Another fine, ultimately betrayed aircraft by its government - I only thought our (UK) government was guilty of that. an exceptionall well-designed piece of aviation history which would've boosted Canada's air force and prestige, like 'smaller' countries in the field Sweden/Saab's Draken, Viggen etc.
Keith Leal, e-mail, 01.08.2009 06:07
I was a 27-year-old young father of three when the first Arrow flew. I had doted on the project ever since first hearing of it and was thrilled by every good report that came from the project. I literally "lived" for the day the aircraft would go into RCAF squadron service. So you can imagine how devastated I was when our rotten, foot-licking conservative government bowed to the wishes of it's master to the south. (Read what Mike Green has to say 22.07.09. Those six lines sum it up nicely). In any case, that's about the time in my life that I came up with my new name for Canastians. It's "yanksimp" or "yanksymp" - take your pick.
Mike Green, 22.07.2009 07:50
With techno-advances and updates the "Arrow" would easily have served for 30 years or more with little re-design necessary. It's cancellation will forever be "Canada's saddest moment in aviation history". Instead, Canada now uses American military aircraft with obsolete redundancy designed in on the drawing board. (Just like their automobiles).
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 09.07.2009 18:32
Thanks Leo.
Outside management by McDonnell, or Douglas, may have warded off the requests for costly revisions to the design, & for ‘one off’ systems.
I do agree that an economy version Arrow design should have been built. Cost plus contracts require the highest degree of good faith by both parties. ‘Off the shelf ‘would have saved the Arrow project.
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 26.06.2009 15:04
Barry Fortier, writes:
Gee, it seems that reg is my very own cyber-stalker. ....cut and paste efforts. Hey reg! Why don't you post my review of 'amazing grace', . --------------------------------------
At the risk of offending my dear Friend Mr. Fortier I must point out that accusing me of cyberstalking & asking me to be his media tout, IN THE SAME SENTENCE. is rather illogical at best.
Besides , Barry, you couldn't afford my level of talent! Cheers Reg
Leo Rudnicki, e-mail, 26.06.2009 09:50
Mcdonnell-Douglas didn't know Dick...(aim for the face)...Cheney
Leo Rudnicki, e-mail, 26.06.2009 09:42
The government did contract for Mcdonnell aircraft eventually, but MacAir never built any engines, fire control systems or AA missiles, all of which were dumped on Avro's lap. Heineman worked at Douglas at the time so he couldn't be a factor. McDonnell Douglas was a prime contractor for the Avenger II and ran up 2 BILLION BUCKS without producing a single aircraft. The name is now history. North American (rockwell) at the time was dabbling with the F-108 Rapier with performance to equal or exceed the Arrow (in the brochure). It remained a mockup only. Anyway, manned combat aircraft have been obsolete for decades now and we're all driving rocketships and talking with our minds.
REg Saretsky, e-mail, 26.06.2009 06:54
here\\s an idea; HOw would the Avro Arrow have turned out if , in 1956-57, project mgt had bene contracted out to MCdonnel? Arrow performance at Voodoo prices? Built in Canada, managed & liscensed to America?
Leo Rudnicki, e-mail, 24.06.2009 00:45
I just read "Air Vectors" siteblurb on the Arrow and it was succinct, fair and moderately inclusive. Quite nice.
r Saretsky, e-mail, 22.06.2009 17:37
Thanks Leo. Barry vrs Reg has gotten stale, at best.
According to Amazon's ermalink report abuse' , only 2 out of seven respondents felt that the Bruno vrs Barry tiff added anything to the discussion..
Leo Rudnicki, e-mail, 22.06.2009 08:23
Back on topic, Avro led the way.It was years before General Dynamics and McDonnell-Douglas were sued out of business by the US government. Fairchild and Republic, grand old names, T-46. Big scandal, Fillibuster, Republic locks the door. Rockwell and the XFV-12, not as much noise but no more AC's in Rockwell's future. And Avro was there first. Everything that the Labour Party cancelled in GB, poor old TSR2. We had Tories do it. Proud to be a Canadian.
Reg s, e-mail, 22.06.2009 07:58
Giordano Bruno says: Look in the mirror, Barry.
Your reply to Giordano Bruno's post: To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?) Guidelines Reply to this post Permalink Report abuse 2 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
Posted on Nov 29, 2007 11:34 AM PST Last edited by the author on Nov 30, 2007 6:35 PM PST Barry Fortier says: Not a valid comment, but I would expect nothing more or less from you, based on your own efforts at reviews. The desciptive terms used, are without exception accurate, and justified as they describe very well, the non-reviews I am referring to. Your own efforts, such as: "At this point, denying the probable consequences of rapid anthropogenic climate change is an act of social irresponsibility verging on a crime against humanity, especially the humanity fo our children..... http://www.amazon.com/review/R2E9UWQTRRJD8
????Does anyone out there tranlate"fortier??" WTF do you MEAN, lad.....
Barry Fortier, e-mail, 22.06.2009 05:18
Gee, it seems that reg is my very own cyber-stalker. You really do need to get a life. And a brain, and some education, and an ability to formulate an argument, as well as an ability to go beyond your pathetic and dishonest cut and paste efforts. Hey reg! Why don't you post my review of 'amazing grace', or a complete review of a book sometime! Oh, you don't do things like that. Right.
You are really one sad and sick puppy. Apologies to all real puppies out there.
Reg S, 22.06.2009 03:29
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3B7E3MRPVNCSQ
On behalf of Giordano Bruno & all I hereby grant the Haiti State Zombie control & lifetime supply of Lithium to Mr. Fortier for his dogged stalking.... Giordano Bruno says: Barry, your smears appear on every review that's less than five stars for this book! Is there any evidence available that you've read even the books you stamp with your imprimatur, let alone any books that might challenge your ideology? Go away, Barry.
Your reply to Giordano Bruno's post: To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?) Guidelines Reply to this post Permalink Report abuse 0 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 10, 2008 9:48 PM PDT Barry Fortier says: When you actually start using your own name, perhaps you might be taken seriously. But then in light of your poor efforts at reviews, probably not.
Your reply to Barry Fortier's post: To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?) Guidelines
Barry Fortier, e-mail, 22.06.2009 03:10
So Chris, and Marco, what do you think of the arrow bashing thiefenbaker shill, reg???
To be fair, I don't think much of many politicians, but the Thief was just too much. And reg? He doesn't get one thing right about the Arrow, or the Voodoo. So sad, it is funny.
Barry Fortier, e-mail, 22.06.2009 02:55
If you are referring to reg, yes, he probably did.
Leo Rudnicki, e-mail, 21.06.2009 06:27
Forgot your lithium today, didn't you?
Barry Fortier, e-mail, 21.06.2009 05:53
And again Reg demonstrates his inability to understand english, let alone advanced aircraft. Or again just demonstrating his pathological dishonesty.
****** Hmmmm...Our reident slo-boy, barry fortier,is raving at Professor Lukasiewicz, in 'the present tense'.../over an eleven year old article..**********
I begin by referring to your fantasy world, and how hopeless it is to try to get through to you. Then, I take apart your sad reference to the second rate lukas, so no, I am not thrashing him 'in the present tense', you merely demonstrate you are dishonest.
No, that is reg, a clown who thinks having a glorified letter to the editor published (and debunked), means he has been 'published' on defense matters.
Pity you can't discuss aircraft, but have to attack those who know more than you.
ChristopherR, 19.05.2009 23:27
It was political pressure from the U.S. that forced Canada to cancel the project. The attitude of "If you don't do this we'll ..." attitude and Canada got scared and had to cancel. Tons of U.S. pressure.
Not to mention absolutely no U.S. coverage of the Avro Arrow. And why? Obviously to kill the hype over the plane. Why else would the U.S. continuously cover the Russians achievement of putting sputnik into space? They were scaring their population. Again who wants to listen to their great neighbor to the north when all they now care about is what are the russians going to do next?
Sad and much too bad for Canada.
Also the Arrow was only 2 weeks from flying with the most powerful engine in the world and breaking all American height and speed records. The Americans were working fast and furious to kill the project as fast as they could.
The exact fuel injection system was used on the Concorde not to mention the Iroquois engine that was smuggled over for engine testing in the concorde programme.
I'm not surprised Canadians are angry and even Canadians who were born after the fact. It's the same kind of gut feeling you get when you decided not to play the numbers for the lottery and they came up.
The Americans wanted a piece of that pie and Diefenbaker was their man! And don't think I didn't notice who has air superiority today?
Marco Castro, e-mail, 16.05.2009 00:29
The Arrow was terminated due to US politicians fear not missile, nor canadian politics.
leo rudnicki, e-mail, 02.05.2009 00:07
And it's not a halo, it's an electro-magnetic anomoly I picked up re-creating some old Tesla experiments. That only partially explains it.
leo rudnicki, e-mail, 02.05.2009 00:02
Randy Cunningham, decorated ace fighter pilot. Last politican I liked was Bob Stanfield "Semper ubi Sub ubi".
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 01.05.2009 21:39
leo, I believe you mean Robert Coates, not Barney Danson. Also, Walter Dinsdale, one of DIEF's cabinet ministers. was the Mosquito pilot who won the DFC. Hamilton was a decorated navigator.
"Just give me that ol' time 250,000 Mossie fighter.."
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 01.05.2009 06:42
You may have something there,Leo. Almost all of the Cabinet ahds served in WW2, & Alvin Hamilton, one of the arrow's opponents, was an ex Mosquito pilot( DFC & all, a good one).
Anyway, the Mosquito started out as a private venture. Perhaps the decision was made by 'four turrent minds'. be sure to read Arthur Haileys' 'In high places'
leo rudnicki, e-mail, 29.04.2009 17:49
Let's examine Ed Heinemann's record at managing the creation of revolutionary jet engines, beyond state of the art radar/fire control systems and AA missiles that track and destroy..............And let's list all the government official in history who were not just politicos..Barney Danson (seen in a german strip club and axed)....Stew takes time, steak takes money, the Arrow needed both. Our competent government ordered Bomarc missiles, which didn't work and required nuclear warheads which we would not use. It's a good thing manned fighters are obsolete, and the bombers will always get through. Maybe if it had a 4-gun turret.
reg saretsky, e-mail, 29.04.2009 06:00
Thanks Leo.
The Epiphany you are having explains the halo around your head,! @ http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579197/Epiphany.html
While hindsight is 20/20, the actual transcripts of the CDC, DOD,& Cabinet reveal a group of conflicted men groping for an answer, troubled by what they saw as ‘Hobbs choice’. Canada in 1958-59 was enduring a sharp recession, & the first 20 year war bonds were due for redemption... Money was very short, & this concern shows up time & time again in the discussions.
Vindictiveness, even by opponents such as Alvin Hamilton, never seems to surface. Bill Tribovich is probably closest to the mark- senior project management seems to have been way out of its depth. Perhaps Ed Heinemann’s team could have saved the craft. MD built under very stringent cost controls.
leo rudnicki, e-mail, 27.04.2009 06:46
I've just had an epiphany! The head of Avro Canada, Crawford Gordon, was appointed during a Liberal regime. In a meeting with the Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, just before the axe fell, he was argumentative, arrogant and abusive. All the cost projections, performance estimates and statistics don't amount to a hill of beans if you're obnoxious, right? Barry? right, Reg? You guys are great! It never was about the plane. It was all about character, inter-personal relationships, the brotherhood of man. Reason. Sanity. Pax vobiscum.
r saretsky, e-mail, 25.04.2009 01:14
Hmmmm...Our reident slo-boy, barry fortier,is raving at Professor Lukasiewicz, in 'the present tense'.../over an eleven year old article..
Awww- that's entertainment, folks!..
Barry Fortier, e-mail, 24.04.2009 23:46
And again, he indulges in fantasy.
03.04.2009. I have tried to correct you on what a troll is, but you refuse to be educated. On any subject. I would suggest you seek a caregiver for yourself. You seem to be uncommonly trapped in a self-serving fantasy.
**** Fromthe Toronto Globe & Mail, 1998:
That the cost of the Arrow spiralled out of control is a matter of record: to $9 million per aircraft from $1.5 million within a period of five years.******
Or 12M, or 16M, dependent on the fantasy...
*** As for the F-101 McDonnell Voodoo fighters (which the Royal Canadian Air Force acquired in 1961) being "barely capable of breaking the sound barrier," that plane already held the world speed record of 1.83 times the speed of sound.******
Very few fans of the Arrow are ignorant enough to make that claim about the 101, and it would not be capable of that speed for anywhere near the distance of the Arrow.
****** And it is not very likely that the CIA was nervous about the prospect of a foreign aircraft outperforming its top secret U2 spy plane. This high-altitude, subsonic reconnaissance aircraft bore no relation whatever to a supersonic fighter.************
Proving he was smoking something not really legal. The threat to the U2 was in blowing it out of the sky, referencing it being 'outperformed", is frankly weird. **** Julius Lukasiewicz Professor, mechanical and aerospace engineering, Carleton University,
The rest of his post is as useless... snipped for brevity.
Murray B, e-mail, 22.04.2009 03:38
Avro proposed an aircraft with a delta wing planform and the DND responded with a specification for a 2g turn at altitude. There is no way that any delta could ever turn like that and the DND knew it. So, if the DND did not want want the aircraft then who did?
Bill Trbovich, e-mail, 16.04.2009 23:57
After producing a documentary on the demise of the Arrow and numerous tv news stories on the subject for both CTV and Global Television, for which I conducted many interviews with former AVRO employees including Jim Floyd, John Sandford and the late John Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister who made the cancellation in 1959, one thing is abundantly clear, the Americans didn't kill the Arrow, we did it all by ourselves. Two factors stand out, the RCAF made constant design and performance changes which drove the price per aircraft through the roof. Originally to be designed in stages, the Mark 1 with Canadian airframe, American engines and weapons systems and British avionics. The Mark 2 was to have Canadian airframe, Canadian engines(Iroquois2)Canadian avionics(Marconi Montreal)and American weapons systems. The Mark 3, Canadian airframe, Canadian engines(Iroquois 3), Canadian avionics and Canadian weapons systems (housed in a retractable weapons bay with eight Sparrow missles, capable of lowering, firing a missle and retracting within four seconds during flight). The RCAF wanted everything at once. The second factor not widely know is that when AVRO Canada president Crawford Gordon went to Ottawa to meet with Diefenbaker to dicuss the mounting cost overruns, he was told not to swear, smoke or drink in front of the Prime Minister. Gordon who sources say felt that Diefenbaker was a country bumpkin who knew nothing about aircraft, ignored the cautionary advice. When he met with Diefenbaker he smelled of booze, swore like a trooper and blew cigar smoke in the Prime Minister's face! This coupled with bad information about the capabilities of the BOMARC missle and the Arrow's fate was sealed. The American's for their part, weren't interested in buying the Arrow because they build their own (The Martin Canberra bomber and McDonnell Douglas Harrier are the only exceptions) but they bent over backwards trying to help us develop it...wind tunnel testing, the loan of a B-47 test bed for the Iroquois engine etc. It was in their best interest to have an ally that could produced its own supersonic interceptor for its air force to adequately share North American air defence in order to cut American costs and responsibilities. I have no doubt that had the Arrow been produced and placed into service with the natural progression of models over a period of time, versions of it would still be flying today. But such is not the case and many countries have made similar mistakes when cancellation decision are based on bad information..look no further than the BAC TSR-2 .
Bill Trbovich Communications Director International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
leo rudnicki, e-mail, 11.04.2009 07:01
It wasn't the U2,but the A11 thru SR71 just undergoing development. The Avro Malton facility did attract it's share of soviet spies and although they may have been drawn to the shepherds pie they used to serve at the Avro cafeteria (they used real shepherds)(those Germans make good stuff) The technologies in the building were cutting edge. The Soviets may or may not have known about the A11/A12 but the americans did. I've met Soviets looking for technologies myself. Sold out my country for some gold pins. How much money did the government spend to cancel that helicopter program? I've just been reading about some aircraft systems that have been built and cancelled in the last few years and the prices. The biggest problem was that the aircraft was considered as airframe, engines, radar/fire control & missiles all in one. Don't get me started.
leo rudnicki, e-mail, 06.04.2009 12:24
The Voodoo in no way matched the specifications to which the Arrow was designed. It was a previous generation design. Canada isn't a big superpower like Sweden. Apparently, JAS39 Gripens are selling to other countries even in the face of U.S. urging to get F16's. And the U.S. does know how to urge.
reg saretsky, e-mail, 03.04.2009 23:55
Fromthe Toronto Globe & Mail, 1998:
That the cost of the Arrow spiralled out of control is a matter of record: to $9 million per aircraft from $1.5 million within a period of five years. As for the F-101 McDonnell Voodoo fighters (which the Royal Canadian Air Force acquired in 1961) being "barely capable of breaking the sound barrier," that plane already held the world speed record of 1.83 times the speed of sound. And it is not very likely that the CIA was nervous about the prospect of a foreign aircraft outperforming its top secret U2 spy plane. This high-altitude, subsonic reconnaissance aircraft bore no relation whatever to a supersonic fighter. I never heard my National Research Council colleagues predict that the Arrow would not achieve supersonic speed, as recalled by former Avro engineer James Floyd. But in any event, it was not the performance of the aircraft that is significant; the Arrow was doomed for other reasons. The unrealistic notion of an independent role for the RCAF in the defence of North America yielded a specification for a complex and expensive weapon system for a national market too small to support the necessary research and development. The success of Canada's aeronautical design - from Pratt and Whitney engines, de Havilland Beavers and Dashes, and Canadair jets - can be seen in the skies of many countries; there is no need to invoke the Arrow episode to prove it. Julius Lukasiewicz Professor, mechanical and aerospace engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 03.04.2009 04:16
Thank you ,Leo.You are absolutely right about the Orenda turbos.
The DPSA was a win win for Orenda.Orenda produced the power for the majority of the European Starfighters.
Can I hand Barry over to yoru care...
L Rudnicki, e-mail, 03.04.2009 03:37
Wow.No oversight on this little Peyton Place. Personalities aside,the Arrow airframe was superb, the engines promised but did not yet deliver and the radar/ fire control system was exxxtreemely expensive and not yet finished and air to air missiles were not worth dog-do at the time. The Phantom had identical air intakes and used a Radar/fire control system that came from the same manufacturer. It was very cheap, development already paid for. Politics always exist. The TSR2 cancellaton as well as the Hawker P1154 supersonic Harrier are gone.North American F-107, they took that hard, rightly so. The Arrow was replaced by Bomarcs that had to have nukes to work, blowing up in Canadian skies. The Voodoos came after somebody noticed that we had nothing but useless and unproven Bomarcs with empty warheads. There is more to every conspiracy than meets the eye. And Sometimes, people are just dumb. I have in my room a 20x28 2-view, the plastic model and a framed photo signed by Zura...and my dreams.
reg saretsky, e-mail, 03.04.2009 01:01
would anyone like to acquire Mr Barry Fortier as "personal troll"??
After a year of his 'long winded personalities', His persistance,if nothing else, is evident....
Barry Fortier, e-mail, 30.03.2009 06:20
Again, the lack of respect you show for this web site, and those who created it, is utterly amazing. This is not the place for your rants and raving….
***** The nice part about being’ trolled by Mr. Fortier’, Jack Lalonde, is quoting him verbatim from his ‘blog sites’.**** ****** You appear to be a senior, not familiar with the internet… I use my name, not a handle, and only reply to your errors. That is not a troll. And you do not quote verbatim. You cut and post, drop sections, smear two posts on two different subjects together. Rather a sad effort on your part.
***** From Barry’s Amazon blog:****
I do not have a blog. You obviously do not know what the term means.
This is a book review site. Where people who read books (you might try it…) comment on them, and debate others over their merits.
*****Barry Fortier says: “”Not a valid comment, but I would expect nothing more or less from you, based on your own efforts at reviews. The desciptive terms used, are without exception accurate, and justified as they describe very well, the non-reviews I am referring to. Your own efforts, such as: ….”( quoted name of opponent removed here…”) ……may have been run through a spell checker, but it is just as absurd and hysterical as the other rants that also contain errors in spelling, logic, and fact. “”
No info, just more rant. & one spelling error. ‘Desciptive’, Mr. Fortier? Yawn. ‘nuff said. *******
The actual post:
Not a valid comment, but I would expect nothing more or less from you, based on your own efforts at reviews. The desciptive terms used, are without exception accurate, and justified as they describe very well, the non-reviews I am referring to. Your own efforts, such as: "At this point, denying the probable consequences of rapid anthropogenic climate change is an act of social irresponsibility verging on a crime against humanity, especially the humanity fo our children." may have been run through a spell checker, but it is just as absurd and hysterical as the other rants that also contain errors in spelling, logic, and fact.
Again, you did not remove a name of an opponent, as you falsely claim to, but instead remove the outlandish claim made by someone who doesn’t even post under his own name. Almost a troll, if you will. As for the occasional typo.. that is the only contest you could possibly win.
reg .s, e-mail, 23.03.2009 18:00
The nice part about being’ trolled by Mr. Fortier’, Jack Lalonde, is quoting him verbatim from his ‘blog sites’.
From Barry’s Amazon blog: http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A26NNDWZV3TR4T
Barry Fortier says: “”Not a valid comment, but I would expect nothing more or less from you, based on your own efforts at reviews. The desciptive terms used, are without exception accurate, and justified as they describe very well, the non-reviews I am referring to. Your own efforts, such as: ….”( quoted name of opponent removed here…”) ……may have been run through a spell checker, but it is just as absurd and hysterical as the other rants that also contain errors in spelling, logic, and fact. “”
No info, just more rant. & one spelling error. ‘Desciptive’, Mr. Fortier? Yawn. ‘nuff said.
Barry Fortier, e-mail, 21.03.2009 06:19
Wayne, regarding the Arrow being capable of supercruise, it very probably would have been... The issue is somewhat more complicated then just massive thrust possible from the ps-13.. Engine efficiency, ram effect and a couple of other points would be added to the mix. NOT the most common topic of debate, though one of the more interesting ones.
Barry Fortier, e-mail, 21.03.2009 06:12
Lalonds comment on the b-58 is nonsense. Time frame, mission, etc. Nothing in common. As for Reg lying through his teeth about ***"With all deference to Barry Fortier, he did barrage me, & the Calgary Herald, with emails after my March 2008 editorial. Having read his on line debates, this inbound mail was auto deleted.Sorry, Barry- it wasn’t personal.****
No suprise there. Not one single email was sent to the herald, or to this poor druggie, reg. I wouldn't waste my time trying to get through to him. As for his claims of being "published", his efforts are in the range of letters to the editor, but only if they happened to have been scrawled in crayon.
Reg, I do not lie about you, and you would do well not to lie about me. As for your 'editorial' in the herald in 2008, lets face it.
You were taken apart and made a fool of by others, so I didn't even bother to send in a letter to add to your humiliation.
And for your constant reference to insinger, his thesis is not superb, it would only have been accepted from someone with a level of knowledge, at about your own level.
As for scrapping the Arrow, no, it was NOT standard policy, as the f-107, skylancer, and other aircraft also cancelled would more than amply prove. There was a commercial offer for airframes and parts, that would have massively dwarfed the amount paid for scrap metal, and you trying to pretend otherwise, is about average for your efforts.
Karl, 14.03.2009 03:30
It rolled out on the same day that Spucnik1 took off.
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 03.03.2009 18:53
re the scrapping question:
http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm Insinger , chapter three ….”The six existing Arrows were offered to the NAE, NACA, and the RAE for research purposes, but they were rejected because it was deemed simply too expensive to keep such a small number of aircraft flying. These six Arrows and thirty-one others in various stages of completion on the assembly line were stripped of all classified material and scrapped by DDP, not out of Diefenbaker’s vindictiveness as “Arrowheads” have often claimed, but simply due to bureaucratic standard operating procedure for reasons of national security and - on a very small scale - partial cost-recovery.153 …”
This supports Jack Lalonde’s theory.
Derek, Insingers superb thesis is on line. I would sound out your teacher's view's . good luck,& best writing!
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 01.03.2009 19:24
Hi Derek:
Having published articles on government defense policy, I definitely encourage you to research & write on the nuclear air/ ground warhead question. It was the salient issue, I believe, that caused Pearkes to resign as a Minister of Defense.
Feel free to quote my articles, which are on line. If you are published, Be sure to set your MS- mail settings to auto delete for selected URLs…With all deference to Barry Fortier, he did barrage me, & the Calgary Herald, with emails after my March 2008 editorial. Having read his on line debates, this inbound mail was auto deleted.Sorry, Barry- it wasn’t personal.
Best wishes, Derek!
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 28.02.2009 17:58
Jack Lalonds’s statement on the Arrow’s proposed development into a nuclear strike bomber. is supported by Insinger’s thesis. The Arrow program ended HALF A CENTURY ago. The sources are dimmed by the corridors of time- & there is no need to ‘troll’ anyone posting in here.
Weapons delivery systems in a democracy are constrained by budget to meet a specific foreseen threat. Hindsight is 20-20. I do advise anyone posting to , as a start, read both Insingers thesis,& Conant’s “The Long Polar Watch”. Then form your reply, & quote your sources.
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 27.02.2009 16:25
thank you, Jack Lalonde. Perhaps Mr. 'Barry Fortier' has a supply of the 1963 federal election paper mache Arrowhead hats ,& he could mail one each to us,& Colin Olsen, as a peace offering?
stu johnson, e-mail, 15.02.2009 06:23
The cancellation of the Arrow program was the castrastion of Canada by the Americans. We would still be making some variant of the Arrow and who knows what other types of aircraft. The next time you are passing through Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, stop by Diefenbaker's grave and relieve yourself---- you will feel a lot better.
wayne, e-mail, 14.02.2009 04:33
Given that the Orenda engine produced more thrust "dry" than the P.W. in afterburner, does this mean that the Iroquois engined Arrow would have been capable of supercruise? This seems likely, or am I missing something?
Barry F, e-mail, 26.01.2009 04:21
Jacks very odd comments regarding the b-58 and Arrow, are almost as odd as the usual claims about the Arrow be too costly, short range etc. No relationship to the real world. The Hustler was a high speed bomber, would have had recon capability. The Arrow was a very long range interceptor, with amazing multi-role capability.
Barry F, e-mail, 26.01.2009 04:15
A great machine that the government, run by idiots as usual, destroyed for no good reason. Laughable claims about short range and extreme cost, made only by the guilty or those who cover for them, just don't stand up. No room for debate on it, but the guilty just WON'T knock it off.
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 15.01.2009 22:42
Agreed Colin!
It was a mavellous aircraft. AVRO Corp. was the NORTEL of its day. Great product - huge cost overruns.
Colin Olsen, e-mail, 09.01.2009 18:54
To Barry and Reg,
Come on guys, either way one looks at it, it was still a shame that the Arrow project was dumped as unceremoniously as it was.
I'm not asking that you two kiss n' make up, but let's start acting like gentlemen.
Cheers Per Ardua Ad Astra
Jack Lalonde, e-mail, 08.01.2009 07:09
Arrow was parallel developed with the B-58 Hustler which was nuclear capable and thereby the Arrow was not needed. The Hustler was "Operational" a year before the Arrow. I was at the rollout..
Grant Mitton, e-mail, 02.10.2008 02:53
I was a young man, serving in the Canadian Army, when the news was announced the Government had cancelled the Arrow Program. Having followed as closely as possible the saga as it unfolded, I was extremely sad to see our Country abandon the dream of developing a World Class Interceptor. Today, I look at a Country like Sweden, with a military Aircraft Industry, and Canada without a Canadian designed fighter to its name, and I'm still sad for what Could Have Been.
Barry F, e-mail, 11.09.2008 04:52
If you didn't begin the exchange with an unsolicited email, and did not respond rudely and stupidly to my reply, then we can safely say that I never at any point in time emailed you, period. I wouldn't have bothered. You lose.
reg saretsky, e-mail, 06.09.2008 06:53
Hmmmm... If I remember correctly, barry,I never opened any of your e- mails.
Perhaps you were argueing with yourself? THAT would explain why you have such bad memories...
Hmmm
Barry F, e-mail, 04.09.2008 08:08
Going back through memories of the least intelligent comments ever made by ignorant people on the Arrow, I did receive some utter rubbish from someone, years ago, and cannot remember who it was. If it was you, the sequence was as follows:
I receive an unsolicited email from a ignorant soul, offering up unsubstantiated drivel re: the Arrow.
I reply that his comments were without merit, and no effort had been made or could be made to support them.
I receive a reply that my response was 'bizarre', which would be about your level of discourse, and reply that offering up noise without merit is NOT the best way to approach people.
The reply I receive is insulting, and reply with an insult.
End of it.
Was that name calling jackass you???
And I would suggest you not make attacks on peoples mental stability, as your own posts are incoherent enough to suggest serious drug problems on your part.
Barry F, e-mail, 04.09.2008 07:54
One wishes that ignorant and less than intelligent people would learn to keep their short-comings to themselves. You repeat the same ignorant and pathetic babblings, and seem amazed that you are not worshiped for it. Your comments on the Arrow and Voodoo are crap, to put it politely. Your efforts to pretend otherwise, are pathetic. I have sent you or no other pathetic party hack emails, in years, if ever. Why would I waste my time doing so, as you make it clear you lack the will or intellect to improve yourself.
r Saretsky, e-mail, 04.09.2008 05:47
ohhhh, dear..........
One wishes certain prescriptions for Seroquel were taken as prescribed... Actually, Barry, you used to e-mail me. Repeatedly.....
Barry F, e-mail, 01.09.2008 04:30
Why would I waste my time emailing an individual who's level of knowledge and ability to think are as shabby as yours??
I love the way someone who panders to the memory of a long dead politician, tries to pretend that he actually has something bordering on fact to back him up. Referencing another dief die-hard (Insinger), hardly adds to your weak efforts.
Your laughable efforts to inflate the cost of the Arrow were shredded, to put it politely, in a rebuttal column in the Herald, which shouldn't have wasted space on your pathetic effort in the first place.
Your pitiable and repeated claims, in detail:
********* The Arrow had two fatal flaws. 1. Short range. At 300 radius, compared to the CF101 Voodoo's 1,200,********* Again, you demonstrate you know nothing about either the Arrow, or the Voodoo, or different mission types. The Arrow's original minimum radius for high speed intercept, was 200 nm. This does NOT mean that this was its ultimate range. Avro exceeded this requirement by a massive amount, a feat not duplicated until the SU-27 was created. And the Voodoo did NOT have a supersonic radius of 1200 k. Your inability to understand the difference between the two missions, is pathetic. You are obviously unqualified to comment on the subject... but that doesn't stop you. The Arrow was superior in both mission profiles.
****** the Arrow was optimised for hot interception, not for long range interdiction, a task at which the Voodoo excelled.******
The Arrow was uncommonly capable at supersonic intercepts, but this in no way would prevent it from a much longer, lower speed cruise. Most competitive aircraft of its generation, would only manage 100-150 nm radius in supersonic mode. And most were competitive with the Voodoo in subsonic missions. None could have matched the Arrow for performance while fully armed. And unlike the Voodoo, the Arrow would have been able to carry a very impressive range of other than ATA weapons.
****** Fro comparison, an Arrow launched from Cold Lake CFB has to turn back at Yellowknife. a Voodoo turns at the tip of Greenland.************
Again, this is so pitiable, it hurts to see you make such a fool out of yourself. The Arrow Mk2, based on drag data from the Mk1 flights, would have beaten the Voodoo in both supersonic, and subsonic missions. And no amount of lying about it, will change that. And your insistence on AGAIN comparing two different mission profiles, is pathetic. You are wrong, drop it.
************* 2. A huge price tag. The specs for the Arrow assumed a fast hot climb to 60,000 feet, then a spread of 4 unguided nuclear warheads to distroy a front of invading Soviet supersonic aircraft. Therefore, you had a 12 million dollar aircraft against the 1,590 million Voodoo, over six times as much.********
Most of this paragraph is not even coherent... The original specs and design for the Arrow, involved non-nuclear falcons and sparrows.... And repeating the fabrications of cost that you have already been refuted on the the Herald, really. Get a life.
************** The missle age left the mission behind.Stuff happens.******
No, the missile age did NOT leave the mission behind, the RAF still has tornado f3's, the ang has f-16.... You really are completely unqualified to comment on the Arrow, the Voodoo, aircraft performance in general, military missions, history in general, and pretty much anything else, in all likely-hood.
fred, e-mail, 24.08.2008 12:55
" Big,big mistake... Believing on technology so much resulted on a somewhat sad ending for many F-4s in Vietnam."
they were talking about nuclear interceptors. not conventional fighter interceptors. the arrow was hardly a dog fighter useful in vietnam. the mythology of canada being robbed with the arrows demise is a rather odd one. the arrow was obsolete almost as soon as it was completed. it was money poorly spent. several us supersonic projects were canceled for the same reasons. including the mach 3 xb-70 valkyrie bomber. i guess because there is no inferiority complex in the us these program cancelations do not have the same mythology.
hell recently the comanche stealth helicopter was canceled. its pretty cool looking, but it really serves no purpose for todays military.
Chuck Etherington, e-mail, 15.08.2008 01:07
Probably too late for your history class, Derrick, but it is true that many Avro engineers helped with NASA programs, both directly and as employees of U.S. contractors like McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Northrop, General Dynamics, etc. My father left Avro shortly before the cancellation of the Arrow and secured a job at Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin) working on Titan I and II ICBMs.
Sgt.KAR98, 10.07.2008 04:55
"Both were destroyed by politicians who,.in 1957, were convinced that missile technology had advanced to a stage when manned interceptor aircraft would no longer be needed."
Big,big mistake... Believing on technology so much resulted on a somewhat sad ending for many F-4s in Vietnam.
derrick, e-mail, 09.06.2008 22:02
i heard that once the canadian engineers moved to the usa they helped with the nasa programs . is this info true ? im doing an essay on the arrow for my history class and find the whole controversy very Intriguing .. and is the story about the nuclear tipped missiles true ? ... any help would be greatfull ..
R Saretsky, e-mail, 07.04.2008 11:52
without debating Barry f., readers may reference
Campagna, Palmiro. Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed, Third Paperback Edition. Toronto: Stoddart, 1998. ISBN 0-7737-5990-5. Mr. Campagna has printed a photo of the US Department of Defense internal study ( as on of his 'secret documents’ ) on the cost /benefits acquiring the Avro Arrow for the USAF The price tag is 12 million per aircraft based on a production run of 100 aircraft. Pearkes had a 1.7 billion dollar yearly budget to run the entire Canadian Department of Defense. 100 short range Arrows, extra bases, parts, upgrades etc. would have gobbled up the budget for two entire years. This figure is backed by Pearkes estimate, presented at the NAC_ CC- August 15 1958 of over 2 billion dollars based on a production run of 169 aircraft, or 11.83 million each. (Insinger, SCAA.USASK). Readers may consult http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/notes.htm for cross-referencing.
Barry, please don't email me.
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 07.04.2008 00:23
Melvin Conant’s words still reverberate largely because for almost forty years the field was abandoned to a veritable cottage industry of pro-Arrow aviation enthusiasts, generically known as “Arrowheads.” They are amateur historians who write - irritatingly, often bestselling - “buff books” which have helped to perpetuate an Arrow mythology:
Listening to these laments, you might think that killing the Arrow was a crime against humanity, a kind of technological infanticide. In a debate with words such as beauty and poetry used in the same breath as requiem and tragedy, the stillborn Arrow seems the greatest failure of our nationhood. To the revisionists and nationalists who have freighted the Arrow with hopes and fears, the airplane was a metaphor. When it soared, it reflected daring, stature and self- confidence. When it crashed, it represented weakness and insecurity. And when those dazzling prototypes were cut up into little pieces, allegedly on the orders of a vengeful prime minister...it gave rise to a delicious conspiracy: that the planes (and plans) were destroyed to ensure none would end up in a museum where dispossessed romantics would hold monthly vigils....39
Conant, M"the long polar watch" harper , 1962
Barry F., e-mail, 03.04.2008 03:21
The order for destruction was NOT from the RCAF, and the claim of 300 radius compared to the Voodoo's 1200, is utter nonsense. DON'T compare subsonic to supersonic missions. The Arrow proved to have a higher supersonic mission radius than required (flight data impacting estimates that proved to be rather low), and its subsonic RADIUS was equal too or greater than the 101. The 101 had a RANGE of 1500 plus, not a RADIUS. The huge price tag has the same cred as your claim of short radius/range (which you seem to be confused on), and where you got the nuclear warhead nonsense, only you know. Your claims of cost are as weak as your claims of performance. Without merit.
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 06.02.2008 02:52
While I must agree with you regarding the distruction, it was ordered by the RCAF high command to protect the advanced technology from soviet spies.
The Arrow had two fatal flaws. 1. Short range. At 300 radius, compared to the CF101 Voodoo's 1,200, the Arrow was optimised for hot interception, not for long range interdiction, a task at which the Voodoo excelled. Fro comparison, an Arrow launched from Cold Lake CFB has to turn back at Yellowknife. a Voodoo turns at the tip of Greenland. 2. A huge price tag. The specs for the Arrow assumed a fast hot climb to 60,000 feet, then a spread of 4 unguided nuclear warheads to distroy a front of invading Soviet supersonic aircraft. Therefore, you had a 12 million dollar aircraft against the 1,590 million Voodoo, over six times as much. The missle age left the mission behind.Stuff happens.
bob, e-mail, 06.11.2007 21:04
canada roxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bob, e-mail, 06.11.2007 21:04
canada rox!
Matt, e-mail, 02.10.2007 23:43
it rocked
If you want to send an email just replace '(@)' in the address with '@' !
