A few points

You might be right, but that is what I remember from a few years ago.

Have to dredge the old memory banks a bit ore!!

Bruce

“You will remember the Spar change on the Lancaster – well that had the same problem.

Now, who wants to pay for a spar change on a Shack?? Any offers??”

I was under the impression that the AEW2 Shacks had thier mainspars replaced in the early 80’s,so the fatigue life shouldn’t be a problem.
There was an article about the re-spar of the Lanc which stated that this was only possible because of the experience gained in the re-spar work which had previously been carried out on the Shackleton.
Any truth in this?

Hi Mike J

Since private Canberras are already operating on the UK register, I don’t see that the operation of a PR9 would be a problem, assuming that 1) The RAF dispose of them to private owners, and don’t store them or sell them to an overseas Air Force, and 2) A private owner can be found to operate one. I doubt that the CAA would not class them as a ‘complex’ aircraft, in any case.

One (1) private Canberra operates in the UK. This is a B.6 which is not any more “complex” than, say, a Vampire, Meatbox or even a Hunter. The PR.9 however is a different matter. This Canberra has powered flying controls (the only Canberra to have such). I think this may cause problems IF a privateer can get a chance to operate one. (It would be good though 🙂 ) Again, it’s not a matter that the CAA would/wouldn’t grant a permit, it’s a matter of whether BWoS would agree to be DA. I somehow don’t see this happening. You are right of course that the PR.9s would, in all probability, be “sold on”. But as their current effectiveness is probably more to do with the US sensor suites than the airframe itself, and these would be removed, this idea is probably a non-starter. Although, having said this, there are a couple of outfits in the states doing specialised hi-alt work (currently using Canberras) that would love to get their hands on a 9 – but then, so would I.

Regardless of why BAE Systems undertake such work on historic aircraft, I think it extremely unfair to knock them for receiving some intangible benefit from this. Without them, there would be no RNHF in its present form.

OK. Easy target with uneasy performance history I guess. Be interesting to know just what their “intangible benefits” were though, do you know? And yes, various groups derive considerable benefit from the BWoS involvement.

In my mind, the UK av industry has (and had) the best aviation innovators/engineers in the world, our aviation history proves that. My quibble is over the “management” of those stalwart men and women and the seeming lack of, what? – vision? As for why they are criticised, if “they”, as a corporation, performed better they wouldn’t be. Tend to agree with Willow’s post in this. Knocking BWoS in the av community is a given, no matter how much PR they do.

Anyway, enough of this, ’tis just tilting at windmills. Good talking with you.

Sorry Andrewman my mistake,I was going to contribute to this thread because I thought it was titled ‘A few pints’.

Sadly, it’s all becoming much clearer now:(

You can understand their reluctance given the ‘out of hours’ problem.

Willow

I was under the impression, BAe’s reluctance to accept DA is purely down to legalities. In other words, if they accept DA, and it all went pear shaped, as the DA, BAe could be in a tricky situation regarding any subsequent legal proceedure…….:confused:

In the case of the various restorations for BBMF/RNHF etc., I believe they may have been loosley classified under some sort of ‘workforce skills training’ programme……..long may that continue:D

The main problem IIRC with the Shack stems from them being effectively out of airframe hours when they were retired by the RAF.

You will remember the Spar change on the Lancaster – well that had the same problem.

Now, who wants to pay for a spar change on a Shack?? Any offers??

In the USA, they attach a little badge that states ‘EXPERIMENTAL’ – You dont need product support then…..

Bruce

As I work for another of Britains most critised institutions (it’s fairly obvious which!!), your point about criticism is well taken.

BAE Systems (BAe) operation of the Mosquito and their continuing restoration work, have done much for historic aircraft preservation and operation in this country.

The odd question here is that if they are prepared to carry out such expensive and complex activities, why are they so reluctant to agree the ‘paper’ issue of the Shackleton paperwork. I can understand the Lightning and Buccaneer situation, as these are high performance aircraft with, in the case of the Lightning, a none too perfect saftey record while in service.
The Shackleton is a different case. It could hardly be called high performance (except for the noise!) and as a four engined aircraft, is likely to be much more reliable and safe.
It’s not hugely different from a Lancaster. Ignoring the BBMF aeroplane (not easy to do!) which is military operated, who is currently holding the design authority for the CWH Lancaster?
Unless, of course, the Canadian authorities don’t need a DA for the aeroplane.
If it is BAE, then I don’t really see the difference between the two aeroplanes.

As for the reputation, BAE Systems don’t do themselves much good by making very public mistakes, such as the Nimrod wing fiasco, and the Typhoon delays (although the Typhoon situation is not entirely BAEs fault, it is generally percieved as being so).

As I said at the top, I’m quite aware of how the press blows everything out of proportion, and yes, they have built some damn fine aeroplanes (check out my defence of the Hawk earlier) but I still don’t understand the Shackleton issue.

Willow

Mike J

You could well be right. 😉 But how was all that sterling work paid for? Doubt it was carried out for free. You say “sponsorship”, OK, sounds good and very public-spirited. What did BWoS get out of it?

Still doesn’t explain the Shack though.

Another thought . . . do you think that BWoS will sanction a “privateer” flying Canberra PR.9 when these venerable aircraft finally get demobbed? I know the Cranberrie is not a WWII kite, but it is 50 years old (well, the 9’s are 40 at least), surely that’s “Historic”. :rolleyes:

(I think we’re getting “thread-drift” here, maybe we should get back on topic, eh?)

Willow
Not railing against the Hawk itself, after all I think the Canberra is a really good airframe and that’s 50 years old! It just seems to me that, somewhere, the brit av industry has “lost” something. In 30 years surely the UK aviation industry could have come up with a new design? They used to be so innovative in terms of aircraft. No, was railing against the monolithic BWoS.

(Mutter. . . it all went square-shaped after the TSR.2 fiasco :rolleyes: )

Mike J
Yes, the same company. The examples you list are all “participatory” projects, BWoS gets kudos (and work and money) from such. Why, therefore do they not consider sanctioning Air Atlantique’s Shack? Could it be because someone in their management would have to take responsibility for something that has no immediate profit vector? 😉

…..and started to rebuild a Lancaster for Charles Church……..until it got squashed that is (not sure we can blame BAe entirely for squashing the Lanc).

Originally posted by LesB

the RAF’s next trainer deal – a 30 year old airframe with prettier coloured lights in the cockpit but no re-heat, supersonic capability

LesB,

while I agree with your sentiments, I have to disagree about the Hawk. 30 years old the airframe design may be (the F16 isn’t far off that either) but the Hawk is still winning orders worldwide, so the competition can’t be up to much either. The only other option for the RAF was the MB346 (Yak130) which was only an option because it was cheap anyway.

Hawk has recently been sold to Canada and Austrailia, and even the US Navy use a version of it, so it can’t be that bad can it.

Mind you, as you say, the build will probably overrun on time and budget and then half the systems wont work:(

Now who’s being synical!!

Willow

Mike Currill wrote. . .

I meant to add that the last I heard BAe had flatly refused any product support for either type which means the CAA will not entertain the idea of allowing them to fly

So there you pretty much have it. Although the CAA are very stringent in their application of the rules it’s British Waste of Space that’s the villain of the piece. These are the people that brought you the Nimrod wings up-grade fiasco; the Typhoon development over-run; the Astute sub deal; the RAF’s next trainer deal – a 30 year old airframe with prettier coloured lights in the cockpit but no re-heat, supersonic capability; re-engining of the SHAR (should have happened 8 years ago), etc. And the same management are going to “help” build the UK’s next carriers?

All the above, so is it any wonder that BWoS can’t be bothered with a privateer Shack! What chance has a Bucc or Lightning (or Jaguar, Tornado, Phantom, Gannet) have?

Cynical? Moi?

Originally posted by mike currill
Your comments about manufacturer support are exactly the reason I say the Lightning and Buccaneer will never fly on the displa circuitin this country. It was only the fact that BAe reluctantly agreed to support the Vulcan that the CAA agreed to let her fly again

Further to the above I meant to add that the last I heard BAe had flatly refused any product support for either type which means the CAA will not entertain the idea of allowing them to fly

Originally posted by LesB
Merlin wrote :

Not really. Consider the problems Air Atlantique had with their Shackleton. Perfectly air-worthy, flying fairly frequently in the states, owned by a company with large, 4-prop experience and the facilities to handle such an aircraft. AA could not get permits to fly their Shack in the UK as a “visitor” even though it is on the US register. The reason, as I understand it, was because the “type” manufacturer (BAe) would not take responsibility for the aircraft – nothing to do with they CAA, they could do no more than refuse a flying permit for the UK.

As for the Bucc and Lightning, these aircraft have exceedingly complicated control systems (which even the full resources of the RAF found difficult to keep up with). Neither of these aircraft have, eg, any control reversion sytems, if the power control authority is lost, the kite goes in! This is unacceptable – and, I would reckon, un-insurable for any air show.

Regarding the Vixen though, I’m not sure what’s letting that fly. :confused: It seems to be exempt from checks that would deny other aircraft flight time.

It’s a shame I know, but consider the recent events with the Firefly – imagine if that had been a Lightning.

Nah! You want to see a Cold War jet, go watch the Canberra. :rolleyes: 😀

Your comments about manufacturer support are exactly the reason I say the Lightning and Buccaneer will never fly on the displa circuitin this country. It was only the fact that BAe reluctantly agreed to support the Vulcan that the CAA agreed to let her fly again

Originally posted by mike currill
Sorry I must have forgotten that. But you know what I mean. “You can test fly it for export but you can’t fly it in displays here it’s too dangerous ” seems to be the CAA attitude

That wasn’t the case with the Lightnings though, at one point there was a plan to test them in the UK and fly them to SA, but in the end they were dismantled and shipped.

Hi

Thanks Robbo for the link downloading it at the miniute should make things better for me

thanks for that

Anyway about the Bucc yes I think the Caa will let it fly its just gonna take some time

Also the Shack might be able to come over in 2004 the problem this year was down to getting all the paper work done in time

Les b

The sea vixen has good single engine preformance a good safety record and plenty of system back up plus its only classed as “intermidet” not complex and that always helps

Merlin wrote :

If other countries go easier on aircraft rebuilds would it not make sense to rebuild in another country and then get an international permit to fly and then export it or sell it to a british buyer even if it was to your own company. Surely permits can be transferred over to another country if the aircraft already has permit to fly.

Not really. Consider the problems Air Atlantique had with their Shackleton. Perfectly air-worthy, flying fairly frequently in the states, owned by a company with large, 4-prop experience and the facilities to handle such an aircraft. AA could not get permits to fly their Shack in the UK as a “visitor” even though it is on the US register. The reason, as I understand it, was because the “type” manufacturer (BAe) would not take responsibility for the aircraft – nothing to do with they CAA, they could do no more than refuse a flying permit for the UK.

As for the Bucc and Lightning, these aircraft have exceedingly complicated control systems (which even the full resources of the RAF found difficult to keep up with). Neither of these aircraft have, eg, any control reversion sytems, if the power control authority is lost, the kite goes in! This is unacceptable – and, I would reckon, un-insurable for any air show.

Regarding the Vixen though, I’m not sure what’s letting that fly. :confused: It seems to be exempt from checks that would deny other aircraft flight time.

It’s a shame I know, but consider the recent events with the Firefly – imagine if that had been a Lightning.

Nah! You want to see a Cold War jet, go watch the Canberra. :rolleyes: 😀

However, a bit of tolerance all round goes a long way.

Absolutely.

And thanks for the pic, Merlin – does it (the model, of course) ever get to fly down here in the South West?

Well done Robbo someone actually came up with a good idea to help someone. I think a few people should take this advice myself included but generally my typos and bad grammar are usaully down to how tired of rushed I am while typing the message.

About the CAA. If you have enough money and technical backing then I am sure the CAA would pass you permit to fly. All depends on experiance of the tech crew and the rebuild process.

If other countries go easier on aircraft rebuilds would it not make sense to rebuild in another country and then get an international permit to fly and then export it or sell it to a british buyer even if it was to your own company. Surely permits can be transferred over to another country if the aircraft already has permit to fly.

I find it funny also how people think that they will never see XH558 fly when isnt there already another application with terms in talks at the moment. As far as I understand the problem isnt the CAA it was the funding. So I think the funding can be sorted out eventually and we will see XH558 in the sky once more.

Heres a picture of a model XH558 on the runway to wet your appetite.