Avro Shackleton on M25 today. Where from and to?
 

A Shackleton rear fuselage on a low loader was heading clockwise on the North West section of the M25, near the A404 junction, around 15:00 today. Does anyone know where it was from and where it was going?

WR974, ex-Charlwood, enroute to Bruntingthorpe.

Forward fuselage and centre-section are already there, not sure about the wings:

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2950/...0f50b1fd58.jpg

Yes, it was parts of WR974 from GAM to Brunty. Two loads, main/rear fuse on one load and the major sections of the mainplanes on another, plus a bomb door. Only part remaining, one rear mainplane section. (Just not quite enough room on the trailers!) .
Departed GAM 13:30-14:00.

pm575

Thank you DaveReidUK for the photo & ID & PMMills575 for the further details.

Nice to see that it wasn't off to become saucepans just yet. I did keep an eye open for more bits on subsequent vehicles, but didn't notice any.

There is a photo blog somewhere about the guys who are dismantling and rebuilding the Shackleton.

Shot I took of her when she was whole, at GAM, three plus years ago: https://www.flickr.com/photos/489750...-9QBto8-dS93MH

Great to see she's going to a good new home.

For those of us who have only seen the Shack from the air whilst taking off or landing at LGW over the years, why has it been moved ? Am I imagining that it used to do engine run-ups in the very recent past, or was that elsewhere ?


SHJ

No matter how many times it's explained to me, I still can't get the idea of how two COUNTER rotataing props are more powerful than one. :confused:

SHJ: I may be wrong, but the Shack at the GAM did not look, to me at least, when I visited there in May 2011, like it was capable of running any of its engines.


PAXboy: a former crew member on the Coventry Shack (which recently taxied under its own power) explained it to me like this; the only way the designers could harness the tremendous power of the Griffons(?) fitted to the Shackletons, was to use two (necessarily contra-rotating) propellors. He said that if a single prop had been used, it would have had to be so large that its blades would have fouled the ground, without absurdly extending the undercarriage.


I repeat the above however, as definitely a non-engineer; and on another forum, where I put up this explanation, someone asked how then did Corsairs and Mustang harness 3000 bhp in the Reno races, using a single prop? I just had to say I didn't know.


ie could someone with engineering expertise please definitively (if possible) explain?


MTIA

The Oracle of all that is true on the Internet says.
[url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra-rotating_propellers

Thanks Munster, but you need to revise that link slightly, to:


Contra-rotating propellers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Other one doesn't work properly.

Well, I´ve sent them to, welcomed them from and been with them in many strange places but never a motorway. May she arrive safely, albeit bit by bit and enjoy many admirers at her new home.

AFAIK, it's several years since they have been run up (and note that we're talking here about GAM's other Shack, WR982, not the one that's gone to Bruntingthorpe).

Thanks for that Dave. And here's a link to a photo of that handsome brute WR982, that I took on my visit to the GAM in May 2011:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/48975048@N06/15368671217/

And also a link to a video that I shot of the Coventry Shack running up its engines back in June of 2004:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqK8...yer_detailpage


And a link to how it now looks, in 1950s RAF Coastal Command colours:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/489750...-9HC6CD-8Ut2T5


Does anyone have a video of its recent taxi run?


Finally, here's a link to all of my photos of Shackletons taken over the years. Highlights include the one at Strathallan, back in 1976 (don't think there are too many shots of that knocking around); and WR965 at the 1973 Biggin Air Fair. Also shots of the MR.3 at Newark Air Museum; and the MR.2 in the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry, which is the only one preserved under cover/in a building, I think:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/489750...7648744360406/


Anyone got any shots of SAAF machines, or of RAF ones "back in the day?"

WR974 was sold to a new owner at Bruntingthorpe. This was a part of the rationalisation of the airframes owned by Gatwick Aviation Museum, due to two main reasons. Firstly, we do not have sufficient engineering staff to keep all aiframes from slowly corroding away, so it was decided to move airframes on before they became so bad that they could not be recovered. In this way we could concentrate our resources on a core number of airframes. This has already given us impetus and brought the Lightning ZF579 to a point where we are ready to light up its two zero time Avons. Secondly, our continual issues with the local council regarding getting our collection under cover showed our willingness to be flexible about the aircraft and the sensitivity about the issue.

As regards running Shackletons, we often see comments that we had, in the past, run both aircraft, sadly we have never run WR974(K). The last time WR982(J) was run was 2009. We are at the early stages of bringing 982 back to a runnning state, the plan being to run her next year. We keep the Griffons oiled and lubricated and turn them on a regular basis. We have just repeated this process and have recently cleaned and lubricated the engine control runs. More similar work will be carried out during the next months. Fuel cost has been the primary reason that runs have not been carried out in the last few years.

The Griffons from WR974 were retained and will eventually be put through a restoration process over the next few years, the aim being to replace all of the current engines on WR982 by restored units.

We wish the guys at Bruntingthorpe all the best putting K back together and look forward to seeing her looking good.

pm575
GAM

Thankyou for the explanation, a rational decision that I wholeheartedly agree with. Better to keep less airframes in good condition, than more in a lesser state. I didn't realise that there were two Shacks at Gatwick, did they arrive under their own power back in the day ?



SHJ

Both airframes arrived by road in 1988 from Cosford.

Comments have been made about the Contra props and how they worked, it is correct they were needed to absorb the horses developed by the Griffon 58 but also needed to be able to transfer that power into the pulling of the of the Shack through the air, you may also notice the rear prop blades were a different profile and longer than the front prop blades, this was necessary due to supersonic tip speeds was discovered to be trying to bend the tips together thereby would have been quite problematic to flying under maximum power, ..I am not sure if the rear blades were made longer or the front blades shorter and fatter,

Also the Hybrid Mustang that was owned and flown by Gary Levitz at Reno, used Griffon 58's , that were fitted direct to the engine bearers with just a sliver of leather to act as a washer between the surfaces, the Contra prop sets were cut down rather crudely so that ground clearance would allow the take off and land back without fouling the runway, when I say crudely..it was done with a simple power hacksaw and finished with an angle grinder, it really is no wonder that the Mustang eventually broke up when going flat out killing Levitz in the process, I sold many used and zero timed Griffons to his aircraft builder in the early 90's along with all the various bits for the remaining Shack Griffon 58's ie Electric ignition systems and all the coils, plugs condensers, ECU's CSU's and all the prop spares, and many box's of new unused after refurbished props.
I did offer them around the UK but no one at the time had any interest, I had at one time many newly refurbed and fully cocooned Griffons in my warehouse, and many boxes of props, a visitor from the USA to my premises almost bought everything that would go into two 40 ft containers. before anyone try's to find me, I have nothing left.. except picture's!

Peter RB
Lancashire

Hi all,

For those that asked about WR963 (G-SKTN) taxying at Coventry, here she is a few weeks back doing just that -


We lost a brake sac in the port wheel, so we need to change that out before we do it again and we'll resume taxying in the new year. As with everything else it keep the systems in good order and stops various things seizing through lack of use.

Work still continues on returning her to flight; we're working at getting the NDT inspections done to determine if the hours left on the spar booms are usable or not given how long she's spent outdoors.

pm575 - We're all looking forward to seeing 'Juliet' awaken!

Peter-RB - as I've said before, I wish you still had your stock of parts! We're still hunting down the overhauled props you sent out to the USA. ;)


Kind regards,

Rich Woods
Shackleton Preservation Trust

On the basis of the above comments, do we therefore assume that the Shackleton that is going to Bruntingthorpe will not be restored to running condition? I suspect that a lot of people well be very disappointed if this is the case. I think most people assumed that the whole point of going to Bruntingthorpe was so that aircraft could move under her own power?

I hope Gatwick's Sea Vixen will be looked after in this rationalisation process. It is a unique aircraft in a unique paint scheme. Let's hope it stays that way :)