Talk:Short Sperrin/Archive 1

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)

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"!

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)


 * The Sperrin specification was drawn up first hence the earlier spec number, B.14/46, B.35/46 being later in sequence, the second two figures denoting the year of issue - in this case 1946


 * B.35/46 required a swept wing and much greater height over the target, 55,000 feet, plus a higher speed of at least 550 knots. This would put the aircraft into the realms of compressibility and so a more advanced (transonic) wing design than the one acceptable for the (subsonic) B.14/46 would be needed. In 1946 no-one had as yet broken the sound barrier, Chuck Yeager only doing so a year later in 1947. So the B.35/46 designs were seen as very risky aerodynamically and B.14/46 (the Sperrin) was used as insurance against B.35/46 encountering delays, as the Sperrin had a more aerodynamically-simpler straight wing. Two years later Vickers proposed a more advanced design than the Sperrin with better performance, but not quite as risky or with quite the performance of B.35/46, but able to enter service sooner, and this was accepted and a specification - B.9/48 - drawn up around it. This became the Valiant.


 * Hence the Sperrin was ordered first, then the B.35/46 (Vulcan and Victor), followed two years later by the B.9/48, the Valiant. The Sperrin was cancelled, the Valiant - as promised by Vickers - entered service first, followed some time later by IIRC, the Vulcan, and then Victor.


 * BTW, at 55,000 feet the speed of sound is approximately 573 knots, so B.35/46 was calling for a speed performance very near to Mach 1 at a time before the 'sound barrier' had itself been broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.5 (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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.

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).

Short Brothers and Harland
Short Brothers and Harland should be abbeviated "Shorts" in the title, not 'short' that implies small. Also, the bits presently under Vickers Valiant on the Sperrin and Sherpa, should be transferred to this entry.

Ian Strachan Ian Strachan 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In referencing a number of sources, there is a preponderance of "Short" rather than "Shorts" although this latter name was obviously used. It appears to be similar to the conumdrum of "Glosters" and "Gloster." For a check on the proper usage, look up "Short Sunderland" in comparison with "Shorts Sunderland" or "Short Stirling", etc. As to the connection to the other V-bomber programmes, there can be mention of the Sperrin being superceeded by other designs, but this article should continue to be about the Sperrin. IMHO Bzuk 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
 * When referring to the company it's Shorts (plural), as there were two brothers. When referring to a product of the company then its Short. Also Sperrin doesn't need to be in quotes as it's the proper name of the aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.15 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would endorse the previous comment, based on the aircraft names given in Barnes & James (Putnam 1989) which can be considered definitive. Throughout the history of Shorts there is one exception, the Shorts 330 family, which are referred to as the Shorts 330 (sometimes 3-30), the Shorts Sherpa and Shorts 360 (or 3-60). Scanning through Barnes & James I haven't found a reason given for this change of naming convention. For the Tucano the company reverted to the traditional form. --TraceyR (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Concrete
A myth has grown up about these so-called concrete shapes. There is no real hard-evidence that they ever existed in the form alluded to here. And I worked on Blue Danube casing design and manufacture in the early 1950's. What I recollect, and is backed up by documents in the National Archives, is that 1:24 scale ballistic drop test models (that I worked on) for Canberra drop tests, and full-scale models for Python-Lincoln drop tests at Woomera had a moveable steel cylindrical weight filled with concrete ballast. Movable in order to adjust centre of gravity. Drawings of these appear in the PRO at ES1/44. By the time the Sperrin became available in April 1953 for drop tests from RAF Woodbridge, the bomb design was pretty well finalised, with the first delivery to RAF Wittering in November 1953. While it's true that the RAF did not possess any test aircraft that could carry Blue Danube to the height and speed achieved by the V-bombers, and the Sperrin came closest, the earlier development done using the Python-Lincoln achieved 34,800 feet and 275 kts, and that was probably sufficient given the time contraints.

The drop tests were not solely concerned with ballistic properties, but also with stability at release, unexpected requirement for forced ejection from the bomb bay, the mechanical complexity of the flip-out tail under release conditions (and the tails breaking off), non-functioning of the barometric sensors at transonic speeds, and numerous other radar fuzing related issues. A "concrete shape" could do nothing to address those issues. 86.149.111.214 (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

History is confusing
The first para talks about B.14 but then proceeds immediately into B.35. The second para then talks about B.35, clearly outlining something that's identical to the first para. I suspect the first is supposed to be different than it currently is? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, looking back at the article state in 2009 its significantly different. An edit in 2011   resequenced the paragraps. I shall have to see if I can't get hold of Buttler's Secret Projects book which will have the sequence of decisions and the specs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)