British specification S.11/43 naval carrier-borne reconnaissance bomber aircraft

[blackkite]

Hi!
http://www.oocities.org/heartland/village/4082/brit/odd_air.htm

"Specification S.11/43 was for a naval reconnaissance aircraft. The specification called for the design and construction of a twin-engine reconnaissance aircraft for visual and photographic reconnaissance and shadowing, by day or night. The aircraft was to have a maximum all up weight of 24,000 lb. Height (stowed) 17 ft., 1ength 45 ft., Span (spread) 60 ft., Span (folded) 20 ft. Power wing folding was also required.The contract to produce the aircraft to this specification went to Short Bros for their S38 Sturgeon.
A contract was issued on 12/2/44 for 3 prototypes, with serials RK787, RK791 & RK794. The first Short SA.I Sturgeon I RK787 flew at Rochester Airport on 7/6/46. The second, RK791, flew from Sydenham on 18/5/48, A third, RK794, was modified to a Mk.2 with a new serial, VR363.
Other manufacturers in contention were Armstrong Whitworth with its Armstrong Whitworth A.W.54 and A.W 54A(jet aircraft), Westland with design studies utilising either H. I turbojet or Pratt and Whitney radial engines, and an unnumbered Supermarine project."

Tony-san's great book include Blackburn S.11/43 and Fairey S.11/43.

Sturgeon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sturgeon
"Variants
Sturgeon S.1Carrier-borne strike aircraft, one completed at Shorts, Rochester before production moved to Belfast. Three prototypes were ordered but the third was completed as the TT.2 prototype. The production contract for 30 S.1s to build at Rochester was cancelled.
Sturgeon TT.2target tugs, two prototypes and 23 production aircraft ordered to be built at Belfast some later converted to the TT.3 standard.
Sturgeon TT.3 Revised target tug variant, five modified at Rochester from TT.2s.
S.B.3Prototype anti-submarine aircraft built in Belfast. Two prototypes ordered with the first flying on 12 August 1950 and then demonstrated at the 1950 Society of British Aerospace Companies' (SBAC) Farnborough Airshow; the second example was completed but never flown.
Jet Sturgeon Night fighter Drawings exist for a Sturgeon variant modified with two Rolls Royce AJ.40 turbofans in place of the Merlins and armed with four 20mm Hispano cannon. This was linked to the 1945 decision by the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Air) to order the evaluation of a Sturgeon night fighter derivative with improved performance as a low-risk alternative to the development of the De Havilland Sea Hornet NF.21 under N.21/45. As the Sea Hornet NF.21 was successful, no detailed development followed.
Operators"

Flightglobal Sturgeon.
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%202080.html

Jet Sturgeon picture is here.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=ftu9de3o40fp2shen3b9eabm85&topic=1428.0

SB.3 pictures.
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/sea/sb3.html
Prototype pictures.
https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?122135-Short-Sturgeon-First-and-second-Prototype
TT.2 picture. Nose shape is interesting.
https://elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/short-sturgeon-tt-2-swords-into-punching-balls/

TT.3 picture.
http://www.hyperscale.com/2009/reviews/books/sturgeonbookreviewsn_1.htm

 

[hesham]

And from my dear Tony Buttler; British Secret Projects : Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950,

here is a Blackburn,Fairey and Westland S.11/43

 

[blackkite]

Oh thanks a lot. Excellent!!
Fairey and Westland design had mixed engine.

I feel the name "Sturgeon" is come from SB.3 shape.

 

[Schneiderman]

I have never seen anything which would suggest that Supermarine considered a project for S.11/43, although if it was un-numbered then no serious design work would have been carried out. Supermarine's designers early thoughts were sketched as TD drawings and only allocated an official Type number if management decided to authorise preliminary design work.

 

[DWG]

The Sturgeon name predates the SB3 by quite a while, IIRC, and fits with Shorts fish names for their carrier aircraft, c.f. Swordfish and Albacore, and with the alliterative S-names for Shorts aircraft in general.

And I'm the artist for the two Jet Sturgeon views in the first post, BTW. I'd completely forgotten about those.

 

[blackkite]

Many thanks gentlemen.
I feel this wonderful, amazing and great list need some update.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Air_Ministry_specifications

 

[DWG]

It does, and I've considered doing it at times, but it's a fair amount of work. I did bash the wiki Sturgeon article into better shape a few years ago, mostly by adding in the historical context around the carriers.

 

[Avimimus]

Let's all take a moment to appreciate how the jet assisted Fairey proposal has similarities to the Fulmer and the Battle... what a long live and persistent layout! (I suppose even the Gannet has some similarities - but it isn't so striking).

 

[Schneiderman]

It does, and I've considered doing it at times, but it's a fair amount of work.

I made an effort to add material to one aircraft page, all based on detailed reseach, only to have some clown delete and/or modify it back to the popular fiction view. So I won't be bothering to do that again

 

[Schneiderman]

Let's all take a moment to appreciate how the jet assisted Fairey proposal has similarities to the Fulmer and the Battle... what a long live and persistent layout! (I suppose even the Gannet has some similarities - but it isn't so striking).

Richard Fairey expended a lot of effort to portray the Air Ministry, RAF and FAA as conservative and responsible for holding the aircraft designers back. But in truth it was he who rarely allowed his designers much freedom while he was tightly focussed on maximising profit. Lobelle had a good eye for design but, as you say, ideas were frequently recycled too many times.

 

[Grey Havoc]

It does, and I've considered doing it at times, but it's a fair amount of work.

I made an effort to add material to one aircraft page, all based on detailed reseach, only to have some clown delete and/or modify it back to the popular fiction view. So I won't be bothering to do that again

I know the feeling.

 

[PMN1]

And from my dear Tony Buttler; British Secret Projects : Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950,

here is a Blackburn, S.11/43

Has anyone found any data on the Blackburn design since the book was first released?

 

[Schneiderman]

Tony is updating and splitting the book in two, the bomber part of the book is due for publication next year, maybe there will be more in that (the fighter part of the book has already been updated and is due out later this year)

 

[PMN1]

The wiki article on the Short Sturgeon does suggest maximum sizes and weights

Specification S.11/43 called for the design and construction of a twin-engine naval reconnaissance aircraft for visual and photographic reconnaissance and shadowing, by day or night, and also able to operate as a bomber. The specification included a maximum all-up weight of 24,000 lb, height (stowed) of 17 ft, length of 45 ft and a wingspan of 60 ft (spread) / 20 ft (folded). Powered wing-folding was also required.

What would be interesting to know would be the turret on the Blackburn design - retractable or remotely operated.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Short Sturgeon TT.2: Just Because (LXXVI).

A target tow Sturgeon nicely folded up and ready to tuck inside an aircraft carrier. Vain hope.

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com