The fourth episode in the Arrow Series. This Episode brings in the RCAF and an enhanced Russian presence. High altitude photograph of Northern Ontario curtesy of Tim Armstrong.
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 1 A short synopsis of the Arrow The Arrow as Fighter-Interceptor RCAF AIR 7-3 Specification and the C-105 Avro Canada and the RCAF examined a range of alternative sizes and configurations for a supersonic interceptor, culminating in RCAF "Specification AIR 7-3" in April 1953. This AIR 7-3 specification called specifically for a crew of two and a twin-engine design requiring a range of 556 kilometers (300 nautical miles (nm) for a normal low speed mission and 370 km (200 nm) for a high-speed intercept mission. It also specified operation from a 1,830 meter (6,000 ft) runway, a Mach 1.5 cruising speed, an altitude capability of 21,336 m (70,000 ft), and a maneuvering capability for 2 “g” turns with no loss of speed or altitude at Mach 1.5 at 15,240 m (50,000 ft). The specification also stipulated just five minutes from starting the aircraft's engines to reaching an altitude of 15,250 m (50,000 ft) at Mach 1.5. It was also to have turn-around time on the ground of less than 10 minutes. (Jim100 AB that’s Refueled and rearmed and ready for another mission) An RCAF team then visited US aircraft companies and also surveyed British and French manufacturers before concluding that no existing or planned aircraft could fulfill these demanding requirements. In May 1953, Avro delivered a report, "Design Study of Supersonic All-Weather Interceptor Aircraft", outlining the major features of an updated C-104/2 design, which was now known as the C-105. A change to a thin "shoulder-mounted" delta wing allowed rapid access to the aircraft's internal systems, weapons bay, and engines. This thin wing was required for supersonic flight and the delta design provided the lightest structure A big advantage of the computer flight control system was that it allowed the Arrow’s designers to design into the plane marginal or even negative stability factors, another first (by many years). The Arrow was intentionally designed to accept marginal stability, going from moderately positive to neutral on the pitch axis, and from slightly positive to moderately negative on the yaw axis. Because of the extra instability in the yaw axis, every aspect of it was at least double redundant except the single redundant hydraulic actuator itself. Perhaps now you can appreciate how truly advanced the Arrow was. We weren’t able to really compare it to anything until today because there was nothing to compare it to until today. Flight performance envelope graphs, accumulated and transposed by R.L. Whitcomb for his book Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation shows that no medium or long-range armed fighter---to this day---could match the Arrow’s 1G combat weight performance curve, except the F-22 Raptor. They wrote the book in terms of the modern method, yet the book had to be written all over again once Avro was killed and the engineers dispersed. The Arrow and the IBM 704 computer In 1955 Avro had projected the performance of the Mk2 Iroquois powered Arrow to be Maximum speed of Mach 1.9 at 50,000 feet. Combat speed of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet while sustaining a 1.84 turn without bleeding energy Time to 50,000 feet of 4.1 minutes. 500 foot per minute (fpm) climb ceiling of 62,000 feet (i.e. able to climb at 500 fpm from this height) 400 nm (nautical miles) radius of action on high-speed mission. 630 nm radius of action on a low-speed (including 5 minutes supersonic combat) mission Ferry range is not given but estimated at 1,500 nm However, and to the elation of the Arrow designers and company in general the Arrow Mk 1, with about 40% less thrust then the Mk 2 and more weight, actually exceeded Avro’s own higher 1955 estimates for the Arrow Mk 2 by exceeding Mach 1.9. By October of 1958 due to test flying Avro was able to refine the drag estimates, feed them into the IBM 704 computer, and produce accurate projections that indicated 20% lower supersonic drag at maximum performance then even they themselves had projected. Due to this exceptional performance Avro knew the Mk 3 would be capable of considerable more than Mach 2.5. With improved materials and a new intake design that would be efficient at Mach 2.2 and above, Avro knew they would have an Arrow capable of at least Mach 3. This was nearly ten years before the SR-71 Blackbird or the Mig-25 Foxbat flew, suggesting Avro had an excellent advantage over the competition---given the freedom to exploit it. Performance Report 15 included the empirically refined performance projections and figures this document indicated that the Arrow Mk 2 would have remained the top-performing fighter-interceptor in virtually all categories until the advent of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. In fact an enormous amount of verbiage has been expended in claims that the Arrow would not have been manoeuvrable, based merely on the perceptions of it being such a large aircraft. In reality it was not that much bigger than the F-101 Voodoo or an F-15 Eagle, Neither of which would have seriously challenged an Arrow Mk 2 in a combat air patrol or, “top cover” or “air superiority” mission. Furthermore, size means nothing in determining aircrafts manoeuvrability potential. It can however, be calculated based on five factors. In comparison with any of the aircraft built at the time and since in similar roles, from any country, the Arrow appears to have had attributes which would have given superior manoeuvrability to virtually any plane to this date---save the F-22 Raptor which has reverted to internal weapons carriage and a relatively low wing loading.
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 2 The five critical attributes are: wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratio, control effectiveness, critical alpha (or stalling angle of attack) and, finally the amount of “G” loading the aircraft structure can absorb. The Arrow had the lowest wing loading of any supersonic interceptor to ever inter service, its only competition being the F-106 delta Dart and to a lesser extent, the F-22 Raptor, in terms of thrust-to weight ratio at combat weight; the Arrow was superior to everything up to the F-15 eagle. The Arrow’s allowable manoeuvring “G” at combat weight is equal, and in most cases superior to, virtually anything to fly then or since. Control effectiveness is difficult to estimate, especially with a supersonic delta design since the “moment arm” changes with control actuation and also with speed since the center of lift moves aft (back) at supersonic speeds. Designing a tailless aircraft with good manoeuvrability and stability characteristics across a wide speed range requires exact engineering. Chamberlin’s unique features on the Arrow wing, such as negative camber inboard, leading edge droop, the saw tooth/notches were responsible for the arrow’s good characteristics at subsonic and supersonic speeds. Avro’s inclusion of a Honeywell Controls engineered automated fuel management system also allowed them to tailor the aircraft’s center of gravity to be very close to the aircraft’s centre of lift at each point (and thus expected speed) in its mission. The simple secret of making a delta craft very manoeuvrable is to have the center of lift and center of gravity at nearly the same place. Sufficient control surfaces will do the rest. In interviews with Jan Zurakowski and Peter Cope, both said the Arrow had awesome natural control sensitivity. Zura mentioned the roll rate was reduced at high subsonic speeds because he felt it was excessive. It was limited to one roll, or 360 degrees, in a second. Cope mentioned that the Arrow handled very well, was very stable on approach if flown correctly (contrary to some third party sources) Jack Woodman mentioned that a mere one-fifth of an inch of stick movement would result in a 0.5 “G” loading on the aircraft, which he felt was excessive. In other words, the Arrow had very good control effectiveness, better than any other USAF and British jets these experienced test pilots flew. The simple fact is that the Arrow had an awesome power of maneuver as anyone who studies such things empirically will readily acknowledge. When 1G performance curves for even the Arrow Mk1, with the early, de-rated J-75 engines, are compared to contemporary and even current fighters, it emerges that the Arrow was a world-beating design. It had the attributes in terms of low drag, low wing loading and high thrust-to-weight to defeat virtually any fighter at low altitude in a dog fight scenario. While its delta wing is argued by some to result in a high drag during turns, the Arrow’s internal weapons and higher thrust-to weight would compensate. The Arrow 1, at higher than combat weight, Displayed a larger flight envelope than a late production F-16 Fighting Falcon that carried only two tiny heat seeking missiles. (Braybrook. Roy, “Fighting Falcon V Fulcrum,” Air International Vol. 47, No 2 Stamford Key Publishing, 1994) France’s Mirage 2000, an updated version of their 1950’s Mirage III delta fighter is also known to embarrass the F-16 at medium and high altitude in turning fights, despite the F-16’s better thrust- to weight ratio. Nevertheless, the Mirage III was never considered a competitor to the Arrow in any performance measure or military role. The Russian MIG 29 Fulcrum, under equally light conditions to the F-16C mentioned above, is equal to that of an overloaded Arrow Mk.1 An F-15C eagle, with up-rated engines, but at a true combat weight (no tanks, half internal fuel and eight missiles) displays a vastly smaller performance envelope to even an Arrow Mk.1 with at least 40% less thrust than a service Arrow Mk 2 would have had. The Arrow Mk 2, specified by Avro for the 21st Arrow, would have been able to sustain nearly 2G turn at Mach 1.8 at 50,000 feet. An F-15C could, at combat weight, sustain the same 2G turn at Mach 1.2 at 35,000 feet---hardly competitive. The F-15C was felt, subsequent to the retirement of the F-106 Delta Dart to exhibit the highest performance in the Western world on an air superiority mission. Clearly, then the Arrow had vast “power of maneuver”. It had the ability to utterly humiliate anything flying at medium and high altitude. In a supersonic turning fight at altitude, the Arrow would remain unmatched by anything save the F-22 Raptor due to the F-22’s higher thrust-to weight ratio, The Arrow still had a lower wing loading and with a drag coefficient probably under .0185 and a lift-drag ratio of over 7-1 would therefore still not be a push-over for the Raptor---all other things being equal which, of course, 45 intervening years of progress in electronics have ensured are not. Still, the Arrow Mk 2 was proclaimed to be capable of an instantaneous 6 “G” at 50,000 feet. The F-106 was also a high performer at altitude, capable of a 4 “G” at 45,000 feet whereas the Raptor is estimated to achieve 5 “G” at 50,000 feet. (Sweetman, Bill “F-22 Raptor” “The Arrow 2 design included provision for chaff and flare (chaff being radar jamming filaments with flare being heat-seeking missile confusing pyrotechnic flares), active countermeasures, while ASTRA 1 and 2 radar/fire-control systems were to incorporate its own passive and active electronic counter-measures (ECM), including infra-Red detection, tracking and launch computation (the world’s first) home-on-jamming (helping the plane to navigate to the jamming aircraft), radar warning (telling the aircraft when it was being tracked or targeted) etc.. It was fully modern compliment and introduced sophistication which is today de rigour to the world of multi-role and air-superiority fighters” The Arrow would have been a dominant aircraft for many, many years and therefore could be expected to sell well to allied nations. That American authorities would not purchase any, and recommended that Canada not produce them tells its own story. The American aviation industry would not have been comfortable with the Arrow as competition and therefore was not likely to give the Canadian firm much opportunity to compete. (Douglas, W.A.B. Note to File “CBC Program on the Avro Arrow”, 21 April, 1980) During the test flying two accidents occurred. The first one was caused by a flaw in the design of the landing gear where the mechanism responsible for turning the bogies into alignment with the aircraft centerline jammed. Engineering had already redesigned the landing gear due to minor increases in aircraft weigh before the first flight and now it was redesigned again to prevent a similar mishap. The second accident was probably due to pilot error. Spud Potocki had taken RL-202 on a long-range high-speed flight from Malton to lake Superior, conducted a supersonic run over Ottawa (on Remembrance Day!) and on returning the plane to Milton. He was very low on fuel and his approach was to fast to be able to land properly on the runway available. Fearing running out of fuel he tried to force the plane down against ground effect and locked the main wheels before there was sufficient weight on them to brake properly. This resulted in the aircraft swinging off the runway and tearing off one of the main landing gear legs and otherwise damaging the aircraft. As a result of this accident the Mk1 gear was banned from flight and replaced by the stronger and improved Mk.2 landing gear---even though the Mk.2 was significantly lighter then the MK1. This was also the fastest recorded flight of the Arrow with a speed of Mach 1.98 at 50,000 ft. still accelerating and climbing while only in intermediate afterburner. Jim Floyd has related that they didn’t really know the correct atmosphere correction factor to apply to this flight and as such the flight could have been Mach 2 or slightly higher. Arrow RL202 reported an official top speed of Mach 1.98. During that flight radar vectoring recorded a top speed of Mach 2.2. They apparently decided to state the speed as Mach 1.98 in order not to record a new world speed record and agitate their peers in the rest of the industry, and their enemies in government. Others have said that A.V. Roe Canada president Crawford Gordon Jr.absolutely forbade a speed record attempt in the Mk1 Arrows, wishing to preserve this accolade for the Iroquois engine Mk2. By the fall of 1958 Avro was projecting a Mach 1.8 combat speed and 2G at 60,000 ft, exceptional even today. (PR 15 and Jim Floyd’s testimony) Also the Arrow Mk 2a which Avro hoped to introduce on line after the first 37 under construction was set to achieve a 575 nm combat radius while flying a supersonic mission! The Arrow being able the to cruise at transonic and supersonic speeds without afterburner use (Super Cruise in 1958 - 1959 is this another first? Jim100 AB) is one reason it had superior range to the competition.
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 3 The Arrow’s Weapons and Weapons Bay The Arrow has more military payload capacity than any other contemporary bomber-destroyer. The Arrow with the presently conceived armament pack containing MB-1 [Genie] and Falcon missiles plus fuel, has a subsonic radius of action, based on indication of drag from flight tests, of around 500 nm, with supersonic combat and all allowances, which is considerably higher than any other aircraft in its class. The concept of a multi-role combat aircraft clearly intrigued the RCAF for the C104/2 design closely resembled the CF-105 in size, appearance and capability. The key to its flexibility lay in its massive armament bay. Install six Hughes Falcon missiles and twenty-four rockets and it was an interceptor. Not satisfactory? Try four Velvet glove missiles or four thirty-millimetre cannons with 200 rounds each and fifty-six folding fin rockets. Need a tactical bomber? Four 1,000-pound general purpose bombs would do the job. Put in a camera pack and the aircraft was transformed into a photo-reconnaissance model. Add more fuel and it became a long-range fighter. Carry a second pilot on any of these missions and it could be used as an operational trainer. The possibilities were too numerous to resist. (Dow: The Arrow p. 126) The Arrow was designed to out-fly, out-think, and out-fight, with its own on board missiles, any expected threat until the about 1970. Unlike any aircraft save the heavy bombers, the Arrow was capable of carrying several guided missiles capable of nuclear armament, considerable “stand-off” range at high supersonic speeds. This high performance, even when heavily loaded, combined with the capability of the kinds of weapons it could carry in its internal weapons bay, gave the Arrow more potential flexibility then most aircraft built to this day. For flexibility, the armaments bay could hold 6 Hughes Falcon guided missiles and 24 Hughes 2.75" rockets Or 4 Velvet Glove missiles Or 4 30mm canons with a capacity of 200 rounds and 56 folding fin rockets Or as a bomber, 4 1,000 pounds of bombs Or as reconnaissance, a camera pod Or to give the fighter a longer range, an extra fuel tank When the airframe development began, the RCAF and the Defense Research Board began evaluating missiles and their fire control systems. They looked at the following missiles: - Douglas MB-1 Genie - Hughes Falcon Sperry Sparrow I - Douglas Sparrow II - Raytheon Sparrow III In mid 1955, the Douglas Sparrow II was chosen and the Hughes Company would adapt their fire control system to other missiles. RCA agreed to work to RCAF requirements ASTRA, and on 28 Jun 1956, C.D. Howe tells the House of Commons work will soon begin on ASTRA. In late 1956 the USN abandons development of the Sparrow II, the missile chosen for the Arrow. The Canadian government brought the Sparrow II to Canada to continue development with AVRO as the System Manager, Canadair to build the missile airframes, and Canadian Westinghouse in Hamilton to work with Bendix-Pacific on the Radar Guidance System. The Canadian Armament and Research Development Establishment (CARDE) began the Velvet Glove program 1 April 1951 and by the time the program had been terminated in 1955, 300 Velvet Gloves had been built and fired. The Velvet Glove program had spent $24 million. The Arrow and Long Range Missiles... For the AVRO Arrow, the Sparrow II Raytheon AIM/RIM-7 Sparrow was intended to provide the long range clout The use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles (not, copied yet really) The Falcon “Z” “the weapon specified were two, Falcon Z, aka GAR-9, aka AIM-47 type missiles each weighing approximately 750 lb. the missile had a range of about 100 miles and a 40,000 foot differential altitude, as later tested on the YF-12A. It was a large, advanced long-range air-to-air missile of the performance Avro had been awaiting. It would have suited the Arrow’s large internal weapons bay while competing aircraft could not have carried it internally-resulting in a huge performance advantage to the Arrow so equipped. Anti Ballistic Missile “It is interesting in the government discussions on ABM weapons that the Arrow was never considered as capable of undertaking this role. Certainly Avro had been suggesting it do just that. “It might be supposed for example, that in every aspect of employment the anti-missile, missile would prove to be very far removed from the manned fighter airplane. Yet the possibility is already seen that, in order to achieve its maximum kill potential the “anti” missile may actually form an alliance with the manned fighter. “The feasibility of this…has been expounded by Jim Floyd, Avro Aircraft’s vice president engineering …whereas the launching of the Russian sputnik satellites was a very significant event in the annals of aviation its affect on the Arrow program should be singularly positive…if you think about in for a minute,” he says “the normal launching platform for anti-missile missile are stationary. The Russians can find out where they are and destroy them. On the other hand, an airborne missile mother ship (which could be the Arrow) can be rapidly moved from one place to another carrying an anti-ICBM missile. “It might be imagined that a missile suitable for carrying an anti-missile warhead would prove a formidable load even for the mighty Arrow: But Mr. Floyd had looked into the matter with a quick specific calculation on an ICBM approaching at Mach 10 at 200 miles above the earth. He finds that if an “anti” is launched from an aircraft flying at Mach 1.5 at 60,000 ft. its thrust need only be about one third of that required for ground launch weapons carrying the same size of warhead to a given point in approximately the same time. And dividends would accrue in range and accuracy. (Flight and Aircraft Engineering, “Ironclads and Arrows” 14 February 1958 In other words, any Arrow could carry the ABM weapon Avro was considering. The British technical journal engineering also discussed the possibility of the Arrow carrying an ABM weapon in their 17 October, 1958 edition. Jim Floyd has subsequently related that Avro was working with Douglas to adapt a version of the Nike-Zeus system for use on the Arrow. The first stage of the ground launched version could be abandoned, with data link modifications to the remaining upper stage to accept targeting information from the Arrow’s onboard radar system. Of course, nothing came of this plan, perhaps in part because it wasn’t mentioned to the right decision makers. There is no evidence available suggesting that the Chief of Staff or the Conservative Cabinet were aware of Avro’s plan to carry ABM’s on the Arrow nor the fact that the system they were proposing was based on the American first choice for their ABM system, the Nike weapons
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 4 Who was Julius Lukasiewicz? An interview with Jim Floyd “Jim Floyd has been hesitant in relating the true role that {Julius} Lukasiewicz played at the time the Arrow was designed Lukasiewicz was at that time with the National Research Council in Ottawa and Canada’s expert in supersonic aerodynamics. So he reviewed the design and produced a report that was scathingly critical of the aerodynamic design, to the extent that there was no point in continuing with such a flawed airplane. It was decided to approach the USA for an expert opinion. Hugh Dryden, a renowned aerodynamicist at The National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, forerunner of NASA gathered a team of his top men in the field of supersonics. Their verdict was Avro had an excellent design and if anything they were being conservative in their estimates of performance. Lukasiewicz has never forgotten his humiliation and despite the fact that the Arrow behaved perfectly and achieved a speed of 1.98 times the speed of sound while still climbing and with the lower powered J-75 engines, never ceased to twist the facts. (Keast, Harry: Letter to the Editor of the Globe & mail newspaper. This letter is available as part of a CD Rom from www.avroarrow.org) Keast was responding to a disparaging editorial on Avro and the Arrow by Professor Michael Bliss in the Globe & mail newspaper titled “the Legend That Wasn’t”. The Globe & mail unfortunately failed to print the rebuttal, despite Keast’s vastly superior credentials. Other primary sources indicate that fights between Avro’s brilliant aerodynamicist Jim Chamberlin and the NAE really polarized the two groups. In fact, the government scientists became so frustrated with the inflexibility of Chamberlin over the Arrow’s aerodynamics that Avro was asked to fire Chamberlin. J.C Floyd wrote: “I was fiercely supportive of Jim [Chamberlin] in the dark days of the NRC [via the NAE] criticism of our aerodynamics when they even suggested that Jim should be taken off the project. I told them that I would resign myself rather than do that!”(Letter from J.C. Floyd. 9 February, 2004 to R.L. Whitcomb) Chamberlin stayed, but so did the NAE, at the time Julius Lukasiewicz, a polish ex-patriot, was, the NAE’s high-speed aerodynamicist and the man most at odds with Avro’s engineering and design staff. G/C Footit has written in a period documentation that some of the criticism was due to professional jealousy in the organizations like the National Aeronautical Establishment (NAE) who felt they should be the ones charged with design and testing of aircraft like the Arrow. This internal bureaucratic opposition spread (along with rumors) and did the program serious harm. They were also proven wrong by the Arrow itself, and by subsequent design history. Later in life without disclosing his involvement in the program, Lukasiewicz was interview by the CBC and was highly critical of the Arrow program. Arrow Benchmarks 1) The first fly-by-wire flight control system. 2) The first fly-by-wire flight control system using solid-state components operating in “real time”. 3) The first fly-by-wire flight control system with at least single redundancy. 4) The first fly-by-wire flight control system designed to be coupled with the computerised navigation an automatic search and track (ASTRA). 5) The first fly-by- wire flight control system providing artificial feedback, or feel to the pilot. Not even the first F-16's had this. 6) The first fly-by-wire flight control system that was flyable from ground installations through data uplink, with data downlink systems reporting. (This, along with its designers, became the basis of the data-link fly-by-wire systems for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo 1.) 7) The first aircraft to have its aerodynamic design aided by solid-state (real time) computers, Avro thus appears to be the company that evolved the technique now referred to as Computational Fluid Dynamics. 8) The first aircraft to have its structural design aided by solid-state computers. 9) The first aircraft to have complete hydraulic and electronic systems development rigs (simulators generally using actual aircraft components wherever possible, coupled to their computers to produce a realistic computerized flight simulator. 10) The first aircraft to have a Pulse-Doppler, ”look-down, shoot-down” radar designed for it, (The second was the F-14 Tomcat, although ASTRA II was to be fully digital, while the Tomcat’s AWG-9 was not digital. In fact, the first Aircraft in service to have radar/fire control systems integrated with a flight control system of equal conceptual technology to the ASTRA II-Arrow was the F-18 Hornet.) 11) The first aircraft designed with marginal or negative, static stability factors. This was done to ensure good manoeuvrability across its very wide flight envelope while keeping trim drag to a minimum thus allowing a larger flight envelope. 12) The first aircraft to have an advanced, integrated, bleed-bypass system from its self-adjusting intake to its extractor-nozzle exhaust. (The F-104 is credited with being the first to introduce bleed-bypass integration but it was comparatively rudimentary and probably of similar sophistication to that introduced on the jetliner years earlier.) 13) The first aircraft to have a by-pass turbojet designed for it and the first to integrate the bleed-by-pass and cooling systems of the engine, intakes and extractor nozzle. 14) The first aircraft to have its engines located at the extreme rear of the aircraft. In fact it was about the first jet fighter to have what might be termed “longitudinal spacing” of all its major systems. Previous to the Arrow most aircraft designers had tried to locate fuel tanks, weapons and engines as close to the center of gravity and center of lift as possible. This contributed to their being “fat” in aerodynamic terms, which is why so many of them ran into “area rule” problems. 15) The first aircraft to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated high wing that made the entire upper surface a lifting body type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., Mig-29, Mig-25 and others certainly used that idea. 16) The first to use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (Not copied yet really) 17) The first aircraft to have major components machined using Computer Numeric Control CNC equipment. (The second is believed to be the F-111Aardvark) 18) The first aircraft to have major components and fasteners made of Titanium. 19) The first aircraft to use a 4,000 psi hydraulic system (The second was the B-1 bomber) 20) The first supersonic aircraft designed to have better than one-to-one thrust-to weight ratio at close to combat weight (allowing it to accelerate while climbing vertically) The “ Reaper” ground-attack version of the Gloster Meteor was around 1-1 thrust, but it was not supersonic. The first aircraft to compete in this area was the F-15A Eagle. 21) The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at strike/reconnaissance 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.) 22) The Arrow combined the lowest thickness-chord ratio (thickness of the wing compared to the length (not the span) wing with the lowest wing-loading (surface area of wing divided by the weight of the aircraft) of any high-capacity service design. Both are crucial to low supersonic drag, good manoeuvrability and high speed.
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 5 Iroquois Engine “Firsts” In June of 1956 the Iroquois underwent its first official test, the 50 hour Pre-Flight Rating Test (PFRT) During this test the engine beat every known record for thrust output at 19,350 lbt (pounds thrust) without afterburner. Its throttle response was also world-beating. It took only 2.8 seconds to go from idle to full military thrust and only 4.5 seconds to go from idle to full afterburning thrust. First overhung-stator two-shaft design using two(vs. three or more) bearings assemblies thus dispensing with a central casting, and replacing the two shafts with an inner and outer drum making the entire center core of the engine turn. The combustors were overhung with the flour comprising the spinning outer drum which connected the high-pressure(HP) turbine to the HP compressor section The drum connecting the low-pressure (LP) compressor to the LP turbine was smaller and rotated inside the HP drum. First, to make extensive use of Titanium for reason of high-strength high-temperature tolerance and low weight. First, to house a high proportion of it machinery (pumps, gearbox, drives etc.) internally to lower installed size. This meant a smaller, lighter aircraft stricter, and improved over-all aerodynamics and efficiency. First to concentrate on constant gas speed though out the core to maximize aerodynamic efficiency and allow a higher average speed of flow through the engine (rather than varying gas temperature pressure and speed, though the core, they designed it in such a way as to keep the gas speed relatively constant and vary only gas temperature.) First to try air-cooled turbine blades with comparatively cool compressor air ducted to the blades though the core structure of the engine, and though pressurized, annular ducts formed by the outer case of the engine. The Iroquois 1 used this but the Orenda designers dispensed with air-cooled blades in the Iroquois 2 due otherwise excellent air-cooling after the combustors and improved metallurgy (availability of Income l X) The Pratt & Whitney J-58 for the A-12/YF-12A/SR-71 used a similar arrangement on a single -spool design. First (with the General E electric J-79 of the B-58 Hustler and F-4 Phantom) variable pitch stator design (variable pitch stator allowed improved throttle handling and resistance to compressor surges, stalls, and engine flame-outs. On the J-79 variable stators allowed the designers to produce a single-spool engine with the handling quality usually associated with two-spool designs, on the Iroquois., which was already a two-spool design, it allowed Orenda to design it with 40 to 60% fewer compressors and stator sections, compared to contemporary and most later designs greatly lightening the engine.) First “bypass” engine using LP and HP air for cooling the turbine section and machinery while exhausting through the extractor nozzle to increase thrust. “Hot-Streak” ignition for the afterburner A streak of hot combustion gasses was piped directly back to the afterburner fuel zone an ultra-reliable afterburner igniter an sustainer. First oxygen injection-relight system in case of engine flame-out at altitude, this technology was licensed by Orenda at the time, providing income for the company. First fully variable afterburner. Previous systems came on all at once or in two or more stages. A fully-variables system in an engine of the low weight, high thrust and good fuel economy of the Iroquois would have been a manger tactical advantage during the 1960s and 70s. Many changes were made to the structure of the MK1 engine and a new prototype the Iroquois MK2 was produced. During the program at least five running engines were sent to the United States for test and evaluation. Iroquois engineer Colin Campbell relates that the engine was tested at up to 25,000 pounds dry thrust in Canada and at up to 27,000 pounds in the Cornell Institute in the United States. These are phenomenal outputs for an engine of this size even today. The rating they were aiming for was 20,000 pounds dry thrust and 30,000 pounds with afterburner. Clearly they had reason to hope for even more powerful versions once they addressed the reliability and longevity issues. The Iroquois engine MK2 would have been able to accelerate while climbing vertically and carrying a useful load. The developed Iroquois promised this performance at close to gross take-off weight. (Jim100 AB So why did the Canadian government cancel this plane? Based on the research I would have to go with these assessments.) The Arrow would have been a dominant aircraft for many, many years and therefore could be expected to sell well to allied nations. That American authorities would not purchase any, and recommended that Canada not produce them tells its own story. (R.L. Whitcomb) A Canadian civil servant involved in a review of the CBC documentary “There Never Was An Arrow” Noted the following regarding the documentary’s conclusion that American interests were not involved in the Arrows cancellation: “The program concluded that no American interests were in evolved in the decision?” On the face of it, this seems a remarkably innocent point of view. Previous accounts have suggested with some reason that the American aviation industry would not have been comfortable with the Arrow as competition and therefore was not likely to give the Canadian firm much opportunity to compete. (Douglas, W.A.B. Note to File “CBC Program on the Avro Arrow”, 21 April, 1980) It is perhaps worthwhile to consider where American interests lay in the 1957 election. It was in response to this growing concern, in some quarters in Canada about the alarming growth of American ownership in the Canadian economy, that the previous Liberal administration had started a Royal Commission in the first place. It seemed tailor made to rebuff the Rockefeller panel’s overt economic imperialism. This commission pointed out the negative impact this increasing ownership was going to have on Canada’s future. Some of the problems foreseen were: The decline of research and development in Canada due to this work being concentrated in the home offices of the American companies then by Canadian production facilities. The inability of Canada to look after its strategic needs, including defense, if Canadian strategic resources were allowed to be bought out by American interests. An exodus of Canadian administrative, scientific and technical talent to the United States as a result of the above. A decline in Canadian economic, military and political independence brought about by the above, with the probable result of Canada losing any real sovereignty and thus becoming a satellite of the United States. (Gordon, Walter L., A chance for Canada, based in part on the Gordon Commission.)
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 6 Price Deception Foulkes later left evidence on the record demonstrating his “erroneous” conclusions regarding the price of the Arrow. “it is quite clear that this aircraft will require almost $500 million to complete development and then it will cost between $10 and $12 million a copy for production” So according to Foulkes’ spurious CSC recommendations to Pearkes, The 10 to 12 million figure obviously was for costs for production not including design and development. However, in an unpublished article on the Arrow debacle Foulkes later wrote: “The Defense Production Department advised that approximately $300 million had been spent on the Arrow project and that an additional $871 million would be required to complete it.” This resulted in the $12 million figure. (Smye Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow P. 113) Foulkes was obviously capable of considerable modification of statements when embarrassed. Dow wrote: ”$12.5 million. This was the cost per aircraft cited by the prime minister for 100 Arrows equipped with Astra and Sparrow… To arrive at these figures it was necessary to total the cost of all components of the weapons systems, airframe, engine, missiles, and fire control. This included agreements for design and development, tooling, spares, ground handling equipment, test assembly and overhaul. To make these figures appear even more outrages, the cost of the 37 aircraft on contract was considered as a development expenditure for the proposed program to build 100 Arrows. In effect the cost of 137 was divided by 100 to inflate the price per plane.” (Dow The Arrow P. 180) Smye would later view some of the government cost figures, and even using their own admitted math, would come out with an average price for 100 operational Arrows, including all design and development to operational standards, engines and fire control, of $5.62 million dollars. The government said it came to $7.8 million a copy. This was because they were writing off the entire 37 preproduction run and were including design and development expenses incurred to date, missiles, lifetime spares, ground support and test equipment and more. It was a very deceptive way to influence the thinking of Cabinet, the press and the public. Of course, in comparing figures, the fact that payroll income and other taxes would be immediately be recouped from Canadian production was, inexplicably ignored. It also appears that Avro’s final offer was not brought to the attention of Cabinet, nor anyone else, for many years---until Fred Smye made it public in his unpublished manuscript: Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow. So what was Avro’s final offer on the Arrow? It was 3.5 million dollars each for the first 100 Arrows and 2.6 million dollars each for the next 100. As Dow put it “Details of Avro’s offer to the government were given in a letter from the company to D.L. Thompson, director of the aircraft branch of DDP on 30 December. The letter confirmed a fixed price offer of $346,282,015 for 100 aircraft (25221 to 25320), including Iroquois engines and the Hughes MA-1C electronics systems. Adding applicable sales tax of $28,717,985 brought the price per aircraft to an even $3.75 million. The contract proposal attached to the letter covered design and development, tooling and tool maintenance, manufacture of 20 development and 100 squadron aircraft…and technical support for the squadron aircraft. (Dow: the Arrow P. 186
I posted a reply and figured all you Arrow fans would dig this; Avro Arrow list of firsts accomplished by Avro 1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more). 2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine. 3) 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. 4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance. 5) First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance. 6) First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c. 7) First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this. 8) First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground. 9) 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. 10) 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. 11) First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now. 12) First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines). 13) 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. 14) Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine. 15) Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones). 16) Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing. 17) Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that. 18) Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really) 19) Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a serious strike/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.) 20) 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. 21) First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components. 22) First oxygen-injection re-light system. 23) First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design. 24) First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine. 25) First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine. 26) First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition. 27) First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!)
Would like to thank you for posting this. Just found it and its excellent...now if you guys would just build the Arrow with modern technology you would have the finest aircraft in the world
I know it would take more time and money but I wish the planes would bank when they turn?It would look more natural. Like the way they look in the series dogfight
Very sad day for all of us who worked for. AVRO 1,500 people all let go On March 20 /1959 I’ll neverforget it was even done ,yeah by a phone call , was on the roof of AVRoe watch the initial take off of the 102. Beautiful We loved that air craft CANADA lost out ,
Great episode just like the rest of them! Can't wait for (The War) episode. I realize it will be some time before it is made and posted. I'll be checking back to see when it's posted. Thank You for taking the time to make these great videos.
Hi Johnboyu....I appreciate the comment, makes me feel good about doing these. I am thinking that "War" may be the start of another series, with the Arrow and the team "oxygen-arian". With the story I have in mind, I will need to build ships, subs, other jets, etc. I planned to end the series with War, but I think I will start a new series instead...regards....Virtual
@@Mwahaha105 Thank you very much for the comment. There is a message here and people are picking up on it. That message is "Canada is defenceless". When I started this series, I could not figure out how I was going to show how precarious our situation is in the world, because of the U.S. as our neighbour....and then the new U.S. president gift wrapped it for me as you probably saw in the movie. War will not disappoint, but it will be a while for the next Episode. regards..Virtual
As an American, with Canadian relatives, would be proud of Canada to have developed the Arrow, and newer versions. Defense is a group effort, and the designers are not all in the US and Europe......We're working on sorting out our mess in Washington, and I'm backing our friends to the north to sort out theirs in Ottawa.
@@Virtualenvirons Russia states they have a long range nuclear cruise missile, guess the patriot and all missile defense systems are now irrelevant. Guess we need a jet that can catch it, an upgraded 206. Have you thought about a vid about right now?
HI Coady. My animating days have come to an end I am afraid. I had wanted to do this for a long time, but it took a lot. I am approaching 70 now and time to pass on the torch.....regards.....Virtual
Hi Andrei....Thanks for the Nice comment. I appreciate it. I have just returned from Barbados and will begin the next episode. I expect it will be out by the summer. regards....Virtual
Thanks so much for the comment. I am in Barbados at the moment for a while with my wife. When we return in Mar., I will begin "War". These usually take about two to three months to complete. regards....Virtual
Hi Bandit. There is an Episode 5 out that is part 1 of a 2 part story. Part 1 is the build up for Part 2 that I will release in a few days. If I can toot my on horn, Part 2 will blow away every other episode by a country mile. regards.....Virtual
A little Canadian history from Avro aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L. Whitcomb page 22 and 23. During The re-organization of National Steel Car into Victory Aircraft, (later to become A.V. Roe….Avro) the former management was replaced by a number of Howe’s “bright boys” The new President was J.P. Bickell, a senior executive of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , with Dave Boyd as General Manager. Victory Aircraft, guided by such brash, confident upstarts (inspired by perhaps an even more illustrious leader in the form of Howe), began trumpeting the potentials of Victory aircraft with its new facilities, and of Canadian industry in general to the hard-pressed British. Wild claims of being able to produce a Lancaster faster and better then its own designers were heard in England, and the bluff was called. By January 1942 Victory had a contract to produce one of the largest, most complex and advanced aircraft in the world, the Lancaster long range heavy bomber. Despite enormous difficulties and frustration, Victory rolled out its first pseudo-complete Lancaster in August 1943. Dobson, hearing the boasts about the superior quality of the Canadian Lancaster and other mixtures of fact and fancy, decided to visit Canada and see for himself the roll-out of the first Victory Lancaster. Apparently, he arrived a little late as the plant outperformed his expectations and delivered its first offspring early. His comments upon seeing the Canadian operation are well documented and according to Jet Age by Scott Young, his words were to the effect. “It opened my eyes, I’ll tell you, if these so and so’s, can do this during a war, what can’t they do after? Dobson was so confident in the future of the North American branch that he predicted Canada would become the center of aircraft production for the British Commonwealth within a decade. Howe is on record in that year as saying “Never again will there be any doubt that Canada can manufacture anything that can be manufactured elsewhere” Unfortunately many Canadians today don’t seem to believe this, despite Avro and their subcontractors having proven it time and again in the forties and fifties, often too early for their genius to be recognized. Victory would go on to produce 430 Lancaster’s during the war, and produce them at the one-a-day rate as promised in the initial boasts to the British! According to British author/historian Len Deighton in his phenomenal book Blood Tears and Folly, that Canada had committed a higher percentage of her population to wartime uniformed military service than any of the combatants, with the added distinction of this mass of manpower being comprised largely of volunteers. Deighton goes on to show that Canada had also yielded the highest per capita industrial output dedicated to the war effort once again of any of the combatants, yet had begun the conflict with relatively little of her own indigenous industry. Howe and his bright boys had sought to change all of that and had succeeded beyond all expectations. It was once common knowledge that Canada had ended the war with the third largest navy, the fourth largest air force, and the fifth largest army of any of the wartime players. These rankings were described in the Canadian Forces’ [CF] Air Force Indoctrination Course [AFIC] for many years! (It’s time for Canadian citizens to stand up and say dam the torpedoes, politicians and our neighbours to the south. Roll-up our sleeves and get on with the business of defending ourselves again! Jim100 AB)
Hi Daniel. Thank you the nice comment. That is what keeps me making these. There are more to come, but taking a break for the winter as I always do. I often think the story line would make a good movie. I am just a single old guy working away on my Mac making these movie. I fund the project on my own, which may become a problem in the future. My computer and software need upgrading over the next year and it is expensive. Thanks again for your comment. ..regards...Virtual.
I had a model Arrow and did not know why . I heard it said the Yanks where top secret and the Canadians sold models .I also have 78 of THE LONE RANGER so I love the the story you weave . May I meet you one day . God Bless
I agree that the arrow is the answer. especially with modern, hardened electronics. save a ton or two in weight. lighter means faster or less fuel consumption.
I think what angers Canadians the most is that we lost our aerospace industry overnight and have had to rely on the US for fighters ever since. We also lost a big talent pool that went on to work for other industries such as NASA, Aérospatiale/BAC, and others. We also will never know the true performance of the CF 105 because it was never flown with the Iroquois engine. We can have an educated guess but that is it.
Hi Mark..Oh, nitpicking is part of the game. I saw your comment on the fellow who noticed I misspelled Bomb Bay....I was having a Bombay Gin martini at the time and got confused. He did it in a complimentary way. Some like to think because they found a spelling mistake, they know something....they usually don't. regards..Virtual.
@@Virtualenvirons yea,I agree,but at least its from a fellow "Arrow Head"..Hey! keep up the good work! I love it when you post new shows,and your keeping the Arrow alive!
@@HagersvilleHunk Hi Mark, I am taking a break from the Series for a few months. Going south for a bit, but will return and start WAR. Before I go, I am going to release something interesting. The true story of how a full up Iroquois engine was taken to Britain in 1959 and returned to Canada 50 year later. regards...Virtual
How manoeuvrable was the Arrow? A short synopsis of the Arrow's manoeuvrability. This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 1 (How manoeuvrable was the Arrow? I hear and see this asked all the time. The answer is it was highly manoeuvrable even by today’s standards. I’m putting this together because so many people (have asked this question) even some that know the Arrow still think it was not that manoeuvrable by today’s standards. Jim100 AB) Before I get started do you know who R. L. Whitcomb was? To start with he had a lifetime interest in aviation. He was a pilot in the Canadian Forces from 1990 to 1995, where he gained flying experience in many military aircraft. Including the CF-5 Freedom Fighter, T-33 Silver Star, CT-114 Tutor and the CF-18, and as “secondary duty” produced paintings and prints of these aircraft for the CF. It was during simulator flights of the CF-18 Hornet that Randall learned of the superiority of the 1958 Avro Arrow to the Hornet in an interceptor role. This set him on the path of research into the Arrow and the Avro Company that has culminated in this book. While traveling and showing his artwork Randall often met ex-Avro employees who shared their stories with him and spurred him on to deeper research into the Avro story. Here is what Jim Floyd says about R.L. Whitcomb and this book. “In the past two decades we have had more than enough books on the Arrow, but this one is significantly different. The author, Randall Whitcomb, ex-CF pilot, brings to this remarkable story a wealth of experience in the flying, engineering and political aspects of Canadian aviation, past and present. Whitcomb has brought together many “loose ends” in the whole history of Canadian aviation in the Cold War period, including the global impact on the demise of A.V. Roe Canada in 1959. He has marshalled his arguments in a unique “warts and all” documentation of the true facts about the political climate in that incredible era and addressed the vexed question of “what might have been” had common sense ruled the day, instead of the “infighting” that actually occurred. This is a book that should be mandatory reading for all students of Canadian aviation history and every politician in Canada, the USA, and the UK.” (This is hand signed by Jim Floyd in black pen. Jim100 AB) (With the help of this book by R.L. Whitcomb and renowned test pilots like Chuck Yeager, Frank Everest, Jan Zurakowski, and Jack Woodman and ex-Avro employees like Jim Floyd, Jim Chamberlin, Bob Lindley and others it will show the Arrow was highly manoeuvrable even by today’s standards. To quote Jim Floyd “anytime you bend air, you have to pay for it” and the fine is increased drag and a lower flight performance. Payment can only be made by increased engine thrust to overcome the drag. Modern aircraft bend a lot of air (compared to the Arrow) creating a lot of drag and have to use engine thrust to overcome it. They may be able to climb faster but in a turning fight they still fall prey to high drag and high wing loading even the F-22 has its problems here. Besides no combat pilot in his/her right mind, wants a missile armed fighter behind and below them, no matter how fast their climb rate is! We will see that the Arrow’s aerodynamics created less drag and was better than most in this area. Most aircraft carry their weapons on 90 degree wing pylons and have high drag lifting devices like leading edge extensions (LEX) or (chine). The F-22 and the Arrow are very close, however the F-22 has (leading edge slats, two vertical tails, two horizontal tail planes as do most other front line aircraft), it also has two side mounted missile bays on either side of the main bay. All creating drag at subsonic and supersonic speeds, the Arrow by comparison had just one vertical tail making the Arrow a very clean machine aerodynamically by any standards. Jim100 AB) The simple secret to the phenomenal manoeuvrability of the Mitsubishi “Zero” of World War II was its low wing loading. No high-performance fighter of the war could match it in a turning fight, not even the Hurricane or the Spitfire. (The F-22’s wing area is 840 square feet and needs thrust vectoring and powerful engines to allow it to manoeuvre at altitudes over 50,000 feet and not stall. The Arrow on the other hand has a wing area 1225 square feet and has the lowest wing loading of any supersonic fighter/interceptor to ever enter service and could fly at the same speeds and was still able to manoeuvre at the same heights as the F-22 50,000 to 70,000 ft! (Arrow Wing Loading at Combat-take-off wt 67,250/1225 = 54.9 lbs to 1 sq ft of wing F-22 Wing loading at Combat-take-off wt 64,840/840 = 77.1 lbs to 1 sq ft of wing. You may have to brush up on the following subjects to fully understand the Arrow against modern day fighters in regards to its manoeuvrability potential. The subjects are wing design, tailless delta, thickness/chord ratio (T/C), leading edge vortex; leading edge saw tooth and notch, artificial washout, drag reduction, parasite drag, and trim drag. Manoeuvrability factors such as wing loading, power loading, critical alpha, control effectiveness, and finally load limit, (G’s). All these will be covered here I will try to condense some of it without losing the important facts. Jim100 AB)
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 2 WING DESIGN (Well if you got this far then you’re ether a tech or you just really want to know the truth about the Arrow’s manoeuvrability. Either way I hope you enjoy this! Jim100 AB) The benefit of the swept wing design is twofold. First it allows a wing of a given thickness/chord ratio (T/C) to present a thinner profile to the direction of airflow once it is swept back. This is the secret of the swept wing: as you sweep the wing, the T/C ratio becomes smaller and the wing “appears” thinner to the airflow. Air molecules have less time to change direction and conform to the curved surface as you increase speed into the supersonic range. This can cause the air to separate from the wing and cause a great deal of drag and loss of lift. As the air speeds up to flow around a curve and reaches Mach 1, it produces a shock wave that adds an enormous amount of drag and radically changes the point on the wing where maximum lift occurs. It can also cause extreme structural loads, vibration and flutter. Unless the wing is curved very gradually and is very thin, this shock wave will have the tendency to move back and forth on the surface of the wing, often very quickly, with loss of control and structural failure could possible result. A wing with a small T/C ratio with a gentle curves will minimize this effect, and at the speed of sound, the shock wave will move directly to the trailing edge of the wing making the wing behave normally again. The best supersonic wing, from a purely theoretical aerodynamic standpoint, is a straight wing with zero thickness, a flat plate one point thick. This is, in the material world, impossible, so the design is always a compromise between aerodynamics and structural concerns (this combination is termed “aero-elasticity”). The straight wing is limited structurally compared to the delta because, to achieve the required thin profile, only a short span can be supported by a spar of equal thinness and comparable strength. A good example of this is the F-104 Starfighter, an aircraft with very high wing loading and thus poor low speed handling, an exceptionally high stall speed, and poor high-altitude, manoeuvrability. The long wing root of the delta wing also has several advantages in the real world. It can present a very thin T/C ratio while still being thick enough to carry a large quantity of fuel and stow the landing gear. It can be built large enough for a large aircraft while still preserving low supersonic (wave) drag and provide a high amount of lift since it will have much more area than a straight wing or a swept wing, and it can also be strong since it can carry many stress bearing spars down its length. Its arrow shape keeps it out of the supersonic shock (bow) wave produced by the nose of the aircraft until relatively higher speeds are reached. DELTA TAILESS A further advantage of the delta wing is that the control surfaces, being at the rear of the aircraft, can be used to roll or pitch the aircraft, dispensing with the need for another set of control surfaces such as the horizontal tail on conventional designs. A tail will add weight and markedly increase the supersonic and interference drag of the design. Tails also add headaches in design caused by airflow interaction with the main plane and, potentially with engine exhaust. Avro found that the best way to minimize trim drag (drag induced by any control surface deflection required for straight and level flight) and keep the center of lift where they wanted it, at extreme speeds and altitude, was to introduce a “negative camber” profile to the wing. The wing was curved on bottom, opposite to what would be considered a normal airfoil shape. This helped control the center of lift movement between very low and very high speed and was one of Chamberlin’s tricks to make the delta behave at low and high speeds. The flat upper surface still represents the closest thing to the supersonic airfoil, a flat plate, as it was perfectly straight from just behind the leading edge right to the trailing edge. This also provided the design with the feature of allowing the shock-wave to travel from the leading edge directly to the trailing edge once supersonic speed was reached thereby reducing transonic drag, center-of-left fluctuation and control-surface flutter. It also made the entire wing a laminar-flow surface at low alpha. As a result, the Arrow was one of the first aircraft to smoothly break the sound barrier as if it wasn’t really there.
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 3 THICKNESS/CHORD RATIO The ratio of the length down the fuselage (chord) of a wing to its thickness is a major factor in the drag of a wing. A low T/C ratio is a thinner one. Form drag (discussed in more detail latter) and more pronounced at supersonic speeds and is exaggerated by separate protrusions of items in the slipstream. A wing with a low T/C ratio will have serious advantage over a thicker one in form drag at supersonic speeds. The challenge is making it produce enough lift at low speed. The delta planform proved superior in the eyes of Avro’s designers, to the swept-wing or the double-delta (With separate delta-ish tail-planes such as the F-4 Phantom, MIG-21 and to a large degree most fighters in front line service today!) The Arrow wing had an average T/C ratio of 3.6 percent and a flat upper surface. By comparison, the F-4 Phantom has a 6 percent T/C ratio at the root while that of the F-15 Eagle is in the order of 5 present. As discussed, thicker wings at supersonic speeds suffer from exponentially higher “wing drag” (drag induced by the shock wave). They also had penalties in center of lift movement and early laminar flow separation. The latter adds significantly to supersonic drag. The Arrow had a lower T/C ratio then almost any combat aircraft that has entered service (other than the F-104 Starfighter which beat the root T/C ratio of the Arrow by a mere 0.14 percent giving it a 3.46 percent T/C) While the Arrow avoided the sharp leading edge which is not good for subsonic flight. All of the mentioned aircraft above have at least three additional drag-inducing tail airfoils as compared to the Arrow. DELTA WING LEADING EDGE VORTEX Somewhat overlooked on aircraft design are the delta’s excellent lift characteristics. While it is a first class supersonic layout since it tends to stay out of the bow wave, it also has exceptional low-speed handling characteristics. From low speed to hypersonic flight, the delta is an excellent shape. The characteristics which really aids the low-speed handling and manoeuvrability is the fact that the delta creates an unusual leading-edge vortex of air that tends to keep the air attached to the wing at extreme angles of attack (60 degrees or more in some cases, while straight wings normally stall between 15 and 20 degrees). Since very high-altitude flight is actually like slow flying this vortex phenomenon gives the delta a high-altitude advantage over a trapezoidal or swept-wing as it can make more lift if the thrust is there to overcome the additional drag that high amounts of lift always creates. This gives a delta-winged aircraft the ability to maintain higher alpha before the stall, and to manoeuvre better at low speeds and in low air densities while still maintaining control. Knowledgeable fighter pilots are incredulous at the mention that the Arrow demonstrated a stall speed of only 117 knots at full combat weigh! Jack Woodman, the RCAF test pilot assigned to verify the Arrow’s performance, is actually on record as saying you really couldn’t stall the Arrow. The speed they chose as the stall speed is where the sink rate became unacceptable for landing purposes. This is the F-18 Hornet territory with the F-18 achieving its low-speed characteristics by (drag inducing) massive flap and leading-edge slat deflections plus a large deflection of the tail plane and the F-18 is known for being an excellent low-speed dogfighter! Considering the extra drag of all the Hornet’s high-lift devices, it would be interesting to compare the low altitude acceleration curves of service Hornets against those of even the Arrow Mk. 1. It may have been a much different dogfight scenario than most would assume considering the Arrow’s thrust and low wing loading. The vortex only forms when the angle of attack is increased when the aircraft is pitched up. The sudden vortex formation was found to add so much lift that deltas were known to pitch up during turns or pull up manoeuvres and tended to make the aircraft tighten in a turn without additional control stick movement. This vortex, once formed, adds massive lift unlike any conventional wing. This could cause anything from difficulties in accurately tracking a target to structural failure if not compensated for it time. This massive increase in lift, production once the vortex formed is the reason XF-92A test pilots Chuck Yeager and Frank Everest are on record as stating that the turning ability of a delta-wing aircraft is unsurpassed. They also preceded Jack Woodman’s comments on the Arrow’s delta when they said the delta, as installed on the XF-92A, just didn’t want to stall and maintains, lift and controllability at extremely high alpha. A later F-106 pilot said that if you pull up on the stick at high-speed it was a battle to maintain the turn and keep your head out of the instrument panel! (So much for those who say the Arrow wouldn’t have been highly manoeuvrable even by today’s standards!) This turn tightening problem was one that Avro had very wisely spent a great deal of time in understanding and designing solutions. LEADING-EDGE SAWTOOTH AND NOTCH Avro sought to minimize the pitch-up problem and flow reversal at the tips associated with highly swept wings by introducing a notch and saw-tooth at mid-span on the wing. With the Arrow, this combination saw-tooth/notch produced a small but powerful secondary vortex (at the point of the notch) that traveled backward almost parallel to the airflow, forming an aerodynamic “fence”. It allows a much larger delta wing to be produced, without suffering from flow reversal at the tips and thus tends to keep drag in check at high alpha, while enabling the wing to make lift. On the Arrow this vortex also crossed the point where the elevators met the ailerons giving improved control effectiveness to both surfaces. At high altitudes this feature also reduced trim drag since it made the elevators more effective, and less deflection was required. Any wing with a sharp or pointed leading edge will stall sooner than one with a gently rounded one. For low speed manoeuvrability this demands a compromise from the supersonic “flat plate” idea. To give the Arrow better low speed characteristics, as well as a higher potential angle of attack or alpha capability, a drooped leading edge was incorporated in the design while the inboard sections were fairly rounded anyway. The leading edge (saw-tooth) extension on the outboard wing section provided an excellent area to incorporate droop. The F-15 Eagle would use a similar wing design to that of the Arrow but would delete the notch/saw-tooth since its short span and lower sweep angle didn’t have the tip flow-reversal problem to such an extent. It has a higher wing loading which comparatively limits its altitude and manoeuvrability. Another feature the Arrow and the F-15 share is how the engine location and fairing with the body results in extra low speed lift due to engine exhaust induced airflow over the fuselage. In essence the Arrow used a “pumped” wing and this meant that the elevators were located in an excellent place to also benefit from extra induced flow, especially at low speeds.
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 4 ARTIFICAL WASHOUT An additional benefit derived from concentrating the droop on the outboard wing sections of the Arrow was that it built in “washout”. Washout means that the wing ether physically or aerodynamically incorporates twist, with the tips having a lower angle of incidence than the root. This ensures that the wing will stall last toward the tips thus maintaining aileron (roll) control in a stall or spin situation, which is vital. The early deltas stalled first at the tip due to span-wise flow causing a breakaway at the tips. This section, on a delta or highly swept-wing, behind the center of gravity of the aircraft, so when that region stalled, the aircraft would pitch up since only the portion of the wing in front of the center of gravity would be making lift. Avro found means to control this span-wise flow and managed to add washout (twist) to the wing aerodynamically rather than physically, another drag reducing feature. This was also done, in part, by designing the wing to have a lower T/C ratio at the root than at the tip, an unusual feature well suited to the delta wing. Virtually all wings incorporate washout most by using physical twist due to simpler design and manufacture. For an illustration one should look at side-view photos of the Arrow wing compared to that of that of the F-18 hornet. On the Arrow, the addition of leading-edge droop was found to increase the buffet boundary (buffet is encountered just before the stall) by over 60 present. This shows a very significant improvement in the high-alpha and, thus manoeuvring capabilities of the Arrow. Testing of the Arrow wing demonstrated that the leading-edge droop, designed for low-speed handling, added insignificant amounts of supersonic drag up to about Mach 2.5. This would, at first glance, appear to be a lower-drag solution than ether the F-18 Hornet or the F-16 Falcon wings, both with considerable physical washout or twist, and hard-angle leading-edge droop slats. Again the delta’s lift advantages seem to guarantee an excellent low-speed “dogfight” performance with very low drag and high lift. In reality it appears to be one of the best thought-out wing designs up to this day, especially when the aerodynamic flourishes are considered. DRAG REDUVTION This term refers to more than just the aerodynamic drag provided by the frontal area of items encountering the slipstream, i.e.: the drag produced by the necessity of air “bending” around a shape it runs into. For a clean aircraft, wing thickness and size are major factors when considering form drag. For a little background, it’s interesting to look at the Spitfire design of 1936. The Spitfire for its time had a very thin wing. The long for/aft length of the wing combined with its relative thinness to produce an exceptionally low T/C on the Spitfire which was its secret for attaining high speed. The extra area gained by its resulting, large square footage also gave it a low wing loading which made it very manoeuvrable. For low drag an aircraft should be as “clean” as possible, it should have an absolute minimum of extra bulges and contours applied to the basic aerodynamic shape. The aerodynamic shape itself should occupy as little volume as possible, and the volume it does occupy must expand from the nose smoothly, with the overall volume progression being tailored for the speed range of the aircraft. A subsonic aircraft should have a relatively large, rounded nose and airfoil, while supersonic one must be rather pointed and keep the volume progression from nose to tail very gentle PARASITE DRAG Parasite drag refers to the drag of any items not contributing to lift. The fuselage on most aircraft is usually a large contributor to this form of drag. Any protuberances, bumps and curves on an aircraft will produce drag. At supersonic speeds this penalty is compounded because these features will add their own shock wave effects. In this respect the Arrow is still light years ahead of any combat aircraft in service. It had adequate internal fuel capacity to provide its long range needs without resorting to external tanks. It was designed to carry its weaponry internally as well. It had a delta-wing which required no extra tail surfaces. It had only one fin. It satisfied its area rule requirements well without resorting to subsonic drag increasing noticeable by pinches and bulges. One area that has been largely ignored is the fact that the Arrow used a revolutionary, and still largely un-copied, cam/knuckle control-surface actuation system that was housed entirely in the wing. There were practically no protruding fairings for hinges and actuators. Toward the tips there were, on the underside of the wing, small curves protrusions over the knuckles that, due to their not having any right angles and being as shallow as they were added very little drag. Avro’s brilliant hinge design also ensured that there were no gaps on the “active” side of the control surfaces by incorporating a double piano-hinge assembly that assured low drag no matter which way the control surfaces were deflected. The F-15 and F-18 and others have large 90 degree fairings over the actuator-hinge mechanisms which add considerable supersonic drag. Ninety degree angles on the airframe impose significant drag penalties at supersonic speed due to the formation of hard shock waves which impact the surrounding structure aggravating the “interference drag” problem by any standard; the Arrow was an exceptionally clean machine. Even the phenomenal Lockheed SR-71 with two engine shapes in additional to the fuselage, two tails, and two (or three) underside stabilizing fins cannot compare to the Arrow in terms of aerodynamic cleanness. INDUCED DRAG Induced drag is simply that portion of an aircraft’s drag total at a given altitude and speed caused by the production of lift. The delta-wing boosters were arguing that the delta was naturally better for induced drag at subsonic speeds and supersonic speeds. The trapezoidal fans felt the opposite was true. The reason the delta made more drag seems to be because it could operate at angles of attack beyond where the trapezoidal wing would stall, and made even more lift in the process! Avro seemed to achieve a breakthrough in induced drag and controllability on the Arrow wing, and Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF was hungry for those figures by 1957. Deltas make lift like no other wing once pitched up, and high-aspect ratio wings are unsuitable for supersonic flight. Avro decided to use the delta wing based on their own research, while others were watching the unhappy results of the Convair XF-92, and F-102 and were avoiding that wing type like the plague, with the NACA’s blessings People talk about the blending of the fuselage and wing on aircraft such as the F-16, SR-71, and the MIG-29 as being beneficial in helping the fuselage to produce lift. On the Arrow no such blending was required since the top of the fuselage; wing and intakes were one continuous, flat surface. The entire top of the Arrow was the wing. Making the Arrow, in very real terms, a “lifting body” This point is a major one and it is of considerable advantage when compared to the SR-71, the F-15 and F-22 and current Soviet fighters that share the blended philosophy.
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 5 TRIM DRAG Drag produced by any control deflection required for straight and level flight is termed “trim drag” Trim drag is a major component of drag in high-performance aircraft at the extremes of their speed and altitude range and is improperly ignored in most written presentation of aircraft designs. It was known that the speed and altitude varied over the very wide speed range intended for the CF-105, the alpha and thus the point on the body of the aircraft where the lift was centered (center of pressure or center of lift) would change. It would also change with speed. Both cases are counteracted in almost every aircraft by deflection of the elevators to keep the aircraft straight and level across its speed and altitude “performance envelope.” For example at low speed the aircraft would fly somewhat nose up (at a high alpha), and to keep it there, the elevators would have to be deflected upwards. At high subsonic speed and low to medium altitude, the elevators would actually be deflected slightly downwards on a properly designed delta-tailless aircraft since at subsonic speeds the center of lift is located farther forward then it is in supersonic flight, tending to cause the aircraft to pitch up. At high altitude and high speed, low air density actually results in aerodynamic conditions similar to those of low speed flight. At an aircraft “absolute ceiling” in any aircraft, the elevators are either deflected upwards, completely eliminating any capacity for a further climb, or the angle of attack of the aircraft and the resultant drag exceed the amount of thrust available to maintain speed, and thus altitude. Supersonic speed also causes the center of lift to move rearward resulting in a nose-down pitch force. Thus in the thin air of extreme altitude and supersonic velocities, the elevators would again be deflected upwards. (Pondering these phenomena says something unkind about the F-111 Raven, F-14 Tomcat and the Tornado’s “swing-wing” Unfortunately, at supersonic speeds; the swing-wing’s sweep moves the center of lift back, which aggravates the natural rearward shift that occurs at supersonic speed. The sweep does, however, help move the center of gravity of the variable-geometry aircraft in a favourable direction, yet the wing-glove retractable vanes of the F-14 Tomcat, since de-activated in an effort to reduce weigh and complexity, and the large saw-tooth on the MIG-23 which vanishes at the forward swept position, show that it isn’t enough to counteract the negative effects) For the Arrow, Avro incorporated the negative camber of the wing to reduce this effect. They optimised the camber, at 0.75 percent negative, which gave a good compromise across the performance envelop. Avro also ensured that they programmed the fuel consumption to move the center of gravity as far rearward as possible by the mid-point of the flight, which would coincide with the highest speed and altitude portion of the mission. MANOEUVRABLITY FACTORS are wing loading, power loading, control effectiveness, critical alpha and load limit. WING LOADING The Arrow design had a wing area of 1225 square feet, Compared to contemporary and modern fighters (around 500 to 650 square feet Jim100 AB), this resulted in a very low wing loading when the weight of the aircraft is compared to the wing available to “carry it”. The simple secret to the phenomenal manoeuvrability of the Mitsubishi “Zero” of World War II was its low wing loading. No high-performance fighter of the war could match it in a turning fight, not even the Hurricane or the Spitfire. At high altitudes, low wing loading is absolutely critical to the manoeuvrability and speed of an aircraft. At these heights the air is so thin that a large wing is necessary to provide enough lift to support the weight of the aircraft. A smaller wing would invoke such severe trim and/or induced drag penalties as to exceed the amount of available power and make the aircraft stall. (The F-22’s wing area is 840 square feet and needs thrust vectoring and powerful engines to allow it to manoeuvre at altitudes over 50,000 feet and not stall. The Arrow on the other hand has the lowest wing loading of any supersonic fighter/interceptor to ever enter service and could fly at the same speeds and was still able to manoeuvre at the same heights as the F-22 50,000 to 70,000 ft.! Arrow Wing Loading at Combat-take-off wt 67,250/1225 = 54.9 lbs to 1 sq ft of Wing F-22 Wing loading at Combat-take-off 64,840/840 = 77.1 lbs to 1 sq ft of wing. Jim100 AB) POWER LOADING This is the ratio of weight to the amount of thrust available to carry it, its inverse is equally valid and called “thrust to weight ratio” The arrow had a very high thrust to weight ratio (or a very low power loading) and was about the best in the world in this respect until the F-15A Eagle. CRITCAL ALPLA The ability of an aircraft to achieve high alpha without causing flow separation (and then stall) is a factor in potential maneuverability. A delta wing has an innate high alpha capacity because it naturally produces the vortex already described. Avro further introduced leading edge droop to add even more high alpha capability, especially for low speed handling. The leading edge notch and saw-tooth on the Arrow did exactly the same thing as the LEX (leading edge extension) does on the F-18, F-16, the Soviet’s MIG-29 and Su-27. The F-16 is advertised far and wide (especially during USAF air show presentations) as THE aircraft that is capable of extraordinarily high alpha before the stall. The F-16 by the way is limited to 26 degrees of alpha before encountering control problems. The F-18 is even better in this regards but the exact figure is, to R.L. Whitcomb’s knowledge is still classified. Let just say that it is confined to about 28 degrees during air shows to allow the aircraft to recover without crashing should one engine fail at such a low altitude. More the one Avro engineer has stated to R.L. Whitcomb that the Arrow was wind-tunnel tested to 45 degrees of alpha before separation (and the stall). This figure has also been published in other works on the Arrow. Others sources claim the delta-wing makes lift up to 60 degrees of alpha, which is about 40 degrees more than a normal, straight wing can produce before stalling. Zurakowski has related that the Arrow was test flown at up to 25 degrees without problems. Considering the F-16’s reputation and 26 degree limitation, one must applaud Avro’s success.
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 6 CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS To turn all this lift and alpha capability into useful maneuvers requires effective control surfaces that can produce a high rate of change in alpha. One look at the Arrow wing will show the elevators and ailerons to be simply enormous relative to the size of the wing. In the case of the elevators, this was done due to a relatively short “moment arm” (distance between the center of gravity and the control surface) to assure good responsiveness at low speeds. Most modern aircraft with the engines located at the extreme rear of the aircraft have short moment arms as well. Again one should note that the vortex created by the leading edge notch/saw tooth passed over the joint between them imparting added effectiveness to both. The Arrow also had the first computerized (fly by wire) flight control system. Problems with the pitch up and turn-tightening characteristics of the Convair’s deltas, coupled with the fact that they didn’t seem to want stall, should end all serious debates about control effectiveness as far as the delta’s ability to make lift and turns. Avro actually had to modify the flight controls system to limit the control effectiveness for flight at high speeds and low and medium altitudes. This characteristic did not hurt low-speed lift since lift would be generated by high angle of attack and leading-edge vortex. Control effectiveness was assisted by the fuel consumption sequencing pattern which made sure adequate control authority existed at the extremes of operation. This reduced trim drag greatly as a fringe benefit. As it was, Zurakowski described the Arrow as having an excessively fast roll rate and the flight control system was modified to reduce this on the prototypes (it was reduced to just one roll or 360 degrees in a second Jim100 AB). Zurakowski and Woodman also described the Arrow as being very sensitive to pitch inputs, something that bodes very well for maneuverability since this means that it had high control effectiveness and could change alpha very quickly indeed, Woodman complained after his first flight that a mere 1/5 inch of control stick movement would subject the Arrow to 0.5 G acceleration when the controls were calibrated for “linear” sensitivity. In other words, only two inches of stick movement was required to effect a significant 5 G turn! The system was then modified to include a “gradient” whereby the stick was made less effective near the center position while preserving total pitch authority at the extremes of its movement area. On Woodman’s second flight in the Arrow he found the stick gradient to be “excellent”. Since Woodman found the less sensitive “toned down” filtering on his second flight more to his liking, one can see that the Arrow had awesome natural control sensitivity. Again, Avro designed the fly-by-wire system to minimize sensitivity at combined high-speed and at low-to medium altitudes to protect the pilot and aircraft since it had so much lift and control authority built into it that to do otherwise could endanger the aircraft and crew. While Avro knew the Arrow had plenty of control authority and lift-generation potential at low speed, an Arrow configuration was proposed using a canard to reduce trim drag for an even higher-speed, higher-altitude Arrow version. (The Arrow PS-2 Jim100 AB) The Mk 1, taking off at a weight about 5,000 pounds heavier than that of a combat-loaded Mk 2, lifted off at 170 knots, F-15 Eagles take off at about 210 knots. It is easy to see which would be the best dogfighter. LOAD LIMIT Maximum G is the structural limit of the airframe and thus is also a limit on alpha and maneuverability. A fast alpha increases loads on the wings with a great deal of force. Think of the weak kneed feeling experienced when an elevator lifts off abruptly. This is perhaps an acceleration of 1.2 G. ((“The Arrow was designed to be flown in normal operation at up to 7.33 G at combat weigh and supersonic velocity!”)) At this level of G force, your head, as an example, normally weighing perhaps 15 pounds, will weigh 110! Not difficult to see why it is hard for a combat pilot to withstand high G while swiveling his or her neck to look for the enemy! The Mk 1 Arrow prototype weighed 49,000 lbs empty. At 7.33 G, the wings would have to bear a load equivalent to over 400,000 lbs! The CF-18 Hornet is currently limited to 7.5 G maximum, (clean and light), and is restricted to even less when it is at any useful combat weight. The F-15 even in the comparatively light air-to-air combat configuration, with no tanks, is limited to only 5.5 G. SPEED RECORDS American jets like the F-106 Delta Dart, F-4 Phantom, F-15 “Strike Eagle” and others set their records being stripped down and equipped with up-rated engines, engines that were in all likelihood scrapped after the record runs due to excessive turbine inlet temperatures on their record runs. The CF-105 Mk 1 nearly set a record being considerably overweigh with the instrumentation pack, heavy engines and ballast, and was apparently not even at full throttle. Indeed more than one ex-Avro employee states that they were categorically forbidden by Crawford Gordon from breaking the speed record with the J-75 engines. (Yes, what might have been had the Arrow not been cancelled, by government fools! Jim100 AB)
I was in the Navy on submarines back in the mid-70’s I was a Nuclear Electrician on USS Robert E Lee and USS Guitarro I sat on both sides of the reactor operator as Throttleman (left side) and Electical Operator (right side) in front of the EOOW
Thanks Allan, the really good stuff is my uncle and his work was recorded well. I recorded mine on an iPad. Strangely enough, the iPad does a pretty good job. regards...Virtual
I would like to apologize I don’t remember who or what channel but a question came up, (it was about 7 months ago maybe longer?) they had heard that an engineer flew as an observer/passenger on an Arrow. I said no, I didn’t think so, well I was WRONG! I just found this so I am posting it here in the hopes that the person that asked the question will find it and see they were RIGHT! Avro Design Engineer, D. E. Darrah (Red Darrah) was the only passenger to ever fly in an Arrow - checking the Damper optimization fly-by-wire systems in RL 203 for Spud Potocki on Feb 19, 1959 - Page 75/81 documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-AvroCanadaCF-105Arrownose.pdf Again, my apologies to you!
True but it was made for a TV show so a little intrigue was used to make for an interesting if not accurate fact. I always try to bring only facts so I guess it makes me a little more boring. LOL In fact a lot of the show was fact but for one reason or another names and people were not shown as it was in real life Like it was .Spud Potocki that took RL-202 to Mach 1.98 not Jack Woodman in RL-201 with a passenger. No wonder people have a hard time believing the Arrow was really that good. I could spend hours correcting the names of the people and the facts that were associated with them in that movie.
Mark I found something of interest; we can all agree that in the movie “CBC The Arrow” that the Arrow never buzzed the Air National Guard airfield near Buffalo. However, that may have been a reference to an earlier time. The early development running of the Orenda TR-5 turbojet continued through 1949 and early 1950. The early success of the engine caught A.V Roe’s gas turbine engineers completely off guard since they suddenly realized that they had a flyable engine and nothing to fly it in. Paul Dilworth didn’t quite agree, feeling the Orenda was ready to be slipped into a North American Aviation (NAA) F-86 Saber and flown Roy Dobson insisted it fly on a test-bed aircraft first however. A Lancaster Mark X (built in the same plant during the war was quickly modified to accept two Orendas in place of two of the four Rolls-Royce Merlins. It flew in July of 1950. The Lancaster was a very fast aircraft for its type with the Merlin engines during the war and, with two Orenda’s supplementing the Merlins it was actually superior to the B-29’s and B-50’s of the USAF’s Strategic Air Command (SAC). On at least one occasion this “Super-Lanc” buzzed the Air National Guard Airfield near Buffalo, New York. The eyebrows of more than one P-47 Thunderbolt pilot were raised when, after they scrambled to intercept, they were effortlessly left in the Lancaster’s wake. (I found this in two different sources (Shutting Down the National Dream by Greig Stewart, and Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L Whitcomb Jim100AB)
Mark Remember in the "CBC the Arrow" the Arrow was in the climb at Mach 1.9? Well have a look at this! On Remembrance Day 1958, with Potocki at the helm, the second Arrow, RL-202, achieved the maximum speed of the Arrow program … at least the maximum recorded speed. In a flight of 1.25 hours the jet reached a corrected speed of Mach 1.96 while climbing through 50,000 feet, still accelerating, and while only in intermediate afterburner (some say the correction factor was incorrect and the true airspeed was Mach 1.98 but the point is largely irrelevant, Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L. Whitcomb).
These 4 films, with the right scriptwriter, would make a great film - think Tom Clancy meets Top Gun! Great work, really enjoying the story. I take it you based it on the rumours that 202 escaped and ended up in England?
Hi Cliff.....Thanks for the nice comment...I really like to hear from Canadians who enjoy these movies. What ended up in England was not 202 (as far as I know), but an Iroquois engine. This is true. Hawker Sidley was associated with both Orenda and Bristol Aerospace. They legally brought an Iroquois to England under great secrecy. They were astounded by it''s power. Under great secrecy it was disassembled and it's secrets examined. A few years later the Olympus engine that powered the Concord emerged. I know this story to be true because I know the fellow who went to England to bring the engine home. He is currently trying to bring that engine back to life. regards...Virtual.
@@Virtualenvirons I am actually English but my father was born in Saint John, New Brunswick and moved here with his parents aged 6. Interesting to hear about the Iroquois coming here, especially in view of the totally new engine design that was going in to TSR2 and then of course the Olympus. TSR2, of course, suffered a similar fate to Arrow and also had all the designs and test rigs destroyed after which the RAF placed a (Never fulfilled) order for the US F111. Coincidence? I think not
HI Plazma.....Glad you enjoy the videos, but "we have to talk". I see you are a 'gamer". Gamers often get confused when they watch these videos, although they seem to enjoy them. There are typos in these videos that are mostly corrected on the new Arrow channel. You can see the link in the top right hand corner of these videos to that channel. Back to gamers. Gaming is not real world, hence "Gaming". You may have noticed that there is not another series like this on CZcams There is a reason for that. No one really knows how two modern opposing forces with equivalent aircraft would play out. The math says there would be only one aircraft left on the winning side. Gaming tactics and real world tactics are much different and I do not profess to know real world tactics more than on a cursory level. But, I do have an Air force general on the team. regards.....Virtual
If I won a Lotto I would start up our NEW next gen design group and execute the process. But I really also would like to know how the heck to manage 40G turns and Mach15 in two seconds. From stationary at 40kFt. Really would like to know that! But I better hurry up, I will turn 72 in the Spring. Like your dream. Also like the phrasing on the keys! Very nice. Poor Rankin, now they will be paranoid heheh. Have you heard of "Genie missiles?" A Canadian standard intercept weapon for years, until we got better stuff. Have a great 2019 to any and all.
Hi Allan..Thanks for the comment. Yes, we have kept the Genie missiles out of it. They would have had to have been armed by a U.S. officer anyway, so no point really. Glad you like the series. I am not that far behind you in terms of age. I draw my old age pension this year. regards...Virtual
Well maybe the nice CIA man knows how to get one? As the CIA have lots of things that they don't talk about. They even have things hidden all over the place he maybe willing to share now...
Enjoying this please watch the color of your text as it’s hard to read I live near Sacramento California we have a J-58 engine on display at California Aerospace Museum and as you know SR’s flew out of Beale AFB about 40 miles from my location where they have one on display along with a D-21 I’m an Air Force brat and first saw one fly in 67 or 68 they were a little expensive to operate but my 2 Nuclear Submarines weren’t exactly cheap Thanx from the left coast near the Krapitol of California
Hi Gene. Thanks for the comment. Some scenes are just difficult to get the text right. The background, etc. Can you clarify the two nuclear submarines comment? regards...Virtual
yes . thank you . here in the us east of bangor maine . and a non lib and i'm just a little older than the arrow and do remember just a little of it . thank you loved them ..... and i do have a story for you .. if you can put up with poor gamer and bad spelling lol .
some of your pilots bragged to some of the maine air grade that they could sneak into maine any time they wanted . and were told it could not happen . so in june or july 1982 03:00 two silmltanios sonic booms woke me one and half miles away from the bangor airport . firefighter ems at the time i called dispatch office . 30 minuets later got a call back and was told that the 2 aircraft snick in and went virtual over the airport . so your guys do have bragging rights .
Pretty sure the arrow would not keep uo in dog fight in anything made after the 2000 but might have a chance with thrust retiring tech abd speed but would be a great inter enter abs strategic strick bomber not fight
Hello. The entire movie was made on my Mac. The piano was played between my uncle and I. My uncle's music was recorded professionally, mine on my iPad. I played and wrote the piano arrangement for the Good, the Bay and the ugly, if that is what you were wondering. The credits explain who. regards....Virtual
Virtualenvirons I'm probably the only aviation geek in Canada who thinks snuffing the Arrow was the right call. Not here to debate it. You vids get more views than mine so you must be doing something right. Maybe I should be producing my own music too. Carry on.
@@falconeaterf15 HI Falcon...Well, I think the reason I get a lot of views is that I am telling three stories in one series. Story one, the Series plot, Story two, the demise of the Arrow and story 3, Canada's inability to patrol it's borders. regards....Virtual
Hi Luc...I will be releasing Ep 5 and Ep. 6 at the same time, late Sept. or earl Oct. There was too much for one episode, so I am holding back Ep. 5.. Thank you so very much for watching and encouraging the series. regards...Virtual
Yes, the EU would always side with Canada. Excellent, some voices are in!! I love the air battles!! Please show NATO fighting alongside Canada in the next War episode!! When will it be out?
Hi WW3...yes, there is a message here and I am glad that people are picking up on it. These movies are very time consuming. I am just one old guy making these movies on my Mac. I have been thinking about War and I think it may need to be the start of a new series, including team oxygen-arian and the Arrow of course, but I have to develop ships, planes, subs, etc. So, it may be a while, but thank you very much for watching. regards....Virtual.
Well, the Mig-25 (Mach 3.21) is junk. It was designed to shoot down the ill fated XB-70 Valkarye bomber that was never fielded. The Mig-31 Foxhound ( Mach 2.81) clean, loaded probably Mach 2.6 is a good plane, but could never turn with an Arrow. The Arrow was to have it's Air intake inlets revised as it could not get enough air for the Iroquois to get full power. Eventually the Arrow would have exceeded Mach 3. Keep and eye out for future episodes. regards..Virtual
David The Arrow Mk 3 would have had a new rounded forward swept “shoulder” four-ramp three-dimensional variable intake which gave no shock-induced air-flow separation on either the ramp surface or fuselage. (Resent NASA internet presentations relating to hypersonic intake design conclude this is the most efficient design for hypersonic flight!
As a fourth-generation engineer who began as a machinist, with undergraduate degrees in engineering and physics I have seen things on the theoretical and applied side many times. The notion that one could wave a magic wand and "poof" this 60 year old aircraft could become a version 2 with new materials, engines, systems and instrumentation effortlessly is nonsense. Given the massive state of change in material science in the last 60 years you would be beginning from scratch. For good reason as aerodynamics, stress factors and simply the manufacturing processes with composites can be put together in a much faster, more sophisticated and technically less demanding way than could aluminum or the other metals used 60 years ago in aviation. While these issues could be overcome, there would be absolutely no way of determining for certain until prototypes we're off the computer and at least into the wind tunnel. We're not talking about building a passenger plane, the comparative simplicity of which makes it relatively easy to go from computer to manufacture, this is a whole different animal, infinitely more challenging, complex and above all unpredictable. There is a reason going all the way back to Glenn Curtiss that prototype aircraft have always been referred to as "she". Furthermore, the argument is rendered moot as fighter/interceptors of the 21st century and beyond will be highly sophisticated, autonomous, extreme long-range, unbelievably fast, quick and maneuverable missles with nothing more than a cloud of shrapnel as a payload/warhead, requiring no more than a firecracker to detonate, intercepts and closes on any sort of piloted aircraft at Mach 5 or above. Autonomous fighter/ intercepter aircraft are inevitable and after the spending debacle of the F-35 desperately needed. Not only is a third of the weight of a high performance all weather fighter devoted to the pilots creature comforts and safety the autonomous aircraft that are this fast and maneuverable would render a human pilot unconscious after the first high-speed turn. A few more and he would be dead. the artificial intelligence that will pilot these crafts is not anywhere near as complex or sophisticated as most laymen believe, rather it thinks with brute force rather than the vague intuition and "skill" we mere mortals depend upon. When Big Blue first beat Boris Spassky in chess it wasn't because of its great tactical and strategic abilities. Rather, it was able to make 15 to 20,000 calculations in the length of time it took Spassky to make one. The next generations of airborne killing machines will evolve organically with strategy, tactics and the 99% kill ratio being executed in milliseconds, while the AUV "learns" and self corrects. Forget the F-35 or the Arrow and think more along the lines of the organic Cylon Raider craft in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. How tragic, but that's progress? No worries, you Canucks we're largely responsible for the creation of the deHavilland Mosquito and Beaver and that's enough progress in aviation for generations of pride. Aircraft design has always been as much art as technology and the Mosquito and Beaver are high art! Few aircraft have ever been more successful in terms of service to mankind....
Hi Mose. i received two comments this morning that seem somewhat similar. I can't help but think the two of you might know each other in some way. The other is on Episode 4. I appreciate your historical knowledge and friendly point of view. Most Americans take a more direct approach...(my dad can beat your dad) sort of response. But, your comment is lengthy and touches many unrelated points. I need to distill it down to a couple of points I can respond to. First of all, the retired talent on this team is quite extensive, including Air force, Aeronautical engineers, Jet engine engineers, etc. Before I start, we were asked to give a talk on the Arrow recently and decided to make this short movie in the same vain as the series to finally explain the Arrow. All of the points are documented and can be defended. The link will be below. The Arrow was in some cases two generations ahead of its time. Most look at the F-106 and say "same thing", but it was not even close. The first F-106's required two hands on the stick to fly the plane. I will leave it up to your imagination what appendage was used for the throttles. The Arrow was fly by wire with haptic feedback, not seen on American fighters until the F-16 and F-18. Another example, the Arrow had negative stability built into he Y-axis, again not seen on American fighters until the F-16 and F-18. The Phantom was a closer contempory. The list goes on and is explained in the movie link below. The primary point of these movies, although there is a second story being told, is that neither the F-18 or F-35 suits Canada's needs. That is why the Arrow was developed. To make my point quickly, that is why the U.S. does not have either of those two fighters stationed in Elmendorf. If America won't use the F-35 as an intercepter then why should Canada? regards....Virtual czcams.com/video/hMKAoryHVP8/video.html
Boom, boom, I love how the F-18s and Avro Arrow work together. As a Canadian stationed on a NATO base it would be epic to see NATO fight alongside Canada in the next Wat episode. Will you also add the Chinese helping the Russians and missile defenses shooting down Russian nukes? That would be fun.
Hi WCR...Thanks for the comment. I have to give the next Episode a lot of thought. I don't think there is a scenario for NATO to come to North America. I intended to make the next Episode more or less the end of the Series, but there appears to be a lot of interest in a war on our shores and how NATO would respond. So, I think "War" will be the start of a new Arrow series. When I started the series, I knew Ep. 4 would be difficult, because historically the U.S. would not stand for any Russian incursion. Then the new President handed me the story gift wrapped. regards...Virtual.
Would be nice to see how the Arrow would have carried an ABM, I think it would have had to be half in and half out of the weapons pod. A little known fact (see link www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1958/1958%20-%200183.PDF Flight and Aircraft Engineering, “Ironclads and Arrows” 14 February 1958) it explains some of the math involved. Jim Floyd finds that if an “anti” is launched from an aircraft flying at Mach 1.5 at 60,000 ft. its thrust need only be about one third of that required for ground launch weapons. Jim Floyd was working on an ABM system with Douglas to adapt a version of the Nike-Zeus system for use on the Arrow. The first stage of the ground launched version could be abandoned, with data link modifications to the remaining upper stage to accept targeting information from the Arrow’s onboard radar system. (R.L. Whitcomb)
@@jim100ab9, That was later used by the USAF for ASAT. That was also one of the things that They were working on yet both use the same basic concepts. The F-15 Which is the closest to the flight performance of the Arrow in both speed and Altitude and rate of climb.
I’m a hunge fan of the arrow. The more I learn the more I believe in the project. It was/is still an out and out interceptor. Something our allies in Canada sorely need, especially in the climate out moron in chief has created for you and the world. The F35 has its place as an attack craft. But it is highly limited. The F-22’s should have carried that role as its own plus that of the F35. I just don’t believe in its ability. For Canada, a country I wish I could move to, but because of my disability cannot, you need a stronger defense as we rely. On you, and the Arrow meets that requirement, all it needs is updated engines, nwere composit materials and improved power plants and it will out do any American aircraft in the role of intercepted.
Vitualenvirons: I think I've posted a pic of the Arrow on my home properly. It seems to be cropped off. This is the picture that I was wondering if anyone had any info where it was taken. Hoping for some insight. I'm sorry I don't know how to properly post a proper pic on youtube.
Hi Mass. Things have changed on CZcams. You used to be able to post pictures as a slide show, but that function seems to be gone now. Looks like it was replaced by Google photo on the right. That probably does not help. Photo does look interesting though. Are you using a mac or a PC? regards...Virtual
PC. I might take a few minutes to reply sometimes because my notifications are screwing up. But I know there is some but I can't tell what unless I search. Sorry.
@@mass4552 Hi Mass, I am a Mac guy unfortunately. But, I can tell you what needs to happen. CZcams is designed around movies, so a photo does not work as a photo. But, a photo can me easily be made to a movie, but you need someone to help you do that by the sounds of things. If you notice I have stills on my channel. What I do is get them into a program that exports them out as a move. The picture never changes, but youtube see movie and not picture. If you can get to that point, then it is just an upload. The information to do this is on CZcams. If you search a bit, you will find videos explaining. hope this helps regards...Virtual.
I really wish I could tell you some info on the arvo . But the papers have been hidden somewhere in Ontario. Only 2 people know of their whereabouts. I don't even know if those persons are still alive. Wish I could tell you more .
I know more than most when it comes to the Ocean Ranger as I was living in Newfoundland at the time. There was no cover-up it was just a porthole that gave way and the bad design that caused the sea water to short out the ballast control room. With it taking on water with no way to keep the platform on an even keel there was just no way it could stay afloat.
First off I do a lot of research so if you can give the names of the people, the names of the files, was it photocopies of files even a little of what was in the files as it would all be of help.. I would love a new challenge!
@@jim100ab9 That was the official story. I ran into the engineer who investigated the incident. He told me the 'Mekanic Tarasov', the Russian freighter that sank the next morning, actually ran into the oil platform. We determined that it was covered up because of the plutonium that went missing from the Deep River storage facility. We believe the plutonium was on that ship. Evrything has been destroyed BUT I do believe the Russians may be very cooperative in this investigation, or not.
If the Arrow did go as planned, it would probably retire or maybe still be in service. Look at america's B-52. Their 60 year old aircraft is still in service!
HI Richard. If the Arrow program had not been shut down, Canada might still be making jets or at least have a thriving aerospace industry. The B-52 is an amazing story. It is not scheduled to be retired until around 2050. regards....Virtual
Hi George. Programming these movies is very difficult. Aerial combat scenes the most difficult as the are very large and slow. I have to program the scenes and let the computer calculate the turns, etc. Thanks for watching. regards....Virtual
Missed that one...thanks. Unfortunately, we can't change that now. On the first episode we misspelled Strategic and no one has ever noticed after 400,000 views. regards....Virtual.
HI 33. The SR71 is an American story, so I will let an American tell it. Beautiful plane. It original intent though may not have been an interceptor. It's origins begin with the CIA and he A-12 program. XB-71 may be closer to the truth. regards....Virtual
@@factinator33 HI 33. I have done some research, but not what comes up online or in history books. I stand by my first comment. Go up high...go fast...and deliver a big....big...bomb. regards....Virtual.
Hi Brian....there wasn't really anything to go head to head with in the U.S. at the time. The F-106 required two hands on the stick at that time. I will leave it up to your imagination as to what appendage was used for the throttles. regards....Virtual
At the time, the "Yanks" as you call them did not have anything capable of keeping up with this bird so no, never was. The CBC video series shows one flight made over the water to the US and they buzzed the F-86's and new F-100's US Base and Tower before going super2++sonic and it reached 105, 000 Ft. too. There were RADAR stations at the time sending techs out to check calibrations haha. Does not take too much imagination to get the idea of where we would really be at today had we not caved in to the US.
AllenI found something of interest; we can all agree that in the movie “CBC The Arrow” that the Arrow never buzzed the Air National Guard airfield near Buffalo. However, that may have been a reference to an earlier time. The early development running of the Orenda TR-5 turbojet continued through 1949 and early 1950. The early success of the engine caught A.V Roe’s gas turbine engineers completely off guard since they suddenly realized that they had a flyable engine and nothing to fly it in. Paul Dilworth didn’t quite agree, feeling the Orenda was ready to be slipped into a North American Aviation (NAA) F-86 Saber and flown Roy Dobson insisted it fly on a test-bed aircraft first however. A Lancaster Mark X (built in the same plant during the war was quickly modified to accept two Orendas in place of two of the four Rolls-Royce Merlins. It flew in July of 1950. The Lancaster was a very fast aircraft for its type with the Merlin engines during the war and, with two Orenda’s supplementing the Merlins it was actually superior to the B-29’s and B-50’s of the USAF’s Strategic Air Command (SAC). On at least one occasion this “Super-Lanc” buzzed the Air National Guard Airfield near Buffalo, New York. The eyebrows of more than one P-47 Thunderbolt pilot were raised when, after they scrambled to intercept, they were effortlessly left in the Lancaster’s wake. (I found this in two different sources (Shutting Down the National Dream by Greig Stewart, and Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L Whitcomb Jim100AB)
Hey , we gave up on a plane that was at least twenty years more advanced than any thing the Americans had , in fact the 1958 Arrow woud stand it's own against that dud F-35 , and the Arrow had more range and more speed. But, the Americans did let us buy out dated VooDoos and useless Beamark missles ( couldn't hit a barn if you fired it from inside the barn )
The crazy thing is if we didn't need the Arrow when we didn't need the Voodoos, Bomarc, or SAGE...turns out the USA just wanted to sell us their crap after the Arrow was killed.
Neil, what is your background in aviation? The F-35 is a good solid performer. Look at what was said about the F-15/16 when they were under development and entering service. The fighter mafia didn't want either aircraft as they thought they were not good enough. Well they were wrong anout both and they are wrong about what tehy are saying about the F-35. The Hornet is truly a dud now as its to flipping old with zero parts. time to bite the bullet and buy the only decent 5th gen get on the market. not the second hand junk our idiot PM just bought !
@@pcyr123456 HI Phillippe. I had to approve your last comment. The "Idiot" word. I will let this one go as you are not referring to anyone on this forum and I think most would agree with you, but keep it clean please. As to the F-35. There is a documentary movie on this channel that shows the problem with the F-35 for Canada. Note that I said Canada and not Europe. It also, compares the F-35 development to the Arrow and the Arrow Firsts. The scenario for the movie is also factual. I will ask you a question though on the F-35. If America had to choose between two aircraft for continental defence. Either the F-35 or the F-15 C (modern Arrow), which one would it choose. regards...Virtual.
Canada needs an interceptor good or bad the F-35 is just to slow to get the job done. Canada has around 2 mil sq miles of coastline we need something faster and with longer range then a first strike aircraft. Thanks anyway! The fighter mafia didn't want the F-15 their saying was not a pound for air to ground. The F-16 had a lot of 40 second Boyd input to make it a fast light maneuverable dog fighter.
How about adding a new fighter to the mix? Backstory: As the F-15X came into service in the USAF, the US gave the IDF their used F-15C/D from ANG units. IAI and Bombardier engineers working feverishly have uprated the former ANG airframes as brand-new CF-X15 Arctic Eagles -- now slowly replacing the oldest of the CF-118's! Where's the TARDIS when you need it?!
Hi Richard....Yes, a time machine...maybe we could go back and school Diefenbaker. Richard, sounds like you have a story you would like to write. Give it a try. I am getting a lot of input for the next episode. I was a bit surprised at how many people are interested in the content of this series. regards....Virtual
Some reasons why the USA aircraft industry feared the Arrow. (The USAF was not afraid that Canada would use the Arrow to shoot down the U2 or any other USAF plane. The USAF and the USA military aircraft industry were afraid that if the Arrow went into production Canada would start selling it to all the other NATO countries. It’s not surprising that the UASF industry disliked the Arrow as a multi-role aircraft capable of fighter, bomber, and interceptor with the ability to recon at high or low altitudes with weapons to defend itself and be able to fly as high and as fast as the SR-71 the CIA would lose its advantage in the spy plane industry if the Arrow was sold to other NATO countries. Bottom line is the USA military aircraft industry would have lost out on being the free world’s BIGGEST ARMS DEALER! Jim100 AB) Cold War Tech War by R.L. Whitcomb The Arrow could be dispatched to visually identify intruders. It could also be dispatched to do tactical reconnaissance it has been said that the reason the Arrow was feared by the Americans interests was it could shoot down the U2. Whiles it could certainly have done so, a more likely cause for concern would be the emerging probability that the Arrow might be able to match the flight performance of the CIA’s next-generation (unarmed) spy plane. The top secret project suntan, (for a Mach 2.5 and 70,000 feet spy plane) was in the works at the famed Skunk Works at Lockheed’s Burbank California complex, and at a secret location in Florida. under the project designation CL-400), US calculations of the Arrow’s true performance capability through wind tunnel data plus intelligence on the Mach 3+, 70.000+ feet, Arrow Mk3 design may well have had a heavy influence on the cancellation of the Cl-400 Suntan aircraft. These Arrow projections may also have been critical in the development of the A-12 specifications, which culminated in the SR-71 Blackbird (also unarmed). Max speed Mach 3.3, Ferry Range 3,200 NM, Service ceiling, 85,000 ft. Arrow Mark 3 (armed interceptor before the Arrows first flight) we know the estimate is conservative. This development would have increased the speed of the aircraft from Mach 2 to Mach 3 and the combat altitude from 18,288 m (60,000 ft) to 21,336 m (70,000 ft). The modifications needed for this version were more extensive and included up rated Iroquois Mk 3 engines, providing additional thrust, along with variable geometry intakes. The basic geometry of the original design, however, remained basically unchanged. Arrow Mk. 3, a Mach 3.5 capable aircraft with air to air refueling and a combat speed of Mach 3, using new materials including carbon fiber composites, a glass micro-balloon filled insulation contained in a composite honeycomb core. (This appears to have become the heat shield for Mercury and Gemini.) Arrow Mk4 (armed interceptor) this is from 1957 (before the Arrows first flight) so again we know the estimate is conservative. Avro projected the ferry range of this aircraft to be 2,500 NM (over 2,900 miles), Max speed Mach 3+, Service ceiling 80,000+ ft. The ramjet-augmented Mk4 would have had double the thrust-to-weight performance of the SR-71 Blackbird. Mk.4 which was basically an Arrow Mk3 with titanium skin using 4 auxiliary ramjets, each giving an extra 16,000 pounds of thrust. Documents pointing out that Curtiss Wright had this basic ramjet sitting on their shelves as paid for surplus, since they had been designed for the NAVAHO missile program, which had been cancelled. These were proposed in November 1957, and in very early 1958. This aircraft would have had about twice the thrust to weight ratio of the SR-71 or F-108, roughly the same drag (as the F-108 it was slightly larger due to having engines with 44% larger frontal area than the Iroquois, while having roughly the same thrust) it would have had better range then the F-108 especially since the Mk4 had air to air refueling. (Remember this is about 10 years before the SR-71 or the Mig-25 flew! Jim100 AB) It seems clear from what remains of the paper trail (most given to R.L. Whitcomb by Avro people) that the Americans again declined on the Arrow 2 and also the Arrow 3, because they couldn’t maintain Mach 3 long enough. Avro was projecting, based on their material testing to that point, that the Mk. 3 could maintain Mach 3 for 20 minutes. (Like all Avro projections before the Mk1 flew this was also a conservative estimate Jim100 AB) We also know that John Foster Dulles told MND Pearkes in med 1958 that the US would never buy Arrows. Not even to save the American taxpayers the expense of developing the F-108 and the SR-71.
The CIA and the Arrow program, I don’t believe in conspiracies I do believe in the facts, (Dragnet TV show) the facts ma'am, just the facts. As researched by Jim100 AB part 1 Anyone that has read any books on the Arrow knows of John Foster Dulles, the U.S. Secretary of State and Dr. Courtland Perkins Chief Scientist for the USAF. Their names come up repeatedly in dealing with the RCAF, DRB, NAE, the Arrow program in general, and the Canadian government. In his role as the U S Secretary of State he was in a position of knowing the Arrows capabilities and any vulnerability. He was also the one who told Hon. George Pearkes, the Canadian Minister of Defense and the Canadian government that the USA would never buy Arrows not even to save the USA tax payers from funding and building the F-108. In fact the Mk 3 Arrow would have been a better performer than the F-108, or the SR-71. This is based on the wind tunnel tests done at NACA in Langley Virginia and the flight testing of the Arrow Mk 1. These tests were also done about 10 years before the SR-71 flew! It has always been said the Arrow was a threat to the U2 spy plane, but how? In 1956 the CIA was using a cover story for the U-2 and said it was just a weather research aircraft but in reality it was used to over fly and to spy on other countries. The only aircraft that John Foster Dulles knew that was in development that might threaten the U-2 cover story was the CF-105 Arrow. Therefore he could not let the development of the Arrow continue. If the U-2 over flights were to continue its spying missions the Arrow had to go. Any flights by the U-2 needed approval from Allen Welsh Dulles, Head of the CIA, John Foster Dulles U S Secretary of State, as well as the President and others. You might have noticed the last name of Allen (Dulles) Head of the CIA do you know he had a brother and who his brother was? His brother was none other than, John Foster Dulles! Do you know where the CIA headquarters are located? It’s in the unincorporated community at Langley in Virginia! Just a hop, skip and jump away from where the RCAF and the NACA did the wind tunnel tests on the Arrow! There is also a picture of John Carver Frost (Avro Car/Saucer studies) with a General Arthur Trudeau, of the USA Army Foreign Technology branch. Their mandate is to acquire technology through various means, including covert methods. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a civilian foreign intelligence service of the federal government of the United States, tasked with gathering, processing, and analyzing national security information from around the world, primarily through the use of human intelligence like General Arthur Trudeau, Dr. Courtland Perkins, NACA personal and many others. General Arthur Trudeau, like Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF, both went to see the Avro car. We know Perkins was there to see both the Avro Car as well as the Avro Arrow (a letter from Jim Floyd to R.L. Whitcomb proves this), and General Arthur Trudeau was more than likely there to see the Arrow as well as the Avro car. What kind of Foreign Technology agent would he be had he not been interested in the Arrows technology as well. So far the facts show without a doubt that the CIA, USAF, and the USA government were well informed about the step by step development of the Arrow. It’s also known that in September 1957 Avro passed along information on their PS-2 and Mk 4 Arrows for the USAF LRIX (long range interceptor) project when Dr. Courtland Perkins asked for the specs, because he didn’t think the F-108 would make it into production. Avro was told by him not to design a new plane just give possible variants of the Arrow. He also wanted to be kept informed on the development of the Arrow to see if it could be used to fill the LRIX roll if the F-108 didn’t make it into production. Even Jim Floyd said in a note in 2001 given to R.L. Whitcomb that “we, bared our soul and gave Dr. Courtland Perkins everything he asked for”. The CIA is well known to have an industrial espionage division which, combined with the Canadian and British (the British had the Avro 730, an SR-71 lookalike at Mach 3 and an altitude of 70,000+ ft recon & strategic bomber cancelled in early 1957) generosity with their most advanced technology, assured Lockheed of the best information in the world on advanced aircraft, propulsion and control. The facts show the CIA through John Foster Dulles, Courtland Perkins, General Arthur Trudeau, and others from the NACA, and the generosity of the Canadian’s and British. The CIA had motive, information, opportunity and about 10 years to develop the SR-71 program. One can only imagine the shock and awe of the USAF, CIA, Dr. Courtland Perkins, Allen Dulles, John Foster Dulles and even Kelly Johnson had after reading the Arrow PS-2 & Arrow Mk 4 specifications in 1957! This is probably why they waited for everything to do with the Arrow to be destroyed before starting the A-12/SR-71 program. It’s also probably why Lockheed cancelled the CL-400 Suntan in 1957 it was a Mach 2.5 and 70,000 ft altitude spy-plane that was originally supposed to replace the U2. The Arrow Mk 1 with the early P-3 de-rated J-75’s (developing thrust of only 16,000 lbt dry) did Mach 1.98 climbing through 50,000 feet still accelerating, still climbing, and only using intermediate afterburners (not even at full power!) and being 3.5 tons over real world combat weight (compared to the Arrow Mk 2) and it was test flown to 58,000+ ft. Compare the Arrow Mk 1 to the first flights of the A-12 using a more developed J-75 engines that produced around 17,000 lbs dry thrust. The A-12 in level flight had achieved Mach 2.16 and was flown to an altitude of 60,000 ft! This is the Arrow Mk 1’s flight performance range and the Arrow was never pushed to it's max performance and was 3.5 tons over combat weight! Even with the J-58 turbo-afterburner it achieved Mach 3.35 in level flight using a variable intake and was flown to an altitude of 85,000+ ft. The J-58 produced 24,000 lbs dry and 32,000 lbs wet thrust, the fully developed PS-13 Mk 2 Iroquois for the Arrow Mk 2 would have produced around 23,000 lbs dry and 30,000 lbs wet thrust and was smaller and lighter then the J-58. (Aircraft Engines of the World publication) Also the J-58 was not a turbo ramjet engine as most sources say. It was a turbojet engine! (More USA propaganda) The way the engine worked at cruise led it to be described as "acting like a turbo ramjet". It has also been described as a turbo ramjet based on incorrect statements describing the turbo machinery as being completely bypassed. This was not true it was just a turbojet engine like all the rest. Okay, the projections that Avro shows for the Arrow Mk 2 seem to be grossly underestimating the Altitude. For an aircraft that is 3.5 tons lighter and engines that are 40 to 44% more powerful then the de-rated J-75’s to have an increase in altitude of only 12,000 ft (max Altitude 70,000 ft for the Arrow Mk 2) just seems wrong! Avro was estimating the altitude based on a drag factor on the Arrow airframe that was 20% higher than it really was. Once the Arrow Mk 1 flew and proved that the drag factors were being over estimated by 20% the Arrow Mk 2 would now have an altitude of at least 85,000+ ft just like the A-12. This overestimated drag factor would also plague the maximum altitude and the speed estimates for the Arrow Mk 3, Mk 4, and the Arrow PS-2. However, the max Mach speed of 2.4-2.6 for the Arrow Mk 2 is right do to the fixed geometry intake it just couldn’t go any faster. You would need a variable intake to get speeds above Mach 2.4-2.6. The Arrow Mk 3 would have had a new rounded forward swept “shoulder” four-ramp three-dimensional variable intake which gave no shock-induced air-flow separation on either the ramp surface or fuselage. (Resent NASA internet presentations relating to hypersonic intake design conclude this is the most efficient design for hypersonic flight! We will take a closer look at this later) The engine for the Arrow Mk 3 was to be the Mk 3 Iroquois (figures for the Iroquois Mk 3 are informed estimates based on the characteristics of the Iroquois Mk 2 and the Olympus) 28,300 lbs dry and 40,000 lbs wet thrust. The Arrow Mk 3 was to be a Mach 3.5 interceptor again we see the 20% over estimation of the drag as the altitude was limited to 70,500 ft and a 500 foot per minute climb to 80,000 ft. the Arrow Mk 3 was lighter, had less frontal area drag, and about the same thrust as the SR-71. The Arrow Mk 3 should have been able to reach Mach 3.5+ and 90,000+ feet but Avro set the max speed to Mach 3+ and altitude to 80,000 ft. The Arrow Mk 3 was to be a Mach 3.5 capable aircraft with air to air refueling and a combat speed of Mach 3, using new materials including carbon fiber composites, a glass micro-balloon filled insulation contained in a composite honeycomb core. This appears to have become the heat shield for Mercury and Gemini. Popular USA propaganda says the Arrow Mk 3 would be subjected to friction heating and would not be able to reach high Mach numbers! (Another USA propaganda myth about the Arrow is BUSTED!) The Arrow Mk 3 was released by Avro’s Project Research Group on 27 October 1958; other documents show this version was conceived over a year earlier. Dr. Courtland Perkins and John Foster Dulles would have been well aware of this design and would have passed the information to the USAF and Allen (Dulles) Head of the CIA!
The CIA and the Arrow program, I don’t believe in conspiracies I do believe in the facts, (Dragnet TV show) the facts ma'am, just the facts. As researched by Jim100 AB part 2 The Arrow PS-2 actually came before the Arrow Mk 4. What little that has come to light about the PS-2 and the Mk 4 Arrow variants comes from Jim Floyd. The design studies were headed by Mario Pesando of Avro’s Project Research Group in September 1957. The canard on the PS-2 is intended for additional trim control at supersonic speeds only. At subsonic speeds it would retract into the 4 ft. nose extension. It was felt that the additional canard air loads induced on the fuselage can be adequately catered for by increasing the skin thickness. This PS-2 version was to use most of the Mk 3 Arrow including the new materials, center fuselage, insulation scheme etc and was to be limited to the same Mach 3 top speed strictly for structural and kinetic heating reasons. It certainly had the thrust and low drag to achieve much higher speeds. Its climb rate, from 40,000 feet with the 4 Curtiss-Wright ramjets lit, was an astounding 130,000 fpm! These numbers were compiled before the airframe’s true (lower) drag numbers were in. Avro was estimating that the PS- 2 version would be capable of sustaining Mach 3 at 85.000 feet while pulling the USAF standard 1.2 G and have a 500 fpm climb to a ceiling of 90,000 feet. With the true Drag of 20% less then what was originally estimated the PS-2 ceiling would be at least 100,000+ feet! It would seem that Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF felt this PS-2 Arrow was too radical a redesign of the basic Arrow airframe and requested a less modified version. The less modified version was the Arrow Mk 4 The Arrow Mk 4 was basically a souped-up Arrow Mk 3 with the addition of 4 Curtiss-Wright 34-inch diameter ramjet engines producing 16,164 lbs thrust each. On 31 January 1958 Pesando, Rolf Marshall and two others from Avro were at Curtiss-Wright’s facilities and came away impressed with their ramjet. In tests these ramjets were capable of simulating Mach 4 at 85,000 ft. The Arrow Mk 4 would have had the same insulation as the Mk 3 and would have had a thin-skin of titanium covering the fuselage. It would also have the same in-flight refuelling capability as the Mk 3. Both the Arrow PS-2 and the Mk 4 had enough ramjet thrust to put them into a near sub-orbital altitudes in a ballistic zoom climb (150,000 to 200,000 feet) However, Avro again using the 20% higher drag factors limited the Arrow Mk 4 to Mach 3+ and 75,000 - 80,000 ft. and ferry range estimated at 2,540 nm with in-flight refuelling its range would have been comparable to the SR-71. Using the corrected drag factors the Arrow 3 & 4 would have outperformed the SR-71 by a considerable margin. As stated before Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF was to be kept up-to-date on the Arrow versions to see if they could fill the LRIX (long range interceptor) project. The Arrows certainly would have been available before the F-108 the SR-71 and the TSR-2! ((The STV-Space Threshold Vehicle, the Space Threshold Vehicle is described in the Engineering Division report of June 5th 1958. Mario Pesando’s study of orbiting winged vehicles. “It became obvious to us some three or four months ago that it was possible to put a winged vehicle into orbit, and that there was a corridor where normal winged flight was possible between the minimum speed curve, above which it was impossible to sustain lift, and the maximum temperature curve, below which the structure gets too hot. This opens up the possibilities of hypersonic flight with a relatively conventional aircraft of low wing loading (about 20 lb. per square foot), which appears to us to be the easiest way to get a man into the threshold of space and recover him, flying back though the corridor. We are at present carrying out a study to ascertain the relative merits of the winged vehicle versus the boost glide (the space shuttle) or ballistic techniques (standard rocket and parachute recovery). We hope to shortly give a briefing on this and later determine where we should go from there. Pesando’s STV document discusses this plan and it is clear that the “presented aircraft” in the chart on page 237 is the Arrow! When the Mk 4 Arrow with the high-temperature materials and ramjets, is examined, the consideration of the Arrow as phase one becomes even more striking given that this aircraft could have zoom climbed to somewhere around 150,000 to 200,000 feet and even higher with a supplementary rocket. In discussing this schedule, Pesando wrote: Considering a possible time table, it is believed, as shown on the accompanying chart, that using known data and techniques within one year it should be possible to finalize engineering of an interim hypersonic glide vehicle with a burn out speed in excess of 10,000 ft per second (about 6,000 mph or Mach 7.8. Such a vehicle could possibly be built by 1962 and would be considered a research vehicle. Further development in the areas indicates that by 1963 at the latest, increases in our knowledge and techniques sufficiently to enable us to extend our vehicle concept to velocities approaching orbital speeds. We could have, therefore, shown this vehicle as operating by 1965; this vehicle would constitute the long range operational vehicle with ranges of 12,500 miles or greater. Having this vehicle completed would enable us to immediately begin the utilization of further advances in propulsion methods and magneto hydrodynamics expected by 1968, to provide us with a winged orbital and re-entry ferry vehicle by the late 1960’s” The hypersonic vehicle postulated, takes off on rocket power alone with a full load of oxidizer and sufficient ramjet fuel to enable it to climb to an altitude in excess of 40,000 ft and maintain flight during airborne refuelling proceedings. (The STV concept) is for a hypersonic vehicle which is really an extension of the conventional supersonic airplane. When airborne fuelling operations have been completed the aircraft is accelerated to ramjet light up speed (About Mach 2.5) and begin its climb and acceleration to higher speeds. In flight refuelling is a rather novel approach to the SSTO problem, one that appears to be entirely original and un-copied as of yet this is from R.L. Whitcomb’s book Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation)) (This report by Mario Pesando must have sent shock waves through Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF like a lightning bolt hitting him! After all he was working for the USAF Intelligence gathering of foreign technology! John Foster Dulles, his brother Allen Dulles and the USA government could see that the Arrow had to go and the Avro Company itself had to be destroyed or all their spy planes were at risk not to mention their space program! Hypersonic planes and airspace-planes by the end of the 1960’s! Jim100 AB) The USA saw the same potential and from the Aerospace Daily issue of March 1985 the article “DARPA Chief Notes Potential of a Supersonic Combustion Ramjet” is enlightening: (The hypersonic airspace-plane could) fly up to maybe 150,000 to 200,000 feet, sustain Mach 15 plus for a while, slow down and engage an intercontinental bomber or cruise missile carriers at ranges of 1,000 nautical miles… (Gee, I wonder where they got that great idea from, have a nice day USA! Jim100 AB)
the Russians in the bomber would have been lucky to eject in time, assuming it even has ejection seats. it would have broken up immediately on getting hit like that. also the f-18's would have dumped the fuel tanks long before they got in range to merge with the russian jets
HI xxxxCronoxxx - The CF-18's drop tanks. You can find pictures of CF-18's intercepting Russian bombers with drop tanks in place. Intercepting non-threatening fighters might be the same. regards....Virtual
@@merlemorrison482 a tail hit would have worked better as it could be just as deadly to the plane wile still leaving the possibility for the slow breakup that was shown. but it would have been a wonder to see how avro would have grown as a company and to see the wonders it would have produced had it not been assassinated like it did.
@@Virtualenvirons it was intended to be positive - if the plane had disintegrated immediately that would have eliminated the meaningful conversations between the russians..
HI Das...Have you seen the new three. Ep. 5 and 6 are one Episode, Part 1 and 2. Ep. 7 Starts a new storyline on the Mark 3. Series link below. regards....Virtual Series LInk czcams.com/video/AjuL9IM-1T0/video.html
Hi Plazma. All of your post sare not showing up. That is possibly a CZcams thing as you may have been blocked or reported for some reason. I see your post on an email to me. If I don't see your last post soon, I will reply here tomorrow.....regards.....Virtual
plazma Vi Hi Plazma. I did not see your long post show up on the channel, only in a email that came to me, so I will respond here. You mention the Arrow, Mig-25 and the F-15 in the same sentence. If you remove the Mig-25, that sentence would be more accurate. The phrase Air Superiority Fighter (ASF) had not yet been coined. At the time ASF’s were called Interceptors, so often the Arrow is put in that category, but the F-15 and F-22 are also interceptors. The Mig-25 was a piece of crap. It was designed to defeat the planned American Valkyrie XB-70 high speed, high altitude bomber. After the Gary Powers incident America changed its plans, it just did not tell the Soviet Union. The Soviets built 1200 Mig-25 and America built 2 experimental bombers only. Russia has already made claims to Canada’s North saying that if we can’t defend it, we don’t own it. More worrisome is that is becoming an American view in some circles. The Warsaw Pact has not existed since 1991. Although you are probably correct on the Mig-31 Zaslon, it is not part of this video. They come into play starting with Ep.7 and it is completely new technology. I introduce Satellites very early on in these movies to indicate that the Russians are receiving position/target data from that resource, mitigating Kuznetsov’s requirement to track over the horizon. The Nuclear missiles. Yes, the Tu-160 would do that if they were attacking, but they are not attacking. The premise here is that the Tu-160 is patrolling Canadian Air Space with Su-33’s. Elmendorf. US fighters from Elmendorf or elsewhere will normally intercept in the Alaskan Air Defence Identification Zone (AADIZ) and Cdn fighters will normally intercept in the Canadian Air Defence Identification Zone (CADIZ). These zones are essentially an extension of the respective land masses. This is not to say that as necessary or upon request, US or Cdn fighters can and will also perform an intercept in either the AADIZ or CADIZ depending on the precise circumstances. To sum up, these videos were made during the Trump Era. During this period many Canadians no longer felt protected by America....regards.....Virtual
I really enjoy these, but at the same time it reminds me when this great Country had it 's soul torn out by those idiot's in Ottawa, Canadians like to blame the yanks but it was Deif who sold us out, him a lone ! the question is do we have the courage to tell the Americans to stick there FAMILY up there you know where ! we need to build our own fighter jets , NOW, not by crap from other Nation's, Sweden is a perfect example, 9 million people, not half our industry or in my opinion, KNOW HOW ! and they built the Griffon, a beauty jet. But we can't ! Bull ! politics plain and simple. and a PM with no back bone to do it, can you imagine the jobs. the money is no problem. We just stop paying these politicians a life time pension just for serving for 4 years ! that is a disgrace and the gravy train in Ottawa needs to stop with this insulting and the robbery of the Canadian people, some people have to save for there own pensions, who gave these criminals in Ottawa the right to pay a life time pension to a person who gets voted out of office after 4 year term ! please someone explain that to me like I am a 6 year old !!! The USA just stuck it to us, and it is time to grow up as a Nation, and act like one. we are on our own, the sooner we know it the better. and GM can go some where else and sell there car's, we can build a Canadian car for God sakes. We are a big rich Country. part of the G7, so lets do this !
I am very glad you responded to my post, i want you and all who read this , is that Canada is the most important thing in my life, i was raised that way, God Bless my Dad, when i was a boy of 7 years old we would watch hockey on Tv, my Dad made me and my 3 brothers stand for the National anthem, that is how proud he was God Rest His Soul, I pray that all Canadians take this to there hearts that what we have here is GOLD, and nothing can replace it ! I once answered a question a bout the difference between an American and and a Canadian, my answer is still the same , Americans are a very proud people, and they should be, they wave there flags and chant USA !!! Canadians are more reserved and polite because being Canadian is SPIRITUAL, it is not flag waving, we know who we are ! we just need a leader who is a believer , and bring back what we lost, and is not afraid of fall out from other Nations, we are a productive people and a hard working people who has perservered the aliments and made a Country like no other on this planet !! Corruption is in Government and always has been, if we fix that, we fix our selves, that is the waste of money, it is not new taxes or new ways of taking advantage of it's people, it is Government that needs to be dealt with like a knife threw butter, it is so obvious it disgusting to me and all who love this Country ! and time for our people to take it back. please vote 2019, I do not see the Shemale doing anything for this great Nation ! Mr Sheer maybe our only hope, i do not know ! but one thing i am sure of,, it should be a political goal of the CANADIAN PEOPLE , that we will only vote for a man who will endeavour to push forward these ideals for all Canadians, our own jets, our own car's, an end to life time pensions, and Govenor Generals expenses till they die, which we all know is B---ll Sh--t, Then we will get our Jets !!!! and Navy Back., A Nation that can not defend it self is no Nation !!!@@Virtualenvirons
Justin is toast at this point , the question is will Andrew do the right thing it will be up to us to keep faith and push him hard like a rabied dog and maybe just maybe we will get our country back . Keep your stick on the ice .
Wouldn't be a great idea to build our own aircraft and be able to defend our selves. Sure would create a lot of jobs and tax revenue (then Canadians wouldn't give 1/4 of their pay checks to income tax). Our government will wait until it's too late as per usual, why solve a possible problem before it becomes actual problem. An Arrow built from modern materials and technology....My red and white maple erection could only get so big!!!!
You have to be the weirdest duck on the planet to put piano lounge music to the building up of a story of a potential World War 3 conflict! You can't get more juxtaposed than this!!! You'd put Tiptoe Through the Tulips on the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. I like the video content but your sense of music leaves much to be desired.
Hi Thor...so thank you for your comment. I see you have no content on your channel. Not a good sign. So, besides, writing the story, doing all the 3D CAD re-engineering, porting over to an animation system, learning how to do this after collecting my Canada pension plan.....I also wrote the piano arrangements and played some of the piano. The good piano is my uncle....concert pianist. I do what I can with the cards dealt....regards....Virtual
I enjoy the videos for what they are but still get pissed off at our Canadian government for sucking up to the u s a system past and present! No balls then and now.
Wow, I have enjoyed these videos and the history of the avro arrow, but this whole "Canada can be great again" thing can only ever be true if its current liberal left wing democrat socialist government gets a Donald Trump as president,....meaning no prime minister thingy. Canada I didn't think has much of any military left in service, and probably think they don't need it, in the guv, and seems the canadian guv has alot of sympathies for the crazy leftists we have in the USA guv down here, ya know, the ones who are traitors, liars, cheats and thieves,...(D). Americans don't have anything in common with Canada like we used to, like the quest to preserve western society, where canada pushes policies that work against western society. In alot of ways, it would be best if canada indeed did build the avro arrow again, a upgraded model, but they won't cause there are too many social programs helping out citizens of the rest of the world that takes all the money, and those programs will be funded before actual self defense, and like some years ago they, the canadian guv, handed like millions of dollars to an ex jihadi that was held in gitmo just to make a point against the US government,...or it was really a social program I was just talking of.
The gizmo guy sued the government and won. Every Canadian hated that decision. We are too far left at this particular time and like the U.S. who found itself in a similar position (although not as far left) the pendulum will swing back. You can already see it in Ontario and it is about to swing back hard in Alberta, We have different forms of government, but they are essentially the same, as in driven by special interest groups. I could go on. Thank you for your comment and glad you enjoyed the videos, I am working on five now. regards....Virtual
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 1
A short synopsis of the Arrow
The Arrow as Fighter-Interceptor
RCAF AIR 7-3 Specification and the C-105
Avro Canada and the RCAF examined a range of alternative sizes and configurations for a supersonic interceptor, culminating in RCAF "Specification AIR 7-3" in April 1953.
This AIR 7-3 specification called specifically for a crew of two and a twin-engine design requiring a range of 556 kilometers (300 nautical miles (nm) for a normal low speed mission and 370 km (200 nm) for a high-speed intercept mission.
It also specified operation from a 1,830 meter (6,000 ft) runway, a Mach 1.5 cruising speed, an altitude capability of 21,336 m (70,000 ft), and a maneuvering capability for 2 “g” turns with no loss of speed or altitude at Mach 1.5 at 15,240 m (50,000 ft).
The specification also stipulated just five minutes from starting the aircraft's engines to reaching an altitude of 15,250 m (50,000 ft) at Mach 1.5.
It was also to have turn-around time on the ground of less than 10 minutes. (Jim100 AB that’s Refueled and rearmed and ready for another mission)
An RCAF team then visited US aircraft companies and also surveyed British and French manufacturers before concluding that no existing or planned aircraft could fulfill these demanding requirements.
In May 1953, Avro delivered a report,
"Design Study of Supersonic All-Weather Interceptor Aircraft", outlining the major features of an updated C-104/2 design, which was now known as the C-105. A change to a thin "shoulder-mounted" delta wing allowed rapid access to the aircraft's internal systems, weapons bay, and engines. This thin wing was required for supersonic flight and the delta design provided the lightest structure
A big advantage of the computer flight control system was that it allowed the Arrow’s designers to design into the plane marginal or even negative stability factors, another first (by many years). The Arrow was intentionally designed to accept marginal stability, going from moderately positive to neutral on the pitch axis, and from slightly positive to moderately negative on the yaw axis. Because of the extra instability in the yaw axis, every aspect of it was at least double redundant except the single redundant hydraulic actuator itself. Perhaps now you can appreciate how truly advanced the Arrow was. We weren’t able to really compare it to anything until today because there was nothing to compare it to until today. Flight performance envelope graphs, accumulated and transposed by R.L. Whitcomb for his book Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation shows that no medium or long-range armed fighter---to this day---could match the Arrow’s 1G combat weight performance curve, except the F-22 Raptor.
They wrote the book in terms of the modern method, yet the book had to be written all over again once Avro was killed and the engineers dispersed.
The Arrow and the IBM 704 computer
In 1955 Avro had projected the performance of the Mk2 Iroquois powered Arrow to be
Maximum speed of Mach 1.9 at 50,000 feet.
Combat speed of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet while sustaining a 1.84 turn without bleeding energy Time to 50,000 feet of 4.1 minutes.
500 foot per minute (fpm) climb ceiling of 62,000 feet (i.e. able to climb at 500
fpm from this height)
400 nm (nautical miles) radius of action on high-speed mission.
630 nm radius of action on a low-speed (including 5 minutes supersonic combat)
mission
Ferry range is not given but estimated at 1,500 nm
However, and to the elation of the Arrow designers and company in general the Arrow Mk 1, with about 40% less thrust then the Mk 2 and more weight, actually exceeded Avro’s own higher 1955 estimates for the Arrow Mk 2 by exceeding Mach 1.9. By October of 1958 due to test flying Avro was able to refine the drag estimates, feed them into the IBM 704 computer, and produce accurate projections that indicated 20% lower supersonic drag at maximum performance then even they themselves had projected.
Due to this exceptional performance Avro knew the Mk 3 would be capable of considerable more than Mach 2.5. With improved materials and a new intake design that would be efficient at Mach 2.2 and above, Avro knew they would have an Arrow capable of at least Mach 3. This was nearly ten years before the SR-71 Blackbird or the Mig-25 Foxbat flew, suggesting Avro had an excellent advantage over the competition---given the freedom to exploit it.
Performance Report 15 included the empirically refined performance projections and figures this document indicated that the Arrow Mk 2 would have remained the top-performing fighter-interceptor in virtually all categories until the advent of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.
In fact an enormous amount of verbiage has been expended in claims that the Arrow would not have been manoeuvrable, based merely on the perceptions of it being such a large aircraft. In reality it was not that much bigger than the F-101 Voodoo or an F-15 Eagle, Neither of which would have seriously challenged an Arrow Mk 2 in a combat air patrol or, “top cover” or “air superiority” mission.
Furthermore, size means nothing in determining aircrafts manoeuvrability potential. It can however, be calculated based on five factors. In comparison with any of the
aircraft built at the time and since in similar roles, from any country, the Arrow appears to have had attributes which would have given superior manoeuvrability to virtually any plane to this date---save the F-22 Raptor which has reverted to internal weapons carriage and a relatively low wing loading.
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 2
The five critical attributes are: wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratio, control
effectiveness, critical alpha (or stalling angle of attack) and, finally the
amount of “G” loading the aircraft structure can absorb.
The Arrow had the lowest wing loading of any supersonic interceptor to ever inter service, its only competition being the F-106 delta Dart and to a lesser extent, the F-22 Raptor, in terms of thrust-to weight ratio at combat weight; the Arrow was superior to everything up to the F-15 eagle.
The Arrow’s allowable manoeuvring “G” at combat weight is equal, and in most cases superior to, virtually anything to fly then or since. Control effectiveness is difficult to estimate, especially with a supersonic delta design since the “moment arm” changes with control actuation and also with speed since the center of lift moves aft (back) at supersonic speeds. Designing a tailless aircraft with good manoeuvrability and stability characteristics across a wide speed range requires exact engineering.
Chamberlin’s unique features on the Arrow wing, such as negative camber inboard, leading edge droop, the saw tooth/notches were responsible for the arrow’s good characteristics at subsonic and supersonic speeds. Avro’s inclusion of a Honeywell Controls engineered automated fuel management system also allowed them to tailor the aircraft’s center of gravity to be very close to the aircraft’s centre of lift at each point (and thus expected speed) in its mission.
The simple secret of making a delta craft very manoeuvrable is to have the center of lift and center of gravity at nearly the same place. Sufficient control surfaces will do the rest.
In interviews with Jan Zurakowski and Peter Cope, both said the Arrow had awesome natural control sensitivity. Zura mentioned the roll rate was reduced at high subsonic speeds because he felt it was excessive. It was limited to one roll, or 360 degrees, in a second. Cope mentioned that the Arrow handled very well, was very stable on approach if flown correctly (contrary to some third party sources) Jack Woodman mentioned that a mere one-fifth of an inch of stick movement would result in a 0.5 “G” loading on the aircraft, which he felt was excessive. In other words, the Arrow had very good control effectiveness, better than any other USAF and British jets these experienced test pilots flew.
The simple fact is that the Arrow had an awesome power of maneuver as anyone who studies such things empirically will readily acknowledge. When 1G performance curves for even the Arrow Mk1, with the early, de-rated J-75 engines, are compared to contemporary and even current fighters, it emerges that the Arrow was a world-beating design. It had the attributes in terms of low drag, low wing loading and high thrust-to-weight to defeat virtually any fighter at low altitude in a dog fight scenario.
While its delta wing is argued by some to result in a high drag during turns, the Arrow’s internal weapons and higher thrust-to weight would compensate. The Arrow 1, at higher than combat weight, Displayed a larger flight envelope than a late production F-16 Fighting Falcon that carried only two tiny heat seeking missiles. (Braybrook. Roy, “Fighting Falcon V Fulcrum,” Air International Vol. 47, No 2 Stamford Key Publishing, 1994)
France’s Mirage 2000, an updated version of their 1950’s Mirage III delta fighter is also known to embarrass the F-16 at medium and high altitude in turning fights, despite the F-16’s better thrust- to weight ratio. Nevertheless, the Mirage III was never considered a competitor to the Arrow in any performance measure or military role.
The Russian MIG 29 Fulcrum, under equally light conditions to the F-16C mentioned above, is equal to that of an overloaded Arrow Mk.1
An F-15C eagle, with up-rated engines, but at a true combat weight (no tanks, half internal fuel and eight missiles) displays a vastly smaller performance envelope to even an Arrow Mk.1 with at least 40% less thrust than a service Arrow Mk 2 would have had. The Arrow Mk 2, specified by Avro for the 21st Arrow, would have been able to sustain nearly 2G turn at Mach 1.8 at 50,000 feet.
An F-15C could, at combat weight, sustain the same 2G turn at Mach 1.2 at 35,000 feet---hardly competitive.
The F-15C was felt, subsequent to the retirement of the F-106 Delta Dart to exhibit the highest performance in the Western world on an air superiority mission. Clearly, then the Arrow had vast “power of maneuver”. It had the ability to utterly humiliate anything flying at medium and high altitude.
In a supersonic turning fight at altitude, the Arrow would remain unmatched by anything save the F-22 Raptor due to the F-22’s higher thrust-to weight ratio, The Arrow still had a lower wing loading and with a drag coefficient probably under .0185 and a lift-drag ratio of over 7-1 would therefore still not be a push-over for the Raptor---all other things being equal which, of course, 45 intervening years of progress in electronics have ensured are not. Still, the Arrow Mk 2 was proclaimed to be capable of an instantaneous 6 “G” at 50,000 feet. The F-106 was also a high performer at altitude, capable of a 4 “G” at 45,000 feet whereas the Raptor is estimated to achieve 5 “G” at 50,000 feet. (Sweetman, Bill “F-22 Raptor”
“The Arrow 2 design included provision for chaff and flare (chaff being radar
jamming filaments with flare being heat-seeking missile confusing pyrotechnic flares), active countermeasures, while ASTRA 1 and 2 radar/fire-control systems were to incorporate its own passive and active electronic counter-measures (ECM), including infra-Red detection, tracking and launch computation (the world’s first) home-on-jamming (helping the plane to navigate to the jamming aircraft), radar warning (telling the aircraft when it was being tracked or targeted) etc.. It was fully modern compliment and introduced sophistication which is today de rigour to the world of multi-role and air-superiority fighters”
The Arrow would have been a dominant aircraft for many, many years and therefore could be expected to sell well to allied nations. That American authorities would not purchase any, and recommended that Canada not produce them tells its own story. The American aviation industry would not have been comfortable with the Arrow as competition and therefore was not likely to give the Canadian firm much opportunity to compete. (Douglas, W.A.B. Note to File “CBC Program on the Avro Arrow”, 21 April, 1980)
During the test flying two accidents occurred. The first one was caused by a flaw in the design of the landing gear where the mechanism responsible for turning the bogies into alignment with the aircraft centerline jammed. Engineering had already redesigned the landing gear due to minor increases in aircraft weigh before the first flight and now it was redesigned again to prevent a similar mishap.
The second accident was probably due to pilot error. Spud Potocki had taken RL-202 on a long-range high-speed flight from Malton to lake Superior, conducted a supersonic run over Ottawa (on Remembrance Day!) and on returning the plane to Milton. He was very low on fuel and his approach was to fast to be able to land properly on the runway available. Fearing running out of fuel he tried to force the plane down against ground effect and locked the main wheels before there was sufficient weight on them to brake properly.
This resulted in the aircraft swinging off the runway and tearing off one of the main landing gear legs and otherwise damaging the aircraft. As a result of this accident the Mk1 gear was banned from flight and replaced by the stronger and improved Mk.2 landing gear---even though the Mk.2 was significantly lighter then the MK1.
This was also the fastest recorded flight of the Arrow with a speed of Mach 1.98 at 50,000 ft. still accelerating and climbing while only in intermediate afterburner. Jim Floyd has related that they didn’t really know the correct atmosphere correction factor to apply to this flight and as such the flight could have been Mach 2 or slightly higher.
Arrow RL202 reported an official top speed of Mach 1.98. During that flight radar vectoring recorded a top speed of Mach 2.2.
They apparently decided to state the speed as Mach 1.98 in order not to record a new world speed record and agitate their peers in the rest of the industry, and their enemies in government. Others have said that A.V. Roe Canada president Crawford Gordon Jr.absolutely forbade a speed record attempt in the Mk1 Arrows, wishing to preserve this accolade for the Iroquois engine Mk2.
By the fall of 1958 Avro was projecting a Mach 1.8 combat speed and 2G at 60,000 ft, exceptional even today. (PR 15 and Jim Floyd’s testimony)
Also the Arrow Mk 2a which Avro hoped to introduce on line after the first 37 under construction was set to achieve a 575 nm combat radius while flying a supersonic mission! The Arrow being able the to cruise at transonic and supersonic speeds without afterburner use (Super Cruise in 1958 - 1959 is this another first? Jim100 AB) is one reason it had superior range to the competition.
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 3
The Arrow’s Weapons and Weapons Bay
The Arrow has more military payload capacity than any other contemporary bomber-destroyer. The Arrow with the presently conceived armament pack containing MB-1 [Genie] and Falcon missiles plus fuel, has a subsonic radius of action, based on indication of drag from flight tests, of around 500 nm, with supersonic combat and all allowances, which is considerably higher than any other aircraft in its class.
The concept of a multi-role combat aircraft clearly intrigued the RCAF for the C104/2 design closely resembled the CF-105 in size, appearance and capability. The key to its flexibility lay in its massive armament bay. Install six Hughes Falcon missiles and twenty-four rockets and it was an interceptor. Not satisfactory? Try four Velvet glove missiles or four thirty-millimetre cannons with 200 rounds each and fifty-six folding fin rockets. Need a tactical bomber? Four 1,000-pound general purpose bombs would do the job. Put in a camera pack and the aircraft was transformed into a photo-reconnaissance model. Add more fuel and it became a long-range fighter. Carry a second pilot on any of these missions and it could be used as an operational trainer. The possibilities were too numerous to resist. (Dow: The Arrow p. 126)
The Arrow was designed to out-fly, out-think, and out-fight, with its own on board missiles, any expected threat until the about 1970. Unlike any aircraft save the heavy bombers, the Arrow was capable of carrying several guided missiles capable of nuclear armament, considerable “stand-off” range at high supersonic speeds.
This high performance, even when heavily loaded, combined with the capability of the kinds of weapons it could carry in its internal weapons bay, gave the Arrow more potential flexibility then most aircraft built to this day.
For flexibility, the armaments bay could hold 6 Hughes Falcon guided missiles and 24 Hughes 2.75" rockets
Or 4 Velvet Glove missiles
Or 4 30mm canons with a capacity of 200
rounds and 56 folding fin rockets
Or as a bomber, 4 1,000 pounds of bombs
Or as reconnaissance, a camera pod
Or to give the fighter a longer range, an extra fuel tank
When the airframe development began, the RCAF and the Defense Research Board began evaluating missiles and their fire control systems.
They looked at the following missiles:
- Douglas MB-1 Genie
- Hughes Falcon Sperry Sparrow I
- Douglas Sparrow II
- Raytheon Sparrow III
In mid 1955, the Douglas Sparrow II was chosen and the Hughes Company would adapt their fire control system to other missiles. RCA agreed to work to RCAF requirements
ASTRA, and on 28 Jun 1956, C.D. Howe tells the House of Commons work will soon begin on ASTRA. In late 1956 the USN abandons development of the Sparrow II, the missile chosen for the Arrow.
The Canadian government brought the Sparrow II to Canada to continue development with AVRO as the System Manager, Canadair to build the missile airframes, and Canadian Westinghouse in Hamilton to work with Bendix-Pacific on the Radar Guidance System.
The Canadian Armament and Research Development Establishment (CARDE) began the Velvet Glove program 1 April 1951 and by the time the program had been terminated in 1955, 300 Velvet Gloves had been built and fired. The Velvet Glove program had spent $24 million.
The Arrow and Long Range Missiles...
For the AVRO Arrow, the Sparrow II Raytheon AIM/RIM-7 Sparrow was intended to provide the long range clout
The use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles (not, copied yet really)
The Falcon “Z” “the weapon specified were two, Falcon Z, aka GAR-9, aka AIM-47 type missiles each weighing approximately 750 lb. the missile had a range of about 100 miles and a 40,000 foot differential altitude, as later tested on the YF-12A. It was a large, advanced long-range air-to-air missile of the performance Avro had been awaiting. It would have suited the Arrow’s large internal weapons bay while competing aircraft could not have carried it internally-resulting in a huge performance advantage to the Arrow so equipped.
Anti Ballistic Missile
“It is interesting in the government discussions on ABM weapons that the Arrow was never considered as capable of undertaking this role. Certainly Avro had been suggesting it do just that.
“It might be supposed for example, that in every aspect of employment the anti-missile, missile would prove to be very far removed from the manned fighter airplane. Yet the possibility is already seen that, in order to achieve its maximum kill potential the “anti” missile may actually form an alliance with the manned fighter.
“The feasibility of this…has been expounded by Jim Floyd, Avro Aircraft’s vice president engineering …whereas the launching of the Russian sputnik satellites was a very significant event in the annals of aviation its affect on the Arrow program should be singularly positive…if you think about in for a minute,” he says “the normal launching platform for anti-missile missile are stationary. The Russians can find out where they are and destroy them. On the other hand, an airborne missile mother ship (which could be the Arrow) can be rapidly moved from one place to another carrying an anti-ICBM missile.
“It might be imagined that a missile suitable for carrying an anti-missile warhead would prove a formidable load even for the mighty Arrow: But Mr. Floyd had looked into the matter with a quick specific calculation on an ICBM approaching at Mach 10 at 200 miles above the earth. He finds that if an “anti” is launched from an aircraft flying at Mach 1.5 at 60,000 ft. its thrust need only be about one third of that required for ground launch weapons carrying the same size of warhead to a given point in approximately the same time. And dividends would accrue in range and accuracy. (Flight and Aircraft Engineering, “Ironclads and Arrows” 14 February 1958
In other words, any Arrow could carry the ABM weapon Avro was considering. The British technical journal engineering also discussed the possibility of the Arrow carrying an ABM weapon in their 17 October, 1958 edition. Jim Floyd has subsequently related that Avro was working with Douglas to adapt a version of the Nike-Zeus system for use on the Arrow. The first stage of the ground launched version could be abandoned, with data link modifications to the remaining upper stage to accept targeting information from the Arrow’s onboard radar system.
Of course, nothing came of this plan, perhaps in part because it wasn’t mentioned to the right decision makers. There is no evidence available suggesting that the Chief of Staff or the Conservative Cabinet were aware of Avro’s plan to carry ABM’s on the Arrow nor the fact that the system they were proposing was based on the American first choice for their ABM system, the Nike weapons
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 4
Who was Julius Lukasiewicz? An interview with Jim Floyd
“Jim Floyd has been hesitant in relating the true role that {Julius} Lukasiewicz played at the time the Arrow was designed Lukasiewicz was at that time with the National Research Council in Ottawa and Canada’s expert in supersonic aerodynamics. So he reviewed the design and produced a report that was scathingly critical of the aerodynamic design, to the extent that there was no point in continuing with such a flawed airplane. It was decided to approach the USA for an expert opinion. Hugh Dryden, a renowned aerodynamicist at The National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, forerunner of NASA gathered a team of his top men in the field of supersonics. Their verdict was Avro had an excellent design and if anything they were being conservative in their estimates of performance.
Lukasiewicz has never forgotten his humiliation and despite the fact that the Arrow behaved perfectly and achieved a speed of 1.98 times the speed of sound while still climbing and with the lower powered J-75 engines, never ceased to twist the facts. (Keast, Harry: Letter to the Editor of the Globe & mail newspaper. This letter is available as part of a CD Rom
from www.avroarrow.org)
Keast was responding to a disparaging editorial on Avro and the Arrow by Professor Michael Bliss in the Globe & mail newspaper titled “the Legend That Wasn’t”. The Globe & mail unfortunately failed to print the rebuttal, despite Keast’s vastly superior credentials.
Other primary sources indicate that fights between
Avro’s brilliant aerodynamicist Jim Chamberlin and the NAE really polarized the two groups. In fact, the government scientists became so frustrated with the inflexibility of Chamberlin over the Arrow’s aerodynamics that Avro was asked to fire Chamberlin. J.C Floyd wrote: “I was fiercely supportive of Jim [Chamberlin] in the dark days of the NRC [via the NAE] criticism of our aerodynamics when they even suggested that Jim should be taken off the project. I told them that I would resign myself rather than do that!”(Letter from J.C. Floyd. 9 February, 2004 to R.L. Whitcomb) Chamberlin stayed, but so did the NAE, at the time Julius Lukasiewicz, a polish ex-patriot, was, the NAE’s high-speed aerodynamicist and the man most at odds with Avro’s engineering and design staff.
G/C Footit has written in a period documentation
that some of the criticism was due to professional jealousy in the organizations like the National Aeronautical Establishment (NAE) who felt they should be the ones charged with design and testing of aircraft like the Arrow. This internal bureaucratic opposition spread (along with rumors) and did the program serious harm. They were also proven wrong by the Arrow itself, and by subsequent design history.
Later in life without disclosing his involvement in the program, Lukasiewicz was interview by the CBC and was highly critical of the Arrow program.
Arrow Benchmarks
1) The first fly-by-wire flight control system.
2) The first fly-by-wire flight control system using solid-state components operating in “real time”.
3) The first fly-by-wire flight control system with at least single redundancy.
4) The first fly-by-wire flight control system designed to be coupled with the computerised navigation an automatic search and track (ASTRA).
5) The first fly-by- wire flight control system providing artificial feedback, or feel to the pilot. Not even the first F-16's had this.
6) The first fly-by-wire flight control system that was flyable from ground installations through data uplink, with data downlink systems reporting. (This, along with its designers, became the basis of the data-link fly-by-wire systems for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo 1.)
7) The first aircraft to have its aerodynamic design aided by solid-state (real time) computers, Avro thus appears to be the company that evolved the technique now referred to as Computational Fluid Dynamics.
8) The first aircraft to have its structural design aided by solid-state computers.
9) The first aircraft to have complete hydraulic and electronic systems development rigs (simulators generally using actual aircraft components wherever possible, coupled to their computers to produce a realistic computerized flight simulator.
10) The first aircraft to have a Pulse-Doppler, ”look-down, shoot-down” radar designed for it, (The second was the F-14 Tomcat, although ASTRA II was to be fully digital, while the Tomcat’s AWG-9 was not digital. In fact, the first Aircraft in service to have radar/fire control systems integrated with a flight control system of equal conceptual technology to the ASTRA II-Arrow was the F-18 Hornet.)
11) The first aircraft designed with marginal or negative, static stability factors. This was done to ensure good manoeuvrability across its very wide flight envelope while keeping trim drag to a minimum thus allowing a larger flight envelope.
12) The first aircraft to have an advanced, integrated, bleed-bypass system from its self-adjusting intake to its extractor-nozzle exhaust. (The F-104 is credited with being the first to introduce bleed-bypass integration but it was comparatively rudimentary and probably of similar sophistication to that introduced on the jetliner years earlier.)
13) The first aircraft to have a by-pass turbojet designed for it and the first to integrate the bleed-by-pass and cooling systems of the engine, intakes and extractor nozzle.
14) The first aircraft to have its engines located at the extreme rear of the aircraft. In fact it was about the first jet fighter to have what might be termed “longitudinal spacing” of all its major systems. Previous to the Arrow most aircraft designers had tried to locate fuel tanks, weapons and engines as close to the center of gravity and center of lift as possible. This contributed to their being “fat” in aerodynamic terms, which is why so many of them ran into “area rule” problems.
15) The first aircraft to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated high wing that made the entire upper surface a lifting body type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., Mig-29, Mig-25 and others certainly used that idea.
16) The first to use of a LONG internal weapons bay
to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (Not copied yet really)
17) The first aircraft to have major components machined using Computer Numeric Control CNC equipment. (The second is believed to be the F-111Aardvark)
18) The first aircraft to have major components and fasteners made of Titanium.
19) The first aircraft to use a 4,000 psi hydraulic system (The second was the B-1 bomber)
20) The first supersonic aircraft designed to have better than one-to-one thrust-to weight ratio at close to combat weight (allowing it to accelerate while climbing vertically) The “ Reaper” ground-attack version of the Gloster Meteor was around 1-1 thrust, but it was not supersonic. The first aircraft to compete in this area was the F-15A Eagle.
21) The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at strike/reconnaissance 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.)
22) The Arrow combined the lowest thickness-chord ratio (thickness of the wing compared to the length (not the span) wing with the lowest wing-loading (surface area of wing divided by the weight of the aircraft) of any high-capacity service design. Both are crucial to low supersonic drag, good manoeuvrability and high speed.
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 5
Iroquois Engine “Firsts”
In June of 1956 the Iroquois underwent its first official test, the 50 hour Pre-Flight Rating Test (PFRT) During this test the engine beat every known record for thrust output at 19,350 lbt (pounds thrust) without afterburner. Its throttle response was also world-beating. It took only 2.8 seconds to go from idle to full military thrust and only 4.5 seconds to go from idle to full afterburning thrust.
First overhung-stator two-shaft design using two(vs.
three or more) bearings assemblies thus dispensing with a central casting, and replacing the two shafts with an inner and outer drum making the entire center core of the engine turn. The combustors were overhung with the flour comprising the spinning outer drum which connected the high-pressure(HP) turbine to the HP compressor section The drum connecting the low-pressure (LP) compressor to the LP turbine was smaller and rotated inside the HP drum.
First, to make extensive use of Titanium for reason of high-strength high-temperature tolerance and low weight.
First, to house a high proportion of it machinery (pumps, gearbox, drives etc.) internally to lower installed size. This meant a smaller, lighter aircraft stricter, and improved over-all aerodynamics and efficiency.
First to concentrate on constant gas speed though out the core to maximize aerodynamic efficiency and allow a higher average speed of flow through the engine (rather than varying gas temperature pressure and speed, though the core, they designed it in such a way as to keep the gas speed relatively constant and vary only gas temperature.)
First to try air-cooled turbine blades with comparatively cool compressor air ducted to the blades though the core structure of the engine, and though pressurized, annular ducts formed by the outer case of the engine. The Iroquois 1 used this but the Orenda designers dispensed with air-cooled blades in the Iroquois 2 due otherwise excellent air-cooling after the combustors and improved metallurgy (availability of Income l X) The Pratt & Whitney J-58 for the A-12/YF-12A/SR-71 used a similar arrangement on a single -spool design.
First (with the General E electric J-79 of the B-58 Hustler and F-4 Phantom) variable pitch stator design (variable pitch stator allowed improved throttle handling and resistance to compressor surges, stalls, and engine flame-outs. On the J-79 variable stators allowed the designers to produce a single-spool engine with the handling quality usually associated with two-spool designs, on the Iroquois., which was already a two-spool design, it allowed Orenda to design it with 40 to 60% fewer compressors and stator sections, compared to contemporary and most later designs greatly lightening the engine.)
First “bypass” engine using LP and HP air for cooling the turbine section and machinery while exhausting through the extractor nozzle to increase thrust.
“Hot-Streak” ignition for the afterburner A streak of hot combustion gasses was piped directly back to the afterburner fuel zone an ultra-reliable afterburner igniter an sustainer.
First oxygen injection-relight system in case of engine flame-out at altitude, this technology was licensed by Orenda at the time, providing income for the company.
First fully variable afterburner. Previous systems came on all at once or in two or more stages. A fully-variables system in an engine of the low weight, high thrust and good fuel economy of the Iroquois would have been a manger tactical advantage during the 1960s and 70s.
Many changes were made to the structure of the MK1
engine and a new prototype the Iroquois MK2 was produced. During the program at least five running engines were sent to the United States for test and evaluation. Iroquois engineer Colin Campbell relates that the engine was tested at up to 25,000 pounds dry thrust in Canada and at up to 27,000 pounds in the Cornell Institute in the United States. These are phenomenal outputs for an engine of this size even today. The rating they were aiming for was 20,000 pounds dry thrust and 30,000 pounds with afterburner. Clearly they had reason to hope for even more powerful versions once they addressed the reliability and longevity issues.
The Iroquois engine MK2 would have been able to accelerate while climbing vertically and carrying a useful load. The developed Iroquois promised this performance at close to gross take-off weight.
(Jim100 AB So why did the Canadian government cancel this plane? Based on the research I would have to go with these assessments.)
The Arrow would have been a dominant aircraft for many, many years and therefore could be expected to sell well to allied nations. That American authorities would not purchase any, and recommended that Canada not produce them tells its own story. (R.L. Whitcomb)
A Canadian civil servant involved in a review of the
CBC documentary “There Never Was An Arrow” Noted the following regarding the documentary’s conclusion that American interests were not involved in the Arrows cancellation: “The program concluded that no American interests were in evolved in the decision?” On the face of it, this seems a remarkably innocent point of view. Previous accounts have suggested with some reason that the American aviation industry would not have been comfortable with the Arrow as competition and therefore was not likely to give the Canadian firm much opportunity to compete. (Douglas, W.A.B. Note to File “CBC Program on the Avro Arrow”, 21 April, 1980)
It is perhaps worthwhile to consider where American
interests lay in the 1957 election. It was in response to this growing concern, in some quarters in Canada about the alarming growth of American ownership in the Canadian economy, that the previous Liberal administration had started a Royal Commission in the first place. It seemed tailor made to rebuff the Rockefeller panel’s overt economic imperialism. This commission pointed out the negative impact this increasing ownership was going to have on Canada’s future. Some of the problems foreseen were:
The decline of research and development in Canada due to this work being concentrated in the home offices of the American companies then by Canadian production facilities. The inability of Canada to look after its strategic needs, including defense, if Canadian strategic resources were allowed to be bought out by American interests. An exodus of Canadian administrative, scientific and technical talent to the United States as a result of the above. A decline in Canadian economic, military and political independence brought about by the above, with the probable result of Canada losing any real sovereignty and thus becoming a satellite of the United States. (Gordon, Walter L., A chance for Canada, based in part on the Gordon Commission.)
This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 6
Price Deception
Foulkes later left evidence on the record demonstrating his “erroneous” conclusions regarding the price of the Arrow.
“it is quite clear that this aircraft will require almost $500 million to complete development and then it will cost between $10 and $12 million a copy for production”
So according to Foulkes’ spurious CSC recommendations to Pearkes, The 10 to 12 million figure obviously was for costs for production not including design and development. However, in an unpublished article on the Arrow debacle Foulkes later wrote:
“The Defense Production Department advised that approximately $300 million had been spent on the Arrow project and that an additional $871 million would be required to complete it.” This resulted in the $12 million figure. (Smye Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow P. 113)
Foulkes was obviously capable of considerable modification of statements when embarrassed.
Dow wrote:
”$12.5 million. This was the cost per aircraft cited by the prime minister for 100 Arrows equipped with Astra and Sparrow… To arrive at these figures it was necessary to total the cost of all components of the weapons systems, airframe, engine, missiles, and fire control. This included agreements for design and development, tooling, spares, ground handling equipment, test assembly and overhaul.
To make these figures appear even more outrages, the cost of the 37 aircraft on contract was considered as a development expenditure for the proposed program to build 100 Arrows. In effect the cost of 137 was divided by 100 to inflate the price per plane.” (Dow The Arrow P. 180)
Smye would later view some of the government cost
figures, and even using their own admitted math, would come out with an average price for 100 operational Arrows, including all design and development to operational standards, engines and fire control, of $5.62 million dollars.
The government said it came to $7.8 million a copy.
This was because they were writing off the entire 37 preproduction run and were including design and development expenses incurred to date, missiles, lifetime spares, ground support and test equipment and more.
It was a very deceptive way to influence the thinking of Cabinet, the press and the public. Of course, in comparing figures, the fact that payroll income and other taxes would be immediately be recouped from Canadian production was, inexplicably ignored.
It also appears that Avro’s final offer was not brought to the attention of Cabinet, nor anyone else, for many years---until Fred Smye made it public in his unpublished manuscript: Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow. So what was Avro’s final offer on the Arrow? It was 3.5 million dollars each for the first 100 Arrows and 2.6 million dollars each for the next 100.
As Dow put it “Details of Avro’s offer to the government were given in a letter from the company to D.L. Thompson, director of the aircraft branch of DDP on 30 December. The letter confirmed a fixed price offer of $346,282,015 for 100 aircraft (25221 to 25320), including Iroquois engines and the Hughes MA-1C electronics systems.
Adding applicable sales tax of $28,717,985 brought the price per aircraft to an even $3.75 million. The contract proposal attached to the letter covered design and development, tooling and tool maintenance, manufacture of 20 development and 100 squadron aircraft…and technical support for the squadron aircraft. (Dow: the Arrow P. 186
Very well done. Makes me proud of what Canada produced and sad and angry that it was was killed by politicians. Love the addition of Bob and Doug!
I'm lovin' this! the CF105 was the best interceptor and would probably still be. thank you and a tip of the Hatlo Hat eh.
I posted a reply and figured all you Arrow fans would dig this;
Avro Arrow list of firsts accomplished by Avro
1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more).
2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine.
3) 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.
4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance.
5) First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance.
6) First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c.
7) First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this.
8) First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground.
9) 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.
10) 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.
11) First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now.
12) First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines).
13) 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.
14) Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine.
15) Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones).
16) Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing.
17) Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that.
18) Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really)
19) Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a serious strike/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.)
20) 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.
21) First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components.
22) First oxygen-injection re-light system.
23) First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design.
24) First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine.
25) First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine.
26) First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition.
27) First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!)
Fantastic. Loved it.I Keep hitting "like" to score more,but wont .Wow! Gonna start that 1/72 scale Arrow model of mine.
Would like to thank you for posting this. Just found it and its excellent...now if you guys would just build the Arrow with modern technology you would have the finest aircraft in the world
HI Coleman. Did you see all four episodes and the documentary. They are on my Virtualenvirons Channel. regards...Virtual
I sure would like to see what they could do with an updated arrow.
I know it would take more time and money but I wish the planes would bank when they turn?It would look more natural. Like the way they look in the series dogfight
Very sad day for all of us who worked for. AVRO 1,500 people all let go On March 20 /1959 I’ll neverforget it was even done ,yeah by a phone call , was on the roof of AVRoe watch the initial take off of the 102. Beautiful We loved that air craft CANADA lost out ,
Awesome Job! Love these!
Excellent once again !! Thanks !!!
Great episode just like the rest of them! Can't wait for (The War) episode.
I realize it will be some time before it is made and posted.
I'll be checking back to see when it's posted. Thank You
for taking the time to make these great videos.
Hi Johnboyu....I appreciate the comment, makes me feel good about doing these. I am thinking that "War" may be the start of another series, with the Arrow and the team "oxygen-arian". With the story I have in mind, I will need to build ships, subs, other jets, etc. I planned to end the series with War, but I think I will start a new series instead...regards....Virtual
Can't wait to see it. Please add NATO (European and some American forces) helping the Canadians! 😇😇
@@Mwahaha105 Thank you very much for the comment. There is a message here and people are picking up on it. That message is "Canada is defenceless". When I started this series, I could not figure out how I was going to show how precarious our situation is in the world, because of the U.S. as our neighbour....and then the new U.S. president gift wrapped it for me as you probably saw in the movie.
War will not disappoint, but it will be a while for the next Episode. regards..Virtual
As an American, with Canadian relatives, would be proud of Canada to have developed the Arrow, and newer versions. Defense is a group effort, and the designers are not all in the US and Europe......We're working on sorting out our mess in Washington, and I'm backing our friends to the north to sort out theirs in Ottawa.
Hi Landen....and Canada thanks you. regards...Virtual
Really enjoying this series.
Rainy day, cold beer, great way to spend a day. Love these vids
Glad you are enjoying them....regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons Russia states they have a long range nuclear cruise missile, guess the patriot and all missile defense systems are now irrelevant. Guess we need a jet that can catch it, an upgraded 206. Have you thought about a vid about right now?
HI Coady. My animating days have come to an end I am afraid. I had wanted to do this for a long time, but it took a lot. I am approaching 70 now and time to pass on the torch.....regards.....Virtual
This is brilliant, I can't wait for the next episode.
Hi Andrei....Thanks for the Nice comment. I appreciate it. I have just returned from Barbados and will begin the next episode. I expect it will be out by the summer. regards....Virtual
I love all these episodes. Its great to see something from a Canadian point of view. I can't wait for War! Keep up the wonderful work!
Thanks so much for the comment. I am in Barbados at the moment for a while with my wife. When we return in Mar., I will begin "War". These usually take about two to three months to complete. regards....Virtual
hehe, good ol bob n doug, I want some Elsinore Beer now. That was fun, thanks. Subbed.
I just loved the video, I've been following along with the previous episodes and have to say you should be very proud to be Canadian.
Thank you...makes me feel good to read your comment...regards...Virtual.
the Mackenzie bros - nice touch!!!
I had to stop and restart the vid I was laughing so hard!
I love this series, well done and keep em coming please!
Kudos!!!
Hi Bandit. There is an Episode 5 out that is part 1 of a 2 part story. Part 1 is the build up for Part 2 that I will release in a few days. If I can toot my on horn, Part 2 will blow away every other episode by a country mile. regards.....Virtual
The music is simply phenomenal!
Leah....thank you so much. Most comment on the movie. People seldom comment on the music. Comments like yours make my day. regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons My pleasure!
A little Canadian history from Avro aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L. Whitcomb page 22 and 23.
During The re-organization of National Steel Car into Victory Aircraft, (later to become A.V. Roe….Avro) the former management was replaced by a number of Howe’s “bright boys” The new President was J.P. Bickell, a senior executive of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , with Dave Boyd as General Manager. Victory Aircraft, guided by such brash, confident upstarts (inspired by perhaps an even more illustrious leader in the form of Howe), began trumpeting the potentials of Victory aircraft with its new facilities, and of Canadian industry in general to the hard-pressed British.
Wild claims of being able to produce a Lancaster faster and better then its own designers were heard in England, and the bluff was called. By January 1942 Victory had a contract to produce one of the largest, most complex and advanced aircraft in the world, the Lancaster long range heavy bomber. Despite enormous difficulties and frustration, Victory rolled out its first pseudo-complete Lancaster in August 1943.
Dobson, hearing the boasts about the superior quality of the Canadian Lancaster and other mixtures of fact and fancy, decided to visit Canada and see for himself the roll-out of the first Victory Lancaster. Apparently, he arrived a little late as the plant outperformed his expectations and delivered its first offspring early. His comments upon seeing the Canadian operation are well documented and according to Jet Age by Scott Young, his words were to the effect.
“It opened my eyes, I’ll tell you, if these so and so’s, can do this during a war, what can’t they do after?
Dobson was so confident in the future of the North American branch that he predicted Canada would become the center of aircraft production for the British Commonwealth within a decade. Howe is on record in that year as saying
“Never again will there be any doubt that Canada can manufacture anything that can be manufactured elsewhere”
Unfortunately many Canadians today don’t seem to believe this, despite Avro and their subcontractors having proven it time and again in the forties and fifties, often too early for their genius to be recognized.
Victory would go on to produce 430 Lancaster’s during the war, and produce them at the one-a-day rate as promised in the initial boasts to the British!
According to British author/historian Len Deighton in his phenomenal book Blood Tears and Folly, that Canada had committed a higher percentage of her population to wartime uniformed military service than any of the combatants, with the added distinction of this mass of manpower being comprised largely of volunteers. Deighton goes on to show that Canada had also yielded the highest per capita industrial output dedicated to the war effort once again of any of the combatants, yet had begun the conflict with relatively little of her own indigenous industry. Howe and his bright boys had sought to change all of that and had succeeded beyond all expectations. It was once common knowledge that Canada had ended the war with the third largest navy, the fourth largest air force, and the fifth largest army of any of the wartime players.
These rankings were described in the Canadian Forces’ [CF] Air Force Indoctrination Course [AFIC] for many years!
(It’s time for Canadian citizens to stand up and say dam the torpedoes, politicians and our neighbours to the south. Roll-up our sleeves and get on with the business of defending ourselves again! Jim100 AB)
Well said Jim. regards....Virtual
Your video are really great, i love every one of them.
You should make a movie of it.
Hi Daniel. Thank you the nice comment. That is what keeps me making these. There are more to come, but taking a break for the winter as I always do. I often think the story line would make a good movie. I am just a single old guy working away on my Mac making these movie. I fund the project on my own, which may become a problem in the future. My computer and software need upgrading over the next year and it is expensive. Thanks again for your comment. ..regards...Virtual.
I had a model Arrow and did not know why . I heard it said the Yanks where top secret and the Canadians sold models .I also have 78 of THE LONE RANGER so I love the the story you weave . May I meet you one day . God Bless
Hello Harrison. Thank you for the wonderful comment. Where in Canada do you live.....regards....Virtual
I agree that the arrow is the answer. especially with modern, hardened electronics. save a ton or two in weight. lighter means faster or less fuel consumption.
flippin brilliant - Bob and Doug killed me
Interesting use of the recent quotes listed in this episode!
This series is pretty cool! It's like Airwolf but with the Avro Arrow..
Thank you. Have you watched Ep. 6 yet. That ends the first story, but It's pretty spectacular....regards...Virtual
I think what angers Canadians the most is that we lost our aerospace industry overnight and have had to rely on the US for fighters ever since. We also lost a big talent pool that went on to work for other industries such as NASA, Aérospatiale/BAC, and others. We also will never know the true performance of the CF 105 because it was never flown with the Iroquois engine. We can have an educated guess but that is it.
You know,if you want to forget the whole thing due to all the "nitpicking" I wont blame you,thanks for what you've done so far...
Hi Mark..Oh, nitpicking is part of the game. I saw your comment on the fellow who noticed I misspelled Bomb Bay....I was having a Bombay Gin martini at the time and got confused. He did it in a complimentary way. Some like to think because they found a spelling mistake, they know something....they usually don't. regards..Virtual.
@@Virtualenvirons yea,I agree,but at least its from a fellow "Arrow Head"..Hey! keep up the good work! I love it when you post new shows,and your keeping the Arrow alive!
@@HagersvilleHunk Hi Mark, I am taking a break from the Series for a few months. Going south for a bit, but will return and start WAR. Before I go, I am going to release something interesting. The true story of how a full up Iroquois engine was taken to Britain in 1959 and returned to Canada 50 year later. regards...Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons Interesting,did not about that,waiting on pins and needles!
How manoeuvrable was the Arrow? A short synopsis of the Arrow's manoeuvrability.
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 1
(How manoeuvrable was the Arrow? I hear and see this asked all the time. The answer is it was highly manoeuvrable even by today’s standards. I’m putting this together because so many people (have asked this question) even some that know the Arrow still think it was not that manoeuvrable by today’s standards. Jim100 AB)
Before I get started do you know who R. L. Whitcomb was?
To start with he had a lifetime interest in aviation. He was a pilot in the Canadian Forces from 1990 to 1995, where he gained flying experience in many military aircraft. Including the CF-5 Freedom Fighter, T-33 Silver Star, CT-114 Tutor and the CF-18, and as “secondary duty” produced paintings and prints of these aircraft for the CF.
It was during simulator flights of the CF-18 Hornet that Randall learned of the superiority of the 1958 Avro Arrow to the Hornet in an interceptor role. This set him on the path of research into the Arrow and the Avro Company that has culminated in this book. While traveling and showing his artwork Randall often met ex-Avro employees who shared their stories with him and spurred him on to deeper research into the Avro story.
Here is what Jim Floyd says about R.L. Whitcomb and this book. “In the past two decades we have had more than enough books on the Arrow, but this one is significantly different. The author, Randall Whitcomb, ex-CF pilot, brings to this remarkable story a wealth of experience in the flying, engineering and political aspects of Canadian aviation, past and present. Whitcomb has brought together many “loose ends” in the whole history of Canadian aviation in the Cold War period, including the global impact on the demise of A.V. Roe Canada in 1959.
He has marshalled his arguments in a unique “warts and all” documentation of the true facts about the political climate in that incredible era and addressed the
vexed question of “what might have been” had common sense ruled the day,
instead of the “infighting” that actually occurred. This is a book that should be mandatory reading for all students of Canadian aviation history and every
politician in Canada, the USA, and the UK.” (This is hand signed by Jim Floyd
in black pen. Jim100 AB)
(With the help of this book by R.L. Whitcomb and renowned test pilots like Chuck Yeager, Frank Everest, Jan Zurakowski, and Jack Woodman and ex-Avro employees like Jim Floyd, Jim Chamberlin, Bob Lindley and others it will show the Arrow was highly manoeuvrable even by today’s standards.
To quote Jim Floyd “anytime you bend air, you have to pay for it” and the fine is increased drag and a lower flight performance. Payment can only be made by increased engine thrust to overcome the drag. Modern aircraft bend a lot of air (compared to the Arrow) creating a lot of drag and have to use engine thrust to overcome it. They may be able to climb faster but in a turning fight they still fall prey to high drag and high wing loading even the F-22 has its problems here. Besides no combat pilot in his/her right mind, wants a missile armed fighter behind and below them, no matter how fast their climb rate is!
We will see that the Arrow’s aerodynamics created less drag and was better than most in this area. Most aircraft carry their weapons on 90 degree wing pylons and have high drag lifting devices like leading edge extensions (LEX) or (chine). The F-22 and the Arrow are very close, however the F-22 has (leading edge slats, two vertical tails, two horizontal tail planes as do most other front line aircraft), it also has two side mounted missile bays on either side of the main bay. All creating drag at subsonic and supersonic speeds, the Arrow by comparison had just one vertical tail making the Arrow a very clean machine aerodynamically by any standards. Jim100 AB)
The simple secret to the phenomenal manoeuvrability of the Mitsubishi “Zero” of World War II was its low wing loading. No high-performance fighter of the war could match it in a turning fight, not even the Hurricane or the Spitfire. (The F-22’s wing area is 840 square feet and needs thrust vectoring and powerful engines to allow it to manoeuvre at altitudes over 50,000 feet and not stall. The Arrow on the other hand has a wing area 1225 square feet and has the lowest wing loading of any supersonic fighter/interceptor to ever enter service and could fly at the same speeds and was still able to manoeuvre at the same heights as the F-22 50,000 to 70,000 ft!
(Arrow Wing Loading at Combat-take-off wt 67,250/1225 = 54.9 lbs to 1 sq ft of wing
F-22 Wing loading at Combat-take-off wt 64,840/840 = 77.1 lbs to 1 sq ft of wing.
You may have to brush up on the following subjects to fully understand the Arrow against modern day fighters in regards to its manoeuvrability potential. The subjects are wing design, tailless delta, thickness/chord ratio (T/C), leading edge vortex; leading edge saw tooth and notch, artificial washout, drag reduction, parasite drag, and trim drag. Manoeuvrability factors such as wing loading, power loading, critical alpha, control effectiveness, and finally load limit, (G’s). All these will be covered here I will try to condense some of it without losing the important facts. Jim100 AB)
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 2
WING DESIGN
(Well if you got this far then you’re ether a tech or you just really want to know the truth about the Arrow’s manoeuvrability. Either way I hope you enjoy this! Jim100 AB)
The benefit of the swept wing design is twofold. First it allows a wing of a given thickness/chord ratio (T/C) to present a thinner profile to the direction of airflow once it is swept back. This is the secret of the swept wing: as you sweep the wing, the T/C ratio becomes smaller and the wing “appears” thinner to the airflow. Air molecules have less time to change direction and conform to the curved surface as you increase speed into the supersonic range.
This can cause the air to separate from the wing and cause a great deal of drag and loss of lift. As the air speeds up to flow around a curve and reaches Mach 1, it produces a shock wave that adds an enormous amount of drag and radically changes the point on the wing where maximum lift occurs. It can also cause extreme structural loads, vibration and flutter.
Unless the wing is curved very gradually and is very thin, this shock wave will have the tendency to move back and forth on the surface of the wing, often very quickly, with loss of control and structural failure could possible result. A wing with a small T/C ratio with a gentle curves will minimize this effect, and at the speed of sound, the shock wave will move directly to the trailing edge of the wing making the wing behave normally again.
The best supersonic wing, from a purely theoretical aerodynamic standpoint, is a straight wing with zero thickness, a flat plate one point thick. This is, in the material world, impossible, so the design is always a compromise between aerodynamics and structural concerns (this combination is termed “aero-elasticity”). The straight wing is limited structurally compared to the delta because, to achieve the required thin profile, only a short span can be supported by a spar of equal thinness and comparable strength.
A good example of this is the F-104 Starfighter, an aircraft with very high wing loading and thus poor low speed handling, an exceptionally high stall speed, and poor high-altitude, manoeuvrability.
The long wing root of the delta wing also has several advantages in the real world. It can present a very thin T/C ratio while still being thick enough to carry a large quantity of fuel and stow the landing gear. It can be built large enough for a large aircraft while still preserving low supersonic (wave) drag and provide a high amount of lift since it will have much more area than a straight wing or a swept wing, and it can also be strong since it can carry many stress bearing spars down its length. Its arrow shape keeps it out of the supersonic shock (bow) wave produced by the nose of the aircraft until relatively higher speeds are reached.
DELTA TAILESS
A further advantage of the delta wing is that the control surfaces, being at the rear of the aircraft, can be used to roll or pitch the aircraft, dispensing with the need for another set of control surfaces such as the horizontal tail on conventional designs. A tail will add weight and markedly increase the supersonic and interference drag of the design. Tails also add headaches in design caused by airflow interaction with the main plane and, potentially with engine exhaust. Avro found that the best way to minimize trim drag (drag induced by any control surface deflection required for straight and level flight) and keep the center of lift where they wanted it, at extreme speeds and altitude, was to introduce a “negative camber” profile to the wing.
The wing was curved on bottom, opposite to what would be considered a normal airfoil shape. This helped control the center of lift movement between very low and very high speed and was one of Chamberlin’s tricks to make the delta behave at low and high speeds. The flat upper surface still represents the closest thing to the supersonic airfoil, a flat plate, as it was perfectly straight from just behind the leading edge right to the trailing edge.
This also provided the design with the feature of allowing the shock-wave to travel from the leading edge directly to the trailing edge once supersonic speed was reached thereby reducing transonic drag, center-of-left fluctuation and control-surface flutter. It also made the entire wing a laminar-flow surface at low alpha. As a result, the Arrow was one of the first aircraft to smoothly break the sound barrier as if it wasn’t really there.
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 3
THICKNESS/CHORD RATIO
The ratio of the length down the fuselage (chord) of a wing to its thickness is a major factor in the drag of a wing. A low T/C ratio is a thinner one. Form drag (discussed in more detail latter) and more pronounced at supersonic speeds and is exaggerated by separate protrusions of items in the slipstream. A wing with a low T/C ratio will have serious advantage over a thicker one in form drag at supersonic speeds. The challenge is making it produce enough lift at low speed. The delta planform proved superior in the eyes of Avro’s designers, to the swept-wing or the double-delta
(With separate delta-ish tail-planes such as the F-4 Phantom, MIG-21 and to a large degree most fighters in front line service today!)
The Arrow wing had an average T/C ratio of 3.6 percent and a flat upper surface. By comparison, the F-4 Phantom has a 6 percent T/C ratio at the root while that of the F-15 Eagle is in the order of 5 present. As discussed, thicker wings at supersonic speeds suffer from exponentially higher “wing drag” (drag induced by the shock wave). They also had penalties in center of lift movement and early laminar flow separation. The latter adds significantly to supersonic drag. The Arrow had a lower T/C ratio then almost any combat aircraft that has entered service (other than the F-104 Starfighter which beat the root T/C ratio of the Arrow by a mere 0.14 percent giving it a 3.46 percent T/C) While the Arrow avoided the sharp leading edge which is not good for subsonic flight. All of the mentioned aircraft above have at least three additional drag-inducing tail airfoils as compared to the Arrow.
DELTA WING LEADING EDGE VORTEX
Somewhat overlooked on aircraft design are the delta’s excellent lift characteristics. While it is a first class supersonic layout since it tends to stay out of the bow wave, it also has exceptional low-speed handling characteristics. From low speed to hypersonic flight, the delta is an excellent shape. The characteristics which really aids the low-speed handling and manoeuvrability is the fact that the delta creates an unusual leading-edge vortex of air that tends to keep the air attached to the wing at extreme angles of attack (60 degrees or more in some cases, while straight wings normally stall between 15 and 20 degrees).
Since very high-altitude flight is actually like slow flying this vortex phenomenon gives the delta a high-altitude advantage over a trapezoidal or swept-wing as it can make more lift if the thrust is there to overcome the additional drag that high amounts of lift always creates. This gives a delta-winged aircraft the ability to maintain higher alpha before the stall, and to manoeuvre better at low speeds and in low air densities while still maintaining control. Knowledgeable fighter pilots are incredulous at the mention that the Arrow demonstrated a stall speed of only 117 knots at full combat weigh!
Jack Woodman, the RCAF test pilot assigned to verify the Arrow’s performance, is actually on record as saying you really couldn’t stall the Arrow. The speed they chose as the stall speed is where the sink rate became unacceptable for landing purposes. This is the F-18 Hornet territory with the F-18 achieving its low-speed characteristics by (drag inducing) massive flap and leading-edge slat deflections plus a large deflection of the tail plane and the F-18 is known for being an excellent low-speed dogfighter!
Considering the extra drag of all the Hornet’s high-lift devices, it would be interesting to compare the low altitude acceleration curves of service Hornets against those of even the Arrow Mk. 1. It may have been a much different dogfight scenario than most would assume considering the Arrow’s thrust and low wing loading. The vortex only forms when the angle of attack is increased when the aircraft is pitched up. The sudden vortex formation was found to add so much lift that deltas were known to pitch up during turns or pull up manoeuvres and tended to make the aircraft tighten in a turn without additional control stick movement. This vortex, once formed, adds massive lift unlike any conventional wing. This could cause anything from difficulties in accurately tracking a target to structural failure if not compensated for it time.
This massive increase in lift, production once the vortex formed is the reason XF-92A test pilots Chuck Yeager and Frank Everest are on record as stating that the turning ability of a delta-wing aircraft is unsurpassed. They also preceded Jack Woodman’s comments on the Arrow’s delta when they said the delta, as installed on the XF-92A, just didn’t want to stall and maintains, lift and controllability at extremely high alpha. A later F-106 pilot said that if you pull up on the stick at high-speed it was a battle to maintain the turn and keep your head out of the instrument panel! (So much for those who say the Arrow wouldn’t have been highly manoeuvrable even by today’s standards!)
This turn tightening problem was one that Avro had very wisely spent a great deal of time in understanding and designing solutions.
LEADING-EDGE SAWTOOTH AND NOTCH
Avro sought to minimize the pitch-up problem and flow reversal at the tips associated with highly swept wings by introducing a notch and saw-tooth at mid-span on the wing. With the Arrow, this combination saw-tooth/notch produced a small but powerful secondary vortex (at the point of the notch) that traveled backward almost parallel to the airflow, forming an aerodynamic “fence”. It allows a much larger delta wing to be produced, without suffering from flow reversal at the tips and thus tends to keep drag in check at high alpha, while enabling the wing to make lift. On the Arrow this vortex also crossed the point where the elevators met the ailerons giving improved control effectiveness to both surfaces. At high altitudes this feature also reduced trim drag since it made the elevators more effective, and less deflection was required.
Any wing with a sharp or pointed leading edge will stall sooner than one with a gently rounded one. For low speed manoeuvrability this demands a compromise from the supersonic “flat plate” idea. To give the Arrow better low speed characteristics, as well as a higher potential angle of attack or alpha capability, a drooped leading edge was incorporated in the design while the inboard sections were fairly rounded anyway. The leading edge (saw-tooth) extension on the outboard wing section provided an excellent area to incorporate droop.
The F-15 Eagle would use a similar wing design to that of the Arrow but would delete the notch/saw-tooth since its short span and lower sweep angle didn’t have the tip flow-reversal problem to such an extent. It has a higher wing loading which comparatively limits its altitude and manoeuvrability. Another feature the Arrow and the F-15 share is how the engine location and fairing with the body results in extra low speed lift due to engine exhaust induced airflow over the fuselage. In essence the Arrow used a “pumped” wing and this meant that the elevators were located in an excellent place to also benefit from extra induced flow, especially at low speeds.
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 4
ARTIFICAL WASHOUT
An additional benefit derived from concentrating the droop on the outboard wing sections of the Arrow was that it built in “washout”. Washout means that the wing ether physically or aerodynamically incorporates twist, with the tips having a lower angle of incidence than the root. This ensures that the wing will stall last toward the tips thus maintaining aileron (roll) control in a stall or spin situation, which is vital.
The early deltas stalled first at the tip due to span-wise flow causing a breakaway at the tips. This section, on a delta or highly swept-wing, behind the center of gravity of the aircraft, so when that region stalled, the aircraft would pitch up since only the portion of the wing in front of the center of gravity would be making lift. Avro found means to control this span-wise flow and managed to add washout (twist) to the wing aerodynamically rather than physically, another drag reducing feature. This was also done, in part, by designing the wing to have a lower T/C ratio at the root than at the tip, an unusual feature well suited to the delta wing.
Virtually all wings incorporate washout most by using physical twist due to simpler design and manufacture. For an illustration one should look at side-view photos of the Arrow wing compared to that of that of the F-18 hornet. On the Arrow, the addition of leading-edge droop was found to increase the buffet boundary (buffet is encountered just before the stall) by over 60 present. This shows a very significant improvement in the high-alpha and, thus manoeuvring capabilities of the Arrow.
Testing of the Arrow wing demonstrated that the leading-edge droop, designed for low-speed handling, added insignificant amounts of supersonic drag up to about Mach 2.5. This would, at first glance, appear to be a lower-drag solution than ether the F-18 Hornet or the F-16 Falcon wings, both with considerable physical washout or twist, and hard-angle leading-edge droop slats. Again the delta’s lift advantages seem to guarantee an excellent low-speed “dogfight” performance with very low drag and high lift. In reality it appears to be one of the best thought-out wing designs up to this day, especially when the aerodynamic flourishes are considered.
DRAG REDUVTION
This term refers to more than just the aerodynamic drag provided by the frontal area of items encountering the slipstream, i.e.: the drag produced by the necessity of air “bending” around a shape it runs into. For a clean aircraft, wing thickness and size are major factors when considering form drag. For a little background, it’s interesting to look at the Spitfire design of 1936. The Spitfire for its time had a very thin wing. The long for/aft length of the wing combined with its relative thinness to produce an exceptionally low T/C on the Spitfire which was its secret for attaining high speed.
The extra area gained by its resulting, large square footage also gave it a low wing loading which made it very manoeuvrable.
For low drag an aircraft should be as “clean” as possible, it should have an absolute minimum of extra bulges and contours applied to the basic aerodynamic shape. The aerodynamic shape itself should occupy as little volume as possible, and the volume it does occupy must expand from the nose smoothly, with the overall volume progression being tailored for the speed range of the aircraft. A subsonic aircraft should have a relatively large, rounded nose and airfoil, while supersonic one must be rather pointed and keep the volume progression from nose to tail very gentle
PARASITE DRAG
Parasite drag refers to the drag of any items not contributing to lift. The fuselage on most aircraft is usually a large contributor to this form of drag. Any protuberances, bumps and curves on an aircraft will produce drag. At supersonic speeds this penalty is compounded because these features will add their own shock wave effects. In this respect the Arrow is still light years ahead of any combat aircraft in service. It had adequate internal fuel capacity to provide its long range needs without resorting to external tanks. It was designed to carry its weaponry internally as well. It had a delta-wing which required no extra tail surfaces. It had only one fin. It satisfied its area rule requirements well without resorting to subsonic drag increasing noticeable by pinches and bulges.
One area that has been largely ignored is the fact that the Arrow used a revolutionary, and still largely un-copied, cam/knuckle control-surface actuation system that was housed entirely in the wing. There were practically no protruding fairings for hinges and actuators. Toward the tips there were, on the underside of the wing, small curves protrusions over the knuckles that, due to their not having any right angles and being as shallow as they were added very little drag. Avro’s brilliant hinge design also ensured that there were no gaps on the “active” side of the control surfaces by incorporating a double piano-hinge assembly that assured low drag no matter which way the control surfaces were deflected.
The F-15 and F-18 and others have large 90 degree fairings over the actuator-hinge mechanisms which add considerable supersonic drag. Ninety degree angles on the airframe impose significant drag penalties at supersonic speed due to the formation of hard shock waves which impact the surrounding structure aggravating the “interference drag” problem by any standard; the Arrow was an exceptionally clean machine. Even the phenomenal Lockheed SR-71 with two engine shapes in additional to the fuselage, two tails, and two (or three) underside stabilizing fins cannot compare to the Arrow in terms of aerodynamic cleanness.
INDUCED DRAG
Induced drag is simply that portion of an aircraft’s drag total at a given altitude and speed caused by the production of lift. The delta-wing boosters were arguing that the delta was naturally better for induced drag at subsonic speeds and supersonic speeds. The trapezoidal fans felt the opposite was true. The reason the delta made more drag seems to be because it could operate at angles of attack beyond where the trapezoidal wing would stall, and made even more lift in the process! Avro seemed to achieve a breakthrough in induced drag and controllability on the Arrow wing, and Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF was hungry for those figures by 1957.
Deltas make lift like no other wing once pitched up, and high-aspect ratio wings are unsuitable for supersonic flight. Avro decided to use the delta wing based on their own research, while others were watching the unhappy results of the Convair XF-92, and F-102 and were avoiding that wing type like the plague, with the NACA’s blessings
People talk about the blending of the fuselage and wing on aircraft such as the F-16, SR-71, and the MIG-29 as being beneficial in helping the fuselage to produce lift. On the Arrow no such blending was required since the top of the fuselage; wing and intakes were one continuous, flat surface. The entire top of the Arrow was the wing. Making the Arrow, in very real terms, a “lifting body” This point is a major one and it is of considerable advantage when compared to the SR-71, the F-15 and F-22 and current Soviet fighters that share the blended philosophy.
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 5
TRIM DRAG
Drag produced by any control deflection required for straight and level flight is termed “trim drag” Trim drag is a major component of drag in high-performance aircraft at the extremes of their speed and altitude range and is improperly ignored in most written presentation of aircraft designs. It was known that the speed and altitude varied over the very wide speed range intended for the CF-105, the alpha and thus the point on the body of the aircraft where the lift was centered (center of pressure or center of lift) would change. It would also change with speed.
Both cases are counteracted in almost every aircraft by deflection of the elevators to keep the aircraft straight and level across its speed and altitude “performance envelope.” For example at low speed the aircraft would fly somewhat nose up (at a high alpha), and to keep it there, the elevators would have to be deflected upwards. At high subsonic speed and low to medium altitude, the elevators would actually be deflected slightly downwards on a properly designed delta-tailless aircraft since at subsonic speeds the center of lift is located farther forward then it is in supersonic flight, tending to cause the aircraft to pitch up.
At high altitude and high speed, low air density actually results in aerodynamic conditions similar to those of low speed flight. At an aircraft “absolute ceiling” in any aircraft, the elevators are either deflected upwards, completely eliminating any capacity for a further climb, or the angle of attack of the aircraft and the resultant drag exceed the amount of thrust available to maintain speed, and thus altitude. Supersonic speed also causes the center of lift to move rearward resulting in a nose-down pitch force. Thus in the thin air of extreme altitude and supersonic velocities, the elevators would again be deflected upwards.
(Pondering these phenomena says something unkind about the F-111 Raven, F-14 Tomcat and the Tornado’s “swing-wing” Unfortunately, at supersonic speeds; the swing-wing’s sweep moves the center of lift back, which aggravates the natural rearward shift that occurs at supersonic speed. The sweep does, however, help move the center of gravity of the variable-geometry aircraft in a favourable direction, yet the wing-glove retractable vanes of the F-14 Tomcat, since de-activated in an effort to reduce weigh and complexity, and the large saw-tooth on the MIG-23 which vanishes at the forward swept position, show that it isn’t enough to counteract the negative effects)
For the Arrow, Avro incorporated the negative camber of the wing to reduce this effect. They optimised the camber, at 0.75 percent negative, which gave a good compromise across the performance envelop. Avro also ensured that they programmed the fuel consumption to move the center of gravity as far rearward as possible by the mid-point of the flight, which would coincide with the highest speed and altitude portion of the mission.
MANOEUVRABLITY FACTORS are wing loading, power loading, control effectiveness, critical alpha and load limit.
WING LOADING
The Arrow design had a wing area of 1225 square feet, Compared to contemporary and modern fighters (around 500 to 650 square feet Jim100 AB), this resulted in a very low wing loading when the weight of the aircraft is compared to the wing available to “carry it”. The simple secret to the phenomenal manoeuvrability of the Mitsubishi “Zero” of World War II was its low wing loading. No high-performance fighter of the war could match it in a turning fight, not even the Hurricane or the Spitfire.
At high altitudes, low wing loading is absolutely critical to the manoeuvrability and speed of an aircraft. At these heights the air is so thin that a large wing is necessary to provide enough lift to support the weight of the aircraft. A smaller wing would invoke such severe trim and/or induced drag penalties as to exceed the amount of available power and make the aircraft stall.
(The F-22’s wing area is 840 square feet and needs thrust vectoring and powerful engines to allow it to manoeuvre at altitudes over 50,000 feet and not stall. The Arrow on the other hand has the lowest wing loading of any supersonic fighter/interceptor to ever enter service and could fly at the same speeds and was still able to manoeuvre at the same heights as the F-22 50,000 to 70,000 ft.!
Arrow Wing Loading at Combat-take-off wt 67,250/1225 = 54.9 lbs to 1 sq ft of Wing
F-22 Wing loading at Combat-take-off 64,840/840 = 77.1 lbs to 1 sq ft of wing.
Jim100 AB)
POWER LOADING
This is the ratio of weight to the amount of thrust available to carry it, its inverse is equally valid and called “thrust to weight ratio” The arrow had a very high thrust to weight ratio (or a very low power loading) and was about the best in the world in this respect until the F-15A Eagle.
CRITCAL ALPLA
The ability of an aircraft to achieve high alpha without causing flow separation (and then stall) is a factor in potential maneuverability. A delta wing has an innate high alpha capacity because it naturally produces the vortex already described. Avro further introduced leading edge droop to add even more high alpha capability, especially for low speed handling. The leading edge notch and saw-tooth on the Arrow did exactly the same thing as the LEX (leading edge extension) does on the F-18, F-16, the Soviet’s MIG-29 and Su-27.
The F-16 is advertised far and wide (especially during USAF air show presentations) as THE aircraft that is capable of extraordinarily high alpha before the stall. The F-16 by the way is limited to 26 degrees of alpha before encountering control problems. The F-18 is even better in this regards but the exact figure is, to R.L. Whitcomb’s knowledge is still classified. Let just say that it is confined to about 28 degrees during air shows to allow the aircraft to recover without crashing should one engine fail at such a low altitude.
More the one Avro engineer has stated to R.L. Whitcomb that the Arrow was wind-tunnel tested to 45 degrees of alpha before separation (and the stall). This figure has also been published in other works on the Arrow. Others sources claim the delta-wing makes lift up to 60 degrees of alpha, which is about 40 degrees more than a normal, straight wing can produce before stalling. Zurakowski has related that the Arrow was test flown at up to 25 degrees without problems. Considering the F-16’s reputation and 26 degree limitation, one must applaud Avro’s success.
This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 6
CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS
To turn all this lift and alpha capability into useful maneuvers requires effective control surfaces that can produce a high rate of change in alpha. One look at the Arrow wing will show the elevators and ailerons to be simply enormous relative to the size of the wing. In the case of the elevators, this was done due to a relatively short “moment arm” (distance between the center of gravity and the control surface) to assure good responsiveness at low speeds. Most modern aircraft with the engines located at the extreme rear of the aircraft have short moment arms as well. Again one should note that the vortex created by the leading edge notch/saw tooth passed over the joint between them imparting added effectiveness to both.
The Arrow also had the first computerized (fly by wire) flight control system. Problems with the pitch up and turn-tightening characteristics of the Convair’s deltas, coupled with the fact that they didn’t seem to want stall, should end all serious debates about control effectiveness as far as the delta’s ability to make lift and turns. Avro actually had to modify the flight controls system to limit the control effectiveness for flight at high speeds and low and medium altitudes. This characteristic did not hurt low-speed lift since lift would be generated by high angle of attack and leading-edge vortex. Control effectiveness was assisted by the fuel consumption sequencing pattern which made sure adequate control authority existed at the extremes of operation. This reduced trim drag greatly as a fringe benefit.
As it was, Zurakowski described the Arrow as having an excessively fast roll rate and the flight control system was modified to reduce this on the prototypes (it was reduced to just one roll or 360 degrees in a second Jim100 AB). Zurakowski and Woodman also described the Arrow as being very sensitive to pitch inputs, something that bodes very well for maneuverability since this means that it had high control effectiveness and could change alpha very quickly indeed, Woodman complained after his first flight that a mere 1/5 inch of control stick movement would subject the Arrow to 0.5 G acceleration when the controls were calibrated for “linear” sensitivity. In other words, only two inches of stick movement was required to effect a significant 5 G turn!
The system was then modified to include a “gradient” whereby the stick was made less effective near the center position while preserving total pitch authority at the extremes of its movement area. On Woodman’s second flight in the Arrow he found the stick gradient to be “excellent”. Since Woodman found the less sensitive “toned down” filtering on his second flight more to his liking, one can see that the Arrow had awesome natural control sensitivity. Again, Avro designed the fly-by-wire system to minimize sensitivity at combined high-speed and at low-to medium altitudes to protect the pilot and aircraft since it had so much lift and control authority built into it that to do otherwise could endanger the aircraft and crew.
While Avro knew the Arrow had plenty of control authority and lift-generation potential at low speed, an Arrow configuration was proposed using a canard to reduce trim drag for an even higher-speed, higher-altitude Arrow version. (The Arrow PS-2 Jim100 AB) The Mk 1, taking off at a weight about 5,000 pounds heavier than that of a combat-loaded Mk 2, lifted off at 170 knots, F-15 Eagles take off at about 210 knots. It is easy to see which would be the best dogfighter.
LOAD LIMIT
Maximum G is the structural limit of the airframe and thus is also a limit on alpha and maneuverability. A fast alpha increases loads on the wings with a great deal of force. Think of the weak kneed feeling experienced when an elevator lifts off abruptly. This is perhaps an acceleration of 1.2 G. ((“The Arrow was designed to be flown in normal operation at up to 7.33 G at combat weigh and supersonic velocity!”)) At this level of G force, your head, as an example, normally weighing perhaps 15 pounds, will weigh 110! Not difficult to see why it is hard for a combat pilot to withstand high G while swiveling his or her neck to look for the enemy!
The Mk 1 Arrow prototype weighed 49,000 lbs empty. At 7.33 G, the wings would have to bear a load equivalent to over 400,000 lbs! The CF-18 Hornet is currently limited to 7.5 G maximum, (clean and light), and is restricted to even less when it is at any useful combat weight. The F-15 even in the comparatively light air-to-air combat configuration, with no tanks, is limited to only 5.5 G.
SPEED RECORDS
American jets like the F-106 Delta Dart, F-4 Phantom, F-15 “Strike Eagle” and others set their records being stripped down and equipped with up-rated engines, engines that were in all likelihood scrapped after the record runs due to excessive turbine inlet temperatures on their record runs.
The CF-105 Mk 1 nearly set a record being considerably overweigh with the instrumentation pack, heavy engines and ballast, and was apparently not even at full throttle. Indeed more than one ex-Avro employee states that they were categorically forbidden by Crawford Gordon from breaking the speed record with the J-75 engines.
(Yes, what might have been had the Arrow not been cancelled, by government fools! Jim100 AB)
I was in the Navy on submarines back in the mid-70’s I was a Nuclear Electrician on USS Robert E Lee and USS Guitarro I sat on both sides of the reactor operator as Throttleman (left side) and Electical Operator (right side) in front of the EOOW
Cool...your comment sort of indicated you owned two nuclear subs. regards....Virtual
Now that's cool
Thank you for the comment. There are twelve episodes in total, the next eight get better.....regards.....Virtual
Groovy Piano
Thanks Allan, the really good stuff is my uncle and his work was recorded well. I recorded mine on an iPad. Strangely enough, the iPad does a pretty good job. regards...Virtual
Bob and Doug? Those hosers!
I would like to apologize I don’t remember who or what channel but a question came up, (it was about 7 months ago maybe longer?) they had heard that an engineer flew as an observer/passenger on an Arrow. I said no, I didn’t think so, well I was WRONG! I just found this so I am posting it here in the hopes that the person that asked the question will find it and see they were RIGHT!
Avro Design Engineer, D. E. Darrah (Red Darrah) was the only passenger to ever fly in an Arrow - checking the Damper optimization fly-by-wire systems in RL 203 for Spud Potocki on Feb 19, 1959 - Page 75/81 documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-AvroCanadaCF-105Arrownose.pdf
Again, my apologies to you!
That is correct Jim,but not a female as in the movie.
True but it was made for a TV show so a little intrigue was used to make for an interesting if not accurate fact. I always try to bring only facts so I guess it makes me a little more boring. LOL In fact a lot of the show was fact but for one reason or another names and people were not shown as it was in real life Like it was .Spud Potocki that took RL-202 to Mach 1.98 not Jack Woodman in RL-201 with a passenger. No wonder people have a hard time believing the Arrow was really that good. I could spend hours correcting the names of the people and the facts that were associated with them in that movie.
Mark
I found something of interest; we can all agree that in the movie “CBC The Arrow” that the Arrow never buzzed the Air National Guard airfield near Buffalo. However, that may have been a reference to an earlier time.
The early development running of the Orenda TR-5 turbojet continued through 1949 and early 1950. The early success of the engine caught A.V Roe’s gas turbine engineers completely off guard since they suddenly realized that they had a flyable engine and nothing to fly it in. Paul Dilworth didn’t quite agree, feeling the Orenda was ready to be slipped into a North American Aviation (NAA) F-86 Saber and flown
Roy Dobson insisted it fly on a test-bed aircraft first however. A Lancaster Mark X (built in the same plant during the war was quickly modified to accept two Orendas in place of two of the four Rolls-Royce Merlins. It flew in July of 1950. The Lancaster was a very fast aircraft for its type with the Merlin engines during the war and, with two Orenda’s supplementing the Merlins it was actually superior to the B-29’s and B-50’s of the USAF’s Strategic Air Command (SAC).
On at least one occasion this “Super-Lanc” buzzed the Air National Guard Airfield near Buffalo, New York. The eyebrows of more than one P-47 Thunderbolt pilot were raised when, after they scrambled to intercept, they were effortlessly left in the Lancaster’s wake.
(I found this in two different sources (Shutting Down the National Dream by Greig Stewart, and Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L Whitcomb Jim100AB)
thats cool!
Mark Remember in the "CBC the Arrow" the Arrow was in the climb at Mach 1.9? Well have a look at this!
On Remembrance Day 1958, with Potocki at the helm, the second Arrow, RL-202, achieved the maximum speed of the Arrow program … at least the maximum recorded speed. In a flight of 1.25 hours the jet reached a corrected speed of Mach 1.96 while climbing through 50,000 feet, still accelerating, and while only in intermediate afterburner (some say the correction factor was incorrect and the true airspeed was Mach 1.98 but the point is largely irrelevant, Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L. Whitcomb).
These 4 films, with the right scriptwriter, would make a great film - think Tom Clancy meets Top Gun! Great work, really enjoying the story. I take it you based it on the rumours that 202 escaped and ended up in England?
Hi Cliff.....Thanks for the nice comment...I really like to hear from Canadians who enjoy these movies. What ended up in England was not 202 (as far as I know), but an Iroquois engine. This is true. Hawker Sidley was associated with both Orenda and Bristol Aerospace. They legally brought an Iroquois to England under great secrecy. They were astounded by it''s power. Under great secrecy it was disassembled and it's secrets examined. A few years later the Olympus engine that powered the Concord emerged. I know this story to be true because I know the fellow who went to England to bring the engine home. He is currently trying to bring that engine back to life. regards...Virtual.
@@Virtualenvirons I am actually English but my father was born in Saint John, New Brunswick and moved here with his parents aged 6. Interesting to hear about the Iroquois coming here, especially in view of the totally new engine design that was going in to TSR2 and then of course the Olympus. TSR2, of course, suffered a similar fate to Arrow and also had all the designs and test rigs destroyed after which the RAF placed a (Never fulfilled) order for the US F111. Coincidence? I think not
@@Virtualenvirons I would love to see the other five, which escaped!
@@edwardcarberry1095 Hi Edward..Not sure what your question means. Could you clarify please. regards..Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons I didn't type a question.
love ya for the passion in the video, just get the facts a tad better please. keep em coming
HI Plazma.....Glad you enjoy the videos, but "we have to talk". I see you are a 'gamer". Gamers often get confused when they watch these videos, although they seem to enjoy them. There are typos in these videos that are mostly corrected on the new Arrow channel. You can see the link in the top right hand corner of these videos to that channel.
Back to gamers. Gaming is not real world, hence "Gaming". You may have noticed that there is not another series like this on CZcams There is a reason for that. No one really knows how two modern opposing forces with equivalent aircraft would play out. The math says there would be only one aircraft left on the winning side. Gaming tactics and real world tactics are much different and I do not profess to know real world tactics more than on a cursory level. But, I do have an Air force general on the team. regards.....Virtual
Hoach for the win
Why no CF 100 Canucks?
Oh, that's right.
If I won a Lotto I would start up our NEW next gen design group and execute the process. But I really also would like to know how the heck to manage 40G turns and Mach15 in two seconds. From stationary at 40kFt. Really would like to know that! But I better hurry up, I will turn 72 in the Spring. Like your dream. Also like the phrasing on the keys! Very nice. Poor Rankin, now they will be paranoid heheh. Have you heard of "Genie missiles?" A Canadian standard intercept weapon for years, until we got better stuff. Have a great 2019 to any and all.
Hi Allan..Thanks for the comment. Yes, we have kept the Genie missiles out of it. They would have had to have been armed by a U.S. officer anyway, so no point really. Glad you like the series. I am not that far behind you in terms of age. I draw my old age pension this year. regards...Virtual
Well maybe the nice CIA guy could help with that?
@@jim100ab9 Hmmm...never thought of that. I should have squirrelled one away in Ep. 2...regards....Virtual
Well maybe the nice CIA man knows how to get one? As the CIA have lots of things that they don't talk about. They even have things hidden all over the place he maybe willing to share now...
Just thinking the CIA guy could know were lots of old cold war goodies are keep. LOL just saying?
Enjoying this please watch the color of your text as it’s hard to read
I live near Sacramento California we have a J-58 engine on display at California Aerospace Museum and as you know SR’s flew out of Beale AFB about 40 miles from my location where they have one on display along with a D-21 I’m an Air Force brat and first saw one fly in 67 or 68 they were a little expensive to operate but my 2 Nuclear Submarines weren’t exactly cheap
Thanx from the left coast near the Krapitol of California
Hi Gene. Thanks for the comment. Some scenes are just difficult to get the text right. The background, etc. Can you clarify the two nuclear submarines comment? regards...Virtual
nice ...
HI Chris Thanks. Did you see all four episodes? regards...Virtual
yes . thank you . here in the us east of bangor maine . and a non lib and i'm just a little older than the arrow and do remember just a little of it . thank you loved them ..... and i do have a story for you .. if you can put up with poor gamer and bad spelling lol .
@@chrispcriddercridder6397 What's the story? regards....Virtual
some of your pilots bragged to some of the maine air grade that they could sneak into maine any time they wanted . and were told it could not happen . so in june or july 1982 03:00 two silmltanios sonic booms woke me one and half miles away from the bangor airport . firefighter ems at the time i called dispatch office . 30 minuets later got a call back and was told that the 2 aircraft snick in and went virtual over the airport . so your guys do have bragging rights .
@@chrispcriddercridder6397 Cool. Too bad it wasn't a pair of Arrows. regards....Virtual
Pretty sure the arrow would not keep uo in dog fight in anything made after the 2000 but might have a chance with thrust retiring tech abd speed but would be a great inter enter abs strategic strick bomber not fight
Did I just watch Canadian Top Gun?
Who was playing the piano?
Hello. The entire movie was made on my Mac. The piano was played between my uncle and I. My uncle's music was recorded professionally, mine on my iPad. I played and wrote the piano arrangement for the Good, the Bay and the ugly, if that is what you were wondering. The credits explain who. regards....Virtual
Virtualenvirons
I'm probably the only aviation geek in Canada who thinks snuffing the Arrow was the right call.
Not here to debate it.
You vids get more views than mine so you must be doing something right.
Maybe I should be producing my own music too.
Carry on.
@@falconeaterf15 HI Falcon...Well, I think the reason I get a lot of views is that I am telling three stories in one series. Story one, the Series plot, Story two, the demise of the Arrow and story 3, Canada's inability to patrol it's borders. regards....Virtual
cant wait for the next episode
Hi Luc...I will be releasing Ep 5 and Ep. 6 at the same time, late Sept. or earl Oct. There was too much for one episode, so I am holding back Ep. 5.. Thank you so very much for watching and encouraging the series. regards...Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons thanks for the info, as many said it would be fun to have a canadian made movie :)
and had a chance to met someone that saw her flew
Yes, the EU would always side with Canada. Excellent, some voices are in!! I love the air battles!! Please show NATO fighting alongside Canada in the next War episode!! When will it be out?
Hi WW3...yes, there is a message here and I am glad that people are picking up on it. These movies are very time consuming. I am just one old guy making these movies on my Mac.
I have been thinking about War and I think it may need to be the start of a new series, including team oxygen-arian and the Arrow of course, but I have to develop ships, planes, subs, etc. So, it may be a while, but thank you very much for watching. regards....Virtual.
I don't want to be fighting their wars anymore! They already having a civil war brewing.
So considering that speed is the answer, what happens when Russia sends their mach 3interceptor?
Well, the Mig-25 (Mach 3.21) is junk. It was designed to shoot down the ill fated XB-70 Valkarye bomber that was never fielded. The Mig-31 Foxhound ( Mach 2.81) clean, loaded probably Mach 2.6 is a good plane, but could never turn with an Arrow. The Arrow was to have it's Air intake inlets revised as it could not get enough air for the Iroquois to get full power. Eventually the Arrow would have exceeded Mach 3. Keep and eye out for future episodes. regards..Virtual
David The Arrow Mk 3 would have had a new rounded forward swept “shoulder” four-ramp three-dimensional variable intake which gave no shock-induced air-flow separation on either the ramp surface or fuselage. (Resent NASA internet presentations relating to hypersonic intake design conclude this is the most efficient design for hypersonic flight!
As a fourth-generation engineer who began as a machinist, with undergraduate degrees in engineering and physics I have seen things on the theoretical and applied side many times. The notion that one could wave a magic wand and "poof" this 60 year old aircraft could become a version 2 with new materials, engines, systems and instrumentation effortlessly is nonsense. Given the massive state of change in material science in the last 60 years you would be beginning from scratch. For good reason as aerodynamics, stress factors and simply the manufacturing processes with composites can be put together in a much faster, more sophisticated and technically less demanding way than could aluminum or the other metals used 60 years ago in aviation. While these issues could be overcome, there would be absolutely no way of determining for certain until prototypes we're off the computer and at least into the wind tunnel. We're not talking about building a passenger plane, the comparative simplicity of which makes it relatively easy to go from computer to manufacture, this is a whole different animal, infinitely more challenging, complex and above all unpredictable. There is a reason going all the way back to Glenn Curtiss that prototype aircraft have always been referred to as "she". Furthermore, the argument is rendered moot as fighter/interceptors of the 21st century and beyond will be highly sophisticated, autonomous, extreme long-range, unbelievably fast, quick and maneuverable missles with nothing more than a cloud of shrapnel as a payload/warhead, requiring no more than a firecracker to detonate, intercepts and closes on any sort of piloted aircraft at Mach 5 or above. Autonomous fighter/ intercepter aircraft are inevitable and after the spending debacle of the F-35 desperately needed. Not only is a third of the weight of a high performance all weather fighter devoted to the pilots creature comforts and safety the autonomous aircraft that are this fast and maneuverable would render a human pilot unconscious after the first high-speed turn. A few more and he would be dead. the artificial intelligence that will pilot these crafts is not anywhere near as complex or sophisticated as most laymen believe, rather it thinks with brute force rather than the vague intuition and "skill" we mere mortals depend upon. When Big Blue first beat Boris Spassky in chess it wasn't because of its great tactical and strategic abilities. Rather, it was able to make 15 to 20,000 calculations in the length of time it took Spassky to make one. The next generations of airborne killing machines will evolve organically with strategy, tactics and the 99% kill ratio being executed in milliseconds, while the AUV "learns" and self corrects. Forget the F-35 or the Arrow and think more along the lines of the organic Cylon Raider craft in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. How tragic, but that's progress? No worries, you Canucks we're largely responsible for the creation of the deHavilland Mosquito and Beaver and that's enough progress in aviation for generations of pride. Aircraft design has always been as much art as technology and the Mosquito and Beaver are high art! Few aircraft have ever been more successful in terms of service to mankind....
Hi Mose. i received two comments this morning that seem somewhat similar. I can't help but think the two of you might know each other in some way. The other is on Episode 4.
I appreciate your historical knowledge and friendly point of view. Most Americans take a more direct approach...(my dad can beat your dad) sort of response. But, your comment is lengthy and touches many unrelated points. I need to distill it down to a couple of points I can respond to.
First of all, the retired talent on this team is quite extensive, including Air force, Aeronautical engineers, Jet engine engineers, etc. Before I start, we were asked to give a talk on the Arrow recently and decided to make this short movie in the same vain as the series to finally explain the Arrow. All of the points are documented and can be defended. The link will be below.
The Arrow was in some cases two generations ahead of its time. Most look at the F-106 and say "same thing", but it was not even close. The first F-106's required two hands on the stick to fly the plane. I will leave it up to your imagination what appendage was used for the throttles. The Arrow was fly by wire with haptic feedback, not seen on American fighters until the F-16 and F-18. Another example, the Arrow had negative stability built into he Y-axis, again not seen on American fighters until the F-16 and F-18. The Phantom was a closer contempory. The list goes on and is explained in the movie link below.
The primary point of these movies, although there is a second story being told, is that neither the F-18 or F-35 suits Canada's needs. That is why the Arrow was developed. To make my point quickly, that is why the U.S. does not have either of those two fighters stationed in Elmendorf. If America won't use the F-35 as an intercepter then why should Canada? regards....Virtual
czcams.com/video/hMKAoryHVP8/video.html
Boom, boom, I love how the F-18s and Avro Arrow work together. As a Canadian stationed on a NATO base it would be epic to see NATO fight alongside Canada in the next Wat episode. Will you also add the Chinese helping the Russians and missile defenses shooting down Russian nukes? That would be fun.
Hi WCR...Thanks for the comment. I have to give the next Episode a lot of thought. I don't think there is a scenario for NATO to come to North America. I intended to make the next Episode more or less the end of the Series, but there appears to be a lot of interest in a war on our shores and how NATO would respond. So, I think "War" will be the start of a new Arrow series. When I started the series, I knew Ep. 4 would be difficult, because historically the U.S. would not stand for any Russian incursion. Then the new President handed me the story gift wrapped. regards...Virtual.
Would be nice to see how the Arrow would have carried an ABM, I think it would have had to be half in and half out of the weapons pod.
A little known fact (see link www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1958/1958%20-%200183.PDF
Flight and Aircraft Engineering, “Ironclads and Arrows” 14 February 1958) it explains some of the math involved. Jim Floyd finds that if an “anti” is launched from an aircraft flying at Mach 1.5 at 60,000 ft. its thrust need only be about one third of that required for ground launch weapons. Jim Floyd was working on an ABM system with Douglas to adapt a version of the Nike-Zeus system for use on the Arrow. The first stage of the ground launched version could be abandoned, with data link modifications to the remaining upper stage to accept targeting information from the Arrow’s onboard radar system. (R.L. Whitcomb)
@@jim100ab9, That was later used by the USAF for ASAT. That was also one of the things that They were working on yet both use the same basic concepts. The F-15 Which is the closest to the flight performance of the Arrow in both speed and Altitude and rate of climb.
I’m a hunge fan of the arrow. The more I learn the more I believe in the project. It was/is still an out and out interceptor. Something our allies in Canada sorely need, especially in the climate out moron in chief has created for you and the world. The F35 has its place as an attack craft. But it is highly limited. The F-22’s should have carried that role as its own plus that of the F35. I just don’t believe in its ability. For Canada, a country I wish I could move to, but because of my disability cannot, you need a stronger defense as we rely. On you, and the Arrow meets that requirement, all it needs is updated engines, nwere composit materials and improved power plants and it will out do any American aircraft in the role of intercepted.
Vitualenvirons: I think I've posted a pic of the Arrow on my home properly. It seems to be cropped off. This is the picture that I was wondering if anyone had any info where it was taken. Hoping for some insight. I'm sorry I don't know how to properly post a proper pic on youtube.
Hi Mass. Things have changed on CZcams. You used to be able to post pictures as a slide show, but that function seems to be gone now. Looks like it was replaced by Google photo on the right. That probably does not help. Photo does look interesting though.
Are you using a mac or a PC? regards...Virtual
PC. I might take a few minutes to reply sometimes because my notifications are screwing up. But I know there is some but I can't tell what unless I search. Sorry.
@@mass4552 Hi Mass, I am a Mac guy unfortunately. But, I can tell you what needs to happen. CZcams is designed around movies, so a photo does not work as a photo. But, a photo can me easily be made to a movie, but you need someone to help you do that by the sounds of things. If you notice I have stills on my channel. What I do is get them into a program that exports them out as a move. The picture never changes, but youtube see movie and not picture. If you can get to that point, then it is just an upload. The information to do this is on CZcams. If you search a bit, you will find videos explaining. hope this helps regards...Virtual.
I'll give it a rip.
Could you check my home page and see if you can access it. Its 7 seconds.
I really wish I could tell you some info on the arvo . But the papers have been hidden somewhere in Ontario. Only 2 people know of their whereabouts. I don't even know if those persons are still alive. Wish I could tell you more .
So do I?
Another good story is the massive cover-up over the Ocean Ranger disaster.
I know more than most when it comes to the Ocean Ranger as I was living in Newfoundland at the time. There was no cover-up it was just a porthole that gave way and the bad design that caused the sea water to short out the ballast control room. With it taking on water with no way to keep the platform on an even keel there was just no way it could stay afloat.
First off I do a lot of research so if you can give the names of the people, the names of the files, was it photocopies of files even a little of what was in the files as it would all be of help.. I would love a new challenge!
@@jim100ab9
That was the official story. I ran into the engineer who investigated the incident. He told me the 'Mekanic Tarasov', the Russian freighter that sank the next morning, actually ran into the oil platform. We determined that it was covered up because of the plutonium that went missing from the Deep River storage facility. We believe the plutonium was on that ship. Evrything has been destroyed BUT I do believe the Russians may be very cooperative in this investigation, or not.
If the Arrow did go as planned, it would probably retire or maybe still be in service. Look at america's B-52. Their 60 year old aircraft is still in service!
HI Richard. If the Arrow program had not been shut down, Canada might still be making jets or at least have a thriving aerospace industry. The B-52 is an amazing story. It is not scheduled to be retired until around 2050. regards....Virtual
I like all your Arrow simulations, but the jets don't turn like you show. I imagine wouldn't be that hard to "bank" them properly in the turns (?)
Hi George. Programming these movies is very difficult. Aerial combat scenes the most difficult as the are very large and slow. I have to program the scenes and let the computer calculate the turns, etc. Thanks for watching. regards....Virtual
Fun fantasy but please proofread beforehand. It is called a “Bomb bay”, not a “Bombay”.
Missed that one...thanks. Unfortunately, we can't change that now. On the first episode we misspelled Strategic and no one has ever noticed after 400,000 views. regards....Virtual.
OMG! cancel everything now!
Bring back the SR71 For its original mission, AN INTERCEPTOR !!!!!!!
With the Phoenix missile New and improved!!!!!!!
HI 33. The SR71 is an American story, so I will let an American tell it. Beautiful plane. It original intent though may not have been an interceptor. It's origins begin with the CIA and he A-12 program. XB-71 may be closer to the truth. regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons Wrong It was originally created as an interceptor, the A 12, And fired the Phoenix missile.
Do some research
@@factinator33 HI 33. I have done some research, but not what comes up online or in history books. I stand by my first comment. Go up high...go fast...and deliver a big....big...bomb. regards....Virtual.
@@Virtualenvirons agree to disagree
@@factinator33 Agreed....regards....Virtual
Yes but did it ever go head to head with the Yanks?
Hi Brian....there wasn't really anything to go head to head with in the U.S. at the time. The F-106 required two hands on the stick at that time. I will leave it up to your imagination as to what appendage was used for the throttles. regards....Virtual
At the time, the "Yanks" as you call them did not have anything capable of keeping up with this bird so no, never was. The CBC video series shows one flight made over the water to the US and they buzzed the F-86's and new F-100's US Base and Tower before going super2++sonic and it reached 105, 000 Ft. too. There were RADAR stations at the time sending techs out to check calibrations haha. Does not take too much imagination to get the idea of where we would really be at today had we not caved in to the US.
they had nuthing like it at the time
AllenI found something of interest; we can all agree that in the movie “CBC The Arrow” that the Arrow never buzzed the Air National Guard airfield near Buffalo. However, that may have been a reference to an earlier time.
The early development running of the Orenda TR-5 turbojet continued through 1949 and early 1950. The early success of the engine caught A.V Roe’s gas turbine engineers completely off guard since they suddenly realized that they had a flyable engine and nothing to fly it in. Paul Dilworth didn’t quite agree, feeling the Orenda was ready to be slipped into a North American Aviation (NAA) F-86 Saber and flown
Roy Dobson insisted it fly on a test-bed aircraft first however. A Lancaster Mark X (built in the same plant during the war was quickly modified to accept two Orendas in place of two of the four Rolls-Royce Merlins. It flew in July of 1950. The Lancaster was a very fast aircraft for its type with the Merlin engines during the war and, with two Orenda’s supplementing the Merlins it was actually superior to the B-29’s and B-50’s of the USAF’s Strategic Air Command (SAC).
On at least one occasion this “Super-Lanc” buzzed the Air National Guard Airfield near Buffalo, New York. The eyebrows of more than one P-47 Thunderbolt pilot were raised when, after they scrambled to intercept, they were effortlessly left in the Lancaster’s wake.
(I found this in two different sources (Shutting Down the National Dream by Greig Stewart, and Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L Whitcomb Jim100AB)
Hey , we gave up on a plane that was at least twenty years more advanced than any thing the Americans had , in fact the 1958 Arrow woud stand it's own against that dud F-35 , and the Arrow had more range and more speed. But, the Americans did let us buy out dated VooDoos and useless Beamark missles ( couldn't hit a barn if you fired it from inside the barn )
If they didn't first kill the attending personnel. Used to blow up on launch. Bad news product those Not so Beau Marks..
The crazy thing is if we didn't need the Arrow when we didn't need the Voodoos, Bomarc, or SAGE...turns out the USA just wanted to sell us their crap after the Arrow was killed.
Neil, what is your background in aviation? The F-35 is a good solid performer. Look at what was said about the F-15/16 when they were under development and entering service. The fighter mafia didn't want either aircraft as they thought they were not good enough. Well they were wrong anout both and they are wrong about what tehy are saying about the F-35. The Hornet is truly a dud now as its to flipping old with zero parts. time to bite the bullet and buy the only decent 5th gen get on the market. not the second hand junk our idiot PM just bought !
@@pcyr123456 HI Phillippe. I had to approve your last comment. The "Idiot" word. I will let this one go as you are not referring to anyone on this forum and I think most would agree with you, but keep it clean please.
As to the F-35. There is a documentary movie on this channel that shows the problem with the F-35 for Canada. Note that I said Canada and not Europe. It also, compares the F-35 development to the Arrow and the Arrow Firsts. The scenario for the movie is also factual.
I will ask you a question though on the F-35. If America had to choose between two aircraft for continental defence. Either the F-35 or the F-15 C (modern Arrow), which one would it choose. regards...Virtual.
Canada needs an interceptor good or bad the F-35 is just to slow to get the job done. Canada has around 2 mil sq miles of coastline we need something faster and with longer range then a first strike aircraft. Thanks anyway! The fighter mafia didn't want the F-15 their saying was not a pound for air to ground. The F-16 had a lot of 40 second Boyd input to make it a fast light maneuverable dog fighter.
Too bad we only get a '60% Avro' being build..... a Snowbird variation of the real thing..
How about adding a new fighter to the mix? Backstory: As the F-15X came into service in the USAF, the US gave the IDF their used F-15C/D from ANG units. IAI and Bombardier engineers working feverishly have uprated the former ANG airframes as brand-new CF-X15 Arctic Eagles -- now slowly replacing the oldest of the CF-118's! Where's the TARDIS when you need it?!
Hi Richard....Yes, a time machine...maybe we could go back and school Diefenbaker. Richard, sounds like you have a story you would like to write. Give it a try. I am getting a lot of input for the next episode. I was a bit surprised at how many people are interested in the content of this series. regards....Virtual
Some reasons why the USA aircraft industry feared the Arrow.
(The USAF was not afraid that Canada would use the Arrow to shoot down the U2 or any other USAF plane. The USAF and the USA military aircraft industry were afraid that if the Arrow went into production Canada would start selling it to all the other NATO countries. It’s not surprising that the UASF industry disliked the Arrow as a multi-role aircraft capable of fighter, bomber, and interceptor with the ability to recon at high or low altitudes with weapons to defend itself and be able to fly as high and as fast as the SR-71 the CIA would lose its advantage in the spy plane industry if the Arrow was sold to other NATO countries. Bottom line is the USA military aircraft industry would have lost out on being the free world’s BIGGEST ARMS DEALER! Jim100 AB)
Cold War Tech War by R.L. Whitcomb
The Arrow could be dispatched to visually identify intruders. It could also be dispatched to do tactical reconnaissance it has been said that the reason the Arrow was feared by the Americans interests was it could shoot down the U2. Whiles it could certainly have done so, a more likely cause for concern would be the emerging probability that the Arrow might be able to match the flight performance of the CIA’s next-generation (unarmed) spy plane.
The top secret project suntan, (for a Mach 2.5 and 70,000 feet spy plane) was in the works at the famed Skunk Works at Lockheed’s Burbank California complex, and at a secret location in Florida. under the project designation CL-400), US calculations of the Arrow’s true performance capability through wind tunnel data plus intelligence on the Mach 3+, 70.000+ feet, Arrow Mk3 design may well have had a heavy influence on the cancellation of the Cl-400 Suntan aircraft.
These Arrow projections may also have been critical in the development of the A-12 specifications, which culminated in the SR-71 Blackbird (also unarmed). Max speed Mach 3.3, Ferry Range 3,200 NM, Service ceiling, 85,000 ft.
Arrow Mark 3 (armed interceptor before the Arrows first flight) we know the estimate is conservative. This development would have increased the speed of the aircraft from Mach 2 to Mach 3 and the combat altitude from 18,288 m (60,000 ft) to 21,336 m (70,000 ft). The modifications needed for this version were more extensive and included up rated Iroquois Mk 3 engines, providing additional thrust, along with variable geometry intakes. The basic geometry of the original design, however, remained basically unchanged.
Arrow Mk. 3, a Mach 3.5 capable aircraft with air to air refueling and a combat speed of Mach 3, using new materials including carbon fiber composites, a glass micro-balloon filled insulation contained in a composite honeycomb core. (This appears to have become the heat shield for Mercury and Gemini.)
Arrow Mk4 (armed interceptor) this is from 1957 (before the Arrows first flight) so again we know the estimate is conservative. Avro projected the ferry range of this aircraft to be 2,500 NM (over 2,900 miles), Max speed Mach 3+, Service ceiling 80,000+ ft. The ramjet-augmented Mk4 would have had double the thrust-to-weight performance of the SR-71 Blackbird.
Mk.4 which was basically an Arrow Mk3 with titanium skin using 4 auxiliary ramjets, each giving an extra 16,000 pounds of thrust. Documents pointing out that Curtiss Wright had this basic ramjet sitting on their shelves as paid for surplus, since they had been designed for the NAVAHO missile program, which had been cancelled. These were proposed in November 1957, and in very early 1958. This aircraft would have had about twice the thrust to weight ratio of the SR-71 or F-108, roughly the same drag (as the F-108 it was slightly larger due to having engines with 44% larger frontal area than the Iroquois, while having roughly the same thrust) it would have had better range then the F-108 especially since the Mk4 had air to air refueling.
(Remember this is about 10 years before the SR-71 or the Mig-25 flew! Jim100 AB)
It seems clear from what remains of the paper trail (most given to R.L. Whitcomb by Avro people) that the Americans again declined on the Arrow 2 and also the Arrow 3, because they couldn’t maintain Mach 3 long enough. Avro was projecting, based on their material testing to that point, that the Mk. 3 could maintain Mach 3 for 20 minutes. (Like all Avro projections before the Mk1 flew this was also a conservative estimate Jim100 AB)
We also know that John Foster Dulles told MND Pearkes in med 1958 that
the US would never buy Arrows. Not even to save the American taxpayers the expense of developing the F-108 and the SR-71.
The CIA and the Arrow program, I don’t believe in conspiracies I do believe in the facts, (Dragnet TV show) the facts ma'am, just the facts. As researched by Jim100 AB part 1
Anyone that has read any books on the Arrow knows of John Foster Dulles, the U.S. Secretary of State and Dr. Courtland Perkins Chief Scientist for the USAF. Their names come up repeatedly in dealing with the RCAF, DRB, NAE, the Arrow program in general, and the Canadian government. In his role as the U S Secretary of State he was in a position of knowing the Arrows capabilities and any vulnerability. He was also the one who told Hon. George Pearkes, the Canadian Minister of Defense and the Canadian government that the USA would never buy Arrows not even to save the USA tax payers from funding and building the F-108.
In fact the Mk 3 Arrow would have been a better performer than the F-108, or the SR-71. This is based on the wind tunnel tests done at NACA in Langley Virginia and the flight testing of the Arrow Mk 1. These tests were also done about 10 years before the SR-71 flew!
It has always been said the Arrow was a threat to the U2 spy plane, but how? In 1956 the CIA was using a cover story for the U-2 and said it was just a weather research aircraft but in reality it was used to over fly and to spy on other countries. The only aircraft that John Foster Dulles knew that was in development that might threaten the U-2 cover story was the CF-105 Arrow. Therefore he could not let the development of the Arrow continue. If the U-2 over flights were to continue its spying missions the Arrow had to go. Any flights by the U-2 needed approval from Allen Welsh Dulles, Head of the CIA, John Foster Dulles U S Secretary of State, as well as the President and others.
You might have noticed the last name of Allen (Dulles) Head of the CIA do you know he had a brother and who his brother was? His brother was none other than, John Foster Dulles! Do you know where the CIA headquarters are located? It’s in the unincorporated community at Langley in Virginia! Just a hop, skip and jump away from where the RCAF and the NACA did the wind tunnel tests on the Arrow!
There is also a picture of John Carver Frost (Avro Car/Saucer studies) with a General Arthur Trudeau, of the USA Army Foreign Technology branch. Their mandate is to acquire technology through various means, including covert methods.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a civilian foreign intelligence service of the federal government of the United States, tasked with gathering, processing, and analyzing national security information from around the world, primarily through the use of human intelligence like General Arthur Trudeau, Dr. Courtland Perkins, NACA personal and many others.
General Arthur Trudeau, like Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF, both went to see the Avro car. We know Perkins was there to see both the Avro Car as well as the Avro Arrow (a letter from Jim Floyd to R.L. Whitcomb proves this), and General Arthur Trudeau was more than likely there to see the Arrow as well as the Avro car. What kind of Foreign Technology agent would he be had he not been interested in the Arrows technology as well.
So far the facts show without a doubt that the CIA, USAF, and the USA government were well informed about the step by step development of the Arrow. It’s also known that in September 1957 Avro passed along information on their PS-2 and Mk 4 Arrows for the USAF
LRIX (long range interceptor) project when Dr. Courtland Perkins asked for the specs, because he didn’t think the F-108 would make it into production. Avro was told by him not to design a new plane just give possible variants of the Arrow. He also wanted to be kept informed on the development of the Arrow to see if it could be used to fill the LRIX roll if the F-108 didn’t make it into production.
Even Jim Floyd said in a note in 2001 given to R.L. Whitcomb that “we, bared our soul and gave Dr. Courtland Perkins everything he asked for”. The CIA is well known to have an industrial espionage division which, combined with the Canadian and British (the British had the Avro 730, an SR-71 lookalike at Mach 3 and an altitude of 70,000+ ft recon & strategic bomber cancelled in early 1957) generosity with their most advanced technology, assured Lockheed of the best information in the world on advanced aircraft, propulsion and control.
The facts show the CIA through John Foster Dulles, Courtland Perkins, General Arthur Trudeau, and others from the NACA, and the generosity of the Canadian’s and British. The CIA had motive, information, opportunity and about 10 years to develop the SR-71 program. One can only imagine the shock and awe of the USAF, CIA, Dr. Courtland Perkins, Allen Dulles, John Foster Dulles and even Kelly Johnson had after reading the Arrow PS-2 & Arrow Mk 4 specifications in 1957! This is probably why they waited for everything to do with the Arrow to be destroyed before starting the A-12/SR-71 program. It’s also probably why Lockheed cancelled the CL-400 Suntan in 1957 it was a Mach 2.5 and 70,000 ft altitude spy-plane that was originally supposed to replace the U2.
The Arrow Mk 1 with the early P-3 de-rated J-75’s (developing thrust of only 16,000 lbt dry) did Mach 1.98 climbing through 50,000 feet still accelerating, still climbing, and only using intermediate afterburners (not even at full power!) and being 3.5 tons over real world combat weight (compared to the Arrow Mk 2) and it was test flown to 58,000+ ft.
Compare the Arrow Mk 1 to the first flights of the A-12 using a more developed J-75 engines that produced around 17,000 lbs dry thrust. The A-12 in level flight had achieved Mach 2.16 and was flown to an altitude of 60,000 ft! This is the Arrow Mk 1’s flight performance range and the Arrow was never pushed to it's max performance and was 3.5 tons over combat weight! Even with the J-58 turbo-afterburner it achieved Mach 3.35 in level flight using a variable intake and was flown to an altitude of 85,000+ ft. The J-58 produced 24,000 lbs dry and 32,000 lbs wet thrust, the fully developed PS-13 Mk 2 Iroquois for the Arrow Mk 2 would have produced around 23,000 lbs dry and 30,000 lbs wet thrust and was smaller and lighter then the J-58. (Aircraft Engines of the World publication)
Also the J-58 was not a turbo ramjet engine as most sources say. It was a turbojet engine! (More USA propaganda) The way the engine worked at cruise led it to be described as "acting like a turbo ramjet". It has also been described as a turbo ramjet based on incorrect statements describing the turbo machinery as being completely bypassed. This was not true it was just a turbojet engine like all the rest.
Okay, the projections that Avro shows for the Arrow Mk 2 seem to be grossly underestimating the Altitude. For an aircraft that is 3.5 tons lighter and engines that are 40 to 44% more powerful then the de-rated J-75’s to have an increase in altitude of only 12,000 ft (max Altitude 70,000 ft for the Arrow Mk 2) just seems wrong! Avro was estimating the altitude based on a drag factor on the Arrow airframe that was 20% higher than it really was.
Once the Arrow Mk 1 flew and proved that the drag factors were being over estimated by 20% the Arrow Mk 2 would now have an altitude of at least 85,000+ ft just like the A-12. This overestimated drag factor would also plague the maximum altitude and the speed estimates for the Arrow Mk 3, Mk 4, and the Arrow PS-2. However, the max Mach speed of 2.4-2.6 for the Arrow Mk 2 is right do to the fixed geometry intake it just couldn’t go any faster. You would need a variable intake to get speeds above Mach 2.4-2.6.
The Arrow Mk 3 would have had a new rounded forward swept “shoulder” four-ramp three-dimensional variable intake which gave no shock-induced air-flow separation on either the ramp surface or fuselage. (Resent NASA internet presentations relating to hypersonic intake design conclude this is the most efficient design for hypersonic flight! We will take a closer look at this later)
The engine for the Arrow Mk 3 was to be the Mk 3 Iroquois (figures for the Iroquois Mk 3 are informed estimates based on the characteristics of the Iroquois Mk 2 and the Olympus) 28,300 lbs dry and 40,000 lbs wet thrust. The Arrow Mk 3 was to be a Mach 3.5 interceptor again we see the 20% over estimation of the drag as the altitude was limited to 70,500 ft and a 500 foot per minute climb to 80,000 ft. the Arrow Mk 3 was lighter, had less frontal area drag, and about the same thrust as the SR-71. The Arrow Mk 3 should have been able to reach Mach 3.5+ and 90,000+ feet but Avro set the max speed to Mach 3+ and altitude to 80,000 ft.
The Arrow Mk 3 was to be a Mach 3.5 capable aircraft with air to air refueling and a combat speed of Mach 3, using new materials including carbon fiber composites, a glass micro-balloon filled insulation contained in a composite honeycomb core. This appears to have become the heat shield for Mercury and Gemini. Popular USA propaganda says the Arrow Mk 3 would be subjected to friction heating and would not be able to reach high Mach numbers! (Another USA propaganda myth about the Arrow is BUSTED!)
The Arrow Mk 3 was released by Avro’s Project Research Group on 27 October 1958; other documents show this version was conceived over a year earlier. Dr. Courtland Perkins and John Foster Dulles would have been well aware of this design and would have passed the information to the USAF and Allen (Dulles) Head of the CIA!
The CIA and the Arrow program, I don’t believe in conspiracies I do believe in the facts, (Dragnet TV show) the facts ma'am, just the facts. As researched by Jim100 AB part 2
The Arrow PS-2 actually came before the Arrow Mk 4. What little that has come to light about the PS-2 and the Mk 4 Arrow variants comes from Jim Floyd. The design studies were headed by Mario Pesando of Avro’s Project Research Group in September 1957. The canard on the PS-2 is intended for additional trim control at supersonic speeds only. At subsonic speeds it would retract into the 4 ft. nose extension. It was felt that the additional canard air loads induced on the fuselage can be adequately catered for by increasing the skin thickness.
This PS-2 version was to use most of the Mk 3 Arrow including the new materials, center fuselage, insulation scheme etc and was to be limited to the same Mach 3 top speed strictly for structural and kinetic heating reasons. It certainly had the thrust and low drag to achieve much higher speeds. Its climb rate, from 40,000 feet with the 4 Curtiss-Wright ramjets lit, was an astounding 130,000 fpm! These numbers were compiled before the airframe’s true (lower) drag numbers were in. Avro was estimating that the PS- 2 version would be capable of sustaining Mach 3 at 85.000 feet while pulling the USAF standard 1.2 G and have a 500 fpm climb to a ceiling of 90,000 feet. With the true Drag of 20% less then what was originally estimated the PS-2 ceiling would be at least 100,000+ feet!
It would seem that Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF felt this PS-2 Arrow was too radical a redesign of the basic Arrow airframe and requested a less modified version. The less modified version was the Arrow Mk 4
The Arrow Mk 4 was basically a souped-up Arrow Mk 3 with the addition of 4 Curtiss-Wright 34-inch diameter ramjet engines producing 16,164 lbs thrust each. On 31 January 1958 Pesando, Rolf Marshall and two others from Avro were at Curtiss-Wright’s facilities and came away impressed with their ramjet. In tests these ramjets were capable of simulating Mach 4 at 85,000 ft. The Arrow Mk 4 would have had the same insulation as the Mk 3 and would have had a thin-skin of titanium covering the fuselage. It would also have the same in-flight refuelling capability as the Mk 3.
Both the Arrow PS-2 and the Mk 4 had enough ramjet thrust to put them into a near sub-orbital altitudes in a ballistic zoom climb (150,000 to 200,000 feet) However, Avro again using the 20% higher drag factors limited the Arrow Mk 4 to Mach 3+ and 75,000 - 80,000 ft. and ferry range estimated at 2,540 nm with in-flight refuelling its range would have been comparable to the SR-71. Using the corrected drag factors the Arrow 3 & 4 would have outperformed the SR-71 by a considerable margin. As stated before Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF was to be kept up-to-date on the Arrow versions to see if they could fill the LRIX (long range interceptor) project. The Arrows certainly would have been available before the F-108 the SR-71 and the TSR-2!
((The STV-Space Threshold Vehicle, the Space Threshold Vehicle is
described in the Engineering Division report of June 5th 1958. Mario
Pesando’s study of orbiting winged vehicles. “It became obvious to us some three or four months ago that it was possible to put a winged vehicle into orbit, and that there was a corridor where normal winged flight was possible between the minimum speed curve, above which it was impossible to sustain lift, and the maximum temperature curve, below which the structure gets too hot. This opens up the possibilities of hypersonic flight with a relatively conventional aircraft of low wing loading (about 20 lb. per square foot), which appears to us to be the easiest way to get a man into the threshold of space and recover him, flying back though the corridor.
We are at present carrying out a study to ascertain the relative merits
of the winged vehicle versus the boost glide (the space shuttle) or ballistic techniques (standard rocket and parachute recovery). We hope to shortly give a briefing on this and later determine where we should go from there. Pesando’s STV document discusses this plan and it is clear that the “presented aircraft” in the chart on page 237 is the Arrow! When the Mk 4 Arrow with the high-temperature materials and ramjets, is examined, the consideration of the Arrow as phase one becomes even more striking given that this aircraft could have zoom climbed to somewhere around 150,000 to 200,000 feet and even higher with a supplementary rocket.
In discussing this schedule, Pesando wrote: Considering a possible time table, it is believed, as shown on the accompanying chart, that using known data and techniques within one year it should be possible to finalize engineering of an interim hypersonic glide vehicle with a burn out speed in excess of 10,000 ft per second (about 6,000 mph or Mach 7.8. Such a vehicle could possibly be built by 1962 and would be considered a research vehicle.
Further development in the areas indicates that by 1963 at the latest,
increases in our knowledge and techniques sufficiently to enable us to extend our vehicle concept to velocities approaching orbital speeds. We could have, therefore, shown this vehicle as operating by 1965; this vehicle would constitute the long range operational vehicle with ranges of 12,500 miles or greater. Having this vehicle completed would enable us to immediately begin the utilization of further advances in propulsion methods and magneto hydrodynamics expected by 1968, to provide us with a winged orbital and re-entry ferry vehicle by the late 1960’s”
The hypersonic vehicle postulated, takes off on rocket power alone with a full load of oxidizer and sufficient ramjet fuel to enable it to climb to an altitude in excess of 40,000 ft and maintain flight during airborne refuelling proceedings. (The STV concept) is for a hypersonic vehicle which is really an extension of the conventional supersonic airplane. When airborne fuelling operations have been completed the aircraft is accelerated to ramjet light up speed (About Mach 2.5) and begin its climb and acceleration to higher speeds.
In flight refuelling is a rather novel approach to the SSTO problem, one that appears to be entirely original and un-copied as of yet this is from R.L. Whitcomb’s book Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation))
(This report by Mario Pesando must have sent shock waves through Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF like a lightning bolt hitting him! After all he was working for the USAF Intelligence gathering of foreign technology! John Foster Dulles, his brother Allen Dulles and the USA government could see that the Arrow had to go and the Avro Company itself had to be destroyed or all their spy planes were at risk not to mention their space program! Hypersonic planes and airspace-planes by the end of the 1960’s! Jim100 AB)
The USA saw the same potential and from the Aerospace Daily issue of March 1985 the article “DARPA Chief Notes Potential of a Supersonic Combustion Ramjet” is enlightening: (The hypersonic airspace-plane could) fly up to maybe 150,000 to 200,000 feet, sustain Mach 15 plus for a while, slow down and engage an intercontinental bomber or cruise missile carriers at ranges of 1,000 nautical miles…
(Gee, I wonder where they got that great idea from, have a nice day USA! Jim100 AB)
the Russians in the bomber would have been lucky to eject in time, assuming it even has ejection seats. it would have broken up immediately on getting hit like that.
also the f-18's would have dumped the fuel tanks long before they got in range to merge with the russian jets
HI xxxxCronoxxx -
The CF-18's drop tanks. You can find pictures of CF-18's intercepting Russian bombers with drop tanks in place. Intercepting non-threatening fighters might be the same. regards....Virtual
as for that bomber - artistic license applies.... the delay added to the scene!!!
@@merlemorrison482 a tail hit would have worked better as it could be just as deadly to the plane wile still leaving the possibility for the slow breakup that was shown.
but it would have been a wonder to see how avro would have grown as a company and to see the wonders it would have produced had it not been assassinated like it did.
@@merlemorrison482 Not quite sure what that comment means....I will take it as something positive. regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons it was intended to be positive - if the plane had disintegrated immediately that would have eliminated the meaningful conversations between the russians..
I'm AMERICAN, love jets, and am real sorry for you Canada. Because of POLITICS, you literally got robbed....
Thank you very much. I always like to hear from our American friends. regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons 👍
Way to go "ARROW" cf-105 ...... kick some Russians butts !!!! Amen.
HI Das...Have you seen the new three. Ep. 5 and 6 are one Episode, Part 1 and 2. Ep. 7 Starts a new storyline on the Mark 3. Series link below. regards....Virtual
Series LInk
czcams.com/video/AjuL9IM-1T0/video.html
Build the arrow.todays teck nobody can match it
Hi John. Find Ep. 8 of this series. In that episode we transfer modern tech to the Arrow. regards....Virtual
haha nap of earth. its not meant for that lol
Hi Plazma. All of your post sare not showing up. That is possibly a CZcams thing as you may have been blocked or reported for some reason. I see your post on an email to me. If I don't see your last post soon, I will reply here tomorrow.....regards.....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons heya no worries weird youtube. Anyway I LOVE LOVE LOVE THE AVRO!
looks like no avro for DCS but there is a mod for FSX czcams.com/video/fiRwLvUihqc/video.html :D too cool
plazma
Vi
Hi Plazma. I did not see your long post show up on the channel, only in a email that came to me, so I will respond here.
You mention the Arrow, Mig-25 and the F-15 in the same sentence. If you remove the Mig-25, that sentence would be more accurate. The phrase Air Superiority Fighter (ASF) had not yet been coined. At the time ASF’s were called Interceptors, so often the Arrow is put in that category, but the F-15 and F-22 are also interceptors. The Mig-25 was a piece of crap. It was designed to defeat the planned American Valkyrie XB-70 high speed, high altitude bomber. After the Gary Powers incident America changed its plans, it just did not tell the Soviet Union. The Soviets built 1200 Mig-25 and America built 2 experimental bombers only.
Russia has already made claims to Canada’s North saying that if we can’t defend it, we don’t own it. More worrisome is that is becoming an American view in some circles.
The Warsaw Pact has not existed since 1991. Although you are probably correct on the Mig-31 Zaslon, it is not part of this video. They come into play starting with Ep.7 and it is completely new technology.
I introduce Satellites very early on in these movies to indicate that the Russians are receiving position/target data from that resource, mitigating Kuznetsov’s requirement to track over the horizon.
The Nuclear missiles. Yes, the Tu-160 would do that if they were attacking, but they are not attacking. The premise here is that the Tu-160 is patrolling Canadian Air Space with Su-33’s.
Elmendorf. US fighters from Elmendorf or elsewhere will normally intercept in the Alaskan Air Defence Identification Zone (AADIZ) and Cdn fighters will normally intercept in the Canadian Air Defence Identification Zone (CADIZ). These zones are essentially an extension of the respective land masses. This is not to say that as necessary or upon request, US or Cdn fighters can and will also perform an intercept in either the AADIZ or CADIZ depending on the precise circumstances.
To sum up, these videos were made during the Trump Era. During this period many Canadians no longer felt protected by America....regards.....Virtual
I really enjoy these, but at the same time it reminds me when this great Country had it 's soul torn out by those idiot's in Ottawa, Canadians like to blame the yanks but it was Deif who sold us out, him a lone ! the question is do we have the courage to tell the Americans to stick there FAMILY up there you know where ! we need to build our own fighter jets , NOW, not by crap from other Nation's, Sweden is a perfect example, 9 million people, not half our industry or in my opinion, KNOW HOW ! and they built the Griffon, a beauty jet. But we can't ! Bull ! politics plain and simple. and a PM with no back bone to do it, can you imagine the jobs. the money is no problem. We just stop paying these politicians a life time pension just for serving for 4 years ! that is a disgrace and the gravy train in Ottawa needs to stop with this insulting and the robbery of the Canadian people, some people have to save for there own pensions, who gave these criminals in Ottawa the right to pay a life time pension to a person who gets voted out of office after 4 year term ! please someone explain that to me like I am a 6 year old !!! The USA just stuck it to us, and it is time to grow up as a Nation, and act like one. we are on our own, the sooner we know it the better. and GM can go some where else and sell there car's, we can build a Canadian car for God sakes. We are a big rich Country. part of the G7, so lets do this !
I agree. regards...Virtual
I am very glad you responded to my post, i want you and all who read this , is that Canada is the most important thing in my life, i was raised that way, God Bless my Dad, when i was a boy of 7 years old we would watch hockey on Tv, my Dad made me and my 3 brothers stand for the National anthem, that is how proud he was God Rest His Soul, I pray that all Canadians take this to there hearts that what we have here is GOLD, and nothing can replace it ! I once answered a question a bout the difference between an American and and a Canadian, my answer is still the same , Americans are a very proud people, and they should be, they wave there flags and chant USA !!! Canadians are more reserved and polite because being Canadian is SPIRITUAL, it is not flag waving, we know who we are ! we just need a leader who is a believer , and bring back what we lost, and is not afraid of fall out from other Nations, we are a productive people and a hard working people who has perservered the aliments and made a Country like no other on this planet !! Corruption is in Government and always has been, if we fix that, we fix our selves, that is the waste of money, it is not new taxes or new ways of taking advantage of it's people, it is Government that needs to be dealt with like a knife threw butter, it is so obvious it disgusting to me and all who love this Country ! and time for our people to take it back. please vote 2019, I do not see the Shemale doing anything for this great Nation ! Mr Sheer maybe our only hope, i do not know ! but one thing i am sure of,, it should be a political goal of the CANADIAN PEOPLE , that we will only vote for a man who will endeavour to push forward these ideals for all Canadians, our own jets, our own car's, an end to life time pensions, and Govenor Generals expenses till they die, which we all know is B---ll Sh--t, Then we will get our Jets !!!! and Navy Back., A Nation that can not defend it self is no Nation !!!@@Virtualenvirons
Justin is toast at this point , the question is will Andrew do the right thing it will be up to us to keep faith and push him hard like a rabied dog and maybe just maybe we will get our country back . Keep your stick on the ice .
Everyone running for government office is lying the problem is trying to find out who is lying the least?
Jim100 AB truly said.
Wouldn't be a great idea to build our own aircraft and be able to defend our selves. Sure would create a lot of jobs and tax revenue (then Canadians wouldn't give 1/4 of their pay checks to income tax). Our government will wait until it's too late as per usual, why solve a possible problem before it becomes actual problem. An Arrow built from modern materials and technology....My red and white maple erection could only get so big!!!!
You have to be the weirdest duck on the planet to put piano lounge music to the building up of a story of a potential World War 3 conflict! You can't get more juxtaposed than this!!! You'd put Tiptoe Through the Tulips on the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. I like the video content but your sense of music leaves much to be desired.
Hi Thor...so thank you for your comment. I see you have no content on your channel. Not a good sign. So, besides, writing the story, doing all the 3D CAD re-engineering, porting over to an animation system, learning how to do this after collecting my Canada pension plan.....I also wrote the piano arrangements and played some of the piano. The good piano is my uncle....concert pianist. I do what I can with the cards dealt....regards....Virtual
Somewhat unfortunate that this expects Justin Trudeau to have a spine.
I enjoy the videos for what they are but still get pissed off at our Canadian government for sucking up to the u s a system past and present! No balls then and now.
Wow, I have enjoyed these videos and the history of the avro arrow, but this whole "Canada can be great again" thing can only ever be true if its current liberal left wing democrat socialist government gets a Donald Trump as president,....meaning no prime minister thingy. Canada I didn't think has much of any military left in service, and probably think they don't need it, in the guv, and seems the canadian guv has alot of sympathies for the crazy leftists we have in the USA guv down here, ya know, the ones who are traitors, liars, cheats and thieves,...(D). Americans don't have anything in common with Canada like we used to, like the quest to preserve western society, where canada pushes policies that work against western society. In alot of ways, it would be best if canada indeed did build the avro arrow again, a upgraded model, but they won't cause there are too many social programs helping out citizens of the rest of the world that takes all the money, and those programs will be funded before actual self defense, and like some years ago they, the canadian guv, handed like millions of dollars to an ex jihadi that was held in gitmo just to make a point against the US government,...or it was really a social program I was just talking of.
The gizmo guy sued the government and won. Every Canadian hated that decision. We are too far left at this particular time and like the U.S. who found itself in a similar position (although not as far left) the pendulum will swing back. You can already see it in Ontario and it is about to swing back hard in Alberta, We have different forms of government, but they are essentially the same, as in driven by special interest groups. I could go on.
Thank you for your comment and glad you enjoyed the videos, I am working on five now. regards....Virtual