Avro 721 Shackleton MR.5

[Gondor]

Good looking build 

As for the radar bin, the lower section was where the Aerial was for the radar so to operate it had to be below the fuselage line, it could retract almost totally into the fuselage for landing etc. No idea about the radar being fully extended as operational reasons for fully extending or not are not the easiest information to find, it could be so that the radar is not obscured by the bomb bay doors when they are opened but that's just a guess.

Gondor

[DogfighterZen]

 

[PR19_Kit]

There's something about a Privateer fin that looks so 'right'. 

You can put on one almost anything and it's instantly improved, almost as much as lengthening the wings............. 

[Pellson]

Some small improvements over the otherwise medieval weekend. (I'm quite aware of the pun in this, and it is as intentional as false - it's been a good weekend despite the weather).
Anyway. Canopies are on as are the engines. No exhausts yet - I have still to finish the design, and I feel it's a bit important to get it "right" for the project to be successful. I have ideas, but I'm just not quite there. Yet.

Current status, though, as follows:

[PR19_Kit]

Looking better by the minute. 

[Pellson]

From what I can gather the early Shackleton MR.2s operated the extended radar with the bomb doors open in a similar fashion to the Breguet Br1150 Atlantic. Later MR.2s had fixed the problem of drag and didn't need to be extended fully.

Before I got your answer, Steve, I sent a note to the chaps at the Shackleton Association, and lo and behold - this is their reply:

"The radar 'dustbin' was normally operated in the half-down position until something 'of interest' was detected when it would be fully lowered. Thus for an attack it would be fully lowered AND the bomb-doors would be open which is why numerous photos show that situation."

So it seems drag wasn't the reason, but you are very correct on the position of the dustbin.

Halfway down it is, then. More knife work coming up! 

[NARSES2]

That is looking good  . However in that 3/4 head on view I see a seaplane for some reason......I'll keep taking the medication 

[PR19_Kit]

It looks very much like a 4 engined Mercator.

[McColm]

That is looking good  . However in that 3/4 head on view I see a seaplane for some reason......I'll keep taking the medication 

Those propellers would churn up a lot of water on take off and landings.

[Pellson]

Got the radome cut and installed as well as some aerials etc. Not much left but those pesky exhausts now, so I can't put it off much longer..

Next to think about is the paint scheme. I'm no fan of hi-vis schemes, neither what the late Shackleton MR's or the early Nimrods wore. It's supposed to operate low over a dark ocean, so right now, I'm leaning towards the early Shack MR scheme, incidentally also being what the Shack AEW flew in for its entire career - all over DSG. Might not go for the type D roundels, though, but rather low-vis type B. We'll see.

[McColm]

Or you could use one of the trial schemes that reversed the colours as published in  Scale Modellers magazine when they did an article about the Avro Shackleton back in the 1970s. I don't know where my copy is at the moment.
Try the Shackleton MR.3 in the Royal Aircraft Establishment  colour scheme which is a bit unusual.

[Pellson]

Exhausts finally sorted, so the Shackleton is now another step closer to completion. I tried a few different solutions/designs before landing on this one, a few protruding above the wing trailing edge rather than below, and I also toyed with the idea of using the Viper nacelles from the now redundant AIM conversion set, but in the end, this felt most natural, and being a firm believer in the axiom "if it looks good, it flies good", I decided on the design pictured. It also looks to have meant minimal redesign work for Avro/HS back in the day, and that's also a benefit considering my take on a backstory. The only thing left is whether I need cutouts in the flaps behind the outer nacelles/exhausts or not. The Viper Phase 3 had them, but they were quite ugly..



I also added two hard points per wing,  with a glance towards the Orion.

About the backstory - Having done some reading, it seems that there was a rather major technology step in the 60s in maritime reconnaissance. The Orion was specified in 1958, as was the pan-European Atlantic. The Nimrod around the same time.  All brand new designs, if, in the Orion and Nimrod case, based on earlier civil aircraft. However, they were also expensive and some felt too expensive, so the Japanese choose to upgrade their existing P-2 Neptune's instead, then keeping them in service all up to 1993. Or 1996, if you count other roles than MR.

Let's say the the Treasury as usual were cheap beyond reason, I would imagine that a minimum change redesign as per the Japanese Neptunes would have looked tasty. In my case I would have kept not only the wings but also all of the fuselage design intact, just rearranging the position of the wing spars. Also, the stabilisators are located where they originally were, just leaving the new fin to attach. The MAD boom is just a simple extension/replacement of the tail lookout position and the new engines will attach to the old bulkheads, but need routing of the exhaust channels through the nacelles. Keeping these out of the wing structure would also benefit redesign costs, I would imagine.
Comparing this result to the design of an entirely new fuselage as in the suggested Shackleton MR.4 should mean that my design would have looked good from an initial economical perspective. Also, it would reasonably have meant an in service date already at latest in 1965 (Orion -62, Atlantic -65, IIRC, and P-2J in -66) and possibly even much earlier as one would have been able to guess that the ideas behind the 1958 MPA specs came around 1955 and the redesign, as described, should have been reasonably fast, maybe even beating the Orion in service. Still recognising the bigger capacity in the Orion and even more so the Nimrod, I don't think it would be too far fetched to think that an upgraded Shackleton doing away with the temperamental and noisy Griffons and gaining much more powerful turbo props, maybe even permitting two-engine-operation on patrol as per the later Nimrod, maybe the Nimrod never would have happened? After all, in reality it only came online almost a decade later (1971), replacing the 1953 vintage MR.3.

Glancing again towards the Japanese P-2J and it's out of service date in 1993, this opens up for an interestingly long life, some upgrades along the route and, not least, some interesting weapon options. F.i, the Martel missile came in -72, the Sea Skua in -82 and the Sea Eagle also in the eighties. While both the latter basically are targeted by the search radar, the former will, at least in its AJ168 TV guided version, need a communication link, on the Buccaneers sorted by employing an external drop shaped pod. I can't, however, see why a big MPA like the Shack would need to resort to external solutions, rather having the electronics needed stuffed away in a rack somewhere, and just a smallish antenna sticking out. Question is how it would look. A small blade? A yagi? Or something circular?
Obviously, going for any of the radar guided missiles would save me from adding the antenna but the TV guided option has the advantage of allowing land attack as well. Like shooting up a specific pirates nest in Somalia, hitting something hiding in the Norwegian archipelago where radar guided missiles are easily confused etc.

On the other hand, the Sea Skua is such a neat little weapon, not looking so dominant under the wing. The Martel/Sea Eagle is a rather big lump to carry around. On the other hand again, the latter pack a punch in relation to size, allowing for killing bigger boats than trawlers or FAC.

Now - for the few of you having endured all this rambling and reasoning, you will have realised that am glancing towards a 1980s or even early 1990s service, and leaving the weapon selection aside for the moment (your input nevertheless much appreciated) things now boil down to paint scheme. The old Shackleton MR.3 scheme isn't too bad, apart from the bright and very easily discernible white tropical roof paired with lots of coloured markings. Now - the later AEW.2s did away with that white roof, reverting to an almost all grey livery, but still employing big and bright red/white aircraft codes and hi-vis roundels. Not optimal in a 1980s Cold War gone hot scenario. And neither is the early hi-vis Ninrod scheme with white over LAG and the same type D roundels. And the hemp/LAG scheme isn't really maritime, is it?

Hmm..  I still don't really like the later all light grey Nimrod scheme. Maybe the AEW.2 scheme but using less conspicuous codes and roundels on top?

[NARSES2]

Coming along really nicely 

Let's say the the Treasury as usual were cheap beyond reason,

Oh, you caught them on a good day ? 

Chris who was a "spectator" at several meetings involving H.M.Treasury 

[Captain Canada]

Love it ! Defo alot of work, but so worth it ! Love this machine, and everything of this type. 

[Pellson]

Coming along really nicely 

Let's say the the Treasury as usual were cheap beyond reason,

Oh, you caught them on a good day ? 

Chris who was a "spectator" at several meetings involving H.M.Treasury 

Makes it even more plausible, then..