Sorry Robbo, I agree with Moggy….

I know the majority of people on here are deeply devoted to their interest in aviation, but Moggy is right…

The Heritage fund is public money. They have to get best value for it. I am sure Cosford done the best with the resources they had. Whether or not you like the arrangement of the airframes, the fact remains that the new building gets a large amount of (large!) airframes undercover. Ok, maybe the new building isn’t to everybodies taste, but it does the job…

It is hard enough to get money to cover these sort of expenses, do you think those in charge are going to listen to a few people whinging because it is hard to photograph the aircraft? The thing is IMHO that the majority of people going to see it are not going to be bothered.

Like it or lump it, at least these aircraft are going to be easier to keep preserved.

You just can’t please everybody…..;)

Been a while since I last asked, any update to Mr Rusty’s progress….?:)

If it aint American, European or South African, forget it!

Having been forced by my work to take various African Airlines on the West Coast, I’ve had a few white knuckle rides – Seeing silver duct-tape on the wings of a national carrier’s aircraft is hardly awe inspiring!

For a laugh, for Air Gabon, if you spell it backwards, it says No Bag! Pretty much my experience. If travelling to Africa, anything of any worth should be carried cabin baggage….

If Tone and his merry men at number 10 can fund the work which is going on in a hangar a Coventry to grate expence to keep the Lancaster PA474 in the air for a number of years to come.
Why not support a Shackleton as well, we are only asking for British Aviation to be kept alive with suppot from the Government who hold the purse.
If some of you out there have not worked it out where did the Shack after all come from yes a modified Lancaster.
So Tone get on the street and do some fund raising for a project to keep the only airbourne example where it belongs in the air flying over the U.K.

Before I go any further, I like Shackletons, and there is nothing I would like more than to see one airworthy in the UK, but then realism crawls in….

1) The Shack is not a modified Lancaster…. It may share some design commonality, and even some parts, but it only looks like a Lancaster….

2) If the OEM does not support the aircraft, then the idea of keeping it flying is humped.

3) The cost of keeping this flying on the British taxpayer is going to be astromonical. I have never worked on Shackletons, but I do believe the constant speed units for the props were always a source of problems, engine availability is not great, in fact are spares available? As a tax payer, no matter how much I love Shacks, I would rather see a properly funded NHS for all than a Shack in the air for the benefit for a few.

4) Who will operate it? Air Atlanique? You need sponsorship to keep an expensive beast like that in the air. Airshow appearance money isn’t even going to come close. Think Sally B, then think insurance costs as well….

5) How long is it going to be operable? As you say, it’s props are almost time expired, and I would at a guess say that the wing spars will eventually expire as well. There aren’t many main spars for Shackletons lying around.

6) The one thing that is in my mind, and might be in others, is that the last Shack that was going to display in the UK crashed in the Sahara. Cause? Engine failure… How much is the reliability of the aircraft going to play on people’s minds? I myself am sure that a professional operator is going to keep the maintenance levels to the highest level, but then again, the crew of Pelican 16 were hardly ameteurs…..

7) Finally, all the last 8 Sqn aircraft were flown to their final destination – despite the big plans, look what happened to the two Paphos Shacks.. Air Atlantique have done really well with their two, and should be congratulated. The final one was scrapped at St Mawgan. Are there going to be enough current aircrew and parts to keep them going? I have my doubts….

I am not meaning to put anybody down, and I admit that I am hardly an expert, but emotion sometimes gets in the way of hard fact. The BBMF Lancaster will too eventually be retired, but the public pays for that because of it’s tie with the war. I think around 8000 Lancs were built. The Shack? Off the top of my head I think only 188 were built, and most of them are saucepans now…. Does the general public have an affection for the Shack? Unfortunately not….

Although it hurts to say this, it is better maybe to have a couple ground running, and preserve what we have, than have the massive drain of time, money, and the remaining spares dwindle away just to keep one airworthy.

Sorry, but no political party would get involved with this one…. Can you see the uproar after its announced on the news that £1m is being spent on an aircraft that very few of the general public can associate with?

Kind Regards,
Scotty

I have to agree with cessna152towser to a large degree

Although I like aircraft, I can look at all sorts of biplanes, and to be honest they all look the same. Why take up valuable space in a museum when more deserving real aeroplanes can be preserved? Flying replicas are fine, but to be honest, are the general public going to be able to tell the difference between most of the interwar fighter biplanes? I think not.

IMHO, these planes lose their relevance to the majority of the public once people who remember the originals have passed on. We don’t have space for everything either. The great crisis might come later on down the line in 50 years time when people are wanting to preserve real airframes, but museums are clambering for space. Mind you, better to scrap a replica than the real thing.

Personally, I think it is better to preserve what we have, and if it means making up bits to preserve that aircraft, rather than make a replica, so be it. We can’t save everything, and in the future we won’t have room, so perhaps we should let the past be the past, and not constantly be rebuliding it in replica form. Replicas have their place, especially outside, but what happens when that replica (flying or non flying) is 50+ years old? It’ll become a preservation issue in it’s own right…..

:confused:

Scotty

Sorry Bex – I didn’t have PM’s switched on.

I’m currently stuck in Indonesia, and was watching discovery channel. The programme ‘Megabuilders’ was on, and it was showing the testing of the outer glass skin of the new Burjah (soon to be the tallest building) tested by a Griffon with both contra-rotating props. They were using it to blast water into the glass, to check it was waterproof.

I just about choked when they said it was from a Lanc! Still had it’s dark sea grey paint on it, but red spinner…. Ahhhh! 🙂

Dyce (Now Aberdeen Airport) used to have a small tower beside the old RAF hangers on the west side of the airfield. The airport was redeveloped, completion date of around 1977, and a new tower looking similar in design to an Aztec temple was built in front of the then British Airways Helicopter base.

I might have a photo somewhere of the old tower, but I doubt it is ex RAF. The RAF base closed in 1957 with the disbandment of 612 Sqn. RAAuxF