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

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).
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.

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.

No mention of conspiracy theories.

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.

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.

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

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

Recruit

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Tech Sergeant

Glock Perfection

Tech Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Glock Perfection

Recruit

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads