The Avro Arrow wasn’t that great
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- nationalpost.c...
Subscribe / nationalp. .
While certainly an impressive piece of hardware, it was far from the magical super plane of Canadian myth.
Everything Should Be Better: From canned food donations to the lottery, @TristinHopper takes aim at all the pointless and wasteful things we do out of laziness, ignorance or worse.
nationalpost.c...
Produced by John Richardson and Tristin Hopper
Edit & Photo illustration: John Richardson
#ShouldBeBetter
![ILLSLICK - WINTER IS COMING [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dwTMeM1zIhQ/mqdefault.jpg)
1. Being that all the weapons were stowed in a removable weapons pod, the aircraft could have been configered, with different weapons packs for a bomber, ECM, Reconnaissance.
2. The combination of long range and high speed was NOT matched in the 1960s.
3. The aircraft was already paid for, by scrapping it, we simply got NOTHING for all the money spent.
4. The Iroquois engine was still state of the art 15 years later, we could have sold them
5. The Arrow's fly by wire system was state of the art for 25 years later, this could have been incorporated into other aircraft as well.
6. Once the aircraft was in squadron service, other nations would be far more inclined to buy it.
There were orders placed by another country for arrows after production. But after Sputnik everything was cancelled.
@@tree63rox
The only interested party other than the RCAF was the RAF. They withdrew all interest in the program in January 1959, without ever placing an order.
@@raynus1160 really? only after the canadian government kill the Arrow and the British still wanted at least two Arrows for testing! look it up! Here is what Sir Thomas Pike’s organization had to say about the Arrow Mk2 as it stood at the time.”When we were at C.F.E. (RAF Fighter Establishment) and Bomber Command, they both expressed a great desire to get their hands on a quantity of Arrows, and C.F.E. in fact said that they believed they could adequately defend the United Kingdom with 200 Arrows, and they knew of nothing else that would be as good. (Floyd: strictly confidential memo to Avro Canada President J.L. plant: “The Arrow Controversy”, 7 November, 1958.)
Why would anyone want to believe anything coming out of the USA government or their aircraft manufactures? They tell lies as a way of life
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
Raynus You said “I have 'Cold War Tech War' by Whitcomb”
I said “You have 'Cold War Tech War' by Whitcomb? So you have known all along my info was right! WOW troll on. Now get R.L. Whitcomb's Book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation. So you tell Lies, doubletalk, doublespeak, gas-lighting... yup, this is Raynus being an anus you're just a sore loser!”
@@jim100ab9
All your witless tripe aside, no 3rd party ever placed an order for the CF-105.
@@raynus1160 Really go back and read your book this time put on your glasses it's there plan and day! And where did you get this from "no 3rd party ever placed an order for the CF-105?" LOL I never said that your blowing smoke ! LOL The third party was talking about the Arrows landing with them saying it was unstable only you could get that wrong or so mixed up!
Raynus You said “I have 'Cold War Tech War' by Whitcomb”
I said “You have 'Cold War Tech War' by Whitcomb? So you have known all along my info was right! WOW troll on. Now get R.L. Whitcomb's Book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation. So you tell Lies, doubletalk, doublespeak, gas-lighting... yup, this is Raynus being an anus you're just a sore loser!”
I wish they would have continued with the the CF-105, and I'm not even Canadian.
@Lucas Shahan I don't know why, it's just a bit of common sense. That's what my statement was. And I don't know you, so you see, I don't like you. Nothing personal.
the cf 105 wasnt up to the task of keeping up or intercepting the new vulcan backfire bomber design of the russians so they had to get a new plane to be able to intercept that threat
@@0623kaboom The Backfire (TU-22M2, the first production version, max speed Mach 1.65, no Backfire can go faster than Mach 1.88) bomber came 15 years after the Arrow. To expect that the original design of the Arrow could keep up with a design 15 years newer is a bit much, however note that the Arrow prototype with the lower output J-75 engines went Mach 1.92. However, if the Arrow had come into existence, there very definitely could have been a development program to improve the plane over time. If using an Arrow, as it was in the late 1950s, and adding in 15 years of upgrades and improvements (engines (from the F-15, F-14, for example), electronics/radar/fire control system, and missiles (like the Phoenix, Sparrow, Sidewinder, or Skyflash), I don't think the upgraded Arrow (with either developed Iroquois engines, or the ones I called out above, probably a Mach 2.5+ top speed)would have had much difficulty with the Backfire, or even the Blackjack (TU-160, Mach 2.05), for that matter. My own personal opinion is that it could have been as effeective as the F-15 Eagle, both the F-15C/D air to air version, or the F-15E Strike Eagle.
I really don't see the CF-105, if it had come into existence, needing to shoot down a Vulcan, but for the record, the Vulcan was a subsonic bomber, so the CF-105 would have had no more difficulty shooting it down than shooting down a Russian Bear or Badger, or something like a B-52I do in fact, think the CF-105 would have been better able to deal with the incoming bombers, any of them, than the CF-101 Voodoos would have, or the Bomarc missiles, both of which were bought to make up for the CF-105 program cancellation.
None of those other planes, by comparison, could pull 2G on a turn without losing altitude and speed. Only the CF-105 could at that time
F-106 can do it.
@@valenrn8657 You need to get some up to date books!
The F-106 would realistically be roughly capable of about a Mach 1.5 combat speed and 1.2G at 50,000 ft.
Cold War Tech War is the best you can get.
@@jim100ab9 F-106A's flight manual is available for download.
Date: October 1959, for 77,000 pounds at 55,000 feet and Mach 1.713 (Calibrated Airspeed 470 kts) , F-106A can do 3.1G load.
F-106's low 3G capability at 55,000 feet is between 450 kts and 470 kts hence it's a narrower speed range when compared to F-15E's.
F-106's low 4G capability at 45,000 feet is between 325 kts to 580 kts.
F-106's airframe is designed for 7G + safety margin. Sea level to 30000 ft, F-106A can reach 7G from 350 kts.
F-106's single-engine design is cheap and designed for a war of attrition.
@@valenrn8657 Wrong you are trying to prove the experts wrong! now that's funny. BTW you do know that everything about the F-106 was a lie right!
As an illustration of this seemingly insignificant .8G difference between the US and Canadian rating systems, 1.2G requires an angle of bank of only 15 degrees while a 2G requires a full 60 degrees of bank! Obviously, there is an enormous difference in the lift (and therefore thrust) required to maintain altitude between these “bomber rated” and “fighter rated” turns.
The F-106 would realistically be roughly capable of about a Mach 1.5 combat speed at 1.2G at 50,000 ft., a far cry from the Avro specification for a Mach 1.5 combat speed at 2G at 50,000 ft without losing energy. By the fall of 1958 Avro was projecting a Mach 1.8 combat speed at 2G at 60,000 ft. exceptional even today (PR 15 and Floyd’s testimony.)
@@jim100ab9 Read the F-106A flight manual.
Whenever I want to see some strong anti-Canadian story, possibly written by a convicted felon, I know that the National Post is the place to go.
The guy clearly stated that Canada should have built the CF-105 anyways, that is not Anti-Canadian. I do not pay attention to the National Post, so I do not know about the alleged convicted felons that it employs. The F4 Phantom was being designed at the same time, had a similar design, could hit Mach 2, but movies like the Arrow tend to avoid these realities and pretends that nobody else had given these things a thought.
Of course, it's owned by Chatham Asset Management, a New Jersey hedge fund. How the hell are Americans allowed to own a Canadian media outlet?
@@jrus690 Postmedia's principal owners are American. I don't know how this is legal but the majority owner is Chatham Asset Management, a New Jersey hedge fund.
100%
Actually, stating and facing the truth is very Canadian.
“SMALL COUNTRY LIKE CANADA”
Ya were the second largest
He means population and economy, not landmass.
with what 25-30 million people in it at the time?
to: @@kennethkor9067 >> I do not give a shit of what he means !!!!
Funny how statics say its better than the f-35..speed,range,price
Sweden had a population of 7.5 million in 1960. Canada was more than 3 times the size of Sweden, which had a very successful national fighter program, to this day. So this argument that we were too small is incredibly short-sighted.
The Arrow was far, far superior to the British Lightning and anything America (including the Delta Dagger) did before the advent of their 4th generation fighters in the 1970s (F15, F16 and F18). The US-made Delta Dagger was a piece of crap, it was nearly twice as slow as the Arrow, which made it a horrible interceptor and an unfit choice for a country our size. It was also better than the Saab Drakken, which was also a lot slower (1,900kmh vs 2,450kmh for the Arrow). The Drakken was a good plane for Sweden, but the Arrow was even better!
Only the French Mirage, which was clearly the best fighter of its time, was as good, and the Mirage's design was partially inspired by the Arrow.
We ended up buying from the US the F104 Starfighter, which was an inferior plane, and had to scrap the Arrow program due to the bullying of our southern neighbour, who to their credit was fighting on behalf of its domestic military industrial complex. This is a stain that will remain forever on Dief's record.
The National Post is a globalist shill rag, they're using neoliberal talking points to badmouth a great industrial and technological achievement, and are here undermining our national industry and sovereignty.
Canadians lost a lot by not building their own plane, jobs, industries, and technologies. Avro Arrow combined range with speed, the F-4 Phantom could never fly the great distances the Arrow could. Canada didn't just loose a good plane it lost a lot of other things too.
The Arrow had lousy range.
nwtruckerll -- Your right the Arrow was a gas guzzler, but it could have had in flight refueling and/or drop tanks to extend the range.
The reasons that Diefenbaker gave for killing the Arrow was meaningless, because is didn't address the loss of jobs, loss of technologies, and the future business and industries. Classic politician/government BS. They are not telling you the real reasons, because there is a Free Mason cabal that controls Canada and all the other countries in the world, and they decide what happens.
From my understanding, we received the rights to build F-104s and the 'status' of having nuclear weapons- bomarks(?). In exchange for technology swaps. No one was going to buy the Arrow in sufficient numbers to make it viable anyways. Political suicide for the U.S. to buy it when they have their own aerospace industry to support. the F-104 made for 'new jobs' that we weren't going to get via the Arrow. Seems Def. made the right decision from what I can see.
"Canadians lost a lot by not building their own plane, jobs, industries, and technologies"
Canada is the 3rd largest nation in aerospace in terms of aircraft delivered, and 5th largest in terms of cash due to export. I think you'll find it difficult to point to any lasting effect the Arrow had.
"Avro Arrow combined range"
The Arrow had rather poor range, especially for a country the size of Canada.
"the F-4 Phantom could never fly the great distances the Arrow could"
Combat range for the F-4 was 680 km, and ferry range was 2,700 km.
The Arrow II had a combat range of 660 km, and a ferry range of 2,300 km.
The Arrow I was shorter, at 483 km.
The F-101B had a combat range of 2,450 km and a ferry range of 3,500 km.
So, yes, the F-4 could fly the "great distances the Arrow could". And it is clear why the F-101 was selected, as it could fly across major portions of Canada.
Even with a 500 gal drop tank, the Mk 2 Arrow had a combat radius of less than 300 miles. The Arrow was not designed for A2A refueling.
The Avro Arrow was ahead of it's time , in it's day , and regardless of how you feel about it.....you will never change the facts about it's ingenuity , which are in use today!!!!
still is . it's design parameters have not been met to date not even the f35 matches the arrow .... the closest plane was the f23 and it was scrapped ... the f22 falls short the f18 and the f16 under perform ...
@@0623kaboom it’s almost like raw speed wasn’t that important…
@@Justanotherconsumer on an interceptor raw speed is amongst the most important features.
How so?
Its still in use. Know as Tejas and Rafael. They serve today
It was never flight-tested with the much more powerful engines specifically designed to power it!
The Orenda Engine design powered the Concorde rumour has it. Too bad Dief believed Ike when he said Bomarks were the way to go.
True, but even with the engines it had, it was better than anyone could have imagined.
Yup, with Orenda Iroquois engines, it would've broken every speed record in the book.
With Orenda Engines it would have been out of gas as soon as it got to speed and altitude.
To be sure, nostalgia and a patriotic sense of pride can flavour perceptions of things that have passed into the mists of history...but the assertions in this video are so laughably mistaken I literally laughed out loud. The National Post, eh? What an embarrassing and telling, presentation.
The Avro Company was the first to produce a working passenger jet ahead of Boeing. When the Canadian Government had Avro design the Arrow the passenger jet and its production were put on hold as the resources of the Avro company could not facilitate both projects. When the Avro Arrow was cancelled we not only lost the arrow but potential to be a leading manufacturer of passenger jets as the passenger jets were put on the backburner and never developed because the arrow took priority.
The first operational passenger jet wasn't a Boeing, it was the de Havilland Comet.
@@AvroBellow th-cam.com/video/7xzT9az21bE/w-d-xo.html
He didn't say first, he said "ahead of Boeing." I don't know if that's true though as I have not done my research. But that would be quite fascinating if true.
Comprehension and ignorance go hand in hand. BOEING WAS NOT EVEN IN THE GAME. The French plane flew two days before the Avro Airliner. The Airliner flew for hours while the French plane only flew a few minutes. If I remember correctly it lifted off the runway then landed immediately. The Air Avro airliner made the first international flight. Delta or Amercian air lines were interested in buying it, Howard HUGHES took the plane for a test flight and was interested BUT the Canadian DOT refused to give the plane an air worthy certificate because TWA aka AIR CANADA told the dot not to certify the plane because they chickened out of buying it even though the plane was built to their specifications. No certificate ment😢 that buyers were worried about buying a plane that it's own country would not certify. SICK!
We were never going to be a leading producer of passenger jets.
The Jetliner had poor speed, poor range, and poor payload capacity. It would actually be slower than planes like the Lockheed Constellation and DC-6 because it would need to stop for fuel more often.
We also lacked the industrial capacity. Even DeHavilland had tons of unfilled orders for the Comet. Pan Am wanted them but couldn’t get them.
The point is not that it was the greatest but it was Canadian and would have been a great beginning ! Imagine where that Jet and Company could be today .
It’s time we build a future for Canadians that will protect and give Young Canadians a great future and to know we can protect our own citizens would make all of us proud .
Yup… A Canadian CONservative rag trying to kneecap the pride of Canadian aerospace ingenuity. The whole article misses the point that the effort put into developing the Arrow (and the Iroquois engine), put Canadian aerospace industry at the forefront of the global industry.
Imagine what could have happened with future aircraft/engine designs that would have been born from the Arrow, had it been allowed to prove its capabilities? We'll never know because Canadian CONservatives are, if anything, devoutly _anti-Canadian_ - their gauze is firmly planted on our southern neighbour as they longingly wish to turn Canada into the 51st state.
CONservatives would sell this country out to the lowest bidder if they could, so long as they could keep the lions share of the profit.
There are so many holes in this guys observations, it's hard to know where to start.
Jager's 4xFORD lMAO everyone that’s trying to down play the arrow on this video are complete asses
Why? Because the actual history doesn't fit some magical fantasy plane that we can pretend was amazing to feel good about ourselves?
The guy in the video gave a super simple and quick overview, but he's fundamentally right about everything. The plane never finished testing, but people love to pull bullshit numbers out of their ass about all the things the Arrow was oh so totally going do one day somehow over the rainbow. Look at similar planes from the time. Go wikipedia the Saab Draken and the Delta Dagger and Delta Dart. Look at their specs down the page. Then look at the Arrow's.
KennethKor honestly you are wrong.... tbh I don’t care... you are late, and delusional...
KennethKor what do you mean “feel good about ourselves” lmao I’m not even Canadain and I realize it’s true potential and worth tbh no one claimed it to be a magical plane but it was better than the average plane IMO and planes today.... tbh it fit THE CANADAIN NICHE and still does... you are obliviously corrupt in the brain area so I’ll leave your Unknowledgeable a*s alone.
Dude, it's amazing how all of you just dodge the actual recorded facts about this plane and others like. You ignore the complex history of things, you ignore the actual performance and specifications of the Arrow and other aircraft of its time, and make it seem amazing.
Hell, I'll even agree that it was "better than average" for its time and it's purpose, but it doesn't hold a candle to anything today. Seriously...just go look up how fighter and interceptor doctrine work today. Look up the capabilities of modern fighters. Honestly, just let yourself absorb that information for a moment and ask yourself if this plane was really that great.
As for the Canadian niche...the Canadian niche is in part having generally useful, cost-effective fighters that can do everything we need. I can't believe how many times I have to repeat that the Arrow was focused on one thing, which made it overly expensive for what it could do, and left us hanging when it came to mission profiles other than "fly at those bombers and fire a nuclear tipped rocket and leave". Again, that was what it was for, and that purpose wasn't one worth focusing on by the 60s.
Insults won't change history.
I've got news for you, the Arrow was WELL ahead of it's time. I'm not sure the amount of crack you had to smoke before doing this, but it must have been a lot. And Canada isn't exactly small. Having a interceptor that could reach Northern Canada is no time would have been a massive advantage. And I'm not sure if you noticed, but Russia still regularly flies TU-95s and so on over the Artic and along Canadas boarder. They've been doing it ever since the Arrow was an idea in someone's head and haven't stopped since.
The plane was intentionally cancelled before number 6 could fly with the Orenda engine. That engine was much more powerful than the Pratt and Whitney engine that was put in versions 1-5 and would have likely shattered many records of the time. Tristin left that out. It had many other innovations as well. Also - the Americans convinced Diefenbaker that jets were passe and missiles were the future - here we are 75 years still using jets. This does not even take into consideration what might have evolved from the wonderful team of engineers that were brought together for this project. Short-sighted move.
Wasn't that great *...says the ignorants xD*
_(You know what isn't great? The National Post.)_
I think this guy needs to do more research.
No, you need to do more research e.g. USN's North American A-5 Vigilante says Hi. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-5_Vigilante
Both A-5 and Arrow Mk1 has the same first flight 1958 year.
The Arrow was still very much in the test stage when it was cancelled having only 50 or so test flights. If you were to do more research it is will know that the arrow was capable of mach 2.5+ with the new development or the new turbines being built for it plus 70000+ servive ceiling. It was nerver developed as a dogfighter just an interceptor that if continued in development would have probably have been one of the best. BTW the f35 is garbage. A f16 could fly circles around it and stealth is already yesterdays news.
Says who? A keyboard warrior with no knowledge of air combat? Do you really believe all of these nations that have bought the F-35 are more corrupt than Canada? Japan, South Korea, Australia, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Israel... Germany recently announced they will be buying F-35As to replace their old Tornadoes...
Ron Clark you seem desperate in this argument lmao.
Ron Clark you: *mentions f35 the almighty god of me in hopes to bring up its status in the argument* 💀
For starters, don't use the RCAF logo behind you when you're shitting on the RCAF
@LarryTheRoleplayerTM
lol
564 thumbs down, and 101 clicks from National Post employees...
As a 10 year old living on the southern shore of Lake Ontario where the Arrow started its westerly turn during test flights I was devastated when it was cancelled. I became a student of the Arrow and its short history, as a young man and have read virtually all the books on the subject. Sadly, some of them seem to be written by petulant ultra nationalists who happen to be Canadian. There are a few books that accurately document the major problems with the Arrow, technically, chronologically and most sadly, the extensive Soviet infiltration of the project. In the end, the ridiculous lack of planning relating to the landing gear put the entire wing design into a cost prohibitive corner and the Arrow was cancelled.
Youd guess why it was canceled
The Arrow was cancelled because the Amercians didn't want to be shown up by Canada. Since the Conservative Party of Canada is basically the Canadian arm of the US government, Diefenbaker not only cancelled the Arrow but signed the NORAD agreement, giving the USA control of the RCAF, without even reading it.
I have purchased and read several books about the Arrow and your comment is the first time I ever heard about landing gear and wing problems. The most reliable book was written by some of the engineers that designed and built the bloody thing. There was an incident where one wheel ran off the runway on landing and damaged one landing gear. Of course when this happened the wing has to be checked for any damage. That was the result of soft ground next to the run way. All planes suffer damgage when they run off the runway. Hay buddy! Go back and reread your source and try to comprehend what your are reading!
The Arrow was still a prototype, that was still in the very early stages of development, with very few flight hours logged when it got cancelled. Heck, she never even flew with the Orenda Iroquois engines, which were far superior to the Pratts that they used for the test flights. Do you think that the Mark 1, would have been the pinnacle of this aircraft's potential? If it went into full production, I believe that the improvements on it would come very fast, and be quite spectacular!
A frequently touted response to any critique the Arrow's real world performance. It would've very likely performed better with the new engines and modifications, but it was just plainly not useful to bother with that. There were already other aircraft out there that exceed the range, matched or almost matched the speed, had lower cost, and had already been designed, manufactured and put into service. Speculating on how great the Arrow could've been when it's main task was becoming irrelevant is just kinda clinging to the myth. The plane hadn't been tested in a myriad of different ways yet, so I mean we could similarly suggest that many other doomed projects were on their way to greatness if only....
Orenda Iroquois has 25,600 lbf (114 kN) with afterburning.
Pratt & Whitney J75 scales up to 26,500 lbf (117.88 kN) via JT4A-29 or J75-P-19W variants.
F-108/B-70's General Electric YJ93 has 28,800 lbf (128 kN) with afterburner.
If the Mk 2 would've been the be-all-end-all airplane, only the Arrow Mk 1 would have been cancelled, not the whole Arrow programme. No plane ever met the promises of the brochure and came in at the advertised cost. Every number quoted for operational Arrows is optimistic and sometimes absurd.
The Arrow Mk 1 was over weight and under powered with the J-75 engines and the F-106 stripped down and with a specially tuned engine was only Mach 0.33 faster and did it at 40,500 feet. Now that's sad!
Rnl had to look up the numbers in the book Aircraft Engines of The World...your numbers are wrong again! the J-75 developed engine was 16,100 dry and 24,500 wet thrust. The Iroquois PS Mk2 for the Arrow and still in testing was 18,750 dry and 26,800 wet thrust. Please try harder to get your numbers right.. Adding the J-75 variants is just foolish as they came much later and have no reason to be compared to the PS-13 Mk2. That's like me showing you the PS-13 Mk 3 variant with 28,300 dry and 40,500 wet thrust. A full developed PS-13 Mk2 would have had 23,000 dry and 30,000 wet thrust. That's better then the PW F-100 for the F-15/F-16...the GE F-110 again for the F-15/F-16...and the GE F-404 for the F-18...
Canada a small country? Hahaha! That's how I know this guy is bull.
True however you still need a fast long range fighter/interceptor to cover almost 2 mill sq. miles of Canadian coastline.
You do know I was talking about our Northern coastline right? The F-35 has a top speed of Mach 1.6 on a good day and can only get past Mach one on afterburners. If you turn off the afterburners it slows down to under Mach 1 this is not super cruise. You are confusing the F-22 that can super cruse at about Mach 1.5 without afterburners with the F-35 that can't super cruse at all.
@@jim100ab9 The latest information available on the Air Force version of the F-35 reveals a remarkably short range (1 135 km of total operational autonomy, the equivalent of a 570 km combat radius) and a very limited (250 km maximum) super cruise capability.
Economy size is only as large as Koreas while Korea is technologically and industrially much more advanced and is now completing an F35 like stealth fighter.
@@whiteprivilege4469 its range is 2253km so rounded 1100km without external fuel tanks or mid air refueling but short range is almost completely negated by in-air refueling and no the shortest range of an F35 which is the US navies variant which doesnt need much fuel is 1000 miles rounded or 1600 km
typically if you're main argument for why the arrow wasnt that great was that it could'nt defend from missiles you have to remember that the arrow was desingend and began constuction before the age of missiles.
He addresses this in the video. That's what made it obsolete before it would have entered service. ICBMs changed the game and dedicated interceptors lost their purpose. Why buy a weapon that isn't suitable for the fight you're likely to face?
Bro didn’t even mention how absolutely crazy the Iroquois were and that the arrow it’s max speed achieved ~M1.9 was with the worse p&w J75. The production planes, with the iroquois engines would have let the arrow push Mach 2.5. And its not like these engines weren’t meeting expectations, they were actually surpassing initial targets and an arrow fitted with iroquois engines was planned to fly only a month or two after the program was cancelled
With a 300 NM combat radius. By the time it got up to speed it would have to turn around.
This fellow is dramatically under-informed. The engines designed for the Arrow were not fitted to the earlier test examples. The Iroquois engine made the entire performance issue a moot point.
he also missed that using the j75 engine the arrow had reached 95% of the air 7.3 spec ... and those engines weighed more and had less power ... even the engineers calculations were exceeded while using the j75's ...
The Arrow only had a 300 NM range with J75. It would be even worst with the Iroquois. It would have to head home by the time it got up to speed.
An interceptor is exactly what we need. the F35 can't catch a cold, let alone a soviet bomber.
Its ok, the russians are not planning on invading canada!!
And if they were, i reckon a blackjack or a bear would be easy pickings for most
terry waller
Basic Wing loading without body and vortex lift.
F-35A
Empty weight: 28,999 lb (Year 2015).
Wing area: 460 ft²
Wing loading: 63.04 lbs/ sq feet.
F-16C Block 52
Wing area: 300 ft²
Empty weight: 18,900 lb
Wing loading: 63 lbs/ sq feet.
F-35A's empty weight is 1.54X scaled from F-16C.
F-35A's wing area is 1.53X scaled from F-16C.
F-35A's 43000 lbf thrust is 1.50X scaled from F-16C's 28600 lbf.
There's a near straight 1.5X scaling between F16C to F-35A on basic wing loading, engine thrust and empty weight.
F-35A's wing area is influenced by weight growth and F-16C's empty weight wing loading target.
www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=5525&start=1335
F-35 vs EF2000 acceleration with F-35A beating EuroFighter in acceleration to mach 1.
>Blackjack
>Easy pickings.
Pffft...
You do understand the Tu-160 is a standoff heavy strike bomber with mach 2 capability right?
It's certainly not on the same level of vulnerable as the Tu-95.
Not that anyone actually routinely goes mach 2 except when bugging out or scrambling to intercept of course, it's just wasting fuel otherwise.
Rnl People talk about the blending of the fuselage and wing on aircraft such as the F-16, SR-71, and the MIG-29 as being beneficial in helping the fuselage to produce lift. On the Arrow no such blending was required since the top of the fuselage; wing and intakes were one continuous, flat surface. The entire top of the Arrow was the wing. Making the Arrow, in very real terms, a “lifting body” This point is a major one and it is of considerable advantage when compared to the SR-71, the F-15 and F-22 and current Soviet fighters that share the blended philosophy
@@hyperiongm330 Even the Bears are still a threat. They launch heavy standoff cruise missiles, and they do it efficiently, which is why the USSR put the Bear BACK into production in the late 80's.
The Americans built the SR-71 Blackbird in 1964. It flew higher, faster and farther than the Arrow.
Why didn’t they build a fighter variant?
Because there’s no tangible benefit to flying that high, fast or far.
Maneuverability, stealth and AWACS are far more important than speed, altitude and range.
They actually did turn the Blackbird into a prototype interceptor aircraft: the YF-12A. Three were built, no production examples ordered. Some of the technologies which were present on the YF-12A were later developed into integral parts of the F-14, namely the radar and fire control system along with the AIM-47 which was developed into the AIM-54.
Actually, the XF-108 Rapier is a better example of the point. The interceptor version of the SR-71 may have been hampered by the time it took to get airborne.
This person doesn't know what he is talking about!
Yeah, the Arrow was cutting edge at altitude, but the rest he is not far off on. Rather, I would say he’s accurate:
the airplane was not designed for air combat maneuvering, it had no gun, and the role it was designed for no longer exists. It also had no multi-role capability so no air to ground either.
In other words, it had all the drawbacks of many of its contemporaries such as the Mirage III, the F4 Phantom, the English Electric Lightning, and others. You’ll notice that, mostly, those aren’t in service any more. The one exception is the Phantom, of which there are very few left in places like Turkey. It is worth noting that the last of the USAF Phantoms, which were being used as target drones, were recently retired because their performance was insufficient in that role.
The design of the SR-71 was underway the year the Arrow was cancelled. The MiG 25 was in the early stages of design as well.The F-106, which shared a role and some design philosophy with the Arrow, was retired in 1988. Something like an F-15 with AMRAAMs would eat the Arrow alive either far away, or up close.
The Arrow was a cool technology platform, but frankly if you look at the facts dispassionately the cancellation was inevitable no matter who had won the election. The integrated radar and missile weapons system that was being developed for it was given to Canada by the US because the US had been unable to get it working right. Without it, the Arrow would have been under armed and barely capable of finding lumbering Russian bombers. It probably would have ended up carrying Genie missiles like the F-101 Voodoos that replaced it.
A fast interceptor that fires nuclear missiles and doesn't carry modern missiles or have modern radar would be useless in today's environment. It wasn't stealthy, it wasn't maneuverable and it had no provision for air to ground.
As much as I love the Arrow - I have a model of the CF-105 on my desk - it’s not the ‘world beater’ fighter jet many of us Canadians imagine it to be. Don’t get me wrong, it had amazing achievements and is worthy of a sense of patriotism, but the ARROW has become a Canadian legend larger than the truth, it would have been interesting if one had been preserved, unfortunately all were destroyed within days of cancellation.
However, I would also like to note that at 50,000 ft it’s manoeuvrability was unparalleled, Many fighters of this design, including Russian, do not particularly perform well in “thin air.” Above 50,000 ft. the Arrow’s strengths of speed and ability to turn in this air would come into play. In recent years, the Arrow’s design was looked at using modern fluid dynamics computer programs. It’s ability to turn above 50,000 ft. was better than an F-15, but lower than an F-22, due to thrust vectoring only on the F-22. The Arrow would have been slightly faster than an F-22, but again, it would still eventually be outclassed and obsolete even in this regard. Still gotta love the plane though.
@@user-vr5zk9ox8d The F4D Phantom shot down 3 Mig 29s with vacuum tube AIM4 Falcon missiles before it was retired and put into display about 20 years ago.
@@aabb-zz9uw The MiG-29 was really an agile dogfighter, and it seemed easily a match, or could even outfly, the F-16. That much cannot be refuted.
So let’s stack the two head-to-head.
The MiG:
Range: 1,430 km
Max speed: Mach 2.25 (2,400 km/h; 1,490 mph)
Max alt: 18,013 m
The F-4 Phantom II:
Range: 2,600 km
Max speed: Mach 2.23 (1,472 mph, 2,370 km/h
Max alt: 18,300 m
As you can see with schematics, both jets match up fairly well. Which, North Vietnam had several aces (over a dozen, actually) and some of them preferred the MiG-21 because of it's ability to shoot down F-4s. The ATOLL missile was pretty reliable at 1,200 yards according to one pilot.
The MiG-21 is kind've the rival to the F-4. It's fast and surprisingly pretty maneuverable as well. The ATOLL missile was no joke.
Beyond the MiG-21, you've got:
MiG-23
The F-4 downed at least 16 of these Floggers during the Iran-Iraq War, while taking a few hits themselves.
MiG-25
Comparable in interceptor roles except the Foxbat has a much higher performance. The Foxbat was meant for interception only, and not dog fighter. It had limited avionics but did attempt look-down shoot-down abilities with it's larger BVR missiles meant for high altitude crafts. The MiG-25 was also FAST AS F**K, but likely would've tried avoiding Phantoms. later Phantoms got more reliable missiles and better fire control.
MiG-27
A ground attack focus Flogger, would've had the same performance the earlier MiG-23s had, probably. This version was comparatively rare.
MiG-29: Ok so now we're starting to run into problems. If the F-4 got too close to a MiG-29, the chances of it getting screwed are getting pretty high. The F-4 has good speed, but the Fulcrum is no slouch and it has a great Thrust to Weight ratio plus HOBS. So, in WVR, the now much older F-4 is going to really struggle.
MiG-29M and K models improve a lot of things about the earlier versions that make the Fulcrum out class the F-4 by this time. The MiG-29M and K variants are comparible to Super Hornets. The F-4 has run it's course by this time.
MiG-31
What the Foxbat should've been, the Foxhoud was bigger and used 2 pilots instead of one, had much improved avionics and was capable of low level high speed interception as well as dog fighting.
It would've been a serious problem to the F-4. While no where near as lethal as a later Fulcrum with HOBS, the Foxhound had tremendous speed like it's older MiG-25, and a decent RADAR for engaging BVR even at lower levels. This would've been an interesting matchup.
So basically I attribute the F-4’s victory in the scenario you’re depicting as an attribute of a stellar Ace pilot. Having an advanced fighter jet is gonna help of course, but at the end of they day the skill in the cockpit is what will give you an advantage.
However, if we are talking solely avionics. In my opinion the Mig is better. Especially once you get to the MiG-35, there's practically no competition by this point.
Point is, the Arrow would have been outclassed eventually as well.
He’s twitchy and annoying.
@@user-vr5zk9ox8d You cannot compare the Arrow with today's fighter or even fighter/interceptors that made it into production. Many planes from that era are obsolete, obviously.
Wow ! This guy really lit up the Arrowheads.
I've always said the CF-105 was a GREAT plane.......But 1 of many of that era, the F-4 Phantom is the same vintage and is still in service today, F-106 did the same role on 1 engine, Saab Draaken, Mirage III, English Electric Lightning were other planes with similar performance. I'm not knocking the Arrow...just not putting on a pedestal either
Video summary: 0:23 Half ass definition of an interceptor, 0:41 Calls Canada a small country, 0:53 Compares max altitude and Range, 1:14 calls the arrow flawed with no points to back it up. So much for skimming the wiki page eh?
A little Canadian history from Avro aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L. Whitcomb page 22 and 23.
During The re-organization of National Steel Car into Victory Aircraft, (later to become A.V. Roe….Avro) the former management was replaced by a number of Howe’s “bright boys” The new President was J.P. Bickell, a senior executive of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , with Dave Boyd as General Manager. Victory Aircraft, guided by such brash, confident upstarts (inspired by perhaps an even more illustrious leader in the form of Howe), began trumpeting the potentials of Victory aircraft with its new facilities, and of Canadian industry in general to the hard-pressed British.
Wild claims of being able to produce a Lancaster faster and better then its own designers were heard in England, and the bluff was called. By January 1942 Victory had a contract to produce one of the largest, most complex and advanced aircraft in the world, the Lancaster long range heavy bomber. Despite enormous difficulties and frustration, Victory rolled out its first pseudo-complete Lancaster in August 1943.
Dobson, hearing the boasts about the superior quality of the Canadian Lancaster and other mixtures of fact and fancy, decided to visit Canada and see for himself the roll-out of the first Victory Lancaster. Apparently, he arrived a little late as the plant outperformed his expectations and delivered its first offspring early. His comments upon seeing the Canadian operation are well documented and according to Jet Age by Scott Young, his words were to the effect.
“It opened my eyes, I’ll tell you, if these so and so’s, can do this during a war, what can’t they do after?
Dobson was so confident in the future of the North American branch that he predicted Canada would become the center of aircraft production for the British Commonwealth within a decade. Howe is on record in that year as saying
“Never again will there be any doubt that Canada can manufacture anything that can be manufactured elsewhere”
Unfortunately many Canadians today don’t seem to believe this, despite Avro and their subcontractors having proven it time and again in the forties and fifties, often too early for their genius to be recognized.
Victory would go on to produce 430 Lancaster’s during the war, and produce them at the one-a-day rate as promised in the initial boasts to the British!
According to British author/historian Len Deighton in his phenomenal book Blood Tears and Folly, that Canada had committed a higher percentage of her population to wartime uniformed military service than any of the combatants, with the added distinction of this mass of manpower being comprised largely of volunteers. Deighton goes on to show that Canada had also yielded the highest per capita industrial output dedicated to the war effort once again of any of the combatants, yet had begun the conflict with relatively little of her own indigenous industry. Howe and his bright boys had sought to change all of that and had succeeded beyond all expectations. It was once common knowledge that Canada had ended the war with the third largest navy, the fourth largest air force, and the fifth largest army of any of the wartime players.
These rankings were described in the Canadian Forces’ [CF] Air Force Indoctrination Course [AFIC] for many years!
(It’s time for Canadian citizens to stand up and say dam the torpedoes, politicians and our neighbours to the south. Roll-up our sleeves and get on with the business of defending ourselves again! Jim100 AB)
Right on Jim!
Thank you! Some days I just get tired of seeing people even Canadians that really don't know about what Canada did in Aviation.
Spot on Jim 100AB.
Thank you!
@@jim100ab9
Avro Canada was British-owned. Thank them.
We will never know what the true capability of the Arrow was as the production version was never flown. The prototypes flown were just that, prototypes. As far as no other country buying it, well that may be true but the USAF and RAF personnel did think it was worth building, of coarse their governments would not buy it. The real truth of the matter was the Arrow would have given Canada the ability to design and build our own fighter aircraft just like other countries do.
This is the second so called Journalist from NP has released a story on this subject and this one talks as though he his trying to convince some children. First of all, you use the specs for the Mk I Arrow which had the American engines which had only 2/3 the power of the Orenda_Iroquois engines. The RL 206 had those engines and the Mk III Arrow with the added power would have been able to fly at 70,000 feet, near enough to the U2 altitude to bring one down. It was thought that it could have reach 90,000 feet, but would not have been actually capable to maintain that elevation in flight. The Mk III would have been able to achieve a speed of Mach 3 or very close to that, and would have had to have more stainless steel add to the leading edges for the added heat at those speeds. They were also considering a commercial design of the Orenda-Iroqois engine prior to the cancellation. The F 4 was not a good aircraft and in computer simulation program, when the entered the characteristics of the MIG 21 the computer spit out the F 106 as the best opponent to the MIG, not the F 4. The F 106 at subsonic flight had the pivot point and centre of gravity aligned, but as the speed increased the pivot point moved aft and the F 106 could transfer the fuel to compensate for this, so it had better maneuverability at high speed. Yes the Arrow was an Interceptor and that was what it was designed to be and when it was cancelled the Canadian Government chose to buy the Bomarc Missile system, which the USA canceled right after Canada bought them, and under pressure to have supersonic interceptors, bought and built over 200 of CF 104's in Montreal, which were not any good as interceptors and were used as ground support, which is a little ridiculous as the had short little wings and were not any good a low speed. Hence the name winged missile, or widow maker, as over half of the crashed due to engine failure and half of those were bird ingestion. So Canada bought CF 101 Voodoos, which the RCF declared inadequate and why they decided to build the Arrow. Also the Voodoo had a tendency to pitch up in flight and the doctrine was to not to try and recover, but to punch out. Also to give the Voodoo some credibility, the CF 101 Voodoos were armed with nuclear missiles. In theory, it was thought that Canadian pilots may survive launching them, but then again, there is also the possibility that they would not. In that case those CF 101's and crew only had a one way trip. They were replaced with the CF 18's and since they have acted as INTERCEPTORS over Canada. To end a few more facts, the Arrow was fly by wire, the next fighter to be fly by wire was the F 16, Great Britain was interested in the Avro Arrow, but in the fighter bomber role, it was capable as a nuclear strike aircraft. Great Britain also after the cancellation request a Iroquois engine, as they were going to build the Concord and needed a commercial jet engine capable for a supersonic passenger aircraft. Diefenbaker only agreed as he had strong ties to Great Britain and sent them one and only one. By the way, the Concord was the first jet aircraft capable of super_cruise and that was the 1960's. I am somewhat disappointed in the quality of some journalists at NP, this is the second time I have come across stories that were not research or they did not know how to research, or worse, God forbid, purposely left out facts to tilt the reader into agreeing with their opinion. Your entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.
All the old balogna rolled out again:
"American engines which had only 2/3 the power of the Orenda_Iroquois engines"
The model of the J75 used in the Arrow provided 23,500 lbf. The Iroquois was 25,600. That's an 8% difference. Updated versions of the Iroquois with higher power were on the books, but so were higher power versions of lots of engines.
"Mk III Arrow"
Which existed solely to the extent of some sketches and wish lists. I mean, what's to stop me comparing this Mark III Arrow to the Mark II F-108?
"achieve a speed of Mach 3"
Aluminum goes plastic above Mach 2.4, and all of these claims of Mach 3 performance are complete fantasy. Building a plane that can maintain Mach 3 requires new *everything*, new fuselage, new engines, new intakes, even a new climate control system that can dump heat into the 450 degree surroundings. It's wonderful to think that you can magically turn a Mach 2 aircraft into a Mach 3 one, but the list of examples that have actually done this is exactly zero, and for good reasons.
"Bomarc Missile system, which the USA canceled right after Canada bought them"
The Bomarc was in active USAF service until April 1972. I have no idea where you got the idea they were cancelled in the 1950s. The Bomarc was craptastic and by no means a reasonable replacement for, well anything really, but history is history.
"supersonic interceptors, bought and built over 200 of CF 104's in Montreal"
The replacement for the Arrow was the CF-101. The plans to purchase them started in 1958, while plans for the CF-104 didn't start until the next year.
The CF-104 was purchased specifically to be a ground-attack and recce aircraft, like the 104G's used by NATO in Europe. These aren't the A models they used in the states.
"Also to give the Voodoo some credibility, the CF 101 Voodoos were armed with nuclear missiles"
All Voodoos were armed at one time or another with the Genie, which is a rocket, not a missile (missiles are guided, Genie was not).
"pilots may survive launching them, but then again, there is also the possibility that they would not"
Yeah, none of that is remotely true, as the successful launch of Genie in the US demonstrated. The warhead was relatively small and the Voodoo had plenty of capability to get out of the way.
"CF 18's and since they have acted as INTERCEPTORS over Canada"
And many other missions as well. Of course, they can fly all those other missions, which the Arrow would not be able to do. Don't tell me I'm wrong, there are LOTS of reasons the Arrow would be incapable of air-to-ground missions in any reasonable fashion.
"the Arrow was fly by wire"
But not the first. That would be the Langley Grumman F-9 which flew in 1954.
"Great Britain also after the cancellation request a Iroquois engine, as they were going to build the Concord"
They had already selected the Olympus from the TSR-2 program that was contracted in 1956.
"this is the second time I have come across stories that were not research or they did not know how to research"
Pot, kettle. There's this thing called Google that you can use to fact check your statements in seconds, why didn't you?
Aside from everything Maury pointed out I would like to point out that the English Electric lightning was the FIRST aircraft with Super cruise capability. It first performed this feat in 1954. So essentially EVERYTHING in your post is wrong.
And the first to have a fully digital radar, along with the first real heads-up display in a figher. Even shorter range than the Arrow though, well, shorter than pretty much everything with the possible exception of the MiG-21.
The lightning yes did hit the super cruise, but in this link they talk about it and mention that even the SR 71 was only capable with after burners. The still mention the Concord as more capable.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise
Yes in the after burner mode, but the dry thrust was 19,350 lbs. vs 12,500 lbs thrust and the Iroquois was lighter. The overall performance would have been much better with the Iroquois. You also have to admit, right after the announcement of the cancellation of the Avro Arrow, all the top engineers at Avro were taken by American and British companies in the aero space industry and even Nasa . So to attract that many identities interest, well they must have known something.
Why does eveyone forget the orenda iroqouis engines
What a goofball.
this guy needs to get his history right the f106 not in service until after the Arrow. When the Arrow was on the drawing board!!!??? BULLSHIT.
Technically you're correct. The F-106 entered operational service in December 1959. It first flew in 1956. The CF-105 likely wouldn't have become operational with RCAF units until late 1960 or 1961 - at the very earliest.
“No Need for Interceptors” you think the only threat in the air are Missiles. Interceptors are not outdated and will always be needed. This plane was great for Canada because it was purpose built, meaning it had the Range to patrol the arctic with out being refuelled, the speed and altitude to catch up to the threat and needed no ground control. You look at something like the F-35 there’s a perfect example of a bad plane. When you design an all in one plane you have to make compromises. Like how for vertical takeoff you need shorter wings. But this affects maneuverability. The Arrow was the best intercepter in the world and probably still would be.
Besides the much younger Eagle which can turn, probably nothing. Still the Arrow likely had better legs, and speed.
The MiG-31 is probably par. Avonics shouldn't be an issue. Those are just future upgrades.
Think about this logically.
The Tu-160 is Russia’s only supersonic bomber.
Its range is 12,300 km at Mach 0.77.
Its range at Mach 1.5 is 2,000 km.
At Mach 2.0+, it’s considerably less.
In order to get anywhere near our urban centres they need to either fly at Mach 0.77 for fuel efficiency or refuel several times.
How fast do their aerial refuelling tankers fly? Mach 0.6. Take them out and the Blackjacks run out of fuel in the arctic.
If they were going to bomb us (which they aren’t), they’d do it with ICBMs that fly at Mach 18+, not supersonic bombers.
Interceptors are obsolete.
The Arrow wasnt the best interceptor in the world. The F106 was better and the F15 was better than the F106.
We still have Russian tupolev bombers testing our airdefense response times today the arrow still technically could be operational against those turbo prop aircraft
Yeah what else do we really need.
Then you buy a few fighter-bombers for contributions to things like Syria and Afghanistan and that's it.
@@1joshjosh1 My view is similar to Eisenhower in the 1950s, we need exactly the right amount of defenses and not a dollar spent more. What we should do is have CAS, Interceptors and Fighters. Some strategic Bombers might come in handy at some point in the future if other nations want to claim the Northwest Passage. Air support however in Syria and Afghanistan is not the best idea, we are fighting a counter-insurgency and we do not need unnecessary damage from misplaced bombs.
@@robertyounger9611
I agree with you but sometimes you have to drop a few bombs to show your friends you're doing your part.
Completely unfortunately.
But it seems every decade that goes by these things that we speak of good more expensive than more expensive than more expensive and I'm not just talking about inflation.
The F-106 was made before the Arrow and was faster, had a higher ceiling and range. Yeager was right when he called it a “sorry plane”.
America had the F-108 on the drawing board about the same time but that idea was cancelled maybe for the same reasons
Rapier was a lot more ambitious...and probably much more expensive.
@@winternow2242 Rapier was Mach 3 interceptor project.
@@valenrn8657 in other words, pretty much what I had said. Because of those performance goals, it was far more ambitious and expensive than the US government was willing to pay for.
The guy could have watched the damn MOVIE they made to get a clue even what was PLANNED for the damn plane when it was going to be finished ...Tanks so it could go longer ...better weapons ...the weapons bay pods they were planning ...
Guy needs a slap
It would have flown higher and faster if the Iroquois was fitted onto 206
it was fitted and was on the flight line on the day of cancellation ... it just didnt fly
@@0623kaboom
Nope. 206 was still on the assembly line as of 2/20/59.
Great opinion piece.
The Delta Dart and Dagger are two if the worst planes ever made by the US.
The Arrow was so good, the US did everything they could to stop it.
The F-106 served the US for nearly 50 years and outperformed the arrow in range, speed and ceiling, while arriving 4 years earlier and costing 4x less per airframe. How is that "one of the worst" planes the US ever made, or have you confused it with the F-104?
Cut the nationalistic delusion and accept engineering reality. The Arrow is over hyped and there is no evidence beyond speculation and static tests to imply that the alternate engines would have granted performance any better than what was produced in America or the UK at the time. Even then, it would be far too expensive for the performance afforded.
@@AllThingsCubey The F-106 VS Arrow Top Speed and Altitude
Three years after the first flight of the F-106 Major Joseph Rogers established a new world absolute speed record at Mach 2.18 over a closed course. Also on this December 1959 flight Rogers coaxed a specially-prepared (stripped down airframe and specially tuned engine) F-106 to Mach 2.31.
This figure has always been quoted as the maximum speed of the F-106, but it has no reflection of what a service aircraft could achieve with half internal fuel, a full armament load and a typical engine. The numbers quoted in the first flights of the F-106 are probably more indicative, with a top, practical level flight speed of about Mach 1.9 at 35,000 ft though certainly not with external tanks and a maximum ceiling of 57,000 ft. Acceleration was slow taking 4 and a half minutes to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 1.7 and another two and a half minutes to reach Mach 1.8.
Well the F106A had an intercept ceiling of 70.000 ft *these numbers were pure fancy as a single mission specification,* although they were almost certainly fed to Canadians, British, and perhaps even the Soviets! As pointed out in Storms. As for *the F-106’s 70,000 ft “intercept” altitude, it relied on the ability of the missile to climb for a significant distance to accomplish this task.*
Page 125 of Cold War Tech War by R.L. Whitcomb
The test Arrow Mk1 (RL 202) would exceed both of these figures with Wladyslaw “Spud” Potocki the second Avro development pilot he would achieve Mach 1.98 at 50,000 ft and the aircraft would fly to more than 58,000 feet with the lower-powered de-rated (not developing design thrust) J-75 engines and thus being 44 percent underpowered compared to the Mk2 with the Iroquois engines. The Arrow Mk1 had nearly reached the speed and altitude projected for the Mk2 Iroquois- engine version! One can see that the performance of the Mk2 would have been far superior to the F-106 in every respect.
Janusz “Zura” Zurakowski Avro’s chief development pilot reported on the seventh flight of the Arrow on April 18 1958 an altitude of 49,000 feet at Mach 1.52, still accelerating and climbing and Jack Woodman the only RCAF pilot to fly the Arrow. As the governments representative he noted that approximately 95 present of the flight envelop had be explored. The Canadian Armament Research Development Establishment (CARDE) years later would state that the Arrow in 66 flights and 70 hrs 30 minutes of flight time had completed and passed 95 percent of its Flight testing.
F-106 VS Arrow Fuel and Combat Radius
In 1968 the F-106 finally got long-range external tanks which extended its maximum purely subsonic combat radius to 325 nm, The Arrow Mk2 with the presently conceived armament pack containing MB-1 [Genie] and Falcon missiles plus fuel, has a subsonic radius of action, based on indication of drag from flight tests of the Mk1, of around 500 nm, with 5 minutes of supersonic combat and all allowances. The Arrow Mk2 had an internal fuel capacity 2.3 times that of the F-106 relying on two large capacity external tanks.
Dr. John J. Green, from the Defense Research Board (DRB) and scientific adviser to the RCAF, had written the following in a memorandum dated June 1, 1954:
In computing combat radius different conditions are stipulated by the RCAF and the USAF. For instance, the USAF permits the use of external tanks, whereas the RCAF specifications do not. If the combat radius of the CF-105 is calculated in accordance with the conditions permitted by the USAF specification, the figure of 782 nautical mile combat radius is obtained.
This certainly goes against Diefenbaker’s statement that the Arrow was deficient in range. Indeed, it was ready to achieve a supersonic combat radius in the Mk2A version of at least 575 nm and do so with a combat speed of Mach 1.8 rather than Mach 1.5. This range performance is very nearly three times the RCAF specification, as Jan Zurakowski reiterated in a note in August 2001. Zura also wrote Diefenbaker reinforced this impression in public that the Arrow was deficient in range!
F-106 VS Arrow Combat-Weight Power-Loading
The F-106’s Combat weight was 38,700 lb. while that of the Arrow Mk2 was about 62,431 lb. Respective afterburners was 24,500 lbt (pounds thrust) for the developed J-75 as compared to 52,000 lbt on the Arrow Mk2, with two undeveloped Iroquois.
This provided a combat-weight power-loading for the F-106 of 1.27 lbs to lbt. The Arrow Mk2 with two undeveloped (de-rated) Iroquois with a lower afterburner augmentation ratio would have had a combat-weight power-loading of 1.09 lb to lbt nearly 20 percent superior. This comparison is with an F-106 at half internal fuel and without external tanks. The Arrow also faced lower power demands per pound of airframe then the F-106 because the CF-105 had over twice the power available in an airframe with only about 25 percent greater frontal area.
The de-rated Iroquois engine MK2 would have been able to accelerate while climbing vertically and carrying a useful load. The developed Iroquois engine promised this performance at close to gross take-off weight.
Look at the numbers closely the F-106 with as much weight removed as possible things like radar dish, MA-1 fire control system, no weapons and anything else to save weight, and then it used a specially tuned engine. The F-106 was able of reaching a maximum speed of Mach 2.31 at 40,500 ft. So how does the Arrow Mk1 compare.
The Arrow Mk1 with more weight than the Mk2 and being 40 to 44% underpowered compared to the Mk2 and with an instrument pod that weighed considerably more the a standard missile pod was able to reach a speed of Mach 1.98 at 50,000 ft.
Look at the numbers again and do the math the F-106 speed of Mach 2.31 minus the Arrow speed of Mach 1.98. We find that the specially-prepared F-106 was just 0.33 Mach faster than the overweight underpowered Arrow Mk1!
Sorry mate try again maybe do some research next time oh and btw the arrow was in VERY EARLY STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT I believe only 5 were even made so yeah
sorry "mate" you're wrong.
@@whiteprivilege4469 The simple fact is that the Arrow had an awesome power of maneuver as anyone who studies such things empirically will readily acknowledge.
When 1G performance curves for even the Arrow Mk1, with the early, de-rated J-75 engines, are compared to contemporary and even current fighters, it emerges that the Arrow was a world-beating design. It had the attributes in terms of low drag, low wing loading and high thrust-to-weight to defeat virtually any fighter at low altitude in a dog fight scenario.
The Arrow Mk1, at higher than combat weight, Displayed a larger flight envelope than a late production F-16C Fighting Falcon that carried only two tiny heat seeking missiles. (Braybrook Roy, “Fighting Falcon V Fulcrum,” Air International Vol. 47, No 2 Stamford Key Publishing, 1994)
The Russian MIG 29 Fulcrum, under equally light conditions to the F-16C mentioned above, is equal to that of an overloaded Arrow Mk.1
An F-15C eagle, with up-rated engines, but at a true combat weight (no tanks, half internal fuel and eight missiles) displays a vastly smaller performance envelope to even an Arrow Mk.1 with at least 40% less thrust than a service Arrow Mk 2 would have had. The Arrow Mk 2, specified by Avro for the 21st Arrow, would have been able to sustain nearly 2G turn at Mach 1.8 at 50,000 feet.
An F-15C could, at combat weight, sustain the same 2G turn at Mach 1.2 at 35,000 feet
6 were flight worthy and 31 were in various stages of building ... NONE were prototypes they all were production run aircraft ...
If it was SO bad, why did some the engineers end up WORKING FOR NASA ? 🙄🤔🚀
There was nothing even close to the Arrows performance and we still need long range interceptors missiles or not.
In terms of what?
There were a lot of things with very similar performance. And many of those aircraft were already in production or service when the Arrow was cancelled.
The YF-12? The F-106 was just as fast and had a bigger combat radius. The CF-105 never broke mach 2 and that was with two J-75s! Sure it was cool looking and would probably been a good plane but it just was never as good as the fantasy version it's fans have created.
David Compare the overweight and underpowered 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 did Mach 1.98 at 50,000 ft in a climb still accelerating and climbing and not even at full power!
David
F-106 VS Arrow Fuel and Combat Radius
In 1968 the F-106 finally got long-range external tanks which extended its maximum purely subsonic combat radius to 325 nm, The Arrow Mk2 with the presently conceived armament pack containing MB-1 [Genie] and Falcon missiles plus fuel, has a subsonic radius of action, based on indication of drag from flight tests of the Mk1, of around 500 nm, with 5 minutes of supersonic combat and all allowances. The Arrow Mk2 had an internal fuel capacity 2.3 times that of the F-106 relying on two large capacity external tanks.
Dr. John J. Green, from the Defense Research Board (DRB) and scientific adviser to the RCAF, had written the following in a memorandum dated June 1, 1954:
In computing combat radius different conditions are stipulated by the RCAF and the USAF. For instance, the USAF permits the use of external tanks, whereas the RCAF specifications do not. If the combat radius of the CF-105 is calculated in accordance with the conditions permitted by the USAF specification, the figure of 782 nautical mile combat radius is obtained.
Dude, do your home work and get your facts straight.
I didnt even watch this and immediately disliked it based on the title.
it wasnt the best plane in the world but it was the best one we built
That's a pretty superficial analysis
That guy is talking through the wrong hole
"A little bit faster" that is such an understatement. Btw that the time a interceptor was one of the most important aircrafts. Almost doubled the speed of a fighter jet, it didnt need to fly at high altitudes for extended periods it didnt need to out manoeuvr fighter jets because nothing could catch it. Which back than speed was the best weapon to have in a jet. The cost was so high, but would have been dropped once it was in production. There is a story of a russian spy plane that was flying through NATO airspace and they had two other jets try to chase it down but didnt come close then they sent the arrow and the Russians didnt even know what it was because it was catching up to them so fast on radar , no plane was that fast in the world they said. If that program kept going who knows what canada would have been able to achieve with this jet down the line.
The arrow only ever reached Mach 1.98 in tests, whereas the slightly older Convair Delta Dart did Mach 2.3, what’s that about doubling the speed of fighter jets again?
"It was a great plane..."
In a video called "The Avro Arrow wasn't that great" lol
And... (I realized afterwards that some of these are copies of what other commenters have said, sorry about that)
1. The introduction of ICBMs didn't totally eliminate the need for interceptors. The Panavia Tornado ADV only entered service in 1976 and was a designated interceptor, not a multi-role strike fighter. The Convair F-106 Delta Dart wasn't retired until 1988.
2. Some aircraft originally conceived as interceptors eventually became more multi-role fighters, such as the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, which was only retired by second-rate militaries in the 2000s. The Arrow was cancelled before even a test flight to assess it's true maximum speed, so obviously there wouldn't have been any assessments yet of whether or not it would have been a decent strike aircraft.
3. The cancellation of the Arrow didn't just cancel the Arrow itself, but the Orenda Iroqois engines as well. Even if you were to assume the absolute worst about the Arrow, the engines were still quite promising and well ahead of contemporary British and American designs.
4. All of the performance stats that are available are almost completely irrelevant given that Arrows that flew were not fitted with the intended engines. Most analysts agree that the Arrow almost certainly would have been capable of Mach 2+, once the Orenda engines were fitted. Indeed, it was expected to break the world aircraft speed record with the Orenda engines, but the prototypes that flew were a) just prototypes, and b) fitted with engines with a lower maximum thrust than the Orendas with afterburners.
5. The range of the Arrow did appear to have been quite short, although again there had not been nearly enough test flights to reach final accurate figures like are available for all of the contemporary interceptors. Even then, check the operational range on the Starfighter, it was even less than that of the Arrow. Drop tanks were very common even back in the '40s, there's absolutely no reason to assume the Arrow would not have regularly carried several while travelling to the combat zone.
6. I have no idea where you got those figures for service ceiling from: they do not match any of the sources I've ever seen for the models of those aircraft around at the time of the Arrow's cancellation.
7. There's good reason the Americans and British didn't want foreign aircraft: they wanted to keep their own aviation industries going and were fairly nationalistic about who they purchased their military equipment from.
8. There's a huge difference between killing an industry that is currently thriving (as Avro Canada was doing just fine in the 1950s) and propping up the remnants of an industry that has been on the decline for decades (as in Bombardier now).
The Tu-160 is Russia’s only bomber faster than a CF-18.
It’s combat range when loaded and flying at Mach 1.5 is 2,000 km.
At Mach 2+, it’s considerably less.
To get anywhere near our urban centres they’d need to refuel several times.
How fast do their aerial refuelling tankers fly? Mach 0.6.
We wouldn’t need to intercept their bombers, just their tankers. Without them, their dozen operational Blackjacks would crash in the arctic.
Interceptors are obsolete. Primitive delta-wing interceptors have been obsolete for a very long time.
The performance figures were with the US J-75. It could’ve gone higher and faster with the Orenda Iroquois installed. Also, a massive payload compartment could allow many different kinds of ordnance, making it a true multi-role aircraft.
Paid ad by the US air industry
The concept that missiles would make interceptors obsolete was largely proven wrong. If the Arrow ever got fitted with the Orenda Iroquois engine it would have been the fastest interreceptor at that time at Mach 2.5. I'm an American who loves the CF-105
At Mach 2.5 it would have been the same speed as the F-4 Phantom (which had its first flight 2 weeks after the arrow) and much less capable overall sadly, still cool though
when i think of how much tax money went south of the border for inferior planes it makes me sick. Think of what the Arrow could have been today with 60 years of refinement and upgraded tech. John D you were a FOOL!!!
It was a primitive delta-wing interceptor.
Unless your idea of “refinement” is scrapping their plans completely and building an actual fighter, it would have been obsolete in the ‘60s.
Nearly all the performance figures for Arrow were 'calculated', 'estimated', 'designed for'. The performance that was claimed in testing was unobserved by anyone outside of Canada, and unverified. I mean, every mother thinks her baby is gorgeous, but some are not. Arrow never demonstrated it's range, never launched a missile, never flew side by side against another Mach 2 fighter, never tracked or intercepted a target. Did they ever do any trials dropping a fuel tank or opening the weapons bay at Mach 1.2? These programs would have required thousands of hours of testing and modifications. More money, more time. There is also that bogeyman of a possible fatal flaw in the aircraft that would have required a near redesign. Same with TSR2. Around the time of it's cancellation, US was scrapping interceptor programs and also putting thousands out of work. Also consider that Arrow and other interceptor aircraft were conceived when NATO countries were misled by bad intelligence into believing that Soviet bombers had twice the range that they actually had. Anyways, Canada wishes to be able to defend itself independently, but as a country, it has never wished to be an arms dealer. Plug and play aircraft purchases from the US are fixed-cost, and don't have to survive the next administration's hatchet-job on the expenditure.
"it has never wished to be an arms dealer", Canada is the source for many countries small arms ammunition and air to ground rockets (CRV-7).
Canada hasn’t mass-produced a fighter jet for export in 69 years. Even then we only had one customer (Belgium).
To start back up would cost hundreds of billions of dollars with zero assurance of quality or sales; along with a guarantee that Lockheed and Boeing would do everything in their power to put us out of business.
We’re a country that uses 50-75 fighter jets every 40 years.
It’s a simple make or buy decision. Anyone with any kind of a finance background knows that we should be buyers.
Any talk of starting Avro back up are absolutely foolish.
This entire video just takes the position of the Government at the time (heavily influenced by the US) that missiles were about to make the entire concept pointless and that the airframe couldn't be useful for anything else... fastforward to the 70s and we're trying to use F104s as ground attack planes so yeah
Don't think this guy reads books...
i wonder in what age the person who wrote the title "the avro was not that great" was living? probably was not yet born .
At 0:58 you say that the Delta Dart "was already flying when the Arrow was still on the drawing board"...How could this be (unless I'm missing something) when the Arrow was developed in 1957 but the Delta Dart was only introduced in 1959?
The Delta Dart was introduced into service in 1959. The completed, air-worthy, fully functioning and equipped series of planes was being delivered to active military service in 1959. The Arrow was still being developed in 1959, and obviously never entered service. The first Arrow prototype flew in 1958, whereas the first Delta Dart prototype flew in 1956. I'm not sure the Arrow was literally on the drawing board, but it certainly was several years behind the Dart.
KennethKor Ah! Ok. Thanks for a logical "non-trolling" answer, I appreciate it.
No problem. You asked a genuine question and seemed to want a genuine answer. It's more than can be said for most youtube comments hah.
Ken in 1956 the Arrow and the tooling were just starting to be made so maybe we could say in was half on and half off the drawing boards...
Well I would like to show the F-106 VS Arrow Top Speed and Altitude
Three years after the first flight of the F-106 Major Joseph Rogers established a new world absolute speed record at Mach 2.18 over a closed course. Also on this December 1959 flight Rogers coaxed a specially-prepared (stripped down airframe and specially tuned engine) F-106 to Mach 2.31. This figure has always been quoted as the maximum speed of the F-106, but it has no reflection of what a service aircraft could achieve with half internal fuel, a full armament load and a typical engine. The numbers quoted in the first flights of the F-106 are probably more indicative, with a top, practical level flight speed of about Mach 1.9 at 35,000 ft though certainly not with external tanks and a maximum ceiling of 57,000 ft. Acceleration was slow taking 4 and a half minutes to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 1.7 and another two and a half minutes to reach Mach 1.8. As for the F-106’s 70,000 ft “intercept” altitude, it relied on the ability of the missile to climb for a significant distance to accomplish this task.
The test Arrow Mk1 (RL 202) would exceed both of these figures with Wladyslaw “Spud” Potocki the second Avro development pilot he would achieve Mach 1.98 at 50,000 ft and the aircraft would fly to more than 58,000 feet with the lower-powered de-rated (not developing design thrust) J-75 engines and thus being 44 percent underpowered compared to the Mk2 with the Iroquois engines. The Arrow Mk1 had nearly reached the speed and altitude projected for the Mk2 Iroquois- engine version! One can see that the performance of the Mk2 would have been far superior to the F-106 in every respect.
Janusz “Zura” Zurakowski Avro’s chief development pilot reported on the seventh flight of the Arrow on April 18 1958 an altitude of 49,000 feet at Mach 1.52, still accelerating and climbing and Jack Woodman the only RCAF pilot to fly the Arrow. As the governments representative he noted that approximately 95 present of the flight envelop had be explored. The Canadian Armament Research Development Establishment (CARDE) years later would state that the Arrow in 66 flights and 70 hrs 30 minutes of flight time had completed and passed 95 percent of its Flight testing.
F-106 VS Arrow Fuel and Combat Radius
In 1968 the F-106 finally got long-range external tanks which extended its maximum purely subsonic combat radius to 325 nm, The Arrow Mk2 with the presently conceived armament pack containing MB-1 [Genie] and Falcon missiles plus fuel, has a subsonic radius of action, based on indication of drag from flight tests of the Mk1, of around 500 nm, with 5 minutes of supersonic combat and all allowances. The Arrow Mk2 had an internal fuel capacity 2.3 times that of the F-106 relying on two large capacity external tanks.
Dr. John J. Green, from the Defense Research Board (DRB) and scientific adviser to the RCAF, had written the following in a memorandum dated June 1, 1954:
In computing combat radius different conditions are stipulated by the RCAF and the USAF. For instance, the USAF permits the use of external tanks, whereas the RCAF specifications do not. If the combat radius of the CF-105 is calculated in accordance with the conditions permitted by the USAF specification, the figure of 782 nautical mile combat radius is obtained.
This certainly goes against Diefenbaker’s statement that the Arrow was deficient in range. Indeed, it was ready to achieve a supersonic combat radius in the Mk2A version of at least 575 nm and do so with a combat speed of Mach 1.8 rather than Mach 1.5. This range performance is very nearly three times the RCAF specification, as Jan Zurakowski reiterated in a note in August 2001. Zura also wrote Diefenbaker reinforced this impression in public that the Arrow was deficient in range!
F-106 VS Arrow Combat-Weight Power-Loading
The F-106’s Combat weight was 38,700 lb. while that of the Arrow Mk2 was about 62,431 lb. Respective afterburners was 24,500 lbt (pounds thrust) for the developed J-75 as compared to 52,000 lbt on the Arrow Mk2, with two undeveloped Iroquois.
This provided a combat-weight power-loading for the F-106 of 1.27 lbs to lbt. The Arrow Mk2 with two undeveloped (de-rated) Iroquois with a lower afterburner augmentation ratio would have had a combat-weight power-loading of 1.09 lb to lbt nearly 20 percent superior. This comparison is with an F-106 at half internal fuel and without external tanks. The Arrow also faced lower power demands per pound of airframe then the F-106 because the CF-105 had over twice the power available in an airframe with only about 25 percent greater frontal area.
The de-rated Iroquois engine MK2 would have been able to accelerate while climbing vertically and carrying a useful load. The developed Iroquois engine promised this performance at close to gross take-off weight.
Look at the numbers closely the F-106 with as much weigh removed as possible things like radar dish, MA-1 fire control system, no weapons and anything else to save weight, and then it used a specially tuned engine. The F-106 was able of reaching a maximum speed of Mach 2.31 at 40,500 ft. So how does the Arrow Mk1 compare.
The Arrow Mk1 with more weight than the Mk2 and being 40 to 44% underpowered compared to the Mk2 and with an instrument pod that weighed considerably more the a standard missile pod was able to reach a speed of Mach 1.98 at 50,000 ft.
Look at the numbers again and do the math the F-106 speed of Mach 2.31 minus the Arrow speed of Mach 1.98. We find that the specially-prepared F-106 was just 0.33 Mach faster than the overweight underpowered Arrow Mk1!
Also look at the altitude this speed was reached at. The Arrow Mk1 reached its speed at 50,000 ft minus the 40,500 ft for the F-106 and we find the Arrow was 9,500 ft higher in altitude then the F-106. The Arrow Mk1 was Mach 0.33slower at 9,500 ft higher altitude not bad for the overweight and underpowered Mk1 VS the specially-prepared F-106!
Also, the Arrow Mk1 had not been pushed to its performance limit, (it was not to reach or exceed Mach 2 or try for a new world speed or altitude record for one reason or another Jim100 AB). The American aviation industry and the USAF also knew that the performance of the Mk2 would have been far superior to the F-106
The F-106 is still considered by many to be the best interceptor the USAF has deployed. This appraisal, by USAF Air Defence Command pilots, includes the F-15 Eagle! They consider it a retrograde step in the (interceptor performance regime).
This praise of the F-106 could only happen in an Arrow-free environment.
It seems very clear as (R.L. Whitcomb) points out that the Arrow would have been a dominant aircraft for many, many years and therefore could be expected to sell well to allied nations. That American authorities would not purchase any, and recommended that Canada not produce them tells its own story.
Also (Douglas, W.A.B. Note to File “CBC Program on the Avro Arrow”, 21 April, 1980) The American aviation industry would not have been comfortable with the Arrow as competition and therefore was not likely to give the Canadian firm much opportunity to compete.
How long did it take to design and create a flying F-106 VS the Arrow?
The F-106 got its start with the XF-92A that was built in 1948 and Conair was given a contract to produce an interceptor based on this design in September of 1951. It took a full 5 months just to produce the F-102 mock-up and the F-102 was only capable of Mach 1.2.
While this was going on the F-102 was being (modified to a new configuration) which became the F-106 and it first flew on 26 December 1956. From the first flight of the FX-92A to the production of a proto-type version that was close to the 1954 intercept specifications took over 7 years and this was a continues priority project right from the start! The F-106 never did reach all of its specification
requirements.
The Arrow did not use a proto-type it went right from the design stage to a hard tooled production line interceptor and took Avro just over 3 years to get it right the first time. The Arrow would meet or exceed all the 1954 intercept specifications.
Nobody will ever know what the Arrow would have evolved into and it's capabilities would have been since it got scrapped soon after it was painted.
It would have evolved into an obsolete, primitive interceptor in the 1960s.
It was a long-range rocket with wings, not a modern fighter jet.
@@thejollyrancher6713 Probably would've been shoved into a role it was not meant to fulfill like the F-104, it would've become a mediocre bomber.
So the outdated Arrow was meant to fulfill a role for which the F-14 was commissioned two decades later? I'm not a Canadian but if I was I don't think my opinion of this guy would be positive.
The F-14 is also a capable dogfighter, designed to tackle patrol bombers at long ranges before they fire standoff missiles at a carrier. It's a naval design. Different doctrine.
The F-14 was a fleet defense fighter not an interceptor. While the roles are similar, the requirements are not.
Pretty much all of your facts are wrong. At least you knew it was called the avro arrow
I'd have to admit that it was a great concept of the 1950's and could see it playing other roles besides a interceptor. The first is as a recon aircraft. I also think it would've been a fine bomber. I believe it was mostly killed by politics and the fact that the engines needed didn't get built - that may have been political also. It never would have been a great fighter but, I'm sure it could do it in a pinch.
The Iroquois engines were built by Bristol Aerospace, they call them Olympus 593s
the Iroquois engines were built By AVRO Canada's Orenda Engine company. Same company that Built the Orenda type 14 for the CF 100
The Olympus 593 had some Iroquois heritage yes but it was not the Iroquois.
actually 6 iriquois engines were built 2 were in rl206 ... one is out in western canada being refit and renovated ... one sits in the air museum in Ottawa (it was at NRC as a back up generator before that and was lost until noticed by 2 kids at the old rockliffe air museum back in the late 60's .. summer of 69 ... they noticed and engine under a tarp and asked a staffer what engine that was ... they looked and saw it was an iriquois engine ... a moth later it was on display ...
I was one of the two kids who spotted that engine ... i was 5 at the time
Thank you. With all due respect to our friends and neighbors to the North, this whole Arrow conspiracy hype has grown out of control over the years. It's kind of luck an older man who, as he grows older and continues to tell the same stories of his youth, he somehow was much smarter, ran faster, was more athletic, etc. As the years go by, the legend gets further and further from reality.
There's a thing called numerical stats
Tom Lester
That was a great interceptor.Even
greater than expected,with room
for developpment.You know,like
USA keep upgrading his planes?
Anyway I dont care,this is how
our jewish masters wanted it.
@Louis-Philippe Lavoie. "Jewish" masters? Try 'City of London' masters...
September 29, 2014
The City of London's strange history
www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feabdc0
The author of the above article:
Lord Glasman - UK Parliament
www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-glasman/4240
More info:
Mon 31 Oct 2011
The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest | George Monbiot | Opinion | The Guardian
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval
MAY 2013
Kick bankers’ man The Remembrancer out of Parliament: Ros Wynne-Jones Real Britain column - Ros Wynne Jones - Mirror Online
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kick-bankers-man-remembrancer-out-1874811
4 July 2015
London is now the global money-laundering centre for the drug trade, says crime expert | The Independent
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-is-now-the-global-money-laundering-centre-for-the-drug-trade-says-crime-expert-10366262.html
April 6, 2016
Panama Papers reveal London as centre of 'spider's web'
www.yahoo.com/news/panama-papers-reveal-london-centre-spiders-173713142.html
OpenEye: The Crown Corporation
openeyeblog.blogspot.ca/search/label/The%20Crown%20Corporation
06/07/2018
The City Of London | Left Hook by Dean Henderson
hendersonlefthook.wordpress.com/2018/06/07/the-city-of-london/
Independent POV
Published on Sep 14, 2018
The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire (Documentary) - TH-cam
th-cam.com/video/np_ylvc8Zj8/w-d-xo.html
The Spider's Web: An investigation into the world of Britain's secrecy jurisdictions and the City of London.
spiderswebfilm.com/
@@johnbovay8353 you seem to be full of other people’s ideas.
Seriously, it was an amazing achievement for Canada and it's aeronautics industry for that time.
Stop shitting on anything Canadian... National Post.
This was 55 years ago..can't you just let us be proud for one thing we made, or You just going to shit on anything Canadian.
If the National Post is backed by American Interests, then their goal is to hate on the Canadian Identity, as to inspire the idea of joining the power hungry and financially bankrupt USA so that the US interests can be supported by Canada's abundant Natural resources.
“ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?!??!”
Are you related to Diefenbaker??
In the interceptor role, the Arrow was definitely among the most capable. And for NORAD duties, the interceptor role is still valid, even today.
Yeah but any mulitrole or air superiority with drop tanks and sufficient internal fuel supply (like the F-15 or F-18E) can do that role for a significantly lower cost than a dedicated interceptor without much drop in performance and being able to operate in other roles as well.
In the past 50+ years when did Canada actually need an interceptor like the Arrow. Maybe the politicians were prescient about Canada's future needs or just guessed right. Canada certainly cannot make the claim that the USSR never attacked because it had the Arrow. However the USA could make that claim about its interceptors because they actually existed.
Among the most capable only if one uses projected performance figures. As tested, the CF-105 never carried weapons nor did it have a functional radar or fire control system. The navigator's station was essentially bare & the interchangeable armament pack carried only test equipment.
@@raynus1160 these are not projections they are tested facts!
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”.
@@jim100ab9
More inaccuracies than broken-off bigfoot trees in your back 40.
Mach 1.90 was attained in level flight at 50,000', Nov 11, 1958.
Please direct me to the specific flight in which an Arrow 1 reached 58,000' - it should be easy, as there was only 66 flights. That altitude does't show up on any of the flight logs.
"One continuous flat surface across the upper surface" if one overlooks the hump running aft of the cockpit which housed the intake bleed air ejector and refrigeration equipment.
MTOW was actually 68,605lbs.
Please direct me to which flight Zurakowski demonstrated a roll rate of 360 degrees per second in the CF-105 - an aircraft with a 50' wingspan. Do the math on that - the wing tip would be rotating about the fuselage at 157fps. The bending moment would be enormous. I smell bullshit. Jim bullshit. 100-180 degrees/s would be more likely for that large an airframe.
Nice ratio.
The airframes and engineering shouldn’t have been destroyed.
Arrow was legendary. The follow-up CF-104 Starfighter was a single-engined mini-winged missile "widow-maker" ( expression used in the industry ) with an embarrassing turning radius, making it the poorest fighter plane ever. Cancellation of Arrow program was a sham, smelled funny, and Canada lost its great jobs tied to the programme . Clearly, the narrator lost the big picture.
The cf-104 wasn't a follow-up. It was built for a different mission than Arrow, and its turn radius wasn't relevant to that mission. There probably were better aircraft than the CF-104, probably American, maybe a licensed version of the F-100. As for replacing the Arrow, the Phantom easily fit that bill, but that plane was rejected, likely due to cost.
@@dukeford "industry" - wow. Your personal comments/language aside, in fact the term was well-known:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter
@@terrygelinas4593 That's a good article. I contributed to it. You should read it. 😁
@@dukeford8893 nice try 😆 🤣 Thanks for gaslighting!
@@winternow2242 The Arrow was scrapped because of information effectively stating that interceptors were no longer relevant, lies essentially, and our puppet Prime Minister Dieffenbaker had interests not conducive to the Canadian Identity.
Has The National Post been purchased by Russia and/or China?
An arrow is faster then a f35 by almost double has almost double the fuel range and could operate at a higher altitude and its a 50 year old design .
Canada is the 2nd largest nation and while our air force has kept us safe and has done some really interesting things with the f18 .
Put our pilots in air craft that can fly to our furthest border and still have fuel.
The Americans can build planes that fly faster, higher and farther than the Arrow.
They have.
They choose not to because there’s no practical benefit.
The F-35 would kill the Arrow in a dog-fight, no questions asked.
Maneuverability, stealth and AWACS are far more important than range, altitude or speed.
@@thejollyrancher6713
I'd hope so lol
The arrow wasn't built to be in dog fights . It's intent was bomber interception..
I'll be honest here because the program was so short lived a lot of what is said are calculated what ifs . Lol
The 35 does have its good points .
The vertical take off is a huge advantage , if your enemy has bombed your air fields you can still get off the ground .
@@zacharymccullough4625 exactly. It was built to be an interceptor and interceptors were obsolete in the ‘60s.
For starters, if the Russians wanted to nuke us they’d press a button and launch an ICBM that flies at Mach 18. Not load up a TU-95 or TU-160.
If they ever do send a bomber, 38 year old CF-18s can and have intercepted Russian bombers and often do it before they even enter our airspace, all while actually being able to dogfight.
The Arrow is an obsolete jet designed for obsolete warfare.
@@thejollyrancher6713
The Russians regularly test the response at the northern borders with bombers .
And yes the 18's currently handle it .
Like I said before it's a game of what ifs .
And the what ifs say that platform could have been adapted and become the beast of Northern sky's.
@@zacharymccullough4625 radar and aerial refuelling allow much more capable fighter jets to do the exact same job that you (and Avro) envisioned rudimentary interceptors doing. They’ve been doing it for 40+ years.
We hear about it all the time. Russian TU-95s and even Tu-160s being intercepted by F-22s and, yes, even 38 year old CF-18s, before they enter our airspace.
The only way Avro could have adapted the Arrow for modern warfare is by scrapping their design entirely and turning it into an actual fighter jet.
It was a primitive long-range rocket with wings. If it EVER came across a legitimate fighter escort you’d have a dead Canadian pilot.
Ok so all your information is wrong. Horribly wrong. It pains me that many people will believe this. The American airforce general at the time tried to buy it when it was canceled because he saw the amazing potential behind it. So did Britain. It also (unofficially because it wasn't able to be officially tested) could reach Mach 2. It could make turns without losing altitude which jets today still struggle with. It could make really precise turns at Mach 1.5. It was the most advanced aircraft of its time and in many ways still is.
AvroArrow99 the Arrow could pull 2G's turns at 50,000 ft. at Mach 1.5 without losing airspeed or altitude. BTY that is a bank angle of 60 degrees! Your right most planes today still have problems with a turn like that at 50.000 ft.
Tristin Hopper needs to learn how to properly research a subject. Does he work for FOX news now.🤦♂️
The USSR continued to develop and build bombers till its collapse. The Soviet Tu-160 "Blackjack" was pushed into service in the 1980's so the threat of bomber never went away, they got way faster or stealthy as the American B-2 stealth bomber was originally conceived to deliver nuclear pay-loads.
The soviet bomber force was mainly targeted to anti-shipping missions, and even then, a plane the size of a F-4 could have done the job as well for cheaper while being ablt to do the job of the CF-104 in Europe
The Arrow was the FIRST AIRCRAFT IN HISTORY to be able to pull off a SUSTAINED 2g turn at Mach 1.4 and at 50000ft..... THE FIRST ONE!!!!! ohh and whats that you say? all fighters can do that now? RIIIIIIIIGHT BECAUSE THIS ONE SHOWED THEM ALL HOW THE FUCK ITS DONE!!! had it been fitted with the engi's that were actually DESIGNED for it and not the inferior models that used, she would done over Mach 2 in level flight, she reached 1.9 without.
Sociologically, I find Canada’s obsession with the Arrow fascinating. It’s like a litmus test for alternative fact susceptibility and the lengths some people go to try and aggrandize the Arrow far beyond its reasonable merits are endlessly fascinating. As a non overtly nationalistic American I have no issue with Canada having pride in something that was a great achievement and I celebrate your achievements as well. The good folks at Avro that worked hard deserve respect but lavishing something they created with massive and false hyperbole does no one justice and ultimately degrades their actual hard work and ingenuity. That is my opinion, cheers to the good people up north.
Can blame them? If Nixon had decided just scrap the entire Apollo program most Americans would probably still be angry about it. Regardless who if anyone got to the moon.
In short the Arrow was like the Concorde vs the 747. The Concorde was the best at what it was designed for, unfortunately the concept was the problem, not necessarily the product. The Arrow was an interceptor, which turned out to be a very bad concept, ie. Mig 25.
Hey, I realy like that comparison, it fits in a lot of ways.
Brian Garner mig 25 is a great plane!
MiG 25 is great being target practice for F-15s.
It's fast and powerful & the design has held out for half a century, but in reality it (and its successor, the MiG 31) is less than ideal for anything other than the interceptor/recce role. The 25 is very heavy due to it's (mainly) stainless steel airframe & allows relatively low G loading, especially when operating fully fueled and armed. Soviet designers got it right with the SU-27 line and MiG 29 line - far better, much more capable aircraft. Cheers.
EXACTLY! In addition, the mission of the (Arrow and) Foxbat/Foxhound is irrelevant enough that no one wants/needs/builds interceptors.
Liberal bullshit. First operational interceptor with computer controlled fly-by-wire control surfaces....all the way back in 1958.
The American F-4 phantom had the first computer and fly-by-wire of any fighter jet it was also faster than the arrow it’s top speed was 1,473 MPH Arrows Top speed was 1,307 MPH
It was never operational.
@@mdkcjtl5523
The F-4 was not FBW.
Wow look at that you got that one right … the Arrow was not operational but it was first with computer and fly-by-wire and it was first with artificial feed back to the pilot.
@@jim100ab9
The Arrow did NOT achieve Mach 1.98 in a climb. The Nov 22, 1958 flight in aircraft 202 (flight #44) to which you refer was performed in level flight at 50,000', as per Spud Potocki's own words ("I took the aircraft up around Lake Superior in order to get a good stabilized run for my 1.98 Mach run. I had climbed to 50,000' to get cleared to the 1.98 Mach number")
Avro Arrow, Arrowheads (1980), p. 81.
I can’t believe National Post said this. No, it wasn’t that great, of course; you don’t have to diss it
ok basically what im hearing is. He's saying its bad just because it was an interceptor, despite it being the most technologically advanced jet of that time. Hence why is was more expensive.
These cherry picked arguments aren't that great.
The ceiling? Really? Firstly, those are PRE-PRODUCTION numbers and don't even apply to the Mark 2.
The Arrow was advanced in it's use of Titanium alloy, radar, fly by wire electronics, missiles, air speed, and range (Canada is rather large and was designed for that purpose). Many in the US air force wanted it but hey... the US is a powerful country with competitive interests who would try to sabotage anything that would challenge their global hegemony.
Sound familiar? ** Insert headline of Washington slapping 300 percent trade tariff on Bombardier**
The crack about missiles, is not an argument about the technology of the Avro Arrow. It's simply a diversion here. The expensive and dodgy BOMARCS the government ended up buying were rushed into production by the Air Force, because the US Army was responsible for ground defense at that time. They were also catastrophic if they detonated on the ground as they had warheads in them. They weren't that great.
The same people who defend the cancellation of the Arrow are the same people who bemoan the lack of Canadian innovation and recommend you go south.
The most important fact is the Arrow had a huge impact on fighter technology and was truly a great development in Canadian history.
The Arrow Mk 1 and Mk 2 were made almost entirely out of aluminum alloy and magnesium. Titanium was used in very limited quantities. I'll give you speed, but range was no better than their contemporaries - about 500 miles for a Mk 2 (combat).
Raynus 1 you just a hater with no facts.. smh... the arrow has outranged a lot of modern war planes EVEN TODAY and where do you have to go outside the CA
The Arrow was in fact made primarily of aluminum alloy and magnesium. It was one of the first aircraft to used CNC-machined aluminum panels for the major wing skin sections, which were fitted to extremely tight tolerances...so much so, that replacement panels likely would've required the aircraft to go back into the jig. Google it.
The Mk 2's combat radius was expected to be 264 miles - and that was only made possible with a single 500 gallon centerline drop tank additional to the 2897 gallons carried internally. The planned Mk 2A would've carried considerably more fuel internally, but it was never built. Big bird with thirsty engines. Numbers are available from many sources. Reference them and get back to me. Cheers.
Raynus 1 yeah but that can be tweaked just like any other aircraft so check that... smh... welp anyway if your point is that it’s unreasonable and a shitty aircraft of its time you are utterly wrong...
Raynus 1 and sir I do more than just “GoOgLe iT” I do research something that you need to do and the man who wrote this damn script on the video.
You are all jumping to defend an interceptor from the 50's.......... please tell me what good this thing would be today??
The idea is that if you have engine and airframe development. You know how to build an airplane. Today you have nothing.
Hey Francis, I've been trying to bring some semblance of sanity to all the "super-plane" comments around here, and I just have to say I'm glad to see someone who's defending the Arrow on a realistic and worthy basis of "we lost our ability to continue making planes"
Because that, I can agree with, even if I think it was actually the right decision at the time.
In the 50's this aircraft was awesome in idea and use.
Nowadays it would not hold its own against an early Mig let alone modern aircraft.
these same assholes think canada (est 1867) won the war of 1812
A Canadian industry making billions and tens of thousands of jobs as we would have been at front of development in super sonic design.
The statement is accurate. Impressive, but no 'super plane'.
nwtruckerll you need to stay off them damn shrooms
Delusion will always misguide you.
Truly intelligent and logical rebuttals. I'm impressed..
nwtruckerll Lol
The Avro Arrow well maybe not classified as a super plane because it didn't get a chance was the most advanced of its time and could still fly circles around many modern planes. It could make a turn without losing altitude which is something modern planes still struggle with. It could reach Mach 2.3 in a climb (unofficially because they never got a chance to make it official before it was canceled) and it also could maneuver at Mach 1.5.
National Post isn't that great either.
I stopped a 1:11.........DORK.
Sorry but the technology that built the Arrow was 20 years in advance of the current technology. It still has capacities that are still not found on a combat aircraft.
Like what? Name one.
@@silaskuemmerle2505 100% fly by wire. Titanium structure for the jet engines. full internal weapons bay. interchangable weapons pack
@@garywalker447 a full internal weapons bay wasn’t unique for interceptors at the time, as for the other advances, those capacities are in fact found on modern aircraft.
@@silaskuemmerle2505 Fine. The Avro Arrow was a POS and was made of wood and fabric and powered by an pack of rabid gerbals.
@@garywalker447 I never said it was a POS, I merely refuted your claim that the capabilities it had aren't on any other aircraft. In many ways the arrow was a very good aircraft, but it's role was obsolete.
Ken, buying the F35 does nothing to satisfy Canadian needs. The aircraft neither has the speed or distance to satisfy the need for Arctic intercept. At least the Cf 18 had two engines in case of failure you had one to at least limp back to base instead of bailing out over the Arctic Ocean. Explain to me how stealth matters when the plane can't even get to the combat area. The only thing F35 so might be good for is aircraft carrier complements. If you could convince the Canadian government to build a couple of carriers for our navy, you sir would be my hero. I also don't agree with relying on American supplied planes while they're intentionally threatening our aerospace industry. It's time we took the lead and designed something that suits Canadian defense. Whether the Arrow is a solution or not it's worth investigation. The fact that government won't invest in Canadian aerospace technology in defense of Canada is shameful. What's more shameful is the CF lapdog generals who won't stand up for the soldiers they represent. The last admiral to stand up suddenly gets whacked? And you wonder why it was a retired army general who spoke up. The basic facts of performance are there. You don't need a degree in aeronautics to see the shortfalls of the F35 compared to the Arrow. The Arrow could fly further, faster and higher than the F35. If you can upgrade it to modern standard and still be 20 billion dollars cheaper, wouldn't it make sense to at least look at it. And maybe build a prototype to see if it's even feasible. That s investing in Canadian ingenuity. The condition the government has allowed the military to degrade to we are pretty much starting from scratch anyway.
I'm not sure if you're referring to me here when you say Ken, but you've mentioned a number of things I want to challenge anyway.
First of all, if it is me you're speaking to, I'm not really a big advocate of the F-35, but I will say that if it came down to the F-35 or some "new" arrow, you might as well ask me if we should have the F-35 or spitfires. I'm well aware of the problems of a single engine aircraft, and grant that, so again not arguing the F-35 is ideal.
What I did say previously is that if Canada decided to adopt a mixed fleet, the F-35 might be worth it. As in we'd have a larger number of something simpler and more suited to defending the arctic and so forth, and a small fleet of F-35s for strike missions whenever Canadian troops or the air force gets involved in something overseas. That's when stealth and ground attack would be particularly relevant. But no, the F-35 probably isn't the right call for the backbone of the fighter fleet.
I get the problem with American planes, but for one, that's mainly just one company, not all american manufacturers. And there are other foreign options, particularly European ones (cough Saab cough).
But when it comes to designing something that "suits Canadian defense", again the mistake is assuming that going from the ground up and designing a worthy aircraft is going to be cost effective. What suits Canadian defense is being able to afford to defend Canada, and developing our own fighter, or even "modernizing" the Arrow, would not at all be cost effective. Huge costs, minimal gains. It would be nice if we could've pulled off something like what Sweden has with Saab, but we're not there. Besides, who would develop the "new" Arrow? We only really have Bombardier, and they don't do military jets...so tooling up and gaining the necessary expertise would also cost yet more.
Now, it's also not accurate that Canada doesn't invest in Canadian aerospace and defense. It's just that we invest in small pieces of larger pies, because that's what a country our size can reasonably manage. So bits and pieces of US planes or bits and pieces of satellites or the ISS are Canadian made, but to try and do it all ourselves would be foolish. We'd spend way more for an inferior product. It's better to focus on our comparative advantages, economically speaking.
Ok, and here's the doozy:
" The Arrow could fly further, faster and higher than the F35. If you can upgrade it to modern standard and still be 20 billion dollars cheaper, wouldn't it make sense to at least look at it."
I don't understand where people come up with these numbers. It COULD NOT fly further, the F-35 has double the range. Their service ceilings were pretty much the same, and the Arrow wasn't drastically faster either. So there's no real advantages there. And again, there's this sense that it can all be "modernized" like that's some kind of magic. Look, it's a design that isn't modern. It's outdated from the ground up. There were some biplane designs that were great for their time, but we don't modernize them because it doesn't make sense in the present day. Obviously the Arrow isn't /that/ obsolete, but the point still stands...it's concept is no longer relevant, and trying to shoehorn the design into other roles just seems like a desperate attempt to ignore its obsolescence for nationalism points. Even if we could afford to develop our own plane, it shouldn't be Arrow based.
Yeah, where our military is now sucks. But honestly, if we dumped all our money into trying to make our own stuff, we'd be doing ourselves a disservice. It'd be like somebody deciding that since none of the car manufacturers makes THE perfect car , that he'll build his own in his garage, based around the car he had in the 50s. It's not gonna work.
The ONLY people who keep believing in the necessity of Arctic intercept are the Arrow Fan Club. Love the Arrow, but who has pure interceptors on duty in the world? Russia, I guess. Sort of. And who has Canada prominent in their target folders anyway? No one. Extra engines? Really? You cross the sea these days on two, not four days. Losing one is not an issue. If it was, the F-106 would have been designed with two. But it wasn't, even back in Arrow days. And the '106 was America's "ultimate interceptor." And it was last one. The concept of one-platform-one-mission is a dream from the past. But I see Kenneth has covered the points well so I do not wish to repeat any further. One last thing -- why would the American government cut orders short and then order the tooling destroyed so more could ever be built? It's happened here, too. And we don't blame Canada. But then again we didn't go socialist which of itself is emasculating, militarily and otherwise.
More Money For Dreadnoughts , Canada should have every interest in governing it's Arctic sovereignty. Every country that has arctic territory has been scrambling for resource territory since the Arctic sea ice started retreating. So I will never apologize for demanding the RCAF be given the equipment to patrol Canadian sovereignty. So yes there is a profile of culprits, including America who are trying to infringe on Canadian sovereign territory. I also won't apologize for demanding Canada develop its own jets, when the American government proceeds to invoke tariffs on Canadian aerospace, then conveniently expect us to buy into the f35 program. I find it funny when Canadians demand proper defense that is Canadian made Americans think it's dumb. But they are also the first to complain about how small and ineffective our military is at defending North American airspace.
Brad Shìell
F-35A has 1407 km combat radius with A2A config which is longer than Arrow Mk1's 660 km combat radius.
Rnl Valen Not sure where you got your info on the Arrow, but the info I have says it had a range of almost 1400 km with a ceiling of 70 000 ft and cruising speed just below mach 1. With the capability well over mach 2. And yes that is 1960 era technology. I m sure with modern technology in engine design and airframe technology they could do much better.
Speaking as someone who's family was heavily involved with the RCAF and Avro Canada at the time of the Arrow? It's ONLY drawback by comparison to say the F15??? Was no it couldn't turn and burn in a dogfight.
Otherwise? Bahahaha fuck it's was a Mach 2.5+ all weather state of the art(for the time) Fighter with a service ceiling of 80000 ft. That's easily verifiable btw. And the F4 phantom? Wasn't released until 2 years AFTER the arrow was cancelled and if you look closely enough shares eerily similar features from the cockpit design and air intake manifold designs.
And the Delta Dart? Not even in the same league bahahaha
So where did this bullshit come from??
Jace2wheel.... Those air intakes for boundary layer air bleed off at supersonic speed, were designed by Avro engineers in conjunction with the Uof T's Institute for Aerospace studies, and were unique to the Avro Arrow, before the design showed up on Soviet aircraft (likely due to the sending to Moscow of 5 pounds of documents, photographs, dwgs. & test results in 1955 & the Russian Aerospace engineer's tour and briefing conducted at Avro Canada & Orenda in 1957) and which later showed up on aircraft of of Allies.
The F-4 first flew 3 months after the CF-105 - in May 1958. It entered service with the USN in late 1960.
No Arrow, Mk 1 or Mk 2 (the variants actually built) had a service ceiling of 80,000' - that's utter bunk.
The Mk 2's proposed combat ceiling was 58,600' (Arrowheads) - similar to the Phantom's.
The unbuilt Mk 3 proposal (a purely 'paper' airplane) suggested a service ceiling of 70,000-76,000' (Whitcomb)
And the F-106 Delta Dart? Mach 2-plus speed, 57,000' service ceiling, and carried the same radar/fire control/armament as an operational Arrow would've (albeit fewer of them). Cheers.
Raynus 1 so you're saying that an avionics technician(my great uncle) and design engineer(grandfather), went on the public record saying lies about what the plane was capable of. And yeah the first flight of the phantom was may 1958. Entered service 1960.
I can read a Wikipedia article too. But I'll take the word of people who literally built the fucking thing and were there during the build and flight testing phases.
Thanks for playing
If I had a dollar for every "My uncle's wife's cousin worked for Avro" story I've heard, I could retire. If he was present during the brief 66 flight first-phase testing of the Arrow, he'd know it never exceeded mach 2 or ~50,000' (some sources suggest ~57,000', but that altitude is not cited in any of the flight logs). In reality, an Iroquois-powered CF-105 probably would've turned very well at altitudes above 40,000', given the large wing area and ~50,000lbs-plus thrust available.
The Arrow likely wouldn't have entered operational squadron service until late 1961, given it still had to undergo some ~3000hrs of testing and evaluation. Here's a good read: documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-AvroCanadaCF-105Arrownose.pdf
There's also a number of well-written (if somewhat biased) books available on the topic. Cheers.
Doing a response video is going to be fun.
Interestingly Toronto's aeronautical industry was moved to Quebec after the Arrow debacle.
What's your point
I just love these posters arguing about a fighter aircraft that's been dead for decades. 😂 Good plane or bad plane what the armchair experts are missing about reviving the Arrow is that:
1. Canada would need a massive infusion of tax $$$ to get a fighter aircraft built today. The performance of our last 2 governments (Harper, Trudeau) does not give me any confidence that they can competently manage a project like this. My taxes are already too high, I don't want another government project that's sucking my tax money into a black hole.
2. Although Canada does have an aerospace industry and a pretty good tech sector, building a world-class combat jet fighter these days takes some pretty specialized expertise and tech. Don't get me wrong, I think Canada could build one but the problem is the combat fighter market is already crowded (Eurofighter, Dassault, Lockheed - Martin, SAAB, Sukhoi, Mig, etc...) with our biggest trading partner dominating this market.
3. Every nation without an adequate military aircraft industrial complex (South Africa, Taiwan, Japan, India) that has ever tried to build a combat jet fighter has ended up getting a fighter costing far more $$$ than if they had just bought a fighter from another nation. Examples are the Cheetah, F-1, etc... Sometimes a nation's security supersedes cost like the case of Israel but that happens rarely.
IMO Canada should approach building combat military airpower on the basis of sales potential. Canada usually does well when in this regard when the government acts as a facilitator and not the project head. When you need massive government tax money to accomplish a goal with no clear return on investment then it's time to walk away.
Horatio It’s time for Canadian citizens to stand up and say dam the torpedoes, politicians and our neighbours to the south. Roll-up our sleeves and get on with the business of defending ourselves again!
How about a Canadian CF-18 pilot and historian?
Then the unimaginable happened: an interceptor in development flying, (greatly exceeded) the manufacturer’s own estimates, 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).
Finally someone speaking the truth about the arrow.
really? try reading all of this!
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”.
@@jim100ab9 you missed its 15 firsts still in use today ... and the fact the design specification of the arrow still has not been met by ANY modern jet fighter to this day ... also the fact that the arrow was on average 5% over designed calculations in ALL respects ...
This clown really needs to do some research! He has no clue what he is talking about.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. A 1:30 video shows that you have done extensive research into the subject. If the Arrow was so bad why did the USA still fly the F-102, F-106, the F-101all AC of the day that soldiered on long past their time.
I hope you impressed the bosses at FP enough that they hired someone else.
They were flown because they were already built when Arrow came along, and soon superseded by the Phantom.
Why are people trying to compare the arrow to the f35 and other more modern jets lol ? Let's do a quick comparison between the m4 Sherman and the m1 Abrams while we're all talking nonsense .
mr wolfe I dare to compare have a look!!! While its delta wing is argued by some to result in a high drag during turns, the Arrow’s internal weapons and higher thrust-to weight would compensate. The Arrow 1, at higher than combat weight, Displayed a larger flight envelope than a late production F-16 Fighting Falcon that carried only two tiny heat seeking missiles. (Braybrook. Roy, “Fighting Falcon V Fulcrum,” Air International Vol. 47, No 2 Stamford Key Publishing, 1994)
France’s Mirage 2000, an updated version of their 1950’s Mirage III delta fighter is also known to embarrass the F-16 at medium and high altitude in turning fights, despite the F-16’s better thrust- to weight ratio. Nevertheless, the Mirage III was never considered a competitor to the Arrow in any performance measure or military role.
The Russian MIG 29 Fulcrum, under equally light conditions to the F-16C mentioned above, is equal to that of an overloaded Arrow Mk.1
An F-15C eagle, with up-rated engines, but at a true combat weight (no tanks, half internal fuel and eight missiles) displays a vastly smaller performance envelope to even an Arrow Mk.1 with at least 40% less thrust than a service Arrow Mk 2 would have had. The Arrow Mk 2, specified by Avro for the 21st Arrow, would have been able to sustain nearly 2G turn at Mach 1.8 at 50,000 feet.
An F-15C could, at combat weight, sustain the same 2G turn at Mach 1.2 at 35,000 feet---hardly competitive.
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 an air superiority mission. Clearly, then the Arrow had vast “power of maneuver”. It had the ability to utterly humiliate anything flying 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 a lower wing loading and with a drag coefficient probably under .0185 and a lift-drag ratio of over 7-1 would therefore still not be a push-over for the Raptor---all other things being equal which, of course, 45 intervening years of progress in electronics have ensured are not. Still, the Arrow Mk 2 was proclaimed to be capable of an instantaneous 6 “G” at 50,000 feet. The F-106 was also a high performer at altitude, capable of a 4 “G” at 45,000 feet whereas the Raptor is estimated to achieve 5 “G” at 50,000 feet. (Sweetman, Bill “F-22 Raptor”