Peter MillsI can only agree with TwinOtter23, all I can say is that; that was then and this is now!
The new regime offers different ways of working and conducting business.
Peter MillsThe control unit 704 may be an early Shackleton unit. The Sonics Mk 1C as fitted on Shackletons for the last years of their service uses a different control unit Type 9468, definitely not the same.
Peter MillsMy understanding is that it HAS to be dismantled, not chopped, to ensure that the Co. in the deep SW can make proper moulds. Might be wrong of course.
Plus if it was ever to go on guard again it would be less desirable with nasty cuts.
That should ensure that any road trip is uneventful.
pm
Peter MillsWho is saying that it is to be scrapped?
That certainly wasn’t the plan late last year.
PM
Peter MillsPeter, thanks for the prompt! Actually we do have two “spare” engines in our engine shed.
We may need one, the port engine on 572 is vibrating badly and trying to free itself from the confines of the wing.
Peter MillsAs a member of GAM and someone who has some knowledge of the ongoing situation I would like to say we are extremely sad at Peters passing. Thank you for all of the kind and positive comments here. I would like to correct the timing and circumstances. He had been unwell for some time and in and out of hospital for a few weeks. He was diagnosed with a leaking heart valve and opted to go for a fairly high risk operation in full knowledge of what he was doing, typical Peter! He did not survive the operation carried out on Monday afternoon. Although we all all knew the risks we also somehow expected that the grit and determinatin, that was so much a part of Peters character, to carry him through sadly this time it didn’t.
Peter had a clear line of succession in place, he made arrangements some time ago. Those plans will now be enacted and we hope to realise Peters vision for his heritage and education centre with aviation at its heart.
We have kept quiet due to issues concerning security on the site. We have been working hard and have now resolved most of the issues, work continues.
In effect we expect the museum will go from strength to strength and justify Peters faith in us to carry on his work. It will be diffcult, even to match his passion and determination for “his areoplanes” we can only try. The museum will re-open, after an appropriate time has expired, it will be announced on the web site.
It is hardly possible at this time to express the sense of great loss that we feel, and we are not even family!
Peter MillsRich, I understand the problems that you are facing. It is one of the perennial problems that are faced by those looking after old airframes when they are located on property not owned by them. That’s not to say that it’s necessarily much better when they are on wholly owned property. Gatwick Aviation Museum being the obvious example, approx 35 acres of land (including an active runway) and not allowed to use it for the airframes. When you are a “tenant” there is always that slightly insecure element, there have been a number of examples highlighted on this forum.
At Gatwick we are trying to achieve, what for us, is the “perfect” compromise, put WR982 under cover to ensure that she survives and can be properly restored, plus organise the exhibits to allow her to be moved outside to carry out engine runs.
You have achieved great things with WR963 and in my opinion the effort going into getting/keeping as many systems serviceable as possible is one of the best ways of preserving the airframe. It would be a sad day when there is no longer the opportunity for people to hear four Griffons running together.
As you will clearly know, there is no doubt that the greatest assets to preserving old airframes it to get them under cover. The benefits are huge. It also means that should the economic climate change or interest comes from a philanthropic source the airframe can be revived.
In both of your potential scenario’s the pre-requisite is that she goes under cover. That doesn’t necessarily mean that she becomes a static exhibit only. As we are only too well aware the world changes and what is true today may be very different in five years. Something we at Gatwick have lived with now for over twenty years. I can say on that front that a chink of light may just be showing now! Let’s hope it’s not another false dawn.
Whichever way you choose to go forward, any time or effort expended on keeping her running and the systems live will not be wasted.
Good luck with whatever path you take, you deserve to succeed in all of your aims.
Peter Mills
Gatwick Aviation Engineering
Peter MillsYeah, we do still run the “other” Sea Prince WP308 (572) although we haven’t run her for about a year. From our point of view the Prince is a “cheap” runner. She positively sips AVGAS compared to the Shack. Mind you the oil consumption is about the same as the fuel!
Last time we ran 572 the port engine was running OK but it was vibrating quite a lot.
We need to get some time to sort that out, shouldn’t take too long.
Peter MillsYeah, we do still run the “other” Sea Prince WP308 (572) although we haven’t run her for about a year. From our point of view the Prince is a “cheap” runner. She positively sips AVGAS compared to the Shack. Mind you the oil consumption is about the same as the fuel!
Last time we ran 572 the port engine was running OK but it was vibrating quite a lot.
We need to get some time to sort that out, shouldn’t take too long.
Peter MillsInteresting to see the comments made here, perhaps you will allow me to put a few facts forward.
Firstly, when purchased this land was NOT included in the green belt.
The increase is not 45% but actually 31% and a large area of hardstanding (where the aircraft are currently parked) will revert to grass and landscaping, plus a new woodland will be created. The so called “strategic gap” will actually be greater, sadly the inspector was wrong in his conclusion. I produced a modified google maps diagram with the new building overlaid, it clearly shows the gap is greater. This diagram never got entered into the evidence despite being given to all of the planning committee members. Over the past 20+ years more than 20 applications to house this collection in other areas have been made, all rejected. Oddly, the “harm” perceived in the green belt is that the aircraft are parked in the open. So when the answer is to put them inside and therefore remove the harm, this is rejected!
The inspector in the 1994 appeal accepted that the current building were legitimate (the council do not accept this legally binding judgement) and that there should be no reason that redevelopment should be denied. This application was a redevelopment as most of the existing building would have been demolished and landscaping applied.
As I see someone has commented the building was incredibly modern in it’s form and function, effectively carbon neutral and self sustaining.
I could go on but I’m sure it would become very boring.
The original planning application was rejected on five counts, four of which the inspector correctly dismissed as either irrelevant or provision has been made to address the issue. That simply left the one issue “inappropriate development in the green belt”. His report contained many factual errors and certainly ignored some of the “special circumstances” that we feel should have weighed more in his deliberations.
This may not be the end of this process, the applicant has 42 days to contest the decision in the High Court and then of course there is the European route.
One last point concerning the money to be raised to build the new structure. A Trust has been set up to run/administer the redevelopment with a very experienced CEO appointed in fund raising, plus monies have already been offered if the plans get the go ahead. Money, even in these financially tight days is not the problem!
Peter MillsIt looks very similar to the one fitted to MK3 PH3 shacks, the only difference is that the MK3 has additional indication for the Viper. I’d say that it’s definitely Shackleton possibly Mk1 or more likely MK2. Here is the manual diagram for the Mk3…..
Peter MillsRich, I see that you “kidnapped” our Shackleton guide (Mike Rankin) at the weekend!
I was with him last night and he was full of praise for your efforts and very grateful that he was asked to join in. He very much enjoyed his visit and is now campaigning to get WR982 running again.
Peter MillsRich, I see that you “kidnapped” our Shackleton guide (Mike Rankin) at the weekend!
I was with him last night and he was full of praise for your efforts and very grateful that he was asked to join in. He very much enjoyed his visit and is now campaigning to get WR982 running again.
Peter MillsDon’t know if this helps, but!
There were two flavours of AI23.
Only AI23B had a scope, the earlier AI23 used a HUD.
So Mk1 and 2 variants used AI23 (oddly never remember it being called 23A) and were never fitted with AI23B and could therefore only be fitted with the Firestreak, which if I remember correctly was originally called Blue Jay or something very similar.
The AI23B version was introduced with the F3 onwards. Although of course one of the major enhancements to the B version was the ability to interface with Red Top (this at one time also had a Blue name) missiles which was served by the “Computer Red” itself a part of the radar. Oddly the HUD disapeared in favour of a heads down scope.
Export and other variants had other colour designations for the analogue computer within the radar.
It is a common myth that AI23B could only ever operate in lockon mode, later mods ( and a change of designation to AI23C) allowed a “track while scan” pseudo mode. A change to the PRF rate also allowed the range to be increased to 80nm. You will often see references to its short range i.e. 30 milles but I’ve locked on airborne targets, at its then max range, of 60nm and we could still detect second timebase returns.
Peter MillsCheck out the info at the bottom of this page, it gives a good summary and you can get the full story!
http://www.gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk/shack/shack.html
Sign In
