richw_82Contact the authorities in Greenland and find out.
richw_82Its nice to see the Maltese Hastings be used for something but I can’t get my head around the fixation with LW170. Unlike the past two recoveries the location isn’t known; surely it would be better chasing a shallower confirmed site such as the Halifax recently found off Norway?
Regards,
Rich
richw_82Isn’t it best to have some load on the engine by way of a counterweight or cut down prop?
richw_82Ther was B.17 turret control on eBay not so long ago, and we have a turret cupola to fit it. Thing is, to put it back on WR963 we’d lose the galley and I think that would cause a small riot..
richw_82Cheers, misunderstood your post. Got it now.
richw_82No need to get huffy, as it was a genuine opinion, but if you want me to play forum critic I’ll oblige you. I didn’t start out to be, my questions were genuine, but all I get is “we know better?”. Thats a poor response for a discussion forum.
Simple, telling everyone on a forum the location helps the situation how? All that achieves is to satisfy a passing curiosity.
I never said post it on a forum. But then again how can you create a viable plan if you don’t know the area you’re going into and who you will need to negotiate with? Narrowing it down to a country in Africa still gives more area than the UK to deal with. I know where there is still at least one Fairey Firefly in Eritrea. It doesn’t really pinpoint it though does does it? It gives me an idea of the government I’d have to deal with though, which would be a starting point for something, say, like a recovery plan.
Perhaps there is a recovery underway or about to be – perhaps there isn’t.
That is a pretty pointless statement. Its one or the other. Don’t ask for others to get cracking on serious plans if someone’s already on it – its a sure fire way to mess it up for everyone.
Secondly, we are acting as intermediaries and won’t be ‘deciding’ what is viable- those who have all the facts in front of them and have had ‘feet on the ground’ will be making the decisions. We (and they) are aware of private entities who can get the job done, Classic Wings didn’t start yesterday and has liaised with such people ( including all those you mention) for 20 odd years – I am sure we can walk the tightrope, we have done it before. But if we step on the wrong side of the ‘fine line’? Certainly possible.
I know what Classic Wings is, I’m not an idiot, and your initial post wasn’t exactly complimentary about those who have contacted you so far. You also didn’t answer any of the questions I asked. In regards to liaising with other groups, I didn’t see any mention of Classic Wings liasing with the recovery teams for the Greenland P-38, only interviews after. Same with the Hinds. What you’re basically saying by referencing those in the location (‘feet on the ground’ – seriously??) is that its at the whim of the guys that took the photo then? Awesome. If they are so qualified to judge what’s viable, why have they not retrieved the aircraft using the experience and knowledge they have?
This smells like the Welsh P-38.
We posted the photo on our FB page as a courtesy to the number of people asking over the past months (since the end of March when we broke the news) who, for whatever reason, could not purchase a copy of the magazine. We didn’t do it to be second guessed by forum critics who think they know better even with 10% of the facts, than those directly involved.
If you put it on Facebook it was done for no other reason than to grow your social media presence, any attempt to claim otherwise is ridiculous, as the same photo was published in Aeroplane. Claiming its because people can’t buy the magazine is utter tosh, as most people will browse through Flypast or Aeroplane at their newsagent while deciding which to buy. You did it for Likes, Views, and Shares, same as every other organisation on Facebook. You did it to improve sales by bringing in a bigger audience.
As its on Facebook, it will go around the world and somebody somewhere will know where it is. Then its out in the open and all the secret squirrel “I know where it is, you don’t.” nonsense will end. I notice you’ve been doing the same with our american friends across on WIX, when they were getting enthusiastic. I presume should the SAAF get any more interested on their aviation history forum, you’ll go for a third.
As for your crack about forum critics? I guess my answer to whether I’d be considered to have a viable plan (should I submit one) would be a ‘No’ then.
Scotavia – Sounds fairly typical. But if he was going to loan it to the museum why do you say the sale never took place due to the inflated offers? It wasn’t going to be sold in the first place, yet now he wants offers over those he turned down?
Regards,
Rich
richw_82I understand the need to keep the location reasonably private, but have my doubts if thats definitely the way things have to progress.
Firstly, I can’t understand the need for the immense secrecy unless there’s already an active attempt at recovery underway, and more attempts would hinder things politically, logistically or otherwise. “Lady Be Good”, Shackleton 1716, and many many more aircraft survived for a long period with the locations well known, I doubt the picked over bones of the Maryland will be in too much danger if the location was narrowed down from a continent to a country. The fact it was picked over long ago suggests more people know about it than the first reports suggested, and the fact it hasn’t been set fire to and reduced to ingots (like the Blenheim, Hermes and others) is also a positive point.
Secondly, who decides what’s a viable recovery plan and what have they recovered to make them qualified to judge? For instance as an individual I have a strong interest in Coastal Command but have no track record of overseas recoveries. Does that make me a viable proposition or a timewaster? My point being there are private entities out there with no recoveries under their belt that have managed to extract aircraft from places most of us wouldn’t consider (Lost Squadron P-38, Afghan Hinds) – will the Classic Wings office vetting process account for that?
Its a fine line, and I hope you stay the right side of it.
Regards,
Rich
richw_82I imagine it would help if the location wasn’t kept such a closely guarded secret to all but national museums. Even letting people know what country its in would be a start – ‘Africa’ doesn’t really narrow it down.
Regards,
Rich
richw_82Photos..
(source – Pete Buckingham and self.)
The offending selector, right up at the top of the wheel well.
Large leading edge panel removed..
A peek inside the leading edge itself at the spar web.
Spares
More spares
Even more spares
The offending booster coil!
But at the end of the weekend it was all fixed…
Regards,
Rich
richw_82Notes on Lancaster also apply to other Avro types of the Lancaster family (Manchester through Shackleton). “BBH” was the code for Bracebridge Heath, and sometimes covers modifications as well as repairs.
richw_82Weekend 12 – 14 June
(photos to be added this evening)
This weekend promised to be a good one with some of the team being available for three days. The tasks at hand were the rectification of the hydraulic fault, a test run of No 3 engine, and work in organising our on site stores, so it was great to see such a good turnout of our team in what proved to be rather poor weather..
12 June
Friday saw Pete, Andy and Druid all working on trying to find the electrical issue in the wiring between the cockpit and the starboard undercarriage bay. With a large leading edge panel off, access to the loom wasn’t too bad but the size of the wiring bundle had to be seen to be believed! It was thought that due to some of the marking on the bundle that there had been a slightly larger incident but it turned out to be dirt that had stained the outer sheathing from the time prior to our weatherproofing and repaint. Similar stains were evident on the spar web – a spar web which seems to be in fantastic condition; to the point the original hand written station markings can be seen on its face from when WR963 was rebuilt. Of course; things can look a lot better than they truly are but the more we see inside the wing, the more positive we’re feeling that the long awaited NDT work will show up good results.
Tracing the wires out to the selector block in the undercarriage bay found the source of the fault. At some point the wiring had been removed and left unsupported, and when plugged back in to the selector it had been badly twisted. Over the years the inevitable happened and the wires broke. Fixing the wires to the plug then required some interesting soldering work – as for anyone who has stood in the undercarriage bay of a Shackleton will know, the selector is mounted right at the very top above your head! With the wiring fixed, checked for continuity, and the multimeter giving nice readings instead of proclaiming the whole thing dead, the ‘Down’ button was pressed.
Nothing happened.
The gremlin in the system was a beauty, the selector’s two solenoids for ‘up’ and ‘down’ were also dead! So a new selector was required…
13 June
In rolled the rest of the team, with donuts, cameras, clipboards and labels. While Pete, Andy and Druid were left to crack on with WR963 we were working (honest!) at bagging and tagging stores, under the watchful eye of Michelle. The new system she’s created paid off instantly as instead of “I think we have one of those.. and I’m pretty sure its over there…” as has often been the case, we were given a location, shelf and quantity of spare selectors, and booster coils (more of which later). The bagging and tagging mission continued well into the day with most of it now sorted. The next job is the off site storage – engines/airframe parts and god knows how many unidentified brown boxes – and we’re all hoping Michelle doesn’t have a nervous breakdown at the sight of it or run and hide in a corner! Having said that the quantity of items held on site really surpised us. Starter motors, CSU’s, translation units, gauges… stuff we’d largely forgotten about.
The new selectors were checked, and solenoids removed to service the ones on the aircraft. This time, with power applied there was a definite ‘clunk’ heard, and when the hand pump was used, the offending ram slowly made its way back to its proper position. The undercarriage was down, locked and showing the proper three greens once more!
Next job was the No 3 engine.
A replacement booster coil had been fitted on the previous work weekend, but until the undercarriage was safe we couldn’t attempt a test run. So after a few phone calls to get permission, No 3 engine was primed and turned on the starter. We didn’t even get a puff of smoke or a cough. Investigation showed that we still weren’t getting a booster coil output to the magneto. Working through and testing showed up a couple of issues, such as corrosion on the mag switch terminals (again) and also a pinout difference between a bulkhead connector and the lead up to the booster coil. This last item was strange as none of us can remember changing this lead recently, yet a Griffon is fairly reluctant to start without the booster coil, so you would think it to be instantly noticeable!
14 June
A continuation of the previous day’s shenanigans with No 3 engine…
With the wiring now working off the correct pins, no live magneto issues (or dead ones), the points were reset in the magneto as it had been noticed they had closed up slightly. No 3 engine was still reluctant to start, so the booster coil from No 2 engine was substituted. No 2 started quite easily on the slightly weaker coil and was left running with a generator on as the batteries in the trolley had been through quite a workout.
With a little persuasion and what I have been told are Shack engineer tricks of old, No 3 engine was finally persuaded that it should behave as before. WR963 is now serviceable again.
This weekend’s efforts, and the results, wouldn’t have been possible without Druid Petrie and Andy Devitt, ably assisted by Pete Buckingham. Our work in stores this weekend was an achievement, but the sheer depth of knowledge and skill you put to use after a 24 year break from the Shackleton still impresses and what we did pales in comparison. Thanks again for giving up a large portion of your time and for travelling such a distance to help us younger less knowledgable members look after WR963.
WR963’s next run up will be 4th July for the Baginton Air Pageant.
Regards,
Rich
richw_82You David think this a priority whilst others such as the shackleton group that Rich is involved with May have other ideas. Rich… His high on your priority list is finding a hangar for the shackleton and if it’s not your number one priority why is it not? I’d be fascinated to hear the other side on this if you have the time.
Its high on the list but not essential.
We need a hangar for certain work (its a CAA requirement), and will for the major service. However, unless our finances improve to the point we pull in the same kind of money as the Vulcan we will probably just look to hangar the aircraft for the essential works and expand it to cover all winter if possible – much like Sally B, or Air Atlantique’s DC3’s/DC6. This was also the kind of life the Shackleton was used to during its service life and it did 40 years or so this way. Admittedly we don’t fly so its more difficult to get moisture out of certain areas, but even so; the more active the aircraft the better and easier it gets. The closer you can get to the RAF servicing schedules, the better and easier it gets.
Its a delicate balancing act.
We’d love to be permanently indoors, but the costs for such a large aircraft would remove a large chunk of our budget each year. We’d rather keep going as we are and build the pot towards the return to flight, as we’re largely on top of what we’re doing and can keep most corrosion and weather related serviceablility issues at bay.
Kind regards,
Rich
richw_82I’m interested in whether any aircraft on static display in hangars have had to be re-restored?
With the state of some ex WW2 hangars and the impossibility of controlling the humidity, is there really much of a gain?
richw_82The live ones seem to do a bit better for it though. It makes long term that bit longer!
richw_82Rich last one (promise)
Quote: The new Browns Lane Site is not Browns Lane as was in 1963. Unless you’re building the cars in someone’s front room, as its now a housing estate.
Actually Track 7 and the service workshops (which is where these 6 examples are built) is part of the original Browns Lane site, I have been visiting here for years both before and after demolition of the rest of the factory.
Track 7 is still used to build all Jaguar Production Prototypes, before being sent down the main production lines
These facilities and the adjacent Veneer Manufacturing Centre complex are all that remain of the original factory footprint, but its the same buildings as in 1963..
Oh come on… its not the Competition Shop where the originals were built in any way, that part was bulldozed and however its spun it can’t be brought back. Trying to justify it by it being part of the Browns Lane site is like building a new Lancaster in the Fire Station at what’s left of Woodford and claiming it came out of Avro. Its not the same and you know it! As for being built on site, its not. Jaguar’s own material says built at Whitley, painted at Gaydon with final fettling and trim at the Browns Lane site. So it really is just putting the badge on the nose and claiming it was built there.
The more I look at this the more I’m starting to be underwhelmed. Wider tyres front and back to cope with bigger brakes instead of those taken from a Mk VIII at the front and Mk X at the rear. Interior trim… on a racing car. Alloy engine, but with the four speed gearbox instead of the ZF 5 speed. And these cars are supposed to be indistinguishable from original? How can they be continuation with these differences?
I had a pop across to the E-type forums yesterday evening and its just as devisive a topic over there…. especially as it seems two of the new body numbers escaped the factory in the early 1970’s as unbuilt cars.
Regards,
Rich
Sign In
