I believe there was some speculation about the program being infiltrated by the KGB at some point and not wanting the advanced tech to be leaked to Russia. T?F? Smoke screen? Who knows.
Personally I think Canada (and I say this as an American) should look strongly at the Saab. Seems more designed for Canadian conditions (very much like Sweden). If you look at the history of the Saab 21R which started out as a piston powered plane and made the leap to a jet (there is a Youtube video on it) they have a long history of building advanced planes.
The Arrow is part of our Canadian consciousness because many years ago we dared to dream. The issue with the RCAF specifications may have contributed to its eventual demise. An airframe, engines and weapons (Velvet Glove) were a tall order for a country our size. Note the following:
- six aircraft were complete and the remaining four were under various stages of assembly;
- the Arrow Mk. 2 with PS-13 Orenda engines was scheduled to fly the day of cancellation; all five Mk. 1 aircraft were flown successfully;
- all armaments were housed within a weapons bay for superior performance;
- the Arrow was the first aircraft to use titanium in quantity and Avro Canada purchased a titanium foundry company to provide same as it was “scarce”;
- there are photos of Arrows under destruction easily searched;
- the Arrow dynamics involved leading edge research into boundary layer airflow at high speeds around the engine intakes;
- the Royal Aeronautical Establishment in the UK requested four aircraft for research after programme cancellation. This may have hastened the destruction timeline. If RAE Farnborough reported on its advanced fighter characteristics then the matter would have been a major embarrassment for the Canadian government;
- a maximum speed of Mach 1.95 was reached;
- Arrow as a delta winged fighter succeeded in transsonic (from subsonic to supersonic) performance unlike earlier foreign delta platforms;
With the death of Arrow, many engineers and skilled trades departed for the US, the UK and Europe. These engineers were employed by major US aircraft manufacturers, NASA and companies that eventually comprised Airbus Industries. If engineers can’t ply their trade then they move on…;
- the estimated costs of placing 100 Arrows into service was $1.25 billion (CDN - 1959 dollars)
The US/Canada Defence Production Sharing Agreement locked in Canadian purchases of American military hardware in exchange for US defence production in Canada. Sound familiar with the F35 programme?
Thank you very much for writing this article. All of the information is correct to the best of my ability and from memory.
I was only four years old at the time of cancellation. If I were an adult then I would have fought for Arrow’s placement into service and damn the budget deficit. Arrow and much later de Havilland Canada aircraft show the same Canadian meekness in selling these aircraft internationally. Countries don’t buy other countries’s aircraft if they themselves don’t operate them.
I'm an Avro Arrow fan and I'm certain the US sabotaged the program. I'm from the US, too. There's enough documented evidence that they were afraid of losing sales to Canada. The Arrow was a world beater and stiff competition for the F-4, among others. I heard there was a movement for a Super Arrow program around a decade ago. Sad to see it didn't happen. My best resource on it is the book 'Avro Arrow' from Stoddart/Boston Mills Press, published in 1980. I used it as my primary reference for building my 1/72 Hobby Hobbycraft kit. I'd love to send you a photo of two of it.
Good article. I lived only about 4 miles from Malton (now Pearson) at the time but I was only 2 when it flew. My two older brothers were old enough to ride their bikes there and sit along the runway to watch it take off and land on its test flights (no security to stop anyone back then!).
Just a few added bits of trivia...
The first 5 Arrows flew with P&W J75 engines with about 13K lbs of thrust - 18K with afterburner. With these it far exceeded its design requirements, reaching Mach 1.98 in level flight. The Iroquois, which was was practically ready to go in Arrow #6 could produce 19K dry and 26K+ with afterburner, and the airframe was expected to be able to handle well in excess of Mach 2.5.
While it is easy to believe that Avro's competitors would have lobbied and conspired with government to sabotage it, as you indicate, there's really never been any plausible evidence. It is also clear the USAF was very interested in the Arrow - they freely provided expertise, facilities, and even a B47 as a test bed for the Iroquois.
The supposed excuse for torching everything including blueprints, etc, was so it would not fall into Soviet hands.
Maybe you want to write something about the Avro Saucer. :) Never really got past its stability issues, but it looked cool, and was a joint project with the USAF.
Mach 2.5 was very unlikely because of aerodynamic heating. The primary purpose of the more powerful engine was to increase acceleration and climb rate... useful characteristics in a short range interceptor.
Heating was certainly a concern. The Arrow already had a cooling system precisely to cool critical parts including the outer skin. Had the program continued, this is among the areas they would've kept working on. What the existing airframe's limit would have been, I'm not certain of course, but I'm pretty sure it would have easily exceeded Mach 2.2 and perhaps not far from 2.5. Apart from heat, it was structurally sound enough.
I think your confidence is misplaced. Even airplanes from that era that were capable of those speeds rarely did it because of practical constraints. And the list of airplanes that regularly operated in the speed regime above Mach 2 is very, very short.
Unfortunately I cannot find the source, but a number of years ago I read the text of a presentation given by one of the designers to the Royal Aeronautical Society in 1958. He did not expect the airplane to exceed Mach 2.2.
Hi Nana! It's on the slate for next week! I'm writing something about it, but I'm not a huge fan of Musk. Although, in this case, he did the right thing. I'm trying to get more info from my contacts on whether the Ukrainians are seeing an immediate decrease in Russian drone usage along the front.
A fascinating bit of history, Wes. And a story that still has 'legs' for many people - of myth, of legend, of loss. It's also proof that decisions of the complexity and magnitude that Canada faced with the Arrow are not easily boiled down to simple statements. All that said, I think Arrow's cancellation and its cost to Canada's sovereignty is a strong argument for shifting over to the Gripen - a reclaiming of national control in the face of a highly uncertain southern neighbor.
Considering how Canada is a battlefield between one hostile power and another that's a lukewarm ally at best, maybe Canada NOT getting the F-35 is best for the US.
I still wonder if I saw one of the partially de-constructed Arrows as we were heading towards Temagami for a family vacation in the summer of 1959. I was 16, and driving the car when we passed an incredibly long transport vehicle with a covered, missile looking load. I’m not sure now if it was on Hwy #17 between Pembroke and North Bay, or after turning north onto Highway #11. I’ve always thought that it was an Arrow, stripped of its wings.
The Arrow was both pushing some boundaries and the end of an era. Regardless of how beautiful or capable an aircraft might be, the only purpose of any combat aircraft is to put weapons on targets. If it can't do that, or if the intended targets are no longer a significant threat, then the airplane has no reason to exist. And that's largely the story of the Arrow.
Something very telling is that, on top of many countries, including the US, cancelling advanced interceptor projects around the same time, the only country to put a dedicated interceptor into production after the cancellation of the Arrow was the USSR.
Australia went F111, and borrowed F4s to transition from Mirage III to F18. We now have them, plus F35s (and some of us home the US doesn't stop the s/w and logistics support!!!!)
Great article. In 1959 it was only 56 years since bicycle mechanics proved powered flight was possible. They made some better planes; but, not by much. The prospect of technological acceleration and the resources it would require doomed the Arrow more than anything else.
The Arrow was a remarkable feet of aircraft engineering, design and manufacture. Especially considering it was all done before computer. Anyone remember slide rules?
Good as it was, I'm not sure how relevant it would have been in the years it would take to get into production. The US had a "delta dart" that they never pursued. By the time Arrow came along the world was moving away from high speed bomber intercept with manned aircraft. The US was re-learning, in Vietnam, the value of dogfighting aircraft that were maneuverable and had guns as well as rockets/missiles. It may just be my ignorance, but I don't know of any country that built a specialist bomber interceptor after 1960.
I believe there was some speculation about the program being infiltrated by the KGB at some point and not wanting the advanced tech to be leaked to Russia. T?F? Smoke screen? Who knows.
Personally I think Canada (and I say this as an American) should look strongly at the Saab. Seems more designed for Canadian conditions (very much like Sweden). If you look at the history of the Saab 21R which started out as a piston powered plane and made the leap to a jet (there is a Youtube video on it) they have a long history of building advanced planes.
The Arrow is part of our Canadian consciousness because many years ago we dared to dream. The issue with the RCAF specifications may have contributed to its eventual demise. An airframe, engines and weapons (Velvet Glove) were a tall order for a country our size. Note the following:
- six aircraft were complete and the remaining four were under various stages of assembly;
- the Arrow Mk. 2 with PS-13 Orenda engines was scheduled to fly the day of cancellation; all five Mk. 1 aircraft were flown successfully;
- all armaments were housed within a weapons bay for superior performance;
- the Arrow was the first aircraft to use titanium in quantity and Avro Canada purchased a titanium foundry company to provide same as it was “scarce”;
- there are photos of Arrows under destruction easily searched;
- the Arrow dynamics involved leading edge research into boundary layer airflow at high speeds around the engine intakes;
- the Royal Aeronautical Establishment in the UK requested four aircraft for research after programme cancellation. This may have hastened the destruction timeline. If RAE Farnborough reported on its advanced fighter characteristics then the matter would have been a major embarrassment for the Canadian government;
- a maximum speed of Mach 1.95 was reached;
- Arrow as a delta winged fighter succeeded in transsonic (from subsonic to supersonic) performance unlike earlier foreign delta platforms;
With the death of Arrow, many engineers and skilled trades departed for the US, the UK and Europe. These engineers were employed by major US aircraft manufacturers, NASA and companies that eventually comprised Airbus Industries. If engineers can’t ply their trade then they move on…;
- the estimated costs of placing 100 Arrows into service was $1.25 billion (CDN - 1959 dollars)
The US/Canada Defence Production Sharing Agreement locked in Canadian purchases of American military hardware in exchange for US defence production in Canada. Sound familiar with the F35 programme?
Thank you very much for writing this article. All of the information is correct to the best of my ability and from memory.
NOW FOR THAT STIFF DRINK…
This is great info. Thanks Scott!
I was only four years old at the time of cancellation. If I were an adult then I would have fought for Arrow’s placement into service and damn the budget deficit. Arrow and much later de Havilland Canada aircraft show the same Canadian meekness in selling these aircraft internationally. Countries don’t buy other countries’s aircraft if they themselves don’t operate them.
Amen on the stiff drink!
I'm an Avro Arrow fan and I'm certain the US sabotaged the program. I'm from the US, too. There's enough documented evidence that they were afraid of losing sales to Canada. The Arrow was a world beater and stiff competition for the F-4, among others. I heard there was a movement for a Super Arrow program around a decade ago. Sad to see it didn't happen. My best resource on it is the book 'Avro Arrow' from Stoddart/Boston Mills Press, published in 1980. I used it as my primary reference for building my 1/72 Hobby Hobbycraft kit. I'd love to send you a photo of two of it.
YES! Love to see photos of the model. I'll check out the book. Maybe there's something to the US sabotage claims that I haven't seen...
My email for this kind of thing is greggb57@gmail.com
To the heroes glory! Fine post. - And obviously, Canada needs to "pause" F-35 purchases.
Good article. I lived only about 4 miles from Malton (now Pearson) at the time but I was only 2 when it flew. My two older brothers were old enough to ride their bikes there and sit along the runway to watch it take off and land on its test flights (no security to stop anyone back then!).
Just a few added bits of trivia...
The first 5 Arrows flew with P&W J75 engines with about 13K lbs of thrust - 18K with afterburner. With these it far exceeded its design requirements, reaching Mach 1.98 in level flight. The Iroquois, which was was practically ready to go in Arrow #6 could produce 19K dry and 26K+ with afterburner, and the airframe was expected to be able to handle well in excess of Mach 2.5.
While it is easy to believe that Avro's competitors would have lobbied and conspired with government to sabotage it, as you indicate, there's really never been any plausible evidence. It is also clear the USAF was very interested in the Arrow - they freely provided expertise, facilities, and even a B47 as a test bed for the Iroquois.
The supposed excuse for torching everything including blueprints, etc, was so it would not fall into Soviet hands.
Maybe you want to write something about the Avro Saucer. :) Never really got past its stability issues, but it looked cool, and was a joint project with the USAF.
Mach 2.5 was very unlikely because of aerodynamic heating. The primary purpose of the more powerful engine was to increase acceleration and climb rate... useful characteristics in a short range interceptor.
Heating was certainly a concern. The Arrow already had a cooling system precisely to cool critical parts including the outer skin. Had the program continued, this is among the areas they would've kept working on. What the existing airframe's limit would have been, I'm not certain of course, but I'm pretty sure it would have easily exceeded Mach 2.2 and perhaps not far from 2.5. Apart from heat, it was structurally sound enough.
I think your confidence is misplaced. Even airplanes from that era that were capable of those speeds rarely did it because of practical constraints. And the list of airplanes that regularly operated in the speed regime above Mach 2 is very, very short.
Unfortunately I cannot find the source, but a number of years ago I read the text of a presentation given by one of the designers to the Royal Aeronautical Society in 1958. He did not expect the airplane to exceed Mach 2.2.
Different subject, Wes:
What did you think of Ukraine getting Musk to crack down on Russia's illegal use of Starlink terminals?
Hi Nana! It's on the slate for next week! I'm writing something about it, but I'm not a huge fan of Musk. Although, in this case, he did the right thing. I'm trying to get more info from my contacts on whether the Ukrainians are seeing an immediate decrease in Russian drone usage along the front.
A fascinating bit of history, Wes. And a story that still has 'legs' for many people - of myth, of legend, of loss. It's also proof that decisions of the complexity and magnitude that Canada faced with the Arrow are not easily boiled down to simple statements. All that said, I think Arrow's cancellation and its cost to Canada's sovereignty is a strong argument for shifting over to the Gripen - a reclaiming of national control in the face of a highly uncertain southern neighbor.
Considering how Canada is a battlefield between one hostile power and another that's a lukewarm ally at best, maybe Canada NOT getting the F-35 is best for the US.
I still wonder if I saw one of the partially de-constructed Arrows as we were heading towards Temagami for a family vacation in the summer of 1959. I was 16, and driving the car when we passed an incredibly long transport vehicle with a covered, missile looking load. I’m not sure now if it was on Hwy #17 between Pembroke and North Bay, or after turning north onto Highway #11. I’ve always thought that it was an Arrow, stripped of its wings.
It is quite possible. As far as I know all Arrow airframe and other parts were sent to Lax Brothers scrapyard on Hamilton. A sad end to brilliance!
Yes, I remember hearing that shortly after, but wondered, even then if one was being hidden somewhere…
The Arrow was both pushing some boundaries and the end of an era. Regardless of how beautiful or capable an aircraft might be, the only purpose of any combat aircraft is to put weapons on targets. If it can't do that, or if the intended targets are no longer a significant threat, then the airplane has no reason to exist. And that's largely the story of the Arrow.
Something very telling is that, on top of many countries, including the US, cancelling advanced interceptor projects around the same time, the only country to put a dedicated interceptor into production after the cancellation of the Arrow was the USSR.
That was a very interesting piece! Nice work
A very similar thing occurred in Britain with the cancellation & attempted erasure of the TSR2.
Luckily one airframe still exists in a museum plus some other parts elsewhere.
But, again it forced Britain to become a customer for US aerospace technology, the F4 & now the F35
Australia went F111, and borrowed F4s to transition from Mirage III to F18. We now have them, plus F35s (and some of us home the US doesn't stop the s/w and logistics support!!!!)
We gave it up for a promise. That promise has been spat on, shat on, broken.
Great article. In 1959 it was only 56 years since bicycle mechanics proved powered flight was possible. They made some better planes; but, not by much. The prospect of technological acceleration and the resources it would require doomed the Arrow more than anything else.
The Arrow was a remarkable feet of aircraft engineering, design and manufacture. Especially considering it was all done before computer. Anyone remember slide rules?
Good as it was, I'm not sure how relevant it would have been in the years it would take to get into production. The US had a "delta dart" that they never pursued. By the time Arrow came along the world was moving away from high speed bomber intercept with manned aircraft. The US was re-learning, in Vietnam, the value of dogfighting aircraft that were maneuverable and had guns as well as rockets/missiles. It may just be my ignorance, but I don't know of any country that built a specialist bomber interceptor after 1960.
Reminds me of how the U.S. has been handling its space program.