Was the Canadian government wrong in cancelling production of the Avro Arrow?

[Matuchkin]

So, what I understand about the situation: we (Canada) had an all-Canadian interceptor that could easily be compared with the F-35 Lightning in terms of speed, weapons capacity and maneuverability. This was a plane well ahead of its time. Yet, the project was dumped in 1959, and not only did this design lose its potential but the company A. V. Roe went out of business. Was this the right thing to do?

Now, I realize that one of you will see the tags and wonder "what history presentation"? That is none of your business. I put this topic here because:

1) Personal help

2) I know the people here like this type of stuff

3) I have never done this before, so I want to see how this discussion will go

Edited December 15, 2016 by Matuchkin

[monstah]

Hey, everyone.

I'll just like to remind you all that political discussion is off-limits in the KSP forum. As long as the conversation stays on the airplane, that's fine, but we're keeping an eye on this.

[Matuchkin]

15 minutes ago, monstah said:

Hey, everyone.

I'll just like to remind you all that political discussion is off-limits in the KSP forum. As long as the conversation stays on the airplane, that's fine, but we're keeping an eye on this.

I'll help with that. Don't want this to go off topic.

[James Kerman]

I must admit I'd never heard of it however It's a great looking aircraft with some great stats.

Quote

The hypersonic fighter was on the cutting edge of aerospace technology at the time: it could reach a speed nearly three times the speed of sound, travelling at an altitude of 60,000 feet.

Slap a NERV on the back and lets go to Minmus.

[p1t1o]

"Was the Canadian government wrong in cancelling production of the Avro Arrow?"

In hindsight? No, I dont think so.

If we are disregarding its political death: the cold war ended without a fight, so in hindsight, there was no need for the Arrow. Indeed, hypothetically adding extra weapons systems to history may well have (had?) negative effects on the political stability of the time.

It was a gorgeous aircraft, and by all reports, would have been a very capable one, but that alone is not enough to warrant its existence.

I would be very cautious in making comparisons to an F-35, the gulf of time between them is enormous, there is nothing to compare. Top speed and max payload weight are but 2 figures amongst a very great many that define an aircrafts capabilities, and thats not to mention the comparison between the two aircrafts weapon systems, which is just as relevant, if not more so.

Other positive effects of having continued the Arrow program, such as the maturation Canada's aviation, military, engineering and manufacturing industries, are more diffuse, difficult to predict and probably highly political in nature, so its really hard to comment on those factors.

@James Kerman Eurgh! Where'd you find that source that says "hypersonic"? That makes my skin crawl, I have been recently in a lengthy "discussion" on another part of the interweb about whether or not something was hypersonic and it really did my nut! (Yeah, Im sure that ramjet-powered missile can do mach 10+ at sea level for 15,000km...GAWD!)

 

[James Kerman]

44 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Eurgh! Where'd you find that source that says "hypersonic"

Source:
http://globalnews.ca/news/427985/55-years-later-biggest-question-surrounding-avro-arrow-remains-what-if/
Also apologies.  I have learned 2 new things from this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_speed

[monstah]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

 (Yeah, Im sure that ramjet-powered missile can do mach 10+ at sea level for 15,000km...GAWD!)

Can it? Or are you being sarcastic here? 

Cause, damn

[p1t1o]

3 minutes ago, monstah said:

Can it? Or are you being sarcastic here? 

Cause, damn

No, it was heavy sarcasm  

I'd go into detail about how difficult it would be to achieve that, mainly using clumsy-yet-powerful analogies to other impossible things, but I have to go home now!

Edited December 15, 2016 by p1t1o

[monstah]

Don't bother. It sounds difficult as hell. 

[Matuchkin]

4 hours ago, monstah said:

Don't bother. It sounds difficult as hell. 

Probably the equivalent of trying to walk through a wall.

[NorthernDevo]

I always love seeing posts about the Avro Arrow; my family was involved - indirectly - with the project. (My father wrote the book "Avro Arrow" by 'The Arrowheads'. Producing that book in the early '80's took the young me down both the roads of aviation (at 13 I was already learning flight theory from my Dad and the Air Cadets) and graphic arts - the trade I've spent most of my life in.) As such we had access to all available information remaining: personal accounts, production documents, flight-test information; the works. In our later years we loved going to the National Aviation Museum in Ottawa; Dad was a total attention hound and enjoyed telling people about his book.

To the question: was the Canadian government wrong in cancelling the Arrow? Certainly. The CF-105 was a superb aircraft and the OP is not lying; it had stats that are only being passed today. The project was cancelled for the wrong reasons.

The question is though should it have been cancelled for right reasons? That's harder to answer.

We DIDN'T need the Arrow; not at the time. It was powerful, fast and unique. It was also a terrible weapons platform; a useless dogfighter and an interceptor of very limited use. Its payload - 3 Falcon missiles - was outmoded long before it rolled off the line. The aircraft it was designed to replace, the CF-100 was far superior in versatility and survivability. The Arrow had one job, one job only: to destroy Russian Tupolev 'Bear' bombers coming over the pole in a nuclear assault.

It was a superb platform for more advanced work; its basic design could have been adapted to other uses and it was: the American F-106 and the legendary Concorde both take their design from the Arrow's unique development.

Furthermore, following the closure of the project many of the top developers went elsewhere: to Rockwell and Grumman, among other companies. Arrow designers worked on both the Apollo spacecraft and the Lunar Excursion Module. Their expertise helped put man on the moon.

Would I have loved to see the Arrow go into service? Certainly.

Do I think it would have been a good Canadian Air Force aircraft? Yes, with acknowledgement of its limitations.

Do I think the world aviation progress has improved with its cancellation? Absolutely.

The CF-105 Arrow was brilliant, but too limited as a combat aircraft. The knowledge gained from that superb project supported and assisted countless projects around the world. It helped build supersonic airliners and unnecessary interceptors. It built far superior jet engines and put the outline of a man's boot on the Moon.  the aircraft would have been good; but the knowledge learned was far, far more important.

Cheers!

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by NorthernDevo

[Matuchkin]

1 hour ago, NorthernDevo said:

*snip*

And that was when Matuchkin realized: he already gave out 25 likes...

[Matuchkin]

19 hours ago, NorthernDevo said:

As such we had access to all available information remaining: personal accounts, production documents, flight-test information; the works.

That is amazing. Do you have such documents presently? If so, may I take a peek?

[NorthernDevo]

7 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

That is amazing. Do you have such documents presently? If so, may I take a peek?

I wish I did; my own participation was nothing more than an interested son. All materials were returned to the owner - one of the other Arrowheads - though the majority of the information is available online now. I could tell a story about sitting down with Mr. Zurakowski though; the chief Arrow test pilot. As a younger pilot I was thrilled to chat with the 80 year old legend. I asked him how he completed an airshow maneuver no-one else has ever managed: the Zurakowski Dyna-loop. His answer was one of the most Kerbal responses you could possibly imagine:

The Dyna-loop was performed in a Gloster Meteor; the beast was the only aircraft that could do it (and only with Jan flying it) due to its widely-spaced engines. It was a lateral rotation about the z-axis; the plane spinning wingtip-over-wingtip. I've never seen it of course; he did it in the '50's but it would be incredible to see.

After he autographed my picture, I asked him, pilot to pilot (Ha! That's a hot one; my 400 hrs at that time to his 30,000) how he did it. He answered, and you have to imagine his rich Polish accent: "Vell, it vass very eassy. All you needed to do vass pull ze aircrawf up to 90 degrees. It cannot be 91, it cannot be 89. You keep full throttle, ja? You understand. Zen, as you slow to 60 knots, you shut off one engine."

(Slaps forehead) Oh, really? That's easy? Shutting off one engine in a full-power vertical climb at 500ft. agl?

Jeb; please meet your new tutor!

Edited December 17, 2016 by NorthernDevo