From:	"Paul J. Adam" <shadowtk@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Arrow
Date:	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:00:36 +0000

In message <Pine.BSI.3.95.980304220541.27559A-100000@*******.com>, Bruce
Ford <shaman@*******.COM> writes
>On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Kristling Ravenwing wrote:
>
>Based on the original prototype's performance, it was believed and still
>is by the people that had built and flown the prototype that it would have
>outperformed craft that are currently in use even today and into the next
>century.

This got hammered out in rec.aviation.military a while ago...

The Arrow would have been an excellent interceptor, if everything
worked: but, for instance, the weapon it was designed to use (the
active-homing Sparrow II) was extremely ambitious and was cancelled in
1958. Aerodynamically, though, it was excellent, and plans were in hand
to use the SARH Sparrow III instead.

It was easily equal or superior to contemporary aircraft like the F-106,
Su-11, or Dassault Mirage: but comparing it to the F-15 or Su-27 is a
little optimistic :)

The design shows its age in, for instance, the weapons bay for internal
carriage of weapons (vice the conformal carriage preferred today), and
no consideration whatsoever for any air-to-ground role: but it was one
hell of an aircraft. Should have flown top cover for TSR.2...

><Shrug> Sorry for rambling, my grandfather was one of the workers on the
>prototype so it's hard not to start up after hearing so much and looking
>into it on my own because I happen to follow aeronautical history some.
>
>Bruce.