FIGURE 25 (top left). Before touch-down.
FIGURE 26 (top right). At touch-down.
FIGURE 27 (above). Arrow veering off runway following release of brake
FIGURE 28 (right). Aerial view of aircraft ground run and final attitude.
25 shows the aircraft just before touch-down, indicating
the port leg. in a twisted condition; Fig. 26 shows
the aircraft just on touch-down with the leg being
dragged sideways and the tyres just beginning to smoke.
Fig. 27 shows the aircraft just as it ran off the runway
into the soft earth, snapping off the undercarriage;
and Fig. 28 shows the path taken on landing.
Aircraft Nos. 2 and 3 have now taken over the bulk of the current
flight test programme and, in proving the flight envelope, have flown at speeds
considerably in excess of those achieved on the first aircraft.
is interesting to note that in Canada the flight evaluation
set-up is a little different to that in the United
Kingdom, where the government establishments at Farnborough
and Boscombe Down are available for, extensive development
flying, and similarly, at Wright Field, Eglin Field,
and others in the United States.
In Canada, the prime contractor takes on the job of all the initial
development flying and evaluation, with R.C.A.F. crews assigned to work alongside.
The final performance evaluation is made at the R.C.A.F. Central Experimental
and Proving Establishment at Rockeliffe.
Later armament evaluation will be carried out at the R.C.A.F. Air
Armament Evaluation Detachment at Cold Lake, Alberta, and all-weather evaluation
at the Climatic Detachment, located near Edmonton, Alberta. The Cold Lake airfield
site covers 10 square miles, and the 4,000 square miles range is large enough
for unrestricted missile and rocket firing. Electronic optical theodolites are
used for tracking and photographing aircraft and missiles. High speed cameras,
spotting scopes and telemetry systems are also used in tracking missiles. This
facility is probably one of the largest overland ranges in the world.
With regard to our own flight testing, we have had the added problems
of operating from a busy commercial airport adjacent to the plant and have to
tie our flight testing in with scheduled commercial flights. However, with as
many as 30 flights a day on the CF-100, we have had little problem with this,
due to the excellent co-operation of the Department of Transport controllers.
Before operating the Arrow from Malton, the question of noise was
raised, since the installed thrust of. the Arrow is well over twice that of the,
CF-100. A considerable number of noise frequency and pressure levels were analysed
before flight. However, so far, it has been obvious that the actual noise levels
encountered during all conditions of taxi, take-off, landing, engine run-up,
and so on, present no greater problem on the Arrow than they did on the CF-100
and, in fact, are considered to be less than at least one of the commercial aircraft
operating from the same facility.
overall defence system for the North American Continent
is now generally well known. The D.E.W., or Distant
Early Warning Line is the first line of defence and
runs from Baffin Island to Alaska, over the far North
of Canada. The second line is the Mid-Canada Line,
provided by Canada, and the third line is the Pine
Tree Line, which was jointly financed by the United
States and Canada.
These three lines are supplemented at the ends by inshore and offshore
pickets (Fig. 29). In addition, there exists an airborne network of early warning
aircraft fitted with powerful radar. Practically the whole of this warning network
lies in Canadian territory.
A Semi-Automatic Ground Environment System (S.A.G.E.) developed in
the Lincoln Laboratories in Boston, is now being set up to provide a complete
surveillance and weapons control system. All information in a particular area
can be presented on a master scope and the S.A.G.E. system is capable of transmitting
the data to the interceptor electronically to provide an auto- matic intercept
North American Air Defence (N.O.R.A.D.) now controls
the complete Air Defence system of the North American
Continent in an emergency, the Arrow weapon system
will be operating within this environment (Fig. 31).
ultimate responsibility for the Arrow "Weapon
System" including the aircraft, the ground support
equipment, and the base facilities, rests with the
Royal Canadian Air Force and the Department of National
Defence, who created the operational requirement and
will eventually operate the weapon system.
31. Arrow environment
In the interest of better control and co-ordination of the development
and production of the Weapon Systen a group was formed within the R.C.A.F. under
the direction of an Assistant for Arrow Weapon System (A/AWS), reporting to the
Chief of Aeronautical Engineering, R.C.A.F., who has been delegated " Technical
Authority " for the programme. The group is larger made up of R.C.A.F. engineering
officers drawn from the various specialist engineering directorates.
A portion of the management responsibility of the A/AWS is sub-contracted
to the aircraft supplier, Avro, who, as " Co-ordinating Contractor." undertakes
much of the detail co-ordination of the whole programme, subject to monitoring
The Arrow programme is a colossal undertaking for Canada, and up
to the present time it has required the co-operation and integration of all the
responsible agencies within our country, and I would like to emphasise the " national " nature
of the project. There are some 650 individual companies engaged in the programme,
mostly on sub-contract work for Avro.
Significant contributions to the programme have been made by the
Canadian Defence Research Board and the National Aeronautical Establishment in
Ottawa where most of the low and medium speed wind tunnel work was carried out.
We have also received valuable assistance from the N.A.C.A. in the United States,
and the R.A.E. in the United Kingdom in the use of their facilities where these
have not been available in Canada.
re-reading my manuscript I was conscious of the fact
that while it contained most of the important facets
of the Arrow programme that could be covered inside
the security limits, it did not even begin to convey
the human side of the endeavour.
There were many periods of frustration and in the early stages of
the programme the project was ON and OFF about every three months, while Government
and the Service wrestled with the problems involved in managing and financing
such a large project.
When the programme finally got under way, and the engines scheduled
for the project fell by the wayside one by one, we had to re-design our fuselage
three or four times, and while the aircraft had been designed from the outset
with the flexibility to make re-engining as simple as possible, it appeared to
us that every engine manufacturer had gone out of his way to make things different!
Some engines had three-point mounts, some f'our, and pressure ratios differed,
which meant an almost complete re-design of the air conditioning system, since
this is dependent on the engine for its prime inputs.
The R.C.A.F. naturally wanted the best and latest integrated electronic
system and weapon in the aircraft, and finally chose these, after a considerable
portion of the aircraft had been designed around an earlier system.
This is, of course, normal to some extent in our business. However, since
this is the major military project in Canada and involves almost all
the aircraft and associated industries, the whole Arrow programme is
in the " shop window " so to speak, and every set- back becomes
almost a national calamity!
This can be quite embarrassing from an engineering point of view,
especially super imposed upon the added pressures of attempting to meet what
was probably the most advanced contemporary interceptor requirement.
However, we have survived so far, and from the results of our flying
up to the present, there is every reason to believe that Canada's biggest military
venture will emerge from a state of national discussion to become a sourceof
national pride and security, if such there can be in our peculiar but exciting
time. To those of us in Canada who have been actively engaged in this project,
this will be sufficient.
opinions which I have expressed in this lecture do
not necessarily coincide with those of the R.C.A.F.,
the Canadian Government, or Avro.
I wish to thank my colleagues in the Engineering Division at Avro
for their kind assistance in the preparation of some of the material for the
lecture and, particularly, Mr. R. F. Marshall who struggled with the art work
and diagrams, to finish them in almost zero time, and my secretary, Mrs. Salter,
for her patience in sorting out a readable manuscript from a collection of almost
illegible scribbled notes and garbled records.
MOULT: The lecture had been a most interesting one
in the best traditions of the Commonwealth Lectures.
The Avro Arrow was an impressive aircraft; it was a
complex piece of machinery, like most aircraft nowadays,
and it had been a success because of thoroughness,
attention to detail and excellant planning from the
beginning. Great credit was due to Mr. Floyd, to his
Company and to Canada for their achievement.
was not the custom to have a discussion after the Commonwealth
Lecture, and he would ask Mr. N. E. Rowe, C.B.E., B.Sc.,
F.C.G.I., M.I.Mech.E., F.R.Ae.S., Technical Director
of Blackburn and General Aircraft Ltd., and a Past
President of the Society, to propose the vote of thanks.
ROWE: They had heard an account of a great enterprise,
courageous in its conception, in its execution and
distinguished by the resolute pursuit of an extraordinary
variety of problems, all done in parallel with a very
difficult programme of production " from the board." He
congratulated the lecturer, not only on his lecture,
but on being the leader of such an enterprise.
There was no doubt that Canada had an extreme awareness of the importance
of aeronautics for peace; that had been made evident by the lecturer.,
they knew it also from the tremendous Canadian activity in the civil
field and from the contributions from Canada to this particular series
In 1948 Mr. James T. Bain had lectured on " Aircraft and the Airlines-A
Canadian View "., in November 1949 they had had
" Inter-City Transport Development on the Commonwealth Routes" by Mr.
H. Aitken; in 1955 " The growth of Aeronautical Research in Canada, During
the Post-War Decade" by Dr. J.J. Green; now there was Mr. Floyd's lecture,
and to complete the picture they had had in this same series a most stimulating
lecture by Mr. B.S. Shenstone " Why Airlines are Hard to Please."
Obviously Canada was interested in the widest range of aeronautics and
had the clearest idea of it's importance for war and for peace; if one
were prepared for war then one could ensure peace, so Canada was supporting
the whole field of aeronautics in a most complete way.
The nature of a modern, complex aircraft involved a tremendous weight
of effort and he was not surprised to hear that 650 firms in Canada had
been engaged on the Arrow project and that it was the major item in the
whole Canadian aircraft industry. Such an effort required co-ordination
of a high order and a vast system of pre-flight testing to ensure success.
The wisdom displayed in this aspect of the work and the engineering that
went into the project was proved by the successful first flight which
they had seen on the film which had been most impressive.
The last time he had spoken at a Commonwealth Lecture, had been when
he was President and introduced Dr. Green, who also gave a classic lecture.
On that occasion he had commented that the lecture was originally devised
to form a focus for the aeronautical problems of the Commonwealth and
thought that the series had achieved this. To judge from his remarks,
that opinion was shared by Mr. Floyd who would like the focus to be brought
to practical reality by a meeting of Commonwealth Aeronautical Engineers,
something which probably all engineers in the audience would be only
delighted to see.
Mr. Floyd's lecture was a stimulus to all in the Commonwealth, showing
vision in concept with resolution and skill in attack on most difficult
problems; not only had they tackled and solved the most difficult problems
in aircraft design but also, those of the most advanced jet engine practice.
Such lectures as these strengthened the position of aeronautics throughout
the Commonwealth and added greatly to the prestige of the Society; in
this sense especially they offered their warmest thanks to Mr. Floyd.
the Lecture a Dinner was given at 4 Hamilton Place
at which the following were present-
A. M. Ballantyne, T.D., B.Sc., PH.D., Hon.F.C.A.I.,
A.F.I.A.S., F.R.Ae.S., Secretary, Royal Aeronautical
Society. Air Commodore F. R. Banks, C.B.. O.B.E., Hon.F.I.A.S..M.I.Mech.E.,
F.R.Ae.S., Director Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd.; Member
of Council and Vice-President. ' A. D. Baxter, M.Eng.,
M.I.Mech.E., F.R.Ae.S., Chief Executive, Rockets and
Nuclear Energy, de Havilland Engine Co. Ltd.; Member
of Council. Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir Dermot
Boyle, G.C.B., K.C.V.O., K.B.E., A.F.C., Chief of the
Air Staff. Major G.P. Bulman, C.B.E.. B.Sc., F.R.Ae.S.,
Honorary Treasurer; Member of Council and Past President.
A. F. Burke. O.B.E., President, Society of British
Aircraft Constructors Ltd. W. G. F.
Burns, A.F.R.Ae.S., Civil Aviation Adviser to the High Commissioner for
Sir Sydney Camm, C.B.E.. F.R.Ae.S., Chief Designer and Director, Hawker
Aircraft; Member of Council and Past President. J. R. Cownic, B.Sc.(Eng.),
Grad.R.Ae.S., Chairman of the Graduates' and Students' Section and Member
of Council. Sir George Cribbett. K.B.E., C.M.G., Deputy Chairman, British
Overseas Airways Corporation; 1950 British Commonwealth Lecturer.
M. A. S. Dalal, M.A.(Cantab.). LL.B., Regional Manager, Air-India International
Corporation. Handel Dayies, M.Sc., A.F.I.A.S., F.R.Ae.S.. Deputy Director
General, Future Systems, Ministry of Supply; Member of Council. W. Dirkse-van-Schalkywk,
Acting High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa. Lord Douglas
of Kirtleside, G.C.B., M.C., D.F.C., Chairman, British European Airways.
Sir George Dowty, Hon.F.C.A.I., F.I.A.S., M.I.Mech.E., F.R.Ae.S., Chairman
and Managing Director, Dowty Group; Past President.
Sir George Edwards, C.B.E., B.Sc., F.R.Ae.S., Managing-Director, Vickers-Armstrongs
(Aircraft) Ltd.; Member of Council; Immediate Past President.
Sir William Farren, C.B., M.B.E., M.A., F.R.S.. M.I.Mech.E., Hon.F.I.A.S.,
F.R.Ae.S., Technical Director. A. V. Roe and Co. Ltd.; Member of Council;
Past President. J. C. Floyd, F.C.A.I., M.I.A.S., F.R.Ae.S., Vice-President,
Engineering, Avro Aircraft Ltd.; 14th British Commonwealth Lecturer.
Dr. G. W. H. Gardner. C.B.. C.B.E.. F.R.Ae.S.. Director, Royal Aircraft
Establishment: Member of Council. H. H. Gardner, B.Sc., F.R.Ae.S., Director
and Chief Engineer (Military Aircraft), Vickers-Armstroungs (Aircraft)
Member of Council.
R. E. Mardingharn, C.M.G., O.B.E., F.R.Ae.S., Secretary andChief Executive,
Air Registration Board; 1952 British Commonwealth Lecturer. E. T. Jones,
C.B., O.B.E., M.Eng., F.R.Ae.S.. Deputy Controller of Overseas Affairs,
Ministry of Supply: Member of Council and Past President. M. B. Morgan,
C.B., M.A., F.R.Ae.S., Deputy Director. Royal Aircraft Establishment.
Member of Council. Dr. E. S. Moult, C.B.E., B.Sc., F.R.Ae.S , Director
and Chief Engineer, de Havilland Engine Co. Ltd.; Member of Council and
Vice-President. Sir Cyril Musgrave, K.C.B., Permanent Secretary, Ministry
John Nash, A.F.R.Ae.S.. Astra Aircraft Corporation; Member of Council
of Southern Africa Division of the Society.
J. H. Parkin, C.B.E.. Hon.F.I.A.S., F.R.Ae.S., Consultant to Division
of Mechanical Engineering. National Research Council of Canada. Colonel
R. L. Preston, C.B.E., A.F.R.Ae.S., Secretary-General, The Royal Aero
Club, Captain J. L. Pritchard, C.B.E., Hon.F.R.Ae.S., Secretary, Royal
Aeronautical Society 1925-51.
Squadron Leader R. C. G. T. Rogers. D.C.Ae., A.F.R.Ae.S., R.A.F., Directorate
of R.A.F. Fighter Aircraft, Research and Development, Ministry of Supply;
Member of Council. J. A. Ross, A.R.Ae.S.. Trans-Canada lines. N. E. Rowe,
C.B.E.. B.Sc., F.C.G.I., F.I.A.S., F.R.Ae.S., Technical Director, Blackburn
and General Aircraft Ltd.; Member of Council and Past President. Major-General
G. N. Russell, C.B.E., C.B.. President, The Institute of Transport.
W. Tye, O.B.E., B.Sc., F.R.Ae.S., Chief Technical Officer, Air Registration
Board; Member of Council.
Sir Hubert Walker, C.B.E.. 1953 British Commonwealth Lecturer. L.A. Wingfield,
M.C., D.F.C., A.R.Ae.S., Solicitor to the Royal Aeronautical Society.