Shackleton tri-cycle undercarriage
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South African Air Force Museum
Coincidently I've been sent the link to the SAAF museum which I notice has a Shackleton with trycycle undercarraige. Here's the link:
Avro Shackleton | South African Air Force Museum
Avro Shackleton | South African Air Force Museum
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SAAF Museum has 2 Shackleton's.
The one indicated in Wasaloadie's posting is at AFB Ysterplaat (Cape Town) and until very recently was airworthy. I believe that it is now 'out of hours'. But last year, for the SAAFA Conference they managed to get all 4 motors running for a 'ground run'.
The other a/c is at the SAAF Museum at AFB Swartkop (Pretoria) and is very much on 'static display' in the open. The last time I visited it looked very sad.
Note to pmills575
I trust that your:
Was a typo and not a Freudian slip 
The one indicated in Wasaloadie's posting is at AFB Ysterplaat (Cape Town) and until very recently was airworthy. I believe that it is now 'out of hours'. But last year, for the SAAFA Conference they managed to get all 4 motors running for a 'ground run'.
The other a/c is at the SAAF Museum at AFB Swartkop (Pretoria) and is very much on 'static display' in the open. The last time I visited it looked very sad.
Note to pmills575
I trust that your:
When the SAA expressed an interest it wanted a tricycle U/C not a tail dragger.
The Mk 3 Shackleton and Nosewheels
Whilst holding prior to MOTU I had the pleasure to work at HQCC, Northwood. One of my duties (jobs) was to sort out the Coastal Command Archive, which included the initial command formation documents, all the copies of the CC Digest of WWII and beyond, and lots of other information regarding equipment, re-equipment, re-re-equipment etc, including those pertaining to the Shackleton and its replacement. Naturally as a curious young Pilot Officer I read everything I could, and whilst I didn’t necessarily understand all I read, this is the gist of it. Unfortunately I cannot give you chapter or verse, or even prove any of it, as the old Officers’ Mess, which included the above ground HQCC and all the Coastal Command memorabilia (including the Archive), was destroyed in a fire in early 1969.
Anyway, back to the MR2/MR3 story. For its time, the MR2 Shackleton was an extremely effective aircraft, and a major step up from the Lancaster/Sunderland fleet it was replacing. So good that AVRO were tasked to come up with an even better replacement, and they came up with a new design with new avionics, even better range and the ability to carry even more fuel/payload etc. IIRC it looked something like the ‘Mk 4’ in CoffmanStarter’s pic on P2.
At this point the dead hand of the Treasury stepped in, who refused point blank to allow a ‘replacement’ for an aircraft (The Mk 2) that had barely entered service.
However, it appeared they would authorise further upgrades to the present fleet, which was being modernised at a great rate thanks to the cold war and the soviet submarine threat. Thus AVRO went back to the drawing board and came up with the Mk 3, which was essentially the new wing, the original engines and married to the same fuselage with all the modern electrics and avionics. The tricycle undercarriage was introduced because it came with the wing design and made loading the bomb bay easier, although getting the nosewheel in meant doing away (again IIRC) with the forward escape hatch. As the aircraft was called the Shackleton Mk 3, and looked very similar, it was duly approved by the treasury, and production was authorised almost immediately. As an aside, having flown both 2’s and 3’s, there was almost no difference internally for the crew apart from the cockpit, which was much quieter and had a better autopilot (and of course nosewheel steering), handling was better, and externally I thought it was the same width. Unfortunately, its biggest weakness appeared to be the nosewheel, with a good number of failures to extend in the early days. Also, as alluded to elsewhere, it started as a much heavier aircraft than the Mk 2, and with equipment growth soon needed even more power, hence the introduction of the two extra Viper jets in the outboard engine nacelles.
There were also some papers regarding the subsequent competition for the Shackleton replacement competition, which ended up with the Nimrod being selected. One of the most striking designs I saw was that of a ‘flying wing’, but others included both propeller (turbine) and jet propositions. Unfortunately I didn’t read too closely about the flying wing, apart from it seemed to have better performance, handling and payload than the Nimrod, but was deemed too much of a technological advance so was rejected. I’ve not been able to find anything about this since, not even the designer/company involved, although the B2 bears a passing similarity
Anyway, back to the MR2/MR3 story. For its time, the MR2 Shackleton was an extremely effective aircraft, and a major step up from the Lancaster/Sunderland fleet it was replacing. So good that AVRO were tasked to come up with an even better replacement, and they came up with a new design with new avionics, even better range and the ability to carry even more fuel/payload etc. IIRC it looked something like the ‘Mk 4’ in CoffmanStarter’s pic on P2.
At this point the dead hand of the Treasury stepped in, who refused point blank to allow a ‘replacement’ for an aircraft (The Mk 2) that had barely entered service.
However, it appeared they would authorise further upgrades to the present fleet, which was being modernised at a great rate thanks to the cold war and the soviet submarine threat. Thus AVRO went back to the drawing board and came up with the Mk 3, which was essentially the new wing, the original engines and married to the same fuselage with all the modern electrics and avionics. The tricycle undercarriage was introduced because it came with the wing design and made loading the bomb bay easier, although getting the nosewheel in meant doing away (again IIRC) with the forward escape hatch. As the aircraft was called the Shackleton Mk 3, and looked very similar, it was duly approved by the treasury, and production was authorised almost immediately. As an aside, having flown both 2’s and 3’s, there was almost no difference internally for the crew apart from the cockpit, which was much quieter and had a better autopilot (and of course nosewheel steering), handling was better, and externally I thought it was the same width. Unfortunately, its biggest weakness appeared to be the nosewheel, with a good number of failures to extend in the early days. Also, as alluded to elsewhere, it started as a much heavier aircraft than the Mk 2, and with equipment growth soon needed even more power, hence the introduction of the two extra Viper jets in the outboard engine nacelles.
There were also some papers regarding the subsequent competition for the Shackleton replacement competition, which ended up with the Nimrod being selected. One of the most striking designs I saw was that of a ‘flying wing’, but others included both propeller (turbine) and jet propositions. Unfortunately I didn’t read too closely about the flying wing, apart from it seemed to have better performance, handling and payload than the Nimrod, but was deemed too much of a technological advance so was rejected. I’ve not been able to find anything about this since, not even the designer/company involved, although the B2 bears a passing similarity
Last edited by Shackman; 25th Feb 2013 at 12:29. Reason: Mis-spelling again
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The move to St Mawgan was precipitated by runway subsidence at St Eval. Initially, vipers were only used for take-off and could thrust for 3 minutes-ish as use of AVGAS caused high JPT - later after one or two incidents involving loss of Griffons in flight we were cleared to use the vipers in the cruise which was a good way to cut down sortie lengths as they gobbled up the gas.
Yeah ian16th that certainly was a typo on my part!
It is often believed that the Vipers were originally part of Ph3, in fact some MK3's were updated to Ph3 without Vipers. They were later returned for the fit to be installed. The Viper was a separate add-on that eventually got rolled into the Ph3 programme.
Later mods to the Viper throttle system replaced the two switch idle/max with an inching system that allowed any rpm to be selected. The real issue was the small amount of oil that was carried.
pm575
It is often believed that the Vipers were originally part of Ph3, in fact some MK3's were updated to Ph3 without Vipers. They were later returned for the fit to be installed. The Viper was a separate add-on that eventually got rolled into the Ph3 programme.
Later mods to the Viper throttle system replaced the two switch idle/max with an inching system that allowed any rpm to be selected. The real issue was the small amount of oil that was carried.
pm575
Phase 3
Purely second hand , I gather the SAAF Shackleton 3's were effectively Phase Threes without the Vipers.
N.B. there is (was) of course still most of a third SAAF Shackleton sitting out in the desert in north-west Africa. ........
N.B. there is (was) of course still most of a third SAAF Shackleton sitting out in the desert in north-west Africa. ........
Last edited by Haraka; 25th Feb 2013 at 17:22.
Re. John Elias
To back up grizz's remark - John is still well and living near Forres. He is a regular attendee at the monthly meetings of the boring old maritime farts in the Beastie. He is still interested in the minutiae of aviation and has a store of wisdom and tales of derring-do.
The Ancient Mariner
The Ancient Mariner
There's some more info here about the crash of Pelican 16 in the desert AvCom • View topic - More pics (17 July) of Shackleton 1716 in the Sahara Desert including comments from the colourful Hartog Blok, mission commander and a thoroughly good bloke who I've met on many occasions.
BOMFs
Thanks for that info re John Elias. Now I know he still eats and drinks beer I would very much like to contact him to ask if he ever ventures south.
Can't find him in the phone directory so perhaps you could contact him and ask him to call me...01362 860890.
Many thanks
Can't find him in the phone directory so perhaps you could contact him and ask him to call me...01362 860890.
Many thanks
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Col. Derek Page, No. 1 of 1716 Pelican crew, has recently retired from the SAAF as a Brigadier.
As a Col. he was the Veterans Liaison Officer and worked very closely with the SAAFA and RAFA branches in South Africa.
As a Col. he was the Veterans Liaison Officer and worked very closely with the SAAFA and RAFA branches in South Africa.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
We had this interesting little thread running recently ... having subsequently come across this video clip of a 37 Squadron Shack on Bombing Ops out in Radfan Aden 1964 ... I thought others might be interested in a look see
Bombing and Air to Ground Gunnery ... also some footage of 8 Squadron Hunters doing some Air to Ground Rocketry.
I don't believe it's been posted before ... sorry if it has
Best ...
Coff.
Bombing and Air to Ground Gunnery ... also some footage of 8 Squadron Hunters doing some Air to Ground Rocketry.
I don't believe it's been posted before ... sorry if it has
Best ...
Coff.
Just watched a documentary on the Shackleton on UK TV. Lot's of old footage and some good gen but no mention of the Vipers. 
It's on again if anyone's interested.
Movies4 Men ch48 02:45 BST 10Jun14
It's on again if anyone's interested.
Movies4 Men ch48 02:45 BST 10Jun14
All marks
I was fortunate while an elec mech at BKY to fly in all marks.The first was a MK 3 and there was trouble getting the nosewheel down on that (after a minor service!!).Air test in a MK1 which was departing to become a T4 and then lots of hours on 204 sqdn going to interesting places.All this 54 years ago,I can hardly believe it!!I have a modest collection of shackelton books and lots of the "Growler"magazine to reminisce over!!!
