Talk:Supermarine Walrus

Private Venture
The Seagull V was a private-venture development of the original Seagull III, it was similar in layout apart from the engines and a metal-hull. This is not what the development section says? any sources? MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have several sources, particularly the Profile on the type, Thetford's Naval Aircraft & the Nicholls monograph. There's no clear consensus: it seems that the type was designed as a private-venture response to a RAAF requirement. Had it actually been developed specifically to a requirement, I imagine that a) they would have built it more quickly & b) not handed it to the Brtish forces for evaluation.TheLongTone (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I need to remember where I got the idea from two and half years ago! MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thetford spcifically says it was a PV. The Profile says there was an initial contract, although they it does not say wht this covered. Its all very ambiguous: there's probably a couple of memos in the Austalian archives which would clarify the matter. I think the wordingfor the article at pesent, though vague, is appropriate. But as I say above, its difficult to understand why development was such a low priority if there was a proper contract: my guess is that there was some vague memorandum of understanding.TheLongTone (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * London's British Flying Boats and his article in Air Enthusiast No. 74 both indicate the prototype was built as a Private Venture, with no money changing hands until the contract was signed in 1934. Much of the British evaluation appears to have been done on behalf of the Australians (presumably as no-one really wanted to wait a few months for a prototype to be put on a ship to the Antipodes for the aircraft to be evalauted.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks: gives a majority for 'Private venture'. There must have been some sort of arrangement between the RAAF & the Air Ministry, since it wasn't really an aircraft the RAF wanted. All I have is fairly reticent on the bureaucracy involved.
 * The Air Enthusiast article has a quote from the Air Ministry Director of Technical Development on seeing the prototype's hull under construction: "...very interesting; but of course we have no requirement for anything like this". (London Air Enthusiast March/April 1998, p. 35.)Nigel Ish (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Supermarine Walrus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130115013955/http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P09281.982 to http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P09281.982
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303213915/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12893405/Flying%20the%20Supermarine%20Walrus.pdf to https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12893405/Flying%20the%20Supermarine%20Walrus.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)