The Avro Arrow

[wulf42]

One of the most amazing aircraft ever built was the Lockheed SR-71 "Blackbird" this aircraft was extremely fast, it was so fast that if a SAM was fired at it ....it didn t have to perform evasive action it could just simply accelerate.

[noahbody]

Kimmy, your full of surprises, a girl that can talk about fighters, thats frigging awesome, it's just rare to see thats all.

She does come from Awesometon. It only makes sense.

[noahbody]

Deleted double post.

Edited November 10, 2008 by noahbody

[GostHacked]

I think North American made the prettiest designs ever put in the sky.

-k

Personally, I love the SAABs. The Viggen, Grippen. Those are the most beautiful to me. Also the Fulcrum is a long fave of mine as well in terms of looks. I am a fan of delta wing craft, so even stuff like the Dasaults and the Euro Fighter get high marks in my books for asthetics.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think North American made the prettiest designs ever put in the sky.

I remember two cable television programs that dedicate an hour to each of the "Great Planes" back in the 1980's. AV Roe had a segment, as did the Arrow. North American was certainly in the mix.

Here is one of many Youtube tributes to the CF-105:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af5NOLdQJkg

[M.Dancer]

Personally, I love the SAABs. The Viggen, Grippen. Those are the most beautiful to me. Also the Fulcrum is a long fave of mine as well in terms of looks. I am a fan of delta wing craft, so even stuff like the Dasaults and the Euro Fighter get high marks in my books for asthetics.

Not to mention the Spitfire with it's iconic eliptical wings or the Stuka dive bomber...

[Keepitsimple]

Here's another Avro story that few people know about. Canada was ALMOST the first country to develop a jet airliner for passenger use - they missed that honour by 13 days. Here's a blurb on the C102 and a link to the rest of the story:

The Avro C102 Jetliner was a Canadian prototype medium-range jet airliner built by Avro Canada in 1949. It was beaten into the air by only 13 days by the de Havilland Comet, thereby becoming the second jetliner in the world, yet the name "Jetliner" was more catchy and for many years all such aircraft were colloquially given that name. The aircraft was considered suitable for busy routes along the US eastern seaboard and garnered intense interest, notably from Howard Hughes who even offered to start production under license. However continued delays in Avro's all-weather interceptor project, the Avro CF-100, led to an order to stop working on the project in 1951, with the prototype Jetliner later cut up for scrap.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Jetliner

[Brunopolis]

It's all a matter of political will. Was the government at the time willing to spend the money and time in these kind of military projects? Canadian's as a whole tend to have other priorities than investing in their military so the government generally follows suit and doesn't invest in the military either.

Also, with the neighbours that we have and their military spending there's really no point to try to compete. Maybe thats why Canadians don't really care about their military in general.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's all a matter of political will. Was the government at the time willing to spend the money and time in these kind of military projects? Canadian's as a whole tend to have other priorities than investing in their military so the government generally follows suit and doesn't invest in the military either.....

OK...then why does the hangover for what could have been persist to this day? Why has the Avro Arrow become the poster child for inept aviation / military procurement projects, or worse yet, victimization by the USA (yet again).

[Brunopolis]

OK...then why does the hangover for what could have been persist to this day? Why has the Avro Arrow become the poster child for inept aviation / military procurement projects, or worse yet, victimization by the USA (yet again).

It's used as an excuse for our rather poor military. Many people care about the military. Just not enough to actually invest in it.

It's easier to blame your woes on something else than take personal responsibility. People do it, political parties do it, and in this case a whole nation does it.

[na85]

All right. All you people who think that the Arrow was canceled because of some silly American conspiracy should retreat to your tinfoil-lined shelters.

The Arrow was canceled because

a) The prevailing view at the time was that missiles (specifically anti-bomber missiles and ICBM's) would come to dominate aerial combat.

The original engines didn't provide enough thrust to meet government specifications, so the Iroquois engine was designed from scratch, necessitating a redesign of the engine housing of the Arrow Mk 2, drastically increasing the cost of the project.

The Arrow Mk 1, which was tested by the military, was able to achieve Mach 2 at altitude, running on the underpowered engines (not the iroquois). Is this better than a CF-18? HAHAHAHA no. Was it very good for its time? Yes.

[DogOnPorch]

There were good side effects to the loss of the Arrow. It got Canadian engineer Jim Chamberlin involved with NASA early in the space race allowing him to design the Gemini spacecraft and the Lunar Module (amoungst other duties). Far better use for his talents.

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

-------------------------------------------

...an evil petting zoo??

---Dr Evil

[na85]

Many claim that the Arrow debacle is what started the so-called Brain Drain, whose effects we're still feeling today.

[kimmy]

Many claim that the Arrow debacle is what started the so-called Brain Drain, whose effects we're still feeling today.

An interesting premise, but I don't think it stands up to critical thinking.

What it comes down to is that the brains go where the jobs are. The Arrow project no doubt had the best aeronautics engineers in Canada, and with the cancellation of that project and no project of equal stature in Canada to take its place, it seems inevitable that these people would have to leave Canada to make best use of their skills. Aviation firms in the US and UK probably recruited as many Arrow engineers as they could get, and apparently NASA hired some as well.

But it seems unlikely that the Arrow cancellation had anything to do with why a present day Canadian technology professional might wind up working in the US. A lot of these brains work in fields where Canada never had an "Arrow" project in the first place.

My dad is an engineer. Like many families headed by technology professionals, we moved around quite a bit. In Canada, in the mid to late 1990s, Canada had a west-to-east brain drain, as Nortel Networks was hiring every engineer and programmer they could get their mitts on. Nortel was hiring something like 1/4 of all electrical and computer engineering graduates from Canadian universities. My family was one of thousands that moved to Ottawa during this time. When Nortel crashed in spectacular fashion, we were among the thousands of families that left Ottawa just as quickly.

Dad's work has had us live in several of Canada's major cities at one time or another. He has also had opportunities to find employ in the United States. It was his choice to remain in Canada, and happily there always enough opportunities in Canadian technology for that to be an option. For others, depending what industry they're in, that might not be the case.

If there was a high-tech company in Maidstone, Saskatchewan, and that high-tech company folds, then Maidstone is going to experience brain drain as there are no other high-tech jobs in Maidstone for the unemployed technology professionals to work at. Ottawa experienced brain drain on a much larger scale in 2001 when Nortel laid off thousands of technology professionals, and JDS Uniphase and all the other companies nearby that depended on Nortel also laid of thousands of technology professionals, and suddenly the job market had tens of thousands of unemployed technology professionals with no jobs... and most of them left Ottawa permanently. swooosh... brain drain for Ottawa... but brain gain for Vancouver, and Calgary, and Portland Oregon, and Raleigh North Carolina, and lots of other places that still had jobs.

Brain drain in a modern context isn't a result of something "Dief" did in the 1950s. Brain drain is a function of people going where they need to to pursue the work they want to.

-k

[GostHacked]

a) The prevailing view at the time was that missiles (specifically anti-bomber missiles and ICBM's) would come to dominate aerial combat.

Who was selling the missles?? Sure the Arrow had it's challenges ... But Canada was not making missles to replace the fighters. So no matter how people look at it, politics was involved as well. Not the only/main factor .. but a factor none the less.

The original engines didn't provide enough thrust to meet government specifications, so the Iroquois engine was designed from scratch, necessitating a redesign of the engine housing of the Arrow Mk 2, drastically increasing the cost of the project.

The F-18 went through a few revisions as well. Actually the whole airframe was redesigned and tweaked to become the Super Hornet. So, I don't buy the cost thing at all due to the engine change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18_Hornet

The Arrow Mk 1, which was tested by the military, was able to achieve Mach 2 at altitude, running on the underpowered engines (not the iroquois). Is this better than a CF-18? HAHAHAHA no. Was it very good for its time? Yes.

The planes were designed for specific roles. The Arrow was built as an interceptor. The F-18 was intended as a Fighter/Attack jet and later evolved into a multi-role fighter which tops out at Mach 1.8.

Yes the F-18 is better, it is also much younger than the Arrow.

[M.Dancer]

Who was selling the missles?? Sure the Arrow had it's challenges ... But Canada was not making missles to replace the fighters.

You're confused. ICBMs were replacing the massed bomber formations that were the only objective of the arrow. Without the massed bomber formations, the raison d'etre of the Arrow ceased to be.

[M.Dancer]

The Arrow was built as an interceptor. The F-18 was intended as a Fighter/Attack jet and later evolved into a multi-role fighter which tops out at Mach 1.8.

Yes the F-18 is better, it is also much younger than the Arrow.

eh?

A fighter/attack jet is a multi role platform....so it didn't evoolve into something it already was...it was simply improved. Improving an existing model is a lot simpler and les exepensive than crating a new model.

[GostHacked]

eh?

A fighter/attack jet is a multi role platform....so it didn't evoolve into something it already was...it was simply improved. Improving an existing model is a lot simpler and les exepensive than crating a new model.

Fair enough. But my point is still valid that each jet had different design requirements. One was built specifically as an interceptor, the other a multi-role fighter. So they are going to perform very different.

You're confused. ICBMs were replacing the massed bomber formations that were the only objective of the arrow. Without the massed bomber formations, the raison d'etre of the Arrow ceased to be.

So, missles were the reason the Arrow was scrapped. No bombers to intercept. No need for the interceptor. Why?? Missles (ICBMs).

[na85]

Brain drain is a function of people going where they need to to pursue the work they want to.

-k

Correct. And since the industry here was cut off at the knees, and was growing stronger in the US due to the space race, there are still more high-tech jobs in the states than there are here in Canada.

I didn't say Dief the Chief's actions were the SOLE cause.

[bush_cheney2004]

Correct. And since the industry here was cut off at the knees, and was growing stronger in the US due to the space race, there are still more high-tech jobs in the states than there are here in Canada.

OK....but it is even more basic than that. A. V. Roe Canada, formerly Victory Aircraft, had strong roots in the U.K., which was able to design and manufacture such aircraft without American support.

[Wilber]

Most of Canada's aircraft manufacturing industry has its roots in the UK. Canadian Vickers became Canadair and it along with De Havilland Canada and A.V. Roe Canada ultimately became part of Bombardier.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

To this day we still don't make aircraft for our military. We have made them on license, but the Arrow was ours. The productive effort was ours, the achievements were ours. The rewards could have been ours, but it simply didn't happen. The Conservatives killed the project and we now buy planes from the US with every dollar of that purchase headed south. No jobs, no tax revenues, just another expenditure. It was politics that killed that plane, and we are all the poorer for it.

[bush_cheney2004]

To this day we still don't make aircraft for our military. We have made them on license, but the Arrow was ours. The productive effort was ours, the achievements were ours....

OK....but A.V. Roe was not "ours"...see Wilber's explanation above.

Edited January 4, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Jerry J. Fortin]

At one time it was, and it was called Victory Aircraft. That was sold by the Canadian government to Hawker Siddeley after the war. That became A.V. Roe Canada or Avro Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

At one time it was, and it was called Victory Aircraft. That was sold by the Canadian government to Hawker Siddeley after the war. That became A.V. Roe Canada or Avro Canada.

That's great...so not only did it take a UK firm, but a world war to boot. Then we can add the Cold War for making the Arrow even remotely necessary.

No matter...in the end....it was Canada that also chose not to get it done.