Avro Arrow - the myth debunked

[John R]

Like many people I accepted the received wisdom that the Arrow was a magnificent aircraft killed for budgetary reasons.

The following, sent to me by Paul J, is rather long but presents a rather different view. Namely that the Arrow wasn't without problems and was the wrong answer in terms of the emerging ICBM threat. It makes an interesting comparison with the TSR2 thread.

http://www.canavbook...ArrowDebate.php

John

[alpine_modeller]

Why are such articles always ruined with petty sneering ?

I can see the TSR2 thread on here going the same way soon. Its gone into a phase of correcting each other.

[Test Graham]

Because it is not "petty sneering": if we are to draw messages from history and benefit from them then we have to understand the real history, in all its ramifications. Not just the bits that make a good story and appeal to our prejudices.

[Work In Progress]

The problem with a lot of this coverage, and subsequent debate on the internet, is it tends to false dichotomies, a bit like any political interview on Newsnight. People end up taking sides when it's not really a question of sides at all.

The Arrow had problems? Of course it did, so does every advanced project. So do most aircraft in squadron service, come to that.

Was it the best fighter in the world, or a complete waste of Canada's money? It could easily have been both, redundant to the defence of Canada in all-out war once the Soviets switched from manned nuclear bombers to ICBMs. These are not mutually exclusive positions. Yet so many people treat them as if they were.

[Tailspin Turtle]

Like many people I accepted the received wisdom that the Arrow was a magnificent aircraft killed for budgetary reasons.

The following, sent to me by Paul J, is rather long but presents a rather different view. Namely that the Arrow wasn't without problems and was the wrong answer in terms of the emerging ICBM threat. It makes an interesting comparison with the TSR2 thread.

http://www.canavbook...ArrowDebate.php

John

A little snarky but an entertaining and informative read. The Arrow pilot's notes don't strike me as indicating it was such a handful given the status of its envelope expansion at the time it was written and the aerodynamic peculiarities of the delta-wing configuration: most of the cautions and restrictions didn't suggest that it would bite you, only that the maneuvers hadn't yet been accomplished so the outcome was unknown. The airplane had to be soloed on first flight and the simulator, if any, wouldn't have had the fidelity to represent some of the nuances. If I was about to fly one, I'd appreciate that level of detail.

One discrepancy. The first flight of the F4H was in 1958, not 1955. That might just be a typo but warrants double checking his other dates rather than simply relying on them to be accurate.

[alpine_modeller]

Because it is not "petty sneering": if we are to draw messages from history and benefit from them then we have to understand the real history, in all its ramifications. Not just the bits that make a good story and appeal to our prejudices.

So the sentence that starts :

"But serious people (i.e. grown-ups)..."

adds to the telling and is going to make people who b*tched about the Arrow cancellation sit up, take note, and re-consider their opinion, is it ?

Seems to me you have missed the patronising snidey overtones completely

Edited December 13, 2013 by alpine_modeller

[Giorgio N]

Interesting read, that confirms my long held opinion that the Arrow in the end was not the right aircraft at the right time and that the cancellation of the project was afterall the correct choice.

A couple of points are of particular importance IMHO:

- the requirements: did Canada really need a long range, highly supersonic heavy interceptor ? The soviet bomber threat was not as impressive as first believed and the development of improved radar and control systems meant that the threat could be dealt with using aircrafts with lower specifications. It's interesting that although many types were studied, no interceptor of the same class of the Arrow ever became operational in the West. The US types were all abandoned, with the YF-12 only making it into the prototype stage, the various UK designs were all cancelled. Sounds like most countries came to the same conclusions about how useful such a type could have been. Again it's interesting that the only aircraft of this class that made it into production was the MiG-25 ! The Soviets feared the US bombers more than the West had to fear the Soviet ones.

- the costs. Canada is of course a rich country, but it is not a country that could back then afford the cost of such a project. If there were doubts about the real utility of such a type, the cost would have become even less justifiable

Similarly to the TSR.2 story discussed in the other threads, the Arrow was a beautiful machine that however was not really what the Nation really needed and that the Nation could not afford

Edited December 13, 2013 by Giorgio N

[mumbles]

It's interesting that although many types were studied, no interceptor of the same class of the Arrow ever became operational in the West. The US types were all abandoned, with the YF-12 only making it into the prototype stage, the various UK designs were all cancelled.

Agreed. While the YF-12 was awesome, in hindsight it is hard to see a real operational requirement for it.

[robvulcan]

I love the TSR-2 and the ARROW. just for the beauty I would love to have seen them fly. It saddens me how after all these decades these beautiful planes cannot be enjoyed for what they "are" rather than continual arguing over what they "were not" For what ever reason. We will never know and ultimately it does not matter as it will never happen now. I am sure every argument has already been put forward. At the same time I understand its a point of sever division and the pain runs deep. But it would be nice if we talked more about the beauty of the plane and not the ugly politics. (and politicians)

It seems to me the world has gone down hill not just the quality of aircraft we made, make, etc.

I raise my glass to the TSR-2 and ARROW, For being some of the most beautiful aircraft ever seen.

[Driver66]

I love the TSR-2 and the ARROW. just for the beauty I would love to have seen them fly. It saddens me how after all these decades these beautiful planes cannot be enjoyed for what they "are" rather than continual arguing over what they "were not" For what ever reason. We will never know and ultimately it does not matter as it will never happen now. I am sure every argument has already been put forward. At the same time I understand its a point of sever division and the pain runs deep. But it would be nice if we talked more about the beauty of the plane and not the ugly politics. (and politicians)

It seems to me the world has gone down hill not just the quality of aircraft we made, make, etc.

I raise my glass to the TSR-2 and ARROW, For being some of the most beautiful aircraft ever seen.

Can I second your sentiments, love the esthetics of both these aircraft, impressive prototypes .

A tragedy no Arrow survived, always think of it when I go through Toronto airport.

[robvulcan]

Can I second your sentiments, love the esthetics of both these aircraft, impressive prototypes .

A tragedy no Arrow survived, always think of it when I go through Toronto airport.

I agree and great you do with me. (Someone will be along shortly to disagree haha) I think it would be nice to start a campain to make a full scale replica of two beautiful planes that no longer have an exising airframe, Not to fly just static made from wood and and skinned with aluminium. or something adaquate. Of an Avro arrow, AND and Avro Vulcan B1.

If I won enough money on the lotto I would pay for the latter to be made. or to be mated with XA903s cockpit.

[Meatbox8]

I could be mistaken but I seem to remember that some Canadian enthusiasts were trying to raise money to build a 1/1 scale replica of the Arrow. I think I read it in Aeroplane Monthly a few years back.

[robvulcan]

I could be mistaken but I seem to remember that some Canadian enthusiasts were trying to raise money to build a 1/1 scale replica of the Arrow. I think I read it in Aeroplane Monthly a few years back.

Great I wish them well The Canadians and the world deserve that at the very least. I really enjoyed that film with Dan Akroyd in it. shame what happened but what a plane..Looks like a little vulcan to me.

[Driver66]

I think there is a full size replica ( displayed in a museum) of the arrow somewhere in Canada, in addition think one was made for the film, it seemed to feature incorrect down turned wing tips, I think it has fallen into disrepair.

Will have to dig out my book on the arrow, I'm sure the museum replica was mentioned there.

[John R]

There WAS a replica. See the link below for some pix.

I read somewhere that it was built for a documentary film and then they CUT IT UP at the end to show what happened to the real thing. Can anyone confirm this?

http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_7970.html

John

[robvulcan]

it it was built for a documentary film and then they CUT IT UP at the end to show

WHY WHY WHY!!!! such a shame..

[Barneydhc82]

The replica was built at Downsview, Ontario for the Aerospace Museum. The sight , used by Bombardier, was owned by Parks Canada, a federal entity who decided to built a skating rink on the property and they closed down the museum.. The Arrow replica was carefully dismantled and moved to Toronto International Airport where the real Arrow was born. It will be on display there for a short time until a new home can be found.

The other replica was finally moved to the museum at Wetaskawin, Alberta but it was not a very well build model.

Barney

[Driver66]

The replica was built at Downsview, Ontario for the Aerospace Museum. The sight , used by Bombardier, was owned by Parks Canada, a federal entity who decided to built a skating rink on the property and they closed down the museum.. The Arrow replica was carefully dismantled and moved to Toronto International Airport where the real Arrow was born. It will be on display there for a short time until a new home can be found.

The other replica was finally moved to the museum at Wetaskawin, Alberta but it was not a very well build model.

Barney

From what I've just researched this looks spot on...

So a nice replica was built but now hidden from the public....the madness continues.

[-Neu-]

I love the TSR-2 and the ARROW. just for the beauty I would love to have seen them fly. It saddens me how after all these decades these beautiful planes cannot be enjoyed for what they "are" rather than continual arguing over what they "were not" For what ever reason. We will never know and ultimately it does not matter as it will never happen now. I am sure every argument has already been put forward. At the same time I understand its a point of sever division and the pain runs deep. But it would be nice if we talked more about the beauty of the plane and not the ugly politics. (and politicians)

It seems to me the world has gone down hill not just the quality of aircraft we made, make, etc.

I raise my glass to the TSR-2 and ARROW, For being some of the most beautiful aircraft ever seen.

The problem is Rob that the mythologizing of the event has completely overtaken the actual reality... and that is to the serious detriment of our national policymaking in Canada. There is an effort by one company to build a new arrow instead of purchasing the F-35. A lot of the time (and let me be clear, this isn't aimed at you) when someone wants to talk about the beauty of the Arrow, they wax on about all of its amazing and ground breaking capabilities... much of it isn't even close to reality.

I might be the only one but I also don't find the CF-105 that interesting or altogether beautiful. The arrow is a big delta, with slab sides... its essentially a bigger F-102/106. I'm more interested in Canadair built aircraft like the Sabre or the nuclear bomb tossing CF-104s.

[Paul J]

I saw the newer replica being built at the Toronto museum at Downsview on my visit to Canada in 2006. Very impressive it is too!! At the time it looked almost complete.

[Barneydhc82]

Neu: You just have to expand your point of view. The only ugly aircraft are those designed by a committee of politicians

Best Regards for a Merry Christmas

Barney

[Driver66]

So CF-104 good looking and interesting....Avro Arrow ugly and boring,

That's the joy of independent thought.

Guess the 104 was successful too in any/all of its roles .

"PULL PIN AND THROW......COUNT TO 5 "

[Scooby]

The replica was built at Downsview, Ontario for the Aerospace Museum. The sight , used by Bombardier, was owned by Parks Canada, a federal entity who decided to built a skating rink on the property and they closed down the museum.. The Arrow replica was carefully dismantled and moved to Toronto International Airport where the real Arrow was born. It will be on display there for a short time until a new home can be found.

The other replica was finally moved to the museum at Wetaskawin, Alberta but it was not a very well build model.

Barney

Almost fully correct Barney. The Museum was shut-down by Mayor Rob Ford and Toronto City Council. It was one of the first things he did as mayor.

[Scooby]

The problem is Rob that the mythologizing of the event has completely overtaken the actual reality... and that is to the serious detriment of our national policymaking in Canada. There is an effort by one company to build a new arrow instead of purchasing the F-35. A lot of the time (and let me be clear, this isn't aimed at you) when someone wants to talk about the beauty of the Arrow, they wax on about all of its amazing and ground breaking capabilities... much of it isn't even close to reality.

I might be the only one but I also don't find the CF-105 that interesting or altogether beautiful. The arrow is a big delta, with slab sides... its essentially a bigger F-102/106. I'm more interested in Canadair built aircraft like the Sabre or the nuclear bomb tossing CF-104s.

I know we have already had this discussion, but the cancellation killed an aviation industry in Canada, which is only now gaining some steam. I do recognize that you are one of the more well versed people on the Arrow program and our current industry.

My dad worked on the Arrow program.

[-Neu-]

scooby: I think killed is really hyperbole and not supported by statistics. What the Arrow's cancellation did kill was the Government's 1940s and 50s aspirations for a strong, independent industry. However that probably wasn't sustainable, which had started to become apparent as early as 1954. Certainly DND had not helped matters with some of its decisions on the Arrow, but if you look at what the RCAF/Governments estimates, and what it turned out to be... it really ended that dream. It was also likely that Avro wasn't the company to carry out this task. It was a firm had significant management issues which had already manifested themselves in the CF-100 and its delays. Had the Arrow been delivered on budget and cost, maybe the Canadian industry might not have suffered so dearly... but the rising costs of military capabilities, and declining defence dollars meant that sooner rather than later Canadian industry would have been gutted. The industry needed restructuring in order to survive.

As I've said to you before, Avro sowed the seeds of the industry's success in the 1980s and beyond. It freed key subcontractors to pursue their niches in based on profitability, not winning government contracts. That was further facilitated by the governement's reorganization of de Havilland and Canadair in the 1970s. We have the world's fifth largest industry ($22 Billion vs the UK's $32 billion) and the second largest value per-capita basis (1% of our entire GDP). Its not because we're just recovering now. Its because in 1960 firms like De Havilland had to find new revenues.

Neu: You just have to expand your point of view. The only ugly aircraft are those designed by a committee of politicians

Best Regards for a Merry Christmas

Barney

Hah. Cmon now... the F-111 looks awesome and that's an aircraft that was completely designed by a committee.

BTW we should have a chat soon.

So CF-104 good looking and interesting....Avro Arrow ugly and boring,

That's the joy of independent thought.

Guess the 104 was successful too in any/all of its roles .

"PULL PIN AND THROW......COUNT TO 5 "

Oh it wasn't, that's the fun part. I think its generally tough to define aesthetics in aircraft: there isn't an easy golden ratio to assess them by. However what I do find interesting is history and design, that's what makes an aircraft appealing... which the F-104 fascinating. Its a Skunk Works design privately funded by Lockheed. It really was an engineer's answer to air superiority, which is unique and not too successful (the antithesis of being designed by a committee of politicians). It was the purest energy fighter conceived and built, with little consideration to anything else, including safety. We then took the design and made it into a low level nuclear strike bomber, touching off nearly a decade of acrimonious debate on nuclear weapons. Was the CF-104 a great aircraft? Maybe not, but its history was unique and fascinating in its own way.

I also think that Avro seems to dominate discussions about the history of the Canadian aviation industry. A lot of recent research has started to peel back the veneer into the company's history which provides a very mixed picture. Yet Canadair gets forgotten and glossed over, when it was much more successful firm (and continues to meet success today.)

Edited December 17, 2013 by -Neu-