WH904Of course the engines are the limiting factor on XH558’s future. So it is certain that even if XH558 survives beyond 2015, it will doubtless be out of time in 2016. I think a far more worrying issue is what happens to XH558 after it stops flying. The plan is to stay at Finningley (as part of the agreement made with HLF). I think this will be a very bad move. When XH558 stops flying it becomes just another static Vulcan, the same as many others. Why would anyone make the trip to Finningley to see one motionless exhibit when they could see a Vulcan plus lots more at many other museum sites? Clearly, after a honeymoon period, the number of visitors to Finningley will dwindle to zero and then what? Sooner or later it will become homeless and once it is incapable of flight, its fate is sealed.
Far better to get XH558 out of Finningley once flying stops, so that it has a more secure future. Duxford doesn’t want it, Cosford doesn’t want it, so maybe back to Bruntingthorpe might be the best option. At least it will still receive visitors there and of course it can be taxied too. Got to be a far better plan than the notion of tucking it away in a hangar at Finningley until it is forgotten and abandoned?
WH904Can’t help but think that the best way for people to spend their cash would be on the East Kirkby Lancaster.
Can’t help thinking a far better plan would be to support the Shackleton project at Coventry – we already have a flying Lancaster.
WH904The most over-rated aircraft in history. Famous only for spending most of the 1960s sitting on the ground at bases in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire while its crews drank tea and played cards, and for managing to almost completely miss Port Stanley runway with all 21 bombs dropped. To listen to the nonsense spouted by its supporters, you’d think it was the most significant aeroplane in history.
What utter garbage. But then unless you’re a complete idiot, you must know that.
WH904Any news on the Meteor? Would be a great shame if it was abandoned. If only it could re-acquire its silver and fluorescent orange paint scheme and the candy-striped nose probe 🙂
WH904My own view is that it simply needs a change of policy that allows/encourages the MoD to exercise common sense instead of adhering to rules that are sometimes patently ridiculous. The CAA is much the same. I think it’s a British thing 🙂
WH904I did 🙂 I agree that it isn’t the most attractive of colours but it is what it is… blame the RAF! 🙂
WH904If I hear any more I will pass-on the news, and I hope everyone else will do likewise 🙂
WH904as far as I know there will be no room for it either on the pan outside the hangar
As I explained above, I contacted CAF directly last week, and they explained that space was not an issue and that all the issues concerning transportation of the aircraft had been addressed. CAF still want (and hope) to acquire the aircraft.
WH904David, I don’t want a pointless argument so I’ll be brief:-
its owners have no declared intention to do anything detrimental to it and as their sole example it would seem unlikely
to dispose of it.
Unlikely is a subjective conclusion – depends if you believe any of the stories that have emerged in the past
The Mod didn’t step in to apply their rules
I was told that they did – which is why I said they did. If you have evidence to the contrary then fine.
Really ?
Yes – that’s what I was told by CAF
As for “dreaming” if I thought there would only be a couple of interested parties – I don’t know where or when I ever said that (because I didn’t). If you mean that there may be bids from parties that are not scrap merchants, then I entirely agree – there doubtless will be. But then I suppose this goes back to previous posts where we’ve discussed the merits of possibly saving parts of the aircraft. That’s obviously better than simply scrapping it but as I’ve said repeatedly, this is unnecessary (and therefore absurd) when there’s already a carefully-studied plan to move the whole aircraft to CAF.
WH904Naturally we can’t say anything for certain about the Manchester example – but that’s the point – nothing is certain about that particular machine. Stories keep drifting around about plans for the museum and whether the Shackleton might or might not be a part of it, but I don’t think anyone could claim that the aircraft has a secure future unless/until RAFM say that it has. But as I said previously, the status of other Shackletons is a separate issue to the one at Newquay. If there were dozens of well-preserved Shackletons around the country, I still don’t see how anyone could condone the MoD’s proposal to simply offer the aircraft to the highest bidder, or the bidder that they deem to be appropriate. Surely, no matter what one’s view on Shackletons or aircraft preservation might be, the very idea of possibly allowing this Shackleton to be sold for scrap when it could simply be moved to the South Pan is just ridiculous?
I take your point that in order to restore a Vampire, one might destroy other examples. But it is another subjective issue. It presumably depends on the condition of the other Vampires and their likely survivability. I would imagine that if you had the resources to save every Vampire then you would? But the same situation doesn’t apply to every aeroplane. I assume that you’re suggesting that maybe parts could be taken from the Shackleton at Newquay to support other surviving examples? Of course that could be done, but it misses the fundamental point that this doesn’t have to happen in this case. CAF are clear that they are able and willing to take the Shackleton and propose to bid for it. They had already expected to be given the aircraft before the MoD stepped-in to apply their rules concerning the tender process. They have the ability and will to put the aircraft on public display in front of a hangar that was specifically built to accommodate that very machine. There couldn’t be a more appropriate place for the aircraft. But despite this, there’s a very real risk that the MoD might simply opt to accept an offer from some random company that simply proposes to cut-up the machine for scrap value. That can’t be right can it?
TwinOtter I take your point – MoD are communicating with interested parties. What I meant was that (on the basis of other aircraft that have been sold in the same way) they are not taking into account the views of the wider public who (if they were suitably informed) would probably agree that the Shackleton would be of far greater value if it was transferred to the care of CAF as an exhibit, rather than simply sold for scrap value. Hopefully MoD will take note of whatever negotiations and communications that might continue but as you will know, there are never any guarantees that the outcome will be a good one. As CAF have pointed-out, a great deal depends on the subjective viewpoint of MoD when it comes to determining the estimated value of the airframe.
WH904Exactly Charlie – it’s a subjective subject. How many do we “need” and the answer is zero. How many would we like and the answer is “as many as possible” but this gets us nowhere!
Instead of doing all this fulminating at would be better to pick the best Shackleton now existing and form a well funded group to support it and get it undercover.
Probably not. Nobody is in any position to “pick” any aircraft, and one Mk.2 Shackleton is already under cover. Besides, the concept of picking an aircraft whilst abandoning others is a risky business. By definition, it encourages the reduction in numbers of surviving aircraft. It might sound great in principle , but what happens when the well-preserved example suddenly becomes homeless? It can and does happen. Yes, there is an AEW.Mk.2 in Manchester but it seems to be continually at risk of removal and there’s never much indication that RAFM would save it. As for choosing between a Mk.2 and a Mk.3 Shackleton, that’s almost like choosing between two completely different aircraft types, so I fail to see the logic in that notion. But all of this has no bearing on the example at Newquay. The fundamental point is that there is a Shackleton Mk.2 on site at RAF St.Mawgan – a famous former Shackleton base. It’s literally yards from a major aircraft restoration and preservation site. Regardless of how many other Shackletons are around, I trust you would agree that to allow the example at Newquay to be deliberately sold for scrap when it can be saved easily, would be utterly ludicrous?
I agree that the Comet hasn’t fared too well in terms of preservation. Many aircraft types have not survived as successfully as many of us would have hoped. Ultimately, we have to rely on the generosity of private owners, private museums and the major institutions like RAFM, IWM etc. Sometimes they perform well, sometimes they make decisions which disgust some of us. But that’s the way it is. Apathy does indeed rule sometimes. Even though some of us are discussing the Shackleton here, I don’t see any great ground swell of interest. Same applies to the hapless Phantom XT597 over at Bentwaters. Nobody seems to have the slightest interest in saving it. RAFM ought to have acquired it for their research aircraft collection but they are completely disinterested (“no comment” was the official response). On the other hand, they will spend money on “restoring” a lump of Luftwaffe wreckage. What can we do about it? Nothing. On the other hand, the story of the Shackleton at RAF St.Mawgan is slightly different. I think we could potentially do something about it, given that it is effectively public property paid-for by the taxpayer. Faceless MoD officials are making a decision on the aircraft’s future without any reference to the people who bought it and effectively own it. That can’t be right.
WH904There are already a good few of the type preserved
Patently that’s not true. There are four Mk.2 Shackletons that have survived. The two examples in Cyprus are wrecks. One is in the US, and one is in Manchester, with a less-than certain future. So that leaves one at Coventry and one at RAF St.Mawgan. That’s hardly a “good few” by any standards.
WH904I’ve contacted CAF again so I’ll see what they think. I have to say that CAF don’t seem to be entirely pessimistic about the aircraft, and they say that if they can successfully bid for the aircraft then they will – so if the MoD are not entirely unreasonable, the story may have a happy ending. It does seem to revolve around MoD’s position and what kind of value they decide to place on the airframe.
If the MoD don’t simply hide behind their self-generated rules, the best outcome might still be achieved. If it really does come down to a bid from CAF and a bid from a scrap merchant, one would hope that even the MoD would have the good sense to realise what the true meaning of “value” means 🙂
WH904I understand what you’re saying Rich, but the outcome is the same of course – the MoD’s process effectively scuppers any practical chance of saving the aircraft if no buyer comes forward with the money to buy it and remove it. I think we’re all in agreement that unless it does go to CAF it’s very unlikely that anyone else is going to rescue it, given its location, condition and size. It’s quite comical that the email you quote mentions the risk of the aircraft going out of the country. One would hope that they’re not so stupid as to imagine that this was even a remote possibility. The reality is that it is far more likely to be sold as scrap. I guess the real issue is how one can attempt to persuade MoD to change their position? Okay, they have set-up a procedure, but this shouldn’t mean that the procedure can’t be changed when necessary. In the final analysis we’re talking about a Government body that acts on behalf of us – the taxpayers, therefore it seems reasonable to suggest that if there is a demonstrable will on the part of enthusiasts, historians and locals to stop any possibility of the aircraft being sold for scrap, then MoD should accept that view and gift the aircraft to CAF. I get the feeling that there is far too much temptation to claim that “rules are rules” even though the rules are there for our interests – and if the rules are just plain ridiculous, then the MoD should accept that.
Where do we go from here? Maybe I should contact MoD and see what their view really is? Or the local/county council too? I will certainly go back to CAF and establish what they propose to do, and see if there is any way in which we can at least support them.
WH904Pleased to say I have now heard directly from CAF. The situation isn’t quite as has been reported by various people (quelle surprise), and CAF say that it is ridiculous to suggest that they would not do everything they could to save the Shackleton. Space isn’t the issue at all. RAF St.Mawgan had indeed offered to gift the aircraft to CAF but an MoD bean-counter has indeed stepped-in and stopped the process, resulting in the invitations to tender. The aircraft’s condition isn’t all that bad and the tail wheel issue is “superficial” and was resolved in any case.
They say that if there’s any way that they can still get the aircraft then they will, but it seems that (as said before) it’s the MoD that has scuppered the plan to save the Shackleton, on the grounds that they think they can make a few bob out of it – even if this means selling it for scrap.
As for the Nimrod, they have basically abandoned any plan to move it to Newquay as permission to ferry the aircraft has been refused and the cost of road transport equates to around 100k, so it isn’t going to happen unless somebody produces a lot of money.
So, I guess we’re back where we started – maybe there’s some way that we could get together and convince the MoD that the right thing to do would be to gift the Shackleton to CAF and forget this ridiculous notion of selling it to the highest bidder, regardless of the aircraft’s future?
Sign In
