Comments by "Old Guy Gaming Network" (@CRAZYHORSE19682003) on "The Avro Arrow" video.

F-15 performance in strait line speed maybe but the Arrow would have handled like a light bomber and woukd have been easy pickens for fighters like the F-4.
9
@marklittle8805 Wing loading is not the end all be all in maneuverability. Take the B-58 Hustler, is is a slightly larger aircraft than the Arrow, it had a lower wing area and a higher thrust to weight ratio and I don't remember anyone saying man that B-58 maneuvered like a fighter. The Avro Arrow was designed to do one thing, go in a straight line really fast and she was perfectly suited for that. She was not designed at dogfight. While the Phantom was not the most agile of fighters, it was on par or better then most of it's contemporaries. As far as speed as designed the Arrow would have had a top speed of MACH 2.3 even with the Iroquois engines due to air frame issues. She would have had to have been redesigned with more titanium or stainless steel to deal with the heat friction so the F-4 could have kept up with her just fine.
5
@doogleticker5183 I have never considered the Canadians flunkies. I am familiar with their military history and they have always been tough sons a bitches. I don't think any amount of improvements would have kept the Arrow relevant. It was designed for the interception mission, nothing else. It was an aircraft without a mission.
4
@doogleticker5183 I am not stabbing them, the Arrow was a masterpiece of engineering. It reminds me of the F-35 in a way, the technologies associated with it were not even invented yet and the program was hugely ambitious. The problem was that technology was advancing so rapidly than brand new aircraft would be cutting edge technology when introduced and obsolete three or four years later. Take the area rule for example, it made all aircraft designed before it obsolete overnight. What I get tired of is the mythology that has surrounded the Arrow and replaced reality. People act like it was a super plane that could be serving to this day if they just built it which simply was not the case. The F-106 which flew 2 years before the Arrow was a better interceptor than the Arrow ever would have been and cost a tiny fraction of what the Arrow did.
3
You are wrong on several levels. The F-35 has more than DOUBLE the range of the Avro Arrow. The F-35 also has a higher payload capacity when using external hard points.
2
The Arrow was obsolete before it entered service. With the evaporation of the Soviet Bomber threat and the advent of ICBM'S the Arrow was an aircraft without a mission.
2
Yeah, the F-4 first flew less than 2 months after the Arrow so it is doubtful that the Arrow had ANY influence on the F-4 Phantom Two especially considering the F-4 was a vastly superior aircraft to the Arrow.
2
Roflmao, ok keep telling yourself that. The F-106 which was developed at the same time as the Arrow was a better aircraft. The Arrow might have been a technological Marvel for Canada it was nothing special here in the US. We just figured out that super high performance manned interceptors were made obsolete by the ICBM before you guys did.
2
The Arrow would have been limited to MACH 2.3 by heat friction. It would have had to have been redesigned with far more titanium or even steel in order for it to go faster. There were radical versions of the Arrow that were on the design board with a MACH 3 speed but it was not this aircraft.
2
@jasong9502 I don't think you give the F-4 enough credit in its air superiority abilities. A few reasons the F-4 did not perform well early in Vietnam were two things, it initially did not have a gun which was remedied and US pilots were not being taught how to dogfight anymore. If you look at Col Robin Olds and what his unit was able to accomplish, they DOMINATED the Migs they faced. In the hands of a skilled pilot the F-4 was deadly.
2
@crackmonkeynet The F-4 did not have good handling compared to what? 4th gen aircraft like the F-15, 16, and 18, you are correct. However against its fellow 3rd gen aircraft the Phantom was on par or better then most 3rd gen aircraft. Especially with the introduction of wing slats that greatly improved its maneuverability. Look at the Phantoms combat record in the second half of Vietnam, in Isaeli service, and in Iranian service. The F-4 has an outstanding record in air to air combat. It was a Jack of all trades, master of none. The Phantom would have flown circles around the Arrow and shot them down so easily, it woukd have been like Seal clubbing.
2
ROFLMAO, talk about being delusional. The Arrow was OBSOLETE, that is why it was canceled. It was an aircraft without a mission. The F-4 Phantom which made its first flight less than two months after the Arrow was superior in EVERY aspect. It was faster, far more maneuverable, better range, better avionics, better armament, higher service ceiling. The F-106 Delta Dart was a better interceptor than the Arrow would have been and you don't see people trying to bring it back.
2
@vincentgoudreault9662 I never said manned aircraft were obsolete. I said high performance interceptors were obsolete the moment the first ICBM was launched. The CF-101's were cheap, available and may not have had the raw top end speed they did have 5x the range of the Arrow. They should have taken delivery of the F-106 which flew before the Arrow and was a better all around aircraft.
1
Wrong, the Arrow was simply obsolete before it ever entered service. The F-4 Phantom with Flew less then 2 months after the Arrow was LIGHT years ahead of the Arrow.
1
@landoragan4894 lol WRONG, The F4 Phantom was a continued development of the F3H-2N Demon which flew before the Arrow.
1
@kenjoe The F-106 was obsolete, that is why tthe order was reduced from something like 1200 aircraft to 342. It is also why no major amounts of money were spent upgrading it. The interceptor concept was obsolete the moment the first ICBM was launched. The F-4 a contemporary of the F-106 was a far superior aircraft.
1
@landoragan4894 What couldn't break MACH 2? The F-106?
1
You mean A-5 and you would be wrong. The A-5 was based off the F-108 Rapier a canceled MACH 3+ interceptor that made the Arrow look like a toy.
1
LOL The F-104 never compared to the SR-71. The F-104 was a MACH 2 class fighter where the SR-71 was a MACH 3.5+ aircraft.
1
Like the Arrow the TSR-2 was obsolete before it ever entered production. The Soviet bomber threat never materialized and ICBM's made advanced dedicated interceptors obsolete.
1
@juststeve5542 Russia has a handful of bombers. When the Arrow was designed its mission was to defend North America from huge formations of Russian bombers coming in over the pole. That threat never materialized.
1
@doogleticker5183 What do you mean?
1
@JK-rv9tp Yep, like the century series fighters the Arrow was designed for what they thought combat would look like in the era of all missile combat. Supersonic speeds and missile exchanges. reality set in during Vietnam when combat was still taking place at 550 knots.
1
You are incorrect, the F-4 Phantom made its first flight less than 2 months after the Arrow. The Phantom was LIGHT years better than the Arrow. Hell even the F-106 Delta Dart was far better than the Arrow. The reality of the Arrow and the mythology of the Arrow are two different realities.
1