Talk:Avro Shackleton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Air Atlantique

Just wanting to clear this up. http://www.atlanticdhg.com/AACF/NEW8/shackleton.asp That link says that the Air Atlantique Shackelton is available for air displays. Can somebody confirm this?

Happy Plane

This is the plane made famous by the Internet meme - Happy Plane - http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/happy-plane.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.229.198 (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Pelican 22 no longer flies

The SAAF Museum's Shackleton (1722) has not flown for a number of years as there are no longer any qualified aircrew available. The remaining airframe life is not enough to train new pilots. Roger (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the deceptive section heading. Roger (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by your statement that she will never fly again. Could I borrow your Tardis to check? :) DiverScout (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to check with the SAAF Museum - http://www.saafmuseum.org.za/contact/cape-town-museum/

The real problem for us is that it has never been flatly stated in any source that is acceptable to WP in terms of WP:RS but it is common knowlege in the aviation enthusiast community in South Africa - it gets commented on quite regularly in online forums - at every annoucement of the monthly "ground runs" - but nobody has ever bothered to officially say so in a official declaration and publish it in a source acceptable to Wikipedia. It's a case of WP's sourcing rules being too strict combined with a variant of the age-old problem of the "muggle" media being ignorant of and not really interested in aviation, so the knowlege only circulates among the "anoraks".

If you Google - Shackleton 1722 grounded - you'll get literally hunreds of hits but not a single one of them is a RS. Roger (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps when the British Shack returns to the sky crews can train on her. DiverScout (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a 1980s programme about the Lossiemouth Shackletons on YouTube here that someone might find interesting: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

An aircraft that has not flown for several years is not "airworthy"! by definition! If you can not fill her up tomorrow and fly it, it's not airworthy! There's a major legal difference between "airworthy" and only "flyable"! Clearly this one can not fly without a major overhaul and should not be listed as "airworthy" anymore since it's not true!--Towpilot (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree, I have updated the entry. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Justification for Griffon engine - inconsistency

"The Merlin engines were replaced with the larger, more powerful and slower-revving Rolls-Royce Griffons... The Griffons were necessary because of the greater weight and drag over the Lincoln and they provided equivalent power to the Merlins but at lower engine speed, which made for greater fuel efficiency for the long periods in the denser air at low altitudes that the Shackleton was intended for when hunting submarines – known as "loitering" in RAF parlance – possibly several hours at around 500 feet or lower. This also made for less stress and wear, and hence reliability problems, for the engines.."

"All marks suffered from using the Griffon engines — thirsty for fuel and oil, noisy and temperamental with high-maintenance needs".

Surely both statements can't be true ? I'm no engine expert, but they were either fuel-effective or they weren't, reliable or not. Common sense would indicate that an engine that was not both was useless in such an aircraft. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

it is possible that the original contributor of the critical sentence was comparing them to modern turboprop engines, in which case, the Griffons were as described, but that is all relative.

AFAIK the Griffon had a good reputation so perhaps the editor was referring to the Shackleton in SAAF use - for some time South Africa was under an international arms embargo due to its apartheid regime, and so spares would have been difficult to obtain from the UK. That may have influenced engine overhauls, etc., but that's just a guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case the "All marks" part makes no sense at all - the SAAF only operated one model. I think "compared to turboprops" is the better explanation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. The original choice of using the Griffon was that it could give the same power as the Merlin but with less strain on the engine, i.e., at a lower equivalent throttle setting/engine rpm, so the Griffon could more easily cope with the long periods at low altitudes required of an anti-submarine aircraft. If the Merlins had been retained they would have needed to have been operated at Climb throttle settings for long periods if a submarine had been detected - you need to get to the spot where the submarine dived/was detected as soon as possible to drop depth charges and this generally means the pilot will open up the engines wide - and this is generally not a good thing to do too often per-flight especially if one is a thousand or more miles from the nearest land. Apart from adverse effects on reliability, the process tends to wear the engines out more quickly. The Griffon could provide the same power at a lower throttle setting/rpm, and so was under much less mechanical strain. This was the reason for the development of the larger Griffon in the first place as it was designed initially as a low-rated (low altitude) engine for naval i.e., Fleet Air Arm (FAA) use, where reliability over the sea was paramount.

The previous aircraft used by Coastal Command for long range A/S was the Liberator GR and as an aircraft designed as a high altitude bomber it was found that when used for attacking U-boats/submarines - many of which had anti-aircraft armament and might decide to stay on the surface and slug it out - the prolonged operation at low level and high power settings put undue strain on the engines, a factor that to some extent also applied to the Sunderland and Catalina. The Shackleton was designed using the Griffon for this reason, any additional performance that might be theoretically possible using the Griffon over the Merlin being immaterial for the chosen role - low and slow with the aeroplane having the ability to be thrown about fairly vigorously at low level without breaking. The air is much rougher at low levels and due to gusts and wind, loads on an aircraft structure are greatly increased over those flying at more usual altitudes, leading to fatigue life problems if one isn't careful so you need a more robust airframe than normal. The Shackleton was designed with all these factors in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I seem to remember reading in a Flight article somewhere that the Shackleton actually used the wing of the Tudor, not the Lincoln. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Updating "Survivors" section

Dear wikipedians, I'm updating this section with the information form "Aviation Classics" Issue 24, dedicated to the Avro Shackleton. I own a copy of this comprehensive publication. This work will take me a few days as I have little time available; will appreciate your patience. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Avro Shackleton/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Ideally, it should conform more closely to the format specified at WP:Air/PC. It could probably hit GA quality if there were four or five paragraphs for the development and operational history sections.

Last edited at 06:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 08:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Naming of the Aircaft

The article mentions that the plane was named after Sir Ernest Shackleton, the great Antarctic explorer. Which seems probable. However, it also mentions, in note #1, that this is because Chadwick knew Shackleton personally. That is less probable because Sir Ernest spent most his time in the Southern hemisphere and died in 1922. A different source, mentioned on Roychadwick.com says that the grandmother of Chadwicks wife was a certain Agnes Shackleton and a relative of Sir Ernest. Does anyone here know what f all this (perhaps everything, perhaps nothing?) is true? Korporaal1 (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

RAF aircraft were all named according to type (cities for bombers for example Lincoln/Lancaster/Stirling) and non-flying boat maritime aircraft were named after explorers Anson/Shackleton/Hudson (refer British military aircraft designation systems, I doubt it had anything to do with Avro or Chadwick but probably a man from the ministry. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)