Jump to content

Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

From Alfawiki
Avro Canada
Company typeDivision of Hawker Siddeley Group
IndustryAerospace, Defence
Founded1945
Headquarters
Malton, Ontario
,
Canada
ProductsAircraft (notably CF-100 Canuck, CF-105 Arrow)


Template:Good article Template:Use Canadian English Template:Infobox aircraft

The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was an advanced interceptor aircraft featuring a delta wing configuration, engineered and produced by Avro Canada. Designed to achieve speeds of up to Mach 2 at altitudes above 50,000 feet (15,000 m), it was intended to be the primary interceptor for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) throughout the 1960s and beyond.[1]

Originating from a series of design explorations initiated in 1953 aimed at enhancing the capabilities of the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck, the Arrow represented a significant leap in performance. Following extensive evaluation, the RCAF chose a far more powerful concept, leading to formal development starting in March 1955. Rather than progressing through the conventional prototype stage, the aircraft was planned to be manufactured directly on the production line. The first Mk. 1 Arrow, designated RL-201, was unveiled publicly on 4 October 1957, coinciding with the launch of Sputnik I.

Flight trials began with RL-201 on 25 March 1958, swiftly confirming superior handling and strong overall performance, including reaching Mach 1.9 in level flight. Equipped with the Pratt & Whitney J75 engine, four additional Mk. 1 aircraft—RL-202 through RL-205—were completed. Soon after, the more powerful and lighter Orenda Iroquois engine became available for testing, and the initial Mk. 2 model fitted with this engine, RL-206, was prepared for taxi trials ahead of flight and acceptance testing by RCAF pilots in early 1959.

Efforts were made to market the Arrow to both the United States and the United Kingdom; however, no sales agreements were finalized.[2]

On 20 February 1959, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker unexpectedly terminated development of both the Arrow and its Iroquois powerplant prior to a planned project review intended to assess progress.[3][4] Two months later, directives were issued to dismantle the assembly line along with all tooling, blueprints, existing airframes, and engines. The cancellation sparked significant political debate at the time; moreover, the subsequent destruction of all completed aircraft remains a subject of discussion among historians and aviation experts. This decision effectively ended Avro’s operations and dispersed its highly skilled engineering and manufacturing workforce.[5]

Background

File:Avro Arrow Replica CanadianAirAndSpaceMuseum Toronto.jpg
Life-size model of the CF-105 Arrow displayed at the Canadian Air and Space Museum, Toronto

Following the conclusion of World War II, the Soviet Union initiated the creation of a formidable fleet of long-range bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons across North America and Europe.[6] The primary menace consisted of swift, high-altitude bombing missions originating from Soviet territory over the Arctic, targeting military installations and industrial hubs in Canada and the United States.[7] To counteract this danger, Western nations developed interceptor planes designed to intercept and neutralize these bombers prior to their reaching strategic objectives.[8][9]

Established in 1945 as a division of the Hawker Siddeley Group, A. V. Roe Canada Limited initially focused on aircraft maintenance and repair at Malton, Ontario, now known as Toronto Pearson International Airport. The following year, Avro Canada embarked on designing Canada's inaugural jet fighter for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), resulting in the Avro CF-100 Canuck all-weather interceptor.[10] Despite encountering an extended and challenging prototype phase, the Canuck entered operational service in 1953.[11] It ultimately became one of the most durable aircraft in its category, fulfilling various roles until its retirement in 1981.[12]

Aware that delays which impacted the CF-100's development could similarly affect its replacement—and that emerging Soviet jet bombers would soon render the Canuck obsolete—the RCAF initiated efforts to find a supersonic, missile-equipped successor even before the CF-100 entered service.[13] In March 1952, Avro Canada received the RCAF's Final Report of the All-Weather Interceptor Requirements Team.[14]

Higher speeds

By this stage, Avro's engineering team was already investigating challenges related to supersonic flight. Supersonic travel operates under fundamentally different principles and introduces several novel difficulties. One particularly significant issue was the abrupt emergence of a new type of aerodynamic resistance known as wave drag. This phenomenon was so pronounced that contemporary engines lacked sufficient thrust to overcome it, giving rise to the notion of a "sound barrier".[15]

During World War II, German research demonstrated that wave drag onset could be substantially diminished by employing airfoils with curvature changes distributed as smoothly as possible. This insight led to proposals for thinner airfoils featuring much longer chords than typically used on subsonic designs. However, these configurations were impractical due to limited internal wing space for fuel or weaponry.[16]

Additionally, German engineers found that by sweeping a conventional thicker airfoil rearward at a steep angle—a design known as a swept wing—the airflow could be manipulated to mimic the beneficial characteristics of thinner airfoils. This approach preserved essential internal volume for structural strength and fuel storage while reducing wave drag effects. Another benefit was positioning the wings outside the supersonic shock wave emanating from the aircraft’s nose.[16]

In response, nearly all postwar fighter projects adopted swept-wing designs that began appearing on production fighters by the late 1940s. Avro engineers experimented with swept-wing and tail alterations on an advanced CF-100 variant called the CF-103, which progressed to wooden mock-up construction. The CF-103 aimed to enhance transonic performance and achieve supersonic speeds during dives. Meanwhile, ongoing improvements to the standard CF-100 gradually narrowed performance gaps.[17] When a CF-100 surpassed the sound barrier on December 18, 1952, enthusiasm for further CF-103 development diminished.

Delta wings

Template:Quote box

The delta wing emerged as an alternative approach to addressing high-speed flight challenges. Sharing many benefits with swept wings concerning transonic and supersonic capabilities, delta wings offered substantially greater internal volume and surface area. This increase allowed for enhanced fuel storage, critical given the inefficiency of early jet engines, and the expansive wing area generated sufficient lift at elevated altitudes. Additionally, delta wings permitted slower landing speeds under certain conditions compared to swept-wing designs.[18]

However, this wing configuration did present drawbacks, such as elevated drag at lower speeds and altitudes, particularly during maneuvering. For an interceptor aircraft, these issues were relatively minor since operational profiles involved predominantly straight-line flight at high altitude and speed, thereby minimizing these disadvantages.[18]

Subsequent delta wing-based concepts led to two variants under the C104 designation: the single-engine C104/4 and the twin-engine C104/2.[14] Both featured a low-mounted delta wing combined with a sharply angled vertical stabilizer. The twin-engine C104/2 offered advantages including improved reliability and increased size, which accommodated a significantly larger internal weapons bay.[19] These designs were formally presented to the RCAF in June 1952.[20]

AIR 7-3 and C105

Extensive consultations between Avro and the RCAF explored numerous size and configuration options for a supersonic interceptor, culminating in the issuance of RCAF Specification AIR 7-3 in April 1953. This specification mandated a two-seat, twin-engine aircraft capable of covering 300 nautical miles (556 km) on a typical low-speed mission and 200 nmi (370 km) during high-speed intercepts. Operational requirements included takeoff from runways no shorter than 6,000 ft (1,830 m), cruising at Mach 1.5 at 70,000 ft (21,000 m), and maintaining 2 g turns without loss of speed or altitude at Mach 1.5 and 50,000 ft altitude. The aircraft was also required to reach Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet within five minutes of engine start and have a ground turnaround time under ten minutes.[21] A delegation led by Ray Foottit evaluated American manufacturers as well as British and French firms, concluding that no existing or planned aircraft fulfilled these criteria.[22]

In January 1955, Avro projected performance figures for the Arrow Mk 2 equipped with Iroquois engines during a British assessment titled Evaluation of the CF.105 as an All Weather Fighter for the RAF: maximum speed of Mach 1.9 at 50,000 feet; combat speed Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet with sustained 1.84 g without energy loss; climb to 50,000 feet in 4.1 minutes; service ceiling climb rate of 500 feet per minute up to 62,000 feet; operational radius of 400 nautical miles on high-speed missions and 630 nautical miles on low-speed missions; ferry range estimated at approximately 1,500 nautical miles.[23]

Avro submitted an updated C105 design in May 1953—a two-seat adaptation of the C104/2 concept—which featured a "shoulder-mounted" wing configuration facilitating rapid access to internal components such as the weapons bay and engines. This wing placement allowed construction as a single structural unit atop the fuselage, simplifying assembly while enhancing structural integrity. However, accommodating long main landing gear within the slender delta wing presented engineering challenges. Five wing sizes were proposed ranging from 1,000 ft2 to 1,400 ft2 (93 m2 to 130 m2); ultimately, the 1,200 ft2 (111 m2) variant was selected.[24]

The primary engine choice was the advanced two-spool Rolls-Royce RB.106, delivering approximately 21,000 pounds-force (93 kN) thrust. Alternative options included the Bristol Olympus OL-3, its American-built counterpart Curtiss-Wright J67, or the Orenda TR.9 engines.[25]

Armament was housed within an extensive internal bay located beneath the fuselage, occupying over one-third of its volume. This bay could accommodate various weaponry such as the Hughes Falcon guided missile, the CARDE Velvet Glove air-to-air missile, or up to four general-purpose bombs weighing 1,000 pounds each.[26] The Velvet Glove missile had been under RCAF development for some time but was deemed unsuitable for supersonic operations and lacking future development potential; consequently, its program was terminated in 1956.[27]

The proposal received approval in July 1953 with Avro authorized to proceed with an extensive design study under the project designation "CF-105".[28] By December that year, CA$27 million was allocated for flight modeling efforts initially limited in scope. However, following the Soviet introduction of the Myasishchev M-4 Bison bomber and hydrogen bomb tests shortly thereafter, Cold War priorities shifted significantly.[29] In March 1955, funding increased substantially to CA$260 million for producing five Arrow Mk.1 flight-test aircraft followed by thirty-five Arrow Mk.2 units equipped with production-standard engines and integrated fire-control systems.[30]

Production

File:Cf-105 Arrow002.jpg
RL-204, late 1958

To adhere to the RCAF's schedule, Avro chose to implement the Cook-Craigie plan for the Arrow project. Traditionally, aircraft development involved hand-building a limited number of prototypes to identify and resolve issues before establishing a production line. In contrast, the Cook-Craigie approach prioritized setting up the production line first, then manufacturing a small batch of aircraft as production models.[31][32] Modifications were integrated into the tooling during ongoing testing, with full-scale production commencing only after completing the flight test program. Jim Floyd remarked on this method as being high-risk: "it was decided to take the technical risks involved to save time on the programme ... I will not pretend that this philosophy of production type build from the outset did not cause us a lot of problems in Engineering. However, it did achieve its objective."[33]

To reduce potential risks, an extensive testing regimen was initiated. By mid-1954, initial production drawings had been released and wind tunnel experiments started, complemented by comprehensive computer simulations conducted in both Canada and the United States using advanced computational software.[34] Concurrently, nine instrumented free-flight scale models were launched with solid-fuel Nike rocket boosters from Point Petre over Lake Ontario, while two additional models were deployed from NASA’s Wallops Island facility in Virginia over the Atlantic Ocean. These tests aimed to evaluate aerodynamic drag and stability at speeds exceeding Mach 1.7 before the models were deliberately crashed into water.[35][36]

The findings indicated only minor adjustments were necessary, primarily concerning wing shape and placement. To enhance performance at high angles of attack, the wing’s leading edge was drooped noticeably on outer sections; a dog-tooth was added near mid-span to manage spanwise airflow,[37] and a slight negative camber was applied across the wing to help regulate trim drag and reduce pitch-up tendencies.[38] The design also incorporated the area rule, publicly disclosed in 1952, which led to several modifications such as adding a tailcone, refining the radar nose contour, slimming down intake lips, and decreasing fuselage cross-section beneath the canopy.[33]

The airframe construction followed conventional methods featuring a semi-monocoque structure and a multi-spar wing design. The fuselage included some use of magnesium and titanium, with titanium primarily confined to engine areas and fasteners due to its high cost and machining challenges.[39]

Given the Arrow’s slender wing profile, it necessitated aviation’s inaugural 4,000 psi (28 MPa) hydraulic system capable of delivering sufficient force to control surfaces while employing compact actuators and piping. A basic fly-by-wire mechanism was implemented whereby pilot inputs were detected via pressure-sensitive sensors in the control stick; these signals controlled an electronic servo that operated hydraulic valves to move flight controls. This arrangement eliminated direct mechanical feedback to the pilot’s stick, resulting in no natural control feel. To address this, an "artificial feel" system was developed: it monitored hydraulic back-pressure changes and activated actuators within the stick to simulate tactile feedback—a pioneering innovation.[40]

The cancellation of the RB.106 engine program in 1954 forced adoption of the backup Wright J67. However, when that engine was also discontinued in 1955, the design was left without a powerplant. Subsequently, the Pratt & Whitney J75 engine was chosen for initial test units while Orenda developed the TR 13 engine for production Mk. 2 models.[41]

Following assessments of engineering mock-ups and a full-scale wooden model in February 1956, the RCAF requested further modifications by selecting the advanced RCA-Victor Astra fire-control system paired with the sophisticated United States Navy Sparrow II missile instead of the MX-1179 and Falcon combination. Avro strongly opposed this change since neither new system had undergone testing yet, whereas both MX-1179 and Falcon were near production readiness and offered comparable effectiveness at significantly lower cost.[42] The Astra system encountered prolonged delays, and after the USN cancelled Sparrow II in 1956, Canadair was rapidly engaged to continue Sparrow development domestically despite expressing serious concerns about feasibility and added expenses.[43]

Rollout and flight testing

File:Unveiling of CF-105 Dévoilement de l’aéronef CF-105 (49553834541).jpg
Presentation of the CF-105 on October 4, 1957. Pilots Ron Hodge (left), Ed Wright (right).

Approval to commence production was granted in 1955. The inaugural CF-105, designated RL-201, was unveiled on 4 October 1957. Avro sought to maximize the impact of this milestone by inviting over 13,000 attendees to the event.[44] However, the launch coincided with the debut of Sputnik, which overshadowed media coverage and public interest in the Arrow's rollout.[8][45]

The J75 engine installed was marginally heavier than the PS-13, necessitating the addition of ballast in the nose to restore proper centre of gravity balance. Furthermore, since the Astra fire-control system was incomplete, ballast substituted for it as well. The weapons bay, otherwise left unused, housed various test apparatus.[46]

Template:Quote box

The maiden flight of RL-201 occurred on 25 March 1958 with Chief Development Test Pilot S/L Janusz Żurakowski at the helm.[47] Over the subsequent eighteen months, four additional Mk 1 aircraft powered by J75 engines were delivered. These initial test flights focused on validating concepts and evaluating flight behavior, uncovering no critical design flaws.[48][49] The CF-105 exhibited outstanding handling across its entire flight range, largely attributable to its delta wing design and enhanced by the aircraft’s Stability Augmentation System.[50] Supersonic speed was first achieved on its third sortie,[47] and during its seventh flight it surpassed 1,000 mph (1,600 km/h) at an altitude of 50,000 ft (15,000 m) while climbing. A maximum velocity of Mach 1.98 was recorded without reaching performance limits.[51] A report released by Avro in 2015 clarified that during peak speed trials, steady level flight reached Mach 1.90 with a higher indicated Mach number of 1.95 observed in a dive.[52] The figure of Mach 1.98 likely stemmed from adjustments accounting for lag errors expected during diving maneuvers.[53]

While no significant issues arose during early testing stages, minor difficulties with landing gear and flight controls required correction. The narrow tandem main landing gear[Note 1]—designed to fit within the wings—had a shortened leg that rotated when retracted.[54] On 11 June 1958, a malfunction in the chain mechanism responsible for shortening the gear caused a jam during landing with Arrow RL-201, resulting in a runway excursion and collapse of the landing gear.[55][51] Another incident involving Arrow RL-202 occurred on 11 November 1958 when flight controls commanded full downward elevon deflection during landing; this reduced tire contact weight and friction causing brake lockup and gear collapse.[56] Photographic evidence confirmed that inadvertent activation of flight controls triggered this accident.[57] The sole occasion a test mission diverted was on 2 February 1959 when a Trans-Canada Airlines Vickers Viscount made an emergency crash landing in Toronto, forcing an alternate landing at RCAF Trenton.[58]

Extensive refinement was also necessary for the stability augmentation system.[51] Although earlier aircraft had experimented with such systems,[Note 2] this system presented challenges. By February 1959, these five prototypes had completed most company-led testing and were advancing toward RCAF acceptance evaluations.[60]

Political considerations

Beginning in 1953, certain high-ranking Canadian military leaders within the chiefs of staff started expressing doubts about the program. The chiefs of staff from both the army and navy were firmly against the Arrow, arguing that "significant financial resources were being redirected to the air force," whereas Air Marshal Hugh Lester Campbell, Chief of Staff of the RCAF, remained a staunch supporter up until the program’s termination. Following the June 1957 federal election, when the Liberals were defeated and a Progressive Conservative administration led by John Diefenbaker assumed power, the outlook for the aircraft shifted considerably. Diefenbaker's campaign emphasized curbing what his party labeled as "excessive Liberal expenditures." Despite this stance, by 1958, the parent company had grown into Canada's third-largest corporation, with core interests spanning rolling stock, steel and coal production, electronics, and aviation across 39 subsidiaries operating under A. V. Roe Canada.

In September 1957, the Diefenbaker government formalized Canada's participation in the NORAD (North American Air Defense) Agreement with the United States, establishing a joint command and control arrangement. At this time, the USAF was advancing towards full automation of their air defense network through the SAGE system and extended an invitation to Canada to share this classified technology for continental air protection. A key component of SAGE was the nuclear-armed Bomarc anti-aircraft missile. This development prompted evaluations on deploying Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil to extend the defensive perimeter northward, despite recognizing that such deployment would incur substantial expenses. The missile installation alone was projected to cost C$164 million, with an additional C$107 million allocated for SAGE infrastructure enhancements, excluding radar upgrades. Defence Minister George Pearkes anticipated these measures would increase Canada's military expenditure by approximately 25 to 30%.

The focus on ballistic missile defense intensified amid rising concerns following Sputnik's launch, which introduced potential space-based threats. Throughout that year, reports of a "missile gap" emerged. Documentation from an American briefing on a meeting with Pearkes reveals his apprehension that Canada lacked sufficient funds to maintain defenses against both intercontinental ballistic missiles and manned bomber attacks simultaneously. It was also noted that Canada could afford either the Arrow or Bomarc/SAGE systems individually but not both.

On 11 August 1958, Pearkes formally proposed canceling the Arrow program; however, this was initially rejected by the Cabinet Defence Committee (CDC). He renewed his recommendation in September alongside advocating for Bomarc missile deployment. While Bomarc installation received approval, the CDC declined to terminate the entire Arrow initiative at that time, opting instead to postpone a final decision until a comprehensive review scheduled for 31 March 1959. Meanwhile, in September 1958, the Sparrow/Astra missile system was discontinued. Attempts were made to sustain the Arrow project through international cost-sharing agreements. By 1959, Pearkes acknowledged that ballistic missiles represented a more pressing threat and justified Canada's acquisition of Bomarc missiles "as an alternative to procuring additional aircraft."

Operational history

Espionage during development

The Avro Arrow attracted considerable attention from the Soviet Union, resulting in extensive espionage and infiltration efforts targeting the program.[61][62] A former Soviet agent and defector, known by the codename "Brik" (also identified as David Soboloff), admitted to the RCMP that he managed a spy network operating within Avro Canada. Another operative, codenamed "Lind," was responsible for obtaining and transmitting classified materials—such as airframe and engine blueprints, photographs, and test results—to the KGB.

Understanding the full extent of espionage activities and unraveling the true motivations behind the program’s termination—whether due to competition, impracticality, financial concerns, compromises, or obsolescence—has been challenging. This difficulty is compounded by Canada's lack of a formal policy for scheduled declassification of intelligence or public administration records, aside from access-to-information mechanisms.[63] [64]

International interest

Canada made unsuccessful attempts to market the Arrow to both the United States and the United Kingdom. However, in these nations, their domestic aerospace sectors were regarded as vital national assets, making foreign aircraft acquisitions uncommon.[2]

From 1955 onward, the UK demonstrated significant enthusiasm for the Arrow. Seeking a high-performance interceptor comparable to it, the RAF initiated the F.155 program in 1955, targeting operational deployment by 1962. As development progressed, it became apparent that this timeline would not be met. Furthermore, newer variants of the Soviet M-4 bomber were expected by 1959 to surpass the capabilities of the Gloster Javelin, leaving the RAF without an effective anti-bomber solution for several years. To address this gap, interim options were considered that could enter service before the decade’s end. Initially, attention focused on the thin-wing Javelin, offering moderate supersonic speed, alongside the highly capable but short-range Saunders-Roe SR.177.

Subsequent development yielded an enhanced Mach 1.6 version of the thin-wing Javelin, which led to deprioritizing the Arrow. However, it soon became clear that this updated Javelin would not be operational until at least 1961—too late to counter the new M-4 bombers—and with F.155 models anticipated only two years later. In April 1956, the Air Council recommended procuring 144 Arrows to replace the thin-wing Javelin role. These aircraft would be equipped with British engines such as the Bristol Olympus 7R (providing 17,000 lbf (76 kN) dry thrust and 23,700 lbf (105 kN) with afterburner), Rolls-Royce Conway Stage 4 (offering 18,340 lbf (81.6 kN) dry thrust and 29,700 lbf (132 kN) with afterburner), or de Havilland Gyron (delivering 19,500 lbf (87 kN) dry thrust and 28,000 lbf (120 kN) with afterburner).

Explorations into acquiring Arrows from Canada and establishing a production facility in Britain were conducted. The projected cost per unit manufactured domestically was approximately £220,000 for a batch of 100 aircraft, compared to an estimated £150,000 per upgraded Javelin.[65] The CF-105 was intended as a temporary solution until F.155 models became available; however, with F.155 scheduled for 1963 and Arrow deliveries unlikely before 1962, continuing was deemed impractical.[66]

The controversial 1957 Defence White Paper,[67] labeled as "the most significant peacetime military policy shift ever," resulted in canceling nearly all British manned fighter projects under development[68] and effectively ended prospects for purchasing the Arrow. Instead, Britain offered Canada their own English Electric Lightning interceptor.[69]

France showed interest in using the Iroquois engine for a larger variant of its Dassault Mirage IV bomber—the Mirage IVB. This engine was among several contenders including the Olympus; an order for up to 300 Iroquois units was contemplated. However, amid media reports suggesting potential cancellation of the Iroquois project,[70] France discontinued negotiations in October 1958[71] and opted instead for an enhanced version of its domestic Snecma Atar engine.[71] Despite Avro’s efforts to promote Iroquois independently,[71] France never publicly clarified its rationale.

In America, progress on the 1954 interceptor program was well advanced and culminated in introducing the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, which bore many resemblances to the Arrow. More ambitious concepts like the Mach 3-capable Republic XF-103 and later the highly sophisticated XF-108 Rapier were also under consideration when Arrow testing began. Both these advanced projects were terminated during mock-up stages due to shifting strategic emphasis toward intercontinental ballistic missiles over strategic bombers by Soviet forces—a rationale that also supported cancelling the Arrow.[72][73] In 1958, Avro Aircraft Limited’s president and general manager Fred Smye secured a commitment from the USAF to provide fire control systems and missiles at no cost and allow free use of their Edwards Air Force Base flight test facilities.[74]

Cancellation

The termination of the Arrow program was declared on 20 February 1959, a day that has since been dubbed "Black Friday" within Canada's aviation sector. Prime Minister Diefenbaker justified the move by citing a "comprehensive analysis" of threats, defensive strategies, and the financial implications of such defense systems. Specifically, the expenses would have required spreading across the production of hundreds of units. At that period, military focus was shifting "away from traditional bombers," which the Avro Arrow was designed to counter, "toward atmospheric delivery systems such as intercontinental ballistic missiles," as reported by Global News. Consequently, international interest in the Arrow had significantly diminished. Canada opted instead to acquire American-made McDonnell F-101 Voodoo interceptors along with Bomarc B missiles.

The cancellation instantly resulted in job losses for 14,528 Avro staff members and nearly 15,000 workers involved in Avro's supply network. Declassified documents reveal that Avro's leadership was taken by surprise by Diefenbaker's announcement; although executives were aware that the program faced risks, they anticipated continuation through a review scheduled for March. Leading up to this review, it was commonly expected that the first Arrow Mk. 2, RL-206, would be readied for attempts at world speed and altitude records.

Efforts were made to transfer the completed Arrows to the National Research Council of Canada for use as high-velocity test aircraft. However, the NRC declined, stating that without adequate spare parts, maintenance capabilities, and trained pilots, they could not utilize the aircraft. A comparable initiative proposed by the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Boscombe Down led to Avro's vice president of engineering, Jim Floyd, preparing plans for a transatlantic ferry mission. Nonetheless, this proposal and other offers from the United States never came to fruition.

Aftermath

Within a span of two months following the project's termination, directives were issued to dismantle and destroy all aircraft, engines, production equipment, and technical documentation.[75] The official rationale provided by the cabinet and military leadership for this destruction was to eliminate classified and sensitive materials linked to the Arrow and Iroquois initiatives.[76] This measure has been partially attributed to concerns by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding a suspected Soviet infiltrator within Avro, a suspicion later somewhat corroborated by information in the Mitrokhin Archives.[77]

Speculation arose that Air Marshal W. A. Curtis, a World War I flying ace and head of Avro, secretly preserved one of the Arrows to safeguard it for future generations. This narrative gained traction after a 1968 interview in which Curtis neither confirmed nor denied the story. He questioned the prudence of publicizing the tale of a missing Arrow and pondered whether revealing such an aircraft’s survival only nine years post-cancellation was wise. He remarked, "If it is in existence it may have to wait another 10 years. Politically it may cause a lot of trouble."[78] The myth persists that one prototype remains preserved somewhere.[79]

File:Avro CF-105 Arrow at Canada Aviation and Space Museum.jpg
Nose section of an Arrow displayed at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum.

After the Avro Arrow project was halted, chief aerodynamicist Jim Chamberlin led a group of 25 engineers to join NASA's Space Task Group, where they assumed roles as lead engineers, program managers, and engineering heads for manned spaceflight programs such as Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo.[80] Over time, this team expanded to include 32 Avro engineers and technicians, symbolizing what many Canadians regarded as a significant "brain drain" to the United States.[80] Notable former Arrow personnel who moved south included Tecwyn Roberts, NASA's inaugural flight dynamics officer for Project Mercury and later director of networks at the Goddard Space Flight Center; John Hodge, flight director and manager on the cancelled Space Station Freedom project; Dennis Fielder, director of the Space Station Task Force; Owen Maynard, chief engineer for the Lunar Module within Apollo; as well as Bruce Aikenhead and Rod Rose, who served as technical assistant for the Space Shuttle program.[81][82] Many other engineers—including Jim Floyd—found employment in either the United Kingdom or United States. Work conducted by Avro Canada and Floyd contributed significantly to supersonic research at Hawker Siddeley, Avro Aircraft’s UK parent company, influencing projects like the HSA.1000 supersonic transport studies that played a role in shaping the design of the Concorde.[83][84]

In 1961, the Royal Canadian Air Force acquired 66 McDonnell CF-101 Voodoo jets—American aircraft initially rejected by the RCAF[85][Note 3]—to fulfill roles originally intended for the Avro Arrow. The controversy surrounding this purchase, along with Canada’s acquisition of nuclear weapons for both Voodoos and Bomarcs, contributed to political turmoil that led to the downfall of Diefenbaker’s government in 1963.[86]

Despite widespread destruction of materials related to both CF-105 and Orenda Iroquois projects, several components were preserved and are exhibited at Ottawa’s Canada Aviation and Space Museum, including RL-206’s cockpit and nose landing gear (the first Mk 2 Arrow), two outer wing panels from RL-203, alongside an Iroquois engine.[87]

At its cancellation point, with specifications rivaling contemporary American and Soviet designs, one aviation industry analyst regarded the Arrow as among the most sophisticated aircraft globally.[8] Bill Gunston summarized:

Template:Blockquote

File:J35906 YOW-MuseeAir 20120224-153823 Reserve AilesArrow3.jpg
Outer wing panels from Prototype No. 3 displayed at Canada Aviation and Space Museum.

The cancellation ultimately precipitated Avro Aircraft Limited (Canada)’s demise; its president and general manager, Crawford Gordon Jr., was dismissed shortly thereafter. In 1962, Hawker Siddeley Group officially disbanded A. V. Roe Canada and transferred all assets to its newly created subsidiary, Hawker Siddeley Canada.[88]

The nose cone section from Avro Arrow RL-206 currently exhibited at Ottawa’s Canada Aviation and Space Museum was covertly removed from Avro’s Malton plant by personnel from the RCAF Flying Personnel Medical Establishment—a unit based at RCAF Station Downsview on Avenue Road in Toronto—where it remained for years serving high-altitude research purposes. Wing Commander Roy Stubbs, commanding officer of this establishment, recounted:

Template:Blockquote

Circa 2011, an independent proposal emerged advocating a modernized version of the Avro Arrow as an alternative to procuring Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighters for Canada.[89] Spearheaded by former Canadian Forces infantry officer Lewis MacKenzie, this initiative was declined by Ottawa in 2012 due to concerns over excessive risk, costliness, and lengthy timelines involved in updating a mid-twentieth-century aircraft with current communication systems, targeting technology, and stealth capabilities.[90] Former Member of Parliament and ex-fighter pilot Laurie Hawn acknowledged that while the CF-105 had been technologically ahead by half a century when first developed, by 2012 it was considered "hopelessly behind its time."[91]

Variants

Mark 1

The Arrow Mark 1 represented the original model, equipped with two Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojet engines, each delivering 23,500 pounds-force (105 kN) of thrust. This version primarily served for development and flight evaluation purposes. A total of five units were completed.

Mark 2

The Mark 2 was intended to incorporate the Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines and undergo assessment by both RCAF acceptance pilots and Avro test pilots. These PS-13S engines were engineered to generate 30,000 lbf (130 kN) of thrust apiece. The government discontinued the Astra/Sparrow fire control system in September 1958, mandating that all aircraft utilize the Hughes/Falcon system instead. When the entire program was terminated, the first Mark 2 Arrow, designated RL-206, was prepared for taxi testing. Although Avro anticipated it would surpass the world speed record, it never achieved flight.

Project engineer James Floyd noted that while atmospheric frictional heating would limit velocity, the aluminum alloy airframe chosen was capable of withstanding speeds exceeding Mach 2.

Other designs

At the time of cancellation, Avro Canada had multiple advanced Arrow variants under development. Among these was a design study for an Arrow capable of reaching Mach 3, comparable to the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25. This was not intended as a production model but rather a heavily modified Mark 2 variant featuring redesigned engine intakes and extensive use of carbon steel and titanium to endure airframe heating. The Mark 2A and Mark 3 variants were also planned with upgraded engines producing 39,800 lbf (177 kN) each, which would have increased maximum takeoff weight by 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) and raised the operational ceiling to 70,000 feet.

Replicas

Allan Jackson constructed a replica Arrow utilized in the CBC miniseries The Arrow. Beginning construction in 1989, Jackson was approached by the miniseries producers in 1996 when the model was approximately 70% complete. They offered to finalize its construction in exchange for permission to feature it in the production. The replica appeared in the miniseries and several public air shows before Jackson donated it to the Reynolds-Alberta Museum located in his hometown of Wetaskiwin, Alberta. While stored outdoors temporarily, it sustained damage during a windstorm in 2009 but has since been restored; however, it is no longer exhibited publicly.

File:Avro Arrow replica.jpg
Avro Arrow replica at CASM Arrow rollout, 8 October 2006

The Avro Museum at Calgary/Springbank Airport, west of Calgary, Alberta, is constructing a two-thirds scale, manned flying replica known as ARROW II. Designed to comply with Canadian Aviation Experimental Aircraft Regulations for use as an airshow demonstration plane, construction began in October 2007. By 2012, the fuselage was completed and passed its initial MDRA inspection, receiving an official serial number. Powered by two Pratt & Whitney JT-15D-4 engines, ARROW II is projected to reach speeds near 926 km/h (Mach 0.75) with a range of approximately 2,900 kilometers. The estimated project cost is around one million dollars (approximately $1.4 million as of 2025). Ground testing was anticipated to commence around 2016 with first flight following thereafter. The museum’s 2018 annual report indicated ongoing progress with plans to present ARROW II on its landing gear as a static work-in-progress display at the 2019 Springbank Airshow.

Previously located at Toronto/Downsview Airport, the Canadian Air and Space Museum (CASM) showcased a full-scale Arrow replica built by volunteers using materials donated by local aerospace companies. Constructed with a metal frame and featuring authentic components such as landing gear manufactured by Messier-Dowty, the original subcontractor for the Arrow’s primary landing gear, this replica was painted at Bombardier Inc.’s Downsview facility in the livery of Arrow 25203. It was unveiled at a media event on 28 September 2006 and displayed publicly on 8–9 October to mark the aircraft’s original rollout anniversary from 1957. CASM closed in 2011 when its hangar was repurposed for educational use.

Following display at a technology trade show held from 30 September to 4 October 2013 at Toronto International Centre—located near where the original aircraft were manufactured—the replica was placed into storage at Toronto Pearson International Airport. In late 2019, Milan Kroupa relocated it to Edenvale Airport, south of Georgian Bay in Southern Ontario. It remains on exhibit within a hangar there with weekly public viewings.

Scale models

From 1954 to 1957, it is believed that nine Avro Arrow scale models, each approximately one-eighth the size of the original and roughly 10 feet (3 m) in length, were launched via rockets over Lake Ontario from Point Petre in Prince Edward County, Ontario. These tests aimed to evaluate the hull design, with the models reaching supersonic velocities while transmitting data through onboard sensors back to shore. Additionally, two similar models were launched in Virginia. Following numerous unsuccessful recovery efforts, a renewed search commenced in late July 2017. The Raise the Arrow initiative, led by OEX Recovery Group Incorporated and involving collaboration between various companies, the Canadian Coast Guard, and the Royal Canadian Military Institute, employed a Thunderfish autonomous underwater vehicle equipped with AquaPix interferometric synthetic aperture sonar to scan targeted sections of the lakebed. Any retrieved scale models are intended for restoration and subsequent exhibition at both the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa and the National Air Force Museum of Canada in Trenton, Ontario.

In September 2017, the Raise the Arrow team announced they had located one of the one-eighth scale Delta Test Vehicle (DTV) models lying on the bottom of Lake Ontario. This model was successfully recovered in August 2018. After restoration, it has been exhibited at the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum since 2019. Efforts to locate additional advanced Arrow test models have continued in partnership with the Royal Canadian Air Force. By September 2020, OEX revealed that a fragment from another test model had been found; the project was developing techniques to retrieve this piece and to discover further remnants from the same wreckage.

Rediscovery of "Destroyed" Blueprints

On January 6, 2020, CBC News revealed that the Avro Arrow's blueprints, previously believed to have been destroyed, were actually preserved. Ken Barnes, a senior draftsman involved with the project in 1959, had been instructed to eliminate all Avro Arrow documentation. Instead of complying, he discreetly took the plans home and kept them stored in his basement for many years.[92] These blueprints were exhibited at the Touch the Sky: The Story of Avro Canada display hosted by the Diefenbaker Canada Centre at the University of Saskatchewan until April 2020.

In 2021, the National Research Council of Canada undertook digitization and made publicly accessible 595 reports related to the Avro Arrow, which were held in their rare book collection and NRC Archives located in Ottawa.[93]

Enduring Influence

The name "Avro Arrow Private" honors the aircraft at Ottawa Macdonald–Cartier International Airport. Furthermore, starting in late August 2025, OC Transpo will introduce route 105 serving Ottawa Macdonald–Cartier International Airport, named after the CF-105.[94]

Intended Operator

File:Canadian Red Ensign (1921–1957).svg Canada

Technical Specifications (Arrow Mk 1)

Avro CF-105 Arrow three-view
Avro CF-105 Arrow three-view

Template:Externalimage Template:Aircraft specs

Noteworthy media portrayals

Main article: Avro Canada Arrow in fiction

In 1997, CBC aired a two-part miniseries titled The Arrow.[Note 4] The production incorporated a blend of archival footage, remote-controlled scale models, and computer-generated imagery to depict the aircraft on the ground and in flight. While the miniseries earned critical acclaim—receiving accolades from film historian and former Avro staff member Elwy Yost[95] and securing multiple honors including the Gemini that year,[96] it faced criticism for adopting a "docu-drama" approach and deviating from a strictly factual narrative.[79] The ongoing rebroadcasts along with DVD distributions have revived debate surrounding the cancellation of the Arrow project and brought its story to wider audiences.[97]

See also

Lua error in mw.title.lua at line 359: bad argument #2 to 'title.new' (unrecognized namespace name 'Portal'). Template:Aircontent

References

Notes

  1. ↑ The CF-105 employed tandem main undercarriage units featuring two wheels aligned front-to-back on each leg.
  2. ↑ The CF-105 Arrow implemented stability augmentation across all three axes; prior aircraft typically incorporated simpler systems limited to one or two axes.[59]
  3. ↑ Although sources indicate it was the F-101 evaluated, at that time only the XF-88 Voodoo was operational while the F-101 was still under development in 1953.
  4. ↑ This miniseries was subsequently rebroadcast on CBC Television, Discovery, and various Canadian specialty channels up until 2009.

Citations

  1. ↑ Page et al. 2004, p. 159.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Peden 1978, p. 72.
  3. ↑ Dow 1979, p. 127
  4. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  5. ↑ Payne 2006, p. 213.
  6. ↑ Dow 1979, p. 67.
  7. ↑ Dow 1979, p. 60.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Gunston 1981, p. 18.
  9. ↑ Dow 1979, pp. 84–85.
  10. ↑ Dow 1979, pp. 61–62.
  11. ↑ Dow 1979, p. 70.
  12. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  13. ↑ Dow 1979, p. 83.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named dow84
  15. ↑ Anderson 2008. pp. 683, 695.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Whitcomb 2002, pp. 89–90.
  17. ↑ Milberry 1984, p. 317.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named stimsonpm
  19. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named campagna68-69
  20. ↑ Page et al. 2004, p. 11.
  21. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named dow89
  22. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named dow25
  23. ↑ Whitcomb p. 162
  24. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named peden26
  25. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named dow85
  26. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named dow86
  27. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named campagna66-67
  28. ↑ Page et al. 2004 p. 12.
  29. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named peden45
  30. ↑ Shaw p. 58.
  31. ↑ Whitcomb 2002, p. 86.
  32. ↑ Pigott 1997, p. 55.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Floyd
  34. ↑ Peden 2003, p. 38.
  35. ↑ Page et al. 2004, p. 15.
  36. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  37. ↑ Whitcomb 2002, pp. 89–91.
  38. ↑ Campagna 1998, p. 37.
  39. ↑ Whitcomb 2002, pp. 109–110.
  40. ↑ Campagna 1998, pp. 73–74.
  41. ↑ Pigott 1997, p. 56.
  42. ↑ Peden 2003, pp. 46–47.
  43. ↑ Campagna 1998, p. 68.
  44. ↑ Gainor 2001, p. 15.
  45. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  46. ↑ Page et al. 2004, p. 161.
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Pigott 1997, p. 57.
  48. ↑ Campagna 1998, p. 84.
  49. ↑ "Air & Space Smithsonian, Volume 13". Smithsonian Institution. 1998, p. 37.
  50. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named campagna85
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 Campagna 1998, p. 87.
  52. ↑ Waechter 2015, pp. 113–18.
  53. ↑ Waechter 2015, p. 73.
  54. ↑ Campagna 1998, p. 70.
  55. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  56. ↑ Campagna 1998, p. 86.
  57. ↑ "Avro Museum". Avro Museum of Canada via web.archive.org. Retrieved: 4 September 2010.
  58. ↑ Page et al. 2004, p. 115.
  59. ↑ Abzug and Larrabee, 2002, p. 316.
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 Page et al. 2004, p. 117.
  61. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  62. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  63. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  64. ↑ Barnes, Alan "Arrows, Bears and Secrets: The Role of Intelligence in Decisions on the CF-105 Program." Canadian Military History 32, 2 (2023)
  65. ↑ defe7-1409e06_06
  66. ↑ Whitcomb 2002, pp. 84 and 215–216.
  67. ↑ "1951–1964". Central Office of Information for Ministry of Defence. Retrieved: 29 June 2012.
  68. ↑ Slessor, Sir John. "British Defense Policy". Foreign Affairs, 35(4), July 1957.
  69. ↑ Whitcomb 2002, p. 220.
  70. ↑ Campagna 1998, pp. 110–111.
  71. ↑ 71.0 71.1 71.2 Stewart 1998, pp. 290–291.
  72. ↑ Whitcomb 2002, pp. 80, 181–182.
  73. ↑ Campagna 1998, pp. 109–110.
  74. ↑ Smye 2014, p. 87.
  75. ↑ Campagna 1998, p. 121.
  76. ↑ Stewart 1998, pp. 274–276.
  77. ↑ Andrew and Mitrokhin 2000, p. 219.
  78. ↑ McNenly, Pat. "Avro Arrow". Toronto Star, 30 November 1968, p. 1.
  79. ↑ 79.0 79.1 Bliss. Michael. "Arrow That Doesn't Fly: The CBC's miniseries about the interceptor that wasn't, is good to look at but ungrounded in facts" (Archived 17 July 2016 at the Wayback Machine). Time, 27 January 1997. Retrieved: 28 March 2010.
  80. ↑ 80.0 80.1 French and Burgess 2007, p. 196.
  81. ↑ "Tecwyn Roberts". llanddaniel.co.uk. Retrieved: 5 May 2011.
  82. ↑ Pillinger, Colin. "Red, white and blue Moon". Times Higher Education, 16 July 2009. Retrieved: 5 May 2011.
  83. ↑ Whitcomb 2002, pp. 251–259.
  84. ↑ "Pattern of the Industry". Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology. 1960, 32(1).
  85. ↑ Page et al. 2004, p. 13.
  86. ↑ Stursberg 1975, p. 122.
  87. ↑ "Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow 2" (Archived 10 January 2011 at the Wayback Machine). aviation.technomuses.ca. Retrieved: 24 September 2010.
  88. ↑ Bothwell and Kilbourn 1979, p. 266.
  89. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  90. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  91. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  92. ↑ Shield, David. "Avro Arrow blueprints on display after sitting in Sask. man's home for decades". CBC News, 6 January 2020. Retrieved: 8 January 2020.
  93. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  94. ↑ Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2123: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  95. ↑ Winnipeg Jets goalie Bob Essensa sported a helmet featuring the Avro Arrow silhouette, as documented in Jim Hynes and Gary Smith’s hockey mask history book, Saving Face."The Avro Arrow: Canada's Broken Dream". shaw.ca, 2006. Retrieved: 25 September 2010.
  96. ↑ "The Arrow: Awards". IMDb. Retrieved: 25 September 2010.
  97. ↑ Gainor 2007, p. 208.

Bibliography

  • Abzug, Malcolm J. and E. Eugene Larrabee. Airplane Stability and Control: A History of the Technologies that made Aviation Possible. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ISBN 978-0-521-80992-4.
  • Anderson, John D. Jr. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering, Fifth Edition 2008, First Edition 1984. ISBN 1-4277-9659-9.
  • Andrew, Christopher and Vasili Mitrokhin. The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West. Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK: Gardners Books, 2000. ISBN 0-14-028487-7.
  • Bothwell, Robert and William Kilbourn. C.D. Howe: A Biography. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1979. ISBN 0-7710-4535-2.
  • Campagna, Palmiro. Storms of Controversy: The Secret Avro Arrow Files Revealed. Toronto: Stoddart, third paperback edition, 1998. ISBN 0-7737-5990-5.
  • Campagna, Palmiro. Requiem for a Giant: A.V. Roe Canada and the Avro Arrow. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2003. ISBN 1-55002-438-8.
  • Dow, James. The Arrow. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company Publishers, 1979. ISBN 0-88862-282-1.
  • Floyd, James. "The Canadian Approach to All-Weather Interceptor Development. The Fourteenth British Commonwealth Lecture." The Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Volume 62, no. 576, December 1958.
  • French, Francis and Colin Burgess. Into that Silent Sea: Trailblazers of the Space Era, 1961–1965 (Outward Odyssey: A People's History of Space). Lincoln Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8032-1146-9.
  • Gainor, Chris. Arrows to the Moon: Avro's Engineers and the Space Race. Burlington, Ontario: Apogee, 2001. ISBN 1-896522-83-1.
  • Gainor, Chris. Who Killed the Avro Arrow? Edmonton: Folklore Publishing, 2007. ISBN 978-1-894864-68-8.
  • Gunston, Bill. Fighters of the Fifties. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 1981. ISBN 0-933424-32-9.
  • Isinger, Russell. "Flying Blind: The Politics of the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow Programme." The Evolution of Air Power in Canada 1919 to the Present Day and Beyond. Winnipeg: Department of National Defence, Papers presented at the 2nd Air Force Historical Conference, volume II, 1997.
  • Isinger, Russell. "The Avro Arrow." Canada: Confederation to Present. CD-ROM. Edmonton: Chinook Multimedia Inc., 2001. ISBN 1-894785-00-2.
  • Isinger, Russell. "The Avro Arrow." The Oxford Companion to Canadian History. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-19-541559-0.
  • Isinger, Russell. The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow Programme: Decisions and Determinants. MA Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, 1997.
  • Isinger, Russell and D.C. Story. "The Plane Truth: The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow Programme." In The Diefenbaker Legacy: Politics, Law, and Society Since 1957. Regina: Canadian Plains Research Centre, 1980. ISBN 0-88977-091-3.
  • Lukasiewicz, Julius. "Canada's Encounter with High-Speed Aeronautics." Technology and Culture, the International Quarterly Journal of the Society for the History of Technology, Volume 27, No. 2, April 1986.
  • Milberry, Larry, ed. Sixty Years: The RCAF and CF Air Command 1924–1984. Toronto: Canav Books, 1984. ISBN 0-9690703-4-9.
  • Page, Ron, Richard Organ, Don Watson and Les Wilkinson (the "Arrowheads"). Avro Arrow: The Story of the Avro Arrow from its Evolution to its Extinction. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press, 1979; reprinted Stoddart, 2004. ISBN 1-55046-047-1.
  • Payne, Stephen. Canadian Wings: A Remarkable Century of Flight. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2006. ISBN 978-1-55365-167-3.
  • Peden, Murray. Fall of an Arrow. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing; first edition 1978; reissued 2003. ISBN 0-7737-5105-X.
  • Pigott, Peter. Flying Canucks II: Pioneers of Canadian Aviation. Toronto: Dundurn Press Ltd., 1997. ISBN 0-88882-193-X
  • Shaw, E.K.. There Never Was an Arrow. Toronto: Steel Rail Educational Publishing Co., 1979. ISBN 0-88791-025-4.
  • Smye, Fred and Randy Smye. Canadian Aviation and the Avro Arrow. Oakville, Ontario: Amazon/Kindle ebook edition August 2014. ISBN 978-1-50054-599-4.
  • Stewart, Greig. Arrow Through the Heart: The Life and Times of Crawford Gordon and the Avro Arrow. Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson; 1998 edition. ISBN 0-07-560102-8.
  • Stewart, Greig. Shutting Down the National Dream: A.V. Roe and the Tragedy of the Avro Arrow. Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson; first published in 1988. ISBN 0-07-549675-5.
  • Stursberg, Peter. Diefenbaker: Leadership Gained: 1956–62. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; published in 1975. ISBN 0-8020-2130-1.
  • Supersonic Sentinel. Rare footage featuring the Avro Arrow aircraft available from Arrow Digital Archives (ARC); this includes additional clips showing the Arrow in flight as well as some material on the Avro Jetliner (1950).
  • Valiquette, Marc-André. Destruction of a Dream: The Tragedy of Avro Canada and the CF-105 Arrow, Volume One; Montreal: Marc-André Valiquette (self-published), 2009 edition. ISBN 978-2-9811239-0-9.
  • Valiquette, Marc-André. Supersonic Dreams: At the Dawn of a New Era, Volume Two; Montreal: Marc-André Valiquette (self-published), 2010 edition. ISBN 978-2-9811021-3-3.
  • Waechter, David.Flight Test: The Avro Arrow and a Career in Aeronautical Engineering. Kitchener: David Waechter (self-published), released in 2015 edition. ISBN 978-0-9948065-0-5.
  • Whitcomb, Randall.Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation. St Catharines Ontario : Vanwell Publishing; first published in 2002 edition .ISBN 1 -55125 -082 -9 .
  • Whitcomb , Randall .Cold War Tech War . The Politics of America's Air Defense Burlington Ontario : Apogee Books ; published in 2008 .ISBN 1 -894959 -77 -9 .
  • Zuk , Bill .The Avro Arrow Story : The Impossible Dream Calgary : Altitude Publishing ; issued in 2006 .ISBN 1 -55439 -703 -0 .
  • Zuk , Bill .The Avro Arrow Story : The Revolutionary Airplane and its Courageous Test Pilots Calgary : Altitude Publishing ; released in 2005 .ISBN 1 -55153 -978 -0 .
  • Zuk , Bill .Janusz Zurakowski : Legends in the Sky St Catharine's Ontario : Vanwell ; published in 2004 .ISBN 1 -55125 -083 -7 .
  • Zuuring , Peter .Arrow Countdown Kingston Ontario : Arrow Alliance Press ; first published in 2001 .ISBN 1 -55056 -866 -3 .
  • Zuuring , Peter .Arrow First Flight Kingston Ontario : Arrow Alliance Press ; issued in 2002 .ISBN 1 -55056 -903 -1 .
  • Zuuring , Peter .Arrow Rollout Kingston Ontario : Arrow Alliance Press ; released in 2002 .ISBN 1 -55056 -902 -3 .
  • Zuuring , Peter .The Arrow Scrapbook Kingston Ontario : Arrow Alliance Press ; originally published in 1999 .ISBN 1 -55056 -690 -3 .
  • Zuuring , Peter .Iroquois Rollout Kingston Ontario : Arrow Alliance Press ; published in 2002 .ISBN 1 -55056 -906 -6 .

Additional resources

  • The Library and Archives Canada serves as the primary archive for most government records related to the Avro CF-105 Arrow initiative. Numerous documents are also held by the Department of National Defence's Directorate of History and Heritage. Nearly all materials concerning the Avro Arrow have been made public through declassification.
  • The CBC aired There Never Was an Arrow in March 1980, which is included as a bonus feature on the Arrow Docu-Drama DVD. Selected excerpts from this broadcast are accessible via the CBC archives.
  • The podcast episode titled "The Avro Arrow Conspiracies," released on 7 December 2021, provides additional insights into the topic.

External links

File:Commons-logo.svg
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Avro CF-105 Arrow.Template:Preview warning

Template:Avro Canada Template:CF aircraft Template:CanadaColdWar Template:Aircraft manufactured in Canada Lua error in Module:Authority_control at line 159: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).

Retrieved from "https://www.alfawiki.org/index.php?title=Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow&oldid=77643"