Avro 721 Shackleton MR.5

[Pellson]

So this might actually be my first ever group build entry. I find it both exciting and a bit intimidating, being aware of my standard glacial pace of construction paired with an annoying inability to get things completed within reasonable time, but if any GB should trigger a completed build, this is it!

This is the raw material.





As you can see, it's all Frog, albeit some of it in rereleased form. The river monster was bought very cheaply second hand many years ago with the original plan of building her OOB. But the old Frog is a scary kit to attack, rivets and all, so it got sitting.
Eventually, I found out about the Viper engined Phase III and got a conversion, and having sat on that for quite some time, Revell released their new moulding and, well.. 

Not really being one who just discards kits, I however mulled a bit on what to do with it and having seen the magnificent Shackleton MR.4 build on the web, I got the idea of doing something similar. But just simpler, cheaper and dirtier. As if the treasury got hold of the Air Staffs idea and as usual just took the cream out of the pudding.
Reading up on the Shack, it seems to me that the two main concerns with the MR.3 were the somewhat unreliable engines and the with every update increasing overweight. Sorting that obviously would require new and better engines, and also more powerful ones than the existing Griffons. While the diesel compound Napiers were suggested in real life, diesels are inherently heavy and in the fifties, the turboprop engines were making their debut, so that seemed the obvious choice.

Sourcing existing engines, however, turned out to be a bit troublesome, but by chance I got the opportunity to measure the nacelles of the 1/96 Frog Britannia - and they are very very similar in diameter to the Griffons. Accordingly an order for the cheapest possible Frog-cloned Britannia was placed, but when I got it home, something else had captured my interest and the two kits ended up in the stash storage.
Until to the other day, when I was tidying up and rediscovered them, and made the connection to the ongoing GB. However, it wasn't until today I got the opportunity to start the build.

As you can see, the original owner has done some interior painting, and while I'm aware of the real aircraft's cream yellow interior, I think the dark green will do fine to hide the almost complete lack of content behind the cockpit.
Turboprop engines are, generally, lighter than corresponding internal combustion engines, and I have always thought the Shack looks a bit rear heavy, so I decided to move the wing rearwards a good bit by chopping the fuselage in four pieces, then moving a plug from the rear of the wing to the front. As the cross section above the bomb bay is similar throughout the bomb bay length, it should be rather straightforward. And within reason it was.

And that's about as far as I've got, as we're speaking.



The cuts could have been made more exact by a better builder than me, but some PSR should sort it. The fuselage is straight, level and the bomb doors fit as they did originally, so it's good enough. And I was always getting rid of most of the rivets anyway..

Not knowing the family plans for the weekend, however, progress is uncertain, but if it happens, here's where you'll learn of it first. 

Have a good time until then!

[PR19_Kit]

Fascinating, and different too.

[kitnut617]

This is something that's been on my mind too, I've found that the Dart nacelles for the Dakota conversion work very well. I got mine from Heritage Aviation which now doesn't do any conversion. I did find out the the present Alley Cat now has all their moulds and masters. However, Aircraft in Miniature does them too

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/TWC72015?result-token=t4Ubx

Here's the Heritage nacelles --



But I like your idea with moving the wing back ----

[kerick]

Just replace the Shak with the Britannia for a total upgrade. Just give it the Shak paint job. Of course this would make too much sense in the real world.
Your project should look pretty cool!

[Pellson]

This is something that's been on my mind too, I've found that the Dart nacelles for the Dakota conversion work very well. I got mine from Heritage Aviation which now doesn't do any conversion. I did find out the the present Alley Cat now has all their moulds and masters. However, Aircraft in Miniature does them too

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/TWC72015?result-token=t4Ubx

Here's the Heritage nacelles --



But I like your idea with moving the wing back ----

That's cool, and I had a think about those AIM conversions too (that's where the viper nacelles come from) but:
- the 1/96 Tynes fit really well
- this way, I get propellers too - if slightly small. I'll just have to extend them a bit. All 16 of them..
- and finally, and likely most importantly - I really am too cheap! 

[Old Wombat]

Frugal!

[kitbasher]

But I like your idea with moving the wing back ----

That's cool, and I had a think about those AIM conversions too (that's where the viper nacelles come from) but:
- the 1/96 Tynes fit really well
- this way, I get propellers too - if slightly small. I'll just have to extend them a bit. All 16 of them..
- and finally, and likely most importantly - I really am too cheap! 

Watching with interest, Mr P. 

Yes I like the idea of moving the wing back - and how you've done it.

A 1/96 Britannia for scalorama whiffery has been tempting me on and off for a while (off at the moment but for how long?).  Would welcome a shot of the Proteus nacelles up against the Griffon nacelles to get an idea of how they compare in size - especially diameter.

And there's nothing wrong in keeping it cheap!

[Pellson]

...Would welcome a shot of the Proteus nacelles up against the Griffon nacelles to get an idea of how they compare in size - especially diameter.

I appreciate your friendly way of reminding me that the Britannia never flew with Tynes..   

Here's a view of a very dry fitted engine. Some alignment and adjustments will be made before gluing, of course, but I think it proves the concept.

[zenrat]

To quote my old scoutmaster (a former sergeant in the catering corps) "if it's cheap you'll grow to ilke it".

[kitbasher]

I appreciate your friendly way of reminding me that the Britannia never flew with Tynes..   

Here's a view of a very dry fitted engine. Some alignment and adjustments will be made before gluing, of course, but I think it proves the concept.

Thank you sir, and for your friendly way of reminding me to read words more closely, as I didn't even spot your reference to Tynes!

[PR19_Kit]

I appreciate your friendly way of reminding me that the Britannia never flew with Tynes..   

Here's a view of a very dry fitted engine. Some alignment and adjustments will be made before gluing, of course, but I think it proves the concept.

Some, mostly Canucks, would say that a Canadair CL-44 WAS a Britannia with Tynes. 

That Proteus nacelle fits very well indeed, despite, or because, they're different scales. Nice job! 

[McColm]

Good luck sanding those rivets 

[kitnut617]

...Would welcome a shot of the Proteus nacelles up against the Griffon nacelles to get an idea of how they compare in size - especially diameter.

I appreciate your friendly way of reminding me that the Britannia never flew with Tynes..   

The Britannia might not have, but the CL-44 did ---    (CL-44= Canadair built Britannia)

[kitbasher]

Some, mostly Canucks, would say that a Canadair CL-44 WAS a Britannia with Tynes. 

Of course, the CL-44 and indeed the Argus.  The CL-44 was certainly a more powerfully-engined machine, and in many respects a better performer that the Britannia.  All three are handsome aircraft.

[kitnut617]

Some, mostly Canucks, would say that a Canadair CL-44 WAS a Britannia with Tynes. 

Of course, the CL-44 and indeed the Argus.  The CL-44 was certainly a more powerfully-engined machine, and in many respects a better performer that the Britannia.  All three are handsome aircraft.

Not the Argus -- they were powered by R-3350's