The Avro Arrow: Canada's Cold War Interceptor
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 08. 2024
- The rise and fall of the CF-105 Arrow remains one of the most hotly debated parts of Canada's military history. Some say it was a technological marvel, shut down before it had a chance to prove itself. Others say it was an overpriced, underachieving relic of another time. So what was it? Why was the Arrow special and why are people still talking about it today?
CONTACT:
terraincognitavideo@gmail.com
FURTHER READING:
www.avromuseum.com/
scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/
www.amazon.com/Avro-Arrow-Sto...
www.amazon.com/Avro-Arrow-Can...
www.amazon.com/Canadian-Aviat...
www.amazon.com/Storms-Controv...
Holy crap, the Canadians had this in the 50's? Insane. What if indeed...
The Canadians did have the Avro arrow in the 50’s indeed, but you know what was a lot better ? The North American XF-108 Rapier that the Americans had. The North American XF-108 Rapier was much faster, designed a few years before the Arrow and it had a better radar and communications.
@@srpskabalI Wow. Cool stuff dude, I didn't know that.
@@srpskabalI It never flown wooden mock up only
Am I the only guy in the world who is Canadian that doesn't worship this aircraft?
@Chris Smith
The more I learn about the development of aircraft the more I am shocked at the money that is spent I pushing aircraft with obsolete design concepts...
I want to know on and on until finally nobody orders it and it was all for nothing
Well done. Very accurate and no hyperbole.
One minor correction: The mach 1.98 flight occurred on November 11, 1958, flight #44, aircraft 202, piloted by Spud Potocki.
Thanks for the feedback! And you're completely right, I got the date from a list of airspeed records that upon further investigation seems to have confused the Mach 1.98 flight with Zurakowski's personal top speed which was on September 14th.
I'm glad to see you don't let emotion sway your video as is the problem with most on this subject. Your conclusions from the 7:00 mark on are spot on. It was ultimately the launch of Sputnik and the cancellation by the British that well and truly killed the CF-105. The fact that the F-106 which first flew in 1956 and began it's service in 1959 was just insult to injury, in that the F-106 flew higher, faster, farther on both internal and nearly 3 times that on external Mach 2.3 capable fuel tanks that the Arrow could not carry. You are quite correct that it was a design that was obsolete on arrival.
This is really an underrated channel, great stuff.
I wish you much success. Great visuals and the content is amazing.
the government dropped the project. but unlike other nations the government also destroyed every blueprint and model they could find which is a horrible thing to do in terms of engineering.
As a Canadian it's insulting how daft our government is, really hope we start getting compitant leadership soon
Thank you for the upload. Liked and subscribed, your content quality is great good luck.
Thanks for this video. Great breakdown of the main events and probably the only unbiased content I've found on CZcams.
Still makes me sad that there was never a fleet of these beauties flying though >;)
You might find these two videos of interest. They are based on the archival record. The one regarding the US is of partuclar note. : czcams.com/video/ulCTf-KJ2Eo/video.html Update USA
czcams.com/video/fdxum2OiBeQ/video.html The Avro Arrow: For the Record
Amazing design built in Ontario.
It's called Canada.
But I guess if you live in Ontario that's your mentality.
It is nicely done. You can blame PM Diefenbaker all you want, the problem was no one wanted to buy the Avro Arrow. You need 1,000 Hours of Test and Certifications to place an aircraft of that calibre in the air. The entire Avro Arrow Program had about 100, total hours in flight, so it was an easy choice to shut-down the project. You also have to remember it wasn't just the 15,000 employees of A.V. Roe, but the thousands more from contractors and other associated affiliations that were also involved in the Avro Arrow project. Even though everyone talks about the Good-Side of this story, there was also an Ugly-Side, where people who made some type of life at the beginning of the project, we're on the high end of life. The other side (When the project was shut-down) was those who couldn't get the jobs the others were and gave up on life. Suicide was the way out. Look, the RAF declined and the RCAF may have been influenced. As for the USA, they have this thing about, if they didn't build it, it simply does not exist. The Delta Dart, by some people, see that aircraft as a poor man's interpretation of an Avro Arrow. No one could do Mach 1 without being in a dive. The Avro Arrow was unique in that it could climb to altitudes at speeds of around 1,000 mph, and do a full power, 360 degrees turn and without losing altitude. No aircraft of that time and era could do that. No matter in the progression of the build, something went wrong, and it cost us dearly. The project could have been shut down by Crawford at any time, but Diefenbaker was the scapegoat. Actually, when the Avro Arrow originally took off, it had its problems and was a bit of a lemon. BUT, as time carried on, they were able to rid most of the bugs, which also was a fault in the landing gear. So you could look at the Mk1 as a test aircraft for what was coming. Now the Mk2 from 206 to 210, was to carry the PS13 Iroquois engines. RL 206 ( Which by the way, did you know was actually about 5 feet longer than the Mk1's) and 207 were supposed to be test vehicles only ( NO Flight Time), to test the new Iroquois engines and the other 208 to 210 would have been the game-changer aircraft. You could look at the Arrow Project this way, RL 201 to RL 205 ran the P&W J75 engines and still broke records. That means the Avro Arrow, who, with a less than superior engines wasn't just cutting the air by design, it was slicing it like a hot knife through butter. Imagine if the proper engines had been put into service then and not the P&W J75s. Sputnik or not, the Avro Arrow, would have been the ultimate Killing machine of the day and years to come.
government: its too expensive we gotta stop it.
government: the one who prints money
The brain drain after the cancellation of the Arrow is a national tragedy.
It's evident if you look at the current leaders in our government. National tragedy.
The US gained a lot of geniuses after that. Many went to work for NASA and it was Canadian smarts that landed Americans on the moon.
Great video!
Canada be like: we like strategies and jets
America be like: naw, a nuke solves everything
Soviet Union be like: Solve this with vodka and nuclear space toys
Did you listen to the video? The Avro had 2 nuclear missiles equipped to it.
@@tusk3260 ???
At 3:33 the 2 air two genie rockets are nuclear.
@@tusk3260 Nice job, I think that might be the coolest part if the jet itself wasn't so awesome. I mean, a 300 meter effective radius explosion sounds like it would take billons of them to threaten life as we know it. That's impressive nuke tech for the time, my jaw dropped when I saw that. Plus, 3:33 is great timing!
Diefentraitor let Canada down like no other PM. One can only imagine the full development of this aircraft.
Dief destroyed the Arrow, but old Pierre decimated our military.
@Shawn Bird < Yes !! It is .... still :o((
Think.
It's all to easy isn't it?
Dief was ww1 ace...who loved Canada.
Remember, both the Brit & the Canadian programs were 'played'..and were convinced to give up their then front line aeronautic programs, The British TRS 2 program & Arrow....to the point where it is being conjectured now, that both programs were willfully infiltrated by double agent Warpac assets...by our ''ally''...to convince it was time to buy American.
Think.
Pierre had no choice, it was either that or a full blown civil war with Québec who had gained military support from the UK, France and Germany and was about the receive 200 million British pounds with of weapons plus 5000 tanks. If the civil war had happened Canada would look like Syria right now.
Thats not how the Avro died, thats just the government's cover up story to regain the trust of its citizens. In truth the planes were all destroyed in a night short after the public unvailing by angry anti war protesters. When government cancelation announcement happened, the planes were already destroyed and cut in tiny piece with blow torches (a high pressure flame used to cut steel).
What a absolute beauty of a aircraft. I really want some drawings so I can build an RC VERSION.
good job man
There is a rumour about the SR71A Blackbird. Some of the Arrow gang, with the P&W group who went into the design of the Blackbird, also had a bit of the PS13 design in the engines and placed into that bird. AND, AND, if you look at the canopy of the SR71A Blackbird, you can see the Avro Arrow in there as well. The Blackbird> czcams.com/video/F4KD5u-xkik/video.html It was a kind of I'll get the Avro Arrow into the air one way or another, type of attitude of the time. Take a look at the canopy. Also, Rolls Royce bought a PS13 from Orenda just after the Avro Arrow project and tore it down to see what Orenda did that they couldn't. BUT, they used the designs from the PS13 and placed that into the Concorde engines. So technically if you were able to see the Concorde in flight, you were kind of seeing the Avro Arrows Ghost. Most of the engines today are still based on the Iroquois engines, they were that good. So when you at an airport and you hear those R / R Engines roars to life, the Avro Arrow/Orenda cooperative, helped to make the engines of today, a part of your life.
Well done!!
Excellent presntation!!
Should never of been cancelled
The day of the interceptor was over. It suffered the same fate as the dive bomber Guided missiles replaced them. The sad part is the political destruction of a viable and forward thing aviation industry. Could Canada have competed with the American aircraft giants and the generous terms offered to those considering buying the Arrow if they bought American product instead?
Jack Ridley was not killed testing aircraft.He was riding on a Mats transport plane when it hit the side of Mt Fuji in heavy fog.
Although I don't worship this airplane and I am Canadian,
great freaking video man!
Thank you, well done Sir
It cool they found an early test model in the lake and it’s being restored
Best video on arrow
Very nice presentation. Well put together. I am the author of the Arrow series, you may have seen them. regards.....Virtuallenvirons
Let us find a way to build one
I worked at Orenda Engines in the early 70's . Several of the employees worked there when the Arrow was being developed and finally cut up.
@@petermetaxas9696 the way the government scorched earth the whole project is a bit strange to me. Its like when a police officer says "nothing to see here". "Lets just pretend we never developed the aero. Pass me my tims coffee". Sad
@@felixleiter9123 It could be that by keeping it in the news and not letting it go would make people angry at all the time, tax money, and resources that ended up being wasted on a dead end project. New projects were needed and more money would have been harder to come by. Plus people would have demanded more responsibility and more culpability.
you should point out.. that the comet flew and then was grounded while they fixed it.. yet the 102.. flew and flew alot
Canadian CF-105 Avro =ARROW= ..... is still my love !!!!
The most sophisticated blunder...
Very sad for Canada. Our Country needs something this big today for all Canadians to be proud of and bring us together
Nice Job! Very Factual! Great Graphics on the engine part. I thought that the Iroquois engines were a later development after the Rolls Engines were cancelled. Maybe I am wrong. Otherwise well done.
There seems to be some conflicting information out there regarding the timeline of the development of the Iroquois engines, however I was able to find some references to an Avro-developed engine being part of the project from the start and decided to go with that.
The F106 was the best interceptor. But the Arrow might of been the best if it went into service
anyone else flown with this on BF1942: desert combat?
Thank you for a refreshingly truthful story about the arrow. I was was honestly expecting hype but was met with well researched information and facts. Unfortunately most Canadains impression of the Arrow has been tainted by the CBC semi fictional movie that, like most things coming from the CBC. was seriously lacking in truth and substance.
Still should build it
We are in a Cold War right now.
Global politicians have an incestuous love of Cold War Nostalgia. They love to see it make a comeback!
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 mach1.98 reached. 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
Some say the Arrow was cancelled because it was too expensive. Avro had already bought all the tooling, no Arrow prototype was hand built. I've read France was bargaining to buy the Iroquois engine, with American engine builders waiting to license build it. So we cut up the Arrows, the assembly lines, the engines, wasting about $350 million, and the same year bought rights for, and built CF !04s, for about $420 million. Avro built GE engines under license for them. The CF 104 couldn't do what the Arrow was designed for. Neither cpuld the used F101s we got. At least many engineers got jobs in other countries. And the Arrow that did almost M2 (while still climbing). It did that wirh overweight, under powered P&W engines. How much over weight? Did they have to add ballast to keep the C of G correct?
It was canceled because of the introduction of the ICBM and the Soviet bomber fleet never materialized. The Arrow was a plane without a mission.
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 Wrong 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
CHEERS
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 Despite all the noise of super-technologies and rapidly emerging and ebbing threats, J.C. Floyd, and thus Avro engineering , seems to take a *historically - supportable view* of events on a number of still controversial yet highly technical topics.
The current adoptions by the largest military-industrial- financial complex on earth (the USA) of a high-altitude, twin-afterburning turbojet-powered long-range interceptor with internal weapons, low wing-loading and a high thrust-to-weight ratio (the F-22 Raptor),
*suggests Floyd & Co. we’re a pretty sage bunch.*
Cold War Tech War page 260 R.L. Whitcomb
This is exactly how they described *(the ARROW)* it was to be a high-altitude, twin-afterburning turbojet-powered long-range interceptor with internal weapons, low wing-loading and a high thrust-to-weight ratio!
Performance curves Arrow Versus modern Fighters
The F-22 Performance curves published by “Bill Sweetman’s book the F-22 Raptor”
The performance curves for the Arrow Mk2 “hand drawings by Jan Zurakowski"
*Are about equal to the F-22 from sea level to 65,000+ ft. and from Mach 0.5 to 2.3*
Other aircraft performance curves shown are the CF-105 Mk1, CF-105 Mk3 CF-105 Mk4,
the Mig-29, F-16C, F-15C, all superimposed by R.L. Whitcomb
The same Performance curves are in color in the book “Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation” for a better comparison!
CHEERS
wow
1:19
Russians mig31 looks like an avro
You forgot to mention the agreement we signed with the United States not to develop any more weapons systems we have to buy it from them
Do you have any evidence that such am agreement even exists?
@@winternow2242 and where do we get all over weapon systems/JetFighters and yes there’s proof out there you probably had to go Ottawa and look for it but they still won’t release all the information wondering why I think we even made another one with NORAD for their protection just look at whatever we develop United States has it or is funding it what I can gather whole situation is and do United States didn’t want us to become a world power because they know they couldn’t fight against us we to close we barely do anything without their permission they even stopped our nuclear development and control whatever we have left and I’ll try to go back and find where they said about the agreement we made I know it’s in a few documentaries sad to see that there’s only a piece in an engine left I still think with all the controversy they should rebuild one to factory specifications and then build one with today’s technology other countries today are still flying similar aircrafts still and Canadians made it first I got the touch what’s left of the cockpit and engine even for back in the day prices it don’t make sense to scrap them there was a lot of precious metals in those Aircrafts
@@trevormurphy7041 In other words, you’ve found no proof, and have no proof that any such agreement exists, but have no problem claiming that it exists. Instead of going back and seeing where “they said about the agreement we made” (whoever “they” are), try and go back to the part where they said they can prove that such an agreement ever existed.
I’m always non-plussed by those who claim to know what’s secret. It’s the buried secret that no one knows about, but somehow you know about it.
Even if you had a shred of evidence that any agreement was ever made between Canada and the US, it wouldn’t begin to explain why the UK never developed Arrow on its own. Avro was a subsidiary of a British corporate parent. Oddly enough, the UK already had an interceptor in development that was faster than Arrow, and had a comparable combat range. The BAC Lightning flew years before Arrow, and entered service shortly after Arrow’s first flight.
“what I can gather whole situation is and do United States didn’t want us to become a world power”
Arrow would not have made you a world power, because a single airplane isn’t going to make you a world power. Also, as capable as it was, Arrow wasn’t superior to existing aircraft, it was extremely expensive, and there was a high likelihood that Canada wouldn’t even be able put the aircraft into production. Even if that happened, the idea that a single aircraft would have somehow made Canada a world power is, an extremely imaginative one, seeing that other nations with a track record for producing high performance aircraft already dominated the market. Such an aircraft would have to have offered substantial advantages in terms of range, speed, payload, and fire control - qualities that Arrow either matched (at best) or trailed. Arrow was short ranged, limited in payload by its weight and the need to carry its weapons internally. Its speed may have been improved by the PS13 Orenda, but airframes limits may have also prevented those advantages from being realized. America re-engined her F-14’s in the 1990’s, with more powerful jets, realizing advantages in Thrust-to-weight, while having the same mach 2 speed; the XB-70’s YJ93 may have been capable of boosting it over mach 3, but structure limits would have required dramatic redesign to survive that speed.
“left I still think with all the controversy they should rebuild one to factory specifications and then build one with today’s technology”
So they should build 1 obsolete aircraft, and then build another version of the same aircraft using today’s technology, when we already have aircraft in serial production that use that technology? What would be the benefit of doing that?
“other countries today are still flying similar aircrafts still”
And what “aircrafts” do you consider similar to Arrow?
@@winternow2242 well I’m not in Ottawa that’s where the papers and shit exist why don’t you ask for all the public records of that year and find out The government still doesn’t release that much information about the Avril arrow pretty much Nothing I’ve been emailing And you don’t have to be a dick about it I am trying to find out but I’m just a regular guy I can only find two documentaries which to say that we made it agreement but I can’t find the actual agreement the missiles we got for the Avril arrow they never used that never finish developing the JetFighters were slower than the Avril arrow . The titanium in the airplanes made them worth more than scrap and no I do not think there’s any planes left out there May be only a few more pieces I wonder if those guys rebuilt the engine that was found would be cool to get actual specifications “ One thing I suggest if you’re gonna go look for public information use some VPN or something I highly suggested
The Canadian government at the time sure dropped the ball on the Arrow.
Veracity North there was an active CIA operation to dismantle the program
@@tclem14 - Canada sold out to America.
@@tclem14
Nonsense.
Honestly the Canadian government continues to drop the ball, we haven't had compitant leadership in far to long
@D k America convinced the Prime Minister to drop the project. The Canadians instead bought over 100 inferior voodoo fighter jets from USA . They spent more money on those voodoos than they would have building 200 Arrows ;( it is frustrating to read about that,s for sure.
They should have NEVER destroyed the five working Avro Arrows they had instead they destroyed them and everything on the Arrow except one smart person kept some of the video and other info on the Arrow if that was not done we would only have newspaper clippings of the Avro instead of video and info about it.
Falcon was one of the worst air to air weapon systems ever made, had very low reliability.
This is the first time I've seen the arrow, described as an interceptor. I was under the impression that the arrow was designed to be a long range bomber that flew in the stratosphere like the blackbird. Fast enough to outrun surface to air missiles and interceptors.
The CCCP would be more afraid of a bomber than an interceptor no doubt.
Had the arrow gone into production. The cold war would have escalated. It's probably a good thing that the program was scrapped.
And that impression is based on...what? Arrow had limited range and payload, meaning it couldn't carry much, or take it that far, which are key features for a bomber.
It could fly faster.
Edit: I used to believe some of the Arrow tech was sold to the Soviets later on, allowing for the development of the MiG-21. I even propagated this rumor in this post because it was a throwaway kind of post. I apologize for anyone who believed what I originally said.
What Arrow "tech" was sold to the Soviets? What Soviet aircraft uses Canadian technology?
@@winternow2242 It's just something I read somewhere some time ago. In all likelihood it was an exaggerated rumor based on the following:
I do know, at the time the Arrow was canceled, Avro was worried about a Soviet mole so they destroyed as much of the plans, tooling and examples as they could. This would be confirmed a legitimate worry upon relevant Soviet documents being declassified in the 90s. So maybe it was just whatever the mole got or what was feared the mole got?
@@sleepyancient6655 this is actually a frequently reported urban legend about Arrow that fails when having to show any Soviet aircraft looking or flying at all like Arrow.
@@winternow2242 The mole was real, but likely didn't get much. I'm merely speculating where the rumor came from at this point.
A combination of Canadian engineers going abroad after Avro collapsed, the MiG-21 going into production a year after the Arrow was cancelled, general Soviet paranoia, and various other things that would happen later (like a PM who was a Soviet sympathizer), probably combined to blend into that rumor I read many years ago.
@@sleepyancient6655 your rumor is way off. The MiG-21 is nothing like Arrow. While it went into production the year after Arrow flew, it's first flight was in June of 1955.
I'm still annoyed that our prime minister cut this jet. We could've been leading in aerial jets instead of america
What makes me almost more angry than the cancelation of the Arrow, probably due to the pressure of the American government, America gobbled up most engineers of Avro.
What American pressure are you referring to? Specifically, what did America do?
.......the Americans aren't cancelling the f35 project. Canada cancelled and destroyed and tried to remove all memory of their project.
if the Canadians have continued this trade then by now they wont be importing jets from anywhere else and they maybe one of those nations that are a very competitive exporter of fighter jets and stealth bombers.. - greetings from PH!
Canada is nice, and they gave the money to farmers instead of continuing the project, Something America would never do.
Yea, Diefenbaker sent the money to Saskatchewan 210 farmers and laid off 50,000 workers in Ontario and Quebec. Real nice.
@@gabrieltessier1870 Loool So? that money saved a lot of people, there was a food shortage, you saying its better to be a dictator who doesn't feed his people but chases after military gain? you are not some one i would ever want owning a gun or holding any sort of political sway.
idk why you would care unless you lost something from that, if you did to bad so sad move to america and work for skunkworks
Peaces Well obviously you don’t care about tech. I understand canceling and not wasting money like the us does but imo the Arrow was not a waste of money and losing your job is not good, or a cool thing. But hey what do you know right?
1 million indians enter canada per year
This plane went into advanced confidential development. And probably still is. It never died. Seized or sold, the design has been seen time and time again in the British, Australian and Canadian Royal Air Force. The Avro engineers moved there to continue to work on the project just under different contracts and circumstances. Look at the politics of the time. Look at the RAF Vulcan and tell me otherwise. It's a bossmode arrow. No conspiracy just secrets cause your friend might be or could be a spy ! :I
I saw a movie about it and details it as a failure, but on the long run it was a great call, saved Canada from the plague that affects the US to this day, a pretty much useless and imperialistic Army and Military Industrial Complex, that only takes away money from The People, instead of investing it on The People: Education, Services, well-being; the Us has Banks bankrupting people, losing their homes, house prices skyrocketing, houseless people on the streets, crime and unemployment on records high, people working 3 jobs just to get by, 1 pay-check away from houseless, and the US Gov. simply won't stop, doesn't care for their People at all. It's sad that so much engineering, money, and human effort went to the trash, but saved Canada from economic and social Disaster
Did Canada build this to defend the west or to support the Soviet Union?
Not sure if its a joke or not but Canada was and is part of NATO if that answers your question?
I blame the Americans for the loss of one of the greatest aircraft ever made. I am convinced the U.S. did not want our country having something better than American technology and I think the Americans were paranoid the Soviets would some how get our technology. At least one aircraft went missing. It's to bad our government did not have the balls to stand up to the Americans.
No with the introduction of the ICBM it made the arrow obsolete overnight. Do you think it is coincidence that every advanced interceptor project from around the world was canceled in the same time frame?
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 Again wrong 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
CHEERS
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 Again wrong Despite all the noise of super-technologies and rapidly emerging and ebbing threats, J.C. Floyd, and thus Avro engineering , seems to take a *historically - supportable view* of events on a number of still controversial yet highly technical topics.
The current adoptions by the largest military-industrial- financial complex on earth (the USA) of a high-altitude, twin-afterburning turbojet-powered long-range interceptor with internal weapons, low wing-loading and a high thrust-to-weight ratio (the F-22 Raptor),
*suggests Floyd & Co. we’re a pretty sage bunch.*
Cold War Tech War page 260 R.L. Whitcomb
This is exactly how they described *(the ARROW)* it was to be a high-altitude, twin-afterburning turbojet-powered long-range interceptor with internal weapons, low wing-loading and a high thrust-to-weight ratio!
Performance curves Arrow Versus modern Fighters
The F-22 Performance curves published by “Bill Sweetman’s book the F-22 Raptor”
The performance curves for the Arrow Mk2 “hand drawings by Jan Zurakowski"
*Are about equal to the F-22 from sea level to 65,000+ ft. and from Mach 0.5 to 2.3*
Other aircraft performance curves shown are the CF-105 Mk1, CF-105 Mk3 CF-105 Mk4,
the Mig-29, F-16C, F-15C, all superimposed by R.L. Whitcomb
The same Performance curves are in color in the book “Avro Aircraft and Cold War
Aviation” for a better comparison!
CHEERS
@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 Sandys brought down his notorious White Paper on defence. *Sandys appears to have succumbed to the CIA’s super-secret intelligence,* which was diametrically opposed to that of the rest of the Western intelligence community, and sounded the *false alarm* of the “missiles gap”.
Of course, the CIA became famous for, in order of appearance, *the “intelligence gap”, the “bomber gap”, the “missiles gap”, and ever a “psychic spy gap”.* (This resulted in their Project MK Ultra) or men who stare at goats.
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 Welsh (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, the U.S. Secretary of State! 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!
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!
*Avro was clearly leading the industry in the application of ‘at the speed of light’ computing.*
Even the scale Arrow test models that were launched on NIKE boosters and their corresponding telemetry truck shared real time computational capability, *and were, in fact, the first examples of the practical application of this technology in the world. (Personal testimony from J. Floyd and other primary sources, plus Gainor’s Arrows to the Moon)*
*This used the same key processors as(( Whirlwind)), which is the NORAD detection, tracking and ground control were based on, and they used it in the mid-1950’s, almost a decade earlier considering Project Gemini was the next machine to use the same level of technology. As Chris Gainor’s Arrows to the Moon shows, the same people (from Avro were involved in both programs)*
*The Arrow engineers took these components and concepts and developed them in the Arrow itself, resulting in the first aircraft in the world designed to ultimately be able to take off itself, fly itself, navigate itself, fight, and even land, without pilot input.*
Spud Potocki, an Arrow test pilot, *documented that he achieved several automatic take-offs and landings with the Arrow.* On the Arrow, the main component *was installed and functional in all Arrows,* located just behind the air conditioning exhaust. This and other electronic packages (“then called “black boxes”) were orange because Avro, in another example of advanced thinking, decided to colour code basic subsystems to ease maintenance.
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
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 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!
The Arrow Mk 3 was lighter, had less frontal area drag, and about the same thrust as the SR-71.
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
This is probably why they waited for everything to do with the Arrow to be destroyed before starting the A-12/SR-71 program.
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 of being exposed.*
CHEERS
The Americans had everything to do with the demise of the Arrow ,, just do the research ........
What research shows that America had "everything to do" with canceling Arrow?
@@winternow2242 Avro Arrow: The Story of the Avro Arrow From Its Evolution To Its Extinction ,,, avilable at Amazon ,, amoung other numerous books written about the demise of the Arrow
@@bradelliott3698 presumably you've read it, so you should be able to say, simply, how Americans had "everything to do with the demise of the Arrow". Because from what I've seen is that the 🇺🇸 did nothing worse than push an alternative to a domestic Canadian airplane that would have extremely expensive and boasted flight performance - at best - on par with aircraft soon to be available at lower cost.
@@winternow2242 An alternative ?And what would that be ? The Arrow was the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world hands down ,, just any expert in the military aircraft industry. You really need to read the book. First off ,, the Americans wanted the Arrow trashed ,, they had nothing like it and didnt want anybody having something they couldnt have , they requested that the Arrow be discountinued and if Canada did America would give them a sub standard missle sysytem that never did work , they manipulated the supply chain when they could ,, and on and on and on. It seems like you want to take this personally and would have the Americans come out of this as the knights in shining armour, sorry to disapoint , they where anything but. Read the book
@@bradelliott3698 "And what would that be ?"
The Phantom was faster and longer ranged, and was armed with more missiles which had a longer range. Phantom would also have been cheaper in 1959 than Arrow.
Do any books have evidence that Arrow was longer ranged than Phantom, could carry more than 8 missiles, 4 of them being BVR?
"the Americans wanted the Arrow trashed ,, they had nothing like it and didnt want anybody having something they couldnt have , they requested that the Arrow be discountinued"
...except that "anybody" includes several nations (other than America) already having airplanes like Arrow, and America had no problem with that.
Do you have any evidence that the US government formally asked Canada to discontinue Arrow?
" they manipulated the supply chain when they could ,, and on and on and on."
The "on and on" part is something that you could have expanded on with...ummm...evidence. Honestly, if you're so passionate about historical facts, you wouldn't need to replace specific facts with "on and on".
Seriously, supply chain" What chain? And who was supplying?
I am taking this personally, because anyone reading your pseudohistory should take an insult to their intelligence seriously. I could be Canadian and you could be Albanian and it wouldn't change how insulting you are when you're not embarrassing yourself.
Here's a question none of you Arrow fanboys have ever explained: Avro was a Canadian subsidiary of a British company, and was Orenda, yet non British company developed an Arrow or their own version of PS13 - why not?
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I could be a a coke-dealing biker from a 1980's action movie and it wouldn't change the fact that Arrow was an inferior airplane that nobody wanted.
The mythology around this plane is stupid. It was obsolete, that is why it was canceled. No other reason. The Soviet Bomber fleet never materialized and with the introduction of ICBM's the era of the interceptor was over, just like that.
TRUMP 2020!