Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Velvet Glove

The Velvet Glove was a short-range, developed by the Canadian (CARDE) starting in 1951, intended primarily for integration with the Royal Canadian Air Force's CF-100 . Featuring a wing design with full deflection steering, X-band pulse guidance, and a 60-65 fragmentation , the missile measured approximately 10 feet in length and under 1 foot in diameter, with an effective range of about 8 kilometers. Development involved collaboration with for production, alongside subcontractors like Canadian for fuzing systems and U.S. firms such as Douglas Aircraft and Bendix Aviation for components, as part of broader efforts to build Canadian expertise in guided weapons amid demands. Initially aligned with subsonic fighter needs, the project faced evaluation for the supersonic CF-105 but was deemed incompatible due to its limited performance envelope. By 1955, a had been successfully developed and transferred for potential reuse, but persistent challenges—including slow progress, inability to adapt to supersonic speeds, and lack of upgrade potential—rendered it obsolete against advancing U.S. alternatives like the series. The program was cancelled in after five years, without entering full production or operational service, reflecting broader shifts in Canadian toward reliance on systems and the eventual termination of supersonic interceptor initiatives. A single prototype survives, displayed at the RCAF Memorial Museum in , underscoring its role as an early but unfulfilled step in Canada's post-World War II missile technology endeavors.

Background and Strategic Context

Cold War Origins and Canadian Requirements

In the early period, Canada faced escalating threats from Soviet long-range bombers capable of traversing the to strike North American targets, prompting the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) to prioritize all-weather interception capabilities. The CF-100 Canuck, Canada's first domestically produced jet fighter, entered service in 1952 but initially relied on unguided rockets and cannons, which proved inadequate for high-altitude, nighttime engagements. To address this, the Canadian Defence Research Board (DRB), formed in 1947 to consolidate post-World War II military research, directed the Canadian Armament and Research Development Establishment (CARDE) to develop advanced guided weaponry. The Velvet Glove project originated in this context, with initial studies for a supersonic air-to-air guided missile proposed as early as 1947 specifically for CF-100 integration, evolving into a formal development program by 1951 to build domestic expertise in homing and rocketry amid limited foreign options. RCAF requirements emphasized a compact, tactical suitable for carrier like the CF-100, focusing on (SARH) guidance using an X-band pulse seeker for pursuit-course intercepts. The design called for a of approximately 8 kilometers, a 60-65 high-explosive fragmentation , and a proximity fuze for reliable detonation near targets. Physical specifications included a of about 10 feet and diameter under 1 foot, with cruciform wings enabling deflection-based steering, and it was to be launched from four underwing pylons per . These parameters reflected Canada's strategic need for cost-effective, short-range defense augmentation rather than long-range systems, incorporating a U.S.-sourced solid-propellant rocket motor to accelerate development while fostering technology transfer through collaborations with the and . The project's origins underscored Canada's push for aerospace self-reliance within and bilateral defense pacts, yet it highlighted dependencies on allied components, as domestic propulsion and seeker technologies lagged behind U.S. counterparts like the . Early evaluations on CF-100 prototypes, including mockup fittings and jettison tests starting in November 1953, validated basic compatibility but revealed limitations in supersonic performance, tying back to initial RCAF specifications that prioritized rapid deployment over advanced speed thresholds.

Relation to Avro Arrow and CF-100 Programs

The Velvet Glove missile program, initiated by the Canadian Armament Research and Development Establishment (CARDE) in 1951, was primarily intended to provide an indigenous radar-guided air-to-air weapon for the , the Royal Canadian Air Force's (RCAF) first domestically produced jet-powered all-weather interceptor, which entered operational service on August 21, 1952. Development delays meant the missile remained unavailable even as the final CF-100s were delivered in the mid-1950s, with test fittings evaluated on CF-100 Mark 3 aircraft using underwing pylons for up to four missiles, but no full integration occurred before the CF-100 armament modification program was canceled in February 1956. As the CF-100 approached obsolescence amid escalating Cold War threats from Soviet bombers, the RCAF pursued the Avro CF-105 Arrow as its supersonic successor, with development authorized in 1953 to achieve Mach 2+ speeds and altitudes over 50,000 feet. Velvet Glove, a subsonic semi-active radar-homing missile with an 8 km range and 60-65 pound warhead, was deemed unsuitable for the Arrow's high-speed requirements due to aerodynamic and propulsion limitations in supersonic environments. Consequently, the RCAF shifted to acquiring U.S.-developed missiles such as the AIM-7 Sparrow II for the Arrow's internal bays, rendering Velvet Glove irrelevant to the program by its cancellation in 1956—three years before the Arrow's termination on February 20, 1959. This sequence highlighted broader challenges in Canada's ambitious ambitions, where the Velvet Glove's failure to mature underscored reliance on allied for advanced interceptors, influencing the Arrow's toward compatibility with American weapons systems amid fiscal and strategic pressures.

Design and Technical Specifications

Guidance and Propulsion Systems

The Velvet Glove utilized a () guidance system, requiring the launching aircraft to maintain continuous illumination on the target throughout the 's flight. This approach relied on the aircraft's onboard to transmit , with the 's seeker detecting and homing in on the reflected signals from the target, enabling operation in various weather conditions but limiting the launcher's maneuverability during engagement. The system operated in the X-band frequency range using technology, which provided sufficient resolution for short-range intercepts against bomber-sized targets typical of threats. A complemented the guidance, triggering based on precise microwave-based distance measurements to the , enhancing without direct impact. The missile's wing configuration incorporated full deflection control surfaces for steering, actuated post-launch to follow the lock, with an effective engagement range of approximately 8 kilometers. Propulsion was supplied by a single-stage solid-propellant rocket motor manufactured by Aerojet General Corporation, which generated 7,600 pounds of thrust over a burn duration of 1.9 seconds at 60°F (15.6°C). This motor propelled the 318-pound to a maximum speed of 2.3 when launched from speeds around 0.85, achieving a practical range of 2,500 to 4,500 yards after burnout. The solid-fuel design ensured simplicity and reliability for rapid deployment from interceptors like the CF-100 , though its short burn time reflected the emphasis on high initial for close-range engagements rather than sustained .

Airframe and Aerodynamics

The Velvet Glove utilized a configuration, consisting of four symmetrically arranged planar surfaces arranged in a cross pattern for enhanced and during flight. These surfaces incorporated full deflection capabilities for , enabling , yaw, and roll adjustments without dedicated roll stabilization mechanisms. The overall measured 3.25 meters in and 0.20 meters in diameter, with a total weight of approximately 159 kilograms at launch, optimized for integration with a propulsion system augmented by an initial solid-fuel booster. Aerodynamic design emphasized supersonic performance, targeting speeds up to 2.5, with the shaped to minimize and support operation through efficient air ingestion. However, the configuration proved inadequate for sustained supersonic regimes, exhibiting control and deficiencies that limited its viability for high-velocity intercepts. Testing of the 's relied on innovative methods developed by at the Canadian Armament Research and Development Establishment (CARDE). Scale models were fired from artillery pieces using sabots—protective sheaths that allowed high-velocity ejection—to replicate supersonic flight paths over ranges at Valcartier, . This approach gathered empirical data on , , and forces in real atmospheric conditions, circumventing the expense and limitations of supersonic wind tunnels unavailable at the time.

Development and Production

Key Milestones and Contractors

The Velvet Glove missile program originated with preliminary research at the Canadian Armament and Research Development Establishment (CARDE) in 1948, focusing on technology for air-to-air applications. By early 1951, CARDE had advanced the concept sufficiently to propose it as the primary armament for the Avro CF-105 Arrow interceptor, aligning with Canadian requirements for supersonic defense capabilities. The program formally commenced on , 1951, under CARDE's leadership, marking the shift from conceptual studies to full-scale . Initial efforts emphasized integration with the Arrow's , with work progressing through mockups and subscale testing by mid-decade. CARDE coordinated the core , including the , guidance seeker, and , while transitioning components to industrial partners for prototyping. Key contractors included , designated for production under the CL-20 project code, responsible for final assembly and some aerodynamic refinements. Canadian contributed to the proximity development, achieving viability by the time industrial handover occurred. The project involved international collaboration with the and , particularly sourcing the solid-fuel rocket motor from American suppliers to meet propulsion needs. Development milestones extended into static ground tests and limited flight trials by 1955, but persistent challenges with radar homing reliability and supersonic performance delayed full operational readiness. The program was cancelled in 1956 after approximately five years, citing technological obsolescence relative to emerging U.S. alternatives like the . No production missiles were manufactured, though prototypes informed subsequent Canadian munitions efforts.

Challenges in Engineering and Manufacturing

The Velvet Glove missile's demanded of a , which relied on beam-riding from the launch aircraft's , presenting challenges in and electronic reliability for the era's vacuum-tube technology. at CARDE involved parallel research into detection and fusing mechanisms, with the Fusing Group adapting designs for missile warheads, but early solid-state device experiments highlighted limitations in and heat resistance under high-g maneuvers. Propulsion engineering centered on a motor, where controlling the proved critical to sustaining the missile's short-range (approximately 8 km) and against evasive targets; inconsistencies risked deceleration or deviation from path, as noted in CARDE's propellant formulation efforts from 1948 to 1953. Aerodynamic challenges included optimizing the with full-span wing deflection for steering, requiring extensive evaluations of body, wings, and fins to achieve stability; engineers like conducted inflight missile characteristic tests, yet small control surfaces yielded insufficient authority for supersonic launches, complicating compatibility with interceptors like the planned Avro CF-105 Arrow. Manufacturing prototypes at entailed precision assembly of the 60-65 pound high-explosive and seeker into the aluminum , but scaling from test articles to potential production runs faced hurdles in component tolerances and , exacerbated by the missile's evolving obsolescence relative to U.S. designs like the , which offered superior range and adaptability after five years of effort.

Testing and Performance Evaluation

Ground and Initial Flight Tests

Ground testing of the Velvet Glove missile commenced in 1952 at the Picton Range, a dedicated facility established near , adjacent to the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) base at Trenton. These initial ground-launched trials focused on and basic systems, utilizing a approximately 650 feet from the control building to evaluate missile stability and trajectory under controlled conditions. By 1955, the ground firing program for and vehicles had been completed without reported technical failures in the launches themselves, though instrumentation challenges, including inadequate , Kine-Theodolite, and performance due to equipment limitations and site-specific issues, hampered data collection. Initial flight tests transitioned to air-launched configurations in 1954, with CF-100 Canuck aircraft operating from RCAF Trenton and releasing missiles over the Picton Range. Preceding these, captive and jettison trials using mockup Velvet Glove missiles occurred in November 1953 at the Canadian Experimental Proving Establishment (CEPE) at Uplands, Ottawa, aboard CF-100 Mk 3A serial 18117, which carried four under-nacelle pylon-mounted replicas to assess launch dynamics and separation. Additional evaluations on CF-100 Mk 4B serial 18229 at Avro Canada facilities refined pylon mounting and release procedures for the semi-active radar-homing system's pursuit course guidance. Early air launches of propulsion and control test vehicles from CF-100s were successfully executed by 1955 at Point Petre Range, Ontario, in collaboration with the Canadian Armament Research and Development Establishment (CARDE), accumulating approximately 300 firings overall during the testing phase. Following these, guidance system trials shifted to RCAF Station Cold Lake, Alberta, in 1955 to address instrumentation shortcomings observed in Ontario.

Identified Limitations and Supersonic Concerns

Testing of the Velvet Glove missile revealed significant concerns regarding its suitability for supersonic operations, particularly launch from high-speed aircraft like the planned CF-105 interceptor. Engineers identified that the missile's small control surfaces provided insufficient aerodynamic authority at supersonic velocities, posing a risk of or to separate cleanly from the launching platform, potentially endangering the carrier aircraft. These supersonic limitations were compounded by the missile's overall design constraints, including its cruciform configuration with limited wing deflection, which hindered effective maneuvering in high-speed regimes. Development evaluations concluded that the Velvet Glove lacked the potential for adaptation to supersonic environments, rendering it incompatible with evolving interceptor requirements that emphasized Mach 2+ performance. Beyond supersonic issues, ground and subsonic flight tests highlighted broader technical shortcomings, such as the system's dependency on continuous illumination from the launch aircraft's radar, which demanded prolonged target tracking and reduced pilot flexibility in dynamic engagements. The solid-fuel rocket motor, sourced from the , performed adequately in initial trials but failed to deliver the needed for extended range or high-altitude intercepts against fast-moving bombers. By 1956, cumulative assessments deemed the program obsolete, with the missile's 8 km range and subsonic optimization outpaced by advancing American alternatives like the series, leading to its cancellation after production of only about 70 units. These limitations underscored the challenges of missile development in an era of rapid technological advancement, where integration with supersonic platforms proved unfeasible without major redesigns.

Cancellation

Official Reasons and Geopolitical Factors

The Velvet Glove program was terminated in after approximately five years of development, with 131 missiles completed by . Official reasons centered on significant technical shortcomings, particularly its unsuitability for supersonic operations required by the emerging CF-105 Arrow interceptor. The missile's design, featuring small control surfaces, raised concerns about stability and effectiveness during high-speed launches, while its system exhibited limitations in range and guidance precision compared to contemporaneous U.S. developments. These issues rendered further investment untenable, as the project lagged behind rapidly evolving missile technologies. Geopolitically, the cancellation aligned with 's deepening integration into North American continental defense structures amid tensions. Development occurred under the Liberal government of , but the decision reflected pragmatic recognition that independent Canadian armament projects strained resources in a smaller economy reliant on U.S. alliance for security against Soviet bomber threats. By abandoning Velvet Glove, pivoted toward procurement of American missiles like the Hughes and Raytheon Sparrow II for interoperability with (formalized in 1958), prioritizing joint operational compatibility over nationalistic self-sufficiency. This shift avoided duplication of U.S. efforts and ensured access to proven, mass-produced systems, though it foreshadowed broader dependencies evident in the later cancellation.

Economic and Technological Obsolescence

The Velvet Glove missile's command , reliant on a continuous beam from the launching , limited its operational flexibility, restricting engagements primarily to rear-aspect intercepts and complicating maneuvers against agile targets. These inherent constraints became increasingly evident as missile technology advanced toward () systems, which permitted greater off-boresight firing and reduced dependence on uninterrupted line-of-sight tracking. By the mid-1950s, the design's X-band pulse proved inadequate for all-weather reliability and resistance to countermeasures, rendering it less competitive against contemporary U.S. developments like the series. Technological challenges compounded these issues, including persistent difficulties in ensuring stable supersonic launches—a critical requirement for integration with high-speed interceptors like the CF-105 —which tests revealed could compromise guidance accuracy and structural integrity. After initiation in , five years of development yielded prototypes with a modest 8 km range and 60-65 lb warhead, but the system lacked scalability for future threats, such as faster bombers or evolving tactics. Canadian evaluators concluded the missile had exhausted its potential, overtaken by Sparrow II and III variants offering enhanced speed, range, and homing precision. Economically, the program strained Canada's limited defense resources, with over $24 million invested by 1954 in , prototyping, and of 131 units, yet without viable entry or export prospects. Independent development amplified costs through high-risk engineering without , as small-batch failed to offset R&D expenditures amid a modest national budget. Authorities shifted to procuring U.S. missiles for interoperability with partners, prioritizing fiscal prudence over bespoke systems amid rising demands for broader air infrastructure like the Bomarc program. This calculus underscored the unsustainability of pursuing obsolescent indigenous weapons when allied alternatives provided proven performance at lower lifecycle costs.

Legacy and Controversies

Influence on Subsequent Canadian Projects

The Velvet Glove project, cancelled on 23 September 1956 due to performance shortfalls including inadequate range and supersonic guidance issues, nonetheless advanced Canadian expertise in and proximity fuzing at the Canadian Armament Research and Development Establishment (CARDE). This technical foundation supported CARDE's pivot to collaborative efforts, such as the short-lived Sparrow II program—a Canadian of the U.S. missile intended for the Avro CF-105 interceptor—where radar seeker and control system knowledge from Velvet Glove informed integration studies before its termination alongside the Arrow in 1959. Personnel gains from Velvet Glove influenced specialized ballistics research. Engineer , who led aerodynamic wind-tunnel testing for the missile's reentry vehicle stability, applied these methods to post-cancellation work on high-velocity projectiles, culminating in the 1961 High Altitude Research Project (). HARP utilized modified naval guns to launch probes into the upper atmosphere, achieving altitudes exceeding 180 km by 1966 and contributing data to early space surveillance efforts, though it ended in 1967 amid funding cuts. The project's obsolescence highlighted systemic challenges in sustaining domestic supersonic missile production, steering subsequent Canadian defense procurement toward U.S. systems. This shift manifested in the 1958 acquisition of interceptors armed with missiles, bypassing further indigenous air-to-air guided weapon development. CARDE's evolved capabilities at what became DRDC Valcartier later emphasized unguided munitions like the CRV-7 rocket, operational from 1972 and produced in thousands for forces, drawing indirectly on and folding-fin stabilization principles tested in Velvet Glove prototypes. Proximity fuze innovations, successfully prototyped for Velvet Glove by Canadian , transferred to industrial partners for broader ordnance applications in Cold War-era artillery shells.

Debunking Myths Tied to Avro Arrow Cancellation

One persistent myth surrounding the Avro Arrow's cancellation on February 20, 1959, posits a conspiracy orchestrated by the United States to eliminate competition from superior Canadian technology, allegedly pressuring Prime Minister John Diefenbaker to scrap the program in favor of American aircraft like the F-101 Voodoo or F-106 Delta Dart. This narrative overlooks Diefenbaker's nationalist resistance to U.S. influence and the absence of any documented American interest in procuring the Arrow, as U.S. services prioritized their own designs amid shifting defense priorities. Instead, the decision aligned with Canada's voluntary integration into NORAD, favoring cost-effective U.S. Bomarc surface-to-air missiles over continued investment in a manned interceptor deemed increasingly obsolete against emerging intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) threats, as assessed by Canadian intelligence reports indicating a rapid decline in the Soviet piloted bomber risk. Another misconception claims the Arrow represented flawless engineering far ahead of contemporaries, with cancellation stemming from political caprice rather than substantive flaws. In reality, the program faced severe cost overruns, escalating from an initial per-unit estimate of approximately $2 million CAD to $10 million by 1959, while the required order shrank from 500 to 100 due to budgetary constraints and reevaluated needs. Technical uncertainties compounded this, including unresolved low-speed handling issues inherent to the delta-wing design and integration challenges with weaponry; the intended air-to-air missile, developed concurrently by the since 1951, proved unsuitable for supersonic launches owing to inadequate control surfaces and limited range (around 8 km), rendering it obsolete before full Arrow deployment and contributing to doubts about the overall system's viability. No comparable long-range supersonic interceptors from Western nations, including U.S. or British efforts, entered operational service, underscoring the Arrow's misalignment with evolving threats where ground-based radars and missiles offered superior economics and reliability. The notion that the Arrow's abrupt termination irreparably devastated Canadian aerospace, with prototypes destroyed to conceal secrets under Diefenbaker's direct order, ignores the pragmatic rationale: preventing unauthorized exports or reverse-engineering amid espionage risks, as prototypes lacked full armaments and represented sunk costs exceeding $400 million CAD already expended. Economically, for a nation of 20 million with defense budgets under strain, sustaining the program—projected to consume over 10% of RCAF allocations—proved untenable without foreign sales, which never materialized due to the aircraft's specialized interceptor role and lack of multirole versatility. Post-cancellation, displaced talent migrated to U.S. programs like NASA's Apollo, mitigating long-term industrial collapse rather than exemplifying one. These factors, rooted in empirical threat assessments and fiscal realism, affirm the cancellation as a calculated pivot, not mythic .

References

  1. [1]
    Velvet Glove Air-to-Air Missile - Canadians At Arms
    Mar 16, 2020 · Velvet Glove was a short-range (8 km) missile with Radar guidance. It had a cruciform design configuration with full wing deflection steering, a ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] CASM Monograph CF-100 - Toronto Aviation Heritage
    Canadian requirements. The CF-100 was the earliest aircraft designed and ... The Velvet Glove missile employed semi-active homing using a pursuit course.
  3. [3]
    Defence Research
    ### Summary of Velvet Glove in Canadian Defence Research During the Cold War
  4. [4]
    Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck & CF-105 Arrow - AirVectors
    Feb 1, 2024 · Velvet Glove was a collaborative effort conducted by Canada, the US, and the UK; most of the missile was designed in Canada, with a solid ...
  5. [5]
    Avro Canada CF-100 - 1000 Aircraft Photos.Com
    May 31, 2010 · The Velvet Glove missile never entered production and the CF-100 program for its installation was cancelled in February 1956. The CF-100 Mk.4 ...
  6. [6]
    Interceptor Rex -- The Avro CF-105 Arrow - AVROLAND
    Velvet Glove was finally cancelled in 1954, and was no longer considered for the Arrow. As a long-range missile for the Arrow, the RCAF chose Sparrow II.
  7. [7]
    Weapons Systems - CF-105 Avro Arrow - VA3KGB
    The armaments bay could hold 6 Hughes Falcon guided missiles and 24 Huges 2.75" rockets or 4 Velvet Glove missiles or 4 30mm canons with a capacity of 200 ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] FS 35 Avro CF-100 Interceptor _Revised_
    Velvet Glove was a collaborative effort conducted by Canada, the US and the UK. Most of the missile was designed in Canada, with a solid- rocket motor ...<|separator|>
  9. [9]
    Global Aircraft -- CF-105 Avro Arrow
    The Velvet Glove radar-guided missile had been under development with the RCAF for some time, but was considered unsuitable for supersonic launch, and ...
  10. [10]
    Gerald Bull | The Canadian Encyclopedia
    May 26, 2021 · The Velvet Glove missile project required evaluating the aerodynamic characteristics of inflight missiles. Usually, models were tested in a ...
  11. [11]
    Velvet Glove | Military Wiki | Fandom
    The Velvet Glove was a short-range semi-active radar homing air-to-air missile designed by CARDE (today DRDC Valcartier) and produced by Canadair starting ...
  12. [12]
    Timeline - CF-105 Avro Arrow - VA3KGB
    Orenda hoped to secure RCAF contracts by demonstrating a prototype engine. Spring 1954, Project re-instated with contract for 2 prototypes and 1 airframe for ...
  13. [13]
    Early Development in Solid State Devices - Friends of CRC
    The fuse development was successful and by the time the "Velvet Glove" program was turned over to industry, an industrial team from Canadian Westinghouse had ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  14. [14]
    Radar Research - Friends of CRC
    The fuse design was then handed over to CARDE, who had overall responsibility for the Velvet-Glove project. The Microwave Fusing Group then became the Radio ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] 31D 10 PENNIE - Ottawa - Canadian War Museum
    INTERVIEWER: In the development process as far as you concerns what were the biggest challenges with the Velvet Glove project? PENNIE: Just getting the ...
  16. [16]
    Free Flight Model Testing - Avro Arrow
    Jan 28, 1999 · ... test firing the Velvet Glove Air to Air missile they were developing. These were initially ground launched & later air launched from a CF ...Missing: specifics | Show results with:specifics<|control11|><|separator|>
  17. [17]
    Velvet Glove found | Belleville Intelligencer
    Aug 8, 2017 · Burzynski explained The Velvet Glove was part of the Avro program, but like the fighter jet project, the Velvet Glove missiles were also ...
  18. [18]
    Avro's Broken Arrow - Aircraft InFormation.info
    ... Velvet Glove, but this had been cancelled in 1954 due to technical problems. However, the RCAF wanted an even more advanced missile with a much longer range ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] THE AVRO CANADA CF-I05 ARROW PROGRAMME
    Oct 24, 2011 · Velvet Glove was cancelled in 1954 after $24 million had been spent. DHHJDND, Foulkes Papers, 7. See also Goodspeed; and Milberry and Pickler.
  20. [20]
    There was no conspiracy behind the cancellation of the Avro Arrow
    Apr 6, 2025 · The cancellation was the result of a deep conspiracy that scuttled superior Canadian technology at the behest of a jealous American military-industrial complex.
  21. [21]
    Long-secret Canadian intelligence sealed Avro Arrow fate: Paper
    Sep 19, 2023 · The Diefenbaker government's 1959 decision to scrap the fabled Avro Arrow was significantly influenced by Canadian intelligence that pointed to a diminishing ...
  22. [22]
    Conspiracy Interceptor - Literary Review of Canada
    “The Arrow was cancelled because the piloted-bomber threat was seen as diminishing in face of the new threat from missiles,” Campagna explains. “The Bomarc, it ...
  23. [23]
    Avro Arrow - the myth debunked - Aircraft Cold War - Britmodeller.com
    Dec 13, 2013 · The Arrow was a magnificent aircraft killed for budgetary reasons. The following, sent to me by Paul J, is rather long but presents a rather different view.
  24. [24]
    The Avro Arrow: Exploding The Myths And Misconceptions
    Feb 20, 2025 · Arrow Destruction​​ Perhaps one of the most enduring myths is that the destruction of the completed Arrows and all else, was ordered by Prime ...Missing: debunking | Show results with:debunking
  25. [25]
    MAGNIFICENT FAILURE - Vintage Wings of Canada
    Sep 13, 2025 · The Arrow program was staggeringly expensive for a country of 20 million people in the midst of economic atrophy. Avro Canada, a spin-off of the ...
  26. [26]
    Time to lay the Avro Arrow myth to rest: Richard Shimooka in the ...
    Sep 13, 2017 · Canada should avoid mythologizing the Avro Arrow or using its myth to guide current government policy, writes Richard Shimooka.Missing: debunking | Show results with:debunking<|separator|>