Talk:CF-105 Arrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Aviation
 Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(comments)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. everything up to February 2006


This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Contents

[edit] Hello Ringmaster

Thanks for your comment. I am new to this so I don't know any other wickpedians. Actually Qutezuce guided me through getting the rewrite onto this talk page. I am 216.106.111.151.

[edit] Clarification

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.

[edit] Rewrite from Raison D'etre to Politics

Here is an attempted re-write in hopes of clearing up the facts while keeping the article neutral:

Raison d'être In the post-World War II period, the Soviet Union began developing a fleet of long-range bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons to North America and Europe. To counter this threat, Western countries began the development of interceptor aircraft which could engage and destroy these bombers before they reached their targets.

Avro had come into being in 1945, but within the short period of 4 years, had developed and flown the first commercial jet transport to fly in North America, the C102 Jetliner. A comparable American regional jet would not fly until well into the mid 1950s. Avro’s first military aircraft development was the subsonic Avro CF-100 Canuck. Begun in 1946, the Cannuck would not enter service until 1953 but due to the lead times in building new aircraft and the advances that were thought to have been made in the Soviet Union, the RCAF began looking for a supersonic replacement. An RCAF team led by Ray Footit visited US aircraft producers and declared that no existing, or planned, aircraft could fulfil the requirements the RCAF was considering for the replacement to the Cannuck. In March 1952, the RCAF's Final Report of the All-Weather Interceptor Requirements Team was submitted to Avro for consideration. Avro had already been studying a supersonic aircraft to replace the Cannuck and submitted two brochures to the RCAF showing two separate configurations, the C-104/1 with a single engine, and the C-104/2 with twin engines.

The planes were otherwise similar, using a low-mounted delta-wing, powered by the new Orenda TR.9 engines, armed with Velvet Glove missiles (an RCAF design) stored in an internal bay, crewed by a single pilot, and guided with a completely automatic interception system that would track down and attack the target after it was selected by the pilot (similar to the F-86D). The primary advantage of the twin engine /2 version was that it was larger overall, including a much larger weapons bay, and had the advantage of twin-engine reliability.

In May 1953, the RCAF issued Specification AIR 7-3 and this became the basis for further studies.

AIR 7-3 called specifically for the twin-engined aircraft, for a number of reasons. On the one hand, the second engine provided a greater measure of reliability over the vast expanses of the Canadian north the Arrow was expeceted to defend against. On the other, given the large weapons bay being specified and the large amount of fuel required for the range, no single engine would be suitable to powere the aircraft.

The range was to be 300 nautical miles (556 km) for a normal low-speed mission, and 200 nautical miles (370 km) for a high-speed interception mission. It was to fly at Mach 1.5, cruise at an altitude of 50,000 feet (15,000 m), and be able to pull 2 g in maneuvers with no loss of speed or altitude under those conditions. American aircraft were pulling 1.3g at 30,000 feet. The time from a signal to start the engines to the aircraft's reaching an altitude of 50,000 feet (15,000 m) and a speed of Mach 1.5 was to be less than five minutes. The turn-around time on the ground was to be less than ten minutes. The new specification also called for a crew of two, as it was considered unlikely that even a fully automated system would reduce pilot workload enough to allow only one pilot.

To meet the requirements, the engineers considered the delta. In the words of designer Jim Floyd, “At the time we laid down the design of the CF-105, there was a somewhat emotional contoversy going on in the United States on the relative merits of the delta plan form versus the straight wing for supersonic aircraft…our choice of a tailless delta was based mainly on the compromise of attempting to achieve structural and aeroelastic efficiency, with a very thin wing, and yet, at the same time, achieving the large internal fuel capacity required for the specified range.” (Floyd, James, Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Devember 1958.)

Avro returned their modified C-105 design in May 1953, a two-man version of the C-104/2. It was decided to move the wing to the upper part of the fuselage from its former low-mounted point, in order to improve access to the internals of the plane, weapons bay, and engines. The high-wing on this design also allowed the wing to be a single structure across the plane, which simplified construction and added strength. However this also required long landing gear that still needed to fit within the thin delta-wing -- an engineering challenge. Five different wing sizes were outlined in the report, from 1,000 to 1,400 ft² (93 to 130 m²). The 1,200 ft² (111 m²) version was eventually selected. Three engines were considered as well; the Rolls-Royce RB-106, the Bristol B.0L.4 Olympus, and the Curtiss-Wright J67 (a license-built version of the Olympus). The RB-106 was selected with the J67 as a backup.

The weapons bay was larger than the 104/2, situated in a large thin box running from the front to the middle of the wing. The weapon system originally selected was the Hughes MX-1179, which was the pairing of the existing MA-1 fire-control system, firing AIM-4 Falcon missiles of radar-guided and heat seeking variants. This system was already under development for proposed use in the US's WS-201 1954 Interceptor (dating from 1949, which would lead to the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger). The Velvet Glove radar-guided missile was considered unsuitable for supersonic launch, and further work on that project was cancelled in 1956.

In July 1953 the proposal was accepted and Avro was given the go-ahead to start a full design study. In December, the Cabinet Defence Committee gave approval for the construction of two prototype aircrft, at $26.9 million. At first the project was limited in scope, but the introduction of the Soviet Myasishchev M-4 Bison jet bomber and their testing of a hydrogen bomb dramatically changed priorities. In order to speed production, more aircraft would be required for testing purposes. As a result, in March 1955, at the 104th meeting of the Cabinet Defence Committee, approximately $261 million was authorized, for the production of 40 aircraft. Approximately $70 million of the funding was for the development of 14 Iroquois engines, the engine being developed by Orenda and deemed suitable for the Arrow.

Production starts Most aircraft designs start with the construction of a small number of hand-built prototypes. These are test-flown, and the inevitable problems are discovered and fixed. Once satisfactory results are achieved, a set of jigs for production construction are laid out in the assembly hall. This is a slow and expensive process, but a safe one.

For the Arrow project it was decided to adopt the Cook-Craigie plan. Developed in the 1940s, Cook-Cragie skipped the prototype phase and built the first test-airframes on the production jigs. Any changes could be incorporated into the jigs while testing continued, so production started as soon as the test program was complete. As Jim Floyd noted at the time, this was a risky approach but together with the RCAF, “…it was decided to take the technical risks involved to save time on the programme…I will not pretend that this philosophy of production type build from the outset did not cause us a lot of problems in Engineering. However, it did achieve its objective..” (Floyd, Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Decmber 1958).

In order to mitigate the risks, a massive testing program was started and by mid-1954, the first production drawings were issued and wind tunnel work began. In another program, 9 instrumented free-flight models were mounted on solid Nike rockets and launched over Lake Ontario while 2 more were launched across Wallops Island in the United States. These models were for aerodynamic drag and stability testing and achievied a maximum speed of Mach 1.7 before intentionally crashing into the water. Ongoing efforts have been made to search for the models in Lake Ontario but none have been found to date.

Testing showed the need for only a small number of changes to the design, mostly involving changes to the wing profile and positioning. In order to improve performance the front of the wing was drooped, especially on the outer sections, a dog-tooth was introduced to control spanwise flow, and the whole wing was given a slight negative camber to help control trim drag and pitch-up.

The area rule principle was also applied to the design. This resulted in several changes including the addition of a tailcone, sharpening the radar nose, thinning the intake lips and reducing the cross-sectionial area of the fuselage below the canopy.

The aircraft used a large measure of magnesium and titanium in the fuselage, the latter limited largely to the area around the engines and for fasteners. At the time titanium was an expensive material and not widely used, because it was difficult to machine. The construction of the airframe itself was fairly conventional, however, with a semi-monocoque frame and multi-spar wing.

The hydraulic system chosen was an advanced 4000 lb/in² (28 MPa) as it meant smaller piping resulting overall in a reduction in weight. Use of an advanced stability augementation system (rudimentary fly-by-wire system) resulted in the problem of the lack of control "feel" for the pilot, and to solve this the control stick input was "disconnected" from the hydraulic system. The pilot's input was sensed by a series of force transducers in the stick, and their signal was sent to an electronic control servo that operated the valves on the hydraulic system to move the various flight controls. In addition, the same box fed pressure back into actuators in the stick itself, making it move. This happened quickly enough that it appeared as if the pilot were moving the stick directly. Three modes of control were available, manual, automatic and emergency mode.

In 1954 the RB.106 program was cancelled, so plans were made to use the backup J67 instead. In 1955 this engine was also cancelled, leaving the plane with no engine. At this point the new Pratt & Whitney J75 was selected for the initial test-flight models, while the new TR.13 (soon PS-13 Iroquois) engine was developed at Orenda for the production Mk.2s.

In 1956, the RCAF demanded an additional change, the use of the advanced RCA-Victor Astra fire-control system in place of the MX-1179, firing the equally advanced US Navy Sparrow II in place of the Falcon. Avro objected to this choice on the grounds that neither of these were even in testing at that point, whereas both the MX-1179 and Falcon were almost ready for production. The RCAF planners felt that the greatly improved performance of the Sparrow was worth the gamble.

The Astra proved to be a serious problem in the Arrow design. The system ran into a lengthy period of delays, and the US Navy eventually cancelled all work on the Sparrow II in 1956. This left the Arrow weaponless, although Canadair was quickly brought in to continue the Sparrow program in Canada.

A rush study looked at alternatives, including resurrecting the Velvet Glove for use with the Astra, or the use of the original MX-1179 system with its Falcons. Even the MX-1179 had run into difficulties, and the F-102 eventually settled on the older MG-1 system originally used in the F-86D. Work was continuing on the MX, however, as it was planned to be used in the upgraded F-102B (later renamed as the Convair F-106 Delta Dart), so this was selected for the Arrow as well.

Mark 1 Go-ahead on the production was given in 1955, and the rollout of the first prototype, RL-201, took place October 4 1957, quite an achievement for a company that had never built a supersonic aircraft. Unfortunately, the roll-out was dwarfed by the launch the same day, of Sputnik.

The J75 was slightly heavier than the PS-13, and hence required ballast to be placed in the nose to move the center of gravity back to the correct position. In addition, the Astra fire-control system was not ready, and it too was replaced by ballast. The otherwise unused weapons bay was loaded with test equipment.

Avro Arrow RL-201 first flew on March 25, 1958. Four more J75-powered Mk.1s were delivered in the next two years. The test flights went surprisingly well; the plane demonstrated excellent handling at all extremes of the flight envelope. The aircraft flew supersonically on only its third flight and on its seventh flight, achieved a spedd of over 1,000 miles per hour at 50,000 feet, while climbing and still accelerating. A top speed of Mach 1.98 would eventually be reached at three quarters throttle..

No major problems were encountered during the testing phase -- there were some issues with the landing gear, flight control system, and the stability augmentation system needed considerable tuning.

The former problem was partly due to the gear being very thin, in order to fit into the wings. In order to achieve gear stowage upon retraction, the landing gear was of the tandem arrangement - two tires: one in front of and one behind the gear leg. The leg shortened in length and twisted as it was stowed. During one landing incident, the chain mechanism used in the Mark 1 gear jammed, resulting in incomplete rotation of the gear. In a second incident, the flight control system commanded elevons full down at landing, resulting in little weight being on the main landing gears and ultimately resulting in brake lockup and gear collapse.

The stability augmentation system was a matter of tuning. Although the Arrow was not the first plane to use such a system, it used it for all three axes which other aircraft did not - it was one of the first, and the concept had not yet developed into the science it is today.

Mk.2 The Mk.2 version was to be fitted with the Iroquois engine. The Astra/Sparrow fire control system had been terminated by the government in September 1958 and all aircraft were to have the Hughes/Falcon system installed. At the time of cancellation of the entire program, the first Arrow Mk.2, RL-206, was nearly complete. It was expected to break the world speed record but never had the chance.

Top speed would have been limited by frictional heating but as Jim Floyd has said, “The alluminum alloy structure which we favoured was good for speeds greater than a Mach number of 2…” (Floyd, Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, December 1958).

Other versions

Avro Canada had a wide range of Arrow derivatives under development at the time of project cancellation. Frequent mention is made of an Arrow that could have been capable of Mach 3 -- this was not the production version, but one of the design studies, and would have been almost a completely different aircraft from the Arrow Mk.1 and Mk.2, featuring revised engine inlets, and extensive use of stainless steel or titanium to withstand airframe heating.

[edit] Discussion goes on the discussion page!

I am getting rather tired of removing comments from the main page. I found something on the order of two dozen comments in the article body, including hidden comments and outright back-and-forth discussions right in the text!

THIS is the page to discuss issues of fact, that's why it's called the discussion page.

Maury 13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Those comments where made by someone who had no other experience with Wikipedia, so they did not go through the appropriate process. Since then I have been in touch with this user and they have now realized a much more productive way of editing this article (see their proposed rewrite on this talk page). I chose to hide as many of those comments as I could find in HTML comments so that the comments themselves could be dealt with, without making the article look bad to people just reading it. Do you have a problem with having hidden comments? Qutezuce 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Maury, this was CLEARLY discussed above on this page. To barge in here without first reviewing the discussion page yourself makes you appear only concerned with being a WikiPedia "cop" and not at all concerned with being collaborative. I don't care how many articles you have written or edits you have made, you don't have any right to barge in and lecture.--CokeBear 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Pffft, ok, thanks for the lecture.
In case you didn't notice while being upset about how "rude" I was, all the discussion here had resulted in no actual fixes to the article itself. I poured considerable effort into this article some time ago, and to come here and see it butchered simply got my goat. I have every right to be upset.
I'm surprised that I upset your apparently fragile sensitivities, but considering your entire contribution to the article to date is to add a period and a comment in the middle of the text, frankly I don't give a hoot. If you don't like me being a "cop" (although I can't possibly imagine a more innaccurate description of my wiki behavior), stop whining and get to work fixing the article so huge contributers such as myself don't have to come in here and spout off.Maury 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

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)

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)
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)

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

I've attempted three times to parse the diction, w/o ANY content change.

The "Hidden Chopper," who watches this site constantly, reverses the changes... Note below. Opuscalgary 00:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still in dire need of cleanup

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)

[edit] Cultural Impact

Seems difficult to justify without sources - especially since in the UK the TSR-2 is still regarded in high esteem despite its cancellation. And at the very least hardly deserves a section of its own.GraemeLeggett 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it needs a good copyediting. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Also agree. The first thing that sprung to my mind when I read that was "The TSR.2, surely." A full comparison of the issues behind each cancellation would be interesting, too. --Warphammer 23:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Krakow, a Web Comic written by a Canadian expatriate, has recently made a story arc about the Avro Arrow. Well... to be fair, an antrpomorphized Avro Arrow. The Arc begins here. I don't know where to put this, or even if it is relevant.--ttogreh 01:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Soviet Sputnik was not bigger than a basketball. Do we really think that Canadians were afraid of it? By ending this project, Canada missed a change to become a big player rather than the Cold War buddy of the US. I think the cultural impact of Arrow is bigger than it is specifications because it was never entered to service. You need to expand that side of the article. Deliogul 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's difficult to not become a "cold war buddy" of the US when you live right next to them and they have ten times the industrial output (actually, I believe it was much higher in comparison then). This process of integration was well established even by the time the Arrow came around.
Additionally, people weren't "afraid" of Sputnik. The problem was that the Sputnik launcher could also lob a bomb, something an interceptor couldn't do anything about. The response was a massive downscaling of manned aircraft projects around the world, in the US (F-103, F-108, B-70, etc.), the UK (1957 Defense White Paper cancelled dozens of projects), and practically everywhere else. There's no reason to suggest Canada would have, or should have, avoided this. Everyone turned to missiles and ABM work, CADRE included.
And let's not forget that Canada is a big player. Due to Bombardier's presense, Canada's aircraft production is third in the world behind the US and all of Europe put together. I know the Arrow is the one that got away, but I think de Havilland Canada, Canadair and everyone else from Bristol to Zenair would be rather upset to hear people dismiss them as effectively non-existant. And hey, the DASH-8 and CRJ are not exactly uncommon in Turkey! Maury 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive snippage

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)


Opuscalgary( a 50 year old CDN taxpayer, appreciated the cancellation.) Opuscalgary 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] comparable

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)

[edit] Armament

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)

Yes, you are correct. I have diagrams of the fit somewhere. Has this been fixed yet? Maury 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJdKf0EuZjQ&search=avro Actual replica plane used in the cbc movie for the avro aero found in an aircraft museum warehouse. Found in Witaskewin Alberta.

[edit] Too much information?

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)

very true, so I trimmed it. GraemeLeggett 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avro Arrow article revisited

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)

[edit] Docudrama "most-watched ... in Canadian history"?

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)

I worked alongside the CBC crew and was able to write a number of articles based on the making of the TV series. As I said earlier, the broadcast is widely believed to be one of the most watched television programs. CBC reports that the program drew 2.5 million viewers, and, of course, it has been repeated many times on speciality channels testifying to its drawing power to this day. From Peter Zuuring's "Arrow Scrapbook" comes this description: "In early 1997, the CBC aired the very popular mini-series on the Avro Arrow, starring Dan Ackroyd. This show gathered the second largest TV audience in Canadian television history with more than 2.5 million viewers for four hours of television. (The first was Donovan Bailey's ten second Olympic 100 meter run.)"Bzuk 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I loved the TV series. It was a story that needed to be told. However, a comedy series in Quebec (La Petite vie), regularly got 4 millions viewers. I think you need to support your claim on the rankings. Westmalle

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)

[edit] Further reading

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)

Graeme, I take your point. As I came upon the scene fairly late, I wasn't going to make wholesale changes in this section but I did wonder why it wasn't set up as a "references" area. Bzuk 16:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gryon?

Anyone know why the Gyron wasn't selected as one of the Arrow engines? It has performance pretty much identical to the Iroquois and was already running in 1953 when the Arrow design started in earnest. The interest in the RB.106 seems obvious given that it was more advanced than any of these designs (yes, including the Iroquois), but the Olympus and Gyron seem to be pretty much identical in design, as is the later Iroquois. It just seems odd that the Gyron wasn't considered. Maury 15:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with the Gryon engine (I have done numerous internet searches with no success finding any information on it), my understanding is that the Olympus engines were considered only as a temporary design anyway. If memory serves me correctly from past research of this project (I cannont remember the source, which is why I have not mentioned it until now) is that the Rolls Royce and Bristol Siddeley engines were temporary tools to begin testing on the aircraft bodies until a Canadian made engine was produced. Has anyone else come accross a source to back this up? SJM 7 February 2007

[edit] Reply

Quite the reverse. Jim Floyd and others described the dilemna of creating a new airframe married to a new engine then added to that, new and untested avionics, electronic and weapons systems, it was the classic problem of too many "new" things. The Iroquois was in development but only substituted for the original Rolls-Royce and Curtiss-Wright engines. See the following references:

  1. Floyd, James. The Canadian Approach to All-Weather Interceptor Development. "The Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, December 1958."
  2. Page, Ron, Organ, Richard, Watson, Don and Wilkinson, Les. Avro Arrow: The Story of the Avro Arrow from its Evolution to its Extinction. Erin, Ontario: Boston Mills Press, 1979, reprinted Stoddart, 2004. ISBN 1-55046-047-1.
  3. Stewart, Greig. Shutting Down the National Dream: A.V. Roe and the Tragedy of the Avro Arrow. Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson, 1991. ISBN 0-07-551119-3.
  4. Whitcomb, Randall.Avro Aircraft and Cold War Aviation. St. Catharine's, Ontario: Vanwell, 2002. ISBN 1-55125-082-9.
  5. Zuk, Bill. The Avro Arrow Story: The Revolutionary Airplane and its Courageous Test Pilots. Calgary: Altitude Publishing, 2005. ISBN 1-55153-978-0. Bzuk 17:40 7 February 2007 (UTC).


I stand corrected. Thank you for the information. SJM 7 February 2007

[edit] Globemaster: Arrow deja vu?

There should be a section on the recent C-17 plane purchase, it is very related to the Arrow. The yankee are once again pushing down canadian throats some overpriced junk (Bomarc) that will hurt every canadian taxpayer and domestic economy deep in the pocket in the long term. 193.226.227.153 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, yeah. Maury 15:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto- a real stretch here, IMHO. Bzuk 16:12 3 February 2007 (UTC).
I disagree...the C-17 isn't a bad piece of equipment, and doesn't require extra parts (nuclear warheads) to be useful. It's just another purchase of American equipment when we could/should have looked elsewhere (Psyklek 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC))
Psyklek, don't you mean you agree? The C-17 has very little connection to the Avro Arrow; no Canadian aircraft procurement was affected by the purchase of the C-17 and as you indicated, the C-17 Globemaster III is a "good piece of kit." BTW, there is already a very thorough article on the aircraft found on Wikipedia. Bzuk 14:12 7 April 2007 (UTC).
Bzuk, sorry for the confusion. I agree with you and Maury, that the first statement was incorrect. (Psyklek 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Similar? Or identical?

"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)

[edit] Floyd and concorde

Not having access to the reference work in question (I'm working form the Wikipedia articles for Concorde, Floyd and STAC (covered under Bristol 223) I'm still confused. The wikiarticles imply he joined H-S on the SST work in 65 by which point the Concorde prototypes were already building. But H-S were already involved in STAC in the late 50s and their work was passed over for Bristol's. Sud-Aviation showed their design at the start of the 60s. Surely Floyds involvement must have started earlier or his influence been less than implied. (I'll copy this to Floyds article too.)GraemeLeggett 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See article and note regarding Floyd and the HS SST. Bzuk 13:33 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Graeme,the information presented elaborates on the Hawker Siddeley Aviation (HSA) supersonic airliner studies from the Hawker Siddeley Advanced Projects Group headed by James C. Floyd post 1959. The HSA.1000 was the final submission to the Supersonic Transport Aircraft Committee (STAC) which along with the Bristol Aircraft proposal was for an advanced Mach 2.2 design. The STA dictated a joint SST feasibility study in 1959 wherein the two competing design teams could collaborate, this being the only point at which Floyd influenced the ultimate Concorde layout. The HSA.1000 had similarities to the Bristol (later BAC) studies although the HSA design had a blended wing-fuselage with underslung jet engines in nacelles situated at the rear of the wing and the Bristol design was based on a delta wing planform (with an initial above-wing engine configuration). After the Concorde contract was given to the BAC/Sud Aviation collaboration, the HSA SST team continued to develop advanced SST projects but found no interest by either European or American manufacturers with design studies concluded in 1967. I will include this information in both the Avro Arrow and James C. Floyd articles. Bzuk 22:59 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] CF-101 Statement

In the present article, there is a statement to the effect that F-101 was an aircraft "originally rejected by the RCAF".

What is the authority for this statement? There was a reference in the "Arrowheads" (Page et. al.) book on the Arrow to the F-101B being rejected by Ray Footit in his report on interceptors to the RCAF. I've seen the Footit report at the National Archives in Ottawa, and it says no such thing. When the Footit report was written (1952?), the F-101B was a hypothetical design that had not been authorized for development. As such, the report devoted very little attention to it. The ultimate conclusion of the Footit report stated that Canada, if it did not develop the CF-105, should buy the F-102B (later the F-106).--Voodude 17:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The aircraft evaluated was the XF-88 Voodoo and although its successor, the XF-101 was already being developed, it existed mainly as "paper project" at that point. I will try to find some citations for this contention but it is an oft-repeated belief so if you have some exact information that is contradictory, that would go a long way to setting the record straight. Bzuk 17:23 28 February 20007 (UTC).
This is very interesting Voodude. Out of curiosity, what designs were mentioned in the report? I'm a little curious as to the logic used to exclude the F-102, which at that point in time seemed to be aimed into the Arrow's niche pretty closely. I ask because I saw a mention in the F.155 article that the Arrow was considered for the UK interim interceptor design, but rejected due to a limitation to attacking targets at Mach 0.9, which always struck me as odd. Maury 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Bill -- the report didn't mention the XF-88 either. The XF-88 was intended to be an escort fighter for SAC rather than an interceptor, and by the time the information for the Footit report was gathered focus had shifted to the F-101A (also an escort fighter for SAC). The only way in which any Voodoo was mentioned in the report was a brief mention of a hypothetical F-101B interceptor variant, which at that time had not been authorized for development. I read the reference to the Footit report in Page et. al. many years ago and was always curious to find out why the F-101 was deemed unsuitable, so I looked it up at the Archives. I was surprised to discover that the report barely mentions the F-101, and certainly doesn't 'reject' it as Page described.
Maury -- I have to go from memory here, as my copy of the report got mis-filed/lost when I took it out of my filing system to make a copy for another researcher. I recall that it was one of two reports -- It referenced an earlier report covering the potential aircraft from British manufacturers. As for other aircraft mentioned -- Certainly the F-102 and F-86D, and I seem to recall mention of variants of the F-94, F-100, F-103, etc. The report also covered relevant engines and armament systems available during this time period from American manufacturers. I don't recall the details about what the report said about the F-102, but it was written after the decision to split the F-102 program into the F-102A and F-102B (aka F-106), and the reports conclusion was that the RCAF should buy the F-102B/F-106 if development of the Arrow was not proceeded with.--Voodude 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ERRORATTA!

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)

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)

Point well taken,& modify it if you wish. Remember, Maury, that the CF/18 is a multi role strike fighter that replaced three planes- Pearkes had some hard budget choices to make for defense,& he bargained well for the Voodoos.

SIGHTING:

Bzuk(Bill Zuk?) Maury Markowitz,please stop posting nonsense on my personal site. "Troll packs" are out of bounds (Your "kitty litter" below) regards Opuscalgary 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

POSTED BY MAURY: This is your final warning I advised you not to post insults about editors here on the wikipedia, and posted a link to the appropriate policy. You responded by removing this advice and then posting a similar insult aimed at me on my talk page. This is unacceptable behavior. As a long time wikipedian, you might want to take my advice and take a short Wikipedia:Wikibreak, you might return to find that you have a different view on this events. Maury 17:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Opuscalgary"

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)

[edit] Fellows this is silly stuff.

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)

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)

thank you. All references in this thesis are referenced. All references were checked by the University of Saskatchewan.This thesis is published as part of the Deifenbaker collection, as quoted in the Bibliography, attached to the thesis. regards Opuscalgary 15:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thank you. For American editors, George Pearkes ' Victoria Cross is the equivelent of your Congressional Medal of Honor. "Welcome to Canada, where you can get your 15 minutes of fame by dissing heroes..."

'Storms of Controversy' is a discredited source.Look, Reality is called for. Sorry if I am blunt about it. The article has three bad sections. The AVRO ARROW "black Friday " is a carefull amagram of truth & err, 'unique truth'.(In reality, the CDN Conservative government HAD EXTENDED THE EQUIVELENT OF 1.6 billion dollars ( 2007 terms) in government funding after production of the Arrow was halted, in an attempt to make the design economically feasible,& to allow AVRO to develop other projects.AVRO was not a a well run corporation.The 'real conspiracy' consisted of a team of American skilled workers & engineers, who produced the Voodoo at 35% of the Arrow's cost, yet made a profit doing so..)

Pearkes, in three years, introduced project managment into a chaotic defense department,provided the Canadian forces with two sets of supersonic aircraft under favorable terms, and actually REDUCED the defense budget. Arthur Haileys' novel, "in High Places", was really unfair to him- the guy was in control. Defense was the best run part of the Diefenbaker government.

Melvin Conant’s words still reverberate largely because for almost forty years the field was abandoned to a veritable cottage industry of pro-Arrow aviation enthusiasts, generically known as “Arrowheads.” They are amateur historians who write - irritatingly, often bestselling - “buff books” which have helped to perpetuate an Arrow mythology:

Listening to these laments, you might think that killing the Arrow was a crime against humanity, a kind of technological infanticide. In a debate with words such as beauty and poetry used in the same breath as requiem and tragedy, the stillborn Arrow seems the greatest failure of our nationhood. To the revisionists and nationalists who have freighted the Arrow with hopes and fears, the airplane was a metaphor. When it soared, it reflected daring, stature and self- confidence. When it crashed, it represented weakness and insecurity. And when those dazzling prototypes were cut up into little pieces, allegedly on the orders of a vengeful prime minister...it gave rise to a delicious conspiracy: that the planes (and plans) were destroyed to ensure none would end up in a museum where dispossessed romantics would hold monthly vigils....39


regards Opuscalgary 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Interest

Regarding this section -- It presently mentions the F-102 as being the contemporary American interceptor to the Arrow. The F-106 (originally the F-102B) would probably be a better choice here, as it was closer in performance to the intended performance of the Arrow, and came into service in June 1959. A comprehensive listing of contemporary American supersonic interceptors would also include the F-101B Voodoo. Ideally, all three should be mentioned -- Any objections to a re-write to incoporate this?Voodude 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have none, and am actually quite curious why the didn't just use the F-106. But wasn't the 101B project started when the Arrow was already going? Maury 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
If by "the(y)" you mean the RCAF, the major requirement was range. THe Arrow Mk.1 used 2 of the same engines as the F-106, though these were not inteded for long-term use. Also the Arrow was a two-seater, while the 106 was a single. These factors probably figured in to the RCAF's eventual choice of the F-101B as its main interceptor over the F-106, if it was offered. - BillCJ 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the F-102B or F-106 was the logical AVRO Arrow competitor as an interceptor. It was even offered to the RCAF in 1954 when the Avro CF-105 design was being reviewed. USAF observers had been approached for an independent assessment of the technology and concept. Bzuk 03:14, 06 March 20007 (UTC).

I rely on Insingers seminal work. http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm . There was a shift in parameters from ‘hot interception’ to boundary interdiction. The CF- 101 had the range. For all its glory, the CF-105 was very short ranged – it traded range for speed & climb. The cost per aircraft was the 650 million spent on the program to 1958,plus the two billion plus required from 1959 to 1964, divided by 169 ARROWS, OR FIFTEEN MILLION, SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND PER PLANE, eleven millon three hundred thousand in unsunk cost. According to the RCAF historial website, the TWO YEAR OLD Voodos cost ONE MILLION, FIVE HINDRED NINETY ONE THOUSAND PER PLANE, half of which was payable by offset, ie, Canada Staffed & maintained the eleven Radar stations on Canadian soil, previously staffed by Americans. Even after amortising the 116 million spent on the BOMARC ( 846,715.00) per CF101, Canada was miles ahead. Throw in the DPSA offsets- I'm not a Tory, & i'ts not my fault that America built great jet fighters at bargaiprices, it was a deaL OF A LIFETIME.(Note: multiply all prices by 5.50 to get the APPROX RATE OF INFLATION.)..Regards

Opuscalgary 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There's one thing you haven't mentioned about the F-101B: It was based on the succesful F-101A and later F-101C, which meant that much of the develpment costs had already been paid for. In addition, the F-101 series was produced in relatively large numbes (over 800), meaning that per-unit costs were much lower. This needs to be considered when discussing prices. Second, as far as the CF-105's range goes, I assume this was with the J75s. The Mk. 2 hadn't even flown yet, so it's unknown what its range would have actually been (probably better, perhaps worse). These things are hard to know until actual versions have flown, as projections have been wrong before. THird, if range was becoming more important while the CF-105 was in service, measures would probably have been taken to extend its range - ie. adding extra tanks (like many 101Bs carried), lowering the weight, etc.
Finally, aircraft procurement is always a complex issue, and most canccellations are controversial. All sides of an issue have to covered, fairly, in an article like this, and the chances of pleasing everyone are nil. I've seen the Arrow TV movie, read other sources, and evaluated your view as expressed here. On the whole, I feel the article does a good job of trying to remain neutral. The position is does put forth is one that is broadly accepted in aviation circles. In may not be perfect, but just because it criticizes a decision, that is not the same as assualting a good man or his character. Good people, even great people, make mistakes, or at least decisions that are considered mistakes, especially in hindsight. THat doesn't detract from their importance or greatness in other areas; it's just part of what makes us all human. - BillCJ 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

True. I will agree that the prototypes & storable key tooling should have been kept. The cost perspectives, & the differentials, are so huge, though. DPSA probably rates an article of its own, as it was a model,& maybe the high point, for cross border Canada /USA relations.

There are 'nodes of excellence' in weapons systems where everything comes together- the British Dreadnought, the UKRAINIAN DESIGNED T-34 Tank,& American air power in the 1950's & sixties. McDonnell simply knesw how to design & build great planes.

Opuscalgary 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading section

Guys, is this just a list of EVERY article peratining to the Arrow? As it is, it is listcruft. It should really be taken out of the article, and anything that has been used as a reference in the article should come under the references section. See WP:NOT Emoscopes Talk 21:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, almost everything listed in the references is a full length book rather than just an article. (If articles were included, the list would be far longer). If the number of books published about an aircraft was any measure of its success, then the CF-105 would have been one of the most successful aircraft in history...
The reference list could probably do to be trimmed a bit. How this would be accomplished objectively is another matter -- I freely admit that there would probably be POV in my choices. Any ideas?--Voodude 13:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Junk any references to Mr. Campagna's books. They are one step above the National Enquirer. Junk all the crazy "homage " sites. Junk Murray Peden references. Murray interviews aged participants ,then quotes dotage memories in his 'accounts'. bah, Murray! Bad references make for bad bibiographies. Opuscalgary 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split idea

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 {{main}} 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)

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).

I totally agree on the consensus. But since we are dealing with 2 topics here, the aircraft itself, and the politics and controversies surrounding it, I think we could make a good case for the split. As a writer, you probably have a better idea where to split it, and what should go where. If I where doing it personally, I would follow what I did recently when I split the Boeing VC-25A off of the Air Force One article, only in reverse (keeping the aircraft-specific stuff, trahter than forking it off).

We can hash out some ideas here, and see if any other editors chime in. If there's an obvious consensus that way to split, then we can jdut do it at that point. If nothing's obvious either way, we can take a formal poll, and see where things stands. - BillCJ 03:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

On my monitor this article is eleven pages long, or nine discounting the lengthy references and links sections. Two of these discuss politics and the cancellation. I really don't see the point in splitting out 20% of the article, given that the politics were so important in this case. Perhaps that's just me, because I wrote a politics section for the B-1 article that's much longer than this one. Maury 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/f/-/Talk%7ECF-105_Arrow_e5bc.html"