ARC Search Pics

FAQ: Arrow Questions

Ask The Expert


We urge you to please check Jim Floyds Lecture and Palmiros PEO article on this website, before submitting questions. Most answers are already here!



The Arrow was a piece of genius Canadian enginering,and could have had a market in the world. Was there a demand for the Arrow if it was built and if so would Canada been able to make money from the plane that was years ahead of its time?
A.V. Roe had potential sales of the Iroquois engines to France but no sales for the Arrow anywhere else. Like the Harrier Jump Jet, the Arrow would have had to have been in service for a few years to attract foreign buyers. Britain had an interest as did some folks in the US. When word started to spread that the Arrow might be cancelled, the French terminated their interest in the Iroquois also.
  To whom it may concern. How would the arrow have fired it's missles since it carried them internally? Would it have been able to fire its weapons while in supersonic flight? And why didn't anyone tell the prime minister that everyone would lose their jobs if the project would have been cancelled apparently the prime minister wouldn't have cancelled the project if someone had told him that it would have cost so many jobs. Did the arrow also have stealth ability? How much more would the scientific research cost to finish the arrow and the iriqois engine? How many months away was avro from completing the flaws that exsisted and for the ship to be fully completed? With proper upgrades would the arrow still be a useful fighter jet today?
In my book Storms I describe the rail launcher system that would have been used to lower missiles in flight. The proposed method of attack was to fly supersonically to within a given range of the target, drop speed and then fire. This is incorrect. Again, in Storms, the series of discussions leading up to the decision showed that the government and the Prime Minister knew cancellation would cost upwards of 25,000 jobs. They perhaps did not realize this would happen in one afternoon but they should have. The order to terminate clearly stated all work was to cease and desist immediately. Question - Who do you propose would have paid the salaries of those individuals if the order to stop immediately would have been ignored? A.V. Roe was placed in an untenable situation. Again, the bureaucrats advising the Prime Minister should have known That is what they get paid for. I know because I am one of them myself. No Stealth. The "costing" data is reproduced in Storms. About $25 million on the airframe and $53 million on the engines.There were no flaws. Design modifications were being made to optimize certain characteristics. This is normal in any design. Aircraft number 21 would have been the final model I believe.No. Like any aircraft the Arrow would have evolved into other variants with stealth materials etc.
Mr. Palmiro, If an Arrow had escaped destruction, be it RL202 or another one, would the person or Country possesing it be guilty of possesion of stolen military property thus be relucltant to expose it to the public due to fear of legal recourse? Every time I drive past the static display of a Voodoo the Abbotsford Airport in B.C., I think of the Arrow that it tried to replace and my blood boils. My cousin was in the Canadian Air Force and they had a nickname for the Voodoo....the widow maker. Thankyou for "Storms of Contraversy".
I am not a lawyer and can only guess. They might be but I would be surprised that if they came forward with it now, that there would be any charges laid. I would hope Canadians would be so happy to see it back that the government would not dare press charges.
If Diefenbaker said no to the storing of nuclear and atomic weapons in Canada, then how could he have agreed to buy the Bomarc missile, which required a nuclear warhead. thanks
The Bomarc B was capable of carrying either a conventional non-atomic warhead or a nuclear one. Diefenbaker played on this duality even though a conventional warhead for the Bomarc B was never built.
Your mention of Charles Foulkes, the Chairman Chiefs of Staff and George R. Pearkes, the Minister of National Defence, becoming convinced that the Bomarc Missile was every bit as good as the Arrow and could do the same job as the Arrow and for a lesser price. Prompts me to ask the same question as you "who convinced these individuals that the Bomarc was every bit as good." I would say that it was the same group of US politicians that convinced the British to cancel their TSR2 and for the same reason. A sweet deal to purchase US made defence equipment such as the Bomarc and the Bloodhound missiles. I would venture to guess that the NORAD program was used as blackmail and there is a lot more information being witheld to this day. Who knows, this may have looked like a threat to Canadian sovereignty to Deifenbaker.
I don't know about blackmail but the US set up NORAD for their own protection much as they are now working on the new missile defence system that Canada has been resisting. Since an oncoming attack would likely come from the North, it made sense for the US to insist we participate. Because Bomarc seemed to offer high technology beyond mere aircraft, it didn't take a lot of convincing to get our people 'sucked in'. BOEING did its own share of convincing as well. Coupled to this was the perceived diminishing bomber threat, something else that was 'manufactured'. In the early fifties, the CIA created the "bomber gap" and by the late fifties they created the "missile gap" in an effort to spur missile development.

You mention that there is probably more to be told. In my latest manuscript I delve into this entire aspect in much greater detail as I have obtained more information. Stay tuned to spring 2003.
I've read that the F-22 is the first aircraft that can "supercruise";ie: it can fly at Mach 1+ without afterburners. Could the Arrow (mark 2) do this? It did almost Mach 2 with the US engines, the Iroquios had that much power dry. So the Arrow (in this respect) might have been some 40 years ahead.
Stoney Creek
According to the Arrow 2 spec sheet I have True air speed in level flight at sea level at combat weight - Max thrust with afterburning was 1,297 km/hr. Max thrust without afterburning was 1,232 km/hr

True Air speed in level flight at 50,000 at combat weight max thrust with afterburning was 2,125km/hr
I was just curious on the Avro arrow's engines the J75 and the Iroquois, were they designed and engineered by Canadians like the arrow itself? Also, in your opinion with how advanced the arrow was during that time, with the SR-71 being able to hit around mach 3.3 (I'm not sure what year that aircraft was able to hit that speed). Do you think that if the arrow was not cancelled that we would have surpassed that speed since the aircraft as so advanced, in other words with the arrow and our knowledge and achievement, at this point in time do you think it would've been possible for us to have an aircraft that would be faster than the SR-71?! Hopefully you can try and answer my questions, thank you.
The Iroquois was being designed by Orenda in Canada and the J75 was an American Pratt and Whitney design. The SR 71 design was started in September of 1959, after the Arrow cancellation though the idea existed earlier. Avro had a design for a Ramjet assisted aircraft that would have reached the speeds and altitude ofthe SR 71. They also provided the US with information about designing an advanced Arrow capable of speeds like those of the SR 71. The SR 71 was designed by the Lockheed Skunkworks. I was told some Avro engineers ended up there but I was unable to verify with names.
After working at McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing for the last twenty years, it was common discussion from the old-timers that had worked at Avro (My Dad included) that when everyone was sent home for a day before the closing that CF-106 or a finished unmarked unit disappeared. Is there any documentation about the construction that went on at the day of closure?
I am not sure what you mean by construction. The RL-206 nose section is in the Aviation Museum in Ottawa. There was some suggestion that RL-202 escaped because it does not appear in the destruction photos with the others.
Do you think if funding came to the Avrocar, would they restart the Avrocar study? Thank-you.
No, I don't think so however the Joint Strike Fighter employs a fan assembly for vertical take-off, similar to the principal employed in the Avrocar.
Mr. Palmiro I was just wondering why didn't the government give A.V.Roe the money it needed to at least save the Iroquois engine? There was obviously a market for it and why didn't they also give A.V.Roe the contract to build the f-104 starfighter under license? I heard that would have helped A.V.Roe get back on it's feet. There are some people who say that A.V.Roe put in a better bid than Canadair and the reason the federal government wouldn't give them the money to develop the engine and the contract for the f-104 was out of sheer spite. I was also wondering how much did the scientific research for a fighter plane cost back in the 1950's and how much had already been spent on the arrow fighter jet before it was cancelled.
I don't know about sheer spite. When the program was terminated, 55.4 million had been spent on the Iroquois development and it was estimated that another $53 M would be required to finish it. About $318 M had been spent on the entire project. France had an interest in the Iroquois but stopped its negotiations when they learned the Arrow program was going to be cancelled. The government had made no preparations for helping Avro continue with other work. I don't know that they fully realized that Avro would have to fire everybody the afternoon of the announcement, because of the way they worded the termination. You should see my latest book for full details of costs and other factors that came into play. With the company in ruins, they may not have believed Avro would be capable of taking on new contracts.
My question is with the failure of the Bomarc missile why did the Canadian Govt not attempt to re-initiate the Arrow project. I understand the cost and the loss of nearly all technical data yet as we see now more than sufficient sources remained?
When the Arrow was terminated, the highly talented team that built her was disbanded. Very little technical data remained. There were for example several thousand blueprints each in 8 foot long roles. You don't see this much information on the Arrow anywhere. In addition, most of the highly technical reports were destroyed. All the jigs, tooloing and fixtures were destroyed. Re-starting the project was not viable then and not likely now.
Not much has ever been said of the fate of the Iroqois engine, and I assume it was cancelled and destroyed like the Arrow. If this is indeed the case why was it not produced to power other aircraft.
I cover this in some detail in my latest book called Requiem for a Giant, available through this site or Chapters. At least one Iroquois was sent to Britain for study and it is said the Concorde engines were somewhat based on the design. One is in the Aviation museum in Ottawa. Most were destroyed. A potential contract with France for production was cancelled when France learned the Arrow was likely going to be terminated. The engine was still in the development stage when the program was killed.
If the Arrow were to survive, how large would the radar signiture be of the CF-105 and how stealthy would it be?
It was not designed as a stealth aircraft. It had no radar absorbent material but it did not have the protrusions ie missiles hanging down etc that would increase its radar image.
The introduction of the MiG-25 in 1967 caused many new competing planes to be developed by Soviet rivals-in short, an aircraft 'arms race'. Given the enormous advantages that the Arrow would have had over it's rivals of that time, its deployment would have caused similar effects. Such effects may have led to disastrous consequences, possibly even nuclear war. Isn't it better that the Arrow was not deployed?
I fail to follow your logic or your information concerning aircraft developments. The SR 71 was well in advance of the Arrow's, flying in the early sixties. Its development did not lead to nuclear war.
I have heard that the security at Avro was somewhat relaxed. For example: No gaurds patrolling the GRA. People entering the GRA without passes. Picture being release of the Arrow with access panels open. Workers being allowed to take pictures. The list goes on. I cannot verify any of these statements, and was wondering if you had any comment on this subject? Peter B.
Cold Lake AB.
For a classified development, there were photos of the Arrrow and the media was well aware of its development. Avro was not the American Skunkworks nor was the project inteneded to be. More importantly, there were Soviet moles in Avro. The RCMP was aware of that and were following at least one of them. This information came out many years ago, it was verified to me and a few years ago a KGB archivist known as Mitrokhin revealed documents showing the existence of a mole.
Based on your knowledge of the aircraft, what was considered to be the extimated life span of the Arrow if it went into production? Would it have flown into the 80's? Dave G.
Many aircraft from that era have done so but it is more likely that the Arrow would have evolved and been replaced by newer models or by an entirely different type of aircraft for roles other than high altitude interception, such as ground attack.

  Palmiro Campagna is an Engineer with the Department of National Defence. He has been researching the Arrow story since the early eighties and has been responsible for the declassification of many of the Arrow files thought to have been destroyed back in 1959. His books are based on those files. He is also the author of The UFO Files: The Canadian Connection Exposed, which has a detailed chapter on the Avrocar, Avro's flying saucer for the USAF/US ARMY.




© C© Copyright AvroArrow.Org, 2009. Materials may be freely copied and distributed subject to the inclusion of the copyright notice, and credit must be given to AvroArrow.Org. The site is intended for historical and informational purposes. This site contains links to other Internet sites. These links are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information in such sites has been endorsed or approved by this site.



ARC Logo Strip