Avro Arrow found!
- Thread starter anon1
- Start date
AVRO Canada was not owned by AV Roe in Britain.
It started out as "Victory Aircraft" which was a crown corporation of sorts that built Lancaster bombers for example in WW2 under license for the RCAF.
After the war, Victory Aircraft was bought by Hawker Siddeley, not AV Roe in the UK. (Though HS did also own AV Roe UK, AV Roe being its aviation division.)
AVRO Canada then operated as its own company, issuing publicly traded shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
The Arrow was designed, financed, and built entirely in Canada by Avro Canada.
My uncle worked at the plant and always said that 2 of them survived and are in storage/ private collection. 7-8 crashed in the lake while testing
some millionaire is probably keeping one of them as his private showpiece somewhere...and not telling anyone...maybe in his millionaire basement...
Perhaps it could have been re-purposed, but the fact remains that it was the fighter-Interceptor version of the XB-70 bomber. Both designed for a day before high altitude surface to air missiles,, where bombers were not flying nap of the earth but rather at extremely high altitudes and only high altitude high speed interceptors could stop them.
The Soviet's went ahead and built the MiG-25, but it was an interceptor without a purpose and a waste of money (not that I'm unhappy about that).
The Soviet's went ahead and built the MiG-25, but it was an interceptor without a purpose and a waste of money (not that I'm unhappy about that).
Honestly who gives a flying fuck.
Canada hasn't done jack since in that area, we still suck america's balls while they shit on us. We don't support our own technology development and manufacturing. So finding a model of an arrow - is just useless nostalgia.
Canada hasn't done jack since in that area, we still suck america's balls while they shit on us. We don't support our own technology development and manufacturing. So finding a model of an arrow - is just useless nostalgia.
The Avro Arrow was a twin engine jet designed to intercept the long range Soviet bombers as they entered Canadian airspace. The twin engines proved very insightful when Canada bought single engine US aircraft only to have almost half of them crash from engine failures. F-104 Starfighter was a missile with fins. While the F-104 set a speed performances it was ill suited for combat because of limited maneuverability and fared poorly when matched against soviet counterparts. It was like using a race car to fight in a tank battle - fast but not effective.
A comparison of these aircraft including the 'Widow maker' is here- link: http://va3kgb.ve3kbr.com/cf105/specifications.htm
It is also curious with your assertion that Avro was renowned at making shit that US contractors were lined up to take Avro engineers to head key roles in the NASA program. Project Manager - Mercury & Gemini Programs, Chief Engineering Designer of the Lunar Landing Module, Flight Director, Gemini and Apollo Programs were among many of the Avro designers of 'shit' that found themselves in NASA as the Avro Arrow was cancelled.
As for the Avro Arrow itself - it had many firsts now common in modern jets:
The CF-105 Avro Arrow was:
1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more).
2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine.
3) First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory.
4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance.
5) First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance.
6) First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c.
7) First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this.
8) First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground.
9) First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain.
10) First high wing jet fighter that made the entire upper surface a lifting body. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., MiG-29, MiG 25 and others certainly used that idea.
11) First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now.
12) First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines).
13) First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow. The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe.
14) Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine.
15) Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones).
16) Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing.
17) Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that.
18) Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really)
19) Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role. The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.)
20) First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that.
21) First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components.
22) First oxygen-injection re-light system.
23) First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design.
24) First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine.
25) First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine.
26) First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition.
27) First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!)
If it was a shit design, too bad the USA didn't let us sell it to the Soviets instead of having everything torched and taking our engineers all with the support of the Conservative government at the time.
It was perfect storm of circumstances that killed the Arrow.
The US Defense Policy is not that they must be the best or the most dominant, but rather "second to none".
Not second to the soviets, the Brits, the French or the crazy kids up north. SECOND TO NONE- friend or foe.
In a very, very tense point in the Cold war and with all of the espionage scandals (three or four times a year a Brit cabinet minister being compromised by russian spies and honey pots) it was reasonable for the US to suspect we could/would be compromised and all the secrets and innovations then becoming the domain of the famous Russian inventor Regus Patoff ( Reg. U.S. Pat. Off.).
We were that smart and that good, and were victims of our own success.
Once the plane was killed, its no surprise that the US aerospace industry recruited all of the staff to come south and many into NASA.
The US seldom buys an aircraft (rifle, tank, helicopter) built by another nation. The UK Harrier and some jet in 40's from the UK were two exceptions that come to mind.
Squad51
The US Defense Policy is not that they must be the best or the most dominant, but rather "second to none".
Not second to the soviets, the Brits, the French or the crazy kids up north. SECOND TO NONE- friend or foe.
In a very, very tense point in the Cold war and with all of the espionage scandals (three or four times a year a Brit cabinet minister being compromised by russian spies and honey pots) it was reasonable for the US to suspect we could/would be compromised and all the secrets and innovations then becoming the domain of the famous Russian inventor Regus Patoff ( Reg. U.S. Pat. Off.).
We were that smart and that good, and were victims of our own success.
Once the plane was killed, its no surprise that the US aerospace industry recruited all of the staff to come south and many into NASA.
The US seldom buys an aircraft (rifle, tank, helicopter) built by another nation. The UK Harrier and some jet in 40's from the UK were two exceptions that come to mind.
Squad51
I lay the demise of the Arrow squarely at the feet of one man.
JOHN DIEFENBAKER.
They didn't bury him deep enough or soon enough as far as I'm concerned. I've never voted for the Conservatives in my life (Federally) largely because of it. Even though I was not alive when the Arrow was born, I've never forgiven the conservatives for that decision ever since I became aware of the Arrow as teenager. I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote tory in any federal election because of the Arrow. (Mind you, it's been easy with the leaders the conservatives have run over the years, especially Harper.)
I think Diefenbaker was a small thinker, from a small town and he dreamed small. He was a farmer at heart and was a "populist" who despised "elites" before the terms were even coined in politics.
The Arrow represented everything Deifenbaker hated and it gave him great pleasure to drive a spike through its heart. I'm sure that the Americans weren't pleased about those kids up north, but it wasn't the first time and it would definitely not be the last time. So I'm not so sure that American concern factored into Diefenbaker's decision. In fact, Diefenbaker was a well known Anti- Americanite who often spoke out against American influence in Canadian politics and wanted to increase ties with Britain.
When it came to the Arrow, Diefenbaker, being the hick that he was, did not even understand what he had in his hands. He saw it as more central Canada first at the expense of the good farmers of Western Canada and the fishermen of the east coast. I think he viewed Canada from his upbringing in farm country in Saskatchewan. Fighter jets? Engineering? High tech? Aviation Industry? He didn't have a clue what any of those words meant. Diefenbaker was not a dreamer. He was a very simple man, with a very simple outlook on life. The Arrow and Avro Canada? He didn't understand what it meant to be on the cutting edge of aviation technology. And because he didn't understand it, and because he couldn't dream it, and because it scared him, he lashed out at it like a child. He shut it down because it brought Canada back to a level that he was comfortable with and to stick to those Central Canadian Toronto bastards.
I do not believe for one minute that if the liberals had retained power that they would have killed the Arrow. And maybe that was another reason that Diefenbaker hated the Arrow so much. It was after all a project started by the Liberals under Louis St Laurent and it was a successful project. Diefenbaker despised all things liberal and the Arrow was just another reminder of that. He was a small man living in a small world and the Arrow took big thinking and reaching for the stars.
I'm convinced, 100 percent, that the cancelation of the Arrow was entirely Diefenbaker's decision.
Here we are 60 years later and the Arrow still occupies a place in the Canadian persona. I'm hard pressed to think about too many other things from the 1950's Canada that still causes an emotional reaction in Canadians like the Arrow.
JOHN DIEFENBAKER.
They didn't bury him deep enough or soon enough as far as I'm concerned. I've never voted for the Conservatives in my life (Federally) largely because of it. Even though I was not alive when the Arrow was born, I've never forgiven the conservatives for that decision ever since I became aware of the Arrow as teenager. I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote tory in any federal election because of the Arrow. (Mind you, it's been easy with the leaders the conservatives have run over the years, especially Harper.)
I think Diefenbaker was a small thinker, from a small town and he dreamed small. He was a farmer at heart and was a "populist" who despised "elites" before the terms were even coined in politics.
The Arrow represented everything Deifenbaker hated and it gave him great pleasure to drive a spike through its heart. I'm sure that the Americans weren't pleased about those kids up north, but it wasn't the first time and it would definitely not be the last time. So I'm not so sure that American concern factored into Diefenbaker's decision. In fact, Diefenbaker was a well known Anti- Americanite who often spoke out against American influence in Canadian politics and wanted to increase ties with Britain.
When it came to the Arrow, Diefenbaker, being the hick that he was, did not even understand what he had in his hands. He saw it as more central Canada first at the expense of the good farmers of Western Canada and the fishermen of the east coast. I think he viewed Canada from his upbringing in farm country in Saskatchewan. Fighter jets? Engineering? High tech? Aviation Industry? He didn't have a clue what any of those words meant. Diefenbaker was not a dreamer. He was a very simple man, with a very simple outlook on life. The Arrow and Avro Canada? He didn't understand what it meant to be on the cutting edge of aviation technology. And because he didn't understand it, and because he couldn't dream it, and because it scared him, he lashed out at it like a child. He shut it down because it brought Canada back to a level that he was comfortable with and to stick to those Central Canadian Toronto bastards.
I do not believe for one minute that if the liberals had retained power that they would have killed the Arrow. And maybe that was another reason that Diefenbaker hated the Arrow so much. It was after all a project started by the Liberals under Louis St Laurent and it was a successful project. Diefenbaker despised all things liberal and the Arrow was just another reminder of that. He was a small man living in a small world and the Arrow took big thinking and reaching for the stars.
I'm convinced, 100 percent, that the cancelation of the Arrow was entirely Diefenbaker's decision.
Here we are 60 years later and the Arrow still occupies a place in the Canadian persona. I'm hard pressed to think about too many other things from the 1950's Canada that still causes an emotional reaction in Canadians like the Arrow.
That really was my point... I listed every single aircraft (above which you quoted)
Avro Canada was not able to get a single decent plane off the ground
The Canuck was the ONLY design that worked, and since it was so feeble why does everyone think for a second the Arrow would somehow be the "best"?
Canuck was not even a supersonic jet at same time the Starfighter sets world speed records
BTW Avro Canada was legally a Canadian company but most of the upper echelon (ownership & management) was imported from UK & Avro Canada was always a subsidiary of parent company
Hawker Siddeley (UK) totally controlled them
Most of Avro Canada's money came from non-airplane related revenues after they diversified and got into mining, steel, railways, etc
You seem to have missed the fact that the Dept of Defence was against the entire Avro experiment from the get go
He was not even the PM when Avro first started up against the government's wishes, so if you insist the PM killed the Arrow then lay that blame on Louis St Larant
5 MK1 Arrows flew in some capacity as tests
2 MK2 Arrows were in production
Unless you are counting proof of concept or prototypes there never were 7+ Arrows ever
Most of the things you listed are on the DRAWING BOARD and never made it into production
The CF104 was alot further along in design and after being scrapped most of its improvements were retro fitted onto the the CF100 Canuck
The one thing I will give you credit for is engines BUT I will emphasize that Avro had diversified into 2 totally separate divisions at the time
So trying to claim any of those achievements as being "Avro airplanes" is ludicrous
They were ALL by Orenda Engines Ltd
And that my friend is where the great engineers who went to US came from. Under Avro umbrella sure. But nothing to do with their planes.
Google it
Beyond that it is no different than if I started listing some great ideas for a new plane I just imagined
It only exists in my imagination
Just like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster
That's not what you posted before. You're changing your tune now that you've done a little googling. Before you said that it was owned by Avro in the UK. Not correct. Pretty much all of which you posted is nonsense, but it fits with your troll history on this board.
AVRO Canada was its own company. It was publically traded, so anyone could buy shares in it.
Executives came from all over the world. Canada is after all a nation of immigrants.
But during the development of the Arrow, Fred Smye was from Hamilton Ontario, Crawford Gordon was Canadian, James Floyd, head of Engineering was indeed British, but he still lives in Etobicoke. And he's 103 years old! The lead engineer, James Chamberlain who went on to lead Mercury at Nasa was born in Canada. The head test pilot Jan Zurakoski was from Poland and he lived most of his life in Toronto.
Is your last name Diefenbaker, or are you a self-loathing Canadian ? Starfighter was a shit combat craft and never came close to setting the parameters the RCAF set for the Arrow. As far as flying junk ..
"The test flights, limited to "proof-of-concept" and assessing flight characteristics, revealed no serious design faults. The CF-105 demonstrated excellent handling throughout the flight envelope, a large part due to the natural qualities of the delta-wing, but responsibility can also be attributed to the Arrow's Stability Augmentation System. The aircraft went supersonic on its third flight and, on the seventh, broke 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m) while climbing. A top speed of Mach 1.98 was achieved, and this was not at the limits of its performance.
If you Googled the facts - your non-factual hate bias towards the Avro Arrow is pure bullshit. It is sad that the Arrow was torched but pathetic to hear revisionist dogshit that demeans the aircraft, the pioneering innovations used in other aircraft and the engineers who designed it.
Let's look at your US golden boy the F-104 Starfighter a little more closely:
"The F-104 didn't have much of a radar and couldn't (at the time) carry a radar-guided missile. If the Soviet bombers had showed up on a cloudy day the F-104 would have had a tough time. ADC really wanted an "all weather" interceptor like the F-106.
OK, so it's not a great interceptor. Let's send them to Vietnam, where they can do their primary job as air superiority fighters.
The Starfighter's record in Vietnam was less than impressive. One strayed into Chinese airspace and got shot down by a MiG-19 (Shenyang J-6 actually but who cares). Two others ran into each other while looking for it. MiGs 3 Starfighters 0. Two others were shot down by anti aircraft fire while performing Close Air Support. F-104s did about as well at Close Air Support as you would expect. It was much too fast and it couldn't carry much air to ground ordnance.
Five others were shot down by surface-to-air missiles or AAA and four others just crashed. That brings the total to fourteen losses for not a whole lot accomplished. Less than 300 Starfighters were ever in USAF service and by 1969 the remainder were relegated to the Air National Guard."
" Canada needed something to defend their airspace after the Avro Arrow was cancelled and they purchased a mix of F-101s and F-104s for the job.
Soon after these countries started flying Starfighters they noticed that they crashed - a lot. West Germany had a particularly high loss rate, partly from attempting to use the F-104 as a low-level strike aircraft. The West Germans lost about 30% of their F-104s over the years, killing 110 pilots in the process. German nicknames for the aircraft include "Flying Coffin", "Widowmaker" and "Ground Nail (Tent Peg)". If you wanted an F-104, the joke went, just buy a piece of land and wait. Not to be outdone, Canada lost 110 of their 235 CF-104s. The RCAF sometimes called it the "Lawn Dart" or the "Aluminum Death Tube"
So if the Avro Arrow was shit ... just how the fuck can you look at the F-104 and come to any conclusion that it was anything other than a fast flying death sentence ?
The above came from "The not quite right stuff - F-104 Starfighter" link: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/2/2/1360449/-The-not-quite-right-stuff-F-104-Starfighter
Clearly you can not read, but there were two very distinct paragraphs in initial post
One was bashing Avro UK as being a world leader
The other stated (very clearly) that Avro Canada never ever built jack shit
Here I can re-quote it for your adhd
Note the section about *WE* which refers to Canada
Absolutely false
Hawker Siddley (as stated above) is UK and they ran the show
Period
A test pilot is not an engineer (I doubt any pilot could ever build a plane)
Chamberlain spent more time in the UK (& US actually) than he did in Canada
But I will score that as a point anyways
The Starfighter was never the best plane in the world
I merely pointed out it spanked the Arrow (& Canuck)
We both know the US workhorse had not actually taken flight yet
All this reads like a bunch of geezers reliving a highschool hockey game they should have won.
You buy used subs from the U.K. And can't deliver a 737 competitor, you shouldn't be in the fighter jet game, your pockets are not deep enough.
You buy used subs from the U.K. And can't deliver a 737 competitor, you shouldn't be in the fighter jet game, your pockets are not deep enough.
Similar threads
