Airspeed wrote:Back again, Rich!
Perhaps in your honest opinion, "proper" ones have tail wheels, but according to Rob's README and my Encyclopedia of world aircraft,[ISBN 1 86309 436 9] the MR3 was given a tricycle undercarriage among other crew comforts. I'm no expert (just ask the others round here), but it seems that the facts are on Rob's side.
Hi Mike,
It was a tongue in cheek reference to the fact the MR3 was a substantial redesign and shares very little with its earlier siblings of the same name. MR1, MR2, AEW2 and T4 were all the Type 696, the MR3 was the Type 716.
The MR3 was an upgrade in many ways - there's not much difference internally by way of crew comforts as the old MR2 got upgraded to Phase 3 to match it, but the tricycle undercarraige was steerable and offered better visibility over the nose - so taxying was less of a challenge. The brakes were also hydraulic (less prone to the 'die off' the pneumatic brakes on the tailwheel Shacks suffer, and it was also equipped with the Maxaret anti lock braking system. Personal preference for me is for the tailwheel variant, as they have the 'DNA' of the Lancaster very evident, but the MR3 is still a Shackleton, and thats good enough.
That and I'm lucky in that I can run one up every now and again. Here's a photo of WR963 this Saturday, posted across on the Flypast magazine forum.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachme ... 1380398111
Regards,
Rich