Which was prettier Arrow or TSR 2

[fastmongrel]

The Arrow just. Neither would be described as pretty without the aid of a pair of beer goggles though.

You want contemporary and prettier than those two I give you the Grumman Tiger

 

[oldcrowcv63]

At the risk of revealing myself as a poseur in this forum, I have to admit that the film introduced me to the Arrow. One of Akroyd's few dramatic roles. from wikipedia: The Arrow.

The Arrow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Arrow is a four-hour miniseries produced for CBC Television in 1996, starring Dan Aykroyd as Crawford Gordon, experienced wartime production leader during World War II and president of A. V. Roe Canada during its attempt to produce the Avro Arrow supersonic jet interceptor. The film also stars Michael Ironside and Sara Botsford. The mini-series is noted as the highest viewership ever for a CBC program.

Wetaskiwin resident Allan Jackson's efforts to build a full-scale model of the Arrow were discovered during the research phase of pre-production. An offer was made to complete the model and use it in the miniseries. A CBC crew of model makers and set designers completed the full-scale model in time for principal photography that took place in Winnipeg. The production eventually used a combination of archival film, remote-control flying models and computer animation for the static, ground and flying sequences.

Movie model

The full-scale Arrow model differs slightly from those built in 1957-59. It was featured throughout the movie but the wing structure had a pronounced outer panel dihedral that was "corrected" by CGI work. The wing design was seen on-screen "only" on a wind tunnel model crafted after an "all-nighter" by Chamberlin) that was stable at Mach 2.5 and higher.

At the end of film production, Jackson's model was returned ... to Alberta. After arriving at the Reynolds Alberta Museum in Wetaskawin, Jackson and a team of volunteers reconstructed the model for display at the Abbotsford Air Show in 1997. ... The restored model remains in storage in 2010 and is not accessible to the public.

More politics?

The continued rebroadcasts and accompanying DVD releases have served to re-animate the controversy over the Arrow's cancellation and introduce the story to a new generation

 

[oldcrowcv63]

The Arrow just. Neither would be described as pretty without the aid of a pair of beer goggles though.

You want contemporary and prettier than those two I give you the Grumman Tiger
View attachment 195605

Fast, I am on record as a great fan of Grumman but I think F11F is their least attractive aircraft coming in just below the F-111B. It looks pretty good inflight, but sitting on the ground, it looks to be a Folland Gnat on steroids. Utterly underwhelming me as to its potential as an air-to-air threat. Just out of college, I took a job at Curtiss Wright, working on the F11F's J-65 engines. (licensed built RR Sapphires). It was beng used as a gas turbine to generate compressed air to snow blowers at the Great Gorge Ski area in Northern NJ. Greatest job a novice test engineer could ever score and an application well suited to the J-65's somewhat modest output. (a good engine powering some classic aircraft, but a P&W J-52 it was not)

Just proves that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[michaelmaltby]

I agree, FastMongrel.

Like the Avro CF-100 before it, the Avro Arrow design is about raw power. Not pretty but massive.

MM

 

[Crimea_River]

Gotta go for the Arrow. Saw the impressive full scale replica at Downsview and it's a great looking plane, even by today's standards.

 

[Rogi]

I choose the Arrow.

We have one section of the Arrow at the Ottawa National Aviation Museum, and its amazing in person, plus how technologically advanced it was compared to anything at the time (it started trials in 58?)

Theres just too much politics and stuff to go into it, but we all know where our neighbors stood on the decision, and the substantial Brain Drain that went down South when the decision was taken highly benefited our neighbors. I kinda like that you brought up the topic but it always brings mixed emotions to me, especially when I see the Arrow at the Museum.

To put it in perspective as a example (and this is what most of Canadians have been brought up thinking about the subject) Its like someone making a hover car and then planing to produce it and selling it, but then one neighbor gets up and says he doesn't want it built because that'll make his stuff look like crap and we shouldn't have a better car than he has. So then we decide to cancel it not to peave off our neighbor.

If you look at the inovations in the 60s and if we were to trust that the information the Goverment provided about the arrow, we didn't see something as advanced as it until the 70s and the inovation of the Mig and F-14 lines etc. The Mig-25 is earily similar to the arrow if you take a look.

now time for some coffee to cool down

Edit: Anyway The arrow to us Canadians is like what Patriotism is to the States (at least the canadians in Quebec and Ontario I cant say if the rest of the country is this patriotic about it, probobly even more than those two, but through my experiences in talking aircraft we always go off like this when it comes to the Arrow)

 

[pbfoot]

I choose the Arrow.

We have one section of the Arrow at the Ottawa National Aviation Museum, and its amazing in person, plus how technologically advanced it was compared to anything at the time (it started trials in 58?)

Theres just too much politics and stuff to go into it, but we all know where our neighbors stood on the decision, and the substantial Brain Drain that went down South when the decision was taken highly benefited our neighbors. I kinda like that you brought up the topic but it always brings mixed emotions to me, especially when I see the Arrow at the Museum.

To put it in perspective as a example (and this is what most of Canadians have been brought up thinking about the subject) Its like someone making a hover car and then planing to produce it and selling it, but then one neighbor gets up and says he doesn't want it built because that'll make his stuff look like crap and we shouldn't have a better car than he has. So then we decide to cancel it not to peave off our neighbor.

)

I don't think anybody save the government of the day had anything to do with the cancellation , I believe Canada might have bit off more then it could chew. Hughes couldn't do the FCS needed and Rolls Royce couldn't make the engine needed in time. So Canada was forced to build the whole aircraft including radars , engines and the rest and thats what caused the downfall
If you live in or close to Ottawa how come we haven't seen anything from the National Aviation Museum or Vintage Wings
http://www.vintagewings.ca/

 

[Rogi]

I rarely visit the museums for some reason, I'm too busy at home and work/studies to go that frequently, last time I went I forgot my camera

Anyway If you check their site:

Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow 2 – Canada Aviation and Space Museum

I just think of it this way, what was the benfit of us canceling the program? Its not like our politicians (or any poiticians) like to save money that much, Dief's bunker was over cost, and they didn't cancel that baby (oh Tours held regularly here in Kanata so at least shes still getting some use and has paid off a bit) Plus if you say the whole "budget" was the issue, they had offers from other countries to buy the engine and produce it, and the Canadian Gov. turned them down oh and the cancellation of the project cost something like 400mil, which some experts say could of been used to finish the project.

I see that the whole "too expensive" arguement is valid if we sold the engine and whatever other countries wanted to part out from us. But if saving money means canceling the project, shiping loads of our man power over to the states/England(because they'd be better off funding US's/Britains economy and making US/British aircraft and not Canadian) and not selling parts/plans for a engine we'd never produce is financially viable then "saving money" should be re-writen in the dictionary. Whats this other project that were not going to save money on Raptor something or other? Too bad we couldn't build a Canadian Raptor...again.... now were just buying stuff from allies etc instead of a home grown project.

We also have another useless project at the museum its called the Bomarc-B, It replaced the arrow (cost a lot but I won't go into all that), It does look cool in the corner of the museum and is mighty impressive, but not as awesome as the arrow.

Time to take some V8 to cool down this topic is like the only plane topic that riles me up :S


P.S> I dont want to argue or push my opinion on people and I'd love to go into providing evidence in pm about all the above statements, There was also a great A and E special about the arrow that mentioned the above facts plus tons more.

I'm just trying to say that it was a symbol and it remains a symbol of Canadian inovation, if you look or want to look at the facts you'll find everything there. You just have to sort through all the misinformation. (again this is only my opinion found through numerous books/articles/shows on the arrow and a inate passion for it, there are contradiciting evidence to my statements but the fact remains it was ahead of its time, revolutionary the F-22 of its day and we canceled it)

*I'll stop talking and take this convo in pm if anyone wants to talk about the Arrow I dont want to argue with people about it just discuss

Back to Avro's appearance

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'll take the Arrow.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Arrow is a four-hour miniseries produced for CBC Television in 1996, starring Dan Aykroyd as Crawford Gordon, experienced wartime production leader during World War II and president of A. V. Roe Canada during its attempt to produce the Avro Arrow supersonic jet interceptor. The film also stars Michael Ironside and Sara Botsford.

That's the one! So it was a mini series; I thought it dragged on a bit. Very interesting telling of the story.

It does sound like the Arrow's provoking the same reaction among Canadians (and others) as what the TSR.2 does in any discussion in the UK about it. I don't know a huge amount about it, but I've read a bit in magazines. Neil made an interesting point about the Canadian industry biting off more than it could chew - I don't know whether this was or wasn't the case, but regarding the TSR.2 it most certainly was and many often get themselves in knots blaming the Americans and so forth, but the real reason was that it was simply too costly an undertaking for the country at that time. There is no doubt the British industry could manufacture the aircraft, but the odds were stacked against it from the start.

In the mid Fifties the treasury stated that British airframe manufacturers had to "merge... or die", as it was put, which meant that with the next big project, firms would have to choose partners with which to deliver competing designs. This change was necessary in order for smaller companies to at least gain a foothold in a broader global market and made sense. Britain had far too many companies building aircraft at the time to fulfil solely British requirements.

In 1957, Duncan Sandys released his Defence White Paper, which specified that manned interceptors and bombers would be replaced with missiles. Not surprisingly, this had the industry and the RAF Air Staff worried. When the Canberra replacement requirement was released, no less than nine firms issued papers for approval. Pressure was on these proposals and the basic operational requirement was reissued several times to keep up with demands from the nervous air staff who kept changing their minds. Thus TSR.2 was born, but not to the original Canberra replacement spec OR 339, but to the reissued OR343 that was purposely written for it. This spec only resembled OR339, for it would have produced an aircraft more like the Panavia Tornado in capability and performance, not like the TSR.2 was; the air staff and manufacturers had created a monster. So there was the first big problem with it before construction began. Too much pressure, too many factions making decisions since it was designed by government committee under the Ministry of Supply, which meant too much was being debated, which caused delay, not to forget a complete overhaul of the aerospace industry - and the way that the project was being managed that was being undertaken to build this aircraft.

The next big issue was politics. OR339 was issued by a Conservative government, which meant that the opposition was opposed to it from the start. Once the Labour Party entered power in 1963, it was only a matter of time before the thing was cancelled. The Aussies were tipped off about this; they were advised (by Lord Mountbatten of the Admiralty who wanted to sell Buccaneers) that if Labour got in in the 1963 election the TSR.2 would be cancelled, so they didn't buy it - not surprising, really. Not a day went by when TSR.2 was not mentioned during debating time in the House of Commons. As for the Americans, much is talked about pressure from them on the British to buy their stuff, but in reality the Brits had to want to buy it in the first place for it to be sold - and they did. Once Harold Wilson got in, he sent his aviation ministers over to the USA and they met Robert MacNamara, who, no doubt would have mentioned his pet project, the TFX. Now at this stage it's worth remembering that the Brits not only had TSR.2 on the hot list, but also the HS.681 tactical airlifter, basically similar in appearance to a shorter C-141 with vectoring thrust nozzles for improved STOL in support of the TSR.2. The third project was the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 supersonic V/STOL jet fighter for the navy and RAF. All three of these projects were under pressure from political wrangling, design issues, inter service rivalry and so on. On the same day that TSR.2 was cancelled, these two projects also went. An announcement was later made that the C-130 Herc and the F-111K were being ordered for the Air Force and the F-4K Phantom II for the navy. Basically Wilson's government went for the easy option, buying from the USA, they hoped, would save enormous amounts of money; or so they thought.

The sad reality was, no one was going to buy the TSR.2, except perhaps the Aussies, because of the exorbitant cost per unit, despite interest from several countries. The number the RAF was going to receive was shrinking, and this was only after the first one had flown. At that stage there was no hint that the F-111 would end up costing as much as it did, but TSR.2 was just too expensive and the cost was rising, not to mention slipping too far behind schedule, so in hindsight it was no surprise it was cancelled, really. Back then a year behind schedule was a long time; these days it's nothing!

Does the Arrow story resemble this?

Phew - needed to get that off my chest; just got in from work (it's 3 am here).

I'll go to bed now

 

[Airframes]

Good summary, N.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

You want contemporary and prettier than those two I give you the Grumman Tiger
View attachment 195605

What about an F11F with a GE J-79 engine: called the Super Tiger and it evidently was, but just another pretty aircraft that had superb performance but didn't make the production line... Lost out to the Vought F8U Crusader whose selection defeated my own choice for Spitfire of the jet age: Douglas F5D SkyLancer Basis for a new thread: Experimental, Prototype or Limited Production Planes that didn't make the cut.

 

[nuuumannn]

Good summary, N.

Thanks Terry, I was buzzing after driving for an hour home from work; verbal diarrhoea - need to unwind somehow!

 

[Lucky13]

TSR-2!

 

[Marcel]

TSR-2!

I agree, looks better than the arrow

 

[RAGMAN]

im a canadian.... so the arrow gets my vote

 

[Capt. Vick]

I;m not Canadian, but I still say the Arrow...

 

[buffnut453]

Just shows there's no accounting for taste!

 

[Lucky13]

We know that we Swedes were interested, question is, would the Arrow still have been active today, TSR-2 most likely would have...

 

[johnbr]

I like them both.