Mr. McHenry to Pima?

[bilwor]

Thanks, Ric for the answers to my questions on photos 8 & 9
bill word

[TAdan]

Sad to see Mr. McHenry grounded, but atleast he went to a good home, and got to get there in style.

[APG85]

Does it now belong to the PIMA Air & Space Museum or is it a semi permant loan?

[Fouga23]

If I win the lottery any time soon I'll be tipping up at Pima with a big fat cheque.

Make that a VERY fat cheque! The wingspars are no good, so you'll have to re-spar it before it ever flies again

[peter]

Would be good if they could keep her running!

[Glen]

Is she the last of her kind that can Fly ?

[Matt Gunsch]

If I win the lottery any time soon I'll be tipping up at Pima with a big fat cheque.

Make that a VERY fat cheque! The wingspars are no good, so you'll have to re-spar it before it ever flies again

And your source is ? It could be flown in the US with no problems, they could not fly it in the UK due to thier version of the FAA. Also, in civilian operations, the weight loads would not be anywhere near what it was in military service. Lighter wieghts means less strain on the airframe. It is the same thing as the fire bombers when a pencil pusher said firefighting was too hard on the airframe. Turns out stress gauges showed a greater strain on landing than when dropping slurry.

[retroaviation]

The wingspars are no good, so you'll have to re-spar it before it ever flies again

The way I understand it, that's not entirely true. I was just told yesterday by Ben Cox (who's kind of the "main mechanic" on this particular Shack), that the British have a number of hours before each airplane is considered "bad." Kind of like a jug of milk, I reckon. However, this Shackleton was "given" extra hours I think a couple of times while in service with the Royal Navy. When it's service life came up again in late 1990, the Royal Navy just said to discontinue the airplane's role and parked it in January of '91. So, on paper, the spars were considered "no good," but in reality, that was not the case. The airplane had been operated in the U.S. under the Experiemental Category and had frequent wing spar x-rays done to check it's airworthiness. I know that the last time it was done (back in 2005, I believe), they came out with no flaws whatsoever. I suspect that if these inspections continued and the spars showed no flaws, that the FAA would have no problem with the airplane flying here in the States. However, if the airplane ever went back to England, it would indeed have to have new spars made. Make sense?

Oh, and to answer Glen's question, yes...sort of. This was the last taildragger Shackleton to fly. There is one with a training wheel on the nose down in South Africa that flies occasionally.

Gary

[peter]

A little confused then.. If her spars were good and the FAA would let her continue flying then why was she sent to PIMA?

[peter]

Lovely tribute and run up by Mchenrys sister...

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4350118412913260652&q=avro+shackleton&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[retroaviation]

A little confused then.. If her spars were good and the FAA would let her continue flying then why was she sent to PIMA?

Well, the way I understood it, the owner realized that he could no longer afford to fly the airplane only one or two times a year, so he decided to park it. The initial intent was to take it to England, but after some communication with the Pima folks, they decided it would be much cheaper to just keep it here in the States and the environment at Tucson would be good for the airplane, along with the great folks at Pima to take care of it.

James, if you have more to add to this, please do so.

Gary

[peter]

Gary.
I guess ut would be better to email Pima, but do you know if theres any truth to the tale that they fll the tires and dont move the aircraft once on dsplay? I do hope they could keep her running.

[retroaviation]

Gary.
I guess ut would be better to email Pima, but do you know if theres any truth to the tale that they fll the tires and dont move the aircraft once on dsplay? I do hope they could keep her running.

Jamesintucson (WIX member), is the curator for the museum. I'm sure he'll answer that one for you here.

Gary

[DamienB]

The way I understand it, that's not entirely true. I was just told yesterday by Ben Cox (who's kind of the "main mechanic" on this particular Shack), that the British have a number of hours before each airplane is considered "bad."

If you meant the manufacturer of the aircraft specifies a life for certain components, you're correct. This is not a British thing, and you'll find any manufacturer considers various bits to be lifed.

Throughout service fatigue is monitored and on certain types life extensions can be made - sometimes by reinforcing the item, sometimes by simply re-writing the limitation, and sometimes, as in the case of the Shackleton spar, by replacing the item.

Kind of like a jug of milk, I reckon. However, this Shackleton was "given" extra hours I think a couple of times while in service with the Royal Navy.

Royal Air Force, please! It is written on the side of the aircraft, after all.

It wasn't "given" extra hours - it was given a new spar, in 1980, having been flown since 1953 on the original. So if you assume 27 years of life for a spar, guess which year it's about due a new spar in...! The manufacturer don't want it dropping out of the sky on somebody's head, and neither do the Civil Aviation Authority - she's a very old girl and I can understand the concerns. I'd love to see her continuing to fly, but she's wasted in the USA and I can't see anybody having the money in the UK to pay the million pounds or so needed to respar her, never mind operating her afterwards.

[retroaviation]

Damien, thanks for setting me straight on those mistakes I made. Yup, Ben said it was the manufacturer, not the "British" who made the life limits of the airplane. I was just being too vague, I reckon.

And I don't know why I said Royal Navy and not Royal Air Force. I didn't realize such a mistake would cause such a reaction, so you have my apologies.

Gary