AVRO ARROW CANADIAN INOVATION 

Bill Yost LM SR-72's hyper-sonic R&D (funded by NASA) says Hi... Btw, there's F-16/F-22/F-35 pilots at F-16.net's forum.

FOR CANADA NEVER GOING TO THE USA! u guys are the reason the Arrow never flew

Appreciate the effort but that's all way too "scientific" for most haters (who have brains the size of peanuts).

Bravo! Good to know. \o/ .wonk ot dooG !ovarB (Love to be reminded of Canadian 1st's)

Appreciate the details! Decades ahead of anything!

You forgot about the plans to use it as a satellite launcher and ASAT system nearly THIRTY YEARS before the Pegasus system.

There have been a number of suspicious comments over the years, about the similarities in some respects, between the CF 105 and the Russian MIG 25. There may be some truth in this. Was one example of the CF 105 flown away, as often rumored? Or were some plans stolen and handed over to the Russians? Was the culprit the same sub-contractor who developed the ejection seat and the drag parachute? (Having engineered these original designs for the German ME 262 in Austria, in 1942.)

Yup it sounds like its starting to catch traction to there are multiple replicas of the arrow of different scales in current construction i bet once they start getting finished private companies and people with a passion will see the potential and do things without government funding i certainly can't wait for the chance to buy a flight in a replica arrow one of which and closest to completion is only 1.5 hour drive to go see from me

@@Kraigthecanadian That's pretty cool! It's nice to have stuff that's of your own national origin.

Sadly, I must agree with you. Canada had/has a work of art that never had the chance to prove herself. The Arrow, with today's technology, would be an unbeatable interceptor capable of catching up with anything thrown against her. She would, I think, fly faster, higher and farther than any 5th Gen. fighter.

Wake up Deif, you prick.

Avro Canada's aircraft operations are owned by UK BAE.

So why didn't BAE take greatest invitation of the time to UK as the most brilliant rather then destroy it?

The next Canadian Government should have revived the program

Weak prime minister like our current one being told to hold a company CFO while Trump uses us in his trade negotiations, a Russian spy infiltrated the program, the Americans wanted those engineers, Avro also fucked up apparently they did not give the give the proper speed numbers cause they wanted to sell their own jets, but it was faster then reported, even sadder is that before the Arrow was contracted Avro had a Airliner on the drawing board which would have been released before the DC-8... If not contracted at all we could have had our own major airline company for decades employing thousands but what can u do...

ROFLMAO....so cheap.....adjust your figures for inflation. The Arrows costs were growing at such a rapid rate they were estimating a individual cost of 13 million Canadian.....in today's dollars that is 111 million which makes it more expensive than the F-35 and three times the cost of a F-106. The Arrow was also a single mission interceptor.....it was not a FIGHTER. It would have gotten clubbed like a baby seal against any 4th gen aircraft. A lot of third generation FIGHTERS would have clubbed it as well. The Arrow was designed to fly really high, really fast, in a strait line. It was not designed to dogfight with other fighters.

Brian Garner, 3G pull dogfight fighter is lease impressive.

You have got to be less than 10 years old to believe a 60 year old aircraft design could compete against a modern 5th gen fighter.

@@CRAZYHORSE19682003 As no Russian fighter then-had the range to escort bombers into Canadian airspace, and mid-air refuelling was still a thing of the future, the agility of a pure bred interceptor was not a major concern in 1958. Today, a modernized Arrow could perform, perhaps, much the same role as the MiG-31 in Russian service (i.e. being less concerned with bomber threats and more concerned with intercepting long range air, surface, and submarine-launched missiles).

Easy there Brian....from one Avro Arrow lover to the next . She'd need a little updating in order for her to fulfill that dream.. she was a wee tad heavy compared to todays crafts as well the pound to weight ratio a little off . But apples to Apple's with the Iroquois engines both the 22 and the SU might have trouble keeping up in a Sprint. Just dont turn to quick lol Arrow lover for ever

Landen Schooler not going to happen, the US wants Canada to buy F 35’s

Like Wakanda, the AVRO is fiction.

Byte Me : Wakanda is fiction?!

after 70 years, this still holds true

YES IT IS!!! All our screaming for a Canadian made solution finally got through! The gov. better listen if they know what's good for them. Look at who's Prez now!

I invite you to Avro Arrow The One That Was Saved, here is the link facebook.com/groups/974566415906060/

As a Canadian, nothing would make me more proud to see an avro arrow fly again with all the new bells and whistles.

Edward Cabaniss with suitable upgrades and improvements? That would be like America resurrecting the F-4 Phantom for production again, with upgrades and improvements, of course...

Thank you Edward, you're a class act!

Put a canard up front...eurofighter. Woe is me! What a blunder Diefenbacker!

F-4 Phantom 2 was modified with forward canards and there's even a plan for mach 3 F-4X Phantom 2 which is cancelled for F-15/F-16 programs.

Alexander Reimer I live in Oakville!

I'm with you, unfortunately, the cost of building only one is prohibitive. A lot of the cost of producing the aircraft come from design and plant-tooling, those are fixed costs that won't chnge regardless of how many are made. It's the mass-production of the aircraft that offests these costs. If mass-production doesn't occur, the producing company is more or less left holding their dicks and can easily go under as a result. Just look at Northrop. The F-20A Tigershark was, in many ways, superior to the F-16 Flying Falcon but politics dictated that the Falcon would get built. Northrop almost lost their shirts because of it. If the F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II hadn't been so successful, they'd be dead now.

@@AvroBellow No, the F-20 wasnt superior to the F-16 in hardly any way but cost. And that's what it was designed to be: an inexpensive, but less capable aircraft for countries that couldn't afford more advanced planes such as the F-16, but would still give such countries an edge over adversary aircraft they would face at the time (mid-1980s) such as Mig-21, Mirage III, ect.

there is rumoured to be one in the UK

I'd join if you can sponsor someone from South of the border.

@@ap0lmc nope

Sweden a much smaller country manufactures world class armaments for export! Well, it does for the moment!

Noh no military industrial complex for Canada! how sad! :(

I know this video is about 3 years old, but I don't give a damn ... let's steal it back! I know we are capable of it, I know we can do it, f--k the US and build the super arrow.

And the Draken ,6.5000ft mach 2 and cobra manoeuver bouilt before the avro so what was so special

@@Karl-Benny The Draken or dragon, was first introduced in 1960, although first flight was in 1955. The Arrow design work started in 1953, in 1958 the Avro's first flight with the smaller Pratt & Whitney engines. Subsequent flights with these smaller engines reach a speed of Mach 1.9 and were capable of Mach 2+. The Canadian government scrapped the project in Feb 1959, before we had tested with the lighter and faster Iroquois engines. Avro had orders for over 100 Avro Arrows for Britain and several negotiations in the works for other countries. The Drakon (saab 210) was a scaled down version that had a max speed of 400 mph. The J-35a introduced in 1960 had a max speed of 1200 mph. Where as the Arrow was flying at 1458 mph in 1958. The J-35f could only reach Mach 2 after modifications made in 1990. So Karl, that is what made it so special. Can you imagine what the Avro Arrow would be able to do with 21st century tech???

the mk3 will be good in dogfights too, with a quick-change weapon bay, can be outfitted for various missions (how about a double 30mm gatling gun with electronic targeting?, bombs,air to ground, rockets, and God forbid, nuke) reload time in 1958 was 6 min refuelled. the super arrow would excel in dogfighting

the Arrow had multi-role capability but was built primarily for what Canada needs, AN INTERCEPTOR

+jay cee it could go coast to coast in Canada with one stop for fuel. It would take an F35 three fuel stops and take half the time in flight hours. It was capable of reaching the far north, completing its work and be able to return for fuel. Obviously scared the Americans enough that they had to beat up Diefenbaker.

+jay cee do more research than wiki...

+jay cee please post links to your dis-info, the first flight was for an hour at more than 450 mph

We need Arrow built now to get the program running again. Then start building stuff like mk5 (Arrow 5 wave rider, a stealth looking thing with canards and cut wings) and flying saucers that do over mach 3. This is what Canada was to have by now... We need to get started on 7th gen stuff. The Arrow that is hopefully built will be the Arrow 3 and mk4 is hypersonic (mach 5+)

So did mine, but he stayed home.

Often thought the Russians would have been better off to put the funds they put into full-deck carriers (Kuznetsov etc.) and suitable aircraft instead into putting the Yak-141 through production...embarking it on the four Kiev class then-in service. As much as the Su-33 is a superior all-round fleet defence fighter compared to the Yak-141, four Kiev class with Yak-141 would have been a more impressive force, overall, than just one Kuznetsov with Su-33.

This is a review of the book Cold War Cold Tech by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 2 The five critical attributes are: wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratio, control effectiveness, critical alpha (or stalling angle of attack) and, finally the amount of “G” loading the aircraft structure can absorb. The Arrow had the lowest wing loading of any supersonic interceptor to ever inter service, its only competition being the F-106 delta Dart and to a lesser extent, the F-22 Raptor, in terms of thrust-to weight ratio at combat weight; the Arrow was superior to everything up to the F-15 eagle. The Arrow’s allowable manoeuvring “G” at combat weight is equal, and in most cases superior to, virtually anything to fly then or since. Control effectiveness is difficult to estimate, especially with a supersonic delta design since the “moment arm” changes with control actuation and also with speed since the center of lift moves aft (back) at supersonic speeds. Designing a tailless aircraft with good manoeuvrability and stability characteristics across a wide speed range requires exact engineering. Chamberlin’s unique features on the Arrow wing, such as negative camber inboard, leading edge droop, the saw tooth/notches were responsible for the arrow’s good characteristics at subsonic and supersonic speeds. Avro’s inclusion of a Honeywell Controls engineered automated fuel management system also allowed them to tailor the aircraft’s center of gravity to be very close to the aircraft’s centre of lift at each point (and thus expected speed) in its mission. The simple secret of making a delta craft very manoeuvrable is to have the center of lift and center of gravity at nearly the same place. Sufficient control surfaces will do the rest. In interviews with Jan Zurakowski and Peter Cope, both said the Arrow had awesome natural control sensitivity. Zura mentioned the roll rate was reduced at high subsonic speeds because he felt it was excessive. It was limited to one roll, or 360 degrees, in a second. Cope mentioned that the Arrow handled very well, was very stable on approach if flown correctly (contrary to some third party sources) Jack Woodman mentioned that a mere one-fifth of an inch of stick movement would result in a 0.5 “G” loading on the aircraft, which he felt was excessive. In other words, the Arrow had very good control effectiveness, better than any other USAF and British jets these experienced test pilots flew. The simple fact is that the Arrow had an awesome power of maneuver as anyone who studies such things empirically will readily acknowledge. When 1G performance curves for even the Arrow Mk1, with the early, de-rated J-75 engines, are compared to contemporary and even current fighters, it emerges that the Arrow was a world-beating design. It had the attributes in terms of low drag, low wing loading and high thrust-to-weight to defeat virtually any fighter at low altitude in a dog fight scenario. While its delta wing is argued by some to result in a high drag during turns, the Arrow’s internal weapons and higher thrust-to weight would compensate. The Arrow 1, at higher than combat weight, Displayed a larger flight envelope than a late production F-16 Fighting Falcon that carried only two tiny heat seeking missiles. (Braybrook. Roy, “Fighting Falcon V Fulcrum,” Air International Vol. 47, No 2 Stamford Key Publishing, 1994) France’s Mirage 2000, an updated version of their 1950’s Mirage III delta fighter is also known to embarrass the F-16 at medium and high altitude in turning fights, despite the F-16’s better thrust- to weight ratio. Nevertheless, the Mirage III was never considered a competitor to the Arrow in any performance measure or military role. The Russian MIG 29 Fulcrum, under equally light conditions to the F-16C mentioned above, is equal to that of an overloaded Arrow Mk.1 An F-15C eagle, with up-rated engines, but at a true combat weight (no tanks, half internal fuel and eight missiles) displays a vastly smaller performance envelope to even an Arrow Mk.1 with at least 40% less thrust than a service Arrow Mk 2 would have had. The Arrow Mk 2, specified by Avro for the 21st Arrow, would have been able to sustain nearly 2G turn at Mach 1.8 at 50,000 feet. An F-15C could, at combat weight, sustain the same 2G turn at Mach 1.2 at 35,000 feet---hardly competitive. The F-15C was felt, subsequent to the retirement of the F-106 Delta Dart to exhibit the highest performance in the Western world on an air superiority mission. Clearly, then the Arrow had vast “power of maneuver”. It had the ability to utterly humiliate anything flying at medium and high altitude. In a supersonic turning fight at altitude, the Arrow would remain unmatched by anything save the F-22 Raptor due to the F-22’s higher thrust-to weight ratio, The Arrow still had a lower wing loading and with a drag coefficient probably under .0185 and a lift-drag ratio of over 7-1 would therefore still not be a push-over for the Raptor---all other things being equal which, of course, 45 intervening years of progress in electronics have ensured are not. Still, the Arrow Mk 2 was proclaimed to be capable of an instantaneous 6 “G” at 50,000 feet. The F-106 was also a high performer at altitude, capable of a 4 “G” at 45,000 feet whereas the Raptor is estimated to achieve 5 “G” at 50,000 feet. (Sweetman, Bill “F-22 Raptor” “The Arrow 2 design included provision for chaff and flare (chaff being radar jamming filaments with flare being heat-seeking missile confusing pyrotechnic flares), active countermeasures, while ASTRA 1 and 2 radar/fire-control systems were to incorporate its own passive and active electronic counter-measures (ECM), including infra-Red detection, tracking and launch computation (the world’s first) home-on-jamming (helping the plane to navigate to the jamming aircraft), radar warning (telling the aircraft when it was being tracked or targeted) etc.. It was fully modern compliment and introduced sophistication which is today de rigour to the world of multi-role and air-superiority fighters” The Arrow would have been a dominant aircraft for many, many years and therefore could be expected to sell well to allied nations. That American authorities would not purchase any, and recommended that Canada not produce them tells its own story. The American aviation industry would not have been comfortable with the Arrow as competition and therefore was not likely to give the Canadian firm much opportunity to compete. (Douglas, W.A.B. Note to File “CBC Program on the Avro Arrow”, 21 April, 1980) During the test flying two accidents occurred. The first one was caused by a flaw in the design of the landing gear where the mechanism responsible for turning the bogies into alignment with the aircraft centerline jammed. Engineering had already redesigned the landing gear due to minor increases in aircraft weigh before the first flight and now it was redesigned again to prevent a similar mishap. The second accident was probably due to pilot error. Spud Potocki had taken RL-202 on a long-range high-speed flight from Malton to lake Superior, conducted a supersonic run over Ottawa (on Remembrance Day!) and on returning the plane to Milton. He was very low on fuel and his approach was to fast to be able to land properly on the runway available. Fearing running out of fuel he tried to force the plane down against ground effect and locked the main wheels before there was sufficient weight on them to brake properly. This resulted in the aircraft swinging off the runway and tearing off one of the main landing gear legs and otherwise damaging the aircraft. As a result of this accident the Mk1 gear was banned from flight and replaced by the stronger and improved Mk.2 landing gear---even though the Mk.2 was significantly lighter then the MK1. This was also the fastest recorded flight of the Arrow with a speed of mach1.98 reached. Jim Floyd has related that they didn’t really know the correct atmosphere correction factor to apply to this flight and as such the flight could have been Mach 2 or slightly higher. Arrow RL202 reported an official top speed of Mach 1.98. During that flight radar vectoring recorded a top speed of Mach 2.2. They apparently decided to state the speed as Mach 1.98 in order not to record a new world speed record and agitate their peers in the rest of the industry, and their enemies in government. Others have said that A.V. Roe Canada president Crawford Gordon Jr.absolutely forbade a speed record attempt in the Mk1 Arrows, wishing to preserve this accolade for the Iroquois engine Mk2. By the fall of 1958 Avro was projecting a Mach 1.8 combat speed and 2G at 60,000 ft, exceptional even today. (PR 15 and Jim Floyd’s testimony) Also the Arrow Mk 2a which Avro hoped to introduce on line after the first 37 under construction was set to achieve a 575 nm combat radius while flying a supersonic mission! The Arrow being able the to cruise at transonic and supersonic speeds without afterburner use (Super Cruise in 1958 - 1959 is this another first? Jim100 AB) is one reason it had superior range to the competition.

a smart phone and some 9g capable cup holders

You have to factor in the RCS. With a 90° angle between the wing and the fuselage it would be a barn door on radar. Otherwise it is a solid concept.

your joking right??? with what money........facilities and staff you going to do this.....lol.....nice dream but never going to happen..sounds like mark bourdeau and his dreams

upnorth prepper, 10) *Year 1955* F-8 (mach 1.86) has upper wing with dog tooth wing edge design. F-8 already has drooped leading edge. USN's F-11F has reached mach 2 in *1957* F-35 (batch 4 builds) is the first fighter aircraft to use carbon nano-tube materials instead of carbon fiber. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Marietta_X-24#/media/File:X24.jpg 1963, Martin X24's lifting body i.e. notice the curve upper lifting body and nose design... compared this design to F-35's nose and upper back design. assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ie0Gkt.E3sFs/v1/800x-1.jpg Lockheed and Martin has merged to formed Lockheed Martin.

Not with that cappuccino drinking socialist Pig running this country you know who I mean that fruit boy Trudeau

You cannot develope a modern jet fighter for 25 billion dollars. It would cost closer to $50 billion minimum, probably more. Then you still have to pay for each aircraft coming off the assembly line at a cost of about $100-$200 million each or more. Remind me again what corporation left in Canada has the expertise to develope a modern jet fighter that can compete in todays world.

Yeah, when you return Natalie Holloway alive.

Arrow would beat the F15 in all aspects.

Arrow Mk1 doesn't follow EM theory i.e. higher empty weight = higher inertia to be overcome.

Pre-production F-12B was SR-71 based fighter interceptor.

Anubis The high-tech F-22 is notoriously finicky and not always flight-worthy. An Air Force report this year found that on average, only about 49 percent of F-22s were mission ready at any given time. (With only 187 F-22’s and even giving you 1% point 50% not mission ready that leaves only 93.5 planes ready to fly at any one time. So where will you place these aircraft around the world or even around the USA for that matter? If the rate of mission readiness keeps falling the USAF won’t have any F-22’s that are flyable. How many were lost at Tyndall AFB I saw reports that say maybe as high as 12 F-22’s were damaged. Jim100 AB) Fewer planes are ready to fly: Air Force mission-capable rates decline amid pilot crisis The F-22 saw an 11.17 percentage point reduction in mission-capable rates in 2017. It was one of several airframes that saw similar dips, contributing to an overall decline in mission-capable rates across the Air Force. (Tech Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth/Air Force) The readiness of the Air Force’s aircraft fleet is continuing its slow, steady deterioration - and this could spell trouble for the service’s effort to hold on to its pilots and its ability to respond to contingencies around the world. (Spending too much money on high-tech notoriously finicky planes like the F-22 and now the F-35 with no money left to repair/maintain on them? Jim100 AB) According to data provided by the Air Force, about 71.3 percent of the Air Force’s aircraft were flyable, or mission-capable, at any given time in fiscal 2017. That represents a drop from the 72.1 percent mission-capable rate in fiscal 2016, and a continuation of the decline in recent years. Former Air Force pilots and leaders say that this continued trend is a gigantic red flag, and warn it could lead to serious problems down the road. “It scares the heck out of me,” said retired Gen. Hawk Carlisle, former head of Air Combat Command. “It really does.” “We are seeing an Air Force that is back on its heels,” said John Venable, a Heritage Foundation fellow and former F-16 pilot who flew in Iraq and Afghanistan. “They’re all on the backside of the power curve.” Look closer at some of the service’s most crucial air frames, and even more alarming trends emerge. In fiscal 2014, almost three-quarters of the Air Force’s F-22 Raptors were mission capable. But since then, the Raptor’s rates have plunged - by more than 11 percentage points in the last year - and now less than half are mission-capable. The F-35, the Air Force’s most advanced fighter, also saw a nearly 10 percentage-point drop. It’s not just fighters. Mobility aircraft such as the C-5 and C-17, surveillance aircraft such as the E-3 AWACS and E-8 JSTARS, and the B-52 Stratofortress are some of the other critical aircraft that saw mission-capable rates decline. The B-1B Lancer and B-2A Spirit bombers experienced some improvement over 2016 - but even they are still mired in mission-capable rates of about 52 percent or 53 percent.

Rnl the YF12A was tested as an interceptor. According to Baugher,s article, 1965 with the AN/ASG-18 radar and AIM-47A weapons. Six out of seven AIM-47 tests resulted in hits, including one fired from an altitude of 75,000 feet and a speed of Mach 3.2 against a target approaching head-on at 1,500 feet. (R.L. Whitcomb Avro Aircraft & cold War Aviation.)

The SR-71 actually 'was' originally conceived as an interceptor although it was known as the A-12 in that form. Issue was that the computational power available at the time, in weapons guidance systems, simply could not handle the kind of closing velocities involved (system crashed). Through further systems development and application to a different strategic role (fleet defence), however, the missile tested on the A-12 evolved into another of particular fame...the AIM-54 Phoenix.

The YF12A in tests look really good as an interceptor I think it got 6 out of 7 hitsI have no idea way they would have canceled?

The TSR was a dumpster fire in waiting. The F-111 was superior in every single performance criteria.

This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 2 WING DESIGN (Well if you got this far then you’re ether a tech or you just really want to know the truth about the Arrow’s manoeuvrability. Either way I hope you enjoy this! Jim100 AB) The benefit of the swept wing design is twofold. First it allows a wing of a given thickness/chord ratio (T/C) to present a thinner profile to the direction of airflow once it is swept back. This is the secret of the swept wing: as you sweep the wing, the T/C ratio becomes smaller and the wing “appears” thinner to the airflow. Air molecules have less time to change direction and conform to the curved surface as you increase speed into the supersonic range. This can cause the air to separate from the wing and cause a great deal of drag and loss of lift. As the air speeds up to flow around a curve and reaches Mach 1, it produces a shock wave that adds an enormous amount of drag and radically changes the point on the wing where maximum lift occurs. It can also cause extreme structural loads, vibration and flutter. Unless the wing is curved very gradually and is very thin, this shock wave will have the tendency to move back and forth on the surface of the wing, often very quickly, with loss of control and structural failure could possible result. A wing with a small T/C ratio with a gentle curves will minimize this effect, and at the speed of sound, the shock wave will move directly to the trailing edge of the wing making the wing behave normally again. The best supersonic wing, from a purely theoretical aerodynamic standpoint, is a straight wing with zero thickness, a flat plate one point thick. This is, in the material world, impossible, so the design is always a compromise between aerodynamics and structural concerns (this combination is termed “aero-elasticity”). The straight wing is limited structurally compared to the delta because, to achieve the required thin profile, only a short span can be supported by a spar of equal thinness and comparable strength. A good example of this is the F-104 Starfighter, an aircraft with very high wing loading and thus poor low speed handling, an exceptionally high stall speed, and poor high-altitude, manoeuvrability. The long wing root of the delta wing also has several advantages in the real world. It can present a very thin T/C ratio while still being thick enough to carry a large quantity of fuel and stow the landing gear. It can be built large enough for a large aircraft while still preserving low supersonic (wave) drag and provide a high amount of lift since it will have much more area than a straight wing or a swept wing, and it can also be strong since it can carry many stress bearing spars down its length. Its arrow shape keeps it out of the supersonic shock (bow) wave produced by the nose of the aircraft until relatively higher speeds are reached. DELTA TAILESS A further advantage of the delta wing is that the control surfaces, being at the rear of the aircraft, can be used to roll or pitch the aircraft, dispensing with the need for another set of control surfaces such as the horizontal tail on conventional designs. A tail will add weight and markedly increase the supersonic and interference drag of the design. Tails also add headaches in design caused by airflow interaction with the main plane and, potentially with engine exhaust. Avro found that the best way to minimize trim drag (drag induced by any control surface deflection required for straight and level flight) and keep the center of lift where they wanted it, at extreme speeds and altitude, was to introduce a “negative camber” profile to the wing. The wing was curved on bottom, opposite to what would be considered a normal airfoil shape. This helped control the center of lift movement between very low and very high speed and was one of Chamberlin’s tricks to make the delta behave at low and high speeds. The flat upper surface still represents the closest thing to the supersonic airfoil, a flat plate, as it was perfectly straight from just behind the leading edge right to the trailing edge. This also provided the design with the feature of allowing the shock-wave to travel from the leading edge directly to the trailing edge once supersonic speed was reached thereby reducing transonic drag, center-of-left fluctuation and control-surface flutter. It also made the entire wing a laminar-flow surface at low alpha. As a result, the Arrow was one of the first aircraft to smoothly break the sound barrier as if it wasn’t really there.

This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 3 THICKNESS/CHORD RATIO The ratio of the length down the fuselage (chord) of a wing to its thickness is a major factor in the drag of a wing. A low T/C ratio is a thinner one. Form drag (discussed in more detail latter) and more pronounced at supersonic speeds and is exaggerated by separate protrusions of items in the slipstream. A wing with a low T/C ratio will have serious advantage over a thicker one in form drag at supersonic speeds. The challenge is making it produce enough lift at low speed. The delta planform proved superior in the eyes of Avro’s designers, to the swept-wing or the double-delta (With separate delta-ish tail-planes such as the F-4 Phantom, MIG-21 and to a large degree most fighters in front line service today!) The Arrow wing had an average T/C ratio of 3.6 percent and a flat upper surface. By comparison, the F-4 Phantom has a 6 percent T/C ratio at the root while that of the F-15 Eagle is in the order of 5 present. As discussed, thicker wings at supersonic speeds suffer from exponentially higher “wing drag” (drag induced by the shock wave). They also had penalties in center of lift movement and early laminar flow separation. The latter adds significantly to supersonic drag. The Arrow had a lower T/C ratio then almost any combat aircraft that has entered service (other than the F-104 Starfighter which beat the root T/C ratio of the Arrow by a mere 0.14 percent giving it a 3.46 percent T/C) While the Arrow avoided the sharp leading edge which is not good for subsonic flight. All of the mentioned aircraft above have at least three additional drag-inducing tail airfoils as compared to the Arrow. DELTA WING LEADING EDGE VORTEX Somewhat overlooked on aircraft design are the delta’s excellent lift characteristics. While it is a first class supersonic layout since it tends to stay out of the bow wave, it also has exceptional low-speed handling characteristics. From low speed to hypersonic flight, the delta is an excellent shape. The characteristics which really aids the low-speed handling and manoeuvrability is the fact that the delta creates an unusual leading-edge vortex of air that tends to keep the air attached to the wing at extreme angles of attack (60 degrees or more in some cases, while straight wings normally stall between 15 and 20 degrees). Since very high-altitude flight is actually like slow flying this vortex phenomenon gives the delta a high-altitude advantage over a trapezoidal or swept-wing as it can make more lift if the thrust is there to overcome the additional drag that high amounts of lift always creates. This gives a delta-winged aircraft the ability to maintain higher alpha before the stall, and to manoeuvre better at low speeds and in low air densities while still maintaining control. Knowledgeable fighter pilots are incredulous at the mention that the Arrow demonstrated a stall speed of only 117 knots at full combat weigh! Jack Woodman, the RCAF test pilot assigned to verify the Arrow’s performance, is actually on record as saying you really couldn’t stall the Arrow. The speed they chose as the stall speed is where the sink rate became unacceptable for landing purposes. This is the F-18 Hornet territory with the F-18 achieving its low-speed characteristics by (drag inducing) massive flap and leading-edge slat deflections plus a large deflection of the tail plane and the F-18 is known for being an excellent low-speed dogfighter! Considering the extra drag of all the Hornet’s high-lift devices, it would be interesting to compare the low altitude acceleration curves of service Hornets against those of even the Arrow Mk. 1. It may have been a much different dogfight scenario than most would assume considering the Arrow’s thrust and low wing loading. The vortex only forms when the angle of attack is increased when the aircraft is pitched up. The sudden vortex formation was found to add so much lift that deltas were known to pitch up during turns or pull up manoeuvres and tended to make the aircraft tighten in a turn without additional control stick movement. This vortex, once formed, adds massive lift unlike any conventional wing. This could cause anything from difficulties in accurately tracking a target to structural failure if not compensated for it time. This massive increase in lift, production once the vortex formed is the reason XF-92A test pilots Chuck Yeager and Frank Everest are on record as stating that the turning ability of a delta-wing aircraft is unsurpassed. They also preceded Jack Woodman’s comments on the Arrow’s delta when they said the delta, as installed on the XF-92A, just didn’t want to stall and maintains, lift and controllability at extremely high alpha. A later F-106 pilot said that if you pull up on the stick at high-speed it was a battle to maintain the turn and keep your head out of the instrument panel! (So much for those who say the Arrow wouldn’t have been highly manoeuvrable even by today’s standards!) This turn tightening problem was one that Avro had very wisely spent a great deal of time in understanding and designing solutions. LEADING-EDGE SAWTOOTH AND NOTCH Avro sought to minimize the pitch-up problem and flow reversal at the tips associated with highly swept wings by introducing a notch and saw-tooth at mid-span on the wing. With the Arrow, this combination saw-tooth/notch produced a small but powerful secondary vortex (at the point of the notch) that traveled backward almost parallel to the airflow, forming an aerodynamic “fence”. It allows a much larger delta wing to be produced, without suffering from flow reversal at the tips and thus tends to keep drag in check at high alpha, while enabling the wing to make lift. On the Arrow this vortex also crossed the point where the elevators met the ailerons giving improved control effectiveness to both surfaces. At high altitudes this feature also reduced trim drag since it made the elevators more effective, and less deflection was required. Any wing with a sharp or pointed leading edge will stall sooner than one with a gently rounded one. For low speed manoeuvrability this demands a compromise from the supersonic “flat plate” idea. To give the Arrow better low speed characteristics, as well as a higher potential angle of attack or alpha capability, a drooped leading edge was incorporated in the design while the inboard sections were fairly rounded anyway. The leading edge (saw-tooth) extension on the outboard wing section provided an excellent area to incorporate droop. The F-15 Eagle would use a similar wing design to that of the Arrow but would delete the notch/saw-tooth since its short span and lower sweep angle didn’t have the tip flow-reversal problem to such an extent. It has a higher wing loading which comparatively limits its altitude and manoeuvrability. Another feature the Arrow and the F-15 share is how the engine location and fairing with the body results in extra low speed lift due to engine exhaust induced airflow over the fuselage. In essence the Arrow used a “pumped” wing and this meant that the elevators were located in an excellent place to also benefit from extra induced flow, especially at low speeds.

This is a review of the book Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation by R. L. Whitcomb as done by Jim100 AB for informational purposes only. Part 5 TRIM DRAG Drag produced by any control deflection required for straight and level flight is termed “trim drag” Trim drag is a major component of drag in high-performance aircraft at the extremes of their speed and altitude range and is improperly ignored in most written presentation of aircraft designs. It was known that the speed and altitude varied over the very wide speed range intended for the CF-105, the alpha and thus the point on the body of the aircraft where the lift was centered (center of pressure or center of lift) would change. It would also change with speed. Both cases are counteracted in almost every aircraft by deflection of the elevators to keep the aircraft straight and level across its speed and altitude “performance envelope.” For example at low speed the aircraft would fly somewhat nose up (at a high alpha), and to keep it there, the elevators would have to be deflected upwards. At high subsonic speed and low to medium altitude, the elevators would actually be deflected slightly downwards on a properly designed delta-tailless aircraft since at subsonic speeds the center of lift is located farther forward then it is in supersonic flight, tending to cause the aircraft to pitch up. At high altitude and high speed, low air density actually results in aerodynamic conditions similar to those of low speed flight. At an aircraft “absolute ceiling” in any aircraft, the elevators are either deflected upwards, completely eliminating any capacity for a further climb, or the angle of attack of the aircraft and the resultant drag exceed the amount of thrust available to maintain speed, and thus altitude. Supersonic speed also causes the center of lift to move rearward resulting in a nose-down pitch force. Thus in the thin air of extreme altitude and supersonic velocities, the elevators would again be deflected upwards. (Pondering these phenomena says something unkind about the F-111 Raven, F-14 Tomcat and the Tornado’s “swing-wing” Unfortunately, at supersonic speeds; the swing-wing’s sweep moves the center of lift back, which aggravates the natural rearward shift that occurs at supersonic speed. The sweep does, however, help move the center of gravity of the variable-geometry aircraft in a favourable direction, yet the wing-glove retractable vanes of the F-14 Tomcat, since de-activated in an effort to reduce weigh and complexity, and the large saw-tooth on the MIG-23 which vanishes at the forward swept position, show that it isn’t enough to counteract the negative effects) For the Arrow, Avro incorporated the negative camber of the wing to reduce this effect. They optimised the camber, at 0.75 percent negative, which gave a good compromise across the performance envelop. Avro also ensured that they programmed the fuel consumption to move the center of gravity as far rearward as possible by the mid-point of the flight, which would coincide with the highest speed and altitude portion of the mission. MANOEUVRABLITY FACTORS are wing loading, power loading, control effectiveness, critical alpha and load limit. WING LOADING The Arrow design had a wing area of 1225 square feet, Compared to contemporary and modern fighters (around 500 to 650 square feet Jim100 AB), this resulted in a very low wing loading when the weight of the aircraft is compared to the wing available to “carry it”. The simple secret to the phenomenal manoeuvrability of the Mitsubishi “Zero” of World War II was its low wing loading. No high-performance fighter of the war could match it in a turning fight, not even the Hurricane or the Spitfire. At high altitudes, low wing loading is absolutely critical to the manoeuvrability and speed of an aircraft. At these heights the air is so thin that a large wing is necessary to provide enough lift to support the weight of the aircraft. A smaller wing would invoke such severe trim and/or induced drag penalties as to exceed the amount of available power and make the aircraft stall. (The F-22’s wing area is 840 square feet and needs thrust vectoring and powerful engines to allow it to manoeuvre at altitudes over 50,000 feet and not stall. The Arrow on the other hand has the lowest wing loading of any supersonic fighter/interceptor to ever enter service and could fly at the same speeds and was still able to manoeuvre at the same heights as the F-22 50,000 to 70,000 ft.! Arrow Wing Loading at Combat-take-off wt 67,250/1225 = 54.9 lbs to 1 sq ft of Wing F-22 Wing loading at Combat-take-off 64,840/840 = 77.1 lbs to 1 sq ft of wing. Jim100 AB) POWER LOADING This is the ratio of weight to the amount of thrust available to carry it, its inverse is equally valid and called “thrust to weight ratio” The arrow had a very high thrust to weight ratio (or a very low power loading) and was about the best in the world in this respect until the F-15A Eagle. CRITCAL ALPLA The ability of an aircraft to achieve high alpha without causing flow separation (and then stall) is a factor in potential maneuverability. A delta wing has an innate high alpha capacity because it naturally produces the vortex already described. Avro further introduced leading edge droop to add even more high alpha capability, especially for low speed handling. The leading edge notch and saw-tooth on the Arrow did exactly the same thing as the LEX (leading edge extension) does on the F-18, F-16, the Soviet’s MIG-29 and Su-27. The F-16 is advertised far and wide (especially during USAF air show presentations) as THE aircraft that is capable of extraordinarily high alpha before the stall. The F-16 by the way is limited to 26 degrees of alpha before encountering control problems. The F-18 is even better in this regards but the exact figure is, to R.L. Whitcomb’s knowledge is still classified. Let just say that it is confined to about 28 degrees during air shows to allow the aircraft to recover without crashing should one engine fail at such a low altitude. More the one Avro engineer has stated to R.L. Whitcomb that the Arrow was wind-tunnel tested to 45 degrees of alpha before separation (and the stall). This figure has also been published in other works on the Arrow. Others sources claim the delta-wing makes lift up to 60 degrees of alpha, which is about 40 degrees more than a normal, straight wing can produce before stalling. Zurakowski has related that the Arrow was test flown at up to 25 degrees without problems. Considering the F-16’s reputation and 26 degree limitation, one must applaud Avro’s success.

A little Canadian history from Avro aircraft & Cold War Aviation by R.L. Whitcomb page 22 and 23. During The re-organization of National Steel Car into Victory Aircraft, (later to become A.V. Roe….Avro) the former management was replaced by a number of Howe’s “bright boys” The new President was J.P. Bickell, a senior executive of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , with Dave Boyd as General Manager. Victory Aircraft, guided by such brash, confident upstarts (inspired by perhaps an even more illustrious leader in the form of Howe), began trumpeting the potentials of Victory aircraft with its new facilities, and of Canadian industry in general to the hard-pressed British. Wild claims of being able to produce a Lancaster faster and better then its own designers were heard in England, and the bluff was called. By January 1942 Victory had a contract to produce one of the largest, most complex and advanced aircraft in the world, the Lancaster long range heavy bomber. Despite enormous difficulties and frustration, Victory rolled out its first pseudo-complete Lancaster in August 1943. Dobson, hearing the boasts about the superior quality of the Canadian Lancaster and other mixtures of fact and fancy, decided to visit Canada and see for himself the roll-out of the first Victory Lancaster. Apparently, he arrived a little late as the plant outperformed his expectations and delivered its first offspring early. His comments upon seeing the Canadian operation are well documented and according to Jet Age by Scott Young, his words were to the effect. “It opened my eyes, I’ll tell you, if these so and so’s, can do this during a war, what can’t they do after? Dobson was so confident in the future of the North American branch that he predicted Canada would become the center of aircraft production for the British Commonwealth within a decade. Howe is on record in that year as saying “Never again will there be any doubt that Canada can manufacture anything that can be manufactured elsewhere” Unfortunately many Canadians today don’t seem to believe this, despite Avro and their subcontractors having proven it time and again in the forties and fifties, often too early for their genius to be recognized. Victory would go on to produce 430 Lancaster’s during the war, and produce them at the one-a-day rate as promised in the initial boasts to the British! According to British author/historian Len Deighton in his phenomenal book Blood Tears and Folly, that Canada had committed a higher percentage of her population to wartime uniformed military service than any of the combatants, with the added distinction of this mass of manpower being comprised largely of volunteers. Deighton goes on to show that Canada had also yielded the highest per capita industrial output dedicated to the war effort once again of any of the combatants, yet had begun the conflict with relatively little of her own indigenous industry. Howe and his bright boys had sought to change all of that and had succeeded beyond all expectations. It was once common knowledge that Canada had ended the war with the third largest navy, the fourth largest air force, and the fifth largest army of any of the wartime players. These rankings were described in the Canadian Forces’ [CF] Air Force Indoctrination Course [AFIC] for many years! (It’s time for Canadian citizens to stand up and say dam the torpedoes, politicians and our neighbours to the south. Roll-up our sleeves and get on with the business of defending ourselves again! Jim100 AB)

Ya area rule, the F-22 is better than any imaginary jet

solnegrolunaroja Nah The Avro Arrow is staying in Canada, the reason it never flew is because the US Gov said that we need to buy they’re planes plus Ur Armed Forces kinda sucks ngl

Never

Speed of SR71 with handling of F22. That's what the Arrow was, a multi-role fighter with a quick-change weapon bay that can be fitted with anything available like bombs, nukes, AA missiles, Gatling cannons, spy cameras, electronic jammers, lasers, and whatever else! About 20 minutes turn-around time in 1958!

The proposed modernized mk3 with thrust vectoring would smoke anything flying right now. Mach 3.5 at 70,000+ feet. Look down, shoot down, bye bye...

Prepper it was under 10 minutes turnaround time with hot refueling included.

The Blue Dragon Cult - Time Machine to the 60's, 70's, 80's air 🐺 Wolf yea!!!!.

Not sure how producing the Arrow would "defeat" Trump??? Only in the drug-fueled hallucinations of Canadian leftists, I guess...

trump... we need a trump here canada has to follow his steps.

If we had a Trump leader we would have had the Arrow

Now you did it, you let facts get in the way of bullshit and lies here on You Tube.

Brian Langan as a Canadian yes, we say that but Americans say it more XD

@@butterygoodness8242 I used to have a Canadian girlfriend. She used to laugh when I said it. But tbh I don't think I ever heard her use the phrase, but I had fun using it

ah! you'r a man of culture.

Bull shit it cant. How many hours do you have in an F-35 to make that statement ? Idiot

@@laurencethornblade1195 And how many do you have?

The Arrow was designed with marginal stabilty and had computerized avionics. It also had lower wing loading than f22 and roll rate was governed to 1 second. G- loading was also governed electronically according to weight. I don't understand why everyone thinks the Arrow couldn't handle? Yes it was big, but it had lots of power and could turn hard without speed loss.

As as example, F-22A has 5G between mach 1.5 to mach 2 which is superior to Arrow's mach 1.5 with 2G. A high difference between empty weight vs max takeoff weight indicates wing load against G force load.

Yea, Canada's small arms contribution to its WW I infantrymen. Probably the most accurate rifle produced in that era but it proved to be next to useless on the battlefields of Flanders. Once it got dirty, it couldn't be relied on to fire.

What did America have to do with Arrow being cancelled? There's a widely spread narrative on these videos that the USA bullied or pressured Canada to cancel Arrow, but I've yet to see either evidence or a specific factual allegation of what America actually did. In contrast there are facts showing staunch American support, including loaning engines to power Arrow, and a B-47 to test the Orenda engine, as well as wind tunnel testing and telemetry equipment. Much of the narrative relies on American fears of Arrow, even though the US had aircraft that matched Arrow, and were about to field the F-4, which clearly outclassed it. Arrow was an interceptor that nobody else really wanted. The UK had Lightning, and rejected Arrow because it wasn't going to be ready in 1961. France had Mirage III, Sweden had Draken, and other countries could save money by buying American, British or French (or Swedish). This was an airplane that nobody wanted, and that Canada couldn't afford herself.

The Iroquois ps3 was a bypass turbojet similar to the SR71 and especially the ps4 was a turbo/ramjetdesign designed for use above mach 3 to be used in the mk4 long range Arrow. 4 ramjets were to be mounted to hardpoints. Speed needs to be higher at high altitude to provide enough air to keep the engines lit. The anticipated speed or the mk4 was mach 4+.

The expected altitudee of the mk4 was 100,000ft in the 50s

...still well shy of the 327,360 foot mark where space officially begins.

kinficher Canadá? It’s Canada