Talk:Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

50th anniversary

YAY! The Arrow is 50. Celebrate,dude. 209.121.8.96 13:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole "most advanced fighter" claim

I have softened the sentence in the opening paragrapg about the Arrow being "the most advanced of all" fighters at the time. Specs don't bear that out, the design is derivative of Delta models, and so on. It's fine to claim, and the quote supports, that "some" have this opinion, but putting a blanket statement that implies everyone believes the traditional Canadian viewpoint of it being a quantum leap over current fighters doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.84.2 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of personal beliefs of "Canadian bolsterism," the use of weasel words is discouraged especially when a direct quote is involved from a UK contemporary and current aviation historian and writer, Bill Gunston. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC) .

I'd still prefer to remove this sort of thing entirely. Advanced, yes, but "most" implies something else entirely and is difficult to demonstrate in light of designs like the F-103. I'd really like to see this replaced by a direct in-era quote -- something like the one in the Mossy article would do it justice! Maury (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, the original history of why this edit was put in place along with the quote stems from an attack by OpusC who had flavoured the lead in a wholly different direction. Check the revision. Bzuk (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC).

I don't know what a "weasel word" is, or what part of my edit you felt constituted one, but a quote from one proponent is hardly enough to make the claim. It's a big stretch from "one author claimed" to "most believe". Unless you're on talk radio, which we aren't. I'm fine with the line removed entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.69 (talk • contribs)

Then read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, and be enlightened. - BillCJ (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To make sure we're talking about the same thing, you're considering the addition of "by some" to be weasely? If it helps, I meant "by some" to be a limitation in quantity (ie: not everyone thinks it) rather than implying that those that constituted the "some" were wrong. If that makes sense... In other words, I was trying to make an extraordinary claim less extraordinary, not imply it was wrong. If that's weasely, then either I'm a weasel or you misunderstood the intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.69 (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I didn't write it, I can only assume what BZuk meant. As "weasel word" is usually defined, it means you can't just say "some" believe whatever. You have to cite sources that say WHO believes something. Your intentions appear good, but the use of "by some" is not recommended, because it doesn't say who thinks this. On Wikipedia, that is considered a "weasel word" because it doesn't specify who said something. It's like when kids tell their parents they have to do/buy/whatever becuase "they" do it. The wise parent immediately asks "Well who are they?" Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. Now that I'm learning the lingo, I apparently tried to soften a peacock statement with a weasel word! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.75.69 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the article has been revisited and revised, thanks for your contributions. Bzuk (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC) FWIW, maybe time to get a userid and join the "gang."

The current claim of "fastest military jet of its time" might want to be compared with English Electric Lightning#Performance - the Lightning went into service in 1959, and AIUI all but the first prototypes had pretty similar top speeds of around Mach 2.2-2.3. FlagSteward (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To settle this whole thing, lets just write "some think that it is the best interceptor of its time" or somthing like that. 206.126.80.185 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Um did you read the discussion which says precisely why that won't be okay? Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting/editing the posts of others

70.73.172.15, please do not remove or redact the posts of others. This is a talk page, not an article, and so is not subject to OR or NPOV concerns. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nominee

At the top of this page it says: "CF-105 Arrow was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. "

Does anyone know where the "suggestions" are?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What Happened to CF-206

Many people believe that one Arrow escaped the scrap yard and flew to an unknown destination. Many people swear to seeing or hearing the plane fly somewhere. I believe this and I hope that it stays a legend of canada.

I removed the above paragraph from the article because this legend of one missing Arrow is already covered in the "Aftermath" section. I'm putting the paragraph on Talk page so it is available for discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really need discussion - what was added is just unverifiable commentary that doesn't belong in the text. All you need to do next time is delete it, and leave an explanation in the edit summary like you did this time. As you said, it is covered elsewhere in the text, and properly. - BillCJ (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In any event, there was no such aircraft as 'CF-206'. Presumably, RL-206 was what was actually meant. As 206 wasn't flyable at the time of the cancellation, there isn't any doubt about what happened to it.--Voodude (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

...and the actual story that involved its demise is now traced to the "death row" reprieve that allowed portions of the aircraft to be salvaged, first for use in an aeromedical centre and later to be stored at CFB Trenton before being transported to Ottawa to first reside at the Canada Science And Technology Museum and later as part of the collection of the Canada Aviation Museum. FWIW, don't forget that Toronto will be hosting the "Golden Arrow Dinner" on March 28, 2008 at the TAM. Bzuk (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC).

Heres another problem with the 25206 story: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.80.185 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But there was an rl206. look at some archived pictures of the wooden mockup! the mockup was wood and never flew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.52.183 (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

specs

Moved these hidden notes from main article. They may get missed there. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Specs do not aggree with production values of RL-201 through RL-205 or RCAF specs for all weather fighter interceptor. I suggest checking with Arrow Recovery web site to obtain specs from plans and tender. 6 Aircraft were completed only 5 flew, RL-206 was due for flight 1 week after cancellation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.217.14 (talk • contribs)

NOTE ------ Incorrect plane specs indicated on website. --------------

http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/AvroArrowSpecs.html Shows the true specs of the arrow Mk1 as tested up to 90% power of the J-75 engines and the ceilings as flown in test flights recalled from the flight test logs of the arrow pilots. ALL of the arrow specs on the above sight come from actual test flight data as recorded on the ground and in the air. The data used in american books comes from the modified statistics released from U.S. concerns to convince Pearkes and Deifenbaker the plane was not up to the DND flight spec; which the Arrow surpassed with the J-75 Engine and would exceed by approximately 25% as estimated from the flight tests of the Iroquois' test on the B-47 and in test rigs on ground. The flight tests of the B-47 never used full power as the plane could not survive max thrust of the jet engine and barely handled the 50% power tests it did complete. MAX speed as tested in the J-75 engine was Mach 1.98 and on the Iroquois would have been Mach 2.2 to 2.6 as the engine was 5,000 lbs lighter with slightly more thrust available with and without afterburners.

I strongly suggest you either add a caveate that the data used is not as proven from actual flight testing data or edit the data to show the proven stats for the arrow as tested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.217.14 (talk • contribs)

• Specs don't have to be "proven" by flight tests to be listed. They may not be able to or need to verify all of them in testing. The only major difference I see is the service ceiling (53K ft here vs. 58.5K/75K ft on web page). The weights listed in the article now a little different than Avro page too. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an aeronautical engineer (interpret the following in this light), but it is my understanding that the speed limitation for an design like the CF-105 would have been more due to engine inlet configuration and airframe heating than available power from the engines. The Arrow was designed mostly with aluminum, and without the kind of variable inlet ramps that would really be needed on a Mach 2 design. (The Arrow was originally intended to be a Mach 1.5 design, hence the inlet configuration). The Arrow 1 did demonstrate Mach 1.98 performance, and this was probably pushing the limits of the airframe. Note that the information in Page et. al. (Avro Canada internal information, as far as I know) cites Mach 2.0 as the maximum speed of the Arrow 2, and even discussed an later model with the necessary upgrades (fully variable inlet ramps, use of titanium/stainless steel, etc) to create Mach 2.5 performance. A much more hypothetical Mach 3 version is also referred to -- this would have been a much more significant redesign, likely verging on an entirely new aircraft.

If I had to guess, I would figure that the Arrow 2 would have been capable of Mach 2.2 - 2.3 in a dash, and would probably have had an in-service maximum speed of Mach 2.0. I suspect that the main advantage of the Iroquois powered Arrow vs. the J-75 version would have been faster climb and better manouverabily, rather than higher maximum speed.--Voodude (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a question: Under specifications, it says "Range: 360 NM (410 mi, 660 km)". That seems a very low number to me unless the aim was to bomb New York and Michigan! Maybe it's correct but I thought I would raise the question and hope someone can confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.89.205 (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It was an interceptor, not a bomber. Although it probably could have done that, given its (revolutionary) internal bomb bays. The idea was that it could operate out of bases on the borders, and intercept USSR bombers as they flew over us to hit USA, and that it could outmanoeuvre, outclass, and outrun everything it ran up against. Or, that was the idea. Annihilatron (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Annihilatron, I agree with your overall comments, but what was "(revolutionary)" internal bomb bays? - BillCJ (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

They were missile bays. the missiles would be kept internally and, when needed, the belly would open up revealing 4 sparrow or 8 velvet glove missiles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.52.183 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

F-101B/Fs, F-102s, and F-106's were interceptors with missile bays. That's hardly a revelutionary concept for the CF-105. - BillCJ (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Different image

I was trying to find the main image of this article on airforce.forces.gc.ca since the link listed is dead. I came across this one: CF-105 Arrow Mk.1, on its first flight, 1958 (side view) Somebody might want to upload and do the fair use rationale stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is an example of a publisher's fanciful idea of a cover. It is an airbrushed, altered image of an earlier aircraft, resplendent in the wrong markings. I met the artist who concocted this image for the publisher and it was used in the book, Arrow by Boston Mills Press; it has now entered the realm of fiction better than fact. Please read the note accompanying it: "RL-201 on its first flight", while the aircraft clearly shows RL-205 markings. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

• OK, I had no idea. There are other images at that site and CF image page though. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page for Arrow Docudrama

I just took a look at the page for the 1997 Arrow docudrama (The_Arrow), and I think that it could do with some editing by some of the contributors to this article.--Voodude (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:AvroArrow1.jpg

The image File:AvroArrow1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Future Of The Arrow

We should amke an article about the future of the Avro Arrow, E.G. the proposed Arrows. We should write bout the Mach 3 version, long range version and Anti ICBM missile version.

My Sources: The Avro Arrow Book (Boston Mills Press). -Nachother (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardly necessary. A section within this article at the very most. The fact that Avro Canada had several far-reaching (or fanciful) ideas for the CF-105 is not noteworthy enough for an independent article, especially since not only did none of them get mocked up, none of them even reached the drawing board. CMarshall (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite accurate, the Mk III version was certainly "on the drawing board" and represented a logical development while some of the other concepts truly were "paper projects" but all of them did exist during the development phase of the Arrow. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

I was looking through the article today, and in the fifth paragraph of the political issues section, encountered the following quotation: "In a later interview in the 1990s, Pearkes discussed these problems..."

Given that the article on George Pearkes indicates that he died in 1984, it seems unlikely that he was interviewed in the 1990s. It looks like this section needs a little editing.--Voodude (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please Make A new section for that. 216.99.52.183 (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mitrokhin

in the aftermth it says that Avro thought there was a soviet mole. and then it says "wich is somewhat proven from the mitrokhin archives. How? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.52.183 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Added the refnce.

-216.99.52.183 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Article name

How did this article end up with such a lengthy name? In my many years of aviation writing, I have never once heard anyone say "Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow". It's always "Avro Arrow". I recommend moving it back. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd presume its to distinguish it from what was (I think) the original parent company, Avro, which is/was a British company. Canadians often just call it "Avro" when they mean the Canadian company, but Avro is British. ~~davepl

Yep. Most just call her Arrow. I'd say "CF-105 Arrow" would do it, if you're inclined to move, since AFAIK that's a unique CAF designator. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc-Andre Valiquette new book

M-A Valiquette's new book should be included in the bibliography, regardless of whether it is self-published or not (Fred Smye's was too, by the way). It is the first of three volumes. It is a high quality picture book, which includes many photographs I have not seen before of Avro Aircraft and its products, as well as reproductions of many A.V. Roe advertisements, with just enough text to tell the story. If the forthcoming two volumes are as well put together as this first one (which I got from Larry Milberry's CANAV books) then they will make a real contribution to the Arrow literature (they are certainly as high quality as Zuuring's books, though not as long, and without the polemics). As well, and unique for this kind of book, it is in both offical languages. So it should be included in any comprehensive bibliography of Arrow literature. 70.64.123.8 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I see it in bookstores and it has been sold at aviation museums, the book should probably be considered. The following is the proper formatting for the book (note only main nouns are capitalized, and title sub-title are separated by a colon):

• Valiquette, Marc-Andre. Destruction of a Dream: The Tragedy of Avro Canada and the CF-105 Arrow, Volume 1. Montreal: Marc-Andre Valiquette (self-published), 2009. ISBN: 978-2-9811239-0-9. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

Delta dawn

2 issues. One, do we know if the Arrow design team was at all influenced by the J.35? Two, can somebody explain why there's no visible (to my eye, at least) area ruling? (By comparison to the F-106, say.) The lack of apparent area ruling has bugged me awhile, & with the claims of fudging of speeds, it's left me wondering if the fudging was upward, not (as suggested) downwards. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The most visible evidence of area ruling on the Arrow is the spine running along the top of the fuselage, which tapers from wide at the front (just behind the cockpit) to minimal just in front of the vertical stabilizer. I agree that it doesn't appear that evident, but perhaps the design didn't require that much. Some designs (like the English Electric P.1) weren't designed with area ruling at all, and still had decent supersonic performance.

Regarding speed fudging, are you referring to the discussion above regarding the likely maximum speed of the Arrow? There's no question that the Arrow was a Mach 2 capable design -- Even the J75 engined Arrow 1 was clocked at Mach 1.96, and Mach 2 was expected to be the maximum speed in service for the Iroquois engined Arrow 2.--Voodude (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's possible to go sonic without; the Lightning's always struck me as not really needing it.

I've heard the Arrow team did "massage" the numbers, & downward I couldn't believe, since it made no sense. And I've never seen an unbiased source confirming Mach 2+ (the Arrowhead books don't count, IMO; too much "rah rah" in 'em). So... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

During 2003-2004, I had the privilege of working with the late Janusz Żurakowski, the first Chief Development Pilot of the Avro Arrow. I had the opportunity to scrutinize his extensive collection of memorabilia including logbooks dating all the way back to combat missions in the Battle of Britain and up to and including his testing of the Avro CF-105 Arrow. During the two years in meetings and personal collaboration with Żurakowski, he was able to directly answer some of the questions that were posed here. From my interview logs, there was a definite reason why Mach 2 flights weren't attempted, and it related to the sequence of flight testing in which the first five Arrow Mk 1s were engaged. This series of test flights were primarily limited to testing systems and working steadily through a developmental program. None of the aircraft were fitted with armament nor the definitive avionics package, consequently ballast had to be carried. Flights were also limited in scope so full fuel loads were not used, so that supersonic "dashes" were not commonplace. The speed potential of the Arrow was not explored during the Avro testing and were to be part of the RCAF acceptance flights, under the leadership of S/L Jack Woodman. Żurakowski was under the direct orders of Flight Test Director, Don Rogers to never exceed Mach 2, and was further specifically instructed to not use full power with the J75 at altitude. There was an ulterior motive behind this dictum, and it related to the company's preparation for a run at the World Air Speed and Altitude records with the first of the Arrow Mk IIs, RL-206, the sixth production aircraft. It was to be fitted with the Avro Orenda Iroquois (a much more powerful and lighter powerplant that would replace the J75s) and was in the final stages of assembly in February 1959 when the entire airframe and engine program was cancelled on Black Friday. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx. (And am I envious you actually got to work with him!) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that extra information, Bill. We will have to talk about this next time we cross paths.--Voodude (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Avro Arrow Filmography

A filmography section is needed, as well as a list of Avro Arrow references on television shows and in music. There was an Aurora CF-105 model kit in the '60s, as well as a CF-100 kit. There were also some Avro die-cast models (Avro Vulcan, Avro York, Avro Aircar), although they did not make a die-cast CF-105 in the '60s.70.29.78.233 (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Arrow has coverage in the text; what are the other films about the Arrow's story that could be listed, hopefully ones with more basis in reality? As to "references on television shows and in music", I am assuming you mean any time the Arrow was mentioned, even in passing or in a joke? Those are generally non-notable, and would need reliable sources attesting to the notability to the Arrow, per WP:AIRPOP. Ditto the several toys and models, as listings of them aren't considered encyclopedic per WP:NOT. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just the facts

Assertions of "often inaccurate" here do not become true simply by being asserted. If the evidence exits, it should be presented from the sources claimed to contain it, since none of it is actually found there. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"If the evidence exits, it should be presented from the sources claimed to contain it, since none of it is actually found there." Now that's logical! Even if I were to add something from the source, you've already judged it. You don't actually beleive the film is accuate, do you?? - BilCat (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the material I removed from that section has had fact tags for 2 years. I don't even get 12 hours, and it's already been removed twice? You couldn't just tagging it first? It's not disputable that the film "often inaccurate" to anyone who has seen the film. So whether you think it's supported by the existing source or not, it is reasonable to tag it first, then discuss. And I won't ask you to wait two years to remove it! So, I'm restoring the claim and source, and tagging it myself, as I respect myself enough to give myself at least a week or two to find a source even you would accept. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I'm quailing at just what is or isn't accurate. Was it massaged for dramatic purposes? Certainly. Was it wrong on the Arrow being too expensive in itself? Maybe not. Am I being too picky? Probably. ;p I reacted badly to a source baldly saying the Arrow was "too expensive", which I've heard before, & naming sources supposedly bolstering the case, but offering no supporting facts. That's not what I'd want to rely on, & not what WP should be relying on, IMO. (And as I write this, I'm too tired to form a coherent argument against you, so I won't make an incoherent one. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a talk page - I'll figure it out! "Expensive" is a relative term. The source was an opinon piece, but I didn't add it to the article, I simply summarized its main point. I'm fine tossing it an finding a more reliable source, which shouldn't be too difficult, thou I haven't found the time to do so as yet. Btw, I think one of the most absurd scenes in the movie was the comparison of the Delta wing to a flying wing concept. I seriously doubt that was in the mind of the designers, and they certain;y didn't invent the delta wing, as that scene would imply. The rest of the movie isn't much more accurate. Btw, I could choose to believe the US went to Mars in the 70s; that doen't mean it's any more accurate than the final statement in the film! - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've heard it said (by Arrow partisans, but also IIRC by others) Dief had a choice: he could afford Arrow or Bomarc, but not both. The film portrays pressure from DDE pushing Dief to Bomarc; how true that is, I haven't a clue, but I wager there's some basis for it. Also, in that environment, there were serious doubts on the value of manned interceptors anyhow. The "cost overruns" the film portrays as the underlying problem, & the "too expensive" issue that troubles me, are flipsides of this coin. Does the movie color things with hindsight over the selection of Bomarc? Probably. Most commentators take the "too expensive" at face value, & ignore Bomarc. Both are wrong.

Was there some nationalism in the finish? Sure, but it was said before then AvCan technical people were important to Apollo. (Crucial, which IIRC it implies, no...) And yeh, is it a documentary? No, a docudrama, so holding it to the standards of accuracy of a documentary is (what's a good word? inappropriate?). Is it broadly wrong on the development? It's been too long since I've seen it to say; if not, do a few gaffes make "often"? How many is "often"? Can you live with something like, "fictionalized treatment not always faithful to fact"? (Less clumsy than that, naturally. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the tags and created compromise wording for the CBC Docu-drama section. This is intended as a temporary solution until the issue of the film's credibility is resolved through discussion and proper citation. Heavenlyblue (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing external links

Some culling of reference sources is always taking place, however, wholesale removal of material without use of a talk page discourse is not a good technique. I am adding back the Canada Aviation Museum where a number of Arrow artifacts including the nose of RL-206 and various outboard panels of RL-203 reside. There is also an extensive archival collection at the museum of Arrow artifacts. Similarly the Arrow replica built for the CBC miniseries is found at the Wetaskwin site and the external link to that was also removed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

MILHIST reassessment

Although this article is quite good, I have reassessed it as Start class from a B. This is due to criteria B1, as the article has a large number of paragraphs with no inline citations and quite a few "citation needed" tags. If these can be added the article would easily meet the B class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Empty Weight

The empty weight is listed at 49,000 lbs? That's awfully heavy for a plane who's maximum weight is 68,000 lbs. Is this correct? If so, why is it so heavy? AVKent882 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Improvements for GA?

This article looks fully referenced and in good shape. Are there anything that needs to be fixed or improved for Good Article nomination? Article is down in the queue now. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

On the Unit cost in the Infobox, is the $3.5-5 million in Canadian dollars (C$). What year is that cost for? $3.5-5M seems high for the 1950s. But maybe that's the total cost averaged over the 5 prototypes.. -fnlayson (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily related to the GA review, but the "Operators" section strikes me as being completely useless. It only repeats what is already stated about four times throughout the article and as a stub section doesn't aid the article's quality at all. Resolute 00:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the content seems out of place or maybe split up too much. Seems like the trials content would be better placed in the Operational history section or the Design and development section. -fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, go to it! Bzuk (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but moving that text would leave the Mark I section empty or nearly empty. I'll try to add some text with such a move. -fnlayson (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved the flight testing text to the Development section and added a couple summary sentences in the Mark 1 variant section. -fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note this article passed GA a couple weeks ago. -fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of Completed Prototypes

This article said 5, the official site on the Arrow at the Department of National Defense website says 6. As such, I changed it back in the infobox. Addionne (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, DND is wrong?! No. 6 was not completed before February 20, 1959 but was fitted with the Iroquois only for engineering purposes. RL-206 was 93% complete but like all other Arrows was not considered as a complete airframe. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

I get that you have a book that says otherwise, but what makes them right and DND wrong? Addionne (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they are using the Avro company records and the test pilot's log books as reference. If the aircraft were not finished, they were not accepted at either the company or forces level. All the other sources listed in the bibliography section have the same statistics and verify the number of prototypes. Photographs also exist that confirm the number of Arrows that were built. RL-206 never left the assembly bay, was 93% complete, had the Iroquois engines fitted as part of engineering studies but was in no way, considered a complete aircraft. BTW, NO Arrows were actually prototypes but instead were all built on production tooling. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

• Ok. I am going to stay out of it. Any facts, despite the source, that conflict your preferred reading list can be dismissed as "Surprise, surprise, DND is wrong". -Addionne (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

ALL the sources agree on only five completed aircraft; how DND can consider RL-206 as complete is baffling. RL-206 was actually cut up in the factory and the remains of the nose section are still on display at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, Ottawa. RL-206, the supposed last Arrow was never finished and all work on all the Arrows was suspended as of February 20, 1959 and never taken up again, FWiW, the urban myth of a "missing Avro Arrow" is long-standing but has no basis in fact. Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think the DND site can be held up as an authoritiative view of the issue, or as representative of the DND's official stance. These types of pages are generally written by low-level writers who probably aren't subect to the fact-checking requirements of most published works. Nevertheless, if the DND site were to be accepted as reliable, it doesn;t over-ride the fact that most if not all published reliable sources disagree, and bth claims would need to be presented. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Swept away

"German research during the Second World War" IIRC, the relevant research dates to 1935, but wasn't actually applied until the war. Am I wrong? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You can buy it on eBay

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111217/avro-arrow-ejection-seat-mystery-deepens-with-uk-discovery-111218/20111218/?hub=CalgaryHome

Is the recent ejection seat auction worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not if you read the story which is 90% pure hokum and 10% (maybe) factual. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC).