The Avro Arrow resurfacing?

So many firsts for the Arrow. Other Aircraft drew heavily from her.

1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more). 2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine. 3) First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory. 4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance. 5) First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance.

Arrow FIRSTS

reply to post by luciddream


The path to independence is self sufficiency and self reliance.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Some of that old technology is awesome. We have strayed far from practicability with all this new expensive technology. It takes the fun out of flying. I flew a Cessna and a Cherokee when I took flying training and the simplicity of the planes was great. The pilots nowadays rely too much on technology and technology can be unreliable. It's like buying a car with all sorts of fancy crap on it, the more crap on it the more that can go wrong. I don't know what direction we are going in. I think it is the wrong direction. There is no computer out there that can reason like an intelligent man with common sense. I trust in the pilots more than the technology.

edit on 12-9-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

Okay, so you can rig a couple sidewinders to your Piper and dogfight against modern aircraft. Lets see how you do. No RWR, no countermeasures, and the only reason you might possibly survive 30 seconds is because you can fly slower and not stall.

The technology is there for a reason.

As for the Arrow, I can understand Canadians being upset at its cancellation. The TSR2, less so. Why did the f-111 fail in the UK but thrive down under? While it was a failure as far as the the TFX requirements and my personal hero John Boyd hated it, the plane found its niche in tactical strike other roles. Anyways, I am curious if anyone has ever modeled the Arrow and simulated a dogfight between Mig-17s, 19s and 21s. It doubt the arrow was designed to turn. The 35 has a lot of issues, and I am not sold on it. If the Canadians were talking about buying Eurofighters or Gripens, that would add a lot of pressure. Bringing back the Arrow, building everything from scratch and modernizing everything(as someone pointed out, nothing, not even the intakes would look the same) and expecting to save money is a pipe dream.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by luciddream

 

The path to independence is self sufficiency and self reliance.

That's the path to autarchy - Nth Korea's economic model!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by luciddream

 

The path to independence is self sufficiency and self reliance.

That's the path to autarchy - Nth Korea's economic model!

Yep, and total reliance on others is the path to serfdom.

Wouldn't it be better to just go with a brand new design though? I love the Arrow and everything about it, but if some one were to design and build a new jet for Canada. I'd rather it be brand new from the ground up. Perhaps a design inspired by the Arrow, but that's it really.

reply to post by jra


Thanks for the reply. I was hoping you'd join in on the convo, knowing your affections for the old airframe.

A complete re-design is required if this idea has any merit whatsoever. New engines and electronics being a minor part of that, but the basic idea of the long range, high speed, high altitude airframe which the Arrow was designed for is much better for protecting Canada's airspace than the F35, wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by masqua
the basic idea of the long range, high speed, high altitude airframe which the Arrow was designed for is much better for protecting Canada's airspace than the F35, wouldn't you agree?

From what? The Arrow (and interceptor designs in general) were designed to stop incursions by Soviet bombers into Canadian airspace in the event of war. Destroy the bombers, prevent the bombs from falling. But bombers are no longer the delivery vehicle for nuclear arms. The rise of ICBMs and MIRV systems has left interceptors without anything to intercept. The only things that have come near our space without permission are the occasional Russian Tu-95s, and since all they seem to do is wave at pilots as they pass by they don't really demand urgent response.

The RCAF's main role in recent history has been UN peacekeeping/making in Afghanistan and Libya. While I don't believe that the F-35 is the best or only aircraft appropriate for that sort of mission as the Canadian government does, I also don't think a dated interceptor design is either.

reply to post by Darkpr0


For what?

Patrolling the air space and borders of Canada, from sea to sea to sea, which includes the arctic regions presently contested by numerous other national interests, Russia included.

Does the F35 have that capability or does it fall short? If it does, we need an alternative and why, oh why, can't we build one for ourselves? Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Originally posted by masqua
Patrolling the air space and borders of Canada, from sea to sea to sea, which includes the arctic regions presently contested by numerous other national interests, Russia included.

Does the F35 have that capability or does it fall short?

Domestic patrol is a job that is already done satisfactorily by the CF-188 force we already have. The F-35 is capable of fulfilling that mission. The Eurofighter, Gripen, MiG-39, Su-35, PAK-FA, F-18E/F, Rafale, and HAL Tejas can do that. In the modern world with OTH radar systems, satellite imaging, and drone surveillance, a Piper Cherokee can probably do that.

The F-35's capacity to patrol airspace is pretty much guaranteed. The points of contention are whether or not it is equipped properly to perform the other missions Canada undertakes as part of NATO, and the lack of any selection process by the government to lend credibility to the F-35 as an appropriate successor to current air force inventory.

If it does, we need an alternative and why, oh why, can't we build one for ourselves?

Because we lack the appropriate funds, facilities, personnel, and information. To build up a modern defence aeronautics industry from scratch takes resources that we simply don't have as a country. Canada's companies do work as subcontractors to American aerospace firms on some of the past programs, but taking an aircraft from concept into a working air force takes liquid, material, and personnel assets in amounts that you'd be hard pressed to find if you're only looking in Canada.

As much as the thought of the XB-70 taken out of the museum and fitted with Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100's which produce almost as much thrust dry as did the General Electric YJ93-GE-3 has me all a tingle it simply wont work. Lets assume as many have mentioned its a plane in "The Spirit Of The Arrow"

Canada spends about 25 billion a year on defense in 2012. The development cost of the F-35 is estimated to be about 40 billion (en.wikipedia.org...) Based on the assumption that Canada would not develop a 4th or 4.5 gen fighter, and rather opt for a gen 5 airframe I would expect this cost to be somewhat higher in today's $$$$$$ not to mention that some of the technology would take time to establish an infrstructure if an all Canadian plane was desired. Unless the Canadian government and the population at whole want to increase the defence budget by a substantial amount it would cripple the military and force severe cutbacks.

a reply to: nake13 The superiority of the TSR-2 over the F-111 has never been proven F-111 is combat proven bomber served 40 years in two different air forces
TRS-2 was a paper plane. Only 4 prototypes were built and none of them achieved full operational capability as they had been experiencing serious technical problems! Everything about TSR-2 was on the paper.A lot of stuff is still claimed about ‘US interference and pressure’ and a wanton desire to sabotage the industry by the Wilson government illustrated by the breaking up of not only the TSR-2’s save for two, in building, but also the scrapping of the production equipment to stop a future government re-starting the project.
Both are untrue.

a reply to: steppenwolf86The TSR.2 was supposed to have a combat radius of 1850 kilometers. It could achieve that radius with only a 2,000-pound bombload. Thats not much in essence, it could deliver a nuclear weapon or carry out reconnaissance missions. But if a TSR.2 carried its maximum bombload (10,000 pounds), it was limited to a 741 kilometer combat radius. Compare this to the F-111s combat radius of 2,140km carrying a bombload of 30,000 pounds. This was due to the decision to use the TF-30, a turbofan, which was much more fuel-efficient than the turbojets used on the TSR.2. The F-111 only needed 5043 gallons of internal fuel compared to 6,716.6 gallons on the TSR.2 to attain the combat radius it did.

The Americans then offered the F-111 with it's stand- off bomb as a package cheaper than the TSR2. Unfortunately after the British had ordered the F-111 the American stand-off bomb project was cancelled making the F-111 surplus to British requirements.

a reply to: diddy1234The funniest joke in the whole forum...

www.facebook.com...

TSR.2 was a colossal engineering blunder..Go and read the link ..