We
are very pleased to welcome Avro Arrow researcher and author,
Palmiro Campagna to our website. Palmiro will be happy to answer
(to the best of his ability) your questions based on his research.
You will be required to register when submitting a question.
The question and answer will be posted below. In some instances,
questions of a similar nature will be answered together and answers
may be shortened given that the details are likely contained
in his books on the subject.
We
urge you to please check out Jim Floyds Lecture and Palmiros
PEO article on this website, before submitting questions.
Most answers are already here!
John
Diefenbaker is only partly to blame here. Storms discusses
the entire paper trail which was not destroyed but
was alleged to have been, for over thirty years. Chief
of the Air Staff Hugh Campbell made recommendations to
the Minister of National Defence, that the aircraft and
drawings be destroyed. Destruction got under way over
2 months after this recommendation during which time
the NRC and British Ministry of Defence were offered
the aircraft. None took the offer. If Diefenbaker was
the bad guy here, destruction would have occurred immediately,
not two months later and there would not have been a
paper trail. For full details check out Storms of Controversy,
any edition.
WHAT ORGANIZATIONS OR PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARROW'S CANCELLATION?
DARRELL
Fort Erie
This
is a complex question. Charles Foulkes, the Chairman
Chiefs of Staff and George R. Pearkes, the Minister
of National Defence, became convinced that the Bomarc
Missile was every bit as good as the Arrow and could
do the same job as the Arrow and for a lesser price.
Be careful here in that they were not saying the Arrow
was costing too much but rather, the Arrow would not
be as cost effective as the missile. (Put another way,
if you have $50,000 to buy a truck but you become convinced
that a $10,000 car will do the job you want, you will
likely save the $40,000 and by the car. But, you could
have still bought the truck because the money was there.)
They did not listen to those who were telling them the
Arrow was the way to go. Pearkes recommended cancellation
in August 1958 (see Storms any edition). Also, members
of the Department of Defence Production (DDP), were convinced
that getting involved in missile work would bring high
tech to Canada, not realizing the Arrow was advanced
high tech that ended up being used in the American Space
Program.The question I have attempted to answer in Storms
is who convinced these individuals that the Bomarc was
every bit as good and what were the ramifications? For
this, see Storms Third Edition, particularly the new
section on the forgotten Pearkes interview from 1967.
As for who actually ordered the blowtorching of Arrows,
tooling, parts, drawings and technical specs but NOT
photos, see the first question posted.
What was some of it's (AVRO) possibilities
for us as a nation?
THOMAS
N.S.
Today
we have a world class aircraft manufacturer in Bombardier.
It has only taken us about 40 years to get back to where
we were.
I WOULD LIKE IF THERE ARE ANY ORIGINAL BLUEPRINTS OF THE ARROW REMAINING
AND IF THEIR ARE ARE THEY OF ANY VALUE ?
WILLIAM
Brampton
Yes,
there are a number of original blueprints. It is my understanding
that the folks at the museum in Downsview (Toronto), who
are building a static, museum quality replica, are in fact
using many original blueprints. The value on these has
more to do with historical significance than anything monetary
in nature, but that is just my opinion.
Why did the government give up on a
plane that had a lot of potential?
ANNA
Brampton
Have
another look at the earlier questions. Both the Chairman
Chiefs of Staff (Foulkes) and the Minister of National
Defence (Pearkes), put their faith in the Bomarc missile.
They were under the wrong impression the missile would
do the same job as the aircraft, at a fraction of the cost.
What were the RCAF requirements for the Arrow? Did the prototypes meet
these requirements? Thank You
SHAUN
Ridgetown
I
believe the requirements are spelled out in Jim Floyd's
excellent paper on this same web site. Yes, the Arrow exceeded
the RCAF requirements however, contrary to what is written
in some other sources, the Arrow was not tested at the
Mach 1.5, 50,000 foot, 2g turn without loss of power or
altitude. This was to be achieved with the Iroqouis but
of course, it never flew with the Iroquois. My book contains
detailed specs as well. In terms of speed, it reached Mach
1.98 according to Spud Potoki. There was some minor discrepancy
in that ground crew measured the speed slightly lower.
When did the engineers begin construction on the Avro Arrow? What section
did they start building?
CLAY
Dryden
I
am not sure I can answer this one. The project got
the go ahead in 1953 and they had an aircraft rolled
out Oct 4 1957. A project like this requires simultaneous
activities of engineering designs, test fixture development
etc so I don't know exactly when they actually started
to "cut
metal" as they say. Engine work had also begun
with test runs prior to 1954. Perhaps someone reading
this site can provide some insight.
What would have become of Canada if
the arrow was not cancelled?
AL
Toronto
This
is similar to an earlier question and involves too much
speculation. As I said earlier, today we have a great aircraft
industry. It just took us 40 years to catch up to where
we were in 1959 so imagine the possibilities.
Whatever become of Chamberlain or O'Hara?
LINDSAY
Cambridge
Jim
Chamberlain went to work for NASA and was instrumental
in their Gemini and Space shuttle programs. (He also worked
on Mercury and Apollo.) He has long since passed away.
I am not sure who O'Hara was but I believe it was the name
of one of the fictional engineers in the CBC movie. There
was no real O'Hara that I know of. If this is someone from
the movie, be advised the movie was a work of fiction,
loosely based on some facts.
What does the NAE stand for?
JOEL
Burlington
This
stands for National Aeronautical Establishment, set up
in Decemeber1950. It was the aeronautical arm of the National
Research Council. It no longer exists as the NAE but the
wind tunnel used for testing and other structures are still
there in Ottawa. See Page 10 of Storms of Controversy,
any edition.
events that led up to the launching
of the avro arrow?
AARON
Action
You
need to be more specific. I don't understand what you mean.
In 1953, the Royal Canadian Air Force determined they needed
a new supersonic interceptor to counter a supersonic bomber
threat from the Soviet Union. This 'launched' the program.
As part of the testing and evaluation program, small scale
models of the Arrow were 'launched' atop NIKE rocket boosters
in order to determine flight characteristics. On October
4th 1957 the first Arrow was rolled out ie launched. On
March 25th 1958 the first flight was 'launched'.
How many people lost their jobs when
the Arrow was cancelled?
JOEL
Burlington
Government
Cabinet documents estimate that about 25,000 people lost
their jobs. Fourteen thousand were layed off between Avro
and Orenda and the rest from various subcontractors, See
page 1 of my book Storm of Controversy, any edition.
Is it true that the funds for the Arrow program, were cutting into funds
for the Army and the Navy programs, and that the Canadian Govn't couldn't
afford it?
JASON
Las Vegas. NV
No.
The Army and the Navy raised this issue at one of their
joint meetings after which their position was that the
Arrow program should continue until 31 March 1959. At this
point it would be reviewed again.
Minister
of National Defence, George R. Pearkes, stated on January
23 1958 ,that the future of the Arrow depended "entirely
on the nature of the threat, not its cost". This
is consistent with the view of the Army and Navy who
were in favour of a review 31 March 1959. The threat
they are refering to is the intercontinental ballistic
missile and the mistaken belief that the manned interceptor
threat was diminishing. If fewer enemy bombers were
expected, they could shoot them down (presumably),
with a less expensive system, the anti-aircraft Bomarc
missile. See my earlier answers on this for the discussion
of "cost effectiveness". I should point out
the Chief of theAir Staff and the guy who should know,
consistently stated the Arrow was essential but Pearkes
did not listen to him.
In
July 1958, Pearkes said that Canada could afford the
Arrow but not if we added in all the NORAD commitments,
namely gap filler radar, the SAGE system for Bomarc
control and of course Bomarc itself. So, rather than
try and meet all the NORAD requirements for Canada
to have both planes and missiles, it was decided to
concentrate on Bomarc missiles. Again, this was done
because it was believed the enemy would attack with
fewer airplanes which the Bomarc could handle. There
was no defence yet if the attack was going to come
from intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Unfortunately,
it turned out that the enemy had far more aircraft
than expected and fewer missiles than expected. Worst
of all, the US government pulled the plug on Bomarc
before it was even completely installed in the US and
Canada. (You can look at the US congressional debates
of the day.)Bomarc was a dud and Canada had to end
up purchasing American airplanes.
For
a detailed discussion of the actual costs of the Arrow
and other statements made by the politicians, the military
and the US government, have a look at Storms of Controversy:
The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed, third edition.
How much would the avro arrow project have cost if it was completed? How
much was spent on the cancellation? Was it financially beneficial for the
government to abandon the project rather than finish it off?
SAM
Belle River
Audit
records show it was going to cost about $77.9 million dollars
to complete the Research and Development. The government
was expecting to pay out over $100 million in cancellation
fees but this number came closer to $33 million at the
time.
Without
the cancellation charges, the whole program from start
to finish of production, was going to cost $1.1 billion.
The alternate system of F106/SAGE/Bomarc was going
to cost about 1.2 billion when you add in the $318
million that had already been spent on the Arrow project
at the time of termination. One must remember that
this money was being cash phased over several years,
as any program of this size is. The cost was not astronomical.
You
should look at Storms of Controversy, Edition 3 Appendix
2 where I have reproduced the audit reports and show
exactly what was being spent on research and development,
tooling, spare parts, missiles etc. The 1.1 billion
is for everything including setting up the industry.
In the case of F106/Bomarc etc, the 1.2 billion was
just to buy the end items and spares from the US. That
makes a major difference.
If
an Arrow crashed, the replacement cost would have been
$3.75 million, not much at all for such a sophisticated
aircraft.
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE OTHER TEST PILOTS POTOCKI, WOODMAN AND COPE?
I'VE SEARCHED THE NET FOR BIOS ON THESE MEN, BUT CAN FIND NOTHING ON THEM.
ANY HELP OR INFO WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
