The British and the Canadians were both screwed by the U.S.A. Together Britain & Canada would have been too much of a rival to them. TSR2 & Arrow just imagine THAT!! Keep the faith remember we're family. Up the Canadians.
it's retarted how the americans persuaded the canadian goverment to scrap the greatest plane, and then traded it for the bomark missiles. now a few years later, the americans built the black bird and called it the greatest plane ever saw. Did canada stick their noses in and complained about their plane? NO. heres a note to americans, MIND UR BUISNESS! and have some respect for our country!!!!!
@canadamonster: Actually, Diefenbaker disliked most Americans (especially JFK), and railed against free trade with them. Liberals were the party most cozy with the USA in the late 1950's. True story.
@canadamonster: Hardly. If anything he was a western populist and anything BUT pro-american. His refusal to allow nuclear-equipped US Bomarcs onto Canadian soil was one of the key reasons he lost the '63 election. In fact, and with the possible exception of Trudeau and Nixon/Reagan, Diefenbaker's relationship with Kennedy was one of the iciest periods of Canada-US relations in the 20th century...to the extent that Kennedy insiders actively assisted in campaigning for the Pearson Liberals.
@canadamonster: 'Traitor' because he cancelled the CF-105 program? Here's an interesting fact. The St. Laurent Liberals intended to scuttle the Arrow program themselves had they won the 1957 election, as Laurent & Howe both recognized the runaway costs (and a looming recession). Diefenbaker initially continued to fund the program (mainly to secure 3 seats in the Malton area in '58), and once the election was over and his majority realized, decided to review the file, ultimately killing it.
Diefenbaker was elected on the promise to dump the Liberal program between their largest supporter AV ROE that was bleeding the country. None of the figures tossed around on the performance of the Arrow were ever proven.
The USA were also afraid that the project might eventually result in a top high speed intercepter aircraft and they realized that a change in government in Canada could be coming. The USA did not trust Canada under the Liberals to not sell it to the Soviets.
Harper should quit wasting our money buying American fighters and create a project for Canadians to build their own again. Creating jobs and bringing highly skilled people back to our country.
Canada should have never cancel this project...it was a fine fighter bomber aircraft ahead of its time. Canada could generates billion dollars, they could lead other countries in building military jets for many years.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the arrow could have been moded to work as a space transport. thats right we could have been first to the moon. theres no need for high powered rockets in high altitude.....damn conservatives blew the whole deal.
I wouldn't call the Arrow the best fighter ever. There are much better ones today. But it was probably the best of its time. Its a shame that the program was cancelled. Canada could have made many of the best military aircraft of the world by now.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@cjwyi13 actually america was interested in purchasing the design plans from canada during testing, the conservatives being the idiots they were thought that the most modern and manouverabe aircraft was not worth the money
No matter what the reason to cancel it happened & should of not been allowed to.By allowing the Canadian Conservative government to get away with it we then condemned those who built & designed the Avro Arrow for their brilliant achievement.This decision set out aircraft development back to the stone age WE are still dependent on America' for fighter aircraft so for them to allow us our own would not be profitable..Multimillion dollar contract would of been lost if we were allowed to.
sry guys i know a guy who transported the scraps off malton airport 206 didnt even have a cockpit or landing gear and 207 didnt even have wings on it or a canopy,
and what ever didnt go to the scrap yards went to recycling
sry guys i know a guy who transported the scraps off malton airport 206 didnt even have a cockpit or landing gear and 207 didnt even have wings on it or a canopy,
and what ever didnt go to the scrap yards went to recycling
it looked good but it was not the greatest ever, I doubt it was even as fast as some of the other interceptors of its time. The TSR-2, now that would have been the greatest plane ever
When I become Prime Minister, we are rebooting the Canadian military aviation industry. The CF-100 and the CF-105 were all Canadian, and all awesome interceptors, and I say we can still do it again.
@DaManzMoney I will agree. He was a total idiot. After buying the missiles and fighter for the USA, we could have had 130 arrows. But I really wonder if one is still out there?
Doubt it will fly again, no need for interceptor fighters in this day and age. Shame though, its a beauty...Can't we just make one, for the sake of awesomeness?
Why did they have to scrap the blue prints.??? They should have kept them instead of buying those Voodoo fighters. They paid for them with the sweat of Canadian workers and just threw it away. I wish some former employee would have kept the plans but that might be treason if he admitted to it.
@ap0lmc When you cancel an advanced project like this it is important that your stuff is not copied by your " enemy " in this case the Soviet Union , a country with a long record of copying western design .
Best way to be sure is to have a bonfire . Thats life . Shame but thats how it is .
@ap0lmc Well when our BAC TSR-2 Bomber was axed in 1965 & the Prototypes / Tooling etc ordered Destroyed by the Labour Government BAC itself & Workers there snuck what they could away (Skematics/ Footage/ Parts you name it), it was thanks to them that we were able to partually restore the two surrviving TSR-2 Airframes (which had escaped destruction but had been gutted of Electronics etc).
That said most of them kept quiet about it for till late 90's (probably due to the Official Secrets Act).
My dad worked for Avro from 1953 to Feb 1959 Black Fri.He was a crew chief on the Orenda Iroqois engine.He cold weather tested it in Churchill Man.At the time Canada was the leader in the aerospace industry at the time.They bought the world,s supply of titanium in 1957,perfecting the use of it in the leading edges on the wings.My dad was very bitter about the cancellation and said diefenbaker was a "hayseed from the praires".He was basically sold by the americans on a missile that was outdated.
@JRock0085 The only problem with that is if it does surface the salvage company that has the rights to the aircraft will claim it before it becomes airworthy. It really is disheartening that the US government played a hand in its downfall.
there is no way somone from that company was going to let a project like this escape completely. everyone working was a really smart person. it is very doubtful those plans are gone
I say the U.S government talked the Canadian government into cancelling the Arrow project because they were jelous that Canada was ahead of them in the aircraft industry
@cjwyj13 US wanted Canada to help fund a missile system in the arctic to defend against Russian nuclear threat, but the Arrow project took up most the budget. Personal tensions between the management at Avro and Canadian Prime Minister Diefenbaker, were very high. It was the Canadian Government that cancelled the project, scrapped the prototypes, and destroyed the designs. What should have been a proud moment for Canada, was shameful.
@BobFromFinance I wish you were in Canada in the 50's you would of seen what was really going on at the time #1 McDonnell douglas and Boeing had just finshed off de Havilland in the airwars and the ill fatal comet 1954 The B-52 bomber was breaking world records till the arrow came in and the same records could of been beat based on test flights it was faster and could carry a nuke (Canadian people were against missles) better to buy the cow then just the milk. Canada wanted to sell milk
@BobFromFinance Your in finance do the math Eisenhower seen the after math of Pearl harbor and knew that war was going to be won by the air And the same with Korea He asked about a all role fighter bomber and the same Party Fund You guessed it American aircraft companys pressured Canadian goverment to sell out to them..scrapping it and adding the design to the All new A-5 4 years later (which looks like a modded arrow) Bomb bay doors opened dropped a missle and closed in 5 secs .. The F-35 5.8
@cjwyj13 yes it was jelous did have nothing to do the pubic did not want to spend billions on r&d when they can buy cheaper better from other places. but u can call it anything u want, we are use to that
Dief was from the prairies and knew nothing about the work force in the east. Ike knew he was weak and took advantage of the situation. The conservatives faced defeat in the next election, and Dief would cry when the Canadian flag of the Liberal government, lead by Pearson was raised.
@cjwyj13 you know that kind of stupid talk adds no credibility to your nation's image and really makes no sense at all. why would we prevent an ally from deploying a capable piece of equipment that could protect us too? it's not as if we were worried about canada showing us up, please dispense with such delusions. greatest fighter ever will be proven with operational/combat history, not on paper. to date there is no clear winner, contenders must compare with others of their era yet (ctd)
@cjwyj13 (ctd) still you have to define the role of the aircraft. Like the arrow, today's F-22 is no aerobatic dogfighter yet many would call it the class of the skies of its time. Diplomatic constraints after 1983's KAL007 shootdown and the USS VIncennes downing of the IranAir flight dictate a visual ID a must- no aircraft is likely to be used to its full potential, such as the Tomcat/AIM-54 Phoenix was probably the most capable interceptor package EVER yet never used (the missile) in combat.
@cjwyj13 You're right.The Americans were jealous and very nervous the Arrow was far superior than any fighter the USAF had.Of course the Americans will denie that the Arrow was a threat to them .If thats the case why didn't they just laugh it off and ignore it? Part of the reason's is the U.S. government knew the potential of this amazing Canadian fighter.It's a shame we had a weak moron as our PM.or things would have been completely different We would have a newer advanced Arrow and alotmore
The Arrow was a fine aircraft and way ahead of its time. Unfortunately a lot of great aircraft get dumped for no good reason.
Consider the strange fate of the F-20 Tiger shark. General Dynamics had the inside track with the Air Force with its F-16. The Northrop Tigershark whipped the best versions of the F-16. But the Tigershark was 1/2 the price and had 1/2 the operational cost. Obviously other forces are in play other than performance & cost...like corruption and bribery.
EVERYTIME I read or think about how the Arrow program was so thoroughly, inexplicably 'disappeared' I have to wonder what pressure was placed on PM Diefenbaker: was he blackmailed, bribed or threatened? The incredible short-sightedness of this decision destroyed Canada's best chance to develop its own world-class aerospace industry. I have to imagine what a dynamic industry & many great planes might have been bootstrapped from the innovative lead Avro was on the verge of bringing to production.
@LeopoldPlumtree For the first thirty years we were nothing more than puppets of the US we still have no way to do what we did then. Also you must realize that all of the future aircraft and designs were lost as well. we are purchasing f35 fighters now and in the interceptor role could never keep up to the Arrow. I think it.s time to build our own. But where and by whom and how do we keep out the political interferance.
@buzzbuerling Avro Canada probably shot themselves in the foot with the Jetliner more so than with the Arrow. Unlike the Arrow, there was actually a foreign buyer lined up. If it proved itself and eased the wariness of other potential buyers, Avro Canada may not have been at the complete mercy of the government's wishes. A military-based economy is not necessarily something to be envied. It's not cheap when you have to fund it yourself.
@LeopoldPlumtree The book Avro Canada c102 Jetliner by James Floyd tells the story. it is available at most libraries CD HOWE was the one that put an end to that dream. Avro used the plane to ferry parts and employees around the country. My boss saw the plane in winnipeg in the fifties as a kid. That is one they should build now.
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.
It had fly by wire technology even back then. It was super advanced with a huge engine. The U.S. wanted to sell their f-101 etc. to Canada and we bent over and took it.
@2010peters I very recently discovered from documentation derived from Pierre Sevigny the associate minister of defence in the diefenbaker government, that, the USA offered to pay a portion of the Arrows cost to secure the full commitment to sage and norad. And to round out the cost shareing agreement with Canada and the government refused. I did not know this a week ago I just found this out. The USAF was willing to help us out and dief said NO! I was furious to find this out.
@raynus1 If you read Diefs memoirs he was shocked to find Avro was destroying the Arrow. Dief cancelled the Arrow the order and it was not really an order but a recomendation. Was given by Air Vice Marshall hugh campbell and had nothing to do with Dief. this was obtained for me from my father in law a CCRA agent doing work on other investigations that found this information. there is no paper trail what so ever that shows any government order to destroy the Arrow or anything to do with it.
@raynus1 further to this Is that it was Fred Smye that gave the order in the plant to destroy the arrow and all to go with it. It is what is missing in between that I have been searching for. I have long since felt that it may have had to do with crawford Gordon, being he drank himself to death. But it does not quite add up yet. I have ordered Campanas book on the secret files he had opened for his research. I want to hear what he has to add. My father in law said there was more he could not say
@raynus1 He did say that there was US influence. And from Ike's papers we learn that he knew the Russians were not the threat they were made out to be. And had told Diefenbaker there was no need for the Arrow. How ever when kennedy was elected he won on the strategic air command and icbm defence Issues which infuriated Dief. If the Arrow had been left undamaged they could have then finished but It was gone.Why and by who this is what I want to know not speculative theories of US jealousies.
@raynus1 Dief was not that suspicious of the US until the Kennedy kerffuful. Then he was wary, but, it was to late. he trusted many of the wrong people on both sides of the border. You must remember that at that time the Prime Minister had almost dictatorial power. He signed us on to sage and norad without consulting parliament. this could not happen today. The decision to cancel the Arrow was his and his alone without any understanding what so ever of the impact that this was to have on Canada.
@raynus1 I have been doing more research and found that there actually was an American conspiracy. In talking with an individual in north carolina he said absolutly and explained how and why. Personally I never felt that thewre was a cospiracy. He also shared some info on JFK as well and some covering there. WHEW! I was rather taken aback by this but it all makes sense. He called the f108 a paper airplane. then I got the explanation.hard to believe the subterfuge, but , it was very real.
@LeopoldPlumtree Are you hearing your self on this. I mean no disrespect but the arrow flew. The F108? not even a paper one. But it looked good made of wood. Thats all they had no engineering drawings were ever done. The F106c? Offered to canada to replace the arrow. was cancelled two weeks after the arrow was cut up. Just another paper plane. All the promises made to canada about sage a more never materialized. Read the book avro canada and cold war aviation. On ebay very good well researched.
@mahoganyrush300 The F-108 issue wasn't central to my reply, but what I meant was that every plane went through a stage of being a paper airplane. The F-108 was simply canceled before it progressed beyond that stage. It doesn't matter, as the YF-12 was an even more advanced craft and certainly not merely a paper airplane.
I was really taking issue with the whole conspiracy bit you were talking about and the apparent lack of real corroboration.
@LeopoldPlumtree If we include paper airplanes then we must include the mk3 arrow the mk4. the anti icbm proposal the mk4 with ramjets a total thrust of 118.000 lbs, then the ps2 canard vesion . the hypersonic space thresh hold vehicle. the plans for the future at avro were eventually carried on in certain orther projects at NASA when the team arrived there. see "Arrows to the moon" for the achievemenets by our engineers in the space program and other aircraft companies. cont'd
@LeopoldPlumtree As for the conspiracy I know no way of saying it in short. It's to long a story. But, if you follow the evidence from Pearks papers, Ikes memoirs, fall of an arrow by Murry Pedin, Palmiro Campagna's books. the chapter countdown to destruction in "AVRO AIRCRAFT and cold war aviation" the puzzle starts to form rather quickly involving the NATO, NORAD, SAGE standardisation policy. And the buy US only policy. It takes little imagination to figure out what actually happened.
@mahoganyrush300 Just the fact it takes any imagination at all is what troubles me about the foundation of these claims. I have a copy of Campagna's "Storms..." and find its slanted rhetoric enjoyable.
If we're to believe the US conspired to crush the Arrow, how do we reconcile that with the US's willingness to provide a not unsubstantial amount of assistance to the program? Wouldn't a much simpler policy of nonparticipation have been easier?
@LeopoldPlumtree aYou must remember that at that time there was a lot of independance on the part of US agencies. The USAF was totally in bed with us on this one as were many other aerospace agencies. It was not until it was revealed that the arrow was not a convetional aircraft but had moved into a new realm that the powers that be got worried because it truly did go into the realm of the later yf12 type of program Avro had just found different ways to deal with all the aerodynamic issues contd
@mahoganyrush300 The arrow was in a supersonic realm where heat due to friction is one of the worst enemies. Avro just had a different way of dealing with the issues. And in later versions had taken this to and even higher level. The LRIX plan in the US which lead to the f108 was according to the memoirs of Dr. Perkins was going to be cancelled because it could not aerodynamiclly meet that requirement. the Arrow did as did the later yf12 but in a different way. cont'd
@LeopoldPlumtree The Arrow used a honeycomb epoxy micro balloon insulation to control assues of heat spicial glass for the cock pit which allowed zero air bubbles even at the micron level an air conditioning system that cooled the airframe. It just boggles the mind to know that it was Jim Chaimberlin from Avro whom developed it at Avro then put it on gemini mercury apollo and the underside of the shuttle. The aircraft was designed to be fast very fast. cont'd
@LeopoldPlumtree Palmiro campagnas books have thier flaws but the information he researched is good. I don't agree with him on certain things he has said but he has the gist of it. He stated that the arrow could not be built now because of the differences in the aluminum. If you built the mk3 today would you not take advantage of the advances in metallurgy. I sure would and I would not deviate from avro's plan not one bit. I would do it the same I would change nothing in the basics.
@LeopoldPlumtree I just this morning found an on line book written by Fred Smye senior in the Avro company, second only to crawford Gordon. "Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow" wow what a read.
@TSR1989FF I was watching the tsr2 video a really cool airplane. I think Britain and Canada should get together and create something for the future something nimble and beautiful. There are inaccuracies in this video but the gist of it is there.
I only became aware of the Arrow Recently but am very impressed by her & that Canada came up with her in such a short time after WWII dispite having a shorter Aviation History than her contemporys, if the Arrow had reached service (in MK-2 Iroquois Engined form) she would have been a formidable "Mirage III" /
"E.E. Lightning" & "MIG 25 Foxbat" rival of that i'm sure.
I agree on the last point too but given all the conjecture reguarding the Arrow its not surprising.
@TSR1989FF A nifty airplane with some very nifty features. I work at a museum just being set up right now. But I design aircraft On a smaller scale, though I have worked out an Idea for a dual design air craft in a similar sense to the f16 and f16 cranked arrow Idea. with more inovations and superior performance. when I get the artwork complete I will let you in on the artwork and some technical drawings.
To further clarify to make sure you really have this: the enormous, obvious differences between the 172 and CF-105 which you have so aptly laid out were an extreme example to show the folly of comparing nothing more than wing loading. The actual point was centered on one thing the 172 and CF-105 do have in common - neither was designed to be a general purpose fighter. Having lower wing loading than a particular general purpose fighter doesn't automatically make it competitive with that fighter
@HarriMerivirta: It would be fast, yep...and it would also have a radar cross-section the size of a football field. It was advanced for 1959, but when held up beside today's aircraft, it would be rather archaic.
@raynus1 It is interesting and of some note that the cross section of the arrow on screen was about the size of that of a spitfire. This had not been anticipated at avro but occured only because the airfoil was so thin and the design so clean, that, having internal weapons stores. One can only speculate with the advances over time with material and coating developement what might have been. The mach4 arrow with the hustler style engine pods would have showed up to be much larger.
@mahoganyrush300: You're mistaken. Although the wing of a CF-105 utilized a thin chord, the CF-105 was a huge bird with large, flat, reflective surfaces and 90 degree angles everywhere. There were no radar-absorbant paints or materials involved with its design, and was about as far from a 'stealth' concept as a B-52. The misguided Spitfire/Arrow rcs lore comes from a planform drawing released by Avro that overlaid a CF-105 on a clipped-wing Spit for size comparison only.
@mahoganyrush300: Again, you're confused. There was never a 'Mach 4' Arrow design. Avro made drawings and cursory studies for a Mach 3 Arrow, with revised engine inlets and airframe materials, but the engines were internal. Underwing fuel pods were considered. It was to be called the Arrow 3. Avro hoped to achieve a top speed of 2000mph, with a combat speed/ceiling of Mach 2.5/69,000', from 30,000lb thrust (Iroquois 3) engines. It never made it past the drawing board.
@raynus1 The book by Randall whitcomb "AVRO AIRCRAFT and cold war aviation" explains the mach4 arrow with diagrams and drawings. All projected performance figures and specifications. Underwing fuel stores do not appear to be at all figured into the arrows design apart from the wing engine pods on the mk4. The c105 arrow brochour avro canada 1957 page four shows the fuel pod on the fusalage at the balance point between the airbrakes. Identicle to the mig 25 & 31 in this respect.
Soviets infiltrated Avro and stole documents. Look at the MIG-25 there's a striking resemblance with the Avro's design. The Concord used a lot of the Avro's technology too. The Avro was cancelled simply by pure political hypocrisy by a conservative government that lacked vision. As a result this country not only lost a future in aerospace but lost great scientists who moved to the US. Canada will never be a technological leader because of the lack of balls and lack of vision on parliament hill.
@mariomenard2009: Twin canted verticals stabs, all-moving horizontal tailplanes, non-delta wings, huge ramped intakes, external stores, and a giant radome...how does that resemble a CF-105 again (which has none of those features)? I would suggest it more-closely resembles NAA's A-5 Vigilante (save the twin tail).
the top speed of the b58 was estimated to be near mach3 again sssstttrrreachhhh the potentials..you cannot compare the planes as the b58 it has smaller wings,tail and profile to reduce drag. now if the b58 can barely reach mach3 how in the world the Avrow supose to do so.
@lakesuperiorfish Raynus1 clearly said mach 2, of which the B-58 was capable of achieving, and the CF-105 would have almost certainly been capable of exceeding.
@lakesuperiorfish: The Hustler was never designed or touted to be a Mach 3 aircraft...I would submit that you're confusing it with the much larger, much more powerful XB-70, which did attain and exceed Mach 3 numerous times. The B-58 actually had greater wing area than the Arrow, every bit as large a vertical stab, and had four drag-inducing nacelle-mounted engines, as well as a large, drag-inducing 'mission pod' slung below the fuselage. (cont'd)..
@lakesuperiorfish: (Cont'd) Although the Hustler's four J-79's produced more thrust than two PS.13 Iroquois engines in a Mk II Arrow would have, they had to shove a much heavier MTOW into the sky, and overcome more parasitic airframe drag during flight. It is entirely reasonable to project that both aircraft, again, given the numbers, would be able to attain Mach 2, and in the case of the 'clean' design of the CF-105 Mk II (internal weapons bay), likely exceed it.
@raynus1 stay with topic,,the Avro was dooomed,this is why it was scrapped and bluprint destroyed to protect the goverment. If this was a great deseign it would have been copied just like the concorde and the concordsky. the reason the two supersonic planes look so much alike is in fact this is the only shape possible.........for supersonic flight for plane this size......
@lakesuperiorfish: I agree that design shortcomings, mainly the squabbling and indecision over the weapons system, contributed to massive cost overruns that contributed directly to its demise, but the airframe in itself was sound for a mach 2+ interceptor. Odgial delta planform is NOT the 'only shape possible' for supersonic flight...suggest you have a look at Bell's X-1 or Lockheed's F-104. Until then, I'm not going to waste another minute debating with a half-wit, Canadian or otherwise.
@lakesuperiorfish Great many of the people who worked on the CF-105 went to the Concorde program. Avro Arrow was canned by a stupid decision by Diefenbaker had nothing to do with protecting the government they simply did not want to finance the program. That is where the "Black Friday" designation came from. Don't try to change canadian history by insinuating some conspiracy theory, there are enough of those in the US.
@crazynaska: It never flew with the Orenda engines, and had it done so, it likely would've had a top speed of 2.3-2.5Mach. A Raptor has a top speed of ~2.3Mach.
If you look at this piece by piece......it will never make sence but !!!! The way I see it ,as a detective point of view,,,,,there are red flags all over the place. there must have been a major flaw in or either the fuselage or the wings attachment to the fuselage.....
#1 reason,, why install a lower HP engine to test ??? # 2 why tell the test pilot not to go full throtle ??? # 3 why destroy the plane and the blueprints before the Iroquoi engine ready ???? cmmmmon on !!!!
@lakesuperiorfish: #1: Avro did not want to mate an untested airframe with an unproven engine. The J-75 had been around for several years, and was already operational on several US designs. Aircraft number 206, 98% complete at cancellation, was equipped with PS.13 Iroquois engines. #2 Even though Potocki was restricted and ordered to 1.98Mach at 50,000' respectively, performance charts suggest that a J-75-powered CF-105 would only yield only an additional 79mph (0.12 Mach) at that altitude.
@lakesuperiorfish: Optimum speed for a Mk1 (J-75-powered) CF-105 would've been gleaned at 40,000', and was only incrementally faster, at 2.15 Mach. Potocki's 'throttle to spare' comment has to be taken with a grain of salt. #3 The blueprints, airframes, and tooling were considered proprietary. Recent documents and interviews suggest that Avro's Crawford Gordon was likely the figure who issued the destruct order, not Diefenbaker or Pearkes, as many have long believed.
to destroy blueprint !!! is the smoking gun....I can see the destruction of the planes but Hey !! destroy the only proof of a great plane???????The plane was dooomed and they only realysed only after the project was long started. If something don't make sense,,,,,,,there must be a reason. I offer that reason.
@lakesuperiorfish: Avro also destroyed another of their great designs several years before the CF-105, that being the C-102 Jetliner. One has to wonder if that didn't set a precedent.
@lakesuperiorfish I'm not attempting to fog anything. What great mystery are you trying to shed light on? Where are the blueprints for the XF-103 and the XF-108? Why did the USA cancel those two interceptors? Why did Lockheed scrub the YF-12? Why did Great Britain cancel the TSR-2? If you're alluding to a conspiracy, I'll save you the trouble. Cost and perceived obsolescence killed these programs. Google 1957 Defense White Paper. The Arrow was 300% overbudget. Dief hated Liberals. Do the math.
@lakesuperiorfish: If you cannot see a relationship between the cancelled C-102 Jetliner and the CF-105, then I'll help you out. Both were Avro projects approved/bankrolled by Liberal governments. Both held immense promise. The Jetliner was shelved (then scrapped) by Avro when CD Howe ordered the program stopped due to a lack of orders, instead focusing on Orenda engine/CF-100 production. The CF-105, because it was too expensive. Both were cut up for scrap.
@raynus1 Not quite, it was John Diefenbaker who ordered the CF-105 destroyed, There was no lack of orders but even the ones from the US were stifeled by the US government because they could not be seen to be buying jet fighters from Canada of all places.
Compare the design top the Chinese Migs they are almost identical.
@HarriMerivirta: Yes there was a shortage of orders, as Great Britain was the ONLY foreign party that expressed a purchase interest, and for research rather than operational ability. They followed the development of the Arrow program, but never comitted to buy, cancelling in January, 1959. France expressed interest in purchasing the PS.13 Iroquois engines only. What Chinese MiG's? They are license-built, and none really resemble the Arrow, save the pointy end.
@raynus1 It was still a political decision to cancel the program. If the Arrow had gone into production there would have been plenty of orders for it. The intent was to supply Canadian requirements first and others after that. Well if you can't see the similarities in the Migs to the CF-105 then I suggest you go see an optometrist you definitely need new glasses.
@mahoganyrush300: The MiG 21 is directly predicated on the MiG 25. See my comments on the MiG 25. Twin canted vertical tails, all-moving horizontal stabs, non-delta wings, ramped VG engine inlets, external stores, NONE of which were Arrow features. A CF-105 really only resembles a CF-105...kind of in a league of its own.
@raynus1 I agree on most of what you say except when you look a the profile and top view the fusalage is very close. But nothing touches that arrow wing for performance to this day. at 48lbs/sq' versus 96lbs/sq' on a CF18! It is not hard to see who has the lift advantage. The mig 25 has a wing loading of 122lbs/sq'!!! what a brick!! Pilots were advised not to turn the aircraft beyond 4.4 gs. The arrow truly is in a class all by it's lonesome.
@mahoganyrush300 A Cessna 172 has wing loading of 14.1 lb/ft². Does that make it superior to the Arrow? Just because fighters have higher wing loading doesn't make them inferior to the CF-105. Designs always involve trade offs between competing considerations.
@LeopoldPlumtree Here is what you do. Buy a radio control model. Fly the model as designed. Then add wieght increase the wieght by 5oz per flight and watch the performance begin to drop more and more with each addition until either the plane folds in the air or can't get off the ground. Flight is based in fluid dynamics. Lift overcomes wieght, thrust overcomes drag. If the 172 could fly mach 2 with that wing loading or if the arrow could fly at 120 mph you might have a comparison.
In my opinion Diefenbaker made a lot of underhanded money!
gitsegukla 2 weeks ago
The British and the Canadians were both screwed by the U.S.A. Together Britain & Canada would have been too much of a rival to them. TSR2 & Arrow just imagine THAT!! Keep the faith remember we're family. Up the Canadians.
xcaibur 2 weeks ago
Vid full of faults, and majorly untrue.. I rate this video 'turd'..
gamerbwoi 3 weeks ago
it's retarted how the americans persuaded the canadian goverment to scrap the greatest plane, and then traded it for the bomark missiles. now a few years later, the americans built the black bird and called it the greatest plane ever saw. Did canada stick their noses in and complained about their plane? NO. heres a note to americans, MIND UR BUISNESS! and have some respect for our country!!!!!
UCCOSACCCSN 1 month ago
dief was an anmerican and a traitor
canadamonster 1 month ago
@canadamonster: Actually, Diefenbaker disliked most Americans (especially JFK), and railed against free trade with them. Liberals were the party most cozy with the USA in the late 1950's. True story.
raynus1 4 weeks ago
@raynus1 i am from saskatchewan and i know better. he was an american wearing a canadian flag and a traitor
canadamonster 4 weeks ago
@canadamonster: Hardly. If anything he was a western populist and anything BUT pro-american. His refusal to allow nuclear-equipped US Bomarcs onto Canadian soil was one of the key reasons he lost the '63 election. In fact, and with the possible exception of Trudeau and Nixon/Reagan, Diefenbaker's relationship with Kennedy was one of the iciest periods of Canada-US relations in the 20th century...to the extent that Kennedy insiders actively assisted in campaigning for the Pearson Liberals.
raynus1 4 weeks ago
@canadamonster: 'Traitor' because he cancelled the CF-105 program? Here's an interesting fact. The St. Laurent Liberals intended to scuttle the Arrow program themselves had they won the 1957 election, as Laurent & Howe both recognized the runaway costs (and a looming recession). Diefenbaker initially continued to fund the program (mainly to secure 3 seats in the Malton area in '58), and once the election was over and his majority realized, decided to review the file, ultimately killing it.
raynus1 4 weeks ago
Diefenbaker was elected on the promise to dump the Liberal program between their largest supporter AV ROE that was bleeding the country. None of the figures tossed around on the performance of the Arrow were ever proven.
The USA were also afraid that the project might eventually result in a top high speed intercepter aircraft and they realized that a change in government in Canada could be coming. The USA did not trust Canada under the Liberals to not sell it to the Soviets.
Bobbygn 2 months ago
Harper should quit wasting our money buying American fighters and create a project for Canadians to build their own again. Creating jobs and bringing highly skilled people back to our country.
czarpeppers 2 months ago
I hope you got an "A" on this report, because you did a WONDERFUL job here! You should be very proud.
ninjarider1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
just because the states were jealous!
ChampionStuff 2 months ago
this jet is Canadian pride.
BVISHable 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Reform's harper parlement here is so American oriented,they will never agreed on a Canadian Manufacturer,,,
they are not proud as was in the 50's when they start the Arrow project.
Bombardier could built one with all their knowledge and back ground from the compagny they baught...
we are not proud!!!!!
shame on the blue!!!!!!
veebic 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Canada should have never cancel this project...it was a fine fighter bomber aircraft ahead of its time. Canada could generates billion dollars, they could lead other countries in building military jets for many years.
zero00tolerance 3 months ago
@zero00tolerance A fantasy. Selling to who? Iran?
Fact is this plane lost its target, a tsr2 cannot shoot down an icbm, it is useless.
omgwtfbbqstfu 3 months ago 2
@zero00tolerance: It was neither a fighter nor a bomber. It was an interceptor.
raynus1 1 month ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the arrow could have been moded to work as a space transport. thats right we could have been first to the moon. theres no need for high powered rockets in high altitude.....damn conservatives blew the whole deal.
YodaGaming 4 months ago
@YodaGaming: Space flight with jet engines. You're crazy.
raynus1 1 month ago 2
Hopefully Canada can start making aircraft again. Whenever they do Canada makes some of the best aircraft in the world.
vistarox 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wouldn't call the Arrow the best fighter ever. There are much better ones today. But it was probably the best of its time. Its a shame that the program was cancelled. Canada could have made many of the best military aircraft of the world by now.
vistarox 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@cjwyi13 actually america was interested in purchasing the design plans from canada during testing, the conservatives being the idiots they were thought that the most modern and manouverabe aircraft was not worth the money
hockeybrawler22 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
seems like a very similar story to the tsr2 in England
antfrant 4 months ago
seems like a very similar story to the tsr2 in England
.
antfrant 4 months ago
my grandpa helped build the arrow and i found some blueprints of it
cdnparatrooper 4 months ago
No matter what the reason to cancel it happened & should of not been allowed to.By allowing the Canadian Conservative government to get away with it we then condemned those who built & designed the Avro Arrow for their brilliant achievement.This decision set out aircraft development back to the stone age WE are still dependent on America' for fighter aircraft so for them to allow us our own would not be profitable..Multimillion dollar contract would of been lost if we were allowed to.
planetorb 4 months ago
WE AS CANADIANS SHOULD'VE BURNED DOWN DIEFENBAKER IN HIS OWN HOUSE
DJonX7 5 months ago
sry guys i know a guy who transported the scraps off malton airport 206 didnt even have a cockpit or landing gear and 207 didnt even have wings on it or a canopy,
and what ever didnt go to the scrap yards went to recycling
hes got some photos of it being unloaded
mandypandy07 6 months ago
sry guys i know a guy who transported the scraps off malton airport 206 didnt even have a cockpit or landing gear and 207 didnt even have wings on it or a canopy,
and what ever didnt go to the scrap yards went to recycling
mandypandy07 6 months ago
it looked good but it was not the greatest ever, I doubt it was even as fast as some of the other interceptors of its time. The TSR-2, now that would have been the greatest plane ever
dmax631 6 months ago
wwhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy :(...
such an awesome plane!
stealth009 6 months ago
The speech at 6:44 gave me a crazy idea.
BRB, making religious Arrow based cult.
GangsterHutterite 6 months ago
When I become Prime Minister, we are rebooting the Canadian military aviation industry. The CF-100 and the CF-105 were all Canadian, and all awesome interceptors, and I say we can still do it again.
GangsterHutterite 6 months ago
Scrapping the Arrow was a huge mistake.
proudestmikey 6 months ago
The arrow was an interceptor NOT a fighter.
zortation 7 months ago
@zortation saw the first flight we on the runway waiting to takeoff had to wait for it to land
grahammason 7 months ago
Well done!
ross1962 7 months ago
they could have developed the entire third world for the money that went into the war industry.
And then they claim to be christians...
basvossen 7 months ago
FUCK DIEFENBAKER
DaManzMoney 8 months ago 13
@DaManzMoney No wonder he cancelled it, He's a member of the USSR
WagsterWag7 3 months ago
@DaManzMoney I will agree. He was a total idiot. After buying the missiles and fighter for the USA, we could have had 130 arrows. But I really wonder if one is still out there?
marty5371 2 weeks ago
6:14 WTF
DaManzMoney 8 months ago
They got rid of it cause Canada couldn't protect the technology from the rest of the world
DaManzMoney 8 months ago
Doubt it will fly again, no need for interceptor fighters in this day and age. Shame though, its a beauty...Can't we just make one, for the sake of awesomeness?
kop4321 8 months ago
Canada still sucks America's balls. Nothing changes since 50's.
MrkDjok 8 months ago
CANADA ROCKS!!!!!
79tazman 9 months ago
Well done!
ross1962 9 months ago
Why did they have to scrap the blue prints.??? They should have kept them instead of buying those Voodoo fighters. They paid for them with the sweat of Canadian workers and just threw it away. I wish some former employee would have kept the plans but that might be treason if he admitted to it.
ap0lmc 10 months ago
@ap0lmc When you cancel an advanced project like this it is important that your stuff is not copied by your " enemy " in this case the Soviet Union , a country with a long record of copying western design .
Best way to be sure is to have a bonfire . Thats life . Shame but thats how it is .
zarquon53 10 months ago
@zarquon53
Copies of the plans were kept and sent to the U.S. along with many of the people working on the Arrow.
VeryCanadianNews 9 months ago
@ap0lmc Well when our BAC TSR-2 Bomber was axed in 1965 & the Prototypes / Tooling etc ordered Destroyed by the Labour Government BAC itself & Workers there snuck what they could away (Skematics/ Footage/ Parts you name it), it was thanks to them that we were able to partually restore the two surrviving TSR-2 Airframes (which had escaped destruction but had been gutted of Electronics etc).
That said most of them kept quiet about it for till late 90's (probably due to the Official Secrets Act).
TSR1989B 6 months ago
i wish the americans would keep shut
kianahssportfishing 10 months ago
My dad worked for Avro from 1953 to Feb 1959 Black Fri.He was a crew chief on the Orenda Iroqois engine.He cold weather tested it in Churchill Man.At the time Canada was the leader in the aerospace industry at the time.They bought the world,s supply of titanium in 1957,perfecting the use of it in the leading edges on the wings.My dad was very bitter about the cancellation and said diefenbaker was a "hayseed from the praires".He was basically sold by the americans on a missile that was outdated.
mcorrigan2 10 months ago
one day the arrow WILL fly again. But for now the one said to have escaped will lay waiting.
JRock0085 11 months ago 11
@JRock0085 "But for now {and ever} the one said to have escaped will lay waiting {in our collective imagination}."
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago
@JRock0085 The only problem with that is if it does surface the salvage company that has the rights to the aircraft will claim it before it becomes airworthy. It really is disheartening that the US government played a hand in its downfall.
n2av8ncfi 8 months ago
@n2av8ncfi can they catch it though if it flies soo fast.
JRock0085 8 months ago
@JRock0085 Dude it flys everyday in my Home anyway Canada didn't lose by losing the Avro we still live in the best country there is so Canada WINS
DaManzMoney 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheGuilbran78 6 months ago
@JRock0085 there is no evidence one did escape. Rumours said they did let the pilot drive the last one and land before they take it away
spencerhopkins91 4 months ago
Nice job! The credits and references at the end make it more professional than most.
AgentJayZ 11 months ago
there is no way somone from that company was going to let a project like this escape completely. everyone working was a really smart person. it is very doubtful those plans are gone
mankowthegreat 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I say the U.S government talked the Canadian government into cancelling the Arrow project because they were jelous that Canada was ahead of them in the aircraft industry
cjwyj13 11 months ago 27
@cjwyj13 Probably, they are pretty full of themselves.
EVILcookie97 11 months ago
@cjwyj13 US wanted Canada to help fund a missile system in the arctic to defend against Russian nuclear threat, but the Arrow project took up most the budget. Personal tensions between the management at Avro and Canadian Prime Minister Diefenbaker, were very high. It was the Canadian Government that cancelled the project, scrapped the prototypes, and destroyed the designs. What should have been a proud moment for Canada, was shameful.
BobFromFinance 11 months ago
@BobFromFinance I wish you were in Canada in the 50's you would of seen what was really going on at the time #1 McDonnell douglas and Boeing had just finshed off de Havilland in the airwars and the ill fatal comet 1954 The B-52 bomber was breaking world records till the arrow came in and the same records could of been beat based on test flights it was faster and could carry a nuke (Canadian people were against missles) better to buy the cow then just the milk. Canada wanted to sell milk
freakyflow 10 months ago
@BobFromFinance Your in finance do the math Eisenhower seen the after math of Pearl harbor and knew that war was going to be won by the air And the same with Korea He asked about a all role fighter bomber and the same Party Fund You guessed it American aircraft companys pressured Canadian goverment to sell out to them..scrapping it and adding the design to the All new A-5 4 years later (which looks like a modded arrow) Bomb bay doors opened dropped a missle and closed in 5 secs .. The F-35 5.8
freakyflow 10 months ago
@freakyflow: You're mistaken. The A-5 Vigilante first flew in 1958..the same year as the CF-105. It was not developed from the Arrow.
raynus1 8 months ago 3
@raynus1 avro : Produced
1957 (project design initiated: 1953
A-5
First flight
31 August 1958
Introduced
June 1961
freakyflow 8 months ago
@freakyflow: CF-105 first flight March 25, 1958. Never introduced into RCAF service. A-5 production began in 1956. Project also initiated in 1953.
raynus1 8 months ago 3
U.S = assholes
unrealbook 11 months ago
@unrealbook i make fun of my friend cause hes from there and hes quite the prick if u ask me
cjwyj13 11 months ago
@cjwyj13 yes it was jelous did have nothing to do the pubic did not want to spend billions on r&d when they can buy cheaper better from other places. but u can call it anything u want, we are use to that
hotrod4you2 10 months ago
@cjwyj13
Dief was from the prairies and knew nothing about the work force in the east. Ike knew he was weak and took advantage of the situation. The conservatives faced defeat in the next election, and Dief would cry when the Canadian flag of the Liberal government, lead by Pearson was raised.
VeryCanadianNews 9 months ago
@cjwyj13 you know that kind of stupid talk adds no credibility to your nation's image and really makes no sense at all. why would we prevent an ally from deploying a capable piece of equipment that could protect us too? it's not as if we were worried about canada showing us up, please dispense with such delusions. greatest fighter ever will be proven with operational/combat history, not on paper. to date there is no clear winner, contenders must compare with others of their era yet (ctd)
batvette 7 months ago
@cjwyj13 (ctd) still you have to define the role of the aircraft. Like the arrow, today's F-22 is no aerobatic dogfighter yet many would call it the class of the skies of its time. Diplomatic constraints after 1983's KAL007 shootdown and the USS VIncennes downing of the IranAir flight dictate a visual ID a must- no aircraft is likely to be used to its full potential, such as the Tomcat/AIM-54 Phoenix was probably the most capable interceptor package EVER yet never used (the missile) in combat.
batvette 7 months ago
@cjwyj13 You're right.The Americans were jealous and very nervous the Arrow was far superior than any fighter the USAF had.Of course the Americans will denie that the Arrow was a threat to them .If thats the case why didn't they just laugh it off and ignore it? Part of the reason's is the U.S. government knew the potential of this amazing Canadian fighter.It's a shame we had a weak moron as our PM.or things would have been completely different We would have a newer advanced Arrow and alotmore
STRATCAT101 7 months ago in playlist Planes
@cjwyj13
Oh yeah that must be it...hahahaha!
1138thz 6 months ago
@1138thz must be... after the Canadian govt. defunct Avro Canada, 50,000 designers and workers and aero engineers went to Nasa.
DJonX7 5 months ago
@DJonX7
The Arrow was a fine aircraft and way ahead of its time. Unfortunately a lot of great aircraft get dumped for no good reason.
Consider the strange fate of the F-20 Tiger shark. General Dynamics had the inside track with the Air Force with its F-16. The Northrop Tigershark whipped the best versions of the F-16. But the Tigershark was 1/2 the price and had 1/2 the operational cost. Obviously other forces are in play other than performance & cost...like corruption and bribery.
1138thz 5 months ago
wasn't it stopped because americans wanted to make some treaty and have it destroyed because of fear of canada attacking them?
eatmeimsteak 11 months ago
The specs don`t look revolutionary when you look at them compared to US and UK planes built at the same time
superzapper 11 months ago
Pretty good description, i hope you had good marks for your school project.
Thank you for sharing mon ami...
canuck777777 11 months ago
EVERYTIME I read or think about how the Arrow program was so thoroughly, inexplicably 'disappeared' I have to wonder what pressure was placed on PM Diefenbaker: was he blackmailed, bribed or threatened? The incredible short-sightedness of this decision destroyed Canada's best chance to develop its own world-class aerospace industry. I have to imagine what a dynamic industry & many great planes might have been bootstrapped from the innovative lead Avro was on the verge of bringing to production.
starmanskye 1 year ago
@starmanskye "The incredible short-sightedness of this decision destroyed Canada's best chance to develop its own world-class aerospace industry."
Yet, oddly, Canada has one anyway. Yours is among the top five largest, which I would certainly think qualifies as "world class."
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago
@LeopoldPlumtree For the first thirty years we were nothing more than puppets of the US we still have no way to do what we did then. Also you must realize that all of the future aircraft and designs were lost as well. we are purchasing f35 fighters now and in the interceptor role could never keep up to the Arrow. I think it.s time to build our own. But where and by whom and how do we keep out the political interferance.
buzzbuerling 11 months ago
@buzzbuerling Avro Canada probably shot themselves in the foot with the Jetliner more so than with the Arrow. Unlike the Arrow, there was actually a foreign buyer lined up. If it proved itself and eased the wariness of other potential buyers, Avro Canada may not have been at the complete mercy of the government's wishes. A military-based economy is not necessarily something to be envied. It's not cheap when you have to fund it yourself.
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago
@LeopoldPlumtree The book Avro Canada c102 Jetliner by James Floyd tells the story. it is available at most libraries CD HOWE was the one that put an end to that dream. Avro used the plane to ferry parts and employees around the country. My boss saw the plane in winnipeg in the fifties as a kid. That is one they should build now.
buzzbuerling 11 months ago
@buzzbuerling "it is available at most libraries"
I'm afraid libraries in my area aren't that cool. :) I'll have to pick up a copy online.
LeopoldPlumtree 11 months ago
@LeopoldPlumtree Go to your library and bring one in on intralibrary loans they will find a library that has one and bring it in for you to enjoy.
buzzbuerling 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
Comment removed
superman1749 1 year ago
Feb 20th, 1959, they cancelled the Arrow.
superman1749 1 year ago
it was made to care small nukes and Canada didit wont them in the rong hands so the cf-105 was canceled
dimebaggy4200 1 year ago
balls n' we naws
mclarencarboy 1 year ago
It had fly by wire technology even back then. It was super advanced with a huge engine. The U.S. wanted to sell their f-101 etc. to Canada and we bent over and took it.
2010peters 1 year ago
@2010peters I very recently discovered from documentation derived from Pierre Sevigny the associate minister of defence in the diefenbaker government, that, the USA offered to pay a portion of the Arrows cost to secure the full commitment to sage and norad. And to round out the cost shareing agreement with Canada and the government refused. I did not know this a week ago I just found this out. The USAF was willing to help us out and dief said NO! I was furious to find this out.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300: Sevigny's document also lays the destruction order squarely on Crawford Gordon...not Diefenbaker.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 If you read Diefs memoirs he was shocked to find Avro was destroying the Arrow. Dief cancelled the Arrow the order and it was not really an order but a recomendation. Was given by Air Vice Marshall hugh campbell and had nothing to do with Dief. this was obtained for me from my father in law a CCRA agent doing work on other investigations that found this information. there is no paper trail what so ever that shows any government order to destroy the Arrow or anything to do with it.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@raynus1 further to this Is that it was Fred Smye that gave the order in the plant to destroy the arrow and all to go with it. It is what is missing in between that I have been searching for. I have long since felt that it may have had to do with crawford Gordon, being he drank himself to death. But it does not quite add up yet. I have ordered Campanas book on the secret files he had opened for his research. I want to hear what he has to add. My father in law said there was more he could not say
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@raynus1 He did say that there was US influence. And from Ike's papers we learn that he knew the Russians were not the threat they were made out to be. And had told Diefenbaker there was no need for the Arrow. How ever when kennedy was elected he won on the strategic air command and icbm defence Issues which infuriated Dief. If the Arrow had been left undamaged they could have then finished but It was gone.Why and by who this is what I want to know not speculative theories of US jealousies.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@raynus1 Dief was not that suspicious of the US until the Kennedy kerffuful. Then he was wary, but, it was to late. he trusted many of the wrong people on both sides of the border. You must remember that at that time the Prime Minister had almost dictatorial power. He signed us on to sage and norad without consulting parliament. this could not happen today. The decision to cancel the Arrow was his and his alone without any understanding what so ever of the impact that this was to have on Canada.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300: Remember, Diefenbaker was always suspicious of the USA...contrary to what many posters on this thread believe.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 Hi! just testing
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@raynus1 I have been doing more research and found that there actually was an American conspiracy. In talking with an individual in north carolina he said absolutly and explained how and why. Personally I never felt that thewre was a cospiracy. He also shared some info on JFK as well and some covering there. WHEW! I was rather taken aback by this but it all makes sense. He called the f108 a paper airplane. then I got the explanation.hard to believe the subterfuge, but , it was very real.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300 "An individual in North Carolina"? Well that's good enough for me. Nothing apocryphal or unverifiable about that. :P
Of course the F-108 was a paper airplane. Exactly as the CF-105 was prior to the construction of the first airframe...
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree Are you hearing your self on this. I mean no disrespect but the arrow flew. The F108? not even a paper one. But it looked good made of wood. Thats all they had no engineering drawings were ever done. The F106c? Offered to canada to replace the arrow. was cancelled two weeks after the arrow was cut up. Just another paper plane. All the promises made to canada about sage a more never materialized. Read the book avro canada and cold war aviation. On ebay very good well researched.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300 The F-108 issue wasn't central to my reply, but what I meant was that every plane went through a stage of being a paper airplane. The F-108 was simply canceled before it progressed beyond that stage. It doesn't matter, as the YF-12 was an even more advanced craft and certainly not merely a paper airplane.
I was really taking issue with the whole conspiracy bit you were talking about and the apparent lack of real corroboration.
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree If we include paper airplanes then we must include the mk3 arrow the mk4. the anti icbm proposal the mk4 with ramjets a total thrust of 118.000 lbs, then the ps2 canard vesion . the hypersonic space thresh hold vehicle. the plans for the future at avro were eventually carried on in certain orther projects at NASA when the team arrived there. see "Arrows to the moon" for the achievemenets by our engineers in the space program and other aircraft companies. cont'd
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree As for the conspiracy I know no way of saying it in short. It's to long a story. But, if you follow the evidence from Pearks papers, Ikes memoirs, fall of an arrow by Murry Pedin, Palmiro Campagna's books. the chapter countdown to destruction in "AVRO AIRCRAFT and cold war aviation" the puzzle starts to form rather quickly involving the NATO, NORAD, SAGE standardisation policy. And the buy US only policy. It takes little imagination to figure out what actually happened.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300 Just the fact it takes any imagination at all is what troubles me about the foundation of these claims. I have a copy of Campagna's "Storms..." and find its slanted rhetoric enjoyable.
If we're to believe the US conspired to crush the Arrow, how do we reconcile that with the US's willingness to provide a not unsubstantial amount of assistance to the program? Wouldn't a much simpler policy of nonparticipation have been easier?
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree aYou must remember that at that time there was a lot of independance on the part of US agencies. The USAF was totally in bed with us on this one as were many other aerospace agencies. It was not until it was revealed that the arrow was not a convetional aircraft but had moved into a new realm that the powers that be got worried because it truly did go into the realm of the later yf12 type of program Avro had just found different ways to deal with all the aerodynamic issues contd
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300 The arrow was in a supersonic realm where heat due to friction is one of the worst enemies. Avro just had a different way of dealing with the issues. And in later versions had taken this to and even higher level. The LRIX plan in the US which lead to the f108 was according to the memoirs of Dr. Perkins was going to be cancelled because it could not aerodynamiclly meet that requirement. the Arrow did as did the later yf12 but in a different way. cont'd
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree The Arrow used a honeycomb epoxy micro balloon insulation to control assues of heat spicial glass for the cock pit which allowed zero air bubbles even at the micron level an air conditioning system that cooled the airframe. It just boggles the mind to know that it was Jim Chaimberlin from Avro whom developed it at Avro then put it on gemini mercury apollo and the underside of the shuttle. The aircraft was designed to be fast very fast. cont'd
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree Palmiro campagnas books have thier flaws but the information he researched is good. I don't agree with him on certain things he has said but he has the gist of it. He stated that the arrow could not be built now because of the differences in the aluminum. If you built the mk3 today would you not take advantage of the advances in metallurgy. I sure would and I would not deviate from avro's plan not one bit. I would do it the same I would change nothing in the basics.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree I just this morning found an on line book written by Fred Smye senior in the Avro company, second only to crawford Gordon. "Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow" wow what a read.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
omg imagine how our air force would be today if we still had avro arrow
ClickClackPLOWW 1 year ago
imagine being an apple farmer in Mississauga in the 50s and looking up seeing this flying back and forth.
RetroArcadia 1 year ago
your speach is not very clear......
try to talk a bit slower and more clear
xalkias2 1 year ago
Impressive Video, of a even more impressive Aircraft, keep up the good work.
It would be wonderfull if one of them did surrvive.
Without question the "BAC TSR-2 Eagle's" kindred spirit (in many more ways than one) in Areospace history.
TSR1989FF 1 year ago
@TSR1989FF I was watching the tsr2 video a really cool airplane. I think Britain and Canada should get together and create something for the future something nimble and beautiful. There are inaccuracies in this video but the gist of it is there.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300 Agreed.
I only became aware of the Arrow Recently but am very impressed by her & that Canada came up with her in such a short time after WWII dispite having a shorter Aviation History than her contemporys, if the Arrow had reached service (in MK-2 Iroquois Engined form) she would have been a formidable "Mirage III" /
"E.E. Lightning" & "MIG 25 Foxbat" rival of that i'm sure.
I agree on the last point too but given all the conjecture reguarding the Arrow its not surprising.
TSR1989FF 1 year ago
@TSR1989FF A nifty airplane with some very nifty features. I work at a museum just being set up right now. But I design aircraft On a smaller scale, though I have worked out an Idea for a dual design air craft in a similar sense to the f16 and f16 cranked arrow Idea. with more inovations and superior performance. when I get the artwork complete I will let you in on the artwork and some technical drawings.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
To further clarify to make sure you really have this: the enormous, obvious differences between the 172 and CF-105 which you have so aptly laid out were an extreme example to show the folly of comparing nothing more than wing loading. The actual point was centered on one thing the 172 and CF-105 do have in common - neither was designed to be a general purpose fighter. Having lower wing loading than a particular general purpose fighter doesn't automatically make it competitive with that fighter
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
It was a revolutionary aircraft far ahead of any other in it's time. Just imagine what it would be like today if it was resurrected.
HarriMerivirta 1 year ago
@HarriMerivirta: Ummmm...obsolete?
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 Obsolete, it would still be a going concern with today's avionics. Obsolete by standards of the 50's well there you're blowing hot air.
HarriMerivirta 1 year ago
@HarriMerivirta: It would be fast, yep...and it would also have a radar cross-section the size of a football field. It was advanced for 1959, but when held up beside today's aircraft, it would be rather archaic.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 It is interesting and of some note that the cross section of the arrow on screen was about the size of that of a spitfire. This had not been anticipated at avro but occured only because the airfoil was so thin and the design so clean, that, having internal weapons stores. One can only speculate with the advances over time with material and coating developement what might have been. The mach4 arrow with the hustler style engine pods would have showed up to be much larger.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300: You're mistaken. Although the wing of a CF-105 utilized a thin chord, the CF-105 was a huge bird with large, flat, reflective surfaces and 90 degree angles everywhere. There were no radar-absorbant paints or materials involved with its design, and was about as far from a 'stealth' concept as a B-52. The misguided Spitfire/Arrow rcs lore comes from a planform drawing released by Avro that overlaid a CF-105 on a clipped-wing Spit for size comparison only.
raynus1 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300: Again, you're confused. There was never a 'Mach 4' Arrow design. Avro made drawings and cursory studies for a Mach 3 Arrow, with revised engine inlets and airframe materials, but the engines were internal. Underwing fuel pods were considered. It was to be called the Arrow 3. Avro hoped to achieve a top speed of 2000mph, with a combat speed/ceiling of Mach 2.5/69,000', from 30,000lb thrust (Iroquois 3) engines. It never made it past the drawing board.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 The book by Randall whitcomb "AVRO AIRCRAFT and cold war aviation" explains the mach4 arrow with diagrams and drawings. All projected performance figures and specifications. Underwing fuel stores do not appear to be at all figured into the arrows design apart from the wing engine pods on the mk4. The c105 arrow brochour avro canada 1957 page four shows the fuel pod on the fusalage at the balance point between the airbrakes. Identicle to the mig 25 & 31 in this respect.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
Soviets infiltrated Avro and stole documents. Look at the MIG-25 there's a striking resemblance with the Avro's design. The Concord used a lot of the Avro's technology too. The Avro was cancelled simply by pure political hypocrisy by a conservative government that lacked vision. As a result this country not only lost a future in aerospace but lost great scientists who moved to the US. Canada will never be a technological leader because of the lack of balls and lack of vision on parliament hill.
mariomenard2009 1 year ago
@mariomenard2009 >>> "As a result this country not only lost a future in aerospace..."
Bombardier apparently didn't get that memo.
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree: Or Canadair, and more recently, Viking Air.
raynus1 1 year ago
@mariomenard2009: Twin canted verticals stabs, all-moving horizontal tailplanes, non-delta wings, huge ramped intakes, external stores, and a giant radome...how does that resemble a CF-105 again (which has none of those features)? I would suggest it more-closely resembles NAA's A-5 Vigilante (save the twin tail).
raynus1 1 year ago
the top speed of the b58 was estimated to be near mach3 again sssstttrrreachhhh the potentials..you cannot compare the planes as the b58 it has smaller wings,tail and profile to reduce drag. now if the b58 can barely reach mach3 how in the world the Avrow supose to do so.
lakesuperiorfish 1 year ago
@lakesuperiorfish Raynus1 clearly said mach 2, of which the B-58 was capable of achieving, and the CF-105 would have almost certainly been capable of exceeding.
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
@lakesuperiorfish: The Hustler was never designed or touted to be a Mach 3 aircraft...I would submit that you're confusing it with the much larger, much more powerful XB-70, which did attain and exceed Mach 3 numerous times. The B-58 actually had greater wing area than the Arrow, every bit as large a vertical stab, and had four drag-inducing nacelle-mounted engines, as well as a large, drag-inducing 'mission pod' slung below the fuselage. (cont'd)..
raynus1 1 year ago
@lakesuperiorfish: (Cont'd) Although the Hustler's four J-79's produced more thrust than two PS.13 Iroquois engines in a Mk II Arrow would have, they had to shove a much heavier MTOW into the sky, and overcome more parasitic airframe drag during flight. It is entirely reasonable to project that both aircraft, again, given the numbers, would be able to attain Mach 2, and in the case of the 'clean' design of the CF-105 Mk II (internal weapons bay), likely exceed it.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 stay with topic,,the Avro was dooomed,this is why it was scrapped and bluprint destroyed to protect the goverment. If this was a great deseign it would have been copied just like the concorde and the concordsky. the reason the two supersonic planes look so much alike is in fact this is the only shape possible.........for supersonic flight for plane this size......
lakesuperiorfish 1 year ago
@lakesuperiorfish: I agree that design shortcomings, mainly the squabbling and indecision over the weapons system, contributed to massive cost overruns that contributed directly to its demise, but the airframe in itself was sound for a mach 2+ interceptor. Odgial delta planform is NOT the 'only shape possible' for supersonic flight...suggest you have a look at Bell's X-1 or Lockheed's F-104. Until then, I'm not going to waste another minute debating with a half-wit, Canadian or otherwise.
raynus1 1 year ago
@lakesuperiorfish Great many of the people who worked on the CF-105 went to the Concorde program. Avro Arrow was canned by a stupid decision by Diefenbaker had nothing to do with protecting the government they simply did not want to finance the program. That is where the "Black Friday" designation came from. Don't try to change canadian history by insinuating some conspiracy theory, there are enough of those in the US.
HarriMerivirta 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This jet was perfect in it's day. With its ORENDA engines made in Mississauga it was almost twice as fast as today's F-35 and Raptor! WOW!!!!!!!
crazynaska 1 year ago
This jet was perfect in it's day. With its ORANDA engines made in Mississauga it was almost twice as fast as today's F-35 and Raptor! WOW!!!!!!!
crazynaska 1 year ago
@crazynaska: It never flew with the Orenda engines, and had it done so, it likely would've had a top speed of 2.3-2.5Mach. A Raptor has a top speed of ~2.3Mach.
raynus1 1 year ago
If you look at this piece by piece......it will never make sence but !!!! The way I see it ,as a detective point of view,,,,,there are red flags all over the place. there must have been a major flaw in or either the fuselage or the wings attachment to the fuselage.....
#1 reason,, why install a lower HP engine to test ??? # 2 why tell the test pilot not to go full throtle ??? # 3 why destroy the plane and the blueprints before the Iroquoi engine ready ???? cmmmmon on !!!!
lakesuperiorfish 1 year ago
@lakesuperiorfish: #1: Avro did not want to mate an untested airframe with an unproven engine. The J-75 had been around for several years, and was already operational on several US designs. Aircraft number 206, 98% complete at cancellation, was equipped with PS.13 Iroquois engines. #2 Even though Potocki was restricted and ordered to 1.98Mach at 50,000' respectively, performance charts suggest that a J-75-powered CF-105 would only yield only an additional 79mph (0.12 Mach) at that altitude.
raynus1 1 year ago
@lakesuperiorfish: Optimum speed for a Mk1 (J-75-powered) CF-105 would've been gleaned at 40,000', and was only incrementally faster, at 2.15 Mach. Potocki's 'throttle to spare' comment has to be taken with a grain of salt. #3 The blueprints, airframes, and tooling were considered proprietary. Recent documents and interviews suggest that Avro's Crawford Gordon was likely the figure who issued the destruct order, not Diefenbaker or Pearkes, as many have long believed.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1
to destroy blueprint !!! is the smoking gun....I can see the destruction of the planes but Hey !! destroy the only proof of a great plane???????The plane was dooomed and they only realysed only after the project was long started. If something don't make sense,,,,,,,there must be a reason. I offer that reason.
lakesuperiorfish 1 year ago
@lakesuperiorfish: Avro also destroyed another of their great designs several years before the CF-105, that being the C-102 Jetliner. One has to wonder if that didn't set a precedent.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1
cmonnn now don't fog-up the the subject,,,,stay with the 105.
lakesuperiorfish 1 year ago
@lakesuperiorfish I'm not attempting to fog anything. What great mystery are you trying to shed light on? Where are the blueprints for the XF-103 and the XF-108? Why did the USA cancel those two interceptors? Why did Lockheed scrub the YF-12? Why did Great Britain cancel the TSR-2? If you're alluding to a conspiracy, I'll save you the trouble. Cost and perceived obsolescence killed these programs. Google 1957 Defense White Paper. The Arrow was 300% overbudget. Dief hated Liberals. Do the math.
raynus1 1 year ago
@lakesuperiorfish: If you cannot see a relationship between the cancelled C-102 Jetliner and the CF-105, then I'll help you out. Both were Avro projects approved/bankrolled by Liberal governments. Both held immense promise. The Jetliner was shelved (then scrapped) by Avro when CD Howe ordered the program stopped due to a lack of orders, instead focusing on Orenda engine/CF-100 production. The CF-105, because it was too expensive. Both were cut up for scrap.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 Not quite, it was John Diefenbaker who ordered the CF-105 destroyed, There was no lack of orders but even the ones from the US were stifeled by the US government because they could not be seen to be buying jet fighters from Canada of all places.
Compare the design top the Chinese Migs they are almost identical.
HarriMerivirta 1 year ago
@HarriMerivirta: Yes there was a shortage of orders, as Great Britain was the ONLY foreign party that expressed a purchase interest, and for research rather than operational ability. They followed the development of the Arrow program, but never comitted to buy, cancelling in January, 1959. France expressed interest in purchasing the PS.13 Iroquois engines only. What Chinese MiG's? They are license-built, and none really resemble the Arrow, save the pointy end.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 It was still a political decision to cancel the program. If the Arrow had gone into production there would have been plenty of orders for it. The intent was to supply Canadian requirements first and others after that. Well if you can't see the similarities in the Migs to the CF-105 then I suggest you go see an optometrist you definitely need new glasses.
HarriMerivirta 1 year ago
@HarriMerivirta: Which MiG, specifically? Please...enlighten me.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 check out the mig 31 it will suprise you.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300: The MiG 21 is directly predicated on the MiG 25. See my comments on the MiG 25. Twin canted vertical tails, all-moving horizontal stabs, non-delta wings, ramped VG engine inlets, external stores, NONE of which were Arrow features. A CF-105 really only resembles a CF-105...kind of in a league of its own.
raynus1 1 year ago
@raynus1 I agree on most of what you say except when you look a the profile and top view the fusalage is very close. But nothing touches that arrow wing for performance to this day. at 48lbs/sq' versus 96lbs/sq' on a CF18! It is not hard to see who has the lift advantage. The mig 25 has a wing loading of 122lbs/sq'!!! what a brick!! Pilots were advised not to turn the aircraft beyond 4.4 gs. The arrow truly is in a class all by it's lonesome.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago
@mahoganyrush300 A Cessna 172 has wing loading of 14.1 lb/ft². Does that make it superior to the Arrow? Just because fighters have higher wing loading doesn't make them inferior to the CF-105. Designs always involve trade offs between competing considerations.
LeopoldPlumtree 1 year ago
@LeopoldPlumtree Here is what you do. Buy a radio control model. Fly the model as designed. Then add wieght increase the wieght by 5oz per flight and watch the performance begin to drop more and more with each addition until either the plane folds in the air or can't get off the ground. Flight is based in fluid dynamics. Lift overcomes wieght, thrust overcomes drag. If the 172 could fly mach 2 with that wing loading or if the arrow could fly at 120 mph you might have a comparison.
mahoganyrush300 1 year ago