The Avro Arrow : For The Record
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 10. 2020
- Author and researcher Palmiro Campagna brings to light increasingly more researched data and declassified information on the Avro Arrow project, and uses it to debunk many of the conspiracy theories as to its demise, while at the same time presents other projects from A.V. Roe Canada which helped to place Canada at the leading edge of aircraft technology in the 1950's. Palmiro's second video, exploring his latest research ( as of July 2021) into the US involvement in the cancellation of the Arrow, can be viewed here: • The Avro Arrow: For Th...
Palmiro's book, The Avro Arrow: For the Record, can be ordered here:
Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/...
Amazon: www.amazon.ca/Avro-Arrow-Reco...
Independent bookstores: bookmanager.com/tbm/?q=h.tvie...
I worked for AVRO. And was there when we were closed down all we got was a phone call to tell us we were all let go and that was 1,500 people March 1959 Black Friday
36:00 The US obviously was not thinking the bomber was no longer a threat as they were still building B58 Hustlers and the USSR would see that and continue building their bombers as well, ESPECIALLY if there was little deterrent to invading Canadian air space
High altitude bombing was effectively dead. Even the XB-70 was ultimately canceled despite its top speed being estimated at Mach 3+.
@@noahsaunders3919 M50 was a prototype that never went into production
@@noahsaunders3919 Tu 22 was considered a disappointment because it never achieved the intercontinental range that it was designed for.
@@noahsaunders3919 all their bombers were TU95s with a top speed of 570 mph
@@noahsaunders3919 I did not watch it. My point is that we didn't need a Mach 2 aircraft to defend against Mach 0.8 bombers.
Thank you for the knowledge
The final insult was the purchase of The Bomarcs, Voodoos, and Starfighters that were far less capable. The price tag for those exceeded the cost of completing the Arrow program. Just think, we could have sold Arrows to West Germany instead of them purchasing the Starfighter.
I'm thinking that Germany would have been better off with Arrows, but do you have any numbers for a cost comparison? Arrow was pretty pricey, and the Germans ended up buying a lot of F-104s, which they used as multirole aircraft.
@@winternow2242 The German pilots called the Starfighters " "flying coffins" because of constant crashes & the deaths of so many pilots. There are different of ways of calculating "costs."
@@kennethmorrison7689 German pilots suffered from inadequate training - too few flight hours, under too-forgiving weather conditions. They also often flew the plane at low altitudes, which can be more hazardous than high altitude flight expected of Arrow, and a wider array of missions. That might explain why the Germans suffered high loss rates for the F-84, the plane they had before the F-104. I think they had over 500 F-84's, and lost about 200 of them. Apparently, some costs are inevitable.
@@winternow2242 Not much Choice
Don’t blame America. The Canadian politicians killed it
One of the best videos I've seen on the Arrow.
It still breaks my heart the more I learn about this most incredible aircraft. Canada lost so much when the Arrow was cancelled and frankly, we as a nation have never recovered. It's ironic perhaps watching the current federal government making fools of themselves once again when it comes to procuring new fighter planes and our choices are the very unreliable F35 or the very long in the tooth Gripen. As an aside, It's interesting that if you take $3 million in 1959 dollars to the present you end up with about $27 million in 2021 dollars. The new F35s are 80 million dollars US. (I know I know, you can't really make the comparison based on the sophistication of a modern aircraft versus an aircraft from 1959, but still.... ) Neither the Gripen or the F35 are desirable aircraft to purchase in my opinion. In addition, 65 aircraft is far too few to effectively protect a country with the physical size of Canada. But I digress.
But getting back to the video, I found it most informative, and I especially appreciated the financial analysis at the end of the video. Also, the overview with respect to the reasons the program was cancelled (the need for an interceptor in the missile age). Where the video came up a little wanting though was with respect to who exactly in the government was pulling the strings. I have to believe it all stemmed from Diefenbaker himself. And if true, it begs the question, why?
I've given that some thought over the years and I can only speculate that it was quite simple. The personality of John George Diefenbaker. Diefenbaker was a simple man from a small rural area he simply could not relate to a project like the Avro Arrow. In addition, Diefenbaker was a well known hater of anything associated with the liberal party of Canada and since the Arrow had been conceived and brought into this world under the previous liberal administration of Louis St. Laurent, when he looked at it or heard about it, his vision turned red. No different than what we see today when a new government replaces another party. Everything must be cancelled because the other guy proposed it and we are not the other guy. Add to that that even when he was a young man, Diefenbaker was an old fogey. I get that the plane was expensive, but the program could have been scaled back, at least temporarily. But cancelling it altogether was just plain idiotic. And the last thing I will never understand is why the need to chop up 6 perfectly good planes.
What a tragedy.
Thank you for the kind words. Have a look at my second video from the link above. As for who was pulling the strings, I do not believe, as I once did, that Diefenbaker was pulling any strings. From the documents, it appears he was greatly mislead by his people, the military and the US. As for expensive yes but that was never the issue, again, this comes from the cabinet records once classified SECRET.
@@palmirocampagna I saw the video about how essentially the us worked to get the arrow canceled so as not to have competition from canada during a recession ... the worst part is Deifenbaker ALSO signed away our ability to develop new jet fighter aircraft ... as a country ... as individuals ... well gladly they didnt think of that little gem
.
another gem I was one of the 2, 7 year old kids who asked about the engine under the tarp 50 years ago in june 2022 ... and it was some bored staffer who had nothing else to do atm who went and found out what engine it was ... now that engine sits in pride of place beside the 206 nose ... I plan on visiting that museum again and spend many long hours looking at the beauty ...gladly ... I live around the corner from it TOO :)
.
come on covid end so they reopen the museum fully
DTV .. stood for Detachable Thrust Vehicle ... indicating it's purpose ... a high school friend of mines dad worked on the velvet glove and he had/has paperwork that mentioned the thrust vehicle ... and the acronym
Thanks for adding this !
sweet I just read the description ... for a change ... and seeing that it is pretty much a Palmiro Campagna video ... this is definitaely a watch later video sinc eit is late .... and im tired ...
.
side story ... the ps13 engine on display in Ottawa was located in the old rockliffe hangar museum by 2 7 year old kids ... just shy of 50 years ago ... it used to reside under a tarp behind the lancaster bomber in hangar 2 ... on the back wall ... and yes I am one of the two kids who asked the bored staff person what was unnder the tarp we assumed it was an jet engine and wanted to know from what plane ... it was soon after that the museum started figuring out what it could do to upgrade its look and the engine and nose section would take and as far as I know still takes pride of place close to the front and near the main doors ...
.
think about it ... almost 70 years later and the design specification of air 7.3 the arrow was made to has still NOT been met ... none of the f35 variants not the f22 not even our current f-18's meet it ... yet they all use the 15 firsts the arrow started ... 70 YEARS ... and still not met
interesting bit on the velvet glove ... a high school friend of mine ... her dad worked on the velvet glove missile ... nt exactly sure if he built them or designed them or what but he worked on them ... she had some pictures and other documentation from that program her dad had been able to hang on to when she was tidying up after his death .. I am pretty sure she still has the materials including a few pictures ... he even had some tools of very odd or different configurations ... some her friends help figure out some we still have no clue about ... so it is entirely possible they have something to do with this program
ok so the found vehicle was from one of the slower boosters .. wouldnt it then follow that the arrow models would be further out from point petrie due to the higher speed booster ... worst case they found the minimum distance to look for arrow models ... so by a lot of math one should be able to determine how much further out the arrow models may be ... since the slower missiles seem to have more data available on them ...
Had to rewatch it today Feb 20, 2022 ... 63 years after the arrow was cancelled ... and what happens to PM's who go against the wishes of the people because they had their feelings hurt ... no NDP mp has sat in the PM's chair since the arrow was cancelled
I wonder if the 206 with the Iroquois engine would had speed up th Mach 2.5 or Higher.
well considering it was designed to be mach 2.5 capable ... as part of the air 7.3 design specification then YES it definitely would have been capable of exceeding the mach 2.5 requirement ... and may have been able to be very close to mach 3 ..... the expected (math version) of the ps13 engine was mach 2.7 .... but it had overachieved all the previous theoretical values by a MINIMUM of 5% .... so IF it was flown and at max speed ... it would have or should have met mach 3 ... and yes the airframe was designed for and mathmatically proven to mach 7 ... so yes it could handle mach 3 no problems
It's a possibility but hardly that likely. We re-engined the F-14 with a much more powerful engine, years after saddling it with the inadequate TF30. Despite the performance boost, the already Mach 2 airframe remained a mach 2 airframe. Planform, intake design and location and other aerodynamic details can easily obviate thrust increases. Additionally, structural design would set safety limits on how fast an airplane can fly. The XB-70A had J93 engines that could have taken that plane to Mach 4....once that plane had been dramatically redesigned to handle the more demanding flight conditions encountered at that speed.
The MK III was close to mach 3. The Arrow with our glorious Polish pilot, ran the plane to 50,000 feet at 1000mph and accelerating on the test engines. The actual tests were not allowed to be recorded. Our Polish pilot took that plane to 80,000 feet. The US probly recorded that on radar and put a stop to that.
See also what the Americans had to say about the Arrow through new additional archival records: czcams.com/video/ulCTf-KJ2Eo/video.html
I have your book STORMS OF CONTROVERSY. I'd like to buy the other two books on t he Avro Arrow. Where in Canada can I buy those? And thanks for all the work you've done on this fantastic aircraft.
@@sirridesalot6652 Thank you for the kind comments. They are avaiable through indigo, online or from the publisher Dundurn Publishing in Toronto.
@@palmirocampagna Thank you so much for that information. I shall be ordering those other books very soon.
@@palmirocampagna Thank you for this Information as well, planning to get Requim for a Giant soon especially since I have both Storms and For the Record.
@@noahsaunders3919 And thank you for your kind comments. Amazon is the other place of course.
The Avro Arrow, Fly Higher, Fly Faster, Fly Further in the 1950's;
The best USA can do with F-35 Stealth after 50yrs?
I typically visit Arrow videos looking for some information on why Arrow deserved a chance, but most of comments posted here are just angry. Canada probably got shafted on cost of the F-35, but what is wrong or disappointing about the plane? It's a multirole tactical fighter with a low RCS. Sounds like solid progress there. Allso, in the late 1950s, faster and longer ranged aircraft had already been developed in the US and other countries.
Please, keep your fact straight to the paperwork. Your opinions and editorial comments are out of sync with your stark analysis of the rest of the data.
I agree, when he talks about the F-106 being a "less capable" compared to the arrow is misleading. He mentions that the arrow achieved mach 1.98 but the F-106 speed was roughly mach 2.3. Although, I've read from different sources that it had a potential to reach higher speeds, but that was never proven. Not to mention the range and ceiling were better on the F-106.
Just looking at a simple comparison between the two aircraft:
- F-106 (Mach 2.3, Combat Range: 926km, Ceiling 57,000 ft, Entered Service mid to late 1959)
- Avro Arrow (Mach 2.3 Potential, Combat Range 660km, Ceiling 56,000 ft, Planned to Enter Service Late 1962)
It’s amusing people still cry of this turd. The Phantom was superior as was the 106.