Looking Back on the Avro Arrow


CDNBear
+3
#1  Top Rated Post
Quote:

On October 4th, 1957, Avro Canada unveiled Canada’s first, last and only made-in-Canada supersonic interceptor, the CF-105, dubbed the “Arrow”. Less than two years later, in February of 1959, the Arrow program was scrapped, and over 30,000 employees were suddenly left jobless. In the years that followed, myth, controversy, resentment and legend melded into the story of how Canadians dared to dream, and then shot themselves in their collective feet. Conspiracy theories abound as to how the U.S. torpedoed the Arrow, since it was superior to their own aircraft, and they couldn’t allow that to occur. In this article, I’m just going to run down the facts of the airframe, engine and fire control system...

Looking Back on the Avro Arrow - The Iron Warrior

Good article and sums up my opinion of the Arrow myth, nicely.
 
MHz
#2
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.
 
CDNBear
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

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.

You didn't read the article did you?

Long live the myth, lol.
 
SLM
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Looking Back on the Avro Arrow - The Iron Warrior

Good article and sums up my opinion of the Arrow myth, nicely.

Yeah, but myths are necesary for the warm and fuzzy Heritage Moment commercials.
 
CDNBear
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Yeah, but myths are necesary for the warm and fuzzy Heritage Moment commercials.

Very true...

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...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjLBXb1kgMo
 
DaSleeper
+1
#6
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?????
 
MHz
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

You didn't read the article did you?

Long live the myth, lol.

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 ?
 
CDNBear
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

The politics doesn't affect the fact that the same frame is viable for today's role in high and low altitude fighters.

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.
 
SLM
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Very true...

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...

YouTube - The blackfly song

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.
 
MHz
#10
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

 
CDNBear
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

I kind of mean fast and ground hugging

It wasn't designed for that. It was pretty much designed to do one thing, fly fast, high and intercept bombers.

In a low level dog fight. Nighty night rabbit.
 
MHz
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

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.

Why don't you read the article, go on, I dare you.

(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 by MHz; Apr 10th, 2011 at 08:49 AM..
 
Tonington
+1
#13
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.
 
CDNBear
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

I usually speed read the first time, even then I knew I could 'refind' the above quote.

Ya, I can quote mine to support my position too.

Quote:

What does it mean in your world?

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...

Quote:

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.

Quote:

This means that even if development of the Arrow had proceeded, and the aircraft had reached service, its primary mission would have failed to present itself. Secondly, the development of missiles, particularly the surface to air (SAM) kind, abruptly changed the development of fighter aircraft, and the race to go higher and faster suddenly became one of survivability in a SAM environment. Since a missile could always go faster than planes, it didn’t matter how high and fast they went, they could still be killed. This changed requirements and purposedesigned aircraft, such as the Arrow, gave way to ‘multi-role’aircraft, with missiles and bombs being interchangeable on exterior hard points, and airframes optimized for a variety of profiles. 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. It simply wasn’t designed for that mission. The CF-18’s we have today can deliver a variety of ordnance from all altitudes, as well as hold their own in a closein dogfight.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

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.

I couldn't agree more.

No matter what my opinion of the Arrow is, that truly was a sad day in Canadian history.
 
MHz
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

In a low level dog fight. Nighty night rabbit.

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.
 
CDNBear
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

It would be more like a low level F-117, only faster and with a bigger payload.

Ya, except you're arguing apples and near invisible oranges.

They sacrificed speed and power, for stealth.

Quote:

Air-to-air today is fought at 100km...

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.
Quote:

...how many dog-fights in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya?

How great were their air forces again?

Quote:

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.

The Arrow's wings weren't meant to carry pods, the bomb bay limited, and the wing design was built for speed, not maneuvering.
Quote:

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.

Sure, lets build a whole new air craft, call it the Arrow, and continue to ignore the reality of it all.
Last edited by CDNBear; Apr 10th, 2011 at 09:29 AM..
 
MHz
#17
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
 
CDNBear
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

The Arrow is dead, long live the Arrow (design)

Ahh yes, they look so much alike, it's almost impossible to tell them apart...





Please note, the position of the wings on the fuselage.
 
lone wolf
+1
#19
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....
 
MHz
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Ahh yes, they look so much alike, it's almost impossible to tell them apart...



Please note, the position of the wings on the fuselage.

wing, singular, two planes, two wings, one high one low, they are both delta wing designs lol
 
lone wolf
+1
#21
...and the positioning of those wings makes a huge difference in performance
 
MHz
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

...and the positioning of those wings makes a huge difference in performance

That right, put them on the front or backwards and you have an unstable craft. To compare them side by side they would have to be up-scaled (2 person for the X-31) or down scaled (single piloted CF-105) and given the same advantages that the years don't allow for. It boils down to the design was too good and it wasn't American and that is who was going to be the builders of fighters. It's a parameter that cannot be totally disproved without some designers using that same basic design and updating it (and even modification that allow fot moving the wing up or down and even the general size if (retractable) canards are added. Wouldn't Canada hold some sort of patent on the delta wing config that far back?

X-31
General characteristics
  • Crew: one
  • Length: 43ft 4 in (13.21m)
  • Wingspan: 23 ft 10 in (7.26 m)
  • Height: 14 ft 7in (4.44m)
  • Wing area: 226.3 sq ft (21.02 m²)
  • Aspect ratio: 2.51:1
  • Empty weight: 11,410 lb (5,175 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 14,600 lb (6,622 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 15,935 lb (7,228 kg)
  • Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-400 turbofan, 16,000 lbf (71 kN)(afterburning)
Performance
  • Maximum speed: Mach 1.28[8] (900 mph, 783 knots, 1,449 km/h)
  • Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,200 m)
  • Rate of climb: 43,000 ft/min (218 m/s)
  • Wing loading: 64.5 lb/ft² (315 kg/m²)

CF-105
General characteristics
  • Crew: 2
  • Length: 77 ft 9 in (23.71 m)
  • Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
  • Height: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m)
  • Wing area: 1,225 ft² (113.8 m²)
  • Airfoil: NACA 0003.5 mod root, NACA 0003.8 tip
  • Empty weight: 49,040 lb (22,245 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 56,920 lb (25,820 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 68,605 lb (31,120 kg)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney J75-P-3 turbojets
    • Dry thrust: 12,500 lbf (55.6 kN) each
    • Thrust with afterburner: 23,500 lbf (104.53 kN) each
Performance
  • Maximum speed: Mach 1.98 (1,307 mph, 2,104 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m) max. recorded speed; Mach 2+ potential[105]
  • Cruise speed: Mach 0.91 (607 mph, 977 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
  • Combat radius: 360 NM (410 mi, 660 km)
  • Service ceiling: 53,000 ft (16,150 m)
  • Wing loading: 46.5 lb/ft² (226.9 kg/m²)
  • Thrust/weight: 0.825 at loaded weight
 
lone wolf
#23
I'm thinking on-the-ground stuff too. Compare the stats....

How many Arrow flew?
How many undercarriage failures?
How many (insert your favourite here) flew (and still fly)?
How many undercarriage failures?

A high wing and fuselage combination vectors airflow into engine nacelles - vital at high altitudes.

The biggest problem I could see - aside for crazy maintenance and inspection schedules - is: It's a great airplane ... but it's got to land....
 
CDNBear
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

wing, singular, two planes, two wings, one high one low, they are both delta wing designs lol

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

I'm thinking on-the-ground stuff too. Compare the stats....

How many Arrow flew?
How many undercarriage failures?
How many (insert your favourite here) flew (and still fly)?
How many undercarriage failures?

A high wing and fuselage combination vectors airflow into engine nacelles - vital at high altitudes

I'm no pilot, but my sons, who are the closest thing I have to one, to ask, say that a high wing is more stable and easier to fly, in principle.

Is that true Lone?
 
lone wolf
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I'm no pilot, but my sons, who are the closest thing I have to one, to ask, say that a high wing is more stable and easier to fly, in principle.

Is that true Lone?

Much easier.... Flat-bottoms skid wa-aa-ay too easy....
 
MHz
#26
Those openings are pretty large, was it overkill in the day and would today's engines need that much of a hole? Keeping the same size you could feed two F-35 engines for a total of 80,000lbs of thrust, in their spare time they could deploy small sats.

 
lone wolf
+1
#27
...apparently they didn't have Google the day you were born....
 
MHz
#28
Do you mean g00gle or gOOgle? They are all awesome machines, too bad their role is so anti life.
 
#juan
+2
#29
I was in the RCAF when the Arrow was cancelled. I was accross the field at Downsview when the Arrow was flying. It was an impressive beast.

It was more impressive when we consider that the Arrow went from drawing board to assembly to flying without a prototype. There was nothing wrong with the Arrow that a few years of development wouldn't have fixed. A single, one piece, clear, canopy would have done wonders for visibilty. High by-pass turbofan engines would have improved the range/combat radius by a large measure. The Arrow made a very visible blip in the technology. It is too bad there aren't some still around.

The article dicusses the F-86 to some degree. It is said the F-86 didn't have radar. It did. Not very good radar. But it did have radar.
 
weaselwords
#30
The Arrow can be lamented to mythical proportions, however the real loss was not an aircraft but an industry. The cancelling of the plane was one thing but taken in conjunction with the shut down of the Iroquois project and scrapping of the Sparrow missile spelled the end of Canada as a military aerospace innovator & presence. The Iroquois was head & shoulders more advance than any jet engine of the time & might possibly be still in use today, the Sparrow was at least as good if not better than any armament available at the time. The end came not because one facet was better than what was out there or on design boards it was the overall package.

You know tha same thing happen a few years later to the Canadian militaery naval design industry with the cancellation of the Bras Dor cals hydrofoil.
 

Similar Threads

0
Avro Arrow
by sanctus | Dec 11th, 2006