Wo ist?

growingknowledge Airial water bomber

Did ya meet Eugene Terrablanche

@@ianmangham4570 No. Why do you ask?

@@greggvee4 If I ever want to know something I ask.

@@ianmangham4570 It's a strange question to ask as it has nothing to do with the subject matter in the video.

The South Africans have had some of the best pilots in the world for years, they had a great reputation in the UK during WW2

here you get both!

Maybe you'd better get your hearing checked because there's a lot more "voiceover" with engines running than music playing and more music playing over "survivor" commentary than over "engines running".

OKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKOKO OOK OK OK

Same with damn people yowling when I want to hear the V- bomber roar.

That is a very good guestion.

Gary please make a video story of that !

One of the most fascinating stories I've ever read.

Most gorgeous ever? Really? I respect your opinion.. just extremely surprising!

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pNGAdpp73MzLmGQ.html if you haven't already found it

Could you explain that comment more thouroughly? During the Cold War we all knew even as schoolchildren, we were a target for soviet missiles be they from a Tupolev Bear or a Soviet nuclear missile submarine. And I believe we all understood the RAF were in the very front line of our defence against the threat the Soviet Union posed. So really we DID know what was in those guys minds........."Get the bastards before they can launch an attack on our wives and children"

I have seen it snow in July here in the states a couple of times, Maybe that's what he was describing. A freak arctic blast coming out of Zimbabwe? It could happen! lol

It was a wintery morning - in February. It is possible. I wasn't being literal - obviously.

When and where was that in the "states"? Alaska? Thunderstorms are "common" in the "states" in winter months. That doesn't make February "summer". Because "winter" and "summer" aren't determined by "weather", Mr. Meteorologist. Stop making excuses for the "British" idiocy as a fake "American".

The SAF had an enviable record and was admired by pilots from all over the world. The fact that this plane crashed is no reflection whatsoever on the crew that re-built it. Shit happens.

With a name likeTertuis,the pilot's lucky you didn't bring down that copter with your mighty slingshot,and commence to dishing out an ass whippin for disturbing ur play.

@Hansel Franzen Afrikaans?

Yes afrikaans 👍

Because it's near impossible. There are no roads there, no ports, no gas stations.

And for your limited information I have to tell you the Shackleton owed much more to the Lincoln than the Lancaster, saying that were talking about a Lancaster that could carry an enormous amount without breaking, at a guess I'd say your one of our American cousins?

Sadly, MOST multi-engine cannot maintain flight for long when an engine was lost. As an A&P Technician, and those in the aviation maintenance industry, we had a saying that, once you lose an engine,.the rest of the engines will fly you all the way to the crash site. Sure, you can go some distance on the remaining engine(s) but you'd best have PLENTY of altitude if you hope to go far. At lower altitudes you'd BEST be looking for some place agreeable to a forced landing. Preferably one with few to NO rocks, trees, gullies or other obstructions.

Shut up

That's a pity because our aviation industry were at the top of their game in the late forties and 50's and produced some wonderful aircraft, such as the Shackleton the work horse Coastal Command, the maritime arm of the RAF, and the V bomber force, our nuclear deterrent , the Valiant, Victor and last but certainly not least the Vulcan. Then we have the English Electric Lightning a pure thoroughbred racehorse and a world beater of Mach2 proportions. The Hunter, the Buccaneer. All excellent aircraft. I think you may well enjoy programmes made about all these wonderful British planes designed and built for the RAF.

Look under the video it tells you where to find it.

I used to be on 8 Sqn but had been posted by the time that terrible tragedy occurred. I cried when I heard the news and the weirdest thing, i was tidying the garage the other day and found a copy of a newspaper with the headline and then read a load of old twaddle on how unreliable they were. We engineers lavished attention on each and everyone of them.

The info is under the video.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pNGAdpp73MzLmGQ.html

DEATH OF PELICAN-16. Avro Shackleton Crash. PART-2

You would be hard pressed to find a more experienced crew. Two engines out on the same side and one wouldn't feather due to a broken rack bolt.... she wasn't going to stay in the air.

How would that even happen? Do you think they mistakenly reinstalled the firewall and engine mounts two feet further back than they should have?

15:41 It looks like the engine that quit out of Libreville was the #1 engine. Maybe they replaced it with a different model?

@@skydiverclassc2031 the wing has a swept leading edge. Look at a Shackleton directly from the side and you'll see the outboard engines are set back about 2 ft from the inner ones.

That's probably a specification change made to help to protect the equipment installed on board. It wasn't unknown for heavy landings in RAF Shackletons to damage items you really didn't want to damage, particularly the equipment domes on the belly. Some later RAF variants of them did also have tricycle undercarriages, the tail draggers had the equipment domes much further forward, a system that could see the equipment inside subject to EM interference from the engines and other equipment on board so it may have become necessary to change equipment positioning and therefore undercarriage arrangement as the equipment carried was updated and became more sensitive. It could also have been changed for the benefit of crew training as a lot fewer pilots during the operational life of the aircraft would have had any experience flying large tail draggers...

@@gosportjamie Thank you so much for your competent answer. Very much appreciated.

The Shackleton MR3 was a replacement for the MR2 (taildragger) introduced from 1957. It was designed to be easier to handle on the ground - it had nosewheel steering, better visibility, better brakes. The last RAF ones were the taildragger as they had 12 aircraft available to convert to Airborne Early Warning duties that had plenty of fatigue life remaining.

They were pretty tough and reliable old planes, if temperamental. Just look how long they were in service. As the introduction says, the Shackleton is considered to be the most advanced and complex piston-engine aircraft ever built. Pretty amazing for an aircraft that is very closely related to a WW2 bomber...

@David Vance I imagine part of the reason was operational economy. They were designed to be in the air for long periods, and the Merlin is a very thirsty engine. There's no point in having an aircraft capable of long operating duration if you need to be back on the ground every few hours to keep the engines fed...

Reminds one of that B29 (from WW2) that was in Greenland and being recovered....whole damn thing went up in flames (1994) because of impatience and a failure of the crew to tie-down the APU/or heater. And of course, the Pilot was blaming everything thing and the sun but himself and his crew for that piece of History never returning back to the USA .

According to my notifications, Hartog Blok came here and deposited this little turd, then then apparently removed it: "What drivel." Thank you. It's difficult to refer to facts as "drivel" and hope to retain any semblance of credibility isn't it?

Hartog Blok posted then apparently deleted: "I decided not to engage. You after all know the build up, what happened technically and operationally far better than myself. I was after all only the crew captain. One always encounters less than pleasant persons on these sites - you're one of them. My name is there for everyone to see - unlike you. And I don't feed trolls. Good bye." Why did he do that? He employed a screed of contradictory sarcasm and insincerity in an apparent attempt to discredit my comment and appear to position himself ABOVE the obviously necessary debate. That's rather ironic for the person claiming to be "the crew captain" on an aircraft rebuild project that experienced no less than THREE engine failures, two of which caused it to crash land - almost killing everyone on board! But let's not labour that point huh? The important point to note is that he also avoids offering any explanation for the failures. And finally, he doesn't mention whether he was the crew captain on the next SUCCESSFUL rebuild of the other aircraft - which was only necessary due to the catastrophic failure of the project upon which he was the crew captain! I wonder why...? The fact is there was negligence and it was covered up. This type of behaviour is why the RIGHT lessons are not learned from such situations. No one wants to admit they were wrong. And no one wants to point out the obvious. That's cowardly and retarded behaviour. Make no mistake about it, this type of negligence kills people. Hartog Blok, you can't employ sarcasm to pretend you don't need to defend yourself, then run away like a little schoolboy bleating: "It didn't happen, It didn't happen". Your conduct here has only reinforced my original suspicion. The appropriate oil level checks would have revealed an anomaly in the amount of oil used. The appropriate oil level gauge checks would have revealed whether they were faulty. The appropriate safety checks would have revealed whether the aircraft was safe to fly. Who was ultimately responsible for all these checks NOT being carried out correctly? Hartog Blok, you say I don't use my real name on YT. But you should know where the aircraft in my icon was operational and when. I know what it means to have others depending upon my professionalism, and what a great responsibility that is. Stop running away and pretending.

Die beste stuurman sit aan wal!

Martin Eastburn I think number 4 was finished if you recall the bright glow coming from that engine that lit up the cockpit. It was close to catching fire. Bloody disaster having both engines and feathering abilities fail on the same side.

Yup, they were used for a very long time before eventually being replaced by the Nimrod. It was ideal of anti-submarine warfare work as it could fly very low and very slow. There are numerous stories of Shackletons returning from operations in the Atlantic during winter with sea water in the fuselage where they had been skimming the wave tops flying search patterns...

Not at high temp over the Sahara with one of those engines propeller refusing to feather properly. And the one engine flypast (Farnborough 1953) started with a long dive in to gain airspeed.

No. It was narrated in London by John Dixon.

salpairadice I don't hear an accent Perspective mate

It's kinda funny that when someone is speaking English with English accent, subtitles are needed!

Michael His dentures are loose...

It was the '90s...

I don't think I've ever seen "Nat Geo" do an aircraft documentary. And since "Nat Geo" documentaries only show up on "public television" in the U.S. any "profiteering" would probably only benefit the publisher. And of course whoever "Nat Geo" paid off at whatever "government agency" or "museum" (or perhaps both even if the agency and museum are a single entity). If the "filmmaker" lost money as he claims, the "museum" sure as hell didn't if any money was "made" at all from "DVD sales". Interesting someone selling DVDs would let their "money-losing" documentary get uploaded to KZfaq for "free" given that "monetization" and "making money" on "free" content on KZfaq generally only begins at a relatively high number of "views". Also interesting is a bunch of "volunteers'" apparently being prohibited from telling their own near-death "story" since the "prohibition" on any "documentary" of that aircraft/flight was apparently total until someone came along promising that "museum" a cut. Of course it certainly isn't exactly POSITIVE propaganda that a bunch of "retired" volunteers who were "professional" pilots, navigators, engineers etc. and who were "given" taxpayer property to "restore" and return "home" for what was probably supposed to be a "jubilee" for the "40th year" of the queen's "reign" (of course starting with 1953 as "year zero" of her reign and counting with zero the way apparently many "Commonwealth citizens" do) and an obvious PR stunt to remind "Commonwealth citizens" just who was still "head of state" regardless of who was "elected president" in a "Commonwealth" country, nation, realm, territory, overseas possession, mandate etc. And at some point orders were probably given to destroy the evidence of the inability for "professionals" from the RAF and/or "South African Air Force" to make it "home" to the "UK" with a series of short "hops" in what was supposed a "long-endurance" aircraft capable of flying several thousand miles "non-stop". Oh wait, all those "hops" up the east coast of Africa were ALSO propaganda stunts to remind THOSE "citizens" of the "Commonwealth" who was "boss" flying a "bomber" into their little 3rd World countries.

@@deeremeyer1749 What a Jackass you are! The video does not make one cent on KZfaq because it cannot be monetised because of music rights. Why don't you pull you head out of you know where and find some facts before throwing stupid, pointless and baseless accusations. Or, don't watch. Neither the crew or the filmmaker (me) earn a dime from any of this. Its put on KZfaq here with the approval of the remaining crew members - for most people to enjoy and a few jackasses to find fault with.

You’re not trying hard enough. It’s a fairly simple to understand South African accent. Not difficult.

That's not British mumbling, that's South African. The voice-over man is the only British (English) accent in this documentary, and he's so clear my dear old gran could understand every word, and she's been dead for 20 years. So pick up your misplaced stereotype, glue it on a stick, and use it to clear your ears out. Perfectly understandable, and a very interesting documentary. (If you ask nicely, someone might subtitle it for you).

Ben, critique is vitally necessary for anyone to be able to assess something from another alternative perspective and potentially learn from said critique to better oneself and the work one does. I thank you for your view point, but I would also encourage you to broaden your horizons a bit and be a bit more open to allow yourself the capability of growth as well. Cheers.

Ben Rumson Obviously you know nothing about anything, just another Troll !

May Day, May Day, Troll alert ! This vid is very interesting and informative ,except for trolls .

what a stupid comment to make, just because the accents are not your own.