# March 25, 1958 -A Great Day for Canada



## ed2000 (Feb 16, 2007)

[video=youtube;KG04_Ixzhw4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG04_Ixzhw4[/video]


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Somewhere within spitting distance of 1960, Shiriff desserts included "wheels" as prizes/treats for kids in their packages of jelly and instant pie filling. These were poker-chip/"pog"-sized plastic things, with a picture of something on them. There was a series of "hockey wheels", "car wheels", and "airplane wheels". I collected all of them, and one of the airplane wheels was of an Avro Arrow. I remember well thinking that it was just the absolute coolest thing...next to the Studebaker Avanti coupe in my car wheels collection.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Wasn't that the project the Americans forced us to kill?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It was Dief who put the kybosh on it. I have no idea what sorts of economic or political pressures led to that decision.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

mhammer said:


> It was Dief who put the kybosh on it. I have no idea what sorts of economic or political pressures led to that decision.


I work with a couple ex-air force guys, they were yacking about it one day. I'll have to ask them what it was all about.

I remember those wheel things that came in the Jello. I loved them. Used to lay them all out of the floor in order, and try & get my mom to buy more Jello in the hopes of getting the ones I didn't have.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

The mystery of why every trace of the Arrow that could be found was destroyed is intriguing as well. One would think that all that technology and R&D would have been worth something in the aerospace industry to at least recoup some of the costs of the scrapped project.


----------



## DrHook (Oct 28, 2013)

The Avro Arrow was indeed killed by Diefenbaker due to pressure from the U.S. Instead we were encouraged to buy more beaumark missles. Canada would have had air superiority had the Arrow gone into production and put into service in the air force, and this was unacceptable to the U.S. who also feared the technology falling into foreign hands, hence the directive that all parts and plans be destroyed. There is a myth about one lonely Arrow being hidden away and the movie with Dan Ackroyd touched on that at the end where one "flew away" never to be seen again. My dad was an airframe tech in the service and the Arrow was always a favorite topic of ours. A great bird that should have been our crowning achievement. And is it any wonder that most of the technicians who worked on the project were coaxed away by the U.S. to the space program NASA.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Only a legend in Canada. The Americans got whiff that the Soviets were developing the Mig-25 which made the Arrow look like an Edsel. That pissed them off as it meant the west was way behind in aerospace technology. The Americans went to the drawing board, and pushed to pass those pesky Ruskies by planning to win the space race. I love those Mig-25s, even today they are impressive, Avro, not so much..........


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

It's really too bad we couldn't have produced that plane. With its superior speed and technology, we might have been able to kill more people than the USA has. What a proud feather in Canada's history that would be! Not.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

My dad and I built a model of an Avro Arrow together when I was a boy. He was an aero-engine technician in the air-force at the time and spoke very fondly about the Arrow.


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

And all of our innovative and brilliant engineers went to the US and helped the USA get to the moon. We had a chance to become dominat world leaders in engineering and aviation. Instead we became also rans.


----------



## DrHook (Oct 28, 2013)

Steadfastly said:


> It's really too bad we couldn't have produced that plane. With its superior speed and technology, we might have been able to kill more people than the USA has. What a proud feather in Canada's history that would be! Not.


Nothing like applying 2000's ideology to 1950's post war defense planning and innovation. Just as a spoon doesn't make you fat, nor a gun kill people, it's PEOPLE that kill people, and Canadians aren't Americans trying to maintain global superiority. Even if we had produced it en masse...do you think Canada would be involved in every skirmish around the world? Not likely...that's not who we are, I'm really kind of surprised you made a statement like that.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Actually, although unsubstantiated, it was able to reach the edge of space. In 1958! These are the kind of planes that Virgin and other space pioneers are spending huge bucks on now to deliver payloads into orbit. And they are still working on it. Can you imagine if Canada had developed that technology in 1958? We would have been able to be the leaders of space exploration 45 years ago. Imagine where we could have been now.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I heard it could fly to Jupiter on a drop of kerosene while making cappuccinos and ice cream at the same time while whistling Dixie............


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> I heard it could fly to Jupiter on a drop of kerosene while making cappuccinos and ice cream at the same time while whistling Dixie............


and it was very polite ..............


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> I heard it could fly to Jupiter _*on a drop of kerosene *_while making cappuccinos and ice cream at the same time while whistling Dixie............


It had to, because neither Tim Horton's or Loblaw's Black Label coffee existed at the time, so they had to go with a different engine technology.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

I actually saw the nose last week at the aviation museum in ottawa...it was my fav part of the museum

to think that, the Mk2 didnt have the actual engines in it yet when it did its flight, it still topped its speed out faster than most modern planes...imagine what it couldve been if completed...

also...while this plane is purely Canadiana, no one else remembers it, inthink its very intriguing that the myth is that there is still one missing...despite what the Government says

i also agree that its pretty strange that everything was scrapped, shredded, and/or destroyed...seems like an incredible waste


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Government is like that. New regime comes in and is followed by "intellectual genocide", whereby all traces of the thinking that preceded it are wiped clean. There are some hydrants that every dog has to lift their leg on.

I was part of a research group for 4 years, and when the larger mandate of our department was changed, and the boundaries between what we, and another department, were responsible for were changed, the unit was dissolved and all the research we had worked on and posted was summarily removed, like it never existed. Now you can only find it buried at Library and Archives...if you know it's there. There's not even any point of me including it on my resumé, because no one could ever find the documents to prove it was done.

The story of the Arrow is repeated, in so many ways, again and again and again......


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

DrHook said:


> Nothing like applying 2000's ideology to 1950's post war defense planning and innovation. Just as a spoon doesn't make you fat, nor a gun kill people, it's PEOPLE that kill people, and Canadians aren't Americans trying to maintain global superiority. Even if we had produced it en masse...do you think Canada would be involved in every skirmish around the world? Not likely...that's not who we are, I'm really kind of surprised you made a statement like that.


So you think it wasn't made to kill people?


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Steadfastly said:


> So you think it wasn't made to kill people?


Depends on perspective. it could saves lives?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

adcandour said:


> Depends on perspective. it could saves lives?


Yes, that's exactly what the missiles on those things are designed for, saving lives. WWII is a prime example, 45,000,000 lives were taken while saving lives, most of them civilian. Last century over 100,000,000 million lives were taken. War takes lives.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Yes, that's exactly what the missiles on those things are designed for, saving lives. WWII is a prime example, 45,000,000 lives were taken while saving lives, most of them civilian. Last century over 100,000,000 *million* lives were taken. War takes lives.


Um, I think you needed to leave the highlighted word out of there, since there actually weren't that many people on the planet over the course of the last century.

Small point, though. The larger point is that, while I am every bit as "unenthused" about war as you (to put it mildly), many technological developments that serve peaceful purposes arise in the course of developing things for purposes of aggression, or responding to aggression. The textbook case is cyanoacrylate (i.e., "crazy glue"), that was initially developed as s surgical adhesive during the Viet Nam war, so that wounds could be quickly closed up on the battlefield, and the wounded quickly brought to evacuation helicopters without losing too much blood. The reason why you don't want to get it on your fingers is because it was _meant_ to stick flesh together.

Personally, I'm not all that enthused about any proposed Mars missions. I figure we need to work on this planet before moving on to any others. But the planning for a Mars mission will undoubtedly generate innovations we hadn't had reason to think of previously.

Was the Arrow intrinsically a "war" plane? Yeah, but maybe the engineering research it relied on led to ideas that had applicability to peaceful purposes; the same way "peaceful" innovations end up getting used in warfare. It happens.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

LOL

It's great to see some hyperbole in a string that may, for the most part, be all about hyperbole anyways. No one really knows what the Arrow was capable of - but the stories seem to never get smaller.

Kinda like the old Kawasaki 2-stroke triples of the '70s. They went from a quick bike (when they were new) to an unbeatable, 'best bike ever' when most of them were wrecked and/or modded to death and there were very few to live up to the hype. 

And regarding war, lets all consider the great philosopher Spock: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". RIP, Spock. That 200 years seem to go by in, like, 50.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

mhammer said:


> Um, I think you needed to leave the highlighted word out of there, since there actually weren't that many people on the planet over the course of the last century.


Not 100 million people on the planet last century? You can look it up for yourself on the link below but the world's population figures from 1900-2000 are listed below. In 1900 alone there were 1.65 BILLION. That is quite a few more than 100 million.

Perhaps you mistakenly thought I was quoting "billion" in my post?

http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history1.aspx


1900133,000,000947,000,000408,000,00074,000,00082,000,0006,000,0001,650,000,0001950229,895,0001,403,388,000547,287,000167,368,000171,614,00012,675,0002,532,227,0002000811,101,0003,719,044,000726,777,000521,429,000313,289,00031,130,0006,122,770,00


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)




----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Steadfastly said:


> Perhaps you mistakenly thought I was quoting "billion" in my post?


It was because you wrote 100,000,000 million (or a hundred million million). I think.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

adcandour said:


> It was because you wrote 100,000,000 million (or a hundred million million). I think.


Perhaps that was it. I can see how that could be confusing. Thanks for pointing that out, Ad.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Yes, that's exactly what the missiles on those things are designed for, saving lives. WWII is a prime example, 45,000,000 lives were taken while saving lives, most of them civilian. Last century over 100,000,000 million lives were taken. War takes lives.


Your first mistake is in thinking that all lives are of equal value  That's not how the world works.
it boils down to us vs them. The grand total of casualties in war doesn't matter. all that matters is how many of our own we lose.
for example, every week I hear Don Cherry grieving during hockey about 1-3 Canadian lives lost during military activities. What gets obscured is, that in that same week, likely hundreds of middle eastern lives are lost on their own home ground as a result of the "war on terror". were they all terrorists? Doubtful.
But its hard to deny that in the medias eyes, 1 north American life is worth about 500 "foreigners".


----------



## DrHook (Oct 28, 2013)

Steadfastly said:


> So you think it wasn't made to kill people?


It was designed as an interceptor...and by definition that means it was for defense purposes. If we did not have defensive capabilities we would not enjoy the freedoms we have today...and whatever you think of the freedoms we have today then for one second think of what we might have instead had we not built up a defensive military and aligned ourselves with NATO. You made your point about war etc and killing people...so get off the cross..we need the wood. You can be an idealist and get clubbed like a baby seal or you can be a realist and have a defense strategy NOT an offensive strategy. Appreciate it for what it was...a Canadian technical achievement embedded in folklore. The MIG may have been better....but at the time...the Arrow was the best thing the free world could have had.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> _*Your first mistake is in thinking that all lives are of equal value*_  That's not how the world works.
> it boils down to us vs them. The grand total of casualties in war doesn't matter. all that matters is how many of our own we lose.
> for example, every week I hear Don Cherry grieving during hockey about 1-3 Canadian lives lost during military activities. What gets obscured is, that in that same week, likely hundreds of middle eastern lives are lost on their own home ground as a result of the "war on terror". were they all terrorists? Doubtful.
> But its hard to deny that in the medias eyes, 1 north American life is worth about 500 "foreigners".


That may be how the world thinks but that is not how God thinks and that is not how I think. 

What you say about the N. American media is, unfortunately, true in many cases.

- - - Updated - - -



DrHook said:


> It was designed as an interceptor...and by definition that means it was for defense purposes. If we did not have defensive capabilities we would not enjoy the freedoms we have today...and whatever you think of the freedoms we have today then for one second think of what we might have instead had we not built up a defensive military and aligned ourselves with NATO. You made your point about war etc and killing people...so get off the cross..we need the wood. You can be an idealist and get clubbed like a baby seal or you can be a realist and have a defense strategy NOT an offensive strategy. Appreciate it for what it was...a Canadian technical achievement embedded in folklore. The MIG may have been better....but at the time...the Arrow was the best thing the free world could have had.


I could not disagree more. War equipment is made to kill no matter how it is used and Canada has killed plenty and many times indiscriminately. How many innocent lives do you think the Canadian forces have taken in the last 100 years?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> That may be how the world thinks but that is not how God thinks and that is not how I think.
> 
> What you say about the N. American media is, unfortunately, true in many cases.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -


how do you know what God thinks?
his actions/inactions in these areas tell me all I need to know.
its easy to say from our safe cozy homes with well fed bellies that God is working and just, but tell that to some 3rd world kid who knows more about disease, war, poveryt, corruption, sickness and starvation that God loves him as much as he does you or I.

- - - Updated - - -



Steadfastly said:


> I could not disagree more. War equipment is made to kill no matter how it is used and Canada has killed plenty and many times indiscriminately. How many innocent lives do you think the Canadian forces have taken in the last 100 years?


 war technology has also prevented mass killing through deterrents.
or are you recalling that "Great Russian-American War " of the 20th century? Those were terrible times, huh?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> how do you know what God thinks?
> his actions/inactions in these areas tell me all I need to know.
> its easy to say from our safe cozy homes with well fed bellies that God is working and just, but tell that to some 3rd world kid who knows more about disease, war, poveryt, corruption, sickness and starvation that God loves him as much as he does you or I.


That is not God's fault but the present ruler of this world. There were two issues raised in the Garden of Eden that needed to be settled. The time for that is coming close but in the meantime, God has been very patient with humans. See below.

1 John 5:19; 2 Cor. 4:4 - The world's ruler
2 Peter 3:8, 9 - God's patience
Matt. 6:9, 10 - God's solution by means of his Kingdom government


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> That is not God's fault but the present ruler of this world. There were two issues raised in the Garden of Eden that needed to be settled. The time for that is coming close but in the meantime, God has been very patient with humans. See below.
> 
> 1 John 5:19; 2 Cor. 4:4 - The world's ruler
> 2 Peter 3:8, 9 - God's patience
> Matt. 6:9, 10 - God's solution by means of his Kingdom government


ahh...the old "God is all powerful, so when something good happens, he did it, and we need to give thanks, but when something bad happens he had nothing to do with it!" argument. <eye roll>
That must be where every CEO and politician learns it from.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

Cheezy...this is great...where'd you find this?



cheezyridr said:


>


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

ezcomes said:


> Cheezy...this is great...where'd you find this?


i took the pic myself at the air and space museum. as you can see i did a lousy job stitching the photo together



Steadfastly said:


> I could not disagree more. War equipment is made to kill no matter how it is used


it is a DEFENSIVE weapon. you do understand the concept of defense? are you saying that if a maniac breaks into your house you will not defend your loved ones and your property? i don't remember anything in the bible saying you couldn't defend yourself.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> i took the pic myself at the air and space museum. as you can see i did a lousy job stitching the photo together
> 
> 
> 
> it is a DEFENSIVE _*weapon*_. you do understand the concept of defense? are you saying that if a maniac breaks into your house you will not defend your loved ones and your property? i don't remember anything in the bible saying you couldn't defend yourself.


Yes, I understand what a defensive weapon is. It is made so it can kill more of the enemy than can be killed by the enemy.

You can defend yourself, of course, but you don't build up an arsenal to do so. I'm sure you remember that Jesus said those who take up the sword would die by the sword. You can't have it both ways. You either support war and nationalism or you don't. Christians were told to be no part of the world. Each has to decide for himself whether he supports nationalism or not. You can't be both. It's either one or the other.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> i took the pic myself at the air and space museum. as you can see i did a lousy job stitching the photo together


i know i'm not feeling good today...but i don't see a splice...i didn't even think that one, of ANY kind, was viewable...except for the nose at the Aviation Museum


----------



## ed2000 (Feb 16, 2007)

ezcomes said:


> i know i'm not feeling good today...but i don't see a splice...i didn't even think that one, of ANY kind, was viewable...except for the nose at the Aviation Museum


This 1:1 replica was made of paper mache and chicken fencing.

The original purpose of my posting this info was to show the technology produced by Canadians at that time. It's unfortunate politics and religion came into play and messed things up in this thread.



...edited comments as not to cause WWIII


----------



## DrHook (Oct 28, 2013)

Steadfastly said:


> I could not disagree more. War equipment is made to kill no matter how it is used and Canada has killed plenty and many times indiscriminately. How many innocent lives do you think the Canadian forces have taken in the last 100 years?


In every war innocent lives are going to be lost, but there is a difference between slaughter and accidental. Yes war equipment is made to kill....other people using war equipment. Do not for one second think that Canada is a war and killing machine, we have done our global part to liberate and or free oppressed people, and to ensure global stability. If a nation of innocents is being slaughtered by an invader and they cry out for our help...what are we to do...go marching in singing Kumbaya??? Peaceful protest has NEVER defeated an invading army, force must be met with force. I truly do respect your beliefs and opinions but I'm at a loss as to what you think a good solution is when another country declares war and invades or terrorists overrun the country. Considering the killing machines that have been manufactured to maximize human casualties...an interceptor for defense purposes is small potatoes...and as the saying goes..if we don't stand behind our armed forces, feel free to stand in front of them.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

ed2000 said:


> This 1:1 replica was made of paper mache and chicken fencing.
> 
> The original purpose of my posting this info was to show the technology produced by Canadians at that time. *It's unfortunate politics and religion came into play and messed things up in this thread.
> *
> ...


I know exactly how you feel.


----------



## DrHook (Oct 28, 2013)

ed2000 said:


> This 1:1 replica was made of paper mache and chicken fencing.
> 
> The original purpose of my posting this info was to show the technology produced by Canadians at that time. It's unfortunate politics and religion came into play and messed things up in this thread.
> 
> ...


Ed, I apologize for taking this thread off in another direction and I just wanted to say thank you for bringing up the Arrow...it's history is a fond part of my growing up.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

ed2000 said:


> This 1:1 replica was made of paper mache and chicken fencing.
> 
> The original purpose of my posting this info was to show the technology produced by Canadians at that time. It's unfortunate politics and religion came into play and messed things up in this thread.
> 
> ...


dude...i enjoyed the way the thread started...i think its a great part of canadian heritage that we should cherish and embrace

all the rest of this thread shows...is that people can make a mountain out of a mole hill...even one from over 50 yrs ago...when the world was a different place...

i posted awhile ago that perhaps we should practice what we preach to kids...if you have nothing nice to say, dont say anything at all...dont rain on others parades...if someone wants to remember/share/preach let them...tone snobs are turning into fun snobs


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

ed2000 said:


> [video=youtube;KG04_Ixzhw4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG04_Ixzhw4[/video]



I love the Arrow - such a magnificent machine. 

When I was in undergrad (in History) I did some work on the topic. I wanted to do some in grad school as well but was too busy doing other stuff relating to my thesis. I've actually got a calender (I believe it is a calender, I'll have to search it out again) in which the pictures of the plane are signed by the test pilots. But when doing work on the topic I remember reading various sources that claimed that with some upgrades to the engines, computer systems, weaponry, etc. the Arrow could still have been a front line fighter today because the airframe and design were so far ahead of their time. Now I am not an aeronautical engineer so have no idea if those claims are true, but I did read info like that in multiple sources so there might just be something to it.

Also, when my parents first came over from Scotland my Dad (a pipefitter/industrial plumber) worked for them. This was maybe a decade after the project had been killed and he still says that there were rooms on the blueprints of the factory (he would have to look at the blueprints to follow how some piping systems were laid out) that were completely bricked up and sealed off because they had been used when the plane was being built.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

DrHook said:


> The Avro Arrow was indeed killed by Diefenbaker due to pressure from the U.S.


While that was one reason for killing the project, it wasn't the only one.




> Canada would have had air superiority had the Arrow gone into production and put into service in the air force, and this was unacceptable to the U.S. who also feared the technology falling into foreign hands, hence the directive that all parts and plans be destroyed.



There were fears of a Soviet mole at Arrow, later confirmed by the Mitrokhin Archive.

And not all of it was destroyed, some pieces survived and were hidden away.





> There is a myth about one lonely Arrow being hidden away and the movie with Dan Ackroyd touched on that at the end where one "flew away" never to be seen again.


If one had survived surely it would have been revealed by now.




> A great bird that should have been our crowning achievement.


I couldn't agree more.




> And is it any wonder that most of the technicians who worked on the project were coaxed away by the U.S. to the space program NASA.



Many went to NASA and some went to the UK. Either way, Canadian expertise benefited others instead of benefiting Canada.


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

> Many went to NASA and some went to the UK. Either way, Canadian expertise benefited others instead of benefiting Canada.


And the less fortunate became math and applied mechanics teachers in my schools.


----------

