The Avro Arrow

[Moonbox]

Actually, there was quite a bit of interest in buying the Arrow, or at least all its development technology. It seems odd today that you can't google up confirming info but if you read some of the books or talked to some of the old employees you quickly see that this is true.

The British weren't interested in the Arrow. They were interested in the Iroquois engine tech and even then only briefly because they had their own project coming to product shortly after the Avro would have entered production.

Perhaps the lack of cites to confirm this point is further proof of a conspiracy?

I'd say it's more likely because it was back in the 1950's and we had no internet then, along with the fact that most of what has been written by the Arrow since then has been written by former employees and people enchanted by the legend of the craft the Arrow never really was.

First, the Avro Jetliner could have saved the company's ass. It was produced first and the prototype flew like a dream. Howard Hughes flew it as his personal jet on an indefinite load and was prepared to place a production order on the spot.

There's definetly something to be said of that. The Canadian government absolutely screwed Avro and it was THEIR fault that they had them focus on designing and building a plane they wouldn't need.

[Murray B.]

What if the U.S. had simply made it clear it wasn't in the market for the AVRO? Wouldn't that have doomed the program? Could Canada's Royal Air Force have provided a sufficient market for them?

It is important, jbg, to differentiate between reality and the Avro myth which is a lie that just won’t die.

Here is the reality:

The Liberals decided to cancel the Arrow in 1957 as described in the October 23, 1963 edition of the Montreal Star, “Gen. Charles Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff committee from 1951 to 1960, testified yesterday that the Liberal Government of Prime Minister St. Laurent decided in 1957 it would cancel the Arrow interceptor program as soon as it was returned to power in that year’s election.”

The Liberals lost the election and the Progressive Conservatives took over. The new Cabinet was advised on August 28th, 1958, “Finally, the cost of the CF-105 programme as a whole was now of such a magnitude that the Chiefs of Staff felt that, to meet the modest requirement of manned aircraft presently considered advisable, it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S.” Copy posted at http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=8169 [The Arrow was about five times the price of the Voodoo but the improved version was estimated to only have two-thirds the range. Their maximum continuous speed ratings were similar at Mach 1.9 vs. Mach 1.7 respectively and neither aircraft was rated for Mach 2+ as were several other aircraft that were in production around that time.]

In 1958 Diefenbaker’s Cabinet decided to continue with the Liberal’s decision to cancel the program. At that point most everyone that knew the details about the Arrow program agreed that it should end. Aerospace Engineering Professor Julius Lukasiewicz described the aircraft accurately when he said there was, “nothing extraordinary about it.” A video containing his words is posted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWuZtk8uPP0.

Diefenbaker’s Cabinet did the sensible thing by adopting the decision of their predecessors and heeding the council of their best advisors. They did delay the decision for a few months to take steps to preserve the industry but, despite their best efforts, they were unable to save the jobs.

It was after cancelling the program in 1959 that a controversy began. Diefenbaker describes what happened in the Montreal Star Feb. 24, 1959, “...The Prime Minister said the company had warning of the Government decision to cancel the CF-105 Arrow supersonic interceptor and knew that $50,000,000 in public funds had been set aside for in the estimates for 1959-1960 to cover winding-up expenses...”I say its attitude in letting out thousands of workers – technical workers and employes – on Friday was so cavalier, so unreasonable, that the only conclusion any fair-minded person can come to is that it was done with the purpose of embarrassing the Government.””

The minutes confirm that the Government did offer Avro $50 million to prevent job losses but the company ignored the money for some reason. The minutes also show that the Government was actively seeking other work for the company. What is very clear is that there is no direct connection between cancelling the Arrow program and the disaster that befell Malton. Destroying the industry was a choice that Avro management made and it was not only “embarrassing” to the Government but went a long ways towards defeating it. [What is very surprising about the events in 1959 is how the Opposition was complaining loudly about ending a program that they had already decided to cancel in ’57.]

The Arrow myth is not a matter of a simple misunderstanding but one of political propaganda for the “purpose of embarrassing the Government.” It worked against John Diefenbaker and the myth is still useful against Conservatives today. The myth also wrongly accuses Eisenhower of conspiring to kill the program even though the Arrow was cancelled for reasons of economy and performance, not politics. The U.S. really did want the aircraft to succeed but there was no way they could justify spending $9.7 million for a Mach 1.9 Arrow with 1254 nm ferry range when a U.S. company was already producing a $3.75 million aircraft with Mach 2.3 capability and 1930+ nm ferry range.

The rest is mythstory.

[jbg]

The Arrow myth is not a matter of a simple misunderstanding but one of political propaganda for the “purpose of embarrassing the Government.” It worked against John Diefenbaker and the myth is still useful against Conservatives today. The myth also wrongly accuses Eisenhower of conspiring to kill the program even though the Arrow was cancelled for reasons of economy and performance, not politics. The U.S. really did want the aircraft to succeed but there was no way they could justify spending $9.7 million for a Mach 1.9 Arrow with 1254 nm ferry range when a U.S. company was already producing a $3.75 million aircraft with Mach 2.3 capability and 1930+ nm ferry range.

The rest is mythstory.

Thanks for explaining.

[Murray B.]

Thanks for explaining.

You're welcome.

[Wild Bill]

It is important, jbg, to differentiate between reality and the Avro myth which is a lie that just won’t die.

The Arrow myth is not a matter of a simple misunderstanding but one of political propaganda for the “purpose of embarrassing the Government.” It worked against John Diefenbaker and the myth is still useful against Conservatives today. The myth also wrongly accuses Eisenhower of conspiring to kill the program even though the Arrow was cancelled for reasons of economy and performance, not politics. The U.S. really did want the aircraft to succeed but there was no way they could justify spending $9.7 million for a Mach 1.9 Arrow with 1254 nm ferry range when a U.S. company was already producing a $3.75 million aircraft with Mach 2.3 capability and 1930+ nm ferry range.

The rest is mythstory.

You've answered only party of the puzzle. The economic reasons you've stated are understandable and reasonable. The implication that Avro chose to embarrass the Tories is plausible as well, even if one doesn't agree.

What I and others don't understand is why the complete destruction of the prototypes and all engineering research/paperwork? Why the refusal to sell any of it to other allied countries, like the US, France and Britain? It has been well documented that those countries were interested, at least in parts of what was available if not whole aircraft.

It's the complete and utter destruction of anything to do with the plane that puzzles me, unless the Tories simply were afraid that in a few years some country would produce a plane similar to the Arrow that performed so well that it would embarrass their government's decision.

And it's not so much the destruction of the Arrow as the destruction of an entire industry, regulating Canada in yet another area to be just another resource/agricultural country. I mean, so are countries like Bangladesh!

It's almost as if Canada produces companies like RIM in spite of its governments! Is there some master plan in Ottawa that includes all parties to keep us from becoming high tech manufacturing leaders?

[jbg]

What I and others don't understand is why the complete destruction of the prototypes and all engineering research/paperwork? Why the refusal to sell any of it to other allied countries, like the US, France and Britain? It has been well documented that those countries were interested, at least in parts of what was available if not whole aircraft.

Isn't there a complete one at a museum in Ottawa?

[bush_cheney2004]

You can build your own Avro Arrow right at home!

http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/viet/leducarrow.htm

Take that...John Diefenbaker!

Edited April 5, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonbox]

What I and others don't understand is why the complete destruction of the prototypes and all engineering research/paperwork? Why the refusal to sell any of it to other allied countries, like the US, France and Britain? It has been well documented that those countries were interested, at least in parts of what was available if not whole aircraft.

As I've stated before, other countries were not actually excited about the plane by the time it was cancelled. There WAS interest in the early stages and the British were actually going to buy the finished product. Unfortunately the project took too long, the other countries you mentioned came up with their own similar/superior projects that would be coming online around the same time and that's the interest in the Avro fizzled out.

It's the complete and utter destruction of anything to do with the plane that puzzles me, unless the Tories simply were afraid that in a few years some country would produce a plane similar to the Arrow that performed so well that it would embarrass their government's decision.

So your most likely scenario is that the government trashed the equipment and designs purely out of spite and contempt? It's more likely that the project turned out to be a massive embarrassment and the government wanted to cover up how much taxpayer money they wasted on a dud plane.

It's almost as if Canada produces companies like RIM in spite of its governments! Is there some master plan in Ottawa that includes all parties to keep us from becoming high tech manufacturing leaders?

Name us another country of $30 million with a thriving defence industry. Hint: There aren't any.

[Murray B.]

What I and others don't understand is why the complete destruction of the prototypes and all engineering research/paperwork?

The prototypes are separate from the rest. They belonged to the Canadian Government and not to Hawker Siddeley Group. The recommendation to destroy the existing aircraft came from Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Hugh Campbell who wanted to avoid “subsequent embarrassment”. There is no trace of any order from the military or Government regarding the destruction research and paperwork so the order must have been internal. It could have come from Hawker Siddeley Group in England or Avro Canada in Malton. It is hard to tell after so many years.

Why the refusal to sell any of it to other allied countries, like the US, France and Britain? It has been well documented that those countries were interested, at least in parts of what was available if not whole aircraft.

What do you mean by “it”? If by “it” you mean a complete weapon system then “it” was not ready for sale at that time. Even the engines were not ready. According to “The Arrow Countdown” by Peter Zuuring page 43, “Charles [Charles Grinyer, VP Engineering at Orenda] said that just before cancellation, the seventh stage compressor rotor was throwing blades without any conclusive solution determined.” He paraphrases Mr. Grinyer again later on page 53, “Charles told me that if they had only had one more year on the project, the Iroquois would truly have met its revolutionary goals.”

After the Arrow was built and proved to have excessive drag [it actually did not have a “wasp waist” as we have been repeatedly told] which limited its range to two-thirds of competing aircraft. The U.S. chose to go with a faster, cheaper, longer-range, locally produced aircraft the Delta Dart. In the case of Britain it came down to two British designs the Arrow and the far less expensive English Electric Lightning. They chose the Lightning. As far as France goes there was no chance that they would buy a foreign delta when they were already producing their own for far less money. All of the Arrow’s technology was shared with the other divisions of British Hawker Siddeley Group right from the beginning so your sources of information must be in error.

It's the complete and utter destruction of anything to do with the plane that puzzles me, unless the Tories simply were afraid that in a few years some country would produce a plane similar to the Arrow that performed so well that it would embarrass their government's decision.

The only reason you are puzzled is because you are assuming the Arrow was the best aircraft ever made. It was a metal-skinned aircraft with vacuum tube electronics and an improper shape for the speeds it was intended to fly. It has more in common with the aircraft of 1954 than the ones from 1958 and there was no way to fix it without starting over. Shredding all the evidence did prevent any inquiry into how the company had managed to spend $308 million to produce a rather mediocre aircraft.

And it's not so much the destruction of the Arrow as the destruction of an entire industry...

Read the minutes carefully and you will see who is actually responsible for destroying all those lives in Malton back then. Think about it. Which party would gain from “embarrassing” the Progressive Conservative Government like that? It looks like Ontarians have been blaming the wrong guy for fifty years. How bad is that?

[Wild Bill]

Isn't there a complete one at a museum in Ottawa?

Nope! They were all hacked, slashed, torched and made into toasters!

[Wild Bill]

What do you mean by “it”? If by “it” you mean a complete weapon system then “it” was not ready for sale at that time. Even the engines were not ready. According to “The Arrow Countdown” by Peter Zuuring page 43, “Charles [Charles Grinyer, VP Engineering at Orenda] said that just before cancellation, the seventh stage compressor rotor was throwing blades without any conclusive solution determined.” He paraphrases Mr. Grinyer again later on page 53, “Charles told me that if they had only had one more year on the project, the Iroquois would truly have met its revolutionary goals.”

Read the minutes carefully and you will see who is actually responsible for destroying all those lives in Malton back then. Think about it. Which party would gain from “embarrassing” the Progressive Conservative Government like that? It looks like Ontarians have been blaming the wrong guy for fifty years. How bad is that?

By "it" I did not mean solely and only one of the demo aircraft. I was also including all the technical research info and documentation. Several of the books I have read on the Arrow mentioned that those other countries tried to buy the engineering documentation, if nothing else. Engineers LOVE that kind of stuff 'cuz it often might contain nuggets of info they did not already have!

As for "reading the minutes carefully", I had noticed the reference to the Liberals. It would not have surprised me to learn it was an opposition party scam. That's always been par for the course as far as Canadian politics, anyway!

While I've never subscribed to the view that the Arrow was years ahead of its time I've always believed that it was competitive and the engineering was something for Canadians to be proud of. The AVRO Jetliner was perhaps a far bigger missed opportunity, one that indeed the Liberals were solely responsible.

We'll never know what sort of aerospace industry we could have had. As a small country we lacked the large scale manufacturing resources but that could have been contracted out to the States or Britain. We were even closer allies then than we are now and such a partnership would have been quite feasible, especially when the lion's share of the profit would have been in the manufacturing.

The engineering alone could have been a quite respectable industry for Canada. I still keep remembering the quote in one book from a Tory apparatchik, who called A V Roe after the Black Friday layoff to ask "Why are you doing this? Couldn't you just make tractors or something?"

That was just so typical of a Canadian politician. They tend to be law and poli-sci graduates. We need those types, I suppose. Still, when it comes to anything at all technical the only one I ever respected was the late Chuck Cadman. The rest I wouldn't trust to put a new plug on a desklamp!

[DogOnPorch]

Nope! They were all hacked, slashed, torched and made into toasters!

Everything else was tossed in the lake.

[bush_cheney2004]

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey, if it helps any, AVRO did get to do some really keen stuff for the Americans. Something called Project Siver Bug (Canadian Y-2)...after it was cancelled, the bloody Yanks took all the purchased technology back home for more fun and games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar ....Avrocar.

http://www.project1947.com/fig/sb/page_3.htm

[Bonam]

Name us another country of $30 million with a thriving defence industry. Hint: There aren't any.

I assume you meant 30 million people. And while I'm not sure about other countries with the exact same population, there are much much smaller countries that have thriving defense industries. Israel for example. You don't have to be a world superpower with hundreds of millions of people to have a successful defense industry.

[Smallc]

Name us another country of $30 million with a thriving defence industry. Hint: There aren't any.

Canada's defence industry is actually rather large...but not as large as some other places.

[Smallc]

Israel for example. You don't have to be a world superpower with hundreds of millions of people to have a successful defense industry.

No, but it helps when some of your defence spending comes in the form of aid from a world superpower with hundreds of millions of people.

[Bonam]

No, but it helps when some of your defence spending comes in the form of aid from a world superpower with hundreds of millions of people.

Canada's economy benefits more from ties with the US than does that of any other country, so you don't really have much of a point here.

[Smallc]

Canada's economy benefits more from ties with the US than does that of any other country, so you don't really have much of a point here.

Canada's defence industry does too. It's the 14th largest in the world (or thereabouts). I do have a point though, since the US doesn't actually give us money to spend on arms, something that they do for Israel.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Smallc

[Bonam]

Canada's defence industry does too. I do have a point though, since the US doesn't actually give us money to spend on arms, something that they do for Israel.

Indeed. Unlike Israel, we get the luxury of picking what to spend our economic bounty on.

[Bonam]

It's the 14th largest in the world (or thereabouts).

Got a cite? I'm interested in seeing the ranking of countries by defense industry size.

[Smallc]

Got a cite? I'm interested in seeing the ranking of countries by defense industry size.

I was wrong. Canada is the world's 14th largest arms exporter, about the same as our defence budget (13th largest in the world):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Edited April 6, 2011 by Smallc

[Bonam]

I was wrong. Canada is the world's 14th largest arms exporter, about the same as our defence budget (13th largest in the world):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Well, a little behind our spot as the world's 9-10th largest economy but not too far I suppose.

The thing to note is that a large defense budget does not necessarily correspond to a large defense industry. For example, a significant chunk of our defense budget in the near future will be expended on the F-35s. They represent 16+ billion in spending. And yet, they say nothing about the Canadian defense industry, since they are produced elsewhere.

And that's what the debate was about. Sure, we might spend an adequate amount on military given that we have no pressing need to have a particularly strong military, but much of the actual industry that produces our defense hardware is not here in Canada, it is elsewhere.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Bonam

[Smallc]

They represent 16+ billion in spending. And yet, they say nothing about the Canadian defense industry, since they are produced elsewhere.

That's very narrow view. Parts of the F-35 (both ours, and others) will be produced in Canada, even if the final product is not. A company in Winnipeg is expected to make the wing tips, for example. The same goes for upgrades to Canada's Frigates. Their being done by a US company's Canadian subsidiary (Lockheed Martin Canada) by contractors in Canada. When Canada builds new ships (should be any time after this spring, assuming the government doesn't change), it will likely involve Lockheed Martin, but be done at Canadian shipyards. The defence industry is very interconnected, especially between the US and Canada.

[Bonam]

That's very narrow view. Parts of the F-35 (both ours, and others) will be produced in Canada, even if the final product is not. A company in Winnipeg is expected to make the wing tips, for example. The same goes for upgrades to Canada's Frigates. Their being done by a US company's Canadian subsidiary (Lockheed Martin Canada) by contractors in Canada. When Canada builds new ships (should be any time after this spring, assuming the government doesn't change), it will likely involve Lockheed Martin, but be done at Canadian shipyards. The defence industry is very interconnected, especially between the US and Canada.

Nevertheless you must admit that there is no direct correlation between our defense spending and the size of our domestic defense industry.