Back at post 109 you said "nope". hence my confusion. Anyway, it has only 2 stats about performance of the Arrow and doesn't even say which model it was referring to.
Then there's this: Global Aircraft -- CF-105 Avro Arrow
Looking Back on the Avro Arrow
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Then there's this: Global Aircraft -- CF-105 Avro Arrow
You didn't just ask if that was the chart I posted. There were all sorts of silliness in that question, that made the overall answer, no.
I don't think that has much to do with it.
The chart was generous and used the predicted stats of the Mark II, lol.
That probably doesn't bode well for your appeal to probability argument.
What?
Uh, yeah, I did. Specifically, I asked "This the chart you were gibbering about and hinging your entire argument against the other spects of the Arrow on?"
FIFY and you could have said "Yes and no".
Doesn't matter now anyway.
It has different specs than other charts, though. What makes that one right and others wrong?
Probabilities don't count according to you. lol
Confused?
Ya, that was the stupid question.
The answer is still no.
No you didn't, you just lied, I'd probably lie too, if I posted something as stupid as that question, twice.
I know, the Arrow wasn't what you guys think it was, lol.
It's right and the others are wrong. LOL.
In some circumstances they do. But not when there are so many variables.
Nope.
quote:
I know, the Arrow wasn't what you guys think it was, lol.
How would you know that? Let me guess, you have a degree in engineering.
I can read what objective engineers and aviation analysts have to say about it.
The humour of you pulling this same asinine argument out of your ass a third time, while I was falsely accused of doing it, aside. Careful, or LG will be pointing out the fallacy in that.
The purple font of sarcasm noted, I accept your defeat.
lol Argumentum ad nauseum, you mean? Nah, I didn't accuse you of that one.
Good for you, I don't.
Actually, the fallacy he likes to use is appeal to authority.
You said fallacies, but only managed to come up with one incorrect example.
You must, you haven't presented anything pertaining to support for your erroneous beliefs in several posts now. Save for a link. Posting a link and expecting someone to refute it, is to invoke Gish gallop or the spreading fallacy.
Combined with the distractions you have employed.
One can only conclude that you can no longer support your position, and with everything you have posted, refuted. There is no other conclusion.
quote:
I can read what objective engineers and aviation analysts have to say about it.
None of whom showed up on this topic. They were obviously myths
You've called any positive arguments myth and pipe dreams
The Arrow was anything but a myth. Zurakowski proved that.
I can read what objective engineers and aviation analysts have to say about it.
None of whom showed up on this topic. They were obviously myths
You've called any positive arguments myth and pipe dreams
The Arrow was anything but a myth. Zurakowski proved that.
Not true. I posted the opinion of a Mechanical engineer, who is on the Advisory Board at the University of Waterloo, and a Research Assoc on the National Research Council.
Nope. Could have beens, are myths.
What is, and what was, are truths.
No, I proved they were, lol.
No he didn't, lol. He proved it could fly, fly fast and climb.
He never tried fighter maneuvers at low speeds at low altitudes, he never used a weapon system, and he never put the Mark I through a full combat ready shakedown.
Any speculation about what it could have been, by adding systems that were also unproven, or still in development, is just that, speculation.
Last edited:
The bottom line is that the Arrow was not a myth it was a sad history of gov't incompetence
At the time of the cancellation our air force had four fighter wings in Europe who's job it was to stop
Russian bombers from attacking targets in Europe. As it turned out we didn't get the new interceptor.
What we got was a lot of lip service from Diefenbaker and his cronies.
I never said it was a myth. It existed.
The myth is in the potential, that never came to be, and the American style nationalist way Canadians keep forwarding those myths and nonsense.
I think the Gov't was acting prudently. You would too if you weren't employing American style nationalism.
That's funny, because she was being touted as the bird that would protect Canada's north. Not Europe, lol.
Since you like probabilities, what of the Liberal parties plans to scrap it had they won the election?
But you grumbled about the repetitiveness.
Wrong.
I quit posting support because you seem to ignore it anyway.
Huh?
.... that you can see.
Look, your info, which you steadfastly cling to, is wrong. It says that the Arrow only made it to 1.2+ Mach and Zurakowski flew a Arrow to Mach 1.86 at 50,000 feet and at a climb rate of 44,000+ ft/min.
Keep sticking to your deskjockey engineers.
Neat.
No, that was you, lol.
Nope.
Just links, Gish Gallop is a lame tactic.
It was pretty clear.
No it isn't, lol.
It did?
Convoy escorts Avro Arrow replica to Mississauga for public display
A replica of the Avro Arrow has been returned to Mississauga, the site where the legendary Canadian-designed jet fighter was developed in the late 1950s.
The 26-metre replica jet was transported by convoy overnight Sunday from Toronto's Downsview Park to the International Centre, close to Pearson Airport, where it will be put on public display for the first time in two years.
The move was several days in the planning. First, the aircraft had to be loaded onto three trailers equipped with specially created shipping cradles and supports. The resulting convoy had to travel with a Toronto police escort, much like when NASA's Space Shuttle Endeavour travelled through the streets of Los Angeles to its new home in 2012.
Avro Arrow on the move: Replica transported to Mississauga for public display | CTV Toronto News
First Flight of the Avro Arrow - YouTube
A replica of the Avro Arrow has been returned to Mississauga, the site where the legendary Canadian-designed jet fighter was developed in the late 1950s.
The 26-metre replica jet was transported by convoy overnight Sunday from Toronto's Downsview Park to the International Centre, close to Pearson Airport, where it will be put on public display for the first time in two years.
The move was several days in the planning. First, the aircraft had to be loaded onto three trailers equipped with specially created shipping cradles and supports. The resulting convoy had to travel with a Toronto police escort, much like when NASA's Space Shuttle Endeavour travelled through the streets of Los Angeles to its new home in 2012.
Avro Arrow on the move: Replica transported to Mississauga for public display | CTV Toronto News
First Flight of the Avro Arrow - YouTube
Not in our day it wasn't. Already obsolete, and it just didn't have the lines the newer fast movers had. Even it's near look alike the F4 was cooler.