Shack WL790 Return

WL747 wrote

“Although it hurts to say this, it is better maybe to have a couple ground running, and preserve what we have, than have the massive drain of time, money, and the remaining spares dwindle away just to keep one airworthy.”

same can be said about XH558.

“6) The one thing that is in my mind, and might be in others, is that the last Shack that was going to display in the UK crashed in the Sahara. Cause? Engine failure… How much is the reliability of the aircraft going to play on people’s minds? I myself am sure that a professional operator is going to keep the maintenance levels to the highest level, but then again, the crew of Pelican 16 were hardly ameteurs…..”

A very very sad end for her, and a very lucky crew that all had someone watching over them that day too, but tough lessons were learned by a vastly experienced crew with Pelican 16, it served as a salutary reminder that time constraints and vintage operation dont mix, rather than a reflection on the shacks inherant design reliability, but as you say, Im sure this incident inevitably colours thinking now.

Quality post Scotty. 🙂

Moggy

Cheers Moggy,

I hate to rain on anybodies parade, but maths is just against it. I love Shackeltons, and yes, I would love to see one fly again, but it aint going to happen. The Vulcan gets to fly as it got massive public support, and the funds and parts are there for a few years of operation. The Lightning flies on in South Africa, as the parts are there to do it, and there are sympathetic authorities there. Both aircraft caputure a wide range of the public’s imagination.

Hate to say it, but the Shackleton is not a Vulcan or a Lightning when it comes to Joe Public. Even if there were the spare parts etc, and plenty of cash, it is still going to be a very intensive aircraft to maintain.

I used to work in the avionics industry, and some of the scrap we used to get to fix looked from pre-Shackleton days. Thing is, once the equipment was no longer supported by the manufacturer, and we ran out of spare parts, that was it, end of the line. The CAA didn’t want to know. No OEM support – no go in UK. The Shack airframe is going to be no different.

Even the Shackleton Association knows they don’t have the resources to keep one going, and they would be the people to know.

So, I think the best we can all do to see a Shack fly in the UK, is just be there when it lands…..

Regards,
Scotty

The main spars on the AEW Shacks were already on extentions to planned service life and that extension was only granted by the design authority to the MOD in consideration of the essential role at the time of RAF service.

Quality post Scotty. 🙂

Moggy

If Tone and his merry men at number 10 can fund the work which is going on in a hangar a Coventry to grate expence to keep the Lancaster PA474 in the air for a number of years to come.
Why not support a Shackleton as well, we are only asking for British Aviation to be kept alive with suppot from the Government who hold the purse.
If some of you out there have not worked it out where did the Shack after all come from yes a modified Lancaster.
So Tone get on the street and do some fund raising for a project to keep the only airbourne example where it belongs in the air flying over the U.K.

Before I go any further, I like Shackletons, and there is nothing I would like more than to see one airworthy in the UK, but then realism crawls in….

1) The Shack is not a modified Lancaster…. It may share some design commonality, and even some parts, but it only looks like a Lancaster….

2) If the OEM does not support the aircraft, then the idea of keeping it flying is humped.

3) The cost of keeping this flying on the British taxpayer is going to be astromonical. I have never worked on Shackletons, but I do believe the constant speed units for the props were always a source of problems, engine availability is not great, in fact are spares available? As a tax payer, no matter how much I love Shacks, I would rather see a properly funded NHS for all than a Shack in the air for the benefit for a few.

4) Who will operate it? Air Atlanique? You need sponsorship to keep an expensive beast like that in the air. Airshow appearance money isn’t even going to come close. Think Sally B, then think insurance costs as well….

5) How long is it going to be operable? As you say, it’s props are almost time expired, and I would at a guess say that the wing spars will eventually expire as well. There aren’t many main spars for Shackletons lying around.

6) The one thing that is in my mind, and might be in others, is that the last Shack that was going to display in the UK crashed in the Sahara. Cause? Engine failure… How much is the reliability of the aircraft going to play on people’s minds? I myself am sure that a professional operator is going to keep the maintenance levels to the highest level, but then again, the crew of Pelican 16 were hardly ameteurs…..

7) Finally, all the last 8 Sqn aircraft were flown to their final destination – despite the big plans, look what happened to the two Paphos Shacks.. Air Atlantique have done really well with their two, and should be congratulated. The final one was scrapped at St Mawgan. Are there going to be enough current aircrew and parts to keep them going? I have my doubts….

I am not meaning to put anybody down, and I admit that I am hardly an expert, but emotion sometimes gets in the way of hard fact. The BBMF Lancaster will too eventually be retired, but the public pays for that because of it’s tie with the war. I think around 8000 Lancs were built. The Shack? Off the top of my head I think only 188 were built, and most of them are saucepans now…. Does the general public have an affection for the Shack? Unfortunately not….

Although it hurts to say this, it is better maybe to have a couple ground running, and preserve what we have, than have the massive drain of time, money, and the remaining spares dwindle away just to keep one airworthy.

Sorry, but no political party would get involved with this one…. Can you see the uproar after its announced on the news that £1m is being spent on an aircraft that very few of the general public can associate with?

Kind Regards,
Scotty

If Tone and his merry men at number 10 can fund the work which is going on in a hangar a Coventry to grate expence to keep the Lancaster PA474 in the air for a number of years to come.
Why not support a Shackleton as well, we are only asking for British Aviation to be kept alive with suppot from the Government who hold the purse.
If some of you out there have not worked it out where did the Shack after all come from yes a modified Lancaster.
So Tone get on the street and do some fund raising for a project to keep the only airbourne example where it belongs in the air flying over the U.K.

I think you will find its because the RAF still own the Lancaster !

Phill

www.outflankeduk.com – my website

If Tone and his merry men at number 10 can fund the work which is going on in a hangar a Coventry to grate expence to keep the Lancaster PA474 in the air for a number of years to come.
Why not support a Shackleton as well, we are only asking for British Aviation to be kept alive with suppot from the Government who hold the purse.
If some of you out there have not worked it out where did the Shack after all come from yes a modified Lancaster.
So Tone get on the street and do some fund raising for a project to keep the only airbourne example where it belongs in the air flying over the U.K.

The article was in the Growler Magazine

The Shackleton WL790,s return to the U.K.

An article that arrive in the post to today said.

There is still a chance WL790 will return to the U.K. in 2007.

What was this article in ?

Alan

Not only do they not care in Downing Street, it was likely to be grounded anyway… Something about not having OEM support? The CAA doesn’t want to know either…… Others on the forum will know the precise reason

I doubt anyone in Downing street is in the slightest bit intererested in the Shackleton.