Talk:Short Sturgeon

Infobox header

I don't believe that the manufacturer's name should be included in the "name" line of the infobox - it duplicates the "manufacturer" line. While SB 9 may be mentioned in the caption, IMHO it should also be in the header as part of the "proper name" of the aircraft - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: My changes are based on BillCJ who has re-added linked manufacturer's name to Intro per WP:AIR Page content guidelines. I think it is the best way to quickly show the common or familiar name of the aircraft in the article. Bzuk 20:18 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I that is a separate issue. Ericg, the Project's resident Infobox guru, has been pretty aggressive at taking the comany out of the name field of the infobox. Unless it just looks totally ridiculous without the company name, (ie. 757, 767, etc.), I don't have a problem with leaving the company out of this field. But as this a bigger issue than one or two pages, we should probably take it up at the main project talk page. - BillCJ 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

S.A.1

Are S.A.1 and S.A.2 FAA or Shorts designations?

Barnes' "Shorts Aircraft since 1900" states that the the S.A.1 and S.A.2 were initially assigned the "next vacant numbers in the design index" S.38 and S.39, but following Shorts' adoption in 1945 of the "universal designation system recommended by the S.B.A.C. ... the two designs were re-indexed as S.A.1 and S.A.2.; at the same time the official name Sturgeon was adopted, as S. Mk 1 and T.T. Mk2 respectively." So they are Shorts designations. --TraceyR (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

'Aero specs missing' tag

In view of the presence of the main specifications, is this tag still justified? --TraceyR (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Reworking to clarify Development History

The Sturgeon had a fairly complex development history which the existing text did not really clarify or reflect. It is less than clear if the Sturgeon was ever submitted to S.6/43, Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects 3 deals with the competitors to the S.6/43, S.11/43 and O.5/43 requirements in detail and he states, addressing claims in Barnes, that no official documentation exists to show that the Sturgeon was submitted to S.6/43, in which case it was never developed as a torpedo bomber, but only as the reconnaissance bomber required by S.11/43, in fact Barnes notes the Shorts designers were relieved not to have to design torpedo capability into the aircraft. Barnes does claim a submission was made to S.6/43, in fact he claims the Sturgeon won and S.11/43 was effectively the production requirement of S.6/43, but he appears to have been completely unaware S.11/43 was competed amongst several firms and makes no mention of O.5/43, probably because the relevant official documentation had not been released into the public domain at the time he was writing the original manuscript in 1967.

Buttler is also more explicit on the reason for the cancellation of the S.1, the suspension of the Audacious and Centaur class carriers, and this has been added to the text.

On other matters Barnes is consistent with the contemporary articles in Flight, and as Winchester appears to be heavily derived from Barnes, but include certain handling details that are not reflected by Barnes, the text and references have been amended to match Barnes. In particular Barnes is explicit that the handling problems of the S.B.3 derived from the exhaust of the Mambas and makes no mention of the nose in relation to these. The previous text claimed the nose was responsible, but then quoted text that only related to the engines.

Other changes have been made to standardise nomenclature which occasionally confused service and manufacturer designations and to clarify the relationship between the original Shorts design numbers (S.38 and S.39) and their later replacements with SBAC universal designations (S.A.1, S.A.2, S.B.3, S.B.9). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.21.192 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)