After the Avro Arrow project was cancelled a number of the employees involved joined NASA to assist in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. It's a shame that the same kind of "brain drain" occurs to this day. Canada produces a lot of talented people and many of them head South.
Not just Canada, the United States has been very successful in attracting top talent from all over the world. A large part of its success is due to that - the USA does not produce nearly enough STEM graduates domestically. A huge number of people come every year to study in US universities, still considered the best in the world in many cases, and many stay afterwards. I think that the USA could be considered to be an empire in decline once it can no longer attract the top talent worldwide, and once those people graduate and go back to their own countries instead of staying in the US.
In the Canada case specifically, the pay gap for software engineers between the USA and Canada is about 2-3x if you're at the top of your field. The real mystery to me is why Canada has any software engineers at all. I'm a Canadian SE living in Canada currently and I wouldn't dream of working for any companies located here, including e.g. Amazon or IBM.
> The real mystery to me is why Canada has any software engineers at all.
For all kinds of political and social reasons, I would never move to the US. Key examples:
- The disaster that is the US health care system
- Even more endemic systemic racism than Canada has
- Even left-wing politicians are to the right of what I prefer in Canada
All that, plus I'm not in this for the money. I make a comfortable living and live in a gorgeous city, and there aren't any cities in the US I would want to live in.
I'm happy in Canada. I'd probably also be happy in Europe or even Asia, but I can't picture being happy in the US.
Doesn't affect engineers in the US. It's actually the opposite. If you can afford a good insurance plan, the health care services are way better than in Canada. No problem finding a GP, and you never have to wait for an appointment.
> Even more endemic systemic racism than Canada has
If you're white, come to the US to make the situation better. If you're a visible minority, this is a good point. But it really does depend on where you live in the US.
> Even left-wing politicians are to the right of what I prefer in Canada
Not in California. Keep in mind that states have much more power in the US than provinces do in Canada.
In the end, there's more to life than money. For me, I live here due to the superior weather and wider range of opportunities to work on cool stuff.
Living far away from family and friends is a big downside. Nationalism plays no part for me.
It affects engineers who care about people other than themselves.
It also affects engineers who get sick. And engineers who have a baby born with a medical issue and can't get coverage because the complex birth cost $0.5M.
And engineers who can't change job or start a business because they have an existing condition and can't get new insurance.
So, yes, for engineers who stay lucky and don't care about their neighbors, it's not a problem.
[edit: Don't get me wrong, I love lots of things about the US, but the healthcare system is insane.]
As far as 'endemic racism' - this is again totally unfair.
The US is by far and away not racist.
I lived in the US for many years and never saw someone ever - ever - do or say anything racist, either directly or through ignorance.
I'm not saying the US doesn't have problems - I'm saying that in every day life, issues are 'systematic' not remotely 'hateful'. Also - the US has a massive population of ex-slaves, and very poor people from Latin America. 'Racism' might be somewhat of an issue for example in the Asian community, but not remotely in the same sense that it is for African Americans. Canada has lots of E. European and Asian immigrants, and very few people of African or Central/South American descent, and os the issues are just softer. Canadians attitude is a reflection of their situation.
America has many flaws, and racism is one of them - but it's not some kind of cesspool.
America is one of the least racist places on planet earth.
Even less racist than almost all of Europe, even the 'fairly progressive' Scandinavian countries - who have 'laws and policies' which are very progressive - but who's culture is so deep, and so fixed, it's really quite difficult for anyone who is not 'Swedish' to actually integrate and participate.
A 'foreigner' has considerably more hope of success in America than in Sweden. Admittedly, a 'foreigner' might have a better hope of a 'decent life' in Sweden, though.
Almost everywhere else in the world is openly and unabashedly racist ... there is only some awareness in situations where there is a peculiar awareness, i.e. 'Euro' vs. 'Metzo' American class issues in South America.
> The real mystery to me is why Canada has any software engineers at all.
Some software engineers care about maternity leave, universal health care, and the welfare of their fellows that don't have software engineer salaries.
I also disagree with the term 'disaster'. That implies accidental, unanticipated, or maybe even just oops.
If you were to expand it to 'disaster capitalism', profiting (exploiting) the misfortune of others while intentionally making things worse, then I'd be in agreement.
A hurricane is a disaster. The US healthcare racket is a deliberate snafu.
This is a bit of Canadian propaganda and mythology.
I lived in the US (and Canada) and the US has the best healthcare in the world bar none - for those who are covered.
The 'flaws' which are deep - is that it doesn't cover everyone, if you don't have coverage, you are totally screwed, and it's obscenely expensive.
For a 20-30 something 'STEM' it's actually much better. Doctors will actually listen to you, you don't wait for stuff, it all just seems magically better than Canada.
Again - I'm not ignoring the deep systematic problems with the US system - rather taking a more nuanced view.
I think the US system could be more socialized (and cheaper) than it is, but for 'those with good jobs' ... it doesn't matter.
And when I say 'propaganda' - I'm serious. I believed all this CBC-promoted stuff until I lived abroad for many years, then one looks back on one's youth and thinks about all the things we were told that were 'given as truth' but really are not :).
No, not trolling, providing some perspective to someone who has, it seems, not lived within the American system and has some views that have been promoted by certain Canadian elements which are borderline bigoted.
The 'Canadian view on the street' of the 'American system' is misinformed, and it's largely due to a certain consensus promoted within the Canadian elite. It's a very highly politicized issue.
As another Canadian ex-pat pointed out below (and as so many Canadians living in the US can attest to) - the 'Canadian consensus view' on the American system is not correct.
FYI - Canada is the only country in the world wherein it's legal to pay a mechanic to fix your tire, but it's illegal to pay someone to fix your broken arm.
I personally had to live through this conundrum. The 'official position' in Ontario is to move people away from doctors - and to push them into clinics where they can't get 'long term' type of care.
I was sick - and there were no doctors in my region taking patients. I was forced to go to a clinic where they couldn't properly diagnose me. They didn't care at all, as the are 99% dealing with 'kids with colds and the flu'. Every time I went I saw a new doctor. I was ill, with weird symptoms, the doctors 'didn't give a s*' - and there was nothing I could do about it within the system.
I finally went to the 'Cleveland Clinic' - an American not-for-profit entity operating in a 'grey legal area' in Toronto, and they helped out. Thankfully, nothing serious - but it could have been.
I have family members in Canada who waited years for hip and knee replacements - and they think this is 'normal'.
Most Canadians who have no exposure to 'other' systems have a limited view of their own system vis-a-vis others.
I wouldn't want 'the American system' for Canada, and it's far from perfect, but it has some merits which are often overlooked by the CBC-centric types.
I prefer looking at the evidence rather than getting my facts from CBC or other news titbits. And the evidence clearly shows that overall the Canadian system is better. It's not perfect, and sometimes you have to wait for non-critical procedures, but overall we receive good care. Whereas in the USA there is still a large percentage of people who have no healthcare at all, or who go broke paying for it.
Cleveland Clinic (in Ohio) is a superior organization. World class. They were one of our early adopter customers (when I was doing electronic medical records exchanges).
Your story of having a rare (hard, difficult to diagnose) disease and not getting the care you need is the norm. This has happened to me many times.
I suspect (Atul Gawanda style) the root cause is care providers are basically organic expert systems doing triage. They are taught to do their best and then move on. Do the maximum good with limited resources.
Your fix was to find the care you needed. Do not accept No for an answer. Someone somewhere has the answers you need. You did the right thing.
--
One of my besties got a terminal diagnosis, second opinion, third opinion. Decided he was too young to die, so he started looking at available clinical trials. Luckily, he exactly matched a trial for immunotherapy for his specific disease. He then found a superior doctor willing to support, manage his treatment goals, plans.
Another one of my besties has advanced Lyme Disease. It's terrible. He moved across country to be near the 2nd best specialist, to better manage his care. He regularly goes to NYC to see the #1 specialist. Further, he is now something like an angel funder for early stage research. He has actually benefitted from these early results.
My own story is similar. I had aplastic anemia. I've had numerous experimental treatments, first for the anemia and then for the subsequent side effects (GVHD). I'm a living miracle of modern technology. I have so many war stories (both good and bad), it's boring.
--
Here's the thing. You, me, my two friends are not the norm. We're the outliers. Changing the payment system, insurance, whatever does not fix this problem.
Perhaps teaching doctors to escalate is the solution. Perhaps connecting similar patients, by matching symptoms. Perhaps data mining. Apple's healthcare initiatives will certainly help (eg matching patients with trials). I keep asking everyone I meet for their ideas.
Lastly, back to the point, Canadians spend less on healthcare, are healthier, and live longer than USA people. The Canadian system is superior. Simple statement of fact.
I agree with this. My girlfriend has unfortunately had to deal with racist name calling as an Asian (I can't imagine what it must be like for those that are even more targeted by the alt-right) in San Francisco, a "liberal" city in the eyes of Americans.
Yes, but the top, hard driving, talent would make the trade and move to the US. Your prerogative is to kick back and chill up north. I'm not hatin -- just pointing out that you're not really a counter example to the point at hand.
What a desperately condescending thing to say. Really it comes down to a matter of perspective on life and your definition of "hard-driving". If your definition of that is writing code for more money, then fine. Other people work a hell of a lot harder, in much worse conditions, for a lot less, and choose to do it in a place where they like to live and the people they enjoy being around. Pretty compelling to me.
It's basically people who want to work at places like google and earn $250k.
Still, there is a lot of "top talent" who chooses not to go that route. Working on my own stuff I get to work on much more interesting and challenging stuff -- as well as making a larger personal contribution to "changing the world" in a small way -- than I would likely achieve if I was working as a software engineer at google. I don't earn as much, but my quality of life is much better.
There's a lot of inertia for some people to stay in one place, much less to change countries.
Judging by Facebook, about ninety percent of my high school class in a small town in Texas stayed within a half hour's drive after 30 years.
One of my coworkers in the 90's moved from Canada to Austin and eventually moved back to Canada. It was just cheaper to live in Canada with a family for him at that time, even with the pay disparity - and he was super talented in a niche field, I think the other major option for him at that time was California.
" the USA does not produce nearly enough STEM graduates domestically"
They do, and so do most other countries.
The US has a 'very large market' that is 'capital friendly' and has a lot of 'early adopters' and consumers that love the latest, newest fad.
So, 'market dominance' is so many things will come from America.
One of the reasons America pushes for 'free markets' is because there's no need for geostratic shennanigans otherwise.
Ex: If Canada (or other countries) opened up their telecom sector to aquisition - even on 'even terms' - do you think Rogers, Telus and Bell (Canadian) would be buying up Verizon, TMobile and Sprint? No. The other way around. Canadian firms would be immediately aquired by American firms. Same for everything else. All of the 'top jobs' would go to the US, and the only thing left in Canada would be 'customer service' 'local marketing' and 'field ops'.
The same thing for developing countries x100.
'Free Trade' plays very naturally into Americas strengths, and it's an easy line to promote, because the 'short term net advantages' are supposedly positive for everyone (though, generally capital).
FYI - Canada/US comp. has a lot to do with Oil prices. Oil prices high = Canadian salaries almost at par with the us.
(Remember that the vast majority of US STEMS are not earning 'high end Google salaries'). Low Oil prices means you can earn considerably more in the US.
Then, who do you work for? Apologies for prying, but I couldn't help notice the "wouldn't dream of working for any companies located here" and "SE living in Canada".
This would imply that someone making 150 CAD (for a senior top developer) would be making 450 USD. That doesn't match actual salary numbers from the field.
150 CAD at current exchange rates is 123 USD. That puts the 2-3x range at 246-369 USD. That's actually a bit low for a good senior developer in the current Bay Area market.
So some years ago, a company you'd recognize in node.js land, said at a meeting that they were trying to find a javascript expert. Nagged enroute to a bar afterwards, I explained that I wasn't one. I'd never written a full javascript implementation, only some hack bits and pieces. It had been years since I followed committee discussions. I'd not even seen the latest draft. And that I was mostly using coffeescript these days. They replied... coffeescript is ok, we can train you in javascript.
At which point I realized that they were using "javascript expert" to mean something very, very different, than I was.
Perhaps kcorbitt's "a good senior developer" means something different than glassdoor's "senior software engineer"?
I guess it depends on what your cutoff is for "good". I can say from firsthand experience that senior developers at Facebook or Google are hitting those numbers pretty easily.
Not sure where you live, or what you think the typical software dev does, but that seems extremely far off the mark in my experience, even for 10+ years ago.
Can confirm those numbers in the Toronto area. Maybe not at the absolute top end or the levels where job postings aren't even put out, but in the rank-and-file corporate and startup community, just take a look at any major job board lately.
I was making $145k as a junior rails dev at my last job in Toronto and they're hiring nonstop. Message me on keybase if you want to chat or get an intro.
If you're maintaining old-school apps in old languages, or you don't have a degree.
If you're talented, have marketable skills and an ability to promote yourself, you should be making at least 70k in most Canadian cities. Given the job market and cost of living increases in the last few years, this isn't particularly high.
Anyone settling for 40k or so (and not fresh out of school) I think should take a close look at other opportunities.
I'm a realist, but that's a tad bit too jaded for me to take as is. I don't think you're all wrong, though.
You just could have done without that first and last statement. I'll inform the UNV you won't be signing up anytime soon. I don't see taking a low salary as settling in every case. Many Canadian businesses just simply cannot pay that level for certain skills, and if you want to believe in your friends, colleagues and fellow countrymen sometimes you take a hit to what you think you're worth to help build. I wasn't complaining outright, myself. I was adding a data point. Averages can be helpful information.
It's encouraging for other reasons that you're yet another counter-point promoting that there are better-paying opportunities, though. I'd hate to paint a grim picture. Regardless I love it here (in Canada. I could move out of the city again)
When I was interviewing for mid level jobs in Montreal most of the salaries were around 45-75k CAD. At 80k I was the second-highest paid dev in our office.
Certainly there are jobs paying more, but they are far from the norm.
$150K CAD is higher than the vast majority of jobs. But it's only about $120K USD (and was a lot worse at the start of the year). Senior level salaries at the big tech companies run about $250K before factoring in stock and performance bonuses. The top guys are clearing close to half a million USD all compensation considered, and they're really the equivalent of your $150K in Canada. So 2-3x is conservative if anything.
Three hours well spent, thanks. I'm not sure how historically accurate it is, but it was fun to watch. I didn't get my Canadian citizenship until a half dozen years ago, but it's neat to see that story. I knew of the plane, and a few others, but not the details.
In a demonstration of my pride to be a Canadian citizen, I will eat ketchup chips and apologize profusely when I go back across the border into Canada, eh.
My father wrote (or edited, I don't remember) an article about state of the art aircraft in 1958. Among others it covered the Avro Arrow, stating, among other fun trivia, that more than 450 engineers worked on the design and it was built from more than 38,000 parts, including 17,500 meters of cable.
Unfortunately he switched jobs shortly after that and worked for a fine literature publishing house until retirement. I thought his earlier job was way cooler. :) We still visited the local airfield every other weekend.
As interesting as the Avro Arrow was, it's capabilities have been exaggerated, and there were a decent number of Mach 2 capable jets of the same era. More interesting is the downfall of Avro and the effect it had on Canada's engineers and brain drain...
The Convair F-106 Delta Dart from the same era was likely faster (Mach 2.3 vs. Arrow's fastest test at Mach 2). And the Delta Dart was no great interceptor, they only built a few hundred. This was the era where Air Power doctrine had to painfully accept that high speed high altitude was becoming too vulnerable to SAMs.
The fastest war plane of the era was the North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie, which was an enormous bomber which cruised at Mach 3+ and 70,000 feet for nearly 4,000 miles. Neither the Arrow or Dagger could touch it, but SAMs could so it was canceled after a very successful test flight program.
The world changed to low altitude penetration, a role which would have cut the B70s range substantially because it's design actually far more efficient at Mach 3/70,000 feet than it was at Mach 0.95 at 1,000 feet.
Sure, but the performance envelope on the Arrow was not even close to being tested - it was cancelled before it was fitted with the engines it was actually designed to use. Some of the maximum performance numbers are overstated for sure, but it's hard to say what it's real performance would have been. Similar things can be said for the range - the final numbers for that _should_ have been much higher.
Also keep in mind, this was designed as an interceptor for defence of the vastness of Canada against Russian long-range bombers. It wasn't just about speed, but the combination of speed, range, and advanced avionics that made the Arrow important.
I don't know why you'd compare this to the XB-70, they're vastly different designs for different purposes.
When Sputnik and the threat of ICBMs loomed, most assumed interceptors were a waste of time - which turned out to be a premature assumption.
All in all, it was probably the right decision to cancel the program, as it's costs has spiralled out of control - but to make direct comparisons of production aircraft to prototypes seems unfair.
Speaking of Convair, It's always a shame to read about all these companies from they heyday of aviation - so many companies making so many planes. I went to the Aviation museum in Ottawa and looked at all the forgotten names...
Canada used to have multiple brands of aircraft manufactures, making multiple combat planes. The USA had a plethora of manufactures I can't even keep track of them all.
Now? We have just Bombardier, who makes solid passenger craft and fails to make large jetliners and LRVs.
I would disagree that the F-106 wasn't a great interceptor as it apparently was (and was a pleasure to fly).
The issue is that by the time it made it to production, the major threat had become the ICBM rather than the bomber. USAF Air Defense Command in general was defunded but ABM never took its place.
Well my greater point was that high speed high altitude intercepters were becoming obsolete while the Arrow was being built. As much a pleasure as the Delta Dart may have been to fly, it wasn't produced in great numbers because it wasn't designed for the new threats.
I wouldn't hold up any Century Series aircraft as an example of anything other than extravagant expenditure. They were all garbage when compared against the actual missions they needed to perform. That was mostly the result of brain dead acquisitions on the part of the DoD.
Be careful with the "top" speeds of military jets. The F-16 claims mach 2+ but it cannot do this with any realistic combat load or mission profile. The vast majority of its time will be spent subsonic, with mere seconds at mach 1.6 to release weapons.
But specs are deliberately under quoted I recall a former co worker who had worked at RAE saying that whilst on the range at salisbury plain was over taken by a the then standard MBT in a land rover doing 50 he reckoned it was doing 65-70 well over the MBT's quoted top speed.
I agree, I have no idea how it relates. Plenty of MBT's have very high top speeds under ideal conditions. The actual top speed is usually to something lower to prevent damage to the tanks tracks however.
Anything can exceed its design speed if you override or ignore the design guideline.
I am sure the F-16 may well be faster than the number I gave, but an F-16 has like 20 minutes fuel, maximum, on afterburner. Add in flight time to target, and drag from weapons, and the time taken to accelerate, and you see why they can't do it except on test flights.
I do not think you can find any documented instance of a Viper exceeding mach 1.8 in combat. F-18s recently intercepted a "suspect" airliner at mach 1.6.
A SR71 would not have "War Emergency Power". I'm not even sure I've seen reference to "War Emergency Power" on any turbine engine. It's simply not a combat aircraft. As a matter of its regular operation, it must be capable of outflying any aircraft or missile in pursuit. In other words, flying at the absolute maximum airspeed was a normal event that is a possibility in every mission. Not a last ditch effort to disengage.
You really have nothing to back up the claims you are making. Not only is the SR71 no longer in operation, the aircraft don't even really exist anymore. The static displays out there largely had their wings cut off for transport. They were just reattached on site afterwards. They aren't airworthy any longer. Even if the top speed was a bit higher than published, there would be no reason to keep it classified now.
Plenty of pilots have published memoirs about how regular flight was Mach 3, with excursions to Mach 3.2. The absolute speed is just like any other aircraft. It's limited by design factors. Of course some crews wound up flying faster than Mach 3.2. But it's not like the blackbird was running around secretly at mach 10 or something.
I think he's referring to the fact that you can get higher than "normal" speed if you dump your weapons and accept damage from the heat, either air friction heating the skin of your plane, or just your engine temperatures. You may be able to maintain it for a short time to evade something.
Its similar to the way you can get your car to exceed design parameters if you risk blowing the engine and disable the speed limiter.
The Avro Arrow was an impressive aircraft. There were a large number of cool, but not useful aircraft developed in the 1950s, as jet aircraft were being figured out.
Avro is remembered mostly for building a flying saucer, the AvroCar. It never got out of ground effect, being both unstable and underpowered. But it looked really cool. It can be seen at the USAF museum in Dayton, Ohio.[1]
At the same time as the Arrow, Avro developed the C102 Jetliner, the second jet airliner to fly. Despite considerable interest from US airlines, it chose to scrap the Jetliner project to keep the Arrow project going - one of those what-if moments.
I don't think there is much what-ifs there, too small (40 passengers) and range too short (1200 miles). The advantage of jetliners over props/turboprops wasn't in cost, it was in speed and comfort (higher cruising altitudes) and both advantages are reduced on smaller routes.
The 707 held 140 passengers and had a 2400 mile range. They sold a thousand of them.
The Comet was similar in size to the C102, but had more range. They only sold 117 of all variants up through the Comet 4 (though obviously the metal fatigue crashes affected sales).
The Sud Caravelle, which launched a few years later, eventually sold 280 units, but it was twice the size and twin engined, so it's operating economics were likely much better.
Avro was really early, and their original funding from TCA had ridiculous conditions that would have crippled them. Fortunately they pulled out. But still too early, and I think they would have only had a chance if they designed significantly more range. Then they could have stolen the Comet market after it's crashes, and probably sold even better, given their use of round windows from the beginning.
Maybe it would have succumbed to the Boeing juggernaut, but Howard Hughes was so keen to get 30 Jetliners for TWA's New York - Miami route that he was almost able to set up a deal for Convair to build them under license, after Avro declined to do so itself. I imagine it might have been attractive for the NY - Chicago, Boston - NY - Washington and LA - SF routes as well.
In the end, the first turbine-engined airliners in North American service were Vickers Viscount turboprops, with a 1400 mile range.
A 1940s era Lockheed Constellation cruised at 345 mph, the C102 at 420 mph. The difference on the C102's longest possible route (NYC-Miami) might about 3 hours 15 minutes for the jetliner and 4 hours for the Constellation. Meanwhile the Constellation
1) Can fly up to twice as many passengers.
2) Was almost certainly less expensive to operate.
3) Has over 4x the range.
If you ran an airline, which would you choose? And that's on a long route, on a 500 mile route the difference in flight time would be maybe twenty minutes.
And it was just a couple years from the DC-7, which was a turboprop that flew nearly as fast as the C102, was twice the size and also a massive range. And again cheaper to operate.
If the C102 had a 2,500+ mile range I think it would have a much better opportunity. Flying people from NY to LA at in 6 hours instead of 8 and at a much more comfortable altitude would be a much more significant difference.
More like 8 years, it took that long for an economically viable jetliner to be created. The 707 was viable because it was far larger and had enormous range, it revolutionized long distance travel.
I'd have thought of the Avro Lancaster or Vulcan instead. The Vulcan in particular was part of the "V bomber" effort in which the UK government commissioned 3 totally different supersonic nuclear bombers in the hope that one of them would work and be delivered on time.
Ahem: the V-bombers were all subsonic (at least in service — the prototype Handley-Page Victor went supersonic on at least one occasion and was controllable in transsonic flight; the production Victors had various external extras bolted on which made supersonic flight impractical).
The requirement issued for these bombers in the late 1940s, was for a mission to carry ten tons of Atom bomb from the UK to Moscow at high subsonic speed and able to penetrate Moscow's air defenses. They were pretty successful; Vulcans carried out the longest bombing mission in aviation history prior to Operation Desert Storm (the 8000-mile Black Buck raids during the Falklands Conflict) and the last Victor tankers were retired in 1993. And we're looking at designs that flew little more than a decade after the piston-engined Lancasters and Halifaxes of RAF Bomber Command.
All three V-bomber types — the Valiant, Vulcan, and Victor — saw service carrying Britain's nuclear weapons from the 1950s to the early 1970s. (They were replaced in the deterrent role by Polaris submarines.)
> the Army wanted to use it as a subsonic, all-terrain troop transport and reconnaissance craft, but the USAF wanted a VTOL aircraft that could hover below enemy radar then zoom up to supersonic speed. Avro’s designers believed they could satisfy both services
This is step 1 in creating a multi-million/billion dollar boondoggle.
a couple of my favorite links about VTOL of 195x (the postwar decades was a beautiful time of explosive exploration of designs, today's nostalgia and interest toward that time coupled with modern control electronics and the rise of independent tech explorers like Musk brings hope for the second golden age of tech) :
Many of the strange VTOL planes of that era are in the Hiller museum in San Carlos.
(Basic problem with thrust-type VTOL: the plane needs so much engine that it's all engine, no payload. This works for fighters, which are are all engine anyway, but not for much else. Thrust redirection is mechanically complicated, too.[1])
which is why many of [technically] successful VTOLs were using propellers/fans - higher [static/slow-speed] thrust for the same engine power. For example Ryan XV-5 and Bell_X-22. That comes with other set of trade-offs of course. F-35 got the fan for reasons of balance and for the increased thrust, and be it my decision i'd do a second fan on F-35 instead of thrust vectoring, i.e. something more along the lines of Ryan XV-5.
"Early models were cut apart and their blueprints destroyed along with the machines used to make the aircraft."
That's just perverse: why would you destroy the blueprints? Couldn't they just file them away in an archive or library somewhere? The cost to store them would be minimal.
