[Lemmy]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

I disagree (and so do historians). The decision was sound, militarily and economically. It wasn't short-sighted, it reflected well the contemporary issues of the day. It was no different than the American cancellation of the XF-108 or the British TSR-2. Again, wrong planes, at the wrong time.

I don't question that it was the wrong plane at the wrong time. There are certainly lots of historians who think cancelling the project was a mistake. But I'm not one of them, per se. Like I said, it was the decision that had to be made at the time. But I also believe it was shortsighted for Canada not to invest much more heavily in areospace technology in the post-war period. AVRO and this project aren't, specifically, what I regard as short-sighted. But had they gone forward with the ARROW and the Iroquois, it might have paved the way for all sorts of other projects. I'm as fiscally conservative as anyone here, so I'd have cancelled the project, no question, had I been in Dief's position. But developing jets and rockets would have been a good business to have been in during the Cold War, militarily and economically.

[Mustang1]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

I disagree (and so do historians). The decision was sound, militarily and economically. It wasn't short-sighted, it reflected well the contemporary issues of the day. It was no different than the American cancellation of the XF-108 or the British TSR-2. Again, wrong planes, at the wrong time.

I don't question that it was the wrong plane at the wrong time. There are certainly lots of historians who think cancelling the project was a mistake. But I'm not one of them, per se. Like I said, it was the decision that had to be made at the time. But I also believe it was shortsighted for Canada not to invest much more heavily in areospace technology in the post-war period. AVRO and this project aren't, specifically, what I regard as short-sighted. But had they gone forward with the ARROW and the Iroquois, it might have paved the way for all sorts of other projects. I'm as fiscally conservative as anyone here, so I'd have cancelled the project, no question, had I been in Dief's position. But developing jets and rockets would have been a good business to have been in during the Cold War, militarily and economically.

I'm interested in what historians actually thought canceling the plane wasn't a mistake. From Bliss to Morton to Granatstein to Chaiken, i really haven't come accross an academic historian who didn't side with the government on the decision.

And Canada did invest heavily in the Cold War industry (look at the Canadair Sabre and T-33, CF-100, AvroCar and CP-107) post WWII. In fact, it was the initial success of some of these endeavors that fueled the hubris of Avro/RCAF Arrow project. I think what many disregard is that after Sputnik (while momentarily) the strategic shift in the West moved away from interceptors (look at the Sandys White Paper on Defense, 1957) at focused on missiles. That's why the Arrow's contemporary, the XF-108, was also given the axe.

[Lemmy]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

I'm interested in what historians actually thought canceling the plane wasn't a mistake. From Bliss to Morton to Granatstein to Chaiken, i really haven't come accross an academic historian who didn't side with the government on the decision.

Who was the guy who wrote the Crawford Gordon bio? "Arrow In the Heart" or "Broken Arrow in the Heart" or something like that?

[Mustang1]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

I'm interested in what historians actually thought canceling the plane wasn't a mistake. From Bliss to Morton to Granatstein to Chaiken, i really haven't come accross an academic historian who didn't side with the government on the decision.

Who was the guy who wrote the Crawford Gordon bio? "Arrow In the Heart" or "Broken Arrow in the Heart" or something like that?

Stewart (he actually wrote 2 books) - and i'm not sure he fully condemned the decision either (he was quite critical of Gordon's attitude). He's also not a historian in the same academic vein as Morton or Chaiken or Bliss.

[Lemmy]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Stewart (he actually wrote 2 books) - and i'm not sure he fully condemned the decision either (he was quite critical of Gordon's attitude). He's also not a historian in the same academic vein as Morton or Chaiken or Bliss.

He did a presentation on campus some years back. It was pretty good; mostly popular history, but well done. I bought the book, but I have to confess, I haven't read it. But often amature academics do better than we do. Not all great historians are academics. And a great deal of Bliss' work is pop-history more than academic research. Anyway, I heard this Stewart-guy speak critically of the cancellation of the Arrow. I can't recall his main points, except, as I said, its potential short-sightedness in the grand scheme of areospace investment and research. He seemed to have done a lot of reseach and his conclusions were compelling to me at the time.

[Mustang1]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Stewart (he actually wrote 2 books) - and i'm not sure he fully condemned the decision either (he was quite critical of Gordon's attitude). He's also not a historian in the same academic vein as Morton or Chaiken or Bliss.

He did a presentation on campus some years back. It was pretty good; mostly popular history, but well done. I bought the book, but I have to confess, I haven't read it. But often amature academics do better than we do. Not all great historians are academics. And a great deal of Bliss' work is pop-history more than academic research. Anyway, I heard this Stewart-guy speak critically of the cancellation of the Arrow. I can't recall his main points, except, as I said, its potential short-sightedness in the grand scheme of areospace investment and research. He seemed to have done a lot of reseach and his conclusions were compelling to me at the time.

Hmm...i find that a lot of amateur historians muddy the field with sloppy research, reaching conclusions and significant subjective analysis (especially in the Arrow topic - just look at Campagna's muck). I don't necessarily put Stewart in this field, but i'm not sure how he would find fault with Dief's decision when he clearly put some of the blame at the feet of Gordon. It would be interesting to know he crafted those points.

And for Bliss, i'm not sure many in the field of history would characterize his work as "pop-history", especially his Banting bio, Northern Enterprise and Right Honourable Men. And at any rate, he supported the decision to cancel the Arrow as have many academic historians. That was my point - i don't find the historical record ripe with academic historians condemning the decision for the plane's termination

[Lemmy]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Hmm...i find that a lot of amateur historians muddy the field with sloppy research, reaching conclusions and significant subjective analysis (especially in the Arrow topic - just look at Campagna's muck). I don't necessarily put Stewart in this field, but i'm not sure how he would find fault with Dief's decision when he clearly put some of the blame at the feet of Gordon. It would be interesting to know he crafted those points.

Again, his underlying conclusion, which made sense to me, was "as bad as this investment seemed at the time, it should have been done as the first step, the training ground, the initial capitalization for a massive aerospace initiative during the 50s-60s."

Mustang1 Mustang1:

And for Bliss, i'm not sure many in the field of history would characterize his work as "pop-history", especially his Banting bio, Northern Enterprise and Right Honourable Men. And at any rate, he supported the decision to cancel the Arrow as have many academic historians. That was my point - i don't find the historical record ripe with academic historians condemning the decision for the plane's termination

For most Canadians, Bliss is the guy who writes in Macleans. Like I said, I'd have done the same thing Dief did.

[Mustang1]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Again, his underlying conclusion, which made sense to me, was "as bad as this investment seemed at the time, it should have been done as the first step, the training ground, the initial capitalization for a massive aerospace initiative during the 50s-60s."

Interesting that he missed the Canadair Sabre and T-33, CF-100, AvroCar and CP-107 investments (not to mention the Avro C102 or Canadair CF-104)) in his conclusions.

$1:

For most Canadians, Bliss is the guy who writes in Macleans. Like I said, I'd have done the same thing Dief did.

I understand that, but that in no way detracts from his academic work or standing in the field.

In many ways the "orgy of mytholization" that surrounds the Arrow is unique in Canadian historiography, but i still content\d that academic historians have all arrived at a similar conclusion regarding the treatment of Deif's decision.

[Lemmy]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

In many ways the "orgy of mytholization" that surrounds the Arrow is unique in Canadian historiography, but i still content\d that academic historians have all arrived at a similar conclusion regarding the treatment of Deif's decision.

It's not that unique in historiography in general though, particularly with American history. Assassination and moon-conspiracies, Masons, 9-11, you name it.

[Mustang1]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

In many ways the "orgy of mytholization" that surrounds the Arrow is unique in Canadian historiography, but i still content\d that academic historians have all arrived at a similar conclusion regarding the treatment of Deif's decision.

It's not that unique in historiography in general though, particularly with American history. Assassination and moon-conspiracies, Masons, 9-11, you name it.

This is true, but in the Canadian context, we really don't have too many topics that approach the Arrow. It's uncommon.

[OldChum]

it was not the killing of the plane it was the demise of a true Canadian presence in the Aerospace industry world wide . These technicians went to the States and help to put a man the moon , I know as my uncle was one of them . Funny today India can put a satellite out to the moon but we cannot even consider it , sad for a nation our size . Please do not say the money is the problem it is part of it , but lack of industrial capability is the biggest.

[Mustang1]

OldChum OldChum:

it was not the killing of the plane it was the demise of a true Canadian presence in the Aerospace industry world wide . These technicians went to the States and help to put a man the moon , I know as my uncle was one of them . Funny today India can put a satellite out to the moon but we cannot even consider it , sad for a nation our size . Please do not say the money is the problem it is part of it , but lack of industrial capability is the biggest.

The demise of a Canadian presence in the Aerospace industry? Canadair, de Havilland, and now Bombardier Aerospace? Try again.

[Mustang1]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

OldChum OldChum:

Trust me I have read all about it You have only read what Dief read the American version of the truth .

Trust me...i've read more about this issue than you have and I guarantee i've had access to multiple sources you haven't. And i notice that you've yet to offer anything of substance to counter my points.

And while we're at it, what is the "American version of the truth"? I do hope you're going to include the source(s) on that one.

Bump - And while we're at it, what is the "American version of the truth"? I do hope you're going to include the source(s) on that one.

I guess you're going to shirk that little claim, huh?

[OldChum]

If you really knew history , you would know the American goverment was leaning on the Diefenbaker Govt . Not that was the soul reason for its stopping , but it is for sure in the conservative mo they would stop .
And yes well the companies you mention are good they are not in the higher echelons of the industry . Please stop talking to me like you are some superior person it proves to me you are not . Debate or good bye .

[BeaverFever]

Hey guys, there are alot of layers to the AVRO case, let me run down some of the biggest influences on the outcome and we can then argue about which were more influential:

1) never before or since, has a manufacturer tried to make BOTH the aircraft AND the aircraft engine. There is good reason for this. First, development costs for either are enourmous and second, the risks are exponentially greater. The general rule of thumb for the aerospace industry is to marry a proven aircraft with a new engine or a new aircraft with a proven engine for this reason, and there is a clear divide between companies that make engines and those who make airframes. AVRO tried to both, which not only raised the costs but also the risk level when fielding their invention.

2) AVRO had 3 main production projects in its history: the CF100, the Jetliner and the Arrow. Ironically, its only successful market product was the 100, which had the most flaws due to a controversial engineering decision made by one person. This caused the federal govt, which had purchased a large number of them (along with Belgium) to pressure AVRO to devote more of their resources (most of which came from govt anyway) to fixing the various gremlins that plagued the RCAF fleet of 100s, and less to production and development of the Jetliner and Arrow. It is widely believed that AVROs failure to sell the Jetliner to govt-owned Trans Canada Airlines was a result of political interference from Ottawa over the RCAFs CF100 issue and doomed the Jetliner in the eyes of would-be foreign buyers who would not buy an aircraft from a company that couldnt sell to its own govt that was subsidizing it.

3) As previously mentioned, there was a premature and misguided belief that manned aircraft would soon be obscolete and long range missiles would do a better job at lower costs.

4)The major western powers ie UK, US, France, were all eager to produce and market their OWN aircraft, so there was considerable political and economic pressure on "lesser" counties such as Canada to be their customers rather than competitors. This also means that foreign sales of the Arrow would be limited and highly competitive. In a greater context, there was a desire among the powers to keep "lesser" countries "in their place" and not disrupt the established order. Nobody wants a new kid on the block flexing industrial muscle.

The Jetliner missed being the worlds first commercial jet to fly by 13 days due to a minor techincal issue, even though it was produced well before the official winner the DeHavilland (now owned by Bombardier, a Canadian co) Comet, but the Jetliner still flew the first commercial flight when it took mail from TO to NYC. In addition, the Comets first flight was a Wright brothers style near-zero altitude liftoff and immediate landing on the same runway whereas the Jetliner circled the city at altitude in the 000s of feet before returning to land. The Arrow was a world-beater but was just too damn expensive to be feasible, and without independent revenue streams from Jetliner sales, the company was just too reliant on the gov which was already displeased and demanding AVRO fix the CF100 bugs before it committed even more exorbitant funds for the Arrow.

You can find the fingerprints of ex-Avro guys on most of the significant aerospace events of the 20th century, from the Apollo moon missions and designing the landing module to the Boeing 747. US recruiters were a constamt threat when AVRO was in operation and when it went under, they snapped up every talented worker from Malton that they could.