AVRO ARROW VS Sukhoi Su-33

[@jim100ab9]

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

[@jim100ab9]

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

[@jim100ab9]

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

[@jim100ab9]

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

[@jim100ab9]

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

[@jim100ab9]

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

[@mafmaf6417]

I think what angers most Canadians, that care, is we were never able to see the full potential of what the Arrow could have become or what Avro and Orenda could have done. The fact that so many engineers went on to work on other projects shows how we really did loose alot.

[@burtmcreavy7695]

The Arrow was the most lethal fighter bomber in the World Far ahead of any US fighters!, As a child living in Wiarton Ont. CANADA REMEMBER VERY WELL A HUGE BARN outside of town with a jet inside. This barn was well known as holding a secret!!!! The Canadian Military sent 24 7 security around this barn. I personally know 3 people who witnessed a huge aircraft just before the a canadian Military on a flat bed moved it out at 3 am.

[@WireWeHere]

Not even close to a conservative move scrapping knowledge and sending away whatever could leave.

[@RockwellRhodes]

@@burtmcreavy7695 Well, I'm sure if the military was involved, it wouldn't be the rank and file, it would have had to have been some covert element as the military is and has always been the lackeys of the government... itself, a panderer to the whims of the US. I doubt very much it was RL 206 that was in there.

[@christianguenther1276]

I'd like to believe that a whole, intact, Arrow is hidden in an undisclosed location somewhere here in Canada. Resting until she's needed again🤞❤️🇨🇦

[@formereverything4268]

Wake up.

[@ralphscholz9533]

Just imagine what the Arrow could be today with 50+ years of further experience and development.

[@RockwellRhodes]

I think she had her day come and go. She could have been a game-changer... and the powers-that-be knew that, which is why they went after her. I think the idea then and now is to keep Canada down as to not interfere with globalist plans spearheaded by NATO and it's various elements... whom we all know very well. That's why we have the piece of shit PM we have, introducing Marxism as the new way. But, of course, the answer is simple... do away with archaic forms of government, namely those sponsored by monarchies like the one we have in Canada, right now. No centralized authorities... provincial legislatures are enough.

[@dheruer]

Ever since watchin the movie about the Avro Arrow (great performances by the way from the cast) i fell in love with the story of the Avro Arrow. I then went on to search and read as much as i could about the plane and what had happened to it and the great minds working on it. To imagine what could have been... Thank you for making these vids, i absolutely love them!! They give some, well for lack of a better way to put it, piece of mind haha, as if one still is out there kicking ass and taking names :)

[@mass4552]

At the time of cancellation the only one that was flying and being retrofit for the Iroquois was 202. How close to being finished fitting the Iroquois is known only to the workers so if any had the best chance of survival and holding the Iroquois it was 202.

[@jordach545]

My grandfather was one of the engineers :)

[@rickbullock4331]

I remember seeing the Arrow flying over our house in the Kipling and Dixon Rd area back in the day. It was something to see. I worked at Douglas Aircraft in the 60’s and worked beside guys that worked on the Arrow. I was told that the Orenda Iroquois engine was already in the bay ready to install when Mr Dieffenbaker and party cancelled the program. Beautiful aircraft.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thanks for the comment. Hope this brought back some memories. regards...virtual

[@61nru.smartie98]

You actually saw it fly?

[@HagersvilleHunk]

Wow! Loved the first 2 episodes,cant want to see no.4 Keep them coming! Well done. Long Live The Arrow!

[@nathanleclercq5106]

Only in my dreams, Dam I wish we could have the arrow again

[@ivorholtskog5506]

Sir John stared the national dream, Deifenbaker shut down the national dream.

[@squeezeracer]

Nice series. I always loved the Arrow.

[@Virtualenvirons]

thank you. two more to come. Will start 4 in September. On our boat for the summer....regards..Virtual

[@williamcharles9480]

It's very refreshing when beautiful music is incorporated into a video such as you have done. Your method brings across a message that while not related to the music, gives it depth and feeling. The sad story of the Avro Arrow is an example of when money, arrogance and political spin combine to form a potion that when consumed, makes common sense non-existent.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you ....regards....Virtual

[@robmaclaren2041]

Awesome vid, brought tears to my eyes. Wish it had been true. I am just old enough to remember the catastrophic closure and shutdown of AVRO

[@walerianda]

Never trust them who destr. things and technology.

[@Tswa567]

Thank you for doing justice for the Arrow, it’s been too long since she’s seen the sky, even in film, much less reality

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you for the comment. Glad you enjoyed it...regards...Virtual

[@glen6945]

true

[@bobt4260]

Thank you. I found it a great piece of history and patriotic chest thumping, I would love to see it made real.

[@billybeggs3648]

I have been obsessed with this bird for over 30 years..I am proud to be a malton boy who lived in an A.V. roe home. My father worked in the old hangers and I used to play in the high altitude test beds behind the international centre..this was in the 80s.

[@neilmacleod5371]

He electrition we had at the time was from the arrow build , his team worked on the refridgeration units that cooled the leading edges ( another first ) so far ahead of it's time . Sad that the wheat farmer got sold a load of horseshit by Ike ,and was talked into cancelling it . Still flew higher and faster than todays planes can . They gave Avro the specs needed, Avro met the specs to defend Canadian air space . Too bad our PM never had any foresight.

[@mitchrussu1208]

Thief and Faker Diefenbaker sold Canada’s soul to America after Ike duped him into thinking that the way of the future was the piece of crap Bomarc missile . The were so jealous of Canada and its brilliant minds because they only wanted to shut down the Avro production and steal all the brilliant minds to go and work for NASA and made it what it is today. Too bad Dief . didn’t have any balls and couldn’t see into the future . There were orders coming in for the mighty Iroquois engine from other countries because nobody had the technology back then like Canada did . We could have been and still would be world players in fighter jet mfg . The USA has always kicked sand in Canada’s face and still continues to this to this day . Seldom do you ever hear anything on American news channels about Canada as if we don’t even exist.

[@bradyelich2745]

Ur piano playing is a great score. Keeps me calm while my team in WOT loses.

[@robsouder4462]

A team,A plane,thrown away because the government had no faith in the people they governed .The total destruction of the Arrow only shows how afraid they were of people finding out what the government through away

[@bertharluck5806]

Nose Part of the aircraft and the engine are in Ottawa at the museum

[@jonnyde]

Exactly correct: aggressive designers and management at Avro would surely have advanced Canada's techology level for decades after the Arrow had gone into production. Such a tragedy of politics in Canada and gamemanship from USA ... almost seems poetic justice to see Canada pull out of the COVID-19 pandemic at a time when USA is still wallowing in severe troubles. I bear no ill will to the PEOPLE of the USA: some are my cousins and I do wish them luck in reforming their government in the near future..

[@frankleespeaking9519]

I just don’t understand the love affair with this airplane. Once Sputnik was launched the fear was soviet missiles not bombers. The UK cancelled their interceptor and so did the USA. (Google XF 108 Rapier) Money was shifted toward NORAD , missiles, and sr71 reconnaissance. The “evil” USA could care less if Canada dumped money in an interceptor. We bought Canberra’s and Harriers from the Brits because we liked the design. Canada should be very thankful that they didnt waste money chasing Some sort of Trophy for best interceptor if the 1950,s. The list of bankrupt airplane companies is long and avro would have been one of them. As we speak France and Germany are teaming up to build a new fighter because of the cost involved. Russia can’t afford stealth and China will have to steal the technology to get there. The last pure interceptor was the MiG 31 and they stopped producing them 30 years ago.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Frank....This is the series link. Three episodes. Ep. 2 talks about the Rapier briefly. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI So, lot's to talk about here. First of all, it's a Canadian story. There are many factors contributing to the cancellation of the most advanced weapon system of the 50's. None of which would have cancelled the Arrow if not for this one event. There was a change of Government in 1957 and they, not unlike the current American President were anti-Canada or in this case anti-Eastern Canada. So, here are some "alternative" facts.. The Arrow would have badly affected the entire American Aeronautical defence industry. First of all, it was years in advance of anything the U.S.A. had. You can google the list of "Arrow firsts" as they are too numerous to mention. Also and perhaps most dangerous to the U.S. was the projected service ceiling of the Aircraft. High enough to see the U-2 and if anyone really believes the U.S. only overflew Russia....well I have land for them in Florida. It was not that the U.S., Russia or Britain did not understand the math of building an Arrow, it was more a case of not having the manufacturing technology in place to build advanced fighters in the period. U.S. still thinking cheap, disposable jets. The Arrow was designed using primitive computers and CNC. The A-12 program eventually spit out the SR-71, but it really could only fly high and fast for a long time and it leaked. The Arrow did not leak. One other thing that most Americans don't know and you referenced it not really knowing what you were alluding to with the Harrier. The U.S. cannot legally buy a front line fighter from another country without an act of congress. Did you know that? The U.S. built the Harrier under licence. In WW2 congress had to pass a bill that allowed the U.S. to buy Spitfires from Britain and repealed it after the war. And lastly, the same day Canada rolled out the most advance jet the world had ever seen, Russia launched Sputnik. So, force the cancellation of the Arrow, bring the engineers down to NASA to team up with the Germans to put the U.S. on the moon first. regards...Virtual.

[@valenrn8657]

@@Virtualenvirons Actually, Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III has mach 2.32 demonstrated around Arrow Mk 1's flight introduction. Crusader III projected to mach 2.9 speeds. Crusader III was cancelled while dogfight inferior F-4 Phantom II won USN's contract. The money is on large rockets and warships.

[@Virtualenvirons]

@@valenrn8657 HI Rnl, Your still looking at speed and agility. Essentially comparing fireworks. If you watched the last movie documentary, you have to acknowledge the advanced technology that was put or going to be put in one aircraft at that time. If you took all the other aircraft in every other country, you still would not be able to come up with all the technologies in the Arrow in 1958. The fly-by-wire with haptic feed back for sure. Then there were the engines. The design process, etc. The Arrow is a problem for many Jet enthusiasts, especially for American designs. There is a chronological path for North American fighter design, but the Arrow throws such a monkey wrench into that path, that it infuriates some enthusiast. regards....Virtual.

[@valenrn8657]

​@@Virtualenvirons 1. Being 1st arguments are meaningless for today. 2. Being 1st arguments are debatable. US has two large air force fleets not just a single air force. USN and USAF has different doctrines. Australia's RAAF usually brings USN tactics into USAF's Red Flags e.g. that's Super Hornets Block 2 and Growlers semi-custom (two extra A2A missile mounts). Canada has obsolete F-18A MLU (mid-life upgrade). Super Hornets flight control system enables this aircraft to have unlimited AOA. USN has XF8U-3 Crusader III (mach 2.32 1958) , F11F-1F Super Tiger (mach 2, 1956) and XF-4 Phantom 2 (1958) projects during Arrow Mk1's time period. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F11F-1F_Super_Tiger The Super Tiger outperformed the Saab Draken, Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, Dassault Mirage III and Fiat G.91 in a tender to equip the Swiss Air Force. Australia's RAAF purchased Dassault Mirage III, but didn't use them during Vietnam war for some strange reason... Without politicians accepting Lockheed's briberies, Canada could have selected F11F-1F Super Tiger over F-104

[@Virtualenvirons]

@UCN28CEP157BgTHU_RC5WQhg HI Rnl...But, we were talking about firsts. The XF-108 (Fat Arrow) and you brought up the Crusader. Then you went through the entire American current line up again. It is difficult to keep you focused on a topic. The documentary is pretty much bullet proof. It is just the first time all the people needed came together to do this. We even left some stuff out. I have the design schematics for the variable geometry intake inlets that were to be incorporated. The only reason the Mark 2 was held at ~Mach 2.5 was the inlets. They did not re-design for the Iroquois at first. If the inlets were incorporated they would have had to either limit the speed of the Arrow or add more titanium and at the time the programs was way over cost. regards..Virtual.

[@coalsilvermuzzle3111]

To dream the possible dream. I would be in, no mater how old I am. She was a beaut, in my opinion, still is always will be.

[@dannymarks988]

Wonderfully well done. Emotional and inspirational.

[@PorscheGTRSWeissach]

Looooool! Thats a nice WHAT IF Series! :-))) Greetings from Germany! ;-)

[@davewettlaufer7885]

You took a lot of time and effort to make this piece of fiction, but I wish it were true. we need a little more patriotism in Canada and this video just might puts us in the right direction. many thanks

[@Virtualenvirons]

Your welcome. Comments like yours make it all worth while. regards....Virtual

[@Virtualenvirons]

Did you see all three episodes. If not, series link to follow. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@douggratton2082]

Love the videos, we lost a dream

[@williambeaumont1312]

Beautiful job. Thanks for the memory.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi William. You are welcome. Thanks for watching. In case you are not aware there are six Episodes in total. The series link and short documentary are below. regards...Virtual Episode 6 kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2qlqJx3ocRjmbM Series kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@johnmano1439]

Gorgeous plane. Our Arrow.

[@optimisticfuture6808]

Wonderful work. So classy and unlike anything I have ever seen.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Eric. Thanks very much for the comment. Glad you enjoyed it. Did you see all three episodes or just the last one. If not the series link is below regards...Virtual kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@abacero2009]

Great series!! Congratulations! Are you planning to make more episodes?

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Alberto. Yes, there are two more planned for this series. They are time consuming. I will begin Ep. 4 in mid September. I will take a few months. regards...Virtual

[@pwc7475]

Well done again

[@landenschooler6726]

Love the vids, when is the next part? Strike Back.............

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Landen. Thanks for the comment. I make these movies in the fall and winter months. So, probably early Dec, for Ep. 4. regards...Virtual

[@normswaebe6003]

Well done!

[@mikewoitt8111]

Good day. I thought that I would let you know I am printing the first edition of my Thesis at the end of July. Book 1 has 292 pages and book 2 has 396 pages with around 84, 700 words. It took me three years to write and if you are interested in looking at it you can find a copy at the Trenton Museum. There will be four copies in all for the first edition. One is going to be tabled in the House of commons at the fall sitting. That copy will be a one of a kind.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Mike....Congratulations. Keep us posted on what happens in the fall. Just out of curiosity, why did you pick the Trenton Museum to have one of the four copies? regards.....Virtual

[@mikewoitt8111]

I have been in contact with the executive director for a number of years and one day I asked him if he want to read my paper. After that I was in contact with him and I asked him if he read the paper. He replied yes, it took a while but yes he read it. I got a tax refund and i called him and asked him if I could place a copy of my paper at the museum. He replied yes. There will be only 4 or 5 copies of the first edition though.

[@davidstobie2751]

your work is wonderful

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you for watching....Virtual

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI David. I responded to your second post perhaps caustically. I thought you were running down this series. My apologies. But, in my defence I can't really tell what you are meaning with your posts. I am going to delete my last response to you, but please send me something I can get a better handle on. regards..Virtual

[@gablalonde4265]

Keep on making these episodes, amazing

[@TheLexiconKing]

Ah this video made me cry. I wish this country of ours was more self determining instead of playing 'little brother ' all the time. Jesus loves you all.

[@nosacredcows793]

Interesting bit of fantasy, however the Arrow was designed to be a high altitude high speed interceptor, in a VR combat engagement with an SU-33, she would be a sitting duck.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi No sacred cows. Our research team set this scenario on purpose. It is the only scenario where the Arrow could defeat a modern fighter, but the scenario is real. An Su-33 first of all is not an Su-27, more like a down powered F-18. But, it can fly above 50,000 ft., just can't turn. The Arrow on the other hand, can turn quite handily above 50,000 ft., that was it's strength besides it's speed. Whether or not the AIM-4D's would fire properly etc., is another story I suppose, but we decided to do this series based on the capability of a 1959 Arrow, as is. Although the jet was built to be a high speed, high flying interceptor, did not mean it could not turn. regards...Virtual

[@nosacredcows793]

Problem is, the Arrow was never designed to be a dog fighter, indeed she was meant to quickly get within missile range of massed soviet bomber formations and lob a nuclear tipped air to air missile at them. She was well ahead of her time, indeed she was the bleeding edge of areo-space technology of the day, and who know what she could of been able to evolve in if given the chance. But like the English Electric Lightening, the F4 Phantom II and Mig 21, the original mark of the Arrow such as represented by your 206 would of been long obsolete and vastly out matched by today's more modren combat aircraft and their combat systems. Still, an interesting and fun video.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi no scared cows...good handle. I appreciate your comments and knowledge, so that's why I am responding. What you say is all true, no one is disputing that, even in the video, the pilots comment that they cannot take on an Su-33 head on. We have taken great care not to the put the 1959 Arrow in a scenario that is not "plausible". Our research team includes the foremost expert on the Arrow. Much information on the Arrow is not readily available, not classified, just not available. Having said that, it is estimated the Arrow could only pull a max of 5 G's, but it could could continue to have a good sustained turn up to 60,000 ft. That big wing. At 52,000 ft, (thin air) an Su-33 could not turn with an Arrow. If you noticed in the scenario presented, the Arrow has information from above, is flying two miles higher and gets behind the Su-33 and states they must keep the Su-33 up high. They fire an AIM-4 that has been updated to an AIM-4D, the only AIM-4 that was credited with being a decent IR missiles. That update package was real and came out in the early 60's. Having said that, they fire from the shortest range possible to keep the Su-33 from dropping flares. This is a scenario where the Arrow could and I stress could" win. regards....Virtual

[@kellschultz564]

loved the Arrow, we really screwed ourselves by the cancelation of that. for 1950's and 60's it was amazingly advanced. the SU 33 would have owned it if that meeting ever took place - we're talking about 45 years of technology gap. But today Canada still doesn't have the plane it needs for defense - a high speed long range interceptor and the F35 is just a grey pig with wings pasted on. Its Ironic that the plane Canada needs, and the closest thing to a modern Arrow is the MIG 31 Foxhound.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Ken, In the scenario we show, the Su-33 would be at a disadvantage to the Arrow. The Su-33/ 27 etc,.are not unlike F-18's. Very agile up to 40,000 ft. Not so much above that. Fully loaded above 50,0000 ft, the Su-33 would he outmatched in terms of sustained turns, speed, ability to climb etc. If you remember our scenario, the Arrow was approaching at 62,000 ft, giving it another upper hand to gain energy when it dove. As for weapons, defensive measures, etc, the Su-33 is clearly the winner. But, in our scenario, the Arrow managed to a get behind the Su-33 at high altitude, the only place where the old Falcon D's would have a chance. regards...Virtual

[@glen6945]

but the super arrow-can kick any planes azz

[@barryl8857]

Bring back the Arrow. She just needs to be modernized with weapons. Nothing else in the world could match that bird then or now. Highest and fastest--that is air superiority.

[@czarpeppers6250]

Look, I loooove the Arrow, but there is a huge misconception about in modern Canadian folklore. The Arrow was never made to be an air superiority fighter, it was an interceptor and built for the sole purpose of getting to high altitude fast to shoot down incoming Soviet bombers. Most people also don't realize the thing was absolutely huge. Still, I wish it had a chance. Oh well, at least we have the Mig-25 and Mig-31 which were likely based heavily off blueprints attained by Soviet spies. They have their differences, but its pretty hard to not see the striking similarities.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hello CzarPeppers.....You have to keep something in mind when categorizing the Arrow. One, it is a tough thing to do. The phrase Air-Superiority fighter had not yet been coined. At the time we had fighters and interceptors. It was not until the F-14 and F-15 that the term really came into play. In the 50's everyone was confused about air warfare. Having said that, given that an Arrow with Iroquois would have had excellent performance at high altitude, if you put a gun , Sidewinders and AMRAAM missiles on it, you have a basic Air superiority fighter. regards....Virtual

[@BARelement]

CzarPeppers mig 25* and mig 31*

[@BARelement]

Virtualenvirons I agree

[@czarpeppers6250]

Dub Dot Haha, yeah, I derped that one.

[@glen6945]

ace vid thanks fellow canadian

[@justice4all368]

Can you show us a possible modern arrow design if it were ever brought back

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Justin, I am working on the final set of Episodes that will finished the story of the Arrow. I am not sure how many episodes that will be, but three at least over the next year for so. I think you may find the last episode of this series interesting. regards...Virtual

[@jasonbelozer4854]

The arrow was gorgeous but to bring it back now... even totally updated with modern computers it still is gonna be outdated now.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Jason, If an Arrow Mark 2 had the avionics of an F-15 eagle, it would be a very dangerous plane. Above 50,000 ft. the Arrow wing design was shown to out turn an F-15 eagle on a fluid dynamics computer program, but less than a Raptor. It also carries weapons internally so no drag and keeps it top speed. A fully loaded F-15 is slower than it's posted Mach 2.5. Probably more like a Strike Eagle...Mach 2.2. As Canada only needs interceptors, it would still he the choice. But....if we are buying planes to defend NATO, then that's a different story. The F-35 will do well in Europe. regards....Virtual

[@dexb000]

As much as I wish the arrow had been put into production so we could see what it was all about. I do question that it could win a dog fight against a Su 33. I wish they would make new version of it tho that would be sick!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Dexter, When we began this project we decided we would not embellish the Arrow's capabilities. it would fight with what it would have had in 1959. The only exception is the upgrade kits to the Falcon's that came in the early sixties, so that was acceptable. The only scenario where an Arrow could defeat a modern fighter is the one presented. The Arrow strengths were speed and the ability to turn above 50,000 ft. in this air. Above 50,000 ft. most fighters would not have been able to hold a sustained turn with the Arrow. That big wing caught a lot of air. Also, the requirement in this video to stay behind the Su-33 and fire under 400 yards so the Su-33 cannot release decoy flares makes this the only scenario where an Arrow could defeat an Su-33. But, the scenario is quite plausible. Hope you enjoyed the video......regards...Virtual

[@dexb000]

I did very much enjoy it, well that makes sense I would agree to that I wasn't thinking about the high altitude. I hope you keep doing these videos they are cool!

[@Virtualenvirons]

There are two more planned. I will not start in earnest on Ep 4 until September. Too hard to concentrate in the summer. regards..Virtual

[@liammiddleton3064]

that plane was to scary for America to even sleep at night

[@johnboyu1]

You keep out doing yourself. Just GREAT really enjoy watching your videos. Thank you, thanks to all that take part in making these for us to enjoy. REALLY GREAT! Can't wait for the next one. Thank You

[@Virtualenvirons]

Thank you Johnboyu1. I enjoy making these, but they are time consuming. I will poke away at Ep 4 through the summer, but won't really get started up again until September. regards...Virtual

[@Neilistic1001]

You can tell this is fiction. This is the first time that an AIM-4 Falcon actually hit anything it was fired at.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Well....the first AIM-4 Falcon's sucked the big "O". But the AIM-4D actually was a fairly good missile for it's time. regards...Virtual

[@Neilistic1001]

@@Virtualenvirons I appreciate the response; and I don't want to get into a "Keyboard Commando" debate with anyone. But the AIM-4D, which was supposed to be the "fighter combat weapon" version of the Falcon, entered service around 1963, and thus was the version that the USAF F-4s carried during the "Late Unpleasantness In Southeast Asia" (i.e., the Second IndoChina/Vietnam War) later that decade. The AIM-4D had a lighter airframe and a more powerful motor, and (allegedy) an improved IR seeker. But it still was a dog/dud, particularly when compared to the AIM-9 "Sidewinders" of the same vintage. The whole concept -- an "anti bomber missile" with a smaller warhead and the leading edge of fin fusing (on the early models) - just didn't work in fighter combat. And the USAF bought literally tens of thousands of the things. When I was a kid, I lived near Hamilton Air Force Base north of San Francisco, and the F-106 Delta Dart drivers who were stationed there hated the thing. But the Dart had no guns, and the only other air-to-air missile the 106 could carry was the Genie -- which had no guidance system period. The only saving grace was that the Falcon was never deployed in a "serious war," e.g., one involving the Russians!

[@Virtualenvirons]

@@Neilistic1001 HI Neilist. Yes it sucked, but Canada used the missile and we try to keep everything plausible in this series. The missiles poor performance is why Canadair kept on developing the Sparrow ll missile until it was also cancelled because of the Arrow Cancellation. If you notice in the movies, we essentially indicate the missile sucked during combat scenarios. Those scenarios being the opponent is flying very high where it's manoeuerability is low. The SU-33 is essentially an F-18 on Steroids. Up high, 50,000 ft, it does not manoeuvre well, where the Arrow was in its element. There are four Episodes out and I will release 5 and 6 close together this month as they are essentially a Part 1 and Part 2. regards. Virtual

[@Neilistic1001]

@@Virtualenvirons Interesting exchange. And don't get me wrong: I love your series (and the animation), even if I don't think the Arrow was quite the "Wonder Weapon/Airplane" into which it has been mythologized over the years. That said, the idea that the nuclear warhead-equipped BOMARC missile system was going to be a substitute for the Arrow -- which was one of the rationales that my "Good Ol' USoA" shoved down Canada's throat -- was nuts. And, with all respect in the world: The idea of dogfighting a Gen 5th SU-33 in an Arrow, at any altitude, is not something I would want to try -- particularly if my weapons load consisted solely of AIM-4s. But maybe the Canadian pilots could use a hockey stick to slapshot the Falcon into the rear of the SU-33? That MIGHT work, although the stupid leading-edge-fin-fusing probably would fail, and the warhead was about the size of a large firecracker. Probably be more effective to use a conventional hockey puck . . .or maybe a puck made out of dynamite? (Now, THAT would make a video!) All respect to our Neighbor To The North: Remember Vimy Ridge! Neilist

[@Neilistic1001]

Sorry, I forgot to add something, speaking of Canadian aircraft: That DHC-4 Caribou in some of your episodes? THAT was, and is, an AIRPLANE!!! Just don't sit in the right-hand seat if you are going to be doing a dicey STOL approach with a really good pilot in the left-hand seat -- unless you want to change your pants afterwards!!! (Large-ish airplanes are not supposed to be able to do what the 'Bou does.) American copilot: You can't land this thing on a postage stamp! Canadian 'Bou driver: Hold my Moosehead . . . . Neilist

[@AnonymousPerson-cx7wk]

6:22 I think you meant Falcons not Flacons.. Just a friendly reminder

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Sir Hu....Yes....missed that one before I uploaded. Someone spotted it right away, but I can't really do anything about it. The problem is that once you upload, you can't make changes. If I upload again, I lose the comments....regards.....Virtual

[@MrCodythegreat]

great work, keep it up to all the guys n girls behind this i look forward to the next episode

[@donthorson8930]

The Arrow could maneuver with an SU-33?? I dont think so. Still, I wish that thing had been built in the Sixties.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Don, Watch the movie again. Although I don't specifically say it, this engagements takes place above 50,000 ft. At that altitude an Arrow would have had more capability than an Su-33. First of all and Su-33 is not an Su-27 and both aircraft can't turn very well at 50,000 ft. The Arrow could hold a sustained turn at that altitude and higher greater than most aircraft. regards....Virtual

[@howdyahworkthisthing1520]

Love watching your videos! Keep it up. 😃

[@deany7194]

Sadly all the brain power of the Avro went to the states and opened up multi billion dollar companies. That is what is missing in our gov't today, lack of vision for our country. It would be easy to meet this 2% gdp to military commitment of NATO by putting it toward 5th gen Arrow. Our brain power is our strength... give them a task like before and we will make it work. That is how Canadians roll. A sense of pride is what we need in this country not giving our resources and expertise for nickels and dimes. Problem with our richest millionaires in this country is a lack of economic entrepreneurship compared to the states.They take way more risk and reap the rewards. How many million does anyone need to live comfortably. Sorry for ranting but there are so many people out there with great ideas but no money to put those ideas to fruition. Give them a chance!

[@jim100ab9]

Well said Dean! A little Canadian history from Avro aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L. Whitcomb page 22 and 23. During The re-organization of National Steel Car into Victory Aircraft, (later to become A.V. Roe….Avro) the former management was replaced by a number of Howe’s “bright boys” The new President was J.P. Bickell, a senior executive of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , with Dave Boyd as General Manager. Victory Aircraft, guided by such brash, confident upstarts (inspired by perhaps an even more illustrious leader in the form of Howe), began trumpeting the potentials of Victory aircraft with its new facilities, and of Canadian industry in general to the hard-pressed British. Wild claims of being able to produce a Lancaster faster and better then its own designers were heard in England, and the bluff was called. By January 1942 Victory had a contract to produce one of the largest, most complex and advanced aircraft in the world, the Lancaster long range heavy bomber. Despite enormous difficulties and frustration, Victory rolled out its first pseudo-complete Lancaster in August 1943. Dobson, hearing the boasts about the superior quality of the Canadian Lancaster and other mixtures of fact and fancy, decided to visit Canada and see for himself the roll-out of the first Victory Lancaster. Apparently, he arrived a little late as the plant outperformed his expectations and delivered its first offspring early. His comments upon seeing the Canadian operation are well documented and according to Jet Age by Scott Young, his words were to the effect. “It opened my eyes, I’ll tell you, if these so and so’s, can do this during a war, what can’t they do after? Dobson was so confident in the future of the North American branch that he predicted Canada would become the center of aircraft production for the British Commonwealth within a decade. Howe is on record in that year as saying “Never again will there be any doubt that Canada can manufacture anything that can be manufactured elsewhere” Unfortunately many Canadians today don’t seem to believe this, despite Avro and their subcontractors having proven it time and again in the forties and fifties, often too early for their genius to be recognized. Victory would go on to produce 430 Lancaster’s during the war, and produce them at the one-a-day rate as promised in the initial boasts to the British! According to British author/historian Len Deighton in his phenomenal book Blood Tears and Folly, that Canada had committed a higher percentage of her population to wartime uniformed military service than any of the combatants, with the added distinction of this mass of manpower being comprised largely of volunteers. Deighton goes on to show that Canada had also yielded the highest per capita industrial output dedicated to the war effort once again of any of the combatants, yet had begun the conflict with relatively little of her own indigenous industry. Howe and his bright boys had sought to change all of that and had succeeded beyond all expectations. It was once common knowledge that Canada had ended the war with the third largest navy, the fourth largest air force, and the fifth largest army of any of the wartime players. These rankings were described in the Canadian Forces’ [CF] Air Force Indoctrination Course [AFIC] for many years! (It’s time for Canadian citizens to stand up and say dam the torpedoes, politicians and our neighbours to the south. Roll-up our sleeves and get on with the business of defending ourselves again! Jim100 AB)

[@sleuth6969]

Pretty sure the arrow would not keep uo in dog fight in anything made after the 2000 but might have a chance with thrust retiring tech abd speed but would be a great inter enter abs strategic strick bomber not fight

[@colonalklink14]

Could have been so great for Canada and easily upgradeable. Canards, new engines, and new aesa radar complete with all digital computers Unbeatable!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi M.G. yes, it would probably been the F-15 of it's time. There are six episodes in total and I am working on 7. You can find the playlist on my Virtualenvirons channel. regards.....Virtual

[@angusandleigh]

...very appropriate music at the end...

[@davidstobie2751]

watching this makes me want Peter Lorre reappear before the plane left

[@siddharthasankarchakrabort3087]

I don't think that Avro Arrow was that agile.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Siddhartha....It probably was not, but at that altitude (55,000 ft.) it was more agile than an Su-33. It could not turn with an Su-33 in thick air, say up to 45,000 ft. That was the advantage of that big wing, it kept the ability to turn at high altitude. If you watch the movie again, you will see that the pilots state that they have to keep the Su-33 "up here" where they have the advantage. To make the movie more exciting I enhanced the ability of both aircraft to turn at that altitude. regards...Virtual

[@1167400]

This was great! Here is $150,000,000-make a movie!

[@ivorholtskog5506]

If we had schools that was not afraid to teach real education, we could rule the world!

[@ivorholtskog5506]

When they went back, it brought a few tears to my eyes. Wish it were true.

[@dantodd5558]

im going to the edanvale aerodrome today at 2pm to go see the avro arrow replica they have

[@daveforsythe9021]

When they opened the doors I feared up. So sad that Canada did not get to operate this plane, shame on the bureaucracy that buried it.

[@akanomono9918]

The Day Dreaming

[@mikeweiss8675]

General McKenzie (Retired) is some how involved as Canada definitely needs two jets one for NATO action and one for the far North

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Mike....The good general is a proponent of a built in Canada solution. We were in contact when the first episode came out. I hope he still follows the series. I don't think he has a youtube channel though for comments. ...regards.....Virtual

[@davidlove827]

"is straying wildly OFF course"

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI David. Not quite sure what your comments are about. Can you clarify. regards....Virtual

[@davidlove827]

@@Virtualenvirons Spelling errors. Love your vids!

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI David. I thought I posted a reply earlier, but I don't see it. It may appear.. Anyway, good catch and thanks for spotting that. Unfortunately, I have to leave them there. If I upload a new video I lose the comments, etc. But, if/when I make DVD's I'll have the right spelling. regards....Virtual

[@davidlove827]

@@Virtualenvirons Copy that. Keep up the good work!

[@jim100ab9]

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

[@danawick9817]

Really great Episode 🖒🖒🖒

[@johnnyb6049]

Given all of the technological advancements since the original Arrow was created, I wonder what could be done with upgrading it for current use. Someone should start a "Go Fund Me" into the possibilities of a Super Arrow!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Johnny B...That is a novel idea, but I am afraid it would have to be some "go fund me" account, probably in the neighbourhood of 1 Billion dollars. The cost to rebuild one Arrow as it was would be astronomical. Keep an eye on this channel if you like these movies, I will be releasing Ep. 4 in about 10 days. regards...Virtual

[@johnnyb6049]

@@Virtualenvirons, True, but one can always dream, even if they're a pragmatist. Perhaps an indirect approach should be considered, like using a Go Fund Me Project to raise funds to pay off the politicians, or whoever, (I'm also a Realist), might help push the issue with the Canadian Government . . . at least it might be a good start.

[@Virtualenvirons]

@@johnnyb6049 Hi Johnny...There was a pitch made in 2012 led by General Lewis McKenzie, the government did not really take it seriously. regards...Virtual

[@johnnyb6049]

@@Virtualenvirons Oh well, keep making Novels and Videos/Movies where the Real Arrow, (not the Comic Book Hero of the same name), seriously kicks some "Real" (Fictitious) Villain's asses for the far "more mature" views of us to use as a kind of Compensatory Behavior. Be Well

[@Virtualenvirons]

@@johnnyb6049 I will...you be well also...regards..Virtual

[@glen6945]

just think how fast the arrow is now

[@glen6945]

now thats a fkin jet

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Glenn. Thanks for the comment. There are six episodes to the series so far. If you have not seen then the Series Playlist is on my channel. regards..Virtual

[@hbekdanon2749]

"CLICK ON THIS LINK" me waiting for the rickroll

[@johnfranborra]

Arrow should turn in the vertical when dealing the Su; would be able to bring his bead to bear more easily!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi John, Yes, perhaps, but not in this scenario. If you notice we mention that the Arrow is flying at 62,000 ft. and the pilot states "we have to keep him up here". There is a reason for that. Although the Arrow at best could only pull maybe 6 G's in optimal air density due to its delta wing design, that design allowed it to pull better G's than most aircraft today above 50,000 ft. The Su-33 is like a F-18 on steroids. Above 45,000 ft. it begins to lose a lot of its agility. Regards....Virtual

[@johnfranborra]

@@Virtualenvirons Ah, I see; I hadn't realized this was going on so high. Gotta beware of the coffin corner! Hey, I enjoy your videos; a lotta fun! They remind me of playing an old Mig-29 game years ago on a PC with my son. BTW, there seems to be quite a bit of nostalgia for the Arrow; interesting. Are you a Brit or Canuck?

[@Virtualenvirons]

@@johnfranborra Canuck. Where are you located? regards...Virtual

[@johnfranborra]

@@Virtualenvirons Just below: Montana. I'm a professional pilot.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Always good to hear from our American friends. regards....Virtual

[@lrecollet]

Only problem with the Arrow was, it was an interceptor not a dog fighter

[@vectorworksnurbsmodelling6049]

The F-15 and F-14 were/are interceptors, but also called Air Superiority fighters. Granted, they would be better at dog fighting than an Arrow. But, the Arrow was designed to fight above 50,000 ft. where it would out turn anything due to that big wing. It also had inherent instability in Azimuth, so again another advantage at altitude. For example, an F-18 at 50,000 ft. is essentially ballistic, it can't turn. Most Russia fighters are like the F-18. The Arrow could dance at 50,000 ft......regards.....Virtual

[@davidlove827]

flacons?

[@skippy5712]

Why the SU33. It should be compared to the Mig31.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Ross. This is not really a comparison series Simply a series showing what the Arrow was intended to do. Also, in this scenario, the Arrow is dealing with Russian Fighter jets over Canada. The only plausible scenario is the Su-33, as it is the most current fighter capable of landing on the Admiral Kuznetsov, (Russian Aircraft Carrier). We have decided that we will not embellish the Arrow's capabilities. Whatever it would have gone to war with in 1959, is what it has going for it in these movies. It's main advantage is the ability to manoeuvre above 50,000 ft. regards..Virtual

[@bryancampbell9622]

The only criticism I have of this story is there being enough cell towers in the Arctic to get text messages. It's a fun story though. 🙂

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Bryan....Thanks for the comment. I suppose I should have worked this in that they were using Satellite communication instead of Cell towers. I know I mention it in the next Episode....I think. I am releasing Episode 10 tonight at 6:30 pm. I don't know if you have seen the other episodes, but below is the series link. Regards.....Virtual kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI

[@hurrican11Bpoint]

Seriously you should try to get Funding for a Movie.. Gots a good simple feel great

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi BlackFlag, thank you for that comment. Feedback like yours makes doing this all the more worthwhile. Episode 4 is not in the series playlist yet, but on my channel if you have not seen it. It is probably the best Episode. regards...Virtual.

[@tlperdue99]

Are Canadians talking about bringing back the arrow? Really?? or not?

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Thomas. There are groups who want to build an indigenous jet again in Canada, but I doubt that will ever happen. The sad fact is that most Canadians no longer know that we once led the world in jet fighter design. These movies are history lesson essentially. Although, the capabilities of the Arrow shown in these movies are accurate. I don't know if you saw all three or just this one. The very end of each movie has a link to the next Episode. regards...Virtual

[@glen6945]

yes we are

[@walerianda]

Memory Janusz Żurakowski

[@stevemcinnes5480]

sigh...if only it was true 👍🍁🤠

[@nydwarf1]

Should be playing some Rush in the background

[@nydwarf1]

Yep, watched the battle scene with Subdivisions playing in another tab and it rocks!

[@peterbernard856]

IF ONLY Saw the Arrow fly as a little kid one day in the east end of Toronto Some designs are so good they stand the test of time Update this platform and the WORLD Will take notice Who needs the f35 at a 100million $ US? PER COPY STOP WISHING JUST DO IT

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Peter, Keep an eye on this channel. There is a trailer on my channel giving a preview of the next release. It is not episode four. I am working on that now. This movie is an interim release. We are doing a talk on the Arrow and the F-35 in two weeks. After the talk we will release the movie as a documentary directly comparing the Arrow and the F-35. regards...Virtual

[@mikeb.5039]

So sad that the missile was going to be all, end all mindset killed off more than a few good aircraft projects and good men.

[@reid1283]

Speed isn’t everything.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Warbird......yes it is. An F-22 that could do Mach 3 would defeat an f-22 that can do Mach 2.3. Speed kills. regards...Virtual

[@JollyRoger0944]

Sigh! What could have been!

[@nateulpanzarella9154]

I am GI am Glad this is Fiction Because the SU-33 would easily trash the Arrow. Hell a F-16 would do so also.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Nateul...Of course it would...but not in the scenario presented. The Su-33 cannot turn very well, if at all above 50,000 ft. The Arrow could turn circles around it or an F-16 at higher altitudes. In this scenario, the Arrow gets behind the Su-33 at high altitude and because the Arrow was faster, it got close enough to fire a Falcon. The Falcon AIM-4D was the only Falcon IR missile that had a decent kill ratio. These scenarios are carefully thought out. regards...Virtual

[@nateulpanzarella9154]

@@Virtualenvirons and thats when the F-15 rears its head at any altitude it would chew up the Arrow. More facts in the fantasy please. Pssst I am a composites engineer in avaition.

[@Virtualenvirons]

@@nateulpanzarella9154 I am very glad to hear you are a composites engineer. You have no idea how timely that is. Within 24 hours, we will release a documentary using archival data not available to the public. Not classified, just not online. Our team has Aeronautical engineers on it as well as access to pilots and Jet engine specialists. We dumbed down a lot of the data so layman could understand it, but it should mean more to you, if you understand jets. To be quite honest, I am not sure that you do. I think you understand your field and "like American jets". Regardless, keep and eye on this channel or better yet, I will let you know when it is uploaded. I will look forward to your comment on that one. regards....Virtual

[@nateulpanzarella9154]

@@Virtualenvirons i understand jets quite a bit more then you think. I am very familiar with the delta wing and laminar flow. Along with altered CG usage to improve agility. Buddy i go all the way back to the Kline-Fogelmann lift designs. As well as usage of enhanced composites for engine and vectered thrust usage. But since I do not understand as you so put it. I will go back to my paper planes and Hot Wheels.

[@Virtualenvirons]

@@nateulpanzarella9154 Hi Nateul, Good, so below is the link to a documentary intertwined with an existing problem for the Canadian Air Force. We released this today, as I pointed out earlier, somewhat coincidental to your comments. It is also on my channel if you want. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nn6ucqKorq2Jhpo Before I go, I think you will really like this, unless you are all about the U.S.A. being number one....in which case you will hate it. Either way, this is all documented so you have to live with it....eh. regards....Virtual

[@iq159]

That is a very stiff newsprint...

[@spudwightman7401]

No offense, but your chances of bringing down a manuevering target with an Aim-4 are slim to none. It was meant for bombers flying straight and level. In Vietnam, Colonel Robin Olds, commander of the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing, called them "damn useless" in a dogfight and commanded his entire fighter wing to make an unauthorized field modification and wire their F-4Ds to carry the Aim-9 Sidewinder. This was later done by the entire USAF. The only reason that the F-106s continued to use the Falcon until they were retired in 1988 was that their weapons bays were too short to accomodate the longer Sidewinders and Sparrows. I think the Arrow was a cool airplane, but a dogfighter? No. Look at it. Visibility from the cockpit was extremely limited and you can't fight what you can't see. Plus you've got a second crewman in the WSO, but that second set of eyes is useless if all he can look at is walls.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Spud. Thanks for the comment. I have gone over this issue a fair amount as you can imagine. I had to write this episode in a very specific way. This was several years ago, so my memory is vague. First of all, the Col. Ronin Olds issue came into play, as it carried a lot of weight and of course the highly agile Su-33. Lets first deal with the AIM-4D. The AIM-4"D" was a reasonably good missile if used properly as I understand it. I can't remember the correct terminology for this, but if a pilot activated the missile, but did not fire it (heard the growl), as apparently happened a lot in Vietnam, the missile degraded significantly if a pilot tried to fire it a second time. I think that was enough to overheat and foul the seeker head. If activated and fired once only, it was fairly effective against aircraft of the period. The Arrow was not a dogfighter, that is not an issue, but it was fast and could pull 2G's above 50, 000 ft. even with the test engines. One thing that is always misquoted is the Arrow's "operational Ceiling" as opposed to service ceiling. The Arrows operational ceiling even the Mark 1 was 58,000 ft. At this altitude the big wing allowed it hold a sustained turn higher than most modern aircraft. But, in "thick air" it could only do maybe 6 G's at best. Back to the video. I state the Arrow is approaching at 62,000 ft. When they engage the Su-33 I state "we have to keep him up here where we have the advantage". Also, the pilot asked the RIO "for the math" so they only fire the missile once. If you notice on the Arrow, the RIO does have two windows to look out of. The appear small because he Arrow was so large, but in Episode 6, the RIO View is shown. regards.....Virtual

[@noahsaunders3919]

@@Virtualenvirons I do remember reading a very similar argument somewhere that part of the AIM-4D Falcon missiles bad kill ratio was that certain fighter pilots did not make good use of the Falcon relatively long lock-on range (9.6 km / 6 miles), which would have made BVR kills possible. There is a very interesting testimonial video by Bruce Gordon somewhere here on KZbin about the Col.Ronin Olds topic. According to him at least; the poor performance of the Falcon on the F-4D compared to the excellent performance on the F-106 was an indication About 12% on the F-4D and 95% on the F-106. The F-106 used the Hughes MA-1 computer system linked to the Falcon which made it a deadly combination, the F-4D did not have the MA-1 system, so they had poor success. Personally I think that given the fact that the Arrow was planned to also use the MA-1 system linked to the Falcons and it's Fly-by-wire flight control system, similar to the configuration seen on the 106 I bet it's most likely that it would also have a higher kill ratio similar to or probably better than the 106. But what are your thoughts on such testimony?

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Noah....I think you know more about this that I do, but thank you for enlightening me. There have been so many aspects of this series that required research, that I could only spend time on the scenarios featured. As you have probably noticed, we fight the Arrow from Episodes 1-6 in a very specific way, as to altitudes and missile lock on. I can speculate that the kill ratio on a Mark 2 Arrow would have been better than a F-106 simply based on the Arrow's speed and operational ceiling. The higher and faster you can launch a missile from gives you more distance and missile speed, plus the pilots ability to get better position than an adversary. The details of the MA-1 computer system are beyond me as I have not looked into it. I can get a better answer from someone next week, he has gone on a vacation this week, so look for that answer......regards.....Virtual

[@petermontagnon4440]

If only!!!!!

[@andremarquis5731]

A delta wing shape aircraft opposed to a straight design would be in a disadvantage in a dogfight. In the 50's and 60,s, delta wings would have been appropriate strictly against bombers. Delta shaped wing cannot be as maneuverable in a dogfight. No way an Arrow could perform against an F15, an F16 nor a Sukhoi S33. Maybe, I say maybe against a MIG 25 or 31.

[@Virtualenvirons]

And.....you would be wrong. The Arrow Delta wing was far more advanced than most know. There is another movie on my channel that is a documentary as opposed to part of the series. The Arrow also had negative stability built into the y-axis. At low altitudes the Arrow was disadvantaged, except for speed. Due to the huge wing, above 50,000 ft. it would out turn most fighters today. The numbers say anything but a Raptor because of the thrust vectoring. But, watch the documentary, it has better explanations. regards...Virtual.

[@excommunicate1314]

northern ontario is flat as a plate not mountainus

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Sloth. I think we show that, although there are a few places where there is a few mountains. More or less craters from asteroid hits millions of years ago. It is interesting though, that from this video you got geography. Most people see a jet fighter. regards....Virtual

[@glen6945]

only canada has the pulse weapon

[@guillermoalvaradoflores8698]

era un super avion...it was a super aircraft..

[@jamesholland9986]

A russian Fighter would not have enough fuel to engage in Canadian air space. Russians have been violating Alaskan air space for many years to the point that the pilots are familiar with each other. It's a cat and mouse game.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi James. In this story, it explains the fighters are being refuelled mid air and then landing on an Aircraft Carrier. which is very plausible, not likely, but plausible. The Su-33 is a naval fighter. regards....Virtual

[@jamesholland9986]

@@Virtualenvirons Do the Russians have a Carrier? One that they can operate on the Arctic Circle. Russia would have to be ruled by Hillary Clinton to make the scenario fezable. The 105 should have never been discontinued. It would still be flying today.

[@jamesholland9986]

We've been playing tag with Russian Aircraft since the early 50's. Saber Rattling. Big Deal.

[@jamesholland9986]

I wish we had a 105 to do that with.

[@Virtualenvirons]

@@jamesholland9986 Hi James, yes, they have one Carrier, it is referenced and shown in the Video. The Admiral Kusnetsov. It is seen again in Ep. 4. The Su-33's that the Arrow battles with are Russian Carrier Aircraft. I see you have questions. This series is very carefully thought out for plausibility. Although this is not a likely scenario, it is all plausible. regards...Virtual

[@MitchellC564]

Is the 206 actually alive?

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Mitchel....If you mean still exists, then unfortunately no. regards...Virtual

[@icypolar2294]

Virtualenvirons the Cockpit section and nose still exist along with one Iroquois and some wing tips off of RL- 205 at the Canadian National Air and Space museum in Ottawa Ontario Canada.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi IcyPolar. yes, that is where my colleague in this project volunteers his time as an archivists of sorts. There is the front of an Arrow, not clear which one. There are no engines, etc. It could be 206 or it could be the plane that was behind it in the assembly line. We will never know. regards....Virtual

[@icypolar2294]

Virtualenvirons the nose and cockpit section at the Ottawa museum belongs to RL-206. The number is still visible. This piece also still has the nose landing gear which still has the name of the company who built it stamped onto it.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi IcyPolar. Yes, it probably is. The going theory is that 202 was hijacked. It was the one that had the front wheel fail. When they brought it in for repairs, it is rumoured the put in the Iroquois engines and the Hughes fire control system. Again, we will never know. regards...Virtual

[@syahrulkamarudin1409]

If Malaysiaan buy the Arrow ,this fighter well be replace our Mig 29N as frontline Multirole fighter aircraft with F/A 18D Hornet and Sukhoi Su 30MKM In Royal Malaysian Air Force at my country Malaysia underour Prime Minister.Mahathir Muhamad.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hello Syahrul. Thank you for you comment and interest. To be clear, Canada developed this jet in 1958. The plane has not been seen for 60 years. But, you are correct, it would still be better than most. regards...Virtual

[@davidvictor7619]

It is sad.

[@MinnesotaBeekeeper]

Wow this almost looks like a bad cartoon.

[@Virtualenvirons]

HI Mike, perhaps you should mind your own "bee's Wax". Checked your channel, always check the weird ones. Up pretty late too. Friday night and maybe a little "better living through modern chemistry"......regards.....Virtual

[@glen6945]

ace

[@mass4552]

Rebuild the Arrow? Sure but from modern materials and with modern weaponry. Is it still the Arrow? It is whatever you want to name it. Will it be the same plane. No. It will be a smaller version of a fairly dependable design. We can make it stealthy. We can make it as fast or faster by now. The delta wing design is still used on some jets still in use today but most do not so the wing design will change. Probably the best design for Canada today would be an interceptor fighter. It will not be cheap. I'm not sure who said it. I believe it was a famous US citizen. What price liberty? I don't know about anyone else but my answer is that no price is too high. Decades back we were forced to partner with the Americans for protection. Then for decades the Americans took on the role of our protectors at the price of us signing an agreement in the 60's to not develop fighter aircraft in this country and buying what the Americans offered us. This is no fault of the Americans who were looking out for American interests. This was a failing of our own elected officials of all political parties in this country. We were told we had to start standing firmer on our own feet. I agree. If it's not in the best interests of all Canada. Then don't buy it. Build it here. Despite the naysayers, we do have the intellectual and natural resources to make anything we want or need in this country for this country. Time to get to work. No more bitching and complaining. No more living in the past. Work for the future.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Sam Good post. Send that to your MP. A lot of people are doing that since Trump took office. regards...Virtual

[@fernandovanzzini1819]

That plane could be build in qro, mexico, and the cost,high tech toghether canada and mexico can aport money will be a goog choice , cheap

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Fernando....Thank you for the comment. To be clear...Canada built this plane....in 1958. sixty years ago.... regards...Virtual

[@markleev1]

Nice fantasy, but the SU-33 didn't use any of its unmatched manoeuverability, starting with Pugachev's Cobra

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Mark, the Su-33 is not the Su-27. They look alike, but the 33 is not quite the "turn and burner" the 27 is. Both aircraft (SU-27 and 33) are like F-18's, the Su-27, an F-18 on steroids. But, if you recall in my movie, the Arrow is approaching at 62,000 ft, something neither Russian aircraft can do. Also, like the F-18, neither aircraft can manoeuvre very well above 45,000 ft. Fully loaded at 50,000 ft, they are outmatched by the Arrow in terms of manoeuvrability, speed, rate of climb, etc. They do have there weapons though, and this is why in the movie the pilots state they cannot fight the Su-33 head on, only in a chase position. So, in summary, this movie is fairly accurate. We decided not to embellish the Arrows capabilities, hence the engagement scenario. regards...Virtual

[@nwtruckerll]

Why would they even need the edge of the envelope's performance? These days the aircraft isn't required to fly at those altitudes- to avoid the more primitive SAMs of the day- Stealth and EW is mandatory to even partially counter advanced missile systems. Bring back the Mosquito....:)

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi nwtrucker... Then why do the F-15 and F-22 have the same performance specs above 50,000 ft. as an Arrow? Something my coach always told me in high school. I can teach everything except speed. regards...Virtual

[@nwtruckerll]

If one followed the F-22 as I have for over twenty years, you'd know the performance specs for the F-22 are low-balled. Actual thrust of the F-119 is 40K per.(That's twenty years ago!) ACM, not flight, at 65K, ceiling, with pressure suits, between 70-75K. (Pressurized cockpit 'apparently' 10% over ambient).Top speed over 2K...if you don't mind a new paint job and likely damage to the canopy and Radome. Super-cruise M2 at 60K. CTR, 22 Degrees per second at 20K. The F-15 I haven't spent much time on. Those 'specs' do not cover capabilities inside that performance envelope either. The Mig-25 had altitude and speed numbers, but it was a lead sled. Down in the soup it would be waxed by an F-4. Stainless steeled. No BVR tracking system. The engines would either fail outright and a deadstick landing if it hit the top numbers. If they didn't fail, a mandatory rebuild of both engines when it landed. These days everyone lies on the 'official' specs. Those selling in the international marketplace highball and those not exported, low-balled. As we will never know how the Arrow performed over-all within the flight envelope, it's tough to assess regarding the F-15. The eagle was no slouch. Yet, I've seen pilot comment (F-16.net)where the F-22 outperformed the F-15's envelope with full military thrust, alone, in every aspect of the envelope. (That was from ex-15 drivers who had moved to the F-22.) To this day, none of the tech, never mind the plane, itself, can be exported. At a guess, the Arrow matched or slightly exceeded the extant envelopes of the then current aircraft. yet, the F-14s and F-15s were already on the drawing boards-likely some of Arrow tech was incorporated into them....maybe. IMO, both would take the Arrow, but who knows for sure, eh? Canada could never have competed in the international market, then, and it there'd be far more competition, these days. We couldn't cover the development costs without huge export numbers. The F-35 JUST completed the initial fight tests of it's systems! IIRC, between 20, 000 and 30,000 individual flight tests. Now there's a litany of upgrades waiting for the money to implement and that's the US MIC!! We are not going to compete with that. If getting the Bomarc and the F-104 with the rights to build the CF-104 was the best we could get, it was the prudent decision, IMO. Swollen Canadian pride notwithstanding. I'm just a long time fan, what do I know?? :)

[@nwtruckerll]

Here's video that sends spec levels out the windowkzbin.info/www/bejne/e4KafqqcmM92l5I

[@Zeus-kj7nn]

Cobra Manoeuvre, game over Canada. 🇷🇺

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Z. Although unlikely. Revisit the scenario. If you notice...which you did not. The engagement happened over 50,000 ft. An SU-33 can barely turn at that altitude. This is a very advanced forum. If you are going to comment, you need to understand Air combat. regards...Virtual

[@Zeus-kj7nn]

@@Virtualenvirons In reality, the Russian pilot would not have allowed himself to be compromised at that altitude. So he would have been all over that aircraft. Its a 60 year old jet, pure speculative, its only a simulation after all and are you a fighter pilot?!

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Zeus....First of all you need to understand the SU-33. It is not an F15. It is a F-18 on steroids for lack of a better explanation. Like the F-18, it is designed to fight in thick air or around 40,000 ft. At 50,000 it becomes somewhat limited In terms of turning. The Arrow was designed to fight above 50,000 ft. All you have to do is look at that big wing and the installed horse power to work it out. Also, the arrow had inherent instability in the Y-axis which would let it point its nose fairly quickly. So, In the first kill, you see we describe that scenario even stating that it has to be almost a bore shot for the old Falcons. In the second Kill we point out that the Russian pilot does nto know he is facing a sixty year old fighter and then behaves as if he is engaging an Canadian F-18. The scenarios are thought out. Wait until you see Ep 4 and 6. I have access to Air Force personnel, jet engine specialist, Authors, etc. Although these scenarios are "out there", they are plausible, otherwise we would not have used them. regards.....Virtual

[@Zeus-kj7nn]

@@Virtualenvirons I appreciate the extensive reply. You have gained my respect. Can I say, I didn't mean to come across disrespectful. I came across your channel last night. I find it very bespoke and relaxing. I love the use of music too! I'm obviously not an expert on fighter's, just having more knowledge than the average person. You obviously, as proven in your last message having extensive knowledge. I am looking forward to watching more of your videos tonight. I understand what its like to love an aircraft. I have loved the F15 Eagle since I was a child, in my mind, probably one of the most amazing jets too. Its constantly being updated. Can I ask you how effective this aircraft will be firstly- How would it fair against the Arrow? Is it worth being developed as an F15X? And, is this program actually being initiated? Again, thanks for your cordial and informative reply. Impressed and Subscribed. Steve.

[@Virtualenvirons]

Hi Zeus. Thank you for your reply and comment. The F-15 would destroy the Arrow. There is no scenario for an Arrow defeating the F-15. The F-15 is what the Arrow would have become. I don't know if you know the history of the jet. It was considered by everyone including the U.S., the most advanced jet fighter in the world at the time, 1959. Some of it's attributes were not seen again until the F-16 and F-18 appeared. Before it was to be fielded, the Prime Minister announced the program was cancelled, all the jets were to be destroyed including plans, assembly line, jigs and fixtures, etc. Thereby creating a legend. I think the F-15 should continue to be modernized. I think if stealth were not a factor, the F-15 and F-22 would be evenly matched. regards....Virtual Arrow series link below Series LInk kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5vYfWx_gpJkipI