Avro Shackleton questions

[ReccePhreak]

For some reason, I pulled out my NOVO 1/72 Avro Shackleton MR.3 kit, and thought about doing it in WHIF Royal Thai Navy markings. While browsing through the Haynes Owner's Workshop Manual on the Shackleton, I looked over the cutaway drawing and saw a reconnaissance camera in the fuselage, underneath the tailplanes. I haven't seen any walkarounds of a Shackleton that shows the camera window. Does anybody have a photo of such a window, or was this just "artistic license" on Mike Badrocke's part?

Since I was planning on doing my Shack as a RTN bird, I thought I might want to put some weapons in the bomb bay, but the kit doesn't come with anything, and there doesn't seem to be an abundance of aftermarket 1/72 naval aircraft weapons. And since I don't have any other 1/72 naval aircraft kits with suitable weapons I could pilfer from, does anybody have any scale drawings of the Mk.30 torpedoes, Mk.11 depth charges, and the sonobuoys & smoke markers? I might try my hand at scratch building some of them.

I have already decided to rescribe the kit, and "tone down" or remove the bridge rivets, since they are a scale 18+ mm in diameter.

Larry

Edited October 16, 2020 by ReccePhreak

[JagRigger]

 

 

[David Womby]

This is the one at the SAAF Museum.

 

David

[ReccePhreak]

Wow, those are interesting looking cameras. No camera window, just the doors. So I only have to scribe the camera doors on my model.

Now to decide if I want to add weapons to the bomb bay, or keep it closed.

Larry

[Antti_K]

Interesting photos! And weird looking cameras; a some sort of periscopic system perhaps? That location is possibly the worst for an aerial camera as the tail is in constant motion around the Center of Gravity. And that would put great demands on the Image Motion Compensation (IMC) system.

More information needed...

 

Cheers,

Antti

 

 

[ReccePhreak]

2 minutes ago, Antti_K said:

Interesting photos! And weird looking cameras; a some sort of periscopic system perhaps? That location is possibly the worst for an aerial camera as the tail is in constant motion around the Center of Gravity. And that would put great demands on the Image Motion Compensation (IMC) system.

More information needed...

 

Cheers,

Antti

 

 

I agree. It doesn't look like any camera system I have ever seen, or worked on, especially with the way the "lenses" are pointed. That would cause the camera bodies to be in each others' way.

Cheers,

Larry

[Julien]

6 hours ago, Antti_K said:

Interesting photos! And weird looking cameras; a some sort of periscopic system perhaps? That location is possibly the worst for an aerial camera as the tail is in constant motion around the Center of Gravity. And that would put great demands on the Image Motion Compensation (IMC) system.

More information needed...

 

Cheers,

Antti

 

 

A Shack crew member described sending newbies into the tail after they had eaten to test them!

[ReccePhreak]

6 minutes ago, Julien said:

A Shack crew member described sending newbies into the tail after they had eaten to test them!

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Shaken, not stirred." 

[71chally]

16 hours ago, Antti_K said:

Interesting photos! And weird looking cameras; a some sort of periscopic system perhaps? That location is possibly the worst for an aerial camera as the tail is in constant motion around the Center of Gravity. And that would put great demands on the Image Motion Compensation (IMC) system.

More information needed...

The cameras (mainly Williamson F117A) were fitted directly behind the windows in the cupolas that you see in the photo, the doors opened and cupolas lowered down for photography purposes.  They were very good for capturing the vertical and oblique large format images that you see of cold war shipping etc.  I think any motion stabilisation would have entailed shouting to the pilot to fly steady!

Only the MR.2 and 3 had this layout, the MR.1 cameras (K.19 I think) were fitted just behind the bomb bay and covered by flush doors.

 

[Antti_K]

1 hour ago, 71chally said:

The cameras (mainly Williamson F117A) were fitted directly behind the windows in the cupolas that you see in the photo, the doors opened and cupolas lowered down for photography purposes.  They were very good for capturing the vertical and oblique large format images that you see of cold war shipping etc.  I think any motion stabilisation would have entailed shouting to the pilot to fly steady!

Only the MR.2 and 3 had this layout, the MR.1 cameras (K.19 I think) were fitted just behind the bomb bay and covered by flush doors.

 

James, thank you for the information. It all makes sense now, if only one camera per cupola was installed. By using only fast emulsions it has been possible to mitigate the effects of image motion (small enough Circle of Confusion).

 

Cheers,

Antti

[71chally]

I'm not sure if two cameras could be fitted at a time in each station, those cupolas are surprisingly bulky.  I do know that only one cupola could be used at a time, so guessing one might be set up for verticals, the other for oblique?

The cupolas were lowered by pneumatic rams.

I have seem actual photographs taken from Shacks, they are grainy, but reasonably sharp.

Edited October 16, 2020 by 71chally

[ReccePhreak]

After reading about the camera, I am not surprised that the images were grainy.

http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/WF117A.html

I only see where they were hand held and operated, for targets of opportunity (subs & surface ships).

Larry

[71chally]

They were handheld for use in the beam lookout positions, there might have been a different type in the aft fuselage but the APs I have don't cover the camera type fitted.

 

Just for @Antti_K, I have hand picked this shot taken by a Williamson F117B out of the beam window of a Shackleton in 1962,

Javelins at Pickeston, St Athan 15 September 1962 by James Thomas, on Flickr

[ReccePhreak]

James, THANK YOU for that sad, but fascinating picture. To see so many neat aircraft cut up for scrap is depressing, but I know it is necessary. I used to see similar stuff when I was first stationed at Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona. At least a lot of them got saved for display in museums or on various military bases.

Your comment about them being handheld for use in the beam lookout positions makes so much more sense, as it would be easier for a crewmember to aim them at specific targets, which would be very hard (and possibly dangerous) to do with a fixed vertical pointing camera in a large patrol aircraft.

Larry

[CT7567]

If your WHIF Shack is similar to the Thai Navy Fokker MPA, you might consider something as potent as AGM-84 Harpoon antiship missiles in addition to torpedoes or depth charges. Not sure they'd work in the bay, you might have to work up an underwing (or side fuselage) pylon arrangement.

[ReccePhreak]

5 minutes ago, CT7567 said:

If your WHIF Shack is similar to the Thai Navy Fokker MPA, you might consider something as potent as AGM-84 Harpoon antiship missiles in addition to torpedoes or depth charges. Not sure they'd work in the bay, you might have to work up an underwing (or side fuselage) pylon arrangement.

Interesting idea, but I don't know if it would work in the time frame the Royal Thai Navy would've been flying the Shackleton. I have to figure out what my WHIF time frame is, then look at what antiship weapons (Mavericks?) were in use at the time. Definitely will want torpedoes & depth charges 

I just pulled out my ESCI 1/72 Fokker F27-MK 400 MPA Maritime kit that I will be doing in RTN markings. I had some old magazine articles in it, for the RTN proposals, so I may use a lot of the weapons proposed for it. Underwing weapons pylons are a possibility, but if it's an interim aircraft, they might not have done too many mods to the original airframe & equipment.

[CT7567]

5 minutes ago, ReccePhreak said:

Interesting idea, but I don't know if it would work in the time frame the Royal Thai Navy would've been flying the Shackleton. I have to figure out what my WHIF time frame is, then look at what antiship weapons (Mavericks?) were in use at the time. Definitely will want torpedoes & depth charges 

I just pulled out my ESCI 1/72 Fokker F27-MK 400 MPA Maritime kit that I will be doing in RTN markings. I had some old magazine articles in it, for the RTN proposals, so I may use a lot of the weapons proposed for it. Underwing weapons pylons are a possibility, but if it's an interim aircraft, they might not have done too many mods to the original airframe & equipment.

 

Well for what it's worth the "real world" Harpoon entered service in 1977, although I believe that was initially the surface-launched variant so the AGM version may have been slightly later.  If it were my model I'd make the fictional history fit the loadout, as a mixed anti-ship and ASW on a Shack ties in well to actual kit on the Fokkers as well as Orions and Nimrods.  Though I would say self-defence AIM-9s for a Shackleton are probably a bridge too far 😆

[71chally]

The cameras specified to be fitted in the cupolas were F24s with 5in lens for the oblique rear facing positions, and F24 with 5, 8, 14 or 20 in lens for vertical photography.  Provision for K19B to be fitted aswel.  This is from the Chris Ashworth Avro Shackleton book.

However, these cameras became obsolete in the mid 1950s, so I'm guessing that they might have been replaced by something like F95s.

 

@ReccePhreak, it is a great image, amazing to think that those Javelins had barely seen any service and had very low hours on them when they ended up being broken up at the MUs.