' . .~'- ) llotes on Arrov, Projc~c;L Questions ·rnost often asked and some notes on these il;,1111:;. What was the Arrow designed to do? The Arrow was designed to fulfil a perforin8.n.ce specification issued by the RCAF in 1953. This called for a supersonic interceptor to uestroy any enemy threat to the Northern reache::3 of Horth America likely to be employed within the next decade and beyond. It was to ~e :-t twin.-8n.3ined aircraft with a crew of two and be ahle to operate in ~tn <~nl; i.rrJly :-1.uto111atic mode of target intercepl;ion antl kill. Prior to instructinG 1\vro to proceed with the design, :=t top level RCAF evalu::tti.011 te ::l.ln hrtti visited all of the countries in the \llr~stern alliance to clel;er111i.t1rJ whel;l18r ~1ny of them were developin:S or contemplating the developrnent of an aircraft to meet th c~i.r stringent requirements. Their report c onf i r,ned that there was not. Specific performance recorded on tl1e Arrow Mk1 aircraft,equipped with ,J75 interim engines, which more than acco111plished the RCAF specified performance, was as follows; Over 70 hours test flying was log;Zed in !;he 66 flights carried out on the five Mk 1 aircraft, most of which was at supersonic speeds up t o c 1 o s e t o t w i c e the s p e e d of s o u n d ( M = 1 • 9 8 . ) . J an Z u r a k ow ski , the first pilot to fly the Arrow, we11t supersonic on the third test flight an.cl excee cle cl 1000 rniles per hour on the seventh fl:i.Gh I; 1-lhi le still climbing and accelerating, at 50,000ft. Glirnb speeds of up to Potocki, Avro's otlt<~r. ------ • 7 I a. -:i r\·: \:. (\ 40,000 ft.p8r Pti.n11~e w0rc~ r<3corded !\xrovr d8veloprnent pilot. F£lf. Jq5tq by Spud Jack Woodman, ~h8 I1CJ\[i1 ev:i.luation pilot a::i □ it3necl to tlir~ J\n•ow reported prior to cancellation that he had carried out 95~ of the performance evaluation. on the Hk 1s and that "The Arrow was perform ins a8 predicted and was meeting all guarantees". ( see attached report from Woodman) Peter Cope was the third Avro test pilot to fly the Arrow, but Zurakowski and Potocki carried out most of the test flyine. The first Arrow Mk 2 aircraft, powered by the more powerful 0renda Iroquois eneines, was due to fly within days when cancellation came and since the Iroquois had approximately 30% more thrust than the J75, the performance on the Mk 2 Arrow would have been increased substantially. In the words again of Woodman, "I believe the Arrow Mk 2 had sufficient perfor111:-:i.nce capahili ty to set a new world speed and altitude record, and I believe it would have easily met all ) performance guarantees" (Ref. 'Flying the Avro Arrow' by S/1 .Jade Woodman. May 16 1978 CASI Journal) The speci.ficr1.tio11 called for a manoeuvre capability of at least 2g at Mach 1 .5 at 50,000ft. at comb:-:i.t weicht with all missiles aboard, with no loss in speed or altitude during that m8.noe11vre. Thir3 was a requirement which has not to my knowledge heen excc0cl8tl hy any in-service combat aircraft even today. It was the reason for having to put the enor,nous power in the aircraft and having to stow all of the mirrniles inside the aircraft to cut down the drag. Range specified was a radius of 200 nautical miles with five minutes combat at Mach 1 .5, but Avro considered this range was low and the aircraft was designed for ranges up to 650 nm.radius. while still retaining the specified perfor1nance. ( A projected reconnaissance version was to have a range of more than 2000nm.) ) A 3 2 Why was it cancelled? The two specific rA:=i.sorrn eiven for <;n ,1c~1~l.1 :-ttion were; a. Obsolescence. h. Cost. Taldri~ the f.Lr:3t reason given, obsolescence, lt W8.8 at that time 1:3tated that manned aircraft were 1)econlLn~ obsolete ancl that missiles would 80011 bike their place for the defence or: Horth A1n8ric:=i.. In the :face of that information, the Arrow would be obsolete before it even got into th8 8quadrons. It is ironic that 30 yenr8 l::i.ter n.11 of the Air Forces of the world are purch:i:3ine new 11mnned fighters and the RCAP have bo113ht 3 or 4 generations of American aircr:-tft 8it1ce the cancellation · of the Arro,-r 1JrojAct, none of which came even close to the overall ca1ntbility of the Arrow. So that reason for Diefenbaker's deci8io11 w:-1s obviously· invalid, short-8iGhted and proved to be absolutely 1-rro11::.;, ln i:Jv1~ry respect! b Cost . This is the mo:c,I; 1,1i. :rnr11h~r:3tood of the factors surrou11cli11~ the Arrow can.cellation. Tho iH~ who like to use it as an excuse for the cancellation apply ::ill of the costs of the Arrow and Iroquois proer:11rw :-i.eainst the small number of test ::ii.r8r:1f:'I; ori c~ortl;r-nct ~1t that time. The $180 M already :3pent 011 t;lu~ Ar1·0~, program and the $120M spent on the I roq,.to.L::1 IJ ro~r:-vr1 included the design, develo_p111P,n I;, l;ooling and extensive testing for 1-1. f1tll 1iro<-n· fo r1111-mce of that aircraft, which to my knowledge has not heen ::ntrpa:3:3ed today, the Arrow was the bargain of tl1e century, and if the project had been continuetl, it 11ould have been in use today in the major air forc8::J of the world. The real proble111. of tl1e C (L. ~O LAt\ (:..• \..'-9-\ \.0 ..\ ------------------------'---- , ~oa.. Loo Hb. -2. AL -ltz~~t-hc."l. ~u9"oa.:f- '1l3.So\.1, P~cz.. A\<2-G42.Alt~ .. ( t,jo'"r6.-1~ir <.£ ~ .,; ol-\. P~a._ ~l (; J)~b ~c-( \~~\..\l0~ f\\-\.o61~Pi\\ot\ ,o~ '\"'\\I;;. ~o~--<4.<:..o'1~'fU\(.~ Co~~ ~bi.-ol'-3.\ ~~C>~~--. \t e.i~c. ~ ~-

Notes on Arrow Project. Questions Most often Asked and some notes on these items

Archive

AVRO Museum

Name/Title

Entry/Object ID

Category

Web Links and URLs

General Notes

Note