FA+
Shop
540
Views
Views
11
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 853
File Size 116 kB
Report this content
More from Saara
When the rightful king rises with Excalibur in his good right hand, so will the Avro Arrow fly again! Until then, this Arrow will have to do. It's a mock-up made from aluminum sheet and tooled parts, but it's alas its a hollow shell. No engines, no hydrolics, no fuel tanks, no electronics. Nevertheless is really impressive.
The mock-up was rolled out for the public last year at the grounds of the old RCAF airbase, now swallowed up by north Toronto. The roll out celebrated the opening of the new air museum as well (see next photo). I attended with some friends, incuding Bob (see Laputa photo).
The real Arrow was a post war project of Avro Canada, which had made Lancaster bombers. Hoping to meet our need for a deterant to Soviet bombers, Avro engineers designed a Mach 2, high altitude, long distance, stand-off fighter that was so ambitious that its performance exceeded any production aircraft for many years to come. Unfortunately, only a handful were ever built. It's testing proved the concept. But the Conservative government was troubled with the cost overruns, and was convinced by critics that manned aircraft were obsolete in the missle age. There's a persistent conspiracy theory that the White House also tpersuaded the Prime Minister into scrapping the Arrow, supposedly so that America could sell us a lot of American made hardware in its place. Whatever really lay behind the PM's decision -- and personal animosity against Avro's CEO might have had as much to do with it as anything -- the inexplicable thing is that the PM ordered all the airframes broken up, the tools destroyed, and blueprints burned. A few parts escaped the slaughter, and many of the blueprints, but the planes all fell to the welding torch. The larlgest surviving piece is the nose and cockpit of one that hung in an RCAF barracks for many years.
Notwithstanding the facts, a legend grew up that the last Arrow was secretly hidden from the government, and remains in a barn or warehouse somewhere. Waiting for Arthur his sleep, no doubt.
The mock-up was rolled out for the public last year at the grounds of the old RCAF airbase, now swallowed up by north Toronto. The roll out celebrated the opening of the new air museum as well (see next photo). I attended with some friends, incuding Bob (see Laputa photo).
The real Arrow was a post war project of Avro Canada, which had made Lancaster bombers. Hoping to meet our need for a deterant to Soviet bombers, Avro engineers designed a Mach 2, high altitude, long distance, stand-off fighter that was so ambitious that its performance exceeded any production aircraft for many years to come. Unfortunately, only a handful were ever built. It's testing proved the concept. But the Conservative government was troubled with the cost overruns, and was convinced by critics that manned aircraft were obsolete in the missle age. There's a persistent conspiracy theory that the White House also tpersuaded the Prime Minister into scrapping the Arrow, supposedly so that America could sell us a lot of American made hardware in its place. Whatever really lay behind the PM's decision -- and personal animosity against Avro's CEO might have had as much to do with it as anything -- the inexplicable thing is that the PM ordered all the airframes broken up, the tools destroyed, and blueprints burned. A few parts escaped the slaughter, and many of the blueprints, but the planes all fell to the welding torch. The larlgest surviving piece is the nose and cockpit of one that hung in an RCAF barracks for many years.
Notwithstanding the facts, a legend grew up that the last Arrow was secretly hidden from the government, and remains in a barn or warehouse somewhere. Waiting for Arthur his sleep, no doubt.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 853px
File Size 116 kB
Very similar. Bad advice or fuzzy thinking. At least the British aerospace industry recovered, and went on to triumphs like the Jaguar, Typhoon, and Eurofighter. Canada never built another miitary aircraft. (We do, at least, have a respectable industry in mid-size, mid-range commercial aircraft like the Dash 8.)
I've often wondered how useful it would have been in service though. It was in many ways the original MiG 25 Foxbat -- a huge, possibly not very agile aircrat, designed to meet docile waves of incoming bombers with long range missles. It might not have been easily adapted to any other role. Still, it might have been a step toward more flexible modern aircraft that would have freed us from buying U.S. Voodoos, Star Fighters, F-5 Freedom Fighers, and today's F-18 Hornets.
I sometimes joke about Canada deciding to buy Su-31's from Russia for our next generation needs. I'd imagine there'd be several cases of apoplexy in the Pentagon.
I sometimes joke about Canada deciding to buy Su-31's from Russia for our next generation needs. I'd imagine there'd be several cases of apoplexy in the Pentagon.
I have an unbuilt model kit of an Arrow I'd been meaning to build in European camoflage, with underslung missles (in addition to the internal stores). But its been years since I built a kit.
There have only been two mainstream model kits of the Arrow that I know of. The original was by Aurora, and it was awfully crude. Then nothing for decades until Hobbycraft brought one out that was pretty decent. Before that came out I found and bought a vacuform kit that wasn't too inspiring but was all that was available. It was the kind of kit you have to trim all the parts out of flat sheets first. There have been a couple of poorly made toys to my knowledge as well.
There have only been two mainstream model kits of the Arrow that I know of. The original was by Aurora, and it was awfully crude. Then nothing for decades until Hobbycraft brought one out that was pretty decent. Before that came out I found and bought a vacuform kit that wasn't too inspiring but was all that was available. It was the kind of kit you have to trim all the parts out of flat sheets first. There have been a couple of poorly made toys to my knowledge as well.
Very sad, Its just like our TSR.2! Ever heard of that one?
And for the RCAF purchasing the Eurofighter Typhoon, Canadian-British relations need a boost, I think the EF200 would be a grand idea ^^
Meanwhile the RCAF's F18's have many flying hours left! XD
(PS: Click 'Reply to this post' so we know when you reply ^^)
And for the RCAF purchasing the Eurofighter Typhoon, Canadian-British relations need a boost, I think the EF200 would be a grand idea ^^
Meanwhile the RCAF's F18's have many flying hours left! XD
(PS: Click 'Reply to this post' so we know when you reply ^^)
The whole situation surrounding the real arrow pissed me off and made me drop my opinion of Canada several points. I cant believe they just balked at the American's claims that MISSILES! Missiles were the way to go! IDIOTS!
The arrow surpassed all aironotic expectation of the time. And completely scared the shit out of the US secretary of defense of the time...thanfuly though...if the US were to try the same stunt again, Canada would gladly tell us to go fuck our selves.
I'm told its weird for a stupid American to know so much about a Canadian project the Americans have been trying to destroy the memory of (Its not in any of those "History of Planes" books for Christ's sake! The German Comet is. The Russian Mig is...but not the Arrow -_-) but thankfully I have a Canadian girl friend telling me quite a few things about not just jets, but cars and bikes as well
PS: Canadians are GREAT fucks XP
The arrow surpassed all aironotic expectation of the time. And completely scared the shit out of the US secretary of defense of the time...thanfuly though...if the US were to try the same stunt again, Canada would gladly tell us to go fuck our selves.
I'm told its weird for a stupid American to know so much about a Canadian project the Americans have been trying to destroy the memory of (Its not in any of those "History of Planes" books for Christ's sake! The German Comet is. The Russian Mig is...but not the Arrow -_-) but thankfully I have a Canadian girl friend telling me quite a few things about not just jets, but cars and bikes as well
PS: Canadians are GREAT fucks XP
You probably enjoyed that CBC production a few years ago, starring Dan Akroyd, called "Arrow". It dallies with most of the conspiracya theories and most extreme claims.
Most books don't mention the Arrow, it's true. However, "Attack and Interceptor Jets" by Michael Sharpe does. It was published by Grange Books, 2000, from the UK. It's a handsome and very informative little book in general.
Most books don't mention the Arrow, it's true. However, "Attack and Interceptor Jets" by Michael Sharpe does. It was published by Grange Books, 2000, from the UK. It's a handsome and very informative little book in general.
While you're on Amazon, look around for that CBC production of "Arrow" then. I think you'd enjoy it, though it has to be taken witha grain of salt.
The Arrow is also covered in "X-Planes and Prototypes" by Jim Winchester, published by Amber Books, UK, 2005. But we're talking about a two page entry, like Janes. Speaking of which, Jane's includes the Arrow in "Jane's Pocket Book of Research and Experimental Aircraft"
Speaking of Canadian things that there seems to be a conspiracy never to talk about, my favoaurite is the CN Tower. You will almost never see it mentioned in print or on the air among the tallest buildings in the world. "They" have explained it away as merely a "free standing tower" rather than a building, so it can be ignored.
The Arrow is also covered in "X-Planes and Prototypes" by Jim Winchester, published by Amber Books, UK, 2005. But we're talking about a two page entry, like Janes. Speaking of which, Jane's includes the Arrow in "Jane's Pocket Book of Research and Experimental Aircraft"
Speaking of Canadian things that there seems to be a conspiracy never to talk about, my favoaurite is the CN Tower. You will almost never see it mentioned in print or on the air among the tallest buildings in the world. "They" have explained it away as merely a "free standing tower" rather than a building, so it can be ignored.
The Arrow was truly an amazing a/c. Really a shame. Not the only time this sort of thing happened. The tooling for the SR71/a12 wasbroken upwhene the powers thatbe decided that they didn'tneed them any more. And all of Jack Northrops XB-35/XB49s were destroyed when the air force decided that they wanted more of the B-36. Don't get me wrong.I love the "Magnesium Overcast, but the wings were just socool. I dohave tolaugh a little at one of AVRO's other projects tho. Remember the Avro-car??? I dothink that even that could have been made to work with some of the more recient developments in engine and control tech. Real flying scaucers, anyone? THE COLONEL
As I recall, the AVRO saucer was a Pentagon project that they were contracted to develop. It never worked well, and perhaps it might have been controllable if there had been adequate computers to deal with the microsecond instabillity. I never quite understood what the problem was, since it seemed to be essentially a sort of helicopter, with the fuselage built around the outside of the rotor... small rotor mind you. It would probably have needed at least one boom and a secondary rotor for control, but why not? Nor did the saucer fly more than about a foot off the ground -- at least not in the one film I've seen of it in action. Was there some reason it couldn't fly higher? As far as I know, it wasn't supposed to be a ground effects machine -- why build it circular?
This is a job for Wikipedia!
B-36 Peacemakers were awesome. I don't know how effective they would ever have been if they had had to drop nukes on Russia, but they were awesome.
This is a job for Wikipedia!
B-36 Peacemakers were awesome. I don't know how effective they would ever have been if they had had to drop nukes on Russia, but they were awesome.
The Avro-car was designed to employ the so-called Coelanda Effect. What the result was ,in effect, a circilar blown wing. Needed more power than was available in the design. Stability was alos a major concern. The Wiki article did point out that with the addition of a plenum skirt, the result would have been a rather effective hovercraft.
In regard tothe B-36,you have toseeone tobelieve just how big the darn things were.There are still 4 left. one at Wright-pat in Ohio, one at the "SAC" museum outside of Omaha,NE, The "Spiritof Fort Worth"the last "featherweight III" built which is now at the Pima air muaeum outside Tucson,AZ, And my personal favorite,the one and onlyremaining recon bird [RB-36] at the Castle AFB museum in Atwater,CA. That one has a very interesting history as to its' recovery from being a "Gate Guardian" at Rantoul AFD in Ill when the base was closed . They even have a vidio of how it was done.Pity that it will never fly again. Checkout the old Jimmy Stewart movie "Stratigic Air Command" to see some great shots of them in flight! nuff said. THE COLONEL
In regard tothe B-36,you have toseeone tobelieve just how big the darn things were.There are still 4 left. one at Wright-pat in Ohio, one at the "SAC" museum outside of Omaha,NE, The "Spiritof Fort Worth"the last "featherweight III" built which is now at the Pima air muaeum outside Tucson,AZ, And my personal favorite,the one and onlyremaining recon bird [RB-36] at the Castle AFB museum in Atwater,CA. That one has a very interesting history as to its' recovery from being a "Gate Guardian" at Rantoul AFD in Ill when the base was closed . They even have a vidio of how it was done.Pity that it will never fly again. Checkout the old Jimmy Stewart movie "Stratigic Air Command" to see some great shots of them in flight! nuff said. THE COLONEL
I'd love to see a B-36, but my travelling days are just about over. The only solution I can see is if Canada invades the US and steals all your air museums to start new ones in Canada.
I did see Strategic Air Command a couple of times, though. I also love the B-47 -- one of my two favourite bombers! (The other is the B-58.)
The Monagram model kit of the B-36 is almost as big as the real plane... well, that's an exaggeration, but the kit is about three feet across from wingtip to wingtip. I have one, still unbuilt. Although it's bigger than the same company's large kit of the B-29, the B-36 kit is still only 1/72 scale compared the the Superfortress's 1/48!
I did see Strategic Air Command a couple of times, though. I also love the B-47 -- one of my two favourite bombers! (The other is the B-58.)
The Monagram model kit of the B-36 is almost as big as the real plane... well, that's an exaggeration, but the kit is about three feet across from wingtip to wingtip. I have one, still unbuilt. Although it's bigger than the same company's large kit of the B-29, the B-36 kit is still only 1/72 scale compared the the Superfortress's 1/48!
I read the Wiki article with astonishment... somebody actually thought this would work? Hadn't they ever heard of the square-cube law? What you can do with a pie plate and a bit of suction tells you little about what's possible with a full size airframe.
There was an odd Lindberg model kit of a "UFO" that is obviously based on the Avrocar -- it even has the annular exhaust ring around the edge of the saucer. But instead of a central rotor inlet there's a single glass bubble cockpit, and two tiny engines are mounted at the "rear" of the saucer. It was re-released by Polar Lights -- I build one but declined to use the glow-in-the-dark alien pilot, replacing it with a human one from my parts box. Since it was obviously not a flying saucer, I used spare USAF markings as well. It still looks stupid.
I think they might have had more success just building this as a sort of helicopter... But, obviously Frost (or whatever his name was) was one of the obsessive-engineer types, who decided that some silly idea was better than tried-and-true principles, devoted his life to proving it was, indeed, a silly idea. What the hell good did he ever think a rotary jet engine would be? I include Jack Lockheed in this category because of his life-long desire to built flying wings simply because of their lift efficiency -- overlooking their enormous drag and problems with stability (without rear empennage). Sure... 50 years later, with the development of high speed computers, it was finally possible to build a sort-of-practical flying wing. But the justification has changed from "efficiency" to "stealth." It's still a silly idea.
But engineers seems to fall for this sort of logic on a regular basis. It's like arguing that human beings would be much more efficient in locomotion if the didn't have top-heavy upper bodies... floppy, useless heads in particular. It's true... we would walk and run better if we were only a pair of legs. But we wouldn't be very good human beings.
There was an odd Lindberg model kit of a "UFO" that is obviously based on the Avrocar -- it even has the annular exhaust ring around the edge of the saucer. But instead of a central rotor inlet there's a single glass bubble cockpit, and two tiny engines are mounted at the "rear" of the saucer. It was re-released by Polar Lights -- I build one but declined to use the glow-in-the-dark alien pilot, replacing it with a human one from my parts box. Since it was obviously not a flying saucer, I used spare USAF markings as well. It still looks stupid.
I think they might have had more success just building this as a sort of helicopter... But, obviously Frost (or whatever his name was) was one of the obsessive-engineer types, who decided that some silly idea was better than tried-and-true principles, devoted his life to proving it was, indeed, a silly idea. What the hell good did he ever think a rotary jet engine would be? I include Jack Lockheed in this category because of his life-long desire to built flying wings simply because of their lift efficiency -- overlooking their enormous drag and problems with stability (without rear empennage). Sure... 50 years later, with the development of high speed computers, it was finally possible to build a sort-of-practical flying wing. But the justification has changed from "efficiency" to "stealth." It's still a silly idea.
But engineers seems to fall for this sort of logic on a regular basis. It's like arguing that human beings would be much more efficient in locomotion if the didn't have top-heavy upper bodies... floppy, useless heads in particular. It's true... we would walk and run better if we were only a pair of legs. But we wouldn't be very good human beings.
If only a complete real Arrow existed, but they were all destroyed by the boob of a Prime Minister who ordered the project cancelled. (The current Conservative Party is trying to rehabilitate Diefenbaker's name by naming a new ice-breaker after him -- it's almost as if a government welfare agency was named after Herbert Hoover.)
There was long a myth about one Arrow being secretly flown away and hidden. I never believed it. If it had happened, the plane would have been brought out of hiding more than 30 years ago, when it had become a point of national pride. Anyone who had been involved in the theft would have become heroes and impossible t prosecute. But no plane came out of hiding, ever... I knew, however, that a barracks in the Trenton, Ont. airforce base had the front nose of an Arrow mounted in the rafters, over a doorway. It had been torched off just ahead of the air inlets. I suspect that it was the source of the rumour about a secret, intact Arrow. The remnant is now on display in Ottawa.
I suspect that's where our replica will end up, since nobody will help fund the Toronto Airspace Museum, while the fucking feds lavish money on a similar museum in Ottawa, where the federal government sits. The feds consistently steal from and shortchange Toronto -- probably because most Toronto ridings vote Liberal or NDP. Democracy in Canada has taken a big step back under Steven Harper, and begins to resemble "democracy" in India or Brazil.
I have a photo of a small Rocky figure in the cockpit of a to-scale P-51 Mustang. You can hardly make him out!
There was long a myth about one Arrow being secretly flown away and hidden. I never believed it. If it had happened, the plane would have been brought out of hiding more than 30 years ago, when it had become a point of national pride. Anyone who had been involved in the theft would have become heroes and impossible t prosecute. But no plane came out of hiding, ever... I knew, however, that a barracks in the Trenton, Ont. airforce base had the front nose of an Arrow mounted in the rafters, over a doorway. It had been torched off just ahead of the air inlets. I suspect that it was the source of the rumour about a secret, intact Arrow. The remnant is now on display in Ottawa.
I suspect that's where our replica will end up, since nobody will help fund the Toronto Airspace Museum, while the fucking feds lavish money on a similar museum in Ottawa, where the federal government sits. The feds consistently steal from and shortchange Toronto -- probably because most Toronto ridings vote Liberal or NDP. Democracy in Canada has taken a big step back under Steven Harper, and begins to resemble "democracy" in India or Brazil.
I have a photo of a small Rocky figure in the cockpit of a to-scale P-51 Mustang. You can hardly make him out!
It is generally conceded by those who have half a brain down here that calling Diefenbaker a boob is being overly generous. But the whole a/c industry was afflicted with this kind of political interferance during this period. In the end we lost, notjust the CF-105 but the f-108 rapier,the b-70, the TSR-2, and a lotof other "interesting " aircraft. sigh-- Of course, I stillthink we abandoned Zeppelins too soon. I have always wondered what would have happened if one or two of the follow on designs of Akron or Macon had been flying out of Pearl on Dec.7? WHAT IF......??? THE COLONEL
BTW,Just how tall do figure Rocky is I figured about 3'. WCJ
BTW,Just how tall do figure Rocky is I figured about 3'. WCJ
As I recall, the visionary thinking was that the era of manned air combat was already over, and that missiles would take out Russian bomber fleets while still over the pole or the Atlantic. (Game show sound effect here.) The B-70 was certainly a charmer. At high altitude it might still have been a difficult target to take out, but they decided it was too vulnerable. In retrospect, nobody has ever needed a strategic bomber with global reach -- the anticipated third and later world wars never happened. The aging B-52 was all the long-distance bombing capacity the USAF needed. What would they have done with the Valkyrie? Can you imagine dropping little 500 bombs in clusters on Afghanistan from 70,000 feet and Mach 3? Why do it?
I think even the Arrow had certain conceptual difficulties. While undeniably fast, it was not well suited to air combat, I don't think. It was a sort of Foxbat before the Soviets built their own. What would have been more interesting is seeing what Avro would have come up with next, marrying the Orenda engines to more agile airframes.
Airships had some drawbacks there were no solutions for -- slow speed for one, vulnerability to weather for another. But I wonder... surely innovative techniques might have carved out a niche for lighter-than-air vehicles. Suppose they had been built in the shape of blimpy flying wings, for instance, so that their forward motion generated lift. At 50 to 75 mph it would likely been a significant addition to the lifting power of the gas. It might also have been easier to steer, since you could have used something like elevators and aerilons, and the wing shape has a directional bias.
I think even the Arrow had certain conceptual difficulties. While undeniably fast, it was not well suited to air combat, I don't think. It was a sort of Foxbat before the Soviets built their own. What would have been more interesting is seeing what Avro would have come up with next, marrying the Orenda engines to more agile airframes.
Airships had some drawbacks there were no solutions for -- slow speed for one, vulnerability to weather for another. But I wonder... surely innovative techniques might have carved out a niche for lighter-than-air vehicles. Suppose they had been built in the shape of blimpy flying wings, for instance, so that their forward motion generated lift. At 50 to 75 mph it would likely been a significant addition to the lifting power of the gas. It might also have been easier to steer, since you could have used something like elevators and aerilons, and the wing shape has a directional bias.
Actually, the big zepps and blimps could produce a goodamount of lift while in flight, by assuming a positive angle of flight--i.e. nose up. In facl, the later USN blimps took off with a substancial overload by taxing into the wind and putting the nose up. This was one of the reasons that the last classes had Y or X tails, besides the face that they gave a more precise levelof control. The last class of navy blimp wasa the big ZPG's which were , as fare as I know, still the largest pressure [non-rigid] airships built. Saw some when I was a kid, flying out of Lakehurst. They had tobe bif, because they had the largest radar antenna ever flown, mounted inside the envelope. which was transparent toradar. The damn thing revolved inside the gas bag! An airfoil shapr might have worked, but wouldhave serious weight to volume problems. In the long run, HTA worked better. But you still can't deny the beauty of the things.
To change the subject a little, but in the same ear, have you seen the vidieo on the 50'/60's NUCLEAR powered aircraft project. Now there was a wild idea.
To change the subject a little, but in the same ear, have you seen the vidieo on the 50'/60's NUCLEAR powered aircraft project. Now there was a wild idea.
I've seen *a* film on the nuclear propelled bomber. It was a converted B-29, wasn't it? And all the reactor did was sit in the back generating radiation, without powering anything. As I recall, it was a proof of concept vehicle, to show that a reactor could be operated satisfactorily in the air. But there was only one angle of approach, since the only practical shielding was a bulkhead in the fuselage. Getting outside that cone of safety was deadly.
There was a model of the so-called Nuclear bomber that I had as a kid. Didn't resemble the real text plane at all, and only vaguely resembled some of the design drawings. It had a Fireball XL5 layout, with squarish wings toward the rear, and canards at the front. Two large "nuclear jet engines" hung from the rear wingtips. No rear elevators, but two fighter planes docked vertically under the tail. Great model!
There was a model of the so-called Nuclear bomber that I had as a kid. Didn't resemble the real text plane at all, and only vaguely resembled some of the design drawings. It had a Fireball XL5 layout, with squarish wings toward the rear, and canards at the front. Two large "nuclear jet engines" hung from the rear wingtips. No rear elevators, but two fighter planes docked vertically under the tail. Great model!
Comments