Avro Arrow - the truth revealed!

[Alvis 3.1]

For more Avro Arrows, see the following link.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Fea1...e/Fea265vsm.htm


This is also why I've not done many more Arrows since then, as doing 20+ of any subject tends to make a person tired of the subject. Well, it made ME tired of it!


Alvis 3.1

[Gary]

I find myself simply shaking my head when I read conspiracy garbage like this. Not only is this guy an idiot, he is implying some very nasty things about the US government. I resent the idea that the US government would directly play a role in the economic, technical and for that matter political downfall of their greatest friend. And I'm Canadian. Our countries may not always see eye to eye, but I don't accept that the USA would conspire to put 30,000 Canadian's out of work. Follow the money he says... F*cken idiot should pay close attention to the USA's history of helping her friends develop programs like Arrow, TSR2 and Buccaneer. Without direct financial imput, none of these projects would have flown. As well, the number of American subcontractors who closed shop after Black Friday is staggering. Add to this the billions of dollars in US based cancelled projects like Rapier and Seamaster. These were not plots by the CIA to fool the Russians. It was the US governments earnest attempts to help countries develop their own programs in order to thwart the Red's.

Subscript: I like the Arrow kit, even with it's flaws.

[Alvis 3.1]

Yeah, amazingly stupid in the whole "large delta wings don't work" idea. Imagine that, I guess F-102s, F-106s, Mirage II and IV, and Concorde are all part of the whole "fool the Russians" plan of attack. Yup, that explains why the Russians built all those delta winged combat aircraft like...um..like...um. Oh right, they didn't.

If you are going to make up a conspiracy theory, at least TRY to make up a a good one, not some lame half baked 10 year old kid version. Not that I'm annoyed...

Of course, it MUST be true because it makes so little sense!



Alvis 3.1

[Gary]

Well, most of their design team did migrate south and ended creating the F-102 and F-106, didn't they?

No. The flight development of 106 was part of the excuse for the cancellation, that Avro wasn't living up to Convair's standard. The 102 was already in service and it's replacement the 106, was undergoing flight trials. Convair had conducted nearly three times as many flight trials in the same time frame. I think it was a case that 106's trials started after Arrow's first flight, and were concluded before Avro had conducted 25% of their planned trials. It added a lot of speculation that there were more troubles than met the eye, but the truth from Jan Zuirkowski was that Avro had decided to be very very methodical and test one element of the flight envelope, examine the data completely and then re-test it. Meanwhile Convair had had earned such a bad reputation for the problems associated with the 102's development, they were rushing and trying to prove they could deliver a better product to make up for the 102's supposed shortcommings. Truth was, Convair had loads of development data and weren't really re-writing the bible of delta winged interceptors. The 106 would be the second generation Convair delta and a winner, serving for more than 3 decades.  

[Archibald]

For the newer guys, is you do a search, there is a very long post by Gary on the subject of the Arrow cancellation - he did his university thesis on it.

Gary, I'm a -reasonable- fan of the Arrow, so I'll be glad to see the "long post" Nev mentionned... or something related to it!!!  

[Gary]

Most of the way down the page.

Avro Research shorthand

[Phnx28]

Yeah, amazingly stupid in the whole "large delta wings don't work" idea. Imagine that, I guess F-102s, F-106s, Mirage II and IV, and Concorde are all part of the whole "fool the Russians" plan of attack. Yup, that explains why the Russians built all those delta winged combat aircraft like...um..like...um. Oh right, they didn't.

If you are going to make up a conspiracy theory, at least TRY to make up a a good one, not some lame half baked 10 year old kid version. Not that I'm annoyed...

Of course, it MUST be true because it makes so little sense!



Alvis 3.1

Well, they built quite a few Fishbeds and all ; but given the general tone of the article this seller would probably just trot those out as "proof" of his deltas-are-dogs claim. It's really quite sad too, especially when mentioning the Fishbed (and just about every other Soviet fighter that's ever seen action...) since no one can agree on whose kill claims are even made in good faith or not when judging the plane's worth according to that particular standard, much less bother about investigating anything objectively except in the rarest of instances. Hence, even those aircraft that entered service are subject to the childish "don't confuse me with new facts, my mind is made up" line from many otherwise honest experts who really should know better. One can only imagine the opinion wars raging over whiffer planes like the Arrow...
In complete agreement on your conspiracy theory angle ; and I'm usually fairly open to those being more cynical than most. "Credo quia absurdum est" works after all in a clearly absurd universe, if not multiverse besides. For example, most of my "unofficial history" musings revolve around the bureaucratic thought process. It usually goes, to quoth Colonel Klink IIRC, "I know nothing, I see NOTHING!" Hence, for example, even if the US government did in some truly "outside context" incident recover an alien craft at Roswell (thinking of a science-fantasy-comedy story about this where the alien pilots were so "green" they crashed into spy balloons their own superiors had already warned them about prior to their recon flight... ), any coverup would probably be along the "Just bury it all, literally, so we can get back to preparing for World War III" line of thought; and any people truly in the know will soon get that wish when they die off and the secret (again, assuming the unlikely existence of one) is indeed literally buried with them.

[Alvis 3.1]

While Fishbeds incorporate delta wings, there aren't pure delta winged aircraft as they have tailplanes. And yeah, he'd likely claim THAT as proof. He likely claims the sun rising every day as proof too.

Grrr.


Alvis 3.1

[Ollie]

Oh yes, the Mirages were all crap aircraft weren't they?

 

[Captain Canada]

The bottom line of the Arrow was that the frickin' thing could fly.....and quite well. Prototypes were up, and there were 20-something of them in various stages coming down the production line at cancellation. Surely, surely they could have done the job that the Voodoo did.........

Crazyness..........

[jcf]

Oh yes, the Mirages were all crap aircraft weren't they?

Ya, Dassault really screwed up copying the Fairey Delta 2, I mean the Brits never developed it into a fighter, so it must have been crap. :dum:

Cheers, Jon

[Archibald]

Sure large wing doesn't wotk, just look how Mirage IV, Mirage 4000 and Avro vulcan were crap...  

[jcf]

I think it was a case that 106's trials started after Arrow's first flight, and were concluded before Avro had conducted 25% of their planned trials. It added a lot of speculation that there were more troubles than met the eye, but the truth from Jan Zuirkowski was that Avro had decided to be very very methodical and test one element of the flight envelope, examine the data completely and then re-test it. Meanwhile Convair had had earned such a bad reputation for the problems associated with the 102's development, they were rushing and trying to prove they could deliver a better product to make up for the 102's supposed shortcommings. Truth was, Convair had loads of development data and weren't really re-writing the bible of delta winged interceptors. The 106 would be the second generation Convair delta and a winner, serving for more than 3 decades.

F-106A, 56-451 first flight 26 December, 1956; second aircraft, 56-452, first flight 26 February, 1957. A total of 37 aircraft were used in the test and development program.
First service deliveries May 1959 to the 498th FIS, the aircraft were operational by 31 October, 1959.

F-106B, 57-3507, first flight 9 April, 1958...declared operational July 1960.

Arrow first flight March 25th, 1958.

The F-102 and the F-106 were both designed under WS201A, dating from 1949-50, a requirement for an advanced integrated weapon system optimised for air defense. The electronic control system was considered the more complex part of the package and was designated Project MX-1179...Hughes was awarded the contract to build the MA-1 fire control system and its Falcon missile in May of 1951.
In April of 1951 an RFP was put to six manufacturers for the airframe part of the system as Project MX-1554...Convair was awarded the contract on 11 September, 1951. The aircraft was to be flight tested with a Westinghouse J40 but the Wright J65(A-S Sapphire) was to be used in production aircraft...the aircraft was to be in service in 1954.
It was soon realised that not all of the required advanced features would be available for the '1954 Interceptor' so the program was broken into two parts...an 'Interim Fighter' the Model 8 F-102A powered by a J57 with a partially developed MA-1 system, the MG-3; and an 'Ultimate Interceptor" the Model 8-21 F-102B.
The F-102B was re-designated the F-106A 17 June, 1956. The F-106B was the Model 8-27.
The problems with the F-102A development and the intended J67(Olympus) engine had caused slippage in the B development program so it was not until 28 April, 1955 that a formal order was placed for seventeen now J75 powered aircraft.

Cheers, Jon

[jcf]

Sure large wing doesn't wotk, just look how Mirage IV, Mirage 4000 and Avro vulcan were crap...

Don't forget the XB-70, SR-71 and Concorde...complete failures all.

Cheers, Jon

[dragon]

Other "failures":
Space Shuttle
Mirage III
Mirage V
Mirage 50
F-16 XL
B-58 HUSTLER

But what do I know...I am not selling anything on E-bay!