AVRO ARROW FIRSTS VS F 35 LIGHTNING
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 12. 2018
- A documentary entwined with a existing RCAF mission that cannot be completely fulfilled with existing Canadian fighters. From the North Pole to the American border through central Canada exists a Bomber gap. There are two major Air Force basis in Canada, one in Bagotville and one in Cold Lake. With advanced warning, bases in central Canada could be re-enforced with fighters, but with no warning, the following scenario is very possible, except Canada does not have any Arrows or Arrow equivalents.
- Hudba
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
The Arrow was totally " Fly-by-Wire " and could be flown by ground control. It could complete its intercept mission with a dead pilot in the cockpit. I saw Arrow when it appeared at the Air Show at the CNE in Toronto in Sept 1958. Big, Beautiful, LOUD
My Uncle work as an engineer at Orenda, he was pickup by JPL after the Arrow was scrapped.
Hi Alan, Your a lucky man to have seen an Arrow. regards...Virtual.
Loud only works in a barroom ball, i'm jealous you saw it but the tech specs today are hard to match
I have loved to see the Arrow in an ace combat game. The list of planes you can fly in that game has long since gotten stale.
Hi Blackfire, I have been thinking about someday developing an Arrow module for DCS. I think you enjoy something like that!
Cheers... Noah
I watched the 1997 CBC movie about this bird with my 9 year old. After watching it, he for the first time, expressed interest in politics. He's always been patriotic but now he's got a mission... if Sweden can have two manufacturers of fighter jets then I think a a resource rich and massive country like Canada can manage something (as long as the government doesn't keep standing in the way!)
It is actually more than the government (of today). The Americans did not in 1958 and do not today want Canada to build any major weapons systems period. We signed an agreement when we cancelled the Arrow agreeing to this. For this Canada got access to American Defence contracts. It has been good for Canada, whether it is better than being a Aerospace giant will never be known.....regards.....Virtual
National pride aside the Arrow has the benefit of having never had to prove itself either in production capability or service over time. the rest is... history.
True.....but the legend will always exist.
@@Virtualenvirons as long as we dont let the government fund it ... we can build her ... and I KNOW we have the talent in people in this country to do it online ... then all we need is to get some cdn company to build it ...
@@wartmcbeighn Actually, the Arrow was more than capable of being used as a multirole aircraft..... It was intended as one, from the very beginning.
Great video !
I really enjoyed your video! As a kid in North Bay I do remember that the AVRO ARROW once visited our area. We normally had squadrons of CF-100 Canucks and the ARROW was a very advanced aircraft. PM Diefenbaker cancelled the entire project and they were all destroyed and from that point on we only purchased American built fighter aircraft and all the folks working on the AVRO project worked in other plants mostly in the USA. Our AirForce now has obsolete 30+ year old CF-18's . There is a level of complexity on the cancellation of the AVRO ARROW project but one point is that it was the end of Canadian built fighter aircraft. With the worlds second largest land an water area Canada needs an effective Air Force to protect our airspace and we need an effective Navy to protect the world's largest coastline but clearly we do not have that today and our PM is doing absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Another reason why it was so interesting and fun to see your video and what could have happened if Canada had continued to support the AVRO ARROW project. Thanks!
Hi Ron....thanks for your kind words. That kind of feedback keeps me motivated. Yes, we are getting behind the 8-ball again in terms or equipment. We have Russia on one side, China on the other and the U.S.A. below us....what could possibly go wrong. regards...Virtual
Canada doesn't have economic of scale and tax base to support AVRO ARROW level project. Sweden has light fighter program like Gripen while Arrow is a heavy fighter program. UK companies has been supporting Sweden's' Gripen project.
Support CANZUK movement to improve economic of scale with Australia, Canada, UK and New Zealand. Logistics are major problems with smaller countries. Refer to BAE's Tempest project.
I live on the canadian border/washington somewhere near republic, im on here today to find what looks identicle to the avro arrow flying randomly through my area twice and the 3rd instance was the avro arrow -lookalike plane looked canadian was being chased by 2 f-22 raptors off the country border, soooo ...Who is pushing boundaries here and whose aircraft is it? Have you ever thought that anybody prior service could build an aircraft fir personnal use or use the idea(blueprints)to sell to lockheed for them to manufacture,so wouldnt we by now be seeing private fighter jets? This jet ive spotted coming through my mountains i bought outright I want to know whose is it.
Hi covert If you ever see that plane again try to get a picture of it if you can. It would be easy to ID it then. I don't think it could have been an Arrow however I would like to have a look at any pics you can get. I would set up a email just to have a look at it and then delete the email address as I don't really want my real email to get out in the public!
@@covertiq1745 One of? the four Arrows which survived?
nice work creating the video. Keep in mind the message really is that modern aircraft all are the offspring of the Arrow.. There was no such tech when we built the Arrow. No such tch existed.
nice,well done.
Rumours had circulated that Air Marshal W. A. Curtis, a World War I ace who headed Avro, had ignored Diefenbaker and spirited one of the Arrows away to be saved for posterity. These rumours were given life in a 1968 interview, when Curtis was asked directly if the rumour was true. He replied, "I don't want to answer that." He proceeded to question the wisdom of printing the story of a missing Arrow, and wondered whether it would be safe to reveal the existence of a surviving airframe only nine years later. "If it is in existence it may have to wait another 10 years. Politically it may cause a lot of trouble."] The legend endures that one of the prototypes remains intact somewhere.
There were no survivors, I met one of the guys who cut them up.
yes and no ... there was an iriquois engine heard on the fateful day but there was the one engine on the bomber that went missing before it could demounted ... this is most likely where the rumour comes from as the bomber has been found in the states plane boneyard ... of course no engine mount or engine are present there ..
Interesting video on Avro Arrow and a part of Canadian history that failed to be but could of been the beginning of a very robust aviation industry at the cutting edge of technology. I worked in the Canadian arctic in the 80's and 90's on the dewline early warning system before it transitioned to the north warning system and we had many retired Canadian military guys who talked about the Arrow and how Canada lost an opportunity to be a leader in aviation. My personal opinion is that regardless of how successful the initial plane was it created a solid platform to build from in everything from weapons systems, engine technology, radar and airframes. The name would have been associated with quality and been on the short list for complete aircraft as well as components. Canada has garnered a reputation for keeping equipment well past there expiration date such as the sea king helicopters and almost 40 year old f18 aircraft. I think the government looked at the military as a waste of money but had to at least look like they were trying to play in the sandbox.
Hi Mack Man......well said. regards......Virtual
In fairness, Canada did become a leader in aviation and aerospace - up until quite recently, Canada was the third-largest aircraft manufacturer on the planet.
Raynus you got that one right and thanks I will give you a thumbs up for it.
Well, the great Canadian daydream ~ if it weren't for Diefenbaker and his kowtowing to the Americans ... I watched the TV program about the Arrow when it first aired (being too young to recall the aircraft itself) and felt an immense sense of betrayal. So many of the luminaries who worked on the Arrow went on to work for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo down in the States. It was a galling sensation, knowing that here, in Malton Ontario, Canada had built a supremely sophisticated aircraft on our own (with friends from the UK and elsewhere and an heroic Polish chief test-pilot). To this day, now, those of us who were drawn to watch this video must all harbour a peculiar but keen sense of hope blended with resignation. After all, aren't we Canadians supposed to be peaceful, and not the purveyors of machines of destruction? It is something of battle between national pride and, well, national pride. But in the end, I say: to hell with the lousy out-of-date Yankee missiles! We want the Arrow: our very own piece of aviation supremacy.
@J Can du thanks brother!!!! Every Canadian should be pissed!!!!
The only problem with the Arrow is the canopy. Pilots would not have a good view!! The arrow was the boss!!!!!!!
Shantel Mcreavy That was in 1959. The basic aircraft in 1959 was in many ways comparable to current aircraft. Can you imagine the same aircraft with upgrades to make it current. Although we lost most of the designers when they cancelled the program. Probably the biggest sell out in Canadian history.
@@wallyatnite true my friend!!!
Shantel Mcreavy Most pilots fly by instruments these days and the Arrow had very advanced instrumentation for its time. I am sure it would have been leading edge in updates if allowed to continue.
During the summer, we live on the shore of Lake Ontario where we have heard rumors that an arrow was purposely dirched rather than scraped.
They found it it was just a test model..u can find it on here
Love seeing you video combining the two aircraft in a high alert senerio.Take it the Adversaries were TU-160's? Anyways thanks for sharing the video,it was an enjoyable watch. Wonder what could of been if that Avro Arrow 2 design could of been built. A video is on You Tube as well made a few years back.
Hi Ron..thanks for the comment. Below is a link to my new channel, you may have already seen it, but if not here it is. Episode 8 shows what a modern Arrow could do. regards...Virtual
czcams.com/channels/JAbsrun_K6CCdHXOrrVLng.html
Thanks Deifenbaker for screwing us on this aircraft! Don’t even have our own car company!
It wasn't just Deifenbaker, the Liberals, had they won the election would also have killed the Avro Arrow. It was simply too expensive for an economy the size of Canada's.
yup mad little bugger not only killed our pride that day but later signed a contract agreeing NOT to undertake any jet fighter development programs again ...
@@michaelheath1925 actually for the cost of the cancellation they could have filled the order ... and proven the arrow ... the method of build to production line avoiding prototyping increase front end load but lowers with each plane built ... the cancellations would have paid for 100 planes to be built resulting in and overall cost of 4million dollars per plane ... so we not only would have had a complete fighter interceptor that met our needs BUT we would also have the most modern one for 70 years ... thats right to this day ... NO FIGHTER not even the f22 fills the requirements the arrow was designed for .... NONE ... and thats 70 years later with no arrow to spring forward from ...
imagine where we would have been by now ... if they were able to finish ..
@@0623kaboom Hello. Been over this many times now. To think a 70 years old aircraft would be superior to one built 20 years ago is simply false. The plane was over budget and the performance was not exceptional for the time it was built. Would it have served Canada's interceptor needs adequately? Yes. Unfortunately, it did not happen. I think it is time to move on from the Avro Arrow. Otherwise Canada need to put their money where their mouth is, build the damn aircraft and "prove" to the world how superior this 70 year old design actually is.
Toyota's in North America are built in Canada though. Many American models are also Canadian built like millions of crown vics. Ontario builds millions of cars even if they are not a Canadian company.
Between development of CF-105 and F-35 ran more than 40 Years !! CF-105 for sure had become a brilliant interdictor ,, one of the Best of the world for it's days ...
I worked for AV Roe in the blue prints 105 saw the initial take off of the Arrow we were on the roof , the lay off was March 20/1959 we were all let go ,what a awful day that was Canada lost out on this beautiful Aircraft intersepter BEAUTIFUL AIRCRAFT
Hi Barbara, Thank you for your comments. I don't know if you have seen the four Arrow series on my channel, Virtualenvirons, I am working on five now, It is interesting where you worked. I have a question I would like to ask. Although there may be a full set of AVRO Arrow prints somewhere secret, I understand the many of the smaller parts were designed by the smaller companies who designed parts for the Arrow. Is that true? The reason I ask is those prints would not have been secreted away somewhere. regards...Virtual
Virtualenvirons Hi I really do not think there was any company that made up parts for the Arrow.,Avro and others that were been built and distroyedtoshut down I’m sure made and supplied all parts for the Arrow. ,105 and 201
@@Virtualenvirons yes there were they were on display at the diefenbaker exhibit out west and went off display april 2020 .. the barnes set of plans ... now those I would LOVE a copy of :)
awesome
The Arrow was never designed as a fighter it was a interceptor.. ..everything else was very accurate . Love your videos cant wait for the next one
Hi Dana, Thanks for the comment. I really appreciate it. Although the Arrow was designed as an interceptor, the phrase "Air Superiority fighter" was not yet coined. In fact, the Arrow was thought of in those terms. Even today, if the the Arrow was armed with modern Avionics, it would be lethal. Consider this. Above 50,000 ft. the Arrow could sustain much higher turn rates than an F-16 and considerably faster than the F-16. It's unclear a fully loaded F-16 could even attain that altitude. The Arrow would be at home at that altitude and could easily out turn an F-16. In an engagement between the two aircraft the Arrow could remain above 60,000 ft. shooting down, giving an AMRAAM greater kill distance than an F-16 shooting up. regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons F-16 has 9G at it's sweet spot speed range hence it's turn radius is tighter than the Arrow. Pilots are trained to fight with their aircraft's strengths.
F-16's smaller wings enables aircraft to have good energy recovery aka acceleration after high G instantaneous turn.
@@valenrn8657 Hi RNL, Any fighter today could turn circles around the Arrow until you got to 45,000 ft. Then things would begin to change. Above 50,000 ft. it would be the F-15, Arrow and F-22. Above 55,000 ft, it might only be the Arrow and F-22. It's just Math. That huge wing and two Iroquois turbo jets, not turbo fans. regards.....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons
Nope, F-18E dogfight doctrine is with high G minimum turn radius and high AoA within it's speed range sweet spot.
Read Tailgate's post on F-14 vs F-18 vs F-16 vs Rafale www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&p=385233
Tailgate forum member is a current pilot for F-16C BK40/50s, F-15C, F-22A.
Quoting Tailgate
I don't know about other drivers on this board....but the F-14 was not an ACM platform. I've flown against them in 15A/C's and 16 40/50's and the 14 simply was outperformed by both. I can say this with a little pride and ego...I have never lost to a Tomcat in ACM/BFM. It simply was outmatched by either airframe. What it could do was "kill" you from a long way off.
The Hornet is a much more difficult foe and unfortunately I cannot stake the same claim as above....lol
I have flown against Typhoons and Rafale's in Red Flags(F-22). I am confident to say that both those airframes would have had no issues dealing with Tomcats. There is a reason they were retired.
--------
imgur.com/VKK60YS
F-14A has maximum 28 degrees per second turn rate at 7.5G.
For F-35A Block 3i (7G)
nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/new-report-details-what-31-us-air-force-pilots-who-flew-the-17266
3. A former F-16C instructor-and graduate of the Air Force Weapons Instructor Course (Which is similar to the Navy's famed “Top Gun” school)-said the jet is constrained on how tight it can turn (G-limited) now. But even so, the rudder-assisted turns are incredible and deliver a *constant 28 degrees of turn a second* . When the Air Force removes the restrictions, this jet will be eye watering.
www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19308&t=1
F-18E at mach ~0.4 has ~34 degrees per second turn rate. Super Hornet's turn rate can be higher with slower speeds. Minimum turn radius fighter can turn a defensive situation into reversal.
theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/
Norwegian F-35 Pilot's view on F-35A minimum turn radius high AoA vs F-16 high speed turn rate dogfight. F-35's ability to turn defensive position into offensive position with a minimum turn radius reversal.
Against high speed turn rate fighter, F-35A can execute thrust vectoring style (due to oversize rear stabilizers) minimum loop radius with high AoA to turn defensive position into reversal. F-35A doesn't need to follow Arrow's tail chasing dogfight doctrine.
czcams.com/video/k3b-b762QRY/video.html
Super Hornet's high AoA+minimum turn radius advantage holding it's own against F-15's high energy turn rate advantage dogfight example. It's harder to escape from Super Hornet's nose pointing. F-35A version has Eurofighter beating acceleration.
Hint:Super Hornet has excellent lift due to slow speed landing on carrier requirements
czcams.com/video/A5E-qOtu9Jk/video.html
F-18E Super Hornet's cobra manoeuvre with follow up level plane pedal turn. High speed chasing fighter like Arrow overshoots and gets shot down.
Why I mention F-18E for F-35A
nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/
More F-16 vs F-35 from Norwegian pilot.
I quote
_Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo_
@@valenrn8657 HI RNL...You posted a lot. Are you responding to me or someone else. It is good stuff, but a lot. On that, we have CF-18 pilots we can discuss tactics with. As the CF-18 only has a 7.5 G rating, their tactics are thick air (low) if possible. The twin engine design works well for them in sustained turns.
The F-35 is faster than it's posted speed. I know pilots who have been aggressor pilots in the U.S. and say it's faster. I have a theory though. I think the F-35 gets less stealthy the faster it goes. They may have picked Mach 1.6 (arbitrary units) for marketing only. Hard to sell a aircraft with the slogan "Stealthy until Mach 1.6 and then your dead meet". regards..Virtual
The alert hangers at cfb north bay were at the east end of the main runway. No turning necessary, open the hanger doors and rolling.
Hi Robert. We did not have anything from North Bay on this video. Only from the Sat view. Currently only Bagotville and Cold Lake have active alert birds. regards...Virtual
Ottawa had or still has its 2 alert hangers at the east west runway ... but they hadnt held a plane for decades even in the 80's ... they were mostly used for long term storage of runway needs and vehicles for clearing the runway ...
In the science fiction 'Chasing Voyager' opening of story centers on the Arrow.
I just like the way the aircraft looks.
Yes, it is rare the raw power and beauty meet. regards...Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons And you have reproduced it faithfully, with grace, class, and educational entertainment. A Master's Piece! THANKS!
You should have seen it fly, I did.
UPDATE IT AND BUILD IT THE AIRFRAME AND ENGINE IS MACH 3 CAPABLE 700miles per hour faster than the f35 REALLY? WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR THIS IS OUR AIRCRAFT BUILT BY OUR PEOPLE IT WOULD BE BREATHTAKING (AND CHEAPER)
Forgot to add this link to the above;
Super Arrow dusk flight produced by Beaverworks.
X-Plane 10 aircraft simulator
Super Arrow aircraft designed by Joe Green
X-Plane model built by Bluesman.
czcams.com/video/35wsSIt5tVM/video.html
Enjoy! and please don`t forget to support the new "SuperArrow"!!!
Here; www.beaverworksmint.ca/
And lets not forget Bourdeau Industries
czcams.com/video/dhOqO5aa984/video.html
Thank you for the links. This reborn Arrow may become a reality if politics can take a back seat. The Avro Arrow was killed much like what lead to the demise of the YF23.
The USAF had a biased opinion against it from its beginning, most people would agree that it was a better option than the F35... There are plenty of videos and reports available that will attest to it for anybody interested.
@@bobt4260 What are you talking about. First, it was not an alternative to the F-35, it was a competitor to the F-22 as the main US stealth air superiority fighter. Most people? Most people knows jack shit, and would only be like, duuuuh, the YF-23 looks cooler, it must be better...
And, comparing any of the current fighters with the arrow/super arrow is mute, they are of completely different designs and as thus would have different mission parameters. Sure, moving from A to B really fast, especially if the distance between are very long, had its uses. However, none of the suggested arrow designs would fit the air superiority fighter role of the F-22, or the multi role fighter role of the F-35. Sure, it could have its use as fast first strike interceptor, but, to what cost?
In the meantime as Canada showed the world, the Americans are still waiting for the coal to warm up on their barbecues as Canada uses natural gas and propane, and the northern states are still shoveling snow as Canadians use the snow blower
8000lbs more fuel with & drop tanks each equal to total distance alone to f-35, 0.4+ mach faster, the ceiling height alone is not something to be scoffed at with the wingspan... or having 2 engines for redundancy to make sure you can return back to base... even to this day it is formidable..
Thank you for the comment. This is the link to the new Arrow Channel....regards....Virtual
czcams.com/channels/JAbsrun_K6CCdHXOrrVLng.html
Hopefully this conflicts will never escalate ...
I knew the Arrow was a sophisticated aircraft, but I had no idea of how very advanced it was relative to other fighter aircraft of its day. The engineering that went into the design and production of the Arrow was well beyond cutting edge and state of the art.
No wonder why the Arrow made the Americans so nervous. They had nothing that could compete in terms of what it was designed to do. And it would be years or even decades before they would have had anything that could have competed.
Plus, they couldn't abide with the idea that a country so much smaller could have come up with such incredible technology.
People often criticize the Arrow because it was perceived to be a very expensive way to shoot down incoming Russian bombers and because it couldn't handle fighter interdiction taskings.
But the Arrow wasn't meant to interdict enemy fighters, because they didn't pose the threat that Canada was facing at the time. What was needed was a jet that could fly high and fast over vast amounts of territory to meet the bombers and destroy them long before they could reach any targets in Canada or the US.
Hi Steve. The Arrow was very sophisticated. The was no reason why it could not stop enemy fighters though. It was not going to dogfight in thick air (below 30, 000 ft.) with any fighter, but it did not have to. The Arrow was designed to fight above 50,000 ft. It could still pull G's at the altitude where it could sit like an F-15 Eagle and shoot away at fishers. Armed with todays missiles and Avionics, it would still be very effective. Essentially an F-15 that could only pull 6 G's in thick air, but turn faster than an Eagle above 50,000 ft.
@Zane Nobbs These were not fighter jets. They were great jets, but had a specific role. The initial intent of the YF-12 program was to drop a large bomb on Russia, but even that did not pan out. These jets had to fuelled int the Air as they leaked on the tarmac. When they reached speed, the body expanded to close off the leaks. That was the design and not an error, but these planes were hugely expensive to operate and only the U.S. could afford to, but they were never going to be interceptors or fighters. regards...Virtual
Zane have a look at the numbers!
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!
Like the program, and see that the past is big in peoples lives. What 'was' is no longer relevant, they are gone and no time to build anything else. The present sucks, the future more so, but it is what it is and we can't do anything but go ahead. Out choices are individual, we are going to live them, so, make good ones. I hope so!!.
I have enjoyed this what might have been video, like all the others. However, I did not enjoy the 'computer voice'. Why not just use an ordinary 'human' one?
HI Rob, Thanks for the comment. Recording that much voice overlay is more difficult than you might imagine. Also, I don't have the voice for this type of thing. I make these movies in my home on a single Macintosh computer, funding all the software, etc, myself. I just don't have the resources for anything else. regards...Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons me
Thanks
@@Virtualenvirons h
Please let me know when you t you have a chanc we
can you to look at the house and see what you think I'm talking about.
I"ve read too many times about the Arrow being too expensive. So in Feb / 59, everything Arrow was scraped. $350 million down the drain. Then in Aug / 59, Canadair got a $420 million contract for CF 104s. Ain't politics great? At least Orenda got to license build GE engines for the 104s.
Not to mention we bought "slightly" used CF-101 Voodoos in two batches of 66 airframes. Even at 50% off that would equate to $66 million dollars. No listing of what Canada had to pay for the stupid Bomarc Missile sites. At least the CF-5's were a good choice. But that should have been our reserve fighters and trainers.
The problem was not the cancellation costs for the Avro Arrow but the cost to completion rising up above $1.1 billion.
she was for sure 4th gen probably even close to 5th gen with minor upgrades from ORIGINAL design with potential to be pushed well into the future
At the time it was politics that stole the Arrow. then there was the TSR2 and Avro 707 to examine. My experiences in the armed forces taught me that if we procrastinate long enough they'll come up with something far, far more expensive with about the same characteristics. A smaller, lighter version would still be viable with today's technology but Canada will never spend a dime on anything like that. We remain, sadly, the hewers of wood and drawers of water we've always been to the oligrachs, what democracy?
That said, nice movie and I don't mind the computer voice at all without inflections and adenoids. Cheers
BAE attempts another shot with Tempest design model.
@@johntripp5159 Hi John, I am but a humble retired woodsman hewing away with my Mac making movies. I do what I can with what I can find. regards..Virtual.
Sometimes a good design is timeless and just works...... The COVID costs have been way higher than restarting the AVRO program ..... think on that.......
diefenbaker signed away Canada's right to design fighter aircraft ... when he went with the bomarc system ... as a country we can not do it ... as INDIVIDUALS we can rebuild her and even update her to current standards and beyond ... virtuaenvirons actually has that part in one of his movies on the arrow ... and it's the only time I have seen another person actually post that fact ... I learned about i back in the late 80's myself ...
why did dad see the tail # 22005 in hanger 11 mountainview? it was in a mothball... but you cant mistake that delta wing.. an that tail marking was on the 5th arrow outta 5 :-\
Love Avro CF 105 membuat bagus BBC avro rl201
@1:57
Point of interest - That's a CF-105/J-67 proposal from May, 1954. The J-67 suffix denoted the (briefly proposed) Curtiss-Wright J-67 engines, which were cancelled that same year. Note the lack of outboard leading edge extensions (dogtooth) on the wings and lack of an area-ruled tailcone extending out from between the afterburner nozzles. Also interesting is the 500 gallon drop tank mounted immediately aft of the removable armament pack, straddled by the speed brakes. The production CF-105/P.S.13 design followed in June, 1955 - P.S.13 obviously referencing the Orenda P.S.13 Iroquois engines, & would've utilized the same drop tank arrangement.
Prior to the CF-105/J-67 iteration, there was the C104/2-TR.9 (Orenda TR.9 Engines) proposed in June 1952, as well as the CF-105/RB.106 (Rolls-Royce RB.106 engines) from August 1953. Other engines considered for use were the Bristol Olympus OL-3 & the Pratt&Whitney J-75, which powered the first five Mk 1 aircraft.
Another interesting Avro design was the C104/1-TR.9 - a single-engine, low-wing delta, very similar in appearance to the Convair F-102. This was proposed to the RCAF in June 1952, at the same time as the above-mentioned C-104/2. It was quickly dropped in favor of the twin-engine, shoulder wing design which would eventually morph into the CF-105/P.S.13. In all, there were no less than five different wing sizes proposed, ranging from 1000 sq ft to 1400 sq ft. A single seat Arrow was also in the mix, sporting a 1300 sq ft wing and carrying only four Falcon missiles instead of eight. The final Arrow variant utilized the 1200 sq ft (1225 sq ft) wing.
Ain't history fun?
Raynus Point of interest read page 114 of Cold War Tech War you will see that the J-67 was a licenced- built version of the British Olympus and was cancelled in 1955 not 1954. The J-75 was just a P&W J-57 from the compressor to the nozzle and copied the Olympus compressor section.
Did you know that Orenda put the OT-4 turbine into a White 7,000 transport truck and the US purchase the program from Orenda. page 13 and 14. How about the M-48 Patton tank that Orenda modify to take the same OT-4 turbine years before the US Abrams tank!
BTY how long did it take the USAF to morph the F-102 into the F-106?
Right Now I remember!
The F-106 got its start with the XF-92A that was built in 1948 and Conair was given a contract to produce an interceptor based on this design in September of 1951. It took a full 5 months just to produce the F-102 mock-up and the F-102 was only capable of Mach 1.2.
While this was going on the F-102 was being (modified to a new configuration) which became the F-106 and it first flew on 26 December 1956. From the first flight of the FX-92A to the production of a prototype version that was close to the 1954 intercept specifications took over 7 years and this was a continues priority project right from the start! The F-106 never did reach all of its specification requirements.
The Arrow did not use a proto-type it went right from the design stage to a hard tooled production line interceptor and took Avro just over 3 years to get it right the first time. The Arrow would meet or exceed all the 1954 intercept specifications.
Yes history is fun when you get your facts right!
Raynus Here is another fun point of interest from history! Page 143 Cold War Tech War
The first squadron F-106 were delivered in May of, 1959, but continuing problems meant that the Delta Dart was not declared operational until October 31, 1959
Problems continued, engine problems, canopies jettisoning in flight, fire control problems and upgrades, fuel starvation, and other maladies afflicted the plane’s entry to service. MA-1 was upgraded no less than 6 times. Flight testing continued into n1961, with each phase revealing a long list of defects.
Incorporating them into the design was exacerbating throughout the program because there were so many changes to be made to the hard tooling devised to suit the Cooke-Craigie plan. In the case of the FM-106, the Cooke-Craigie plan was a disaster.
Convair spent more on changing the F-102 airframe (they used the same wings) into that of the F-106 then Avro had spent on developing the entire Arrow Mk 1 and 2 designs tooling and seven completed airframes, five of them flying.
*67 changes to the airframe alone were required to produce the service F-106 from the prototype, and many changes were made in the field.
*
*The Arrow did not use a prototype it went right from the design stage to a hard tooled production line interceptor and took Avro just over 3 years to get it right the first time. The Arrow would meet or exceed all the 1954 intercept specifications.*
@@jim100ab9
The Iroquois was still having teething issues at cancellation - well documented.
The CF-105 had only completed 2% of it's eight phase testing and evaluation program.
It had yet to carry a weapon or fire a shot.
The Arrow died on the factory floor.
The F-106 went on to serve for 25 years.
That's the reality.
@@jim100ab9
Here's one of your self-deleted (and incorrect) posts:
"Raynus about the only this you got right is the Arrow was not area ruled. That is because Avro made it obsolete!"
The CF-105 did in fact incorporate area ruling. The forward fuselage and tailcone were only a couple of examples.
Again - you don't have a clue what you're talking about once you venture outside of a Whitcomb book.
@@raynus1160 LOL, LOL, LOL here from one of your own sources! This why the had to kill the Arrow! Palmiro Campagna’s book Storms of Controversy
Now wish to introduce new evidence that has been discovered, including the “smoking gun” … with fingerprints.
Avro was repeatedly asked by the USAF if and how the performance of the aircraft could be enhanced.
This leaves one to wonder whether Avro wasn’t, in fact, naively solving technical problems being encountered by U.S. aircraft manufacturers.
By 1958, after the Arrow’s successful maiden flight, the USAF, which previously had expressed tremendous interest in the aircraft, began backing off.
What was the Americans’ motive? There were several, including pressure from U.S. companies and a significant concern that the Arrow plans and manufacturing secrets were indeed falling into the wrong hands. Earlier in this book, I speculated that the CIA would have been particularly perturbed by that eventuality, since an Arrow in the wrong hands could destroy its secret U-2 spy operations and perhaps even turn the tables. John Foster Dulles, U.S. secretary of state and one of those who advised Canada that the United States would not purchase the Arrow, was the brother of Allen Dulles, head of the CIA.
General Foulkes who did not listen to Air Marshal Hugh Campbell, his chief of the air staff. While
Campbell was insisting on the need for the Arrow or an aircraft just like it, Foulkes ignored him and advised the Diefenbaker government that the military had no requirement for the Arrow.
Palmiro Campagna’s book Storms of Controversy
Now for the smoking gun and fingerprints, in the meeting of September 21, 1958, Cabinet had approved the installation of Bomarc missiles. Its members also agreed that the Arrow program should be reviewed in March 1959 and that the chiefs of staff should investigate and report on any requirements for further missile installations or for aircraft “of the nature of the CF-105 or alternative types.” Interestingly, in November 1958, Air Marshal Roy Slemon, stationed at NORAD headquarters in Colorado, had stated that interceptors would be required for years to come.
Diefenbaker rebuked Slemon for this comment because it was, in effect, pre-empting the chiefs of staff investigation on the matter and was therefore not yet government policy. Also, both Foulkes and Pearkes were recommending abandoning the program, even though Chief of the Air Staff Campbell was asserting that at least 100 aircraft comparable in performance to the Arrow (if not Arrows) would be required. Why was there a split, with Slemon and Campbell both saying yes to aircraft and Pearkes and Foulkes saying no?
In his own words, Foulkes provides the answer. Writing (appropriately enough) on December 24, 1958, Foulkes gave this gift, the “smoking gun,” to the people of Canada, entitled “Progress Report on the Implementation of the Decisions in Regard to Air Defence Taken by Cabinet on 21 September 1958”:
With regard to the Cabinet Decision (e), that the Chiefs of Staff should investigate and report on requirements, if any, for additional air defence missile installations in Canada and for an interceptor aircraft of the nature of the CF105 or alternative types; the Chiefs of Staff have this matter
under active study but wish to defer making any recommendations until they have had an opportunity to study the plans of the Commander-in-Chief, North American Air Defence Command. It is expected that the Commander-in- Chief, North American Air Defence Command, will be presenting his revised plans to the Canadian Chiefs of Staff in January. After the Chiefs of Staff have an opportunity of carefully studying these plans, they will be prepared to make recommendations for any additional air defence missile installations or for interceptor aircraft of the nature of the CF105 or alternative types.
So it was the United States. It seems that Charles Foulkes was waiting for his orders. So it did not matter what the chief of the air staff recommended, and it did not matter what Roy Slemon, as second-in command at NORAD, or anyone else in Canada for that matter, had to say. What mattered was only what the commander-in-chief of NORAD and the United States wanted, and so the Arrow was cancelled. The chain was complete: Diefenbaker was being advised by Pearkes, who in turn was being advised by Foulkes, who in turn was following the agenda of the Americans. This explains why Hugh Campbell had been ignored and Slemon had been rebuked for having opposing views.
Later that day men wearing Soviet flight suits were arrested at a Tim Horton's in North Bay
Clearly Double Doubles! And Old Fashioned Plain Donuts.
I've been to that Tim's. I think they left their names on the bathroom wall.
@@glennwiebe5128 Is ancient Russian Cultural Tradition!!!!
OH, PLEASE BUILD IT AGAIN....
I JUST LOVE THE AVERO...
given time and enough funding it will fly as a cf238 and as a modernized updated version ... currently a replica is being made in calgary using carbon fiber and fiber glass mainly ... although not being built for military use it will at least be comparable to the original ..
now all i need is to get my hands on the blueprints that were found a year or so ago ... and get working on them ... going from old released a11 pics and highly compressed drafting sized pages aint easy ... but it is progressing ... with over 35,000 parts to draft up all it takes is time and some brain sweat ...
.
now IF i could get a digital copy of the prints I would be half way to where I want to be ...
.
yes I am working on making a fully functional and operational arrow ... and then updating it to modern specs and needs and exceeding them ....
.
thanks to diefenbaker we as a country can not design a new fighter aircraft .. as INDIVIDUALS ... we can ... and an excellent jump off point is a plane that 70 years later is still in the running .... 70 years and it still has merit ... NO other plane I can think off can say that ...
"Splash of heaven's pearly tears
On Earth's swarthy, sweltering sweat.
Flagrant flare on a nihilist night,
Too early for the morning light."
- Oseloke
Epitaph, "Dawn"
For a great bird that was conceived ahead of its time, and never allowed to hatch! Perhaps, it would have messed up the timeline?!
Hi Emmanuel. It definitely would have messed up the timeline. The American industrial base fully intended to field an aircraft with fly-by-wire with haptic feedback and inherent instability. They were called the F-16 and F-18. Neither the F-14 or F-15 had those abilities, but if the American industrial base had built their fighters with those qualities in 1960, they would not have had anything to put forward every few years for Uncle Sam to pay more money for. Thanks for the comment.....regards.....Virtual
On the other side, the MiG-25 flew roughly six years later and was designed to fulfil the same strategic role: the interception of high speed, high altitude bombers entering Russian air space from over the North Pole. While it is true that the threat then-posed by strategic bombers diminished as both sides reduced their once vast bomber fleets in favour of longer range/stand off air, surface, and submarine-launched missiles, the muscular lines of the MiG-25 evolved and live on in the form of the MiG-31, an aircraft that, while capable of serving the MiG-25's intended role, has evolved to meet modern threats. Specifically, the MiG-31's mult-target tracking look down/shoot down capability make it especially well suited to intercepting vast waves of submarine-launched cruise missiles entering Russian airspace from the Arctic Ocean. In addition, its sophisticated AESA radar, computational power, and communications suite make it able to act as a 'command and control' aircraft, remote controlling the weapon systems of other aircraft who cannot see what the MiG-31 can see with its own sensors (making every MiG-29, Su-27 etc. operating in proximity a look down/shoot down-capable fighter as long as its weapons can be remotely accessed by a MiG-31). I see little reason the Avro Arrow could not have evolved along these lines, especially as the threat of long range/stand off missiles replaced the strategic bomber threat to us as much as it did for them.
Hi Gezane....The Mig-31 has evolved to a decent jet, although there is apparently a replacement In the works. Back, to the Mig-25. It was useless. I will tell you a story. A long, long, time ago.....1960....the U.S. was developing the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber. Then Gary Powers got shot down....bummer. The U.S. then decided to canceled the program, but the failed to notify the Russians of this. They continued the program on paper, but only built two planes. The Mig-25 was built to counter the XB-70, but all is could do was go up fast and high. It could not turn from Toronto the New York. They lost most of them trying to land the thing. They also built ~ 500, some for export at huge costs. Sometimes you have to admire the CIA. regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons A pure bred interceptor is not designed with ANY emphasis WHATSOEVER on turn radius... its entire JOB is to fly as high as possible, as fast as possible, because the far northern regions of Russia were beyond the range of western fighter escort and, in the early sixties, midair refueling was still in it infancy. Hence, the MiG-25 excelled at exactly the job for which it was intended: to get as high as possible, as fast as possible, in order to intercept western bombers as soon as possible before they could near their targets. People who fault the MiG-25 for its lack of agility only demonstrate how absolutely clueless they are about the intended strategic role of a pure bred interceptor.
@@gezanegamez6025Hi Gezane....It had a very short radius of action also. The Mig-25 was a titanium fuselage, with two big engine. In terms of technology ..think of the Arrow as an "Arrow. Think of the Mig-25 as a piece of flint.....tided to the end of a branch with the entrails of a woolly mammoth. regards..Virtual
This interceptor fighter is what Canada needs. Not a stealth first strike bomber.
But if the new arrow can bomb shoot missiles and strike then I am ok with that.
Arrow= Boxer, F-35= Sniper.
Those avros engaged the enemie right above my town according to that map lol and wouldn’t the airbase in Petawawa play a role in such a scenario?
Hi Articfox.....Petawawa is an Army base only I believe. There are only two F-18 Air Force bases in Canada. One in Cold Lake Alberta and the other is Bagotville Quebec. You must live close to my home town....Arnprior. I don't live there anymore. Have you seen the Arrow series on my channel. There are four episodes. regards.....Virtual.
@@Virtualenvirons Pet carries a 6 plane flight group for base patrol and combat training of ground forces ... in areas such as ground support and such ... but yes pet is primarily a ground force base ... it is one of the few bases where true combined arms maneuvers can be done ON BASE ...
I'm confused, why did the arrows have to fly to a different air base in the wrong direction to get more fuel?
The Arrow did not have a mid air refuelling drogue, but it did have a quick interchangeable weapons bay that could carry extra fuel at the expense of missiles. regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons so why didn't they take off with more fuel rather than fly the wrong way?
HI RMS...Although the weapons bay can be change quickly, it still takes time on the ground to prepare the new package. Faster for the Arrow to make its way west, pick up fuel and rejoin flight. But the real reason was to show the exchange. Have you seen Ep. 7....just released. regards...Virtual
i agree it could have been at home base ... BUT then it would still have to reland and refuel to intercept ... by flying part way they get the refuel and better selected munitions already setup for the imminent engagement .. tactically sound plan actually ... think of the hot swap as the arrow version of a tanker stop that also covers a weapons swap ... something the f35 couldnt do in the air
... Avro Canada CF-105 was very sophisticated machine, together with BAC TSR-2 they both had been the best interceptors/interdictors ever of their times :)
we're proud and glad of having CETA with Canadian Nation !!! long live Canada :) Greets from Germany
I was in the Australian air force (RAAF) in the late 1960's. It was common knowledge in the RAAF that one reason we didn't buy the TSR2 was because it required a ground based generator to get it started. Bad luck if it had an emergency and HAD to land at a base without an external generator.
First things first let's put together the first model and see if it can do what it was supposed to do and then it will put some faith and a possible project of building an arrow to I love the idea of employment and made in Canada
I would like to apologize I don’t remember who or what channel but a question come up, (it was about 7 months ago maybe longer?) they had heard that an engineer flew as an observer/passenger on an Arrow. I said no, I didn’t think so, well I was WRONG! I just found this so I am posting it here in the hopes that the person that asked the question will find it and see they were RIGHT!
Avro Design Engineer, D. E. Darrah (Red Darrah) was the only passenger to ever fly in an Arrow - checking the Damper optimization fly-by-wire systems in RL 203 for Spud Potocki on Feb 19, 1959 - Page 75/81 documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-AvroCanadaCF-105Arrownose.pdf
Again, my apologies to you!
What a exquisite bird of prey
note: one wrong stat on thrust.... 19,350 no AB(note when tested on b47 bomber they had to throttle back"60%" as it was to powerful and was producing over 20,000 no AB and that was with 5 props turned off and one at low setting just to keep the bomber strait... ps the bomber almost went supersonic lol), 26,000+ with AB.... times 2 engines is 38,700 no AB and 52,000 with AB... and reached mach 1.9 with undersized temp engines producing less then 17,000. It range was pegged to be 2700km+.It was designed as long range high altitude interceptor with some multi-role not as a dog fighter... which it would have done and could probably compete today with upgrades... as an over all fighter it would not compete... but it would probably surpass anything else in the role it was design for... covering large areas fast in cold environments (not sure how it would do else where)
Hi Riley. The actual thrust ratings on an Iroquois vary based on who, what, where and when. Orenda itself never actually released any thrust figures, only compressor speeds. The engine that was squirrelled away to Britain (Bristol) tested to 32,000 lbs. thrust in afterburner.
Have you seen the series on this channel. It explains much more about the Arrow and who killed it. The series link is below,
Series LInk
czcams.com/video/AjuL9IM-1T0/video.html
the reason the bomber couldnt go above 60% throttle wasnt for the engine power but because of it's placement ... and how it was mounted ... at full throttle it would literally rip the plane apart ... at 60% throttle they kept the stress on the modifed tail section down to a minimum IF they placed the engine IN the tail (instead of along side and canted) and reinforced for that they could have taken off with JUST the iriquois no problems ...
.
doubtful the bomber could handle full throttle anf full after burn though as it's main structure was not sufficient to hold back the engine ... as seen in the arrow movie when they test the engine to 20k lbs and he has to shut it down fast to keep from launching the test rig through the front door ....
.
to the best of my knowledge and searching that engine hasnt been found ... the bomber has been seen in a boneyard down south ... on cancellation day there was a sound of an iriquois engine leaving ... which is where the rumour of "the one that got away" comes from ... my suspicion is that it was the engine on the bomber that left and NOT an actual arrow ...
I wonder if someone could take the basic design and modernize it. Using modern materials and avionics I'm sure it would be formidable.
Hi Silver...With Vectoring thrust and modern avionics, it would be similar to an F-14, but able to fly higher and faster. Vectored thrust would likely give it the same G rating (7.5) as the F-14. But, because of the size of the Arrow, much more could be added to it. regards....Virtual
it is possible and can be done ... BUT you need to start from the actual design to get it reset to modern materials ... then test that virtually and then update the air frame from there ... not actually hard ... just a TON of little things to deal with at every single step ... in essence you have to do the work of 6,000 engineers who were familiar with this work and doing it as their day job ... that kind of TON of little things ...
Hi Kaboom. I read through your posts until I found the end. You have busy. Thanks for watching. You posted 115, 116 and 117, etc. It is true the the taxi engines on 206 were not a matched pair. I am curious about how you know this? Were you involved with the Arrow? regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons well during and after my service career I was considered an information specialist ... yes I was RCR spent 6 of my almost 10 years in the usa as a scout sniper infiltrator ... for desert storm I was one of a number of people keeping the red guard out of the loop and using their deployment information to direct the landings ... I spent more time IN the building than out of it .. to be sure ... frmr Cpt ... last time anyone saw my service record it had 3 words visible and the rest was a load of black ink ... and they got reprimanded for pulling it .. I spent more time in active duty than off active duty ... almost 7 years full active ... with weekend furlows only ... none of the relaxing 6 on 6 off the rest got to have.
.
I can honestly say i spent more time in the "fun" places of combat .. Somlaia ( yup when the choppers went down) rwanda ... iran iraq ... I think yugoslavia ... not sure though as I never saw the place in daylight and was there for about 30 hours ... even some fibal fun in south america picking up and attached ranger to my unit against cia orders ... that one cost me my career but I would do it again ... standing orders at the time for canucks was leave NO MAN behind ... as this ranger was attached to my unit I did not leave him behind as the cia wanted but retrieved him ... and all he was carrying was a single sheet of paper that for the enxt 20 years was how the us fought against the cartels ... the ranger did levenworth time and then returned to canada and his home first nations tribe in PEI ... and currently he is a prisoner on my couch thanks to covid and yes I was also part of the soliers helping soldiers people who helped ret'd Cpt Vicky ryan find the lost souls in and around Ottawa putting truth to cnadas va that only about 2k vets were homeless or at risk ... while I showed and pulled that many from the ottawa area as for recalling my full service details ... thanks to american debrief needs ... I am not the same person i once was ... and yes MKultra still run to this day ... my clearance was high enough that the next level was retirement was when you were 6 feet under feeding the flowers. ... so yes I have a unique insight into all of this ... not to mention a life loong love for the arrow and every scrap of info i can get my hands on ... I even had the complete avroarrow.org website on encrypted drive until I was forced to reformat and lose it ... after that sight was dleted and most of his files were lost... as for my oath of secrecy I figure that no longer holds as the powers that be didnt keep their end ... on sign up they said we would be looked after in and out of the service yet I was dumped shy of my 10 years to avoid paying extensive benefits for my shy of 10 years service requirement 9 years 6 months 4 days service with almost 7 of those FULLY active ... Canada treats it's snipers like shit sadly ... I miss my mactac
Hi Kaboom. Wow, well thank you for your service, but that statement has begun to sound hollow recently. Were you JTF2?
If you have any questions on the Arrow that you are not sure of, post it here. If I can't answer it, my team of contributors can, perhaps not in a timely fashion, but eventually. regards....Virtual
I apologize for the multiple entries.
That's Ok
And to think we were the fourth largest military in the world after WW2. Work for peace xo
I just noticed that the Arrow and the F35 have the same basic flaw but for different reasons. Both of them have insufficient weapons load out. The Arrow limited its weapons to internal stores in order to gain speed . However, mach 2+ speed had already been seen as unnecessary . The F35 WAS limited to internal stores in order to remain stealthy. How, they are now handing stores and weapons on the wings so the F35 is about as stealthy as a 747 on the ingress.
Yes, quite true. The F-35's real strength is not so much stealth, if it even is, but situational awareness. In a war in Europe, it would be lethal. Over Canada, not so much. For Canada, Mach 2.5 plus is an advantage. We only have two Air bases during peacetime and there is a gap right down the middle of our Country. Although we had more bases sixty years ago, the requirement for an Arrow or F-15 type aircraft still exists. If you watch the series on this channel, it explains a lot and is pretty exciting. regards....Virtual
the arrow was easily modified to be able to also hold external pods and could have flown with about double the weapons load out ... at the cost of performance just like the f35.
today flight testing is derived from the arrow same as half the other high tech shit used to build modern fighters
Man, that RCAF Avro Arrow was one beautiful aircraft!!! It was ALL Canadian, and it showed that Canada had its own equivalent of Kelly Johnson. IMHO though, I just didn't see a need for it as long as NORAD was a joint effort and there were plenty of USAF F106s available .... there was no need to put such a burden on the Canadian taxpayers. But she sure was a beautiful airplane! :)
HI Calvin. The Arrow was not really too expensive. That was the initial reason given by the Diefenbaker government, even though Diefenbaker was pro Arrow, his advisors told him it was not needed. In 1959 the Canadian military returned 281 million dollars back to the government. Only 40 million was for the Arrow.
The F-106 was not an Arrow. It would have done the job though, but not as well as the Arrow. It could only carry 4 missiles as compared to eight for the Arrow. So two F-106's would have been required for one Arrow. It was also quite primitive compared to the Arrow...regards...Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons - Yep - I am a big fan of the Arrow .... I would have loved to see it produced. It would be much quicker to intercepts than the '106, with those 2 big engines .... (it had much better climb and acceleration performance) - but the story of its development is a great one! THANK YOU!! :)
Hi you did your usual great job with the documentary, but some of your data looked like it was from the original AIR 7-3 back in April 1953 which was a minimum the RCAF was asking for. In 1955 update Avro had projected the performance of the Mk2 Iroquois powered Arrow combat radius as 630 nm subsonic with 5 minutes of supersonic combat, and a 400 nm radius of action for a supersonic intercept mission (clean). These numbers were confirmed by the performance report 15, and overlays of flight performance numbers based on the IBM 704 computer VS modern fighters. If memory serves me right you send me the performance chart yourself. BTW my new email is almost the same as before just and an (a) without the brackets to the front of the old one. If that doesn’t work I will post it to you here and then delete the post so others don’t see it. LOL or if they do see it then I will just block and trolls. Again great job!
Hi Jim...(Can you send me an email). I can only take credit for the 3D work. The General put a lot of time into this. The slides and narrative text are his work. We decided to make this video after being asked to do a speaking presentation. It made sense that we should make a movie, that like the Arrow "clears the air" of naysayers. The first thing he did was verify all the firsts and if there was doubt put them in a notable category. As this was a documentary that we are putting our credibility on, we had to err on the side of caution. I think visually explaining these first in mostly layman terms will be something that will save me/us a lot of time. It's a definite Arrow Troll killer. I just send them the link.
I understand most people would have a hard time with all the facts. It’s why I put in all the sources for where the info came from in review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb. It was for others to be able to see just how many other writers who know aircraft see the Arrow and what it could do. Also for them to have a chance to look up the info for themselves as a way to avoid the trolls (well some of them) you know the ones I'm talking about LOL.
@@jim100ab9 I had to get rid of the Troll....Jason Kay. regards..Virtual
That makes me smile!
@@jim100ab9 Facts? There's more to high speed turn rate dogfight and you haven't factored in turn radius relative to G load and speed.
You've left out that the Arrows wasn't designed for air-to-air refueling, the F-35 is. The maintenance bases were going to Cold Lake and Bagotville, while the deployment bases were, Comox, Whitehorse, Goose Bay and Gander, because of it's limited fuel capacity.
HI Charles. We did show the F-35 in mid air refuel? And, we showed the Arrow doing a hot turn refuel at Trenton. Although we did not specifically say the Arrow could not refuel mid air, we thought it was clear. This movie was about two things, the Arrow's design compared to the F-35 design and the gap that exists in the middle of Canada. I suppose the third was the original requirement for the arrow still exists. regards...Virtual
I spent 9 of my 17 years in the Canadian Military in the RCAF working on CF-101 Voodoos, CC-130 Hercules and CC-137 Boeing 707s, I working with people in bot CFB Trenton and CFB Chatham who were in Trenton the one time that the Arrow landed there and I know of the rumours that the missing Arrow was in crates at CFS Mountainview, it had to crated in because the Runway at Mountainview was even too short for the Voodoos when they went for disposal. It was well known it was a one was intercepter when the Soviet bomber fleet were going rto come over the Pole. Canada's needs haven't changed since the end od the Cold War when we got our first new multi-role aircraft sine Korean, the CC-188 Hornet, things still haven't changed and the F-35 isn't the aircraft for Canada, single engines in the Arctic aren't a good thing and Canada has given away it's aircraft industry, so a Canadian built aircraft will never happen again. But keep on with your fantasy.
@@Chuck59ish Hi Charles. 9 years in the Canadian military....wow. This project only has the Air Force general that looked after the F-18's for many years, the foremost expert on the Arrow, an Aeronautical engineer, the only person to have a series 2 Iroquois engine in Canada and lastly...me. But, nine whole years in the Canadian military. I can clearly see how that would make you an expert on the AVRO arrow...I mean voodoos, Herc's 707's, they have so much in common with the Arrow. Perhaps you could make a movie that we could see. It's not hard....just spend 30 years working at the highest levels of research Canada has to offer, then a thorough understanding of 3D CAD and Visualization, non-linear editing and presto, you could explain the Arrow. regards...Virtual.
@@VirtualenvironsNo, 9 of my 17 years was in the RCAF, the other 8 was as a Combat Engineer in 1 C.E.R. at CFB Chilliwack and at CFB Lahr in West Germany with 4 C.E.R .
@@Chuck59ish Hi Charles. So why did you attack this site?. You are Canadian, this is a Canadian story. Normally, you would be an American. I can understand Americans attacking this story. The "we're not number one thing" doesn't really work for them.
So, tell me, what is it that bothers you about this scenario? The bomber gap portrayed exists today and the problems countering it are real. This was the reason for the Arrow or an Arrow like aircraft in the first place. (F-15).
There is a full scale, very realistic model of the Arrow at Edenvale, Ontario if you ever get a chance to go there once this pandemic eases off or is beaten off by vaccines. It's the only such model in existence as far as I know. See "Tour of the Edenvale Aerodrome and Avro Arrow" here on You Tube.
Hi Sandy. Yes, thank you for bringing that up. I was in contact with them before the plague hit. Will probably talk again after this is all over. regards...Virtual
It would have been a great plane. Like all great military fighter programs, due to the small number of manufactured aircraft the price is high; therefore, if ever decide to make another fighter/bomber or bomber/interceptor, then get some other nations to share in the development & purchase of the planes. With super long range air breathing missiles you maybe able to use something less stealthy & cheaper to build & operate than a F35 yet retain the ability to remain hidden while firing on an enemy that can't see you or fire back. It's not enough to have a great idea; the great idea has to be achievable & affordable. Giving up after one failure is just a poor attitude. Learn from your failures and then move forward to success.
A great addition to boost our aircraft industry was lost. The problem then as now is we do not have the population in Canada support such a lofty endeavor.
Aaaaaah! but isn’t it wonderful to dream.
Did you hear about the folks who want to rebuild the Arrow, as a Super Arrow?
Gee I wish we could do that. ....
Ask Sweden.
We can’t even make our own car company
@@canadiandeplorable2087 SAD. But we did it once. We could do it again!
P.M. Laberge can’t be done in Canada. All of the jobs would have to be in Quebec or Ontario. Anyone with brains in Canada moves to the US because they know that Canada can’t support large projects. I wish that they could also
The Arrow was not the only plane to be scrapped in that era. The Brits have their own story too, and I expect there are others. Basically, when nuclear deterrence switched from bombers to missiles, the interceptor requirements changed. Speed was no longer king. That's why the new planes don't fly as fast as the old ones. No real need. Then, stealth came along and there was another generation of fighters.
Funny thing is, they (Canadians, actually) are working on quantum radar which will destroy stealth. Also, UCAVs are going to take over soon. Requirements are changing again... to the point where raw speed is coming back, although unmanned. The stealth air-frames sacrifice too much speed and are effectively a dead end. The old Cold War era air-frames stand a good chance of being resurrected and I would not be the least bit surprised to see a 1/6th scale Arrow fly as a UCAV, and fairly soon. There is a Canadian company collecting the old plans for the Arrow and, while they're not saying, I'm guessing this is their goal.
Hi Fixerdave. Yes, there was a flurry restructuring in the late 50's when the Russians launched Sputnik, although in the final analysis, no one got it right. The fact that nuclear arsenals on both sides cancelled out the problem. Mutual assured destruction. Planes don't fly as fast as the older ones, but that is also a function of the the Turbo-fan. Turbo-fans can't process air over ~Mach 2.5 where Turbo-jets don't have the restriction. Turbo-fans are much more fuel efficient though and give much more combat radius.
I have not heard of the Canadian Quantum radar, I will look into that unless you have more info. Unmanned removes the G force limitation, but speed is still restricted by turbo-fans, although Mach 2.5 is still respectable, F-15. I suspect the F-22 can fly faster than Mach 2.3 and I know the F-35 can fly faster than Mach 1.6, although not much faster. I have no proof of this next statement, but I suspect the reason they post Mach 1.6 for the F-35 is that after that it becomes "less stealthy". The Mach 1.6 being more of a Marketing statement than fact. It's hard to sell a jet with the slogan "Stealthy up to Mach 1.6 and then you're dead meat".
There is a Canadian Company that has collected a lot of plans for an Arrow, but not nearly enough. Although I always wish anyone trying to rebuild an Arrow well, there are so many roadblocks. We have roughly calculated the cost to build a single arrow at one billion dollars. regards..Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons
uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/news/quantum-radar-will-expose-stealth-aircraft
Public face of the Quantum Radar effort. Note that this team is taking a shortcut, basically using quantum effects to "sign" the radar wave going out so they can know it is what is bouncing back. Thus, they can both drastically raise the signal to noise ratio, making more than sensitive enough to locate stealth aircraft, and also use regular radar tech, making it near rather than long term. All they need is bucket-loads of quantum entangled particles, and there's another team that's making good progress on that. Quantum radar stands a good chance of happening a lot sooner than people think.
magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/alpha.html
Project Alpha, a UCAV pilot, has bested the best human pilots, while running on a Raspberry Pi. Other than the typical air intercept missions, where it's all testing response times and where pilots are there specifically to make shooting too expensive, air combat will go UCAV. The US is already converting F16s to be wing...bots? There to protect the pilot who could otherwise not compete.
Put those together and air combat becomes a speed race. You can't hide, and only the computers can stay to fight. Very fast UCAVs will dominate the CAP role.
I can't find the web link to the people collecting Arrow plans. It was a while ago that I stumbled across the site and was rather surprised. But, I do expect the idea of dusting off these Cold War era plans would be a good way to jump-start high speed UCAV development.
I hadn't considered the engine design in this... figuring the easiest way to build a UCAV would be to go with the smaller existing engines (which would be huge at the drone's scale). That may slow things down a bit.
Oh, I had a college professor who worked on the Arrows. Yeah, I'm that old. At the end, he was working 6-7 days a week doing 10-12 hr shifts to make the deadlines. The effort was not sustainable.
@@4Fixerdave HI Fixerdave. I am also old. I start collecting my old age pension in Oct. One of the reasons we are making these movies (I assume you have seen the series on my channel), is so younger Canadians will know we did this . Having said that, it seems older Canadians are drawn to this much more than younger. We came together when I met an Air Force general who looked after the CF-18's for many years, is also an Aeronautical engineer and is the foremost expert on the Arrow. I also have direct access to the only person who has a series 2 Iroquois engine. That is also on my channel. But still, contracting these movies out would be hugely expensive. That is where I come in. I have some expertise in military affairs and the 3D skill sets to make these movies. I fund the project myself as far as software and computers. That get's a bit expensive.
People collecting plans. There is Boudreau industries, but I am afraid that has faded into history. There is a museum out west funding a 3/4 rebuild of the Arrow who have enough plans to make a flying model of sorts. There is a new group called "Friends of the Arrow" who plan to build a full size, non military version of the Arrow. They are trying to collect 60 million for this. I don't think they have any chance of doing this, but I wish them well. We have put the cost of rebuilding a full size military version on the Arrow a one billion dollars. Even if you find a full set of plans for the arrow, the plans for the hundreds of special jigs, fixtures, presses etc. are gone.
I am gong to look into the links you sent me on Quantum Radar. Quantum physics is a difficult subject to understand, but I have some exposure to this technology
Trying to figure out or understand the future of Air combat is tricky. It seems clear, but it may not be. I am working on something right now for Episode five of the Arrow series. In this episode a large number of Russian SU-33's will engage a similar number of CF-18's in a head to head engagement. No one seems to have any idea how that would play out as it has never happened. Usually it's an F-15 taking out an old Russian jet. Modern history has not had this scenario. regards.....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons I make no pretence at being an expert in combat aviation. But, I do notice when I see people with a narrow focus missing how some other thing will impact what they're writing about. While it may be interesting to consider, I expect there will never be a large number of SU-33s engaging CF-18s. It will be many UCAVs or small numbers of humans.
As you've said other places, there is value in having a human in the cockpit to properly identify the target. But, I'd contend that the primary reason to put a human in the cockpit is to make shooting the plane down too costly. If the air-space penetration games continue, using UCAVs will drastically increase the possibility that one side or the other will start shooting, Put a pilot in the seat and you get a tripwire defence. As such, the plane said pilot is flying in is irrelevant, so long as it can actually get to the intercept point. If that pilot dies, then the UCAVs will take over.
And, because stealth will go away, that means that the UCAVs will have different requirements from the current fighters. As I've said before, I expect raw speed to replace stealth. The early Cold War aircraft were often faster than the current batch and could make for a good starting point.
Perhaps this "Boudreau industries" was the site I saw earlier, and that it failed is why it didn't come up in my searching. And, perhaps the Arrow would not be as good a UCAV base as I had originally expected. No need for twin engines, as there's no pilot to save on failure, and I've read other places that twin engines take a toll on speed. Something I recall reading about a British plane with vertically mounted twin engines to overcome this effect. I don't recall the aircraft name. Maybe that's why they dropped the Arrow as a UCAV base, but I'm guessing. Too bad though, it was a good looking plane :)
For the Quantum Radar they're working on at Waterloo, it's just radar with the exception that they can know (for sure) if the signal they're seeing bounced back is what they sent out rather than just noise. Being able to ignore the noise makes it much more sensitive. If they get it working, the technology is something that will spread to a lot of other things. Very useful.
Oh, and having a computing background, a particular flaw I have is underestimating the time it takes to develop tech. I see UCAVs and Quantum radar dominating any future conflict, but they might not be fully deployed in time. I hope we'll never find out.
All that said, I do commend you for your efforts in documenting Canadian history. I forget that many young people know very little about what Canada has or for that matter is achieving.
@@4Fixerdave Hi Dave....Boudreau Industries did not really fail per say....it's just never got going. They (one person) have managed to get there hands of about 75% of the design dwgs., but there is just no chance. The Arrows design was to accommodate the large iroquois engines (Turbo Jets) that would have eventually become Turbo Rams for the Mach 3.5 requirement. In recent times as stated earlier the world has moved toward Turbo-fans for the fuel efficiency and they do have a little better low end thrust, but high speed is a limitation. I don't know for sure that Turbo-jets have to be as large as the Iroquois, as no one has really made a new one for a while now.
I spent my career in Federal Government research working with people who had worked at AVRO. That is where I got the "Arrow bug". I did a concept design for Canada's participation on the International Space Station and was the first person to ever image a Mars crater in 3D space. NASA sent me data from the Mars Global Survey mission in 1996. NASA was very slow to embrace 3D technology, so a group sent the data up here. Essentially it was Google earth data in B&W, but we were able to extract.
There was a large group where I worked studying quantum physics since the late 80's and I had exposure to it, but it is such a bizarre field (Schrodinger's Cat), but I have the basics down.
There is a point that often gets missed in these discussions. Most think of the Arrow as a speedster, which it would have been, but that was not the thing. The Arrow was technologically advanced. The fly-by-wire and negative g were not seen on American fighters until the F-16 and F-18. Essentially if they had designed it to pull 9 G's, and had the money for the original design, it would have been a strike eagle only faster.
Great discussions. regards....Virtual
funny part the f-35's one engine at 40k thrust max ... against the arrow with 2 engines at 26k EACH ... to me thats 40k to 56k thrust .... still says weaker plane ... now if the f35 had 2 engines ...
if only
Its heartbreaking
HI Ottawa. I don't know if you have seen this ongoing series. The short documentary you watched came about because of the series. The series is much more uplifting. No pun intended. Series link below. regards....Virtual
czcams.com/video/AjuL9IM-1T0/video.html
2 completely different birds designed to do 2 completely different missions . it's apples to oranges .
Hi Psycho...We are not comparing the planes abilities to each other, we were showing how the design process and thinking was similar in these two advanced (for their time) jets. Although we did take the opportunity to show why the F-35 is not right for Canada. BTW, you have no content on your site. To be taken seriously you should. Regards....Virtual
ok , my bad, it does give the impression of a comparison vid though . I'm not knocking the arrow, I too wish it had been built. politics always get in the way of advancements. a bottom and head on view of the arrow looks just like an f4 phantom , still my favorite bird. and now they're used for targets . it's disheartening to see. .I hope it's seriously looked at , at least the engineering set up they used.. good luck guys. I honestly don't have time to do much of anything on youtube , just a minute here or there trying to learn what I can. but thanks for the heads up.
AVRO Arrow = Canada's TSR2 get over it guys!
TSR2 was a bomber. Time to go back to school. Many people think we are comparing the Arrow to the F-35. They don't seem to understand we are comparing the "design process" of the two.....regards.....Virtual
Soooo where are the 4 stored? The lastest gen should be built!
They were destroyed.
I suggest you read this article for more info:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow
It's interesting.
only random bits and pieces survive today ... and about 8 engines survive ... 6 are un located 2 are known ... one out west being rebuilt with love and care and one sitting on a rolling frame cart at the Ottawa aviation museum along side the rl206 cockpit section and a section of wing ... best dayn of my life when a friend and I asked what plane the engine under the tarp was for ... and they found it was 117 for the Arrow ... yes the old rockliffe airport military hanger had stored it after it was retired from service at the NRC on the ottawa river by rideau falls as a backup power plant ... and it was just an engine no one had looked at it since they brought it in around the middle of the 60's /// and refound in the summer of 69 by 2 5 year old kids who were geeking out on planes at that time in their life ... yes I was one of them.
@@0623kaboom I will still trust my source. Has he was a great foreman!!
Neil Young, are you passionate? Especially in a nonkilly kind of way. Our pilots are the best
It was a sixth gen Mach 2.5+ interceptor, u got allot wrong about it
Hi Fancy. We did not get anything wrong in the movie. Every point can be defended. It was not sixth gen, but it was highly advanced in terms of firsts. Many firsts not seen again until the F-16 and F-18. regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons I think he means it was advanced enough to be considered 5th or 6th gen back them ... considering that in 70 years they are JUST getting to its spec's now
I mean look the Avro Arrow was advanced but it's not 5th generation. It's more like a Canadian Mig-25
H Bill. We are not comparing the jets capabilities in this video, we are comparing their respective design processes, which were very similar. Obviously the Arrow was not 5th generation, but it was highly advanced. regards....Virtual
A pretty disingenuous comparison.
think of it this way the air7.3 spec the arrow was DESIGNED for ... has NOT been met to this day ... 70 years later ... planes have gone from 2nd generation (when the arrow was built) to current 5th generation with the f35 ... ... 70m YEARS and it is still in the fight with OLD tech ... THAT is what is being highlighted ... he aint calling it a 5th gen plane he is calling it a superior 2nd gen plane that still has the guts to play with modern jets .... the closest plane to this longevity is the f15 ... and it had years of upgrades to get there ... yet the arrow with NO UPGRADES since it was canceled still can compare ... that is what makes the arrow so special ... literally a 70 year old taking on a teen and able to beat them ... THAT is excellence that needs to be remembered
The Arrow was not a fighter , it was built as an intercepter ( long range ) why do you compare it to a fighter plane ? To me it just seems stupid , like comparing a Nissan Micra to a Corvette
Hi Neil....The word Air superiority fighter had not been coined at that time. It was also not long range, even with the extra fuel tanks, but it would have flown as fast or faster than an F-15 and as high or higher. Above 50,000 ft, it would have out turned an F-15. So, if you take all the avionics and missiles on an F-15 and put them on an Arrow what would you have. You would have an Air superiority fighter than can only pull ~ 6G's in thick air, but high G's in thin Air. Also, the Arrow was to have a bombing role making it the first multi-role Air superiority fighter like the Strike Eagle. What we compared in this video was the development process and not the final product. regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons sorry sir , it was designed as long range interceptor to stop those nasty Russians bombers flying in over Canadas vast northern shore . Later plans for it included bombing and even as a launch platform to put things into space . The US ( Ike ) talked Canada into the Bowmach missle and outdated Voodoo fighters .
@@neilmacleod5371 Hi Neil, I think I just said that, except the long range thing, but plans were in place to rectify that, to a point. Unfortunately there is only so much you can do with a Turbojet engine for fuel economy. On the other hand they are not limited to about Mach 2.5 like Turbo Fans, so the potential for the Arrow to go Mach 3+ was there. Below is a link to a series on my channel. If you watch this, it explains a lot, especially Episode 4... regards...Virtual.
czcams.com/video/AjuL9IM-1T0/video.html
Modern >> ARROW >> ........ come back to us. Protect the Northern Waterway Passage !!!!
F-35 substandard plane , but Canada always buys America's used planes
The real question here is what are the Tu-160s doing over the North American continent... surely they'd fire off the 3000 km range missiles ASAP and high-tail it out of there immediately. (the russians don't even have 30 of them)
All this is based on the assumption that the Arrow was never upgraded in 60 years. Hell, the F22 was upgraded even before the first one rolled out of the factory.
Hi Sam....yes, This was simply the Arrow. The series Arrow also fights as was or would have been in 1959. In making these movies we have not embellished it's capabilities. It was a very capable aircraft. Even today, it would fulfill it's primary mission of knocking bombers our of the sky. regards...Virtual
I guess I didn't word my response properly. It was more of a message to the naysayers and such that always tend to show up on sites like this. I applaud your choice not to embellish the capabilities of the original. As it is you could fill up a page of listings that the Arrow was the first to achieve from the high pressure hydraulic system to the extensive use of titanium parts and the fly by wire use to the ground control capabilities. But everybody going always tells why it would be incapable to defend itself against modern fighters basing their arguments on the original design that was built. All I wanted to say was that almost every jet in service now is no longer as it was when it rolled off the assembly line and the Arrow would have been upgraded as well. The most modern fighters going now would have few advantages. Sorry for the confusion.
@@mass4552 HI Sam, I did take your comment as a positive comment, thank you. We do fight the Arrow as it would have been in 1959. These movies are thought out for a plausible scenario. The scenario presented in Ep 3 and soon to be released Ep 4 are plausible, but you may have noticed it is a very narrow spectrum that the Arrow could kill a fighter today. As for a bomber, it would do the job better than most, even equipped with it's original armament.
Clearly upgraded to what is on an F-15 today, it would be very similar to an F-14. Able to kill you from a long way off, but not a dog fighter. regards...Virtual.
I think you should see this when you have the time. A taped interview with Jim Floyd in the documentary “There Never Was An Arrow CBC 1989” time index 54:52 I posted word for word what he said above. The Arrow was very maneuverable. czcams.com/video/kbL2wDnTlD0/video.html
I fully understand you don’t want to embellish on the Arrows abilities. However is it an embellishment to quote J.C. Floyd in the video interview he gave back in 1989 for the documentary “There Never Was an Arrow? He clearly is stating facts when he said “Aircraft now-a-days maybe more sophisticated in this or that” Here he has to be talking about Radar, weapons and other electronics. He gives more facts “better engines, better fuel consumption, better pressure recovery”. Again we can all agree is this a fact.
So when he stated “but there’s nothing I know of that would even now today be an improvement on that maneuverability capability” why would he say this if it wasn’t a fact as well? Here are three planes that were flying well before the interview. They are considered highly maneuverable again, why would he say they were not an improvement in maneuverability. He had to have known about them? The F-15 First flight: 27 July 1972 --- F-16 First flight: 20 January 1974 --- F-18 First flight: 18 November 1978
Look at the basics of what make a fighter very maneuverable its low drag, low wing loading and high thrust to weight. The F-15, F-16, F-18 and the Arrow have high thrust to weight ratios. In this regard they come out about even.
Next is low drag, the F-15, F-16, F-18 having about half the wing area compared to the Arrow. This gives them less drag from the wing but the penalty is that they have a higher wing loading then the Arrow. What everyone forgets is that the F-15, F-16, F-18 carried their weapons in under the wing pylons. The penalty for this is disrupted the air flow under the wing and creates weapons induced drag decreasing lift and maneuverability. The Arrow carried its weapons internally with no air flow disruption or weapons induced drag penalties. Here again in this regard they come out about even in drag.
This is why Mr. Floyd said “but there’s nothing I know of that would even now today be an improvement on that maneuverability capability”. So the Arrow was at least as good as the other aircraft when it came to maneuverability in a dogfight. That being said the Arrows Radar, weapons and other electronics would be next to useless in a dogfight today.
I would love too see a new arrow or the super arrow as Canada's new fighter jet. A country of thirty seven million people. We are small population wise but would love to show the rest of the world what Canadians can do. I would think it would be a symbol of national pride. We have some of the best Pilots in the world let's give them the best plane in the world. A fighter plane built in Canada that can mix it up with the best and win.
Maybe some of the best Cessna pilots, but you're not even smart enough to keep your "strategic reserve" of maple syrup locked up.
I still like the story of US pilot bailing out of Cl-13 cause it went too fast. This is highly covered up. It happened in Canada. The Orenda engines in Cl-13 ramped up and he got scared they were gonna blow. He was no Eric Brown (Winkle).
I wonder who the money behind this Arrow renaissance is?
HI Greg, If you watch the video....really watch it, you will notice that we are comparing the design process of the two aircraft and not the aircraft themselves. Once you get over "we're number one", you might enjoy the movie, but the F-35 is slow....regards....Virtual
Common Canada b proud, make our own fighter jets
A quick check on Wikipedia shows the F-22’s with two turbo fan engines at a matching 26,000 lbs thrust each. That could be fitted to the Arrow along with thrust vectoring.
Hi Wileecohagen. That engine (PW5000) actually delivers 35,000 lbs thrust with afterburner. Greater than a series 2 Iroquois. Regardless though, the engine size are quite different. The Iroquois was a huge engine in terms of physical size. I am guessing, but let's say 30% larger all around. Everything would have to be re-designed for air flow. Something else, Turbo-Fans deliver good fuel economy and better thrust at the lower operating ranges, but they can't process air much past Mach 2.5. A Turbo-jet does not have that limitation, which is why there was to be a Mach 3.5 Mark 3 Arrow. The engine would have likely been a Turbo-ram as they called them. The same type of engine as in the SR-71. A some point in a Turbo-Ram, the jet is travelling so fast that the air is bypassed around the engine and is just mixed with fuel in permanent afterburner. Interesting enough, the engine in the SR-71 is very similar in size to the Iroquois. Makes you wonder. regards.....Virtual
Why? The Arrow is late fifties technology. Ever wonder why the CF-105 was so big?
It had to carry a massive radar (with analogue technology) over vast, uninhabited areas of Canada and it needed to stay in station for a long period of time without the assumed support of in-flight tankers. So it also had to carry a huge amount of fuel for its thirsty turbojets. (We use turbofan now)
It was never to be a high G loading fighter. Instead it was an interceptor designed to shoot down Soviet Tu-16 and Tu-95 bombers infiltrating Canadian airspace. It would have done that by shooting nuclear tipped Genie rockets at the bomber formations. (Imagine shooting nuclear warheads over Canadian airspace.) It was never designed to engage fighter aircraft. It's only real defence would have been its speed and altitude capabilities.
In a world of ICBM's, the old Avro Arrow (even if it did go into production) would have been obsolete by the early seventies.
@@firefightergoggie Hi SuperSix, We discussed Turbo-Fans, Jets and Rams is the post you are responding too. Did you read that post through? The Arrow was big for number of reasons, one of which was the Radar, but also the fly-by-wire system, the 4000 psi hydraulic system, the engines, the weapons bay, the two seat configuration.....but not to carry fuel. It was never intended to loiter or stay in the air for long periods of time. I don't know where you read that, almost any description of the Arrow points out that fact.
Although designed to engage bombers over Canadian air space, as that was the perceived threat at the time, it also was to have a bombing role. That was the reason for Ground Mapping radar. So, essentially an F-15 Strike Eagle although faster at altitude, but not able to turn as quickly at lower altitudes. A higher altitudes, it would outturn an Eagle as that is where it was designed to fight. (That big wing). Something else, the Arrow had inherent instability built into the Y-axis giving it an instantaneous turn rate. Something now seen until the F-16 and F-18 appeared. inherent instability is built into fighter jets for dogfighting. Granted the Arrow would never have turned with an F-16, but the F-15 eagle can't either, but the F-15 would kill a F-16 in head to head combat because of its performance envelope, power and size to carry better avionics, etc. What gives the F-16 a chance is that inherent instability rating the Eagle does not have, but eventually the F-16 will lose power in a sustained turn where the Eagle will not. The Arrow would never lose power in a turn and above 50.000 ft, it would out turn anything except an F-22.(thrust vectoring).
The Genie missiles. I doubt one would have ever been launched over U.S. soil, but they were OK with Canada. regards....Virtual
I don't get it… Why are you trying to compare a stealthy strike aircraft of today to an unbuilt interceptor from 60+ years ago. It makes no sense. They don't fly the same missions. Its Stupid…
Hi '"None of your business". I don't understand what video you are watching and posting on this site. In our video we compare the "Design Process", not their respective capabilities. We do not compare the jets to each other. Clearly an Arrow would stand no chance against an F-35 today. But that is not to say that the F-35 is suited for an intercept mission over Canada or any other large country. So watch our movie and post again if you like....regards.....Virtual
They better nail those bombers way before they get there they got missiles that can cruise thousands of miles Some hypersonic
Yes, the cruise missiles have extreme range, but can be shot down by Sidewinders. So in this scenario we decided to go with Iron bombs to show the strength and weakness of the F-35 against an Arrow. regards..Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons Some better be close enough to shoot a Sidewinder those are short range air-to-air.
At least AMRAAMs are medium range!!!
@@Virtualenvirons I'd really like the see the SR 71 brought back for its original mission..... To be an interceptor, with. an upgraded Phoenix missile!!!!
NOW WERE TALKING!!!
@@factinator33 The YF-12A was almost built. It's missiles and derivative fire control system made it into the F-14, eventually.
Hell yea
Black friday will never be forgton
AMEN ...... the day of a BIG SHAME to the Canadian Conservative Government that time, and its representative as a former PM, the MORON Diefenbaker !!!!
I was there. I was angry, but Dief the Thief did the right thing. It was a black hole of incredible size and NO it would be utterly useless today.
@@Myra_Breckinridge
Indeed. Canada would've been better-suited to develop a true multi-role combat aircraft rather than a single-platform interceptor.
Building the Phantom II under license would've been a suitable option.
Raynus think again the C104/2 became the Arrow and it was multi-role!
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)
@@jim100ab9
And as we've discussed numrous times, none of the bombs, cameras, rockets, etc., Avro proposed on the C104/2 design carried forward to the CF-105. Possibly at some point, but it was evidently clear that the RCAF wanted an interceptor, not a bomber. Avro's multi-phase test and evaluation program, linked in an earlier post, doesn't suggest anything other than a pure interceptor role with the aircraft carrying only Falcon A2A missiles and nuclear-tipped Genie A2A rockets.
In fact, and as you well know, the Arrow was designed completely around the RCAF's AIR 7-3 mandate which called for a mach 2 capable, 2 crew, twin engine, interceptor. Bombs and cameras wouldn't be of much use when the sole purpose of the RCAF's request was to shoot down incoming Soviet bombers over northern Canada.
Politics always get in the way, the same with TSR-2 UK.
Le arrow est mort le modifier ou autres ne saura jamais l equipe extraordinaire puisque même nos voisins en avais peur nous avions produit probablement le meilleur intercepteurs en 1959
Canada should have acquired the CF 106; a truly great fighter/ Interceptor which could have filled the role very nicely for a much lower cost.
not even close ... as the 106 didnt meet HALF the specs of air 7.3 ... of which the arrow was actually designed to meet or exceed
@@0623kaboom the f-106 could easily break Mach 2 with a full load of fuel and weapons plus 2 Wing tanks. Arrow never did that.
Corrections
F-35A build 2015's empty weight is 28999 lb www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf#page=15
F-35A's mach 1.6 has 1200 Mph attached to it.
"Speed (full internal weapons load) Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)"
www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/478441/f-35a-lightning-ii-conventional-takeoff-and-landing-variant.aspx
www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-006-DFRC.html
F/A-18 has Mach 1.8 ( *1190 mph* ).
Speed of sound is not a constant
www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/WindTunnel/Activities/knots_vs_mph.html
Refer to I.C.A.O. Standard Atmosphere table.
Altitude (relates to air density) vs speed of sound example
sea level = 761 MPH
10000 feet = 734 MPH
20000 feet = 701 MPH
30000 feet = 678 MPH
40000 feet = 660 MPH
50000 feet = 660 MPH
Using NASA's speed of sound for F/A-18, F-35's 1200 mph yields mach 1.815.
LM is using about 10,000 feet's 734 MPH speed of sound. Using 40,000 ft's 660 Mph speed of sound yields mach 1.81 i.e. 1200 Mph / 660 Mph = mach 1.82 .
*Higher speeds has higher air friction, hence IR problem from IR sensors*
From www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/478441/f-35a-lightning-ii-conventional-takeoff-and-landing-variant.aspx
Published at April 11, 2014
F-35A's engine thrust shows 43,000 pounds.
F-35A's combat radius is 1,407 km for internal air to air configuration. www.fisher.org.il/2016/Adir%20Powepoint/GaryNorth.pdf#page=7
F-35A Block 4.4 has six internal AIM-120 type missiles. F-35 Block 4 supports AIM-132 and Meteor missiles for internal storage.
F-35A's target wing area, engine thrust and empty weight are 1.5X from F-16C Block 52
Basic wing loading via empty weight without factoring forward/rear body and vortex lift factors.
F-35A
Empty weight: 28,999 lb (Year 2015).
Wing area: 460 ft²
Wing loading: 63.04 lbs/ sq feet.
F-16C Block 52
Wing area: 300 ft²
Empty weight: 18,900 lb
Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet.
F-35A's empty weight is 1.54X scaled from F-16C.
F-35A's wing area is 1.53X scaled from F-16C.
F-35A's 43000 lbf thrust is 1.50X scaled from F-16C's 28600 lbf.
There's a near straight 1.5X scaling between F16C to F-35A on basic wing loading, engine thrust and empty weight.
*F-35A's wing area and empty weight wing loading target are influenced by F-35A's weight growth and F-16C Block 50/52's empty weight wing loading*
F-35A is like F-16C Block 52 with Super Hornet's high AoA.
Future F-35A Block builds has 6 to 10 percent higher engine thrust.
HI RNL...How are things? Let's be clear about something right now. Post only pertinent data. You have referenced the F-18 and F-16. They are not mentioned in this movie. This movie shows the F-35 and Arrow working together. There is tremendous expertise put into this video. If you have something pertinent to add, I'm good, but if show an agenda, I will block you. regards...Virtual
Hi RNL good to see you alive and well! Nice to see you agreeing with the F-35A, F-18, and F-16C facts and it proves the Arrow Mk2 was better them thanks for the help!. So how is your buddy Raynus 1 doing?
@@Virtualenvirons You posted obsolete data for F-35A.
F-35A's design is influenced by F-16C Block 50 which is scaled by 1.5X with consideration for Hornet's high AoA handling.
@@jim100ab9
The real F-16 designer www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=37
F-16 Designer Harry Hillaker
Harry Hillaker's statement on low wing loading and wing size...
_We knew that we wanted low wing loading and high thrust loading. But we also knew that _*_low wing loading means more weight and more drag_*
Sprey's argument on wing loading and anti-small wings are not compete. Larger wings introduces higher drag .
The trick with F-16's design is have medium wing loading, smallish wings and lower wing load during angle of attack turn with vortex lift. F-16 has blended wing design to get more lift from the body.
A larger wing will have larger drag during angle of attack manoeuvres. It's easy to add larger wings like F-35C which has slower acceleration when compared to F-35A
www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=19308&mode=view
USN's NATOPS chart for F-18E which shows 8Gs turn rate
www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=5525&start=1335#wrapper
Via GTA4's post, F-35A beating EuroFighter in acceleration.
BAE's EuroFighter is the natural successor to Avro (Hawker Siddeley) Arrow. Hawker Siddeley was merged with British Aircraft Corporation which is British Aerospace (BAE).
Refer to BAE's Tempest concept
Original source (non-English)
suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/suomella-vahvat-ilmavoimat-mutta-kuinka-kauan/
Frisian Flag 2012 exercises in Holland, Finnish F-18Cs gets 100 kills and 6 loses against Eurofighter (Germany, UK), Polish new F-16 and older F-16 planes (Norway, Belgium) and Gripen (Swedish)
Finland's F-18C murdered Euro-canards delta wing competitors. Canada has F-18A models with less engine thrust.
@@valenrn8657 HI RNL, When we decided to do this we looked at the design program and not particularly the final or current block level. This comparison was more about the thinking and initial implementation of both designs, but obviously leaning towards the Arrow. For example, the ASTRA fire control system was not implemented, but the Arrow was designed to accept that system. But, the other firsts were for the most part implemented. You have to admit, there is a strong similarity in the thinking and design process. even if there is a 60 year gap...regards...Virtual
Canadian conspiracy theory buffs, it's time to let it go. I'm not saying the Arrow was a POS, but I'm well over all the hype that it was the best fighter/interceptor ever, that the evil Yankee bastards killed it, etc, etc. It had potential sure, so did a load of other aircraft projects. And to those who think it would be viable today, I ask this: What fighter/interceptor of that era is still in use today? Only one that comes close is the F-4. Regards from Australia.
The Arrow was so far AHEAD of its time that it would have had a very long life of type. And the proposals a few years ago to resurrect the Arrow included using modern materials, avionics, etc to make it current.
Very few people believe it was cancelled because of the Americans. It was obviously budgetary pressure & the inevitable technical challenges of pushing the possible that far.
The point isnt whether that aircraft would be deadly today, but what would it be like 60 years later. The first fly by wire aircraft. The next one to do it was an F 16. It is not a fighter, its an interceptor. There is no other aircraft close to this one, but the SR 71 surpassed it in many different ways. Imagine the F35 or F22 having a capability that would go unmatched for forty years. Wont happen. Being able to fly/guide an aircraft to a flight program is easy for most any aircraft today. In 1959 it was science fiction, yet Canada did it! The evolution of such an airplane today would be like a stealthy interceptor, Mach 3.5+(or hypersonic), 100,00 ft + altitude, Elint/Ew specialist, drone UCAV, and so on. You cant imagine what it would be like because of how advanced it was from the beginning. Add 60 years of investment, sales, and growth on top of that.
As a Canadian who appreciates the technological ingenuity of the Arrow for the day, and someone who has worked in the aerospace/defense industry for 30 years, I still have to agree with you. At best, the Arrow was an advanced interceptor. At worst it was a monstrous cow whose huge size would hamper it in field operations. In addition, its complete lack of maneuverability would have seen it fall prey to air superiority fighters who raison d'etre is to wipe the skies clean of opposition. I understand the national pride in our Canadian contribution to aviation which was and still is considerable. But interceptors and air superiority fighters generally last technically for 30 or so years before obsolescence takes its toll. The Arrow could have evolved for maybe a 30-year generation and a half and Canada's chronic lack of financial resources to purchase newer technology might've seen it last for two. But it would have been in a dramatically diminished capacity. Yes, the Arrow saw a weird, controversial and sudden demise. But looking at today's interceptors or even those of 10-15 years ago, the Arrow's edge would be blunted. As a result, a completely new Canadian design would have to compete with the likes of the stealth weapons of today. Another and less talked about oddity was the disappearance of the Canadian designed and manufactured Iroquois engine which generated more power than many of the most advanced power plants of the day. That engine gave the Arrow its speed in flight.
@@tbwpiper189 It was obviously an interceptor. That was its design. The technology at the time was above most everything else. It was only the first aircraft, and a lot of people were very interested in buying it. In time, it would have made some money, and attracted the best of the best in many areas. Several of the engineers went on to put a man on the moon.
What would the second generation plane look like? What kind of fighter could have been made from the company? The Arrow was just the beginning. Even the SR 71 couldnt survive forever without change, but Lockheed evolved and went into space building the Hubble, making missiles, electronics, the Sea Dart was made by them, etc...
My point is that it didnt "just" make the SR 71, it continues to evolve and grow. THIS was what the future of Arrow would have been like.Even the makers of the Arrow had better ideas for the future, it just never happened.
The whole deal over the cancellation of the Avro Arrow program has had a discernible rotten smell to it, even to this day. I get pissed thinking about the what if's and why's of this program. Had the program been a product of the United States instead of Canada you would have had a completion of the program with high praise from the media. The politics.......
HI William....Timely comment. I have incorporated some of that smell into Episode 4 of the series. I don't know if you have seen the series, three episodes on my Channel. Episode 4 will be released in under two weeks. I will uploaded the Trailer today. regards...Virtual.
@@Virtualenvirons I've seen two of the series, I'll check out the other and will keep an eye out for #4. Thanks for the reply, your video work is great.
but flying a Arrow with a f35 would only give the f35 stealth away so would not ever happen
Hi Stresd.....We are not actually comparing the two jets capabilities, but the similarities in the design process, even though the Arrow was designed sixty years before. Also, in this case the Tu-160's are not capable of firing missiles, so stealth is not a thing in this scenario. The F-35 is "stealthy", but it's main strength is situational awareness. The F-35 is well suited for Europe, but not so much Canada. Lockheed Martin alluded to that several years ago....regards....Virtual
I'm surprised at how the author could know so much about the capabilities of the Arrow, yet err on the intended role of the aircraft. It was not meant as an air superiority fighter, but as a bomber interceptor meant to operate from geographically remote air bases. Thus, it had to carry its own radar and guidance systems. The Arrow was not a dog fighter type of aircraft as it was too big and too heavy to be very effective in such a situation. I agree that our air industry accomplished a lot during its construction. But, it was the demographics of the day which cancelled it.
Canada was also building new ships for its navy at the same time, and Dief The Chief felt the Arrow was simply too expensive for what it would be needed for, assuming such a need ever arose. While it's possible he didn't fully appreciate the long term implications of shutting down the Arrow programme, a missile base is cheaper to run and maintain requiring fewer people. And, the supersonic aircraft we purchased (the F-101 Voodoo and F-104 Starfighter) were much cheaper to purchase, maintain, and not be required to operate from remote northern air bases. In the end, economics won out.
Hi John, I am afraid that almost everything you have written is incorrect. The term Air Superiority Fighter had not yet been coined and the intended role of the Arrow initially was intercept, so they called it an interceptor. The F-15 Eagles main role is interception or another word Air superiority. Put everything from an F-15 on a 1958 Arrow and you have an Air Superiority Fighter than can only pull six G's in thick air, but more G's than a F-15 above 50,000 ft. Not a good dog fighter though.
Something else you probably don't know is the Arrow was designed with Ground Mapping Radar for the Strike Role. Eventually it was to be a Strike Eagle thirty years before the Strike Eagle. The F-101 and F-104 were really bad aircraft compared to the Arrow. Canada's pilots were expected to fly the F-104 over Russia from Europe, drop a Nuclear weapon, turn around and bail out when they ran out of fuel because they could not get home as the jet was designed. That's true.
Below is the Series link. There are six Episodes total. If you watch them all you will understand the Arrow and why it was cancelled. Please feel free to comment anytime, but if you watch the movies, you will have a better idea. All of this has been researched, except for the very last part of Ep. 6. A little bit of artistic licence. regards...Virtual
variable intakes are a great advancement
Look to Episode 8 in the series link
Thank you for the comment. This is the link to the new Arrow Channel....regards....Virtual
czcams.com/channels/JAbsrun_K6CCdHXOrrVLng.html
Canada please build the Arrow so we can settle this crap once and for all.
HI Denise. So what crap are you talking about....the Arrow or the other plane. regards....Virtual
as a country ... we cant by signed agreement from diefenbaker (covered in one of these movies on this channel) as individuals we CAN ... privately funded privately built privately tested ... sure ... BUT once you get to arming it ... you now need military or government sanction ... practice weapons (war game stuff) you could prove the arrow and then make it available to Canada for purchase .. THAT would be all legal and above board ... working on it ;)
@@Virtualenvirons it would stop the naysayers ... and put facts out for all to see no more half truths and modified stats from various sources ... it would be all plain and in red n white so to speak :) essential proof by current empirical result
.
not to mention grow Canada's pride back to where it was 70 years ago ... and return us to more accurate place in technology
.
myself I have mused at WHERE we would be now if the arrow survived and was further developed ... heck Jim Chamberlains mkIII could have been real by early 70's ... imagine where our technology and expertise would be NOW IF it lived instead of what we got
Hi Kaboom...This video pretty much tells the story accurately. This was actually used in a talk we did at RMC. Although we used the Arrow as it was in 1959 in a present scenario, the facts are correct. There are many incorrect facts that are actually posted. I will give you an example. The Iroquois engine. You often get people quoting the performance of the engine in lbs. of thrust. It varies and the amount of time discussing this, people showing where their stats came from, etc. would be counted in decades of time. But....Orenda never posted that stat. They only posted compressor speeds. regards....Virtual
With external fuel tanks and armaments the F 18 top speed is 0.8 top. The F 35 fully armed is a matching speed. The Arrow ..... We will never know!!!!!
HI Shantel. The Arrow's speed was not diminished much by being fully loaded. It was sleek, carried weapons internally and had excessive power. The F-35 with no external stores would be a similar situation. The F-35 is faster than it's posted speed. I am guessing that after Mach 1.6 it is less stealthy. With the F-18, the drag of external fuel tanks and weapons are a factor which is the same for most aircraft.
The Arrows engines (Iroquois) were extremely powerful, but not near what they could produce. Orenda built the engine to meet further Arrow designs that required more power without Orenda having to do much.
Think of the initial Iroquois as a 1960's big block engine. Let's say a 427 cubic inch. These engines came with big carburetors (4 to 6 barrels) because of the gas the needed to produce the horse power So, think of the Iroquois as a 427 with a small two barrel carburetor. The engineering for Orenda to up the horse power was relatively easy. The Iroquois was capable of another 50% more horse power before it's design limit was hit. Keep an eye of future Episodes. regards....Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons thanks for your reply!!! Very informative. I have always been in a huge fan of the Arrow!!! As a child growing up in Wiarton Ontario it was a known that in a barn outside of town held a warplane. This area was protected by military for a long time!!!! I really am not sure what was been kept so secret, however I know that after people started asking questions over the years, a military flat bed moved this thing at 400 AM. This is a proven FACT!!!! Was it part of an Arrow. Townspeople of the older generation of good standing claim that due to property issues they were told by the Government some of their land now was not accessible. Thanks again!!!
@@shantelmcreavy527 I have heard a similar story. There is a fellow who has spent a large part of his life looking for clues to this story. In his investigations he has come up with a paper trail related to the time period that refers to an object being moved at night that is referred to as the "invention". Not a smoking guy, but intriguing. regards...Virtual
@@Virtualenvirons thanks for replaying. As a child growing up up in Wiarton we heard story's from our elders that a Canadian Jet Fighter was in a barn ....driving shed close to home. Father used to drive by the area often , I remember seeing the military guards , as we drove by the guards were very strict, this is a one way road , the guards would stop and ask why we were there!!! I do believe that there was a secret being held!!!! Truth is everyone in that area knew so!!!!! What it was ..... We don't know!
@@shantelmcreavy527 Well Shantel, if nothing else, you have a great story to tell some kids and hey, it's your story, you can make it what you want right. I think it was an Arrow, probably this one. regards....Virtual
Well, I don't like the F-35, but it's good to see them fighting alongside the Avro Arrow to defend Canadian airspace in this movie.
I don't like the F-35 either. It is not to say that it will not be great for Europe where it was really meant to fight. But, for the wilderness of Norther Canada....not so much. Have you seen Episodes 8 and 9. The F-35's weakness comes into play. regards.....Virtual
IT's a shame this airplane never saw service. It was so very far ahead of its time that the same bird would be truly be bad-ass. who needs stealth when you can put run today's missles. of course I'm assuming modern, reheat fans and much lighter weight avionics,controls,and building materials. Heck, as originally designed and built it would smoke most A/C in the world with the mig 31 possibly being alittle faster. Newer designs are not always better, just newer.
Hi Victor. Yes, the Arrow would still be relevant, especially for Canada. The Arrow follows-on were to have Variable inlets which would likely put it close or past a Mig-31. A Mig-31 can't pull it's full speed with missiles, too much drag. The Arrow kept it's missiles internal.
But, the Mark 3 Arrow was to have an upgraded Iroquois, probably turbo-ram. Its top speed was to be Mach 3.5. regards...Virtual
the arrow was to far advanced in to many way for its time and there was going to be to much of the in-between profits lost if the arrow was allowed to be produced so it had to be Bothe stollen and killed lol
Beautiful plane...National shame
rubbish you are comparing a plane designed in the 50's to one designed in the late 1990's
Hi Brian....Well, at least you got the point. Brian.....I have a series on my channel about the AVRO Arrow that uses a lot of artistic licence, although the story line is largely true, except for the escape of one Arrow. This on the other hand is completely defendable. It's not an exaggeration. All of these points are documented. regards....Virtual
and comparing an interceptor to a dog fighter ... and using american stats that are inaccurate for the arrow ... and of course .. not accounting for modernization either ... the arrows computer was fully fusion for it's day .. and almost as fast as the f35's is today ... the arrows fuel load and loiter specs are 3 times larger than what he shows ... and he didnt show any of the arrow's first like .. fly by wire, air conditioned cockpit, triple redundancies flight controls .. first internal weapons pod .. the arrow was also a .9 radar cross section so it was stealth before stealth was a thing ... it's engine to thrust wheight ratio out does the f35's ... and many more ... and of course the cost ... for the cost of ONE F35 you could get 4 Arrows ... all MAJOR reasons why the arrow is still a better aircraft than the still unusable f35
0623 others have compared the Arrow to modern fighters!
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, I 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 high drag during turns, the Arrow’s internal weapons and higher thrust-to weight would compensate. The Arrow Mk1, at higher than combat weight, Displayed a larger flight envelope than a late production F-16C 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”)