ADA-Jack Woodman:Flying the Arrow.Pg.5
About Us | Contact Us |
Home
Arrow Recovery Canada
Avro Arrow
Avro Jetliner
Avro Car
Free Flight Models
Modern Arrows
 
Arrow Pilots: Jack Woodman
| INTERESTING
INFO | RANDALL
WHITCOMB | PALMIRO
CAMPAGNA |
Jack
Woodman:
Flying the Arrow.
Pg.5
continued
from page 4,
    The breakdown by aircraft is as
follows:
First Flight Date
Flights
Hours
25201-Mar. 25, 1958
24
25:05
25202-Aug. 1, 1958
22
23:40
25203-Sept. 22, 1958
11
12:20
25204-Oct. 27, 1958
6
7:00
25205-Jan. 11, 1959
1
0:40
Totals:
64
68:45
   On Feb. 7, 1959, aircraft No. 1 and No. 4 both
flew. This was the last day any of the Arrow aircraft
left the ground. As I mentioned, Zurakowski made
the first flight; he also did most of the early
flying.
   When Zura retired, Potocki took over as Chief
Development Pilot, and at the end of the program
was high man in total flying time. I was fortunate
enough to have six flights and, as fate would have
it, the only military pilot to fly the airplane.
   Flying with Don Rogers and the Avro team was
an honor for me, and I thoroughly enjoyed
the four years I spent at Avro. I mentioned Zurakowski
being the best test pilot I have ever known; the
rest of the team, and all the Avro troops, were
of the same caliber.
   The one complaint I had with the company's operation
was the lack of detailed flight test plan. My friend
Ken Owen (now chief of airworthiness at DoT) and
I tried for over a year to get a schedule of flights
and tests to be performed, but were unsuccessful.
This is not to say that the people running the
program did not know where they were going or what
had to be done, but they apparently did not believe
in writing it down. Ken and I did our best to convince
them that we understood flight test and realized
the only thing consistent was that it was
subject to change. But our efforts were in vain;
they refused to write a program. I didn't understand
it in 1958, and I don't understand it today.
Data Acquisition
   The Arrow data acquisition and handling
system was composed of an airborne multichannel
recorder (magnetic tape), phono panel, osciilograph,
an airborne radio telemetry link, a mobile telemetry
receiving station, and a mobile data reduction
unit. The aircraft armament bay, which was
a removable self-contained unit, was used to house
all of the airborne instrumentation. For visual
monitoring of flight conditions on the ground,
a special "operations" room was set up,
which contained recording oscillographs that gave
instantaneous visual records of data during
actual flight. Personnel in the room were in constant
radio contact with the pilot by means of the conventional
radio link, so instructions and/or comments
could be exchanged at any time.
   The instrumentation used during the Arrow program
was the same as instrumentation being used
in today's flight test programs-refined a little
today, but basically the same. The system was a
constant source of trouble during the Arrow program,
however. During the first series of flights, the
system was plagued with a number of problems that
were probably due to the thousands of wires and
connections running to the instrument pack. But,
as I remember, these problems were never really
resolved, and many a flight was delayed because
of this system. Chase-aircraft, either a CF-100
or F-86 Sabre, were used on almost every flight.
   There is not much I can add to the performance
picture. As I mentioned, approximately 95% of the
flight envelope was investigated, and while
the Mk. I Arrow never did quite reach max speed
of Mach 2.0, there is no reason to believe that
the production aircraft with Iroquois engines would
not have reached Mach 2.0 quite easily. The Iroquois
engine had approximately 30% more thrust than the
J.75, and the airplane would have weighed
approximately 5,000 lbs. less. I believe the
Arrow Mk. II had sufficient performance capability
to set a world speed and altitude record,
which was held at that time by the United States.
The first Mk. II Arrow was scheduled to fly at
the end of February, and I believe it would have
easily met all performance guarantees.
   As I mentioned earlier, the Arrow, at certain
speeds and altitudes, flew as well as any airplane
I have ever flown; at other points control was
very sensitive and the aircraft difficult
to fly.
   Reading from some of my old
flight reports, on my first flight I reported that
at low and high indicated airspeeds the airplane
behaved reasonably well, the controls being effective,
with good re­sponse,
and the aircraft demonstrated positive stability.
However, due to the sensitivity of the controls
the aircraft was difficult to fly accurately. At
high Mach numbers, I reported the transition from
subsonic to supersonic speed to be very smooth,
compressibility effects negligible, and the sensitive
control problem experienced at lower speeds and
altitudes eliminated. The aircraft, at supersonic
speeds, was pleasant and easy to fly. During approach
and land­ing, the handling characteristics
were considered good; approach speed was 190 kts.,
touchdown was at 165 kts., drag chute was deployed
at 155 kts., and the aircraft rolled the full length
of the runway. Attitude during approach was approximately
10°, with good forward visibility.
    On my second flight,
I reported that the general handling characteristics
of the Arrow Mk. I were much improved. The yaw damper
was now performing quite reliably, although turn
co-ordination was questionable in some areas.
The roll damper was not optimized as yet, and longitudinal
control was sensitive at high IAS.
  On my 6th and last flight, I reported longitudinal
control to be positive with good response, and breakout
force and stick gradients to be very good. Lateral
control was good, forces and gradients very good,
and the erratic control in the rolling plane, encountered
on the last flight, no longer there. Directionally,
slip and skid were held to a minimum. At no time
during the flight was there more than 1 ° of
sideslip, and the problem of turn co-ordination
appeared to be eliminated at this point. Final approach
to landing was at 175 kts. and a 3° glideslope;
attitude was approximately 12°, touchdown
was at 160 kts., and the landing roll was estimated
at 6,000 to 6,500 ft., with little or no braking.
   To me, it appears obvious that excellent progress
was being made in the development of the Arrow.
   Comments made by some of the other pilots who flew
the Arrow include:
"The nosewheel can be lifted by very gentle
movement of the stick at just over 120 knots."
"Unstick speed is about 170 knots with an
attitude of about 11 °."
"Acceleration is rapid, with negligible
correction required and no tendency toward swing."
"Typical touchdown speed is a little
over 165 knots."
"There was no indication of stalling at
maximum angle of attack at 15°."
"Change
of trim was negligible except in the transonic
region, where small changes of trim were required."
"in turns, stick force was moderate to
light, but always positive, with no tendency
to pitch up or lighten."
"In sideslip, the aircraft was a little touchy
without the damper, but excellent with the
damper engaged."
Summary
   In closing, I would just like to say that the
handling and performance characteristics of
the Avro Arrow were shaping up very nicely.
There were many problems still to be resolved at
the time of cancellation, but from where I sat
the Arrow was performing as predicted and was meeting
all guarantees.
   The decision to cancel the Arrow program was,
in my opinion, very poorly founded. Nothing has
happened since 1959 to support that decision as
being correct. In fact, just the opposite happened.
   Several months before the cancellation announcement,
there was a lot of bad publicity in Toronto newspapers
about the Arrow. It was like an anti-Arrow
campaign was being waged. Retired Army officers
and self-proclaimed aviation experts, and others,
were implying that the day of the manned interceptor
was over. They said missiles would be the first
line of defence, and the Arrow would be obsolete
before it could enter squadron service.
   Ironically, not too long after the program
was cancelled, an announcement had to be made concerning
the decision to scrap the Bomarc missile program
due to obsolescence. The Bomarc just never
got off the launching pad, and the Canadian Government
had been "led down the garden path." Ground-to-air
missiles can be effective weapons, and a combination
of missiles and manned aircraft is probably
a good way to go, but one certainly does not replace
the other.
   The decision to scrap the Arrow program
could not logically have been based on money, because
since the cancellation, the RCAF has purchased
at least 400 new aircraft, it not more. This includes
the F-101, the F-104, the F-5, and the present-day
evaluation of the F-14 and F-15 as a replacement
fighter for use in the 1980s, which run about 15
to 20 million dollars per copy. This new manned
interceptor is intended for the 1980s, approximately
30 years after the Arrow was cancelled, and the
idea of the manned interceptor declared obsolete.
   Cancelling the program was one thing, but to
make matters worse, everything was destroyed all
the aircraft, the records, and all the work
that was accomplished, almost as if to hide all
the evidence. I think one of the aircraft,
at least, should have been assigned to the
National Aeronautical establishment and kept
as a research vehicle. Also, I'm sure other aircraft
manufacturers could have benefitted from Avro's
experience makers of the Concorde, for example.
   Cancelling the Arrow program denied A. V.
Roe, and Canada, the opportunity of developing
their technological expertise and to be world competitors
in the field for high-performance aircraft.
CONVERTED TO HTML,
AND HYPERLINKS ADDED, OCTOBER 1, 2004.
Scott McArthur.
ONLINE
STORE FEATURED ITEM:
| HOME | STORE | NEW
INFO | CONTACT US | ABOUT
US |
© C© Copyright
AvroArrow.Org, 2009. Materials may be freely
copied and distributed subject to the inclusion of
the copyright notice, and credit must be given to AvroArrow.Org. The
site is intended for historical and informational purposes.
This site contains links to other Internet sites. These
links are not endorsements of any products or services
in such sites, and no information in such sites has
been endorsed or approved by this site.
WEB
SITE HOSTING PROVIDED BY CAPITOL TECHNOLOGIES
 
Copyright © 2008 Arrow Digital Archives| Site Map | Privacy Policy