Results 1 to 88 of 88

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
    2,283

    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
    2,283

    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 03:41 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 10:38 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 10:12 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 11:18 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 11:59 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 02:18 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 03:35 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 04:04 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 04:07 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 04:38 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 04:46 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 04:52 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 04:59 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 09:26 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 11:10 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; 25-09-2017 at 10:48 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; 25-09-2017 at 04:41 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; 25-09-2017 at 05:24 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; 26-09-2017 at 03:27 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
    2,283

    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

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    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.
    So because it was a pretty plane that you liked, Canadian's should each personally contribute tax money to fund a loss making industry, rather than having our government choose to purchase a cheaper aircraft that performed the same role (Shooting down slow bombers) - or a more useful and already developed aircraft that would be useful in modern combat (multi-role / attack, e.g. in time the CF18's)? Heck, why don't we build rockets as well? That could employ thousands of people - we could be like North Korea, developing ICBM's, or satellites, that will generate lots of technology. We are a country of 35m, not 400m. We have some amazing competive advantages in some industries. We have some successful aerospace companies, working on projects like the F35, or local water bombers, that don't require government bail outs. I don't want the government picking and choosing other than our money making industries based on what is "cool", or what wins votes in Quebec or Ontario, I want individuals to choose, mostly through their pensions. That's why we have a stock market - I prefer that to being a communist / government run state handing out the gifts of my tax dollars to a British owned company like Avro (was owned by the Hawker Siddeley Group), or a billionaire family owned one today like Bombardier.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-09-2017 at 10:59 AM.

  59. #59

    Default

    It is pretty plain to see the our "friends" to the south are still maintaining our place as 'hewers of wood' nearly 60 years later.

    U.S. imposing 220% duty on Bombardier CSeries planes
    'Boeing is seeking to use a skewed process to stifle competition,' Bombardier says

    The Canadian Press
    September 26, 2017
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  60. #60

    Default Andrew Coyne: Time to bust the myth. Canada does not have to be in aerospace

    Yet again - I provide a reasoned source...

    In the beginning was the Avro Arrow. Limited in range, horrendously over budget, strategically obsolete before the first plane was built, the Arrow, made by the shambolic A.V. Roe Company of Canada, found not a single foreign buyer and was cancelled before its mounting costs could eat up the entire defence budget. Diefenbaker’s hand was on the knife, but the Liberals would have done the same, and said so.

    Ah, but it was ours! A technological marvel, designed, engineered and built right here in Canada! Proof of C.D. Howe’s typically grandiose boast that “Canada can manufacture anything!” How can you count the costs of a dream? In the aftermath of its demise, it became popular wisdom that the Arrow was marked for death, not because it was too expensive, but because it was too good: the Americans, jealous of our prowess, somehow forced Dief to kill it.

    So was born the myth of the Canadian aerospace industry, fuelled by a heady mix of techno-nationalism and public money, an industry with no particular raison d’être except the near-religious dogma that “Canada must be in aerospace.” (And why must Canada be in aerospace? Because that’s the kind of thing a country like Canada should be in.)

    ...

    Rather than escalate things further, potentially putting other sectors at risk — not to mention national unity: Quebec premier Philippe Couillard’s demand that “not one bolt, not one piece, not one plane from Boeing should enter Canada” will not play well in other parts of the country, where Boeing is a major employer — it is time we took stock. We have poured billions of dollars down this sink hole, and all it has bought us is the right to go on pouring billions more. Faith-based economics be damned: Canada does not have to be in aerospace.
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andr...e-in-aerospace
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-09-2017 at 09:55 AM.

  61. #61

    Default

    Andrew Coyne ... reasoned piece.

    Now that's a spin.

    To this:
    British owned company like Avro (was owned by the Hawker Siddeley Group)


    First off AVRO Canada was a Canadian company (the whole Canada thing ya know) that was established by and controlling shares held by A.V. Roe out of England.

    Hawker Siddeley bought Orenda post AVRO collapse for the technology. Eventually sold to the employees in the 80s IIRC.

    Lastly comparing an openly traded public company to the family owned/controlled Bombardier is another gaff. One controlled by the stakeholders and board of directors meeting all the transparency requirements of the day ... the other a family controlled/secretive oligarchy. You can do better moa.

    As far as my liking the Arrow as a pretty plane ... read the posts dufus. I have repeated stated the loss was the industry and the people.

    EPRT

    Again you are correct with the influence of our southern neighbors.

    IMO

    Enough this thread is now going circular and becoming a wasted discussion.

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Andrew Coyne ... reasoned piece.

    Now that's a spin.

    To this:
    British owned company like Avro (was owned by the Hawker Siddeley Group)


    First off AVRO Canada was a Canadian company (the whole Canada thing ya know) that was established by and controlling shares held by A.V. Roe out of England.
    You mean, it was a company like Boeing Canada? Or Lockheed Canada? I can agree with that, it was a foreign owned company that made things in Canada, including the Avro, a British plane the company decided it could milk Canadian taxpayers to subsidize the development of rather than pay for that development with British taxpayer money.

  63. #63

    Default

    Don't all threads with moahunter become circular?

    Trolls...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  64. #64

    Default

    Remember my posts a few days ago that talked about wing loading.

    On an unrelated piece I discovered a story about the B-36 bomber and flying over 40,000 feet. It appears that American jet fighters had high wing loading to give more speed at the expense of manoeuvrability. The Arrow had a very low wing loading and would have made it easy to fly at high altitudes. A significant advantage when attacking Russian bombers.

    The Joint Chiefs of Staff told Johnson the test was a bad idea. And the Air Force said it had already demonstrated that fighters couldn't maneuver at that altitude. Simulated B-36 attacks on bases in Florida and California were met by three front-line fighters: a North American F-86A Sabre, a Lockheed F-80C Shooting Star, and a Republic F-84 Thunderjet. Radar picked up the intruder 30 minutes out; the fighters took 26 minutes to climb to 40,000 feet and another two minutes to find the B-36. The fighters were faster than the big bomber, but their wing loading (the ratio of aircraft weight to area of the wings) was so high that they couldn't turn with the bomber without stalling in the thin air. Even if a B-36 were detected and Soviet fighters caught it, the pilot could evade them by making S-turns, said the Air Force.

    Of course, the Russians wouldn't have been flying USAF jets, as British engineer Harold Saxon argued in an edition of Aviation Week that appeared in mid-summer. While the Americans valued speed and therefore reduced the span and area of their jets' wings, the British built fighters that could maneuver at stratospheric heights, beginning with the de Havilland Vampire, which had been designed for the first British turbojet engine, and which by 1949 had done "a lot of development flying since 1947 between 50,000 and 60,000 feet," according to Saxon.


    By early June, the battle had moved into the halls of Congress when James Van Zandt, a Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania and captain in the Navy reserve, took up the charges leaked by Worth's memo. On the House floor, Van Zandt demanded an investigation of the "ugly, disturbing reports" that the bomber project would have been canceled a year ago if not for wheeling and dealing by Louis Johnson, other Convair officials, and Stuart Symington, the civilian head of the Air Force.


    Read more at http://www.airspacemag.com/history-o...96RiMlaGZs1.99
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 28-09-2017 at 02:06 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    A significant advantage when attacking Russian bombers.
    Which was the sole thing it was designed for, high altitude interception of slow Russian bombers (i.e. Tu-95 which developed over time from a copied B29). Aerodynamically damaging at lower altitudes - where combat planes were actually used for most of the time, which is ground attack and lower altitude fighter combat in support of CAS - it was strategically obsolete before it was even completed. There have been lots of military aircraft dead-ends, interceptors is one. Another was high speed low flying bombing (e.g. F111, Tornado), which proved to be less effective and more dangerous (due to ground flak) than mid altitude (with stealth in hostile environments today which is why the F35's are being deployed to South Korea / Guam / Japan).
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-09-2017 at 02:55 PM.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Andrew Coyne ... reasoned piece.

    Now that's a spin.

    To this:
    British owned company like Avro (was owned by the Hawker Siddeley Group)


    First off AVRO Canada was a Canadian company (the whole Canada thing ya know) that was established by and controlling shares held by A.V. Roe out of England.
    You mean, it was a company like Boeing Canada? Or Lockheed Canada? I can agree with that, it was a foreign owned company that made things in Canada, including the Avro, a British plane the company decided it could milk Canadian taxpayers to subsidize the development of rather than pay for that development with British taxpayer money.
    So moa

    Explain why in Britian the company was A.V. Roe and in Canada AVRO. Can you explain the relationship between A.V.Roe and the Government of Canada that created AVRO Canada and why?

    After you try with 3rd rate internet links and opinion blogs go to the library, take out Whitcombe's book and get educated on the subject. Or the book "Arrow" which also includes the primary source data.

    Till then I can't take you seriously on the formation of the company, it's conditions or much else on the subject.

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Don't all threads with moahunter become circular?

    Trolls...
    Unfortunately yes, which is why I'm out of the this one.

  68. #68

    Default

    ^I know, anyone who doesn't agree with your belief Canada could economically have an amazing military fighter industry but we missed out because the Arrow was cancelled (e.g. Andrew Coyne), is a troll, I'd call him a realist though.

  69. #69

    Default

    No, you are a troll because when faced with facts you change the subject.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  70. #70
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,283

    Default

    Is Andrew Coyne correct in saying that the Arrow had found no buyers? And if so, was it normally the normal thing for a plane to have found buyers at that particular stage of its development?

    He also mentions that the Liberals wanted to scrap it too. That's something I have read in Canadian history books, for whatever that is worth.

  71. #71

    Default

    There is both a political side and a technical side to this argument.

    On the technical side, Andrew Coyne probably does not have a clue on the outstanding achievements and breakthroughs that the Arrow was only beginning to test with only 71 hours of flight time and not even with the engines that were intended for this aircraft. All moa's lame points and poor comparisons to aircraft such as the F-106 are comparing apples to steak. What did we get instead? CF-101 Voodoo's, CF-104 Starfighters and obsolete Bomarc missiles. ALL American designs and substandard to the Arrow.


    Much of the politics are not even Canadian politics but as I clearly wrote earlier, they were international politics and the American military-industrial complex
    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.
    This is far more in depth than Andrew's opinion piece. The story about the B-36 (read the while article) in the US details the internal strife that pitted the US Navy against the Airforce and Army on who would have dominance, the largest budget and the control of nuclear delivery systems. All this during massive technological changes that brought new weapons systems at a furious pace. Defence suppliers froth ed at the money available and actively lobbied their products while disparaging competing programs. It was easy to disparage a Canadian plane to American politicians. As you see, the fix was in before the Arrow left the ground no matter how good the Arrow was.

    Other countries did have the balls to develop their own fighters and tanks such as Sweden. Switzerland also maintains a very definitely unique military.

    If you want a good read on the post war military/industrial infighting in the US, read the outstanding book, Command and Control by Eric Schlosser.
    https://www.amazon.ca/Command-Contro..._1506672019686
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 29-09-2017 at 02:58 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Is Andrew Coyne correct in saying that the Arrow had found no buyers? And if so, was it normally the normal thing for a plane to have found buyers at that particular stage of its development?

    He also mentions that the Liberals wanted to scrap it too. That's something I have read in Canadian history books, for whatever that is worth.
    It is true - there was no market for the F-106 which it would have competed against. A better F-106 (which is what the Arrow was trying to be), wouldn't have created an international market that didn't exist (and still doesn't exist today outside of Russia) - countries like Egypt, India, Pakistan or Israel didn't want interceptors, they already were transitioning to multi-role fighters that could do interception, but more importantly for them, destroy the opposition before it took off (something the Arrows design would never have been suitable for).

    And yes - the Liberals of the time hated it as well - instead of buying affordable planes off the shelf and spending tax dollars on health care and infrastructure, the country was trying to prop up an industry that employed lots of people but had no real future - the company wasn't even Canadian owned. The only major buyers of fighter aircraft (in their thousands as opposed to hundreds) are Russia (at the time USSR), China and the US - and they will always prefer their own fighter planes over ones made in Canada, France, or Sweden. So Chinese, Russian and US manufacturers will always have economies of scale on their side. Even the UK gave up on producing its own fighters in time, albeit they continued to participate in European projects, that proved themselves to be boondoggles, like the Eurofighter / Rafale - great planes, but very expensive, difficult to maintain (as not enough of them to justify companies producing parts and upgrading weapons systems for modern technologies), and already becoming obsolete (the US, Russia and China are all transitioning to stealth - stealth aircraft now dominate in exercises like Red Flag).

    Think about the Harrier - amazing aircraft that the British produced a decade after the Arrow and with a totally revolutionary design (albeit with limitations that go with that, but useful for low altitude attack, and surprisingly effective in the Falklands against high speed Delta wing Mirage IIIs). The Harrier is more where aircraft design was going - better low altitude performance and better maneuverability. While it was licensed to the Marines / had a market (unlike the Arrow) - what fighter industry does the UK have to day to show for all the money that was spent on it? The plane is actually even being replaced by the F35b model, like Canada, the British eventually figured out the inevitability of how limited the marketplace was for their fighter aircraft - in Canada, we were just smart enough to figure that out sooner.
    Last edited by moahunter; 29-09-2017 at 10:08 AM.

  73. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Is Andrew Coyne correct in saying that the Arrow had found no buyers? And if so, was it normally the normal thing for a plane to have found buyers at that particular stage of its development?

    He also mentions that the Liberals wanted to scrap it too. That's something I have read in Canadian history books, for whatever that is worth.
    Good question Overoceans

    All through the original project discussions and when the original contracts were let there was never any requirement for overseas or US sales. The Arrow was meant to provide the RCAF with a fighter that met their qualifications and performance criteria, which for the day were extreme. No in production aircraft could meet the performance criteria and the RCAF first approached British and American manufacturers for proposals ... no surprise for the time all said it was not achievable.

    Export sales did not come up till very late in the project as the costs, due to Government/RCAF add ons, as I mentioned above.

    As to the Liberals wanting to scrap it ... lots of opinion today on that, but when you go to primary source data none of it shows up.

    Today their is so much opinion, theorizing, myth and stories the only truly accurate way to understand the scene is by going to publications (Arrow the book as an example) that includes primary source copies.

    The Liberals did have concerns over rising cost and were considering downsizing the production numbers but direction/decision had not been made.

    They did however create the project as a nation/industry building project and with the stage of development the overall project was at would have most likely (based on primary source data) completed the project but reduced the overall production run.

    Liberals/Conservative politics of that time and today are very different beasts ... the Liberals were very much into pushing Canadian Technological industries forward and willing to invest in things like the national pipeline, Trans Canada highway and other projects to make it happen. The conservatives were not.

    The political landscape was so different that while I lean to the conservative side today ... in the 50s I would have been a staunch supporter of the St. Laurent government for many reason.

    While today the Arrow would be just another old aircraft (as I have said before), but the technological achievements would have continued to build the overall industry and others at many levels.

    Instead we send our tax money out of country ... which when viewed financially overall ... is a mess in it's self.

    IMO

  74. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Is Andrew Coyne correct in saying that the Arrow had found no buyers? And if so, was it normally the normal thing for a plane to have found buyers at that particular stage of its development?

    He also mentions that the Liberals wanted to scrap it too. That's something I have read in Canadian history books, for whatever that is worth.
    It is true - there was no market for the F-106 which it would have competed against. A better F-106 (which is what the Arrow was trying to be), wouldn't have created an international market that didn't exist (and still doesn't exist today outside of Russia) - countries like Egypt, India, Pakistan or Israel didn't want interceptors, they already were transitioning to multi-role fighters that could do interception, but more importantly for them, destroy the opposition before it took off (something the Arrows design would never have been suitable for).

    And yes - the Liberals of the time hated it as well - instead of buying affordable planes off the shelf and spending tax dollars on health care and infrastructure, the country was trying to prop up an industry that employed lots of people but had no real future - the company wasn't even Canadian owned. The only major buyers of fighter aircraft (in their thousands as opposed to hundreds) are Russia (at the time USSR), China and the US - and they will always prefer their own fighter planes over ones made in Canada, France, or Sweden. So Chinese, Russian and US manufacturers will always have economies of scale on their side. Even the UK gave up on producing its own fighters in time, albeit they continued to participate in European projects, that proved themselves to be boondoggles, like the Eurofighter / Rafale - great planes, but very expensive, difficult to maintain (as not enough of them to justify companies producing parts and upgrading weapons systems for modern technologies), and already becoming obsolete (the US, Russia and China are all transitioning to stealth - stealth aircraft now dominate in exercises like Red Flag).

    Think about the Harrier - amazing aircraft that the British produced a decade after the Arrow and with a totally revolutionary design (albeit with limitations that go with that, but useful for low altitude attack, and surprisingly effective in the Falklands against high speed Delta wing Mirage IIIs). The Harrier is more where aircraft design was going - better low altitude performance and better maneuverability. While it was licensed to the Marines / had a market (unlike the Arrow) - what fighter industry does the UK have to day to show for all the money that was spent on it? The plane is actually even being replaced by the F35b model, like Canada, the British eventually figured out the inevitability of how limited the marketplace was for their fighter aircraft - in Canada, we were just smart enough to figure that out sooner.
    Anyone who takes the time to research ANY of these comments will find virtually all of them incorrect at many levels including why the British Aviation Industry failed.

    I hope anyone who is seriously reading this thread (not just for amusement value) takes the time to research comments like these for themselves to get the real information, not revisionist opinion/information.

    It is worth the effort

    IMO
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 29-09-2017 at 11:50 AM. Reason: wording

  75. #75

    Default

    I like how moahunter projects issues that were not even on the horizon in 1959. "Egypt, India, Pakistan or Israel didn't want interceptors, they already were transitioning to multi-role fighters that could do interception"

    FYI, Pakistan and Israel were just emerging countries, only created a decade before. More moa gobbledygook.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  76. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    I hope anyone who is seriously reading this thread (not just for amusement value) takes the time to research comments like these for themselves to get the real information, not revisionist opinion/information.
    Lol, I love the spin. My take is the actual take - the Avro was cancelled, and never built, what it could have been is nothing more than fantasy today. The revisionists like you believe Canada could be a world class fighter producer (even though the only three massive buyers of fighters almost exclusively use manufacturers in their countries). The good news is, in the real world (not the fantasy world), Canadian companies have got work participating in US and other countries fighter projects - you don't have to build or fund the billion or even trillion today, dollar development, of a modern fifth generation fighter, to be able to contribute valuable technology to such projects (not only do Boeing and Lockheed and various other companies have Canadian subsidiaries, but independent Canadian companies also directly supply components). Its just not as blatantly Canadian to those who want to remember when Canada tried to puff its chest out like an American with a "Canadian" branded British owned plane, rather, its quietly and profitably contributing as a valued partner in NATO, in what I think, is a more effective, yet low key, Canadian way.

    Oh no - another troll author: the late Michael Bliss’s (Order of Canada), history of Canadian business, Northern Enterprise, pgs. 474-477,emphasis added.

    Born in war, with an original aim of making warplanes for the Pacific theatre, the A. V. Roe company of Canada made a bold but unsuccessful grab for peacetime leadership in aircraft design by producing one of the world first jet-propelled passenger planes, the C-102 Jetliner. The project was funded by [C. D.] Howe’s Department of Reconstruction and Supply. [However] no commercial airlines, including TCA [Trans Canada Airlines], which refused to bend to the minister’s pressure on this one, found the C-102 suitable to their needs. It was an impractical, premature leap onto a technological frontier, and was headed for the scrapheap anyway when the Korean War provided an excuse for concentration on military aircraft.

    Avro had good luck with a conventional jet fighter, the CF-100 Canuck, which it designed and built for the RCAF, manufacturing almost seven hundred of them… The Canuck success led defence planners to commission Avro to design a successor, the project that became the CF-105, or Avro Arrow… Originally the Arrow was to use imported engines, fire-control systems and ground control systems. Gradually the military and the nationalists and the high-tech enthusiasts decided to have all these components manufactured in the country that could make anything, Canada….

    By the time the Arrows flew [in 1958], it was clear that the project was a horrible mistake. Avro Canada was not an experienced aircraft manufacturer; the CF-100 was its only success and it had been plagued with design problems and delays… The firm’s frenetic expansion, highly self-conscious publicizing of its commitment to high technology (its ultimate space-age product was the Avrocar, a doughnut-shaped vertical take-off and landing craft that resembled nothing so much as a flying saucer…) and very heavy reliance on government contracts, camouflaged serious managerial weakness. The evidence suggests that A. V. Roe was a classic promotional company … built on wild optimism, taxpayers’ money, media gullibility and Canadians’ naive patriotism

    Costs of the Arrow went straight up in a decade of comparatively little inflation. By 1957 aircraft originally estimated at $1 million each would cost at least $8 million, probably much more. Arrow would cost six times as much as U.S.-designed interceptors. No one other than the RCAF wanted to buy the Arrow… The Arrow was consuming a huge proportion of Canada’s defence budget, and beginning to starve the other services for equipment. Even the Department of National Defence turned against it. Howe and the Liberal government decided to cancel the Arrow — after the 1957 election.
    (but the Conservatives won and cancelled it, instead).
    Last edited by moahunter; 29-09-2017 at 02:36 PM.

  77. #77

    Default

    Except history doesn't match the comments in the article;

    the C-102 Jetliner. The project was funded by [C. D.] Howe’s Department of Reconstruction and Supply. [However] no commercial airlines, including TCA [Trans Canada Airlines], which refused to bend to the minister’s pressure on this one, found the C-102 suitable to their needs.


    Except as noted above and again below TWA wanted to have it to the point they were willing to licence build it .... read the book Jetliner or any of the others I've referenced. As to TCA, do some reading again same sources. They kept changing the requirements, AVRO keep meeting them, then refused to order after stalling the design for years. More over the Hughes incident directly led to the destruction of the Jetliner prototype to keep others from trying to purchase or licence build it ... order came from CD Howe .... look it up same sources. EPL is a wonderful thing, get a library card.

    Originally the Arrow was to use imported engines, fire-control systems and ground control systems. Gradually the military and the nationalists and the high-tech enthusiasts decided to have all these components manufactured in the country that could make anything, Canada….


    I've already spoken to this and it is of historical record.
    - Supposed to use RR engine, it failed so Government added it to AVRO
    - Hughes was supposed to supply the fire control/guidance, Government blocked the licence agreement to manufacture the Jetliner, Hughes pulled out, dumped on AVRO
    etc.

    Look it up. I've given you the print references. One of which includes primary source data covering the issues.

    IMO

    Avro Canada was not an experienced aircraft manufacturer


    You might want to look at how many aircraft Victory Aircraft (nee Avro Canada) produced 1942 to 1946. It defies the comment.





  78. #78

    Default

    Here is spin by moahunter
    Lol, I love the spin. My take is the actual take - the Avro was cancelled, and never built, what it could have been is nothing more than fantasy today.
    FYI,the Arrow was built, contrary to your assertions, was in full production and new models being constructed. It was flown very successfully and broke a number of international records.

    Quit lying about the facts.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  79. #79

    Default

    For those interested in facts another great book is "Storms of Controversy", there have been approximately 5 editions now.

    Cover the Arrow from the RCAF concept through cancellation and like "Arrow" has most relevant primary source documents in both the test (where applicable) and appendices.

    Good read and great reference.

    IMO

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Here is spin by moahunter
    Lol, I love the spin. My take is the actual take - the Avro was cancelled, and never built, what it could have been is nothing more than fantasy today.
    FYI,the Arrow was built, contrary to your assertions, was in full production and new models being constructed.
    It never reached full production, had completed less than 5% of its testing, and its was not flying with its final engine (which was having problems, and again, didn't have a market beyond that Arrow to justify the expense). It was never built in the format of the amazing specs you claim for it, specs that would have given it a horrible range, and 5 minutes of combat time to shoot down slow bombers. It would have been fine at that task, but multi-role fighters are fine for it as well (along with being useful for air supremacy and attack missions), as evidenced by the later CF-18s, which are superior aircraft even if not as pure "fast". It was a design dead end, it looked pretty though, and being a British owned company rather than an American one (Lockheed Canada, Boeing Canada, etc), feels more "Canadian" to some people. Like another fantasy, PRT in an old science fiction film, I'm not surprised you like it even though its totally uneconomic and unrealistic.
    Last edited by moahunter; 02-10-2017 at 10:49 AM.

  81. #81

    Default

    As I was saying

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    For those interested in facts another great book is "Storms of Controversy", there have been approximately 5 editions now.

    Cover the Arrow from the RCAF concept through cancellation and like "Arrow" has most relevant primary source documents in both the test (where applicable) and appendices.

    Good read and great reference.

    IMO

  82. #82

    Default

    ^you probably believe the Oliver Stone JFK conspiracy story as well, that's fine. People will believe what makes them feel good, when the reality is actually much sader, but I guess was worthy of a biased cbc documentary. The harsh reality is having a British owned companies plane built here, wouldn't have sustained an aerospace industry today, anymore than the US corporate subsidiaries have, without a ridiculous level of government support:

    But even if the Arrow had survived, it is still debatable whether Canada could have nurtured its own aerospace industry - especially in the climate of globalization that produced last month's merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. Julius Lukasiewicz, a professor of aerospace engineering at Carleton University in Ottawa, argues that Canada was out of its league trying to manufacture its own jet fighter. And A. V. Roe, a subsidiary of Britain's Hawker Siddeley, milked the Canadian taxpayer "without really risking anything," he says. But even Lukasiewicz finds the demolition of the planes inexcusable - "the largest R and D development ever made by the government was wiped out overnight with no attempt to salvage any part of it."
    ...

    Just as Oliver Stone became a target for taking poetic licence in the movie JFK, Leckie can expect some heavy flak for romancing the Arrow. Insists Lukasiewicz, one of the country's most vocal Arrow-bashers: "It is a myth that the cancellation of the Arrow was a disaster for Canada." The scientist, who ran the National Research Council's high-speed aerodynamics laboratory during the 1950s, maintains that the cost of the project had spiralled out of control, and the country was simply too small to sustain it - "it was not financially viable because there was no market for it." Another critic, Philip Pocock, analyzed the Arrow's design for the NRC during the 1950s. He argues that Avro's performance claims were wrong, "not by 10 per cent, but by 100 per cent - the numbers just didn't add up."
    http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...tvthe-arrowtv/

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^you probably believe the Oliver Stone JFK conspiracy story as well, that's fine. People will believe what makes them feel good, when the reality is actually much sader, but I guess was worthy of a biased cbc documentary. The harsh reality is having a British owned companies plane built here, wouldn't have sustained an aerospace industry today, anymore than the US corporate subsidiaries have, without a ridiculous level of government support:

    But even if the Arrow had survived, it is still debatable whether Canada could have nurtured its own aerospace industry - especially in the climate of globalization that produced last month's merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. Julius Lukasiewicz, a professor of aerospace engineering at Carleton University in Ottawa, argues that Canada was out of its league trying to manufacture its own jet fighter. And A. V. Roe, a subsidiary of Britain's Hawker Siddeley, milked the Canadian taxpayer "without really risking anything," he says. But even Lukasiewicz finds the demolition of the planes inexcusable - "the largest R and D development ever made by the government was wiped out overnight with no attempt to salvage any part of it."
    ...

    Just as Oliver Stone became a target for taking poetic licence in the movie JFK, Leckie can expect some heavy flak for romancing the Arrow. Insists Lukasiewicz, one of the country's most vocal Arrow-bashers: "It is a myth that the cancellation of the Arrow was a disaster for Canada." The scientist, who ran the National Research Council's high-speed aerodynamics laboratory during the 1950s, maintains that the cost of the project had spiralled out of control, and the country was simply too small to sustain it - "it was not financially viable because there was no market for it." Another critic, Philip Pocock, analyzed the Arrow's design for the NRC during the 1950s. He argues that Avro's performance claims were wrong, "not by 10 per cent, but by 100 per cent - the numbers just didn't add up."
    http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...tvthe-arrowtv/
    Ah Moa

    I asked you earlier if you knew the difference between fact and a docudrama in relation to the Arrow. I do but apparently you don't as now you are using internet links to what is essentially a movie review to support your position.

    I'll skip the movie reviews and internet bloggers and stick to primary source data to create my positions. You might want to try it sometime.

    IMO

  84. #84

    Default

    ^quotes of two scientists there, including the leader of the high-speed aerodynamics lab at the time. But sure, you keep asking people to read a conspiracy book about why this British subsidiaries plane was worth the money pit sinkhole it was.

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^quotes of two scientists there, including the leader of the high-speed aerodynamics lab at the time. But sure, you keep asking people to read a conspiracy book about why this British subsidiaries plane was worth the money pit sinkhole it was.
    Well moa, I'm going to stick with primary source data ... you do know what that is right? Data and documentation from the original source.

    You continue doing what you do on all threads ... spamming with secondary, tertiary (in most cases even more detached) sources and internet bloggers and opinionators.

    And we will both be comfortable with ourselves and continue to disagree on most topics.

    IMO

  86. #86

    Default

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...trike-fighter/

    don't know if this was posted and don't care for the standard "not a reputable publication or source" diatribe that usually comes from the F-35 orgasmo crew. But I liked this quote:

    "........., the F-35 program is nearly a decade behind schedule, and has failed to meet many of its original design requirements. It’s also become the most expensive defense program in world history, at around US$1.5 trillionbefore the fighter is phased out in 2070."

    Reads like the Arrow detractors.


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

  87. #87

    Default

    ^there has been some comment that the F35 made some of the same mistakes as the Arrow, around concurrency. That articles pretty biased though, almost every negative F35 article quotes the same source, Airpower - which is a bunch of Australians who want Australia to buy the F22 (even though they can't ). Despite glitches (which every new military jet has), the F35 is performing well now, it is easily destroying fourth generation fighters like the Superhornet in actual top gun type war games. There is a reason the US military is rapidly deploying them to Guam that's exactly what its designed to be able to do, to be able to fly into a sophisticated war zone like North Korea with modern anti-aircraft weapons.
    Some say the concurrency hasn't been a bad thing though:

    I have been following the F-35's progress since the development contract for the airframe was awarded on October 26, 2001. That has been easier for me than for most people because prime contractor Lockheed Martin contributes to my think tank and is a consulting client. So I have a readily available sanity check whenever I encounter criticism of the program. It appears that Lockheed and its team-mates have delivered on just about every performance promise made for each of the plane's three variants.


    For instance, each variant has fully satisfied its requirements for low observability (stealth). The fusion of diverse on-board and off-board sensors has been demonstrated to work, delivering unprecedented situational awareness to pilots. The electronic-warfare system built by BAE Systems (another consulting client) functions so well that it has been adopted for the Air Force's next-generation bomber. In military exercises, F-35 is defeating adversary aircraft at a ratio of better than 20-to-1. And the price of each fighter is falling steadily.

    ...

    As the program has gradually retired risk and proven its potential, the handful of diehard critics who still contend it was a bad idea have been forced to embrace increasingly arcane reasons for not proceeding as planned. One such argument is "concurrency," the overlapping of developmental steps to speed fielding of the fighter. The case against concurrency in building the F-35 was laid out in a 2013 Pentagon report to Congress:

    Concurrency is defined as the overlap in the development and production phases of the acquisition program. Concurrency introduces the risk that aircraft built in early production lots will require modification due to discoveries made during qualification, flight and ground tests, or as a result of engineering analysis.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenth.../#68da06c97147
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-10-2017 at 01:43 PM.

  88. #88

    Default

    Fuc&ing awesome.

    Having sat inside the desolate, pre-restored vehicle, I could not have imagined its phoenixian rebirth.

    This 1960 Ford Frontenac, a citadel of Canadiana itself, sat covered on an Edmonton driveway for years. As circumstance arose, a new enthusiastic and nurturing owner was mercifully found, subsequently restoring it - in very short order - to something representing far more than its humble beginning.

    Check out the three-part story here, here and here.

    And check out the man responsible at Curiosity Inc.





    Bow to the glory of the classic RCAF roundel!


    ^ From https://tacairnet.com/2014/12/29/the...eadliest-kill/ .
    Last edited by Spill; 07-11-2017 at 09:08 PM.

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
  •