Talk:Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow/Archive 1

message: If my grandfather were alive today, he would have wept after reading this article. I shall do it for him. Weaponofmassinstruction 01:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps (whoever you were) you don't quite understand the whole perspective. I am generally anti-war and very much against killing people. However, the Arrow story - which was cancelled almost 10 years before I was born - makes ME weep. I am not sure there is an entirely rational explanation. It is at least in part the sense that something great we as a nation could have done was lost... something that proved we were still among the leaders of the world's nations. The cancellation of the Arrow led to what was probably the first example of brain drain as our experts moved to NASA, removing a number of our best and brightest from their homeland. In Canada, the Arrow wasn't JUST a weapons platform - it was the beginnings of what could have been our space program; it was an expression of our independence as a nation. The Arrow was Canada's first true love - the one you never forget for the rest of your life and that you idealise forever. --CokeBear 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our space program?!? What? Methinks you need to stop watching crappy CBC docu-dramas. Maury 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, and methinks you need to get over yourself and not be rude. When I was in college in the Air Transport Engineering program, one of my professors was a former AVRO employee (and this was long before any CBC "Docudramas"), and he discussed with us on more than one occasion the fact that many at AVRO had aspirations to begin a Canadian space program once the Arrow was in full production. The evidence is clear enough - many of the displaced engineers went to NASA  and contributed substantially to the US space efforts. So, please don't interject into someone's simple heartfelt message with that which you don't know. I was trying to explain to someone who thought it was sad that so many mourned a WEAPON when what the real mourning is for is the dreams lost.--CokeBear 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We all have dreams, but let's be honest, that's all they were. The fact that someone at Avro wished all of that to be true is no more relevant to the topic at hand than the fact that I wish all my hair would fall back in. The problem here is that we must concentrate on facts, and clearly deliniate what are facts and what is simply idle or unsupported speculation. You certainly didn't word it that way above, so my "confusion" is only natural. Maury 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank You 

message: Both the U.S. and British were already experimenting with the delta platform. Lippisch had moved to the US after the war, and started working at Convair, where the local engineers became very excited in his World War II point-interceptor design. They proposed to build a modified version as the Convair XF-92, and in order to test the flight dynamics of the delta wing configuration they built the 7003 in 1948 as a test-bed. In England the RAE contracted for a series of delta-wing aircraft, including designs both with and without tails, the Gloster Javelin and Fairey FD.2 for example, and flew them throughout the 1950s. In France Marcel Bloch studied the delta and used it to develop the famous Mirage series of fighters in the mid-1950s.
The Iroquois was a fairly standard high-speed engine design, but incorporated a number of titantium parts for high-heat areas and had a good power-to-weight ratio for the era.
Luckily the large weapons bay of the Arrow could hold several of any of these missiles, so it was really a matter of selecting the first system that actually started working.
Given the number of technical advancements in the Arrow design, as well as the continuing problems with a suitable powerplant, the Arrow was completed in a surprisingly short period of time. 
This means that the Arrow was one of a very small number of planes that would actually get lighter when entering production.
The chief test pilot of Arrow was Janusz Zurakowski.
quite in contrast to the majority of fighter designs of the era, which proved to have wicked handling
There was little worry that this would not be corrected in the future.
By this time, Avro had become the third largest corporation in Canada, and was employing 14,000 people.
but the government dithered over how and when to announce the cancellation — not an uncommon thing for the Diefenbaker government when faced with difficult and politically sensitive decisions
Avro received the word later.  This date became known as Black Friday.
While fixing the problems noted above, I removed some material, which is either irrelevant, PoV, original research of just plain puff. I leave it below:
After the announcement, Avro employees wandered around the factory in a state of shock.  They had expected slowdowns, not cancellation. 
The timing seemed particularly odd considering that a reassesment of the project was scheduled for March, and had been since the previous year. 
Meanwhile the first Mk.2 was being prepared for flight, and it was expected to take the world speed records at over Mach 2, surpassing the world speed record of 1,404.19 mph (2,260 km/h) set on May 18, 1958 by a United States Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.
Considered to be one of the finest achievements in Canadian aviation history, and the Arrow remains a lasting symbol of a Canada that could have been, but would never be.
The US is also often blamed for the demise, often with claims that the US aerospace industry was upset about the 'upstarts' in Canada that were making them look foolish, or alternatively that they were hunting for Avro employees.Quite to the contrary, the US military was distressed at the prospect of losing a first-rate staff in their own North American ally, and even considered buying 50 Arrows to give back to the RCAF in order to ensure production. 
Other theories grow more outlandish. In one instance it had been suggested that it was a good thing the Arrow was cancelled, otherwise Canada would have ended up bombing Vietnam with them.
To this day, some Canadians see the Arrow as an example of Canadian industrial ingenuity that might have resulted in a world-class product. Instead it became one of their country's worst strategic blunders of the 20th century.
Dan100 10:59, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I would query if the Arrow 2 would really have been significantly faster than the Arrow 1.  Unquestionably, it would have been lighter and more powerful, and this would have meant better climb performance, acceleration, etc.  However, I understand that the engine inlets on the Arrow weren't designed with speeds over Mach 2 in mind, and I suspect that there would have been temperature limitations -- either turbine inlet temperature restrictions, or weakening of the skin due to air friction -- that would have restricted the speed.  Airframe heating limited Concorde to Mach 2.2 even with inlets designed for that kind of speed.  Given that the Arrow 1 had already effectively demonstrated the ability to fly at Mach 2 (Mach 1.96 -- close enough), I wonder if the Arrow 2, even with the extra power and lower weight, would have been able to fly much faster than Mach 2.2.
:It would not have, this is a myth repeated by a small group of aerodynamically-challenged authors. Making a plane go faster requires MUCH MUCH more than simply adding more thrust. After all, consider the fact that propeller planes are still limited to subsonic speeds even though they have perhaps 10 times as much power as during the war. Remember, air drag goes with v2, doubling thrust = 25% faster, at best.
:There are a number of problems that lead to this, and none of them are easy to overcome. One is that the temperature rise in the turbine section of the engine becomes difficult to control. You can fix this, but it's not "more of same". The MiG-25, for instance, could be "dashed" to Mach 3 ONCE, and then the engines had to be tossed. They figured it was worth it. Additionally the air intakes have to use a variable-inlet system, and these were not well-developed at the time. This is why real high-speed aircraft of the era, like the SR-71, used movable forbodies in their intakes. Finally, as you approach Mach 3, air friction heating becomes a real problem. At 3.2, aluminum starts to go plastic, and your plane falls apart. There is simply no way around this, you have to re-build using some other material, stainless steel or titanium. Yes, to whomever INSERTED THE COMMENT RIGHT IN THE TEXT (grrr), the Arrow did use some titanium in the engine supports, but this was internal.
:A Mach 3 Arrow did not exist. The claims in the article are HIGHLY suspect. Even the need for such a plane is equally suspect.
:Maury 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent refs (whoever this was). In terms of the titanium use, however, it's not clear if the point is any different than I stated. The Arrow was built of aluminum overall, this quote re-enforces that claim. In terms of the "comparisons with existing fighters", this would suggest a lower speed. It was these similar fighters, the F-102 in particular, that proved to have much worse performance than initially suspected. It is a good point though, if there are a number of examples of contemporary fighters with fixed ramps and bleed air that could break Mach 2, then I'm all for the removal of the statement in question. I seem to recall the F-106 did M2, so that would be one such counterexample. Maury 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: :Undaunted by the failure of the Navy search effort, Arrow Recovery Canada. continues it's search for the Free Flight Models. Infact two weeks before the Navy attempt, ARC made an interesting find, an uncharted shipwreck thought to be approx, 150 yrs old. It is a wooden sailing vessel 125ft long and 25ft wide. While this find is not Arrow related, it was discovered in the ARC licensed search area, while the group was searching for the models. The non profit group of volunteers continues it's search efforts believing that they are very close to a major discovery.
Apologizing for this tangent by saying it "is not Arrow related" doesn't allow you to leave the unrelated tangent in the article.  Tempshill 20:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree but an Avro Recovery Canada article perhaps should be added? Which should include this obviously Nil Einne 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre tangent removed 

message: It would be nice to have a dissambiguation page for Avro...  we could start by putting
#Avro
#Avro Canada
#Avro Arrow
I've never done this before, but I'dd be happy to do it after the deletion process debate that is happening at Gallery of motorized bicycle.  Cheers!!!   --CylePat 13:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it says early in the article that Avro didn't exist until 1945. This may be true for Avro Canada but it is definitely not true for Avro in the UK.--Mgdm 12:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissambiguation page AVRO!! 

message: What factual evidence is there that Avro Arrow 206 is buried at CFB Gimili?...
Mike 19:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None whatsoever. Maury 13:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFB Gimili? 

message: it seems someone has decided to start debating within the context of the article. Writing: "do we have a source for this??????????" IN the body of the article is, in my opinion, not appropriate. That is what the disscussion page is for. I am taking th liberty of removing these interjections for the best of the article. If the person who inserted them feels it necessary to debate the points in question they can do so in the standard method.--Olsdude 19:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the comments do not make the page look good at all. I have tried to contact the user (an IP) and to get them to discuss on the talk page rather than adding such comments. The comments, however, do seem to be useful, so I think the best solution is to hide the comments using html comments. That way they don't show up to readers of the page, but the comments are still there so that they can be dealt with. Qutezuce 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the comments should also be removed, as when I went to go over this today I found them quite  out of place and definitely not in keeping with Wikipedia standards. The suggestion of using HTML comments is a good one, and if I am editting again I will try and remember to do it. Good idea! --CokeBear 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since my last comment I was successful in contacting the user who added these comments, and they have now posted a proposed rewrite, see below. Qutezuce 22:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of place Coments 

message: Here is a proposed rewrite. I have tried to keep it neutral with references noted:
The politics 
Arrow Costs
Many have contended that the cost of the Arrow was simply too much for the Canadian economy to handle. This however is not supported by documents declasssifed by the author of Storms. While it is acknowledged the cost of the program was high, both the Prime Minister and Minster of National Defence noted that cost was not the reason for the cancellation of the program. Their comments are documented in Storms and Requiem. In 1955, the findings of a special government committee on the Arrow stated, "The greater effectiveness and greater range of the CF 105 results in the need for less aircraft and fewer bases. Aircraft for aircraft the F102B is less costly but, dollar for dollar, the CF 105 provides significantly more defence…The burden of cost involved in this course of action is in inherent in an air defence system which is kept abreast of the developing threat." (From files at the Directorate of History, Department of Natioal Defence, Canada, 73/1223 and reproduced in Requiem) As a side note, the Arrow was originally to be a one for one replacement for the CF 100 but because of the reason stated here, fewer aircraft were needed.
Historians have maintained the cost per aircraft would be $12 million dollars. Audit Records revealed in Storms and Requiem show that the total cost of the program when complete was going to be $1.111 billion. This figure included all of the development cost, all of the production and tooling, support equipment, combat stocks of Falcon missiles and finally, the aircraft themselves at a fly-away cost of $3.75 million each, not $12 million. Too often fly-away cost is confused with overall program cost. As more aircraft were produced, the fly-away cost was going to drop to below $3 million, more than comparable to the less capable single-engine F106 for example.
Requiem details the reasons why costs escalated. Much of it is attributable to rising labour and material costs. What the documents also show though is that parts of the program were progressing faster than anticipated hence costs not expected until months or years later, were appearing earlier on. In addition, costs were fluctuating due to the numerous redesigns the RCAF was imposing on Avro. World conditions were also playing apart in that when the Soviets unveiled new aircraft, the program was accelerated accordingly, by the RCAF. The afformentioned file contains the relevant documentation supporting this scenario.
What was revealed in Storms, was the Top Secret brief prepared for George Pearkes, then Minister of National Defence, for his July 1958 meeting with officials from the US. The NORAD agreement had been signed in 1957 and the American were requesting that Canada install Bomarc bases along with SAGE and gap filler radar. From the Top Secret brief, "The introduction of SAGE in Canada will cost in the neighborhood of $107 million. Further improvements are required in the radar…NORAD has also recommended the introduction of the BOMARC missile…will be a further commitment of $164 million…. All these commitments coming at this particular time…will tend to increse our defence budget by as much as 25 to 30 percent…" Pearkes was also concerned about funding a defence against ballistic missiles. From an American brief of the meeting with Pearkes, "He [Pearkes] stated that the problem of developing a defence against missiles while at the same time completing and rounding out defence measures against manned bombers posed a serious problem for Canada from the point of view of expense…" Eisenhower Library, File: DDE Trip to Canada, Memcons, July 8-11, 1958, Canada-U.S. Defence Problems. See Requiem
So, the problem was a combination of costs that Canada could not afford. What was revealed in the late 1990s, was a taped interview Pearkes gave to his biographer. In that recording Pearkes discusses these problems and then reveals that he was advised by an American oficial, while en route to Colorado, that Canada did not need to build aircraft because the US had plenty and could make them available at any time. On tape Pearkes states that this is when he made his decision. His dilemma though was how to fill in the defence gap from cancellation of the Arrow to the time when Bomarc bases would be operational. On tape he reveals a secret deal he struck to allow American training in Goosebay and Labrador and Cold Lake, in exchange for protection. By August 11 1958, Pearkes requested cancellation of the Arrow.
It has been stated that the Army and Navy were upset with the cost of the Arrow as their own programs might be jeopardized. This is not borne out by the documentary record. When Pearkes tabled his memo to cancel, the Cabinet Defence Committee refused. He table it again in September and recommended installation of Bomarc etc. The latter was accepted but again the CDC refused to cancel. The CDC wanted to wait until 31 March 1959, to better examine world conditions. What was cancelled in September 1958 was the Sparrow/Astra system. Ill advised from the start, Avro and others had recommended against this system from the start.
The onset of Sputnik had also raised the spectre of attack from space and as the year wore on, word of a missile gap began spreading. Money would be needed for a defence against ballistic missiles. At the same time, the manned bomber threat was perceived to be diminishing. Noted Pearkes in a document after the cancellation, " We did not cancel the CF 105 because there was no bomber threat but because there was a lesser threat and we got the Bomarc in lieu of more airplanes to look after this." Department of National Defence, Directorate of History, File 79/469 Folder 19 see Requiem. We now know the missile gap was a fabrication and just a few months after the cancellation, the Americans were advising Canada to purchase interceptors, like American Voodoos.
Canada tried to sell the Arrow aircraft to the US and Britain but had no takers. Storms revealed that Donald Putt, AFRDC wanted to purchase the Arrow for the American inventory but the Secretary of the Air Force said no as did John Foster Dulles. In other words, while it is true that many Americans supported the Arrow, those that mattered did not, for various reasons not the least of which was pressure from American industry to purchase American made goods. Dulles said as much to Canadian officials, at the Paris summit in 1958.
The French government, prepared to buy some 200 Iroquois engines, cancelled the order in 1958, being advised by persons unknown that the Arrow was going to be cancelled.
On February 20, 1959 Diefenbaker announced to the Canadian House of Commons that the Arrow and Iroquois programs were to be immediately cancelled. The telegrams sent to Avro were very clearly and precise on the meaning of immediate. With no work available, this left the A.V. Roe Company no choice but to lay off some 14,000 workers in one afternoon. Declassified records show Avro was caught unprepared by the suddeness of the anouncement by the government. Some 25,000 were laid off due to cancellations of contracts with various subcontractors. These numbers are from declassified government records.
Within two months, all aircraft and engines, production tooling and technical data, were ordered scrapped. Contrary to popular belief, the scrap orders did not include photos or film of the aircraft in flight. An attempt was made to provide the completed Arrows to the Canadian National Research Council. The latter refused noting that without a company to provide spare parts and maintenance, as well as pilots, the NRC could make no use of them. As a static test bed, the NRC could not guarantee security around the aircraft. Remember, this was the cold war.
Why is the Arrow such a volatile subject in Canada?
There may be several reasons. Firstly, as noted from the above discussion, most of the information and records were kept in secret for over 30 years. Many thought the records had been destroyed until discovered and declassified for Storms and later Requiem. This screcy allowed much erroneous information to be propagated over the years. For example, the discussion on cost remains a major sticking point although now the audit records have been revealed. 
Crawford Gordon was vilified for allegedly having argued with the Prime Minister at length and so the project was cancelled because of this. The two men met once. Writing in his memoirs, Diefenbaker made light of the encounter. It occurred long before the cancellation. Also, Gordon is accused of firing everyone out of spite. Again, the facts do not support this. 
For his part, Diefenbaker has been vilified for ordering the physical destruction of the Aircraft. This too has been laid to rest as the paper trail of the decision was revealed in Storms.  It leads to to Pearkes and the Chief of the Air Staff. 
The fact of a mole in Avro was revealed in the 70s in a book called, "For Services Rendered," about the RCMP. The fact of the mole was confirmed by RCAF personnel to the author of Storms. Later this fact was confirmed in a book called the Mitrokhin archives. The mole issue was given in Stroms as the reason why the aircraft and plans were destroyed. This was further supported in Storms in quoting an Aviation Week article from 1959 that stated government officials had said the plans were destroyed as they could aid a potential enemy.
The engineers have been castigated by historians for building a flawed aircraft but this was proven incorrect by the documented record. Some Canadian historians have since changed their comments about a technically inferior plane as a result. Note that magazines of day such as Aviation Week in the US and Flight magazine in Britain, hailed the technical advances being made in the design of the Arrow and Iroquois engines.
So, given the lack of information and the fact that over 25,000 Canadians, their friends and families were affected, it is easy to see how this has become a volatile subject.
Although almost everything connected to the program was destroyed, the forward fuselage and some sections of the wings and control surfaces of the first Mark 2 Arrow were saved and are on display at the Canadian Aviation Museum in Ottawa.
In 1961, the RCAF purchased 66 CF-101 Voodoo aircraft to serve in the role originally intended to be filled by the Arrow. The controversy surrounding this acquisition, and Canada's acquiring nuclear weapons for the Voodoos and Bomarcs eventually led to the collapse of the Diefenbaker government in 1963.
There is a belief, held by many people, that one lone Arrow was flown away before it could be destroyed, and is now stored in some remote location in Canada. This is, most likely, a myth, kept alive by the wishes of those who would like to have seen the project continue.
Declassified Records 
Here is a summary of some questions that have been posed over the years, as answered by just a few of the declassified documents themselves.  These documents are discussed further in Storms and Requiem:
a. On Cost: "Arrow costs compare favourably with the somewhat less sophisticated aircraft in the USA..."(RCAF Memo March 28, 1958 RG 24 Box 6430)
"If this (Arrow) were the only requirement for our air defence, we could perhaps make provision for it in our succeeding defence budgets..."(Pearkes to Dulles in explaining how adding SAGE/Bomarc would stress the defence budget TOP SECRET brief July 8 1958 from RG 49, Vol. 427, File 159-44-B, part 1)
		
		
b. Did the Arrow even have a mission?  “What was so wrong with countering the Soviet threat...with alternate weapons such as the superb F-101 Voodoo?”: 
"With the object of economy and to avoid unnecessary duplication, every effort has been made to determine whether future U.K. or U.S. aircraft could meet our requirements...In the U.K. the only aircraft for consideration is the Javelin whose performance falls far short of the requirement. In the United States there is the Convair F-102...does not meet the range requirement...The RCAF, therefore have had A.V. Roe Canada work out an engineering proposal for an aircraft to meet our specification." (the Honourable Brooke Claxton to cabinet November 30 1953 from RG 24/83/84/167 Box 6426)
Major General G.E. Price "...did not foresee the day of the phasing out of the manned interceptors as he felt there would always be a need for judgement and mobility in a weapon system." (General Price to the RCAF after a two day review of the entire project, in October 31 and November 1 1955, in which the USAF team concluded that the Arrow was superior to their F101, that Falcon should be the weapon of choice and that Iroquois would improve the performance of their own aircraft from RG 24/83/84/167, Box 6426)
The mission would be, "...primarily in peacetime to expose violation of national airspace...In wartime, reconnaissance aircraft are targets the same as any other enemy aircraft...an alternative supersonic two-place all-weather interceptor that generally meets the operational requirement is defined in OCH 1/1-63. This aircraft would have to be equal to or superior to the Arrow Weapons System."(RCAF review of the project late 1958 from RG 24 Box 6430)
		
c. When the Arrow was terminated, was it really a disaster for Canada's aviation industry?: 
"...It has been our experience in the past that the potentialities of the Canadian aircraft industry and its allied companies have not always been appreciated...Lack of an immediate and long-range programme will result in a deterioration of the industry's effective operating capacity...We believe the industry at the moment to be in serious jeopardy."( Air Industries and Transport Association to the Prime Minister in December 1957. Arrow was the largest single ongoing project at the time therefore its termination would be disastrous. From The Scientific and Industrial Resources of the Canadian Aircraft Industry J.H. Parkin files NRC Ottawa)
		 
d. Was Avro capable of delivering a first-class weapons system in the first place? 
"There is no doubt that the firm is capable with its present labour force and space of meeting the likely demands for the RCAF and in fact exceeding them considerably...Orenda Engines Ltd...is excellently equipped and there is no doubt whatever of its ability to match the aircraft programme in mind by Avro Aircraft Ltd."(Evaluation of the Canadian CF-105 as an All-Weather Fighter for the RAF, Report by the Joint Air Ministry/Ministry of Supply Evaluation Team 1956.)
		
e. Questions remain about the Arrow's airframe design, and its engine was still developmental. 
"This aircraft is now in the test flying stage and flights to date indicate it will meet its design requirements. The engine for the aircraft, which is part of the Arrow programme, is also undergoing air tests. These tests indicate that it also will meet its design requirements."(RG 2, Cabinet Conclusions, August 1958)
		
"Very few engineering problems are expected in the production or flight testing of the Arrow 2 airframe..."(RG 24, Box 6433 Assistant for Arrow Weapon System Office, January 1, 1959)
		
f. Even its proposed weapon system was still on the drawing board. 
"The adoption of the MA-1/Falcon/MB-1 fire control and weapons to the CF 105 programme has reduced the development time and will permit operational aircraft to be delivered for squadron use by September 1960 in place of the spring of 1961...The result of substituting MA-1/Falcon/MB-1 for Astra/Sparrow together with a close analysis of the programme has resulted in an overall saving of...$452.5 million saving on the programme for 100 operational aircraft."(Chief of the Air Staff to Pearkes January 12, 1959 from 73/1223 Series 1, File 12, Directorate of History DND)
:That looks great! Thanks a bunch for the effort! I'd approve of this rewrite, but you might wanna submit this to some more wikipedians that you know, to get their oppinions. This is the kind of stuff that makes the 'pedia great, and   turns articles into featured articles! --Ringmaster j 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Rewrite from Politcs on down 

message: We have a section, "The Arrow's thin wing demanded aviation's first 4000 lb/in² (28 MPa) hydraulic system that could supply enough power while using small actuators. No, the 4,000 lb system was used as it meant smaller piping meaning less weight penalty"
That's contradictory and conversational.  The emphasis is mine.  Anyone care to have a hack at that?  I'm just not brave enough, I don't know what's correct :P
Recentlt the Airbus 380 adopted a 5000 psi system for the same reasons the 4,000 was chosen for the Arrow. (In the 1950s military aircraft had 3000psi systems.) Note the following quote and the respective website:
Hydraulic system
The increase in pressure from 3000 psi to 5000 psi allows the necessary power to be transmitted with smaller piping and hydraulic components. That in itself reduces the aircraft's weight by about 1 metric ton...Airbus selected Eaton to provide the 5000-psi hydraulic power generation for the A380.
http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/IssueList/Article/False/6497/IssueList
There are numerous technical errors in the article. For example, the models flew at Mach 1.7 not Mach 2.
Namestamp with 4 tildes (these ~ things) so people can see your IPs or usernames. Canada-kawaii 14:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I have made quite a few minor edits to clear up redlinks and dates as well as spelling, but there is still work to do. Perhaps someone else could help? --The1exile 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it up! I'll be out of commission until Wed at the earliest, so this is an excellent time to do all the little edits if you see them. Maury 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be able to contribute some points to this article as well as I have the Avro Arrow project as a Social Studies project in school over the next four months. Specifically the controversy surrounding the cancellation. Cheers and Happy Editing! Colt 38 10:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits 

message: The fact that two years of discussion have passed and this article is still in atrocious shape is, frankly, embarrassing. If somebody doesn't get the courage to blow away the poorly referenced and POV parts of this article (particularly the "politics" section) then I will. --Rhombus 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still in dire need of cleanup 

message: I have removed the vast majority of the "back and forth" discussion of the controversy. What I have done instead is collected the various facts supported by the most recent evidence (or so claimed at least) and edited that into a single section. This leaves what appears to be a fairly clear description of what actually happened -- ie, Pearks feeling that the Arrow was the least important and "most cancellable" portion of the military budget.
What has been removed is essentially what people used to think about the issue. It is not clear this is of any use in this article, which is about the plane. What actually happened does seem to be important, which is what remains. Additionally, lots of material on how people felt about the decision was also removed, for similar reasons.
I should point out that I am personally guilty for introducing some of these arguments in the first place, which were then expanded on by other authors trying to "set the facts straight". So to some degree, much of what removed was either my text, or "my fault". I appologize, by attempting to fix it. The resulting snippage should leave the article in a much more readable state, as well as cutting over 10k, about 1/4, from the text.
There are, of course, reasons to want to read accounts that the removed material covered. However, there are a number of good books on this topic, which are mentioned at the end of the article.
Maury 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you provide some reliable sourced information, kindly keep these wonderful observations to this discussion page.Bzuk 04:27 27 February 2007 (UTC).
But I do, Bill! someone keeps deleting  my links to scholarly studies:-< & vandalizing my talk entries.. As a "Master of Education",  degree holder, could you explain the value of a  Masters' thesis?
http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm
Anyone who claims thatAVRO didn't incurr  massive cost overruns HASN'T read Gen.Peakes' memoirs. I'd post the on line link, but hey, truth vanishes here quickly...
Cheers, Opuscalgary 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive snippage 

message: comparable aircraft is difficult but I thought the two Saro's worth a mention in terms of their intention to be a high altitude interceptor with a good rate of climb (20,000 ft/min). They were also cancelled as well but thats neither here nor there). Should this be qualified as a note to the entries?GraemeLeggett 09:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparable 

message: The current entry on armament lists the CF-105 as being capable of carrying 8 Falcons AND 3 - 4 Sparrow IIs.  Shouldn't this be 8 Falcons OR 3 - 4 Sparrow IIs?  (More info/citations on the use of the Genie on the Arrow would be of interest too -- Anyone know the source of the information on the use of the Genie on the Arrow?)
--Plane nutz 14:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct. I have diagrams of the fit somewhere. Has this been fixed yet? Maury 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armament 

message: Just a thought -- I personally find this:
"The official repository of all government documents relating to the Arrow projects, as well as all government documents of historical importance, including contemporary documents still in use which will be deemed historically-important. The entirety of the Avro Arrow documents have not been declassified, only portions based on donor agreements and laws, the entire collection still has decades to go until completely public, in fact, controversial copies of the complete blueprints apparently surviving the destruction of 'all' documents will not become public until 2067. The Library and Archives is the recent consolidation of the two government information powerhouses: the National Archives and the National Library. Interestingly, this institution houses all defence records of Canada, from the country's founding up to the present-day."
suffix to the Library and Archives Canada listing in the references to be far too long, with unnecessary detail.  (This charge could be levelled at several of the descriptions of references, but this is the worst example).  Perhaps it should be reduced to:
The official repository of all government documents relating to the Arrow projects, as well as all government documents of historical importance.
Additionally, a link to Library and Archives Canada (www.collectionscanada.ca) might also be in order.
--Wee Charlie 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: very true, so I trimmed it. GraemeLeggett 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much information? 

message: As is evidenced by the swirling arguments on this discussion page, the CF-105 Arrow article is lengthy, convoluted and filled with questionable POV. I have begun an extensive rewrite based on the current reference sources on the subject that may produce a more refined and utlimately useful article. Keep watching the page and help in this edit if you can.  
Bzuk 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avro Arrow article revisited

message: In 1997, the CBC broadcast the two-part mini-series, The Arrow about the Arrow program, which remains one of the most-watched television programs in Canadian history.
I asked for a citation on this point a while ago, but the reference provided is a newspaper column that doesn't mention the viewership of the mini-series at all.  I won't remove the claim, since I assume there was a cut-n-paste error with the citation.
—Eric S. Smith 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply: How about "a one-time viewing audience of 2.5 million, making it, at the time, one of the most watched English-language CBC broadcasts." Again, I did not post the the original statement but I did try to justify its claim. Bzuk 02:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Docudrama "most-watched ... in Canadian history"? 

message: As it is further reading and not references, I can understand a certain amount of commentry - for instance to indicate whether the work is solely on the Arrow or Arrow and others or politics rather than technical dimensions - but they should still be NPOV comments and preferably brief. GraemeLeggett 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: "similar to the system utilized in the F-86D". IIRC, weren't they proposing to use the MG-1 in C-104 proposals? Maury 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar? Or identical? 

message: http://gateway.uvic.ca/schoolnet/digicol/pearkes/plv5/parrow.html
I would like to restore my footnote,  Can we discuss this? Lets give Pearkes some credit- Valiant soldier, seasoned MP, Major General WHO WON THE VICTORIA CROSS.
General Pearkes was pretty capable.I am rather amused at the 'Arrowheads' low  opinion of him.(  & THE VC,Cabinet posts, Governorships, etc.....)
*In hindsight, for fifty years the CF101 Voodoo,& the F-18 Hornet have successfully secured Candian airspace. (Lt. Governor Pearkes,ten years later, vindicated the CF 101 Voodo purchases)
Opuscalgary 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not "the chopper", but frankly I think this language is over the top. For one thing the F-18 costs considerably more than the Arrow, so it's also counterfactual. I do agree, however, that Pearkes' decisionmaking is interesting, and should be included. Maury 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this ruminating is fine as a discussion although there is nothing here other than personal observations. There is a broad and extensive body of evidence that can be accessed to support any submission to a Wikipedia article. In the case of the Avro Arrow "saga," there are extant documents found at the National Aeronautical Collection of the Canada Aviation Museum as well as in other repositories across Canada. If you chose to provide sourced documentation that reflects an objective and historically accurate account, then go to it. Otherwise, restrict your opinions to this discussion page. Bzuk 15:23 3 March 2007 (UTC).
and then:
Since you have removed all comments that were for courtesy sent to this page, let me reiterate some of the points that I made. I first indicated that I thought that it is interesting that the debate about the relative merits of a cancelled aircraft project still warrants discussion nearly sixty years after its demise. However, for the respective views to be fully aired, I asked for a degree of dispassionate and objective perspectives to be maintained.
Although I am fairly new to the Wikipedia world, I do have an interest in Canada's aviation heritage. For prospective Wikipedia editors, the basic tenets of Wikipedia use include the following:
Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them; 
Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations; 
Stay cool when the editing gets hot; 
Avoid edit wars and follow the three-revert rule; 
Act in good faith; 
Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; 
Assume good faith on the part of others, and 
Be open and welcoming. 
At this point, you have been in contravention of all of these guidelines and although these tenets are established to illustrate and guide progress, they are the "backbone" of civil discourse in what is primarily an "open" forum. If you continue to insist that you have contradictory evidence, the onus is on you or any other editor to provide sourced documentation. There is a comprehensive bibliography of reference sources extant as well as a myriad of other first-person accounts. Rely on them to build your commentary. You may want to take the opportunity to read the earlier discussions still available on the Avro Arrow "talk" page as it is illustrative of the editorial development of what is undoubtably still a contentious subject. As to your aspersions as to my intent or that of other editors, I refer you to the guidelines that specifically preclude personal attacks (especially on people you do not know- Maury Markowitz is considered a premier Canadian aviation historian and does not deserve to be castigated as a "troll" which you have insinuated, as for myself, "water on a duck's back" is my reaction). Bzuk 22:59 3 March 2007 (UTC).
And 
Hi -----, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).
Hi -----: I am the editor that Mister Bill is warring on. Here is the link that he keeps deleting, along with 90% of my talk entries.
http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm
I realise that Mr. Zuk has built a cottage industry on Arrow prints. I have read his books.
He should have consulted The late Peter Walmsley,  Professor 1959 -1990, U of S College of Commerce, Battle of Britain Vet, FORMER AVRO EXECUTIVE (to 1958).
I studied under Peter. Your mediation is appreciated.
regards  R Saretsky , Opuscalgary 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERRORATTA!

message: Maury, Bill, Relax- its spring. 
Da Deal:
If you clean this article in the next four months, I will shut up.If you want to take a posse to mediation, be my guest. If the  AVRO ARROW article has not been cleaned by July /2007,I will truth & cut those  bloviated  Black Friday & political sections.
or:
2. Someone who is not Maury, Bzuk,OR MYSELF, gives a balanced account of George Pearkes,VC's decisions on cancelling the Avro Arrow.
His descendants would be pleased,& his service to Canada rates it.
"...At the 120th CDC meeting on 15 August 1958,60 Pearkes outlined the various scenarios the CSC had examined: 
The present programme, which called for the re-equipping of the nine RCAF all-weather squadrons in Canada with CF-105 aircraft, presented a requirement, with training and backup, for a production order of 169 CF-105 aircraft at a forecast total expenditure of over two billion dollars during the period 1959-1960 to 1963-1964..."
http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm
thanks
Opuscalgary 21:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm new to this article, so hopefully I can bring an unbiased voice...please keep in mind that the thesis that you keep referencing is not considered a primary published source according to WP policy and guidelines. This is an unpublished work posted on the internet, which makes it one step away from OR. This article should primarily document the aircraft. If you want to have a detailed treatise on the politics that surrounded it, I strongly suggest that such material be trimmed from this article and put into one specifically on the larger political controversies that surrounded the project. I know that there are some strong emotions involved here, and everyone needs to work extra hard to keep them out of this discussion. There's a lot of POV involved here, and everyone really needs to rise above that. Akradecki 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Opus, it is entirely fair to seek the input of a neutral 3rd party experienced editor. And, I'm sorry, but the thesis simply doesn't cut the mustard in regards to Wikipedia's policy on source matter.Akradecki 15:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fellows this is silly stuff. 

message: Bill, (BZuk, else it looks like I'm talking to myself!), have you considered splitting off the extensive political coverage to their own article? I know the text is not as long as some articles, but this is often done with the longer aircraft pages (ie. F-14 Tomcat has a separate History page, and I believe the F-16 Fighting Falcon has an Operators page). I understand that politics is integral to the aircraft's history, but doing this can leave the main page to focus on the aircraft itself, with just brief coverage of the controveries, and a  link to the spinoff page. It can have the added benefit of making the main page less of a target for controversial edits, while a spin-off page often gets less of that kind of attention. It would also given more room for an expaned coverage of the issues and controversies that we might not want to put in the main article because of space and context (the aircraft itself).
Just an idea. I'm not going to run ahead without you on this, esp. if I don't have a consensus. Just wondering if you had given it any thought. If this were a short page, I wouldn't even worry about it, but when they start to get this long, and attract this much attention, it's worth considering. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, another editor also suggested this alternative and although it has been tried before in a controversial biography (Amelia Earhart and the "disappearance" theories) unless there is a consensus, many editors prefer one longer and more comprehensive article to a number of "linked" articles. Bzuk 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand your point regarding where it is now. However, I think coverage on the political side could be expanded beyond where it is now, and has the potential to overwhelm the rest of the article. Given the amount of sources listed, I'm assuming the potential for expansin is great. In addition, a separate article would give space to further discuss relavant contemprary political issues in greater detail than here. Anyway, it's just a question, and it doesn't have to happen now - it's WIki after all! - BillCJ 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split idea

message: Bill (Bzuk), to me, "number built" implies the number actually built; the rest is covered in the text. Remeber, the Infobox is just meant as a summary, not a detailed list. Just listing "29 in production" could be vague and misleading.
Also, glad you finally caught what I was trying to revert. It happened in your vandal reversion edit of Devon, but I have no clue how! Just mentioning it in case you can figure out what happened. - BillCJ 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, again, the "kindness of strangers syndrome" has worked but even as I entered the figures, I knew something wasn't right... :} Bzuk 21:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number built

message: Im putting it on hold, reasons :
*Lead Section should contain 2-3 paragraphs (MoS:Lead)
*Things in the reference section not used in the text should go into a "Further reading"(Books) or a "External links"(websites) section.
*Some of the links in the text are external links, please use internal links where possible.
*Several Paragraphs go un-cited.
*Some cite are before the text cited, it should go after.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 9 kg, use 9 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 9 kg.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 000 ft.
Thanks for submitting it to Great Article Candidates :) -FlubecaTalk 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article presently being rewritten; stay tuned.  Bzuk 00:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Opus has been involved in a long campaign of attacking BZuk for reverting a single edit he made back in Feb. Since then he's gone around the wiki posting comments like this one, but typically adding something insulting about BZuk's mental state. When I warned him to stop, he did the same thing to me, both on his talk page and in e-mail. He has been blocked from editing as a result. Don't expect a response... Maury 12:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Does anyone else find it amusing that he can't even spell my name? I know I do~ Blocked sock account. Maury 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And another. Maury 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Candidate