Talk:Short S.27

38

Article mentions naval #38 a few times, 38 was a Sopwith Bat Boat! MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably worked it out it was never "38" but Shorts msn "S.38" confused, perhaps we need to make it clear. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

All a bit confusing because of using S.XX as type numbers and S.XX as serial numbers. The aircraft flown by Samson was Short msn S.38 navy serial "2" and described originally as a "Short Summer Pusher Biplane" although is was rebuilt as msn S.38 before delivery to the Navy in May 1911. S.38 had been originally S.28 or Samson's Naval Biplane No. 2 and originally Moore-Brabazons machine and also known as "T2" and "B2" under different numbering schemes:

• Short msn S.26 originally built for Colmore as a Short-Sommer and bought by Samson as Naval Biplane No. 1, sometimes called The Dud or The Owd Bitch.
• Short msn S.27 "Tandem Twin" was originally a Cecil Grace's single-engined Short-Summer converted by McClean with twin Gnomes and became No.3 biplane it was destroyed on 11 March 1912.
• Short msn S.28 originally built for Moore-Brabazon as a Short-Somer and bought by Samson as Naval Biplane No. 2, it crashed on 31 March and was rebuilt as Short msn S.38
• Short msn S.34 was built for McCleanSamson and became Naval Biplane No. 3, when it bought by the Admiralty and became "No. 1 Biplane" and later "B1" and then "T1" and then "1"
• Short msn S.38 was a rebuild in May 1911 of msn S.28 and still known as Naval Biplane No. 2 it was bought by the Admiralty and became "No. 2 Biplane" and later "B2" and then "T2" and then "2". This was the aircraft flown from a moving ship in May 1912.

Confusing isnt it, all info from Sturtivant and Pages RN aircraft and serials 1911-1919 MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is confusing, the above is pretty much as Barnes has it tho. I really dislike the section in the article about how confusing the names are though: imo its simply confusing. it would be nice to actually put together a non-confusing account. There are not actully that large a number of individual airframes involved, & Barnes has a list, which I might bung in somewhere, since I think it would actually summarise things in the simplest way. Incdentally I have the start of an article on the Sommer biplane lurking somewhere in my unfinished pile, got stalled because its a not very remarkable Farman clone and I couldn't come up with much to flesh out the service history bit, although quite a few were sold.TheLongTone (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think that most of these aircraft have enough historic interest to be detailed individually. If you need any info from Sturtivant/Page I would be happy to add it but most of it comes from Bruces notes as it appears he spent a lot of time working out the proper sequence and Short msns. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious about the phrase 'built for Samson'. Did he actually pay for S.34? It seems that the only properly funded bit was the department in charge of reorganising serial numbers.TheLongTone (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OOps, the art of confusion says this was ordered by McClean for the naval task rather than the first two which he operated before the Navy deal. Its bad enough changing the serial number all the time and the habbit of Short alloting new numbers on re-builds. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As a result of this, and the effective use of two separate designation systems pre/post 1921, the Shorts navbox is a horrible mess, I'm having a muck about in my sandbox. I think it would be useful to divide the type list into two sections.TheLongTone (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

?9 May 1912

I'm pretty certain the sources cited for the other dates have simply got it wrong. Unless there is an earlier flight which has not been nearly so well recorded. I think a report written the day after the event by The Times is fairly convincing, as is the report in Flight (although you have to work out the date with this one. But....the Fleet Air Arm website gives a 2 May date.... moreover Owen Thetford, while giving the date as 9 May, gives credit to Lt. Gregory. (who I think did most of the flying of the machine during the Naval Review.) I've simply cut the stuff about the ship speed: it there's doubt I prefer to leave it out, but all I've seen has either the higher speed or the vague 'at full speed', but have left most of it in there but hidden. The truth is never pure, and rarely simple....TheLongTone (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sturtivant and Page - 2 May 1912 - First recorded flight from a moving ship (HMS Hibernia steaming at 10½ knots) LT C.R Salmson in a Short S.38 biplane. and as you say the Times reports a number of flights but is not clear which was the first from Hibernia. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There's an article in Flight [1] which supports what Barnes says, which is 'on May 1 [S.28] was taken to Sheernes by lighter and hoisted aboard HMS Hibernia...en route for the Naval Review at Weymouth the following week. It was put ashore by lighter on 3 May'. Neither the Times nor Flight mention more than one flight off the deck.TheLongTone (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be generally accepted that the first flight from a moving ship was at the Naval Review, which has to be the 9th.TheLongTone (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)