The Avro Arrow

[Murray B.]

Always nice to get a visit from the tinfoil cap people. The only thing you left out was that this was a result of an international conspiracy of some sort which probably involved the Illuminati or Jews or something.

Perhaps the Americans flew one of the saucers up from Groom lake and slowed the Arrow with a gravity beam. They could have also used their weather control machine to thicken the air to slow the Arrow down.

Strangely though, Argus, I agree with the poster that we should rebuild the Arrow or a least a digital version of it. It is the only way to know what the performance of the aircraft really would have been with the Orenda engines.

I have read much about the Arrow and have discovered some interesting things.

What I have found is that Avro could not deliver an airframe that met specifications and the RCAF really did not want the aircraft.

The Department of National Defence seems to be responsible for two main things. It issued the specification for an interceptor and then checked to insure that the contractor met the specifications.

The original specification is interesting to me for its manouverability requirement. They want 2g turn at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet without loss of height or speed. This should have excluded a delta wing planform from the beginning since deltas don't turn without losing speed. Both the NAE and DRB [DND advisors] indicate that the aircraft had more drag then the contractor claimed. The project was cancelled in April '53. Then something strange happened. For some reason it was decided to seek the opinon of an outside agency and they asked NACA (NASA precursor) to review the project. Why would the DND want to do this? I expect that they did not and it is Avro that has gone to the government to demand a third opinion.

NACA confirms that the drag is 50% higher than Avro claims. [That is basically what our guys said and I am proud that they knew that. Our military may be small but our guys really know their stuff, Eh?] NACA also recommends "proper application of the area rule" and states that delta wings are a poor planform for high endurance and long range.

Avro does not change the wing planform much and only applies the area rule to the nose, intakes and tail section. Many other companies that succeeded in producing Mach 2+ aircraft applied the rule to the entire aircraft from tip to tail.

Clearly the aircraft still has a range problem after the fixes, based on information from a once secret memorandum dated 17 Jan 58 which states in part, "A reduction in ferry range to 1254 nm is not acceptable."

Not too long after that the program is cancelled for good and then, for some reason, all evidence is destroyed.

This is very strange. Since the Arrow's performance is secret at the time there are only three groups in Canada that know much about the problems. The government, the opposition, and the DND. Although the records seem to indicate that it is the DND that initiates the destruction they really don't have a reason to do so. The DND is not responsible for a contractor failing to meet a specification. The Conservatives also have no worries since it is not their program. There is really only one of these three groups that benefit from the complete destruction of all evidence and they shall remain nameless.

From where I sit it does not look like the RCAF wants the Arrow but an aircraft that meets their specificatons. It seems like they are trying to get the Arrow cancelled from '53 and keep getting overruled by the politicians. Then they are ordered to take the Arrow and like it but that government gets defeated. Diefenbaker finally does the sensible thing and cancels the program as the DND recommends.

It would be nice to actually test the thing to see how it really performed. It makes no sense to build one physically but it should be possible to test a digital model of it. Then we will know what the performance was really like.

The NACA report is very interesting because it cost the Americans millions to discover the area rule which was a trade secret and they gave it to us for free. They also provided a B-47 bomber to test the Iroquois engine. It looks like almost our whole country owes the Americans an apology and I for one am very sorry that we accused them of wrongdoing without a shred of proof.

P.S. From the Montreal Star, October 23, 1963," Gen. Charles Foulkes, charman 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...Gen. Foulkes confirmed the 1959 statement of Mr. Diefenbaker that the chiefs of staff had recommended cancellation of the Arrow...the chiefs concluded that it did not make any sense to produce an $8,000,000 interceptor in Canada when one could be obtained in the U.S. for $2,000,000..."

Edited February 5, 2009 by Murray B.

[Blues]

I can't believe all the posters here that trash the Arrow as a 'today' interceptor / fighter. Are they on drugs?...or just typical Canadian idjits?

Is it beyond the scope of your logic (((( Yes You )))-to assume that a 50 year old aircraft way ahead of it's then time would be utilized today in a late '50s form? IF the Arrow had served in Canada we would have re and re'd it every year for the last half century. Too much to figure out? ...hmmm..that's why we have "Ohhhh Canada" as our anthem...silly thinkers...sadly who post on forums like this.

The Arrow would be 50 years ahead of 2011, TODAY, I'D wager .....and I'd win. GAME SET MATCH. If needed for a fighter role ...it would have a version to do just that....A high altitude bomber role ? - just that. A space shuttle?...Just that.

Anyone who compares 1950's technology to today is a complete idiot. The Avro Arrow was, and still could be, morphed into a winning program for Canada TODAY. We LIKE moving targets here. We EXCEL at moving targets here. Our pilots can take on 10% of the Nato role with 2% resources and come up for Tim Horton's Coffee -safe and sound in the morning back at base.

IF we had the ARROW today...we'd be spending our OWN bucks on our OWN aircraft/ our OWN engines / our OWN avionics / our OWN computer systems...and financing the rest of the western world to buy OUR capabilities ...NOT theirs.

...It's because of short sighted idiots like you nay sayers that we have no Arrow in Canada today..... ((( OHHHH CANADA )))))

[Moonbox]

Why you're resurrecting this thread...I don't know.

The Avro was designed to fly very fast and very straight at very high altitudes, and it was designed to quickly catch up to and shoot down high-altitude and super sonic bombers. It was meant to protect Canada from nuclear armed Soviet bombers.

By the late 1950's the Soviets had already built the first ICBM's. Nuclear weapons from thereon would delivered by missiles launched from thousands of miles and would fall down from the stratosphere.

The Avro Arrow could not shoot down ICBM's. It was largely obsolete before it came off the line. The threat it was designed to defeat, mainly long range strategic bombers, became a secondary threat overnight.

As for the rest of the crap you spouted, you're so wrong it hurts. The Arrow design could not be adopted to a fighter role. The delta wing design would have made it impossible to manoeuver at slower speeds and dogfight because of the drag it would have encountered against its flat bottomed surface. You don't need to be an aeronautical engineer to see that.

It was designed to fly high, straight and far. That was it.

[Wilber]

As for the rest of the crap you spouted, you're so wrong it hurts. The Arrow design could not be adopted to a fighter role. The delta wing design would have made it impossible to manoeuver at slower speeds and dogfight because of the drag it would have encountered against its flat bottomed surface. You don't need to be an aeronautical engineer to see that.

Deltas can certainly be designed to dog fight. The Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are all delta canard designs.

Pretty much agree with the rest of your post though.

[William Ashley]

My grandfather worked as an electrician on the arrow project. I must state that I think that for the cost of the f35 boondoggle, CANADA CAN BUILD ITS OWN Arrow 2.0, FULLY BY CANADIANS. Canada already has the f35 parts deals, why not call it even --- 150 million invested generating 300 million in orders - going to US owned companies operating in Canada.

Give the money to CANADIAN OWNED COMPANIES not american ones. BUILD CANADIAN PLANES don't pay for US R&D costs.

Placing Canadian sovereignty at the will of US produced military equipment is not securing Canadian sovreginty especially with the outflow of money goes to the US and US companies-- rather than Canadians and Canadian companies Why employ people to earn 1 billion on this when you can just give them the money and have canadian technology and equipment - with Canadian share holders and infrastructure. Don't give it to the US, it only feeds a gaint that is belittling Canada.

Canada needs to SUPPORT ITSELF AND ITS OWN DEFENCE. US satalite status removes the concept of Canadian Independence and Sovereignty. This at a time when the US doesn't even recognize Canadian Arctic Sovreignty, Claiming a large Chunk of Canadian waters as theirs when they have no legal basis for the claim - to what was inherited by Canada from the British. AND YOU ARE GIVING THEM MORE POWER BY ORDERING THE F35...

NO MORE US EQUIPMENT UNTIL CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY IS FULLY RESPECTED!

Edited March 21, 2011 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

My grandfather worked as an electrician on the arrow project. I must state that I think that for the cost of the f35 boondoggle, CANADA CAN BUILD ITS OWN Arrow 2.0, FULLY BY CANADIANS. Canada already has the f35 parts deals, why not call it even --- 150 million invested generating 300 million in orders - going to US owned companies operating in Canada.

Give the money to CANADIAN OWNED COMPANIES not american ones. BUILD CANADIAN PLANES don't pay for US R&D costs.

Ya right. You really have no clue what this stuff costs do develop. You can't even come close to designing a new car for 150 million.

[William Ashley]

Ya right. You really have no clue what this stuff costs do develop. You can't even come close to designing a new car for 150 million.

I'd do it for 50k what type of car would you like?

Patent infringement not inclusive.

It is dangerously cheap if you know what you are doing.

Actually the stuff costs almost nothing to research - the prototype is the only real cost once you get it down.

We know how physics work.

This program would cost less than 28 Billion home made.. sorry if you don't believe that you are out of touch.

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sa=t&ct2=ca%2F0_0_s_0_0_t&ct3=MAA4AEgAUABgAWoCY2E&usg=AFQjCNFq5iU0JfNGVR2-Dlnme77cI4WumQ&did=683eb539be52b8c3&sig2=7_ABuoxfNid3eXsHZEZILg&cid=8797671712622&ei=leKHTcCHPKCINc6mwio&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vancouversun.com%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fprice%2Bcould%2Bbillion%2F4420670%2Fstory.html

Edited March 21, 2011 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

I'd do it for 50k what type of car would you like?

Patent infringement not inclusive.

Bet you couldn't even build a new car for 50K let alone design it.

[William Ashley]

Bet you couldn't even build a new car for 50K let alone design it.

Sure I could.

Couldn't you?

Companies and IP don't matter in a real war.

WWI - allies steal Germany and Austrian patents as "payment for war damages"

WWII - US loot german patents in operation paperclip.

They don't respect IP

Buying companies to aquire their rights is the only real expense of this stuff.

The only cost is material to produce prototypes

Then production startup

The rest goes to corporate executives and law suits mostly.

The company making the f35 had like over 300 vice presidents. each making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars each a year. plus benefits

How many are Canadian..?

Edited March 21, 2011 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

Sure I could.

Couldn't you?

Companies and IP don't matter in a real war.

WWI - allies steal Germany and Austrian patents as "payment for war damages"

WWII - US loot german patents in operation paperclip.

They don't respect IP

Buying companies to aquire their rights is the only real expense of this stuff.

The only cost is material to produce prototypes

Then production startup

The rest goes to corporate executives and law suits mostly.

The company making the f35 had like over 300 vice presidents. each making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars each a year. plus benefits

How many are Canadian..?

Having restored an old car, yes I do have some idea. How many companies do you think you could buy for 50K?

[Hydraboss]

Sure I could.

Couldn't you?

Most of us doubt you could order a coffee at Starbucks by yourself, let alone design a car (or maybe a spaceship!!!!....)

Buying companies to aquire their rights is the only real expense of this stuff.

Yup. Not that that costs anything, right? Besides, I thought you wanted this to be 100% Canadian? Why would you buy a foreign company?

The only cost is material to produce prototypes

Yup. That's it. Just materials. No staff. No aeronautical engineers that make $200,000 a year. Nope. Don't need them. And besides, how much can that grade of aircraft aluminum cost anyway? And I'm pretty sure Home Depot carries plexiglass that you can use for a windshield - should hold up to mach II without issue.

Oh wait, Home Depot is a US company. Maybe UFA carries something.

Then production startup

This is definitely the cheap part. I'm sure you won't need any CNC lathes or anything (like this one Modern Model BNC-35120 14" Bore CNC Hollow Spindle Oilfield Lathe I just put in one of the company's shops that cost $330,000 US - although we paid less). Absolutely won't need any of them new-fangled things.

The rest goes to corporate executives and law suits mostly.

THAT must be where the 1.XX billion a year the company makes goes. The mystery is solved.

The company making the f35 had like over 300 vice presidents. each making hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars each a year. plus benefits

Uhm, that would be Lockheed Martin. 125,000 employees worldwide, and yet there's 300 VP's? Really? Please provide cite. This I have to see.

How many are Canadian..?

Again, who cares?

[Bonam]

Yup. That's it. Just materials. No staff. No aeronautical engineers that make $200,000 a year. Nope. Don't need them.

Heh, I wish we made $200k/year.

[Hydraboss]

Heh, I wish we made $200k/year.

Well, any 12 good ones make that (combined maybe....)

[Moonbox]

Deltas can certainly be designed to dog fight. The Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are all delta canard designs.

Yes THOSE planes are all very agile, but the AVRO's airframe was not. They don't have the same sort of fat, swept wing that the AVRO did and they are also all canard-designed.

Avro would have had lousy flight performance at lower speeds which dogfighting usually required.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes THOSE planes are all very agile, but the AVRO's airframe was not. They don't have the same sort of fat, swept wing that the AVRO did and they are also all canard-designed.

Avro would have had lousy flight performance at lower speeds which dogfighting usually required.

The plane was designed as an interceptor. As such it was a design success. Given that reality, I actually believe that had Avro decided to build a fighter it would have been rejected by the RCAF as not functional as an interceptor.

The point is that the Arrow is a 50 year old design being compared to modern day aircraft, and that is folly. The truth is the plane and the program were in fact a success and that politics sunk the boat. We are now reaping what we have sown and are buying aircraft with tax dollars from foreign suppliers to the nations detriment.

Its not wether or not we can build a plane, we do that daily. Its about how we go about conducting the nations business.

[M.Dancer]

The plane was designed as an interceptor. As such it was a design success. Given that reality, I actually believe that had Avro decided to build a fighter it would have been rejected by the RCAF as not functional as an interceptor.

That's funny because it is probably true...

[Wilber]

Yes THOSE planes are all very agile, but the AVRO's airframe was not. They don't have the same sort of fat, swept wing that the AVRO did and they are also all canard-designed.

Avro would have had lousy flight performance at lower speeds which dogfighting usually required.

Not disputing the idea the Arrow was no dog fighter just pointing out thppat other manufacturers from several different countries have chosen the delta configuration for their current fighters.

[William Ashley]

Most of us doubt you could order a coffee at Starbucks by yourself, let alone design a car (or maybe a spaceship!!!!....)

Who is that the stupid group? What does it matter what you think if you don't think right? Nutter.

Yup. Not that that costs anything, right? Besides, I thought you wanted this to be 100% Canadian? Why would you buy a foreign company?

Cause it makes money, and advances my causes?

Yup. That's it. Just materials. No staff. No aeronautical engineers that make $200,000 a year.

And how much does it take to pay a soldier on 5 year contracts that is trained to engineer stuff?

Nope. Don't need them. And besides, how much can that grade of aircraft aluminum cost anyway?

Aluminum is so yesterday now it is stuff like composite nanocarbon alloy.

And I'm pretty sure Home Depot carries plexiglass that you can use for a windshield - should hold up to mach II without issue.

If you can coat it to reduce friction heat build up depending on velocity. Yes Cheap materials can be used but it depends on the amount of force and vibration on the thing - for off the shelf life.

Oh wait, Home Depot is a US company. Maybe UFA carries something.

28 billion is a lot of money for a startup. Just because you are uninventive and planning challenged doesn't mean I need to be to.

This is definitely the cheap part. I'm sure you won't need any CNC lathes or anything (like this one Modern Model BNC-35120 14" Bore CNC Hollow Spindle Oilfield Lathe I just put in one of the company's shops that cost $330,000 US - although we paid less). Absolutely won't need any of them new-fangled things.

Nope just some blocks for the car and a hoiste and a welding torch. 380k is a lot for a 28 billion dollar budget.

A car is a bunch of parts connected together. You don't need to make the parts if they already exist - some may need to be modified though.

THAT must be where the 1.XX billion a year the company makes goes. The mystery is solved.

Uhm, that would be Lockheed Martin. 125,000 employees worldwide, and yet there's 300 VP's? Really? Please provide cite. This I have to see.

Again, who cares?

Dude look for the info yourself.

You are being blatantly hostile and offending my standard of discourse with your mumbudung.

Edited March 23, 2011 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

Funny. Another shot from the great entertainer.

[DogOnPorch]

Not disputing the idea the Arrow was no dog fighter just pointing out thppat other manufacturers from several different countries have chosen the delta configuration for their current fighters.

Close-coupled and full-control canards have given the delta wing design a bit of a rebirth. Before canards, the stall speeds on most deltas was pretty high making for fast high AOA landings often needing a chute. The B-58 Hustler or F-106 Delta Dagger being classic examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-106_Delta_Dart

[Wilber]

Close-coupled and full-control canards have given the delta wing design a bit of a rebirth. Before canards, the stall speeds on most deltas was pretty high making for fast high AOA landings often needing a chute. The B-58 Hustler or F-106 Delta Dagger being classic examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-106_Delta_Dart

Not disputing that but the Typhoon consortium, France and Sweden chose a delta/canard design for a reason. A delta must have something going for it. Concorde also used a delta and managed to make do with thrust reversers just like every other commercial airliner..

[DogOnPorch]

Not disputing that but the Typhoon consortium, France and Sweden chose a delta/canard design for a reason. A delta must have something going for it. Concorde also used a delta and managed to make do with thrust reversers just like every other commercial airliner..

The delta shape allows similar benefits as swept wings, but with much greater strength and internal capacity. The trade-off being the higher stall speeds, I suppose. Plus, they're not as agile as a variable wing aircraft nor a swept wing design like the MiG-17. But that doesn't mean they can't be great dogfighters if the design and pilot is right...see: the Mirage III for example.

Landings can be hairy for pure deltas, though, with the huge AOA...that's why the Concorde's nose drooped on landings and B-58s had a window from the pilot ejection capsule compartment's floor to the forward gear well...so they could see the runway.

Edited March 23, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[jbg]

The conservatives blame the liberals for the state the military is in, however throughout Canadian history the conservatives have screwed us. The cancellation of the Arrow lost us what could have been vast fortunes resulting in super power status, the selling of our Chinooks and plunging us into dept after the liberals brought us up from under the surface. I don't support the liberals but if I had to choose between the two, I would choose the the liberals. REBUILD THE ARROW PROGRAM.!!

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?

[Wild Bill]

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?

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.

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

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 loan and was prepared to place a production order on the spot.

The Liberal government of the day refused to allow A V Roe to accept the contract! They insisted on priority being given to Canadian government projects, like the CF-5. Roe was too small at the time to handle contracts from both customers and had to obey the Canadian government.

Second, the Americans and the British had inquired a number of times about placing small orders. Again, under Canadian government pressure they were refused. Meanwhile, the Feds reduced the number of aircraft on their initial order, putting more financial pressure on A V Roe.

When Diefenbaker's Tories took power they felt they had a commitment to cancel the Arrow project, having railed against it in Opposition as another example of letting Prairie farmers starve while Ontario and Eastern Canada thrived. When the order came down the Americans, British and French all offered to buy the prototypes and all the technical data. Dief brought his fist down and this was refused. EVERYTHING was to be scrapped and NOTHING was to be sold!

This was the main factor in all the conspiracy theories. Why on earth would Dief do this? The suspicions range from American pressure to a fear that someday some country would build a similar plane that would perform so well that it would embarrass the Tories for their action. I lean to the latter. No politician likes to be embarrassed.

A V Roe was also much to blame for its own demise. They had put little or no effort into building any rapport with the Tories. They took it for granted that the Liberals would stay in power or that the Tories would never win power for very long and would be reluctant to destroy the entire industry and all the associated jobs.

That was perhaps their biggest mistake! The Tories were left woefully ignorant of the entire Arrow industry! There is a famous quote from one of Dief's ministers who phoned Arrow when the news began to report how after the cancellation the plant went out of business and 10,000 workers were let go. The minister was understandably concerned about the bad press this meant for his government but was totally puzzled as to why the company folded! I don't have the exact quote but to paraphrase it went something close to this - "Well, instead of airplanes couldn't you just build tractors or cars or something?'

I don't blame such a Tory minister for his ignorance. It was A V Roe's responsibility to send a few suits to the Tories once in a while to 'shmooze' them a bit and keep them informed. That's how such business is done.

Again, I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories myself. I also don't believe that the Arrow would be competitive today. However, if we hadn't have destroyed our aerospace industry at that time perhaps we WOULD be building competitive planes today!

No, the simplest explanation is the most likely. The whole affair was a perfect storm of marketing mistakes and political ignorance from both political parties.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Wild Bill

[jbg]

No, the simplest explanation is the most likely. The whole affair was a perfect storm of marketing mistakes and political ignorance from both political parties.

Actually the simplest explanation, the Occum's Razor, is usually the most accurate. I tend to agree with you.

Diefenbaker wasn't in too much of a hurry to appease JFK.