Talk:Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Length

All: this entry is a truly staggering seven thousand words long. The entry in the Oxford Companion to Canadian History on the Avro Arrow is about 400 words long. Wikipedia is a reference work: the idea is to give people quick information and then refer them to detailed sources for more information.

By way of comparsion, the entry on the F-4 Phantom, an almost exact contemporary of the Arrow, but an aircraft which actually served with more than a dozen air forces for over 40 years, and which had one of the longest production runs of any military aircraft in history, is under five thousand words.

My advice is to cut it drastically. Seventy percent of what's here can be chucked.

I dunno, the technical sections are interesting and the politics involved are certainly important to document. Perhaps the politics can be summarized in one paragraph and discussed in detail on a separate page. I largely wrote the current version of the Phantom page and part of its length limitation is that I ran out of references and didn't want to continue putting in unreferenced material from my Mark 0.9 beta brain. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is a reference work: the idea is to give people quick information and then refer them to detailed sources for more information."

Can you point me to the Wikipedia policy page that says something to this effect?

Wikipedia has no page limit or any other limit on it's length, it can be as long as neccessary, there is no need to compare the length of an article in a printed work to Wikipedia. If you feel the article is too long for someone to get information from, then parts of it can be summarized and the more detailed information can be split into a seperate page. Qutezuce 09:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, guys? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: by definition such a work is for reference: at seven thousand words this article is almost twenty times longer than the entry in Canadian Encyclopedia. My goodness, guys: the entry on Mozart is half the length of this! I think it would serve your purposes better if it were cleaned up and cut.

Wikipedia policy page please?

I guess we should cut all entries down that are longer than the shortest article then, right? Or maybe we should increase the length of the Mozart article? It's not like there is an editorial team that said "Avro Arrow: very important, 7000 words. Mozart: who cares, make it short." The articles are written by people with an interest in the subject matter, sometimes that means that an article doesn't get as much attention as it maybe should have, but that is the nature of Wikipedia. It doesn't mean we should cut down articles that contain more information. Qutezuce 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You're missing my point. First, the Wikipedia article on length does warn that lengthy entries (it says more than 6,000 to 10,000 words) tend to be counterproductive. My point is this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Am I wrong about that? No. An encyclopedia is a reference work, and that's different from a monograph. Am I wrong about that? No. Now: what do you want to accomplish with an article on a 50-year old airplane? I see no reason why an encylopedia entry on the Avro Arrow needs to be this long, and, frankly, I'm very, very far from the only person who has noted that the page, as it stands, is a disaster, in need of a cleanup. Tell people what they need to know and refer them to the appropriate books and articles for further information. My advice. But I'm an outsider here, just an historian looking in because one of my students referenced this page. I should point out that if one my students submitted all that highly detailed technical information without very specific citations they'd be accused of plagiarism. Reference works avoid the necessity for citation by being general.

Cleanup is not the same as cutting down on length, unless you agree that CliffsNotes are as good as original books. Yes, the article needs to be referenced. This is a problem endemic to Wikipedia in general. Merriam-Webster defines encyclopedia as "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject." Doesn't say anything about length. Why does it bother you so much anyway? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Wikipedia recommendation on article size between 6,000 and 10,000 words. That comes from Wikipedia:Article size. And it suggests this for long pages: "if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles". There is no mention of cutting anything. Qutezuce 06:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one that finds it ammusing that the discussion page mainly centering on how long the article is has breached 10 thousand words? I find that a little ironic. Pissedpat 07:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of POV, opinion and speculation stated as outright fact in this article. --Sdfisher 19:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed there is. I've reverted the intro to a proper version, but more work is needed. Dan100 08:14, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

This is a very touchy subject in Canada, a lot of hurt feelings over percieved U.S. dominance...etc. The politics section is a terrible mess, full of psuedovandalism and POV galore. I plunked an NPOV marker over the aforementioned section. Any help in getting this article in tip-top shape would be super-appreciated. I'm afraid of tackling such an important Canadian icon ::all on my own, and I'm a wikipedia n00b, so I'll need some help re: not starting some wiki civil war. --Ringmaster j 04:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

People, this article has been, as I see it, completely destroyed by all the controversy (only the first part seems intact). The text has been mutilated; people disagreeing have just inserted their discontented comments into the middle (!) of the existing text ("Bla bla bla NOT TRUE bla bla, etc."). It has become unreadable. As I know nothing of the subject, I cannot be of any help here. Today (20 feb. 2006) the article is featured on the main page, which is a disgrace to Wikipedia and shows the negative sides of the whole idea behind it, which is a pitty and should not have happened! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SausMeester (talk • contribs) .

I tried to hide all of those types of statements in HTML comments so they would only appear in the source, but I guess I missed a few. Those are mainly the product of one user, who has been contacted and they have now realized a much more productive way of working on this article (see their proposed rewrites lower on this talk page). I would recommend that you hide any such statements in html comments. Qutezuce 10:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

DW, can you convert the picture into a gif, jpg or png file? BMP won't display on many browsers (mine, for example). That's probably why other people have been removing the link to the BMP file, it doesn't display on their browser either.... Malcolm Farmer

Sorry, have now changed it to a jpg and added another. Thanks for letting me know of the problem.....DW

The edit by 209.226.103.119 is highly suspect and POV, for instance referring to "American oligarchs", and using lots of ALL CAPS. I'm inclined to revert it wholesale rather than try to figure out what's legit in this change. Is there anybody more knowledgeable who can weigh in? Stan 17:33, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The last entry said that only 3 companies in the world are still desigini g fighter aircraft. Therea are more than that but the abundance of joint multinational projects makes it difficult to say which firm is really driving the design or if it is perfectly shared. --AlainV 07:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank You

If my grandfather were alive today, he would have wept after reading this article. I shall do it for him. Weaponofmassinstruction 01:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The comment above makes me, well...sad. I can think of no other country in the world where FIFTY years later people still lament the cancellation of a weapons platform.

Perhaps (whoever you were) you don't quite understand the whole perspective. I am generally anti-war and very much against killing people. However, the Arrow story - which was cancelled almost 10 years before I was born - makes ME weep. I am not sure there is an entirely rational explanation. It is at least in part the sense that something great we as a nation could have done was lost... something that proved we were still among the leaders of the world's nations. The cancellation of the Arrow led to what was probably the first example of brain drain as our experts moved to NASA, removing a number of our best and brightest from their homeland. In Canada, the Arrow wasn't JUST a weapons platform - it was the beginnings of what could have been our space program; it was an expression of our independence as a nation. The Arrow was Canada's first true love - the one you never forget for the rest of your life and that you idealise forever. --CokeBear 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Our space program?!? What? Methinks you need to stop watching crappy CBC docu-dramas. Maury 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, and methinks you need to get over yourself and not be rude. When I was in college in the Air Transport Engineering program, one of my professors was a former AVRO employee (and this was long before any CBC "Docudramas"), and he discussed with us on more than one occasion the fact that many at AVRO had aspirations to begin a Canadian space program once the Arrow was in full production. The evidence is clear enough - many of the displaced engineers went to NASA and contributed substantially to the US space efforts. So, please don't interject into someone's simple heartfelt message with that which you don't know. I was trying to explain to someone who thought it was sad that so many mourned a WEAPON when what the real mourning is for is the dreams lost.--CokeBear 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We all have dreams, but let's be honest, that's all they were. The fact that someone at Avro wished all of that to be true is no more relevant to the topic at hand than the fact that I wish all my hair would fall back in. The problem here is that we must concentrate on facts, and clearly deliniate what are facts and what is simply idle or unsupported speculation. You certainly didn't word it that way above, so my "confusion" is only natural. Maury 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cook-Cragie

Does anyone have any more info on this process? I have also seen it mentioned as Cook-Craigie, but I don't know anything else and can't find much with google. Is it the name of a team of designers?

Overhaul

Both the U.S. and British were already experimenting with the delta platform. Lippisch had moved to the US after the war, and started working at Convair, where the local engineers became very excited in his World War II point-interceptor design. They proposed to build a modified version as the Convair XF-92, and in order to test the flight dynamics of the delta wing configuration they built the 7003 in 1948 as a test-bed. In England the RAE contracted for a series of delta-wing aircraft, including designs both with and without tails, the Gloster Javelin and Fairey FD.2 for example, and flew them throughout the 1950s. In France Marcel Bloch studied the delta and used it to develop the famous Mirage series of fighters in the mid-1950s.

The Iroquois was a fairly standard high-speed engine design, but incorporated a number of titantium parts for high-heat areas and had a good power-to-weight ratio for the era.

Luckily the large weapons bay of the Arrow could hold several of any of these missiles, so it was really a matter of selecting the first system that actually started working.

Given the number of technical advancements in the Arrow design, as well as the continuing problems with a suitable powerplant, the Arrow was completed in a surprisingly short period of time.

This means that the Arrow was one of a very small number of planes that would actually get lighter when entering production.

The chief test pilot of Arrow was Janusz Zurakowski.

quite in contrast to the majority of fighter designs of the era, which proved to have wicked handling

There was little worry that this would not be corrected in the future.

By this time, Avro had become the third largest corporation in Canada, and was employing 14,000 people.

but the government dithered over how and when to announce the cancellation — not an uncommon thing for the Diefenbaker government when faced with difficult and politically sensitive decisions

Avro received the word later. This date became known as Black Friday.

While fixing the problems noted above, I removed some material, which is either irrelevant, PoV, original research of just plain puff. I leave it below:

After the announcement, Avro employees wandered around the factory in a state of shock. They had expected slowdowns, not cancellation.

The timing seemed particularly odd considering that a reassesment of the project was scheduled for March, and had been since the previous year.

Meanwhile the first Mk.2 was being prepared for flight, and it was expected to take the world speed records at over Mach 2, surpassing the world speed record of 1,404.19 mph (2,260 km/h) set on May 18, 1958 by a United States Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.

Considered to be one of the finest achievements in Canadian aviation history, and the Arrow remains a lasting symbol of a Canada that could have been, but would never be.

The US is also often blamed for the demise, often with claims that the US aerospace industry was upset about the 'upstarts' in Canada that were making them look foolish, or alternatively that they were hunting for Avro employees.Quite to the contrary, the US military was distressed at the prospect of losing a first-rate staff in their own North American ally, and even considered buying 50 Arrows to give back to the RCAF in order to ensure production.

Other theories grow more outlandish. In one instance it had been suggested that it was a good thing the Arrow was cancelled, otherwise Canada would have ended up bombing Vietnam with them.

To this day, some Canadians see the Arrow as an example of Canadian industrial ingenuity that might have resulted in a world-class product. Instead it became one of their country's worst strategic blunders of the 20th century.

Dan100 10:59, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would query if the Arrow 2 would really have been significantly faster than the Arrow 1. Unquestionably, it would have been lighter and more powerful, and this would have meant better climb performance, acceleration, etc. However, I understand that the engine inlets on the Arrow weren't designed with speeds over Mach 2 in mind, and I suspect that there would have been temperature limitations -- either turbine inlet temperature restrictions, or weakening of the skin due to air friction -- that would have restricted the speed. Airframe heating limited Concorde to Mach 2.2 even with inlets designed for that kind of speed. Given that the Arrow 1 had already effectively demonstrated the ability to fly at Mach 2 (Mach 1.96 -- close enough), I wonder if the Arrow 2, even with the extra power and lower weight, would have been able to fly much faster than Mach 2.2.

It would not have, this is a myth repeated by a small group of aerodynamically-challenged authors. Making a plane go faster requires MUCH MUCH more than simply adding more thrust. After all, consider the fact that propeller planes are still limited to subsonic speeds even though they have perhaps 10 times as much power as during the war. Remember, air drag goes with v², doubling thrust = 25% faster, at best.

There are a number of problems that lead to this, and none of them are easy to overcome. One is that the temperature rise in the turbine section of the engine becomes difficult to control. You can fix this, but it's not "more of same". The MiG-25, for instance, could be "dashed" to Mach 3 ONCE, and then the engines had to be tossed. They figured it was worth it. Additionally the air intakes have to use a variable-inlet system, and these were not well-developed at the time. This is why real high-speed aircraft of the era, like the SR-71, used movable forbodies in their intakes. Finally, as you approach Mach 3, air friction heating becomes a real problem. At 3.2, aluminum starts to go plastic, and your plane falls apart. There is simply no way around this, you have to re-build using some other material, stainless steel or titanium. Yes, to whomever INSERTED THE COMMENT RIGHT IN THE TEXT (grrr), the Arrow did use some titanium in the engine supports, but this was internal.

A Mach 3 Arrow did not exist. The claims in the article are HIGHLY suspect. Even the need for such a plane is equally suspect.

Maury 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Titanium was used in sheet form extensively in the shrouds and portions of the structure adjacent to the jet pipe, where the low weight and high strength at temperatures up to 800 degrees F are required. This is mainly commercially pure titanium" Jim Floyd (design engineer), Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, December 1958.

"Arrow's engine air inlets have fixed ramps and wide boundary layer bleeds. Duct operation is kept efficient at supersonic speeds by bleeding air through perforations on ramps. This is an alternate solution to the variable geometry duct...Its maximum speed should be well over Mach 2 if comparisons with existing fighters can be used as an indication. Since aerodynamic heating problems begin between Mach 2 and 3, the Arrow's top speed will probably be limited by structural heating rather than by a lack of power..." Aviation Week, October 21, 1957.

Excellent refs (whoever this was). In terms of the titanium use, however, it's not clear if the point is any different than I stated. The Arrow was built of aluminum overall, this quote re-enforces that claim. In terms of the "comparisons with existing fighters", this would suggest a lower speed. It was these similar fighters, the F-102 in particular, that proved to have much worse performance than initially suspected. It is a good point though, if there are a number of examples of contemporary fighters with fixed ramps and bleed air that could break Mach 2, then I'm all for the removal of the statement in question. I seem to recall the F-106 did M2, so that would be one such counterexample. Maury 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre tangent removed

Undaunted by the failure of the Navy search effort, Arrow Recovery Canada. continues it's search for the Free Flight Models. Infact two weeks before the Navy attempt, ARC made an interesting find, an uncharted shipwreck thought to be approx, 150 yrs old. It is a wooden sailing vessel 125ft long and 25ft wide. While this find is not Arrow related, it was discovered in the ARC licensed search area, while the group was searching for the models. The non profit group of volunteers continues it's search efforts believing that they are very close to a major discovery.

Apologizing for this tangent by saying it "is not Arrow related" doesn't allow you to leave the unrelated tangent in the article. Tempshill 20:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree but an Avro Recovery Canada article perhaps should be added? Which should include this obviously Nil Einne 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

History Channel

The history channel states that the reason all documentation and prototypes were destroyed was because the Canadian Mounties had found evidence that the KGB had infiltrated the AVRO plant working on the Arrow project and had copied some of the data (which was used in the design of the MiG-25). Can anyone provide any other documentation to back that claim up? If so we should probably integrate this data into the article. ALKIVAR™ 05:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine a plane with less in common with the Arrow than the MiG-25. Let's see; tail-less vs tail, delta-wing vs. cropped delta (as on the F-15), one rudder vs two, etc etc. I don't debate that the Ruskies may have been involved, but I debate the MiG-25 was the result! Maury 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aside from mentioning the discovery of spy (which is why the tools etc were also destroyed), the History Channel explained:

that the use of shoulder mounted wing, and titanium in heat prone locations as unusual similarities.
that the Mig-25 that landed (and was dismantled) in Japan 1976 provided additional evidence of technology exchange.
the Canadian PM of the time diverted the funds to give farmers a better subsidy.
a secret deal where the US provided Canada with free a set of second hand jet fighters, and some missile launch system with a minimal range of about 100Miles.
the titanium alloy innovation was not lost on subsequent US fighters.

Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 03:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, don't believe everything you hear, read or see. The above statements are suppositions not factually based. Please do not introduce these speculations into the article. Bzuk 03:33 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Don't worry, but on the other hand if I had official sources I'd tend to add it. I am a tad bit surprised if the HC has published without some documents. Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dissambiguation page AVRO!!

It would be nice to have a dissambiguation page for Avro... we could start by putting

I've never done this before, but I'dd be happy to do it after the deletion process debate that is happening at Gallery of motorized bicycle. Cheers!!! --CylePat 13:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it says early in the article that Avro didn't exist until 1945. This may be true for Avro Canada but it is definitely not true for Avro in the UK.--Mgdm 12:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

CFB Gimili?

What factual evidence is there that Avro Arrow 206 is buried at CFB Gimili?... Mike 19:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Maury 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Out of place Coments

it seems someone has decided to start debating within the context of the article. Writing: "do we have a source for this??????????" IN the body of the article is, in my opinion, not appropriate. That is what the disscussion page is for. I am taking th liberty of removing these interjections for the best of the article. If the person who inserted them feels it necessary to debate the points in question they can do so in the standard method.--Olsdude 19:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the comments do not make the page look good at all. I have tried to contact the user (an IP) and to get them to discuss on the talk page rather than adding such comments. The comments, however, do seem to be useful, so I think the best solution is to hide the comments using html comments. That way they don't show up to readers of the page, but the comments are still there so that they can be dealt with. Qutezuce 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel the comments should also be removed, as when I went to go over this today I found them quite out of place and definitely not in keeping with Wikipedia standards. The suggestion of using HTML comments is a good one, and if I am editting again I will try and remember to do it. Good idea! --CokeBear 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Since my last comment I was successful in contacting the user who added these comments, and they have now posted a proposed rewrite, see below. Qutezuce 22:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite from Politcs on down

Here is a proposed rewrite. I have tried to keep it neutral with references noted:

The politics

Arrow Costs

Many have contended that the cost of the Arrow was simply too much for the Canadian economy to handle. This however is not supported by documents declasssifed by the author of Storms. While it is acknowledged the cost of the program was high, both the Prime Minister and Minster of National Defence noted that cost was not the reason for the cancellation of the program. Their comments are documented in Storms and Requiem. In 1955, the findings of a special government committee on the Arrow stated, "The greater effectiveness and greater range of the CF 105 results in the need for less aircraft and fewer bases. Aircraft for aircraft the F102B is less costly but, dollar for dollar, the CF 105 provides significantly more defence…The burden of cost involved in this course of action is in inherent in an air defence system which is kept abreast of the developing threat." (From files at the Directorate of History, Department of Natioal Defence, Canada, 73/1223 and reproduced in Requiem) As a side note, the Arrow was originally to be a one for one replacement for the CF 100 but because of the reason stated here, fewer aircraft were needed.

Historians have maintained the cost per aircraft would be $12 million dollars. Audit Records revealed in Storms and Requiem show that the total cost of the program when complete was going to be $1.111 billion. This figure included all of the development cost, all of the production and tooling, support equipment, combat stocks of Falcon missiles and finally, the aircraft themselves at a fly-away cost of $3.75 million each, not $12 million. Too often fly-away cost is confused with overall program cost. As more aircraft were produced, the fly-away cost was going to drop to below $3 million, more than comparable to the less capable single-engine F106 for example.

Requiem details the reasons why costs escalated. Much of it is attributable to rising labour and material costs. What the documents also show though is that parts of the program were progressing faster than anticipated hence costs not expected until months or years later, were appearing earlier on. In addition, costs were fluctuating due to the numerous redesigns the RCAF was imposing on Avro. World conditions were also playing apart in that when the Soviets unveiled new aircraft, the program was accelerated accordingly, by the RCAF. The afformentioned file contains the relevant documentation supporting this scenario.

What was revealed in Storms, was the Top Secret brief prepared for George Pearkes, then Minister of National Defence, for his July 1958 meeting with officials from the US. The NORAD agreement had been signed in 1957 and the American were requesting that Canada install Bomarc bases along with SAGE and gap filler radar. From the Top Secret brief, "The introduction of SAGE in Canada will cost in the neighborhood of $107 million. Further improvements are required in the radar…NORAD has also recommended the introduction of the BOMARC missile…will be a further commitment of $164 million…. All these commitments coming at this particular time…will tend to increse our defence budget by as much as 25 to 30 percent…" Pearkes was also concerned about funding a defence against ballistic missiles. From an American brief of the meeting with Pearkes, "He [Pearkes] stated that the problem of developing a defence against missiles while at the same time completing and rounding out defence measures against manned bombers posed a serious problem for Canada from the point of view of expense…" Eisenhower Library, File: DDE Trip to Canada, Memcons, July 8-11, 1958, Canada-U.S. Defence Problems. See Requiem

So, the problem was a combination of costs that Canada could not afford. What was revealed in the late 1990s, was a taped interview Pearkes gave to his biographer. In that recording Pearkes discusses these problems and then reveals that he was advised by an American oficial, while en route to Colorado, that Canada did not need to build aircraft because the US had plenty and could make them available at any time. On tape Pearkes states that this is when he made his decision. His dilemma though was how to fill in the defence gap from cancellation of the Arrow to the time when Bomarc bases would be operational. On tape he reveals a secret deal he struck to allow American training in Goosebay and Labrador and Cold Lake, in exchange for protection. By August 11 1958, Pearkes requested cancellation of the Arrow.

It has been stated that the Army and Navy were upset with the cost of the Arrow as their own programs might be jeopardized. This is not borne out by the documentary record. When Pearkes tabled his memo to cancel, the Cabinet Defence Committee refused. He table it again in September and recommended installation of Bomarc etc. The latter was accepted but again the CDC refused to cancel. The CDC wanted to wait until 31 March 1959, to better examine world conditions. What was cancelled in September 1958 was the Sparrow/Astra system. Ill advised from the start, Avro and others had recommended against this system from the start.

The onset of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space and as the year wore on, word of a missile gap began spreading. Money would be needed for a defence against ballistic missiles. At the same time, the manned bomber threat was perceived to be diminishing. Noted Pearkes in a document after the cancellation, " We did not cancel the CF 105 because there was no bomber threat but because there was a lesser threat and we got the Bomarc in lieu of more airplanes to look after this." Department of National Defence, Directorate of History, File 79/469 Folder 19 see Requiem. We now know the missile gap was a fabrication and just a few months after the cancellation, the Americans were advising Canada to purchase interceptors, like American Voodoos.

Canada tried to sell the Arrow aircraft to the US and Britain but had no takers. Storms revealed that Donald Putt, AFRDC wanted to purchase the Arrow for the American inventory but the Secretary of the Air Force said no as did John Foster Dulles. In other words, while it is true that many Americans supported the Arrow, those that mattered did not, for various reasons not the least of which was pressure from American industry to purchase American made goods. Dulles said as much to Canadian officials, at the Paris summit in 1958.

The French government, prepared to buy some 200 Iroquois engines, cancelled the order in 1958, being advised by persons unknown that the Arrow was going to be cancelled.

On February 20, 1959 Diefenbaker announced to the Canadian House of Commons that the Arrow and Iroquois programs were to be immediately cancelled. The telegrams sent to Avro were very clearly and precise on the meaning of immediate. With no work available, this left the A.V. Roe Company no choice but to lay off some 14,000 workers in one afternoon. Declassified records show Avro was caught unprepared by the suddeness of the anouncement by the government. Some 25,000 were laid off due to cancellations of contracts with various subcontractors. These numbers are from declassified government records.

Within two months, all aircraft and engines, production tooling and technical data, were ordered scrapped. Contrary to popular belief, the scrap orders did not include photos or film of the aircraft in flight. An attempt was made to provide the completed Arrows to the Canadian National Research Council. The latter refused noting that without a company to provide spare parts and maintenance, as well as pilots, the NRC could make no use of them. As a static test bed, the NRC could not guarantee security around the aircraft. Remember, this was the cold war.

Why is the Arrow such a volatile subject in Canada?

There may be several reasons. Firstly, as noted from the above discussion, most of the information and records were kept in secret for over 30 years. Many thought the records had been destroyed until discovered and declassified for Storms and later Requiem. This screcy allowed much erroneous information to be propagated over the years. For example, the discussion on cost remains a major sticking point although now the audit records have been revealed.

Crawford Gordon was vilified for allegedly having argued with the Prime Minister at length and so the project was cancelled because of this. The two men met once. Writing in his memoirs, Diefenbaker made light of the encounter. It occurred long before the cancellation. Also, Gordon is accused of firing everyone out of spite. Again, the facts do not support this.

For his part, Diefenbaker has been vilified for ordering the physical destruction of the Aircraft. This too has been laid to rest as the paper trail of the decision was revealed in Storms. It leads to to Pearkes and the Chief of the Air Staff.

The fact of a mole in Avro was revealed in the 70s in a book called, "For Services Rendered," about the RCMP. The fact of the mole was confirmed by RCAF personnel to the author of Storms. Later this fact was confirmed in a book called the Mitrokhin archives. The mole issue was given in Stroms as the reason why the aircraft and plans were destroyed. This was further supported in Storms in quoting an Aviation Week article from 1959 that stated government officials had said the plans were destroyed as they could aid a potential enemy.

The engineers have been castigated by historians for building a flawed aircraft but this was proven incorrect by the documented record. Some Canadian historians have since changed their comments about a technically inferior plane as a result. Note that magazines of day such as Aviation Week in the US and Flight magazine in Britain, hailed the technical advances being made in the design of the Arrow and Iroquois engines.

So, given the lack of information and the fact that over 25,000 Canadians, their friends and families were affected, it is easy to see how this has become a volatile subject.

Although almost everything connected to the program was destroyed, the forward fuselage and some sections of the wings and control surfaces of the first Mark 2 Arrow were saved and are on display at the Canadian Aviation Museum in Ottawa.

In 1961, the RCAF purchased 66 CF-101 Voodoo aircraft to serve in the role originally intended to be filled by the Arrow. The controversy surrounding this acquisition, and Canada's acquiring nuclear weapons for the Voodoos and Bomarcs eventually led to the collapse of the Diefenbaker government in 1963.

There is a belief, held by many people, that one lone Arrow was flown away before it could be destroyed, and is now stored in some remote location in Canada. This is, most likely, a myth, kept alive by the wishes of those who would like to have seen the project continue.

Declassified Records Here is a summary of some questions that have been posed over the years, as answered by just a few of the declassified documents themselves. These documents are discussed further in Storms and Requiem:

a. On Cost: "Arrow costs compare favourably with the somewhat less sophisticated aircraft in the USA..."(RCAF Memo March 28, 1958 RG 24 Box 6430)

"If this (Arrow) were the only requirement for our air defence, we could perhaps make provision for it in our succeeding defence budgets..."(Pearkes to Dulles in explaining how adding SAGE/Bomarc would stress the defence budget TOP SECRET brief July 8 1958 from RG 49, Vol. 427, File 159-44-B, part 1)

b. Did the Arrow even have a mission? “What was so wrong with countering the Soviet threat...with alternate weapons such as the superb F-101 Voodoo?”:

"With the object of economy and to avoid unnecessary duplication, every effort has been made to determine whether future U.K. or U.S. aircraft could meet our requirements...In the U.K. the only aircraft for consideration is the Javelin whose performance falls far short of the requirement. In the United States there is the Convair F-102...does not meet the range requirement...The RCAF, therefore have had A.V. Roe Canada work out an engineering proposal for an aircraft to meet our specification." (the Honourable Brooke Claxton to cabinet November 30 1953 from RG 24/83/84/167 Box 6426)

Major General G.E. Price "...did not foresee the day of the phasing out of the manned interceptors as he felt there would always be a need for judgement and mobility in a weapon system." (General Price to the RCAF after a two day review of the entire project, in October 31 and November 1 1955, in which the USAF team concluded that the Arrow was superior to their F101, that Falcon should be the weapon of choice and that Iroquois would improve the performance of their own aircraft from RG 24/83/84/167, Box 6426)

The mission would be, "...primarily in peacetime to expose violation of national airspace...In wartime, reconnaissance aircraft are targets the same as any other enemy aircraft...an alternative supersonic two-place all-weather interceptor that generally meets the operational requirement is defined in OCH 1/1-63. This aircraft would have to be equal to or superior to the Arrow Weapons System."(RCAF review of the project late 1958 from RG 24 Box 6430)

c. When the Arrow was terminated, was it really a disaster for Canada's aviation industry?:

"...It has been our experience in the past that the potentialities of the Canadian aircraft industry and its allied companies have not always been appreciated...Lack of an immediate and long-range programme will result in a deterioration of the industry's effective operating capacity...We believe the industry at the moment to be in serious jeopardy."( Air Industries and Transport Association to the Prime Minister in December 1957. Arrow was the largest single ongoing project at the time therefore its termination would be disastrous. From The Scientific and Industrial Resources of the Canadian Aircraft Industry J.H. Parkin files NRC Ottawa)

d. Was Avro capable of delivering a first-class weapons system in the first place?

"There is no doubt that the firm is capable with its present labour force and space of meeting the likely demands for the RCAF and in fact exceeding them considerably...Orenda Engines Ltd...is excellently equipped and there is no doubt whatever of its ability to match the aircraft programme in mind by Avro Aircraft Ltd."(Evaluation of the Canadian CF-105 as an All-Weather Fighter for the RAF, Report by the Joint Air Ministry/Ministry of Supply Evaluation Team 1956.)

e. Questions remain about the Arrow's airframe design, and its engine was still developmental.

"This aircraft is now in the test flying stage and flights to date indicate it will meet its design requirements. The engine for the aircraft, which is part of the Arrow programme, is also undergoing air tests. These tests indicate that it also will meet its design requirements."(RG 2, Cabinet Conclusions, August 1958)

"Very few engineering problems are expected in the production or flight testing of the Arrow 2 airframe..."(RG 24, Box 6433 Assistant for Arrow Weapon System Office, January 1, 1959)

f. Even its proposed weapon system was still on the drawing board.

"The adoption of the MA-1/Falcon/MB-1 fire control and weapons to the CF 105 programme has reduced the development time and will permit operational aircraft to be delivered for squadron use by September 1960 in place of the spring of 1961...The result of substituting MA-1/Falcon/MB-1 for Astra/Sparrow together with a close analysis of the programme has resulted in an overall saving of...$452.5 million saving on the programme for 100 operational aircraft."(Chief of the Air Staff to Pearkes January 12, 1959 from 73/1223 Series 1, File 12, Directorate of History DND)

That looks great! Thanks a bunch for the effort! I'd approve of this rewrite, but you might wanna submit this to some more wikipedians that you know, to get their oppinions. This is the kind of stuff that makes the 'pedia great, and turns articles into featured articles! --Ringmaster j 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The article contains the following: "However, it also had a number of disadvantages, primarily high drag at lower speeds, and a behaviour known as "pitch-up" due to much of the wing being behind the center of gravity: if the wing stalls the lift suddenly moves forward, forcing the nose up." According to Jim Floyd, the designer he states, "These tests showed we were gettting a picth-up...This phenomena is not peculiar to deltas, being common to all swept wing aircraft...While the pitch-up appeared on test to be of small magnitude, since very moderate amounts of pitch-up can be embarrasing to the pilot, attempts were made to eliminate it." This led to the wing notch, leading edge droop, camber etc. (From The Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Volume 62 December 1958)

Clarification

We have a section, "The Arrow's thin wing demanded aviation's first 4000 lb/in² (28 MPa) hydraulic system that could supply enough power while using small actuators. No, the 4,000 lb system was used as it meant smaller piping meaning less weight penalty"

That's contradictory and conversational. The emphasis is mine. Anyone care to have a hack at that? I'm just not brave enough, I don't know what's correct :P

Recentlt the Airbus 380 adopted a 5000 psi system for the same reasons the 4,000 was chosen for the Arrow. (In the 1950s military aircraft had 3000psi systems.) Note the following quote and the respective website:

Hydraulic system The increase in pressure from 3000 psi to 5000 psi allows the necessary power to be transmitted with smaller piping and hydraulic components. That in itself reduces the aircraft's weight by about 1 metric ton...Airbus selected Eaton to provide the 5000-psi hydraulic power generation for the A380.

http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/IssueList/Article/False/6497/IssueList

There are numerous technical errors in the article. For example, the models flew at Mach 1.7 not Mach 2.

Namestamp with 4 tildes (these ~ things) so people can see your IPs or usernames. Canada-kawaii 14:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite from Raison D'etre to Politics

Here is an attempted re-write in hopes of clearing up the facts while keeping the article neutral:

Raison d'être In the post-World War II period, the Soviet Union began developing a fleet of long-range bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons to North America and Europe. To counter this threat, Western countries began the development of interceptor aircraft which could engage and destroy these bombers before they reached their targets.

Avro had come into being in 1945, but within the short period of 4 years, had developed and flown the first commercial jet transport to fly in North America, the C102 Jetliner. A comparable American regional jet would not fly until well into the mid 1950s. Avro’s first military aircraft development was the subsonic Avro CF-100 Canuck. Begun in 1946, the Cannuck would not enter service until 1953 but due to the lead times in building new aircraft and the advances that were thought to have been made in the Soviet Union, the RCAF began looking for a supersonic replacement. An RCAF team led by Ray Footit visited US aircraft producers and declared that no existing, or planned, aircraft could fulfil the requirements the RCAF was considering for the replacement to the Cannuck. In March 1952, the RCAF's Final Report of the All-Weather Interceptor Requirements Team was submitted to Avro for consideration. Avro had already been studying a supersonic aircraft to replace the Cannuck and submitted two brochures to the RCAF showing two separate configurations, the C-104/1 with a single engine, and the C-104/2 with twin engines.

The planes were otherwise similar, using a low-mounted delta-wing, powered by the new Orenda TR.9 engines, armed with Velvet Glove missiles (an RCAF design) stored in an internal bay, crewed by a single pilot, and guided with a completely automatic interception system that would track down and attack the target after it was selected by the pilot (similar to the F-86D). The primary advantage of the twin engine /2 version was that it was larger overall, including a much larger weapons bay, and had the advantage of twin-engine reliability.

In May 1953, the RCAF issued Specification AIR 7-3 and this became the basis for further studies.

AIR 7-3 called specifically for the twin-engined aircraft, for a number of reasons. On the one hand, the second engine provided a greater measure of reliability over the vast expanses of the Canadian north the Arrow was expeceted to defend against. On the other, given the large weapons bay being specified and the large amount of fuel required for the range, no single engine would be suitable to powere the aircraft.

The range was to be 300 nautical miles (556 km) for a normal low-speed mission, and 200 nautical miles (370 km) for a high-speed interception mission. It was to fly at Mach 1.5, cruise at an altitude of 50,000 feet (15,000 m), and be able to pull 2 g in maneuvers with no loss of speed or altitude under those conditions. American aircraft were pulling 1.3g at 30,000 feet. The time from a signal to start the engines to the aircraft's reaching an altitude of 50,000 feet (15,000 m) and a speed of Mach 1.5 was to be less than five minutes. The turn-around time on the ground was to be less than ten minutes. The new specification also called for a crew of two, as it was considered unlikely that even a fully automated system would reduce pilot workload enough to allow only one pilot.

To meet the requirements, the engineers considered the delta. In the words of designer Jim Floyd, “At the time we laid down the design of the CF-105, there was a somewhat emotional contoversy going on in the United States on the relative merits of the delta plan form versus the straight wing for supersonic aircraft…our choice of a tailless delta was based mainly on the compromise of attempting to achieve structural and aeroelastic efficiency, with a very thin wing, and yet, at the same time, achieving the large internal fuel capacity required for the specified range.” (Floyd, James, Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Devember 1958.)

Avro returned their modified C-105 design in May 1953, a two-man version of the C-104/2. It was decided to move the wing to the upper part of the fuselage from its former low-mounted point, in order to improve access to the internals of the plane, weapons bay, and engines. The high-wing on this design also allowed the wing to be a single structure across the plane, which simplified construction and added strength. However this also required long landing gear that still needed to fit within the thin delta-wing -- an engineering challenge. Five different wing sizes were outlined in the report, from 1,000 to 1,400 ft² (93 to 130 m²). The 1,200 ft² (111 m²) version was eventually selected. Three engines were considered as well; the Rolls-Royce RB-106, the Bristol B.0L.4 Olympus, and the Curtiss-Wright J67 (a license-built version of the Olympus). The RB-106 was selected with the J67 as a backup.

The weapons bay was larger than the 104/2, situated in a large thin box running from the front to the middle of the wing. The weapon system originally selected was the Hughes MX-1179, which was the pairing of the existing MA-1 fire-control system, firing AIM-4 Falcon missiles of radar-guided and heat seeking variants. This system was already under development for proposed use in the US's WS-201 1954 Interceptor (dating from 1949, which would lead to the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger). The Velvet Glove radar-guided missile was considered unsuitable for supersonic launch, and further work on that project was cancelled in 1956.

In July 1953 the proposal was accepted and Avro was given the go-ahead to start a full design study. In December, the Cabinet Defence Committee gave approval for the construction of two prototype aircrft, at $26.9 million. At first the project was limited in scope, but the introduction of the Soviet Myasishchev M-4 Bison jet bomber and their testing of a hydrogen bomb dramatically changed priorities. In order to speed production, more aircraft would be required for testing purposes. As a result, in March 1955, at the 104th meeting of the Cabinet Defence Committee, approximately $261 million was authorized, for the production of 40 aircraft. Approximately $70 million of the funding was for the development of 14 Iroquois engines, the engine being developed by Orenda and deemed suitable for the Arrow.

Production starts Most aircraft designs start with the construction of a small number of hand-built prototypes. These are test-flown, and the inevitable problems are discovered and fixed. Once satisfactory results are achieved, a set of jigs for production construction are laid out in the assembly hall. This is a slow and expensive process, but a safe one.

For the Arrow project it was decided to adopt the Cook-Craigie plan. Developed in the 1940s, Cook-Cragie skipped the prototype phase and built the first test-airframes on the production jigs. Any changes could be incorporated into the jigs while testing continued, so production started as soon as the test program was complete. As Jim Floyd noted at the time, this was a risky approach but together with the RCAF, “…it was decided to take the technical risks involved to save time on the programme…I will not pretend that this philosophy of production type build from the outset did not cause us a lot of problems in Engineering. However, it did achieve its objective..” (Floyd, Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Decmber 1958).

In order to mitigate the risks, a massive testing program was started and by mid-1954, the first production drawings were issued and wind tunnel work began. In another program, 9 instrumented free-flight models were mounted on solid Nike rockets and launched over Lake Ontario while 2 more were launched across Wallops Island in the United States. These models were for aerodynamic drag and stability testing and achievied a maximum speed of Mach 1.7 before intentionally crashing into the water. Ongoing efforts have been made to search for the models in Lake Ontario but none have been found to date.

Testing showed the need for only a small number of changes to the design, mostly involving changes to the wing profile and positioning. In order to improve performance the front of the wing was drooped, especially on the outer sections, a dog-tooth was introduced to control spanwise flow, and the whole wing was given a slight negative camber to help control trim drag and pitch-up.

The area rule principle was also applied to the design. This resulted in several changes including the addition of a tailcone, sharpening the radar nose, thinning the intake lips and reducing the cross-sectionial area of the fuselage below the canopy.

The aircraft used a large measure of magnesium and titanium in the fuselage, the latter limited largely to the area around the engines and for fasteners. At the time titanium was an expensive material and not widely used, because it was difficult to machine. The construction of the airframe itself was fairly conventional, however, with a semi-monocoque frame and multi-spar wing.

The hydraulic system chosen was an advanced 4000 lb/in² (28 MPa) as it meant smaller piping resulting overall in a reduction in weight. Use of an advanced stability augementation system (rudimentary fly-by-wire system) resulted in the problem of the lack of control "feel" for the pilot, and to solve this the control stick input was "disconnected" from the hydraulic system. The pilot's input was sensed by a series of force transducers in the stick, and their signal was sent to an electronic control servo that operated the valves on the hydraulic system to move the various flight controls. In addition, the same box fed pressure back into actuators in the stick itself, making it move. This happened quickly enough that it appeared as if the pilot were moving the stick directly. Three modes of control were available, manual, automatic and emergency mode.

In 1954 the RB.106 program was cancelled, so plans were made to use the backup J67 instead. In 1955 this engine was also cancelled, leaving the plane with no engine. At this point the new Pratt & Whitney J75 was selected for the initial test-flight models, while the new TR.13 (soon PS-13 Iroquois) engine was developed at Orenda for the production Mk.2s.

In 1956, the RCAF demanded an additional change, the use of the advanced RCA-Victor Astra fire-control system in place of the MX-1179, firing the equally advanced US Navy Sparrow II in place of the Falcon. Avro objected to this choice on the grounds that neither of these were even in testing at that point, whereas both the MX-1179 and Falcon were almost ready for production. The RCAF planners felt that the greatly improved performance of the Sparrow was worth the gamble.

The Astra proved to be a serious problem in the Arrow design. The system ran into a lengthy period of delays, and the US Navy eventually cancelled all work on the Sparrow II in 1956. This left the Arrow weaponless, although Canadair was quickly brought in to continue the Sparrow program in Canada.

A rush study looked at alternatives, including resurrecting the Velvet Glove for use with the Astra, or the use of the original MX-1179 system with its Falcons. Even the MX-1179 had run into difficulties, and the F-102 eventually settled on the older MG-1 system originally used in the F-86D. Work was continuing on the MX, however, as it was planned to be used in the upgraded F-102B (later renamed as the Convair F-106 Delta Dart), so this was selected for the Arrow as well.

Mark 1 Go-ahead on the production was given in 1955, and the rollout of the first prototype, RL-201, took place October 4 1957, quite an achievement for a company that had never built a supersonic aircraft. Unfortunately, the roll-out was dwarfed by the launch the same day, of Sputnik.

The J75 was slightly heavier than the PS-13, and hence required ballast to be placed in the nose to move the center of gravity back to the correct position. In addition, the Astra fire-control system was not ready, and it too was replaced by ballast. The otherwise unused weapons bay was loaded with test equipment.

Avro Arrow RL-201 first flew on March 25, 1958. Four more J75-powered Mk.1s were delivered in the next two years. The test flights went surprisingly well; the plane demonstrated excellent handling at all extremes of the flight envelope. The aircraft flew supersonically on only its third flight and on its seventh flight, achieved a spedd of over 1,000 miles per hour at 50,000 feet, while climbing and still accelerating. A top speed of Mach 1.98 would eventually be reached at three quarters throttle..

No major problems were encountered during the testing phase -- there were some issues with the landing gear, flight control system, and the stability augmentation system needed considerable tuning.

The former problem was partly due to the gear being very thin, in order to fit into the wings. In order to achieve gear stowage upon retraction, the landing gear was of the tandem arrangement - two tires: one in front of and one behind the gear leg. The leg shortened in length and twisted as it was stowed. During one landing incident, the chain mechanism used in the Mark 1 gear jammed, resulting in incomplete rotation of the gear. In a second incident, the flight control system commanded elevons full down at landing, resulting in little weight being on the main landing gears and ultimately resulting in brake lockup and gear collapse.

The stability augmentation system was a matter of tuning. Although the Arrow was not the first plane to use such a system, it used it for all three axes which other aircraft did not - it was one of the first, and the concept had not yet developed into the science it is today.

Mk.2 The Mk.2 version was to be fitted with the Iroquois engine. The Astra/Sparrow fire control system had been terminated by the government in September 1958 and all aircraft were to have the Hughes/Falcon system installed. At the time of cancellation of the entire program, the first Arrow Mk.2, RL-206, was nearly complete. It was expected to break the world speed record but never had the chance.

Top speed would have been limited by frictional heating but as Jim Floyd has said, “The alluminum alloy structure which we favoured was good for speeds greater than a Mach number of 2…” (Floyd, Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, December 1958).

Other versions

Avro Canada had a wide range of Arrow derivatives under development at the time of project cancellation. Frequent mention is made of an Arrow that could have been capable of Mach 3 -- this was not the production version, but one of the design studies, and would have been almost a completely different aircraft from the Arrow Mk.1 and Mk.2, featuring revised engine inlets, and extensive use of stainless steel or titanium to withstand airframe heating.

Discussion goes on the discussion page!

I am getting rather tired of removing comments from the main page. I found something on the order of two dozen comments in the article body, including hidden comments and outright back-and-forth discussions right in the text!

THIS is the page to discuss issues of fact, that's why it's called the discussion page.

Maury 13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Those comments where made by someone who had no other experience with Wikipedia, so they did not go through the appropriate process. Since then I have been in touch with this user and they have now realized a much more productive way of editing this article (see their proposed rewrite on this talk page). I chose to hide as many of those comments as I could find in HTML comments so that the comments themselves could be dealt with, without making the article look bad to people just reading it. Do you have a problem with having hidden comments? Qutezuce 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Maury, this was CLEARLY discussed above on this page. To barge in here without first reviewing the discussion page yourself makes you appear only concerned with being a WikiPedia "cop" and not at all concerned with being collaborative. I don't care how many articles you have written or edits you have made, you don't have any right to barge in and lecture.--CokeBear 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Pffft, ok, thanks for the lecture.

In case you didn't notice while being upset about how "rude" I was, all the discussion here had resulted in no actual fixes to the article itself. I poured considerable effort into this article some time ago, and to come here and see it butchered simply got my goat. I have every right to be upset.

I'm surprised that I upset your apparently fragile sensitivities, but considering your entire contribution to the article to date is to add a period and a comment in the middle of the text, frankly I don't give a hoot. If you don't like me being a "cop" (although I can't possibly imagine a more innaccurate description of my wiki behavior), stop whining and get to work fixing the article so huge contributers such as myself don't have to come in here and spout off.Maury 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

I have made quite a few minor edits to clear up redlinks and dates as well as spelling, but there is still work to do. Perhaps someone else could help? --The1exile 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep it up! I'll be out of commission until Wed at the earliest, so this is an excellent time to do all the little edits if you see them. Maury 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I may be able to contribute some points to this article as well as I have the Avro Arrow project as a Social Studies project in school over the next four months. Specifically the controversy surrounding the cancellation. Cheers and Happy Editing! Colt 38 10:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

I've attempted three times to parse the diction, w/o ANY content change.

The "Hidden Chopper," who watches this site constantly, reverses the changes... Note below. Opuscalgary 00:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Still in dire need of cleanup

The fact that two years of discussion have passed and this article is still in atrocious shape is, frankly, embarrassing. If somebody doesn't get the courage to blow away the poorly referenced and POV parts of this article (particularly the "politics" section) then I will. --Rhombus 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

Seems difficult to justify without sources - especially since in the UK the TSR-2 is still regarded in high esteem despite its cancellation. And at the very least hardly deserves a section of its own.GraemeLeggett 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it needs a good copyediting. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also agree. The first thing that sprung to my mind when I read that was "The TSR.2, surely." A full comparison of the issues behind each cancellation would be interesting, too. --Warphammer 23:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Krakow, a Web Comic written by a Canadian expatriate, has recently made a story arc about the Avro Arrow. Well... to be fair, an antrpomorphized Avro Arrow. The Arc begins here. I don't know where to put this, or even if it is relevant.--ttogreh 01:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Sputnik was not bigger than a basketball. Do we really think that Canadians were afraid of it? By ending this project, Canada missed a change to become a big player rather than the Cold War buddy of the US. I think the cultural impact of Arrow is bigger than it is specifications because it was never entered to service. You need to expand that side of the article. Deliogul 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to not become a "cold war buddy" of the US when you live right next to them and they have ten times the industrial output (actually, I believe it was much higher in comparison then). This process of integration was well established even by the time the Arrow came around.

Additionally, people weren't "afraid" of Sputnik. The problem was that the Sputnik launcher could also lob a bomb, something an interceptor couldn't do anything about. The response was a massive downscaling of manned aircraft projects around the world, in the US (F-103, F-108, B-70, etc.), the UK (1957 Defense White Paper cancelled dozens of projects), and practically everywhere else. There's no reason to suggest Canada would have, or should have, avoided this. Everyone turned to missiles and ABM work, CADRE included.

And let's not forget that Canada is a big player. Due to Bombardier's presense, Canada's aircraft production is third in the world behind the US and all of Europe put together. I know the Arrow is the one that got away, but I think de Havilland Canada, Canadair and everyone else from Bristol to Zenair would be rather upset to hear people dismiss them as effectively non-existant. And hey, the DASH-8 and CRJ are not exactly uncommon in Turkey! Maury 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Massive snippage

I have removed the vast majority of the "back and forth" discussion of the controversy. What I have done instead is collected the various facts supported by the most recent evidence (or so claimed at least) and edited that into a single section. This leaves what appears to be a fairly clear description of what actually happened -- ie, Pearks feeling that the Arrow was the least important and "most cancellable" portion of the military budget.

What has been removed is essentially what people used to think about the issue. It is not clear this is of any use in this article, which is about the plane. What actually happened does seem to be important, which is what remains. Additionally, lots of material on how people felt about the decision was also removed, for similar reasons.

I should point out that I am personally guilty for introducing some of these arguments in the first place, which were then expanded on by other authors trying to "set the facts straight". So to some degree, much of what removed was either my text, or "my fault". I appologize, by attempting to fix it. The resulting snippage should leave the article in a much more readable state, as well as cutting over 10k, about 1/4, from the text.

There are, of course, reasons to want to read accounts that the removed material covered. However, there are a number of good books on this topic, which are mentioned at the end of the article.

Maury 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Opuscalgary( a 50 year old CDN taxpayer, appreciated the cancellation.) Opuscalgary 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you provide some reliable sourced information, kindly keep these wonderful observations to this discussion page.Bzuk 04:27 27 February 2007 (UTC).

But I do, Bill! someone keeps deleting my links to scholarly studies:-< & vandalizing my talk entries.. As a "Master of Education", degree holder, could you explain the value of a Masters' thesis? http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm

Anyone who claims thatAVRO didn't incurr massive cost overruns HASN'T read Gen.Peakes' memoirs. I'd post the on line link, but hey, truth vanishes here quickly...

Cheers, Opuscalgary 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

comparable

comparable aircraft is difficult but I thought the two Saro's worth a mention in terms of their intention to be a high altitude interceptor with a good rate of climb (20,000 ft/min). They were also cancelled as well but thats neither here nor there). Should this be qualified as a note to the entries?GraemeLeggett 09:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Armament

The current entry on armament lists the CF-105 as being capable of carrying 8 Falcons AND 3 - 4 Sparrow IIs. Shouldn't this be 8 Falcons OR 3 - 4 Sparrow IIs? (More info/citations on the use of the Genie on the Arrow would be of interest too -- Anyone know the source of the information on the use of the Genie on the Arrow?)

--Plane nutz 14:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I have diagrams of the fit somewhere. Has this been fixed yet? Maury 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

YouTube Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJdKf0EuZjQ&search=avro Actual replica plane used in the cbc movie for the avro aero found in an aircraft museum warehouse. Found in Witaskewin Alberta.

Too much information?

Just a thought -- I personally find this:

"The official repository of all government documents relating to the Arrow projects, as well as all government documents of historical importance, including contemporary documents still in use which will be deemed historically-important. The entirety of the Avro Arrow documents have not been declassified, only portions based on donor agreements and laws, the entire collection still has decades to go until completely public, in fact, controversial copies of the complete blueprints apparently surviving the destruction of 'all' documents will not become public until 2067. The Library and Archives is the recent consolidation of the two government information powerhouses: the National Archives and the National Library. Interestingly, this institution houses all defence records of Canada, from the country's founding up to the present-day."

suffix to the Library and Archives Canada listing in the references to be far too long, with unnecessary detail. (This charge could be levelled at several of the descriptions of references, but this is the worst example). Perhaps it should be reduced to:

The official repository of all government documents relating to the Arrow projects, as well as all government documents of historical importance.

Additionally, a link to Library and Archives Canada (www.collectionscanada.ca) might also be in order.

--Wee Charlie 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

very true, so I trimmed it. GraemeLeggett 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Avro Arrow article revisited

As is evidenced by the swirling arguments on this discussion page, the CF-105 Arrow article is lengthy, convoluted and filled with questionable POV. I have begun an extensive rewrite based on the current reference sources on the subject that may produce a more refined and utlimately useful article. Keep watching the page and help in this edit if you can. Bzuk 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Docudrama "most-watched ... in Canadian history"?

In 1997, the CBC broadcast the two-part mini-series, The Arrow about the Arrow program, which remains one of the most-watched television programs in Canadian history.

I asked for a citation on this point a while ago, but the reference provided is a newspaper column that doesn't mention the viewership of the mini-series at all. I won't remove the claim, since I assume there was a cut-n-paste error with the citation.

—Eric S. Smith 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I worked alongside the CBC crew and was able to write a number of articles based on the making of the TV series. As I said earlier, the broadcast is widely believed to be one of the most watched television programs. CBC reports that the program drew 2.5 million viewers, and, of course, it has been repeated many times on speciality channels testifying to its drawing power to this day. From Peter Zuuring's "Arrow Scrapbook" comes this description: "In early 1997, the CBC aired the very popular mini-series on the Avro Arrow, starring Dan Ackroyd. This show gathered the second largest TV audience in Canadian television history with more than 2.5 million viewers for four hours of television. (The first was Donovan Bailey's ten second Olympic 100 meter run.)"Bzuk 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I loved the TV series. It was a story that needed to be told. However, a comedy series in Quebec (La Petite vie), regularly got 4 millions viewers. I think you need to support your claim on the rankings. Westmalle

Reply: How about "a one-time viewing audience of 2.5 million, making it, at the time, one of the most watched English-language CBC broadcasts." Again, I did not post the the original statement but I did try to justify its claim. Bzuk 02:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ahh ...One jazzed up drama spawns a host of Coffee table buff books, who's authors' then quote THEMSELVES on WIKI, & the circle goes round & round..

The TV show was good fiction. This article is IMHO,silly fiction. True air farce smaltz! Show me one other Aircraft article with model planes & conspiracy sections... Opuscalgary 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Gryon?

Anyone know why the Gyron wasn't selected as one of the Arrow engines? It has performance pretty much identical to the Iroquois and was already running in 1953 when the Arrow design started in earnest. The interest in the RB.106 seems obvious given that it was more advanced than any of these designs (yes, including the Iroquois), but the Olympus and Gyron seem to be pretty much identical in design, as is the later Iroquois. It just seems odd that the Gyron wasn't considered. Maury 15:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with the Gryon engine (I have done numerous internet searches with no success finding any information on it), my understanding is that the Olympus engines were considered only as a temporary design anyway. If memory serves me correctly from past research of this project (I cannont remember the source, which is why I have not mentioned it until now) is that the Rolls Royce and Bristol Siddeley engines were temporary tools to begin testing on the aircraft bodies until a Canadian made engine was produced. Has anyone else come accross a source to back this up? SJM 7 February 2007

Reply

Quite the reverse. Jim Floyd and others described the dilemna of creating a new airframe married to a new engine then added to that, new and untested avionics, electronic and weapons systems, it was the classic problem of too many "new" things. The Iroquois was in development but only substituted for the original Rolls-Royce and Curtiss-Wright engines. See the following references:

Floyd, James. The Canadian Approach to All-Weather Interceptor Development. "The Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, December 1958."
Page, Ron, Organ, Richard, Watson, Don and Wilkinson, Les. Avro Arrow: The Story of the Avro Arrow from its Evolution to its Extinction. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press, 1979, reprinted Stoddart, 2004. ISBN 1-55046-047-1.
Stewart, Greig. Shutting Down the National Dream: A.V. Roe and the Tragedy of the Avro Arrow. Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson, 1991. ISBN 0-07-551119-3.
Whitcomb, Randall.Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation. St. Catharine's, Ontario: Vanwell, 2002. ISBN 1-55125-082-9.
Zuk, Bill. The Avro Arrow Story: The Revolutionary Airplane and its Courageous Test Pilots. Calgary: Altitude Publishing, 2005. ISBN 1-55153-978-0. Bzuk 17:40 7 February 2007 (UTC).

I stand corrected. Thank you for the information. SJM 7 February 2007

Globemaster: Arrow deja vu?

There should be a section on the recent C-17 plane purchase, it is very related to the Arrow. The yankee are once again pushing down canadian throats some overpriced junk (Bomarc) that will hurt every canadian taxpayer and domestic economy deep in the pocket in the long term. 193.226.227.153 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And maybe you should stop embarrassing Canadians with racist comments. Ever consider that nationalist rhetoric could become a two way street, and "yankee" could act like you? Maybe they resent phoney "American" TV shows shot in Canada with all-Canadian crews, but created specifically for the American market. The list of such things is rather long. Scott Adler 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Geez, Scott, that was posted five months ago -- sleeping dogs! Maury 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, yeah. Maury 15:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto- a real stretch here, IMHO. Bzuk 16:12 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I disagree...the C-17 isn't a bad piece of equipment, and doesn't require extra parts (nuclear warheads) to be useful. It's just another purchase of American equipment when we could/should have looked elsewhere (Psyklek 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

Psyklek, don't you mean you agree? The C-17 has very little connection to the Avro Arrow; no Canadian aircraft procurement was affected by the purchase of the C-17 and as you indicated, the C-17 Globemaster III is a "good piece of kit." BTW, there is already a very thorough article on the aircraft found on Wikipedia. Bzuk 14:12 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk, sorry for the confusion. I agree with you and Maury, that the first statement was incorrect. (Psyklek 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

Similar? Or identical?

"similar to the system utilized in the F-86D". IIRC, weren't they proposing to use the MG-1 in C-104 proposals? Maury 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Floyd and concorde

Not having access to the reference work in question (I'm working form the Wikipedia articles for Concorde, Floyd and STAC (covered under Bristol 223) I'm still confused. The wikiarticles imply he joined H-S on the SST work in 65 by which point the Concorde prototypes were already building. But H-S were already involved in STAC in the late 50s and their work was passed over for Bristol's. Sud-Aviation showed their design at the start of the 60s. Surely Floyds involvement must have started earlier or his influence been less than implied. (I'll copy this to Floyds article too.)GraemeLeggett 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See article and note regarding Floyd and the HS SST. Bzuk 13:33 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Graeme,the information presented elaborates on the Hawker Siddeley Aviation (HSA) supersonic airliner studies from the Hawker Siddeley Advanced Projects Group headed by James C. Floyd post 1959. The HSA.1000 was the final submission to the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee (STAC) which along with the Bristol Aircraft proposal was for an advanced Mach 2.2 design. The STA dictated a joint SST feasibility study in 1959 wherein the two competing design teams could collaborate, this being the only point at which Floyd influenced the ultimate Concorde layout. The HSA.1000 had similarities to the Bristol (later BAC) studies although the HSA design had a blended wing-fuselage with underslung jet engines in nacelles situated at the rear of the wing and the Bristol design was based on a delta wing planform (with an initial above-wing engine configuration). After the Concorde contract was given to the BAC/Sud Aviation collaboration, the HSA SST team continued to develop advanced SST projects but found no interest by either European or American manufacturers with design studies concluded in 1967. I will include this information in both the Avro Arrow and James C. Floyd articles. Bzuk 22:59 21 February 2007 (UTC).

CF-101 Statement

In the present article, there is a statement to the effect that F-101 was an aircraft "originally rejected by the RCAF".

What is the authority for this statement? There was a reference in the "Arrowheads" (Page et. al.) book on the Arrow to the F-101B being rejected by Ray Footit in his report on interceptors to the RCAF. I've seen the Footit report at the National Archives in Ottawa, and it says no such thing. When the Footit report was written (1952?), the F-101B was a hypothetical design that had not been authorized for development. As such, the report devoted very little attention to it. The ultimate conclusion of the Footit report stated that Canada, if it did not develop the CF-105, should buy the F-102B (later the F-106).--Voodude 17:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The aircraft evaluated was the XF-88 Voodoo and although its successor, the XF-101 was already being developed, it existed mainly as "paper project" at that point. I will try to find some citations for this contention but it is an oft-repeated belief so if you have some exact information that is contradictory, that would go a long way to setting the record straight. Bzuk 17:23 28 February 20007 (UTC).

This is very interesting Voodude. Out of curiosity, what designs were mentioned in the report? I'm a little curious as to the logic used to exclude the F-102, which at that point in time seemed to be aimed into the Arrow's niche pretty closely. I ask because I saw a mention in the F.155 article that the Arrow was considered for the UK interim interceptor design, but rejected due to a limitation to attacking targets at Mach 0.9, which always struck me as odd. Maury 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill -- the report didn't mention the XF-88 either. The XF-88 was intended to be an escort fighter for SAC rather than an interceptor, and by the time the information for the Footit report was gathered focus had shifted to the F-101A (also an escort fighter for SAC). The only way in which any Voodoo was mentioned in the report was a brief mention of a hypothetical F-101B interceptor variant, which at that time had not been authorized for development. I read the reference to the Footit report in Page et. al. many years ago and was always curious to find out why the F-101 was deemed unsuitable, so I looked it up at the Archives. I was surprised to discover that the report barely mentions the F-101, and certainly doesn't 'reject' it as Page described.

Maury -- I have to go from memory here, as my copy of the report got mis-filed/lost when I took it out of my filing system to make a copy for another researcher. I recall that it was one of two reports -- It referenced an earlier report covering the potential aircraft from British manufacturers. As for other aircraft mentioned -- Certainly the F-102 and F-86D, and I seem to recall mention of variants of the F-94, F-100, F-103, etc. The report also covered relevant engines and armament systems available during this time period from American manufacturers. I don't recall the details about what the report said about the F-102, but it was written after the decision to split the F-102 program into the F-102A and F-102B (aka F-106), and the reports conclusion was that the RCAF should buy the F-102B/F-106 if development of the Arrow was not proceeded with.--Voodude 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow up -- having relocated a copy of the 1952 interceptor team report, and gone over the section in Page again, it appears that there were probably two reports from the interceptor team. The one I saw essentially made no mention of the F-101, as it was before the decision to produce the interceptor version of the F-101 was made (mid 1952). The implication is that there was a second report from the interceptor team about a year later. According to one researcher I corresponded with, the second report was made after the RCAF decided that it wanted a homegrown solution, and thus the report indicated that no other aircraft was good enough for the RCAF's requirements. So I retract my former statement -- It appears that Page was referring to the later report rather than the one I had. I'm going to try and see if I can dig up a copy of this report on my next trip to the Archives.--Voodude 14:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ERRORATTA!

http://gateway.uvic.ca/schoolnet/digicol/pearkes/plv5/parrow.html

I would like to restore my footnote, Can we discuss this? Lets give Pearkes some credit- Valiant soldier, seasoned MP, Major General WHO WON THE VICTORIA CROSS. General Pearkes was pretty capable.I am rather amused at the 'Arrowheads' low opinion of him.( & THE VC,Cabinet posts, Governorships, etc.....)

In hindsight, for fifty years the CF101 Voodoo,& the F-18 Hornet have successfully secured Candian airspace. (Lt. Governor Pearkes,ten years later, vindicated the CF 101 Voodo purchases)

Opuscalgary 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not "the chopper", but frankly I think this language is over the top. For one thing the F-18 costs considerably more than the Arrow, so it's also counterfactual. I do agree, however, that Pearkes' decisionmaking is interesting, and should be included. Maury 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken,& modify it if you wish. Remember, Maury, that the CF/18 is a multi role strike fighter that replaced three planes- Pearkes had some hard budget choices to make for defense,& he bargained well for the Voodoos.

SIGHTING:

Bzuk(Bill Zuk?) Maury Markowitz,please stop posting nonsense on my personal site. "Troll packs" are out of bounds (Your "kitty litter" below) regards Opuscalgary 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

POSTED BY MAURY: This is your final warning I advised you not to post insults about editors here on the wikipedia, and posted a link to the appropriate policy. You responded by removing this advice and then posting a similar insult aimed at me on my talk page. This is unacceptable behavior. As a long time wikipedian, you might want to take my advice and take a short Wikipedia:Wikibreak, you might return to find that you have a different view on this events. Maury 17:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Opuscalgary"

All of this ruminating is fine as a discussion although there is nothing here other than personal observations. There is a broad and extensive body of evidence that can be accessed to support any submission to a Wikipedia article. In the case of the Avro Arrow "saga," there are extant documents found at the National Aeronautical Collection of the Canada Aviation Museum as well as in other repositories across Canada. If you chose to provide sourced documentation that reflects an objective and historically accurate account, then go to it. Otherwise, restrict your opinions to this discussion page. Bzuk 15:23 3 March 2007 (UTC).

and then:

Since you have removed all comments that were for courtesy sent to this page, let me reiterate some of the points that I made. I first indicated that I thought that it is interesting that the debate about the relative merits of a cancelled aircraft project still warrants discussion nearly sixty years after its demise. However, for the respective views to be fully aired, I asked for a degree of dispassionate and objective perspectives to be maintained.

Although I am fairly new to the Wikipedia world, I do have an interest in Canada's aviation heritage. For prospective Wikipedia editors, the basic tenets of Wikipedia use include the following:

Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them; Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations; Stay cool when the editing gets hot; Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule; Act in good faith; Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; Assume good faith on the part of others, and Be open and welcoming. At this point, you have been in contravention of all of these guidelines and although these tenets are established to illustrate and guide progress, they are the "backbone" of civil discourse in what is primarily an "open" forum. If you continue to insist that you have contradictory evidence, the onus is on you or any other editor to provide sourced documentation. There is a comprehensive bibliography of reference sources extant as well as a myriad of other first-person accounts. Rely on them to build your commentary. You may want to take the opportunity to read the earlier discussions still available on the Avro Arrow "talk" page as it is illustrative of the editorial development of what is undoubtably still a contentious subject. As to your aspersions as to my intent or that of other editors, I refer you to the guidelines that specifically preclude personal attacks (especially on people you do not know- Maury Markowitz is considered a premier Canadian aviation historian and does not deserve to be castigated as a "troll" which you have insinuated, as for myself, "water on a duck's back" is my reaction). Bzuk 22:59 3 March 2007 (UTC). And

Hi -----, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi -----: I am the editor that Mister Bill is warring on. Here is the link that he keeps deleting, along with 90% of my talk entries.

http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm

I realise that Mr. Zuk has built a cottage industry on Arrow prints. I have read his books.

He should have consulted The late Peter Walmsley, Professor 1959 -1990, U of S College of Commerce, Battle of Britain Vet, FORMER AVRO EXECUTIVE (to 1958).

I studied under Peter. Your mediation is appreciated. regards R Saretsky , Opuscalgary 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fellows this is silly stuff.

Maury, Bill, Relax- its spring. Da Deal: If you clean this article in the next four months, I will shut up.If you want to take a posse to mediation, be my guest. If the AVRO ARROW article has not been cleaned by July /2007,I will truth & cut those bloviated Black Friday & political sections. or:

2. Someone who is not Maury, Bzuk,OR MYSELF, gives a balanced account of George Pearkes,VC's decisions on cancelling the Avro Arrow.

His descendants would be pleased,& his service to Canada rates it. "...At the 120th CDC meeting on 15 August 1958,60 Pearkes outlined the various scenarios the CSC had examined: The present programme, which called for the re-equipping of the nine RCAF all-weather squadrons in Canada with CF-105 aircraft, presented a requirement, with training and backup, for a production order of 169 CF-105 aircraft at a forecast total expenditure of over two billion dollars during the period 1959-1960 to 1963-1964..." http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm thanks Opuscalgary 21:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm new to this article, so hopefully I can bring an unbiased voice...please keep in mind that the thesis that you keep referencing is not considered a primary published source according to WP policy and guidelines. This is an unpublished work posted on the internet, which makes it one step away from OR. This article should primarily document the aircraft. If you want to have a detailed treatise on the politics that surrounded it, I strongly suggest that such material be trimmed from this article and put into one specifically on the larger political controversies that surrounded the project. I know that there are some strong emotions involved here, and everyone needs to work extra hard to keep them out of this discussion. There's a lot of POV involved here, and everyone really needs to rise above that. Akradecki 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you. All references in this thesis are referenced. All references were checked by the University of Saskatchewan.This thesis is published as part of the Deifenbaker collection, as quoted in the Bibliography, attached to the thesis. regards Opuscalgary 15:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Opus, it is entirely fair to seek the input of a neutral 3rd party experienced editor. And, I'm sorry, but the thesis simply doesn't cut the mustard in regards to Wikipedia's policy on source matter.Akradecki 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. For American editors, George Pearkes ' Victoria Cross is the equivelent of your Congressional Medal of Honor. "Welcome to Canada, where you can get your 15 minutes of fame by dissing heroes..."

'Storms of Controversy' is a discredited source.Look, Reality is called for. Sorry if I am blunt about it. The article has three bad sections. The AVRO ARROW "black Friday " is a carefull amagram of truth & err, 'unique truth'.(In reality, the CDN Conservative government HAD EXTENDED THE EQUIVELENT OF 1.6 billion dollars ( 2007 terms) in government funding after production of the Arrow was halted, in an attempt to make the design economically feasible,& to allow AVRO to develop other projects.AVRO was not a a well run corporation.The 'real conspiracy' consisted of a team of American skilled workers & engineers, who produced the Voodoo at 35% of the Arrow's cost, yet made a profit doing so..)

Pearkes, in three years, introduced project managment into a chaotic defense department,provided the Canadian forces with two sets of supersonic aircraft under favorable terms, and actually REDUCED the defense budget. Arthur Haileys' novel, "in High Places", was really unfair to him- the guy was in control. Defense was the best run part of the Diefenbaker government.

Melvin Conant’s words still reverberate largely because for almost forty years the field was abandoned to a veritable cottage industry of pro-Arrow aviation enthusiasts, generically known as “Arrowheads.” They are amateur historians who write - irritatingly, often bestselling - “buff books” which have helped to perpetuate an Arrow mythology:

Listening to these laments, you might think that killing the Arrow was a crime against humanity, a kind of technological infanticide. In a debate with words such as beauty and poetry used in the same breath as requiem and tragedy, the stillborn Arrow seems the greatest failure of our nationhood. To the revisionists and nationalists who have freighted the Arrow with hopes and fears, the airplane was a metaphor. When it soared, it reflected daring, stature and self- confidence. When it crashed, it represented weakness and insecurity. And when those dazzling prototypes were cut up into little pieces, allegedly on the orders of a vengeful prime minister...it gave rise to a delicious conspiracy: that the planes (and plans) were destroyed to ensure none would end up in a museum where dispossessed romantics would hold monthly vigils....39

regards Opuscalgary 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember well my shock when I read of the cancellation in Aviation Leak. What I did not know at the time, and what few knew, was that there was a very sound reason for the cancellation of so many of the "free world's" dedicated, interceptor programs at that time.

The U-2s had been overflying the Soviet Union for several years and it was then certain there was no large scale Soviet bomber threat to intercept. There certainly would be no horde of supersonic bombers to be shot down in the future. The CF-105 as beautiful and advanced as it was, was an airplane without a job to justify the cost of building it.

Diefenbaker was not the grinch, he was a fiscal conservative much like Dwight Eisenhower who cancelled some really neat US programs that were just as pointless.Mark Lincoln 14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Interest

Regarding this section -- It presently mentions the F-102 as being the contemporary American interceptor to the Arrow. The F-106 (originally the F-102B) would probably be a better choice here, as it was closer in performance to the intended performance of the Arrow, and came into service in June 1959. A comprehensive listing of contemporary American supersonic interceptors would also include the F-101B Voodoo. Ideally, all three should be mentioned -- Any objections to a re-write to incoporate this?Voodude 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have none, and am actually quite curious why the didn't just use the F-106. But wasn't the 101B project started when the Arrow was already going? Maury 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If by "the(y)" you mean the RCAF, the major requirement was range. THe Arrow Mk.1 used 2 of the same engines as the F-106, though these were not inteded for long-term use. Also the Arrow was a two-seater, while the 106 was a single. These factors probably figured in to the RCAF's eventual choice of the F-101B as its main interceptor over the F-106, if it was offered. - BillCJ 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the F-102B or F-106 was the logical AVRO Arrow competitor as an interceptor. It was even offered to the RCAF in 1954 when the Avro CF-105 design was being reviewed. USAF observers had been approached for an independent assessment of the technology and concept. Bzuk 03:14, 06 March 20007 (UTC).

I rely on Insingers seminal work. http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm . There was a shift in parameters from ‘hot interception’ to boundary interdiction. The CF- 101 had the range. For all its glory, the CF-105 was very short ranged – it traded range for speed & climb. The cost per aircraft was the 650 million spent on the program to 1958,plus the two billion plus required from 1959 to 1964, divided by 169 ARROWS, OR FIFTEEN MILLION, SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND PER PLANE, eleven millon three hundred thousand in unsunk cost. According to the RCAF historial website, the TWO YEAR OLD Voodos cost ONE MILLION, FIVE HINDRED NINETY ONE THOUSAND PER PLANE, half of which was payable by offset, ie, Canada Staffed & maintained the eleven Radar stations on Canadian soil, previously staffed by Americans. Even after amortising the 116 million spent on the BOMARC ( 846,715.00) per CF101, Canada was miles ahead. Throw in the DPSA offsets- I'm not a Tory, & i'ts not my fault that America built great jet fighters at bargaiprices, it was a deaL OF A LIFETIME.(Note: multiply all prices by 5.50 to get the APPROX RATE OF INFLATION.)..Regards

Opuscalgary 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's one thing you haven't mentioned about the F-101B: It was based on the succesful F-101A and later F-101C, which meant that much of the develpment costs had already been paid for. In addition, the F-101 series was produced in relatively large numbes (over 800), meaning that per-unit costs were much lower. This needs to be considered when discussing prices. Second, as far as the CF-105's range goes, I assume this was with the J75s. The Mk. 2 hadn't even flown yet, so it's unknown what its range would have actually been (probably better, perhaps worse). These things are hard to know until actual versions have flown, as projections have been wrong before. THird, if range was becoming more important while the CF-105 was in service, measures would probably have been taken to extend its range - ie. adding extra tanks (like many 101Bs carried), lowering the weight, etc.

Finally, aircraft procurement is always a complex issue, and most canccellations are controversial. All sides of an issue have to covered, fairly, in an article like this, and the chances of pleasing everyone are nil. I've seen the Arrow TV movie, read other sources, and evaluated your view as expressed here. On the whole, I feel the article does a good job of trying to remain neutral. The position is does put forth is one that is broadly accepted in aviation circles. In may not be perfect, but just because it criticizes a decision, that is not the same as assualting a good man or his character. Good people, even great people, make mistakes, or at least decisions that are considered mistakes, especially in hindsight. THat doesn't detract from their importance or greatness in other areas; it's just part of what makes us all human. - BillCJ 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

True. I will agree that the prototypes & storable key tooling should have been kept. The cost perspectives, & the differentials, are so huge, though. DPSA probably rates an article of its own, as it was a model,& maybe the high point, for cross border Canada /USA relations.

There are 'nodes of excellence' in weapons systems where everything comes together- the British Dreadnought, the UKRAINIAN DESIGNED T-34 Tank,& American air power in the 1950's & sixties. McDonnell simply knesw how to design & build great planes.

Opuscalgary 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Split idea

Bill, (BZuk, else it looks like I'm talking to myself!), have you considered splitting off the extensive political coverage to their own article? I know the text is not as long as some articles, but this is often done with the longer aircraft pages (ie. F-14 Tomcat has a separate History page, and I believe the F-16 Fighting Falcon has an Operators page). I understand that politics is integral to the aircraft's history, but doing this can leave the main page to focus on the aircraft itself, with just brief coverage of the controveries, and a {{main}} link to the spinoff page. It can have the added benefit of making the main page less of a target for controversial edits, while a spin-off page often gets less of that kind of attention. It would also given more room for an expaned coverage of the issues and controversies that we might not want to put in the main article because of space and context (the aircraft itself).

Just an idea. I'm not going to run ahead without you on this, esp. if I don't have a consensus. Just wondering if you had given it any thought. If this were a short page, I wouldn't even worry about it, but when they start to get this long, and attract this much attention, it's worth considering. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, another editor also suggested this alternative and although it has been tried before in a controversial biography (Amelia Earhart and the "disappearance" theories) unless there is a consensus, many editors prefer one longer and more comprehensive article to a number of "linked" articles. Bzuk 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

I totally agree on the consensus. But since we are dealing with 2 topics here, the aircraft itself, and the politics and controversies surrounding it, I think we could make a good case for the split. As a writer, you probably have a better idea where to split it, and what should go where. If I where doing it personally, I would follow what I did recently when I split the Boeing VC-25A off of the Air Force One article, only in reverse (keeping the aircraft-specific stuff, trahter than forking it off).

We can hash out some ideas here, and see if any other editors chime in. If there's an obvious consensus that way to split, then we can jdut do it at that point. If nothing's obvious either way, we can take a formal poll, and see where things stands. - BillCJ 03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

On my monitor this article is eleven pages long, or nine discounting the lengthy references and links sections. Two of these discuss politics and the cancellation. I really don't see the point in splitting out 20% of the article, given that the politics were so important in this case. Perhaps that's just me, because I wrote a politics section for the B-1 article that's much longer than this one. Maury 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point regarding where it is now. However, I think coverage on the political side could be expanded beyond where it is now, and has the potential to overwhelm the rest of the article. Given the amount of sources listed, I'm assuming the potential for expansin is great. In addition, a separate article would give space to further discuss relavant contemprary political issues in greater detail than here. Anyway, it's just a question, and it doesn't have to happen now - it's WIki after all! - BillCJ 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ on "Canadian inferiority complex crap"

I personally doubt the cancelled American iterceptors were way more advanced. If they entered production, revisions after 1963 would use BASIC as a programming language, and they would be for n00bs, while the Arrow would still be t3h l33t. Anyway, Mach 3 doesn't matter when the plane is made by disgruntled Union workers. Anyway, I hear that the USAF wants to use Windows on next generation fighters, but it may be a stupid rumour (note the properly placed "U"). ROFL. Note: I do not intend for this to be a personal attack. Canada-kawaii 19:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Canadian inferiority complex crap" was just a bit of mis-fired sarcasm aimed at the "US superiority" phrase. Sorry! In terms of structure, Mach 3 interceptor designs of that time were "far" more advanced (not "way" more advanced, which is more than "far") than contemporary Mach 2 aircraft, which is what I believe the intent of the remark was. Maybe the phrase should be should be clarified to make that clear. Oh, and I certainly hope you're not one of those ~~Canadians~~ people who believe the Arrow was capable of over Mach 3 based soley on potential engine operating speeds. - BillCJ 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Whose disgruntled union workers? Not a very clear statement, in my experience, as most union workers are disgruntled, no matter what country they are in :) - BillCJ 19:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ohh... I'm not one of those people, but the Arrow DID have a lot of long-term maintainability, unlike any other designs. Maybe I'm biased, but a lot of Wikipedians have this STUPID assumption that Canadians are willing to be submissive to the US. I'm actually sure that Canadians feel alienated by WP just because its definition of NPOV is somewhat pro-American. Anyway, the union workers are victims of the American wealth gap and greed at the high end. Canada-kawaii 19:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, statements like "STUPID assumption", "willing to be submissive to the US", "definition of NPOV is somewhat pro-American" and "union workers are victims of the American wealth gap and greed" are pretty much the definition of POV. Perhaps when you're complaining about NPOV you could try to make your own comments not so ridiculously biased? Maury 12:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the primary editors on this page is BZuk (another Bill), a Canadian writer/editor with aviation experience. He has gone to GREAT lengths to make sure this aritlce in particular, and other articles on Canadian aircraft in general, are truly NPOV. In my experience, the Wiki definition of NPOV is usually anti-American, and pro-European. That probably means it really is NPOV, if everyone feels it's against them! - BillCJ 20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Want NPOV? Look here. [1]. Hehehe. 64.180.165.63 16:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

All the conspiricy theories on the Arrow are ripe for parodying, but that page misses a great opportunity with all the pimp and sex junk. I guess they think making fun of conservatives (small "C") is funnier than that, but the article falls flat. Heck, I could take some of the crap we cut out of this page in the last year, and it would be hilarious strung together. And I just might. - BillCJ 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Good point. Anyway, I wrote that article :) 64.180.165.63 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I figured you might have been the author. I'm sure some people appreciate that vein of humor, but many people would not. You might go through the edit history, and see some of the conspiracy stuff that people have put in. Much of it is pretty far out there, and well worth mocking. - BillCJ 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout the bad humour. Maybe you should edit the article!

Number built

Bill (Bzuk), to me, "number built" implies the number actually built; the rest is covered in the text. Remeber, the Infobox is just meant as a summary, not a detailed list. Just listing "29 in production" could be vague and misleading.

Also, glad you finally caught what I was trying to revert. It happened in your vandal reversion edit of Devon, but I have no clue how! Just mentioning it in case you can figure out what happened. - BillCJ 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, again, the "kindness of strangers syndrome" has worked but even as I entered the figures, I knew something wasn't right... :} Bzuk 21:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

Good Article Candidate

Im putting it on hold, reasons :

Lead Section should contain 2-3 paragraphs (MoS:Lead)
Things in the reference section not used in the text should go into a "Further reading"(Books) or a "External links"(websites) section.
Some of the links in the text are external links, please use internal links where possible.
Several Paragraphs go un-cited.
Some cite are before the text cited, it should go after.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 9 kg, use 9 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 9 kg.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 000 ft.

Thanks for submitting it to Great Article Candidates :) -Flubeca^Talk 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Article presently being rewritten; stay tuned. Bzuk 00:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

May we find out WHO is doing the article rewrite?

Unless the article writers tell the truth about the cancellation, & remove the silly sections ( replicas, conspiracies, etc.etc.) the rewrite will simply be "inmates running the asylum again".

Opuscalgary 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, which 'truth' are you referring to?

As far as conspiracy theory goes, I think the current article is actually pretty good, and is pretty much free of the conspiratorial absurdities (undocumented) that it had in the past. Regarding the replica(s) -- Why do you feel that their presence in the article is silly?--Voodude 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Opus has been involved in a long campaign of attacking BZuk for reverting a single edit he made back in Feb. Since then he's gone around the wiki posting comments like this one, but typically adding something insulting about BZuk's mental state. When I warned him to stop, he did the same thing to me, both on his talk page and in e-mail. He has been blocked from editing as a result. Don't expect a response... Maury 12:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh,Maury Markowicz. Too amusing. 18 words , vindicating the Cf-101 decison, triggered pages of posts,& e mailme.Prorlonged edit & revert wars are bad form all around. In a nutshell: 49 years ago a brilliant specialised aircraft, the Avro Arrow, was replaced by a much less expensive , rugged, more mission suited aircraft. The USA sold Canada the Voodoos at well below cost, at an effective 14 per cent of the ARROWw program & returned DEW line control & staffing to Canada as part of the deal.

If you are an American, thank you!

Hawker Siddely Group, the sole owners of AVRO Canada, shut down AVRO Canada instead of assigning sub contracts.

Thats it.No conspiracies.No evil from our allies. The much maligned American Government took the financial loss to support Canada's defense. It was 'win win", as Insinger has documented. "Posted by a defender of good Administration..."

Does anyone else find it amusing that he can't even spell my name? I know I do~ Blocked sock account. Maury 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record,I contacted one of Russell Insingers' researchers,& sugested that she do a neutral rewrite of the Avro Arrow politcal sections.

She agrees that this article's 'political' perspective is based on POV sources, however, apparently she tried in the past, & appears to have run into a lack of ediquette.

"PBADGA, again"

And another. Maury 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Article sourcing

I've reviewed the rewrite of the political sctions of this article. "Storms of Controversy" the apparent source guide for this section, along with what appears to be the "Unpublished notes of the 1997 CBC drama," are not available from any common source. Insingers definitive study is online, while both the autobiography & biography of the Hon. Lt Gov. Gen George Pearkes, VC, miniser of Defense & the key decsion decision maker, CAN BE library sourced. NONE OF THESE THREE SOURCES WERE USED>>>

Since a definitive encyclopedia requires verification, can we remove the 'out of source, or not verifiable,' sourcing?

comments?

Reg Saretsky. August 21, 2007