The Avro Arrow: For The Record - Update USA 2021
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 07. 2021
- Author and researcher Palmiro Campagna continues his astonishing research into the Avro Arrow program, and has recently uncovered new details. This video brings this new information to the surface, with most, if not all, having never been seen before. Palmiro's first video, The Avro Arrow: For the Record, can be viewed here: • The Avro Arrow : For T...
Palmiro's latest book, The Avro Arrow: For the Record, can be ordered here:
Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/...
Amazon: www.amazon.ca/Avro-Arrow-Reco...
Independent bookstores: bookmanager.com/tbm/?q=h.tvie... - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Well presented.
Thank you for sharing Palmiro et all! The spirit of the Arrow is still very much alive today. Perhaps now in "2021" here in Canada we can incubate the talent and spirit to take a run at producing an aircraft "Engineering To Command The Skies". We have everything we need right here to get this done. With what we know "today" and the spirit of the Arrow this can/should/will be done. :)
Dream on.
Will never happen
Explain agreement by RCAF and USAF for weapons systems for the Arrow, if the US did want us to have Arrow? What use are plans without weapons?
What became of Arrows 207 to 210? Many believe these lived to fly many years service with USAF till the SR-71 was operational.....
Who is the author of the memo in which McElroy proposed that Canada make only make components?
so essentially the americans were intimately involved in the cancellation of the arrow ... due to competition in the fighter market ... the USA did NOT want a plane that was already better than current aircraft in the USA in service or in design to be possible.
How was Arrow specifically better than the F-4 Phantom?
It is most likely that the F-4 would be considered as a contemporary of the Arrow, but it was simply not a technological match for the Arrow. The Arrow's mission was more in the Interceptor, Strike/Reconnaissance role. If the Arrow had survived, the F-4 would later on be facing the Arrow Mk.3. This would have been the variant of the Arrow with variable geometry inlets and a new version of the Iroquois engine ... the Series 3 which would have produced 40% more thrust than the Series 2 Iroquois engine, which would have given it a combat speed or the speed where it could still effectively pull good G’s of Mach 3. It's top speed would have been Mach 3.6 and a Combat Ceiling or the altitude where it could still effectively turn and fight of 68,000 ft. Note; the Service Ceiling would have been higher... high enough to see the U-2. It would have been a long wait for the F-4's quick lunch. To be clear here though I am not really referring to dogfighting which neither aircraft were going to win any prizes, It was more about the technology in the Arrow at the time. The F-4 was a great plane but it was built with conventional technologies of the day, The Arrow was built with technologies of the next decade For example; the Arrow was fly-by-wire with haptic feedback not seen on U.S fighters until the F-16 & F-18, It also had negative stability in the Yaw-axis again also not seen until the F-16 & F-18, 4,000 psi hydraulics, transistorized electronics, ground mapping radar for the eventual strike role....Strike Eagle....the list goes on. The Iroquois engines used only 10 compressor sections instead of the traditional 17 ultilzing on a twin-spoon design while also being designed with titanium in mind from the ground up. On the F-4's top speed, the F-4 fully loaded with missiles would have been more like Mach 2 only, or even Mach 1.9 if you had added in it's conventional load of two drop tanks to it. The Arrow on the other hand carried it's weapons internally so no speed penalty. One last thing by comparison The J-79 (Phantom engine) processes at around 170 lb/per sec of air. A Series 2 Iroquois (Arrow Mk.2 engine) processed 420 lb/per sec of air.
@@noahsaunders3919 I don’t understand how the F-4 can’t be a technological match (at least) when it enjoys advantages in speed, range, weapons, payload and multi-role capabilities, specifications that are based on technology. Phantom set several If you’re referring to the Arrow Mk III, those advantages are both conjectural and extremely optimistic, pitting built and proven technology against technology that was never built, and would never have to prove itself. While an Arrow Mk III might have been developed, it would have appeared around the time that faster and longer-ranged interceptors were also being developed, including those in the Soviet design bureaus. By that time, it would have faced Phantom after that plane had a record of service. Countries weren’t buying based on technology, but on mission capability, and probably would have avoided advanced technology because it was unproven, and especially when it wasn’t fully prototyped. Phantom would have also been cheaper.
The Orenda engine probably offered better performance, but its cost remains debatable, and it would likely have been considerable given its dependence on titanium, both expensive and difficult to use.
Arrow may have featured advanced technology, but those features were irrelevant for an aircraft that was shorter legged, slower and more expensive than its contemporaries. The likelihood of a strike version of Arrow being developed is low given Mk I’s official combat range of 300 miles, a tad less than that for the CF-188, a plane that Canada didn’t have to develop itself, and 1 that Canadians justifiably disappointed with.
Comparison with “Strike Eagle” is inapt given that the F-15E was developed from a baseline airframe already enjoying a clear advantage over Arrow in terms range. The inclusion of ground-mapping radar would be ironic given that Arrow pilots, with their limited range, would be mapping their own territory. Similarly, FBW and negative stability, important for close-range, high-angle of attack combat, are only useful in the type of combat not contemplated for Arrow. Those American jets you mentioned were everything that Arrow was not, immediately multi-role capable, small and hard to spot, lightweight, and cheap. Had Arrow attempted to adapt to their kind of warfare, the plane would have been at a disadvantage given its canopy design, large size and weight and lack of an internal cannon. There would also have been raised questions of the wisdom of committing that much money and resources on a Mach 2 interceptor that did much of its fighting in the 400-550 knot range, and armed with BVR missiles fired well-within visual range. Arrow’s potential wasn’t only short of endless, but practically nonexistent and yet paradoxically expensive as well. That’s likely a big part of the reason that PS13 was never developed by Orenda, or its British corporate parents, or under license by anyone else.
“the F-4 fully loaded with missiles would have been more like Mach 2 only, or even Mach 1.9 if you had added in it's conventional load of two drop tanks to it. The Arrow on the other hand carried it's weapons internally so no speed penalty.”
Unfortunately, Arrow pays a stiff price in reduced payload for that very reason, with weapons carriage limited both by the size of the weapons bay, and the airframe’s weight limits. Arrow has an empty weight of 49,000. I guess-estimated that down to 46,000 because that 1st figure seems to be specific to the Mk I, with its heavier J57 engines. Adding to that 19,000 lbs of internal fuel (slightly lower than the figure on Avro Museum) leaves Arrow only 3,500 pounds below MTOGW, enough for a few AIM-7 missiles (assuming they could have been mounted on Arrow in time to matter), but little else. For the F-4, unbound by that need to carry internally, payload is well over 16,000 pounds. Phantom’s MTOGW is slightly lower than Arrow’s, but it’s empty weight is much lower, giving it much more potential. Were Arrow able to get around the weight limit, it would still have to carry weapons and extra fuel externally, and it too would suffer a hit to air speed.
Your comparison of PS13 and J79 airflow is interesting, but ultimately of little practical interest in the overall Arrow discussion. With internal fuel and 4 Sparrows, an F-4C will weigh about 44,000 pounds, well over 20,000 pounds lighter than a similarly situated Arrow Mk II. Arrow has a T/W advantage at both military power and afterburner, but only a marginal advantage at afterburner, meaning its advantage is limited to low-speed encounters it’s otherwise unsuited for.
the arrow with the 75 engines ... heavier larger and lowered powered ...got the arrow to mach 2.0 ... the f4 DIDNT do that ... the ps13 engines were upto 20% better lighter and smaller than the j75's .. even on the test bed the ps13 was beating the calculated expectations from 5 to 15% ... which when in an arrow would put the arrow upwards of mach 3.1 to 3.4 ... and rated to mach 7 ... the SR71 at this time was a swept wing plane up for cancellation review in march of 1959 but an influx of approximately 15 arrow engineers it went from swept wing to delta wing blended body success unarmed but a success ... the arrow was armed and capable of higher altitudes than the sr71by design specifications for air 7.3 ...
.
the f4 phatom was JUST capable of breaking mach 2 in a dive ... and had a radar silhouette about the size of a twin otter plane ... while the arrow had a radar cross section about the size of a VW beetle ...
.
so yes the arrow exceed the f4 phatom in all aspects even with the j75 engines ...
@@0623kaboom Hi Kaboom, There was in fact a plan for a Series 3 variant of the PS-13. As it was designed in it's Series 2 configuration it was dumbed down but had around 30% more thrust than the test engines that were used in the Arrow Mk.1. Primarily a 427 Corvette engine with a two barrel Chevette carb. With mass flow of around ~ 420 lb/sec and relatively low firing temperature of (1700 °F) there was relatively no possible need for exotic materials or active cooling. Although there are many quotes out there regarding the Iroquois gas horsepower (lbf of Thrust) Orenda only ever quoted compressor speeds. The Iroquois engine that was taken to Great Britain; S/N X-116 produced 20,000 lbf in dry thrust and 30,000 lbf in reheat it is now been in possession and in a restoration process by Robin Sipe at S&S Turbines. For the Series 3 Iroquois, the air mass flow would most likely remain the same, but actively cooled components however would have been used to raise the firing temperature to (2200 °F) which would allow for a shorter turbine section and less weight there by increasing the thrust of the original Series 2 Iroquois up by 40%. The best guess figures for the Series 3 would be 28,000 lbf dry thrust and 42,000 lbf in reheat. Although the Arrow’s Airframe was structurally designed for +7/-3 G's at high altitudes primarily above 50,000 ft where it was designed to fight, they did not fully have any method to test that so they overdesigned. With today's modern computational fluid dynamic computers you could safely say +10/-4 G's at high altitudes above 50,000 ft again of course where it was designed to fight.
See the background story through archival records here: czcams.com/video/fdxum2OiBeQ/video.html
I posted on military history now this question to you Mr Campagna ... and am posting it here again just in case it is seen sooner .. do you happen to know the angle at which the arrow sits at rest on it's landing gear ...
.
I have not been able to locate a reliable source for this ... I am currently in the process of using Fusion 360 to make a model of the arrow complete with engines ( no weapons) and want it to be as completely accurate as possible ... my future plans for the model are to develop from a generation 2 fighter/interceptor into a gen 5, 6, 7 and hopefully even 8th gen version ...
you should see arrow 2
Arrow 2?? No such thing
@@wartmcbeighn Canada F-35 billions of dollars for the next few years.
@@arricammarques1955 that is true...whats your point?
I haven't watched the video yet. but I'm not aware of any way in which the Arrow outperformed the Phantom, which first flew only two months after the Arrow's first flight, and which carried a larger missile load - and which was suitable as a general air superiority fighter and fighter-bomber. The US also canceled "high and fast" interceptor designs like the XF-103 and XF-108, as the high altitude bombing mission ceased to be something that required dedicated interceptors to defend against, and could be covered by fighters in general - as well as the modern SAMs.
Hi Florb, Interesting handle... I do like the knowledgeable perspective that you have but that is all I have to say.
I am a fan of the F-4 and it could be considered as a contemporary of the Arrow, more than the F-106. But even early F-4s were riddled with flaws. It would really be until around 1968 or 1970 that the two aircraft could truly be comparable. Even then the F-4 was still using early 50s / 60s Technology for the same mission. The Arrow was designed with Inherent instability using solid state computers (we would call them Calculators today.) This was not seen on American Aircraft until the F-16 and F-18. It also incorporated Fly-by-wire with haptic (feel) feedback, again also not seen until the F-16 and F-18. A 4,000 psi hydraulic system and an engine with twice the power of the J-79 of the time period. With all respect it was the Iroquois engines that were the most advanced out of anything; titanium, hot-streak ,fuel introduced into the combustion chamber so the Arrow would not leave a smoke trail, 10 stage compressors instead of the traditional 17 stages, (J-79) etc..As for the XF-108 it's an Arrow on a fat diet it would have been over 102,000 lbs heavier if they ever built one. The Arrow Mk.2 with the Iroquois would have been capable of Mach 2.4, (due to it's original air inlet configuration.) With the follow on Series 3 Iroquois for the Arrow Mk.3 which had Variable geometry air inlets that would have taken it to Mach 3.5 you have to keep in mind it wasn't so much just what the speed of the Arrow would have been at that time period, it was it's advanced sophistication of technology that separated from other aircraft at the time. The F-106 and the F-4 were Shelby Cobras, the Arrow was a Ferrari..
There is very thought out Series on CZcams that explains the Arrow to those who do understand it as well as documentary that shows the Arrow in it's correct light
Series: czcams.com/play/PL3EReMs3ND7UC-VT6gOjFauI_PgDDPWdo.html
Documentary: czcams.com/video/hMKAoryHVP8/video.html
Cheers, Noah.
BTW, One more thing Florb, a Fully loaded F-4 would be alot slower than it's posted speed. This is due to it carry it's weapons externally as well as two drop tanks creating high amounts of drag. (clean) ~ Mach 2.23 but when in this configuration ~ Mach 2 most likely. It is the same situation with the F-106 as well, (clean) ~ Mach 2.3 but with it's 2x external drop tanks probably ~ Mach 2.1. Most people don't know this but the Arrow was designed to carry anything in the weapons pack (including fuel pods). Which means no drag penalty so it's top speed would not be limited. So..Mach 2.4 with the Iroquois engines. There is alot of information about the Arrow that is just not avaliable online (not classified, just not posted online) hence why this series and documentary exists on CZcams in the first place.
Cheers, Noah.
It was also suggested at the time, the US feared the Arrow because is was the only Aircraft in the world which could fly high enough to shot down the U2.
but it couldn't and never did
Suggested only by you.
@@coreyandnathanielchartier3749 simple facts
No reason to shoot down an Allied aircraft that was providing NATO with intellignce on Soviet Military. It's more likely that our potentail enemies, rather than our Allies, were involved in the cancellation.
@@feedbak007 highly doubtful..got some real evidence to support your claim?
What a horrid loss for Canada -- and also the west.
deif should have went to jail
There is a grave in Prince Albert....I have always wanted to leave a model of one there.
WOW, so the truth is finally starting to come out. The US just didn't want to be shown up, by their Northern Neighbor. -
wrong
alberta get the hell out of canada
Their politics is as small as their beer cases. When oil becomes obsolete they will have their hands out.
How did you (they) assess a 'green' CF-105, which had no weapon system, no radar, no combat development against US aircraft that did have it's systems highly developed? Australia cancelled, the British cancelled, the RCAF balked, but you only point blame at the US. Of course, we also get bIamed for the Earth's
entire history of the slave trade, and for starting every war since 1776. I think Canada's leadership were looking for any reason to cancel this jet, and the US nudged them to their decision.
There are a lot of unknowns in this issue. Many people are not aware of how many people operating in service of the Soviet Union were embedded in Canadian research organizations, Government and Military who were not caught and went to ground after the Gouzenko revelatiions and the "Atom Bomb Spy" trials of the late '40s early '50s. The Soviets got much top secret information on this Mach 2,fly by wire interceptor, which at the time looked like it would be NATO's best non-nuclear armed defense against incoming Soviet Bombers. After the top secret test data, engineering dwgs. and photos were passed to Moscow in 1955, a tour for Soviet Aerospace Engineers, of the facilities of the Orenda jet engine plant and the Avro Canada aircraft plant, was arranged and ordered to take place in 1958 ,over the objections of Avro Canada's head of Engineering J.C Floyd, by a still unnamed Canadian government official, likely high up in the Department of Defence Production.
@@feedbak007 I find it mind boggling that the Canadian government would be so stupid to allow Soviets anywhere near these facilities!!!
@@christophercoupe5006 The number of Canadians who were working for the benefit of the Soviet Union is quite large. An RCMP Officer (see "Shattered Illusions" & "The Mitrokhin Archive" ) sold out to the KGB, double agent Evgeny Brik (alias David Sobioloff) who ran a spy ring inside Avro & Orenda in n1955. The Russian tour of 1958 was first told to me on the phone by James C. Floyd, which he later confirmed in writing. Januz Zurakowski also confirmed this in front of about 5 people, at one of the many annual Avro Canada conventions held in Toronto, that went on for years. Hugh Hambelton .a Canadian at NATO headquarters, worked for the KGB. There were many more....Fred Rose, an elected member of Parliament was a member of the Canadian Communist party and was found guilty along with 11 others in Canada , The U.S. and Britain during the Atom Bomb Spy trials. The spy ring that Gouzenko exposed in 1945 was GRU, the separate KGB ring was never exposed. ALL of this has already been documented in books.and is a long and twisted story.
Two words: American Imperialism.
More like, two words, "Canadian politics".
@@kanth66 or Soviet Agents of influence in Canada. There is a long list available of Canadian traitors during the Cold War, and it's a fact that several of them worked at Avro Canada, Orenda Engines and DND.