richw_82WANTED – LORAN APN-9/R65 Airborne receiver and GEE Mk3 indicator unit
Hi all,
As the title says, I need a LORAN APN-9 reciever set, and a GEE Mk3 Type 26 indicator unit. They can be missing parts internally, broken, not working, whatever. All they need to do is be reasonably complete and suitable for use to fill a gap in an aircraft restoration; the aircraft in question being Avro Shackleton WR963 at Coventry Airport.
If you have either and are willing to let them go, please drop me an e-mail to [email]shackletonwr963@googlemail.com[/email]
Kind regards,
Rich
richw_82I think you should write to them and demand a personal apology .
https://www.facebook.com/VulcanXH558?fref=ts
Looking on her facebook page i did notice someone had posted this comment “Hundreds of disappointed people in the countryside surrounding East Midlands Airport. She was on course then suddenly banked and headed north. Being realistic – there was a huge storm heading in our direction. Its already gloomy enough to need car lights.
I wonder if this maybe had something to do with it before you go leaping to assumptions.
I’m on the South Yorks/Derbyshire border, and at the time it was due to come over there was no storm in sight. Sure its been cloudy but nothing that hasn’t been seen all day. Patchy cloud at best.
I’ve never been critical of VTTS, but today was poor form. Local radio and news had brought out thousands of people, based on the last waypoint being Mosborough. Not just enthusiasts but members of the public who were trying to catch a glimpse of something they hadn’t seen before and will be unlikely to see again – but hey; air to air photos are more important.
Good luck with funding after the last flight boys, because the local people are not going to forget this.
Its not so much that an apology is needed, but an explanation would be nice.
richw_82Just a little! We have a few commercial sponsors for oil, lubricants, Nitrogen, and a few other bits but we could do with more.
richw_82Saw this pop up again, and thought I’d throw this in. PM me if you want a high res copy.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241051[/ATTACH]
richw_82A quick question…
All this talk about a Shack got me to thinking…I though the CAA forbid their operations in the UK…that’s why one went to the U.S.
Has something changed or is it wishful thinking?
They never forbid it, just kept to BAE’s line that the spar booms of the entire Shackleton fleet were expired, and wouldn’t issue a Permit To Fly until they had been changed or evidence could be found to prove otherwise.
At the time evidence wasn’t there to disprove the BAE letter, but in the last couple of years it has been found – a lot of it via the chaps at Gatwick Aviation Museum. We now have WR963’s history from 1959 – 1991, rather than just the last current page in the F700, which is pretty much all that was available in 1994 when WL790 headed out to the USA and the root of the problem there. We need to find 1954 -58 to complete the entire history, but its not too much of a concern as we only really need from the AEW2 conversion onwards.
We can pinpoint exactly when the spar work was done (both times), and from that and use of the fatigue formula in the AP calculate how long she has left before we would need to use the Fatigue Remediation plan again. There are three areas that dictate fatigue life, and these are the centre section and intermediate wing front and rear lower booms, and they all have different safe lives. As it stands, we can prove – with documentary evidence – that there are slightly under 600 hours left on the most critical component, and around 10 FI remaining.
Shackleton is now on the list of eligible Permit To Fly types on the CAA website, and we also got her registered with the CAA and the ball rolling properly. NDT is being worked on, with the servicing schedules being used to work out a critical path so we can do the hardest, deepest work first, as we need to establish that the hours left on the spar booms are usable after the aircraft has sat outside for 26 years. If they prove to be fit (and initial poking about with an endoscope suggests WR963’s weathered it fairly well) there’s a few other angles we’re exploring to come after it which may see her fly sooner than many would think.
I’m happy to say this isn’t wishful thinking… the way is clear, we just need to keep finding the finances and plugging away at it.
🙂
richw_82Well, we’ll just have to put it to test and see. The result will be interesting whichever way it goes. 🙂
richw_82Hi Charlie,
I’m not doubting the effect is there, purely what generates it. If it was a spontaneous thing, there would be no need for endless Daily Mail articles or spending so much as they do. It has been very cleverly placed in the spotlight and I’ve spoken with those that do it for precisely those reasons… they’ve done well!
Personally, I enjoy seeing the Vulcan fly and I’ll be sad to see it retire again. I only hope we can do half as well with the Shackleton when the time comes.
richw_82No way: I remember Vulcans at airshows and elsewhere since the mid-70’s and they ALWAYS made people stop and watch. I think it was probably the first aircraft my mother knew the name of too. And ditto my kids.
Yes way; I did airshows too and the first one I knew by sight and name was Lancaster. From a family point of view my traitorous little brother was interested in Mustangs, anything that was a jet just made my sister cry, and my mother is usually in any stall that does art and crafts, regardless of what’s flying – so just because one family stops to watch doesn’t mean everyone will. Despite what some people insist (usually passionate Vulcan supporters) there’s still plenty of people going about their business when it flies, at airshows, and in public.
I’m sat here in an MOD building not far from Doncaster, and 90% of the personnel here haven’t got a clue what it is, that its flying around the UK on a farewell tour soon, or that when its coming out and going in its going to be more or less overhead, again. The only time I have known everyone out of the office, and every hill and vantage point around here filled with people and parked cars was for the two Lancasters.
However, we’re drifting off topic into a popularity argument though, so its beside the point.
Vulcan’s time is nearly over – what is the next big thing that we’ll see? Realistically what is in the pipeline?
richw_82Which as we all know isn’t going to happen, so its not going to be the next big thing. Perhaps you mistook this thread for one of the head in the sand style Facebook posts that have been doing the rounds recently?
“If we all band together we can make David Cameron let XH588 fly for evaaar!! LOL!” (etc)
Still, look at it this way. A budget of nearly £300k per annum on advertising and promotion could generate a big public effect for a lot of things, not just a Vulcan.
richw_82‘We’ would appreciate a Shackleton, Mosquito etc, but the public at large won’t to any great degree.
The crowds around Norwich airport for the Vulcan this year were not all regular enthusiasts, but there is something magical that draws them in.
The ‘Magic’ is very well focussed PR for the last decade or so. The ‘Vulcan effect’ is only a relatively recent phenomena, had you asked people what a Vulcan was when it was retiring the first time around a lot of wouldn’t have had a clue.
richw_82If I could be so bold…I’m not affiliated in any way with the Shack guys, but applaud what their doing
…
They just got 20 sovs off me – good luck guys!
Many thanks. It all helps make it a little more possible.
The Pima Shackleton was operated in the U.S without a massive following . Compare that to the number of events and interest in the Jagen Mosquito KA114 and they are in a different league!
Compare away. The Mosquito has attended a multitude of events, where the Shackleton barely managed double figures in terms of hours flown over its entire 14 year flying period in the USA. When it did attend a show of significance (such as Oshkosh), it walked away comfortably with the award of “Best Bomber”.
“What’s that Dad, a Lancaster?”
“No Son, it’s a Shackleton”
“Looks just like the Lancaster to me, Can I have an ice cream?”
“Pardon?”
Only trouble is to the general public, its a Lancaster on Steroids…. need something like the Vulcan, there is nothing else like on the display circuit,
thinking “lets go to the airshow to see the Vulcan” or “lets go to the airshow to see the Shackleton” you can only imagine the reponse
– “whats a Shackleton ? well its like a Lancaster but noisier !!
I think yes good luck to getting it airbourne, but it will appeal only to the true aviation nut
So there’s going to be some misidentification. It won’t be the first time; as it happened often when the RAF were flying them. But if to a five year old, or the uninformed, Vulcan can be Concorde; then I don’t see an issue with our Shackleton getting pegged as her more legendary relative. Look at what happened up here in the Peak District when a Hercules came over… we had dozens of reports of a ‘ghost’ Lancaster. On the other hand we had one young lad visit who was convinced WR963 was a Halifax and was thrilled as his Grandad had flown one, and he got to sit in the Flight Engineers seat. Who was I to spoil his sheer enjoyment of it by correcting him?
Its not all about making a spectacle in the sky, its about interest overall. If the VTTS club day was anything to go by, I don’t think its going to be too difficult to get peoples attention with a Shackleton, and that was just on the ground. I’m pretty sure if most people heard the Griffons growling overhead as a Shackleton made its way around the country they would be looking up.
Which brings me to my point…
Any new project has to be:
-Technologically feasible (in terms of being both supportable and existing…sorry, no Stirlings on the horizon) Check, we have design and engineering support and its growing.
-Financially feasible (sorry, no new-build Concordes) Check, its feasible and the coffers are getting fuller. There are also other interesting opportunities on the horizon to increase funding.
-Legally feasible (to make the CAA happy). Check, got it in writing from those we need it from.
Despite all this we’re not queuing up to be the next big thing. The only difference the level of public support will be how fast it happens, because as with everything, money makes a hell of a difference.
We don’t expect (or rely on) a massive swing of support from the Vulcan to our project – it would be foolish to make this assumption. However, more and more of late we seem to have more of the required boxes ticked, and less obstacles in place to flying our aircraft.
As the motto says, ‘Constant Endeavour’… come what may, a flying Shackleton will be seen in the UK within the next few years.
Kind regards,
Rich
richw_82As soon as we can get an uninterupted period in the hangar. We had hoped to do it last winter but time was against us.
The NDT schedule, SI and STI list are with the company we’ve asked to do the work and they’ve just this week asked for some servicing manuals so they can write it all up into its most logical sequence – creating a critical path of sorts.
richw_82What is stated and what happens are often two different things. For instance being prevented from accessing the aircraft due to a structural issue, for which replacement parts were supplied. Then being prevented from fitting them and removing the structural issue? 2009 was a long time ago.. I suggest you speak to recent members down there.
As for the survey it was a bad joke of a document, written for the purpose of scrapping the aircraft if possible. How can you do a structural survey without opening the panels up to see the structure that is supposedly so derelict…? “Bomb door hinges corroded – suggest closing and bolting the doors.” Thats was the kind of depth it was written to. The outcome of the survey was preplanned and those doing the job were briefed accordingly. In reality WL795 has only been unbuttoned in the last few weeks, and only now can we know what she looks like inside.
Cosford. Scrapped its own Shacks, didn’t keep the MR3’s. Still don’t have an example there, at Hendon, or any other RAFM site. Which national museums are we talking about here that had already acquired one?
St Mawgan. WL756 was on the dump for 10 years, but how did it get there? It flew in, just before the Sotheby’s sale, and the RAF still had plenty parts for the St Mawgan gate guard, as we’ve got what they sold off. It was un-needed and destructive, and the only reason it lingered is because the firemen didn’t burn it.
East Fortune – I used them as an example as I know from written correspondence that one of SPT’s Shacks in late 1991 was slated to go ‘somewhere in Scotland’, a plan which was revived again in 1997-8. The plan died with David Liddell-Grainger. Who knows if they would still want one if it became available?
richw_82I have to disagree.
RAFM Cosford – A T4 and the last true unmodified MR2, both scrapped.
RAF Lossiemouth, gate guard, MR2. Scrapped.
IWM Duxford – presented with an airworthy complete MR3, and they left it to rot. The survey when it was ‘for sale’ makes interesting reading. Now its in bits with cropped propellers, and doesn’t look like it will be restored any time soon.
RAF St Mawgan – Left on the gate with maintenance efforts made almost impossible by the RAF. Sold, thankfully.
Ysterplaat – SAAF 1720 scrapped from being the gate guard
Cape Town – SAAF 1719 on the waterfront scrapped a few years prior to 1720.
The one shining example of a Shack in the UK is safely in a building which is nothing to do with the organisation that owns it… the RAFM own WR960 but she’s safe for the moment in the Museum of Science and Industry. Overall, its a poor record.
The MR3’s at Cosford were part of the School of Technical Training, not museum aircraft. WR971 (Wisbech) was also there and left Cosford as a fuselage – so who’s at fault there for the sectioning? Bruntingthorpe’s aircraft is being worked on and preserved and was while it was at Gatwick too. Long Marston’s has been a long standing example of neglect but now she’s got a change of owner I’m happy to say the future is brighter.
In private hands in the UK we have one taxying, one more that runs, and one that has limited systems operational. Two under restoration, with one more in the pipeline. In private hands in the USA, one really good AEW2. All of them with less budget and resources than national collections or government funded ones enjoy. Yes, we’ve lost a couple along the way such as the tragic scrapping of VP293 “Zebedee” – but the last Shack scrapping in the UK was when the RAF decided WL756 – having made it right to the end of Shackleton service – didn’t warrant being auctioned like the other four. Off to the St Mawgan fire dump it went for a long slow death, finally giving up after another 10 years. Why should that have happened when it could have maybe been donated like the Spitfire and Tornado you mention?
Airframes inside – your position on the subject is well known. Unfortunately nature doesn’t really seem to care, it only slows things a tad when they have a roof over them. Paint can hide sins so far, but an endoscope works wonders in finding the ones paint doesn’t reach.
richw_82The Shackletons were both being maintained for a time, and then when things went bad work stopped. I know a few people that were involved on that side, so I’ll try and get some more definitive answers.
Sign In
