence decimated the industry and with the collapse of AVRO we even lost the intellectual property rights. Dumb.

    IMO
    If anything was DUMB it was the Avro, both in cost (4 times an equivalent US plane, short range, only 5 minutes of combat time), and performance (designed for the sole purpose of quickly getting to and shooting down slow bombers). The "ideas" for future expansion were beyond fanciful, they were STUPID dead ends - for example, putting Ramjets on the aircraft (how many ramjets fly today in the worlds militaries? all this would have done is increase speed, increase need for heat mitigation, reduce even further the ability to perform at low speeds / altitude) - the problem with the plane wasn't high speed performance, it was what is needed for modern jets, low speed / ground attack performance. No amount of tweaking can make a pure interceptor suited to that role, it has to be designed in from the outset (e.g. the swing wings on the F14, which enabled it to be operated effectively at different speeds - swing wings themselves later becoming redundant by later technology). It was a 1950's aircraft with no market based on a design philosophy that the worlds militaries were realizing was a dead end, before it even went into production - it offered too little too late and too expensive. But heck, it was pretty, and a conservative government cancelled it (to the delight of western Canada) - so yeah, it must have had the potential to be the greatest plane ever per Cbc eastern media hacks, mustn't it?
    I don't know that anybody in Western Canada was delighted. Most people took it as a sign of how inept and out of touch the typical federal govt was. Most Canadians, sea to sea, were depressed about what occurred.

    Filling a thread with wall to wall bs won't convince anybody of anything else. But to purport to know what people in western Canada were thinking at the time is beyond the pale, even for you, given you are from NZ.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  56. #56
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    I don't know that anybody in Western Canada was delighted. Most people took it as a sign of how inept and out of touch the typical federal govt was. Most Canadians, sea to sea, were depressed about what occurred.
    As you can probably guess from my "screaming drunk at the bus stop" joke upthread, most of the people I've encountered in Edmonton have a positive view of the Arrow, and lament the decision to ax it.

    But, as I mentioned on one of the the other Arrow threads some time back, I've always had the impression that Edmonton historically might have been more pro-Arrow than other places in western Canada, as a result of some of the engineering taking place there. I seem to recall some knowledgeable C2Eer confirming this, but also stating that the cancellation was pretty unpopular everywhere, with the exception of "a few right-wing farmers", presumably in western Canada.

    In the 1962 election(the first held after the cancellation), the Conservatives suffered substantial losses in Ontario, but managed to hold their own on the prairie. Granted, there were probably issues at play besides the Arrow.

  57. #57

    Default

    Overoceans/Replacement

    In general agree with your points, but here is something to think about.

    It is more than the "Arrow", it is more than Liberal vs Conservative. It is the attitude around the decision and it's lingering effects.

    We have the ability and technology (or can access it) to build almost anything we need in Canada, but since the fall of AVRO we have not had the government will, support or working systems to do it.

    We have been "consumers" rather than "suppliers", we no longer play with the knowledge of value add or the ability to do so. We have become the "hewers of wood and bearers of water" because of the loss of confidence in ourselves.

    In the last 20 years we have become much better in the realms of software, medical research and application but still along way from what could have been.

    While the Arrow became the focal point it goes beyond the Arrow.
    - The AVRO Jetliner prior to the Arrow
    - The Bras D'or hydrofoil
    - The Canadair CL-84 Tilt wing
    are but some examples

    All projects that were never followed through/supported regardless of the technological success.

    We need to recreate the successful attitude towards Canadian design/development/production and move away from simply being "Hewers of wood".

    IMO

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •