# CF-105 Arrow (not army related, but still CF related.)



## Da_man (24 Apr 2004)

i think this is the only place where i can post this, so sorry if its kinda off topic.   

what i wanted to know is why was the Arrow cancelled?  Do you think an other project like this could be undertaken to replace to CF-18?






_"The biggest, most powerful, most expensive and potentially the fastest fighter that the world has yet seen. . . " -Flight Magazine, 1958_


----------



## Slim (24 Apr 2004)

There was alot of secrecy surounding the sudden demise of the Arrow. It was the most advanced fighter plane in the world at the time.

I believe, personally, that the Americans got one of the planes and made us cancell the program as they didn‘t have anything to catch it at the time. 

Canada bought the BOMARC missle in stead. I don‘t think that anyone really knows the whole truth. If they do then they aren‘t telling.

Slim


----------



## kaspacanada (24 Apr 2004)

There‘s a good book called ‘shutting down the national dream‘ about the Avro Arrow, at least that is the only one I have although there are likely more.  Why don‘t you try a library and look it up.  Government docs should have been released by now.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Apr 2004)

It started out as a joint project and when the US pulled their support with a change in focus to missle degence technologies (which also undermined any chance of interntational sales), we couldn‘t afford the continuation of the program as sole developer and purchaser.


----------



## jbeach95 (24 Apr 2004)

The Arrow was developed only by Canada. The US was not involved in its development. Canada wanted the US to purchase the Arrow, but they indicated that they were not interested. Without the US buying the Arrow, the programme did not appear to be worthwhile economically. This is just one reason given for the cancellation.

Another good book about the Arrow is Palmiro Campagna‘s "Storms of Controversy." He wrote another book about the Arrow called "Requiem for a Giant," but I have not read it yet.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Apr 2004)

The Arrow was orginally a joint project with a Canadian airframe designed to use British engines (Rolls-Royce RB-106, or the Curtiss-Wright J67 as a backup) and an American designed weapon system ("weapon system originally selected was the Hughes MX-1179, which was the pairing of the existing MA-1 fire-control system, firing Falcon missiles of radar and heat seeking variants").

With the cancellation of the intended foreign engine programs (in 1954 and 1955), Canadian costs to maintain the program with the Orenda engine escalated. Pratt & Whitney engines were used in test flight models and the Orenda engine was developed for later models (proving one more component could have been completely Canadian technology).

The MX-1179 weapon system was replaced in the design in 1956, with the "RCA-Victor Astra fire control system in place of the MX-1179, firing the equally advanced US Navy Sparrow II in place of the Falcon."

Withdrawal of political and contributory support to the Arrow program by our allies caused costs to escalate to the point where the Canadian government was forced to consider cancellation. The move away from manned aircraft as the perceived primary defensive system against nuclear bombers and missiles meant that only Canada would be the intended purchaser of the Arrow - and it was deemed unsustainable from fiscal and political standpoints.

At the end of the program, it was completely Canadian - and that was its death knell.


Avro Arrow (Encyclopedia - The Free Dictionary page)


----------



## Da_man (24 Apr 2004)

this is sad... anyway thanks for the info.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (24 Apr 2004)

whats really sad is how the avro employees lost their jobs, and many left Canada to work in more profitible jobs (ie the space program and concorde jet development), reflecting the "brain drain" we see in the 90s.


----------



## jbeach95 (24 Apr 2004)

Michael OLeary, to clarify, I did not mean to imply that they used only Canadian parts, just that the aircraft itself was designed and assembled by Avro Canada. They planned to use parts that were available at the time or were already being developed -- the weapons systems and original Rolls Royce engines were not designed primarily for the Arrow. In my opinion, this does not constitute a "joint project".


----------



## tabernac (24 Apr 2004)

What happened to the Iroquois engine? France had an order of 500 engines. I think that the the time it would take for the good word to spread about the Iroquois would be enough that France and other bystanding countries would eventually want to purchase the Arrow and her engines. I read that the Arrow would sometimes rival but mostly surpass the CF-18 in turning radius, acceleration, current costs,etc.
I WILL ALWAYS HATE DIEFENBAKER BECAUSE OF HIS DECISION. So sad, so very sad.


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer (24 Apr 2004)

If you look at the Mcdonnell Douglas F4 Phantom closely you will see where alot of former A.V Roe employees went after the cancellation. That was a pretty successful aircraft.


----------



## rdschultz (24 Apr 2004)

At the John G. Diefenbaker airport here in Saskatoon, they have a small model of an Avro Arrow on display (along with numerous other aircraft).


----------



## Thompson_JM (24 Apr 2004)

heh... the Irony....


----------



## Northern Touch (24 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by cheeky_monkey:
> [qb] What happened to the Iroquois engine? . [/qb]


I was thinking the exact same thing.
As I check my trusty Avro Aero CF 105 book, it appears that Avro Gas Turbine Devision, which made the Iroquois Engine, later became known as Orenda Engines, thus Iroquios Engine = Orenda Engine.

The CF 105 was acctually designed as a long range interceptor I believe, and then it became cancelled because of emphasis on missiles instead.

And yuppers, a lotta the people that worked on the project actually found jobs with NASA down south.  

It‘s a **** shame


----------



## jbeach95 (25 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Northern Touch:
> â€¦it appears that Avro Gas Turbine Devision, which made the Iroquois Engine, later became known as Orenda Engines, thus Iroquios Engine = Orenda Engine.


The Orenda engine was not the same as the Iroquois.

A.V. Roe Canada‘s gas turbine division created the "Orenda" engine, which was used in the CF-100 Canuck.

A.V. Roe Canada was then subdivided into Avro Aircraft, which built airframes, and Orenda Engines, which built the "Orenda" and "Iroquois" engines.

The Iroquois programme was terminated along with the Arrow programme. The engines were cut up for scrap. This was done despite other counties wanting the engine.

A good book for a history of A.V. Roe Canada and its subsidiaries is Greig Stewart‘s "Shutting Down the National Dream," which inspired the CBC mini-series "The Arrow."


----------



## Korus (25 Apr 2004)

The thing I don‘t get, is why were all the planes cut up for scrap, and all the plans destroyed?

edit: I can‘t spell.


----------



## Da_man (26 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Korus:
> [qb] The thing I don‘t get, is why were all the planes cut up for scrap, and all the plans destroyed?
> 
> edit: I can‘t spell. [/qb]


Thats what i was thinking.  They had 5 already built i believe.   They could have at least kept them or sold them.  Why were they destroyed?


----------



## clasper (26 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Korus:
> [qb] The thing I don‘t get, is why were all the planes cut up for scrap, and all the plans destroyed?
> 
> edit: I can‘t spell. [/qb]


A man by the name of Mikoyan would have been very interested in those plans and equipment...


----------



## Spartan (26 Apr 2004)

and they had up to arrow number 40 in various parts of production...

and the plans for a mach 3 variable intake arrow

and the iroqouis engine could have easily pushed out 2-2.2 Mach

all in all, there were alot of explainations for why it was scrapped, even though the british and americans backed out of purchasing the plane( actually not quite true, Britain wanted to buy all planes that were operational and almost operational on Black Friday),
alot of countries still wanted the engine...
but it is highly suggested that American pressure for the bomarc *dud* but we couldn‘t afford both... and then the used voodoo*duds*


----------



## condor888000 (28 Apr 2004)

They had 6 fully built (RL-201 to 206). 

It was built as a long-range interceptor for use in the artic as that was regarded as the most likely way of Soviet attack. 

The Arrow was cancelled due to American pressure and the fact it tripled or quadrupled in cost per unit. It ended at about $12 million a plane. Part of the reason was that AVRO was designing not just a new airframe, not just a new engine, but also a weapons system to go along with it. Another reason it was cancelled is that sputnik had just been launched so everyone was thinking of missiles as the future. You also have to remember that we were told that if we didn't scrap the Arrows the States would put Bomarc's on the border, bringing Soviet bombers or any unexploded Bomarcs (and there unexploded nuclear weapons) down on our cities.

The engine had somewhere near 65000-75000 pounds of thrust (no afterburners). With afterburners it was incredible. No wonder everyone wanted it.

Not all the parts were destroyed. The Canada Aviation Museum has some Arrow parts and one of the original Iroquois engines. It has been claimed that the reason that the Arrows were destroyed is that Diefenbaker thought he would look like a fool if other countries bought the things after we had cancelled the project. 

Overall, Diefenbaker was an idiot. The Bomarc's needed sandbags in the nose so that they wouldn't fall over and kill all those on the ground. We could have used them into the 70‘s at least. Instead we got the Voodooos that, wlile decent, were used. Idiot!


----------



## quebecrunner (28 Apr 2004)

So, we have a long history of buying second hand instead of creating hour own equipment... And a long history of americans interference in our government decision...


----------



## condor888000 (28 Apr 2004)

In short, YES!


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (28 Apr 2004)

I actually had the great honor of personally knowing the test pilot for the AVRO Arrow, Janusz Zurakowski. He was an amazing person and a true patriot to this country, and his home soil Poland.  I met him when I was young, through ages 8 to 12, when we would go up to Barry's Bay to his lodge and camp grounds and rent a room, and stay on the property for weeks at a time.

Despite his age, he had the energy and stamina well younger then his years, every morning he would do PT, and through out all sorts of construction over his property etc.

In his living room there were various awards and medals, pertaining to his World War 2 heroism and there were also many declarations for his work on the AVRO. 

When we talked with him about the AVRO, he mentioned many reasons as to why the AVRO was scraped; many reasons are mentioned in posts above. However, he also told us allot of â Å“inside rumorsâ ? as to what really was going on and who was doing what.

Nevertheless, it was great to meet someone who reached Mach 2, he passed away about 3 months ago at 89, and was very close to his 90th birthday. There's going to be an entire museum dedicated to him in Barry's Bay, as they already erected a monument for him there.

 http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/Zurapark.html 

Such an honor to meet the man that did the impossible, and made our country world renowned.


----------



## condor888000 (28 Apr 2004)

It‘s sad, that was the last time he piloted a plane. Do you think you can share some of the "inside rumors" that you mentioned?


----------



## Pte.Nomercy (28 Apr 2004)

The "inside rumors" were what became reality as to why the project was scraped. So he told us chronologically and accurately as to when trouble began to shadow over the AVRO the first day that the rumors started. 

Basically, he told us who did what and what over all what was going on as the project was increasingly being frowned upon by the government. 

So in reality, he, and everyone else working on AVRO, foresaw what would be the primary reasons, aforementioned by other members‘ posts already, as to why the Arrow was shut down and destroyed.

It‘s sad yes, but we have to remember this chapter in our country‘s history in order not to let such a screw up on such a promising project happen again!


----------



## condor888000 (28 Apr 2004)

Definatly!


----------



## Northern Touch (1 May 2004)

Just a quick fact.  I was watching good ol‘ Discovery yesterday which was doing a show on the space program.  They actually mentioned that a man named Jim Chamberlain (sp?) who helped design the Avro Aero, later designed almost the whole Gemini space shuttle himself.

Goes to show you just how brilliant some of the people working on the project were.


----------



## Franko (2 May 2004)

It‘s just too bad that the program was shut down just as they were about to finish   

From then on the "Great Canadian Brain Drain" started and hasn‘t really stopped. 

Regards


----------



## sguido (2 Jul 2004)

Da_man said:
			
		

> *snip*
> Do you think an other project like this could be undertaken to replace to CF-18?



The other answers to the question of, "What happened" have been answered in excellent detail, so I'll throw in 2 cents on this one.

Quick answer:  Nope.

Long, flyboy answer:  No.  Canada has sort of made a decision on the next manned fighter aircraft:  the F-35 JSF (no cool nickname yet.)  Canada entered as a junior level partner in the 'competition' between the X-32 and the X-35.  Lockheed Martin's X-35 beat Boeing's X-32, and won the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) competition.  The F-35 comes in three flavours; A, B, and C models.  The A model is the USAF version; standard CTOL (conventional take off/landing), internal gun standard, large fuel and payload.  B is the USMC and UK VSTOL (Vertical/Short Take Off/Landing) version, with a cool engine arrangement.  C is the USN version, strengthened for Carrier operations.  Check out http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm for the full details.

The JSF is supposed to be the replacement for the AV-8B Harrier (all variants), the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the F-16 Fighting Falcon (all variants), and the A/B/C/D model F/A-18 Hornets.

So...is it the best choice for Canada?

One of the main reasons the Hornet wears the maple leaf is because of twin engine redundancy.  Even though the F-16 was cheaper, and a more logical buy for Canada, which retired her last carrier a long time ago, it was decided that twin engines offered better chances of survival in case of engine failure.  Seeing as how a main task of the Hornet was to be NORAD and assorted DEW line operations, those two engines looked mighty fine to pilots who had to fly over the literal Great White North.  Punch out in the tundra...well, better hope the weather is good, because if it ain't, SAR stays home  (Not their choice...hard to fly when your bird refuses to.  SAR personnel have my utmost respect.)  Two engines meant a chance to bring it back and enjoy a hot meal instead of playing dodge the polar bear/try not to freeze.

It was a controversial choice mainly because of a major screw up in the design of the Hornet.  The F/A-18 was a descendant of the YF-17 Cobra, the aircraft that lost to the F-16 in the lightweight fighter development.  The US Navy felt that a redesigned Cobra could be a viable fighter, and the Hornet was born.  Only problem was that the Cobra's gas tanks only had to keep her up for a few flights in the fly off, not full fledged combat missions.  When they designed the Hornet, they forgot to scale up the fuel requirements.  This means the Hornet needs a drink very often, or needs to carry drop tanks.

So, Canada got stuck with a thirsty bird that needs air tanker support, or they suffer from increased drag/lowered payload due to drop tanks needing to be carried.

We now come to the JSF.  Engine technology is at a point where you can put up with a single engine fighter. (Tests for airliners show that even the trans-oceanic big birds can fly safely with two reliable engines instead of four; hence the 777 taking over the job of the 747.)  This reliability means that single engine fighters, like the old retired F-86 and CF-104, are once again a viable choice.

But which one?  Which version of the F-35 will Canada take?  I hope they take the A; taking away an internal gun is sacriledge.  The payload and fuel is sufficient for Canadian operations, and I don't think we *really* need a STOVL version.  (C model...forget it.  The extra weight for carrier ops means you can't take extra fuel or payload.)

But I really wish that they could take a serious look at a high end/low end mix, and field a couple of squadrons of the F/A-18E/F as well.

However...we've seen that expensive new toys sometimes get gutted at the last moment.  Take the RAH-66 Comanche, for example...


----------



## Military Brat (2 Jul 2004)

Off topic, but it is still related to the Avro Arrow so I will throw it out there.

Early this month, for 3 days they expect, there is some sort of search planned in Lake Ontario for 9 scale model Avro Arrows, involving the HMCS Cataraqui and HMCS Glace Bay.

Here is a link for those of you interested in reading the article. 

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040625.wxavro0625/BNStory/Front/


----------



## themaskeduser (3 Jul 2004)

well rumors have it that the plans of the avro arrow is in the bottom of lake ontario
and there's a lot more to the issue


----------



## Inch (6 Jul 2004)

condor888000 said:
			
		

> The engine had somewhere near 65000-75000 pounds of thrust (no afterburners). With afterburners it was incredible. No wonder everyone wanted it.



Sorry, I had to read your post a few times before I realized why the numbers didn't look right. I don't know of a jet engine that puts out 65,000 lbs of thrust, even today.   The Hornet only puts out 18,000 per engine and for that matter, the C-17 Globemaster's engines put out a little over 40,000 lbs of thrust each.   P & W makes and engine for the 767 that puts out up to 62,000 lbs of thrust, but it's damn near 8 ft in diameter, needless to say that wouldn't fit in a fighter.   I don't mean to nitpick but it just goes to show the legends and myths associated with the Arrow.   

Another point, I read about someone comparing it to a CF-18, the Arrow would get it's butt kicked, it was designed for interception of supersonic bombers, not dog-fighting.

Just my $0.02 minus the obligatory 42% for the liberals to waste.


----------



## Skuller (26 Jul 2004)

Howdy.  New here.  Just a couple historical notes... I did some research on the Arrow in University.  What REALLY amazed me was the acceptance of the BOMARC missle as a replacement for the Arrow.  The Bomarc was an interceptor missle, and NOT capable of intercepting an ICBM as Dief was originally led to believe.  

So I had to ask the question:  WHY A NUCLEAR WARHEAD for an interceptor?

Someone alluded to the fact that Canada refused to accept American personnel (Nuke Techs) to operate  the Bomarcs, and so the warheads were filled with sand for ballast.

Why nuclear?  An interview with a CF Major provided some answers... He said, "...rumor was it couldn't even fly.  It had a REALLY poor guidance system and therefore needed a really BIG bang to destroy its target.  It could only get in the general vicinity of its target."

And for the record, the purpose of an Interceptor aircraft at the time was to identify an unknown aircraft and determine what action, if any, should be taken.  The Arrow would have EXCELLED in this particular role.  A missle, however, has only one purpose; destroy a percieved threat based on information that has not necessarily been varified.

And so... Canada's air defence at the time really relied on a rocket powered sand bag that couldn't hit a target.


----------



## Villy (29 Jul 2004)

Ditto the comment of the Arrow being an interceptor vs the F18 furball warrior.

I heard a story many years ago that if the access road to a Bomarc site was badly rutted - the vibs from a lorry driving down the road could through the calibration of the gyros out of wack..

Nuclear warhead for the Bomarc - Area denial.  Anywhere within the same county works.  The Falcon and the Genie were both nuclear tipped Air to Air Missiles from the days when guidance systems weren't quite up to the task.  The Bomarc sported a 10 KT warhead, The Genie a 1.7 Kt, and the Falcon 1/4 KT.  

Orenda Iroquois  19,250 dry & 26,500 wet (or with reheat as the Brits would say).  It's greatest claim to fame imho was the extensive use of Titanium - a metal was was just about useless until the lads (and gals) at Orenda managed to tame it.

The American Space Program gained immensely from the demise of the Arrow (as did the American Aerospace Industry in general)

I read a noverl some years ago where an American Weapons program was mentioned in passing.  The context was about an SAM that was (dammit was!) going to look successful no matter what!  Tests were faked documentation lost etc etc.  No name was ever mentioned, and it was fiction.  Makes one wonder though...

Declared operational in '60 after 8 years of developed and obsolete in '65.  Cost to USAF was $US 1.5 Million each (+ support stuff)

that was $US300K more than a Voodoo cost

Go figure...


----------



## .68 (23 Feb 2006)

Always when i hear about the arrow, or see its picture...

I am deeply saddened, and disapointed in the government at the time.

What could have potentially been a turning point in canadian history, turned into a tragic disapointment.

Not only did we lose so many potential buyers for the technology, but we lost some of our brightest minds to the US of A

Terrible Terrible, for shame.

If the government would have taken the chance and spent the money to finish a project that was nearly completed, it could have changed the future of aviation and aerospace development in out country.

By the way, loved the movie to.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (23 Feb 2006)

.68 said:
			
		

> By the way, loved the movie to.


My favourite part is when they decide to visit our US friends without warning so the Americans want to intercept the Arrow but the Arrow is so fast that by the time their pilots are running to get in their fighters the Arrow passes over their heads ans flies away... ;D


----------



## jbeach95 (23 Feb 2006)

Hey, I remember this topic...



			
				Grover said:
			
		

> Nuclear warhead for the Bomarc - Area denial.  Anywhere within the same county works.  The Falcon and the Genie were both nuclear tipped Air to Air Missiles from the days when guidance systems weren't quite up to the task.  The Bomarc sported a 10 KT warhead, The Genie a 1.7 Kt, and the Falcon 1/4 KT.



Just reading old posts, and I want to clarify something. The GAR-11/AIM-26 Falcon had a nuclear warhead, but the AIM-4 Falcon that the Arrow was going to use did not. Development of the GAR-11/AIM-26 did not even start until 1959 -- too late for use in the Arrow.

Nuclear warheads were added to air-to-air missiles for head-on engagements, because radar guidance wasn't good enough yet (and infrared guidance systems only really worked from behind where they could detect the hot exhaust).

AIM-4:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

AIM-26:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-26.html

AIM-4/AIM-26:
http://www.hill.af.mil/museum/photos/coldwar/falcon.htm


----------



## Guy. E (24 Feb 2006)

I know why the Arrows and plans were destroyed! (i figured it out all by my self ;D ) it is simple. 

Back in the day if you look at the figures, AvRoe was working the government over for cash good. Not only were they designing a new air frame, but they were working on new engines and a missile system. for a country the size of Canada in the 50's this is a very ambitious task. Not only were they working on hat they were also working on the AvRoe Car for the US. When reports were flying that the arrow was not meeting requirements or was as good as it was supposed to be, it got the government thinking. Pressure form the US with the Bomarks had the Canadian government thinking about alternate possibilities.

All of this was not helped by the fast that Crawford Gordon did not have a good friendly relationship with the new Conservative Priminister.

When push came to shove the Priminister in all his wisdom decided to pull the plug on the project. now heres where things get good. 

This is the late 1950's. We have the worlds most advanced fighter interceptor, the most advanced jet turbine engines, fly by wire systems, navigation systems and most advanced weapons. We just canceled this massively expensive project. Now what? the only good solution at the time was to destroy everything. what if the Russians or anyone else got a hold of this cutting edge technology it could be used against us or who knows what?

After the arrow project was shut down AvRoe produced aluminum boats and cooking ware for a period of time before going under. Also during the development of the Arrow, a division of AvRow made one turbine powered semi truck that vanashed back in the 50's when everything was being shut down.

I purchased a book called the Arrow Scrap book. It is about a man Peter Zurring ? along with the Arrow Alliance in southern Ontario who was supposed to be building a full scale completely working flying arrow. They had found lots of old drawings as well as several Iroquois engines and lots of various other parts. including large sections of wings and so on. 

I have been searching the net for current up to date information but have fallen short. I think the project fell through. 

Once again the book is called the Arrow Scrap Book, I think it cost me about $50 three or four years ago.

Also, i cant say that the Arrow being scraped was so terrabley bad. Without all of the engineers going else where, Canada could be better then we are now or in the predicament that the states are in. I am satisfied knowing that Canada is responsible for the development of the Concorde, Space Shuttle, Black Bird, as well as a strong influence on the designs of modern fighters such as the CF18, F22 and several other which names i forgot because i had better things to do then remember fighter jet statistics.

There is allot more I can go on here, however it is getting late and i have work tomorrow.

Good Night.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Feb 2006)

Interesting tid bits relating to the Iroquois engine...there was apparently a full engine in parts tucked into a corner of the NRC Wind Tunnel's storage building at CFB Uplands that has eventually made it's way to the NAM at Rockliffe.

For those interested in aeropropulsion history, take a look at the late-50's vintage Iroquois engine then compare that to the early/mid-60's vintage G.E. J-58 used in the SR-71 Blackbird.....compressor section, cannular combustion chambers and turbine section......hmmmm.... 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## condor888000 (24 Feb 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> Interesting tid bits relating to the Iroquois engine...there was apparently a full engine in parts tucked into a corner of the NRC Wind Tunnel's storage building at CFB Uplands that has eventually made it's way to the NAM at Rockliffe.



CAM now and yes its there, along with 206's cockpit, a couple of sets of wingtips and a landing gear or two.


----------



## Vodka (26 Feb 2006)

canada just didn't have the infrastructure at the time to build from scratch interceptors for 12million each when the second best thing was going for 250k. and as mentioned, nobody really wanted to buy the finished product. not just interceptors really, look at the other projects such as the ross rifle, bobcat transport, ram tank... we're a middle power with limitations. the avro just didn't quite work out for us. i really don't get why people get so emotional over the whole avro thing. no less pride to the people who developed it or canada as a nation, as we've done some hella impressive things...but realizing our place in the world and acting in our best interest is better than acting off emotion and misinterpretation.

as for the plans at the bottom of lake ontario that somebody mentioned...almost. airframe tests were conducted over lake ontario, with the models crashing at the end of the flight. there were 11 such tests, and 9 were recovered IIRC. still looking for the last 2.

i've also read somewhere that america offered money to finance the cf105, but canada said no. also that the government didn't order for all prototypes and plans to be destroyed, but that the head of AV Roe did that out of spite. haven't been able to verify them though.
also, the CBC program was a docudrama that blended history with bullshit, like dramas tend to do. on a topic like this, don't trust any one source, especially if it's canadian.


----------



## geo (26 Feb 2006)

... so you mean there isn't an Arrow parked out in a farmer's shed somewhere is Sask? (or was that Manitoba?)


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2006)

Alberta..........maybe somewhere around Grande Prairie.


----------



## Guy. E (27 Feb 2006)

I don't see how there could be one parked anywhere. I thought that all of them wereaccounted for and  destroyed except for what parts have been found.


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2006)

(a folk legend - not that anyone believes it)
(or do they?)


----------



## mover1 (27 Feb 2006)

I am glad that the arrow died when it did. If it had come on in full production and found its way to fronline sqn's I am sure 100% there would have been growing pains or some quirk in the design that would have made it a "flawd" design.
 Or more to the fact, we as a government would have used it for so long that the glory days of it would have been forgotten and it would have the same bad press as todays Herc or the Sae King. Sometimes its good to kill something in order for its legend to live on.....


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2006)

mover1 said:
			
		

> I am glad that the arrow died when it did. If it had come on in full production and found its way to fronline sqn's I am sure 100% there would have been growing pains or some quirk in the design that would have made it a "flawd" design.
> Or more to the fact, we as a government would have used it for so long that the glory days of it would have been forgotten and it would have the same bad press as todays Herc or the Sae King. Sometimes its good to kill something in order for its legend to live on.....


So we should have scrapped the Herc years ago too?


----------



## Guy. E (27 Feb 2006)

I think hes saying that it would just be another piece of kit in the Air Force just like the Hurks are now, struggling to find a replacement before they're all grounded.


----------



## jbeach95 (27 Feb 2006)

Vodka said:
			
		

> canada just didn't have the infrastructure at the time to build from scratch interceptors for 12million each when the second best thing was going for 250k. and as mentioned, nobody really wanted to buy the finished product. not just interceptors really, look at the other projects such as the ross rifle, bobcat transport, ram tank... we're a middle power with limitations. the avro just didn't quite work out for us. i really don't get why people get so emotional over the whole avro thing. no less pride to the people who developed it or canada as a nation, as we've done some hella impressive things...but realizing our place in the world and acting in our best interest is better than acting off emotion and misinterpretation.
> 
> as for the plans at the bottom of lake ontario that somebody mentioned...almost. airframe tests were conducted over lake ontario, with the models crashing at the end of the flight. there were 11 such tests, and 9 were recovered IIRC. still looking for the last 2.
> 
> ...



Speaking of "misinterpretation"...

The final cost was $3.75 million per aircraft, not $12 million. The Chief Aeronautical Engineer for the RCAF compared the cost of the CF-105 to the F-106, F-102, and F-101, saying in a March 1958 memo, "Arrow costs compare favourably with the somewhat less sophisticated aircraft in the U.S.A.... [Q]uantity production of of an aircraft as complex as the Arrow can be undertaken in Canada at a cost comparable to that for production of a like aircraft in the U.S.A." (Campagna, "Storms of Controversy," 86).

The government (RCAF) owned all of the Arrows, including the prototype. It was the RCAF that ordered the aircraft, engines, and plans to be destroyed. There are plenty of primary sources that indicate that the destruction orders came from the government and it was not initiated by Avro.


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2006)

project for CF105 was on the Govt's nickel from start to finish.... like most big R&D projects. The Gov't could therefore do what it wanted with the thing..... and they did.


----------



## jbeach95 (27 Feb 2006)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> I don't see how there could be one parked anywhere. I thought that all of them wereaccounted for and  destroyed except for what parts have been found.



While I am not insisting that one still exists somewhere in hiding, not all of the Arrows have been accounted for. There have been no government records yet discovered that indicate that all the Arrows were destroyed, and RL25202 disappeared from the tarmac before destruction was complete...

The parts that have been found (i.e. RL25206's cockpit, Iroquois engine, etc) were intentionally saved by the RCAF, along with some plans, manuals, and other paper work.


----------



## Guy. E (27 Feb 2006)

Form here:

http://www.exn.ca/flight/avro_arrow/story.asp?id=1999062451



> The loss of almost every tangible remain of the Avro Arrow program has had an impact on the psyches of Arrow aficionados worthy of a Freudian epithet. Denied access to the material remnants of the craft by the cruel events of the ‘50s, the few remains that are left have undergone an almost fetishistic sanctification. For a long time, apart from a few odds and ends, these consisted of little more than a nose-cone and landing gear of an Arrow, saved for scientific posterity, and a lone Iroquois engine, all housed at the National Aviation Museum. But the search for the true Arrow has followed a few different paths.
> The models
> 
> When the Arrow program underwent its final agonies of destruction, the engines, airplanes, blueprints and parts were all destroyed. But beneath the surface of Lake Ontario laid remnants that couldn’t be reached – nine large test models of the Arrows, made of solid magnesium alloy, and launched piggyback-style on a Nike missile.
> ...




Are they're any old hangers up north that almost nobody knows about?


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2006)

plenty!


----------



## Guy. E (7 Mar 2006)

|
                     /\ 
                    |()|
                    |   |
                    |   |
                _||    ||_
               |  ||    || |
               |  ||    || |   
             /      |   |     \ 
          /|/|     | | |   |\|\
      . /  |  |_||  |  ||_|   \ .
     / O|        |    |        |O \
  ./_______|  |    | |_______\.
                   ^|^
                    $ $
                   $   $
                  $     $
                 $       $
                $         $

This is the best I could do.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (7 Mar 2006)

Wow you must have a lot of time to lose. Not bad at all.


----------



## geo (7 Mar 2006)

quebecrunner said:
			
		

> So, we have a long history of buying second hand instead of creating hour own equipment... And a long history of americans interference in our government decision...


creating our own is expensive and there has been lots and lots of criticism about designing something that has already been built......
- damned if you do and damned if you don't.


----------



## JBP (16 Mar 2006)

Vodka said:
			
		

> canada just didn't have the infrastructure at the time to build from scratch interceptors for 12million each when the second best thing was going for 250k. and as mentioned, nobody really wanted to buy the finished product. not just interceptors really, look at the other projects such as the ross rifle, bobcat transport, ram tank... we're a middle power with limitations. the avro just didn't quite work out for us. i really don't get why people get so emotional over the whole avro thing. no less pride to the people who developed it or canada as a nation, as we've done some hella impressive things...but realizing our place in the world and acting in our best interest is better than acting off emotion and misinterpretation.
> 
> as for the plans at the bottom of lake ontario that somebody mentioned...almost. airframe tests were conducted over lake ontario, with the models crashing at the end of the flight. there were 11 such tests, and 9 were recovered IIRC. still looking for the last 2.
> 
> ...




Actually, the finished production Arrows would have been about 3.5million per complete production unit. And the Americans offered $500,000/unit that we built, claiming that it was to support us helping defend North America. We did accept that proposal from them, but it didn't matter because the government scrapped the idea.

I'm sure glad the rest of Canada doesn't think like you do or we'd all be under-achievers!!! I probably wouldn't have made it into the military! Or found a job! So you just want us to sit back and relax, just do "average" on everything and not try our best? I suppose we should just sit on our hands in Afghanistan too, since we're "only a middle power" and can't really change anything or influence anybody??? Hmm... Doesn't sound Canadian to me!

Anyway.... 

Arrow is dead, won't come back so really I do agree that unfortunately there is no point in emotionalizing the subject, but part of that project was part of Canada's heart at that time it seems, forever torn out by the governmental politics and policies of the time.


----------



## NavyShooter (25 Mar 2006)

Back to some of the why the Arrow was cancelled.

Consider, the Canadian Government can afford only one option of two, either Bomarc, or the Arrow.

We get told that if we do not buy the Bomarcs and install them in our northern areas, the US will be installing them just south of the border.

The Bomarc, with its nuclear warhead has a range of about 200 miles (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong).  

90% of Canada's population is within 200 miles of the Can/US border.

If we did not buy the Bomarc ourselves, and they had been launched from locations in the US, we would have had 90% of our population at risk from the missiles.

I don't see that we had much choice.

NS


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (26 Mar 2006)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I don't see that we had much choice.


Yep, or intercept the enemies with our Arrows long before they get in the range of the the Bomarcs.


----------



## Bert (27 Mar 2006)

It may have to be taken in the context of the technology of the time.

The CF-105 would have made a good interceptor, unloaded its conventional or
whatever ordanance in the air, and return home.  However, the scenario of an 
earlier Cold War attack would have involved a massive amount of high altitude 
Russian bombers.  

The scenario may show bombers leaving Russian airspace from various bases
and locations converging more or less over Canadian territory to attack mainly
US and some Canadian targets.   Its interesting to speculate how Canadian and/or
US CF-105s could have dealt with the number of target groups.

Locating nuclear-tipped BOMARCs in locations above or at the US border given
the politcal situation at the time may have been the most efficient to destroy 
multiple bombers from a US point of view.  The nuclear air-blast from numerous 
BOMARCs would destroy or disrupt attacking bomber groups.  

Perhaps the CF-105 could have been integrated into European defense as the Cold War
dragged on.  Seems like the F-104 was the interceptor of choice for many years.


----------



## Zoomie (27 Mar 2006)

The tactics of the "day" was for the Voodoo to launch carrying nuclear tipped missiles.  They would fire these missiles at the incoming Red Bombers and attempt to out-run the shock-wave.  Had the Arrow survived this same tactic would most likely have been used.


----------



## Bograt (27 Mar 2006)

Affectionately refered to as the "Pickle and Pucker" tactic. One would pickle the weapon, then would uncontrolably pucker as he turn and fled.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (27 Mar 2006)

Bert said:
			
		

> Its interesting to speculate how Canadian and/or US CF-105s could have dealt with the number of target groups.
> Locating nuclear-tipped BOMARCs in locations above or at the US border may have been the most efficient to destroy multiple bombers from a US point of view.
> 
> Seems like the F-104 was the interceptor of choice for many years.


With 100 CF-105 and some USAF interceptors we could have dealt very well with a very large number of bombers.

The F-104 was the interceptor of choise because the Arrow wasn't there.


----------

