Avro Arrow Conspiracy Theorys

[Richard III]

For the record, Hunter, I've spent my entire life and entire career trying to make it better. No one needs to tell me to "love it or leave it;" I've earned the right to b*tch.

And yet it just keeps getting worse, mostly because of the close-mindedness of my fellow citizens, and our national unwillingness to take responsibility for anything. The Arrow is a great example of this. Instead of spending $$$ and time educating Canadians on real achievements that actually succeeded - of which I can think of hundreds, what does the CBC do? It spends $7 million on a TV show to lionize the crazy guy behind the budget overruns, and to build hype about the thing by making technical claims that were simply not accurate...(For example, see http://www.avro-arrow.org/Arrow/CBC.html)

And BTW, at the same time as we busily criticize the Americans for being ignorant about the world, no one in this country seems capable of doing anything but looking at the world through a prism of Canada vs. the United States.

As proof of this, look at the common assumption that it's the US I would be going to. If I do leave, it will almost certainly be Britain I leave for. It's hilarious, when I've had conversations about leaving, how many people assume it's for the States.

Which says alot. Too much, I'm afraid.

But fair comment. Let's get back to yukkin' it up on the hilarious waste of hundreds of millions that could have been used to keep our real armed forces up to par in the dark years before Paul Hellier

R.III

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

History topics belong in the history section...moved.

BTW, the US had the Phamthom II on the drawing board in 58, almost ready for flight trials, the arrow is a joke compared to this machine, and you think the US aero-space industry feared a less capable, more expensive aircraft?

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
History topics belong in the history section...moved.

BTW, the US had the Phamthom II on the drawing board in 58, almost ready for flight trials, the arrow is a joke compared to this machine, and you think the US aero-space industry feared a less capable, more expensive aircraft?

The arrow was actually built and flown. How is it a joke compared to one that never made it past paper?

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Hunter



It is nice to hear from some one in the industry.

I have two questions for you:

1) how much of the Arrow is still around?
2) how is canada doing in the aerospace industry are we at least doing well? (I ask out of national pride)

Sorry I work in IT and try to avoid the actual aerospace parts of the business.

I do know a little but not the answer to the first question. As for the second, the answer is not so well. We make probably 80% commercial parts for private jets, 5% for airbus(big jetliners) and the other 15 for the military(US entirely). I don't know what other companies are doing but we aren't doing a whole lot to further the industry up here at all. Recent R&D that I've heard about are to improve machining techniques for the harder alloys. Machining for the extremely hard metals is difficult so it's slow and expensive to cut and therefore makers keep use of such material to a minimum. If we(or anyone else) can improve the ways we cut them then parts can be made with stronger metals. That's the only thing that I believe we are seriously working on to improve the industry.

The only other thing I can tell is that most of canada(military and other) buys their planes from the states so Canada itself isn't doing so well. It's kinda like we gave up completely after the arrow. I don't think we are even trying anymore. Most of our good aerospace engineers graduating these days head straight for the US

 

[sysyphus]

To RIII,

I have to say I agree with you and your view of Canadians in general. THis is a pathetic country.

WHy is it pathetic? Not the usual excuses Canadians use: oh our small population (compared to America yes, but on a world scale? We have more than Australia, and they accomplish quite a bit), oh our currency is crap: rubbish. Yes it has plummited against the US dollar, but again, on a world scale? It's not the Pound Yen or Euro, but compared to other world currencies it is quite well respected.

This blaming America for all our problems is a load of rubbish: we are only submissive to the US because we choose to be. Yes I too have some issues with American policy, but we have no right to blame them for our country's lack of accomplishment.

The real problem with Canada: we are nothing but a bunch of layabouts who rest on a few laurels from the past (the Second World War and one interplanetary robotic arm do not make a nation great).

We have no vision, and Canadian industry is the worst for letting promise fall by the wayside due to a lack of gumption.

We contribute NOTHING to the world world culturally, Jim Carrey doesn't count. He works for the USA, and that is because they gave him a chance.

RIII, I too have considered leaving and heading for Europe, but I have decided to stay. I do love this country, and my anger is the result of its potential being wasted by the bunch of Charlie Browns who live here.

I wish you would stay, the people like you who leave, the worse it gets.

If you feel you must go, I respect your decision, but I don't personally believe it is the right answer. Wherever you go, you'll still at the root be one of us, people will be prejudiced to you by their opinions on us. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hunter]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

BTW, the US had the Phamthom II on the drawing board in 58, almost ready for flight trials, the arrow is a joke compared to this machine, and you think the US aero-space industry feared a less capable, more expensive aircraft?

AoA I do respect your opinion but the Arrow was in the air in 58 and the first one in the air was a production modle not a prototype (as I understand). Dose anyone have any stats on these two fighters we can compare

O and sysyphus I didnt start this disscusion to attack Canada or any nation. Well mabey alittle light attacking of our government but only in regards to our Arrow project. So if every one could refrain from going down that road please. I mean if you want do talk about that I would LOVE to but in a diferent thread. Ok?

Anyway are there any stats to compare the Arrow to jets of its time and more to the point the Phantom 2?

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by scrimshaw
in response to:
2) how is canada doing in the aerospace industry are we at least doing well? (I ask out of national pride)

I do know a little but not the answer to the first question. As for the second, the answer is not so well. We make probably 80% commercial parts for private jets, 5% for airbus(big jetliners) and the other 15 for the military(US entirely). I don't know what other companies are doing but we aren't doing a whole lot to further the industry up here at all. Recent R&D that I've heard about are to improve machining techniques for the harder alloys. Machining for the extremely hard metals is difficult so it's slow and expensive to cut and therefore makers keep use of such material to a minimum. If we(or anyone else) can improve the ways we cut them then parts can be made with stronger metals. That's the only thing that I believe we are seriously working on to improve the industry.

The only other thing I can tell is that most of canada(military and other) buys their planes from the states so Canada itself isn't doing so well. It's kinda like we gave up completely after the arrow. I don't think we are even trying anymore. Most of our good aerospace engineers graduating these days head straight for the US

Well, apart from those working for the third largest commercial aerospace company in the world, Bombardier Aerospace, headquartered here in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Bombardier is either the #1 or #2 company in each of the sectors it builds aircraft in : small airliners (both jets and props), business aircraft of all sizes and firefighters.

And the world's dominant aircraft simulator manufacturer, CAE Inc, is also right here in Montreal (they have something like an 80% market share, I believe).

Add to that P&W Canada in Longeuil (across the St Lawrence from Montreal) and Bell Helicopters in Mirabel, about 30 miles North of here, and Montreal has one of the densest concentrations of successful aerospace companies in the world. One proud boast being that Montreal could build every part of an aircraft - a boast neither Seattle (Boeing) nor Toulouse (Airbus0 can make.

So I think it's safe to say that Canada has a pretty successful aircraft industry, especially when one considers both the small population/home market AND the utter mess certain other countries have made of their once successful indigenous industries.

However...
I have to side with the nay-sayers on the subject of the Avro Arrow. Relatively advanced it may have been, but to imagine that a single design point aircraft like it could have been kept in service for 40 years is somewhat fanciful. It's akin to all the TSR-myth-making in the UK. The sad truth is that neither country could afford the aircraft, whatever their technical merits, which are largely paper assertions in any case.

It would be nice if they hadn't scrapped them all; after all it's nice to go to Cosford, look at XR220 and wonder "what if?". And perhaps they could have had a useful R&D function, even if they couldn't afford to put them into service.

But the truth is that EVERY country cancelled what now, with the aid of rose-tinted spectacles, look like world beating aircraft. Unless one is willing to accept some kind of global conspiracy theory, the more prosaic answer is simply that sometimes good projects die for bad reasons, just as bad ones linger on for ever.

 

[Hunter]

Originally posted by MadScot

It would be nice if they hadn't scrapped them all; after all it's nice to go to Cosford, look at XR220 and wonder "what if?". And perhaps they could have had a useful R&D function, even if they couldn't afford to put them into service.

But the truth is that EVERY country cancelled what now, with the aid of rose-tinted spectacles, look like world beating aircraft. Unless one is willing to accept some kind of global conspiracy theory, the more prosaic answer is simply that sometimes good projects die for bad reasons, just as bad ones linger on for ever.

Very good point. It is always nice to dream of "what if" and sit around the camp fire talking about it. Conspiracies make us feel that there is a plan and not just stupid desitions and bad timing.

And darnit some times thats the fun in life, telling these stories just like ancient peoples told their stories. IT WAS TEN FEET TALL AND SHOT FIRE FROM ITS umm... EARS!!!

Anyway we all know that Elvis working for the UFO's is behind all of lifes great conspiracies. Who else do you think runs area 51?

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by Hunter


AoA I do respect your opinion but the Arrow was in the air in 58 and the first one in the air was a production modle not a prototype (as I understand). Dose anyone have any stats on these two fighters we can compare
...
Anyway are there any stats to compare the Arrow to jets of its time and more to the point the Phantom 2?

Avro Arrow
figures as briefed to UK MoS by Avro in Aug 1955
maximum level speed Mach 1.9 at 41,000ft
time to climb to 50,000ft : 4.1 minutes
ceiling : 62,000ft+

Some contemporary aircraft:
McDonnell Phantom II
(first flight F4H-1 27 May 1958; Entry into Service F-4B variant 1961)
maximum level speed 1485mph at 48,000ft (approx Mach 2.0)
max climb rate 40,000ft/min
ceiling 62,000ft
-all data for F-4B-
with no other information climb rate and time to climb cannot be compared. Level speed and ceiling appear comparable. No great surprise for aircraft of similar vintage

English Electric Lightning
(first flight P.1 prototype 4 Aug 1954; P.1B development aircraft 4 April 1957; operational F.1A in service January 1961)
P.1B achieved Mach 2.0 in level flight in 1958
time to climb to 40,000ft : 3.5 mins (P.1 prototype with "rudimentary afterburners" in 1955)

Sukhoi Su-9
(first flight T-43-1 prototype Sep 1957; entry of Su-9 into service 1959)
max level speed 1317mph at 42,000ft (Mach 1.8?)
time to climb not given
maximum altitude 65,600ft

It's hard to see an argument for world-beating performance. Yes, it's as good as some other good aircraft, and certainly by no means shabby. But the idea that somehow the Arrow was light years ahead is difficult to accept.

Incidentally, it might be of interest to note the involvement of the UK in the Arrow story....

In January 1955, the (UK) Ministry of Supply issued specification F.155T for a fighter aircraft to enter into service by January 1962. This required, among other things, Mach 2.0 at 60,000ft within 6 minutes of takeoff, with a minimum ceiling of 65,000ft. i.e. performance in all regards equal to or greater than that of the Arrow.
Avro were, however, invited to "comment" on the Arrow with regard to the specification. The MoS seriously considered purchasing the Arrow as a stop-gap solution while F.155T's dedicated aircraft was developed, although this was later abandoned due to the closeness of the Arrow and F.155T in service dates.

The most promising of the submissions for F.155T was perhaps the Fairey F.155. This built on their experience with the M2.0 capable FD.2 demonstrator, and looked like this:

Needless to say, there are a few similarities with the Arrow; similar problems give similar solutions after all.

F.155 was cancelled, along with much else, in the 1957 Sandys defence review. It was determined that missiles were "the future" and manned aircraft would no longer be needed. The Arrow was therefore by no means a lonely victim.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Your seriously discounting the Phantom's story, take a look at the records this pland had:

In 1998, based upon its class and weight for medium-sized aircraft, it still holds:

The world mark for speed over a 15-25 km. course - 1,058.8 mph
3 U.S. records for speed over closed-circuit courses without payload (100, 500 and 1,000 km.) - avg. speed 730 mph; top speed 785.7 mph
Over its lifetime, the F-4 Phantom:
Set 15 world aviation records within its first 28 months, including altitude (98,500 ft.), 8 time-to-climb marks, and speed (Mach 2.59)
5 speed records were held for 13 years until broken by the F-15 Eagle in 1975
First aircraft to achieve a sustained altitude of 66,443.8 ft.
First aircraft to fly from Los Angeles to New York in 2 hours and 49 minutes
Largest production run of any supersonic fighter built in the United States (more than 5,000 aircraft in 20 model configurations, including nation-specific configurations)
First production aircraft to make extensive use of titanium
First fighter with pulse Doppler radar with look-down and shoot-down capability
First fighter to concurrently serve multiple purposes for multiple military services (U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps; and 11 foreign military services)
Only fighter ever to fly concurrently with both U.S. aerobatics flight demonstration teams — the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/firsts.htm

From the mysique of the Avro Arrow:
"But the elements that were most poignant in 1959 still strike a chord today. Canadian political decisions of the day were marked by poor planning, destructive partisan politics, technological shortsightedness, and the sneaking conviction that Canada lacked what it took to create first-rate, competitive products on a world class scale. It’s no wonder that the Arrow affair is still relevant today."

From a quick search, the plane never made it to production, to compare it to a Phamthom II, probaly the finest multi-role combat aircraft of the 60s-70s is a strech, a far greater strech is to claim the US had something to do with the Arrow being scuddled out of fear.

The Canadian plane was not designed for ground attack and carrier work, the US plane was, and it carried out this work so brilliantly it's STILL in service with 8 nations today (it's retired from US service since 1996).

I would appreciate it if people didn't try to blame the US for what happens in their countries, this plane represented no threat to US airospace industries.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Here are some stats for the first Phantom:

http://www.skytamer.com/specs/usa/mcdonnell/f4h-1.htm

From what I could find, the first Arrow went airborne on March 25, 1958, the same year the Phantom II prototype saw flight, so the Arrow had beaten the McDonnell Douglas aircraft by a short time, as the YF4H-1 prototype made its maiden flight on May 27, 1958, so the Canadian fighter only beat the US one by a scant two months.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_1.html

It's rediculous to claim the US feared the Arrow as compared to the Phantom.

 

[Case]

There's an interesting Australian parallel to the Avro Arrow. The Australian CA-15 fighter was developed in WW2 to meet Australias need for a long range, high performance fighter. The aircraft which eventually took to the skys in late 1944 was a real masterpiece, as it outperformed the P-51D Mustang in every area. Nevertheless, the Australian government chose not to purchase any CA-15s, and instead ordered 200 Mustangs.

Why? The Mustang delivered more then adequate performance at a cheaper price, and seeing as propeller fighters were clearly on the way out in 1944, the CA-15 was a luxury Australia didn't need.

The lesson here is that governments don't, and shouldn't, go for homegrown 'high performance' military equipment when cheaper, but still adequate, foreign arms are available.

 

[MadScot]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
You're seriously discounting the Phantom's story, take a look at the records this plane had:
list removed to save space, it's up there ^^^^^

Some of those records or accomplishments are a little, shall we say, specialised...after all, some of those are only open to US aircraft. And since the Russians had a habit of not setting recognised records, any Western record during the cold war has an element of "yes, but..." attached to it - just like Olympic medals during the boycott games in the 80s.

And you almost certainly need to qualify some of them with the restriction to jets only; various WW2 fighters, for example, saw extensive multi-service/multi-role usage.

Personally, I would consider the very large production run - and you undersold yourself, it is also the largest production run of any Western fighter - to be the most significant of those records, with service longevity a close second. Record setting with aircraft is a very artificial business, and often bears little or no relationship to the actual capability of the aircraft for its role.

From a quick search, the plane never made it to production, to compare it to a Phamthom II, probaly the finest multi-role combat aircraft of the 60s-70s is a strech, a far greater strech is to claim the US had something to do with the Arrow being scuddled out of fear.

Umm, isn't the point of the thread that the Arrow didn't make it into production. I don't think production status should come into the consideration. After all a fair number of dogs have had fairly long production runs, and some aircraft which certainly had potential did not. I agree it's hard to compare potential versus actual, but this is something of a "what if" subject.

The Canadian plane was not designed for ground attack and carrier work, the US plane was, and it carried out this work so brilliantly it's STILL in service with 8 nations today (it's retired from US service since 1996).

Strictly speaking, the Phantom wasn't designed for ground attack either. There were some very early paper design studies for ground attack variants, designated YAH-1, but the initial prototypes and the initial production was to a fighter requirement.
The first ground attack Phantom was the 'C', which was more-or-less pushed onto the Air Force by Robert McNamara - and interestingly the Air Force actually evaluated the aircraft at first as a potential replacement for the F-106 in the interceptor role.
(There was even an attempt to interest the Army in it, as a ground support aircraft, but that responsibility was then taken out of the Army's hands)
Production of the F-4C was authorised on 31 Dec 1962.

While the Phantom is obviously a 'classic' by virtue of it's widespread usage, I don't consider it as deserving of undue accolades. As a design it had some crude elements - it's very much a brute force machine, rather than an elegant design, and there were some serious shortcomings with early versions, such as the absence of an internal gun. While a fault common to many aircraft of the period, it's still a fault. As a dogfighter it was very much a high energy aircraft in the mould of the WW2 US Carrier fighters, and had somewhat average manoeuvrability.

If I had to choose a jet fighter to nominate as 'the classic' I would be tempted towards the Sabre, the Hunter or the Mirage III.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I'd take a phantom II and shoot you down.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by MadScot
there were some serious shortcomings with early versions, such as the absence of an internal gun. While a fault common to many aircraft of the period, it's still a fault. As a dogfighter it was very much a high energy aircraft in the mould of the WW2 US Carrier fighters, and had somewhat average manoeuvrability.

The decision not to install guns in the Phantom was based on an overestimation of the effectiveness of the available air-to-air missiles of the time. When this deficency was illustrated by combat experiance over North Vietnam later model Phantom were fitted with cannon and seem to have performed fairly well.

As for the Phantoms status as a classic, I think that it's sales figures and combat performance speak for themselves.

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by MadScot


Well, apart from those working for the third largest commercial aerospace company in the world, Bombardier Aerospace, headquartered here in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Bombardier is either the #1 or #2 company in each of the sectors it builds aircraft in : small airliners (both jets and props), business aircraft of all sizes and firefighters.

And the world's dominant aircraft simulator manufacturer, CAE Inc, is also right here in Montreal (they have something like an 80% market share, I believe).

Add to that P&W Canada in Longeuil (across the St Lawrence from Montreal) and Bell Helicopters in Mirabel, about 30 miles North of here, and Montreal has one of the densest concentrations of successful aerospace companies in the world. One proud boast being that Montreal could build every part of an aircraft - a boast neither Seattle (Boeing) nor Toulouse (Airbus0 can make.

So I think it's safe to say that Canada has a pretty successful aircraft industry, especially when one considers both the small population/home market AND the utter mess certain other countries have made of their once successful indigenous industries.

However...
I have to side with the nay-sayers on the subject of the Avro Arrow. Relatively advanced it may have been, but to imagine that a single design point aircraft like it could have been kept in service for 40 years is somewhat fanciful. It's akin to all the TSR-myth-making in the UK. The sad truth is that neither country could afford the aircraft, whatever their technical merits, which are largely paper assertions in any case.

It would be nice if they hadn't scrapped them all; after all it's nice to go to Cosford, look at XR220 and wonder "what if?". And perhaps they could have had a useful R&D function, even if they couldn't afford to put them into service.

But the truth is that EVERY country cancelled what now, with the aid of rose-tinted spectacles, look like world beating aircraft. Unless one is willing to accept some kind of global conspiracy theory, the more prosaic answer is simply that sometimes good projects die for bad reasons, just as bad ones linger on for ever.

I should correct my last post slightly. What intended to say was not that canada has a terrible aerospace industry . We are actually doing fairly well overall but What I really meant is that we are not doing so well for canada itself. Most of what we and most others(including bombardier) build is intended for the united states. We are benefiting them quite nicely but for canada we do fairly little(maybe 10% of what we make stays in this country and that all private sector). So while our companies do quite well, they aren't doing it for us.

 

[Richard III]

Thanks, guys, for the fascinating international perspective on this; this is why I love CFC. Likely would never have heard of the Australian example otherwise.

And sysyphus, bang on; I would be considered pro-american by Canadian standards, but as readers of my posts here have seen, I'm not exactly blindly waving the stars and stripes either. To add to my frustration cited above, there is the presumption

I haven't, I admit, left yet; a planned trip to London in spring/summer, and it may decide it one way or the other. All it would take to stay would be for there to be something worth doing in the world that's best done from here; frankly, I'm finding that hard to discern.

 

[Hunter]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

From what I could find, the first Arrow went airborne on March 25, 1958, the same year the Phantom II prototype saw flight, so the Arrow had beaten the McDonnell Douglas aircraft by a short time, as the YF4H-1 prototype made its maiden flight on May 27, 1958, so the Canadian fighter only beat the US one by a scant two months.

Very interesting I had never found the date for the phantom 2's first flight.

This Thread has shown alot of good information, thank you.

Originally posted by MadScotIt was determined that missiles were "the future" and manned aircraft would no longer be needed.

It appears that all jets of that time seem to have suffered from their governments over confedence in missles. Including the Phantom 2.

Originally posted by CaseThere's an interesting Australian parallel to the Avro Arrow. The Australian CA-15 fighter was developed in WW2 to meet Australias need for a long range, high performance fighter. The aircraft which eventually took to the skys in late 1944 was a real masterpiece, as it outperformed the P-51D Mustang in every area.

I would be interested to learn more about this jet do you have any links or book titles you have found usefull?

and lastly on the subject of pipe dreams:

didnt the germans get the reacord for the first jet in 1940 with the He 280? All my information sugests that if hitler had whent for this jet, it might have destroyed our air power, but instead he wanted a bomber and eventualy whent with the Me 262 on May 22, 1943.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

The He-280 was inferior to the Me-262, in speed and fuel consuption.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap11.htm

The 280 also suffered from some stability problems, and would have been under-armed as compared to the 262.
Hitler ordered the 262 to be fitted with bomb racks (which caused the plane to slow to under 400mph, and thus allied fighters could intercept it), and this slowed the plane from being made availible for it's designed role, interception.

 

[Hunter]

Thats interesting but was the 280 still the first jet. Or am I wrong in thinking the germans were the first to develop jets. Because I know that the British were creating things like the Vampire but I thought they were in the air in 1944 (but didn't see deployment untill after the war).