This plane will never be forgotten, no matter how "obsolete" it isn't. Mach 3 performance in a 1950's design is what makes this plane one of the greats. It proves that Canada can keep up.
The CF-105 was an interceptor, not an interdictor, and the TSR2 **would** have been the best interdictor if the F-111, the Blackburn Buccaneer or A-6 Intruder never existed in that same early-60s time period. I mean the F-111 alone could carry 3x the TSR2's payload 25% further and 20000ft higher and had a much smoother and faster ride when hugging the Earth. The Poms got the plane they really wanted with the Tornado that they never would have had with the TSR-2. The TSR-2 was pretty much just a larger, less efficient F-105 with a smaller payload, and the Thud was never going to be a great interdictor. An 'Okay' interdictor, but not remotely 'great' one.
@Rob Peters More like just American industries being more numerous and producing more variety. While the role the CF-105 was filling was a dead-end with the advent of ICBMs.
We need to bring the arrow back, it will help kickstart our aeronautics division in universities, create an industry where engineers can remain in Canada, and sell this terrific plane worldwide! Canada can do it, let’s get on board people! 🇨🇦
@MavHunter20XX "For the past 25 years, A glorified crane has proven itself to be more like the space shuttle’s right hand - or maybe its whole right arm, capable of both heavy lifting and an incredibly delicate touch.The remote manipulator system - named Canadarm in honor of the country that built it" “It was a major breakthrough" quote from NASA website
MiG 21 first flew in 1955, three years before the CF-105. The (unused) Iroquois engines used a significant amount of titanium, but the Arrow's airframe was mainly aluminum alloy.
Check your facts. The 'white paper' being circulated at the time actually condemned Interceptors as well as bombers. This, combined with the CF-105 program running drastically overbudget (several times the original amount) and requiring extensive modifications for an updated weapons system (re-tooling of the entire forward fuselage to accomodate a larger radome...which in turn required updating of the flight control system) effectively killed the project.
Jim Floyd considers himself Canadian. The Avro Arrow was designed and built in Canada, by Canadian engineers. I've met and talked to many of the former Avro employees. There was no British involvement whatsoever in this airplane. Avro was a British company, originally, during WWII when they were building 12 cylinder piston engine bombers. The Canadian Avro, which designed the Arrow, was a completely separate company which focused on advanced jet aircraft.
@raynus1 The arrow structure in mk3 arrow included airframe air conditioning (which temprature control failure nearly froze zura in one flight) epoxy micro baloon insulation and other exotic metals in heat critical areas to control heating. you also had in the arrow the issue of heat a tempting to expand the wing and fuel in the wing trying to cool the structure changing the aerodynamics of the wing. these issues were ocercome by designing the air foil to compnsate for these changes.
@kapquarfa Oh, I wouldn't call it generic. Sure, there were other tailless deltas, but the Arrow had a very distinctive appearance. The trailing edges of the wings tapering rearward sets it apart from most other deltas. A very pretty bird.
That's what I'd say your de Havilland of Canada DHC-2 Beaver, acknowledged around the world as "THE" great bushplane of all time, was. Not to mention, when that scientist in Antarctica a few years back needed to be airlifted out in the harshest conditions, what was the only aircraft of appropriate ruggedness and rough-field capability? A Canadian-built DHC-6 Twin Otter. There are also many nations that rely on your CL-215/415 fire-fighting amphibians, even the U.S. leasing a few each season.
To the people complaining that the US arms industry killed the Arrow... please. The Canadian government killed it because they couldn't afford it. Canada built a world class aircraft, but didn't have a world class economy to pay for it. It simply made more sense economically to license-build existing designs. Same thing for the TSR. Britain's population and economy couldn't keep up with the budget demands of such world beating aircraft... which is why they went to less expensive aircraft.
XF-108 was by North American (later Rockwell) aerospace, a proposed fighter escort to their XB-70 bomber. Both canceled because it became apparent that soviet missiles could take out high flying bombers and the new bomber tactic was to go low and under radar. XF-103 by Fairchild Republic Aviation, an idea for a Mach 4 interceptor, but never went past mock up stages.
A.V. Roe Canada was completely autonomous. Also, a majority of engineers and workers were Canadian born. Yes, there were a few Brits employed there. However, some Canadian companies have mostly Chinese or Phillipino employees. Do we then say that they are Chinese companies, or Chinese achievements? No, they are still 100% Canadian achievements (e.g. the Canada Arm), we don't say they are "Chinese Achievements", even though many Chinese engineers worked on it.
@mahoganyrush300: Doubtful. The CF-105 still utilized aluminum alloy machined wing skins. Aircraft designed for sustained flight at mach 3 required stainless steel, inconel, or titanium skin panels. The A-12/SR-71 required expansion-gapped corrugated titanium panels. The XB-70 required a massive freon cryogenic heat-exchanger assembly to cool the interior, as well as cooled 'wet walls' around the landing gear and drag chute bays.
Apart from the exterior/airframe, much of what the CF-18 (Canadianized F/A-18A/B) is today is entirely of Canadian (specifically, Bombardier) origin. This is thanks to a number of midlife upgrade programs conducted by the company which have brought the CF-18 fleet up to F/A-18C/D+ standard, this using primarily 'Canadian' systems and avionics. Bombardier Aerospace has also been highly involved in modernizing various fighter aircraft (primarily MiG-29) operated by air forces of eastern Europe.
Its funny when historians claim that the Arrow was cancelled because of bombers being obsolete with the era of ICBM's. Well guess what, back in the 50's and 60's we had something called Electronic Counter Measures We had the ability to jam radar systems, dazzle missile tracking systems, and this one fact on its own trashes the entire idea of the Arrow being cancelled because of bombers becomming obsolete. The Americans wanted to dominate the Aerospace industry
The CF-105 and the XB-70 were both great weapons of the cold war. Both were NEVER meant to go into production. They were built to make the Soviets spend billions of rubels on counter measures like the MIG-25 and other weapons systems. The cold war was fought in the wallet and not the battlefield.
The 5 CF-105's that flew were technically production aircraft built on the production line. There were many arrows close to final assembly behind them on the production line including RL-206, RL-207 and RL-208 which were Arrow Mark 3's which would have been equipped with the Iroquois engine. RL-206 was mere weeks from runway testing when the program was axed. It would have blown everything out of the water even more than the temporarily equipped Pratt & Whitney J75's.
@JohnQRandom The test pilots were Jan Zurakowski and Spud Potocki both of polish desent Peter Cope of great britian and RCAF evaluation pilot Jack Woodman born and raised in Saskatoon. Jack was the only canadian born pilot to fly the arrow. His job was to put the plane through it's paces and was very impressed with what the air craft was able to do. Having flown the american planes he Knew the difference. The movie is 50% balogna But its like britany spears It's fluff but it's fun fluff.
This movie is as embarrassing as some of the comments by Canadians on here. Diefenbaker was more of an uninformed fool rather than a traitor. Hindsight is 20/20 and we look back on the Arrow as a 'what might have been' rather than thinking about the huge hurdles that it still had to surmount to get into squadron service. Just leave it as it is. A great Canadian aircraft that was at least the equal to the F-4 and BAC Lightning for the role it was designed...
Because it flew with "just for now" engines during its testing stages Only one Arrow was fitted with the Orenda Iroquois engines and it never left the ground. So knowing that it never exceeded 1.96 on underpowered engines, one should be able to realize that had it been tested wtih the Iroquois engines, it would have surpassed Mach 2 easily. There are many people who don't realize why this plane was really cancelled. "Obsolete bombers" is definitly impossible to believe
Did you ever meet Jan? How do you even know what he thought? He was Canadian. Besides, he was just a pilot. Pilots are a dime a dozen. This was a pure Canadian plane, and many years ahead of anything any other country was building. The Polish have never built anything that worked in their life.
I'm well aware of the intended airspeeds the Iroquois-powered CF-105 would've likely achieved. The point is, it never happened. There are people on this site posting absolute rubbish about the Arrow...some suggesting it was the fastest aircraft of the day. It wasn't. Your 'American' theory is off the mark as well. The CF-105 posed little technological 'threat' to the US aerospace industry. They already had aircraft equally as capable in operation or being tested (F-106, A-5, F-4).
In 1976, a M-25 was captured and showed no technological advances that could have been gleaned from the "Arrow programme". In fact, it was GOODWILL gestures to the former Soviet Union when Russian delegates were allowed to tour General Dynamics facilities, that "leaks" originated from. The Russian "delegates" wore shoes with special soles that "gathered" shavings from the plant's floor and whose properties were later "analyzed" back home.
Read the same story of Russians visiting a Rolls Royce factory in the 1950s. But if you have VIPs visiting your factory, or village, everything is clean, swept and freshly painted.
@raynus1 3 yf1.2 were built it test fired six missles. Intersting fact to know is that when avro was approached in 1958 on a proposed spyplane the specs of the then secret skunk works aircraft were shown to jim floyd his answer was that the arrow fit that requirement but would need refueling in the air the americans were shocked . read the arrow by less wilkinson. stainless steel was the proposed metal for future arrows. that would have been employed in critical areas of heat.
"Perhaps one of the most entrenched myths surrounding the Arrow was its technological pre-eminence in the 1950s. While it was an advanced aircraft, the Arrow was one of only several being developed at the time. Of these, the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom represented a true technological breakthrough. Its design - a fast, multi-role fighter with a powerful radar - would define future fighter innovation, with more than 5,000 eventually produced. The Arrow, a heavy bomber interceptor, was an evolutionary dead-end, partly due to the advent of the intercontinental ballistic missile. Among Canadian allies, this unique aircraft type would disappear over coming decades, largely replaced by the more versatile fighters of the F-4’s mould. The Arrow program had other major flaws, but none was as fatal as its cost. Each Arrow was projected to cost more than three times that of the Phantom and still faced serious development challenges until it was cancelled. These straightforward facts, not the myth of an American conspiracy to end the program, explain the Arrow’s demise. Continuing with such a program today would be a national scandal. To some degree, it was a scandal in 1959, given that the program’s failings were well known by 1957 yet it continued development for one more year, resulting in nearly $200 million in additional expenditure before its cancellation." SOURCE: www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/time-to-lay-the-avro-arrow-myth-to-rest-richard-shimooka-in-the-winnipeg-free-press/
Bullshit! The U.S. had nothing close to this aircraft at the time, l don't care what anyone else says or writes... When Canadian officials went to the U.S. for them to build such an aircraft, they turned it down, saying that it was impossible... But now, of course, they say whatever they want, because heaven forbid, Canada could never beat the US at anything, but it did! They learned A LOT from this aircraft and I wouldn't be surprised if the Arrow which was believed to have got away, ended up in their hands, as most of those engineers went to work for American aviation companies...
@@johnmano1439 Bullshit! You can't prove any of your myths. This is all Urban Legends for ignorant people of low IQ. I suppose Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster was also behind the Arrow's cancellation 🤣🤣🤣😊😊
@@mikemanners1069 It's just a massive coping mechanism. It's *their* own aircraft and design so for it to go defunct isn't the result of rational thinking and changes in doctrine, but "THE BIG BAD U.S.A. AND OUR OWN DUMB POLITICIANS!!!". At least the U.S. was nice enough to have let the Canadians produce licensed copies of their aircraft; their F-101 Voodoos, F-5 Freedom Fighters, and F-104 Starfighters were all made by Canadair. Compare that to how General Dynamics shafted the UK in giving an over-budgeted F-111 variant.
@JohnnyRock2000 lol apparently we are buying them back this year. Something like 65 f-35 jets. We should have kept the plans though. It makes no sense, like building a sand castle and destroy it, accept it was a really expensive sand castle lol.
Once upon a time we had a shot at something called the AVRO ARROW, it was cut into pieces and replaced with the BEAUMARK missle who's war heads were then filled with sand(DUDS). Today we have something called KYOTO. It was cut up into little pieces and replaced with the Clean Air Act....Another Tory DUD!
Polish fighter pilot in Britain and "Avro" test-pilot Janusz Zurakowski .... he passed away in Northern Ontario Province a while ago. After ARROW project was demolished by stupid newly elected Canadian government, Zurakowski stopped flying at all and settled down up North in Ontario Province with his family.
I've got to get a copy of this flick. Seems the Avro folks were fifteen years ahead of the F 15, F14, Mig 21 fighter era. I hear they figured out how to use a lot of titanium in it's contruction. Cool looking plane
Given Canada's current AF strength..... you guys could actually use a squad of Arrows as AWACS at least.... The winter is going to be much more effective than your 80 Hornets.
@DesScorp Absolutly untrue. The final cost of the Arrow was less than the cost of the cf100. Avro built 629 CF100 aircraft at an all up cost of $780 mil. the final cost of the Arrow fully deployed for 100 Arrows was around that same figure at $660mil. consider this. That for many years we defended the north with 66 VooDoo air craft. and now are doing the same with Cf18s of around 100 planes now in service. the Arrow was built in such a fashion as to give the airframe extended sevice life...contd
The Arrow was built "fresh" from the ground up. JAMES C. FLOYD oversaw that process. SHAPE, STRUCTURE etc. would have evolved from testing and input from the various engineers. So you're telling us that Mr. Floyd did all this work, by himself... and he pre-knew just what would work, and what wouldn't? You have no idea, obviously--
@lucmitchify It wasn't really a matter of US approval/disapproval. The prevailing thinking (among the British, Americans, etc.) held that interceptors were going to become increasingly redundant in an age of strategic missiles. Of course the role didn't entirely disappear, but a large, expensive program to fill such a narrow role was difficult to justify.
@mahoganyrush300 I've stated somewhere before I'm not entirely convinced of the F-35 would be the best solution for Canada, especially given the costs. I'm not even close to being an expert analyst on these matters, but it seems to me that the philosophy behind the F-35's A2A capability is predicated on the notion it'll never allow any situation to degrade to within visual range. Not sure how well that'll work in the real world. The close company of an Su-27/30/35 might be nerve wracking.
@JohnQRandom If you look at all the airplanes that the US sold to canada the brits the israelis the germans the french The dutch the belgians. And we are buying the F35 that is still not able to meet the arrows performance. The big difference between the two is that the F35 is VTOL. It is a strike fighter as opposed to an interceptor. The arrow with its removable weapons pack would easily adjust to the job being able to carry missles bombs or teddy bears if thats what you wanted.
@PinchinFilms So you are Jans grandson, very cool. i spent some time on the phone with him when I did my research on the arrow in the early eighties. He gave me some very interesting information on the flying characteristics of the plane, a very cool guy allround.
To "JohnQRandom": You have the term "outsourcing" very confused. Please look it up in the dictionary. If NASA hires someone who happens to be Canadian, that is not outsourcing. That is called "hiring". If NASA hires 30 people from another country, that is still not outsourcing. That is called "hiring". Outsourcing involves the transfer of the management and/or day-to-day execution of an entire business function to an external service provider.
I think you're a little confused. Outsourcing is when you have the work done overseas. NASA didn't outsource. They hired Canadians and moved them to the US. That's called a brain drain, not outsourcing. Also, the chief engineer was Jim Floyd. Both Jim Floyd and John Hodge were British ex-pats. However, Jim Floyd still considers himself Canadian; he permanently settled here (and I know him personally). John Hodge considers himself American; he permanently settled in the USA.
@DesScorp Would likely still be in service though in the more advanced forms that the company had on the drawing board. As for the tsr it is very clear far more so than with the arrow that US interference on several levels most definitly occured.
@raynus1 the spyplane was proposed first the interceptor idea later. under the guise that an interceptor flying out of area 51 would not seem then unusual. A look into Lyndon Johnsons papers hint at this. we do know he announced the existance of the yf12 in 1963 the proposal itself was cancelled in 64 but continued flying for research. What kind who knows. the sr71 and the arrow are in many ways comparable aircraft both handling the same difficult problems in different ways migs25 & 31 also.
@redbaroniii is equivalent to the Arrow. the much debated Foxbat is in that vien but could not divert the heat for sustained mach3 flight the arrow could because of the honeycomb micro balloon epoxy insulation used to control heating in the Arrow The Foxbat is very heavy by comparison. The sr71 is another airplane that could but it was unarmed as it was a spy aircraft. There is so much to know about the arrow. "Avro aircraft and cold war aviation" by Randal Whitcomb is a book you need to read.
@LeopoldPlumtree you must not forget that the Arrow was a developemental aircraft that would bypass all the miss givings that developed with the cf100.until the mkV. By the time rl 327 roled off the line we may have seen a radically different airframe. As for being a paper airplane that would be false to say. The F106c was because the company had no plans to develope the airframe any farther. It was a political ploy by political people and had nothing really to do with convair. Avro continued
@LeopoldPlumtree lol XD good point. The only thing I don't exactly like about the arrow is the fact that its shape is a little....generic. Sure it looks pretty awesome regardless but I guess that's the only downfall for me.
@JohnQRandom I saw that video, Interview of Michael Bliss. His synopsis is erronious as is His information. The arrow was not improperly tested as a for instance. His choice of language is an example of his ignorance of the entire program. American industry greatly feared the arrow and avro canada. Ike did have some influence but takes indepth explanation.
@mahoganyrush300 "The arrow structure in mk3 arrow included..." "Would have included" or something along those lines would be more like it. It was, after all, what you'd like to call a "paper airplane."
@LeopoldPlumtree -on the other hand, had every intention of forging ahead with the planes development. The science is there the materials had been ordered and were on hand and in the processing stage. There was a lot going on in that factory no one knows about. For instance the ideas behind putting a man in space was already hatching in jim chamberlins mind. A super sonic transport was drawn up and ready for presentation to any who may be interested.read the jetliner by Jim Floyd, good stuff!!!
@JohnQRandom Jealous americans never cancelled the Arrow, Dief cancelled the Arrow having been persuaded by others that it was in the countries best intrest to do so. Read his memoires he talks about this issue and explains his position. Dief was misled by numerous advisors, those that new nothing of the missle age that did not exist yet and whom new nothing of the aircraft age that did. But this missle theory marched on in the minds of the powers that be and never came to fruition.
@JohnQRandom The arrow was built using the cook craige method of development going straight into production avoiding the prototype stage . The aircraft was ready for the RCAF beginning with arrow 206 all the airforce needed to do was decide on a weapon the American airforce offered for free. There is so much to discuss that this forum is inadequate for space If you wish I will talk to you by phone on my nickel . Just let me know here, I will give you my email you can send your # I will call.
@LeopoldPlumtree I also would like to hear from you what your thoughts are on a new fighter for Canada I asked raynus the same question I would like to know what your thoughts are as well.
Originally slated for Rolls Royce power, a pair of American Pratt & Whitney J75 turbo-jets were installed. I guess that means America contributed more to the Canadian aircraft than England, eh.
@raynus1 As for the Arrows cost see Fred Smyes book on line. he was president of avro at the time. the book is called Canadian aviation and The Avro ARROW. he gives the real figures and he was the one whom really new. I was surprised at how close my own figures were. While I have your ear, that, of another aviation enthusiast. Give me your take on Canada buying a new fighter jet. Is the f35 the right kind of aircraft for Canada I favor the F18 super hornet. I would like to here your thoughts.
@adm7007 THey would have stuck with it, had the program not been so expensive. That's why they cancelled the Arrow program; it simply cost too much. Unfortunately that also meant we would get stuck with second-hand Hornets, and then switch to technologically inferior F-35's in the near future. Our air force is really a joke in terms of intimidation.
Why did they pursue both the 103 and 108 at first? Weren't they in the same role? The 103 wasn't very impressive either IMO. Its wingtips would've dragged it away from Mach 3.
@MapleLeafAce the cf 35 isnt inferior its a class -30 dBSM stealth multi role fighter carrier and v tol capable it can use more weapons and has a heavier payload it is either equal or surpasses an f 22 rapter in manouvrability and weapons payload tied in stealth wins in ability to go more places loses in speed but wins in more modern electronics an the americans backed out of the f 35 JSF program as well as the f 22 and Lockhead Martin is a multy national company not just an american company
@inhocsignovinces88 Few years older than the Foxbat. Foxbat was made to compete with the Arrow. Of Course the Arrow was cancelled because America, Candas neighbor , was jealous.
RichardBlane... there were HUNDREDS of people designing each and every aspect and component of the AVRO Arrow. JAMES C. FLOYD oversaw that process. SHAPE, STRUCTURE etc. would have evolved from testing and input from the various engineers. So you're telling us that Mr. Floyd did all this work, by himself... and he pre-knew just what would work, and what wouldn't? You have no idea, obviously--
