I’d suggest you are thinking about in in the wrong way – using terms like ‘fail’ for instance! 🙂

Possibly, but the aircraft was flown in in good and complete condition and to be kept airworthy, it was then left outside apparently unattended for 30ish years, and now they don’t want to restore it or house it, I can only read that as a fail.

I will bang off another email just to try and see what the real thinking is behind the move.

I can see that there have been success in passing airframes around to independant museums, but a Shackleton is a very different beast to transport, restore, and display indoors for a long time.

I managed to have a quick natter yesterday with David Morris at FAAM, and when you hear about the reality of running these places it makes for sobering listening.

Michelf does make a good point, but I still can’t see how a smaller private outfit will be successful where the mighty IWM considers that it will fail?
Also where are the safeguards that whichever organisation takes on the Shack won’t have a change of heart, priority, or personnel a few years down the line which will see the aircraft put out in the cold again?
At the moment it is uniquely intact (never been sectioned for transport), and is very complete including the turret and cannon as mentioned in another thread. even to break it down to transport to some whereelse would seem to sully the airframe a bit.
Let’s put it this way I have failed to be convinced about the arguments in favour of moving it on.

Personally I would rather it was stored and guaranteed survival and eventual restoration indoors at IWM, there is after all no rush to display it.
Finding out that XF708 is actually a ‘benchmark’ airframe only makes the situation that its stays in a national collection more urgent in my eyes.