For the Canadian aviation industry, and for Avro Canada in particular, the traumatic story of the Avro Canada
CF-105 was paralleled by that of the contemporary British Aircraft Corporation TSR.2 in the UK. Both were destroyed by politicians who,.in 1957, were convinced that missile technology had advanced to a stage when manned interceptor aircraft would no longer be needed. The first stages of development of a new two-seat all-weather long-range interceptor for the RCAF began in early 1953, at the time when the RCAF was busy forming its first CF-100 squadron. This was not an action that represented dissatisfaction with the capability of the CF-100, but showed an appreciation of the fact that something like a decade was needed to get a new high-performance interceptor/weapons-system into squadron service. Avro's design team tackled the new and demanding task with great enthusiasm, with the result that by April 1954 the company was involved in the manufacture of the first five Arrow 1 prototypes. The name derived from the aircraft's delta wing, set high on the fuselage. This had a sharp needle-nose, widening just aft of the cockpit, where intakes on each side of the fuselage fed air to two turbojet engines mounted side by side within the fuselage. The Arrow 1s were powered by two Pratt & Whitney J75s, but it was intended that the following Arrow 2s would have engines of indigenous design and manufacture, in the form of PS-13 Iroquois turbojets, developed by Avro's Orenda engine division, each of which promised a thrust of 12700kg with maximum reheat.
The first of the Arrow 1 prototypes made its maiden flight on 25 March 1958, and all five of this version were being used for development and testing when the entire programme was cancelled on 20 February 1959. A final bitter edict was to ensure destruction of the five Arrow 1s, one unflown Arrow 2, and four almost complete Arrow 2s. Armament of this latter version was to have comprised eight Sparrow air-to-air missiles carried in an internal weapons bay.
i heard that once the canadian engineers moved to the usa they helped with the nasa programs . is this info true ? im doing an essay on the arrow for my history class and find the whole controversy very Intriguing .. and is the story about the nuclear tipped missiles true ? ... any help would be greatfull ..
Campagna, Palmiro. Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed, Third Paperback Edition. Toronto: Stoddart, 1998. ISBN 0-7737-5990-5. Mr. Campagna has printed a photo of the US Department of Defense internal study ( as on of his 'secret documents' ) on the cost /benefits acquiring the Avro Arrow for the USAF The price tag is 12 million per aircraft based on a production run of 100 aircraft. Pearkes had a 1.7 billion dollar yearly budget to run the entire Canadian Department of Defense. 100 short range Arrows, extra bases, parts, upgrades etc. would have gobbled up the budget for two entire years. This figure is backed by Pearkes estimate, presented at the NAC_ CC- August 15 1958 of over 2 billion dollars based on a production run of 169 aircraft, or 11.83 million each. (Insinger, SCAA.USASK). Readers may consult scaa.usask.ca /gallery /arrow /thesis /notes.htm for cross-referencing.
Melvin Conant's words still reverberate largely because for almost forty years the field was abandoned to a veritable cottage industry of pro-Arrow aviation enthusiasts, generically known as "Arrowheads." They are amateur historians who write - irritatingly, often bestselling - "buff books" which have helped to perpetuate an Arrow mythology:
Listening to these laments, you might think that killing the Arrow was a crime against humanity, a kind of technological infanticide. In a debate with words such as beauty and poetry used in the same breath as requiem and tragedy, the stillborn Arrow seems the greatest failure of our nationhood. To the revisionists and nationalists who have freighted the Arrow with hopes and fears, the airplane was a metaphor. When it soared, it reflected daring, stature and self- confidence. When it crashed, it represented weakness and insecurity. And when those dazzling prototypes were cut up into little pieces, allegedly on the orders of a vengeful prime minister...it gave rise to a delicious conspiracy: that the planes (and plans) were destroyed to ensure none would end up in a museum where dispossessed romantics would hold monthly vigils....39
The order for destruction was NOT from the RCAF, and the claim of 300 radius compared to the Voodoo's 1200, is utter nonsense. DON'T compare subsonic to supersonic missions. The Arrow proved to have a higher supersonic mission radius than required (flight data impacting estimates that proved to be rather low), and its subsonic RADIUS was equal too or greater than the 101. The 101 had a RANGE of 1500 plus, not a RADIUS. The huge price tag has the same cred as your claim of short radius /range (which you seem to be confused on), and where you got the nuclear warhead nonsense, only you know. Your claims of cost are as weak as your claims of performance. Without merit.
While I must agree with you regarding the distruction, it was ordered by the RCAF high command to protect the advanced technology from soviet spies.
The Arrow had two fatal flaws. 1. Short range. At 300 radius, compared to the CF101 Voodoo's 1,200, the Arrow was optimised for hot interception, not for long range interdiction, a task at which the Voodoo excelled. Fro comparison, an Arrow launched from Cold Lake CFB has to turn back at Yellowknife. a Voodoo turns at the tip of Greenland. 2. A huge price tag. The specs for the Arrow assumed a fast hot climb to 60,000 feet, then a spread of 4 unguided nuclear warheads to distroy a front of invading Soviet supersonic aircraft. Therefore, you had a 12 million dollar aircraft against the 1,590 million Voodoo, over six times as much. The missle age left the mission behind.Stuff happens.
