Talk:Short SC.1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 Aircraft specifications 2 Ground effect 3 Infobox dates 4 New category?

[edit] Aircraft specifications

Graeme:

I have checked the referenced R & M 3584 (and R & M 3313 which discusses the ground effect on the SC.1) and both sources give the wing area as 221.5 ft²: Which source did you use for the wing area of 141.9 ft²?

I have distinguished between total length (including nose boom), derived from the line drawings in R & M 3584 and that given on p.22 (25.5 ft excl. nose boom). The specifications template doesn't cater for this distinction, so for now I have use the 'alt' entry for this purpose. There must be a better way ... ?

Thanks for your help with the new Shorts aircraft entries. TraceyR 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ground effect

There seems to some confusion about which phenomenon is meant by this term. When R & M 3313 was written in 1963, "ground effect" referred to loss of net verical thrust due to recirculation of air masses. The wiki entry on ground effect refers however to a gain in lift experienced by convention aircraft wings when flown close to the ground. The losses due to recirculation are apparently now known as the vortex ring effect, but this may be sprecific to rotary wing aircraft. I note from a couple of the references cited in R & M 3313 that "ground proximity effect" was an earlier term.

I have raised the subject on the vortex ring talk page ...

Can anyone help here? Thanks TraceyR 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right, what was meant was ingestion of the air from the SC.1's jet efflux. i.e., the jet exhaust 'bouncing' off the ground and then re-entering the engine air intakes resulting in a loss of thrust. This was most apparent on a newly-mown grass airfield, where the grass cuttings would be blown out and up by the lift-jet exhaust and then re-circulated into the lift engine intakes, clogging the wire mesh grilles. Ian Dunster 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox dates

I see no point in replacing the "<year> in aviation" link by a date link - how does this help? I have changed it back. TraceyR 11:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New category?

Is there a category for aircraft with 5-engines? ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TraceyR (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC).