4 ms·
The Convair F-106 Delta Dart from the same era was likely faster (Mach 2.3 vs. Arrow's fastest test at Mach 2). And the Delta Dart was no great interceptor, th
by valuearb 9y ago
The Convair F-106 Delta Dart from the same era was likely faster (Mach 2.3 vs. Arrow's fastest test at Mach 2). And the Delta Dart was no great interceptor, they only built a few hundred. This was the era where Air Power doctrine had to painfully accept that high speed high altitude was becoming too vulnerable to SAMs.
The fastest war plane of the era was the North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie, which was an enormous bomber which cruised at Mach 3+ and 70,000 feet for nearly 4,000 miles. Neither the Arrow or Dagger could touch it, but SAMs could so it was canceled after a very successful test flight program.
The world changed to low altitude penetration, a role which would have cut the B70s range substantially because it's design actually far more efficient at Mach 3/70,000 feet than it was at Mach 0.95 at 1,000 feet.
- Pxtl 9y agoSpeaking of Convair, It's always a shame to read about all these companies from they heyday of aviation - so many companies making so many planes. I went to the Aviation museum in Ottawa and looked at all the forgotten names... Canada used to have multiple brands of aircraft manufactures, making multiple combat planes. The USA had a plethora of manufactures I can't even keep track of them all. Now? We have just Bombardier, who makes solid passenger craft and fails to make large jetliners and LRVs.
- pinewurst 9y agoI would disagree that the F-106 wasn't a great interceptor as it apparently was (and was a pleasure to fly). The issue is that by the time it made it to production, the major threat had become the ICBM rather than the bomber. USAF Air Defense Command in general was defunded but ABM never took its place.
- valuearb 9y agoWell my greater point was that high speed high altitude intercepters were becoming obsolete while the Arrow was being built. As much a pleasure as the Delta Dart may have been to fly, it wasn't produced in great numbers because it wasn't designed for the new threats.
- switchbak 9y agoSure, but the performance envelope on the Arrow was not even close to being tested - it was cancelled before it was fitted with the engines it was actually designed to use. Some of the maximum performance numbers are overstated for sure, but it's hard to say what it's real performance would have been. Similar things can be said for the range - the final numbers for that _should_ have been much higher. Also keep in mind, this was designed as an interceptor for defence of the vastness of Canada against Russian long-range bombers. It wasn't just about speed, but the combination of speed, range, and advanced avionics that made the Arrow important. I don't know why you'd compare this to the XB-70, they're vastly different designs for different purposes. When Sputnik and the threat of ICBMs loomed, most assumed interceptors were a waste of time - which turned out to be a premature assumption. All in all, it was probably the right decision to cancel the program, as it's costs has spiralled out of control - but to make direct comparisons of production aircraft to prototypes seems unfair.
- hydrogen18 9y agoI wouldn't hold up any Century Series aircraft as an example of anything other than extravagant expenditure. They were all garbage when compared against the actual missions they needed to perform. That was mostly the result of brain dead acquisitions on the part of the DoD.