Edward Senft
Short named its aircraft after cities, i.e.
Singapore, Sunderland, Seaford,Stirling
> This article indicates that
> that the craft was named after the city of Sunderland. I believe this
> is incorrect, however.
A 1932 regulation called for Flying Boats to be names
after "Coastal towns and seaports of the British Empire".
Short also followed the tradition (not obligatory since
1921) of making the name of the aircraft alliterate with
that of the manufacturer.
Chief designer of the Sunderland was Arthur Gouge.
--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet dot be
Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
See earlier discussion of naming schemes at
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=<atmqj3$knbd$1...@ID-172186.news.dfncis.de>
--
Errol Cavit | errol...@hotmail.com | "If you have had enough, then I have
had enough. But if you haven't had enough, then I haven't had enough
either." Maori chief Kawiti to Governor George Grey, after the Battle of
Ruapekapeka 1846.
Myc
"Bob's Your Uncle" <B...@rsv.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7EbVb.195260$6y6.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
RAF naming practice of the time was that the first iniial of the
manufacturer's name and the first initial of the type name should
be the same - eg:
Bristol Bulldog, Blenheim, Beaufort, Beaufighter, Brigand..
Supermarine Stranraer, Seagull, Spitfire
Short Sunderland, Stirling, Seafort, Shetland
Vickers seem to have been allowed "W" as well as "V", and Hawker
played old harry with the whole system.
Over and above that, Coastal Command aircraft were named either
after coastal towns (Stranraer, Southampton..) or navy-related
names (Anson).
The Short Sunderland was therefore mainstream coastal command
naming for the time.
Sunderland wasn't a city until 2000.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)
IIRC the Sidestrand (bomber of about 1929 or so) was by Boulton &
Paul of Wolverhampton, not Shorts of Belfast, and was replaced by
the Boulton & Paul Overstrand.
Rob
In the latest issue of International Air Power Review (Vol 10), Jon Lake
does a bit of a hatchet job on the Sunderland.
He mentions the German appelation of 'fliegende Stachelschwein' - saying
that it was far from the flying porcupine of the propagandists.
He concludes that its reliance on rifle-calibre machine guns left it very
vunerable to cannon-armed enemy fighters - and that many (23-46)
Sunderlands fell to long-ranging Ju 88's & Bf 110's.
The incident you mention is related - but he says that the Sunderland. of
204 Sqn, was attacked by two, then four, then six more Ju 88's and that
ONE was shot down by the rear gunner - and the rest were 'driven off'.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To be fair, under-belly defence is difficult to achieve in a flying
boat without distressing consequences on landing.
The Sunderland was a quick-and-dirty adaptation of an airliner,
and as such did suprisingly well as a warplane.
> The Germans called the Sunderland the "Flying Porcupine"- a respected
> adversery. In one engagement a lone Sunderland was attacked by eight
> Ju-88 and shot-down two!!!
I suspect that the 'Flying Porcupine' nickname, if it was indeed
used, was related not to the defensive armament (which was not
that impressive) but to the row of dorsal antennas for the early
(metric-wave) ASW. The British called such aircraft 'Stickleback'.
But I have been unable to confirm this.
In the dark - if a fighter closed then the bomber was generally gone
regardless. The best defence was speed, and the dustbin turrets in
the ventral position really sapped that. The tail turret was worth
having as it put a pair of eyes right aft (the four brownings being
less important than the pair of eyes).
Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth
reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and losses
went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
(it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.
The trade off was different in daylight, of course.
The subject of under-turrets came up in a recent thread "Has there ever
been an off-center gun?"
From my reading, only the Sperry ball turret seems to have been
successful. Periscopic arrangements didn't have sufficient field of
view, and it was very difficult to acquire the target in the sights.
Dustbins were cold and draggy, some even being open to the breeze.
In the Manchester, for example, lowering the dustbin under-turret
apparantly produced a marked change in trim, and a gunner described the
experience of manning one as like getting into a refrigerator with the
lights out.
So in addition to being a drag, the ventral positions on British bombers
weren't much good even as look-out positions.
Has anyone mentioned the turrets on the Soviet Petlyakov Pe-8 ??
This had 'normal' nose, dorsal,& tail turrets - but it also had two turrets in
the rear end of the inner engine nacelles.
They would have had a clear view rearwards, and being mounted out on the wings,
they also had a clear field of fire downwards.
I can't say how effective they were - the Pe-8 suffered from the lack of an
efficient engine - plus the ravages of the German attack which forced the
evacuation of of all the production facilities.
But it was an interestiong design nonetheless.
I don't have any pics of the real thing - but my modelling article on the Pe-8
is at :- http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/ModelArticles/Duffy/Pe8/index.php
Ken
Not uncommon pre-war - that most improbably-looking of aeroplanes,
the Handley-Page Heyford had a dustbin ventral turret, as did a fair
few other British heavies. As another poster pointed out the original
Avro Manchesters had ventral dustbin turrets, as IIRC did some of
the first Lancasters - but they were found to be useless for defence
and worse than useless because of their effect on the performance
of the aeroplane. I don't imagine the ones on the Ju52 were any more
useful.
[snip]
> Freeman Dyson, who did the Op.An, on the night bombers, is worth
As in "Dyson Sphere?"
> reading on this. Essentially - lose the ventral turret: speed goes up,
> losses down. Lose the dorsal and nose turrets on the Halibag - and losses
> went down. Lancaster was already good enough to not mess much more with
> (it upset the production lines), but certainly H2S in ventral was much
> better for bombs-on-target and crews back home than the dustbin turret.
Is Dyson possibly the origin of the perhaps apocryphal story
concerning placement of armo(u)r on bombers? As the story goes
this individual made a careful analysis of the damage patterns
on returning bombers and reported that the best use of the limited
amount of weight allocated for armo(u)r was to put it where his
analysis showed no damage.
This, at first, seems counter-intuitive until you realize that the
aircraft he examined had survived, so it could be assumed that
there was little point in armo(u)ring the places that were damaged.
It also seems reasonable that the undamaged places he noted on
returning aircraft might be sites of increased vulnerability.
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>