Avro Arrow can almost hit Mach 2 in 1958 that is unheard of. I am still pissed that Canada abandoned it nothing would have beat it for a long time till Cold War.
The F-106 Delta Dart could do March 2.3 in 1956 .... but sure let's go with "unheard of". Keep eating that CBC propaganda. The Arrow was a make-work project designed by the Liberal Party to funnel money to their corporate friends... now where have I heard that before?
Not unheard of. The Arrow's fastest level-flight speed was Mach 1.90 on November 11, 1958. Prior to that, the F-104A attained Mach 2.14 in May of that year. The English Electric Lightning attained Mach 2 in November 1958, the Dassault Mirage III attained Mach 2 in October 1958, the Vought XF8U on August 12, 1958, and the Convair B-58 in June 1957.
@@raynus1160 But the Arrow never got to fly with the engines that were designed for it. The J75's only produced 23,000 lbs of thrust each while the Orenda Iroquois were 30,000 lbs of thrust each.
No most definitely not....however, if you talk about raf Ralston in england(and avros parent company there)...yes...an ejection seat and orenda Iroquois engine were discovered in england and it was well known a white delta wing with no markings was flown out of ralston ..it is said that they flew the ass off it for technical data and removed the seats and engines and torched it for fire fighter practice...seat and engine removal is standard as the explosives could blow the fire fighters up...if one was inquisitive they could probably locate the second engine and seat( specific to the Arrow and said to be well flown).
Arrow was rejected by the RAF because it wasn't going to be ready when needed. The UK already had BAC Lightning, which became 1 of the greatest fighters in history.
@@aspookyscaryskeleton1474 did I say it wasn't? Others might argue that it wasn't a fighter because they distinguish between fighters and interceptors.
The British cancelled their order two years previously due to the 1957 Defence White Paper that said manned interceptors would be obsolete. This is why the Rolls Royce engine wasn’t developed and Orenda has to do a crash program to make the Iroquois. The English Electric Lightning was further along in development and was also a Private Venture and not dependent on government funding. It wound up being the last interceptor ever developed by the West to enter service. The American XF-108 interceptor was cancelled the same year as the Arrow for the same reasons.
This would basically put Canada on the trajectory to Air superiority. Call it Big brother hating on Little Brother for having a cool toy but like I said this would be a big stepping stone into Major innovation in the Aviating Industry in Canada. Lost but never forgotten.
Time has made the Arrow's performance image well beyond reality. It remained a one trick pony with performance comparable with the already operating F106 and a long way behind the F4.
@@rdb-pc4spwrong...the chief test pilot jan said it was an exceptionally handling aircraft fifty years ahead of its time and counting...with modern upgrades it would still out perform most fighter bombers
@raymondjarvis765 Jan Z was a great pilot, but no engineer- 70 hrs of flying time on 5 airframes was pathetic given what Avro had been paid. Redesigned for millions more for attack role, the Arrow's massive dimensions would have made for an easy target.
I met an individual who worked on this aircraft at the plant. He told me that after the first flight was taken. They received instructions to destroy any and every possible documents related to this aircraft since they were going to stop the production completely. The reason was America told them not to create any aircraft. After this , most individuals who were part of this project went to either Nasa or other places which jet fighters were manufactured.
@@SanjayPatel-sb5tx A number of things 1. The project ran massively overbudget, ballooning to almost half the total defence budget. 2. The Army and the Navy began lobbying against it, believing the Arrow was drawing funding from them, which, given the scrapping of HMCS Bonaventure a few years later was a fair concern. 3. Britain and the United States, both export targets, expressed little interest in buying it, limiting Avro's ability to recoup the losses. 4. The final nail was an intelligence report indicating the Soviet bomber threat was overestimated, and that the USSR was shifting toward a greater emphasis on ballistic missiles instead of manned bombers, removing the threat the Arrow was intended to defend against.
There were many reasons why Canada did not put this amazing aircraft into production. They were working with titanium sections of the airframe for the first time and it was extremely expensive. Just my opinion, but I think they recognized that it was not a financially sustainable project. My other suspicion (speculation) is that the tools and machines specially made to work titanium were secreted away to the SR-71 Blackbird project at the Skunk Works (Lockheed Corp.) in the USA. Again, I have no proof of this but it makes sense to me.
Have you read Ben Rich's book on the Skunk Works? He talks about the problems they had with titanium on the Blackbird, but there's no mention of any Canadian involvement.
11 หลายเดือนก่อน +4
The Americans were incredibly helpful with the development of the Arrow (even loaning a B47 bomber and maintenance equipment to Orenda for testing the Iroquois engine)unfortunately time has blurred many of the facts and the CBC movie took many liberties with the facts of the story....I'm Canadian but I also can read and the Americans did not Cancel anything, if the Arrow had been completed it would have been in the U.S. best interests
Actually, if it had been completed, it would have been WAY more financially sustainable, as MANY countries were interested in a Mach2+ capable Fighter jet. As well, the engines would have found their way into even more airframes.
I happened to have an industrial arts teacher who actually worked on this plane. A lot of engineers were recruited for the apolo program, he said on its first flight one of the few things that went wrong was a light indicating an open door malfunctioned. It also Canadian beaumark missles. I read a book (long time ago) and William Stephenson (intrepid) stated that the alliance felt it would be better for canada to take on a more beign image and to use the us products, what that means is open to conjecture. Three generals visited Ottawa and the rest is history. I guess it's a big picture thing.
@@Blue84Stangno, a big problem with the Arrow was it was a one trick pony no one outside of Canada was interested in. The western world moved on to multi-role aircraft. Hence the massive success of the F-4 Phantom, which was developing at the same time as the Arrow.
The US had nothing to do with either one being cancelled. Maybe if Eden hadn't gone on his little safari to Egypt Britain would've had the money to continue working on the TSR2.
11 หลายเดือนก่อน
It's completely heard of the F4 Phantom was a mach 2.3 in development from 1955 to 1959 ,given the similar design characteristics of the 2 aircraft I find it hard to believe that the USAF and RCAF were not comparing notes through development, the F4 phantom gets the prize for compact design (the Arrow was the size of a B25 Mitchell)
Except, the F4 was a turtle, comparatively... The F4 was smaller, sure. But with a 0.85 Thrust-to-weight ratio, against the Arrow's 0.91, the F4 would have lost every race.
F106 was a better plane in almost every respect. Smaller, cheaper to operate (1 jet), about the same speed (Mach 2 with 1 jet - record), longer range, and better maneuverability (match F4s at high altitude). Like the F106 though, very niche use - the 106s spent most of their time in places like Montana waiting for the Russian bear.
lol.. not 30,000 A few engineers. Most of the workers went over to McDonnell Douglas who bought the hangars and made wingsets for the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/MD-95/717 until the mid 2000s As someone who recently went through much of the same thing in aviation.. I do not care who’s name it on the building or what I’m doing as long as I get my cheques.
wow 1958 footage looks more like the 1980's, incredible
Feels like a dream you don't want to wake up from.
My grandfather designed the landing gear for the Arrow. Awesome to watch it land.
My Gramps did as well. George Evans, he died at 96 years old in 2015
@@jordach545 They probably knew each other.
is their a intact one in someones barn somewhere?
Watching this, I am distracted from the flight of the Arrow by the open countryside around Malton. Even in 1972 it was pretty rural.
Avro Arrow can almost hit Mach 2 in 1958 that is unheard of. I am still pissed that Canada abandoned it nothing would have beat it for a long time till Cold War.
The F-106 Delta Dart could do March 2.3 in 1956 .... but sure let's go with "unheard of".
Keep eating that CBC propaganda. The Arrow was a make-work project designed by the Liberal Party to funnel money to their corporate friends... now where have I heard that before?
Not unheard of.
The Arrow's fastest level-flight speed was Mach 1.90 on November 11, 1958. Prior to that, the F-104A attained Mach 2.14 in May of that year. The English Electric Lightning attained Mach 2 in November 1958, the Dassault Mirage III attained Mach 2 in October 1958, the Vought XF8U on August 12, 1958, and the Convair B-58 in June 1957.
say thank you to the americans they are the reason why it was cancel
@@raynus1160 But the Arrow never got to fly with the engines that were designed for it. The J75's only produced 23,000 lbs of thrust each while the Orenda Iroquois were 30,000 lbs of thrust each.
@@CrosscutFilmsSask
The Iroquois 2 produced 25,600lbs thrust in afterburner.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orenda_Iroquois
Best Canadian invention period
There has always been rumored that one of the Arrows was never destroyed. But hidden on the West Coast
lol no
No most definitely not....however, if you talk about raf Ralston in england(and avros parent company there)...yes...an ejection seat and orenda Iroquois engine were discovered in england and it was well known a white delta wing with no markings was flown out of ralston ..it is said that they flew the ass off it for technical data and removed the seats and engines and torched it for fire fighter practice...seat and engine removal is standard as the explosives could blow the fire fighters up...if one was inquisitive they could probably locate the second engine and seat( specific to the Arrow and said to be well flown).
What has never been explained anywhere, is why Avro Canada did not team up with its parent company in Britain to build this magnificent plane?
Arrow was rejected by the RAF because it wasn't going to be ready when needed. The UK already had BAC Lightning, which became 1 of the greatest fighters in history.
@@winternow2242 The avro wasn't a fighter aircraft...?
@@aspookyscaryskeleton1474 did I say it wasn't? Others might argue that it wasn't a fighter because they distinguish between fighters and interceptors.
The British cancelled their order two years previously due to the 1957 Defence White Paper that said manned interceptors would be obsolete.
This is why the Rolls Royce engine wasn’t developed and Orenda has to do a crash program to make the Iroquois.
The English Electric Lightning was further along in development and was also a Private Venture and not dependent on government funding. It wound up being the last interceptor ever developed by the West to enter service.
The American XF-108 interceptor was cancelled the same year as the Arrow for the same reasons.
This would basically put Canada on the trajectory to Air superiority. Call it Big brother hating on Little Brother for having a cool toy but like I said this would be a big stepping stone into Major innovation in the Aviating Industry in Canada. Lost but never forgotten.
Time has made the Arrow's performance image well beyond reality. It remained a one trick pony with performance comparable with the already operating F106 and a long way behind the F4.
It was Dieff the thief that cancelled it because he couldn't figure out where to hook up the horse's
@@rdb-pc4spwrong...the chief test pilot jan said it was an exceptionally handling aircraft fifty years ahead of its time and counting...with modern upgrades it would still out perform most fighter bombers
@raymondjarvis765 Jan Z was a great pilot, but no engineer- 70 hrs of flying time on 5 airframes was pathetic given what Avro had been paid. Redesigned for millions more for attack role, the Arrow's massive dimensions would have made for an easy target.
No it didn't. The Arrow was a dedicated interceptor at a time when dedicated interceptors were going the way of the dodo.
I met an individual who worked on this aircraft at the plant. He told me that after the first flight was taken. They received instructions to destroy any and every possible documents related to this aircraft since they were going to stop the production completely.
The reason was America told them not to create any aircraft.
After this , most individuals who were part of this project went to either Nasa or other places which jet fighters were manufactured.
Well he lied. America had nothing to do with it.
@JP-fq5zj okay. So what happened?
@@SanjayPatel-sb5tx A number of things
1. The project ran massively overbudget, ballooning to almost half the total defence budget.
2. The Army and the Navy began lobbying against it, believing the Arrow was drawing funding from them, which, given the scrapping of HMCS Bonaventure a few years later was a fair concern.
3. Britain and the United States, both export targets, expressed little interest in buying it, limiting Avro's ability to recoup the losses.
4. The final nail was an intelligence report indicating the Soviet bomber threat was overestimated, and that the USSR was shifting toward a greater emphasis on ballistic missiles instead of manned bombers, removing the threat the Arrow was intended to defend against.
Looks like some of her design elements ended up on the Tornado?
Cool plane and new to me 👍✈️
There were many reasons why Canada did not put this amazing aircraft into production. They were working with titanium sections of the airframe for the first time and it was extremely expensive. Just my opinion, but I think they recognized that it was not a financially sustainable project. My other suspicion (speculation) is that the tools and machines specially made to work titanium were secreted away to the SR-71 Blackbird project at the Skunk Works (Lockheed Corp.) in the USA. Again, I have no proof of this but it makes sense to me.
Have you read Ben Rich's book on the Skunk Works? He talks about the problems they had with titanium on the Blackbird, but there's no mention of any Canadian involvement.
The Americans were incredibly helpful with the development of the Arrow (even loaning a B47 bomber and maintenance equipment to Orenda for testing the Iroquois engine)unfortunately time has blurred many of the facts and the CBC movie took many liberties with the facts of the story....I'm Canadian but I also can read and the Americans did not Cancel anything, if the Arrow had been completed it would have been in the U.S. best interests
Actually, if it had been completed, it would have been WAY more financially sustainable, as MANY countries were interested in a Mach2+ capable Fighter jet. As well, the engines would have found their way into even more airframes.
I happened to have an industrial arts teacher who actually worked on this plane. A lot of engineers were recruited for the apolo program, he said on its first flight one of the few things that went wrong was a light indicating an open door malfunctioned. It also Canadian beaumark missles. I read a book (long time ago) and William Stephenson (intrepid) stated that the alliance felt it would be better for canada to take on a more beign image and to use the us products, what that means is open to conjecture. Three generals visited Ottawa and the rest is history. I guess it's a big picture thing.
@@Blue84Stangno, a big problem with the Arrow was it was a one trick pony no one outside of Canada was interested in. The western world moved on to multi-role aircraft. Hence the massive success of the F-4 Phantom, which was developing at the same time as the Arrow.
A magnificent aircraft.....!
Awesome!
It was gigantic ! Physically huge.
Awesome sauce...
Love cf105
BUILD A NEW VERSION OF THE AVRO ARROW 😊
It was obsolete then, what's changed?
@JP-fq5zj No military equipment is obsolete.
@@michaelanderson3096 That is absolutely not true. Why did we stop using muskets? Why abandon the Sopwith Camel? The Arrow missed its moment.
Beautiful piece of kit. Us in the UK had our equivalent. TSR2. Both potential world beaters. But the Americans put a stop to both.
Yes, of course they did. 🙄
😂😂😂😂😂
The US had nothing to do with either one being cancelled. Maybe if Eden hadn't gone on his little safari to Egypt Britain would've had the money to continue working on the TSR2.
It's completely heard of the F4 Phantom was a mach 2.3 in development from 1955 to 1959 ,given the similar design characteristics of the 2 aircraft I find it hard to believe that the USAF and RCAF were not comparing notes through development, the F4 phantom gets the prize for compact design (the Arrow was the size of a B25 Mitchell)
Except, the F4 was a turtle, comparatively...
The F4 was smaller, sure. But with a 0.85 Thrust-to-weight ratio, against the Arrow's 0.91, the F4 would have lost every race.
F106 was a better plane in almost every respect. Smaller, cheaper to operate (1 jet), about the same speed (Mach 2 with 1 jet - record), longer range, and better maneuverability (match F4s at high altitude). Like the F106 though, very niche use - the 106s spent most of their time in places like Montana waiting for the Russian bear.
What could have been
Mr Difenbaker, thank you for destroying one of the most historic Canadian made aircraft, plus 30,000 high tech jobs.
lol.. not 30,000
A few engineers. Most of the workers went over to McDonnell Douglas who bought the hangars and made wingsets for the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/MD-95/717 until the mid 2000s
As someone who recently went through much of the same thing in aviation.. I do not care who’s name it on the building or what I’m doing as long as I get my cheques.
This is why Canada can't keep good things.
All I will say
She was beautiful, a victim of politics
Does anybody else find it somewhat goofy looking?
No, ,just you.
With all the crap going on in the world today we need a modern version of this plane
Why so many spaces 😂😂
@@davecollins589 awesome, a plane with minimal maneuverability and range - let’s build it!