[blubs]

I just heard something on the news about the Arrow and was wondering if any one else had heard it. I didnt hear all of it. What I heard was this there are plans to make a smaller Arrow that is flyable to celebrate the anniversary of the arrow. I would like to know if this is true.
Mind you it would be only a replica of the real thing but wouldnt it be great to see it iin the air again.

[-Mario-]

The reason why the Arrow is still fresh in our mind is because we were number one in technology. There was no plane like it. The only other plane that could fly that high was a US spy plane that would fly subsonic. And that was a BIG problem for the US. The only plane that would fly that fast was a plane that was built like a rocket. And it had to be in a dive to beat the Arrow. What a shame...

Our engineers really kick ass back then. After the cancellation, we put the man on the moon, built not one but two SSTs (Concorde and one at Boeing). In the UK, we built the TSR2 (Fighter like the Arrow) in which got cancelled because of the inflation of the sixties. When I say "we", I mean our engineers of the time. Also in the sixties, seventies, we had the first 60 kts military hydrofoil ship (HMCS Bras D'Or). That would have kick ass for anti-submarine warfare, search and rescue, and to intercept those other countries that overfish in the grand banks; we had the first Tilt-Wing concept vehicle V/STOL, the Dynavert, and not the V-22 Osprey. It would not suprise me if we had some Canadian connection with the Harrier jump jet (engine or airframe).

Anyway I could go on...

[-Mario-]

The reason why the Arrow is still fresh in our mind is because we were number one in technology. There was no plane like it. The only other plane that could fly that high was a US spy plane that would fly subsonic. And that was a BIG problem for the US. The only plane that would fly that fast was a plane that was built like a rocket. And it had to be in a dive to beat the Arrow.
What a shame...

Our engineers really kick ass back then. After the cancellation, we put the man on the moon, built not one but two SSTs (Concorde and one at Boeing). In the UK, we built the TSR2 (Fighter like the Arrow) in which got cancelled because of the inflation of the sixties. When I say "we", I mean our engineers of the time. Also in the sixties, seventies, we had the first 60 kts military hydrofoil ship (HMCS Bras D'Or). That would have kick ass for anti-submarine warfare, search and rescue, and to intercept those other countries that overfish in the grand banks; we had the first Tilt-Wing concept vehicle V/STOL, the Dynavert, and not the V-22 Osprey. It would not suprise me if we had some Canadian connection with the Harrier jump jet (engine or airframe).

Anyway I could go on...

[-Mario-]

The Arrow replica used in the Avro Arrow movie with Dan Akroyd is storef in a museum in Alberta. At the time they had the nose completed and some of the mainframe. The movie company offered to complete the replica and then use it in their movie. Now, that replica was built to a substandard, for example the wing tips bent under their own weight. Anyway that replica is own by the "Byron Museum". Not sure of the name but it should be easy to find on the net, it is the largest museum of old cars, airplanes, and other machineries. They are redoing that replica. Maybe they are close to completion and are about to release it to the public.

-M-

[Streaker]

I think the Arrow means a lot to Canadians for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it was simply a beautiful airplane. People are moved by beauty, eh? For me it is inspiring to think that something so beautiful and sophisticated could be created here in Canada.

The cancellation of the Arrow, however, is a reminder of how cowardly, shortsighted politicians rob this country of its ability to achieve its potential. Yet Diefenbaker was elected by Canadians, so we are all on some level responsible for the demise of the Arrow.

Thus, the plane itself has become a symbol of national greatness, but its cancellation has become a symbol of national failure. This is why the Arrow is such a Canadian icon, and why we agonise over it so much.

As for any future technological endeavours we should undertake, two words: Space Cannon!! This is a concept that could lead to a dramatic reduction in the cost of launching satellites into space. Back in the 60s Canada had such a programme. It was under the guidance of Gerald Bull, a brilliant McGill University scientist. The project was run on a shoestring budget but was beginning to yield impressive results when the Canadian government withdrew its funding. Sound familiar?

After this Bull became a bitter man and ended up working with Saddam on a militarised version of his "supergun" for Iraq. He was eventually assassinated, in all likelihood by Mossad agents.

[Dan74]

It was a shitty mix of politics,science and buisness.
But the arrow itself was the so far ahead of its time but the goverment got in the way.

[dgthe3]

well although it may be possible to build one large enough to send something into space, the accelerations would damage any delicate electronics that make a satalite useful and would kill any human passenger. As a result, most projects were canceled. Cheap way to send nuke around the world though. Super big guns have one use: weapons platforms. Ever hear about the rail gun?

[Streaker]

Yeah...huge g-forces were a major obstacle, but Bull and others felt that electronic components could be designed to withstand those stresses.

The rail gun is something I've heard of but I don't know any of the specifics...

[dgthe3]

The idea behind the railgun is similar to that of the maglev train: use electro magnetism to propel something forward. In the case of the rail gun, it takes advantage of another physics trick: the energy of a moving object is half of its mass multiplied by it's velocity squared. (1/2 mv^2). The gun shoots a small projectile, a few kilos, and hypersonic speeds (mach 5+) giving the projectile the same energy as a big 16 inch shells from a WWII battle ship but the the range of a cruise missle at a fraction of the cost of a missile.

right now, the US navy is thinking about putting it on it's next generation of cruisers, or is the gen after that? the big problems are accuracy and providing enough power for it, they would probably have to use nuclear reactors to power these ships to provide enough juice and give the ships any range at sea

[Streaker]

...hmm...The rail gun concept sounds pretty cool. There's no reason why it couldn't be adapted to a space cannon scheme, and power supply would probably be less of an issue on land than it would be on a ship at sea.

supergun link

another link

[Mustang1]

-Mario- -Mario-:

The reason why the Arrow is still fresh in our mind is because we were number one in technology. There was no plane like it. The only other plane that could fly that high was a US spy plane that would fly subsonic. And that was a BIG problem for the US. The only plane that would fly that fast was a plane that was built like a rocket. And it had to be in a dive to beat the Arrow. What a shame...

Uh…what about the YF-12 (a contemporary of the Arrow) or the XF-108 Rapier (in development stages)? The YF-12 was hardly a technological dinosaur in comparison to the Arrow. It, like its Canadian processor, was the victim of a strategic shift in Western military circles that prophesied (albeit prematurely and erroneously) an era where manned interceptors would be tactically obsolete.

Secondly, there is no valid, tangible, irrefutable evidence (Campagna’s book is the worst kind of pseudo-historical pigswill) that demonstrates a significant negative American influence regarding the plane’s cancellation. In fact, the United States (see Mclin) offered to purchase a small batch of Arrows for the Canadian air force – hardly the act that would suggest nefarious motives.

[Streaker]

I agree that blaming the Americans for this is wrong. The real culprits are unimaginative, mediocre Canadian politicians i.e. John Diefenbaker!

Comparing the Arrow to the YF-12 or the XF-108 is really comparing apples and oranges, however. The YF-12 (SR-71) was an extremely specialised piece of technology, an airplane that was never intended to be built in large numbers. As for the XF-108, it was nothing more than a paper airplane. It never flew and never progressed beyond the wood mock-up stage of development.

It is reasonable and fair to describe the Arrow as being the best flying aircraft of its type in the world at the time of its cancellation...

[Telkwa]

Freaker Freaker:

I agree that blaming the Americans for this is wrong. The real culprits are unimaginative, mediocre Canadian politicians i.e. John Diefenbaker!

I would love to know what Eisenhower said to Deifenbaker. Was it pursuasion? Or threats? Ike was very political, which was why he was chosen as Allied Commander in WWII. How would he, how could he pursuade Diefenbaker that the Bomarc was better than the Arrow? I assume that Dief no longer believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. So, why would he believe in the Bomarc? That's some selling job. Have either government ever unclassified that conversation?

Dief never trusted the Americans after that. Kennedy took an active role in ousting Deif in favour of Pearson.

[dgthe3]

Can't we blame the Americans too? I mean, yes we did end the program ourselves, but the Americans did have an influance on what our government decided to do, whether you believe the official story or the unofficial one. It was our decision to go along with the American view on how to defend North America. So I think both nations are responsible for what happened to that wonderful piece of engineering, i just can't decide on who is more to blame.

[Telkwa]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

Can't we blame the Americans too? I mean, yes we did end the program ourselves, but the Americans did have an influance on what our government decided to do, whether you believe the official story or the unofficial one. It was our decision to go along with the American view on how to defend North America. So I think both nations are responsible for what happened to that wonderful piece of engineering, i just can't decide on who is more to blame.

Yes, of course. The big puzzle in all this is about why Dief ordered the Arrow to be scrapped. It was totally destroyed and all documents shredded. All that work down the drain. We can understand a company going out of business, or a government cancelling a contract. What is so hard to understand is why it had to vanish into never never land. It is that fact, more than any other, that has so many people believing in skull duggery.