It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Avro Arrow '09

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
As you have seen, I agree about how good the Arrow was, but I don't see where you are coming from with its manoeverability.

Fighter manoeverability was not a priority when the Arrow was developed, for anyone. What mattered, and what the Arrow would have excelled at, was getting up as quickly as possible to intercept incoming formations of high speed bombers as early as possible, phenomenal acceleration and time to height was the order of the day and the Arrow was very, very fast. Not only that but it promised to outrange the Lightning by a wide margin as well as carrying more missiles, and all internally too.

Fighter agility only really came back into importance with the experience of Vietnam and shows in the design of the F-15 and F-16 of the late '60's and early '70's.

The Arrow was a slender dart shape and built for acceleration and speed in the climb, not for turning. Rather like the Lightning and MiG 25 that emerged either side of it.




posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
The Avro Arrow was probably at least 15 years ahead of it's time. Delta wing configurations were unheard of at the time but Canadian engineers proved that delta wings are more stable at supersonic flight. Hence, why every new fighter built has some sort of delta wing setup.

It was Eisenhower that duped Deifenbaker into dumping it. It would have put a huge dent in the American aerospace industry(especially military aircraft). Talent hunters from the US were constantly approaching Avro Canada employees. Imagine the money Canada would have made had it taken over military aircraft exportation.

The US didn't want to lose it's edge so instead of competing with us they took advantage of us. Seems the norm when dealing with the US.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The Avro Arrow, while deserving of great admiration, seems to be heading towards the same levels of 'overhype' that the Nazi's are currently getting on here.

Delta's were NOT unheard of by any stretch

If I skip over the work of Lippisch during the war (to save time, not to annoy anyone
)

Not only were delta's commonplace in the decade before the Arrow flew but the US had already flown the XF-92, F-102, F-106 AND B-58 before the Arrow appeared. The French had been flying the Mirage since 1955, the UK had the Avro 707 and Vulcan, Boulton Paul P.111 and, after its first flight in 1954, the Fairey Delta 2 became, in 1956, the first aeroplane to set a world speed record above 1,000mph.

The tailless delta was common currency long before it flew. YES, it was fantastic, YES, its cancellation was stupid and still stinks, and yes, it would have been the finest interceptor around for AT LEAST a decade. But lets keep the claims in the real world hey?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   

The U.S. President at the time (forget who it was at the moment)


Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces General Dwight Eisenhower (R)



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The Avro Arrow, while deserving of great admiration, seems to be heading towards the same levels of 'overhype' that the Nazi's are currently getting on here.


Kind of scary territory here as Waynos and I seem to be on the same page here as of late. Yes the Arrow would have been a great plane and an achievement to build. However, why would you build it today? Is there a role for a single role interceptor that would require a fresh start to achieve any sort of stealth?

And what is the deal with the "overhype" about the Nazi glory years?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   


The Avro Arrow, while deserving of great admiration, seems to be heading towards the same levels of 'overhype' that the Nazi's are currently getting on here.


Haha i've noticed this aswell, but i don't think it's totally "overhype" with the Arrow. Being Canadian as well as a admirerer of military aircraft, having our country produce something so impressive is quite an achievement for not really being seen as a major military power. Other countries had their own great planes at the time and since then, this was our only one and it never really got its chance. I think it's more of people dwelling on what could have been that makes it all seem more than it is.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
It comes across to me a little as if all the great things that Arrow did represent somehow aren't enough for one or two peope so they have to add a little fiction into the mix; eg the 'supersonics ahead of America', 'mach 3 capable' and 'delta's were unheard of' type stuff.

It disappoints me because the Arrow WAS great but such clearly idiotic claims tend to devalue the real acheivement of Avro Canada building, completely independantly, what was the finest interceptor in the world by a mile and which, quite apart from the RCAF, the RAF themselves, then a much bigger player globally than they are today, were falling over themselves to acquire. This is all really amazing stuff and doesn't need embroidering with fantasy to make it 'more impressive'. Well, thats my view for what its worth.


jra

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
This is all really amazing stuff and doesn't need embroidering with fantasy to make it 'more impressive'. Well, thats my view for what its worth.


I agree with you. I'm not sure where people get some of there info. The Arrow did a number of things first before anyone else, but using delta wings surely wasn't one of them. Perhaps they were a bit uncommon at the time, but defiantely not unheard of.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
It is indeed true that delta wings were in use before the Arrow. However, the Arrow PROVED that they could be used to stabilise supersonice flight. I have seen someone ask "Why build it now, when stealth is the big thing?"

Well here is my answer. At the time, this thing could hiy mach 2.5 using Orenda Iroqouis engines. 40,000+ thrust. Now, our new engines are much more powerful. if we could put a more powerful engine in it (like the 70,000 pound thrusters (I think this figure is correct, please tell me if I'm wrong)), think of what we could hit. And thats not a spyplane like the Blackbird, its an interceptor. No longer would Canada be an "eventual response" country, it would be an "instant response" country. We could very quickly respond to a small taskforce. Plus it might put us on the map of people with a military larger than the population of a small village. Granted that the Arrow wouldn't be stealth, but it might have the speed and altitude capability to not be vulnerable to being shot at. Its not really the stealth we need, its the inability to be shot at. Save the stealth for a spyplane and let the fighters do their job.


jra

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
As much as I like the Arrow (it's one of my favorite aircraft). I don't think it could be used for military purposes today (not because of lack of stealth or anything like that). It would be great if they built one or two that could fly. But that would be used mostly for historical purposes i'd imagine. I think an aircraft for the 21st century would have to meet differnt requirments. It would probably be better to design something from scratch, using the latest tech and knowledge in aircraft design. And sadly I don't think Canada could do it today (mostly because of money, or lack there of).



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Well I've read that the Avro was scraped because of the idea that guided long range missiles would replace the aircraft all together so they scarped the project to save money, this was a pretty stupid assumption to make. It's a shame because the plane was so advanced that it would still be in service today. Many people lost their jobs and flew [pun] south to a millitarizing country that advanced planes were in demand.

Avro around this time was also working on a Top Secret "flying disk" projects in probably to most top secret area in Canada, Milton, Ontario (puts Area 51 to shame), they must have at least padlocked the hangar door to keep there saucers top secret from people that parked in their parking lot to shop at the nearby grocery store. The were contracted by the US government to develop these disks but they hardly flew, they pinicale of the project was when it flew over a 1.5 meter ditch and flew a few feet off the ground. Nevertheless they were quite amazing technological developments. Even though they were ment to fly at thousands of kilometeres an hour at high altitudes.


[edit on 6/26/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
It is indeed true that delta wings were in use before the Arrow. However, the Arrow PROVED that they could be used to stabilise supersonice flight.


What planet are you on? You do know that the FD-2, F-102, B-58 and Mirage were all supersonic delta's years before the Arrow flew, yes? They were also perfectly stable and aerodynamically proven.


I have seen someone ask "Why build it now, when stealth is the big thing?"

Well here is my answer. At the time, this thing could hiy mach 2.5 using Orenda Iroqouis engines. 40,000+ thrust. Now, our new engines are much more powerful. if we could put a more powerful engine in it (like the 70,000 pound thrusters (I think this figure is correct, please tell me if I'm wrong)), think of what we could hit. And thats not a spyplane like the Blackbird, its an interceptor. No longer would Canada be an "eventual response" country, it would be an "instant response" country. We could very quickly respond to a small taskforce. Plus it might put us on the map of people with a military larger than the population of a small village. Granted that the Arrow wouldn't be stealth, but it might have the speed and altitude capability to not be vulnerable to being shot at. Its not really the stealth we need, its the inability to be shot at. Save the stealth for a spyplane and let the fighters do their job.


But it is a straight line interceptor and their is no place for such an aircraft in any air force today, thats why no-one builds them anymore, that is even if you manage to completely upgrade the structural design/weight parameters to modern standards which basically means starting again anyway.

This plane was cancelled in 1959! However great it was then, resurrecting it now would be a backward step for all involved. Hell why not resurrect the TSR 2 for FOAS? Because that would be stupid right?

[edit on 26-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
just to clear up the whole manuverbilty thing. the arrow was required to fly up to 50 000ft in under 5 min and engae the enemy at least at mach 1.5 (arrow reached 1.96 with out its actualy production engines at where rated at mach 2.5) while at the mach 1.5 mark the arrow was required to pull up to 2 g manuvers while losing 0 airspeed. also turn around time on the plane while on the ground was to be 10 min before back on the runway and shooting up into the air again. ill provide my link at the bottom. Now i tend to agree with waynos and etc that it wouldn't be practical or $ fesable to rebuild the arrow project. i also agree that the interceptor role has been blended into the fighter or air supremecy role but.... just a lil but the reason that this tread was started was that a group of canadians what torebuild a flying model of the arrow. I think they desever support to seeing as there are airplanes that are less interesting or that are more of left then the arrow. anyways thats my 2 cents and my link www.avro-arrow.org...



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

This plane was cancelled in 1959! However great it was then, resurrecting it now would be a backward step for all involved. Hell why not resurrect the TSR 2 for FOAS? Because that would be stupid right?



Yes, but currently our CF-18's are about 20-30 steps backward. our radars are pathetic, missiles abominable, but at elast our pilots are superior

True, money is an issue, but it would be cool.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Originally posted by waynos

This plane was cancelled in 1959! However great it was then, resurrecting it now would be a backward step for all involved. Hell why not resurrect the TSR 2 for FOAS? Because that would be stupid right?



Yes, but currently our CF-18's are about 20-30 steps backward. our radars are pathetic, missiles abominable, but at elast our pilots are superior

True, money is an issue, but it would be cool.

I disagree with you there darkpro. the canadian F/A-18 fleet is being upgrade with even more state of the art ie 5 year old tech on the planes right now. we will be ok with the 18 for bit longer till the 35 is out and in production. until then i think the goverment can focus on the helo's being replaced and getting us a newer air transport airframe to fly the hercs are getting pretty old and we dont want them to turn into another seaking situation.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Our F-18's are only going to hold out for a bit longer. Since the Super Hornet came out, the F-35's coming out, and a whole shwackload of other planes coming into the market, we are very quickly becoming outpaced with military technology, and I don't like the idea of Americans protecting us. It just don't click.

BTW whats the estimated going price for an F-35 compared to...say... an F-15 or F-16.


jra

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
The estimated costs for the F-35 are:

F-35A - $37 million
F-35B - $46 million
F-35C - $48 million

EDIT: and oh yeah, for an F-15. Globalsecurity.org says for an F-15E $FY98. Around $55 million for USAF close to $100 million (including spares and support) for export customers.

I think Canada may go with the F-35A, but we'll see. I think the RCAF prefers twin engine jets rather then single engine though. That's what I thought I heard anyway.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by jra]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
that is true jra i have heard that as well about the twin engin planes for the RCAF. Anyone have thoughts about the replacement for the CF-18 wishes? dreams? lol that will never happen.


jra

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Some of my wishes or dreams (that will never happen) would be:

1. Eurofighter - I think it's a good jet and I think it's something affordable for Canada.

2. SU-30 - Yeah I like Russian aircraft. I don't know how it's electronics compair to our C/F-18's, but i'm sure it's just as good, if not, better. I think they're a good sturdy aircraft and they can probably handle cold Canadian winters just fine


3. F-22 - Even though I like the YF-23 way more. I still like the F-22. It's a good plane for sure, but no way in hell will Canada ever buy these. But it would be nice to have something brand new and top of the line (so we can use it for the next 30 - 40 years without upgrading them
)



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
yah i just read on dnd.ca that they are upgrading the 18's to do GPS bombing etc. they also mention they are looking at getting the Polaris 150 for air-refueling. wow finally a mid air refueling capablity after losing it for like 15 years.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join