Avro Arrow, The Top Secret Supersonic Jet That Never Saw The Light (Full Documentary)

[@BarbaraPeacock-m6v]

I WORKED FOR AVROE. FOR ONE THING AS IT WAS MENTIONED HERE ,WE WERE NOT FIRED ,WE WERE LAID OFF AND The first flight of the Arrow was March 25 \1958 and we were all let go March 20 / 1959 we were on the roof and watched the first flight and we all felt the heart break of loosing our jobs ,I worked in the blue print. Crib ,But to get a phone call from one of the fellows wife told him we were all let go ,what a way to find out. And so much heart break of loosing our jobs and this beautiful air craft

[@hoboonwheels9289]

Interesting USSF Space Force Craft looks very similar to Avro. I'm putting it out there.

[@BrimHawk]

Barbara, do you recall working with a Richard Parish. He was a Purchasing Agent. My grandfather.

[@leoa4c]

Great documentary! Many thanks.

[@leeadams5941]

One of the saddest pages in aviation history. Canada's prime minister should have been jailed. Im always amazed at the politicians from that country. That aircraft with updates would be viable today.

[@ronmailloux8655]

so true.....our so called p.m. spends 2 billion dollars in a month now.

[@christophercoupe5006]

@@ronmailloux8655 You mean in a few days they blow $2 billion!

[@adamrmc100]

That is not fair to say. It appears the Titanium that would have been sourced for the Arrow might have been required and commandeered for the YF-12 and hence the US pressure to cancel the Arrow. The YF-12/SR71 was twice as heavy and they officially built about 50 altogether. I've heard rumors they built more than that and deployed them in the North, but who can know. Besides that, the real threat was ICBMs. They could not even be intercepted. The ICBM threat was highlighted even by the 1957 UK defence white paper under the Tory government, which surely Canada was influenced by, as well as influence from the US. The USAF and RCAF insisted the Arrow had to be able to fire the Genie nuclear rockets, which it could not do, but the F-101 Voodoo could. Deciding to cancel the Arrow was not a whimsical decision.

[@raynus1121]

@@adamrmc100 The Arrow was primarily constructed from S75 aluminum alloy. Very little titanium was used in the airframe. The PS.13 engines, however, utilized approximately 20% titanium (by weight) in their metallurgy.

[@adamrmc100]

@@raynus1121 That is less than I thought, but they still cancelled a perfectly good engine program. Not counting any exports, 700 Arrows were planned for the RCAF, and France wanted 400 Iroquois engines. 20% of 1800 engines is almost 2m lbs of titanium. If the five Mk 1 and 37 Mk 2 Arrows didn’t use much titanium, later variants, faster variants were expected to use it, which would have been hundreds more tons. I still think it is fair to say that scrapping the Arrow and Iroquois freed up plenty of it and considering Lockheed had lots of quality control issues with most of the titanium they sourced from the USSR, I would not be surprised if Avro and Orenda’s sources were expected to be critical to Lockheed.

[@raynus1160]

That's an excellent 1:1 model - well done.

[@christophercoupe5006]

One of the tragedies of this story is that Diefenbaker never should've gotten the government involved if he didn't plan to see it through to completion. Cancelling it meant $260 or more was wasted!! Then they wasted the same amount again on useless missles! The Arrow should have been completed and put into service!

[@raynus1160]

You'll have to pin that on Louis St. Laurent - the program began under his government & would've likely ended under his government had he won the '57 election.

[@philsurtees]

Wow! I didn't realise Canada was so poor that losing $260 would be such a big deal. 🙃 I'm Australian, but I worked over in Montreal for a few months back in the 90's, and got to really like Canada while I was there, so I could lend Canada $260 if they really need it?

[@edheather4056]

I think they mean 260 million not 260.00 yeesh

[@mr.2cents.846]

I agree.

[@rahulj8724]

He imported the strategic bombers from USA. He was on payroll of your southern border country

[@ericswain70]

Hello from North Bay Ontario. Thank you for the history.

[@menguardingtheirownwallets6791]

These days there is almost no design engineering work in Canada (other than computer engineering jobs), and most graduate mechanical & electrical engineers wind up working in careers that do not require an engineering degree at all.

[@calvinnickel9995]

Were you asleep when we designed one of the most successful regional jets ever?

[@joaquimfonseca2047]

EXCELENTE DOCUMENTÁRIO...... PARABÉNS AO CANAL......

[@MichaelMcFerrin]

Canada's best!🍁

[@stuartford5556]

It was a crime that the Arrow was canceled. I’m in the U.S., and I feel that there was pressure put on the Canadian government to cancel the project. I can’t see any other reason for the cancelation and why the prototypes, materials and design documents were destroyed. It could have easily been used as a high speed/high altitude research aircraft for years!

[@hoboonwheels9289]

I agree, interesting the USSF Space Force craft looks quite similar. Was Avro ahead of its time? There's a movie documentary on KZbin with Dan Akroyd as the guy in charge.

[@djpalindrome]

Canada only has its own stupid politicians to blame. They keep electing them, not us

[@SteveLyons71]

There’s a 60% scale (to fall within weight limit for recreational aircraft category) piloted replica under construction at Springbank Airport just West of Calgary. First flight target in late 2025.

[@canadiantimberwolf1]

The Arrow2. There has never been a 2/3rd sized Avro Arrow and why it is taking so long to build this aircraft. In essence, she is a Brand New Aircraft completely...

[@Zaaf2003]

Wait really? Can you send any websites or citings?

[@cowboybob7093]

In the years of the Arrow many aircraft programs were halted and the aircraft were used for target practice, maintenance education and so on. One fighter program still has aircraft still in service. I doubt the Arrow would have endured like that even it had a full production.

[@andrewallen9993]

Could they have done it? Well remember they did make mosquitos and lancasters bloody welll And Canada took knowledge from Ultra code breaking computers, developed it for submarine hunting and the British used this research to develope the British ICL 1900 series of mainframes.

[@Bearkiller72]

I find it very interesting, that only a few years later almost exactly the same happened in Britain, when they axed the TSR.2. And more, that Canada and Britain ended up with less sophisticated McDonnell products: the F-101 Voodoo and the F-4 Phantom II respectively. Makes you wonder if Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Sandys had " good ol' friends" in St.Louis. 😉

[@winternow2242]

Huh? How was Arrow more sophisticated than the Phantom? The F-4 was faster, had more long range weapons and was multirole. It was also cheaper than Arrow. Also, I don't see much of a comparison between Arrow and tsr2, other than that they were canceled...along with Mirage 4000, XF-108, Super Crusader, XB-70A, T4 and a bunch of other planes. Unlike Canada, Britain already had established companies with a record of developing fighter jets, but decided to consolidate their industry, and tsr2 was partly covered by the Buccaneer, which was a domestic design.

[@mr.2cents.846]

Politics. 🤮

[@mosthatedandroidtunernolim9800]

F4 was better

[@raymondsheffield5366]

Are you kidding? I like the F-4 but it was no where near as fast or well built as THE ARROWs. You're either a yank..or numb.

[@GurdeepBains-s5t]

Zionists and the military industrial complex. Blackmailed into submission is their way of Jeffry Epstein is a prime example

[@GurdeepBains-s5t]

What’s sad is that this Canadian beauty isn’t in a museum

[@louwvandermerwe3219]

Well done, Canada!

[@charlierondot7509]

An amazing plane!

[@mr.2cents.846]

Yeah, especially for the 50's.

[@canadiantimberwolf1]

Initially, there were only supposed to be 2. Then an order came for 7 more for a total of 9. All at the time were affordable. Eventually, a total of 37 Arrows were to be built, and the Canadian government was okay with that. Even PM J. D. Diefenbaker and his crew were OK with the costs. Even when the price is elevated. You can place the blame on the Prime Minister at the time, but all he did was announce the end of the project, he had no authority to end it just like that.

[@kitemanmusic]

How many of these advanced fighters and bombers from various countries were ordered to be cancelled, then destroyed? Very strange.

[@LRRPFco52]

British TSR-2 was the other one. Only a handful of nations had the technical and industrial ability to develop this type of aircraft in the 1950s. Only 1 of them had the budget to afford to see it through, produce, and operate them under the political-economic realities at the time.

[@DaiElsan]

Canada and Britain suffered the same. Look at the TSR2 history.

[@QuasarRedshift]

exactly . . .

[@dickdastardly5534]

Shafted and double crossed by our main Allie America

[@dickdastardly5534]

@@dukeford8893 Yeah whatever ya knob jockey 😁

[@jerryg53125]

@@dukeford8893 LoL. The Arrowheads are everywhere.

[@hoboonwheels9289]

Interesting how similar USSF Space Force craft looks to Avro, ahead of its time? The movie with Dan Akroyd is on KZbin.

[@JP-fq5zj]

More like behind the times.

[@aaronazagoth6373]

Not most don’t people get second shots at their dreams. I’m glad that he embraces the opportunity and saw it all the way tho the end!!!!

[@kathleenannabraun9337]

A

[@raypitts4880]

im sure these little flyers were the fore runner for speed ie Vulcan and later Concorde such lovely machines

[@winternow2242]

Arrow was a forerunner of Vulcan even though Vulcan was subsonic and flew years earlier?

[@wartmcbeighn]

@@winternow2242 no

[@evilcanofdrpepper]

Am I mishearing this or do different people say the company name differently? Is it Avro as one word or A V Ro, they say it both ways in the show.

[@10days4cows]

About a decade ago, I was at a townhall meeting where someone was still mad at the Conservatives for what Diefenbaker did.

[@mtlicq]

Question now: Was Dief the Chief really just a puppet following weird orders from some secret elite? (just like the "leaders" of today). IF he cancelled plans for production because of strictly economic reasons in a recession, then _why_ try to dismantle and hide/destroy all blueprints and information about it and try to deny that it ever existed? If I can't afford to keep buying new cars, it doesn't mean I'd dismantle and dispose of my extant perfectly good car I already paid for and have and pretend it never existed.

[@ratmaster41]

Some of us still are.

[@raynus1160]

@@mtlicq Protection of proprietary research is why - especially if it involves an advanced weapons system. GM effectively did the same thing with their EV1 electric cars 20 years ago.

[@chucktheperson1063]

Pure and simple, the Avro project was a political shut down. Diefenbaker caving in to US pressures. It didn't look good for Canada to out do our big neighbor to the south. Wonder what the US threatened Diefenbaker with to kill the program. We will never know.

[@chucktheperson1063]

@@raynus1160 GM killed the EV1 because of US big oil. Money talks.

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

Canada had no lack of talent and intellect, but they need some work on industrial security. I imagine they could call the Kremlin for copies of blueprints if they ever misplaced one.

[@calvinnickel9995]

It’s kind of interesting. The Manhattan Project was a huge and secret undertaking. Massive cities out in the middle of the desert with huge barbed wire fences and a literal army to protect them. Meanwhile Ultra.. short for Ultra Secret.. the British decryption of the Nazi Enigma machine which General Eisenhower called the most important and decisive program of the war…. contained in innocuous Nissen Huts with a single armed guard stationed outside. Now… which one remained a secret for decades? And which one was completely compromised right from the beginning?

[@bambino292]

really. the concord was based on the avro arrow

[@winternow2242]

By the time Arrow had flown, both the British and French had flown supersonic fighters with delta wings. Why would those countries have needed to rely on a 3rd country's aircraft?

[@Sid-gu5qk]

Yes, the Concord used the fly by wire with force feedback system developed for the Arrow.

[@michaeld.coulombesr.583]

Exactly what I think right now. I, as one, think that you do not just destroy something that you have just put that much money into....OK there were five of them, well one goes to this museum and one goes to that museum, like that. What really upset me the most was they destroyed all the plans....???and the tools??? None of any of that makes any kind of sense. Michael said that, bye for now my friends.

[@GoatPilot04]

Sec Def Robert McNamara did the same thing with the OXCART (A12, precursor to the SR71 and was FASTER AND COULD FLY HIGHER). He ordered all tooling destroyed for a specific reason. It wasn't getting any more funding and he knew they didn't gave the cash in the bank to rebuild it, thus there was no way it could be restarted. If you read "Kelly: More Than My Share Of It All", and Ben Rich's "Skunk Works" you'll enjoy it. It goes into all the BS McNamara did. Another one is Annie Jacobsen's "Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base". All three touch on the underhanded political shit McNamara did, especially Area 51 where it goes into the infighting between the CIA and the USAF between the A12 and SR71 when it came on line. It's really sad about the Blackbird, but OXCART (the A12) was even worse if you know what really happened. As brilliant as JFK was I still can't for the life of me, I'm only 34 so I'm looking at this through the sands of time, surmise why Kennedy kept that hack around. Everything the dude touched went to shit, and he destroyed some of the most iconic advancements in aerospace development up until the STS....maybe up until now (publicly anyway). Sorry to be so long winded I just love Lockheeds history and what they've given us ever since Kelly started Skunkworks from a damn circus tent lol. Seems like we'd have a good conversation over a few beers. Best wishes.

[@ourcolonel1685]

Boeing and Lockheed didn't want competition. Eisenhower explained that to Diefenbaker.

[@25202]

I am in the process os building a 3D moel of the Arrow Scale 1:1. I am using the animation program "blender".

[@Sid-gu5qk]

A full scale model? Wow.

[@armughansohail3351]

Unfortunately the lapse in security and espionage was the reason for its downfall. Must have been hard to see it destroyed

[@christophercoupe5006]

Lapse in security is BS! All we had to do was improve security. Even if the Russians had the plans they could never keep up with future upgrades.

[@bradleymorris8875]

I want one.

I'm surprised that Canada is not a warrior nation because they're damned good at it.......

[@667crash]

The "Avro Arrow" is a Canadian Obsession...... On a good day it was an oversized Mach 2.0 Interceptor. It was offered to the U.S. at a time when the U.S. was deploying the F-106 (Mach 2.5 Interceptor), and had in development the XF-108 Rapier (Mach 3.0 Interceptor), YF-12A (Mach 3.2 Interceptor), and F-111 (Mach 2.5 Multi Role Fighter). It was an interesting development who's legacy was saved by being cancelled. Had it continued on into service, it would have proven to be a mediocre aircraft.

[@dashcroft1892]

Dennis, do you know the winning lottery ticket numbers too?

[@christophercoupe5006]

The Arrow was mach 1.98 on one of its test flights, hardly mediocre! With Orenda engines and other mods it could have equalled anything the Americans had! It was a huge plane but that's an advantage when it gets hit by a missle! Would you want to be driving a small or large vehicle in an accident? The Arrow was more than a plane, it was Canada saying we believe in ourselves!!!

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

@@christophercoupe5006 Arrow did not reach Mach 1 on it's maiden flight, and no one expected it to. Voodoo did go Mach 1 on it's maiden flight, irrelevant, but interesting.

[@skxj]

@@coreyandnathanielchartier3749it's was the first fighter to break the sound barrier, the first airframe did it on 3rd flight , second airframe did it on 2nd flight and the third airframe did in fact break the the sound barrier on its first flight all three using the underpowered P&W J75 engines @24,000 lbs thrust.

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

When the Arrow was scrapped, the only thing it could have done to Soviet bombers was to ram them. It had no radar, no armament, no weapons guidance system. It couldn't be refueled in the air. It didn't have the range to 'Patrol' the Arctic. It was built by a country that didn't have the military budget to continue building different jets for a rapidly changing world military situation. Aside from these facts, if Ivan had attacked over the pole, these aircraft would not have been able to stop them. Also, Ike knew that the drunken Russian Bully was bluffing, and that Ivan knew that if his bombers ever began attacking North America, our B-36 and later B52 (plus the RAF) would have incinerated every major city in the Soviet Union, being on 24-7 patrol with nukes at the ready. BTW, there was quite a 'brain-drain' from Europe, when AVRO Canada sniped engineers from European A/C firms during the post-war decline in, especially, British firms. So please, stop blaming America for all of your problems. You Canadians have a easy time, letting US defend the hemisphere.

[@macmcbride6521]

Thank you I love it.The truth is amazing isn't it. The new untested engines were in one of them OMG! Lmfao ! They don't seem to understand the day Sputnik was launched ballistic missiles made bombers obsolete. That pig was enough fighter it was a piss-poor excuse for an interceptor

[@mouser485]

@corey and Nathaniel. Absolutely right. If it ever went into production they had decided to use an “off the shelf” fire control system by Hughes Aircraft. It would have also used US missiles as the missile that was destined to be on the Arrow was being co developed between Avro and the US Navy but the USN canceled the missile but let Avro continue the development until Avro gave up on it and just decided on ready made US missiles. This aircraft was a long way from going into production. I’m surprised they didn’t cancel it sooner.

[@grumpyoldman336]

Is this the replica that is rotting away outside a hanger now after the museum shut down?

[@nolarobert]

Canada's loss was our gain in America as a number of top-flight Avro engineers came to work for NASA.

[@FondelMikeRotch]

I was taught by one engineer at college in Aviation Engineering that worked on the Avro

[@lengould9262]

A large number actually.

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

There were 10's of thousands of engineers working for NASA. Many Canadian engineers went to work for Britain and Sweden.

[@teaeff8898]

I can’t stress this enough… its NOT a fighter!!!

[@allenward758]

Interceptor

[@philsurtees]

I can't stress this enough ... you are *_WRONG._* The Avro Arrow most certainly *_WAS_* a fighter, and before you come back with some nonsense about it being an interceptor, I can't stress this enough ... an interceptor is ... drum roll please ... a type of fighter!!!

[@robyunger6853]

The Arrow made the f 86 sabre look like a ww1 bi plane flying next to it.

[@fiftystate1388]

It was one of several aircraft with similar specs at the same time. Higher performance aircraft were in service when it made its first flight and higher performance aircraft were cancelled around the same time. Air frame / *First flight* / Mach/ ceiling / climb rate per sec / combat range / notes / retired *F-8U /* 25 Mar 1955 / M1.8 / 18,000m / 97m / 730km / carrier deployed / 1976 US-1999 Fr *F-107 /* 10 Sep 1956 / M2 / 16,220m / 203m / - / cancelled Nov. '57 *F-106 /* 26 Dec 1956 / M2.3 / 17,000m / 150m / 930km / 1988 US - 1998 NASA *CF-105 /* 25 Mar 1958 / M1.9 (2+) / 16,000m / - / 670km / 1959 *F-4 /* 27 May 1958 / M2.23 / 18,000m / 210m / 680km / 15 world recs / 1996 US-2021 Jpn *XF8U-Crusader III /* 2 Jun 1958 / M2.39 / 19 / 18,000m / 165m / 1040km / 1962 *A-5 Vigilante /* 31 Aug 1958 / M2 / 15,900m / 41m / 1804km / carrier deployed / 1979

[@robyunger6853]

@@fiftystate1388 Thanks, I find aircraft and their different specs super interesting also, You seem to really know your stuff.

[@raynus1160]

Yet the F-86, although subsonic, went on to serve in active duty until 1994 (Bolivia), a decade after interceptor types similar to the CF-105 were retired.

[@christophercoupe5006]

@@fiftystate1388 From the Boeing website the F-4 was slower than the Arrow at Mach 1.95 (1485mph)! The new Orenda engines already developed) would have flown the Arrow faster than any on your list!

[@fiftystate1388]

@@christophercoupe5006 _"Would Have"_ The title of the newly published history of the Arrow

[@landrelarose745]

That elderly man who said that there wasn't an Arrow that went missing is wrong. A lady confessed that she heard the distinct sound of the Iroquois engines leaving the factory for the final time. She heard them several times before this, when they were being tested for durability. Those engines did have failures, except at the end, they were performing quite well, perhaps admirably. Does the man who denied this have additional information about that Mark II Arrow that a regular citizen doesn't possess? It seems to me that he does. That lady was listening to that engine on that test stand in winter time. She would know it intimately because she lived close to that factory in Malton.

[@winternow2242]

How did she describe the engine as objectively sounding like the Orenda engine? Also, is Malton a reasonably populated area? If so, there'd probably be a large number of other witnesses who heard it, and several who would have seen it.

[@landrelarose745]

I believe that women wrote a book about it, which is called There Never Was An Arrow. She listened to it several times. Whenever a person hears a sound for enough times, you'll never forget about it. This is called intimate knowledge. It's the same with that Orenda Iroquois turbojet engines. Do you know where Malton is? I do. It's in the city of Mississauga, where Richard B. Pearson International Airport is located. Do you know what airline company owns it? I believe it's Boeing. Ask Google in the event you're interested in the answer to that question. Will Canada ever build another Arrow? No. Why not? All the other sections of the Canadian military will start to become angry because they won't be given enough money, as they did when the government diverted so much of it to the airforce for the development of the Arrow. At that time, they were the third largest employer in Canada. Most of all those employees had their jobs terminated because of John George Diefenbaker. That was after the president Crawford Gordon Jr. went to visit him in Ottawa. No, it certainly wasn't a nice conversation. That was probably the tipping point for Dief the beaf. That was the only time he was elected as Prime Minister of Canada. He was a lawyer from perhaps Manitoba. I don't remember. You may learn more about him in books and online. Yes, he's there. Mostly every prominent person is typed about in Wikipedia. As you might possibly know, in the event you know about politics, is that all the different political parties prefer to oppose each other, except when they want to introduce another bill, which will eventually become law. So one of them would ask another, preferably one that has many seats in government, for help. This will nearly guarantee that the bill will pass in Congress, becoming a law. Most of the time, they'll forever be jealous of each other. It's that way today, as it was when Diefenbaker was Prime Minister of Canada. Do you know what this means? It does so that Diefenbaker was inevitably going to cancel the project, whatever that conversation concluded with. He especially detested spending, which meant he hated the Liberals. It was that party that spent the most money. So, how could John not hate them? Knowing that the Liberals constantly spent money and that John didn't, that was another reason to hate them. Including today, the Arrow would be able to be better than any other aircraft ever designed and built. All of this was shattered because one Friday when Diefenbaker canceled the absolute best project in Canadian history. I suggest you buy all of the books you could find about A.V. Roe Canada Limated. I have several of them. They are thoroughly thought-provoking and are great to read. That's where I obtained the knowledge that I typed to you about them, which I additionally typed into this message. I have a feeling that you won't believe what I typed for you in this post. That's a terrible shame because I'll forever type and tell the truth. There's no use in denying it. Whenever I hear or read the truth, I know it is. Did you know that truth displaced lies? Knowing that you asked that question, which solicited this answer, this means that you continue to be in denial of the truth I typed for you. It's best for you to start trusting in people who possess knowledge of what happened in the past. All of what I typed is able to be corroborated. All you need to do is purchase those publications. Will you do that? Possibly, or not. That's for you to decide. Do I believe you will? No, I don't. Why not? It's because of your controlling nature of people. Were I to venture a guess about what your true colour is, i would type that your true colour is gold, which is my absolute least favorite of them. That's the reason why you don't read those books. I know you don't read as much as you should. You don't care about facts. Controlling people mostly never do. Only the subject you need to do the job you have.

[@winternow2242]

​@@landrelarose745 Wow, i don't know about colour but your fragility is unmistakable. I bet you think most people who question you must be controlling. A for books, I might have believed that you read some...had you actually named the author of the book E, Kay Shaw, or described her background as a draftsmen with Avro. "i would type that your true colour is gold, which is my absolute least favorite of them." So you associate people you don't like with certain colours? Good to know. Is it the colour that makes people bad, or the people that make colours bad? Why even bother associating people with your subjective feelings about colours? Seems needlessly convaluted to me. "Do you know where Malton is?" I google-mapped it after readingt that first post. Malton looks like a thickly populous area, and Toronto Pearson is one of the busiest airports in th region. I just find it difficult to believe that an airplane flew out of it without anyone noticing. "Do you know what airline company owns it? I believe it's Boeing." is everything you know based solely on what you believe? Last I checked, Boeing wasn't an airline company, but manufacturer of aircraft for airline companies. Also, Pearson, as far as I'm informed, is "owned" by the Canadian government, through Transport Canada. "Will Canada ever build another Arrow? No. Why not? All the other sections of the Canadian military will start to become angry " Too bad they didn't ask you first. They were probably just scared because they heard that your least favorite color was Magenta. “Most of all those employees had their jobs terminated because of John George Diefenbaker” Really? Because from what I had read - and correct me with facts if you have any - those employees lost their jobs because they worked for a company that pinned all of its hopes on an overpriced, overweight airplane that nobody was going to want, and nobody was going to buy. “? Knowing that the Liberals constantly spent money and that John didn't, that was another reason to hate them” Sounds like the same reason. Also, I think you’re being melodramatic about this. Oppose? Obviously. Vigorously resist? Sure. Hate? This is politics, not Shakespeare. Diefenbacher campaigned on a platform of cost-cutting. He had a mandate and a duty to end programs he thought were wasteful, and he was voted in in 1957, months before the Arrow rollout. Avro had to know what was going on. “Including today, the Arrow would be able to be better than any other aircraft ever designed and built” I hear that a lot. It is true in some ways because changing priorites, tacicts and technology mean that we don’t view performance the same way. Aircraft were faster back then, and slower today. Aircraft are more agile today then airplanes of the 1950’s and ’60s. Still in what way does Arrow outperform the best of either era? Arrow was slightly faster than the F-101, slower than Starfighter, used the same weapons as the F-106, which was also faster, and clearly outclassed in range, speed, weapons and versatility by the F-4. I’d love to know how an Arrow would outmaneuver an F-15 or an F-16, both of which would be equipped with AIM-120 missiles, better range and high angle of attack performance. I don’t need to believe or disbelieve anything, when the facts are clear. Arrow was slower than aircraft that had flown years earlier. Even had Mk 2 flown, probably no earlier than 1963, and achieved mach 2 speeds, it would be entering a world in which mach 2 aircraft would have already been flying for years, F-104, Mirage III, BAC lightning, SAAB Draken and the MiG-21.

[@landrelarose745]

Magenta? At least it's better than pink, which is my absolute least favorite colour. I additionally never type or talk about subjects I don't know about. That's foolishness. Only a fool would do that. Thank you for confirming the person you are. Were you to come to this apartment, you'll see three bookshelves full of books. How many subjects do I know? Mostly automotive. This is my passion. This is due to the DNA I was given from my parents. How many subjects do I know? Enough to allow me to become a genius. You shouldn't argue with people who know more than yourself. You'll be wrong every time. Do you know what arguing actually is? With you trying to match wits with me, that's a form of controlling another person. I never want to do that. It's wrong and is punishable. By who? By my Savior, Jesus Christ. He'll be your judge at the great white throne judgment. Does God exist? Yes, He does. How do I know this? When I was in primary school, I was given a calculator. I tried pushing 0 + 0. You know what that answer is. So I did this with the three others of them, which are -, ×, and ÷. The first two plus the + are the same answer, which is 0. It's absolutely impossible to devide 0. How could a person do that knowing that 0 means there aren't any molecular structures in existence. Knowing that there is a vast amount of molecular structures in existence, this means that zero doesn't exist anymore. As proof that you want to control me, you became angry at me. There's no use in denying it. You know this. The exception is that you are trying to hide it from all the people who'll be reading these words. You accused me of mire than that. Am I angry for you doing this? No. It's quite funny to me. As a matter of fact, I'm currently laughing. Did you know it's quite therapeutic? Yes, it is. It releases endorphins, which helps us. When I was quite young and going to that school close to where I lived, I was such an angry person. No anymore, I'm not. ALL subjects that people assimilate come from either two sources, God and Satan. I would rather be listening to the Holy Spirit than do that with that vile hypocrite Satan. Knowing that those three equations equal 0, there must be a creator with knowledge to bring those molecular structures into existence. Are you able to create any molecular structure? No. Could any other person do that? No. God is the only one who has the knowledge to accomplish this. Please rid yourself of that vile pride. Satan lied to you because he hates you. He does so to every person who will ever live. The reason why God is absolutely perfect is because He has all the knowledge of every subject. I didn't see all of the other typed sentences you did because of the mental condition I have, which I Asperger's Syndrome. The other name of it is Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Does this cause me to be a failure? No, it doesn't. What causes a person to become a success? Knowledge of what you're able to do. Do you know what thinking is? I do. It's the ability to solve problems. All information comes from the Holy Spirit of God, whom I so greatly love.

[@JP-fq5zj]

"A lady confessed" That's your evidence? A woman half a century ago heard a plane? Arrowheads really are just Canadian UFO people.

[@lancepless7525]

Top secret 😆 🤣 😂. That's funny.

[@codered5431]

I bet that replica is the one that was never destroyed

[@mr.2cents.846]

I would really really hope it.

[@Zaaf2003]

It wasn't the unfinished 206 is still well... Unfinished

[@Zaaf2003]

It's been halfway put together

[@wolumandreas1130]

From the early fifties, air interdiction was conducted by Alaskan air Command [ USAF ], which covered neighbors by interception first. Unfriendly (s) encroached on this route. Everyone likely shares apprehension on disarmament; really.

[@wolumandreas1130]

Would have been a great delta interceptor. The labyrinth of fake buyer Corporations was in place, for the A12; all titanium cornered from Ruskies. With XR71; no extra metal. Too expensive for Canada to field in- force; no chance. No insult.

[@tugs53]

Great video and well told. Awesome. I do find...after reading all the comments...a few times, that you Americans certainly have nothing good to say about the plane or the program...or Canadians for that matter. Kinda sad really....

[@IsaacKripke]

It would help if Canadians would stop harping on about conspiracies. Apparently Canadian policy makers are unable to think for themselves and only make mistakes because of US meddling. Every country with a history in aerospace has its disappointments. What happened with the Arrow isn’t unique. For instance, once the F22 goes out of service, its tooling will be disposed. And had the F22 project been canceled, the tooling would’ve seen the axe just like the Arrow. Overall, the story of the Avro Arrow is just.. sad? The Canadian government walked away from it and had no intention of replacing it. It’s understandable why, aerospace projects are ridiculously expensive and it’s painful to spread those costs on to a small population. However, none of that justifies the baseless claims made about the aircraft. At the end of the day, the aircraft wasn’t fielded, it was never proven to be any good. Countless defense projects have showed significant promise only to become a disaster in practice.

[@MarchHare59]

There was nothing "mysterious" about the Arrow's cancellation, long before "Black Friday", there were reports in the press that the project was in trouble. The need for a super-fast interceptor (not "fighter"... the Arrow was NOT a fighter.) evaporated with the launch of Sputnik and there were no export customers for the plane. Canada could not afford to build the Arrow on its' own and even the combined Canadian armed services, including the RCAF, told Diefenbacher that they did not want the Arrow because it was going to eat up too many defense dollars. There were also problems with the plane itself and the Iroquois engine that needed time to sort out on a project that was already behind schedule and way over budget, so the cancellation wasn't unexpected, it was inevitable.

[@krabuh]

then they bought planes from the americans

[@MarchHare59]

@@krabuh Even with the Arrow's cancellation, Canada still needed super-sonic, all-weather interceptors that could counter Soviet bombers and air-launched nuclear tipped cruise missiles. The sub-sonic CF 100's were obsolete and overdue for retirement even before the Arrow was cancelled, and time was not on Canada's side so it was necessary to buy something 'off-the-shelf' that could be in service as quickly as possible to fill the gap. Ideally it should have been the F4 Phantom II, but the F101B Voodoo was further along in development, well suited to the task of defending the Canada's vast airspace, and considering how long they lasted in RCAF service, a good deal for Canada too. Maybe if AVRO had designed and built something that was more modest and less cutting edge they might have succeeded in creating an effective interceptor on time and on budget that Canada could have actually afforded without having to rely on export sales to cover the costs, but what they ended up with was too expensive and too complicated to survive in the post-Sputnik reality.

[@noogie1967]

@@MarchHare59 You have too much commonsense and objectivity to be on an Arrow thread.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@MarchHare59 Mission radius of the Voodoo exceeded the F-4's considerably, which made it great for patrolling Canadian airspace.

[@dukeford]

@@LRRPFco52 The fact that Canada purchased just 66 Voodoos to perform the Arrow's job tells you all you need to know about how "vital" the Arrow program really was.

[@colinbrown4719]

Same Story that happened in the UK with the TSR2 , around the same time i think ? , WTF happened ? , UNBELEIVABLE .

[@CameTo]

Wow you're right. Never heard of this until you mentioned it, ok it was strike and recon, but the same time and same long range, low manoeuvres supersonic design. Thx

[@brianwayes3536]

You’re dead right Colin,even looks a lot like the TSR2.

[@leoa4c]

Not to mention the Miles M52 project. What happened would've happened to China or to East Germany had they tried to surpass the USSR, technologically. It was better, geopolitically speaking, for the USSR to take such steps, in the same way that it was better for the US, in the west. There was a cold war underway. Countries were still heavily in debt towards the US. Technology transfers seemed an attractive solution to soften up debts and/or harden alliances.

[@cfrincon]

The Avro CF-105 Arrow was a remarkable technological achievement. However it was I’ll conceived from the beginning, as it was an aircraft with too narrow a role and as such a very small production run prospect. Also it’s intended weapon system never materialized. These and other well known factors made cancellation all but inevitable. That said the destruction of the completed airframes was most regrettable.

[@ootpik2440]

][t's potential was yet unrealized, & never fully understood. Theory suggests Man developed from Apes, the monkey was told to go back to it's cage. " Only in Canada You say ,,,, such a pity."

[@BaronVonHobgoblin]

That ain't even a hill of beans! I'm sure its a wonderful airplane; but, this all seems like hopelessly misplaced nostalgia.

[@brianwayes3536]

At first glance I thought it was the TSR2.

[@winternow2242]

What resemblance do you see between the 2?

[@edwardcarberry1095]

So where are the 4 AVROe's Arrows? Probably numbers 207, 208,209,210! I see the lower numbers which were cut up?

[@willjones7132]

2:28 They got paid to do a job, it wasn't a hobby that people worked on spending their money to create something they could take home, it is completely irrelevant what the ignorant writers with an obvious lack of R&D experience think the workers wanted, the language in this "documentary" makes me sick, contemporary cliche after cliche, fitting for today.

[@dougwylie307]

The damage Diefenbaker did to this country,,, still haunts our country. Politicians, only want our constant check books to use. The loss of the Avro Arrow is a political tragedy.

[@JP-fq5zj]

Even if cancelling the Arrow was unjustified, which it wasn't, the good he did far outweighs the bad.

[@25202]

Paul is wrong about the missing arrow. It took me a littler 16 years to locate the missinf arrow.

[@winternow2242]

Excellent. Where did you find it?

[@25202]

It no longer exists but the location of the building was 325 humber college Blvd in Toronto. I am in the process of building a 3d model from the 2d drawings. It is coming along great.

[@taketimeout2share]

I think Surface to Air Missiles killed off the Arrow. Plus the Americans found out there was no huge numbers of Soviet long range jet bombers. So in fact it wasn't needed. But what a waste . We in the UK have been through such disappointments again and again. We understand the pain.

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

True...Americans and Brits had intel on Soviet bluffing that Canada remained unawares to.

[@glen6945]

ooohhhhyes

[@brentfellers9632]

It was canceled simply because it was so far ahead of the American aircraft industry. Several features, and engine design began to appear on American fighters shortly after the arrows destruction.

[@KowboyUSA]

Hopefully some of the features did show on fighters, since we US taxpayers funded millions of US dollars worth of Avro Canada research and development during the 1950s.

[@brentfellers9632]

@@KowboyUSA ever hear of the "fighter mafia"?

[@KowboyUSA]

​@@brentfellers9632 It sucks for hard work that's successful to be crushed. I know. Our company developed sophisticated extreme terrain wildfire fighting equipment and methods that exceeded government requirements for ultra light environmental impact. We invested millions - over $800,000 USD to Canadian firm Timbco just purchasing three feller-bunchers that were refitted for firefighting - after 14-years of hard won advancements, the government changes course deciding fire is natural so let the forests burn. We were told we were "too successful at stopping fires" causing fuel loads to build up. Of course that was lies too. When we weren't fighting fire, we were applying proscribed burns that allowed optimal burn temperatures for promoting healthy regen. Of course, the result of two decades of mismanagement is out of control fire seasons. Yeah, I would've like to see the Arrow fly. And a lot of other things that should've been. But the one thing that never changes is power corrupts and so governments always end up filled with shady self-serving people doing rotten things.

[@brentfellers9632]

@@KowboyUSA well stated

[@KowboyUSA]

@@brentfellers9632 Thank you, sir.

[@edlubitz2968]

how much ice did it produce, It was the fastest freezer on the planet

[@jacquesparadis6756]

This project was not TOP SECRET. It was tracked the media from its beginning.

[@bradjames6748]

He refers to the intakes design which is strikingly similar to the F4 phantom, I wonder who copied who.....?

[@reltney20]

So is the MiG -23.

[@MarchHare59]

Brad James: The Phantom II's air intakes are not even remotely similar to the Arrow's air intakes. The F4 used a powered splitter plate that automatically adjusted air flow to the engines and enabled the Phantom to fly over mach 2. The Arrow did not have this key feature, using a air bypass system that didn't work very well because it could not pass mach 2 in testing, even in a dive.

[@GurdeepBains-s5t]

The space race is what erased the arrow. According to people who had anything to do with them Canadian marvel

[@willjones7132]

0:22 Hey people, stop patronizing me and other people who know more than your small preconceptions tell you, and projecting YOUR ignorant moronic beliefs which are displayed through the creation and acceptance of statements such as these. Come back and say that once you figure out how to keep people alive without food or water, or figure an actual paradigm shift, not a forced change of social views or change of a meaning to a word. People needing food and water is part of my beliefs, so according to your logic it might not be true because I believe it, even if it is a fact.

[@theccpisaparasite8813]

Sounds like a MiG 31

[@somewhere6]

Very similar in many ways

[@adamrmc100]

Exactly. More than most realize. That's because there was a KGB mole in Avro, which the RCMP suspected, hence the reason for ordering the plans destroyed; though in hindsight, the damage was already done. A Mk 3 Arrow would have easily outdone the Mig 31, and decades sooner.

[@wartmcbeighn]

@@adamrmc100 lol mk3 arrrow...wishful thinking about a paper airplane

[@winternow2242]

Besides the basic mission, the 2 sound completely different, look different and don't fly alike. They don't even carry their weapons the same way.

[@wartmcbeighn]

@@adamrmc100 lol not even close there in both the assumption they look alike...they don't...and how they perform...which they dont

[@CameTo]

It looks a bit like the Russian Mig25 that served the same role

[@lengould9262]

Arrow much earlier.

[@LRRPFco52]

KGB had moles within the Arrow program, then used that access to technical data and material samples to develop the MiG-25. Radome and Hughes Radar were the main things they took from the Arrow. The fuselage, wing, and intake design were taken from the North American A-5 Vigilante.

[@wartmcbeighn]

@@LRRPFco52 absolutely incorrect

[@LRRPFco52]

@@wartmcbeighn Absolutely correct. The penetration and exploitation of the Arrow is well documented. The Canadian government even ordered the program lead to provide classified briefings of the Arrow's systems and capabilities to visiting Russian dignitaries, who were there to check that their moles in the program were providing accurate data, not making things up or being used for counter-exploitation opportunities.

[@Karl-Benny]

Should just have bought the Swedish Draken

[@pullthetrigger9158]

Cute, but vacant nonsense compared to the reality of Arrow

[@garywalker447]

Vacant nonsense? The Arrow team passed every test put to them, maybe not on the first try, but they came up with solutions to the problems that came up. I don't think you have a basis to say that the aircraft could not have done what was asked of it.

[@pullthetrigger9158]

@@garywalker447 Hey friend how's it goin'? I think you missed my 'point' or I didn't make it 'clear' blue skies. The "docu..." was vacant nonsense in 'comparison' to the actual 'magical' achievement accomplished by some farm boy hick Canadians, eh? Cheers brother, to Humanity at its 'best'.

[@robertszota1210]

What about Soviet agents in Canadian government?

[@forestgimblett2364]

This just shows that are government was a joke then and still is .

[@lengould9262]

1950's western Canada Conservatives were unique nutcases.

[@KB4QAA]

Interceptor, not fighter; Interceptor.

[@fiftystate1388]

F-106: First flight a year earlier, faster, higher, better radar, longer range

[@user-bg4cy9rx4w]

@@fiftystate1388 Arguably, The Arrow Never operated to its full pottential in testing so that cannot be a 100% confident fact, and Radar was arse back then so it is a moot point, especially when you consider the Arrow could pack much more weaponry. Now, Respectfully. About the "Faster" comment, Keep In Mind The Arrow Did Mach 1.98 at just Three Quarters/75% throttle with testbed engines that were 30% weaker and heavier than the ones it was slated to use. And even then THOSE engines were going to be upgraded to over 30,000 pounds of thrust. In 1956/1957 when the engineers published their works in the booklets and blueprints and whatnot, They made a booklet on dynamic maneuvers. This can be found on the NRC archive, but what I'm getting at is that they had an Engine evaluation on the Iroquois while they worked on it. The Booklet Has a Full Net Thrust W Afterburner chart, and it shows that the Iroquois was making almost 27,000 pounds of thrust at the time around 50,000 feet, and it was only going to be more refined from that point on in 1956-1957, Before the arrow even flew. The Arrow 2A was expected to probably fly in excess of Mach 2.5 or maybe even up to Mach 3 with stress to be compensated for up to 70,000 feet or higher maybe. We will never know.

[@fiftystate1388]

@@user-bg4cy9rx4w Arrow was one of many competing designs. Diffenbach was myopic. (by first flight) Air frame / *First flight* / Mach/ ceiling / climb rate per sec / combat range / notes / retired *F-8U /* 25 Mar 1955 / M1.8 / 18,000m / 97m / 730km / carrier deployed / 1976 US-1999 Fr *F-107 /* 10 Sep 1956 / M2 / 16,220m / 203m / - / cancelled Nov. '57 *F-106 /* 26 Dec 1956 / M2.3 / 17,000m / 150m / 930km / 1988 US - 1998 NASA *CF-105 /* 25 Mar 1958 / M1.9 (2+) / 16,000m / - / 670km / 1959 *F-4 /* 27 May 1958 / M2.23 / 18,000m / 210m / 680km / 15 world recs / 1996 US-2021 Jpn *XF8U-Crusader III /* 2 Jun 1958 / M2.39 / 19 / 18,000m / 165m / 1040km / 1962 *A-5 Vigilante /* 31 Aug 1958 / M2 / 15,900m / 41m / 1804km / carrier deployed / 1979

[@raynus1160]

@@user-bg4cy9rx4w The fastest-ever level flight speed of a CF-105 was Mach 1.90 on November 11, 1958, with both engines at full afterburning power, flying at an altitude of 50,380', and held this speed for 30 seconds. The aircraft was then put into a 6000fpm dive and Mach 1.95 was attained as the aircraft descended through 47,300 feet (Waechter, 2015). This is documented. The proposed Mk 2A Arrow would, like the Mk 1 and 2, be constructed of S75 aluminum alloy, which would not withstand Mach 3 kinetic heating.

[@user-bg4cy9rx4w]

@@raynus1160 "The Proposed MK2A Arrow would, Like the Mk1 and 2 be constructed of S75 Aluminium Alloy." AND Magnesium and Titanium. You left that part out, It was going to be incorporated Majorly, and those two COULD withstand aerodynamic heating The Blackbird and Foxbat are both Testament to that. I also Do not see any Written Doccumentation of this from Mr Ralph Waechter sourced anywhere on the internet from a quick search. I Do Know that he played a large part in development, but I did not find what you have typed or paraphrased out, so I'm inclined to believe that it was either made up or too obscure for me to find. There Is very little persuasive evidence in this that I can believe that the Aircraft that was designed to have a low drag coeficient would have only just flown M 1.9 in afterburner pushing twice the delta darts engine power. As I stated before, and as most online sources you can find by looking up the arrow have shown, Mach 1.98 or Mach 1.95 (to be fair, 1.98 might be because of measurement lag, but the doccumentation may have been altered post 1970's via the freedom of info act.) but the Arrow couldn't have been fully opening up on her performance envelope, and, again respectfully; I find it struggling to get past Mach 1.9 in AFTERBURNER very hard to believe. It was nearing 1:1 thrust ratio on the extreme end of guessing even the J75 P3's engine power. At least, counting it with empty configuration. (I think it makes around 24-26,000 pounds of thrust each with afterburner, doesn't it?) It was so early on in testing the aircraft when it was scrapped that there really couldn't have been any major full send tests done on it. It didn't even last a Year after its first flight.

[@25202]

There was only $200 million and $20 million for the tooling invested. House of Commons debates either April 21, 22, or 23. the actual dates escapes me athe moment. All of the contract tht Avro was given by the government were tabled by O;Hurley. check it out. they are online.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

I'm sorry, but whatever the conspiracy or whatever the reasons for the cancellation of the Arrow, there was one simple explanation. The threat for which the Arrow was designed, along with the F-106, F-108 and F-12 NEVER existed and wouldn't exist. The belief that the Soviets were building hundreds of supersonic bombers was a case of "mirror imaging" by the USAF, RAF and RCAF. It was the result of the failure of US and NATO intelligence to penetrate the Soviet system and determine the truth. And the truth that the Soviets had a few hundred turboprop strategic bombers that could reach the US and return to the USSR or a few hundred subsonic jet bombers that could make one-way trips or maybe get to Cuba became clear after the first U-2 flights backed up by the A-12, the CIA's predecessor of the SR-71 and the first series of "Keyhole" reconnaissance satellites. By 1962, there was no "missile gap" or Soviet strategic bomber threat. And so, aircraft, who were designed with the single purpose of countering that threat were no longer needed. So instead of building the MiG-25 and wasting resources like the Soviets, The US cancelled the F-108 and F-12 programs and cut procurement of the F-106 by 67%. Canada cancelled the Arrow. Had any of these three designs had been able to morph into a multi-role platform like the F-4 did, they would have survived. The F-106 could have been a superb dogfighter like the Mirage III, but it's weapons bay was designed to only carry anti-bomber air-to-air missiles. Imagine an F-106 with improved radar and AIM-9s and AIM-7s, instead of AIM-4s and AIM-26s. But they couldn't and they died. Just as the B-58 died and the B-70 died. The B-58 could haul ass at low level and could penetrate deep into the USSR with aerial refueling, but it had no flexibility, designed as it was as a nuclear weapon supersonic delivery platform. The F-105 was designed for the same purpose but morphed into a single seat, limited all-weather light bomber delivering conventional munitions. Also, imagine the B-70 at 500 feet. I not sure who would be more scared, the Soviets or the crews.

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

Bad logic comparing this to TSR-2, which had a well-defined mission for low-level penetration of the Soviet airspace. The Arrow's pure interceptor mission was outdated by the early 60's

[@raypitts4880]

same in uk shit government spending£'s then spending more in america. i saw the tsr2 (cant say where) in a building later it disapered no body on the unit knew or if they did they had to keep quite about just went dont know any more.

[@aureleouellet5439]

844😊💪💙☝

[@aeroearth]

A remarkable achievement by Avro Canada. Reminds me of the cancellation of the UK's TSR-2 by the Harold Wilson Labour (communist) government when just 6 months in office. Later rumours spread that Harold Wilson was in fact working for the Russian communists and those rumours persist to this day.

[@richardnailhistorical3445]

Interesting, from listening to all of it sounds more like a financial decision. Most likely reason planes were destroyed was because to have them exist they would be evidence to public about such a waste of billions of dollars, if do not exist - no evidence? However if it was such a technical marvel I am sure the U.S. would have built the plane or something similar - probably did with 'black bird' - the whole thing is a good 'human nature' sort of thing about life were by some much effort is put into something only to lose it overnight. PS: there is a very sad story about a group of aviation enthusiasts trying to rescue a world war ll plane somewhere in Canada or Arctic, they worked so hard, suffered, one died, to get this plane flyable. Day came, started all 4 engines, taxied to take off and was so rough ground auxiliary power unit fell over inside plane started fire, whole aircraft consumed. Talk about sad, those men all gave their last ounce to rescue that plane only to watch it burn to nothing; if you watch that film be sure to bring a towel with you!

[@ericb.4914]

The Arrow was obsolete. It had no mission. The soviet union simply did not have a credible bomber force capable of completing a nuclear bombing mission over north america. Why build an unecessary weapon to counteract a non existant threat? That's what so hard for some people to understand.

[@caryfrancis8030]

@@ericb.4914 Back in the mid to late 80's, Russia was still doing "probe" flights with Bears and Canada was interdicting them with Voodoo's. So this plane could have had a job.

[@ericb.4914]

@@caryfrancis8030 true but its the only job it would of had. And with limited spares due to a curtailed production run the Arrow would not have flown very long. Canada benefitted from the large stores of parts for the Voodoo AND a complete weapons package. In the meantime other supporting aircrafts had to be purchased to meet all the committments. Same problem had the Arrow been built. Canada should have bought 200 F4 Phantoms. It would have supported all the needs throughout the 60s and 70s and they could have been built under license in Canada with possibly canadian built engines from Rolls Royce or PWC or even Orenda...

[@fiftystate1388]

List of airplanes from the time of the C-105 - Listed in order of first flight It wasn't that special. The F-106 and F-4 clearly ate the C-105's lunch. Air frame / *First flight* / mach / ceiling / climb rate / combat range / notes / retired *F-8U,* 25 March 1955, mach 1.8, 18,000 meters, 97 m/sec climb, 730km - carrier deployed - retired 1976 US to 1999 Fr *F-107,* 10 September 1956, mach 2, 16,220 meters, 203 m/sec , - , cancelled Nov. '57 *F-106,* 26 December 1956, mach 2.3, 17,000 meters, 150 m/sec, 930 km, 1988 US - 1998 NASA *CF-105,* 25 March 1958, mach 1.9 (2+), 16,000 meters, - , 670 km, 1959 *F-4,* 27 May 1958, mach 2.23, 18,000 meters, 210 m/sec, 680 km, 15 world records incl absolute speed and altitude, 1996 US- 2021 Jpn *XF8U-Crusader III,* 2 June 1958, mach 2.39, 19,800 meters, 165 m/sec, 1040 km, scrapped early 1960s *A-5 Vigilante,* 31 August 1958, mach 2, 15,900 meters, 41 m/sec, 1804 km, carrier deployed, 1979

[@valeinikofff]

why does mig-25 resembles it... keeps me wondering.

[@gerry343]

Yeah, you're right- they've both got two wings.

[@valeinikofff]

@@gerry343 ))))))))))))))))))))))

[@raynus1160]

@@gerry343 ...and a pointy nose.

[@adamrmc100]

Exactly. More than most realize. That's because there was a KGB mole in Avro, which the RCMP suspected, hence the reason for ordering the plans destroyed; though in hindsight, the damage was already done. A Mk 3 Arrow would have easily outdone the Mig 31, and decades sooner.

[@raynus1160]

One is a Mach 2, two-crew, tailless long delta with a single vertical stab, internal weapons bay & fixed geometry intakes, made almost entirely out of aluminum alloy, while the other is a single-pilot, swept wing, twin-stab, VG intake-equipped, fully tailed, stainless steel design that carries its missiles underwing & has a 500mph speed advantage. Other than that, they're virtually indistinguishable.

[@grosseileracingteam]

Guess Can-nad-duh didn't know about the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II first flight on 27 May 1958.

[@grosseileracingteam]

@@Gordesm LOL still be in use today for target practice.

[@raynus1160]

@@Gordesm The F-4 was decidedly superior in almost every metric, save high altitude g-loading. Multirole. Just as fast. Just as high. Better radar & fire control. Better armament. Better cockpit visibility. Far better payload. Carrier-capable. A2A refueling-capable The F-4 _still_ remains in service today - 63 years after the types first flight.

[@FondelMikeRotch]

Virus central has no say in the world right now. Fack off

[@raynus1160]

@@FondelMikeRotch And Canada does? Lol!

[@drstevenrey]

This is why I will never ever understand how political people with pretty much sweet eff all knowledge of anything can be in charge of tax payers money to build stuff. These idiots that canceled the program could not mend a puncture in a bicycle.

[@JP-fq5zj]

And yet they still knew the Arrow was obsolete.

[@hojoinhisarcher]

better not to know

[@hughmacdonald3595]

Skip. Moronic clickbait.

[@gimpycanuck2]

It is really too bad, folks have too low an opinion of Canadian know-how. We built and flew the most advanced interceptor ever conceived, and it would have been relevant well into the 1970's. It was pressure from the US aircraft industry on their government, which in turn pressured our spineless government of the time, whom promptly folded. Why else would you have all the data, all aircraft. parts etc... destroyed, not saved and locked away somewhere. The only answer was the Canadian and US governments wanted it "disappeared". If you had ever seen the pilot's interviews, they were in love with the plane. Unrivalled speed, exceptional aerodynamics and up to date electronic suite. A very dark chapter in Canadian history, and in Canadian/US relations. I encourage yo all to watch the Canadian mini-series called "The Arrow" it will enlighten some of you naysayers of Canadian Aircraft design capabilities, and will take you in depth on what the plane could do.

[@frankrozee4690]

You are right on the money with your comments. I worked on them all. Many of us came out of the aircraft industry in England. I came after a tour in the RAF I worked at Vickers-Armstrongs in Waybridge on the Valiant Bomber. I came to Canada when I heard through the grapevine that AV ROE were to build something special, { that was apart from "AvroCar" being build for the USA in closed off part of the main hanger } and that was the 'Arrow' I had a job there 3 days after arriving in Malton Ont, I was there on the assembly line right up till Black Friday. Now 93 and have had a very good life in Canada as I have some very good memories and the only bad one like watching a lot of my work on the Arrow's them being cut up.

[@0623kaboom]

Today Feb 20 2022 ... marks the 63rd anniversary of the Arrow Cancellation ... some Facts about the arrow: .- it's design specification air 7.3 has NOT been met since ... not bt any fighter aircraft made to date. - the Iroquois Ps-13 engine was capable of taking the arrow to Mach 2.5 without after burners mach 3.1 to 3.4 with ( by calculations) ... the sr71 was capable of mach 3.1 to 3.4 at best - the arrow was able to fly to 100,000feet ... same as the sr71 - The arrow holds 15 first of all fighter aircraft and NO fighter aircraft can say they dont have some aspect of the arrow made into it's design - March 1959 the sr71 was a SWEPT wing aircraft about to be cancelled ... approximately 15 Arrow engineers came to work on this program and the sr71 went from trash to a still flying plane today - The Arrow was NEVER proto typed ...it was all built on a direct to production line system known as the Cook-Craige Method - since the arrow Cancellation NO NDP minister has sat in the prime ministers chair since - in 2023 the arrow will be 70 years old from it's inception

[@winternow2242]

“the Iroquois Ps-13 engine was capable of taking the arrow to Mach 2.5 without after burners mach 3.1 to 3.4 with ( by calculations) ...” You don’t have a link to those calculations, do you? I’m asking because even with PS13, the aerodynamic difference between MK I & MK II isn’t that great, so the improvement would have to come mostly from a much more powerful powerplant. By my calculations, which conservatively subtracted 3,000 pounds as the difference between 2 J75’s and 2 lighter Orendas, the thrust-to-weight ratio is only the difference between .77 and .67. As a comparison, the F-14D, which has a wider T/W advantage over the F-14A (0.93 to 0.72) isn’t that much faster than the older plane, because the 2 are aerodynamically similar. A better engine wasn’t enough to turn a Mach 2+ airframe into a Mach 3 airframe. “the arrow was able to fly to 100,000feet ... same as the sr71” And your evidence for that is..what? Published reports I’ve read had it topped out at about 60,000 feet, and MK III was only going to notch that up to 70,000. “March 1959 the sr71 was a SWEPT wing aircraft about to be cancelled ... approximately 15 Arrow engineers came to work on this program and the sr71 went from trash to a still flying plane today” Actually, the SR-71 was based on the A-12, which was on its way to being developed in 1958-59. Canadian engineers put out of work may have gone to work for Lockheed, and maybe Kelly Johnson (the same guy who worked on the P-38, the P-80, The F-104, the U-2 and a host of other iconic aircraft) made good use of them, but the idea that the SR-71 (or A-12) was about to be cancelled is speculative at best. What isn’t speculative is that the resulting airplane looks and lies nothing like Arrow, the plane those Canadian engineers had recently been working on. “The Arrow was NEVER proto typed ...it was all built on a direct to production line system known as the Cook-Craige Method” Let’s face it, they didn’t choose that method because they thought they had any choice. In 11 months, the Arrows had flown about 70 hours, which was less than flown by the F-106 per month during its testing.

[@LRRPFco52]

The A-12 program began in 1957 and the technologies and engineering approaches on it are radically different than the Arrow. Propulsion is based on nacelled turboramjets with variable inlet spikes and a computer-controlled series of bleed air vents and ductwork that are configured for different speed and altitude bands. Nothing like it was ever built before or since that is known. Arrow didn't even reach F-104, F-106, or F-4 speeds, let alone the A-12.

[@davehitchman5171]

Just as with tsr2 this was destroyed on the orders of the yanks who wanted to sell their second rate planes

[@nickholmes6376]

Britain didn't buy the f111 after the TSR2 was cancelled as it to ran into cost over runs and massive cost increases

[@davehitchman5171]

The Yankee plane was even later and more expensive and not as good as tsr2. Tsr2 was cancelled for the Yankee plane on the decision of the civil servant chief scientific adviser who was a botanist and knew f all about defence, planes, engineering or anything remotely useful

[@codered5431]

The arrow could of intercepted the missiles an destroy them

[@245194LAC]

I listened to the project being cancelled by the government. Diefenbaker did as he was told by the U.S. government. The U.S. did not have a plane to catch or shoot down the Arrow. They did not want this aircraft sold to anyone in Europe, and the arrogance of the U.S. forced a cancellation of the project. It was the Conservative thing to do. We have always done as we were told by the Americans, much to our chagrin. The simple truth is that if the U.S. didn't make it, we could not do it. Simple. We still bend our knee to this failing country even today. I wish it would stop. We are where we are because our government has been so obedient. Woof.

[@winternow2242]

Huh? When did the US ever tell Canada that? Also the US supported Arrow - lending J75 engines for Arrow, and a B-47 to test fly the Orenda engine, as well as wind tunnel testing and telemetry equipment. The US has absolutely nothing to do with Canada canceling a plane it couldn't afford and that no one else wanted. Both the US and other countries already had airplanes that flew as fast as Arrow and carried missiles at least as good. The US probably had more motive for Arrow to succeed than Canada did, since it would have carried American missiles, and would've needed American engines if the Orenda engine was rejected for any reason. The US had nothing to fear from an airplane that was slower and more expensive than the F-4 Phantom, which flew about 2 months later. Phantom was more flexible, and carried better missiles. Arrow was cancelled by a conservative Canadian government elected by Canadian voters on a platform of cost cutting, and with some approval of Canada's military establishment. This had nothing to do with the USA.