OK, Ive grown tired of hearing just how good the Avro Arrow was “supposed” to be. (Totally crying over spilt milk thing is really getting old).
Ive heard that the Iroquois engines were going to be capable of 20000lbs of thrust each, that it was the first fly by wire plane, that it wouldve been 20 yrs ahead of its time yadda yadda yadda
Someone who actually knows (or knows where to find out), how advanced WOULD the Avro have been compared to contemporary aircraft, had it been commissioned?
Compare engine, control, weapons, capabilities (that is how it handled, how easy it wouldve been to maintain, load capacities etc).
Im looking someone who knows or can find out the specifics compared to CONTEMPORARY aircraft.
My argument has always been if it was so good, even if decommissioned, the designs shouldve been incorporated into other planes at least in part.
Straight dope anyone?
And please leave the politics out of it.
No site here (sorry) but it seems hard to believe that the Arrow as a first generation fly-by-wire aircraft could not have held up for long. First generation airplanes (Wright flyer) were improved on almost immediately, first generation monoplane all-metal fighters (like the P-26) were quickly superceded, first generation jets (P-59) had replacements in production within a couple years, first generation modern airliners (Boeing 247) were overwhelmed within a year by follow-on Douglas airliners. It seems likely that the Arrow would have been quickly rendered obsolete and the long development time and expense would have made it difficult to modify and update the aircraft to keep up with the competition.
My quick and dirty assessment of the CF-105, the Avro Arrow, is that it was a good front-line design at the time, with some leading edge features. It was designed as a bomber interceptor that could operate in the Canadian environment, and was a then revolutionary twin engine delta wing aircraft.
But strategic weapons requirements changed often and quickly during the first decades of the Cold War. Intercepting bombers became less of a priority as ICBMs assumed a larger role in nuclear offensive armories. Look at how many different types came and went in the U.S. Air Force during the 1950s and '60s. The B-36, B-47 and the B-58 bombers and the F-101, F-102 and F-106 fighters all had relatively brief careers as front-line equipment.
When you consider that Canada’s population (and I’m shooting from the hip here and stand to be corrected on the figures) is only ~5% of the U.S. population, you’ve got to remember that the financial burden on that populace of any sophisticated weapons system is great.
There are many websites that mention and/or mourn the CF-105, but few that give a lot of good info; here’s a couple to get you going:
Ringo, thanks for the links. Will be searching for the Avro Scrapbook at library today. But what I was actually hoping for was someone who knew their planes, who would be able to compare the Avro with its contemporaries (and any other planes entering service soon after its decomission).
Im really curious as to the veracity of all that hype.
Actually, it’s more like 10% we’re catching up!
Don’t worry Ringo, we’re not planning on taking over yet!
If the Avro Arrow had been built, I doubt it would have survived past the mid-70’s.
The Avro Arrow was HUGE. It wasn’t very manoeverable. And while advanced for its day, it was nothing compared to what they have been building and flying for the past three decades.
Proponents of the Arrow point to its high ceiling and speed. But no one cares about that any more, and the Arrow wasn’t that impressive in that regard even for its day. Even with the mighty Iroquois engines, its ceiling was about 68,000 ft. An F-104 could do better than that.
The Arrow was built to counter a specific threat - it was a high-altitute, high-speed interceptor for Russian bombers. When the threat changed from bombers to missiles, the Avro Arrow was obsolete.
What makes a great airplane today? Depends on the mission, but generally the big design drivers are low observables (stealth), the ability to carry large payloads on small airframes (The F-18 Super Hornet, for example), range, cost, and then systems factors like the avionics, missile systems they were designed to carry, etc. The Arrow would be LOUSY at pretty much all of those, by today’s standards.
Competitive aircraft of its day to compare it to would be the F-104, The F-102 and F-106, and the F-4 Phantom. The Phantom in particular would kick the Arrow’s butt in most categories. There was even talk a few years ago of beefing up the wings in Phantoms and lowering their stability, to increase their manoeverability. Combine that with an Avionics upgrade, and you’ve got something fairly competitive with today’s aircraft. But the Arrow? What would you do with it? There’s nothing to intercept, and it would paint a pretty big target on radar and wouldn’t be much good in a dogfight.
Top speed is no longer important. Sure, the Arrow would have been fast. But then, the MiG-25 was fast too. As was the F-104, which still holds numerous speed and altitude records (and was designed around the time of the Arrow).
Consider these comparisons with the F-18 E/F:
Wingspan
Arrow: 50 ft
F-18F: 43 ft
Length
Arrow: 81ft
F-18F: 54ft
Empty Weight
Arrow: 49,000 lbs
F-18F: 29,450 lbs
Gross Weight
Arrow: 68,000 lbs
F-18F: 66,000 lbs
Payload (fuel and weapons)
Arrow: 19,000 lbs
F-18F: 36,550 lbs
Combat Radius
Arrow: 264 miles
F-18F: 451 miles
Combat speed (afterburner)
Arrow: Mach 1.5 (with Iroquois engines, M2.5)
F-18F: Mach 1.8
Max Cruise Speed (non-afterburner)
Arrow: Mach 0.92
F-18F: Mach 1.1
I could go on. Note the big differences here: The F-18 is about half the size of the Arrow, yet it carries almost twice as much payload, over a much farther distance. To be fair, these numbers for the Arrow are for the first and second generation models, not the advanced Arrow with the Iroquois engines. But even that one is nothing spectacular. Mach 2.5 max speed? Well, the F-104 could do that. The F-4 Phantom could do Mach 2.3. So no big advantage there. The max gross weight and payload of the Iroquois engined Arrow is about the same as the other models, despite much greater thrust. So I guess the airframe is the limiting factor there.
But the numbers above don’t begin to show the vast differences between a modern fighter and a lumbering old delta-winged plane like the Arrow. The F-18 can be flown off carriers, it’s wings fold, it’s designed to carry huge numbers of bombs, missiles, guns, radars, you name it. It’s versatile. You can load it down with bombs and make a pretty good bomber out of it, or you can load it lightly and use it as a fighter, interceptor, or escort. The F-18F employs some stealth design, and has modern, lightweight materials and computer-aided design and construction. Which, in the end, is why it can carry twice as much as an Arrow, fly farther, weigh less, and be half the size. The F-18 was also designed to use ‘off the shelf’ weapons systems to keep overall costs down.
My personal opinion is that IF the Arrow had been finished, and IF the Iroquois engines had made it into the airplane, then Canada MIGHT have held a temporary lead in aircraft design. Certainly, the Arrow would have been one of the best fighters of its day, although even by the time the prototypes were flying its mission was already vanishing.
The Arrow probably would have soldiered on in the Canadian inventory until the 1970’s or even the early 1980’s when Canada bought the F-18. Canada would not have purchased the F-104 from the U.S. Most other countries either wouldn’t have purchased it, or if they did it would have gone into mothballs about the time the delta-winged century series fighters did, which was around the Vietnam era.
The biggest tragedy of the affair was not the loss of the airplane itself, but the immense brain drain that Canada suffered as a result of the collapse of the Arrow program. Canada really was a world leader in aircraft design up until the Arrow debacle. Avro built fighters, bombers, you name it. All world class. But when the Arrow died, that whole nucleus of engineering talent went to the U.S., where they were snapped up into legendary areas like the Lockheed Skunkworks, NASA, and other aerospace companies. If Canada could have retained that industry, we might have a much larger industrial economy today.
On the other hand, we also might have lost hundreds of billions of dollars, seeing as how our government can’t keep its fingers out of industries like that.
Thanks Sam Stone. THats the sort of stuff I was looking for.