# Avro Arrow RL-206



## Slim

Fri, March 25, 2005 


THE WAY WE WERE column



By Mike Filey, Toronto Sun

IT WAS at precisely 9:52 a.m. on this day in 1958 that the Avro Arrow roared off the tarmac at Malton Airport (now Pearson International). Developed in response to rising concerns that the Russians might attack over the North Pole, the revolutionary twin-jet interceptor was the culmination of five years of research and development by hundreds of engineers and craftsmen at both the Avro Canada factory adjacent to the airport and at dozens of plants across Canada. 

While the first Arrow had been introduced to a proud audience several months earlier, much work still had to be done and it wasn't until this day 47 years ago that the late Jan Zurakowski got Arrow RL-201 airborne. 

The first flight was just 35 minutes in length, and the aircraft performed superbly. 

In fact, Zurakowski had only one complaint -- the cockpit lacked a clock. 

It seemed as if the project was well and truly launched. 

There was no question that Canada's new Arrow led the pack. 

But somewhere along the way the project was derailed and in less than two years this remarkable Canadian success story had been terminated. 


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/03/25/972065-sun.html


----------



## TCBF

Thus endeth the lesson.

My father-in-law was an RCAF LAC at Malton, securing and shipping documents related to the project.

Tom


----------



## Freddy Chef

Probably a pipe dream here, but much could be learned about recycling from the USAF:

1) After WWII, USAF develop a revolutionary aircraft, the B-49 _Flying Wing_.
2) Aircraft was too complicated, program was cancelled, prototypes were destroyed in political hissy-fit.
3) Decades later, when technology caught up, and the USAF in need of a new bomber, USAF recycle B-49 blueprints to develop the B-2 Spirit.

On our side of the boarder:

1) After WWII, RCAF develop a revolutionary aircraft, the CF-105 _AVRO Arrow_.
2) Aircraft was too complicated, program was cancelled, prototypes were destroyed in political hissy-fit.
3) Decades later, when technology caught up, and the CF in need of a new fighter to replace the CF-18......


----------



## JBP

> Probably a pipe dream here, but much could be learned about recycling from the USAF:
> 
> 1) After WWII, USAF develop a revolutionary aircraft, the B-49 Flying Wing.
> 2) Aircraft was too complicated, program was cancelled, prototypes were destroyed in political hissy-fit.
> 3) Decades later, when technology caught up, and the USAF in need of a new bomber, USAF recycle B-49 blueprints to develop the B-2 Spirit.
> 
> On our side of the boarder:
> 
> 1) After WWII, RCAF develop a revolutionary aircraft, the CF-105 AVRO Arrow.
> 2) Aircraft was too complicated, program was cancelled, prototypes were destroyed in political hissy-fit.
> 3) Decades later, when technology caught up, and the CF in need of a new fighter to replace the CF-18......




Yeah, it's a pipedream, but to think, the AVRO Arrow was the first fighter sized aircraft to have:

Flight control computer (Autopilot)
Internal undercarriage bombay doors
Onboard radar guided missles (Not too sure about it being 1st, but close if not!)
"Almond" canopy (Pain in the ass anyway...)

That's to name a few...

Not to mention the unparalleled technological spin-offs, they had to create new computers, software, metals, fabrication and tooling methods, you name it! It all was top of the line. It was so far ahead of it's time it's rediculous...

I'm hoping one day a flying demonstration model would be built for airshows and the like....

Joe
 :'(


----------



## Love793

Who knows, some one is building a scale replica.  Whether or not it ever flys, who's to say.  The amazing thing would be, if someone was to build one that gets Transport Canada approval, that is power by the Oreinda engines (Avro Built) and not the P&W that all the prototypes flew.


----------



## Freddy Chef

[Sorry, Pte (R) Joe, the Arrow had a _â ?clamshellâ ?_ canopy.]

The CF-105 replica, Toronto Aerospace Museum, is supposed to be an aluminum, static museum model, not air-worthy.

http://www.torontoaerospacemuseum.com/home.html

There was also a scale-prop-model from the CF-105 docu-drama-movie, starring Dan Akroyd.


The Arrow used fly-by-wire technology in 1957. The F-16 used fly-by-wire, when its prototype rolled out in 1975 (?) .

The Arrow used an internal weapons bay in 1957. The F/A-22 used an internal weapons bay, when its prototype rolled out in 1997 (?) .


Big fan of the Arrow here; have the Boston Mills picture book of the Arrow, and used to own a plastic model of the CF-105. Ironically, the Arrow has a rectangular box for a fuselage, trapezoid/triangle for it's fin and wings, and a conical cockpit: not a complex design at all! The F/A-22 employs angled, box-like features for stealth. Some tweaking of the Arrow's design might have the same result (I'm also stuck on the rumor of delta-wing-aircraft having a low radar cross section).

My pipe dream suggestion, modernizing the CF-105's blueprints to build a home-grown aircraft to replace the CF-18, was inspired by the similarities I saw in the F/A-22, by the similarities I saw with the B-49/B-2 story, by the simplicity of the CF-105's basic design (cheaper to build?), and by the CF-18's service life ending in 12 years (plenty of development time). 

I guess it's the patriotic kid in me that wants to rekindle national pride, absolve the past sins of the Arrow's cancellation, and a second chance for Canadian aerospace to really, really shine. :'(


----------



## Slim

I just saw a CBC thing on the Arrow. Apparently the Arrowspace Museum is putting together a 1:1 scale replica of the thing.


----------



## Love793

On the plus side, a lot of the designers and technicians from that program went on to work at other Aero Space companies.  From their heads came the F-105, F-111, F-4, SR 71, TR-1 (U2), F-22, YF-23, SST Concorde as well as the most of the American manned space vehicles.  Even though Canada's Aircraft Industry suffered greatly, we can take pride in knowing that the greatest Fighter Interceptor ever designed lead to these projects.  In them the memory should live on.  Also, remember there is a strong rumour that 1 Arrow may have escaped....


----------



## Sheerin

There are a lot of individuals out there who go, well, kinda nutso over the CF-105.  

My brother did a documentary back in the late 90s on 2 groups of people who were searching for the scale models that Avro shot into Lake Ontario to test the aerodynamics.  They were nice people, just a little nutso.    

The doc, in case any of you caught it, was called Hunting Arrows, it aired on Roughcuts on CBC newsworld back in April of 2001, it was supposed to have a repeat on Tuesday September 11th, 2001, but it was preempted - for obvious reasons.


----------



## Love793

Discovery was showing a episode of "Sea Hunters" today that featured the search for the Arrow Models.  Pretty good episode, but a little dry.


----------



## Sheerin

Have they ever found the models?  I know with the groups that my brother was following all they (at the time of fliming) found was a booster rocket.  
I wonder what ever happened to those people?


----------



## Samy

Hi,

 Well i'm a cadet in 845 avro arrow squadron, named after the avro arrow i was wondering if you have any links to some sites that have alot of info about the arrow that's be awesome thanks...I have heard lately that they are going to rebuild the Avro Arrow is it true or just rumours?  :skull:


----------



## tabernac

Of the people here who have seen the Arrow movie/documentary, (God knows I have many times) they make note of the fact that there was 1 Arrow was not accounted for, the only bird that had the Iroquois mounted in it(which was able to fly). The pride and patriotism in me wants me to believe that a single Arrow is still out there. (Hey, for all we know it could be in Roswell, NM.)


----------



## condor888000

That would be RL-206 which is supposidly unaccounted for. I say supposidly because it's nose(cockpits forward), wingtips, main landing gear, and one of those Iroquois engines are sitting in the Canada Aviation Museum right here in Ottawa.


----------



## aesop081

For all you " let's bring back the arrow" folks, consider this :

The CF-105 was designed to intercept soviet bombers.  Doing that is quite different from the requirements of dealing with other fighters.  Therfore it was designed for a mission which no longer exists.

The original weapon system intended for the CF-105, an american system, was cancelled forcing Canada to develop an entirely new system costing millions.  One major factor in the project's cancelation, was the rising costs which were threathning all of the military's expenditure plans.  There is no reason why this would be different today.

For those who mentioned the internal bomb bay and the fact that the F-22 raptor has one has well.....whats your point ?  An internal bomb bay is nothing new.......i dont suppose you knew that the F-105 Thundercheif had one in the early 60's did you ?

The greatest loss to canada was in the "brain drain" that followed.  If the CF-105 had come to operational status, it would not have been on top of the game for long.  Its basic design suited the mission for which it was created and nothing else.  The solution to replacing the CF-18 doent lie in the revival of an outdated design incorporating new technology........you can modernise a 1962 pinto all you want..its still a 1962 pinto.

I love the arrow, don't get me wrong, but in the same breath i have great faith in JSF.

One last thing.....Whichever one of you said that 12 years was plenty of time for a developement period should go a read up on how long it took to develop the F-22, RAH-66...even the new civilian A380, and have thme tested and manufactured and placed in service.  If you want to argue that one with me i'm well prepared and i can also demonstrate to you waht happens in a country like canada when we simply want to upgrade an existing aircraft ( CP-140 AIMP).....


----------



## Freddy Chef

The point about the CF-105's internal weapons' bay? It is a concept that has been recycled, with aircraft like the F/A-22 and the F/A-35 JSF, to suit the modern requirement of low radar observe-ability, weapons inclusive. Revolutionary of the CF-105? Not really. The Convair F-102 and F-106 were fighters of the same era that also had internal weapons' bay. Point being, a design concept that is applicable contemporarily and can be recycled.

A souped-up 1959, CF-105 to replace the CF-18? Not really. Reference the comparison of the B-49, and B-2: the B-2 is not a souped-up B-49. The B-2 recycled the basic idea of the B-49, a uni-body lifting surface with internal engines. Yes, the 1959, CF-105 was a high performance, delta winged interceptor, with internal weapons bay. Can a modern, high performance, fighter/attack aircraft be delta winged, have an internal weapons bay, along with low radar observe-ability features? Can that concept of the CF-105 be recycled? I recall Dassault Mirage delta winged fighter aircraft being know for low radar observe-ability. [6th paragraph, http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir2k.html ]

Though the political and economic environment or our nation may not support such a venture, home grown aircraft, the twilight of the CF-18's service life presented a, nostalgic, opportunity. Granted, the time frame for research and development is not feasible for such an aircraft to be serviceable in time. [Corrected I stand.]  It's just the thought of redemption for our aerospace industry. Off-the-shelf technology until then.


----------



## JBP

On the internal weapons bays, also the F-111 Ardvark had internal as well. Nevermind all the bombers that did too like the B-52 Stratofortress and the Russian supersonic bombers like the Tu-26 Backfire. 

aesop081 you beat me to it. I was going to explain how the Arrow was designed with 1 mission in mind... Same reason the USN is retiring the F-14's, it was made purely as an interceptor and dogfighter, they are needing a more versatile aircraft. Besides the fact of the F-14's maintenance cost as well and service life (passed alread???). The F-14 also carries the Pheonix long range air to air missle, which cost about as much as a rolls-royce and it carries 4 on a standard loadout!

The Arrow isn't feasable in any way in modern war.

I'd just like to see a flying model built for airshows, and maybe to beat airspeed and altitude records, if that would be possible! 

 ;D


----------



## aesop081

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> .... the Russian supersonic bombers like the Tu-26 Backfire.



Not to be picky but,

Russina supersonic bombers are:

TU-22 "Blinder"
TU-22M "Backfire"
TU-160 "Blackjack"


----------



## Love793

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> On the internal weapons bays, also the F-111 Ardvark had internal as well. Nevermind all the bombers that did too like the B-52 Stratofortress and the Russian supersonic bombers like the Tu-26 Backfire.
> 
> aesop081 you beat me to it. I was going to explain how the Arrow was designed with 1 mission in mind... Same reason the USN is retiring the F-14's, it was made purely as an interceptor and dogfighter, they are needing a more versatile aircraft. Besides the fact of the F-14's maintenance cost as well and service life (passed alread???). The F-14 also carries the Pheonix long range air to air missle, which cost about as much as a rolls-royce and it carries 4 on a standard loadout!
> 
> The Arrow isn't feasable in any way in modern war.
> 
> I'd just like to see a flying model built for airshows, and maybe to beat airspeed and altitude records, if that would be possible!
> 
> ;D



It was planned to replace Arrow, with more modern Arrows, similiar to the French Mirage program.  And yes it was designed primarly to intercept.  This was the threat from the late 40s through to the early 90s.


----------



## JBP

> Not to be picky but,
> 
> Russina supersonic bombers are:
> 
> TU-22 "Blinder"
> TU-22M "Backfire"
> TU-160 "Blackjack"



 :-X

Opps... Thanks for the correction though.

Say, anyone know where the old airport Avro used to use is? Wasn't it connected to Pearson or something like that???

I'm a security guard in civvy world and I just did security in Toronto for an abandoned airfield (looked quite old, like 50's/cold war era) with huge hangers+runway and all. Called "Downview Airport" or some such... CF military base beside it still to this day... Anyone know if that had anything to do with it or no???

Joe


----------



## Inch

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> Say, anyone know where the old airport Avro used to use is? Wasn't it connected to Pearson or something like that???



The Arrows flew out of Malton airport, now known as Pearson International.


----------



## Slim

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> :-X
> 
> (looked quite old, like 50's/cold war era) with huge hangers+runway and all. Called "Downview Airport" or some such... CF military base beside it still to this day... Anyone know if that had anything to do with it or no???
> 
> Joe



Joe

That whole complex was CFB Downsview (aka CFB Toronto) until not too long ago! The base's borders were the PMQ's in the south end, Keele St on the west side, Sheppard Ave on the north side and the Allen Express way on the East side. The base was(at one time) the main storage depot in central Canada for the CF.

Slim


----------



## Thompson_JM

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> :-X
> 
> Opps... Thanks for the correction though.
> 
> Say, anyone know where the old airport Avro used to use is? Wasn't it connected to Pearson or something like that???
> 
> I'm a security guard in civvy world and I just did security in Toronto for an abandoned airfield (looked quite old, like 50's/cold war era) with huge hangers+runway and all. Called "Downview Airport" or some such... CF military base beside it still to this day... Anyone know if that had anything to do with it or no???
> 
> Joe



Hey Joe. Good to see things are working out with that company.. I left em over two weeks ago and they still dont have my Record of Employment done, or my paycheck, for my last week of work... anywho. I worked the downsview site as well for a couple days, the building where the washrooms are housed is an old support hanger, if you walk around it a little you can see where the tranport office and such were located.. plus there is a big Logistics Badge painted on the wall where the old main enterance used to be.... 

i felt kinda sad walking through it.. pictureing the army back in its glory days, and now the whole complex is being used to house cars.... 

Im pretty sure they used the old Downsview AFB as the hanger for AV Roe in the CBC movie of the Arrow. the control tower at the top of the one hanger looks very very familiar....

anyways, if you get a few minutes on a slow day, walk through the hanger, its quite an experiance...


----------



## JBP

> Hey Joe. Good to see things are working out with that company.. I left em over two weeks ago and they still dont have my Record of Employment done, or my paycheck, for my last week of work... anywho. I worked the downsview site as well for a couple days, the building where the washrooms are housed is an old support hanger, if you walk around it a little you can see where the tranport office and such were located.. plus there is a big Logistics Badge painted on the wall where the old main enterance used to be....



That is rediculous! Call in and ask to speak with Bob, he's the string-puller and the ops manager...



> i felt kinda sad walking through it.. pictureing the army back in its glory days, and now the whole complex is being used to house cars....



Yeah I did get to take a small walk around, which reminds me FOLKS: There is an old retired F-5 Freedom Fighter there! Completely intact (no engines of course etc... Stripped). Can't remember the Canadian designation? CF-5??? Anyway, yeah, it's sitting there beside a hanger in an "out of the way" spot... I did feel sad walking around there though, it should have been alive with military pers+equipment! Not, security guards doing patrols and being storage for new 2005 vehicles being shipped to USA buyers...



> Im pretty sure they used the old Downsview AFB as the hanger for AV Roe in the CBC movie of the Arrow. the control tower at the top of the one hanger looks very very familiar....



My supervisor there (you know, Tim, the ugly guy who is the son of the company) said they did film a movie there couple years ago (but the Avro movie is older..?!?).. It's probably been used in a couple different movies or so...



> Joe
> 
> That whole complex was CFB Downsview (aka CFB Toronto) until not too long ago! The base's borders were the PMQ's in the south end, Keele St on the west side, Sheppard Ave on the north side and the Allen Express way on the East side. The base was(at one time) the main storage depot in central Canada for the CF.
> 
> Slim



That makes sense, because there was A LOT of space, 2 huge hangers where I was, plus on the other side of the airfield a bunch of other hangers... Pretty big place... I hope eventually we make use of it all again when and IF any of that promised funding comes through... Also, jet aircraft were taking off from the runway on the "Bombadier" side of the airfield... They have factories there, this shows the runway can't be in too bad of condition obviously. Would be a good spot I think to re-activate...

Joe


----------



## Freddy Chef

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> ...There is an old retired F-5 Freedom Fighter there! Completely intact (no engines of course etc... Stripped). Can't remember the Canadian designation? CF-5??? Anyway, yeah, it's sitting there beside a hanger in an "out of the way" spot...



Hey Joe,

Was this the CF-5A that you saw?

http://www.torontoaerospacemuseum.com/home.html

[Click onto â Å“Our Collectionâ ?, second pic, top left corner.]

Yep, the Toronto Aerospace Museum, at the former CFB Downsview.

As you can see from the Museum's web site, same location they are constructing the 1:1 replica of the CF-105.


----------



## JBP

> Hey Joe,
> 
> Was this the CF-5A that you saw?
> 
> http://www.torontoaerospacemuseum.com/home.html
> 
> [Click onto â Å“Our Collectionâ ?, second pic, top left corner.]
> 
> Yep, the Toronto Aerospace Museum, at the former CFB Downsview.
> 
> As you can see from the Museum's web site, same location they are constructing the 1:1 replica of the CF-105.




  

So I _wasn't_ going crazy from sleep deprivation on an extremely boring shift!!! I could have sworn I seen the nose of an Arrow sticking out of the hanger across the runway!!! I asked the other guard about it if he'd seen it before, he didn't know anything about it other than the fact he said he's seen it before... 

Yep, that's the place. I'll have to go visit sometime now that I know what and where it is... Very interesting place indeed!

Joe


----------



## ChopperHead

Just Wondering what peoples thoughts and opionins are on this. Do you think that there is still one Arrow out there that escaped the saws? Personally I think 206 is still kickin around out there somewhere. Maybe out in some old barn or something in Alberta just waiting for someone to stumble across it. Ok well that may be pushing it but still you never know.


----------



## Chimo

Yeah I saw Elvis in it last time I was in Vegas.


----------



## Crimmsy

Actually, 206's nose section is on prominent display in the Canada Aviation Museum in Ottawa. See photo here.

Good luck with your search for the other five though


----------



## ChopperHead

LOL you guys make it sound like Im nuts cause I think there is one out there. there is actually quite alot of people who belive that hell even in the movie they chose to go with that Idea.






Kyle.


----------



## Strike

Crimmsy said:
			
		

> Actually, 206's nose section is on prominent display in the Canada Aviation Museum in Ottawa. See photo here.
> 
> Good luck with your search for the other five though



Actually, that nose cone is from one of the other aircraft, and was painted to say 206, specifically to dispel myths.  Found this out chatting with a museum coordinator in Shearwater, which was then confirmed by an older staff member in Ottawa.


----------



## George Wallace

Strike said:
			
		

> Actually, that nose cone is from one of the other aircraft, and was painted to say 206, specifically to dispel myths.   Found this out chatting with a museum coordinator in Shearwater, which was then confirmed by an older staff member in Ottawa.



Ah!   More fire for the "Conspiracy Theorists".


----------



## Strike

Laugh if you will George, but RL 202 was the only other aircraft not to have its nose cone painted red prior to demolition.  If you were to Google for pics of "Death Row", you would not find 206 anywhere on the line.  One might say that this was because it was being fitted with the Iroquois, however, this had already been done.  The aircraft was scheduled for a test flight 2-3 days after the date the project was shut down.


----------



## George Wallace

Don't worry Strike


I still believe we'd be flying Arrows today, if this 'fiasco' hadn't happend.  The Arrow Project is 'Legend' and a great Canadian accomplishment.  I am sad that it turned out the way it did.  We also have the stories of the Bras D'Or.  And stories of other Canadian Military Technological advances, which just 'disappeared' due to government restraints.


----------



## Crimmsy

Strike said:
			
		

> Actually, that nose cone is from one of the other aircraft, and was painted to say 206, specifically to dispel myths.   Found this out chatting with a museum coordinator in Shearwater, which was then confirmed by an older staff member in Ottawa.



No kidding? Heh. Colour me educated.


----------



## Strike

Only a rumour, of course.  But still a cool one.


----------



## observor 69

Anniversary of the Avro Arrow rollout

TAM celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the Avro Arrow rollout: 
Toronto Aerospace Museum Open House 
(10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) 

The Arrow was rolled out on October 4th, 1957, at Malton, Ontario.  This event features the Museum’s full-size model of the Arrow and an exhibit illustrating the history of this unique aircraft and the development of the Orenda Iroquois jet engine. 

http://torontoaerospacemuseum.com/home.html

http://torontoaerospacemuseum.com/home17.html


----------



## George Wallace

;D

Guess what I saw this afternoon at an undisclosed location?


----------



## PuckChaser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> Guess what I saw this afternoon at an undisclosed location?



How'd you get a camera to Area 51?! We all know the Americans stole a prototype and store it at Groom Lake to make their fighters with like they did with Megatron in Transformers.


----------



## Pusser

Considering that the Arrow was freaking huge (for a fighter), it would be pretty hard to hide it, especially for 50 years.  I've also been around long enough to know that keeping a secret of this magnitude is pretty much impossible.  The Government doesn't cover things up, not because it doesn't want to, but because it is entirely incapable of doing so.


----------



## Dissident

Pusser said:
			
		

> Considering that the Arrow was freaking huge (for a fighter), it would be pretty hard to hide it, especially for 50 years.  I've also been around long enough to know that keeping a secret of this magnitude is pretty much impossible.  The Government doesn't cover things up, not because it doesn't want to, but because it is entirely incapable of doing so.



Well, I don't think if it was spirited away it was done by or for the govt of the time. 

What would be interesting to find out was what was the range of the aircraft, where could it have flown/possible runways, anything happened at those runways in the time frame quoted?


----------



## Jammer

...it's the demo bird for the 2010 airshow season. SURPRISE!!


----------



## SeanNewman

The more research one does into it, the more that they'll find out it was far from the exact story as told on the CBC's Arrow movie production.

Diefenbaker wasn't anywhere near as evil as he appeared to be, and arguably even try to salvage some of it.  

To keep the performance you always hear about they'd have to refuel almost constantly with the day's technology, and none of the other systems that it was supposed to use were ready anyway.

Yes it is still something to be proud of as a Canadian and yes it was a great jet for its day, but to suggest that we'd still be flying them today is crazy.

At most it could have been viewed as the father of something like the F4 Phantom, but those aren't exactly first line anymore and they were a decade newer.

I'm as big of a fan of them as anyone...I've got the $20 coin, the Sushu painting/print, the posters, the models, etc, but let us be realistic here and not base our opinions on some docutainment.

Just like every other front line fighter (F22, F35), you almost break the bank of the country if you try to research and build these things unless you're at war.


----------



## karl28

George Wallace 

              Great photo thanks for sharing it . I wonder if that is the full size static display replica a group was working on a couple of years ago looks great that is for sure .


----------



## Neill McKay

Pusser said:
			
		

> Considering that the Arrow was freaking huge (for a fighter), it would be pretty hard to hide it, especially for 50 years.  I've also been around long enough to know that keeping a secret of this magnitude is pretty much impossible.  The Government doesn't cover things up, not because it doesn't want to, but because it is entirely incapable of doing so.



Which is exactly why every schoolboy knows about this one!

Kidding aside, I don't honestly believe that they saved one of them this way, but it does make for a great story.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Yes it is still something to be proud of as a Canadian and yes it was a great jet for its day, but to suggest that we'd still be flying them today is crazy.



Don't be so sure: had the project gone ahead the first production Arrows would have been going into service only slightly (if at all) earlier than the Sea Kings.


----------



## Jammer

The Arrow and the Phantom II were being developed at the same time. The F4 is still in frontline use with several countries.
Greece
Turkey
Japan
Germany
Iran (yes they still fly!)
South Korea
Spain

The Arrow's potential was unlimited and used technologies that already were proven in the CF-100. for example the retractable weapons pack. However there was enormous political pressure by the US on the Cdn Gov't of the day not to proceed with full scale production.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> Guess what I saw this afternoon at an undisclosed location?



Looks like French markings on the side. Not one of the French Mirage 2000/4000 prototypes?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Shutting the program down based on costs was acceptable, scrapping the aircraft and destroying drawings was not. The prototypes would have made useful testbeds and likely a limited testing program would have generated economic spinoff without major costs. Mind you the US Aerospace industry would lose out. Whoever ordered the aircraft scrapped should have been jailed.


----------



## Jammer

The US aerospace industry gained....by leaps and bounds. Many of the Canadians who helped design the Arrow moved on to NASA, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed.

The legacy of the Arrow lives in in the F-15, F-16, F-18, and numerous experimantal aircraft of the 70, 80s, and 90s.


----------



## time expired

PETAMOCTO, at last a I can totally agree with.

The Avro Arrow was a one trick pony that, had it gone into service ,would have been a very expensive answer
to a threat that had all but  disappeared,the manned bomber. It would also have required a tanker fleet that
Canada did not possess and given the cost of the Arrow itself  would  have been unable to afford.

The Arrow shares aerodynamic features with two other aircraft that were being developed at about the same
time,the British TSR 2 and the North American A3J Vigilante,these were a relatively large wing area and a long
slab-sided forward fuselage area.These features were very good for an aircraft operating at high altitude but
poor for the low altitude that these aircraft  would have been forced to operate in by a SAM equipped air defence
system.

The Vigilante was the only one of the three that entered service and it was found that at low altitude the gust
response loads placed on the crew and aircraft were so high as to render the crew almost unable to do their
jobs and would have resulted in structural damage to the aircraft in a very short time.This and a problem with
the nuclear delivery system caused the US Navy to turn the Vigilante into a recce platform and it did good work
in Vietnam.

I bring this up to counter the argument that the Arrow could have been used in any role other than a  North
American  interceptor,as an air superiority fighter or a ground attack it would have been next to useless due
its lack of maneuverability and the airframe limitations mentioned above.

All that being said we did soldier on with the F104 in the ground attack role for many year so anything is
possible,and it would have looked great at airshows.

                                                  Regards


----------



## observor 69

Many books have been written on the Arrow and it's fate.
The link is to Amazon.ca and some of those books.


----------



## Jammer

However the F-15 was conceived as a purely air superiority fighter with the tagline "Not a pound for air to ground."

The F-15E Strike Eagle seems to put to rest the argument that the Arrow would never have been used (or could have), been used in this role.
The F-104 was the worst possible choice for an air to ground platform. There are many good men who paid the ultimate price for this folly.


----------



## Loachman

time expired said:
			
		

> the _*British TSR 2*_ and the North American A3J Vigilante,these were a *relatively large wing area* and a long
> slab-sided forward fuselage area.These features were very good for an aircraft operating at high altitude but
> poor for the low altitude that these aircraft  would have been forced to operate in by a SAM equipped air defence
> system.



TSR2 was designed as a _*low-level*_ strike and reconnaissance aircraft. Its wing area was a little more than half that of Arrow.


----------



## time expired

LOACHMAN,
        You are correct that strike and recce was the planned role of the TRS2 ,however it was designed to
to operate in a low high low configuration and would not have flown low level to and from its target.

It is also correct to point out that it had less wing area but its long slab-sided fuselage would generated the 
same lateral gust responce loads if it had been forced to spend more time at low level by Soviet missile
defences

                                   Regards


----------



## vonGarvin

time expired said:
			
		

> All that being said we did soldier on with the F104 in the ground attack role for many year so anything is possible,and it would have looked great at airshows.


The CF-104 Starfighter was perfect for its role as part of NATO's nuclear deterrance role.  Under the NATO policy of "Nuclear Sharing", Canada hosted US nuclear weapons for use on Canadian jets:


> Canada had Bomarc nuclear-armed anti-aircraft missiles, Honest John surface-to-surface missiles and the AIR-2 Genie nuclear-armed air-to-air rocket, as well as tactical nuclear bombs for the CF-104 fighter.


(Source)
Jets such as the CF-104, which could fly, oh, so fast (over MACH 2) would find their way on a one-way mission to glory and drop those bombs on columns of Soviet tanks.  Or so the plan was.  
(More stuff here)


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Looks like French markings on the side. Not one of the French Mirage 2000/4000 prototypes?



Fooled myself. The marking threw me for a loop. Here is a better shot of our phantom aircraft:


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Jammer said:
			
		

> The legacy of the Arrow lives in in the F-15, F-16, F-18, and numerous experimantal aircraft of the 70, 80s, and 90s.



Funny you should say that. During the mid-80's when I was stationed at CFB Cold Lake, the base each year, ran a Fighter Weapons Instructors Course (FWIC). Part of the course included guest lecturers, who would talk on variety of subjects, some of which were unclassified and open to anyone. I remember one year they had two lecturers from the U.S. who were pushing their idea of a new fighter with supercruise ability (able to fly supersonic without using afterburner if I remember correctly). Anyway, it turned out that one, if not both, had worked as engineers on the Arrow project and the aircraft they were flogging looked, in my mind anyway, suspiciously like the Arrow. Unfortunately, I can't remember the names of the two lecturers or their project name.


----------



## George Wallace

time expired 

You seem to forget that at the time, Canada had more Fighters stationed at four Bases in 1 CAD in Europe than the CF has at all its Bases today in Canada.  I am sure that at the time the RCAF was not going to scrap all its aircraft and maintain only one, that being the Arrow.  The Arrow had its role, and other aircraft filled other roles.  The economy was booming.  The future looked quite rosy for the RCAF.

As for you comments about the ending of "Manned Bombers", it seems to me that even as I type this, there are Soviet Bears flying in the Arctic Circle.  Like the B-52, I am sure the Arrow could still be flying today, had the Government had the will.


----------



## observor 69

Looking back on it one is staggered to think that a Bomarc missile with a "nuclear" warhead would be used to shoot down an enemy aircraft.
http://rcaf.com/Aircraft/aircraftDetail.php?BOMARC-239

The CF-101 Voodoo also had the Genie nuclear warhead missile for air to air intercept. When we (416 Sqn) went to Maple Flag in the late 70's we would be dog fighting against modern jet fighters with our dated Voodoo and it's air to air nuclear weapon. How's that for leveling the playing field.  ;D
http://rcaf.com/Aircraft/aircraftDetail.php?VOODOO-36


----------



## aesop081

That the Arrow could still be flying today is a possibility.

That it could still be usefull today... not so much.

The Arrow is no F-4 either. You wouldnt have seen too many Arrows being able to mix it up with Migs.

The fact that Russian bombers still show up now and then is neither here nor there. The threat back them was from large ammounts of Soviet bombers coming over the north not the "ones-and-twos " that remain in international airspace just to keep us on our toes. The Russian bomber force is a shadow of its former self these days.


----------



## Jammer

..so are we...some peace dividend.


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> ..so are we...some peace dividend.



Indeed.


----------



## Neill McKay

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Canada had more Fighters stationed at four Bases in 1 CAD in Europe



Baden, Lahr, and...?


----------



## aesop081

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Baden, Lahr, and...?



He was probably thinking more of North Luffenham (initialy), Grostenquin, Zweirbrucken, Marville, Baden-Sollingen


----------



## Jammer

i wonder if the restoration wizards at The National Air Force Museum or CWH could get 203 in the air??? Nice thought that.


----------



## George Wallace

There were four Wings as part of No. 1 Air Division, headquartered in Metz, France. Two wings were located in France, 1 Fighter Wing (RCAF Station Marville)  and 2 Fighter Wing (RCAF Station Grostenquin), and two were located in West Germany 3 Fighter Wing (RCAF Station Zweibrücken) and 4 Fighter Wing (RCAF Station Baden-Soellingen).

Lahr was a French Airbase at this time.


----------



## Jammer

Yeah...after we took over, you couldn't get a parking spot in the caserne for all the Peugeots and their "FFA" plates.


----------



## SeanNewman

Jammer said:
			
		

> The F-15E Strike Eagle seems to put to rest the argument that the Arrow would never have been used (or could have), been used in this role.



I think that had the Arrow survived, it would have been used more like an F14 than an F15 (other than the Navy part).  An F15 can be used for different roles because it's a perfect size to go back and forth.

I don't see the Arrow dog fighting it out so much as using its larger size to house a massive F14-like radar and weapons suite to shoot things down from 30 miles away instead of with cannons (not saying that you can ever lose the cannons, just that it would't be its strength).


----------



## Jammer

Ergo, the reason the Arrow was conceived, an interceptor.
Keep in mind in the waning years of the F-14, it was adapted to drop bombs. "The Bombcat". 
Could the Arrow have been? Why not? 
We'll never know for sure because the flight testing with loads were never done before cancellation. Another role it could have fulfilled might have been that performed by the F-105 in Vietnam.


----------



## aesop081

Jammer said:
			
		

> Another role it could have fulfilled might have been that performed by the F-105 in Vietnam.



A role that the F-105 performed at the cost of very, very high losses. The CF-105 was no F-105 either.......like trying to get a 2-door lada to be a Ram 3500.

All arguments that do not adress the biggest issue against the Arrow program. The development costs were so considerable that the entire CF woul have been consumed by it.


----------



## Jammer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A role that the F-105 performed at the cost of very, very high losses. The CF-105 was no F-105 either.......like trying to get a 2-door lada to be a Ram 3500.
> 
> All arguments that do not adress the biggest issue against the Arrow program. The development costs were so considerable that the entire CF woul have been consumed by it.


Hence the moniker "Thud".  Super fast and stable on the deck, but turned like a brick.
Two engines are always better than one.
 No argument that a new plane along with new engines (F-22, F-35), are crazy expensive for a sole user. Maybe Avro was hoping for sales offshore to offset costs. They had marginal success with the CF-100 being sold to Belgium.
The US failed to sell a dumbed down version of the F-16 with a less powerful engine in the early 80's to Asian nations (Singapore, and Taiwan IIRC).
They eventually held out for the USAF production model of the day "stock".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

How would the arrow performed as long range recce aircraft if so fitted?


----------



## TCBF

- The US gov't may not have wanted us to risk our defence budget on one item when we were in the process of paying for built/buiding/assuming control over things like the Pine Tree Line, Mid Canada line, Gap Filler Radars, new fighters and Nuke ground attack roles in NATO, new ships, army eqpt, etc.  The USAF, on the other hand, was probably most supportive, having had the F-103 canned, and the F-108 was about to be canned twice  - once before the Arrow, and again, sixonths after.  The F-108 Rapier would have given the Arrow a run for the money.

- Destruction of the built aircraft? Possibly seen as the only way to keep the imbedded weapons control systems out of the wrong hands.  Particularly the nuclear air-to-air stuff.  Rumours that the Ruskies had a 'mole' at AVRO Canada were taken very seriously, and the Americans would not want anything floating around that they were using (or wanted to use).

- Could we have kept the project going if funded from another batch of money?  Sure - by raising taxes...

- Drove down to the Reynolds Museum last week to show our son the full-scale model of the Arrow (his grandfather was an RCAF CR Clerk posted to AVRO at Downsview)  that was used in the movie.  Model was outside, but no longer is. It was put in 'storage' out of the elements. Another conspiracy?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> How would the arrow performed as long range recce aircraft if so fitted?



Depending on who you read, the combat radius of the  Arrow  was estimated to be 360 nautical miles. If you look at a comparable aircraft (at least in size) such as the  A-5 Vigilante  which had a combat radius of 1120 nmi, then I would say that the Arrow would have made a lousy long range recce a/c.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I take it all the fuel was in the fuselage and not the wings? Seems like a very short range for such a large aircraft. Was the fuel capacity a protype issue or a decision based on the likely tactical deployment that these aircraft were planned for?


----------



## SeanNewman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Seems like a very short range for such a large aircraft...



A lot of it had to do with the rate of fuel consumption as well.  Not that jets nowadays are hybrids or anything, but I believe they are far more efficient than what engines used to be (I'm sure the AF experts will know the details, but I believe turbofans like the F14 are more efficient for cruising).

Even going back to the piston/radial engines of WW2, the amount of fuel they would consume was astronomical and the first few decades of jets were no better.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I take it all the fuel was in the fuselage and not the wings?



Just the opposite in fact.  This site  dedicated to the Arrow has the following info:



> 10 Fuel is carried in twelve integral wing tanks and in two rubber cell type tanks in the fuselage. One of the tanks in each wing acts as a collector tank and fuel is pumped to the engine by a mechanically driven booster pump mounted in each collector tank. Fuel is transferred to each collector tank through a flow proportioner unit, from the wing tanks by air pressure, and from the fuselage tanks by a combination of air pressure and electrically driven transfer pumps.
> 
> 11 The tanks in the RH wing and the front fuselage tank normally feed the RH engine, and the tanks in the LH wing and the rear fuselage tank, the LH engine. Provision is made for crossfeeding.





> TOTAL FUEL CAPACITY 2, 508 imp 3,010 US gal 19,562 lb.


----------



## a_majoor

One of the reasons the F-15 and F-16 were able to be adapted to the air to ground role has less to do with the legacy of Canadian engineers and more with the perceptions of Colonel John Boyd, who's Energy-Maneuverability theory called for aircraft with a 1:1 or higher thrust weight ratio and huge amounts of lifting surface, features which gave any airframe a lot of built in versatility. Boyd was able to assemble a "Fighter mafia" to push the project (and the Navy was able to benefit when the F-17 prototype was remodeled as the F-18).

The Arrow was designed around a single mission, and does not seem to have the adaptability to have been modified to take new missions


----------



## NavyShooter

I recall reading a book that had a bunch of "future" visions of the Arrow.

One of them invovled a Mach 3 variant that would be used for recce.

It also had diagrams of the Vertical Launch mechanisms that would allow them to effectively take off, almost straight up.  Kind of rocket powered scaffold/trapeeze thing.  

There were a few other variants that were mentioned, I don't recall all of them, it's been a *LONG* time since I've read that book, and the ones I have here now in my reference collection don't include that info.

NS


----------



## Jammer

The iroquois engine was never flight tested in an Arrow, so no one knows what the rate of fuel consumption might have been. It was flight tested on a B-47 loaned to the RCAF.
So would the Arrow have been able to achieve a 1:1 TtW ratio? I would argue yes. The F-15 et al can only do it "clean", and then if the weights are calculated correctly.
To reiterate: The F-14 and 15 were designed around a single mission as well, but seem to have adapted well to the multi-role environment. The Arrow could have been as well.


----------



## murray b

Almost everything we read about the Avro Arrow today is a lie.  Soldiers deserve the truth, Eh!

Step one.  Diefenbaker was not behind the cancellation the military was.  This information is declassified and posted at http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=8169

On  August 28, 1958 cabinet was advised, “Finally, the cost of the CF-105 programme as a whole was now of such a magnitude that the Chiefs of Staff felt that, to meet the modest requirement of manned aircraft presently considered advisable, it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S.”

How much did the aircraft cost at that time?  The price is clear, “The R.C.A.F. now had nine all-weather squadrons and the present programme called for their re-equipment with the CF-105, requiring a production order of 169 in number. These, together with aircraft recovered from the development and pre-production order for 37, would provide sufficient aircraft for nine squadrons. The total cost would be $2 billion spread from 1959-60 to 1963-64.”  That is nearly $10 million each compared to a Voodoo which was about $2 million.

So, to claim that the Arrow was something wonderful makes the old Chiefs of Staff look like idiots for not evaluating the aircraft properly or traitors for conspiring with Eisenhower to kill the program.  Were they either of these things?   Nope, the facts indicate that they made a sensible recommendation.

The Arrow was not all that fast at mach 1.89 for a specially prepared version.  At the time both the Lightning and Starfighter had exceeded mach 2 by a significant margin.   Nevertheless, the Arrow was fast enough to meet the specification which had been reduced to mach 1.5.  Since the Americans and British already produced much cheaper aircraft with comparable performance there was no absolutely no chance of export sales.

So why didn’t our military want the aircraft?  Well, clearly with a requirement for 206 of them they did not need just an interceptor.  The aircraft would have had to perform well in several roles and needed to have a range great enough to reach Europe via Keflavik.  Keflavik is 1312 nm from Goose Bay.  Even the lighter Arrow 2 could not be ferried that far.  In a memorandum signed W.W. Bean from 17 Jan 58 regarding the performance of the Arrow 2 “A reduction in ferry range to 1254 nm is not acceptable.”  [The estimate had to be reduced because the Avro 1 demonstrated far shorter range than Avro had predicted.]  The Voodoos that were purchased have a ferry range of over 1900 nm.

The Chiefs of staff did their duty and made a sensible recommendation based on technical and economic grounds.   

It should also be remembered that the Arrow was doomed even if the Liberals had won.  From the October 23, 1963 edition of the Montreal Star, “Gen. Charles Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff committee from 1951 to 1960, testified yesterday that the Liberal Government of Prime Minister St. Laurent decided in 1957 it would cancel the Arrow interceptor program as soon as it was returned to power in that year’s election.” 

So the military recommended cancelling a very expensive aircraft that did not meet their needs.  That is a fact that every Canadian should know and this is especially true for those serving in the military.


----------



## gaspasser

Still, she was a Canadian dream; engineered by Canadians, built in Canada by Canadians.  Can't see why we can't be extremely proud of that accomplishment.  I'm  proud to say that I'm impressed that it was those Canadians that put a man on the moon and came up with other great aircraft later in life.

        iper:


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Arrow_ was a significant technological achievement. Unfortunately, as murray b correctly states, buying it would have, effectively, *destroyed* the Canadian Army and most of the RCAF by about 1960. There would have been no money for essential new equipment and pay raises.


----------



## murray b

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Still, she was a Canadian dream; engineered by Canadians, built in Canada by Canadians.  Can't see why we can't be extremely proud of that accomplishment.



Over the years lie has been piled upon lie until this reeking pile of poop has become higher than Mount Logan.  We should only be proud of what was actually achieved and not what was talked about.

Victory Aircraft was a Canadian company but it was purchased by Hawker-Siddeley after World War II.  Avro Canada was part of that British company.  Many of their senior people were British except for Crawford Gordon who was Canadian and had once been a protégé of the Liberal C.D. Howe.  The aircraft was, however, largely built by Canadians.

The destruction of the industry on the other hand was not caused by the Chiefs of Staff, anyone else in the military, or anyone in the Government for that matter.  It is covered pretty well in an excerpt from an article in the Montreal Star Feb. 24 1959, “The Prime Minister said the company had warning of the Government decision to cancel the CF-105 Arrow supersonic interceptor and knew that $50,000,000 in public funds had been set aside in the estimate for 1959-1960 to cover winding up expenses…”I say that its attitude in letting out thousands of workers – technical workers and employees – on Friday was so cavalier, so unreasonable, that the only conclusion any fair-minded person can come to is that it was done for the purpose of embarassing the goverment.”" 

The lies cannot be allowed to continue because they make the military of the day look like idiots for killing an entire industry for no good reason and that is not even close to what actually happened.  



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Arrow_ was a significant technological achievement.



Actually the aircraft set no international performance records whatsoever and only became great after the fact through massive historical revision.  Just from the photographs it is clear even a civilian ‘computer guy’ like me that there are some obvious problems with the aircraft.  It seems clear that the Chiefs of Staff should have recommended cancellation even if the aircraft had cost only $3 million.
  
The heavily ribbed canopy would make for poor visibility which would limit the aircraft in roles other than interception.  Since the RCAF planned to buy 206 I presume they wanted them to perform other tasks.

The tailless delta planform is not correct for general purpose use and would also limit what the aircraft could be used for. 

The long spindly main gear are obviously too weak for an aircraft with an empty weight exceeding 40,000 lbs.  They should be much heavier or some stout wheels coming out of the belly should have been added.  
Of course the absolute killer flaw for what was supposed to be a mach 2+ aircraft is the straight fuselage.  Avro was advised that the entire fuselage needed to be area ruled but for some reason they chose (according to the Mk. 1 brochure) to only apply the rule to the nose, inlets, and tail section.  They left most of the fuselage the way it was and this must have caused excessive drag at high speeds.  It is amusing that several lying weasels now claim the aircraft had a “wasp waist” when it obviously did not.  Fixing this problem would have required a complete redesign as Convair had done with the Delta Dagger to make the Delta Dart.  [The Douglas Stiletto had a similar problem with shape but they did not blame Canadians for their failure when it was cancelled.]

Just fixing the Arrow’s obvious flaws would have taken years and the RCAF needed the aircraft immediately.  Under those conditions I don’t see how the military could recommend continuing the program even if the aircraft had been much cheaper than it actually was.

The old Chiefs of Staff were correct in advising that the Arrow was “comparable” to other aircraft and not that it was the “best aircraft ever made” as so many people believe today.   Even if this was not clear from the records the military should still be given the benefit of the doubt unless there was extraordinary proof to the contrary.  [Fictional material from people wearing tin foil hats does not count as extraordinary proof.]


----------



## George Wallace

murray b said:
			
		

> .........  It is covered pretty well in an excerpt from an article in the Montreal Star Feb. 24 1959, “The Prime Minister said the company had warning of the Government decision to cancel the CF-105 Arrow supersonic interceptor and knew that $50,000,000 in public funds had been set aside in the estimate for 1959-1960 to cover winding up expenses…”I say that its attitude in letting out thousands of workers – technical workers and employees – on Friday was so cavalier, so unreasonable, that the only conclusion any fair-minded person can come to is that it was done for the purpose of embarassing the goverment.”"



Just curious: Do you lay as much credibility on articles published in the Press today?






			
				murray b said:
			
		

> The long spindly main gear are obviously too weak for an aircraft with an empty weight exceeding 40,000 lbs.  They should be much heavier or some stout wheels coming out of the belly should have been added.



Seems the long spindly main gear was strong enough for the aircraft to conduct numerous test flights without failure; or are there some spectacular crashes that are being hidden from the public's eyes?


----------



## George Wallace

murray b said:
			
		

> Almost everything we read about the Avro Arrow today is a lie.  Soldiers deserve the truth, Eh!
> 
> Step one.  Diefenbaker was not behind the cancellation the military was.  This information is declassified and posted at http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=8169
> 
> On  August 28, 1958 cabinet was advised, “Finally, the cost of the CF-105 programme as a whole was now of such a magnitude that the Chiefs of Staff felt that, to meet the modest requirement of manned aircraft presently considered advisable, it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S.”
> 
> How much did the aircraft cost at that time?  The price is clear, “The R.C.A.F. now had nine all-weather squadrons and the present programme called for their re-equipment with the CF-105, requiring a production order of 169 in number. These, together with aircraft recovered from the development and pre-production order for 37, would provide sufficient aircraft for nine squadrons. The total cost would be $2 billion spread from 1959-60 to 1963-64.”  That is nearly $10 million each compared to a Voodoo which was about $2 million.
> 
> So, to claim that the Arrow was something wonderful makes the old Chiefs of Staff look like idiots for not evaluating the aircraft properly or traitors for conspiring with Eisenhower to kill the program.  Were they either of these things?   Nope, the facts indicate that they made a sensible recommendation.
> 
> The Arrow was not all that fast at mach 1.89 for a specially prepared version.  At the time both the Lightning and Starfighter had exceeded mach 2 by a significant margin.   Nevertheless, the Arrow was fast enough to meet the specification which had been reduced to mach 1.5.  Since the Americans and British already produced much cheaper aircraft with comparable performance there was no absolutely no chance of export sales.
> 
> So why didn’t our military want the aircraft?  Well, clearly with a requirement for 206 of them they did not need just an interceptor.  The aircraft would have had to perform well in several roles and needed to have a range great enough to reach Europe via Keflavik.  Keflavik is 1312 nm from Goose Bay.  Even the lighter Arrow 2 could not be ferried that far.  In a memorandum signed W.W. Bean from 17 Jan 58 regarding the performance of the Arrow 2 “A reduction in ferry range to 1254 nm is not acceptable.”  [The estimate had to be reduced because the Avro 1 demonstrated far shorter range than Avro had predicted.]  The Voodoos that were purchased have a ferry range of over 1900 nm.
> 
> The Chiefs of staff did their duty and made a sensible recommendation based on technical and economic grounds.
> 
> It should also be remembered that the Arrow was doomed even if the Liberals had won.  From the October 23, 1963 edition of the Montreal Star, “Gen. Charles Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff committee from 1951 to 1960, testified yesterday that the Liberal Government of Prime Minister St. Laurent decided in 1957 it would cancel the Arrow interceptor program as soon as it was returned to power in that year’s election.”
> 
> So the military recommended cancelling a very expensive aircraft that did not meet their needs.  That is a fact that every Canadian should know and this is especially true for those serving in the military.



Have you read any of the memoires of people who actually worked for A. V. Roe?  People like George Shaw who worked  at Avro Canada as a mechanical design engineer from early 1946 to mid 1960.

11 Nov 1958  Waldek "Spud" Potoki pilots RL203 to Mach 1.96, the fastest an Arrow flew.  This without the Orenda Iroquois engines.  

Test Flight info.


----------



## Michael OLeary

murray b said:
			
		

> The lies cannot be allowed to continue because they make the military of the day look like idiots for killing an entire industry for no good reason and that is not even close to what actually happened.



What, exactly, is your point?  More specifically, what is your point for presenting your argument here with the tone you are using, and while speaking to a group that is arguably recognizable supporters of the Canadian military throughout its past?


----------



## Good2Golf

Murray b, I find your comments about configuration interesting; good point on Whitcomb's Area Rule.

How is it that a tailless delta plan-form is not good for general use again?

- F102 Delta Dagger (1000+ built)
- F106 Delta Dart (350 built)
- Mirage III (1400+ built)
- Mirage V (580+ built)
- Mirage 2000 (600+ built)
- Rafale (~300 built)
- Gripen (213 built)
- Typhoon (200 built, ~500 on order)



One must take care not to swing t0o far to the other side of portrayal of past achievements or lack thereof, for fear of invalidation one's own position.

Regards
G2G


----------



## murray b

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have you read any of the memoires of people who actually worked for A. V. Roe?  People like George Shaw who worked  at Avro Canada as a mechanical design engineer from early 1946 to mid 1960.11 Nov 1958  Waldek "Spud" Potoki pilots RL203 to Mach 1.96, the fastest an Arrow flew.  This without the Orenda Iroquois engines.  Test Flight info.



Not many since they are not impartial sources for having worked for Avro.  Most employees of the company did not need to know the details of the highly classified aircraft and those that did could be making self-serving statements.

I did hear a voice recording where Mr. Potocki claimed to have gone up to mach 1.9 (which was apparently actually mach 1.89) but the mach 1.96 and 1.98 figures seem to be from more recent times.  What I can’t discover is the weight of that aircraft which was specially prepared for the flight or the engine thrust.  There is an indication that the engines were modified in some way but it is difficult to discover how.  Since the J75-P-3 used in the Arrow was rated at 24,000 lbt. with reheat (Mk.1 brochure) and the Orenda Iroquois was rated at 25,000 lbt. with reheat (Magellan R.O.I.) it should have been possible to increase the J-75 thrust by 4% by adjusting the limiter thingy on the engine.  Most jet engines can provide more than the rated thrust but at the cost of a reduction in life expectancy.  

Since I am a ‘computer guy’ and not an historian I actually began my reading with the computers that were the basis of the S.A.G.E. network.  Then I looked at the radars and the aircraft.  Finally I looked at the factual information about the events surrounding the Arrow.   Didn’t care that much about what Avro employees or any of the politicians were saying because they were not impartial and some were obviously lying.   



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What, exactly, is your point?  More specifically, what is your point for presenting your argument here with the tone you are using, and while speaking to a group that is arguably recognizable supporters of the Canadian military throughout its past?



My point is that it is impossible to be an Arrow fanboy and a true supporter of the military at the same time.  Claiming the aircraft was wonderful automatically means that the Chiefs of Staff and the NAE and DRB gave Diefenbaker and his Cabinet bad advice about the aircraft.  This is the worst kind of military bashing because most of these people have passed away and can no longer defend themselves.  

My tone is subdued because there may be young people and ladies reading these posts.  When I use the term “lying weasels” what I really mean is “lying arse-weasel zealots that are putrid festering boils on Satan’s left buttock.”  Of course I would never write something like that in mixed company so I didn’t.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Murray b, I find your comments about configuration interesting; good point on Whitcomb's Area Rule.
> How is it that a tilless delta planform is not good for general use again?



Thanks for pointing out my omission, Good2Golf.  Since I retired my mind has become like a steel trap, rusty and it squeeks sometimes.  Anyway what I should have said and have always said before is that a tailless delta without canards is not all that good for general purpose use.  The problem is that without a tail or canards in hard turns the air separates from the wing and the aircraft loses significant speed and altitude.  They kind of plow the air.  No matter what I think there is no changing the fact that N.A.C.A. told Avro not to use their proposed wing.  From “JOINT REPORT ON AN RCAF-DRB-NAE VISIT to N.A.C.A.  LANGLEY LABORATORIES TO DISCUSS AERODYNAMIC PROBLEMS OF AVRO CF-105 AIRCRAFT – 19 NOVEMBER 1954”
Summary part (d) “The high drag due to lift associated with low aspect ratio delta wings makes them poor planforms for high endurance and long range.” 

Actually the N.A.C.A. report summary is great reading for anyone that wants to know the facts about the Arrow.  It absolutely vindicates the DRB, NAE, and military for trying to cancel the thing in ’53.  N.A.C.A. even told Avro not to use their hybrid analogue vacuum tube/transistor fly-by-wire system.  “(i) All steps should be taken to ensure aerodynamic stability before resorting to electronic means.”  It is not clear why N.A.C.A. said this but those transistors would have been real vulnerable to the EMP from a nuclear blast.  If the Soviets knew about EMP at the time they must have just wet themselves laughing at the Arrow.   Give an Arrow a Genie and it should be able shoot down every airborne Arrow down simultaneously.  [I expect that unshielded transistors were also the real reason why the USN repurposed the Vigilante from nuclear attack to recon.]  Honestly, the more facts about the Arrow I learn the less I like the aircraft.


----------



## HelmetHead99

Just throwing this out there... 

I got talking planes, trains and automobiles with an old fellow out Picton, ON way last year, who, without any coaching, related that he was often called to a farm nearby to do various odd jobs. The farm was/is owned by a former A V Roe employee, quite high up, who was recruited to the States after the shutdown to continue research there (California) on US projects etc. 

A certain barn was always made "off limits" to him (the old fellow) and he felt that the barn may have contained pieces, plans or a whole Arrow. The former Avro exec made visits back to the family farm and when asked directly if an Arrow was in the mysterious barn, did not confirm or deny, only smiled coyly and left it at that. The old fellow felt that the Avro exec was staying mum till he died for fear of legal trouble in the event he had somehow squired the jet or parts away. 

Interestingly, research using Arrow models was done in the area and there is a military airport there as well (Mountainview) though I'm not sure its strips could have accommodated the Arrow. 

As a side-note... as I was driving to my cottage near Mountainview around the same time, I was astonished to see streaking across my windshield, an Arrow at speed. I can tell you, I was pretty weirded out as this apparition went vertical and spiraled out of view. It took me a minute to realize that it was a jet powered  scale model being flown by enthusiasts at Mountainview. I pulled off the road and entered the base and spent a few hours watching these amazing creations fly.


----------



## Loachman

HelmetHead99 said:
			
		

> The former Avro exec made visits back to the family farm and when asked directly if an Arrow was in the mysterious barn, did not confirm or deny, only smiled coyly and left it at that.



I've got one in my basement, but I had to shorten it a bit.

Don't tell anybody though.


----------



## murray b

HelmetHead99 said:
			
		

> Just throwing this out there... The former Avro exec made visits back to the family farm and when asked directly if an Arrow was in the mysterious barn, did not confirm or deny, only smiled coyly and left it at that.



The location of the “missing” aircraft has been “established” by Chimo:  [Note that Elvis was confirmed as an alien in a documentary on the MIB (AFSAC?).]


			
				Chimo said:
			
		

> Yeah I saw Elvis in it last time I was in Vegas.


  

The location is “confirmed” by PuckChaser: [Note that Groom Lake is near Vegas.]


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We all know the Americans stole a prototype and store it at Groom Lake to make their fighters with like they did with Megatron in Transformers.



Why these guys would violate OPSEC like this I will never know but they are completely correct.  Of course as a civilian OPSEC does not apply to me, so anyway.

First consider the statements of Paul Hellyer, the MND that saved all that money by giving everybody in the military the same coloured uniform.   From CTV news, “Former federal defence minister Paul Hellyer, 86, believes not only that aliens have visited Earth but also that they have contributed greatly to human technological advances.” See <http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100502/stephen-hawking-aliens-canada-100502/>

Now consider the slip the CAF made a couple of years ago when they revealed on their official website that the Arrow flew at mach 1.96 and 1650 mph.  At what altitude does mach 1.96 = 1650 mph?  It is about 31,000 ft. BELOW sea level!  This is solid proof that we had a working Oscillation Overthruster at least a decade before the Japanese American Dr. Banzai claims to have invented it.  The OO covered in a documentary about Dr. Banzai that was released a few years ago.

Flying across the eighth dimension would have allowed the Arrow to attack any target from beneath the ground and remain completely invulnerable, just like Superman.   Eisenhower could not stand for this and threatened to nuke Canada unless we gave up the Arrows which was obviously the bestest airplane ever made in the history of the universe.  There is little doubt that the C.I.A. took the last one to Area 51, Groom Lake Facility, 99th Air Base Wing [but run by AFFTC], Nellis Air Force Base,  near Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.  There is also little doubt that it could have been flown by Elvis since he was often seen by a multitude of eye witnesses as being in the Las Vegas area.  

Now that I have established that I have just as much imagination as any Arrow zealot can I have some government money too?  Please Sir, Please!  Just a paltry few million so I can make it all into a movie with real movie stars and everything.


----------



## a_majoor

There is a project out there which is seeking to recover Avro Arrow parts which were set aside but not scrapped or destroyed over the years through corrosion, neglect etc. I doubt they will find enough to knit an Arrow together, but this will be an interesting trove of artifacts. One thing they are looking for is scale model Arrows shot by rocket to test the high speed characteristics of the machine in flight. I believe they would have landed in Lake Ontario (being closest to the A.V. Roe facility), but this is just a guess on my part.

Maybe the reclusive AVRO executive had smuggled some small pieces out and stashed them in the barn (or maybe his escape stash of gold Krugerrands was hidden in there!). It is hard to see how something as huge as an Arrow cold have been towed along lonely back roads and into a barn without someone noticing. Of course, the barn itself would have had to be the size of a hanger in order to store the Arrow without cutting it to bite sized pieces.

I'll go for the stash of gold myself!


----------



## Old Sweat

DND had a range on the south side of Prince Edward County firing out into Lake Ontario. While it was largely used by the Royal Canadian School of Artillery (Anti-Aircraft) and 1 Light Anti-Aircaft Regiment from Camp Picton, it was used to fire model Arrows for whatever reason.


----------



## vonGarvin

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> DND had a range on the south side of Prince Edward County firing out into Lake Ontario. While it was largely used by the Royal Canadian School of Artillery (Anti-Aircraft) and 1 Light Anti-Aircaft Regiment from Camp Picton, it was used to fire model Arrows for whatever reason.


As a member of The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment, I trained there often at Point Petre.  I believe that DND maintains a small presence down there with some sort of radio tower.


----------



## Strike

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> DND had a range on the south side of Prince Edward County firing out into Lake Ontario. While it was largely used by the Royal Canadian School of Artillery (Anti-Aircraft) and 1 Light Anti-Aircaft Regiment from Camp Picton, it was used to fire model Arrows for whatever reason.



There have been dives off that site with the intentions of locating some of these models.  No luck though.  Go figure.  The models would be so covered in silt and zebra mussels they'd be near impossible to locate, even with the proper metal-detecting equipment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Arrow Recovery Canada
http://www.avroarrow.org/ARC/index.html


----------



## Sporadic E

The guy who was trying to gather all the Arrow parts to build a "new" Arrow was Peter Zuuring. He put out a series of books all based on pictures he stole from National Archives to raise funds for his little operation. It turned out that he was a total fraud. He was even a guest speaker at a mess dinner in Cold Lake. I'm glad not many people bought into his tripe.


----------



## George Wallace

I would be interested to know how he "stole" pictures from the National Archives.  A fairly hard thing to do if you have ever been there.   It is not like they are just laying around for anyone to look at.


----------



## Sporadic E

Well, not stole. However, he did copy them and use them for a profit claiming that they were his.


----------



## PremierBeefnbacon

time expired said:
			
		

> PETAMOCTO, at last a I can totally agree with.
> 
> The Avro Arrow was a one trick pony that, had it gone into service ,would have been a very expensive answer
> to a threat that had all but  disappeared,the manned bomber. It would also have required a tanker fleet that
> Canada did not possess and given the cost of the Arrow itself  would  have been unable to afford.
> 
> The Arrow shares aerodynamic features with two other aircraft that were being developed at about the same
> time,the British TSR 2 and the North American A3J Vigilante,these were a relatively large wing area and a long
> slab-sided forward fuselage area.These features were very good for an aircraft operating at high altitude but
> poor for the low altitude that these aircraft  would have been forced to operate in by a SAM equipped air defence
> system.
> 
> The Vigilante was the only one of the three that entered service and it was found that at low altitude the gust
> response loads placed on the crew and aircraft were so high as to render the crew almost unable to do their
> jobs and would have resulted in structural damage to the aircraft in a very short time.This and a problem with
> the nuclear delivery system caused the US Navy to turn the Vigilante into a recce platform and it did good work
> in Vietnam.
> 
> I bring this up to counter the argument that the Arrow could have been used in any role other than a  North
> American  interceptor,as an air superiority fighter or a ground attack it would have been next to useless due
> its lack of maneuverability and the airframe limitations mentioned above.
> 
> All that being said we did soldier on with the F104 in the ground attack role for many year so anything is
> possible,and it would have looked great at airshows.
> 
> Regards




I agree with most except the end of the first paragraph...The cost of the RL-206 was more affordable than the Beaumarc missiles, that the Tories turn around and bought for twice the price of 150 Avro Arrows. It's a shame that the government at the time didn't make a better decision, just because they don't want to insult their American allies.

No doubt that fuel wise, it would have been a financial strain on the Dept. of Defense's budget, it's just sad that they scrapped the program.

Seems that the Conservative party hasn't changed much...

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Smile and the world smiles with you,
Fart...and you stand alone


----------



## NavyShooter

The Bomarc missile issue is an interesting point to bring up....

The stated range of the Bomarc is 200 miles....and the "tale" that has been told is that if Canada didn't buy into the Bomarc's, and deploy them ourselves, the US would deploy them on their own territory.

Meaning, that instead of having the missiles deployed north of our major population centers, (which are almost all located within 200 miles of the CAN/US Border) the missiles would have been installed in suitable locations in the northern-most states....meaning that the missiles, when fired, would have gone boom within 200 miles of the CAN/US border....placing those "booms" over the 200 mile band of Canada that contains 90+ % of our total population.

So, if Canada hadn't bought into the Bomarc, and the Russians had attacked us, and our 150 Arrows had not stopped the attack before getting into range of the Bomarcs, our population would have had the pleasure of a delightful overhead display of small nukes popping off over their heads....

With that kind of background "push", well, our nation could not afford both the Bomarc and the Arrow, and it was basically nuclear blackmail that pushed us into buying the Bomarc and being involved in the siting and deployment of the system.

In a "one or the other" there really was no choice.

The real tragedy was the destruction of the already flightworthy airframes.  

NS


----------



## kratz

Under the current geopolitical world we now live in, is it realistic to draw the comparison and ask could the F-35 program (down to the airframes) suffer a comparative failure?


----------



## Sporadic E

Absolutely! No development project of any sort is for certain in this day and age. It seems to be more relevant today to chop up a program citing fiscal restraint.


----------



## George Wallace

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Cancelling Avro Arrow a costly nightmare
> By Ian Robertson, Special to the Toronto Sun
> First posted: Saturday, April 15, 2017 04:17 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, April 15, 2017 05:26 PM EDT
> 
> For six years, taxpayers dreamed of our military getting what some still believe was a top made-in-Canada fighter plane.
> 
> Others consider the cancelled Arrow project a costly nightmare.
> 
> A.V. Roe Canada Ltd. developed the delta-wing aircraft at present-day Pearson International Airport.
> 
> The Liberal government of Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent gave the green light in 1953 to equip the Royal Canadian Air Force with interceptors capable of challenging invading Soviet bombers.
> 
> Five Arrows were ordered in 1955 and the $27-million budget soared to $260 million.
> 
> The first one was shown publicly on Oct. 4, 1957. On March 25, 1958, chief pilot Janusz Zurakowski took RL-201 on its inaugural flight.
> 
> “The CF-105 Arrow was a technical masterpiece at the forefront of aviation engineering,” the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa notes.
> 
> Officials in the capital, however, came to believe the Soviet bomber threat “was diminishing and air defence could be better handled by unmanned Bomarc missiles.”
> 
> Theories persist about American power-brokers pressuring the feds.
> 
> On “Black Friday” — Feb. 20, 1959 — then-Progressive Conservative prime
> minister John Diefenbaker announced the dream’s demise.
> 
> Everything was ordered scrapped, including turbo-jet engines designed by a Malton firm but never reportedly fitted onto an Arrow.
> 
> More than 14,000 jobs were eliminated, but many of Avro’s soon-recruited aerospace engineers helped the new National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and its U.S. contractors launch astronauts into space.
> 
> At the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum, the nose and cockpit of a nearly-completed RL-206 is the largest-known Arrow relic.
> 
> Avro folded in 1962, 10 years before Canada retired its imported Bomarcs.
> 
> New Canadian- and U.S.-built fighters each cost about the same, or much more, than an Arrow.



More on LINK.


----------



## George Wallace

Video and Text on the Avro Arrow.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Rare Avro Arrow photos snapped 50 years ago
> By Ian Robertson, Special to the Toronto Sun
> First posted: Saturday, April 15, 2017 03:52 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, April 15, 2017 05:23 PM EDT
> 
> Ken Gillies handles the 14 film negatives with a reverence befitting their trusted legacy.
> 
> His father took the rare photos of Canada’s first CF-105 supersonic jet interceptor — an Avro Arrow — and its team almost 59 years ago.
> 
> Two images show RL-201 collapsed after landing gear failed on June 11, 1958, despite pilot Jan Zurakowski’s instruments showing them properly engaged.
> 
> With the undercarriage repaired, the plane was flown four months later.
> 
> “It was a great plane, well ahead of its time,” Gillies, 54, said.
> 
> The Burlington civil engineer and technician doesn’t know how John Gillies got to photograph the damaged Arrow, but other photos indicate he was attending a media event.
> 
> His dad, who died in 2002, “never talked much about his work,” Ken Gillies said.
> 
> After leaving school in Grade 10, his dad “walked into the Port Colborne newspaper office one day and they needed a sports reporter.”
> 
> He learned to handle bulky film cameras and asked questions, his son said.
> 
> By the early 1960s, after freelancing, John Gillies became a Globe and Mail photographer, covering sports and other events, including the comings and goings of political figures such as then-prime minister John Diefenbaker in 1963 — the year his Progressive Conservatives were defeated, largely over grounding the Arrow program five years earlier.
> 
> Gillies later did media work for former Ontario premier Bill Davis and Queen Elizabeth II’s 1970s royal tour.
> 
> Ken Gillies’ son took flying lessons, but “I ran out of money” and never got a pilot’s licence. He also considered selling the negatives in 2015 to cover some expenses but now hopes to provide prints to an aviation museum, “as long as they credit them to dad.”
> 
> Carrying on their love of aircraft, he hopes some day to board North America’s only flying Avro Lancaster at the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum in Hamilton. It has one of the scrapped turbo-jet engines developed locally for the Arrows, which reportedly only flew with American engines.
> 
> The Second World War bomber was built at the Victory Aircraft plant, which later became Avro Canada’s base.



Video and more on LINK.


----------



## a_majoor

A rare piece of history has been recovered: one of the aerodynamic models of the Arrow launched via rocket over Lake Ontario (ignore the misleading headline)

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/avro-arrow-prototype-found-in-lake-ontario/ar-AArtMkZ?li=AAggFp5&OCID=ansmsnnews11



> *Avro Arrow prototype found in Lake Ontario*
> Canadian Press
> 
> A new hunt for Avro Arrow models in the depths of Lake Ontario: This time the search will be different© Avro Museum A new hunt for Avro Arrow models in the depths of Lake Ontario: This time the search will be different
> TORONTO - Search crews say they have found a test model of the Avro Arrow, an advanced Canadian fighter jet that was controversially scrapped in 1959, on the floor of Lake Ontario.
> 
> OEX Recovery Group, which is spearheading the Raise the Arrow expedition, says in a news release Thursday that new sonar imagery confirmed the discovery of an Avro Arrow free-flight model.
> 
> The company is promising that photos and video footage of the discovery will be revealed publicly Friday in Toronto.
> 
> The mission to find nine models of the Avro Arrow began in late July near Point Petre, Ont., with a submarine scouring the waters of Lake Ontario.
> 
> The expedition also is meant to coincide with next year's 60th anniversary of Avro Arrow's first test flight.
> 
> The models were first launched from a military base in the 1950s as part of the development of the Avro Arrow, the first and only supersonic interceptor built by the Canadian military to counter potential Soviet bomber attacks in North America's Arctic.
> 
> All materials, including completed jets, were ordered to be destroyed when Ottawa abruptly cancelled the Avro Arrow project.
> 
> The models discovered the by search team will find new homes at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa and the National Air Force Museum of Canada in Trenton, Ont.


----------



## grappa99

I read a theory somewhere that the Arrow was actually being built by Canada as a first strike bomber, for the US. The US couldn't build one because they had made an agreement with the USSR that they would not build a supersonic first strike nuclear bomber.

So they had Canada build one, in the guise of an interceptor

the huge size of the Arrow lends creedence to this, seems more like a bomber than an interceptor?

I also asked one of the engineers who worked at Avro about this, and he said " oh there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it was designed as a bomber"

which also explains the thorough effort to destroy any and all docs and planes

I can't remember why that source said they cancelled...maybe due to ICBM development. wasn't the SR71 being developed at the same time? could it carry bombs, or was it only for surveillance?

interesting thread, I found this page via google, thanks for the info.


----------



## a_majoor

The Arrow is a bomber theory is nonsense on several levels. The most obvious one being the USAF was developing the B-58 "Hustler" supersonic bomber in the same time period, and the Hustler was in service from 1960 to 1970.

There is enough controversy and unanswered questions about the Arrow to go around, but the Arrow was large mostly because it had to be in order to fulfill the mission parameters. The fact that the RCAF was going into untested and uncharted territory with the airframe, the electronics, the engines _and_ the weapons systems explains why the costs were running out of control (and threatening to eat the entire defence budget), so it is amazing the Arrow was even built and performed as well as it did during the test flights.

Let's be thankful and amazed that Canadians were able to pull off that feat of engineering


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From my reading, the costs started coming under control when they dropped the missile development. By the time they scrapped them, most of the costs were sunk already, even keeping and finishing the prototypes and using them as testbeds would have been a far better idea.


----------



## expwor

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/avro-arrow-recovered-lake-ontario-1.4793463


----------



## Halifax Tar

I do believe FDU(A) Divers are part of this.


----------



## NavyShooter

As I understand, the "Let's build a new Arrow that'll be better than the F-35" crowd are planning to make use of the recovered free-flight models as part of their testing program to give them a spring-board in their computer models since all the original information was destroyed when the original Arrows were cut up.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200615-the-record-breaking-jet-which-still-haunts-a-country?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 A decade after the end of World War Two, Canada built a jet which pushed technology to its limits. But its demise showed why smaller nations found it difficult to compete in the Jet Age.
In the early years of the Cold War, Canada decided to design and build the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world.

Canada is well known for its rugged bush planes, capable of rough landings and hair-raising take-offs in the wilderness. From the late 1930s, the North American country had also started to manufacture British-designed planes for the Allied war effort. Many of these planes were iconic wartime designs like the Hawker Hurricane fighter and Avro Lancaster bomber.

Ambitious Canadian politicians and engineers weren’t satisfied with this. They decided to forge a world-leading aircraft manufacturing industry out of the factories and skilled workforce built up during the war. Tired of manufacturing aircraft designed by others, this new generation of Canadian leaders were determined to produce Canadian designs. Avro Aircraft, the Canadian airplane maker created after the war, was the company that would deliver their dream.

More at link.


----------



## dapaterson

Canadian developmental aircraft experiences massive cost overruns and its developer ends up leaving the industry.

See also: Bombardier C-Series.


----------



## a_majoor

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> As I understand, the "Let's build a new Arrow that'll be better than the F-35" crowd are planning to make use of the recovered free-flight models as part of their testing program to give them a spring-board in their computer models since all the original information was destroyed when the original Arrows were cut up.
> [/quote
> 
> Do these people even understand what the CF-105 was designed to do? The "long range supersonic interceptor" has pretty much passed out of history, and F-15 Eagles and F-22 Raptors perform that job for the USAF off Alaska. This is much like suggesting the Sopwith Buffalo would be a great starting point for an A-10 replacement.


----------



## MilEME09

Thucydides said:
			
		

> NavyShooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand, the "Let's build a new Arrow that'll be better than the F-35" crowd are planning to make use of the recovered free-flight models as part of their testing program to give them a spring-board in their computer models since all the original information was destroyed when the original Arrows were cut up.
> [/quote
> 
> Do these people even understand what the CF-105 was designed to do? The "long range supersonic interceptor" has pretty much passed out of history, and F-15 Eagles and F-22 Raptors perform that job for the USAF off Alaska. This is much like suggesting the Sopwith Buffalo would be a great starting point for an A-10 replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't and none of those arrow 2.0 crowds actually have plans, i was put hard questions to one such group and was met by anti-f35, deflection, and finally personal attacks so I reported their Facebook page and went on my merry way.
Click to expand...


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> They don't and none of those arrow 2.0 crowds actually have plans, i was put hard questions to one such group and was met by anti-f35, deflection, and finally personal attacks so I reported their Facebook page and went on my merry way.


I got banned from their page when I asked for actual technical plans that weren't written on a bar napkin.


----------



## shawn5o

A few posters commented about the destruction of the Arrows including plans, models, etc. However, in the book Spycatcher, author and retired British spook stated that there was a communist spy in the Avro program. I cannot confirm the veracity of his claim but perhaps there was industrial spys, or agents...

Spycatcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer (1987) is a memoir written by Peter Wright, former MI5 officer and Assistant Director, and co-author Paul Greengrass.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

shawn5o said:
			
		

> A few posters commented about the destruction of the Arrows including plans, models, etc. However, in the book Spycatcher, author and retired British spook stated that there was a communist spy in the Avro program. I cannot confirm the veracity of his claim but perhaps there was industrial spys, or agents...
> 
> Spycatcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer (1987) is a memoir written by Peter Wright, former MI5 officer and Assistant Director, and co-author Paul Greengrass.



There has been numerous unconfirmed reports that the Russians had a spy (GRU?) working on the Arrow project.


----------



## dapaterson

If they didn't, they weren't doing their job.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They had spies in almost every other program, so why not?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

shawn5o said:
			
		

> A few posters commented about the destruction of the Arrows including plans, models, etc. However, in the book Spycatcher, author and retired British spook stated that there was a communist spy in the Avro program. I cannot confirm the veracity of his claim but perhaps there was industrial spys, or agents...
> 
> Spycatcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer (1987) is a memoir written by Peter Wright, former MI5 officer and Assistant Director, and co-author Paul Greengrass.



So, what are you trying to say? That the only set of Arrow plans or models in existence are in the Russian intelligence files?   ;D

Besides, the MI5 of those days would know everything about soviet spies, wouldn't they?


----------



## expwor

The plans were sitting in a Saskatchewan man's home for years according to this CBC story

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saved-avro-arrow-blueprints-ordered-destroyed-1.5416554

Tom


----------



## shawn5o

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So, what are you trying to say? That the only set of Arrow plans or models in existence are in the Russian intelligence files?   ;D
> 
> Besides, the MI5 of those days would know everything about soviet spies, wouldn't they?



Maybe you should re-read my post  8)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I believe so


----------



## a_majoor

Nice cutaway drawing here:


----------



## shawn5o

SeanNewman said:


> The more research one does into it, the more that they'll find out it was far from the exact story as told on the CBC's Arrow movie production.
> 
> Diefenbaker wasn't anywhere near as evil as he appeared to be, and arguably even try to salvage some of it.
> 
> To keep the performance you always hear about they'd have to refuel almost constantly with the day's technology, and none of the other systems that it was supposed to use were ready anyway.
> 
> Yes it is still something to be proud of as a Canadian and yes it was a great jet for its day, but to suggest that we'd still be flying them today is crazy.
> 
> At most it could have been viewed as the father of something like the F4 Phantom, but those aren't exactly first line anymore and they were a decade newer.
> 
> I'm as big of a fan of them as anyone...I've got the $20 coin, the Sushu painting/print, the posters, the models, etc, but let us be realistic here and not base our opinions on some docutainment.
> 
> Just like every other front line fighter (F22, F35), you almost break the bank of the country if you try to research and build these things unless you're at war.



It was a joke at the CF (RCAF). Because DND is notoriously slow at acquiring new kit. For instance, my old Deuce and a half was two years older than me back in the early 70s, however, I cannot remember when Bombadier replaced the Deuce. I think that the CF still uses the M-113.


----------



## shawn5o

deleted


----------



## Weinie

shawn5o said:


> It was a joke at the CF (RCAF). Because DND is notoriously slow at acquiring new kit. For instance, my old Deuce and a half was two years older than me back in the early 70s, however, I cannot remember when Bombadier replaced the Deuce. *I think that the CF still uses the M-113.*


Yeah, but it is the M-113 B.


----------



## shawn5o

This is or seems to be heresy according to some arrow detractors









						Broken Arrow - Legion Magazine
					

Brilliant and blazingly fast, the CF-105 was ahead of its time—and short-lived. In 1953, the Royal Canadian Air Force commissioned the A.V. Roe Canada Ltd. aircraft manufacturing company in Malton, Ont., to design and build a fighter plane that could operate in any weather, fly at twice the...




					legionmagazine.com
				





March 1, 2021
by Brent Douglas Dyck

Brilliant and blazingly fast, the CF-105 was ahead of its time—and short-lived​*During the height* of the Cold War in the 1950s, there was a growing concern that Soviet bombers would attack North America via the shortest route, over the Canadian Arctic. NATO intelligence suggested that such an attack could occur as early as 1954.

So, in 1953, the Royal Canadian Air Force commissioned the A.V. Roe Canada Ltd. aircraft manufacturing company in Malton, Ont., to design and build a fighter plane that could operate in any weather, fly at twice the speed of sound, execute a 2G turn at 50,000 feet without losing speed or altitude, and fire a missile at oncoming bombers. It was, at the time, the most demanding specification in the world, and many international manufacturers believed it couldn’t be done.

The new plane, called the Avro Arrow, was built by one of A.V. Roe’s two aviation subsidiaries: Avro Aircraft Ltd.

It was unique from the start. Instead of having traditional wings like the American F-86 Sabre or the Soviet MiG-15, the Arrow used a delta-shaped wing, like the French Mirage fighter jet.

The Arrow was also to be the first plane fitted with new, lightweight engines made of titanium. The first five aircraft were tested using conventional Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojet engines and the sixth was to be outfitted with Orenda PS.13 Iroquois titanium engines made by Orenda Engines, the other A.V. Roe aviation subsidiary, also in Malton.

The first Arrow was rolled out for the press to see on Oct. 4, 1957. The plane stunned the aviation world. _Flight_ magazine called it “the biggest, most powerful…and potentially the fastest fighter that the world has yet seen.”

“This fighter, in almost every way the most advanced of all the fighters of the 1950s, was as impressive and successful as any aircraft in history,” said British aviation expert Bill Gunston.

The first Arrow—RL-201 (RL stands for Roe Limited)—took its first test flight on March 25, 1958. It flew for 35 minutes above Toronto and landed safely. On its third test flight, on April 3, the Arrow broke the speed of sound—Mach 1—and then went supersonic. It did this while it was still climbing—at a time when aircraft typically could only break the sound barrier in a dive. 

Test pilot Janusz Żurakowski flew RL-202 at Mach 1.89 (2,330 kilometres per hour) on Sept. 14, 1958. That November, pilot Wladyslaw (Spud) Potocki flew RL-202 at Mach 1.95 (2,408 kilometres per hour) in a slight dive. And this was without the Iroquois engines, which were 2,270 kilograms lighter than the J75s.

*The Arrow*, one of Canada’s finest technological achievements, was doomed.


On Aug. 26, 1957, the Soviet Union announced it had successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), claiming it could hit a target in “any part of the world,” including North America.

On Oct. 4, 1957, the same day the Arrow was unveiled to the world, the first Soviet satellite, _Sputnik 1_, circled the globe.

The Soviets would have 100 operational ICBMs as early as 1960, and perhaps 500 by 1962, predicted an American top-secret National Intelligence Estimate report. Now the threat was less from Soviet manned bombers flying over the Arctic and more from unmanned missiles fired from Russia or bombs dropped from outer space. The threat for which the Arrow interceptor was designed—a piloted bomber—had changed.

Six days after the Arrow’s first test flight, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Conservative Party was re-elected with a majority government on the platform of promising to lower taxes and reduce government spending. The Arrow, meanwhile, was getting expensive.

The estimate to make the first 37 Arrows was $350 million, or almost $9.5 million per plane, taking into account start-up costs for building the factories, making the equipment and tools, training personnel, and test flying the aircraft. This would make the Arrow the most expensive aircraft in the world.  

On Feb. 20, 1959, Diefenbaker stood in the House of Commons and made the announcement to cancel the Arrow. Within the Canadian aviation industry, this day became known as “Black Friday.”

The government was cancelling production of the Arrow and the Iroquois engines immediately, Diefenbaker announced, because of the change “in the attitude of the Soviet Union in devoting itself more and more to missiles…. By 1962, [the Arrow] will be ineffective.”

Instead of funding the Arrow to counter the Soviet threat, the government had decided to purchase the American Bomarc long-range surface-to-air missile defence system. Overnight, more than 14,000 employees of Avro Aircraft and Orenda Engines were unemployed.

*On the day* the Arrow project was cancelled, the sixth Arrow—RL-206—was 98 per cent complete and a few months away from its first flight. It was the first Arrow outfitted with the Iroquois engines, giving the RL-206 40 to 50 per cent more thrust. Experts estimated the Arrow with the Iroquois engines would have beaten all world speed and altitude records if it had flown.

What happened next was one of the biggest mysteries surrounding the Arrow: who ordered the scrapping and why? Sure, no more planes were going to be built, but there were five completed Arrows and the sixth was nearly finished.

On March 26, 1959, Air Marshal Hugh Campbell sent a memo to George Pearkes, Minister of National Defence. In it, he recommended that the government should “reduce it to scrap.”

The reason for this was that if they did not destroy them, they could be sold intact and sometime in the future the “airframe and engine could conceivably be placed on public view or even, in fact, used as a roadside stand,” which would cause “subsequent embarrassment.” 

The minister agreed to the idea of scrapping the plane. Over the next few weeks, blowtorches were taken to the aircraft and they were reduced to scrap metal that was sold to a junk dealer in Hamilton at 6.5 cents a pound.

Today, all that is left is the nose and cockpit—the cone section—of RL-206, the outer wing of RL-203, an Iroquois engine, a front landing gear and random other parts in museums. Many of these pieces can be seen at the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa.

It was recently discovered that a senior draftsman, Ken Barnes, took a copy of some of the Arrow blueprints and hid them in his basement rather than destroy them. They remained hidden there until they were discovered by his son after his death in 2019. The partial blueprints are now on display at the Diefenbaker Canada Centre in Saskatoon.

In 1961, the U.S. Air Force admitted that the Soviet bomber threat was still real. This led the Diefenbaker government to purchase 66 aging and less-capable American McDonnell F-101 Voodoo aircraft in June 1961. Bomarc missiles were strategically deployed at bases in North Bay, Ont., and La Macaza, Que., from 1962 to 1972.

But the Bomarc missile system that Canada purchased from the United States was worthless: it would only work if it could carry a nuclear warhead, but the Canadian government refused to allow nuclear warheads on Canadian soil. This flip-flop, cancelling the Arrow only to buy American fighter planes and the worthless Bomarc system, cost the Diefenbaker government the federal election in 1963 to Lester Pearson’s Liberal government.

*Unanswered questions* and mysteries surrounded the Arrow for decades. Was it cancelled because it was too expensive? Was the Arrow destroyed out of fear that the Soviets would steal the technology? Was it cancelled to guarantee American protection of a large part of Canada’s population? Or was it destroyed out of fear it would end up as an embarrassment, a roadside attraction?

In 1992, Canadian researcher Palmiro Campagna wrote in _Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed_ that he discovered a meeting was held between Pearkes and American defence secretary Neil McElroy in August 1958. The American delegation suggested, wrote Campagna, that if the Canadian government did not scrap the Arrow and purchase the Bomarc system, then the Americans would place their own Bomarcs south of the Great Lakes. 

We know now—and undoubtedly the Canadian team knew then—that the Bomarc was only effective with a nuclear warhead. Use of such a weapon over southern Ontario and Quebec would be catastrophic to Canada.

“In other words,” wrote Campagna, “with the Bomarc’s limited 250-mile range, any attempt at using those missiles would create an air battle over southern Ontario and Quebec…. The threat of such a consequence was tantamount to coercion by the United States: ‘Accept our missile bases or we will give you nuclear devastation over your most populated regions.’

“Pearkes…would have reasoned that the only way to reduce the risk and save these regions would be to have the missile bases moved northward. Accepting the bases, though, would mean the death of the Arrow.”

Despite the official reason that the evolving ICBM threat rendered the interceptor unviable, many have insisted it was the cost of the Arrow that led to its demise—that it was too rich for Canada.

Either way, as historian James Marsh has written, “a sense of pride swept through the nation” when the Arrow flew and “the cancellation [and destruction] of the Arrow was a mortal blow to part of the national dream.”

Perhaps the biggest mystery surrounding the Arrow was whether or not they all were destroyed. A photo taken by a reporter in 1959 shows four of the five Arrows being dismantled on the tarmac. RL-202 is not seen in the photo.

In 1968, Air Marshal Wilfrid Curtis was asked by a _Toronto Star_ reporter if any Arrows still existed. Curtis replied, “_I don’t want to answer that_.” Then he added cryptically, “If it is in existence, it may have to wait another 10 years [to be revealed.] Politically it may cause a lot of trouble.”

There is no government document stating that all of the Arrows were destroyed. Journalist June Callwood remembers the distinctive sound of an Arrow flying over Toronto the day after the Arrow program was cancelled.

“The Arrow! I thought in amazement. Nothing else could make such a racket. Someone has flown an Arrow to safety,” she wrote in a 1997 _Maclean_’s article.

A private collector put an authentic Arrow ejection seat up for auction on eBay in 2011. The asking price was $250,000 and the seller lived in England. How did a Canadian aircraft pilot’s seat end up in England?

The myth of “The Missing Arrow” still endures after six decades. Perhaps soon, someone will come forward with definitive, tangible proof—one way or the other—so the mystery can finally be solved. That would, at least, bring some closure to a dramatic episode in the national dream.

More to follow


----------



## shawn5o

Too rich for Canada?​*By Palmiro Campagna*

The written government record—which has now been mostly declassified—offers several clues to the motivation behind the Arrow’s cancellation.

“The future of that aircraft will depend entirely on the nature of the threat,” stated George Pearkes, Minister of National Defence, in the House of Commons on Jan. 23, 1958. “The matter is constantly under examination, and as long as the threat exists, development and production of the CF-105 will proceed.” 

There was no mention of affordability at this point, even though the aircraft was a few months shy of its first flight with the bulk of development costs already incurred.

“In considering matters of defence, I naturally put the safety of the country ahead of finance,” said Finance Minister Donald Fleming on Sept. 7, 1958, according to declassified Cabinet defence records. “When it had been recommended a year ago that the CF-105 be continued, I supported the recommendation. Now, however, the military view was that the program should be cancelled…. More important, the military authorities had now decided that the aircraft was not necessary.”

The military chiefs of staff were “…still of the opinion that the changing threat and rapid advances in technology, particularly in the missile field, along with the diminishing requirements for manned interceptors in Canada create grave doubts as to whether a limited number of aircraft of such extreme high cost would provide defence returns commensurate with the expenditures,” a secret Cabinet defence document noted on Feb. 6, 1959—just 14 days prior to cancellation. This was the same sentiment they had expressed in their summary report on the project in August 1958.

The last part of the statement is critical:

“…would provide defence returns commensurate with the expenditures.” In other words, the issue was not affordability but rather the changing threat and, apparently, concurrent diminishing requirement for interceptors. Put another way, why would anyone wish to spend so much money on what many had decided was an obsolete weapon system given that its main defence purpose was apparently no longer there? 

The documents also show that Hugh Campbell, Chief of the Air Staff, was not in agreement. He maintained to the end that he needed the Arrow or an aircraft with similar capabilities.

When the project started in 1953, the expectation was to purchase Arrows at a flyaway cost of $2 million each, based on acquisition of 600 of them. In 1959, when the project was terminated, the flyaway cost was $3.5 million—hardly out-of-control.

Much has been made of the fact that costs were rising, but this is attributed to the fact that the RCAF started out requesting funding to build the platform, and then added engine development, the fire-control system and weapons. The devil is in the details.

At cancellation, some $384 million had been spent on development costs. Audit records show an additional $257.8 million would be required. Of this, $24.9 million would complete the airframe design and $53 million the engine design. The balance was for production and tooling and support for 37 completed aircraft. (All the materials for the production of these were on hand waiting to be assembled into aircraft.)

The records also show that at the end of the fiscal year in March 1959, the Department of National Defence returned some $260 million to the government. Only $40 million came from the Arrow. The balance came from other projects that had not moved forward or were cancelled, from money that had been earmarked for NATO that was no longer required, and from the salaries of individuals who had left DND.

 If redirected to the Arrow project, this money would have completed the 37 aircraft and would have kept 25,000 people employed. Remaining aircraft—some 83, according to the records—would have been purchased for $3.5 million each, with the next 100 at $2.6 million each, according to Avro.

*Engine woes*

Avro was asked initially to design around the Rolls-Royce RB.106 engine from the United Kingdom. After the design was started, the RCAF went back to Avro indicating this engine was itself still in development, was running into trouble and would not be available for the Arrow. 

Instead they asked Avro to design around the Curtiss-Wright J-67 engine from the U.S. This caused Avro to essentially start over again, because different engines are different sizes, different weights, have different cooling requirements, have different thrust outputs, and are mounted to the air frame differently, to name a few issues. 

Well into the new design, the RCAF then returned to Avro to say the Curtiss-Wright engine would not be available either. Around this time, Orenda Engines revealed that, using Avro money, they had developed the PS.13 Iroquois. 

An Iroquois test-bed demonstration showed greater thrust than any other engine available at the time, and the RCAF elected to adopt it for the Arrow. The air frame was redesigned yet again. 

In a final move, the RCAF asked that the first five aircraft be fitted with the lower-powered but proven Pratt & Whitney J75 engines, thus needing one more revision but for five aircraft only.

*Weapons and fire*

Avro initially designed the Arrow around the Hughes fire-control system and Falcon weapons. In 1956, the RCAF decided it wanted something called the Astra fire-control system and Raytheon Sparrow missiles. Astra was a paper proposal awarded as a contract to RCA, a company that had never designed fire-control systems. 

At this point, costs of Astra were about to go out of control. This system was cancelled in September 1958 and reverted to the Hughes/Falcon system. Needless to say, this also caused a redesign.


Cheers


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A flyable replica is coming together Avro Museum - Photos


----------

