Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Was that the run recorded on the flight across the US? Because if it were then it would be the average/sustained speeed and altitude. The max could be at the higher numbers i mentioned, but for normal opperations it would be around mach 3.2 at 85 000 feet. It would make sense too because if it just jumped up to over 100 000 and mach 3.5 if a missile were coming after it or a plane was trying to intercept it, it would be far safer because you can't really turn in those conditions without losing control. That is just my guess on things, i have not read anything to specifically support that but my knowledge of the Blackbirds capabilities and tactics lead mr to such a conclusion (in case some people were wondering)

   

dgthe3

Firstly, to suggest that my interpretations of objective historical facts are subjective is both amateurish and banal. You are projecting your assertion’s limitations onto me, and it’s simply not true. Let me demonstrate:

1. Cost. You are failing to correctly acknowledge the historical particulars in your suggestion. The costs wouldn’t have come down because there were no buyers! We’re not dealing in potential here – that’s bad history. I’ve already alluded to this reality before, but I’ll quickly refresh your memory. Interceptors were dead (I’ve already mentioned Sandys’ White Paper – you do need to read more history) and consequently, so was the market. How would the Arrow’s cost have dropped if there were no large batch contracts (the RAF wasn’t buying and the U.S. had just cancelled the F-108)? To assume that the plane’s cost would have subsided is pure conjecture, as it was not going to find large purchases in the RAF, USAF, or the RCAF.

2. Wrong Plane? Nope, wrong again. This is NOT subjective – it was cancelled, thus making clearly it the wrong plane (from the RCAF and government’s position). That’s called an objective fact. Nice try. Furthermore, I’ve already explained this (either challenge the history or concede the point). For a brief time, major Western powers shifted primary strategic policies to ICBMs and manned interceptors (especially expensive ones, despite their technological prowess) are put on indefinite delay (see U.S. F-108 Rapier) – it is irrelevant that this shift was reactionary and incorrect, this was the era that the Arrow belonged to. That’s not subjective – it’s an objective historical truth.

3. Arrow vs. Phantom. You stated that, “the Arrow was to be better than the F4 in all areas except for range and possibly payload.” That’s wrong. Consider the following comparative data: The F-4 was faster (: 1,584 mph @ 48,000 feet (note an F4H – 1 claimed the absolute world speed record @ 1,606 mph. The recorded maximum speed during the record run (in a straight line) was over 1,700 mph) when compared to the Arrow Mk.II (which is pure speculation as this version wasn’t tested!) that potentially projected, 1,500 – 1,650 mph at 40,000 feet. Secondly, The early F4H – 1 set a time to height record of 82,000 feet in 3.8 minutes whereas the Arrow was estimated (Mk.II) to climb to 60,000 feet in 3-4 minutes. Thirdly, the operational ceiling of the F-4 was 62,500 feet, compared to the Arrow’s 63,000 feet – too close to call, but the F-4 Set 15 world aviation records within its first 28 months, including altitude (98,500 feet), 8 time-to-climb marks, and speed (Mach 2.59).
Moreover, the Phantom was a more versatile aircraft! It was designated as an all weather fighter-bomber whereas the Arrow was only an interceptor – former was a multi-role weapon that was better suited to changing military climate. The latter was replaced (albeit momentarily) by ICBM. F-4 proved to be a better plane than the Arrow. Want more comparisons? Try the YF-12.


4. F-108 Rapier – since the Arrow Mk.II’s specifications are constantly and deceivingly quoted (it represented the PONTENTIAL of the plane, but that’s not history. It’s speculation) why not compare it to another potential contemporary: the F-108 Rapier. The Rapier would have bested the Arrow (and it wasn’t even close!) in almost every major category. Its projected speed (1,980 mph with two GE J93s), ceiling (72,800 feet) and range would have put the arrow to shame and it was an interceptor too! It also fell prey to the same objective strategic shifts (not subjective) that theorized an abandonment of interceptors in favour of ICBMs

5. FBW -The first plane with fly by wire was the Avro Vulcan (first flight August 1952). The F 16 was the first to use FBW without mechanical back up. Both the F 16 and the F 17 were designed with relaxed static stability (the airplane uses an up load on the tail plane and is un-flyable without computers).

Anything else?

   

Norad,

Firstly, I’ll provide you with some sources, but I don’t peddle in web garbage. It’s academically lazy, scholarly problematic and largely historiographically unsound. These sources are all accessible through normal post-secondary research facilities – the fact that you can’t recognize the objective facts in my posts is curious as you seem to critique its particulars on a consistent basis. Hmm…

Secondary sources

1. Desmond Morton, “A Military History of Canada” (4th ed.)
2. Robert F. Dorr, “McDonnell F-101 Voodoo”
3. Andrew Chaikin, “Fallen Arrow” (Smithsonian Institute magazine)
4. Bill Gunston, “Early Supersonic Fighters of the West”
5. Michael Bliss, “Northern Enterprise”
6. Robert Bothwell, “Canada Since 1945: Power, Politics, and Provincialism”
7. Larry Millberry, “The CF-100 Canuck”
8. Dennis Smith, Rogue Tory. “The Life and Legend of John G. Diefenbaker”
9. Greig Stewart, “Shutting Down the National Dream: A.V. Roe and the Tragedy of the Avro Arrow” (2nd ed)
10. -----, “Arrow through the Heart: The Life and times of Crawford Gordon”
11. Robert Bothwell and Bill Killbourn, “C.D. Howe”

Primary sources

1. National Archives of Canada. C.D. Howe Papers
2. Canada. Department of National Defence. General Charles A. Foulkes Papers
3. United Kingdom. Duncan Sandys White Paper on Defence

I eagerly await your forthcoming historiography.

   

Robair,

Whether you are a pilot or not is immaterial to the discussion (no insult intended). What does that have to do with Cold War strategic shifts or geopolitics? The answer? NOTHING. Let’s try a different route: a mechanic works on a Camaro, he drives it and can quote verbatim all of its mechanical underpinnings, performance numbers and he even comes from a mechanic-influenced family. How does that make him an expert on General Motors, the Pony car market, automobile history, professional racecar driving and every other car in creation? The answer? It doesn’t

Your dogmatic adherence to this imaginary SR-71 angle is simply not supported by fact. The SR-71 bested the Arrow in practically every major category. The Arrow couldn’t touch it. Period. The Mig-25 couldn’t touch it. Period. The Americans – where is your primary evidence? – didn’t care about the Arrow in relation to it’s A-12/YF-12/SR-71 program. Why? There wasn’t a threat.

Secondly, and I’ll be interested in how you address this piece of history, if the Americans were so allegedly (which, of course they weren’t) worried about the Arrow’s potential ability (which isn’t true) to compromise their U-2 and A-12/YF-12/SR-71 programs, why did they offer to buy the planes for the RCAF? Oh-uh…now we’ve got some history to explain. This seems to seriously call into question your assertion as the Americans offered to buy the plane for the RCAF, but why would they do this if they we so worried about a relatively staunch Cold War ally possibly (still no proof) compromising their reconnaissance missions? Hmm…this might prove problematic to establishing your supposition.

   

Where did you get those performance figures for the F4? http://www.aviation-central.com/1946-1970/afna0.htm
i am not questioning your acedemic integrity, i am just intrigued as that appears to be a site for model aircraft. The figured mentioned there sound far closer to Blackbird than F4. For the comparison i used data estimated for the Arrow mkIII and general for the F4, a slight bias towards the Arrow admitably. The F4-H was likely developed much later than the original F4, as the design normally follows an -A, -B, -C ... and so on. The Phantom also had 1 advantage that i did not mention: turning radius.

As for the other things that you mention, well i guess we will have to agree to disagree. I personally do not wish to battle you on every single point here. I believe the Arrow to be a highly advanced aircraft for it's time, you seem to think that it was just another fighter from the 50's. That will determine our objectivity when analysing data. It is foolish to not think so.

   

DODGE!!! Don’t you ever admit that you are simply wrong?

Firstly, ask for my sources. Don’t pull some disingenuous stunt and suggest I aped a model site that contains the same innocuous information that legitimate sources also mention. I used the Observer Aircraft serious of books (I assumed most aircraft enthusiasts have heard of them) and Jackson’s Encyclopaedia of military aircraft (the Boeing website was also consulted) on the F-4. I also noticed you failed to concede the point. Sorry, but you were wrong and I’m still correct – you claimed that the Arrow was superior to the Phantom and when I demonstrated this to be erroneous, you still dodge the issue. In the future, why not simply state what you know and not what you think?




Wrong. The F4H-1 was one of the ORIGINAL designations assigned to the Phantom. It later reverted to F4H-1F, but this was lather changed to F-4A. It would greatly help if you stopped assuming objective facts, and looked up pertinent information before committing it to the forum. Incidentally, that information is from Jackson’s book – pp 252-253 to be precise.

Lastly, you put the Arrow on a pedestal that isn’t supported by historical reality. You clearly don’t appreciate or properly recognize its contemporaries, its cultural milieu or historical inquiry. I’ve matched each point with objective information that you can’t challenge – that’s not my problem. You keep pushing this bogus “subjective” interpretation angle that only serves to illustrate your inability to debate history. According to your fallacious argumentative logic, when you offer information (so far, it’s been exposed as largely incorrect) it’s objective, but salient challenges are unilaterally deemed “subjective” and dismissed as opinion. Sorry. Wrong again. The more you continue with this desperate strategy, the more uninformed you appear. You may like the Arrow, but, unfortunately, you evidently don’t know much about it. That’s not meant to be insulting (I’m working off what I’ve observed from your posts), but perhaps you could adopt a less myopic stance.

You want to “agree to disagree”? Nope. Sorry, I won’t concede my assertions (they have yet to be called into serious question by you), but if you want to bow out, that’s your prerogative. Just don’t intimate that I condone your use of me in your rationalization tactics.

   

Thanks, Mustang, and I do agree with you on web garbage; it's very hard to find any kind of reliable sources, and usually takes one longer to get to the bottom of things.

Give me some time, though.



I'm sure you will be.

One more thing, Mustang. I don't doubt that cost was a factor in the cancellation of the Arrow. I have suspicions that there were other forces at play; ones, I admittedly, cannot prove, but I cannot put them aside either. It's just my opinion - nothing more.

   

As long as people differentiate between “opinion” and “fact” than there’s no problem. Where issues arise is when some assume there is objective reality to their opinions and this somehow supersedes good history – this is how we get “Aliens built the Pyramids” or “JFK was assassinated by the Priory of Sion” and other such nonsense. When history takes a decidedly second seat to objective relativism, the point becomes moot.


Almost forgot to include one piece of avoidable trash on my list: Campagna’s “Storms of Controversy.” This unmitigated piece of amateurish literary pigswill has done more to muddy the historical waters surrounding the plane than most “Arrowphiles”. I’m always wary of those that quote it and state its theories as “fact.” They often sport tinfoil hats …curious.

   

The information that i saw on that site to try and validate the figures you provided was incredibly similar to what you wrote and i had never seen numbers like that for the F4. I did not have my book giving a technical description of all modern military aircraft on me, so unfortunatly i had to rely upon google.

You forgot the mind-controling flu shots! I agree that those ideas are pure garbage. However, as Nietzsche said: There are no facts, only interpretations". You cannot condem somebody because they think a different way than you do. There is nothing saying that your opinion is better than theirs. Once you ignore the other side of the argument, bad things can end up happening. That does not depend on which side you are on either. I do accept what you have said as possibly being true. Not once did i say you were wrong. I have asked you for clarification, i said i disagree, but i accept that your view is the most popular. I have never said that i am right either, and i have repeatedly asked if you want to agree to disagree with me, beacuse i am agreeing to disagree with you.

   

Agreed; I cannot argue with that.

   

Seriously, the blatant rationalization of your erroneous opinion is bordering on desperate. You are wrong. It’s not about interpretations or opinions; it’s about tangible, verifiable and objective truths. Your suppositions have been, so far, largely incorrect. Your data is flawed (F-4, FBW?), contextual comprehension limited (Cold War strategic shifts, Avro economic realties) and challenges impotent (where have I erred on fact? You haven’t demonstrated this). You cling to the objective relativist angle because you don’t want to concede the point (you still have yet to admit that you’ve made a litany of errors) and that’s your primary motivation for using this tactic.

Furthermore, you are clearly personalizing this, not me. I’m using tangible evidence whereas you obfuscate points with prosaic tripe like “it’s subjective” “there is nothing saying that your opinion is better than theirs” You evidently still don’t get it. I’m presenting a historical argument (check my sources) – it’s not an opinion. I don’t subscribe to this objective relativist immaturity – it’s logically fallacious and it reeks of intellectual immaturity. Your opinion isn’t correct (that’s not personable: it’s a statement of fact). It lacks factual weight. It’s been thoroughly dismantled by superior information that has yet to be successfully rebuffed. It’s an opinion – a personal idea unsubstantiated by evidence – and that’s it. It’s also wrong.

You can disagree with me – again, it’s your prerogative – but why unilaterally dismiss the copious amounts of evidence that calls your assertion into serious question? You have yet to concede salient points of fact and that makes me very suspicious as to your true intentions. If you want to harbour strange, personal feelings towards the Arrow's fate, go for it, but don’t pass it off as history. Don’t hide behind “it’s my opinion” like it somehow excuses poor scholarship – opinions are wrong. Many opinions are wrong, in fact. The Arrow was the wrong plane, at the wrong price, at the wrong time. That’s a fact and not an opinion.

You still want to “agree to disagree”? Nope. Sorry, I still won’t concede my assertions (they have yet to be called into serious question by you), but if you want to bow out, that’s your prerogative. Besides, I don’t disagree with you (it’s not personal), it’s your flawed argument that is the issue.

   

   

You have entirely missed my point. No insult intended.

When I said you can't throw out my theory because "The Arrow couldn't touch it.", I was pointing to the fact that the arrow was cancelled, what, five or six years before the preformance specs on the Blackbird were even known. (You do realize you are quoting numbers projected for the Mark2, right? You also realise that design numbers are almost always exceeded... engineers like to cover their asses.)

The CIA was looking to replace the U-2 in the mid fifties. It was a painfully slow aircraft and the Russians were making missles that kept flying higher and higher. The first test run of a Blackbird engine was in 1957. The CIA gave the go ahead to develope the Blackbird family in 1960. At the time of the Arrows destruction, the CIA had plans to build a bird that flew at 80,000' and 2,000mph, they knew this bird could be as far as seven or eight years away. The Canucks had an interceptor that could easily be able to engage such an aircraft. Especially with seven or eight more years worth of tweaks and upgrades under its belt.

I have read that they thought about offering to buy them, havn't read that the offer was actually made. It was also unclear (from anything I've read) who exaclty, in America was for the purchase of the arrows. The department of defense? Could be. But I bet the CIA didn't want their future toy challenged.

I am well aware of the official story. Did tons of reading on it in highschool (12 or 13 years ago). Even wrote a paper on it. By the official story, I mean the one you are arguing.

The problem I have with this story is it has never explained to my satisfaction why 300 million dollars worth of technology was cut up into itty bitty pieces and melted the fuck down. There is no sane reason for doing this. You know what you do with a real expensive plane you don't plan on activating right away? You store it. Then you have the option of activating it later (SR-71). Did you know that in the very short time between the Arrows cancellation and destruction, the Brits expressed intrest in buying what was already built? Just as long as Avro would continue to supply parts. Win win! For those unfamiliar with the manufacturing industry, you make a little money on the sale of the equipment, a lot of money on the sale of parts. It is also estimated that it cost more to cancell the project than it would have to complete it.

The yanks were preasuring Dief to buy a missle system. That is known. In no way could Canda afford that system AND the Arrow. This would also have been known to the Americans. A little side benifit for the CIA? I think so.

On a side note: Saw you guys talking about the F4. Did you know that the air inlets on that bird were designed after the Arrow? Apparently, some yanks were invited up to watch the Arrows wind tunnel tests. They were so impressed with the results of the square inlets (which they had earlier critisized) that they went back and changed the F4s to mach. Neat eh?

   

If you realise it or not, you have agreed to disagree with me . Thank you. That is all i have wanted for the last couple of days. I don't want you to concede your facts are wrong, because as i have said, i am in no positon to truly dispute them. I label your facts as your opinion to make comparison easier, as my opinions are clearly not facts. I know they are facts and not opinions, and my labeling them as such was probably wrong. i am glad that we have gotten over this trivial matter. If you believe that i had made this into a personal matter, i am sorry. That was not my intention. My intention has always been, believe it or not, to explain myself. Also, if you feel that i have been hiding behind words, you are mistaken. I have said things that were an attempt on my part to broaden your perspective, to get you to consider things that you may not have been thinking of, given the content of your posts.

All of that being said, i am sorry about any bad feelings that may have been caused by problems with typed communication.

   

When looking at the F4 and Arrow, from purely an appearance baisis, the two look kinda similar. some mods such as the shape of the wing and where it is located on the body. In particular i have noticed the air intakes, just never thought of the connection. This is now 100% pure speculation on my part, but i wonder how many design features are 'surprisingly similar' between the two? i doubt it is very much, but who knows? without the plans of the Arrow it would be difficult to tell, unless some Arrow engineers went over the F4's designs. I think anything found would be a coincidence though.

   

Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  Next