ADA-FAQ: Arrow Questions-AVRO CF-105 ARROW
About Us | Contact Us |
Arrow Recovery Canada
Free Flight Models
FAQ: Arrow Questions
INFO | RANDALL
WHITCOMB | PALMIRO
Ask The Expert
urge you to please check Jim Floyds Lecture and Palmiros
PEO article on this website, before submitting questions.
Most answers are already here!
FLOYDS RAeS LECTURE] [PALMIROS
PEO ARTICLE] [REBUILDING
The Arrow was a piece of genius Canadian enginering,and could have
had a market in the world. Was there a demand for the Arrow if it
was built and if so would Canada been able to make money from the
plane that was years ahead of its time?
Roe had potential sales of the Iroquois engines to
France but no sales for the Arrow anywhere else.
Like the Harrier Jump Jet, the Arrow would have had
to have been in service for a few years to attract
foreign buyers. Britain had an interest as did some
folks in the US. When word started to spread that
the Arrow might be cancelled, the French terminated
their interest in the Iroquois also.
whom it may concern. How would the arrow have fired
it's missles since it carried them internally? Would
it have been able to fire its weapons while in supersonic
flight? And why didn't anyone tell the prime minister
that everyone would lose their jobs if the project
would have been cancelled apparently the prime minister
wouldn't have cancelled the project if someone had
told him that it would have cost so many jobs. Did
the arrow also have stealth ability? How much more
would the scientific research cost to finish the
arrow and the iriqois engine? How many months away was avro
from completing the flaws that exsisted and for the
ship to be fully completed? With proper upgrades
would the arrow still be a useful fighter jet today?
my book Storms I describe the rail launcher system
that would have been used to lower missiles in
flight. The proposed method of attack was to fly
supersonically to within a given range of the target,
drop speed and then fire. This is incorrect. Again,
in Storms, the series of discussions leading up
to the decision showed that the government and
the Prime Minister knew cancellation would cost
upwards of 25,000 jobs. They perhaps did not realize
this would happen in one afternoon but they should
have. The order to terminate clearly stated all
work was to cease and desist immediately. Question
- Who do you propose would have paid the salaries
of those individuals if the order to stop immediately
would have been ignored? A.V. Roe was placed in
an untenable situation. Again, the bureaucrats
advising the Prime Minister should have known That
is what they get paid for. I know because I am
one of them myself. No Stealth. The "costing" data
is reproduced in Storms. About $25 million on the
airframe and $53 million on the engines.There were
no flaws. Design modifications were being made
to optimize certain characteristics. This is normal
in any design. Aircraft number 21 would have been
the final model I believe.No. Like any aircraft
the Arrow would have evolved into other variants
with stealth materials etc.
Mr. Palmiro, If an Arrow had
escaped destruction, be it RL202 or another one,
would the person or Country possesing it be guilty
of possesion of stolen military property thus be
relucltant to expose it to the public due to fear
of legal recourse? Every time I drive past the static
display of a Voodoo the Abbotsford Airport in B.C.,
I think of the Arrow that it tried to replace and
my blood boils. My cousin was in the Canadian Air
Force and they had a nickname for the Voodoo....the
widow maker. Thankyou for "Storms
am not a lawyer and can only guess. They might be
but I would be surprised that if they came forward
with it now, that there would be any charges laid.
I would hope Canadians would be so happy to see it
back that the government would not dare press charges.
If Diefenbaker said no to the storing of nuclear and atomic weapons
in Canada, then how could he have agreed to buy the Bomarc missile,
which required a nuclear warhead. thanks
Bomarc B was capable of carrying either a conventional
non-atomic warhead or a nuclear one. Diefenbaker
played on this duality even though a conventional
warhead for the Bomarc B was never built.
Your mention of Charles Foulkes,
the Chairman Chiefs of Staff and George R. Pearkes,
the Minister of National Defence, becoming 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. Prompts me to ask the same
question as you "who convinced these individuals that the
Bomarc was every bit as good." I would say that
it was the same group of US politicians that convinced
the British to cancel their TSR2 and for the same
reason. A sweet deal to purchase US made defence
equipment such as the Bomarc and the Bloodhound missiles.
I would venture to guess that the NORAD program was
used as blackmail and there is a lot more information
being witheld to this day. Who knows, this may have
looked like a threat to Canadian sovereignty to Deifenbaker.
don't know about blackmail but the US set up NORAD
for their own protection much as they are now working
on the new missile defence system that Canada has
been resisting. Since an oncoming attack would
likely come from the North, it made sense for the
US to insist we participate. Because Bomarc seemed
to offer high technology beyond mere aircraft,
it didn't take a lot of convincing to get our people
'sucked in'. BOEING did its own share of convincing
as well. Coupled to this was the perceived diminishing
bomber threat, something else that was 'manufactured'.
In the early fifties, the CIA created the "bomber gap" and
by the late fifties they created the "missile
gap" in an effort to spur missile development.
You mention that there is probably more to be told. In my latest
manuscript I delve into this entire aspect in much greater detail
as I have obtained more information. Stay tuned to spring 2003.
read that the F-22 is the first aircraft that can "supercruise";ie:
it can fly at Mach 1+ without afterburners. Could
the Arrow (mark 2) do this? It did almost Mach 2
with the US engines, the Iroquios had that much power
dry. So the Arrow (in this respect) might have been
some 40 years ahead.
to the Arrow 2 spec sheet I have True air speed in
level flight at sea level at combat weight - Max
thrust with afterburning was 1,297 km/hr. Max thrust
without afterburning was 1,232 km/hr
True Air speed in level flight at 50,000 at combat weight max thrust
with afterburning was 2,125km/hr
was just curious on the Avro arrow's engines the J75
and the Iroquois, were they designed and engineered
by Canadians like the arrow itself? Also, in your opinion
with how advanced the arrow was during that time, with
the SR-71 being able to hit around mach 3.3 (I'm not
sure what year that aircraft was able to hit that speed).
Do you think that if the arrow was not cancelled that
we would have surpassed that speed since the aircraft
as so advanced, in other words with the arrow and our
knowledge and achievement, at this point in time do
you think it would've been possible for us to have
an aircraft that would be faster than the SR-71?! Hopefully
you can try and answer my questions, thank you.
Iroquois was being designed by Orenda in Canada and
the J75 was an American Pratt and Whitney design.
The SR 71 design was started in September of 1959,
after the Arrow cancellation though the idea existed
earlier. Avro had a design for a Ramjet assisted
aircraft that would have reached the speeds and altitude
ofthe SR 71. They also provided the US with information
about designing an advanced Arrow capable of speeds
like those of the SR 71. The SR 71 was designed by
the Lockheed Skunkworks. I was told some Avro engineers
ended up there but I was unable to verify with names.
working at McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing for the last
twenty years, it was common discussion from the old-timers
that had worked at Avro (My Dad included) that when
everyone was sent home for a day before the closing
that CF-106 or a finished unmarked unit disappeared.
Is there any documentation about the construction
that went on at the day of closure?
am not sure what you mean by construction. The RL-206
nose section is in the Aviation Museum in Ottawa.
There was some suggestion that RL-202 escaped because
it does not appear in the destruction photos with
you think if funding came to the Avrocar, would they
restart the Avrocar study? Thank-you.
I don't think so however the Joint Strike Fighter
employs a fan assembly for vertical take-off, similar
to the principal employed in the Avrocar.
Palmiro I was just wondering why didn't the government
give A.V.Roe the money it needed to at least save
the Iroquois engine? There was obviously a market
for it and why didn't they also give A.V.Roe the
contract to build the f-104 starfighter under license?
I heard that would have helped A.V.Roe get back on
it's feet. There are some people who say that A.V.Roe
put in a better bid than Canadair and the reason
the federal government wouldn't give them the money
to develop the engine and the contract for the f-104
was out of sheer spite. I was also wondering how
much did the scientific research for a fighter plane
cost back in the 1950's and how much had already
been spent on the arrow fighter jet before it was
don't know about sheer spite. When the program was
terminated, 55.4 million had been spent on the Iroquois
development and it was estimated that another $53
M would be required to finish it. About $318 M had
been spent on the entire project. France had an interest
in the Iroquois but stopped its negotiations when
they learned the Arrow program was going to be cancelled.
The government had made no preparations for helping
Avro continue with other work. I don't know that
they fully realized that Avro would have to fire
everybody the afternoon of the announcement, because
of the way they worded the termination. You should
see my latest book for full details of costs and
other factors that came into play. With the company
in ruins, they may not have believed Avro would be
capable of taking on new contracts.
question is with the failure of the Bomarc missile
why did the Canadian Govt not attempt to re-initiate
the Arrow project. I understand the cost and the
loss of nearly all technical data yet as we see now
more than sufficient sources remained?
the Arrow was terminated, the highly talented team
that built her was disbanded. Very little technical
data remained. There were for example several thousand
blueprints each in 8 foot long roles. You don't see
this much information on the Arrow anywhere. In addition,
most of the highly technical reports were destroyed.
All the jigs, tooloing and fixtures were destroyed.
Re-starting the project was not viable then and not
much has ever been said of the fate of the Iroqois
engine, and I assume it was cancelled and destroyed
like the Arrow. If this is indeed the case why was
it not produced to power other aircraft.
cover this in some detail in my latest book called
Requiem for a Giant, available through this site
or Chapters. At least one Iroquois was sent to Britain
for study and it is said the Concorde engines were
somewhat based on the design. One is in the Aviation
museum in Ottawa. Most were destroyed. A potential
contract with France for production was cancelled
when France learned the Arrow was likely going to
be terminated. The engine was still in the development
stage when the program was killed.
the Arrow were to survive, how large would the radar
signiture be of the CF-105 and how stealthy would it
was not designed as a stealth aircraft. It had no
radar absorbent material but it did not have the
protrusions ie missiles hanging down etc that would
increase its radar image.
introduction of the MiG-25 in 1967 caused many new
competing planes to be developed by Soviet rivals-in
short, an aircraft 'arms race'. Given the enormous
advantages that the Arrow would have had over it's
rivals of that time, its deployment would have caused
similar effects. Such effects may have led to disastrous
consequences, possibly even nuclear war. Isn't it better
that the Arrow was not deployed?
fail to follow your logic or your information concerning
aircraft developments. The SR 71 was well in advance
of the Arrow's, flying in the early sixties. Its
development did not lead to nuclear war.
I have heard that the security at Avro
was somewhat relaxed. For example: No gaurds patrolling
the GRA. People entering the GRA without passes. Picture
being release of the Arrow with access panels open.
Workers being allowed to take pictures. The list goes
on. I cannot verify any of these statements, and was
wondering if you had any comment on this subject?
Cold Lake AB.
For a classified development,
there were photos of the Arrrow and the media was well
aware of its development. Avro was not the American
Skunkworks nor was the project inteneded to be. More
importantly, there were Soviet moles in Avro. The RCMP
was aware of that and were following at least one of
them. This information came out many years ago, it
was verified to me and a few years ago a KGB archivist
known as Mitrokhin revealed documents showing the existence
of a mole.
Based on your knowledge of the aircraft,
what was considered to be the extimated life span of
the Arrow if it went into production? Would it have
flown into the 80's?
Many aircraft from that
era have done so but it is more likely that the Arrow
would have evolved and been replaced by newer models
or by an entirely different type of aircraft for roles
other than high altitude interception, such as ground
Campagna is an Engineer with the Department of National
Defence. He has been researching the Arrow story since
the early eighties and has been responsible for the declassification
of many of the Arrow files thought to have been destroyed
back in 1959. His books are based on those files. He
is also the author of The UFO Files: The Canadian Connection
Exposed, which has a detailed chapter on the Avrocar,
Avro's flying saucer for the USAF/US ARMY.
STORE FEATURED ITEM:
| HOME | STORE | NEW
INFO | CONTACT US | ABOUT
© 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.
SITE HOSTING PROVIDED BY CAPITOL TECHNOLOGIES
ADA-FAQ: Arrow Questions-AVRO CF-105 ARROW