AVRO Arrow. One of the saddest Canadian Aviation tales


#juan
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

One year the organizers decided to allow people to sit in the infield runway area, off to the left. We ended up in there. It was crazy. I remember one time a guy flying a Tomcat was pretending to be in trouble. The plane was wobbling and girating at low speed. Great show for those on the tarmac but for those of us on the infield we were scattering like field mice in case he wasn't joking. Amongst us there were a lot of comments about how fantastic it was but wondering how they could allow us to be there. I noticed next year they didn't have any viewing area on the other side of the runway. Maybe they do again but hopefully there would be modified flight plans to go with it.

Been there done that. I don't know how many different spectator areas they've had at Abbotsford but there must have been quite a few. With the exception of the two years when I was transferred to Winnipeg, I've seen every show there has been. About five years ago My son and I started buying the executive club admission. This is expensive($125) but that gets us parking right near the flight line, free breakfast, free lunch, and a free open bar all day. We also get a head start on the crowd when it is time to leave. Once a year, we think it is well worth it.
 
YoungJoonKim
#32
Look at that...solid Canadian blood..

It was sad event for all Canadians.
It was the day when many of our brain-power went over to NASA and other major U.S. companies.
It was the day when we lost our valuable assets to our FRIENDLY neighbor, Uncle Sam.
 
china
#33
This is an abbreviated interview with Jan Zurakowski, the first man to fly an Arrow, performed by Steve Thornton at Zura's Kartusi Lodge July 11/90
The leader ST and the italics indicate Steve Thornton's questions. The leader JZ and the standard type indicate Jan Zurakowski's responses
ST: How fast could the Mark 2 Arrow have gone?
JZ: It's a problem of stress. With increased speed, temperature's increasing. Arrow was designed basically from a light alloy, aluminum. Aluminum is losing very quickly strength at around 400 Fahrenheit. Arrow is officially stressed to a mach number 2 or actually 220 or 240 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature was to some extent governing factor. But from performance point of view I think it's likely to go around 2.4, 2.6. But as you increase temperature, strength is going down. So arrow was stressed at 7.6 G. 7.6 safety factor. If you increase this your whole safety factor or your strength was then going down. So more likely this speed will have only 4.5, maybe 5 g strength factor available.
I don't think it would go to mach number 3 or anything Because for this you need steel construction. Because that's, as I remember mach number 3 is something like 680 Fahrenheit. And aluminum starts losing strength at around 400. So you have to use harder material.
ST: Did you ever lower the weapons while flying?
JZ: No. Arrangement was such that in old, previous design, you were making one or two prototypes, hand-made. Arrow was made straight on production jigging and tooling. Even with different engines, were still made to be provided with the Iroquois engines. So idea was to accelerate everything, and there was quite a number of aircraft which been initially instrumented and converted for different problems. I remember I think it was number six or seven aircraft was supposed to have armament trials. And we couldn't even start properly doing something because the government was continuously-- (interrupted by guest). So then this aircraft will come back to service, and will be demodified, or deinstrumented really. But problem was that government was responsible for choosing weapons, and they couldn't make up their minds. They're changing a few times, so the best way was to wait until they specify what they want, and that's why this armament this armament pack was a very good idea, because you can change the role of the aircraft, you can have it photoreconnaissance, anything you can put in your pack. It's simple to change, there are four attachment points, so you can have completely different aircraft in ten minutes. And that was a good point.
And there was a good point beside that, you were not losing performance. I was doing lots of testing, even subsonic speeds on other aircraft, with external stores. There's a horrible drag, even at subsonic speeds, at 400, 500 mph, you put anything under the wings, then you get not only trouble due to the drag, but trouble due to the excess flow, which is breaking the skin of the wing. We had a trouble on old meteor, we decided to put big, fat bomb under the wing, you see. There was such a vibration that within a half an hour, skin on the aileron was just flying away. So then what you have to do, you have to make longer pylon to make it farther from the wing, but of course that pylon is adding to the drag again. So I think that was a good idea.
Some of the bigger rockets were intended to be semi- submerged, which mean half only outside and half inside. But all other smaller --Sparrow-- was intended to be on some sort of arrangement which you lower, in fraction second fire, and retract.
ST: Handling at different altitudes and different speeds.
JZ: Aircraft was to some extent artificially flown. Not like in old days when you get just the cables to controls. Everything was changing to square of the speed. Now here you had artificial feel. You had no straight connection between your stick and the control. All going through the sort of they call black boxes, anyway some sort of computer which was transferring pilot intention to do something by applying force and movement on the stick, and that went into the controls. And to the edge of the speed this was controllable by another, call it, device. So problem of an old aircraft when controls were heavier and heavier and heavier because square of the speed was simply making it much heavier. Or extremely light at low speed. Had been artificially, to some extent, eliminated, or make it as a straight line progress, not as square. But there was some sort of stability augmentation, the same artificial. But all these factors, had been possible to adjust them to any value you like. So for example you could actually have aircraft individual adjusted to your liking. You could make it flying as a heavy bomber or flying as a very light fighter by just altering on the ground different parameters. Say for example you get input of inertia, dynamic forces, you can make it by adjusting more delightful from flying point of view.
That was only initial optimization of flying characteristic at the time, as they calculated and tried. But from my point of flying it was not more difficult or anything special than any other aircraft. Like I was flying Convair 1 or 2, or Javelin in England. Delta wing. There was nothing special there.
ST: Could you hear the engines when flying it?
JZ: Oh yes, I mean with cockpit pressurized is five or ten times more quiet than in old times. In fighters before the war or even in wartime, in Spitfires for example, was very noisy because they got a short length of pipe in front of you. That was very noisy, upsetting radio quite a lot. But you can still hear the noise, but not to such an extent that you can hear it on the ground.
ST: Did you wear a g suit?
JZ: Not much. They were designed and there was lots of testing done, but for normal flying they were not using it.
ST: Acceleration: at what speeds was it strongest?
JZ: Excessive power depend on engine speed. We never stabilized, we never measure maximum speed. Highest speed reached was only as a matter of testing. Sensing element transmitted to the ground, now increase speed say from point 1.3 to 1.4, do movement of control such and such. Now increase further, because we never measure stabilized speed. Stabilized speed was still very close to Mach number two. One nine eight. But mind you, aircraft been designed for Iroquois, and Pratt and Whitney much heavier, so we had to put, I remember, one and a half thousand pounds more lead to keep the center of gravity in the right position. We were not worrying about the performance. They already knew that would get performance right to the specification. But were worrying about the optimization of flying characteristic and stressing, there was lots of stress measurement in each part of the aircraft. There was quite a lot of continual problem for us. That was the main point. We made a jump from point eight five to Mach number two. All improvement between one and second prototype in few years time was ten percent, say between Spitfires or between the Gladiator and Spitfire. And here we jumped from point eight five to Mach number two, maybe plus, straight away, in one big jump.
ST: I imagine a modern fighter would outhandle an arrow.
JZ: Arrow was intended as interceptor. Now they're trying to design aircraft they can call air superiority, which mean more universal. So it's really difficult to compare. Of course you got the rockets, which could have five, ten, twenty, thirty miles. But even with improvement which we got in interception methods, still is a problem if concorde is flying at mach number two, and you're at 1.6, to make interception properly. If you miss, gone. maybe I am influenced by speed requirement, because I was at the beginning of the war in a Poland, I had old fighter, and there Was a formation of (Junkers)? 17s, German typical bomber, I couldn't chase them. They were slowing down, I could start approaching. And I opened fire, they opened fire, and then they added power and ssst, straight away. So that makes me a bit biased. Superiority in speed for whatever opponent you got, it doesn't matter fighter or.... There were occasions, even later in the war, i'm always talking about the last war of course, '41, '42, spitfires were faster than those Junkers 88, reconnaissance aircraft, in level fight they were faster, but they (Junkers) were faster in shallow dives, and that's what they were using always. In level flight, rate of climb and level flight, spitfire was better, but that didn't mean that spitfire could catch, because in the shallow dive they had higher weight, so they were faster in the shallow dive. And they knew this. So there were occasions when you just about opened fire, and they got some information, they start going down down gently, about five, ten degrees, they going, pulling out. That's my experience from last War. That's why maybe I say that speed is still something which you must have. The rocket is improving situation, you can still fire at some distance.
ST: What unit were you with?
JZ: I was in two three four squadron, royal air force squadron. And we had such terrific losses, that after three weeks we had Only 6,000 flying officers, and myself, pilot officer, and they Sent us back to Cornwall, which is western part of England, for Actually try to form another squadron, right. Then I Volunteered for number eleven, close to London, then i was flying in six Oh nine. In the battle of Britain. Polish pilots about 45 in Royal air force squadrons, two or four in every squadron. There Were total 140, there were something like 70 in polish squadron, It was formed from polish pilots that arrived after France Collapsed. (he wasn't in that squadron.) I was later. I arrived In 1940 to England, so i had about six months to learn a bit Of English. These people arrived from France after France collapsed, in may 1940. They had to form a polish squadron with polish operational control, because they couldn't speak English. But that's how it was.
ST: Working at Avro, did you have much to do with Floyd or Chamberlin?
JZ: Oh yes. Jim Chamberlin and Bob Lindley, mainly on the project. But the most that we were dealing with, the flight test was run by Mario Pesando. He was working for, unusual job. He was working on helicopters, how to put a helicopter on a small warship, which had a 45 degree variation sideways. He had to catch them with bird drop, something which was to catch them and put down. He was working on this for a long time.
ST: Your office?
JZ: On the first floor on the side of the experimental hangar.
ST: What year you born?
JZ: Fourteen, that's easy to remember, that's when first war started. A small place, Ryzawka.
ST: Do you remember how you felt when you flew the Arrow?
Excited,
Happy, busy?

JZ: Oh, excited, and happy, and busy, is depend on what flight and when. I don't think I can give the straight answer for this. That's what I mention a few times already, that the first flight was a bit unpleasant because of this high responsibility for The aircraft for success of company, but in the same time an organization that I would control only about ten percent of the company. At the start is black boxes, electronics, electric systems, computers, God knows what. But of course if Anything happens, you're always by yourself. Certainly I was quite happy, progressing very well in increasing speed, and I thought behaviour quite well. I had one unpleasant.... (re lecture for aviation Historical society) I mention that I had trouble after takeoff with system which been somehow put in reverse. Instead of helping me stabilize the aircraft was overriding me straight away. Mind you the experts were so sure about the system that they give the pilots only ten degree of rudder when ??? With 30 degree of rudder movement. Like you're always overpower me, you see, much quicker. That was a dangerous point at the time because that was ??? Suddenly you're flying already a number of aircraft and suddenly you find you cannot control it. The aircraft doesn't respond in a normal way, because whatever I would do, this same movement would do three times faster opposite way. That was lateral accelerometer. Lateral accelerometer was calling for rudder, rudder was making wrong yaw, wrong yaw was making ??? You see. It was crazy, but it is something which suddenly you know what's happening, why? Right? The same as this problem when I had undercarriage at 45 degrees one way. The same as for pilot, you're just normal landing, everything is fine, suddenly you cannot control the airplane, now what's happening? I suspected parachute, maybe it was uneven open or something, I dropped the parachute, nothing happened in control. This unknown situation problem was upsetting for the pilot, because he doesn't know what they doing, right? Why, suddenly?
Re: Stories that the Arrow was no good....
JZ: On CF-100s we had wingtip rocket pod, but Airforce decided they want more. Airforce always want more and we had rocket pack under fuselage which supposed to work the same as on the Sabre, you lower it, fire, and retract. Except that on Sabre they got ??? Like this one, two and a half inch diameter rockets. But they I think put 45 or 47 there Was a box like this deep and wide like this, and long, about six Feet or so, I didn't like the way they are, because that's putting the square box under the aircraft. Anyway, our opposite design people in Airforce said we were to have like this. Okay. To have design it properly they have to have automatic adjustments so trim won't change of the aircraft you lower the thing so you can still go in the right way. During this test because of vibration something failed, and there was explosion at the back. In the end I have to bail out, and observer, I don't know, maybe his system was wrong, maybe he was hurt by explosion, in the aircraft it's difficult to say what's really going on. So one of these prominent historians, he had to admit in the end that Arrow was so complicated that he did give it to one of his students with engineering background to write the story. And he understood that the rocket pack on the arrow will be lowered in flight, so he arrived at the conclusion that at subsonic aircraft pack was lowered and aircraft run into trouble, at supersonic speed a much bigger rocket pack, aircraft disintegrate. So conclusion is that design is hopeless, and conclusion next that company is wrong, you see. And he put it like this in history book which you can get in school library. So that upsets the professional engineer organization in Ontario, they start fighting it, and in the end force him to admit that he made this error by allowing his student to write the story of the aircraft with wrong conclusion. But I have to explain this to the people that this is not the Arrow which was wrong, but the investigation of collecting facts on the Arrow was wrong. But Mr. Floyd has written a lot of reports similar to this, that was my speech. Because National Research Council at the time, they issued the report that Arrow would be never supersonic, and they had trouble convincing anybody. So you see was lots of Anti-Arrow activities. Not only the best experts on the time were army generals who were trying to kill the Arrow, hoping that Bomarc, as a missile, would be under control of the army, because that's artillery. But they get the same sort of historical experts. Unhappy about it but that's why I had to do this.
end of interview
 
CDNBear
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

The AVRO Arrow would still perform with the best if we had one. At the time, there was nothing to touch it. When the Arrow was scrapped I made a promise to pee on either Diefenbaker or his grave....alas I haven't yet done either. If you compare the performance with any of the aircraft listed, it doesn't do half bad as is was in the fifties. With normal modifications to bring it up to date with current times, it would do even better.

http://tinyurl.com/2bywau

Yes it was quite the beast with the still unproven Iroquois engine upgrades. But it wouldn't be anywhere near todays technology juan, not even with several expensive upgrades...For one the airframe was compatible to todays excessive g-forces of munitions, 2, the beast required a severely lengthy runway.

Don't get me wrong, she was sleek, a sweet. Good old Deif sold us down the river, but you wax nostalgic at ghosts and misconceptions.

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

From John A and his attempt to sell off a nearly-complete CPR to the USA, through Dief's destruction of the Canadian aerospace industry and Mulroney's trade-away of a lot of the rest, to Harper doing to us whatever Uncle Sam wants, name me one Tory who actually looked out for Canadian interests.

Wolf

Hmmm, Mulroney didn't do to bad with creating a whole new niche of technical industry here. Thus what Walter says...

Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

We have the lowest unemployment rate in 30+ years. Stupid NAFTA.

Quote: Originally Posted by GonzoView Post

I wouldn't want Canada to be a WMD supplier like the US, so it's kind of good that the Arrow project was shut down. We can put our efforts into science and research instead.

Ya, that's just terrible...The Arrow only paved the way for engine modifications that are still being utilized to date for multiplatformed modes of flight...The sciantists from Avro mostly ended up at the JPL putting men and civilian satilites into orbit and bettering the US space program.
 
#juan
#35
Quote:

Yes it was quite the beast with the still unproven Iroquois engine upgrades. But it wouldn't be anywhere near todays technology juan, not even with several expensive upgrades...For one the airframe was compatible to todays excessive g-forces of munitions, 2, the beast required a severely lengthy runway.

Don't get me wrong, she was sleek, a sweet. Good old Deif sold us down the river, but you wax nostalgic at ghosts and misconceptions.

Bull! Again you are talking about something you know nothing about. The Arrow was designed around the Iroquois engine. The Iroquois engine was much lighter than the Pratt and Whitney engines that were used for testing. This meant that every Arrow that flew, had to carry fifteen hundred pounds of lead ballast to off-set that weight difference. Even with that great parasite drag handicap, the Arrow could get off the ground in about half of runway 150/330 at Downsview. The Arrow was born at a time when much was still being learned about transonic and supersonic problems. No other aircraft at the time, met the design criteria the Arrow was expected to meet in terms of speed, range, and altitude capabilities.

The Arrow is indeed a ghost from days past, but it could have been much, much, more.
 
CDNBear
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Bull! Again you are talking about something you know nothing about. The Arrow was designed around the Iroquois engine. The Iroquois engine was much lighter than the Pratt and Whitney engines that were used for testing. This meant that every Arrow that flew, had to carry fifteen hundred pounds of lead ballast to off-set that weight difference. Even with that great parasite drag handicap, the Arrow could get off the ground in about half of runway 150/330 at Downsview. The Arrow was born at a time when much was still being learned about transonic and supersonic problems. No other aircraft at the time, met the design criteria the Arrow was expected to meet in terms of speed, range, and altitude capabilities.

The Arrow is indeed a ghost from days past, but it could have been much, much, more.

Again you read me wrong...

Let me clear up a few of your misconceptions. The Avro needed far less runway to get her *** of the ground, though she needed a considerable amount of strip to get parked and you know that. Stop looking for things to poke me with.

At no point did I make claims that she was anything less then a tecnologically advanced marvel, yes she was well ahead of her time, by leaps and bounds, but she was surpassed years ago. Her airframe didn't have a carrying issue, it had a g-force issue, but hey don't actually address what actually I say now, you never have, I'm not expecting you to learn new tricks this late in the game.

Her airframe at that time was near her limits. There is one thing to carry munitions, then actually firing them is a totally different topic altogether.

Her airframe was designed around munitions of the day, her Iroquois's would turn contemporary jet propelled munitions of their ears.

Because of the advancement in sonic flight and the Iroquios's in general, jet propelled munitions were forced to be revamped and led the way for the Sparrow, Maverick and so on. All of which could not be fired off her airframe as they would eventualy have to be. Sorry juan, she just couldn't hack the advancements she was creating, as she was originally built, lest they rebuild the whole girl.

That being said, before you get all bent out of shape again, that is not to say she wasn't a capable platform, that could have been develpoed and redeveloped as time went by. But as she sat at Downsview, she was quickly killing herself. But yes, as you say...She could have been so much much more.
 
#juan
#37
For God's sake read what you are writing. Of course the Arrow was surpassed years ago......the Arrow never advanced after it was scrapped. Had the Arrow been produced, there would have been additions and modifications to both engine and airframe. The Iroquois engine was a fan jet engine that was much more efficient than the straight turbojet engines used in all jet fighters of that day. The Arrow's performance would have been very close to the F-15, that was produced twenty odd years later. The current F-15 is a lot better than it's prototype, and so would the Arrow be. I'm not stuck in the past, you are.
 
CDNBear
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

For God's sake read what you are writing. Of course the Arrow was surpassed years ago......the Arrow never advanced after it was scrapped. Had the Arrow been produced, there would have been additions and modifications to both engine and airframe. The Iroquois engine was a fan jet engine that was much more efficient than the straight turbojet engines used in all jet fighters of that day. The Arrow's performance would have been very close to the F-15, that was produced twenty odd years later. The current F-15 is a lot better than it's prototype, and so would the Arrow be. I'm not stuck in the past, you are.

Jeeze juan...Take it easy old man...I was only going by what you said...

Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

The AVRO Arrow would still perform with the best if we had one. At the time, there was nothing to touch it. When the Arrow was scrapped I made a promise to pee on either Diefenbaker or his grave....alas I haven't yet done either. If you compare the performance with any of the aircraft listed, it doesn't do half bad as is was in the fifties. With normal modifications to bring it up to date with current times, it would do even better.

http://tinyurl.com/2bywau

I don't know what Air Force you flew for...But total airframe overhual, is not a "normal modifications".

"normal modifications" as seen by the CDN Air Force include, but are not limited to...Electronics, navigation, IRF, munitions platforming, Engine compatablity and design, aeronautics...etc. Nothing like rebuilding the air plane from the inside out in a hanger.

Jeezus, try and have a reasoned conversation with a guy and you get nothing but crap...Must have something to do with having ones facts trampled all over with the truth...I guess.

Good grief.
 
#juan
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Jeeze juan...Take it easy old man...I was only going by what you said...



I don't know what Air Force you flew for...But total airframe overhual, is not a "normal modifications".

"normal modifications" as seen by the CDN Air Force include, but are not limited to...Electronics, navigation, IRF, munitions platforming, Engine compatablity and design, aeronautics...etc. Nothing like rebuilding the air plane from the inside out in a hanger.

Jeezus, try and have a reasoned conversation with a guy and you get nothing but crap...Must have something to do with having ones facts trampled all over with the truth...I guess.

Good grief.

The Arrow was easily capable of mach 2 and more right out of the box, and that was faster than anything it might have had to intercept. It didn't need an airframe overhaul. It had three hard points on each wing to carry external fuel tanks, rocket pods, or other ordinance. I'm sure it would have evolved with the addition of things like a bubble canopy, and air to air refueling, etc.. Later versions would likely have reached mach 2.8 or better.
 
CDNBear
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

The Arrow was easily capable of mach 2 and more right out of the box, and that was faster than anything it might have had to intercept. It didn't need an airframe overhaul. It had three hard points on each wing to carry external fuel tanks, rocket pods, or other ordinance. I'm sure it would have evolved with the addition of things like a bubble canopy, and air to air refueling, etc.. Later versions would likely have reached mach 2.8 or better.

And I agree, my only assertion was that as it was, it could 1) Over take its own ordinance of the day, 2) It was not built to withstand the g-forces produced by the ordinance that would eventually come from its own existance. So as i was trying to say, it was shooting itself out of the sky in its day.

Hence it would require a complete rebuild, right off the table. That in and of itself would like prove costly, benefitial and well worth the effort, but I don't think even Liberal Gov't of that time would have been willing to spend that kind of money.
 
Cobalt_Kid
#41
Cancelling the Arrow was a massive gift to the US Aerospace industry, 35,000 of the highest qualified scientist and workers went south to jobs in the private and public sector. Thousands of Canadians helped put men on the moon at NASA and their knowledge was valuable in a whole host of aviation advancements in private US industry.

The Arrow 2 itself was just the first step in a whole line of aircraft being planned, the Arrow 3 might have been capable of Mach 3 dash. While the weapons system was the biggest roadblock, cancelling the entire program to buy ineffective SAMs and obsolecent CF-101 interceptors was a betrayal of Canadian industry and workers.
 
#juan
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

And I agree, my only assertion was that as it was, it could 1) Over take its own ordinance of the day, 2) It was not built to withstand the g-forces produced by the ordinance that would eventually come from its own existance. So as i was trying to say, it was shooting itself out of the sky in its day.

Hence it would require a complete rebuild, right off the table. That in and of itself would like prove costly, benefitial and well worth the effort, but I don't think even Liberal Gov't of that time would have been willing to spend that kind of money.

What you don't understand, is that even the newest fighters are not supersonic with bombs or tanks under the wings. The Arrow could have had a couple Sidewinder rails, or Sparrow pylons without a big speed penalty.
Re-read Jan Zurakowski's interview
 
CDNBear
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_KidView Post

Cancelling the Arrow was a massive gift to the US Aerospace industry, 35,000 of the highest qualified scientist and workers went south to jobs in the private and public sector. Thousands of Canadians helped put men on the moon at NASA and their knowledge was valuable in a whole host of aviation advancements in private US industry.

The Arrow 2 itself was just the first step in a whole line of aircraft being planned, the Arrow 3 might have been capable of Mach 3 dash. While the weapons system was the biggest roadblock, cancelling the entire program to buy ineffective SAMs and obsolecent CF-101 interceptors was a betrayal of Canadian industry and workers.

Can't argue with that...
 
Cobalt_Kid
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

What you don't understand, is that even the newest fighters are not supersonic with bombs or tanks under the wings. The Arrow could have had a couple Sidewinder rails, or Sparrow pylons without a big speed penalty.
Re-read Jan Zurakowski's interview

I'm with you, the Arrow was years ahead of it's rivals, it introduced automatic flight control systems and long range interception ability that was unparalleled. The closest US aircraft at the time, the F-106, wasn't even close in capabilities.
 
CDNBear
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

What you don't understand, is that even the newest fighters are not supersonic with bombs or tanks under the wings. The Arrow could have had a couple Sidewinder rails, or Sparrow pylons without a big speed penalty.
Re-read Jan Zurakowski's interview

With the munitions of the day, on or off the Arrow, she over shot her all contemporary weapons systems. That's a fact.

Her advancements and her capablities paved the way for the weapons systems we see today. That too is a fact.

Had she not existed when she did, we would like not be where we are today with regards to air to air weapons systems.

So yes I do understand, my only point was that you gave her a lil to much praise, not that she isn't deserving of a great deal. But as she sat, she was not going to last that long. She was breaking ground in to may areas to be so.

So lets agree to disagree, you won't convince me otherwise, and visa versa.
 
lone wolf
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

And I agree, my only assertion was that as it was, it could 1) Over take its own ordinance of the day, 2) It was not built to withstand the g-forces produced by the ordinance that would eventually come from its own existance. So as i was trying to say, it was shooting itself out of the sky in its day.

Hence it would require a complete rebuild, right off the table. That in and of itself would like prove costly, benefitial and well worth the effort, but I don't think even Liberal Gov't of that time would have been willing to spend that kind of money.

Hell, the CF 100 overtook its own ordinance. As an interceptor, Arrow had failings - teething pains. But the platform she provided was leaps and bounds ahead of anything in its day.

Ironic to know Avro had a jet transport in the air long before the Yanks - just a week behind another Brit - DeHavilland - yet, with the exception of the Clunk, the American-footed products of Canadair - North Star and CF 86 - were the ones our Government took seriously.

Wolf
 
CDNBear
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Hell, the CF 100 overtook its own ordinance. As an interceptor, Arrow had failings - teething pains. But the platform she provided was leaps and bounds ahead of anything in its day.

Yes, I stated that way on back...But that does not equate into the Arrow still being a viable weapons platform. I'm not arguing the fact that she was well...well...well...ahead of her time, she was like alien technology at that time, hell she set precident.

But as far as weapons platforms go, she was on her way out a decade ago, not that I expect all to agree, some people still think the civilian Sea Kings we operate are good enough...Most of the aeronautical technology that is still in use in both the US and Canada as well as abroad, is obsolete, but they beat the competion hands down, so it only seems to be top-knotch...
 
#juan
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Hell, the CF 100 overtook its own ordinance. As an interceptor, Arrow had failings - teething pains. But the platform she provided was leaps and bounds ahead of anything in its day.

Ironic to know Avro had a jet transport in the air long before the Yanks - just a week behind another Brit - DeHavilland - yet, with the exception of the Clunk, the American-footed products of Canadair - North Star and CF 86 - were the ones our Government took seriously.

Wolf

I once read that what helped kill the Arrow was it's enclosed weapons bay and the cold war. The Arrow was designed as an interceptor but there was nothing stopping us from using it as a supersonic bomber. That weapons bay could easily have carried a couple of nuclear devices. The Arrow would have replaced the CF-100s on the four fighter wings in France and Germany. It had a range of over 800 miles on internal fuel only and I think it made quite a few countries a bit nervous. Why else would they have destroyed all the completed aircraft and all the engines and components?
 
CDNBear
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I once read that what helped kill the Arrow was it's enclosed weapons bay and the cold war. The Arrow was designed as an interceptor but there was nothing stopping us from using it as a supersonic bomber. That weapons bay could easily have carried a couple of nuclear devices. The Arrow would have replaced the CF-100s on the four fighter wings in France and Germany. It had a range of over 800 miles on internal fuel only and I think it made quite a few countries a bit nervous.

Neat thought...

Quote:

Why else would they have destroyed all the completed aircraft and all the engines and components?

Because some asshat in Ottawa was pocketed by some corporate asshat in Washington?
 
gerryh
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Why else would they have destroyed all the completed aircraft and all the engines and components?


and we know this happened because the gov. says so? Has anyone talked to someone that worked on the project? Was there when the hammer was lowered? I have. I know someone that helped build those engines. Someone who was there when those engines and parts were "destroyed". Take a wild guess as to what I was told.
 
CDNBear
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

and we know this happened because the gov. says so? Has anyone talked to someone that worked on the project? Was there when the hammer was lowered? I have. I know someone that helped build those engines. Someone who was there when those engines and parts were "destroyed". Take a wild guess as to what I was told.

They were created and labelled..."SHIP TO: JPL"...Ya I'ld buy that.
 
gerryh
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

They were created and labelled..."SHIP TO: JPL"...Ya I'ld buy that.


Weren't labeled as "parts".....didn't go straight to JPL, but were shipped south as well as Britain. The government would have us believe that EVERYTHING was scrapped and destroyed. There are also "rumors" that at least 2 complete airframes were also shipped out of country. For that I don't have an "eye witness".
 
lone wolf
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

and we know this happened because the gov. says so? Has anyone talked to someone that worked on the project? Was there when the hammer was lowered? I have. I know someone that helped build those engines. Someone who was there when those engines and parts were "destroyed". Take a wild guess as to what I was told.

I'm all ears.... I know in every aerial photo I've seen of the line-up in various stages of destruction, 205 was missing.

Wolf
Last edited by lone wolf; Sep 1st, 2007 at 04:10 PM..Reason: "happy fingers" error
 
gerryh
#54
"rumour" is that 105 was flown out at night. My "source" states that he heard her take off one night but he didn't actually see her leave. But, he did see the engines etc. crated and shipped out.
 
Curiosity
#55
Shipped out in the dead of night - sounds a bit blackmarkety....

Aren't obsolete aircraft parted out and sold to other interested people rather than kept as storage and waste?

I thought that is what most equipment including aircraft were handled - if there were interested groups willing to purchase in order to replicate or improve.

Thing is either you are going to commit to a well-equipped military (which includes purchasing or rebuilding new) or you are downsizing and selling off what you do not intend to use.

It has nothing to do with the abilities of the Avro at all. I would rather see a craft reused and restored and rebuilt or modified than to see it rot in some hangar.
 
lone wolf
#56
Wizardry of some sort. It was as if these planes didn't exist at all. Plans, jigs - everything just ceased to be. Whomever pulled the strings didn't want Arrow out there.

Wolf
 
#juan
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

My hubby's going through there on Monday... I'll see if I can get him to do it for #juan. LOL. I think he'd gladly help.

I somehow missed your post....sorry

If your hubby did the heroic deed, I will cheer loud enough for you to hear at home.....
 
Cobalt_Kid
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Why else would they have destroyed all the completed aircraft and all the engines and components?

Destroying all the prototypes, tools, jigs and most blueprints meant there would be no possibility of a succeeding government ressurecting the program. Not only did Deif want to kill the Arrow, he wanted to make sure it stayed dead.
 
#juan
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Yes, I stated that way on back...But that does not equate into the Arrow still being a viable weapons platform. I'm not arguing the fact that she was well...well...well...ahead of her time, she was like alien technology at that time, hell she set precident.

But as far as weapons platforms go, she was on her way out a decade ago, not that I expect all to agree, some people still think the civilian Sea Kings we operate are good enough...Most of the aeronautical technology that is still in use in both the US and Canada as well as abroad, is obsolete, but they beat the competion hands down, so it only seems to be top-knotch...

I somehow missed this post. You say "she was well on her way out a decade ago". The Arrow was designed and built fifty years ago so for her to last forty years was pretty damn special.. Twenty years would have been merely great.
 
CDNBear
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I somehow missed this post. You say "she was well on her way out a decade ago". The Arrow was designed and built fifty years ago so for her to last forty years was pretty damn special.. Twenty years would have been merely great.

I never disputed that fact...
 

Similar Threads

0
Avro Arrow
by sanctus | Dec 11th, 2006
1
Aviation/Aerospace
by East Coaster | Apr 22nd, 2005
no new posts