pkern@utcs.UUCP (01/26/85)
Comparing aircraft statistics reveals that
the Avro Arrow (were it still around) would have
been able to outfly the CF-18 Hornet and still have
thrust to spare.
This is just an idle dream but does anybody think
that Canada will be able to design and build its own
all-weather fighter ever again (instead of having to
scounge around for a machine which most suits the needs
of the CAF)?
I have this theory that if this were possible, an
aircraft designed to be able to stand up to the rigours of Canada
would be much better than any product from the south. This
then might prove marketable thus providing a decent defence
and a good number of jobs. This might also stem some of
the southbound brain drain.
Like I said, just an idle dream.
..!{utzoo utcsrgv}!utcs!pkernbrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/26/85)
If Canadians design another plane as good as the Arrow, it will likely get the same fate as the Arrow. The Americans refuse will to believe that the best fighter in the world is made outside the U.S.A. and they thus won't buy it, and will thus pressure Canada to scrap it. Ask Avro. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
haczegledi@watrose.UUCP (Harold A. Czegledi) (01/26/85)
<munch> If the political will is present (which I doubt) Canada could have a thriving aerospace industry. For example, several European countries manufacture their own aircraft and generally do not rely upon U.S. built aircraft. Yes, it would be nice if things were different - but don't hold your breath.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/27/85)
>If Canadians design another plane as good as the Arrow, it will likely >get the same fate as the Arrow. The Americans refuse will to believe >that the best fighter in the world is made outside the U.S.A. and they >thus won't buy it, and will thus pressure Canada to scrap it. Ask >Avro. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 This was NOT true of the Arrow. Having just refreshed my memory of the Arrow from a pretty detailed book on its technical aspects, I can refute this insult to the US military. The US was VERY interested in the Arrow. They supplied a modified B-52 (at the time quite a secret aircraft) for testing the Iroquois engine. When the Arrow was cancelled by Diefenbaker, they tried to buy the five completed aircraft, but Diefenbaker insisted that all plans and photographs be destroyed and all planes be cut up and sold as scrap. Incidentally, the UK and the Belgians also wanted the Arrow. As for the quality of the Arrow, no plane for 2 decades had its specs for continued supersonic fighting ability, and no engine had the thrust/weight ratio of the Iroquois over the same period. No flying Arrow had an Iroquois engine fitted. That was supposed to go into Arrow No. 6, which was 98% complete at the time of cancellation. Even so, one test flight was made at Mach 1.92, in a series of tests at increasing speeds. If Diefenbaker had not cancelled the Arrow, would the US have got men on the moon by the target date of 1970? I wonder. The US, generally, has been much better than Canada at recognizing the quality of Canadian work in all fields, whether technological or social. The US bought more Ferranti FP6000 computers than Canada, for example, before the plans had to be sold to the UK (where they became the basis of much of the UK computer industry in the form of the ICL 1900 series). The main reason the plans had to be sold was lack of support in Canada. Even now, the US contracts in Canada for work they would like Canadians to support; when Canada won't join in, they go ahead on their own, supporting Canadian innovation. There's lots to complain about in the US, but anti-Canadian chauvinism in technology is not one of them. If you want to complain about anti-Canadian chauvinism, just look around at home. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (01/28/85)
In article <1334@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >This was NOT true of the Arrow. Having just refreshed my memory of >the Arrow from a pretty detailed book on its technical aspects, I can >refute this insult to the US military. The US was VERY interested >in the Arrow. They supplied a modified B-52 (at the time quite a >secret aircraft) for testing the Iroquois engine. When the Arrow was >cancelled by Diefenbaker, they tried to buy the five completed aircraft, >but Diefenbaker insisted that all plans and photographs be destroyed >and all planes be cut up and sold as scrap. Incidentally, the UK and >the Belgians also wanted the Arrow. The bomber was a B-47. I have pictures of it with the Iroquios engine attached. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (01/29/85)
In article <395@utcs.UUCP> pkern@utcs.UUCP writes: > I have this theory that if this were possible, an >aircraft designed to be able to stand up to the rigours of Canada >would be much better than any product from the south. This >then might prove marketable thus providing a decent defence >and a good number of jobs. In many respects I believe this situation has already happened once with the Arrow. (As an aside, someone in an earlier posting called the Starfighter a CF-105 when it is in fact the CF-104 Starfighter with the CF-105 (or perhaps CAF-105) being the designation given to the AVRO Arrow) As pointed out the Arrow appeared to be a plane vastly superior to anything available at the time or on the the drawing boards in other countries. One of the problems with the Arrow was that it couldn't be sold even though it was the best aircraft around. The United States wouldn't buy it because they were, and I guess still are, busy supporting their own aircraft companies. In addition the US placed heavy pressure on its allies to buy its equipment over that of Canada's. After all, all Canada could offer in the arms market was the Arrow while the US could offer much more and made use of that fact. According to the book "The Fall of an (the?) Arrow" the Canadian government of the day wasn't exactly pro-American and Washington was responding in kind. Even if the US did recognize the quality of Canada's product they weren't about to sacrifice "their" market to Canada especially when the Canadian government was perceived to be anti-American. Wasn't it in the best short term interests of the US government to see the demise of the Canadian industry? After all they got the talent that built the Arrow and they gained a new market for their planes. If Canada were again to develop a viable military aircraft industry similar problems would no doubt appear but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The government provided Canadair and DeHavilland (sp?) with several billion dollars (about 3 billion I think) last year so they could keep operating. In addition they are spending about 4.2 billion dollars to acquire the CF-18 Hornets. Taken together these moneys could have provided about 7.2 billion dollars towards a made in Canada fighter. Actually it is much more than that given how much money the government has given the above two companies over the last few years. No doubt this amount of money is just a drop in the bucket compared to the total development cost of a fighter aircraft. However, the intangible costs of not doing so are even greater as the following quote from the above mentioned book says: "Another lesson that Canada will have to re-learn, apparently, is that sophisticated defence industries cannot be erected overnight. When war and mortal danger become imminent, it is too late to set about trying to assemble an aircraft industry, or tank and gun factories or shipyards. There is a price to pay for keeping these facilities in existence in the piping times of peace. Countries which are not prepared to pay the price will ultimately pay a far higher one." Donald Acton