AVRO ARROW vs F 35 & F 18

(Series link - • AVRO ARROW vs F 35 & F 18 )
The first of a series of short videos visually depicting the true capabilities of the AVRO Arrow. This video deals with Canada's ability to deal with Arctic sovereignty. Russia has challenged Canada's sovereignty in the last several years.
NOTE: This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.

[@gerryblyth9393]

The Avro Arrow was Canadian and, I'm proud to say, it was as Canadian as a maple syrup eating beaver. Thanks to Virtualenvirons for producing such a great homage to our Arrow. A huge effort to create the graphics and that very plausible dialog. A fantastic job, thanks.

[@keithparr9430]

M

[@arrow-lo7jf]

Yes if you want to get technical, then the Gemini project was 40 % Canadian, they came from the AV roe, were do you think they went when they lost there job, NASA, They do not care about Nationality, if its built in Canada then its Canadian, look at the yanks, Germany made the rockets, but its still American.

[@gerryblyth9393]

Hi David, I suggest that's a topic for debate. I think that the Avro Arrow (the airframe) was designed and built entirely here in Canada by Avro Canada. Certainly, some major components were purchased from the US (the intercept radar and AA missiles for example), but that's been the way many sophisticated fighters have been put together since post Korean conflict. I don't feel that makes them any less Canadian. Even the currently flying US Navy's F-18 EFs have Canadian designed and built (by 'my company', in fact) systems onboard. I guess it's really a matter of how much of the aircraft is designed and build off-shore. The Arrow's engines were Pratt &Whitney Canada designed and built - and later powered the U2, the Delta Dart and other famous US aircraft. The (British) BAE Hawk has been powered by Pratt & Whitney Canada engines since 1985. Also, P&WC's PW308A turbofan engine powered the WhiteKnightTwo launch aircraft for the world's first commercial passenger suborbital spaceship SpaceShipTwo. I agree with you, David, that the Arrow wasn't entirely Canadian but, IMHO, it was as Canadian as a maple syrup eating beaver. Would be a good discussion over a beer and a burger. Thanks.

[@compteck7]

@@gerryblyth9393 Actually the radar was designed and built in Canada..and the P&W engines were not going to be the final engine..the final engine was pure Canadian, and set a benchmark that, to this day, is still used by other major aircraft engine manufactures. The Orenda Iroquois was first to use titanium and alloys in substantially the whole thing...and she test fired for many thousands of hours up near Parry Sound as well as Winterpeg.

[@keithwatson1384]

Apart from the fact it was a British company but yes!

[@guitarhand]

I'm American and I love this jet. I hope the Canadian government revives this program and build and updated version of the amazing interceptor. Canada definitely deserves this aircraft.

[@mheb6370]

Veloci Raptor. Im American and a big fan of the Arrow as well. What an amazing plane for having it back in 1959 especially! I dont understand why the US didn't just buy a few squadrons of these and the Canadians have their own Arrows as well? I realize money always plays a huge part in everything,but come on,a great airplane like this back then and Im sure the US and Canada cld hv struck a deal to not sell the plane to anyone else. It's a true shame for sure. One of the great planes that should have been,but wasn't.

[@BARelement]

Veloci Raptor Me Too! Actually my favorite plane of all time!

[@meteor5452]

That’s about the stupidest thing they could do. It wasn’t worth the money when it was new, that’s like saying the USA should fire up the super saber production line again.

[@naproxin1343]

@@mheb6370 It was the only plane that could catch the U2 spy plane and the US did not like that, nor did they like the fact that Canada could build such a plane. They really didn't like it if it was sold to other nations, which would hamper their ability to sell planes abroad. There were a few "good" reasons for the US to move to get the program cut based on US policy, but it was horrible for Canada and also horrible for aviation that this plane never took off the way it should have. Bonus to the US though, a lot of scientists and engineers went to nasa and other US airplane manufacturers helping the US go further than before.

[@mheb6370]

Nap Roxin. I understand and realized alot of what you mentioned,&I mostly agree with what you've stated. It's a shame the USA and Canada didn't work together and reach an agreement that would have let Canadians produce the Arrow and be able to safely profit from the aircraft and both nations have and use this excellent plane that was ahead of it's time. I can understand some aspects of the way things were done with the Cold War in full throttle and the threat and dangers from the soviets being very real and palpable. The US govt.doesn't allow the United States to purchase&use foreign made and produced fighter aircraft which I believe is somewhat of a mistake in itself,but they're not asking me. I do agree that it was a terrible shame to let such an amazing and advanced aircraft slip away and be destroyed before ever reaching it's full potential.The Arrow could have been an excellent aircraft for both Canada and the USA if only certain agreements would have been offered and made. It still saddens me that the Arrow went the way of the Do-Do. I am pleased to hear that the US offered many of the Canadian scientists and experts in aviation places in our aircraft industries.At least we did some things right in that matter. Thank you for the information,friend.

[@DEEPNNN]

Brought a tear to my eye. I remember getting medallions with Arrow picture inserts out of cereal boxes, I think. I must have built models of the Arrow two or three times as a boy. I've always felt a piece of Canada disappeared with the Arrow. I wish I had seen it fly overhead. What a rush that would have been.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thanks so much for the comment. Did you see all four Episodes and the documentary. They are on my channel. regards....Virtual

[@skyeshi3570]

there's a group looking to make a working avro arrow 2 since we have the blueprints now

[@rogerreimer6787]

The British built a similar plane the Falcon it was also a financial disaster our Arrow would of cost 1.2 Billion out of the Canadian budget at the time of 2 billion what a waste of money

[@AgentJayZ]

The engines were the Orenda Iroquois. We have one, and I have posted a few videos about it. Not running, yet, but we are working on it. One of the most powerful turbojets ever built.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Can you post a link to your video.....regards....virtual

[@crackmonkeynet]

AgentJayZ following your videos, waiting patiently to see there mighty Iroquois in the test cell

[@crackmonkeynet]

Virtualenvirons he posts a series of jet engine videos under his user name 😁

[@abysmith9083]

Yes turbojets and not the more efficient turbofans...

[@johndee2990]

@@abysmith9083 Fighters and Interceptors don't use Fans, It's Turbo, RAM, or in theory the SCRAM

[@GGard]

I worked at Fleet Industries in Fort Erie, Ontario back in the late 70's. Many of the elder guys working in the plant and especially the inspection Dept. were ex- AVRO employees who hands on worked on the Arrow production lines. I would spend many breaks and lunches talking with them about it all. The passion with which they spoke about the ARROW was absolutely genuine and more than a few tears were shed while retelling these stories. I firmly believe this aircraft (airframe) would still be relevant today with modern avionics, engines & weaponry. Diefenbacher was a fool to scrap the program on Black Friday leaving over 15,000 families ( thousands more sub'contractors) without work. A very dark day in Canadian history. Where would Canada be today if this program was allowed to mature and flourish ? CBC and associates made a brilliant film called "THE ARROW" starring Dan Achroyd in 1997 in which the door was left open for the possibility that one got away. I also personally knew the ARROWS test pilot Janus Zurakowski who retired near Barry's Bay, Ontario. There is a true 1/4 scale of the ARROW located in Barry's Bay dedicated to Janus aviation legacy. It was constructed using the original 1950's AVRO blueprints which were smuggled out of the plant before they could be destroyed . . .

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi G....Yes, it was a black day. This is why we tell the story of the Arrow in a more uplifting way. I don't know if you have watched the following episodes, but there is a story that flips back and forth from 1959 to 2020. In Episode six watch for the smoking gun at the end that will explain much. The Arrows capabilities are explained correctly and if you watch the episode I am working on right now....you might see one of your comments come true...regards....Virtual

[@garysteven4836]

I'm 70 now, but I still remember seeing the Avro Arrow at Downsview AFB! An awesome piece of engineering!

[@mikewatts1450]

It was the first plane to use fly by wire technology 👍!!

[@grahamjordan8278]

The Arrow was at Malton, not Downsview.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

Very cool. The Chief Weights Engineer on the Arrow project was in my family and I knew several other engineers (most of whom have passed or are very very old). Jan Zurakowski was a family friend. My Godfather was an engineer recruiter for AVRO and he said he was getting the best young engineers from all over the world. So sad when cancelled. Black Friday was a date we acknowledged every year but did not celebrate.

[@Virtualenvirons]

H Charles. Thanks for the comment and info. If you watch this video to the very end it will take you to Ep. 2 and the rest of the series. I am working on 8 where we have reengineered the Mark 3. The series link is below....regards....Virtual Series LInk kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@ABeriault]

Thank you conservative Diefenbaker for caving to the Tri Lateral Commission

[@Ribney1]

Yup. Killed an industry and- irony of ironies- gets an AIRPORT named after him

[@djweldable]

Gordon was no help either from what I understand.

[@lylesmith8632]

@@Ribney1 people lost jobs and a nice jet . Pass poor government. Pretty sad.

[@neilmac3731]

Just a yes man...im proud to have urinated on his bust at parliment hill

[@edgarkeisi]

Nice rendering. Avro Arrow nostalgia, once upon a time a nation was so ahead of the competition that did not realized that they were only competing against themselves. They changed the future, but did not believe in themselves. Very sad.

[@ivorholtskog5506]

The people did, the government did not.

[@bskelton8712]

Only one who didn't believe was Diefenbaker, always wondered if he got bought off or scared off either way he screwed Canadian aviation industry.

[@twounits]

Cmon Canada. Bring back the Arrow with some updates but keep the look. We can make anything as good as anyone!

[@johnross1395]

Correction ... we can make anything better than anyone else

[@dino.jay2007]

Past tense

[@gra6649]

My father worked on this beautiful plane, and I was fortunate enough to see it fly at the 1959 air show at the Toronto CNE. I will never forgive the conservatives for trashing it.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi GRA, Is your father still alive.? regards....Virtual

[@gra6649]

Hi, I'm afraid not. He passed away in 1967.

[@patwon2213]

yes diefenbaker shit in his pants in front of the americans and the project was abandonned what a shame ,such a beautifull plane

[@knarf4083]

@@patwon2213 Absolute nonsense. The Americans refused to buy the plane because it was foreign. Without American backing the plane was just not viable. There would be no customers. Every day the project lasted meant bigger losses, so Dief had no choice and made the right decision.

[@patwon2213]

@@knarf4083 Diefenbaker was the weak link he was a coward

[@bronzesnake7004]

Years ago I had a large job to install a new phone, and computer system at the plant where this place was designed, and tested etc. Hawker Sidley in Milton. I had a chance to actually meet two older gents who worked on the project, and they showed me all kinds of pics, drawings etc. Then, they took me and my crew to this sound proof room, where they test fired a jet engine for us! What an awesome day, I'll never forget! Diefenbaker was a complete dolt to allow himself to be scammed so easily...sigh Jack - Canada

[@jonathanvince8173]

Same thing happened to a British Plane at the about the same time. It looked similar to the arrow but looked like the Euro fighter on paper. All before their time with internal and external mounts. That America seamed to have now very strange. Also what is strange is how come the real electric lightning could fly constantly at Mach2 when modern planes can't sustain Mach1. Definitely something wrong while Russian none stealth fighters are doing Mach 2.7 not sustained but well over mach1 consistently.

[@leftcoaster67]

Was and is one of the best looking planes ever built.

[@danzervos7606]

The contemporary Convair F-106 and North American A5 are very similar in appearance and performance.

[@Edward-ko9pn]

I go with the F22 Raptor as my choice of best looking. The Arrow is close though.

[@treycas33]

Seriously? Looks too much like the '50's Delta Dart and Dagger, very dated

[@bobbiusshadow6985]

but for a jet of that period, still very high tech and good looking

[@freddyfriesen]

For a vehicle that was flying in the 50s, there was nothing else even close. Decades ahead of its time. @@Edward-ko9pn

[@SonGokusa666]

Holy balls, that was spectacular. Those newspapers were gold. Awesome fantasy film 👌😊

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you. There are five more Episodes. Here is the Series link below. Alternatively, if you watch each movie until the end, there is a link to the next Episode. Episode 6 is quite spectacular. regards....Virtual Series kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@SigmaWolf-in2mr]

*Build it now. With today's avionics, air-frame advances, radar, engines, looks solid even today.*

[@kentlindal5422]

Fun fact: when DeHaveland shut it's doors the majority of their employees went to work at major military corporations in the states, taking with them the Arrows developements. You can see the evidence in the sudden change in appearance from the Sabre to the next-generation Phantoms, ect.

[@SigmaWolf-in2mr]

@@kentlindal5422 ..Thank you for that. Very sobering issue.

[@fatlady57]

I'd like to see Canada restart the project but in 6th gen option.

[@rickravenrumney]

Too bad Canada will not build anything.

[@donnamcdonald3864]

@@rickravenrumney It's all political interference and Liberal politics. We live in the frozen north and can't even get pipelines built.

[@veritasetutilitas5432]

Bombardier, a Canadian company just built an aircraft, A220, which makes the Boeing 737 Max look like a biplane. That was the reason Boeing fought so hard to prevent U.S. sales of the aircraft

[@invertedv12powerhouse77]

Because the Americans will just knock our aircraft industry down like they've done with others

[@veritasetutilitas5432]

I don't like seeing any country's aircraft industry in free fall but that seems to be what's happening with Boeing. Airbus is becoming the world's prominent leader in aircraft manufacturing partly because it doesn't use blatant dirty tricks to keep another smaller maker out of its market as Boeing has been shown to do

[@BillHellewell]

Now that was fun! Love the Arrow :-)

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Bill. Thanks for the comment. Did you watch all the episodes or just the first one? If you did not know there were more, here is the series link below or just watch each episode until the very end and there is a link to the nest one. The series tells the story of the Arrow. regards...Virtual. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@PilotPhotog]

Great series and thank you for creating such wonderful content!

[@sherifffdb905]

I got a model of the Avro Arrow that was made in the Philippines, imagine that.

[@PierreaSweedieCat]

Curiosirty Inc just got one! (youtube!)

[@youdontknowwhoiam8469]

Kamusta kabayan!

[@davcam3226]

What is the model company name and product number so I can order one

[@dennis7511]

I had one in 1959 and I wish I had it still.

[@barv02zr77]

Point well made , real pity that Canada like Great Britain buckled to US pressure to get rid of 2 aeroplanes so much better than anyone else had. Being English would love to say I preferred the TSR2 but the Arror is just such a thing of beauty. Wish they had built them. Well done Canada for building what other's could only dream of.

[@stuanhay]

Wholeheartedly agree. Was at Duxford last week and saw the TSR2. Absolute Tragedy. Healy and Mountbatten should have been hung. Same with the Arrow. At the end of the film with Dan Acroyd it told you what most of the key players went on to do and a large percentage of the designers and Engineers ended up at NASA. Typical of the small minded leaders that we have had for decades in our two countries!

[@o0_VanYsH_0o]

Canadian here, it's a great honor to hear such compliments, we appreciate it!! At the time, the OFFICIAL reason of the cancelation of the Arrow Project was Fuel and operating costs. Behind the scenes, the USA KNEW they couldn't compete, and for the first time in a VERY long time, they were outgunned. They quickly payed off the Canadian Government to ensure the plane never made it to the commonwealth and was sold to the UK, or other countries. So sad we lost it, but it's the one time we can safely say we had the Scariest thing with wings since the age of Dinosaurs, lol.

[@calvinnickel9995]

Nothing to do with the Americans. The Americans cancelled their XF-108 interceptor-a wholly superior aircraft made of brazed stainless steel honeycomb to withstand Mach 3 flight-the same year for the same reason: obsolescence in the face of ICBMs.

[@cryptohunt2552]

The Arrow - still mourned.

[@valenrn8657]

YF-23 is a better aircraft...

[@cikicar]

isnt black widow failed programe

[@valenrn8657]

YF-23 has meet USAF's design specifications but YF-22 has demonstrated extras.

[@valenrn8657]

Arrow Mk1 is inferior to YF-23. YF-23 is the closest aircraft to F-22A. YF-23 has higher top speed and better stealth when compared to YF-22. YF-22 has better AoA when compared to YF-23. Both YF-23 and YF-22 beats F-15C.

[@valenrn8657]

Jim100 AB, Arrow Mk1 has CG problems with dead weight being placed inside the aircraft. F-22 has chines from forward section and canted twin tails for extra lift. F-22's forward section follows X-24 lifting body shape..YF-23 also has chines at the forward section. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/X24.jpg 2.bp.blogspot.com/-Gt6EQtmltQM/U0r_wdHVvLI/AAAAAAAABeQ/xF4VYT5RsZo/s1600/F-22_Pitot_tube_drop_tanks.jpg F-22's body lift includes more than just Arrow/F-15 style's flat body. F-22 has mach 1.5+ super cruise which is faster than Arrow mk1's mach 0.91. Pure delta wing has it's own drag issues, hence why both F-22A and YF-23 has diamond-delta-trapezoidal wing hybrid shape. X-15's hyper-sonic test aircraft has trapezoidal wing. nationalinterest.org/files/main_images/1280px-f22_parked.jpg F-22' has blended wing design from wing to wing root and it also improves pedal turn/hammer head turn.

[@jambrenn7843]

Great Video, A real shame what was done and can't believe the PM at the time was looking out for Canada's best interest when he killed the Avro Project. The Arrow's Engineering put the Canadian Aviation industry decades ahead of it's time. Such a shame.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you. It was a shame. regards.....Virtual

[@billyost1479]

Finally, someone telling the true story of this way way ahead of it's time Interceptor and how We... brought it down. Hopefully Canada learned it's lesson... listen to your people, not another country's government.

[@jimmyreid1458]

Bill Yost from what I know of this, there was some kind of pressure between Diefenbaker and Eisenhower. Nature of which I'm not sure anyone knows.

[@raynus1160]

Canada killed the CF-105 program all by itself.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Bill. This is Episode 2...think you will like it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZ2bk6J8aKt4fbM

[@ppike6257]

Yes Canada killed the program after pressure from the US that Bomark missiles were the way to go. The program was over budget but the strange way the program was dismantled makes people wonder if there was a lot more to it.

[@raynus1160]

No pressure - just an option (even though they proved to be a poor choice). The USA cancelled their XF-103 and XF-108 interceptor programs as well. Who pressured them?

[@williambeaumont1312]

Beautiful job. Thanks for the memory.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Originally posted by JimAB 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.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Originally posted by JimAB 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.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Originally posted by JImAB 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

[@Virtualenvirons]

Originally posted by JimAB 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.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Originally posted by JimAB 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

[@David-ko8hu]

Such a beautiful, beautiful plane. I made a plastic model of it when it first came out. I hope the rumours are true that there is one secreted away somewhere when they were ordered destroyed. One should have been kept for posterity.

[@realweareallamericans1685]

Let's revive the project.

[@wheelman1235]

Finally the Arrow flies again. AWESOME.

[@dannymarks988]

Beautifully realized video, keeping the dream alive. Thank You!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Danny....Thanks, appreciate it. I don't know if you saw that Ep. 2 is linked to this video, but also on my KZbin channel. Episode 3 should be out by early May. regards....Virtual

[@dannymarks988]

I found Ep. 1 to be exceptionally moving. Great to connect. will spread this word on 91.1 FM Toronto on a Saturday Night. Keep up the inspiration.

[@barryporteous4904]

Great bit of "what if?" well done for creating this. I was half expecting a TSR-2 to be in the secret hanger waiting for a possible bombing mission! Ha!

[@luvkountry]

I seem to observe a lot of the characteristics of the arrow in the shuttle that the US built.

[@lonkwuzhere4433]

Well that's because the delta shaped wing is designed to be optimal at both super sonic speeds and low speeds. A similar design was also used on the Concord.

[@jeytkd1]

@@lonkwuzhere4433 Yep, and also that a lot of Canadian engineer from Avroe leave for NASA and Concord project after the cancelation of the Arrow.

[@trolleriffic]

​@@jeytkd1 Concorde's wing is an ogival delta, which is significantly different from the Arrow's wing design. It came out of work done at the Royal Aircraft Establishment before Arrow was cancelled.

[@dr.michaelr.foreman2170]

Us Canadians are still very pissed off about how the Avro Aero was treated. We are all very, very proud of this plane.

[@SymbolicSplenetic]

I've always hoped that was just the official story for the public (and our enemies), and they secretly continued production and further development (to modernize them), with a fleet of them singularly designated for the most critical possible events: invasion or nuclear strike (as shown in this video) of our homeland, and assistance to USA if they were attacked on their soil. (Not to say they'd necessarily need it, but the assist would be available via secret agreements) I know it's wishful thinking, but at the time and for years after, I can't help but feel that would've been the smartest scenario for Canada. The official alliance and their known arsenals for everything else..... and the Arrow as that last hidden defensive measure, only to be used in such a scenario. It would've reduced the heat both politically and in terms of spy operations targeting the technology, but it'd still be there....just waiting, in case of that one singular circumstance happening.

[@Rifleman7kw]

Pavel Chekov ?.........really ?....Why not change the RL-206 to NCC-1701 also.......

[@Virtualenvirons]

The reason I used that name is, I am not using voice. As soon as someone of a certain age (yours and mine) hears that name, they remember the voice and that's how they hear the words in their head......I hope anyway.

[@lemonherb1]

Excuse me I'm looking for the nuclear wessels

[@classicjetsims]

@@lemonherb1 Kirk: A nuclear wessel? I don't understand. Chekov: I mean an airborne shiip captain! Kirk: Spock, have you ever heard of an airborne sheep? Spock: No, Captain. That is illogical. What would a sheep be doing in the air?

[@rockyviewwatchdog7665]

Fantastic video! Thank you to who ever is behind this!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Your welcome....glad you enjoyed it.....please share it...regards......Virtualenvirons

[@Ettoredipugnar]

Great Video !!!! A tremendous feat of engineering and elegance .

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi....thank you. There are three more in the Series and I am working on 5. Here is the series link. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@Babel2.0]

"Je me souviens" Its Iroquois engine is also to be remembered.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Je me rappelle également. .regards

[@jetsfan1498]

Hi Virtual Environs, I had shared this in a Canadian Arrow group recently. I received some feed back on it. Most feedback I received was positive but one commentator F-4 fighter pilot said he did engagements of this type up north. He says "speeds were accurate but the video could have had a more realistic scenario that’s all." I tend to agree with him, hard not to but I think your video was impressive and he wouldn't say so but he had a lot to say about this video. I think you nailed it though!

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI JetsFan. I appreciate the feedback. I am not a fighter pilot obviously, but interested in clearing up the question of what are "Canada's needs" as oppose to NATO's requirement of Canada. I have only begun to work on Episode 2, but in Episode three is where the real fun starts.....hopefully. This is where the Arrow will mix it up with Naval versions of SU-27's. Right away most people would think the Su-27 will take it out immediately. The things is though, is that the Arrow's "operational ceiling" (different than service ceiling) was much higher than the Su-27. The Su-27 is like a high performance F-18. Once it gets high up in the air, above 45,000 ft, it loses much agility. The Arrow, maybe could turn 5 G.s max, but could still turn above 50,000 ft and pretty well, that big wing! An encounter between an Su-27 and the Arrow at that altitude is much more even and the arrow was a little faster. I am using Air force people as resources, if your f-18 pilot would like to email me, I would certainly love to pick his brains.

[@jetsfan1498]

I errored. He wasn't an F-18 pilot that know of I used the wrong designation he is an American & he was an A-4 pilot. Ceiling advantage is a good point but what if the flanker lures Arrow to a lower altitude? In dog fights it's a circle jerk at the highest speeds known to man and can take a dive where you don't want it to go quite quickly and unintentionally but I would argue myself that by the time SU-27 flankers were developed the Arrow would be at Mk3 & Mk4 stage and much more advanced than F-15's or even F-22 maybe but that's hypothetical unfortunately. I am an Arrow lover but hypothetical mock ups is all we got to go on thus far sadly! I will forward your invitation.

[@Virtualenvirons]

OK now on to the Arrow and altitude. You asked what if the Arrow was lured down? Well, here's the thing. Why would it? It was designed to fly above and fight above 50.000 ft where it could still turn and shoot down other planes. It would have no reason to drop down and mix it up. Any defence fighter would have to come up and get it. There is a reason why the Americans make several fighters. The Eagle and F-22 are Air superiority fighters, designed to do what the Arrow was supposed to. If the Eagle or even an F-22 gets down in the weeds, (where the F-22 can be seen visually) then it's a crap shoot. That is why they made F-18's and F-16's. Theses planes are great dog fighters. The F-16 always travelled with the F-15 and the F-18 with the F-14. Things are muddled now for the U.S. navy as they really don't have a fleet Air superiority fighter. It certainly won't be the F-25. regards....Virtaulenvirons

[@jetsfan1498]

I admit you're right, if F-18 was escort flanking with an Arrow Mk2 or Mk3... the Arrow is the winner hands down. There are EMP weapons that can temporarily disable a high altitude Jet, EW jammers and signals could mess up flight controls, missile launches etc but ya, in a BVR contact fire and forget scenario Arrow does have the advantage against flankers before it comes to SVR. A Mig-25 foxbat in the battle space that would be tricky. I love to argue about the Arrow with Americans. This one I talk to respects the Arrow. There are 2.5 million Americans living in Canada so we kind of have to reach out to the ones that are interested in the Arrow talk.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Unfortunately all we can ever do is speculate the Arrow. Hopefully, the following series can help with speculation. You brought up the Mig-25. It was no Arrow. They lost more pilots trying to land the thing than anywhere else. I have to shorten this story. You have to admire the CIA. The Americans let it be known they were going to deploy a fleet of XB-71, Mach 3 Bombers in the mid 1960's. Beautiful plane, Arrow like, could fly as high. Anyway, the Russians built, at huge cost and sacrifice to other programs ~260 Mig 25 foxbats, all titanium. These planes had absolutely no use but to go up fast and shoot down XB-71s. Well, the U.S. built 2 bombers that were never deployed and the Russian were stuck with these useless planes. They set some speed and altitude records, but they got played....big time.

[@ayepweakly3564]

It's like the Moon they lost that technology and it's a painful process to get it back meanwhile we're sending a kite on Mars just gets weirder and weirder they trolling the people on the constant

[@johnboyu1]

I really enjoyed your video. Thought it was GREAT!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you. Episode two is linked to this video or go to my channel..regards....virtual

[@bhyland5851]

I worked on this aircraft as a (very) junior engineering Tech, within the flight test instrumentation group, so attended both pre and post flight test briefings. Indeed an aircraft well ahead of its time. I believe there was a number of reasons for cancellation, especially escalating costs driven by all new, never done technology plus RCAF influence on the design and changes. Costs at over $15 million were dramatically higher than other alternatives. For you Americans, the majority of the senior British and Canadian designers were hired as a team by Northrup and other US manufacturers, and their technology (especially in Titanium skin wings and fuselages) and supersonic flight surfaced with the development of the Blackbird and similar aircraft of the day. Interestingly, after a year of technical hiatus, I joined the Boeing team installing the Bomarc missile (officially the Arrow replacement) in Canada. No comment..

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi B...Good of you to post on this forum. I have a question for you. Behind the Ari brakes are some vents. Do you know what they were for? regards...Virtual

[@Jay-vr9ir]

Well a claim to fame, The Avro Jetliner , the first jet plane to land in New York City.

[@davidharris2519]

what back in the 20s before charles lindberg

[@Jay-vr9ir]

@@davidharris2519 Jet plane my mistake .

[@thierryschlagdenhauffen9216]

Great job guys.

[@TheRealMichelleElynHogan]

I love the premise of this vid. Canada builds the Arrow and tells no one about it. Then, they build a base in Northern Ontario that cannot be found.. You cannot attack what you cannot find. What I live the king is that in this scenario, Canada has decided that we are not going to let any other country tell us what to do. I always appreciated self determination.

[@theinvestigator9036]

True im from canada and our relationship with eachother is like siblings Canada is one of the few countries that is able to go against the usa without any penalty if we were not such close allies then canada would have gone thru with the arrow in order for defense but since we are close allies we didnt need our own jet as we have the usa protecting us

[@galja6889]

Loved the video! Super cool! Super entertainingly!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thanks Galja. There are three more in the series and I am working on five and six to be released concurrently. Below is the series link, documentary and Iroquois engine move link. regards..Virtual Series kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI Documentary kzbin.info/www/bejne/nn6ucqKorq2Jhpo The Lost Iroquois kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4S9pnp8obKYh7s

[@thomvogan3397]

All these years later and I still spit every time I hear the name Diefenbaker. Eisenhauer said jump and Diefenbaker asked how high

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

The Avro Arrow was far, far faster than both the F-35 and F-18. Not even close. And that was with 1950s technology, OUR technology.

[@calvinnickel9995]

Likewise.. a 1950s dragster was faster than a modern F1 car. But put that dragster on a road course or into an endurance race and see how useless it is. Thus it would be with the Arrow.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

@@calvinnickel9995 The only plane made today that was just as fast as the Arrow would be the MiG-25 Foxbat. 😎🇨🇦

[@gp33music41]

​@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 The mig 25 IS far, far, far faster than the arrow was, arrow was only capable of mach 1.9 in testing, and would have maybe been around a mach 2.3 to 2.5 aircraft.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

@@gp33music41 Wrong. The Arrow was clocked traveling at Mach 3.2 which was kept from the Americans for obvious reasons. And this without the Orenda engines. The engines for the Foxbat were engines for cruise missiles, the Orenda were not.

[@gp33music41]

@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 Care to provide a source outside of anecdotal evidence for that? I know you Canadians are weirdly nationalistic, but you act like the arrow was the best plane ever built when it was meh even for its time. It didn't even have a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio so there would be no way for it to reach mach 3.2. It was an interceptor in an era where interceptors were becoming obsolete.

[@martentrudeau6948]

Avro Arrow should have and could have been, but Canadians were cheated out of it, by the enemy within and with the help of US special interests. Great video, thanks.

[@jacquesparadis5761]

True, thanks to the conservative government.

[@martentrudeau6948]

The reasons that Diefenbaker gave for killing the Arrow were meaningless, because it didn't address the loss of jobs, loss of technologies, and the future business and industries. It's classic politician/government/media BS, because their is a Free Mason cabal (a mafia) that controls Canada and the whole world, and they decided that the Arrow had to go. People need to tell the truth about this sort of thing, because it is going on all over the world.

[@valenrn8657]

US also canceled their mach 3 combat aircraft projects e.g. F-4X, F-108 and F-12B. US switched focus to ICBM and anti-ballistic missile systems. Australia has thier own AESA radar system for anti-ballistic missile systems. www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/future-frigate-decisions-focus-on-combat-system-will-leverage-aegis/news-story/7c334ae3b15d63b9d321d4b0ebbcda2c www.sldinfo.com/australian-cea-radar-for-the-british-surface-fleet/

[@valenrn8657]

Canadian government killed the Arrow after $40 million fund request which didn't help by Canadian government having flip flop avionics selection and concurrent production with R&D which sounds familiar e.g. F-35's concurrent production with R&D which is “acquisition malpractice" (a quote from Acting Pentagon procurement chief Frank Kendall). Both flip flop avionics selection and concurrent production with R&D would have increased the cost for Arrow program i.e. If Sweden was running Arrow program, it would be at a lower cost i.e. none of this concurrent production with R&D “acquisition malpractice" BS. F-35 program killed the second engine option to reduce R&D cost.

[@guythomson5833]

There is a group that has started the development of the Avro Arrow II..I kid you not. There are some folks with military backgrounds and industrialists who believe , as do many, that Canada should build their own and quit depending on folks outside of Canada for our aircraft. Google Avro II or something along those lines.

[@markanthonyragos6282]

Salute and Respect Greeting's From Philippines 🇵🇭❤️🇨🇦

[@Virtualenvirons]

thank you. and to you....the same......regards....Virtual

[@witlessscribe4489]

Lived near Malton airport in the late 1950s and saw many test flights of this magnificent aircraft. Usually flew with a CF100 and F86 as escorts. Lots of complaints from neighbors about sonic booms that broke windows.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi WS. I wish I could have seen her fly once....lucky you. regards.....Virtual

[@odonovan]

0:40 - Lt. Pavel Chekov, you have not been authorize by Starfleet Command to fly that aircraft! Return to the Enterprise, immediately! :) 2:11 - "Captain...there are two F-35s approaching." Say WHAT? And just how would they have SEEN the F-35s approaching? There is no way they would be seen until they were pulling up alongside the bomber's wings. By then, it would all be over. 2:35 - "Over and out???" That was NEVER used. You can either have "over" (you speak) or "out" (communication ended). You can't have both at the same time. 3:55 - "Approaching from rear at mach 1.8." How could the new contact be approaching from the rear at mach 1.8 when the bomber was already going that same speed? 4:02 and 4:27 - There would be NO change of wing aspect. At anything over a few hundred knots, the wings would be swept all the way back and stay there. The wings would be torn off if they tried to fly at speeds approaching mach 1 (or above) with them extended. 5:02 - On ITS way. "It's" means "it is." "On it is way" makes no sense. 9:20 - Where are the drag chutes? The Arrow had a high landing speed and required parachutes to slow itself. Nice video, but the truth is, that bomber would have been an easy mark for the F-35, which would have gotten VERY close, unseen, then locked the bomber with targeting RADAR. At that point, any other aircraft or ground station in range could have downed the bomber without ever having to get within a hundred miles of it. The F-35 could have even done it by itself. The bomber also could not cruise at that high of a speed without burning too much fuel to ever hope to return home.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Irish, I will address your comments shortly, but did you see the two following Episodes, in particular Ep.3. I am sure you will have a comment. The series link follows. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI Now to your comments. The trekkie thing was on purpose. I am sure when you were reading this, your hear Checkov and Kirk's voices in your head. In the first part of the movie, there is a satellite monitoring things, although it becomes clear in the following episodes it is American, the Russians have real time also and could relay that info to the bomber. "Over and out." I have a boat/yacht, on it now. We use that term, although incorrectly. The swing wing thing. Just a mistake on my part. I never thought this series would be so popular. The following Episodes are much more accurate. On its way.....there are more spelling mistakes. Check out Strategic. No one has ever pointed that out. Drag chutes. I am just one retired guy who has limited computing power. Had to leave some stuff off. I should have allowed advertising but did not want to cheapen the memory The point of the movie. Ether the F-18 or the F-35 would suit NATO's need, but not Canada's. The U.S. would never just have F-35's for continental defence. The requirement for an Arrow still stands in Canada. Ideally a mix of F-18's and F-15C's is what we need, but I don't think we will by buying any American aircraft soon. This Trump thing is going south in Canada faster than Mach. 2.5. regards....Virtual

[@viper29ca]

You must be a blast a parties!

[@gezanegamez6025]

Obvious error in comment ... without "getting in a hundred miles" no missile would close the gap to the bomber before exhausting its own fuel supply.

[@westlock]

If Diefenbaker hadn't cancelled the project, Pearson would have, and for the same reason. The Soviets were switching from bombers to ballistic missiles, so the super-expensive Arrow was losing its mission.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Glen. I am afraid you are probably very wrong. if you watch the series you will understand who killed the Arrow and why. The answer lies at the end of Ep. 6. Short story, the Americans were lying to us about Soviet Intercontinental missiles. After we killed the Arrow, about six months they came back and said, "Golly gee, we screwed p", the Russian only have a couple of ICBM's and a whole bunch of bombers. Do you want to buy some jets from us. Watch the series. regards...Virtual

[@a440able]

we can't change the past, but we can influence the future.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Well said....Virtual

[@williamheyman5439]

So I am eighty years old and lived this. It has nothing to do with airplanes. The facts are that the soviets switched to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMS) and immediately all air defense systems were obsolete. No more Nike Ajax or Hercules. They were all disbanded. No more F-106, F-102, F-104, whatever. No more interceptors. No more. Period. And I was a graduate of the US National War College, and a strategic planner. No more B-58. The B-52 was exempt, because it could do other missions. Anyway, the actual subject has nothing to do with airplanes. The actual subject is that they all lost their missions. No Soviet massed bomber formations. So no need to have any interceptors. Not missiles, not planes, not anything. Not needed. And I have never understood why people do not understand that weapons systems are a reflection of strategy. So it was a good airplane. So was the P-51. But if the weapons system does not fit into the strategy, then there is no reason to fund it. No reason to have it. And they were all good people but now it is over.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI William, Thankyou for the comment and insight. I like to here from people who lived it. What is not commonly know about the Arrow, was that it was not only to be an interceptor, but also a "bomber". It would have had other missions. The weapons bay was designed to carry anything. The original requirement for the ASTRA fire control system included ground mapping radar. Also IR detection and a host of functions found on todays aircraft. Plus, many of the systems were linked together by primitive computer systems. The Arrow debate is not so much about it's mission, but it's technology that was never used. There was a prototype ASTRA fire control system in the lab, but never developed. There were many reasons for the Arrow's cancellation, but any one of them would never had stopped it's development. If the U.S. had agreed to buy some, (which it can't BTW), the program would have gone ahead. If the Government had not changed, the Arrow would have flown. But, in my research, which is extensive, I do fully believe the Arrow was a threat to U.S. interests in a very broad spectrum. The open slides point out some of them. The fact that Sputnik was launched on the same day as the Arrow was a clue. The western worlds most advanced technology overshadowed by Russian technology, essentially putting the U.S. in third place. Second or third place in not acceptable to the U.S. public. regards...Virtual

[@dalemartell8639]

Thank you for hitting the nail on the head. The fighters that were kept didn’t even have guns in them. Until F4’s went against Mig17s in Vietnam.

[@roberthiggins9115]

How do you explain the F-35?

[@jordach545]

My grandfather was an engineer who worked on these. George Evans. He passed two years ago at the age of 96. he was proud of his work.

[@tplus3017]

@@roberthiggins9115 It was still getting ironed out in the factory. :)

[@snappy452]

I dont know how you dont have more views, but youve got my sub.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Snappy. I appreciate the comment. But, we intend this to he here for a long time so the hits with come. Need to tell young people we did this. regards...virtual

[@snappy452]

@@Virtualenvirons Keep on keepin' on. Will recommend.

[@davewettlaufer7885]

almost brought tears of things that could have been. excellent job

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you Dave. I don't know if you saw the other two episodes, so here is the series link. regards...Virtual kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@joge3976]

l get the feeling that my country Australia and Canada had similar problems in the 1950's and 60's , if it is locally made it is no good. In the late 1950's the Australian government was presented by Australia's Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation ,CAC, with plans for 2 aircraft , the CA 31 a twin seat supersonic trainer and the CA 23 a twin seat mack 2 intercepter . To spite CAC's good track record in building modern military aircraft, at times reworking them to suit Australian conditions , the Australian government purchased the French mirage 3 for the interceptor job and the Italian maccie for the training role. The if its Australian is no good attitude has cost this country dearly. Am l wrong ?

[@valenrn8657]

Australia's Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) has been taken over by Boeing Australia and has designed and built Hornet size unmmaned "Loyal Wingman" supersonic stealth fighter which is design to fly with manned fighter aircraft via AI. Read www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/avalon/2019/02/27/boeing-unveils-loyal-wingman-drone/ CAC was purchased by Boeing Australia in year 2000. "Loyal Wingman" stealth fighter aircraft's componets was supplied by Australian supply chain. Technically, Boeing Australia's CAC division can design and build Hornet size stealth fighter. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_CA-23 For early 1950s, CA 23 has delta wing with mach 1.5 speeds (1,593 km/h). CAC has built GE F-404 engines for Government Aircraft Factories's F/A-18 units. Government Aircraft Factories (aka Aerospace Technologies of Australia) forms as the nucleus of Boeing Australia which purchased Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation. Boeing has it's partnership with Lockheed's F-22. breakingdefense.com/2019/02/the-future-is-now-the-raaf-and-boeing-australia-build-an-f-35-unmanned-wingman/ Australian government plans to use "unmmaned F-35" aka Boeing Australia's "Loyal wingman" stealth fighter to increase RAAF's effective fleet size. Unlike Canada, Australia is spending about 2 percent of it's GDP on defence as per NATO standard. RAAF fleet could consist of F-35A Block 3F/4, F-18F Block 2/3, EA-18G and Loyal wingman "unmanned F-35" (design and made in AU).

[@o0_VanYsH_0o]

Ah, Canadian here!!! Nothing but the USA's fear ALONE canceled the project. While the official reason for the cancelation of the Arrow Project was fuel and operating costs, behind the scenes, the USA was *TERRIFIED* of the Arrow. For the first time in a long time, the USA was completely outgunned, and they knew it. They PAYED off the Canadian government to scrap the project so that the plane could never be sold to the Commonwealth.

[@marksasahara1115]

By adding Tim Horton's coffee to the fuel mixture of jet fuel, Molson and maple syrup, they were able to get mach 2.5 out of her. The ratios are Top Secret. RIP, Avro Arrow. She was a real beaut. F-22 and F35 = FAIL.

[@valenrn8657]

Arrow is garbage.

[@ijnyuudachi4917]

They really should bring the Avro arrow back in a future ace combat game as a DLC aircraft

[@o0_VanYsH_0o]

While it would be SUPER cool, and as a Canadian I'd love that, wouldn't happen. The Arrow isn't even equipped with guns, it has enough storage for 3 missiles, that's it. It's job was to hunt the Soviet Bombers that were unweaponized at the time, if a fighter came along, they just powered up and flew away. If it had an actual set of guns, then totally.

[@dasboot5903]

What can I say ..... I just love this video !!!! Unfortunately, as a Video Producer, I was not able in time to make and record on video any interview with the Polish pilot Mr. Jan Zurakowski, who piloted the ARROW during its first virgin fly. WW II fighter pilot, Mr. Zurakowski .... he passed away a couple of years ago @ Northern Ontario in Kaszuby Region near Wilno. +R.I.P.+

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you. There are three more Episodes and I am working on the fifth. Here is the series link. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@HagersvilleHunk]

Excellent video,cant wait for part 2. Thanks for keeping our dream alive.

[@therichyalf]

I recently read that in the oppinion of some aviation experts, if the Arrow existed today with modern avionics, it would be far superior to the F 35.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Richard. That statement is true for the Mission over Canadian Air space and other areas of the globe. The F-35 is designed to fight in Europe essentially. Its strength is not so much stealth as it is situational awareness. It will be highly effective in a dense chaotic environment. But....not so much over the wilderness of Canada. If you watch this series, Ep. 7 begins the next storyline that coincidently will visualize your comment. The series link is below, regards...Virtual Series LInk kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@TheInsaneupsdriver]

I have heard the same thing directly from pilots both retired military and civilian.

[@florbfnarb7099]

Superior at what? Interception of high altitude strategic bombing? Nobody needs a fighter for that; we have SAMs for it.

[@Exolion234]

Sam may not reach high altitude bombers from long ranges or places where there isn’t any Sam

[@florbfnarb7099]

@@Exolion234 - SAMs will reach bombers at any altitude. Only the Blackbirds flew fast and high enough not to be caught by SAMs, and the Arrow wasn’t anything like as fast or high flying as an SR-71.

[@SuperDd40]

The problem with Canada is that we don't have any real reason to be proud, we're still a dominion (when your Prime Minister plead allegiance to the Queen it means that it's not a country) If Canada had any balls at all this plane would be built and operated in Canada by Canadians

[@Eskay1206]

Yeah you do, You're not American

[@blackpage716]

SuperDd40 exactly. The Crown runs our legal system. And Avro was a British company.

[@alanarmstrong2323]

What s. Awsome plane , built buy the best people in the world !

[@sundersidhai7002]

Canada is one of the cock sucking nations in the five eyes alliance. A sovereign nation? That's a laugh.

[@rustyshackleford3263]

As a Canadian I agree sick of looking at the queens inbred face on a 20 dollar bill.

[@ericlavoie399]

Bring back the arrow

[@johnsmith-ee8pk]

My father was in the Canadian Air Force. His work involved using hyperbaric pressure chambers to help train pilots. He told us that a base he was sent to needed him to get something for class that day. He said he was looking around and he and another guy opened a door to a room far off the beaten path. He said they found a full cockpit of an Arrow just sitting in this room. When they asked about it they were told sternly to be quiet about it and get back to work without speaking of it. I can see how it might sound unbelievable, but I do believe it. Just eight years ago I worked with a guy installing telecom stuff and he had been in the air force and his job was electronic tracking. They had an American colonel visiting for a test flight. This guy locked on a track at close to a hundred thousand feet going very fast. The two Canadian supervisors there hurried over and told him to switch off. Then they got this other guy starting to make a report and ordered him to destroy it. They were told there wouldn’t even be anything on paper. The guy assures me it was an Sr71. I also believed this.

[@valenrn8657]

Blackbird's basic shape already exist in July 1959 as A-12(Archangel 12). www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2017/KellyJohnsonArchangel.html Archangel 12 doesn't follow Arrow Mk1 design e.g. Blackbird is a mid-mount delta wing blended body with chines (forward lift device). Blackbird also has cant'ed twin tails. Wing blended body + chines + cant'ed twin tails elements was recycled for F-22. RamJet's intake design already existed in Lockheed's X-7 which is first flown in 1951 as mach 4 test bed aircraft.

[@RSSommers]

How fun was that! I look forward to the next one.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Ep. 2 will be out shortly after Christmas. Ep. 2 explains how Ep. 1 came to be. Ep. 3 will be when the real fun starts.....

[@ericpetitclerc5519]

Great animation guys! Canada would gain autlnomy if we were to push for that design. I'm no engineer but the design looks effective!

[@valenrn8657]

Canada is buying secondhand Australian F-18A units... No new fighters for Canada.

[@pleasemisguideme345]

That design is obsolete and GTA food

[@markw208]

Clearly you put a lot of effort into this because it means so much to you. You did a good job. Cancelling the AVRO Arrow was indeed a mistake. The Russians DID gather info and proceeded with their own version, the MIG-25. Cancelling the Arrow accomplished nothing more than putting us behind the Russians. Few realize that. If the Arrow had been allowed to proceed the allies would have been years ahead of the Russians, instead we were years behind. At the least, money should have been spent on continued development with a handful built each year. Improve security, stopping a project won't stop the enemy. There are reports of MIG 25s overflying Israel and other western countries airspace. Attempts to shoot it down with surface to air missiles failed due to the high altitude and speed. The Arrow could have done the same.

[@SvenTviking]

Mark W The Mig25 is completely different to the Arrow. Different wing plan, engine intakes, fuselage. There is a lot of talk about the Arrow being a Mach 3 capable interceptor, but I think it was a Mach 2.5 aircraft where the Mig was a bit faster, an actual Mach 3 interceptor, although it was used more as a reconnaissance aircraft.

[@prowner2777]

"the allies"? No one outside Canada wanted it. Thus Canada could not afford it. The size and speed were to allow it to go far north, fast, to make intercepts as far from valid targets as possible. CF-101s were never built to do that, but at least the BOMARC unmanned interceptors gave the illusion that the capability existed. I think if the airplane was really that stupendous (and I love the Arrow), it would've gone into production in the US under some agreement with Avro, with McDonnell, Lockheed, North American, and Convair getting a slice and the engines coming out of Canada. Lots of "what if" can be played with the CF-105, and when you get bored, play the TSR.2 game.

[@valenrn8657]

MiG 25 wasn't even a tail-less classic delta wing i.e. it's has sweep wing with four stabilizer tail design. MiG 25 is closer to A-5 Vigilante (mach 2) and XF8U-3 Super Crusader III (reached mach 2.6).

[@thundercactus]

In retrospect, the Arrow makes even less sense. We would have been the only operator, thus spending a fortune on a fleet of aircraft for a purpose that was never needed.

[@buddyhervieux7347]

Mark W

[@iralosttwo5569]

Elmendorf would have scrambled F-22s up to intercept not f-35s, I believe Raptors are the only fighters stationed up there. If the Raptors wanted, The first indication the Blackjack would have had the Raptors were there would been when they looked out the window and saw they were there. Normally the Raptors intercept Russian aircraft well before they hit the 12 mile airspace off Alaska's shores. To me the testament of the value of stealth was two things; 1. The F-117 that got caught in the middle of a dogfight between an F-15 and a Mig 29 over the Balkans and neither fighter knew the stealth jet was there; 2. When a F-22 pulled up on two Iranian F-4s that were approaching one of drones over international airspace over the Persian gulf. After intercepting and checking the armament of both Phantoms, the Raptor pulled up on his wing and radioed, "You should just go home". The Iranians had no clue the Raptor was there. Behold the power of stealth. The Arrow may have been a great interceptor if it were built, but it wasn't and it is it joins the ranks of great planes that should have been built but was not (F-23, F-8u3, the F-14 Super Tomcat 21, and the Silent Eagle to name a few.)

[@Virtualenvirons]

Finally, an informed comment. Thank you for that. I really like the U.S. Air force. I never expected to get any comments from the U.S. as this is just a "Canadian thing" really. But, there seems to be quite a lot of interest. Obviously, because I show the F-35 in a poor light. But, your post identifies the need for Canada to really have a mix of F-15C's and either F-35's or Superhornets. If we ever did that it would probably b Superhornets....all one manufacturer would be cheaper. regards.....Virtualenvirons

[@iralosttwo5569]

Jim100 AB with the shortage of F-22s, the USAF is using a combination of F-15s and F-22 s for air superiority. In some COPE exercises that combination has brought back a 41-1 kill ratio. The USAF have spent quite a bit of money improving the F-15C to keep it effective into the 2040s. They have really refined the Eagle, the F-15 being sold to Saudi Arabia and Singapore are really top notch. Those are more along the lines of the multi role fighters. With the options available to Canada, a combo of F-35s and maybe F-15s would be the best bet. Boeing offered to build the Super Hornet in India if the Indian Navy bought 57 units for their aircraft carriers. What if Canada could set up for the same deal with the F-15? Design a custom F-15CA to Canadian specifications (a pure air superiority fighter with all the new improvements or what ever the needs of Canada may be) and have it built in Canada. Run it in tandem with the F-35 and it would be a formidable combination. I’m not sure if it could happen, but it would be sweet and a win win for both our countries.

[@valenrn8657]

Ira Losttwo, Read www.adn.com/alaska-news/military/2017/11/12/the-first-f-35-jet-is-being-tested-at-eielson-air-force-base-the-fairbanks-area-is-preparing-for-a-population-jump/ Also, F-35 has planned engine upgrade with F-135 Block 1, hence increase performance. qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-342d72909752c9b80e89e13b6b0fc9dd F-35A's forward to mid section are similar to F-22A. The mach speed wing angle and distance from the nose is similar.

[@valenrn8657]

Against HUD record Unless the scenario and ROE are known, it is impossible to say when the alleged kill took place, what was happening before and after, which was the tactics. Note that the Rafale couldn't get good lock on the F-22 for a proper release. We don't see all the times the 22 was on the Rafale's tail. There is no kill in that video, the Rafale pilot never calls guns, a kill, and neither does the Raptor pilot call morted. The fight is terminated because it went on too long and the Rafale is running low on fuel www.arabianaerospace.aero/raptor-rules-the-desert-roost.html Behind the scenes, they also squared up to one another in simulated air combat. The 27th Fighter Squadron, part of the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, Virginia , deployed six Lockheed F-22 Raptors to Al Dhafra during the ATLC exercise. This marked the first deployment of the F-22A Raptor to what the USAF call SouthWest Asia (or the Central Command AOR). The F-22As fought Armée de l’Air Rafales on six occasions, to the evident interest of local UAE Air Force observers, for whom the Rafale seems likely to be their next frontline fighter. Normally, the results of dissimilar air combat training exercises are not publicized, but following the 2009 ATLC exercises, there were tantalizing glimpses of what had gone on. During an official press conference the commanding officer of the French Rafale detachment at Al Dhafra, Colonel Fabrice Glandclaudron, claimed that in six within-visual-range ‘dogfight’ engagements with the F-22A, only one resulted in the virtual destruction of a Rafale He said the other four engagements were ‘inconclusive’, or terminated due to a lack of fuel, or approaching the pre-determined height limit. It was subsequently hinted by French sources that, had they been allowed to simulate the use of their Mica missiles, the Rafale would have gained victories over the USAF fighters. The USAF refused to comment directly about the French claims, though the 27th Fighter Squadron’s project officer for the F-22 deployment, Major John Rogers, told Arabian Aerospace: “I don’t remember the fights quite that way. In any case, we leave claims and counter-claims to the debrief.” Lt Col Lansing Pilch, commander of the 27th, and of the F-22 deployment to Al Dhafra, was categoric in stating his view of the Raptor’s performance during the exercise. He confirmed that the six Raptors flew undefeated, against all opponents. Pilch said: “In every test we did, the Raptors just blew the competition out of the water.” He did praise the Rafale, however. “It is a good aircraft, combining avionics with manoeuvrability. I was impressed - it’s on a par with the USAF’s F-15s and F-16s, at least.” The deployment of the Raptor to Al Dhafra was undertaken to test the expeditionary capabilities of the F-22A, and particularly to evaluate how it performed while conducting operations in a harsh desert environment. The six F-22As flew some 86 exercise sorties during the deployment, including 36 DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) sorties. Four sorties were also flown at the Dubai air show in support of the United States Air Force F-22 Raptor Aerial Demonstration Team, whose pilot is a member of the 27th Fighter Squadron. There was never any intention for the aircraft to fully participate in the main ATLC exercise, though the opportunity was taken to offer bilateral training opportunities to coalition partners who were taking part in the course, allowing the 27th FS to show what their aircraft could do, and to learn more about the capabilities of the USA ’s allies and partners. Pilch was keen to stress that the purpose of these engagements had been to provide high-value training to the participants in the ‘core’ ATLC exercise, rather than to simply demonstrate the dominance of the F-22A in the air-to-air combat arena. “We were not there to beat up on anybody, we were there to get them to see, touch, hear and smell the F-22, showing them what we can do, and learning about what they can do, and thus how best we can operate alongside them in coalition operations,” Pilch said. For these training missions, the F-22As flew only within visual range 1 vs 1 BFM (Basic Fighter Manoeuvring) sorties, and did so carrying under-wing fuel tanks, and with radar reflectors fitted, preventing opponents from seeing how ‘stealthy’ the F-22 is in operational configuration, or from experiencing the F-22’s AN/APG-77 radar and highly advanced AN/ALR-94 passive receiver system. The Raptor pilots flew against a variety of opponents, with only the RAF turning down the offer of training against the F-22A, to the evident disappointment of Pilch and Rogers. Pilch singled out the UAE Air Force and Air Defence pilots for their professionalism and thanked them for having been “great hosts”. Because some of the UAE Mirage 2000 pilots had 3,000 hours on type, while some of his young F-22 pilots had just 30 hours on the Raptor, he acknowledged that DACT with the UAE AFAD had been an “interesting match-up” and that this had presented his younger pilots with a real “challenge”. Pilch praised the UAE Air Force’s Block 60 F-16E/F for its “awesome avionics”, and lauded the Mirage 2000-9 for its “excellent manoeuvrability, especially close-in”. The Raptor pilots also highlighted the value of flying against the Pakistani F-7s, which represented an interesting and representative ‘asymmetric threat’ aircraft, in service in countries like Iran and North Korea . The Squadron rated its deployment to Al Dhafra a great success. Though the deployment marked the F-22A’s first extended test under such harsh desert conditions, with fierce sandstorms and 100° temperatures, and despite operating thousands of miles from its normal supply chain, the aircraft exceeded the USAF’s expectations, demonstrating impeccable availability and a higher-than-expected sortie rate. “The maintenance group didn’t know what to expect and so we took a generic support equipment package,” Rogers said later. “We pretty well got it just right.” In the event, the F-22A operated at a higher tempo and with a smaller logistics footprint than would be required by the F-15 or F-16 - aircraft types that have been deploying to the region since the 1970s. The 27th Fighter Squadron’s CO expressed his satisfaction with the progress that had been made, stressing: “The problems we had with software, avionics, sensor tasking and sensor fusion back in 2003 when I joined the F-22 programme have all been ironed out, and we’re transitioning to a great point in the next six months where the aircraft will truly be cost-effective and fully mature.” He said he expected a real improvement in sortie generation capability in the near future. But, quite apart from demonstrating cost-effectiveness, availability and maturity, the F-22A also highlighted its unique operational capabilities during the deployment to Al Dhafra. “We demonstrated that Raptor can defend a particular point better than anything else and that we have an unmatched ability to strike hard and deep and with great precision. Finally, we can provide great situational awareness to the rest of the force,” Pilch said.

[@Virtualenvirons]

I don't think anyone disputes the F--22 is the best today. It clearly is. I guess what I wonder is, what will it take to defeat a raptor besides another raptor. Goring said something like that to Hitler after the battle of Britain. I need Spitfires.

[@sotm6078]

Whatdid you use as a model to produce the Arrow images in your video??

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Sotm. I rebuilt the Arrow from scratch using the original schematics. It is probably more accurate than other models. Except for the F-18's, I built everything myself. regards....Virtual

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Sorm If you are asking what programs I use, it is Vectorworks and CINEMA 4D

[@sotm6078]

Original schematics? I am trying to build a Radio Control Arrow from scratch. When you say schematics do you mean you have some Arrow schematics or other drawings of the Arrow?

[@Virtualenvirons]

@@sotm6078 Hi Sotm. There are lots of schematics available online, even some Arrow model kits. My Arrow is Very Visually accurate nad takes the Arrow further with Missile development, but not accurate enough to fly as the real Arrow...I don't think anyway. regards....Virtual

[@sotm6078]

Do you have any schematics drawings you would share that could help my project? Even links would be great, most of what I have found doesn't help much.

[@PierreaSweedieCat]

Pavel Checkov! Nevvver noticed before. I howled with laughter! Thanks! Almost as good as the Mackenzie Brothers!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi P.M. Yes, what I was thinking that was the people would recognized that name and hear Kirk and Chekov is their heads for that dialogue. I don't know if it worked though. Thanks for the other comment also. regards...Virtual

[@PierreaSweedieCat]

@@Virtualenvirons I heard the voices! I was feeling down, and I was replaying that for kicks. And then the little 2 watt light in my head went on! I laughed madly. Had to watch this thing several times before I caught on! In my old age, I seem to be turning into Dief! 3 centuries from now, Pavel's great-great-grandson, will grow up to pilot ANOTHER ship. One as great as the Arrow! And it too, will have Canuck connections!

[@philkelsey1483]

I wish it was true ... drop the F35, bring back the Arrow.

[@0623kaboom]

there is a company tooling to make at least one of the 206 flight variants with modern standards ....

[@formereverything4268]

combat radius at cruising speed was barely 400 miles, probably 150 miles at max speed and altitude, and the project was completely compromised by Soviet intelligence.

[@jetsfan1498]

No it wasn't, it was compromised by American intelligence which was also being spied on by Soviets. Also Avro wasn't keeping it a secret from everyone, just the opposite, it was an international collaboration so espionage didn't mean nothing to them, it only meant some thing to politicians playing their stupid head games with the public. It wasn't cancelled because of over cost, or ICBM threats or espionage threats... al of that was a smoke screen, it was cancelled because the American wanted to control it & monopolize the technology into their own programs and that's a fact.

[@valenrn8657]

It's combat radius: 360 NM or 410 mi or 660 km.

[@jetsfan1498]

Jim100 AB - Ya Whitcomb's conspiracy theory is a little far fetched. Don't get me wrong I believe there was some sort of conspiracy, it mostly existed within the Canadian government to cover up their fears of the American and Soviet programs (which is why I believe our politicians turned into pacifist pussies in the end). The CF-105 was able to intercept the U2 but that wasn't' a problem as the U2 was going to be replaced by the WS-110A program which lead to the A-11 & A-12 competition and the A-12 turned into the YF-12 & SR-71. Now those programs had not even existed during the Avro Arrow era (only the WS-110A existed on paper only) but that lead to the XB-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber which would eventually be capable of MACH 3.1+. The Arrow was even able to intercept that even in the Mk2 model. (This was do to an evolution of the IRoquois engine upto a MACH 3+ even in Mk2 hull).

[@jetsfan1498]

Jim AB100 -in continuation... So it was advantageous for the Americans to have a conspiracy to kill the Arrow because of that but then the Soviets found out about it through a Canadian spy leak and started building the Mig-25 which cross engineered Arrow technology and the XB-70 was killed and the A-12 was taken into further clandestine super development and classified to the point where it was the death penalty to even talk about it. & right around then is when Alien conspiracies and UFO sightings started getting popular eh! x-files 9 of their episodes were based on true stories, none of them aliens ok. That was Area 51 & skunkworks.

[@jetsfan1498]

Jim AB 100 - in continuation... But for all this third generation fight production talk like the Arrow most 3rd generation fighter programs were cancelled pre-Vietnam war era. The ICBM threat both sides created, they believed was sufficient enough to create a deterrent, their cold war strategy did hinge on this. So, the only third generation Jet that was produced in North America was the F-4 Phantom II (about 5000) which was not even a qualified interceptor but more like a fighter bomber. The F-4 PHantom II was ultimately defeated in the Vietnam war & this was because America did not have any 3rd generation Jets to provide air cover & air dominance. Some thing Jets like the Arrow and the Rapier were designed to do.

[@codecodderson3607]

Jesus you don't need to be traveling faster to intercept it. hasn't anyone done trigonometry before ? Also that bomber fully loaded can't maintain mach 1+ for very long or it will be a one way mission. All top speeds posted on Wikipedia for theses aircraft are in optimal conditions with no stores and most likely less than %50 fuel. Alaska also has f-22s which can maintain mach 1+ in supercruse (no afterburner) and wont burn thru fuel as fast. Yea the arrow was fast hypothetically , so is the mig 25 but it also has no range.

[@johnsaia9739]

This late 1950s / early 1960s technology would be no match for current jets or SAMs that would shoot it down faster than you could whistle "Dixie." LOL! Canada could not afford the R&D budget to make a first line fighter/interceptor with 21st century capabilities. Just keep funding your socialist programs and don't worry the US will continue to protect its little brother just like the rest of NATO and pay the lion's share of the bill.

[@valenrn8657]

From flight manual for F-15E With this configuration 100% trim MIL power 50% fuel no tanks/CFT 4xAIM-7 2XAIM-9 ICAO standard day at 31,000-36,000 feet F-15E with F100-PW-220 M1.03 F-15E with F100-PW-229 M1.08 F-15E with F110-GE-129 M1.14 F-35A can supercruise with mach 1.2. F-22A can supercruise with mach 1.5+ F-35A with F135 Block 1 engine has about 47300 lbf thrust which is 10 percent higher than current F-135 Block 0 engine.

[@bryonscheer2759]

You didn't want the F-15 it used to much fuel !so you could never afford the F-22!..................

[@northernlite3368]

That a/c flew in March 1958 buddy ! F-22,S and Mig 25's DID NOT exist then !

[@mtefft]

What makes you think an intercept would be done from the rear? Radar can detect bombers in enough time for a head on intercept. The slight differences in speed would not be a factor. The bombers would be shot down from missiles launched from the fighters from a head on position. Fighters have radar guided missiles, they don't need to get behind a target to attack.

[@eric7922]

Ha, I’ll be in Kapuskasing (stones throw from defunct CFS Lowther) when this all goes down, looking forward to it. Entertaining and informative, well done.

[@smitty1245]

Pretty sure the jet wash from the Arrow would put the TU 166 into a stall or spin before overheating its engines. They also usually get intercepted while they're still over the artic. Anyhow, good work on the video.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thanks....If you watch the rest of the series...things get a lot better. We did not expect the response. There is a storyline, but have a quick look of Ep. 6 to see where this is going. Series link below. regards....Virtual Series LInk kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@danieldery5903]

hello, I took notice the inlet of the Arrow looks very much like the inlet of the F-4 and the wing leading edge is notched like the Arrow I wonder about that I also noticed that the wheel well has somewhat stealth like configuration I know that we have been working on microwaves for a long time we understand radar return and how to suppress it i think that we Canadians can build our own fighter planes we have the infrastructures and talents to do it why not?

[@jetsfan1498]

The Arrow was built to a measure of Low radar cross section. Delta designs do that and it had an internal weapons bay because Missile pylons create too much radar section from the protrusions on the wing and hull. The notches were to increase the effective aspect ratio of a wing without materially increasing the wingspan. A reduced wing span increases air speed. The F-4 was not a delta, it was a fixed wing, designed for high speeds and low flying and STOL for carriers. The Arrow was not capable of the things the F-4 was capable of and vice a versa. The F-4 had reduced radar cross section by building the engines into the the tail section so the tail sections low observability hid the engines under it.

[@danieldery5903]

what i am saying is that some of the technology displayed by the arrow found it's way into the F-4 design

[@valenrn8657]

USN's North American A-5 Vigilante has similar inlet design to F-14, F-15, MiG-25, F-18E, MiG-29 and SU-27. A-5's first flight is August 31, 1958.

[@valenrn8657]

Jim100 AB, F-4's inlet design is dead end.

[@danieldery5903]

I am saying that the F-4 used the inlet design of the Arrow if it was not designed that way the engine would flame out due to compressor stall.

[@MsJfraser]

The only jet aircraft Avro Canada was allowed to produce was the CF-100 Canuck. The Jetliner and the Arrow never saw production. The Arrow was a bomber interceptor, not a dogfight aircraft. Yes, President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Diefenbaker held discussions on the Arrow, but Canada's government cancelled the program due to cost over runs. The Americans were more involved with its development than many think.

[@raynus1160]

Avro needed no one's permission, save the one holding the purse strings. Not only was this demonstrated with the CF-100 and CF-105, but with the C-102 Jetliner as well.

[@MsJfraser]

To this day since 1959, Canada is not allowed to develop its own supersonic aircraft. True story.

[@raynus1160]

The Defense Production Sharing Agreement can be cancelled by any sitting government at any time. See section 16 of the agreement. None have chosen to do so, as it has been a windfall for Canadian defense equipment manufacturers. www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad01691.html

[@valenrn8657]

Israel has unlicensed cloned Mirage 5 as IAI Nesher and IAI Kfir (aka F-21A Lion). IAI Kfir has delta wings with forward canards. Israel design and builds their own avionics and air-to-air missiles. Israel can build their own General Electric J79 turbojet engines. IAI Kfir has export sales despite F-16 competition. F-35I has Israeli design avionics. quwa.org/2017/01/09/argentina-renews-talks-with-tel-aviv-for-iai-kfir-block-60/

[@georgebenneyworth825]

John Fraser

[@mikemanners1069]

"Perhaps one of the most entrenched myths surrounding the Arrow was its technological pre-eminence in the 1950s. While it was an advanced aircraft, the Arrow was one of only several being developed at the time. Of these, the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom represented a true technological breakthrough. Its design - a fast, multi-role fighter with a powerful radar - would define future fighter innovation, with more than 5,000 eventually produced. The Arrow, a heavy bomber interceptor, was an evolutionary dead-end, partly due to the advent of the intercontinental ballistic missile. Among Canadian allies, this unique aircraft type would disappear over coming decades, largely replaced by the more versatile fighters of the F-4’s mould. The Arrow program had other major flaws, but none was as fatal as its cost. Each Arrow was projected to cost more than three times that of the Phantom and still faced serious development challenges until it was cancelled. These straightforward facts, not the myth of an American conspiracy to end the program, explain the Arrow’s demise. Continuing with such a program today would be a national scandal. To some degree, it was a scandal in 1959, given that the program’s failings were well known by 1957 yet it continued development for one more year, resulting in nearly $200 million in additional expenditure before its cancellation." SOURCE: www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/time-to-lay-the-avro-arrow-myth-to-rest-richard-shimooka-in-the-winnipeg-free-press/

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Mike. Thank you for your comment and I do appreciate polite and knowledgable opposing points of view. The people that came together to produce this series did so for one purpose, to explain the Arrow and its demise. I am a big fan of the F-4 and it could be considered a contemporary of the Arrow, much more so than the F-106. But, early F-4's were riddled with problems. It would have been 1968 before the two could be compared. Even then, the F-4 was still using tried and true technology. The Arrow was designed with inherent instability. This was not seen on American fighters until the F-16 and F-18. It also incorporated fly-by-wire with haptic feedback, again not seen on American fighters until the F-16 and F-18. A 4000 psi hydraulic system and engine with twice the power of the J-79 of the period. In many respects it was the Iroquois that was the most advanced of anything. No one really doubt anymore that the American industrial complex killed the Arrow. It was too advanced. It was not the the Americans or Russians did not understand the math, but the Russians could never build it even if we gave them the plans. For the Americans, it was different. America cannot buy front line fighters from another country. It took an act of Congress in WW2 for America to buy Spitfires from Britain and then the act was repealed after the war. The Arrow was too good to let fly. It would have eventually impacted the U.S. on many levels. Also, it was designed with ground mapping radar for the strike role and it could hit Washington and what was going to stop it? There was also a condition the Americans put forward after the Arrow was killed, that we would be allowed to bid on contracts in the American industrial base (big carrot) if we "never designed a major weapons system again without U.S participation". ....regards....Virtual

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Farhang...The Mig-25 was no Arrow. It had speed, but extremely short legs and no ability to turn and land safely. They lost a lot landing. This is the story of the Mig-25. The Mig-25 was designed only to shoot down the never deployed XB-70 Valkrye bomber. After the Gary Powers incident, the U.S. realized that high altitude bombing was over, so they cancelled the program. They just did not tell the Russians they cancelled it. The Russians built nearly 500 of these highly expensive, totally useless for combat Mig-25's. Sometime you have to admire the CIA. The follow on Mig-31 is a good jet. Something else, operational ceiling of the Arrow was 58,000 ft, not the service ceiling. At 58,000 ft the Arrow had to be able to turn effectively. The Arrows service ceiling would have been significantly higher. regards...Virtual

[@mikemanners1069]

No one is saying that the Arrow was not an impressive plane in the late 1950s. My hats off the the Canadian engineers who designed and built her. However what the Canadian Aviation enthusiasts still refuse to face is that fact that the Arrow was an interceptor.....NOT a fighter. The concept of an interceptor jet was a evolutionary dead end in Military Aviation. Just research the air to air combat History of Korea and Vietnam. Even if the Arrow was somehow miraculously deployed in actual service it would be no match against something like the Mig-23 or Mig 31 in an air to air dogfight. Kindly, this myth that the big bad Americans tried to destroy Canadian Air Defense Industry is simply not true. It was not the Americans but the Canadian Government itself that saw the folly of funding any further a costly white elephant. Personally I would have liked to have seen some of them produced and put into service. The Arrow would have been an excellent spy/reconnoiter aircraft.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hello Mike. Thank you for your comment....very polite and I appreciate that, as I assume you are American. Before I begin, I want to point something out. The F-15 and F-22 are interceptors first and dogfighters second. The best example of this was the F-15/F-16 combo and the F-14/F-18 combo for fleet defence. The U.S. always fields a number of jet to fulfill air combat roles as no one has ever built one jet that can to it all. Back to the Arrow. The Arrow was built to intercept Russian bombers, as that was the only Russia threat at the time. No one said it could not shoot down another jet fighter, it's just that there would be no jet fighters coming over our Arctic. Even the vaunted F-4 was designed without a gun at first until they figured out that was a mistake. The Arrow was also designed to have ground mapping radar for the strike role making it more like an F-15 Strike eagle, only twenty years before the Strike Eagle. Among other things, it also had fly-by-wire with haptic feedback and little known inherent instability in the y-axis. These two items not seen on American fighters until the F-16 and F-18. The Arrow was designed to fight at higher altitudes, not unlike an F-15. It would have likely out turned an F-15 above 50,000 ft....that big wing. Also, the top speed of an Arrow would have been Mach 2.5 with Iroquois engines even fully loaded as its missiles were stored internally like an F-22. The follow on version of the Mark 2, the Mark 3 was to be a Mach 3 aircraft. Below is a link to the Arrow series. It tells the story of the Arrow in a non depressing way and more or less explains why the Arrow was a threat to America as well as Russia. A lot of stuff blows up in this series starting with Episode 3. regards....Virtual kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@mikemanners1069]

​@@Virtualenvirons I totally agree with everything you said about the performance and amazing engineering behind the Arrow. As I stated above I sincerely wish that the plane would have been produced. If just one squadron of the Arrow was put into service it could have really put the wind up the Russians. IMHO If both the Canadians and the Americans could have put aside National pride and hubris and a misguided quest for some sort of technological hegemony and worked together to produce the Arrow we could have given the Soviet Block a thrashing it never would have forgot. Canadians and Americans getting into a simpleminded pissing contest over the Arrow is a clear sign of a low thinking person. My favorite rifle of WW2 is the M1 Garand - invented by....a Canadian. One of my favorite groups from the 1970s is the Pure Prairie League - also Canadian. Kindly IMHO the Arrow was too cost prohibitive to be produced by Canada alone. Perhaps Canada could have done what the British did with the Harrier jet....share the cost of the project with the USA and BOTH sides benefit. I know it chafes the asses of many Canadian people to be overshadowed by their Southern neighbor. If I was Canadian I suppose I would be as well. But just look at the immense border between Canada and the USA. The longest undefended border in World History. Nothing has ever been like it. Apart from from President Adams stupid invasion of Canada and the burning of the city of York and the reactionary burning of Washington by British/Canadian forces I think we have gotten along quite well. Anyway I am pontificating so I will shut up now. Peace.

[@djbministry]

The video was awesome . I liked how they really worked the scenario. It was fun to watch A plus.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Charles. Thank you. Did you see all three episodes, if not series link follows. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@spoileralert3754]

Did this really happen? You suggest it did with Toronto Star exerts. If it did, how did you obtain Russian communications? Anyhow, very interesting.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Spoiler. This is only fictional. I you watch the entire series, there is a story that is mostly true. Series link below....regards....Virtual Series LInk kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@timothybenton315]

This is silly, you are talking apple and oranges. If the plane was active today it would not even find an F35 that was firing on it, the electronics package on the F18 and F35 are two generations ahead of this plane. Now if they had an updated model, maybe, but you have to remember, there would be little or no production other then Canadian needs, thus the price per airframe would drastically go up due to less production means development cost has to be absorbed by less. Now there was the talk of an updated stealth model, but the same problem with that would come in. First, to develop a stealth fighter and the tech that goes into such a fighter is immense. America would not have any interests in it would be in competition with their own airframes. The simple fact is it would not in any way be economically feasible. May want to look at Israel and see how their production was shut down due to this exact reason.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Timothy, The F-35 or F-18 are not tracking the Arrow, they are tracking the Bomber. You may have noticed the satellite, Russia has them also. Stealth can only defeat radar (to a point), not the human eye or a Satellite camera. That information is real time today, so that is how a bomber would know that jets were launched from a particular air base. If the bomber was faster, well ....the movie. But, back to the Arrow, it was an interceptor designed to do exactly what the movie shows. In the scenario I show, how do you see another outcome? Although technologically remarkable, the F-35 is slow and the F-18 is no speed demon either.

[@timothybenton315]

It is obvious you have never been in any air force, I did 20+ years in working with fighters. No one can track optically more than a few miles out, the reason is rather simple, it is the size of the sky. But radar, that is another story, the Arrow as it was designed was put out long before stealth was known or understood, the interceptor would have stood out like an F4 on the radar, which was a very large target. Also, you don't need to be as fast as a bomber or fighter to shoot them down, you can run intercepts from different points of the compass with more than one fighter, you can then fire a 4+ mach missile at a craft that at top speed is flying at 2, the craft will not stay up long. Also, the top speed of the F16 is classified, but by what we can discuss it is listed as 1,150 MPH, the Avro has a top speed of 1534.54, but remember the F18 or F35's are equipped with a AMRAAM that has a flight speed of 3,045 mph, which is double the speed of an Arrow. the other problem you have is the Arrow with 1950's and 60's tech would not even pick up a F35 when it was close, would be hard-pressed to pick up a F18 which has stealthy enhancements for a frontal profile, both would be able to fire on the craft without it even knowing where they were until the missile was fired, by then it would be too late.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Timonthy, You are using posted numbers on the Arrow Mark 1. Also, you this is competition about speed, not aerial combat. Because the project was halted so abruptly, these are the only figures that anyone can post, but even the Mark 1 held back on the throttles. AVRO wanted to break the world speed record by a huge margin with the Mark 2A (this movie) The Mark 2A would easily hit Mach 2.5 (use Mach as generic number for 767), but like any modern fighter the limitation of conventional engines to process air past ~Mach 2.5 is difficult. Anyway, the project was halted (no speed record) and all planes, plans, and tooling destroyed which is why the Arrow lives on in legend. Canada only has two main Air bases, one on each coast. There are six others that can be activated in War time. I am assuming you are American as you reference the F-16 and F-4. In America you have those multiple Air Bases, but we do not. That was why we wanted an Arrow. The Arrow was very sophisticated for it's time. The first part of this movie is largely true. It had a huge radar, but no rear sensor capability and the signal processing was good, but not today. So, AMRAAM is excellent and fast, but can't reach out forever and sidewinder could barely catch an Arrow from behind. I am going to ask you this again. From behind....over Canada......how does an F-35 track down a Mach 2 aircraft of any kind......look forward to your response.

[@timothybenton315]

Actually, this is from the Arrow Mark 2, the one with the Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines. There were only two types built, the mark 1 and 2, no more were ever constructed. There was the talk of trying to create a modern version, never came about. As I said, I was in the Air Force, write techno-thrillers now,, know the craft well, if it would have been built in the 60's would have by far been the best interceptor of the day, the only one that would have been better was the proposed YF-12 which was an interceptor based on the SR71 airframe, that was cancelled due to the cost of each airframe.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Yes, the A-12, fantastic aircraft, but I don't think the CIA ever intended it to be an interceptor. I think they intended it to carry one large bomb. One of the earliest designations was XB-71. I was enjoying the morning banter with you, wife and I heading to Barbados for a month next week, but when I return, I will begin Ep. 3. In the Ep. 3 the Arrow mixes it up with Su-33's. You can find the trailer on my youtube channel. There is much on the Arrow not posted, not classified, just not posted. Through arrangements we have made I have access to all of it through my colleague. He is a retired Air Force General and an Aeronautical engineer who has published books on the Arrow. He also knows the F-18 very well. I don't know if you saw Ep. 2, there is a link from Ep 1 which explains how the Arrow existed today. There is also a trailer of sorts for Ep. 3. regards....Virtual

[@nathanblades3395]

Call me crazey but all Canadians need is a fast interceptor for thier country The Arrow already had internal weapons bay ahead of its time

[@florbfnarb7099]

How was an internal weapons bay ahead of the times?

[@nathanblades3395]

@@florbfnarb7099 because at that time most jets had external weapons

[@denmalski]

it was a fine design for the late 50's and 60's but lets not get carried away that the Arrow would have any chance against a modern aircraft, to big to dogfight but a fine interceptor. and Mach 3 was never a spec for this aircraft to achieve. it was simply a Canadian Mig 25 Foxbat but slower.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Mig 25 could not turn around from Toronto to Ottawa al any speed. Big engine strapped to rocket air frame. Most accidents were trying to land the thing. The reason the Mig 25 was designed was for one reason only, to shoot down XB-71 Valkyrie bombers. The U.S. let it be known that they were going to produced hundreds of that high speed (mach 3), high altitude bomber. The Russians spent most of there defence budgets for years building a jet that could go up high and fast and shoot these down, instead of tanks or ships, etc.. They fielded ~250 of these titanium jets. The U.S. only built 2 prototypes and never field one. You have to admire the CIA sometimes.

[@denmalski]

the Arrow was designed to do one thing as well, intercept Soviet Bombers, that's why I said it was like a Mig -25, it had the same role , high speed long range interceptor. the F-4 phantom is roughly the same vintage as the CF-105 and there isn't anything thing the Arrow could do that the Phantom couldn't do as well, not Knocking the 105, just not delusional of its capabilities. SaaB Draken also same era and performance.

[@raynus1160]

Could a CF-105 carry 18,000lbs of external stores or land on a carrier?

[@raynus1160]

4000lbs internally vs. 18,000lbs externally - not even in the same ballpark.

[@raynus1160]

I'll give you an additional 3000lbs for the Mk 2's centerline hardpoint. 7000lbs vs. 18000lbs. Still no contest. Cheers.

[@ditzydoo4378]

Question if you please? Why are you comparing the CF-105 in a vs. to an F-35 and an F/A-18??? They are three design's that have little to nothing in common. The Arrow a land based Interceptor. The F-35 a land/sea joint strike series of stealth fighters. The F/A-18 a frontline Naval fighter/attack aircraft rolled into land serve.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi D-Doo. A good question, one that has been asked before. We are actually comparing them in their role for Canadian Air Defence, but it would have been a very long title (AVRO Arrow vs the F-35 & F-18 in an Intercept role over Northern Canada above Mach 1.8)....so we shortened it. The requirement for an Arrow or Arrow type fighter still exists today even though the requirement for it was written in early 1950. The perfect fighter would be an F-15, but its maintenance and flight time costs were too high for Canada, so we went with F-18's. A good choice also, twin engine. Canada only has two Air Bases, one on the East Coast and one the West Coast. There is a bomber gap right down the middle of Canada that leads to the heart of America. If you go to my channel, you will find a short documentary explaining that gap. It is under the Arrow series or just click on the link below. regards....Virtual kzbin.info/www/bejne/nn6ucqKorq2Jhpo

[@chuckbarsony3310]

No question about it. This still generates alot of passion and discussion both within the aviation community, military community, and history buffs. The question would be, WHO could take the time and effort to review the design (given that a full set of documents is supposedly not available), and upgrade it with present day power, avionics, communications, security, and firepower ?? It would be one hell of a gamble, BUT what if it would work ??

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Chuck...I guess we are passed the Arrow every being reborn. These movies I make and will make just give some closure to one of the worst days of many Canadians. Thanks for commenting...regards....Virtual

[@danzervos7606]

If the Russian plane was tracked by F-35's they would never see them coming. With an obsolete plane like the Tu-160, Elmendorf probably wouldn't bother with the latest aircraft and would send a couple of F-15's after it. Meanwhile the Tu-160 would be tracked and painted by SAM systems that could shoot it down at any time. They would be sweating bullets.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Very true, but could you please explain to me how a plane travelling at Mach 1.6 can track down a plane travelling at Mach 2.

[@jordan8538]

The Tu-160 simply doesn't travel at mach 2.0, it cruises at mach 0.8 and can only reach its maximum speed with afterburners. The F-22 (which would take off from Alaska) can supercruise at mach 1.7 and would be invisible to the TU-160's radar. The F-35 engines are not designed to supercruise, however it is rumoured to have the ability to supercruise at mach 1.1-1.2 due to the sheer power of its engine and low drag design. This video I'm afraid is a fictitious dream, nothing more. A fighter air frame designed in the early 50's is not going to be competitive today.

[@valenrn8657]

Virtualenvirons, F-35A with F-135 Block 0 engine has 1200 mph speed which is similar numbers as Rafales and Hornets. Tu-160 has 1,380 mph speed. F-35 Block 4 has support for long range Meteor missiles. If additional speed is required, there is F-135 Growth Option 1 engine upgrade. www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-pratt-whitney-proposes-block-1-engin-427150/ F-35's F-135 Block 1 engine upgrade. The proposed Block 1 upgrade would improve the baseline F135 engine, with 5-7% better fuel burn and up to 10% more thrust, Croswell says. That could increase the engine’s capability up to a thrust rating of 47,300lb (210kN). www.defensenews.com/air/2017/05/31/pratt-whitney-pitches-souped-up-version-of-the-f-35-engine/ Pratt & Whitney recently completed performance tests of an early version of the system, called the fuel burn reduction demonstrator engine, which proved that the upgrade could improve thrust by __up to 10 percent_ and _reduce fuel consumption by up to 6 percent_ , he said. Reporters got to see the prototype in action during a May 30 demonstration at the company's test rigs_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/fqfbiq2fbaupp68 P&W's video on F-135 Growth Option 1.0 upgrade demonstrator engine and results. F-135 Growth Option 1.0 replaces just the power module and it's a "drop-in" replacement. F-135 Growth Option 1.0 has 6 to 10 percent thrust increase and 5-to-6 percent fuel consumption decrease. Canada's delay in buying F-35s would be a good move since later F-35 builds has better engines and weapons support.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Rnl, this post was so long ago I forgot about it. I am still not sure that in the end, Canada and Boeing won't kiss and make up. In a perfect world, Canada would have a mix of the F-15' s like the Saudis bought and Superhornets. If we were not attached to the U.S. I would say F-15's and F-35's, but we are attached at the hip. You still have not commented on my theory that the F-35 can well exceed Mach 1.6, but is not a stealth fighter after that speed.

[@valenrn8657]

Virtualenvirons, USAF's 1200 Mph claim can be mach 1.6 to 1.8 depending on speed sound selected for reference. 1200 Mph being equal to mach 1.6 points to 10,000 feet's ~734 MPH speed of sound. It would be a surprise for F-35A to have mach 1.6 at 10,000 ft since would beat both F-15A/C(1) and F-16C(2)'s flight envelope at 10,000 ft. 1. i.imgur.com/VJh97ox.jpg 2. www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=1454&t=1 www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=12343&t=1 F-22's incomplete flight envelope. It reached near mach 1.6 at 10,000 ft with 5G turn.

[@northernlite3368]

I hope John Diefenbaker rots in hell for cancelling this project. Imagine this THING with modern materials and engines, It would achieve mach 4 and maybe faster yet...!

[@valenrn8657]

Unlikely i.e. it's not Lockheed SR-71 or hypersonic SR-72.

[@northernlite3368]

Definitely agree. But had we gone through in 1960 with all that new (for the time) techonology, where would we be today ? ...Maybe a hell of a long ways ahead of the sais sr 70's series. Remember, All the engineers that participated in that project ended at the head of the engineering departments at NASA, Boeing, Lockheed, and others after the project was abandonned ! With time it would have been followed by fighter jets, bombers, etc etc and Canada would have turned out to be a major builder of military combat jets.. But history made it otherwisw thank's to decisions made by the Diefenbaker conservative government...

[@jetsfan1498]

Mk 3 will hit MACH 3.5 & Mk4 will hit MACH 5+

[@valenrn8657]

The real Avro Arrow reached mach 1.9.

[@raynus1160]

...and piloted by a then 24 year-old Elvis Aaron Presley, hey Jimbo? LOL!!

[@oneastrails]

Awesome plane for it's time, but you can't compare the Arrow with anything new. It was designed as a go fast in a straight line to get to the bombers interceptor. It is massive, a 737 probably has a tighter turning radius. It is nice that us Canadians are patriotic about this plane but you have to realize that at the same time the Americans were designing the XB70 and YF12, and the Brits the TSR2. Also the American were already flying their F-106, a very comparable delta winged aircraft to the Arrow except it could dogfight. All of these very comparable to the Arrow. It is not like we were that far ahead as everyone else unlike what the propaganda machine might tell you. Sure it is a shame we put the nail on aircraft production here with the cancellation of the Arrow, but look how many other aircraft producers from the 50s are out of business or gobbled up by Boeing or Lockheed?

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Bebebeelzebub....quite a handle. The Arrow was more agile than people think. It was very mission specific, but at the time Air Superiority fighters were just being thought of. It is generally accepted that an Arrow could pull between 5 to 6G's is thick air, but could still pull 4 to 5G's in thin air, 50 to 60,000 ft.. Keeping in mind that only the F-15 and F-22 can turn very well above 50, 000 ft. An F-18 would lose a dogfight to the Arrow at that altitude. Besides not being able to turn as well, it would be much slower than the Arrow. Also, the F-4 Phantom and the XF-108 were close competitors of the Arrow, but not the F-106. regards....Virtual

[@oneastrails]

You have a couple of points but I disagree on some. I think if you read any history of air combat, ie Vietnam, Middle East, you would be hard pressed to find a dogfight above 50k feet. Even if it started that high it would wind it's way down. Heck the service ceiling of a F-18 is only 50k. Nothing but a U2 can really fly that well over 50K, ie maneuvering. Agree on the Arrow mission specific, that is why I just shake my head when people still think it has a place today. Like that kooky Canadian ex General, Mackenzie, who wanted to start producing them again. The day of the manned interceptor was killed by the SAM. Oh still think the F-106 is somewhat comparable to the Arrow in mission in performance.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Bebebeelzebub...Nice handle. The Arrow like the F-15 and F-22 are/were class 2 fighters. F-18. 16, etc, Class 1. Class 1 fighters tend to be agile, even more agile than the 15 or 22, but don't have the power or altitude ability......or can't create the same energy state. The Class 2 (Arrow) stay high and kill high. The big wing on the Arrow could keep it turning good G's up to 60,000 ft. Through computer analysis (Fluid Dynamics) the Arrow was shown to pull high G's at that altitude. Higher than the F-15. But, at lower altitudes the Arrow could only do ~ 5 + G's. The U-2. If the U-2 was forced to turn, even at low very G, .5 G's for example, it would probably fall out of the sky. The U2 had very strict parameters for flying. It was not at SR-71 for example. The F-106 was a good plane, but not an Arrow. The F-4 phantom was probably the first plane to match the Arrow.

[@Justin_Saves]

Cool little video😊

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you, there are 11 more after this one. Watch until after the credits role and a link will take you to he next one....regards....Virtual

[@ivorholtskog5506]

I understand. A good job always takes time. Looking forward to seeing it.

[@valenrn8657]

Useless... F-15C has about mach 2.5 while CF-105 has mach 1.90 level flight. From Wiki, In the US, the 1954 interceptor was well underway, and would ultimately introduce the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, an aircraft with many similarities to the Arrow. More advanced designs were also being considered, notably the Mach 3 Republic XF-103, and by the time the Arrow was flying, the much more advanced North American XF-108.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Had....had mach 1.98 with test engines at about 80% thrust. This all happened in the 50's. The Iroquois engines would have taken it to mach 2.5. Faster once they adjusted in intakes. The intakes were a limitation. The engine was more powerful than they anticipated. The mark 2 was projected to have a service ceiling of 68,000 ft., same as the eagle. But, this all happened a long, long....time ago. In a country......far....far.....away......before most americans were born.

[@valenrn8657]

Virtualenvirons, Above mach 2.5, air friction is a large factor, hence needs better materials. Projected estimates means nothing when there's practical examples. Most fighter aircrafts above mach 2 has twin tails design i.e. single tail is not enough. Reaching sustained and beyond mach 3, large facing fan blade are bottlenecks, hence why SR-71's engines has hybrid ramjet design. Refer to hypersonic SR-72 R&D project as the successor to SR-71. There's a reason why F-15s resembles MiG-25 but with better energy based dog fight capability. In the US, the 1954 interceptor was well underway, and would ultimately introduce the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, an aircraft with many similarities to the Arrow. More advanced designs were also being considered, notably the Mach 3 Republic XF-103, and by the time the Arrow was flying, the much more advanced North American XF-108. For speed machine, Canada still rejects the latest F-15 Advance or the proposed F-15SE while USAF plans to upgrade thier F-15s e.g. F-15 2040C

[@valenrn8657]

Jim100 AB, Prove it. F-106 reached about mach 2.35. Year 1963 proven Mach 3.3 YF-12 (USAF's combat SR-71 variant) was one of the last interceptor designed fighter. F-12B was the production version before cancellation. F-22 sized SR-72 is a follow-on project from SR-71 with near global strike capability and stealth. SR-72 is currently funded by NASA and it's LM candidate concept for USAF's "6th gen" fighter aircraft. Avro Arrow doesn't have the design concepts like F-12's sustained mach 3 e.g. full titanium skin, ramjet hybrid engines and twin tails. Year 1956 has F-104 with mach 2.0 speeds.

[@valenrn8657]

Proven Mach 3.3 F-12B reached production model stage before it was canceled. Both XF-103 and F-12B has hybrid Ramjet engines. F-106's interceptor role was taken over by F-15s. Lockheed X-7 (1951) was a ramjet engine test bed with mach 4 which leads to SR-71/F-12. There are 32 SR-71, 3 YF-12A and 12 A-12. SR-72 is a follow on project from SR-71. Canada has licensed F-104 as CF-104 which has mach 2.0.

[@valenrn8657]

Arrow's first flight was in *March 25 1958*. Mach 3.35 capable Lockheed A-12's first flight was in *April 26 1962*. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12 Lockheed YF-12 first flight was in August 7 1963. SR-72 was only a variant from A-12 aircraft design. A-12 has RCS (stealth) reduction via radar-absorbing composite materials. Lockheed X-7's first flight was in *April 26, 1951*. Mach 4 capable Lockheed X-7 test bed includes Ramjet technology for A12/YF-12/SR-71. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_X-7 Notice X-7's engine already resembles A12/YF-12/SR-71 engine designs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X-7a-3_Recovery.jpg Lockheed X-7 already has diamond delta wing design like F-22A and YF-23.

[@mikewoitt8111]

Good day. I just received my Thesis in the mail and I took it to the University for a Professor to look at. He called it a historical document. It took me 3 years and 2 months to write it. I have already started to work on the second edition which I plan to give to a couple of female friends of mine for Christmas.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Mike, Congratulations. What do you plan do with the document? regards...Virtual

[@mikewoitt8111]

Hello. not sure. what do you think should be done with it/

[@mikeb.5039]

I love the video. Even with the U.S. aerospace companies interference the Arrow project was doomed from the start because of the faulty thinking that missiles were going to be the BE ALL, END ALL that was the rage in the1950's. The Arrow was not the only aircraft project to suffer from this short sighted thinking. The F-4 for the lack of a gun suffered over Vietnam, which was rectified on USAF aircraft later. Then the USAF cancelled what could be called it's own version of the Arrow in the form of the F-108 Rapier after the B-70 program was cancelled, since the requirement for that long range fighter went away. Since Canada still had the requirement for a long range interceptor, how come Avro and North American did not join up to build the aircraft. Probably because the politicians had already decided it was cheaper to buy systems already in use, like the BOMARC( a plane trying to act like a missile)

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Mike. Thanks for the comment. I don't know if you saw all three episodes, if not series link to follow...regards...Virtual kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@ivorholtskog5506]

How goes the latest installment?

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Ivor. It's 12:45 am...just getting in from a fun evening, but my spelling may be off....little tipsy. I have finished Ep. 5 and one quarter through Ep. 6. Although they are two 20 minute video's, they are really part 1 and part 2 of one episode....a good episode I think. Do you think that those who follow the series would like to see part 1 now and wait for part 2 in six weeks or see both together; regards..Virtual

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Ivor. The Trailers for five and six are on my website. regards...Virtual

[@jimmimcsandy]

I had an Uncle that worked on the electronics - upon its demise.. he took a job at NASA in of all branches.. :O . .ADA Michigan .. (since he knew the craft ..inside and out.. Avro kept him on.. for 10-12 days after its cancellation.. so he could guide the welders.. where to cut.. and where NOT TO..( avoiding fuel lines in the plane so that MALTON would not be leveled with an explosion.. ) ..my father was an air-traffic controller at Malton.. (before it was renamed Pearson) and had the privilege of talking it out.. for its maiden flight. I have 2 of the plastic models.. and 4 sheets of ORINGAL Avro Drafting Paper (8.5 by 11)

[@Virtualenvirons]

That's a good story...sad.....but good. regards....Virtual

[@warrenthomas9068]

Love it, what a great Video. The only error in the depiction of the Arrow is the Nose Wheel Door was modified to close once the wheel was down and locked, as it cause problems when there were crosswinds upon landing.

[@Virtualenvirons]

You didn't by chance work on the Arrow did you?

[@warrenthomas9068]

No I was only 16 when the Arrow was cancelled. :(

[@duaneschison9934]

NOW THAT IS TRULY CANADIAN. !!! Thank you for bringing my own imagination to the screen for me to see, to warm my heart and soul the way you did with this video is Amazing! Salute!

[@Virtualenvirons]

thank you very much. I am in Barbados for a month, but will begin Ep 3 when I return. There is an Ep.1 if you have not seen it. It is on my Channel. regards Virtualenvirons

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you Duane, there is an Ep. 1 also, and there will be Ep. 3 and probably 4. Taking a break in Barbados until Mar. 7.

[@duaneschison9934]

Enjoy the sunshine !!!!

[@mikewoodman2872]

If this was on TV, I would watch it every single night. No word of a lie.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Mike. Thanks for the comment. We really appreciate that feedback. Makes it all worth while. regards..Virtual

[@Virtualenvirons]

Did you see all three episodes. The series link is in the info box.

[@mikewoodman2872]

There's more?? Imma go get me some.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Mike, I am not looking for Subscribers, not making any money on these. But, we are going to release two more episodes and a technical movie later on. Ep 4 around Christmas and a technical movie comparing correctly the Arrow against the F-35. If you subscribe you will be alerted to their release. regards..Virtual

[@tandemawd]

But does is launch syrup and can it play hockey well?

[@Virtualenvirons]

Yes on both accounts....regards...Virtual

[@gp33music41]

Hilariously short sighted, "what are air to air missiles? What do you mean the f 35 doesn't have to be as fast as the plane it's shooting down?"

[@vectorworksnurbsmodelling6049]

Young man, you have a lot to learn. I am not talking about aircraft, I mean piano. Your hands are like hammers. Below is a video on how the keys should be approached. Back to aircraft. Canada has two Air bases, one on the east coast and one on the west coast. Nothing down the middle. The Bomber Gap. BTW, your questions are odd, do your parents know you smoke pot? The F-35 will be brilliant in Europe where it was really designed to fight. Over the vastness of Canada, not so. much. Although it is "Stealthy", its real strength is situational awareness or the ability to see the entire playing field. If you have specific questions before smoking a dube, please feel free to ask. Watch this video for the piano. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4bJg3Zqe6iBjqc

[@gp33music41]

@@vectorworksnurbsmodelling6049 Wow, what a useless comment. I never thought I'd see the day where someone changes the subject over to how I played piano a year ago when I had only been playing for a few months at the time. Your comment in incoherent because you seem to believe that I'm high, and that's the only reason I made a reasonable comment about the video. Yes, the f35 isn't an interceptor, and is not intended to be used as such, but in the scenario shown in the video, the f35 would not need to go as fast as the bomber to destroy it, and the creator claims that it does. I sense you are an ignorant old man of little repute who spends his time stalking teenagers on the Internet, oh, what's that? You don't like me making hasty generalizations based off of a cursory glance? Then don't do that to others. I see that you are likely just the creator of the video responding on a separate account, and in that case, you won't budge in an argument so good day!