Avro Arrow Documentary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лип 2024
- The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a delta-winged interceptor aircraft, with nuclear rockets and missiles, designed and built by Avro Canada as the culmination of a design study that began in 1953. The Arrow is considered to have been an advanced technical and aerodynamic achievement for the Canadian aviation industry. The CF-105 (Mark 2) held the promise of near-Mach 2 speeds at altitudes of 50,000 feet (15,000 m) and was intended to serve as the Royal Canadian Air Force's primary interceptor in the 1960s and beyond. But when it was canceled it was a ruin for Canada's pride. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Can...
It's April 2020 and Canada can't even make n95 face masks. Killing the Arrow was one of the worst decisions made in the history of this nation.
there's more. C series tragedy. an incredible plane, but the governance of Bombardier was delusional. He betrayed the economic ''accord'' between our southern brother, USA.
Yup you can thank America for that
This is only to be expected whenever conservatives are in power. They tend to kill everything that benefits the common people in any way.
The day the Arrow died, Canada became America's bitch
Think about that the next time a conservative politician asks for your vote
This was by far the worst decision by any Canadian government. This aircraft would have been a giant in world aviation.
The problem at the time was that the PM was not thrilled by Soviet and American rocket testing. He felt the 105 was no longer effective as a bomber interceptor. Also, he gave up RCAF independence to the Americans in terms of overall North American air defense planning.
And the Draken ,6.5000ft mach 2 and cobra manoeuver bouilt before the avro so what was so special
@@Karl-Benny The Draken could only do this after improvements in the 1990's.
@@andrewyi4803 it broke the sound barrier by accident on while climbing
@@andrewyi4803 you dont know what you are talking about there is a reason all aviation experts say the Draken was way ahead of the others at the time here are the facts
kueng.se/Antikrundan/Meeting_material/2009-03-27/Flight%20testing%20the%20J35%20Draken.pdf
the Arrow II main body is complete but as late as june 2017, the wings were still under construction. I hope they finish her before they run out of money. I want to see the Arrow soar again.
What are you referring to...? There's no such production ongoing and the plans for a renewal of the program was shot down by the Harper government in 2012.
true
@@Wilsnap a museum in Canada is building a 2/3 scale aircraft called the Arrow II. If it ever gets finished it will be an air show gimmick, seems to be made of wood from pics I've seen. Kinda sad.
@@Wilsnap in calgary alberta they are building a flight replica of the arrow ... it is crowd funded ....
@@7echo oh 2/3 scale! Ok now I get what I’ve been reading. Lol thought it was a real arrow. Well I wish them luck.
from then on we were completely dependent on American fighters. to this day we buy our planes from the Americans. Deifenbaker killed the Canadian aircraft industry.
Joshua Plotkin, That's false. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Canadian_military_aircraft
Canadian air force has BAe CT-155 Hawk jet trainers with optional armaments e.g. 5 weapons hard points including 4 Sidewinders/ASRAAM/A-Darter, 2 Umbani/Al Tariq and gun pod,
Well we buy mostly everything from the US. As of 2022. We do contribute parts etc. but not one airplane we build is a US military aircraft.
The beautiful and powerful military jets, Arrows should never have been destroyed and cancelled. 😎
It was one thing to cancel the arrow, but to destroy the existing aircraft was ludicrous. It killed avro canada, it crippled the town of Molten. The brain drain to the states , Canadian techs contributed to the gemini, Apollo programs.
This is truly a sad film. The credits came and I’m tearing up.
I worked there in engineering dept.
Best job I ever had, from 54 to "black friday" in 59 Was one of many engineer guys who ended up in the "States". Was OK but not like AVRO so, after 40 really happy years there I'm back home again. And yes, Diefenbaker was a gutless moron.
i live around where Diefenbaker did and know a few people who knew him before he was prime minister and as a lawyer he helped a man con another guy out of a horse "outright stole it from the guy" and he also got off a guy who flat out raped a 16 year old girl!! not to mention Diefenbaker was a drunk and a fuckboy when he was a teen! you wont read or hear these stories in the histories of canada but you will hear them from the mouths of people who knew him personally!!
Lol. Right.
He was criminal defense attorney. Probably defended all sorts of scumbags - that's what they do.
As far as a drunk, you might want to drill a little deeper.
Raynus I see your point. However the present American investigator Muller actually called the phone of the DC US Attorney's office from private practice at one point and asked if he needed a homicide investigator. Defense counsel to him was a bust since he had a moral failing with defending obvious killers. Wages was not an issue with him he just wanted to defend the American public against outlaws.
Not sure what this has to do with Diefenbaker specifically, but his career as a defense attorney lasted about twenty years - during which he attempted a run at politics several times. He then served as a MP until his death in 1979, a full 39 years - twice as long as he practiced law.
Apparently the Russians had infiltrated the program and were stealing all Canada's technology.
As a youth a saw this fly on first flight my Dad was a electronic engineer on this project . I meet the pilot it was a devastating blow to the town I grew up in Georgetown . Rex Heslop who had built Rexdale had devoloped suburbs for the workers my parents bought one of the first homes Ma still lives there.This was way ahead of its time superawesome my Dad went on to help design the guidance system for the Cruise missile for Litton Systems which was tested in Cold Lake Cheers all
Canada is the puerto rico of north, is only a usa colony.
@@zonadeguerra929 come and take us.
My father was in the WW2 Army Air Corp and loved the Avro Arrow. It was a great and awesome delta-winged aircraft fighter.
I agree Felix. The Arrow was designed to be the only authentic supersonic jump jet. With the cancellation I am afraid for a short while the USSR definitely had the edge in polar air combat. A central Canadian strike base south of the 60 would have been one of the most sought after commands in the world.
Canada is the puerto rico of north, is only a usa colony.
beautiful design ... sad sad story
Her Majesty's government got spooked by Sputnik and the American testing of exotic rockets. The decision was made to not only have the commander in chief of north American air defense operations be based in Colorado but also base anti-bomber defenses on intercept missiles. Even now as an American I do have respect for most CF personnel but I am also respectful that MoD assets are also low key and not as firmly footed as American forces around the world. The part that scares me is that the public reports of the 7th Fleet mishaps seem to indicate fatigue and lack of training is taking its toll on the effectiveness of field personnel.
How is this beautiful? Its not even close to a TSR2, F-104, F-111, F-15, or an EE Lightning
@@mitchie2267 You're comparing a jet from the past, to the present. Listen to yourself before you speak bud.
Thanks for sharing this, I had always had only vague ideas about the Arrow and this excellent doc really filled in the gaps. It's a shame that this great plane isn't more well known.
This is so heart breaking, they were so wrong cancelling Arvo
Canada is the puerto rico of north, is only a usa colony.
@@zonadeguerra929 Tell the truth some Canuck banged you old lady and she will not look at you anymore.
I’m utterly disgusted by the attempt to erase all history of this outstanding Canadian achievement. Cancelling it is sad, but wiping its existence from the map is to betray all Canadians present and future. For shame!! To see pictures of their destruction is truly heart-breaking.
my dads friend worked for the company that had the contract and he refueled the arrow said was fantastic looking plane and saw it fly as he was there when it was on test flights. he also had to pump the fuel out of them as they were bieng scrapped so sad.
Awful day for North American aviation. The postscripts to a 1996 CBC documentary said that their missile system was scrapped and eventually the RCAF had to purchase American fighter jets at far higher per unit costs than Avero projected for the 105 project. They also scrapped an order for 400 engines from France as part of the Mirage project and I think that had some success no?
I met a couple of ol boys that worked on this a/c. One cried when I gave him a copy of that machine I'd got from a girl who's father had been an engineer on it. The one fella had never had any Momento of his work on the Arrow.
Why tear it into pieces?
I have one pic of the 105 I am proud to say.
beautiful aircraft
Doug Ayers nice design. AV Roe built junk.
@@paullisanti8673 you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Lol, “wouldn’t be used outside of Canada?”
If you make a jet that can go 3 times faster than any other jet everybody is gonna want it.
Did you tune out the rest of the documentary? Jeez
@Kelly Arthur Arrow with twin Iroquois engines (near 30,000 pounds thrust each) would have had more raw power, relative to its weight, than an SR71. Iroquois was successfully tested but was intended for the 'production' Arrow...and the project was cancelled (the prototypes flew on other, much less powerful engines and still achieved around mach 2).
@Kelly Arthur Not against atmospheric resistance they couldn't ... the weight of which would have sheered a 262's wings off. There's a reason there's no supersonic turboprop despite the fact a lot of modern turboprops have more power than some of the first supersonic jets (mutual exclusion, the faster the turbo prop tries to go, the higher the percentage of power spent just overcoming the resistance against the blades themselves).
Kelly Arthur buddy what are you talking about? Don’t comment on things that you clearly know nothing about. The arrow was first made with underpowered engines for testing its other features. With these engines it could go Mach 2 which translates to over 2400km/h, the sound barrier is just over 1200km/h it could have broken the sound barrier twice over. Also very special conditions? Long range interception is “very specific”? With the Iroquois engines it would have broken world records for speed. The engines were so powerful that when the US loaned a B47 to test them a single engine bent the fuselage of the bomber. So.. I hope you learned something today, if you’re American then I understand that you’re fairly uneducated and it’s not totally your fault but shame on you if you’re from anywhere else.
@Kelly Arthur If you're a fan, you would know that on one of the test flights, the Arrow achieved Mach 1.5 in a climb at 3/4 throttle with the P&W engines.
If Avro Canada was kept operated least a couple more decades then Ontario could have had a lot more job available especially in Greater Toronto Area!.
Great, .more bleeding hearts on guns and trophy hunting🤢
there is a group of aviation enthusiasts who are building an Arrow. they have the blueprints and are constructing a life size flying aircraft. though it was supposed to be completed by 2009 the fuselage is still under construction. a few years ago they received the necessary permit for constructing a flying jet. I hope they succeed and that the Arrow soars once again.
correction, the fuselage was completed and inspected in 2012. which begs the question: Why hasn't she flown yet?
I had a teacher who worked on the Arrow project as a mechanic. The stories he would tell about that plane
I have heard that one of these planes was deliveratley flown over Lake Ontario, and then allowed to crash into the lake.
That damn Jetliner. It should have been put into production.
true
I sat in a CF-100 Canuck and oh boy that felt crazy, also it’s in the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museam
It was betrayed by the Diefenbaker Governent, because the Americans did not want Canada to have air supremacy with the 201, FACT. The Americans promised Canada an "missle air defense system" to scrap the Arrow, which never did take place. The Iroquois engine never did get to show its peak power. All those proud Engineers left Avro for NASA and Concorde development. As a Canadian Air Force Veteran this story never gets old. FYI, they have found the last Arrow in the great lakes, where the pilot was told to ditch the aircraft.
I can't believe that America or Canada can not reproduce this plane today.
Why should US build Arrow that was tested to 3Gs?
documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-AvroCanadaCF-105Arrownose.pdf
Where's the 9Gs pull test?
Appendix 1Avro Canada CF-105 Mk 1 - Individual Aircraft Flight Records 48
Date Flight No. Duration Total Pilot Purpose (and Remarks)
(hr:min) (hr:min)
RCAF 25201
25 Mar. 1958 1 0:35 0:35 Zurakowski Initial flight. (Speeds up to 250 kt and
altitude to 11.000 ft)
01 Apr. 1958 2 0:50 1:25 Zurakowski (Nosewheel failed to retract.) Flight
restricted to handling below 250 kts. Altitude
to 30.000 ft for cockpit pressurization check
03 Apr. 1958 3 1:05 2:30 Zurakowski M:1.1
15 Apr. 1958 4 1:15 3:45 Zurakowski T.R.U. Unserviceable rendering telemetry
inoperative. No high speed work
17 Apr. 1958 5 1:10 4:55 Zurakowski Undercarriage snag after ‘g’ pull at 450 kt.
Aborted high speed briefing
18 Apr. 1958 6 0:55 5:50 Zurakowski M:1.25
18 Apr. 1958 7 0:40 6:30 Zurakowski M: 1.52 at 49.000 ft. Height of 50,000 ft
reached
22 Apr. 1958 8 1:10 7:40 Woodman Familiarization. M:1.4
23 Apr. 1958 9 0:45 8:25 Potocki Familiarization. M:1.2
07 Jun. 1958 10 1:45 10:10 Zurakowski Damper troubles at take off. Nose
undercarriage door stuck down
11 Jun. 1958 11 1:20 11:30 Zurakowski Aircraft damaged on landing. Port gear
lengthening mechanism unserviceable
05 Oct. 1958 12 1:20 12:50 Potocki Acceptance (test) from production shop after
repair. Subsonic
11 Dec. 1958 13 1:10 14:00 Potocki Gear down main door up check flight
Modified elevator controls
15 Dec. 1958 14 1:25 15:25 Potocki Damper checks restricted due to gear
unsafe indication
20 Dec. 1958 15 1:25 16:50 Potocki Continuation of damper checks. Speed
restricted due to starboard gear not showing
positive uplock. Pitch damper landing OK
21 Dec. 1958 16 0:45 17:35 Potocki As per flight No. 15
05 Jan. 1959 17 1:00 18:35 Potocki Damper system check. 20,000 ft
05 Jan. 1958 18 0:45 19:20 Potocki Extension ASI to 650 kt at 17.000ft
17 Jan. 1959 19 1:00 20:20 Potocki Damper system checks and elevator hinge
moment
24 Jan. 1959 20 1:05 21:25 Woodman RCAF damper system check. Low level only
due to weather
27 Jan. 1959 21 1:00 22:25 Potocki General damper handling
31 Jan. 1959 22 0:45 23:10 Potocki Extension of flight envelope
31 Jan. 1959 23 0:40 23:50 Potocki Extension of flight envelope
07 Feb. 1959 24 1:00 24:50 Potocki Climb stick tape. Roll and sideslip
investigation up to M:1.3
19 Feb. 1959 25 0:50 25:40 Potocki Stick tape and roll rates up to M:1.7 (Last
ever Arrow flight)
RCAF 25202
01 Aug. 1958 1 1:35 1:35 Zurakowski Initial flight. 30,000 ft
23 Aug. 1958 2 1:00 2:35 Zurakowski M: 1.5. Damper checks
26 Aug. 1958 3 1:05 3:40 Zurakowski M: 1.62
26 Aug. 1958 4 1:00 4:40 Zurakowski M: 1.7
27 Aug. 1958 5 1:05 5:45 Zurakowski Ottawa telemetry check. M: 1.5
28 Aug. 1958 6 1:05 6:50 Potocki Damper handling M: 1.7
28 Aug. 1958 7 1:20 8:10 Zurakowski Ottawa telemetry check. M: 1.72
14 Sep. 1958 8 1:05 9:15 Zurakowski Damper handling. Telemetry u/s
14 Sep. 1958 9 1:10 10;25 Zurakowski Damper checking. M:1.86 at 50,000 ft
16 Sep. 1958 10 1:10 11:35 Zurakowski 2.2 “g”. M:1.2 and damper check. Dutch roll
investigation
26 Sep. 1958 11 1:05 12:40 Zurakowski Pitch damper check. Subsonic
26 Sep. 1958 12 1:00 13:40 Zurakowski M:1.55
28 Sep. 1958 13 0:55 14:35 Woodman M:1.7 at 50,000 ft. RCAF handling
28 Sep. 1958 14 0:45 15:20 Potocki M:1.55. 3“g”, 1.3 at 36,000 ft. Pitch
oscillation +/- 3“g”
74 / 81 !
03 Oct. 1958 15 1:25 16:45 Potocki Pitch oscillation investigation
03 Oct. 1958 16 1:05 17 50 Cope Familiarization. M:1.5
05 Oct. 1958 17 0:50 18 40 Potocki All dampers up to M:1.45. 500 kt at 9,000 ft.
Undercarriage doors open. Stick tape with
yaw damper.
27 Oct. 1958 18 1:05 19 45 Potocki Max speed 500 kt IAS at 7,500 ft on pivot
door check. M:1.5 at 42,000 ft on damper
checks. P/D not acceptable.
29 Oct. 1958 19 0:45 20 20 Potocki Flutter check. M: 1.7
29 Oct. 1958 20 0:45 21 15 Potocki Flutter check. M: 1.8
08 Nov. 1958 21 1:10 22 25 Potocki Assessment of modified elevator. Parallel
servo and feel trim to rear not satisfactory
11 Nov. 1958 22 1:15 23 40 Potocki 510 kt ASI 7,500 ft. Max speed of M: 1.95 -
1.96 obtained from 50,000 ft
Brake seizure on landing. Aircraft damaged.
Starboard gear broken off.
RCAF 25203
22 Sep. 1958 1 1:35 1:35 Zurakowski Initial flight. M:1.2
01 Oct. 1958 2 0:45 2:20 Potocki Snag clearance. M:1.7
06 Oct. 1958 3 1:00 3:20 Cope Performance 1A tailcones up to M: 1.7 at
50,000ft
16 Oct. 1958 4 1:10 4:30 Potocki Fuel consumption and level speed checks at
35,000ft. Subsonic
17 Oct. 1958 5 1:05 5:35 Woodman Undercarriage door trouble starboard side.
Low speed P.E.s with F-86
18 Oct. 1958 6 1:10 6:45 Potocki Level speeds and fuel consumption.
Supersonic on climb
19 Oct. 1958 7 1:15 8:00 Woodman Partial P.E.s, aborted high speed checks
due to red light at M:0.95
31 Oct. 1958 8 1:00 9:00 Cope Utility hydraulic failure. Gear down flight
07 Nov. 1958 9 1:10 10:10 Cope Fuel consumption at 35,000 It and single
engine checks. Air conditioning failure
refrigerated. Subsonic
20 Jan. 1959 10 0:55 11:05 Potocki Check flight to M: 1.7 with modified elevator
system. Aircraft turbine seized
01 Feb. 1959 11 1:15 12 20 Woodman RCAF damper check
19 Feb. 1959 12 1:10 13 30 Potocki Damper optimization. Observer D. E. Darrah
carried. (2nd last ever Arrow flight)
RCAF 25204
27 Oct. 1958 1 1:10 1:10 Potocki Initial flight gear down 250 kt maximum
22 Nov. 1958 2 1:05 2:15 Potocki Check flight
30 Nov. 1958 3 1:10 3:25 Potocki Continuation of snag clearance to M: 1.2
02 Feb. 1959 4 1:10 4:35 Cope Check flight directed to Trenton
03 Feb. 1959 5 1:15 5:50 Potocki Gear down ferry to base
07 Feb. 1959 6 1:10 7:00 Potocki Clearance flight limited to M:1.5 by pedal
judder
RCAF 25205
11 Jan. 1958 1 0:40 0:40 Potocki Initial flight gear down
Program Terminated 20 February 1959
Totals 66 flights 70:30 hrs (or 2 % of anticipated test & evaluation flying hours)
@@valenrn8657 One reason that there is such confusion over the Arrows performance is there are at least three performance reports shown to the public. To refresh your memories I will list the parts where the confusion takes place and give the dates when they were given to the RCAF. Also remember this is for the Arrow production model.
The first was RCAF AIR 7-3 Specification and the C-105 in April 1953
Combat speed of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 ft. at 2G without bleeding energy
A radius of 300 nautical miles (nm) for a normal low speed mission with 5 minutes supersonic combat
A radius of 200 (nm) for a high-speed intercept mission Max speed Mach 1.9 at 50,000 ft
Ferry range is not given, but estimated at 600 nm
These numbers may look small however in 1953 the RCAF team then visited US aircraft companies and also surveyed British and French manufacturers before concluding that no existing or planned aircraft could fulfill these demanding requirements.
The second was in 1955 Avro estimated the performance of the Arrow Mk 2 (with Iroquois) as.
Combat speed of Mach 1.5 at 50.000 feet and 1.84 G without bleeding energy
630 nm radius on a low-speed mission with 5 minutes supersonic combat
400 nm radius on a high-speed supersonic mission.
Max speed Mach 1.9 at 50,000 ft
Ferry range is not given, but estimated at 1,500 nm
The RCAF, RAF, and the NACA all said Avro was under estimation the drag of the Arrow. So to bring the drag of the Arrow closer to the RCAF, RAF, and the NACA estimates in Dec 1957 Avro released performance report 12.
Combat speed of Mach 1.5 at 50.000 feet and 1.6 G without bleeding energy
408 nm radius on a low-speed mission with 5 minutes supersonic combat
264 nm radius on a high-speeds mission
Max speed Mach 1.9 at 50,000 ft unchanged
(An enormous amount of bad “ink” was generated over these lower estimates. One can see that Avro was in a very difficult position. If they stuck to their original higher 1955 estimates, they would be accused of being incompetent in the face of all the other “expert” opinions and, the rest of their estimates would be “treated with reserve” as the government agents so often recommended. If they revised their estimates to match the RCAF, RAF, and the NACA, they would show a performance degradation that would also endanger the program. Those must have been very trying days.
Then the unimaginable happened: an interceptor in development flying, (greatly exceeded) the manufacturer’s own (1955 higher estimates for the Mk-2), that manufacturer was Avro, and the interceptor was the Arrow. On Remembrance Day 1958, with Potocki at the helm, the second Arrow, RL-202, achieved the maximum speed of the Arrow program … at least the maximum recorded speed. In a flight of 1.25 hours the jet reached a corrected speed of Mach 1.96 while climbing through 50,000 feet, still accelerating, and while only in intermediate afterburner (some say the correction factor was incorrect and the true airspeed was Mach 1.98 but the point is largely irrelevant, Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L. Whitcomb).
(What a lot of people don’t know and most sources don’t show, is that the Arrow Mk-1 didn’t use the fully developed J-75 engines that were used in the F-106, that produced 17,200 pounds of dry thrust and 24,500 in afterburners, in fact the USAF sent the very early de-rated J-75 P-3 engines that produced 30% less thrust then the fully developed J-75 making the Arrow Mk-1 44% underpowered compared to the Mk-2. Was this an attempt to degrade the Arrow’s flight performance and Avro’s estimates so they would look bad in an effort to kill the Arrow program in favor USA planes?
Also a lot of people don’t know and most sources don’t show, is that the Arrow Mk-1 was overweight compared to the Mk-2’s real world combat weight, with the heavier J-75’s, ballast in the nose to correct for the extra weight of the J-75’s an instrument pod that weight more the a standard missile pod, so how much was it overweight by? Well it was about 3.5 tons overweight and still turned in speeds that were very nearly the top speed of the fastest USAF aircraft in level flight (and the Arrow did it in a climb at less than full power!) such as the very short-range and low-payload of the F-104 Starfighter or the somewhat better F-106 Delta Dart.
Again what most people don’t know is that the USAF record setting aircraft was done by airframes that were without external stores, little fuel, stripped of all excess weight, and with specially tuned engines, and do not reflect the aircraft at real world combat weight. Trying to compare the lightened, clean and dry F-106 at Mach 2.31 at 40,500 feet turned in by Major Joseph Rogers in a straight and level flight VS the Arrow Mk-1’s Mach speed of 1.98 climbing through 50,000 feet still accelerating and only using intermediate afterburners and being 3.5 tons over real world combat weight shows how poor the USAF aircraft were VS even the Arrow Mk-1.
Yet everyone says how great the F-106, F-4, F-104 and other USAF planes were, what everyone seems to forget is that not one Arrow was ever pushed to its (maximum flight performance) and it turned in numbers as good as the F-106, F-104, and the F-4 that were fully developed production aircraft!
People like to compare the Arrow to other fighter/interceptors so I have spent some time in compiling some real facts about the Arrow, I will list them so you can compare them to any aircraft you like.
Remember the Arrow Mk-1 at 3.5 tons overweight was never pushed to its max performance with the J-75’s so these numbers are no indication of her full true flight envelope potential! I don’t need to point out that if it says tested it was done on the Arrow Mk-1 in flight by the test pilots do I?
Arrow length 80 ft
Arrow wing area 1225 sq ft
Arrows Combat-take-off wt 67,250 lbs
Arrows top speed tested to Mach 1.96-1.98 climbing through 50,000 ft still accelerating and not at full power, estimated top speed Mach 2.5 by Potocki
Arrows max altitude tested to 58,000+ ft estimated 70,000+ feet
Arrow wing thickness/chord ratio 3.6 average
Arrow wing loading at combat-take -off wt = 54.9 lbs to 1 sq ft of wing
Arrow wing loading max-take-off wt = 58.9 lbs to 1 sq ft of wing
Arrow dry thrust to weight = 0.57
Arrow thrust to weigh with afterburners = 0.77
Arrow dry thrust power loading at combat-take-off wt = 1.7 lbs to lbt (pounds/thrust)
Arrow power loading at combat-take-off with afterburners = 1.3 lbs to lbt
Control effectiveness tested said to be “excellent” by both Jan Zurakowski & Jack Woodman
Arrow Stall speed at full combat wt tested at 117 knots Jack Woodman
Arrow take-off speed tested 170 knots Zurakowski
Arrow roll rate tested to 360 degrees in one second Zurakowski
Arrow critical alpha tested to 25 degrees without problems Zurakowski, wind tunnel tested to 45 degrees
Arrow bank angle tested to over 60 degrees of bank at 2.5G Zurakowski
Arrows max G load limit tested 3G designed for 7.33G at combat weight & supersonic speeds
Arrow lift, to drag over 7 to 1
Arrow drag coefficient estimated to be less than .0185
Arrow low speed mission at combat wt, has a radius of around 600 nm with 5 minutes of supersonic combat estimated
Arrow supersonic mission at combat wt, has a radius of around 400 nm estimated
Arrow ferry range 1,500 nm estimated
Arrow wing VS blended fuselage and wing of the F-15, F-16, F-22, MIG 29 and others to help generate lift. On the Arrow no such blending was required since the top of the fuselage; wing and intake were one continuous flat, surface. The entire top of the aircraft was the wing, making the Arrow, in very real terms a “lifting body”.
Look at this from Ireland,this looks like an industrial tragedy by any standards
Hello, I need to cite this from a reliable source, does anyone know where this came from?
Although Nuclear tipped Genies were considered, the Arrow was never equipped with them. It was thought that with it's anticipated Mach 2speed and high altitude capability, the CF-105 would be able to intercept Soviet bombers over the Arctic with non Nuclear Falcon missiles. Thus negating the need for a huge dirty explosion to knock down the bomber fleet. With the cancellation of the Avro Arrow project on February 20 1959, we had no choice but to take Nuclear weapons for air to air and ground to air defence, as the CF-101Voodoo was less capable than the Arrow and the BOMARC SAM "was useless without a Nuclear warhead" thus ensuring that without an Avro Arrow armed with conventional weapons, Canada would in effect, be nuking itself with fallout in attempts to destroy bombers coming over the North Pole, in the event of a Soviet attack.
Many planes with great potential around this time period ended up with a similar fate. The XB-70 and TSR come to mind... The USA cancelled many projects, so their recommendation was not wholly machiavellian. This was the start of the missile age, soon after even fighter jets ended up being built without guns! Unlike other cancelled programs, the real shame here is that everything was destroyed, and a part of Canadian engineering history gone forever.
Troy Azmoon Why scrap the planes though. Why delete all the memos?
It never was & still isn't the age of the missiles, America was 10 years + behind in aircraft manufacture & design hense why after the US had told uk & canada that cheap missiles were the future & then requested to buy the design & specs in secret, Which is why they didnt get sold to Britain & why The f111 is a swing wing copy of the arrow, & all there aircraft suddenly became competitive, like the phantom whos engine looked just like the arrows prototypes & just so happened to have the same thrust.
At least the Russian only copied the best designs instead of crippling there allies industry & taking whats left
@@chrissearle6176 so true Sandys brought down his notorious White Paper on defence. *Sandys appears to have succumbed to the CIA’s super-secret intelligence,* which was diametrically opposed to that of the rest of the Western intelligence community, and sounded the *false alarm* of the “missiles gap”.
Of course, the CIA became famous for, in order of appearance, *the “intelligence gap”, the “bomber gap”, the “missiles gap”, and ever a “psychic spy gap”.* (This resulted in their Project MK Ultra) or men who stare at goats. LOL
@@chrissearle6176 You may find this of interest it's about the Russian spies scandal.
Cold War Tech War by R.L. Whitcomb page 188-189
When discussing the spy issue, *Jim Floyd* has reported his surprise when the government asked Avro to host a team of Russian designers and aerospace experts, and to take them though the Arrow and Iroquois programs.
In a second interview on this subject in October 2006, *Floyd reiterated* that he had questioned Fred Smye on the advisability of giving a *full engineering briefing, as ordered*, to the Russians. Crawford Gordon Jr. Was particularly against this and the government was again asked if they thought a tour of the facilities and provisions of full engineering briefings on the airframe and engine were really advisable.
They were again directed to comply. *Floyd said “I still wouldn’t do it. I said I’d answer any question they had, in full, which I did,* but I wasn’t going to give a briefing. *A full briefing was given on the Iroquois,* however, which Floyd feels was their primary interest anyway.
After all the accusations leveled over the years as to the security of Avro and Orenda programs, *it is clear that the Conservatives were quite willing to provide the information directly.*
@@jim100ab9 Soviets are very good at blackmailing and compromising people at the highest levels of government, then instigating animosity and blame between allies, stirring up anger against neighbors, then taking credit for that what they have stolen, while accusing the people they stole it from of copying them.
Avro Arrow and A-5 Vigilante were used to develop the MiG-25.
when did the cockpit go on permanent display? I remember as a kid going to the air museum many times. the arrow as always the highlight. I once got to stand on the outer wing of 203. I don't know why but they were just lying on the ground at the National Air Museum runway. I recognized them right away. those orange and white wingtips can't be mistaken for anything. I stood on them. I stood on the Arrow. it was the closest I will ever get to touching one. the wingtips have since been moved inside and are on permanent display......next to the museum's Bomarc. why it is not with the cockpit and Iroquois? who the hell knows.
BRAVOZULU DWEST boathouse what the fuck kind of drug are you on?
It would be useful information to know when this documentary was made. Especially given the 30 year classification window.
According to MIBD it was released in 1980.
remember the Saab Draken built 1955 could do all the above the Avro yet to be tested
I agree with the other commentators insofar that it sounds just like the TSR2 story.
TRAGIC !
Another brilliant and winning aircraft lost to history.
We were also ordered to destroy all the prototypes and history of the TSR2
+Jon Jonny: Which US fighters copied the Arrow's design?
***** I'm looking. The F-4 Phantom and A-5 Vigilante (both mach 2 aircraft) debuted in 1958, same as the Arrow. The F-105 and F-106 (mach 2 aircraft as well) first flew 3 and 2 years earlier, respectively. Which US fighters are you referring to?
Jon Jonny: where did you run off to??
The only real winners in the aftermath of the Arrow debacle were Lockheed and NASA.
@@raynus1160 A-5 was carrier based nuclear bomber and did Mach 2 at 35, 000 ft not even in the same class as the Arrow Mk1 even.
The Vigilante's early service proved troublesome, with many teething problems for its advanced systems. Although these systems were highly sophisticated, the technology was in its infancy and its reliability was poor.
Although most of these reliability issues were eventually worked out as maintenance personnel gained greater experience with supporting these systems, the aircraft tended to remain a maintenance-intensive platform throughout its career.
As for the F-4 Hmm Like to see the F-4 bomb truck pull off any of this.
Page Cold War Tech War 148 In fact, to generate taxpayer’s enthusiasm for the Navy, the second of two per-production Phantoms was modified repeatedly to win various world records foe speed and altitude.
Also on page 148 F-4 it used alcohol and water injection to boost the specially-prepared J79s, this F-4 achieved a ballistic climb altitude of 98,560 feet, and a sustained altitude of 66,444 feet.
Cold War Tech (F-4 VS F106) War Page 143 Project High Speed, The Delta Dart however, was king of the dogfight.
Page 144 Considering even the USAF acknowledged that the Avro Arrow would considerably outperform the Delta Dart, conclusions as to its performance vs. the F-15 are obvious (or the F-4)
Page 203 The F-15C was felt subsequent to the retirement of the F-106 Delta Dart, to exhibit the highest performance in the western world on such an air superiority mission, clearly, the Arrow had vast “power of maneuver”. It had the ability to utterly humiliate anything flying, particularly at medium and high altitude.
In a supersonic turning fight at altitude, the Arrow would remain unmatched by anything save the F-22 Raptor due to the F-22’s higher thrust to weight ratio. The Arrow still had lower wing loading and, with a drag coefficient probably under .0185 and a lift-drag ration of over 7-1 would therefore still not be a push-over for the Raptor.
Page 135 Flight performance envelope graphs, accumulated and transposed by yours truly (R.L. Whitcomb) For Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation shows that no medium or long- range armed fighter --- to this day --- could match the Arrow’s 1G combat weight performance cure, except the F-22 Raptor.
I wonder how it would have done against the MIG 21
David J. With a few ups it could beat it
brilliant film thanks
Nice!!!!!!! Nicely done.
Maybe the economics made sense. Here in the USA, many amazing aircraft were dropped.
But to order the destruction of extant examples was just stupid.
The Arrow would have been a great recon aircraft & useful even as a supersonic experimental test bed aircraft.
They should have at least been preserved for air museums, based on it's looks alone !
What part of the JSF (F-35) program is "economical"? Worse still: the F-22 Raptor...only 187 put into service. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet or you will fade away.
Same thing happening today with the F35 that Australia has been suckered into buying ( at great cost )
Grahame Johnson the f35 cost is as low as other aircraft now in cost and its stealth makes it supreme. The Israelies just proved it can penetrate the best surface to air systems in the world. It's a good plane and superior to every western built aircraft except the f22
true
Good Documentary.
This is a great video, btw
The myth about the Arrow lives on!
I agree with you and your Diet comment! I would also add the old Minister of National Defence Paul, what's his name! The now UFO expert! ;-)
I think you need to look up the definition of myth.
Boards of canada feels
My Grandfather took a small part in the building of the Arrow he was employed at Mcdonald Douglas at the time.
@ Dave V ...That's amazing!!! My Grandfather was president of the Union for the Arrow.Let's never forget 🇨🇦
Weren't the MOD/RAF interested in teaming up with the project? (earlier than the period mentioned when the planes were being scrapped?)
From what I've read, UK was just interested in testing. I've never seen any evidence that the UK had any interest in this plane being put into production, or that any country was interested in buying the airplane. If I've missed any of that evidence, and you've found some, I'd love to hear it.
In 1958-60 The U.S. had built 350 F-106 Interceptors that had a top speed of close to 1600mph at 35,000ft. The Russian TU-95 bomber had a service ceiling of 33,000ft. The Arrow flew at 1000mph @ 50,000ft. It didn't make sense to purchase it. Sorry about the lost jobs, but that wasn't what was the most important.
Delta dart Neanderthall.
It could still be flying today....it was that far advanced.....
No it wasn't. The Voodoo matched or beat it for 1/3 the cost.
FMHammyJ it could fly but would be totally useless. It's no more advanced than The fb111 or Russian mig 25 arguably less advanced. It can only fly fast and straight and Can only function as an interceptor not even a fighter. It was as good as any American aircraft or Russian at the time. But not superior. It's also the least stealthy aircraft ever made. It's a flying box
@@ruhtraeregel It's not useless at all. Remember this aircraft was an INTERCEPTOR, not a fighter or attack plane. Interceptors were designed to go as fast as possible (aimed directly towards the enemy like a dart or arrow) across the North Pole to shoot down enemy supersonic bombers head on at hundreds of miles away before they even enter Canadian/US airspace. It's basically like an ICBM with wings and a pilot when you think about it's strategy. Even the thought of a dogfight meant you already failed your mission.
Hahahaha. The voodoo was the biggest bag of shit ever made in America & thats bcoz its was designed b4 they got there hands on the arrows design. After arrow was taken the voodoos thrust went from 7000lb to 16000lb & as for the f111 it was a complete copy of the arrow when wings swept back, same prototype engine & was literally 50%arrow 50% TSR2. Apart from anything the arrow was rated as a mach3 plane but its original more powerful Rolls Royce engines wer cancelled for "unknown political reasons"
@@ruhtraeregel yes it was an interceptor, but avro did make plans to develop the arrow for multi-purpose roles such as a supersonic bomber, fighter and recon
The real tradgedy was not the Arrow itself but what the Arrow could have led to.
I've seen an F4 phantom take off and it's LOUD so I can only imagine what the Iroquois would have sounded like
It sounds like the Arrow was sold out for a few cushy jobs/titles at NASA and M.D.. IMO... The "top brass" at A.V.Roe should have told the US Government to help finance this machine to the allies , OR , they would have to offer it for sale to the USSR !!!
paradisemace1
They would not have been able to sell it to the USSR. The technology was highly classified. An the U.S. and the Allies would not have let that happen. Try to do so would have hurt CANADA in more ways then one. So no never would have happen.
@@78.BANDIT Well that's not the case.
Cold War Tech War by R.L. Whitcomb page 188-189
When discussing the spy issue, Jim Floyd has reported his surprise when the government asked Avro to host a team of Russian designers and aerospace experts, and to take them though the Arrow and Iroquois programs.
In a second interview on this subject in October 2006, Floyd reiterated that he had questioned Fred Smye on the advisability of giving a full engineering briefing, as ordered, to the Russians. Crawford Gordon Jr. Was particularly against this and the government was again asked if they thought a tour of the facilities and provisions of full engineering briefings on the airframe and engine were really advisable.
They were again directed to comply. Floyd said “I still wouldn’t do it. I said I’d answer any question they had, in full, which I did, but I wasn’t going to give a briefing. A full briefing was given on the Iroquois, however, which Floyd feels was their primary interest anyway.
After all the accusations leveled over the years as to the security of Avro and Orenda programs, *it is clear that the Conservatives were quite willing to provide the information directly.*
CAUSE ITS 100 YEARS AHEAD OF ANYTHING THE USA COULDEVEN IMAGINE
Lockheed X-7 was first flown in 1951 and it's was test bed aircraft with mach 4.3 via RamJet engine and F-104 wing design. Lockheed has practical experience with mach 3+ designs.
X-7's ramjet was later used in SR-71's mach 3.3 ramjet hybrid.
And what does America have to do with it ? Most of the parts would have been produced here more than likely. From you know Lockheed , McDonald Douglas , GE. Only some of the biggest aircraft manufacturers in the world...... Fucking morons. The whole God's damn lot of you.
Well maybe not 100 years ahead however!
Despite all the noise of super-technologies and rapidly emerging and ebbing threats, J.C. Floyd, and thus Avro engineering , seems to take a *historically - supportable view* of events on a number of still controversial yet highly technical topics.
The current adoptions by the largest military-industrial- financial complex on earth (the USA) of a high-altitude, twin-afterburning turbojet-powered long-range interceptor with internal weapons, low wing-loading and a high thrust-to-weight ratio (the F-22 Raptor),
*suggests Floyd & Co. we’re a pretty sage bunch.*
Cold War Tech War page 260 R.L. Whitcomb
This Is exactly how they described *(the ARROW)* it was to be a high-altitude, twin-afterburning turbojet-powered long-range interceptor with internal weapons, low wing-loading and a high thrust-to-weight ratio!
Performance curves Arrow Versus modern Fighters
The F-22 Performance curves published by “Bill Sweetman’s book the F-22 Raptor”
The performance curves for the Arrow Mk2 “hand drawings by Jan Zurakowski"
*Are about equal to the F-22 from sea level to 65,000+ ft. and from Mach 0.5 to 2.3*
Other aircraft performance curves shown are the CF-105 Mk1, CF-105 Mk3 CF-105 Mk4, the Mig-29, F-16C, F-15C, all superimposed by R.L. Whitcomb
The same Performance curves are in color in the book “Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation” for a better comparison!
Glenn parent first no
It was better than us’s interceptors at the time
But since some newer planes no
Its a good plane and the us didnt even want to end it much
An error right at the start. A V Roe had been in existance since 1910, set up in Manchester, England. It's type 500 were flown by the Royal Flying Corps in 1913. It was A V Roe (Canada} that was set up in 1945 as a subsidiary by British company Hawker Sidderley.
lol, 'normal sized pilot' written in the avro's schematics. i wonder if the parts for it called for one CF standard issue pilot?
Seems like not much has changed for Canadian governments in 70 years, whether at the Federal, provincial or local level.
Everything is always too expensive.
Politicians and governments waste so money on start stop projects.
As soon as a new PM, MPP or Mayor is elected, everything most projects from the previous party or government is scrapped...too much stupidity and egos
Zoch Buppet damn I thought that only happened in developing nations didn’t know that type of stuff is done in A nation like Canada
How stupid do you have to be to sign a piece of paper saying that you promise not to develop any major armament system without cosulting he US first?
You dont have to be dumb. Just corrupt, or a traitor, unless you have been strong-armed.
@@saoulidany4568 agreed, although id leave dumb as an option lol
That's not what killed the Arrow.
The U.S. had the right to refuse to buy it.
@@Wilsnap You might like to see this ...
Sandys brought down his notorious White Paper on defence. *Sandys appears to have succumbed to the CIA’s super-secret intelligence,* which was diametrically opposed to that of the rest of the Western intelligence community, and sounded the *false alarm* of the “missiles gap”.
Of course, the CIA became famous for, in order of appearance, *the “intelligence gap”, the “bomber gap”, the “missiles gap”, and ever a “psychic spy gap”.* (This resulted in their Project MK Ultra) or men who stare at goats. LOL
It has always been said the Arrow was a threat to the U2 spy plane, but how? In 1956 the CIA was using a cover story for the U-2 and said it was just a weather research aircraft but in reality it was used to over fly and to spy on other countries.
The only aircraft that John Foster Dulles knew that was in development that might threaten the U-2 cover story was the CF-105 Arrow. Therefore he could not let the development of the Arrow continue. If the U-2 over flights were to continue its spying missions the Arrow had to go. *Any flights by the U-2 needed approval from Allen Welsh Dulles, Head of the CIA, John Foster Dulles U S Secretary of State, as well as the President* and others.
You might have noticed the last name of Allen Welsh (Dulles) Head of the CIA do you know he had a brother and who his brother was? His brother was none other than, John Foster Dulles, the U.S. Secretary of State! Do you know where the CIA headquarters are located? It’s in the unincorporated community at Langley in Virginia! Just a hop, skip and jump away from where the RCAF and the NACA did the wind tunnel tests on the Arrow!
The Arrow Mk 1 with the early P-3 de-rated J-75’s (developing thrust of only 16,000 lbt dry) did Mach 1.98 climbing through 50,000 feet still accelerating, still climbing, and only using intermediate afterburners (not even at full power!) and being 3.5 tons over real world combat weight (compared to the Arrow Mk 2) and it was test flown to 58,000+ ft.
Compare the Arrow Mk 1 to the first flights of the A-12 using a more developed J-75 engines that produced around 17,000 lbs dry thrust. The A-12 in level flight had achieved Mach 2.16 and was flown to an altitude of 60,000 ft! This is the Arrow Mk 1’s flight performance range!
The Arrow Mk 3 was to be a Mach 3.5 capable aircraft with air to air refueling and a combat speed of Mach 3, using new materials including carbon fiber composites, a glass micro-balloon filled insulation contained in a composite honeycomb core. This appears to have become the heat shield for Mercury and Gemini
It’s also probably why Lockheed cancelled the CL-400 Suntan in 1957 it was a Mach 2.5 and 70,000 ft altitude spy-plane that was originally supposed to replace the U2.
The Arrow Mk 3 would have had a new rounded forward swept “shoulder” four-ramp three-dimensional variable intake which gave no shock-induced air-flow separation on either the ramp surface or fuselage. *(Resent NASA internet presentations relating to hypersonic intake design conclude this is the most efficient design for hypersonic flight!
)*
The Arrow Mk3 was lighter, had less frontal area drag, and about the same thrust as the SR-71.
In fact the Mk 3 Arrow would have been a better performer than the F-108, or the SR-71. This is based on the wind tunnel tests done at NACA in Langley Virginia and the flight testing of the Arrow Mk 1
This is probably why they waited for everything to do with the Arrow to be destroyed before starting the A-12/SR-71 program.
This report by Mario Pesando must have sent shock waves through Dr. Courtland Perkins, Chief Scientist for the USAF like a lightning bolt hitting him! After all he was working for the USAF Intelligence gathering of foreign technology! John Foster Dulles, his brother Allen Dulles and the USA government could see that the Arrow had to go and the Avro Company itself had to be destroyed or all their spy planes were at risk of being exposed.
Leave it to the politicians to forget that they serve the people, not the other way around.
The real problem is that we did it again against Boeing. A company that has a questionable reputation
"Perhaps one of the most entrenched myths surrounding the Arrow was its technological pre-eminence in the 1950s. While it was an advanced aircraft, the Arrow was one of only several being developed at the time. Of these, the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom represented a true technological breakthrough. Its design - a fast, multi-role fighter with a powerful radar - would define future fighter innovation, with more than 5,000 eventually produced.
The Arrow, a heavy bomber interceptor, was an evolutionary dead-end, partly due to the advent of the intercontinental ballistic missile. Among Canadian allies, this unique aircraft type would disappear over coming decades, largely replaced by the more versatile fighters of the F-4’s mould.
The Arrow program had other major flaws, but none was as fatal as its cost. Each Arrow was projected to cost more than three times that of the Phantom and still faced serious development challenges until it was cancelled. These straightforward facts, not the myth of an American conspiracy to end the program, explain the Arrow’s demise.
Continuing with such a program today would be a national scandal. To some degree, it was a scandal in 1959, given that the program’s failings were well known by 1957 yet it continued development for one more year, resulting in nearly $200 million in additional expenditure before its cancellation."
SOURCE: www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/time-to-lay-the-avro-arrow-myth-to-rest-richard-shimooka-in-the-winnipeg-free-press/
Bunch o haters, I call it "US Envy"
Joel Threatt nah
Lol
@@thespacebaryonyx6007 in on my to 1
Canada used to have many big manufacture companies, now they only have P-hub. Who destroyed them? In many people outside, Canada became a part of America in many ways, so said.
My great grandfather worked on the wings of the arrow James Melvin Gordon I think
oh was the typhoon bsed on this?
when you have a conservative goverment thats what happens
America still cant make brilliant planes it started with the mess which was the original P-51 which had to have the air frame modified ad engine changed by rolls royce before it became any good. Now Britain has bought the rubbish F-35 which has so many flaws also. Should have built the mach 2 Harriers or made a even better version of our own
zzirSnipzz1
P.1154 (super-sonic Harriers) was killed by UK Labour (leftist) government, led by Harold Wilson.
Harriers wasn't a stealth fighter.
_The P.1154 ultimately became a victim of the incoming Labour government, led by Harold Wilson. In November 1964, Wilson's government informed the Air Staff to prepare to cancel two of three specific ongoing development projects, these being the P.1154, the BAC TSR-2 strike aircraft, and the Hawker Siddeley HS.681 V/STOL transport aircraft; in order to save the TSR-2 programme, the RAF was satisfied to abandon the P.1154.[24] On 2 February 1965, it was announced that the P.1154 had been terminated on the grounds of cost. At the time of cancellation, at least three prototypes had reached various stages of construction.[N 2] Following the cancellation, the RAF and Royal Navy both adopted the F-4 Phantom II instead; however, the government also issued a contract for continued work on the original subsonic P.1127 (RAF), which led to the Harrier; this name had originally been reserved for the P.1154 should it enter service_
UK and USMC are the primary drivers for F-35B project.
UK's selection for X-35 helps doomed X-32 i.e. UK doesn't want another forward hot jet thrust Harrier design. F-35B has forward cool air design.
The Americans made the SR-71 black bird the fastest plane on earth and it’s the highest flying and its penetrated Russian air space over 180 times and many attempts where made to shoot down but all failed and not a single 1 was lost what are you on about
And the American F-15 has won 104 dog fights and lost 0 best combat record in history and the F-15 has a top speed of 1,875 MPH far faster than the arrow with a top speed of 1,307 MPH you’re just in denial and jealous mate I’m Canadian and I’ll say this the Americans have created some fine Aeroplanes
@@mdkcjtl5523 Hmm have you ever had a look at the first flights of the Arrow Mk1 and the A-12 soon to be the SR-71?
The Arrow Mk 1 with the early P-3 de-rated J-75’s (developing thrust of only 16,000 lbt dry) did Mach 1.98 climbing through 50,000 feet still accelerating, and only using intermediate afterburners (not even at full power!) and being 3.5 tons over real world combat weight (compared to the Arrow Mk 2) and it was test flown to 58,000+ ft.
Compare the Arrow Mk 1 to the first flights of the A-12 using a more developed J-75 engines that produced around 17,000 lbs dry thrust. The A-12 in level flight had achieved Mach 2.16 and was flown to an altitude of 60,000 ft! This is the Arrow Mk 1’s flight performance range!
True , The Impacts Happening Against on 2020
I learned about the Avro Arrow in Aviation and Aerospace museum in Ottawa. The artifact there was only the front of the Avro Arrow. The description says something like “the fastest plane Canada ever has”. So I started researching for it after.
Then I leaned about the sad story of how it started and how it ended. Politics has killed dreams in this country. So so sad. The Cons… this is crazy politics.
one of the greatest mistakes made in Canada, to cancel this aircraft was the loss of the smartest people Canada had.
the excuse that this aircraft was not marketable outside of Canada was totally false, the engine alone would have made money.
But they did put the American's on the moon
So what canada also helps america build nukes and in all their campaigns in the middle east. Canada is so stupid for discontinuing air superiority. We would have had jets that would still be amazing 50 years later.
2pumpedupforu it would be shit by 1970. even before that with the F4
I really do not think the Phantom would have stood much of a chance against the Arrow,by then the Arrow would have been modified itself or a new aircraft would have taken its spot.
captgeo .geobab Well the Arrows speed was only theory. really it never got that fast. the F4 on the other hand was at one point the fastest plane in the world. plus the best missile technology at the time was the americans so...
+Geminijets NewMexico - they were ready to fly the 205 or 206 with the Iroquois engine. They were told not to fly it as they knew that it would blow the doors off the records. Just as they were told not to break mock 2 with 204. No, they wanted to kill it and they prevented it from demonstrating that it was the best interceptor built to date.
MIG 25 copied it
Mr Sharath Gopalan Aiyangar
No, it did not. 😎
MiG 25's angled intake design didn't copy Arrow i.e. USN' A-5 has angled intake design.
Rnl Valen
The design is entirely new, all by Avro. No one else thought of it. Too stupid. 😎
Nationalist Canuck, Unlike MiG 25 and A-5, Arrow doesn't have rear horizontal tail. Can't see and blind.
And that's a crap plane too.
Canada/Canadians can and do great things. If allowed. I’m biased as my grandfather worked at Orenda engines, later McDonnell Douglas in Malton. The arrow was a great airplane, but the money was flowing too fast for the government...
I only came here after seeing it was in Project Wingman
Stop your crying; the Avro Arrow was only one airplane. The Northrop F-20 Tigershark suffered the same fate as the USAF poured all their funding into the F-16 program.
F-20 failed F-16's blended wing design and F-15's body lift design.
The successor to F-5's wing with LEX design is YF-17 which is later known as F-18.
Northrop attempted to sell both F-18L (9G variant F-18) and F-20 was defeated by F-16. USN's F-18s has a few contract wins.
General Dynamics' industrial offsets was an advantage that Northrop couldn't match.
The launch of Sputnik in 1957 was a game changer. The Soviets proved that the delivery of nuclear weapons could be done by missile; interceptors were suddenly obsolete. Canada had built the most expensive knife ever for what had become a gun fight. The Americans recognized this, started shutting down the North Warning System, or turning it over to Canadian operation. Even gave us a bunch of obsolete Voodoo interceptors for our trouble. No, as advanced as the Arrow was technologically, it was operationally obsolete before it went into production. Cancelling it, while unfortunate, was the correct decision at the time.
You might be right. Excellent analogy BTW.
NO IY WAS NOT THOSE MISSLE S COULD NOT HIT A JET -THEY WERE SAD -A RIP OFF FOR THE CASH AND A HOAX
Jim - the MiG-25 was primarily developed to counter the threat of the also-obsolete XB-70, which had been in development since the mid-1950's. It would also serve as a deterrent to the Mach 3 A-12/SR-71.
High-flying bombers and the associated requirement for escort fighters/interceptors died with the advent of the ICBM and ascendant SAM technology, as John correctly points out. Bomber design shifted abruptly to low-level tactical missions, hence development of the F-111, B-1, (and later) Panavia Tornado. Not surprisingly, this led to early retirement of the B-58 Hustler, another large mach 2 high-altitude delta, within 10 years of its introduction to service. The CF-105 was in the unfortunate position of being late to the game, controversial, and very expensive. The only western interceptors to survive were already operational or at a high degree of development - the F-106, F-102, F-101B, and EE Lightning. Of these, the F-106 very nearly became a victim.
The MiG-25, although fast, was only effective as an interceptor or recon platform. Its heavy stainless steel construction (the Arrow was aluminum alloy) prevented it from making high-g maneuvers (2.2 with an absolute max G-load of 4.5). It had very short legs (
I also have a hard time seeing the MiG-15 as an Arrow copy. Perhaps some broad inspiration as heavy interceptors go, but the differences are numerous and many are plainly obvious.
Jim100 AB Yeah, I meant the MiG-25. Again, it was not the same as the Arrow. Appearance, materials of construction, and performance specs all differed from the Arrow.
I have seen one of the engines
Amazing how similar the Mig25 was to the Arrow, eh?
Nobody was happier than Russia when the Avero Arrow was cancelled. And now we have the F-35 LEMON and the nobody can afford, F-22, money pits
If you design something that costs too much, that is BAD DESIGN.
If you design something no one will buy, that is BAD DESIGN.
nice plane
DCS must add the Arrow to the game. Modders need to wake the fuck up and do what is right.
50% of Avro came from US suppliers..The engine, avionics, weapons missiles...Its was more US technology than Canadian..
Except for the fact that absolutely none of that is true. The Canadians took over development of the Sparrow missile as the U.S. Navy had, at the time, been unable to render it a functional weapon system. Avionics are a word child aviation fans like to tout as rocket science, but really they are JUST the electronic systems used to control the aircraft...NOT rocket science. Canada was as technologically as advanced as the U.S. in this regard and probably more so, being in the midst of a new interceptor program. The first prototypes used an inferior American engine because the far superior Iroquois intended for the production Arrow had only just finished testing. It produced 30,000 pounds thrust with afterburner, some 5,000 pounds more than the engine powering the F15. With two, the Arrow would have produced only 12% less thrust than an SR71 in spite of being only ONE THIRD the weight.
The PS.13 Iroquois destined for Mk 2 Arrows produced 25,400lbs wet thrust, not 30,000lbs. That's a wiki blooper.
I would also put forward that the Pratt & Whitney J-75 was not an inferior engine - versions of the J-75 produced in excess of 24,000lbs thrust and powered some of the fastest, highest- flying aircraft of the 1950's and 60's. It was a very successful design.
The airframe yes, it was Canadian design but what about the rest? Canadian aerospace industry in 1959-60 was a fraction of that of the US..Avro would have been worthless as an interceptor after the introduction of ICBM's.. Canada should have secured sufficient foreign orders before embarking on such an over ambitious project which was clearly above their pay grade.
The US has nothing to do with its cancellation as the USAF didn't show any interest in the aircraft from the very beginning ( people seem to forget the cardinal rule '' THE US WOULD NEVER BUY FOREIGN AIRCRAFT DURING THE COLD WAR) but the RAF did !!! it was the Brits who stabbed Canadians in the back when they decided to develop the TSR .2 which ended in an ever bigger disaster.
''Tell that to the Russians who copied the Arrow from stolen plains and made the MIG-25 6 Years after the Arrow flew.''
Needless to say you have all the evidence to prove this beyond reasonable doubt ...MIG-25 was a Russian tractor on two wings capable of exceeding Mach 3 for only 5-10 minutes !
With regard to Arrow I can tell you these two words together will get you more ranting nationalists than you can imagine: Avro Arrow.
Sadly, due to years of that sort of passionate nationalism about it, there’s more myth, conspiracy theories than reality of that aircraft out there to be consumed. Good luck
In comparison, the GE J-93 and P&W J-58, engines that actually existed in the 1950's, produced 29,000lbs and 32,000lbs thrust respectively.
The 30,000lb Iroquois 3 was a design only - never built.
And the Draken ,6.5000ft mach 2 and cobra manoeuver bouilt before the avro so what was so special
You are talking about the Saab Draken F and J, which was made in the 1990's. The Saab Draken A, which was made in the 1950's was only capable of Mach 1.5
@@andrewyi4803 Yes and the Avro never flew at Mach 2
@@andrewyi4803 Wrong
J 35D
Fighter version, delivered between 1963 and 1964, total production 120. The aircraft had a new and more powerful Rolls-Royce Avon 300 (RM6C),[22] which could deliver 77.3 kN thrust when using its afterburner. This was also the fastest Draken version, capable of accelerating until out of fuel
Now in early 2021, it is interesting that Canada obviously has a Bureaucratic Swamp just as we, the US, has.
What a shame that this advanced aircraft was never in service with the RCAF.
So sad ... Im proud to say that Canada has some of the best planes the Arrow and the Beaver and the ww2 Misquote wooden bomber that was faster then fighters at the time
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHYES
the Bomarc was useless as missile defence. it was meant to nuke bomber formations.
And Deif had no one to convince him these engineers could give his ranchers and farmers heftier fees for foodstuffs that were bought by cafes and restaurants rather than corner grocery stores.
Wind tunnel trials were perfected
Well at least the Canadian Government wasn't able to cancel the Aurora Plastics 1/75 scale model kit of the Avro CF-105 Arrow which apparently hit the market about the same time the Arrow first flew. Originally sold for about a buck here in the U.S. (as usual, a bit more in Canada) and I recall purchasing one while on vacation in Manitoba with my parents at a dime store in Winnipeg back in 1972.
canada rules the world
And we look back today and a virus is costing our country much more ...sad day for a great airplane
"Hammered down with steel balls."
Sympathy to Canadians who understandably wanted to develop their own aerospace industry, but this was a total fantasy. The Arrow and, for example, the Phantom had their first flights within two or three months of one another and had similar speed. The Arrow was no technological marvel - but it was substantially larger in every dimension including weight, thus suited only to interception at best. The Arrow would have clearly been a dog of a dogfighter. The US was never going to buy it and neither were the other allies. The other allies being European nations and Japan, all of which had limited space for bases, unlike the US and Canada.
The best aircraft at that time. What the final reason to kill this aircraft which has been Amazed by other country? It's just beneficiary for USA
File under TSR-2
Canada screwed up by closing the Arrow Program. Canada does make Military good, rifles and mines are made in town in Ontario. I know, I once delivered to it.
most fun space ship in project wingman
starscream.
Black Friday. Essentially the day that Canada lost its commercial and military soul. There is yet to be an aircraft as beautiful as the Arrow. Having just last week seen the Concorde and the SR-71, I am reminded of where our technology went. We sold ourselves out and dispersed our expertise to international aircraft companies and NASA. All we've got to show for it is now the Canada Arm on the International Space Station. It may be time to re-engineer the Arrow for the 21st century, and beat the pants off the F-35 and any other fighter-interceptor for that matter.
Twenty years ahead of its time, what a shame it had to end like that. More than fifty years later, Canada, being a sovereign nation, is still being led by the nose
It was not 20 years ahead of its time.
History repeated itself with the TSR2. Criminal.
53:47 Straight talk.
54:23 sentimental dreaming....
the role of the fighter aircraft had to be re-examined. tell that to the guys flying F18s.
I agree the 1996 movie said that their missile program was a failure and F-18's had to be ordered by the RCAF simply to plan for the same assignment the 105 was being tested for. Pity.