Talk:Short Sperrin

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 Gyron engine(s) in SA/4 2nd prototype 2 Designation sequence 3 Specifications seem wrong 4 Barnes & James reference: ISBN 5 Reply

[edit] Gyron engine(s) in SA/4 2nd prototype

The image clearly shows just one Gyron fitted. Was the second one ever fitted? If so when? TraceyR 13:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

problem solved. The single Gyron was fitted to the first prototype and tested first; later the 2nd Gyron was fitted. TraceyR 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Designation sequence

Surely the Sherpa should be in there - between the Sperrin and the Seamew perhaps? TraceyR 16:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added it, though never certain where to put them if there isn't an obvious type numbering sequence in which case I tend to default to first flight. Now the Sherpa's there where does the Short SB.1 go? GraemeLeggett 17:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Sherpa was developed from the SB.1. I received the following information from Aviation Collectables, written by Rod Smith (who is, I think, Commissioning Editor at Airframer,com), but, since I'm not sure of the copyright status, I'm reluctant to place it on the main Sherpa page. I'll try to contact him and get his permission to quote from the Sherpa datasheet.

"Fortunately, very little damage had been done to the glider and, noting the comments of the pilot, it was decided to re-build the aircraft, but powered by a pair of Blackburn Engines-manufactured 3,53 lbs thrust Turbomeca Palas axial-flow turbojets. The re-designed fuselage was made in three sections, the nose of glassfibre, the centre section of light alloy and the rear fuselage of spruce and plywood. At a length of 31'10 1/2", it was almost 2' longer than the SBI and had a small fixed tricycle undercarriage. The two engines were fitted on a false deck above the centre section with intake air fed in through a NACA-type intake positioned behind the small cockpit canopy. Two fuel tanks, each holding 25 gallons, were placed under the engines and gave a flying endurance of about 45 minutes. Designated the Short SB4 and with the registration G-14-1, the silver and black aircraft was taken byroad to RAF Aldergrove from where, on 4 October 1953, Tom Brooke-Smith took it on its successful maiden flight." TraceyR 23:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Graeme, You are correct: the Seamew's first flight was August 1953, the Sherpa in October of the same year, so on that basis the Sherpa follows the Seamew. I don't think that the designation sequence necessessarly follows the date of first flight, but with little else to go on it is at least verifiable! By the same token, the SB.1 preceded the SA/4 Sperrin by 27 days! By the way, the Shorts Quarterly Review from that Autumn refers to the flight of 3 new prototypes in one year (the SB/5 also flew for the first time in 1953) as being "some justification for a certain feeling of achievement"!

[edit] Specifications seem wrong

The history seems to be contradictory. It states that the Sperrin requirements were less technically challenging than the V-bomber ones, but describes them as being exactly the same except for weight. Something appears amiss. Maury 14:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnes & James reference: ISBN

The ISBN of Barnes' and James' "Shorts Aircraft since 1900", published in 1989 by Putnam Aeronautical Books with "new material (C) from Derek James 1989" has the ISBN 0-85177-819-6, which differs from that currently contained in the reference. I think that the ISBN should be consistent. Any objections?

BTW the "British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data" includes the reference 629.133'34.

[edit] Reply

I asssume this coment is from TraceyR but nonetheless, the ISBN should be the accurate one in the source and since it does change according to editions and publisher, use the one that is given in your book. An American version, for example may be the exact same book but will not be obtainable from the the publisher via a different ISBN.

As for the code: "629.133'34" this is part of the CIP (Catologuing in Progress or Publication) information for libraries as to placement of the book in their collection. It is a Dewey Decimal number that identifies it (this is from memory now, so beware, I may make a mistake) as 6- Applied Science 2- Engineering 9- Other branches of engineering 1- Aviation 3- by type (and the numbers after the "stroke" are there for larger libraires in order to more precisely locate the book). This number is then followed usually by the authors last name so it could typically be seen the spine of a book as a label indicating "629.133 Bar" and would then be arranged with other books on the same topic or on related topics.

After all that, don't cite or quote the Dewey number. Bzuk 12:36 31 January 2007 (UTC).