Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

Ditto UK’s licenced H-34 as Wessex. Not happy in salt+humidity of HKG. 28 Sqdn’s were reskinned there to normal aluminium, which is why they could be sold on, to Uruguayan Navy.

Likewise magnesium was nothing new. much of the B-36 fuselage “barrel” was made of the stuff, as was, (I’m told) even common types as the Sikorsky H-19/S-55.

Don’t know about the H-19, but the H-34 was definitely magnesium alloy

And Willi Messerschmitt was designing and building sportplanes and GA airplanes in the 1930s using Elektron, which I believe is a magnesium alloy.

Id’ be interested to know how innovative the use of magnesium & titanium was in the airframe. Had they been used to any significant degree before? Certainly titanium was used in the SR71 a few years later – perhaps another cause of conspiracy?

Unlikely.
By the mid-50s, the US aerospace industry was requiring 500-600 tons of wrought titanium a month. I’ve read thatthe F-100 program alone accounted for something like a quarter of all US titanium use during the mid-late 50s.

Likewise magnesium was nothing new. much of the B-36 fuselage “barrel” was made of the stuff, as was, (I’m told) even common types as the Sikorsky H-19/S-55.

Titanium was first used in any quantity in the rear fuselage of the F-100.

Regards

Id’ be interested to know how innovative the use of magnesium & titanium was in the airframe. Had they been used to any significant degree before? Certainly titanium was used in the SR71 a few years later – perhaps another cause of conspiracy?

I think the answer is lies somewhere in these post , but basically too expensive for further development by Canada .& the USA not wanting such a sofisticated world beating competition on its doorstep !

I’d point out that a product can only be a “world beater” if there is a market for it.
I’d suggest that by the late 50s-early 60s, there was no market for a dedicated long range interceptor.

Please point out any put into production by the West after the CF-105 cancellation.
I’m not aware of any.

Thie argument would hold more water if the CF-105 were a multi-mission aircraft like the Starfighter, Phantom or MRCA/Tornado. But it wasn’t.

I think the answer is lies somewhere in these post , but basically too expensive for further development by Canada .& the USA not wanting such a sofisticated world beating competition on its doorstep !

Pressure?

I merely reported that side of the argument, I didn’t say I found it convincing. I rather agree with J Boyle’s view in post #7. If there is any truth in the ‘pressure from America’ theory, then it’s pressure from various American companies, not the country as a whole. Clearly Hughes would not be on that list. Possibly other companies with expensively developed products to sell into an increasingly small and specialised market might see things differently. I doubt there’s much available by way of proof either way.

As to the B-47 saga, yes, it was nice of the USAF to lend Orenda a ‘used’ aircraft, and allow them to hack it about rather drastically, but they’re only part of the whole military-industrial complex. (Incidentally, I always thought it was the stresses imposed on the airframe by mounting and particularly by running the Iroquois on the tail that caused the B-47 to be scrapped, not the level of modification per se.) There are/were those in Canada who saw the almost immediate scrapping of the B-47 on it’s return as bordering on a personal insult. That’s how conspiracy theories get started…

http://members.shaw.ca/b.bogdan/Arrow/avro_arrow.htm

To refute the pressure from America argument…
The USAF gave a B-47 to be used as the test bed for the Iroquois.It was modified to the extent that when it was retured to the US after cancellation, it was scrapped. Hardly the work of a government afraid of foreign competition.

Hughes had the avionic contract as I recall. Again, US firms stood to make money.

It was in the best interest of the US as a NORAD parter for the Canadians to have a modern aircraft. After the Arrow cancellation, the US gave canada two sizeable lots of F-101s to made up a interceptor force.

Was the US THAT worried about competition? I rather doubt it. The long range interceptor is a rather specialized bit of kit. Who would thay have sole it to? Who else needed them?

And Bill Gunston wrote that US firms tried to buy the Arrow prototypes as high tech testbeds following cancellation only to be turned down by the Canadian administrtion which seemed rather vengeful of the program.

Yes, the Canadians bought BOMARC missiles…as did the US. Again, referring to the Sandys report, they were the “in” thing.

The conspiracy theory has been cooked up by people who have to blame someone for everything. The Americans always make easy targets.

Something I made last year:
http://avroarrowsurvivors.blogspot.be/

Friends in Canada, one of whom was close to the project, have a variety of opinions. I suspect the whole truth will never be known. J Boyle has put one side of the argument. The others are these:

I suspect one could add to that list. Notwithstanding the above, the Arrow was undoubtedly a great design, and well ahead of its time. I remember reading somewhere that only the F-15C could out-perform it at high altitude, for instance. It undoubtedly had great potential, but at a price, and ultimately that price was more than could be justified, particularly as the world changed around it. It is, if one is brutally honest, one of the ultimate exemplars of the concept that ‘just because you can, doesn’t mean you should’.

My understanding put simply is the same as the TSR2, America never came up with it & didn’t want anyone else to have it!!!!!

Ooooh, I do love a good conspiracy theory! 😀

My understanding put simply is the same as the TSR2, America never came up with it & didn’t want anyone else to have it!!!!!

Not sure why it was cancelled and why it was not weaponized, I saw a lot of potential in this aircraft.

No one else has answered, so allow me to give you my opinions.

1. Cost. It was a very expensive program for a country like Canada. With a state of the art airfame, new engines and expensive U.S. avionics, the Conservative prime minister didn’t think it was needed. Why?…
2. It was thought by many people that the days of manned combat aircraft were over. The same thing happened in the UK after the Sandys report in 1957.
3. Even if you ignore reasons 1 & 2, The days of dedicated interceptors was coming at and end in the late 50s because of the realization that an attack would likely involve ICBMs as well as bombers.
The USAF cut its planned F-106 production and never developed/fielded a follow-on (I don’t think the F-12 was ever that serious of a program).
The RAF’s Lightning wasn’t developed either.

In short, performance and looks had nothing to do with it. Like the B-70 and TSR-2 it was decided it wasn’t needed (though I’ll make the case that there was a requirement for a TSR-2-type aircraft) whereas the B-70 and CF-105 were basically obsolete because of missiles and (in the case of the Arrow) the need for countries to field multi-use aircraft.