Years ago, as a young Toolmaker, I worked with an older Toolmaker who worked on the nose cone for the Arrow. He was still bitter it was cancelled 30 years later, and he hated Diefenbaker for what he done.
My Dad was a machinist at Avro during the project. He's the same, the Dief really let a lot people down and the country down when the project was canceled.
A colleague of mine, working at Motorola Canada, in the 80', Bob Robertson, was a communications technician on these test flights...and, yes, he felt completely betrayed when the program was so brutally "chopped" into pieces.
For the Arrow opus I'm sure you're working on, it would be great to focus some critical attention on the RCAF's program for Astra/Sparrow II, which Avro Canada had little control over being merely integrator, and which consumed, I believe, over half the development money which all went down a black hole of an unachievable dream in the pre-Integrated Circuit era. I believe now that the RCAF's obsession with pursuing a program the USN had abandoned, a fully active radar missile, as well as Astra, helped largely to doom the overall program (ex employees I used to work with in the 80s told me this was also the mood at Avro). I watched a Fairchild Semiconductor film from the mid 60s on the IC revolution then ongoing, and it hit me that what they were trying to do in the Sparrow II's envelope, with surface mount solid state electronics of the late 50s, was simply crazy. Even Phoenix, which was a quite large missile, had to wait for the IC and microprocessor revolutions. AMRAAM was the first fully active missile of roughly the SII's planned size, and that was early 90s! Astra was the same. They were completely out to lunch even pursuing that with the technology available. I think that the superb airframe and engine project that Avro was doing had a pretty good chance of production had they gone with Hughes/Falcon from the get go, with a program/unit cost of less than half what it was going to be.
Indeed, the Sparrow 2/Astra systems were two steps too far, especially when the Hughes/Falcon systems were available that 'would have done' without the expense, getting the whole aircraft into service where it could do work while the Astra/Sparrow could be worked on separately. Trying to do _everything_ in-house really ballooned the project beyond any reasonable measure. A shame the Orenda plant was also shut down, I'm pretty sure there were orders for the Iroquois that would have been profitable. The 'destroy all traces of everything' order after cancellation continues to baffle me.
@@Vespuchian Orenda was at the "Letter of Intent" stage with Curtiss Wright to build the Iroquois under license in the US at cancellation, and there were stories that Dassault was looking at it. The destruction angle was partly a security fear, and partly vindictiveness by Dief (he and Crawford Gordon; a bit of a nutbar himself who urinated all over Howard Hughes' private bathroom in a fit of pique when they'd gone down to get the Jetliner back, hated each others' guts, and they didn't hide it). My aunt was a clerk in Drawing Stores, looking after what was called the Drawing Vault where they were kept, and she was one of the ones who were recalled after BF and went around with those big fabric wheeled bins, collecting every scrap of paper they could find. Also important to remember that Avro Canada was a mega conglomerate into anything and everything, and Avro Aircraft Ltd and Orenda were small bits of a big empire.
@@najmicreativetv9491 I ment it in fun, because the Canadian gov would have been to cheap to replace it. 😁 Would be damn cool to see a Canadian made 6th gen Arrow! Saw the specs of the proposal, practically a space plane!
Troll4Truth: I'd take that bet. The Arrow would have been expensive to fly and maintain and likely would have been replaced in 1984, the same year the Voodoos were retired in favor of the much more advanced and easier to keep F/A 18 Hornet.
funny part they were IN production ... they werent test flight models ... they were production run from the start they had 37 of them on the line when it was cancelled ... not one arrow was ever made as a prototype ...the build method used was straight off the production line to meet the deadline requirements .
@@najmicreativetv9491 to this day not even the f35 f22 or the f18 meet the requirements of the avro arrow ... thats 70 years later and still nothing matches the same specs the arrow was built for .... no the arrow wouldnt have been replaced it is still too advanced for modern fighters ...
The Arrow might have been a blow to Canadian military aerospace development but it also killed any early aspirations of commercial achievement as the AVRO Jetliner died with it.
So I am 81 years old and remember the times. First ICBMs showed that the era of mass bomber formations and air defense interceptors was over. That is it. Maybe it was a good plane, but like the US F-102 and F106, and others, going to be cancelled in favor of multi-mission planes, like the F-4. The answer to ICBMs was to be the triad of offensive weapons, creating deterrence. Later on I went to the US National War College, was a strategic planner, and even the US rep. to the Australian, British, Canadian, American (ABCA) Treaty Org, and we were also the reps. to NATO. Bottom line for the Arrow is that, like all air defense interceptors, it was not going to have a mission in the ICBM age. But it sure looked good!
and in hindsight you are wrong about everything. How many years later and we still intercept soviet bombers, we still patrol the artic and in 2021 we are reviewing foreign jets again to fill our defence needs. Had the Arrow survived we may have had a stand alone defence strategy that could build our own aircraft. I am still convinced it was the jet airliner that killed Avro. The US didn't want the competition and they crushed it in political means because we had a government of cowards
@@menotyou7762 I think Mr. Heyman is right about this. To be clear, Interceptor in this context is a fighter meant to Intercept bombers which are carrying nuclear weapons. Typically, given "DEW Line" informed response times, this would provide one or possibly two passes before bombers were over target. Never was planned as an air superiority fighter or even a dog fighter of any sort. On the fighter base where I grew up fighters would scramble somewhat regularly to meet soviet fighters testing our response times for entering airspace. But that was fighter on fighter. ICBMs were the end of interceptors of the avro arrow sort.
best part it is still better than the f35 , f22, f18, f15, f16 ... yup 70 years later and they still havent matched what the arrow was built to do .... almost 30 firsts of modern jet fighters ... 15 of them still in use to this day ... NO OTHER plane has that distinction
@@0623kaboom please explain how it is "better". Especially when compared to Gen 4 fighters because what you are saying is the thousands of engineers that worked on the f15, f16, f22, f35 and so on are incompetent. They should have just dusted off the Arrow drawings and improve the design? Right?
As a Canadian, I too share a lot of sentiments of the Arrow and disappointed with its dismantling. With its dismantling and our agreement to no longer build fighter jets, Canada did lose a massive opportunity to become a leader in fighter jet design and production. However, it may have been the a good trade off. Instead of defending Canada on our own, Canada works hand in hand with the U.S under the NORAD command. Are pilots are trained with American pilots and both countries share equal responsibility when protecting our air space. NORAD is the most advanced command in the world and our pilots are some of the best pilots the world has to offer. Yes, we lost an industry, but the trade offs are worth it, our country is safe and that is what is important.
@@winternow2242 NORAD. Canada and the U.S government came to an agreement that Canada would no longer build fighter jets and the U.S would work in tandem with the Canadian Air Force to defend North American air space. Canada agreed it would buy its fighter jets from the U.S. It is an interesting part of Canadian History. Dismantling the Arrow was part of it.
@@zzzubmno2755 I've heard numerous people allege such an agreement, but haven't seen any evidence it ever existed. It seems unlikely that the US would have needed to pressure Canada against developing an airplane that they couldn't afford and that nobody else wanted to buy. Canadians elected a conservative government with an agenda for cutting projects like Arrow. Also there's little likelihood that the Americans would have taken Arrow seriously because 1) they already had developed faster aircraft, 2) were developing even faster, long range aircraft like the F-4, the X-108, the Blackbird and the B-70, 3) other supersonic aircraft were being developed in other countries, and 4) Avro Canada was a subsidiary of a British company (Hawker, I think) which would not have been covered by any such agreement. In any event, the Brits themselves did not develop an Arrow of their own.
My great uncle worked as a toolmaker for the Orenda Engines company. He said that the cancellation of the arrow brought him to tears and until his recent passing: never forgave the government.
I think if that money and effort had been spent on a similar concept fighter/attack jet its possible our aerospace industry would be dramatically different.
My father claimed he worked on the Arrow when he was in the RCAF. I just found five photographs on colour slides he took of 204 on the ground and flying.
@@PHUSHEY I guess you can say the Arrow is unproven, but the Thud's record isn't great, and it shouldn't have been called a F. I guess better than the 104 being put into a service it really isn't meant for it.
Comparing a hammer to a shovel. The F-105 was perfect at what it was designed to do... fly low level at high speeds behind enemy lines. Something the Arrow could never do because of the high drag of its huge wings and turning the pilot’s brain into jello riding the low level turbulence. It’s the plane we should have bought instead of the CF-104 for our nuclear strike role in Europe.
Elements of it's airframe look similar to some later modern jets developed since then: the tall rudder tailplane of the Panavia Tornado, and the tall and narrow intakes of the f4 Phantom. Very nice looking jet, a shame it never entered service :/
that would be because of the plentiful arrow firsts ... look closer you will see the arrow even in the shuttle since Jim chamberland also had a hand in designing that one as well ... all modern fighters copied parts of the arrow ... none have managed to match the arrow or its design specifications ... to this day .... 70 years ... and countries are still trying to catch up to the arrow ...
There is a RUclipsr called Denis Shiryeav that puts older films through an AI post processing system that upscales it to 4k, cleans up artifacts, etc.. I would love if you collaberated this bit with him to have it "restored".
@@polyus_studios Just to be clear, I wasnt complaining. Denis Shiryeav specializes in film restoration and upscaling, you specialize in illustrating history. I appreciate you both for skills I could only wish I had.
The Arrow was a great technical achievement. Its too bad it cancellation lead to the death of Canadian military aviation production. Would it have been a great fighter? I dunno. Clearly Vietnam showed missle technology was not up to snuff and lets face it dispite what anyone says this was only ever going to be an interceptor against bombers. Its probably way to large to work in the antifighter role. We only need to look at planes like the Foxbat to know this to be probably true. Plus look at that cockpit. Id hate to be in any situation thatrequired situational awarness. I'm not sad that we never got the Arrow per say. I'm sad as to what we might have made if Avro succeded as a company and made after the Arrow. All that brain drain to the US as a result.🤨
The loss of the intelligence base and Canadian domestic aviation manufacturing is almost unforgivable. The Arrow was a product of its time, and mandate - QRF Interceptor against nuclear armed forces. In real life, same as today intercept escort and go home. That clam shell canopy looks crazy - lot of moving parts for ejection time. They built 5 - it would be nice to say there was one left. The US kept the Valkrie bombers and even put them on display -
@@xmasinpacific Well I'm glad someone is making a replica cause the Candian gov sure dosen't seem to care about our military History sometimes. That being said I'm sure glad places like The Ontario Regiment Museum exist. Maybe we would see more people sign up to serve if the had places like that around the country that show pride in our history and the people who served.
logan holmberg good post. I get a bit annoyed when people claim this would have been the best fighter in the world. It “may” have been the best interceptor, but once ICBMs came along, specialized planes for that role weren’t really needed anymore (and very little international market for). This aircraft wouldn’t have been viable in Vietnam (not a dog fighter capable of air superiority, which still mattered for the next few decades). A shame to lose the whole industry, but heck, the amount of subsidies to keep even the commercial industry afloat make it questionable whether it ever made sense for Canada.
I've literally been shouted down when I said the Arrow benefits from martyrdom. It was not built to be easily serviced (except for engine changes), and the 4000psi hydraulic system would require frequent component changes- every 100 hr or so for aileron actuators etc. On top of that the fairings for them were hand formed, with hundreds of machine screws. As a tech I'd be cursing every time I stripped the last screw going in... The fact it was a high-altitude bomber interceptor would have made it useless in the low-level penetration environment we switched to with the 104... I just wish they'd kept it and the Iroquois program going long enough to prove its potential.
Just like the World Class Canadian Avro Arrow, our World Class Canadian Oilsands are being disrespected and wasted by an unintelligent Canadian Federal Government.
It's time to stop moaning about the injustice of the cancellation of this plane's development. This is one of our Canadian character flaws, to blame the yanks or government for our failures.
The CF105 is definitely much superior interceptor than F101 or F104s which the CAF has introduced later! And the Northrop F5A were junks for third world country! If I was Khruschev at that time, I could be laughing louder than the successful launching of Sputnik ! 😄 🤣 👍 🦸♂️
The Day the Arrow was Scraped was the day Canada Died I hold out hope one Still exists somewhere just waiting for someone to kick the tires and check Batterys for one more flight. Top speed over Mach 3 it's Still the fastest in the world.
It could never go Mach 3 without being completely redesigned with titanium or stainless steel. It couldn’t even go over Mach 2.2 without a complete inlet redesign. And if it could go Mach 3 it would be out of gas shortly after reaching it. No.. real world performance was comparable to a clean F-4 (and the Arrow wouldn’t be clean because it would have to carry weapons or extra fuel externally to be of any real use) and far less than the F-15.
Trent Dabs: The Arrow couldn't even pass mach 2 in testing: not even in a dive, and even if it did, the Arrow's limit would have been mach 2.5 tops. Any faster and the aluminum alloy fuselage would melt. The mach 3 claim was a myth.
@@calvinnickel9995 well, since the weapons 'pod' for a variety of roles was *internal* and swappable, you might just be wrong...and, as for Mach 2, it had been designed, and tested with rocket-launched scale models. The spec's exceeded the F-18 in almost every area, and, yes, they used titanium...have you actually seen any of the many documentaries on its design and production process?
There's no reason why a new modernized version couldn't be made and serve canada. If you look at the specs/capabilities of the 105 and factor in modern tech it would be roughly similar to the russian mig 31 types(possibly more advanced tho)which is a long range interceptor designed to control large areas with long range missiles.
Please explain what it's mission would be. That was the problem with the original Arrow: A weapon with no mission. I'm no fan of the F18 but it seems particularly adept at finding and chasing the "occasional" old TU95.
@@ericb.4914 ? I ALREADY explained it's mission so the only conclusion I can come to is you are PURPOSELY ignoring what I said because you have ALREADY made up your mind and are trying to force your opinion as being the "right one" and actually have no interest in debate. So I won't bother too. "Bye".
@@krisguntner4805 the soviets had good reasons to develop an aircraft like the MIG31. The US constantly flew reconaissance missions near or into soviet airspace. Plus the US always had a certain capability to do high speed bombing from long range i.e. B58, f111, B1 with a supporting tanker fleet. The US could threaten russia from anywhere in the world. The russians never developed those capabilities. They quickly switched strategy to ICBMs. A truly capable bomber force with tankers probably would have bankrupted them. And they knew so no point in trying. Again, there was no mission for the Arrow. It looked good though.
@@ericb.4914 So basically you've been dwelling on this for a month and now are attempting the obvious technique of "weasel words". :/ If you wanted to talk about aircraft you should have just STARTED with that instead of trying to "one up" me in your first comment because now I don't care.
@@krisguntner4805 you still don't get it. There is no mission for an aircraft with the Arrow's capabilities. The Soviets never fielded a credible bomber force. They still dont. What will you intercept with your fleet of Arrows???
Years ago, as a young Toolmaker, I worked with an older Toolmaker who worked on the nose cone for the Arrow.
He was still bitter it was cancelled 30 years later, and he hated Diefenbaker for what he done.
My Dad was a machinist at Avro during the project. He's the same, the Dief really let a lot people down and the country down when the project was canceled.
One of the greatest Canadian aircraft in my opinion. One beautiful piece of engineering.
Happy extra late Canada Day
Dominion Day please. Canada Day was a creation of the PET gov't of the early 80s, done quietly when nobody was around.
When and what is a Canada Day?
A colleague of mine, working at Motorola Canada, in the 80', Bob Robertson, was a communications technician on these test flights...and, yes, he felt completely betrayed when the program was so brutally "chopped" into pieces.
I just discovered your channel yesterday and I'm running through all your content. Love your videos, so much I didn't know about Canadian aerospace.
For the Arrow opus I'm sure you're working on, it would be great to focus some critical attention on the RCAF's program for Astra/Sparrow II, which Avro Canada had little control over being merely integrator, and which consumed, I believe, over half the development money which all went down a black hole of an unachievable dream in the pre-Integrated Circuit era. I believe now that the RCAF's obsession with pursuing a program the USN had abandoned, a fully active radar missile, as well as Astra, helped largely to doom the overall program (ex employees I used to work with in the 80s told me this was also the mood at Avro). I watched a Fairchild Semiconductor film from the mid 60s on the IC revolution then ongoing, and it hit me that what they were trying to do in the Sparrow II's envelope, with surface mount solid state electronics of the late 50s, was simply crazy. Even Phoenix, which was a quite large missile, had to wait for the IC and microprocessor revolutions. AMRAAM was the first fully active missile of roughly the SII's planned size, and that was early 90s! Astra was the same. They were completely out to lunch even pursuing that with the technology available. I think that the superb airframe and engine project that Avro was doing had a pretty good chance of production had they gone with Hughes/Falcon from the get go, with a program/unit cost of less than half what it was going to be.
Indeed, the Sparrow 2/Astra systems were two steps too far, especially when the Hughes/Falcon systems were available that 'would have done' without the expense, getting the whole aircraft into service where it could do work while the Astra/Sparrow could be worked on separately. Trying to do _everything_ in-house really ballooned the project beyond any reasonable measure.
A shame the Orenda plant was also shut down, I'm pretty sure there were orders for the Iroquois that would have been profitable. The 'destroy all traces of everything' order after cancellation continues to baffle me.
@@Vespuchian Orenda was at the "Letter of Intent" stage with Curtiss Wright to build the Iroquois under license in the US at cancellation, and there were stories that Dassault was looking at it. The destruction angle was partly a security fear, and partly vindictiveness by Dief (he and Crawford Gordon; a bit of a nutbar himself who urinated all over Howard Hughes' private bathroom in a fit of pique when they'd gone down to get the Jetliner back, hated each others' guts, and they didn't hide it). My aunt was a clerk in Drawing Stores, looking after what was called the Drawing Vault where they were kept, and she was one of the ones who were recalled after BF and went around with those big fabric wheeled bins, collecting every scrap of paper they could find. Also important to remember that Avro Canada was a mega conglomerate into anything and everything, and Avro Aircraft Ltd and Orenda were small bits of a big empire.
If it had ever been put into production, bet we'd still be flying them!😁
nah, from the era it flew probably lasts the same as Phantom II but the same time Avro might build new bird to replace it
@@najmicreativetv9491 I ment it in fun, because the Canadian gov would have been to cheap to replace it. 😁 Would be damn cool to see a Canadian made 6th gen Arrow! Saw the specs of the proposal, practically a space plane!
Troll4Truth: I'd take that bet. The Arrow would have been expensive to fly and maintain and likely would have been replaced in 1984, the same year the Voodoos were retired in favor of the much more advanced and easier to keep F/A 18 Hornet.
funny part they were IN production ... they werent test flight models ... they were production run from the start they had 37 of them on the line when it was cancelled ... not one arrow was ever made as a prototype ...the build method used was straight off the production line to meet the deadline requirements .
@@najmicreativetv9491 to this day not even the f35 f22 or the f18 meet the requirements of the avro arrow ... thats 70 years later and still nothing matches the same specs the arrow was built for .... no the arrow wouldnt have been replaced it is still too advanced for modern fighters ...
The Arrow might have been a blow to Canadian military aerospace development but it also killed any early aspirations of commercial achievement as the AVRO Jetliner died with it.
The Jetliner was dead several years before the Arrow was canceled. Let's not twist the facts....
Beautiful aircraft. Thanks for giving us these beauty shots. :-)
A beautiful and ominous soundtrack, well chosen! Can't wait to see the doc! Love the channel, thank you!
So I am 81 years old and remember the times. First ICBMs showed that the era of mass bomber formations and air defense interceptors was over. That is it. Maybe it was a good plane, but like the US F-102 and F106, and others, going to be cancelled in favor of multi-mission planes, like the F-4. The answer to ICBMs was to be the triad of offensive weapons, creating deterrence. Later on I went to the US National War College, was a strategic planner, and even the US rep. to the Australian, British, Canadian, American (ABCA) Treaty Org, and we were also the reps. to NATO. Bottom line for the Arrow is that, like all air defense interceptors, it was not going to have a mission in the ICBM age. But it sure looked good!
and in hindsight you are wrong about everything. How many years later and we still intercept soviet bombers, we still patrol the artic and in 2021 we are reviewing foreign jets again to fill our defence needs. Had the Arrow survived we may have had a stand alone defence strategy that could build our own aircraft. I am still convinced it was the jet airliner that killed Avro. The US didn't want the competition and they crushed it in political means because we had a government of cowards
@mny keep drinking the KoolAid...
@@menotyou7762 But he isn't wrong, dedicated interceptor aircraft are effectively dead. Multi-role is what matters now.
@@menotyou7762 I think Mr. Heyman is right about this. To be clear, Interceptor in this context is a fighter meant to Intercept bombers which are carrying nuclear weapons. Typically, given "DEW Line" informed response times, this would provide one or possibly two passes before bombers were over target. Never was planned as an air superiority fighter or even a dog fighter of any sort. On the fighter base where I grew up fighters would scramble somewhat regularly to meet soviet fighters testing our response times for entering airspace. But that was fighter on fighter. ICBMs were the end of interceptors of the avro arrow sort.
@@kingofaesthetics9407 reminds me of all the time the Soviets spent on the Mig-25 before giving up on it. Maybe for the same reason?
Thanks for posting this footage.
Memory for pilot Janusz Żurakowski
Looks as modern and deadly in 2020 as it did in 1958
best part it is still better than the f35 , f22, f18, f15, f16 ... yup 70 years later and they still havent matched what the arrow was built to do .... almost 30 firsts of modern jet fighters ... 15 of them still in use to this day ... NO OTHER plane has that distinction
@@0623kaboom please explain how it is "better". Especially when compared to Gen 4 fighters because what you are saying is the thousands of engineers that worked on the f15, f16, f22, f35 and so on are incompetent. They should have just dusted off the Arrow drawings and improve the design? Right?
@@0623kaboom
Complete nonsense.
@@0623kaboom F-22? Really man? Please don't spread misinformation.
As a Canadian, I too share a lot of sentiments of the Arrow and disappointed with its dismantling. With its dismantling and our agreement to no longer build fighter jets, Canada did lose a massive opportunity to become a leader in fighter jet design and production. However, it may have been the a good trade off. Instead of defending Canada on our own, Canada works hand in hand with the U.S under the NORAD command. Are pilots are trained with American pilots and both countries share equal responsibility when protecting our air space. NORAD is the most advanced command in the world and our pilots are some of the best pilots the world has to offer. Yes, we lost an industry, but the trade offs are worth it, our country is safe and that is what is important.
what agreement are you referring to?
@@winternow2242 NORAD. Canada and the U.S government came to an agreement that Canada would no longer build fighter jets and the U.S would work in tandem with the Canadian Air Force to defend North American air space. Canada agreed it would buy its fighter jets from the U.S. It is an interesting part of Canadian History. Dismantling the Arrow was part of it.
@@zzzubmno2755 I've heard numerous people allege such an agreement, but haven't seen any evidence it ever existed. It seems unlikely that the US would have needed to pressure Canada against developing an airplane that they couldn't afford and that nobody else wanted to buy. Canadians elected a conservative government with an agenda for cutting projects like Arrow. Also there's little likelihood that the Americans would have taken Arrow seriously because 1) they already had developed faster aircraft, 2) were developing even faster, long range aircraft like the F-4, the X-108, the Blackbird and the B-70, 3) other supersonic aircraft were being developed in other countries, and 4) Avro Canada was a subsidiary of a British company (Hawker, I think) which would not have been covered by any such agreement. In any event, the Brits themselves did not develop an Arrow of their own.
My great uncle worked as a toolmaker for the Orenda Engines company. He said that the cancellation of the arrow brought him to tears and until his recent passing: never forgave the government.
I think if that money and effort had been spent on a similar concept fighter/attack jet its possible our aerospace industry would be dramatically different.
Echoes of the TSR-2?
In fact it's the opposite . The TSR-2 echoes to the Arrow.
My father claimed he worked on the Arrow when he was in the RCAF. I just found five photographs on colour slides he took of 204 on the ground and flying.
Worst decision we ever made, scrapping the Arrow...
This would've been a better 105 than what we got down South.
The Thud was quite a remarkable aircraft too.... just completely different missions.
@@PHUSHEY I guess you can say the Arrow is unproven, but the Thud's record isn't great, and it shouldn't have been called a F. I guess better than the 104 being put into a service it really isn't meant for it.
Comparing a hammer to a shovel.
The F-105 was perfect at what it was designed to do... fly low level at high speeds behind enemy lines. Something the Arrow could never do because of the high drag of its huge wings and turning the pilot’s brain into jello riding the low level turbulence.
It’s the plane we should have bought instead of the CF-104 for our nuclear strike role in Europe.
@@calvinnickel9995 The reason Canada went with the F 104 was it was cheap, simple and Canadair could build it under license.
Would have been the greatest interceptor of its generation!
Possibly could still be!
How would it have been better than the Phantom?
A great video from a great channel !!! Just waiting for your Canadier F 104 and the Canadier F 86 Sabre videos
Elements of it's airframe look similar to some later modern jets developed since then: the tall rudder tailplane of the Panavia Tornado, and the tall and narrow intakes of the f4 Phantom. Very nice looking jet, a shame it never entered service :/
that would be because of the plentiful arrow firsts ... look closer you will see the arrow even in the shuttle since Jim chamberland also had a hand in designing that one as well ... all modern fighters copied parts of the arrow ... none have managed to match the arrow or its design specifications ... to this day .... 70 years ... and countries are still trying to catch up to the arrow ...
i am beyond excited to see this
Someone needs to make a shirt that says
All Arrows Go To Heaven.
There is a RUclipsr called Denis Shiryeav that puts older films through an AI post processing system that upscales it to 4k, cleans up artifacts, etc.. I would love if you collaberated this bit with him to have it "restored".
@@polyus_studios Just to be clear, I wasnt complaining.
Denis Shiryeav specializes in film restoration and upscaling, you specialize in illustrating history. I appreciate you both for skills I could only wish I had.
I'm pretty sure it would have the great reputation like the F106 DeltDart as an Interceptor. Fast agile and deadly!!🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
The F106 was never involved in an air battle. That I am aware of...
@@ericb.4914 It didn't, but its performance was better than the MiG-21 (in direct comparison with a captured Mig-21 sent to the US by Israel).
When Canada was a great Nation.
Still has potential. I'd love to see Canada rise back. Best wishes from the US, our politicians are ruining the US in the same ways.
The Arrow was a great technical achievement. Its too bad it cancellation lead to the death of Canadian military aviation production.
Would it have been a great fighter? I dunno. Clearly Vietnam showed missle technology was not up to snuff and lets face it dispite what anyone says this was only ever going to be an interceptor against bombers. Its probably way to large to work in the antifighter role. We only need to look at planes like the Foxbat to know this to be probably true. Plus look at that cockpit. Id hate to be in any situation thatrequired situational awarness.
I'm not sad that we never got the Arrow per say. I'm sad as to what we might have made if Avro succeded as a company and made after the Arrow. All that brain drain to the US as a result.🤨
The loss of the intelligence base and Canadian domestic aviation manufacturing is almost unforgivable. The Arrow was a product of its time, and mandate - QRF Interceptor against nuclear armed forces. In real life, same as today intercept escort and go home. That clam shell canopy looks crazy - lot of moving parts for ejection time. They built 5 - it would be nice to say there was one left. The US kept the Valkrie bombers and even put them on display -
@@xmasinpacific Well I'm glad someone is making a replica cause the Candian gov sure dosen't seem to care about our military History sometimes. That being said I'm sure glad places like The Ontario Regiment Museum exist. Maybe we would see more people sign up to serve if the had places like that around the country that show pride in our history and the people who served.
logan holmberg good post. I get a bit annoyed when people claim this would have been the best fighter in the world. It “may” have been the best interceptor, but once ICBMs came along, specialized planes for that role weren’t really needed anymore (and very little international market for). This aircraft wouldn’t have been viable in Vietnam (not a dog fighter capable of air superiority, which still mattered for the next few decades). A shame to lose the whole industry, but heck, the amount of subsidies to keep even the commercial industry afloat make it questionable whether it ever made sense for Canada.
@@mkyhou1160 I agree, however we then went and purchased an entire SAGE equipped program\interceptor which we kept till ~84.
I've literally been shouted down when I said the Arrow benefits from martyrdom. It was not built to be easily serviced (except for engine changes), and the 4000psi hydraulic system would require frequent component changes- every 100 hr or so for aileron actuators etc. On top of that the fairings for them were hand formed, with hundreds of machine screws. As a tech I'd be cursing every time I stripped the last screw going in... The fact it was a high-altitude bomber interceptor would have made it useless in the low-level penetration environment we switched to with the 104... I just wish they'd kept it and the Iroquois program going long enough to prove its potential.
YAY!
Such a beautiful aircraft that never was. sadly it wasn't the only beautiful Canadian aircraft canceled
On this day 64 years ago..
What could have been.
I thought they didn't raise the landing gear on the first flight.
.
Sold! F-102, F-106, & Mirage-2000....
Just like the World Class Canadian Avro Arrow, our World Class Canadian Oilsands are being disrespected and wasted by an unintelligent Canadian Federal Government.
It's time to stop moaning about the injustice of the cancellation of this plane's development. This is one of our Canadian character flaws, to blame the yanks or government for our failures.
The CF105 is definitely much superior interceptor than F101 or F104s which the CAF has introduced later! And the Northrop F5A were junks for third world country! If I was Khruschev at that time, I could be laughing louder than the successful launching of Sputnik ! 😄 🤣 👍 🦸♂️
Cant' we just have one for the Air show..... just build one fully functioning Arrow...... I mean do something symbolic during Covid....
The Day the Arrow was Scraped was the day Canada Died
I hold out hope one Still exists somewhere just waiting for someone to kick the tires and check Batterys for one more flight.
Top speed over Mach 3 it's Still the fastest in the world.
It could never go Mach 3 without being completely redesigned with titanium or stainless steel. It couldn’t even go over Mach 2.2 without a complete inlet redesign. And if it could go Mach 3 it would be out of gas shortly after reaching it.
No.. real world performance was comparable to a clean F-4 (and the Arrow wouldn’t be clean because it would have to carry weapons or extra fuel externally to be of any real use) and far less than the F-15.
@@calvinnickel9995 Watch (Arrow vs F35 and F18)
Trent Dabs: The Arrow couldn't even pass mach 2 in testing: not even in a dive, and even if it did, the Arrow's limit would have been mach 2.5 tops. Any faster and the aluminum alloy fuselage would melt. The mach 3 claim was a myth.
@@calvinnickel9995 well, since the weapons 'pod' for a variety of roles was *internal* and swappable, you might just be wrong...and, as for Mach 2, it had been designed, and tested with rocket-launched scale models. The spec's exceeded the F-18 in almost every area, and, yes, they used titanium...have you actually seen any of the many documentaries on its design and production process?
😭😭😭
Canada could still be making their own planes and not have to buy fighter jets from the states but no history took a turn for the worse
CANADA THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT WILL GET TO SPACE
What a wasted oportunity by the Canadian Government.
sputnik wqas october 5th the same day as the avro rollout thats why its called black friday ....
Black Friday was February 20th, 1959.
Sputnik was launched on October 4, 1957.
There's no reason why a new modernized version couldn't be made and serve canada.
If you look at the specs/capabilities of the 105 and factor in modern tech it would be roughly similar to the russian mig 31 types(possibly more advanced tho)which is a long range interceptor designed to control large areas with long range missiles.
Please explain what it's mission would be. That was the problem with the original Arrow: A weapon with no mission. I'm no fan of the F18 but it seems particularly adept at finding and chasing the "occasional" old TU95.
@@ericb.4914 ?
I ALREADY explained it's mission so the only conclusion I can come to is you are PURPOSELY ignoring what I said because you have ALREADY made up your mind and are trying to force your opinion as being the "right one" and actually have no interest in debate.
So I won't bother too.
"Bye".
@@krisguntner4805 the soviets had good reasons to develop an aircraft like the MIG31. The US constantly flew reconaissance missions near or into soviet airspace. Plus the US always had a certain capability to do high speed bombing from long range i.e. B58, f111, B1 with a supporting tanker fleet. The US could threaten russia from anywhere in the world. The russians never developed those capabilities. They quickly switched strategy to ICBMs. A truly capable bomber force with tankers probably would have bankrupted them. And they knew so no point in trying. Again, there was no mission for the Arrow. It looked good though.
@@ericb.4914 So basically you've been dwelling on this for a month and now are attempting the obvious technique of "weasel words". :/
If you wanted to talk about aircraft you should have just STARTED with that instead of trying to "one up" me in your first comment because now I don't care.
@@krisguntner4805 you still don't get it. There is no mission for an aircraft with the Arrow's capabilities. The Soviets never fielded a credible bomber force. They still dont. What will you intercept with your fleet of Arrows???
What a shame