HOME | DD

Specter114 — Avro CF-105 Arrow Replica

Published: 2014-02-02 02:35:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 915; Favourites: 31; Downloads: 12
Redirect to original
Description A replica of the famous Avro Arrow on display at Downsview Airport at the Canadian Air and Space Museum. Here is a short history of the aircraft: "The fascinating rise and demise of the Avro Arrow is a chronicle of triumph and tragedy for Canadian aviation.   Born deep in the Cold War (it was rolled out on October 4th 1957, the same day the USSR launched the Sputnik into space) the Arrow bore from the first the uniquely Canadian quality of functionality in a vast and limitless wilderness. It was envisaged as North America's first line of defense against the supersonic bombers believed to be under development in the Soviet Union, which would attack from across wastes of the great North. 

By the third test flight it broke the speed of sound, eventually reaching speeds as high as Mach 1.98. With the new Iroquois engine, which delivered considerably more power, the Arrow was expected to break world speed records. Indeed, projected versions of the plane were to go as fast as Mach 3. But on the 20th of February, 1959, days before the new Mark 2 series bearing the Iroquois engine was about to be tested, the bad news broke -- the Arrow was to be cancelled.

Avro was instructed to immediately halt all work, and to destroy all prototypes and plans. Employees were sent home, and 14,000 people lost their jobs. The cancellation is widely credited with contributing to the growing Canadian brain drain of the period - NASA grabbed up many of the key people displaced by the move, as did the Concorde and other projects.

The cancellation was a contentious affair, and its justification or demonization has been the subject of considerable debate. At the time, the threat that inspired the formidable characteristics of the Arrow, namely that of manned Soviet bombers emerging from across the polar regions, was perceived to be diminishing. The new menace of the day was believed to be from nuclear missiles, and missiles were to be the means of defense

Related content
Comments: 45

DuneDrifter [2016-10-10 10:29:28 +0000 UTC]

wow - great photograph, love the write up too. I didn't realise it is bigger than the BAC TSR-2.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dorenna [2016-05-07 06:35:21 +0000 UTC]

Nice photo, the angle gives an excellent reference for scale. Thank-you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ComannderrX [2014-11-06 16:38:54 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to ComannderrX [2014-11-06 22:12:47 +0000 UTC]

Lol righty then

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ComannderrX In reply to Specter114 [2014-11-06 23:37:23 +0000 UTC]

but seriously, this is a sweet looking plane

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to ComannderrX [2014-11-07 13:14:58 +0000 UTC]

You are correct, it looks like something that could outrace an F-22.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ComannderrX In reply to Specter114 [2014-11-07 13:50:40 +0000 UTC]

not sure about that, since there 40 years apart in tech

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheGroundedAviator [2014-08-04 07:45:34 +0000 UTC]

Heck the engines it did fly with were not just less powerful but also heavier and shorter so the nose needed ballast so who really knows.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to TheGroundedAviator [2014-08-21 16:05:20 +0000 UTC]

Im still sure it could have outperformed most if not all other aircraft at that time though! You are correct, although Avro was working on solutions for dealing with those problems, though we will never know for sure now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheGroundedAviator In reply to Specter114 [2014-08-21 20:42:48 +0000 UTC]

Probably why I don't say with 100% certainty it would but it could have. As for the powerplant, yeah they were being prepared.
Though dogfighting in one would be suicide, easier too just shoot myself!

As Sir Sidney Camm said about the TSR-2 bomber "All modern aircraft have four dimensions, span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right."

The fact is when jets and the like came in and all the fancy hardware in cockpits made it far slower too build and design such aircraft and only nations who spend little on the people and much on the "nation" can afford it in the long term.
Both aircraft have bright starts but (unsurprisingly) took longer too build and prove and in the meantime "cheaper" (and usually American) birds came and became an option, the Brits nearly got the F-111K but it took too long and it turned out would cost even more then TSR-2, development and production combined!
In the end they got some F-4's (surprised the RCAF didn't) which worked and then the fairly good Jaguar and Tornado.

Heck and I think there may have been a trade with those two aircraft as well.

And off but they RCAF was interested in the F-14 I think but that went south in 1979!

Sorry for rambling.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to TheGroundedAviator [2014-08-28 14:53:12 +0000 UTC]

No problem, you make some very interesting points! What we need now though is something that will hopefully be cheaper and work better for us than the F-35, because that does not suit the needs of our nation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheGroundedAviator In reply to Specter114 [2014-08-29 05:40:04 +0000 UTC]

Too many eggs in one basket won't do, you need a mix. The A-10 is still a good mix with a basic F-15 style fighter.
I know you Yanks never will but the Eurofighter is your best bet.
sides fighting a war where you loose none of your own takes the moral of fighting it.
Heck soon it'll just be toys piloted by fat guys on a computer!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to TheGroundedAviator [2014-09-02 20:13:44 +0000 UTC]

I like the Eurofighter, I was recently at a German Air Force base, and they had several of them on display, nice looking jet. However, the Rafale and the Gripen also look like good aircraft aswell, not to mention the super hornets. We still need jets, drones can only do so much, and still lack several crucial human aspects.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheGroundedAviator In reply to Specter114 [2014-09-02 20:30:08 +0000 UTC]

Was going too mention them as well, they are also work horses rather then race horses (the F-18e is though) which in a dirty world is better, heck the RCAF was keen on the F-14 at one point and had not the 1979 crises in Iran may have bought them.
If the RNZAF got new fighters I'd suggest the Gripen and the TA-50 Golden Eagle form South Korea. Now all we have are Peter Jackson's WW1 collection.

And with Drones it's just plane cowardly and takes the biggest reason of NOT too go too war, once people had too think "we are wiping out a generation" beforehand but take that away and it becomes a sport. Quite frankly I'd feel insulted being killed without knowing I had a chance too kill back.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to TheGroundedAviator [2014-09-06 12:06:39 +0000 UTC]

I agree with you completely on the drones, and I am worried as soon they will be completely unmanned, with the ability to fly themselves and decide on who is friendly and who is not. 

And about the RNZAF, well at least they could put on an interesting airshow!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheGroundedAviator In reply to Specter114 [2014-09-06 20:38:47 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, I find war dirty, violent,unpleasent and inhuman but from experence at high school showed me a fight can't always be avoided (postponed until a better time maybe like 1938) but take one part of the human element out and it's a sport.
Most wars of today are scars of the greed of the past and the selfishness of today in one sense... though defending oneself if fair enough but too make it last is usually seen as defeat... though Israel did it in the 70's and got lasting peace with Egypt.

True and I've seen many and they alone don't just put them on, 70+ cropduster pilots, WW1 reproductions that could be sent back in time, over 20 assorted WW2 aircraft and a little over a year ago I meat the last living Dambusters pilot (still a few crew floating about but the last pilot).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to TheGroundedAviator [2014-09-13 05:28:57 +0000 UTC]

Wow, saw the Bomber Command memorial this summer, very moving. 

And you can see that most of the wars are in areas that will be increasingly violent, and will probably never quiet down for a long time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheGroundedAviator In reply to Specter114 [2014-09-13 07:58:44 +0000 UTC]

Yeah Les Munro, amazing thing is he was in wave 3 which by that time the AA gunners were ready and his plane (and all but the Yanks) was shot too hell and he had too fly back, no lights, no navigation, no intercom (passed messages) and carrying four tons of torpex!

Yeah, but I don't condone or condem the war itself, I do what they they do before and more so after.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to TheGroundedAviator [2014-09-16 02:09:10 +0000 UTC]

Yes, to learn about what those men did is truly humbling to anyone. I recently visited the Eder damn this past August, and it is just mind-boggling how those men maintained the courage to go through with what they must have thought was a purely suicidal mission. I would also like to weigh the outcomes of the war, and even though I have had family members killed, I believe that it was worth it for our freedom.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheGroundedAviator In reply to Specter114 [2014-09-16 02:32:16 +0000 UTC]

Well in the end it was a failure this raid, little water loss for steel, the factories weren't flooded and the last dab the Sorp which would have barely scratched.
As for doing it, confidence in ones skills, comrades, knowing exactly what too do and what others are.

Yeah maybe, even if the freedom of others can only work if they take it from others... Churchill wanted too keep the Empire alive after.
Same here with my family, unmarked graves, smears on cliffs and such.
The biggest thing despite it all was how some big nations got the feeling that they were the worlds embodyment of morality after which is a sad thing.

I'm a cynic so don't take it too far, I'd have fought in it (one of a handfull of fights I would have), but much before and after I'm not proud of and in war that's what counts what's done after.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to TheGroundedAviator [2014-09-24 21:53:18 +0000 UTC]

Exactly, I mean one of the main dams they were supposed to destroy they could not even get close to, and they lost a lot of men for what seems like to small of a reward. 

Combine that with the firebombings and carpet-bombings of German and Japanese cities, and the allies did some nasty things. However, I feel that the outcomes of us losing the war would probably have been worse, but then again I dont condone razing cities to the ground and killing thousands. 

I would also have joined right away should I have been around in 1914 or 1939, as I would want to make a difference and do my part. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheGroundedAviator In reply to Specter114 [2014-09-25 09:11:13 +0000 UTC]

They got the two "main" dams, just little came from it, dam three would have flooded more. I think Peter Jackson is working on a film now.

Yeah, one just shouldn't make oneself out as a saint, and also with what Stalin did after the war.
But for what it's worth the Geneva Convention states that if vital military targets are in civilian areas the protection is lost at the leaders fault, so they are in effect guilty for the deaths and that was on both sides.
And true with that, in the Rape of Nanking maybe up too 300,000 people were murdered by hyped up and ill-trained Jap troops... they were throwing babies in the air and catching them on bayonets.

Yeah me too, I'd have joined the RNZAF if I could (and probably gone too your country for more training) but I can assure you no single fighter has ever really done a difference, Charles Upham or Audy Murphy did crazy stuff but it didn't make a difference too the outcome.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to TheGroundedAviator [2014-10-12 00:03:04 +0000 UTC]

Yes, the first casualty in war is the truth, and the second is the civilian.

I would be very interested in seeing a film about the dambusters, I think that would be very neat to see how they would pull that off.

Are you planning on seeing Fury when it comes out in New Zealand?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheGroundedAviator In reply to Specter114 [2014-10-12 02:23:00 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, or at best it's well hidden.

Same here, he has an adviser and all the info is now open, not too mention some of the best CGI and model teams in the world, LOTR's used filming tricks from the 1920's!

Hell yeah, it'll probably be silly but will be worth it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to TheGroundedAviator [2014-10-16 22:52:23 +0000 UTC]

I hope they do well on the execution of Fury, though I have a friend who is a military vehicle collector who watched the trailer and then proceeded to whine and complain about how the sprockets on the Sherman are wrong. Some people just have to poke holes in everything...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheGroundedAviator In reply to Specter114 [2014-10-17 03:32:55 +0000 UTC]

Nit pickers, I know a guy who says that about "The Blue Max", no ammo belts and such, heck the replicas are still pretty good, Peter Jackson owns a few and a large number of 100% reproductions.

My great uncle would probably say the same thing, I know he drove/commanded tanks in the war and were probably Sherman's or Stuart's.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

F16CrewChief [2014-03-03 00:13:15 +0000 UTC]

I wish a complete airframe had been left.  It was a beautiful jet!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to F16CrewChief [2014-03-09 23:21:52 +0000 UTC]

Yes, that certainly would have been amazing! Blame the Canadian government in all of their 'wisdom'.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

F16CrewChief In reply to Specter114 [2014-03-09 23:51:30 +0000 UTC]

Yessir!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Skoshi8 [2014-02-02 20:03:03 +0000 UTC]

Missile-mania not only afflicted the RCAF but also the RAF with the infamous 1957 White Paper. The USAF didn't have anything in the pipeline and had to go with a naval fighter, the F-4 Phantom II.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to Skoshi8 [2014-02-02 20:30:10 +0000 UTC]

And we all know how that turned out....

We should not have been bullied by them in the first place, and we wouldn't have had that mess. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Arthur330 [2014-02-02 19:18:41 +0000 UTC]

Do you think Avro Arrow could replace CF-35? There are still news that Arrows can replace CF-35s because of its superior range, cheaper price, and faster speed. Stephen Harper rejected it. I would say the problem is that it will take a lot of time to modernize it, think about the program cost, and judge if it is dependable.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to Arthur330 [2014-02-02 20:29:01 +0000 UTC]

Yes, I am a strong believer that the Super Arrow would be a much better choice for the nation, and it could potentially be a source of national pride. 

If you would like more information, please visit this site: www.superarrow.ca/

The problem with our aviation industry right now is that almost none of it is Canadian, and we have lost so much of our potential to other nations and companies. Plus, the F-35 is not suited to what we need them to do, and it is just too plain expensive, with little potential to bring jobs to Canadians. 

Either that or we just upgrade to the newer versions of the Super Hornets.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Arthur330 In reply to Specter114 [2014-02-03 01:44:42 +0000 UTC]

Let's pray that Super Arrows can replace the CF-35s. Canadians use their fighters for the peace keeping (I mean the Canadain Forces are meant for peace-keeping missions). The process may be difficult but the effort will bring more benefits and safety for Canada.


What I am a bit concerned is that Super Arrow seems little too big for combat. As the size increases, it will be an easy target for air superiority fighters. Also, I wish the unit cost could be as much as Sukhoi PAK FA.


Also, if developing Super Arrow isn't enough, modifying Super Hornets isn't bad idea either.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to Arthur330 [2014-02-04 04:20:29 +0000 UTC]

I understand what you mean about them being a large aircraft, though for most of it would probably suit most of the missions that the air force is currently involved with. Hopefully revised or newer versions could be made smaller for stealth missions, though these rarely come up for our force, and UAVs could probably handle them. And let us hope the price would be moderate aswell. 


One of the biggest problems that I see is the training aspect. It takes A LOT of time and money to train thousands how to maintain, arm, repair and fly brand-new aircraft, which is one of the biggest advantages with simply upgrading to newer hornets, as we are already familiar with how they operate.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Parady [2014-02-02 16:53:28 +0000 UTC]

If Avro didn't disband ...whew , maybe Avro would have rivaled Northrop and other aerospacial corps. by now lol

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to Parady [2014-02-02 20:35:20 +0000 UTC]

Yes, it could have been the Lockheed Martin of the north, but we'll never know for sure now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lag-Janson [2014-02-02 14:33:06 +0000 UTC]

I should really go see that replica.  Downsview had a bit of trouble the past few years, is it still displayed there?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to Lag-Janson [2014-02-02 20:19:43 +0000 UTC]

Yes, unfortunately I believe that this was the last time that the museum was open, they have since been evicted and have no home. Downsview is an extremely interesting place to visit still, with the Canadian Forces, Bombardier and many other aviation services around.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Hunter2045 [2014-02-02 09:34:11 +0000 UTC]

Nice.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to Hunter2045 [2014-02-06 02:39:59 +0000 UTC]

Thanks.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DarkGraySkies045 [2014-02-02 05:36:42 +0000 UTC]

Reminds me almost of a Fencer but without the tail fins.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to DarkGraySkies045 [2014-02-04 04:12:09 +0000 UTC]

Yes, now that you mention it, they both look strikingly similar. The only big difference is that this one is better!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DarkGraySkies045 In reply to Specter114 [2014-02-04 04:14:34 +0000 UTC]

Actually my mistake it doesn't have tail fins in the back

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Specter114 In reply to DarkGraySkies045 [2014-02-04 04:25:04 +0000 UTC]

That`s okay, don`t worry about it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0