# THE AVRO CF-105 ARROW - WAS IT REALLY THAT GOOD?!?



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2005)

I've been wanting to put this out there for some time, I'm sure all of our Canadian friends will enjoy this one. The CF-105 was supposed to be an innovative fighter aircraft in it's day. Fast, sleek, it had all the makings of your typical 1950s interceptor. At the time it was being developed, other aircraft like the F-4 Phantom, F-106 and the BAe Lightning were also blooming as well. My time in Canada, many enthusiasts I met made the -105 this "super jet" and even by today's standards. I always liked her, but let's face it, she carried the doctrine of the 1950s. I think an aircraft like an F-5 would of flown rings around her in a dogfight, but then again that wasn't her mission...Or maybe it would of been?!?

PM Diefenbaker killed 90% of the Canadian aircraft industry with his decision, but let's imagine things were different. If built, how do you think her mission would of changed? Would a gun been installed like on the F-106? How long would she of lasted in service and was she really cranked up to what she was supposed to be?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 2, 2005)

The CF-105 Arrow would have been an excellent airplane, I have no doubt about that at all. But I for one think that a good deal of the hype surrounding the Arrow was due to the fact that it was completely designed and built in Canada, the exceptions being the Hughes MX-1179 radar that had been initially selected for it and the Pratt Whitney J75 engines of the prototypes, where at that time nothing of quite that scope had been achieved before in the fledgling domestic aerospace industry. The sixth prototype never got to fly with the domestic Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines that had been designed for the production aircraft, so we'll never know how she would have flown at her "full potential" so to speak. These engines would have supposedly allowed her to reach mach 2.5 but as I said, things didn't get that far. It had been conceived as primarily an interceptor. Would it have in fact done the job far better than a lot of it's contemporaries? Who can say? No one honestly knows. She would have undoubtedly been modified for varying roles, such as attack. As for how long she would have lasted in service? Well if we're talking the RCAF/CAF, we'd probably still be using it today. 
No, I don't know. Probably well into the 70's at least. With upgrades, maybe even the early 80's.

Much of the regret that exists over it in Canada isn't really so much over the cancellation of that particular aircraft, but rather over the fact that Avro Canada completely shut it's doors following the cancellation. The project's expense ultimately proved to be their undoing. Consequently, more than 30,000 skilled aerospace workers and engineers were quickly gobbled up by US companies like Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, McDonnell, and even NASA. It was a black day. Nothing quite that ambitious and costly was ever attempted again, and we lost a lot of expertise in one fell swoop.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2005)

I figured you would answer this NS - I saw a painting that showed a pair of Arrows intercepting a Backfire. The Arrows were painted up in a low vis camouflage - the title - "What If"

OK - we got this interceptor that goes 2.5 mach. How can it maneuver? I always wondered about that SR-71 cockpit (maybe the guy who designed it worked on the Blackbird after black Friday!)

Yes - and the frugalness of the CAF! Maybe it would of been cost effective to build it - shoot, it would of been in service for 25 maybe 30 years, talk about "bang for your buck!"


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 3, 2005)

Well like I said, it was designed primarily for interception over the arctic. Namely high flying Russian bombers like the Backfires you mentioned. As an air-superiority fighter, I don't think it would have exactly manoeuvred like the F-15. The CF-105 was a big plane too. I've never actually read any reports on it's manoeuvrability during the trials, but it would be interesting. I could definitely see it being used in the reconnaissance role.

I've heard that former Avro Canada engineers worked on the Blackbird, but I have no idea if it's actually true or not. I wouldn't doubt it for a second though.

BTW, the Armed Forces are only frugal because we have to be. That sounds like so much whining, but it's not. Believe you me, we don't cheap out because we enjoy purchasing second-rate equipment all the time, or keeping things in service for thirty to forty years at a stretch. In some cases even longer.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 3, 2005)

Well, it's pretty much that way here too now. Look how long the F-15 and F-16 has been in service. They are just now looking at replacing the M-16, which is an old rifle as well. I know you guys have been on the short end of the stick when it comes to hardware though. It would have been something to see what AVro Canada could have done after that. They had some great engineers.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 3, 2005)

I'm sure they'd have come up with some interesting designs given the opportunity, but I don't really think it would have made a lot of difference as far as the home market was concerned. Defence spending would've remained as unpopular as ever. The foreign market however...

We'll never know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2005)

I could tell you that when I worked at Lockheed there were dozens of ex-Canadians and Brits who came to the states via Canada whose employment at Lockheed came as a result of the Arrow demise. I know they were eventually investigated and nationalized so they could have access to the Skunk Works. Many of these folks were picked up between 1960 and 1963.....

I'm trying to research the maneuverability of the Arrow, if anyone has any information, let us know!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 3, 2005)

I've been looking too, and I can't find a thing.

*EDIT* 
About all I've really found so far doesn't amount to much. It's just a second hand account of a vague assessment given by the chief test pilot, Jan Zurakowski. It's nothing more than a "would have been", and doesn't really tell us a thing. I'm still searching.

_"Jan stated the Arrow handled beautifully. Considering the low wing loading, extremely high thrust to weight ratio and very low drag of the airframe, even when loaded, indicate that the Arrow would have been an exceptionally maneuverable aircraft contrary to the opinion of many “experts.”. " _

Taken from: http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/JanZurakowski.html


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2005)

FJ. Sorry but this is the best that I can do. 

On 25 March 1958 Zurakowski took the CF-105, number 25201 (coded RL-201) into air for the first time. Apart from a landing gear warning light, the flight was without problem. Zurakowski declared that the Arrow was easier to fly than the F-102 or the Gloster Javelin, two other delta-winged fighters. This would later be confirmed by other test pilots, who praised the handling of the CF-105 highly. Zurakoski complained about the high workload in the cockpit, despite the sophisticated AFCS (Automatic Flight Control System), but on the other hand the reliability of the electronic systems was better than expected


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2005)

Suggest this web site http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/arrow.html


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 3, 2005)

That's a pretty good link Glider, I've seen it before, but unfortunately it doesn't really get into how it actually manoeuvred. I can't find anything very in-depth.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2005)

Nice site Glider, christ, the Arrow was larger than a MiG-25!


----------



## Archangel (Sep 5, 2005)

Welcome to the Arrow Recovery Canada website. We are the non profit corporation that has been actively searching for the missing Avro Arrow flight test models since May 1999. 
The Avro Arrow was a revolutionary jet interceptor, designed and built by the
A.V. Roe Aircraft company of Canada. The Arrow was a plane of firsts, fly by wire, computer control, integral missile system and capable of MACH 2+. The year was 1958, and the COLD WAR was raging. For more information on our mandate and our group please see our "Mission Statement". 

taken from http://www.avroarrow.org/

maybe you already know it, but i havnt seen a link here till now 
http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/factualarrow.html a fact pafe about it. im still looking for maneuverability, but its looking good so far 



> Thirty years ago, the Canadian public was cheering the launch of an aircraft that made headlines around the world. Three years ago, one of Canada's foremost historians, Dr. Desmond Morton, principal of Erindale College, University of Toronto, described the Avro Arrow as "a fatally flawed weapon, on a par with those earlier monuments to our military-industrial blundering, the Ross rifle or the MacAdam shovel." In an article in the Toronto Star, he said: "Politicians, our professional scapegoats, took the blame for aborting a design whose irnperfections should have been obvious to a first-year engineering student."
> In The Illustrated History of Canada, a text which most Canadian school-children will read, Professor Morton claims that then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker cancelled the Avro Arrow, not because guided missiles had made it obsolete, but because it was "a flawed plane and an inept corporation."
> In A Military History of Canada, Dr. Morton refers to "crippling design flaws in a reputed triumph of Canadian engineering. The Arrow's Mach-2 speed depended on carrying its missiles in a belly pack. Opened for action at high speeds, the rocket pack acted like an air brake-or threatened to tear off."
> The basis for Dr. Morton's claims of technological flaws are the presumed effects if the Arrow's weapons pack had been lowered during flight. Yet, as several engineers have since informed Dr. Morton, it was never designed to be lowered in flight, only on the ground. Engineer Paul Campagna comments: "The scenario of instability previously described (by Dr. Morton) in fact occurred on the CF-100, Mark IV prototype. The author seems to have gotten the two aircraft confused."
> ...


you might want to read this. (itf taken from the facts page )


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

Yep, there was and is a tonne of hype about it. Like FJ said, there are those in Canada who'll make the Arrow out to be a wonder plane. But I'm still convinced that if they'd been allowed to stick with it, they'd have worked out the bugs to make a superb aircraft. The thing is, it's not exactly the most cost effective way to go in a country like this one when you're really only looking to equip the RCAF with an interceptor.

Still...


----------



## Archangel (Sep 5, 2005)

^^^^
agreed


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2005)

Great stuff Archangel - I really enjoyed the sites you shown....

Another myth I used to discuss with some of my friends while living in Canada was the rumor that the some in the US did not want the Arrow built because it was better than some of the US planes being developed at the same time the F-4, the F-106 and the BAe Lightning were just as capable interceptors as the Arrow.

Agree?!?!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

Hogwash. The cancellation had nothing to do with the US or anyone else. There are more conspiracy theories surrounding the Arrow than you can shake a stick at. The fact is that development was running far behind schedule, and it was a huge cash cow. The government finally cancelled it. There's no more mystery to it than that.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 5, 2005)

Being that the CF-105 was primarily an interceptor it's handling wouldn't need to be amazing. The EE Lightning didn't have a very good turning circle but it was quite manuverable in other areas due to the whole tail-plane moving instead of just elevators at the back. The F-5 could run rings around a Lightning. My dad saw it many times but the Lightning's job was never to dogfight, it was to get up fire off it's missiles and return home. With a cruising speed of Mach 0.87 and top speed of Mach 2.3 it could enter combat quickly and leave combat just as quickly. I imagine the same would apply to the CF-105. 

I don't believe the U.S had anything to do with the cancellation. As you said, the Lightning was just as, if not more, capable than the CF-105. The CF-105 shared the same fate as the TSR.2, it was expensive. It was too expensive for the government to continue with it, so they cancelled. 

That's what I think anyway.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

Bang on. It was just far more expensive than it would have been worth, so it was cancelled.


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 5, 2005)

Pity, both those planes were way ahead of their time


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2005)

Agree totaly....

Did anyone see the movie about the Arrow? It had Dan Akroyd in it. Much of it was hogwash


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

It was a typical CBC production. Crap. 
However I did like the full-scale mock-up of the plane they made for the movie.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2005)

Yep - pretty cool!

I think the F-106 did just as well as the Arrow would of done except it didn't have many of the Arrows advanced features......


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

That could well be true. Not one of these Arrow "experts" that exist today really knows much about what they're gabbing on about anyway. Typical, I must say.

From the Air Force point of view, as much as many of them looked forward to trying the Arrow, all they really needed was a capable interceptor. The thing that really got me was that the government of the day actually thought for a time that they could replace fighter/interceptors entirely with those BOMARC missiles. The cheapest way out as always. 
So as you can see, idiotic defence ideas are nothing new in Canada.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2005)

Sad, but the CF-101s served well, not as well as an Arrow or a F-106, but they did well.....

I once heard that Truedau wanted F-4s. You ever hear that?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

I had heard that the CAF looked briefly at acquiring Phantoms, but I don't know how much input Trudeau would have had in it. If it was his plan, you can be sure they'd have been cheap surplus USAF examples. Trudeau had balls, but he wasn't big on national defence. Strange. But then that's typical for Canadian prime ministers (the national defence bit).

The Voodoos were an adequate interceptor for many years, but they'd have done well to eventually outfit them with Sidewinder/Sparrow combinations like the Phantom. They carried nothing but Falcons and those nuclear tipped Genies right up to the end.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2005)

I heard from some guys at Canadair, the CAF were looking at F-4s and a strike roll was mentioned - that's when it was decided to buy F-5s....

Thrifty or cheap!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 6, 2005)

Ah, that could be. The F-5's weren't a bad little plane at all. I'm not really sure how they measured up in the strike role though. As far as I know, none of them were ever involved in combat. Some of the CF-18's have flown strike sorties in the past, but as I recall the CF-5's were already removed from active service by then. I'd imagine they wouldn't have been a bad choice for the job when all was said and done. They wouldn't carry as much as the F-4, but they were pretty versatile little planes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2005)

Agree - as I mentioned before, the F-5s I seen in Botswana were beautiful, sad to see them given up so soon.

What I thought was the silliest thing of them all was the destructin of all the Arrows. What did that prove?!?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 6, 2005)

I'm not really sure. No one is, or if someone is they're not talking. Some say it was "standard procedure" in those days, whatever that's supposed to mean. They completely destroyed the prototypes, blueprints, everything. Yet as far as I know, the old Avro Canada records survive in government archives. At least some of them anyway. It's entirely possible that the blueprints are filed away somewhere too.

Now _I_ sound like a conspiracy theorist. 
It's possible though. What real value they'd prove to be today is anyone's guess though.

I like how at the end of that movie about the Arrow the sixth prototype with the new engines is secretly flown off to some secret location god knows where. 
I think that might be stretching things just a tad, eh?


----------



## evangilder (Sep 6, 2005)

Maybe, but wasn't one spotted at area 51?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2005)

Fun stuff!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 6, 2005)

All that movie did in the end was give a booster shot to the old Arrow conspiracy theory, because that's exactly the angle that they approached it from. I thought it was a good idea for a film, but it was very poorly written.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

Agree - it would of served history better if it wasn't "Hollywoodized."


----------



## evangilder (Sep 7, 2005)

That's true with a lot of movies though, unfortunately.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

I was once told by one of the AVRO engineers i knew who worked at lockheed say that AVRO and the DND were worried about the leaking of technology at the end of the Arrow program. Hell, most of it just filled out Lockheed job applications!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 7, 2005)

Exactly. There wasn't much point in worrying about technology leaks when virtually every employee who ever worked on the thing, who you've just fired, has almost immediately found work with another aerospace company. Duh.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

Ya know, they had the 6 built, I think I would of just intergrated them into one squadron and used them until they were lost, either through attrition or parts!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 7, 2005)

I don't think it would've really been worth their while to do that. They would have needed completion to be effective warplanes, and they were running into snags with the fire-control and weapons systems anyway. Prototypes six and seven hadn't even had engines installed yet. They were waiting for the new Iroquois.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2005)

Here's a good one.....

http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=21

The idea behind this little-known conspiracy theory is that the Diefenbaker government engineered the cancellation of the Arrow as a pay-off to then-premier of Quebec Maurice Duplessis for services rendered during the the 1958 election. Duplessis went to great personal expense to weaken the Liberals in Quebec, paving the way for a conservative landslide. He selected 50 ridings where he felt the Liberals could be defeated, picked Union National candidates, and invested $15,000 per riding. The Conservatives won 50 seats in Quebec. One of the new members was Raymond O'Hurley, who, it is interesting to note, became the new Minister of Defence Production. 

The payoff for Duplessis would have been the transfer of the Canadian aircraft manufacturing base from Toronto to Montreal. In 1959 it was decided to replace the F86 Sabre and CF100 in Europe with the supersonic Lockheed 104 Lightning that could be used for interception, tactical bombing and reconnaissance, to be built under license in Canada. The contract to build the engine went to Orenda, but the contract to build the aircraft went to Canadair in Montreal, though allegedly the word on the street was that Avro was the low bidder. This theory needs more silly putty before it holds water.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 7, 2005)

Whatever. 
Although I'll admit, that last one makes a bit of sense to me. The pattern of appeasing Québec at the expense of everyone and everything else continues to this day.


----------



## Dac (Sep 19, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree - as I mentioned before, the F-5s I seen in Botswana were beautiful, sad to see them given up so soon.
> 
> What I thought was the silliest thing of them all was the destructin of all the Arrows. What did that prove?!?



AFAIK they destoyed the aircraft, jigs, tools and most of the blueprints to make sure the CF-105 program couldn't be revived under a new government.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 19, 2005)

So again, what did that prove? Even if that were true, it still doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2005)

Childish!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 19, 2005)

O Canada.  

If in fact that was the case that is.


----------



## Dac (Sep 20, 2005)

I agree it made no sense.

There were plans for Arrow versions that included bomber, recon and a Mach 3 interceptor. Avro would probably have been building Arrows into the 1970s with modern avionics and weapons systems, not to mention other projects they had planned. They didn't even put the nuke warheads on the Bomarcs until 1963 and then removed them again permantly in 1969. It was a usless system for most of its deployment. 
Not one of Canadas finer moments.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 20, 2005)

Ah that's right, I'd forgotten about the planned bomber variant. I had a good book on the Arrow, but I haven't been able to find it. I'm thinking my nephew "borrowed" it. I'll have to track him down and interrogate him. 

It's really too bad they never got to at least test it with the Iroquois. I'd like to know how well it would've actually performed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2005)

I think you would of got this super-fast interceptor, not to maneuvable, but a very capable fighter that might of been around for many years...

Kind of Interesting - Jimmie Carter cancelled the B-1 - Imagine if he ordered all the drawings and tooling destroyed?!?!


----------



## evangilder (Sep 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Kind of Interesting - Jimmie Carter cancelled the B-1 - Imagine if he ordered all the drawings and tooling destroyed?!?!



Scary thought, considering how well it has done for us now.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2005)

Yep - it actually had done well now that all the bugs are worked out.....

Still trying to find information on Arrow maneuvability....?!?!


----------



## Dac (Sep 20, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Ah that's right, I'd forgotten about the planned bomber variant. I had a good book on the Arrow, but I haven't been able to find it. I'm thinking my nephew "borrowed" it. I'll have to track him down and interrogate him.
> 
> It's really too bad they never got to at least test it with the Iroquois. I'd like to know how well it would've actually performed.



With 19,350lbs. thrust at military power and 25,600 lbs. with afterburner it would have taken the Arrow over Mach 2 with ease.

How would you like to fly this?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 20, 2005)

I heard about this but never seen pictures of it - interesting!

That must of been a blast to fly. Although the B-47 looked fragile I am told it was quite maneuvable and could be looped and rolled. Would of been fun to do with an extra 19,000 pounds of thrust behind you!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 20, 2005)

I'm thinking it's pretty safe to assume that it wouldn't have been the most manoeuvrable plane in the sky, but then it wouldn't have had to be for it's intended role(s).

What book is that from, Dac?


----------



## Dac (Sep 20, 2005)

The book is just titled "Arrow" and was put together by the Arrowheads. The publisher is Boston Mills Press. 

Its got a lot of technical data, pictures and schematics I haven't seen anywhere else.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 20, 2005)

I thought so. That's the same book I've got. I'm sure my nephew scooped it, the little thief. I'll call him up later tonight about it. He'd better not have destroyed or lost it.


----------



## Dac (Sep 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I heard about this but never seen pictures of it - interesting!
> 
> That must of been a blast to fly. Although the B-47 looked fragile I am told it was quite maneuvable and could be looped and rolled. Would of been fun to do with an extra 19,000 pounds of thrust behind you!



I've read that the B-47 fooled some pilots into thinking it was a fighter. Unfortunately it couldn't handle the Gs like a fighter and could shed its wings in a high-G maneuver.


----------



## Dac (Sep 20, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> I thought so. That's the same book I've got. I'm sure my nephew scooped it, the little thief. I'll call him up later tonight about it. He'd better not have destroyed or lost it.


 It might be hard to replace, I don't think they printed very many.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 20, 2005)

That added engine sure would effect the balance when landing and taking off, I would assume. I have a picture of the B-47 at KI Sawyer taken in about 1958 somewhere. I will see if I can dig that out and post it.


----------



## Dac (Sep 21, 2005)

The thrust was also off-center causing handling problems.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2005)

Dac said:


> The thrust was also off-center causing handling problems.



I would think so. Any information on the pilots who flew it?


----------



## Dac (Sep 21, 2005)

The USAF trained Orenda personel to service and fly the aircraft.
The pilots name was Len Hobbs.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 21, 2005)

I can't find my book! 
I had this place apart last night, and my nephew can't find it. He "couldn't remember" if he had it or not. 
I'll be over to his place on the weekend, and while I'm there he and I will do a little hunting. It _is_ a rare book, long out of print, so I'll be hard pressed to replace it unless I can find something on-line. It's not looking good.


----------



## Dac (Sep 21, 2005)

Sorry to hear that NS.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 21, 2005)

Well I'm not done yet. I'll see what I can turn up. I want that book.

Wanna give me yours?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2005)

Great Photo! Note the Lancaster in the background!


----------



## Dac (Sep 21, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Well I'm not done yet. I'll see what I can turn up. I want that book.
> 
> Wanna give me yours?



I would but...ahh...hmm, damn I can't think of an excuse at the moment.  

I checked the Boston Mills Press website and it looks like the Arrow book is available in soft-cover for about $30.  

Good eye FBJ you must be a pilot.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 21, 2005)

There you go, NS. I may have to look into that one myself.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 21, 2005)

Dac said:


> I checked the Boston Mills Press website and it looks like the Arrow book is available in soft-cover for about $30.


Depending on how this weekend goes, I'll be looking that up! 
In fact, I might as well just do it. I know damn well he lost the book. Or worse, gave it away.  

Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2005)

Dac said:


> Good eye FBJ you must be a pilot.


----------



## Dac (Sep 21, 2005)

No problem NS.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 18, 2005)

I think the Avero Aero could still today be a formidable foe of the enemy, 
the Plane if it was rebuilt would just need upgrade electronic and technical, 

I heard it can out preform the F-18 Hornet in some areas.

It was a big and heavy plane as well, its weight was equal to the Lanc Bomber of ww2, but new alloys exist now so if it was rebuil with lighter metals It could very well outperform the F-4 in speed and the F-15 in Agility.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> I think the Avero Aero could still today be a formidable foe of the enemy,
> the Plane if it was rebuilt would just need upgrade electronic and technical,
> 
> I heard it can out preform the F-18 Hornet in some areas.
> ...



I think we're seening the thing wan't that maneuvable - it was a head of its time, but it's time has passed - I think it was sohwn that the F-106 was probably as good if not a better performer. I think the F-15, Tornado, F-16 and later Mirage models would of ate it for lunch....


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 25, 2005)

the b47 was actually flown with just the iroqouis can't recall the source it may be anecdotlal as i worked with guys who saw the thing work and were present for most of the flights the arrow with it immense weapons bay and range it was well beyond the capabilities of the afore mentioned 106's and lightning the f 5s mentioned earlier were basically a an aircraft of little use to rcaf to due lack of range (required 8 refuellings on excercise flights from goose to norway) source for that info is myself it was manufactured to keep canadair working after the 104 production run was over the voodoo is my favourite and was totally outclassed by the arrow even in its prototype mode though they i believe both employed the j79 going back to the weapons systems with the updated electronics mostly weight saving it might of been a capable f111 contender


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 25, 2005)

upon further search i vve discovered a link if read at the bottom what was achieved by the arrow http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/cf-105_avro_arrow.pl


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

Great info - I think she would of been formidable against bombers but would of had a tough time air-to-air


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 26, 2005)

i think the largest challenge would be find a manouverable fighter from that era the century series and f4 were all speed the russians followed suit with the migs and sukhois the sabres and hunters were on the down side in the eras mindset there was considerable debate as to ac needed guns


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> i think the largest challenge would be find a manouverable fighter from that era the century series and f4 were all speed the russians followed suit with the migs and sukhois the sabres and hunters were on the down side in the eras mindset there was considerable debate as to ac needed guns



I think Viet Nam proved the need for guns, especially close in with a small aircraft.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 26, 2005)

buFirst a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more). 
First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine. 
First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory. 
First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance. 
First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance. 
First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c. 
First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this. 
First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground. 
First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain. 
First high wing jet fighter that made the entire upper surface a lifting body. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., MiG-29, MiG 25 and others certainly used that idea. 
First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now. 
First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines). 
First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow. The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe. 
Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine. 
Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones). 
Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing. 
Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that. 
Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really) 
Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role. The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.) 
First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that. 
First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components. 
First oxygen-injection re-light system. 
First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design. 
First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine. 
First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine. 
First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition. 
First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!) 
The Avro Arrow was one of Canada's finest aviation achievements, even though it never entered service. 
Source www.AvroArrow.org 
^ Top ^


----------



## NITE (Aug 26, 2007)

Holy post resurrection.
Was the Arrow that good?
Well we shall never know.
Or shall we 
Here's a few pics from the magic of computer analysis and generation.


















It was a nice plane.

Regards
NITE


----------



## HoHun (Aug 27, 2007)

Hi Nite,

>Here's a few pics from the magic of computer analysis and generation.

Outstanding!  Do you have a link for the X-Plane model shown in the pictures? I have recently tried an Arrow for an older version of X-Plane, but in the latest X-Plane version (V8.60) it had some stability problems and wouldn't fly very well (read: crash by yawing uncontrollably right after take-off).

Thanks in advance!

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## NITE (Aug 28, 2007)

HoHun,
That's a bit of a trick question.
I sure do have a link, but it's called D:new volume 
That is the model I'm building for x-plane v 8.x
When it is done I will be posting it on the net.
It will be accurate in every respect, and include the drooping leading edges, the slight twist to the wings, a accurate cockpit, and hopefully even small details like the landing gear hydraulics, rivets etc
Regards,
NITE


----------



## The Basket (Aug 28, 2007)

I think the importance of the Arrow and also the TSR2 is that the cancellation ruined the aero industries in both countries.

The Arrow would have been a high performer. No doubt.


----------



## HoHun (Aug 28, 2007)

Hi Nite,

>It will be accurate in every respect, and include the drooping leading edges, the slight twist to the wings, a accurate cockpit, and hopefully even small details like the landing gear hydraulics, rivets etc

Sounds great!  I'm looking forward to it! Please make sure to announce it on X-Plane.org when it's finished, I wouldn't want to miss it 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## NITE (Sep 1, 2007)

Hey, HoHun.
Want to try the .acf?
Remember, its only 50% done.
Regards,
NITE


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2007)

Again I'll state - the Arrow was a awesome aircraft in its day but in reality the program bit off more than what it can chew. Behind schedule and way over budget, the Diefenbaker's government was going to can it way before it was officially announced. Even in its planned format, it "would of" been able to perform one real function - shoot down Soviet bombers. Put it in a maneuvering conflict with even an F-4 and it "would of" been dead meat - the same holds true for the TSR2 - two extremely fast interceptors but by the late 70s, early 80s obsolete - and for the money that would of been pumped into both programs it would not of been worth its operational duration and ultimate obsolescence.

But with all that said, it did hurt the UK's and Canada's aerospace industry immensely when both programs were cancelled...


----------



## johnbr (Sep 1, 2007)

I look at if they had continued its r/d and come out with the MK-3 it was to top out at MK 2.7 but MK 3.2 was possible they said cruise at Mach 1.2 on the deck and service ceiling 90'000ft


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Again I'll state - the Arrow was a awesome aircraft in its day but in reality the program bit off more than what it can chew. Behind schedule and way over budget, the Diefenbaker's government was going to can it way before it was officially announced. Even in its planned format, it "would of" been able to perform one real function - shoot down Soviet bombers. Put it in a maneuvering conflict with even an F-4 and it "would of" been dead meat - the same holds true for the TSR2 - two extremely fast interceptors but by the late 70s, early 80s obsolete - and for the money that would of been pumped into both programs it would not of been worth its operational duration and ultimate obsolescence.
> 
> But with all that said, it did hurt the UK's and Canada's aerospace industry immensely when both programs were cancelled...



I thought the TSR-2 was originally developed as a low-level tactical nuclear strike bomber? I didn't know they (the UK) had ever planned on developing it as an interceptor; that's what the Lightning was for.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NITE (Sep 1, 2007)

Well, you are right in a way.
Behind schedule? Have no idea where you got that one from.
It was supposed to be operational in 1963.
Over budget?
Possibly.
Originally designed at around 2 million cost, it would have been 3.5 million using the Hughes fire control system.
The Astra would have been a good "do all" if it had been successful.
In any event, for the price we paid for those 64 widowmaker voodoos, we could have had 130 Arrows.
As far as Diefenbaker's government canning it, I'm going to go so far as to say you know nothing about the Liberals and C.D. Howe and the Bay Street Boys.
Maneuverability against an F-4?
Stupid statement.
We never had an Arrow vs. Phantom duel.
Plus, like the Arrow, the Phantom was not originally fitted with a gun.
So want to discuss missile vs. missile ?
Or do you wish to discuss what could have been retrofitted?
Is the Arrow outdated?
Probably.
Was it capable of "holding its own" nowadays?
I believe so.
Is there better today?
A few.

As far as "one real function".
Wrong.
That is what the "interchangable weapons pack" was for.
And the sad thing was, I resurrected this thread just to show a bit of computer generated flight models and asked if a guy wanted to try it.
Regards,
NITE


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 1, 2007)

The Arrow was a pretty advanced airplane but we just didn't have the where withal to carry it out . i disagree that it ruined our industry we just changed focus . The DHC aircraft being an example and Canadair , Bombardier , CAE , Spar PWC and Bristol let us play with the big boys in aerospace as we are 4th or 5th worlds largest aviation nation.


----------



## NITE (Sep 1, 2007)

pbfoot,
Agreed.
However, remember Dehavilland, Bristol etc, are all related or spinoffs of...?
The Hawker-Siddeley group, which has now become BAE, and was parent of A.V. Roe.
Regards,
NITE


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> I thought the TSR-2 was originally developed as a low-level tactical nuclear strike bomber? I didn't know they (the UK) had ever planned on developing it as an interceptor; that's what the Lightning was for.


You are correct and I stand corrected


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 1, 2007)

NITE said:


> .
> Maneuverability against an F-4?
> Stupid statement.


Not at all - the Arrow had the visibility of a brick wall and needed miles to do a 180. 


NITE said:


> .
> We never had an Arrow vs. Phantom duel.
> Plus, like the Arrow, the Phantom was not originally fitted with a gun.
> So want to discuss missile vs. missile ?
> ...


The Arrow was a speculative conglomerations of "What ifs." It was never given the chance to mature in scenarios as I presented, but having flown in F-4s and reading about the Arrow, "would of and could of," even in the "Rhino Brick" its turn radius with the Arrow was comparing a bus to a sports car. The Arrow "would of" made a great interceptor if all the bugs "would of" been worked out of it and all the systems performed as advertised...


NITE said:


> .
> As far as "one real function".
> Wrong.
> That is what the "interchangable weapons pack" was for.
> ...


Would of, could of should of - the first prototypes were over budget and some of the systems weren't functioning properly in the early stages - "Would of" the bugs been worked out? Maybe....



pbfoot said:


> The Arrow was a pretty advanced airplane but we just didn't have the where withal to carry it out . i disagree that it ruined our industry we just changed focus . The DHC aircraft being an example and Canadair , Bombardier , CAE , Spar PWC and Bristol let us play with the big boys in aerospace as we are 4th or 5th worlds largest aviation nation.


Canada could of been #2 or better. Canadair? A bastion of government subsidies and continual bailouts, all the rest of the companies mentioned were/ are top notch....


----------



## NITE (Sep 2, 2007)

Well Sir, I've flown in a Panavia Tornado.
Your statement of flying an outdated phantom does not impress me.
Would have, could have, should have.
Never met the guy so unverifyable source.
My sources.
Arrow
Shutting Down The National Dream
Arrow Through The Heart
Fall of an Arrow
Storms Of Controversy
Personal talk with Jim Floyd
Input from an aerospace engineer.
And all the publicly available data.
I could go on but I am done here
I shall not be back, and no, I wont let the door hit me on the way out.
Regards, over and out.
NITE


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 2, 2007)

And this is all irrelevent. 

The Arrow is a "Would Have, Could Have, Should Have"....

"But never did...."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2007)

NITE said:


> Well Sir, I've flown in a Panavia Tornado.
> Your statement of flying an outdated phantom does not impress me.


It's not meant to. The facts are the facts, the Arrow wasn't built and the technology of the day would of quickly overtaken it - hard to swallow if you let nationalist pride get in the way....


NITE said:


> I shall not be back, and no, I wont let the door hit me on the way out.


Good - I hate it when sh!t splatters!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 2, 2007)

Jesus Christ!

People stop being so sensative. Just because some one disagree with you, dont run off like a little girl!

In other words:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2007)




----------



## pbfoot (Sep 2, 2007)

Canadair now belongs to Bombardier


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Canadair now belongs to Bombardier


I know - I was there when Bombardier bought Canadair. They immediately fired all the former Trudeau cronies who had jobs for doing nothing. When I was at Canadair they had a VP of F-104 programs - years after the aircraft was retired from the CAF!!!! They also got rid of the government subsidized lunches and the barber.

There were great people who worked at Canadair and who are probably still there. There was also a lot of waste as some of the management felt they had nothing to loose since the company was government owned and it showed as initially the Challenger was the single most money loosing aircraft program in aviation history - socialism at its best....


----------



## ArrowZero (Sep 3, 2007)

If the Project arrow was not cancelled, the aviation in Canada would be the same?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2007)

ArrowZero said:


> If the Project arrow was not cancelled, the aviation in Canada would be the same?



I don't think so - I think Canada would of had more influence in US policy during the cold war years as well as with the defence of North America, she would of retained many of its citizens who immigrated into the US in the early 1960s and might of been a much larger player in the commercial aircraft market. IMO the cancellation of the project was a forfeit of some of Canada's sovereignty. Peter Charles Newman eluded to this situation in his book "True north, not strong and free."


----------



## ArrowZero (Sep 4, 2007)

The Avro Arrow was the best airplane of that time , if so, Canada would have been rich selling the airplane to the world. Today, Avro could have been more important in the aviation industry?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2007)

You do mean that as a question correct?

Because a plane that was only test flown can not be the best of its time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 4, 2007)

ArrowZero said:


> The Avro Arrow was the best airplane of that time



It had the potential to be one of the best combat aircraft in it's era for the role it was designed for, IMO...


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 4, 2007)

The Arrow was in production so it was more then just a test bird but we could not afford it. But I regress what is the matter with our aero space industry. We manufacture the most used engine in the world with the PT6 ,CAE is an absolute leader in flight sims , Bombardier I believe leads in the commuter airline business with the Challenger and Dash aircraft


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 4, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> The Arrow was in production so it was more then just a test bird but we could not afford it.


Those first 6 aircraft were still considered prototypes and the production contract was not awarded - it was a matter of funding the program or not and the Conservative government at that time chose to kill it.



pbfoot said:


> But I regress what is the matter with our aero space industry. We manufacture the most used engine in the world with the PT6 ,CAE is an absolute leader in flight sims , Bombardier I believe leads in the commuter airline business with the Challenger and Dash aircraft


PT6 production was given to Pratt's Canadian division as a result of offset agreements with Pratt (the entire corporation) and the Canadain government. As far as the other products all good but regards to the commuters - most of the companies producing those aircraft barely managed to make money until now. Bombardier got it together - Canadair was an example of bad socialism and de Havilland wasn't making money. Companies like Bristol and IMP made it because they were privately owned..

Had the Arrow been built I believe Canada would of had a more capable aerospace industry (not that its not capable now).


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 4, 2007)

I think I'm going to disagree on the PT 6 it was a Canadian design and build. Design started in 56 at PWC in Longueil PQ. First flown in a Beech 18 from Downsview in Toronto


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 4, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I think I'm going to disagree on the PT 6 it was a Canadian design and build. Design started in 56 at PWC in Longueil PQ. First flown in a Beech 18 from Downsview in Toronto


I'll stand to somewhat be corrected - yes it was designed at Longueil. The plan was to have it replace the smaller radial lines PWC was building at the time while P&W concentrated on larger turbine engines. Despite that PWC is a business unit of United Technologies. United Technologies is still US owned...


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 4, 2007)

Anything us socialists can do to keep you imperialists going


----------



## mkloby (Sep 4, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I think I'm going to disagree on the PT 6 it was a Canadian design and build. Design started in 56 at PWC in Longueil PQ. First flown in a Beech 18 from Downsview in Toronto



Absolutely FANTASTIC series of turbine engines!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 4, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Anything us socialists can do to keep you imperialists going


Only if you're the F-104 VP of Programs at Canadair in 1988!!!


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 4, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Only if you're the F-104 VP of Programs at Canadair in 1988!!!


I do believe I could find similar examples to the south of me like this bridge


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 4, 2007)

Must of been funded by a liberal spending bill!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 6, 2007)

That's almost as bad as the freeway intersection to nowhere they built down in San Jose in the '70's; they finally finsished it, but for a long time there were two overpasses up in the air that didn't touch the ground. Sammy Hagar shot the pictures for the back cover of his album _Street Machine_ on it in.


----------



## arrowrec (Oct 14, 2007)

Please check out the link on our first page,This Is Who Caused The Cancellation of the Arrow?
I hope this helps, cost over runs did not destroy this a/c or Avro Canada.
Every couple of years new secret files open, this article is the result of the last bunch being declassified.
Did you know the USAF ORDERED $20 million dollars worth of Avro Jetliners?!
Seems that CD Howe was a traitor and never passed the orders on to the company.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2007)

arrowrec said:


> Please check out the link on our first page,This Is Who Caused The Cancellation of the Arrow?
> I hope this helps, cost over runs did not destroy this a/c or Avro Canada.
> Every couple of years new secret files open, this article is the result of the last bunch being declassified.
> Did you know the USAF ORDERED $20 million dollars worth of Avro Jetliners?!
> Seems that CD Howe was a traitor and never passed the orders on to the company.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2007)

Do you honestly believe that if a major purchase of AVRO airliners was being contemplated, Howe would of been the only one to know?!?!? If this was true there would of been DOZENS of people from the USAF and DoD talking to AVRO's marketing department. Procurement of aircraft doesn't lay with "one man passing information." There's a very complex process that happenes and it involves dozens of people....

Once again this is another fairy tale as such with most of the speculation on your site. I suggest looking at photos from area 51 to find the answer you're looking for....


----------



## arrowrec (Oct 15, 2007)

Yes, as he was the minister responsible for the Jetliner, as the Jetliner was a government sponsored (owned) project. Howe was a Northstar (Canadair) suporter. So much so, the first NS to roll off the line was christened by his wife and named after her.
Moving on, Howard Hughes wanted a fleet of them for his TWA and National airlines tried to place orders also.
I think that the success of the Jetliner brought the downfall of the Arrow.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2007)

arrowrec said:


> Yes, as he was the minister responsible for the Jetliner, as the Jetliner was a government sponsored (owned) project. Howe was a Northstar (Canadair) suporter. So much so, the first NS to roll off the line was christened by his wife and named after her.
> Moving on, Howard Hughes wanted a fleet of them for his TWA and National airlines tried to place orders also.
> I think that the success of the Jetliner brought the downfall of the Arrow.


You're theory... 

As stated, one man alone doesn't hold the key when an entire air force is interested in the procurement of an aircraft - If Hughes was serious in buying them who would of....

The Arrow was doomed 2 years before Black Thursday - there's no malicious American plot, no hidden agenda, no cloak and dagger - As stated, she had great potential but technology would of quickly passed her.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 15, 2007)

C'mon FBJ. Certainly the 95% efficient engines and supercruise were squashed by US interests. Nothing remotely comparable to the NA RA-5C Vigilante performance. It was all stolen I say.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 15, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> C'mon FBJ. Certainly the 95% efficient engines and supercruise were squashed by US interests. Nothing remotely comparable to the NA RA-5C Vigilante performance. It was all stolen I say.


Got a point there Matt 

Got this from Wiki, just for the hell of it. Arrow fans will argue that the Mk I didn't have the Iroquois engines, but still an interesting comparison. BTW Look at the range!!!! I'm sorry but I don't care how good the Iroquois "would of" been, it ain't helping the range situation much!!!!


Specifications (Arrow Mk 1)
Data from The Great Book of Fighters[21]

General characteristics
Crew: 2 
Length: 77 ft 9 in (23.71 m) 
Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m) 
Height: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m) 
Wing area: 1,225 ft² (113.8 m²) 
Airfoil: NACA 0003.5 mod root, NACA 0003.8 tip 
Empty weight: 49,040 lb (22,245 kg) 
Loaded weight: 56,920 lb (25,820 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 68,605 lb (31,120 kg) 
Powerplant: 2× Pratt Whitney J75-P-3 turbojets 
Dry thrust: 12,500 lbf (55.6 kN) each 
Thrust with afterburner: 23,500 lbf (104.53 kN) each 
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (1,307 mph, 2,104 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m) 
Cruise speed: Mach 0.91 (607 mph, 977 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m) 
*Range: 360 NM (410 mi, 660 km)* 
Service ceiling: 53,000 ft (16,150 m) 
Wing loading: 46.5 lb/ft² (226.9 kg/m²) 
Thrust/weight: 
Dry: 0.439 
With afterburner: 0.650 
Armament (projected)
Rockets: 1-4× AIR-2 Genie unguided nuclear rockets 
Missiles: 8× AIM-4 Falcon, Canadair Velvet Glove (cancelled 1956), 2 AIM-7 Sparrow II 2D active guidance missiles (cancelled) 
Avionics
Hughes MX-1179 fire control system 


Specifications (A-5A Vigilante)
General characteristics
Crew: 2 
Length: 76 ft 6 in (23.32 m) 
Wingspan: 53 ft 0 in (16.15 m) 
Height: 19 ft 5 in (5.9 m) 
Wing area: 754 ft² (70 m²) 
Empty weight: 32,700 lb (14,800 kg) 
Loaded weight: 47,530 lb (21,580 kg) 
Useful load: 30,250 lb (13,730 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 62,950 lb (28,580 kg) 
Powerplant: 2× General Electric J79-GE-8 afterburning turbojets 
Dry thrust: 10,900 lbf (48 kN) each 
Thrust with afterburner: 17,000 lbf (76 kN) each 
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 (1,320 mph, 2,123 km/h) at altitude 
Range: 1,290 mi (2,075 km) 
Service ceiling: 52,100 ft (15,880 m) 
Rate of climb: 8,000 ft/min (40.6 m/s) 
Wing loading: 80.4 lb/ft² (308.3 kg/m²) 
Thrust/weight: 0.72 
Armament
Bombs:

1× B28 or B43 freefall nuclear bomb in internal weapons bay 
2× B43, Mark 83, or Mark 84 bombs on two external hardpoints


----------



## Instal (Oct 16, 2007)

A couple of points

1 - I don't think anyone was worried about a Phantom shooting at an Arrow. Besides you can't shoot what you can't catch.

2 - The American economy simply dwarfs that of Canada. Along with that economic might comes great power. Do not for a moment think that the US couldn't or wouldn't put great pressure on the Canadian government to do something that was in thier interst and not ours such as preserving thier aircraft industry in the face of a outstanding aircraft such as the Arrow. There is no proof of this but it is certainly in realms of possibility and the fact that the Arrow program was not just cancelled but completely destroyed lends crdibility to this argument. Does anyone know what we spent on the short lived and ineffective Bowmarc program that replaced the Arrow? I am willing to bet that it was a sizable amount. It was not the budget that canvelled the Arrow.


----------



## arrowrec (Oct 16, 2007)

No Avro Theory's, I will compile the list of reference books that should be studied before accusing anyone of making up historical fact, Wiki is not a reliable source for any subject. I will post the book list tonight, but first the "Firsts"
The CF-105 Avro Arrow was:

1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more). 
2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine. 
3) First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory. 
4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance. 
5) First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance. 
6) First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c. 
7) First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this. 
8) First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground. 
9) First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain. 
10) First high wing jet fighter that made the entire upper surface a lifting body. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., MiG-29, MiG 25 and others certainly used that idea. 
11) First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now. 
12) First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines). 
13) First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow. The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe. 
14) Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine. 
15) Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones). 
16) Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing. 
17) Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that. 
18) Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really) 
19) Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role. The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.) 
20) First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that. 
21) First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components. 
22) First oxygen-injection re-light system. 
23) First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design. 
24) First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine. 
25) First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine. 
26) First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition. 
27) First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!) 

Maybe these are theory's also, hay BTW; that cancellation article written by Randall Whitcomb, Randy is an American. Some people have open minds.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2007)

Instal said:


> A couple of points
> 
> 1 - I don't think anyone was worried about a Phantom shooting at an Arrow. Besides you can't shoot what you can't catch.


You're right - It would of been kind of hard to test a Phantom against an Arrow when the only thing left of it was a cockpit museum piece! 



Instal said:


> 2 - The American economy simply dwarfs that of Canada. Along with that economic might comes great power. Do not for a moment think that the US couldn't or wouldn't put great pressure on the Canadian government to do something that was in thier interst and not ours such as preserving thier aircraft industry in the face of a outstanding aircraft such as the Arrow.


*NO!* The Arrow "might of been" a great aircraft - its deployment would not of affected the US Aviation industry at the time. BTW compare the Arrow to the F-106 there wasn't much differance...


Instal said:


> There is no proof of this but it is certainly in realms of possibility and the fact that the Arrow program was not just cancelled but completely destroyed lends crdibility to this argument. Does anyone know what we spent on the short lived and ineffective Bowmarc program that replaced the Arrow? I am willing to bet that it was a sizable amount. It was not the budget that canvelled the Arrow.


You said it your self *"There is no proof of this."*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2007)

arrowrec said:


> No Avro Theory's, I will compile the list of reference books that should be studied before accusing anyone of making up historical fact, Wiki is not a reliable source for any subject. I will post the book list tonight, but first the "Firsts"
> The CF-105 Avro Arrow was:
> 
> 1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more).
> ...




All been posted before - no one ever questioned the potential of the Arrow. BTW almost everything mention as it's "firsts" were commonly found on many aircraft within the next few years. It doesnt matter if Randy Whitcomb has an "open mind," his article is filled with here-say and theories. Get over it, the death of the Arrow came by the hand of the Canadian government and in reality while very advanced in its day it still had problems on the production line and would of been quickly overtaken by technology that was right around the corner at that time! Just look at the Mk I dreadful range - that was supposed to protect North America with a 360 NM Range?!?! -But yea, It didn't have the Iroquois!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2007)

Oh and about this list that shows the Arrow's "firsts" - I looked into a few things...

_"1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more)." _

Analog computers not even with a 286 capacity - more of a novelty. Although a showing of what was to come.

_"2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine." _

CNC machines were around in the late 40s and early 50s. I believe Lockheed used them on the F-104, U-2 and SR-71.

_"3) First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory. 
4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance. 
5) First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance. 
6) First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c. 
7) First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this."_

All true...

_"8 ) First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground. 
9) First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain. 
10) First high wing jet fighter that made the entire upper surface a lifting body. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., MiG-29, MiG 25 and others certainly used that idea. 
11) First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now. 
12) First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines). 
13) First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow. The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe."_

All true but basically superficial...

_"14) Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine. 
15) Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones)." _ 

*NOT True *- The U-2 had MANY Titanium and composite structures. Within a few years that same technology would be incorporated into the SR-71 and YF-12A, and no Lockheed did not develop this technology with the help of former AVRO engineers....

_"16) Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing. 
17) Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that."_

Again superficial - Engines in the rear? Christ, the F-80 "had the engine in the rear."

_"18 ) Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really)." _ 

Internal weapons bays were used in a number of aircraft that could carry conventional, nuclear, and cruise missiles (B-1, B-52, B-2) - this is not a unique concept and was considered on many early interceptors (F-89, F-94 and eventually used on the F-102 which entered service a year before the Arrow flew). This is not a unique idea and aircraft that entered service years later did not copy this idea from the Arrow.

_"19) Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role. The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.)" _

Ground maping radar and radar altimeters been around since the early 50s and with the use of inertia navigation systems were able to complete this role just fine. This statement sounds like some big words put together to fool the masses. As far as the Arrow's strike role, again a "would of, could of should of."

_"20) First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that." _

The F-104 had between a .56 to a .75 depending how much fuel it carried and how it was armed. The Arrow had a Thrust/weight: Dry: 0.439 With afterburner: 0.650 - it also had two engines...

The F-4 had a thrust to weight ration of .86!  

_"21) First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components."_

This claim is what got me thinking about this - A 4,000 psi hydraulic system may have allowed "smaller components" to be built as pointed out, buy it "would of" also been a hazard if the aircraft "would of" been used in a strike role. Additionally, if a 4000 psi system was so great, why didn't other aircraft adopt it? 1,500 to 2,000 psi has been the norm for years, it is a safe reliable operating system pressure.

_"22) First oxygen-injection re-light system. 
23) First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design. 
24) First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine.
25) First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine. "_

Again, interesting but superficial 

_"26) First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition"_

Agree but superficial

_"27) First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!)" _

What engine? The Iroquois that was never fitted?  

Again, this is not a bashing of the Arrow - I think it was a great aircraft but in essence it "would of" been the west's Mig-25 which has proven to be capable in only one role. As pointed out in a strike role it had some serious handicaps, its visibility was poor and I question its maneuverability. Seeing all the proposed weapons and navigation systems I would of guessed had the Arrow been built it "would of" taken another 5 years to get all the bugs worked out.

Personally I think the aircraft should of been built but I think its naive to think that this was some kind of "super plane" not only capable of shooting down hordes of Russian Bombers but also capable of disrupting the political and economic make-up of North America.


----------



## Hunter368 (Oct 16, 2007)

Interesting reading from both of you. I have to say it does sound like a hot interceptor for its time. Strike aircraft......I doubt. Hot interceptor yes.

Thanks guys.


To bad it never was produced for Canada.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 16, 2007)

Instal said:


> Do not for a moment think that the US couldn't or wouldn't put great pressure on the Canadian government to do something that was in thier interst and not ours such as preserving thier aircraft industry in the face of a outstanding aircraft such as the Arrow. There is no proof of this but it is certainly in realms of possibility and the fact that the Arrow program was not just cancelled but completely destroyed lends crdibility to this argument.



I'm not buying the consiracy theories. Look at recent history and you will see private manufacturers and gov't procurement under the DoD demanding the destruction of completed airframes and engineering data. While the civil side is more likely related to insurance/legal ramifications, the DoD recently demanded the destruction of the Boeing x-45 UCAV airframes after Northrop Grumman snagged the Navy's contract. Conspiracy? You think so?


----------



## HoHun (Oct 16, 2007)

Hi Arrowrec,

Great list, quite interesting read!

Some minor nits to pick ...

>2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine.

Hm, I seem to remember that the German computer pioneer Konrad Zuse came up with a CNC system for production of the wings of the V-1 during WW2. That was only a single mention a an article on computer history long ago, though.

>4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance. 

I guess that should be "first supersonic aircraft ..." 

>6) First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c. 

It seems a Heinkel He 111 was flown by electronic controls during WW2, but that was of course a pure research flight. I guess your point would more accurately be "first production aircraft ...".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2007)

Agree Matt - I did read that one of the reasons why the Arrow tooling was destroyed was to prevent a different leadership from turning over Diefenbaker's decision to scrap it. Again more speculation....


----------



## Graeme (Oct 17, 2007)

A little long in the tooth now, but this magazine of 1994 contains a short article written by James C Floyd, who was at the time the vice president of engineering at Avro Canada’s Malton (Ontario) headquarters, and was responsible for the Arrows development.

He writes;

"_Why did the government cancel the Arrow? The first clue came on September 23 1958, Diefenbaker announced that Canada was buying Bormac B anti-aircraft missiles from the United States. Sputnik (in poor timing for the Arrow as it was launched on the Arrow’s ‘roll-out’) and the 'Missile Gap’ had changed the psychology of both politicians and the public. The new strategic threat seemed to be from ICBMs, and the future of manned bombers (and interceptors) appeared rather limited.
The Bormac order was the first solid indication that the Diefenbaker government intended to cancel the Arrow. When that decision was finally made, it was based in part on Diefenbaker’s conclusion (shared by his fellow politicians) that the Arrow would be obsolete by the time it reached full production and squadron service.
_
Regarding the Arrow and CF-102;

"_Both projects were cancelled by narrow-minded, short-sighted politicians who failed to appreciate the tremendous (though all too brief) lead that Canada was enjoying in aerospace technology._"





This magazine from 1990, expands on Floyd’s thoughts;

-Diefenbaker was elected after a campaign in which he promised to give much more money to Canada’s farmers (he came from the prairies himself) and had no interest in supersonic fighters.
-He and Crawford Gordon (President of Avro Aircraft) were blunt men who spoke their minds and soon came to heartily dislike each other.
-He believed and adopted the theories behind Britain’s White Paper policy of 1957.
-Atlas and Thor were now common knowledge and the public easily recognised that the Arrow was incapable of destroying these ‘terrifying weapons’.
-The media played to the publics concern that the huge expenditure on the arrow was ‘unjustified’.
-When this incident occurred (photo below) the press had a ‘field day’. The man in the street couldn’t see why this terribly expensive white elephant shouldn't be cancelled ‘immediately’.









This book of 1982, appears to me, to indicate rather marginal(?) ranges even with the lighter Iroquois engines and a 500 Imp gall under-fuselage fuel tank;

Maximum radius..
While cruising at Mach 1.5, combat for 5 minutes at 58,000ft, 358nm.
While cruising at Mach 0.92, combat for 5 minutes at Mach 1.5 with internal fuel only, 498nm.
While cruising at Mach 0.92, combat for 5 minutes at Mach 1.5 with external tank 617nm.

No mention of conspiracy theories.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2007)

Great post Graeme! 



> Maximum radius..
> While cruising at Mach 1.5, combat for 5 minutes at 58,000ft, 358nm.
> While cruising at Mach 0.92, combat for 5 minutes at Mach 1.5 with internal fuel only, 498nm.
> While cruising at Mach 0.92, combat for 5 minutes at Mach 1.5 with external tank 617nm.
> ...



I think that says it all!!!!!!!


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 17, 2007)

One aircraft I'm qualified to comment on is the 101 it had a stated range of over a 1000 miles , now when aircraft was simulating combat it might manage to stay airborne fo 1.5 hours recovering with 5 minutes fuel. At full power in burners with tanks it had an endurance of approx 15 minutes using fuel at around 80 gals per minute per engine. Range in a fighter aircraft is a decieving number because as soon a you start yanking banking and burning range drops of dramatically. IMHO opinion 500nm with 5 minute in the Mach 1.5 area is not all that bad


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> IMHO opinion 500nm with 5 minute in the Mach 1.5 area is not all that bad


Its not bad and for its day was pretty good, but not extraordinary. The F-106 had a combat radius just under 600 miles but was able to be refueled. I believed the Arrow would of had air-to-air refueling capability.


----------



## Instal (Oct 17, 2007)

Allow me to try to explain what must seem to some as a fanatical passion for the Arrow. Whether or not it was a world beater (which it was IMHO, cough cough, clear throat and giggle) is not the only reason why we are so passionate about it. We as Canadians sit between an elephant and a lion. ie the US and Great Britain. During the course of our short history one of these two behemoths has influenced our destiny. The Arrow was the first attempt by Canada to do a very difficult and high profile project without the influence of either of our big brothers. And we did it. No matter how you look at it the Arrow was an astounding achievment for a country the size of Canada. There was a great feeling of pride in the nation that we have not seen since. We finally did something without the US or UK and then our own government commits the heanous act of destroying that accomplishment. We will never "get over it" and rightly so because what ever the reason for it's death it sends a message to current politicians that such lack of forsight will not be forgotten or forgiven.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2007)

Instal said:


> Allow me to try to explain what must seem to some as a fanatical passion for the Arrow. Whether or not it was a world beater (which it was IMHO, cough cough, clear throat and giggle) is not the only reason why we are so passionate about it. We as Canadians sit between an elephant and a lion. ie the US and Great Britain. During the course of our short history one of these two behemoths has influenced our destiny. The Arrow was the first attempt by Canada to do a very difficult and high profile project without the influence of either of our big brothers. And we did it. No matter how you look at it the Arrow was an astounding achievment for a country the size of Canada. There was a great feeling of pride in the nation that we have not seen since. We finally did something without the US or UK and then our own government commits the heanous act of destroying that accomplishment. We will never "get over it" and rightly so because what ever the reason for it's death it sends a message to current politicians that such lack of forsight will not be forgotten or forgiven.


Very well said!!!!


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 17, 2007)

Well said Instal. Welcome to the forum.


----------



## arrowrec (Oct 17, 2007)

Ok, the latest Arrow literature,
1) "Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation" by Randall Whitcomb. This book was called the definitive Avro book by Jim Floyd vp Avro Canada (Engineering) and the only book that Jim has ever endorsed.
2)"Storms of Controversy" by Palmiro Campagna. DND scientist and engineer that studied the Arrow for over 30 years.
3) "Requiem for a Giant" Campagna's latest book contains the latest information derived from the latest documents to be declassified. This is where I found the Jetliner info that I mentioned in a earlier post.

The history of the Arrow changed when the latest files were declassified, infact so, it made any book published even 7 years ago out of date, and in error. Allong with the published government dogma.
Palmiro was kind enought to host our "Ask the Expert" pages on the website
they are here;
ATE1

There are many many Arrow books some good some very bad, read them all with an open mind.

We also have some secret documents, the "Shaw Report" that was written at the time of the closure. We compiled the 74 page report onto a "Interactive CD" that we use for fundraising, has pictures and a lot of stuff. That's here;
Avro Arrow Online Store-MULTIMEDIA
If your interested.

I think Palmiro said it perfectly :
The Arrow is still being debated because it affected so many people and impacted all our lives over the last 40 years. It is being debated because of the way the decision was taken, with little or no explanation to Canadians. It is being debated because of all the rumors that sprang up about poor engineering, political interference, soviet moles etc. It is still being debated because there remains more truth to be told. It is still being debated because those who were maligned unnecessarily over the years will not forget. It is still being debated because the historians have only partially admitted they have been wrong over all these years. (Some of them finally conceded the Arrow was technically superior but they still erroneously claim it was costing too much.) There are many more reasons than this.

I hope you all enjoy the Arrow talk, I think it's great, even the bad stuff LOL.
Cheers and Best Regards
Scott McArthur
Research/Technical Director
Arrow Recovery Canada Inc.

Oh yes, for the Jetliner fans, Jim Floyds "Avro Canada C102 Jetliner" book has some Arrow info. It's been out of print for many years. I found mine on Ebay and was lucky enough to have Jim sign it!

PER ARDUE AD ASTRA


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2007)

arrowrec said:


> I hope you all enjoy the Arrow talk, I think it's great, even the bad stuff LOL.
> Cheers and Best Regards
> Scott McArthur
> Research/Technical Director
> Arrow Recovery Canada Inc.



Likewise Scott - BTW I lived in Canada for 5 years and if things were a little different i might of still been there. I hope you continue to join us...

PS - I'll be in Toronto tomorrow night - LOL!!!


----------



## Instal (Oct 19, 2007)

One last note about the Arrow. There is one that survived and it is flown by Elvis but he flew into the Bermuda triangle and neither have been seen again.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2007)

Instal said:


> One last note about the Arrow. There is one that survived and it is flown by Elvis but he flew into the Bermuda triangle and neither have been seen again.



Oh I don't know - I heard it was seen on the runway at Area 51!!!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2007)

_"20) First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that." 

The F-104 had between a .56 to a .75 depending how much fuel it carried and how it was armed. The Arrow had a Thrust/weight: Dry: 0.439 With afterburner: 0.650 - it also had two engines...

The F-4 had a thrust to weight ration of .86!_

I don't know the exact thrust:weight ratio of a Lightning - but I do know that at one point during its flight it reached 1:1 when fuel had been burnt off. At that time it should get back to base pretty sharpish - but still. 

And I don't if the P.1B was the first to supercruise in the world, but it's pretty damn close to the first.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 21, 2007)

What?? Really?? Almost 1:1? That defies physics for this airframe.

Specifications (Arrow Mk 1)
Data from The Great Book of Fighters[21]

General characteristics
Crew: 2 
Length: 77 ft 9 in (23.71 m) 
Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m) 
Height: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m) 
Wing area: 1,225 ft² (113.8 m²) 
Airfoil: NACA 0003.5 mod root, NACA 0003.8 tip 
*Empty weight: 49,040 lb (22,245 kg) 
Loaded weight: 56,920 lb (25,820 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 68,605 lb (31,120 kg) *
Powerplant: 2× Pratt Whitney J75-P-3 turbojets 
Dry thrust: 12,500 lbf (55.6 kN) each 
Thrust with afterburner: 23,500 lbf (104.53 kN) each 
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (1,307 mph, 2,104 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m) 
Cruise speed: Mach 0.91 (607 mph, 977 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m) 
Range: 360 NM (410 mi, 660 km) 
Service ceiling: 53,000 ft (16,150 m) 
Wing loading: 46.5 lb/ft² (226.9 kg/m²) 
*Thrust/weight: 
Dry: 0.439 
With afterburner: 0.650*

Even if you don't trust the T/W ratio quoted, just do the math.

T/W (empty)= 0.96
T/W (loaded) = 0.82 [I assume loaded means max internal fuel/no weapon loadout]
T/W (MToW) = 0.68


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 21, 2007)

What he is referring to is the next one off the production line that was powered by 2 of the indiginous Orenda Iroquois with 20000,lbs thrust tests up to 30000lbs in burner mode. It was was test flown on the B47 they were able to shut down all the 47 engines and fly it solely with the Iroquis it supposedly bent the 47. The engine is visible on the aft starboard


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 21, 2007)

I don't know anything about this experimental engine, but suspect that the hot section lifespan was SEVERELY limited due to the metallurgy of the day. And most likely of such grave limitations as to not be of production quality. Zoom fast. Throw it away.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2007)

There is no doubt the Arrow "would of" been a lot hotter with the Orenda Iroquois, but again we're looking at a "would of should of." As Matt pointed out I think there might of been some engine life limitations and again the fuel consumption of this beast was also something to consider.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 21, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I don't know anything about this experimental engine, but suspect that the hot section lifespan was SEVERELY limited due to the metallurgy of the day. And most likely of such grave limitations as to not be of production quality. Zoom fast. Throw it away.


I don't have the knowledge of metals and stress and fatique to talk about this on your level but maybe this link I'll provide can clear up any of the questions or doubts you or I might have as it tells what is what in retrospect to the metals. But it did complete 5000hrs of ground running


----------



## Instal (Oct 21, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I don't know anything about this experimental engine, but suspect that the hot section lifespan was SEVERELY limited due to the metallurgy of the day. And most likely of such grave limitations as to not be of production quality. Zoom fast. Throw it away.



Those of us that are passionate about the Arrow have been accused of stating how good it is without facts. Is this statement not going out of your way to say that it is a bad performer without facts?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2007)

Instal said:


> Those of us that are passionate about the Arrow have been accused of stating how good it is without facts. Is this statement not going out of your way to say that it is a bad performer without facts?


You are correct and the only thing I could say about that is the across the board hot section and TBO increase seen on military turbine engines of the period as the continued into service. I know there are dozens of J-79 TCTOs that replaced many internal parts, bearings etc that increased engine life, I would think the Iroquois would of fell into the same situation.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 28, 2007)

Instal said:


> Those of us that are passionate about the Arrow have been accused of stating how good it is without facts. Is this statement not going out of your way to say that it is a bad performer without facts?



It is a statement of fact for the technology of the day. One must assume that engines of Canadian design were no different then the rest of the world's technical prowess. Don't take it personally.


----------



## Instal (Oct 28, 2007)

No problem, I am not taking it personally. The whole point of the Arrow including the Iroquois engine is that is was anything but "technology of the day". I can't speak directly to the "hot section lifespan" as I have never heard the phrase before but it seems people like to assume the Arrow was no better than existing aircraft when evidence supports a different conclusion. Now don't get me wrong here there are many other people who are much better educated about the Arrows specifications compared to other aircraft but I have done some research (not just the movie LOL) and engineers in particular seem to agree that it had no peers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2007)

Personally I think the F-106 was just as good, the BAe Lightning even better. Look at the performance numbers of all 3 aircraft and it clearly shows the Arrow was not in a legaue of its own. The Arrow carried a lot of "what ifs" and "maybe."

Aside from its designed interceptor role I don't think you "would of" seen the Arrow dogfighting much for reasons already explained...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

Instal said:


> I can't speak directly to the "hot section lifespan" as I have never heard the phrase before



Aircraft and engines have parts that have TBO's and have to be replaced after a certain about of time.

The Lifespan of the Hot Section is the TBO of the hot section of the engine. You do know the different sections of a jet engine correct?



Instal said:


> but it seems people like to assume the Arrow was no better than existing aircraft when evidence supports a different conclusion.



That is because there are plenty of people that assume that the Arrow was teh greatest thing since bread and butter when they can not prove that. It was a would have, could have, should have, was not...

There is evidence to show that there were plenty of aircraft that were just as good and possibly better. The difference is those aircraft had a chance the Arrow did not.

Would it have been a great aircraft? Yes

Would it have been the greatest thing since bread and butter no?


----------



## Instal (Oct 28, 2007)

Never was a big fan of bread and butter


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

Then you should not think the Arrow was the best thing since bread and butter...


----------



## Murray B (Jan 28, 2009)

Never have so many been mislead by so few for so long. [gee that sounds familiar for some reason.]

Greetings from western Canada.

It is not surprising that the guilty would destroy all evidence of a crime. In the case of the Arrow that did not include John Diefenbaker or his party.

All he did was inherit a failed aircraft program that had cost $308 million CDN for six aircraft, some of which were incomplete.

The Arrow was supposed to be a Mach 2+ interceptor that could pull 2G turns at 50,000 feet wouthout loss of speed or altitude. What was delivered after five years could not exceed Mach 2 and was unable to meet the turn specification.

The first problem is obviously due to its tailess-delta configuration. Without canards it is unlikely to turn well. The second obvious problem is the lack of a wasp-waist as seen on most other Mach 2+ aircraft. This should have increased drag and would have limited speed and endurance.

There is also an obvious problem with the landing gear:

Look at how the centreline of the wheels is offset from the centre of the lower cylinder. Braking should cause a torque that will rotate the wheel assemblies outward and cause the gear to splay outwards. The gear folded inwards and this should cause problems when landing the aircraft. The Arrow did crash at least once when the gear collapsed.

```

```



Avro Arrow gear

The aircraft and all related materials was ordered destroyed by Air Marshal Hugh Campbell to avoid "susequent ebarassment". This did not involve Diefenbaker or anyone else in his party.

The PM's choice was to cancel the program or proceed with purchasing an underperforming aircraft at over $12 million per unit. [that would by about 8 F-101 at $1.5M each or 6 F-104's at $2M. Don't know how many F-110s but it would have been several.]

Diefenbaker did the best thing for the Canadian taxpayer and I do not like you folks in the US saying bad things about him for it. How would you like it if I said Lincoln's mother wore army boots, Eh?

Anyway the Avro's cockpit is exactly the same shape as my cat's head. He bites and so did the Arrow.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 28, 2009)

Murray B said:


> The first problem is obviously due to its tailess-delta configuration. Without canards it is unlikely to turn well. The second obvious problem is the lack of a wasp-waste as seen on most other Mach 2+ aircraft. This should have increased drag would have limited speed and endurance.



I believe what you are referring to is called "area ruling"; you're right, the Arrow does not look like it was "area ruled" at all. I'm surprised it was able to exceed M1, let alone M2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2009)

Murray B said:


> Diefenbaker did the best thing for the Canadian taxpayer and I do not like you folks in the US saying bad things about him for it. How would you like it if I said Lincoln's mother wore army boots, Eh?
> 
> Anyway the Avro's cockpit is exactly the same shape as my cat's head. He bites and so did the Arrow.



Murray, you've brought up good points about this mystical aircraft, at least in the eyes of some Canadians and I have to agree with a lot of what you have to say - but you know, Lincoln's mother DID wear army boots!

I never realized that Arrow's cockpit looked like a cat's head. But then again I'm glad we're not talking about the F-94's nose...


----------



## johnbr (Jan 28, 2009)

The Arrow pilots had very strict orders not to go over Mk 2.One pilot in order not to go over Mk 2 in one flight he put the plane in a 1.8mk clime.


----------



## nomadyendig (Jan 29, 2009)

Do you know where I can find the "What if" image? The one "painting that showed a pair of Arrows intercepting a Backfire. The Arrows were painted up in a low vis camouflage - the title - "What If"". FLYBOYJ mentioned it.
Google isn't any help.


----------



## Murray B (Jan 29, 2009)

SoD Stitch said:


> I believe what you are referring to is called "area ruling"; you're right, the Arrow does not look like it was "area ruled" at all. I'm surprised it was able to exceed M1, let alone M2.



It probably was not area ruled at the time but became so years after the fact through the miracle of historical revision. Of course us old timers have erred by telling the youngsters that it was “coke bottle shaped” when the bottles are now straight sided. The Arrow’s fuselage was as straight as a modern Coke bottle. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Murray, you've brought up good points about this mystical aircraft, at least in the eyes of some Canadians and I have to agree with a lot of what you have to say - but you know, Lincoln's mother DID wear army boots!
> 
> I never realized that Arrow's cockpit looked like a cat's head. But then again I'm glad we're not talking about the F-94's nose...



Sorry, I did not mean any insult to Lincoln’s mother. Army boots are generally pretty good footwear and a lot better then those chinese runners I bought a couple of years ago. 

I misspoke about my cat’s head and the cockpit. What I meant to say was that it is the exact same shape as the canopy as shown by this photo:







Sadly, I was unable to post a picture of our cat because he bit me when I tried to take his picture. His head is round just like the Avro canopy.



johnbr said:


> The Arrow pilots had very strict orders not to go over Mk 2.One pilot in order not to go over Mk 2 in one flight he put the plane in a 1.8mk clime.



The only impartial and reliable information I have on the maximum speed is from RCAF tests which indicates Mach 1.4. There is a mention of Mach 1.98 in a Avro brochure but that does not really prove much since I have also seen a technical manual for the Enterprise that indicates a maximum speed of Warp 9.9. 

Which Arrow pilots were ordered by who not to exceed Mach 2, and why? Since Avro claimed a maximum of Mach 1.98 with the J-75s which engines were used for the Mach 1.8 climb?

Today with supercomputers available for $10,000 [Nvidia Tesla with 1 Teraflop capacity] it should be possible to accurately flight test a digital model of an aircraft. Do you know if any accurate dimensioned drawings of the aircraft still exist? 

Honestly, as a Canadian, I wish you were right but even if the Arrow was a great Mach 2.5 interceptor that would not have been any worry for the US companies since it was so expensive as to be completely uncompetitive.

The cancellation did create some problems for the US since we had already agreed on how to finance North American defense. By canceling the Arrow and buying Voodoos we forced the US government to cancel US contracts and move the same value of work to Canada. That must have cost them plenty but they did not complain about it much as far as I can tell. 

Also regardless of the performance of the Arrow it could never have outsold the F-110. That one was so good that all US services wanted it and they never agree on anything. To me, this proves that the F-110 is one of the greatest, if not the absolute greatest, aircraft of the twentieth century. There is no doubt that it was produced by a conspiracy of McDonnell employees who were clearly determined to build a better aircraft. There is no denying it.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 29, 2009)

While the Phantom II is truly one of the all time great aircraft, in design terms it was bit of a mess. They didn't droop the tailplanes and turn the tips up because it looked good 

Regarding the CF-105, if things had panned out a little differently the aircraft would not have had to be built solely for the RCAF. In 1955 the aircraft was being seriously considered by the USAF and, while on a visit to Washington at this time, the British MoS was shown the details of the project which greatly impressed him. As a result of this a British delegation visited Canada in early 1956 to look more closely at the project.

As a result of this visit the Gloster P.376 was cancelled with the prototype about 60% complete and a British order for the Arrow looked nailed on.

It never happened because it was decided instead to accelerate the F.155T requirement which the Arrow did not meet and for which the Fairey Delta III had been selected and which was supposed to enter service only a year or so behind the Arrow anyway. Needless to say this did not materialise either because of the 1957 whiter paper but the closest 'real world' equivalent to the F.155T/Delta III was the MiG 25, which suggests the requirement may have been a little unrealistic anyway. Therefore a UK/Canada F-105 might have happened if a more pragmatic view had been taken (and of course not forgetting THAT document from 1957)

All ifs and buts of course, but an angle I have not seen covered on the thread.


----------



## Murray B (Jan 30, 2009)

Waynos said:


> They didn't droop the tailplanes and turn the tips up because it looked good



These appear to be corrective measures that worked extremely well. 



Waynos said:


> Regarding the CF-105...the aircraft would not have had to be built solely for the RCAF. In 1955 the aircraft was being seriously considered by the USAF and...a British delegation visited Canada in early 1956 to look more closely at the project.



The first flight of the Arrow was in late 1956 so the interest was based solely on the manufacturer's claims. The US was so interested in the project that NACA (early NASA) even provided trade secrets to Avro in November 1954 for no charge. Part of the text read, "The Company's estimate of zero lift drag at subsonic speeds should be increased by 50 percent or more...Substantial reductions in drag throughout the supersonic speed range should be possible by proper application of the area rule."

This was the secret of mach 2+ flight that the US spent millions of dollars to discover and yet they gave it to Avro for free. Obviously they were trying to help the program. 

I'm no expert on "the proper application of the area rule" but I can see that the shape of many early fifties aircraft series changed noticably before they could fly faster than Mach 2. The shape of the Arrow changed little over this same period and I expect the drag remained too high for sustained Mach 2 speeds. 

The US government was interested but only if the aircraft performed according to specification. They must have been from Missouri. There is nothing I can find to suggest that the Arrow or the Orenda engine actually met specifications so sales did not materialize. That is no way the fault of the customers and Canadians should not blame them because we were conned.



Waynos said:


> Therefore a UK/Canada F-105 might have happened if a more pragmatic view had been taken (and of course not forgetting THAT document from 1957)



Didn't they declare manned aircraft obsolete or something in that White Paper? Even if they had not, you are assuming that the Arrow could actually meet the specifications. After five years and $308 million or $51M per plane[today it would be about $2.2 billion or $370M per plane] the aircraft still could not be shown to perform as advertised. 

Once the jig was up they tried to destroy all traces of the aircraft for obvious reasons. Perhaps now enough data has been found to actually test the machine. That would be great but even if it does perform well that does not justify the many accusations made by some Canadians against our friends in the US. The Arrow zealots are a source of national shame and I am sorry that they have falsely accused our friends and allies in the south.

Trudeau said that living next to the USA was like sleeping with an elephant. Amusing analogy, but an elephant can keep you warm and safe just as long as you don't do something stupid like biting it in the ass. Why the little liberal dweebs here in Canada keep biting is completely beyond my understanding.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2009)

Murray B said:


> There is a mention of Mach 1.98 in a Avro brochure but that does not really prove much since I have also seen a technical manual for the Enterprise that indicates a maximum speed of Warp 9.9.



 Great stuff!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 30, 2009)

Murray B said:


> The Arrow zealots are a source of national shame and I am sorry that they have falsely accused our friends and allies in the south.


Very well put!!!!


----------



## johnbr (Jan 30, 2009)

The MK"2 orders was told to my dad by one of the test pilots.He also is the one how told of the Mk'1.8 clime.The best story he told to me is they would take the plane up to very high altitude over James bay and throttle back and glide back to Toronto.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 30, 2009)

I bring this topic into a little different perspective In 1940 the Brits told us we weren't capable of building technical aircraft hence were building the Blenheim , Hurri and Lysander all rag and tube 
and 14 years later with a very small population we attempted to build an air force from the ground up with its own equipment 

DHC 1 Chipmunk ....pretty fair little trainer
DHC 2 Beaver .... best utility aircraft ever made possibly
DHC 3 Otter..... the first flying pick up truck
DHC 4 Caribou I think the Aussies are stiil using this aircraft the US liked it in Viet nam 
DHC 5 Buffalo 
CL 41 Tutor still flying with Snowbirds 
CF 100 the Clunk still flying in the 80's as a EW aircraft
CP107 nothing could match it for its time on station nor weapons load in the patrol aircraft 
CC106 Yukon long range transport

thats a complete air force the only thing missing is the 130 type hauler and the fabled Arrow 
It was a gallant try by a smaller power its really to bad most Canadians are not aware of what a giant leap was made by this country in the field of aviation in the 40's 50's and 60's


----------



## slaterat (Jan 31, 2009)

I'm so mad I dont know where to start. I tempted to call most of whats posted in this thread as outright lies but for now I'll assume its just born of ignorance.

Lets see where to start

Murrray B wrote



> The only impartial and reliable information I have on the maximum speed is from RCAF tests which indicates Mach 1.4. There is a mention of Mach 1.98 in a Avro brochure but that does not really prove much since I have also seen a technical manual for the Enterprise that indicates a maximum speed of Warp 9.9.



With a little bit of effort you can find a book with the complete log of all the Arrow test flights, just like I have. Jan Zurakowski took the Arrow up to mach 1.89, Spud Potoki took it up to 1.98, Peter Cope and Jack Woodman (an RCAF pilot) both took her to 1.7. Spud's 1.98 run was at 50,000 ft and he specifically stated that he was forribidden to exceed mach 2.0.

So Murray are you calling all four test pilots liars? Der Adler, do you think that Murrays quote is so funny now? Zurakowski was a WW II Spitfire ace and a Meteor test pilot and had superb reputation. The other three weren't slouches either.



> It probably was not area ruled at the time but became so years after the fact through the miracle of historical revision. Of course us old timers have erred by telling the youngsters that it was “coke bottle shaped” when the bottles are now straight sided. The Arrow’s fuselage was as straight as a modern Coke bottle.



Of course the Arrows fuselage was area ruled, not as obvious as say an
F-105, but it does taper in the middle. This was learned from the earlier F-102 and was incorporated into the Arrow.



> Today with supercomputers available for $10,000 [Nvidia Tesla with 1 Teraflop capacity] it should be possible to accurately flight test a digital model of an aircraft. Do you know if any accurate dimensioned drawings of the aircraft still exist?



If you're really interested pick up a copy of Microsoft FSX, then go to Alpha sim and order the Avro Arrow addon. You can take her up to 60,000 ft and exceed mach 2.0 easily, thats with the Iroquois engines.



> Didn't they declare manned aircraft obsolete or something in that White Paper? Even if they had not, you are assuming that the Arrow could actually meet the specifications. After five years and $308 million or $51M per plane[today it would be about $2.2 billion or $370M per plane] the aircraft still could not be shown to perform as advertised.



The Arrow was manufactured using the "Cook Craige" method of manufacture, meaning that although only the 6 prototype aircraft were totally completed there was a complete assembly line ready to go with several aircraft already on the line. The 51 million per plane is a completely misleading figure as any future orders would be built on the same production line. When you consider what the Canadian government spent on fighters after the termination of the Arrow program $420 million for F-104s, not including weapons system or fire control, plus the F-101 purchase( a plane originally rejected by the RCAF) the Arrow doesn't seem so expensive: Avroe's last offer being 3.75 million per plane complete with weapons systems, firing control and spares.



> Once the jig was up they tried to destroy all traces of the aircraft for obvious reasons. Perhaps now enough data has been found to actually test the machine. That would be great but even if it does perform well that does not justify the many accusations made by some Canadians against our friends in the US. The Arrow zealots are a source of national shame and I am sorry that they have falsely accused our friends and allies in the south.



Here you make it sound as though Avroe destroyed eveything as part of a coverup. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everything that has been saved concerning the Arrow was smuggled out by Avroe employees. It was the Canadian military that was destroying everything.


Being born shortly after the cancellation of the Arrow I grew up in its legend and myth. I have found that there are three types of thought regarding the Arrow. First there's the debunkers, those who trash the Arrow to destroy the "myth "as they see it. Then there's the fanatics , the somewhat conspiracy minded people who believe and pursue the legend. Then there's the third group those who just want the truth. I belong to the third group.

So what are the truths?

-The Arrow was a mach 2 interceptor with the J 75s
- it would of been faster with the Iroquois, but the airframe and air intake 
would of limited speed to mach 2.2-2.3 
- the airframe was comparable to the best the world had to offer
-the Iroquois broke more new ground than the Arrow, one was secretly 
smuggled to Great Britain and only returned a few years ago
-the flight test program although proceeding slow was proving the
the aircrafts potential and found no serious flaws. One area of concern
was high speed at low levels.

Why was it cancelled?

Probably a combination of factors. Cost over runs, inter service rivalry, personality conflicts, percieved obselence of manned fighters.

Why is it so controversial ?

Probably because of the way it was destroyed. The Canadian military came in like the Gestapo/KGB. They seized and destroyed everthing. Drawings, test results, tools, jigs parts. They cut the planes up with torches on the runway. They acted like they owned it and they were going to bury it where it would be forgotten. It was a complete waste of all the work and effort done so far. It was something one might expect from a Stalinist purge, not something that would occur in law abiding Canada. It was the Canadian taxpayers that owned the Arrow and something should of been saved. RCAF test pilot Jack Woodman wanted to take one up and ditch it in Lake Ontario to save it.

Its late now I'll be back tomorrow with more thoughts.

Slaterat


----------



## Waynos (Jan 31, 2009)

Interestingly the RAF version was to be powered by either the DH Gyron or Bristol Olympus engine, I would be interested to see a comparison between these engines and the Iroquois if anyone has one. The choice to re-engine the Arrow does not necessarily indicate any failing on the Canadian engine, we also re-engined the F-4 with RR Speys and ruined it.



> Didn't they declare manned aircraft obsolete or something in that White Paper? Even if they had not, you are assuming that the Arrow could actually meet the specifications. After five years and $308 million or $51M per plane[today it would be about $2.2 billion or $370M per plane] the aircraft still could not be shown to perform as advertised.



Yes, they did declare that, and that was why the Delta III, Saro 177 et al were cancelled. However it does not automatically follow that the UK Arrow would also have been cancelled as it was decided that the EE Lightning had progressed too far to cancel, the same may have been said of the Arrow as the first Lightning flew in April 1957, the first Arrow in March 1958 (not '56). 

Your comment about area rule is without foundation. While the very first area rule applications were very obvious like the F-102 and Buccaneer, the art was quickly refined to the point where you could hardly tell. The slab sided Arrow is no different in that respect to the TSR 2 (a mach 3 airframe that was speed limited by the materials used) A-5 Vigilante, Mirage IV or even the F-4 Phantom that you seem to like. Area rule is present on every successful supersonic airframe, but it is not always openly visible (Concorde?).

Your choice to divide the programme costs by the number of aircraft flown is also deliberately misleading. R&D costs are always massive and spent up front. How much would the F-4 come out at with the sdame number of aircraft built as the Arrow?

I am not picking on the F-4, as I said before it is an all time great, but you seem to like to use it as an example of 'a good aeroplane'.

I find the total destruction of everything to do with the Arrow after cancellation a disturbing parrallel to what happened in the UK when the TSR 2 was also axed. There is no wonder the conspiracy theorists leap upon such coincidences.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 31, 2009)

...I believe I heard not too long ago, by his own admission, famed test pilot Jan Zurakowski never had a pilots license. Sounded like a cool little tid-bit (or Tim-bit for our Tim Horton's eating Canadian friends) so I thought I would pass it on. Can anyone confirm?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2009)

slaterat said:


> I Der Adler, do you think that Murrays quote is so funny now?



Yeah actually I do. It was a funny quote. Do you have a problem with that? 

Do you mind telling me what I am allowed to find funny and what I am not allowed to find funny. Please enlighten me!


----------



## slaterat (Jan 31, 2009)

> Yeah actually I do. It was a funny quote. Do you have a problem with that?



Yes I do. I dont think its funny to call the Arrow test pilots liars. Thats exactly what that quote is saying and thats what got me going Der Adler. Thats a huge insult to throw at men who served their country(s) well and with integrity. All done nice and neat behind the sheild of the internet.

Would you think its just as funny to say the Bell X-1 never broke the sound barrier? Thereby calling Chuck Yeager a liar.

It brings to mind the video of 70 year old Buzz Aldrin decking that idiot that called him a liar regarding the moon landings. Seemed fair to me.

Waynos

I have read other references comparing the Arrow to the TSR 2, I'll have too read up on it.

Re Diefenbakers role in the Arrow debacle.

In his memoirs the "Chief "stated that he never ordered the scraping of the Arrow. Sounds like a pathetic statement coming from the PM. He had the power to forbid it and he failed. That was Canadian tax payers property that was destroyed.

Re The USA and its role 

There seems little doubt that the Arrow wouldn't of existed without the help that was obtained from U.S. sources. Many components of the Arrow were made in the USA and the American Airforce was overall very helpful and positive. Did Eisenhower convince Dief to dump the Arrow and buy the useless Bomarc missile defence to protect the secret U2 program? Maybe. One thing is certain Diefs relationship with the US really soured after the Arrow cancellation and after the U2 incident involving francis Garry powers.
In the end though you have to say "we did it to ourselves"

Should the Arrow have been canceled

IMHO no. The program had already passed the point of no return the money was already spent. There was a fine airframe, probably the best jet engine in the world , both very soon to be merged. The need for the plane still existed and the iroquois had great export potential.

Slaterat


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2009)

slaterat said:


> Should the Arrow have been canceled
> 
> IMHO no. The program had already passed the point of no return the money was already spent. There was a fine airframe, probably the best jet engine in the world , both very soon to be merged. The need for the plane still existed and the iroquois had great export potential.
> 
> Slaterat



I agree with you Slaterat, I think the Arrow "would of" fulfilled its role with no problem but it seems the Diefenbaker Government had a different agenda. From my understanding there was friction between Ottawa and Washington way before the Arrow was canceled.

Back to the original point - I think the Arrow would of made a fine interceptor but at the same time I think the CF-101s, F-106s and F-4s of the day fulfilled the role. Was the Arrow this super fighter I've heard many Canadians tout? No - if an aircraft even as simple as an F-5 got in close quarters with it, the Arrow would of been toast. There was a lot of potential there, and it was a waste just to throw it all away.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2009)

slaterat said:


> Yes I do. I dont think its funny to call the Arrow test pilots liars. Thats exactly what that quote is saying and thats what got me going Der Adler. Thats a huge insult to throw at men who served their country(s) well and with integrity. All done nice and neat behind the sheild of the internet.



No, you are jumping the gun here. I thought the quote about the Enterprise and Warp 9.9 was funny. That is why I put that part in quotes and laughed.

You might want to ask questions before jumping the gun. It will keep you out of trouble. You are getting pissed off about something that you have no clue about, *or can you read my mind and know what exactly it was that I thought was funny?*

1. I was not questioning the integrity of anyone, I thought a quote was funny.

2. You do not have to explain the integrity of someone who served their country. I know all about it, I served mine as well...

3. So your claim of hiding behind the internet is foolish as well.

So again, I ask you. Are you the authority of what I am allowed to find funny or not? 

Would you like to me to send you an email requesting if I am allowed to find something funny before I do?

 



slaterat said:


> Would you think its just as funny to say the Bell X-1 never broke the sound barrier? Thereby calling Chuck Yeager a liar.



Well if you said something like that, I would call you a liar. It did break the sound barrier.

That however is meaningless to this discussion. Why? Because I was not disputing any claims about the Avro. I thought a quote about the Enterprise and Warp 9.9 was funny.

You jump all over me because I find a quote funny? Where did I dispute anything. 

Again I tell you this: You might want to ask questions before making such posts. It only makes you look like a fool, because you are getting bent out of shape about something that I did not do.

Actually what you are doing is pretty funny as well! 



slaterat said:


> It brings to mind the video of 70 year old Buzz Aldrin decking that idiot that called him a liar regarding the moon landings. Seemed fair to me.



So based off of the fact that you think I am calling these men a liar (which I never did, I thought a quote about the Enterprise was funny for crying out loud! ), you think it would be fair to "deck" me?

It seams fair to you to "deck" me because I thought a quote was funny????

*Who is hiding behind the shield of the internet now????
*


Seriously man, you need to calm down. You are getting bent out of shape over nothing.

I think an apology is in order, after that I suggest you move on.

And based off of what started this whole discussion. This must be how Warf would feel after reading what you just wrote:


----------



## slaterat (Jan 31, 2009)

I sent you another pm Adler I hope it settles things.

Slaterat


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 31, 2009)

Think long and hard before you respond, slaterat. You are on the brink.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2009)

> If you're really interested pick up a copy of Microsoft FSX, then go to Alpha sim and order the Avro Arrow addon. You can take her up to 60,000 ft and exceed mach 2.0 easily, thats with the Iroquois engines.



You cannot base anything about an aircraft's performance on a flight sim. Period. I have flown air combat on a flight sim AND flown aerial combat at Air Combat USA. They are completely different. How do you know that the sim programmer had any idea about the flight characteristics of the Arrow?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2009)

evangilder said:


> You cannot base anything about an aircraft's performance on a flight sim. Period. I have flown air combat on a flight sim AND flown aerial combat at Air Combat USA. They are completely different. How do you know that the sim programmer had any idea about the flight characteristics of the Arrow?



Oh come on Eric. We all know that video games are perfect representations of reality. Hell you can even feel the vibrations in your ass, the G Forces pushing you into the seat....


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 31, 2009)

Talk about a homer.....


----------



## Murray B (Jan 31, 2009)

slaterat said:


> Yes I do. I dont think its funny to call the Arrow test pilots liars.



Some pilots during WWII claim to have broken the sound barrier and I do not have any idea why they made that claim. Avro employees are not an impartial source of information and no one else confirms that the aircraft met specifications. Do not forget that it must have, at least, a "...mission radii 200nm high speed and 300 nm maximum range..." 

Now, about the aircraft itself. A delta is the wrong configuration for good turning. This is not political but governed by the laws of Physics. 

Every other aircraft series was changed visibly when redesigned for Mach 2+. Many even managed to do this without extensive use of titanium or special steel alloys. If you push a brick hard enough then I expect is can exceed mach 2 if it does not burn up first. That does not mean it can meet the mission radius specification.

RCAF data indicates mach 1.4 and Robert MacMillan writes in a May 8, 1959 letter to Diefenbaker, "I believe that this Arrow should be kept for historical purposes. It was the first Canadian aircraft to exceed 1000 miles per hour..."

Even if the aircraft could exceed Mach 2 that does not mean it would have a useful mission radius. The specification is more than just about the speed. The aircraft must meet all of the specifications.

It seems to me that Avro's use of titanium shows that there is considerable heating due to drag. 

Now compare the two Convair deltas, the Dagger and the Dart. See how the Dart has that ooh la la hourglass figure? All Avro did was tinker with the nose, inlets and tail a little. That does not sound like proper application of the area rule to me.

After fifty years this matter should be laid to rest once and for all. How can we get the aircraft tested by impartial (not Canadian, American or British) evaluators?


----------



## Murray B (Jan 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ...I think the Arrow "would of" fulfilled its role with no problem but it seems the Diefenbaker Government had a different agenda. From my understanding there was friction between Ottawa and Washington way before the Arrow was canceled.



Them's fightin words, FLYBOY! 

From the Montreal Gazette, Oct. 23, 1963, 
"Gen. Charles Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff committee from 1951 to 1960 testified yesterday that the Liberal Government of Prime Minister St. Laurent decided in 1957 it would cancel the Arrow interceptor program as soon as it was returned to power in that years election...Gen. Foulkes confirmed the 1959 statement of Mr. Diefenbaker that the chiefs of staff had recommended cancellation of the Arrow...the chiefs concluded it didn't make sense to produce an $8,000,000 interceptor in Canada when one could be obtained in the U.S. for $2,000,000." [I expect the $8M did not include the $308 M development costs.]

Now you have bad-mouthed Dief again so:

LINCOLN's MOTHER WORE ARMY BOOTS!!!

Don't say I didn't warn you.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2009)




----------



## Waynos (Jan 31, 2009)

edit, removed as was talking about what was required, not what was achieved. I think this has been well covered.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 31, 2009)

So let me understand this...

Lincoln's mother wore army boots and the Arrow was nothing extraordinary, thus was overtaken by equally mediocre aircraft in current US inventory.

Is this thread done yet?


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 31, 2009)

Murray B said "Diefenbaker did the best thing for the Canadian taxpayer and I do not like you folks in the US saying bad things about him for it. How would you like it if I said Lincoln's mother wore army boots, Eh?"
Dief was chump and always will be , he was a typical Canadian of the 50's and 60's (excluding the military)with a slight inferiority complex in relation to our southern neighbours .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Murray B said "Diefenbaker did the best thing for the Canadian taxpayer and I do not like you folks in the US saying bad things about him for it. How would you like it if I said Lincoln's mother wore army boots, Eh?"
> Dief was chump and always will be , he was a typical Canadian of the 50's and 60's (excluding the military)with a slight inferiority complex in relation to our southern neighbours .


----------



## Murray B (Jan 31, 2009)

evangilder said:


> You cannot base anything about an aircraft's performance on a flight sim. Period.



My nephew had a very enjoyable flight simulator on his Nintendo and I especially appreciated that the aircraft would bounce back into the air when it hit the ground. I know you are going to say that proves your point but I know better. It is probably classified but I know about your secret American program to produce rubber aircraft. Here is a photo of one from 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne): Combat Reform Group.









Flight sims inaccurate Eh? You won't fool me! 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So your claim of hiding behind the internet is foolish as well.



No, not foolish. The Arrow zealots have assassinated the character of anyone that disagrees with them for about fifty years now. 

Whenever I ask any reasonable questions they attack me too. 

For example, if the Arrow exceeded Mach 2.0, which would have been a record for a Canadian aircraft, why is there no mention of it anywhere?

Why do Arrow enthusiasts insist on comparing Arrow/Orenda prototypes to production aircraft and engines? Shouldn’t our prototypes be compared to other prototypes of the day? 

How can Diefenbaker be at fault when the DND recommended cancellation before he is elected?

How can the drag figures be okay when one of the reasons cited for cancellation in a Memorandum dated 21 Jul 58 is, “A reduction in ferry range to 1254 nm is not acceptable.”? 

So the DND issues a specification and after five years and $308 million the manufacturer still has not met them. Then the DND cancels the program. What does this have to do with the President, the CIA or anyone else in the U.S.A.? 

Now, let us see if the ad hominem attacks begin.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2009)

Murray B said:


> Them's fightin words, FLYBOY!
> 
> From the Montreal Gazette, Oct. 23, 1963,
> "Gen. Charles Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff committee from 1951 to 1960 testified yesterday that the Liberal Government of Prime Minister St. Laurent decided in 1957 it would cancel the Arrow interceptor program as soon as it was returned to power in that years election...Gen. Foulkes confirmed the 1959 statement of Mr. Diefenbaker that the chiefs of staff had recommended cancellation of the Arrow...the chiefs concluded it didn't make sense to produce an $8,000,000 interceptor in Canada when one could be obtained in the U.S. for $2,000,000." [I expect the $8M did not include the $308 M development costs.]
> ...



Murray, you're a riot!!!!

I never bad mouthed Dief - it was evident that he was going to doom the Arrow no matter what.

Here's my take...

It "would of been" a very good aircraft, but again it role it was supposed to fulfill was done with CF-101s, F-106s and F-4. It also freed up Canadian resources to be deployed to Europe.

There was a lot of hard work put into the aircraft. It was behind schedule and over budget, but to just throw it in the crapper was a sin. You would of expected that the few built would of at least been operated by the CAF.

In the end, there was no American conspiracy to kill this aircraft. Under the same mission requirement the F-108 "would of" been deployed a year or two after the Arrow and "would of" offered the same if not superior capabilities.

In the end it was a sad day for aviation when the Arrow was canceled but I also think in the end it was the cost effective thing to do, at least on paper.


----------



## Graeme (Feb 1, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In the end it was a sad day for aviation when the Arrow was canceled but I also think in the end it was the *cost effective* thing to do, at least on paper.



George Pearkes...





(From "Airpower" March 1979. A two part article by D. Murray Pedan)


----------



## Murray B (Feb 1, 2009)

Graeme said:


> George Pearkes...



Mr. Pearkes was the Minister of defence and I trust his technical opinion of the aircraft as much as any other lawyer. In other words, not much.



FLYBOYJ said:


> I never bad mouthed Dief - it was evident that he was going to doom the Arrow no matter what.



Jehosophat, there you go again! It was a DND progam and they decided to cancel it before Dief was even elected. If the the other guys were elected they would have had to cancel it too. 

My wife saw what I wrote about Lincoln's mother and now I have to apologize. So I'm sorry that I said bad things about Mrs. Lincoln. See what you made me do?



FLYBOYJ said:


> Here's my take...
> 
> It "would of been" a very good aircraft...



The once top secret DND memorandum I quoted from suggests it was a brick with wings. I would only have been good if they completely redesigned it to reduce the drag. Its radius was only 200nm. What is the mission radius of a Voodoo?




FLYBOYJ said:


> ...to just throw it in the crapper was a sin. You would of expected that the few built would of at least been operated by the CAF.



Why would the DND want to keep proof around that they had just spent $308 million on a flying brick?



FLYBOYJ said:


> In the end, there was no American conspiracy to kill this aircraft. Under the same mission requirement the F-108 "would of" been deployed a year or two after the Arrow and "would of" offered the same if not superior capabilities.



The Arrow was probably already obsolete even without the performance problems. Its giant radar would have shone like a beacon for Soviet bomber escorts. Do you know the range of one of those TU-28Ps with external tanks? 

SAGE aircraft did not need to use their own radar. The Voodoos could find the target without ever activating their radar and then the ground stations would tell them when to launch their AIR-2As. That is amazing and what is even more amazing is that Canada did it without ever having nuclear weapons on our soil. We are just so nice, Eh? 

Bet you can't operate nuclear weapons without having them on your soil.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 1, 2009)

Murray B said:


> That is amazing and what is even more amazing is that Canada did it without ever having nuclear weapons on our soil. We are just so nice, Eh?
> 
> Bet you can't operate nuclear weapons without having them on your soil.


We had nukes in Canada til the late 70's just for the 101 . Out of curiosity which one of the 12 books plus are you getting your info from so i can read it by myself without your editing


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 1, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> *The Arrow was a pretty advanced airplane but we just didn't have the where withal to carry it out *. i disagree that it ruined our industry we just changed focus . The DHC aircraft being an example and Canadair , Bombardier , CAE , Spar PWC and Bristol let us play with the big boys in aerospace as we are 4th or 5th worlds largest aviation nation.


If Murray B thinks I'm blinded by nationalism here is a post by me from 2 years ago . I can't help defending the Arrow I just keep meeting folks that worked on them and the funny thing is many are still interested or involved in flight so I'd rather judge action over words .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2009)

Murray B said:


> The once top secret DND memorandum I quoted from suggests it was a brick with wings. I would only have been good if they completely redesigned it to reduce the drag. Its radius was only 200nm. What is the mission radius of a Voodoo?


Almost twice that but again that was an estimation without the Orenda



Murray B said:


> Why would the DND want to keep proof around that they had just spent $308 million on a flying brick?


Why not? By the time lay-off notices were given, work orders given to destroy the prototypes and tooling, and other costs related to shutting down the program, it might of been more cost effective to keep the first two around and do R&D work. That would of proved or disproved many of the point brought up here.



Murray B said:


> The Arrow was probably already obsolete even without the performance problems. Its giant radar would have shone like a beacon for Soviet bomber escorts. Do you know the range of one of those TU-28Ps with external tanks?


About 2000 miles but had they escorted Soviet Bombers it would of been a one way mission, but keep in mind the TU-28 was designed as in interceptor designed to operate within the Soviet Union. I'd also bet dollars to donuts that once fully loaded with weapons at burner speeds, the TU-28 had shorter legs than your report on the Arrow!


----------



## red admiral (Feb 1, 2009)

The greatest problem with the Arrow is the weapons system, which simply didn't work. They tried to create an AIM-120 style weapon with mid-50s technology and strangely this didn't work. Red Dean and Red Hebe are possibilities but were cancelled so aren't available. If they were, weapons load would only be 2 missiles in semi-conformal stowage which does give a good field of view for the seeker. Sparrow still didn't work very well in the late 60s, which leaves Falcon and Genie. Falcon wasn't that great and had an extremely small warhead (shoot down a Bear/Badger with a 3.4kg warhead when Vicker's are thinking that the 50kg warhead on Red Dean won't be enough?). Genie works fine but sort of defeats the object of having a M2.0 interceptor.

Its difficult to find information on the Iroquois engine, but that which is available seems to indicate that Olympus or Gyron are better. It always amusing to hear the claim of the Iroquois being the most powerful engine in the world at that time when the Gyron produces 2000lbf more thrust and weighs 1700lb less.


----------



## Murray B (Feb 2, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> We had nukes in Canada til the late 70's just for the 101 . Out of curiosity which one of the 12 books plus are you getting your info from so i can read it by myself without your editing



Other guys had N weapons here but us Canadians never had any. We are just too nice for that.

Books are not that helpful in understanding what actually happened. Too often they are written by artsy types who are trying to explain things they do not understand. I like to read several books with a critical eye and then ask some veterans, if I can find any that will talk about it. Only then can I piece together a reasonably accurate picture of real events. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Almost twice that but again that was an estimation without the Orenda.



Orenda made other engines and the Arrow was supposed to use the Iroquois. It gave 30,000 lbs. of thrust which seems pretty good but it was 42” in diameter and 19.25 feet long. Isn’t a normal non-bomber engine more like 32” in diameter? They could have used it for the Blackbird I suppose but Lockheed wanted it to have those sexy bumperettes and the Iroquois didn’t have any. The SR-71 was the second sexiest aircraft ever made in the history of the world and needed those Madonna cones. [Maybe there were technical reasons like Mach 3 flight too.]



FLYBOYJ said:


> That would of proved or disproved many of the point brought up here.



Exactly my point. At the time only three groups knew about the Arrow’s failings. The government, the opposition, and the Department of National Defence. The DND is not to blame for a contractor failing to meet specifications especially since other aircraft could meet them. The DND does order all traces destroyed but they are probably not the ones behind this destruction. Diefenbaker is not behind it either since it was the opposition’s program and not his. There is only one group, who shall remain nameless, who benefits from destroying all of the evidence.




FLYBOYJ said:


> About 2000 miles but had they escorted Soviet Bombers it would of been a one way mission, but keep in mind the TU-28 was designed as in interceptor designed to operate within the Soviet Union. I'd also bet dollars to donuts that once fully loaded with weapons at burner speeds, the TU-28 had shorter legs than your report on the Arrow!



Gary Parrish once wrote what I like to call the Parrish principle and it goes something like this, ”When confronted by the reality of defeat, a nation will modify systems in their inventory to meet the challenges of their adversaries.” So I’m trying to understand what challenge caused the Soviets to modify a bomber into an interceptor. This thing killed any chance of the Arrow being the world’s largest interceptor.



red admiral said:


> The greatest problem with the Arrow is the weapons system, which simply didn't work.



I expect that an aircraft that is nearly 50,000 pounds empty with a 40 inch radar dish can carry any kind of weapon system it wants. The system was a huge problem but that could have been changed for something that worked. 

More troubling is the report of the final RCAF test flight that I just found. Avro claimed it could do Mach 1.98 with the J-75s but the report indicates that they were trying for Mach 1.9 but only achieved 1.7 at 100% throttle. This sounds to me like the contractor’s drag estimate was still too low.

The other information you provide is golden. It sounds like you have experience with these weapons.



red admiral said:


> Its difficult to find information on the Iroquois engine...


The engine was never flight tested on the Arrow but the U.S. provided a B-47 for the purpose and as far as I can tell the engine did work. Here are the specs I have for the Iroquois. 42”D X 19.25 ‘L, 4650 lb. Weight. 23,000 lbs. thrust and 30,000 lbs. with reheat. Fuel consumption with reheat is listed as 1.8lb/lbf/hr using MIL-F-5621 fuel. I can’t read the fuel consumption without reheat.



Matt308 said:


> Is this thread done yet?



I’m sorry to go on about this but it is not just about the Arrow. They now teach our children that the entire Canadian aircraft industry was destroyed by the evil Americans. That is a giant lie and I can’t be done until they stop lying to our young people.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2009)

Murray B said:


> Orenda made other engines and the Arrow was supposed to use the Iroquois. It gave 30,000 lbs. of thrust which seems pretty good but it was 42” in diameter and 19.25 feet long. Isn’t a normal non-bomber engine more like 32” in diameter? They could have used it for the Blackbird I suppose but Lockheed wanted it to have those sexy bumperettes and the Iroquois didn’t have any. *The SR-71 was the second sexiest aircraft ever made in the history of the world and needed those Madonna cones. [Maybe there were technical reasons like Mach 3 flight too.]*  And you're right about the Iroquois
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Murray B (Feb 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And you're right about the Iroquois.



Thanks, I have read a dozen books on the Arrow/Iroquois but most of them were full of crap so it was a lot of work to extract the facts.



FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-70 and I think the B-58 probably gave them some worry as well.



I don't think the Tupolev is going to get near a Valkyrie but maybe it could for the Hustler. MacNamera's cancelling the B-70 program is one of the strangest things I have ever read about. He actually spent more upgrading old B-52s than it would have cost for 100 B-70s. It is amazing to me that the USAF was able to keep the old B-52s in the air for so long. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Murray, If I should ever meet you I'm buying you dinner!



Thanks, but you do not owe me anything for telling the truth. America has deserved the truth from the beginning. 

When I was a boy an accountant bought the house next door as an investment. He couldn't find anyone to rent it so he decided to turn the furnace off to save money. My dad and the other neighbors told him not to do it because it could damage the plumbing. He had a university degree and so he figured he was smarter then they were and did it anyway. Soon the pipes froze and split. When he found out he called the police to find and arrest the boys in the neighborhood that had broken-in and "slashed" his pipes. The cop checked the doors and windows and found no sign of a break in. He went inside to check the damage and the last thing I remember was the cop walking to his car shaking his head in disbelief. 

These Arrow zealots have accused America of "slashing" our airplane and I am just shaking my head in disbelief. Its deja vu.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2009)

Murray B said:


> When I was a boy an accountant bought the house next door as an investment. He couldn't find anyone to rent it so he decided to turn the furnace off to save money. My dad and the other neighbors told him not to do it because it could damage the plumbing. He had a university degree and so he figured he was smarter then they were and did it anyway. Soon the pipes froze and split. When he found out he called the police to find and arrest the boys in the neighborhood that had broken-in and "slashed" his pipes. The cop checked the doors and windows and found no sign of a break in. He went inside to check the damage and the last thing I remember was the cop walking to his car shaking his head in disbelief.
> 
> These Arrow zealots have accused America of "slashing" our airplane and I am just shaking my head in disbelief. Its deja vu.


Great analogy. My dad had a simple saying about folks like that - "so smart, but yet so stupid."


----------



## Murray B (Feb 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great analogy. My dad had a simple saying about folks like that - "so smart, but yet so stupid."



Your dad sounds like a sensible fellow. It is a kind of folk wisdom like Lincoln's riddle, I think.

It is obvious that you know about aircraft and like old planes. Do you know if any aircraft made around 1960 could perform a 2G turn at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet without losing too much speed or altitude?

Do you also know why the U.S. government quit funding the only aircraft ever made with 36" ceiling? It seems the perfect thing for pilots that are afraid of heights, Eh?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2009)

Murray B said:


> It is obvious that you know about aircraft and like old planes. Do you know if any aircraft made around 1960 could perform a 2G turn at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet without losing too much speed or altitude?


The only thing close would of been a -104 or a sidewinder missile!


Murray B said:


> Do you also know why the U.S. government quit funding the only aircraft ever made with 36" ceiling? It seems the perfect thing for pilots that are afraid of heights, Eh?


Of who have a clostophobic fetish!


----------



## Waynos (Feb 4, 2009)

I think the F-104 was more of a straight liner, maybe the Lightning, if anything, but not sure about 2g at that speed?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 4, 2009)

Murray B said:


> Orenda made other engines and the Arrow was supposed to use the Iroquois. It gave 30,000 lbs. of thrust which seems pretty good but it was 42” in diameter and 19.25 feet long. Isn’t a normal non-bomber engine more like 32” in diameter? They could have used it for the Blackbird I suppose but Lockheed wanted it to have those sexy bumperettes and the Iroquois didn’t have any. The SR-71 was the second sexiest aircraft ever made in the history of the world and needed those Madonna cones. [Maybe there were technical reasons like Mach 3 flight too.]



Okay, this is one I can answer! The cones on the SR-71 are actually used to position the shockwave just outside of the "throat" of the engine. The whole cone actually moves back and forth up to 26", depending on the speed of the a/c; the air on the "outside" (front) of the shockwave is supersonic, and the air on the "inside" (back) of the shockwave is subsonic, so that the engine can ingest it without causing a compressor stall.

From Wiki:


----------



## Graeme (Feb 4, 2009)

Murray B said:


> Do you also know why the U.S. government quit funding the only aircraft ever made with 36" ceiling? It seems the perfect thing for pilots that are afraid of heights, Eh?





FLYBOYJ said:


> Of who have a clostophobic fetish!



He's probably not very happy but at least he's waving...


----------



## Murray B (Feb 5, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only thing close would of been a -104 or a sidewinder missile!



Great info, thanks.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Of who have a clostophobic fetish!



If they would have incorporated the secret rubber technology into the aircraft and limited the speed to 10 milliMach it would have been the world’s first perfectly safe aeroplane. No exploding bolts, no ejection seats, just bounce out of trouble. There has got to be big government money to develop something as politically correct as that.



Waynos said:


> I think the F-104 was more of a straight liner, maybe the Lightning, if anything, but not sure about 2g at that speed?



I’m not that familiar with the Starfighter but the wing looks far enough forward for it to turn well. If it were any further forward I expect it would not want to go in a straight line at all. 

Is this Lightning you speak of the one by English Electric? That aircraft seems pretty unusual to me. Over and under instead of side by side engines with one inlet with a unique wing planform. It is a very interesting aircraft.

The pressure at 50,000 feet is about 1/10 of an atmosphere so I guess it would be about catching enough air to turn the thing. 



SoD Stitch said:


> Okay, this is one I can answer! The cones on the SR-71 are actually used to position the shockwave just outside of the "throat" of the engine. The whole cone actually moves back and forth up to 26", depending on the speed of the a/c; the air on the "outside" (front) of the shockwave is supersonic, and the air on the "inside" (back) of the shockwave is subsonic, so that the engine can ingest it without causing a compressor stall.



As much as I do not like the wiki this information is in agreement with what I have read about the J-58 in books. Don’t tell anybody but in my opinion the J-58 is the world’s most advanced engine in the late fifties and early sixties and maybe even later. The cone seems to work but I expect they could have done the same thing by putting a small disk on a movable stick like they did for that I.C.B.M. Of course if they didn't have the cone then then the SR-71 would not be one the most beautiful aircraft in the history of the whole world. The Blackbird is also a little bit scary with those huge engines, sharp chines, and extreme pointiness everywhere. And what the heck is that on the ground underneath it?



Graeme said:


> He's probably not very happy but at least he's waving...



Yes, thanks for the photo and I would like to point out that this aircraft set a record for low ceiling that has not been equalled or bettered for almost fifty years. How many aerospace records stand for half a century? That has to be a record record. It might even be a record record record. 

Now my brain hurts so I’m going to bed.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 5, 2009)

Yes, it is the English Electric Lightnng. Apparently the vertical mounted engines allowed a smaller frontal area (don't know why) and the long highly swept wings with ailerons mounted perpendicular to the fuselage instead of on the swept trailing edge were excellent for manouvering, which sort of begs the question why it was never copied?


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 5, 2009)

I would imagine that smaller frontal area means less drag, and therefore faster climb. After all, the sole purpose of the Lightning was to get those missiles up to Soviet bomber altitude in the shortest possible time. If it wasn't for the fact that someone had to steer the thing, they probably would have left the pilot behind to save weight...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 5, 2009)

Murray B said:


> And what the heck is that on the ground underneath it?



Do you mean that liquidy looking stuff? That's actually the JP-7 fuel the Blackbird uses that has leaked out of the wings when it sits on the ground; the wing tanks don't actually get sealed until the airframe is at operating temperature (about 500F/250C) and the wing panels expand, sealing the gaps.



Murray B said:


> Yes, thanks for the photo and I would like to point out that this aircraft set a record for low ceiling that has not been equalled or bettered for almost fifty years. How many aerospace records stand for half a century? That has to be a record record. It might even be a record record record.
> 
> Now my brain hurts so I’m going to bed.



LOL!


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 5, 2009)

I think hovercraft would hold the low ceiling record , they are issued with aircraft registration they used to call the tower while transiting the control zone when I was on the west coast


----------



## Murray B (Feb 6, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only thing close would of been a -104 or a sidewinder missile!





Waynos said:


> I think the F-104 was more of a straight liner, maybe the Lightning, if anything, but not sure about 2g at that speed?





Waynos said:


> Yes, it is the English Electric Lightnng. Apparently the vertical mounted engines allowed a smaller frontal area (don't know why) and the long highly swept wings with ailerons mounted perpendicular to the fuselage instead of on the swept trailing edge were excellent for manouvering, which sort of begs the question why it was never copied?



Mentioning the F-104 and Lightning reminds me of a question about the Arrow that has been nagging me for some time. After Avro fails to meet the specifications and the program is cancelled the first time where are the other bids? Why didn’t Lockheed or English Electric bid on a contract to supply 100 interceptors? 



SoD Stitch said:


> Do you mean that liquidy looking stuff? That's actually the JP-7 fuel the Blackbird uses that has leaked out of the wings when it sits on the ground; the wing tanks don't actually get sealed until the airframe is at operating temperature (about 500F/250C) and the wing panels expand, sealing the gaps.



If I were supposed to fly the plane I would not find that explanation the least bit reassuring since paper starts to burn at 451 F. Those pilots must have had great courage to fly something like that.



pbfoot said:


> I think hovercraft would hold the low ceiling record , they are issued with aircraft registration they used to call the tower while transiting the control zone when I was on the west coast



Darn, another claim to fame shot to heck. Are you sure that a hovercraft is an aircraft? Okay, how about this then, the VZ-9A still holds the lowest ceiling record for circular aircraft?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 6, 2009)

Murray B said:


> After Avro fails to meet the specifications and the program is cancelled the first time where are the other bids? Why didn’t Lockheed or English Electric bid on a contract to supply 100 interceptors?



Did DND put out an RFP on the "defaulted" contract?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 6, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Did DND put out an RFP on the "defaulted" contract?


The Lightning was of no use as an interceptor in north America I think the range was seriously lacking for operations in Canada


----------



## Murray B (Feb 7, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> The Lightning was of no use as an interceptor in north America I think the range was seriously lacking for operations in Canada



The spec. was only for 200nm at speed and 300nm max on internal fuel. One interesting thing I found about the Lightning was that it could exceed the speed of sound without reheat. That sounds like it was fairly easy on fuel but it would be nice to have that confirmed by an old Lightning jockey.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Did DND put out an RFP on the "defaulted" contract?



There is a detailed timeline posted at:CF105 Avro Arrow: Timeline

It is not very readable so I generally use the "Arrow Scrapbook" by Peter Zuuring.

Strangely the whole thing seems to begin with a proposal by Avro in 1951. The RCAF responds in '52 with an Operational Requirement for a design study.

Avro then proposes making a delta. RCAF responds to that with an Aircraft specification AIR 7/3 in April '53. It seems to eliminate delta wing planforms from the start because they want the aircraft to perform a 2g turn at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet without loss of height or speed. [In RCAF Flight test 2 in September '58 the Arrow managed a "1.25G" turn at that altitude with speed dropping from 1.5 to "Mach 1.4" and the altitude "did vary somewhat"]

Both the NAE and DRB [both DND advisors] report the proposed aircraft has too much drag and the project is stopped in October '53. 

Not much money has been spent at this point and it seems a good time for an RFP on AIR 7/3 if they still want some interceptors. 

This does not seem to be what happened. Instead Avro says they will fix things and is given the go ahead in spring '54 to produce the first two aircraft and a test airframe. 

Someone asks for a third opinion from NACA which confirms in 19 November '54 that the "Avro CF-105 Aircraft" has "high drag", "poor planform" and the design lacks "proper application of the area rule."

It is not clear exactly when they are authorized to go into production but it is on a cost-plus basis and the initial cost analysis for the first forty aircraft comes in September ’54. 

Is it just me, or is it odd that they would procure aircraft without competitive bids or even a firm price?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2009)

Murray B said:


> Is it just me, or is it odd that they would procure aircraft without competitive bids or even a firm price?


In today's world that almost wouldn't happen - it seems like a "put your eggs all in one basket" scenario.


----------



## Glider (Feb 7, 2009)

I always wondered why the Canadians didn't buy the F4 once the CF105 had been cancelled. It had the range, performance and payload, as well as being affordable once it was in mass production for the USN. The F104 was a dead end in many ways with its limited range and payload.
A similar thought went for the Australia as an alternative for the F111. I kow they were lent some F4's due to delays with the F111 and a strong case was put for keeping them and buying more instead of the F111. No one is denying the F111 was an exceptional aircraft but you could have had a lot more F4's for your money and it was no slouch.


----------



## johnbr (Feb 7, 2009)

Because it was a good plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2009)

I was once told by an old DND chap that they did look at the F-4 and for some reason it was decided to go with the F-101/ F-104 and CF-5 Combo in order to afford the defense of Canada and for Canada to be able to meet its NATO commitment.


----------



## Murray B (Feb 7, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In today's world that almost wouldn't happen - it seems like a "put your eggs all in one basket" scenario.



More of putting a single egg in one basket but it probably should not have happened back then either. It seems to echo of procurement in the days of the Ross rifle. It was our MBR in WWI and jammed when dirty and/or hot. It was approved for service by a parliamentary committee that decided that even thought it jammed several times in testing it was okay to use. Many Canadians died unnecessarily until the MBRs were replaced.

The Arrow program looks similar to me. Somebody on the government side is pushing for it but it is not the DND who is actually quite cheeky with their AIR-7/3 turn performance requirement. This requirement is not likely to be possible for anything with a delta-wing planform including the aircraft that was proposed by Avro.



Glider said:


> I always wondered why the Canadians didn't buy the F4



Because of several American conspiracies. First of all the McDonnel people intentionally conspired to build a better aircraft. No amount of denial will convince me otherwise. Then there was a conspiracy of the various U.S. armed services to buy the aircraft because they knew it was better. This meant the thing was so much in demand it was backordered. It would be like trying to get a cabbage patch doll when they were so hot.

On the other hand the Voodoos that were purchased were fine aircraft that served well for many years. They were capable of Mach 1.5+ and had fairly good range. The F4 spec. indicates Mach 2+ but I can find nothing about its radius at that speed. I might be interesting to compare the speeds of both aircraft at the same mission radius. To compare apples to apples, though, was there ever a Phantom with SAGE autopilot and the ability to carry the AIR-2A? 



FLYBOYJ said:


> I was once told by an old DND chap that they did look at the F-4 and for some reason it was decided to go with the F-101/ F-104 and CF-5 Combo in order to afford the defense of Canada and for Canada to be able to meet its NATO commitment.



$2 million for each Voodo complete with SAGE but without AIR-2A, of course, since we never operated nuclear weapons in Canada. How much for a SAGE compatible F-4 equipped to carry the Genie? What would the delivery delay have been?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 7, 2009)

> $2 million for each Voodo complete with SAGE but without AIR-2A, of course, since we never operated nuclear weapons in Canada.


Depends who you ask...


> How much for a SAGE compatible F-4 equipped to carry the Genie? What would the delivery delay have been?


The same DND guy who told me about the F-4 also said that Trudeau wanted F-4s.


----------



## Murray B (Feb 7, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends who you ask...



My research indicates a base price of $1.5 million so that is consistent with Foulkes' figure of $2 million. What figures have you heard?



FLYBOYJ said:


> The same DND guy who told me about the F-4 also said that Trudeau wanted F-4s.



I have no reason to doubt what he told you but I Trust Mr. Trudeau's judgement on a technical matter as much as any lawyer. I expect that it was lawyers that chose the Ross rifle too. What was the base price of the Phantom II when it was introduced?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 8, 2009)

Murray B said:


> The spec. was only for 200nm at speed and 300nm max on internal fuel.


200 nm range at speed ?if you mean full power that is really pretty good I know for a fact the 101 couldn't achieve it and doubt the F4 could That is one pile of fuel you are using I would guess about 150 gals/600l a minute . I had many an anxious moment turning a 101/F4/106 onto a 4 mile final because of low fuel,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2009)

Murray B said:


> My research indicates a base price of $1.5 million so that is consistent with Foulkes' figure of $2 million. What figures have you heard?


Actually I was talking about nukes on Canadian soil. I heard of Genies and Nuclear Depth Charges "passing through" during times of crisis.



Murray B said:


> I have no reason to doubt what he told you but I Trust Mr. Trudeau's judgement on a technical matter as much as any lawyer. I expect that it was lawyers that chose the Ross rifle too. What was the base price of the Phantom II when it was introduced?


Wiki tells me 2.4 million which sounds about right. (F-4E)


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually I was talking about nukes on Canadian soil. I heard of Genies and Nuclear Depth Charges "passing through" during times of crisis.
> 
> Wiki tells me 2.4 million which sounds about right. (F-4E)


The Genies were always available up until 78/79 but were under US custody , the USAF had there own weapons bunkers and security staff , the Q aircraft (101's)were always nuke armed


----------



## Murray B (Feb 8, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> if you mean full power that is really pretty good I know for a fact the 101 couldn't achieve it and doubt the F4 could That is one pile of fuel you are using I would guess about 150 gals/600l a minute . I had many an anxious moment turning a 101/F4/106 onto a 4 mile final because of low fuel,



Actually I was not involved with the purchase at all and just read that from a facimile of part of the specificaton. Perhaps THEY meant Mach 1.5 since that figure is often mentioned.

Do you know the actual measured specific fuel consumption of the Iroquois? All I have is the stuff from the marketing department.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually I was talking about nukes on Canadian soil. I heard of Genies and Nuclear Depth Charges "passing through" during times of crisis.



Nope, they were actually stationed here but were never “here” technically. 

This is from the wiki on the CF-101:

“The succeeding Pearson government finally signed an agreement with the United States concerning nuclear arms for Canada on 16 August 1963...The agreement specifically stated that the AIR-2A Genie rockets were the property of the United States, and would only be released to Canada for actual use with the joint agreement of Canada and the United States through NORAD...The Genies were kept in the custody of theUSAF, with detachments of the 425th Munitions Support Squadron located at each of the Canadian bases.”

This is too funny. Diefenbaker is defeated for suggesting we have nukes on our soil and the other guys solve the problem by doing it and then intentionally disinforming the Canadian public. We are all just so nice up here, Eh?



FLYBOYJ said:


> Wiki tells me 2.4 million which sounds about right. (F-4E)



Okay so the F-4 is wait listed because of demand and McDonnell has excess capacity to produce "one oh wonders". Are they going to give a discount on an F-4 made to a new specification that includes SAGE and the Genie? Even if they do give a good price, how long will it be before the contract can be fulfilled? Wouldn’t that be like trying to find a dozen of those Nintendo Wee Wees at Christmas time?

Of course our frugal DND missed a real opportunity to spend public money here. Forget the F-105 and F-4. We coulda had the F-12B for a miserly $16 million per copy. It was by far the cheapest Mach 3+ interceptor available in the west and the airframes were already in production for other purposes. It was also the SEXIEST INTERCEPTOR IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENTIRE WORLD! As Admiral Flintstone once said, “Damn the budget restrictions, CHARGE IT!”


----------



## Murray B (May 17, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> I don't know anything about this experimental engine, but suspect that the hot section lifespan was SEVERELY limited due to the metallurgy of the day. And most likely of such grave limitations as to not be of production quality. Zoom fast. Throw it away.



Magellan (Orenda) has posted the thrust rating of the Iroquios at Magellan Repair, Overhaul Industrial - About Us - History 

The interesting part is, "In 1953, the design of a much more advanced engine, proposed for the Avro CF-105 (Arrow), was initiated. The engine, ultimately to be named the Iroquois, was rated at 19,250 lbs dry, 25,000 lbs afterburning." 

The already in production J75 rating is given in "The Arrow Scrapbook" by Peter Zuuring page 15, "Engine data: Pratt and Whitney J75...maximum rating, 16,500 lb dry, or 24,000 lb with reaheat." This source appears to be Avro. 

It is interesting that the Canadian Forces have 'clarified' a few things on their official site at Canada's Air Force, Aircraft, Historical Aircraft, Avro CF-105 Arrow Mk.1 

Note the following:

"The Arrow program was unique in that the prototype was built using the same tools and rigs that were to be used on production Aircraft..." this word "unique" means that Canadians invented the Cook Craigie Plan.

"During the test flights, the Arrow had flown at mach 1.96 and up to 50,000 feet..." and " the Arrow proved to be the fastest, most sophisticated fighter in the world at the time, with a top speed of 1,650 mph." 

They do not mention the altitude but I calculate (check my math) that the speed of sound is correct at 31,300 ft below sea level. The Arrow must have had the equivalent of an Oscillation Overthruster to fly at that altitude. The overthruster techniqe is desribed in the docu-drama, "...Across the 8th Dimension." but the program wrongly credits B. Banzai with inventing the device. Obviously, the device is of Canadian origin and the Avro Arrow had the potential to use it many years before the documentary was made.

If that is not funny enough, check this, " The Arrow was a very clean design and many of its features were copied on other North American-made fighters, including today's F-22 Raptor." It is strange that the Canadian Air Force wants to buy F-35s which are a low cost development of an F-22 which is a copy of an Arrow. Why would they want a copy once removed when they could have the original Arrow because we have the technology to rebuid the CF-105?

Does the U.S.A.F or U.S.M.C. have anything as funny as this material from the "official" Canadian Forces site?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2009)

Murray B said:


> If that is not funny enough, check this, " The Arrow was a very clean design and many of its features were copied on other North American-made fighters, including today's F-22 Raptor." It is strange that the Canadian Air Force wants to buy F-35s which are a low cost development of an F-22 which is a copy of an Arrow. Why would they want a copy once removed when they could have the original Arrow because we have the technology to rebuid the CF-105?



Anyone who thinks the F-22 is a copy of the Arrow is blind or stupid. Probably both, I don't care if it comes from the Canadian military's official site. I hope not, because that would make the Canadian Military, well...(just read the sentence above about blind or stupid...), and up until now I have had nothing but good things to say about the Canadian military.

Lets see:

CF 105 Arrow











F-22











*Please show me now how it is a copy of the CF 105? You keep grasping for air my friend.*


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

If the Raptor copied its internal bay from the Arrow, where did the F-106 get its own from? Ah, I know, they both copied the DH Mosquito, or something. 

Adler, I think you are attacking Murray unnecessarily, he is mocking the comparison, not promoting it. I have seen this comment before and it relates to the internal weapon bay, not the overall design, hence my first line.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2009)

Good point there Waynos. I was not even thinking of the eternal bay? If that is what he is saying is the copies feature, well that is wrong as well, since the 105 was not the first aircraft to have an eternal bay.

The F-22 has eternal bay because of stealth, not because of the Cf-105.

So all in all that argument is batted out of the park like a baseball. 

Oh and Waynos this last part is not an attack on him either. Shall I send him a PM telling him so?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Adler, I think you are attacking Murray unnecessarily, he is mocking the comparison, not promoting it. I have seen this comment before and it relates to the internal weapon bay, not the overall design, hence my first line.



I am not attacking anyone. There were no insults to him in my post. 

Any other complaints?


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

Maybe 'attack' was too strong a word, but the line "Please show me now how it is a copy of the CF 105? You keep grasping for air my friend" reads like it is directed at Murray as if he believes the comparison to be true when the tone of his post shows me he does not. 

Thats what I meant to say.


----------



## pbfoot (May 17, 2009)

I'll stae it again in 1939 the Brits said we could not produce the Spitfire as it was to complicated for us but they would let us build the Hurricane in 15 short years we were designing top of the line aircraft , the worlds second JetAirliner, the CF100 and the Arrow 
MurrayB has an agenda , I believe he is an apologist for the PM Diefenbaker it would be akin to being an apologist for Pres Carter in the US or so his posts on other sites would indicate. 
I found an article on the guy who flew the B47 with the Iroqouis tacked tacked on which whem I have time will post later


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

Interesting point. At the time the C-102 was being built Boeing were openly stating that jet engines did not belong on transport aircraft. It was only the appearance of the Comet that made them have a rethink. Ironic how they became the global leaders in jet transports isn't it


----------



## pbfoot (May 17, 2009)

heres the article
This is a love story, from the first tentative contacts to the crescendo of violins,the flood of bright colours and the shaking of the earth at its climax. Anyone who has felt the passion of deep a commitment will understand it Passion is rarely understood by rationalists either. the people who are so preoccupied with analysis that they will disect a canary to see how, or why, it sings, and then are baffled when It no longer sings when they try to re-assemble it. Something ethereal has been lost, the whole is more than the sum of the parts, so it was In the story which follows.
This love affair was between a young engineer and a machine, specifically the Iroquois jet engine.
Our first meeting occurred In heady, perilous, at 
somewhat hopeful times heady because our previous designs had been successful; perilous because in Ottawa our military establishment was laying . down the contingency plans for WW 111, and hopeful in that preparedness might avert another tragedy.
The gestation period for an engine is four to five years, and the birth pains are severe. However, by 1958 the beast had been born.
Before at could be flown the engine had to pass a preflight rotary test in the test house to demonstrate that It could meet its guarantees and stay together m the process. One of the pioneers an jet engine design said that engines should be designed to run one rpm below the speed at which they would explode, and one degree centigrade below the temperature at which they would melt Wlule I this advice wasn't followed internally lt was necessary to wring the last ounce out of the materials and the aerodynamics. So it was far from a foregone conclusion that the engine would survive the grueling 25 hours of the test cycle In August we looked through the heavy glass port at our sleeping genie, sleek, silvery, and silent, conscious that the guarantee required lt to be a angled to maximum power all under 40 seconds by simply pushing the pilots control lever from "OFF" to "Mil" On the nod from the crew chief, I shoved the lever fully forward and started to pray under my breath As the precious seconds tracked by, we 
watched the tachometer creep up with agonizing slowness - 500. 1000 1500 2000 rpm, after 22 seconds there was a satisfying whoompf as the fuel and ignition came on. Now the critical factor was how fast the fuel control could ''pour on the coal By 30 seconds the tachometer was a blur. and at 36 seconds the final nozzle flew open and the afterburner blazed brightly. We made it! Thirty-eight seconds and 37.000
lbs of thrust. When the cheering and handshaking subsided.
the assorted midwives settled down to the rest of the 25 hours of testing.
The next important milestone was the flight test program in a B47 bomber that was loaned by the USAF The Iroquois had been mounted on the right side of the fuselage about mid- way between the wing and the tail. The first flights were to test the integrity of the installation and give the test pilots the ''feel'' of the aircraft.
Finally the day came to teat the Iroquois in its element. the high, thin, cold and unforgiving stratospheric air. As we increased the power setting on the Iroquois. the pilot reduced power on the other the six jet engines that normally power the aircraft. Eventually these six engines were at idle, contributing nothing to the flight of the aircraft. As we advanced the power setting on the Iroquois. we got the B47 to the maximum speed at which it was safe to fly. and we still had ''money" in the bank A great sense of pride welled up. Why should we be “hewers of wood and drawers of water”?

We'd just taken on the best in the world and beaten them. The teast crew was walking a foot off the groundwhen the plane landed at Malton.
On feb 20 1959 the government cancelled the program and my best year ended on a note of having been betrayed . 
Pardon me Sir but where do they keep the pails and the axe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Murray B said:


> " The Arrow was a very clean design and many of its features were copied on other North American-made fighters, including today's F-22 Raptor." It is strange that the Canadian Air Force wants to buy F-35s which are a low cost development of an F-22 which is a copy of an Arrow. Why would they want a copy once removed when they could have the original Arrow because we have the technology to rebuid the CF-105?
> 
> Does the U.S.A.F or U.S.M.C. have anything as funny as this material from the "official" Canadian Forces site?


Good post Murry - more delusional BS in an attempt to show the Arrow was this super plane, when, as discussed before, was ahead of its time but still was contemporary with what was coming off the drawing board 50 years ago.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

I sent this to the folks who run that site.

_"In your article about the AVRO Arrow under Canada's Air Force, you make many references to things that are just plain silly. In its day the Arrow was quite an advanced aircraft, but for years Canadian pride and disappointment has evolved stories about the Arrow into high-fetched myths and propaganda. To say there are items "copied" from the Arrow that are found on the F-22 is absurd.

Gentlemen, the Arrow "could have" been a fine combat aircraft, but due to politics its days were numbered. To make more of the aircraft of what it really was is actually taking away from its rightful place in history.

Here is a link to a website that has an on going discussion about the Arrow, you are welcomed to make comments."_


----------



## pbfoot (May 17, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Good post Murry - more delusional BS in an attempt to show the Arrow was this super plane, when, as discussed before, was ahead of its time but still was contemporary with what was coming off the drawing board 50 years ago.


 I don't pretend to know all the technical things but what that moron of a PM Diefenbaker did was almost kill the aviation industry in Canada , if you look around on the net you'll see MurrayB's sole purpose in life is to save the Legacy of Diefenbaker , who if you guys can remember was not very friendly to the US if anything he was anti american. In fact during the Cuban missile crisis refused to upgrade to Defcon 3. If this is considered political please do not hesitate to delete .
My position on the Arrow is that we could not afford it not that it was bad


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I don't pretend to know all the technical things but what that moron of a PM Diefenbaker did was almost kill the aviation industry in Canada , if you look around on the net you'll see MurrayB's sole purpose in life is to save the Legacy of Diefenbaker , who if you guys can remember was not very friendly to the US if anything he was anti american. In fact during the Cuban missile crisis refused to upgrade to Defcon 3. If this is considered political please do not hesitate to delete .
> My position on the Arrow is that we could not afford it not that it was bad



I remember Diefenbaker's position with regards to the US - cold is a good description.

Despite what you think of Murry's agenda, he brings up many points about the limitations of the aircraft and has call many on the "myths" about this aircraft, just like the one from an official DND website. I think the history of the aircraft is better served with one understanding that it was a very good aircraft with promising capability but at the same time did have limitations. Additionally, the manufacturer was not exactly doing a great job meeting schedule and keeping its operating budget down. It "could have" served well within NORAD and NATO. It "would have" been quickly eclipsed by the technology of the day - The North American F-108 for example was just a few years in development behind the Arrow and offered the same performance. Because of cost and a changing mission, it too was canceled.


----------



## pbfoot (May 17, 2009)

I have yet to see him bring up a single good point hence I find his view as not impartial ,but I do commend his impartial stance on the former pinhead PM Diefenbaker


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I have yet to see him bring up a single good point hence I find his view as not impartial ,but I do commend his impartial stance on the former pinhead PM Diefenbaker



He does on post 195.

Aside the political ramblings about the program, it was overbudget and behind schedule. DND also knew about some issues and well and all this has been well documented.


----------



## red admiral (May 17, 2009)

> It "would have" been quickly eclipsed by the technology of the day - The North American F-108 for example was just a few years in development behind the Arrow and offered the same performance.



The F-108 offered considerably better performance. Well, probably a generation ahead if it ended up in service in the mid 60s with something like the AIM-47/54.

As I've said before, the problem with the Arrow was the weapons system. Avro tried to develop a missile system with the capability of the AIM-120 and strangely found that this wasn't possible with the available technology. As a result, there was a choice of AIM-4 or Genie missiles (maybe 2xRed Dean in conformal stowage) which restricts capability. In an all out nuclear war, Genie is fine. In other scenarios the offensive power is extremely limited.

The Arrow itself is far from the superplane its made out to be. The UK had a similar requirement from the same period with the Fairey "Delta III" being the most likely design to go into production. It shared a similar layout to the Arrow with a large Delta wing, but had much greater performance, especially at altitude. The Arrow has a ceiling of around 55-60,000ft whilst this has a 70,000ft ceiling and is able to climb to that altitude in 1.5minutes. Speed for both designs is limited by engine temperatures to about M2.2 yet the Fairey design has so much more power available its calculated able to do M1.9 without reheat and with external stores. Comparison with the F-108 projects show a similar story.


----------



## pbfoot (May 17, 2009)

Canada bit off more them it could chew , the origibnal plan was to use an offshore engine either the Olympus or its American sister the J67 and it was to use an American fire control system from Hughes neither were ready or up to the standards demanded so they had to go it alone .Hence the Iroquois and Velvet Glove


----------



## Murray B (May 18, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Anyone who thinks the F-22 is a copy of the Arrow is blind or stupid. Probably both, I don't care if it comes from the Canadian military's official site. I hope not, because that would make the Canadian Military, well...



The absurd comparison is what makes the material so funny. I almost wet my pants laughing when I read it. It makes every Canadian, not just our military, look blind and stupid, as you point out, and yet it is posted on the official site. What is not posted is the actual specifications of the CF-101 and Avro Arrow for purposes of comparison. As far as I know the material is declassified and can be posted now.



FLYBOYJ said:


> ...the "myths" about this aircraft...


 
The greatest myth about the Arrow is that it was a beautiful ‘unicorn’ that was murdered by Diefenbaker and the evil Amercans. This myth seems to have been contrived for political purposes.

First problem with the tall tale is that Diefenbaker does not kill the program out of spite. All he does is take the advice of the Joint Chiefs. From cabinet minutes Aug 28 /58 page 7, “The chiefs of Staff had undertaken such a review. The main points that were considered were the following: The assessment of the threat had changed...main threat would probably be from ballistic missiles with the manned bomber decreasing in importance...Finally, the cost of the CF-105 programme as a whole was now of such a magnitude that the Chiefs of Staff felt that, to meet the modest requirement of manned aircraft presently considered advisable, it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S.” [page 242, “The Arrow Scrapbook”]

So, it is really the Joint Chiefs that should be “blamed” for killing the Arrow and no one else. Note that they mentioned “comparable performance” which by itself indicates that the Arrow’s abilities are not that exceptional.

It is interesting to note in the CAE Memorandum of 17 Jan 58 that states, “A reduction in ferry range to 1254 nm is not acceptable.” also states “...the possible advantages to range and radius of action if the engines are optimised at M 1.5 [instead of M 2]. This seems to be strong evidence for excessive drag. 

If the Arrow had too much drag and could not go the distance then there was never a 'unicorn' to murder. It follows that the Joint Chiefs and/or the Americans are innocent of the crime. 

The big question that remains is why it cost $308 million to develop aircraft with performance “comparable” to $2 million dollar aircraft. Sadly, we will probably never know what really happened because the company’s records were destroyed.


----------



## pbfoot (May 18, 2009)

How do you know what the range was or if there was too much drag , the thing never flew with it's proper engines , and as for the DND thing I'm quite sure they had the best minds make up the website its a non issue


----------



## Stitch (May 18, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Canada bit off more them it could chew , the origibnal plan was to use an offshore engine either the Olympus or its American sister the J67 and it was to use an American fire control system from Hughes neither were ready or up to the standards demanded so they had to go it alone .Hence the Iroquois and Velvet Glove



Definitely; the Canadians actually wanted to use the Sparrow II missle, a follow-on to the relaitively unsuccessful Sparrow I, which the US Navy had already cancelled. As stated above, the Sparrow II was supposed to have an active radar seeker (as opposed to the semi-active radar seeker found in the Sparrow I) in an airframe the same size as the Sparrow I; the only missle in the world at that time which carried an active radar seeker was the AIM-47, which weighed twice as much as a Sparrow I/II. Only with modern digital technology have we been able to package a missle with the radar power of the AIM-47/54 into a Sparrow-size airframe, so clearly this was not going to work using 50's-era technology.

Also, AFAIK, they never intended to use the Curtis-Wright J-67 in the Arrow; the first flying examples of the Arrow used the P&W J-75, with the Iriquois to be installed at a later date after they had all of the bugs worked out of it (which, of course, never happened).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2009)

Murray B said:


> The absurd comparison is what makes the material so funny. I almost wet my pants laughing when I read it. It makes every Canadian, not just our military, look blind and stupid, as you point out, and yet it is posted on the official site. What is not posted is the actual specifications of the CF-101 and Avro Arrow for purposes of comparison. As far as I know the material is declassified and can be posted now.



Ah I misunderstood your post then.


----------



## Murray B (May 19, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I had many an anxious moment turning a 101/F4/106 onto a 4 mile final because of low fuel,



Sorry, but I do not know what you mean by this. I’m a ‘computer guy’ and not an ‘aircraft guy’ and this makes no sense to me. 



pbfoot said:


> How do you know what the range was or if there was too much drag...



The ferry range is from a CAE Memorandum regarding Aircraft performance by WW Bean dated 17 Jan 58. He writes, “A reduction in ferry range to 1254 nm is not acceptable.” [Reprinted in The Arrow Scrapbook page 76] 

The combat radii are given as 238 nm and 347 nm on page 121 of “Storms of Controversy” by Palmiro Campagna. It should be noted that Avro was trying to increase the range. 

For the Voodoo all I can find is a post at F-101 Voodoo Range Question  Military Forum | Airliners.net by a fellow called Hunterson, “The F-101 was a large aircraft, even when compared to other same-generation types such as the F-106 and the F-4. It was able to carry a large amount of internal fuel, as well as 3 external fuel tanks, hence its relatively long ferry range of some 2200 miles [1930nm?], and corresponding combat radius typically quoted at 550-600 nm.”

The only thing I can think of that would cause the Avro to have much shorter range than the Voodoo is drag.



pbfoot said:


> ...the thing never flew with it's proper engines...



I can find no SFC for the Iroquois but there is something on page 41 of The Arrow Scrapbook regarding the Iroquois 2. The SFC is listed at 0.85 lb/lbt/hr. 

So far I cannot find the SFC for The J75-P-3 but there is a site that gives some engine data at Military Turbojet/Turbofan Specifications. There is no SFC for the J75-P-3 but 0.85 seems typical. So, given the same SFC why would more thrust make the Arrow travel further? [Remember that I am a ‘computer guy’ and do not understand all of these things.]



pbfoot said:


> ...and as for the DND thing I'm quite sure they had the best minds make up the website its a non issue...”



I know that as a Canadian I am supposed to have complete trust in my government. The DND is a branch of government and so must also be trustworthy. It is probably my fault but I am still confused. At what altitude does “mach 1.96” = “1,650 mph”? 



Stitch said:


> Definitely; the Canadians actually wanted to use the Sparrow II missle...



Not hardly [as John Wayne used to say]. By the late fifties such missiles are obsolete and here is why. Soviet technology was probably not advanced enough for deception jamming but they could certainly use noise jamming. Even a simple spark-gap transmitter and crude antenna would white out the entire sector of an interceptor’s radar. They would have crude azimuth data but nothing on range and nothing for an active or passive seeker in a missile to lock on to. Our military fully understood that the only thing that would work was SAGE and missiles with nuclear warheads. 

SAGE had a giant IBM mainframe that coordinated inputs from multiple radars [that would also be jammed by noise] and then process the azimuth data from mulitiple stations statistically to estimate the target location. The computer would then direct the interceptor to fly within range of that estimate and launch a nuclear AAM towards the area. The weapon had to be nuclear since the location data was imprecise. Whatever solution the DND chose it had to include SAGE so the military did not want to use the Sparrow for the interceptor.


----------



## pbfoot (May 28, 2009)

Again I'll state we in Canada bit off more then we can chew but this little piece by Jan Zurakowski the test pilot is interesting

"Performance results were collected on flights of five Arrow MK One aircraft fitted with Pratt and Whitney J 75 engines was used to estimate the performance of the MK 11 Arrcw fitted with Iroquois engines.
The Arrow with J 75 engines was heavier than with the Iroquois and had to be ballasted for a correct center of gravity position. Mark II with Iroquois engines did not need a ballast and was about 5000 lbs.
Lighter and had more thrust". 


I believe the 5000lbs should probably read 500lbs but can't confirm
Another thing to consider was that at the time the CF100 was probably the best long range interceptor in the west certianly much better then the F89 and leaps ahead of the Meteor i can't comment on the Eastern block interceptors but it is a comment on the standards of Canadian technology.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Again I'll state we in Canada bit off more then we can chew but this little piece by Jan Zurakowski the test pilot is interesting
> 
> "Performance results were collected on flights of five Arrow MK One aircraft fitted with Pratt and Whitney J 75 engines was used to estimate the performance of the MK 11 Arrcw fitted with Iroquois engines.
> The Arrow with J 75 engines was heavier than with the Iroquois and had to be ballasted for a correct center of gravity position. Mark II with Iroquois engines did not need a ballast and was about 5000 lbs.
> ...



The F-94C had a range of 800 miles, I show the CF-100 at 650. The F-94C and the CF-100 MK V had about the same speed and armament.


----------



## pbfoot (May 28, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-94C had a range of 800 miles, I show the CF-100 at 650. The F-94C and the CF-100 MK V had about the same speed and armament.



everything I find indicates 2000nm and it held a few more of the unguided missles and 4 more 50 cal I as always stand to be corrected


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> everything I find indicates 2000nm and it held a few more of the unguided missles and 4 more 50 cal I as always stand to be corrected


 
CF-100 Mk 5 Specifications:

Maximum Speed: 649 m.p.h. at 10,000ft.
Service Ceiling: 54,000ft.
*Combat Radius: 650 miles*
Range: 2,000 miles
Weight: Empty 23,052 lb.
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 36,923 lb.
Span: 58 feet
Length: 54 feet 1 inch
Height: 15 feet 6 inches
Wing area: 591 square feet
Weapons: 2 pods of 29 70-mm folding fin aircraft rockets (FFAR)

http://www.atlanticcanadaaviation.com/cf100/cf100.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2009)

SPECIFICATIONS (F-94C): 
Span: 37 ft. 4 in. 
Length: 44 ft. 4 in. 
Height: 14 ft. 11 in. 
Weight: 24,000 lbs. maximum 
Armament: 24 2.75 in. Folding Fin Aerial Rockets in nose and 24 FFARs in two wing pods 
Engines: Pratt Whitney J48-P-5 or -5A of 8,750 lbs. thrust with afterburner (early -C models had J48-P-3, and late models were field upgraded to J48-P-7)


PERFORMANCE: 
Maximum speed: 640 mph 
Cruising speed: 476 mph 
Range: 1,275 miles 
Service ceiling: 51,800 ft.


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> CF-100 Mk 5 Specifications:
> 
> Maximum Speed: 649 m.p.h. at 10,000ft.
> Service Ceiling: 54,000ft.
> ...


Tjats 650 nm on internal fuel don't forget those humoungpus tip tanks which were almost standard


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2009)

Illustrated Anatomy of the World's ... - Google Book Search
this seems a little more encompassing with facts


----------



## Graeme (May 29, 2009)

Would this be with or without all that fuel?...


----------



## Murray B (May 29, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I believe the 5000lbs should probably read 500lbs but can't confirm



According to the Arrow Scrapbook page 15 the J-75's weight is given by Avro as "about 7,000lb".

On page 33 they give the weight of the Iroquois at 4500 pounds. Note that they also overrate the thrust at 26,000 pounds when it was actually rated at 25,000.

This is a 5,000 pound difference but it should be noted that some of the JT4/J75 series weighed as little as 4200 pounds and gave up to 26,500 lbs thrust with reheat. The tradeoffs appear to be cost, with lighter engines costing more, and engine life, where higher thrust reduces life expectancy. 

There is a lot to suggest that the Arrow actually flew with 26,000 pound thrust engines but since no Arrow flew with Orendas the engines must have been J-75s. It is my understanding that the J-75 could put out more than 26,000 pounds of thrust with water injection. This seems to be the only way for an Arrow to fly with 52,000 pounds total thrust. There is nothing I have found so far to explain why a stock CF-105 maxed out at about mach 1.75 for the RCAF but went mach 1.96 for an Avro test pilot. The only thing that makes sense is a stripped down aircraft with modified engines for the higher speed run. Sort of a streak-Arrow if you catch my meaning. Whatever the reason, it is irrelevent because the aircraft was not rejected for lack of speed. Mach 1.5 was good enough. 



pbfoot said:


> Another thing to consider was that at the time the CF100 was probably the best long range interceptor in the west...



What has this got to do with the CF-105?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2009)

Murray B said:


> What has this got to do with the CF-105?




They're both from Canada? 

Nice to see ya around Murray....


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2009)

Murray B said:


> According to the Arrow Scrapbook page 15 the J-75's weight is given by Avro as "about 7,000lb".
> 
> On page 33 they give the weight of the Iroquois at 4500 pounds. Note that they also overrate the thrust at 26,000 pounds when it was actually rated at 25,000.
> 
> ...


 did you read the article by the guy that worked in the test cell that I posted ....no..,


----------



## slaterat (May 30, 2009)

The range for the CF-100 was 2000 NM, or 2,272 M compared to 1275 M for the F-94. The 650 NM combat radius included warmup, takeoff, climb to 40,000ft, cruise at 450 Knots to a range of 650 NM, 15 minutes of combat and then rtb. All on internal fuel. The Cf- 100 had pretty long legs. 

Slaterat


----------



## Murray B (May 30, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They're both from Canada?
> 
> Nice to see ya around Murray....



They are both Avro products too. Many British companies including Avro had problems building low-drag bisonic aircraft. The U.S. companies were more successful and I think this was partly because they had lower drag than their competition. The Phantom II is big and powerful but it also slides through the air easier than most other aircraft of its day.

Are you starting to see that the Arrow ‘unicorn’ myth is a complete fabrication of the liberal media? The Canadian Joint Chiefs recommended cancellation because aircraft of “comparable performance” were already available for far less money. The DND was happy to see the project cancelled but the government wanted to cancel it without replacement and that started a fight. The RCAF still wanted the 900 million remaining in the budget for other aircraft. They eventually got a big chunk of that money and bought a bunch of CF-101s, CF-104s, and CF-5s with it. Diefenbaker must have been absolutely shocked when the media started to accuse him of murdering a ‘unicorn’ that never existed. Especially considering how his government’s involvement with the Arrow was only to accept the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs. 

The Arrow is the world’s most overrated aircraft and the Avro ‘unicorn’ myth is one the longest running cons in history. 
Fifty years, still going strong and, still complete nonsense. 

Its nice to see you around too, FlyboyJ.



pbfoot said:


> did you read the article by the guy that worked in the test cell that I posted ....no..,



Nope, but let me guess that he says they got more than 25,000 pounds of thrust out of the engine. That is not surprising since practically every jet engine ever made could produce more than 100% of its rated thrust. Surely, you already know this. 

The problem with the higher thrust is that it overheats the combustor thingy [computer guy technical term] and erodes the blades in the hot part.of the engine. Not good because engine life can be reduced dramatically depending on how much over the rating they go. The 25,000 pound thrust rating given by Magellan (Orenda) is correct and 26,500 pounds measured on a test is interesting but not that useful.


----------



## pbfoot (May 30, 2009)

Sorry I'm more prone to believe the test pilot then some guy on the internet , the fact that all evidence of the bird was destroyed means both of our opinions mean nothing.


----------



## Murray B (May 30, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Sorry I'm more prone to believe the test pilot then some guy on the internet , the fact that all evidence of the bird was destroyed means both of our opinions mean nothing.



Do you believe that you are a jockey? You wrote:



pbfoot said:


> I had many an anxious moment turning a 101/F4/106 onto a 4 mile final because of low fuel...



Since the F-106 was a single-seater this sounds like you were the jockey.

The Arrow program was top secret and the information about it would have been compartmentalised. There is no reason to assume that the test pilots knew that the aircraft was failing to meet specifications.

Orenda did not go out of business but became Magellan ROI. They posted the Iroquois rating and they might as well because the thrust rating of the engine is a matter of record.

The only evidence that was destroyed was Avro’s and there is plenty of RCAF documentation on the aircraft. Pretty much all of it is declassified now and it is possible to determine the Aircraft’s actual performance. What we may never know is how they managed to spend $308 million to develop an aircraft with performance “comparable” to an existing $2 million dollar aircraft.

Arrow specifications as compiled by Murray B [in Gunston format]:

[Note: TAS=The Arrow Scrapbook by Zuuring, SOC = Storms of Controversy by Campagna, IDF = The Illustrated Directory of Fighters by Spick]

Avro CF-105 Arrow

Origin: Avro Aircraft Limited, Malton, Ont. [Canada] 

Type: Two-seat all-weather interceptor.

Engines: Two Pratt and Whitney J75-P-3 two-spool afterburning turbojets. “Maximum rating, 16,500 lb dry, or 24,000 lb with reheat.” [TAS p 15] 

Dimensions: Span 50 ft; length 83 ft 2in; height 21ft 3in. [TAS p 15]

Weights: Empty 49,040lb; Maximum takeoff 68,602lb. [IDF p 28]

Performance: Mach 1.75 to mach 1.98 [varies with source] Service ceiling, greater than 50,000ft and up to 70.000ft. [varies with source] Combat radius (low speed) 358nm [SOC p 121], combat radius (high speed) 238 nm [SOC p 121]. Ferry range 1254nm. [TAS p 76] 

Armament: “Typically three AIM-7 Sparrow 2 and eight AIM-4 Falcon homing missiles in an internal weapons bay.” [IDF p 28]

History: First flight March 25, 1958. Cancelled February 20, 1959. [IDF p 28]

The Arrow was a large fighter that was capable of near bisonic speeds. It was cancelled in early 1959 following the recommendation of the Canadian Chiefs of Staff. Less expensive aircraft of comparable performance were purchased instead.

What makes me most angry about the ‘unicorn’ myth is that this politically motivated fiction is now being taught in our schools as fact. The schools should be teaching the three Rs and not indoctrinating students to hate Americans for murdering our beautiful ‘unicorn’. There never was a ‘unicorn’.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 30, 2009)

Murray B said:


> Do you believe that you are a jockey? You wrote:



No but he was an air traffic controller.


----------



## pbfoot (May 30, 2009)

I worked in the Air Defence realm as an AirTCon for about 10yrs I've sure I've talked to every 101 in the 2nd batch many times , I'm sure I got to see or talk to every CF 116 the most useless aircraft ever purchased by Canada , I know how fast they go and how fast they climb its easy to figure out on radar ,and better yet I know the range limitations . I know guys that worked the Arrow and on it , I've listened as pilots talked to Zura he was a test pilot not a salesman and I believe with his professionialism he would not lie about it . The aircraft was IMHO a viable aircraft not the be all to end all but a good aircraft it certainly would have been better then the 101 and Bomarc combination . 
Please tell me you don't think the pilot would not know the parameters of his aircraftcuz if he didn't he would not be much of test pilot or a fool


----------



## Matt308 (May 30, 2009)

Keep it civil, Murray. It's all good.


----------



## Murray B (May 30, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I worked in the Air Defence realm as an AirTCon for about 10yrs...



Excellent. I was wondering why you did not think the Canadian Air Force’s “mach 1.96 = 1650 mph” was so funny. If you look at an airspeed vs mach vs altitude chart the problem becomes obvious because it is not on the chart. I had to crunch the equations and mach 1.96 = 1650 mph at about 31,000 ft BELOW sea level. That is well into the magma would require an “oscillation overthruster” for sure. That is what our military is posting for the world to see. 

As an ‘ATC guy’ do you agree with the Joint Chief’s assessment back then that the interceptor had to be SAGE capable? 



pbfoot said:


> The aircraft was IMHO a viable aircraft not the be all to end all but a good aircraft it certainly would have been better then the 101 and Bomarc combination .



A great source of information is Peter Zuuring’s “The Arrow Scrapbook” that I picked up at Chapters. He reprints the Cabinet minutes of August 28, 1958 where the Chiefs of Staff recommend cancellation because, “...it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S.” 

If the C.I.A. is involved then it is with the Joint Chiefs and not the government. 

Now, I want you to understand that many people have been lying about the Arrow for many decades. The thrust rating of the Iroquois was always 25,000lb and never 30,000lb or even 26,500lb. The maximum thrust of the J75-P-3 has always been 24,000lb and not 16,800 lb as many Arrow fans say. The cost of the aircraft as presented to Cabinet on Jan 10, 1959 was originally $12.86 million but dropped to 7.02 million plus unspecified Astra/Sparrow cancellation charges. This is not out of line with the $8 million cost given by Gen. Foulkes given to the Montreal Star in 1963. 

The $3.75 million amount often quoted is a misrepresentation of an October 21, 1958 letter to George Pearkes from Fred Smye of Avro. 

Here is the relevant text, “...it is now estimated that we can produce and deliver 100 operational Arrow aircraft, complete in all respects including the Iroquois engine and MA1 fire control system for approximately $3.500,000 each. This excludes the development and tooling , which it is assumed would continue In accordance with existing contracts.”

Note that at the time of the letter the cost for development, tooling and six airframes was about $308 million. That means the cost per aircraft was no where near $3.5 million and was, in fact, closer to $8 million as Gen. Foulkes said it was.



pbfoot said:


> Please tell me you don't think the pilot would not know the parameters of his aircraftcuz if he didn't he would not be much of test pilot or a fool



He probably did know the parameters but I cannot find out what they were. What I do know is that the RCAF pilot managed a top speed in a stock aircraft of about mach 1.75 at 50,000 feet at 100% throttle and full afterburners. How does the Avro pilot manage mach 1.96 (1.98 from some sources) from the same aircraft? This is not a simple thing since it takes a lot more thrust to travel a little bit faster. It is easy to estimate how much additional thrust is required for the higher speed. The high speed is equal to the square root of the high thrust over the square root of the low thrust times the lower speed. So if 48,000 pounds thrust gives mach 1.75 then mach 1.96 should require about 60,000 pounds or 30,000 lb per engine. That seems to be a little high for a J75 so we need to know more about the aircraft and engines. Do you know the aircraft’s weight and engine thrust for the mach 1.96 run?



Matt308 said:


> Keep it civil, Murray. It's all good.



Sorry Matt308 if a get a little excited but it ain’t really all that good.

When I discovered that they were teaching the young ones in the schools that the evil Americans with their great hairy teeth and adamantium claws butchered our Avro ‘unicorn’ it was enough for me. What really happened was a defence contractor ripped off the Canadian taxpayers for $308 million. Too bad, so sad, our bad, but what’s it got to do with America?


----------



## pbfoot (May 30, 2009)

Murray B said:


> When I discovered that they were teaching the young ones in the schools that the evil Americans with their great hairy teeth and adamantium claws butchered our Avro ‘unicorn’ it was enough for me. What really happened was a defence contractor ripped off the Canadian taxpayers for $308 million. Too bad, so sad, our bad, but what’s it got to do with America?


I do believe you are a closet US xenophobe , I really wish that you would stop considering classroom crap as I don't believe the thing is on any curriculum and I'll wager 80% of Canadians would not know the difference between an Arrow and a Datsun B210
As for the posting on the website do you really think they had some aerospace guy do that its a typograpical or error by some guy that is an computer guy who made a mistake , I really doubt if the entry was vetted at AETE or at the highest levels af DNDHQ


----------



## Murray B (May 31, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I do believe you are a closet US xenophobe...



No, I had to come out of the closet because my flashlight batteries went dead. Are you saying I am a pro-US racist or an anti-US one. 



pbfoot said:


> ...I'll wager 80% of Canadians would not know the difference between an Arrow and a Datsun B210



You would lose but I won’t take your money. According to IMDB about the mini-series ” The Arrow's first airing it gathered the second largest viewing audience in Canadian television's history”

That means the Arrow is probably just as well known in Canada as J.R. Ewing and who killed the Arrow is about as well known as “who shot J.R.”. For some strange reason the program also aired in some U.S. states which is surprising considering the content is blatant anti-U.S. propaganda. Because of lies like this John Diefenbaker is reviled the world over for killing our precious ‘unicorn’. Too bad it was the Chiefs of Staff that did the deed.



pbfoot said:


> As for the posting on the website do you really think they had some aerospace guy do that its a typograpical or error by some guy that is an computer guy who made a mistake , I really doubt if the entry was vetted at AETE or at the highest levels af DNDHQ



The buck has to stop somewhere and they should have fixed it six weeks ago when I contacted them about it. They have no excuse for the errors since the DND has always had complete information about the aircraft even when the material was classified. They are obliged to use my tax dollars to provide correct and complete historical information that is free of political spin.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2009)




----------



## pbfoot (May 31, 2009)

2nd highest rated TV ratings is pretty lofty that puts it ahead of Olympic hockey medal games , the 1972 Summit Series... I think not > 
Will you admit that the Chief of Staff(army guy) was very worried that money for the Arrow would deprive the army of funding for some of its projects, the Minister of National Defence was also an army guy (Gen Pearkes )
I believe you are selectively taking only facts that back your arguement rather then looking at the overall picture, you've brought up some good points but neglect others that counter your arguement such as the Chief of the air staffs opinion prior to cancellation . You should also point out that the they were ordered not to comment on the cancellation 
I hope you have success with your endeavour to get them to change the blurb on the MND website.


----------



## Murray B (May 31, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> 2nd highest rated TV... I think not >



Sorry, but I no control over what the IMBD writes so you will have to take it up with them. The stuff is posted at: The Arrow (1997) (TV)I have heard some people in the U.S. trashing Diefenbaker so I know the propaganda has been effective outside of Canada. 



pbfoot said:


> Will you admit that the Chief of Staff(army guy) was very worried that money for the Arrow would deprive the army of funding for some of its projects, the Minister of National Defence was also an army guy (Gen Pearkes )



Nope, because this is supposed to be about the aircraft. I will leave to the historians to explain things in terms of personality conflicts, who is sleeping with whom, and sociological impacts.



pbfoot said:


> I believe you are selectively taking only facts that back your arguement rather then looking at the overall picture...



I pretty much select only the facts and not Arrowhead propaganda. The Orenda Iroquois engine gave 25,000lb thrust with reheat. The Iroquois 2 was to have 30,000 but was never built. Since the second version was never built it gave no thrust to measure and could not be rated at all. Why does every Arrow zealot quote the specifications of an engine that never existed? At some level some of these people must know they are lying to us.

To show you how much the RCAF wanted the aircraft you need look no further than the AIR-7-3 specification. It required a 2g turn at 50,000 ft. without loss of speed or altitude. The Arrow could not manage more than 1.25g and was already losing speed and altitude.

Ask a jet jockey why the specification is so special. There was no aeroplane anywhere in the world by 1960 that could turn like this, not even the Phantom. The military does not make this kind of mistake. The RCAF is very clearly telling Avro and their government friends to take their great white Arrow on a long run down a short runway. 

Besides that, do you really expect me to believe that the RCAF wanted to blow their entire aircraft procurement budget on 100 interceptors and then be forced to rely on the old Sabres and Canucks to do every other job? [Hmm, maybe they could have used Mosquitos for ground attack. Didn’t he U.S. use Skyraiders in Vietnam? I’m such a genius! They don’t need F-35s today but good old deHavilland Mosquitos. WE HAVE THE PLYWOOD...UPWARDS TO VICTORY! Umm...does anybody know where to get a couple hundred Merlins? Packards would be okay too.]


----------



## pbfoot (May 31, 2009)

Good luck on your crusade Don Quixote
People in the US that have heard of Diefenbaker have every right to trash the moron isn'y he the clown that wanted to restrict trade with the US and increase it with the UK
Isn't he the one who wouldn't upgrade the defence status during the Cuban missle crisis


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2009)

Murray B said:


> The high speed is equal to the square root of the high thrust over the square root of the low thrust times the lower speed.



Good stuff guys...

Hey Murray, I'm not an aero engineer, but can you tell me or cite where this equation comes from? And what "lower speed" are we using here? I'll even take an aerospace for dummies URL.


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2009)

Murray B said:


> Sorry Matt308 if a get a little excited but it ain’t really all that good.
> 
> When I discovered that they were teaching the young ones in the schools that the evil Americans with their great hairy teeth and adamantium claws butchered our Avro ‘unicorn’ it was enough for me. What really happened was a defence contractor ripped off the Canadian taxpayers for $308 million. Too bad, so sad, our bad, but what’s it got to do with America?



I don't care if you have a beef with our northern neighbors. But your tone was becoming insulting. And it won't be tolerated. We have many international members on this forum. And they all deserve respect. I know I do. And I know that Pbfoot does also. You don't have to agree with him, many times I don't either. But he does deserve respect.


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2009)

And both Murray and Pb... be careful guys. It's getting a little heated and the political tangents are getting off topic.


----------



## Murray B (Jun 1, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Good luck on your crusade Don Quixote



We are only a couple hundred engines away from building a whole herd of Mosquitos. Waynos has practically admitted that the F-22 was copied from it. Both made of radar absorbant material. Both with internal weapons bay. One fly-by-wire and the other fly-by-cable which is practically the same thing. In every important respect they are almost identical. Canada can save a lot of money by buying Mosquitos.



pbfoot said:


> People in the US that have heard of Diefenbaker have every right to trash the moron isn'y he the clown that wanted to restrict trade with the US and increase it with the UK
> Isn't he the one who wouldn't upgrade the defence status during the Cuban missle crisis



I am neither Conservative or Lieberal. To me they are tweedle-dum and tweedle-even-dumber but this is not about political leanings. It is about lying internationally using Canadian tax dollars. Every thing you mention is a legitimate criticism of Diefenbaker and if that is what is said then so be it. What makes me angry is when he is blamed for killing the Arrow, which is a lie. The taxpayer funded CBC program is mostly responsible but now the corruption has spread to the taxpayer funded Canadian Forces official website. This is what I find intolerable.



Matt308 said:


> Good stuff guys...
> 
> Hey Murray, I'm not an aero engineer, but can you tell me or cite where this equation comes from? And what "lower speed" are we using here? I'll even take an aerospace for dummies URL.



The equations are horribly complex if you want to calculate the drag of an aircraft mathematically but this is not necessary for estimating speed differences for the same aircraft. There is a good illustration of posted by NASA (NACA in the days of the Arrow) at Momentum Effects on Aerodynamic Forces

Thankfully everything cancels out. Since rho is constant and so is the constant so both are constant and cancel. You wind up with force proportional to Velocity squared. Since maximum level speed occurs where the thrust force equals intersects the drag curve we can estimate speed increase as I wrote before as long as the change is not transonic. Now you see if you can tell me how much thrust would an Arrow need to reach mach 2.5 if it travels at mach 1.98 with 48,000lb of thrust.



Matt308 said:


> I don't care if you have a beef with our northern neighbors. But your tone was becoming insulting. And it won't be tolerated. We have many international members on this forum. And they all deserve respect. I know I do. And I know that Pbfoot does also. You don't have to agree with him, many times I don't either. But he does deserve respect.



Um, I am your northern neighbour, Alberta born and raised and a Canadian taxpayer. The lieberals spent 308 million taxpayers dollars developing an aircraft that was every bit as good as a $2 million Voodoo and then chose to blame the whole thing on the Americans and the C.I.A. Diefenbaker was merely the lackey of the Americans. I’m sorry but the fifty some years this lie has been repeated is long enough. It has had a good run but it is time for the facts now.



Matt308 said:


> And both Murray and Pb... be careful guys. It's getting a little heated and the political tangents are getting off topic.



The Ontarian is the one that keeps ragging on Diefenbaker who was from the west as I am. All I want to show is the true performance of the CF-105 Arrow and why the Chiefs of Staff cancelled it. What’s Dief got to do with it, got to do with it. What’s Dief got to do with it? [Why do I see Tina Turner’s face when I sing that?]


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 1, 2009)

My final reply on this topic with MurrayB maybe your right about it not being Diefenbakers fault but maybe he should have taken apage from Truman with "the buck stops here"
The Mosquito was not stealthy those props make one hell of a radar reflector and as much as I like the Voodoo it was well past its best buy day in the late 60's 
We got the 101 because they wanted a 2 holer which eliminated the 106 , the USAF later returned to the 2 seater in the Phantom and the USN also with the F14. That is one requirement you omit . 
The F104's were great aircraft , the F5's were useless for the CAF.


----------



## Murray B (Jun 8, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> My final reply on this topic with MurrayB maybe your right about it not being Diefenbakers fault but maybe he should have taken apage from Truman with "the buck stops here"



It was good talking to you. To understand more about Diefenbaker please read the ’63 Time Magazine article at: Storm over Diefenbaker - TIME. The last paragraph on the first page indicates who conspired with whom against whom. 



pbfoot said:


> The Mosquito was not stealthy those props make one hell of a radar reflector and as much as I like the Voodoo it was well past its best buy day in the late 60's



Well, I did not say that the Mosquito had a low radar cross-section just that it was made of radar absorbent material. Nevertheless, it is possible through the miracle of historical revision to reduce the cross-section to any desired value. Any specification can be altered in this way. All you need is a zealous group of revisionists, let’s call them Mosquitoheads, and a little bit of time. It should not take long to have the thing going mach 5 at sea-level with 150,000 ft. ceiling and half the radar cross-section of an F-22. A Voodoo revised in this way should be even better than the Mosquito. 



pbfoot said:


> We got the 101 because they wanted a 2 holer which eliminated the 106, the USAF later returned to the 2 seater in the Phantom and the USN also with the F14. That is one requirement you omit. The F104's were great aircraft , the F5's were useless for the CAF.



Personally, I was never a fan of the F-106 and I think that deltas were a mistake. They got the idea from that German guy that designed the world’s shortest-range interceptor. It makes no sense to copy the mistakes of others. 

It was not my intention to omit anything but I do believe that the Voodoo had performance “comparable” to the stock Arrow. There was a faster version of the Arrow that flew after cancellation but it is hard to find out much about it but I will guesstimate its parameters for this comparison (note all values rounded to three significant digits):

 F-101B Arrow (stock) Streak-Arrow

Maker McDonnell Avro Canada Avro Canada

Empty weight	28,000 lb	49,000 lb	44,000 lb

Engines 2 X J57 2 X J75-P-3	2 X J75 (modified ?)

Max thrust	30,000 lb	48,000 lb	52,000 lb

Top Speed	mach 1.85	mach 1.76	mach 1.98

Combat radius	550 nm 347 nm unknown

Ferry Range	1930 nm	1260 nm unknown

Records indicate that the Arrow tested by the RCAF maxed out at mach 1.76 with the J75-P-3 at 100% thrust. Other records indicate that the top speed was mach 1.98 (1.96 from some sources). If the Arrow managed mach 1.76 on 48,000 lb rated thrust then mach 1.98 should require about a 60,800 lb rating. At the time about the only engine about the size of a J75 that can put out that kind of thrust is the J58 and there is nothing to suggest it was ever fitted to the Arrow. The J75 series was capable of over 26,000 pounds of thrust with water injection to keep the combustor thingy from burning out and the blades in the hot section from getting all melty. Lightening the aircraft to reduce drag and maybe even boosting the engine output a little is the only way I can see for the Arrow to make it to mach 1.98.

```
[CODE]
```
[/CODE]


----------



## Butters (Jun 8, 2009)

Geez...at first I thought that this was about the Arrow, but it turns out that it's really about mean people badmouthing a long-dead Ontarian.

Oh well.

JL


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 8, 2009)

Butters said:


> Geez...at first I thought that this was about the Arrow, but it turns out that it's really about mean people badmouthing a long-dead Ontarian.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> JL


who is the long dead Ontarian?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 8, 2009)

Rene Levesque?


----------



## Butters (Jun 8, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> who is the long dead Ontarian?



Dief the Chief. He was born in Ontario, ya know

JL


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 8, 2009)

Butters said:


> Geez...at first I thought that this was about the Arrow, but it turns out that it's really about mean people badmouthing a long-dead Ontarian.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> JL



For us guys down south without gov't healthcare, what the hell is an "Ontarian"? Is that someone 1000 years old?


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 8, 2009)

Nevermind... I just read Genesis.


----------



## Murray B (Jun 9, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> For us guys down south without gov't healthcare, what the hell is an "Ontarian"? Is that someone 1000 years old?



An Ontarian is someone from the province of Ontario, Canada. Ontario was the location of Avro Canada with head office in Toronto and factory in Malton. It is also where $308 million taxpayers' dollars were given to Avro to develop a super aircraft that wound up being average. In the late fifties there is nothing exceptional about an interceptor with a mach 1.76 top speed and a 347nm low speed combat radius. 

Ontario is also the home of most Arrow zealots who continually revise the aircraft's capabilities. First it was mach 2+ then it was mach 3+ and now one article even claims the airframe was good to mach 5+. Of course the C.I.A. had to kill the aircraft because it was capable of shooting down any U-2s flying over Canada. [Even if Canada could shoot down U.S. aircraft that does not mean it is a good idea. That would be no way to treat a friend and ally. Besides any such flights could be stopped with a simple phone call or two].

The health care insurance up here is public but it is the taxpayers that pay for it and not the government. Before the recent economic problems average people in the eastern provinces were taxed for about half their total income. Now, as increasingly desperate governments try to make up for revenue shortfalls by raising taxes, the problems are worsening. "Free" health care ain't free if it costs you 50% or 80% or even more of your income. The truth is that our system is second worst in the world as far as the high cost of health care goes. There is only one country where it costs more and they shall remain nameless, but it ain't Switzerland.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 9, 2009)

I'd love to reply but its politics


----------



## Butters (Jun 9, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I'd love to reply but its politics



Yep.That and some really confused math...

JL


----------



## Butters (Jun 9, 2009)

Anyway, to get back on topic...

The Arrow may or may not have matured into what the Brits love call a 'world-beater', but it's all really moot. The AC would have been retired without ever having fired a shot in anger, and as to whether or not the production of the Arrow would have led to a viable military aerospace industry with home designed products able to compete on the world market is pointless speculation. Canada could neither afford, nor did it need such an ariel Cadillac. Those things are a tough sell even in the richest of nations. Just look at the B-2 and the F-22... How much can you spend on an individual combat aircraft before your air force is so reduced in numbers that it cannot adequately perform its mission? You might be able to build something so sophisticated it can do almost everything, but you're gonna have to make some momentous scientific breakthroughs if you want it to do everything in two places at the same time...

JL


----------



## Coors9 (Jun 9, 2009)

I always compared it to the Mig 25 role, Fast ,High, Fire Missile's at Bombers and go home. Forget the dogfighting.


----------



## Murray B (Jun 10, 2009)

Butters said:


> Yep.That and some really confused math...



So, rather than arguing ad hominem why don’t you show us how to calculate the thrust? Some formulae are posted at NASA as I have indicated but you can use any source you like. The problem is this: If an aircraft achieves mach 1.76 with 48,000 lbs thrust then approximately how much thrust is needed to increase the speed to mach 1.96? The answer can be in absolute thrust or the delta but specify which and show your work.



Coors9 said:


> I always compared it to the Mig 25 role, Fast ,High, Fire Missile's at Bombers and go home. Forget the dogfighting.



What about the Arrow reminds you of the Mig 25? The role of that aircraft was orignally to intercept B-70 bombers, which McNamara cancelled. The E-266 was later used for photo-recon because of its high ceiling and great speed.


----------



## Butters (Jun 10, 2009)

Murray B said:


> So, rather than arguing ad hominem why don’t you show us how to calculate the thrust? Some formulae are posted at NASA as I have indicated but you can use any source you like. The problem is this: If an aircraft achieves mach 1.76 with 48,000 lbs thrust then approximately how much thrust is needed to increase the speed to mach 1.96? The answer can be in absolute thrust or the delta but specify which and show your work."
> 
> You're still confused, Murray. My 'ad hominem' was in reference to your non sequiter digression/rant about how 50-80% of the Canadian taxpayer's income was expropriated to pay for health care. A straw man...You know as well as I do that the total tax load (whatever the actual percentage may be...) covers ALL government services, not just health care costs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jun 10, 2009)

Murray B said:


> What about the Arrow reminds you of the Mig 25? The role of that aircraft was orignally to intercept B-70 bombers, which McNamara cancelled. The E-266 was later used for photo-recon because of its high ceiling and great speed.



I think what he's saying is that in its original non-recon role, the MiG-25 wasn't designed to dogfight, just to zoom off and intercept bombers like the Arrow was designed for. In that regards I would agree with you Coors


----------



## Coors9 (Jun 10, 2009)

Some glad I didn't spell something wrong.....


----------



## Murray B (Jun 10, 2009)

Butters said:


> You're still confused, Murray. My 'ad hominem' was in reference to your non sequiter digression/rant...



You make another while denying the first. Are you a lawyer? My response was to our friend in U.S.A. who apparently thinks we have government run health care. We do not. We have government run health care insurance where the premiums are hidden in our taxes. Last I heard, before recent tax hikes, the average Ontario family was already paying over 50% of their income to tax. Health care in North America has become unaffordable and changing the type of insurance probably won’t help things much.



Butters said:


> As for how the Arrow performed, or later Iroquois engined models could have performed, well, the information is so contradictory that I just can't tell ya. It's pretty confusing...One set of specs says that the J-75-3 model made approx 18,000lb thrust/AB (for a total of approx 36,000)...



Which lying weasel’s arse did you pull the 18,000 lb figure from? It is a brown and stinky number and does not belong here. The 24,000 lb rating I used is from Avro as given in the Mk I brochure and it it good enough the estimate the thrust necessary to achieve mach 1.96. 



Butters said:


> ...flight tests show that the Arrow did not suffer the airframe limitations of the earlier F-102 in regards to exceeding Mach...”



No, it looks like it suffered from aerodynamic instability like the Douglas Stiletto. From “Joint Report on an RCAF-DRB-NAE Visit...” dated 19 November 1954, “The directional stability characteristics of the CF-105 are poorer than had been experienced in the United States.” From “Meeting to Discuss CF-105 Problems Held December 20 and 21, 1954” on page 3, “It is agreed that while artificial lateral stabilization is undesirable in itself, the obvious aerodynamic cures such as a large increase in fin area could be unacceptable as far as performance is concerned.” 

Avro chose to correct for the instability by using a “black box” instead of cancelling the program as Douglas did. [I wonder if Douglas blamed Canada for the cancellation.] It would be interesting to re-create Avro’s vacuum tube/transistor hybrid analogue fly-by-wire computer to see if could withstand the EMP from a nuclear detonation. A hundred Arrows all falling from the sky at the same time would have been spectacular.



Butters said:


> ...and if the the Iroquois had achieved their designed combined thrust of approx 50,000 lb thrust/AB, why shouldn't the lighter and more powerful Arrow II be capable of exceeding Mach II?



This thread is about the Arrow I which was actually built, flown, and its performance measured. I cannot find anything about a mach 2+ Arrow 2 ever being flown. Although the Arrow’s performance, or lack thereof, was classified at the time any records set would have been recorded and eventually published. 



Butters said:


> ... “Paper calculations are all very nice, but are inherently susceptible to GIGO..It's real testing that counts.”



Exactly, and that is why I object to arse numbers of uncertain origin constantly being quoted by Arrow zealots. This embarrasses the whole nation. Do you really think that there is an aviation enthusiast anywhere outside of Canada that will believe that the J75-P-3 had 18,000lb of thrust with reheat when every reliable source in the world gives it as between 23,500lb and 24,500lb? 



Butters said:


> “...it's clearly just a parochial Western screed to salvage the reputation of your beloved transplanted Ontarian, ie; Diefenbaker...



There you go with the ad hominem arguments again. Diefenbaker is just a red herring that Arrow zealots throw out to shift the focus away from their lacklustre aircraft. As I have already shown, the Joint Chiefs made the decision to cancel the aircraft and Diefenbaker just took their advice. The cabinet minutes are declassified now. Go look it up.

So, what's your connection to Avro? Was it your dad, or grandad, or uncle? The zealous defence of this contractor usually doesn't come from ordinary taxpaying citizens.


----------



## Coors9 (Jun 10, 2009)

Anger management classes could help....


----------



## Butters (Jun 10, 2009)

Re: "Which lying weasel’s arse did you pull the 18,000 lb figure from?"

From one of the myriad Arrow sites: (I'll scrounge up the link if you wish...)

Engine P&W J75-P-3 (RL201) 
Dry Thrust 12 500lb (55.6 kN) static 
Wet Thrust 18 500lb (82.3 kN) static 

And from Wik:

J75-P-3: 16,470 lbf (73.3 kN) afterburning thrust 
J75-P-5: 17,200 lbf (76.5 kN) afterburning thrust 
J75-P-13B: 17,000 lbf (75.6 kN) afterburning thrust 
J75-P-15W: 24,500 lbf (109 kN) afterburning thrust 
J75-P-17: 24,500 lbf (109 kN) afterburning thrust 
J75-P-19W: 17,200 lbf (76.5 kN) afterburning thrust 

Your eloquent riposte prompted me to search for some cold, hard facts on the P&W J75-P-3, but they're hard to come by. As I am not an Arrowhead( Or 'Arrow zealot' if you prefer...),this will just have to do. Maybe you can come up with something more authoritative on the subject.

The 'lateral stability/EMP-induced shower of Arrows' bit is a drama queen strawman. No fighter of the '60's would be likely to be capable of performing its mission ion the event of a total electronics failure. 

As for the 'Health care' vs 'Health insurance' bit, have it your way. I unfortunately lack your zeal for semantic precision. OCD is not my thing, man... 

And no, I have no family connection to either AVRO or the Diefenbaker administration. Nor am I such a patriot as to be horror-stricken at the thought that some Arrow fans may be besmirching our national, ie; Dief's, honour by exaggerating the abilities of the Arrow.. I do appreciate that you feel otherwise, so if you give me your address, I'll have your local florist bring you a rose for ol' Dief's grave. Just make sure you don't plant one of those new-fangled Liberal Canadian flags on it. I hear that the Chief only liked HRM's Red Ensign

I'm done

JL


----------



## Murray B (Jun 11, 2009)

Butters said:


> Re: "Which lying weasel’s arse did you pull the 18,000 lb figure from?"
> 
> From one of the myriad Arrow sites: (I'll scrounge up the link if you wish...)
> 
> ...



Is that the site that wrote that the Avrocar was actually secret alien technology being developed in Canada by the U.S. military? Anyway, whoever they are they are the lying weasels that I am talking about since the accurate thrust is given in the 1957 Avro MK I brochure which every one of them should be aware of. Let me quote it for you, “maximum rating, 16,500 lb dry, or 24,000 lb with reheat.” [The brochure is Reprinted in Peter Zuuring’s, “The Avro Scrapbook” on page 15.] 



Butters said:


> And from Wik:
> 
> J75-P-3: 16,470 lbf (73.3 kN) afterburning thrust
> J75-P-5: 17,200 lbf (76.5 kN) afterburning thrust
> ...



Normally I prefer books to online sources that can change over time, or hourly, as is the case of the wiki wasteland. 

Avro’s J75 rating is good enough for me since I already knew it was around 23,500 lb but if you need more proof then try the library. At least books won’t change the next time you look at them. 



Butters said:


> The 'lateral stability/EMP-induced shower of Arrows' bit is a drama queen strawman. No fighter of the '60's would be likely to be capable of performing its mission ion the event of a total electronics failure.



I’ll bet you have never even seen a germanium transistor let alone worked with them. I still have a few that are probably older than you are. Anyway in the late fifities they were delicate $35 parts that were unlikely to survive even a small EMP pulse. Since the Arrow was apparently completely fly-by-wire and the computer was hybrid and not hardened the outcome I mentioned is far more likely than you think. If they had made the computer all vacuum tube then EMP should not have been a problem. 

The Arrow is a product of the fifties and not the sixties. In fact its heavily ribbed canopy and slab sides date it to the early fifties and not even the middle or late fifties. 

As far as I know the first operational fighter that could not fly without a computer was the F-16 which went into service in the late ‘70s, if memory serves. I expect its digital computer system was made from ICs with some LSI. If it had microprocessors then they were multi-chip and I expect bit-slice to give the necessary speed. Maybe it had magnetic Bubble Memory too since TI was working on it at around the same time. Of course I am just guessing since I am not a ‘military guy’ and have never seen the electronics in an F-16. [Note: Integrated circuit electronics are very sensitive to EMP but I imagine they are well protected in a modern fighter with faraday cages, clamping diodes and the like.]




Butters said:


> I'm done
> 
> JL



Okay, and do try the library. You will find it is a different world.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jun 11, 2009)

Wow man.... Chill out.... Just a friendly discussion


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2009)

Gentlemen, although I find this highly entertaining please refrain from the personal insults.


----------



## Stitch (Jun 11, 2009)

Murray B said:


> As far as I know the first operational fighter that could not fly without a computer was the F-16 which went into service in the late ‘70s, if memory serves. I expect its digital computer system was made from ICs with some LSI. If it had microprocessors then they were multi-chip and I expect bit-slice to give the necessary speed. Maybe it had magnetic Bubble Memory too since TI was working on it at around the same time. Of course I am just guessing since I am not a ‘military guy’ and have never seen the electronics in an F-16. [Note: Integrated circuit electronics are very sensitive to EMP but I imagine they are well protected in a modern fighter with faraday cages, clamping diodes and the like.



Actually, the military tends to be a few years behind the curve as far as IT goes, believe it or not; they've gotten better recently, but you have to remember that defense contractors usually use a PROVEN technology at the time they design a weapons system, which means that by the time the weapons system finally gets built, it's 5-10 year old technology. IIRC, the F-16's AN/APG-66(V)1 radar did use solid-state technology, but it was transistorized, no micrprocessors; if I had to guess, I'd say the first models of the F-16 used late '60's electronics. 

Recently, however, the military has finally caught up with the private sector and, in the latest weapons systems (B-2, F-22, F-35, etc.), they've designed much more flexible IT architectures, both in the hardware and the software, so that the avionics can more easily be upgraded to state-of-the-art levels. The biggest advances recently have been in the area of the software, which is also the easiest to upgrade.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 11, 2009)

Murray, this is the second time I'm gonna tell you tone it down. There won't be a third.


----------



## Murray B (Jun 12, 2009)

Stitch said:


> Actually, the military tends to be a few years behind the curve as far as IT goes, believe it or not; they've gotten better recently, but you have to remember that defense contractors usually use a PROVEN technology at the time they design a weapons system, which means that by the time the weapons system finally gets built, it's 5-10 year old technology. IIRC, the F-16's AN/APG-66(V)1 radar did use solid-state technology, but it was transistorized, no micrprocessors; if I had to guess, I'd say the first models of the F-16 used late '60's electronics.



There is a paper posted at http://firstmicroprocessor.com/documents/ap1-26-97.doc that indicates the F-14 had the first mutli-chip microprocessor so I expect that the F-16 didn’t have one. It does need something though because the wing is way to far forward to be flown manually. 



Stitch said:


> Recently, however, the military has finally caught up with the private sector and, in the latest weapons systems (B-2, F-22, F-35, etc.), they've designed much more flexible IT architectures, both in the hardware and the software, so that the avionics can more easily be upgraded to state-of-the-art levels. The biggest advances recently have been in the area of the software, which is also the easiest to upgrade.



It is going to be a long time before us civilians know much about those aircraft. I was down at Whidbey Island a while back and they kept covering up all the electronicals of the Prowlers. Did you know that the Prowler is the second most expensive aircraft on a carrier after that baby AWACs plane? Cool stuff but I did not get the T-shirt. That’s okay though because I did get the hat.



Matt308 said:


> Murray, this is the second time I'm gonna tell you tone it down. There won't be a third.



You are right because life is just too short for this. I’m outta here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2009)

Murray B said:


> You are right because life is just too short for this. I’m outta here.



Wow! So since it is obviously not worth playing nice, you are just going to tuck your tail and run? How very mature...


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 12, 2009)

Good riddance.


----------



## ARROW_Research (Oct 7, 2009)

AIR 7-3 Supersonic All-Weather Interceptor Aircraft Specs.

(which became the AVRO Arrow, CF-105)

+ Operate from a 6,000 ft. runway
+ A range of 6,000 nautical miles
+ capable of accelerating to Mach 1.5
+ To have a crew of 2, a pilot and a navigator
+ Carry an advanced weapons system with an advanced targetting system.
+ Capable of operating in Canada's harsh environment
+ Manoeuvre at 50,000 ft while pulling 2 G's
+ Two engines.

I hope this answers a few questions
Regards
Reed Park


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 23, 2009)

Ran across a neat little bit of info related to the Arrow in a issue of Air Space Smithsonian. The head test pilot Jan Zurakowski and long time aviator never had a official pilot's license. The reason given was he never had to apply for one, and was such a good pilot, no one thought to inquire about it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> Ran across a neat little bit of info related to the Arrow in a issue of Air Space Smithsonian. The head test pilot Jan Zurakowski and long time aviator never had a official pilot's license. The reason given was he never had to apply for one, and was such a good pilot, no one thought to inquire about it.



Eddie Rickenbacker never had a pilot's license as well.

In Zurakowski's case he was flying a military aircraft for the Canadian government. In many cases military pilots (and former military pilots) never get licenses if they are employed flying government aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 23, 2009)

I know plenty of military pilots who do not have civilian pilots licenses.


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 23, 2009)

I guess it is not all that uncommon.


----------



## prem895 (Oct 9, 2012)

My dad worked and was part of the design team for the Iroquois power plant. He was also freinds with Jan. Jan would tell my dad after (what he called"just another day of tests") that the 105 was as prefect as a plane can be,and was waiting for the Orenda engine to arrive. He(my dad) told me the engine thrust specs were underrated. And yes it would have been an absolutely magnificent aircraft had if been fitted with them. It never saw service but,who cares. It was and still be one of the best airplane ever built and designed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2012)

prem895 said:


> It was and still be one of the best airplane ever built and designed.



Would have, should have, could have, didn't...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2012)

prem895 said:


> It was and still be one of the best airplane ever built and designed.



No, sorry to say...

In its day it had to be the potential of being the worlds premier interceptor, but it had the maneuverability of a brick. An F-5 would dance around it provided it allowed itself to get into a close-in fight. The North American F-108 was being built just after the Arrow was cancelled and "would have" been a much more advanced aircraft. Not to berate Canada, Canadians or the Arrow, it was a great plane in it's day but if built, would have been very obsolete by the mid 1970s.


----------



## prem895 (Oct 9, 2012)

It was probably for the best. Otherwise the US would be part of Canada


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 9, 2012)

prem895 said:


> It was probably for the best. Otherwise the US would be part of Canada


You're funny....


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 9, 2012)

Umm, yeah... right....
and the Cold War would have ended earlier...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2012)

gumbyk said:


> Umm, yeah... right....
> and the Cold War would have ended earlier...



The arrow would have assured that...


----------



## johnbr (Oct 10, 2012)

I now one of the test pilots tolled my dad they where under orders to not go over mach 2.He tolled him one time he had to go into a clime not to go over mach 2.The one I love is they all would from time to time go up to 50 to 60'000ft put the engines to Idell and glide back to Toronto.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 20, 2013)

The latter I might actually believe.


----------



## R Pope (Jan 24, 2013)

Much is made of the 308 mil or whatever that was Deif's big excuse for dumping the Arrow. But money spent in-country comes back into the economy, all those employees pay taxes back into the kitty, corporate taxes come back, even the money spent on groceries and dentist bills for their kids, all that remains in the country. Buy something from another country and that's all gone.
And anyway, they didn't get that money back with the cancellation. 500 million with squadrons to show for it is better than 308 with nothing to show except a mass migration of the best men in the industry to greener pastures Southward and overseas.
My mother worked for Deif the Chief, and my Dad kept a running correspondence going with him for 20 years. I met him once, he had a commanding tangible "presence" and the gift of the gab, but in the final analysis he was a small-town lawyer who was out of his depth dealing with world issues. He was sold a bill of goods on his "fishing trip" to meet the US prez, and bought in to the unmanned interceptor Bomarc crock of s**t. Even the Yankees didn't stick with that boondoggle for very long.
BTW, the blueprints for the Arrow and many of the flight reports surfaced on the Antiques Roadshow a few years ago, so they still exist.
An old friend worked at Malton in the '50's and he claimed to the day he died that there were only 5 Arrows destroyed and the last, Orenda-engined one was squirreled away somewhere. Nice thought, but where would you hide a plane that big and unique? Hard to camouflage it as a derelict C47 or some such!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2013)

R Pope said:


> BTW, the blueprints for the Arrow and many of the flight reports surfaced on the Antiques Roadshow a few years ago, so they still exist.


Very cool stuff to see, it's the tooling that actually builds the aircraft.



R Pope said:


> An old friend worked at Malton in the '50's and he claimed to the day he died that there were only 5 Arrows destroyed and the last, Orenda-engined one was squirreled away somewhere. Nice thought, but where would you hide a plane that big and unique? Hard to camouflage it as a derelict C47 or some such!


When I lived in Canada I heard that story several times over. IMO it's someone's wishful conspiracy theory. The Arrow, even with the Orenda would have been technically obsolete by the early 70s in it's original form.


----------



## prem895 (Jan 24, 2013)

Still should have been built. After all they did build the F-35 shite box


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2013)

prem895 said:


> Still should have been built. After all they did build the F-35 shite box


The F-35 is FAR from a shite box (as you put it). It is the most advanced aircraft ever built and will come with it's shares of teething problems. The Arrow was a great aircraft in it's day but would have been supassed pretty quickly in it's original form and would have been dismal in a close-in air-to-air role. 

BTW, the F-35B is the current problem child. The F-35 A&C and progressing nicely.

Lockheed sees great progress on F-35 fighter | Reuters
F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems
Lockheed Martin


----------



## prem895 (Jan 24, 2013)

I have to admit,I love all Lockheed P and F planes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 24, 2013)

prem895 said:


> I have to admit,I love all Lockheed P and F planes


Well you better learn to love the F-35 as it slowly starts to silence it's naysayers.


----------



## prem895 (Jan 24, 2013)

Everyone thought the internet would not fly too.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 24, 2013)

I'm confused. Which side of this issue are your on?


----------



## prem895 (Jan 24, 2013)

I'm really not on any side,so to speak. What I mean about the 35 is that by the time all of the bugs are worked out,I think it's stealth capabilities will have been figured out by the so called bad guys.
Lockheed sees great progress on F-35 fighter | Reuters
F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems
Lockheed Martin
This report that Flyboy posted is great new indeed. Has Lockheed really ever produced a dud?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 26, 2013)

>prem895 ... "working the bugs out" is exactly what military hardware is all about. In Canada ... the media and the uninformed armchair "jocks" make a virtue of dithering over the perfect selection when they should be embracing the reality ... the only thing I question about the F-35 is that it has a single engine. Everything else will evolve as the reality rolls out.

_This_ is an exercise in "dithering":

Canada kicks tires on other military aircraft - Winnipeg Free Press

MM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 26, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> >prem895 ... "working the bugs out" is exactly what military hardware is all about. In Canada ... the media and the uninformed armchair "jocks" make a virtue of dithering over the perfect selection when they should be embracing the reality ... the only thing I question about the F-35 is that it has a single engine. Everything else will evolve as the reality rolls out.
> 
> _This_ is an exercise in "dithering":
> 
> ...


 
I saw this the other day - this might be an attempt to make LM nervous or maybe to get the price lowered or in the bigger picture, have more Canadian companies involved in the production.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2013)

I agree with FB. To pretend that they need to have a questionnaire filled in to find out what the alternatives can do is more than just silly. I would be more concerned if they were starting to discuss things like offset deals.


----------



## prem895 (Jan 26, 2013)

Well,what the hell,spread the wealth. We do put stuff together quite well. And yes we want a better deal on these birds,but the problem is we can't just go down the street to the next dealership. We should buy these


----------



## Crimea_River (Jan 26, 2013)

Great piece of satire on this topic here: 22 Minutes | Clips Digital Shorts | Watch Full Episodes and Clips Online

Scroll down to "F-35 Jet Toy", click that and watch at the top of the page.


----------



## prem895 (Jan 26, 2013)

Ain't that the truth


----------



## R Pope (Jan 27, 2013)

Funny, all your arguments for the F36 could have been applied to the Arrow just as easily.
Lord Beaverbrook was told by some manufacturer or other that his company could supply him with "the best fighter aircraft in the world" in a year. Beaverbrook said, "I'll settle for second best tomorrow!"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2013)

R Pope said:


> Funny, all your arguments for the F36 could have been applied to the Arrow just as easily.
> Lord Beaverbrook was told by some manufacturer or other that his company could supply him with "the best fighter aircraft in the world" in a year. Beaverbrook said, "I'll settle for second best tomorrow!"



The only difference is the Arrow may of had a 20 year operational career. The F-35 IMO will be around a lot longer providing the bugs are worked out of it (mainly on the "B" model).


----------



## R Pope (Jan 27, 2013)

It'll have to last a lot longer. With the cost of developing new state-of-the-art fighters getting so ridiculous, it may well be the last one anyone will be able to afford.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 27, 2013)

And let's not forget that the F-22 is 30yo technology.


----------



## prem895 (Jan 27, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> And let's not forget that the F-22 is 30yo technology.


 But what a beautiful plane


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> And let's not forget that the F-22 is 30yo technology.


And will probably be around at least another 30 years.


----------



## prem895 (Jan 27, 2013)

I hope so


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 1, 2013)

More fantasies that don't help ....

Welcome to the official website for the Super Arrow Interceptor.

MM


----------



## prem895 (Feb 1, 2013)

It certainly looks good


----------



## Gixxerman (Feb 2, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> More fantasies that don't help ....
> 
> Welcome to the official website for the Super Arrow Interceptor.
> 
> MM



Looks like a fun site (surprised at the kicking the F35 is getting there though, it's an ambitious project bound to have issues but lemon? hmmm juries out for a few more years I guess until it enters service in numbers).

Interesting day-dreaming going on there.
I can't claim to be a stealth expert but from what I have read internal structures have a lot to do with it as well as an outer shape.
That liquified air engine allowing a 250000ft ceiling would be something.
Somehow I can't help thinking if it was that easy......

I know the Avro CF105 was a great plane killed by politics (like several other non US ventures).
Great pity as elsewhere it destroyed much of the nations tech base ability to make their own major defence kit.


----------



## iron man (Jan 10, 2014)

The material is my own original copy; IOW? I am the author.


The truth of the matter is that we were trying to "punch" WAY "above our weight" as a nation during this period and given the other pressing burdens on the DND's budget, the Arrow was an extravagance that the nation could not afford...period. When the axe fell at Malton, Canada was facing some other major procurement issues. Pre-eminent among these was the re-equipment of the 9 day fighter (Sabre5/6) and 3 all weather (CF-100 MkV) fighter squadrons based in Europe, as part of our NATO commitment. Funds had already been recently committed to a large naval construction program; huge funds were also being spent on RCAF infrastructure at the time.

The problem with the Arrow was that it was perfect for us, the US, and the USSR. The US already had a "Billion Dollar Baby" (boondoggle) of their own, the "1954 Interceptor", (i.e. F-106). Selling CF-105's to the Russians wasn't in the cards.

So what it comes down to is the cold hard truth that despite the fact that we'd blown a ton of money getting the program to the point it was, we still had not flown an aircraft with the indigenous (Iroquois) engines, the automated (SAGE integrated) weapons system was still years from IOC and we had no customers to help defer the massive R&D funds that had got us this far into it. Avro was quick to jump on the "Cook-Craigie" theory (all the rage south of the border at the time) whereby hand built prototypes were to be dispensed with, in favor of building the tooling and production jigs and building "pre-production" aircraft...then tweaking the jigging as required. This sucked up a ton of money and yes, the production line was ready to commence full series production at the time of cancellation, but this cost a pile of upfront money and rubbed some "people" the wrong way...some of these in the upper levels of RCAF, truth be told.

The bird was a significant achievement but as it sat on the tarmac on that fatal day...it was still very much a work in progress. Far from the operational interceptor that (we thought) we needed.
Convair's F-106 is illustrative of what would still be required if we wanted to get the CF-105 from where it was, into frontline service with the RCAF/NORAD. The USAF threw bucketloads of money at the MX-201/MX-1179 programmes (F-106 and MA-1 weapons system) and eventually it was produced...300 units in total, cut from an initial "requirement", on the order of ~2000.

The F-106 finally reached IOC, almost ten years late, billions over budget and with so many bugs (being "fixed" on the assembly line) that some 16 plane Squadrons had as many as five (significantly) different versions sitting on the same flight line. The Republic F-105 Thunderchief was pretty much the same story.

FWIW, when the "plug" was "pulled" the "ASTRA" weapons system (being developed by the Canadian subsidiary of RCA) was on the verge of entering litigation (this was being filed by Hughes) for propriortory patent infringements. This system eventually matured and surfaced on the F-14 Tomcat...in the early '70's.

Bottom line? It all looks good with 50 years of hindsight; the people who actually made the decision to "pull the plug" (and it WASN'T Diefenbaker) on our "Ultimate Interceptor" knew a heck of a lot more about the extant situation than anyone sitting here lamenting the "demise" of Canada's aviation industry could ever hope to.

The CF-101 did a fine job for our NORAD needs.
The F-101B was the (de facto) "Ultimate Interceptor" for the USAF's ADC during the first half of the 1960's.
The F-101A/C was the "stand in" for the (delayed) F-105, in the role of low level penetration (nuclear) fighter-bomber at the same time.

Damned fine machine that Voodoo.

Bomarc...on the other hand? That's another matter.

And from the same thread (in response to another poster).

What wasn't irrelevant was the fact that despite it's great potential, it still remained just that: _potential_. The tech that they were trying to achieve ("fly-by-wire" controls and a "look down-shoot down" radar/guided missile system, integrated into a system of ground-based radar control stations) was pushing way too hard against the "barriers" of the extant electronics capabilities. Hughes finally made MA-1 (the system the Arrow was originally "spec'd" for) work, but this took a "US-sized" defense budget. Tying the "in-house" development costs of such an apparatus (which were by no means clearly "defined") to the Arrow project, was the "straw that broke the camel's back".

As I mentioned in my previous post on the subject, the funds had been invested from the RCAF's slice of the total DND budget. At the point of cancellation, these monies had bought them a fully completed airframe production line (with twenty-odd machines in various states of production moving along it), five flying pre-production machines with J 75 engines, an indigenous engine that was still a long way from IOC (Initial Operational Capability), and a weapons system that was also years (and tens, if not a hundred million dollars) away from service; one which was also about to get the proverbial "rug pulled out from under it" by means of a lawsuit being brought by one of the richest men on the planet...

"Hughes" is "that" Hughes...

I am not like the myriad of authors that suggest the aircraft itself was flawed, far from it. Arrow was an amazing achievement (as an advanced airframe) and Iroquois pushed axial turbojets to another level as well.

I truly wish they would have flown RL 206 with the Iroquois (before scrapping the program), just so we would have a definitive answer to "that question".

With respect to this "great unknown", one thing that is worth pointing out?

The fact that application of additional thrust power to an airframe design is not a lineal equation. Some of the "attempts" I've seen at "extrapolating" performance data for an Iroquois powered machine are just plain ignorant as to the aerodynamics/physics involved.

In summation?

The RCAF had fallen into a trap. This was created by the great success of the CF-100, an economically produced "home grown" air defense solution; one tailored to our specific national requirements. They (and AVRO) thought we were now ready to play with the "big boys".

We weren't...not in light of our huge defense commitments and our small taxation base.

And that fills this post. More follows.


----------



## iron man (Jan 10, 2014)

You've got to look at the "big picture" guys. This is the way it was in 1957, here in Canada.

As I said in the other thread, there were numerous concurrent factors that played into the decision to cancel the program. Politics did indeed play a role, but not to the exclusion of other strong contributors. Chief among these "other" factors is the role played by the RCAF's top brass in all of this.

It was they who were tasked with maintaining things on "the pointy end". One of the largest areas of responsibility was administrating all of the various procurement schemes that were in various stages during the period: the CF-105 project was but one of these. During this period the RCAF maintained a large overseas commitment to NATO. 1 Canadian Air Division encompassed 4 Wings (3 Squadrons each) of Canadair Sabres; each of these Wings with it's own organic support infrastructure. They were based on airfields at Marville (France), Grostenquin (France), Zweibrucken (FRG), and Baden-Soellingen (FRG). In addition to this, the RCAF maintained (i.e. funded) a large support facility for the major maintenance requirements of this fleet (Scottish Aviation; Prestwick). During this period, it was becoming apparent that the day of the VFR light fighter aircraft was coming to an end. Plans were being formulated to "re-purpose" the RCAF's NATO contribution; first with the "stop gap" measure of adding an all weather fighter capability to the Air Division by means of deploying CF-100 units. Secondly with a full scale replacement of the entire fleet of Sabres with an as yet undetermined all weather fighter.
This was going to cost a bundle of money. Not just for purchasing the machines themselves; moreso for the anticipated costs of retraining aircrew and "erks" on a far more sophisticated machine and purchasing all of the related equipment that the "erks" would need to keep 'em flying.

Also falling under RCAF purview was the ongoing construction and manning of the early warning radar lines. These were popping up like mushrooms all across Canada's desolate northern frontier at the time and providing required transportation (primarily by airlift) was proving a major burden on the available "heavy lift" assets (C-47's and C-119's). A program to address this (C-130 acquisition as it turned out) "issue" was also going to require funding and as with the case of the Sabres in Europe, it was not going to be cheap.
Don't forget the multi-millions being spent on the radar installations (purchasing/construction/training/staffing) themselves...

Concurrently, we were standing up squadrons in preparation for the arrival of the CP-107 Argus fleet. These were a "made in Canada" solution to the growing SLBM threat; they were planned to supplement (not replace)the existing ASW Neptunes in RCAF service and finally allow the retirement of the Lancaster MkX. This was not a "small" program either...

And then we get to the next big ticket item on the RCAF's plate: the ever evolving needs of the Air Defense Command. And here's where the CF-105 Arrow program comes into play. In the period, the RCAF fielded 3 Wings (3 Squadrons each) of CF-100 all-weather interceptors and a further 6 squadrons of Canadair Sabre day fighters devoted to this task. In addition to these operational organizations, there was also a large OCU dedicated to producing CF-100 crews and a far larger one producing Sabre "jocks" for both home and for 1 Air Division.

It is into this aspect that "politics" becomes a major factor.

Due to the nature of our unique situation as the "monkey in the middle" (positioned between the USSR and the USA on the most direct routes), it was realized that Air Defense would require a joint effort. The USAF's Air Defense Command (ADC) had already been very active in this regard, contributing huge sums toward the ongoing construction of the vast radar net in Canada's north. With regards to the Operational/Reserve RCAF ADC squadrons; this capability had grown from a few Vampire/Sabre day fighter squadrons centered in Ontario and Quebec into a force of 6 Wing equivalents (including auxiliaries), which now spanned Canada from coast to coast. This had required a major construction effort to provide basing for these units; between 1952 and 1956 major ADC airbases were constructed/improved at Comox, Cold Lake, Namao, Saskatoon, North Bay, Uplands, St. Hubert, Bagottville, and Chatham. Additionally, forward deployment fields were also built during this period.

While on the subject of infrastructure spending during this period, there is another factor that is rarely mentioned. Evolution of the demographic of those seeking out a career in the RCAF (Army and RCN as well) was raising "issues" with the provision of supporting infrastructure for families. This was applicable both at home and abroad during the period and was reaching embarrassing proportions in some cases. In Europe, "shantytowns" were showing up outside the gates of the airbases; more and more airmen were paying passage for their wives and children rather than facing separation during deployment. Acceptance of this reality was slow coming but the financial implications (for the budget at the DND level) was an obvious "elephant in the room".

But I digress...back to politics and North American air defense.

When the newly formed USAF ADC had assessed the options for dealing with the USSR's growing manned bomber threat, they had settled upon the concept of SAGE (Semi-Automated Ground Environment). This system was planned to be an integration of ground-based radar systems and the fighter units, with major control centers which would direct the aircraft. Throughout the pre-SAGE period, Canada (Avro, Malton) built the CF-100 to equip the frontline units. The CF-105 had been conceived as it's successor and the "Arrow" was initially designed to operate much in the same manner as did the CF-100, using ground direction and leaving control of weapons launch in the cockpit of each aircraft. The SAGE was designed to change this method to one whereby the pilot became nothing more than a means of getting the aircraft from it's base to it's firing position and then returning. With the formation of NORAD and Canada's resultant POLITICAL commitment to SAGE, all of the RCAF's plans for the ongoing defense of Canada's airspace were thrown into the wastebasket. To whit, the RCAF were committed to funding the construction and staffing of this system; this was to include a control center at North Bay, Ontario, built with RCAF dollars. Caught in this rapidly evolving situation, the CF-100 (unable to operate in SAGE) and it's planned replacement (also unable to operate in SAGE-as designed) came under a serious re-appraisal by AVM Easton, then Chief of Operational Requirements. As amply demonstrated above, the budget of the RCAF was already under considerable pressure at the time and to put it bluntly? AVM Easton was no friend of the Arrow project as it was siphoning increasingly scarce funds from what he (rightly, BTW) considered to be far more pressing matters. Easton was no friend of SAGE either, but that decision was taken at a level far above his purview...here's your actual "political" aspect. Settling on a weapons system for the CF-100's successor had already been a thorn in the side of Avro all throughout the development of the airframe and engine. With the completely unforeseen fall of the Liberal government (of Louis St. Laurant); with political rumblings about curbing Canada's rising defense expenditures, the Arrow "situation" came to a head at the highest levels of the RCAF.

And that's not all when talking about SAGE and NORAD...far from it.

As shown by the "thread drift" in the "axing" topic, this was also the period where Canada found itself faced with the matter of reaching a military/political consensus concerning policy on nuclear weapons. Both SAGE and the NORAD agreement played a large roles in forcing this matter upon Ottawa. Within the USAF ADC's planning for SAGE, a program to develop a SAM with a nuclear warhead (Boeing's BOMARC) had been in development since 1950. By 1957 (when the NORAD agreement came into effect), Canada was aware that this system was in an advanced state of testing and was soon to become operational. USAF ADC had already embarked on construction of launch bases and the intent was to use these missiles in Canadian airspace if war broke out. This was one of the "prime movers" which forced Canada off the fence with regards to the nuclear question...<more to follow> Limited by this site.


----------



## iron man (Jan 10, 2014)

Another was the matter of USAF's SAC and their ongoing development of forward deployment facilities at Cold Lake, Namao, Fort Churchill, and Frobisher Bay (in addition to the extant SAC bases at Goose Bay (Labrador) and Harmon (Newfoundland)).
It is worth pointing out the highly classified agreements (in place since 1952) whereby Canada accepted that storage of nuclear weapons had been a fact at Goose Bay since 1950. Most of the documentation relevant to these agreements remains classified to this day (and will likely remain so forever), but their existence has been proven by recent archival research. In Namao (outside of Edmonton...20km from where I sit typing this BTW) SAC pushed forward with a massive expansion of the USAAF facility constructed during WWII to ferry Lend Lease aircraft to the USSR. This included a runway capable of handling the B-36 "Peacemaker" at it's MTOW of 410,000 lbs...the concrete is 8 feet thick! A similar runway exists at CFB Cold Lake, 300 km ENE of here. These bases were nominally declared as FOB's for fleets of tanker aircraft (once the B-47 came into prominence) but rumours of nuclear weapons storage persist to this day and they're most likely entirely factual.

In short, due to our "special relationship" with the US, our hand was forced on the SAGE/NORAD matter; from this political decision, introduction of BOMARC/W40 into RCAF service became a foregone conclusion. The money to fund these unforeseen projects had to come from somewhere...funding our SAGE contribution was a back breaker in light of everything else that the RCAF had on their plate in 1957.

While the loss of aerospace engineering capability on such a scale was profound, it was not the end of Canada's aerospace industry...not by a long shot. Did it set us back? Yes.

Did it turn us into a nation of "have-nots" in this regard? No.

One would be advised to do a little research into the state of the Canadian aviation industry before going off about how we have had no appreciable global impact in aviation for the last 50 years... and how this is all Diefenbakers fault.

This is simply not true.

Money is a finite resource for any responsible government; outside of the area of National Defense there were pressing needs for social infrastructure as the country boomed in the post WWII period. Given our vast geography and limited taxation base (particularly as with regards to corporate tax revenue vis-a-vis the USA, for example) there was a strong emergent feeling that the day of reckoning was now upon us. Canada's population was exploding and centralizing in urban locations; this required government re-investment at all levels: Municipal, Provincial and Federal.

Highways, water and sewage, electricity and gas, schools, hospitals, protective services...all pressing matters that needed a much bigger piece of an only marginally larger "pie".

And the "Voodoo" was a pretty "sexy" machine in it's own regard...


Once they figured out the "pitch up" issue...

More (reply to poster)
Compared to the EE Lightning, Arrow had legs. Compared to other options (CF-101 for example) she really didn't. This was one of the big sticking points that AVM Easton had against the aircraft. If it could cruise, it had decent (projected) range but if it had to "dash", the situation was far different. Early 2nd gen turbojets were notorious fuel hogs when the afterburners were lit and this was certainly the case with the Iroquois from all I've read on it. Iroquois was Orenda's re-design of the Bristol Olympus/Curtiss-Wright J67 and while the output (static thrust) was truly eye-watering, the fuel consumption was insane. Projections were that if "scrambled" from North Bay and "sent north" at maximum speed (critical in the minds of the RCAF), the Arrow I would hit "bingo fuel" about 325 NM from base. True that Arrow I can get there in 20 minutes from "wheels up", but without the specified ASTRA (BVR) missile system these limitations were seen as completely inadequate; and the ASTRA was nowhere near operational when the decision to "cut our losses" was made.
Australia may have had an interest but really? What was their level of "need" for such a capability in the mid-60's? The RAF would hold the best prospects for export but they had indigenous approaches to this problem (Lightning) and given the "short range" nature of their situation...Lightning was the "right" aircraft for the RAF during the period.
The only ones who reallly could have used the Arrow were the USAF's ADC and they already had $Billions invested in WS-201 (the "Ultimate Interceptor": AKA F-102/F-106); they were also already quite far along on the F-12 (which makes Arrow look like "Tinkertoys") during the period.

Our "needs" were just not conducive to building an exportable product...it was a specialized bird, for our specialized needs.

That was only one of the causes of it's fate.

I've got more elsewhere, but this is the nuts and bolts of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## prem895 (Jan 10, 2014)

With all that said,I still love the look of the Arrow


----------



## iron man (Jan 10, 2014)

prem895 said:


> With all that said,I still love the look of the Arrow



Of course you do... that's a BIG part of the ongoing relevance when people opine on the topic.

The facts are the facts..."sexy" or not.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 12, 2014)

I've read that the F-106 was quite maneuverable (until it got into that near-unrecoverable spin), so I would not be surprised if the Arrow was not quite maneuverable, too.

I think there are very few reliable reports of relative fighter maneuverability in the open literature, and a good analysis would require access to some high-end CFD software and accurate and detailed drawings, and even that would not be able to model the behavior of the flight control system. As an example I've read that the "dog fight capability" of current and near-current US fighters was something like F-16 > F-14 > F-15 > F-18, but I have essentially no faith in that ranking. Of course, F-22 > any of them, mostly because it's got a much higher thrust:mass ratio.


----------



## iron man (Jan 20, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> I've read that the F-106 was quite maneuverable (until it got into that near-unrecoverable spin), so I would not be surprised if the Arrow was not quite maneuverable, too.
> 
> I think there are very few reliable reports of relative fighter maneuverability in the open literature, and a good analysis would require access to some high-end CFD software and accurate and detailed drawings, and even that would not be able to model the behavior of the flight control system. As an example I've read that the "dog fight capability" of current and near-current US fighters was something like F-16 > F-14 > F-15 > F-18, but I have essentially no faith in that ranking. Of course, F-22 > any of them, mostly because it's got a much higher thrust:mass ratio.


Full "Delta" planforms are a thing of the past. For (now) obvious reasons. One has to understand/appreciate the manifold advances of basic aerodynamics which were seen in the period we are talking about. Imo? The quantum "leap" in actual "aerodynamic" design occurred between 1955 and 1960. By this point, the delta planform was proven to be a dead end and subsequent designs reflect this fact. This would make the "Arrow" a "dinosaur" (relatively speaking) in the modern world. Look at the design approach used with the F-15 as an example. 

That's a whole other kettle of fish to fry...

Let's talk about the F 35 now...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 21, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> I've read that the F-106 was quite maneuverable.


Actually it wasn't. My father in law flew them and ran the detachment that operated the last 106s in the USAF inventory. He said they were fast as hell but bled off a lot of energy in turns. 

F-106 Delta Dart B-1B Chase Flight Test Program

590061 B-1B Chase 1987


----------



## davparlr (Jan 21, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually it wasn't. My father in law flew them and ran the detachment that operated the last 106s in the USAF inventory. He said they were fast as hell but bled off a lot of energy in turns.
> 
> F-106 Delta Dart B-1B Chase Flight Test Program
> 
> 590061 B-1B Chase 1987



I believe that you are right, delta wings do have high induced drag, certainly at low altitude. I believe the Mig-21 suffered from this problem. However high altitude performance is pretty good. I worked with a friend who flew B-58s, another delta winged aircraft, and he told me that the only plane that could intercept them at high altitude was the F-106 which could fly ahead of them and turn around and attack, something no other aircraft could do.

Interesting note. One of the F-106 sites stated that the F-106 still has the airspeed record for single engine air breathing aircraft, greater than 1500 mph.

A stunningly beautiful aircraft. While growing up the two planes I would have wanted to fly was the F-106 and the F8U. Unfortunately the F8U had been grounded by the time I got my wings (and, thanks to a Naval Flight Surgeon who failed to sign my flight physical, I was in the AF, which worked out wonderful for me), and the F-106 was allocated to Guard, one of which was in my class and got one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 21, 2014)

prem895 said:


> I'm really not on any side,so to speak. What I mean about the 35 is that by the time all of the bugs are worked out,I think it's stealth capabilities will have been figured out by the so called bad guys.
> Lockheed sees great progress on F-35 fighter | Reuters
> F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems
> Lockheed Martin
> This report that Flyboy posted is great new indeed. Has Lockheed really ever produced a dud?



Of course. Nobody's always successful.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 13, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> Of course. Nobody's always successful.



The last "dud" fighter produced by Lockheed was the F-90. Its undoing was the engine. Look what followed after that.


----------



## RpR (Apr 16, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually it wasn't. My father in law flew them and ran the detachment that operated the last 106s in the USAF inventory. He said they were fast as hell but bled off a lot of energy in turns.
> 
> F-106 Delta Dart B-1B Chase Flight Test Program
> 
> 590061 B-1B Chase 1987


From communicating with person at the F-106 website, the F-106 was extremely maneuverable.
There is a website, I no longer have the address with the Air Force reports on how Air Force air craft should deal with Mig fighters in "Nam.
The F-106 is the only one that could take them on straight-up with no performance weakness, its only lacking was it did not have a gun.
The site lists how aircraft with short comings should deal with that problem.

Bleeding off airspeed too quickly is a combat factor in all delta aircraft, the Mirage suffered the same problem.
Pilots said the if the Six had a few thousand pounds more thrust that problem would have gone away.

In one of the posts at the Six site, it speaks of a Navy Pilot who did a inter-service transfer to fly the Six. He flew against other members of his F-14 squadron in a inter-service Top Gun type exercise and technically defeated the F-14s he flew against in dogfights.
He told the pilots who flew the Six regularly that it was a very good airplane, you just had to fly it to its strengths.

From a pilot who flew the Six, if you took in full burner and went all out without backing off, within twenty minutes you would be looking for a tanker or a landing strip.
No one there will say how fast a Six could actually go but one pilot said that during one exercise he was slightly above mach 2.2 and accelerating easily when the flight path called for a turn that bled off speed.
He said that was the fastest he remember he had ever gone.
A ground crew chief wrote that once a Six came in with all the leading edge paint burnt off and paint heat blisters behind the missing paint.
He said he had never seen that before or after and that the pilot left the aircraft without saying one word and he was not going to ask any questions.
Nothing was ever said about what actually happened.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2014)

BobR said:


> From communicating with person at the F-106 website, the F-106 was extremely maneuverable.
> There is a website, I no longer have the address with the Air Force reports on how Air Force air craft should deal with Mig fighters in "Nam.
> The F-106 is the only one that could take them on straight-up with no performance weakness, its only lacking was it did not have a gun.
> The site lists how aircraft with short comings should deal with that problem.
> ...


My father in law didn't think it was that maneuverable, he had a few hundered hours in the -106 (if not more) and was the guy in the picture I posted, but then again during the same period he was also doing some flight test work in the F-5 and F-15, so he might have been a little biased there. He liked high energy maneuvers in the 106 rather than yanking and backing.


BobR said:


> In one of the posts at the Six site, it speaks of a Navy Pilot who did a inter-service transfer to fly the Six. He flew against other members of his F-14 squadron in a inter-service Top Gun type exercise and technically defeated the F-14s he flew against in dogfights.
> He told the pilots who flew the Six regularly that it was a very good airplane, you just had to fly it to its strengths.


When the Rockwell detachment was operational they occasionaly deployed when there wasn't enough "chase work" at Palmdale, occasionally they would go up against early F-15s during dissimilar aircraft training and many times they would beat the 15 under certain circumstances. "Bob" had a picture of an F-15 in a gunsight I guess taken during one of these deployments.


BobR said:


> From a pilot who flew the Six, if you took in full burner and went all out without backing off, within twenty minutes you would be looking for a tanker or a landing strip.


 During FCFs they would go north of EDW into a high speed corridor, light up the burners and hit mach, turn around and land back at Palmdale with "just enough reserve."


BobR said:


> No one there will say how fast a Six could actually go but one pilot said that during one exercise he was slightly about mach 2.2 and accelerating easily when the flight path called for a turn that bled off speed.
> He said that was the fastest he remember he had ever gone.
> A ground crew chief wrote that once a Six came in with all the leading edge paint burnt off and paint heat blisters behind the missing paint.
> He said he had never seen that before or after and that the pilot left the aircraft without saying one word and he was not going to ask any questions.
> Nothing was ever said about what actually happened.


Bob told me it would keep picking up speed until it self destructed. He also said the F-111 would to the same.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 11, 2014)

BobR said:


> From a pilot who flew the Six, if you took in full burner and went all out without backing off, within twenty minutes you would be looking for a tanker or a landing strip.


I am not sure many fighters could beat this.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 11, 2014)

The Lightning could! It could empty its fuel tanks easily within that timeframe.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 16, 2014)

I can see both sides of my comment. What I meant,is that I believe very few fighters using full afterburners can stay up longer than 20 minutes. ABs gobble fuel. In the T-38, all you could do on a burner flight was take off, climb to altitude, fly a supersonic TACAN arc back to inbound course and land.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 22, 2014)

> The Lightning could! It could empty its fuel tanks easily within that timeframe.



... And oh, so spectacularly! I got told once by a Jaguar driver that it was the only combat aircraft that counted its take off run in its combat radius!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 18, 2016)

FLYBOYJ


> I've been wanting to put this out there for some time, I'm sure all of our Canadian friends will enjoy this one.


I think most aviation buffs would be interested regardless of nationality...



> I think an aircraft like an F-5 would of flown rings around her in a dogfight


From what I remember the F-5E had similar performance characteristics to the MiG-21 from around 300-400 knots, better performance below (higher aspect wing, the leading-edge root extension, and LED's), with the exception of a slightly lower climb-rate, and a possibly superior roll-rate.

The F-102 & F-106's were similar in turn-rate and roll-rate if I recall, and comparable to some MiG-21 variants, and slightly inferior to others; the F-106 would appear faster than the MiG-21 in an all out dash. I'm not sure how the F-5A compared to the F-5E though it might have had a lower T/W ratio.

The F-5's were smaller and might have had better overall pilot visibility, smaller and harder to see, and would have been useful in this regard.



> PM Diefenbaker killed 90% of the Canadian aircraft industry with his decision, but let's imagine things were different. If built, how do you think her mission would of changed?


I have a feeling UCAV's would have come earlier...



> Would a gun been installed like on the F-106?


It would have been easier than the F-106 due to the package.



> Although the B-47 looked fragile I am told it was quite maneuvable and could be looped and rolled.


It's maximum g-load was 3.5 x 1.5 right?



> BTW Look at the range!!!! I'm sorry but I don't care how good the Iroquois "would of" been, it ain't helping the range situation much!!!!


Firstly, those figures might have been based on a supersonic radius.

Otherwise, those numbers look wrong, in a number of ways actually

The aircraft had a 2800 gallon fuel capacity, at 6.55 to 6.6 pounds a gallon that would produce a weight of 67380-67520
Falcon armament would yield a weight of 1016 to 1180 pounds, bringing up the weight to 68396 to 68700
These numbers would get a fuel fraction of 26.8% to 26.9%

If the aircraft was fitted with the Iroquois, they'd be 4,000 pounds lighter in total producing a weight of 45,040, a weight of 63380-63520 pounds with fuel, and 64396 to 64700 in an air to air load. With the fuel load the same 28.5% to 28.6%

These figures seem on par or better than the F-106.

Glider


> Zurakowski declared that the Arrow was easier to fly than the F-102 or the Gloster Javelin, two other delta-winged fighters.


Easier doesn't actually mean better handling... it just means it has less quirks that can get you killed.



> Zurakoski complained about the high workload in the cockpit, despite the sophisticated AFCS (Automatic Flight Control System)


That's a surprise with a two-man crew: In fact, I'm surprised they'd even need such automation to get the A/C into position for a missile shot: The F-4's didn't require it.



> the reliability of the electronic systems was better than expected


Now that is impressive for that time frame.


plan_D


> Being that the CF-105 was primarily an interceptor it's handling wouldn't need to be amazing.


In theory, yes. In actual fact, not necessarily: The larger wing is good for high altitude maneuverability, particularly depending on mach number.

When supersonic, you could do just fine with a plane like the F-101B and F-104A: Neither had a light-wing loading but a higher mach number correlates to a higher IAS and that still puts you on top if your L/D ratio is decent (both were), and control power was high enough (both were), particularly if radar equipped with GCI.



> The EE Lightning didn't have a very good turning circle but it was quite manuverable in other areas due to the whole tail-plane moving instead of just elevators at the back.


I was under the impression that it's corner velocity was lower than the F-104?


Nonskimmer


> Bang on. It was just far more expensive than it would have been worth, so it was cancelled.


How much would the plane have been worth?

If I recall, the F-102 was $1.9 million; the F-106 around $4.5-5.0 million; the F-4 around $2.4 million


pbfoot


> First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel).


It was the first FBW equipped aircraft with SAS integrated. Much like the F-16 of the 1974.



> First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory.


I would have never thought of that as it's not as evident as the F-15 and F-16. The top of the fuselage/wing seem to fit the bill though I guess.



> First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance.
> First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance.


As I recall, they originally planned to make the tail larger, and from that they decided instead to use with neutral directional stability with FBW & SAS.

Relaxed stability means less trim-inputs, which makes the delta-wing much more effective than otherwise possible.



> First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground


I did not know the plane was designed with this feature from the outset (if I read you right). If I recall right, the F-102A could use a data-link to coordinate intercepts in 1957.



> First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain.


Firstly, I thought home-on-jam and ECCM are basically the same?

The integration of the radar, navigation, IRST, ECM, ECCM, looks a lot like the F-15's systems: It had integrated jamming, radar, and ECM at least. I don't know about nav and IRST.



> First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now.
> First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines).
> First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow.


I don't remember the PS-13 being a turbofan, if I recall it was a turbojet.

If you're talking about the inlet being oversized with excess air going around the engine to provide engine and afterburner cooling: That sounds a lot like the F-104 and F-4. As for the use of the exhaust to pump the duct, that sounds possibly like the F-104, and the L-133 concept (though that was for boundary layer control, it never flew though).



> The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe.


Now that's not true: I asked on the a website dedicated to the F-106, and despite them being a bunch of seriously moody people, they did explain this one to me.

The nozzle of the F-106 is just like any other convergent divergent nozzle: It has a cooling shroud located around and behind it, and this also serves to disperse the exhaust at lower power settings when taxiing. The purpose of this is to avoid blowing around unsecured objects.



> Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine.
> Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones).


I already knew the engine had composites in it; I did not know the airframe did. As for composites, I had no idea.



> Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing.


The B-58 had a conically cambered wing and flew earlier. The use of inverse cambered sections is interesting though (wing-root).



> Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles.


Wait, I thought the missiles to be carried included provisions for the following (at different times)

8 x Falcon
8 x Velvet Glove
4 x Sparrow II
4 x Genie



> Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role.


Sounds like a terrain-folowing AP



> First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that.


Wait, I thought the engine was more powerful than the J75...



> First oxygen-injection re-light system.


Which would allow a relight at all speeds?



> First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine.
> First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine.
> First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition.


I'm not sure what a hot-streak afterburner is, but I know what all the rest is.



> What he is referring to is the next one off the production line that was powered by 2 of the indiginous Orenda Iroquois with 20000,lbs thrust tests up to 30000lbs in burner mode.


I'm surprised about that, especially with the J75 being 1.5 x J57 thrust

J57: 12,500 to 13,500

J75: 18,750 to 20,250
And from what I remember thrust boost was around 1.5 to 1.66666... on burner for the J57, so provided the proportion holds

J57: 18,750 to 22,500
J75: 28,125 to 33,750
I'd have figured the the Iroquois would have been able to do somewhere between 22,000 to 25,000 pounds of thrust.


Murray_B


> It probably was not area ruled at the time but became so years after the fact through the miracle of historical revision.


I do remember something about the aircraft's spine conforming to it, but it could be bullshit.



> The only impartial and reliable information I have on the maximum speed is from RCAF tests which indicates Mach 1.4.


Understood



> The cancellation did create some problems for the US since we had already agreed on how to finance North American defense. By canceling the Arrow and buying Voodoos we forced the US government to cancel US contracts and move the same value of work to Canada. That must have cost them plenty but they did not complain about it much as far as I can tell.


Could the plane have made compatible with SAGE?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2016)

You're kicking up a lot of old discussion Zipper, be advised that many of those members are no longer around including one who is deceased (RIP pb). 

The Arrow was a magnificent aircraft, politics and a changing world doomed the program and forever changed the face of the Canadian aviation industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 18, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Arrow was a magnificent aircraft, politics and a changing world doomed the program and forever changed the face of the Canadian aviation industry.



Amen to that, Brother


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 5, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You're kicking up a lot of old discussion Zipper, be advised that many of those members are no longer around including one who is deceased (RIP pb).


I think certain aircraft tend to naturally be favorites of aviation buffs, these designs almost always come up on top...

SR-71
XB-70
CF-105
... regarding to pbfoot's death, I'm sorry about that.



> The Arrow was a magnificent aircraft, politics and a changing world doomed the program and forever changed the face of the Canadian aviation industry.


Nobody will disagree with that


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 21, 2017)

Regardless of whether the CF-105 could ever have met its projected performance with the fully developed Iroquois engines, killing the program was obviously just a stupid idea, fiscally speaking ... though it seems the whole mess was confused and combined with bitterness just before the destruction of the prototypes was 'ordered' (there seems to be a lot of disagreement over whether that order ever officially went through from the Prime Minister, or if it was some miscommunication ... I know the wrecking crew manager mentions he regrets not hesitating and questioning that order to get absolute confirmation at all levels ... from Avro and the government).

But aside from that and the subsequent coverup/damage control ... and missed opportunities to loan or sell the prototypes to the UK for more testing, there seems to be some other big missed opportunities that don't come up often, or at all.

The CF-105 was a massive aircraft, larger than any other fighter of the era and even the modern F-22 (or YF-23 for that matter) with an internal weapons bay with twice the capacity of the F-105 Thunderchief, 1.5x the F-35, and 2/3 that of the TSR-2. (configurable for 4 1000 lb conventional bombs)

I haven't seen any mention of it being proposed for the nuclear strike role, but it very much seem like it could have been developed in that direction to compete with the later TSR-2, F-111, and A-5. (in fact, it seems closest in overall size and design to the A-5)


Additionally, the basic aerodynamic platform of the CF-105 could have been scaled down to something much more cost effective as a general-purpose fighter using a single engine or a pair of smaller engines. Personally, I think Avro should have licensed the most powerful variants of the Rolls Royce Avon (powering the Lightning, among others). They'd originally been planning to use the Rolls Royce RB.106 and started developing the Iroquois when RR had to cancel development, but the Avon provided an excellent platform and was similar enough in size to Avro's own Orenda to potentially use in-house engines for some prototyping and testing while tooling-up for Avon production and/or waiting for imported engines to arrive for testing. (that's assuming the Orenda itself couldn't have been developed similarly ... but given the existing development of the Avon and its impressive thrust to weight ratio for the time, and given Avro being deep in R&D overhead as it was, licensing royalties seems like a very attractive option)

The iroquois was also optimized for high altitude flight and adapting it to the low-altitude strike role would've taken some doing as well, but that would have fit the timeline for the early 60s demand for such an aircraft, and would have fit well with a cancelled CF-105 production order, but retained slow-paced, low-funding test program or even just shelved and mothballed with renewed interest after the fact. (or testing in the UK as seems likely had the prototypes not been destroyed)

Avro had been forced to focus on CF-105 development over several other in-house projects they'd proposed, so diversifying wasn't an option either, but they seem to have missed the opportunity to at least rehash the old CF-100. The CF-100 seems like it has all the basic features useful for a single-seat ground-attack aircraft with greater range and load carrying capacity than the CF-86s and potentially appealing cost (and shorter take-off or better rough field performance) advantages compared to the CF-101s being purchased as interim multirole fighters. Avro needed something to sell to keep the company afloat, and the CF-100 seems like a pretty flexible aircraft ... potentially even useful in the low-altitude nuclear strike role. (it's rather similar to the Blackburn Buccaneer, though a bit smaller, still in the right size class and bigger than the F-84F) If they kept it in production long enough, or offered retrofits, switching to licensed J52 engines (lighter, more powerful, and more fuel efficient) would make for a pretty solid 60s era transonic attack aircraft. (not too far off from the A-4 or A-6 using similar engines ... and again similar to the Buccaneer, but without the need carrier capability and somewhat lower weight than the Buccaneer or A-6, though probably not the A-4)


With the Avon in production, there's a number of potential engine upgrades or swaps possible with licensed US aircraft, or retrofitted second-hand US aircraft. The J57 of the CF-101s and the J79s of the CF-104s both seem quite relevant, with Avons not being quite as fuel efficient for cruise (though the Mk.302 is really close to the J79), but more efficient in AB/reheat and much lighter. The CF-101 is a very heavy fighter, but cutting between 3 and 4,000 pounds off the empty weight is going to be substantial and greatly improve the thrust to weight ratio, especially dry and almost certainly improve fuel economy in spite of the modest loss in SFC. (the loss in drag due to lower weight should make the difference there) It might even improve dogfighting ability to the point of being closer to the F-4's class, though not as fast, still plenty to challenge Mig 21s on more even ground.

With the CF-104, you've got a lightweight fighter weighed down with the heavy radar equipment of the F-104G (more or less), but you'd increase thrust moderately and cut nearly 1,000 pounds off the empty weight with the Avon engine and recoup some of the flying qualities of the lighter F-104A. (or, putting the same engine on an F-104A, you'd be about 400-500 pounds lighter than the original J79-GE-3 series)


One other interesting possibility would be the FJ-4 Fury adapted to the Avon, but it wouldn't be nearly as fast as any of the above and would be better suited as a fast fighter-bomber, likely supersonic capable when clean though and with much better handling qualities than the F-100. Given Canadair produced the CF-86, it seems to make more sense for them to build it than Avro Canada, though ... so that doesn't help their problems other than keeping the engine works going. (OTOH retrofitting the existing CF-86 fleet with thinner, sleeker wings derived from the FJ-4 while retaining more of the fuselage and existing Orenda engine may have been a more appealing upgrade to keep those relevant in the fighter-bomber role and appeal to the cost-cutting measures of the Conservative government of the period ... the afterburning Orenda 17 intended for the CF-103 also seems like it would've been a cheaper/easier refit than the Avon and wouldn't require changing the intake to increase airflow either, something the Avon would almost certainly require) You'd have something vaguely in the F-100 or Mig 19's class at least ... or, honestly, F-5A for that matter. (maybe not quite Mach 1.3, especially with the Orenda 17, but low supersonic range ... perhaps more like the Super Mystere)


Avro really needed something to keep their factory workers and infrastructure busy, but something cheap enough to be appealing to the powers that be, unlike the CF-105. (the latter, in time, may have piqued the interest of the Brits and Aussies when it came time for a big, supersonic tactical bomber, but that was several years yet off) Granted, had Avro Canada immediately looked towards the Avon after the RB.106 was cancelled, they may have already been planning a scaled-down twin-Avon powered delta wing interceptor/fighter-bomber. (without that foresight, the relatively low cost design philosophy of the F-104 seems like it would've been the go-to 'cheap and small' option at the time, and well suited to the Avon ... and Avro could've been on the ball and snapped up that license before Candair could do so, though perhaps based on the lighter F-104A or perhaps F-104C and not the later, heavier multirole F-104G variant, initially at least)


I suppose a thinner-winged CF-100 with Orenda 17s also would've had some interesting attributes, or simply the Orenda 17s alone, especially for better take-off performance with heavy bomb loads, but I'm not sure how much weight that afterburner added or whether that would be worthwhile for an attack plane. (keep the straight wings in any case, don't complicate matters delving back into the CF-103's development ... drop the high-alt wingtip extensions of the Mk.5 though, not needed for a fighter-bomber, and bring back the 8x M3 .50 cal gun pack for ground strafing missions ... probably better for that role than it had ever been as an interim interceptor armament)



Edit: fixed the mistake of listing the F-104D where I meant F-104G.

Additionally, I'd forgotten about the uprated RM6 (licensed Avon 300 derivative) used in the late model Saab 35 Draken. That just about matches the performance of the J79-GE-19 retrofitted onto F-104As (and used on the F-104S) with slightly lower AB thrust and better dry thrust than the GE engines while totally outperforming the older J57-P-55 engines of the CF-101s. (had Avro started building earlier Avon 300 marks for an F-104 variant, progressing to further updated to that engine seem feasible, assuming Orenda's engineers didn't develop the Avon further themselves or produce a scaled-down Iroquois, but in any case, an engine retrofit program for the CF-101 fleet should have profited Avro, assuming the Canadian government had still been sold on the initial F-101 deal regardless)

The Saab 35 and Mirage III are both also worth noting as small, cost-effective fighters of the same era, but the F-104 was the smallest, lightest, and almost certainly cheapest to manufacture and maintain, so hard to really beat there until the N-156/F-5 comes around. (of course, the CF-105's scale-model aerodynamic testing could have been used for a small, single-engine Avon powered supersonic delta-wing fighter in the class of the Draken or Mirage III, and avoid licensing overhead altogether ... but again, they seemed forced into focusing on the big, C-104/2 based CF-105 design exclusively, so shortcuts would be needed for alternative short-term production viability)

Plus, Lockheed had been trying to sell the F-104 to pretty much everyone, and they were more likely to offer an appealing deal, even one much earlier than the Canadair license for the F-104G.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 22, 2017)

... so you're saying the CF-105 had _potential_ ....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 15, 2017)

Raise the Avro Arrow: Group looks to recover prototypes from Lake Ontario, 60 years later

This will be interesting to watch play out

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Jul 15, 2017)




----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 12, 2017)

kool kitty89 said:


> Additionally, the basic aerodynamic platform of the CF-105 could have been scaled down to something much more cost effective as a general-purpose fighter using a single engine or a pair of smaller engines.


You know, this site could use a what-if designs forum: I know a person from a forum that is entirely based around such ideas. Mostly models, but some drawings too.

It would be pretty cool I think.


> The iroquois was also optimized for high altitude flight and adapting it to the low-altitude strike role would've taken some doing as well


I'm not so sure that's a big deal.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 8, 2017)

Stay tuned ... 

Avro Arrow model found at bottom of Lake Ontario, expedition team says

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 8, 2017)




----------



## swampyankee (Sep 12, 2017)

@Kool Kitty, RE the F-104: do remember Lockheed was not above quite a lot of bribery in its sales practices, as shown in court cases in several countries. The lists of people bribed extended into those wearing uniforms 

In other words, some degree of the F-104's success was due to corruption. This may not have bypassed Canada.


----------



## SevenSixTwoNato (Oct 26, 2019)

Please sign this petition to bring back the Avro Arrow! Signez la pétition


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2019)

SevenSixTwoNato said:


> Please sign this petition to bring back the Avro Arrow! Signez la pétition



"With a modern twist, these planes can and will out-perform any other aircraft!"

Sorry dude, you're delusional on so many levels, but with a modern twist you could have this...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 27, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> @Kool Kitty, RE the F-104: do remember Lockheed was not above quite a lot of bribery in its sales practices, as shown in court cases in several countries. The lists of people bribed extended into those wearing uniforms
> 
> In other words, some degree of the F-104's success was due to corruption. This may not have bypassed Canada.


I have no idea what was behind the descision of course but when I read the story of the Arrow just now for the first time and how what sounds like it may have been the best or at least one of the best fighters of its day was suddenly cancelled and everything ordered destroyed seemingly almost on a whim dispite all the obvious negative consequences that would surely result the first thing that popped into my mind was someone must have been payed off.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 27, 2019)

petition to bring back a 60+ year old design.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 27, 2019)

Was a beautiful design and sounded like it was perhaps one of the best for its day.
Also sounds like one of the bad descisions of all time to cancel it but I'm not so sure it would be competitive now.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 27, 2019)

Classic case of Reach exceeding Grasp, IMO. But it was a noble effort, NDAI.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 19, 2019)

*Mississauga council pledges $2.2 million for Avro Arrow replica | The Star*


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 19, 2019)

One thing I never understood is why Avro Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Britain’s Hawker-Siddeley Group didn’t design and produce the Arrow for both the UK and Canada. Instead, when the Arrow first flew in 1958 the RAF was designing the English Electric Lightning. It seems Hawker-Siddeley could have offered the Arrow to meet the same role for the RAF to compete against English-Electric (BAe Group).


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 20, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> It seems Hawker-Siddeley could have offered the Arrow to meet the same role for the RAF to compete against English-Electric (BAe Group).



The CF-105 was in fact a strong contender for a British interceptor in the mid 50s. In that time, Gloster was developing what was called a 'Thin Wing Javelin' all-weather interceptor (The Lightning wasn't an all-weather interceptor), which was to be supersonic, but during a visit to the USA in 1955, the British Minister of Supply (Ministry of Hydrogen Bombs and Bootlaces) was shown secret proposals for the CF-105 for the USAF. Avro Canada was duly contacted and the net result was that the CF-105 effectively killed off the Thin Wing Javelin. Its performance and capability were superior to the projected Gloster jet in every way. If it had been built, the British Arrow was to have been able to carry the Hughes Falcon AAM and would have had British engines, either Bristol-Siddeley Olympus, Rolls-Royce Conway low-bypass turbofans, or de Havilland Gyron engines. 

British requirement F.155T for a Mach 2 supersonic interceptor in service for 1963 looked to eclipse even the CF-105 in capability and would have been all-British in design, was examined beside the Arrow's estimated capabilities, and in the end, the Arrow not being selected for various reasons, including its dollar price and the superiority to the aircraft projected for F.155T meant it wasn't ordered. Duncan Sandys' 1957 Defence White Paper put paid to F.155T also, which meant the subsonic Javelin and EE Lightning were to suffice as the RAF's intercptors until the arrival of the F-4 Phantom. A British order for the CF-105, had it eventuated probably would not have prevented its cancellation in 1959.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Nov 21, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> The CF-105 was in fact a strong contender for a British interceptor in the mid 50s.


I'm curious how it would have compared in terms of climb and acceleration rate over the Lightning. The lightning was incredible in some ways, but both could accelerate through Mach 1 without afterburner.


> British requirement F.155T for a Mach 2 supersonic interceptor in service for 1963 looked to eclipse even the CF-105 in capability and would have been all-British in design


Does anybody have any description or any concept drawings?


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 9, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> Does anybody have any description or any concept drawings?



Plenty of info around if you look for it. Search engines are your friend.

Operational Requirement F.155 - Wikipedia


----------



## Admiral Beez (Feb 12, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> The CF-105 was in fact a strong contender for a British interceptor in the mid 50s. A British order for the CF-105, had it eventuated probably would not have prevented its cancellation in 1959.


IMO, in the coming era of the ICBM the late 1950’s RCAF needed a multirole aircraft for both its NORAD and NATO roles, not a dedicated interceptor. I think us Canadians forget that Avro was not a Canadian company, but was a wholly owned subsidiary of Britain’s Hawker-Siddeley. And Avro Canada’s owners in Britain had the exact thing Canada needed for the dual NORAD and NATO roles, the P.1121. It’s ridiculous to me that the same corporation would design these two aircraft without any cooperation or cost sharing.







To your last point, if developed into something that can do the work of the RCAF and RAF’s Starfighters, Voodoos, Freedom Fighters, Phantoms, Lightnings, Jaguars, etc. the volume might be there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Today at 8:46 AM)

We must remember that the Avro Arrow was designed by a Brit (James Floyd, who per Wikipedia at least, at 108 is still alive!), and Avro Canada was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Britain's Hawker-Siddeley, as was Orenda Aerospace that made the Arrow's engines. Canada may have fronted the lion's share of the cash, but we must share the laurels and the faults with the Brits.

And after all we made the wrong jet. The world was turning towards ICBMs and Canada designed a sole purpose, long range interceptor to counter Soviet nuclear-armed bombers - a threat that disappeared. Canada should have designed a multi-role fighter like the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II. Coincidently both the Arrow and the Phantom first flew in 1958. One was a conceptual dead-end, the other one of the most successful postwar multirole fighters. The German Air Force retired its last operational F-4F Phantom IIs on 29 June 2013, and Greece still flies the Phantom today! But it wasn't just the Americans building multi-role fighters in the late 1950s, Saab had their Draken (first flight 1955), France had their Dassault Mirage III (first flight 1956) and the Soviets the Sukhoi Su-7 (first flight 1955). And Canada needed multi-role fighters, which is why we license-built the CF-104 (a terrible choice) and the CF-5.

If Canada had build something akin to the Draken or Phantom they would have had a winner for the 1960s-90s and we may very well be making our own jets today, likely as a part of an international consortium, like the Eurofighter or Panavia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JDCAVE (54 minutes ago)

I’ve just seen this thread now and have not read through it. However, the book by Murray Peden, DFC, would be a good place to start:

Amazon product

Peden’s memoirs, “A Thousand Shall Fall” is, as far I’m concerned is the gold standard on Bomber Command. His book on the Arrow, should be excellent, although I must confess, I have not read it.

Jim

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

