AVRO ARROW THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY

[@jim100ab9]

This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 1 A short synopsis of the Arrow The Arrow as Fighter-Interceptor RCAF AIR 7-3 Specification and the C-105 Avro Canada and the RCAF examined a range of alternative sizes and configurations for a supersonic interceptor, culminating in RCAF "Specification AIR 7-3" in April 1953. This AIR 7-3 specification called specifically for a crew of two and a twin-engine design requiring a range of 556 kilometers (300 nautical miles (nm) for a normal low speed mission and 370 km (200 nm) for a high-speed intercept mission. It also specified operation from a 1,830 meter (6,000 ft) runway, a Mach 1.5 cruising speed, an altitude capability of 21,336 m (70,000 ft), and a maneuvering capability for 2 “g” turns with no loss of speed or altitude at Mach 1.5 at 15,240 m (50,000 ft). The specification also stipulated just five minutes from starting the aircraft's engines to reaching an altitude of 15,250 m (50,000 ft) at Mach 1.5. It was also to have turn-around time on the ground of less than 10 minutes. (Jim100 AB that’s Refueled and rearmed and ready for another mission) An RCAF team then visited US aircraft companies and also surveyed British and French manufacturers before concluding that no existing or planned aircraft could fulfill these demanding requirements. In May 1953, Avro delivered a report, "Design Study of Supersonic All-Weather Interceptor Aircraft", outlining the major features of an updated C-104/2 design, which was now known as the C-105. A change to a thin "shoulder-mounted" delta wing allowed rapid access to the aircraft's internal systems, weapons bay, and engines. This thin wing was required for supersonic flight and the delta design provided the lightest structure A big advantage of the computer flight control system was that it allowed the Arrow’s designers to design into the plane marginal or even negative stability factors, another first (by many years). The Arrow was intentionally designed to accept marginal stability, going from moderately positive to neutral on the pitch axis, and from slightly positive to moderately negative on the yaw axis. Because of the extra instability in the yaw axis, every aspect of it was at least double redundant except the single redundant hydraulic actuator itself. Perhaps now you can appreciate how truly advanced the Arrow was. We weren’t able to really compare it to anything until today because there was nothing to compare it to until today. Flight performance envelope graphs, accumulated and transposed by R.L. Whitcomb for his book Avro Aircraft & Cold War Aviation shows that no medium or long-range armed fighter---to this day---could match the Arrow’s 1G combat weight performance curve, except the F-22 Raptor. They wrote the book in terms of the modern method, yet the book had to be written all over again once Avro was killed and the engineers dispersed. The Arrow and the IBM 704 computer In 1955 Avro had projected the performance of the Mk2 Iroquois powered Arrow to be Maximum speed of Mach 1.9 at 50,000 feet. Combat speed of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet while sustaining a 1.84 turn without bleeding energy Time to 50,000 feet of 4.1 minutes. 500 foot per minute (fpm) climb ceiling of 62,000 feet (i.e. able to climb at 500 fpm from this height) 400 nm (nautical miles) radius of action on high-speed mission. 630 nm radius of action on a low-speed (including 5 minutes supersonic combat) mission Ferry range is not given but estimated at 1,500 nm However, and to the elation of the Arrow designers and company in general the Arrow Mk 1, with about 40% less thrust then the Mk 2 and more weight, actually exceeded Avro’s own higher 1955 estimates for the Arrow Mk 2 by exceeding Mach 1.9. By October of 1958 due to test flying Avro was able to refine the drag estimates, feed them into the IBM 704 computer, and produce accurate projections that indicated 20% lower supersonic drag at maximum performance then even they themselves had projected. Due to this exceptional performance Avro knew the Mk 3 would be capable of considerable more than Mach 2.5. With improved materials and a new intake design that would be efficient at Mach 2.2 and above, Avro knew they would have an Arrow capable of at least Mach 3. This was nearly ten years before the SR-71 Blackbird or the Mig-25 Foxbat flew, suggesting Avro had an excellent advantage over the competition---given the freedom to exploit it. Performance Report 15 included the empirically refined performance projections and figures this document indicated that the Arrow Mk 2 would have remained the top-performing fighter-interceptor in virtually all categories until the advent of the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. In fact an enormous amount of verbiage has been expended in claims that the Arrow would not have been manoeuvrable, based merely on the perceptions of it being such a large aircraft. In reality it was not that much bigger than the F-101 Voodoo or an F-15 Eagle, Neither of which would have seriously challenged an Arrow Mk 2 in a combat air patrol or, “top cover” or “air superiority” mission. Furthermore, size means nothing in determining aircrafts manoeuvrability potential. It can however, be calculated based on five factors. In comparison with any of the aircraft built at the time and since in similar roles, from any country, the Arrow appears to have had attributes which would have given superior manoeuvrability to virtually any plane to this date---save the F-22 Raptor which has reverted to internal weapons carriage and a relatively low wing loading.

[@jim100ab9]

This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 2 The five critical attributes are: wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratio, control effectiveness, critical alpha (or stalling angle of attack) and, finally the amount of “G” loading the aircraft structure can absorb. The Arrow had the lowest wing loading of any supersonic interceptor to ever inter service, its only competition being the F-106 delta Dart and to a lesser extent, the F-22 Raptor, in terms of thrust-to weight ratio at combat weight; the Arrow was superior to everything up to the F-15 eagle. The Arrow’s allowable manoeuvring “G” at combat weight is equal, and in most cases superior to, virtually anything to fly then or since. Control effectiveness is difficult to estimate, especially with a supersonic delta design since the “moment arm” changes with control actuation and also with speed since the center of lift moves aft (back) at supersonic speeds. Designing a tailless aircraft with good manoeuvrability and stability characteristics across a wide speed range requires exact engineering. Chamberlin’s unique features on the Arrow wing, such as negative camber inboard, leading edge droop, the saw tooth/notches were responsible for the arrow’s good characteristics at subsonic and supersonic speeds. Avro’s inclusion of a Honeywell Controls engineered automated fuel management system also allowed them to tailor the aircraft’s center of gravity to be very close to the aircraft’s centre of lift at each point (and thus expected speed) in its mission. The simple secret of making a delta craft very manoeuvrable is to have the center of lift and center of gravity at nearly the same place. Sufficient control surfaces will do the rest. In interviews with Jan Zurakowski and Peter Cope, both said the Arrow had awesome natural control sensitivity. Zura mentioned the roll rate was reduced at high subsonic speeds because he felt it was excessive. It was limited to one roll, or 360 degrees, in a second. Cope mentioned that the Arrow handled very well, was very stable on approach if flown correctly (contrary to some third party sources) Jack Woodman mentioned that a mere one-fifth of an inch of stick movement would result in a 0.5 “G” loading on the aircraft, which he felt was excessive. In other words, the Arrow had very good control effectiveness, better than any other USAF and British jets these experienced test pilots flew. The simple fact is that the Arrow had an awesome power of maneuver as anyone who studies such things empirically will readily acknowledge. When 1G performance curves for even the Arrow Mk1, with the early, de-rated J-75 engines, are compared to contemporary and even current fighters, it emerges that the Arrow was a world-beating design. It had the attributes in terms of low drag, low wing loading and high thrust-to-weight to defeat virtually any fighter at low altitude in a dog fight scenario. While its delta wing is argued by some to result in a high drag during turns, the Arrow’s internal weapons and higher thrust-to weight would compensate. The Arrow 1, at higher than combat weight, Displayed a larger flight envelope than a late production F-16 Fighting Falcon that carried only two tiny heat seeking missiles. (Braybrook. Roy, “Fighting Falcon V Fulcrum,” Air International Vol. 47, No 2 Stamford Key Publishing, 1994) France’s Mirage 2000, an updated version of their 1950’s Mirage III delta fighter is also known to embarrass the F-16 at medium and high altitude in turning fights, despite the F-16’s better thrust- to weight ratio. Nevertheless, the Mirage III was never considered a competitor to the Arrow in any performance measure or military role. The Russian MIG 29 Fulcrum, under equally light conditions to the F-16C mentioned above, is equal to that of an overloaded Arrow Mk.1 An F-15C eagle, with up-rated engines, but at a true combat weight (no tanks, half internal fuel and eight missiles) displays a vastly smaller performance envelope to even an Arrow Mk.1 with at least 40% less thrust than a service Arrow Mk 2 would have had. The Arrow Mk 2, specified by Avro for the 21st Arrow, would have been able to sustain nearly 2G turn at Mach 1.8 at 50,000 feet. An F-15C could, at combat weight, sustain the same 2G turn at Mach 1.2 at 35,000 feet---hardly competitive. The F-15C was felt, subsequent to the retirement of the F-106 Delta Dart to exhibit the highest performance in the Western world on an air superiority mission. Clearly, then the Arrow had vast “power of maneuver”. It had the ability to utterly humiliate anything flying at medium and high altitude. In a supersonic turning fight at altitude, the Arrow would remain unmatched by anything save the F-22 Raptor due to the F-22’s higher thrust-to weight ratio, The Arrow still had a lower wing loading and with a drag coefficient probably under .0185 and a lift-drag ratio of over 7-1 would therefore still not be a push-over for the Raptor---all other things being equal which, of course, 45 intervening years of progress in electronics have ensured are not. Still, the Arrow Mk 2 was proclaimed to be capable of an instantaneous 6 “G” at 50,000 feet. The F-106 was also a high performer at altitude, capable of a 4 “G” at 45,000 feet whereas the Raptor is estimated to achieve 5 “G” at 50,000 feet. (Sweetman, Bill “F-22 Raptor” “The Arrow 2 design included provision for chaff and flare (chaff being radar jamming filaments with flare being heat-seeking missile confusing pyrotechnic flares), active countermeasures, while ASTRA 1 and 2 radar/fire-control systems were to incorporate its own passive and active electronic counter-measures (ECM), including infra-Red detection, tracking and launch computation (the world’s first) home-on-jamming (helping the plane to navigate to the jamming aircraft), radar warning (telling the aircraft when it was being tracked or targeted) etc.. It was fully modern compliment and introduced sophistication which is today de rigour to the world of multi-role and air-superiority fighters” The Arrow would have been a dominant aircraft for many, many years and therefore could be expected to sell well to allied nations. That American authorities would not purchase any, and recommended that Canada not produce them tells its own story. The American aviation industry would not have been comfortable with the Arrow as competition and therefore was not likely to give the Canadian firm much opportunity to compete. (Douglas, W.A.B. Note to File “CBC Program on the Avro Arrow”, 21 April, 1980) During the test flying two accidents occurred. The first one was caused by a flaw in the design of the landing gear where the mechanism responsible for turning the bogies into alignment with the aircraft centerline jammed. Engineering had already redesigned the landing gear due to minor increases in aircraft weigh before the first flight and now it was redesigned again to prevent a similar mishap. The second accident was probably due to pilot error. Spud Potocki had taken RL-202 on a long-range high-speed flight from Malton to lake Superior, conducted a supersonic run over Ottawa (on Remembrance Day!) and on returning the plane to Milton. He was very low on fuel and his approach was to fast to be able to land properly on the runway available. Fearing running out of fuel he tried to force the plane down against ground effect and locked the main wheels before there was sufficient weight on them to brake properly. This resulted in the aircraft swinging off the runway and tearing off one of the main landing gear legs and otherwise damaging the aircraft. As a result of this accident the Mk1 gear was banned from flight and replaced by the stronger and improved Mk.2 landing gear---even though the Mk.2 was significantly lighter then the MK1. This was also the fastest recorded flight of the Arrow with a speed of mach1.98 reached. Jim Floyd has related that they didn’t really know the correct atmosphere correction factor to apply to this flight and as such the flight could have been Mach 2 or slightly higher. Arrow RL202 reported an official top speed of Mach 1.98. During that flight radar vectoring recorded a top speed of Mach 2.2. They apparently decided to state the speed as Mach 1.98 in order not to record a new world speed record and agitate their peers in the rest of the industry, and their enemies in government. Others have said that A.V. Roe Canada president Crawford Gordon Jr.absolutely forbade a speed record attempt in the Mk1 Arrows, wishing to preserve this accolade for the Iroquois engine Mk2. By the fall of 1958 Avro was projecting a Mach 1.8 combat speed and 2G at 60,000 ft, exceptional even today. (PR 15 and Jim Floyd’s testimony) Also the Arrow Mk 2a which Avro hoped to introduce on line after the first 37 under construction was set to achieve a 575 nm combat radius while flying a supersonic mission! The Arrow being able the to cruise at transonic and supersonic speeds without afterburner use (Super Cruise in 1958 - 1959 is this another first? Jim100 AB) is one reason it had superior range to the competition.

[@jim100ab9]

This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 3 The Arrow’s Weapons and Weapons Bay The Arrow has more military payload capacity than any other contemporary bomber-destroyer. The Arrow with the presently conceived armament pack containing MB-1 [Genie] and Falcon missiles plus fuel, has a subsonic radius of action, based on indication of drag from flight tests, of around 500 nm, with supersonic combat and all allowances, which is considerably higher than any other aircraft in its class. The concept of a multi-role combat aircraft clearly intrigued the RCAF for the C104/2 design closely resembled the CF-105 in size, appearance and capability. The key to its flexibility lay in its massive armament bay. Install six Hughes Falcon missiles and twenty-four rockets and it was an interceptor. Not satisfactory? Try four Velvet glove missiles or four thirty-millimetre cannons with 200 rounds each and fifty-six folding fin rockets. Need a tactical bomber? Four 1,000-pound general purpose bombs would do the job. Put in a camera pack and the aircraft was transformed into a photo-reconnaissance model. Add more fuel and it became a long-range fighter. Carry a second pilot on any of these missions and it could be used as an operational trainer. The possibilities were too numerous to resist. (Dow: The Arrow p. 126) The Arrow was designed to out-fly, out-think, and out-fight, with its own on board missiles, any expected threat until the about 1970. Unlike any aircraft save the heavy bombers, the Arrow was capable of carrying several guided missiles capable of nuclear armament, considerable “stand-off” range at high supersonic speeds. This high performance, even when heavily loaded, combined with the capability of the kinds of weapons it could carry in its internal weapons bay, gave the Arrow more potential flexibility then most aircraft built to this day. For flexibility, the armaments bay could hold 6 Hughes Falcon guided missiles and 24 Hughes 2.75" rockets Or 4 Velvet Glove missiles Or 4 30mm canons with a capacity of 200 rounds and 56 folding fin rockets Or as a bomber, 4 1,000 pounds of bombs Or as reconnaissance, a camera pod Or to give the fighter a longer range, an extra fuel tank When the airframe development began, the RCAF and the Defense Research Board began evaluating missiles and their fire control systems. They looked at the following missiles: - Douglas MB-1 Genie - Hughes Falcon Sperry Sparrow I - Douglas Sparrow II - Raytheon Sparrow III In mid 1955, the Douglas Sparrow II was chosen and the Hughes Company would adapt their fire control system to other missiles. RCA agreed to work to RCAF requirements ASTRA, and on 28 Jun 1956, C.D. Howe tells the House of Commons work will soon begin on ASTRA. In late 1956 the USN abandons development of the Sparrow II, the missile chosen for the Arrow. The Canadian government brought the Sparrow II to Canada to continue development with AVRO as the System Manager, Canadair to build the missile airframes, and Canadian Westinghouse in Hamilton to work with Bendix-Pacific on the Radar Guidance System. The Canadian Armament and Research Development Establishment (CARDE) began the Velvet Glove program 1 April 1951 and by the time the program had been terminated in 1955, 300 Velvet Gloves had been built and fired. The Velvet Glove program had spent $24 million. The Arrow and Long Range Missiles... For the AVRO Arrow, the Sparrow II Raytheon AIM/RIM-7 Sparrow was intended to provide the long range clout The use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles (not, copied yet really) The Falcon “Z” “the weapon specified were two, Falcon Z, aka GAR-9, aka AIM-47 type missiles each weighing approximately 750 lb. the missile had a range of about 100 miles and a 40,000 foot differential altitude, as later tested on the YF-12A. It was a large, advanced long-range air-to-air missile of the performance Avro had been awaiting. It would have suited the Arrow’s large internal weapons bay while competing aircraft could not have carried it internally-resulting in a huge performance advantage to the Arrow so equipped. Anti Ballistic Missile “It is interesting in the government discussions on ABM weapons that the Arrow was never considered as capable of undertaking this role. Certainly Avro had been suggesting it do just that. “It might be supposed for example, that in every aspect of employment the anti-missile, missile would prove to be very far removed from the manned fighter airplane. Yet the possibility is already seen that, in order to achieve its maximum kill potential the “anti” missile may actually form an alliance with the manned fighter. “The feasibility of this…has been expounded by Jim Floyd, Avro Aircraft’s vice president engineering …whereas the launching of the Russian sputnik satellites was a very significant event in the annals of aviation its affect on the Arrow program should be singularly positive…if you think about in for a minute,” he says “the normal launching platform for anti-missile missile are stationary. The Russians can find out where they are and destroy them. On the other hand, an airborne missile mother ship (which could be the Arrow) can be rapidly moved from one place to another carrying an anti-ICBM missile. “It might be imagined that a missile suitable for carrying an anti-missile warhead would prove a formidable load even for the mighty Arrow: But Mr. Floyd had looked into the matter with a quick specific calculation on an ICBM approaching at Mach 10 at 200 miles above the earth. He finds that if an “anti” is launched from an aircraft flying at Mach 1.5 at 60,000 ft. its thrust need only be about one third of that required for ground launch weapons carrying the same size of warhead to a given point in approximately the same time. And dividends would accrue in range and accuracy. (Flight and Aircraft Engineering, “Ironclads and Arrows” 14 February 1958 In other words, any Arrow could carry the ABM weapon Avro was considering. The British technical journal engineering also discussed the possibility of the Arrow carrying an ABM weapon in their 17 October, 1958 edition. Jim Floyd has subsequently related that Avro was working with Douglas to adapt a version of the Nike-Zeus system for use on the Arrow. The first stage of the ground launched version could be abandoned, with data link modifications to the remaining upper stage to accept targeting information from the Arrow’s onboard radar system. Of course, nothing came of this plan, perhaps in part because it wasn’t mentioned to the right decision makers. There is no evidence available suggesting that the Chief of Staff or the Conservative Cabinet were aware of Avro’s plan to carry ABM’s on the Arrow nor the fact that the system they were proposing was based on the American first choice for their ABM system, the Nike weapons

[@jim100ab9]

This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 4 Who was Julius Lukasiewicz? An interview with Jim Floyd “Jim Floyd has been hesitant in relating the true role that {Julius} Lukasiewicz played at the time the Arrow was designed Lukasiewicz was at that time with the National Research Council in Ottawa and Canada’s expert in supersonic aerodynamics. So he reviewed the design and produced a report that was scathingly critical of the aerodynamic design, to the extent that there was no point in continuing with such a flawed airplane. It was decided to approach the USA for an expert opinion. Hugh Dryden, a renowned aerodynamicist at The National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, forerunner of NASA gathered a team of his top men in the field of supersonics. Their verdict was Avro had an excellent design and if anything they were being conservative in their estimates of performance. Lukasiewicz has never forgotten his humiliation and despite the fact that the Arrow behaved perfectly and achieved a speed of 1.98 times the speed of sound while still climbing and with the lower powered J-75 engines, never ceased to twist the facts. (Keast, Harry: Letter to the Editor of the Globe & mail newspaper. This letter is available as part of a CD Rom from www.avroarrow.org) Keast was responding to a disparaging editorial on Avro and the Arrow by Professor Michael Bliss in the Globe & mail newspaper titled “the Legend That Wasn’t”. The Globe & mail unfortunately failed to print the rebuttal, despite Keast’s vastly superior credentials. Other primary sources indicate that fights between Avro’s brilliant aerodynamicist Jim Chamberlin and the NAE really polarized the two groups. In fact, the government scientists became so frustrated with the inflexibility of Chamberlin over the Arrow’s aerodynamics that Avro was asked to fire Chamberlin. J.C Floyd wrote: “I was fiercely supportive of Jim [Chamberlin] in the dark days of the NRC [via the NAE] criticism of our aerodynamics when they even suggested that Jim should be taken off the project. I told them that I would resign myself rather than do that!”(Letter from J.C. Floyd. 9 February, 2004 to R.L. Whitcomb) Chamberlin stayed, but so did the NAE, at the time Julius Lukasiewicz, a polish ex-patriot, was, the NAE’s high-speed aerodynamicist and the man most at odds with Avro’s engineering and design staff. G/C Footit has written in a period documentation that some of the criticism was due to professional jealousy in the organizations like the National Aeronautical Establishment (NAE) who felt they should be the ones charged with design and testing of aircraft like the Arrow. This internal bureaucratic opposition spread (along with rumors) and did the program serious harm. They were also proven wrong by the Arrow itself, and by subsequent design history. Later in life without disclosing his involvement in the program, Lukasiewicz was interview by the CBC and was highly critical of the Arrow program. Arrow Benchmarks 1) The first fly-by-wire flight control system. 2) The first fly-by-wire flight control system using solid-state components operating in “real time”. 3) The first fly-by-wire flight control system with at least single redundancy. 4) The first fly-by-wire flight control system designed to be coupled with the computerised navigation an automatic search and track (ASTRA). 5) The first fly-by- wire flight control system providing artificial feedback, or feel to the pilot. Not even the first F-16's had this. 6) The first fly-by-wire flight control system that was flyable from ground installations through data uplink, with data downlink systems reporting. (This, along with its designers, became the basis of the data-link fly-by-wire systems for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo 1.) 7) The first aircraft to have its aerodynamic design aided by solid-state (real time) computers, Avro thus appears to be the company that evolved the technique now referred to as Computational Fluid Dynamics. 8) The first aircraft to have its structural design aided by solid-state computers. 9) The first aircraft to have complete hydraulic and electronic systems development rigs (simulators generally using actual aircraft components wherever possible, coupled to their computers to produce a realistic computerized flight simulator. 10) The first aircraft to have a Pulse-Doppler, ”look-down, shoot-down” radar designed for it, (The second was the F-14 Tomcat, although ASTRA II was to be fully digital, while the Tomcat’s AWG-9 was not digital. In fact, the first Aircraft in service to have radar/fire control systems integrated with a flight control system of equal conceptual technology to the ASTRA II-Arrow was the F-18 Hornet.) 11) The first aircraft designed with marginal or negative, static stability factors. This was done to ensure good manoeuvrability across its very wide flight envelope while keeping trim drag to a minimum thus allowing a larger flight envelope. 12) The first aircraft to have an advanced, integrated, bleed-bypass system from its self-adjusting intake to its extractor-nozzle exhaust. (The F-104 is credited with being the first to introduce bleed-bypass integration but it was comparatively rudimentary and probably of similar sophistication to that introduced on the jetliner years earlier.) 13) The first aircraft to have a by-pass turbojet designed for it and the first to integrate the bleed-by-pass and cooling systems of the engine, intakes and extractor nozzle. 14) The first aircraft to have its engines located at the extreme rear of the aircraft. In fact it was about the first jet fighter to have what might be termed “longitudinal spacing” of all its major systems. Previous to the Arrow most aircraft designers had tried to locate fuel tanks, weapons and engines as close to the center of gravity and center of lift as possible. This contributed to their being “fat” in aerodynamic terms, which is why so many of them ran into “area rule” problems. 15) The first aircraft to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated high wing that made the entire upper surface a lifting body type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., Mig-29, Mig-25 and others certainly used that idea. 16) The first to use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (Not copied yet really) 17) The first aircraft to have major components machined using Computer Numeric Control CNC equipment. (The second is believed to be the F-111Aardvark) 18) The first aircraft to have major components and fasteners made of Titanium. 19) The first aircraft to use a 4,000 psi hydraulic system (The second was the B-1 bomber) 20) The first supersonic aircraft designed to have better than one-to-one thrust-to weight ratio at close to combat weight (allowing it to accelerate while climbing vertically) The “ Reaper” ground-attack version of the Gloster Meteor was around 1-1 thrust, but it was not supersonic. The first aircraft to compete in this area was the F-15A Eagle. 21) The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at strike/reconnaissance roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.) 22) The Arrow combined the lowest thickness-chord ratio (thickness of the wing compared to the length (not the span) wing with the lowest wing-loading (surface area of wing divided by the weight of the aircraft) of any high-capacity service design. Both are crucial to low supersonic drag, good manoeuvrability and high speed.

[@jim100ab9]

This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 5 Iroquois Engine “Firsts” In June of 1956 the Iroquois underwent its first official test, the 50 hour Pre-Flight Rating Test (PFRT) During this test the engine beat every known record for thrust output at 19,350 lbt (pounds thrust) without afterburner. Its throttle response was also world-beating. It took only 2.8 seconds to go from idle to full military thrust and only 4.5 seconds to go from idle to full afterburning thrust. First overhung-stator two-shaft design using two(vs. three or more) bearings assemblies thus dispensing with a central casting, and replacing the two shafts with an inner and outer drum making the entire center core of the engine turn. The combustors were overhung with the flour comprising the spinning outer drum which connected the high-pressure(HP) turbine to the HP compressor section The drum connecting the low-pressure (LP) compressor to the LP turbine was smaller and rotated inside the HP drum. First, to make extensive use of Titanium for reason of high-strength high-temperature tolerance and low weight. First, to house a high proportion of it machinery (pumps, gearbox, drives etc.) internally to lower installed size. This meant a smaller, lighter aircraft stricter, and improved over-all aerodynamics and efficiency. First to concentrate on constant gas speed though out the core to maximize aerodynamic efficiency and allow a higher average speed of flow through the engine (rather than varying gas temperature pressure and speed, though the core, they designed it in such a way as to keep the gas speed relatively constant and vary only gas temperature.) First to try air-cooled turbine blades with comparatively cool compressor air ducted to the blades though the core structure of the engine, and though pressurized, annular ducts formed by the outer case of the engine. The Iroquois 1 used this but the Orenda designers dispensed with air-cooled blades in the Iroquois 2 due otherwise excellent air-cooling after the combustors and improved metallurgy (availability of Income l X) The Pratt & Whitney J-58 for the A-12/YF-12A/SR-71 used a similar arrangement on a single -spool design. First (with the General E electric J-79 of the B-58 Hustler and F-4 Phantom) variable pitch stator design (variable pitch stator allowed improved throttle handling and resistance to compressor surges, stalls, and engine flame-outs. On the J-79 variable stators allowed the designers to produce a single-spool engine with the handling quality usually associated with two-spool designs, on the Iroquois., which was already a two-spool design, it allowed Orenda to design it with 40 to 60% fewer compressors and stator sections, compared to contemporary and most later designs greatly lightening the engine.) First “bypass” engine using LP and HP air for cooling the turbine section and machinery while exhausting through the extractor nozzle to increase thrust. “Hot-Streak” ignition for the afterburner A streak of hot combustion gasses was piped directly back to the afterburner fuel zone an ultra-reliable afterburner igniter an sustainer. First oxygen injection-relight system in case of engine flame-out at altitude, this technology was licensed by Orenda at the time, providing income for the company. First fully variable afterburner. Previous systems came on all at once or in two or more stages. A fully-variables system in an engine of the low weight, high thrust and good fuel economy of the Iroquois would have been a manger tactical advantage during the 1960s and 70s. Many changes were made to the structure of the MK1 engine and a new prototype the Iroquois MK2 was produced. During the program at least five running engines were sent to the United States for test and evaluation. Iroquois engineer Colin Campbell relates that the engine was tested at up to 25,000 pounds dry thrust in Canada and at up to 27,000 pounds in the Cornell Institute in the United States. These are phenomenal outputs for an engine of this size even today. The rating they were aiming for was 20,000 pounds dry thrust and 30,000 pounds with afterburner. Clearly they had reason to hope for even more powerful versions once they addressed the reliability and longevity issues. The Iroquois engine MK2 would have been able to accelerate while climbing vertically and carrying a useful load. The developed Iroquois promised this performance at close to gross take-off weight. (Jim100 AB So why did the Canadian government cancel this plane? Based on the research I would have to go with these assessments.) The Arrow would have been a dominant aircraft for many, many years and therefore could be expected to sell well to allied nations. That American authorities would not purchase any, and recommended that Canada not produce them tells its own story. (R.L. Whitcomb) A Canadian civil servant involved in a review of the CBC documentary “There Never Was An Arrow” Noted the following regarding the documentary’s conclusion that American interests were not involved in the Arrows cancellation: “The program concluded that no American interests were in evolved in the decision?” On the face of it, this seems a remarkably innocent point of view. Previous accounts have suggested with some reason that the American aviation industry would not have been comfortable with the Arrow as competition and therefore was not likely to give the Canadian firm much opportunity to compete. (Douglas, W.A.B. Note to File “CBC Program on the Avro Arrow”, 21 April, 1980) It is perhaps worthwhile to consider where American interests lay in the 1957 election. It was in response to this growing concern, in some quarters in Canada about the alarming growth of American ownership in the Canadian economy, that the previous Liberal administration had started a Royal Commission in the first place. It seemed tailor made to rebuff the Rockefeller panel’s overt economic imperialism. This commission pointed out the negative impact this increasing ownership was going to have on Canada’s future. Some of the problems foreseen were: The decline of research and development in Canada due to this work being concentrated in the home offices of the American companies then by Canadian production facilities. The inability of Canada to look after its strategic needs, including defense, if Canadian strategic resources were allowed to be bought out by American interests. An exodus of Canadian administrative, scientific and technical talent to the United States as a result of the above. A decline in Canadian economic, military and political independence brought about by the above, with the probable result of Canada losing any real sovereignty and thus becoming a satellite of the United States. (Gordon, Walter L., A chance for Canada, based in part on the Gordon Commission.)

[@jim100ab9]

This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 6 Price Deception Foulkes later left evidence on the record demonstrating his “erroneous” conclusions regarding the price of the Arrow. “it is quite clear that this aircraft will require almost $500 million to complete development and then it will cost between $10 and $12 million a copy for production” So according to Foulkes’ spurious CSC recommendations to Pearkes, The 10 to 12 million figure obviously was for costs for production not including design and development. However, in an unpublished article on the Arrow debacle Foulkes later wrote: “The Defense Production Department advised that approximately $300 million had been spent on the Arrow project and that an additional $871 million would be required to complete it.” This resulted in the $12 million figure. (Smye Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow P. 113) Foulkes was obviously capable of considerable modification of statements when embarrassed. Dow wrote: ”$12.5 million. This was the cost per aircraft cited by the prime minister for 100 Arrows equipped with Astra and Sparrow… To arrive at these figures it was necessary to total the cost of all components of the weapons systems, airframe, engine, missiles, and fire control. This included agreements for design and development, tooling, spares, ground handling equipment, test assembly and overhaul. To make these figures appear even more outrages, the cost of the 37 aircraft on contract was considered as a development expenditure for the proposed program to build 100 Arrows. In effect the cost of 137 was divided by 100 to inflate the price per plane.” (Dow The Arrow P. 180) Smye would later view some of the government cost figures, and even using their own admitted math, would come out with an average price for 100 operational Arrows, including all design and development to operational standards, engines and fire control, of $5.62 million dollars. The government said it came to $7.8 million a copy. This was because they were writing off the entire 37 preproduction run and were including design and development expenses incurred to date, missiles, lifetime spares, ground support and test equipment and more. It was a very deceptive way to influence the thinking of Cabinet, the press and the public. Of course, in comparing figures, the fact that payroll income and other taxes would be immediately be recouped from Canadian production was, inexplicably ignored. It also appears that Avro’s final offer was not brought to the attention of Cabinet, nor anyone else, for many years---until Fred Smye made it public in his unpublished manuscript: Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow. So what was Avro’s final offer on the Arrow? It was 3.5 million dollars each for the first 100 Arrows and 2.6 million dollars each for the next 100. As Dow put it “Details of Avro’s offer to the government were given in a letter from the company to D.L. Thompson, director of the aircraft branch of DDP on 30 December. The letter confirmed a fixed price offer of $346,282,015 for 100 aircraft (25221 to 25320), including Iroquois engines and the Hughes MA-1C electronics systems. Adding applicable sales tax of $28,717,985 brought the price per aircraft to an even $3.75 million. The contract proposal attached to the letter covered design and development, tooling and tool maintenance, manufacture of 20 development and 100 squadron aircraft…and technical support for the squadron aircraft. (Dow: the Arrow P. 186

[@HagersvilleHunk]

An impossible dream,but still worthy of considering,and I still want to believe!

[@warrenthomas9068]

Beautify done. Thank you, this video actually brought tears to my eyes.

[@canadiantimberwolf1]

I know these little short films are probably hard to do, and at 59 years of age, I missed seeing one by 1 year. Please keep up the beautiful work on the Avro Arrow, these are the Inspiration need to bring someone into the fold who will re-invent this Wonderful Canadian Aviation Legend.

[@johnboyu1]

Glad to see another of your GREAT videos. Really looking forward to seeing more. PLEASE don't stop making them. Thanks again from a 67 year old canadian who remembers our history.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Johnboyu...Glad you like them. I am working on Ep. 3, should be out end of April or Mid May. Regards...Virtual

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Johnboyu.... Ep 3 kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3OkimVuhtaHers

[@noehctuccmliw]

I helped build the full scale model that now sits out east. We put it together at Abbotsford Airport in BC to be on display for the airshow as it had an operational 'roll out' feature. The show went well. Then later it sat outside and neglected behind one of the airport buildings for a few years until it finally got rescued. A bit of repeated history sorta.

[@bradyelich2745]

I also love the movie score. Your music is awesome. Also, thank you for your service.

[@245194LAC]

The AVRO did not get away, it was thrown away by John Diefenbaker in an agreement with the U.S. Period. I was fourteen years of age at the time and was amazed at this amazing aircraft. When it was cancelled, I was heartbroken. Why was it cancelled? The U.S. had nothing that could catch it and nothing that could shoot it down. As well, they were concerned that the Russians would get their hands on the Orenda engines that power the Arrow. Another Canadian Prime Minister did as he was told by the Americans.

[@gillesodonoughue5390]

Being a real Arrow fan, I can't believe I have not come across your channel yet. Great videos, great modelling, great storytelling and I love the printed media touch.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Gilles, thank you for the comment, appreciated. I have created a new channel dedicated to the Arrow, so I can use this one for other uses. This is the link, please share with other "Arrow fans"....regards....Virtual kzbin.info/door/JAbsrun_K6CCdHXOrrVLng

[@tomstrutt6754]

Loved that piano arrangement of "A Nightingale Sang In Berkely Square".

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Tom, All the music is played between my Uncle and myself. My Uncle is/was a concert pianist. That was his arrangement. He also did "all my loving" at the end.

[@tomstrutt6754]

Your uncle plays nice! What piano did he play it on?

[@Virtualenvirons]

My uncle is a brilliant pianist even at 84. He recorded those severe years ago, but sill plays the same way. I don't know what make of piano, probably full grand Steinway. I did the two short pieces in between. He recorded in a studio and me on my iPad, so harsh, but they fit the bill.

[@MrBoytoy1959]

Awesomeness love these videos

[@vectorworksnurbsmodelling6049]

Glad you like them, thanks for watching.....regards....Virtual

[@MrBoytoy1959]

I wish they could go on forever but i understand why not

[@vectorworksnurbsmodelling6049]

Thanks for that. I was only going to do ten episodes, as that explained the Arrow. But in doing that, the "Story" I created to tell the story of the Arrow was not finished. It took a little prompting from subscribers, but shortly after ten, I started the last two to finished the story. Thanks again for watching....regards....Virtual

[@mattfarrell4284]

The F20 Tigershark is the one that really got away. The F20 Tigershark can easily be built today with modern avionics and radar at a much lower cost than the Gen 4 fighters in use today and be just as if not more effective

[@Virtualenvirons]

Agreed

[@richardcovello5367]

Cute! I (and every red blooded Canadian) wishes it were true. Why don't we build our own again, instead of buying clapped out F-18s from the Aussies?

[@cringeworthyhumans160]

Or buying over priced F-35's which are slower and ($_$)

[@valenrn8657]

F-35A's mach 1.6 has 1200 Mph attached to it. "Speed (full internal weapons load) Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)" www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/478441/f-35a-lightning-ii-conventional-takeoff-and-landing-variant.aspx www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-006-DFRC.html F/A-18 has Mach 1.8 ( *1190 mph* ). Speed of sound is not a constant Altitude (relates to air density) vs speed of sound sea level = 761 MPH 10000 feet = 734 MPH 20000 feet = 701 MPH 30000 feet = 678 MPH 40000 feet = 660 MPH 50000 feet = 660 MPH LM is using about 10,000 feet's 734 MPH speed of sound. Using 40,000 ft's 660 Mph speed of sound yields mach 1.81 i.e. 1200 Mph / 660 Mph = 1.81

[@danawick9817]

Anymore episodes in the works??

[@brucebaxter6923]

Don't forget we got shafted into buying the f35 to sell you our f18

[@jefferystaley550]

I was only four yrs old in 1959 . My understanding is that when the Americans offered to protect us with misled launches we also signed away our rights ever be able to design manufacturer or build war birds but instead once more rely on the US for protection. Thank you mr Definbaker.

[@ronsmith6662]

Superb work Virtualenvirons. I can still recall, as a kid growing up just North of Kingston, hearing the test flights as they used Kingston as a turn around point or so I'm told.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thanks Ron, Epl 1 is linked to this video if you did not see it. Button in top right of video

[@chrismurphy5010]

wonderful music, thank you for this all ...

[@englundus]

Keep the episodes coming!

[@danawick9817]

englundus yess hope they do

[@coalsilvermuzzle3111]

If only, I wish. I know that one did go missing, claimed to have crashed somewhere. I still remember from my youth, the number of times I was in, I do believe, in the Perth area of Ontario. There was a base, with a, lets say scrape yard, where I remember seeing parts of the Arrow. Cut in little pieces, stored there, I had visited the place for many years, and had seen the scrap till the 70's. I have to admit I haven't been there in over 30 years. I just wish I had taken some of those pieces then, but I was young and didn't fully understand. Many times my family had talked about the Arrow, back then, being a military family.

[@brianrichard8310]

It will surface one day, i hope. Maybe when the last person to know of it's existance, gives it up. I hope to see it again, as i was 5 when my Dad held me up so i could touch it. I'd like to touch it again.

[@bobreadingTrakkrr2]

Doesn’t take much to figure where it went missing. Look no further than the USA. Our politicians did their bidding just like a pack of puppy dogs. Time this country stood on its own two feet again.

[@felipeleaoteixeira6461]

Please do a sound track special! Love the piano on your videos

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Felipe......Thank you so much. Not sure though, what you mean by a sound track special, please elaborate.....regards....Virtual

[@raynus1160]

Great animation - once again. Looking forward to the next one. The DHC Caribou is a nice touch as well. Cheers.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thanks, more of a feel good movie. I could not proceed to Ep. 3 without doing this one. Having said that, I will be taking break. My wife and I are heading to Barbados end of Jan for a month. regards...virtual

[@raynus1160]

Enjoy your trip! R.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Raynus Have a look at the newest post on this site by Mike Woitt

[@raynus1160]

Aha! I wondered when Mike would re-appear. Thanks.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Raynus Ep 3. finished, link enclosed. regards...Virtual kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3OkimVuhtaHers

[@ziadrizk7569]

Great video Paul. Love the story and the history. Maybe some day.....

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Ziad...how are things. Ep. 4 link to follow. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2m6hnufhNV0eNU

[@stevesabourin3023]

My parents both worked at AVRO so what we had almost 70 yrs ago how can you compare

[@barbarapeacock3395]

Hi Steve ,I worked. At AVRO ALSO ,I WAS VERY YOUNG. ONLY JUST 21. ,loved my job in the blue print crib. ,

[@richardmcleish1820]

If only it were true. These stories are very well done and I think you

[@glen6945]

damn ace stuff and thank you fellow canadian

[@mikewoitt8111]

I just got the news that the Generals office received my paper three days ago. The receptionist was impressed with what she saw. I am going to give the Air Staff a few day to look it over before I enquirer about their thoughts. Have a great evening people.

[@mikewoitt8111]

The Generals office is going to give me a call after they have read the book. I finished of the book this last week. All that remains is the inner referencing. 610 pages and 85, 000 words.

[@PierreaSweedieCat]

I hope you had a Merry Christmas, and some good holidays, Virtual. Two things: Taking a nap on Xmas, I dreamed of the Arrow, and a video by you. Seems the Russians had sent their two best pilots to penetrate the North in a disguised fighter. Pavel Checkov was along! Seems the Ruskie Fighter was disguised as a Red Sleigh (Get it? RED.) and our heroes took up RL206 to intercept it! The music was Snoopy's Christma song! (You did a great piano job, here!) Well, maybe next year! LOL! Take Care, and LLAP. By the way, I once was told that the ARROW had 2 weapons bays. So one could carry fuel and the other a bomb or rockets. Is there truth to the story that the ARROW was ready to carry nuclear bombs? Oh. Wishing you and yours, and the ARROW and our heroes a great 2020!

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI P.M. CHRISTMAS BELLS...OH CHRISTMAS BELLS...RINGING THROUGH THE LAND. I think those were the words to the Royal Guardsmen Christmas snoopy-Red Baron song. The Arrow only had one weapons bay, that I know for sure. Interesting story line. I had it in mind to make a short Christmas Arrow story, but it was more children oriented, I may do it next year. I have to build a lot of new stuff for the next three or four episodes, so I decided to keep working on that, plus we are heading to Barbados for a while. I see the next episode in late Spring for early summer. Thanks so very much for your support. regards...Virtual

[@PierreaSweedieCat]

@@Virtualenvirons Well, being childish, if you make a kidvid, I will probably watch it!!! Have a safe and happy, and restful trip! Enjoy building!

[@ElectricTractor]

Great video Paul fantastic job

[@duaneschison9934]

grinning, it was so neat to grow up around Round Lake, Turners camp always had all kinds of planes to talk about among the locals

[@geraldhebert9438]

Thank you all Kingston crew , we feel more Secure now. Better than Hollywood movies. 😋

[@BeardsleyMark]

The CF-105 was slower than its contemporary, the F-106. Mach 1.9 to Mach 2.3 so it wasn't even close. They thought that they would get a faster Iroquois engine down the road, but it only gave the aircraft 10% more thrust so it wouldn't have made the Arrow fast enough to come close to the F-106. Plus, the Arrow had very short combat radius, around 340 nautical miles to the 500 nautical mile combat radius of the F-106. Give the interceptor role, this might have worked if the aircraft was intended to defend the UK, but given the size of Canada it was a huge problem. Finally, the CF-105 service ceiling was just 53,000 feet, while the F-106 service ceiling was 57,000 feet, giving the Dart one more advantage. Even with the shortcomings of the Arrow, it was still worth it for the RCAF to have bought at least 100 of them in order to preserve the industrial base that they had built up during and after WWII. The US ended up benefiting greatly from the brain drain that happened after the Arrow was canceled. Hundreds of excellent engineers moved from Canada to the US after the cancellation.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hello Mark, The posts on Ep 1, (there is a link on this video, click on top left corner) are far more detailed. Everything you posted has been dissected to a very fine level of granularity. Also, there is much about the Arrow that is not out there, not classified, just not out there. But, in a nut shell, the Iroquois ( I don’t know where you got 10%) were far more powerful than the test engines, having said that, the limitations of all standard jet engines to process air past Mach 2.5, would have given the Arrow that limit, but without using the full power of the Iroquois. The Iroquois were light years ahead of anything else. Service ceiling, you are confusing something, the operational ceiling of the Arrow (Mark 2 was ~ 58,000 ft. The arrow could pull G’s at that altitude,,,,,that big wing. Computer models put it ahead of the F-15 at that altitude. But, it could only pull ~ 5+ G’s in thick air, it was after all an interceptor. The F-106….a good plane, but absolutely not a competitor to the Arrow. The XF-108 would have been a close competitor, if they could have produced one, but it would have been to large. Radius of action. This was the reason for cancelling the Arrow. It remains the only classified aspect of the Arrow. You may have noticed the internal fuel pods in the movie. The Arrow could put anything in the Weapons Bay, including fuel. Those fuel pods gave the Arrow near double the radius of action. There is so much more….someone should make a movie!

[@iananderson7883]

You beat me to setting the guy straight. What a lot of people don't really get is that it wasn't so much about the plane itself it was about the expertise that was lost. We never recovered from it. What was so amazing was how fast we acquired that expertise. We were firing on all cylinders back in the 50s. Sweden comes up a lot in Arrow discussions.They started producing jets in the early 50s with the J29 then the J35, J/AJ 37 right up to the JAS 39. Their know-how has remained in place even though they have started to collaborate with other countries. Our air force is nothing but a joke today. We can't get more than 20-30 combat ready CF-18s into the air at any given time. We're buying used Aussie junk. I think we have 6 56 year-old Sea Kings Sea Kings on the west coast and the Cyclones are still not operational. It really hurts me to go on and on about this. So I'll just stop here. Really enjoyed the vid though.

[@BeardsleyMark]

Ian, Virtual, I am not trying to troll either of you, but everything I have seen about the Iroquois looks like it had 25,500 to 26,000 pounds of thrust with afterburners. The X-104 testbed engine is stated to have just that and it was supposed to be the super powerful engine that could power the B-47 all by itself. And 26,000 pounds is just about 10% more than the engine that got the Arrow to just Mach 1.9. I agree that Canada would have been well served by continuing to build the Arrow, but I don't see how it would have been a giant killer as many state.

[@BeardsleyMark]

www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/CanadianAviationMuseum2006/Annex/pages/40AvroArrowEngine.htm

[@iananderson7883]

It's at leas good to see it on proper display back in the 70s it was just sitting in the old museum at Rockcliffe on a trolley with no description of it whatsoever. Who knows what would have happened if it was mated with the Arrow. There are so many bits and pieces of the Arrow scattered around te country. My friend's mother worked at A V Roe in the 50s and I have an original photo that I have framed and put on my wall. I have never seen this photo in any book. It's 205 over Malton which I think is the one that flew the least amount of hours. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's kind of spooky actually.

[@edpetrovski6640]

First stop on the getaway flight was a WWII training field in Gananoque, Ont. Fuel trucks and ground crew greeted the Arrow....where it was refueled...prepped for it's journey rumored to be near Lac Brome in rural Quebec....where she still sits in a ramshackle barn, under a tarp...lovingly cared for by the descendants of the Canadian patriots who saved her. Or so the story goes.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Ed,...I have come across the barn story a few times, but also other stories. One fellow has spent years tracking one after the fifty years of classified documents were released. He found a story where he believes an Arrow was referred to a "the invention" and tracked it to 9 kilometres from Malton. Another is is western Canada up north. If anyone got one, it was the Americans, but I doubt we will ever know. regards....Virtual

[@coolpat71]

love the skunks works jacket on the one guy, lolol :)

[@piergaay]

"I will be your protector, if you put away your weapons."

[@mikewoitt8111]

I sent a copy of my paper to the Treasury board this week. Canada Post and Veterans Affairs also got a copy. It took me three years to write it and now I can say some about the survival of 25202.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Mike, I am in Barbados at the moment. You should post some of your material, albeit in a more shortened form than your paper. regards...Virtual

[@ivorholtskog5506]

This should have been episode 1. NICE! More!

[@Virtualenvirons]

I needed to get people attention, so I did it that way, but thanks for your interest.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you. Taking a little winter break, but will continue. Next Episodes mix it up with Russian fighters.

[@AQUANUT]

You are talented my friend. Great series you have here

[@HighFlight]

Great film. I wonder if our British TSR2 'XR221' also made it there?

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi High Flight. Thanks for the comment. I don't know if you saw the entire series or just this one episode. There are twelve in total....regards....Virtual

[@HighFlight]

@@Virtualenvirons I just watched this one initially as I was already aware of the background story, but having subscribed I see that I most definitely have lots more to look forward to watching. Great stuff!

[@sundelight8230]

Beautiful

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you.....did you see the entire series? Link to follow Series LInk kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@treadheadpete4770]

We had something that good and we threw it away... sigh.

[@barbarapeacock3395]

Yep on the roof of Avroe. Watch that 201 first flight. So so beautiful and that day that Defenbaker put us all out of work 1,500 people what a heart breaking day that was FEB20/1959

[@KnowYoutheDukeofArgyll1841]

Always sounds familiar, doesn't it? When the Nimrod MRA4 was cancelled, the old historic Avro (nowadays), BAe works and testing airfield at Woodford closed for good when the MRA4s got scrapped. A main road now cuts through the old runway along with new housing. A lot of jobs were lost in the process.

[@menotyou7762]

The arrow flys, every US jet made since 1955 has Canadian technology in them because it was our engineers that put it there. Anybody that says the arrow was destroyed by Diefenbaker is wrong, yes he ordered it but he was just a patsy and didn't have the balls to stand up for Canada. Look at where all the people went when AV Roe went down, That tells the tale. You bet the Arrow flys, you just need to look real hard at the technology in every plane made in the US. Their is a maple leaf hiding in all of them

[@lucastekkan]

Such as ?

[@barbarapeacock3395]

Yes they sure did thanks to Defenbaker squashed the Arrow ,and just let go of 1;500. People who worked at AV Roe I knowI was one of them Beautiful air craft. ,we were so far ahead of the USA. It was so heart breaking. Loved the Arrow ,we all did so proud of that Beautiful interceptor jet ,it broke the sound bearere

[@hectorwismayer6036]

I aggrege the purpose of the SR71 was a spy plane and used to replace the the U2. But the SR71 was developed as a result of oxcart, that flew 4 years after the Arrow was scrapped. The CF105 had state of the art weaponry not seen until the F22. There is no question the Arrow was far advanced for its time and never flew with Iroquois engine and if it did it might have surpassed all expatiations. It was a shame they scrapped the project. there where breakthroughs in skin development that are used in manufacturing still today. I had friends that worked on the Arrow and the CF100. my father in law flew in the CF100 and would have flown in the Arrow. Instead we opted for the Voodoo fighter one of the worst fighters in existence. also signed an agreement never to build advanced military aircraft. its a shame we can't be free to develop even more advanced aircraft. Imagine what Canada can do today, and look at the A220 or CS300.

[@lucastekkan]

state of art weaponry in what sense buddy ? Let's not get too delusional here, the Arrow was a cool plane and all, but wasn't that groundbreaking of a plane, the F-106 Delta Dart was as fast as it, with a better range (500 NM against 360 of the Arrow) and used only 1 engine (J75). They've shared pretty much the same armament, with the F-106 even having a gun. Sure, the Arrow had a bigger payload (thanks to that big ass wing), but it was only for intercepting bombers, that's what it was, an interceptor, not an superiority fighter or anything.

[@roberttaylor185]

This plane just looks amazing even now pitty the Canadian government scrapped it. It was a world beater way better than anything the rest of the world had at that time. I am a brit and no wonder we wanted to get our hands on it. Would have loved to see one flying in the flesh, truly stunning even sat still.

[@brucebarlow6825]

Robert Taylor Jon

[@thebosshavoc3530]

if only it were real

[@luispalma6917]

The dream is alive!

[@nancydube5485]

Musical Ethien drapes

[@mikewoitt8111]

My paper was mailed to the General's office this morning. I called his office to let them no I had mailed it. It should take until the middle of next week to make it there. I will write a post to confirm that the book has arrived there when it does. Richard Covello I am also a red blooded Canadian and I wanted to believe one survived. On January 15 it marked 19 years that my search began and the Arrow is in a concrete bunker under the building at 325 Humber College Blvd in Toronto. My book is 586 pages and a little over 82, 000 words that shows how Arrow 25202 was hidden for the last 58 years. That book is on its way to Lt General Mike Hoods office. He is the Chief of Staff. Have a great day.

[@mikewoitt8111]

You have the wrong building there but yes I have had talk in making arrangements for ground penetrating radar once I get into the building. I will be making a post once I get confirmation from the General's office that they have received my book. Stay tuned.

[@raynus1972]

Badial Transport Inc. 325 Humber College Blvd, Unit 11, Etobicoke, ON M9W 7C3

[@mikewoitt8111]

You have the wrong end of the building. You want the piece that is close to Finch Ave with the A/C on the roof.

[@supersonic1246]

... it would have been fantastic, if that had been reality .. :) greets from germany

[@Virtualenvirons]

Vielen Dank. regards....Virtual

[@moremoneyfordreadnoughts1100]

I know for a fact that during the scrapping an empty partial airframe was painted to resemble the last airworthy Arrow off the line. The real plane was send into "special" storage and was flown just enough to keep it from deteriorating. I was hiking and camping up north before the days of cellphone video and one evening just before dusk heard a roaring overhead. At first glance I thought, What is an F-106 doing up here? As it passed closer just to my east I could not believe my eyes. It was an Arrow! I sat down to get a grip on myself and pretty much talked myself into thinking it was wishful thinking like when some people see UFOs. But I was too restless to wind down. I just barely started with tent setup when I heard and saw it again on a reciprocal "heading for home." Even though the sun was setting, I knew this time what I saw and it was no F-106. One other person I know who has been in the same area says he heard and saw it, too, but admitted he wouldn't know an Arrow from a 747. He just knew it was an incredibly fast delta and didn't think much about it at the time. I showed him some silhouettes and he picked out the Arrow saying he was fairly sure that was what he saw. Since that time I have been trailed near home 30 kilometers outside Banff by Men In Black. My porn accounts have been hacked by the CIA and I hear clicking when I use my landline. RCMP has visited my house, actually two addresses now, warning me about watching Rebel News. Good think I have my tinfoil hat.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Sorry about your porn accounts. I read your post on Strikeback. Did not know quite what to make of that...? Interesting Story. I suppose you are close enough to Alaska that it could have been a F-106. How long ago was this? regards...Virtual

[@paulchandler9646]

The Lightning would of eaten that for breakfast since it was all ready intercepting U-2 flights from above and had a ceiling of nearly 90,000 feet.Charles Slade the chief designer was from the UK and worked for Avro before coming to Canada which was a big mistake he should of stayed in the UK or gone to the US.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Albert.....Great stuff. But, this is a Canadian story. Do you have something to contribute towards. that end. Regards....Virtual

[@hoghogwild]

It had a ceiling no where near 90,000 feet. It could only zoom climb to 70,000.

[@Thunder_6278]

What might have been....but there is talk of a resurrection.

[@drawingboard82]

This made me cry. Beautiful. Would that it was true. I could almost hope that it was possible in a country the size of Canada. Sadly its absolutely not possible to hide tsr2, the British equivalent.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you very much. Did you see all the Episodes? There are three others and I am working on five. You can find the others on my Virtualenvirons channel. regards

[@drawingboard82]

@@Virtualenvirons thanks, yes, looking at the others too! Do you play your own music? Also, what software do you use for the animation?

[@Virtualenvirons]

@@drawingboard82 Hi ....Yes, I play some, my uncle plays the better pieces, He is/was a concert pianist. The credits tell the story. His were recorded professionally and mine on an iPad. I use Vectorworks to build the hardscape and C4D to animate. regards....virtual

[@zakstev]

Thanks for the series. But no harm in my adding my reality?

[@Virtualenvirons]

You are welcome. I only wish your reality was true. I forgot to talk a bit about the Mig-25. The Mig-25 was no Arrow. Very fast, but not very sophisticated. They lost most of the pilots trying to land the thing. Big engine on a pointy airframe. The Mig-31 is closer and a very good fighter. Briefly, I will tell you the story of the Mig-25. It was built solely to combat the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber of the early 60's. The U.S. built two before realizing that high speed, high altitude bombing would never work (The Gary Powers thing). So they cancelled the program but failed to notify the Russians of the cancellation. The U.S. (CIA) kept the program alive on paper only, so the Russian would keep on building they hugely expensive, but totally useless fighters. They built nearly 500 before realizing they had been fooled. You have to admire the CIA sometimes. regards...Virtual

[@BradLancaster86]

and that's how mafia works

[@jagers4xford471]

I wish...

[@acoustevens9617]

"Fitted with internal fuel tanks." What an innovation!

[@Virtualenvirons]

checked your site......you may not have understood. Conventional jets like the F-35 and F-22 require external fuel pods to go the "extra mile". The Arrow weapons bay was designed to take anything including internal fuel pods. This would reduce their missiles load to 4 instead of 8.

[@acoustevens9617]

Ah! Now that makes more sense.

[@valenrn8657]

www.globes.co.il/en/article-israel-to-double-attack-range-of-f-35-stealth-fighter-1001068513 Double attack range F-35I i.e. twice 1407 Km combat radius with external fuel tanks i.e. 2,814 Km combat radius. Israel is working on conformal fuel tanks for F-35I with twice the attack range. F-111C's combat radius is 2,140 km. F-15C's combat radius is 1,967 km

[@alanwhiteside410]

What do you mean “What an innovation” I don’t know of any A/C that don’t have internal fuel tanks! Plus fighters have even been using internal & external fuel tanks for a long time and some even use conformal tanks as well. Plus inflight refueling. The F-15 does all of this.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Alan, I guess I missed your post, I do like to return comments. I don't know if you saw my return post to the fellow who questioned the internal fuel tanks. I should have said "internal fuel pods". The Arrow would have been able to put extra fuel pods in the weapons bay. It would have meant removing some missile compliment. regards.....virtual.

[@johnsmith-ee8pk]

Like Bob Dylan says: the executioners face is always well hidden

[@Virtualenvirons]

Excellent comment. Very good analogy. thanks...Virtual

[@carlosalmeida4415]

by the looks of the space shuttle the arrow lived on for a while going into low earth orbit.

[@jesse33cdn]

.......I WANT TO BELIEVE!.........

[@Virtualenvirons]

He Jessie....Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful.....regards.....Virtual

[@barbarapeacock3395]

Yes this is so so sad ,it could have been CANADA. WAY AHEAD OF THE USA ,WE HAD THE AVRO ARROW WAY AHEAD OF ANY THING THEY DEVELOPED. ,WE WERE ONCE AHEAD OF THEM SO SAD WITH OUR GOVERNMENT TO SQUASH THE ARROW , AND BVERY SAD DAY. WHEN WE WERE ALL LET GO FEB20 / 1959 out of a job and the lost of our Arrow

[@MrBubba19692]

Excellent !! Is "Rebirth" out yet??

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Bubba. I have been working on these two Episodes since August and taking a month off for some R & R. Will begin Rebirth in Mar. Should have it out for May. These are time consuming projects. Most people seem to think because it is 3D that I am younger than them, but I have been retired for 12 years. I have always wanted to portray the Arrow in it's correct light, no embellishments. My colleague, retired Air force general and Arrow historical expert gives me correct information about the Arrow. Although, we use Arrow Mark 2A that never flew, only in this movie. regards...Virtual

[@MrBubba19692]

It was extremely well done. Had me watching intently. I just subscribed so I don't miss it. It was such a beautiful aircraft. I was given three small gold arrow pins by my father. Tiny plastic replicas of the aircraft with a pin crudely attached. They were given out to employees I believe. I cherish them. I grew up in a house that was built for AVRO employees but they didn't take the house because they lost their jobs. Looking forward to the next one. All the best !!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you very much. I have done preliminary work on Ep. 3, but my wife and I are heading to Barbados for a month. We will return in Mar. and I will do Ep.3. That will take about six weeks. There will probably be an Ep. 4...5....maybe even 6.

[@mikewoitt8111]

Good day. It has been a few moons since we last had a talk. I am working on a new Arrow project. I am building a 3D Arrow in a program called Blender. You will be impressed when you see the final piece. I have numbered my Arrow RL 221 for the first operational Arrow.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hello Mike.....Long time. Good to hear you are still working on Arrow projects. There will likely be two more episodes after this one. I think the story of the Arrow is finished with this episode, but the series still needs two more to finish. Just out of curiosity, why are you building an Arrow is 3D? regards....Virtual

[@mikewoitt8111]

@@Virtualenvirons good day. I now have a book with 1700 pages and soon a 3D model of the Arrow. I want to make an animated first person video of the unofficial speed record of Mach 2 in a climb. I have been planning this for 7 years now. Last year I bought a new computer with a 11 gen i5, 1 tara bite solid state and 32 gigs of ram.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Mike. Good stuff. Let me know when you complete this project. I would love to see it. regards.....Virtual

[@mikewoitt8111]

@@Virtualenvirons it has been many moons since I made my last post. I am on my 18th attempt to build my Arrow. I am in the process of modeling the 4 main ribs in the engine bay. I wish that I could post a picture of it for you. You would be impressed. Scale 1:1

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hello Mike. Long time. I finished the last episode (12) last year. It went a lot farther than I thought. Have you seen the other episodes? In Ep. 8 we upgrade 206 into a Mark 3....regards....Virtual

[@ivorholtskog5506]

Hows the next one going?

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Ivor. It is going well. My wife and I were in Barbados for the worst part of the winter, retuned Mar. 9. As you probably noticed, each episode requires more stuff. Without giving too much away, I have reconstructed the Russian Carrier to a much higher level of authenticity as well as Rankin inlet. I am on our boat at the moment and we will spend much of the summer on it. I am trying for mid summer release of Ep. 5, but probably Sept. regards....Virtual

[@ivorholtskog5506]

@@Virtualenvirons Just wondering. Please keep up the good work!

[@MrCodythegreat]

is there a 3rd episode ?

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi MrCodythegreat.....there will be a 3 and 4...perhaps 5. They are very time consuming, I am the the sole animator, but taking a break in Barbados until Mar. 8.

[@MrCodythegreat]

oh well thats great i look forward to seeing them

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi MrCodythegreat....Ep 3 kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3OkimVuhtaHers

[@MrCodythegreat]

awesome i look forward to it thanks for letting me know

[@ivorholtskog5506]

Personally, I think we should buy the airframe of the f22 or the air frame of the aircraft that came in second in the last competition in the states.

[@0623kaboom]

some of the dialog is too fast to be read on this one ... a tad slower on it would be better ...

[@subtoimtoxic5149]

I hate the spinelessness it took to roll over on the Arrow!

[@barbarapeacock3395]

Yeah well YOU GOT THE BEST USA YOU WERE OVER THE SAME DAY THAT WE WERE LET GO. AND SIGNED UPALL OUR ENGINEERS AND OUR TOP TECHNOLOGY

[@powellriver100]

I still have an original picture of an Avro Arrow!

[@Virtualenvirons]

You should post it. How did did you come by it. regards...Virtual.

[@mtlicq]

@@Virtualenvirons Don't post it, it will be stolen

[@williemac0420]

How I wish this were true. :(

[@49richard]

If only it would have happened...

[@glen6945]

only us candians -have this -high -tech

[@exidy-yt]

"Dreamland" eh? Methinks someone is a fan of the 'Flight of the Old Dog' series of novels. Oh man, to only imagine even a classic Arrow updated with with the kind of insane tech the later novels came up with, let alone a modern re-design on Arrow principles....../sigh.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Then you will really enjoy Episode 8.....regards....Virtual

[@ivorholtskog5506]

Sorry, I forgot to say why. After we get the air frame we put in our own stuff. Nothing wrong with the air frames.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Ivor...An F-15C would be fine. We are only one radar technology leap before stealth is over anyway.

[@robertlathe2165]

If only.

[@stevebeau0039]

I wish we built the next one... hybride/space Made in Canada !!!

[@ZeteticPlato]

👍

[@Spudboy182]

Would have been interesting. Not much actually left of 206; the nose section is on display in Ottawa. They also have the outer wing panels in storage.

[@hectorwismayer6036]

Sorry my friend was the jet engine installer and 6 arrows where made and 6 where destroyed. He witnessed the whole thing. Plans where found in a back room, at Oradea aerospace and the wooden scale 1/1 model was built. Two years later Ox cart was built and flew flew higher and faster than the Arrow. We have the plans we can build another and better Arrow but the black bird will always be better. We can build better today with our advancements but it would be top secret and no one would know.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Hector. These two aircraft were as far apart in intended use as you can get. Comparing them is like Apples and Oranges. regards...Virtual

[@hectorwismayer6036]

Not really they where both interceptors. Same wingspan, same airfoil and length. they had the same power. with the J85 both planes would just brake Mach 2. The SR71 flew higher and faster because of the skin being titanium. It also had a ram jet engine to sustain speeds at Mach 3. Lockheed took the Arrow and made it better using the same team. could you imagine the Arrow with the Iroquois engine might have been as fast and flew as high as the Sr 71. Too many people knew about the Arrow and its achievements Lockheed was tight lipped. it was a sad day for Canada because not only did the Arrow die but so did aviation, because we can't develop our own military aircraft. when we develop a civilian jet liner we have to sell it to airbus.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Hector. The SR-71 was only a reconnaissance aircraft. It did not carry any weapons. It began life from the A-12 program that came about after the Gary Powers Incident when in 1960 a U-2 spy plane was shot down over Russia. The U.S. realized then that high altitude alone was not enough. The A-12 program was to develop a high speed, high altitude jet. At the time, the purpose was not clear. Initially it appeared the CIA wanted a jet that could carry a large weapon deep into the Soviet Union. As the program matured, several versions of a potential aircraft were proposed including the CIA version (XB-71). If you remember there was an XB-70 Valkyrie bomber that was also cancelled. In the end, they only made the SR-71. They were all hand built and hugely expensive to both build and operate. Only the U.S. could afford them. The weighed twice as much as an Arrow with a thrust to weight of only .44 to 1. A Mark 2 Arrow with iroquois would have been nearly a thrust to weight of 1 to 1. The SR-71 was mostly all titanium and the Arrow had titanium where it was needed. The SR-71 only needed to fly high and fast. I can't imagine it would turn around at speed between Toronto and Washington. It only required advanced cameras. Some of the key advancements on the Arrow were not seen until the F-16 and F-18. regards....Virtual

[@jim100ab9]

I would like to apologize I don’t remember who or what channel but a question come up, (it was about 7 months ago maybe longer?) they had heard that an engineer flew as an observer/passenger on an Arrow. I said no, I didn’t think so, well I was WRONG! I just found this so I am posting it here in the hopes that the person that asked the question will find it and see they were RIGHT! Avro Design Engineer, D. E. Darrah (Red Darrah) was the only passenger to ever fly in an Arrow - checking the Damper optimization fly-by-wire systems in RL 203 for Spud Potocki on Feb 19, 1959 - Page 75/81 documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-AvroCanadaCF-105Arrownose.pdf Again, my apologies to you!

[@MHB7000]

Lol might make a good movie. Fantasy or sci-fi lol

[@NormanJaquemotRebel]

It's 202 that's gone missing.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Norman I took this project on six months ago. At the time I had decided on 206. Over the last few months it has come to my attention that 202 was refitted with Iroquois engines after it's accident and is suspected to be the "one". But, I am too far down the timeline now to change it. Hopefully, these movies will get Canadians thinking about what we need in terms of a new fighter, regardless of which Arrow shows the way. regards....virtual

[@NormanJaquemotRebel]

Good afternoon. As I can clearly see, you have opened a box of Pandora, mainly because our Canadian haters want to prove a point, where we belong to them, which is not the case. My father was stationed at Rockliffe CFB and was there when they decided to scrap the " Arrow ". As my father claimed at the time, Canada had twenty-five years lead on the U.S. Airforce with the " Avro " and it was considered that it posed a threat to National security in the U.S. if it ever fell into Soviet hands, so they decided jointly, both the U.S. and Canada, to scrap it all. For sure, good old John was given an option for other weapons in the arsenal, and the engines ( the Iroquois ) were fitted on the B-52 long-range bombers. And, as always, we ended up having ex-U.S.A.F. " Widow-makers " as they were affectionately called at that period of time. And the same will eventually happen again because Canada doesn't want to ruffle some " friends " feathers, they'll opt to buy the " Super-Hornet ", used that is because we never had brand new things in the Canadian forces here. Looks like they appreciate the fact that they're forming their recruits in the process. Like my father said, they like to have to do " C " checks on maintenance. And what seems to be unknown to the jet fans, is that the U.S. ensures our coastal integrity for both nations. We always have had a joint venture project going on since WWII, and may it be reminded that Canadians were the most feared by the Germans, mainly because of the 401st division, our beloved " Blackwatch "regiment, who, other than wearing a black watch to their wrist, were renowned for their ability to stealthily invade the German trenches and slit their throats open without them ever being able to move. As for the CF-105, there are a lot of people who would like to see it make a comeback, but the money isn't in their hands, and since everything is about relations, you can rest assured that we will never see the " Super Arrow " being brought to completion. My sure bet is that some back-alley deal will come up where Canada will buy used " Super Hornets ", since we have $1055.54G in free trade with the U.S. So I don't think that both chambers of commerce want to engage in a trench war that would make them lose money. Both the CCC and the USCC know the name of the game. Like you, I'd like to see jobs being created by building our own, but there's special interests that won't allow that to go through. Have a nice day.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hello, thank you for the post. Did you see Episode one also. It has over 1200 comments, many like yours. Most pro, some con. Here is the link if you have not. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@NormanJaquemotRebel]

Hi again. Yes, I've seen both episodes, and I'm 100% behind you on this project. The only thing is, like I told you, that dogs don't eat wolves, and in order to maintain a favorable trade platform, the government will be directed to go for the " Super Hornets ", this to ensure a continuity in trade relations on both side of the border. Sure, they imposed a 300% penalty on the C-Series, but if they choose to opt for the " Super Hornets ", that trade barrier will fall without the general public ever being informed about it. It's all a game of a higher level than the average citizen couldn't possibly understand, because of all these " secret deals " being done in the back alleys on Parliament Hill and in the White House. Delta will eventually end up with C-Series jets, the R.C.A.F. will get their Super-Hornets, and all will be done in regards to each other's interests. It's pretty easy to offset a project: Just bring down the cost below what it would cost to produce them, and you're in an all other ballgame. And since we're not allowed in that playing field, best leave it to the Big Boys to handle such matters, because they don't appreciate our interventions in their business. Other than that, what else Can I add? I just hope you get my viewpoint on this matter. Have a nice day.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Yes, I do, thank you....regards...Virtual

[@dominicoconner1973]

Can thank Diefenbaker for that surprisingly it was not a Trudeau.

[@BradleyTurmel]

KGB 101 lol

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Bradley....your the fist one to ever notice that.......thanks for your comment on my "House of the Rising Sun".

[@crazyguy00009]

Hey Virtual, I had been told years ago that even though everyone thought you were only 5 Avro Arrow planes built there was actually 6 which had no marking or badges on it for information of model number! Also it’s supposedly hidden in a cave warehouse underground at the old mine in Port Radium!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Patrick. I have heard similar stories. I actually had a phone conversation with someone who also studies the Arrow. He told me that my fictional story is rather close what you are saying. But, I don't believe it. There is no reason to keep one hidden after all these years. But, do I wish the story was true....yes. I don't know if you saw all three episodes, if not series link is below. regards...Virtual kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@glen6945]

damn

[@lenadams854]

bro what is this animation style

[@vectorworksnurbsmodelling6049]

HI Len. The Style is a 65 years old guy (Now 69) woke up one morning, bought Vectorworks and CINEMEA 4D, learned as best he could from google. Made 12 episodes on a single 27 inch iMac piecing together on iMovie......regards....Virtual

[@Phil-b2k]

The definable government kissed American ass and sold out the finest interceptor ever made 4 sud. standard aviation crap!!

[@mattrogers6184]

America… Soo stupid… We would of sold these planes to them at a bargain. Bad politics…

[@winternow2242]

Why would the us buy these planes?

[@mattrogers6184]

@@winternow2242 Because Canada had a plane that was slightly better than the F22..in the 1960s… It took you guys almost 40 years to catch up.

[@winternow2242]

@@mattrogers6184 how did Arrow match the F-22? In fact, how did it surpass aircraft either already im existence or released shortly afterwards? The US and other countries already had mach 2 aircraft when Arrow did not reach that speed. Arrow carried the same Falcon and Genie missiles as the F-106. The F-4 Phantom flew about 2 months later, was faster, carried better weapons, was cheaper and flew a wider range of missions. How did Arrow outperform that?

[@MichaelWilliams-hl3hx]

you should tell the rest of the world where to get off , everyone knows that you built the best plane ever with the AVRO Arrow and it could still cut it today , but money talks so it will never be built , it would make your big neighbours aircraft unsaleable ,

[@HeavyMetal82]

Still used today? I think not, the only thing it would be used for is at airshows. No need for interceptor aircraft anymore.

[@shaniafox7740]

I talked to a ex rcaf guy in Kitchener Ontario and he told me about a base up north that if they had taken the arrow this base would be a ideal place to hide it

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Shania, I have heard that once before also. Would be nice. regards...Virtual

[@jameslatimer3600]

If only.