Shackelton for sale……again!

Originally posted by Joe Petroni
I went to a CAA safety evening recently, the chap introduced himself as; my name is John Smith from the CAA, thats The Campaign for the Advancement of Aviation!!!

Sniggers from the room all round

You can bet thats not how he tells it…
“They loved me, I went down a storm!”

Flood.

Hi Der,
Aeroplane published a pic of the two Cyprus Shacks just last month,and they are not a pretty sight.I can’t imagine that anything will come of them now,except perhaps dog food tins as you suggest…:(

does anyone know what the current state of the Cyprus Shacks is?
Have they been made into dog food tins yet?

I guess we are all going to run out of airframe hours eventually..

Has the SA (South African) airworthly Shack finally ran out hours..I had heard on a few occasions that it was down to it’s last 100hr or less..

Just enough for training flights.

Do Boeing supply DA authority for the B-17? I was under the understanding that they didn’t.

Having personally spoken to Mike Collett before Coventry’s airshow, nearly everything was in place for the Shack to come across but it was paperwork Stateside that was the problem. He was very confident that it would make it over here in ’04. So, fingers crossed!

I reckon I could afford one of the 10000 flying in formation rivets, any other takers?

how can you comparethese???

Was the south african shack as operational as the one in the usa now? I mean did it operate for as long as I sem to remember reading somewhere that they were stored in south africa for ages??

:rolleyes:

Well I have heard (and I can repeat this one) that the manufacturers of the Engine and props are unhappy about supporting the contra roataing props of the Shack. A case not helped by the accident with the SAAF Shack on its way to RIAT where a runaway prop was a major factor.

Originally posted by scott c
CAA= Company Against Aviation 😀 😀 😀

It would be nice to see a “shack” in the air again.

Scott C

I went to a CAA safety evening recently, the chap introduced himself as; my name is John Smith from the CAA, thats The Campaign for the Advancement of Aviation!!!

Sniggers from the room all round

Hi Bruce,
That’s the opposite of what I’d heard.My understanding of it is that the re-spar of the Lanc was made possible by the fact that the same job had been done on the RAF’s Shack AEW.2’s in the early 80’s.This would mean that the Shacks were good for a few decades of flying.That’s what I’ve heard anyway…

The reason the Shack cant fly over here is simple.

Remember the rear spar change that the Lanc had a few years back?? Well the Shacks all need that doing as well. They are all technically life expired.

The FAA allow them to fly as ‘expreimental’. If it breaks, dont come crying to us….

Bruce

I think the idea behind the Shack’s planned trip back over here in May-June was a visit rather than a permenant return.I’ve read that the plan was to give the aircraft some tlc and a repaint at Coventry before sending it back to the US again.

I thought that BAe had relented and had agreed to support the Shack in the UK, thats why Mike Collett was so sure she would come back this year.I thought finance was the problem now.

Pressumably then, if say the Panton Bros applied for a permit to fly Just Jane they would be refused by the CAA as BAe would not provide DA for a Lancaster, seeing as there is such a similarity between a Shack and a Lanc…….
And of course, Boeing must therefore be providing DA support for the airworthy B-17’s then, which is why CAA allow Sally-B to fly…….:rolleyes:

Oh and I take it back about mis-representaion as of course the ad is specific in mentioning MR2……..doh, must learn to read one day…….:o

The Shack can’t fly over here because BAe don’t want anything to do with it.The CAA are only satisfied when the holder of the design authority gives permission for the aircraft to be issued with a CofA,and BAe don’t wanna know.The rules are different in US,hence it flying perfectly well over there rather than perfectly well over here.
I don’t think there is really any problem with complexity as with Bucc or Lightning,it seems to be purelly bureaucratic.

CAA= Company Against Aviation 😀 😀 😀

It would be nice to see a “shack” in the air again.

Scott C

Could be a mis-represented advert………:p

Didn’t one of our SA based scribes confirm a few months ago that the SAAFHF still periodically flew their MR3……:confused:

I still don’t understand why the CAA won’t give the Shack a permit for the UK……it’s no more complex than a Lanc or B17 etc…surely….or am I missing something..:mad: :confused:

WL790 in America…

Flood.

Cheap at half the price!