I freely admit that I do not know anything personally about the possible disposal, or the aircrafts condition and am relying on info already on the forum.
Also I don’t want to get into where will it go or the business of its possible transfer etc as that is other people own business.
If any of the info is wrong in this post please feel free to point any corrections out.
It has been suggested on a couple of other threads on the forum that the Imperial War Museum at Duxford are looking to dispose of their Shackleton MR.3, XF708.
The aircraft was delivered by an RAF crew in September 1972 doubtless with mixed emotions in their minds of seeing the back of old technology but hoping that the aircraft will be forever displayed at a national museum where its dedication to its service can be appreciated by a large visitor base. Indeed it was intended to be kept as a flying exhibit.
It has stood fairly forlorn outdoors pretty well ever since but getting the odd spruce up, reports on current condition range from full of corrosion to just looking externally tatty.
Shackletons haven’t done well in national collections, Cosford scrapped a few examples in the mid 1980s, and the RAF Museums’ own stored example (XF703) was scrapped in 1975, despite it being the last Mk.3 flying with 18 Grp when it was flown to Henlow for safe storage.
I entirely appreciate the hard work and dedication of other British museums and collections, the RAF Museum does own Shackleton AEW.2 WR960 and this is without doubt the best preserved of the type anywhere, but it is displayed at the Manchester Science Museum and outside the remit of Coastal Command.
Newark and Gatwick have done superb work in looking after their trio of Mk.3s, likewise Coventry keep their Mk.2 in live condition.
My point and question is,
XF708 is the only Shackleton in a national museum and is hugely related to the museums own collection policy, the type gave the RAF stirling service with Coastal Command for twenty years against the background of the escalating Cold-War and Soviet nuclear sub threat, aswel as fighting in some of the colonial bush-wars, and being as widely based around the world as any post-war RAF type thus doing a fare amount of ‘flag waving’ for the service. It has also helped to save lives in its search and rescue role, with crews standing by at all hours and flying in awful weather condtions.
As far as I’m aware it is the only post-war Coastal Command aircraft in the IWM collection (or even RAF Museum!), also it shouldn’t be forgotten that as a type it represents the pinacle of the Avro heavy bomber lineage that started out with the Manchester.
The point I’m making about it being in a national collection (arguably the second or third most important in the UK?) is that they have a remit to look after relevant exhibits and to restore and display them if possible.
Against this background should the Imperial War Museum be able to wash their hands of this apparently neglected but undoubtedly valuable aircraft?
By: aw ditor - 7th January 2016 at 13:50
XF708
is it too much too hope she could go to Bruntingthorpe? I am sure they would love one in the collection and no doubt tryed to get an aew3.
Just seen 708 in bits in Hangar 5 at Duxford. Appears to be some work going on. Alt least she is in the dry!
By: SADSACK - 4th August 2011 at 03:34
re;
is it too much too hope she could go to Bruntingthorpe? I am sure they would love one in the collection and no doubt tryed to get an aew3.
By: Firebex - 3rd August 2011 at 22:12
Duxford Shackleton
At the end of the day we are still sitting here waiting for someone to answer all our approaches and say something as to if we can be considered a worthy home to preserve and restore the aircraft.
Mike E
By: paul178 - 3rd August 2011 at 20:48
They were searching for a serviceable prop bearing ISTR, but I think that has been resolved.
Thats the part I was thinking of! 🙂
By: richw_82 - 3rd August 2011 at 20:18
Much appreciated, but WR963 is taken care of. It’s time and experience needed to get her port inner fired up now, not parts! To the point we are looking at rationalising the large spares holding we have.
By: pagen01 - 3rd August 2011 at 20:17
They were searching for a serviceable prop bearing ISTR, but I think that has been resolved.
By: Jon H - 3rd August 2011 at 20:14
Well as this Shack is never going to move again under its own power how about donating some much needed parts to WR963 to get the port inner fired up!
But they arent missing any parts? Just trying to find the right people to correctly build the props up for them from memory.
Jon
By: paul178 - 3rd August 2011 at 19:55
Well as this Shack is never going to move again under its own power how about donating some much needed parts to WR963 to get the port inner fired up!
By: SADSACK - 3rd August 2011 at 19:30
re;
its like the ridiculous case of the F100s and Mysteres which were still property of the US. I heard they moved an a/c to Aeroventure just to break it up.
By: Robert Whitton - 3rd August 2011 at 13:21
Is ownership of the Shackleton and the terms of its loan, not the key here?
Any museum will use the funds, manpower and time to conserve and display what they own first. Any review will naturally look at what’s on loan, what are the terms of the loan and what the future holds for such items. They would be failing in their duty if they didn’t do this.
By: WL747 - 3rd August 2011 at 12:30
Hope there’s no Celts near you when you say that…
😀
Seems it’s not just the Scots who are separatist!
Back on topic, I would have to agree that the outside doesn’t look as bad as I thought, possibly the innards aren’t too bad/corroded.
But it would seem now if XF708 is struggling for preservation, and the two Gatwick examples still have an uncertain future, does this really put the kiss of death on any hopes of doing anything with WR985 at Long Marston?
By: JDK - 3rd August 2011 at 12:23
lets not forget that many of the a/c in the AAM were also operated by the English anyway…
Hope there’s no Celts near you when you say that…
By: SADSACK - 3rd August 2011 at 12:20
re;
lets not forget that many of the a/c in the AAM were also operated by the English anyway and the Phantom itself saw service in the USN and RAF – dont understand all the bitching about it being all US exhibits. The Phantom in there must be one of the most pristine of its type.
By: TwinOtter23 - 2nd August 2011 at 18:39
I don’t want to go too far off topic, but in ‘Duty Carried Out’ we have the last ‘operational’ flight for WR977 as being 07.11.71 – 6.25 hour transit from Malta to St Mawgan – pilot Sqn Ldr Arnauld ; that section also notes the initial fire section allocation as being Thorney Island before Finningley was selected.
Transfer to Finningley on 09.11.71 – 2.40 hour transit with pilot Ted Buddin (he’d been on the return flight from Malta.)
These latter flights come from data cross referenced from Crew Log Books and the Form 700. (Also just spotted another typo in ‘Dedication To Duty’) 😮
By: pagen01 - 2nd August 2011 at 18:24
The MR.3s that went to Kemble were the very last ones in flying service, hence rarely obtaining an ‘M’ serial before scrap, preservation, fire use.
Many of the previously withdrawn examples went to St Athan as spares and standby airframes and then ended up going through the maintenance and fire etc training systems.
They were SoC after service use, not necessarily straight after front-line use.
Unsure why RCBA didn’t record the SoC dates of these in the book, but I wonder if it was to do with something as simple as timing and referring back to these individual histories retrospectively?
T/O RCBA has WR977s late history as
Returned to 203 Sqn 8.70 and remained until allocated to Thorney Island for practice fire fighting 11.71. Allotment cancelled and WR977 was ferried to Finningley 8.11.71 for the Museum with maintenance serial 8186M. Later disposed of to the Newark Air Museum, the aircraft being dismantled and moved to the site on Winthorpe airfield by road 1.5.77. Current.
Thanks to Mo Botwoods’ excellent site for cutting & pasting the info.
By: richw_82 - 2nd August 2011 at 17:00
Looking at the histories again, all the Shackleton MR3’s that went through 5MU at Kemble in the early 1970’s appear not to have been allocated maintenance serials. Most of them show as being ferried from there to various locations before being struck off charge as Cat 5 (Scrap) on arrival.
I’ve had a brief look through my stuff and even in early editions of Wrecks and Relics there’s no mention of a SoC date, which you would expect to find somewhere..
By: TwinOtter23 - 2nd August 2011 at 16:43
From the combined research for ‘Dedication to Duty’ we found that WR977 was allocated the Maintenance Serial 8186M – “and allotted to Finningley for fire fighting practice”.
By: pagen01 - 2nd August 2011 at 16:33
The individual histories compiled by Chris Ashworth don’t list a date for struck off charge, or a maintenance serial.
Nor does he for WR977, and XF708 wouldn’t have had enough time between leaving flying service and going to Duxford to have become a maintenance airframe.
I’m surprised at this latest revelation as every publication that I have that mentions ‘708 says that it was given to the IWM. I’m wondering if the definition of given and indefinite loan have blurred slightly here.
If I was really cynical I could think that it would be convenient to say that an airframe that you no longer want to look after was a loaned item – now that would be similar to the Beverley story!
However I’m not and I can see that it is at least cared for at the moment and that IWM are giving assurances about its future.
By: TwinOtter23 - 2nd August 2011 at 15:31
It’d blow WR977’s claim to be the RAF’s longest serving Shackleton Mk3/3! 😮
WR977 would still get some recognition re number of hours flown – after all that’s one of the reasons it was held at Finningley!! 😀
By: richw_82 - 2nd August 2011 at 15:26
Crikey… if it turns out XF708 still belongs to the RAF, that would be interesting to say the least. The individual histories compiled by Chris Ashworth don’t list a date for struck off charge, or a maintenance serial.
Could she be, by oversight, the last serving Shackleton?
:eek::D
Sign In
July 4, 2011 at 3:04 pm