>tfw yuo realize kanuk devance us to MiG-25
Lets just skip to the end and say that the Arrow was a decent plane but compared to what else was being developed at the time wasn't anything special.
>>28032754
It was the first aircraft to go mach 2
>>28032778
Lying doesn't help your case
>>28032778
X-15 says lol.
>>28032778
EE Lightning
>>28032729
I cringe every time somebody says that the MiG-25 is a clone of the Arrow. It's a completely different aircraft. You have to really stretch your brain to argue that these two aircraft are the same. Perhaps in the most vague, general sense they look similar from a distance, but all the details are different. Furthermore, the highest speed that the arrow could have reached was Mach 2.0. The MiG-25 can exceed Mach 3.0. There is a huge difference in capability there.
>>28032729
>Tfw no Arrow Mk 3.
>>28032908
>this guy says the x-15 was the first to go mach 2
>>28033867
>this guy says the EE lightning was the first to go mach 2
>>28032897
>this guy is just a fag
as a casual observer i'm inclined to believe the person you are all replying to until I see some actual proofs
>>28033973
>EE Lightning was first and only all British mach 2 aircraft
>flew a year before the arrow
>>28032778
If you're going to make a claim to try and show that that Arrow was supposedly special, at least use something factual, such as it being the first fly-by-wire fighter/interceptor.
>>28032778
>>28032908
>>28033867
Ahem
>>28033973
Google. An X-15 piloted by Scott Crossfield was the first to hit Mach 2.
The Arrow never even reached that speed.
>>28033937
is the idea a compromised development program educating a foreign development program too hard for you to grasp?
>>28034020
Is the idea that two different planes are two different planes too hard for you to grasp?
>>28034009
A common misconception. He did fly the X-15, but he first hit mach 2 in a Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket in 1953.
>>28032778
Saywhu?
>>28034324
I know right?
>>28034020
if they were being educated by the syrupniggers, don't you think the final design would resemble the arrow in any way?
Are we just posting planes that were Mach 2 before the Arrow?
>Avro expected it to break the world speed record, but it never flew.
Would this have been possible even with the iroquois engine.
>>28035602
But anon, that's a plane that went mach two *point-three*!
>>28032778
The Arrow never made MACH 2. The best it achieved was MACH 1.96.
The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter achieved it's structurally limited top speed of MACH 2.2 in 1956, two years before the Arrow flew.
The same year (1958) the F-4 Phantom II prototype made MACH 2.2 and its competition for Navy Fleet Defense fighter, the F8U-3 Super Crusader achieved MACH 2.38.
Pic is the Super Crusader.
>>28036510
It's not hard to figure out why the Phantom won.
>>28036510
I'm Kanuck but seriously could have we chosen a faggier name than the Arrow? It's going up against the Starfighter, Phantom and Super Crusader (okay that one's gay) but all they can come up with is Arrow?
>>28036536
Longer range, two seats, twin engines, more payload. The Phantom was what the Navy needed.
That being said, the Super Crusader was faster and more agile. The five prototypes were turned over to NASA for high speed/high altitude research.
NASA pilots would regularly engage Navy Phantom pilots in mock dogfight, and the Super Crusader would regularly trounce the Phantom.
The Navy told NASA to cut it out because it was demoralizing the Navy pilots.
>>28036510
>The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter achieved it's structurally limited top speed of MACH 2.2 in 1956, two years before the Arrow flew.
vertical dives into the ground don't count.
>>28036626
just when I fucking thought we had made it
>>28036595
Don't forget contemporary U.S. aircraft with names like Thundercheif, Voodoo and Delta Dagger. The Century Series had some badass names.
>>28036626
The Starfighter had atrocious safety record, which is what happens when you build a bleeding edge technology aircraft, put the largest available engine in it with tiny wings and make it got fast as Hell.
That MACH 2.2 structurally limited speed was for level flight. And it's not the plane's fault that the German government was corrupt as Hell and took Lockmart's bribe money.
>>28036704
It was more an issue of the aircraft being forced into a role that it wasnt designed for
>>28036704
More like make something with tiny wings designed for going Mach sanic.fast at high altitude, then use it for low level bombing, and THEN give it to poorly trained germans.
>>28036717
>>28036754
Fair enough.
>>28033937
If any western design influenced the MiG25, it was probably the A-5 Vigilante.
So, can we expect one of these "muh Arrow," threads every day or two now?
>>28036813
A yes, the good 'ol nuke shitter.
>>28036510
Huehhuehhuehhuehhueh!
>>28036536
Crusader was too smug? That's the persistent trip-up trait?
>>28036860
You have to imagine that played a part in the procurement process.
>admiral, the F8U-3 is both faster and more maneuverable than the F4H
>I don't care. A weapon of WAR should not look so damned happy
>But sir...
>look at it, lieutenant, the damned thing is laughing at me. I won't have it.
>>28036813
Well shit, the A-5 is another plane that flew MACH 2 the same year as the Arrow.
And it used fly by wire controls.
Sorry, syrupniggers.
>>28036704
>That MACH 2.2 structurally limited speed was for level flight.
Structural limit (Vne) was 800 knots indicated airspeed. Mach limits are always either thermal or aerodynamic, never structural.
>>28032729
Daily reminder that the Delta Dart was faster and generally better overall. One of the privileged few aircraft to have a nuclear air-to-air missile at its disposal, the Dart could have destroyed whole bomber formations with one missile.
>>28037055
That may be conceivable, but isn't the whole reason it had that because guidance systems weren't really developed back then, so that was kind of necessary just to have a safe chance at killing one bomber?
Still a fucking wild idea, air to air nukes.
>>28037113
Something like that. Air-to-air missiles were still in their infancy. Guidance systems weren't really all that great yet. In order to maximize kill probability, the Genie air-to-air missile was developed. In truth, I was exaggerating when I said that it could kill whole formations in one shot. The Genies had a kill radius of about 300 meters. Much bigger than regular missile of course, but I'm not sure how many bombers would be flying inside of a 300 meter radius.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZ7FQHTaR4
This was the only test they ever did with a live nuke. Be warned, the announcer is rather.........irritating.
>>28037155
>dat bright flash
>>28037155
>not sure how many bombers in 300m radius
Well that's 600m from edge to edge, so depending on particular strategy possibly an entire formation, yes.
Earlier into the cold war the Soviets were still flying WW2-esque bomber squadrons, really tight formations with the idea of interlocking fields of fire on their waist/tail gunners. As escorts improved and missiles started to become a thing, pretty much everyone got rid of defensive guns, and with no need to have the interlocking fields of fire the formations spread out so if one bird went down it wouldn't clip several others on its journey earthbound.
WoT out of the way, 70's-era formations with stuff like Tupolevs, yeah a detonation square in the middle of the formation would get most of it but not all of it. And then the survivors died of radiation a few years later, assuming the EMP didn't knock out what few electronics the Soviets actually flew with and caused by-kill.
>>28037155
Genie was an unguided rocket. And 300 meters radius (600m diameter) is enough to hit multiple bombers flying in a defensive formation (all the Russian strategic bombers of the day did have defensive guns).
>>28037400
>>28037288
If you say so. I just think that today, bombers would be a lot more spread out than 300 meters.
>>28037413
>Today
Well of course. But "today" isn't 1960.
>>28037400
mmkay. Wasn't really sure when the Genie came out and didn't wanna pull stuff out of my ass so I gave a "well this is the basic timeline, Genie falls somewhere in there lol" response.
But yeah, 1950? If they could get one to go off in the dead center of a bomber formation the whole formation's fucked.
The reason we get so assblasted about the arrow, is because it was the fucking death of our aerospace industry. We could have been an actual player, but nope. Ended up dead because of cost issues and being keked by the americans.
only a few months after it
>>28039516
That's a Su-17, right?
>>28037055
Reminder that the Dela Dart never flew with the RCAF and thus is entirely irrelevant in a discussion about the procurement of the Arrow.
>>28039516
+supercruise
>>28032729
>>tfw yuo realize kanuk devance us to MiG-25
the only word in that entire sentence which made any sense is "MiG-25".
What sort of illiterate village idiot are you, OP?
