Anyone want a Shackleton ?
Discussion
dorset_clive said:
I wonder what "Engines are inhibited" means? I know there used to be interntaional regs about arms control that included whether you counted gate guardians as being part of an aircraft fleet, so might be something to do with that...
Corrosion inhibited more likely. Whether it's still effective is another matter.
Eric Mc said:
Yes - I doubt that the Russkis specified that Shackleton engines be inhibited as part of Salt II.
While I take your point Eric (and the inhibition as noted was probably corrosion inhibition), actually there were (and are) treaty limitations that affected a number of 'museum pieces' and Gate Guardians (and not just a/c). It was nothing to do with SALT II but the CFE (Conventional Forces in Europe) Treaty which is still extant. Simpo Two said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I wouldn't know WRT the Shack, but you'd be surprised how bloody minded the Russians were/are over CFE.
When you consider that its ancestor carried Grand Slams, I'm sure a Shackleton could carry an atom bomb at a push 
Halmyre said:
Lancasters were considered for carrying the WW2 atom bombs (they weighed about the same as a Grand Slam) but the powers that be (Groves?) insisted on using American bombers so modified B-29s were used instead.
Given that the Pacific theatre was mostly an American war with an American bomb designed in America, there was no way they'd have used a British aeroplane to drop it!Eric Mc said:
I certainly would not have fancied my chances in a Lanc as far as escaping the blast was concerned. The B-29 flew much higher and much faster than a Lanc and was able to get away from the blast pretty smartly.
Tinian to Hiroshima is a 5000km round-trip. Even if the Lancaster escaped the blast, the crew would still be swimming the final 1000km on the return leg.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff