Rich – I’m in agreement with all your points. Obviously, if it was to be an expensive proposition for CAF then they’re entitled to refuse any further efforts to save the Shackleton. I wasn’t suggesting that they should be expected to pay for additional space, and I’m sure you’re right that the Airport might be reluctant to give/loan more of the South Pan. But what I am suggesting is that perhaps there’s an opportunity to at least ask/persuade the Airport (and therefore the Council, who ought to have some interest in saving a very important historical artefact with major local connections) to consider such a proposition? It just seems that from all the possibilities, it would be the easiest, most logical and cheapest solution if all the parties concerned adopted a helpful attitude. I really can’t see any plausible alternative, other than simply allowing the aircraft to be sold to a scrap merchant. Maybe there is a “mystery buyer” lurking out there somewhere but I’m sure you’re as doubtful about that as I am!

Moggy – I understand your sentiments too. It’s easy to complain that somebody should do this or that, without offering any direct support. My point was/is that I’m sure many people would support some sort of campaign to save the aircraft if there was a tangible plan to save it. As it is there is no plan at all, and there’s a deafening silence from CAF who – despite everything – must be the most obvious people who could rescue the aircraft.

If there is a workable alternative then I hope it emerges. But if it doesn’t, then surely the only possible hope of keeping the Shackleton intact is to find some way of convincing CAF that they could at least accommodate it with the other aircraft in front of their hangar, if it could be moved up the hill? Yes, it may cost a fair bit if the aircraft needs work just to make it safe to move, but maybe that’s something that supporters could get behind – if CAF were at least willing to entertain the idea? Yes, it needs the Airport’s support too but surely it can’t be unreasonable to propose that permission could be obtained to either move part of the security fence to give CAF a little more space (on a huge pan that is otherwise empty), or allow the aircraft to park on the Airport side of the pan next to the fence? It would seem to be a very trivial issue if that is all that stops CAF from saving the Shackleton from destruction and one that even stubborn airport authorities ought to be hard-pressed to refuse, especially if the Council could be convinced that it’s a sensible plan?

Okay, I know these matters are never as simple as they sound, but isn’t this the most sensible idea? Isn’t it at least worth considering?

Then surely the best solution is to provide CAF with a bit more space? That’s got to be the cheapest and easiest solution? It’s not like the space isn’t there – it’s just on the wrong side of a fence.

Various points here so I’ll try to be concise!

My comments regarding East Fortune relate to the RAE’s T4 (in effect a Mk.1) which went to Strathallan. Okay, we can get into the semantics of whether East Fortune is a completely different set-up, etc., but I think a lot of people would fear that history might repeat itself if the Shackleton went there – although it’s obviously better than nothing.

The comments regarding the issue of who is responsible for disposal are also semantics. David’s slightly lofty comments about the RAF defending the nature don’t help. This has nothing to do with the defence of the UK – it has everything to do with MoD box ticking and the recovery of trivial amounts of money that bear no relation to any issue of historical importance or local/national interest. Fundamentally, the MoD has been relying on the notion that disposal of airframes enables money to be recovered for the taxpayer. It all sounds very worthy and plausible, but it doesn’t address the issue of whether the aircraft are of greater value to the taxpayer if they are retained intact. Like I said before, it’s the old issue of understanding the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

I guess the important point is to establish whether CAF are truly not interested or if they simply don’t think they have the space to accommodate a Shackleton. If it’s a question of space then surely it can’t be so difficult to reposition a security fence by another 200ft or so? That’s got to be a far cheaper option than dismantling the aircraft and moving it to Baz or anywhere else. Okay, it may well be an issue that affects what land actually belongs to CAF, the Airport, the RAF, etc., but it’s a tiny amount of space that is needed here. It can’t be that big a problem to resolve. I also have to wonder if space really is the problem. Even with the VC10, BAC-111 etc., there’s still enough room to squeeze-in a Shackleton. They manage to get a DC-3 into the hangar so a Shackleton isn’t much bigger. So maybe it’s not the issue of space? If it isn’t, then I really do wonder what to make of CAF’s position. If they simply don’t want the Shackleton, then I’m horrified. If a bunch of aircraft historians/enthusiasts don’t understand the importance of saving one of the few remaining Mk.2 Shackletons, and one that resides at perhaps the most famous Shackleton base of all, then I’m gobsmacked! It begs the question as to why save a BAC-111 (rare but far from unique) while one dumps a Shackleton?

The issues of allowing the Shackleton to survive outdoors are largely irrelevant. Obviously it would be preferable to get the aircraft indoors but we’re talking about whether an aircraft can be saved from the scrap man, so the relatively luxury of going indoors is hardly the issue. It’s a question of whether the aircraft can be saved at all. As it is, I fear that CAF is the Shackleton’s only potential route. If CAF can’t be persuaded to haul the aircraft up the hill to their base, then we have to be realistic and ask who else is likely to save her? The list of potential buyers probably amounts to zero.

It comes down to this – are the people at CAF seriously proposing that a hugely important relic from St.Mawgan’s past is going to be cut-up for scrap within sight of their base, and they’re going to stand-by and allow it to happen? Seriously? If they are, then I will indeed be truly disgusted – as will many other people.

WH904 – The RAF’s job is to defend the nation.
This story has nothing to do with the RAF – it’s the MoD that is disposing of the aircraft.

To believe that it will survive long term outside where it is just smacks of sticking your head in the sand !
I don’t recall saying that I believed it would survive long term outside. But what is the alternative? Besides, it’s been outside a very, very long time already and it’s coping quite well!

The best thing that could happen is for it to travel to East Fortune or Bruntingthorpe where it might stand a chance of getting undercover.
The last place I’d want to send it would be East Fortune. They managed to destroy the last Shackleton they had under their “care” so that would be a crazy idea. Bruntingthorpe wouldn’t want it because they’ve just acquired a Shackleton

This is all very odd – I seem to remember comments from CAF either on here or another forum claiming that they were preparing to move the Shackleton up to the CAF hangar. What’s gone wrong with that plan? Likewise, why is it being disposed of? Are they still replacing it with a Wessex as we were told months ago? What’s happened to the people who have been keeping the aircraft in decent condition? They repainted it not all that long ago.

I was already depressed at the lamentable situation that Phantom XT597 is in. So now we have a Shackleton needing a home too it seems.

It’s a shame that enthusiasts and historians can’t get together to persuade the MoD to change their ridiculous policy of just abandoning aircraft. It’s all very well to claim that they are striving to recover money for the taxpayer but what about making some attempt to retain important parts of our history that the taxpayer has paid for – and that are simply dumped when a bunch of civil servants and short-sighted MoD officials decide that it’s the “right thing to do”.

Once again it seems to the the usual story – if it isn’t a Spitfire it doesn’t matter. The loss of the Comet from Lyneham was a disgrace. Here we go again. It wouldn’t hurt the MoD to gift the Shackleton to CAF and move it up there at MoD expense – surely there must be more than a few Army/RAF engineers who would derive some value from such an exercise.

Once again the MoD seems to understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that someone claimed the Shackleton (wrecks) in Cyprus had finally gone?

Sounds like another step towards IWM becoming another theme park rather than a museum. They are already unprepared to allow retrieval/reproduction of imagery unless it’s in exchange for a ridiculously large amount of money. This means that no publisher will be able to use their material ever again. It begs the question as to what point there is in maintaining their archives if nobody can afford to share them with the people that paid for them in the first place. I’ve tried repeatedly to explain the absurdity of the situation with IWM but eventually they just shrug their proverbial shoulders and say that this is “just the way it is” these days. It’s ridiculous. They seem to forget that all of their assets are our (at least most of them) are our (the taxpayer’s) property. Like most institutions these days, IWM is all about making money, presumably so that they can refurbish their displays again and again to increase the visitor numbers and thereby justify their existence. Nobody seems to pause to consider what the whole point of IWM is. It seems inevitable that it will become another theme park full of interactive experiences for all the family, while all the material that is of real interest to historians becomes increasingly inaccessible. But as usual, nobody will care as long as we have another entertainment venue to amuse bored people. It’s a sad and sorry business.