Shorts S series

[Hood]

I just think they are sequential 9-number blocks, no one letter series goes beyond 9 for any SBAC scheme user. My hunch is that they would have continued from S.D.3 to S.D.9 then S.E., S.F., S.G, S.H etc. as they filled up. I don't think the second letter actually means anything other than identifying the 9 number block used.
Obviously SBAC didn't want long designations and thought smaller blocks were easier to identify.

Another question of course is how far did a project have to get before it was issued an SBAC number? My guess is only projects that were actually tendered or looked likely to be were assigned the next available number.

 

[Schneiderman]

Ah yes, that would certainly make sense and also gives us a date-of-origin sequence for the projects. On the issue of when an 'official' project number would have been assigned I had similar thoughts about the 'S' series as the projects I know of without numbers do appear to have been unsolicited tenders.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

also there was a J.3 and J.8,then the number put after them ?.

 

[Schneiderman]

I've had a go at pulling together all the information in this thread and adding data from the Putnam Short Aircraft volume, Stuck on the Drawing Board, Project Cancelled, On Atlas' Shoulders and Secret Projects volumes. Mainly I was looking to see how to incorporate the between-the-wars unbuilt projects and I have also included some possible/probable projects from patents where the illustrations include a lot more detail than is relevant to the patents.
Bold is built aircraft. Italics are probable/possible. Yellow block indicates 3-view available.

Any comments or additions?

Sorry the table is jpg but it is too difficult to type formatted text directly. I have added it in pdf if that is better

 

[hesham]

Great work Schneiderman,

and Shorts also involved in many British Specifications,but we don't know the
drawing numbers for those Projects,such as;

2/44 Civil Transport
R1/36 Flying Boat
S23/37 Observation Aircraft
E27/49 Research Aircraft
S9/36 Three-Seat Spotter Fighter
S30/37 Torpedo Bomber
F11/37 Two-Seat Fighter

 

[Schneiderman]

Yes, its quite possible. I also suspect that they may have produced preliminary designs for specifications in the 1920s but without supporting documents I chose to leave them out for now. I'll update the list as new information becomes available.

EDIT...................

2/44 Civil Transport already in list
R1/36 Flying Boat added
S23/37 Observation Aircraft sources say S24 but this seems unlikely as it was a four-year-old design and S23/37 was very specialised
E27/49 Research Aircraft already in the list. E27/49 was replaced by E.100 which was the SB.5
S9/36 Three-Seat Spotter Fighter ]
S30/37 Torpedo Bomber ] I've added these three as possible but they do seem to fall outside of Gouge's design philosophy at this time
F11/37 Two-Seat Fighter ]

Attachments in post #44 have been updated with these and others

 

[hesham]

S23/37 Observation Aircraft sources say S24 but this seems unlikely as it was a four-year-old design and S23/37 was very specialised

You are right Scneiderman,

and there was a supersonic transport (SST) aircraft Project,with arrow-wing and powered
by four engines,but hard to find it in my PDFs (reports),and I want to check about it at
first.

 

[Schneiderman]

OK, I took the PD list straight from Barnes' Putnam, and as there are no breaks it should be complete. It will be interesting to see where your project fits in.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

as I said hard to find,I have more than 1000 PDFs or reports,there was anther design,
maybe a hypothetical one,an Autogyro;

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17559.msg21552.html#msg21552

 

[Schneiderman]

Yes, just a 'what-if' I think. It is an illustration from a lecture titled "Autorotating Wings - theory, history and future possibilities"
There's also a speculative twin-hull flying boat concept from him in 1958 somewhere on this forum
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958%20-%200315.html

 

[hesham]

Yes,but we can suspect in this design ?;

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2504.msg45767.html#msg45767

 

[Schneiderman]

I'm afraid not as the text says...

"Though the sketch overleaf varies considerably in actual detail from anything which Short Brothers have in mind at the moment, the basic idea underlying a possible Sunderland replacement flying-boat is conveyed."

Just a Flight artists speculation

 

[hesham]

Hi,

as I know the S22/38 for autogyro was done by supervisor of Shorts,and the result was
Cierva C.39 & C.41 ?.

 

[Schneiderman]

Are you sure that the Cierva's designer Dr Bennett was associated with Short Bros. in 1937+?

 

[hesham]

Are you sure that the Cierva's designer Dr Bennett was associated with Short Bros. in 1937+?

So I put this mark "?",I am not sure,but that was in my files,unfortunately without
the name of the source.

 

[Retrofit]

Short Bros & Harland's proposition to B35/46 was the S.B.1, but two different 3V drawings have been published concerning this tailless aircraft bomber project:
In Edition 2003 "BSP Jet bombers since 1949", a 5-engine mid-wing project.
In Alain Pelletier "Les ailes volantes", a 4-engine high-wing project.
(Very low resolution scans here-attached)

Are both projects connected to B35/46 and what is the lineage between them?

Note: Post #13 of this thread, in the P.D. listing from Dana Bell's book. The proposal to B.35/46 is referenced P.D.1?

 

[ursrius]

Yes they do seem to be SBAC-based but I still cannot see what the difference is between the SA, SB and SC types. There must be some logic to it but what that may be is a mystery to me.

There is no difference its just a sequential alpha numeric series. It uses a single digit, so S.A.1 sequentially through to S.A.9, which is then followed by S.B.1 and so on until you would have finally reached S.Z.9.

 

[Schneiderman]

Yes, I phrased that badly. What I cannot yet work out is why there is no obvious correspondence between the PD range and the S series. For example PD31 appears to correspond with SC.4 but then we have SC.5 and SC.6 with no related PD, followed by PD.32 to PD.35 and then PD.36 corresponding with SC.7. I can see why a PD scheme may not have matured to the point of being designated S-something but an S-something with no initial PD looks rather odd.

 

[Apophenia]

I've had a go at pulling together all the information in this thread and adding data from the Putnam Short Aircraft volume, Stuck on the Drawing Board, Project Cancelled, On Atlas' Shoulders and Secret Projects volumes. Mainly I was looking to see how to incorporate the between-the-wars unbuilt projects and I have also included some possible/probable projects from patents where the illustrations include a lot more detail than is relevant to the patents.
Bold is built aircraft. Italics are probable/possible. Yellow block indicates 3-view available.

Any comments or additions?

Sorry the table is jpg but it is too difficult to type formatted text directly. I have added it in pdf if that is better

This image has disappeared? Or am I missing something?

 

[Schneiderman]

Here it is

 

[DWG]

Here it is

A couple of comments (though you may be well aware and just precis-ing in a different way than I would):

Hafner A.R.IV Constructed under contract for Hafner. Two seat gyroplane for army cooperation A.22/38 1938 'Fleet Spotter' Construction abandoned in 1940-
Hafner A.R.V Constructed under contract for Hafner. Two seat gyroplane for army cooperation A.22/38 1938 'Night Shadower' Construction abandoned in 1940

The fleet spotter/night-shadower role doesn't seem to go with the Army Cooperation requirement. IIRC a Scion derivative was pitched for the fleet spotter requirement -though by this point Scion was technically a Pobjoy product.

SA.1 S.38 Sturgeon S.Mk1 Torpedo bomber/recon Spec S.11/43 1943

The Sturgeon requirements are complicated because they changed required roles early in development. S.6/43 was the Torpedo Bomber requirement, but was replaced by S.11/43 which hived the torpedo bomber role off to O.5/43 leaving the replacement S.11/43 as a bomber-reconnaissance aircraft. So the Sturgeon was never really developed for the torpedo bomber role.

 

[Hood]

Yes, the Hafner A.R.IV and V were for the Admiralty.
The IV was for Specification S.29/37 and the V was for S.22/38.
Plus his P.D.6 helicopter was developed under Specification 10/39, which lacks a prefix but which I think was still connected to S.22/38, but pursuing another line of rotary-wing flight to achieve the same goal.

 

[Schneiderman]

Thanks, noted and amended.
The original intention when making the list was to see how the various un-numbered projects I unearthed in the Royal Aero Club Trust archive fitted into the official numbering system, assembled from the Putnam and other sources without much review. Not that I learned anything from this and it is still unclear why well-developed projects with full tender documents should have lacked an official designation while other less-defined ones did.

 

[Kiltonge]

PD.32 was a Canberra GVP carrier

Scratching my head over this one, I wonder if it's meant to be 'GPV', as in the Shorts missile testbeds that grew out of the Folland RTV-2.

That avenue also leads to another Shorts designation sequence, SXA.5 being the project that led to the Sea Cat.

 

[Kiltonge]

Unknown designation. Shorts proposed computerised helicopter simulator, from AvWeek 30 Sep 1957.

 

[Stargazer]

Scratching my head over this one, I wonder if it's meant to be 'GPV', as in the Shorts missile testbeds that grew out of the Folland RTV-2.

I have it as "Canberra (GPV-carrier)" myself, so yes, I think "GVP" was a typo.

 

[Stargazer]

we have SC.5 and SC.6 with no related PD

Is that so? I have P.D.18 as the S.C.5 Britannic (which became the Belfast C.1).

 

[Schneiderman]

Is that so? I have P.D.18 as the S.C.5 Britannic (which became the Belfast C.1).

Yes you are right about SC5 = PD18, according to several sources, but that raises questions about SC4 which is said to correspond to PD31 and is probably incorrect

 

[Stargazer]

From Flugzeug Nr. 8, 1924:

 

[Schneiderman]

The unbuilt (and undesignated) Short "Silver Streak" (here written as one word), which was to be built in Rochester, N.Y., according to this article in Flugzeug Nr. 8, 1924:

Well the GA drawings are of the Cockle, although it was referred to simply as the Light Flying Boat when shown to the press in April 1924. The drawings are taken from Flight 17th April 1924

 

[Schneiderman]

Oh, and the article says that the construction of the hull was based upon the techniques used for the Silver Streak, not that this was the name of this project. Also Rochester in the UK, the base of Short Bros, not in the USA

 

[Stargazer]

Well the GA drawings are of the Cockle, although it was referred to simply as the Light Flying Boat when shown to the press in April 1924. The drawings are taken from Flight 17th April 1924

Oh, and the article says that the construction of the hull was based upon the techniques used for the Silver Streak, not that this was the name of this project. Also Rochester in the UK, the base of Short Bros, not in the USA

Goodness gracious! It is rare to find mistakes in those inter-war German publications, they wee usually good at their job. I was misled by the title, which I believe meant "The first American lightweight flying boat."

 

[Schneiderman]

Yes, that is indeed the title but the question is, why? There is no mention of any US connection in the text, hardly surprising as there was none. There is an Australian link, however, as the aircraft was designed by Short Bros. following a request from rich businessman Lebbeus Hordern.