Avro 721 Shackleton MR.5

[PR19_Kit]

Erm, I almost hate to be a JMN but the Argus was piston engined. It had four Wright R-3350s because of their better fuel burn compared to the early turbo-props.

Robert beat me to it by a few minutes. 

[kitnut617]

Erm, I almost hate to be a JMN but the Argus was piston engined. It had four Wright R-3350s because of their better fuel burn compared to the early turbo-props.

Robert beat me to it by a few minutes. 

The book I have on the CL-28 and CL-44 says the pistons engines were used because the turbo-prop's fuel burn at low altitudes (sea level) wasn't good.

[Pellson]

Good luck sanding those rivets 

I never said I'd take them out completely.. 
But you are right. They're a proper pain in the tail end, but on the other hand, I went in to this game with open eyes. 

[kitnut617]

Didn't have any problem getting rid of the rivets on this project, same kit mould Pelle is using, different manufacturer though.

[kitbasher]

Erm, I almost hate to be a JMN but the Argus was piston engined. It had four Wright R-3350s because of their better fuel burn compared to the early turbo-props.

Robert beat me to it by a few minutes. 

Never said it wasn't, I'd forgotten about the CL-44 and was only referring to that type's engines.  All three were good-looking aircraft, that's where the Argus fits in.

[McColm]

I have used the 1/72 Academy C-97 engines on a Frog Avro Shackleton MR.3 and on another Avro Shackleton MR.3 I used the wings,  engines,  landing gear and tail fin from an Academy B-29. I had to modify the vertical tail fin as it looked a bit big in proportion to the rest of the fuselage. Seemed to work although I never got around to finishing it.
Ah well it's another one for the 'let's build it again pile'.

[Pellson]

Weekend and summer weather => focus on fishing rather than modelling.
But I anyway managed to slap the wing halves together just to dry fit them because I'm dead curious of how the rear shift of the wing would work. Comparing the fuselage to the Neptune, it looks as if it would work almost surprisingly well! I might have to build that Neptune as well, just to be able to keep comparing.



And here's the thing with wings



Not too bad, right? With the MAD gear extending out rear, I think it'll be good.
I have to admit I'm a bit impressed by the surprisingly tight fit of the wings towards the fuselage on this old kit. I had expected much worse from experience from the fuselage..

Now mulling on tailplanes. Should I go for a minimum change, joust adding the MAD-boom and keeping the twin-fin tail, or should I go for a more modern look, putting on a larger single fin? I think I'll have to do some mock-ups with card board once that boom is on.

[PR19_Kit]

Yes, that wing fuselage joint is pretty strong with that socking great spar thing in the middle.

The next mark of RW Shackleton was going to have one central fin IIRC, so there's good providence for it.

[Rheged]

Pic of the Mk 4 here:-   https://www.thegrowler.org.uk/avroshackleton/mark-four.htm   People might enjoy the rest of this website, too.

[kitnut617]

For my Avro Nottingham I made the fins taller.

Here's the link to my build thread, unfortunately most of the photos disappeared with the PB debacle, but the last few pages shows the photos and you can see what I did.

https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=16956.15

[McColm]

You can switch the vertical tail fin from the Neptune onto the Shackleton and vice versa. The Shackleton MR.3 didn't have a M.A.D. boom on any operational aircraft,  although trials were carried out during the development stages.
I have experimented with moving the wings to a shoulder mounted position but I had to use the Neptune wings to have some ground clearance.
I have to admit that the Neptune does look good with the Shackleton wings and twin tail fins.

[Pellson]

Aye, the Growler site is really, really good. I have been eyeing up their mk.4 and given it a good think but decided that I preferred to create something less tied to reality, even if only unrealised reality. But the wing move is supported by the appearance of the mk.4 and I expect to make use of it in the backstory. When we get that far.. 

The wing spar really improves the sturdiness of the construction but my general comment was about the very very limited need for filler in the wing joint. As if I ever would fill that, but you get it.. 

That Nottingham is awesome in so many ways, but I would be lying if I claimed to be inspired by it for this build. I see that more as a backdating of the Shackleton than a modernisation, so moving along the timeline in opposite directions. But is is a truly great build, and it definitely shows the possibility of cheating up a Lincoln bomber from the old Frog kit (and a Lancaster of your choice) if you wanted to. Impressive!

I'll most likely build the Neptune OOB, but with a modified paint scheme. It's such a pretty aircraft that I really can't see a nice way to modify its lines. Maybe with exception for the Japanese turboprop P-2V that was a little bit stretched ahead of the wing. That was actually even nicer.

While the Shack Mk3 never got MAD, the Nimrod did, and so did the Neptune. Hence, my model will have it too as I intend to have it relevant at least up to the early eighties. So MAD and a good set of sonoboys, the latter not taking up space in the weapons bay.
We'll see what I can get to work.

[NARSES2]

The wing spar really improves the sturdiness of the construction but my general comment was about the very very limited need for filler in the wing joint. As if I ever would fill that, but you get it.. 

There are a few old kits that can surprise you like that. They must have used some pretty high quality tool steel for the moulds is all I can think of for it to last so well.

[Pellson]

Some progress, at last. Wings, stabilisers and fin is all on as is the MAD boom. While I long was hesitant about the execution of the latter, at a time even considering starting all over again, seeing it together with all the flying surfaces, it actually works rather nicely, so it'll stay as is.



Another thing working nicely is the new wing location. Together with the new tail surfaces, it brings a much more modern appearance to the design. I think it feels very balanced, it'll be fun to see how the engines will work from a design perspective.



Another thing I have been spending quite some time investigating is the position of the radar when in use. I can't really get a consistent picture, so I'll put it out here for advice.
While there is a possibility to place the radar fully extend as per below, I only find pics of this in combination with open bomb bay doors, i.e in flight display mode.



However, it seems there's a "halfway" position as well, where you only lower the radome, not the extender, as shown below.



Obviously the second position offer lower drag than the first, but why would you then have the possibility to lower it fully at all?

So - does anyone know which position was the normal when using the radar?

Next step should be the engines. I need to work out where I locate the jet exhausts, though. You don't want to  block the thrust with the flaps, and I also don't want to overengineer things. And then all these propeller blade tips. To extend or not to extend. That is the question..

[kitnut617]

The Shackleton Mk.1 had it's radar under it's nose. The dome looks a lot like the dome that the Matchbox Coastal Command Wellington GR.XIV comes with.