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/MIG 25

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I watched an interesting program on the History channel (UK) yesterday called 'Secret Superpower Fighters' which claimed that although the Arrow was cancelled to provide money for Canadian farmers, the reason that the airframes and machine tools where destroyed unexpectedly was because the KGB had penetrated the facilty and where getting all the Arrow's secrets; a fact that was apparently confirmed when a MIG25 defected to Japan and they where able to examine it. As well as looking very similar it used Titainium in all the same places as the Arrow.
I hadn't heard this before, has anyone any more information about this ?




posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I haven't heartd that before, nor did I see that programme as my wife will not allow Diagnosis Murder to unwatched in our house


However although the claims could be true for all I know I think the Russians would only have made use of any structural knowledge gained as there is no outward similarity between the two at all.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Now I think about it what they actually said was similarities in the fuselage and the way the wings where mounted, high on the shoulder but apparently the way the Titainium was used was the clincher. I have googled this but haven't been able to find out much, only a small entry in Wikipedia (unfortunately not very good at posting links)



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   
that's so interesting why you haven't recorded the progeamme?


Originally posted by waynos
I haven't heartd that before, nor did I see that programme as my wife will not allow Diagnosis Murder to unwatched in our house

However although the claims could be true for all I know I think the Russians would only have made use of any structural knowledge gained as there is no outward similarity between the two at all.


if I knew there is such wonderful programe will display in TV I would have bought two TV if I have wife too

Then, who can scan picture upload here to prove that lugonn has transfered above?


[edit on 19-2-2006 by emile]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The MiG 25 is nothing like an Avro Arrow!


Considering the est top speed was Mach 2 for the arrow and 2.5+ for a MiG 25, heating considerations differ vastly for both aircraft.


Considering the size of the engines, the difference in range between the two...

... it rapidly becomes apparent anyone saying MiG have 'copied' sections of the arrow on the foxbat have lost the plot. Its also a slur on the Russians (one that is often made) that they just copied western designs and had no imagination of their own.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I think there is a complex that possibly emanates from America that anything good to come out of the Soviet Union must have been copied from sopmething in the west. There might be specific instances where this is true but in general terms it is just a by product of all the 'inferior commies' brainwashing that the USA and its allies pumped out after 1945 and is much over-used. It is most evident in books from the 1950's and '60's. Even Jane's assumed the Tu-16 was a copy of a Junkers design (!!!!) in its 1955 edition. The trait is still much in evidence it seems.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I watched this programme
exellent it was too and i even thought about doing a thread about it ,I knew someone else would


Basicly it presented evidence that the A.V Roe canada corporation had been comprimised by the KGB at a high level hence the rapid disposal of the 5 completed airframes and the tooling etc.

With the improved orenda Iroquois engine fitted after initial tests using Pratt and Whitney J75 powerplants (which had got the Arrow up to mach 1.98, in its 3rd test flight!)it was expected that mach 3 could have been achieved by subsequent developement but that wasn't too be, because of the cancellation of the programme.

There are some few similarities between the mig -25 and the arrow the high shoulder wing mount and the use of titnium alloys in the engines ,but i would say that if any body benefitted from the arrow cancelation it would have to be the US when the project was canceled many of the top guys at A.V Roe Canada went on to work on the American space programme or at mcdonnel (later douglas) and most made significant contributions.

A quick google search using "Apollo heat shield design canadian" turned up this interesting site
spaceistheplace.ca...
which highlights the main contributions made by the A.V Roe Canadas Canadian and British engineers that left following the demise of the Arrow
Jim Chamberlin who was head of the Arrow design studio was responsible for designing the Gemini space craft for Mcdonnell/Nasa, starting in 1961.

Anoter site which includes near the bottom A statistical comparison of the Arrow and the MIG-25
www.csd.uwo.ca...

As an after thought it might be interesting to find out if any of theese chaps had anything to do with the design of the sr71 ,which did correct me if im wrong also used titanium, there cant have been many experts in the field of using it in the construction of aircraft around that time period.






[edit on 19-2-2006 by buckaroo]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
After a bit more searching I found this site

www.answers.com...

There's quite a bit about the Arrow and it mentions the History channel programme about 4/5 ths of the way through.

I also found this site which acknowledges there was a KGB mole at Avro (almost last item on the page)

www.avroarrow.org...

And this final site I found seems quite informative.

www.antiwar.com...


[edit on 19-2-2006 by lugonn]

[edit on 19-2-2006 by lugonn]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
All confused problem will be clear if someone can upload the cutaway of CF-105 and MIG-25 to show how the titainium distributing in two fighter I think these pictures are not to be dificult to found.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Yeah I too watched all the programs the Fighter, Bomber and VTOL one. They said the Russians built he Mig-25 because they saw that the west was leaning toward fast, highflying interceptors. The Russians had apparently infiltrated one of the plant and had received information on the highly specialized use of titanium on the Avro. At that point in time the company making the Avro had the most sophisticated machinery for using titanium, that's why all 5 prototypes and machinery were destroy.

One more thing, they said the Avro indirectly led to the development of the Blackbird, the CIA asked Lockheed to develop a recon plane using titanium which had the same performance characteristics as the Avro.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by lugonn
I watched an interesting program on the History channel (UK) yesterday called 'Secret Superpower Fighters' which claimed that although the Arrow was cancelled to provide money for Canadian farmers, the reason that the airframes and machine tools where destroyed unexpectedly was because the KGB had penetrated the facilty and where getting all the Arrow's secrets; a fact that was apparently confirmed when a MIG25 defected to Japan and they where able to examine it. As well as looking very similar it used Titainium in all the same places as the Arrow.
I hadn't heard this before, has anyone any more information about this ?



The Avro Arrow and Mig-25 are completely different structurally and aerodynamically. One is designed to go Mach 3+ (engines allowing) the other isnt. This absurd comparison has to stop.

www.kaap.purpleglen.com...

3 views of both aircraft. Aerodynamic layout is completely different, not to mention the center of gravity, chassis including landing gear placement, etc... Plus the Mig had much more modern aerodynamic features such as the rear lower fins and angle cut tail and stabilizers. What they have in common is side intakes and high primary wing placement, both relatively basic and mundane features that are simple and logical choices to attain certain goals such as aerodynamic or structural efficiency or stability. What Mig might have gained from Avro isnt something they already had demonstrated superiority in like aerodynamics but in the cutting titanium parts fabrication processes. Which is why the plant was gutted.



[edit on 22-2-2006 by orca71]



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
1) maximum speed

MiG-25 "Foxbat" 3390 km/h
CF-105 Arrow 2453 km/h


2) rate of climb

MiG-25 "Foxbat" 12480 m/min
CF-105 Arrow 11730 m/min


3) ceiling

MiG-25 "Foxbat" 20700 m
CF-105 Arrow 18300 m


4) engine thrust

MiG-25PD "Foxbat-E" 220 kN
CF-105 Arrow 209.06 kN


5) maximum range

MiG-25 "Foxbat" 2575 km
CF-105 Arrow 1320 km


6) thrust to weight ratio

CF-105 Arrow 0.825
MiG-25 "Foxbat" 0.41


7) wing loading

CF-105 Arrow 226.9 kg/m^2
MiG-25 "Foxbat" 598 kg/m^2



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kondor
1) maximum speed

MiG-25 "Foxbat" 3390 km/h
CF-105 Arrow 2453 km/h


My data differs from your's. The MiG's continuous speed rating is more like 3000 km/h but it could get to 3390 for twenty minutes or so.

The Arrow's continuous speed rating was Mach 1.9 which seems to convert to about 2018 km/h. One did "dash" to Mach 1.96 but that is still only 2082 km/h.

The Arrow was limited to Mach 1.9 because the aluminum skin could not take more heat. The stainless steel skin of the MiG could operate at far higher temperatures before softening. It seems bizzare to compare a interceptor that could achieve Mach 3 with one that was limited to about Mach 2.

It should be noted that the Arrow set no international performance records whatsoever and the MiG set several and many of those still stand today.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The Avro Arrow failed because Avro was expecting a market for the aircraft that just wasn't there. They had been counting on sales to the US and UK. However, neither country was interested. As a result, the program was scrapped.

Now in 1959, the same year the Arrow was scrapped, Mikoyan-Gurevich was tasked with designing a new interceptor aircraft. They looked at a variety of planes for the design. The A-5 Vigilante, the English Electric Lightning and possibly the Avro Arrow.

There were several possible designs for the aircraft until 1961 when a final design was decided upon and they were given the official order to build the Mig-25.

In 1964, the first Mig-25 prototype made a successful test flight. But at this point, it still had a ways to go. The craft was built using primarily stainless steel and nickel steel rather than titanium because at the time titanium was too expensive and too difficult to work with. Only 9% of parts on the Mig-25 were made using titanium. These were fasteners and heat critical components around the engines.

Aside from the external appearance, the two aircraft have nothing in common.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by allenidaho
 


They don't even look alike externally, they are utterly different.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Folks,

If the Russians were stealing technology from the Arrow project, it is highly unlikely that they would be interested in the airframe. Although it was a technological achievement for our aero industry, it was not the best in the world at the time.

There was, however, some things that were very much worth stealing.

The machining capabilities and and alloy compositions.

For whatever reason, either luck or skill, Avro had managed to make some of the biggest manufacturing leaps of the time in those two fields.

Those two items alone, were worth far more than the Arrow design itself.

They would have granted performance boost to any plane in the time period (lighter parts = better performance) and lower cost assemblies (large part single system machining was in its infancy).

It is also of note, that these items would not need to be stolen by our western allies. Britain, as it housed the parent company, already had access to the technology, and the US was in the proccess of negotiating a technology share program with Canada (that exists to this day).

Complete side: both these technologies were supposedly shared with the US, prior to the 'in proccess' tech agreement to help gain access to the wind tunnels for aero testing and possibly the B-47 engine testing.

However, this is all classified as rumours only.

PS: The technology sharing is covered in the 1956, Defence Production Sharing Agreement.
edit on 10-8-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by lugonn
 


The A.V. Roe (Avroe) Arrow was cancelled as it was superior in every way to anything that had been built by anyone at that time. If it had been put into production, with upgrades, it would still be useful today. The American MIC didn't like that very much, so they threatened to pull GM out of Canada. Once we caved, they went a step further and took all of our best aerospace engineers down to work for NASA and they ended up putting man on the moon. Funny how that works out eh. Want sources? Google is your friend.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by lugonn
 


The A.V. Roe (Avroe) Arrow was cancelled as it was superior in every way to anything that had been built by anyone at that time. If it had been put into production, with upgrades, it would still be useful today. The American MIC didn't like that very much, so they threatened to pull GM out of Canada. Once we caved, they went a step further and took all of our best aerospace engineers down to work for NASA and they ended up putting man on the moon. Funny how that works out eh. Want sources? Google is your friend.


Common rubbish.

The Arrow was cancelled because it was a very very expensive plane, which the Canadian government didn't want to fund, especially after so many of the primary systems failed to perform in development.

If it was so superbly and excessively superior to anything else flying, then the US would have made Avro Canada a US defence contractor and bought a tonne of Arrows to be built with US engines, US avionics and on production lines in the US.

The Arrow was a decent point defence and interceptor for it's day. It was not, however, the best thing in the world to the point where a conspiracy was needed to get rid of it.
edit on 16/1/2012 by RichardPrice because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
The Arrow was a decent point defence and interceptor for it's day. It was not, however, the best thing in the world to the point where a conspiracy was needed to get rid of it.
edit on 16/1/2012 by RichardPrice because: (no reason given)


Sadly, if you ever follow Canadian politics, it would be more apt to state that there was a conspiracy to try and keep it.

Many of the things that the Canadian government and A.V. Roe management did, they did behind closed doors, without any of the proper insurance mechanisms.

The whole thing is really a sad story for Canadian government and industry interactions.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
When you have similar engineering problems, it is common to see similar solutions.

It was my understanding that the MIG 25 was developed to counter the US XB-70 bomber. When the US cancelled the XB-70, the MIG 25 was too far along to be cancelled. The MIG 25 was used to try to bring down the SR-71 and it was used as a recon aircraft. It is believed that a Soviet flown MIG 25 out of Egypt was used to overfly Israel to obtain information just before the start of the Yom Kippur War.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join