I was reading a series of articles in “another” mag, on the Shackleton and was interested in the preservation of this series of designs in the UK from the Mancester through to the MR3 Shackleton.
In addition to no Mancester being preserved from the line (and only 4 Lancasters and 1 Lincoln) I noted that the Shackleton MR-1 only survives in cockpit form while 3 of the MR-2/AEW2 and 6 of the MR-3 are preserved in the UK.
While I understand the Shack does’nt command the same public interest as the wartime Lancaster or perhaps even the imposing Vulcan, it is an important type, and derivitive of the famous Avro line.
Given there are two surviving MR-1/T4 cockpits at Norwich and Corwall, my mind wandered to the “what if” of is there any viability in converting a surviving AEW2 back to an MR-1? (obviously the MR-3 has too many structural differences).
The MR-1 has a unique cockpit/nose design, substantially different to the other tail dragging MR-2/AEW2’s and the tricycle geared MR3’s which also have a significant wing redesign.
I understand the two surviving MR-2’s are in reality AEW2′ modified back in preservation to the earlier mark?
I know the Norwich cockpit of VP293 is cut forward of the fuselage “break” point, and there seems to be differing reports of the remains of WG511 at Cornwall being a cockpit or a forward/complete MR-1 fuselage? but both would seem to offer an opportunity to graft or bolt back onto an AEW2 airframe?
(I cant find a photo of WG511 but apparantly it is relatively complete and from the front spar forward? suggesting it is intact back to the fuselage breakpoint – but unfortunately its apparantly entombed in a building structure?)
Obviously with only two complete static MR-2/AEW2 preserved and a third planned for possible airworthy restoration donating one of the UK examples into a hybrid ourcome would not be contemplated.
Of course the only likely donor airframe would be one of the two Cyprus AEW-2’s (and a third disassembled??) facing their own uncertain future, and the removed AEW-2 cockpit might create a trade for WG511’s cockpit which I understand is now the last airframe component left at Flambards in anycase, or alternatively the AEW-2 cockpit could provide the missing rear fuselage frames and skins for VP293 to extend back to the fuselage breakpoint?
Of course the acquisition and logistics to recover one of the Cyprus AEW-2’s is not simple, but perhaps no more difficult to a Lincoln being acquired and shipped to the other side of the planet?
Obviously the AEW-2 lacks the upper turret of the MR-1 but I assume that turrent position might still exist in the fuselage structureand a turret might survive somewhere for re-installation? and the AEW radar installations would seem removable including the long tail cone?
I assume the airframes, other than external equipment and the redesigned nose are largely identical and such a hybrid could credibly be created and preserve/display an intact MR-1, and such an outcome seems technically feasible?
I guess the question is –
does the type justify the effort?,
and who might do it?
regards
Mark Pilkington
By: richw_82 - 21st June 2010 at 14:48
Seeing as the fuselage cross section is the same, and the undercarraige isn’t a worry (because there is none…), my guess is it could be attached.
Whether or not you’d want to is a different matter!
Rich
By: pagen01 - 21st June 2010 at 14:09
Yes it is Nick, just outside the hangars and tower, the other Shack is a 120sqn aircraft. I don’t have any others to hand at mo.
could the nose of VP293 be attached to the fenland musuem fuselage?
No, VP293 is an MR.1/T.4, the fenland section is an MR.3
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st June 2010 at 13:48
Absobloodylutely!
That’s St Eval in the 2nd picture isn’t it? Got any more???
By: Tropic Thunder - 21st June 2010 at 12:55
could the nose of VP293 be attached to the fenland musuem fuselage?
By: Arabella-Cox - 18th June 2010 at 19:50
Mention of a Shackleton fuselage as a glider trailer earlier in this thread, reminded me of another fuselage section at a museum (NEAM ?) that was featured here recently having had some cosmetic work done on it.
Can anybody point me to that fuselage/thread please ?
EDIT: Ok, i found it… http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=94934
.
By: Nashio966 - 2nd April 2010 at 14:07
WR963 and as far as i know any other shacks that were “Re-Sparred” Effectively had the bottom boom of the wing spar replaced. It was my understanding tht PA474 had a “Shack Job” which was essentially a shackleton lower boom?
The Caa requires us to replace the top boom now 🙂
ANYWAY
Back on topic 🙂
I would love to see a MR.1 Shackleton Its just a pity that there are so few MR.1 components left 🙁 one of the paphos shackletons would be ideal!
By: pagen01 - 2nd April 2010 at 13:50
Ben I think what you are defining as a re-spar might be different to what the RAF considered was nescessary, Shacks (and I also thought BBMF Lanc?) were considered re-spared.
What the CCA require now, might actually be something different, but associated with the spars.
Cees and MarkB, make excellent points about recreating lost types and marks, sometimes we do get hung-up on absolute correctness.
By: markb - 2nd April 2010 at 13:24
What is being proposed here is not dissimilar to the Duxford Blenheim, where a Mk1 nose is being fitted to a Bolingbroke to create a facsimile of an early Blenheim, thus recreating a “lost” type.
The Mk1 Shack idea seems excellent, especiallya s there are several examples of later Shacks in preservation.
Mark
By: Blue_2 - 2nd April 2010 at 13:13
lets just hope that unique types such as the Beverley at Fort Paull remain safe.
I know the chaps who look after the Beverley, they are committed to doing everything they can to keep her right. Should be visiting at the end of this month so I’ll have a good look around her and chuck some pictures on 🙂
By: Nashio966 - 2nd April 2010 at 13:13
Ben, if Mo says it’s so, it’s so – trust me he is Mr Shack! In the long time that I’ve been interested in the type his name has alwas been at the top.
I think there is some confusion with this spar info that you use.
No confusion on part matey, Im just recounting what I have been told. For example, Ive been told that WR963 and several other AEW shacks had a major not that long before she was retired!
When she was resparred (bottom boom replaced) in the early 80s (i think it was) she had new webs in the wing as well as a brand new tailplane. She never had a top boom replacement. I believe the chaps up at coventry when they say that no shack ever had a top boom replacement? If the shack at paphos had had such a recent full spar replacement, then surely tooling would have been saved at the time? Also, surely the Raf would not have made just a single upper boom for one aircraft? :confused:
Ill be happily corrected 🙂 could make getting our shack back in the air a whole lot easier 🙂
By: CeBro - 2nd April 2010 at 13:04
Interesting thread,
And I only read it just now because I thought it was just another save the Shackleton thread.:cool:
Some points, the Hastings that donated it’s wings to YAM’s Halifax came from Catterick’s fire pit and it would be questionable if it could have been saved for a full restoration. In this instance it provided much needed structure to bring back a Halifax.
Since the preservation of historic aircraft really came into swing this has done an awful lot of good things to preserve the few historic types/airframes left. On the other hand the tendency to question every linage or provenance has also caused an obstacle to reconstruct extinct airframes that wouldn’t have occured in service. With this I mean swapping wings, fuselages etc. to create a complete airframe (remember the Battle of Britain where three damaged aircraft could yield one servicable fighter regardless of it’s serialnumber). Even in the eighties this was the way to restore aircraft.
Purism is an invention from roughly the last two decades.
My views only.
Cees
By: pagen01 - 2nd April 2010 at 10:35
AFAIK No Shack/Lanc has ever had a full spar replacement, The mod done in service to shackletons was to replace the bottom spar or “boom”
Ben, if Mo says it’s so, it’s so – trust me he is Mr Shack! In the long time that I’ve been interested in the type his name has alwas been at the top.
I think there is some confusion with this spar info that you use.
By: TwinOtter23 - 2nd April 2010 at 10:30
In 1987 with the retirement of the AEW2 approaching and VP293 still extant; moves were made to get aviation magazines to look at the concept of lobbying for airframes while they were being maintained by their service owner. Their main response was that all efforts should be directed to supporting the enthusiasts who were “restoring” a Hurricane from a carburretor found in the Romney Marshes.
The sale of the 8 Squadron AEWs in 1992 was a new approach to preseving a type. Unfortunately it took them away from the true enthusiasts and left them in the hands of owners who quickly lost interest and abandoned them. WL747 had completed a full spar replacement only 18 months before sale.
The thoughts of the crew that flew XF708 into Duxford left all their maps and Nav instruments in situ so that all could see the human connection to the beast. That thoughtful move was neutralised and the IWM now faces the tremendous restoration/presevation task after her 58 years in the open.
Other threads cover the disposition of the Nimrod airframes at the same time as their retirement, meaning that maximum preservation can be achieved. Let’s hope that this will be the future so that we can expect the task to be preservation rather than restoration or modification.
And a Happy Easter to all,
Mo
Perhaps things have changed after all!
It is my understanding that the Nimrod disposals have been handled in a ‘proactive’ manner by the powers that be from within the MoD – well done for continuing to take such an approach.
By: Blue_2 - 2nd April 2010 at 00:45
Mo, I suppose it’s the old saying-
‘You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone’
🙁
By: Nashio966 - 2nd April 2010 at 00:30
WL747 had completed a full spar replacement only 18 months before sale.
AFAIK No Shack/Lanc has ever had a full spar replacement, The mod done in service to shackletons was to replace the bottom spar or “boom”
Im sure someone will correct me, but I know that there was never any new “top spar” material made for the shacks, or we’d had snapped some up!
By: Mo Botwood - 2nd April 2010 at 00:09
Since my last post, there have been very good points raised and made.
In 1987 with the retirement of the AEW2 approaching and VP293 still extant; moves were made to get aviation magazines to look at the concept of lobbying for airframes while they were being maintained by their service owner. Their main response was that all efforts should be directed to supporting the enthusiasts who were “restoring” a Hurricane from a carburretor found in the Romney Marshes.
The sale of the 8 Squadron AEWs in 1992 was a new approach to preseving a type. Unfortunately it took them away from the true enthusiasts and left them in the hands of owners who quickly lost interest and abandoned them. WL747 had completed a full spar replacement only 18 months before sale.
The thoughts of the crew that flew XF708 into Duxford left all their maps and Nav instruments in situ so that all could see the human connection to the beast. That thoughtful move was neutralised and the IWM now faces the tremendous restoration/presevation task after her 58 years in the open.
Other threads cover the disposition of the Nimrod airframes at the same time as their retirement, meaning that maximum preservation can be achieved. Let’s hope that this will be the future so that we can expect the task to be preservation rather than restoration or modification.
And a Happy Easter to all,
Mo
By: TwinOtter23 - 1st April 2010 at 18:22
I respect them also, having read his postings. I was just thinking out loud that with the benefit of hindsight it’s a shame they weren’t preserved, like so many ‘last survivors’ of larger types, ie. B.1 Vulcan etc.
There was no pop at NAM for not taking the Strathallan one on 🙂
IMHO the ideal time to preserve something is fresh out of service – that way any real issues should be under control; things start to become more complex when an airframe has stood for a long time outside.
That said miracles do sometimes happen e.g. the Wallace fuselages recovered from woods at Cranwell by NAMs founders in 1963 – the early days of UK preservation!
Didn’t think there was a ‘pop’ either!! 😀
By: pagen01 - 1st April 2010 at 15:35
Good points raised again, the Mk.1 should have been saved when the opportunity came up with Strathallans Shack.
Luckily The Cornwall Aeropark had the foresight to save their example quite a long time ago, and it’s been housed indoors ever since.
As Blue2 mentions, the last Vulcan B.1 was scrapped, and I believe Duxfords Victor B.1/K.1A came close aswel, these things seem to happen almost unoticed, lets just hope that unique types such as the Beverley at Fort Paull remain safe.
By: Blue_2 - 1st April 2010 at 12:54
I respect them also, having read his postings. I was just thinking out loud that with the benefit of hindsight it’s a shame they weren’t preserved, like so many ‘last survivors’ of larger types, ie. B.1 Vulcan etc.
There was no pop at NAM for not taking the Strathallan one on 🙂
By: TwinOtter23 - 1st April 2010 at 12:44
I know Mo; wrote articles for him in the ‘Growler’ and greatly respect his views on all things Shackleton!
That said I have also commented before on the VP293 at Strathallan and NAMs consideration for taking on the move – please see posts #27; #29 and #34 here http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98014&highlight=Strathallan
Sign In
March 31, 2010 at 1:03 am