Talk:Short Singapore

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
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
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

Article much improved by recent edits :-). Winstonwolfe 03:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length

The specifications quotes the length of the aircraft as 64 ft - while the reference and some written sources 9William Green, warplanes of the Second World War, Volume 5 Flying Boats) agree with this, others (i.e the Encyclopedia of World Aircraft) disagree - any idea what is the right one? Nigel Ish 17:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps there is some confusion because of the three different boats, AJ Jackson's British Civil Aircraft since 1919 has the Singapore I at 65ft 6in, the Orbis Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft has 76ft 0in for the Singapore III. MilborneOne 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - the usual suspects of measuring length tail down or hull excluding vertical cannot explain it. I wonder whether the addition of the tail gun position could possibly be an explanation? Winstonwolfe 03:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going for the shorter one - its seems to be quoted by more recent sources (and more of them - and seems to scale right on drawings Nigel Ish 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)