4 ms·
That's a myth. The US government was offered the chance to buy the Arrow and all its intellectual property but declined. It was a promising design but it was
by na85 7y ago
That's a myth. The US government was offered the chance to buy the Arrow and all its intellectual property but declined.
It was a promising design but it was not the world-beating wonderplane that its reputation suggests.
- catalogia 7y agoFor whatever it's worth, on twitter Chuck Yeager has said he wasn't a fan of the Avro Arrow. He didn't go into details though. He's well into his 90s, so maybe he doesn't remember the details anymore. https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/936416735464366081 https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/936416735464366081
- yborg 7y agoProbably because you couldn't dogfight with it.
- catalogia 7y agoEh, maybe. But neither could the F-104 and he liked that plane. But the F-104 was also an American plane, so maybe that has something to do with it. Then again, he almost got himself killed in a rocket boosted NF-104. https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/643965329115185152 https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/643965329115185152 https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/1204703686099906560 https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/120470368609990656...
- byron_fast 7y agoYeah, maybe. But like in tech, it's easier to acquire or destroy a competitor than catch up.
- na85 7y agoThe US was offered the chance to "acquire their competitor" and declined. So was the UK. Meanwhile, American firms were testing prototypes that were faster and carried similar armament. Those prototypes were also cancelled. There is no conspiracy here.
- byron_fast 7y agoIt's not a conspiracy. Just business as usual where tech is concerned. The USA didn't want to see this tech fall into enemy hands; it was easier and cheaper to see it killed and hire the engineers as they came available. Acquihire, government style during the Cold War.
- na85 7y ago> The USA didn't want to see this tech fall into enemy hands I've heard this preposterous story several times and it never makes sense. If the US doesn't trust Canada to defend North America then explain NORAD (and the 5 Eyes for that matter).
- byron_fast 7y agoIt's not prepostorous. It's what it's like to be Canada - the smart upstart, in this respect - when you challenge the incumbent. Look to tech history for many similar examples.
- smegger001 7y agoNo bureaucracy is homogeneous. Especially the pentagon.
- namirez 7y ago> Those prototypes were also cancelled. Could you please name the program? AFAIK the 1954 interceptor program [1] was not cancelled, but perhaps you're talking about a different program. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-201 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-201
- tolien 7y agoThe XF-103 was an interceptor intended to do Mach 3 [1], the XF-108 likewise [2]. Both managed a single mockup each. The XB-70 [3] and B-58 [4] was intended to be the other end of the stick, a bomber which could carry nuclear weapons and fly at high speed (mach 2-3) and altitude (>60k feet). Two XB-70s were built, and one of those was destroyed on a PR outing for General Electric. The B-58 was operational for a decade before being replaced - the change from high altitude, high speed to low altitude, low speed compromised its range and made it far too expensive to operate; the Arrow would probably have suffered the same problem. The UK abandoned the TSR-2 [5] for similar reasons; the 1957 Defense White Paper reckoned the time of manned military aviation was over. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-103 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-103 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-58_Hustler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-58_Hustler 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2