Talk:Short Sunderland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

We have 5 different versions of the Sunderland, all with different specifications. How would this fit into the table? Sennheiser! 14:19, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

MOVING CONTENT HERE BRIEFLY



The head of the design team was Arthur Gouge, later Sir Arthur Gouge. The design he produced, the Short "S.23", was a clean and elegant aircraft, with a wingspan of 35 m (114 ft), a length of 27 m (88 ft), an empty weight of 10.9 tonnes (24,000 pounds), and a loaded weight of 18.4 tonnes (40,500 pounds).

The S.23 was powered by four Bristol Pegasus engines, each providing 686 kW (920 HP). Cruise speed was 265 km/h (165 mph), and maximum speed was 320 km/h(200 mph). The S.23 featured a new hull design and a new flap scheme to reduce landing speed and run. The big flying boat had two decks: an upper deck for the flight crew and mail, and a lower deck with luxury passenger accommodations.

The first S.23, named "Canopus", flew on 4 July 1936. The S.23s were the first of a series of Shorts flying boats for commercial service, collectively known as the "Empire" boats. A total of 41 S.23s were built, all with names beginning with the letter "C", and so they were referred to as the "C-class" boats.

While the S.23 was a great step forward for Short Brothers, it was still not quite the equal of the big Sikorsky and Boeing Clippers that were opening up worldwide commercial routes. The S.23 was relatively overweight and restricted in range and payload. Nonetheless, it performed reliable service in connecting the United Kingdom with the distant regions of the British Empire: South Africa, India, Singapore, Australia.


The limited range of the C-class boats meant that they could not operate on the high-profile transatlantic route, which was an embarrassment. In 1937, the second and third C-class boats, the Caledonia and Cambria, were stripped down and given additional fuel tanks to make the transatlantic run, though their payload was minimal.

The British were so desperate to stay in the race for transatlantic commercial flight that they then came up with an extraordinary scheme, in which a beefed-up variant of the S.23 carried a smaller four-engine floatplane, the "S.20". A single example, with the carrier aircraft named Maia and the piggyback S.20 named Mercury, with flight tests in 1937 leading to a mid-air launch of Mercury in 1938.

The Maia-Mercury scheme amounted to little more than a stopgap and a publicity stunt while Short Brothers worked on a better solution. In 1938, they delivered the first of an improved C-class boat, the "S.30", with Pegasus 22 engines providing 753 kW (1,010 HP) each.

Eight S.30s were built, with four configured for mid-flight refueling from Handley-Page Harrow cargo aircraft. Limited transatlantic operations were conducted in coordination with Harrow tankers operating out of Ireland and Newfoundland, until World War II intervened and put a stop to the flights. Another C-class variant, the "S.33", never got into production.

However, three of the bigger and better "S.26" G-class boats were built, with the first, the Golden Hind, delivered in September 1939. The S.26 boats were powered by four Bristol Hercules engines, each providing 1,030 kW (1,380 HP). The G-class boats had a loaded weight of 34 tonnes (75,000 pounds), a range of more than 4,800 km (3,000 miles), and were intended for transatlantic mail shipment.

During World War II, the Empire boats were pressed into military service. Four S.30s were used for ocean patrol, fitted with twin Boulton-Paul turrets, each with four 7.7 mm (0.303 caliber) machine guns and racks for external stores. The three S.26 G-class boats were fitted with three Boulton-Paul quad turrets. Only one of these seven, an S.26, survived military service. It returned to commercial operation until scrapped in 1954.

The Empire boats would be little more than a footnote in aviation history except for the fact that this family of aircraft included a military type, the "S.25" or "Sunderland", which would become one of the most famous flying boats ever built.

Contents

[edit] Sunderland at Pembroke Dock

Any mention of the Sunderlands at Pembroke Dock. During WWII Pembroke Dock was the largest flying boat base in the UK (maybe the world)

My Uncle Wallace Dan came over from Australia, trained on Lough Neagh (probably near Ram's Island where I now sail), then worked as a wireless operator / tail gunner out of Pembroke Dock. Sorry but no idea about squadron etc. He didn't enjoy Northern Ireland.

The factory still has a launching slip into Belfast Lough. Can't cite a reference but I have stood on it!

[edit] Radar

You might try RV Jones "Most Secret War" for general info on homing in on radar transmitters. As metox was passive (a listener) the German establishment would not have believed such a story, but crews (air and sea) are notoriously superstitious. The UK bomber crews believed their H2S sets "deflected" the German radar aimed searchlights, for instance, and continued to operate them long after it was proven that German nightfighters were homing in on the emissions and a general order was issued to only operate H2S over the target.

[edit] Smooth liar.

I'm not comfortable with the paragraph in which a British prisoner, having hood-winked the Germans, is referred to as a "smooth liar". This infers that the prisoner was an adept habitual liar! Couldn't this section be re-worded to present the prisoner in a better light for potentially saving many lives? How about: "There is a story that a British prisoner, having concocted some believable lies, confused them (the Germans) into thinking that the aircrart were homing in on the Cross of Biscay"? --Red Sunset 19:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smooth liar (2)

I suppose one could argue that such a description does not fit in with the tone of a factual encyclopædia! I also find the sentence slightly confusing. How about:

"There is a story that a British prisoner confused the Germans by claiming that the aircraft were homing in on the signals emanating from their own Metox system."

It sounds less racy, but it is more objective. One could argue that, since it is probably unverifiable, it should be omitted altogether, unless someone can come up with a source reference. TraceyR 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year TraceyR and thanks for your response. I'm inclined to agree with you that maybe the unsubstantiated reference should be deleted, however, I do like your version better than my own suggestion. I don't want to steal your work so I'll let you make the changes if you wish to do so. By the way, I note your interest in Short Bros generally! --Red Sunset 22:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks and best wishes to you too. I have done as you suggested and amended the Sunderland article. Yes Shorts was my entree into this Wiki world. I realised nthat I had some information on a few Shorts aircraft which were missing and was soon burning the midnight oil, learning how to create and edit articles! I can remember, as a young lad, standing directly below a Sperrin, looking up into the open bomb-bay as my father explained that it was designed for some secret type of bomb ... ! Thanks to researching for the Sperrin article I discovered that he had flown the 2nd Prototype Sperrin on its first flight! TraceyR 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First-class Royal Mail post.

Can anyone help in respect of the sentence which starts:

"In 1934, the British Postmaster General declared that all first-class Royal Mail sent overseas was to travel by air,...."

To my knowledge, a two-class postal service didn't come into effect in Britain until 1968, so the mention of first-class mail seems inappropriate in this instance. Maybe the inference of the statement should be that urgent overseas mail was to be given the opportunity of travelling by air, at an additional cost, as opposed to by sea. I'm on un-sure ground here, so maybe someone can put me straight on this point, or perhaps re-word the article if it is indeed incorrect.--Red Sunset 18:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here: After the introduction of the Empire Airmail Scheme, which wished that all the overseas First Class mail could be carried by aviation. The Post Office decided to arrange another mail contract with fewer payments to P&O due to smaller amount of mail to be carried by P&O in the future.47 TraceyR 11:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged TraceyR, that appears to confirm the "first-class" status. Now I'm happy!--Red Sunset 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seaford first flight

The article gives the date of the first flight of the Seaford as "April 45" (but no reference).

WW2 aircraft site gives 30 August 1944.

Any comments?TraceyR 11:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The site [1] contains the entry for 1944: "30 sierpnia - oblot prototypu brytyjskiej czterosilnikowej łodzi latającej Short "Seaford" (nr ewid. MZ269)."

I've checked that the Czech for August is "srpen" so I think that is confirmation of the first flight date! I'm checking with a language site that it says what I think it says TraceyR 11:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

confirmation: 30 August 1944 - test flight of the prototype British 4-engine flying-boat Short Seaford (nr. MZ269). Join wikipedia to learn Polish! TraceyR 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survivors

Does anyone have any information on surviving Short Sunderlands around the world? Might be an interesting addition to the article. Some time ago I found this article in a Norwegian newspaper [2] about the discovery of a Sunderland in the Trondheimsfjord, just outside Trondheim in Norway. Although in Norwegian there are some quite interesting (although rather unclear) photos in the article. According to the divers who found the wreck, the plane is relatively complete and in good condition. Apparently the plane was towed out into the fjord and sunk on 7. November 1945, after having caught fire during dismantling at the harbour. Grumpy444grumpy 11:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked here? Sunderlands page
There seem to be a few preserved (one referred to a last flight in 1996!) TraceyR 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Great pictures! It certainly confirms that the Trondheim wreck indeed is a Sunderland (there is an element of doubt in the newspaper article). There are loads of wrecks like that lying around the coast of Norway, though. Apparently they still belong to the British crown, whereas German wrecks are the property of the Norwegian state. So, if you've got the money and the right permissions..... Grumpy444grumpy 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2nd, 1943 Story

This story does not seem to be confirmed from German side. The book "bloody biscay" by Criss Goss does not list any losses by V./KG 40 on that date, and that unit was the only one to fly the Ju 88C in the fighter role over the Biscay at the time. Two days later the unit lost a Ju 88 and its crew in a landing accident and a week earlier one was shot down by a Beaufighter, but no losses were suffered on this day. V./KG 40 claimed two Sunderlands on that day, one being identified as another aircraft and the second unconfirmed. This one is maybe the Sunderland that claimed six Ju 88s. Air gunners of all nations were notorious in overclaiming, which is hardly suprising as an air gunner normally cannot follow his victim down or confirm its impact as a single fighter pilot can. So it seems nobody shot down anything that day, but the story "aussies got Leslie Howards killers" certainly was a morale booster at the time.JCRitter 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Now that considerable and excellent work has been done by Linmhall and others to add references and citations to the article, I think that the {{Refimprove}} can be removed. Any objections? --TraceyR (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to disagree TraceyR, despite these welcome additions there are numerous facts and figures throughout the article where no references have been cited, either inline or at the end of paragraphs. Of particular note are the following entirely unreferenced sections:
  • Equipment and on-water management
  • Access and servicing
  • Beaching
  • Damage control
  • Prototype
  • Sunderland Marks I, II, IV and V
  • Transport variants-Hythe and Sandringham

The first four of these (which collectively cover the routine day-to-day operating procedures of the type and constitute a large proportion of the article) are all very interesting, but without citing references these sections could be considered as OR. This is a comprehensive article that might make GA if it was more thoroughly referenced. Keep up the good work! --Red Sunset 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tracey, I just did a cursory "sweep" and found numerous instances of spelling and format errors that have been introduced recently. I have to agree with Rob's assessment above and question some of the new changes: "on-water management"?! I have never come across that term. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC).
I must agree with much of the above, in that there are larges swathes of (as yet) unreferenced material, which justify the use of the tag (which I admit I misread to mean "there are no citations"!). The problem is that, as far as I know, much of this material cannot be found anywhere else and as such needs to be preserved somewhere. Wikipedia may not be the primary place for it: would it be acceptable if it were to be published elsewhere on the web (e.g. on a blog site) and the respective sections of the article cross-referenced to it there? I must admit that I find the Wikipedia definition of OR to be a little restrictive in such contexts or possibly not 100% relevant! --TraceyR (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
TraceyR, I agree it would be a pity to lose this material since it gives an insight into the everyday problems encountered while operating the aircraft, but your comments suggest that it is OR, and as you are aware the wiki has strong feelings on the matter. Naturally, it would be ideal if you could find reliable sources to back it all up, but ongoing events on the F-4 Phantom FARC have put the "mockers" on expecting web-based sources to be acceptable – even Baugher and Goebel – so I wouldn't like to put money on a blog site hacking it! Other, more experienced editors may have better suggestions for sorting it all out without compromising the article, but I think that removing the operating procedures sections temporarily pending refs might be the best course of action. It could be copied to the talk page for the time being, or, and this is a bit iffy, enclose it in an invisible comment box together with an explanatory note. Just something to think about. (Additional comment) I've just read your past note on Linmhall's talk page and am in complete sympathy with you over this – it's a little bit of history that deserves to be documented somewhere.
Bill, I note you have removed non-breaking spaces as well as written units within the text which as you know are preferred WP:MoS guidelines. Personally I'm not bothered either way since it doesn't materially affect the article and nothing is carved in stone; however, if a MoS-stickler reviews the article for GA at some time, this is the type of thing that could make the difference. BTW Bill, I think neither Marskell nor SandyGeorgia will be swayed from their positions, but nice work trying! --Red Sunset 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Rob, I began to notice a propensity for an editor who contributed to this aricle to use not only the non-breaking space format but in hyphenating every two word unit and in frustration, I just set my computer to replace these. I live for the day when that "nefarious" tag team shows up again (just kidding- I thought their work was essential but highly flawed as I observed multiple instances of not following logical or commonplace formatting). FWIW, I had seen much better editing and gave them very short shrift especially when they did their "after you, Gaston; no, no after you, Anton" routine. Bzuk (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC).


[edit] Preserved aircraft

This article would benefit from a section giving details of those aircraft still extant, and their locations. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)