Coventry Shackleton

Rich, Pm sent…

You’ve lost me slightly – I’m not sure where a hangar was mentioned in this thread? I mentioned funding though… and you’d have a hard time getting anything indoors without it.

So no need for a hangar then? Surely she needs to be worked on indoors?

What is the real likelihood of a Shack flying again?
I thought the CAA (or someone) has effectively grounded the type over an issue (I seem to recall that BAe wouldn’t support it, but I may be mistaken).

BAE wrote to the CAA suggesting as a type the Shackeltons were completely life expired, and with no evidence as to otherwise this was taken as their position. A few years ago through some friends at Gatwick we got hold of WR963’s fatigue data log; which proved that each aircraft was monitored independently, and also allowed an accurate calculation of the remaining life – with proof.

Shortly after we managed to get the registration sorted and approval of the type as eligible for a Permit to Fly.

Technically there’s nothing in the way other than funding.

I worked in a museum where the priority was to take over and force rules, rather than ensure the museums future.

What is the real likelihood of a Shack flying again?
I thought the CAA (or someone) has effectively grounded the type over an issue (I seem to recall that BAe wouldn’t support it, but I may be mistaken).

I have been “indisposed” for some time and have not been keeping up with things so have not read any of the various threads. As others have said all projects seem to have their ups and downs. Everybody must make their own decisions whether to continue supporting the project. Having met Rich several times I feel he is the best chance for getting WR963 into the air. He may well fail, for many different reasons, just as other projects do, but I am happy to continue supporting the project in my small way.

The guy moaning on UKAR hasn’t a clue. There is an issue, but this time its one of Dad’s own making and he’s wanting ‘his’ toy back if the Shackleton Aviation Group CIC don’t play by his rules – despite not being in charge of things any more. So he’s been told to take us to court or shut up.. He’s taken option C, which is get on Facebook and claim we’re all being illegal in carrying on working on the aircraft, purely as he said not to. (its not illegal, as he’s not in any way an authority).

Expect a few rantings and accusations which will eventually tail off when he gets bored.

Work is continuing.

It’s just the same individuals attacking continually over the same issues, when you start with I haven’t got an axe to grind then start going on about the accounts, there very clearly is an axe to grind, the same axe as before, utterly tedious and pointless, having seen the same things before people really need to get a life.

UKAR currently give you a taste of the mud-slinging. http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=50225&start=350

Long -term projects relying on volunteer labour often seem to hit the buffers like this. There are frequently differences in opinion on the best way forward, which ends up with factions pulling in oposite directions, such that the group becomes more about the squabling then restoring, but it is hard, and devisive to fire volunteers.

In a commercialy funded project, you have a boss who selects and pays people according to what skills/experience they bring with them . More important, they readily have the means to jettison those who represent an obstacle to progress.

It is unlikely a volunteer group could ever have got the Vulcan flying, but there are notable exceptions, like the Northern Aeroplane Workshops who built three wonderful historic aircraft, over many years.

Where on the internet ?

I read the posts, threats of court and receivers and people taking over web accounts. Such a shame as this used to seem like a really genuine and exciting project

Errrrr… basically! I doubt the Shackleton will ever fly, regardless of where we are at in that particular soap opera.