|
|
Post by faif2d on Nov 27, 2004 19:19:52 GMT -7
Watched the last 30 min. of a movie "Arrow" about the Avro plane of the same name. I remembered that this plane was very advanced at the time and that the USA killed it so we wouldn't look bad (or something like that). At the end they made the statement that the F-18 that Canada now has are not as high in performance as the Arrow. Anyone have further info?
|
|
|
|
Post by RetNavySuppo on Nov 27, 2004 23:53:02 GMT -7
I saw the same semi-documentary a couple years ago.
The answer to your question depends on your definition of "performance". Also, you are comparing two planes designed for two entirely different missions.
The Arrow was a high speed, high altitude bomber interceptor. It was supposed to have a very advanced radar and missile system (for its time).
The F/A-18 is a strike fighter. It is a light bomber and a fighter. When you factor in the modern air-to-air missiles it carries, coupled with its fire control system, and its maneuverability and countermeasures, it could eat an Arrow for lunch and not break a sweat.
The Arrow would be dead meat in a dogfight and unless the Arrow was already flying at its projected Mach 2+ speed AWAY from the FA-18, the Arrow would have no hope of out-maneuvering or outrunning a Sidewinder, Sparrow or AMRAAM air-to-air missile (missiles carried by various versions of the F/A-18).
Actually, IMHO, any modern fighter aircraft would be more capable than an Arrow, if the competition were held today. Remember, we are talking about a difference in technology of almost 50 years.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Nov 28, 2004 6:56:15 GMT -7
RetNavySuppo has it correct. In speed & altitude capability & in high altitude turns at speed, the Arrow would blow the F-18 out of the water. However, it was never intended as a dogfighter. It had an internal weapons capacity equal to a B-29, so all armament was internal (like an F-102/106), giving it pursuit (tail chase)capability against supersonic bombers, & it could pull 3-4 G at Mach 1.5 @ 60,000 feet without loss of speed or altitude, but it would be dead meat dogfighting a modern fighter. Interestingly, the Mig 25 is similar in performance, & is also an inept dogfighter.
|
|
|
|
Post by JimCasey on Nov 30, 2004 17:05:55 GMT -7
Wow! You guys are gonna get it from the Canadians!. The Arrow as the best plane that ever flew and it was a victim of a conspiracy between the Eisenhower administration and US Military Industrial Complex strong-arming the Canadians not only into abandoning the Arrow and using the much-inferior F-102, but sending the Arrow prototypes to the smelters instead of their rightful places of reverence. At least that's the way I heard it. (from he Canadians) Sure was a pretty plane, tho' I'm glad nobody ever tried to dogfight with an Arrow. With the portholed canopy, visibility would have been "limited" by modern standards.  |
|
Wayne
Story teller
Posts: 167
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 30, 2004 20:29:08 GMT -7
Actually they tried to use the Bomarc missle to replace it, then went to the F-101B's
It was a huge airplane and probably would not have gone as fast as we all would like to think it would have even with its intended engines. One of those retro dreams...woulda coulda shoulda...but we will never know for sure..
Trivia: what was the flying test bed for the Arrows engines?
|
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Dec 2, 2004 5:37:29 GMT -7
A B-47was used as the test bed. The engine was mounted in a pod on the starbord side of the fuselage aft of the wing. The Orenda PS-13 was so powerfull that it more than equalled the output from all three B-47 engines on the pod side. The Orenda did not die completely -- it was the technical template for the Olympus engines used in the Concord. The F-404 used in the F-18 is remarkably like a scaled down PS-13 replica. At 19,250 lbs dry thrust & 26,000 lbs with afterburner, it was hugely powerfull, even by today's standards -- and this was the undeveloped initial version. There were upgrades in the works which were to increase output to ~35,000 lbs for the Mk 3 Arrow -- on the drwing boards at the time of cancellation. the engine was quite compact for its output -- about the same physical size as a J-75, but 2,000 lbs lighter than the much less powerfull J-75.
As for the cancellation -- it was a Canadian Government decision, fuelled by rising costs and unremitting antipathy by the recently elected Conservative government of John Dieffenbaker. The Arrow program was a prodcut of the previous Liberal government & its success was perceived as a threat to the Conservatives continued tenure. The decision, not only to cancel the program, but to destroy the existing aircraft, tooling, parts & engineering drawings was an act of political vanadlism & sheer spite that cost the Conservatives dearly for decades. The RCAF also played a significant role in the Arrow's downfall by continually increasing its operational requirements during the development of the aircraft -- driving costs ever higher & giving the Conservatives a defacto excuse for the cancellation.
As for the plane itself -- it was a technical marvel -- fly-by-wire (in 1959!!!) Mach 2 + with the J-75s, projected Mach 2.3 for the Mk2 with PS 13, & Mach 2.5 for the Mk-3. Britain & Germany were studying the aircraft for use as a nuclear bomber (they had already done the engineering study for an Arrow-sized stand-off bomb) & the French had already requested 300 engines for an advanced Mirage.
The US role in the fiasco was to offer Dieffenbaker an alternatve for the Arrow -- Bomarc missiles & used F-101Bs at a "bargain" price. The Bomarcs were useless -- too inaccurate for use with conventional explosive warheads that were fitted & the Voodos offered a pale shadow of the Arrow's capability. But the Arrow was indeed removed as a competitor
|
|
