Avro Shackleton to fly again.. In The U.K!!

Are there any ex Shack people out there who remember testing the Petrol driven heaters?Worked ona ram air principle and had a combustion chamber into which petrol was sprayed and ignited and the heat generated was transfered to an outer chamber to heat and distribute the warm air around the cabin .There where two if I remember correctly ,one in the galley and one in the nose and starting them while airborne was an experience.So how much thrust was generated by them?!!!OK tongue in cheek stuff!!I hope they do get one flying ,I will try to be there for the occasion!

In a word, yes.

Your description of the Dragonair combustion heater is spot on. The Dragonair air-to-air heat exchanger heater (model number forgotten in the mist of time) was a very efficient item. It used approximately two gallons of Avgas per hour to generate 100,000 BTU of heat per hour (IIRC). The heater fuel supply was drawn from the aircraft’s main fuel system. There were two spark plugs, each with two earth electrodes. Unfortunately, someone who obviously had never worked on aircraft, designed the heater to be installed with one spark plug at the top and one at the bottom. Needless to say, after a couple of minutes taxying, the debris / stones / leaves etc blown back by the eight props and ingested into the intakes, made their way straight to the bottom plug (the effects of gravity, old boy). Most, but not all, heater starting problems were as a result of this mind-blowing design feature. The spark plugs were energised by a torch ignition system (vibrator booster coils), and only fired during the start cycle. Once running, the heater was self-sustaining (like a blow-torch). The hot exhaust gases were tapped to exit around the heater intake lip, acting as intake anti-icing. No thrust benifits to talk of from this arangement. Access to the heaters was, at best, limited. On the AEW II, the #2 and #4 heaters could be partially accessed from the ASV well as the ASV radar installed on the MR2 was removed as part of the AEW II mod. Still wasn’t easy though. Access to #3 was a nightmare.

The MR2 Phase 3 had four of these heaters fitted as follows (warning – details subject to passage-of-time errors):

#1 in the nose, fed the cockpit area and the nose section
#2 on the port rear side, fed the port fuselage and bomb bay
#3 in the rear fuselage, fed the rear fuselage area
#4 on the starboard side, fed the starboard fuselage and bomb bay

#2 incorporated a fan for ground use

When the MR2 Phase 3’s were converted into AEW II’s, the #1 heater was removed to free up space for the AN/APS 20 radar tray mounted in the forward bomb bay roof area, and to reduce nose weight (the same reason the Low Volts Power Pack was mounted behind the galley). The ducting from the #2 and #4 heaters were modified by closing off bomb bay feeds and extended to feed the cockpit and nose areas.

Why heat the bomb bay on the MR2? Because the torpedo’s carried required cossiting. There, there.

The heater ram intakes for the #2, 3 and 4 heaters were the stainless steel tubes mounted on the fuselage exterior sides behind the bomb bay. The portside #2heater intake was smaller than the starboard intake. Starboard fed #3 and #4. We used to have an adaptor made up to fit to a cabin conditioning trolley to allow ground testing of the #3 and #4 heaters. These intakes burnt all hands, clothes etc that came into contact while heaters were running.

On occasions, the combustion chambers would burn through, slowly filling the cabin with exhaust fumes. A very dangerous situation as the carbon monoxide was not human friendly.

Often, during start, there would be very loud bangs, pops and other, non-engineering type noises that always seemed to be the percurser of doom. Even after all the noises of complaint, the heaters would generally work, and pulse rates would drop back to normal.

Trying to get the heaters to light above 8000 ft was generally considered to be a bit of a challange. More than once, a “sumpy” would lift floor panels and tweek / adjust / swear until the heater would resign itself to work, bringing much needed relief to the frost-bitten crew, flying around in ‘racetrack’ circuits over the North Sea during the bitter winter months.

The heaters were controlled by FCU’s, or Fuel Control Units. These cylinderical units, approximately 10 inches in diameter and about 10 inches long contained three electrically operated solonoids mounted on a manifold ‘tree’. One solonoid was the main fuel on/off. One was the ‘Half-heat’ solonoid. The third was the ‘Full-heat’ solonoid. In January, ‘half-heat’ was never enough.

In the late ’80’s, we were suffering badly from the effects of both the RAF-wide moritorium on everything, and the run-down of Shackleton fleet support. On more than one occasion, I had to requesition from stores unserviceable heater FCU’s. The only reason for this was to canabilise in order to make serviceable units.

The big problem with this was, this was completely against RAF regulations and could easily have led to Court Martial, as we did not have the overhaul manuals, test equipment, or approvals for the maintenance of the FCU’s.

However, the RAF were the ones who didn’t renew the contract for FCU overhaul with civvy street. So, once again I stuck my neck out. I briefed my Chief on what I intended to do, and then proceeded to lock myself in tool stores for an hour or so at a time.

A couple of hours later, voila, serviceable heaters keeping Her Majesty’s Finest aircrew comfortable, enabling them to protect our shores at full efficiency.

Of course, doing ‘in-house’ repairs that wern’t legal meant that no paperwork was raised.

Instant COURT MARTIAL.

SENGO was unofficially briefed in advance, and unofficially supported the ‘make-do-and-mend’ self-sufficiency method, which extended far further than just heater FCU’s. But that, as they say, is another story.

Next time you are flying around in a Piper Seneca, Cessna 421 or similar ‘modern’ piston twin, think twice before you put the heater on. These aircraft use exactly the same type of heating system (remember, think blow-torch!!).

After all, are you really comfortable with the idea of starting a fire on board your aircraft, and then keep feeding it with high octane fuel??

Postfade,

Can’t find a mention of the Phase 3 modifications in your list.

P.S. the ‘racetrack’ mentioned above was the standard AEW II operating pattern and led to the naming of eight Squadron as the “Magic Roundabout” Squadron, each of the aircraft carrying an image of one of the Magic Roundabout characters.

camlobe

We always referred to the new Shackletons incoming to 205 Sqn as ‘2c’s’ but I never lnew what qualified them as that.
A more knowledgable person than myself (I hope!) posted this on Wikipedia:
Shackleton GR.1
The first production model for the RAF, later redesignated Shackleton MR.1.
Shackleton MR.1A
Version powered by four Griffon 57A V12 piston engines, equipped with a chin mount radome. In service from April 1951.
Shackleton MR.2
Version with longer nose and radome moved to the ventral position.
Shackleton MR.2C
Number of Shackleton MR.2s, fitted with the navigation and offensive equipment of the Shackleton MR.3.
Shackleton MR.3
Maritime reconnaissance, anti-shipping aircraft. The tail wheel was replaced by a tricycle undercarriage configuration. Fitted with wingtip tanks. Eight exported to South Africa.
Shackleton MR.3 Phase 2
Similar to Shackleton MR.3 but fitted with two Viper turbojet engines for assisted take off.
Shackleton MR.4
Project of new maritime reconnaissance version, none built.
Shackleton AEW.2
Airborne early warning aircraft. MR.2s converted to take ex-Fairey Gannet airborne early warning radar.
Shackleton T.4
Navigation trainer conversion.

Heres a picture of WR960, now at the Manchester Museum (as an AEW2.) This was when she was an MR2 with 210 sqn. In fact this was taken mid-1961 and was the first Mk 2 to come to the Far East I believe. Slightly different ‘electronic bits’ on her fuselage top than the 205 aircraft were finally fitted with.

David Taylor.

Shackleton Mk2c

Postfade,
nice pictures, but what classifies a Shackleton as a MK2c?
I have worked on all marks and have some definitive information and nowhere can I find, nor can I remember a 2c.
It may just be fading memory of course!

Peter

Arguably, it should have been a Shackleton that was returned to flight, not the Vulcan.
As impressive as it is, the Vulcan has absorbed a huge amount of money and will continue to do so. The way things appear to be going it may not be flying for much longer.
Being a piston-engined aircraft, operating a Shack would have been far easier than the unique and exotic Vulcan, the facilities and expertise already being in existence and relative abundance.
I’m an aircraft-of-all-types nut and the Shackleton wins for me any day. I would hope that, if there is a faint hope of getting one flying that HLF would support it. I reckon that they’ll run a mile.
There’s an old joke in aviation circles that goes; “how do you make a small fortune in aviation?” Answer: “start with a large one”. It’ll take a brave man to back another multi-engined airworthy restoration what with the Vulcan’s performance so far and the current financial climate.
I do hope that it can be made to happen though.

extra engines on the Shack

Are there any ex Shack people out there who remember testing the Petrol driven heaters?Worked ona ram air principle and had a combustion chamber into which petrol was sprayed and ignited and the heat generated was transfered to an outer chamber to heat and distribute the warm air around the cabin .There where two if I remember correctly ,one in the galley and one in the nose and starting them while airborne was an experience.So how much thrust was generated by them?!!!OK tongue in cheek stuff!!I hope they do get one flying ,I will try to be there for the occasion!

If they pull this off, it will be fantastic. I, however, will remain sceptical until the aircraft has flown.

If it is true that they hold the design authority on the Shack, it will make things a lot easier paperwork wise. But there is a lot of things besides the paperwork. Where are they going to find the money (not readily seen on their website)? Where are they going to find the people qulified to do the work? Last but not least, where are they going to find hangarage for a big aircraft like that. They will not be doing a respar job out in the open, and even if they get the workforce for free (from where?), just the cost of hangarage will be huge. No mention is made of how they are going to cover that on their website.
Presumably they will need to a complete overhaul of all four engines and props to airworthy status. That is going to cost huge amounts of money, where is that money coming from???

Like I said before, I would really like to see them pull this one off. My memories of the Growler are fantastic. Growler doing a lowpass over Reykjavik Airport with me standing maybe 50 meters from the runway edge. Those Griffons really made my internal bodyparts shake!!!:D

For all Mike Collett’s love of old aircraft and the money he has personally poured into preservation, AA has always been a well run commercial enterprise.

There is only really space in the main hangar for one large aircraft on rebuild, and with the necessity of money earning jobs like the BBMF Lanc work, and the ongoing need for D checks on the main, money-earning fleet, you can hazard a guess at why it might have been hard to justify indulging themselves by resparring the Shackleton.

Moggy

I’ve been running a Shackleton thread over on the PPRuNe ‘Aviation History’ forum. I was trying to get some aircrew input with any stories about 205 Sqn Shackleton’s in the 60’s, but without much luck. However I’ve posted a few of my Shackleton pictures which some have found interesting.

Here’s a shot of dear old WL790 when with 205 Sqdn at Changi in 1962, still an MR2c. She’s been adorned with a kiwi so has obviously been over on a recent jaunt to NZ.
You can compare her with the MR1A VP267 ‘L’ in the background.

Another 205 Mk2c WL745, still without sqn markings. One of the first 2C’s to arrive, the crew are doing practice ‘engine out’ landings in their new aircraft.
Shackleton’s continually changed because of the continual updating of equipment and the Phase 1-III mods.
It’s a plane that certainly served the RAF well over all those years and perhaps that’s been repeated with it’s successor the Nimrod.
David Taylor.

I think you’ll need to run that one by me again?

I will try….:)

Hypothetically, if AA were to have funded the work, would there have been a possibility that the company would have gone out of business (into administration, bankruptcy or what else you wish to call it) because of the money set aside for the Shackleton?

Hypothetically, if this was an option then the Owners would, quite rightly, say that their business was more important than resparring the Shackleton.

So, while I have no idea of how the new owners are set up financially, my question was (again hypothetically) would/are they be in a better position to justify funding the rework without threatening either the future of their company or the airframe?

And although I “highlighted” the word easier, I appreciate that raising the required amount is no such thing!

Nah, not a pirate, that’s in the Arabian Sea on the other side of India from where I work..

Lest I come off as an ignorant Yank (at least about geography and current news) I did know that, I just wanted to make a pirate joke. 😀

The other day there was a news story with a comment attributed to a “Pirate spokesman”.
That’s a phrase I never thought I’d hear.
Even they have PR guys and spinmeisters.

Wow, a pirate?
Arggh! 😀

Seriously, When I asked about the future plans for making NX611 airworthy a couple of years ago on this very forum, I was told to be quiet as not to jinx any plans…
Has something changed?

Nah, not a pirate, that’s in the Arabian Sea on the other side of India from where I work…. Sailed through there in March, and thankfully saw nothing but sea, sky and a lot of broken down crap on the deck for repair…..

Besides, the pirates seem to have all the Gucci gear, so I assume they’d have better internet access than I do – hence my slight ignorance over the path the Pantons were taking with NX611.

Back on to topic slightly, I am sure that they will have an easier job getting the Lanc airworthy, as at least she has been on the civil register already, and the public are more likely to donate to something they know about…. I just can’t see the Shack getting the same support, especially with recession looming, but here’s hoping…

How about a ‘Sponsor a Rivet’ campaign? That should raise a bit of money seeing there is so many on the contra-rotating nissen hut!

Kind Regards,
Scotty

It has been rather quiet but maybe that is a good thing. Heres to the Panton’s decision, whicever it may be.

I’ve been floating about on the Bay of Bengal working with limited internet access for nearly 2 months seeing as you ask. Some of us have day jobs!:p:p

Wow, a pirate?
Arggh! 😀

Seriously, When I asked about the future plans for making NX611 airworthy a couple of years ago on this very forum, I was told to be quiet as not to jinx any plans…
Has something changed?

I ‘think’ I know what Tony is getting at! It may well be easier for the new company to justify the fund raising, however unless something has happened since I last discussed it in the office she’ll still need a re-spar.

What are “enginners”?…..

Dunno…but last week I couldn’t spell it and this week I are one.

The main spar will need to be replaced in order for the aircraft to recieve certification from the CAA to fly, the same as WL790 would have needed and the same reason why she was not allowed to be ferried back to this country.

I don’t know but could it be, that the reason that AA did not proceed with a re-spar, is that the costs could possibly be prohibitive to the company, possibly putting the company at risk of failing, rather than any terms that the CAA require before issuing any permit?

If so, then maybe the new owners, without the overheads as those incurred by AA, would make the re-spar “easier” to finance?

Just a thought…:confused:

What are “enginners”?…..

Picture 10 – hope that is a sight we see more of, preferably just prior to unsticking the rubber from terra firma!!

http://www.ascet.co.uk/shack-gallery/index.html#10

WL747 and Nashio, where have you been for past month or so, NX611s possible return to flight has been well discussed here!

I’ve been floating about on the Bay of Bengal working with limited internet access for nearly 2 months seeing as you ask. Some of us have day jobs!:p:p

I just haven’t had time to look through the forum for the answer I was looking for yet…

All the best,

Scotty

i knew that, and have read it 🙂 but the last i heard no positive decision had meen made and it was rumours? im glad they’re going to do it 🙂 i wonder if it would be better and easier to bring 790 home?