@raynus1 The Iroquois was fitted to the B47. It was a Lancaster that was used to buzz the air base and at the moment I don't have the time to dig out what engine was fitted to the Lancaster. And yes the air base was buzzed. Source: Shutting Down The National Dream.
"the air base was buzzed. Source: Shutting Down The National Dream"
The more comments you post the more apparent it is how full of shit you are. You actually think a Canadian military jet invaded US airspace, flew directly over it and risked beng shot down, which is exactly what would have happened if an unidentified militry jet would have done so.
I just searched the internet up and down and found nothing to support this claim, because it never happened.
My dear, there is nothing concerning this "supposed" incident on the net because it never happened. And if you actually read this in a Canadian book (which I doubt you did) then it's simply a lie.
The test pilots were not a boyfriend/girlfriend team as depicted here, the main test pilot was Janusz Zurakowski, who wasn't even Canadian born, he was Polish. This aircraft was not a "national dream", as most Canadians didn't even know about it and "jealous Americans" didn't shut it down.
@JohnQRandom It's not on the net so it never happened. I mentioned the books it was printed in. Then you start mentioning stuff that we never discussed. I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore.
@MultiZebby: Unlikely. No record of that unauthorized occurence anywhere online. However, an Orenda turbojet-equipped Lancaster Mk X was investigated by USANG pilots in the summer of 1950 while flying over Lake Ontario. The two outboard Merlins had been replaced with Orenda I's for flight testing prior to installation in the CF-100. Far cry from what this rancid giggle of a movie depicts.
@DevarSunder Just for the movie..... The movie, although based on the actual story, took much license, and is not a good source for what actually happened.
Would still be neccessary, and that us why the F-101 Voodoo was chosen, although it was a great aircraft and much more economical to operate, it came absolutly no-were close to the performance of the Arrow. People can't argue without knowing the plain facts, and the Arrow was one of CANADA's best creations, eh?
@UPfan001 Thanks for expanding on my comments. I have to admit I have a bit of an affinity to the CF-101's as I lived on the base at CFB Chatham when the 416 squadron was operational. I agree. A great aircraft, but no where near the Arrow's potential.
@UPfan001: Let's look at that for a moment. The CF-101 had a top speed of mach 1.72, compared to the mach 2 performance of the Mk 1 CF-105. The service ceiling of the CF-101 was 54,800', compared to the 53,000' ceiling of the Mk 1 CF-105. Although the ROC for the CF-105 is unavailable, the CF-101 boasted 40,000 ft/min+. Finally, the CF-101 had an unrefueled cruise range of 1500 miles, and a combat radius of 600 miles, nearly twice that of the Arrow's 360 miles.
@raynus1 Sorry, I did say that "Not even present aircraft can out perform the arrow" Then, I did say it has been beaten for sure in things like cruise alt., climb rate and range. What I am trying to say is that it "lead the way" for future aircraft, did it not? It was the first to use high pressure hydraulic systems for example..which are now common in a all aircraft. We can also agree that F-15, F-16, F-18 are much newer and better than that aircraft. The arrow was simply ahead of it's time
known fact that Canada is one of the largest producers in the Aerospace industry, if not even larger than the United States and France. Not even present aircraft can exceed the Avro Arrow's perfromance, well perhaps in range and service ceiling but it did lead the way for others. For example it was one of the first aircraft to use the delta wing configuration, which imporvent its aerodynamic properties in supersonic flight. The RCAF made it clear to the Canadian Government that a interceptor....
@UPfan001: "Not even present aircraft can exceed the Avro Arrow's perfromance". It (the J-75 powered Mk 1) had a demonstrated top speed of mach 1.98 (performance charts suggested a maximum speed of mach 2.15), and the Iroquois-powered Mk 2 likely would've attained mach 2.3 to 2.5, again, based on thrust/drag/weight observations. I don't understand how it would out-perform an F-15 (certainly not in manouverability). Convair had mach 2 delta winged aircraft flying before the Arrow (B-58, F-106)
It had employed many Canadians and even though it was an expensive project, it helped set up Canada's leading Aerospace industry. In the present day, Canada is one of the major manufactures of aircraft parts and complete aircraft. Bombardier Aerospace, Bell Canada, Pratt & Whitney Canada are among the largest producers of aircraft. This doesn't even include the hundreds of smaller companies making all the components from landing gear assemblies to attitude indicators. In fact, it is a...
....the conservative party of Canada, under Prime Ministre J. Diefenbaker, wanted to cut the budget for Avro, thus cancelling the project. The party was known for budget cutting and it was not dur to pressure from the United States. Hundreds of Canadian engineers designed every part of this aircraft, and like the CF-100 Canuck, it was constructed at the Avro manufacturing plant outside of Toronto.
you make a product ...but first you make a prototype and try to sell it to buyers. They couldn't do this part. They were naive to think Canada would save their failed business plan.
Oh yes and finally. This is a scene from the TV movie "the Arrow", which although entertaining, took too many licences in its portrayal. and was more fiction than fact.
@quedorf I would also like to thank quedrof for setting these people straight on the actual facts of why the Arrow project was cancelled. As he said, the Canadian Government at the time believed that their was no need for American built Bomarc missiles and an all-weather interceptor aircraft. SInce the aircraft was entierly build and constructed in Canada by the A.V Roe company, it became incredibaly expensive for the country. Believeing that cheaper missile sites could replace the Arrow.....
Reading comments here, I feel the need to set the story straight. And some commenter's are simply morons, and you know who you are. The Arrow was cancelled simply because it cost too much, and the government did not have the insight to realize that interceptors were not obsolete. Missile's were touted as the future, and that quickly subsided with the almost useless American made Bomarcs. As can be seen the Voodoos were purchased to replace the Arrow's after this was discovered...............
@quedorf ........ The Voodoos were less expensive, and inferior. Also to those who think the American aerospace industry was behind the tech advances. Avro was a Canadian subsidiary of A.V. Roe. A British aerospace company. Also Orenda, a Canadian engine manufacturer, pioneered the use of titanium in manufacturing with the Iroquois engine. The engine was one of the most advanced, and powerful engines at its time. Many engineers of avro went to the states after the shut down.............
@quedorf ....... And went to work for NASA and were integral in putting the first man on the moon, and subsequent projects. There are many conspiracy theories around the cancellation, but it was simply economic and stupidity on the part of the government. This takes nothing from the technical wonder that the plane was. Regardless of what some dumb-asses on here may think, and I emphasise think.
@quedorf The main reason the planes cost so much was the cost of the Astra weapons which was added onto the cost of the planes. The joke was that Astra stood for astronomical. The Voodoo was more than it cost Canada to attain the same first flight capabilities from scratch. The price fell when the American government agreed to furnish every finished Arrow with the Hughes weapon system at a reduced cost. The finished fly away cost of each unit was to be 3.75 million. Source: Storms Of Controversy
You also claimed that the Burj Dubai was designed by Canadians?? Are you serious?? Sorry my love, but you're in the dark about a great many things, however I'll be glad to educate you on your errors when necessary. In the mean time, feel free to think Canada was an independent country prior to 1800, and that Canada designed the Nimitz. LOL!!
This is incident is entirely fictional, it never happened. Also, any jets your country builds is simply American technology "assembled" in Canada, as are some of the componants of current US fighter jets. This has much to do with our ajoined economies, not "superior" Canadian workmanship.
@JohnQRandom don't you hate it when the USA is owned by Canada, or China (J20) or myriad other small countries most Americans don't learn about in school? LOL suck it up Yank boy, your country is not the be all and end all you think it is.
"The be all and end all" is what most of your countrymen think about Canada, and is the resaon you think Canada "owns" the US. (Explain your claim). We tap your natural resources to save our own (which we have enough of to sustain ourselves.) Might want to have a look at a map to see which country's major cities are all cozied up to whose boarder. The US is in debt with China, but not owned, I'm sorry but the US owes more to it's own federal bank than it does to China.
As far as the Avro, it was incomplete and nobody wanted to buy it. Canadians were building this plane when the Soviets had begun arming ICBMs, which made this aircraft obsolete. Have a look at the video: "Canadians, the Avro was a faailure." It was posted by an American who apparently is no longer on youtrube. In any case, a Canadian professor sets overly-patriotic idiots like yourself straight about the Avro's history.
Sorry sweetie, i guess it's you who needs to "suck it up."
Sorry sweetie, but I refuted your claims and you came back with nothing. Your "hook, line and sinker" comment is simply a desperate attempt to pull the wool over your face. Next time, 'think' before you post. ; )
@JohnQRandom Really? You're that obtuse? You're even more fun to troll than the average knuckle dragger. The difference between you and a smarter person is the compulsion to respond, defend, argue and get mad. You are entertainment for the rest of us: someone few can take seriously. Please, carry on and rant a bit more... especially about how much better the USA is than any other nation. Those boasts are always hilarious to read.
Hmmm, you're the one who said Canada is "the best country on Earth." I was especially tickled when you said "Canada won WW2 single handedly," and that without Canada's expertise in engineering, the entire world would be "living in the stone age." In addition; Canadians did NOT design the Airbus 380, and Japanese auto-makers do NOT buy their parts from RIM Canada.
Do they teach you this in your schools? No wonder you rely on foreigners to do your thinking, LOL!
@JohnQRandom And you can't read either... I'm almost feeling guilty that I goaded a totally unarmed debater. I'll walk you through this: look back 8 posts to what I actually trolled you on, and then read up to all your spittle-filled rambles. Unless... wait, I get it! You feel like an idiot because it's dawning on you that you got taken in completely, so now you've fabricated an outrageous claim and attributed it to me in hopes that nobody will notice you made it up. Clever my friend :)
And then you said you were gay and that you looking for "companionship." Sorry guy, I don't see how that has anything to do with a failed BRITISH/Canadian interceptor from sixty years ago.
(I didn't read the drivel from your last comment sweetcheeks,' this is going to be easy) LOL!!
@JohnQRandom That's all you got? Calling me gay? I'm so disappointed. I was hoping you'd rant on for a while longer and throw out more totally irrelevant statements such as the one about the A380. I'm not sure why you felt that was a salient point, but it was funny as hell... almost as funny as you thinking RIM manufactures car parts?? Well, I think we're done here: you got trolled, owned and exposed. Off to find other slightly psychopathic posters to grind. Tata for now "sweetie".
@JohnQRandom yet another american who has to go about saying how the world couldn't live without them...as Canadians, we have aerospace companies too. We design and build aircraft that have been extremely successful as well. The Arrow was a remarkable design, it's too bad people can't take it at that. You make it sound as if it's the only aircraft Canadians have ever designed and been proud of. Ever hear of a Beaver? Otter? Bombardier Aerospace? CRJs?
I never once said the world couldn't live without the US, and yes I've heard of Bombardier, who cares?? The Avro was made when the Soviets already developed ICBMs, and it was obsolete. In addition, many Brits played a role in the production of this aircraft, AND the movie was so bad and so false even one of your own professors attacked it. See the video: "Canadians, the Avro was a failure" It's all there. The uploader isn't under that channel anymore, but the video is.
I am not anti American, in fact the Americans supported this project A LOT. They even lent us their wind tunnel but; you're a fucking idiot. The Avro was not obsolete with the ICBM, that's a common miss conception. If that were the case the f-22 wouldn't exist. The Avro is the grandfather of all modern fighter jets, even lockheed and boeing admit it. When Avro closed all 3000 engineers found jobs in the states at BOEING AND LOCKHEED. So fuck off.
The Avro was an interceptor, you can't compare it to the F-22, which is a fighter. The AVRO was designed to "intercept" Soviet bombers, however when they (the Russians) now had ICBMs to carry their war heads, the Avro was obslolete. Give me your source that 3,000 Canadian engineers were employed by Lockheed and Boeing. Some Canadians also believe that the SR-71 was born to the Avro. Sorry, but your contribution to American aviation is minimal, and the Arrow is over-hyped.
Provide a source that supports this statement. This aircraft doesn't even look like a fighter, and I have never heard anyone claim it to be. There are no machine guns on it, nor are there air to air, or air to surface missiles.
@JohnQRandom There were to be air to air and air to surface missiles. There were no machine guns planned for it. Source: Storms of Controversy and Requiem For A Giant by Palmiro Campagna and also Arrow by The Arrowheads.
It doesn't really matter, this aircraft was called an "interceptor" from the beginning. Because there "were to be" air to air and air to surface missles didn't make it anymore marketable as a fighter or otherwise.
This movie is atrocious, and does nothing more than wrongly convince simple-minded Canadians that they are "everything better" than the United States. This frame of mind is simply apart of your culture and I am tired of it
@JohnQRandom Despite you claiming it didn't have guns or missiles, It is still an interceptor. And just because you,an American, cannot admit that something made in a foreign country might be superior to an American made product does not make it a fact.
The movie took a lot of liberties with the story but it is no worse than a lot of the Hollywood American history claptrap. And I never said it made it any more marketable. An English teacher should learn to understand and read accurately.
Wrong. This has nothing to do with me thinking foreign countries don't build better products than American products. This has do with Canadians (like yourself) who think the Avro (not even fully flight tested) was the best plane ever built. This plane would have been outstanding, but even one of your own professors gave reasons why it was canceled. See the video "Canadians, the Avro was a failure" here on youtrube. The uploader is nowhere to be found, but the video is still there.
I do not buy into Hollywood films or the the propaganda they generate. However, I can say a that the reason why seemingly 75% of the Canadians I have worked with over the past decade offer me nothing but snide comments, cocky remarks, false claims, and outrageous accusations is because of your own propaganda industry. Be it your movies, beer ads, Rick Mercer, stand up comedy or even your school system, Canadians define themselves as how they are different and better than Americans.
Any air to air missles that it would have carried would have been to shoot down long range bombers from Russia. Also, I'm still waiting for your source that supports your claim that "3,000 Canadian engineers worked for Lockheed and Boeing" following the Avro's cancelation. That is pretty much like saying the United States' entire engineering corps was Canadian, which we both know is bullshit.
@MrOhaiMark: No it wasn't. A CF-18 is a true multirole fighter.The CF-105 was an interceptor, clearly designed to stop Soviet bombers attacking over the pole. It wasn't equipped to carry bombs, engage in tight dogfighting, or to undertake ground attack missions (although the British briefly considered a modified version to act as a nuclear strike aircraft, equipped with a scaled-down Blue Steel atomic stand-off missile). It never did reach a point where weapons were carried or tested, however.
@MrOhaiMark The Avro was designated as a fighter interceptor. Just because it had no guns does not preclude it from being designated a fighter. The Phantom had nothing but missiles for many years.
no one said that, it is entirely the canadians who are displaying warped thinking from some underyling psychology of inferiority or resentment which allows them to believe and push a mythological version of history for this airplane and its cancellation. basically it would be like an american blaming the chinese for the cancellation of the space shuttle, it makes no sense, and only points to the psychological issues behind such an accusation
The Arrow was cancelled for 1 very simple reason the same reason that cause us brits no to put the tsr2 into production short sighted polichickens thought that missile warfare would render aircraft obsolete in the theatre of war within 10-15 years so were reluctant to produce expensive new aircraft shame because both planes had the potential to be world beaters
@LeopoldPlumtree THAT!! is so very well put! and I agree, As for myself I don't like seeing the Arrow denegrated from what she was and was intended to be by those comparissons. Raynus and I go on about the F106 and the arrow. I love these debates the F106 is one of my favorites and I WILL have one here at the museum one day if it kills me. keep commenting I like hearing from you and Raynus1.
If you want some good Documentaries on the avro arrow go here,
avhouse ca/av_005 htm
The docs' have never before seen Avro footage, from the CF 100 to the Avro Car, they got documentaries on it. Very professionally made, the dvd's look like something you would buy at HMV
We need an IMAX documentary on the Arrow, if you want to be really crazy do it in 3d, lol. The poor Arrow, the word on the street is that Bombarier might make one fully functional Arrow, for heritage perposes or something. That would be cool to see one or two flying in the sky.
strides toward an atomic capability - you know nothing about history. they were not even close. read a book or something - if we as Canadians want to get mad at anyone. get mad at Candians who stop the program....
America's military industrial complex shits on its own, so its dam sure gonna shit on everyone else if it makes afew guys in suits rich somewhere. So many acts of sabotage both physical and in the media, murder, theft, bought silence etc goes on and you will never hear about it. Its a shitty world, and we will never know what really goes on. And please, assistance? Yeah sure, they knew it would get canned anyway.
@parrotcar Yet the fact remains the US was nothing but helpful with the CF-105 program. Any anger toward the US for the failure of the CF-105 program to enter production is misplaced. Talk about shitting on people. :P
@LeopoldPlumtree Believe what you want, maybe there were some attempts at assistance, maybe some had good intentions, maybe it was an easy way to learn stuff that could be used in future US designs. Just because assistance is given doesnt mean they werent playing a game for their own benefit. Things arent black and white. And yes im sure British business interests or secret services have done similar things. people are tactical by nature to get their own way, it starts in kindergarden/nursery.
@parrotcar Yes, I'll believe what I want, in this case documented historical fact. American engines for five test airframes, access to American wind tunnels, NACA consultation, a loaned B-47 for Iroquois testing, prospective weapons systems and so on. Getting all pissy toward the US over the Arrow is completely groundless.
@parrotcar Your observations are quite good as assistance allowed observation, observation collective intellegence. All part of the shareing agreement until it was time for the US to share, then it was classified.
@mahoganyrush300 NACA provided a good deal of technical advice toward the aerodynamic refinement of the Arrow design. It would be rather slimy to insinuate that information sharing was some one-sided US greed fest.
@LeopoldPlumtree The naca was very critical of the arrows design at the outset until the wind tunnel tests began to prove out the avro teams theories. they were most critical of the intake design of the arrow. But those tunnel tests and actuall fight dispelled all critics including NRC and NACA where this issue was concerned. When bob lindley went to MCDS to work on Gemini the design team from the F4 were continually asking his advice on issues they were haveing with the F4 aircraft. continued
@LeopoldPlumtree he explained how they dealt with those issues on the arrow The changes were made in the F4.In his own words, "It was only then that I realised just how advanced the Arrow really was".when Chuck Mathews whom saw the arrow when they came to canada to interview the engineers for NASA. said this. " A very impessive airplane. In a way, much superior to anything we had in the USA at that time. Certainly like everyone else, we were dismayed they were going to break them up for scrap.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@LeopoldPlumtree I don't know if that tells you who the greater engineers were or not. If you look at whom lead the teams that, built mercury, then Gemini, then Apollo and the shuttle. The avro engineers were always in the lead And they won award after award at NASA for what they were able to achieve. they put a man on the moon. The NACA made little to no contribution to the Arrows design however the history is in place as to what the Avro engineers achieved at NASA. Read Arrows to the Moon
@mahoganyrush300 In reading Campagna's "Storms," the impression I got was that NACA often defended soundness of the Arrow design in the face of Ottawa's bureaucratic naysayers. And yes, a handful of Avro engineers came and joined the hundreds of thousands who contributed to the US space program, but you make it sound as if they single-handedly carried the program. NASA has always made use of foreign-born talent, just as Avro Canada did.
@LeopoldPlumtree This is true they did defend the arrows design but only after it began to prove itself through wind tunnel tests. At first they said it was all wrong. But as it developed to thier suprise it was right on. There is a rather famouse meeting where the NACA put the NRC the NAE and govt. officials to right, on what the arrow was about aerodynamically and vindicated avros design and research. As for the space program if you read the history you will find that the avro -continued
@LeopoldPlumtree engineers very quickly rose to senior positions in NASA and Jim Chamberlin is the man that created the plan and organised from within the complete program. This man really new how to make things work in sequence and have every one working on the same page together all the time. A system NASA still follows to this day. The man really new how to run a program. Mr. maynard from avro designed the LEM Bob Lindley designed the i fly by wire digital sytem to fly the apollo continued
@LeopoldPlumtree the digital electronics was designed I believe, by lindow from Avro I will have to go back to my research and look. Yes they made it happen without them there would not have been a successful trip to the moon. read "arrows to the moon" its there. It was Jim Chaimberlins ability to govern all the varied departments and the forsight of Gilruth and other senior American project managers that recognised there knowledge skill and brilliant minds that created that great chemistry.
@LeopoldPlumtree the sad thing for me is that these people lived and worked in canada most became American citizens and we are not likly to see thier like again, At least not in aero space. we have some good people now at canadair and some other firms but we need men with vision with passion not afraid to try the impossible. some of the old books showed a trip to the moon would take huge vehicles numbers of men. 1 large rocket an apollo thruster a capsule a LEM and 3 guys. NOW THATS VISION.
@LeopoldPlumtree There are alot of needs. We are looking at a new fighter for the air force. Why not design one of our own.Orenda is still in the biz of jet engines, the j75 p+w engine is still being sold, why not a new ps13. we can design an airframe around the Avro tachnology, buy off the shelf avionics and weapons and develope from there. How about high speed trains accross canada. we have a very stable land mass so why not a high speed monorail. let NASA go to the moon we will excell here.
@mahoganyrush300 Oh, of course there are needs, I just meant oversized interceptors and manned lunar programs aren't really the best ways to channel our ambitions. They're of limited benefit to the general public, when you get down to it. They really don't feed that many people when weighed against the economic burden they place on the public.
One little thing: I'm sure the J75 and related engines are still serviced, but they haven't been in production for a long time.
@LeopoldPlumtree On the j75 p+w the engine is still available, p+w canada and being used in marine vessels. albeit an up dated version. my point being updated the ps 13 would still be a viable alternative. If you understand exactly how it worked and how it developed its thrust, this engine is very much in the thick of it still. It was cooled in a very unique for that period way that used the airframe air flow to cool and gain thrust in the afterburn section. very cool actually yes indeedy. contd
@LeopoldPlumtree It is my belief that we need a long range intercepter like the arrow to fly the north. I do not believe that the f35 will do that. the F106 had freeze up problems will the f35 will be the same in that regard. the arrow was designed to fly comfortably in excruciating temperatures in both hot+cold.We need a plane that does what the arrow did what the F15 did I still like the super hornet over the F35. They are going to have lots off service problems with stealth coating like F22.
@mahoganyrush300 >> "If you understand exactly how it worked and how it developed its thrust, this engine is very much in the thick of it still."
It worked just as any turbojet did. :/
>> "It was cooled in a very unique for that period way that used the airframe air flow to cool and gain thrust in the afterburn section."
A small portion of the intake air was bypassed around the core and reintroduced into the exhaust. Hardly a big deal, especially compared to today's augmented turbofans.
@mahoganyrush300 I'm also a little skeptical of the F-35 being the ideal choice for Canada, but I'm hardly an expert on such matters. Even with compromised coatings (yes, which are maintenance-heavy), they still won't be any worse off than a Super Hornet in terms of RCS, however.
@southsidedude101: No. The only passenger ever carried in a CF-105 was D.E.(Red) Darrah in Aircraft number 203, February 19, 1959...on what was to be the final flight of the Arrow program.
The woman in this ridiculous CBC docu-giggle was a fictional composite of '...all the women who contributed to the Arrow program..', or something as inanely stupid and politically correct.
@raynus1: The RCAF wanted to get the F-106 to replace the cancelled Arrow - but with the Orenda Iroquois engine! When the Iroquois was also cancelled, they decided in favour of the Voodoo.
Even if it was just an average plane - death of the Arrow = death of Canada as a technological power. We still haven't recovered.
@fringelife: Except for the already operational squadrons of F-106's that would've likely chased it down and jammed a Genie or Falcon up it's caboose.
@raynus1 You guys didn't have 'squadrons' available at the time of this flight. It was just being released from what I was reading. Avro Arrow was designed to be faster than your Delta Darts. So think what you want man, I'm sure anything from Canada is inferior and we can't possibly have anything that's superior. This is why many countries think Americans are arrogant. Can't have a single pro-Canadian video on here without an American shitting on it and chest thumping about their own country.
@fringelife: Yes, I'm taking minor timeframe liberties with my comments, although nothing compared to this ridiculous movie. The F-106 was first delivered to the USAF on May 30, 1959, three months after the CF-105 program was axed. It had been flying since 1956. By the end of 1959, the 'six' held a speed record of 1526mph (Mach 2.34) and equipped five squadrons. It would equip another ten squadrons by the end of 1960.
@fringelife: Interestingly, after the CF-105's cancellation & prior to the introduction of the F-101B into Canadian service, there was a movement afoot within the RCAF to aquire the F-106A. It was passed by in favor of the multi-engined (and very effective) Voodoo.
Ok people! I think we should stop arguing.... You should not look up a video of a aircraft or anything made by another countrie just to put hate comments on it. That goes to evry one! Americans..... why are you ptting hate comments of this air craft? this shows your just ether scared or cant admit to the truth of it. so stop putting hate commnts. where allies. and Canadians.... i cant see much of this but there is the odd few canadians who do that so stop it too.
@mikefilmstudios: You're a fine one to be crowing about 'truth'...your comments are anything but truthful. Do some real research. Honestly, the absolutely ridiculous comments that are regurgitated by Canadians make me wish that Central Canada would fuck off and join the EU.
@mikefilmstudios Are you going to brand any comment that doesn't completely deify the Arrow a hate comment? Just about anyone, Americans included, would agree the Arrow was a bitchin' machine with lots of potential. It's just that some are irrationally offended by the very thought that there were other advanced aerospace projects underway at the same time and that the Arrow wouldn't have been able to blaze across the skies with absolute impunity.
@tenorismo Sorry you are the victim of our Canadian government propaganda machine. In reality the Arrow would not have been facing f-86's, but rather 106's or 101's which would have just annihilated the Arrow in short order. It would not stand a chance against the f-86's other than it could get away quicker. The Arrow did have its great points, but it is not the great plane that propaganda would have us believe. There was better and cheaper out there.
@ShayisWY dude u dont know what ur saying! The arrow could exeed speeds of mach 2. The 101 and 106 could only go to mach 1.5 and mach 2! and the F-86 woud of not hade a chanse! Ohh did you know if it wernt for the Canadians who worked on the arrow you guys would of not beat the russians to the moon! and woud of not got the Apollo 13 back to earth safley!
@mikefilmstudios The F-106 could and did exceed mach 2 just as the Arrow could have (or almost certainly could have - it was never tested beyond mach 1.98).
@raynus1 Ok i know this because i was one of the professors at U F T that where called to help out with the apollo 13 air situation. so i would know. We cant all crdit ok... the only part with NASA we helped with was the launching system, ejection phases of the rocket and the lunar lander. We did not do all the work by ouir selfs we helped too.
@raynus1 Ok i know this because i was one of the professors at U F T that where called to help out with the apollo 13 air situation. so i would know. We cant all crdit ok... the only part with NASA we helped with was the launching system, ejection phases of the rocket and the lunar lander. We did not do all the work by ouir selfs we helped too. And how are we Fucked in the ead??????? expain I wont to know how u think this? And if i was fucked in the head how did i get 2 university degrees?
@raynus1 ok two things... if i dint cancel the last comment.. which my cusoin made i dont have two university degrees I have one. And I was not the university profesor, my dad was. So now expain how where fucked in the head? Ill like to heaar this. And i bet you probably will get your friends to help you as well!
@raynus1 ok i mistakenly pressed 5 instead of 2.... it was 20 years. I am talking about what it would of been with the engines and the weapon systems. The spelling I did was typos or the way we spell here. We have diffrent spelling than the states.. Color for the states is Colour in Canada, theres one example
@mikefilmstudios Even 20 years is a stretch. Are you not aware of some of the other planes that were flying or on the drawing board at the time?
And no offense/offence, but differences in Commonwealth and American spellings (Canada uses a mixture of both) don't really account for your spelling errors. They appear to merely be typos (which is okay, I commit them too).
@LeopoldPlumtree The twenty years is a stretch for the arrow when it was still in its early production. You hvae to admit if it went on to full operation it would of been that far ahead of its time. I recheked my comments and i do have spellig errors. Why does the comment say I have a university degree? I cant put my fingure on that part.
@mikefilmstudios Even if Arrow did indeed meet all its specifications for range, envelope, payload, etc. it would not have been any 20 years ahead. It would have done about what an F-106 could do, only with more missiles and little more ass (perhaps).
@mikefilmstudios: Nowhere near twenty years ahead of the curve. You're suggesting that it would be on par with an F-18 Hornet. Not even close. To be twenty years ahead of the pack, it would've incorporated composite materials in it's construction, canards to assist in maneuverability, a bubble canopy, multiple-target processing capability, an internal cannon, use of radar-absorbant paint, CRT cockpit displays, a HUD, and revised engine inlet geometry. The Arrow had NONE of these features.
@Kzaaps: If you believe what you see in this silly film. F-86's (an excellent aircraft in its time) were hardly leading edge in 1958/59 (though oddly enough, Canada was still using them) . The USAF had much more advanced aircraft in service by then (eg: F-101, F-102, F-105, F-106 - all supersonic), but of course the CBC shows old Sabres in a lame attempt to paint the Americans as a second-rate entity. Do some research instead of pulling dumb assumptions out of your Trudeau-loving keester.
@Kzaaps: What's your point? Canada operated the antiquated CF-100 until 1981. Certainly didn't mean it was a front-line combat aircraft. ANG units often operate older types. Your post suggests that somehow, the aging F-86 was the best the USAF had to offer at the time. Niagara AFB also operated F-102A's from 1958-1960 (47th FIS). Just sayin'.
@Kzaaps: The CF-100? No, the Clunk was replaced in the interceptor role by the CF-101 Voodoo beginning in 1961 (filling the void left by the CF-105's cancellation). The last operating CF-100's were used in ECM/recon/training capacities, not as interceptors. The CF-105 was intended to be the replacement for the CF-100. The Voodoo (interceptors) served until 1984 when replaced by the CF-18. The two remaining ECM Voodoos served until 1987.
@raynus1 The reason it never got any better was because it was scrapped. Don't you understand that projects need time to develop? You can't come out with a new product and expect it to be immediately better than everyone else's. But considering the foundations and the capabilities of the Arrow early on, don't you think if it was allowed to grow as a project without American interference it would have pushed the boundaries set upon it in the beginning?
@KamikazziHamster: American interference? You mean like supplying Avro J-75 engines for the first five airframes? Or giving Avro access to their wind tunnels? Interfering by supplying Avro with a B-47 Stratojet to test the Iroquois engines? Or were they interfering by offering to supply Avro with Hughes missiles and MX-1 fire-control systems after Avro dropped the ASTRA system? Seems more like assistance to me. You need to do some homework.
@KamikazziHamster So lets say NORAD tracks 140 Soviet Bombers 2000 miles North of CFB Cold Lake. The F106 could engage them very early on as their Combat Range of 1600 miles could easly take them to the North Pole and beyond from Cold Lake.
If Arrows were at Cold Lake instead, they would have to wait three times longer before they could engage the Bombers. Infact the Bombers could as far South as Fort Mcmurray before they could engage the Bombers. That is one of the big flaws of the Arrow
@KamikazziHamster Like the F-4 which became more maneuverable at Mach .8, had a gatling gun added, and pilots trained in tactical maneuvering. Vietnam proved the Arrow was the wrong way to go. Besides the project was already over-budget and Arrow was dependent on tax money.
@raynus1 Also, the Iriquois engines that were meant for the Arrow were never installed. The engines used in the Arrow during its short lifespan were considered to be half as good as the Iriquois.
@KamikazziHamster 1/2 as good? The J-75 engine was extremely reliable and helped the F106 retain the title as one of the most reliable single engine planes in the world. This engine pushed the F106 above Mach 2.3, 74,000ft (zoomed), with a comabt range of 1600 miles (2700 miles ferry range). With the Iroquis it was speculated that the Orenda engine would get it to 60,000ft, with a combat range of only 400 or so miles. (1/2 that if want to add supersonic flight) and maybe Mach 3
@KamikazziHamster The problem is that with such little range, supersonic speed would almost be useless as it would go through all its fuel within minutes at full throttle. Furthermore with the limited range, Soviet bombers would be nearly on top out major populated regions before the Arrow could get in range and shoot them down. This is also one of the cited reason for little international interest in the Arrow
@KamikazziHamster I'm not sure how the goodness of an engine is quantified, but this "considered half as good" idea appears to have been pulled right from your pooper. To say the Iroquois would likely have been an improvement and could have accounted for performance gains would be plenty fair, but vaunted assertions of being doubly "good" are just cockamamie jabber.
@raynus1 Considering what it was CAPABLE of. Do more research and you will find the weapon system designed for it was, too, considered advanced for its time. Had that sorry excuse of a human being Diefienbaker failed to win the election; this prime Interceptor would be hailed worldwide. This Avro Arrow had capabilities perhaps you fail to understand. Sadly It never reached the staged to execute all the claims.
Comment removed
JohnQRandom 1 week ago
I heard that it was Rochester NY air national guard base-not Buffalo.
artistic license?
00Billy 2 months ago
@00Billy And they didn't use the Arrow to buzz the American base. They used a Lancaster fitted with test engines from Orenda.
MultiZebby 1 week ago
@MultiZebby: The Orenda engine was fitted to a borrowed USAF B-47, not a Lancaster. And they didn't buzz Niagra AFB with it.
raynus1 1 week ago
@raynus1 The Iroquois was fitted to the B47. It was a Lancaster that was used to buzz the air base and at the moment I don't have the time to dig out what engine was fitted to the Lancaster. And yes the air base was buzzed. Source: Shutting Down The National Dream.
MultiZebby 1 week ago
@MultiZebby
"the air base was buzzed. Source: Shutting Down The National Dream"
The more comments you post the more apparent it is how full of shit you are. You actually think a Canadian military jet invaded US airspace, flew directly over it and risked beng shot down, which is exactly what would have happened if an unidentified militry jet would have done so.
I just searched the internet up and down and found nothing to support this claim, because it never happened.
JohnQRandom 1 week ago
@JohnQRandom Mr Troll. Why don't you try reading instead of beleiving everything on the net.
MultiZebby 1 week ago
My dear, there is nothing concerning this "supposed" incident on the net because it never happened. And if you actually read this in a Canadian book (which I doubt you did) then it's simply a lie.
The test pilots were not a boyfriend/girlfriend team as depicted here, the main test pilot was Janusz Zurakowski, who wasn't even Canadian born, he was Polish. This aircraft was not a "national dream", as most Canadians didn't even know about it and "jealous Americans" didn't shut it down.
JohnQRandom 1 week ago
@JohnQRandom It's not on the net so it never happened. I mentioned the books it was printed in. Then you start mentioning stuff that we never discussed. I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore.
MultiZebby 1 week ago
@MultiZebby: Unlikely. No record of that unauthorized occurence anywhere online. However, an Orenda turbojet-equipped Lancaster Mk X was investigated by USANG pilots in the summer of 1950 while flying over Lake Ontario. The two outboard Merlins had been replaced with Orenda I's for flight testing prior to installation in the CF-100. Far cry from what this rancid giggle of a movie depicts.
raynus1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DevarSunder
99.9 % sure it did happen. Dad was a staff officer for an admiral during this period.
00Billy 2 months ago
@DevarSunder Just for the movie..... The movie, although based on the actual story, took much license, and is not a good source for what actually happened.
quedorf 2 months ago 7
Would still be neccessary, and that us why the F-101 Voodoo was chosen, although it was a great aircraft and much more economical to operate, it came absolutly no-were close to the performance of the Arrow. People can't argue without knowing the plain facts, and the Arrow was one of CANADA's best creations, eh?
UPfan001 2 months ago
@UPfan001 Thanks for expanding on my comments. I have to admit I have a bit of an affinity to the CF-101's as I lived on the base at CFB Chatham when the 416 squadron was operational. I agree. A great aircraft, but no where near the Arrow's potential.
quedorf 2 months ago
@UPfan001: Let's look at that for a moment. The CF-101 had a top speed of mach 1.72, compared to the mach 2 performance of the Mk 1 CF-105. The service ceiling of the CF-101 was 54,800', compared to the 53,000' ceiling of the Mk 1 CF-105. Although the ROC for the CF-105 is unavailable, the CF-101 boasted 40,000 ft/min+. Finally, the CF-101 had an unrefueled cruise range of 1500 miles, and a combat radius of 600 miles, nearly twice that of the Arrow's 360 miles.
raynus1 1 month ago 3
@raynus1 Sorry, I did say that "Not even present aircraft can out perform the arrow" Then, I did say it has been beaten for sure in things like cruise alt., climb rate and range. What I am trying to say is that it "lead the way" for future aircraft, did it not? It was the first to use high pressure hydraulic systems for example..which are now common in a all aircraft. We can also agree that F-15, F-16, F-18 are much newer and better than that aircraft. The arrow was simply ahead of it's time
UPfan001 1 month ago
known fact that Canada is one of the largest producers in the Aerospace industry, if not even larger than the United States and France. Not even present aircraft can exceed the Avro Arrow's perfromance, well perhaps in range and service ceiling but it did lead the way for others. For example it was one of the first aircraft to use the delta wing configuration, which imporvent its aerodynamic properties in supersonic flight. The RCAF made it clear to the Canadian Government that a interceptor....
UPfan001 2 months ago
@UPfan001: "Not even present aircraft can exceed the Avro Arrow's perfromance". It (the J-75 powered Mk 1) had a demonstrated top speed of mach 1.98 (performance charts suggested a maximum speed of mach 2.15), and the Iroquois-powered Mk 2 likely would've attained mach 2.3 to 2.5, again, based on thrust/drag/weight observations. I don't understand how it would out-perform an F-15 (certainly not in manouverability). Convair had mach 2 delta winged aircraft flying before the Arrow (B-58, F-106)
raynus1 1 month ago
It had employed many Canadians and even though it was an expensive project, it helped set up Canada's leading Aerospace industry. In the present day, Canada is one of the major manufactures of aircraft parts and complete aircraft. Bombardier Aerospace, Bell Canada, Pratt & Whitney Canada are among the largest producers of aircraft. This doesn't even include the hundreds of smaller companies making all the components from landing gear assemblies to attitude indicators. In fact, it is a...
UPfan001 2 months ago
....the conservative party of Canada, under Prime Ministre J. Diefenbaker, wanted to cut the budget for Avro, thus cancelling the project. The party was known for budget cutting and it was not dur to pressure from the United States. Hundreds of Canadian engineers designed every part of this aircraft, and like the CF-100 Canuck, it was constructed at the Avro manufacturing plant outside of Toronto.
UPfan001 2 months ago
@UPfan001
you make a product ...but first you make a prototype and try to sell it to buyers. They couldn't do this part. They were naive to think Canada would save their failed business plan.
00Billy 2 months ago
Oh yes and finally. This is a scene from the TV movie "the Arrow", which although entertaining, took too many licences in its portrayal. and was more fiction than fact.
quedorf 2 months ago 2
@quedorf I would also like to thank quedrof for setting these people straight on the actual facts of why the Arrow project was cancelled. As he said, the Canadian Government at the time believed that their was no need for American built Bomarc missiles and an all-weather interceptor aircraft. SInce the aircraft was entierly build and constructed in Canada by the A.V Roe company, it became incredibaly expensive for the country. Believeing that cheaper missile sites could replace the Arrow.....
UPfan001 2 months ago
Reading comments here, I feel the need to set the story straight. And some commenter's are simply morons, and you know who you are. The Arrow was cancelled simply because it cost too much, and the government did not have the insight to realize that interceptors were not obsolete. Missile's were touted as the future, and that quickly subsided with the almost useless American made Bomarcs. As can be seen the Voodoos were purchased to replace the Arrow's after this was discovered...............
quedorf 2 months ago
@quedorf ........ The Voodoos were less expensive, and inferior. Also to those who think the American aerospace industry was behind the tech advances. Avro was a Canadian subsidiary of A.V. Roe. A British aerospace company. Also Orenda, a Canadian engine manufacturer, pioneered the use of titanium in manufacturing with the Iroquois engine. The engine was one of the most advanced, and powerful engines at its time. Many engineers of avro went to the states after the shut down.............
quedorf 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quedorf ....... And went to work for NASA and were integral in putting the first man on the moon, and subsequent projects. There are many conspiracy theories around the cancellation, but it was simply economic and stupidity on the part of the government. This takes nothing from the technical wonder that the plane was. Regardless of what some dumb-asses on here may think, and I emphasise think.
quedorf 2 months ago
@quedorf The main reason the planes cost so much was the cost of the Astra weapons which was added onto the cost of the planes. The joke was that Astra stood for astronomical. The Voodoo was more than it cost Canada to attain the same first flight capabilities from scratch. The price fell when the American government agreed to furnish every finished Arrow with the Hughes weapon system at a reduced cost. The finished fly away cost of each unit was to be 3.75 million. Source: Storms Of Controversy
MultiZebby 1 week ago
IDIOT || \ / \/
Glaxist 3 months ago
You also claimed that the Burj Dubai was designed by Canadians?? Are you serious?? Sorry my love, but you're in the dark about a great many things, however I'll be glad to educate you on your errors when necessary. In the mean time, feel free to think Canada was an independent country prior to 1800, and that Canada designed the Nimitz. LOL!!
(all too easy my love, all too easy)
JohnQRandom 3 months ago 2
"what the hell was that" 0:51
99hockeynhl 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Canada should build more jets so we can mess with the Americans
vistarox 5 months ago
@vistarox
This is incident is entirely fictional, it never happened. Also, any jets your country builds is simply American technology "assembled" in Canada, as are some of the componants of current US fighter jets. This has much to do with our ajoined economies, not "superior" Canadian workmanship.
JohnQRandom 4 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnQRandom Don't flatter yourself.
Tonyshawnw 3 months ago
@JohnQRandom don't you hate it when the USA is owned by Canada, or China (J20) or myriad other small countries most Americans don't learn about in school? LOL suck it up Yank boy, your country is not the be all and end all you think it is.
Glaxist 3 months ago
@Glaxist
"The be all and end all" is what most of your countrymen think about Canada, and is the resaon you think Canada "owns" the US. (Explain your claim). We tap your natural resources to save our own (which we have enough of to sustain ourselves.) Might want to have a look at a map to see which country's major cities are all cozied up to whose boarder. The US is in debt with China, but not owned, I'm sorry but the US owes more to it's own federal bank than it does to China.
JohnQRandom 3 months ago 2
As far as the Avro, it was incomplete and nobody wanted to buy it. Canadians were building this plane when the Soviets had begun arming ICBMs, which made this aircraft obsolete. Have a look at the video: "Canadians, the Avro was a faailure." It was posted by an American who apparently is no longer on youtrube. In any case, a Canadian professor sets overly-patriotic idiots like yourself straight about the Avro's history.
Sorry sweetie, i guess it's you who needs to "suck it up."
JohnQRandom 3 months ago 3
@JohnQRandom - Hook, line and sinker.... you're way too easy.
Glaxist 3 months ago
@Glaxist
Sorry sweetie, but I refuted your claims and you came back with nothing. Your "hook, line and sinker" comment is simply a desperate attempt to pull the wool over your face. Next time, 'think' before you post. ; )
JohnQRandom 3 months ago
@JohnQRandom Really? You're that obtuse? You're even more fun to troll than the average knuckle dragger. The difference between you and a smarter person is the compulsion to respond, defend, argue and get mad. You are entertainment for the rest of us: someone few can take seriously. Please, carry on and rant a bit more... especially about how much better the USA is than any other nation. Those boasts are always hilarious to read.
Glaxist 3 months ago
@Glaxist
Hmmm, you're the one who said Canada is "the best country on Earth." I was especially tickled when you said "Canada won WW2 single handedly," and that without Canada's expertise in engineering, the entire world would be "living in the stone age." In addition; Canadians did NOT design the Airbus 380, and Japanese auto-makers do NOT buy their parts from RIM Canada.
Do they teach you this in your schools? No wonder you rely on foreigners to do your thinking, LOL!
JohnQRandom 3 months ago 2
@JohnQRandom And you can't read either... I'm almost feeling guilty that I goaded a totally unarmed debater. I'll walk you through this: look back 8 posts to what I actually trolled you on, and then read up to all your spittle-filled rambles. Unless... wait, I get it! You feel like an idiot because it's dawning on you that you got taken in completely, so now you've fabricated an outrageous claim and attributed it to me in hopes that nobody will notice you made it up. Clever my friend :)
Glaxist 3 months ago
@Glaxist
And then you said you were gay and that you looking for "companionship." Sorry guy, I don't see how that has anything to do with a failed BRITISH/Canadian interceptor from sixty years ago.
(I didn't read the drivel from your last comment sweetcheeks,' this is going to be easy) LOL!!
JohnQRandom 3 months ago
@JohnQRandom That's all you got? Calling me gay? I'm so disappointed. I was hoping you'd rant on for a while longer and throw out more totally irrelevant statements such as the one about the A380. I'm not sure why you felt that was a salient point, but it was funny as hell... almost as funny as you thinking RIM manufactures car parts?? Well, I think we're done here: you got trolled, owned and exposed. Off to find other slightly psychopathic posters to grind. Tata for now "sweetie".
Glaxist 3 months ago
@JohnQRandom
Bingo, the mythology of grievance over this plane canadians have is seriously out of line with reality.
omgwtfbbqstfu 3 months ago 2
@omgwtfbbqstfu
Two words: "identity crisis"
JohnQRandom 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@JohnQRandom yet another american who has to go about saying how the world couldn't live without them...as Canadians, we have aerospace companies too. We design and build aircraft that have been extremely successful as well. The Arrow was a remarkable design, it's too bad people can't take it at that. You make it sound as if it's the only aircraft Canadians have ever designed and been proud of. Ever hear of a Beaver? Otter? Bombardier Aerospace? CRJs?
footincanuck 3 months ago
@footincanuck
I never once said the world couldn't live without the US, and yes I've heard of Bombardier, who cares?? The Avro was made when the Soviets already developed ICBMs, and it was obsolete. In addition, many Brits played a role in the production of this aircraft, AND the movie was so bad and so false even one of your own professors attacked it. See the video: "Canadians, the Avro was a failure" It's all there. The uploader isn't under that channel anymore, but the video is.
JohnQRandom 3 months ago 2
@JohnQRandom
I am not anti American, in fact the Americans supported this project A LOT. They even lent us their wind tunnel but; you're a fucking idiot. The Avro was not obsolete with the ICBM, that's a common miss conception. If that were the case the f-22 wouldn't exist. The Avro is the grandfather of all modern fighter jets, even lockheed and boeing admit it. When Avro closed all 3000 engineers found jobs in the states at BOEING AND LOCKHEED. So fuck off.
MrOhaiMark 3 months ago
The Avro was an interceptor, you can't compare it to the F-22, which is a fighter. The AVRO was designed to "intercept" Soviet bombers, however when they (the Russians) now had ICBMs to carry their war heads, the Avro was obslolete. Give me your source that 3,000 Canadian engineers were employed by Lockheed and Boeing. Some Canadians also believe that the SR-71 was born to the Avro. Sorry, but your contribution to American aviation is minimal, and the Arrow is over-hyped.
JohnQRandom 3 months ago 2
@JohnQRandom
The AVRO was not an interceptor. Again that's a common misconception, it was a MULTI-ROLE fighter.
MrOhaiMark 3 months ago
@MrOhaiMark
Provide a source that supports this statement. This aircraft doesn't even look like a fighter, and I have never heard anyone claim it to be. There are no machine guns on it, nor are there air to air, or air to surface missiles.
JohnQRandom 3 months ago 3
@JohnQRandom There were to be air to air and air to surface missiles. There were no machine guns planned for it. Source: Storms of Controversy and Requiem For A Giant by Palmiro Campagna and also Arrow by The Arrowheads.
MultiZebby 1 week ago
@MultiZebby
It doesn't really matter, this aircraft was called an "interceptor" from the beginning. Because there "were to be" air to air and air to surface missles didn't make it anymore marketable as a fighter or otherwise.
This movie is atrocious, and does nothing more than wrongly convince simple-minded Canadians that they are "everything better" than the United States. This frame of mind is simply apart of your culture and I am tired of it
JohnQRandom 1 week ago
@JohnQRandom Despite you claiming it didn't have guns or missiles, It is still an interceptor. And just because you,an American, cannot admit that something made in a foreign country might be superior to an American made product does not make it a fact.
The movie took a lot of liberties with the story but it is no worse than a lot of the Hollywood American history claptrap. And I never said it made it any more marketable. An English teacher should learn to understand and read accurately.
MultiZebby 1 week ago
Wrong. This has nothing to do with me thinking foreign countries don't build better products than American products. This has do with Canadians (like yourself) who think the Avro (not even fully flight tested) was the best plane ever built. This plane would have been outstanding, but even one of your own professors gave reasons why it was canceled. See the video "Canadians, the Avro was a failure" here on youtrube. The uploader is nowhere to be found, but the video is still there.
JohnQRandom 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I do not buy into Hollywood films or the the propaganda they generate. However, I can say a that the reason why seemingly 75% of the Canadians I have worked with over the past decade offer me nothing but snide comments, cocky remarks, false claims, and outrageous accusations is because of your own propaganda industry. Be it your movies, beer ads, Rick Mercer, stand up comedy or even your school system, Canadians define themselves as how they are different and better than Americans.
JohnQRandom 1 week ago
@MrOhaiMark
Any air to air missles that it would have carried would have been to shoot down long range bombers from Russia. Also, I'm still waiting for your source that supports your claim that "3,000 Canadian engineers worked for Lockheed and Boeing" following the Avro's cancelation. That is pretty much like saying the United States' entire engineering corps was Canadian, which we both know is bullshit.
JohnQRandom 3 months ago 3
@MrOhaiMark: No it wasn't. A CF-18 is a true multirole fighter.The CF-105 was an interceptor, clearly designed to stop Soviet bombers attacking over the pole. It wasn't equipped to carry bombs, engage in tight dogfighting, or to undertake ground attack missions (although the British briefly considered a modified version to act as a nuclear strike aircraft, equipped with a scaled-down Blue Steel atomic stand-off missile). It never did reach a point where weapons were carried or tested, however.
raynus1 1 month ago 2
@MrOhaiMark The Avro was designated as a fighter interceptor. Just because it had no guns does not preclude it from being designated a fighter. The Phantom had nothing but missiles for many years.
MultiZebby 1 week ago
@footincanuck
no one said that, it is entirely the canadians who are displaying warped thinking from some underyling psychology of inferiority or resentment which allows them to believe and push a mythological version of history for this airplane and its cancellation. basically it would be like an american blaming the chinese for the cancellation of the space shuttle, it makes no sense, and only points to the psychological issues behind such an accusation
omgwtfbbqstfu 3 months ago
what movie is this?
steveMCHS 5 months ago
@steveMCHS The Arrow , a tv movie aired by CBC Canada. worth buying.
racecardriver467 5 months ago
AVRO ARROW - overrated
dmax631 6 months ago 3
@dmax631 your mom was overrated
freakyflow 6 months ago
The Arrow was cancelled for 1 very simple reason the same reason that cause us brits no to put the tsr2 into production short sighted polichickens thought that missile warfare would render aircraft obsolete in the theatre of war within 10-15 years so were reluctant to produce expensive new aircraft shame because both planes had the potential to be world beaters
gcoll75 6 months ago
The arrow is canadian
MultiLollipop17 7 months ago
my cousin was a fighter jock and 6 year Snowbird vet...next to great sex...what could be more fun then the freedom and speed of flight :}}]
RFKFANTS67 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Americans may have helped, but they still put pressure on us not get ride of the project, and unfortunately we did.
dave19941000 8 months ago
what a cheesy film - we might've made a better jet - but the yanks still have us beat in the movie dept.
kingalow1 9 months ago
Comment removed
LeopoldPlumtree 9 months ago
they should have kept the arrow
cdnparatrooper 10 months ago
@cdnparatrooper AMEN!!!!
mahoganyrush300 10 months ago
We don't have to be bothered by the existence of other similarly sophisticated aircraft in the late '50s. It doesn't make the Arrow any less cool.
We also see exaggerated lauding of any and every Arrow design feature, no matter how trivial or non-unique. That doesn't make the Arrow any more cool.
The Arrow's memory is not well served by an incorrigibly fanatical base of enthusiasts. That's nothing more than a crap stain on its legacy.
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago 2
@LeopoldPlumtree THAT!! is so very well put! and I agree, As for myself I don't like seeing the Arrow denegrated from what she was and was intended to be by those comparissons. Raynus and I go on about the F106 and the arrow. I love these debates the F106 is one of my favorites and I WILL have one here at the museum one day if it kills me. keep commenting I like hearing from you and Raynus1.
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
If you want some good Documentaries on the avro arrow go here,
avhouse ca/av_005 htm
The docs' have never before seen Avro footage, from the CF 100 to the Avro Car, they got documentaries on it. Very professionally made, the dvd's look like something you would buy at HMV
superman1749 1 year ago
It's been 52 years since the Avro Arrow was cancelled today, Feb 20th, 1959.
superman1749 1 year ago
We need an IMAX documentary on the Arrow, if you want to be really crazy do it in 3d, lol. The poor Arrow, the word on the street is that Bombarier might make one fully functional Arrow, for heritage perposes or something. That would be cool to see one or two flying in the sky.
superman1749 1 year ago
strides toward an atomic capability - you know nothing about history. they were not even close. read a book or something - if we as Canadians want to get mad at anyone. get mad at Candians who stop the program....
rebeccaskye 1 year ago
America's military industrial complex shits on its own, so its dam sure gonna shit on everyone else if it makes afew guys in suits rich somewhere. So many acts of sabotage both physical and in the media, murder, theft, bought silence etc goes on and you will never hear about it. Its a shitty world, and we will never know what really goes on. And please, assistance? Yeah sure, they knew it would get canned anyway.
parrotcar 1 year ago
@parrotcar Yet the fact remains the US was nothing but helpful with the CF-105 program. Any anger toward the US for the failure of the CF-105 program to enter production is misplaced. Talk about shitting on people. :P
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago 10
@LeopoldPlumtree Believe what you want, maybe there were some attempts at assistance, maybe some had good intentions, maybe it was an easy way to learn stuff that could be used in future US designs. Just because assistance is given doesnt mean they werent playing a game for their own benefit. Things arent black and white. And yes im sure British business interests or secret services have done similar things. people are tactical by nature to get their own way, it starts in kindergarden/nursery.
parrotcar 1 year ago
@parrotcar Yes, I'll believe what I want, in this case documented historical fact. American engines for five test airframes, access to American wind tunnels, NACA consultation, a loaned B-47 for Iroquois testing, prospective weapons systems and so on. Getting all pissy toward the US over the Arrow is completely groundless.
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago 4
@parrotcar Your observations are quite good as assistance allowed observation, observation collective intellegence. All part of the shareing agreement until it was time for the US to share, then it was classified.
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
@mahoganyrush300 NACA provided a good deal of technical advice toward the aerodynamic refinement of the Arrow design. It would be rather slimy to insinuate that information sharing was some one-sided US greed fest.
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago 4
@LeopoldPlumtree The naca was very critical of the arrows design at the outset until the wind tunnel tests began to prove out the avro teams theories. they were most critical of the intake design of the arrow. But those tunnel tests and actuall fight dispelled all critics including NRC and NACA where this issue was concerned. When bob lindley went to MCDS to work on Gemini the design team from the F4 were continually asking his advice on issues they were haveing with the F4 aircraft. continued
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
@LeopoldPlumtree he explained how they dealt with those issues on the arrow The changes were made in the F4.In his own words, "It was only then that I realised just how advanced the Arrow really was".when Chuck Mathews whom saw the arrow when they came to canada to interview the engineers for NASA. said this. " A very impessive airplane. In a way, much superior to anything we had in the USA at that time. Certainly like everyone else, we were dismayed they were going to break them up for scrap.
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@LeopoldPlumtree I don't know if that tells you who the greater engineers were or not. If you look at whom lead the teams that, built mercury, then Gemini, then Apollo and the shuttle. The avro engineers were always in the lead And they won award after award at NASA for what they were able to achieve. they put a man on the moon. The NACA made little to no contribution to the Arrows design however the history is in place as to what the Avro engineers achieved at NASA. Read Arrows to the Moon
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
@mahoganyrush300 In reading Campagna's "Storms," the impression I got was that NACA often defended soundness of the Arrow design in the face of Ottawa's bureaucratic naysayers. And yes, a handful of Avro engineers came and joined the hundreds of thousands who contributed to the US space program, but you make it sound as if they single-handedly carried the program. NASA has always made use of foreign-born talent, just as Avro Canada did.
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago 4
@LeopoldPlumtree This is true they did defend the arrows design but only after it began to prove itself through wind tunnel tests. At first they said it was all wrong. But as it developed to thier suprise it was right on. There is a rather famouse meeting where the NACA put the NRC the NAE and govt. officials to right, on what the arrow was about aerodynamically and vindicated avros design and research. As for the space program if you read the history you will find that the avro -continued
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
@LeopoldPlumtree engineers very quickly rose to senior positions in NASA and Jim Chamberlin is the man that created the plan and organised from within the complete program. This man really new how to make things work in sequence and have every one working on the same page together all the time. A system NASA still follows to this day. The man really new how to run a program. Mr. maynard from avro designed the LEM Bob Lindley designed the i fly by wire digital sytem to fly the apollo continued
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
@LeopoldPlumtree the digital electronics was designed I believe, by lindow from Avro I will have to go back to my research and look. Yes they made it happen without them there would not have been a successful trip to the moon. read "arrows to the moon" its there. It was Jim Chaimberlins ability to govern all the varied departments and the forsight of Gilruth and other senior American project managers that recognised there knowledge skill and brilliant minds that created that great chemistry.
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
@LeopoldPlumtree the sad thing for me is that these people lived and worked in canada most became American citizens and we are not likly to see thier like again, At least not in aero space. we have some good people now at canadair and some other firms but we need men with vision with passion not afraid to try the impossible. some of the old books showed a trip to the moon would take huge vehicles numbers of men. 1 large rocket an apollo thruster a capsule a LEM and 3 guys. NOW THATS VISION.
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
@mahoganyrush300 I don't think a lack of vision is the problem today...the need just isn't there. We have plenty of dust right here on earth.
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago
@LeopoldPlumtree There are alot of needs. We are looking at a new fighter for the air force. Why not design one of our own.Orenda is still in the biz of jet engines, the j75 p+w engine is still being sold, why not a new ps13. we can design an airframe around the Avro tachnology, buy off the shelf avionics and weapons and develope from there. How about high speed trains accross canada. we have a very stable land mass so why not a high speed monorail. let NASA go to the moon we will excell here.
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
@mahoganyrush300 Oh, of course there are needs, I just meant oversized interceptors and manned lunar programs aren't really the best ways to channel our ambitions. They're of limited benefit to the general public, when you get down to it. They really don't feed that many people when weighed against the economic burden they place on the public.
One little thing: I'm sure the J75 and related engines are still serviced, but they haven't been in production for a long time.
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago 3
@LeopoldPlumtree On the j75 p+w the engine is still available, p+w canada and being used in marine vessels. albeit an up dated version. my point being updated the ps 13 would still be a viable alternative. If you understand exactly how it worked and how it developed its thrust, this engine is very much in the thick of it still. It was cooled in a very unique for that period way that used the airframe air flow to cool and gain thrust in the afterburn section. very cool actually yes indeedy. contd
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
@LeopoldPlumtree It is my belief that we need a long range intercepter like the arrow to fly the north. I do not believe that the f35 will do that. the F106 had freeze up problems will the f35 will be the same in that regard. the arrow was designed to fly comfortably in excruciating temperatures in both hot+cold.We need a plane that does what the arrow did what the F15 did I still like the super hornet over the F35. They are going to have lots off service problems with stealth coating like F22.
mahoganyrush300 11 months ago
@mahoganyrush300 >> "If you understand exactly how it worked and how it developed its thrust, this engine is very much in the thick of it still."
It worked just as any turbojet did. :/
>> "It was cooled in a very unique for that period way that used the airframe air flow to cool and gain thrust in the afterburn section."
A small portion of the intake air was bypassed around the core and reintroduced into the exhaust. Hardly a big deal, especially compared to today's augmented turbofans.
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago 4
@mahoganyrush300 I'm also a little skeptical of the F-35 being the ideal choice for Canada, but I'm hardly an expert on such matters. Even with compromised coatings (yes, which are maintenance-heavy), they still won't be any worse off than a Super Hornet in terms of RCS, however.
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago
was there a women that flew in the arrow
southsidedude101 1 year ago
@southsidedude101: No. The only passenger ever carried in a CF-105 was D.E.(Red) Darrah in Aircraft number 203, February 19, 1959...on what was to be the final flight of the Arrow program.
The woman in this ridiculous CBC docu-giggle was a fictional composite of '...all the women who contributed to the Arrow program..', or something as inanely stupid and politically correct.
raynus1 1 year ago 3
@raynus1: The RCAF wanted to get the F-106 to replace the cancelled Arrow - but with the Orenda Iroquois engine! When the Iroquois was also cancelled, they decided in favour of the Voodoo.
Even if it was just an average plane - death of the Arrow = death of Canada as a technological power. We still haven't recovered.
xeniak76 1 year ago
"what the hell was that?" It was Canada coming to sneak attack the US with a fighter jet nothing like the US has ever seen hahaha
fringelife 1 year ago
@fringelife: Except for the already operational squadrons of F-106's that would've likely chased it down and jammed a Genie or Falcon up it's caboose.
raynus1 1 year ago 2
@raynus1 You guys didn't have 'squadrons' available at the time of this flight. It was just being released from what I was reading. Avro Arrow was designed to be faster than your Delta Darts. So think what you want man, I'm sure anything from Canada is inferior and we can't possibly have anything that's superior. This is why many countries think Americans are arrogant. Can't have a single pro-Canadian video on here without an American shitting on it and chest thumping about their own country.
fringelife 1 year ago
Comment removed
raynus1 1 year ago
Comment removed
raynus1 1 year ago
@fringelife: Yes, I'm taking minor timeframe liberties with my comments, although nothing compared to this ridiculous movie. The F-106 was first delivered to the USAF on May 30, 1959, three months after the CF-105 program was axed. It had been flying since 1956. By the end of 1959, the 'six' held a speed record of 1526mph (Mach 2.34) and equipped five squadrons. It would equip another ten squadrons by the end of 1960.
raynus1 1 year ago 3
@fringelife: Interestingly, after the CF-105's cancellation & prior to the introduction of the F-101B into Canadian service, there was a movement afoot within the RCAF to aquire the F-106A. It was passed by in favor of the multi-engined (and very effective) Voodoo.
raynus1 1 year ago 2
Americans : what the hell was that!?
me: something i like to call... Canada!
themariobros45 1 year ago
mach 3... try to follow men!
HomemadeThing 1 year ago
@HomemadeThing: ???
raynus1 1 year ago
Ok people! I think we should stop arguing.... You should not look up a video of a aircraft or anything made by another countrie just to put hate comments on it. That goes to evry one! Americans..... why are you ptting hate comments of this air craft? this shows your just ether scared or cant admit to the truth of it. so stop putting hate commnts. where allies. and Canadians.... i cant see much of this but there is the odd few canadians who do that so stop it too.
mikefilmstudios 1 year ago
@mikefilmstudios: You're a fine one to be crowing about 'truth'...your comments are anything but truthful. Do some real research. Honestly, the absolutely ridiculous comments that are regurgitated by Canadians make me wish that Central Canada would fuck off and join the EU.
raynus1 1 year ago 5
@mikefilmstudios Are you going to brand any comment that doesn't completely deify the Arrow a hate comment? Just about anyone, Americans included, would agree the Arrow was a bitchin' machine with lots of potential. It's just that some are irrationally offended by the very thought that there were other advanced aerospace projects underway at the same time and that the Arrow wouldn't have been able to blaze across the skies with absolute impunity.
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago 5
@LeopoldPlumtree No im just saying in general.... like i know that both nations have fueds im just trying to stop it before it escalates.
mikefilmstudios 1 year ago
@raynus1
and the F-106 or f-101 would have been left in the dust
massini5150 1 year ago
@massini5150 The F-106 was capable of exceeding mach 2. If the Arrow would have been faster, it probably wouldn't have been by very much.
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago 4
Just a little Canadian fun. Don't lose your skirt over it.
canadiantimberwolf1 1 year ago
lol replay 1:00 over and over again :D halarious LOL
NaturalGroundation 1 year ago
WOW! Flying canucks!
NaturalGroundation 1 year ago
Canada EIHHHH!!!
gnrdude 1 year ago
LOl The F-86's couldent stand a chance.
tenorismo 1 year ago
@tenorismo Sorry you are the victim of our Canadian government propaganda machine. In reality the Arrow would not have been facing f-86's, but rather 106's or 101's which would have just annihilated the Arrow in short order. It would not stand a chance against the f-86's other than it could get away quicker. The Arrow did have its great points, but it is not the great plane that propaganda would have us believe. There was better and cheaper out there.
ShayisWY 1 year ago 5
@ShayisWY dude u dont know what ur saying! The arrow could exeed speeds of mach 2. The 101 and 106 could only go to mach 1.5 and mach 2! and the F-86 woud of not hade a chanse! Ohh did you know if it wernt for the Canadians who worked on the arrow you guys would of not beat the russians to the moon! and woud of not got the Apollo 13 back to earth safley!
mikefilmstudios 1 year ago
@mikefilmstudios The F-106 could and did exceed mach 2 just as the Arrow could have (or almost certainly could have - it was never tested beyond mach 1.98).
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree ya but i rounded it for both aircraft to nearest mach.
mikefilmstudios 1 year ago
Comment removed
raynus1 1 year ago 4
@raynus1 Ok i know this because i was one of the professors at U F T that where called to help out with the apollo 13 air situation. so i would know. We cant all crdit ok... the only part with NASA we helped with was the launching system, ejection phases of the rocket and the lunar lander. We did not do all the work by ouir selfs we helped too.
mikefilmstudios 1 year ago
@raynus1 Ok i know this because i was one of the professors at U F T that where called to help out with the apollo 13 air situation. so i would know. We cant all crdit ok... the only part with NASA we helped with was the launching system, ejection phases of the rocket and the lunar lander. We did not do all the work by ouir selfs we helped too. And how are we Fucked in the ead??????? expain I wont to know how u think this? And if i was fucked in the head how did i get 2 university degrees?
mikefilmstudios 1 year ago
@raynus1 ok two things... if i dint cancel the last comment.. which my cusoin made i dont have two university degrees I have one. And I was not the university profesor, my dad was. So now expain how where fucked in the head? Ill like to heaar this. And i bet you probably will get your friends to help you as well!
mikefilmstudios 1 year ago
Comment removed
raynus1 1 year ago 5
@raynus1 ok i mistakenly pressed 5 instead of 2.... it was 20 years. I am talking about what it would of been with the engines and the weapon systems. The spelling I did was typos or the way we spell here. We have diffrent spelling than the states.. Color for the states is Colour in Canada, theres one example
mikefilmstudios 1 year ago
@mikefilmstudios Even 20 years is a stretch. Are you not aware of some of the other planes that were flying or on the drawing board at the time?
And no offense/offence, but differences in Commonwealth and American spellings (Canada uses a mixture of both) don't really account for your spelling errors. They appear to merely be typos (which is okay, I commit them too).
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree The twenty years is a stretch for the arrow when it was still in its early production. You hvae to admit if it went on to full operation it would of been that far ahead of its time. I recheked my comments and i do have spellig errors. Why does the comment say I have a university degree? I cant put my fingure on that part.
mikefilmstudios 1 year ago
@mikefilmstudios Even if Arrow did indeed meet all its specifications for range, envelope, payload, etc. it would not have been any 20 years ahead. It would have done about what an F-106 could do, only with more missiles and little more ass (perhaps).
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
@mikefilmstudios Not to mention the YF-12 in the early '60s, which also got axed.
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago 2
@mikefilmstudios: Nowhere near twenty years ahead of the curve. You're suggesting that it would be on par with an F-18 Hornet. Not even close. To be twenty years ahead of the pack, it would've incorporated composite materials in it's construction, canards to assist in maneuverability, a bubble canopy, multiple-target processing capability, an internal cannon, use of radar-absorbant paint, CRT cockpit displays, a HUD, and revised engine inlet geometry. The Arrow had NONE of these features.
raynus1 1 year ago 6
@raynus1 doesn't CRT stand for "cathode ray tube" display, which was used in those big ass old TV's?
XBillums 9 months ago
@XBillums: Yes.
raynus1 9 months ago
@raynus1
It's a great country where any moron can run for president.
Btw. Did you look at your fighters in that video clip from the movie ? Aging design, sad story.
must be tough to be you. Look out for Osama. he is under your bed.
Kzaaps 8 months ago
@Kzaaps: If you believe what you see in this silly film. F-86's (an excellent aircraft in its time) were hardly leading edge in 1958/59 (though oddly enough, Canada was still using them) . The USAF had much more advanced aircraft in service by then (eg: F-101, F-102, F-105, F-106 - all supersonic), but of course the CBC shows old Sabres in a lame attempt to paint the Americans as a second-rate entity. Do some research instead of pulling dumb assumptions out of your Trudeau-loving keester.
raynus1 8 months ago 4
@raynus1
The last ANG F-86s continued in US service until 1970.
There you go, anything else to say ?
Kzaaps 8 months ago
@Kzaaps: What's your point? Canada operated the antiquated CF-100 until 1981. Certainly didn't mean it was a front-line combat aircraft. ANG units often operate older types. Your post suggests that somehow, the aging F-86 was the best the USAF had to offer at the time. Niagara AFB also operated F-102A's from 1958-1960 (47th FIS). Just sayin'.
raynus1 8 months ago 4
@raynus1
Sure, Canada used it because they did not have the Arrow.
Just saying.
Kzaaps 8 months ago
@Kzaaps: The CF-100? No, the Clunk was replaced in the interceptor role by the CF-101 Voodoo beginning in 1961 (filling the void left by the CF-105's cancellation). The last operating CF-100's were used in ECM/recon/training capacities, not as interceptors. The CF-105 was intended to be the replacement for the CF-100. The Voodoo (interceptors) served until 1984 when replaced by the CF-18. The two remaining ECM Voodoos served until 1987.
raynus1 8 months ago 4
@raynus1 Your a sensative yank arent you?
skateman1994 4 months ago
@skateman1994: Actually, I'm Canadian.
raynus1 4 months ago 2
@Kzaaps by moron do you mean brian mulroney???
rostant999 6 months ago
@raynus1 The reason it never got any better was because it was scrapped. Don't you understand that projects need time to develop? You can't come out with a new product and expect it to be immediately better than everyone else's. But considering the foundations and the capabilities of the Arrow early on, don't you think if it was allowed to grow as a project without American interference it would have pushed the boundaries set upon it in the beginning?
KamikazziHamster 1 year ago
@KamikazziHamster: American interference? You mean like supplying Avro J-75 engines for the first five airframes? Or giving Avro access to their wind tunnels? Interfering by supplying Avro with a B-47 Stratojet to test the Iroquois engines? Or were they interfering by offering to supply Avro with Hughes missiles and MX-1 fire-control systems after Avro dropped the ASTRA system? Seems more like assistance to me. You need to do some homework.
raynus1 1 year ago 19
@raynus1 Should read 'Like supplying Avro WITH J-75 engines' (to clear up any confusion).
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 and they offered to buy us the planes. But our stupid government didn't want to take charity...
dbski95 1 year ago
@KamikazziHamster So lets say NORAD tracks 140 Soviet Bombers 2000 miles North of CFB Cold Lake. The F106 could engage them very early on as their Combat Range of 1600 miles could easly take them to the North Pole and beyond from Cold Lake.
If Arrows were at Cold Lake instead, they would have to wait three times longer before they could engage the Bombers. Infact the Bombers could as far South as Fort Mcmurray before they could engage the Bombers. That is one of the big flaws of the Arrow
ShayisWY 1 year ago
@KamikazziHamster Like the F-4 which became more maneuverable at Mach .8, had a gatling gun added, and pilots trained in tactical maneuvering. Vietnam proved the Arrow was the wrong way to go. Besides the project was already over-budget and Arrow was dependent on tax money.
Knoss 1 year ago 2
@raynus1 Also, the Iriquois engines that were meant for the Arrow were never installed. The engines used in the Arrow during its short lifespan were considered to be half as good as the Iriquois.
KamikazziHamster 1 year ago
@KamikazziHamster 1/2 as good? The J-75 engine was extremely reliable and helped the F106 retain the title as one of the most reliable single engine planes in the world. This engine pushed the F106 above Mach 2.3, 74,000ft (zoomed), with a comabt range of 1600 miles (2700 miles ferry range). With the Iroquis it was speculated that the Orenda engine would get it to 60,000ft, with a combat range of only 400 or so miles. (1/2 that if want to add supersonic flight) and maybe Mach 3
ShayisWY 1 year ago
@KamikazziHamster The problem is that with such little range, supersonic speed would almost be useless as it would go through all its fuel within minutes at full throttle. Furthermore with the limited range, Soviet bombers would be nearly on top out major populated regions before the Arrow could get in range and shoot them down. This is also one of the cited reason for little international interest in the Arrow
ShayisWY 1 year ago
@KamikazziHamster I'm not sure how the goodness of an engine is quantified, but this "considered half as good" idea appears to have been pulled right from your pooper. To say the Iroquois would likely have been an improvement and could have accounted for performance gains would be plenty fair, but vaunted assertions of being doubly "good" are just cockamamie jabber.
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
@raynus1 Considering what it was CAPABLE of. Do more research and you will find the weapon system designed for it was, too, considered advanced for its time. Had that sorry excuse of a human being Diefienbaker failed to win the election; this prime Interceptor would be hailed worldwide. This Avro Arrow had capabilities perhaps you fail to understand. Sadly It never reached the staged to execute all the claims.
TSnikolai 11 months ago