Had AVRO been a Quebec Company the Arrow would have survived. Under our policies now we buy U.S. cast-offs, junk, and current promotions that they need help with. If little Sweden can build top line fighters, why the hell can't Canada. Oh, I know, we don't have enemies and everyone loves us! Many Canadians still think we can build up our military if war starts as we did in WW11. They don't realize it takes years to build a good aircraft and years to train pilots to fly them. Modern aircraft are not simple fighter as used during WW11 and pilots were put in them with few flying hours under their belts. Time to wake up Canada, or learn how to speak Chinese!!!
Susan Baker Oberman, e-mail, 23.04.2013 06:50
My father Deremot O'S Baker was doing a story as news editor of the montreal star when the project was considered to be scratched by Diefenbakers govt. It broke my dad's heart, after all the work to see its demise! Sue Baker (St. Louis MO. formerly of Montreal, Que.
Joe MacQueen, e-mail, 27.11.2012 08:50
This plane flew, as to the purpose that is unclear whether it did all what is written I don't know and realy don't care for what matter's is we lost an industry that employed people that would have shown the next generation how to build the aircraft that we are now complaining about as we did with the Arrow and keep on putting it down.It's odd that some other country like Sweden or Europe, Russia,USA,France and even China all can build a fighter jet but Canada can't and appear's it never could I find that just a tad much. The only people I would consider knowledgeable about this plane are the pilot's who flew it everyone else had other motives to deal with. They could have redsigned the CF 100 and gave it a swept back wing or delta look who knows.To me it was the industry not just a plane.I'm not against any plane Canada built, though what the RCAF want today is a promotional tool for recruitment they need pilot's though 30 or 65 F35's are looking a bit weak.Doing a refit on the Arrow is a pipe dream as the people of Canada aren't ready to get back in that businees and the government know's that.
Joe MacQueen, e-mail, 21.10.2012 06:23
Like so many I know nothing as this topic requires knowledge in the field of aeronatic's which I doubt most have yet give opinion's based on what.I look at the Arrow a biase Canadian and like so many think of what might have been but that's it as we are looking once again to buy americian our thought's will never take flight reguarding Canadian built plane's (fighter jets )our air force is too small for one reason and those of higher rank would have no future in supporting such an idea.Politic's rule away's have.
Ed Majden, e-mail, 30.09.2012 04:00
Why would they design an interceptor with such poor range? The F106, F101, F104, all had better range.
Dennis Campbell, e-mail, 08.07.2012 13:33
(I have heard that the Concorde program was close to being cancelled a few years later, until they hired some of the ex-AVRO engineers who had already solved their major problem of how to get strong enough gear into a skinny wing! And I also heard that 25% or more of the NASA engineers had an AVRO background also.)
Anyway, my six bits worth; I believe vision-less politicians, hide-bound military dinks, AND appalling project management at AVRO, killed what might have been a world-class aeronautical industry in Canada, (and it was brutally done.) I don't know the background on why they didn't get foreign sales to offset the frightening cost, but that would seem to have been the only way to continue.
Dennis Campbell, e-mail, 08.07.2012 13:30
What the J58 engine does is, it routes more and more air from the intake (the space just behind the spike, in front of the spinning compressor blades) into big bypass pipes that go around the engine's spinning parts and take the air straight to the afterburner. The air in the intake is already more than hot enough to burn fuel, so you don't need spinny parts at all at that speed. Even at subsonic speeds, a good intake can heat the air up enough to burn fuel without a compressor's help. That's called a ramjet. The problem is, a ramjet doesn't work at all until you get to that speed; until you're going fast enough that just slowing the air down in the intake gets the air hot enough to burn fuel. So you need a spinning compressor - and a turbine to power it - in order to take off and get up to speed.
So the Blackbird takes off with its engine working just like any fighter jet engine. But as it goes faster and faster, and the air in the intake gets hotter and hotter, so less and less of that air goes through the spinning "core" of the engine (and less fuel is burned in the combustor) and more and more of that air goes around the core and into the afterburner (where more and more fuel is burned). By the time you get to MACH 3, the spinning core of the engine is basically just sitting there and wind milling around, burning little or no fuel... and the afterburner is getting almost all the air and generating almost all the thrust.
Each J58 engine in a Blackbird are like a turbojet sitting inside a ramjet. At first, the turbojet does almost all the work. As the Blackbird accelerates, the turbojet is fed less and less fuel, until it's basically just dead weight, a useless lump of spinning metal sitting in the middle of a ramjet. You needed the turbo machinery in order to get to supersonic speeds, but once you're at MACH 3, you route your air around it."
So they obviously would have had to re-design the engine to get much faster than about M 2.5 or so.
Anyway, besides that fact that the project engineer for the Arrow was an asshole and severely pissed off a country bumpkin Prime Minister, it appears from what I read that the weapons system was the REAL problem with the aircraft; never having been done before it was becoming hideously expensive to develop, and putting production way behind schedule and way over budget. So whether Diefenbugger was directly responsible or not, and the extent to which the Chiefs of Defense were afraid of spending that kind of money, (almost the entire defence budget!) and whether they were reluctant to sell to the many allied nations that had offered to buy the aircraft even before it was built… I'm guessing that there were several factors that went into the decision to scrap the program. (And I'm also betting the order to cut up and destroy everything was childish pique, and a way of ensuring that it STAYED scrapped. )
Given the degree of help that the Americans provided for the entire project, engines, wind tunnels, test-bed aircraft, and even an agreement to use the USAF base at Minot N Dakota for staging flights to Cold Lake; and given the fact that I believe they would have welcomed some help in defending North America, I don't think they did pressure Diefenbugger to cancel the program. Yes, many of their military would have been jealous of the capabilities of the aircraft, (just as they were jealous of the capabilities of the P-3 Orion we bought and modified to far superior capabilities with Canadian avionics for the Aurora sub-hunting program - which I had a small part in-) But I think the decision to cancel was all Canadian.
Dennis Campbell, e-mail, 08.07.2012 13:27
The COMBAT radius is listed as 408 miles; compares to the Foxbat, and had a 44,500 fpm climb rate, not matched by anything else for at least another 15 years!
So Gordon, you're right; with only 7000 lbw of fuel, the Mk2 would have had a power-to-weight ratio of greater than one. (Again, not matched by any western aircraft. (The Foxbat, five years later, could put in 7000 lb and do the same.)
(The Mk2 was projected to easily reach M 2.0, ("… it was estimated that it had a high chance of beating the world speed and altitude records held at that time by the United States.") At the time of scrapping a MK3 was on the drawing board that they planned to reach M 3.
But Murray, the skin friction is not a limiting factor until you get above M 2.5; rather the problem is that the pressure rise of the air entering the turbo-jet engine heats the air too hot. Here's a beautiful explanation of the SR-71 Blackbird's engine that illustrates my point;
"What the front half of a jet engine (the intake/diffuser, and the compressor blades, i.e. all the stuff that happens before fuel is burned) does is; it heats up the air until it's hot enough for fuel to ignite. First, the intake/diffuser slows the air down, which raises its pressure, which raises its temperature. The faster you're going, the more of a temperature rise you get just from slowing the air down as it enters the big hole in the front of the engine (because the air has more speed, and more energy, to convert to heat). Then the air goes through those spinning blades that compress it (and thus heat it) further, until it's hot enough to burn fuel. THEN, you burn fuel, which gets the air (now with fuel and exhaust mixed in) to the hottest temperature anywhere in the airplane. Nw we enter the rear half of the engine. The air - at its peak temperature - goes through the turbine, which is a bunch of blades that act like a windmill and absorb some of that energy in order to spin the compressor. The amount of fuel you can burn in the combustor (or, rather, the rate at which you burn fuel) is therefore limited by your turbine's materials: The more fuel you burn (per unit time), the hotter the turbine air becomes, so you can only burn fuel so fast before you melt your turbine. Once your turbine temperature is as hot as it can sustain, the only way you could burn more fuel (to get more thrust) is if you had a bigger engine. (Or by burning fuel in the tailpipe - the afterburner - which does not have melt able spinny parts in the middle). So you make your turbine out of the highest-melting-point materials known to man, and that determines how much fuel you can burn and how much thrust you can get. (All this is true about every jet engine since the Nazis and Whittle started experimenting with jet engines in the 1930s). But remember that the faster you go, the hotter the air becomes just by going into the big hole at the front. That means that, if your turbine is at the hottest temperature it can sustain, then you're at your top speed: if you go any faster, you won't be able to burn as much fuel in the combustor before you exceed your turbine's critical temperature. By the time you get to MACH 3, the air in the engine intake is already hot enough to start melting turbo machinery. You can't burn almost ANY fuel in the combustor, or your engine melts. This is why a conventional jet engine (read: any jet in the world other than the Blackbird or ramjets like the D-21, X-43, X-51, etc.) just can't get you past MACH 3.
Dennis Campbell, e-mail, 08.07.2012 13:23
Weldon Wilson, www34=live.com, 04.05.2011 there isn't much out ther today with the speed and power we had almost 60 yrs ago
Gordon Lukert, glukert=cox.net, 18.01.2011 I believe the Arrow was the only western world aircraft with a power to weight ratio greater than one.
Murray B, murray.b=shaw.ca, 07.10.2010 As far as the Iroquois engine goes it was definitely static rated at 25,000 lbt. with reheat (Magellan R.O.I.). There was talk of a follow up engine with 30,000 lbt. with reheat but there is nothing to suggest that it had even proceeded to the planning stage. As it was there were two experimental prototype Iroquois engines of 25,000 lbt. with reheat fitted to one of the Arrows but one threw a blade and the aircraft could not be tested. The lighter weight and moderately increased thrust of the Iroquois engine should not have made any difference to the Arrow’s speed rating since the limit was based on frictional heating.
Art Deco, 08.05.2010 Total fuel capacity 2,508 imperial gallons, 19,562 pounds.
nanook, mayfieldtx=verizon.net, 26.03.2010 The plane at best could only carry a little less then 10,000 lbs of fuel. The range of the aircraft was very limited, so much so that the RCAF built special airfields in the NWT.
Murray B, murray.b=shaw.ca, 03.03.2010
It is a matter of record that the J-75s used in the Arrow were rated at 24,000 lbs. thrust with reheat. This figure is even given in the Arrow Mk. 1 brochure. It is also a matter of record that the thrust rating of the Iroquois engine was 25,000 lbs. with reheat. Since these quantities were measured and published anyone that gives substantially different figures is altering the facts. They are ‘lying weasels’ as I like to call them.
Northern Expat, r.terrick=xplornet.com, 07.02.2012 The destruction of the arrow was a national tradgedy, consider that it was thirty years ahead of anything else in the skies the sales and jobs that would have been created would have lasted decades but after the Idiotic politicans got done what we did was to ship all the R&D plus the scientific talent to the USA and put a man on the moon less than 10 years later. In addition to the Diefenbaker nonsense he went on to but the Bomarck missel which turned out to be a joke in terms of both defence and protection. The Idea that we would have had to give social programs to build this magnificent aircraft is nonesence I was a pilot then and Canada would have had a leading edge aircraft to sell, develop, service and to build our avaition industry on for decades, The attitude of defeat lead to decades of decline to military support and the Liberal gutting of our armed forces. It was short sighted, fear motivated by a Prime Minister with no Vision, no Experince and no intelligence. A truly sad event in the annuals of avaition in Canada
======================= Gentlemen; Sitting in my lap is The Arrow Pilot's Operating Instructions and RCAF testing/basing plans, Copyright 1999 by Lt Col TEJ Leversedge, ISBN 1-55046-293-8. On page 127 he provides some statistics about both the MK 1 & Mk2 Arrow, (and compares each to the F-14, (1970) F-15, (1972) and Mig-25 (1964)
Murray B, his statistics differ from yours in terms of the J-75 engine's thrust. The declassified gov't documents give the J-75s thrust as 18,500 lb thrust, NOT 24,000 as you state. And the Iroquois was rated at 26,000 lbw thrust.
Another significant factor is that "The Arrow with J-75 engines was heavier than with Iroquois and had to be ballasted for the correct centre of gravity position.. MkII with Iroquois engine did not need ballast and was about 5000lbs lighter, and had 40 to 50% more thrust."
So nano, the MK2's empty weight is listed at 45,000 lbw, and max gross at 69,000, leaving 24,000 lbw payload. The internal fuel capacity is listed at 3297 (Imp gals) which is a little over 20,000lbs. (Leaves nearly 4000 lbs for payload with full fuel. They also had a conformal belly tank holding an additional 500 gallons for ferry flights. Start, T/O & climb to 30,000 ft required 1480 lb fuel, then flight at mach 0.92, (700 mph) burned 62.6 lbs/min/engine. So 6960 lb fuel both engines in 1 hr at M 0.92=700 miles 23,000 lbw fuel -1480 lb for T/O climb leaves 21500lbs at craze. Divide by 6960 per hr is 3.0 hr at 700mph=FERRY RANGE OF over 2000 miles. (These are based on fuel flow for the J-75 engine; although the Iroquois was more fuel efficient, you don't get 50% more thrust for mouthing, so fuel flow would have been higher, but not 50% higher. (Probably in the range of 25-30% higher,giving a ferry endurance of probably 2.5 hrs, (at 700 mph,) probably a comfortable 1500 miles. The COMBAT radius is listed as 408 miles; compares to the Foxbat, and had a 44,500 fpm climb rate, not matched by anything else for at least another 15 years!
So Gordon, you're right; with only 7000 lbw of fuel, the Mk2 would have had a power-to-weight ratio of greater than one. (Again, not matched by a ...
Joe MacQueen, e-mail, 09.05.2012 05:49
It seem's after reading comment's at army.ca site all is not right as I let myself believe the arrow was farther advanced and faster then any plane at that time and also who caneled it and why. The joint chief's of staff made the call only because the plane had less distance than the USA's Voodoo's and cost was the second reason.Destuction of everything else was quite foolish by any standard.
Joe MacQueen, e-mail, 05.05.2012 06:56
There must be something I'm missing because every comment is not dealing with who else would be aloud to purchase this plane based on all the first's and how high tech. it was.I can't get past the idea that cost was the only problem as today it doesn't seem to matter. I wander if our air force will back out this time not that it the goverment would allow it.It's like apple & oranges The Arrow was a first everything else follow's and that's that.
Northern Expat, e-mail, 07.02.2012 17:26
The destruction of the arrow was a national tradgedy, consider that it was thirty years ahead of anything else in the skies the sales and jobs that would have been created would have lasted decades but after the Idiotic politicans got done what we did was to ship all the R&D plus the scientific talent to the USA and put a man on the moon less than 10 years later. In addition to the Diefenbaker nonsense he went on to but the Bomarck missel which turned out to be a joke in terms of both defence and protection. The Idea that we would have had to give social programs to build this magnificent aircraft is nonesence I was a pilot then and Canada would have had a leading edge aircraft to sell, develop, service and to build our avaition industry on for decades, The attitude of defeat lead to decades of decline to military support and the Liberal gutting of our armed forces. It was short sighted, fear motivated by a Prime Minister with no Vision, no Experince and no intelligence. A truly sad event in the annuals of avaition in Canada
richard.anthony, e-mail, 17.01.2012 22:17
My cousins husband worked on these planes he took 5 of us to the arrow plant and gave us a tour.There were 2 planes in the plant one in the ditch on the runway.was a awful trick to cancel building these planes the way it was handled.
fred savage, e-mail, 14.01.2012 05:12
"Diefenbaker ruined it all pure and simple"
Not at all. How much of your social programs would you have given up for a show plane. National health care? What goes on the chopping block for a prestige plane, its all fine and good to dream, but when you are spending real money, you are lucky to have leadership that can see sense, not spend themselves into oblivion over paranoia, fear or pride. The avro was obsoleted the moment icbm's took over as the nuclear deterrent. All arguments from that point on justifying such a plane are irrational. Perhaps it is more about your national psych or whatever than anything else, but based on figures and facts alone, the plane had to be cancelled. Very pretty technology was cancelled on the other side of the border as well, the valkyrie supersonic bomber for one, just because it can be done doesn't mean it should, and a cancellation doesn't mean there was a grand conspiracy. The mach 3 american supersonic transport was also cancelled. Does that mean canada or the uk were behind it? No, it just means the numbers didn't add up, and for the brits and french the numbers didn't add up for their slower concorde either, they ended up spending tons of tax money on a nice ride for rich people, a very very poor use of tax money. like it or not this was during the cold war as well, spending money to compete against the soviets and americans, a fools erand. Be glad you had some decent leadership that weren't swayed by emotion, and paid for things that actually mattered to real people, like health care.
Tom Dyer, e-mail, 08.10.2011 01:14
One thing this Yank doesn't understand, was WHY were the airframes destroyed? None kept as research airframes. The Delta Dart carries wing tanks that are supersonic rated. This mod would have given the Arrow more range, obviously. Also, and this is for the conspiricy buffs, have you noticed how the Arrow and F-108A Rapier (also cancelled) look eerily the same?
, 17.06.2011 07:15
William Pittman, e-mail, 13.05.2011 02:43
1958 was the year I was married still am and happy. This is a prime example of goverment gone amuck and they are still the same today no mater what the colour. I have visited some of the internet sites and looked at this great machine.I was also in the machine building tradewe should not forget this project.Thanks wp
Weldon Wilson, e-mail, 04.05.2011 22:47
Since this is my first time on this site which I found today i would like to add a little info as to my own experiences at AVRO I worked the first year 1956 on CF -100's as I was just discharged from the Rcaf and was an Orenda Engine tech for 5 years.working and servicing CF-100s In 1957 I was transfered to the Arrow Project and started working in the section that built the tail Cones for the Engines I was there for a short time only drilling holes in Titanium steel (Toughest thing to do at the time with the type of drill bits that were available ) I was then transfered to the expermental Flight section where I worked till AVRO closed its doors. It was a heart breaking experience as I really think everyone in that place had some kind of proud feeling about what they were doing I am 77 today and have never worked in that atmosphere since.I always felt that all around me everyone was willing to go an extra mile to see this plane fly and when we all seen it the first time I don't think it was just me that had cold chills run up my spine its was one of the best feelings I ever had about something I helped accomplish.I have read a lot here that some think it was not the government at the time who destroyed this project I beg to differ there why did our dollar go to 90 cents immediately compared to the US dollar thats just one item and there are many others Diefenbaker in my mind was a communist I lost my home due to this old son of a bitches actions. As far as the destruction of all the aircraft I have no idea who was responsible for those actions and I think to this day only those who made the decision if they are still living know for sure who it was. Too many point fingers at to many when they only assume who's responsible.The Arrow for sure had some short comings like range and armarment but that like everrything new would have been worked out to have been improved toa managable area. and we must not forget they had been offered over 20 aircraft sales to other countries before it was even completed CANADA could have one big boost to its ever failing economy.I am 77 and retired but I still have a lingering feeling what it could have become with some improvements and time there isn't much out ther today with the speed and power we had almost 60 yrs ago think about it we were like Studebaker long before our time
Gordon Lukert, e-mail, 18.01.2011 04:48
I worked at Avro-Canada on the CF-105 from Jan 1956 until black friday when we were pushed out of the door. I was a design engineer on the "sparrow armament pack" & in the last few months on the "genie armament pack" Wonderful Company, wonderful aircraft. I remember getting on the roof of the engineering building to watch the first flight. I could never understand why this program was destroyed & all hardware buried. I believe the Arrow was the only western world aircraft with a power to weight ratio greater than one.
John (Jack) Calvesbert, e-mail, 20.12.2010 20:59
So many stories, so many opinions, perhaps, so few facts. The only thing I an add is my own experience of listening to F/L Jack Woodman, the only RCAF officer to fly the Arrow, as he told us about this wonderful aircraft that we would be working on in a couple of years.
M Concannon, e-mail, 09.12.2010 02:33
The internal weapons pack was being redesigned for the Arrow 2 to accommodate the more advanced ’’Genie’’ missile, replacing the ’’Sparrow’’, when the end came in february 1959. Mike Concannon, Designer
Carl, e-mail, 05.12.2010 05:40
there is 201 at the Reynolds museum in Wetaskiwin, Alberta, and the Ottawa Aviation Museum at Rockcliffe has a nose and an engine, and some wings in storage., The "replica" in Wetaskiwin is made from several scrap bits of Arrow. Worth the trip to see it.
Murray B, e-mail, 07.10.2010 04:30
Well, Sandal44, the Arrow program was classified and knowledge about it was probably compartmentalized. It would be unlikely for most employees to have a good grasp of the overall picture. Even if they did it would be unusual for a loyal employee to say anything bad about their employer. These people are simply not impartial when it comes to the Arrow.
Reliable records show that the Chiefs of Staff recommended cancellation for performance and cost reasons. The Arrow was a $10 million aircraft with a maximum ferry range of 1254 nm (for the longer-range Arrow 2). The Voodoo was about $2 million with a maximum ferry range exceeding 1900 nm. Since the military wanted to reach Iceland which was 1312 nm away the Arrow would not do. The maximum speed ratings of two aircraft were not all that different. The Arrow’s was mach 1.9 (even though it could reach mach 1.96 for a short time just like the Bristol 188) and this was similar to the Voodoo’s mach 1.8. It is odd that the Arrow just keeps on getting faster as the years go by but the Voodoo does not.
There is no link between cancelling the program and the destruction of the industry. As Diefenbaker explained in the Montreal Star Feb. 24 1959, “The Prime Minister said the company had warning of the Government decision to cancel the CF-105 Arrow supersonic interceptor and knew that $50,000,000 in public funds had been set aside in the estimate for 1959-1960 to cover winding up expenses…”I say that its attitude in letting out thousands of workers – technical workers and employees – on Friday was so cavalier, so unreasonable, that the only conclusion any fair-minded person can come to is that it was done for the purpose of embarrassing the government.”"
Why Avro would choose to destroy their own company for no apparent reason and then blame it on the Government is a mystery. What would a British company like Hawker Siddeley possibly have to gain by doing such a thing? We may never know the answer since these events happened so long ago.
As far as the Iroquois engine goes it was definitely static rated at 25,000 lbt. with reheat (Magellan R.O.I.). There was talk of a follow up engine with 30,000 lbt. with reheat but there is nothing to suggest that it had even proceeded to the planning stage. As it was there were two experimental prototype Iroquois engines of 25,000 lbt. with reheat fitted to one of the Arrows but one threw a blade and the aircraft could not be tested. The lighter weight and moderately increased thrust of the Iroquois engine should not have made any difference to the Arrow’s speed rating since the limit was based on frictional heating.
tsunami, e-mail, 29.09.2010 09:42
Saw it fly once in Ottawa and I can tell you as somebody watching it from Uplands CEPE we were so proud and could not get enough of it. Was only there for a very short time.
What I can telll you is that a friend of mine who worked on it left Canada and went to NASA and apart from visiting relatives never came back. He was not alone and I always wondered how we contributed to NASA by cancelling this program.
The contribution that these experts could have made to Canadian aviatin I believe would have been very significant
sandal44, e-mail, 25.09.2010 06:20
From 1990 until 1993 I had the privilege of meeting two men who actually worked on the Arrow. One was a much sought after tool and die maker, the other an aircraft engineer who finished his career with Boeing. I also talked to one other man who had first hand knowledge of Zurakowski's feelings on the aircraft.
All were bitter that the information given to the public was, to say the least, slanted. Their view was that politics, not genuine facts, killed the Arrow. If it was so inferior, why were all destroyed?
I flew Sabres, 1954-1956. I watched the Arrow fly over Downsview, just before it was axed.
Also, was the Iroquois not supposed to go up to 30,000 pounds thrust (without afterburner?) I flew both the Mk II Sabre with the US engine and the Orenda powered Mk V. No comparison!! Then they upgraded the Orenda for the Mk VI. thrust up again and fuel consumption down. All this knowledge and technology killed.
Somewhere around 1968 (?) Macleans had an article which showed the contribution to NASA (and other organizations) made by those who lost their jobs with the Arrow. Canada got the Bomarc!!!
Canada lost out to shortsightedness and political expediency.
Jon Ambler, e-mail, 24.09.2010 18:53
No conspiracy, records show the Air Force did not want this aircraft. The F106 was already flying operations with numbers just as good as the Arrow and availability way way better. The Arrow is all part of the mythology that all nations need.
mike m, e-mail, 23.09.2010 21:46
if you get past the detailing of speed, heat, etc. you will recognize that this could have really been something if you consider the updates in technology as time went by. This company could have evolved into something Canada could be proud of, providing jobs, income, etc. No conspiracy theories or party preference......but if you consider all that could have been, Diefenbaker ruined it all pure and simple
Dave, e-mail, 19.08.2010 23:30
Cool plane. Where can I get one ?
Mike, e-mail, 16.08.2010 05:05
Don't compare the Avro Arrow to the Vodoo!
The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow first flew on 25 March 1958.
The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom first flew 27 May 1958.
This is only a few short months later. Forget all the conspiracy theories. The Avro Arrow was canceled because it was not a viable aircraft.
The Phantom continued into production because it was a very formidable aircraft.
End of story.
Roy, e-mail, 14.08.2010 22:37
The truly sad part was the loss of Canada's "cutting-edge" position in r&d of high performance aircraft.
The accumulation of knowledge that was shredded & destroyed was shameful.
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 16.07.2010 17:12
Leo Rudnicki & Murray b write: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Leo Rudnicki, 28.02.2010 Tax dollars? Conspiracy? We do it for free and in the open.
Murray B, murray.b=shaw.ca, 28.02.2010 Why create a zombie from the carcass of this white elephant? It would have been far better to let this one sleep and how many tax dollars have been spent on this anti-conservative propaganda over the last half-century?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gentlemen: Both of you are correct, since the Arrow story is a 'mixed saga' on both sides.
During my research ( for an abandoned book on Government procurement) I concluded that the program had spun out of control- however, a case could be made for a 'Bare bones, off the shelf ' Arrow program, with production to terminate by the mid sixties. The termination, was, Murray, a public relations disaster. The completed aircraft, tooling,& plans should have been mothballed. Avro Canada s project managemenet, Leo, was out of control. Brilliant engineering with horrid execution.
I do thank you both for courteous dissent. We appear to have lost the unfortunate Barry Fortier, who appears to spend his waking hours insult trolling the internet. Thank heaven for small mercies, as some of his Barry F debates are simply too obscene to repeat.
Reg Saretsky, e-mail, 13.07.2010 07:00
Art Deco, 08.05.2010 Total fuel capacity 2,508 imperial gallons, 19,562 pounds. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Art, there is only an 8,000 LB difference between operational take off weight & empty weight. Eight Sparrow missles weigh 4,000 lbs.
Even using the Max take off weight , (68,600), you are left with 15,000 lbs for all non missle stores( pilots, oxygen, lubricants, etc- plus fuel.) thanks Reg
Chris, e-mail, 19.05.2010 02:09
Just for anybody who cares; they have the nose and landing gear of #206 in Toronto and the throttle piece of #201 in Wetaskiwin Alberta. And yes, flash-photography is allowed.
Art Deco, 08.05.2010 20:28
Total fuel capacity 2,508 imperial gallons, 19,562 pounds.
nanook, e-mail, 26.03.2010 01:10
The plane at best could only carry a little less then 10,000 lbs of fuel. The range of the aircraft was very limited, so much so that the RCAF built special airfields in the NWT. Flying out of Cold Lake Alberta to engage a Russian attack was a one-way trip, there was no possibility of returning to Cold Lake, the plane would have to be put down at one of the special airfields. Yes it was an expensive endeavor, yes it had a technology leg up in many ways, yes the USAF and its politician patrons did not want it to see the light of day, yes Boeing had connections, BUT ---- the dam thing had no operational reality associated with it due to the limited range. Period. It may have been canceled for many public perceived poor reasons, but it had no useful operational range - bottom line.
Murray B, e-mail, 03.03.2010 02:41
Tax dollars, Mr. Rudnicki, of course there were. For example the CBC film was partially paid for with tax dollars. Also take a look at the copyright page of an Arrow zealot’s ‘bible’, “[blank] Publishing gratefully acknowledges the support of the Canada Council and the Ontario Arts Council in the development of writing and publishing in Canada.” Museums also receive tax dollars. Over the years I expect that millions of tax dollars have been spent to broadcast anti-conservative propaganda like the Arrow myth.
Conspiracy? Sure. Here is a good working definition of “conspiracy” from http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/conspiracy?view=uk
“ conspiracy • noun (pl. conspiracies) 1 a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. 2 the action of conspiring. “ It is a matter of record that the J-75s used in the Arrow were rated at 24,000 lbs. thrust with reheat. This figure is even given in the Arrow Mk. 1 brochure. It is also a matter of record that the thrust rating of the Iroquois engine was 25,000 lbs. with reheat. Since these quantities were measured and published anyone that gives substantially different figures is altering the facts. They are ‘lying weasels’ as I like to call them. The aircraft’s top speed was also measured and as near as I can tell the Arrow never flew faster than Mach 1.89. It may have gone faster with the Iroquois but it also might not have. At any rate, speculation by the technically challenged should never be printed as fact. The top speed of any aircraft with more powerful engines is something that an aeronautical engineer would need to calculate. It is not simple because things like skin temperature are a factor. In the case of the Arrow program, though, the speed is a “red herring” since the specification was reduced to Mach 1.5 and the Arrow easily met that requirement. There are people that repeat political lies for free. These people have often been referred to as “useful idiots” in the press. Such people generally don’t know if they are lying or not. The root source of the political propaganda, however, the ‘lying weasels’ must know that they are lying. They must also be fairly well funded to keep promoting their lies widely and for decades. So, here we have a secret plan where ‘lying weasels’ intentionally misrepresent the facts about an aircraft to harm conservatives. These lies have been used effectively for years. Not that long ago my nephew came home from school and announced to everyone that he was never going to vote for Stephen Harper because Mr. Harper was a Conservative. His teacher had said that Conservatives had killed the wonderful Arrow program and this somehow prevented Canada from ruling the world. This lie was too much for me because schools should not be programming kids on how to vote. [Google Harper and Avro Arrow to see how the Avro myth is being used to harm conservatives today.] Now, is a “useful idiot” a conspirator when they repeat lies even if they believe the information to be true? From the definition I gave it is not clear if all members of the group have to be in on the “secret” or just some of them. So you do “it” openly and for free. That’s nice, but what exactly do you mean by “it”?
Leo Rudnicki, 28.02.2010 03:42
Tax dollars? Conspiracy? We do it for free and in the open.
Murray B, e-mail, 28.02.2010 01:09
Why create a zombie from the carcass of this white elephant? It would have been far better to let this one sleep and how many tax dollars have been spent on this anti-conservative propaganda over the last half-century?
If the Arrow was a great aircraft and a good value then cabinet was not told about it. The relevant minutes are posted at http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history-histoire/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefid=8169
Note the total cost per aircraft is given as about $10 million, “The R.C.A.F. now had nine all-weather squadrons and the present programme called for their re-equipment with the CF-105, requiring a production order of 169 in number. These, together with aircraft recovered from the development and pre-production order for 37, would provide sufficient aircraft for nine squadrons. The total cost would be $2 billion spread from 1959-60 to 1963-64.”
Competing aircraft ranged from $2 million to $3.75 million for a Delta Dart.
Note also the real reason for cancellation, ”Finally, the cost of the CF-105 programme as a whole was now of such a magnitude that the Chiefs of Staff felt that, to meet the modest requirement of manned aircraft presently considered advisable, it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S.”
The Chiefs of Staff recommend cancellation and advised the Arrow was “comparable” to U.S. aircraft. Cabinet is not told that the Arrow can fly higher, go faster, or further, than anything else. The aircraft set no international records except, maybe, for cost overruns.
If there was a conspiracy to kill the Arrow then it involved the military and not Diefenbaker's government.
To repeat this lie is to become part of an anti-conservative conspiracy that has been going on for decades. How many of our tax dollars have already been wasted promoting this nonsense?
Dave, e-mail, 24.02.2010 02:01
I can't believe it. I watched 'RU smarter than a 5th grader". The "CANADIAN Public" should start bringing the US down to reality. They are teaching their kids that the US were the first to break the sound barrier; thats such a lie its unreal. Someone should start putting the BS back at them. WE, CANADA, were the first to accomplish that; "Avero Airspace", North Bay, Otario, CANADA. After we broke the sound barrier the US government forced the Canadian Military to close it down. They didn't want anyone to be better than them. Their teaching their children this Bull Shit. How r the US kids going to handle it when they learn the history they were given was crap, only because their parents wanted to make themselves look good. When in reality they had the greed to pay someone off to keep their mouths shut and, tell their kids a LIE. Lets start teaching the next generation the truth, instead of the truth money can buy. They need to know the "REAL" history.
Dave, e-mail, 05.02.2010 21:01
I just cannot beleive that they named an airport after Deifenbaker... an airport!!!... jeezz, talk about irony.
Jason Mac Neil, e-mail, 31.12.2009 05:11
Oh Glen Gill...... my my my.... how incredibly short sighted of you! Expensive eh? right! Do you have any idea how far ahead of the world Canada would have been in aerospace technology and the like had we kept the Arrow? The engine and airframe were ours to sell to everyone. And in time....we would have. And we spent more taxpayers dollars on the "Bomark" missile defense system bought from the Americans THAT WAS A COMPLETE WASTE!!!! At least with the Arrow, we would have seen a return in sales. DID you hear of anyone wanting our slightly used CF104's or Bomark missiles. Diefenbaker was a "DOLT!" And he, with that decision....wasted a GREAT deal of taxpayer money!!!! He was a "Dufous".
Glenn Gill, e-mail, 29.12.2009 06:58
Despite the fact that I grew up 'Air Force' I feel that scrapping the Arrow was a good thing, an expensive mistake narrowly avoided. You only have to look at that big delta slab-sided bugger to realize two things: it had 'High Altitude Intercepter' written all over it, and it must've had a radar signature like the 'Hit Me' sign from Hell. With 20-20 hindsight we now know that the Bomber Gap was a hoax, not a threat that we needed to break the bank responding to. In the end we bought the CF-104 for HAI and almost immediately scrapped the role out from underneath it, reassigning it to a low altitude role. Where it killed far too many pilots. (How do you get a '104' cheap? Buy an acre of German land and wait...)(authentic CAF humour).
We could've spent far far too much money to travel the same sad road with the Arrow.
For all those conspiracy theorists out there, kick this one around the park instead: How much did Dief know about the Bomber Gap? Did he have the straight goods (and if so, how?) Or was it just a lucky fluke, him making the right call? I think that's a much more interesting and fertile area of speculation, speaking as it does to just who knew what and when in that grand flim-flam.
DarkPhoenix, e-mail, 25.12.2009 03:35
I wish to know if the Tale about the americans recieving a CF-105 Canadian Arrow Before Termination Is True Or False
email@example.com, 14.11.2009 07:59
To Julius, the so called professor at Carleton,
The max M was at 1.72 and that was more wishful thinking that reality! The CF 101 was in not in the same class, as the Cf 105, not even close.
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
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
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
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
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
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...
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
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.
If you want to send an email just replace '(@)' in the address with '@' !