Talk:Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Article name

How did this article end up with such a lengthy name? In my many years of aviation writing, I have never once heard anyone say "Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow". It's always "Avro Arrow". I recommend moving it back. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd presume its to distinguish it from what was (I think) the original parent company, Avro, which is/was a British company. Canadians often just call it "Avro" when they mean the Canadian company, but Avro is British. ~~davepl

Yep. Most just call her Arrow. I'd say "CF-105 Arrow" would do it, if you're inclined to move, since AFAIK that's a unique CAF designator. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc-Andre Valiquette new book

M-A Valiquette's new book should be included in the bibliography, regardless of whether it is self-published or not (Fred Smye's was too, by the way). It is the first of three volumes. It is a high quality picture book, which includes many photographs I have not seen before of Avro Aircraft and its products, as well as reproductions of many A.V. Roe advertisements, with just enough text to tell the story. If the forthcoming two volumes are as well put together as this first one (which I got from Larry Milberry's CANAV books) then they will make a real contribution to the Arrow literature (they are certainly as high quality as Zuuring's books, though not as long, and without the polemics). As well, and unique for this kind of book, it is in both offical languages. So it should be included in any comprehensive bibliography of Arrow literature. 70.64.123.8 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I see it in bookstores and it has been sold at aviation museums, the book should probably be considered. The following is the proper formatting for the book (note only main nouns are capitalized, and title sub-title are separated by a colon):

• Valiquette, Marc-Andre. Destruction of a Dream: The Tragedy of Avro Canada and the CF-105 Arrow, Volume 1. Montreal: Marc-Andre Valiquette (self-published), 2009. ISBN: 978-2-9811239-0-9. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

Delta dawn

2 issues. One, do we know if the Arrow design team was at all influenced by the J.35? Two, can somebody explain why there's no visible (to my eye, at least) area ruling? (By comparison to the F-106, say.) The lack of apparent area ruling has bugged me awhile, & with the claims of fudging of speeds, it's left me wondering if the fudging was upward, not (as suggested) downwards. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The most visible evidence of area ruling on the Arrow is the spine running along the top of the fuselage, which tapers from wide at the front (just behind the cockpit) to minimal just in front of the vertical stabilizer. I agree that it doesn't appear that evident, but perhaps the design didn't require that much. Some designs (like the English Electric P.1) weren't designed with area ruling at all, and still had decent supersonic performance.

Regarding speed fudging, are you referring to the discussion above regarding the likely maximum speed of the Arrow? There's no question that the Arrow was a Mach 2 capable design -- Even the J75 engined Arrow 1 was clocked at Mach 1.96, and Mach 2 was expected to be the maximum speed in service for the Iroquois engined Arrow 2.--Voodude (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's possible to go sonic without; the Lightning's always struck me as not really needing it.

I've heard the Arrow team did "massage" the numbers, & downward I couldn't believe, since it made no sense. And I've never seen an unbiased source confirming Mach 2+ (the Arrowhead books don't count, IMO; too much "rah rah" in 'em). So... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

During 2003-2004, I had the privilege of working with the late Janusz Żurakowski, the first Chief Development Pilot of the Avro Arrow. I had the opportunity to scrutinize his extensive collection of memorabilia including logbooks dating all the way back to combat missions in the Battle of Britain and up to and including his testing of the Avro CF-105 Arrow. During the two years in meetings and personal collaboration with Żurakowski, he was able to directly answer some of the questions that were posed here. From my interview logs, there was a definite reason why Mach 2 flights weren't attempted, and it related to the sequence of flight testing in which the first five Arrow Mk 1s were engaged. This series of test flights were primarily limited to testing systems and working steadily through a developmental program. None of the aircraft were fitted with armament nor the definitive avionics package, consequently ballast had to be carried. Flights were also limited in scope so full fuel loads were not used, so that supersonic "dashes" were not commonplace. The speed potential of the Arrow was not explored during the Avro testing and were to be part of the RCAF acceptance flights, under the leadership of S/L Jack Woodman. Żurakowski was under the direct orders of Flight Test Director, Don Rogers to never exceed Mach 2, and was further specifically instructed to not use full power with the J75 at altitude. There was an ulterior motive behind this dictum, and it related to the company's preparation for a run at the World Air Speed and Altitude records with the first of the Arrow Mk IIs, RL-206, the sixth production aircraft. It was to be fitted with the Avro Orenda Iroquois (a much more powerful and lighter powerplant that would replace the J75s) and was in the final stages of assembly in February 1959 when the entire airframe and engine program was cancelled on Black Friday. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx. (And am I envious you actually got to work with him!) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that extra information, Bill. We will have to talk about this next time we cross paths.--Voodude (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Political issues section

In the Operation history/political issues section, there is a paragraph beginning: "In a later interview in the 1990s, Pearkes discussed these problems...".

This paragraph is uncited. It's also impossible, as George Pearkes died in 1984. I will thus remove this paragraph.--Voodude (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Avro Arrow Filmography

A filmography section is needed, as well as a list of Avro Arrow references on television shows and in music. There was an Aurora CF-105 model kit in the '60s, as well as a CF-100 kit. There were also some Avro die-cast models (Avro Vulcan, Avro York, Avro Aircar), although they did not make a die-cast CF-105 in the '60s.70.29.78.233 (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Arrow has coverage in the text; what are the other films about the Arrow's story that could be listed, hopefully ones with more basis in reality? As to "references on television shows and in music", I am assuming you mean any time the Arrow was mentioned, even in passing or in a joke? Those are generally non-notable, and would need reliable sources attesting to the notability to the Arrow, per WP:AIRPOP. Ditto the several toys and models, as listings of them aren't considered encyclopedic per WP:NOT. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just the facts

Assertions of "often inaccurate" here do not become true simply by being asserted. If the evidence exits, it should be presented from the sources claimed to contain it, since none of it is actually found there. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"If the evidence exits, it should be presented from the sources claimed to contain it, since none of it is actually found there." Now that's logical! Even if I were to add something from the source, you've already judged it. You don't actually beleive the film is accuate, do you?? - BilCat (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the material I removed from that section has had fact tags for 2 years. I don't even get 12 hours, and it's already been removed twice? You couldn't just tagging it first? It's not disputable that the film "often inaccurate" to anyone who has seen the film. So whether you think it's supported by the existing source or not, it is reasonable to tag it first, then discuss. And I won't ask you to wait two years to remove it! So, I'm restoring the claim and source, and tagging it myself, as I respect myself enough to give myself at least a week or two to find a source even you would accept. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I'm quailing at just what is or isn't accurate. Was it massaged for dramatic purposes? Certainly. Was it wrong on the Arrow being too expensive in itself? Maybe not. Am I being too picky? Probably. ;p I reacted badly to a source baldly saying the Arrow was "too expensive", which I've heard before, & naming sources supposedly bolstering the case, but offering no supporting facts. That's not what I'd want to rely on, & not what WP should be relying on, IMO. (And as I write this, I'm too tired to form a coherent argument against you, so I won't make an incoherent one. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page - I'll figure it out! "Expensive" is a relative term. The source was an opinon piece, but I didn't add it to the article, I simply summarized its main point. I'm fine tossing it an finding a more reliable source, which shouldn't be too difficult, thou I haven't found the time to do so as yet. Btw, I think one of the most absurd scenes in the movie was the comparison of the Delta wing to a flying wing concept. I seriously doubt that was in the mind of the designers, and they certain;y didn't invent the delta wing, as that scene would imply. The rest of the movie isn't much more accurate. Btw, I could choose to believe the US went to Mars in the 70s; that doen't mean it's any more accurate than the final statement in the film! - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it said (by Arrow partisans, but also IIRC by others) Dief had a choice: he could afford Arrow or Bomarc, but not both. The film portrays pressure from DDE pushing Dief to Bomarc; how true that is, I haven't a clue, but I wager there's some basis for it. Also, in that environment, there were serious doubts on the value of manned interceptors anyhow. The "cost overruns" the film portrays as the underlying problem, & the "too expensive" issue that troubles me, are flipsides of this coin. Does the movie color things with hindsight over the selection of Bomarc? Probably. Most commentators take the "too expensive" at face value, & ignore Bomarc. Both are wrong.

Was there some nationalism in the finish? Sure, but it was said before then AvCan technical people were important to Apollo. (Crucial, which IIRC it implies, no...) And yeh, is it a documentary? No, a docudrama, so holding it to the standards of accuracy of a documentary is (what's a good word? inappropriate?). Is it broadly wrong on the development? It's been too long since I've seen it to say; if not, do a few gaffes make "often"? How many is "often"? Can you live with something like, "fictionalized treatment not always faithful to fact"? (Less clumsy than that, naturally. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the tags and created compromise wording for the CBC Docu-drama section. This is intended as a temporary solution until the issue of the film's credibility is resolved through discussion and proper citation. Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing external links

Some culling of reference sources is always taking place, however, wholesale removal of material without use of a talk page discourse is not a good technique. I am adding back the Canada Aviation Museum where a number of Arrow artifacts including the nose of RL-206 and various outboard panels of RL-203 reside. There is also an extensive archival collection at the museum of Arrow artifacts. Similarly the Arrow replica built for the CBC miniseries is found at the Wetaskwin site and the external link to that was also removed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

MILHIST reassessment

Although this article is quite good, I have reassessed it as Start class from a B. This is due to criteria B1, as the article has a large number of paragraphs with no inline citations and quite a few "citation needed" tags. If these can be added the article would easily meet the B class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Empty Weight

The empty weight is listed at 49,000 lbs? That's awfully heavy for a plane who's maximum weight is 68,000 lbs. Is this correct? If so, why is it so heavy? AVKent882 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Improvements for GA?

This article looks fully referenced and in good shape. Are there anything that needs to be fixed or improved for Good Article nomination? Article is down in the queue now. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

On the Unit cost in the Infobox, is the $3.5-5 million in Canadian dollars (C$). What year is that cost for? $3.5-5M seems high for the 1950s. But maybe that's the total cost averaged over the 5 prototypes.. -fnlayson (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily related to the GA review, but the "Operators" section strikes me as being completely useless. It only repeats what is already stated about four times throughout the article and as a stub section doesn't aid the article's quality at all. Resolute 00:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the content seems out of place or maybe split up too much. Seems like the trials content would be better placed in the Operational history section or the Design and development section. -fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, go to it! Bzuk (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but moving that text would leave the Mark I section empty or nearly empty. I'll try to add some text with such a move. -fnlayson (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved the flight testing text to the Development section and added a couple summary sentences in the Mark 1 variant section. -fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note this article passed GA a couple weeks ago. -fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of Completed Prototypes

This article said 5, the official site on the Arrow at the Department of National Defense website says 6. As such, I changed it back in the infobox. Addionne (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, DND is wrong?! No. 6 was not completed before February 20, 1959 but was fitted with the Iroquois only for engineering purposes. RL-206 was 93% complete but like all other Arrows was not considered as a complete airframe. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

I get that you have a book that says otherwise, but what makes them right and DND wrong? Addionne (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they are using the Avro company records and the test pilot's log books as reference. If the aircraft were not finished, they were not accepted at either the company or forces level. All the other sources listed in the bibliography section have the same statistics and verify the number of prototypes. Photographs also exist that confirm the number of Arrows that were built. RL-206 never left the assembly bay, was 93% complete, had the Iroquois engines fitted as part of engineering studies but was in no way, considered a complete aircraft. BTW, NO Arrows were actually prototypes but instead were all built on production tooling. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

• Ok. I am going to stay out of it. Any facts, despite the source, that conflict your preferred reading list can be dismissed as "Surprise, surprise, DND is wrong". -Addionne (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

ALL the sources agree on only five completed aircraft; how DND can consider RL-206 as complete is baffling. RL-206 was actually cut up in the factory and the remains of the nose section are still on display at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, Ottawa. RL-206, the supposed last Arrow was never finished and all work on all the Arrows was suspended as of February 20, 1959 and never taken up again, FWiW, the urban myth of a "missing Avro Arrow" is long-standing but has no basis in fact. Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think the DND site can be held up as an authoritiative view of the issue, or as representative of the DND's official stance. These types of pages are generally written by low-level writers who probably aren't subect to the fact-checking requirements of most published works. Nevertheless, if the DND site were to be accepted as reliable, it doesn;t over-ride the fact that most if not all published reliable sources disagree, and bth claims would need to be presented. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Swept away

"German research during the Second World War" IIRC, the relevant research dates to 1935, but wasn't actually applied until the war. Am I wrong? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Technology?

Military philosophy in the 1950's involved supersonic bombers and supersonic interceptors. As such technology like delta wings were useless in the World War 2 and Korean War. Also the Vietnam War proved such high speed aircraft as the Century series to be less effective than aircraft like the F-4 which was more maneuverable and had better pilot visibility. Designs like the F-15, F-16, and F-18 are all subsonic with a focus on performance at Mach.8 including high maneuverability, and pilot visibility.

I suggest a section be added to discuss how in the 1960's nuclear submarines replaced supersonic bombers as the primary nuclear threat and as well as the lessons learned from operating supersonic fighters by the USA in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.160.185 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't even begin to address all the errors and misinformation above, and am emphatic that NONE of it belongs in this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Isn't noteworthy that such designs have not played were not used the in Cold War or modern warfare including the F-108 Rapier designed by North American virtually identical to the Arrow and canceled for the same reasons?

The above statements aren't well thought-out or written, and makes any discourse moot. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What if the Avro Arrow was 20 years ahead of other designs what influence has it had on fighter designs from the 1970's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.160.185 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Finally, a rational if mistaken statement, that I can at least address. The CF-105 represented "state-of-the-art" for the late 1950s and there were other interceptors with a similar mission profile and capability; it cannot be considered as "ahead of the curve." Just a reminder that this forum is not a free-for-all on the merits of an aircraft type, but on how to improve the article it accompanies. So far, nothing of note has been presented. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Much as I hate to admit it, the only thing I can think of where the Arrow was ahead was FBW, & I'm not even sure on that one. All her other features were pioneered elsewhere. (Give SAAB credit for being smart!) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Although fly-by-wire was incorporated in the CF-105 design, earlier work using a converted North American F-100 had already proved the concept. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

You can buy it on eBay

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111217/avro-arrow-ejection-seat-mystery-deepens-with-uk-discovery-111218/20111218/?hub=CalgaryHome

Is the recent ejection seat auction worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not if you read the story which is 90% pure hokum and 10% (maybe) factual. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC).