Derek 2.0 Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Here's a link that's a game changer! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144873/U-S-air-force-s-sophisticated-stealth-jet-beaten-dogfight-plane-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.html?ito=social-facebook WWWTT No it isn't. The author of the blog is either an idiot or intellectually dishonest, and only after numerous calls for his sources, he later posted the obtained report (on his blog). In it, as confirmed by the Pentagon clarification, is a detailed after action report from the first day (of four) calibrating the test aircraft's (AF-2) flight control system/avionics, of which, adjustments were made, where needed, to the aircraft's auto stability systems. As noted from an article from April of this year, the pilot who penned the day-1 report (and flew the F-35 in said flight), is also quoted as saying, in addition to the flight director, of the entire test as a whole: “When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010. The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.” So no, not a game changer, but a part of the process of all aircraft, military or civilian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 When i first read this post the first thing i thought to myself was who in the hell is Michael Byers, did some research and well he is a UBC professor, whos focus is law and political - military affairs.and at one time..... lets not forget a one time NDP candidate. But he is more than that, he has the medias ear, he speaks they listen, then they print.....is that what makes him an expert or has he actual experience in military matters......has he talked to countless military members , does he know how our military works ....or has he just read a few books available at the UBC library..... Just once it would be nice to hear from someone with operational military experience, someone that knows extensively our problems and can provide viable solutions.......but thaose ideas cost tax payers mney and while in canada we dont talk about that....back to michael.... He has no job related experience in or with the military, he has talked to military members, although not extensively, he has meet a few generals talked over coffee but nothing that someone could say he has the pulse of the military.... So my next question was why is this a story.... Why are we not hearing from joe farmer who may hold some education on military affairs......because joe farmer does not hold the media attention and does not want to catch the medias attention. unlike most politicians do..... i know you all are thinking get to the point.....my point is this..... with everything that is wrong with our nations military we have to talk about cutting some very promising programs, i say promising because they focus on future, something our nation is not very good at, and when combined with our state of our military its a no brainer for most canadians...... Other questions i have is why are we only saving 10.5 bil, when the opposition has stated that the F-35 is worth more than double that not to mention the subs..... I think it is time for Canadians to do some research and find out what exactly is our military problems and find a solution to them.....instead of talking trash or taking the focus of real problems..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 I wonder what the aeronautical and space exploration landscape would look like today if Canada had gone ahead and built the Avro Arrow. Most of the brain power for the US Space program - and the British/French Concord came from the 14,000 Avro workers who lost their jobs when the Avro Program was terminated by Diefenbaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 I wonder what the aeronautical and space exploration landscape would look like today if Canada had gone ahead and built the Avro Arrow. The contraction of the Canadian Forces would have happened in the early 60s, as opposed to the later 60s........but the RCAF would have had a really big and fast interceptor to defend against a diminished Soviet bomber threat....... Most of the brain power for the US Space program - Were former members of the Nazi party........... and the British/French Concord came from the 14,000 Avro workers who lost their jobs when the Avro Program was terminated by Diefenbaker. Not really, many of the former Avro Arrow engineers and designers, now unemployed, did find work on various, ongoing American and British programs, of which they without a doubt contributed, but hardly anything ground breaking (the Americans and British also had numerous supersonic aircraft programs running concurrent with the Arrow)............... .......But the handful of engineers involved in the development of the Iroquois engine, with its then ground breaking work with titanium, did find gainful employment in which their talents were very much so valued in the years to follow: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) .... Most of the brain power for the US Space program - and the British/French Concord came from the 14,000 Avro workers who lost their jobs when the Avro Program was terminated by Diefenbaker. Wishful thinking....the Americans were well on their way with applied military R&D long before the Avro workers showed up (e.g. NACA's X-15 program with North American in 1955, intercontinental ballistic missiles, etc.) . Captured German scientists provided more kick for the manned space program than did laid off workers. Edited July 8, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 The contraction of the Canadian Forces would have happened in the early 60s, as opposed to the later 60s........but the RCAF would have had a really big and fast interceptor to defend against a diminished Soviet bomber threat....... Were former members of the Nazi party........... Not really, many of the former Avro Arrow engineers and designers, now unemployed, did find work on various, ongoing American and British programs, of which they without a doubt contributed, but hardly anything ground breaking (the Americans and British also had numerous supersonic aircraft programs running concurrent with the Arrow)............... .......But the handful of engineers involved in the development of the Iroquois engine, with its then ground breaking work with titanium, did find gainful employment in which their talents were very much so valued in the years to follow: Did the bomb truck make it to this photo op under its own steam.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Wishful thinking....the Americans were well on their way with applied military R&D long before the Avro workers showed up (e.g. NACA's X-15 program with North American) . Captured German scientists provided more kick for the manned space program than did laid off workers. Blame not him, fore his is a history propagated by a preverse nationalism and a CBC mini-series Edited July 8, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Did the bomb truck make it to this photo op under its own steam.... There's no Super Hornet in that photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 There's no Super Hornet in that photo. Correct. Thats because it was out flying instead of being down for maintenance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Blame not him, fore his is a history propagated by a preverse nationalism and a CBC mini-series I suppose you're somewhat right. I've always been attached to the Arrow because my Dad worked at Canadair in Montreal - I believe they made some of the parts - and he always talked about a fantastic plane that could do Mach 2. Certainly makes for a good story though, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Sure does, but the first winged aircraft to reach Mach 2 was a Douglas D-558-II Skyrocket in 1953. The Avro Arrow didn't even exist yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Bring back the Arrow. Ditch the bomb truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Sure does, but the first winged aircraft to reach Mach 2 was a Douglas D-558-II Skyrocket in 1953. The Avro Arrow didn't even exist yet. You're right - but like the Bell X-2, they were research aircraft and never intended for mass production.....hey - you're really putting a lot of stress on my memory. I just think the Arrow was a beautiful aircraft for its time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 You're right - but like the Bell X-2, they were research aircraft and never intended for mass production.....hey - you're really putting a lot of stress on my memory. I just think the Arrow was a beautiful aircraft for its time. It was a beautiful aircraft...the USA materially helped to develop it. But Canada, for several reasons, could not make the leap into production, refusing to build/buy its own high tech interceptor. Why would anyone else ? Fast forward to today and we have yet more hand wringing over the procurement of a foreign made aircraft because Canada walked away from domestic capabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Unfortunately we had a righty PM at the time who got sold a bill of goods that future wars would be fought with missiles, and not airplanes. So he scrapped the Avro and bought a bunch of junk in the form of Bomarc missiles. So our experts headed south to show the Americans how to get to space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Correct. Thats because it was out flying instead of being down for maintenance. Oh I thought we were naming "bomb trucks". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 They would never get to space in Canada...never have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Oh I thought we were naming "bomb trucks". Naw, the 35 already has been awarded that name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 They would never get to space in Canada...never have. Canada is too far north. But we didnt mind coming south to show you how its done. Youre welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Aviation dreams go to Canada...to die. So many lame excuses.....even tiny, frozen Sweden has done better. Edited July 8, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Aviation dreams go to Canada...to die. So many lame excuses.....even tiny, frozen Sweden has done better. Next time you need to start something like, say, NASA, just give us a call. We could probably spiff up that bob truck for you....second thought, no, just scrap it. Edited July 8, 2015 by On Guard for Thee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 I suppose you're somewhat right. I've always been attached to the Arrow because my Dad worked at Canadair in Montreal - I believe they made some of the parts - and he always talked about a fantastic plane that could do Mach 2. Certainly makes for a good story though, doesn't it? It was no fault of the Arrow or its designers, just the threat it was intended to counter, streams of H-Bomb laden Soviet bombers was replaced by ICBMs.........The most ironic part was that on the day of the first flight of the Arrow, the Soviets also achieved a first: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 You're right - but like the Bell X-2, they were research aircraft and never intended for mass production.....hey - you're really putting a lot of stress on my memory. I just think the Arrow was a beautiful aircraft for its time. It was without a doubt, but aside from straight line speed, everything else that would have been required of it could be had a few years later by a far more versatile and cheaper package: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 It was a beautiful aircraft...the USA materially helped to develop it. But Canada, for several reasons, could not make the leap into production, refusing to build/buy its own high tech interceptor. Why would anyone else ? Without a doubt, the Arrow was stillborn for much the same reason American and British interceptor programs were also cancelled.......there was nothing to intercept that couldn't be done with a more versatile, conventional fighter.........and is made evident by the fact that both the American and Canadian contribution to NORAD into the 80s was largely still Century Series aircraft........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Oh I thought we were naming "bomb trucks". Funny enough, outside of intercepting a greatly reduced Soviet bomber force, the only other viable role the Arrow could have contributed to was our then commitment to NATO tactical nuclear strike..........making the Arrow a "nuclear bomb truck", of which the Arrow wouldn't have been bested until the Buccaneer and F-111 were stationed in Western Europe in the late 60s and early 70s...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.