135 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 39 previous comments
- Feb 13, 2012
- I recall the Avro Aero Car, it was actually kind of a flying saucer, and officially it was the only flying saucer that the Air Force built, but it was built up in Canada. In most cases it seems something is mainly build to make the big wig happy not to advance aviation. Unless it is for War.Feb 13, 2012
- Um, 'vieled threat of war'? Are you serious? Where did you get that from? The US never threatened war with Canada over the Avro Arrow. The US did want the program canceled but that was because they wanted to sell Canada SAMs instead. But there was no threat of war. Just a pushy pointing out that the future threat was from ICBMs, not manned bombers flying over the north pole.
And ultimately it was Canada's decision to cancel the program. Ostensibly because it was too expensive. And for the time the Avro Arrow was extremely expensive.
And also the Arrow was most certainly not 'better than the planes we have now'. The Arrow would have been a good plane for it's time (although hardly 40 years ahead of the rest of the world - other countries were working on similarly capable jets at the time) but it's time was almost 60 years ago. It seems every time I hear someone talk about the Arrow they keep inflating what it was capable of.
For one thing the current CF-18s are multi-purpose fighters. The Arrow was solely a bomber interceptor. The arrow wouldn't have had the maneuverability necessary for fighter interception or general air superiority missions. Nor would it have been able to hold enough ordnance for bombing missions the way the CF-18 can. The Arrows sole purpose was to take off from air bases in the south and fly at high speeds to intercept Russian bombers over the Arctic Ocean. It couldn't do much else.Feb 13, 2012
- OK, first things first: "US officials said that it was a 'threat to America' if the Arrow was developed and they will consider 'military action'" Seriously. I spent some time googling for this and all I found were some claims on some conspiracy web forums.
Second: The Arrow was most certainly not fuel efficient. ALL aircraft at the time - including the Arrow had it ever actually flown - were extremely inefficient. Extra-especially at high speeds.
As for speed and range and altitude your wrong yet again. It's true that the Arrow was, as I said before, a good plane for it's day, but it wasn't 40 years ahead. The Arrow was to have a range of around 556 km (that's 200 nautical miles, hence the weird number in km). A cruising altitude of 50k ft, and a top speed of around Mach 2. Before the Arrow no existing bomber interceptor could do that. But the Arrow wasn't the only aircraft under development at the time. [My citation would be the wikipedia page on the avro arrow]
Just a few years later (the Arrow having been canceled in 1959 probably won't be in actual service until at least 1960) in 1964 the MiG 25 entered service in the Soviet air force. It had a range of 1730km, with a ceiling of around 80k ft and a top speed of Mach 3.2. The Arrow was obsolete 5 years after it was canceled. [Again, my source would be the wikipedia page on the MiG-25.]
EDIT: Sorry, 80k ft, not 80k km. /EDIT
Third: "Canada and the US have been at war several times over the past few hundred years (mostly when Canada was still British North America, but twice after Canada was granted it's independance from Britian" - Wrong. In so many ways wrong.
The US has only been at war with Britian/Canada twice. Well, I mean wars that were actually declared and fought over. (So, thus excluding the 'Aroostook War'(1838) and the 'Pig War' (1859), which were boundary disputes which resulted in troop deployments but no actual fighting.) Namely the American Revolutionary War (1776) (when one American Army tried to invade what is now Quebec but failed horribly) and the War of 1812 which ended in a draw. (As much as both sides like to claim 1812 was a resounding victory for their side truth was it was a draw in most respects.) Both of these wars occurred before Canadian independence. (And for that matter so did the other 2 'wars'.)
And besides, when exactly do you put 'Canadian Independence'? Because I could give you a number of dates in which powers were transfered from London to the colonies/Canada (1848, 1867, 1931, 1947, 1965, 1982) but I don't really think of any one of them as 'the date of Canadian independence.' Canadian independence was a very piece-meal affair that evolved over time rather than a singular event like American independence.Feb 14, 2012
- You are just going by the words used to label the hover craft like transport. Words do play tricks, and this was around 1965 or so, the maker was Avro AerospaceFeb 14, 2012
- I liked what I discovered in projections of future projects desire for the next 50 years or so. As humanity learns to live in space and prepair to venture beyond the Sol Solar System as the 21 century nears it's final years. Some of the ideas seem they have come from desires of the Engineers at Lockheed Martian based in Denver. I have talked with some since my brother is an EE engineer there and use to and may still work on the Orion Space capsule. It use to be as part of the Constellation program that Bush created in 2004 as we were to return to and colonize the Moon.
Now that the budget for Mars has grown bigger than could be funded, the project seems to have ended and the Moon is returning to become a project that may meet the money available.
Who knows after some time of lunar living in a less costly method we may go from the Moon to Mars. In the Constellation project they had dreams of 2018 return to the Moon and 2033 look into going from the Moon to Mars, maybe even a colony in 2036 from materials built on the Moon or Lunar orbit.
With the funding aspects of today, figure a return Moon landing in 2020 to 2025 then Mars in 2050 or so with possible Asteroid landings in 2030.
These projects may come in less time than projected, and this all depends on the amounts invested. And the investment rate depends on how the public desires projects to be started. I still like my idea of making all investments into space not taxable and all profit returns invested back into space projects non-taxable. Doing this could speed up space exploration 50 to 200%Feb 14, 2012