Looking Back on the Avro Arrow - The Iron Warrior
Good article and sums up my opinion of the Arrow myth, nicely.
Looking Back on the Avro Arrow
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Looking Back on the Avro Arrow - The Iron Warrior
Good article and sums up my opinion of the Arrow myth, nicely.
That same basic design could still be better than the F-35 if avionics were improved (thrust vectoring, canard wings, etc) and it would be an export meaning we would be making money if we produced the parts of turn-key weapons platform.
Very true...Yeah, but myths are necesary for the warm and fuzzy Heritage Moment commercials.
YouTube - A Part of Our Heritage - Avro Arrow
At least they avoided mythology. Unlike the CBC's "The Arrow".
This has more fact than that...
One of the engineers who worked on the Avro, came to work at the mill here, when the Avro was cancelled....Smart man...within ten years he was production manager.
It just happened that when he got to work that famous morning and was told the project was shut down that he had a whole bunch of airframe design plans he was working on at home (He was a hydraulics engineer)
He showed a few of us just one sheet one day ...It was of course too intricate for any of us to understand.
To this day I wonder if all of those who had part of the schematics they were working on at home...got together?????
It just happened that when he got to work that famous morning and was told the project was shut down that he had a whole bunch of airframe design plans he was working on at home (He was a hydraulics engineer)
He showed a few of us just one sheet one day ...It was of course too intricate for any of us to understand.
To this day I wonder if all of those who had part of the schematics they were working on at home...got together?????
The politics doesn't affect the fact that the same frame is viable for today's role in high and low altitude fighters.
Rather than the 'notch' in the wing to sop loss of lift craft today use vertical tips at the ends of the wings. What other craft used that design feature of the arrow ?
You're confusing frame design and practical airframe.
The frame, is out dated, and out classed by today's standards. At low level multi role flight. It would have been like trying to fly a mobile home.
That's all about fact, not politics.
You're deep in the myth.
Why don't you read the article, go on, I dare you.
Well that was a blast from the past, lol. Kind of like The Woodchuck-you don't miss it until it's gone.
What I personally know about jet engine design might not be quite enough to fill a thimble, but what I do know is that a lot of history takes on larger than life porportions in the retelling. I kind of expect it actually. So I've never persoanlly believed the Arrow was quite as epic as it has been made out to be, but that's not based on any technical information. More that I suspect almost every story of growing grander with age. Not unlike a certain 1972 Can-Rus hockey game where, hearing the way some people talk about it, we saved the world and the entire human race.
I kind of mean fast and ground hugging and use fire and forget munitions, g-force for the pilot would limit rather than airframe design. Then then there is the ratios that only pilots care about, glide ratio, mpg, engine reliability and response times. The F-100 design is a dino compared to future designs. If the Arrow was scaled to size or carrying capacity and compared to the F-117 and the B2 would they be the same size or bigger/smaller and faster/slower. If the delta wing was given a sawtooth design would it become stealthy? Even this famous plane is delta designed
(in part)
"The great ‘what if’ is how high and fast the Arrow could have flown with Iroquois engines, and the sad fact is we’ll never know. Most people predicted Mach 2.5+ at 60,000 ft, which is about equal to the current U.S. interceptor, the F-15. The ‘what if’people point to the fact that, with minor modifications, the Arrow could easily have flown to Mach 3 at 80,000ft, and all this is true. When compared to today’s fighters, for example, Canada’s current fighter, the CF-18, the Arrow has comparable if not better performance numbers. This has led many to believe that, therefore, the Arrow was outright ‘better’than everything else since. "
I usually speed read the first time, even then I knew I could 'refind' the above quote. What does it mean in your world?
(in part)
"As an example, the Arrow, equipped with American J-75 engines (19,500lbs afterburning thrust), traveled at Mach 1.98 at approximately 48,000 ft."
Last edited:
It's a good review Bear. I lament the same thing that the author does. We could have had one of the best aerospace industries in the world with all those smart folks working and creating new designs.
And it's not to say that we don't have good companies out there today, it's the difference in what we could have had.
And it's not to say that we don't have good companies out there today, it's the difference in what we could have had.
Ya, I can quote mine to support my position too.
That you can't argue the facts, and prefer to argue the details, while trying so very hard to use out of context quotations.
Here, lets put it in perspective...
I couldn't agree more.
No matter what my opinion of the Arrow is, that truly was a sad day in Canadian history.
It would be more like a low level F-117, only faster and with a bigger payload. Air-to-air today is fought at 100km, how many dog-fights in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya? A bandit coming in from 500 miles might be able to fire off all projectiles and still outrace the survivors, if they could even find him.
(in part)
"The Arrow was a supersonic design through and through, with ‘clean’ lines to achieve high supersonic speeds and a large internal weapons bay, and although this would have allowed some multi-role capability, in a dogfight or at anything approaching low-level the Arrow airframe would’ve handled like a pig."
Canards and thrust vectoring could easily be incorporated into a delta wing and that enhances low speed maneuverability without damaging top end to any significant degree.
The goods we are being sold today is more or less spare parts for NATO.
Ya, except you're arguing apples and near invisible oranges.
They sacrificed speed and power, for stealth.
At which point the Arrow would have been on its way to the ground. The only jet capable of that is the F22, because it has thrust nozzles.
How great were their air forces again?
The Arrow's wings weren't meant to carry pods, the bomb bay limited, and the wing design was built for speed, not maneuvering.
Sure, lets build a whole new air craft, call it the Arrow, and continue to ignore the reality of it all.
Last edited:
The Arrow is dead, long live the Arrow (design)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-31
During flight testing, the X-31 aircraft established several milestones. On November 6, 1992, the X-31 achieved controlled flight at a 70-degree angle of attack. On April 29, 1993, the second X-31 successfully executed a rapid minimum-radius, 180-degree turn using a post-stall maneuver, flying well beyond the aerodynamic limits of any conventional aircraft. This revolutionary maneuver has been called the "Herbst maneuver" after Dr. Wolfgang Herbst, an MBB employee and proponent of using post-stall flight in air-to-air combat.[2] Herbst was the designer of the Rockwell SNAKE, which formed the basis for the X-31.[3]
File:3 three thrust-vectoring aircraft.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During flight testing, the X-31 aircraft established several milestones. On November 6, 1992, the X-31 achieved controlled flight at a 70-degree angle of attack. On April 29, 1993, the second X-31 successfully executed a rapid minimum-radius, 180-degree turn using a post-stall maneuver, flying well beyond the aerodynamic limits of any conventional aircraft. This revolutionary maneuver has been called the "Herbst maneuver" after Dr. Wolfgang Herbst, an MBB employee and proponent of using post-stall flight in air-to-air combat.[2] Herbst was the designer of the Rockwell SNAKE, which formed the basis for the X-31.[3]
File:3 three thrust-vectoring aircraft.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It sure was a pretty airplane - but there is a lot of speculation if they'd be available if the call came. One design flaw would have had her on the ground more hours for inspections and maintenance than it actually could fly.
Myths are public dreams, dreams are private myths Taylor Empire Airways
I guess we may have got better - but we'll never know now....
Myths are public dreams, dreams are private myths Taylor Empire Airways
I guess we may have got better - but we'll never know now....
wing, singular, two planes, two wings, one high one low, they are both delta wing designs lol