Talk:Short Brothers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I think ...there seems to be no reason to suspect that the Stirling would have been an excellent heavy bomber. should probably read ... that the Stirling would not have been.... I didn't change it, as I'm not totally sure that's what you meant. -- Finlay McWalter 12:53, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Harland

So when did the government form Short & Harland Ltd? In 1936 or 1943? Momentarily the article claims both. -- 790 15:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Short Brothers type numbering

Was the company consistent with the format of its internal numbering? I know that both the SA/4 and the SB/5 were referred to in company publications using the "Sx/n" format; is this true for all type numbers? If not, when was this format adopted?

It also seems to hold that the name, once chosen, completely replaced the type number. Is there therefore a case to be made for e.g. placing the type number in brackets, e.g. "Short (SA/4) Sperrin" or "Short Sperrin (SA/4)"? Or even (since the list is on the Short Brothers page) for dropping "Short" altogether, e.g. SA/4 Sperrin or SA/4 (Sperrin) or some similar convention? It seems to me to be sensible to retain the order based on the designation. TraceyR 13:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First kill accredited to airborne torpedo from the Type 184

I have read somewhere recently that the 'kill' was actually accredited to a submarine in the battle. Has anyone firm evidence supporting either view? TraceyR 13:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

here is the source website

"On August 12, 1915, the HMS Ben-my-Chree launched a Short S.184 seaplane to attack a 5,000-ton Turkish supply ship in the Sea of Marmora. Although a torpedo hit the ship, the kill was awarded to a British submarine which had launched its own torpedoes at the same time."

A page about Oswald, Horace and Eustace Short

definitive source (?)

Guinness Book of Air Facts and Feats (3rd edition, 1977) Quoted at http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-12712.html

"The first air attack using a torpedo dropped by an aeroplane was carried out by Flight Commander C H Edmonds, flying a Short 184 seaplane from HMS Ben-My-Chree on 12 August 1915, against a 5,000 ton (5,080 tonne) Turkish supply ship in the Sea of Marmara. Although the enemy ship was hit and sunk, the captain of a British submarine claimed to have fired a torpedo simultaneously and sunk the ship. It was further stated that the British submarine E14 had attacked and immobilised the ship four days earlier.

However, on 17 August 1915 another Turkish ship was sunk by a torpedo of whose origin there can be no doubt. On this occasion Flight Commander C H Edmonds, flying a Short 184, torpedoed a Turkish steamer a few miles north of the Dardanelles. His formation colleague, Flight Lieutenant G B Dacre, was forced to land on the water owing to engine trouble but, seeing an enemy tug close by, taxied up to it and released his torpedo. The tug blew up and sank. Thereafter Dacre was able to take off and return to the Ben-My-Chree." TraceyR 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Long list of aircraft types!!

After a few weeks of trawling through the web and adding missing aircraft types to the list I feel that the list is getting very unwieldy. I'm wondering whether it might need reorganising, e.g. sorted by date of first flight (since the numbering seems to have developed sporadically over the years), perhaps with sub-headings for e.g. decades, war years etc. Aircraft for which the date is unknown can probably be placed to the nearest decade ...

I've pasted the original list in here, just in case some lines were accidentally deleted during the creation of the new list (and so that the old one can be reinstated, should there be a general outcry!). TraceyR 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

List removed (no outcry!) TraceyR 14:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Shorts Design Studies

At present there are two or three aircraft in the list of Shorts' aircraft which never got off the drawing board. I am wondering about creating a separate list for such 'aircraft', leaving the current list for types which actually flew, even if only one prototype got off the ground. The S.32 airliner and SA.9 would be moved into this new list. There are also the Preliminary Design/PD types which did not lead to an aircraft being built. Some of the PD series were extremely interesting, including an SST and an 'A380-type' 200-seater. Any comments. Thanks. TraceyR 08:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rochester

I don't wish to touch an excellent page,however two comments that would help make the Rochester wikipage easier to understand and write.

1. There is no mention of the site other Rochester site- the one at Rochester Airport, which is distinct from the Rochester Esplanade / Borstal site. I quote from that site

In 1934-5 Short brothers took over the Rochester Airport site when they moved some of their personnel from the existing seaplane works. The inaugural flight into Rochester was from Gravesend, John Parker flying their Short Scion G-ACJI. It was powered by a Pobjoy engine. Pobjoy Air Motors Ltd moved to Rochester at the same time to be closer to Short brothers to whom they were contracted for production of aircraft engines for the Short's Scion. Financial difficulties led to a capital investment by Shorts in Pobjoy and the eventual assimilation of Pobjoy.

These statements do need to be checked against a source.

2. In the section History, this should be subsectioned, with On The Isle of Sheppey, In Rochester being inserted to match First moves to Belfast. I think this gives a better overview for anyone reading the table of contents. ClemRutter 10:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Clem, Those are good points. How big was the Shorts presence at the airport site?

If each location had a subsection, we would have e.g. Battersea, Isle of Sheppey, Cardington (Bedford), Borstal/Esplanade, Airport and Belfast. I wonder whether the fact that there was some overlap, e.g. Isle of Sheppey with Cardington, Borstal with the airport, Medway with Belfast, would make it confusing. Perhaps a separate 'timeline' under history might be better. However it is done, the move was significant if it indicated a move away from dependence upon flying boats. TraceyR 10:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm whether the "move to Rochester Airport" by Shorts was connected with its business links with Pobjoy Airmotors Ltd.? Thanks TraceyR 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: Shorts also had a WW II Sunderland works at Windemere - not mentioned here but in the Short Sunderland article (under Sunderland III). TraceyR 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seaplane Experimental Station

Perhaps one could add that Short Brothers also constructed aircraft that had been designed by the Seaplane Experimental Station? I saw at least two such in the list of aircraft (the Felixstowe ones). --MoRsE 10:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done TraceyR 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First contracts for Belfast factory

'Barnes and James (Putnam)' mentions that 50 Bristol Bombays were built as well as 150 Herefords. As no source is quoted for the Hereford contract mentioned in the article, are there any objections to this entry being amended? Thanks TraceyR 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[1] British Aircraft has 150 Herefords. GraemeLeggett 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. I have added the Bombays and given references for both contracts. TraceyR 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shorts' Chief Test Pilots

I wonder whether it would be useful to provide a list of Shorts' chief test pilots in the article? I have accumulated the following list:

• Francis McClean (honorary) until 1912
• Gordon Bell 1912 - 1914
• Sydney Pickles 1913 (during Bell's absence following a crash at Brooklands)
• Ronald Kemp 1914 - 1918
• John Lankester Parker 1918 - 1945
• Geoffrey Dyson 1945 - 1946
• Harold Piper 1946 - 1948
• Tom Brooke-Smith 1948 - 1960
• Denis Tayler 1960 - 1969
• Donald Burn Wright 1969 - 1976
• any more data, anyone?

I'm not aware of such a list for other manufacturers but maybe there should be. Comments? TraceyR 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are any of these people already on Wikipedia - they shuld be included, perhaps a "list of British test pilots" is warranted. GraemeLeggett 09:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of Apostrophe

There will always be disagreement on this point, as many authorities disagree on the Exception to the singular 's rule. IMO The correct form is Shorts' as this is the local usage in Rochester. The reason it is not Shorts's(sic), is a)pronunctiation- b)Shorts is a contraction of Shorts Brothers- hence is a plural. c)Wikipedia article apostrophe. A way forward , as this article is always vunerable to this form of pedantic attack, may be to rename the section Short Brothers' Chief Test Pilots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC).True ClemRutter 09:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As the article is about Short Brothers there is no reason why the section can not be renamed Chief Test Pilots. We do not say Shorts aircraft or Shorts history for the other sections. This also removes and future apostrophe conflict. MilborneOne 12:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to sounding better. :) I'll go ahead and do that.--chris.lawson 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

King Solomon couldn't have found a better solution! BTW it's officially "Short Brothers ...", to everyone else "Shorts". TraceyR 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Short <everything> but "Shorts 330"! Any ideas as to why?

Supplementary question: All Shorts' aircraft are known as the "Short xxx" except for the "Shorts 330" and its successors, the "Shorts Sherpa" and the "Shorts 360". Has anyone an idea as to how/why this happened? I find myself wanting to add an apostrophe ;-)

I think officially they are still the Short 330 etc (although the 330/360 is also known as the the SD3-30/SD3-60 in official documents), I suspect the Shorts 330/360 came when the americans started operating it so I think it is an americanism!. Perhaps we should correct the entries !. MilborneOne 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems quite likely. I was looking into this with a view to 'correcting' the entries when I discovered that the definitive Barnes & James (2nd. rev. ed.) also refers to them as "Shorts xxx"! I haven't found a reason for this aberration yet. I wonder what Shorts says about it? Quite a few web sites refer to them as e.g. the Short 330 (approx. 11,800 compared with 24,900 for Shorts 330, but wiki-sites and their clones will skew those results), so maybe a correction is called for after all (pace Barnes and James)TraceyR 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

BAE Systems evolution

I reverted this edit because in my view it has nothing to do with Shorts and cluttered up the article without adding anything. Any comments? TraceyR 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You right, totally irrelevant to this article. Mark83 17:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it looks daft on some of the other articles as well like Auster. MilborneOne 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Short Brothers ( and Short Brothers & Harland?) also built ships. This article says nothing about that side of their activities. First ship was built in 1850, last in 1964. Mjroots (talk)

Refer to answers below regarding Short Brothers of Sunderland. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment

I've reassessed this article. It cannot meet B class when there is about 50 years of history not covered in the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont think so appears to cover from 1908 reasonably well, perhaps you could reconsider the assessment change. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the assessment back to B on the ground of a dubious change. MilborneOne (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Short Brothers of Sunderland

Just a note that Short Brothers of Sunderland [2] which started building ships in 1850 is not the same company and has nothing to do with Short Brothers the aircraft company of Kent and later Northern Ireland. MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I have removed the ship project bits from this page and when Short Brothers of Sunderland or similar has been created for the shipbuilder we can add a see also note at the top of the page. Although a number of ships built by them are in wikipedia I cant find a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Created a seperate shipbuilding article and linked. MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

R.24

In the 1930-9 aircraft section, there is an entry for the Short R.24. I can't find this in Barnes nor does it seem to be an airship; could it be the S.18, built to spec R.24/31 and known unofficially as the Knuckleduster? If so, we have an article on this already.

I've also marked a couple of non-flyers (S.A.5 = S.43 and S.A.9 = S.48) as "project only".TSRL (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnes and James (1989 ed. p.280) has a chapter "The Short R.24/31 (Knuckleduster)", so I imagine that this is the one referred to by "R.24". I think that R.24 can be removed from the list.--TraceyR (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusing wording

They manufactured the balloons at Hove, Sussex, in premises above the acoustic laboratory run by a third brother, Horace Short (2 July 1872– 6 April 1917), for Thomas Edison's European agent, Col. Gouraud

Ok, who was running what as Thomas Edison's European agent? Were the two brothers doing this? Or Horace? Or this Col. Gouraud? I suspect this statement is trying to say that Horace was running a lab for Gouraud, Edison's agent for something. Is that correct? If so, do we know what that something was? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not simply remove Horace's dates (which aren't important here) and the comma.
How about:
They manufactured the balloons at Hove, Sussex, in premises above the acoustic laboratory run for Thomas Edison's European agent, Col. Gouraud, by their brother, Horace.

The general grammar and readibility of this whole page is pretty awful - I've done my best to tidy some of it up superficially. There are far too many run-on sentences, like the one above, that add little or no information and create all sorts of ambiguities in meaning. I have clarified this sentence, with reference to Gouraud's own wiki page. It now reads "They manufactured the balloons at Hove, Sussex, in premises above the acoustic laboratory run by a third brother, Horace Short (2 July 1872– 6 April 1917). Horace had invented an acoustic amplifier, and was working with Thomas Edison's European agent, George Edward Gouraud (1842–1912), to attempt to perfect it." Andy (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing standards

Hello. Does WP:V still apply to this article? The policy says "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". However, I've made several edits attempting to remove material that needs a source, and each time they get reverted by different editors. The last reversion's edit summary was "rvv" - I was surprised that removing promotional content which has been unsourced since 2013 would count as vandalism. Can somebody explain? 193.240.174.244 (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I see User:BilCat has reverted again. BilCat, can you explain why the article is exempt from WP:V or why removing persistently-unsourced content is "disruptive vandalism"? The policy says:

Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is not in line with Wikipedia's standards is not vandalism.

You're a long-term and experienced editor so I don't understand the pattern of edits directly opposed to policy. Hopefully it's just a temporary glitch. Perhaps you could you clarify on the talkpage, rather than just clicking "Revert" and putting unsourced content back into the article...? 193.240.174.244 (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Mmm. I think I may be one of the guilty parties. I think the problem is that eliminating the whole section is going too far. I agree that it is uncited and has a cite needed tag against it, but it is unclear whether this applies to the whole section or merely the last statement. And I do agree that there is a degree of peacockery in the section as it stood.TheLongTone (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Note the the OP has been removing unsourced content across a wide range of pages with the sole comment of "still unsourced". That's not very helpful. Yes, unsourced content may be removed, but removal isn't required in all cases. Some reason needs to be given, and continually removing content over and over with the same vague comment is disruptive/vandalistic. - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I cant see a reason why the Apprentice Scheme is mentioned it appears to be no different than hundreds of such schemes in industry and nothing indicates it being any more noteworthy than the others - suggest we just delete it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's nearly two years later with no sources, so I've removed it. BilCat (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Confusion

Why is the logo for Short Brothers the Bombardier logo? It seems kind of confusing.JTZegers (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's how Bombardier brands the company. e.g. the whole site in Belfast has Bombardier logos, not Short Brothers logos. Mark83 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead and infobox are now confusing and need amending following the 27/11/20 edit by Lcb500. I have no knowledge of the fact, but it is impossible to deduce who owns the company, who is the parent and so on. Is Bombardier still connected?Lexysexy (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Good shout. This is no longer correct. Spirit Aerosystems is now the sole owner with Bombardier no longer connected. I have removed the logo and updated mentions of Spirit Aerosystems purchasing > purchased. Mark83 (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)