Looking Back on the Avro Arrow
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
So procuring deficient planes like the ones Juan suggested is better than developing a better plane? Interesting.
Gawd forbid the military would ever want anything that would likely prove to be superior.
What's interesting, is the fabrication you just made, lol.
The Arrow wasn't superior, lol.
Even more interesting is the idea that you think a question is relating a fabrication. BTW, it was a question; hence the little squiggly thing at the end of the letters.
Better climb rate, decidedly supersonic, higher flying, easier to handle, etc. You can ignore the technical aspects that made it a pretty good craft if you wish, but that's up to you.
:roll:
OK EAO.
You can ignore the chart previously posted if you like, but that's up to you.
A myth is something like a ghost or a goblin. The Arrow was a real entity......as was the money we spent on it. We have
actual footage of it flying. I personally watched it fly so I know it existed. The myth is your reasoning.
Nope, and nope. Despite the question mark, the 'question' pertained to nothing I ever stated, and 'interesting' is an interesting qualifier, that sorta negates the whole question thingy.
Obviously you haven't, or you wouldn't be making all sorts of silly claims.
The Arrow prototypes were great. They could have been greater. You would understand better
if you had been in the Canadian military at the time of the cancellation. We all know the Arrow is
gone.....never to come back.
They didn't beat was already out there over all.
So could I, lol.
What a load of sh!t.
Whether I served during that time or not, bears no weight on reality, I'm not an American style nationalist like those that keep harping about the Arrow myth.
Well, you could have just said that to begin with, instead of gibbering about fabrications.
I was curious. Not my fault if you don't find curious things interesting.
Not silly claims. I am just going by what I read in the links I provided. You're mocking the messenger, silly.
I'm glad you agree that your 'question' was a based on a fabrication of commentary I never offered., lol.
I have links that say the Arrow would still be a technological marvel.
Ya, I have a tendency to do that when the messenger starts to make things up about what I've said.
Bear, you've been told over and over that the Arrow in the tests you keep harping had about 30 percent less power than the Iriquois (SP)
and that the Arrows tested were carrying fifteen hundred pounds of lead ballast and you still harp about those bloody charts.
and that the Arrows tested were carrying fifteen hundred pounds of lead ballast and you still harp about those bloody charts.
Of course I do. Because what is, is what matters.
Could be don't cut it.
You can live in the lala land of maybe's all you want. I like reality.
lol Nice try at spin but it failed.
If you post em, I'll read them.
Questioning is not making things up. Questioning is an attempt at clarification, which I eventually got from you after a post or two of sputtering.
Either way, I'm guessing you didn't read the stuff in the links I provided.
I agree, your spin failed. Good of you to admit that. Now if you could only stop doing it.
Sorry to burst your little balloon, but I admitted no such thing.
Keep tossing out the logical fallacies. It's funny.
LOL!!!Keep tossing out the logical fallacies. It's funny.
Oh please do tell me just what logical fallacy I tossed out?
I mean I know I didn't ask a 'question' for clarification, about something you never said, and then qualified that question with the word 'interesting'.
But I really do look forward to the logical fallacy I used, lol.
Well, offhand; circular reasoning - the plane was no good because it didn't make it to trials, but it didn't make it to trials because it was cancelled, but it was cancelled because the PTB thought it was no good.
Also, twisting what I did say into something you meant.