The Avro Arrow’s development costs were an investment in Canada’s technological future. It was sheer lunacy to destroy the prototypes and documentation. John Diefenbaker got rolled by the Americans and the anti-war crowd supported him.
Mach 2 plus, high altitude, long range bomber interceptor and yea it could have been upgraded easily BTW the US wouldn't have made the moon without all our engineers who went south when it was cancelled
@@harrisn3693 Avro Arrow Mk1 has a combat radius of 360 nmi (410 mi, 670 km). I'm not a yankee, Australia has purchased Mirage III which is a French's F-106 wannabe. Mirage IIIE's combat radius is 1,200 km (647 nmi, 746 mi) and proven Mach 2.2 speed.
Cancelling the Arrow was not a mistake. However, cancelling the Iroquois was one of the great blunders in Canadian industrial history. The airplane was a too-tailormade white elephant. The engine, though, was not only marketable but already being sought after even in its infancy...
Missiles in fact did not make nuclear bombers unnecessary, and hence, not interceptors. Both superpowers kept / developed a nuclear triade, with a mix of missiles on land, missiles in submarines and nuclear bombers. That may not have been clear in 1959 though. Anyway, even if the Arrow was too expensive for Canada alone a) this might mean not all options for export were explored and b) it doesn't explain why all planes had to be destroyed and dismantled, and not one was saved for in a museum. It also led to 15 000 people losing their job and a serious brain drain, that too has to be taken into account....
Dief_the_Chief was sold on the Bomarc missle for NA defense. It only had a nuclear warhead option, designed to take down as many Soviet bombers as possible. Problem? Canada was a no-nukes zone, in hopes of keeping us free from USSR strikes. How did that go...: www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/bomarc-missile-crisis
@@valenrn8657 Well hey now! The 108 doesn't usually get mentioned in these Arrow threads. That was the American "Arrow"...which the Americans cancelled before building any, interestingly enough. The Vigilante ended up as a dedicated recon bird, which was a niche the Arrow could have filled as well; its basic design led to the F-15 Eagle...
We could have been building this plane since 1958, upgrading it over the years, and still had an airforce at the top of the chain in the world! To this day the specs of the original Arrow still outperform a lot of the new Gen 4 planes.
Arrow has crap energy recovery (acceleration ) after instantaneous turn. It's easy to add a large wing area. With instantaneous turn rate, the speed slows down and the turning circle gets tighter which leads to a minimum turn radius dogfight. F-15EX will outperform the Arrow in high altitude/high speed sustain turn, instantaneous turn rates, and low-speed nose pointing high angle of attack dogfights.
Alexander Reimer same here. I think they put him on the show to downplay the outrageous stupidity of the government’s order to scrap the project. Especially when he looks down his nose and says the plane was nothing special. What a blowbag.
He's not wrong about the Arrow not being that far ahead; it was state of the art, to be sure, but not more than that. What was somewhat ahead was the engine, and that, unquestionably, should have been continued as a standalone (not to mention very, very marketable) programme... Bit ironic if that gent is a Pole, as so were key engineering staff not only with Avro but also with deHavilland Canada...and so were fifty percent (two out of four) of the pilots who flew the Arrow! (I'd rather have heard the views of those gentlemen...)
From 1958 to 1968, Luke (Julius Lukasiewicz) was the Chief of the von Kármán Gas Dynamics Facility at the US Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tullahoma, Tennessee, where he supervised critical aerodynamic testing for the Mercury and Gemini manned space flights and the Apollo moon shot. Credit: the obituary of Julius Lukasiewicz. Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Some of the great ideas are bring to the 4G USA fighter jets by Canadian Engineers. HOTAS, an acronym of Hands On Throttle-And-Stick, is the name given to the concept of placing buttons and switches on the throttle lever and flight control stick in an aircraft's cockpit, allowing pilots to access vital cockpit functions and fly the aircraft without having to remove their hands from the controls. Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface. However, the Avro Arrow will be obsolete when Soviet MIG23, MIG25 and MIG31 appear.
HOTAS was invented for the English Electric Lightning, although that's really when the term HOTAS was coined since by at least WW2 fighters had controls for firing guns or dropping bombs and gun sight adjustments on the sticks and throttles of them, and fly by wire was invented by the Soviets in the 1930's although they never put it on a production plane, The Arrow is a great movie but it's historically inaccurate to say the least, like the one guy in this says the US offered to buy Arrow's and give them to the RCAF to help Avro out, but the people who made the movie framed the story up to make the US out as the bad guys (of course) because they know that's an easy way to get someone's goat, don't get your history from the entertainment industry and you'll find yourself a little better off in life, not every problem in the world is the "4G USA's" fault.
North American Aviation's A-5 (August 1958) already has fly-by-wire which appeared in the year 1953 X-10 tech demo. X-10 includes a canted twin vertical tail, delta wing, and canard design.
As an American I have always had great respect for the Canadian people. However the idea that you could be a 51st state is a modern day insecurity of your own. I am proud to have served along side.
Heh. A fear, not an insecurity. One of these days y'all will have an administration that gets ideas about "lebensraum", and we'll be annexed in a trice...
the female film maker on the panel is spot on. The question and answer segment was filmed in the Canadian Warplane Museum in Hamilton Ontario.. Note the four engine bomber in the background. The Avro Lancaster Bomber built by A.V.Roe. Historians say it was the plane that helped end the Second World War. How ironic is that !
Avro's involvement with what had been National Steel Car's aircraft division, once it began licence production of Lancasters as Victory Aircraft, continued postwar and the name formally became Avro Canada...the Lanc at CWH is of course one of the Victory-built examples and came from the same plant complex as would the Arrow a little over a decade later. Incidentally the Arrow was ten feet *longer* than the Lanc!
The project would have devoured the entire Canadian defence budget..A painful lesson..Before embarking on an extremely and over ambitious project secure export orders and commitments. Otherwise you will end up looking for culprits....
Air resistance on a loaded F-16 may result in less performance, but the F-16 can fly faster than mach 2 where the F-35 can't fly faster than Mach 1.7?.
4:45 (Jack Granetstein) (Paraphrasing) "Did it make any sense to spend all that money into a bomber interceptor that was going to be obsolete in four years" So after the Arrow program was cancelled what did Canada do? Buy an American high altitude interceptor that was insanely expensive so fill the role the Arrow was intended for. It never ceases to amaze me how our leaders dupe the Canadian public into rolling over when the going gets tough. Dieffenbaker probably couldn't stand the fact that Canada had something as good as the Americans and didn't have the courage to promote the Arrow to the world. 16:41 (Mary Young Leckie) "Canadians tend to eat their young" This was the only statement in this whole documentary that made any sense and is the sad truth about Canada. Canada is intensely critical and pessimistic about itself and holds Canadian successful people and businesses in contempt. This has been my experience anyway.
_"So after the Arrow program was cancelled what did Canada do? Buy an American high altitude interceptor that was insanely expensive so fill the role the Arrow was intended for"_ In reality, Canada acquired the CF-101 Voodoo for less than $1.7M/airframe - a relative bargain compared to the ~$7M price tag for operational Mk 2 Arrows.
@@raynus1160 The Arrow far outperformed the F-101 and that price tag was the initial cost of the first batch, As with the F-35 program the price would have dropped as more were built. There also was a single engined fighter cheaper version of the Arrow. Development costs of a totally new airframe and engine isn't cheap, just look all the other new airframes like the F-22, F-35, SU-57, etc... What you're missing here is the development of Canadian aeronautical high tech which was gaining attention worldwide back in the 1950s. All nations with successful fighter aircraft programs stood behind these projects with a vision to the future. True to form Canada did not, once again letting the Americans tell them what to do.
@@abrahkadabra9501 Did it? The CF-105 demonstrated a top speed of Mach 1.90 in full afterburner. The CF-101 had a top speed of Mach 1.7. The Arrow's proposed normal range was ~750nm. The Voodoo's normal range was 1500nm. The Arrow (I) had a service ceiling of 53,000'. The Voodoo had a service ceiling of 54,800'. The Arrow would've carried AIR-2 Genie A2A rockets and AIM-4 Falcon A2A missiles. The Voodoo _did_ carry AIR-2 Genies and AIM-4 Falcons. For the money, the Voodoo did the job - not as fancy, couldn't turn as well, & carried half the load, but it filled the role for 23 years. The single-engine C104/1 was an early Avro proposal only - it was rejected by the RCAF in 1952, and the twin engine C104/2 design eventually became the CF-105. The USA fully supported the Arrow program - wind tunnels, rocket/model testing facilities, engines, technical support, a B-47 testbed for dynamic Iroquois testing, fire control systems, missiles, etc. etc. Contrary to popular opinion, they were fully on board with the CF-105's development. One should remember that without Great Britain's Hawker Siddeley, there never would've been an Avro Canada, nor would've there been a CF-100 or a CF-105 (yes, Avro Canada was a wholly-owned subsidiary of a British company). - Regards
@@raynus1160 The Iroquois engine was new and still being developed so the ranges you're quoting were the initial results compared to the more mature high altitude interceptors you mentioned. You're just quoting numbers without understanding the story behind it. Your post also implies that I said the Americans were AGAINST the Arrow program...I DID NOT SAY THIS. The decision to cancel the Arrow was 100% Canadian IMO. You're proving my point through your posts that Canadians don't stand behind national projects and would rather opt for an American solution. Again, the idea is to develop promising Canadian science and tech and not give up when faced with setbacks.
@@abrahkadabra9501 I actually do understand the CF-105 and Iroquois programs well enough to make comment. The Iroquois had been in development since 1953 and experienced several significant setbacks, mainly with 'drum wobble' and turbine blade failure. By late 1958, Orenda elected to derate the first series of aircraft-destined PS.13's to roughly the same wet thrust values as the J-75 P-5. Although it produced 26,500lbs thrust during testing, Orenda elected to restrict turbine RPM, thereby reducing afterburning thrust to roughly 20,000lbs. This would remain the norm through the first fifteen Mk 2 Arrows up to and including aircraft 25221. This decrease in available thrust would limit the Mk 2 aircraft to the same Mach ~1.9 speed recorded by aircraft 202 in November, 1958. Couple that with limitations imposed by fixed-geometry engine intakes, and the Mk 2, 2A, and Mk 1 aircraft likely would not realize the full potential afforded by ~30,000lb thrust Iroquois II engines. Canadian politicians didn't listen to the Americans - Diefenbaker was famously anti-American, save his warm relationship with DDE, and kept the program intact until spiraling costs forced his hand. _Had_ they listened to the USA, they likely would've managed to keep the Arrow program semi-intact, possibly offset-funded by American ADC interests and budgets (as Granastein mentions in this clip). It should be noted that the Arrow was far from ready, having only completed 2% of its proposed eight-phase/3000hr testing and evaluation program. It should _also_ be said that the Canadian aerospace sector grew to 3rd-largest on the planet in the decades following the CF-105's cancellation - De Havilland Canada, Canadair, Pratt & Whitney Canada, and ultimately Bombardier Aerospace produced a long line of capable, effective aircraft, both military and commercial.
Really? Your government wants to buy 30 year old F-18s from Australia, you really think they are going to dish out the money to develope their own fighter?
It bewilders me how so many Canadian aircraft fans seem to so readily put down our own achievements! Sadly we have to accept scrapyard Aussie F18's till at least 2035!
I like the idea of arrow brought back and it would put on the Canada and is behind alot technology in defence and it was Canada navy put helicopters on frigates and naval vessels all types. It's about time built it owns fighter jets they benefit all parts of Canada and not Quebec and Ontario
The ex-Aussie Hornets were bought as a parts source, not as replacement aircraft, though it would not be surprising if some of the lower time RAAF Hornets entered service in place of high-time CF-18s...
@@StudeSteve62 RAAF's 10 F/A-18AM has centre fuselages replaced as part of HUG Phase 3.2, hence they are effective nearly new. RAAF's F/A-18AM has upgraded with AIM-132 support, AN/APG-73 radar, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, Link16, upgraded cockpit displays, ALR-67 Radar Warning Receiver, secure voice encryption communications system and various updates to computer systems and 'etc'. Functionally equivalent to F-16C Block 50/52.
Arrow movie would have been better if they had left out all the sinister conspiracy theories and myths. "Uncle Sam has no monopoly on genius", and Hollywood has no monopoly on movie fantasy.
A better case can be made for American involvement in the cancellation of TSR2, as they had a functionally very similar type in parallel development (the F-111) which they tried to market to the UK and ultimately did succeed in selling to Australia (who had considered TSR2)....but neither the US nor anyone else had anything quite like the Arrow to sell instead, nor did they need such. And that was the point. The Arrow was too tailormade to be marketable...thus we were going it alone, and we couldn't afford it!
"To paint the Americans as the villains in this really requires that you believe in a conspiracy thesis." Yeah, because the US has never done anything shady, and certainly not back then. Lmao
Never mention the mach 2.3, 50000+ ft ceiling, internal weapons bay arms carrying, semi autonomous flying, longer ranged on internal fuel, F106 that first flew Dec 1956 and entered service 1959. The Arrow was an interesting plane but the stuff it was supposed to do was not uncommon in existing aircraft, the switch to ICBM missile defense rendered it as useless as the Nike installations in the USA.
Doesn't mean they were culpable here. Runaway costs and a lack of marketability doomed the Arrow almost from the start. The engine, though, should have been continued...
@@kenm4678 Yes, and the RCAF wanted 106s after the Arrow was killed, too. F-101s were made cheaply available though and the government accepted those instead. They served well for over two decades, but no question the 106 was more advanced. Indeed it was the most Arrow-like of built American aircraft conceptually. On a technical and aerodynamic level the closest equivalent was the F-4 Phantom. (And it is worth noting that either of those two types could have been fitted with the Iroquois, just as Sabres were fitted with the Orenda earlier...)
@@kenm4678 Note that US Navy (USA's second airforce service) has the following projects in the 1950s 1.North American Aviation's A-5 Vigilante with its 1st flight in August 1958. Reached Mach 2.0. Part of Boeing. 2. Vought's XF8U-3 Crusader III with its 1st flight in June 1958. Reached Mach 2.39. XF8U-3 superior over F-4 Phantom II in dogfight role. Part of Triumph Aerostructures. 3. McDonnell Douglas' F-4 Phantom II with its 1st flight in May 1958. Reached Mach 2.23. Dual-purpose strike and interceptor. Part of Boeing.
Politicians should never be involved in the military needs of a country. It was the best of its time, (Bar none), and arguably still is. We made a mistake and the politicians killed it and made it a base idea for the MIG- 25.
While investment in a Canadian military jet is foolish at this point given the U.S. struggles with the cost let alone Canada (along with the cost of recreating Orenda a state of the art engine organization), we should be supporting what we are known for in aviation. Top quality STOL bush planes and water bombers. There are businesses retrofitting twin otters....why not have new ones available? Canadair water bombers are still flying as well....I think California and Australia are good markets for a reliable water bomber. Why sink billions into commuter jets.....a market that is a contest between governments to spend the most propping up their industry. Seems like a natural fit to me.
Yes, it's a pretty common misconception that the Arrow was a "fighter"; its specific purpose was to catch and despatch incoming bombers, so it needed range, climb and dash speed, but not maneuvrability. That said, for such a large aircraft it apparently did have good handling, from what the four pilots who flew the Mk.1s had to say. It could indeed have been adapted into either a bomber or a reconnaissance platform, or, like the ancient B-52s still serving the USAF today, a cruise missile launch platform. All that though was secondary when the Arrow was being tested...and costs were skyrocketing. The project was doomed from an early point, really. The engine, though, should have been continued. It would have been a worldbeater...and a moneyspinner.
History has shown that there definitely was a market! Two things shut it down, one deifdummy....and two, others had the money the and the vision to see how important this would be in the future. Shame we have another mindless pm at present...
A market? For the engine, absolutely. For the aircraft, only the USA or the USSR could have had any requirement for so large an interceptor; the Americans would never have bought a foreign product for that high profile a role, and well of course it wasn't going to be sold to Russia! The Arrow was a marvelous achievement, and one or more should most certainly have been kept for posterity. But it was doomed almost from the start. The engine, though, was very, very marketable (some planemakers were already trying to secure some), and that programme should absolutely have been continued on its own...
@@StudeSteve62 when you consider what the list of reasons were that the military gave regarding what they wanted, those havnt changed. So it wasn't just the usa or ussr who had any need for it, so did Canada. We were just leading the way at the time.
It's not the cancellation of the program.......... it's the destruction of the already built planes......... you dont save money by destroying what is already built...... because it's built.. it's money already spent....... that is the real disgrace.... you can get into arguements, fights....... but at least the 'asset' survives in tact. shrugs
A new thought came to me. What if Bombardier pressured gov't also ? Some sort of competition in that field. not just compete w USA. USA was gathering all German and ? scientist after war . etc I give more money to countries (gov't) than was ever spent on worth while projects here.
US still fly B52s, Russia still fly Bear bombers. F35 today doesn’t fly as fast as Arrow nor go as far without refuelling. The technology then still out performs many new aircraft and other nations maintain their old airframes. Complete BS it was obsolete
John Diefenbaker Psychopathic tendency that destroyed the Arrow apparently lost his being elected after that. Good riddens. Thumbs down for the critical deceptive slant. There is not any aircraft that can not be retrofitted with different armament for different applications like tank killing etc. The Boeing B52 and the KC i35 were both built in the same time and are both still in use and been retrofitted as needed.
@@sojournsojourntraveler1203 It's no secret the St. Laurent Liberals were going to cancel the program had they been reelected in 1957. Either way, this bird was going to die.
The Arrow was the best interceptor in the air. As such, it would have been a threat to US builders in fighter sales to NATO partners. But as is mentioned in this vid, the ICBM was about obsolete the Arrow, long before its development costs were repaid. The US builders had the economy of scale to withstand the transition to missiles, and eventually cornered the market for fighters in the West. Had the Avro been continued, it would have been a tremendous burden on the Canadian taxpayer. And about destroying the prototypes and plans, this is standard procedure in the aviation and automobile industries.
Agree about the US builders, Lockheed killed the SR53 which would have been the ideal interceptor for European NATO members against Russian bombers, the F104 contracts won with huge "brown paper envelopes" killed more husbands and sons than they would have Russian aircraft. The UK and Canada had a "missile" fixation as an excuse to kill off manned aircraft en-masse, has proved a huge mistake as did the US idea that the era of dog fighting was over. The Arrow along with the TSR2 rip the heart out when thinking of the all the engineering expertise that went into junk piles.
The ICBM didn’t make the Arrow obsolete as was later confirmed proof of concept by the USAF for ASAT with the F-15 A little known fact (see link www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1958/1958%20-%200183.PDF Flight and Aircraft Engineering, “Ironclads and Arrows” 14 February 1958) it explains some of the math involved. Jim Floyd finds that if an “anti” is launched from an aircraft flying at Mach 1.5 at 60,000 ft. its thrust need only be about one third of that required for ground launch weapons. Jim Floyd was working on an ABM system with Douglas to adapt a version of the Nike-Zeus system for use on the Arrow. The first stage of the ground launched version could be abandoned, with data link modifications to the remaining upper stage to accept targeting information from the Arrow’s onboard radar system. (R.L. Whitcomb)
@@tomlucas4890 Oh..you mean the similaries the Arrow and the TSR2 and North American XF-108 Rapier? All of them was cancelled due to rising cost. O by the way the TSR-2 was becoming heavier than expected and during test flight and was unable to meet design specifications.....in short it does not meet expectations.
Canada had a dream to produce the ultimate military aircraft and in every respect that dream was on track to succeed. Only a few years later the United States had a dream to put a man on the moon and their government stood steadfast throughout the pains of development until it exceeded. Their achievement exploded the United States forward in technology and economically. Canada's dream had it's legs cut off just as it was beginning to walk. To this day, the Canadian government and industries remains crippled and afraid to dream. Afraid to push the limits, afraid to invest, afraid to take the risks that all winners must take. Now, Canada has spent six decades cowering in the shadows, still afraid of having something else cut off.
Diefenbaker was a fool with no vision for the future. We Canadians had built the most technologically advanced aircraft the world had ever seen and it hadn't even met it's limitless potential. Diefenbaker was played like a fiddle by the USA and his sumbmissiveness to the US president ended in the cancellation and destruction of the Arrow. There's no doubt in my mind that the US was affraid of losing it aeronautical supremacy and eventual jobs to us here in Canada. We were at the pinnacle of the development of the Arrow and no doubt could have sold this amazing aircraft to all our NATO members allies. We could have built them all here and grow our country into a technologically advanced country and we could have been the ones to put man on the moon and more, but when Diefenbakers puppet strings were pulled and had the dream cancelled and totally destroyed he put thousands of Canadians out of work and allowed the USA to steal all our brilliant and talented people who then went on to work for NASA. Diefenbaker allowed a brain drain to take place. That day was called black Friday and it left Canada in the dark ever since relying on other countries like the USA for protection. Diefenbaker put us under the thumb of the USA and they have always treated us with disregard and disrespect. The USA knew Canada could have become a superpower and a nation full of technological advances and innovations. What a shame to have such ignorant leaders. The professor and scientist in this interview were no doubt told what to say to spread propaganda and downplay the potential of the amazing Avro Arrow
No, nor did they need to be. They had an Arrow-like project in development circa 1958, the F-108, but cancelled it as unnecessary...You could though have made that argument sbout an earlier Avro project, the C102 jet airliner, which the American media, at least, envied like crazy (and which gave the world the word "jetliner")...
The Avro Arrow’s development costs were an investment in Canada’s technological future. It was sheer lunacy to destroy the prototypes and documentation. John Diefenbaker got rolled by the Americans and the anti-war crowd supported him.
Gaslighting at it's finest. And the US scooped up our best designers afterwards ( and I bet they cannibalized as many Arrow parts as they could ).
Mach 2 plus, high altitude, long range bomber interceptor
and yea it could have been upgraded easily
BTW the US wouldn't have made the moon without all our engineers who went south when it was cancelled
Yup I see the day they cut up those plane's is the day CANADA died.
Engineers from all the world were on that team and all should be applauded.
Arrow doesn't have long range.
@@valenrn8657 Um yes it did you yankee
@@harrisn3693 Avro Arrow Mk1 has a combat radius of 360 nmi (410 mi, 670 km).
I'm not a yankee, Australia has purchased Mirage III which is a French's F-106 wannabe. Mirage IIIE's combat radius is 1,200 km (647 nmi, 746 mi) and proven Mach 2.2 speed.
Dufusbaker cancelled the Arrow because he was lied to about the future of fighters and he had no vision. The Arrow would've been great for Canada.
Cancelling the Arrow was not a mistake. However, cancelling the Iroquois was one of the great blunders in Canadian industrial history. The airplane was a too-tailormade white elephant. The engine, though, was not only marketable but already being sought after even in its infancy...
What an era of triumph and tragedy. So many "what if's" in this great story.
Really enjoyed this post, thank you!!
Missiles in fact did not make nuclear bombers unnecessary, and hence, not interceptors. Both superpowers kept / developed a nuclear triade, with a mix of missiles on land, missiles in submarines and nuclear bombers. That may not have been clear in 1959 though. Anyway, even if the Arrow was too expensive for Canada alone a) this might mean not all options for export were explored and b) it doesn't explain why all planes had to be destroyed and dismantled, and not one was saved for in a museum. It also led to 15 000 people losing their job and a serious brain drain, that too has to be taken into account....
It might be obsolete in 1962. Funny the US still had tons of interceptors and bombers in 1962 as well as the Soviets. BS excuse.
true
Dief_the_Chief was sold on the Bomarc missle for NA defense. It only had a nuclear warhead option, designed to take down as many Soviet bombers as possible. Problem? Canada was a no-nukes zone, in hopes of keeping us free from USSR strikes. How did that go...:
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/bomarc-missile-crisis
USAF canceled XF-108 while USN's A-5 continued.
The USA didn't produce any dedicated single-role interceptors after the 1950's - F-101's, F-102's, and F-106's were all products of the 1950's.
@@valenrn8657 Well hey now! The 108 doesn't usually get mentioned in these Arrow threads. That was the American "Arrow"...which the Americans cancelled before building any, interestingly enough. The Vigilante ended up as a dedicated recon bird, which was a niche the Arrow could have filled as well; its basic design led to the F-15 Eagle...
We could have been building this plane since 1958, upgrading it over the years, and still had an airforce at the top of the chain in the world! To this day the specs of the original Arrow still outperform a lot of the new Gen 4 planes.
Arrow has crap energy recovery (acceleration ) after instantaneous turn.
It's easy to add a large wing area.
With instantaneous turn rate, the speed slows down and the turning circle gets tighter which leads to a minimum turn radius dogfight.
F-15EX will outperform the Arrow in high altitude/high speed sustain turn, instantaneous turn rates, and low-speed nose pointing high angle of attack dogfights.
We are ruled by international bankers, it's all about money.
The days when you could present a TV programme in a jumper! 😊 Interesting video.
That Polish professor rubs me the wrong way... pure BS,CS ...!!!
Alexander Reimer same here. I think they put him on the show to downplay the outrageous stupidity of the government’s order to scrap the project. Especially when he looks down his nose and says the plane was nothing special. What a blowbag.
@@adamboylan2307
His points were valid.
The Arrow was big & held promise, but was no more advanced than other types of the day.
He's not wrong about the Arrow not being that far ahead; it was state of the art, to be sure, but not more than that. What was somewhat ahead was the engine, and that, unquestionably, should have been continued as a standalone (not to mention very, very marketable) programme...
Bit ironic if that gent is a Pole, as so were key engineering staff not only with Avro but also with deHavilland Canada...and so were fifty percent (two out of four) of the pilots who flew the Arrow! (I'd rather have heard the views of those gentlemen...)
Does it make sense for so many skilled people to leave the country, for what ?
From 1958 to 1968, Luke (Julius Lukasiewicz) was the Chief of the von Kármán Gas Dynamics Facility at the US Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tullahoma, Tennessee, where he supervised critical aerodynamic testing for the Mercury and Gemini manned space flights and the Apollo moon shot. Credit: the obituary of Julius Lukasiewicz. Makes you wonder doesn't it?
the arrow could take out area 51 with ease,
It was an interceptor not a strategic bomber....
Hahaa, the sonic booms would certainly give them a scare!!
You'd only have to refuel it 4 or 5 times to reach Area 51.
@@coreyandnathanielchartier3749 c'mon man, the plane was a prototype, they would have given it a bigger fuel tank
Some of the great ideas are bring to the 4G USA fighter jets by Canadian Engineers. HOTAS, an acronym of Hands On Throttle-And-Stick, is the name given to the concept of placing buttons and switches on the throttle lever and flight control stick in an aircraft's cockpit, allowing pilots to access vital cockpit functions and fly the aircraft without having to remove their hands from the controls.
Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface.
However, the Avro Arrow will be obsolete when Soviet MIG23, MIG25 and MIG31 appear.
HOTAS was invented for the English Electric Lightning, although that's really when the term HOTAS was coined since by at least WW2 fighters had controls for firing guns or dropping bombs and gun sight adjustments on the sticks and throttles of them, and fly by wire was invented by the Soviets in the 1930's although they never put it on a production plane, The Arrow is a great movie but it's historically inaccurate to say the least, like the one guy in this says the US offered to buy Arrow's and give them to the RCAF to help Avro out, but the people who made the movie framed the story up to make the US out as the bad guys (of course) because they know that's an easy way to get someone's goat, don't get your history from the entertainment industry and you'll find yourself a little better off in life, not every problem in the world is the "4G USA's" fault.
North American Aviation's A-5 (August 1958) already has fly-by-wire which appeared in the year 1953 X-10 tech demo.
X-10 includes a canted twin vertical tail, delta wing, and canard design.
You must be dreaming dude..Get real..
No aircraft goes faster to day than the Arrow in 1959. So Americans eat your socks!
Bet you're wrong.
wrong
Speed is no longer the priority in fighter aircraft design. F104 was as fast. No country has bothered to build a Mach 2 airplane since.
scott black crap
yes, the raptor and others go faster, but are euniks
As an American I have always had great respect for the Canadian people. However the idea that you could be a 51st state is a modern day insecurity of your own.
I am proud to have served along side.
Heh. A fear, not an insecurity. One of these days y'all will have an administration that gets ideas about "lebensraum", and we'll be annexed in a trice...
Well at lest you have the neocons to make you happy 😊
the female film maker on the panel is spot on. The question and answer segment was filmed in the Canadian Warplane Museum in Hamilton Ontario.. Note the four engine bomber in the background. The Avro Lancaster Bomber built by A.V.Roe. Historians say it was the plane that helped end the Second World War. How ironic is that !
Avro's involvement with what had been National Steel Car's aircraft division, once it began licence production of Lancasters as Victory Aircraft, continued postwar and the name formally became Avro Canada...the Lanc at CWH is of course one of the Victory-built examples and came from the same plant complex as would the Arrow a little over a decade later. Incidentally the Arrow was ten feet *longer* than the Lanc!
The project would have devoured the entire Canadian defence budget..A painful lesson..Before embarking on an extremely and over ambitious project secure export orders and commitments.
Otherwise you will end up looking for culprits....
Did you factor in sales??? Duh!
Become a Politician, The Fame, The Glor,y The Lies, The Blunders you can always Resign, that is easy to sweep under the carpet.
the arrow rules the sky
Air resistance on a loaded F-16 may result in less performance, but the F-16 can fly faster than mach 2 where the F-35 can't fly faster than Mach 1.7?.
4:45 (Jack Granetstein) (Paraphrasing) "Did it make any sense to spend all that money into a bomber interceptor that was going to be obsolete in four years"
So after the Arrow program was cancelled what did Canada do? Buy an American high altitude interceptor that was insanely expensive so fill the role the Arrow was intended for.
It never ceases to amaze me how our leaders dupe the Canadian public into rolling over when the going gets tough. Dieffenbaker probably couldn't stand the fact that Canada had something as good as the Americans and didn't have the courage to promote the Arrow to the world.
16:41 (Mary Young Leckie) "Canadians tend to eat their young"
This was the only statement in this whole documentary that made any sense and is the sad truth about Canada. Canada is intensely critical and pessimistic about itself and holds Canadian successful people and businesses in contempt. This has been my experience anyway.
_"So after the Arrow program was cancelled what did Canada do? Buy an American high altitude interceptor that was insanely expensive so fill the role the Arrow was intended for"_
In reality, Canada acquired the CF-101 Voodoo for less than $1.7M/airframe - a relative bargain compared to the ~$7M price tag for operational Mk 2 Arrows.
@@raynus1160 The Arrow far outperformed the F-101 and that price tag was the initial cost of the first batch, As with the F-35 program the price would have dropped as more were built. There also was a single engined fighter cheaper version of the Arrow. Development costs of a totally new airframe and engine isn't cheap, just look all the other new airframes like the F-22, F-35, SU-57, etc... What you're missing here is the development of Canadian aeronautical high tech which was gaining attention worldwide back in the 1950s. All nations with successful fighter aircraft programs stood behind these projects with a vision to the future. True to form Canada did not, once again letting the Americans tell them what to do.
@@abrahkadabra9501
Did it?
The CF-105 demonstrated a top speed of Mach 1.90 in full afterburner. The CF-101 had a top speed of Mach 1.7. The Arrow's proposed normal range was ~750nm. The Voodoo's normal range was 1500nm. The Arrow (I) had a service ceiling of 53,000'. The Voodoo had a service ceiling of 54,800'. The Arrow would've carried AIR-2 Genie A2A rockets and AIM-4 Falcon A2A missiles. The Voodoo _did_ carry AIR-2 Genies and AIM-4 Falcons. For the money, the Voodoo did the job - not as fancy, couldn't turn as well, & carried half the load, but it filled the role for 23 years.
The single-engine C104/1 was an early Avro proposal only - it was rejected by the RCAF in 1952, and the twin engine C104/2 design eventually became the CF-105.
The USA fully supported the Arrow program - wind tunnels, rocket/model testing facilities, engines, technical support, a B-47 testbed for dynamic Iroquois testing, fire control systems, missiles, etc. etc. Contrary to popular opinion, they were fully on board with the CF-105's development.
One should remember that without Great Britain's Hawker Siddeley, there never would've been an Avro Canada, nor would've there been a CF-100 or a CF-105 (yes, Avro Canada was a wholly-owned subsidiary of a British company).
- Regards
@@raynus1160 The Iroquois engine was new and still being developed so the ranges you're quoting were the initial results compared to the more mature high altitude interceptors you mentioned. You're just quoting numbers without understanding the story behind it. Your post also implies that I said the Americans were AGAINST the Arrow program...I DID NOT SAY THIS. The decision to cancel the Arrow was 100% Canadian IMO. You're proving my point through your posts that Canadians don't stand behind national projects and would rather opt for an American solution. Again, the idea is to develop promising Canadian science and tech and not give up when faced with setbacks.
@@abrahkadabra9501
I actually do understand the CF-105 and Iroquois programs well enough to make comment.
The Iroquois had been in development since 1953 and experienced several significant setbacks, mainly with 'drum wobble' and turbine blade failure. By late 1958, Orenda elected to derate the first series of aircraft-destined PS.13's to roughly the same wet thrust values as the J-75 P-5. Although it produced 26,500lbs thrust during testing, Orenda elected to restrict turbine RPM, thereby reducing afterburning thrust to roughly 20,000lbs. This would remain the norm through the first fifteen Mk 2 Arrows up to and including aircraft 25221. This decrease in available thrust would limit the Mk 2 aircraft to the same Mach ~1.9 speed recorded by aircraft 202 in November, 1958. Couple that with limitations imposed by fixed-geometry engine intakes, and the Mk 2, 2A, and Mk 1 aircraft likely would not realize the full potential afforded by ~30,000lb thrust Iroquois II engines.
Canadian politicians didn't listen to the Americans - Diefenbaker was famously anti-American, save his warm relationship with DDE, and kept the program intact until spiraling costs forced his hand. _Had_ they listened to the USA, they likely would've managed to keep the Arrow program semi-intact, possibly offset-funded by American ADC interests and budgets (as Granastein mentions in this clip). It should be noted that the Arrow was far from ready, having only completed 2% of its proposed eight-phase/3000hr testing and evaluation program.
It should _also_ be said that the Canadian aerospace sector grew to 3rd-largest on the planet in the decades following the CF-105's cancellation - De Havilland Canada, Canadair, Pratt & Whitney Canada, and ultimately Bombardier Aerospace produced a long line of capable, effective aircraft, both military and commercial.
We will resurrect and be better than before.
Really? Your government wants to buy 30 year old F-18s from Australia, you really think they are going to dish out the money to develope their own fighter?
It bewilders me how so many Canadian aircraft fans seem to so readily put down our own achievements! Sadly we have to accept scrapyard Aussie F18's till at least 2035!
I like the idea of arrow brought back and it would put on the Canada and is behind alot technology in defence and it was Canada navy put helicopters on frigates and naval vessels all types. It's about time built it owns fighter jets they benefit all parts of Canada and not Quebec and Ontario
The ex-Aussie Hornets were bought as a parts source, not as replacement aircraft, though it would not be surprising if some of the lower time RAAF Hornets entered service in place of high-time CF-18s...
@@StudeSteve62 RAAF's 10 F/A-18AM has centre fuselages replaced as part of HUG Phase 3.2, hence they are effective nearly new.
RAAF's F/A-18AM has upgraded with AIM-132 support, AN/APG-73 radar, Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System, Link16, upgraded cockpit displays, ALR-67 Radar Warning Receiver, secure voice encryption communications system and various updates to computer systems and 'etc'. Functionally equivalent to F-16C Block 50/52.
There was definitely a CONSPIRACY...!!! ALL THE DIALOGUE TO DEFEND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ARROW INDICATES A CONSPIRACY...!!!
they still put thousands outta work
only canada has the-arrow
Arrow movie would have been better if they had left out all the sinister conspiracy theories and myths. "Uncle Sam has no monopoly on genius", and Hollywood has no monopoly on movie fantasy.
deif -was a nut case
........I imagine this footage dates back to 1970s.
Which footage?
I dream that one day Canada will make air fighters some day ♥. And I believe market follow
The US are very nice people.
They where nice to TSR2, they where nice to the Arrow . . .
A better case can be made for American involvement in the cancellation of TSR2, as they had a functionally very similar type in parallel development (the F-111) which they tried to market to the UK and ultimately did succeed in selling to Australia (who had considered TSR2)....but neither the US nor anyone else had anything quite like the Arrow to sell instead, nor did they need such. And that was the point. The Arrow was too tailormade to be marketable...thus we were going it alone, and we couldn't afford it!
@@StudeSteve62 FYI, Australia purchased Mirage III i.e. French F-106 like solution.
@@StudeSteve62 Note that US Navy canceled their F-111B and replaced it with F-14A.
F-14A replaced North American Aviation's A-5 Vigilante.
@@StudeSteve62 TSR2 has inferior range and speed when compared to UK's F-111E/F.
@@StudeSteve62 Arrow's range is very short when compared to F-111s.
12:13 most sinister laugh in history
BETRAYAL...!!!!!!!!
deif should have been put in prison for the rest of his sorry ass life
"To paint the Americans as the villains in this really requires that you believe in a conspiracy thesis."
Yeah, because the US has never done anything shady, and certainly not back then. Lmao
Never mention the mach 2.3, 50000+ ft ceiling, internal weapons bay arms carrying, semi autonomous flying, longer ranged on internal fuel, F106 that first flew Dec 1956 and entered service 1959. The Arrow was an interesting plane but the stuff it was supposed to do was not uncommon in existing aircraft, the switch to ICBM missile defense rendered it as useless as the Nike installations in the USA.
Doesn't mean they were culpable here. Runaway costs and a lack of marketability doomed the Arrow almost from the start. The engine, though, should have been continued...
@@kenm4678 Yes, and the RCAF wanted 106s after the Arrow was killed, too. F-101s were made cheaply available though and the government accepted those instead. They served well for over two decades, but no question the 106 was more advanced. Indeed it was the most Arrow-like of built American aircraft conceptually. On a technical and aerodynamic level the closest equivalent was the F-4 Phantom. (And it is worth noting that either of those two types could have been fitted with the Iroquois, just as Sabres were fitted with the Orenda earlier...)
@@kenm4678 Note that US Navy (USA's second airforce service) has the following projects in the 1950s
1.North American Aviation's A-5 Vigilante with its 1st flight in August 1958. Reached Mach 2.0. Part of Boeing.
2. Vought's XF8U-3 Crusader III with its 1st flight in June 1958. Reached Mach 2.39. XF8U-3 superior over F-4 Phantom II in dogfight role. Part of Triumph Aerostructures.
3. McDonnell Douglas' F-4 Phantom II with its 1st flight in May 1958. Reached Mach 2.23. Dual-purpose strike and interceptor. Part of Boeing.
@@valenrn8657 Yup, my point is that the Arrow was not as advanced as nostalgia makes it seem.
Build the super arrow
Politicians should never be involved in the military needs of a country. It was the best of its time, (Bar none), and arguably still is. We made a mistake and the politicians killed it and made it a base idea for the MIG- 25.
They have some things wrong. I love the arrow
4 a substandard jet and an un proven missiles system
While investment in a Canadian military jet is foolish at this point given the U.S. struggles with the cost let alone Canada (along with the cost of recreating Orenda a state of the art engine organization), we should be supporting what we are known for in aviation. Top quality STOL bush planes and water bombers. There are businesses retrofitting twin otters....why not have new ones available? Canadair water bombers are still flying as well....I think California and Australia are good markets for a reliable water bomber. Why sink billions into commuter jets.....a market that is a contest between governments to spend the most propping up their industry. Seems like a natural fit to me.
The Avro Arrow was an interceptor. That's all it was. It was very fast ! Too big to be a fight. It could have been used as a bomber.
Yes, it's a pretty common misconception that the Arrow was a "fighter"; its specific purpose was to catch and despatch incoming bombers, so it needed range, climb and dash speed, but not maneuvrability. That said, for such a large aircraft it apparently did have good handling, from what the four pilots who flew the Mk.1s had to say. It could indeed have been adapted into either a bomber or a reconnaissance platform, or, like the ancient B-52s still serving the USAF today, a cruise missile launch platform. All that though was secondary when the Arrow was being tested...and costs were skyrocketing. The project was doomed from an early point, really. The engine, though, should have been continued. It would have been a worldbeater...and a moneyspinner.
@@StudeSteve62 Arrow Mk1 failed on the long-range component.
@@StudeSteve62 Arrow's tested 3G is not a dogfighter.
And you’re to stupid to comment in complete sentences, eh.
History has shown that there definitely was a market! Two things shut it down, one deifdummy....and two, others had the money the and the vision to see how important this would be in the future. Shame we have another mindless pm at present...
A market? For the engine, absolutely. For the aircraft, only the USA or the USSR could have had any requirement for so large an interceptor; the Americans would never have bought a foreign product for that high profile a role, and well of course it wasn't going to be sold to Russia! The Arrow was a marvelous achievement, and one or more should most certainly have been kept for posterity. But it was doomed almost from the start. The engine, though, was very, very marketable (some planemakers were already trying to secure some), and that programme should absolutely have been continued on its own...
@@StudeSteve62 when you consider what the list of reasons were that the military gave regarding what they wanted, those havnt changed. So it wasn't just the usa or ussr who had any need for it, so did Canada. We were just leading the way at the time.
400 million then for cool plane or gun registry for a blllion what the hell do politicans think
Um 400 million in 1959 is a helluva lot more than a billion in today's money.
It's not the cancellation of the program.......... it's the destruction of the already built planes......... you dont save money by destroying what is already built......
because it's built.. it's money already spent....... that is the real disgrace.... you can get into arguements, fights....... but at least the 'asset' survives in tact.
shrugs
only canada can -go to space
Canadian Aircraft Industry has similar problem with Indonesian Aircraft Industry that time/those days ....Everybody know about it why?
A new thought came to me. What if Bombardier pressured gov't also ? Some sort of competition in that field. not just compete w USA. USA was gathering all German and ? scientist after war . etc I give more money to countries (gov't) than was ever spent on worth while projects here.
It was a political decision, not military. With the advent of ICBMs Canada did not want to be a target...my opinion, let the US be the target.
The US canceled the very similar f108 for just the same reason. They couldn't justify the expense for the outdated Interceptor concept.
US still fly B52s, Russia still fly Bear bombers. F35 today doesn’t fly as fast as Arrow nor go as far without refuelling.
The technology then still out performs many new aircraft and other nations maintain their old airframes.
Complete BS it was obsolete
The F-35's range is three times that of the CF-105.
John Diefenbaker Psychopathic tendency that destroyed the Arrow apparently lost his being elected after that. Good riddens.
Thumbs down for the critical deceptive slant. There is not any aircraft that can not be retrofitted with different armament for different applications like tank killing etc.
The Boeing B52 and the KC i35 were both built in the same time and are both still in use and been retrofitted as needed.
Diefenbaker was reelected in 1962, albeit with a minority government.
@@raynus1160 Good Riddens
@@sojournsojourntraveler1203
It's no secret the St. Laurent Liberals were going to cancel the program had they been reelected in 1957.
Either way, this bird was going to die.
@@raynus1160 I think everyone can thank the CIA / Deep State creeps
@@sojournsojourntraveler1203
That, or maybe the CF-105 was an overpriced, problematic turkey?
ace
The Arrow was the best interceptor in the air. As such, it would have been a threat to US builders in fighter sales to NATO partners. But as is mentioned in this vid, the ICBM was about obsolete the Arrow, long before its development costs were repaid. The US builders had the economy of scale to withstand the transition to missiles, and eventually cornered the market for fighters in the West. Had the Avro been continued, it would have been a tremendous burden on the Canadian taxpayer. And about destroying the prototypes and plans, this is standard procedure in the aviation and automobile industries.
Look at the similarities between the Arrow and the TRS2 in the UK, both world beaters but not US. Politicians have killed our future.
Stupid, TSR2, sorry
Agree about the US builders, Lockheed killed the SR53 which would have been the ideal interceptor for European NATO members against Russian bombers, the F104 contracts won with huge "brown paper envelopes" killed more husbands and sons than they would have Russian aircraft. The UK and Canada had a "missile" fixation as an excuse to kill off manned aircraft en-masse, has proved a huge mistake as did the US idea that the era of dog fighting was over. The Arrow along with the TSR2 rip the heart out when thinking of the all the engineering expertise that went into junk piles.
The ICBM didn’t make the Arrow obsolete as was later confirmed proof of concept by the USAF for ASAT with the F-15
A little known fact
(see link www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1958/1958%20-%200183.PDF
Flight and Aircraft Engineering, “Ironclads and Arrows” 14 February 1958) it explains some of the math involved. Jim Floyd finds that if an “anti” is launched from an aircraft flying at Mach 1.5 at 60,000 ft. its thrust need only be about one third of that required for ground launch weapons. Jim Floyd was working on an ABM system with Douglas to adapt a version of the Nike-Zeus system for use on the Arrow. The first stage of the ground launched version could be abandoned, with data link modifications to the remaining upper stage to accept targeting information from the Arrow’s onboard radar system. (R.L. Whitcomb)
@@tomlucas4890 Oh..you mean the similaries the Arrow and the TSR2 and North American XF-108 Rapier? All of them was cancelled due to rising cost. O by the way the TSR-2 was becoming heavier than expected and during test flight and was unable to meet design specifications.....in short it does not meet expectations.
Canada had a dream to produce the ultimate military aircraft and in every respect that dream was on track to succeed. Only a few years later the United States had a dream to put a man on the moon and their government stood steadfast throughout the pains of development until it exceeded. Their achievement exploded the United States forward in technology and economically. Canada's dream had it's legs cut off just as it was beginning to walk. To this day, the Canadian government and industries remains crippled and afraid to dream. Afraid to push the limits, afraid to invest, afraid to take the risks that all winners must take. Now, Canada has spent six decades cowering in the shadows, still afraid of having something else cut off.
The 'show' to which she alludes was 90% nonsense.
you would not want to be on the reciving end of 100 arrows
No worry about that since NONE ever went into service.
Canada now has a dream of Islam!
A nightmare of the worst kind. Time to fight back
Diefenbaker was a fool with no vision for the future. We Canadians had built the most technologically advanced aircraft the world had ever seen and it hadn't even met it's limitless potential. Diefenbaker was played like a fiddle by the USA and his sumbmissiveness to the US president ended in the cancellation and destruction of the Arrow. There's no doubt in my mind that the US was affraid of losing it aeronautical supremacy and eventual jobs to us here in Canada. We were at the pinnacle of the development of the Arrow and no doubt could have sold this amazing aircraft to all our NATO members allies. We could have built them all here and grow our country into a technologically advanced country and we could have been the ones to put man on the moon and more, but when Diefenbakers puppet strings were pulled and had the dream cancelled and totally destroyed he put thousands of Canadians out of work and allowed the USA to steal all our brilliant and talented people who then went on to work for NASA. Diefenbaker allowed a brain drain to take place. That day was called black Friday and it left Canada in the dark ever since relying on other countries like the USA for protection. Diefenbaker put us under the thumb of the USA and they have always treated us with disregard and disrespect. The USA knew Canada could have become a superpower and a nation full of technological advances and innovations. What a shame to have such ignorant leaders. The professor and scientist in this interview were no doubt told what to say to spread propaganda and downplay the potential of the amazing Avro Arrow
The USA was jealous
No, nor did they need to be. They had an Arrow-like project in development circa 1958, the F-108, but cancelled it as unnecessary...You could though have made that argument sbout an earlier Avro project, the C102 jet airliner, which the American media, at least, envied like crazy (and which gave the world the word "jetliner")...