Relics of Canada's fleeting aeronautic might
Newsbot @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:24 am
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=27825" target="_blank">Relics of Canada's fleeting aeronautic might</a> (click to view)
<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/14-misc-cdn" target="_blank">Misc CDN</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=tritium" target="_blank">tritium</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2007-12-03 03:43:37
<strong>Canadian</strong>
-Mario- @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:24 am
Good post Tritium.
CapeApe @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:31 am
an excellant read....heres hoping the items don't end up in a private collection for noone to enjoy..
BartSimpson @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:51 am
CapeApe CapeApe:
an excellant read....heres hoping the items don't end up in a private collection for noone to enjoy..
Raise the money to buy them and have them donated to a museum...where they'll be conserved and locked away for no one to enjoy.
sasquatch2 @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:29 am
$1:
However, the version embraced by most, if not all, of Canada's leading historians is that A.V. Roe was a chaotically run company, development of the Arrow was way over cost and behind schedule, and the Liberal government that preceded the Diefenbaker administration had long-standing plans to pull the plug on it.
The aircraft was too expensive for the RCAF alone, but no other country was interested in buying it. Moreover, the threat of manned bombers was giving way to unmanned intercontinental missiles against which the Arrow would be no defence and, beautiful as it was, there were some flaws in its design.
The aircraft was too expensive for the RCAF alone, but no other country was interested in buying it. Moreover, the threat of manned bombers was giving way to unmanned intercontinental missiles against which the Arrow would be no defence and, beautiful as it was, there were some flaws in its design.
That is the view I hold.
The Arrow was not even a viable defence against manned bombers. It lacked a firecontrol system and a weapon system both of which were beyond the technical ability of the US to produce at that point. The "braindrain" south did eventually resolve those issues but with many false starts. It was a decade later with the development of transistors that the required systems emerged.
It is rather amusing that this "ficticious" trove of manuals and documents should surface at this point.
The HOCKEY PUCKs who so gleefully ridicule the notion of the "one that got away" have a problem.
Based upon the unfounded notion that all jigs, drawings, and aircraft etc. were destroyed at the time
they now have a bit of a problem, with this trove and in the face of many sightings of the missing bird long after the fact. The witnesses are restrained by constraints such as "secrets acts" etc. meanwhile the very same dingdongs endorse the Goricals new religion in it's entirity.
TheFoundersIntent @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:58 am
Maiden flight: 25 March 1958
Crew: 2
Length: 77 ft 9 in (23.71 m)
Wingspan: 50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)
Height: 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m)
Wing area: 1,225 ft² (113.8 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 0003.5 mod root, NACA 0003.8 tip
Empty weight: 49,040 lb (22,245 kg)
Loaded weight: 56,920 lb (25,820 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 68,605 lb (31,120 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney J75-P-3 turbojets
Dry thrust: 12,500 lbf (55.6 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 23,500 lbf (104.53 kN) each
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (1,307 mph, 2,104 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Cruise speed: Mach 0.91 (607 mph, 977 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
Range: 360 NM (410 mi, 660 km)
Service ceiling: 53,000 ft (16,150 m)
Wing loading: 46.5 lb/ft² (226.9 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight:
Dry: 0.439
With afterburner: 0.650
Maiden flight: 27 May 1958
Crew: 2
Length: 63 ft 0 in (19.2 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4.5 in (11.7 m)
Height: 16 ft 6 in (5.0 m)
Wing area: 530.0 ft² (49.2 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 0006.4-64 root, NACA 0003-64 tip
Empty weight: 30,328 lb (13,757 kg)
Loaded weight: 41,500 lb (18,825 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 61,795 lb (28,030 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric J79-GE-17A axial compressor turbojets, 17,845 lbf (79.6 kN) each
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0224
Drag area: 11.87 ft² (1.10 m²)
Aspect ratio: 2.77
Fuel capacity: 1,994 US gal (7,549 L) internal, 3,335 US gal (12,627 L) with three external tanks
Maximum landing weight: 36,831 lb (16,706 kg)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.23 (1,472 mph, 2,370 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
Cruise speed: 506 kn (585 mph, 940 km/h)
Combat radius: 367 NM (422 mi, 680 km)
Ferry range: 1,403 nmi (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
Rate of climb: 41,300 ft/min (210 m/s)
Wing loading: 78 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.86
Lift-to-drag ratio: 8.58
Takeoff roll: 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb (24,410 kg)
Landing roll: 3,680 ft (1,120 m) at 36,831 lb (16,706 kg)
Amazing similarity.
sasquatch2 @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:34 pm
The major claim to fame for the F4 Phantom was that it proved the principle with enough power you could get a brick to fly.
A closer relationship is the B58 Hustler, which flew in record time from drawing board, coincidently a project which commenced just after the Arrow was cancelled.
Canadaka @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:38 pm
I went to 2 Canadian aeronautic museums this summer, one at the Trenton base and the other one in Ottawa. Was very cool.
