LOL...
Maybe you should read about the whole thing before you comment. You look silly.
WTF?
Looking Back on the Avro Arrow
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Maybe you should read about the whole thing before you comment. You look silly.
"The decision to sever ties came amid revelations of a sharp argument last month between the Israeli prime minister and a senior U.S. official over Iran.
Reports in the U.S. and Israeli media suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lost his temper with a senior U.S. congressman during a meeting last month over what Israel sees as a lack of serious American action against Iran's nuclear program."
http://www.cp24.com/news/canada-closes-embassy-in-iran-orders-diplomats-out-1.946121
Strangely enough, Gloster built 650 Javelins slightly before the Arrow: The Javelin was not supersonic. Interesting that
the two are very similar looking. Aerodynamically, they are quite different. Also interesting that Zurakowski thought the Arrow was easier to fly than the Javelin or the F-102
Last edited:
So? They still weren't needed either, just like you said the Arrow wasn't needed. At the time the Arrow would have filled a gap in Canada's northern defense. As it turned out it wasn't needed.
Well, then I don't know what reinvented wheel you were referring to.
Let me know when you aren't asking me to provide definitives for things we'll likely never know. That's kind of like asking for prrofs of negatives.
Why mention FBW then?
Wrong. Take a look at the title of the thread, dipshyte.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH! That's the sound of a dipshyte ducking to avoid the point.
Uhuh And what has that to do with the topic, dipshyte?
Never heard of that plane. Interesting, though, I agree.Strangely enough, Gloster built 650 Javelins slightly before the Arrow: The Javelin was not supersonic. Interesting that
the two are very similar looking. Aerodynamically, they are quite different. Also interesting that Zurakowski thought the Arrow was easier to fly than the Javelin or the F-102
I wonder how many supersonic aircraft of the day could do Mach 1.86 and had as good or better climb rates.
On this topic we keep hearing about how it was a poor fighter at low altitude or low speed or both. None of
the test pilots mention this. With the Orenda engines and fifteen hundred pounds less weight most of the
problems would be gone. The Arrow had a designed "g" loading of nine positive and three negative so tight
turns shouldn't be a big problem. I know that in the F-16 the pilot was almost in a prone position so he could
withstand the high "g" loads but in other aircraft the "g" loading is not as high.
Thrust to weight ratio would tell most, but not all of the story. To climb, you have to increase the angle of attack and some wings are better than others in that the increase in the angle of attack brings on a corresponding increase of drag as well as lift.
the test pilots mention this. With the Orenda engines and fifteen hundred pounds less weight most of the
problems would be gone. The Arrow had a designed "g" loading of nine positive and three negative so tight
turns shouldn't be a big problem. I know that in the F-16 the pilot was almost in a prone position so he could
withstand the high "g" loads but in other aircraft the "g" loading is not as high.
Thrust to weight ratio would tell most, but not all of the story. To climb, you have to increase the angle of attack and some wings are better than others in that the increase in the angle of attack brings on a corresponding increase of drag as well as lift.
Maybe.
Before usually denotes before they figured out it wasn't needed.
Just a general statement about Canadian military procurement.
Now you're getting it.
t was just the flow of the sentence.
Good luck getting through, lol.
I was in the RCAF when the arrow was cancelled. The anticipation had been building for years
and the disappointment when the arrow was cancelled was painful. Most thought that the initial order
might be reduced, but to cancel the whole thing was impossible. Diefenbaker didn't save any money
when he cancelled the arrow because we still owed Avro for most of the contract. The money wasted
by Diefenbaker on Bomarks and squandered by Diefenbaker on used F-101s and F-104s was much more than
the cost overruns on the arrow. I can't believe it's been over fifty years since the cancellation of that
Canadian icon.
Lesser Defence Minister Bernard Valcourt's rationale for not pursuing Bourdeau Industries' proposal to rehabilitate the Avro Arrow:
The proposal to develop, test and manufacture what would effectively be a brand new aircraft is risky, and would take too long and cost too much to meet Canada's needs." This is of course is completely different from the fantastically over-budget and delayed development, testing, and manufacturing of the brand new F-35 Lightning II fighter and CH-148 Cyclone naval helicopter. Completely different.
Ottawa accused of axing Avro Arrow revival too soon - Politics - CBC News
The Galloping Beaver: Arrowneous
The proposal to develop, test and manufacture what would effectively be a brand new aircraft is risky, and would take too long and cost too much to meet Canada's needs." This is of course is completely different from the fantastically over-budget and delayed development, testing, and manufacturing of the brand new F-35 Lightning II fighter and CH-148 Cyclone naval helicopter. Completely different.
Ottawa accused of axing Avro Arrow revival too soon - Politics - CBC News
The Galloping Beaver: Arrowneous
Quote
One of the enduring myths surrounding the Arrow cancellation is that the Arrow was cancelled due to the perceived fact that missiles and ‘pushbutton’ warfare would replace aircraft. This myth about the Arrow is made all the more bitter by the fact that less than two years after the cancellation, Canada bought 75 used F-101 Voodoos from the U.S, which could barely go supersonic, because we needed some type of fighter.
The Arrow was cancelled because Diefenbaker didn't want them. We needed some kind of fighter. The Arrow could have filled that bill
at least as well as the Voodoo which was a joke. A bigger joke was the F-104. At least half of them fell apart killing a dozen or so pilots. My mistake...37 Canadian pilots were killed flying the F-104.
Diefenbaker should have been charged with destroying air force property. (the Arrows) We paid for them, not Diefenbaker.
Last edited:
That's awesome.
How American of you, lol.
Well that explains the myth, but doesn't do anything to disprove it, lol.
The Arrow wasn't a fighter, lol.
Speaking of myths... Nor the Liberals, and neither did Parliament. Dief may have signed the paper work, but the orders came down from Parliament.
"The Arrow wasn't a fighter"?
A little refining like a clear,one piece canopy, and a selection of weapons and it could have been as good a fighter as the F-15.
What is, is that Dief bailed out of the Arrow too soon. Dief bought into the Bomark, then he fell for a flock of
F-101 Voodoos that flew apart at the slightest stress. The CF-104s were a disaster that killed three dozen of our pilots.
Beware of a half assed hick polititians fron Sask with a majority
I doubt anyone is disputing that it was a "never was". It was a could-have-been, though, if the pinheads responsible for canning the project had used some vision.
"I could'a been a contender" might work in the movies. But it doesn't and shouldn't, in military procurement.
That's a standard that even #juan used to have.
Bear, you've been beating the obvious with a sledge hammer since the topic started. Avro must have had
some really good engineers. They took a prototype right off the assembly line, put in a smaller engine than
it needed, put in fifteen hundred pounds of lead to make up for the lighter engine, and the test pilots praised
it's handling.
All I've ever argued is what it could have been, and it could have been great.